LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Objection and Opposition - Transport Room

8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Objection and Opposition - Transport Room

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/liberi-v-taitz-appeal-appellants-objection-and-opposition-transport 1/64

U.S. District Court,Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case Number: 09-cv-01898 ECR

Court of Appeals Case Number: 09-3403

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ Ο _____________

LISA LIBERI, et al,

Plaintiffs’ – Appellants’,

v.ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Respondents’ – Appellees’.

____________ Ο _____________

APPELLANTS’ OBJECTIONS and OPPOSITION TO APPELLEES

ORLY TAITZ and DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC.

FRIVOLOUS MOTION TO STRIKE WITH A REQUEST TO STRIKE

APPELLEES MOTION TO STRIKE; and REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES and SANCTIONS _____________________

Philip J. Berg, Esquire555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531(610) 825-3134

Attorney for the Appellants’

Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110135281 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2010



Appellants’, Lisa Liberi [hereinafter “Liberi”]; Philip J. Berg, Esquire

[hereinafter “Berg”], the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg; Evelyn Adams a/k/a

Momma E [hereinafter “Adams”]; Lisa Ostella [hereinafter “Ostella”]; and Go

Excel Global by and through their undersigned counsel, Philip J. Berg, Esquire,

hereby file the within Objections and Opposition with a Request to Strike and for

Attorney fees and Sanctions to Appellees Orly Taitz and Defend our Freedoms

Foundations, Inc.’s Frivolous Motion to Strike.

Appellees Motion to Strike was filed for an improper purpose and contains

nothing more than conclusions of law; hearsay statements; hearsay documents;

speculation; conclusory statements immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous

statements and material, and are completely irrelevant, impertinent and immaterial

to the within action and therefore, must be stricken.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Appellants filed a Motion to Withdraw their Appeal or in the Alternative a

Motion to Dismiss their Appeal pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,

[F.R.A.P.] Rule 42(b).

Appellee Orly Taitz [hereinafter “Taitz”] Entered her Appearance on behalf

of herself and her Corporation Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. [hereinafter




2

“DOFF”] on April 26, 2010, five (5) days after Appellants filed their Motion to

Withdraw or in the Alternative to Dismiss their Appeal.

Appellees Taitz and DOFF then filed their Opposition to the Appellants

Motion on April 30, 2010 and raised numerous new issues and a Request for Costs

and Sanctions. Appellants had to reply, but due to the complexity of the Case was

unable to properly reply without exceeding the page limits. Appellants’ have filed

a Motion for Leave to File in Excess of the Ten (10) Page Limit. Appellants filed

their Reply on May 1, 2010 so not to hold up the Court in granting their Motion to

Withdraw their Appeal or in the Alternative to Dismiss their Appeal pursuant to

the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure [F.R.A.P.] 42(b).

Appellees Taitz and DOFF have now filed a Motion to Strike Appellants’

Reply filed on May 1, 2010 to Appellees Opposition, which appears on the Court

docket on May 5, 2010. Appellees filing is nothing more than an attempted

tactical advantage to prolong dismissal of the within Appeal; to cost Appellants

additional Attorney Fees; to waist Judicial Resources; and Appellees Motion is to

cause delay.

Appellees have used the Motion process to falsely accuse Appellants’ of

crimes; to make unsubstantiated allegations against the Appellants; and now Taitz

screams afoul because Taitz is unhappy that Appellants replied to all of Taitz’s

false allegations and accusations against the Appellants and filed supporting




3

evidence. In fact, Taitz’s states the Appellants make “unsubstantiated claims”, so

Appellants provided the evidence to substantiate their claims. The exhibits to

Appellants Reply are authenticated, they were taken directly from Taitz’s website,

which she authored and published. Taitz now claims the documents cannot be

trusted, which is ludicrous as Taitz maintains all the originals; Taitz sent them to

other websites, who posted them; to journalists who wrote about them; went on

radio shows, including but not limited to Satellite, Short Wave, Broadband and

Network and discussed her postings; Taitz provided them to law enforcement; and

filed them in other Federal Courts. Taitz claims the exhibits can’t be trusted

because “the documents and affidavits submitted are prepared and handled by

Berg’s assistant Lisa Renee Liberi (aka Lisa Liberi Richardson), who is a career

forgery with some ten convictions of forgery of documents…” Taitz’s filings are

packed with speculation; hearsay; and unsubstantiated false allegations. It is

important for this Court to note, Appellant Lisa Liberi’s middle name is NOT

“Renee”; nor has her name ever been “Lisa Liberi Richardson”. In addition, in

Taitz’s ramblings, which clearly warrant sanctions, she claims Appellant Lisa

Liberi threatened her sister and then her sister died. In is important for this Court

to note “Cheryl” is NOT and has NEVER been Appellant Liberi’s sister’s name.

It should also be noted that Appellant Lisa Liberi is a paralegal, not an investigator




4

and Appellant Lisa Liberi has donated her time to the undersigned since

approximately 2006, not 2008 as Taitz’s claims.

It is apparent Taitz’s anger is directed at Appellant Lisa Liberi, however, the

reasons are unknown as to why, other than her threat to take the undersigned down

and to do so, Taitz stated she would destroy Appellant Lisa Liberi.

The rest of Taitz’s ramblings, again which she must be sanctioned for, are

referring to cases of the undersigned and events the undersigned has planned.

Nothing in Taitz filing has anything to do with the issue before this Court, which

is Appellants Motion to Withdraw or in the Alternative to Dismiss their Appeal

pursuant to the F.R.A.P. 42(b). As this Court can clearly see by using Taitz’s

filing of May 5, 2010 entitled Motion to Strike, and as also explained in

Appellants’ Reply, Appellee Taitz has a known history of falsely accusing her

victims of crimes and inappropriate actions for which she is actually doing, just as

she has done in her Motion to Strike, which clearly speaks for itself.

Unfortunately, the Appellants are victims of Taitz’s and it has been reported to the

proper authorities for full prosecution.

Taitz then cries that she is running for California Secretary of State in a tight

two (2) candidate race which is absolutely absurd. I will point out to this Court

however, just to give another example of how Taitz’s targets people: Damon Dunn

is a Republican candidate for Secretary of State that was endorsed by the




5

Republican Party. Taitz did not take kindly to this and has now “targeted” Damon

Dunn. Taitz without any type of permissible purpose has obtained a Lexis

Accurint Report on Dunn, placing the majority of his Social Security number on

her site1. In addition, Taitz has been accusing Damon Dunn of Crimes in

California and even demanded the Orange County District Attorney’s Office to

prosecute Dunn, which they declined as Dunn had not broken any laws. A simple

search on the Internet in Google with “Taitz + Dunn” brings up Taitz’s horrible

posts authored and posted by her, just as she has done to the Appellants herein and

others, including Danny Bickel, a U.S. Supreme Court Clerk.

This Court may recall, in Taitz’s Opposition filed April 30, 2010, she

accused the undersigned for being a “ politically motivated Pennsylvania attorney”

[See Taitz April 30, 2010 Opposition, p. 2 second paragraph] and now, Taitz

admits she is the one who is politically motivated.

In Appellants Reply and other filings seeking a Temporary Restraining

Order and/or Injunction against Taitz and the other Appellees’ Taitz had threatened

the undersigned, Appellant Lisa Liberi and the other Appellants, which since the

filing of the within lawsuit, Taitz has admitted in her filings in the lower Court.

Also, to bring to this Court’s attention, Appellants can’t derail a California State

1http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=10230; and http://www.orlytaitzesq.com




6

election, such as for Secretary of State. None of the Appellants reside in the State

of California and therefore cannot vote in California’s state elections.

Taitz had the audacity to claim that www.repubx was not her website;

however, on Taitz’s own Dossier #6, which is on file with this Court, Taitz puts

her website as www.repubx.com. It should also be noted, after filing Appellants’

reply to Taitz frivolous Opposition, Taitz had Dossier #6 removed from

www.repubx.com and http://69.84.25.250/blogger/post/Dossie6.aspx. The

document itself is still available from the cache and Taitz Dossier #6 with

Appellant Lisa Liberi’s full Social Security number is still available on the

Internet2. The Court will note on the Exhibit attached to Appellants Opposition,

Dossier #6 was printed to a PDF format directly from the website itself, which

automatically picked up the website, date and time the document was stored in

PDF. See EXHIBIT “D” to Appellants’ Opposition filed May 1, 2010.

Taitz must be confused; it was during the June 25, 2009 Hearing that Judge

Robreno told Taitz she was not to publish anyone’s Social Security number. Taitz

was present for the June 25, 2009 hearing before Judge Robreno. The August 7,

2009 transcript, as stated many times, the undersigned was not provided the cost

for until April 16, 2010 proof of which was filed in Appellants’ Reply filed May 1,

2010. If Taitz is so concerned about the transcripts, she is capable of ordering




7

them from the Court herself. In addition, Taitz attaches a copy of Joan Carr’s

Response to this Court’s Order to Show Cause why she, Joan Carr, should not be

held in contempt for her failure to produce the transcript. However, Taitz fails to

attach a copy of Appellants’ Reply to Joan Carr’s Response, attempts to

misrepresent the fact and mislead this very Court.

Taitz then lies to this Court yet again. Taitz states, “The unauthenticated

Grimm’s fairy tales of Dr. Taitz being submitted by appellants would be almost

laughable were it not for appellant s’ penchant for republishing this muck once it

obtains the court’s file stamp.” None of the Appellants have published any of their

filings in either this Court or the lower Court; it is Taitz’s herself who posts her

filings in the within Action all over the Internet and sends them by mass emailing.

Please see EXHIBIT “1” which is a letter recently sent to Judge Robreno

regarding Taitz sending a letter to Judge Robreno, that was never filed and/or

docketed in the lower Court case. Despite this, Taitz prepared a press release and

sent the letter addressed to Judge Robreno all over the Internet and sent it by mass

emailing for the world to see. In fact, she misquoted this Court’s Order of

February 2010 in her press release and mass emailing. This is not the first time

either, in fact, some of which is still on Taitz’s website 3. However, it appears once

2 See http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=1478 and http://www.oilforimmigration.org3 www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=8034; www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=2579;www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=1843 (this includes the forged emails of Appellant Lisa Ostella which




8

the undersigned files on behalf of Appellants, and attaches copies of Taitz writings

and posts, Taitz has been “scrubbing” (deleting) the posts in question. Copies of

all of Taitz’s posts, which she has authored and posted on her website, are filed in

the lower Court with the direct website address. Taitz’s answers to said posts are

different depending on who she is talking too. Before Judge Robreno at the June

25, 2009 Hearing, Taitz claimed she had a duty, as an Officer of the Court, to

publish all her writings, her false allegations; all of Appellant Lisa Liberi’s private

confidential data, including her Social Security number and false-tales about the

Appellants’, to let the people know.

This very filing of Taitz’s demonstrates and substantiates the reasons

Appellants’ (Plaintiffs’) were forced to bring suit against the Appellees.

Taitz’s Motion to Strike Appellants Reply speaks for itself and is more than

sufficient proof that Taitz filed it for improper reasons, and therefore, she must be

Sanctioned and ordered to pay Four Thousand [$4,000.00] Dollars to Philip J.

was forged by Appellees Taitz and Sankey, proof of which is filed in the lower Court);www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=1648;http://www.plainsradio.com/PLAINS~1/forum.html#bn-forum-1-1-3764075825/6712/1121534/show; and

files, click on the properties of the document and it shows Orly Taitz as the author of thedocuments. Since Appellees Ed Hale and Orly Taitz scrub (delete) their postings whenAppellants’ file them with the Court, a copy is also attached hereto as EXHIBIT “2”).

http://pub44.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=3764075825&frmid=6712&msgid=1121538&cmd=show (When you go to these websites on Plains Radio and download the actual




9

Berg, Esquire for Appellants Attorney fees in responding to Taitz’s frivolous

Motion and Taitz’s frivolous Opposition.

II. TAITZ’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS IMPROPERLY PLED

and FAILS TO CITE ANY TYPE OF SUPPORTING LAW:

Appellants’ Object and ask this Court to Strike Taitz and DOFF’s entire

“Motion to Strike” electronically filed by Taitz on May 5, 2010. Taitz’s Motion to

Strike fails to cite any law or legal authority to support the striking of a pleading;

and contains nothing more than conclusions of law; hearsay statements; hearsay

documents; speculation; conclusory statements immaterial, impertinent, and

scandalous statements and material, and are completely irrelevant, impertinent and

immaterial to the within action; and fails to embark upon or even address

Appellants’ Opposition filed May 1, 2010. Taitz simply filed this nonsense to

prejudice the Appellants’ and to reflect falsely on the moral character of the

undersigned and Appellants’ Lisa Liberi, Lisa Ostella and Evelyn Adams.

Taitz raised issues in her Opposition that Appellants’ had to address.

Appellants attached proof to all of the statements made by attaching the items as

Exhibits.

“Scandalous" generally refers to any allegation that unnecessarily reflects on

the moral character of an individual or states anything in repulsive language that

detracts from the dignity of the Court. Courts will typically strike so-called




10

scandalous material only if it is irrelevant and immaterial to the issues in

controversy. See Moore's for proposition that statement may be stricken as

"scandalous" only when it contains allegation "that unnecessarily reflects on the

moral character of an individual or states anything in repulsive language that

detracts from the dignity of the Court"). This Court has the inherent power to

"strike from any pleading any insufficient or any redundant, immaterial,

impertinent or scandalous matter.” See Geruschat v. Ernst Young LLP ( In re Seven

Fields Dev. Corp.), 505 F.3d 237, 248 (3d Cir. Pa. 2007).

Taitz filing was spiteful; unprofessional; malicious; impertinent; redundant;

scandalous; and done with malice. Again, this filing by Taitz is the exact reason

Appellants (Plaintiffs) were forced to file action. Taitz only filed her nonsense to

waist judicial resources and to delay the proceedings to dismiss Appellants

Appeal so the Case against Appellees can move forward. See Farid v. Murphy,

945 F.2d 394 (3d Cir. 1991) (The Court sua sponte strikes as scandalous and

impertinent the second paragraph under the heading "plaintiff" at page 10 of the

brief for Appellees. The Court deems the inclusion of that paragraph in the brief to

be unprofessional, and deems footnote 7, by which counsel apparently sought to

justify the inclusion of the material, to be disingenuous.). The Court must strike

Taitz Motion to Strike filed May 5, 2010.




11

For the aforementioned reasons, Taitz Motion to Strike Appellants

Opposition must be denied; Taitz Request for Sanctions and Costs must also be

denied. Taitz’s Motion to Strike filed May 5, 2010 must be stricken from the

record.

III. SANCTIONS AGAINST TAITZ and the AWARD OF

ATTORNEY FEES IN FAVOR OF APPELLANTS COUNSEL

MUST BE GRANTED:

Taitz’s also requests Sanctions against the undersigned in her frivolous

Motion to Strike filed May 5, 2010. Taitz request for Sanctions is also frivolous

and filed for an improper purpose. In fact, her entire pleading and Exhibits filed

May 5, 2010 are frivolous, incompetent; fail to cite any authority; was only filed to

further delay the within Appeal; and to waist judicial resources. Taitz is also

attempting to prolong the dismissal of this Appeal so the case in the lower Court

cannot proceed forward. The Exhibits Taitz attached includes Motions that were

Dismissed in the lower Court. Taitz raised issues in her Opposition that Appellants

were required to respond to and now she is screaming because Appellants

responded and filed supporting evidence substantiating their pleadings and

showing this Court that Taitz lies and has lied to this Court again. Now Taitz is

having a temper tantrum because she is not happy with the truth coming out.

Therefore, Taitz’s Request for Sanctions must be denied; Taitz Pleadings must be




12

Stricken as they are conclusions of law; hearsay statements; hearsay documents;

speculation; conclusory statements immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous

statements and are completely irrelevant, impertinent and immaterial to the within

action; and fails to embark upon the issue before this Court, which is Appellants’

Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss their Appeal. Taitz and DOFF must be Sanctioned

and Ordered to pay Attorney Fees for her frivolous filings; her attempts to waist

judicial resources; to cost Appellants additional Attorney Fees; and her prolonging

the Dismissal of Appellants’ Appeal so their case in the lower Court stays at a

stand still and cannot move forward.

Taitz has been sanctioned before in October 2009, for this very exact thing

See Rhodes v. MacDonald , 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (M.D. Ga. 2009). Judge Land

increased the Sanctions against Taitz from Ten Thousand [$10,000.00] Dollars to

Twenty Thousand [$20,000.00] Dollars in attempts to deter her from her frivolous

filings. Judge Land’s Sanction Order and Opinion was upheld by the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. See Rhodes v. MacDonald , 2010 U.S.

App. LEXIS 5340 (11th Cir. Ga. Mar. 15, 2010). Unfortunately, Judge Land’s

Sanctions were not persuasive, as Taitz continues her disrespect for our Court’s,

Court Rules and continues her barrage of frivolous filings. Taitz will continue

filing her frivolous papers, if this Court does not put a stop to it. Taitz is currently

under investigation by the California State Bar , according to Taitz’s own




13

admissions and website postings in the public forums, as a result of Judge Land’s

Sanction Order and other complaints that were filed against her.

As stated in Walsh v. Schering-Plough Corp., 758 F.2d 889, 895 (3d Cir.

1985):

“Undoubtedly, it was just such considerations that gave rise to therecent amendment to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. That Rule, promulgated tokeep attorneys "honest" in their pleading practice, now authorizessanctions to be imposed when an attorney violates his certificatethat good grounds support his pleading and that the pleading is notinterposed for delay. Moreover, our own Fed.R.App.P. 46(c)

provides for action being taken by us in the event that an attorneywho practices before us exhibits conduct unbecoming a member of the bar or fails to comply with any rule of the court.4”

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides:”

“Every pleading, motion, and other paper of a party

represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one

attorney of record in his individual name, whose address shall bestated. A party who is not represented by an attorney shall sign his

pleading, motion or other paper and state his pleading, motion or other paper and state his address…The signature of an attorney or

party constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading,motion, or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge,information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is wellgrounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faithargument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existinglaw, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such

4

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(c) provides:

“c) Disciplinary Power of the Court over Attorneys. A court of appeals may, after reasonable notice and an opportunity to show cause to the contrary, and after hearing, if requested, take any appropriate disciplinary action against any attorney who practices before it for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar or for failure to comply withthese rules or any rule of the court.”




14

as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase

in the cost of litigation. If a pleading, motion, or other paper is

not signed, it shall be stricken…If a pleading, motion, or other

paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion

or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who

signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate

sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party

or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred

because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper,

including a reasonable attorney's fee.” [emphasis added]

“It is evident to me that unfortunately there are some counsel whoabuse the judicial process and by doing so make our task and thetasks of our colleagues far more difficult. Historically, attorneys

have been reluctant to "blow the whistle" on their colleagues or toseek sanctions against their opponents. Perhaps as Professor Miller notes in a recent article written in a discovery context,5 theyare mindful of a variation on the golden rule "Do not seek sanctions against what is done to you today, for it may be whatyou will try on your opponent tomorrow."

This is Taitz’s third (3rd) frivolous Motion/Request for Sanctions based on

her own frivolous filings. Appellants’ filed their Appeal in good faith. Appellants’

incorporate all their filings, outlined on this Court’s docket, as if fully set forth

herein. Every filing by Appellants’ pertained to the issues presented to the Court

and were done so in good faith. Appellee Taitz on the other hand, continues to file

frivolous pleadings; has made false allegations against the undersigned and his

clients; has made false statements to this Court; has misrepresented the Court’s

Rulings; has misrepresented to this Court what Appellants’ filings actually say; and




15

has failed to address the issues before the Court. It should also be noted, Appellee

Orly Taitz’s anger in her pleadings filed May 5, 2010 is clearly directed at

Appellant Lisa Liberi. This clearly is demonstrated on the proof of service

wherein Taitz put “Philip Berg, Esq.” and “Lisa Liberi c/o Law Offices of Philip

Berg”. Taitz did this even after Appellants brought this to the Court’s attention in

their Reply filed May 1, 2010. Once again, there are six (6) Appellants’, that the

undersigned represents in this Appeal. As this Court is well aware, Taitz is a

licensed attorney, and she knows she is not to contact the Appellants’ directly as

they are represented. It should also be noted that Taitz did not properly serve the

undersigned again. Taitz states on her proof of service that she served Philip Berg

electronically at [email protected] on May 4, 2010 but dates her signature

April 29, 2010. The only email received from Taitz on May 5, 2010 was a forward

of the ECF filing notice.

Proper service was also a problem for Taitz in other cases. See Barnett v.

Obama, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101206 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009).

The Court in Walsh v. Schering-Plough Corp., 758 F.2d at 896-897 went on

further stating:

“If we take no steps to resolve the issue which these affidavitshave now presented to us, we run the risk not only of losing therespect of the bar, but of damaging the professional standards that

5 Miller, The Adversary System: Dinosaur or Phoenix, 69 Minn.L.Rev. 25 (1984).




16

lawyers look to us to uphold. Every member of the bar has had hischaracter and fitness tested and reviewed before obtaining alicense to practice. We, together, with other courts, are chargedwith maintaining at least that level of honesty and professionalismin the conduct of those who, once having obtained the right to

practice, continue to exercise that right before us.”

“...So too, as each instance of charged professional misconduct isignored by us or deemed unworthy of our attention, our

professional tapestry will imperceptibly, but surely, lose its form,its structure and its shape.”

“Thus, in my opinion it is no answer to characterize the issue before us as one not worth our consideration. If we do not require

strict adherence to principles which mandate candor andtruthfulness, and if we refuse to decide and enforce claimedviolations of those fundamental precepts, we will have onlyourselves to blame if intolerable and proscribed practices of the

bar become the rule rather than the exception.”

For the reasons stated herein, Taitz Motion to Strike; Request for Sanctions;

and Request for Costs must be denied. This Court must Sanction Taitz in attempts

to deter her from inappropriate behavior and frivolous filings. In addition, the

Court must Order Taitz to pay Appellants’ Attorney Fees in the amount of Four

Thousand [$4,000] Dollars.

IV. CONCLUSION:

For all the aforementioned reasons, Appellants respectfully request this

Court to Deny Taitz’s Motion to Strike; Deny Taitz’s Request for Sanctions and




17

Costs as there is no basis; and Grant Appellants Motion to Strike Taitz’s Motion to

Strike filed May 5, 2010; Grant Appellants Request for Sanctions and Attorney

Fees and Grant Appellants Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss their Appeal pursuant

to F.R.A.P. 42(b).

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: May 7, 2010 ____________________________ Philip J. Berg, Esquire555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531(610) 825-3134


s/ Philip J. Berg




18

EXHIBIT “1”




Z:\Liberi Ltr to Judge Robreno Feb. 22, 2010 1

LAW OFFICES OF

PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531PHILIP J. BERGCATHERINE R. BARONE

BARBARA MAY(610) 825-3134

FAX (610) 834-7659

NORMAN B. BERG, Paralegal [Deceased] E-Mail: [email protected]

February 22, 2010

Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno

United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

11614 U.S. Courthouse

601 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19106-1797

Re: Liberi, et al. v. Orly Taitz, et al , Case No. 09-cv-01898 ECR

Defendant Taitz, et al Letter requesting Leave to File a Request for Judicial Notice

Dear Judge Robreno:

I am in receipt of Defendant, Orly Taitz, et al’s Letter to Your Honor dated February 17, 2010

requesting Judicial Notice of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s Order denyingAppellant’s request for Judicial Notices; Defendant Taitz’s Motion for Sanctions; Appellants’ Motion

to Expedite, etc. I received Defendant Taitz’s request to Your Honor via email from Defendant Taitz,

et al on February 18, 2010.

Plaintiffs’ herein Object to Defendant Taitz’s request of Your Honor. First, no Motion or any

type of legal authority was attached to Defendant Taitz’s Letter as required by this Court’s Order of

June 25, 2009. Next, Defendant Taitz states the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit “denied

all 11 motions…

” [emphasis added]. This is a blatant fraud upon this Court. Appellants never filedeleven [11] Motions with the Court of Appeals. Moreover, the Obama litigation has nothing to do with

the case herein; and Defendant Taitz’s is further using Your Honor and Your Court to further her slander, libel, false allegations and placing Plaintiff Liberi, Plaintiff Ostella and me in a false light. It

should also be noted, neither Defendant Taitz, nor any of the other Defendants’ responded to Plaintiffs’

(Appellants’) Request for Judicial Notices.

Sent via Fax to (267) 299-7428.....................................................................................................29 Pages





Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno February 22, 2010

United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Page Two of Five

In addition, Defendant Taitz has used Defendants Ed Hale, Caren Hale, Plains Radio Network,Inc., KPRN and Bar H Farms to post Orly Taitz’s Letter to Your Honor on the Internet

1. A copy of

this post on the Internet is attached hereto as EXHIBIT “A”. Defendant Taitz also posted her Letter

to Your Honor at two [2] different Internet Web Addresses on her website. Copies of DefendantTaitz’s postings on her own website are also attached hereto as EXHIBIT “B”

2and EXHIBIT “C”

3.

Moreover, Defendant Orly Taitz, et al sent her Letter to Your Honor by mass emailing to her entire

email database, which includes internationally, on February 18, 2010 at 9:28 a.m. and 12:32 p.m. Acopy of Defendant Taitz’s email sent to me is attached hereto as EXHIBIT “D”. Further, Defendant

Taitz then sent by mass emailing and posted on her website a press release with a copy of the Letter

sent to Your Honor. See EXHIBIT “E’. Defendant, Orly Taitz has publicized this Letter to Your Honor to further her continued slander, libel, false allegations and placing Plaintiff Liberi, Ostella, and

me in a false light.

In my opinion, this type of behavior from Defendant Taitz, et al should not be permitted.Defendant Taitz is an Attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California. The Court in

the case of Sheehan v. King County, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16862 (D. Wash. 1998) outlined this type

of behavior very well. The Court said:

“This publication of personal information and defamatory comments about

opposing counsel is directly related to this litigation, and cannot be tolerated.

Attorneys are officers of the court, and this type of public, personal attack in

relation to pending litigation constitutes an abuse of judicial process .”

[emphasis added]

“His counsel offers the spurious argument that the "computer generated evidence"

is inadmissible as hearsay, and that sanctions would violate plaintiff's First

Amendment rights. The printed copies of plaintiff's "website" are not hearsay

because they are clearly not offered to prove the truth of matters asserted

therein (i.e., that plaintiff's accusations about counsels' character are true).As for the First Amendment, the Court is not enjoining plaintiff's free

speech, but merely exercising its inherent power to sanction bad faith

1 Defendant Ed Hale’s post on his website at:

http://pub44.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=3764075825&frmid=6712&msgid=1107033&cmd=show2 Taitz post on her website at www.orlytaitzesq.com








Page Three of Five

conduct by a party to this litigation. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 46,

115 L. Ed. 2d 27, 111 S. Ct. 2123 (1991)” [emphasis added]

“The Court finds that the "website" printouts have been properly authenticated by

counsel, who received them by "facsimile" transmission and also printed them

directly from their computers. Dkt. # 107, 108. The printouts show that as of

May 6, 1998, well after defendants filed their motion for sanctions and gave

notice to plaintiff of their request, plaintiff continued in his sanctionable

conduct. No separate warning from the Court is necessary.” [emphasis added]

“The Internet publication of social security numbers, home addresses and

telephone numbers, and defamatory statements regarding opposing counsel

has no justification. From the tone of the "website", it is clearly presented as

an invitation for others to harass, threaten, or even attack these people.”

[emphasis added]

Just like the Sheehan Case, Defendant Taitz has done the same sanctionable behavior to

Plaintiff Liberi, a Plaintiff in the within case with the republication of her Social Security number, date

of birth, place of birth, mother’s maiden name and other private identifiable information. Moreover,Defendant Taitz has also gone after Plaintiff Liberi and the rest of the Plaintiffs’, including me,

Plaintiffs’ Attorney, making false accusations and defamatory statements about us all over the Internet,

by mass emailing, postings on their websites; posting on other websites; sending it to social networks;on RSS feeds, etc. of defamatory comments/statements, etc. Moreover, just like the Sheehan Case,

Defendants were served with the within lawsuit on or about May 5, 2009, Defendants have continued

their behaviors. Especially Defendant Taitz, et al, she has continued her republication of Plaintiff Liberi’s Social Security number, against this Court’s Rulings and Orders as well as Plaintiff Liberi’s

date of birth, place of birth, mother’s maiden name and other private information. Your Honor, thesecontinued actions by Defendant Taitz must be stopped.

I sent Your Honor a Letter seeking Leave on behalf of Plaintiff Liberi to file a Motion to hold

Defendant Taitz, et al in Civil and/or Criminal Contempt; for actual damages; sanctions; and attorney

3 Taitz post on her website at http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=8034








Page Four of Five

fees on February 9, 2010. Of course, Plaintiff Liberi’s Motion was attached thereto. I am therefore,renewing my request for Leave to file Plaintiff Liberi’s Motion for Contempt against Defendant Taitz

for her continued republication of Plaintiff Liberi’s Social Security number, as well as other personal

identifying information, which was in violation of Your Court’s June 25, 2009 Rulings and Order.

It should also be noted, none of the Defendants, including Defendant Taitz, has opposed the

filing of the Motion for Civil and/or Criminal Contempt against Defendant Taitz.

In the alternative, Plaintiffs Request this Court to issue an Order to Show Cause upon

Defendant Taitz, et al as to Why She Should Not be Held in Civil and/or Criminal Contempt for her continued republication of Plaintiff Liberi’s Social Security number in violation of this Court’s Rulings

and Orders; and why she (Defendant Taitz, et al) should not be Ordered to Reimburse Plaintiff Liberifor the damages she has suffered as a result; impose Sanctions; and for Attorney Fees.

Thank you.

Respectfully,

Philip J. Berg

PJB:jb

Enclosures

cc: Orly Taitz, et al andDefend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc.

26302 La Paz Ste 211

Mission Viejo, CA 92691

Ph: (949) 683-5411Fax: (949) 766-7603

By Email: [email protected]

Counsel in pro se

Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. is unrepresented








Page Five of Five

Neil Sankey

The Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm

Sankey Investigations, Inc.2470 Stearns Street #162

Simi Valley, CA 93063

Phone: (805) 520-3151and (818) 366-0919Cell Phone: (818) 212-7615

FAX: (805) 520-5804 and (818) 366-1491

Email: [email protected]

Linda Sue Belcher 201 Paris

Castroville, Texas 78009Home Phone: (830) 538-6395

Cell Phone: (830) 931-1781

Email: [email protected] andEmail: [email protected]

Ed HaleCaren Hale

Plains Radio

KPRNBar H Farms1401 Bowie Street

Wellington, Texas 79095

Phone: (806) 447-0010 and (806) 447-0270Email: [email protected] and

Email: [email protected] and [email protected]





EXHIBIT “A”




Return to Website

Start a New Post Board| Threaded

Author Comment

Ed Hale

Feb 18, 2010 - 9:50AM

Liberi v Taitz - new information Quote Reply

Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ 29839 S. Margarita PKWY, ste 100Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

02.17.10Attention Honorable Eduardo Robreno

Request for Leave of Court to file and docket a 02.09.10. Third Circuit Court of Appeals order denying all 11 Motions and requests for judicial notice filed byPhilip Berg on behalf of Appellants/Plaintiffs in Liberi et al v Taitz et al.

Your honor,Plaintiffs in the above captioned case have bombarded the defendants and the courtswith hundreds and, by now, probably thousands of pages of pleadings of motions andrequests for judicial notices, most of which had absolutely nothing to do with thecase at hand and the order to show cause that was directed towards the plaintiffs. Iam asking for a judicial notice of one page only. The attached one page order fromthe Third Circuit Court of Appeals denying all 11 motions and requests for judicialnotice, shows that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals does not see any emergency,that the plaintiffs claim and does not see any relevance in all of those voluminousfilings. It is consistent with the findings of this court and it is an indication,that if the Court of Appeals didn’t see any emergency now, it is reasonable tobelieve that there was no emergency half a year ago, when your Honor deniedplaintiffs request for the temporary restraining orderagainst the defendants. It strengthens the defendant’s position that indeed, there

was no emergency or damages to the plaintiffs, rather Attorney Philip Berg hasfiled this legal action with an improper purpose of harassing and trying to silencethe defendants, when I posted on my web site true printout from the San Bernardinodivision of the Superior Court in CA of ten felony convictions of forgery andgrand theft committed by Berg’s assistant Lisa Liberi. This publication was donewith a proper purpose of alerting the public that any piece of evidence, anydocument coming out of Berg’s office is suspect of forgery, due to Liberi’sbackground and particularly in light of the fact that Mr. Berg has filed Affidavitsof Kenyan birth of Barack Obama in Eastern District of PA, Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States and refused to show the originaldocuments to me or to a forensic document expert. While the

This forum can be accessed via plainsradio.com

Index February 18, 2010 - 10:58:31 AM

Recent Posts Search: by keywords search

This forum can be accessed via plainsradio.com - Window Title

http://pub44.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=3764075825&frmid=6712&msgid=1107...




State Texas

media has named me the “Queen of the Birthers” or the leader of the Birthermovement, due to my legal actions to unseal the original vital records of Mr. Obamaand get a declaratory relief on the meaning of the term Natural born citizen, as itapplies to the article 2, section 1 requirement for presidency, I am concerned thatMr. Berg’s actions in using a convicted document forger as a legal assistant, andrefusing to provide original documents, does not help the cause or the underlyinglegal action, but rather undermines and muddies it and will destroy it, when itwill be heard on the merits. It is also an indication, that as an attorney and

president of the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, I was justified in alerting thepublic regarding the fact that on 04.11.09 my former volunteer web master LisaOstella has changed the passwords and locked me out of the originalDefendOurFreedoms website, and from that date any and all donationsreceived on that old web site did not benefit my foundation, but rather benefitOstella personally, as well as Attorney Philip Berg, indirectly his assistant LisaLiberi, as well as talk show host Evelyn Adams, all of whom Ostella startedpromoting on the web site for my foundation after locking me out.While most of the plaintiffs are lay persons, Berg is a licensed attorney and hisactions were direct violation of rules of professional ethics.


Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ

02/09/2010

ORDER (MCKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges) denying Motion by Appellants forExpeditedRuling or to File a Restraining Order, requests Appellants for Judicial Notice,Emergency Motion by Appellants to Expedite Interlocutory Appeal and ExpediteRulingon Appellants Pending Motion, filed. Panel No.: BCO-039-E. McKee, Authoring Judge.

rosemary1

Feb 18, 2010 - 10:38AM

Re: Liberi v Taitz - new information Quote Reply

BobH? Any opinion on this filing by the "Queen of the Birthers"?

Damm Paige

Feb 18, 2010 - 10:48AM

Re: Liberi v Taitz - new information

State of Legal Knowledge

Quote Reply

Okay, I'm confused. Judge Robreno signed an order in December placing the DistrictCourt case in suspense until further order. Why is Orly writing to Judge Robreno?Does she think that the Third Circuit has disposed of the appeal?

BobH

Feb 18, 2010 - 10:53AM

Re: Liberi v Taitz - new information Quote Reply

Originally Posted by rosemary1BobH? Any opinion on this filing by the "Queen of the Birthers"?

Quote:






State NM

My opinion is it means absolutely nothing. Without going into specific detail in theletter, Orly seems to avoid the fact that one of her motions was also denied by theappeals court in that Order that came down. She mentions Berg is an attorney. Shealso has a license to practice law.

Nothing in the letter has any bearing on the appeal or the case in the the lower court

in PA which is actually not even open at this time, and has not been since 12/11/09,pending the decision of the appeals court, as evidenced here:

In short, it's nothing more than her usual ramblings with nothing of merit containedtherein.

12/11/2009 115[RECAP] ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURT MARK THIS ACTION CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND PLACE THE MATTER IN THE CIVIL SUSPENSE FILE UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 12/9/2009. 12/11/2009 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND UNREPS, E-MAILED TO COUNSEL.(tomg, )(Entered: 12/11/2009)

Quote:

Index







EXHIBIT “B”




Home

Appeal of Carter Case

Comments are disabled

Quo Warranto Filed and Served

Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation – 29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, ste 100, Rancho

Santa Margarita CA, 92688 – Copyright 2009

World's Leading Obama Eligibility Challenge Web Site

Your donations to the cause are much appreciated.

The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers, do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr. Taitz, ESQ, and Dr. Taitz, ESQ has no means of

checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles.

Posted on | February 18, 2010 |

denied all 11 motions and requests for judicial

Important. Third Circuit Court of Appeals has

notice filed by Attorney Philip Berg in his attacks

on Attorney Orly Taitz and others

rly Taitz Esquire http://www.orlytaitz

www.orlytaitzesq.com

2/18/2010




Request for Leave of Court to file and docket a 02.09.10. Third Circuit Court of Appeals order denying all 11

Motions and requests for judicial notice filed by Philip Berg on behalf of Appellants/Plaintiffs in Liberi et al v

Taitz et al.

Your honor,

Plaintiffs in the above captioned case have bombarded the defendants and the courts with hundreds and, by

now, probably thousands of pages of pleadings of motions and requests for judicial notices, most of which had

absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand and the order to show cause that was directed towards the plaintiffs. I am asking for a judicial notice of one page only. The attached one page order from the Third

Circuit Court of Appeals denying all 11 motions and requests for judicial notice, shows that the Third Circuit

Court of Appeals does not see any emergency, that the plaintiffs claim and does not see any relevance in all of

those voluminous filings. It is consistent with the findings of this court and it is an indication, that if the Court

of Appeals didn’t see any emergency now, it is reasonable to believe that there was no emergency half a year

ago, when your Honor denied plaintiffs request for the temporary restraining order against the defendants. It

strengthens the defendant’s position that indeed, there was no emergency or damages to the plaintiffs, rather

Attorney Philip Berg has filed this legal action with an improper purpose of harassing and trying to silence the

defendants, when I posted on my web site true printout from the San Bernardino division of the Superior

Court in CA of ten felony convictions of forgery and grand theft committed by Berg’s assistant Lisa Liberi.

This publication was done with a proper purpose of alerting the public that any piece of evidence, anydocument coming out of Berg’s office is suspect of forgery, due to Liberi’s background and particularly in

light of the fact that Mr. Berg has filed Affidavits of Kenyan birth of Barack Obama in Eastern District of PA,

Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States and refused to show the original

documents to me or to a forensic document expert. While the media has named me the “Queen of the

Birthers” or the leader of the Birther movement, due to my legal actions to unseal the original vital records of

Mr. Obama and get a declaratory relief on the meaning of the term Natural born citizen, as it applies to the

article 2, section 1 requirement for presidency, I am concerned that Mr. Berg’s actions in using a convicted

document forger as a legal assistant, and refusing to provide original documents, does not help the cause or the

underlying legal action, but rather undermines and muddies it and will destroy it, when it will be heard on the

merits. It is also an indication, that as an attorney and president of the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, I

was justified in alerting the public regarding the fact that on 04.11.09 my former volunteer web master Lisa

Attention Honorable Eduardo Robreno

02.17.10

Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

29839 S. Margarita PKWY, ste 100

Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ


Orly Taitz Esquire http://www.orlytait

2/18/2010




02/09/2010 ORDER (MCKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges) denying Motion by Appellants for Expedited

Ruling or to File a Restraining Order, requests Appellants for Judicial Notice, Emergency Motion

by Appellants to Expedite Interlocutory Appeal and Expedite Ruling on Appellants Pending

Motion, filed. Panel No.: BCO-039-E. McKee, Authoring Judge. (SLC)

Cc Philip Berg

Cc Neil Sankey

Cc Linda Belcher

Cc Ed and Karen Hale

Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ


rules of professional ethics.

While most of the plaintiffs are lay persons, Berg is a licensed attorney and his actions were direct violation of

locking me out.

show host Evelyn Adams, all of whom Ostella started promoting on the web site for my foundation after

benefit Ostella personally, as well as Attorney Philip Berg, indirectly his assistant Lisa Liberi, as well as talk

from that date any and all donations received on that old web site did not benefit my foundation, but rather

Ostella has changed the passwords and locked me out of the original DefendOurFreedoms website, and

rly Taitz Esquire http://www.orlytait

2/18/2010





EXHIBIT “C”




Home

Appeal of Carter Case

Comments are disabled

Quo Warranto Filed and Served






The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers, do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr. Taitz, ESQ, and Dr. Taitz, ESQ has no means of



tant. Third Circuit Court of Appeals has denied all 11 motions and r... http://www.orlytaitzesq.com

denied all 11 motions and requests for judicial

Important. Third Circuit Court of Appeals has

notice filed by Attorney Philip Berg in his attacks

on Attorney Orly Taitz and others

www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=8034

2/18/2010




Request for Leave of Court to file and docket a 02.09.10. Third Circuit Court of Appeals order denying all 11

Motions and requests for judicial notice filed by Philip Berg on behalf of Appellants/Plaintiffs in Liberi et al v

Taitz et al.

Your honor,

Plaintiffs in the above captioned case have bombarded the defendants and the courts with hundreds and, by

now, probably thousands of pages of pleadings of motions and requests for judicial notices, most of which had

absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand and the order to show cause that was directed towards the plaintiffs. I am asking for a judicial notice of one page only. The attached one page order from the Third

Circuit Court of Appeals denying all 11 motions and requests for judicial notice, shows that the Third Circuit

Court of Appeals does not see any emergency, that the plaintiffs claim and does not see any relevance in all of

those voluminous filings. It is consistent with the findings of this court and it is an indication, that if the Court

of Appeals didn’t see any emergency now, it is reasonable to believe that there was no emergency half a year

ago, when your Honor denied plaintiffs request for the temporary restraining order against the defendants. It

strengthens the defendant’s position that indeed, there was no emergency or damages to the plaintiffs, rather

Attorney Philip Berg has filed this legal action with an improper purpose of harassing and trying to silence the

defendants, when I posted on my web site true printout from the San Bernardino division of the Superior

Court in CA of ten felony convictions of forgery and grand theft committed by Berg’s assistant Lisa Liberi.

This publication was done with a proper purpose of alerting the public that any piece of evidence, anydocument coming out of Berg’s office is suspect of forgery, due to Liberi’s background and particularly in

light of the fact that Mr. Berg has filed Affidavits of Kenyan birth of Barack Obama in Eastern District of PA,

Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States and refused to show the original

documents to me or to a forensic document expert. While the media has named me the “Queen of the

Birthers” or the leader of the Birther movement, due to my legal actions to unseal the original vital records of

Mr. Obama and get a declaratory relief on the meaning of the term Natural born citizen, as it applies to the

article 2, section 1 requirement for presidency, I am concerned that Mr. Berg’s actions in using a convicted

document forger as a legal assistant, and refusing to provide original documents, does not help the cause or the

underlying legal action, but rather undermines and muddies it and will destroy it, when it will be heard on the

merits. It is also an indication, that as an attorney and president of the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, I

was justified in alerting the public regarding the fact that on 04.11.09 my former volunteer web master Lisa



02.17.10



Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ


2/18/2010




02/09/2010 ORDER (MCKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges) denying Motion by Appellants for Expedited

Ruling or to File a Restraining Order, requests Appellants for Judicial Notice, Emergency Motion

by Appellants to Expedite Interlocutory Appeal and Expedite Ruling on Appellants Pending

Motion, filed. Panel No.: BCO-039-E. McKee, Authoring Judge. (SLC)

Cc Philip Berg

Cc Neil Sankey

Cc Linda Belcher


Category: Dossiers, Legal Actions

<!--h3>Comments

!! IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ !!

How to contact public Integrity unit

See The PDF File Here

US Department of Justice has a special unit in their Criminal Division called the

PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION

Contact Orly!

email: [email protected] Urgent? Call: 949-683-5411

Recent Posts

Important. Third Circuit Court of Appeals has denied all 11 motions and requests for judicial notice filed

by Attorney Philip Berg in his attacks on Attorney Orly Taitz and others

8032

8030

8027

8025


Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ


rules of professional ethics.

While most of the plaintiffs are lay persons, Berg is a licensed attorney and his actions were direct violation of

locking me out.

show host Evelyn Adams, all of whom Ostella started promoting on the web site for my foundation after

benefit Ostella personally, as well as Attorney Philip Berg, indirectly his assistant Lisa Liberi, as well as talk

from that date any and all donations received on that old web site did not benefit my foundation, but rather

Ostella has changed the passwords and locked me out of the original DefendOurFreedoms website, and

2/18/2010





EXHIBIT “D”




---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Jawara King <[email protected]>

Date: Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 6:38 PMSubject: Fw: Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied al 11 motions and requests for

judicial notice filed by Attorney Philip Berg in his attacks on Attorney Orly Taitz and

othersTo: [email protected]

Cc: Jawara King <[email protected]>

----- Forwarded Message ----From: Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ <[email protected]>

Sent: Thu, February 18, 2010 12:32:23 PM

Subject: Fw: Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied al 11 motions and requests for

judicial notice filed by Attorney Philip Berg in his attacks on Attorney Orly Taitz andothers

-- On Thu, 2/18/10, Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ <[email protected]>Subject: Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied al 11 motions and requests for judicial

notice filed by Attorney Philip Berg in his attacks on Attorney Orly Taitz and others

To: "Orly Taitz" <[email protected]>Date: Thursday, February 18, 2010, 9:28 AM

Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ



02.17.10


Request for Leave of Court to file and docket a 02.09.10. Third Circuit Court of Appeals order denying all 11 Motions and requests for judicial notice filed by Philip Berg

on behalf of Appellants/Plaintiffs in Liberi et al v Taitz et al.




Your honor,

Plaintiffs in the above captioned case have bombarded the defendants and the courts

with hundreds and, by now, probably thousands of pages of pleadings of motions andrequests for judicial notices, most of which had absolutely nothing to do with the case at

hand and the order to show cause that was directed towards the plaintiffs. I am asking for

a judicial notice of one page only. The attached one page order from the Third Circuit

Court of Appeals denying all 11 motions and requests for judicial notice, shows that theThird Circuit Court of Appeals does not see any emergency, that the plaintiffs claim and

does not see any relevance in all of those voluminous filings. It is consistent with the

findings of this court and it is an indication, that if the Court of Appeals didn’t see anyemergency now, it is reasonable to believe that there was no emergency half a year ago,

when your Honor denied plaintiffs request for the temporary restraining order against the

defendants. It strengthens the defendant’s position that indeed, there was no emergency

or damages to the plaintiffs, rather Attorney Philip Berg has filed this legal action withan improper purpose of harassing and trying to silence the defendants, when I posted on

my web site true printout from the San Bernardino division of the Superior Court in CA

of ten felony convictions of forgery and grand theft committed by Berg’s assistant LisaLiberi. This publication was done with a proper purpose of alerting the public that any

piece of evidence, any document coming out of Berg’s office is suspect of forgery, due to

Liberi’s background and particularly in light of the fact that Mr. Berg has filed Affidavitsof Kenyan birth of Barack Obama in Eastern District of PA, Third Circuit Court of

Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States and refused to show the original

documents to me or to a forensic document expert. While the media has named me the“Queen of the Birthers” or the leader of the Birther movement, due to my legal actions to

unseal the original vital records of Mr. Obama and get a declaratory relief on the meaning

of the term Natural born citizen, as it applies to the article 2, section 1 requirement for presidency, I am concerned that Mr. Berg’s actions in using a convicted document forger

as a legal assistant, and refusing to provide original documents, does not help the cause or

the underlying legal action, but rather undermines and muddies it and will destroy it,

when it will be heard on the merits. It is also an indication, that as an attorney and president of the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, I was justified in alerting the public

regarding the fact that on 04.11.09 my former volunteer web master Lisa Ostella has

changed the passwords and locked me out of the original DefendOurFreedoms website,and from that date any and all donations received on that old web site did not benefit my

foundation, but rather benefit Ostella personally, as well as Attorney Philip Berg,

indirectly his assistant Lisa Liberi, as well as talk show host Evelyn Adams, all of whomOstella started promoting on the web site for my foundation after locking me out.

While most of the plaintiffs are lay persons, Berg is a licensed attorney and his actions

were direct violation of rules of professional ethics.





Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ

02/09/2010

ORDER (MCKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges) denying Motion by Appellants for

Expedited Ruling or to File a Restraining Order, requests Appellants for Judicial Notice,

Emergency Motion by Appellants to Expedite Interlocutory Appeal and Expedite Ruling

on Appellants Pending Motion, filed. Panel No.: BCO-039-E. McKee, Authoring Judge.(SLC)

Cc Philip Berg

Cc Neil Sankey

Cc Linda Belcher


Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ

29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy ste 100Rancho Santa Margarita Ca 92688

ph. 949-683-5411

fax 949-766-7603

orlytaitzesq.comdrtaitz.com

taitzofficesuites.com




From: Sam Sewell <[email protected]>

Date: Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:55 AMSubject: RE: Can anyone validate this or is it just wishful thinking on Orly's part?

To: Lisa Liberi <[email protected]>

Thanks Lisa! I smelled a rat. I suspect you have seen her misleading Press Release. Do

I have your permission to use your remarks or will you or Phil make a statement that

refutes her story?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ <[email protected]>

Subject: Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied al 11 motions and requests for judicial

notice filed by Attorney Philip Berg in his attacks on Attorney Orly Taitz and others

To: "Orly Taitz" <[email protected]>Date: Thursday, February 18, 2010, 9:28 AM

Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ



02.17.10


Request for Leave of Court to file and docket a 02.09.10. Third Circuit Court of Appealsorder denying all 11 Motions and requests for judicial notice filed by Philip Berg on

behalf of Appellants/Plaintiffs in Liberi et al v Taitz et al.

Your honor,

Plaintiffs in the above captioned case have bombarded the defendants and the courts with

hundreds and, by now, probably thousands of pages of pleadings of motions and requests

for judicial notices, most of which had absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand andthe order to show cause that was directed towards the plaintiffs. I am asking for a judicial

notice of one page only. The attached one page order from the Third Circuit Court of

Appeals denying all 11 motions and requests for judicial notice, shows that the Third




Circuit Court of Appeals does not see any emergency, that the plaintiffs claim and does

not see any relevance in all of those voluminous filings. It is consistent with the findings

of this court and it is an indication, that if the Court of Appeals didn’t see any emergencynow, it is reasonable to believe that there was no emergency half a year ago, when your

Honor denied plaintiffs request for the temporary restraining order against the defendants.

It strengthens the defendant’s position that indeed, there was no emergency or damagesto the plaintiffs, rather Attorney Philip Berg has filed this legal action with an improper

purpose of harassing and trying to silence the defendants, when I posted on my web site

true printout from the San Bernardino division of the Superior Court in CA of ten felony

convictions of forgery and grand theft committed by Berg’s assistant Lisa Liberi. This publication was done with a proper purpose of alerting the public that any piece of

evidence, any document coming out of Berg’s office is suspect of forgery, due to Liberi’s

background and particularly in light of the fact that Mr. Berg has filed Affidavits of Kenyan birth of Barack Obama in Eastern District of PA, Third Circuit Court of Appeals

and the Supreme Court of the United States and refused to show the original documents

to me or to a forensic document expert. While the media has named me the “Queen of the

Birthers” or the leader of the Birther movement, due to my legal actions to unseal theoriginal vital records of Mr. Obama and get a declaratory relief on the meaning of the

term Natural born citizen, as it applies to the article 2, section 1 requirement for

presidency, I am concerned that Mr. Berg’s actions in using a convicted document forger as a legal assistant, and refusing to provide original documents, does not help the cause or

the underlying legal action, but rather undermines and muddies it and will destroy it,

when it will be heard on the merits. It is also an indication, that as an attorney and president of the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, I was justified in alerting the public

regarding the fact that on 04.11.09 my former volunteer web master Lisa Ostella has

changed the passwords and locked me out of the original DefendOurFreedoms website,and from that date any and all donations received on that old web site did not benefit my

foundation, but rather benefit Ostella personally, as well as Attorney Philip Berg,

indirectly his assistant Lisa Liberi, as well as talk show host Evelyn Adams, all of whomOstella started promoting on the web site for my foundation after locking me out.

While most of the plaintiffs are lay persons, Berg is a licensed attorney and his actions

were direct violation of rules of professional ethics.


Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ

02/09/2010




ORDER (MCKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges) denying Motion by Appellants for

Expedited Ruling or to File a Restraining Order, requests Appellants for Judicial Notice,

Emergency Motion by Appellants to Expedite Interlocutory Appeal and Expedite Rulingon Appellants Pending Motion, filed. Panel No.: BCO-039-E. McKee, Authoring Judge.

(SLC)

Cc Philip Berg

Cc Neil Sankey

Cc Linda Belcher


Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ

29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy ste 100

Rancho Santa Margarita Ca 92688 ph. 949-683-5411

fax 949-766-7603

orlytaitzesq.comdrtaitz.com

taitzofficesuites.com

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Sam Sewell <[email protected]> wrote:

· Can anyone validate this or is it just wishful thinking on Orly’s part?

Third circuit court of Appeals denied all 11 motions and requests for judicial notice filed

by Attorney Philip Berg in his relentless attacks on Attorney Orly Taitz and others

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Third circuit court of Appeals agrees with Taitz





EXHIBIT “E”







The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers , do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr. Taitz, ESQ, and Dr. Taitz, ESQ has no means of


Posted on | February 20, 2010 | 1 Comment

Flag this message

Third circuit court of Appeals denied all 11 motions



and requests for judicial notice filed by Attorney

Philip Berg in his relentless attacks on Attorney

Orly Taitz and others


2/21/2010 1

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Third circuit court of Appeals agrees with Taitz

orlytaitzesq.com

[email protected]

Fax: 949-766-7603

Phone: 949-683-5411

RSM, CA 92688

29839 Santa MargaritaDr. Orly Taitz, ESQ.

CONTACT INFO:

Home


Defend Our Freedoms Foundation – 29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, ste 100,

Rancho Santa Margarita CA, 92688 – Copyright 2009

World’s Leading Obama Eligibility Challenge Web

Site


Law Offices of Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.

02/09/2010 ORDER (MCKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges) denying Motion by Appellants for

Expedited Ruling or to File a Restraining Order, requests Appellants for Judicial Notice, Emergency Motion by Appellants to Expedite Interlocutory Appeal and


Expedite Ruling on Appellants Pending Motion, filed. Panel No.: BCO-039-E.

McKee, Authoring Judge. (SLC)




Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ



02.17.10


Request for Leave of Court to file and docket a 02.09.10. Third Circuit Court of

Appeals order denying all 11 Motions and requests for judicial notice filed by

Philip Berg on behalf of Appellants/Plaintiffs in Liberi et v Taitz et al.

Your honor,

Plaintiffs in the above captioned case have bombarded the defendants and the

courts with hundreds and, by now, probably thousands of pages of pleadings of motions and requests for judicial notices, most of which had absolutely nothing to

do with the case at hand and the order to show cause that was directed towards the

plaintiffs. I am asking for a judicial notice of one page only. The attached one page

order from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denying all 11 motions and

requests for judicial notice, shows that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals does

not see any emergency, that the plaintiffs claim to have and does not see any

relevance in all of those voluminous filings. It is consistent with the findings of this

court and it is an indication, that if the Court of Appeals didn’t see any emergen!

cy now, it is reasonable to believe that there was no emergency half a year ago,when your Honor denied plaintiffs request for the temporary restraining order

against the defendants. It strengthens the defendant’s position that indeed, there

was no emergency or damages to the plaintiffs, rather Attorney Philip Berg has

filed this legal action with an improper purpose of harassing and trying to silence

the defendants, when I posted on my web site true printout from the San

Bernardino division of the Superior Court in CA of ten felony convictions of

forgery and grand theft committed by Berg’s assistant Lisa Liberi. This

publication was done with a proper purpose of alerting the public that any piece

of evidence, any document coming out of Berg’s office is suspect of forgery, due to

Liberi’s background and particularly in light of the fact that! Mr. Berg has filed

in Ea stern District of PA, Third Cicuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court

of the United States affidavits of Kenyan birth of Barack Obama and refused to

show the original documents to me or to a forensic document expert. While the

media has named me the “Queen of the Birthers” or the leader of the Birther

movement, due to my legal actions to unseal the original vital records of Mr.

Obama and get a declaratory relief on the meaning of the term Natural born

citizen, as it applies to the article 2, section 1 requirement for presidency, I am





concerned that Mr. Berg’s actions in using a convicted document forger as a legal

assistant, and refusing to provide original documents, does not help the cause or

the underlying legal action, but rather undermines and muddies it and will

destroy it, when it will be heard on the merits. It is also an indication, that as an

attorney and president of the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, I was justified in

alerting the public regarding the fact ! that on 04.11.09 my former volunteer web

master Lisa Ostella has changed the passwords and locked me out of the original

DefendOurFreedoms website, and from that date any and all donations received

on that old web site did not benefit my foundation, but rather benefit Ostella

personally, as well as Attorney Philip Berg, indirectly his assistant Lisa Liberi, as

well as talk show host Evelyn Adams, (Momma E) all of whom Ostella started

promoting on the web site for my foundation after locking me out.

While most of the plaintiffs are lay persons, Berg is a licensed attorney and his

actions were direct violation of rules of professional ethics.


Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ

Cc Philip Berg

Cc Neil Sankey

Cc Linda Belcher


29839 Santa Margarita PKWY, Suite 100,

Rancho Santa Margarita, Ca 92688

Phone 949-683-5411, fax 949-7667603\

[email protected] orlytaitzesq.com

Category: Uncategorized





19

EXHIBIT “2”




Return to Website

Start a New Post Board| Threaded

Author Comment

Ed Hale

May 6, 2010 - 12:33AM

Dr Taitz trun the tables on Berg - Read thisQu ote Reply

No. 09 3403

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________________

LISA LIBERI, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs.

ORLY TAITZ, et al.,

Defendant-Appellee.

__________________

District Court No. 09_cv_01898_ECR

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

__________________

Motion to Strike and/or Extension of Time to File Sur Reply by

Appellees in Response to Appellants’ Reply

__________________

DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ.

CSB #223433

Attorney Pro Se &

Attorney for Defend Our Freedoms Foundation

29839 S. Margarita Pkwy. Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

ph. 949-683-5411

fax 949-586-2082

The Plains Radio Network Forum

Index May 6, 2010 - 4:30:01 PM

Recent Posts Search: by keywords search

www.Intuit.com Ads b Goo le

The Plains Radio Network Forum - Window Title


http://pub44.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=3764075825&frmid=6712&msgid=1121538&cmd=show; and

http://pub44.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=3764075825&frmid=6712&msgid=1121534&cmd=show




I. INTRODUCTION

Appellees Dr. Taitz and Foundation (hereinafter referred to as

appellees) are aghast at the reply brief by Berg, Office of Berg, Liberi,

Ostella, Adams, and Go Excell Global (appellants) totaling 22 pages

with seemingly hundreds of pages of exhibits attached full of horrific

slander. Taitz would like to remind this court that not one single

document, not one word coming out of the office of Philip Berg can be

considered as true and genuine and given full face value without an

analysis of a forensic document expert, simply because all of the

“documents” and “affidavits” submitted are prepared and handled by

Berg’s assistant Lisa Renee

Liberi (aka Lisa Liberi Richardson), who is a career forger with some

ten convictions of forgery of documents, forgery of an official seal and

grand theft. (Exhibit 1 Opposition to request for TRO with exhibit San

Bernardino County, CA Superior Court Convictions Record of Lisa

Liberi). Therefore the only document, that would have any value in

considering this interlocutory appeal would be the transcript of the

08.07.2009 TRO motion hearing in front of judge Robreno, which is at

issue in this appeal . Attorney Berg was told by the clerk of judge

Robreno, that he needs to file a motion to unseal the transcript of the

TRO hearing, at which judge Robreno has denied Berg’s TRO motion.

Upon the order to unseal, Berg could pay for the transcript and submit

it to this Honorable court for Appeals. First of all the pattern of fraud

committed by Berg is easy to trace by

looking at the short reply from Marcia Waldron, clerk of USDC for the

Eastern district of PA. She states clearly “Counsel was also notified

that the proceedings held April 7, 2009 was under seal and an order of

court would be necessary to unseal the proceedings and have a

transcript produced. To date our office has not received payment, a

motion to unseal has not been docketed not has a transcript purchaseorder form been submitted to the District Court” For nine month Berg

and the rest of the appellants have harassed this court. District court

and appellees with hundreds of pages of defamatory material, yet

Berg never admitted the fact that he never filed a short motion to

unseal the transcript. Attorney Berg has never truthfully admitted his

failure to file this one page motion to unseal the transcript. Why didn’

Attorney Berg file one short motion with judge Robreno to obtain the

transcript? Why instead did he bombard both Judge Robreno and this

court with hundreds of pages of garbage, consisting of horrific

slander, perjury, defamation of character, prepared by Appellant

Liberi, (legal assistant of appellant Attorney Berg) who has ten

convictions of forgery of documents, forgery of an official seal and

grand theft (Superior court of CA case FSB-044914, Hon M Pacheco,

Superior Court of CA Case no FWV 028000 Gerard W. Brown People of

the state of CA v Lisa Renee Richardson (aka Liberi)), as well as by

Lisa Ostella, who admitted to forging signature of Appellee attorney

Taitz, falsely claiming that Taitz allowed her to forge her signature

and who diverted funds from the foundation which is run by Taitz; by

Convicted felon Lucas Smith and by Convicted felon and indicted

forger Charles Lincoln? The

answer is simple. If Berg were to provide this court with the






transcript, it would be clear to this court that judge Robreno has

made a correct decision in denying Berg’s TRO motion, that all of the

allegations were nothing but slander, harassment, perjury and

hearsay. If this court would like to indulge in reading the transcripts

of the hearings of Liberi’s prior criminal proceedings, this court will

see a clear modus operandi, where Liberi takes bits and pieces of

different documents, signatures, seals, pastes them and creates

“documents” of her own, whereby in the state of CA she has stolen

hundred of thousands of dollars from victims using forgery, perjury

and fraud. When apprehended, she has mounted horrible allegations

against everybody in the vicinity, including arresting officers, district

attorney, employees of the correctional institutions, San Bernardino

county and so on. Her right to bring legal actions in Ca was limited

due to her actions. Liberi was convicted recently, in 2008, and her

prison term was reduced to probation due to health reasons. Only a

few months after Liberi plead to ten felony counts, including forgery

of documents, Berg started employing her and submitted to the

Eastern District of PA, as well as this Honorable court and the

Supreme Court of the United States a complaint in a case Berg v

Obama. Shortly after submitting the case Berg and Liberi made

appearances on radio talk shows, including the shows of Appellant

Evelyn Adams and Appellee Ed Hale. On a number of shows Berg

stated that Liberi is his able legal assistant, who prepared the case of

Berg v Obama, where Berg submitted to court affidavits from Kenya

attesting to Barack Obama’s birth there.

Appellee Taitz is a licensed attorney in CA, admitted in the Supreme

Court of the United States, she is a Doctor of Dental Surgery as well

and a candidate on the Ballot running for the position of the Secretary

of State of Ca. Taitz is a president of the Defend Our Freedoms

Foundation. She was contacted by Appellant Lisa Ostella, who offered

her services as a volunteer web master and who routinely volunteers

as a web master for a number of politicians and community leaders. When Taitz found out that her web site pay-pal account was hacked,

she reported this event to the FBI immediately. Ostella has

threatened, that if Taitz does not withdraw her complaint to FBI, Taitz

will not be allowed to use Ostella’s web server. When Taitz refused to

withdraw her complaint to FBI, Ostella used her privilege of a web

master, locked Taitz from the web site of her foundation and

continued soliciting donations from unsuspecting donors. Later, in the

pleadings submitted to this court she admitted to forging Taitz

signature, but falsely claimed that Taitz permitted her to forge her

signature. When problems with Ostella unfolded, Taitz was contacted

by a former volunteer of Philip Berg, Linda Belcher, appellee in this

case, who related to Taitz, that an assistant for Berg, Lisa Liberi also

might be involved in financial improprieties. Belcher related to Taitz

her knowledge regarding Liberi’s criminal record of forgery and theft.

Taitz has verified this record with the investigator Sankey, appellee in

this case, with District Attorney James Secord, her arresting officer

and her probation officers Dawn Hellwig and Rose Bobchack. Taitz

has contacted Berg and forwarded to Berg excerpts of Liberi’s

criminal convictions. Taitz has related to

Berg that she has legal cases, where she included by reference

information provided by Berg in Berg v Obama, specifically affidavits






from Kenya, regarding Obama’s birth there. Taitz has asked Berg to

allow her and a forensic document expert to examine the originals of

those affidavits, as there was a high likelihood of forgery due to

Liberi’s recent convictions. Taitz has also advised Berg that he may

want to bring an account to review the donations received in light of

Liberi’s recent convictions of grand theft. Any attorney with any

measure of integrity and respect for the law and the system of

ustice, with a drop of professional ethics in his blood would have

disassociated himself from an individual of such questionable past

and would advise this court and other courts of a possibility of forgery

in the documents submitted. Instead, Berg has filed an absolutely

frivolous legal action against all of the appellees, seeking to keep

them silent, he filed a ridiculous legal action for nearly a billion

dollars and continued bombarding appellees with hundreds and

hundreds of pages of garbage, with no connection to the case. Berg

teamed up not only with Liberi, but also with Ostella and a couple of

other individuals with past convictions or indictments of forgery and

fraud. Currently Berg and his associates are advertising an eligibility

and anti-healthcare bill march on Washington and soliciting donations

nationwide for that march. While Taitz shares concerns regarding the

eligibility and the Health care bill on Constitutional grounds, she is

concerned about individuals like Berg, Liberi and Ostella causing real

damage to those issues and to the public at large. Taitz simply

became an attorney, who exposed Berg and his associates, their

past and dealings, she is an attorney in the way, and Berg has rubber

stamped pleadings coming from his associates with one goal of

attacking Taitz and taking heat of himself and possible criminal

prosecution of himself, Liberi and Ostella.

Berg is fully aware that Taitz never violated any orders and Berg’s

allegations are nothing but fraud on the court. For example, Berg

knows that Taitz does not own a web site repubex, that she used that

website for a couple of weeks over a year ago, when Ostella lockedher out of her website. Taitz has presented this information a year

ago, (exhibit Motion to dismiss Due to Lack of Jurisdiction exhibit 3)

Berg knows fully well that Taitz had nothing to do with that web site

for over a year and used her own web site OrlyTaitzEsq.com, yet Berg

continues to defraud the court by falsely accusing Taitz of violating

orders. Taitz does not want to waste the time of this court with piles

of documents, but rather submits a couple of documents, that

illustrate the actions of Liberi. Exhibit 1 05.28.2009 Opposition to

TRO, which contains Liberi’s criminal record, showing multiple recent

convictions, and exhibit 4 testimony of officer Liebrich during Liberi’s

bail hearing regarding Liberi’s threats against her sister Cheryl

Richardson. The transcript states that when Cheryl Richardson

started cooperating with police and implicated Liberi in the case

being tried and provided information regarding Liberi’s thirteen prior

criminal charges, Liberi has stated in recorded phone call from jail,

that she wants to have her sister framed, arrested and she wants to

spread the word in the prison population, that her sister is a rat. She

proceeded telling her

husband “you know what they do in prison to rats”. When asked by

the court “what happens when inmates discover that another inmate

is a snitch?” officer Liebrich responded “ There is what is known as a






contract, a green light on them. Different things; they are attacked

and /or killed. In fact, you brought up L.A. County, in the last year five

have been killed within the jail system”. Taitz has provided Berg with

this information and related to him that his continuous harassment of

Taitz and other appellees puts everybody in danger, particularly in

light of Liberi’s extensive criminal past and violent propensities.

Again, instead of putting an end to his frivolous law suit, Berg went

further and rubber stamped and submitted to this court absolutely

horrific, despicable, false slanderous accusations about Taitz.

Without a shred of evidence Berg accused Taitz of seeking

professional help in kidnapping Ostella’s children. Clearly such insane

horrific accusation could only be concocted in a violent criminal mind

of Liberi, however the bigger problem is the fact that Berg, a licensed

PA attorney has put his name and signature on this slander and

submitted this horrendous defamation of character as a fact. People

like this should not be allowed to practice law. This is an attorney,

who submitted to this very court and the Supreme Court of the US in

Berg v Obama documents prepared by a recently convicted forger,

this is an attorney who is conducting Nationwide donations drive

using a recently convicted thief as his assistant, this is an attorney,

who is hurling accusation with zero evidence to support them. Berg

and his clients, the rest of the appellants, are so dangerous to the

society that Taitz is asking this Honorable court not only to grant

her motion to strike Berg’s latest filing with hundreds of pages of

defamation of character, but she is also asking this court sua sponte

to forward the pleadings presented in this case to the Attorney

General of Pennsylvania and District Attorney of Philadelphia for

purpose of criminal investigation and prosecution of Berg, Liberi,

Ostella and their associates for perjury, forgery, uttering, fraud upon

the court and Liberi’s multiple violations of her probation.

Additionally Berg’s latest motion violates rules of this court.

Appellees seek either that the reply brief be stricken in its entirety or permission to file a detailed sur reply brief of equal length be granted

to refute the libel per se allegations of criminal activity in the reply

brief. Appellees further seek attorney fees in the amount of their

actual costs to be submitted to the court upon resolution of this

matter.

Appellees further request that Berg be referred to the Third Circuit

Court Disciplinary Committee for investigation of ethical breeches in

that he has used an appellate proceeding to make unfounded

desperate criminal accusations against Appellee Dr. Taitz. Those

insane vicious slanderous accusations are a matter of public record,

appellee Taitz is a candidate on the California primary ballot for the

position of California Secretary of State in a tight two candidate race

and appellants are trying to derail that candidacy.

II. THE REPLY BRIEF VIOLATES THE RULES

FRAP Rule 27(a)(4) states “A reply must not present matters that do

not relate to the response.” Appellants’ entire reply brief is largely an

attempt to manipulate Rule 27 by claiming anything and everything

including false allegations of kidnapping children and unauthenticated

exhibits of hearsay are relevant to rebut the allegation that






appellants’ motions to date and indeed the underlying appeal are

frivolous. The unauthenticated Grimm’s fairy tales of Dr. Taitz being

submitted by appellants would be almost laughable were it not for

appellants’ penchant for republishing this muck once it obtains the

court’s file stamp.

Appellants have also ignored page limits, the unauthenticated and

bad faith exhibits not withstanding. A reply brief is limited to 10 pages

under FRAP Rule 27(d)(2) and not the 22 pages plus hundreds of pages

of nonsense exhibits and tall tales about appellees. The reply brief

should be stricken on page limit abuse alone.

III. THE UNAUTHENTICATED EXHIBITS

ARE SCANDALOUS AND SHOULD BE STRICKEN

The exhibits dealing with unauthenticated libelous allegations of

kidnapping, conspiracy to commit murder and other criminal acts

should be stricken in their entirety. Those allegations represent

nothing but vicious slander. They have nothing to do with appellants’

motion to dismiss nor do they respond to appellees’ points about

appellants’ previous abusive filings or inability to secure a transcript.

See generally USX v. Liberty Mutual, 444 F.3d 192, 202 (3rd Cir. 2006)

for the proposition that a motion to strike is to be granted when a

brief goes beyond the underlying purpose of the proceeding.

IV. A SUR BRIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO A

MOTION TO STRIKE TO PERMIT RESPONSE TO CRIMINAL

ALLEGATIONS AND THE REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

As noted, appellee Dr. Taitz is horrified and shocked that she is being

accused by appellants including an attorney still in good standing of

conspiracy to kidnap children and commit perjury. Appellees are

entitled to a full response of these hideous allegations if they are notstricken.

V. SANCTION ARE WARRANTED

This court should sua sponte sanction attorney Berg and appellants.

Berg has put his signature on these horrific slanderous allegations

against Dr. Taitz. Berg has teamed up with felons in slandering Taitz

without any basis with a goal of silencing her. Berg is fully aware that

Taitz never violated any orders, never did anything illegal, never

caused any harm to appellants. Berg and appellants are acting with

depraved indifference to the truth and has harmed Taitz, her

reputation, her family, have caused severe emotional distress and

severe financial damage in having to fly to Philadelphia to the District

Court hearing, having to read thousands of pages of defamation that

they threw at her, having to respond to numerous motions and

requests for judicial notice. In this court alone Berg has filed 11

(eleven) motions and requests for judicial notice with hundreds and

hundreds of pages completely unrelated to the interlocutory appeal

of the decision by judge Robreno made in August of 2009. Berg was

fully aware that what he is filing, is nothing but slander and unrelated

material, yet he did it to harass Taitz into silence and to prejudice the






State Texas

court against her.

VI CONCLUSION

The appellants’ reply brief goes beyond anything appellee has ever

witnessed before, attorney Berg and the rest of the Appellants have

acted in a totally depraved manner, with total and complete disregard

to the truth and to the rule of law. They have manufactured

allegations without a grain of truth. While this behavior can be

expected from convicted felons like Liberi and Lincoln, actions of PA

licensed attorney Berg are absolutely despicable and diabolical. Berg

knows that Taitz has simply exposed him and his associates, that he

was caught submitting to this very court documents prepared by a

recently convicted forger, he knew that there is a very high likelihood

of forgery, he knows that his law license is in danger and his

associates out of total desperation created all of the above slander to

kill the messenger. The courts should not be used as a free for all to

commit defamation against other parties and accuse them of capital

crimes. Liberi has used the strategy of inventing allegations against

the law enforcement before in order to reduce her sentence and make

a deal. Liberi and Berg are defrauding this court and manufacturing

evidence, simply because they know that if the law is enforced,

Liberi’s probation will be revoked and she will be going back to prison

in California to serve her eight year term. Berg and the rest of the

appellants know that there is a good possibility of them following

Liberi.

Criminals should not be allowed to manufacture horrendous

defamatory allegations in order to harass the victims and harass

attorneys who exposed them. Bottom line, Attorney Berg was told by

the district court to file just one simple motion to unseal the

transcript and submit it to the court of appeals. Berg has never filed

this one simple motion and caused Taitz severe emotional distressand financial damages by filing hundreds of pages of unrelated

motions, therefore his reply to response should be striken from the

record, the appeal should be dismissed with prejudice and the

appellees should be reimbursed their costs and fees.

DATED: May 4, 2010

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq

Orly Taitz, Appellee in Pro Se and as Counsel for Appellee Defend Our

Freedoms Foundation

Ed Hale

May 6, 2010 - 12:58AM

Here are the exhibits Qu ote Reply

Click on the link below to veiw the evidences

Liberi threatening her sister from jail

http://www.plainsradio.com/PLAINS~1/berg1.html

Letter from the district court clerk







State Texas

Little Green Apples

May 6, 2010 - 3:04PM

Re: Here are the exhibits

State Truth

Qu ote Reply

I didn't follow Berg for the simple fact he was goofy after Sept 11th,

always considered him quite the lunatic.

After reading this I have to say that every single one that seems some

how associated with him are lunatics too?

A billion dollars? Lawsuit? Pleaseee

Kidnap children? What are these people smoking?

Originally Posted by Ed Hale






Quote:

Ed Hale

May 6, 2010 - 3:25PM

Berg got caught with his pants down.Qu ote Reply

Dr. Taitz pointed out the error in Berg filing over the 10 pages and

now Berg want the court to say that it was ok. Here is Berg motions

(after the fact)

1

U.S. District Court,

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case Number: 09-cv-01898 ECR



FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ Ο _____________

LISA LIBERI, et al,


v.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,


____________ Ο _____________

APPELLANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO EXCEED THE PAGE

LIMIT IN THEIR REPLY TO APPELLEES, ORLY TAITZ AND DEFEND

OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC. OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS






MOTION TO WITHDRAW THEIR APPEAL or in the ALTERNATIVE

APPELLANTS MOTION TO DISMISS THEIR APPEAL PURSUANT TO

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULE 42(b) and

APPELLEE’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

_____________________

2

Appellants’, Lisa Liberi [hereinafter “Liberi”]; Philip J. Berg, Esquire

[hereinafter “Berg”], the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg; Evelyn Adams

a/k/a

Momma E [hereinafter “Adams”]; Lisa Ostella [hereinafter “Ostella”];

and Go

Excel Global by and through their undersigned counsel, Philip J. Berg,

Esquire,

hereby files the within Motion to File Pages in Excess of the Ten (10)

Page Limit

on Reply’s pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure [F.R.A.P.]

27(d)(2).

Appellees Orly Taitz [hereinafter at times “Taitz”] and Defend our

Freedoms Foundations, Inc. [hereinafter “DOFF”] filed an Opposition

to

Appellants’ Motion to Withdraw their Appeal or in the alternative, their

Motion to

Dismiss their Appeal Without Costs pursuant to F.R.A.P. 42(b). In

Taitz’s

Opposition, she raised numerous issues and many false accusations

which

Appellants must address appropriately. Unfortunately, Appellants are

unable to do

so without exceeding the ten (10) page limit in F.R.A.P. 27(d)(2),

complexity of

the matters. In addition, Appellees Taitz and DOFF also request costs

andsanctions, which also needed to be properly addressed.

Appellants’ filed their Reply to Taitz’s Opposition on May 1, 2010,

however, the Reply is twenty-two (22) pages, which exceeds the ten

(10) page

limit. Without Leave of Court to File in Excess of ten (10) pages,

Appellants’ are

not able to properly respond to and/or address Taitz’s Opposition and

properly

respond to Taitz’s request for Costs and Sanctions.

3

WHEREFORE, for good cause shown, Appellants respectfully request

this

Court to grant their Motion for Leave to File their Reply, which was

filed May 1,

2010, in excess of ten (10) pages.


Dated: May 5, 2010 ____________________________

Philip J. Berg, Esquire

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

(610) 825-3134






State Texas


s/ Philip J. Berg

Only one problem here for Berg. He states that DR. Taitz lied to the

court and yet he has not presented one ounce of proof other that

shooting off his big mouth claiming all kinds of stuff.

Dr. Taitz laid it on him with proof that he was lying to the court. Berg

need to get out of the lawyer business because he is such a poor one.

Now he is wanting to lead a march to DC. Wonder how much money

will they get for this one?

Index

www.Intuit.com Ads b Goo le






www.WGU.edu Ads by Google

ains Radio Network Forum http://pub44.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=3764075825&frmid=671

5/6/20




View Entire Thread

Quote Reply

Index

Return to Website

Start a New Post Board|Threaded

Author Comment

Ed Hale

May 6, 2010 - 12:58AM

Here are the exhibits






State Texas

Index

Recent Posts Search: bykeywords search

ains Radio Network Forum http://pub44.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=3764075825&frmid=671

5/6/20

http://pub44.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=3764075825&frmid=6712&msgid=1121538&cmd=showCase: 09-3403 Document: 003110135281 Page: 61 Date Filed: 05/07/2010



berg1 - Window Title

http://www.plainsradio.com/PLAINS~1/berg1.html - Page URL5/6/2010ate




20

U.S. District Court,Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case Number: 09-cv-01898 ECR



FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ Ο _____________

LISA LIBERI, et al,


v.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,


_____________ Ο _____________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE _____________________

I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify that Appellants’ Objections;

Opposition; Request to Strike Taitz Motion to Strike filed May 7, 2010; and

Request for Sanctions and Attorney Fees was served upon Appellees, this 7 th day

of May 2010 electronically upon the following:

Orly TaitzDefend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc. (unrepresented)

26302 La Paz Ste 211Mission Viejo, CA 92691

Email: [email protected] by Fax to (949) 766-7603




CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, Continued

Neil Sankey

The Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm (unrepresented)Sankey Investigations, Inc.2470 Stearns Street #162Simi Valley, CA 93063

Email: [email protected]

Linda Sue Belcher 201 Paris

Castroville, Texas 78009

Email: [email protected] andEmail: [email protected]

Ed HaleCaren Hale

Plains RadioKPRN

Bar H Farms1401 Bowie Street

Wellington, Texas 79095Email: [email protected]; [email protected];ed@barhfarnet; and [email protected]

________________________ PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE

s/ Philip J. Berg

Documents

LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Objection and Opposition - Transport Room