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

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34572
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#26

Post by realist » Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:30 pm

Orly's stupid letter to Chief Judge Kozinski appears on the docket and her opening brief submitted for review (which is posted upthread) is filed.New Docket Entries...12/21/2011 12 Filed (ECF) Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Correspondence: amended letter to the Chief Judge Alex Kozinski regarding a related case. Date of service: 12/21/2011 [8007777] (OT)12/22/2011 13 Filed clerk order: The opening brief [10] submitted by Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: blue. [8009853] (RH)


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34572
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#27

Post by realist » Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:20 am

Rulz iz for the little people.





New Docket Entry...





12/23/2011 [link]14,[/link] Received Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. excerpts of record in 2 volumes. Served on 12/19/2011. Deficiencies: excerpts are oversized. Notified counsel (See attached notice). [8011512] (RH)[...]





The deficiency by the appellant is judged to be serious. We cannot file your excerpts. The deficiency must be corrected within 14 days from the date of this notice or the case is subject to dismissal pursuant to 9th Cir. R. 42-1. The receipt of a seriously defective excerpts of record in this office [highlight]does not toll the time for filing the excerpts while the defect is being corrected[/highlight]. 9th Cir.





9th Cir. R. 42-1 provides: When an appellant fails to file a timely record, pay the docket fee, file a timely brief, or otherwise comply with rules requiring processing the appeal for hearing, an order may be entered dismissing the appeal. In all instances of failure to prosecute an appeal to hearing as required, the Court may take


such other action as it deems appropriate, [highlight]including imposition of disciplinary and monetary sanctions[/highlight] on those responsible for prosecution of the appeal.




ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

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

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

#28

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:53 am

If there is no correction the appeal will be dismissed.
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.



User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14805
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)

#29

Post by ZekeB » Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:21 pm

Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.
That would be a tragedy. Almost like having one of the comics deleted from the funny papers.


Ano, jsou opravdové. - Stormy Daniels

Nech mě domluvit! - Orly Taitz

Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5619
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

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

#30

Post by Joseph Robidoux III » Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:23 pm

No worry. Orly can ask for a re-hearing, or an en banc hearing, or maybe both.Over/Under on Taitz stretching this case out another year or two (and blaming Berg for it).



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

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

#31

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:35 pm

If there is no correction the appeal will be dismissed.


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



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34572
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#32

Post by realist » Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:44 pm

Docket Update...





[link]19-1 Appellees' Motion to Strike,[/link]


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

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

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

#33

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:50 pm

This motion appears to set a land record for most obnoxious and repeated use of Berg's trademarked, insulting, contumacious underlined, bolded not tic. Frankly, I think both Berg and Liberi should be sanctioned $100 for every time they do that.



Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5619
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

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

#34

Post by Joseph Robidoux III » Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:05 pm

This motion appears to set a land record for most obnoxious and repeated use of Berg's trademarked, insulting, contumacious underlined, bolded not tic. Frankly, I think both Berg and Liberi should be sanctioned $100 for every time they do that.How much when they learn they can change the text color to red.



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

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

#35

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:09 pm

Oh, dear. I've just slogged through this thing. While Liberi (who almost certainly wrote this turd) may have some good points, the motion is poorly written, fails to demonstrate where and why miscitations to the record are prejudicial and incorrect, and why arguments made in the court of appeal are made there for the first time. The underlining and emboldening "no" and "not" also turns the reader off. A competent practitioner might get Taitz's AOB stricken, and might even get the appeal dismissed. Liberi probably won't. Which is too bad. It should be stricken, and possibly dismissed.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34572
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#36

Post by realist » Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:40 pm

Orly had posted a Ninth Circuit Docket which indicated she'd written a letter re Berg's suspension (which is a lie) asking him to be removed and his practice before the Ninth Circuit terminated.





That has now "for some reason" :P been corrected on both dockets.





08/09/2012 [link]57,[/link] Received attorney for Orly Taitz, Inc. letter dated 08/06/2012 re: Request for removal of Philip J. Berg as counsel for plaintiff and appellees herein. We also respectfully request that his admission to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals be revoked. [8281801] [11-56079, 11-56164] (RL) 0





8/09/2012 58 Deleted Incorrect Entry (Entered in Error). Notice about deletion sent to case participants registered for electronic filing. Original Text: Terminated Philip J. Berg for Lisa M. Ostella, Lisa Liberi and Go Excel Global. [8281804] [11-56079, 11-56164] (RL)





The false letter is now linked above. :evil:


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 28557
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

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

#37

Post by Addie » Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:20 pm

Nice smack in the kisser for Orly :D


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
Dallasite
Posts: 3083
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:38 pm
Location: About 40,000 light years from the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.
Occupation: Senior Scheduling Manager
Chemtrails Program
Human Factors and Behavioral Sciences Division

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

#38

Post by Dallasite » Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:18 am

Wait, the letter was sent by the attorneys representing Thai Eats, Kim Schumann and Jeffrey P Cinningham of Schumann-Rosenberg. They attach a search result from the SCOP Disciplinary Board web site showing Berg's status as active. Could they be as inept as Thai Eats?


"I drank what?!?!" - Soctates, 399 BC

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34572
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#39

Post by realist » Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:22 am

Wait, the letter was sent by the attorneys representing Thai Eats, Kim Schumann and Jeffrey P Cinningham of Schumann-Rosenberg. They attach a search result from the SCOP Disciplinary Board web site showing Berg's status as active. Could they be as inept as Thai Eats?Apparently. #-o


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

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

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

#40

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:43 pm

Wait, the letter was sent by the attorneys representing Thai Eats, Kim Schumann and Jeffrey P Cinningham of Schumann-Rosenberg. They attach a search result from the SCOP Disciplinary Board web site showing Berg's status as active. Could they be as inept as Thai Eats?Yes. They have an obligation under the Rules to verify the accuracy of any factual claims they make to a court. They abjectly failed to carry out this duty, even though it would have been trivial to do so. That they accepted the word of their client, a known pathological liar and lunatic who is completely incapable of telling truth from fiction, is no excuse.



User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7764
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Edmonds. WA
Contact:

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

#41

Post by PatGund » Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:21 pm

Berg responds to Dr. Orly's demand.[link]Response to Request,[/link] (95 pages)"I learned that Counsel for Orly Taitz, Esquire, Kim Schumann, Esquireand Jeffrey Cunningham, Esquirewith the law firm of SCHUMANN ROSENBERG sent a letter to you requesting that I be removed as counsel for the Plaintiffs/Appellees. Mr. Schumann and Mr. Cunningham claim that I had been suspended from the practice of law, which is completely untrue. Mr. Schumann andMr. Cunningham never contacted me to “meet and confer” and were aware their statements to theNinth CircuitCourt of Appealswere false. Both Mr. Schumann and Mr. Cunningham are seasonedattorneys and are aware of theirlegal ethics. This type of egregious behavior should not be tolerated by the Court. Mr. Schumann and Mr. Cunningham should be sanctionedand I should be awarded Attorney Fees for being forced to respond to their dishonest frivolous letter, which has been filed onthis Court’s Docket"Also, Dr. Orly's House o' Malware strikes again:" When downloading Orly Taitz, Esquire’s website to show the postings, Orly Taitz, Esquireaattempted to illegally intrude (enterand access contents located on Plaintiffs computer system), as shown by Norton, see EXHIBIT “E”. In addition, as shown by Abine, Inc. 1 Orly Taitz als oattempted to place tracking and/or Access tokens, see EXHIBIT “F”. The tracking cookies would allow Orly Taitz to track Plaintiffs surfing habbits on the Internet and in some instances allows collection of key-strokes, e.g. username, passwords, log-in’s and other private data. Access tokens,which Plaintiffs have previously found on their computer and filed in this case, allow access to Plaintiffs computers and content contained therein."



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34572
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#42

Post by realist » Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:57 am

NINTH CIRCUIT Docket Update





[highlight]Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-56079[/highlight]


Lisa Liberi, et al v. Defend Our Freedoms Foundation





09/10/2012 [link]69,[/link] Filed clerk order (Staff Attorney/Deputy Clerk: ES): Appellees’ request for sanctions is referred to the panel considering the merits of these consolidated appeals. [8315932] [11-56079, 11-56164]--[Edited 09/10/2012 by ASW: Replaced PDF with correct version, resent notice.] (DL)





[highlight]Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-56164[/highlight]


Nature of Suit: 4320 Assault, Libel, and Slander





09/10/2012 63 Filed clerk order (Staff Attorney/Deputy Clerk: ES): Appellees’ request for sanctions is referred to the panel considering the merits of these consolidated appeals. [8315932] [11-56079, 11-56164]--[Edited 09/10/2012 by ASW: Replaced PDF with correct version, resent notice.] (DL)





Same docket entry for Liberi v DOFF and Liberi v Taitz in the Ninth.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Phil Berg”