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

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34030
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#1

Post by realist » Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:28 pm

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!





Docket Sheet for the now-transferred Liberi v Taitz...





UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Southern Division - Santa Ana)


CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW





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: Diversity03/29/2011 170 NOTICE of RECEIPT OF CASE TRANSFERRED IN. CV18 - attached. (ade) (Entered: 03/29/2011)OMG!!!!








BREATHE








BWAHAHAHA!!








OH.. OH... OH





=)) =)) =)) =)) =))


ImageX 4 (have met 36 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 14072
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

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

#2

Post by Suranis » Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:42 pm

Whats significant about Guilford? *Glow of ignorance*


"I think its pretty troubling when a backyard decoration comes out swinging harder against Nazis than the President of the United States." - Stephen Colbert

User avatar
bob
Posts: 22248
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#3

Post by bob » Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:45 pm

Whats significant about Guilford?The CEL3 v. Taitz judge.





Who did he piss off?


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 14072
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

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

#4

Post by Suranis » Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:46 pm

Oh, my dear Divine Lord. :shock:


"I think its pretty troubling when a backyard decoration comes out swinging harder against Nazis than the President of the United States." - Stephen Colbert

poutine
Posts: 2925
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:30 pm

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

#5

Post by poutine » Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:49 pm

However, the docket indicates that the case has been assigned to a magistrate for initial proceedings, no? We don't do that in the Arizona district so I'm not sure how to read that docket language.



User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7761
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Edmonds. WA
Contact:

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

#6

Post by PatGund » Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:51 pm

(Setting in an Orange County Courthouse)(SOUND OF UNEARTHLY SCREAMING IN HORROR, followed by running feet to Judge Guilford's chambers)Judge Carter - "Dude! What's wrong??"Judge Guilford - "What's wrong? WHAT'S WRONG?? Look at this Docket!!" (Throws docket at Carter's feet)(Carter picks it up, begins reading)Carter - (Wince) "You got the Nitrous Queen? Oh, dude, I am SO sorry."Guilford - "You're sorry! I've got her, that Philip Berg dweeb from back east, and that lump she screwed around with in one case already. And now I get another round of their crazy soap opera??"Carter - "That lump? You mean the disbarred con artist? Yeah, he wrote the briefs I had to trudge though when she was in my courtroom. I had heard they were doing the horizontal tango"Guilford - "Don't I know it! I have to READ though more about their sex life then humankind ever wanted to know about. There's not enough in the world to overcome the image of a water-pik used like that!"Carter - "Oh thanks. Mrs. Carter thanks you for nuking my little judge's gavel for the next two weeks. Yeesh"Guilford - "Yeah, no kidding. And now I've got them and that truther nutball with the beard. You know, the one that looks like some hairy fungus is eating his jaw? I thought I dealt with him by saying no to his Pro Hac Vice request, but not he's the freaking plaintiff!!"Carter - "I'd say better you than me, since I got her three-ring circus with that Kreep guy a while back"Guilford - (Moans) "Oh, don't get me started on the Kreepy guy. He's bound to show up as well.Carter - "Hey look, let me talk to my legal clerk, okay? He pulled some strings to get the nitrous queen's case thrown out. I'll see what he can do for you".Guilford - "Really? Thanks, I owe you big time!"



User avatar
bob
Posts: 22248
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#7

Post by bob » Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:52 pm

I would guess it was not accidental; similar cases are often assigned to the same judge in the interest of judicial economy.





Obviously, the claims are different, but a computer with a sense of humor prolly noted similar parties....








Cases are assigned to a magistrate and a district judge. The magistrate is to handle the more "routine" matters (discovery, etc.) and make recommendations on dispositive matters. (Did someone in CEL3 not consent to appearing before a magistrate?)


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

poutine
Posts: 2925
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:30 pm

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

#8

Post by poutine » Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:53 pm

There's not enough in the world to overcome the image of a water-pik used like that! ?(



poutine
Posts: 2925
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:30 pm

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

#9

Post by poutine » Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:55 pm

I would guess it was not accidental; similar cases are often assigned to the same judge in the interest of judicial economy.





Obviously, the claims are different, but a computer with a sense of humor prolly noted similar parties....








Cases are assigned to a magistrate and a district judge. The magistrate is to handle the more "routine" matters (discovery, etc.) and make recommendations on dispositive matters. (Did someone in CEL3 not consent to appearing before a magistrate?)Got it, thanks. In our district it's only assigned to a district judge. Days or weeks into the case, a magistrate consent form is sent out. Unless I dislike the judge, I always reject it.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34030
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#10

Post by realist » Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:56 pm

Cases are assigned to a magistrate and a district judge. The magistrate is to handle the more "routine" matters (discovery, etc.) and make recommendations on dispositive matters. [highlight](Did someone in CEL3 not consent to appearing before a magistrate?)[/highlight]Not to my knowledge."Someone" in another case did or tried to. Pammy Barnett maybe?Orly, in Barnett v Obama objected to the magistrate involved in that case but Judge Carter told her to STFU and fahgedaboudit.


ImageX 4 (have met 36 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34030
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#11

Post by realist » Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:24 pm

I thought we might see a recusal, first thing outta da box, but no, Judge Guilford is anxious and eager to get 'er goin'.





New Docket Entry...





03/29/2011 [link]171,[/link] ORDER Re Early Meeting of Parties and Scheduling Conference by Judge Andrew J. Guilford. Scheduling Conference set for 6/6/2011 at 09:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (ade) (Entered: 03/29/2011)


ImageX 4 (have met 36 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

twinx
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 7:45 am

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

#12

Post by twinx » Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:32 pm

Carter - "Oh thanks. Mrs. Carter thanks you for nuking my little judge's gavel for the next two weeks. Yeesh" =)) =)) =))



brygenon
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:42 pm

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

#13

Post by brygenon » Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:48 pm

Questions for lawyers: Where does this leave Phil Berg? Does he have to again petition Judge Guilford to appear pro hac vice if he wants to go on representing the other plaintiffs? He was already their attorney, before the transfer, so is he more likely to be granted permission this time?





Representing all the plaintiffs while being a plaintiff himself strikes me as a possible conflict of interests. Is that likely to bother the Court?



User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7318
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

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

#14

Post by raicha » Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:41 pm

Questions for lawyers: Where does this leave Phil Berg? Does he have to again petition Judge Guilford to appear pro hac vice if he wants to go on representing the other plaintiffs? He was already their attorney, before the transfer, so is he more likely to be granted permission this time?





Representing all the plaintiffs while being a plaintiff himself strikes me as a possible conflict of interests. Is that likely to bother the Court?He's not a member of the California bar, so he can't apply for regular admission here, AFAIK. That leaves pro hac vice if he plans to continue representing the other plaintiffs. (He can always appear pro per for himself.)





He's no more acceptable now than he was last week or the week before. Bringing this crazy train to town only reinforces that.





If he is able to, he ought to bring in California co-counsel to represent the plaintiffs. But most sane lawyers wouldn't touch this. It's too much cuckoo for too little cash.





Tis a quandary.



Lea
Posts: 583
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:20 am

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

#15

Post by Lea » Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:43 pm

Oops I saw this thread after I had already posted that I was glad the case was finally transfered and now all we had to do was wait to see what Courts got it and what Judges it was assigned to. I see that Califorfnia had already assigned it and that Judge Gilford is the Judge. Now if Texas will will hurry up and docket it then I will know where the Court is and who the Judge is.



User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 14072
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

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

#16

Post by Suranis » Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:51 pm

Yeah. I'll bet you will be glad then this is finally done and dusted, regardless of the verdict. Its yet another lump on the pile of things you don't need right now.


"I think its pretty troubling when a backyard decoration comes out swinging harder against Nazis than the President of the United States." - Stephen Colbert

User avatar
Paul Lentz
Posts: 3661
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:56 pm
Location: Downtown O-town

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

#17

Post by Paul Lentz » Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:21 pm

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!





Docket Sheet for the now-transferred Liberi v Taitz...





UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Southern Division - Santa Ana)


CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW





LIBERI et al v. TAITZ et al


Assigned to: Judge Andrew J. Guilford





Sweet Baby Jesus, Mary and Joseph!





I'm even more eager now to see how Judge Guilford handles the multiple violations of his order (in CELIII v Taitz, et al) to ask permission of the court prior to filing. If he brings down the hammer in that case, then this one should see a recusal motion (from Oily) pretty quickly...I've no doubt she'll use the template/boilerplate that CELIII prepared for her use with Land and Lazzara--I mean, that worked out so well for her. And if Judge Guilford denies recusal AND imposes a "permission to file" order for this case--with sanctions as the penalty for violations--prepare to watch Oily's head explode.





On the other hand, Berg may be first out of the box with a recusal motion. Given that Judge Guilford refused his pro hac vice application in CELIII v. Taitz, Berg won't get admitted in this case, either. Of course, even if the Berg's recusal motion was granted and the case reassigned, there's no guarantee (and I think it's unlikely) that any other judge in that district is going to grant Berg PHV admission, unless his PA disciplinary matter is resolved in his favor. And while Kreep may be happy to sponsor Berg (in CELIII v. Taitz), just for the joy of poking at Oily, there's no way, in my opinion, that he's going to take on either case as lead counsel, partly because of his health and partly because, when all this crap is over (either/both cases), Kreep still has to practice in these courts on a more regular basis.


The love of power will not win over the power of love.
Orlando, Florida 6/12/16

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7643
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

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

#18

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:56 pm

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Southern Division - Santa Ana)


CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW





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: DiversityJudge Wistrich is a former partner in Brown & Bain, now Perkins Coie Brown & Bain.


"A man has honor if he holds himself to an ideal of conduct though it is inconvenient, unprofitable, or dangerous to do so." - Walter Lippmann

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 21836
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

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

#19

Post by Addie » Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:59 pm

=))





Judge Wistrich is a former partner in Brown & Bain, now Perkins Coie Brown & Bain.


¡Qué vergüenza!

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34030
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#20

Post by realist » Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:02 pm

There's also the possibility that Berg will just be a plaintiff and not appear as counsel.Just sayin'... Hey, anything's possible. :D


ImageX 4 (have met 36 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7643
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

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

#21

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:02 pm

I don't think Orly and the magistrate judge are going to get along ...





Jail Time For HIPAA Violator





Dom Nicastro, for HealthLeaders Media, April 30, 2010





United States Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich sentenced a former UCLA Healthcare System employee who admitted snooping at patients' records to four months in prison Tuesday, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Central District of California.





Huping Zhou, 47, of Los Angeles, admitted to illegally reading private and confidential medical records, mostly from celebrities and other high-profile patients, the federal California attorney's office said in a release.





Wistrich condemned Zhou for his lack of respect for patient privacy, according to the release.[link]More,http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/conte ... A-Violator[/link]


"A man has honor if he holds himself to an ideal of conduct though it is inconvenient, unprofitable, or dangerous to do so." - Walter Lippmann

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34030
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#22

Post by realist » Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:04 pm

I don't think Orly and the magistrate judge are going to get along ...OH MY!! :shock: Good for the magistrate judge. =D>


ImageX 4 (have met 36 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7318
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

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

#23

Post by raicha » Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:06 pm

There's also the possibility that Berg will just be a plaintiff and not appear as counsel.Just sayin'... Hey, anything's possible. :D Well, yes, but he can't leave his clients hanging. If Liberi is going to chase Taitz, they need someone who can be admitted in California. Liberi ought to get working on that, as Berg is unlikely to be approved in the OC.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34030
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#24

Post by realist » Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:12 pm

There's also the possibility that Berg will just be a plaintiff and not appear as counsel.Just sayin'... Hey, anything's possible. :D Well, yes, but he can't leave his clients hanging. If Liberi is going to chase Taitz, they need someone who can be admitted in California. Liberi ought to get working on that, as Berg is unlikely to be approved in the OC.Well, there's always the Kreep. He was willing to sponsor Berg, so...I dunno, just throwing stuff out. We'll see relatively soon, I suppose.


ImageX 4 (have met 36 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 24648
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ (Rawly NC)
Occupation: Dick Tater

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

#25

Post by Foggy » Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:57 am



Karma is a bitch." - Jomas Thefferson

Post Reply

Return to “Phil Berg”