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

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6412
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

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

#3001

Post by Northland10 » Thu Dec 28, 2017 8:17 pm

The judge struck the counterclaim from the docket:
Defendant Taitz’s filing is late, includes claims concerning parties long since dismissed from this case, does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13, and was filed without the Court’s leave. (See Dkt. No. 227.) For these and other reasons, the Court STRIKES the “Counterclaim and Third Party Complaint” (Dkt. No. 753.) The Court also DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim and third party complaint. (Dkt. No. 767.) The Court VACATES the December 18, 2017 hearing on the motion to dismiss.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... .774.0.pdf

One of the terminated parties was her Foundation but she included them as the plaintiff.

Of course, she appealed.

Not much is available from the appeal but we do have the questionnaire that she submitted.
Ostella v taitz appeal questions.pdf
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 7377
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

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

#3002

Post by Orlylicious » Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:05 pm

:lol: Nailed it!

chaos.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43110
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#3003

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:50 pm

I haven't read this stuff yet, but I suspect the appeal will be dismissed since there is no final judgment yet.

Poor Orly Taitz. Still can't do anything right.



User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 7377
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

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

#3004

Post by Orlylicious » Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:31 pm

:lol: Stern this really calls for a return of your STERNSIG signature block, this baby is textbook STERNSIGGING and it's only page one :lol:

Sternsigged.JPG

Has Orly Taitz been disbarred?
Will Orly Taitz be disbarred?
What results does Google give to the question, "Orly Taitz Disbarred?"
Has Orly Taitz been disbarred?
Will Orly Taitz be disbarred?
What results does Google give to the question, "Orly Taitz Disbarred?"
Has Orly Taitz been disbarred?
Will Orly Taitz be disbarred?
What results does Google give to the question, "Orly Taitz Disbarred?"
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43110
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#3005

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:37 pm

Agreed. :lol: And the appeal, if it is an appeal as opposed to a writ, is not yet ripe and will be dismissed. If it's a petition for a writ of mandate, it's also destined to be denied.

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

Judge Guilford is very wise.



User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 7377
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

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

#3006

Post by Orlylicious » Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:46 pm

And this, this! :rotflmao: What does Orly Taitz think when she reads this? Will Mr. Green motivate them?

Looming Sanctions.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43110
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#3007

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:12 am

Taitz will be undeterred. She is both stupid and vindictive. A fatal combination. Just ask Charles E. Lincoln, III.



User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 15884
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

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

#3008

Post by RTH10260 » Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:17 am

Orlylicious wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:46 pm
And this, this! :rotflmao: What does Orly Taitz think when she reads this? Will Mr. Green motivate them?


Looming Sanctions.JPG
Yeah - that hidden threat ... "continue with haphzard practices in this court " :lol:



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34345
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#3009

Post by realist » Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:05 am

the world is a different place since this case began
:rotflmao:

I put that remark right up there with Judge Land's Alice in Wonderland comment.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 7377
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

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

#3010

Post by Orlylicious » Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:43 pm

:rotflmao: Realist I thought exactly the same thing, that's hilarious!

The Sternsig rule: When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do it.



User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6412
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

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

#3011

Post by Northland10 » Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:50 pm

Orlylicious wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:43 pm
realist wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:05 am
the world is a different place since this case began
:rotflmao:

I put that remark right up there with Judge Land's Alice in Wonderland comment.
:rotflmao: Realist I thought exactly the same thing, that's hilarious!

The Sternsig rule: When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do it.
The world may change, but the Sternsig rule remains constant and unwavering.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6412
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

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

#3012

Post by Northland10 » Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:07 pm

No brief has been filed yet but the appellee (Lisa Ostella) has filed this:



There were also various "additional documents" but the first one, at 123, made me decide, "Nope, not buying it."


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6412
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

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

#3013

Post by Northland10 » Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:12 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:50 pm
I haven't read this stuff yet, but I suspect the appeal will be dismissed since there is no final judgment yet.

Poor Orly Taitz. Still can't do anything right.
Don't you just hate being right?
Before: REINHARDT, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the order challenged in the appeal is not final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

All pending motions are denied.

DISMISSED.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6412
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

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

#3014

Post by Northland10 » Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:17 pm

In other news, there was a settlement conference but, surprisingly, no settlement was reached. There was a joint notice filed afterward attesting that both counsels engaged in good faith at the conference.

Since DOFF is no longer a party, IIRC, that would mean that Orly is representing nobody, including herself. That would explain why there was good faith.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43110
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#3015

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:44 pm

Northland10 wrote:
Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:12 pm
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:50 pm
I haven't read this stuff yet, but I suspect the appeal will be dismissed since there is no final judgment yet.

Poor Orly Taitz. Still can't do anything right.
Don't you just hate being right?
Before: REINHARDT, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the order challenged in the appeal is not final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

All pending motions are denied.

DISMISSED.
:-

The full docket in the 9th Circuit is hilarious. So much activity completely for naught. Clounselors at law on both sides of this legal abomination.
12/19/2017 1
16 pg, 1.08 MB DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Mediation Questionnaire due on 12/26/2017. Transcript ordered by 01/12/2018. Transcript due 02/12/2018. Appellants Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. and Orly Taitz opening brief due 03/23/2018. Appellee Lisa M. Ostella answering brief due 04/23/2018. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [10695690] (RT) [Entered: 12/19/2017 11:39 AM]

12/23/2017 2
2 pg, 306.27 KB Filed (ECF) Appellants Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. and Orly Taitz Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 12/23/2017. [10702402] [17-56906] (Taitz, Orly) [Entered: 12/23/2017 10:48 AM]

12/26/2017 3
2 pg, 1.53 MB Filed (ECF) Appellee Lisa M. Ostella Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 12/26/2017. [10702436] [17-56906] (Lorenzo, Jose) [Entered: 12/26/2017 07:26 AM]

12/29/2017 4
189 pg, 33.37 MB Filed (ECF) Appellee Lisa M. Ostella Urgent Motion for summary affirmance. Date of service: 12/29/2017. [10707650] [17-56906] --[COURT UPDATE: Attached searchable version of motion. 12/29/2017 by TYL] (Lorenzo, Jose) [Entered: 12/29/2017 11:37 AM]

01/08/2018 5
26 pg, 88.44 KB Filed (ECF) Appellants Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. and Orly Taitz response opposing motion ([4] Motion (ECF Filing), [4] Motion (ECF Filing) motion for summary affirmance). Date of service: 01/08/2018. [10717287] [17-56906] (Taitz, Orly) [Entered: 01/08/2018 04:40 PM]

01/11/2018 6
26 pg, 1.27 MB Filed (ECF) Appellants Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. and Orly Taitz Motion for miscellaneous relief [Motion to disqualify counsel]. Date of service: 01/11/2018. [10722338] [17-56906] --[COURT UPDATE: Updated docket text to reflect content of filing. 1/16/2018 by TYL] (Taitz, Orly) [Entered: 01/11/2018 04:18 PM]

01/12/2018 7
15 pg, 6.41 MB Filed (ECF) Appellee Lisa M. Ostella reply to response (). Date of service: 01/12/2018. [10724237] [17-56906] --[COURT UPDATE: Attached searchable version of reply. 1/16/2018 by TYL] (Lorenzo, Jose) [Entered: 01/12/2018 04:55 PM]

01/15/2018 8 Filed (ECF) Streamlined request for extension of time to file Opening Brief by Appellants Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. and Orly Taitz. New requested due date is 04/23/2018. [10724423] [17-56906] (Taitz, Orly) [Entered: 01/15/2018 02:44 PM]

01/16/2018 9
5 pg, 1.82 MB Filed (ECF) Appellee Lisa M. Ostella response opposing motion ([6] Motion (ECF Filing), [6] Motion (ECF Filing) motion to disqualify counsel). Date of service: 01/16/2018. [10724459] [17-56906] --[COURT UPDATE: Attached searchable version of response and updated docket text to reflect content of filing. 1/16/2018 by TYL] (Lorenzo, Jose) [Entered: 01/16/2018 06:17 AM]

01/16/2018 10 Streamlined request [8] by Appellants Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. and Orly Taitz to extend time to file the brief is approved. Amended briefing schedule: Appellants Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. and Orly Taitz opening brief due 04/23/2018. Appellee Lisa M. Ostella answering brief due 05/23/2018. The optional reply brief is due 21 days from the date of service of the answering brief. [10724525] (SB) [Entered: 01/16/2018 08:20 AM]

01/19/2018 11
5 pg, 312.54 KB MEDIATION CONFERENCE SCHEDULED - Assessment Conference, 01/30/2018, 10:00 a.m. PACIFIC Time. The briefing schedule previously set by the court remains in effect. See order for instructions and details. [10730864] (BS) [Entered: 01/19/2018 01:19 PM]

01/23/2018 12
22 pg, 897.94 KB Filed (ECF) Appellants Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. and Orly Taitz reply to response (). Date of service: 01/23/2018. [10735891] [17-56906] (Taitz, Orly) [Entered: 01/23/2018 10:48 PM]
01/24/2018 13

1 pg, 320.24 KB Filed order (STEPHEN REINHARDT, RICHARD A. PAEZ and CARLOS T. BEA): A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the order challenged in the appeal is not final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are denied. DISMISSED. [10737205] (AF) [Entered: 01/24/2018 03:26 PM]
All I can say is "Thank you Foogie for stirring up the loons in this case."



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43110
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#3016

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:12 pm

I've obtained the motion for summary affirmance and the motion to disqualify counsel.

The motion for summary affirmance mentions, as a throw away comment, on page 16 of the 17 page motion, that there is no final judgment. But, bizarrely, J.B. Lorenzo ends that section of his motion (at page 17) with this sentence (in boldfaced type):
Taitz waited 8-1/2 years to bring forth all her CC/TPC claims, and should
have respected the time limitations for each.
Whatever the hell that means. Clounselor at law indeed.

Taitz, representing herself on her motion to disqualify Lorenzo, claims he's committed a fraud on the courts because he hasn't been admitted pro hac vice and he violated court rules (not properly seeking leave of Judge Guilford to file motions), thus -- according to Taitz -- somehow disqualifying himself from obtaining pro hac vice status. Once again, Taitz has no idea what the word "fraud" means. But we have to cut her some slack. She's only been crapticing law for 15 years.

As for the format of her papers, they are up (down?) to her usual standards. In two words, "a mess."

Clounselor at law is too good for the Chaleria.

I'm looking forward to lots of sanctions when Judge Guilford hears this case, assuming it gets that far. :popcorn:

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



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 25604
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

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

#3017

Post by Foggy » Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:16 pm

Sooper Grump wrote:All I can say is "Thank you Foogie for stirring up the loons in this case."
Oh, no you don't. :fingerwag:

No, sir.

As you very well know, it was rikker who caused this mess. He's the genius who pretended to be Ted Nugent and got Linda Starr and Lisa Liberi at each other's throats over the best way to get Uncle Ted to pull out his wallet and fund Phil Berg, which led to Phil Berg throwing Linda under the bus, which caused Linda to go running to Orly with the news that Lisa had 10 felony convictions for real estate fraud, which caused Orly to start blabbing about Phil and Lisa, which caused Phil to start this lawsuit.

Rikker gave me permission to tell the whole story years ago, and I did somewhere around here.

I had nothing to do with it. Well, except I was a Witness to History. :towel:


... and how does that make you feel?
What is it you are trying to say?
:think:

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43110
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#3018

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:21 pm

:o



User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 6108
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

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

#3019

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:38 pm

rikker may have done all those dastardly deeds, but no way he will be convicted if the jury sees his baby picture (AKA the CUTEST baby picture in the UNIVERSE). :fingerwag:


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 25604
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

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

#3020

Post by Foggy » Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:52 pm

Oh, rikker always gets away clean. He's a sooper genius. They'll never be able to touch him. Besides, all he did was pretend to be Ted Nugent and pretend he was thinking about birtherism. That's not a crime, exactly. :lol:


... and how does that make you feel?
What is it you are trying to say?
:think:

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 7377
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

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

#3021

Post by Orlylicious » Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:45 am

Foggy this is hilarious. Wouldn't it save a lot of time and money for Good Authority to send this to the judge since this is the real story? :lol:

As you very well know, it was rikker who caused this mess. He's the genius who pretended to be Ted Nugent and got Linda Starr and Lisa Liberi at each other's throats over the best way to get Uncle Ted to pull out his wallet and fund Phil Berg, which led to Phil Berg throwing Linda under the bus, which caused Linda to go running to Orly with the news that Lisa had 10 felony convictions for real estate fraud, which caused Orly to start blabbing about Phil and Lisa, which caused Phil to start this lawsuit.

Nah let's see it go another nine years! :thumbs: C'mon Rikker stir em back up, you can be James Woods now :P



User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6412
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

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

#3022

Post by Northland10 » Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:59 pm

She does not like the word no.
01/29/2018 791 Emergency EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to file Proposed Amended Counter-Complaint against Counter-Defendant Lisa Ostella filed by counter-plaintiffs DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC., ORLY TAITZ. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Amended Counter-complaint) (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... .791.0.pdf

The "Exhibit"

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... .791.1.pdf


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 7377
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

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

#3023

Post by Orlylicious » Fri Feb 02, 2018 12:13 am

:lol: Or even THINKING about her!

Prayer.JPG

:lol: The full Prayer:


Prayer For Relief.JPG


Your Counter is right this way, doll. :P



You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43110
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#3024

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Feb 02, 2018 12:22 am

Taitz forgot:

Image



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14549
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

#3025

Post by Reality Check » Fri Feb 02, 2018 12:26 am

Yogi Berra is turning over in his grave. :rotflmao:


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

Heather Heyer, November 2016

Post Reply

Return to “Phil Berg”