New Docket Entries...

Well, I'll agree that Ed and Caren Hale appeared to be (stupidly) lying through their teeth re: the existence of "Bar H Farms" in their letter to the court. And they should certainly be taken to task for it by the court.

But I still don't understand this bizarre habit Berg (or more likely, Liberi, who strikes me as probably being more inclined to such silly affectations, and is just too ignorant to realize that it makes them look foolish, not super serious and lawyerly) has of bolding and underlining the word "not" in their filings.

On the other hand, I hope they (Berg, Liberi, et. al.) never figure out how silly they look...I love the laughs I get everytime I read one of their filings.

It's unprofessional and annoying. It's basically a stupid person, Berg, telling a smarter person that they're too dumb to read. That kind of formatting stunt has one positive feature. It lets you know you're reading a brief by a pretty stupid person, who feels compelled to insult your intelligence while trying to persuade you. People who do this, as it is not just Berg, usually break numerous rules as well. It is a verbal tic that speaks very ill of whoever uses it in formal writing.

I'm not disagreeing with either of you. An Obot slipped Berg a note at the 9th Circuit oral argument and asked him to stop doing it. Berg did not comply.

What a surprise! Berg is onto the Bar H Farms & facebook website foo -- and dug up an older 2005 Bar H Farms *NEVADA* Inc .. "Revoked".
("Agent resigned").
Also gives the Texas non-Hale INC stuff posted earlier.

Stern, I don't think that it's Berg who is actually writing the plaintiff documents in the Liberi v. Taitz cases. He may be signing them, but I'm pretty sure it's Liberi who's writing them. And I think she believes that bolding/underlining "not" makes it look somehow more 'lawyerly.' It's the sort of silly affectation I'd associate more with a legal secretary/assistant trying to make his/her drafted documents seem more important. And I'd suspect that she has an autoset in Word to automatically bold/underline "not," regardless of context.

While I certainly don't know, and have no inside status to know (thank you, Jaysus!), it's my impression that this is much more Liberi's suit than it is Berg's (and definitely more than it is Ostella's or Adams', who never seem to be much more than afterthoughts, or when they can be useful for "expertise" or money), and that Berg has left it all in Liberi's exceedingly unskilled and incapable hands. Berg's stake in these lawsuits is for the poke-at-Oily value. Certainly, Berg realizes that there's little, if any, money in this, either for him or any of the other plaintiffs, unless he gets it from the other plaintiffs (shades of his adventures in Trutherism, where he never won a nickel for any of his clients, but apparently was happy to collect their payments for his fees and expenses, plus donations).

That is, indeed, the case, even in Texas. It is incumbent on the opposing party to bring the fact that the corporate entity is not in good standing to the attention of the court, as it is everywhere. In most cases, the corporate entity will just pay their back franchise fees and get re-instated. This case is not like most cases.

Dug up, eh? More than likely LL learned it right here, on the one and only in_the_know TFB where we tells the truth web site.

It is telling that when any of these bozos wants to know what's really going on, they come here, while they snarl and fume about "lies" on Fogbow on their own censored little blogs.

I have no doubt LL is reading TFB and every thing she can garner from links here. This is the top place to gather dirt on Orly. Why wouldn't she? Hi Lisa.

Hey, LL. To prove both that you're reading here, and that you're writing Berg's excretions in Liberi v. Taitz (great job, BTW), give us a sign. The first time you use the magic word, it should look like this: not. And then the next time like this: not. And then, just to give us a high five, the next time like this: NOT.

Actually I have had that information since 2009 and so has Lisa and Phil. We found it after we had filed the case. It was not included before as there was no need to put it out there until now.

's

Hell, we've all had Ed's info since then.

Did ya know he used to run an online gambling site on BarHFarms.net ?

His attempt to deny any knowledge of BarH is one of the most blatantly stupid things he's done, and he's done a lot of stupid things.

No, I didn't know about the online gambling site. Is there a link to it or do you know?

http://web.archive.org/web/200502032221 ... farms.net/

.

Can. Not. Breathe.

TF, stop take a breathe!

Oh, it gets better. Seems Ed didn't like the class of people he was getting. So he set up some screening.
http://web.archive.org/web/200502110758 ... farms.net/

Can someone remind me what it is that defendant Bar H Farms is alleged to have done?

It committed the dastardly deed of being named as a defendant and possibly being associated with some of the defendants.

In Berglaw you sue anyone and any entity associated in any way with someone you don't like. You do not have to have any reason other than that to do so. You assume the people you are suing are even more incompetent than you and are not capable of making a motion for summary judgment.

Not quite.

He had an affiliate link to the third party gambling site cashbreak.com

He made money when someone signed up/gambled but there was no gambling going on at BarHFarms.net

Yeah, that's what I thought. Obviously, liability runs into the millions.



He will.

I think Taitz has liability for publishing Liberi's social security account number, but that's not this thread.

I'm trying to figure out which is stupider - Hale not knowing anything about a "Bar H Farms" or Berg submitting a corporate record concerning a "Bar H Farms" that has nothing to do with Hale in order to prove Hale wrong.