liberi v taitz (c.d. ca) - 173 - opposition to first motion to disqualify counsel philip j. erg -...

8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311

1/37

Liberi_Response_Opp_Taitz_Termin_Berg_04_08_11 -2.

1

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Philip J. Berg, Esquire (PA I.D. 9867)E-mail: [email protected] OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659Attorney in pro se and for Plaintiffs

Lisa Ostella, and Go Excel Globalc/o Philip J. Berg, EsquireE-mail: [email protected] Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659

Plaintiffs in pro se pending Mr. Bergs Pro Hac Vice

Lisa Liberic/o Philip J. Berg, EsquireE-mail: [email protected] Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659Plaintiff in pro se pending Mr. Bergs Pro Hac Vice

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,

SOUTHERN DIVISIONLISA LIBERI, et al,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Defendants.

:::::::::::::::::

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:

8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW)

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE INOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS

MOTION REQUEST TOTERMINATE PHILIP J. BERG,ESQUIRE AS AN ATTORNY ONTHE CASE

Date of Hearing: May 9, 2011Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m.Location: Courtroom 10D

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 173 Filed 04/10/11 Page 1 of 4 Page ID#:4020


2/37


2

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTSORLY TAITZ and DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC.MOTION REQUEST TO TERMINATE PHILIP J. BERG, ESQ. AS AN

ATTORNEY ON THE CASE

COMES NOW Plaintiffs, Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter at times

Berg]; Lisa Ostella [hereinafter at times Ostella]; Lisa Liberi [hereinafter at

times Liberi]; Law Offices of Philip J. Berg; and Go Excel Global and files the

within Response in Opposition; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; and

Declarations in Opposition to Defendants, Orly Taitz [hereinafter at times Taitz]

and Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. [hereinafter at times DOFF]

improper Motion to Terminate Berg as Counsel on the Case. In support hereof,

Plaintiffs aver the following:

1. Taitz failed to sign her Motion and therefore, it must be stricken, seeFederal Rules of Civil Procedure ( Fed. R. Civ. P .) 11(a) and thisCourts Local Rule ( L.R.) 11-1;

2. Taitz includes a statement called Affidavit; however, it is notnotarized or signed under the Penalty of Perjury and therefore, mustnot be considered. As a result, Taitzs Motion is not in compliancewith this Courts L.R. 7-6 and therefore must be denied, L.R. 7-12;

3. Taitz and DOFF fail to cite to any facts to support their request or contention for said Motion in violation of the Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1);

4. Taitz and DOFF have failed to comply with the this Court L.R. 7-3and meet and confer with the opposing parties ten (10) days prior tothe filing of their Motion;

5. Taitz also failed to comply with the Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 and this CourtsL.R. 11-3.8(c) in failing to place the Courts caption on her Motion;



3/37


3

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and failing to number her paragraphs; Taitz also failed to comply withthis Courts L.R. 11-3.8(a), by failing to include her California StateBar Number and email address;

6. Attorney Philip J. Berg, Esq. is not only a Plaintiff in the withinaction, he has yet to file his Application for Pro Hac Vice statusregarding the other Plaintiffs. Thus, Taitz and DOFF Motion iscompletely improper;

7. Taitz and DOFF have failed to cite one case; or legal authority whichwould give this Court the authority to grant their request, much less tosupport their request; and

8. Berg should be admitted Pro Hac Vice as he meets all the criteria

required, has been litigating the case since May 4, 2009, is familiar with the case, and readily available and willing to represent thePlaintiffs, once he applies for Pro Hac Vice admission.

For the reasons stated herein, Defendants Taitz and DOFF Motion to

Terminate Philip J. Berg, Esquire as an attorney on this case must be Denied.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: April 10, 2011 /s/ Philip J. BergPhilip J. Berg, EsquirePennsylvania I.D. 9867LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Telephone: (610) 825-3134E-mail: [email protected]

Attorney in Pro Se and Counsel for theother Plaintiffs pending Pro Hac Viceadmission



4/37


4

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated: April 10, 2011 /s/ Lisa OstellaLISA OSTELLA; andGO EXCEL GLOBALc/o Philip J. Berg, EsquireLAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Plaintiffs in pro se pending Mr. Bergsadmission Pro Hac Vice

Dated: April 10, 2011 /s/ Lisa Liberi

LISA LIBERIc/o Philip J. Berg, EsquireLAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Plaintiff in pro se pending Mr. Bergsadmission Pro Hac Vice



5/37

1

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


SOUTHERN DIVISION

LISA LIBERI, et al

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Defendants.

:::::::::::::::::


8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW)

PROPOSED ORDER DENYINGDEFENDANTS MOTION TOTERMINATE PHILIP J. BERG,ESQ. AS AN ATTORNEY ON THECASE


ORDER

On May 9, 2011, Defendants Motion Request to Terminate Philip J. Berg,

Esquire as an Attorney on the case came on for hearing. The Court having

reviewed and considered the moving papers, the Plaintiffs Opposition thereto, the

records on file with this Court, having heard Oral Argument and for GOOD

CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and DECREED:

Defendants, Orly Taitz and Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Motion

is hereby DENIED .

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 173-1 Filed 04/10/11 Page 1 of 2 Page ID#:4024


6/37

2

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: May ___, 2011 ______________________________ Judge of the United States DistrictCourt, Central District of California,Southern Division

Respectfully submitted by:

Philip J. Berg, EsquireE-mail: [email protected] I.D. 9867LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Telephone: (610) 825-3134

Lisa Ostella; andGo Excel GlobalE-mail: [email protected]/o Philip J. Berg, Esquire

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Lisa LiberiE-mail: [email protected]/o Philip J. Berg, Esquire555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531



7/37

Liberi, et al Response & Memorandum Cert of Svc. 04/09/2011 1

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






SOUTHERN DIVISION

LISA LIBERI, et al

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Defendants.

:::::::::::::::


8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW)

PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE



8/37


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs

Response in Opposition to Defendants Orly Taitz and Defend our Freedoms Foundations,

Inc. Motion to Terminate Philip J. Berg, Esq. as Counsel on the within Case was served

through the ECF filing system and/or mail as indicated below, this 10 th day of April 2011

upon the following:

Orly Taitz26302 La Paz Ste 211

Mission Viejo, CA 92691Ph: (949) 683-5411

Fax: (949) 586-2082Email: [email protected] and

Email: [email protected] via the ECF Filing System

Attorney in pro se and for Defendant Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc .

The Sankey Firm, Inc.2470 Stearns Street #162Simi Valley, CA 93063

By USPS Mail with Postage fully prepaid

Neil SankeyP.O. Box 8298

Mission Hills, CA 91346By USPS Mail with Postage fully prepaid

Sankey Investigations, Inc.

P.O. Box 8298Mission Hills, CA 91346


_______________________Philip J. Berg, Esquire

/s/ Philip J. Berg



9/37

Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 1

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






SOUTHERN DIVISIONLISA LIBERI, et al,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Defendants.

::::::::::::::::


8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW)

PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM INSUPPORT OF THEIR IN

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTSMOTION TO TERMINATE PHILIPJ. BERG, ESQUIRE AS ANATTORNY ON THE CASE




10/37

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page(s)

TABLE OF CONTENTS...i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....ii-iii

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.1-14

II. TAITZ AND DOFFs MOTION/REQUEST DOES NOT

COMPLY WITH THE FED. R. CIV. PROC. OR THISCOURTS L.R.s..6-9

III. DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ADDRESS ANY REASONBERG SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE,

CONCLUSION..14

DEFENDANTS MOTION MUST BE DENIED...9-14

I. FACTS..............2-6



11/37

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES Page(s)

Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S. Ct. 1937,173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)...4

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544,127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)....4

Sullivan v. Louisiana , 508 U.S. 275 (1993).13

United States v. Garrett , 179 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 1999).....12

United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez , 548 U.S. 140,126 S. Ct. 2557, 165 L. Ed. 2d 409 (2006)11, 13

United States v. Panzardi-Alvarez , 816 F.2d 813 (1st Cir. 1987)...12

United States v. Walters , 309 F.3d 589, 592-93 (9th Cir. 2002)...................12, 13

FEDERAL STATUTES Page(s)

28 U.S.C. 17467

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Page(s)

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11..9

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12..3, 4

Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U. S. 279 (1991)...13

United States v. Lillie , 989 F.2d 1054 (9th Cir. 1993)....12

Panzardi-Alvarez v. United States , 879 F.2d 975 (1st Cir. 1989)....12

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7....8

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10...8



12/37

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

LOCAL RULES Page(s)

Local Rule 7-3...6

Local Rule 7-6...8

Local Rule 7-12.8

Local Rule 11.1..9

Local Rule 11.3-8..8

Local Rule 11-9.9

Local Rule 83-2.3.2.11

Local Rule 83-7 ....9

Local Rule 83-2.3.1.11



13/37


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I. FACTS:

1. On May 4, 2009, Plaintiffs, Philip J. Berg, Esq., [hereinafter at times

Berg] Lisa Ostella [hereinafter at times Ostella] Lisa Liberi [hereinafter at

times Liberi], The Law Offices of Philip J. Berg, and Go Excel Global filed suit

against Defendants Orly Taitz [hereinafter at times Taitz], Defend our Freedoms

Foundations, Inc. [hereinafter at times DOFF]; Neil Sankey [hereinafter at times

Sankey]; Sankey Investigations, Inc; and The Sankey Firm, Inc. 1 for amongst

other things: Invasion of Privacy; Intrusion of Plaintiffs solitude and seclusion;

placing Plaintiffs in a false light before the public; Appropriation of Plaintiffs

name, picture and alike; Cyber-stalking; Stalking; Cyber-bullying; Harassment;

Filing of false criminal reports; Defamation, Slander, Libel and violation of Cal.

Civ. P . 1798, et seq. for the illegal background checks, including but not limited to

primary identification documents, insurance, medical, sealed Court case

information, illegal access to Plaintiffs credit reports, cyber-stalking, stalking

Plaintiffs Ostella and Liberi, contacting and harassing individuals Plaintiffs have

known; and for the illegal distribution of Liberis full Social Security number, date

of birth, mothers maiden name, place of birth, spouses name, spouses Social

1 The Sankey Firm, Inc. is in default. Default was entered against them in June 2009, the defaultwas set-aside to allow this Defendant to Answer the Complaint; however, to date they havefailed to Answer the Complaint and Enter their Appearance.



14/37


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Security number, spouses date of birth and other extremely private information, 2 as

well as private data pertaining to Ostella. Said suit was originally filed in the U.S.

District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania and recently transferred to this

Court.

2. As this Court can see from the Docket, Defendant Taitz on behalf of

herself and DOFF have continued filing documents which falsifies what this case

is about; why this case was filed; and many falsified stories and accusations against

the Plaintiffs. Taitz is under the impression the Court will not read and catch her

in her dishonest tactics, due to the barrage of paper, which unfortunately Taitz has

been successful with up until this date. These actions of Taitzs have caused an

avalanche of paper as Plaintiffs have been forced to respond and reiterate what this

case actually represents. The further barrage of paper is due to Taitzs continued

publications on her website, through postal mail, statements in radio appearances,

and posting all over the Internet, giving false interpretations of this case, falsely

accusing the Plaintiffs (the victims) of what she is actually doing, and her

continued cyber-stalking, cyber-bullying and stalking of the Plaintiffs.

3. Defendant Taitz has also filed approximately six (6) Motions, if not

more, to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, all of which were denied, as

documented by the Courts docket. Also, as this Court is aware, a party is only

2 Since Plaintiffs Complaint is drafted pursuant to PA laws, Plaintiffs will be seeking leave to



15/37


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

entitled to file a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P . 12 on one occasion

and anything not raised in the initial Motion is deemed waived; thus Taitzs

Motions were incompliant with the Fed. R. Civ. P.s . Taitz asserted the Ashcroft v.

Iqbal , 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) cases as a

basis for dismissal, however, the Pennsylvania Federal Court found Plaintiffs

Complaint compliant with the pleading requirements outlined in Iqbal and

Twombly and Denied Taitzs Motions to Dismiss.

4. Taitz has done everything in her power, and been successful in her

attempts, to prejudice the Plaintiffs and delay the proceedings in the within case,

including the transfer of this case to this Court, by her improper appeal, which

delayed the transfer for approximately nine (9) months. All the meanwhile, Taitz

has continued her illegal tactics which gave rise to this case, further damaging and

harming the Plaintiffs.

5. Taitz has now filed, on behalf of herself and DOFF, an improper

Motion to Terminate Mr. Berg from being Counsel in the within case. Taitz

Motion fails to adhere to the Fed. R. of Civ. P. , and this Courts L.R.s . Not to

mention the fact, it is completely improper as there is not even a pending Motion

for Pro Hac Vice admission at this time. Moreover, Berg is also a Plaintiff in the

properly amend their Complaint to bring the Complaint within the standards of California law.



16/37


17/37


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Attorney up to speed, and further delay proceedings. Further, it would be far more

expensive for the Plaintiffs, without Counsel of record who knows the case, its

history, and who is more than capable of arguing the matter on behalf of Ostella

and Liberi.

8. For the reasons stated herein, Taitz Motion/Request must be Denied.

II. TAITZ and DOFFs MOTION/REQUEST FAILS TO COMPLYwith the FED. R. CIV. P. and THIS COURTS L.Rs.

9. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

10. Taitz and DOFFs Motion/Request fails to comply with the Fed. R .of

Civ. Proc. and/or this Courts L.R.s .

11. As this Court is aware of, prior to the filing of any Motion, the party

filing the Motion must meet and confer with the opposing parties and/or their

Counsel within the required ten (10) day period prior to the filing of their Motion,

see this Courts L.R. 7-3. As a result of Taitzs failure to follow the rules and

meet and confer with opposing counsel, Taitz was unable to comply with the

section of this Courts L.R. 7-3 which required the following brief statement, This

motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3 which

took place on (date). See this Courts L.R. 7-3.



18/37


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12. Prior to the filing of their Motion, Taitz and DOFF were required to

meet and confer with the Plaintiffs and/or their counsel, which Taitz and DOFF

failed to comply with.

13. Furthermore, this Courts L.R. 7-6 provides that factual contentions

involved in any motion . . . shall be presented, heard, and determined upon

declarations and other written evidence alone. In Taitz and DOFFs Motion,

Taitz includes what she entitles an Affidavit. As this Court is aware, Affidavits

are notarized documents with a seal and are made under the Penalty of Perjury.

Taitz statement in her Motion does not even qualify as an unsworn Declaration

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746:

28 U.S.C. 1746 states in particular part:

Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule,

regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter isrequired or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved

by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or

affidavit, in writing of the person making the samesuch matter may,

with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or

proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement,

in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under

penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:

(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or

commonwealths: I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of



19/37


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).

(Signature).

14. Taitzs Affidavit is not notarized, is not signed under the penalty of

perjury and therefore must not be considered. Thus, Taitz has failed to comply

with this Courts L.R. 7-6 and the Court must Deny Taitz and DOFFs Motion or

consider Taitz failure to comply with this Courts Local Rules as consent to deny

the Motion, see this Courts L.R. 7-12.

15. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1) states, A request for a court order must be

made by motion. The motion must: (A) be in writing unless made during a hearing

or trial; (B) state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order ; and (C)

state the relief sought. [emphasis added] Taitz failed to cite any grounds for her

Motion/Request to have Berg Terminated as Counsel.

16. Taitz also failed to put her California Bar number and email address

on her title page of her Motion, in violation of this Courts L.R. 11-3.8(a) and the

Title of the Court in violation of this Courts L.R. 11-3.8(c).

17. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 states in pertinent part, (a) Caption; Names of

Parties. Every pleading must have a caption with the court's name This Rule

further states. A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs,

each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances, see Fed. R. Civ.

Proc . 10(b). Taitzs and DOFF failed to put the Courts Caption on their

Motion/Request and failed to number each of their paragraphs.



20/37


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18. More importantly, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 states: Signing Pleadings,

Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions (a) Signature.

Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one

attorney of record in the attorney's name or by a party personally if the party is

unrepresented. The paper must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and

telephone numberThe court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is

promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention. As can

be seen by Taitzs filing, Taitz failed to sign the Motion, and therefore, it must be

stricken. See also this Courts L.R. 11-1. Failure to abide by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and

this Courts L.R. 11 grants this Court the power to sanction the attorney. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3) and this Courts L.R.s 11-9 and 83-7.

19. For the reasons stated herein, Defendants, Orly Taitz and Defend our

Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Motion to Terminate Philip J. Berg, Esq. must be

Denied.

III. DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ADDRESS ANY REASON BERG

SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE

DEFENDANTS MOTION MUST BE DENIED

20. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

21. In Violation of the Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1), Taitz and DOFF only assert

the statute and what the basis and/or requirements for the granting of an Attorneys



21/37


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Pro Hac Vice application is. Taitz and DOFF fail to assert why Berg should not be

admitted Pro Hac Vice , or how Berg fails to meet the requirement of the statute.

The reason is Taitz could not state any facts that show Berg fails to meet the

requirements to be entered Pro Hac Vice . Berg is a Pennsylvania Attorney in

Good Standing, he has properly litigated the within case, he has been honest with

his statements and litigation, contrary to Attorney Orly Taitz 3.

22. Berg has not even filed an Application for the admission Pro Hac

Vice as of this date, as soon as he does, Taitz will bring yet another Motion,

Request, and/or Opposition to said Motion and further dump a barrage of paper on

this Court.

23. However, to address the issues now, instead a second time when

Taitzs refiles her Motion(s), Plaintiffs are entitled to Counsel of their choosing.

Berg meets the statutes requirements to be granted Pro Hac Vice admission and he

is ready and willing to proceed with his representation of the Plaintiffs here in

California, just as he has shown, he was more than proficient in the litigation and

representation of the Plaintiffs in Pennsylvania.

3 Taitz has a continued history in this case of misstating the facts, filings, contents thereof andeven the Courts rulings, which is proven by the Courts docket and all Taitzs own filings thatcontinually contradict themselves. Taitz seems to believe that the Court will not read anything,allowing her to get away with her fraudulent, frivolous and improper tactics. To date, Taitz hasbeen successful with these improper tactics due to the avalanche of paper on file, which againwas caused by Taitzs continued filings. However, should the Court read the documents filed,the Court will see Taitzs dishonest tactics, statements, and false allegations.



22/37


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24. The Central District requires any person "who is a member of good

standing of, and eligible to practice before, the bar of any United States Court, or

of the highest court of any State . . . and who has been retained to appear before

this Court, may, upon written application and in the discretion of the Court, be

permitted to appear and participate Pro Hac Vice in a particular case." See this

Courts L. R. 83-2.3.1. Here, there is no question: Berg is in Good Standing with

the U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA; U.S. District Court, Eastern District

of PA; the PA Supreme Court; and the U.S. Supreme Court. Furthermore, Berg is

familiar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Courts Local Rules, as

required.

25. The Central District has noted situations which disqualify otherwise

qualified attorneys from Pro Hac Vice admission, such as when an attorney, "(a)

Resides in California; or (b) Is regularly employed in California; or (c) Is regularly

engaged in business, professional, or other similar activities in California." See this

Courts L. R. 83-2.3.2, none of which apply to Berg.

26. In United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez , 548 U.S. 140, 141, 126 S. Ct.

2557, 165 L. Ed. 2d 409 (2006) the Supreme Court accepted the government's

concession that a trial court wrongfully denied a Defendant the right to counsel of

choice where the court refused to grant Pro Hac Vice admission to an attorney the



23/37


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant hired who was willing and prepared to begin representation

immediately. 126 S. Ct. at 2560-61.

27. An individuals right to the counsel of his choice includes the right to

have an out-of-state lawyer admitted Pro Hac Vice." United States v. Lillie , 989

F.2d 1054, 1056 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by

United States v. Garrett , 179 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 1999). "[A] decision denying a

Pro Hac Vice admission necessarily implicates constitutional concerns." Panzardi-

Alvarez v. United States , 879 F.2d 975, 980 (1st Cir. 1989) (citation omitted).

28. The mere fact that a party to the action seeks to retain an out-of-state

attorney does not hinder the efficacious administration of justice. His choice of

counsel must be respected unless it would unreasonably delay proceedings or

burden the court with counsel who was incompetent or unwilling to abide by court

rules and ethical guidelines. United States v. Walters , 309 F.3d 589, 592-93 (9 th

Cir. 2002) quoting United States v. Panzardi-Alvarez , 816 F.2d 813, 817-818 (1st

Cir. 1987).

29. The Ninth Circuit has held applying a local rule mechanistically,

without discussion of whether the interest of the "fair, efficient and orderly

administration of justice" required denial of the application. When a District

Court does not find that permitting an out-of-state Attorney to appear would hinder

or delay the proceedings. or, the failure of the court to interpret the rule as denying



24/37


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

him the discretion to consider whether legitimate reasons existed for denial of the

application. The Ninth Circuit has stated that such discretion is implicit in the

introductory phrase, "Unless authorized by the Constitution or acts of Congress."

United States v. Walters , 309 F.3d 589, 592-93 (9 th Cir. 2002).

30. As pointed out in United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez , 548 U.S. 140,

141, 126 S. Ct. 2557, 165 L. Ed. 2d 409 (2006) Erroneous deprivation of the right

to counsel of choice, "with consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and

indeterminate, unquestionably qualifies as 'structural error.'" Sullivan v.

Louisiana, 508 U. S. 275, 282 (1993). It "def[ies] analysis by 'harmless error'

standards" because it "affec[ts] the framework within which the trial proceeds" and

is not "simply an error in the trial process itself." Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U. S.

279, 309-310 (1991). Different attorneys will pursue different strategies with

regard to myriad trial matters, and the choice of attorney will affect whether and on

what terms the defendantdecides to go to trial. It is impossible to know what

different choices the rejected counsel would have made, and then to quantify the

impact of those different choices on the outcome of the proceedings. This inquiry

is not comparable to that required to show that a counsel's deficient performance

prejudiced a defendant. Pp. 8-11 .

31. In the instant case, Berg has been litigating the within case for the past

two (2) years, since May 4, 2009 . Once Berg files his application for Pro Hac



25/37


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Vice , or anytime thereto, there is absolutely no reason for this Court to deny Bergs

admission Pro Hac Vice. To do so, would only deprive Plaintiffs of their counsel

of choice; further delay the proceedings; cost Plaintiffs astronomical amounts of

money in trying to bring a new attorney up to speed; and waste judicial resources.

32. For these reasons, Taitz and DOFFs Motion must be Denied.

IV. CONCLUSION:

33. For the reasons outlined herein, Defendants, Orly Taitz and Defend

our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Motion to Terminate Philip J. Berg, Esquire as

Attorney for the Plaintiffs must be Denied. Further, it is imperative for this Court

to enforce Defendant Orly Taitz, a licensed California Attorney, to follow all the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedures and this Courts Local Rules, as any party pro se

would be required to do.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: April 10, 2011 /s/ Philip J. BergPhilip J. Berg, EsquirePennsylvania I.D. 9867LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG


Telephone: (610) 825-3134E-mail: [email protected]

Attorney in Pro Se and Counsel for theother Plaintiffs pending Pro Hac Viceadmission



26/37


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated: April 10, 2011 /s/ Lisa OstellaLISA OSTELLA; andGO EXCEL GLOBALc/o Philip J. Berg, EsquireLAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG


Plaintiffs in pro se pending Mr. BergsAdmittance Pro Hac Vice

Dated: April 10, 2011 /s/ Lisa LiberiLISA LIBERIc/o Philip J. Berg, EsquireLAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG


Plaintiff in pro se pending Mr. BergsAdmittance Pro Hac Vice



27/37

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire 1

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






SOUTHERN DIVISION

LISA LIBERI, et al,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Defendants.

:::::::::::::::


8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW)

DECLARATION OF PHILIP J.BERG, ESQUIRE




28/37


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE

I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, am over the age of 18 and am a party to the within

action. I have personal knowledge of the facts herein, and if called to do, I could

and would competently testify. I am making this Declaration under the penalty of

perjury of the Laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746.

1. I am an Attorney in good standing, licensed to practice law in the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I am licensed to practice in the U.S.

District Courts, Middle and Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Third

Certificate Court of Appeals, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court; and the U.S.

Supreme Court.

2. I am familiar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the pleading

requirements outlined in Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed.

2d 868 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127

S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007); and this Courts Local Rules.

3. I am the attorney of record for the Plaintiffs in the matter of Liberi, et

al v. Taitz, et al , U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 09-cv-

01898 ECR, which was recently transferred to this Court.

4. Although, I have not filed my application for Pro Hac Vice admission

in this case, Orly Taitz on behalf of herself and her Corporation, Defend our

Freedoms Foundations, Inc. filed a Motion to have me terminated as counsel



29/37


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

without any type of foundation. This is another tactic by Defendant Taitz to

prejudice the Plaintiffs, refuse the Plaintiffs their choice of Counsel; and to

increase the cost to Plaintiffs so they are unable to afford the litigation, and

therefore, obtain the redress they are entitled.

5. This lawsuit recently transferred to this Court was filed by me on

behalf of the Plaintiffs on May 4, 2009. I have been litigating this case on

behalf of the Plaintiffs since that time.

6. The basis of the within lawsuit is due to Defendants, Orly Taitz

through her company, Defendant Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc.

and Defendants, Neil Sankey, Sankey Investigations, Inc.; and the Sankey

Firm, Inc.s for amongst other things, Invasion of Privacy; Intrusion of

Plaintiffs Solitude and Seclusion; Publication of Private Facts; Placing One

in a False Light before the Public; Appropriation of Plaintiffs Name and

Alike; Cyber-stalking; Stalking; Cyber-bullying; Harassment; Filing of False

Criminal Reports; Defamation; Slander; Libel; and violation of Cal. Civ. P.

1798, et seq. as well as many other violations for the illegal background

checks, including but not limited to primary identification documents,

insurance, medical, sealed Court case information, illegal access to Plaintiffs

credit reports, cyber-stalking, stalking Plaintiffs Ostella and Liberi,

contacting and harassing individuals Plaintiffs have known and for the



30/37


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

illegal distribution of Liberis full Social Security number, date of birth,

mothers maiden name, place of birth, spouses name, spouses Social

Security number, spouses date of birth and other extremely private

information, as well as private data pertaining to Ostella. Furthermore, Taitz

through DOFF and the Sankey Defendants destroyed and caused damage to

Ostella and Bergs businesses, Law Offices of Philip J. Berg and Go Excel

Global.

7. While this case was before Federal Judge Robreno in the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania, Defendant Orly Taitz on behalf of herself and

Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. filed numerous Motions to Dismiss,

which was completely improper. The important factor is that Defendant

Orly Taitz claimed the Complaint failed to comply with the pleading

standards of Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868

(2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct.

1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). Judge Robreno in the U.S. District Court,

Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that Plaintiffs Complaint was in fact

compliant with the pleading requirements of Twombly and Iqbal and Denied

Defendant Taitzs Motions to Dismiss.

8. Plaintiffs will be seeking Leave to file a First Amended Complaint to

bring their Complaint in compliance with the California laws, as the



31/37


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Complaint is currently compliant with the Pennsylvania laws, where it was

originally filed.

9. I am familiar with the events giving rise to the within action; and I am

readily available and willing to continue representing the Plaintiffs in this

California Court. For new counsel to step in at this late juncture would be

disastrous and prejudicial to the Plaintiffs. Due to Defendant Taitzs

continued filing and papering the Court, she has convoluted this case and

has been successful in confusing what the case actually represents. It will

take months to bring a new attorney up-to-date regarding the within case.

Furthermore, it forces Counsel to respond each and every time, which has

been and continue being extremely expensive.

10. In addition, Defendant Orly Taitz has been very dishonest in her

filings and statements with the Court. She has misstated what is on file with

the Court; misstated the facts giving rise to the lawsuit; made many false

allegations against the Plaintiffs for actions she is actually doing; she has

filed forged documents from her witness, Geoff Staples; she continues

misrepresenting what the Courts rulings and Orders state; she misrepresents

what documents filed by the Plaintiffs state and pertain to; and many other

dishonest tactics.



32/37


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11. Each time Plaintiffs are forced to respond to Defendant Taitz barrage

of filings, Plaintiffs are forced to attach copies of all of Defendant Taitzs

publications on her website, postings on the Internet, emails, and proof of

forged documents and inaccurate and untruthful statements of Defendant

Taitz and her supposed witnesses. This in itself creates an avalanche of

paper.

12. I am informed, believe and thereon allege, Defendant Taitz continues

these tactics as she does not think anyone will read the documents due to the

size and content. To date, this has proven true for her, otherwise, if the

documents and heaps of paper were read; they Court would catch

Defendant Taitz in her illegal tactics.

13. Defendant Taitz is well aware that all the Plaintiffs in this action all

reside out-of-state. It is far easier to have counsel familiar with the case

argue at any hearing which may arise. Plaintiffs Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella

are not attorneys.

14. Disallowing me to continue my representation of my clients, would be

extremely prejudicial; cause further unnecessary delays, waste judicial

resources and severely increase the Plaintiffs cost of litigation.



33/37


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I declare under the penalty of perjury of the Laws of the United States and

California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 10 th day of April, 2011 in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,

County of Montgomery.

/s/ Philip J. BergPhilip J. Berg, Esquire, Declarant



34/37

1

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


SOUTHERN DIVISION

LISA LIBERI, et al

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Defendants.

:::::::::::::::::


8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW)

PROPOSED ORDER DENYINGDEFENDANTS MOTION TOTERMINATE PHILIP J. BERG,ESQ. AS AN ATTORNEY ON THECASE


ORDER

On May 9, 2011, Defendants Motion Request to Terminate Philip J. Berg,

Esquire as an Attorney on the case came on for hearing. The Court having

reviewed and considered the moving papers, the Plaintiffs Opposition thereto, the

records on file with this Court, having heard Oral Argument and for GOOD

CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and DECREED:

Defendants, Orly Taitz and Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Motion

is hereby DENIED .



35/37

2

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: May ___, 2011 ______________________________ Judge of the United States DistrictCourt, Central District of California,Southern Division

Respectfully submitted by:

Philip J. Berg, EsquireE-mail: [email protected] I.D. 9867LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Telephone: (610) 825-3134

Lisa Ostella; andGo Excel GlobalE-mail: [email protected]/o Philip J. Berg, Esquire


Lisa LiberiE-mail: [email protected]/o Philip J. Berg, Esquire555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531



36/37


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






SOUTHERN DIVISION

LISA LIBERI, et al

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Defendants.

:::::::::::::::


8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW)

PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE



37/37

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs

Memorandum of Points and Authorities and the Declaration of Philip J. Bergs in support

of their Response in Opposition to Defendants Orly Taitz and Defend our Freedoms

Foundations, Inc. Motion to Terminate Philip J. Berg, Esq. as Counsel on the within Case

were served through the ECF filing system and/or mail as indicated below, this 10 th day

of April 2011 upon the following:

Orly Taitz26302 La Paz Ste 211

Mission Viejo, CA 92691Email: [email protected] and

Email: [email protected] via the ECF Filing System

Attorney in pro se and for Defendant Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc .

The Sankey Firm, Inc.2470 Stearns Street #162Simi Valley, CA 93063


Neil SankeyP.O. Box 8298

Mission Hills, CA 91346By USPS Mail with Postage fully prepaid

Sankey Investigations, Inc.

P.O. Box 8298Mission Hills, CA 91346


_______________________Phili J B E i/s/ Philip J. Berg


liberi v taitz (c.d. ca) - 173 - opposition to first motion to disqualify counsel philip j. erg -...

Documents