LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#126

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:21 pm

Early anti-SLAPP cases had held that amended pleadings could not circumvent the First Amendment protections that C.C.P. sec. 425.16 was enacted to protect. But the flood of cases has turned the tide. Now, amended pleadings can be considered to moot a pending anti-SLAPP motion (but not an anti-SLAPP appeal).





To allow an amended pleading at the appellate stage would make new law (and, in my view, bad law). If the Ninth Circuit allows it, that will undercut every appeal of an otherwise appealable interlocutory order under C.C.P. sec. 425.16.





Bad cases make bad law. That would and could happen here with twlithotu asserting the position of a SLAPPed defendant. Let's just hope the Ninth Circuit doesn't issue a published opinion as it figures out a way to get Taitz out of its courtroom.





Will Taitz be able to figure out how to argue around a mootness claim (even when there is a strong policy basis for her position)?





Please.



User avatar
DaveMuckey
Posts: 4107
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:17 pm

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#127

Post by DaveMuckey » Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:29 pm

=)). sternsig



ducktape
Posts: 5334
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:09 pm

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#128

Post by ducktape » Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:58 am

Unfortunately, my plan to be BOTG today was thwarted by a wayward filling, so I'm going to be butt in the dental chair in about 5 minutes (not a dental chair o' luv). :((



User avatar
listeme
Posts: 5244
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:09 am

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#129

Post by listeme » Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:00 pm

Uh oh. I'm ALSO going to be in a dental chair today. Perhaps this is the beginning of the final phase of her plot.The dark forces gather, whirring...(Actually I've been in a dental chair a couple times in the last four years and both times we were on orly-hearing days. But she does have a LOT of hearing days, so maybe that's not as cataclysmic as it seems.)


We're used to being told it's our fault that men don't listen to us.

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#130

Post by Piffle » Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:07 pm

So will we have any BOTG today to report on Taitz's latest Thurgood Marshall moment?
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34430
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#131

Post by realist » Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:12 pm

So will we have any BOTG today to report on Taitz's latest Thurgood Marshall moment?
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.
I don't *think* so, but we won't have long to wait to hear it, hopefully...Audio and VideoRecordings appear on this site by 12:00 p.m. PT the day after argument.Windows Media Player is required to listen to audio oral arguments.Use this page to sort and search for Oral Arguments (audio, video) by case name, case number, panel, hearing location or hearing date. To search, click on the Advanced Search button. To find a case by its number, enter the case number (Example: 01-57131) and click the Search button. To find a case by hearing date, enter the 8-digit date (Example: 01/05/2012). For cases heard before an en banc panel, type the case number followed by EB. (Example: 06-54321EB).To sort the results, click on the header at the top of the column. To reverse the order, click the header again.[/break1]ca9.uscourts.gov/media/]http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
jtmunkus
Posts: 5642
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm
Location: Cone of Silence

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#132

Post by jtmunkus » Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:17 pm

Well, I'm sure the judges (justices?) of the Ninth Circuit will offer Orly their usual deference, and let her speak without any pesky interruptions. Unlike the attorneys for the defendant(s), who likely will be vigorously interrogated. -xx



User avatar
kate520
Posts: 14631
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#133

Post by kate520 » Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:21 pm

I have a sick child, so I can't attend the hearing. I will probably drive by, though, on our way home from the doctor who is nearby. Any guesses as to when the circus might adjourn?


DEFEND DEMOCRACY

ducktape
Posts: 5334
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:09 pm

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#134

Post by ducktape » Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:24 pm

Woodworker and Geritol were talking about going. Hope they are....



User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 2552
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#135

Post by woodworker » Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:43 pm

I attended. Nothing exciting, will file detailed report after Geritol and I have breakfast at Roscoe's House of Chicken 'n Waffles.


Pence / Haley -- 2020 "I Won't Call Her Mother" and "We Will Be The Best Team Ever, But Never Alone Together"

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34430
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#136

Post by realist » Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:47 pm

I attended. Nothing exciting, will file detailed report after Geritol and I have breakfast at Roscoe's House of Chicken 'n Waffles. :-bd


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

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

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#137

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:10 pm

I attended. Nothing exciting, will file detailed report after Geritol and I have breakfast at Roscoe's House of Chicken 'n Waffles.Sounds like the breakfast will be more interesting than the "argument."



User avatar
kate520
Posts: 14631
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#138

Post by kate520 » Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:18 pm

Roscoes is divine. :xo


DEFEND DEMOCRACY

User avatar
ObjectiveDoubter
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:19 pm
Location: Hollywood (more or less)

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#139

Post by ObjectiveDoubter » Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:55 pm

Well, I just returned from Doggie Court, downtown L.A. Last night, we found out that the crazy lady who has filed this and other complaints is MOVING at the end of this month. And yet she continues to pursue this. The hearing lasted over an hour and she looked like an idiot, a person driven by a special sense of entitlement. She actually said that her landlady had broken the law by not informing her in advance that there were major barking issues in the neighborhood -- which there isn't anyhow. So the Admin. Judge asked her, if she's moving, why was she doing this? She said, "for the next tenant," to which the answer was, "No, you cannot speak for someone who hasn't themselves complained." It was beautiful. We hear in writing in the next month -- probably after she is gone. All should be okay.So at least one case went the way it should today! Waitin' on the next!



User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#140

Post by Piffle » Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:02 pm

So the Admin. Judge asked her, if she's moving, why was she doing this? She said, "for the next tenant," to which the answer was, "No, you cannot speak for someone who hasn't themselves complained." It was beautiful. We hear in writing in the [highlight]next month -- probably after she is gone[/highlight].At which time the motley matter of the not-so-mute mutts will be moot, eh? =)) :-bd ](*,)



User avatar
Dolly
Posts: 11951
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:32 pm

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#141

Post by Dolly » Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:09 pm

Thanks for being there for the doggies and giving us an update, OD. I hope it all goes well. :-bd :hug: And as Orly would say to the crazy lady, "Good riddens."


Avatar by Tal Peleg Art of Makeup https://www.facebook.com/TalPelegMakeUp

User avatar
ObjectiveDoubter
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:19 pm
Location: Hollywood (more or less)

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#142

Post by ObjectiveDoubter » Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:09 pm

So the Admin. Judge asked her, if she's moving, why was she doing this? She said, "for the next tenant," to which the answer was, "No, you cannot speak for someone who hasn't themselves complained." It was beautiful. We hear in writing in the [highlight]next month -- probably after she is gone[/highlight].At which time the motley matter of the not-so-mute mutts will be moot, eh? =)) :-bd ](*,)Piffle, you're the best! So that I, humble in your shadow of course, get one brownie point: When I got to speak at the hearing, I said that I thought that the whole matter was one of the tail wanting to wag the dog. Yes, I did say that. Not one, "eeeewwww" was heard!



User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#143

Post by Piffle » Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:28 pm

Piffle, you're the best! So that I, humble in your shadow of course, get one brownie point: When I got to speak at the hearing, I said that I thought that the whole matter was one of the tail wanting to wag the dog. Yes, I did say that. Not one, "eeeewwww" was heard! :-bd =)) =)) Perfect! Please tell me that someone there characterized complainant's case as little more than "howling at the moon."



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#144

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:32 pm

All bark, no bite?



User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 2552
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#145

Post by woodworker » Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:34 pm

Okay, report from "Loafers on the Ground."





First, fashion report (although I am fashion challenged myself): Orly wore the basic black jacket and skirt, with black shoes that appeared to have wedge soles. I did not venture close enough to check on "s" and "s".





Her case was called at approximately at 9:25 a.m., Cunningham appearing for both Taitz and DOFF (which caused a minor amount of merriment on the panel as I will discuss later), Berg appearing for himself. Taitz did not speak at all.





There were approximately 20-25 persons in the courtroom and I did not see anyone whom I recognized as a FM Taitz and Cunningham were sitting by themselves whilst the first case was heard and caucused together after her case was heard. I hung around for about ten minutes, spoke briefly to someone from Court News and another reporter who said they were there because they try to attend most birther (their term) hearings, but I did not see any press conference from Orly and both reporters left without speaking with her.





The Hearing:





Cunningham addressed the mootness issue head-on, arguing that under Pac Bell the issue was not moot. The panel questioned him as to why it was not moot in that after the Anti-slapp motion had been denied, plaintiff had filed a First Amended Complaint and didn't the FAC supersede the initial complaint and render it null and void. The panel also questioned him on what would happen if the court granted the appeal: did that mean that the FAC was still in effect and pending at the trial level. Cunningham argued that Pac Bell meant that appeals court could rule on the merits of the appeal of the initial anti-slapp motion and that, if defendants were successful in that appeal, even if the anti-slapp did not address the entirety of the FAC, the FAC should be dismissed.





Cunningham also appeared to argue that the trial court's order re: the anti-slapp precluded the defendant's from bringing an anti-slapp motion to the FAC, but the panel seemed to take the position that that order was unclear and could just as easily be read as the trial court electing to not take any action pending the outcome of the present appeal.





I don't know that Cunningham was successful in persuading the panel, but he did at least address Pac Bell. Berg, on the other hand, had no clue as to Pac Bell or what it was about.





Berg started off by stating there were three issues to be discussed: the mootness of the appeal (which he appeared to believe the panel agreed with), the merits of the anti-slapp motion and sanctions against both Taitz and Cunningham for being mean to Berg.





As to the mootness of the appeal, when asked by the panel as to how Pac Bell should be applied, Berg just punted and said that the FAC superseded the initial complaint and that therefore the appeal was moot. Berg also took the position initially that Taitz and DOFF could not file an anti-slapp motion re: the FAC because the time had run for that, but under pressure from the panel Berg grudgingly conceded that as everything had effectively been stayed at the trial level pending the appeal, Taitz and DOFF should have right to file anti-slapp re: the FAC.





Berg moved to the merits of the anti-slapp, arguing that the litigation was not Slapp in that plaintiffs were not public figures and that Taitz and DOFF had acted maliciously in posting social security numbers, etc. millions of time on Taitz blog. Berg also argued that Taitz/DOFF were filing anti-slapp to delay the litigation, but judge pointed out that purpose of anti-slapp is to fast forward certain defenses. Panel really didn't seem interested in merits on anti-slapp at all.





Berg then brought up that Taitz and Cunningham should be sanctioned because they said he had been disbarred and the said suspended for a year and a day, all of which was not true because being appealed, etc. Panel seem totally baffled as to why and where this whole sanctions stuff was coming from. Berg kept saying that there was something somewhere in the 9th circuit about this and one of the judges asked Berg if it was in the air because they had nothing in front of them on this issue. Berg kept referring to "something" until the panel said that if he wanted to file a motion for sanctions, "or not", that was up to him to do later. Berg then said he would do as the panel suggested and file a motion for sanctions, at which point the entire panel clarified for him that they had suggested no such thing.





Cunningham, on rebuttal, with his 1:30, did the obviously intelligent thing (sarcasm) and started to address the sanctions. He stated that he had not requested any sanctions, at which point one of the judges noted that there were numerous requests for sanctions by the defendants, which is where Cunningham said that while he was representing Taitz/DOFF in the oral arguments, he had not represented whomever filed the Rule 11 Sanctions, etc. motions, Taitz was the attorney for those. Mild laughter from panel and presiding judge stopped Cunningham as time expired.





All in all, no fireworks.





And I have to say I was not pleased with Roscoe's this morning. The sausage patties were dry, the water had a funny aftertaste and the gravy on the potatoes was not up to their usual standards.


Pence / Haley -- 2020 "I Won't Call Her Mother" and "We Will Be The Best Team Ever, But Never Alone Together"

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#146

Post by Piffle » Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:46 pm

Yay! Thanks for the great report which, I'd add, fully meets Fogbow high standards in all respects. Too bad, though, that you didn't get to see Orly get wound up and make a complete fool of herself. I wonder how Cunningham managed to convince her to STFU. Did it look like she might have been sedated?





Berg kept saying that there was something somewhere in the 9th circuit about this and one of the judges asked Berg if it was in the air because they had nothing in front of them on this issue. Berg kept referring to "something" until the panel said that if he wanted to file a motion for sanctions, "or not", that was up to him to do later. [highlight]Berg then said he would do as the panel suggested[/highlight] and file a motion for sanctions, at which point the entire panel clarified for him that they had suggested no such thing.This sort of willful misinterpretation on Berg's part is soooo birther. I'm increasingly convinced that biferism really is a brain disease.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#147

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:49 pm

Thanks for the report, WW. Very very disappointing.Sekrit Stuffs!
Roscoe's and the fact that Taitz didn't argue and disgrace herself as usual.



User avatar
jtmunkus
Posts: 5642
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm
Location: Cone of Silence

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#148

Post by jtmunkus » Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:50 pm

I wonder if Mr. Taitz insisted on outside counsel, to limit his liabilities. :shark:



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#149

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:51 pm

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



User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

LIBERI v TAITZ (Ninth Circuit)

#150

Post by SueDB » Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:56 pm

Wonderful report - Thank you very much!


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

Post Reply

Return to “Phil Berg”