EDPA - OSTELLA et al v. IRBSEARCH, LLC et al

User avatar
magdalen77
Posts: 5394
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:43 pm
Location: Down in the cellar

EDPA - OSTELLA et al v. IRBSEARCH, LLC et al

#26

Post by magdalen77 » Wed Apr 10, 2013 10:32 am

I saw that and the cynic in me thought, "Good luck with that". I'm betting it will take another six months.



rosy
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:36 pm

EDPA - OSTELLA et al v. IRBSEARCH, LLC et al

#27

Post by rosy » Thu Apr 11, 2013 6:16 am

Nice to see that Berg's not macro is still working.


It's spreading, there are a few instances of never in the complaint as well. Even if the complaint had any merit at all, which it obviously doesn't, the whole complaint ought to be dismissed for offences against the English language, apostrophe abuse and the wilful muddling of imply and infer.



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

EDPA - OSTELLA et al v. IRBSEARCH, LLC et al

#28

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:54 am

Nice to see that Berg's not macro is still working.


It's spreading, there are a few instances of never in the complaint as well. Even if the complaint had any merit at all, which it obviously doesn't, the whole complaint ought to be dismissed for offences against the English language, apostrophe abuse and the wilful muddling of imply and infer.I'm beginning to think the entire birther community consists of one TWLITHOTU (Orly) and about a dozen other people, all exactly tied for TSWLITHOTU (including Berg). Apparently, Berg has no idea what a giant douchebag that not shit makes him look like.



AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

EDPA - OSTELLA et al v. IRBSEARCH, LLC et al

#29

Post by AnitaMaria » Thu Apr 11, 2013 9:16 am

Maybe the emphasis of the word "not" is some sort of compulsive behavior that he couldn't stop even if he wanted to. Look at what he did to the word "not" when the whole sentence is bolded and underlined. :lol: [/break1]us/photo/my-images/822/nots.jpg/]http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/9586/nots.jpg



rosy
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:36 pm

EDPA - OSTELLA et al v. IRBSEARCH, LLC et al

#30

Post by rosy » Thu Apr 11, 2013 9:18 am

Scare quotes! Nearly as good as his link to urbandictionary.com. The man is a buffoon.



User avatar
kate520
Posts: 15706
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

EDPA - OSTELLA et al v. IRBSEARCH, LLC et al

#31

Post by kate520 » Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:15 am

:shock: He's still nuttin' but a scamming pimple on the backside of humanity. $250 million!? Good grief! Better hurry, Phil. Even slow moving trains will do damage once they hit.


DEFEND DEMOCRACY

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27353
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

EDPA - OSTELLA et al v. IRBSEARCH, LLC et al

#32

Post by bob » Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:41 pm

Most of this case was [/break1]justia.com/docket/pennsylvania/paedce/2]recently dismissed.IRBSearch was not so lucky, and was ordered to answer the complaint and engage in discovery.Mark A. Marino (PHV; N.Y. bar) and Anna M. Durbin (Pa. bar) are listed as counsel of record. (The court notes Berg's suspension.)


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34969
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

EDPA - OSTELLA et al v. IRBSEARCH, LLC et al

#33

Post by realist » Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:20 am

Thanks, bob.I had completely forgotten that case existed. :oops:


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27353
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

EDPA - OSTELLA et al v. IRBSEARCH, LLC et al

#34

Post by bob » Fri Nov 01, 2013 12:37 pm

I had completely forgotten that case existed. :oops:Me too. :oops: I only found it because Taitz (as a "non-party") is repeatedly mentioned in the order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motions.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

EDPA - OSTELLA et al v. IRBSEARCH, LLC et al

#35

Post by AnitaMaria » Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:17 am

I haven't been following this case, but the prospect of a Taitz v Klayman battle over Taitz's website being taken down (which is pure fantasy on my part right now because I have no evidence that it was Klayman's defamation lawsuit that caused her blog to be taken down) reminded me of this whole fiasco. The only defendant left in the case is one of the database companies. Discovery has apparently commenced, though the plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint earlier this year and there still appears to be a pending motion to dismiss. And the plaintiffs were trying to depose Todd and Neil Sankey and Orly Taitz and apparently missed the discovery deadline on that. :roll: [link]Here's the docket,http://ia601505.us.archive.org/32/items ... ocket.html[/link] with several documents (downloaded by someone unknown to me) linked.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34969
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

EDPA - OSTELLA et al v. IRBSEARCH, LLC et al

#36

Post by realist » Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:21 am

Wow... a blast from the past.I'd completely forgotten about this "case". I figured it died a natural death. :P Why am I not surprised that a discovery deadline was "missed".


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2616
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Re: EDPA - OSTELLA et al v. IRBSEARCH, LLC et al

#37

Post by Res Ipsa » Tue Sep 10, 2019 12:43 pm

Incidentally, this case was transferred to the Northern District of Florida, where....

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/51 ... er_by=desc

12/04/2015 209 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - IRB's motion for summary judgment (doc. 169 ) is GRANTED. IRB'S request for oral argument (doc. 203 ) is DENIED. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: "Summary judgment is entered in favor of the defendant, IRBsearch, LLC, and against Plaintiffs, Lisa Liberi and Brent Liberi. The claims of Lisa Ostella, Frank M. Ostella, and Philip J. Berg were previously dismissed pursuant to stipulation." Costs shall be taxed against Lisa Liberi and Brent Liberi. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE WILLIAM STAFFORD on 12/4/2015. (cle) (Entered: 12/04/2015)

12/04/2015 210 CLERK'S JUDGMENT re 209 Order Dismissing Case. 90 Day Exhibit Return Deadline set for 3/3/2016 (cle) (Entered: 12/04/2015)

12/21/2015 211 NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO HAVE COSTS TAXED by IRBSEARCH LLC re 209 Order Dismissing Case,, (RAINER, FRANK) (Entered: 12/21/2015)

12/22/2015 Set Deadlines - Response to 211 NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO HAVE COSTS TAXED due by 1/4/2016. (cle) (Entered: 12/22/2015)

01/28/2016 212 TAXATION OF COSTS BY CLERK. Costs Taxed in the amount of $2,015.75 against Plaintiffs. (tdg) (Entered: 01/29/2016)

Decision here:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... .209.0.pdf


Thanks pal.

Post Reply

Return to “Phil Berg”