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

Somerset · **Posted:** Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:05 am

ZekeB wrote:

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.

Well, not exactly. 1 erg is about the equivalent of ten flaps of a fly's wing (give or take ;-)

lyssandri · **Posted:** Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:01 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

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.

What kills me is just how desperate it all sounds. Berg is so afraid they'll turn him down again like they did in CEL's case that he wants to make it clear he knows the local rules better than Orly - who's licensed in California and SHOULD know the rules (as he points out in another part of his brief) - to make them feel like they can't turn him down this time. =))

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9326

PatGund wrote:

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.

I think the past few years of his motion practice essentially consists of taking a dump into the dockets of numerous courts.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23525

Just so we have it her in TFB's "usual" format, and because there's an additional document on the docket...

New Docket Entries...

04/10/2011 174[RECAP] MEMORANDUM in Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg Motion to terminate attorney Berg, as not licensed to practice in this jurisdiction 172[RECAP] ; Declaration of Philip J. Berg; Proposed Order; and Certificate of Service filed by Plaintiffs PHILIP J. BERG, GO EXCEL GLOBAL, Lisa Liberi, LISA M. OSTELLA, THE LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG. (Attachments: # 1[RECAP] Declaration Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esq., # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Berg, Philip) (Entered: 04/10/2011)

04/10/2011 173 OPPOSITION to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg Motion to terminate attorney Berg, as not licensed to practice in this jurisdiction 172[RECAP] ; Proposed Order; and Certificate of Service filed by Plaintiffs PHILIP J. BERG, GO EXCEL GLOBAL, Lisa Liberi, LISA M. OSTELLA, THE LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Berg, Philip) (Entered: 04/10/2011)

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23525

From document 174... Berg is pleading to be allowed to remain as counsel.

Quote:

6. In addition, Taitz is doing nothing more than attempting to make
litigation so expensive for the Plaintiffs’ that they will be deprived their right to
redress for Taitz’s and the other Defendants wrongs. This problem also would
cause the filing of multiple documents, instead of one document signed by the
Attorney, and force the other Plaintiffs to have to travel to California, pay for
hotels, rental cars, etc. for hearings, when it is far more cost efficient to have the
original Attorney argue any Motions, whether filed by Plaintiffs or Opposed by
Plaintiffs, or argue at any ordered hearing. Not to mention the fact that neither
Ostella nor Liberi are Attorneys.

7. Philip J. Berg, Esquire has been counsel for all Plaintiffs in the within
case since the day of its inception. Berg is familiar with the events giving rise to
the suit and the events which have occurred within the case. To bring new counsel
in at this late stage of the litigation, would be extremely prejudicial to Plaintiffs
Ostella and Liberi, as it would take an astronomical amount of time to bring a new
Attorney up to speed, and further delay proceedings. Further, it would be far more
expensive for the Plaintiffs, without Counsel of record who knows the case, its
history, and who is more than capable of arguing the matter on behalf of Ostella
and Liberi.

Translation = There's so much crap filed in this case no one would ever be able to be brought up to speed... and no attorney in his/her right mind would agree to.

raicha · **Posted:** Mon Apr 11, 2011 10:40 am

realist wrote:

From document 174... Berg is pleading to be allowed to remain as counsel.

snip

Translation = There's so much crap filed in this case no one would ever be able to be brought up to speed... and no attorney in his/her right mind would agree to.

Two things: 1) This is a rehash of the "litigating against Orly is special and nobody else can do it but me" theory that already failed with this judge in CEL3. 2) He's saying that no one could possibly get up to speed on this due to the high volume of poo already filed in the case. He's saying that to a brand new judge on the case who he is begging to read all the prior pleadings. He is confident that if the judge reads the "barrage of paper" "the Court will see Taitz's dishonest tactics, statements, and false allegations".

Odd that the only attorney in California capable of reading and understanding the backlog of poo is the judge.

But Berg has a better shot here, as he is both a plaintiff and the long standing attorney of record. If he loses this one to Taitz, I would be very surprised.

On another note, I am amused that the first case cited by Berg is Ashcroft v. Iqbal, followed by Twombly. This motion has nothing to do with jurisdiction, but clearly Berg is still hurting from the spanking he received from this judge after he admitted he was not familiar with either of these lead cases.

=))

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23525

Quote:

On another note, I am amused that the first case cited by Berg is Ashcroft v. Iqbal, followed by Twombly. This motion has nothing to do with jurisdiction, but clearly Berg is still hurting from the spanking he received from this judge after he admitted he was not familiar with either of these lead cases.

=))

verbalobe · **Posted:** Mon Apr 11, 2011 10:46 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'm pretty sure that's just a typo for nincompliant. :mrgreen:

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23525

You knew it was coming.

New Docket Entry...

Quote:

04/18/2011 175[RECAP] REPLY First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg Motion to terminate attorney Berg, as not licensed to practice in this jurisdiction 172[RECAP] filed by Defendants DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC., ORLY TAITZ. (Attachments: # 1[RECAP] Exhibit criminal record of 23 felony charges and 10 felony convictions for forgery and grand theft of Lisa Liberi, legal assistant to attorney Berg, # 2 Exhibit opposition to pro hac vice of Berg in case 10-1573)(Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 04/18/2011)

Quote:

Defendants assert that Plaintiffs opposition is
nothing but dozens of pages of outrageous, unfounded allegations
and slander, without any relations to the motion. [irony much?] Pennsylvania
Attorney Philip J.Berg (hereinafter Berg) did not provide any
1egal ground which would allow him to serve as an attorney on
this case. Allowing Berg to proceed as an attorney on this case
will be aiding and abetting an unlicensed practice of law.

AFAIK, Berg is still a licensed attorney, and he's certainly a party to this case, and has not applied for pro hac vice in this case, and may not.

This certainly would be a great time for the CA bar to act on complaints against Orly. :mrgreen:

If they knew about the use of illegally-obtained documents in court filings and the waving of them around on national tee vee, one would think that would hasten their actions, but they probably don't know and from their lack of action to date, probably wouldn't care.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23525

Quote:

a. Criminal case history for Lisa Liberi- legal assistant tc
Philip Berg and the lead plaintiff in this case. Liberi is a
convicted felon, she has at least 46 criminal charges and at
least 10 felony convictions, which include convictions of
forgery of documents, forgery of an official seal and grand
theft. [highlight]The fact that an attorney is admittedly usinq as his
legal assistant a document forger with multiple felony
convictions of forgery, undermines the case and places in
question veracity of any documents submitted by the office of
such attorney. exhibit 1[/highlight]

But is okay if Orly does it. ](*,)

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Mon Apr 18, 2011 9:20 am

And the court order to ask for leave to file shit follows in 3...2...1...

Foggy · **Posted:** Mon Apr 18, 2011 10:19 am

Do we know if Lisa Liberi is still working for Phil, now that she's off probation?

I thought the deal was that President Obama was holding the threat of the 8 years in prison over her head to make her work for Berg and help him be a "false leader" of the birther movement, so as to help divert attention from Orly and the two citizen parents rule.

We don't know what Obama has on Berg, but the threat of putting Lisa in prison is pretty much a thing of the past. So why would she keep working for that cheap loser and grifter?

:-?

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23525

More of Orly's poop.

Quote:

Supplemental brief to Reply to opposition to MOTION-REQUEST TO TERMINATE PHILIP J. BERG AS AN ATTORNEY ON THE CASE

New Docket Entry...

Quote:

04/18/2011 177 REPLY First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg Motion to terminate attorney Berg, as not licensed to practice in this jurisdiction 172[RECAP] filed by Defendants DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC., ORLY TAITZ. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 04/18/2011)

Document # 176 has been skipped... no idea.

Also the caption shows Berg as appearing pro hac vice. It's my "guess" that the clerk saw the "Motion to Terminate" Berg and "assumed" Berg was appearing pro hac vice and amended the caption page to so indicate... just guessing.

Quote:

2. Just looking at the documents and pleadings in this very case, [highlight]it is clear, that Berg does not possess a good moral character, that is needed for pro hac vice[/highlight]. Defendants are asking the court to simply read three documents in this very file to ascertain, that Berg does not have a good moral character. Such documents are; a.complaint filed by Berg on behalfof the plaintiffs on May 4,2009.
b. document 137, an emergency response by the Plaintiffs filedJuly 30,2010
c. an order and memorandum by the prior judge, PA US Districtjudge Eduardo Robreno filed on December 23,2010.

pot. kettle.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Mon Apr 18, 2011 5:05 pm

Taitz asks the court to read just three documents. But doesn't bother to tell the judge what parts of those three documents have especial relevance to her hysterical merits arguments, In other words, once again Taitz treats the trial judge (or his unfortunate law clerk) like a truffles pig. The court gets to find the truffle only after rummaging through the documents since Taitz hasn't extended the court the courtesy of a citation to the record.

What are the chances the court will do what Taitz asks in reviewing those documents?

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23525

Legal genius on display.

From the most recent pile filed by Orly...

Quote:

When the transcript was finally
released and provided to Taitz, it showed that Berg never
provided judge Robreno with Liberi's drivers license, that
actually judge Robreno told Berg to file Liberi's drivers
license and Berg never filed it. This will be included in the
proper 12b1 motion as Plaintiffs cannot maintain the case in
diversity without documentary evidence of the state residence of
the parties at the time the case was filed, however this
information was included in this supplemental brief to
demonstrate the level of malice exhibited by Berg and to
demonstrate that he does not possess good moral character
necessary for pro hac vice.

verbalobe · **Posted:** Mon Apr 18, 2011 6:56 pm

realist wrote:

Legal genius on display.

From the most recent pile filed by Orly...

Quote:

When the transcript was finally
released and provided to Taitz, it showed that Berg never
provided judge Robreno with Liberi's drivers license, that
actually judge Robreno told Berg to file Liberi's drivers
license and Berg never filed it. This will be included in the
proper 12b1 motion as Plaintiffs cannot maintain the case in
diversity without documentary evidence of the state residence of
the parties at the time the case was filed, however this
information was included in this supplemental brief to
demonstrate the level of malice exhibited by Berg and to
demonstrate that he does not possess good moral character
necessary for pro hac vice.

I haz a confused. Isn't diversity one of the 'prongs' (or some such leagelese) that says whether a case belongs in Federal jurisdiction?

And didn't this case just get dropkicked to State court(s)?

Nobody needs to be arguing anything about diversity any more, do they?

Then again, IANAL. :-*

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23525

For the most part, diversity jurisdiction occurs when none of the plaintiffs live in the same state as any of the defendants. Berg maintains his diversity jurisdiction in this case, and always had it once he dismissed Sundquist and it's owner.

The case was severed but still resides in federal court... Central District of CA and Western District of TX.

Orly has NEVAH understood the concept of diversity jurisdiction.

Plutodog · **Posted:** Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:12 pm

Offtopic :

verbalobe wrote:

What color is batshit?

Well, somebody has to answer this burning question...

poutine · **Posted:** Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:13 pm

realist wrote:

For the most part, diversity jurisdiction occurs when none of the plaintiffs live in the same state as any of the defendants.

Don't forget about malicious prosecution.

bob · **Posted:** Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:42 pm

realist wrote:

For the most part, diversity jurisdiction occurs when none of the plaintiffs live in the same state as any of the defendants. Berg maintains his diversity jurisdiction in this case, and always had it once he dismissed Sundquist and it's owner.

It would appear that, in Orlylaw, the allegation of lack of diversity (because Liberi is was on probation in California, she was a resident of California) is the same as an actual lack of diversity.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23525

bob wrote:

realist wrote:

For the most part, diversity jurisdiction occurs when none of the plaintiffs live in the same state as any of the defendants. Berg maintains his diversity jurisdiction in this case, and always had it once he dismissed Sundquist and it's owner.

It would appear that, in Orlylaw, the allegation of lack of diversity (because Liberi is was on probation in California, she was a resident of California) is the same as an actual lack of diversity.

I think Orly took a two-pronged approach (I know, a little advanced for Orly, but whether she knew it or not LOL) that: a) Lisa L. lived in PA (which "seemed" to be the main attack on diversity jurisdiction) and if not, b) because she was on probation in CA that she actually lived there and therefore that destroyed diversity jurisdiction also. Too. Or otherwise. Or perhaps she alleged Lisa lived in both PA and CA. :lol:

I know!! Huh?

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:47 pm

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23525

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

Piffle · **Posted:** Mon Apr 18, 2011 11:41 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

Offtopic :

All of which is background for an extended response to Verbie...

Verbie wrote:

I haz a confused. Isn't diversity one of the 'prongs' (or some such leagelese) that says whether a case belongs in Federal jurisdiction?

And didn't this case just get dropkicked to State court(s)?

Nobody needs to be arguing anything about diversity any more, do they?

Compare and contrast:

I. Barnett v. Dunn was brought in CA state court. Pambly, in her infinite wisdom (as augmented, perhaps, by Strunk's even more infiniter wisdom) named a federal defendant for unknown and/or inscrutible reasons. The federal defendant REMOVED the case to federal court because a federal agency has a right to be sued in federal court. Once there, the court dismissed the suit against the federal agency and dropkicked the case back to the state court.

So why was it that the court could dropkick it back to state court? Because it started in state court, was removed and, once the reasons for removal were dispensed with, the federal court was done with its part in the drama and it became a state case once again.

II. Berg et al sue California Orly and Texas Tex for defamation claims that, at the end of the day, amount to various respective state-law tort claims. Right or wrong, Berg's basis for filing in federal court is diversity. Conveniently, Berg files in PA where he just happens to live and (purports to) practice(s) law. After much gnashing of teeth, the court decides that the matter would be better and more fairly dispensed with as two separate suits -- one against California Orly and the other against Texas Tex in the respective federal districts.

****

So could the judge have dropkicked this case (these cases) to state court(s)? Nope, no way. A federal court cannot create a state case and we're in the federal system now. Frankly, Berg is lucky (IMO) that the case was bifurcated rather than dismissed because he still has some federal action to work with.

****

Q. But what if Judge Robeno had dismissed the whole mess as a federal case? Couldn't Berg just refile state actions?

A. Well, yes, he could. But he's already used up a bunch of time screwing around in federal court -- enough, perhaps, to give him statute-of-limitations problems.

Q. But won't the state courts "give him credit" for commencing the action a long time ago in federal court?

A. Nope. Generally, when you choose to file in federal court, you are banking your stash on the federal courts having jurisdiction. If you're wrong, and then try to file in state court, you're at square one. And if the statute of limitation has run in the meantime, then tough luck.

****

Removal is different matter altogether. Where plaintiff has commenced the action in state court before it was removed, the original filing date is the tolling date for S.O.L. purposes -- however long the case twists and turns in federal court before being remanded to state court.

raicha · **Posted:** Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:38 am

realist wrote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

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

Who is online