Medical Dental Development, LLC v Pierson, et al

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:08 pm

I vote for "she has not a nano-gramme of legal logic in her brain."

esseff44 · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2011 7:47 pm

TollandRCR wrote:

ZekeB wrote:

Yes. If Appealing Dentistry were sold, the first thing the new owner would do is hang a huge Under New Management sign under the appealing dentistry sign.

Does anyone know the current status of Appealing Dentistry? The Web site still claims two offices and four dentists. However, it seems the Rancho Santa Margarita dentistry office is closed (but may have becone the "law offices of Orly Taitz, ESQ") and only one part-time dentist shows up as staffing the Mission Viejo office along with Orly. Staff in the photograph on the Web site were never identified. I think this is a foundering practice. It is hard to imagine the practice as being prosperous when Orly is flying around, making court appearances, and appearing before adoring crowds of tens.

I checked the California Board for O'rly's status and find it a bit confusing. She is licensed for one location only at the Santa Margarita office. However, Appealling Dentistry is licensed at the Mission Viejo office. A previous license for two offices was cancelled. Maybe someone can explain the conflict in the information.

http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQR ... LTE_ID=706

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9356

esseff44 wrote:

I checked the California Board for O'rly's status and find it a bit confusing. She is licensed for one location only at the Santa Margarita office. However, Appealling Dentistry is licensed at the Mission Viejo office. A previous license for two offices was cancelled. Maybe someone can explain the conflict in the information.

http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQR ... LTE_ID=706

I have no answer, I just like saying that whenever I see that name, I still read it as "Appalling Dentistry."

bob · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:35 am

Quote:

Morton wrote:

Wake me when Orly wins…anything.

Taitz wrote:

I won other cases and 6 figure judgents or settlements. Obama case is hard, going against the sitting president of the United states is extremely hard, nobody was able to win and kick him out of the office yet, but I am moving along inch by inch

xxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=29357#comments

...too bad Taitz doesn't share, as Paul Harvey would say, "the rest of the story."

ZekeB · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:55 pm

bob wrote:

...too bad Taitz doesn't share, as Paul Harvey would say, "the rest of the story."

eggggzactly! Getting a judgment via fraud on the court doesn't quite count as a legitimate win. Now she is trying to festoon a fraud on the court via her lies to the bankruptcy court in regard to her never being notified. She tries to pull her fraud on the court stunt with her birfer cases, too. Also.

If only she could collect actual hard cash from the Good Will. :lol:

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9356

ZekeB wrote:

bob wrote:

...too bad Taitz doesn't share, as Paul Harvey would say, "the rest of the story."

eggggzactly! Getting a judgment via fraud on the court doesn't quite count as a legitimate win. Now she is trying to festoon a faud on the court via her lies to the bankruptcy court in regard to her never being notified. She tries to pull her fraud on the court stunt with her birfer cases, too. Also.

If only she could collect actual hard cash from the Good Will. :lol:

The court would have had to commit fraud on itself, because the debtor generally provides a matrix of creditors. Then it is the court itself which sends out notices of bankruptcy (at cost to the estate). This prevents fraud by debtor and creditor alike, such as the fraud Orly is attempting to commit. Appropriate service by the court is presumed valid. And SCREEEEEECH is an argument that does not shift the burden of proof.

Edit: Just checked the Creditor Matrix and yes, the Screecher is on it.

Medical Dental Development
C/O Orly Taitz, Esq.
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, Suit
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688-3616

Obly will screech about the tyop. Odds of success, zero.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:07 pm

Even if Taitz were to be believed, all the bankruptcy court would do is allow her to make her argument and then tell her it's not legally sufficient and confirm the discharge. So, this is yet another wild goose chase for Taitz.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9356

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Even if Taitz were to be believed, all the bankruptcy court would do is allow her to make her argument and then tell her it's not legally sufficient and confirm the discharge. So, this is yet another wild goose chase for Taitz.

Orly's unblemished record of total failure remains intact! Even the Washington Generals won one or two.

She is now in her usual litigation situation. She has a number of ways she can lose and none to win.

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:34 pm

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

The court would have had to commit fraud on itself ...

Paging Leo Donofrio.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23549

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

The court would have had to commit fraud on itself ...

Paging Leo Donofrio.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23549

In re: David A. Johnson - Opposition to Medical Dental's Motion to Reopen Bankruptcy

Orly caught in yet another lie?

Chilidog · **Joined:** Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:36 pm **Posts:** 1966

That's what happens when your receptionist/ dental hygienist doubles as your law clerk.

Chilidog · **Joined:** Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:36 pm **Posts:** 1966

Also, notice that apparently, Orly is claiming that she was never served a proper notification. :lol:

ZekeB · **Posted:** Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:32 pm

O'rly wouldn't have gotten squat anyway. Oh wait, there was those meeelions of dollars of goodwill. The other claimants shared in getting a piece of that big pie, yes?

SueDB · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:34 am

Chilidog wrote:

Also, notice that apparently, Orly is claiming that she was never served a proper notification. :lol:

Orly needs lessons on service....Kinda tight hole she is going to get herself into.

Piffle · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:45 am

ZekeB wrote:

O'rly wouldn't have gotten squat anyway. Oh wait, there was those meeelions of dollars of goodwill. The other claimants shared in getting a piece of that big pie, yes?

Getting a higher percentage of zero. while cleverly avoiding sanctions and admonishments in the course of the litigation, might arguably be her greatest victory to date.

Of course, it's by no means clear that she'll accomplish that lofty goal.

Estiveo · **Posted:** Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:18 am

SueDB wrote:

Chilidog wrote:

Also, notice that apparently, Orly is claiming that she was never served a proper notification. :lol:

Orly needs lessons on service....Kinda tight hole she is going to get herself into.

Please, as doG is my wetness...stop :sick:

SueDB · **Posted:** Wed Feb 29, 2012 3:36 am

Estiveo wrote:

Please, as doG is my wetness...stop :sick:

Just for you...I won't go into higher, wetter, tighter. BTW, where is CEL³ when you need him??? $\:D/$ $\:D/$

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Medical Dental Development, LLC v Pierson, et al

Who is online