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

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10610
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

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

#3026

Post by Notorial Dissent » Fri Feb 02, 2018 1:25 am

I don't think it is that she doesn't like, I think it is that she doesn't understand what it means, unfortunately like so many other big words.


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
tek
Posts: 2597
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Happy Valley, MA
Occupation: Damned if I know

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

#3027

Post by tek » Fri Feb 02, 2018 6:38 am

Orly still has that magic... :dazed:


A truckload of bricks
In the soft morning light

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

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

#3028

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:22 am

Don't be so hard on Clounselor Orly Taitz. She's only been a lawyer for . . . 15 years.



User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14718
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)

#3029

Post by ZekeB » Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:23 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:22 am
Don't be so hard on Clounselor Orly Taitz. She's only been a lawyer for . . . 15 years.
I would posit that she hasn't been.


Ano, jsou opravdové. - Stormy Daniels

Nech mě domluvit! - Orly Taitz

User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7345
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

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

#3030

Post by raicha » Sat Feb 03, 2018 4:39 pm

ZekeB wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:23 am
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:22 am
Don't be so hard on Clounselor Orly Taitz. She's only been a lawyer for . . . 15 years.
I would posit that she hasn't been.
This. pictures or it didn't happen. Who really took that exam?



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

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

#3031

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:36 pm

Looks like Judge Guilford has ignored Taitz's emergency motion. And the parties are getting close to the pretrial conference. Taitz's lawyer, Cunningham, appears to be helping out.

Here are the latest filings. (I'm not wasting any money on them.)
Date Filed # Docket Text
02/05/2018 792 Exhibit List Pretrial 16-6 LR by plaintiff filed by Plaintiff Lisa Ostella LISA M. OSTELLA.. (Lorenzo, Jose) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/05/2018 793 MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW filed by Plaintiff Lisa Ostella LISA M. OSTELLA. (Lorenzo, Jose) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/05/2018 794 Witness List filed by Plaintiff Lisa Ostella LISA M. OSTELLA.. (Lorenzo, Jose) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/05/2018 795 Witness List filed by Defendant ORLY TAITZ.. (Cunningham, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/05/2018 796 MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW filed by Defendant ORLY TAITZ. (Cunningham, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/05/2018 797 Proposed Exhibit List filed by Defendant ORLY TAITZ.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Cunningham, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/06/2018 798 Table of Contents re: Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law 793 (Lorenzo, Jose) (Entered: 02/06/2018)

02/06/2018 799 Table of Contents filed by Defendant ORLY TAITZ re: Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law 796 (Cunningham, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/06/2018)



User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 7087
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

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

#3032

Post by Northland10 » Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:55 pm

As long as the only remaining defendant is Orly Taitz, she would have to go through the attorney or fire him (isn't he the insurance company's attorney). I get the impression she wants to play her normal vindictive bitch role, and thus needed to get DOFF back in so she could represent them.


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

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24947
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#3033

Post by bob » Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:47 pm




I'm guessing someone received some discovery demands requests. About damages, specifically.

Bonus:


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 17678
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

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

#3034

Post by RTH10260 » Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:30 pm

bob wrote:
Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:47 pm
https:// twitter.com/DrOrlyTaitzEsq/status/972508489644875776
https:// twitter.com/DrOrlyTaitzEsq/status/972508369117265920

I'm guessing someone received some discovery demands requests. About damages, specifically.

Bonus:
https:// twitter.com/Crittersbybritt/status/972521065510526977
Hmmm - what about all those disfunct domain names up for sale? Time to sue a webmaster where any piece of evidence has taken its way to electronic nirwana :?:

PS. Just how many of her former followers are following her tweets anyhow, why not chose the owned websites for that :?:



User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 17678
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

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

#3035

Post by RTH10260 » Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:42 pm

bob wrote:
Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:47 pm
https:// twitter.com/DrOrlyTaitzEsq/status/972508489644875776
https:// twitter.com/DrOrlyTaitzEsq/status/972508369117265920

I'm guessing someone received some discovery demands requests. About damages, specifically.

Bonus:
Hey, look out, our lost member Litlebritdifrnt2 is still going strong as @Crittersbybritt :!:



User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 2648
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

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

#3036

Post by woodworker » Sun Mar 11, 2018 3:45 pm

bob wrote:
Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:47 pm



I'm guessing someone received some discovery demands requests. About damages, specifically.

Bonus:
I posted:

I can ask my accountant to check contributions I made to 501(c)(3) and other tax exempts. Would your entities be included in those?


Pence / Haley -- 2020 "I Won't Call Her Mother" and "We Will Be The Best Team Ever, But Never Alone Together"

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14718
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)

#3037

Post by ZekeB » Sun Mar 11, 2018 3:59 pm

woodworker wrote:
Sun Mar 11, 2018 3:45 pm
I posted:

I can ask my accountant to check contributions I made to 501(c)(3) and other tax exempts. Would your entities be included in those?
You posted to her? I thought we already determined that her DFF was not a tax exempt. :)


Ano, jsou opravdové. - Stormy Daniels

Nech mě domluvit! - Orly Taitz

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

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

#3038

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Mar 11, 2018 4:29 pm

I think Woodworker was zetzing her.



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10610
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

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

#3039

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sun Mar 11, 2018 4:34 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Sun Mar 11, 2018 4:29 pm
I think Woodworker was zetzing her.
Like she'd figure it oout?


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

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

#3040

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Mar 11, 2018 5:47 pm

By the way, assembling evidence on the eve of trial doesn't work where there has been discovery. In this case have the parties exchanged information under Rule 26, F.R.Civ.P.? If so, did Taitz identify all those people she's now asking to contact her. (A rhetorical question, obviously.) Haven't the pre trial conference statements been filed -- also with disclosures of witnesses and evidence?

Taitz may be watching too much Bull on CBS, where the trial occurs a couple of weeks after the case is filed, no depositions ever get taken, discovery is a cable channel and the witnesses are surprises to both sides.

I hope Taitz gets lots of people contacting her and that she Kobachs the admission of their "testimony." (It will also probably be inadmissible hearsay. But, hey, who's counting. It took Taitz 4 years to learn how to sign her name on an ECF-filed pleading. Yes, "/s/ Orly Taitz," was that hard.)



User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 7087
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

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

#3041

Post by Northland10 » Sun Mar 11, 2018 6:03 pm

For Completeness, the latest orders in Chambers

13 Feb 2017
MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re Letters and Filings by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: For reasons previously stated, including the lateness of the counter-complaint and its claims, the Court DENIES this request. (Dkt. No 791 - Northland10- this was her "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"). The Court DENIES Taitz's requests for leave to file an anti-SLAPP motion or any other motion to dismiss or strike the complaint. The Court DENIES the pending discovery requests and QUASHES any purportedly outstanding discovery. The Court ORDERS the parties to file their respective motions for summary judgment, including any arguments concerning damages, by no later than March 30, 2018. The Court DENIES all other requests presented in the parties' various letters. The Court DENIES the pending pretrial motions, including the various motions in limine. The Court VACATES the pretrial conference and jury trial dates. See document for further information. (lwag) (Entered: 02/13/2018)
27 Feb 2017
Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER RE LETTER CONCERNING SUMMARY JUDGMENT QUESTIONS

Consistent with the pretrial filing restriction in this case, Plaintiff’s counsel sent the Court a letter asking two questions concerning the upcoming summary judgment deadline: “(1) Are [the parties] to meet and confer before we file our respective MSJs? (we ask because of the peculiar situation of this case). (2) Is plaintiff’s lawyer required to file declaration about exhibits?”

Concerning the meet and confer requirement: yes, the parties must meet and confer before filing their motions for summary judgment under Local Rule 7-3. The Court ORDERS the parties to discuss settlement during the meeting.

Concerning the declaration question: the parties must follow the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including the procedures listed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) and the requirements of Local Rules 56-1 through 56-3.
The various letters referred to by Judge were probably these on the docket (placed under spoiler due to the number of filings, it gets long). Her counsel has been busy.
► Show Spoiler


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

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24947
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#3042

Post by bob » Sun Mar 11, 2018 6:12 pm

The Court VACATES the pretrial conference and jury trial dates.
Quelle surprise.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

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

#3043

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Mar 11, 2018 7:03 pm

This after he said he wouldn't continue the trial.

Well, that didn't work.

Time to start issuing sanctions although counsel will never get it through their thick heads that they try this mess at their peril.

Taitz, by the way, was the subject of a new SLAPP and, with competent counsel, could have had a perfectly good anti-SLAPP motion based on the pleadings. But I digress.

A new trial date of Monday, April 12, 2032 seems to be in order.



User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 6139
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

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

#3044

Post by Sam the Centipede » Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:44 am

What a lot of motions! (under Northland's spoiler). It is unsettling to see Orly Taitz screeching "don't talk about meeeeeeee!" as she (or presumably her poor attorney) tries to exclude evidence about her activities and statements. We know that Taitz herself appears to have little shame and doesn't recognize any publicity as bad publicity.

My guess (based on sub-zero knowledge) is that the court now wants this Case That Wouldn't Die off its docket and is saying to the parties "sort this nonsense out yourselves; if you don't, we'll have a hearing and that will be expensive and probably not something the parties will enjoy or get satisfaction from."

Perhaps this could be considered The Last Birther Case? I know that the former president from Hawaii (you know the guy, he was president about twenty, thirty years ago, I think) isn't involved, but the dispute a direct offshoot of birther craziness. And it might become the first birther case won by a birther!!!



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 26899
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)

#3045

Post by Foggy » Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:17 am

The real problem with this case is that Phil Berg and Lisa Liberi are missing. Judge Guilford would be doing himself a yoooge favor if'n he would use court administrative funds to fly Phil and Lisa into town, give Phil pro hack vichy privileges, and turn them loose on Orly.

Hold a few hearings and make some quality YouTubes that make the insanity FUN, complete with a fright wig for the judge, and make the others wear costumes (Orly in a straitjacket, she can still screech at the top of her lungs).

And when the YouTubes have gone viral and the moment is ripe, hold a "trial" in Dodger Stadium and charge admission. This will recoup the money spent on bringing Phil and Lisa back, and generate a hefty profit for the court.

Orly vs. Berg Cagefight Smackdown - To The Death!!

Everybody knows that courts aren't adequately funded, right? So let's turn this case into a profit center and bring home the bacon!

Mmm, bacon.

Image


Welcome, seeker! There's a seeker born every minute!

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7254
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)

#3046

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:57 am

This is my second viewing of posts on this topic. Talk about going down a rabbit hole! As I read the words were going faster and faster in my brainbone and eventually surpassed 78 rpms. :dazed: :dazed: :dazed: The judge's clerk (and the judge) probably watch vigilantly for any possible reason to dismiss all the parties with extreme prejudice.


"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
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3047

Post by CalperniaUSA » Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:28 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Sun Mar 11, 2018 7:03 pm
This after he said he wouldn't continue the trial.

Well, that didn't work.

Time to start issuing sanctions although counsel will never get it through their thick heads that they try this mess at their peril.

Taitz, by the way, was the subject of a new SLAPP and, with competent counsel, could have had a perfectly good anti-SLAPP motion based on the pleadings. But I digress.

A new trial date of Monday, April 12, 2032 seems to be in order.
Hello Sterngard. Would you mind explaining the reference about a new SLAPP?

Thank you.


Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3048

Post by CalperniaUSA » Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:31 am

Foggy wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:17 am
The real problem with this case is that Phil Berg and Lisa Liberi are missing. Judge Guilford would be doing himself a yoooge favor if'n he would use court administrative funds to fly Phil and Lisa into town, give Phil pro hack vichy privileges, and turn them loose on Orly.

Hold a few hearings and make some quality YouTubes that make the insanity FUN, complete with a fright wig for the judge, and make the others wear costumes (Orly in a straitjacket, she can still screech at the top of her lungs).

And when the YouTubes have gone viral and the moment is ripe, hold a "trial" in Dodger Stadium and charge admission. This will recoup the money spent on bringing Phil and Lisa back, and generate a hefty profit for the court.

Orly vs. Berg Cagefight Smackdown - To The Death!!

Everybody knows that courts aren't adequately funded, right? So let's turn this case into a profit center and bring home the bacon!

Mmm, bacon.

Image

Bite your beak Foggy! This is the first time in 9 years I see a light at the end of the tunnel. Don't go blowing in fog[gy] on that light!


Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 26899
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)

#3049

Post by Foggy » Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:31 am

Hi, Calpernia! I'll let Sterngard answer, but good to see you again! :bighug:


Welcome, seeker! There's a seeker born every minute!

User avatar
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3050

Post by CalperniaUSA » Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:39 am

Thank you for keeping my account active, Foggy. Discovery is closed, I think it is safe for me to rear my head again.


Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

Post Reply

Return to “Phil Berg”