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

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10475
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

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

#3151

Post by Mikedunford »

CalperniaUSA wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:41 am
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.
I did not in any way intend "pointless" to reflect my view of your life or that of your family. But as I said, not every wrong has a realistic remedy.

I literally just got off the phone with the person I was referring to earlier, who has the decision to make about whether to expend time and effort and stress and money to pursue a cause of action that's undoubtedly meritorious and will undoubtedly result in a positive judgment that is extremely likely to be uncollectible for years and years, if at all. The decision that this person needs to make is whether there is any point to pursuing a case in those circumstances. That's a hard decision.

It wasn't the easiest conversation to have, particularly since it was with a family member rather than an arms-length client. But sometimes reality is harsh and sometimes life is drastically unfair.

And sometimes the only course of action that will not make things worse is walking away.
"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: 211
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3152

Post by CalperniaUSA »

Mikedunford wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:01 am
CalperniaUSA wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:41 am
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.
I did not in any way intend "pointless" to reflect my view of your life or that of your family. But as I said, not every wrong has a realistic remedy.

I literally just got off the phone with the person I was referring to earlier, who has the decision to make about whether to expend time and effort and stress and money to pursue a cause of action that's undoubtedly meritorious and will undoubtedly result in a positive judgment that is extremely likely to be uncollectible for years and years, if at all. The decision that this person needs to make is whether there is any point to pursuing a case in those circumstances. That's a hard decision.

It wasn't the easiest conversation to have, particularly since it was with a family member rather than an arms-length client. But sometimes reality is harsh and sometimes life is drastically unfair.

And sometimes the only course of action that will not make things worse is walking away.
I do apologize for taking your point the wrong way. But I cannot walk away. I already have in writing from the defense that they intend to sue me. If I walk away, that suit will be harder to fight with an order going against me.

So it is more than principle, as well as the ability to live life a little more normal.
Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10475
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

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

#3153

Post by Mikedunford »

How much you might want or need a win has absolutely zero bearing on how likely it is that you will actually win - to whatever point a 'win' might even have meaning anymore. They are two things that are not linked to each other in any way, shape or form. They're literally unrelated concepts. You get that, right?
"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
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7531
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

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

#3154

Post by Sam the Centipede »

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe "wwwaaaahhh! it's so unfair!! I want to wiiiinnn! I want it so much!" is not considered grounds for a successful appeal.

This case is the legal equivalent of trying to reincarnate dinosaurs by building a bonfire of hundred dollar bills below a tyrannosaurus skeleton. It gives you a warm feeling but achieves nothing except amusing bored onlookers and wasting lots of money.

As for the defense suing you, that's a really stupid reason for starting an appeal. In no way can a doomed-to-failure appeal improve your chances if the defense is stupid enough to sue you. That case is where you should concentrate your efforts ... if it happens. And you'll probably get more sympathy in persuading a court to kick that nonsense out if you're not playing silly devils on another unicorn hunt.

I guess it's not reasonable to expect anybody who linked up with Orly Taitz to have good critical thinking skills. But it's never too late to learn. Mike is giving you good advice that will save you money and reduce your stress levels. Take it.

Or continue to wallow in the delusion that the world must work the way you want it to if you whine long enough and loud enough. It's the birther way!

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13286
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

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

#3155

Post by Notorial Dissent »

So Calpernia, since I am sure there are things I have missed out, let's look at it from this from a different angle.

Just what exactly is it that you want the court to do?
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
Mikedunford
Posts: 10475
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

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

#3156

Post by Mikedunford »

Sam the Centipede wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:42 am
I guess it's not reasonable to expect anybody who linked up with Orly Taitz to have good critical thinking skills. But it's never too late to learn. Mike is giving you good advice that will save you money and reduce your stress levels. Take it.
I'm not giving anyone advice. Just explaining my own views on the situation.
"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
ZekeB
Posts: 16251
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)

#3157

Post by ZekeB »

Some people just don't get it, Mike. It appears there's a large amount of emotion and absolutely no reason involved in this case. Reasoning isn't going to do any good here.
Trump: Er hat eine größere Ente als ich.

Putin: Du bist kleiner als ich.

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 3424
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 4:05 pm

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

#3158

Post by Jim »

ZekeB wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:37 am
Some people just don't get it, Mike. It appears there's a large amount of emotion and absolutely no reason involved in this case. Reasoning isn't going to do any good here.
Sounds like any case involving Taitz or GIL.

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 3193
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

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

#3159

Post by SLQ »

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.
But is sounds like the court is saying reconsideration is not the proper procedure for the settlement breach issue, so an appeal won’t fix that. He says the issue is not properly before the court, which means :shock: a new complaint for that breach?
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 10354
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

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

#3160

Post by Chilidog »

I really don't follow this thread much.

Mainly because I have no sympathy for the antagonists in this case. None whatsoever.

I also don't care about them.

Let them both keep suing each other into oblivion.

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7531
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

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

#3161

Post by Sam the Centipede »

Mikedunford wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:26 am
:snippity:
I'm not giving anyone advice. Just explaining my own views on the situation.
Point taken, Mike, mea culpa. No misrepresentation intended. If the protagonist takes due account of your views, she should be able to advise herself ... and that self-advice would be to drop her pointless case, I'm sure.

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 10354
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

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

#3162

Post by Chilidog »

Sam the Centipede wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 12:45 pm
If the protagonist takes due account of your views, she should be able to advise herself ... and that self-advice would be to drop her pointless case, I'm sure.
You're asking for a lot from a birther

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 29448
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: District Court of Bun-Dogs
Occupation: Dick Tater

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

#3163

Post by Foggy »

Oh, Calpernia is a good egg. I like her.

She made the mistake of hooking up with first Orly and then Phil, but she learned her lesson. She, unlike either of those idiots, actually does work for a living, in a competitive field that requires genuine intelligence, and she doesn't shirk or whine or cheat or think the world owes her anything.

And she kicked Orly's ass in a way that I thought was excellent. Orly was using a domain name that Calpernia owned, but she started squealing about her blog being hacked (it wasn't hacked; she was, as always, just being a stupid bitch). Calpernia was a webmaster webmistress who was providing security for the blog, and saying it was hacked was like casting aspersions on Calpernia's ability. Unfairly.

So Calpernia kicked her ass out. She moved to a new site, but I told the owner of that one that she would turn on him, so he also threw her out and she finally started her own site, which she still uses today. But she was very, very, very upset about Calpernia kicking her out. She was in agony for weeks.

First, she thought she owned the domain name (defendourfreedoms.us), and she was outraged that Calpernia kept the site going for a while but wouldn't let Orly use it. Orly told everybody many times that she owned the domain name, but she didn't and she couldn't do anything about it.

Second, Calpernia changed the destination of the PayPal button so any donations went to her and not Orly. She was very open about it, and anybody who was paying attention understood that donations would go to Calpernia, but that was the basis for Orly's claim that Calpernia was "stealing" money from her, and Orly was furious for years, even though the amount of donations probably wasn't very high.

Third, when Calpernia took over the site and kicked Orly out, she did a few posts to explain what was happening and why she had the right to do it, and she opened up the comments. Orly had always rigorously moderated (censored) the comments to make sure that none of her stupid vicious lies were exposed, and it was really frustrating for us annoying Obots because we could never post the truth about anything on her blog. But Calpernia didn't do moderation, and we had a real free-for-all on her site for a few days. That was the time I impersonated the Pope on Easter Sunday, for which I am surely going to the Bad Place when I die. :oops: :bag:

So Orly claimed that Calpernia stole money from her, which is unfortunate but frankly unavoidable. But Calpernia stuck it to Orly in a way that we as a group were never able to do. Orly was more pissed about losing access to that blog than she was when I banned her from Fogbow. It took her weeks to rebuild her audience, and she probably did lose some money - not much, and not due to theft, but enough to make her freak out about it for years afterward.

Calpernia doesn't break any rules here, she doesn't try to annoy us with a lot of lies about Obama, she has her reasons for pursuing this case and she's still a thorn in Orly's butt to the point that when Orly thinks about her, her blood pressure goes up.

She's a good egg. :bighug:
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.

(opens a Fogbow contribution page on PayPal)

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13286
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

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

#3164

Post by Notorial Dissent »

Orbly was right to a degree, the site was hacked, by the infestation in chief. She seems to attract malware and problems and they followed her. This has not changed for her having moved. So it was true then and is true today, it just doesn't mean what she thinks it means.
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
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3165

Post by CalperniaUSA »

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 1:37 pm
Orbly was right to a degree, the site was hacked, by the infestation in chief. She seems to attract malware and problems and they followed her. This has not changed for her having moved. So it was true then and is true today, it just doesn't mean what she thinks it means.
DefendOurFreedoms.us was never hacked. I did remove malware placed there by the defendant and have documentation of that.
Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3166

Post by CalperniaUSA »

Foggy wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 1:19 pm
Oh, Calpernia is a good egg. I like her.

She made the mistake of hooking up with first Orly and then Phil, but she learned her lesson. She, unlike either of those idiots, actually does work for a living, in a competitive field that requires genuine intelligence, and she doesn't shirk or whine or cheat or think the world owes her anything.

And she kicked Orly's ass in a way that I thought was excellent. Orly was using a domain name that Calpernia owned, but she started squealing about her blog being hacked (it wasn't hacked; she was, as always, just being a stupid bitch). Calpernia was a webmaster webmistress who was providing security for the blog, and saying it was hacked was like casting aspersions on Calpernia's ability. Unfairly.

So Calpernia kicked her ass out. She moved to a new site, but I told the owner of that one that she would turn on him, so he also threw her out and she finally started her own site, which she still uses today. But she was very, very, very upset about Calpernia kicking her out. She was in agony for weeks.

First, she thought she owned the domain name (defendourfreedoms.us), and she was outraged that Calpernia kept the site going for a while but wouldn't let Orly use it. Orly told everybody many times that she owned the domain name, but she didn't and she couldn't do anything about it.

Second, Calpernia changed the destination of the PayPal button so any donations went to her and not Orly. She was very open about it, and anybody who was paying attention understood that donations would go to Calpernia, but that was the basis for Orly's claim that Calpernia was "stealing" money from her, and Orly was furious for years, even though the amount of donations probably wasn't very high.

Third, when Calpernia took over the site and kicked Orly out, she did a few posts to explain what was happening and why she had the right to do it, and she opened up the comments. Orly had always rigorously moderated (censored) the comments to make sure that none of her stupid vicious lies were exposed, and it was really frustrating for us annoying Obots because we could never post the truth about anything on her blog. But Calpernia didn't do moderation, and we had a real free-for-all on her site for a few days. That was the time I impersonated the Pope on Easter Sunday, for which I am surely going to the Bad Place when I die. :oops: :bag:

So Orly claimed that Calpernia stole money from her, which is unfortunate but frankly unavoidable. But Calpernia stuck it to Orly in a way that we as a group were never able to do. Orly was more pissed about losing access to that blog than she was when I banned her from Fogbow. It took her weeks to rebuild her audience, and she probably did lose some money - not much, and not due to theft, but enough to make her freak out about it for years afterward.

Calpernia doesn't break any rules here, she doesn't try to annoy us with a lot of lies about Obama, she has her reasons for pursuing this case and she's still a thorn in Orly's butt to the point that when Orly thinks about her, her blood pressure goes up.

She's a good egg. :bighug:

thank you
Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 29448
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: District Court of Bun-Dogs
Occupation: Dick Tater

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

#3167

Post by Foggy »

I don't think Orly was hacked until much later. Calpernia is a pretty decent webmistress, and her security was good. I don't think Orly got her site infected with the Russian malware until she started this (her fourth) blog. We have a thread about it, there were several people here who had ruined computers after visiting Orly's site.

But when she was using Calpernia's domain, I remember thinking it was ludicrous that she claimed her blog was "hacked" but I forget all the details. Something to do with the FBI? Calpernia will remember. But I'd hire Calpernia to be my webmistress if I needed one. Her security was very competent.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.

(opens a Fogbow contribution page on PayPal)

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 23200
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

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

#3168

Post by RTH10260 »

CalperniaUSA wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:11 am
ABBC3_SPOILER_SHOW
I do apologize for taking your point the wrong way. But I cannot walk away. I already have in writing from the defense that they intend to sue me. If I walk away, that suit will be harder to fight with an order going against me.

So it is more than principle, as well as the ability to live life a little more normal.
I fear the chances of you winning on a reconsideration are slim to none. The question is will the defense really want to sink more money into their side of the case? For what do they intend to sue you, for what damages? Or just for attoney fees? It's then up to you to stretch the endless story in that assumed new law suite to make it unatractive for them.

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7531
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

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

#3169

Post by Sam the Centipede »

Thanks Foggy. I'll take your word for it that Calpernia is a good egg (not one of your chicks?!) and that she has repented of her mistake in getting mixed up with the execrable Orly Taitz. Good for her! :clap:

That doesn't stop her plan of appealing her misbegotten court case any less ill-advised though, and the continual :brickwallsmall: :brickwallsmall: :brickwallsmall: hoping for some magic to happen of it is certainly birtheresque.

Whether it's a good person making a bad decision or a bad person making a bad decision doesn't change the fact that it's a bad decision.

User avatar
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3170

Post by CalperniaUSA »

RTH10260 wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 2:12 pm
CalperniaUSA wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:11 am
ABBC3_SPOILER_SHOW
I do apologize for taking your point the wrong way. But I cannot walk away. I already have in writing from the defense that they intend to sue me. If I walk away, that suit will be harder to fight with an order going against me.

So it is more than principle, as well as the ability to live life a little more normal.
I fear the chances of you winning on a reconsideration are slim to none. The question is will the defense really want to sink more money into their side of the case? For what do they intend to sue you, for what damages? Or just for attoney fees? It's then up to you to stretch the endless story in that assumed new law suite to make it unatractive for them.
I already lost the reconsideration. Mike posted the order a few posts. up. I am filing an appeal.

Taitz (not her attorneys, they are hired by her insurance) already hit me with a $300,000 legal fee bill she intends to collect on. I have to file an appeal.
Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13286
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

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

#3171

Post by Notorial Dissent »

I was referring to the malware that is Orbly, the rest just followed her home.
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
listeme
Posts: 5426
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:09 am

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

#3172

Post by listeme »

Reputation management might be a cheaper and easier option at this point. I had a family member recently work at a PR firm, and it was one of the things they (the firm) did.

I don't know how it works myself, but it's possibly something to look at. I mean, in addition to other wiser legal heads' comments above, it's only going to keep modernizing your google hits to file things with courts. Filings are known trusted hits, for google, so they come to the top. (In essence, and of course it's more complicated than that. Like I said, I don't know the field well. Except I know the field exists.)
We're used to being told it's our fault that men don't listen to us.

User avatar
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3173

Post by CalperniaUSA »

Sam the Centipede wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 2:17 pm
Thanks Foggy. I'll take your word for it that Calpernia is a good egg (not one of your chicks?!) and that she has repented of her mistake in getting mixed up with the execrable Orly Taitz. Good for her! :clap:

That doesn't stop her plan of appealing her misbegotten court case any less ill-advised though, and the continual :brickwallsmall: :brickwallsmall: :brickwallsmall: hoping for some magic to happen of it is certainly birtheresque.

Whether it's a good person making a bad decision or a bad person making a bad decision doesn't change the fact that it's a bad decision.
I start ed working with Taitz before any lawsuits were filed by the activisms. I stand by my decisions to appeal. Not too concerned if you see taht as a brick wall or not.
Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

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

#3174

Post by CalperniaUSA »

listeme wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 2:25 pm
Reputation management might be a cheaper and easier option at this point. I had a family member recently work at a PR firm, and it was one of the things they (the firm) did.

I don't know how it works myself, but it's possibly something to look at. I mean, in addition to other wiser legal heads' comments above, it's only going to keep modernizing your google hits to file things with courts. Filings are known trusted hits, for google, so they come to the top. (In essence, and of course it's more complicated than that. Like I said, I don't know the field well. Except I know the field exists.)
Tried that; court order needed. But thanks.
Laughter, Imagination, Dreams

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10475
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

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

#3175

Post by Mikedunford »

CalperniaUSA wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 2:23 pm
Taitz (not her attorneys, they are hired by her insurance) already hit me with a $300,000 legal fee bill she intends to collect on.
Calpernia, the following is not directed in any way at you; it's my reaction to the highlighted concept itself. Due to technical limitations, the reaction will be continued on the following post.


:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
"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.

Post Reply

Return to “Phil Berg”