TexasFilly wrote:
Orly must have a google alert set to her name.
If when/Nolu responds, be sure to post it! (Orly forgot to mention the Usurper's SSN. She musta be rattled!).
This my best attempt at board translation.
- - - - -
#22. To: orly, Fred the Cat, IDontThinkSo, Richard_rth10260, Robin (#16)
Quote:
[
orly #16]
this is Orly. Three doctors signed the contract as individuals and therefore responsible. I am wondering, why are you concerned about this simple lease agreement and not concerned about Phil Berg employing a convicted career document forger and thief, lying about everything under the sun, filing a legal action based on fraud on the court, perjury, submitting forged documents, and judge Robreno letting him get away with it without any sanctions.
I usually don't go on this blog . You can e-mail me at orly.taitz@gmail.com Is any of you a PA attorney? Do you have an answer?I did not see your post until I saw the ping to the thread by
Fred the Cat.
As Phil Berg hired Lisa Liberi, Orly Taitz hired Charles Edward Lincoln III. Pot, kettle, and all that. Add Lucas Daniel Smith and Larry Sinclair to make a trifecta of miscreants.
I am not
concerned about the lease agreement. It may be of general interest to people who have been following birther litigation.
The three doctors signatures on a page does not explain the lack of a page indicating they are parties to a contract. As I noted, the alleged true and correct copy stated it was between 'Medical-Dental Development LLC ("Lessor") and [redacted/blank space] ("Lessee").' On its face, what was submitted fails to identify two parties to the contract. Absent that, it is not possible to tell, from looking at that document, the identity of the named parties of the contract. The named party, or parties, could be an LLC or individuals. Because of the discontinuous text from page 1 to page 2, and text insertion on a discontinous unnumbered page in between, it is impossible to determine, from the face of the document, as submitted, what the three signatures signify.
Fred the Cat has posted information from the Superior Court indicating alleged proof did not satisfy the
Court, and the filing appears to have some defects. Or, as the court put it:
Quote:
Plt., Medical Dental, Motion for Summary Judgment --- Denied; Plt. fails to meet his burden of proof. Notice is insufficient, failing to comply with CCP 437c(a. No points and Authorities accompanies the motion in violation of CRC 3.1113. No Separate Statement of Undisputed Fact accompanies the motion. CCP 437c No facts are presented to the court with the motion that even begins to meet the burden of proof required for a summary judgment. The moving papers in the “motion “ are nothing short of AWFUL. The form of the motion doesn’t come close to complying with the rules of court.
This is really a forum for discussion rather than a blog. Some articles are self-written, but the vast majority are imported for discussion.
In this
TPF Thread I quoted your
Motion for sanctions in Liberi et al v. Taitz et al in its entirety.
Your Motion (Doc 91) was DENIED
Doc 98Quote:
"AND NOW, this 10th day of August, 2009, for the reasons stated on the record today in open court, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Orly Taitz’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions (doc. no. 91) is DENIED without prejudice."
As for, "not concerned about Phil Berg employing a convicted career document forger and thief, lying about everything under the sun, filing a legal action based on fraud on the court, perjury, submitting forged documents, and judge Robreno letting him get away with it without any sanctions," and "Do you have an answer," I believe it may be best explained by your DENIED Motion for Sanctions.
Here is what you alleged, when you filed
Doc 91, your motion for sanctions, with the Court:
That each and all case filings:
Quote:
• "First"... "were filed entirely for an improper purpose, namely to harass the Defendants and needlessly to increase the cost of litigation."
• "Second"... "were not warranted by exsiting law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing exsiting law or for establishing new law."
• "Finally"... "violated Rule 11 (b)(3) because the factual contentions contained therein lacked evidentiary support and, in fact, none were identified as likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery."
It would appear that you failed to include document forgery, theivery, lying about everything under the sun, fraud on the court, perjury, or the submitting of forged documents in your motion for sanctions. As such allegations were not submitted to Judge Robreno, that probably explains why Judge Robreno, in your words, "let him get away with it."
The many TPF threads about Berg are open to comment. This is a thread about the Orly Taitz landlord-tenant case.
nolu chan posted on 2010-09-10 15:08:15 ET
- - - - -
Login
Register
FAQ
x 9
