Motion to terminate Philip Berg as an attorney on the case-112345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DR. ORLY TAITZ ESQ29839 SANTA MARGARITA PKWY, STE 100RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA 92688PH 949-683-5411 FAX 949-766-7603US DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LIBERI ET AL,PLAINTIFF, VS.TAITZ AT AL,DEFENDANT))))))))))CASE NO.: 11-CV-00485Supplemental brief toReply to opposition to MOTION-REQUEST TO TERMINATEPHILIP J. BERG AS AN ATTORNEY ON THE CASEHON. ANDREW GUILFORDPRESIDINGDATE 05.09.2011TIME 10:00COURTROOM 10 D
Defendantsare submitting this supplemental brief with two morepoints, which were inadvertently omitted in the Reply toopposition to motion to terminate (disqualify) attorney Berg, asan attorney for the Plaintiffs in this case.1. All of the cases broughtin citationsby the plaintiffs intheir opposition brief,are completely irrelevant to this motionand this case in general, as all of such cases relate tocriminal defendants exercising their 6th Amendment right tocounsel in criminal case.
United states v Gonzales-Lopez, United States v Lilie, United States v Garett, United States v Walters,United State v Panzareli-Alvarez
areall criminal cases. Thereis more leeway in granting pro hac vice to attorneys forcriminal defendants in accordance with their 6th amendmentrights. The case at hand is a civil case, Berg wants torepresent plaintiffs, notdefendants, and he did not provide anylaws, statutes or precedents, which will allow him to do sowithout a valid license or without a valid pro hac vice signed
Ý¿» èæïïó½ªóððìèëóßÙ óßÖÉ Ü±½«³»²¬ ïéé Ú·´»¼ ðìñïèñïï Ð¿¹» ï ±º ë Ð¿¹» ×Üýæìðçè