Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23562

Quote:

General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-56079 Docketed: 06/27/2011
Nature of Suit: 4320 Assault, Libel, and Slander
Lisa Liberi, et al v. Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Central California, Santa Ana
Fee Status: Paid
Case Type Information:
1) civil
2) private
3) null

Originating Court Information:
District: 0973-8 : 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW
Court Reporter: Blanca Aguilar, Official Court Reporter
Trial Judge: Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge
Date Filed: 03/29/2011
Date Order/Judgment: Date Order/Judgment EOD: Date NOA Filed: Date Rec'd COA:
06/14/2011 06/15/2011 06/27/2011 06/27/2011

06/28/2011 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Mediation Questionnaire due on 07/05/2011. Transcript ordered by 07/27/2011. Transcript due 10/25/2011. Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. opening brief due 12/05/2011. Appellee Philip J. Berg, Appellee Go Excel Global, Appellee Lisa Liberi, Appellee Lisa M. Ostella and Appellee The Law Offices of Philip J. Berg answering brief due 01/03/2012. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. [7799772] (JN)

No way Orly follows any of those rules... but it never seems to matter.

woodworker · **Joined:** Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm **Posts:** 347

This is no fun - no possibility of oral argumentssssssssssssss (Orly style) for many months, makes me so sad. I want to go watch.

bob · **Posted:** Thu Jun 30, 2011 12:51 pm

woodworker wrote:

This is no fun - no possibility of oral argumentssssssssssssss (Orly style) for many months, makes me so sad. I want to go watch.

There won't be oral arguments at all.

tjh · **Joined:** Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm **Posts:** 2474

To avoid confuzelement, could the topic title be changed to show that this is the anti-SLAPP appeal ?

Edit: Thank you kindly.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:21 am

Is it?

I don't believe that has been specified by the worst lawyer in the universe.

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:57 am

Just as an academic endeavour, and, for the purpose of discussion only, under the assumption that Orly makes no formal mistakes (never happens) on filing:

(1) Would this appeal be discarded as moot cause there is already a First Amended Complaint in the docket of the lower court ? Can Berg just point to this fact or would he have to go thru a whole long proceeding ?

(2) Just pretending that Orly would, for whatever reasons the doGs were to let the weathers turn, get a positive reply in Appellate Court, would such an outcome also stick to the FAC ? How far would Judge Guilford be bound on a new anti-SLAPP ruling on the FAC by the reply on the original complaint (I guess he would need to take such a reply as a guideline) ?

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23562

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Is it?

I don't believe that has been specified by the worst lawyer in the universe.

That was my thought as well, Stern, and why I did not originally designate it such nor edit the title, but...

Foggy · **Posted:** Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:10 am

What has been seen, cannot be unseen.

(But I can change back the title of a thread.)

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23562

Foggy wrote:

What has been seen, cannot be unseen.

(But I can change back the title of a thread.)

bob · **Posted:** Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:27 am

RTH10260 wrote:

(1) Would this appeal be discarded as moot cause there is already a First Amended Complaint in the docket of the lower court ? Can Berg just point to this fact or would he have to go thru a whole long proceeding ?

No; Berg and Taitz (excuse me, DOFF) will be duking this out in the 9th. A best-case scenario (for the courts, and defendants) is that the trial court dismisses the entire complaint, plaintiffs appeal, and the appeals are consolidated by the 9th. In that case, the 9th would likely end up dismissing DOFF's appeal as moot.

Quote:

(2) Just pretending that Orly would, for whatever reasons the doGs were to let the weathers turn, get a positive reply in Appellate Court, would such an outcome also stick to the FAC ? How far would Judge Guilford be bound on a new anti-SLAPP ruling on the FAC by the reply on the original complaint (I guess he would need to take such a reply as a guideline) ?

If by some chance the 9th ruled the trial court erred in denying DOFF's anti-SLAPP motion, on remand one would presume the other defendants would file similar anti-SLAPP motions to the operative complaint. The trial court would hope the 9th would provide some guidance as to the contours in its ruling, but if it did not, the trial court would make a best guess.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23562

New Docket Entry...

Quote:

07/13/2011 2 Mail returned on 07/13/2011 addressed to Jayson Q. Marasigan, Esquire for Orly Taitz, re: Case Opening Material. Resending to: Suite 300, 23041 Avenida de la Carlota, Laguna Hills, CA 92653. [7819037] (JN)

Plutodog · **Posted:** Sat Jul 16, 2011 3:44 pm

realist wrote:

New Docket Entry...

Quote:

07/13/2011 2 Mail returned on 07/13/2011 addressed to Jayson Q. Marasigan, Esquire for Orly Taitz, re: Case Opening Material. Resending to: Suite 300, 23041 Avenida de la Carlota, Laguna Hills, CA 92653. [7819037] (JN)

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23562

New Docket Entries...

Quote:

07/17/2011 3 Filed (ECF) Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 07/17/2011. [7822562]--[COURT UPDATE: Attached Service list. Resent NDA. 07/18/2011 by TW] (OT)

07/17/2011 4 COURT DELETED ENTRY : Attached service list to correct entry above [3]. Original text: Filed (ECF) Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 07/17/2011. [7822565] (OT)

GreatGrey · **Posted:** Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:03 pm

realist wrote:

New Docket Entries...

Quote:

07/17/2011 3 Filed (ECF) Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 07/17/2011. [7822562]--[COURT UPDATE: Attached Service list. Resent NDA. 07/18/2011 by TW] (OT)

07/17/2011 4 COURT DELETED ENTRY : Attached service list to correct entry above [3]. Original text: Filed (ECF) Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 07/17/2011. [7822565] (OT)

Ummm.... . wasn't she supposed to check the boxes under "Certification of Counsel"?

.

ZekeB · **Posted:** Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:08 pm

GreatGrey wrote:

Ummm.... . wasn't she supposed to check the boxes under "Certification of Counsel"?

And cough up some money?

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10651

ZekeB wrote:

GreatGrey wrote:

Ummm.... . wasn't she supposed to check the boxes under "Certification of Counsel"?

And cough up some money?

Yep, that $455.00 is PAST DUE. O'rly, who doesn't pay her bills to FEDERAL COURT on time, yet whines about the national debt! :lol:

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23562

"New"/Updated Docket Entries...

Quote:

08/30/2011 5 Received Orly Taitz, Inc. letter dated 08/26/2011 re: Request to correct docket to reflect that ORly Taitz, Inc. is NOT an Appellant. [7877532] [11-56079, 11-56164] (RL)

09/02/2011 6 Received District Court notice regarding clerical error. NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error docket entry 300 erroneously reflects appeal fees as to Defendant Orly Taitz, Inc. Docket entry number 300 has been modified to reflect defendant Orly Taitz. Re: Appeal Fees Paid. [7883280] (RL)

09/07/2011 7 Case rejected from Circuit Mediation Program. [7883939] [11-15151, 11-15383, 11-16186, 11-16107, 11-16254, 11-16286, 11-16362, 11-16401, 11-16494, 11-16503, 11-16632, 11-16754, 11-16813, 11-16814, 11-16827, 11-35193, 11-35368, 11-55483, 11-55493, 11-55497, 11-55503, 11-55508, 11-55536, 11-55577, 11-55592, 11-55796, 11-56023, 11-56079, 11-56121, 11-56126, 11-56164, 11-56166, 11-56200, 11-56244, 11-56288, 11-60043, 11-71785] (SB)

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23562

New Docket Entries...

Quote:

11/21/2011 8 14 day oral extension by phone of time to file Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. brief. Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. opening brief due 12/19/2011. Appellees Philip J. Berg, Go Excel Global, Lisa Liberi, Lisa M. Ostella, The Law Offices of Philip J. Berg answering brief due 01/17/2012. The optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the appellee brief. [7974559] (LN)

11/21/2011 9 Filed (ECF) Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Correspondence: Notice of Extention. Date of service: 11/21/2011 [7974682]--[COURT UPDATE: Attached corrected document. Resent NDA. 11/25/2011 by GD] (OT)

12/19/2011 10 Submitted (ECF) Opening brief for review. Submitted by Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc.. Date of service: 12/19/2011. [8005596] (OT)

12/19/2011 11 Filed (ECF) Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Correspondence: notice of a related case, currently considered by this court. Date of service: 11/19/2011 [8005612] (OT)

I'm sure lotsa fun reading coming up soon. $\:D/$

links shortly

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:32 pm

realist wrote:

New Docket Entries...
12/19/2011 11 Filed (ECF) Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Correspondence: notice of a related case, currently considered by this court. Date of service: 11/19/2011 [8005612] (OT)

Who is/was Orlys ghost writer ?

tjh · **Joined:** Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm **Posts:** 2474

Is it just me, or is #10 in a teeny, tiny font (NOT Comic Sans!) .. in order to get past a page limit?
[ Edit : no ... it's a 14,000 word limit. ]

Quote:

... ORLY TAITZ (“Taitz”), is a political dissent leader who, individually and through Defendant and Appellant, DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS
FOUNDATIONS, INC. (“DOFF”) (collectively “Appellants”), has been and remains the leader of this movement.

Jez · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:52 am

Isn't this thing over yet?

:((

bob · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:48 am

tjh wrote:

Is it just me, or is #10 in a teeny, tiny font (NOT Comic Sans!) .. in order to get past a page limit?

Federal appellate courts require:

Quote:

A proportionally spaced face must include serifs, but sans-serif type may be used in headings and captions. A proportionally spaced face must be 14-point or larger.

FRAP 32(a)(5)(A).

BFB · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:55 am

RTH10260 wrote:

realist wrote:

New Docket Entries...
12/19/2011 11 Filed (ECF) Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Correspondence: notice of a related case, currently considered by this court. Date of service: 11/19/2011 [8005612] (OT)

Who is/was Orlys ghost writer ?

That's what I'd like to know. No way Taitz wrote this.

Also, Taitz calling herself a "political dissident" is an insult to real political dissidents, and cheapens the idea of political dissent generally.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9376

tjh wrote:

Is it just me, or is #10 in a teeny, tiny font (NOT Comic Sans!) .. in order to get past a page limit?
[ Edit : no ... it's a 14,000 word limit. ]

Quote:

... ORLY TAITZ (“Taitz”), is a political dissent leader who, individually and through Defendant and Appellant, DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS
FOUNDATIONS, INC. (“DOFF”) (collectively “Appellants”), has been and remains the leader of this movement.

I think there should be a Federal Rule of Birfer Procedure that requires all briefs to be in the repulsive Comic Sans. Just having to read them should entitle the adverse party to sanctions.

tjh · **Joined:** Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm **Posts:** 2474

tjh wrote:

Is it just me, or is #10 in a teeny, tiny font (NOT Comic Sans!) ..

Can we please have a new button for Obly-quotes, which will automatically put them in Comic Sans ?

Quote:

... ORLY TAITZ (“Taitz”), is a political dissent leader who, individually and through Defendant and Appellant, DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC. (“DOFF”) (collectively “Appellants”), has been and remains the leader of this movement.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

Who is online