I picked up some really good nectarines (and peaches) at the farmers' market yesterday. Unfortunately they would be no good by the time I got them to you. Sorry. (I miss the nectarine tree that was in our backyard when I was a child - nothing comes close these days.)

I like nectarines. I have a far better shot at eating nectarines tomorrow than Obly has at doing whatever weird-ass shit she's trying to do, which I don't even understand.

Orly Taitz Landlord-Tenant Case DOCKET - Medical Dental Development LLC v Pierson Et Al, Superior Ct of Cal, Cnty of Orange, 30-2010-00367447

from nolu:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36603148/Orly ... 0-00367447

What are your opinions as to adding non-birther cases such as this one to the Birther Event Calendar?

It's Orly in Action. Any lawsuit which reveals her considerable skills should be attended.

I realize that "Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" is a pretty standard affirmative defence and would be included in virtually all responses, but we are dealing with Orly here. The suit probably has a good chance of getting thrown out on that basis.

There is a 3 page Motion for Summary Judgment now available for download at the court site. I'll fetch it in a moment.

http://www.scribd.com/full/36631984?access_key=key-1bmce9bgziu960s6z19

Can I be a lawyer too if all I have to say in my motion for summary judgment is "ha, he's a liar!?"

I think they all tie together and it helps us follow what is going on. The antics of Orly, Queen Lady Liburty Birfer, is of interest.

I don't think there is a reason to restrict the calendar, but rather to track more of the insanity as best we can. It is a valuable resource to check back on important dates and monumental fail days. I would like the calendar to record many more epic events.

Needless to say, this isn't at all what a motion for summary judgment should look like. First, you've got to prove your case and demonstrate that there are no defenses to it. Needless to say, Taitz hasn't done that. Second, you've got to put on evidence and refer to it in your statement of undisputed facts. And, simply saying something is so isn't proving it. (Sound familiar?)

I'd like to see the other papers she filed, but this document alone is wholly incompetent and she could very well be sanctioned for it. On the other hand, I think the defendant is in pro per, so he may not know what to do. But the trial judge will.

Taitz misunderstands what summary judgment is for, the rules and procedures to be followed to seek and obtain it, and the discovery and other ground work that needs to be done ahead of time. She firmly holds onto her position as the worst and most incompetent lawyer of all time.

Motions for Summary Judgment, as Stern noted above, are highly technical and must be prepared and presented with great care and attention to detail.

I have no idea why most of the defendants have not filed answers to this suit. The fellow who did will certainly file a response in opposition to this Motion, and if he has competent counsel, said opposition should prevail, because, well, do I even have to say it? If he does not file a Response in Opposition, it is conceivable the court could grant Orly's Motion by default, but even then.....

I think the Defendant has counsel; some outfit in Irvine. I won't hold my breath on sanctions.

Statement of Undisputed Facts

In support of her Motion for Summary Judgment...well, according to Orly.

Taitz's separate statement is wholly incompetent and proves no facts. There is no way the MSA would be granted if the defendant failed to oppose it (and it looks as if he is now representing himself). The motion wasn't properly noticed, the motion itself is improper, and it's wholly unsupported.

Here's what's required under our Rules of Court (Rule 3.1350) in the "separate statement":

As one who has lost an unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment in the OC, I affirm that it can indeed happen. However, Mr. Johnson is represented and will probably oppose on the 37 grounds apparent on the face of this pile of poo.

This is a case worth more than $200,000 to Orly, yet she couldn't bother to spend even 30 seconds reviewing the requirements for filing the motion. She had one shot at this motion and this is the product she puts out. Geesh.

She can't even prepare a proper caption.

Yes, she is the undisputed Queen of Incompetency.

As for the statement of undisputed facts, actually ##3 and 4 are disputed.

Johnson's answer contained a general denial of all of the facts of the complaint. He disputes everything.

Yes, a decent collections lawyer could have banged out (a) a competent complaint (b) a proper MSJ. Of course Orly would have to pay him/her (which she hates doing because she's a short arms/deep pockets kind of gal), but she would (a) actually get a judgment for damages (b) be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees on top of that and (c) the lawyer just might know how to collect some money from these fellows.

Actually, I am disappointed the rest didn't file answers. Can you imagine the hell they went through as tenants of La Taitz?

This shows that she is, in fact, a genuinely incompetent attorney. She simply lacks any ability to do anything even remotely correctly. Her incompetence can't be written off as the lackadaisical failure to follow rules of someone who is only playing to the peanut gallery. She is just deeply, deeply stupid.

I added all three dates to the Birther Calendar.

Orly makes a fuss in her statements of "Undisputed" "Facts" that two of the three parties did not bother to respond to her complaint.

However looking at the docket linked above there seems to be something missing. There are no certificates of service listed for the original complaint.

Could it be that Orly has, yet again, failed to provide proper service to the opposing parties in this case?

Johnson's ANSWER cites Orly's purported "Failure to name all necessary parties." Orly's MOTION asserts, "Second defense stated failure to name necessary parties. This allegation is without merit, as the contract was signed by three defendants in this case, as tenants in the property leased by the plaintiff, Medical Dental Development LLC. All three signatories were listed as the defendants and there were no other parties." Assuming the three doctors signed the document held out by Orly to be a true and correct copy of the Contract, did they do so as three individuals, or as officials of some LLC or corporate entity? Orly seems to argue that no LLC or corporate entity was involved. That does not seem likely, and some corporate entity may be the unnamed necessary party asserted by Johnson.

Paragraph 3 of the Statement of Facts reads: "10 year Lease contract was created between Medical Dental Development LLC." In her COMPLAINT, Orly claimed a "true and correct copy of the contract, signed by all three defendants was attached." That alleged true and correct copy alleged, at 1, that it was between 'Medical-Dental Development LLC ("Lessor") and [redacted/blank space] ("Lessee").' Was the contract created between Medical Dental Development LLC and no other named party, or was the page #1 used by Orly from a different contract altogether and she redacted the name and inserted the unnumbered page between pages 1 and 2?

The transition from numbered page 1 to 2 of the purported true and correct copy of the Contract displays non-continuous text, jumping paragraphs. The unnumbered page between pages 1 and 2 bears a hand-written modification initialed only by Orly. The text would appear to be for insertion before numbered page 1. It is questionable that this is, indeed, a "true and correct" copy of the original alleged contract.

I would really like Keanu Reeves naked on a bed of toast if that is not too much to ask. Thanks.

What? No butter?