Is that Leslie or Phil as usual posting under aliases? Have you had the rest of your messages posted here under aliases erased? Now they no longer appear under your profile.
Members here should know that this poster(s), to get the text of that order, would have to either:
1. Be Berber or Moor
2. Be their defense counsel
3. Be in direct contact with 1 or 2
4. Have gone in person to the federal courthouse in Austin to retrieve a hard copy of the order
because this court does not have ECF capability as of yet.
I stated earlier:
The District Court's orders and opinions directly conflict with United States Supreme Court authority and, therefore, as a legal matter, were issued in error.
To amplify on the order, the text of the opinion is taken, almost without a single exception, word-for-word verbatim, entire paragraphs, from the briefs Berber and Moor filed. Now that's not unheard of in federal court, but it doesn't happen every day, either.
As for the order declaring me vexatious, it was, as a matter of both law and fact, made in error, for, among other reasons, these:
1. No court ever issued a final judgment in favor of Berber and Moor against me until June 2, 2005, or for more than three years and therefore the issues before the District Court had never been previously determined by ANY court
2. Berber and Moor both advised me to file suit against them in Austin, and therefore were collaterally estopped from moving to have me declared vexatious for doing so
3. Except for the present parties, pending litigation, no less than five brokerage firms, three brokerage firm officers and three law firms have settled claims I brought pro se against them, including Berber's former counsel Jenkens & Gilchrist, which law firm filed materially false statements in federal court after settlement claiming I had sued "all to no avail." One of the parties settling with this "vexatious litigant," Berber and Moor's former company, specifically agreed in a signed, notarized settlement with me that it could not under any circumstances disparage my character and integrity in any way whatsoever. Another defendant that agreed to that clause is one of the largest brokerage firms in the United States by market capitalization. I leave you to consider whether or not a vexatious litigant could achieve these results.
4. The statement that I sued my former lawyers (who also settled with me after first threatening me with sanctions if I dared sue them), merely because "they refused to continue to represent" me is false. I sued them primarily for negligent legal malpractice, which was borne out by their refusing to appeal orders handed down in March, 2003 by the presiding judge of the San Francisco Superior Court, advising me legally that there was no justification for challenging the orders. I went ahead and ignored that advice, filed two petitions for a writ of mandamus in the California Court of Appeal, and within a few months the appellate court agreed with me, reversed the presiding judge, and cited him for abuse of discretion in ignoring controlling California Supreme Court authority.
1-4 are all documented facts, not opinions. I should further add that, though the order in no way refers thereto, the injunction against further lawsuits in this country is by CONSENT, I filed in court agreeing that this case was to decide these factual allegations, and that I intended to file no others.
Again, an appeal is forthcoming. |
