liberi v taitz (appeal - 3rd circuit) - appellants' reply to appellees' response to appellants'...

8/8/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL - 3rd CIRCUIT) - Appellants' Reply to Appellees' Response to Appellants' Motion to Strike an

1/33

Appellant's reply to Appellees' Brief on behalf of Defend Our Freedoms Foundation and Orly Taitz 1

No. 10-3000

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________________

LISA LIBERI, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

vs.

ORLY TAITZ, et al.,

Defendant-Appellants.

__________________

District Court No. 09_cv_01898_ECR

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

__________________

APPELLANT'S REPLY TO APPELLEES' RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS MOTION

TO STRIKE AND FOR SANCTIONS

DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ.

CSB #223433

Attorney Pro Se &

Attorney for Defend Our Freedoms Foundation

29839 S. Margarita Pkwy. Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

ph. 949-683-5411

fax 949-766-7603

Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110361741 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2010


2/33

Reply to Response to the Motion to strike and sanctions against the Appellees and Attorney Philip J.

Berg 1

Table of Authorities

1.Liberi v Sheriff's department et al Central District of CA 5:04-cv-01524-VAP p15

2. Rodriguez v. Bush 04-4952 Eastern District of PA........................................ p14

3. In Re Berg, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 322 (ED PA 2008).............................................p13

4. Holsworth v. Berg, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15393 (ED PA 2005)....................... p 13

5. Lisa Liberi v West Valley Center et al 2:05-cv-03015-VAP-SGL....................... p 15

6. Berg v Obama Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2:08-cv-04083-RBS ...............p6

7. FRAP Rule 38, 1927...........................................................................................p2

8. Pennsylvania rules of professional ethics Rule 3.3.............................................p6

9. Pennsylbania Rules of professional ethics Rule4.1............................................p6

10. Pennsylvania rules of professional ethics Rile 8.4...........................................p6

SUMMARY OF THE REPLY

Appellants Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ and Defend Our Freedoms Foundation

(hereinafter Appellants) file this following reply to Appellees response to

Appellants Motion for Sanctions and to Strike, seeking to strike Appellees'

response to Appellant's opening brief and for sanctions against the

Appellees and their attorney Philip J. Berg for multiple counts or egregious

fraud on the court, perjury and for accusing Appellants of multiple crimes,



3/33


Berg 2

including attempt to hire a hit man to kill Appellee Liberi, while such

manufactured accusations were made with the only purpose to cover up

the fact that the Plaintiffs/Appellees have filed this legal action for

harassment purpose only.

ARGUMENT

Appellants filed a motion to strike the Appellees' Response brief and for

sanctions, as the Appellees brief was not responsive to the subject matter

of the appeal, they never submitted Appellee's Lisa Liberi's drivers license

or any other identifying documents and they attempted to mislead the court

by submitting over 900 pages of unrelated and inflammatory and

defamatory material instead of providing only one page- a certified

copy of Lisa Liberi's PA drivers license. Appellees filed a motion to

strike and for sanctions under FRAP Rule 38, 1927. In response to the

motion to strike and for sanctions, yet again Appellees listed as "facts"

outrageous allegation, manufactured by the Appellees with the sole

purpose of papering this court, confusing this court and distracting it from

the subject matter of the Appeal.

The appeal revolves around three issues:

1. This case was filed by the Plaintiffs/Appellees based on diversity of

citizenship. Appellees never filed Plaintiff Lisa Liberi's drivers' license or



4/33


Berg 3

any other identifying documents to prove her state citizenship. Without

proof of state citizenship, the District court cannot assert jurisdiction in

diversity and the case needs to be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

Appellees never responded, why should this court assume

jurisdiction in diversity without proof of the lead plaintiff's state

citizenship.

2. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs attorney Philip Berg defrauded the court by

promising to Judge Robreno during the 08.07.09 hearing to file Appellee

Lisa Liberi's(hereinafter Liberi) identifying documents and never doing it.

(Appellant's appendix, transcript of the 08.07.09 hearing) Appellees never

responded, why shouldn''t they be sanctioned for defrauding the

court and never filing with the court Liberi's drivers' license as they

were instructed to do.

3. In order to cover up for the fact that they never filed Liberi's drivers'

license, Appellees and their Co-Appellee and Attorney Philip J. Berg

(hereinafter Berg) without any shred of evidence manufactured allegations

of multiple crimes, supposedly committed by all the defendants and many

other individuals. Berg engaged in egregious attorney misconduct and

without a shred of evidence accused Appellants of trying to hire a hit man

to kill Liberi, kidnap children, forgery, stalking, braking into computer,



5/33


Berg 4

forgery of seal and so on, even though neither one of the

Appellants/defendants ever committed any crimes, was never

convicted of any crimes, and the only person, who actually was charged

with 42 counts and convicted of 10 counts of forgery, forgery of seal and

grand theft, was Lisa Liberi herself. In their response to motion Appellees

engaged in more unfounded egregious allegations and accusations of

crimes.Due to the fact, that the Reply to the Response is limited in

number of pages allowed, Appellants cannot address those additional

fabricated allegations and will limit this Reply only to the issues relevant to

the Appeal and to the Motion to Strike and for Sanctions. Appellees never

responded, why shouldn't they be sanctioned for manufacturing

allegations of crimes and particularly accusing Attorney Taitz of

capital crime, of attempted to hire a hit man and kill Liberi.

Taitz already stated in her pleadings in the District Court and the Court of

Appeals, that she is willing to accept a redacted PA drivers license of Lisa

Liberi as evidence of her PA residence. Berg asked Judge Robreno to

allow him to file Liberi's license under seal. This permission was granted,

Judge Robreno ordered Appellee Liberi and her attorney Berg to file her

drivers' license under seal, Berg and Liberi promised to do so, however

they never filed Liberi's drivers license. There is no Liberi's drivers



6/33


Berg 5

license filed, there is no notation in the docket showing Appellees ever filing

such license. The reason Berg and Liberi never filed Liberi's license, is

because they filed this legal action based on fraud and perjury. This is a

800 million dollar legal action for Slander and Defamation of Character.

Appellees claimed that Lisa Liberi is an innocent individual, resident of PA

and an assistant to attorney Berg, who was defamed by the Appellants,

who published her criminal record from CA. In reality both Berg and Liberi

clearly knew that Liberi is indeed a felon on probation, convicted in CA,

and they are refusing to provide proof of her state citizenship, as it

will reveal that they engaged in fraud and perjury all along and filed

this legal action for harassment purposes only.Both Liberi and Berg

have a long history of filing multimillion dollar legal actions for

harassment purposes only and they need to be stopped. Berg needs

to be sanctioned not only for violation of FRAP Rule 38 1927, but

also based on multiple counts of violations of rules of Professional

conduct of PA Supreme Court Adopted by Order of the Supreme Court of

Pennsylvania dated October 16, 1987 effective April 1, 1988.Text contains recent

revisions & amendments which became effective January 1, 2005, January 6,

2005, March 17, 2005, April 23, 2005 and July 1, 2006



7/33


Berg 6

A. MULTIPLE COUNTS OF EGREGIOUS ATTORNEY MISCONDUCTAND VIOLATIONS OF RULES 3.3, 4.1 AND 8.4

Rules 3.3 Candor Toward the TribunalRule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to OthersRule 8.4 Misconduct (Exhibit 2 Rules of professional conduct Adopted by the

Supreme Court of PA Rules 3.3, 4.1, 8.4)COUNT 1

Philip j. Berg by his own admission employed Lisa Liberi as his legal assistant

and paralegal from end of 2006/beginning of 2007 until now. By his own

admission Berg submitted to court pleadings drafted by Liberi, specifically in

Berg v Obama2:08-cv-04083-RBS, which he submitted to the Eastern District

of PA, Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United

States. At least from March 2009 Berg was on notice about Liberi's criminal

past, as he was alerted by his researcher Linda Sue Belcher and by CA

attorney Dr. Orly Taitz. Berg knew that Liberi does not reside in PA and is

not allowed to reside in any other state, but CA, where she was under the

supervision of the department of Probations and NM, where her father and

step mother lived, and where she was allowed to spend time intermittently.

Berg knew that he does not have any employees physically working in his

small office in PA and that Liberi is assisting him via e-mails, faxing and

mail. When Taitz requested Berg to allow her access to original affidavits,

attesting to Barack Obama's birth in Africa, Berg had an obligation toward

the tribunal to allow such access, and notify the Eastern District of PA, Third

Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, that those affidavits could

have been forged. Instead, he continued claiming that the individuals, whose



8/33


Berg 7

affidavits he submitted, are afraid for their lives and kept them under seal.

While Taitz believed, that in general transparency in Government and

eligibility are important issues and need to be adjudicated, the fact that Berg

refused to allow any access to the original documents, prepared or handled

by a convicted forger, currently on probation, and submitted to the District

Court, Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme court shows flagrant

violation of rule 3.3, 4.1 and 8.4

Count 2

In and around mid April 2009 Taitz published on the web site of her

foundation an official summary of Liberi's convictions, which is available for

public review on the official website for the San Bernardino County, Ca

Superior Court. This printout showed Liberi's 2008 convictions of 10 counts

of forgery, forgery of an official seal and theft. Taitz did it with a proper

purpose of warning the public at large, that nothing submitted to court by

Philip J. Berg can be considered as genuine in light of his assistant's

convictions, and due to the fact that Berg was conducting a Nationwide

fundraising, whereby on the pages of his web site ObamaCrimes.com he was

asking the donors to provide their credit card information, their address and

other personal information, which became available to Lisa Liberi, who was

recently convicted of multiple counts of theft. Only a few days after Taitz

published such record, Berg filed a $800 million dollar legal action for



9/33


Berg 8

Slander and Defamation of character, where he claimed that he and his

assistant were defamed by an accusation of Liberi committing crimes. Berg

claimed that Liberi is a resident of PA and both of them were defamed. At

that time Berg clearly knew that Liberi does not reside in PA and filed a

frivolous legal action for defamation and slander with the only purpose of

harassment and intimidation of the defendants and in order to defraud the

tribunal, whereby he violated Rule 3.3, 4.1 and 8.4

COUNT 3

When Taitz demanded proof of Liberi's residence in PA and proof, that she is

a different person, Berg committed yet another act of egregious fraud on the

court and without a shred of evidence stated that Liberi's drivers license

needs to be sealed because attorney Orly Taitz tried to hire a hit man to kill

Liberi. Berg is an attorney and without a drop of conscience, without a drop

of honesty and integrity he accused a fellow attorney of a capital crime,

knowing full well, that he does not have any evidence to substantiate such

an outrageous accusation. Additionally, he accused a career police officer

and a licensed investigator Neil Sankey of hacking Liberi's computer and

stalking her, he accused a veteran Pamela Barnett of forging a letter from

Linda Belcher, he accused his former assistant and researcher Linda Belcher

of forging Liberi's e-mails and forging an official seal, as well as of having a

criminal record, he accused a retired veteran and engineer Neil Turner of



10/33


Berg 9

being a White Supremacist Militiaman, who is stalking Liberi, he accused a

talk show host Ed Hale of stalking and stealing a document. All along Berg

knew, that he is working with a convicted forger, that nobody ever

threatened them, he knew that all the crimes, that he is making up are a

repertoire of his assistant Lisa Liberi, he knew that all the individuals that he

is accusing are simply whistleblowers, who blew the whistle on him and

Liberi, he knew that none of these individuals ever committed any crimes,

were never convicted of any crimes, yet Berg went to the extent of

assassinating good name of multiple innocent individuals with the sole

purpose of covering up for a fact that he continuously submits to courts

documents prepared by a convicted document forger and for the fact that he

does fundraising with a convicted thief. Berg filed thousands of pages of

pleadings with such accusations in the Eastern District of PA as well as the

Third Circuit Court of Appeals. By doing so Berg violated rule 3.3, 4.1, 8.4

COUNT 4As Berg claimed that Liberi's life is in danger, at the 08.07.09 hearing Judge

Eduardo Robreno allowed Berg to file Liberi's PA drivers license under seal

The transcript on page 19

"Mr. Berg: ... her actual address I think would be detrimental

The Court: "Well, the actual address we could do without it.



11/33


12/33


Berg 11

COUNT 5.

Sworn affidavits of Linda Sue Belcher, former researcher for Philip J. Berg

and Geoff Staples, former web master for Berg (Appendix to Appellants

Opening Brief, Affidavits of Linda Belcher and Geoff Staples) show that Lisa

Liberi had access to the Pay-Pal account and Merchant Account, connected to

Berg's web site ObamaCrimes.com. Moreover, Belcher stated, that Berg

created a pay-pal account in the name of his girlfriend Carol and connected

it to the web site and Liberi created a web site in the name of her husband

Brent Liberi and it was connected to the web site as well. The public at large

donated to that web site to help the legal actions Berg was conducting and

specifically to help in an action filed on behalf of Colonel Greg Holister

Hoister v Soetoro, et al 1:2008cv02254 in the district of Columbia and in the

Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Gregory Hollister v. Barry Soetoro, et al (09-5080) and John Hemenway v.

Barry Soetoro (09-5161). The public believed that the donations

are going to benefit Colonel Hollister, whom Berg represented on

appeal, and help co-counsel in the case Washington DC attorney

John Hemingway. The public was not aware of the fact, that the

funds were going into the PayPal account for Berg's girlfriend

Carol and Liberi's husband Brent. Taitz does not have access to

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cadc/09-5080/http://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cadc/09-5080/http://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cadc/09-5161/http://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cadc/09-5161/http://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cadc/09-5161/http://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cadc/09-5161/http://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cadc/09-5161/http://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cadc/09-5080/


13/33


Berg 12

Berg's, his girlfriend, Liberi's and her husband's accounts,

however in the interest of protection of Berg's former client

Colonel Hollister, his co-counsel and of the public at large this

court should forward this matter to the disciplinary board of the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court for further investigation and

prosecution.

Additionally, according to Liberi's terms of probation she was not

allowed to open any credit card accounts or handle any credit

cards without knowledge and consent of the probation

department, she was not allowed to travel out of state and she

was supposed to notify the probation department prior to filing

any legal actions, as she was previously convicted of multiple

counts of forgery and theft and was a vexatious plaintiff in CA,

filing a frivolous legal action against the San Bernardino County

CA, West Valley Correctional institution, where she was

incarcerated, multiple police officers, detectives and the District

Attorney's office. Appellants do not know, whether Liberi gave

proper notification to the probation department, however, it is

highly unlikely, as the probation department, probably would not



14/33


Berg 13

allow Liberi to continue preparing pleadings for Berg for multiple

courts, managing a web site with a merchant account and a

PayPal account, filing frivolous legal actions and swear under

oath, that she is a different Lisa Liberi, who resides in PA and who

was defamed by the defendants. It is appropriate for this court to

sanction Appellee Liberi and forward to the probation department

of the San Bernardino County CA a record of these proceedings

and such sanctions.

B. Sanctions against the Appellees and attorney Philip J.

Berg are proper, as there is a modus operandi of them

repeatedly and egregiously filing legal actions for

harassment purposes only and wrongfully accusing

multiple individuals of committing multiple crimes

Taitz submits an article from "Legal Intelligencer' (Exhibit 1), showing that Berg

repeatedly engages in such conduct. Berg was previously repeatedly sanctioned.

In Re Berg, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 322 (ED PA 2008 ); Holsworth v. Berg, 2005 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 15393 (ED PA 2005). Liberi has engaged in the same conduct as well.



15/33


Berg 14

Similarly Berg demanded disbarment of the Supreme court Justices Sandra Day

O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Berg

In October 2004, Berg filed Rodriguez v. Bush 04-4952 Eastern District of PA, accusing thePresident of the United States and 155 other parties of complicity in the 9/11 attacks. This 237-

page civil lawsuit[6][7]

included allegations pursuant to theRICO(Racketeer Influenced andCorrupt Organizations Act) againstThe United States Of America, theFederal Emergency

Management Agency, theDepartment of Homeland Security,George Herbert Walker Bush,

George Walker Bush,Richard Cheney,Donald H. Rumsfeld,and numerous others, totaling 156

defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This lawsuit madehundreds of allegations "...; that phone calls made by some of the victims, as reported by their

family members, were not actually made but were "faked" by the government using "voicemorphing" technology; that a missile, not American Airlines Flight 77, struck the Pentagon; that

United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down by the U.S. military; that the defendants hadforeknowledge of the attacks and actively conspired to bring them about; that the defendants

engaged in kidnapping, arson, murder, treason, conspiracy, trafficking in narcotics,

embezzlement, securities fraud, insider trading, identity and credit card theft, blackmail,

trafficking in humans, and the abduction and sale of women and children for sex. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Berg

Rodriguez v Bush was originally brought in front of the same judge Hon Eduardo

Robreno, Eastern District of PA, it was eventually transferred to NY and

dismissed on all counts against all plaintiffs.

At the same time, in 2004-2006, when Liberi was incarcerated in CA, she filed

multiple frivolous legal actions. Her first legal action Liberi v Sheriff's department

et al 5:04-cv-01524-VAP was a 30 million dollar case against multiple individuals,

including District attorneys' office, her prior attorneys, judges, sheriffs'

department, policemen and detectives and many others. It was a frivolous legal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Berg#cite_note-5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Berg#cite_note-5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Berg#cite_note-5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Acthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Acthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Acthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_United_States_Of_Americahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_United_States_Of_Americahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_United_States_Of_Americahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Emergency_Management_Agencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Emergency_Management_Agencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Emergency_Management_Agencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Emergency_Management_Agencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Homeland_Securityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Homeland_Securityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Homeland_Securityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Herbert_Walker_Bushhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Herbert_Walker_Bushhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Herbert_Walker_Bushhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Walker_Bushhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Walker_Bushhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cheneyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cheneyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_H._Rumsfeldhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_H._Rumsfeldhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_H._Rumsfeldhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_H._Rumsfeldhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cheneyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Walker_Bushhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Herbert_Walker_Bushhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Homeland_Securityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Emergency_Management_Agencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Emergency_Management_Agencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Emergency_Management_Agencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_United_States_Of_Americahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Acthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Berg#cite_note-5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Berg#cite_note-5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Berg#cite_note-5


16/33


Berg 15

action, which caused an enormous emotional distress and financial hardships to

many, it was dismissed after her attorney was sanctioned multiple times and

after her attorney dropped Liberi as a client. Not satisfied, Liberi filed pro se yet

another frivolous RICO law suit for $280 million against the San Bernardino

County, CA, West Valley Correctional facility, district attorneys, police officers,

police detectives, numerous law enforcement officials Lisa Liberi v West Valley

Center et al 2:05-cv-03015-VAP-SGL. In a similar modus operandi she accused

multiple innocent individuals of committing crimes. Her legal action was

dismissed. As shown in these examples, Both Liberi and Berg have a history and

modus operandi of filing multimillion dollar law suits for the sole purpose of

harassment. They caused immeasurable financial and emotional damage to the

defendants and they need to be stopped now.

CONCLUSION

Appellees never provided any proof of Appellee Liberis PA state residency that

they claim, that she had. The Court erred in assuming jurisdiction over the case

without any evidence of State Citizenship of Plaintiff Liberi. As the State

citizenship of the lead Plaintiff was never established by the court, the District

Court had no jurisdiction in diversity and the case needs to be dismissed due to



17/33


Berg 16

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellees' responsive brief did not address the

issues on Appeal and Appellees' filing of 900 pages of irrelevant defamatory and

inflammatory material is improper. Sanctions are proper against the Appellees

and against Attorney Philip J Berg under FRAP Rule 38 1927 for multiplying

proceedings and for repeated multiple acts of fraud on the court and filing a legal

action with an improper goal of harassment of the Defendants/Appellants.

Additional sanctions are proper against Appellees' attorney Philip J. Berg for

repeated violations of Rule 3.3, 4.1, 8.4, 1.15 of professional ethics

DATED: November 25, 2010

__/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ_______

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ Appellant in

Pro Se and as Counsel for

Appellant Defend Our Freedoms

Foundation

I certify that an antivirus program was run the Brief at hand does not contain

computer viruses.

/s/DR. Orly Taitz, ESQ

Appellants request the court indulgence in accepting this reply brief with a slightly

higher number of pages in the body of the brief.



18/33


Berg 17

ATTORNEYS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the:

APPELLANTS REPLY TO APPELLEES' RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS

MOTION TO STRIKE AND SANCTIONS

was served by ECF and ELECTRONIC MAIL on November 29, 2010, on the following parties:

Neil Sankey

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

Sankey Investigations, Inc.

2470 Stearns Street #162

Simi Valley, CA 93063

Phone: (805) 520_3151and (818) 366_0919

Cell Phone: (818) 212_7615

FAX: (805) 520_5804 and (818) 366_1491

Email: [email protected]

Linda Sue Belcher

201 Paris

Castroville, Texas 78009

Home Phone: (830) 538_6395

Cell Phone: (830) 931_1781



19/33


Berg 18

Email: [email protected] and

Email: [email protected]

Ed Hale

Caren Hale

Plains Radio

KPRN

Bar H Farms

1401 Bowie Street

Wellington, Texas 79095

Phone: (806) 447_0010 and (806) 447_0270

Email: [email protected] and

Email: [email protected] and [email protected]

Philip Berg, Esq.

Lisa Liberi c/o Law Office of Philip Berg

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444_2531

(610) 825_3134

FAX (610) 834_7659

E_Mail: [email protected]

Disciplinary Board



20/33


Berg 19

Supreme Court of Pensylvania

820 Adams Ave, ste 170

Trooper, PA 19403

Philadelphia District Attorneys' office

3 South Penn square

Philadelphia, PA

US Attorneys' office

Eastern District of PA

615 Chestnut str, ste 1250

Philadelphia PA 19106-4100

James Secord

Assistant District attorney

San Bernardino County

316 North Mountain view

San Bernardino CA 92415-0004

909-387-8309

www.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/da



21/33


Berg 20

San Bernardino County, CA

Probation Department

175 w. Fifth str. 4th floor

S. Bernardino, CA

Public Integrity Section

Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington DC 20530-0001

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders

The Honorable Mrs. Margaret Sekaggya

Palais des Nations

CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

International Criminal bar Hague



22/33


Berg 21

United Nations Commission for

Civil Rights Defenders

Orsolya Toth (Ms)

Human Rights Officer

Civil and Political Rights Section

Special Procedures Division

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

tel: + 41 22 917 91 51

email:[email protected]

/S/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

___________________________

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq

11.25.10

EXHIBIT 1

A July 25, 2005 article from The Legal Intelligencer, Lawyer Slapped With $10K in

Sanctions for 'Laundry List of Unethical Actions' sums the situation here up:

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


23/33


Berg 22

Finding that a Pennsylvania lawyer had committed a "laundry list of unethical

actions," a federal judge has imposed more than $10,000 in sanctions and

ordered the lawyer to complete six hours of ethics training. U.S. District Judge J.

Curtis Joyner's 10-page opinion in Holsworth v. Berg is packed with criticism of

the conduct of attorney Philip Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa."Other attorneys should

look to Mr. Berg's actions as a blueprint for what not to do when attempting to

effectively and honorably perform the duties of the legal profession," Joyner

wrote. "This court has grown weary of Mr. Berg's continuous and brazen

disrespect toward this court and his own clients. Mr. Berg's actions ... are an

enormous waste of judicial time and resources that this court cannot, in good

conscience, allow to go unpunished," Joyner wrote. In the suit, Berg is accused of

legal malpractice by former clients who claim his failure to respond to an ERISA

claim against them led to a default judgment. But the sanctions against Berg stem

from his decision to file a third-party counterclaim of fraud against a pension fund

that had sued his former clients, according to court papers. Joyner blasted Berg

for filing the fraud claim, calling it an "irresponsible decision" because the claim

was "utterly barren of any scintilla of legal principles." Berg's motion was rejected

and a default judgment of more than $5,300 was entered against his clients. The

judgment swelled to more than $10,000 when Carpenters Health later



24/33


Berg 23

successfully moved for a supplemental judgment to recover more than $4,700 in

attorney fees for its efforts in responding to Berg's untimely motions. Holsworth

and his wife later filed a legal malpractice suit against Berg in the Philadelphia

County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that Berg negligently failed to represent

them in the Carpenters Health case. A year later, in February 2005, Berg moved to

join Carpenters Health as a third-party defendant in the malpractice suit,

demanding more than $20,000 in damages. In his counterclaim, Berg alleged that

the ERISA suit filed by Carpenters Health in 2001, which led to the malpractice

claim against him, was "a fraud upon the court and a fraudulent taking from the

Holsworths."Carpenter Health's lawyers removed the case to federal court and

filed a motion to dismiss the claim. Joyner agreed, finding that Berg's fraud claim

was "frivolous" and was motivated by an intent "to harass Carpenters Health and

the Holsworths, as well as to delay and disrupt the administration of justice." The

claim was fatally flawed, Joyner found, because Berg had no standing to bring suit

against Carpenters Health and had "failed to conduct even a minimally reasonable

inquiry before filing his complaint." Granting summary judgment in favor of

Carpenters Health, Joyner said he found it "wholly unnecessary" even to consider

the facts of the ERISA case because it was "abundantly clear" that Carpenters

Health was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Joyner invited Carpenters



25/33


Berg 24

Health to file a motion for Rule 11 sanctions. When it did, Joyner found that Berg

"continued his trend of unprofessional conduct "... "Berg's fraud claim, Joyner

said, was "inadequately pled, not grounded in fact, time-barred, and utterly

irrelevant to the pending malpractice action against him."..."In his sanctions

order, Joyner ordered Berg to reimburse Carpenters Health the $10,668 in

attorney fees and costs it incurred in defending the claim. He also ordered Berg to

complete six credits of ethics courses certified by the Pennsylvania Board of

Continuing Legal Education, and recommended that Berg be investigated by the

Pennsylvania Bar Association's Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional

Responsibility."

EXHIBIT 2

RULES OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS, SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Rules 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal or fail tocorrect a falsestatement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by thelawyer;

(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdictionknown tothe lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and notdisclosed by opposing counsel;or(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, thelawyers client, or a



26/33


Berg 25

witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence before a tribunal

or in an ancillaryproceeding conducted pursuant to a tribunal's adjudicative authority, such asa deposition, and thelawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable

remedial measures, including, ifnecessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence,other than thetestimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonablybelieves is false.(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and whoknows that a personintends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulentconduct related to the proceedingshall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosureto the tribunal.(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion ofthe proceeding,and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwiseprotected by Rule 1.6.(d) n an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of allmaterial facts known to thelawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whetheror not the facts are adverse.Comment:

[1] This Rule governs the conduct of a lawyer who is representing a client in

the proceedings ofa tribunal. See Rule 1.0(m) for the definition of tribunal. It also applieswhen the lawyer is representing aclient in an ancillary proceeding conducted pursuant to the tribunalsadjudicative authority, such as adeposition. Thus, for example, paragraph (a)(3) requires a lawyer to takereasonable remedial measures ifthe lawyer comes to know that a client who is testifying in a deposition hasoffered evidence that is false.[2] This Rule sets forth the special duties of lawyers as officers of the courtto avoid conduct thatundermines the integrity of the adjudicative process. A lawyer acting as anadvocate in an adjudicativeproceeding has an obligation to present the client's case with persuasiveforce. Performance of that dutywhile maintaining confidences of the client, however, is qualified by theadvocate's duty of candor to the



27/33


Berg 26

tribunal. Consequently, although a lawyer in an adversary proceeding is not

required to present an impartialexposition of the law or to vouch for the evidence submitted in a cause, thelawyer must not allow thetribunal to be misled by false statements of law or fact or evidence that the

lawyer knows to be false.Representations by a Lawyer

[3] An advocate is responsible for pleadings and other documents preparedfor litigation, but isusually not required to have personal knowledge of matters asserted therein,for litigation documentsordinarily present assertions by the client, or by someone on the client'sbehalf, and not assertions by thelawyer. Compare Rule 3.1. However, an assertion purporting to be on thelawyer's own knowledge, as in anaffidavit by the lawyer or in a statement in open court, may properly bemade only when the lawyer knowsthe assertion is true or believes it to be true on the basis of a reasonablydiligent inquiry. There arecircumstances where failure to make a disclosure is the equivalent of anaffirmative misrepresentation. Theobligation prescribed in Rule 1.2(d) not to counsel a client to commit orassist the client in committing afraud applies in litigation. Regarding compliance with Rule 1.2(d), see theComment to that Rule. See alsothe Comment to Rule 8.4(b).

Offering Evidence[5] Paragraph (a)(3) requires that the lawyer refuse to offer evidence thatthe lawyer knows tobe false, regardless of the clients wishes. This duty is premised on thelawyers obligation as an officer ofthe court to prevent the trier of fact from being misled by false evidence. Alawyer does not violate this Ruleif the lawyer offers the evidence for the purpose of establishing its falsity.[6] If a lawyer knows that the client intends to testify falsely or wants thelawyer to introducefalse evidence, the lawyer should seek to persuade the client that theevidence should not be offered. If thepersuasion is ineffective and the lawyer continues to represent the client, thelawyer must refuse to offer thefalse evidence. If only a portion of a witness's testimony will be false, thelawyer may call the witness totestify but may not elicit or otherwise permit the witness to present thetestimony that the lawyer knows is



28/33


Berg 27

false.Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is

necessary to avoid aidingand abetting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure isprohibited by Rule 1.6. MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROFESSIONRule 8.1 Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters

An applicant for admission to the bar, or a lawyer in connection with a baradmission application orin connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not:

(a) knowingly make a false statement of material fact; or(b) fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known bythe person to havearisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand forinformation from anadmissions or disciplinary authority, except that this Rule does not requiredisclosure of informationotherwise protected by Rule 1.6.

Rule 8.4 Misconduct

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowinglyassist or induceanother to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyers honesty,trustworthiness orfitness as a lawyer in other respects;(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ormisrepresentation;(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency orofficial or to achieveresults by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;

VIOLATION OF RULE 1.15 SAFEKEEPING PROPERTY(a) A lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in alawyers possession inconnection with a client-lawyer relationship separate from the lawyers ownproperty. Such property shall beidentified and appropriately safeguarded. Complete records of the receipt,maintenance and disposition of



29/33


Berg 28

such property shall be preserved for a period of five years after termination

of the client-lawyer relationshipor after distribution or disposition of the property, whichever is later.(b) Upon receiving property of a client or third person in connection with aclient-lawyer

relationship, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. Exceptas stated in this Rule orotherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client or third person,a lawyer shall promptly deliverto the client or third person any property that the client or third person isentitled to receive and, uponrequest by the client or third person, shall promptly render a full accountingregarding such property.40(c) When in connection with a client-lawyer relationship a lawyer is inpossession of property inwhich two or more persons, one of whom may be the lawyer, claim aninterest, the property shall be keptseparate by the lawyer until the dispute is resolved. The lawyer shallpromptly distribute all portions of theproperty as to which the interests are not in dispute.(d) In those parts of this Rule dealing with funds of clients or third personswhich the lawyerreceives in connection with a client-lawyer relationship, excluding funds

which the lawyer receives whileacting as fiduciary for an estate, trust, guardianship or conservatorship, the

following definitions areapplicable:(1) Trust Account means an interest-bearing account in a financialinstitution, as definedin Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement 221, in which the lawyer deposits suchfunds.(2) Qualified funds means such funds when they are nominal in amount orarereasonably expected to be held for such a short period of time that sufficientinterest income will not

be generated to justify the expense of administering a segregated account.(3) Nonqualified Funds means all other such funds.(4) An Interest On Lawyer Trust Account (IOLTA Account) is anunsegregated TrustAccount for the deposit of Qualified Funds by a lawyer.(5) The IOLTA Board means the Pennsylvania Interest on Lawyers TrustAccount Board.



30/33


Berg 29

(e) The responsibility for identifying an account as a Trust Account shall be

that of the lawyer inwhose name the account is held. A lawyer shall not deposit the lawyers ownfunds in a Trust Accountexcept for the sole purpose of paying bank services charges on that account,

and only in an amountnecessary for that purpose. A lawyer shall deposit into a Trust Account legalfees and expenses that havebeen paid in advance, to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are earnedor expenses incurred, unlessthe client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing, to the handling offees and expenses in a differentmanner. At all times while a lawyer holds funds of a client or third person inconnection with a client-lawyerrelationship, the lawyer shall also maintain another account that is not usedto hold such funds.(f) All Nonqualified Funds shall be placed in a Trust Account or in anotherinvestment vehiclespecifically agreed upon by the lawyer and the client or third person whichowns the funds.(g) All Qualified Funds shall be placed in an IOLTA Account. The rate ofinterest payable on anIOLTA Account shall not be less than the highest rate or dividend generallyavailable from the financial

institution to its non-IOLTA Account customers when the IOLTA Accountmeets or exceeds the same

minimum balance and other account eligibility qualifications applicable tothose other accounts. In no eventshall the rate of interest payable on an IOLTA Account be less than the ratepaid by the financial institutionon negotiable order of withdrawal accounts (NOW) or super negotiable orderof withdrawal accounts. Anaccount shall not be considered an IOLTA Account unless the financialinstitution at which the account ismaintained shall:(1) Remit at least quarterly any interest earned on the account to the IOLTA

Board.(2) Transmit to the IOLTA Board with each remittance and to the lawyer whomaintainsthe IOLTA Account a statement showing at least the name of the account,service charges or feesdeducted, if any, the amount of interest remitted from the account and theaverage daily balance, ifavailable.



31/33


Berg 30

(h) A lawyer shall be exempt from the requirement that all Qualified Funds

be placed in [8] A lawyer must participate in the Pennsylvania Lawyers Fundfor Client Security. It is ameans through the collective efforts of the bar to reimburse persons whohave lost money or property as a

result of dishonest conduct of a lawyer.43[9] Paragraphs (g) through (l) provide for the Interest on Lawyer TrustAccount (IOLTA)program, and the definitions in paragraph (d) distinguish two types of fundsof clients and third persons heldby a lawyer: Qualified Funds, which must be placed in an IOLTA account,and Nonqualified Funds, which areto be placed in an interest bearing account unless the client or third personspecifically agrees to anotherinvestment vehicle for the benefit of the client or third person. There arefurther instructions in Rules 219and 221 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement and in theRegulations of the Interest onLawyers Trust Account Board, 204 Pa. Code, 81.1 et seq., which are

referred to as the IOLTA Regulations.

[1] A lawyer should hold property of others with the care required of aprofessional fiduciary.The obligations of a lawyer under this Rule apply when the lawyer has comeinto possession of property of

clients or third persons because the lawyer is acting or has acted as a lawyerin a client-lawyer relationshipwith some person. Securities should be kept in a safe deposit box, exceptwhen some other form ofsafekeeping is warranted by special circumstances. All property which is theproperty of clients or thirdpersons, including prospective clients, must be kept separate from thelawyer's business and personalproperty and, if monies, in one or more Trust Accounts. The responsibilityfor identifying an account as a

Trust Account shall be that of the lawyer in whose name the account is held.Whenever a lawyer holds fundsof a client or third person, the lawyer must maintain at least two accounts:one in which those funds areheld and another in which the lawyer's own funds may be held. A lawyershould maintain on a current basisbooks and records in accordance with sound accounting practicesconsistently applied and comply with any



32/33


Berg 31

recordkeeping rules established by law or court order.

[2] The following books and records shall be maintained for each TrustAccount:(i) bank statements and check registers (which shall include the payee, date,amount

and the client matter involved);(ii) all transaction records returned by the financial institution, includingcanceled checksin whatever form and records of electronic transactions;(iii) records of deposits and a ledger separately listing each deposited itemand the clientor third person for whom the deposit is being made.[3] The records required by this Rule may be maintained in electronic orother form if they canbe retrieved in printed hard copy. Electronic records must be regularlybacked up by an appropriate storagedevice.[4] While normally it is impermissible to commingle the lawyers own funds

with client funds,paragraph (e) provides that it is permissible when necessary to pay bankservice charges on that account.Accurate records must be kept regarding that part of the funds which are thelawyers.[5] Lawyers often receive funds from which the lawyers fee will be paid. The

lawyer is notrequired to remit to the client funds that the lawyer reasonably believes

represent fees owed. However, alawyer may not hold funds to coerce a client into accepting the lawyerscontention. The disputed portionof the funds must be kept in a Trust Account and the lawyer should suggestmeans for prompt resolution ofthe dispute, such as arbitration. The undisputed portion of the funds shall bepromptly distributed.[6] Paragraph (c) also recognizes that third parties may have lawful claimsagainst specific fundsor other property in a lawyers custody such as a clients creditor who has a

lien on funds recovered in apersonal injury action. A lawyer may have a duty under applicable law toprotect such third-party claimsagainst wrongful interference by the client. In such cases, when the thirdparty claim is not frivolous underapplicable law, the lawyer must refuse to surrender the property to the clientunless the claims are resolved.



33/33

A lawyer should not unilaterally assume to arbitrate a dispute between the

client and the third party. Whenthere are substantial grounds for dispute as to the person entitled to thefunds, the lawyer may file an actionto have a court resolve the dispute.

[7] Other applicable law may impose pertinent obligations upon a lawyerindependent of any


liberi v taitz (appeal - 3rd circuit) - appellants' reply to appellees' response to appellants'...

Documents