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

jonbeck
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Oceanside, CA

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

Postby jonbeck » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:17 am

There must be some high falutin Latin term for the Orly law principle that if a t is not crossed or i not dotted then everything the offending party did is retroactively vacated. Latin geeks?

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31421
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

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

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:48 am

Retrorlyactive.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 10100
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

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

Postby Suranis » Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:11 pm

Ipso Hoc Fuckwitvus
Have you tried the Internet? It's made out of millions of people missing the point of everything and then getting angry about it.

Cooter
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:01 pm

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

Postby Cooter » Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:24 pm

Nunc pro dunce

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 18591
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC\
Contact:

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

Postby Foggy » Thu Jul 25, 2013 1:54 pm

The rule against perspicacities. (variation on the "rule against perpetuities")
Show me, show me, show me how you do that trick! The one that makes me scream, she said.

tjh
Posts: 2841
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

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

Postby tjh » Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:09 pm

There probably IS a pony in that Berg/Marcus pile of poo .... but The Obly seems to think that piling on another layer will help in the search.

User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Edmonds. WA
Contact:

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

Postby PatGund » Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:03 pm

Homo sapiens will have evolved into a whole new species by the time this case is over.

Birthers will evolve into Homo habilis by the time this case is over.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 15823
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

Postby bob » Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:42 pm

Filed in the 9th circuit

:evil: [/break1]orlytaitzesq.com/?p=429099]http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=429099 :evil:





She filed something informing the court that the plaintiffs (allegedly) do not have an attorney and she cannot serve them individually because they have not provided their addresses. She also includes a letter from attorneys Randy Berg and Stephen Marcus requesting that they be relieved as counsel for the plaintiffs, alleging that Phil Berg has refused to sign the form for substitution of attorney. They also say that he has not been communicating with them sufficiently and they have not been able to reach an agreement on the terms of their representation.





[link]Link to document on google docs,https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-contentsrc="http://thefogbow.com/forum/uploads/2013/07/Liberi-filed-inability-to-serve.pdf&chrome=true[/link]

Taitz filed in the 9th a request addressed to the district court. What does she expect the 9th to do?





](*,)





She also cc:'ed the California and Pennsylvania bars while accusing Marcus and R. Berg of aiding and abetting P. Berg's UPL. :roll:





Taitz also "reasons" that if Marcus and R. Berg's improperly filed opposition to her anti-SLAPP motion is stricken, Taitz will automatically win her anti-SLAPP motion.





](*,)

tjh
Posts: 2841
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

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

Postby tjh » Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:48 pm

Taitz filed in the 9th a request addressed to the district court. What does she expect the 9th to do?


Did she SAY she filed in the 9'th ... or did she ACTUALLY file there? Or am I just lost, as usual.


Is there some dockety stuff about all this?





[edit]Marcus's letter certainly has a different case number !!![/edit]

User avatar
AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

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

Postby AnitaMaria » Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:54 pm

The document she posted has a PACER header on it with case number 13-56250, which is DOFF's anti-SLAPP appeal.

tjh
Posts: 2841
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

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

Postby tjh » Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:58 pm

Is this the first time she's done that? When she was electioneering I think she went to the wrong office. Stern would know .. infinity + 1 and all that.





[edit]She doesn't put the case numbers in any of her correspondence (filings or emails) to Judge G. Of course he knows who she is, out of the hundreds of cases in his inbox.[/edit]

User avatar
TexasFilly
Posts: 14648
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

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

Postby TexasFilly » Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:02 pm

=)) =)) =)) [sekrit]What an incessant fuck up that woman is. The Sternsig Rule in action.[/sekrit]

User avatar
magdalen77
Posts: 3654
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:43 pm
Location: Down in the cellar

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

Postby magdalen77 » Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:08 pm

Is this the first time she's done that? When she was electioneering I think she went to the wrong office. Stern would know .. infinity + 1 and all that.





[edit]She doesn't put the case numbers in any of her correspondence (filings or emails) to Judge G. Of course he knows who she is, out of the hundreds of cases in his inbox.[/edit]

If I worked in his office I'd send any such correspondence back with a note saying that I can't properly process her motion or whatever without knowing having the case number included prominently on the cover of the filing.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 5023
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

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

Postby Mikedunford » Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:17 pm

I have a couple of questions, since we're into an area of legal practice and ethics I don't know much about yet. Is there any need for a substitution to ensure the validity of the documents filed prior to the effective date of Berg's suspension? The attorneys had entered (I think) notices of appearance and were serving as Berg's PHV sponsors. My understanding is that the PHV sponsors are essentially on the hook for everything, and are just as responsible for the case as the attorney appearing PHV. Also, is there any need for a substitution at all? I thought that the one of the purposes of a PHV sponsor was so that the court (and parties) were assured of seamlessly continuing representation should the non-local counsel be unable to attend proceedings or otherwise incapacitated. To put it another way, are the nimrods in question on the hook as counsel already, given that they're the PHV sponsors?

User avatar
Dolly
Posts: 6359
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:32 pm

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

Postby Dolly » Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:22 pm

Is this the first time she's done that? When she was electioneering I think she went to the wrong office. Stern would know .. infinity + 1 and all that.

I found this. I don't know where the whole story is posted.viewtopic.php?f=24&t=5161&p=197211&hilit=butterfly#p197200

by Foggy » Thu Dec 30, 2010 6:30 amThe Butterfly Lady was referring to one of Orly's most amazing blunders -- the time she tried to take out nomination papers for Secy. of State at an LGBT lobbying group. And didn't realize it until after she published about how frustrating it was that they were closed when she got there and weren't answering their phones.

Avatar by Tal Peleg Art of Makeup https://www.facebook.com/TalPelegMakeUp

User avatar
AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

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

Postby AnitaMaria » Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:30 pm

I believe Taitz submitted that letter about the defendants' new lawyers wanting out of the case to both the 9th Circuit and the District Court. She sent it to the 9th Circuit to inform them that she (allegedly) could not properly serve the appellees because they (allegedly) do not have an attorney in the District Court case anymore and (allegedly) have not provided the court with their addresses, so she cannot send the documents directly to the Liberi and Ostella.

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 28133
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

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

Postby mimi » Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:34 pm

i give up.i can't follow. :dazed:

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 28133
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

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

Postby mimi » Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Is this the first time she's done that? When she was electioneering I think she went to the wrong office. Stern would know .. infinity + 1 and all that.

I found this. I don't know where the whole story is posted.viewtopic.php?f=24&t=5161&p=197211&hilit=butterfly#p197200

by Foggy » Thu Dec 30, 2010 6:30 amThe Butterfly Lady was referring to one of Orly's most amazing blunders -- the time she tried to take out nomination papers for Secy. of State at an LGBT lobbying group. And didn't realize it until after she published about how frustrating it was that they were closed when she got there and weren't answering their phones.

Somebody (ohhh fogbowers!) gave Spencer Kornhaber a tip about that story. OCWeekly has it:[/break1]ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2010/02/to_run_for_office_orly_taitz_t.php]http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2 ... aitz_t.phpwe talk about around this point in the forum. You'll have to go back a bit to see when it starts:viewtopic.php?f=24&t=300&p=108614&hilit=ecco#p108614.


User avatar
bob
Posts: 15823
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

Postby bob » Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:43 pm

I have a couple of questions, since we're into an area of legal practice and ethics I don't know much about yet.





Is there any need for a substitution to ensure the validity of the documents filed prior to the effective date of Berg's suspension? The attorneys had entered (I think) notices of appearance and were serving as Berg's PHV sponsors. My understanding is that the PHV sponsors are essentially on the hook for everything, and are just as responsible for the case as the attorney appearing PHV.





Also, is there any need for a substitution at all? I thought that the one of the purposes of a PHV sponsor was so that the court (and parties) were assured of seamlessly continuing representation should the non-local counsel be unable to attend proceedings or otherwise incapacitated. To put it another way, are the nimrods in question on the hook as counsel already, given that they're the PHV sponsors?

As Stern (and others) noted, Kreep's initial attempt to withdraw from the case was defective because that required a court order or consent of all the plaintiffs. [-X The judge ultimately ordered Kreep off the case (thus saving Kreep's skin), which effectively left the plaintiffs unrepresented, as Berg's PHV status was invalid without a sponsoring attorney. But the court allowed Marcus and R. Berg to come into the case without a formal substitution of counsel (from the pro pers). [-X





If Marcus and R. Berg were interested in becoming plaintiffs' counsel (which they obviously are not), it would be a minor administrative matter to have them make appearances ([/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunc_pro_tunc]nunc pro tunc if necessary).





But Taitz is getting warm to a serious issue: Who represents the plaintiffs now that there's no local counsel and P. Berg is suspended? By default, the plaintiffs have to be in pro per, which would require them to supply their addresses with the court and opposing counsel. There's more, but :-#





Taitz, of course, completely overreaches when she thinks this snafu would cause her to win her anti-SLAPP motion, or when she accuses Marcus and R. Berg of unethical or criminal behavior when they have been, at most, sloppy.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 15823
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

Postby bob » Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:58 pm

I believe Taitz submitted that letter about the defendants' new lawyers wanting out of the case to both the 9th Circuit and the District Court. She sent it to the 9th Circuit to inform them that she (allegedly) could not properly serve the appellees because they (allegedly) do not have an attorney in the District Court case anymore and (allegedly) have not provided the court with their addresses, so she cannot send the documents directly to the Liberi and Ostella.

Correct; Taitz did file her request in the district court as well: :twisted: [/break1]google.com/gview?url=http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-contentsrc="http://thefogbow.com/forum/uploads/2013/07/Letter-to-Judge-Guilford-07.24.2013.pdf&chrome=true]https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http: ... hrome=true :twisted: What Taitz filed in the 9th is useless. Taitz isn't asking it to do anything. And the original briefing schedule in the 9th still stands. Tick, tock, Taitz! -xx

tjh
Posts: 2841
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

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

Postby tjh » Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:34 pm

Correct; Taitz did file her request in the district court as well: ....

Was that from the District court's system? I see no Pacer headings. Dockets?

User avatar
bob
Posts: 15823
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

Postby bob » Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:50 pm

Correct; Taitz did file her request in the district court as well: ....

Was that from the District court's system? I see no Pacer headings. Dockets?

Good point: Taitz submitted her request to the district court. Due to the district court's prefiling restrictions on the parties, this letter will likely never make the docket, and Taitz's request for leave to file a motion of reconsidertation will be denied in a minute order.

User avatar
realist
Posts: 30871
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

Postby realist » Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:56 pm

Correct; Taitz did file her request in the district court as well: ....

Was that from the District court's system? I see no Pacer headings. Dockets?

Good point: Taitz submitted her request to the district court. Due to the district court's prefiling restrictions on the parties, this letter will likely never make the docket, and Taitz's request for leave to file a motion of reconsidertation will be denied in a minute order.

Were not all proceedings stayed for all "Taitz Defendants" in the district court? Now that she's finally won a motion (stay) she now wants to un-stay it? :-

User avatar
bob
Posts: 15823
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

Postby bob » Thu Jul 25, 2013 6:06 pm

Were not all proceedings stayed for all "Taitz Defendants" in the district court? Now that she's finally won a motion (stay) she now wants to un-stay it? :-

You act like Orlylaw is difficult:1. Obtain stay;2. Request motion to lift stay to file a motion to reconsider (with demand that it be granted!);3. Motion to reconsider granted; stay now unnecessary.4. ???5. VICTORY!!!!!...let's say the district court went nuts and gave Taitz exactly what she wanted. What would happen next?:[sekrit]An appeal ... to the 9th. Where the case already is. ](*,)[/sekrit]

User avatar
realist
Posts: 30871
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

Postby realist » Thu Jul 25, 2013 6:14 pm

Were not all proceedings stayed for all "Taitz Defendants" in the district court? Now that she's finally won a motion (stay) she now wants to un-stay it? :-

You act like Orlylaw is difficult:1. Obtain stay;2. Request motion to lift stay to file a motion to reconsider (with demand that it be granted!);3. Motion to reconsider granted; stay now unnecessary.4. ???5. VICTORY!!!!!...let's say the district court went nuts and gave Taitz exactly what she wanted. What would happen next?:[sekrit]An appeal ... to the 9th. Where the case already is. ](*,)[/sekrit]

[sekrit]Eggzakly. :roll:[/sekrit]


Return to “Phil Berg”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests