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

Lea · **Posted:** Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:17 pm

Thanks for posting the docket. Now I know who the Judge is and in my opinion one Judge is as good as another. Since I read that CEL asked for his case to be dismissed so he could refile it in State Court, Judge Guilford only has one case against OT to handle.

:hug:

Paul Lentz · **Posted:** Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:48 pm

Lea wrote:

Thanks for posting the docket. Now I know who the Judge is and in my opinion one Judge is as good as another. Since I read that CEL asked for his case to be dismissed so he could refile it in State Court, Judge Guilford only has one case against OT to handle.

:hug:

Lea, just to confirm your understanding, you do realize that Judge Guilford is assigned to the CALIFORNIA case, not the Texas case, correct? Of course, as a plaintiff, you remain involved in both, and not just the Texas side of it, but I'd expect that your personal involvement might be more intense in the Texas case.

Lea · **Posted:** Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:54 pm

Paul Lentz wrote:

Lea wrote:

Thanks for posting the docket. Now I know who the Judge is and in my opinion one Judge is as good as another. Since I read that CEL asked for his case to be dismissed so he could refile it in State Court, Judge Guilford only has one case against OT to handle.

:hug:

Lea, just to confirm your understanding, you do realize that Judge Guilford is assigned to the CALIFORNIA case, not the Texas case, correct? Of course, as a plaintiff, you remain involved in both, and not just the Texas side of it, but I'd expect that your personal involvement might be more intense in the Texas case.

Yes Paul I know that Judge Guilford has the California case and not the Texas case. You are correct that I am involved in both cases, but I have a larger personal involvement in the Texas case.

:hug:

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23571

Orly NEVAH!! disappoints. =))

New Docket Entry...

Quote:

04/05/2011 172[RECAP] NOTICE OF MOTION AND First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg Motion to terminate attorney Berg, as not licensed to practice in this jurisdiction filed by defendants DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC., ORLY TAITZ. Motion set for hearing on 5/9/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit prior order to deny pro hac vice for attorney Philip J. Berg)(Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 04/05/2011)

Of course, Phil has not applied for pro hac vice in this case in California, but why bother waiting... nip it in the bud. :lol:

DaveMuckey · **Posted:** Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:48 pm

Who is Counsel "erg"? Was it really msspelled?

And did she ask permission? Nooooooo!

[-X

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23571

Her affidavit in part sez...

Quote:

AFFIDAVIT OF ORLY TAITZ
I, Orly Taitz, am over 18 years old, [highlight]I do not suffer of any mental impairment[/highlight], [I think that could be argued] I have personal knowledge of the above facts and declare under the penalty of perjury:
1. [highlight]I checked the web site of the California state bar[/highlight], :^o

Philip J. Berg is not a licensed attorney in the state of California according to bar.
2. I checked the docket of this case, Mr. Berg did not obtain pro hac vice to appear as an attorney in this case.

No shit, Sherlock. The case was docketed on the 29th. IF he were going to seek pro hac vice, he has time to do so. And if he's not, you just wasted a lot of your time and, more importantly, the Court's time, basically being the dumbass you always are.

Anyone on the over and under of how many pleadings are filed before Judge Guilford orders the parties to seek permission to file?

Mikedunford · **Posted:** Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:00 pm

realist wrote:

Her affidavit in part sez...

Quote:

AFFIDAVIT OF ORLY TAITZ
I, Orly Taitz, am over 18 years old, [highlight]I do not suffer of any mental impairment[/highlight], [I think that could be argued] I have personal knowledge of the above facts and declare under the penalty of perjury:
1. [highlight]I checked the web site of the California state bar[/highlight], :^o

Philip J. Berg is not a licensed attorney in the state of California according to bar.
2. I checked the docket of this case, Mr. Berg did not obtain pro hac vice to appear as an attorney in this case.

No shit, Sherlock. The case was docketed on the 29th. IF he were going to seek pro hac vice, he has time to do so. And if he's not, you just wasted a lot of your time and, more importantly, the Court's time, basically being the dumbass you always are.

Anyone on the over and under of how many pleadings are filed before Judge Guilford orders the parties to seek permission to file?

Given the propensity of both parties to file metric tons of crap in a very, very short period of time, there's no way to tell. But I'm going to bet that it happens NLT 1 June.

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:32 am

realist wrote:

Quote:

04/05/2011 172[RECAP] NOTICE OF MOTION AND First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg Motion to terminate attorney Berg, as not licensed to practice in this jurisdiction filed by defendants DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC., ORLY TAITZ. Motion set for hearing on 5/9/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit prior order to deny pro hac vice for attorney Philip J. Berg)(Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 04/05/2011)

Death Threat :?:

bob · **Posted:** Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:08 am

Quote:

04/05/2011 172[RECAP] NOTICE OF MOTION AND First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg Motion to terminate attorney Berg, as not licensed to practice in this jurisdiction filed by defendants DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC., ORLY TAITZ. Motion set for hearing on 5/9/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit prior order to deny pro hac vice for attorney Philip J. Berg)(Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 04/05/2011)

Please tell me she's aware that Berg is representing himself, may represent himself and file whatever he wants on his own behalf, and then the other plaintiffs just have to file pro se "me too" joinders (that Berg can ghostwrite) to whatever Berg files.

listeme · **Posted:** Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:12 am

I don't usually associate the word "aware" with Orly, unless it's modified by the phrase "may be dimly".

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23571

bob wrote:

Quote:

04/05/2011 172[RECAP] NOTICE OF MOTION AND First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg Motion to terminate attorney Berg, as not licensed to practice in this jurisdiction filed by defendants DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC., ORLY TAITZ. Motion set for hearing on 5/9/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit prior order to deny pro hac vice for attorney Philip J. Berg)(Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 04/05/2011)

Please tell me she's aware that Berg is representing himself, may represent himself and file whatever he wants on his own behalf, and then the other plaintiffs just have to file pro se "me too" joinders (that Berg can ghostwrite) to whatever Berg files.

It would never occur to Orly that Berg may indeed represent himself in CA or anywhere else. That privilege is reserved to Orly only... Orlylaw.

poutine · **Posted:** Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:55 am

listeme wrote:

I don't usually associate the word "aware" with Orly, unless it's modified by the phrase "may be dimly".

The "ware" Orly is more often associated with is "malware."

mimi · **Posted:** Sun Apr 10, 2011 10:13 pm

Liberi v Taitz Plaintiffs Opposition to Taitz Motion to Terminate Berg From the Case

http://www.scribd.com/doc/52728311/Libe ... m-the-Case

it's 37 pages long.

!	realist wrote:
	This was posted in the wrong thread (W.D. TX). I moved it.

raicha · **Posted:** Sun Apr 10, 2011 10:19 pm

mimi wrote:

Liberi v Taitz Plaintiffs Opposition to Taitz Motion to Terminate Berg From the Case

http://www.scribd.com/doc/52728311/Libe ... m-the-Case

it's 37 pages long.

Yes, because it takes 37 pages to say: "I'm a plaintiff, moron, you can't terminate me."

Edit: When the hell is Berg going to turn off the annoying automatic formatting of the word "not" as not? It if isn't automatic, it's even more annoying. And stupid.

PatGund · **Posted:** Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:45 pm

raicha wrote:

mimi wrote:

Liberi v Taitz Plaintiffs Opposition to Taitz Motion to Terminate Berg From the Case

http://www.scribd.com/doc/52728311/Libe ... m-the-Case

it's 37 pages long.

Yes, because it takes 37 pages to say: "I'm a plaintiff, moron, you can't terminate me."

Edit: When the hell is Berg going to turn off the annoying automatic formatting of the word "not" as not? It if isn't automatic, it's even more annoying. And stupid.

I wonder how many pages Berg takes to write a love letter? As it is, I swear he would take ten pages just to state he's taking a dump.

lyssandri · **Posted:** Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:49 pm

From Phil's filing:

Quote:

Taitz has been an Attorney in California since 2002, she knows the Court rules or should, and these types of frivolous Motions which are incompliant with the Fed. R. Civ.P. and the Court’s L.R.’s should not be permitted.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:52 pm

The c/o address for the other plaintiffs is a nice touch. I'm sure no one will see through that. And despite what raicha says, it's important to underline, italicize and bold NOT because otherwise the court might think it was "un-not."

While Berg is going through the litany of Taitz's procedural mistakes, he nevertheless serves the document himself. That is definitely NOT a good idea under the circumstances.

I like the fact he does a case-dump in his very first appearance before this judge. The idea is to try his case now, convince the judge he is right, and take advantage of the lean later on in the case.

Just two more things: Using "Esquire" is really important in California. I hope that Mr. Berg will bold, underline and italicize it in the future. And Mr. Berg has cleverly decided not to use apostrophes. All of the possessive nouns just look pluralized.

I'm waiting for Taitz's 72 page reply, with at least 6 dossies.

ZekeB · **Posted:** Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:59 pm

DaveMuckey wrote:

Who is Counsel "erg"? Was it really msspelled?

erg
1
–noun Physics .
the centimeter-gram-second unit of work or energy, equal to the work done by a force of one dyne when its point of application moves through a distance of one centimeter in the direction of the force; 10− 7 joule.

Phil haz energy. He's a leaky reactor.

raicha · **Posted:** Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:06 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

The c/o address for the other plaintiffs is a nice touch. I'm sure no one will see through that. And despite what raicha says, it's important to underline, italicize and bold NOT because otherwise the court might think it was "un-not."

While Berg is going through the litany of Taitz's procedural mistakes, he nevertheless serves the document himself. That is definitely NOT a good idea under the circumstances.

[highlight]I like the fact he does a case-dump in his very first appearance before this judge. The idea is to try his case now, convince the judge he is right, and take advantage of the lean later on in the case.[/highlight]Just two more things: Using "Esquire" is really important in California. I hope that Mr. Berg will bold, underline and italicize it in the future. And Mr. Berg has cleverly decided not to use apostrophes. All of the possessive nouns just look pluralized.

I'm waiting for Taitz's 72 page reply, with at least 6 dossies.

Au contraire, wise one. This is NOT his very first appearance before this judge. He has just finished his spectacular run in CEL3 v. Daylight before this very jurist.

Edit: To impart the proper emphasis.

The order for all parties to request leave to file any further scraps of dogdoo will follow any day now.

brygenon · **Joined:** Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:42 pm **Posts:** 425

PatGund wrote:

I wonder how many pages Berg takes to write a love letter?

The world may never know.

ZekeB · **Posted:** Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:12 am

raicha wrote:

The order for all parties to request leave to file any further scraps of dogdoo will follow any day now.

Hymie the Robot says O'rly gets a rebuttal in first. I can bet she is slaving over her desk at this very moment. It will be filed before 5:00 PM PDT tomorrow.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:26 am

C'mon raicha. Cut me some slack. It was his very first appearance in this case.

OTOH, Taitz tried to do a Lieberi case dump in the Daylights case.

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

thorswitch wrote:

From Phil's filing:

Quote:

Taitz has been an Attorney in California since 2002, she knows the Court rules or should, and these types of frivolous Motions which are incompliant with the Fed. R. Civ.P. and the Court’s L.R.’s should not be permitted.

Incompliant? =))

Need to add this one to the birther dictionary too! Also.

raicha · **Posted:** Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:35 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

C'mon raicha. Cut me some slack. It was his very first appearance in this case.

OTOH, Taitz tried to do a Lieberi case dump in the Daylights case.

Yes, his first appearance in this case. I too like the fact that he does a case-dump right out of the gate. Not only does he expect that Judge Guilford has forgotten all the foolishness in CEL3 v. Daylight which inspired the "no dumping" rule, but he begs the judge to read through the sky high dump created by these idiots in Judge Robreno's court.

As usual, Berg's keen sense of strategy is a wonder to behold.

raicha · **Posted:** Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:37 am

TexasFilly wrote:

thorswitch wrote:

From Phil's filing:

Quote:

Taitz has been an Attorney in California since 2002, she knows the Court rules or should, and these types of frivolous Motions which are incompliant with the Fed. R. Civ.P. and the Court’s L.R.’s should not be permitted.

Incompliant? =))

Need to add this one to the birther dictionary too! Also.

I was laughing at that too, but then I looked it up in a non-birther dictionary. Incompliant infers willful failure to comply, whereas noncompliant may be merely negligent.

I think he might have gotten this one right.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

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

Who is online