Gmail - Plaintiffs Altemative Rule 26(f) Report

Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 42-1 Filed 02/15/11 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:1063

Page 1

of4

t**
10 messages

I$

Orly Taitz <orly.taitz@gmail.corn>

Plaintiffs Alternative Rule 26(f) Report
Charles Lincoln Mon, Feb 14,2AM at {2:26 AM To: Jonathan Ross <jross@bglawyers. com>, orly. taitz@gmail. com Cc: William Pallares <pallares@lbbslaw.com>, Bart Becker <BECKER@lbbslaw.com>, "Mark l. Melo" <mmelo@bglawyers.com>, Arnold Levine <alevine@bglawyers.com>, philjberg@gmail.com, usjf@usjf.net

<charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com>

Dear Dr. Taitz & Messrs. Becker, Levine, Melo, Pallares, & Ross: Because counsel Gary Kreep has appeared for me I have substantially altered the Rrrle 26(f) Report and have prepared it to be submitted with my counsel together as a "Plaintiff s Report" tomorrow.
Chcrles E. Lincoln,

Tel: 5 72.968.25OO Deo Vindice
"God be

tktre

zimpie

III

uith Uou, and uith thg spirit!"

.

'-:

.-. 1 0-cv{)1573-AG_LINCOLN_Plaintiffs_RULE_26{f}_Report_02-14-2011

.pdt

214K

llJlon, Feb 14,2Afl at 1:{6 AM Orly Taitz <orly-taiE@gmail.com> To: Pamela Barnett <pb_realestate@yahoo.com>, Ken and Betsey Allen <kenandBetseyAllen@msn.com>

this was sent to me now by Creepy Kreep, Berg an Lincoln Just a bunch of creeps
[QuoteC texi hiiicien]

Dr Orly TaiizESQ 29833 Santa Margarita pkrvy. ste

-"100

Rancho Santa Margarita. CA 92688 ph 949-683-541'1 fax949-766-76C3 orlytaitzesq.com

; n 0-cv{1 | 214K
1

573-AG_LINCOLN_Plaintiff s_RULE 26(f)_Report_02-1 4-20{

1

.

pdf

Orly Taitz <orly.taitz@gmail.com> To:YosiTaitz-

Mon, Feb 14,2011at 1:51 AM

https://mail.google.com/mall/?ui:2&ik:a3a25723cf&viewlt&search:inbox&th=12e234... 2ll5l20I1

Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 42-1 Filed 02/15/11 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:1064

Gary G. Kreep, Esq. United States Justice Foundation 2 932D Street, Suite 2 3 Ramona, CA92065
1

4

Tel:

760-788-6624

Fax: 760-788-6414

J Email: usjf@usjf,net Philip J. Berg, Esq. (subject to applicatiorrpro hae vice) 6 Law Offices of Philip J. Berg 7 555 Andora Glenn Court, Suite #12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 8 Tel: (610) 825-3134 9 Emai : ph i lj b_er g(@, gmail. q onq Attorneys for Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln, III 10
1

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COIJRT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

t2
13

14 15

CHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN, III, Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO.

8: I 0-cv-01

573-AG-PLA

t6 t7
18 L9

RULE 26(f) Plaintiffs Report on Joint Scheduling Conference held by telephone on Thursday February 3,2011

INCORPORATED, YOSEF T AITZ, 20 ORLY TALTZ, [NC., APPEALTNG DENTISTRY, LAW OFFICE OF ORLY TAITZ(RICO Entemrise), DR. ORLY 21 TAITZ: ESO.. D.D.S.. J.D.. DEFEND OUR T'NAEDOVIS FOLTNDATION, ANd 22 all JOHN & JANE DOES l-10,
23 24

DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL INFORMATIO}{ SYSTEMS,

Defendants.

't<
26 27

PLAINTIFF'S REPORT OF FEBRUARY 3,2011,26(f) CONFERENCE
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(f), as modified by Local

28 Rule 26-1 and this Court's Order Setting Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference, the

IEwr
s

BRISBOI

RULE 26(0 PLAINTIFF'S REPORT

CASE NO. CV10-01573-AG (PLAx)

Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 42-1 Filed 02/15/11 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:1065

1

Plaintiff hereby submits his report of the early meeting of counsel, conducted by
telephone on February 3,2011 at which point Plaintiff was not represented by

2 3

counsel. Plaintiff had repeatedly requested that opposing counsel agree to a

4 postponement of the meeting until his counsel had appeared, but Defense counsel
5 6 7 8 9

steadfastly refused. As a result, the conference conclusions cannot be called'Joinf' or "agreed" in any meaningful sense.

Plaintiff (inpropiapersona, prior to the appearcnce of counsel) met and
conferred by telephone with Jonathan Ross, William Pallares, and Oriy Tattz while

traveling through Texas in an effort to comply with the Court's order for the parties

10 to meet and confer prior to February 7,2011. Because the Plaintiff was not
11 12 13

represented by counsel at that time, his statements and agreements to any

joint

statement should not be binding on Plaintiff s now-appearing counsel Gary Kreep
and Philip J. Berg and Plaintiff files his report separately.

l4 1.
15

Statement Of The Case

a. Plaintiffs Synopsis
Plaintiff holds
a J.D.

t6

from the University of Chicagol and externed or clerked
9th

l7

for two Federal Judges (Hon. Stephen Reinhardt,

Circuit, Hon. Kenneth L.

18 Ryskamp, S.D. Fla.). He is currently a disbarred attorney, formerly admitted and

t9 licensed to practice in California (among other states). On or about May 30, 2009,
20

Plaintiff was offered contract work

as a

litigation consultant,legal assistant, or law-

2t clerk by Defendant Orly TaiIz, who at ail relevant times acted as de ifaclo albeit ,) unofficial servant andl or agent of and for Yosef T aitz and Daylight Chemical
23 24
Charles Edward Lincoln also received a B.A. from Tulane University (1980, where he graduated Phi Beta an M.A. from Harvard University in 1982, and a Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1990. His Graduate Studies and Dissertation Research were supported by the National Science Foundation and National Geographic Society as well as private funds including grants from the late, Charles Pickering Bowditch Fund, the Harvard Peabody Museum, author James A. Michener and Zemttrray Foundation of New Orleans.
1

25 Kappa, Magna cum laude),

26 27
28

bEwr
BRISBOI
5

RULE 26(0 Plaintifls Report 26(fl REPORT on February 3 Phone Conference

Case #1 0-cv-0 1 573 -AG-(PLAx)

Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 42-1 Filed 02/15/11 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:1066

I
2 3

Information Systems, Inc.. Plaintiff first met Dr. Orly Taitz on or about June 9,
2009, and began work.

From the beginning, DefendantTaitz sought to defraud Plaintiff by seeking to

4 have him work for free for herself and her shell organizations including Defend our

I
6

Freedoms Foundation, Appealing Dentistry, Orly Taitz,Inc., and the Law Office

of

Orly Taitz, all of which were actually shell-entities for Yosef Taitz and Daylight

7 Chemical Information Systems, Inc..
8 9

The scope of work which Dr.Taitz sought from Lincoln (and which Lincoln
agreed to perform) rapidly expanded and the parties developed an alternative plan

10 for compensation whereby in exchange for Lincoln's services as a litigation
11

consultant, quasi-political consultant, law clerk on numerous cases, and the
became more complex on a personal and

t2 relationship between Taitz & Lincoln
13

professional level, with Taitz agreeing and contracting to appear as attorney on behalf of Lincoln as trustee for financially distressed estates and properties all over
the United States, and Orly Tartzbegan advertising her relationship with Lincoln and her involvement in Lincoln's mortgage redemption projects on her website and

l4
15

t6
18

t7 soliciting new clients. Taitz

induced Lincoln to agree to work based on extravagant

promises and deceptive statements, all involving large amounts of money and care

19 and development of a personal and professional relationship, all relating to
2A

information derived from foreign (especially Israeli) sources and information relating to the constitutional illegitimacy of President Barack H. Obama to serve

21

22 under the U.S. Constitution 23

of 1787.

Lincoln likewise advertised their relationship on his blog and both publicly,

24 personally, and specifically endorsed Orly Taitz' campaign against Obama and 25 announced his Trust and Foundation's (Tierra Limpia/Deo Vindice) institutional

26 commitment and support to Orly Taitz in July 2009. Defendant Orly Taitz agreed 27 and offered and attempted to appear in cases in U.S. District Courts in California,
28 Florida, and Idaho for Lincoln but only actually succeeded in appearing in a case in

!Ewr
BRISBOI

s

RULE 26(0 Plainti{f s Report 26(0 REPORT on February 3 Phone Conference

3

Case #10-cv-01573-AG-(PLAx)

Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 42-1 Filed 02/15/11 Page 5 of 16 Page ID #:1067

I
2

Orange County, California regarding which Orly Tartz failed to take any meaningful action except withdrawing from representation in December 2009.

3 4

DefendantTartz did not initially disclose the degree of her abject dependence
upon both the financial support and direction of Yosef Taitz and the relationship

5 between her activities and his, but this gradually became apparent

until Orly Tattz

6 terminated all her activities with Lincoln as a direct and proximate result of Yosef
7 8

Taitz' directions and orders.
Lincoln's association with Orly Taitz has severely injured his own

9 professional prospects for professional recovery and his own political aspirations,

10 his personalrcputation and even his personal and professional relationships with
11

others. Lincoln has been ridiculed and vilified in the on-line media and press, by
OrIy Taitz herself and by entities which may be related to or controlled by Yosef Taitz, whose operation appears to be designed deceptively to defeat its own express
pu{poses by incompetence and clownish misrepresentation.

12 13

t4
15

b.

Synopsis hy Defendant

16 17

i.

Law Office of Orly Taitz and Dr. Orly Taitz, Erq., D.D.S.,
J.D.

r8

The core of the apparent employment and attorney-client relationship and the central places or institutions around which ail personal and professional interaction

t9
20
2T

took place. Dr. OrIy Tartz initiated a malicious prosecution of Lincoln for forgery in relationship to one case in which she attempted and failed to appear in Florida,
and she initiated this prosecution at the direction of and with the support of Yosef

'r)
23 24 25 26

Taitz & Daylight Chemical lnformation Systems, Inc.

ii.

Daylight Chemical Information Systems, Inc. and Dr.
Yosef Taitz

The actual interested parties who controlled and directed all operations and

27 made the actual decisions of the Law Office of Orly Taitz and Dr. Orly Tait4 Esq.,

LEW| \
BRISBOI

28

D.D.S., J.D., including but not limited to the decision to breach all contracts and
RULE 26(0 Plainti{fs Report 26(0 REPORT on February 3 Phone Conlerence

4

Case #10-cv-01573-AG-(PLAx)

s

Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 42-1 Filed 02/15/11 Page 6 of 16 Page ID #:1068

1

agreements with Lincoln and the decision to maliciously prosecute him.

)
3

Throughout their relationship, Dr. Orly Taitz was constantly receiving phone calls from Yosef Taitz in which she said very little but listened and spoke exclusively in

4 Hebrew or Russian, neither of which Plaintiff understands beyond a handful
5 words. 6 7 8 9

of

iii.

Defend Our Freedom Foundation, Orly Taitz,Inc. and

Appealing Dentistry
Collateral entities and institutions organized at the same central place as the

Law Office of Orly Taitz and Orly Tattz, D.D.S., J.D.; Defend our Freedom

10 Foundation and Appealing Dentistryz in particular were used as vehicles to make
11

extravagant promises to Lincoln, seeking to induce his cooperation in a tangled web

t2 of possibly or potentially fraudulent activities, all of which promises were false and
13

most of which activities were either questionable or downright illegal, while Taitz refused to honor their commitments to support Lincoln's mortgage work.

&

t4 DOFD

15 Many of the long-term staff employees of Appealing Dentistry speak Hebrew or 16 Russian.

t7
18
T9

2.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction
The parties dispute whether this Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiff contends there is federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
$$ 1331,1332

20 21

& 1367. Plaintiff

was born in Texas and his maintained a residence

in Texas for most of his adult life. All his latest (past ten years') driver's license and
(exercised) voter's registration and voting were in Travis County, Texas.

)",
23 24 25

All

the Defendants are California residents or corporations. Diversity

Jurisdiction exists without any question whatsoever. Other states in which Lincoln
has recently resided would include Massachusetts and

Florida. Lincoln's longest

26 recent presence in California was directly related to his work with and for Orly Taitz 27 and her associated organizations.
28

PlaintifPs RICO allegations will be amended within such time as allowed by
RULE 26(f) Plainti{?s Report 26(0 REPORT on February 3 Phone Conference
Case #1 O-cv-01 573 -AG-(PLAx)

IEwr
s

BRISBOI

Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 42-1 Filed 02/15/11 Page 7 of 16 Page ID #:1069

1

the Court to provide full substantiation for the interstate and international racketeering and tltreatof continuous criminal conduct which Defendants Yosef

2

&

Orly Taitzhave engaged and continue to pose. With the basis of a federal claim for 4 subject matter jurisdiction, there is also a basis for supplemental jurisdiction under
3 5 6

28 U.S.C. $ 1367, as all claims arise from the same common nucleus of operative

law and fact and the same time frame and focus (May 2009-July 2010).

7

In response to Defendant Daylight Chemical Information Systems, Inc.'s and Dr. Yosef Taitz'motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(bX1), Plaintiff contends
there is diversity jurisdiction pursuanlto 28 U.S.C. $ 1332. However, Defendants

I
9

10 contend thatPlaintiff cannot establish complete diversity because he recently
11

asserted in public documents that he was a citizen of the State of California.

12 13 14

3.

Key Legal Issues
Whether OrIy Taitzwas at all times legally as well as de

faclo

agent for or

employee/servant of Yosef Tartz & Daylight Chemical lnformation Systems such

15 that all the actions of Orly Tattzas agent or servant should be imputed to Yosef

l6
t7
T9

Taitz as principal.
Whether the multiple shell organizations operated by Yosef and Otly Taitz

18 were enterprises engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity within the meaning
18 U.S.C. $1961

of

et seq..

20

Whether Dr. Orly Taitz' partialperformance and long-term announcements
and advertising of her contractual promises and professional relationship with

2l
22 23 24 25 26 .,n 28

Lincoln validates or constitutes evidence of the existence and validity of her
contractual agreement with Lincoln sufficient to support judiciai enforcement
said contracts betweenTaitz and Lincoln.

of

4.

Parties, Evidence, etc.

t.

Parties

Plaintiff Charles E. Lincoln, III;
Defendant Law Office of Orly Tattz;
RULE 26(0 Plaintiff s Report
REPORT on F
3 Phone Conference

bEwr
BRISBOI

Case #1 0-cv-0 1 573 -AG-(PLAx)

l__

-

Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 42-1 Filed 02/15/11 Page 8 of 16 Page ID #:1070

1

Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., D.D.S., J.D.; Defendant Daylight Chemical Information Systems, Inc.; Defendant Dr. Yosef Taitz; Defendant Defend Our Freedom Foundation; Defendant Orly Tartz,Inc.; and Defendant Appealing Dentistry

)
3 4
5

6
7 8

b.

Percipient Wifnesses

Charles E. Lincoln,

III;

9 10
11

Dr. Orly Taitz; Dr. Yosef Taitz; John & Jane Doe Employees/Independent Contrators/Consultants of

t2 Appealing Dentistry, Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, OrIy Taitzrlnc.,
13 L4

Daylight Chemical Information Systems, Inc., and OrIy Taitz, Inc.

15
T6

c. (1)

Key Documents

All e-mail communications between Orly Taitz

and Charles Lincoln,

including all versions of contractual negotiations and all legal documents prepared
and edited, and all legal research.

t7
18

(2)

All professional or political e-mail communications between Orly

19 Taitz, Appealing Dentistry, Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, Orly Taitz" Inc., the
2A

Law Office of Orly Taitz, and Yosef TaitzlDaylight Chemical Information Systems,
concerning Obama eligibility litigation, birth certificates, Lucas Daniel Smith, mortgage litigation, and Charles Edward Lincoln, III, relating to those communications which were non-privileged because they were discussed by Orly

2t )',
23 24 25

Taitz with Charles Edward Lincoln, disclosed physically to Charles Edward Lincoln
or to the three children of Orly & Yosef Tattz, or to other parties.

26

(3) All communications

between Orly & Yosef Taitz and anyone in the

27 Israeli or Chinese govemment or Secret Services (e.g. MOSSAD) or anyone
28 involved in the Obama elegibility litigation, mortgage litigation, birth certificates,

IEwt
s

BRISBOI

RULE 26(0 PlaintifPs Report 26(0 REPORT on February 3 Phone Conference

7

Case #10-cv-01573-AG-(PLAx)

Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 42-1 Filed 02/15/11 Page 9 of 16 Page ID #:1071

1

Lucas Daniel Smith, or Charles Edward Lincoln

III.

2

5.

Damages

3 4
5

Lincoln alleges actual breach of employment contract damages in an
amount in excess of $100,000.00, actual trreach of attorney-client contract
damages in excess of $5001000.00, libel and defamation and

IIED damages in an

6 7 8 9

amount in excess of $50010000, and racketeering damages in an amount in
excess of $10000,000.00.

6.

Insurance
Defendants Law Office of Orly Taitz and Dr. OrIy Taitz, Esq., D.D.S., J.D.

10 are curently being defended by ZunchNorth America.
11

7.

Likelihood of Motions

12 13

L.

Plaintiff

Plaintiff anticipates filing motions to compel discovery of electronic and other

t4 documents from all Defendants, but especially from Yosef Taitz,Dayhght Chemical
15 Information Systems, Inc., Appealing Dentistry, Defend Our Freedoms Foundation,

t6 Orly Taitz, Inc.; Plaintiff contends that given Defendants' massive computer
1,7

sophistication, it will be necessary to examine all computer harddrives and storage

18 systems directly and physically due to possible "accidental loss" or "spoilage"

of

t9
20

evidence, including regularly timed destruction of documents which at the present

time the Court should order to cease.

2l
,,J

b.

Defendants

Defendants Law Office of Orly Taitz and Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., D.D.S., J.D.
state that they do not anticipate bringing any motions other than a motions

23 24 25 26
-t

for

summary judgment or partial summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56
and motions in limine. But based on the February 3,2011, discovery conference,

Plaintiff expects that Defendants will file multiple and massive Motions for
Protective Orders and to prevent electronic discovery.
RULE 26(0 Plaintifls Report 26(fl REPORT on February 3 Phone Conference
Case #1 0-cv-0 1 573 -AG-(PLAx)

)1

s
s

LEW|

28

BRISBOI

Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 42-1 Filed 02/15/11 Page 10 of 16 Page ID #:1072

1

8.

Manual for Complex Litigation

2 3 4

It is unclear whether this case could evolve into

a complex litigation situation

if further evidence of international governmental (or corporate) connections or
espionage is discovered. Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot be certain at the present

5 time whether it would be helpful to utilize the Manual of Complex Litigation in this
6 case or not.

7 8

9.

Status of Discovery
The Plaintiff agreed (without counsel) on February 3,2011, to serve his initial

9 disclosures on or before March 21,2011. Plaintiff s recently appearing counsel 10 cannot agree to such a foreshortened time frame and wouid ask until May 1, 2All,
11 12 13

or that the Court dispense with the requirement of initial disclosures all together. The parties acknowledge their duties to supplement disclosures and discovery pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(e).

t4
15

10. Discovery Plan a. Numbering
The parties agree to use a single, unified numbering system, numbering each
proposes that his

16

t7 deposition exhibit in consecutive numerical order. Plaintiffs
18

documents shall be numbered 1 through 999. Defendant Orly Taitz' documents

19 shall be numbered 1001-1999; Defendant Yosef Taitz' documents should be 20

numbered 2A0 I -2999; Defendant Daylight Chemical Information Systems' documents should be numbered 3001-3999; Defendant Defend Our Freedoms' Documents Should be numbered 4001-4999; Defendant Orly Taitz' Inc's documents should be numbered 5001-5999; Appealing Dentistry's documents 6001-6999;Law

2l
,,1

23 24 25

Offrce of Orly Taitz' documents 7001-7999, etc.

b. c.

Written DiscoverY

26

The parties anticipate propounding interrogatories, requests for production

of

27 documents, and requests for admissions. z8

Depositions
9
Case #1 0-cv-01

!Ewr
BRISBOI

573-AG-(PLAx)

REPORT on Fe

3 Phone Conference

s

Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 42-1 Filed 02/15/11 Page 11 of 16 Page ID #:1073

1

The parties anticipate taking the following depositions: Charles E. Lincoln,

2 3 4 5

III; Dr. OrIy Tattz; and Dr. Yosef Tattz; Plaintiff anticipates taking depositions of
employees and agents of each of the individual and cotporate Defendants; during the February 3, 2011, conference, Dr. Orly Tartz indicated that she wished to either sue or take evidence from Plaintiff s associates (1) Peyton Yates Freiman, (2) Kathy

6 Ann Garcia-Lawson, (3) Elena K. Lincoln, and (4) Charles Edward Lincoln,
7

IV,

as

well as (5) Lucas Daniel Smith, and (6) Larry Sinclair.
The Parties anticipate the identity of third-party witnesses

I
9

will

be disclosed

during ongoing discovery and reserve the right to depose them.

10
11

d.

Discovery Subject Matter

Plaintiff does not recall that the parties discussed whether to conduct
reasons why this

t2 discovery in phases on February 3,2011, or not. There are several
13

might be a desirable strategy, but these will be discussed by counsel.

I4
15

e.

Existing Or Issues To Arise

Electronic discovery will be a seriously disputed discovery issue; spousal

t6 privilege may be an issue for discovery concerning Orly & Yosef Taitz; national

l7

security may be an issue relating to discovery relating to Orly & Yosef Taitz

&

18 Daylight Chemical Information Systems, Inc.; Attorney-Client privilege between

t9 Taitz

and Lincoln no longer exists (for obvious reasons) but Attorney-Client

20 privilege between Taitz and Dr. Jonathan Levy may exist and yet Levy may be a

2t witness to certain relevant facts; Lincoln is willing to waive any claim of privilege
22 with Dr. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson although he sometimes rather informally 23

consulted with her in her capacity as a psychologist regarding his relationship(s)

24 with Dr. Orly Tartz and Orly Taitz' deeply troubled marriage to her husband Yosef. 25

f.

Electronically Stored Information (Identification, Maintenance And Production Agreements/Discussions)

26 ,,,|
28

The parties have not entered into any agreements about electronically stored

information. Currently, the Plaintiff is anticipating extensive electronic discovery,
RULE 26(0 Plaintifls Report 26(0 REPORT on February 3 Phone Conference

bEwr
BRISBOI

10

Case #10-cv-01573-AG-(?LAx)

s

Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 42-1 Filed 02/15/11 Page 12 of 16 Page ID #:1074

I
2

however, Defendants do not agree. However, should electronic discovery become
necessary, the Parties agree to cooperate as to time and cost saving protocols to

3
4

implement any foreseeable electronic discovery.

g.

Limitations Civil Procedure, and instead reserve the right to

5

The parties do not propose any changes to the limitations on discovery

6 imposed under the Federal Rules of
7 8 9

stipulate or seek an order from the Court altering the limitations imposed by the Federal Rules should the need arise.

11. Discovery Cut-Off
On February 3,2071, the parties tentatively discussed December

10
11

9,2An.

L2.

Expert Discovery

t2
13

The Parties on February 3,2011 proposed the following tentative schedule for expert discovery:

t4
15

Initial Expert Disclo sure :
Rebuttal Expert Disclosure
:

November November

ll,2011;

and

25,20tI

t6
17
18 19

13. Dispositive Motions
Defendants Law Office of Orly Taitz and Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., D.D.S., J.D. anticipate filing a motion for summary judgment as to the statue of limitation and

causation. Defendants Law Office of Orly Taitz and Dr. Orly Taitz, Ese., D.D.S.,

20

J.D. reserve the right to file on other grounds depending upon the disclosure of facts
during discovery.

2l
22 23

14. 15.

Settlement Plaintiff proposes mediation andlor mock/moot "trial-by-jury" as settlement

24 tecniques. 25 26

Trial Estimate

a. b.

Jury Trial

27
28

The parties demand a jury

tial
11
Case #10-cv-01573-AG-(PLAx)

Witnesses

IEwr
s

BRISBOI

RULE,26(O Plaintiff s Report 26(0 REPORT on February 3 Phone Conference

Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 42-1 Filed 02/15/11 Page 13 of 16 Page ID #:1075

1

The number of Witnesses has not yet been established for any party.

2 3

c.
16.

Time Estimate For Trial

The parties estimate a 5 to 6 day jury trial.

4
5

Trial Counsel
Plaintiffs trial counsel: Gary Kreep, Erq., & Philip J. Berg, Esq.
Defendants Law Office of Orly Taitz' and Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., D.D.S., J.D.'s

6
7 8

trial counsel: Bartley L. Becker and William E. Pallares.
Defendants Chemical Information Systems, Inc.'s and Dr. Yosef Taitz'

trial

9 counsel: Jonathan A. Ross; 10
11

Defendants Defend Our Freedom Foundation's, Orly Taitz, Inc.'s and

Appealing Dentistry's trial counsel: Dr. Orly Tartz.

12 13

Plaintiffs trial counsel, once approved for Pro Hac Vice will be: Philip
Berg, Erq., sponsored by local counsel, Gary G. Kreep, Esq.

J.

t4
15

17.

Independent Expert Or Master
The parties do not anticipate the need for the Court to appoint a master

t6 t7 t9
20

pursuant to Rule 53 or an independent scientific expert; the Plaintiff suggests that an independent expert regarding issues of national security and/or computer/electronic

18 data storage and retrieval

MAY be necessary.

18.

Timetable
The Parties on February

3,20II, tentatively

proposed the following dates

2l
22 23 24

before the appearance of Plaintiff s counsel:

Discovery cut-off:

December 9,2011; January 30,2012; February 27,2012; and

Motion cut-off:
Final Pretrial

Conference:

25 26 27
28

Trial: 19. Other fssues

March 12,2012.

At this time, the Parties do not anticipate any other issues.
RULE 26(0 Plaintiff s Report
26(f) REPORT on February 3 Phone Conference

bEwr
BRISBOI

12

Case #i0-cv-01573-AG-(PLAx)

:__

_

Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 42-1 Filed 02/15/11 Page 14 of 16 Page ID #:1076

1

Respectfully submitted,

2
3

DATED: February

14,2011

BY:

4 5 6

Gary G. Kreep, Esq. United States Justice Foundation 932D Street, Suite 2 Ramona, CA,92065

Tel:

760-788-6624

Fax: 760-788-6414
Email: usif@)usif.net

7

I
9
10 11

DATED: February

-!4,2011

BY:

12 13

Philip J. Berg 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 ohilibere@smail.com
BY:

12

t4
15 16

DATED: February

_14,2011

Charles Edward Lincoln, III Plaintfff fn Propia Persona

t7
18

t9
20

2l
22 23 24 25

26 27
28

IEwr
s

RULE 26(0 Plaintifls RePort
REPORT on February 3 Phone Conference

Case #1 0-cv-0

1

573-AG-(PLAx)

BRISBOI

Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 42-1 Filed 02/15/11 Page 15 of 16 Page ID #:1077

1

FEDERAL COURT PROOF OF SERVICE Lincoln v. Daylight Chemieal Information - Case No. 10-cv-01573-AG (PLAx)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Orange County

2

3 4

At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to the action. My business address is 603 Elmwood Place, Suite #6, Austin, Texas 78705. I am 5 employed in the office of Plaintiff Charles Edward, Lincoln, III: Tierra Limpia/Deo
Vindice.
On February 14,20t 1, I served the following docurnent(s): RULE 26(F) JOINT REPORT
served the documents on the following persons by hand delivery in February 14,2011, or at the following addresses (including fax numbers and e-mail addresses, if applicable): Jonathan A. Ross, Esq. Arnold S- Levine, Esq. Mark I. Melo, Esq.

6 7
8 9

I

10
11

12 13

l4
15 16

t7
18
T9

20

Bradley & Gmelich 700 North Brand Boulevard, to'h Glendale, CA 91203 -1422 Tel: (818) 243-5240 Fax: (818)243-5266 Attorneys for Defendants Daylight Chemical Information Systems, Inc. and Dr. Yosef Taitz Charles Edward Lincoln, III 603 Elmwood Place, Suite 6 Austin, TX78705 Tel: 512-968-2500 charles. lincoln@rocketmaii. com Plaintiff in Propia Persona

.

Floor

Dr. Orly Tartz,Esq. 29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, #100 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Tel: (949) 683-5411 rax: (9+9j rca-laoz
orly. taitaz@ gmail. com

Attorney for Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, Orly T aitz, Inc., Appealing Dentistry
Gary G. Kreep, Esq. United States Justice Foundation 932D Street, Suite 2 Ramona, CA 92065 Tel: 760-788-6624 Fax: 760-788-6414 Email: usjf@usjf.net

2l
22 23 24 25 26

Philip J. Berg 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
phi lj berg@, gmai l. co rn

12

The documents were served by the following means:

pro hac Vice)

Courtesy Copy (subject to admission

27
28

tr

By E-Mail on Monday Morning and by hand delivery in Court on February 14,2011.
1

bEwr
BRISBOI

RULE 26(0 Plaintiffs
REPORT

CASE NO. CVl0-01573-AG (PLAx)

s

Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 42-1 Filed 02/15/11 Page 16 of 16 Page ID #:1078

I
"l

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and codect.
Executed on February 14,2011, in Santa Ana, California.

3
4 5

Peyton Yates Freiman, for the Plaintiff

6 7 8 9 10

1t

t2
13

t4
15

16

t7
18

t9
20
21.

22 23

24 25 26 27 28

IEwr
s

? RULE 26(0 Plaintiffs
REPORT CASE NO. CV10-01573-AG (PLAX)

BRISBOI

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful