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

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 22017
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

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

#3126

Post by RTH10260 » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:26 pm

CalperniaUSA wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:02 pm
► Show Spoiler
The material has to come down from the Internet, Mike. Try living with a search engine bring back statements of criminality on you. You have to live it to understand what and how it affects your life as well as the ripple afftects into your family's. It is not good advice.
To start with a hint: remember the line "the internet never forgets". No court can order the removal of content from the internet. It will remain where it was published and archived, possibly archived at many locations around the globe, like The Wayback Machine. Some search engines will cross reference the content, others not. Over time people will stop looking for certain keywords and what you prefer to be kept veiled will never be returned.

User avatar
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3127

Post by CalperniaUSA » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:31 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:24 pm
SLQ wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:10 pm
CalperniaUSA wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:28 am


Liberi's was not a summary judgement. It was breach of contract (settlement agreement).
Huh? No offense intended, but this statement indicates a woeful lack of understanding of procedure and law. Obviously, it was a summary judgment, because the court denied your summary judgment motion.
Bizarrely, she sort of seems to be sort right - at least as far as I can tell from the limited amount of the docket I was able to review before I ran out of fucks to give. As far as I can tell, it's the kind of thing that's possible only because the case has hit the point where normal procedure and law are no longer able to handle the :hitthefan: :hitthefan: :hitthefan: of whatever it is that's getting filed in this case.

It looks to me like:
1: Liberi settled out of the case, with part of the settlement being that Orly takes down the nasty shit.
2: Orly maybe didn't take down all the nasty shit (I can't be bothered to drag through the whole docket to figure it out).
3: So Liberi filed a pro se request that appears to ask the court to enforce the settlement agreement by letting Liberi launch a claim against Orly for millions in damages.
4: This seems to have happened around the same time as the summary judgment motions.
5: So the court spent a paragraph or so in the order on the summary judgment motions telling Liberi to FOAD.
6: So, naturally, Liberi has filed her own motion for reconsideration.

But, like I said, that's the best I can tell from skimming through the disaster zone that is the docket, so I could well be wrong.
You are correct, Mike.
Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3128

Post by CalperniaUSA » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:32 pm

Foggy wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:28 pm
In actual fact, many years ago Orly falsely accused Calpernia of stealing money from her. Calpernia had a legitimate claim against Orly, which was the only legitimate claim. But I guess it got tangled in the mess, due to the shitty, horrible "lawyers" on both sides of the case.
Hi Foggy. You are correct too.
Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 6220
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

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

#3129

Post by neonzx » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:34 pm

RTH10260 wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:26 pm
CalperniaUSA wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:02 pm
► Show Spoiler
The material has to come down from the Internet, Mike. Try living with a search engine bring back statements of criminality on you. You have to live it to understand what and how it affects your life as well as the ripple afftects into your family's. It is not good advice.
To start with a hint: remember the line "the internet never forgets". No court can order the removal of content from the internet. It will remain where it was published and archived, possibly archived at many locations around the globe, like The Wayback Machine. Some search engines will cross reference the content, others not. Over time people will stop looking for certain keywords and what you prefer to be kept veiled will never be returned.
And it happened SO LONG AGO, nobody cares. That occurred as a sidebar flash way back before Obama served out two full terms as President. The internet doesn't forget, but people do. Won't be held against you unless you keep bringing it up, Calpernia.
To which Trump replied, Fuck the law. I don't give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10444
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

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

#3130

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:36 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:29 pm
This case may well outlive the judge.
The law clerk who will have to brief the lastest motions for reconsideration was probably in highschool when the case was filled.
"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: 209
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3131

Post by CalperniaUSA » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:37 pm

neonzx wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:51 pm
Calpernia, it's time to just let it go. Coming upon 10 years and 850+ entries in the case docket? And you're going against a cra-cra woman who just won't stop. Just walk away.
Neonzx, I need an order, a retraction, something, to give me proof on innocence. I obtained a notary certification hoping that would be enough to overcome questions on criminality. But, that has not been enough. If the net said I was a smelly poo poo head, I can live with that. But the criminality has had impacts that has vastly affected my life, as well as my families.
Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3132

Post by CalperniaUSA » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:38 pm

bob wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:54 pm
And the reality is that the internet cannot be scrubbed of the accusation. That's not how the internet works.
Hence is why proof of innocence is needed.
Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3133

Post by CalperniaUSA » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:40 pm

Suranis wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:59 pm
I refer the learned counsel to the precedent generated by Jarndace V Jarndace.

And What Bob said. even if you succeed in the game of endless motions for reconsideration, people wont find the fact that you eventually won in the game of stupidity. All they will find is the original load of filings, bcasue there will be almost no record of you winning.

Plus you are giving her the attention she craves. She cant walk away any more than a cat from milk. You are making her happy.
She did not look happy yesterday. Nor did her attorneys. You are right by the overwhelming filings and almost no record of the win; but when I have the order or retraction, that will help me overcome some of the battles I have encountered.
Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3134

Post by CalperniaUSA » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:44 pm

neonzx wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:34 pm
RTH10260 wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:26 pm
CalperniaUSA wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:02 pm
► Show Spoiler
The material has to come down from the Internet, Mike. Try living with a search engine bring back statements of criminality on you. You have to live it to understand what and how it affects your life as well as the ripple afftects into your family's. It is not good advice.
To start with a hint: remember the line "the internet never forgets". No court can order the removal of content from the internet. It will remain where it was published and archived, possibly archived at many locations around the globe, like The Wayback Machine. Some search engines will cross reference the content, others not. Over time people will stop looking for certain keywords and what you prefer to be kept veiled will never be returned.
And it happened SO LONG AGO, nobody cares. That occurred as a sidebar flash way back before Obama served out two full terms as President. The internet doesn't forget, but people do. Won't be held against you unless you keep bringing it up, Calpernia.
It all depends WHAT you are looking for. Like pre employment screenings, volunteering for activities, nosy people putting your name in the search engine, FAMILY members being put in the search engines. This stuff comes up while trying to live our lives. And what comes up is accusations that: "I stole from a nonprofit, I hacked credit card processors, I hack websites, I have a criminal history, I was investigated by the FBI". This is stuff that impacts lives.
Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27045
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#3135

Post by bob » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:46 pm

CalperniaUSA wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:38 pm
bob wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:54 pm
And the reality is that the internet cannot be scrubbed of the accusation. That's not how the internet works.
Hence is why proof of innocence is needed.
If all you really want is a retraction, have you offered to settle the case for that?, i.e., "I agree not to appeal if Orly Taitz issues a retraction."
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 6220
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

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

#3136

Post by neonzx » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:50 pm

CalperniaUSA wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:44 pm
It all depends WHAT you are looking for. Like pre employment screenings, volunteering for activities, nosy people putting your name in the search engine, FAMILY members being put in the search engines. This stuff comes up while trying to live our lives. And what comes up is accusations that: "I stole from a nonprofit, I hacked credit card processors, I hack websites, I have a criminal history, I was investigated by the FBI". This is stuff that impacts lives.
Okay, yeah. But then your response should be, "have you Googled 'Orly Taitz'", the person who made these false allegations?

And it comes back to a cra-cra lady. Show them her wild media interviews on youtube being a nutjob. You're off the hook.
To which Trump replied, Fuck the law. I don't give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money.

User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 6220
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

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

#3137

Post by neonzx » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:52 pm

neonzx wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:50 pm
CalperniaUSA wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:44 pm
It all depends WHAT you are looking for. Like pre employment screenings, volunteering for activities, nosy people putting your name in the search engine, FAMILY members being put in the search engines. This stuff comes up while trying to live our lives. And what comes up is accusations that: "I stole from a nonprofit, I hacked credit card processors, I hack websites, I have a criminal history, I was investigated by the FBI". This is stuff that impacts lives.
Okay, yeah. But then your response should be, "have you Googled 'Orly Taitz'", the person who made these false allegations?

And it comes back to a cra-cra lady. Show them her wild media interviews on youtube being a nutjob. You're off the hook.
To which Trump replied, Fuck the law. I don't give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money.

User avatar
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3138

Post by CalperniaUSA » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:57 pm

bob wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:46 pm
CalperniaUSA wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:38 pm
bob wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:54 pm
And the reality is that the internet cannot be scrubbed of the accusation. That's not how the internet works.
Hence is why proof of innocence is needed.
If all you really want is a retraction, have you offered to settle the case for that?, i.e., "I agree not to appeal if Orly Taitz issues a retraction."
Tried that many times.
Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3139

Post by CalperniaUSA » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:58 pm

neonzx wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:50 pm
CalperniaUSA wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:44 pm
It all depends WHAT you are looking for. Like pre employment screenings, volunteering for activities, nosy people putting your name in the search engine, FAMILY members being put in the search engines. This stuff comes up while trying to live our lives. And what comes up is accusations that: "I stole from a nonprofit, I hacked credit card processors, I hack websites, I have a criminal history, I was investigated by the FBI". This is stuff that impacts lives.
Okay, yeah. But then your response should be, "have you Googled 'Orly Taitz'", the person who made these false allegations?

And it comes back to a cra-cra lady. Show them her wild media interviews on youtube being a nutjob. You're off the hook.
That is not always an opportunity.
Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10444
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

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

#3140

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Dec 04, 2018 3:07 pm

CalperniaUSA wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:44 pm
neonzx wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:34 pm
RTH10260 wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:26 pm


To start with a hint: remember the line "the internet never forgets". No court can order the removal of content from the internet. It will remain where it was published and archived, possibly archived at many locations around the globe, like The Wayback Machine. Some search engines will cross reference the content, others not. Over time people will stop looking for certain keywords and what you prefer to be kept veiled will never be returned.
And it happened SO LONG AGO, nobody cares. That occurred as a sidebar flash way back before Obama served out two full terms as President. The internet doesn't forget, but people do. Won't be held against you unless you keep bringing it up, Calpernia.
It all depends WHAT you are looking for. Like pre employment screenings, volunteering for activities, nosy people putting your name in the search engine, FAMILY members being put in the search engines. This stuff comes up while trying to live our lives. And what comes up is accusations that: "I stole from a nonprofit, I hacked credit card processors, I hack websites, I have a criminal history, I was investigated by the FBI". This is stuff that impacts lives.
I did a search this evening, not logged in to Google, from a public computer, in a country outside the USA. I looked through the first four pages of search results. The only way any of that came up was in the form of links to court filings or articles (such as one at Worldnet Daily on page 3 of the results) that Orly has no control over.

But you're clearly going to keep going. Are you having fun working with Lisa again?
"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: 209
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3141

Post by CalperniaUSA » Tue Dec 04, 2018 3:18 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 3:07 pm
CalperniaUSA wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:44 pm
neonzx wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:34 pm

And it happened SO LONG AGO, nobody cares. That occurred as a sidebar flash way back before Obama served out two full terms as President. The internet doesn't forget, but people do. Won't be held against you unless you keep bringing it up, Calpernia.
It all depends WHAT you are looking for. Like pre employment screenings, volunteering for activities, nosy people putting your name in the search engine, FAMILY members being put in the search engines. This stuff comes up while trying to live our lives. And what comes up is accusations that: "I stole from a nonprofit, I hacked credit card processors, I hack websites, I have a criminal history, I was investigated by the FBI". This is stuff that impacts lives.
I did a search this evening, not logged in to Google, from a public computer, in a country outside the USA. I looked through the first four pages of search results. The only way any of that came up was in the form of links to court filings or articles (such as one at Worldnet Daily on page 3 of the results) that Orly has no control over.

But you're clearly going to keep going. Are you having fun working with Lisa again?
I just checked on 3 different search engines, not logged in, cleared of history, stuff comes up. From her site too. Thanks though Mike.
Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10444
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

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

#3142

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:10 pm

Foggy wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:28 pm
In actual fact, many years ago Orly falsely accused Calpernia of stealing money from her. Calpernia had a legitimate claim against Orly, which was the only legitimate claim. But I guess it got tangled in the mess, due to the shitty, horrible "lawyers" on both sides of the case.
We thought it was potentially a legitimate claim. It was legitimate enough to survive the motion to dismiss stage. But Judge Guilford, who gave Calpernia every reasonable chance to make her case and a few more after that, didn't find enough evidence to survive summary judgment. He went (IMO anyway) well above and beyond what was strictly necessary to give Calpernia a chance to recover whatever she could of a case after Berg's belated departure from the case (and the legal profession). It wasn't enough.

By the time we got to this round, the 9th Circuit had found that "[Taitz's] speech at issue concerns matters of public importance." (9th Cir slip op. at *5). I think that's probably the law of the case, and I think that Judge Guilford is probably right regarding the effect that has on the libel claim. He had the evidence in front of him when he resolved the case - I'm not prepared to drop the cash to buy the all the exhibits to the summary judgment motions - and found that there wasn't enough there to prove falsity to the level required.

Maybe he was wrong, and maybe he was even wrong enough to hit clear error. But a couple of reconsideration motions very likely drafted by Lisa Liberi probably ain't going to get him to change his mind - especially when she's valued her "consideration" for the prior settlement at $20,000,000 and is requesting that the court make Orly pay her that for breaching the contract.

So there's going to be an appeal. And, like I said, maybe Judge Guilford was wrong enough to hit clear error. And maybe the 9th Circuit will say so, possibly even before mid-2022. But I seriously doubt it.

But let's assume they do. So the case goes back on remand. Let's say, through some miracle, it re-re-re-concludes in only another year. Then it goes back to the 9th again. Figure the earliest possible date for the whole thing to wrap up would be what, then? 2025 for the best case?

At some point, someone needs to figure out that there's no way to end this well, so it's time to just end it.
"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
Foggy
Posts: 28717
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)

#3143

Post by Foggy » Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:16 pm

bob wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:46 pm
If all you really want is a retraction, have you offered to settle the case for that?, i.e., "I agree not to appeal if Orly Taitz issues a retraction."
No, Orly would never retract anything. In her demented brain, she still thinks Calpernia stole money from her. Which is stupid and false, but that's Orly. She still thinks a court reporter in Philly tampered with a transcript. She's a moron to the nth power.

But Mikedunford is right, it's not worth pursuing.
Any time my questions are all fully answered, I know I'm asking the wrong questions. - Bernard Samson

User avatar
listeme
Posts: 5407
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:09 am

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

#3144

Post by listeme » Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:20 pm

Foggy wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:16 pm
bob wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:46 pm
If all you really want is a retraction, have you offered to settle the case for that?, i.e., "I agree not to appeal if Orly Taitz issues a retraction."
No, Orly would never retract anything. In her demented brain, she still thinks Calpernia stole money from her. Which is stupid and false, but that's Orly. She still thinks a court reporter in Philly tampered with a transcript. She's a moron to the nth power.

But Mikedunford is right, it's not worth pursuing.
She still thinks I'm Verbie.
We're used to being told it's our fault that men don't listen to us.

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 3335
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 4:05 pm

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

#3145

Post by Jim » Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:21 pm

Foggy wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:16 pm
But Mikedunford is right, it's not worth pursuing.
Maybe not in a court of law any longer...however I and a few others may be willing to donate a few bucks for a winner-take-all boxing match between the two. Gotta be more entertaining than this case.

User avatar
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3146

Post by CalperniaUSA » Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:22 pm

Jim wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:21 pm
Foggy wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:16 pm
But Mikedunford is right, it's not worth pursuing.
Maybe not in a court of law any longer...however I and a few others may be willing to donate a few bucks for a winner-take-all boxing match between the two. Gotta be more entertaining than this case.
I will win that match. Trust me.
Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 9919
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
Occupation: "Do Nothing Democrat Savage" -- Donald, 9/28/19 and "Scalawag...Part of an extreme, malicious leftist internet social mob working in concert with weaponized, socialized governments to target and injure political opponents.” -- Walt Fitzpatrick

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

#3147

Post by Orlylicious » Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:00 am

Even I remember this.
Foggy wrote: ↑
Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:28 pm
In actual fact, many years ago Orly falsely accused Calpernia of stealing money from her. Calpernia had a legitimate claim against Orly, which was the only legitimate claim. But I guess it got tangled in the mess, due to the shitty, horrible "lawyers" on both sides of the case.
Wasn't there an awesome crazy hearing on this one, with Berg and Taitz, then the judge got rid of it by sending it away? Gosh it's all a long time ago. I hate to see Calpernia go through this, but it has been a lot of laughs over the years and I'd like to see how many years it can keep going.

Just looked at the Guiness Book of World Records:

Longest running civil court case by an individual

Who James Martin
What 1972 - 1982 year(s)
Where United States (Wilmington)
When 14 December 1972

The longest running civil court case has been led by James Martin (USA) since 14 December 1972, when the issue in the Martin v. Sample case was filed; it was then appealed to the US Supreme Court, Washington, DC, USA in October 1981, and docketed as case number 81-6884, on 14 June 1982. Following a summons by the Selective Service System (Pennsylvania, USA), Mr Martin attended a three-day pre-induction physical exam to assess his fitness for military service in the Vietnam War; he was subsequently classified as disabled. The original filed case (which remains active today), regards the subsequent academic and professional discrimination and interference experienced by Mr Martin following this detainment (11-13 December 1972) for medical testing - an issue that Mr Martin, the Office for Civil Rights and the US Department of Education, argues violates the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which forbids discrimination on the basis of alleged or of actual medical history. The original case, (Martin v Sample, 459 US 850, 74 L ed 2s 98, 103 S Ct 111) -where Mr Sample was the president of the college that Mr Martin was enrolled in at the time - remains active as of 11 December 2006 (when this record was approved).

The above date (14 December 1972) is the date of the decision from the Selective Service, following their issuance of the summons to me, directing Mr Martin to appear at the pre-induction examination. (The case was filed with the issuance of the summons, which occurred before 14 December 1972).
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/wor ... ndividual/

So there's definitely that... if it goes on long enough, it could be a World Record and that would definitely get press, it would knock James Martin off. Good luck!
Don't miss Fogbow's favorite show starring the titular Mama June Shannon -- "Mama June: From Not To Hot: "The Road To Intervention"

User avatar
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3148

Post by CalperniaUSA » Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:31 am

Orlylicious wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:00 am
Even I remember this.
Foggy wrote: ↑

So there's definitely that... if it goes on long enough, it could be a World Record and that would definitely get press, it would knock James Martin off. Good luck!
I am unproudly notifying you that this case will be beating that record. Minute Order came out last night denying the Motion for Recon. The buffoonery will be entering the appeal court by Friday. This is a surreal nightmare. :(
Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10444
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

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

#3149

Post by Mikedunford » Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:07 am

I'm surprised that the reconsideration was turned around that quickly. That itself is a message regarding the court's views of the matter.

Here's the rest of that message, in its entirety:
This case has been with the Court for over a decade. And since its inception, the Court has been dealing with an unwieldy amount of filings—so much so that the Court was forced to impose a filing restriction on the parties. (See Dkt. No. 227.) But after hearing numerous motions and reviewing thousands of pages and documents, the Court thought this dispute was over: Lisa Liberi’s claims were dismissed with prejudice following settlement, (Dkt. No. 685), and Lisa Ostella’s claims were decided by the Court on cross motions for summary judgment that the parties stated they preferred rather than a trial, (Dkt. No. 841). But this litigation lives to see yet another day as both Ostella and Liberi move for reconsideration of the judgments against them (Dkt. Nos. 848, 849.)

First, concerning Liberi’s motion for reconsideration, Liberi made clear at oral argument that she was actually seeking enforcement of the settlement agreement rather than reconsideration of any judgment entered against her. This Court doesn’t have that issue properly before it, and therefore DENIES Liberi’s motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 848.)

Second, concerning Ostella’s motion for reconsideration, the Court finds Ostella hasn’t shown she is entitled to reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Local Rule 7-18. And, in any event, the reconsideration of the Court’s judgment against Ostella would be unavailing

The Court DENIES Ostella’s motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 849.)
That's not a happy judge.

There is, of course, literally nobody who can stop you if you choose to pointlessly sink more time and money pointlessly into a pointless appeal.

It's an unfortunate truth that not every wrong has a legal remedy. And, sometimes, not every theoretically available legal remedy is available as a practical matter. I was looking at something along those lines elsewhere this morning - a situation where money has not been paid that is clearly owed, with clear legally binding documentation for the debt. But the person who owes the money is, as a practical matter, not likely to be able to pay that money for the foreseeable future. A legal action against that person would almost certainly be successful, in that the court will order payment. But there's nothing to collect. Meanwhile, the court action itself will result in more costs, including stress and lost time, with anything but the certainty of recovery.
"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: 209
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3150

Post by CalperniaUSA » Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:41 am

Mikedunford wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:07 am
I'm surprised that the reconsideration was turned around that quickly. That itself is a message regarding the court's views of the matter.

Here's the rest of that message, in its entirety:
This case has been with the Court for over a decade. And since its inception, the Court has been dealing with an unwieldy amount of filings—so much so that the Court was forced to impose a filing restriction on the parties. (See Dkt. No. 227.) But after hearing numerous motions and reviewing thousands of pages and documents, the Court thought this dispute was over: Lisa Liberi’s claims were dismissed with prejudice following settlement, (Dkt. No. 685), and Lisa Ostella’s claims were decided by the Court on cross motions for summary judgment that the parties stated they preferred rather than a trial, (Dkt. No. 841). But this litigation lives to see yet another day as both Ostella and Liberi move for reconsideration of the judgments against them (Dkt. Nos. 848, 849.)

First, concerning Liberi’s motion for reconsideration, Liberi made clear at oral argument that she was actually seeking enforcement of the settlement agreement rather than reconsideration of any judgment entered against her. This Court doesn’t have that issue properly before it, and therefore DENIES Liberi’s motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 848.)

Second, concerning Ostella’s motion for reconsideration, the Court finds Ostella hasn’t shown she is entitled to reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Local Rule 7-18. And, in any event, the reconsideration of the Court’s judgment against Ostella would be unavailing

The Court DENIES Ostella’s motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 849.)
That's not a happy judge.

There is, of course, literally nobody who can stop you if you choose to pointlessly sink more time and money pointlessly into a pointless appeal.

It's an unfortunate truth that not every wrong has a legal remedy. And, sometimes, not every theoretically available legal remedy is available as a practical matter. I was looking at something along those lines elsewhere this morning - a situation where money has not been paid that is clearly owed, with clear legally binding documentation for the debt. But the person who owes the money is, as a practical matter, not likely to be able to pay that money for the foreseeable future. A legal action against that person would almost certainly be successful, in that the court will order payment. But there's nothing to collect. Meanwhile, the court action itself will result in more costs, including stress and lost time, with anything but the certainty of recovery.
Since I don't find my life and families' lives pointless, the appeal will be filed no later than Friday.

Appreciative of your "pointless" view.
Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

Post Reply

Return to “Phil Berg”