In re Berg (Pa. bar)

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14915
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#51

Post by Reality Check » Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:07 pm

She made Berg the victim?


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2294
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#52

Post by Res Ipsa » Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:38 am

He's no victim. When was it that she started posting the contact info for the Disciplinary Board at her house of crazy?


Thanks pal.

LM K
Posts: 8257
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:59 pm

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#53

Post by LM K » Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:42 pm

Some may remember this website: [link]Phil Berg Let Me Down,http://philbergletmedown.blogspot.com/2 ... -down.html[/link]. Phil basically did the same thing to the woman that owns the website as he did to the woman he was "representing" in 2004 and who brought a complaint to the PA State Bar.I left the following comment on the above website:I have learned that Phil Berg is undergoing disciplinary actions before the PA State Bar for failure to represent another plaintiff. You can read the PA Bar disciplinary complaint here:[/break1]scribd.com/doc/49850532/LINCOLN-v-DAYLIGHT-CHEMICAL-et-al-65-3-3-Exhibit-petition-for-discipline-against-attorney-Philip-Berg-Gov-uscourts-cacd-484804-65-3] ... 84804-65-3This document was provided in another case that has little to do with Berg (Berg wants to be a lawyer for the plaintiff but the defendant is trying to block him; it is a bunch of birther non-sense). However, you may find the above document interesting. It may be in your interest and is in the public interest to contact the PA State Bar and let them know more about your experiences with Berg.While Berg did have a disciplinary hearing on 2/23/11, the Bar is still discussing his punishment. It is not too late for you to share your experience with the PA State Bar.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34517
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#54

Post by realist » Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:53 pm

I don't believe there was a hearing on 2/23. AFAIK it was cancelled by the bar.At least on the papers, it also appears there should probably not be any disciplinary action taken, IMO.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

LM K
Posts: 8257
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:59 pm

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#55

Post by LM K » Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:56 pm

I don't believe there was a hearing on 2/23. AFAIK it was cancelled by the bar.At least on the papers, it also appears there should probably not be any disciplinary action taken, IMO.Damn! I knew that after I posted my comment I screwed up some of the info. Was the hearing canceled or rescheduled?



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34517
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#56

Post by realist » Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:03 am

I don't believe there was a hearing on 2/23. AFAIK it was cancelled by the bar.At least on the papers, it also appears there should probably not be any disciplinary action taken, IMO.Damn! I knew that after I posted my comment I screwed up some of the info. Was the hearing canceled or rescheduled?I've not heard of a reschedule, but don't know for certain. It was cancelled for 2/23.ETA: I thnk it may have been LS that mentioned a rescheduling up thread, but I've neither seen nor heard any confirming info.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

LM K
Posts: 8257
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:59 pm

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#57

Post by LM K » Thu Mar 03, 2011 4:12 am

I don't believe there was a hearing on 2/23. AFAIK it was cancelled by the bar.At least on the papers, it also appears there should probably not be any disciplinary action taken, IMO.Damn! I knew that after I posted my comment I screwed up some of the info. Was the hearing canceled or rescheduled?I've not heard of a reschedule, but don't know for certain. It was cancelled for 2/23.ETA: I thnk it may have been LS that mentioned a rescheduling up thread, but I've neither seen nor heard any confirming info.Thank you, kind sir! ;;)



User avatar
kate520
Posts: 14923
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#58

Post by kate520 » Fri Mar 04, 2011 2:30 pm

I know this isn't about the bar, but...Berg is a guest on ThomHartmann this morning. He sounds somewhat impaired... and stupid, but that's a given.I suspect Hartmann is trying to get to the bottom of the birther issue. Why though is he pandering to the nuts? He actually treateD Berg as though he had something important to say! He did bring up the pigeons, though, and conflated his joke about pigeons being robots from the planet Zenu with what Berg and the birthers are saying.


DEFEND DEMOCRACY

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#59

Post by mimi » Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:19 pm

I know this isn't about the bar, but...Berg is a guest on ThomHartmann this morning. He sounds somewhat impaired... and stupid, but that's a given.I suspect Hartmann is trying to get to the bottom of the birther issue. Why though is he pandering to the nuts? He actually treateD Berg as though he had something important to say! He did bring up the pigeons, though, and conflated his joke about pigeons being robots from the planet Zenu with what Berg and the birthers are saying.Thom needs a course in Birtherism. :-?



LindainTX
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:07 am

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#60

Post by LindainTX » Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:04 am

Berg's Disciplinary Board hearing that was postponed from Feb 23rd to a date in March has now been rescheduled for April 7th. He also appeared once again on Monday trying to get admitted Pro Hac Vice to represent Lincoln and to get the case transferred to another court, but the judge was having none of it. The judge also denied Lincoln's request for another extension to file an amended complaint against Orly.



User avatar
Highlands
Posts: 3600
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:19 am
Location: 3rd Rock From the Sun

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#61

Post by Highlands » Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:46 am

Berg's Disciplinary Board hearing that was postponed from Feb 23rd to a date in March has now been rescheduled for April 7th. He also appeared once again on Monday trying to get admitted Pro Hac Vice to represent Lincoln and to get the case transferred to another court, but the judge was having none of it.





The judge also denied Lincoln's request for another extension to file an amended complaint against Orly.The funny thing is that even though Phil was denied his Pro Hac Vice application, he at least attempted to follow through with it which is way more than we can say for Orly Taitz.




Edit: Also, too. Linda, you seem to be posting little tidbits of info about Phil's bad behavior in order to turn us against him. NEWSFLASH: We already are against him for numerous reasons; mainly because he was there in the beginning of this birther batshittery and instigated much of it. We actually want nothing more than to see all sides of the birther bugfuckery lose. Quit trying so hard.


If you took out all of the blood vessels in your body and lined them up, you would be dead. #science

myson
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:17 pm
Location: Lagos Nigeria

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#62

Post by myson » Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:58 am



Edit: Also, too. Linda, you seem to be posting little tidbits of info about Phil's bad behavior in order to turn us against him. NEWSFLASH: We already are against him for numerous reasons; mainly because he was there in the beginning of this birther batshittery and instigated much of it. We actually want nothing more than to see all sides of the birther bugfuckery lose. Quit trying so hard.
I have to say i completely agree with this sentiment :lol: :lol: :lol:



LM K
Posts: 8257
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:59 pm

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#63

Post by LM K » Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:55 am



Edit: Also, too. Linda, you seem to be posting little tidbits of info about Phil's bad behavior in order to turn us against him. NEWSFLASH: We already are against him for numerous reasons; mainly because he was there in the beginning of this birther batshittery and instigated much of it. We actually want nothing more than to see all sides of the birther bugfuckery lose. Quit trying so hard.
=)) =)) =)) =D> =D> =D>





Linda demonstrates tremendous neediness in her attempts to further soil Berg. Such actions soil her so much more than they do Berg. Such desperation reveals a possible blackness of character in them both that, leaving anyone with little desire to listen to a word they say.





Rarely does one try so very hard to demonstrate that they are as lacking in character as the one they defame. LSB is succeeding very well in this. =D>





LSB is under the impression that we:





1) need her "insider" info (her Epic Fail on the LisaL probation hearing demonstrated how utterly useless her "insider" info is).





2) are incapable of figuring any of this out for ourselves.





3) believe that her contributions are of any benefit. Well, her comments often make me =)) , so I guess I have to concede that on occasion her contribution has some benefit!





How did we ever take down OC without LSB's help? :lol:





Oh, and LSB is the instigator of birferism. Berg just took the bait. :lol:



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34517
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#64

Post by realist » Tue May 24, 2011 11:33 am

According to my calendar Berg's disciplinary hearing was scheduled to continue today.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#65

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue May 24, 2011 11:35 am

According to my calendar Berg's disciplinary hearing was scheduled to continue today.Is Orly outside in the hallway of the hearing room?



User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 17290
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#66

Post by RTH10260 » Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:52 pm

According to my calendar Berg's disciplinary hearing was scheduled to continue today.Has any further activity been observed in Berg's case ?



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24536
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#67

Post by bob » Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:56 pm

Has any further activity been observed in Berg's case ?No new activity on the discipline board's site.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#68

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:59 pm

I sure hope the Chaleria was there. She has a lot to offer.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34517
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#69

Post by realist » Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:01 pm

I sure hope the Chaleria was there. She has a lot to offer.I don't know if it's from the PA Bar or not, but I have it on good authority that there is some "activity" re Berg. Waiting on information to be confirmed.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

neonzx
Posts: 4413
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#70

Post by neonzx » Mon Aug 15, 2011 6:10 pm

I don't know if it's from the PA Bar or not, but I have it on good authority that there is some "activity" re Berg. Waiting on information to be confirmed.http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/im ... apFoot.gif



TexasFilly
Posts: 17964
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#71

Post by TexasFilly » Mon Aug 15, 2011 6:14 pm

I don't know if it's from the PA Bar or not, but I have it on good authority that there is some "activity" re Berg. Waiting on information to be confirmed.http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/im ... oot.gifHee hee.


I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill! I believe Dr. Ford!

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34517
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#72

Post by realist » Mon Aug 15, 2011 6:17 pm

I don't know if it's from the PA Bar or not, but I have it on good authority that there is some "activity" re Berg. Waiting on information to be confirmed.http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/im ... t.gifSmall monetarily, but...








Shecktor et al v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al, Docket # 4:09-cv-01570-JEJ (MDPA), June 23, 2011 Order (Document # 63).


Sanctions: [highlight]$1,000 sanctions[/highlight] on plaintiffs for failure to comply with discovery obligations and cautioning plaintiffs that “further violations of this Court’s Orders and/or the Rules of Civil Procedure will result in harsher sanctions.”)


And there is the Holsworth case...





Holsworth et al v. Berg et al, Docket # 2:05-cv-01116 (EDPA) June 2, 2005 Order imposing sanctions (Doc # 8), July 26, 2005 Order denying motion for reconsideration (Doc # 12), affirmed, Case No. 05-4033 (3rd Cir., April 17, 2009), mandate issued, May 12, 2009 (Doc. # 60





Sanctions: Among other things, order requiring Berg to pay $10,668.78 to third party defendant against whom frivolous action was filed.





2) Holsworth et al v. Berg et al, Case No. 05-4033 (3rd Cir.), October 15, 2009 Order.





Sanctions: Berg ordered to pay $15,849.00 in attorneys fees under FRAP 38 for filing frivolous appeal.







ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#73

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Aug 15, 2011 6:49 pm

Here's a link to the court's [/break1]us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.pamd.77292/gov.uscourts.pamd.77292.63.0.pdf]Order. The plaintiff (not Berg) is ordered to pay sanctions. But it's clearly a situation where the attorney is the one causing the problems in discovery. And Berg is, indeed, plaintiff's attorney. Will Berg disclose this case? Who knows? But the Chaleria will. :mrgreen:(The case is against WalMart for a defective ladder. It was filed in state court, removed to federal court and then transferred to the current judge.)



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14915
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#74

Post by Reality Check » Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:59 am

I noticed the Birther Calendar had an entry yesterday for a disciplinary hearing for Phil Berg in PA. Does anyone know if this happened?


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34517
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#75

Post by realist » Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:31 am

I noticed the Birther Calendar had an entry yesterday for a disciplinary hearing for Phil Berg in PA. Does anyone know if this happened?There's no entry indicating it was cancelled nor rescheduled, as there was with at least one of the past hearings, so I would presume it did.208 DB 2010 10/18/2010 PETITION FOR DISCIPLINE FILED 208 DB 2010 12/13/2010 ANSWER TO PETITION FOR DISCIPLINE FILEDBY RESPONDENT 208 DB 2010 12/17/2010 HEARING SCHEDULED(02/23/2011), 09:30 AM DISTRICT II 208 DB 2010 12/17/2010 PETITION REFERRED TO HEARING COMMITTEEBARRETT, MALLON, SANTARELLI208 DB 2010 03/02/2011 HEARING RESCHEDULED(04/07/2011), 09:30 AM, DISTRICT II 208 DB 2010 05/06/2011 HEARING CONTINUED(05/25/2011), 09:30 AM, DISTRICT II 208 DB 2010 08/24/2011 POST- HEARING CONFERENCE SCHEDULED(09/19/2011), 02:00 PM, DISTRICT II 208 DB 2010 10/27/2011 ADDITIONAL HEARING SCHEDULED(11/23/2011), 09:30 AM, DISTRICT II


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Phil Berg”