In re Berg (Pa. bar)

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:43 pm

I don't think Kreep can take over the Liberi case.

Unless he decides not to be a Superior Court Judge. :-k

Wild Bill · **Joined:** Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:46 pm **Posts:** 109

xKat wrote:

ZorbasLeGreque wrote:

I remember from the AZ-case concerning the co-conspirator of Sheriff Joe that a suspension of more than 1 year requires to take the bar exam anew. Something Berg will never be able to ...

That may be the rule in Arizona, but I don't think it is the rule in PA.

The cases I was reading today involved an attorney who was disbarred on consent. He was eligible to apply for reinstatement, but had to wait 5 years after disbarment. There was nothing in the opinions about having to retake the bar exam, although there was a finding of fact regarding his compliance with required CLE credits (including make-up credits for the years he was disbarred).

The significance of the time is that in PA, an attorney suspended for "more than one year" must take 36 hours of continuing legal education courses, including 12 hours of ethics, before petitioning for reinstatement.

He should also get tagged with the case costs when the order is entered.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9353

Wild Bill wrote:

The significance of the time is that in PA, an attorney suspended for "more than one year" must take 36 hours of continuing legal education courses, including 12 hours of ethics, before petitioning for reinstatement.

He should also get tagged with the case costs when the order is entered.

I'm glad I read to the end of the thread, because I was about to ask exactly this. Usually "sentences" being a day less than or a day more than a full year has some legal ramification.

My first thought was that it may be that a suspension longer than a year means that reinstatement is not automatic. Basically, if Berg doesn't show he has improved his ethics by a year from when the suspension begins, this could be a much longer suspension.

When Berg petitions for reinstatement, do you know if the presumption is against reinstatement, with Berg having the burden to prove fitness, or is it the opposite? I think it is entirely likely that he will continue to engage in misconduct as a pro se litigant during his suspension.

It would be nice to ensure that the Pennsylvania Bar has access to information about his continuing misconduct, as it reflects on the threat to the public from this buffoon regaining his license.

Frankly, I hope the Bar rejects this discipline as insufficient and makes it for two, three, five years, or if there is such a length of time, whatever it takes to create a presumption against reinstatement.

Res Ipsa · **Posted:** Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:57 am

Quote:

Berg is finally shown to be a buffoon and the real victim(s) of Taitz in the Liberi vs Taitz case will get better representation.

No.

As demonstrated in the Texas proceedings in that case, where Berg was denied pro hac vice admission, they will proceed as pro se parties and, as such, simply say "amen" to whatever crap Berg files.

The parties in Liberi v. Taitz are too stupid to disassociate from Berg.

bob · **Posted:** Wed Aug 15, 2012 3:54 pm

Orly "you know what you are doing" Taitz finally figures it out:

Quote:

Notice: Suspension of Attorney Philip Berg for misconduct will start after the Supreme Court signs the order by the 3 judge panel of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of PA

I received the actual ruling by the 3 judge panel. Apparently the suspension of Philip Berg will start after the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania signs the ruling of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of PA. The ruling shows that there were three prior disciplinary actions against Berg. See the actual ruling in the link. All of this is public domain. Anyone can pay $8.50 and get the actual ruling. The transcript was more expensive. I had to pay $700 for he transcript

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=235095 :twisted:

Order and transcript at the link.

ZekeB · **Posted:** Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:33 pm

bob wrote:

Order and transcript at the link.

$700 is a lot of clams for a transcript. Mebbe O'rly should set up a pay wall for her site.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23547

ZekeB wrote:

bob wrote:

Order and transcript at the link.

$700 is a lot of clams for a transcript. Mebbe O'rly should set up a pay wall for her site.

Actually, for a transcript of 214 pages, it's a bargain price... probably a copy price as the original was furnished to the board or hearing committee.

An original for that number of pages (unless the reporter had a contract with the agency they most likely bid on and provides at a reduced rate) would have normally been well in excess of $1,000.

bob · **Posted:** Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:21 pm

Quote:

Same day as I will be arguing in KS [Oct. 3], there will be an oral argument before the Supreme Court of PA on the decision by the Discilinary Board of the Supreme Court to suspend Philip Berg’s law license for 1 year and 1 day. Can someone be there an let me know, what went on? Apparently suspension starts after the Supreme court signs off on the decision by the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=305925 :twisted:

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:** 23547

cross posting from the Liberi v Taitz thread...

New entry in the Berg disciplinary action...

Quote:

208 DB 2010 03/08/2013

REQUEST FOR SUPREME COURT ACTION E-FILED

The last entry prior to this was...

Quote:

208 DB 2010 09/13/2012

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED

(10/03/2012), 11:00 AM, DISTRICT I

So it's been six months since oral argument was held with no action by the Supreme Court on the recommendation for suspension.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

Who is online