Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

User avatar
realist
Posts: 35172
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#1

Post by realist »

General Docket


United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit





Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-56079 Docketed: 06/27/2011


Nature of Suit: 4320 Assault, Libel, and Slander


Lisa Liberi, et al v. Defend Our Freedoms Foundation


Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Central California, Santa Ana


Fee Status: Paid


Case Type Information:


1) civil


2) private


3) null





Originating Court Information:


District: 0973-8 : 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW


Court Reporter: Blanca Aguilar, Official Court Reporter


Trial Judge: Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge


Date Filed: 03/29/2011


Date Order/Judgment: Date Order/Judgment EOD: Date NOA Filed: Date Rec'd COA:


06/14/2011 06/15/2011 06/27/2011 06/27/2011





06/28/2011 [link]1,[/link] DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Mediation Questionnaire due on 07/05/2011. Transcript ordered by 07/27/2011. Transcript due 10/25/2011. Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. opening brief due 12/05/2011. Appellee Philip J. Berg, Appellee Go Excel Global, Appellee Lisa Liberi, Appellee Lisa M. Ostella and Appellee The Law Offices of Philip J. Berg answering brief due 01/03/2012. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. [7799772] (JN)No way Orly follows any of those rules... but it never seems to matter. :(
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 2944
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#2

Post by woodworker »

This is no fun - no possibility of oral argumentssssssssssssss (Orly style) for many months, makes me so sad. I want to go watch.
bring out the tumbrils -- lots of them.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28470
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#3

Post by bob »

This is no fun - no possibility of oral argumentssssssssssssss (Orly style) for many months, makes me so sad. I want to go watch.There won't be oral arguments at all.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

tjh
Posts: 2945
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#4

Post by tjh »

To avoid confuzelement, could the topic title be changed to show that this is the anti-SLAPP appeal ?
Edit: Thank you kindly.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46704
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#5

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

Is it?I don't believe that has been specified by the worst lawyer in the universe.

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 25886
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#6

Post by RTH10260 »

Just as an academic endeavour, and, for the purpose of discussion only, under the assumption that Orly makes no formal mistakes (never happens) on filing:





(1) Would this appeal be discarded as moot cause there is already a First Amended Complaint in the docket of the lower court ? Can Berg just point to this fact or would he have to go thru a whole long proceeding ?





(2) Just pretending that Orly would, for whatever reasons the doGs were to let the weathers turn, get a positive reply in Appellate Court, would such an outcome also stick to the FAC ? How far would Judge Guilford be bound on a new anti-SLAPP ruling on the FAC by the reply on the original complaint (I guess he would need to take such a reply as a guideline) ?

User avatar
realist
Posts: 35172
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#7

Post by realist »

Is it?I don't believe that has been specified by the worst lawyer in the universe.That was my thought as well, Stern, and why I did not originally designate it such nor edit the title, but...
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 30417
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: District Court of Bun-Dogs
Occupation: Ugly bag of mostly water

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#8

Post by Foggy »

What has been seen, cannot be unseen.(But I can change back the title of a thread.)
For more information, read it again.

(Fogbow on PayPal)

User avatar
realist
Posts: 35172
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#9

Post by realist »

What has been seen, cannot be unseen.(But I can change back the title of a thread.) :lol: :lol:
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28470
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#10

Post by bob »

(1) Would this appeal be discarded as moot cause there is already a First Amended Complaint in the docket of the lower court ? Can Berg just point to this fact or would he have to go thru a whole long proceeding ?No; Berg and Taitz (excuse me, DOFF) will be duking this out in the 9th. A best-case scenario (for the courts, and defendants) is that the trial court dismisses the entire complaint, plaintiffs appeal, and the appeals are consolidated by the 9th. In that case, the 9th would likely end up dismissing DOFF's appeal as moot.





(2) Just pretending that Orly would, for whatever reasons the doGs were to let the weathers turn, get a positive reply in Appellate Court, would such an outcome also stick to the FAC ? How far would Judge Guilford be bound on a new anti-SLAPP ruling on the FAC by the reply on the original complaint (I guess he would need to take such a reply as a guideline) ?If by some chance the 9th ruled the trial court erred in denying DOFF's anti-SLAPP motion, on remand one would presume the other defendants would file similar anti-SLAPP motions to the operative complaint. The trial court would hope the 9th would provide some guidance as to the contours in its ruling, but if it did not, the trial court would make a best guess.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 35172
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#11

Post by realist »

New Docket Entry...07/13/2011 2 Mail returned on 07/13/2011 addressed to Jayson Q. Marasigan, Esquire for Orly Taitz, re: Case Opening Material. Resending to: Suite 300, 23041 Avenida de la Carlota, Laguna Hills, CA 92653. [7819037] (JN) ;)
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11952
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#12

Post by Plutodog »

New Docket Entry...07/13/2011 2 Mail returned on 07/13/2011 addressed to Jayson Q. Marasigan, Esquire for Orly Taitz, re: Case Opening Material. Resending to: Suite 300, 23041 Avenida de la Carlota, Laguna Hills, CA 92653. [7819037] (JN) ;) :-?
The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

User avatar
realist
Posts: 35172
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#13

Post by realist »

New Docket Entries...





07/17/2011 [link]3,[/link] Filed (ECF) Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 07/17/2011. [7822562]--[COURT UPDATE: Attached Service list. Resent NDA. 07/18/2011 by TW] (OT)





07/17/2011 4 COURT DELETED ENTRY : Attached service list to correct entry above [3]. Original text: Filed (ECF) Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 07/17/2011. [7822565] (OT)
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 10270
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#14

Post by GreatGrey »

New Docket Entries...





07/17/2011 [link]3,[/link] Filed (ECF) Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 07/17/2011. [7822562]--[COURT UPDATE: Attached Service list. Resent NDA. 07/18/2011 by TW] (OT)





07/17/2011 4 COURT DELETED ENTRY : Attached service list to correct entry above [3]. Original text: Filed (ECF) Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 07/17/2011. [7822565] (OT)Ummm.... . wasn't she supposed to check the boxes under "Certification of Counsel"?





.
I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 16856
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#15

Post by ZekeB »

Ummm.... . wasn't she supposed to check the boxes under "Certification of Counsel"?And cough up some money?
Trump: Er hat eine größere Ente als ich.

Putin: Du bist kleiner als ich.

TexasFilly
Posts: 20471
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#16

Post by TexasFilly »

Ummm.... . wasn't she supposed to check the boxes under "Certification of Counsel"?And cough up some money?Yep, that $455.00 is PAST DUE. O'rly, who doesn't pay her bills to FEDERAL COURT on time, yet whines about the national debt! :lol:
I love the poorly educated!!!

Kevin McCarthy: Paul Ryan playing with a head injury -- Jon Lovett

User avatar
realist
Posts: 35172
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#17

Post by realist »

"New"/Updated Docket Entries...08/30/2011 5 Received Orly Taitz, Inc. letter dated 08/26/2011 re: Request to correct docket to reflect that ORly Taitz, Inc. is NOT an Appellant. [7877532] [11-56079, 11-56164] (RL)09/02/2011 6 Received District Court notice regarding clerical error. NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error docket entry 300 erroneously reflects appeal fees as to Defendant Orly Taitz, Inc. Docket entry number 300 has been modified to reflect defendant Orly Taitz. Re: Appeal Fees Paid. [7883280] (RL)09/07/2011 7 Case rejected from Circuit Mediation Program. [7883939] [11-15151, 11-15383, 11-16186, 11-16107, 11-16254, 11-16286, 11-16362, 11-16401, 11-16494, 11-16503, 11-16632, 11-16754, 11-16813, 11-16814, 11-16827, 11-35193, 11-35368, 11-55483, 11-55493, 11-55497, 11-55503, 11-55508, 11-55536, 11-55577, 11-55592, 11-55796, 11-56023, 11-56079, 11-56121, 11-56126, 11-56164, 11-56166, 11-56200, 11-56244, 11-56288, 11-60043, 11-71785] (SB)
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
realist
Posts: 35172
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#18

Post by realist »

New Docket Entries...





11/21/2011 8 14 day oral extension by phone of time to file Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. brief. Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. opening brief due 12/19/2011. Appellees Philip J. Berg, Go Excel Global, Lisa Liberi, Lisa M. Ostella, The Law Offices of Philip J. Berg answering brief due 01/17/2012. The optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the appellee brief. [7974559] (LN)





11/21/2011 9 Filed (ECF) Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Correspondence: Notice of Extention. Date of service: 11/21/2011 [7974682]--[COURT UPDATE: Attached corrected document. Resent NDA. 11/25/2011 by GD] (OT)





12/19/2011 [link]10,[/link] Submitted (ECF) Opening brief for review. Submitted by Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc.. Date of service: 12/19/2011. [8005596] (OT)





12/19/2011 11 Filed (ECF) Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Correspondence: notice of a related case, currently considered by this court. Date of service: 11/19/2011 [8005612] (OT)I'm sure lotsa fun reading coming up soon. \ :D /





links shortly
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 25886
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#19

Post by RTH10260 »

New Docket Entries...12/19/2011 11 Filed (ECF) Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Correspondence: notice of a related case, currently considered by this court. Date of service: 11/19/2011 [8005612] (OT) Who is/was Orlys ghost writer ?

tjh
Posts: 2945
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#20

Post by tjh »

Is it just me, or is #10 in a teeny, tiny font (NOT Comic Sans!) .. in order to get past a page limit?


[ Edit : no ... it's a 14,000 word limit. ]





... ORLY TAITZ (“Taitz”), is a political dissent leader who, individually and through Defendant and Appellant, DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS


FOUNDATIONS, INC. (“DOFF”) (collectively “Appellants”), has been and remains the leader of this movement.

User avatar
Jez
Posts: 2671
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:05 pm
Location: Out there, Somewhere...
Occupation: Thread Killer

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#21

Post by Jez »

Isn't this thing over yet? :((
I have learned silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet, strange, I am ungrateful to those teachers.

~Khalil Gibran

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28470
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#22

Post by bob »

Is it just me, or is #10 in a teeny, tiny font (NOT Comic Sans!) .. in order to get past a page limit?Federal appellate courts require:A proportionally spaced face must include serifs, but sans-serif type may be used in headings and captions. A proportionally spaced face must be [highlight]14-point[/highlight] or larger.[/break1]ca9.uscourts.gov/datastoresrc="uploads/rules/frap.pdf]FRAP 32(a)(5)(A).
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

BFB
Posts: 5283
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:48 pm

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#23

Post by BFB »

New Docket Entries...12/19/2011 11 Filed (ECF) Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Correspondence: notice of a related case, currently considered by this court. Date of service: 11/19/2011 [8005612] (OT) Who is/was Orlys ghost writer ?That's what I'd like to know. No way Taitz wrote this.Also, Taitz calling herself a "political dissident" is an insult to real political dissidents, and cheapens the idea of political dissent generally.

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

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#24

Post by A Legal Lohengrin »

Is it just me, or is #10 in a teeny, tiny font (NOT Comic Sans!) .. in order to get past a page limit?


[ Edit : no ... it's a 14,000 word limit. ]





... ORLY TAITZ (“Taitz”), is a political dissent leader who, individually and through Defendant and Appellant, DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS


FOUNDATIONS, INC. (“DOFF”) (collectively “Appellants”), has been and remains the leader of this movement.I think there should be a Federal Rule of Birfer Procedure that requires all briefs to be in the repulsive Comic Sans. Just having to read them should entitle the adverse party to sanctions.

tjh
Posts: 2945
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

Liberi, et al, v Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (9th Circuit)

#25

Post by tjh »

Is it just me, or is #10 in a teeny, tiny font (NOT Comic Sans!) ..Can we please have a new button for Obly-quotes, which will automatically put them in Comic Sans ?





... ORLY TAITZ (“Taitz”), is a political dissent leader who, individually and through Defendant and Appellant, DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC. (“DOFF”) (collectively “Appellants”), has been and remains the leader of this movement.

Post Reply

Return to “Phil Berg”