Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6740
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5076

Post by Northland10 » Fri Apr 17, 2015 8:05 pm

Nothing can ever sit too long with Orly. Docket update.







04/10/2015 33 Filed (ECF) Appellant Orly Taitz in 13-56253 EMERGENCY Motion to strike portion of 1) Portions of Appellees' Excerpts of Record; 2) Appellees' Answering Brief; and 3) Monetary Sanctions. Date of service: 04/10/2015. [9492203] [13-56253, 13-56250] (JC) [Entered: 04/10/2015 05:00 PM]



04/16/2015 34 Filed (ECF) Appellees Go Excel Global, Lisa Liberi and Lisa M. Ostella in 13-56253, 13-56250 response opposing motion (motion to strike portion or whole of document). Date of service: 04/16/2015. [9498777] [13-56253, 13-56250] --[COURT UPDATE: Attached corrected response. 04/16/2015 by TL] (SHM) [Entered: 04/16/2015 03:09 PM]



04/17/2015 35 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: ELF): To the extent that defendant-appellant’s April 10, 2015 motion requests an expedited ruling, this request is denied. All remaining requests included in the motion are referred to the panel assigned to decide the merits of this appeal for whatever consideration the panel deems appropriate. Briefing is complete. [9500456] [13-56250, 13-56253] (WL) [Entered: 04/17/2015 03:44 PM]





Orly's was 77 pages and the response, 107. After my last Pacer bill, I am thinking I might want to hold off on this one (that, and reading Liberi v Taitz gives me a headache). Sorry.



I have no clue what "emergency" she is claiming for a reason to strike the reply from last October. Maybe she's worried that, by the time the court gets to it, Berg will be off of suspension.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6740
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5077

Post by Northland10 » Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:22 pm



Since there was stuff, here is a docket update for the 9th circuit.04/27/2015     41     Mail returned on 04/24/2015 addressed to The Law Offices of Philip J. Berg in 13-56253, re: Court order filed on 04/17/2015 [39].Forward time exp rtn to send. Resending to: casefiles- no forwarding address. [9516237] [13-56250, 13-56253] (JFF) [Entered: 04/27/2015 03:48 PM]04/27/2015     42     Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: ELF): To the extent that appellant’s April 24, 2015 motion requests an expedited ruling, this request is denied. The response to the motion is due May 4, 2015. The optional reply is due within 7 days after service of the response. Briefing is complete. [9516333] [13-56250, 13-56253] (RT) [Entered: 04/27/2015 04:18 PM]04/27/2015     43     Filed (ECF) Appellees Go Excel Global, Lisa Liberi and Lisa M. Ostella in 13-56253, 13-56250 response opposing motion (motion for miscellaneous relief (to be used only if no other relief applies)). Date of service: 04/27/2015. [9516520] [13-56253, 13-56250] (SHM) [Entered: 04/27/2015 06:56 PM]05/04/2015     44     Filed (ECF) Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. in 13-56250 reply to response (). Date of service: 05/04/2015. [9524789] [13-56250, 13-56253] (OT) [Entered: 05/04/2015 10:27 PM]06/26/2015     45     Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: ELF): Defendant-Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. filed a “motion to strike first amended complaint” on April 24, 2015 in appeal No. 13- 56250. On April 27, 2015, this court denied defendant-appellant’s request for an expedited ruling on the motion. All remaining requests included in the motion are referred to the panel assigned to decide the merits of this appeal for whatever consideration the panel deems appropriate. Briefing is complete. [9589914] [13-56250, 13-56253] (WL) [Entered: 06/26/2015 01:06 PM] I think the court may want to change their wording from "briefing is complete" to "briefing is complete so stop filing extra crap you Moldavian muttonhead." 


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 7504
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5078

Post by Orlylicious » Wed Jul 01, 2015 1:43 am



I swear when I first read it it said "Birfing is complete" [9589914] [13-56250, 13-56253] (WL) [Entered: 06/26/2015 01:06 PM] !



User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6740
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5079

Post by Northland10 » Tue Sep 29, 2015 7:46 pm

Docket update:
09/29/2015 43 Notice of Oral Argument on Monday, December 7, 2015 - 09:00 A.M. - Courtroom 2 - Pasadena CA.

View the Oral Argument Calendar for your case here.

When you have reviewed the calendar, download the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE form, complete the form, and file it via Appellate ECF or return the completed form to: PASADENA Office.
[9700403] [13-56250, 13-56253] (LN) [Entered: 09/29/2015 01:54 PM]

09/29/2015 44 Filed (ECF) Acknowledgment of hearing notice. Location: Pasadena. Filed by Attorney Doctor Orly Taitz, Esquire for Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc.. [9700842] [13-56250] (OT) [Entered: 09/29/2015 03:38 PM]
I wonder if they have hired a cleaner for the courtroom. It may require some extra care after the poo-flinging that is Taitz v Liberi.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 14644
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

Re: Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5080

Post by kate520 » Tue Sep 29, 2015 7:49 pm

Is this BOTG material? Anyone want to join me for this trip down memory lane?


DEFEND DEMOCRACY

User avatar
Family Liberty Patriot
Posts: 4486
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:23 pm
Location: Southern Orlystan
Occupation: Czar of All the Russias

Re: Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5081

Post by Family Liberty Patriot » Tue Sep 29, 2015 7:56 pm

Very slow time for me; if this goes off, Mrs. B. and I might come up and make a day of it.


"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006)

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24224
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5082

Post by bob » Tue Sep 29, 2015 7:56 pm

kate520 wrote:Is this BOTG material?
Shirley you must be joking: Of course this is BOTG material! The 9th:
Lisa Liberi v. Orly Taitz - Orly Taitz appeals the district court's order denying her motion to strike a complaint under California's Anti-SLAPP statute in an underlying defamation action, arising when Taitz allegedly attacked Philip Berg in social media. [8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW]
Given Berg's situation, I wonder if anyone will appear at argument for the plaintiffs/appellees.
Edit: Taitz comma!


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

Re: Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5083

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Sep 29, 2015 8:01 pm

Taitz had a valid SLAPP motion that was denied by the judge because of the poor motion practice by her and her attorneys. And as I recall the appeal brief was pretty bad, too.

So while this was one Taitz should have won in the trial court (at least to a claim or two) and possibly in the Court of Appeals, the result will probably be usual Taitz -- even though she is represented by counsel.



User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14512
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Re: Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5084

Post by ZekeB » Tue Sep 29, 2015 8:02 pm

bob wrote:Given, Berg's situation, I wonder if anyone will appear at argument for the plaintiffs/appellees.
I was just going to say.

Will Taitz finally win one against an empty chair?


Ano, jsou opravdové. - Stormy Daniels

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

Re: Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5085

Post by ObjectiveDoubter » Tue Sep 29, 2015 8:23 pm

Family Liberty Patriot wrote:Very slow time for me; if this goes off, Mrs. B. and I might come up and make a day of it.
Have now marked my calendar for a possible vacation day from work. We haven't had this kind of fun in a while. Hope it happens, and if it does, I'll be there.



User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14512
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Re: Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5086

Post by ZekeB » Tue Sep 29, 2015 11:30 pm

Family Liberty Patriot wrote:Very slow time for me; if this goes off, Mrs. B. and I might come up and make a day of it.
Bring your low pass filtered ear buds.


Ano, jsou opravdové. - Stormy Daniels

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9143
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5087

Post by Mikedunford » Wed Sep 30, 2015 2:18 am

ZekeB wrote:
bob wrote:Given, Berg's situation, I wonder if anyone will appear at argument for the plaintiffs/appellees.
I was just going to say.

Will Taitz finally win one against an empty chair?
TBD, I would think. Berg is the appellee, and Taitz therefore bears the burden on appeal. I'm sure that failing to appear at oral argument is bad form, but I'm not sure it would result in an automatic win for Taitz. My guess is that even if Berg no-shows, the panel will probably still consider the arguments in his brief.


"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.

jonbeck
Posts: 1587
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Oceanside, CA

Re: Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5088

Post by jonbeck » Wed Sep 30, 2015 2:27 am

Sounds entertaining, I wonder if Taitz will be rallying the monkeys?



User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9405
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

Re: Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5089

Post by GreatGrey » Wed Sep 30, 2015 3:17 am

December 7th, eh? Who wants to bet how many Pearl Harbor mentions Lena slips into her argument?


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

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

Re: Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5090

Post by SueDB » Wed Sep 30, 2015 5:50 am

GreatGrey wrote:December 7th, eh? Who wants to bet how many Pearl Harbor mentions Lena slips into her argument?
Especially when she crashes and burns.


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

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
gatsby
Posts: 18444
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:29 pm
Location: West Egg, Long Island

Re: Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5091

Post by gatsby » Wed Sep 30, 2015 6:37 am

How long ago since she filed this appeal?



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24224
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5092

Post by bob » Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:27 am

gatsby wrote:How long ago since she filed this appeal?
1. July 2013.
2. We're all actually in the wrong thread.* :oops:


* For the noobs: This suit was originally filed in 2009 in Pennsylvania (because that's where Berg lives). It was eventually split into parts, but only the branch involving the California defendants (mainly Taitz) lives on. This is actually the second time this case has been to the 9th, and there still hasn't even been a trial, motion for summary judgment, etc. Assuming the plaintiffs still have the will to persecute prosecute, it won't be finished until Obama leaves office.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
MsDaisy
Posts: 4388
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5093

Post by MsDaisy » Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:49 am

I'm confuzzeled, is this about Taitz & Berg or Taits & Liberi? Jeebus! This crap is still alive over 6 years later?


Birfers are toast

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24224
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5094

Post by bob » Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:54 am

MsDaisy wrote:I'm confuzzeled, is this about Taitz & Berg or Taits & Liberi? Jeebus! This crap is still alive over 6 years later?
Both, and more!: Berg and Liberi are merely two of the many plaintiffs; Taitz is one of the many defendants. (But those are the primary players at this point.)

And, yes, still alive after six years.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
gupwalla
Posts: 2779
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:57 pm
Location: The mind of Cassandra

Re: Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5095

Post by gupwalla » Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:57 am

MsDaisy wrote:I'm confuzzeled, is this about Taitz & Berg or Taits & Liberi? Jeebus! This crap is still alive over 6 years later?
Nominally concerns Liberi's claims of defamation against Taitz (and her foundation and her family, because hubby's the one with the deep pockets and Berg wants his payday), but really a pissing match between Taitz and Berg.

I think this particular appeal, though, primarily concerns Taitz and Berg opening up their drawers to see whose is bigger.

The Jarndyce matter was resolved faster than this case.


In a wilderness of mirrors, what will the spider do beyond the circuit of the shuddering Bear in fractured atoms? -TS Eliot (somewhat modified)

All warfare is based on deception. - Sun Tzu

User avatar
MsDaisy
Posts: 4388
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5096

Post by MsDaisy » Wed Sep 30, 2015 10:17 am

gupwalla wrote:
MsDaisy wrote:I'm confuzzeled, is this about Taitz & Berg or Taits & Liberi? Jeebus! This crap is still alive over 6 years later?
Nominally concerns Liberi's claims of defamation against Taitz (and her foundation and her family, because hubby's the one with the deep pockets and Berg wants his payday), but really a pissing match between Taitz and Berg.

I think this particular appeal, though, primarily concerns Taitz and Berg opening up their drawers to see whose is bigger.

The Jarndyce matter was resolved faster than this case.
:lol: That probably sums it up quite nicely!


Birfers are toast

User avatar
Geritol
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:11 pm

Re: Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5097

Post by Geritol » Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:08 pm

Will this mean another road show appearance of the Orly Taitz Traveling Medicine Show and Freak Circus at the 9th Circuit in Pasadena?



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24224
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5098

Post by bob » Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:32 pm

Geritol wrote:Will this mean another road show appearance of the Orly Taitz Traveling Medicine Show and Freak Circus at the 9th Circuit in Pasadena?
Yes, provided the panel doesn't order this case submitted on the briefs. But, unlike Grinols, I expect oral argument to be held.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14512
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Re: Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5099

Post by ZekeB » Wed Sep 30, 2015 1:01 pm

Watch Taitz do nothing but screech about SLAPP and throw poo at Berg.


Ano, jsou opravdové. - Stormy Daniels

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6740
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

#5100

Post by Northland10 » Wed Sep 30, 2015 1:11 pm

bob wrote:
gatsby wrote:How long ago since she filed this appeal?
1. July 2013.
2. We're all actually in the wrong thread.* :oops:


* For the noobs: This suit was originally filed in 2009 in Pennsylvania (because that's where Berg lives). It was eventually split into parts, but only the branch involving the California defendants (mainly Taitz) lives on. This is actually the second time this case has been to the 9th, and there still hasn't even been a trial, motion for summary judgment, etc. Assuming the plaintiffs still have the will to persecute prosecute, it won't be finished until Obama leaves office.
My apologies. I can never seem to get the correct thread when posting updates on LLvOT. It's hard to keep threads straight when the cases are one big cluster.

Doesn't help that Liberi is too commonly used for the board search function. :-D


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

Post Reply

Return to “Phil Berg”