Medical Dental Development, LLC v Pierson, et al

SueDB · **Posted:** Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:02 pm

Awww, come on, you folks are just pissed cause Orly has paid more than all of you combined. You're just jealous

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23577

poutine wrote:

raicha wrote:

Foggy wrote:

I've seen her skate too many times. On the other hand, I've never seen her actually win anything.

It will be interesting to see the final outcome here.

Seen her skate away from being sanctioned for rules violations, yes. Seen judges admit her "evidence", no.

I dont' think it's fair to imply that judges have bent over backwards to admit evidence proffered by Taitz.

None of her lawsuits have survived motion work to get to the trial stage in the first place. Have they?

If this case did, it's a first.

Orly believes, however, if documents are attached to a complaint or a motion or a reply/response they are indeed "evidence" ... admissible evidence, and are indeed admitted as such when the paper is filed.

verbalobe · **Posted:** Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:08 pm

raicha · **Posted:** Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:10 pm

verbie!!!!

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23577

verbie...

Piffle · **Posted:** Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:16 pm

+ 1

mimi · **Posted:** Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:19 pm

oh hahahahahaha! =))

poutine · **Posted:** Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:20 pm

oh they're eyelashes! hahaha! I hadn't gotten that. I'm a bit slow, yes.

SueDB · **Posted:** Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:23 pm

my sides hurt =))

+10

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10657

raicha wrote:

Foggy wrote:

I've seen her skate too many times. On the other hand, I've never seen her actually win anything.

It will be interesting to see the final outcome here.

Seen her skate away from being sanctioned for rules violations, yes. Seen judges admit her "evidence", no.

I dont' think it's fair to imply that judges have bent over backwards to admit evidence proffered by Taitz.

Question: once the case is assigned to trial, does it randomly go to a new judge? (We used to have that here many moons ago, and it was like spinning the roulette wheel every time. And gave the judge to whom it was originally assigned little incentive to dispose of the disposable prior to trial). I ask because I seem to remember that the judge to whom this mess was originally assigned wrote a scathing tentative ruling on her MSJ (which he later, unfortunately, walked back).

raicha · **Posted:** Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:55 pm

TexasFilly wrote:

Question: once the case is assigned to trial, does it randomly go to a new judge? (We used to have that here many moons ago, and it was like spinning the roulette wheel every time. And gave the judge to whom it was originally assigned little incentive to dispose of the disposable prior to trial). I ask because I seem to remember that the judge to whom this mess was originally assigned wrote a scathing tentative ruling on her MSJ (which he later, unfortunately, walked back).

Original Judge Perk blasted the MSJ. Then it was reassigned. Came on for trial in the new department. Was sent out to another department to be tried that very same day. I believe trial to be concluded. We are awaiting the order.

Foggy · **Posted:** Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:07 pm

Verbalobe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol:

June bug · **Posted:** Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:24 pm

BWAHAHA...GASP... =))

verbie!

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:30 pm

raicha wrote:

TexasFilly wrote:

Question: once the case is assigned to trial, does it randomly go to a new judge? (We used to have that here many moons ago, and it was like spinning the roulette wheel every time. And gave the judge to whom it was originally assigned little incentive to dispose of the disposable prior to trial). I ask because I seem to remember that the judge to whom this mess was originally assigned wrote a scathing tentative ruling on her MSJ (which he later, unfortunately, walked back).

Original Judge Perk blasted the MSJ. Then it was reassigned. Came on for trial in the new department. Was sent out to another department to be tried that very same day. I believe trial to be concluded. We are awaiting the order.

Code of Civil Procedure §631.8 is a wonderful thing. We used to call it a motion for a "non suit." Now it's a motion under §631.8:

Quote:

(a) After a party has completed his presentation of evidence in a trial by the court, the other party, without waiving his right to offer evidence in support of his defense or in rebuttal in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a judgment. The court as trier of the facts shall weigh the evidence and may render a judgment in favor of the moving party, in which case the court shall make a statement of decision as provided in Sections 632 and 634, or may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence. The court may consider all evidence received, provided, however, that the party against whom the motion for judgment has been made shall have had an opportunity to present additional evidence to rebut evidence received during the presentation of evidence deemed by the presenting party to have been adverse to him, and to rehabilitate the testimony of a witness whose credibility has been attacked by the moving party. Such motion may also be made and granted as to any cross-complaint.

What are the odds defendant had to put on a case? Very low I suspect.

Buh bye, Taitz's quarter of a million dollar claim. Buh bye.

Estiveo · **Posted:** Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:10 pm

Verbie!

MaineSkeptic · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm **Posts:** 5295

Verbie, it's a masterpiece.

bob · **Posted:** Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:18 pm

Quote:

Here is page1. I am an attorney for Med. Dental Development LLC, the plaintiff. The law firm of Parilla and Ettinger are attorneys for the defendant

xxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=20365

Contains (huge) image of page 1 of the 4/1/11 minute order.

Somerset · **Posted:** Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:26 pm

bob wrote:

Quote:

Here is page1. I am an attorney for Med. Dental Development LLC, the plaintiff. The law firm of Parilla and Ettinger are attorneys for the defendant

xxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=20365

Contains (huge) image of page 1 of the 4/1/11 minute order.

You're not kidding about the "huge" part.

How did she end up winning this one? I doubt she'll ever be able to collect anything, but still, I'm surprised that she won. Any thoughts?

bob · **Posted:** Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:28 pm

Somerset wrote:

How did she end up winning this one?

It seems like the primary issue was whether Taitz's attempt to fill the space was reasonable.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9394

bob wrote:

Somerset wrote:

How did she end up winning this one?

It seems like the primary issue was whether Taitz's attempt to fill the space was reasonable.

Which space? The one between her legs or the one between her ears?

No need to answer, that was just a gratuitous personal insult to Orly.

Piffle · **Posted:** Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:44 pm

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., J.D., D.D.S., G.A.* wrote:

Here is page1. I am an attorney for Med. Dental Development LLC, the plaintiff. The law firm of Parilla and Ettinger are attorneys for the defendant

Well, hot damn! So two of three defendants default (i.e., no-show from the get-go), at least one of them appears to be protected by a (as yet unperfected) bankruptcy stay but, despite these formidable odds, Orly still manages to persevere and prevail.

Ya see, she really, really has been trying hard to re-rent her not-too-desirable commercial space -- at least hard enough not to get tagged with failure to mitigate the damages of defendants' breach.

This is the kind of stuff upon which great litigators' careers are built. Oh sure, it may have taken a couple of tries, but Orly has finally won a default judgment!!

I'd still love to see the transcript. Just how close did she come to losing an unlosable case?

___
* Ginormous Areolas

verbalobe · **Posted:** Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:46 pm

Piffle wrote:

* G.A.

That's Areolae to you.

Piffle · **Posted:** Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:59 pm

verbalobe wrote:

That's Areolae to you.

Sigh. OK, I give up. It's time I went on to other forums.

ZekeB · **Posted:** Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:59 pm

verbalobe wrote:

Piffle wrote:

* G.A.

That's Areolae to you.

Areolii

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9394

ZekeB wrote:

verbalobe wrote:

Piffle wrote:

* G.A.

That's Areolae to you.

Areolii

Aureorly.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Medical Dental Development, LLC v Pierson, et al

Who is online