Poll: LIBERI v TAITZ, How Will it End?

Post Reply

How will Liberi v Taitz end (not including an appeal of a final judgement)?

Plaintiff's proposed complaint is not "short and plain". Case dismissed. Orly walks away.
0
No votes
Plaintiff's proposed complaint is not "short and plain". Case dismissed. Orly files motions for sanctions and stuff.
6
25%
Plaintiff's complaint is accepted. Orly files a proper anti-SLAPP motion (or other dispositive motion). Case dismissed.
0
No votes
Plaintiff's complaint is accepted. Orly motions are denied. Trial happens in approximately Spring of 2018.
1
4%
Complaint is followed by "vitriolic letters, incomprehensible filings, and inconsistent requests." Court gives up and dismisses the case.
2
8%
It is October 2018 and it's still going.
15
63%
 
Total votes: 24

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 9140
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Poll: LIBERI v TAITZ, How Will it End?

#1

Post by Northland10 »

And then there were two, parties.

Bonus question for those who do not vote for the first choice:

Will the docket pass 1,000?
ABBC3_SPOILER_SHOW
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28387
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Poll: LIBERI v TAITZ, How Will it End?

#2

Post by bob »

To put a thumb on the scales, there will be no Spring 2018 trial.

Because if a valid amended complaint is filed, Taitz will SLAPP it. And denial of a SLAPP means ... another trip to the 9th!

:happyfamily:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46677
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Poll: LIBERI v TAITZ, How Will it End?

#3

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

I picked the last option - In 13 months the case is still going. However, it may be in the 9th Circuit again, either per bob's post, above, or because Liberi has appealed the dismissal. I also expect Taitz to file a cross-complaint (which, itself, will be subject to an Anti-SLAPP motion).

The sun may become a red giant before this case is over.

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2524
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Poll: LIBERI v TAITZ, How Will it End?

#4

Post by Grumpy Old Guy »

Can anyone remember what it is all about?

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28387
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Poll: LIBERI v TAITZ, How Will it End?

#5

Post by bob »

Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Can anyone remember what it is all about?
:mememe:

Taitz and her previous website manager had a dispute. Manager locked Taitz out of the site. Taitz wrote many bad things, some of which might be untrue, i.e., defamatory.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13792
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Poll: LIBERI v TAITZ, How Will it End?

#6

Post by Notorial Dissent »

Let me say as a preamble that I can't for the life of me see why this thing hasn't been staked and buried, long ago. I really really don't.

As to one of Stern's points, if the proper thing for Taitz to do is file a SLAPP then given her past track record, what is the likelihood that she will actually practice law?
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2524
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Poll: LIBERI v TAITZ, How Will it End?

#7

Post by Grumpy Old Guy »

bob wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:07 pm
Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Can anyone remember what it is all about?
:mememe:

Taitz and her previous website manager had a dispute. Manager locked Taitz out of the site. Taitz wrote many bad things, some of which might be untrue, i.e., defamatory.
Thanks Bob, Orly acting normally.

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 30366
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: District Court of Bun-Dogs
Occupation: Ugly bag of mostly water

Re: Poll: LIBERI v TAITZ, How Will it End?

#8

Post by Foggy »

The manager clearly wrote on the website that she had kicked Taitz out and was running it on her own. Then she changed the PayPal button to send money to the manager. So naturally, Taitz screamed for the next few years that the manager "stole my money". There may even have been people who were so f'in stoopid they thought clicking on the PayPal button would send money to Taitz. Inexcusable stoopidity does not mean Taitz gets the money, tho ...

.
Edit: Taitz is married to a millionaire, and spent tens of thousands on her crusade against Obama. It's not that she needed the money, it's that she used the money others gave her as a measure of her own self-worth. She shamelessly begged for money from senior citizens on a fixed income who couldn't afford it, in order to prove her popularity to herself. So when the manager got a few dollars (probably not more than a few hundred dollars), Taitz was mortally offended (and probably still is). However, calling the manager a thief was definitely defamation, because anyone with a brain and the ability to read English could see that clicking the PayPal button on the manager's website was going to send a donation to the manager, not to Taitz.
For more information, read it again.

(Fogbow on PayPal)

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13792
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Poll: LIBERI v TAITZ, How Will it End?

#9

Post by Notorial Dissent »

Taitz has one definite, unfortunate Russian trait, that of never forgetting or forgiving and no matter how small or imagined.

That she is also a small petty person doesn't help.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 9140
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Poll: LIBERI v TAITZ, How Will it End?

#10

Post by Northland10 »

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:35 am
Taitz has one definite, unfortunate Russian trait, that of never forgetting or forgiving and no matter how small or imagined.

That she is also a small petty person doesn't help.
That's why I am leaning toward choice number 2. After the false starts for the amended complaint, I leaning toward Ostella and her attorney being unable to file something that will pass the court's requirements. However, despite Taitz's supposed wish that this long thing finally be put to bed, I cannot imagine her just walking away. It's not in her nature.

I suppose that even if the court does not accept the complaint, it still could be going next October.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13792
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Poll: LIBERI v TAITZ, How Will it End?

#11

Post by Notorial Dissent »

Northland10 wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:47 am
Notorial Dissent wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:35 am
Taitz has one definite, unfortunate Russian trait, that of never forgetting or forgiving and no matter how small or imagined.

That she is also a small petty person doesn't help.
That's why I am leaning toward choice number 2. After the false starts for the amended complaint, I leaning toward Ostella and her attorney being unable to file something that will pass the court's requirements. However, despite Taitz's supposed wish that this long thing finally be put to bed, I cannot imagine her just walking away. It's not in her nature.

I suppose that even if the court does not accept the complaint, it still could be going next October.
Quite true, Taitz does not give up easily or surrender to reality. She will prolong this as long as she possibly can. Pity it isn't on her dime.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46677
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Poll: LIBERI v TAITZ, How Will it End?

#12

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

Taitz may have the ability to file a SLAPPback complaint for malicious prosecution against Berg and Liberi under California Code of Civil Procedure §425.18. Viz:
(a) The Legislature finds and declares that a SLAPPback is distinguishable in character and origin from the ordinary malicious prosecution action. The Legislature further finds and declares that a SLAPPback cause of action should be treated differently, as provided in this section, from an ordinary malicious prosecution action because a SLAPPback is consistent with the Legislature’s intent to protect the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of free speech and petition by its deterrent effect on SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) litigation and by its restoration of public confidence in participatory democracy.
(b) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1) “SLAPPback” means any cause of action for malicious prosecution or abuse of process arising from the filing or maintenance of a prior cause of action that has been dismissed pursuant to a special motion to strike under Section 425.16.
(2) “Special motion to strike” means a motion made pursuant to Section 425.16.
(c) The provisions of subdivisions (c), (f), (g), and (i) of Section 425.16, and paragraph (13) of subdivision (a) of Section 904.1, shall not apply to a special motion to strike a SLAPPback.
(d) (1) A special motion to strike a SLAPPback shall be filed within any one of the following periods of time, as follows:
(A) Within 120 days of the service of the complaint.
(B) At the court’s discretion, within six months of the service of the complaint.
(C) At the court’s discretion, at any later time in extraordinary cases due to no fault of the defendant and upon written findings of the court stating the extraordinary case and circumstance.
(2) The motion shall be scheduled by the clerk of the court for a hearing not more than 30 days after the service of the motion unless the docket conditions of the court require a later hearing.
(e) A party opposing a special motion to strike a SLAPPback may file an ex parte application for a continuance to obtain necessary discovery. If it appears that facts essential to justify opposition to that motion may exist, but cannot then be presented, the court shall grant a reasonable continuance to permit the party to obtain affidavits or conduct discovery or may make any other order as may be just.
(f) If the court finds that a special motion to strike a SLAPPback is frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to a plaintiff prevailing on the motion, pursuant to Section 128.5.
(g) Upon entry of an order denying a special motion to strike a SLAPPback claim, or granting the special motion to strike as to some but less than all causes of action alleged in a complaint containing a SLAPPback claim, an aggrieved party may, within 20 days after service of a written notice of the entry of the order, petition an appropriate reviewing court for a peremptory writ.
(h) A special motion to strike may not be filed against a SLAPPback by a party whose filing or maintenance of the prior cause of action from which the SLAPPback arises was illegal as a matter of law.
(i) This section does not apply to a SLAPPback filed by a public entity.
While there is case authority in California that the statute of limitations to file such a lawsuit is two years, Stavropoulos v. Superior Court (2016) 141 Cal.App.4th 190, 193, the state Supreme Court just tipped the applecart on August 10, 2017 by leaving that as an open question in Parrish v. Latham & Watkins. So, if Taitz is going to sue for malicious prosecution she may have to do so soon.

Another open question is when the statute begins to run: from the date of the Ninth Circuit's decision, the remittitur from that court or the District Court's subsequent action. I would suspect that the current District Court judge will find the earliest date, thus requiring Taitz to seek appellate review on that issue.

Fun fact: While Taitz is currently represented by insurance counsel nominally more capable than her -- she is utterly incompetent -- a malicious prosecution action is one for which she would either have to hire counsel or handle herself. Knowing how parsimonious Taitz is, she won't hire counsel. She'll do it herself. Which will give us at least two more years of entertainment. After a dozen years of Federal litigation experience, the only thing Taitz has learned how to do -- and that took her a long time to learn -- is how to sign her name on pleadings she files electronically. ("/s/ Orly Taitz.") And she still often botches the proper formatting of documents as specified in the rules. The rules remain a complete mystery to her.

So, as I both voted and wrote, Sol may go red giant before this case ends.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28387
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Poll: LIBERI v TAITZ, How Will it End?

#13

Post by bob »

Too, also: the latest SLAPP litigation was a mixed bag; each side won a few arguments. Which means both sides can seek attorney fees from the other.

Most sane people would just call it a wash, and walk away. But that's not our Taitz's style.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46677
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Poll: LIBERI v TAITZ, How Will it End?

#14

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

bob wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:24 am
Too, also: the latest SLAPP litigation was a mixed bag; each side won a few arguments. Which means both sides can seek attorney fees from the other.

Most sane people would just call it a wash, and walk away. But that's not our Taitz's style.
Not quite true. Plaintiffs can only recover fees if Taitz's Anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28387
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Poll: LIBERI v TAITZ, How Will it End?

#15

Post by bob »

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:27 am
bob wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:24 am
Too, also: the latest SLAPP litigation was a mixed bag; each side won a few arguments. Which means both sides can seek attorney fees from the other.

Most sane people would just call it a wash, and walk away. But that's not our Taitz's style.
Not quite true. Plaintiffs can only recover fees if Taitz's Anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous.
Ahhh, yes. And since she achieved a partial victory, it ipso facto wasn't frivolous.

Which gives Taitz even more incentive to litigate.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “Orly Taitz”