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

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 13787
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

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

Post by ZekeB » Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Foggy wrote:Where is CEL III when you really need him? :doh:
Since Yosi won't let Orly make payments on the installment plan anymore CEL III is not interested in Orly representing.

Whoops. I keep confusing my verbiage with that of another language.
Vím o prasatech hodně zajímavých věcí.

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 6404
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

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

Post by Orlylicious » Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:52 am

It's not going so well with Rule 1 :lol:
LIBERI et al v. TAITZ et al
Assigned to: Judge Andrew J. Guilford
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich
Case in other court: Pennsylvania Eastern, 2:09-cv-01898
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander
Date Filed: 03/29/2011
Jury Demand: Both
Nature of Suit: 320 Assault Libel & Slander
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Do they have anniversary parties for these kinds of matters? How many hours has this taken and for what? :towel:
From Michael Moore: RESISTANCE CALENDAR! A one-stop site for all anti-Trump actions EVERY DAY nationwide: http://resistancecalendar.org

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40879
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

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

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:09 am

The lawsuit has diverted Taitz's attention, from time to time, from some of her more destructive activities. If that's so, it's not a total loss.

TexasFilly
Posts: 16934
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

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

Post by TexasFilly » Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:05 pm

I think I got lost at about page 50 of this thread. :dazed:
I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill!

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8006
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

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

Post by Mikedunford » Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:35 pm

The judge has, perhaps, more patience than is reasonably prudent under the circumstances. There is an order that he can enter that might work to bring the case to an effective close:
► Show Spoiler
I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 13378
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm

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

Post by kate520 » Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:44 pm

:lol:
Patriotism is the last refuge of a Scoundrel.
Samuel Johnson
April 7, 1775

TexasFilly
Posts: 16934
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

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

Post by TexasFilly » Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:47 pm

Excellent Mike! For some reason, I was once in a Family Law courtroom during docket call. The female judge, encountering people who were delinquent in their child support, heard a lot of excuses and "I'mma get this paid and caught up by tomorrow Judge!" Her universal response was "OK, you will appear again in one week, and if you haven't done every thing you've promised and paid every last cent, bring your toothbrush, 'cause you will go directly to jail." It was the judicial system as I always thought it should be.

And yes, the guys (and they were all guys) who showed up from the previous week who hadn't paid were remanded into the custody of the Harris County Sheriff, with no delay.
I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill!

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 5689
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

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

Post by Northland10 » Sat Sep 30, 2017 2:39 pm

And the Judge tries again:
Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT

The Court’s efforts to streamline this case have been met, at each step, with vitriolic letters, incomprehensible filings, and inconsistent requests. The parties’ unorthodox behavior must stop. For example, a few weeks ago, Defendant Taitz accused this Court of improper bias.
But now it seems that she has withdrawn that request for recusal or disqualification. (Dkt. No. 748.) Indeed, it appears that Defendant Taitiz now recognizes that “[t]his case has been pending for over eight and [a] half years” and should come to an end. (Shumann Letter, Sept.
14, 2017.) The Court also has concerns with Plaintiff Liberi’s “proposed second amended complaint.” Among other things, the Court wonders whether Plaintiff’s counsel may appear in the Central District of California; why the proposed complaint has a “conclusion” section; why the proposed complaint is submitted “TBA”; and why such voluminous exhibits are needed at this time. Plaintiff’s counsel has one last chance to submit, within 14 days, a “short and plain” proposed complaint with only four claims for relief by Plaintiff Ostella against Defendant Taitz. (Order, Dkt. No. 744 at 5.)

The Court has reviewed all other letters and filings and DENIES all pending requests. Rather than add to the unnecessary motion practice in these proceedings, and keeping in mind Defendant Taitz’s concern that “[t]his case has been pending for over eight and [a] half years,” the parties should be thinking of an appropriate date for a 3 day trial in Spring 2018.
Nothing about bringing a toothbrush, sigh.

If the judge ends up tossing the case because the Plaintiffs cannot file an appropriate amended complaint, will Orly start dumping motions for sanctions on the court, or just let it die? She will never admit that she is as much to blame for this going on for 8 years.
North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 6404
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

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

Post by Orlylicious » Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:19 pm

Didn't Stern say like five years ago that there might be one specific action against Taitz and it was ridiculous they didn't just focus on the possible winner? :lol: Seems like that Order is underlining that idea. Go Lisa Go! :lol:
From Michael Moore: RESISTANCE CALENDAR! A one-stop site for all anti-Trump actions EVERY DAY nationwide: http://resistancecalendar.org

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40879
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

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

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:10 pm

I doubt plaintiff will be able to plead a claim at this point that is not subject to another Anti-SLAPP motion.

I hope I am proven wrong.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 5689
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

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

Post by Northland10 » Sat Sep 30, 2017 6:24 pm

With the scent of a possible end to the torture of the court, it's time for a poll.

viewtopic.php?f=63&t=10118
North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40879
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

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

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Sep 30, 2017 6:43 pm

Northland10 wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 6:24 pm
With the scent of a possible end to the torture of the court, it's time for a poll.

viewtopic.php?f=63&t=10118
Yabbut the case is just getting its second wind.

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 6404
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

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

Post by Orlylicious » Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:01 pm

The thing is, wasn't the big deal that Orly published Lisa Liberi's SSN and criminal record? Wasn't she Phil Berg's assistant? But Liberi isn't in this anymore is she, isn't it just Lisa Ostella? What's Ostella's beef? This is so crazy. :lol:
From Michael Moore: RESISTANCE CALENDAR! A one-stop site for all anti-Trump actions EVERY DAY nationwide: http://resistancecalendar.org

User avatar
bob
Posts: 21990
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

Post by bob » Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:09 pm

Orlylicious wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:01 pm
The thing is, wasn't the big deal that Orly published Lisa Liberi's SSN and criminal record? Wasn't she Phil Berg's assistant? But Liberi isn't in this anymore is she, isn't it just Lisa Ostella? What's Ostella's beef?
IIRC, Liberi is out.

Taitz did publish some people's PII and criminal records. But, IIRC, those counts didn't survive Taitz's anti-SLAPP motion.
Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 24507
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ (Rawly NC)
Occupation: Dick Tater

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

Post by Foggy » Sun Oct 01, 2017 6:02 am

There was a separate beef between Ostella and Taitz. Taitz thought her website had been hacked, for whatever stupid reason. Ostella was a professional webmaster (webmistress?) who was running the site, and she was security-conscious; she knew the website hadn't been hacked and took the claim as a slight against her ability to protect her clients' websites from hackers. Taitz was insistent and reported the "hack" to the FBI, so Ostella kicked her off the website.

Lisa Ostella had had the foresight to register the domain under her own name, so she was able to lock Taitz out quite easily. Then she wrote a blog post called "Introduction to the Internet 101" or something, where she explained it all. Best of all, she allowed us Obots to run rampant in the comments for a few days. That was the day I impersonated the Pope on Easter Sunday, explaining that the Vatican was a separate territory from Italy :eek2: (this was before HATJ dissolved the Pope).

Then Ostella -- who had made it quite clear that Taitz was gone from the website (I think it was defendourfreedoms.us or something) -- changed the PayPal button so that donations went to Ostella instead of Taitz. Taitz insisted for the next several years that it was **her** website and that Ostella was stealing **her** money from the rubes.

Phil Berg, the slimebag attorney in Philly who Liberi worked for, was following along and recruited Ostella to join in his/Liberi's lawsuit against Taitz. Ostella is a member here and we tried to convince her to dump Phil and get a real lawyer. We thought Liberi had no valid claim against Taitz, but Ostella did seem to have a pretty decent claim of defamation against Taitz for calling her a thief. But Ostella stuck with Berg far too long. I guess she has a different attorney now.

One of the funnier aspects of that was Taitz reporting the "hack" to the FBI. At the same time, of course, she was reporting the FBI to the Supreme Court for treason for not removing Obama, and she was simultaneously reporting the Supreme Court to the FBI for treason for not removing Obama. She told her followers to report everybody to everybody else. One time she had a post where she told people to report to their local police and sheriffs that Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama's mom) might still be alive and using somebody else's SSN. In all the world of the SovCits, there's nobody who's half as much a whackjob as Orly Taitz. She's the single most insane person in this great land of ours.
If dogs run free, why not we?

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8555
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

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

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:39 am

Certainly no one I can think of who has spent more money and wasted more court time tilting at a windmill that isn't even there.

Except maybe Berg and GIL who certainly give her a run for the money and court time depts to no end.
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: 5689
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

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

Post by Northland10 » Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:42 pm

Well, my guess that a short and concise complaint would not happen turned out to be wrong.
Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER ACCEPTING AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Lisa Liberi has submitted a proposed “second amended complaint,” which contains only four claims for relief against Defendant Orly Taitz. (Lorenzo Letter, Sept. 29, 2017.) Consistent with this Court’s previous order conditionally granting leave to amend, the Court ACCEPTS Plaintiff’s amended complaint. (Order, Dkt. No. 744 at 6–7.) Plaintiff shall file the amended complaint on the docket, without attaching or referencing any exhibits.

The Court has also received letters from both sides, purporting to discuss various issues like discovery violations and spoliation of evidence. Those letters aren’t in keeping with the spirit of the pre-filing restriction in this case. (Order, Dkt. No. 227 at 9.) The Court has previously directed both sides to stop submitting unnecessary documents. Still, this Court has reviewed all these letters and filings and DENIES any requested relief. As Defendant Taitz has said, “[t]his case has been pending for over eight and [a] half years” and should come to an end. (Shumann Letter, Sept. 14, 2017.)

The Court has asked the parties to start thinking about an appropriate date for a 3 day trial in Spring 2018. There has been no response. As such, a three day jury trial is now set for March 27, 2018 at 9:00 a.m., with a pre-trial conference on February 26, 2018 at 8:30 a.m.
They just can't help themselves from dumping crap on the court. I am confused about discovery violations. As far as I know, they have never gotten that far, and if they did earlier, that was all dumped for a new complaint, so how could there be violations?

The judge is so cute when he quotes Orly. Does he actually think that Orly meant anything she said? He probably uses it to remind her since she would never remember, or care.
North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40879
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

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

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:43 pm

Northie -- The parties may have exchanged discovery. Since it's not filed we wouldn't know what's been propounded. And filing an amended pleading doesn't affect what discovery has been propounded. The judge is quoting Taitz's attorney.

I will be interested in reviewing the amended complaint once it is filed to see if the lawyer for plaintiff has avoided a SLAPP. I am not hopeful. If a SLAPP has been pleaded, it would be subject to a special motion to strike and an immediate appeal. That would affect the trial date.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 5689
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

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

Post by Northland10 » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:13 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:43 pm
I will be interested in reviewing the amended complaint once it is filed to see if the lawyer for plaintiff has avoided a SLAPP. I am not hopeful. If a SLAPP has been pleaded, it would be subject to a special motion to strike and an immediate appeal. That would affect the trial date.
Ask and ye shall receive.

I look forward to your opinions on it.

Sorry for using Scribd. It is too large and Recap is being slow.
North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40879
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

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

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:34 pm

Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 21990
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

Post by bob » Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:58 am

Lisa is requesting a cool $20M from Taitz. I'm a little surprised there was not also a request for a pony.
Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
MsDaisy
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:30 pm

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

Post by MsDaisy » Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:04 am

I'm pretty sure both of them will die from extreme old age before this case finally dies.
Birfers are toast

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 13787
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

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

Post by ZekeB » Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:13 am

MsDaisy wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:04 am
I'm pretty sure both of them will die from extreme old age before this case finally dies.
Taitz would go first. Birthering has taken several dippers from her bucket of life. Does that mean she wins or does it mean she loses?
Vím o prasatech hodně zajímavých věcí.

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 12952
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

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

Post by RTH10260 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:03 am

MsDaisy wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:04 am
I'm pretty sure both of them will die from extreme old age before this case finally dies.
How many judges to preceed :?: :twisted:

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 5689
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

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

Post by Northland10 » Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:50 pm

The insurance attorney files a 28-page answer to the second amended complain. Orly files a 64 page (and an addition 58 pages of zibbits) counterclaim. She includes Ostella, Berg, and third party conterclaim defendands Shirley Waddell (Lisa Liberi's mother?), Donna Anders (the court reporter who lost pages, or something), Matthew Tilgham (I think he worked with Anders, maybe) and Third Party Roes 1-10.

We have RICO

And the judge thought he could end this thing in the spring. Hahahaha.

11/03/2017 752 ANSWER to Amended Complaint/Petition 751 filed by Defendant ORLY TAITZ. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Cunningham, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/03/2017)
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... .752.0.pdf

11/03/2017 753 First COUNTERCLAIM against Counter Defendants LISA M. OSTELLA; Yes, Jury Demanded, filed by Counter Plaintiff DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC., ORLY TAITZ. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits to counter complaint)(Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 11/03/2017)

Complaint
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... .753.0.pdf
Exhibits
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... .753.1.pdf


11/03/2017 THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT (INCLUDED IN THE COUNTERCLAIM #753) against Third Party Defendants Shirley Waddell, Donna Anders, Mathew Tilghman, Roes, filed by Third party plaintiffs DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC., ORLY TAITZ. (Attorney Marc Steven Colen added to party DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC.(pty:cc), Attorney Marc Steven Colen added to party ORLY TAITZ(pty:cc)) (twdb) (Entered: 11/06/2017)

11/07/2017 754 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Counterclaim 753 filed by Counter-plaintiffs DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC., ORLY TAITZ. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 11/07/2017)

11/07/2017 755 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Counterclaim 753 , Third Party Complaint, filed by Counter-plaintiffs and Third Party Plaintiffs DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC., ORLY TAITZ. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement summons on Donna Anders, # 2 Supplement summons on Philip Berg)(Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 11/07/2017)

11/08/2017 756 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Request to Issue Summons RE: Summons Request 754 . The following error(s) was found: The caption of the summons must match the caption of the complaint verbatim. If the caption is too large to fit in the space provided, enter the name of the first party and then write see attached.Next, attach a face page of the complaint or a second page addendum to the Summons. The summons cannot be issued until this defect has been corrected. Please correct the defect and re-file your request. (twdb) (Entered: 11/08/2017)

11/08/2017 757 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Request to Issue Summons RE: Summons Request, 755 . The following error(s) was found: The caption of the summons must match the caption of the complaint verbatim. If the caption is too large to fit in the space provided, enter the name of the first party and then write see attached.Next, attach a face page of the complaint or a second page addendum to the Summons. The summons cannot be issued until this defect has been corrected. Please correct the defect and re-file your request. (twdb) (Entered: 11/08/2017)

11/08/2017 758 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Counterclaim 753 , Third Party Complaint, filed by Counter-plaintiffs and Third Party Plaintiffs DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC., ORLY TAITZ. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 11/08/2017)

11/09/2017 759 21 DAY Summons Issued re Counterclaim 753 as to counter defendant Philip J Berg. (twdb) (Entered: 11/09/2017)

11/09/2017 760 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Counterclaim 753 filed by Counter-plaintiffs and Third Party Plaintiffs DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC., ORLY TAITZ. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 11/09/2017)

11/09/2017 761 21 DAY Summons Issued re Counterclaim 753 as to Counter Defendant LISA M. OSTELLA. (twdb) (Entered: 11/09/2017)

11/09/2017 762 21 DAY Summons Issued re Third Party Complaint, as to Third Party Defendant Donna Anders. (twdb) (Entered: 11/09/2017)

11/09/2017 763 21 DAY Summons Issued re Third Party Complaint, as to Third Party Defendant Mathew Tilghman. (twdb) (Entered: 11/09/2017)

11/09/2017 764 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Request to Issue Summons RE: Summons Request as to Lisa M. Ostella 760 . The following error(s) was found: The summons attached has Lisa Ostella in the name section. A summons has been issued as to Lisa M. Ostella. The summons cannot be issued until this defect has been corrected. Please correct the defect and re-file your request. (twdb) (Entered: 11/09/2017)

11/13/2017 765 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Counter Plaintiffs DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC., ORLY TAITZ, upon counter defendant LISA M. OSTELLA served on 11/10/2017, answer due 12/1/2017. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon husband in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at home address and by also mailing a copy.Original Summons returned. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 11/13/2017)

11/14/2017 766 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days), 765 . The following error(s) was/were found: Title page is missing. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (twdb) (Entered: 11/14/2017)
North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

Post Reply

Return to “Phil Berg”