8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
1/131
EXHIBIT "J"
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
2/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 1
Law Offices of:PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Attorney for: PlaintiffsIdentification No. 09867(610) 825-3134
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LISA LIBERI, et al,Plaintiffs,
vs.
ORLY TAITZ, et al,Defendants.
:::
:::::::
Case No.: 09-cv-01898-ECR
Assigned to Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS
FRIVOLOUS FILING ENTITLED 60B MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
NOW COME Plaintiffs, 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, and hereby files Plaintiffs Response in
Opposition to Defendant Orly Taitzs Motion for Missing Documents / Rule 60B Motion for
Reconsideration filed September 9, 2010, appearing as Docket Entry No. 143. In support hereof,
Plaintiffs aver as follows:
Defendant Taitz Motion is FRIVOLOUS.
Defendant Taitz failed to serve the undersigned with this filing.
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 1 of 26
Page J1
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
3/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 2
Defendant Orly Taitzs Motion is frivolous and filed for improper purposes, DefendantTaitz failed to cite any proper jurisdictional law. The issues raised in Defendant TaitzsMotion have been litigated and ruled upon.
Orly Taitz has published all over the Internet; by mass emailing; mass mailing and other
distribution the following private identifying information of Lisa Liberi:
A. Lisa Liberis full Social Security number;B. Lisa Liberis Spouses Social Security number;C. Date of births;D. Mothers maiden name;E. Place of Birth;F. Address which Orly Taitz believes Lisa Liberi resides;G. Family Picture; andH. Plaintiff Liberis spouses Social Security number and date of birth.
Now Defendant Taitz is attempting to procure Plaintiff Liberis drivers license, whichshe is not privy to.
There is NO permissible purpose for Defendant Orly Taitz to obtain Lisa Liberisdrivers license, nor is there any legal basis entitling Defendant Taitz to Lisa Liberisdrivers license.
Orly Taitz has falsely stated and manipulated this Courts findings and what waspresented and filed with this Court.
Defendant Orly Taitz has been stalking Lisa Liberi and her son; and Lisa Ostella and her
children.
Due to the facts that Defendant Taitzs behaviors have now escalated to an extremelydangerous level against the Plaintiffs, their husbands and children, e.g. Felony Stalkingacross state lines and what appears to be Defendant Taitzs attempt to hire an individualwith a violent background to physically harm Lisa Liberi, her son and husband; as well asLisa Ostella and her children, it is imperative that this Court refer this matter to theUnited States Attorneys Office or the United States Department of Justice immediately,before one of the Plaintiffs are physically hurt and/or killed.
Plaintiff Liberi is not a resident or citizen of the State of California as Defendant Orly
Taitz falsely claims, nor is Plaintiff Liberi a resident or citizen of the State of Texas.
Defendants Orly Taitz and Neil Sankey only want verification of Plaintiff Liberis actualresidency in order to carry out their violent, serious threats to destroy and get rid ofPlaintiff Liberi. The entire docketing system of this case gets published all over theInternet by Defendant Taitz.
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 2 of 26
Page J2
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
4/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 3
This Case is supposed to be transferred to the Central District of California, SouthernDivision and to the Western District of Texas; however, to date it has not beentransferred and Defendant Taitz is Obstructing Justice.
A. FACTS:
Since this Court entered its Order severing and transferring the within Case, Defendant
Taitz has continued obstructing justice by filing frivolous motions.
The newest filing of Defendant Taitzs is this Request for Missing Documents / Motion
for Reconsideration, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60B claiming new
evidence. Defendant Taitz is now claiming she has entitlement to Plaintiff Liberis Drivers
License based on many false assertions. Defendant Taitzs Motion fails on its face.
It appears Defendant Taitz sent copies of this filing to everyone in the world, however,
neglected AGAIN to serve the undersigned. Defendant Taitz loves to play with the minds of her
readers and followers. It appears that she wants to manipulate her followers into believing that
she is again the victim whose rights are being trampled upon, instead of the fact that is proven by
a preponderance of evidence filed with this Honorable Court that she is indeed the perpetrator
and the within Plaintiffs are the actual victims.
Defendant Taitz demands a copy of Lisa Liberis drivers license claiming it was filed on
August 7, 2009 and Plaintiffs committed a fraud upon the Court by the fact Lisa Liberi showed
this Court a Pennsylvania drivers license. Orly Taitz had every opportunity to appear for this
Court hearing, however, refused, instead going on a publicity tour. No one has ever disclosed
what state issued Plaintiff Liberis drivers license. Just another made up allegation by
Defendant Orly Taitz attempting to further manipulate this Court.
This Court may recall Orly Taitz first screamed Plaintiff Liberi resided in New Mexico
and that the case should be transferred to California. Once this Court gave Defendant Orly
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 3 of 26
Page J3
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
5/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 4
Taitzs her wishes, Defendant Taitz changed her story screaming Plaintiff Liberi resided in
California, then had letters of Linda Sue Belcher filed, which Defendant Taitz created, with this
Court claiming Plaintiff Liberi resides in New Mexico.
This Court found and ruled that Plaintiff Liberi did NOT reside in California or Texas,
which was correct and thereby amended this Courts Order transferring Defendants Taitz;
Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc.; Sankey; the Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a the Sankey Firm;
and Sankey Investigation, Inc. to the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Southern
Division and the Texas Defendants, Edgar and Caren Hale, Linda Sue Belcher, Plains Radio, and
KPRN to the Western District of Texas, again giving the Defendants exactly what they wanted.
Even if this Court had inadvertently made a mistake regarding jurisdiction or diversity,
which it did not, the Court did not err, the Court would have still severed and transferred the
case, if in fact a deficiency existed, which again it did not. See Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co.,
55 F.3d 873, 878 (3d Cir. 1995); 17A Moore's Federal Practice, 111.02 (Matthew Bender 3d
ed. 2006);Lafferty v. Gito St. Riel, 495 F.3d 72 (3d Cir. 2007).
Another concern is the fact this Court has Ordered Transfer of this Case to United States
District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division as well as an Amended Order on
June 22, 2010. After this Courts Order to Sever and Transfer the case to the U.S. District Court,
Central District of California, Southern Division, Defendant Taitz has taken steps which
constitute Obstruction of Justice. Defendant Taitzs filing of July 29, 2010, appearing on the
Docket as Docket Entry No. 136, Page Thirty [38] and her filing of September 8, 2010 appearing
on the Docket as Docket Entry No. 143, Page Fourteen [14], these filings containing falsified
allegations pertaining to the Plaintiffs were sent by Defendant Orly Taitz to Judge David O.
Carter and Chief Judge Audrey B. Collins, U.S. District Court, Central District of California,
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 4 of 26
Page J4
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
6/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 5
Southern Division, the same Court this Court Ordered Transfer of the within action for no
permissible purpose. Defendant Taitz is attempting to prejudice the Court against the Plaintiffs
and conflict out these two Judges in California and make it difficult for the Court to handle
Plaintiffs case. Moreover, this case could be assigned to either of these Judges; therefore, these
actions of Defendant Orly Taitz clearly meet the criminal elements of Obstruction of Justice. See
Affidavit of K. Strebel attached hereto and incorporated in by reference as EXHIBIT 1 and
the Affidavit of Evelyn Adams attached as EXHIBIT 2.
Obstruction of Justice is a broad concept that extends to any effort to prevent the
execution of lawful process or the administration of justice in either a criminal or civil matter.
Obstructive conduct may include the destruction of evidence; the intimidation of potential
witnesses or retaliation against actual witnesses; willfully withholds, misrepresents, alters or
falsify any documentary material; the preparation of false testimony or other evidence, or the
interference with jurors or other Court personnel. The purpose of criminal obstruction statutes is
to help protect the integrity of legal proceedings and, at the same time, protect those individuals
who participate in such proceedings. Prosecutors use the statutes against obstructive efforts that
merely had a reasonable tendency to impede a legal proceeding. Whether or not the effort was
successful does not matter. See 18 U.S.C. 1501-1507.
Defendant Taitzs continues publications of private data of Plaintiff Liberi claiming
Plaintiff Liberi is a career document forger, which is completely untrue. Moreover, Defendant
Taitzs continues telling this Court, that the public has a right to know as a result of Defendant
Taitz false allegation that Plaintiff Liberi fundraises and has access to credit cards, all of which is
untrue. Plaintiff Liberi does not fundraise at all, instead, Plaintiff Evelyn Adams is who assisted
Mr. Berg with his fundraising efforts. Defendant Taitzs reasoning and explanations to this
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 5 of 26
Page J5
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
7/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 6
Court are a complete fabrication. See the Affidavit of Evelyn Adams attached hereto as
EXHIBIT 2.
Defendant Taitz has employed volunteers, most of who have felony criminal convictions,
which Defendant Taitz has failed to disclose. Several have many different convictions
throughout the years with multi prison terms. Most of the felonies are forgery and theft type
crimes; however, a few of Defendant Taitz past and/or present volunteers have criminal
convictions for violent crimes. Some have severe psychiatric issues with a history of violence
and hospitalization in mental institutions. A few had a "falling out with Defendant Taitz" due to
Defendant Taitz asking them to lie or perjure themselves in Federal Court about several matters.
They provided Affidavits to Federal Judges about Defendant Taitz's attempt, and to the
California Bar. One Affidavit also included information regarding Taitz's adulterous affair with
Charles Lincoln III. It is obvious Defendant Taitzs statements are false, and her intent is to
further carry out her threat to get rid of Plaintiff Liberi. See the Affidavit of K. Strebel attached
as EXHIBIT 1 and Affidavit of Shirley Waddell attached as EXHIBIT 3.
Moreover, Defendant Taitz all through her filings and exhibits falsely claim Plaintiffs
accused Pamela Barnett of stealing Defendant Linda Belchers identity and forging her name.
This is completely untrue and this Court can verify the statements with what is on file with this
Court. See Plaintiffs Reply filed July 30, 2010, appearing as Docket Entry No. 137, Page Eight
[8]. What Plaintiffs stated was:
It is important for this Court to note, Orly Taitz orchestrated the letter from Linda Belcher. In fact, Defendant Taitz and/or her employee Pamela Barnett on behalf of Defendant Taitz
prepared the letter for Linda Belcher to sign. When you prepare a document, there areproperties to the specific document, the properties is like a finger-print as it shows who the
software is registered to; the version of the software; and the date the software was
manufactured, created or updated. A copy of the screen shots showing Defendant Belchersletter posted on Defendant Taitzs website; and the properties of Linda Belchers letter are
attached hereto as EXHIBIT 3. Defendant Taitz then posted her filings which were made
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 6 of 26
Page J6
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
8/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 7
with this Court July 28, 2010, appearing as Docket Entry No. 136 on her website July 30, 2010,
a copy of the screen shots showing Defendant Taitzs filings with this Court posted on her(Defendant Taitzs) website; and the properties of Defendant Taitz documents are attached
hereto as EXHIBIT 4. As you can clearly see, the properties of Defendant Belchers letter
and Defendant Taitzs filings match identically, except for the creation date.
Plaintiffs did make a mistake however, it was not Pamela Barnett who created the
documents on behalf of Defendant Orly Taitz to have Defendant Belcher sign, it was in fact
Norman B. Murray, Defendant Taitzs assistant, as demonstrated by the screen shots in Docket
Entry No. 137.
Defendant Taitz has been stalking Plaintiff Liberi and her son, having her supporters
Neil Turner (Neil Turner is also Defendant Taitzs Plaintiff in a dismissed case) and Defendant
Linda Belcher send out to all the Militia and White Supremacy groups, Plaintiff Liberis picture1,
which Defendant Taitz illegally obtained, along with the address in which Defendant Taitz
believes Plaintiff Liberi resides, calling Plaintiff Liberi a Blood-Red Herring.2 Defendant
Taitz continues claiming the Plaintiffs have not substantiated their allegation of harassment and
that Plaintiffs have lied. See the Affidavit of K. Strebel attached as EXHIBIT 1; the Affidavit
of Evelyn Adams attached as EXHIBIT 2; and the Affidavit of Shirley Waddell attached as
EXHIBIT "3. The Plaintiffs have not; harassment is an element in the crimes of Stalking and
Cyber-Stalking. See below:
The Legal Definition of Criminal Harassment is:
The act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party ora group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial
1 http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=12692 posted July 30, 2010; http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?attachment_id=12691Posted July 30, 2010; http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=12783 posted August 3, 2010;http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=13505 posted August 31, 2010; http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=13737 postedSeptember 6, 2010 and http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=12845 posted August 7, 2010 and sent out by mass email onAugust 1, 2010 and September 6, 2010
2 http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=12774 posted August 1, 2010; http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=13737 postedSeptember 6, 2010 and http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=12845 posted August 7, 2010 and sent out by mass email onAugust 1, 2010 and September 6, 2010
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 7 of 26
Page J7
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 8 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
9/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 8
prejudice, personal maliceor merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someoneanxious or fearful3
The Legal Definition of Stalking is:
A person who intentionally and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and whomakes a credible threat, either expressed or implied, with the intent to place that personin reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm is guilty of the crime of stalking.4
The Legal Definition of Cyber-Stalking is:
Cyber-stalkers often do not threaten their victims, at least not directly;5 they are morelikely to use tactics that harass and threaten their victims, such as posting the victimsname and address on the Internet along with false claims.6 The U.S. Departmentof Justice also points out the fact that, as with physical stalking, online harassment andthreats may be a prelude to more serious behavior, including physical violence. The
United States Department of Justice also found that our Courts need to recognize theserious nature of cyberstalking.
Defendant Taitzs continued publication of information pertaining to the Plaintiffs and
the constant harassment and fear the publications have placed the Plaintiffs and their families in,
meets the elements of Harassment; Stalking; and Cyber-Stalking. Plaintiffs have copies of all of
Defendant Orly Taitzs publications. Defendant Taitz has a habit, once Plaintiffs file proof or
evidence of her distorted publications, Defendant Taitz immediately deletes them. Not only is
this destruction and/or spoliation of evidence, but also copies of all her postings to date have
been provided to the proper law enforcement entities, including the Federal Bureau of
3 http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=853
4 http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/stalking5 See 1999 Revision of Model State Computer Crimes Code 2.02.2 - Commentary, available at
http://www.cybercrimes.net/99MSCCC/MSCCC/Article2/2.02.2.html.
6 See, e.g., Petherick, supra note 130. See also U.S. Dept of Justice, Cyberstalking: A New Challenge for LawEnforcement and Industry (August 1999), available at:http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/cyberstalking.htm.
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 8 of 26
Page J8
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 9 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
10/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 9
Investigation. See also the Affidavit of K. Strebel, attached hereto as EXHIBIT 1; Affidavit of
Evelyn Adams attached as EXHIBIT 2; and Affidavit of Shirley Waddell attached as
EXHIBIT 3.
In fact, since May 5, 2009, Defendant Taitz was well aware that Plaintiff Liberi was
protected from John Mark Allen. Despite this, Defendants Taitz and Sankey sought out John
Allen giving all of Plaintiff Liberis information to him. Defendants Taitz and Sankey then
attempted to defraud this Court into believing John Allen gave them the picture they have been
posting all over the place, a picture John Allen never had possession of. As a result, Plaintiffs
hired a Private Investigator who investigates on behalf of the Orange County District Attorneys
Office in California where John Mark Allen resides to have John Mark Allen interviewed. John
Mark Allen has hidden from the Private Investigator, even refused to come out at work when the
Private investigator appeared to question him, so the undersigned sent Mr. Allen an email stating
he would seek his deposition, by Court Order if necessary. See Affidavit of K. Strebel attached
as EXHIBIT 1 and Affidavit of Shirley Waddell attached as EXHIBIT 3;
The next event was Defendant Orly Taitz contacted Plaintiffs Private Investigator,
harassing him and his staff. Defendant Taitz then contacted the undersigned claiming she
needed verification of an email sent to Mr. Allen before she filed Court papers. Thus, Defendant
Taitz is interfering with Plaintiffs rights to have John Allen interviewed. If Defendant Taitz and
Sankey werent lying to this Court, and obtained the picture from John Allen, who would have
been in violation of a Protective Order, then why is Defendant Taitz interfering with Plaintiffs
interviewing John Mark Allen? As a result, Plaintiffs also need to seek an Order of the Court for
John Allen to appear for a deposition, but again, which Court do the Plaintiffs petition since the
case has NOT been transferred?
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 9 of 26
Page J9
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 10 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
11/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 10
Plaintiffs Liberi and Ostella have been receiving death threats and harassment from
Defendant Taitz supporters, demanding the lawsuit against Defendant Taitz be dropped and
threatening Plaintiffs Liberi and Ostella if it is not dropped. See the post by Defendant Taitz on
her website requesting her supporters to call Philip J. Berg, Esquires office, but instead they are
calling the private homes of Plaintiffs Liberi and Ostella threatening their lives.7
As if this is not enough, August 31, 2010, Defendant Orly Taitz went on the Andrea Shea
King radio program and again falsely accused Plaintiffs Liberi and Berg of complete untruths;
again making statements about Plaintiff Liberis son8, the most concerning Defendant Taitz
asked if something happened to Plaintiff Liberis son. This is extremely concerning as
Defendant Orly Taitz projects what ever she is doing, she accuses her victims of. So the
question is, what has Defendant Taitzs arranged to have happen to Plaintiff Liberis son?
During this same radio program, Defendant Taitz stated as she is talking about Plaintiff Liberi,
And I have provided directions, I have provided the pictures Again, talking about Plaintiff
Lisa Liberi. What directions has Defendant Taitz provided? As this Court is aware, directions
can be instructions to commit an act or instructions to locate a place.
On September 1, 2010, Defendant Taitz interviewed with a hired actor, by the name
David Acton, and had a video produced, using this Actors name as an endorsement to give
credibility to her false claims against Plaintiffs. In particular, claiming Plaintiff Liberi is
handling all of the credit cards for the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg, knowing the information is
false. Moreover, Defendant Taitz used this actor to endorse and give credibility to Defendant
Taitzs false accusations that the undersigned had one of her accounts on the Internet shut down
7 http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=134998 http://www.blogtalkradio.com/askshow/2010/08/31/the-andrea-shea-king-show.mp3
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 10 of 26
Page J10
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 11 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
12/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 11
as well as other false accusations.9 This video was placed all over the Internet and it is further
unknown to the Plaintiffs where else this broadcast has been played to date (cable, satellite feeds,
radio programs, etc.). See the Affidavit of K. Strebel attached as EXHIBIT 1; Affidavit of
Shirley Waddell attached as EXHIBIT 3 and Affidavit of Lisa Ostella attached as EXHIBIT
4. Defendant Orly Taitz projects what ever she is doing onto her victims. In fact, it was
Defendant Orly Taitz and her volunteer who were collecting credit cards for a Convention in
Texas set-up by Defendant Taitz. See the Affidavit of Lisa Ostella attached hereto as EXHIBIT
4. This Convention never took place.
Defendant Taitz has also put a call out to her supporters to harass State Agencies
demanding the arrest of Lisa Liberi10.
There is a lot more that Defendant Taitz has continued doing to ensure Plaintiffs Liberi,
Ostella and their families are severely harmed, injured or even killed. All of this information has
been turned over to law enforcement, who recently turned it over to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) as all the crimes Defendant Taitz continues committing against Plaintiffs
Liberi and Ostella have crossed state lines, thereby making them Federal.
Since this Courts Order to sever and transfer the case in June, this Court has closed this
case in this jurisdiction. The case, to date, has NOT been transferred, and therefore, Plaintiffs
need to know where to file for Protective Orders while the case is in limbo.
For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Orly Taitzs Motion must be denied and
Plaintiffs must be informed on which Court to file their request for Protective Order to stop the
harassing and stalking behaviors of Defendant Orly Taitz and Request for a Court Order to
depose John Mark Allen.
9 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7jWiYVVYvY&feature=player_embedded10 http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=13563
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 11 of 26
Page J11
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 12 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
13/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 12
B. DEFENDANT TAITZS MOTION MUST BE DENIED AS THE ISSUES
HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED; IT IS UNTIMELY and VIOLATES THE
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE:
Defendant Taitz basis her frivolous motion on new information, claiming she needs a
copy of Plaintiff Liberis drivers license, because in Plaintiffs Reply filed July 29, 2010,
Plaintiffs state on page five (5) of the reply, Defendant Taitz all through her frivolous filing
claims Plaintiff Liberi has not proven where she resides. To the contrary, during the August 17,
2009 [sic] Hearing, Plaintiff Liberi had her drivers license, safe at home cards, birth
certificate; marriage certificate; and Social Security [sic] card with her in court, which she
offered to the court for review This is not new evidence, Defendant Taitz has been well aware
of this since July 29, 2010, and had ample time to file within the ten (10) day period outlined for
Motions for Reconsideration. Moreover, where in the quoted statement does it say what state
Plaintiff Liberis license was issued; it does not, and, where does it say copies of Plaintiff
Liberis license were filed in the Court, it does not. It states the information was offered to the
Court to review. Defendant Taitz is doing nothing more than attempting to box Plaintiff Liberi
into a corner to force her to verify her address, so that Defendant Taitz can carry out her threats.
This case is not a game, nor is it a game as to the damages Plaintiffs have suffered and continue
suffering as a result of the Defendants unlawful actions, especially those of Defendant Taitz.
As this Court is aware and as outlined in Broadcast Music, Inc. v. La Trattoria E., Inc.,
No. CIV.A. 95-1784, 1995 WL 552881, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 1995), it is unsettled among the
Courts how to treat Motions to Reconsider, the Court found:
The [United States] Supreme Court has noted that [s]uch a motion is not recognizedby any of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third Circuit has sometimes ruledon such motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and at other times underRule 60(b). A motion to reconsider may, therefore, be treated as a Rule 59(e) motionfor amendment of judgment or a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment or order.
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 12 of 26
Page J12
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 13 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
14/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 13
Motions for Reconsideration must be filed with ten (10) days. See Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 59(e);Broadcast Music, Inc. v. La Trattoria E., Inc., No. CIV.A. 95-1784, 1995
WL 552881, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 1995); Choi v. Kim, 258 Fed. Appx 413, 416 (3d Cir.
2007) (citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir.
1995)); Maxs Seafood Caf ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.
1999); In re Loewen Group Inc. Sec. Litig., 2006 WL 27286, at *1 (E.D.Pa. Jan. 5, 2006).
Defendant Orly Taitz admits in her own pleadings she was aware since July 29, 2010, of the
statement in Plaintiffs Reply that Plaintiff Liberi made all her identifying documentation
available to the Court.
Even if this Court chooses to treat Defendant Taitzs Motion, pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 60(b), motions must be brought within a reasonable time, and based on: (1)
mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with
reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule
59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or conduct
by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or
discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. See Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60(b). None of the factors apply here. Defendant Taitz admitted
she was aware that Plaintiff Liberi had her identifying documents with her in Court on August 9,
2009 and offered them to the Court; thus, there is no new discovered evidence as Defendant
Taitz was aware of the information since July 29, 2010, in time to file a Motion for
Reconsideration within the ten (10) day period of time; there was no fraud, contrary to
Defendant Taitzs false claims in her Motion, no one has ever stated what State Plaintiff Liberis
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 13 of 26
Page J13
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 14 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
15/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 14
drivers license was issued out of, except for the fact Plaintiff Liberi does not reside in California
or Texas, which she doesnt, see the Affidavit of Kelly Strebel attached as EXHIBIT 1 and
the Affidavit of Evelyn Adams attached as EXHIBIT 2; therefore, Defendant Taitzs Motion
fails; and terms four (4), five (5) and six (6) do not apply to Defendant Taitzs Motion.
Defendant Taitz Motion is nothing more than Frivolous.
Generally, a Motion for Reconsideration will only be granted if: (1) there has been an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) new evidence, which was not previously available, has
become available; or (3) it is necessary to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest
injustice. Reich v. Compton, 834 F. Supp. 753, 755 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (citing Dodge v.
Susquehanna Univ., 796 F. Supp., 829, 830 (M.D. Pa. 1992)), affd in part, revd in part, 57 F.3d
270 (3d Cir. 1995); McDowell Oil Serv., Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 817 F. Supp. 538,
541 (M.D. Pa. 1993). Furthermore, With regard to the third ground...any litigant considering
bringing a motion to reconsider based upon that ground should evaluate whether what may seem
to be a clear error of law is in fact simply a disagreement between the Court and the litigant.
Again, Defendant Taitz fails to meet any of the required grounds.
The Supreme Court has stated that Rule 59(e) is generally invoked "only to support
reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a decision on the merits." White v. New
Hampshire Dep't of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 451, 102 S. Ct. 1162, 71 L. Ed. 2d 325
(1982).
Moreover, Defendant Taitz fails to cite to any Judgment or Order she is requesting
reconsideration of, or what judgment or Order she is seeking relief of. Defendant Taitz also
claims that the sealed documents were not supplied to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
There is absolutely no way for Defendant Taitz to know what documents were transmitted and
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 14 of 26
Page J14
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 15 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
16/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 15
what documents were not transmitted. The record and appropriate documents are transmitted
from this very Court, as outlined in the Docket. If documents are under seal, you can not call
and obtain the information over the phone nor can you obtain copies of the sealed documents
without a Court Order.
Defendant Taitzs filings are filled with nothing more than hearsay statements,
conclusions of law, and speculation. Defendant Taitz only filed her frivolous filings with this
Court to use this Court and its docketing system to further publish false allegations about the
Plaintiffs; Plaintiff Liberis family picture which she obtained illegally; and to further publish
private data of the Plaintiffs, or what she believes to be data of the Plaintiffs.
Defendant Taitz is just further harassing this Court, attempting to delay the transfer, and
attempting to obtain Plaintiff Liberis drivers license to further carry out her threats and to
publish it on her website. Defendant Taitzs has absolutely no entitlement or valid reason to ask
said request. More importantly, Defendant Taitz quoted Plaintiffs Reply with false statements,
no where does it state Plaintiff Liberi gave a copy of her drivers license to this Court, as she
didnt. No where does it even mention the State of issuance of Plaintiff Liberis drivers license;
Nor is there anywhere that states the Court filed Plaintiff Liberi's drivers license under seal.
Plaintiff Liberi made her identification documents available to the Court for review.
Moreover, in Defendant Taitzs filings, she misquotes what this lawsuit is about, is
attempting to change what this lawsuit is about, mis-states what the Plaintiffs and this Court have
stated and/or testified to and mis-states the events which have taken place. The issues Defendant
Taitz is attempting to claim is pertinent do not pertain, but even if they did, it would be reserved
for Trial, not a Motion for Reconsideration. Defendant Taitz filing is frivolous.
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 15 of 26
Page J15
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 16 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
17/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 16
As stated to this Court when Plaintiffs were attempting to maintain the August 7, 2009
transcript sealed, Orly Taitz would publish the transcript on her website. Defendant Taitz did
just that and published the August 7, 2009 transcript on her website August 4, 2010 with a
heading Evidence of fraud on the court, perjury by Berg, Liberi Ostella, fabrication of
evidence and vicious attacks on me by Berg11 Plaintiffs Liberi, Ostella or Berg perjured their
testimony nor did Plaintiffs Liberi, Ostella or Berg commit any type of fraud upon the Court. It
is interesting that when the Plaintiffs file posts and publications made by Defendant Taitz on her
website, which were obtained directly from her website, she accuses the Plaintiffs of forgery;
fabrication; fraud; vicious attacks; and that Plaintiffs filed thousands of pages of prejudicial,
inflammatory and defamatory material when it is Defendant Taitzs very own writings and
publications filed with the Court. Especially when it has been the Defendants forging and
altering documents in the name of Plaintiffs Liberi and Ostella, which evidence and proof of
Defendant Taitzs and the other Defendants forgery and alterations of emails and chat logs in the
name of Plaintiffs Liberi and Ostella have been filed with this Court. See the Affidavit of K.
Strebel attached as EXHIBIT 1.
What Defendant Taitz does not seem to understand and to quote Judge Clay D. Land,
Like Alice in Wonderland, just saying it is so, doesnt make it so12. [Emphasis added].
For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Orly Taitzs Motion for Reconsideration must be
denied.
11 http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=1281412Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (M.D. Ga. 2009)
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 16 of 26
Page J16
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 17 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
18/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 17
C. SANCTIONS and ATTORNEY FEES AGAINST DEFENDANT ORLY
TAITZ are WARRANTED:
Plaintiffs have brought to this Courts attention the fact Defendant Taitz will not stop her
barrage of filings until this Court takes action to put a stop to it. Therefore, Plaintiffs should be
reimbursed their Attorney Fees and Defendant Taitz must be sanctioned. The Motion for
Reconsideration filed by Defendant Orly Taitz, appearing as Docket Entry No. 143, is
incompliant with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Commonwealths laws and is
frivolous.
Defendant Taitz also claims the transcript is incomplete however fails to state how the
Transcript is incomplete. Defendant Taitz further states that she did not have the transcript
before, which is a complete lie to this Court. Defendant Taitz published the August 7, 2009
transcript on her website August 4, 2010, over a month ago. A copy of Defendant Taitzs post
with the August 7, 2009 Transcript is attached as an Exhibit to the Affidavit of K. Strebel
attached hereto as EXHIBIT 1. Defendant Taitzs further states that the documents provided
in Court on August 7, 2009 were never released to the Defendants. Again, another lie to this
Court. The Defendants present were handed copies of everything the Plaintiffs filed with the
Court in Court before Your Honor. Defendant Taitzs were emailed as she chose to go on a
publicity tour instead of attending the hearing.
Defendant Taitz then states In spite of the fact that Plaintiffs filed thousands of pages of
prejudicial, inflammatory and defamatory material, this court did not buy those arguments and
refused the Plaintiffs demand for injunctive relief. [Defendant Taitzs Motion, page 4].
Defendant Taitz statements are not true. The Requests for a Temporary Injunction or
Restraining Order were based on the publication of Plaintiff Liberis Social Security number by
Defendant Taitz and other private data, the damage had been done, that is why the request was
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 17 of 26
Page J17
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 18 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
19/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 18
denied. Further, the only things Plaintiffs have filed are affidavits and Defendant Taitzs own
creations and publications. But on another page of Defendant Taitzs filings, she claims
Plaintiffs have not filed any proof.
It is also apparent from Defendant Taitzs filing, although she is an attorney licensed to
practice law, she fails to realize this Court is not bound by Courts in other states rulings.
Defendant Taitzs fails to cite one [1] Pennsylvania case in support of herfrivolous motion.
Defendant Taitz continues blaming and falsely accusing the undersigned of fraud on the
Court for stating the August 7, 2009 transcript was sealed. It was this very Courts staff that
stated the transcript was sealed. In fact, Joan Carr, Supervisor in this Court, filed a letter with the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals stating the transcript was sealed. Defendant Taitz then claims
that the Defendants and her are whistleblowers. Whistleblowers of what? This suit is about
the invasion of privacy; publication of full Social Security numbers; false statements made about
the Plaintiffs; right to be let alone; harassment by the Defendants, etc. However, Defendant
Taitz is just attempting to convolute this lawsuit and confuse the Judges. Defendant Taitz also
falsely accuses Plaintiffs of filing eleven [11] Motions with the Appellate Court along with
Requests for Judicial Notice. Plaintiffs never filed eleven [11] Motions with the Appellate
Court, and that is easily verified by the Docket. Just another fabrication by Defendant Taitz.
Defendant Taitz then purposefully lies to this Court again claiming, Plaintiffs have filed
numerous motions and emergency motions with this Court and the Court of Appeals to keep
Liberis vital records sealed. Defendant Taitz or any of the other Defendants have any type of
entitlement to Plaintiff Liberis vital records. In fact, one of the reasons for this lawsuit is due to
the illegal access by Defendants Taitz and Neil Sankey to Plaintiff Liberis vital records.
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 18 of 26
Page J18
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 19 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
20/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 19
Defendant Taitz next states, Liberi and Berg tried to justify their requests with insane,
absolutely untrue and bizarre [sic] allegation, claiming that a licensed doctor and attorney Dr.
Taitz, who was never in trouble with the law, attempted to make a deal with some criminal to
kidnap and kill Liberi and her family. Plaintiffs did not provide any shred of evidence with such
slanderous accusation and neither this court nor the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ever found
any merit to such accusations and neither one of the motions for injunctive relief were granted.
This is another lie by Defendant Taitz. Defendant Taitz is speaking of Plaintiffs July 29, 2010
Reply when they pointed out a convicted felon, Ruben Nieto, attempted to get paid through
Defendants Orly Taitz and DOFF Twenty-Five Thousand [$25,000.00] Dollars on May 25, 2009
and May 29, 2009 (copies were supplied to this Court) and the payment requests were submitted
in three [3] simultaneous requests all of which were under Ten Thousand [$10,000.00] Dollars to
avoid reporting pursuant to the Patriot Act. Plaintiffs also pointed out that Ruben Nieto was
convicted of Aggravated Assault Crimes, he was dangerous. July 29, 2010 was the first time this
evidence was provided to the Court and had nothing to do with Plaintiffs Motions for a
Temporary Injunction or Restraining Order. The Court was also notified by Plaintiffs that the
payment requests were turned over to the proper law enforcement agencies. See the Affidavit of
K. Strebel attached as EXHIBIT 1 and Affidavit of Shirley Waddell attached as EXHIBIT
3.
Defendant again lies to this Court, Defendant Taitz states, In their July 29th reply to the
Defendants response Plaintiffs claimed that judge [sic] Robreno assumed jurisdiction and issued
his order not to dismiss the case, but rather to sever and transfer the case, where he stated
Liberi is a resident of Pennsylvania, based on the documents provided by Liberi. [emphasis
added] No where in Plaintiffs Reply did Plaintiffs or the undersigned ever state where he stated
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 19 of 26
Page J19
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 20 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
21/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 20
Liberi is a resident of Pennsylvania, based on the documents provided by Liberi. This is
clearly a fraud upon the Court by Defendant Taitz. Plaintiffs incorporate their July 29, 2010
Reply herein by reference as if fully set forth herewith. Plaintiffs also request this Court to take
Judicial Notice of their July 29, 2010 Reply.
Defendant Taitzs entire motion is based on lies, false statements, mis-quotations of
testimony and manipulated events. Your Honor, Defendant Taitz MUST be sanctioned,
otherwise this will never stop.
The issues of Diversity Jurisdiction have been litigated several times. Moreover,
Defendant Taitz has Appealed this Courts rulings, although they are not Appealable Orders as
they are proper Orders. Now, Defendant Taitz is attempting to re-litigate the matters for the
fourth or fifth time, while her Appeal is pending.
This Court has the inherent power to issue Sanctions and Attorney Fees against
Defendant Taitz, especially when false statements are filed with the Court and the pleading is
filed for improper purposes. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11. Sanctions are used
to deter false statements; improper filings and unbecoming behaviors of an Attorney. See Walsh
v. Schering-Plough Corp., 758 F.2d 889, 895 (3d Cir. 1985) The Court Held, (Undoubtedly, it
was just such considerations that gave rise to the recent amendment to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. That
Rule, promulgated to keep attorneys "honest" in their pleading practice, now authorizes
sanctions to be imposed when an attorney violates his certificate that good grounds support his
pleading and that the pleading is not interposed for delay).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11 states in pertinent part:
it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faithargument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is notinterposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay
or needless increase in the cost of litigationIf a pleading, motion, or other paper is
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 20 of 26
Page J20
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 21 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
22/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 21
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 appropriatesanction, 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.
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 affidavits have now presented to us,we run the risk not only of losing the respect of the bar, but of damaging the
professional standards that lawyers look to us to uphold. Every member of the bar has
had his character and fitness tested and reviewed before obtaining a license to practice.
We, together, with other courts, are charged with maintaining at least that level ofhonesty and professionalism in 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 is ignored by us ordeemed 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 and truthfulness, and if we refuse to decide and enforce claimedviolations of those fundamental precepts, we will have only ourselves to blame if
intolerable and proscribed practices of the bar become the rule rather than the
exception.
Defendant Taitz has a known history for inciting violence and harm against those who do
not agree with her. See Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (M.D. Ga. 2009) affd in
Rhodes v. MacDonald, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5340 (11th Cir. Ga. Mar. 15, 2010). Until this
Court takes action against Defendant Taitz, her barrage of false frivolous filings and her illegal
and dangerous behaviors will not stop.
For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Orly Taitz must be Sanctioned and Ordered to
pay Ten Thousand Dollars [$10,000.00] for Plaintiffs Attorney Fees. Plaintiffs also request this
Court to submit Defendant Orly Taitz falsified motion to the State Bar of California for full
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 21 of 26
Page J21
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 22 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
23/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 22
investigation. Attorneys are held to a higher standard, and the many lies and falsified
statements made by Defendant Taitz in her filing, must be reported.
D. PLAINTIFFS REQUEST THIS COURT TO TRANSFER THE CASE
PURSUANT TO THIS COURTS ORDER or REOPEN THIS CASE and
ALLOW PLAINTIFFS TO FILE FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER TO STOP DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS CRIMINAL
ACTIVITIES TOWARDS PLAINTIFFS:
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all the previous paragraphs as if fully set forth here.
Plaintiffs also incorporate by reference as if fully set forth herein, Plaintiffs Reply filed July 30,
2010 appearing as Docket Entry No. 137.
This Court on June 22, 2010 Ordered the within action severed and transferred to the
Central District of California, Southern Division and the Western District of Texas. The case has
not been transferred to California or Texas. Even if this Court decided to stay the transfer
pending the appeal, the Texas Defendants have absolutely nothing to do with the pending
Appeal. Meanwhile, Defendant Taitz has been attempting to conflict out the Judges in the U.S.
District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division, the very Court this case is being
transferred.
Meanwhile, Defendant Orly Taitz has continued her illegal conduct, but this time has
escalated her tactics to further harassing, stalking and cyber-stalking Plaintiffs Liberi, Ostella and
their families. As a result, Plaintiffs Liberi and Ostella have been receiving death threats and
threats that the individuals were going to show up at their homes, all on behalf of Defendant
Taitz. Moreover, Attorney Philip J. Berg, Esquire has also been receiving death threats.
Most recently, on two (2) separate occasions, Defendant Taitzs supporter and a Plaintiff
in one of her dismissed actions as well as Defendant Linda Belcher sent out a mass email to all
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 22 of 26
Page J22
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 23 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
24/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 23
the white supremacy and militia groups, again with the address she believed Plaintiff Liberi
resided at and Plaintiff Liberis family photo, calling Plaintiff a Blood-Red Herring. In
addition, Defendant Taitz posted Neil Turner and Defendant Linda Belchers publications on her
website.
Defendant Taitz has gone on recent radio shows stating that Plaintiff Liberi is a convicted
career document forger, that she has provided pictures of Plaintiff Liberi and directions. As this
Court is aware, directions can be instructions to commit an act or instructions to locate a place.
On September 1, 2010, Defendant Taitz interviewed with a hired actor, by the name of
David Acton, using this Actors name as an endorsement to give credibility to her false claims.
In particular, claiming Plaintiff Liberi is handling all of the credit cards for the Law Offices of
Philip J. Berg, knowing the information to be false. Moreover, Defendant Taitz used this actor to
endorse and give credibility to Defendant Taitz false accusations that the undersigned had one of
her accounts on the Internet shut down. See the Affidavit of Shirley Waddell attached as
EXHIBIT 3 and the Affidavit of Lisa Ostella attached as EXHIBIT 4.
Although, all criminal acts have been reported to the proper law enforcement agencies,
and even been forwarded to the Federal Bureau of Investigation as Defendant Taitzs actions
have crossed state lines, including internationally, law enforcement has continued strong
recommendations for Plaintiffs Liberi and Ostella to obtain Restraining Orders to protect
themselves and families and to stop all the stalking and harassment by Defendant Orly Taitz.
Law enforcements hands are tied and cannot automatically issue restraining orders due to the
jurisdictional issues. However, Law Enforcement continues to question why the Courts are not
assisting the Plaintiffs in protection from Defendant Orly Taitz, Neil Sankey, Linda Belcher and
all parties on their behalf.
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 23 of 26
Page J23
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 24 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
25/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 24
E. CONCLUSION:
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs respectfully Request this Court to Deny
Defendant Orly Taitzs Motion Request for Document / Motion for Reconsideration; Sanction
Defendant Taitz for the Frivolous Filings; Order Defendant Taitz to pay the undersigned Ten
Thousand [$10,000.00] Dollars in Attorney Fees; Transfer the case pursuant to this Courts
Order of June 22, 2010 or in the alternative allow Plaintiffs to file an Emergency Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiffs also respectfully request this Court to refer this Case to
the U.S. Attorneys Office for full investigation into the crimes committed by Defendant Orly
Taitz and Neil Sankey. Plaintiffs also respectfully request this Court to send Defendant Orly
Taitzs falsified statements and lies filed with this Court to the State Bar of California for full
investigation.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: September 14, 2010 ______________________________ Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiffs
s/ Philip J. Berg
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 24 of 26
Page J24
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 25 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
26/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 25
Law Offices of:Philip J. Berg, Esquire555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Identification No. 09867(610) 825-3134 Attorney for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LISA LIBERI, et al,Plaintiffs,
vs.
ORLY TAITZ, et al,Defendants.
:::::::
:::
Case No.: 09-cv-01898-ECR
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of Plaintiffs Response in Opposition
to Defendant Orly Taitzs Motion Request for Documents Missing from an Incomplete
Transcript/Motion for Reconsideration; Affidavit of K. Strebel; Affidavit of Shirley Waddell;
Affidavit of Evelyn Adams; and Affidavit of Lisa Ostella were served this 14 th day of
September 2010 electronically upon the following:
Orly TaitzDefend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc. (unrepresented)
26302 La Paz Ste 211Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Email: [email protected]
Neil SankeySankey Investigations, Inc. (unrepresented)
Post Office Box 8298 Mission Hills, CA 91346By USPS with Postage fully prepaid
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 25 of 26
Page J25
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 26 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
27/131
Liberi\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L. 26
The Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm (unrepresented)2470 Stearns Street #162 Simi Valley, CA 93063
By USPS with Postage fully prepaid
Linda Sue Belcher
201 ParisCastroville, Texas 78009Email: [email protected] and
Email: [email protected]
Ed HaleCaren Hale
Plains RadioKPRN
Bar H Farms
1401 Bowie StreetWellington, Texas 79095Email: [email protected]; [email protected];
ed@barhfarnet; and [email protected]
________________________PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE
s/ Philip J. Berg
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144 Filed 09/14/10 Page 26 of 26
Page J26
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340427 Page: 27 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
28/131beri\Opp. to Def. Taitzs Motion for Plaintiff Liberis D.L.
EXHIBIT 1
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144-1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 1 of 14
Page J27
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340428 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
29/131
Liberi\Affidavit of K. Strebel 09.14.2010 1
Law Offices of:PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Attorney for: PlaintiffsIdentification No. 09867(610) 825-3134
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LISA LIBERI, et al,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ORLY TAITZ, et al,
Defendants.
::::
::::::::
Assigned to Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
Case No.: 09-cv-01898-ECR
AFFIDAVIT OF K. STREBEL
I, K. Strebel am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action. I have
personal knowledge of the facts herein and if called to do so, I could and would competently
testify under oath.
I declare as follows:
1. This Honorable Court continues to be paper bombed by Orly Taitz and the rest of
the defendants in this case for the simple fact of Diversity Jurisdiction. As a witness in the case,
Mr. Berg was asking your honor to rule that the Plaintiffs and their witnesses did not have to
disclose their full names and addresses. Your Honor ruled to protect the parties. I am quoting
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144-1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 2 of 14
Page J28
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340428 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
30/131
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
31/131
Liberi\Affidavit of K. Strebel 09.14.2010 3
3. All of the above information shown to both me and the Court on August 7, 2009
and the fact I talk to Lisa Liberi almost on a daily basis proves that Lisa Liberi does NOT reside
within the States of California or Texas, which I believe the Defendants are well aware of. Any
further attempt of Orly Taitz or Neil Sankey and the remaining Defendants to place her residency
as such is dishonest and simply wasting your time Your Honor and the valuable recourses of the
Court that can be better served elsewhere. Defendant Taitz continues stating Plaintiff Liberi
showed a Pennsylvania Drivers License. Defendant Taitz was not present for Court on August
7, 2009, and at NO time has it been filed or testified to, the State of issuance of Plaintiff Lisa
Liberis drivers license.
4. Plaintiff Lisa Liberi and her son are victims of Domestic Violence type crimes
from one John Mark Allen, father of Lisa Liberi's son. For this reason alone, I hope this Court,
as it should, denies Defendant Orly Taitzs Motion for the drivers license of Plaintiff Liberi, and
deny Defendant Taitz any type of access to Plaintiff Liberi and her familys residence.
Defendant Orly Taitz will continue to publish all the private data of Lisa Liberi and her family,
as she continues to do along with Plaintiff Lisa Liberis family picture.
5. Since the August 7th
, 2009 Hearing Defendant Taitz and John Mark Allen have
colluded to further bring harm to Lisa Liberi. According to Defendant Orly Taitz and Defendant
Neil Sankey's claim that John Mark Allen provided the photograph, filed in this Court several
times and posted all over the Internet by Defendant Orly Taitz. The truth of the matter is
Plaintiff Liberis family picture was obtained from Lisa Liberis computer illegally, where this
photograph was stored. No one in the Liberi family provided the picture to John Mark Allen yet
he confirms the picture to be that of Lisa Liberi, Her Husband and Son with the picture of her
son blacked out. Defendant Orly Taitz has sent Plaintiff Liberis picture, which she (Taitz)
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144-1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 4 of 14
Page J3
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340428 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
32/131
Liberi\Affidavit of K. Strebel 09.14.2010 4
illegally obtained, over the Internet numerous times, and posted it all over her website in
approximately 6 different locations. And, Defendant Taitz again posted Plaintiff Liberis family
picture this September 10th, 2010 Weekend on two (2) separate documents posted on her
website1. With this, Defendant Taitz has again violated Lisa Liberi and her family's First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights, not to mention the fact that Defendant Orly Taitz is not only
harassing Plaintiff Liberi, she is cyber-stalking Lisa Liberi and her family.
6. Defendant Orly Taitz continues to spew her falsified rhetoric regarding Plaintiff
Philip J. Berg, Esquires nationwide fundraising falsely claiming Plaintiff Liberi has access to
Credit Cards for those who would donate to help Mr. Berg. It is true that Mr. Berg has a PayPal
account on his website, and the truth of the matter is when you click onto PayPal, you enter
PayPals private server. The person donating the money fills out his or her own information.
PayPal then sends a receipt to the PayPal owner who received the donation, showing a donation
made, the date of the donation, the amount of the donation, and the persons. Defendant Orly
Taitz is well aware of this as she too has a PayPal Account. Defendant Orly Taitz has lied to this
Court, the public and law enforcement attempting to have Plaintiffs Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella
falsely arrested. Defendant Taitz is again wasting the Courts time with her continued lies and
further distortion of the truth.
7. Defendant Orly Taitz continues to accuse Plaintiffs Liberi, Ostella and Berg of the
crimes in which she (Taitz) is actually committing (Projection). For instance, Defendant Taitz
was sanctioned $20,000.00 by Judge Clay D. Land, U.S. District Court, Middle District of
Georgia. Defendant Taitz has been begging her supporters for money to cover the sanctions. As
of September 12, 2010, Defendant Taitzs claims she has collected $6,701 and needs to collect
1http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=13878 and http://www.orlytaitzesq.com
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144-1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 5 of 14
Page J31
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340428 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
33/131
Liberi\Affidavit of K. Strebel 09.14.2010 5
an additional $13,299.00 to make a full $20,000.00.2 What Defendant Taitz failed to tell her
supporters is that the sanctions have been paid. A deception to the general public in order to be
able to reimburse herself (Taitz).
Secretary of State fundraising on her website at www.orlytaitzesq.com, even though she is not
the Republican Nominee, and not on the ballot for California Secretary of State. See EXHIBIT
A.
9. I would like to address Defendant Orly Taitzs statement that she is a Dentist,
Lawyer and never been convicted of any crimes. This is completely false. A simple search of
only the Orange County Superior Court returns seven (7) convictions for traffic violations; bail
forfeitures; and a failure to appear3:
10. In addition, as Im sure this Court may have noticed, the past few filings in this
Court by Defendant Orly Taitz that are filled with untruthful and false allegations, Defendant
Taitz has sent to Judge David O. Carter, and Chief Judge Audrey B. Collins of the U.S. District
Court, Central District of California, Southern Division for absolutely no permissible purpose,
other than to prejudice the Judges and/or to force the Judges in this District to recuse themselves,
as this is the Court Your Honor Ordered transfer of the within matter to. This is documented on
the Certificate of Service on the filings made by Defendant Taitz. Defendant Taitzs actions
interfere with the proper administration of justice and therefore, constitutes criminal Obstruction
of Justice. The definition of Obstruction of Justice is the crime or act of willfully interfering
with the process of justice and law esp. by influencing , threatening, harming, or impeding a
2 http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=13942
3 https://ocapps.occourts.org/Vision_Public/DisplayCaseInfo.do?caseobjid=1284188012325&src=case_src
8. This Court should also be aware that Defendant Taitz continues her California
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144-1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 6 of 14
Page J32
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340428 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
34/131
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
35/131
Liberi\Affidavit of K. Strebel 09.14.2010 7
There are many, many convictions throughout the years: Approx. 6 convictions of Harassment,
assault, coercion by use of threat, approx. 2 convictions of fraud, theft, and many more.
Fitzpatrick is currently up on more criminal charges, as he was indicted on the following:Rioting; Disrupting a Meeting; Disorderly Conduct; Resisting Arrest; Retaliation for Past Action
(felony); and Civil Rights Intimidation (felony)
State of TN v. Walter F. Fitzpatrick, III, In the Criminal Court for Monroe County, atMadisonville, TN Case No. 10213
Charles Edward Lincoln, III, (1960).
Part of Defendant Taitzs Legal team. Worked as Orly Taitzs Legal Assistant, prepareddocuments; signed Orly Taitzs name to documents and filed them with the Courts, was even
introduced to Your Honor on June 25, 2009 as Defendant Taitz Legal Assistant
Deemed a Domestic/Paper Terrorist. Convicted Felon (convicted in Texas) convicted of usinga false Social Security number to open Bank account and was accused of forging a Federal
Court Receipt and attempting to pay off the witnesses. See
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/171793 Mr. Lincoln gave up his law license in
Texas as part of the plea agreement and was disbarred from Florida and California. Mr. Lincolnhad a falling out with Taitz when Lucas Daniel Smith made public the adulterous affair between
Lincoln and Defendant Orly Taitz.
Lucas Daniel Smith (1980)
Convicted Felon
Witness and Employee of Orly Taitz. Had a falling out with Taitz when Taitz wanted him to lieabout some matters in Court. Smith refused and wrote affidavit to Federal Judge Carter
regarding the matter. Also swore that according to an email he received originating from Yosef
Taitz, Defendant Orly Taitzs husband, Mr. Smith believed Yosef Taitz was who created theforged Kenyan Registration of Birth bearing the name Barack H. Obama, which Defendant Taitz
filed in the Federal Court in California, the same document Defendant Taitz wanted Lucas D.
Smith to give false testimony claiming he (Smith) obtained the Kenyan Registration of Birth forDefendant Taitz, which he did not.
State of Iowa v. Lucas Daniel Smith - Convictions: 3 or 4 convictions of Forgery by making
false licenses, ID forms or blank forms; approximately 4 convictions of theft.
06571 FECR 23705; 05771 FECR 144901; 05501 FECR 007084; 06521 FECR 054329.
Larry Sinclair
Convicted FelonWitness of Orly Taitz. Orly Taitz asked him to lie in court on several matters. Mr. Sinclair
refused to perjure himself, went home and sent affidavit to Federal Judge Carter about Taitz
asking him to lie in court. Mr. Sinclair also mentioned in his affidavit filed with this Court thatDefendant Orly Taitz admitted she was aware the two (2) Kenyan birth documents she filed in
Court as genuine, were forged and altered.
Leo Patrick Haffey,
Works with Orly Taitz drafting legal documents.
Assault; May 17, 2010 Aggravated Assault; May 17, 2010
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144-1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 8 of 14
Page J34
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340428 Page: 8 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
36/131
Liberi\Affidavit of K. Strebel 09.14.2010 8
Arrested in May 2009 (warrant issued 5/12/2009) for aggravated assault (Serious Bodily injury
or weapon) upon the prosecutor, prosecuting the case against Haffey.
Arrested in May 2009 (warrant issued 5/12/2009) for Assault upon another prosecutor,prosecuting Haffey. May 17, 2010, Violation of protective order; May 17, 2010 convicted of
domestic offense:
John Mark Allen (1956) lives close to Taitz in South Orange County, Southern CaliforniaConvicted of burglary of Lisa Liberis home
Protective Orders for stalking Lisa Liberi and violence against son. Lisa Liberi was placed in the
safe at home project, given a confidential address, and new SSN.
Defendants Orly Taitz and Neil Sankey sought out John Mark Allen, gave the personalinformation of Lisa Liberi to him, knowing Lisa Liberi was protected from this man, as it was
plead in the Complaint against the Defendants.
L.S. (Initials replaced actual name to protect this party), Conviction or convictions in theft.Works with Orly Taitz. Orly Taitz advertised that people email their credit card information to
her and L.S. for an event in Texas.
11. This Court should note, Defendant Taitz continues falsely claiming Plaintiff
Liberi is taking all the credit cards for donations into the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg, Esq. that
is completely false. But, as you can see, and this partys name will be provided to the court
under seal, if needed, it was in fact Defendant Orly Taitz and her supporters taking credit cards
over the phone and via email for an event in Texas.
12. I have also included below Opinions from other Courts in which Defendant Orly
Taitz has appeared, to show the pattern of Defendant Orly Taitz for deception and additional
criminal intent, which has been noted in the followoing cases regarding Defendant Orly Taitz:
Barnett, et al v. Obama - U.S. District Court, Central District of CA, Southern
Division, Case #09-cv-00082-DOC
California Federal Judge David O. Carter received several affidavits from
witnesses, which claimed Orly Taitz wanted them to lie on the stand. JudgeCarter found, and stated ...Plaintiffs counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to
arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers her witnesses... [Judge
Carters Opinion and Order of Oct. 29, 2009, Para. F, pg. 28, ll 4-5]. Judge
Carter further found Additionally, the Court has received several swornaffidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this
Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144-1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 9 of 14
Page J35
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340428 Page: 9 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
37/131
Liberi\Affidavit of K. Strebel 09.14.2010 9
suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.[Judge Carters Opinion and Order of Oct. 29, 2009, pg. 29, ll 1-4].
Rhodes v. McDonald, et al, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Georgia,Case No. 4:09-cv-106 (CDL).
Federal Judge Clay D. Land of Georgia sanctions Orly Taitz for unethical behavior and sends complaint to State Bar of California.Judge Clay D. Land sanctioned Orly Taitz $20,000.00 for her inappropriateactions, in so doing, Judge Land found The Court concludes from this conductthat counsel did have an intent to injure anyone associated with the litigation whodid not agree with her. [Judge Land Opinion and Order of Oct. 13, 2009, pg. 34]Judge Land further ordered The Court further directs the Clerk of this Court tosend a copy of this Order to the State Bar of California, 180 Howard Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105, for whatever use it deems appropriate. [Judge LandOpinion and Order of Oct. 13, 2009, pg. 42]
13. Further, a convicted felon by the name of Ruben Nieto attempted to receive
payment from Defendant Taitz with 3 simultaneous money requests, one in the amount of $9,000
and two (2) in the amount of $8,000, totaling $25,000.00 on two (2) separate occasions, May 25,
2009 and May 29, 2009. Interesting the amounts being requested were each under $10,000,
under the limits of reporting pursuant to the Patriot Act. Ruben Nieto, according to Court
Records, was convicted of Aggravated Assault. It is believed Defendant Taitz was hiring Ruben
Nieto to harm Plaintiffs Liberi, Ostella and their families.
14. Defendant Orly Taitz threatened to take Philip J. Berg, Esquire down, and to do
so she stated she was going to destroy his paralegal, Lisa Liberi, and get rid of her. The only
reason, I can think of, that Defendant Taitzs wants Plaintiff Liberis drivers license, is for
confirmation of Plaintiff Liberis address, to post all over the Internet and to carry out the
balance of her threat, to get rid of Plaintiff Liberi. Defendant Taitz has already destroyed
Plaintiffs Liberi and Ostella.
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144-1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 10 of 14
Page J36
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340428 Page: 10 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
38/131
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
39/131
Liberi\Affidavit of K. Strebel 09.14.2010 11
person6 And, the crime of cyber-stalking is using tactics that harass and threaten their victims,
such as posting the victims name and address on the Internet along with false claims. 7
17. Your Honor, it is true that irreparable damage has already been done to Plaintiff
Liberi and her husband with Identity Theft, however, each time Defendant Taitz publishes a post
with Plaintiff Liberis information and picture, or a video about the Plaintiffs with false
information that is posted and circulated by Defendant Taitz, the chances increase that
individuals who suffer mental illnesses or violent tendencies, will react with violence toward the
Plaintiffs. According to affidavits filed with the Courts and Complaints filed with the State Bar
of California, Defendant Taitz has asked her people to lie or perjure themselves in Federal
Court. Thus, Defendant Taitz is certainly capable of demanding violence towards the Plaintiffs
from her people, which it appears she has already done.
18. PayPal records already show a violent convicted felon, Ruben Nieto, attempted to
get paid in increments of $8,000 and $9,000, totaling $25,000 from Orly Taitz on two separate
occasions. To date, this Honorable Court has not taken steps to stop Defendant Orly Taitz, and I
pray that the Court does not assist Defendant Taitzs further by allowing her to continue her daily
distribution through the Internet by posting her falsified allegations, Plaintiffs private data and
her falsified video tapes regarding the Plaintiffs.
19. In addition, Defendant Taitz has her supporter and Plaintiff in cases which were
6 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stalking(Legal Dictionary)
7 Wayne Petherick, Cyber-Stalking: Obsessional Pursuit and the Digital Criminal, The Crime Library, (cyber-
stalking is an extension of real world stalking in which electronic mediums such as the Internet are used to
pursue, harass or contact another in an unsolicited fashion). See i-safe America, Cyber Stalking.
dismissed, sent out by mass email Plaintiff Liberis picture and the address which Defendant
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144-1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 12 of 14
Page J38
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340428 Page: 12 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
40/131
Liberi\Affidavit of K. Strebel 09.14.2010 12
Taitz believes is Plaintiff Liberis home address. In addition, Defendant Taitz posts these on her
website, see EXHIBITS D and E. Your Honor, these two (2) emails were also sent to
Militia and White Supremacy Groups.
20. Defendant Taitz has continually published Plaintiff Liberis Social Security
number, date of birth, place of birth, mothers maiden name, the address which Defendant Taitz
believes is Plaintiff Liberis home address, Plaintiff Liberis family picture, A phone number
which Defendant Taitzs believes is Plaintiff Liberis telephone number, and many false
allegations about Plaintiff Liberi, Ostella and Berg, see EXHIBITS F through X, which
are posts just since July 1, 2010. All previous posts by Defendant Taitz have previously been
filed with this court. I have also attached a blog-url search using the terms
blogurl:http://www.orlytaitzesq.com(space)Liberi, so this Court can see the continued posts by
Defendant Taitz just as to Plaintiff Liberi, see EXHIBIT Y,please note in the search, Dossier
#6 still appears. The return for Plaintiff Ostella blog-url search is attached as EXHIBIT Z.
Plaintiffs Liberi and Ostella are continually harassed, they receive death threats, they live in fear
daily. As this Court can see, all the elements of Harassment, Stalking and Cyber-Stalking have
been met.
21. Your Honor, the longer Defendant Taitz is permitted to get away with her
unlawful actions, the more serious the crimes have become. Your Honor our courts are here to
utilize to protect those parties and situations that get in the way of safety and violations of the
law. Defendant Taitz actions have become more serious and escalated, as clearly demonstrated
by her continued publication of Plaintiff Liberis family picture, continued publication of where
she believes Plaintiff Liberi resides, defendant Taitzs recent radio appearances, continued
attacks on the Plaintiffs, and the fact she (Taitz) had an actor, David Acton to do a video on or
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144-1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 13 of 14
Page J39
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340428 Page: 13 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
41/131
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144-1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 14 of 14
Page J40
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340428 Page: 14 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
42/131
Liberi\Affidavit of K. Strebel 09.14.2010 14
EXHIBIT A
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144-2 Filed 09/14/10 Page 1 of 37
Page J41
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340429 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
43/131
Home
Appeal of Carter Case
From reader Carol
Quo Warranto Filed and Served
US state dep is paying to restore mosques around the world
Dr. Orly Taitz EsquireDefend Our Freedoms Foundation 29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, ste 100, Rancho
Santa Margarita CA, 92688 Copyright 2010
World's Leading Obama Eligibility Challenge Web Site
Your donations to the cause are much appreciated.
WHEN THE PEOPLE FEAR THEIR GOVERNMENT,
THERE IS TYRANNY.
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FEARS THE PEOPLE,
THERE IS LIBERTY.
- Thomas Jefferson
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.
DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, PRO SE PLAINTIFF v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, DEFENDANT:MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION UNDER
RULE 60 B
Posted on | August 26, 2010 | 18 Comments
rly Taitz Esquire http://www.orlytaitz
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144-2 Filed 09/14/10 Page 2 of 37
Page J42
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340429 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
44/131
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
September 2010
M T W T F S S
Aug
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
Search for:
Official Facebook Page
Orly Taitz
Create Your Badge
Blogroll
Conservative Monster
Give Us Liberty Blog
How to contact public Integrity unit
IMPORTANT.. PLEASE READ!!!!!
Judges Hall of Shame
Paypal Donate
rly Taitz Esquire http://www.orlytaitz
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144-2 Filed 09/14/10 Page 3 of 37
Page J43
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340429 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
45/131
Advertisement / Sponsors
Vote Dr. Orly Taitz for CA Secretary of State
Click the picture below to visit the campaign website.
--------------------------------------Make a donation to Dr. Orly Taitz for CA Secretary of State 2010 Campaign
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
rly Taitz Esquire http://www.orlytaitz
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144-2 Filed 09/14/10 Page 4 of 37
Page J44
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340429 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
46/131
Liberi\Affidavit of K. Strebel 09.14.2010 15
EXHIBIT B
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144-2 Filed 09/14/10 Page 5 of 37
Page J45
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340429 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
47/131
09/17/2029 06:03 110493 P.001/080
Dr. Orly Taib, EsqAttorney Pro Se & AttorneyFor Defelld Our FreedolDl Foundation29839 Santa Margari1aParkway, Suite 100Randlo Sata Margarita CA 92688Tel: (949) ~ 5 4 1 1 ; Fax (949) 7"-7603E-Mail: dr_ [email protected]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFO R THE EASTERN DISTRICf OF PENNSYLVANIA
LISA LmERI, et at., ) Response to tbe 07.26.10. emergency motioplaintiffs to keep tnmscnpseal) Motion for clarification and motion-reques) for order to show cause, wby sanctions sh) be assessed against parties defrauding the)by ciaivtiog that Judge Robreno issued anPla.iD.tiffs )"order" to seal transcript of Liberi v Taitt j..... ;) forwarded to the Third Circuit court ofAppeals )v. )) District Court ease # 09-cv- 01898-ER ',... __.tORLY TAITZ, et at, ) Court ofAppeals number case #09-3403 ; : ! i " ~ ' ) aad other repeated ads oftraud " ~ , , f l ) ' c", 6,DefendaDts.. ) 60 B motion AW/CJrJ.. {J (. {J .-z -......, ~ . "- III~ ~ " ( , / " ~
BaCkground of the ease . ' ~ O " ' 1 J i -Due to the great importance of this. matter. and fraud being perpetrated on the US DistrictCourt as well as the Court of Appeals, and due to the fact that the plaintiff here LisaLiberi is cur.rently on probation in the state of CA as a result of 10 felony convictions offorgery, forgery of an official seal and gmnd theft, this motion is addressed to thepresiding judge The Hon Eduardo Robreno; as well as the Chief Judge of US DistrictCourt for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania The Hon Harvey Bartle, i l l ; and the Chief
Il5J [ [ U'\'i',.,
JUL 2 8 2010
n by the. ts undert
ouldnotcourts - 'c ', .- "
Liberi v Taitz Motion for Clarification 1
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 136 Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 51Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 144-2 Filed 09/14/10 Page 6 of 37
Page J46
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340429 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
8/8/2019 Liberi v Taitz Appendice II Exb J Pt 1 - Pt 5 _opt
48/131
Top Related