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

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34570
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#3051

Post by realist » Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:52 am

CalperniaUSA wrote:
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.
:thumbs:


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3052

Post by CalperniaUSA » Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:53 am

Hello Realist.


Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
bob
Posts: 25250
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#3053

Post by bob » Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:26 am

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


I don't consider this a birther case because, although birthers are important players in it, it does not challenge Obama's eligibility.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43903
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#3054

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:31 am

Calpernia, among the amended claims against Taitz is that she falsely reported plaintiff to law enforcement. I previously discussed the issue after I read the amended pleading.

In California (where this allegedly false reporting was done), any report to law enforcement (or any governmental agency, for that matter) is privileged from any suit except a malicious prosecution action. Hagberg v. California Federal Bank (2004) 32 Cal.4th 350, 355:
We granted review in this case to consider whether tort liability may be imposed for statements made when a citizen contacts law enforcement personnel to report suspected criminal activity on the part of another person. As we shall explain, we agree with the trial court, the Court of Appeal, and the great weight of authority in this state in concluding that such statements are privileged pursuant to Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b) (section 47(b)), and can be the basis for tort liability only if the plaintiff can establish the elements of the tort of malicious prosecution.
The right of a person to report an alleged crime is a matter of public importance, thus invoking the first "prong" of the anti-SLAPP statute (C.C.P. § 425.16(b)(1).) Plaintiff must therefore demonstrate that she can prevail on the claim, which she cannot do here since the report is privileged from suit.

(There is another issue, relating to the fact that only part of the claim relates to privileged activity, but under a recent state Supreme Court case, the complaint is still subject to being stricken.)

If Taitz had not acted so ridiculiusly in this case the court might have allowed her to file her new anti-SLAPP motion. The court's refusal to allow her to do so may be reversible error. So this case may continue for another 3-5 years.
Edit: Ninja'd in part by bob.



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9698
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

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

#3055

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:07 am

I just looked at the docket again. I wish I hadn't. What a complete and utter shitshow.

In the time that this pack of utterly incompetent gibbering loons have been doing what, for lack of better words, we must refer to as "attempting to litigate," both my children have started and completed middle school. And started and completed high school. And started college.

Since this flaming morass of a dumpster was first dumped on the doorstep of a federal courthouse, I've gone from having no plans that involved the legal profession to applying to law school. To being admitted to law school. To completing law school. To being admitted to the bar. To completing two additional degrees in international law.

For fuck sake, the whole thing is in essentially the same procedural posture* it was in when I was a 1L. Jarndyce v fucking Jarndyce moved faster than this flaming shitburger of a case. Nine years - flipping 9 flipping actual flipping years - and the incompetent clown posse still hasn't managed to get all the way to filing summary judgment motions, let alone past that point.

And over what? A schoolyard squabble? Seriously, the single remaining plaintiff might just possibly have something that looks like a cause of action, if it's squinted at from the right angle at exactly the right time of day, but everyone involved is so catastrophically unsympathetic that it's easy to imagine that the eventual, and possibly as-yet-unborn, jurors might just find for plaintiff and award $1 in damages.

Please, just make it stop already.




*Prone, near death, sucking pond water.


"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.

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

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

#3056

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:20 pm

Mike, did Orly cause you to go into law? That might be a positive contribution from her.



User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 6194
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

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

#3057

Post by Sam the Centipede » Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:49 pm

Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:20 pm
Mike, did Orly cause you to go into law? That might be a positive contribution from her.
Yes, Mike is being rather ungrateful to his guiding star, isn't he? :lol: :boxing: :blackeye: :dazed:

I don't know what the lawyers think, but it seems to me that the court must bear some of the blame for not stamping on this much earlier. It wastes their resources which means justice for others will be delayed.



User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 7213
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

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

#3058

Post by Northland10 » Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:54 pm

I guess I should be appreciative of Orly, because I keep learning all of these complex legal terms like Shitshow and "sucking pond water."


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

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43903
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#3059

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Mar 12, 2018 1:22 pm

Sam the Centipede wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:49 pm
Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:20 pm
Mike, did Orly cause you to go into law? That might be a positive contribution from her.
Yes, Mike is being rather ungrateful to his guiding star, isn't he? :lol: :boxing: :blackeye: :dazed:

I don't know what the lawyers think, but it seems to me that the court must bear some of the blame for not stamping on this much earlier. It wastes their resources which means justice for others will be delayed.
:fingerwag: Tes was MikeDunford's guiding star.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 25250
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#3060

Post by bob » Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:08 pm

Most of the fault lies with the plaintiffs' lawyers.

For bringing this suit at all.
For not pleading around the anti-SLAPP law.
Once Taitz's participation was defined, for not dismissing the non-essential defendants (to minimize her participation).


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3061

Post by CalperniaUSA » Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:12 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:31 am
Calpernia, among the amended claims against Taitz is that she falsely reported plaintiff to law enforcement. I previously discussed the issue after I read the amended pleading.

In California (where this allegedly false reporting was done), any report to law enforcement (or any governmental agency, for that matter) is privileged from any suit except a malicious prosecution action. Hagberg v. California Federal Bank (2004) 32 Cal.4th 350, 355:
We granted review in this case to consider whether tort liability may be imposed for statements made when a citizen contacts law enforcement personnel to report suspected criminal activity on the part of another person. As we shall explain, we agree with the trial court, the Court of Appeal, and the great weight of authority in this state in concluding that such statements are privileged pursuant to Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b) (section 47(b)), and can be the basis for tort liability only if the plaintiff can establish the elements of the tort of malicious prosecution.
The right of a person to report an alleged crime is a matter of public importance, thus invoking the first "prong" of the anti-SLAPP statute (C.C.P. § 425.16(b)(1).) Plaintiff must therefore demonstrate that she can prevail on the claim, which she cannot do here since the report is privileged from suit.

(There is another issue, relating to the fact that only part of the claim relates to privileged activity, but under a recent state Supreme Court case, the complaint is still subject to being stricken.)

If Taitz had not acted so ridiculiusly in this case the court might have allowed her to file her new anti-SLAPP motion. The court's refusal to allow her to do so may be reversible error. So this case may continue for another 3-5 years.
Edit: Ninja'd in part by bob.
Understood about the CA laws in ref. to law enforcement reports, Sterngard; however, I have emails and communications that show she knew otherwise. Therefore, it won't be protected.


Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9698
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

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

#3062

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:14 pm

The whole thing might have also been easier if there were a few more people involved who aren't fundamentally miserable people trying to inflict the maximum pain on each other.


"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.

User avatar
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3063

Post by CalperniaUSA » Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:17 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:07 am
I just looked at the docket again. I wish I hadn't. What a complete and utter shitshow.

In the time that this pack of utterly incompetent gibbering loons have been doing what, for lack of better words, we must refer to as "attempting to litigate," both my children have started and completed middle school. And started and completed high school. And started college.

Since this flaming morass of a dumpster was first dumped on the doorstep of a federal courthouse, I've gone from having no plans that involved the legal profession to applying to law school. To being admitted to law school. To completing law school. To being admitted to the bar. To completing two additional degrees in international law.

For fuck sake, the whole thing is in essentially the same procedural posture* it was in when I was a 1L. Jarndyce v fucking Jarndyce moved faster than this flaming shitburger of a case. Nine years - flipping 9 flipping actual flipping years - and the incompetent clown posse still hasn't managed to get all the way to filing summary judgment motions, let alone past that point.

And over what? A schoolyard squabble? Seriously, the single remaining plaintiff might just possibly have something that looks like a cause of action, if it's squinted at from the right angle at exactly the right time of day, but everyone involved is so catastrophically unsympathetic that it's easy to imagine that the eventual, and possibly as-yet-unborn, jurors might just find for plaintiff and award $1 in damages.

Please, just make it stop already.




*Prone, near death, sucking pond water.
Hey Mike, I have had all 3 of my kids go through middleschool and high school and I could not be apart of any of their school activities because of what is on the Net, NJ Laws and questions raised as to whether I have a criminal background. So no, this shit show has not been fun for me either. I can't pass the social search part of a background check. I will never get back missing my kids field trips, Senior Parties, school activities.

I am not here because I am bored.

All that needed to be done was take the posts down. That is it. And here I sit 9 years later.


Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3064

Post by CalperniaUSA » Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:20 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:31 am
Calpernia, among the amended claims against Taitz is that she falsely reported plaintiff to law enforcement. I previously discussed the issue after I read the amended pleading.

In California (where this allegedly false reporting was done), any report to law enforcement (or any governmental agency, for that matter) is privileged from any suit except a malicious prosecution action. Hagberg v. California Federal Bank (2004) 32 Cal.4th 350, 355:
We granted review in this case to consider whether tort liability may be imposed for statements made when a citizen contacts law enforcement personnel to report suspected criminal activity on the part of another person. As we shall explain, we agree with the trial court, the Court of Appeal, and the great weight of authority in this state in concluding that such statements are privileged pursuant to Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b) (section 47(b)), and can be the basis for tort liability only if the plaintiff can establish the elements of the tort of malicious prosecution.
The right of a person to report an alleged crime is a matter of public importance, thus invoking the first "prong" of the anti-SLAPP statute (C.C.P. § 425.16(b)(1).) Plaintiff must therefore demonstrate that she can prevail on the claim, which she cannot do here since the report is privileged from suit.

(There is another issue, relating to the fact that only part of the claim relates to privileged activity, but under a recent state Supreme Court case, the complaint is still subject to being stricken.)

If Taitz had not acted so ridiculiusly in this case the court might have allowed her to file her new anti-SLAPP motion. The court's refusal to allow her to do so may be reversible error. So this case may continue for another 3-5 years.
Edit: Ninja'd in part by bob.
Libel per se is not protected speech Stern.


Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43903
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#3065

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:25 pm

CalperniaUSA wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:12 pm
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:31 am
Calpernia, among the amended claims against Taitz is that she falsely reported plaintiff to law enforcement. I previously discussed the issue after I read the amended pleading.

In California (where this allegedly false reporting was done), any report to law enforcement (or any governmental agency, for that matter) is privileged from any suit except a malicious prosecution action. Hagberg v. California Federal Bank (2004) 32 Cal.4th 350, 355:
We granted review in this case to consider whether tort liability may be imposed for statements made when a citizen contacts law enforcement personnel to report suspected criminal activity on the part of another person. As we shall explain, we agree with the trial court, the Court of Appeal, and the great weight of authority in this state in concluding that such statements are privileged pursuant to Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b) (section 47(b)), and can be the basis for tort liability only if the plaintiff can establish the elements of the tort of malicious prosecution.
The right of a person to report an alleged crime is a matter of public importance, thus invoking the first "prong" of the anti-SLAPP statute (C.C.P. § 425.16(b)(1).) Plaintiff must therefore demonstrate that she can prevail on the claim, which she cannot do here since the report is privileged from suit.

(There is another issue, relating to the fact that only part of the claim relates to privileged activity, but under a recent state Supreme Court case, the complaint is still subject to being stricken.)

If Taitz had not acted so ridiculiusly in this case the court might have allowed her to file her new anti-SLAPP motion. The court's refusal to allow her to do so may be reversible error. So this case may continue for another 3-5 years.
Edit: Ninja'd in part by bob.
Understood about the CA laws in ref. to law enforcement reports, Sterngard; however, I have emails and communications that show she knew otherwise. Therefore, it won't be protected.
False reporting is protected and subject to the privilege. I assume that's what you mean by "she knew otherwise."

You don't have to believe me. Here's what the Court wrote:
Plaintiff also points to the decision of the Court of Appeal in DuLac v. Perma Trans Products, Inc. (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 937, 941, 163 Cal.Rptr. 335. In that case the Court of Appeal, reviewing the case on demurrer, determined that the plaintiff had failed to adequately allege a cause of action for false imprisonment but, relying on the early cases noted above, the court stated that providing false information to the police in bad faith in order to procure an arrest could form the basis for liability for false imprisonment. This decision is based on our early cases, does not discuss section 47(b), and does not consider how its conclusion possibly could be reconciled with our current view of the broad scope of the privilege established by that statute. (Accord, Beroiz v. Wahl, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at pp. 495-496, fn. 6, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 905.)8
32 Cal.4th at 375.

Footnote 8 reads:
8 To the extent that language in Miller, supra, 134 Cal. 103, 66 P. 183, Turner, supra, 41 Cal.2d at 46, 257 P.2d 15, and DuLac v. Perma Trans Products, Inc., supra, 103 Cal.App.3d 937, 163 Cal.Rptr. 335, is inconsistent with our opinion in the present case, it is disapproved.
If you think about it, there is no need for true reporting to be protected.
Edit: As for your comment that "libel per se is not protected," well you're wrong when it's a false report to law enforcement in California. The statute "protecting" libel in that event is Civil Code § 47. I've litigated the exact issue and have had a complaint SLAPPed on that basis. I'm not wrong.



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15131
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

#3066

Post by Reality Check » Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:52 pm

My IANAL question:

I understand that under California law reporting a crime (even if the report is completely false and law enforcement does not pursue the claims ) is privileged and protected from litigation. However, what about blogging the same claims repeatedly? If that action were also protected it would seem you could falsely accuse someone of committing a felony and cover it merely by filing a police report with the same false claims.

It has been way too long since I read any of the pleadings. Is it the case here that the plaintiffs went after the false report to law enforcement and should have concentrated on the libelous statements?


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

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
bob
Posts: 25250
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#3067

Post by bob » Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:55 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:25 pm
False reporting is protected and subject to the privilege.
And that's Stern's point about the complaint(s): If the only allegation was "Taitz defamed me by publishing false things about me on the Internet," there wouldn't be this legal wrinkle. (And that addresses the harm to reputation.)

Whereas "Taitz defamed me by saying false things about me to the police" runs into SLAPP concerns.

Reality Check wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:52 pm
If that action were also protected it would seem you could falsely accuse someone of committing a felony and cover it merely by filing a police report with the same false claims.
Those are two different communications ("publications"); one is privileged, the other is not.

Is it the case here that the plaintiffs went after the false report to law enforcement and should have concentrated on the libelous statements?
There are a bevy of complaints; Stern's point is that the bits about Taitz going to the police should have been omitted. (And, ultimately, aren't even necessary to the potentially meritorious claims.)


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3068

Post by CalperniaUSA » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:03 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:25 pm
CalperniaUSA wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:12 pm
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:31 am
Calpernia, among the amended claims against Taitz is that she falsely reported plaintiff to law enforcement. I previously discussed the issue after I read the amended pleading.

In California (where this allegedly false reporting was done), any report to law enforcement (or any governmental agency, for that matter) is privileged from any suit except a malicious prosecution action. Hagberg v. California Federal Bank (2004) 32 Cal.4th 350, 355:



The right of a person to report an alleged crime is a matter of public importance, thus invoking the first "prong" of the anti-SLAPP statute (C.C.P. § 425.16(b)(1).) Plaintiff must therefore demonstrate that she can prevail on the claim, which she cannot do here since the report is privileged from suit.

(There is another issue, relating to the fact that only part of the claim relates to privileged activity, but under a recent state Supreme Court case, the complaint is still subject to being stricken.)

If Taitz had not acted so ridiculiusly in this case the court might have allowed her to file her new anti-SLAPP motion. The court's refusal to allow her to do so may be reversible error. So this case may continue for another 3-5 years.
Edit: Ninja'd in part by bob.
Understood about the CA laws in ref. to law enforcement reports, Sterngard; however, I have emails and communications that show she knew otherwise. Therefore, it won't be protected.
False reporting is protected and subject to the privilege. I assume that's what you mean by "she knew otherwise."

You don't have to believe me. Here's what the Court wrote:
Plaintiff also points to the decision of the Court of Appeal in DuLac v. Perma Trans Products, Inc. (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 937, 941, 163 Cal.Rptr. 335. In that case the Court of Appeal, reviewing the case on demurrer, determined that the plaintiff had failed to adequately allege a cause of action for false imprisonment but, relying on the early cases noted above, the court stated that providing false information to the police in bad faith in order to procure an arrest could form the basis for liability for false imprisonment. This decision is based on our early cases, does not discuss section 47(b), and does not consider how its conclusion possibly could be reconciled with our current view of the broad scope of the privilege established by that statute. (Accord, Beroiz v. Wahl, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at pp. 495-496, fn. 6, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 905.)8
32 Cal.4th at 375.

Footnote 8 reads:
8 To the extent that language in Miller, supra, 134 Cal. 103, 66 P. 183, Turner, supra, 41 Cal.2d at 46, 257 P.2d 15, and DuLac v. Perma Trans Products, Inc., supra, 103 Cal.App.3d 937, 163 Cal.Rptr. 335, is inconsistent with our opinion in the present case, it is disapproved.
If you think about it, there is no need for true reporting to be protected.
Edit: As for your comment that "libel per se is not protected," well you're wrong when it's a false report to law enforcement in California. The statute "protecting" libel in that event is Civil Code § 47. I've litigated the exact issue and have had a complaint SLAPPed on that basis. I'm not wrong.


Maybe mistaken reporting is protected. But knowingly lying to the police is not. In addition, it isn't just the police report, FBI reports, etc. She has online and has posted online libel per se. And she has not taken that down.

From our SAC: False reporting is not protected public interest nor protected speech. (See Lefebvre v. Lefebvre (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 696) [where the defendant’s police report was determined to be false . . . against the Plaintiff

But let's put aside the legal debate on the police and FBI reports. She still has not removed the posts that are libel. And those have publicly, negatively impacted my life. This case would not be sitting in the court room all these years based on non publicly visible law enforcement reports. That is not protected by SLAPP.


Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3069

Post by CalperniaUSA » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:07 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:52 pm
My IANAL question:

I understand that under California law reporting a crime (even if the report is completely false and law enforcement does not pursue the claims ) is privileged and protected from litigation. However, what about blogging the same claims repeatedly? If that action were also protected it would seem you could falsely accuse someone of committing a felony and cover it merely by filing a police report with the same false claims.

It has been way too long since I read any of the pleadings. Is it the case here that the plaintiffs went after the false report to law enforcement and should have concentrated on the libelous statements?
The reports were submitted in this case by Taitz herself as her evidence. So she actually made them part of the case. She also posted them on line to support her posts.

Whether the reports themselves should be part of this case or not is pretty much splitting hairs. The posts are still up there. And she brought the reports before the court herself. ::shrugs::


Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43903
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#3070

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:08 pm

Not quite, bob. My point is that the bits in the amended complaint alleging Taitz falsely reported to law enfoercement allowed Taitz to file yet another anti-SLAPP motion. Judge Guilford has refused to allow her to do so. It may be an appealable issue, depending on how the Ninth Circuit views how and when Taitz asked for permission to do so.



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9698
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

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

#3071

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:11 pm

CalperniaUSA wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:03 pm
But let's put aside the legal debate on the police and FBI reports. She still has not removed the posts that are libel. And those have publicly, negatively impacted my life. This case would not be sitting in the court room all these years based on non publicly visible law enforcement reports. That is not protected by SLAPP.
That's maybe kinda sorta why Stern suggested that it was pretty bloody stoopid to include the stuff about the police reports. They're not the source of the vast majority of your alleged damages. They're also not necessary, given the wealth of blog posts, to making a defamation case. But instead they were included, which makes the anti-SLAPP denial a potential appellate issue. Which means that, even if this case goes to trial and you win, there's a very good chance that my children will be college graduates before the courts can finally put this little squabble to bed.


"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.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9698
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

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

#3072

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:13 pm

CalperniaUSA wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:17 pm
Mikedunford wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:07 am
I just looked at the docket again. I wish I hadn't. What a complete and utter shitshow.

In the time that this pack of utterly incompetent gibbering loons have been doing what, for lack of better words, we must refer to as "attempting to litigate," both my children have started and completed middle school. And started and completed high school. And started college.

Since this flaming morass of a dumpster was first dumped on the doorstep of a federal courthouse, I've gone from having no plans that involved the legal profession to applying to law school. To being admitted to law school. To completing law school. To being admitted to the bar. To completing two additional degrees in international law.

For fuck sake, the whole thing is in essentially the same procedural posture* it was in when I was a 1L. Jarndyce v fucking Jarndyce moved faster than this flaming shitburger of a case. Nine years - flipping 9 flipping actual flipping years - and the incompetent clown posse still hasn't managed to get all the way to filing summary judgment motions, let alone past that point.

And over what? A schoolyard squabble? Seriously, the single remaining plaintiff might just possibly have something that looks like a cause of action, if it's squinted at from the right angle at exactly the right time of day, but everyone involved is so catastrophically unsympathetic that it's easy to imagine that the eventual, and possibly as-yet-unborn, jurors might just find for plaintiff and award $1 in damages.

Please, just make it stop already.




*Prone, near death, sucking pond water.
Hey Mike, I have had all 3 of my kids go through middleschool and high school and I could not be apart of any of their school activities because of what is on the Net, NJ Laws and questions raised as to whether I have a criminal background. So no, this shit show has not been fun for me either. I can't pass the social search part of a background check. I will never get back missing my kids field trips, Senior Parties, school activities.

I am not here because I am bored.

All that needed to be done was take the posts down. That is it. And here I sit 9 years later.
The proof of these particular alleged damages is gonna be something to see.


"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.

User avatar
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3073

Post by CalperniaUSA » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:14 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:08 pm
Not quite, bob. My point is that the bits in the amended complaint alleging Taitz falsely reported to law enfoercement allowed Taitz to file yet anothre anti-SLAPP motion. Judge Guilford has refused to allow her to do so. It may be an appealable issue, depending on how the Ninth Circuit views how and when Taitz asked for permission to do so.
Stern, remember when we did Ostella v. IRB? I only went over there for discovery. Taitz had in her hands 4 separate reports she had Sankey run. One on Liberi, one on Liberi's husband, one on me, and one on my husband. She had these reports before she went and made the police/FBI reports. She told the officer that Liberi and I were the same person and I had a lengthy criminal record. She posted this. Submitted to other cases, and used this report as her evidence herself in this very case.

Whether the report should be apart of the case or not, I am not a lawyer. I cannot have that legal debate. I know this is the case my attorney is using:

"TAITZ defamed Ostella by filing with false information a FBI report and an OCSO report. False reporting is not protected public interest nor protected speech. (See Lefebvre v. Lefebvre (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 696) [where the defendant’s police report was determined to be false . . . against the Plaintiff"

Regardless, my focus has been and will remain getting that stuff off her website.


Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43903
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#3074

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:14 pm

CalperniaUSA wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:07 pm
Reality Check wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:52 pm
My IANAL question:

I understand that under California law reporting a crime (even if the report is completely false and law enforcement does not pursue the claims ) is privileged and protected from litigation. However, what about blogging the same claims repeatedly? If that action were also protected it would seem you could falsely accuse someone of committing a felony and cover it merely by filing a police report with the same false claims.

It has been way too long since I read any of the pleadings. Is it the case here that the plaintiffs went after the false report to law enforcement and should have concentrated on the libelous statements?
The reports were submitted in this case by Taitz herself as her evidence. So she actually made them part of the case. She also posted them on line to support her posts.

Whether the reports themselves should be part of this case or not is pretty much splitting hairs. The posts are still up there. And she brought the reports before the court herself. ::shrugs::
What does that have to do with the fact that Taitz cannot be sued for falasely reporting to law enforcement? As to her publication of the reports, there may be a privilege there, too (although I doubt it), siunce Taitz has the right to comment on the litigation.

Defamation is not an easy area of the law. The California SLAPP statute is equally as difficult. When you have a bunch of clowns litigating both sides of this case except expect to be picking up after the elephants at the end of the shitshow.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43903
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#3075

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:16 pm

CalperniaUSA wrote:Whether the report should be apart of the case or not, I am not a lawyer. I cannot have that legal debate. I know this is the case my attorney is using:

"TAITZ defamed Ostella by filing with false information a FBI report and an OCSO report. False reporting is not protected public interest nor protected speech. (See Lefebvre v. Lefebvre (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 696) [where the defendant’s police report was determined to be false . . . against the Plaintiff"
I previously discussed Lefebvre. I'm not going to re-invent the wheel. Take a look at my prior post on the subject, last September: viewtopic.php?p=913312#p913312

Let's just agree that your lawyer doesn't know California law and that in that he and the Taitz team are in the same boat.



Post Reply

Return to “Phil Berg”