liberi v taitz - 136 - response to the 7/26/10 emergency motion by the plffs -...

8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ - 136 - RESPONSE to the 7/26/10 Emergency MOTION by the plffs - gov.uscourts.paed.302150.136.0

1/51

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 tbe07.26.10. 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 51
mailto:[email protected]:///reader/full/07.26.10http:///reader/full/07.26.10mailto:[email protected]:///reader/full/07.26.10


2/51

09/17/2029 06:03 #0493 P.002/080

Judge for the Third Circuit Court of A p p e a l s ~ The HonRandall Ray Rader. It is cc-ed tothe Public Integrity Unit of the Department ofJustice, Civil Rights Commission inWashington DC, the PA State Bar, the Philadelphia DA, Audrey B. Collins.. the ChiefJudge of the Centtal District of CA , Judge David O. Carter Centml District of CA, SanBernardino County, the California Probation Department, and the San BernardinoCounty District Attorney James Secord,

1. In an around April of 2009 Attorney Orly Taitz, who is also a president of DefendOur Freedoms foundation, was forced to start a new website for her foundation,. when herformer volunteer web master Lisa Ostella - without any authorization took over thewebsite of her foundation and continued soliciting donations from supporters. wherebydiverting funds from the f o u n d a t i ~ while at the same time denigrating Taitz andpromoting attorney Philip Berg.

( .....

2. At the same time Taitz was contacted by Linda Belcher. a former volunteer-1Attorney Philip Berg, whereby Belcher disclosed that assistant for Berg.- Lisa LibeJi;-..

has a long"Wl'ap sheet of 10 felony convictions of forgery of documents, forgeryofficial seal and grand theft

3. Taitz and licensed investigator Sankey did their due diligence by conducting multipleinterviews of Lieberi's arresting officer, District attorney on the case. James S e c o r ~ probation officer. victims, and pulled all the public records and verified that indeed theassistant for attomey Berg, is Lisa Liberi, an individual. convicted in CA in 2008, who




3/51

09/17/2029 0603 #0493 P.003/080

received an eight years prison tenn, which was reduced to probation until March of2011. According to the terms of her probation., she is allowed to reside only in CA orNM. Exhibit l Superior court of San Bernardino County, CA printout of caseFWV028000, defendant 1608112 Lisa Renee Liberi, aka Lisa Courville Richardson,. akaLisa Courville Rich, aka Lisa. Richardson. showing 10 felony convictions. Exhibit 4Superior Court of San Bernardino County counts of indictments FSB044914 forLisa Liberi and Exhibit 5 Superior court of San Bernardino County CaseFWV082000 indictments for Lisa Liberi. Indictments show multiple schemes, wherethrough forgery and fraud Liberi effectuated grand theft.

4. In and around April of 2009 Taitz contacted Berg by two e-mails, forwarded to himUberils conviction snmmary and advised him that she is aware of Liberi's past. that she isaware that Liberi assists Berg by preparing documents for him and mailing those to him.and that she had a number of concerns. She was concerned about the met that Berg aDdLiberi went on a number of radio shows, where they announced that Liberi. was an ~ J e

c. )assistant for B e r ~ that she has prepared his case Berg v O that contained affida:l4fsfrom Kenya" attesting to Obama's birth there. Taitz asked Berg to allow her and'l:D!!r

CAiwforensic document expert to examine the original documents from Africa, ro make surethat those are not forged, as it was possible in light of Liberi's convictions just a yearearlier. While Taitz believed, that Mr. Obama needs to unseal bis original birth certificatewith the name of the hospital and doctor, she was concerned about those affidavits fromAfrica, as possibly being forged and undermining the case Taitz bas incorporated thisevidence in her legal actions and wanted to make sure she didn"t tmknowingly




4/51

09/17/2029 08:03 #0493 P.004/080

incorporate something that was forged. Additionally Berg and Liberi were conducting anation wide fimdraising for that case (Exhibit 6 Example of advertising of fundIaising).Taitz advised Berg, that according to tenns ofher probation. Liberi cannot be associatedwith any fundraising and cannot handle credit cards of others. Additionally, Taitt advisedBergt that his association with Lisa Ostella. Taitz former web master, constitutesdiversion offunds :from her foundation.5. Berg never responded to Taitt, but instead continued his attacks on her. never grantedher right to see the original affidavits from Africa, used in Berg v Obama and continuedfimdraising.

6. Taitz forwarded to the Department of Justice and FBI Liberi's summary of convictionsand all the above information and published Liberi's summary of convictions to warn thepublic.

7. On 05.04. 2009 Berg filed current legal action 09-1898 in the Eastern District of:PA,"-.-r ......based on diversity and claimed Libel. Assault and Slander. Berg sued all of the paAjesC)

who blew the whistle on him, Liberi and Ostella. He sued Taitz, her foundation. Salt ......-..,;,Christian publishing, Licensed investigator Sankey. former vohmteer Linda Belcher,lYk

wshow host Ed Hale, Hale's radio station and Hale's wife Caren and a number of otherentities . Berg, also included in this case a separate conflict that talk show host EvelynAdams aka Momma E had with Ed FIale. The essence of his allegation was, that LisaLiberi, who works for him, is a different Lisa Liberi, that she is an innocent woman,residing in PA, and she is not the same Lisa Liberi. who was convicted in CAw While




5/51

---

09/17/2029 08'04 #0493 P,005/080

Berg included residential addresses of all the parties, he never provided any address forLiberi in the state ofPA. but instead provided his business address as her address.

8. From May of 2009 until now, for over a year, Berg has never provided a shred ofevidence, proving that Liberi resided in FA at the time he filed the Jaw suit.

9. Defendants filed motions. stating that prior to even getting into the essence of the case,it needs to be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

10. While the issue ofjwisdictionwas being considered by the court, Berg filed a motionfor a temporary restraining order, seeking a de faciO gag order on any and all informationabout the plaintiffs. This motion was denied by the court after hearing on August 7, 2009,

11. In August of 2009Berg filed an appeal.

,12. On February 17,2010 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals received a United " .,-, ,

' - , ~ . 1

Government Memorandum from Joan Carr, from USDC in the Eastern District of !!J.\.......It ; , "(Exhibit I). This memorandum was docketed as Document 003110023894 c a s e ; t ! 2 ~ , w3403. It stated: "On September 24, 2009 David Hayes left a voice message for counsel

regarding the transcripts requested. Counsel was also notified that the proceeding heldAugust 7, 2009 wa s UDder seal and an order of court would be to unseal theproceeding and have a transcript produced. To date our office has no t received payment,

Liberi v Taitt Motion for Clarification 5



6/51

09/17/2029 08:04 #0493 P. 008/080

a motion to unseal has not been docketed nor has a transcript purchase order form beensubmitted to the District Court. Taitz was concerned about the fact that an order to sealthe transcript was issued by Judge Robreno, but never docketed. Tai1z. as a party, wasnever notified of such seal of records, and there was never any explanation given. as towhy was the transcript sealed, as clearly there was no justification for it.

13. On 07.02. 10 Tai1z filed an appeal of a different order and filed a motion to unseal thetranscript. On 07.09.10 Berg filed a Response in Opposition to unseal the transcript,clainring that all the parties were notified that the transcript was sealed due to the fact thatit contained personal information ofLisa Liberi.

14. On 07.14.10. Judge Robreno issued an order, denying the motion to unseal thetranscript; stating that the transcript was not sealed. Clearly there was a contradiction.The same f'ederal Judge cannot issue an order to seal the transcript. whereby a specialmotion would be necessary to unseal i4 and later deny such motion, stating that" thec:::.;;transcript was never sealed.

15. The same United States government memorandum contained a second p ~ , c . . ~ "Transcript Purchase Order'*, which was earlier filed by Berg on 08.29.2009 as cIocutrleht

00319790342 Exbibit 2. It contained a statement "This is to certify that satisfactory:financial arrangements have been completed with the court reporter for payment of the


http:///reader/full/07.09.10http:///reader/full/07.14.10http:///reader/full/07.09.10http:///reader/full/07.14.10


7/51

09/17/2029 08:04 #0493 P007/080

\

cost of the tl.':anscript. The method of payment is private funds. signature Philip Berg.Date August 28, 2009. Petitioner (Appellant) Telephone 610-.825-3134.

16. On 07.21.10 Taitzwas finally able to talk. to clerk David Hayes from US district courtfor the Eastern DiS1rict ofPA. Taitz asked why the cost of transcript was $ I , l 0 0 ~ a highfee for a copy, in light of the fact that according to certification ofBerg, he already madefinaneial arrangements with the court reporter to pay for the transcript back in August of2009, and the copy should be less expensive. Mr. Hayes eheeked tile records. PlailipBerg never made any financial1iU'l"allgements. He Dever paid a eeDt. For ninemonths.Berg and his clients and co-appellants harassed all of the defendants/ appellees byclaiming that they have an emergency, they have filed hundreds and thousands of pagesof unrelated prejudicial and inflammatory material with both the District Court and theCourt ofAppeals, in a scheme to prejudice judges of the District Court and the Court ofAppeals against the defendants, while knowing all along that they never paid for the

......

transcript and never ordered the transcript and defrauded both courts and the d e f ~ . I''':c.J

17. During the same conversation, Taitz inquired i f there was any order from J4 e-,.Robreno to delete from the electronic docket exhibits that she filed on 06.14.10. wbjjl,w

included Liberi's filing for bankruptcy in Ca. her declaration made in her criminal case inCa and summary ofher criminal convictions. All of the documents were brought with theproper purpose ofshowing her being subject to the jurisdiction of the state ofCA and




8/51

09/17/2029 06:04 #0493 P.OOB/OBO

showing that there was 00 diversity with Taitt, also a resident of CEl, therefore groundsfor dismissal due to lack of diversity and lack of jurisdiction. Those documents alsoshowed L i b e r i ~ signature, being the same as filed with her original verified complaint.Mr. Hayes knew of 00 such order from judge Robreno. No other clerk knew of any suchorder. Exhibit 7 Lisa Liberi's Bankruptcy Court, Cen1ral District of CA filing. broughtwith 1he proper purpose to show Liberi's pattern of handwriting and her address inRancho Cucamonga, Sa n Bernardino county CA, where she was arrested and convicted.For the purpose of this filing social security number of Liberi was redacted to show onlythe four last digits, however defendants can provide an unredacted copy, which is alsoreadily available to the public in the bankruptcy court.

18 Taitt inquired with the clerks if there was any order from Judge Robleno to seal theinitial verified c o m p l a i n t ~ filed by Berg on behalf of the plaintiffs, containing a sample ofUberi's hand writing, which was the same handwriting as shown 00 her f i l i n ~ o r

t"_",,bankruptcy and her declaration made in the Superior court, which were filed by Tai*,as1"':

exhibits in Document 121. which were deleted from the electronic docket as well. No-0

, ", '"clerk could provide an a n s w e r ~ why the complaint was not available on the electro*. " \ ."docket.

19. During a year of litigation Berg repeatedly signed certifications, claiming that heserved all of the defendants. including defendant Linda Belcher and that her silence is asign ofher agreement with all ofBerg's allegations and demands,

Liberi v TaW: Motion for Clarification 8



9/51

08/17/2028 06:04 #0483 P. 009/080

20. In June of 201 0 Taitz was rontacted by Belcher, who forwarded to Taitz a ropy ofher written statement, made under penalty of perjury (Exhibit 8), that she did notreceive any pleadings from Berg since her attomey Mr. Hoppe resigned in Summer of2009. Ms. Belcher stated in her letter ( that was mailed and fuxed to the court,. but neverdocketed) that she refused to be served by e-mail due to malware on Berg's computersand she was never served by mail.

21. In her letter under penalty ofpetjUIY Belcher stated." that Lisa Liberi personalJyaskedBelcher to file fraudulent complaints against Taitz and against another attorney TheresaLaLoggia from the fum Dickstein Shapiro. Ms. LaLoggia is a member ofPA bar. Again,under penalty of perjury Belcher stated that she was present on a three way phone call.when Liberi asked another individual, Larry Sinclair, who has an extensive criminalrecord, to file such complaint against Taitz. Sinclair filed a fraudulent complaint against

t::;'>Taitz with Judge Carter, fraudulently claiming that Taitz asked him to state s o m e t h i ~ that was IIDt true, accusing Taitt of suborning peljury. That undermined Taitz'sfront of judge Carter, who included mention of this complaint in his ruling. Later BeiS

- - .and Liberi included this decision from Judge Carter in their pleading in front of judrt,Robreno to claim that Taitz does not have a good character for veracity, that she subornsperjury and that her pleadings are not to be trusted. This Exhibit 8 was brought fOf theproper p u r p o s e ~ as an example of how a licensed attorney - Berg - used convictedcriminals in order to defraud and manipulate two federal judges: Judge David O. Carter




10/51

09/17/2029 08:04 #0493 P010/080

in Ca and Judge Eduardo Robreno in PA. in order to achieve his purpose of framing andundermining Taitz, a person, who blew the whistle on him and his assistant Liberi. It isbrought for the proper pmpose of supporting a motion for an order to show cause, whysanctions should not be assessed against Berg and the rest of the plaintiffs for fraud onthe courts.

22. Movant presents Exlaibit 9, a printout of the. transcript of the testimony ofInvestigator Liebricht, given under penalty ofperjury during preliminary hearing beforeJudge Jolm M. Pacheco, superior court of CA ease # FSB-044914 and testifying toauthenticate audio tapes # 04073420299 ofphone conversations of Lisa L i b e r i ~ recordedon 07.29.04during her incarceration. This exhibit is brought for the proper purpose ofshowing a common scheme and modus operandi of Liberi conunitting fraud andengaging in conspiracy ofusing fellow criminals and ftaming and undennining innocentindividuals. In the testimony, inspector Liebrich is testifying about a conversation ~ s a - - 7 '

~ " "

Liberi had with her husband Brent Liberi where she is planning a "hit", a "green light., ( >r"":

on her own sister Cheryl Richardson after Ms. Richardson cooperated with the police iiid4J

disclosed 19 previous charges against Lisa Liberi. Liebrich:" .. she was going to . !);c:,.)somehow get her arrested and then spread through the jail system that she was quOte

unquote "a rat" and she told her husband Brent, "You know what they do to rats injail'r

Question fr()Jll the court: "And what happens when inmates discover that another inmateis a snitch?


http:///reader/full/07.29.04http:///reader/full/07.29.04


11/51

08/17/2028 0605 #0483 POll/0BO

Answer: There is what is known as a conttact, a green light on time. Different things:they are attacked and or killed Tn fact, you brought up L. A. County, in the last year fivehave been killed within the jail system". ExIu"bit 10 shows a an authenticatingDeclaration and a photograph of Lisa Liberi with her husband Brent Liberi, and JudgeRobreno can see, that it is the same woman, who appeared. in front ofhim on August 7,2009 and claimed that she is an innocent woman. who was never convicted of any crimesand was slandered and defiuned by the defendants (picture ofher son was removed fromthe photograph for his privacy).

23. Exhibit 11 shows a declaration under penalty of perjury Lisa Liberi made onSeptember 21,2006 in the Superior Court of San Bernardino county in her motion torecuse the Office of the District of the County of San Bernardino. Her social securitynumber is redacted to show only the last four digits. Only the first and .last pages are filedwith the cummt motion. full docwnent was previously filed with the docmnent 121,

-- 'where the document was removed from the electronic docket, but is supposed to be i n ~ e hard copy with the court. Exhibit 12 is the signature page of the verification f i l ~ yC)LiOOri in her motion for 'fRO filed on July 15.2009 by her attorney Berg in the

-.... , j ".'.'..,."action for defamation and slandet- These last two exhibits show the same signature. QBecan see the signature ofLisa Liberi. who is on trial in CA with a total of 23 charges and10 convictions and with a testimony of officer Liebrich regarding 19 prior charges andthe same signature of Lisa Liber4 who filed this action for defamation, claiming underpenalty ofpeIjury. that she is an innocent woman, resident of Pennsylvania, who does




12/51

09/17/2029 08:05 #0493 P.012/080

not have a criminal record and was slandered and defamed by the defendants. It alsoshows that she is USiDg multiple social security numbers, which reinforces the statementby volunteer Belcher, regarding Social security violations.

MeRlOrandlllll ofPoints and Authorities Respunse to motion by the plaintiffs to seal the record and deny the defendants

aeeess to the record. Apparently Berg believes i fyou tell a lie often enough, people will start believing in i t Berg filed yet another emergency motion and Taiz is responding the next day on July 27, 2010 and apologizes to the court for the fact that this response could use more polish. however since at a prior occasion this court bas granted Berg's motion within one day. before Taitz could respond, this response is being faxed and filed with the court next day to make sure there is no order to grant Pla:intifI's motion before defendants had an opportunity to respond. Exhibit 2 shows" Transcript purchase order" filled out and certifiedby Berg on August 29,2009. h is similar to one filed out by Taitz recently. I f ~ transcript was really sealed, Berg would not be filing a Tmnscript purchase order ~ . ~

" . . , ,purchase the transcript of August 7, 2009 hearing. He would be :tiling a motion willi""',judge Robreno to unseal it first. Berg didn't do it, since he knew that the transcript was..

c....!'never sealed. Berg wanted to seal it, as Berg wanted to seal the lips of the defendanttwho were the whistle blowers, he wanted to silence them, but there was no seal. The onlydifference between Berg's purehase order and Taitz purchase order, is the fact that Bergcommitted ye t another fraud on the court Not only the transcript was not sealed, but Bergnever purchased it, he never paid a cent, even though he certified it Taitt actually paid




13/51

09/17/2029 08:05 1t0493 P.013/080

for the transcript and sent to the elm of the court David Hayes, a check for $1, 100 forthe purchase. Taitz inquired with both Joan Carr and David Hayes. what happened, whyBerg claimed there was a seal. wh y a letter from Joan. Carr stated that there was a seal,but the order :from Judge Robreno states that there was no seal. Mr. Hayes checked therecord and left a message on Taitz phone recording machine (available for review) thatthere was no seal, it was an error. In the conversation Hayes stated that he checked therecord, and it only shows a request by Berg to seal the record, bu t DO such order by JudgeRobreno.This appear to be one of the schemes by Berg and possibly Liberi, where they aresubmitting fm:udulent statements often enough to induce the parties to believe that thoseare true. This is an egregious violation of the code of professional ethics by an attorney.Additionally. in his motion Berg is reviewing the weaknesses of the appeal by Taitt andtrying to justify his request for the court to deny Taitz her right to purchase a transcriptbased on the weaknesses of the appeal.This is a totally frivolous notion, not based on law or fact. Strength or weakness of theappeal, is the matter to be decided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, not the

.. ......

court. Berg wants the trial court to deny the defendants right to purchase a copy ofrtheC)transcript of the hearing, which is a basis of the appeal in the first place; and b ~ n which the appealwill be decided by the court ofappeals. Such order by the District ct.Brt

, ..

would be a Bagrant violation of Taitz 14111 amendment rights to due process and equalprotection under the law. Berg is an attorney and knows that such order would be totallyunconstitutional, and his Emergency motion to deny Tai1z her right to purchase atranscript of the hearing needs to be denied as totally frivolous, and an order to show




14/51

08/17/2028 08:05 #0483 P 014/080

cause should be issued "Why Berg and plaintiffs should not be sanctioned for repeatedlydefrauding the District Court and the Court of Appeals" and for bringing frivolousmotions.

Rule 60 B motionRule 60. Relief from Judgment or Order(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud. Etc.On motion and upon such terms as are just, 1he court may relieve a party or a party'slegal representative from a final judgment, order. or proceeding for the foUowiDg reasons:(1) mistake, i n a d v e r t e n c e ~ surprise. or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidencewhich by due diligence could not have been. discovered in time to move for a new trialunder RCFC 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic),m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o ~ or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5)

- 'the judgment has been satisfied. released, or d i s c h a r g ~ or a prior judgment upon w:&itht,,_.. -

it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that;.t!lecujudgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifyingfrom the operation of the judgment The motion shall be made within a reasonable t i 5 ~ ~ and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year after the j u d g m e n ~ order. orproceeding was entered or taken. A motion wder this subdivision (b) does not affect the




15/51

09/17/2029 06:05 #0493 P 015/080

finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of aoourt to entertain an ind.ependent action to relieve a party from a judgment. order. orproceeding, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court.

As stated previously, there is new infonnation. showing multiple oounts of fraud on thecourt1. Fraud was c o m m i ~ when the Court ofAppeals and the District Court were toldthat there was a seal on t r a n s c r i p ~ when no such seal ever existed.2. Fraud on the court was committed when Attorney Berg certified a statement that hemade satisfactory :financial arrangements to purchase the records, when no sucharrangements were ever made.3. Fraud was oommitted by Attorney Berg and the plaintiffs in their claim thai plaintiffLiberi is a resident ofPA.4. Fraud was committed by Liberi) when she solicited a fraudulent complaint agaifiit

- " ~ Attomey Taitz. to be made by Larry Sinclair and this fraudulent complaint was later wi&li'"'.:C)by Attorney Berg and. Liberi to prejudice two judges: Judge Carter and Judge R o ~ against Taitz. -.e,..;"5. Fraud was committed when Berg claimed that he served defendant Belcher and s h ~ -agreed with his allegations, when he did not in fact serve her. and she did not have anopportunity to respond.Due to the fraud on the oourt, the court erroneously included in its Order to Sever thecase a statement that Lisa Liberi is a resident ofPA. This statement is based on fraud onthe court and perjury by Liberi and Berg.




16/51

09/17/2029 06 05 #0493 P 016/080

Residence of a party for the purpose of diversity needs to be resolved on preponderanceof evidence. The party e1ainring diversity of citizenship bas the burden to show suchdiversity by preponderance of evidence. The following cases show that when a partyc]airning diversity did not show citizenship of the parties by preponderance of evidence.the cases in federal courts were indeed dismissed. not severed and transferred.

In cases in which jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship. plaintiffhas burden to

show, that applicable statute confers jurisdiction, and, second, that assertion ofjurisdiction is consonant with oonstitutionallimitatioDS ofdueprocess. Weight v Kawasaki Motors Corp, (J985, ED Va) 604 F Supp 968.

Partys mere alleptiOQ of diversity c:annot satisfy m bdn:len of establishing distriet........c::om1ts jurisdiction; citizenship of each real party in interest mllSt be established!,!

preponderance of evideu.ee. Roche )1 Lincbhl. pop. Co. (lON, CA.4 Va) 373 F3d 610:..",-,.-

, " \'Complaint alleging that defendant's corporate citizenship was in a state other thai[;..

California but failing to allege that plaintiffs were all citizens of California was notsufficient to give District Court jurisdiction since pleadings did not otherwise resolveissue of citizenship. Bautista v Pan American World Airlines. 1rt.c. (J987. CA9 Cal) 828F2d 546. 126 BNA LRRM 2559. 107 CCH LC P 10159. Court lacked jurisdiction overpatienfs claims because he fiilled to establish diversity jurisdiction bef;ause at time he


http:///reader/full/evideu.eehttp:///reader/full/evideu.ee


17/51

09/11/2029 08:05 #0493 P.011/080

filed complaint both he and hospice were citizens of State. Olsen y Quality ContinuumHospice. Inc_ (2004.DCNM) 380 F SUVP 2d 122J._

Complaint against John Doe defendant alleging Internet defamation was dismissed forlack of subject matter jmisdiction because there was risk that i f John Doe's identity werediscovered there could have been no diversity, and court's jurisdictional authority wouldhave disappeared; court declined to read amended language of28 uses 1441into 28 uses 1332 because it would have accomplished much broader result ofallowing case with only one party and only state law claims to proceed initially in federalcourt. McMann v Doe (2006, DC M a s ~ i 460 F Supv 2d

In motorist's personal injury lawsuit inter alia, owners of property adjacent toprivate railroad-track crossing where car-train accident occurred,. pursuant to 28 uses

...->1447(4). appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review remand that implicitly was onlack of subject mattel' jurisdiction; district court clearly was addressing j u r i s d i ~

Cdissue5-divenrity ofcitizenship, 28 uses 1332. and fraudulent joinder-and when , , ,so, it properly declined to decide doubtful question of state law and, instead" r e s o ~ ..-ambiguity (lack of state law directly on point) in motorist's favor. Filla v HOWl! &Southern Ry. (2003. CA8 MQ) 336 F3d 806.

Where record creates doubt as to jurisdiction, trial ~ o u r t must detenniue whetherthere are adequate grounds to swstaiD its jurisdiction over subject matter.




18/51

09/17/2029 OB:OB #0493 P.018/080

SIulhI!l9011 11lf!.Blries, Inc. 1l'Impmdo (l9f!4. C4J NI) 338 F24 149. 9 FR Serv 2d12&227 Cast! 2.

Court has duty to look to its own jurisdiction aDd lack of subject matter jurisdictionDlay be asserted by court, sua sponte, at any time. Jeter v r"" WqIter HotIfA Inc..(1976...WD OW 414 F SIII!p 791.259. dedded by a preponderance ofevideDee.

PJ.aintiffs did not present any evidence, not a shred of evidence, showing Liberi to be aresident of PA. Defendants have shown that according to her probation she can resideonly in CA or NM, she is subject to the jurisdiction of CA, therefore the case at hand hasto be dismissed as citizenship ofLiberi was not provided to resolve the issue of diversityto allow it to proceed in Federal court. AdditionaJly, statement "Liberi is a :resident ofPAil has to be removed from the order. as it is significant to the essence of the case andwas never proven by the plaintiffs by preponderance of evidence as required for the

_c

PUIpOse5 of diversity or even by any shred of evidence. This case in front of the counisfor slander and defamation: Plaintiffs claim that at the time the case was filed, Liberi

-onnot the person" who was convicted in CA and was residing in New Mexico. b u ~ , . ''r ' ...different person. an innocent woman, .residing in PA, who was never convicted of .criminal offenses. Previous order by this comt to sever and transfer this states thatUberi is a resident of Pa and for purposes of jurisdiction and diversity it makes nodifference whether Liberi is a resident ofCA or New Mexico. However, when this courtincludes in its order and simply repeats a fiaudulent and perjured stateJ:nent by theplaintiffs. that Liberi is a resident of PA, it :makes an assertion of fact, which may be used




19/51

09/17/2029 08:08 #0493 P.019/080

by two federal judges in 'IX and CA to decide against the defendants. The court is defacto rewarding Berg and Liberi for their fraud and p a j u r y ~ VYhi1e in reality this courtshould have sanctioned them for it and demanded from th.em a payment of the costs andfees incurred by the defendants. Doe to this e .... by the court, whieh was induced byfrau colDDlitted by the plaintiffs and exacerbated by some employees of this very court,defendants seek: a dismissal of the case or in the alternative change in the order to sever,whereby the residency of Liberi is to be determined by the court and a bearing toestablish Libert's residency at the time tms legal action was : f i l ~ so that the defcn


20/51

09/17/2029 08:08 #0493 P.020/080

2. That is directed to the 'judicial machinery' itself; 3. That is intentionally false, willfullyblind to the truth., or is in reckless disregard for the truth; 4. That is a positive averment oris concealment when one is under a duty to disclose; 5. That deceives the COurt"Demianjuk 11. Petruvs1fy. 10F3d 338, 348 (6th Cir.1993).

Although other United States Courts of Appeals have not articulated express elements offraud upon the com as the Sixth Circuit did, the doctrine has been characterized "as ascheme to interfere with the judicial machinery performing the task of impartialadjudication, as by preventing the opposing party from fairly presenting his case ordefense." In re Coordinated PretrinJ.. Proceedings, in Antibiotic An'IitnqJ ActUms. 538F,2d 1801 195 (8th Cir.I976) (citations omitted); see also Rozier)'. Ford Motor Co., 573F:2d 1332. 1338 (jth Cir.1978) (holding "only the most egregious misconduct. such asbribery of a judge or members of a jmy. or the fabrication of evidence by awhich an attomey is i m p l i ~ win constitute a fraud on the courtlt). Additionally, f r ~ d

r,upon the court differs from fraud on an adverse party in that it "is limited to fraudwhich-t )

seriously affects the integrity of the nonnal process ofadjudication."Gleason)'. J ~ & . . 860F,2d556. 559 (2dCir.1988).

Other United States Courts of Appeals expressly require that fraud upon the court mustinvolve an officer ofllie court. See 660. P. Reintjes Co. )'. Riley Stoker CorD:, 71 F3d44, 48 (1$1 Cir.J995); Demianluk. 10 F3d at 348. The Ninth Circuit noted that "onespecies of bud upon the court occurs when an 'officer of the court' perpetrates fraudaffecting the ability of the court or jury to impartially judge a case." PUlnJ2Jrrev Y.

Liberi v Tai1z Motion for Clarification 20



21/51

09/17/2029 06:06 #0493 P.021/080

Thompson Tool Co.. 62 F.3d 1128, 1130 (!!th Cir.1995); see also Weese v. Schukm.an. 98F.3d 542, 553 (lOch Cir.1996) (noting that "fraud on the court should embrace only thatspecies of fraud which does or attempts to, subvert the integrity of the court itself, or is afraud perpetrated by officers Qfthe court") (citation omitted); Kerwit Med Prods., Inc. v.N. & H Instruments. Inc . 616 F.2d 833 t 837 (lith Cir.1980> (same).Party that was seeking to seal the transcript were the Plaintiffs, as during the hearing onAugust: 7, defendant Hale) Internet Radio talk show host brought to court records of hisradio shows, where he demonstrated that Berg and the rest of the plaintiffs repeatedlydefrauded the court by taking out bits and pieces of his radio programs. putting thosetogether and claiming defamation. During purported "seal" of the ttanscript Berg andrest of the plaintiffs used the DisUict Court and the Court of Appeals as the dumpingground, where they dumped hundreds and thousands of pages of unrelated, inflammatoryand defamatory material, among them forged documents, perjured and f r a u d ~ statements., all in an effort to prejudice both courts against the Defendants. T$itz

I '.:C}complained repeatedly that forged documents and perjured and fraudulent statements-nwere used, demanded criminal investigation, but nothing was done. Taitz and the rest ofthe defendants have suffered damages in the form of severe emotional distress ana-damages to their reputation due to those filings.On 07.09.10Berg filed response in opposition to motion filed by Taitz, where he c1aimedyet again that the transcript was sealed., even though there was no such seal. Finally Bergfiled a motion on 07.26.10claiming that the transcript was s e a l ~ while indeed it was notsealed.The issue of order to "seal the tnmsc.ript" clearly showed that fraud was committed.

Liberi "Taitz Motion for Clarification 21

,r".'! .. '

- ~ . t >

http:///reader/full/Schukm.anhttp:///reader/full/07.09.10http:///reader/full/07.26.10http:///reader/full/07.26.10http:///reader/full/Schukm.anhttp:///reader/full/07.09.10http:///reader/full/07.26.10


22/51

09/17/2029 08:08 #0493 P.022/0BO

Such actions cannot go on in the Federal Court, and Taitz demands investigation andsanctions against the guilty party, as welJ as compensation for damages suffered. This isparticularly important as one of the plaintiffS in this case, Lisa Liberi. an assistant toattorney Berg, is a convicted document forger. In 2008 Liberi was convicted in SanBernardino County, in the state of CA of ten counts of forgery of documents, forgery ofan official seal, grand theft and got eight years in prison. (Prosecuting Assistant DA-James Secord). Her eight year prison term. was reduced to time served and probationuntil MaICh of2011. Liberi is allowed to ser\leher probation only in CA or in NM. whereher family resides. When Taitz and other defendants provided this infonnation to p u b l i ~ plaintiffs filed a frivolous law suit, where they claimed that Liberi resided in Phowever t h ~ never pNVided a shred of evidenu to prove tIl_t Liberi resided in PA.,they gave Berg's office ad


23/51

09/17/2029 08:08#0493 P.023/08

document forger, who prepared or handled documents for Berg via mail and fax. andparticipated innation wide donations drive_

Defendant in this ease, Linda Belclter, has repeatedly mailed a d faJ:ed to JudgeRobleno a letter, where she stated that Attorney :oer. defrauded the court bystating under penalty of peljnry, that he served the defendant Belcber. (Filed Noticeof Appeal with letter from Belcher, exhibit 2) Belcher stated that she refused service bye--mail due to maIware in Berg's computers. She stated that she was never served by mail.Her letter stated., that Berg committed double :fraud on the c o not only by not servingBelcher wnh pleadings, but also claiIning, that the fact that she did not respond meantthat she agreed with the allegations in Berg'8 pleadings. Belcher stated that her rights todue process were violated. she demanded to vacate all.orders made based on any .and allpleadings by Berg submitted after June 2009, the time, when her attorney, Mr. Hopperesigned, since her rights to due process were violated.

Additionally, in her sworn statement Ms. Belcher alerted the court that she-nvolunteer researcher for Berg, had multiple phone conversations with Berg and -. .

and that Liberi approached her and others, including one Larry Sinclair, requesting to furudulent complaints about Taitz. Belcher stated that she personally was on a three wayconference call with Liberi and Sinclair, where Liberi asked Sinclair to file suchfraudulent complaint about Taitz. Larty Sinclair indeed filed such fraudulent complaintabout Taitz in the Central District o f C ~ case 09-cv-82, presiding judge David O. Carter.




24/51

09/17/2029 08:07 #0493 P.024/080

Of utmost c o n ~ was the fact that Belcher repeatedly demanded to docket her letterand repeatedly she was denied such oppOrtunity. Belcher stated that she faxed her letterto the chambets of Judge Robreno, called the chambers and was told by the clerks thatthe letter was submitted to Judge Robreno, and it is up to him whether to docket herletter.Taitz demands investigation and clarification. Was Belcher's letter ever forwarded toJudge Robreno by the clerks? Why was she denied her 14t1l Amendment Constitutionalrights of due process and equal rights to have her response docketed and get a responsefrom the judge? Belcher is an indigent; residing in Texas. She has no access to pacer andcannot afford an attorney. She was victimized by actions of Berg and did not get anyreliefftom the ooWi.. When Taitz included Belcher's letter, that was forwarded to her, inher July 2,2010 motion, i t was completely ignored by the court. While Taitz does notrepresent Belcher, the fact that Belcher's letter to the court was never docketed and wascomplexly ignored, negatively affected all of the defendants, including Taitz and Defel!


25/51

09/17/2029 08:07 #0493 P.025/0BO

It is a known fact that FBI, Department of Justio.'l use convicted cri:mina1s as informersand agitators. Recent trial of talk show host Hal Turner gave public a glimpse of how"patriot" leaders are used as informers and agitators. Is this a situation where criminalsare brazen, because they know, that they have a back and they will not be c o n v i ~ nomatter how much fraud on the court they commit, how much pajury or forgery do theycommit? Taitz is requesting a clarification from the court, whether indeed the court isaware of any special informer status with the department ofJustio.'l given to the plaintiffsand Berg? The defendants are requesting a clarification, if there is a ~ c k " for Liberiand/or Berg and other defendants represented by someone in this court? That woulde x p ~ why Berg and Liberi are so brazen and submit pleading after pleading with boldlies, defrauding the courts time and again. This might explain, why Linda Belcher'sresponse was never docketed. This would explain, why somebody deleted from theelectronic docket some of the exhibits, submitted by the defendans, why the originalcomplaint is not available on pacer. why the court docketed on 01.21.10 a letterBerg,. his response to Taitz request fOT sanctions; which contained hundreds of pages'R!o.Jirrelevant, defamatory, inflammatory material; but refused to docket actual requestsanctions or the reply to the letter by Berg from 01.20.10; why a letter was sent by Joan-..v ~ ...-Carr to the court of Appeals, stating that according to clerk David Hayes the transcriptwas s e a l ~ while in fact it was not sealed. Taitz requests clarification. whether there isan individual (s) in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, who js( are) providing a "back" to Berg, Liberi and the rest of the plaintiffs.by manipulating thedocket and undermining the defendants.




26/51

09/17/2029 06:07 #0493 P.026/0BO

Taitt is seeking clarification, i f the woman pictured on the Exhibit 10, photograph ofBrent Liberi and Lisa tiberi, who was convicted of 10 criIninal counts in 2008 in CA, isindeed the woman that your Honor, Judge Eduardo Robreno saw right in front of him onAugust 7. 2009 during the motion hearing in Liberi et al v Taitz et al when she claimedthat she is an innocent resident of Pennsylvania, who had no convictions and wasslandered and defamed when the defendant published an official report of criminalconvictions in CA for Lisa Liberi?

Taitz is seeking clarification, if the woman pictured on the Exhibit 10, photograph ofBrent Liberi and Lisa Liberi, who was convicted of 10 criminal counts in 2008 in CA. isindeed the woman that court reporter Joseph Matkowski saw right in front of him onAugust 7, 2009 during the motion hearing in Liberi et al v Taitz et at when she claimedthat she is an innocent resident ofPennsylvania, who had no convictions and was

( ~ ' ; : ) slandered and defamed when the defendant published an official report of criminal;:: ,"'..."; I .-'-', "j ', '.convictions in CA for Lisa Liberl?

-u..aitz is seeking clarification, i f the woman pict:un::d on the Exhibit 10, photograph o : L ~ en

Brent Liberi .and Lisa L i b e r i ~ who was convicted of 10 criminal cotmfs in 2008 in CA, isindeed the woman that the clerk: for Honorable Judge Eduardo Robreno saw right in frontofhim on August 7.2009 during the motion bearing in Liberi et al v Taitz et at when sheclaimed that she is an innocent resident ofPennsylvania, who had no convk.1ions and wasslandered and defamed when the defendant published an official report of criminalconvictions in CA for Lisa Liberi?




27/51

09/17/2029 06:07 #0493 P.027/080

Taitz is seeking clarification. if the woman pictured on the Exhibit 10. photograph ofBrent Liberi and Lisa. Liberi. who was convicted of 10 crimina1 counts in 2008 in CA,. isindeed the woman that the bailiff for honorable Judge Eduardo Robreno saw right infront of him on August 7. 2009 during the motion hearing in Liberi et at v Taitz et a1when she claimed that she is an innocent resident of P e n n s y l v a n i ~ who bad noconvictions and was slandered and defamed when the defendant published an officialreport ofcriminal convictions in CA for Lisa Liberi?

Taitz is seeking clarification, i f he woman piCtured on the Exhibit 10, photograph ofBrent Liberi and Lisa Liberi, who was convicted of 10 criminal counts in 2008 in CA, isindeed the woman that secret service officer in the courtroom. ofJudge Eduardo Robrenosaw right in front of him on August 7, 2009 during the motion hearing in Liberi et a1 vTaitz et at when she claimed that she is an innocent resident of P e n n s y l v ~ who 1Jad.noo

. "convictions and was slandered and defamed when the defendant published an 0 f f ? ~ i a l ""',~ ' ~ -report ofcrimioal convictions in CA for LisaLiberi?

__ : I ..

C;'iDid the member ofPA bar and the Bar of the US District Court for the Eastern Dist:foit\ofPA and the Third Circuit Court ofAppeals, Attomey Philip J. Berg defraud both theUS DistrictCourt and the Court ofAppeals by claiming that the transcript was sealed inorder to cover up for the fact that he is working with a convicted document forger LisaLiberi. currently on probation in CA, and to cover up that he previously defrauded bothUS District Court and the Court ofAppeals by claiming that she is a d.i:ffurent Lisa Liberi,




28/51

09/17/2028 08:07 #0483 P. 028/080

not a convicted forger from CA, when he signed the complaint in this case claimingLiberi was residing in PA while he knew that not to be true?

Did Attorney Berg defraud the court of Appeals ?

Did the CIMs forward to Judge Robreno letters, faxed by defendant Linda Belcher,where she stated that the member of PA bar and US District Court and the Court ofAppeals PA attorney Philip J. Berg repeatedly defrauded the court by claiming that heserved Belcher with pleadings and that her silence meant acquiescence with hisallegations, when in reality he did not serve her?

Request for order to show c::aase wily sanetiOdS should no t be asserted. againstparties who 4m.mittedmud 011 three coarts:

Among those parties Attomey Berg, plaintiffs and employees of the District Court ofthe-,+Eastern District of Pensylvania, who were involved in the above mentioned fraud.case is akin to precedent of CHAMBERS v. NASCOJNC 501 us. 32 (1 9911NQ_ 90-256.SllDreme Court afthe United States, ,Argued Februmy 27, 1991. Decided June 6,1991 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR TIIEFIFTIl CIRCUIT. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. "This caserequires us to explore the soope of the inherent power of a fede.ml court to sanction alitigant for bad-faith conduct. Specifically, we are asked to determine whether the DistrictCourt, sitting in diversity, properly invoked its inherent power in assessing as a sanction




29/51

09/17/2029 08:07 #0493 P.029/080

for a party's bad-faith conduct attorney's fees and related expenses paid by the party'sopponent to its attomeys. We hold that the District Court acted within its discretion, andwe therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals." Similarly, in Whitehead vFood Max: of Mississippi, inc . 332 F.3d 796 (5th Cireuit 2003) the court found thataction not grounded in fact and law is sanctionable.

In this case actions by the eotm.Sel Philip Berg represented a reprehensible egregiousviolation of professional code of ethics. While in some situations an attorney

unknowingly and inocently relies on the affidavit by a party, who might be committingftaud, in this case Attorney Berg clearly knew that Liberi does not reside in PA, that shedoes not show up for work in his office, yet he maliciously defrauded the defendants andthree courts: US District Court of PA, Third Circuit Court of Appeals and US DistrictCourt in CA, and harassed the defendants with a frivolous law suit in order to continuefundraising with tiberi, recently convicted thiefon probation, and to continue filing i!ihthis court documents prepared by a convicted forger Liberi and to undennine and silenter


30/51

09/17/2029 08:08 10493 P.030/080

Holsworth v. Berg, 322 Fed. Appx. 143 (3rd Circuit 2009); Holsworth v. Berg, 2005U.s. Dist. LEXlS 15393 (ED PA 2005) was packed with criticism of the conduct ofAttorney Philip Berg ofLafayette Hill, Pa

"Other attorneys shQuld look to Mr. Berg's actions as a blueprint for what no t to do whenattempting to effectively and honorably perform the duties of the legal profession, IJoyner wrote:"lbis court has grown weary of Mr. Berg's continuous and brazendisrespect toward this court and his own clients. Mr. Berg's actions ... are an enormouswaste of judicial time and teSOurces that this court cannot, in good conscience. allow togo lUlplmisbed."In the suit, Berg is accused of legal malpractice by former clients who claim his failure torespond to an ERISA claim against them led to a default judgmentBut the sanctiOIlS against Berg stem from his decision to file a t h i r d ~ p a r t y counterclaim.,offraud against a pension fund that had sued his former clients. 2(;COrding to court.

1"';Joyner blasted Berg for filing the fraud claim, calling it an "irresponsible decisi6rl."because the claim was "uttedy barren of any scintilla of legal principl="

..c,.5 'In the ERISA suit, Bergts former clients Richard Holsworth and his compai9.Richard1s General Contracting -- were sued by a group ofpension funds led by theCarpentelB Health and Wel:fure Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity.

Carpenters Health claimed that Holsworth and his company had failed to make requiredpaymentof fringe benefit contributions.

Liberi. v Taitt Motion for Clarification 30



31/51

08/17/2028 08:08 #0483 P.031/080

According to court papers, Joyner found that Berg "neglected to file a response to[Carpenter Health's] claim or provide any legal defense whatsoever for his client ItEven after a default judgment was entered against H o l s w o ~ Joyner found that Berg"remained silent." In April 2002 - two months after the default judgment was granted

and 11 months after the suit was first fiJed Joyner fomtd that Berg "broke his silence"by filing a petition to strike the judgment or to open the default judgment.Bergts motion was rejected and a default judgment of more than $5,300 was enteredagainst his clients. The judgment swelled to more than $10,000 when Carpenters Healthlater successfully moved for a supplemental judgment to recover more than $4,700 inattorney fees for its efforts in responding to Bergts untimely motions.

Holsworthand his wife later filed a legal malpractice suit againstBerg in the PhiladellbiaCounty Court ofCommon Pleas, alleging that Berg negligently failed to represent theitfr

liberi v taitz - 136 - response to the 7/26/10 emergency motion by the plffs -...

Documents