LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 198.0 - OPPOSITION to MOTION for Leave to file First Amended Complaint - .198.0

8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 198.0 - OPPOSITION to MOTION for Leave to file First Amended Complaint - .198.0

1/21

DR. ORLY TLITZ ESQ29839 SANTA MARGARTTA PKWY, STE 100RANCHO SANTA MARGARTTA, CA 92688PH 949-683-541 1 FAX 949 -7 66-7 603

US DISTRCT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIBERI ET AL, ) CASE NO.: 11-CV-00485PLAINTIFF, )vs. ) OPPOSTTTON TO MOTION FOR

TATTZAT AL, ) LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE ANDEFENDAI{T ) AMENDED COMPLAINT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Liberi w Taltz OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT-1-

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 198 Filed 05/23/11 Page 1 of 21 Page ID#:5656


2/21

1. ANTISLAPP WAS FILED BEFORE THE MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURTO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT...... ..................p52. ANSWER AND FIRST AMENDED WERE FILED OVE,R TWO YAGO....... ..............p63. DEFENDANTS WILL BE GREATLY PREJUDICED IF THE MOTION IGRANTED............. ..............p64. THERE WAS NO PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT ATTACHED

5. AFTER TWO YEARS OF LITIGATION, THE PLAINTIFFSCONTEMPLATING A NEW COMPLAINT WITH 17 CAUSES OF ACTION..p6. BERG FILE,D MULTIPLE FRIVOLOUS LEGAL ACTIONS FOHARASSME,NT PURPOSE, AND THIS MOTION WILL ALLOW HIMFILE ANOTHER FRIVOLOUS LEGAL ACTIONS FOR PURPOSE OHARASSMENT..... .............p1 17. LISA LIBERI IS A FELON WITH 46 CRIMINAL CI{ARGESCONVICTION OF 10 COUNTS OF FORGERY OF DOCUMENTSGRAND THEFT. ALLOWING HER TO FILE ANOTHER COMPLAINT, WILSIGNIFY A GREEN LIGHT FOR A CAREER CRIMINAL TO COMMIT MSLANDER AND HARASSMENT..... ................p14

Llberi v Taitz OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT-2



3/21

FHFftuEoOnt'lotrlEzEdF]Ht'roFlF&Do()t!oHl'.1 ' 'Fll&otrrzoHFOEoFzoHE:HaOtutuoN+l-.1rdFtr(.)-a-.1J

cncnsf,.hIl.iOcctroc.)trr

(J\


4/21

1

23

4

5

6

1

I9

1011I2131-41E

16I11B192A272223242526272A

3. Hill v. City of El Segundo, C.A.9 (Cal.)2002,460320, Unreported. Federal Courts 433; ; StatesHill v. City of El Segundo, C.A.9 (Cal.)20A2,460320, Unreported. Federal Courts 433; ; States

33 Fed.Appx. 254,2002

33 Fed.Appx. 254, 2002

Holsworth v Berg. 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexrs............p11

In Re Berg, 2008 Banks. Lexis 322 (ED PA 2008)......p11Liberi v Sheriffs department et al 5:04-cv-01524-vap... .....p14Lisa Liberi v West Valle)' Center et al 2:05-cv-03015-VAP-SGL.......................p14Mission Power Eneineering Co. v. Continental Gas. Co. 883 F. Supp. 488 (C.DCal. 1995) ................p19

Liberi v Taitz OPPOSITION TO MOTTON FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FTLE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT-4



5/21

1)3

4

5

61

8

91011T2131415I6\118192027222324

262128

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Defendants Orly Taitz and Defend our Freedoms foundation vehemently opPlaintiffs' motion for leave of court to file amended complaint after two years olitigation and after the answer was filed two years ago for following reasons.

1. ANTISLAPP WAS FILED BEFORE THE MOTION FOR LEAVE OFCOURT TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Antislapp motion was filed prior to plaintiffs motion for leave of court to file afirst amended complaint. Antislapp stavs the case and the plaintiffs areprecluded from filing an amended complaint until the court rules onantiSLAPP. California's anti- SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public

Participation) statute may be applied in federal diversity suits; application of thestatute's special motion to strike and the availability of fees and costs would not

result in a direct collision with the Federal Rules, despite commonality ofpurposein weeding out meritless claims. U.S. ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles &

Space Co., Inc., C.A.9 (Cal.)1999, 190 F.3d 963, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 2196,530 U.S. 1203,147 L.F.d.2d232. Federal Courts 415; Federal Courts 433.

California's Anti-strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP)Statute is applicable to state law counterclaims asserted in a federal diversity

Liberi v Taitz OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT-5



6/21

1

2

34

56

1B

91011I213141515L'1

1BI9202I222324

26212B

action. Mello v. Great Seneca Financial Co.p., C.D.Ca1.2007,526 F.Supp.2d 1024.Federal Courts 433. Califonnia's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public

participation) statute, which was enacted to allow early dismissal of meritless FirstAmendment cases aimed at chilling expression through costly litigation, is notpreempted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is applicable in federal

cases. Hillv. Cig'of El Segundo, C.A.9 (Cal.)2002, 33 Fed.Appx.254,2002 WL46032A, Unreported. Federal Courts 433; ; States 18.15 (emphasis added)

2. ANSWER AND FIRST AMENDED WBRE FILED OVER TWO YEARSAGO

Answer and first amended answer was filed two years ago on 06.15. 2009on the complaint, as it was filed. Allowi

was filed- after two ears of litisationthe Defendants and will cause severe financi

severe emotional distress.3. DBFENDANTS WILL BE GREATLYIS GRANTED

PREJUDICED IF THE MOTIO

Liberi v TaiLz OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO-6

FTLE AN AMENDED COMP],AINT



7/21

1

2

34

56

18

9

1011L213L4

76L11BI92A2T222324

zo2128

Complaint was filed two years ago in Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs sought injunctirelief against the defendants. After Judge Robreno denied two motionsinjunctive relief, Plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Third Circuit court of AppealsWhen the plaintifTs saw, that their appeal of the denial of the injunctive relief iabout to be denied by the court of Appeals, they withdrew the appeal. Now, whthe Plaintiffs are concerned,that the AntiSlapp will be granted, they are suddenseeking a leave of court to file an amended complaint. After two years of litigatiafter filing AntiSLAPP and an answer, the defendants will be greatly prejudiced ithe court grants the plaintiffs a leave of court to file an amended complaint.4. THERE WAS NO PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT ATTACHED TTHE MOTIONMotion for leave of court to file an amended complaint

amended comolaint attached to it. There is noattached. This makes the motion improper.5. AFTER TWO YEARS OF LITIGATION, THE PLAINTIFFSCONTEMPLATING A NEW COMPLAINT WITH 17 CAUSES OF ACTION. Recently received Rule 26 joint report from the plaintiffs shows that the plaintiare contemplating to file a completellr different complaint, with new causes oaction and new fact pattern and events not related to the original complaint. Whilthe original complaint was filed in May of 2}}9,Plaintiffs refer to events and

Llberi v Tailz OPPOSITION TO MOTTON FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT-'7



8/21

1

2

34

5

6

1

8

9

107I12131415L6111B19202L222324252621?O

slanderous allegations of events that purportedly happened two years later in 2011Defendants suffered severe emotional distress dealing with unprecedented sland defamation of character and harassment inflicted upon them by the Plaintiffs itheir complaint and during fwo years of litigation. Defendant Taitz has sufTeresevere health problems and was under care of her medical doctor for two yearsto stress and severe emotional distress caused by the Plaintiffs' depravedbehavior in filing a completely frivolous law suit and malicious slandallegations within the complaint and further pleadings. None of the precedentquoted by the Plaintiffs in their motion bear any relevance to the case at hand,there is substantial prejudice against the Defendants to allow the Plaintiffs leave ocourt to file an amended complaint after two years and thousands of pages opleadings. Plaintiffs filed a frivolous complaint on May 5 of 2009, whdefendants truthfully reported that the old web site of Defend Our FreedomFoundation was taken over by former volunteer web master Lisa Ostella. Taialso reported that Ostella is currently using the old web site for the Defend ouFreedoms foundation for purpose of denigrating Taitz and promoting attBerg. Ostella was using the list of donors of Taitz and send them e-mails, that wdefamatory of Taitz and promoting Berg. Taitz has advised her donors asupporters that Berg is employing as his legal assistant a convicted documeforger and thief Lisa Liberi. Taitz has posted on a new website a true and co

Liberi v Tailz OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT_B



9/21

1

23

4

5

6

1I9

1011I213T415I6T71B192A2t22232425262128

report from Califomia superior court, showing that Lisa Liberi indeed has 2criminal charges in San Bernardino county, CA alone,(not counting hercriminal charges), that she reached a plea bargain, according to which sheconvicted of 10 felony counts of forgery, forgery of an official seal and grand theftThis information was proper and relevant, as it showed that personal financiainformation of donors is at risk and there is a serious question of veracity opleadings submitted to multiple courts by Berg, as those pleadings are prepared ba convicted forger.This revelation was damaging to Berg, as it weight badly on his career and hinationwide fund raising. In order to cover up for this fact, Berg, Liberi and Ostellacted in egregious manner with egregious depraved heart malice and on May 52011 filed a complaint for defamation, slander and assault. They tried to createimpression that Lisa Liberi is a different Lisa Liberi, an innocent woman in PAThey gave Berg's business address as her address. Berg was seeking an injunctionhe was trying to silence Taitz about Liberi's criminal record and he was trying tintimidate her with insane $800 million dollar complaint. For two years Taitz hto endure multiple injunction hearings, where Plaintiffs were seeking an injunctioand a gag order, all of which were denied. During August 8,2009 motion hearijudge Robreno ordered Liberi to file with court her identifying records. Libnever filed her identifting records and never proved her state residency at the tim

LibeTi w Taitz OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO EILE AN AMENDED COMPLATNT-9

pn



10/21

1

2

34

56

1

B

9

10l1L213L41516I118L9202I22232425262128

II

I

I

the complaint was filed. 12b1 lack of diversity is part of the current motion tlI

dismiss. When Taitz demanded proof of diversity and documentury proof o{I

Liberi's state residency, Liberi, Berg and Ostella acted with unprecedented .naticlI

and filed pleadings, where they accused Taitz of trying to hire a hit man and kil{ILiberi and kidnap children of Ostella. In their July 30, 2010 pleadings, plaintiffslInot only maliciously accused Taitz of such crimes, but they also urged j"dg1IRobreno, to forward the file to authorities and prosecute Taitz for trying to hire lIhit man to kill Liberi and kidnap children of Ostella. Taitz suffered severflIemotional distress and severe health damages due to such egregious behavior bylIthe Plaintiffs. During Decemb er 20, 2010 motion hearing, called by the plaintiffs,lI(fifth time when the Plaintiffs demanded injunction against defendants) LiberifIadmitted that she is indeed a convicted felon from California and Ostella admittedjIthat she never claimed thatTaitztried to kidnap her children,that those allegationsllwere simply made up by Berg. Exhibit 2 Transcript of December 20,2011 hearin{Ibefore judge Robreno Exhibit 3 Order by judge Robreno stating that LiberilIconceded to being a felon from Califomia, Ostella conceded that she locked TartdIout of the web site for her foundation and replacedTattzpay-pal account with hellI

own. These findings by judge Robreno are indicative that the complaint is about tolbe dismissed on AntiSLAPP. Anticip ating that the complaint is about t" bJ

Idismissed in its' entirety on antiSLAPP the Plaintiffs are trying to file a newlLibCTT V TAitZ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMENDED 'O'N''O'*' I| -ro Il-llr

tl



11/21

1

2

34

5

61

B

910117213L41516711B

192A21-22

2425262128

complaint, bring new facts and new oauses of action. After two yearsunrelenting harassment and vicious slander of the defendants by the Plaintiffs, thdefendants are entitled to have a determination on the complaint, as it was filed anhave it dismissed expeditiously.6. BE,RG PREVIOUSLY FRIVOLOUS LEGAL ACTIONS FOR HARASSPURPOSE, AND THIS MOTION WILL ALLOW HIM TO FILE ANOFRIVOLOUS LEGAL ACTIONS FOR PURPOSE OF I{ARASSMENTBerg is a litigious plaintiff, who was sanctioned repeatedly by the federalfor his baseless filings. Holsworth v Berg. 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15393 (ED P2005) and In Re Berg, 2008 Banks. Lexis 322 (ED PA 2008). Finding thatPennsylvania lawyer had commiued a "laundry list of unethical actions," ajudge has imposed more than $10,000 in sanctions and ordered the lawyer tcomplete six hours of ethics training. U.S. District Judge J. Curtis Joyner's 10-opinion in Holsworth v. Berg is packed with criticism of the conduct ofPhilip Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa. "Other attorneys should look to Mr. Berg'actions as a blueprint for what not to do when attempting to effectivelyhonorably perform the duties of the legal profession," Joyner wrote. "This couhas grown weary of Mr. Berg's continuous and brazen disrespect toward thisand his own clients. Mr. Berg's actions ... are an enoffnous waste of judicial tim

Liberi v Taitz OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMtrNDED COMPLAINT- 1i



12/21

1

2

34

561

8

9101172131A

1516L11B19202I222324252621

and fesources that this court cannot, in good conscience, allow to go unpunished,Joyner wrote. Berg demanded disbarment of the Supreme Court Justices SandDav O'Connor, Anthonin Scalia and Clarencehttp I I en.wikipedia. org/wikiiPhilip_J._B erg In October 2A04, Berg fi ledv. Bush, accusing the President of the United States and 155 other parties ocomplicity in the 9/11 attacks.

This 237-page civil lawsuit included allegations pursuant to the RICO (RacketInfluenced and Comrpt Organizations Act) against 'fhe ljnited Stateg Of Americathe Federal Erlre:rgency Ma-nagernqnt ,AgE)qc,v, the DpSecuriry, Gelrp,e Herbert Walker Bush, GBqrgq W-alker Eush, Rlg.hard ChsneJDonald FL Rumsfeid,and numerous others, totaling 156 defendants in the U.SDistrict Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

This lawsuit made hundreds of allegations including allegations that the TwiTowers were destroyed by means of "controlled demolitions;" that members ofLD]"{Y were ordered, on instructions of the !fu!, not to talk about it; thatFDNY conspired with l..affy_SilVerstein to deliberately destroy TWTC; thprojectiles were fired at the Twin Towers from "pods" affixed to the underside othe planes that struck them; that FEMA is working with the US govemment tcreate "American Gulag" concentration camps which FEMA will run once

Liberi v Taitz OPPOSITION TO MOTTON FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMtrNDED COMPLAINT-12

ThomaRodri

nt of F{



13/21

1

2

34

56

1

B

9

101172137415I6I118L920212223242526212B

federal goveffrment's plan to impose martial law is in place; that phone callsby some of the victims, as reported by their family members, were not actuallmade but were "faked" by the government using "voice morphing" technologythat a missile, not American Airlines Flight 77, struck the Pentagon; that UniteAirlines Flight 93 was shot down by the U.S. military; that the defendantsforeknowledge of the atfacks and actively conspired to bring them about; that thdefendants engaged in kidnapping, arson, murder, treason, conspiracy, traffickiin narcotics, embezzlement, securities fraud, insider trading, identity and credicard theft, blackmail, trafficking in humans, and the abduction and sale of womeand children for sex. The matter was transferred to the Southern District of NYork on May 2,2005. On June 26,2006, the court dismissed the claims againstUSA, DHS, and FEMA, and gave the plaintiff until July 7, 2006 to showwhy his lawsuit should not be dismissed with respect to the other 153 defendantsThe plaintiff failed to do so, and the court dismissed all of the claims against all othe remaining 153 defendants on July 17, 2006.

Similarly Berg made absolutely insane malicious accusations againstdefendants in this case, accusing attomey Taitz of trying to hire ahitman to kilBerg's assistant, career forger Lisa Liberi and kidnap children of web masteOstella, he also accused a retired police officer and licensed investigator Nei

Liberi v Taltz OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT_ 13



14/21

1

2

34

56

1

8

9

10LIl213L415L6L11B

L9202I22232425)6212B

Sankey of stalking Liberi and hacking into her computer. Allowing Berg to filewhole new complaint, will simply give him an opportunity to bring more frivolclaims, depraved heart malicious claims and cause more severe emotional dito the Defendants.7. LISA LIBERI IS A FELON WITH 46 CRIMINAL CHARGES AND WACOVICTED OF 10 COUNTS OF FORGERY OF DOCUMENTS AND GRANTHEFT. ALLOWING HER TO FILE, ANOTHER COMPLAINT, WISIGNIFY A GREEN LIGHT FOR A CAREER CRIMINAL TO COMMIT MOSLANDER AND HARASSMENT

Liberi is a convicted felon with 46 criminal charges and at least 10 felonconvictions of forgery and theft. She is not believable as a witness. Liberi is alsovexatious plaintiff and while incarcerated here in California, she suedBernardino county, District Attomey's office, police officers, detectivesmillions of dollars. all of those leeal actions were dismissed . Libgri v Sheriffdepartment et al 5:04-cv-01524-vap. After filing a frivolous legal action for 43million against the Sheriffs department, Liberi filed a $280 million legal actiagainst West Valley Correction center, where she was incarcerated and dozens oother defendants, such as police officers, detectives, District Attomey, doctorsnurses at the correctional facility and many others. her action was dismissed in i

Liberi v Taitz OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPI'ATNT-L4



15/21

entirety against all of the defendants, however she caused enormous emdistress to multiple innocent individuals. Lisa Liberi v West Valle)' Center et2:05-cv-03015-VAP-SGL This goes to show, that if allowed to file acomplaint, there is a high probability, that she will file new baseless frivolouallegations and Taitz will have to spend significant amount of time and money anwill sutTer more severe emotional distress, while dealing with them.8. JURISDICTION AT THE TIME THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED, WAS NOADJUDICATE,D YET. FOR TWO YEARS THE PLAINTIFFS DID NPROVIDE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF LIBERI'S RESIDENCE, THCASE NEEDS TO BE DISMISSED DUE TO LACK OF DOCUMENTARPROOF OF DIVERSITY AT THE, TIME OF FILI}.{G.Ironically the issue of jurisdiction in Federal court was not adjudicated yet. I

June of 2009 Judge Robreno issued an order for Plaintiffs to show cause, why thcase should not be dismissed due to lack of personal jurisdiction in PAtransferred. The motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction wdismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. At the same time Judge Robreno deniPlaintiffs motion for injunction against the Defendants. Plaintiffs filed an appeal othe order denying injunction. After some 9 months the Court of Appeals issuedorder to show cause, why the transcript was not filed with the court of AppealDefendants believe that the Plaintiffs did not file the transcript of July 8, 2

Liberi v Taitz OPPOSITTON TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FTLE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT- 15



16/21

I2

34q

6

1

B

9

10117213L41576I11BL9202I22232425z62',1

2B

injunction motion hearing, as it would have shown that Liberi never filed hidentification documents with the district court, did not provide docuproof of her state citizenship, and therefore this case needs to be dismissed duelack of subject matter jurisdiction. Anticipating that his appeal will be dismiBerg voluntarily withdrew his appeal. A year ago District court issued an ordertransfer this case to Califomia. At that time defendants demanded the districtto rule on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction and not drag the case, when this no jurisdiction in federal court. As the district court did not adjudicate thisthe defendants filed an appeal seeking adjudication of the issue of subjectjurisdiction. Originally the Third Circuit 3 judge panel in a2:1 decision ruled,the Third Circuit has jurisdiction to rule on the appeal. After 9 month the panelchanged. Two judges, who originally ruled that the Third Circuit has jurisdictionwere removed from the panel and replaced. The new panel ruled, that the thicircuit does not have jurisdiction, as the case was transferred and all pendimotions are to be ruled upon by the transferee court. As such, it is up to thisto rule with prejudice on the Defendants' motion to dismiss due to lack of subjematter jurisdiction in light of the fact. that the Plaintiffs never providdocumentary evidence of Liberi's state residency at the time the case was filed.the Plaintiffs are expecting the court to rule on jurisdiction and antiSLAPP,

Liberi v TaL:Lz OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OE COURT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLATNT-16



17/21

1

2

3

4

56

1

8

9

10l1L213L4

L6L11B19202L2223242526212B

motion for leave of court to file an amended complaint has to be stayed andmoot.9. PRE,VIOUSLY LIBERI FILED SIMILAR ACTIONS FOR PURPOSE O

HARASSMENT Notion by the Plaintiffs that they need a leave of court to fileamended complaint, because they are not familiar with CA law, is preposterousPlaintiffs filed similar actions in California before and specifically used Californistatutes in this case. Liberi filed this case and used the same California privaclaws previously, when she filed her frivolous action against the county and distriattorney. In her prior case against the district attorney's office, she claimedthe district attomey's office violated her and her son's privacy and unlawfullysome information from her divorce file as evidence in her criminal prosecution, ssimilarly accused district Attomey James Secord of harassing her and violatingprivacy. Her campaign of harassment using California privacy laws as a tooapparently worked. While the District Attorney had 23 felony charges againstin one case and four more felony counts in another case, the District Asettled with her pleading to 10 felony counts only and her eight year prisonwas reduced to three years probation. Emboldened by this victory over the DistriAttorney's office, Liberi decided to use the same policy against the Defendants ithis case. Reading the pleadings in Liberi's prior case and this case at hand, it icTear that the Plaintiffs are well versed in California laws and tried toLibeTi v Taitz OPPOSIT]ON TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF' COURT TO FILtr AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

-71



18/21

California privacy laws against the Defendants. It simply didn't work in thisas it worked before. While District attorney's office is an agency, that is entrustwith some records, Taitz and Defend Our Freedoms foundation are not an agencyLiberi was not their customer and the privacy laws as Liberi used as a tool oharassment before were not applicable in this case and didn't work. At any rate ishows that Plaintiffs are familiar with CA law and filed their complaint based oCa laws and statutes.10 PLAINTIFFS FIARASSED DEFENDANTS WTTH THOUSANDS O

PAGES OF SLANDER AND DEFAMATION FOR TWO YEARS.It as ironic, that the Plaintiffs recently filed a motion, asking for an order of leavof court to file any fuither pleadings, in reality, this was the motion that thDefendants originally filed in Pennsylvania to stop paper terrorism byPlaintiffs. The original complaint was some 90 pages, an injunction motion filby the Plaintiffs and denied by prior judge, Judge Robreno, contained overpages of exhibits, that were left in hard copy and found by judge Robreno ofprobative value. Plaintiffs brief in the Court of Appeals contained 950 pages oexhibits. By now the defendants endured two years of having to respond to severathousands of pages of pleadings and exhibits, filed by the Plaintiffs.. to allow thplaintiffs to file a new complaint, represents undue hardship on the defendanbordering on cruel and unusual punishment.

Liberi v Taitz OPPOSTTION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT



19/21

1

2

3

4

56

1

B

9LO

L1L213L415L6I11879202122232425262128

11. DEFENDANTS OPPOSE SUPPLEME,NTAL FILING ON 05.20 .2OII, ONEBUSINESS DAY BEFORE THE OPPOSITION WAS DUE

On Friday, May 20,2011, only one day before this current opposition was due,Plaintiffs decided to ambush the defendants and grossly prejudice this court withdump of over 800 pages of supplemental material. This was done after this couspecifically denied the Plaintiffs an ambush, they contemplated by asking for exparte filing. When official ex-parte was denied, the Plaintiffs decided to go ovthe head of this court by creating a de-facto ex-parte and dumping 800 pages on thdefendants one working day before the opposition was due. Local Rules 7-1allows this court to disregard documents, which are not submitted timely. LR 7-1provides: "The Court may decline to consider any memorandum or other paperfiled within the deadline set by order or local rule. The failure to file any requipaper, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to thgranting or denial of the motion." "When unsupportable allegations are made iregular noticed motions, they can to a great extent be neutralized by a wellprepared rebuttal. In papers prepared on short notice, however, the lawyers toften simply make allegations that have no supporting evidence to back them upEven more pemicious is another tendency: the advocates draw conclusions thappear to be supported by voluminous exhibits, but are not borne out when tevidence is reviewed with more deliberation and more careful rebuttal than ipossible in hasty hearings on ex parte motions." Mission Power Engineering Co. v.Continental Gas. Co. 883 F. Supp. 488 (C.D. Cal. 1995)Current submission of over 800 pages lbusiness day before the opposition is dueis part and parcel of the same modus operandi of continuous harassment withto inflict severe emotional distress, that the defendants suffered for two years nowwhich was masterminded by Lisa Richardson Liberi, a vexatious felon

Liberi v Taitz OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FTLE AN AMENDED COMPI,AINT- 19



20/21

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

I9

1011L213L415t6r'71BI9202I2223242526212B

multiple felony convictions of forgery and thefb, working as a legal assistant forelderly Pennsylvania attorney, who is clearly not properly supervising her. Thicomes on the hills of 12.20.2010 hearing in Philadelphia, when the plaintidemanded yet another emergency hearing and ambushed the defendants withpages of "evidence", which was never served on the defendants prior to theand which were filed in hard copy in Philadelphia, unavailable in PACER. Thantics by the Plaintiffs coupled with insane allegations, which were adiscredited by judge Robreno in his 12.23.2010 ruling, have caused Taipresident of the "Defend our Freedoms foundation" severe emotional distresssubsequent hormonal deplession, which will necessitate medical care for theof her life. Lastly, considering Liberi's multiple felony convictions of forgery anforgery of the official seal, show that none of the "evidence" can be considewithout proper verifi cation and authentication.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Orly Tai

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESFOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AI,IENDED COMPLAINT

_24Llberi v Taitz OPPOSITION TO MOTION

0sl23l20tt



21/21

12

34

5

6

78

910117213I415L6L]1BL9202L2223242526212.8

I

I

"",:::;l::::*r decrare under '""'ot"]ffi;::,i::-:""-"", copy or.' ' Ithe abovjpleadings was seryed on all the parties on05.23.2011 via ECF or e-mail

I

IlslDr. Orly Taitz, ESQIAfforney pro se and for "Defend our Freedoms Foundation"I

I

I

II

I

I

II

I

I

I

I

I

ILibera v raitz oPPosIrIoN ro MorIoN *-_";:t" oF couRr ro FILE AN AMENDED .orr*rr,I


Documents

LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 198.0 - OPPOSITION to MOTION for Leave to file First Amended Complaint - .198.0