LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

User avatar
bob
Posts: 22575
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#2976

Post by bob » Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:21 am

Taitz's counterclaim:
In the Book ["Obamascare"], Berg and Liberi wrote: “Ms. Taitz was literally chasing two (2) United States Supreme Court Justices…throwing brief cases full at documents at them.” working with Berg since April 11, 2009 and aided and abetted him in defaming Taitz and promoting Berg, including, but not limited to drafting and typing.) This is an untrue, highly defamatory statement, meant to claim that Taitz acted in an unethical manner and make her look crazy, as someone who throws brief cases full of documents at Supreme Court Justices, which never happened. This was an outrageous libelous/defamatory/slanderous statement concocted by these Counterclaim Defendants and spread by them.
I see Taitz's point: Taitz didn't literally "chase" any Supreme Court justices, nor did she "throw" "brief cases" at them.

No: She drove for hours to an event where the Chief was speaking, and demanded to leave her papers with him; she also pestered Scalia at a book signing.

Not :crazy: at all. :roll:


Oh: Rondeau(!) gets a shout out! :popcorn:


In total, Taitz is seeking well in excess of $100M (suck it, Klayman!).


Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 22575
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#2977

Post by bob » Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:37 am

And let's talk about Taitz's new lawyer, Marc Colen. Colen was disciplined by the State Bar of California(!) because Colen represented the Beyond Atkins, but blew attorney-client confidentiality after Colen got fired. Colen also got busted regarding the making of a Rin Tin Tin documentary(!).


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 13967
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#2978

Post by ZekeB » Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:49 am

This case is so old you'd think Phil would be back in the saddle again. Or is he permanently disbarred?


I know many interesting things about pigs.

Žluté vlasy se k oranžové tváři nehodí.

User avatar
Estiveo
Posts: 6699
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Trouble's Howse

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#2979

Post by Estiveo » Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:59 am

IIRC Phil "retired voluntarily" to pursue greener pastures as an Uber driver.


"Cosmic apotheosis wears off faster than salvia." --Rick Sanchez

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 5933
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#2980

Post by Northland10 » Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:11 am

Question for the IAALs. Since the judge has already required pre-approval for filings, can he strike Orly's latest as not following his orders? I would assume if he did, that he would remind Orly that she had earlier claimed that this has gone on for too long and needs to be brought to an end.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41598
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#2981

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:20 am

I'm not going to analyze this steaming pile. All I will say is that there is a lifetime of anti-SLAPP motions available to the parties. I hope they do not miss an opportunity to get the cross and counterclaims dismissed as early as possible. (As for the RICO claim, I believe there is a process to weed out those Federal claims; generally they are not subject to the California anti-SLAPP statute.)

Unless I read the pile too quickly, it appears that Taitz missed the opportunity to file a SLAPPback under C.C.P. sec. 425.18.

I see a lot of sanctioning of attorneys and parties in the future, too.

:popcorn:



User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 5933
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#2982

Post by Northland10 » Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:54 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:20 am
I see a lot of sanctioning of attorneys and parties in the future, too.

:popcorn:
I really hope your not just teasing.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 22575
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#2983

Post by bob » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:40 pm

bob wrote:
Mon Dec 07, 2015 3:43 pm
Sterngard Friegen (in 2015) wrote:As I say, Judge Pregerson should retire.
Concur; he's 92. Really, he should have done it a few years ago, to give Obama and a then-democratic senate a chance to replace him.
Pregerson has gone to the great courthouse in the sky.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41598
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#2984

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:00 pm

:crying:



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8279
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#2985

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:29 pm

Not unexpected, but a shame nonetheless.

I'll always treasure the memory of his explanation of BitTorrent during one of the Prenda law cases - as well as his spectacular dismantling of Prenda's counsel.


I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41598
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#2986

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:57 pm

But Judge Pregerson thought Prenda's appellate counsel was personally responsible for the terrible things his clients had done below. That was painful to watch for me.



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8279
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#2987

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:02 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:57 pm
But Judge Pregerson thought Prenda's appellate counsel was personally responsible for the terrible things his clients had done below. That was painful to watch for me.
Don't have links handy, but I was doing some additional reading about the case several months ago. As I recall, Pregerson might not have been totally wrong. I'll try to find time to look again later today or tomorrow.
Edit: ETA: Not much out there, but Voelker is quoted - not as their lawyer, but as a lawyer who knows them - regarding their scheme in a 2013 article (which seems to predate his involvement in the case). I can see the relationship and apparent knowledge of at least some of what was going on as something that a perceptive clerk might have picked up on, and which might have raised an eyebrow, but dunno if that's real (or enough).

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ght-trolls


I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41598
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#2988

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:37 pm

768 -- Dec 7, 2017

RESPONSE filed by Defendant ORLY TAITZto NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss counterclaim/third-party complaint 767 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Cunningham, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/07/2017)


767 -- Dec 1, 2017

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss counterclaim/third-party complaint filed by Plaintiff Lisa Ostella LISA M. OSTELLA. Motion set for hearing on 12/18/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit attachment 1, # 3 Exhibit attachment 2) (Lorenzo, Jose) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
Reading them now. Amazed Ostella did not file an anti-SLAPP motion.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41598
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#2989

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:53 pm

:swoon:

Awful work on both sides. And neither of them is Taitz (although the ""Objections" filed by her E&O counsel inappropriately asks the court for affirmative relief in addition to opposing the motion to dismiss or strike; this was a Taitz trademark).

I suspect Judge Guilford will not be too happy with this glop.

Can someone remind me how Ostella was able to get a Florida lawyer (J.B. Lorenzo) to appear for her without local California counsel? While Mr. Lorenzo needs someone to proofread his written materials, that would pretty much only be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.



User avatar
dunstvangeet
Posts: 454
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:53 am

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#2990

Post by dunstvangeet » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:59 am

Why is this thing still going on? I mean it is a lawsuit that has been going on for nearly 8 years (if I remember correctly). Why are they still pursuing this?



User avatar
bob
Posts: 22575
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#2991

Post by bob » Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:12 am

dunstvangeet wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:59 am
Why are they still pursuing this?
In a word: Taitz. Reasonable people would have walked away ages ago.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

Somerset
Posts: 3418
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Shenzhen, China
Occupation: Expat, of sorts

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#2992

Post by Somerset » Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:44 am

Isn't there a statute of limitations?



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8279
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#2993

Post by Mikedunford » Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:55 am

Somerset wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:44 am
Isn't there a statute of limitations?
The key date for a statue of limitations is the date the case was filed. All the subsequent delay doesn't count against the statute.


I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

Somerset
Posts: 3418
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Shenzhen, China
Occupation: Expat, of sorts

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#2994

Post by Somerset » Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:58 am

Mikedunford wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:55 am
Somerset wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:44 am
Isn't there a statute of limitations?
The key date for a statue of limitations is the date the case was filed. All the subsequent delay doesn't count against the statute.
OK. And the date this was filed is? I'd think it's been over five years, which would be the limit for most torts.



User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 5933
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#2995

Post by Northland10 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:03 am

Mikedunford wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:55 am
Somerset wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:44 am
Isn't there a statute of limitations?
The key date for a statue of limitations is the date the case was filed. All the subsequent delay doesn't count against the statute.
Could Taitz's new counterclaim against many defendants, including some that were never parties to this beast, potentially be limited by a statue of limitations?

This is more a general hypothetical question since I do not know the actual statute of limitations specific to Orly's "claims."


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41598
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#2996

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:38 am

Mikedunford wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:55 am
Somerset wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:44 am
Isn't there a statute of limitations?
The key date for a statue of limitations is the date the case was filed. All the subsequent delay doesn't count against the statute.
I disagree.

The "relation back" rule will not allow many of Taitz's fantasy claims against third parties. A pending lawsuit is not a place to allow a litigant pour her venom years after strangers to it have done something the litigant is offended by.

If Taitz is ever able, for example, to serve the court reporter she thinks conspired against her, the court reporter will be dismissed out and Judge Guilford is likely to issue Rule 11 sanctions against Taitz.

The statute of limitations is viable to the eliminate most or all of the third party complaint.



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8279
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#2997

Post by Mikedunford » Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:32 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:38 am
Mikedunford wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:55 am
Somerset wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:44 am
Isn't there a statute of limitations?
The key date for a statue of limitations is the date the case was filed. All the subsequent delay doesn't count against the statute.
I disagree.

The "relation back" rule will not allow many of Taitz's fantasy claims against third parties. A pending lawsuit is not a place to allow a litigant pour her venom years after strangers to it have done something the litigant is offended by.

If Taitz is ever able, for example, to serve the court reporter she thinks conspired against her, the court reporter will be dismissed out and Judge Guilford is likely to issue Rule 11 sanctions against Taitz.

The statute of limitations is viable to the eliminate most or all of the third party complaint.
Sorry, I did forget to include the OrlyLaw disclaimer. I was thinking purely of Ostella's revised complaint, not the rest of the nonsense.


I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 1949
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#2998

Post by woodworker » Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:21 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:37 pm
768 -- Dec 7, 2017

RESPONSE filed by Defendant ORLY TAITZto NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss counterclaim/third-party complaint 767 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Cunningham, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/07/2017)


767 -- Dec 1, 2017

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss counterclaim/third-party complaint filed by Plaintiff Lisa Ostella LISA M. OSTELLA. Motion set for hearing on 12/18/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit attachment 1, # 3 Exhibit attachment 2) (Lorenzo, Jose) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
Reading them now. Amazed Ostella did not file an anti-SLAPP motion.
Did I miss something in the Response to the Motion to Dismiss the Counter-Claim or was the only response that the Ostella's counsel failed to comply with the meet and confer requirements? No substantive defense to the Motion to Dismiss? WTF? Stern: how likely is the judge to dismiss the Motion to Dismiss for failure to meet and confer (assuming that they did fail)? Is it possible the judge says, in essence, to Taitz that as she failed to make any substantive arguments opposing the MTD that she has waived them?


My avatar was by my bestest puppy ever, Bruin. I miss him every day.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41598
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#2999

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:51 pm

The motion to dismiss/strike is itself woefully deficient. The Florida lawyer apparently didn't know he could file an anti-SLAPP motion and defeat much of the Taitz pleading on the merits. The primary basis for the motion to strike/dismiss is that Taitz didn't get permission to sue. I think. I don't want to waste time on this nonsense. The motion is a confusing mess. The "objection" is not any better.

There appears to be parity in incompetence between the lawyers on each side.

I feel sorry for Judge Guilford, who has real cases of importance to resolve. I'm hoping for lots of sua sponte sanctions before this travesty is over. With most of them leveled at Taitz.



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8872
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

#3000

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:00 am

I still keep wondering if the judge wouldn't have had sufficient ground to have just dismissed that hot mess out of hand at some point as there doesn't really seem to be anything buried in there.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Post Reply

Return to “Phil Berg”