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

Johnny Foreigner
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:34 pm

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

#2576

Post by Johnny Foreigner » Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:03 pm

How do you get to be President of something that doesn't even exist?You mean like register to vote as a democrat in Hawaii?PS: Saw a photo today with Obama in a jail cell. Maybe that will calm down the birthers a bit.I wouldn't think so. It's the kind of thing that gets them all worked up as to why it isn't real.

AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

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

#2577

Post by AnitaMaria » Wed Jul 17, 2013 2:20 am

Taitz says she filed a notice of appeal of Judge Guilford's denial of her anti-SLAPP motion: :evil: [/break1]orlytaitzesq.com/?p=428409]http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=428409 :evil: filed today in the courtroom of USDC Judge Andrew Guilford and in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals[link]Direct link to document on docs.google.com,https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http: ... hrome=true[/link]

AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

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

#2578

Post by AnitaMaria » Wed Jul 17, 2013 2:29 am

Her notice is not available on [link]Recap,http://ia600605.us.archive.org/17/items ... ocket.html[/link] but I see that Judge Guilford issued another stinging rebuke last week. :roll: [link]MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS,http://ia600605.us.archive.org/17/items ... .641.0.pdf[/link] by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: ORDER DENYING PENDING REQUESTS, re minute order 227 . (twdb) (Entered: 07/15/2013)Finally, the Court notes that the parties’ actions continue to highlight the Ninth Circuit’s concern, shared by this Court, that “the parties in this case have persisted in treating the courts as a public spectacle in which they repeatedly manifest their personal dislike for one another without regard to the truth or appropriate decorum.” (Mandate, Dkt. No. 609, at 5, n.1.) The parties’ unwillingness to heed the Court’s admonition to “focus on substantive matters and to stop all the bickering” continues to frustrate the pursuit of justice. (June 26, 2013 Order, Dkt. No. 640, at 2.)

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7169
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

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

#2579

Post by Sam the Centipede » Wed Jul 17, 2013 2:35 am

Taitz says she filed a notice of appeal of Judge Guilford's denial of her anti-SLAPP motion: :evil: [/break1]orlytaitzesq.com/?p=428409]http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=428409 :evil: filed today in the courtroom of USDC Judge Andrew Guilford and in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals[link]Direct link to document on docs.google.com,https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http: ... hrome=true[/link]From page 2 of this garbage:I, Orly Taitz, counsel for DefendOurFreedoms foundation, attest that I am not able to serve plaintiffs ...I doubt that there would be much argument against that from the Fogbow. :D Except that it's usually defendants that she doesn't serve, of course.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

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

#2580

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Jul 17, 2013 3:01 am

Her notice is not available on [link]Recap,http://ia600605.us.archive.org/17/items ... ocket.html[/link] but I see that Judge Guilford issued another stinging rebuke last week. :roll: [link]MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS,http://ia600605.us.archive.org/17/items ... .641.0.pdf[/link] by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: ORDER DENYING PENDING REQUESTS, re minute order 227 . (twdb) (Entered: 07/15/2013)Finally, the Court notes that the parties’ actions continue to highlight the Ninth Circuit’s concern, shared by this Court, that “the parties in this case have persisted in treating the courts as a public spectacle in which they repeatedly manifest their personal dislike for one another without regard to the truth or appropriate decorum.” (Mandate, Dkt. No. 609, at 5, n.1.) The parties’ unwillingness to heed the Court’s admonition to “focus on substantive matters and to stop all the bickering” continues to frustrate the pursuit of justice. (June 26, 2013 Order, Dkt. No. 640, at 2.)The pursuit of justice is also frustrated by the apparent unwillingness of judge after judge to sanction those who are practically begging for it while wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in the process.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26935
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#2581

Post by bob » Wed Jul 17, 2013 3:23 am

The minute order states the district-court proceedings are stayed as to all Taitz defendants (DOFF, LoOT, etc.). (This may sound odd, but) I didn't think Taitz was counsel of record for herself.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10429
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

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

#2582

Post by Mikedunford » Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:17 am

I don't believe Taitz is counsel of record for herself. However, I believe that Judge Guilford has moved beyond giving a shit about the complexities of representation and misrepresentation in this case. If Taitz wants to stall for another couple of years while the Ninth Circuit gets another interlocutory look at the disaster, who is he to stand in the way?
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

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

#2583

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:27 am

I don't believe Taitz is counsel of record for herself. However, I believe that Judge Guilford has moved beyond giving a shit about the complexities of representation and misrepresentation in this case. If Taitz wants to stall for another couple of years while the Ninth Circuit gets another interlocutory look at the disaster, who is he to stand in the way?Hard to blame him, I suppose, but I imagine I'll find a way.

User avatar
Dolly
Posts: 14083
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:32 pm

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

#2584

Post by Dolly » Wed Jul 17, 2013 9:59 am

The appeal shows Orly as Counsel for Defend Our Freedoms Foundation.Orly Taitz represented by Jeffrey P. Cunningham, Esq. and Kim Schuman, Esq
Avatar by Tal Peleg Art of Makeup https://www.facebook.com/TalPelegMakeUp

User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7347
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

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

#2585

Post by raicha » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:18 am

I think Judge Guilford knows exactly who is who. He took the same exact action in 2011 when the first anti-SLAPP appeal was filed. See docket #404 for that minute order and reasoning. Really, why allow these morons to tie up the District Court when the entire case cannot be resolved until the appeal is complete?

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

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

#2586

Post by verbalobe » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:46 am

The minute order states the district-court proceedings are stayed as to all Taitz defendants (DOFF, LoOT, etc.). (This may sound odd, but) I didn't think Taitz was counsel of record for herself.Taitz finally achieved a STAY in a case!

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26935
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#2587

Post by bob » Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:17 pm

filed today in the courtroom of USDC Judge Andrew Guilford and in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals :twisted: [/break1]orlytaitzesq.com/?p=428409]http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=428409 :twisted:


:twisted: [/break1]google.com/gview?url=http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-contents ... hrome=true]https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http: ... hrome=true :twisted:





1. Captioned as a NOA regarding the district court's denial of DOFF/LooT's request to file an anti-SLAPP motion;


2. Claims that Taitz's counsel will file separate NOA on her behalf regarding the district court's denial of her anti-SLAPP motion;


3. Expresses intent to file a "motion/petition" writ of mandate to prevent Berg from participating; argues defendants are in pro per because there's no valid substitution of attorney. Wants the 9th to tell the district court to correct the docket!
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

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

#2588

Post by SueDB » Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:24 pm

It sound like someone is trying to run someone out of money to pursue this piece of flotsam and jetsam. Oh, don't forget to flush after the paperwork is in.
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

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

#2589

Post by AnitaMaria » Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:50 am

justia.com shows two new appeals in this case:Lisa Liberi, et al v. Orly Taitz, et alFiled: July 17, 2013 as 13-56250Defendant - Appellant,: DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC.Defendant,s: ORLY TAITZ, AKA Dr. Orly Taitz, SANKEY INVESTIGATIONS, INC., NEIL SANKEY, LAW OFFICES OF ORLY TAITZ, ORLY TAITZ, INC. and othersPlaintiff - Appellee,s: LISA LIBERI, PHILIP J. BERG, Esquire, THE LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG, LISA M. OSTELLA and GO EXCEL GLOBALCourt: Ninth Circuit > Circuit CourtType: Torts - Injury > Assault, Libel, and SlanderLisa Liberi, et al v. Orly Taitz, et alFiled: July 17, 2013 as 13-56253Defendant - Appellant,: ORLY TAITZ, AKA Dr. Orly TaitzDefendant,s: DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC., SANKEY INVESTIGATIONS, INC., NEIL SANKEY, LAW OFFICES OF ORLY TAITZ, ORLY TAITZ, INC. and othersPlaintiff - Appellee,s: LISA LIBERI, PHILIP J. BERG, Esquire, THE LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG, LISA M. OSTELLA and GO EXCEL GLOBALCourt: Ninth Circuit > Circuit CourtType: Torts - Injury > Assault, Libel, and Slander

tjh
Posts: 2938
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

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

#2590

Post by tjh » Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:02 pm

Two filing fees? Goody !

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44731
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#2591

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:02 pm

But at least one paid for by Taitz's insurance carrier.

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 10349
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

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

#2592

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:21 pm

Defendant - Appellant,: ORLY TAITZ, AKA Dr. Orly TaitzAN ALIAS!!!!

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 33864
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

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

#2593

Post by Addie » Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:39 pm

Truer words were never spoken. The pursuit of justice is also frustrated by the apparent unwillingness of judge after judge to sanction those who are practically begging for it while wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in the process.
Democracy is a garden that has to be tended. -Barack Obama

AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

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

#2594

Post by AnitaMaria » Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:24 am

Taitz posted on her blog a motion for reconsideration of Judge Guilford's denial of her anti-SLAPP motion. She is accusing the two lawyers who recently appeared in this case of improperly submitting an opposition to her anti-SLAPP when they weren't officially representing anyone in the case. After all the trouble that she has caused herself in this case because of things she posted on her blog, a reasonably intelligent primate (which she is not) would have figured out that posting this stuff on her web site is not a good idea. But Orly Taitz has not figured that out yet.[link]Link to motion on google docs,https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http: ... hrome=true[/link].

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

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

#2595

Post by Highlands » Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:57 am

I'm starting to think that I will be dead before this ridiculous case takes its last breath.
If you took out all of the blood vessels in your body and lined them up, you would be dead. #science

rosy
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:36 pm

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

#2596

Post by rosy » Thu Jul 25, 2013 6:09 am

Homo sapiens will have evolved into a whole new species by the time this case is over.

TexasFilly
Posts: 18207
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

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

#2597

Post by TexasFilly » Thu Jul 25, 2013 7:20 am

I'm starting to think that I will be dead before this ridiculous case takes its last breath. :P Since you are a mere child in this community, that doesn't give the rest of us much hope. ?(
I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill! I believe Dr. Ford!

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 3300
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 4:05 pm

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

#2598

Post by Jim » Thu Jul 25, 2013 8:14 am

I'm starting to think that I will be dead before this ridiculous case takes its last breath. :P Since you are a mere child in this community, that doesn't give the rest of us much hope. ?(The question is, will this case die even if there's no more Orly? :-k

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44731
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#2599

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:10 am

Hasn't Taitz appealed the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion and the court stayed the case as to her (again)? If so, how does the district court have jurisdiction of a motion for reconsideration?It seems pretty obvious to me that any jurisdiction in this matter is now in the Court of Appeals. But Taitz is (once again) litigating (or seeking to litigate) a case in the district court after she has made a motion to stay in the district court (this one successfully). In other words, in Orlylaw an order staying proceedings only applies to Taitz's opponents.I look forward to another withering reply from Judge Guilford. But since sanctions will not accompany it, the court's order will be entirely toothless.

AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

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

#2600

Post by AnitaMaria » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:50 am

Filed in the 9th circuit :evil: [/break1]orlytaitzesq.com/?p=429099]http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=429099 :evil: She filed something informing the court that the plaintiffs (allegedly) do not have an attorney and she cannot serve them individually because they have not provided their addresses. She also includes a letter from attorneys Randy Berg and Stephen Marcus requesting that they be relieved as counsel for the plaintiffs, alleging that Phil Berg has refused to sign the form for substitution of attorney. They also say that he has not been communicating with them sufficiently and they have not been able to reach an agreement on the terms of their representation. [link]Link to document on google docs,https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http: ... hrome=true[/link]

Post Reply

Return to “Phil Berg”