55 - 2009!06!11 - Opposition Re #24 Belcher Motion To Dismiss

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
:
LISA LIBERI, et al, :
:
Plaintiffs, :
:
vs. : Case No.: 09-cv-01898-ECR
:
ORLY TAITZ, et al, :
:
Defendants. :
ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the United States District Court Judge, Honorable Eduardo
C. Robreno on Defendant’s Linda Sue Belcher a/k/a Linda S. Belcher a/k/a Belcher Starr a/k/a
Newwomensparty a/k/a Stitchenwitch a/k/a Eva Braun a/k/a Web Sergeant a/k/a
www.obamacitzenshipdebate.org Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative the Action be
transferred to the Western District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a). Having reviewed
the Motion and Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to said Motion and for good cause shown, it is
hereby
ORDERED that Defendant’s Linda Sue Belcher a/k/a Linda S. Belcher a/k/a Belcher
Starr a/k/a Newwomensparty a/k/a Stitchenwitch a/k/a Eva Braun a/k/a Web Sergeant a/k/a
www.obamacitzenshipdebate.org Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative the Action be
transferred to the Western District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: June _____, 2009 _____________________________

Hon. Eduardo C. Robreno
United States District Court Judge
For the Eastern District of PA
Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to Defendant Belcher’s Motion to Dismiss 1

Law Offices of:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Identification No. 09867
(610) 825-3134 Attorney for Plaintiffs

:
:
Plaintiffs, :
:
:
:
Defendants. :
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT, LINDA SUE BELCHER

a/k/a LINDA S. BELCHER a/k/a BELCHER STARR a/k/a NEWWOMENSPARTY a/k/a
STITCHENWITCH a/k/a EVA BRAUN a/k/a WEB SERGEANT a/k/a
WWW.OBAMACITIZENSHIPDEBATE.ORG MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE TRANSFER THE ACTION TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
TEXAS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §1406(a)
Plaintiffs’ Lisa Liberi [hereinafter “Liberi”]; Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter “Berg”],
the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg; Evelyn Adams a/k/a Momma E [hereinafter “Adams”]; Lisa
Ostella [hereinafter “Ostella”]; and Go Excel Global by and through their undersigned counsel,
Philip J. Berg, Esquire files the within Response in Opposition to Defendant’s, Linda Sue
Belcher a/k/a Linda S. Belcher a/k/a Belcher Starr a/k/a Newwomensparty a/k/a Stitchenwitch
a/k/a Eva Braun a/k/a Web Sergeant a/k/a www.obamacitzenshipdebate.org [hereinafter
“Belcher”] Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative to transfer the within action to the Western
District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) on the following grounds:

• Belcher’s Motion is an improper Motion. Belcher fails to support her Motion to
Dismiss or in the alternative to transfer the case to the Western District of Texas with any
type of Statute or supporting Law. Defendant Orly Taitz, Esq. by her own admission
prepared Belcher’s Answer and Motion to Dismiss. Despite this, Plaintiffs‘will assume
Belcher is filing said Motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12;
• This Court has subject matter Jurisdiction pursuant to Diversity Jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332, as outlined in Plaintiffs’ Complaint;
• Belcher’s Motion fails to address any claims in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and fails to
give any type of legally sufficient defense;
• Belcher subjected herself to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania when she called
Plaintiff Berg and asked him to bring the action forward; and agreed to moderate Berg’s
Pennsylvania website blog;
• Belcher is only requesting the transfer of this case to the Western District of
Texas for a tactical advantage and to follow through with her threats made towards
Plaintiffs’ if they avail themselves to her “redneck town”;
• Belcher has failed to state any type of hardships; has failed to list any witnesses in
the Western District of Texas; and has failed to cite any type of convenience issues
pertaining to witnesses;
• This Court is the proper forum and venue is proper for this case pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(2) and §1391(a)(3);
• Pursuant to Diversified Jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. §1332(a); and Venue
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(3), this Court only has to have personal jurisdiction over
one (1) Defendant, which has been met in the within Action; and

• This Court is the proper forum and venue is proper for this case pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1391(a)(3).
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: June 11, 2009 s/ Philip J. Berg

_____________________________
Attorney for Plaintiffs’

Law Offices of:

:
:
Plaintiffs, :
:
:
:
Defendants. :
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE

IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE TRANSFER THE ACTION TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
TEXAS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §1406(a)
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
As better outlined in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Belcher called Berg and asked him if he had
been following the questions raised regarding President Obama’s citizenship status. Belcher told
Berg he was the only attorney she knew brave enough to follow through with any type of action
against President Obama. Belcher claimed and posted all over the Internet world that she had
known and worked with Berg for over ten (10) years. Belcher also contacted Liberi many times
pushing for the filing of the lawsuit against President Obama.

Berg filed the first action questioning President Obama’s citizenship and Constitutional
qualifications to hold the Office of President of the United States. Shortly thereafter, Belcher
posted and claimed she did the research involved with the filing of Berg’s lawsuit against
President Obama. Belcher stated she was on the phone with Liberi when Liberi was drafting the
lawsuit on behalf of Berg for filing, which was true; Said lawsuit was filed August 21, 2008.
Belcher recommended her friend, Geoff Staples to set-up and webmaster Berg’s website,
obamacrimes.com. Next, Belcher contacted Berg and offered to moderate Berg’s Pennsylvania
website blog area. Berg accepted Belcher’s offer and Belcher represented the Law Offices of
Philip J. Berg on the website and blog area while moderating the site on Berg’s behalf. In all
events, Belcher happily availed herself to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Problems began developing with Belcher and Berg’s website blog area. Belcher was
verbally attacking those who mentioned President Bush; who didn’t agree with her on the issues;
and in one case even threatened one of Berg’s supporter’s. The entire time, representing the Law
Offices of Philip J. Berg.
Liberi would talk to Belcher in attempts to calm her down and put a stop to the
inappropriate behaviors. Belcher’s behaviors would stop for a while, however, then began again
wherein Belcher was accusing another website and other individuals of illegally “hacking”
Berg’s website and blog. In or about the end of January 2009, Belcher began causing the
webmasters and administrators problems with Berg’s website. Belcher was warned to calm
down numerous times, however failed to comply. Belcher felt she was in charge of Berg’s
website and sent e-mails to the website moderators deterring anyone from contacting Berg,
Berg’s assistant or the webmaster. Belcher even stated she was in charge. As a result, Belcher’s

moderator status was removed. However, she was still capable of posting on the blogs at
obamacrimes.com.
Steve Eddy in Sacramento, California who was banned from Berg’s website by Belcher
obtained a copy of a sealed case Berg had filed against President Obama and posted it on the
internet. Belcher called Steve Eddy stating she was calling from the Law Offices of Philip J.
Berg and left Mr. Eddy a message. Belcher was attempting to ask Mr. Eddy to remove the
posting of the Sealed Case.
Belcher began posting on Berg’s blog that individuals who were assisting with Berg’s
website were hacking Berg’s website. Belcher even posted on the blog a third party blog called
Politijab had hacked Berg’s site. All of this was unfounded and untrue.
In or about the end of February 2009, Belcher called Berg’s assistant and asked her to
attend a conference call. Berg’s assistant, Lisa, told Belcher she was not available to call Berg.
Belcher called Berg and called Lisa back excited that Berg had agreed. During the conference
call, Berg gave out his e-mail address and told folks with questions they could e-mail him. Berg
hung up the call. One individual mentioned he had some important material to send to Berg,
Belcher immediately stated, “send the e-mail to me at newwomensparty@aol.com and I will
make sure Berg gets it. Belcher told the caller not to send it to Berg’s e-mail address.” Berg
never received the e-mail.
On or about March 4, 2009, Belcher began calling all the webmasters, moderators and
past volunteers of Berg’s website telling them that Lisa, Berg’s assistant was a liar, she was
deleting Berg’s e-mails and phone messages, no one could reach Berg and slandering Berg’s
assistant, she was hostile with some and harassing others. Berg and his staff received numerous
complaints regarding Belcher’s unacceptable behaviors. Berg’s assistant stated she would quit,

as the false rumors of Belcher’s were not helping the cause. Berg cut all ties with Belcher at that
time.
On or about March 6, 2009, Belcher continued her unacceptable behaviors, badmouthing
Liberi, Berg’s Assistant, badmouthing and slandering Berg, harassing people from Berg’s blog,
etc. Belcher made derogatory remarks about Berg and Liberi, on Berg’s website blog.
On March 7, 2009, Belcher called the office and left a message for Berg stating, “Lisa is
sending vial things out about me, she is bad mouthing me, she is deleting my e-mail to you and
she sent me e-mails admitting it,” knowing the entire time these were all lies and fabricated
stories. Belcher was referring to Liberi, Berg’s Assistant as all of her above emails pertain too.
Belcher called Berg and told him Liberi had a criminal record and was stealing Twelve
Thousand [$12,000.00] Dollars per month from Berg’s PayPal account and was sending “vial”
things around the internet about Belcher. Belcher went on further stating Liberi had a criminal
record going all the way back to the 1990’s, all of which Belcher knew was false. Berg told
Belcher to send him an e-mail with all these e-mails attached. Berg then called Liberi and asked
for the same thing. Liberi sent Berg thirty-seven [37] pages. Belcher sent nothing.
As time went on, Berg sent e-mails to Belcher asking for her list. Berg finally received
another nasty e-mail about Liberi stating Liberi didn’t like what Belcher had sent on Thursday so
Liberi deleted it. Berg asked Belcher numerous times to resend the “supposed” e-mail, Berg
never received anything. Instead, Belcher blocked Berg’s e-mail address.
Belcher sent the same accusations outlined above via e-mail to Defendants Neil Sankey;
The Sankey Firm and Sankey Investigations, Inc. Instead of investigating the information
Sankey e-mailed the information along with Liberi’s Social Security number, date of birth and
where she lived to a Reporter at World Net Daily and to Defendant Orly Taitz, et al.

Belcher’s behaviors continued and she then began contacting moderators on Berg’s
website blog. Belcher was attempting to lure all of Berg’s moderators over to her new website.
Belcher was also attempting to steal Berg’s supporters. It was later discovered Belcher was in
fact the individual with an extensive criminal record dating back to 1992 through 2007 for Theft,
Fraud, and Fraud by Check, etc., according to the Texas Department of Public Safety and
according to a criminal background check run on her by her Social Security number.
Belcher was served with Plaintiffs’ Complaint in the evening of May 5, 2009. After
being served, Belcher continued her falsified, slanderous, libel behaviors. However, now she has
taken it even further.
On or about May 21, 2009, Belcher appeared on Defendants, Edgar and Caren Hale’s
radio show, Defendant Plains Radio at www.plainsradio.com. Belcher and Defendant Edgar
Hale, knowing Liberi suffers from severe heart problems stated they would make Liberi have a
heart attack, Belcher stated, “it will be like the show Sanford and Sons and like Redd Foxx,
Liberi is going to grab her chest and yell, it’s the “big one” somebody, talking about Liberi, who
has heart trouble is going to be grabbing her chest. Defendant, Edgar Hale then states it will be
funny. Belcher is and was well aware Liberi has severe heart problems
Since Belcher has been served she has continued posting nasty falsified statements
regarding Berg and Liberi. Belcher has continued falsely claiming because suit was filed against
her, Berg and Liberi have defamed her, slandered her, etc., knowing the entire time her
statements were falsified. In fact, Belcher did a long post on her website at
www.obamacitizenshipdebate.org attempting to claim the event’s Liberi had been through in her
life and the reasons Liberi was issued a new Social Security number and a confidential address

was Belcher’s life. In other words, Belcher is attempting to incorporate Liberi’s life as her own
life.
On May 16, 2009, Belcher posted at http://obamacitizenshipdebate.org/2009/05/linda-starr-on-
plains-radio.html#comment-254 the following:
Linda Starr replied to comment from JBH | May 16, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply
“ I brought this to Phil. My reward for the 10+ years of friendship, and many months of support and
endless hours on the blog defending him and his professional past for filing this suit has been
NUMEROUS false, maliciously libelous accusations made against me … Phil, Lisa and Momma E
opened the door to the destruction of my good name by spreading and widespread dissemination
of maliciously libelous allegations against me…Make no mistake John, I can absolutely prove that
every single thing said about Lisa's past can be substantiated by official police and court documents
which we have obtained, as well as sworn affidavits in court documents made by Lisa Rene
Richardson Courville Liberi herself. We can, and definitely will, publish this extensive dossier of
official documents as soon as possible…What I didn't say was it was caused by his employing not
only a person of such low character, but someone with an extensive criminal background!!! False
sworn affidavits have been made to various courts and that will be easily proven as
well…Additionally I have now been told confidentially by several people that OC posters are being
threatened against posting elsewhere, or open their own blogs. We live in a climate of fear and
intimidation by official authroities, and make no mistake, these threats are no exception. The whole
disgusting truth is going to come out and when it does, I will be the one that is found by the
courts to be defamed and libeled by Phil. Lisa and Momma E…
On or about May 27, 2009, Belcher was on Defendants, Edgar and Caren Hale and Plains
radio blog at www.plainsradio.com. Linda made the following statements directed at Berg and
Liberi, the entire chat log is attached hereto as EXHIBIT “A”: All of Belcher’s comments were
directed to Berg and Liberi in Pennsylvania to ensure damage to Berg and Liberi in Pennsylvania
and to ensure damage to the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania company as well as
Berg’s common-law wife (Carol) in Pennsylvania.
lindastarr: look this is Phil & Lisa's standard bs to try to intimidate us

lindastarr: they can't shut me up
lindastarr: nope but trust me, he will wish he had
lindastarr: by the time this is finally over, he will go to bed every night of his life wishing he never
filed this case
lindastarr: Carol is going to find out about some interesting dirt Lisa told me
lindastarr: of course, it's possible it isn't true if Phil wants to denounce her as a lair
lindastarr: liar
lindastarr: but in order to have peace at home, he will have to say she's a lair
lindastarr: and he might have to answer some questions to the bar ethics panel\stop it
lindastarr: oh I can do that on the Internet where the Whole World will find out Details

lindastarr: gee you think we are stirring up some toruble?
lindastarr: trouble
Postings by Belcher on May 28, 2009 on Defendants, Edgar and Caren Hale and Plains
Radio website/blog at www.plainsradio.com, the entire blog entries are attached hereto as
EXHIBIT “B.” All of Belcher’s comments were directed to Berg and Liberi in Pennsylvania to
ensure damage to Berg and Liberi in Pennsylvania and to ensure damage to the Law Offices of
Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania company.
lindastarr: Oh I am going to make people wish they had stood up with me for the side of truth and
justice
lindastarr: et me tell you wht, they were Stupid to file against me
lindastarr: I can bury them in ocurt
lindastarr: which is why they had to try to discredit me
lindastarr: we aren't obliged to file in Pa
lindastarr: he's got a cse pending right now I'm told defending Lisa for another one of "identity
thet" cases
lindastarr: he's playing with fire
lindastarr: he has one day to withdraw all of this suit
lindastarr: believe me, he doesn't want me to start dishing on the worst dirt I know
lindastarr: Phil is going to end up wishing he had never started this mess
lindastarr: my cell phone is bugged
lindastarr: gee I wonder who would do such a despicable and illegal thing?
lindastarr: good I want them to know they are caught
lindastarr: it's an illegal bugging
lindastarr: which means someone must believe they will get a pardon if caught, Gee, I ownder who
would do that?
lindastarr: I did
lindastarr: we are tracking it back to them
lindastarr: somebody call Momma E and be sure to let Phil know what a great paralegal Lisa is
lindastarr: already got it gong
lindastarr: and Phil acknowedged they were going to represent me
lindastarr: in an email where he attempted to extort me into silence
lindastarr: about Lisa's past
lindastarr: I have decided it's war baby
lindastarr: they ahve done pissed off the wrong person
lindastarr: oh no, i'm not going to be careful
lindastarr: let them see what a real war is all about
lindastarr: oh no you don't know me
lindastarr: I carry grudges for a Loooonnnngggg time
lindastarr: now they are bugging my phone?
lindastarr: they come here to this redneck town they are going to be
sent home
lindastarr: maybe in pieces
lindastarr: Hey Ed when I get fired up, I'm very dangerous
lindastarr: I hope Momma e's spies are having fits and telling Phil & Lisa who are having
coronaries right about now

lindastarr: Oh I am going to make people wish they had stood up with me for the side of truth and
justice
It should be noted, Liberi has NEVER been charged with or convicted of Identity theft,
and Berg has never represented Liberi in any action prior to this one. Furthermore, the “bugged”
cell phone is completely ridiculous and the accusations Belcher is inferring that Liberi is
“bugging” her cell phone is a completely made up falsification and lie as well as her other
statements herein.
Moreover, Belcher has continued her inferred threats directed at Berg and Liberi in
Pennsylvania to ensure damage to Berg, the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg, his pending cases
regarding President Obama, his paralegal Liberi and to ensure the damage has been caused in the
State of Pennsylvania.
May 28, 2009 Belcher posted on her website at wwwobamacitizenshipdebate.org
(http://obamacitizenshipdebate.org/2009/05/may-28th-happy-birthday.html)
“Today is Lisa Liberi's 44th birthday!”

“We want to be sure she knows how we all feel about her. We want to be sure she
knows we all send very special birthday wishes to her, especially those of us who Lisa
personally banned (after repeatedly claiming she didn't know how to do anything
techie)...like the moderators and supporters (basically anyone who learned the truth
about her criminal past), people who Phil is now claiming I "stole". I want to ask a silly
little question that has really perplexed me since this suit was served to someone else
at my home. Is it even possible to "steal" people over the Internet? Since I was a
volunteer, we didn't have any sort of signed contract, or even a verbal non-compete
agreement...”
COMMENTS:
Linda Starr replied to comment from Constitutionalist | May 28, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply
“Yes, they are! I have it on good authority that there is a surprise Lisa may be getting,
however, it might be delayed a few days.
On second thought, it will be a surprise, but probaby not a happy one for any of the
plaintiff's, though it will definitely be a huge shock to Phil. “
Contrary to Belcher’s statements, the only reason Belcher wants the Plaintiffs’ to be
forced to the Western District of Texas (San Antonio) is to ensure she is able to carry through

with her threat to have the Plaintiffs’ injured and endangered. Nothing more than a tactical
advantage to use against the Plaintiffs to ensure they are unable to appear in Court. Furthermore,
NONE of the other Defendants’ are located in Western Texas. Defendants, Edgar Hale, Caren
Hale, Plains Radio, et al, Bar H Farms and KPRN AM 1610 are located in Wellington, Texas
(Collingsworth County) which is no where close to Western Texas and not within the jurisdiction
of Western Texas. Defendants, Neil Sankey and Sankey Investigations are located in Simi
Valley, California (Ventura County), and Orly Taitz, et al and Defend our Freedoms Foundation,
Inc. is located in South Orange County, California, again no where near Western Texas.
Belcher has not given any type of defenses to the within lawsuit. She has not given any
valid reason or legal basis for the within case to be transferred to Western Texas nor have they
given any valid reason for the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ action, as she cannot.
Moreover, this is a diversified jurisdiction case, venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1391(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(3). This Court is only required to have personal jurisdiction
over one [1] Defendant. In this case, this very Court has personal jurisdiction over several of the
Defendants.
For the above aforementioned reasons, Defendant, Belcher’s “Motion to Dismiss” or in
the alternative to be transferred must be denied.
II. MOTION PRACTICE, F.R.C.P. 7.1 AND LOCAL RULE 7.1(c)
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 7(b) states in pertinent part:
Rule 7. Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions and Other Papers
(b) Motions and Other Papers

(1) In General.
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
Defendant Belcher has failed to adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as
this Court’s local rule. She filed a one [1] page document that she entitles Answer and Motion to
Dismiss without a Brief, as required. She claims this Court is without venue pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1391(b); that this Court does not have jurisdiction of her and therefore the case should
be dismissed or in the alternative transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a).
It is important for this Court to be aware, this particular Defendant announced publicly on
Defendant Plains radio show that Orly Taitz, Attorney at law and also a Defendant in the within
action prepared this document on behalf of her. In addition, Defendant, Orly Taitz, et al, herself
announced that she prepared all of the Defendants’ Answers and Motions to Dismiss on their
behalves.
Belcher’s Answer and Motion to Dismiss fails to give any type of defense to the within
action; fails to give any type of affirmative defenses; lacks any valid reasons to dismiss the case
or transfer the case; fails to give any type of convenience issues; fails to give any type of
hardships; lacks any type of supporting law and lacks any authority for this Court to grant the
relief she is requesting. Furthermore, this case is a complete diversity jurisdiction case, venue is
proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(3). Pursuant to diversified
jurisdiction and 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(3), and the fact the Defendants reside in different states,
California, New Jersey, and Texas and within different jurisdictions within the different states
there is no other venue. It is only required for this Court to have personal jurisdiction over one
[1] Defendant to satisfy the venue requirements pertaining to all the Defendants in Diversified
Jurisdiction cases.

Moreover and most important, Belcher is only seeking to change the venue to the
Western District of Texas to carry out her threats towards Berg and Liberi.
For the above aforementioned reasons, this Motion must be denied.
III. THE STANDARD OF GRANTING RULE 12 MOTIONS
Belcher has failed to raise exactly what statute and or Rule she is filing her Motion to
Dismiss; Plaintiffs’ will assume it is under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12. If this is
correct, Belcher has not met her burden for this Court to grant her relief.
Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may raise and a
court may grant a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal
jurisdiction, improper venue and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
As a general matter, in ruling on a Rule 12 motion to dismiss a court is to consider all
the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint, as well as the content of any exhibit attached to the
complaint. See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233, 234 (3d Cir. 2008); In re
Rockefeller Center Properties, Inc. Securities Litigation, 184 F.3d 280, 287 (3d Cir. 1999);
Palmer v. City of Harrisburg, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33381, *6-7 (M.D. Pa. 2008).
When there is a challenge to the court's subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) or to the
existence of personal jurisdiction over a Defendant under Rule 12(b)(2), not only may a court
look beyond the pleadings but it then becomes the Plaintiffs’ burden to show that there is either
subject matter or personal jurisdiction. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct.
1235, 1244 (2006) (subject matter jurisdiction); Smith v. Garb, 988 F. Supp 868, 869 (E.D. Pa.
1997), aff'd w/o op. 159 F.3d 1353 (3d Cir. 1998) (same); IMO Industries v. Kierkert AG, 155
F.3d 254, 257 (3d Cir. 1998) (personal jurisdiction). Plaintiffs’ have done just that, this Court

has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Diversified Jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and
based on a Federal Question. Venue is proper in this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1391(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(3). This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant
Orly Taitz, et al, Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc., and Belcher as better explained below.
The requirement for venue pursuant to Diversity Jurisdiction when all Defendants’ reside in
different states and different jurisdictions is that this Court must have personal jurisdiction over
one [1] Defendant.
Belcher failed to raise or assert any type of a defense in her Answer and her Motion to
Dismiss as required, Myers v. American Dental Ass'n, 695 F.2d 716, 720 (3d Cir. 1982), and
therefore must be dismissed.
For the above aforementioned reasons, Belcher has not met the standards for her Motion
to Dismiss or in the alternative to transfer the case to be granted. Thus, Belcher’s Motion must
be denied.
II. WITH THE ISSUE OF VENUE OR PERSONAL JURISDICTION, THIS COURT

IS THE PROPER VENUE AND HAS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER
BELCHER UNDER THE PENNSYLVANIA LONG-ARM STATUTE.
As this Court is aware, this is a complete diversified jurisdictional case. None of the
Defendants’ reside within this State; a substantial part of the events gave raise to Plaintiffs’
claims within this District; and Taitz, DOFF and two (2) other Defendant’s were and are subject
to personal jurisdiction in this Court’s District, 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C.
§1391(a)(3).
In a diversity action like this one, venue is proper "only in (1) a judicial district where
any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part
of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any
defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no
district in which the action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. §1391(a).
As to Section 1391(a)(2), "[t]he test for determining venue is not the Defendant's
'contacts' with a particular district, but rather the location of those 'events or omissions giving
rise to the claim' . . . ." Cottman Transmission Systems, Inc. v. Martino, 36 F.3d 291, 294 (3d Cir.
1994).
As to Section 1391(a)(3), the other basis for venue here cited by Plaintiffs’, that
subsection applies because there is not another district in which Plaintiffs’ claims may otherwise
be brought; therefore, an express condition for the application of Section 1391(a)(3) - lack of
another district in which the action may be brought - is satisfied.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "a district court may assert personal
jurisdiction 'over non-resident Defendants to the extent permissible under the law of the state
where the district court sits.'" Remick, 238 F.3d at 255 (quoting Pennzoil Prods. Co. v. Colelli &
Assocs., Inc., 149 F.3d 197, 200 (3d Cir. 1998)). Under Pennsylvania's long-arm statute, 42 Pa.
Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5322(b), Pennsylvania Courts may "exercise personal jurisdiction over non-
resident defendants to the constitutional limits of the due process clause of the fourteenth
amendment." Remick v. Manfredy, 238 F.3d 248, 253 (3d Cir. Pa. 2001) at 255 (quoting Mellon
Bank (East) PSFS, Nat'l Ass'n v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1221 (3d Cir. 1992)).
There are two types of personal jurisdiction a court may assert over a Defendant --
general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction. Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, 960 F.2d at 1221. If
general jurisdiction exists, a court may exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident Defendant as to

any claim against [him], regardless of whether the subject matter of the cause of action has any
connection to the forum." Id. General Jurisdiction normally is invoked only when a Defendant
has maintained "systematic and continuous" contacts with the forum state. Marten, 499 F.3d at
296 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-15, 104 S. Ct.
1868, 80 L. Ed. 2d 404 & n.8 (1984)); Remick, 238 F.3d at 255. Conversely, specific jurisdiction
"is present only if the Plaintiffs’ cause of action arises out of a Defendant's forum-related
activities, such that the Defendant should reasonably anticipate being hauled into court in that
forum." Remick, 238 F.3d at 255 (quoting Vetrotex Certainteed Corp. v. Consol. Fiber Glass
Prods. Co., 75 F.3d 147, 151 (3d Cir. 1996)); see also Marten, 499 F.3d at 296 ("Specific
jurisdiction exists when the claim arises from or relates to conduct purposely directed at the
forum state.").
The Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States limits the reach of state long-arm statutes and precludes personal jurisdictional over a
nonresident defendant unless the nonresident has "certain minimum contacts with [the forum]
such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.'" International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).
Personal jurisdiction over a defendant may be specific or general. Specific jurisdiction
exists if the Plaintiff's cause of action is related to or arises out of the defendant's contacts with
the forum state or with the defendant's forum-related activities. Helicopteros Nacionales de
Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n.8 (1984). In other words, Specific personal
jurisdiction exists when a defendant has "'purposefully directed [its] activities at residents of the
forum and the litigation results from alleged injuries that "arise out of or are related to" those
activities.'" BP Chemicals, Inc., 229 F.3d at 259, quoting from Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,

471 U.S. 462, 472, 105 S. Ct. 2174 (1985). For there to be general jurisdiction over a defendant,
its contacts "with the forum, whether or not related to the litigation, [must be] 'continuous and
systematic.'" Id., quoting from Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 416,
104 S. Ct. 1868 (1984). As to individual defendants, "as a general rule, 'individuals performing
acts in a state in their corporate capacity are not subject to the courts of that state for those acts.'"
Nat'l Precast Crypt Co. v. Dy-Core of Pennsylvania, 785 F. Supp 1186, 1191 (W.D. Pa. 1992).
General jurisdiction exists when the claim does not arise from the defendant's contact
with the forum state, but the defendant has nonetheless maintained "continuous and systematic"
contacts with the forum state. Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414 n.9. The type of contacts, which if
continuous and systematic, may give rise to general jurisdiction are ownership of property in the
forum state, solicitation of business in the forum state, business activities in the forum state
or the sale of products to persons or entities within the forum state. Litman v. Walt Disney World
Co., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5115, *18 (01-CV-3891) (E.D. Pa. 2002). Those contacts must be
"extensive and pervasive" to provide a basis for personal jurisdiction. Reliance Steel Products
Co. v. Watson, Ess, Marshall & Enggas 675 F.2d 587 (3d Cir. 1982) (citing Compagnie des
Bauxites de Guinea v. Insurance Co. of North America, 651 F.2d 877, 890 (3d Cir. 1981)
(Gibbons, J., dissenting), aff'd, 456 U.S. 694, 102 S. Ct. 2099, 72 L. Ed. 2d 492 (1982)).
Belcher cannot say she does not have any connections to this forum, or that this forum
does not have any jurisdiction over her, as she has attempted in her so called “Motion to Dismiss
or in the Alternative to Transfer the Case.”
As better explained above, Belcher subjected herself to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, this Court’s jurisdiction when she agreed to donate her time and work for a
Pennsylvania law firm, Plaintiff, the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg and moderate the firm’s

Pennsylvania website. Moreover, Belcher made sure she was subjected to the Jurisdiction of this
Court by directing her actions towards the Plaintiffs located in this Court’s jurisdiction and other
parties who donated their time and worked for Berg’s Pennsylvania Law Firm, Plaintiff, the Law
Offices of Philip J. Berg.
It is obvious Belcher’s libel postings, slanderous statements and threats were clearly
directed at the Plaintiffs, Berg, Liberi and the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg within Pennsylvania
and within Montgomery County and further substantiates Plaintiffs’ argument that this State and
this Court are in fact the proper forum and this Court has personal jurisdiction over Belcher.
This very Court maintains both General Jurisdiction over Belcher as subjected herself to
this Court’s jurisdiction by donating her time and working for a Pennsylvania Company located
in Montgomery County, of which her illegal activities stem from. Moreover, all of Belcher’s
illegal and outrageous conducts have affected the Plaintiffs’ within this Court Jurisdiction.
Moreover, Belcher continues to this date, her outrageous and illegal behaviors that satisfies the
“systematic and continuous” contacts within this forum. In Addition, this Court also has Specific
Jurisdiction over Belcher as Plaintiffs’ causes of actions relate to Belcher’s electronic
communications with a group in this forum and Belcher has purposely directed to this forum
State injuries to Plaintiffs’ within this Court’s forum which Plaintiffs’ cause of actions are based.
With our new Internet Cyber Space abilities, the Internet also confers jurisdiction upon
this Court and in this forum. Whether jurisdiction is proper in cases involving the Internet
"depends on where on a sliding scale of commercial interactivity the web site falls." Id. Where a
Defendant is "clearly doing business through its web site in the forum state, and where the claim
relates to or arises out of use of the web site, the Zippo Court held that personal jurisdiction
exists." Id. (citing Zippo Manufacturing. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 at 1124

(W.D. Pa. 1997). To make this determination, the Zippo Court focused on whether the
interactivity of a commercial web site reflects "purposeful availment" or intended interaction
with residents of the forum state. See id. (citation omitted). Purposeful availment is
demonstrated when a defendant "(1) directs electronic activity into the State, (2) with the
manifested intent of engaging in business or other interactions within the State, and (3) that
activity creates, in a person within the State, a potential cause of action cognizable in the State's
courts." Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446, 451 (3d Cir. N.J. 2003) at 453
(citation omitted).
All of the criteria outlined in Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446, 451 (3d
Cir. N.J. 2003) have been met and undoubtedly this Court has jurisdiction over Belcher and
this Court is the proper forum for this action. Thus, Defendant Belcher’s Motion to Dismiss
or in the alternative transferred must be denied.
III. THE MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE VENUE

PROPERLY LIES IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(3).
Defendant Belcher moves this Court to dismiss the action under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) for
improper venue, or in the alternative transfer the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
However, the provisions of Section 1406(a) do not apply as venue is proper. As demonstrated
below, venue is indeed proper.

Title 28 U.S.C. §1391(a), which governs venue in civil actions where jurisdiction is
founded solely on diversity of citizenship, provides that an action may be filed in either of three
judicial districts: (1) where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State; (2)
in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; or (3) in
which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if
there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.
In the instant case, the Defendants’ do not reside within the same state. This case is a
complete diversity jurisdiction case. As better outlined 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C.
§1391(a)(3) clearly apply. Defendants Belcher as well as Edgar and Caren Hale, Plains Radio, et
al, Bar H Farms, KPRN AM 1610, Orly Taitz, et al and Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc.
are subject to the personal jurisdiction of this particular Court. Belcher clearly subjected herself
to this Court’s jurisdiction when she donated her time to the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg and
worked for Berg moderating his Pennsylvania website blog area. Moreover, Belcher subjected
herself to this Court’s jurisdiction by attacking and enticing hatred towards Berg’s paralegal,
Liberi.
Venue disputes are governed by either 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) or by 28 U.S.C. §1406(a).
§1406(a) only applies where the original venue is improper. Under §1406(a), "the district court
of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or
in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been
brought." 28 U.S.C. §1406(a). If venue is improper, the district court has limited discretion; it
can either dismiss the case or transfer it to a district in which it could have originally been
brought. However, it must do one or the other.

Under §1406(a), the burden is on the moving party to establish that the transfer is
warranted. See Conners v. R&S Parts Servs., Inc., 248 F.Supp.2d. 394, 396 (E.D. Pa. 2003)
(holding that "the burden is on the moving party to establish that a balancing of proper interests
weigh in favor of the transfer); Myers v. Am. Dental Ass'n, 695 F.2d 716, 724-5 (3d Cir. 1982);
Resource Bank v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2980, at *4; Consolidated
Risk Services. v. Automobile Dealers WC Self Insurance Trust, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41475, *2
(E.D. Pa. June 21, 2006) (holding that "the defendant should ordinarily bear that burden of
showing improper venue in connection with a motion to dismiss" under §1406). Plaintiffs’
submit that Belcher has not, and cannot, meet its burden, particularly since the venue
selected by Plaintiffs’ is to be given substantial deference. Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431
F.2d 22, (3rd Cir. 1970) at 25.
Belcher did not file a Brief in support of her request to dismiss the within action or
transfer the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a). Belcher simply alleges, “Venue is improperly
laid in this District under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)” and “this defendant and any names she may go by
are only connected to in her state of residence; and venue would be properly laid in the western
district of Texas, San Antonio Division.” Belcher then “Demands and prays” that the complaint
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and/or improper venue or in the alternative transferred
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a). Belcher has not shown this venue is improper.
Initially, it should be noted that a Plaintiff's choice of forum is traditionally entitled to
substantial deference. See Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir.1970). As such,
Plaintiffs’ choice of forum should be honored by the Court, particularly since it is a proper forum
for this action under § 1391(a)(2) or (3).
Notably, the provisions of Section 1406(a) apply only when venue in the selected district
is improper. Jumara v. State Farm Insurance Co., 55 F.3d 873, 878 (3d Cir.1995). Because

venue of this action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is proper under § 1391(a)(2) and/or §
1391(a) (3), the provisions of Section 1406(a) do not apply, and do not afford Belcher with a
basis to transfer this action to another venue.
Moreover, all documents, all information pertaining to Berg’s website, witnesses of the
Plaintiffs’ which will testify they obtained the chat from Plains Radio wherein Belcher threatens
Berg and Liberi if they come to her “redneck” town, the problems created and caused by Belcher
while she was on Berg’s website, Belcher’s threats regarding Liberi’s heart problems and Liberi
having a heart attack, Belcher’s slanderous statements, libel postings, threats to all Plaintiffs, are
located within this Court’s jurisdiction. Berg would have to close down his law firm for several
days to travel to another state to litigate the within action. Transferring venue would be
inconvenient to Plaintiffs’ witnesses; cause a situation Plaintiffs witnesses would not be able to
testify as they would be unable to travel to another State’s forum due to health and financial
reasons; Belcher has already threatened Berg and Liberi if they come to her “redneck” town they
would be forced out, maybe in pieces and therefore a transfer is not in the interest of justice.
Belcher did not cite any hardship; inconvenience to witnesses; any witnesses she may have;
nothing. Therefore, "the interest of justice [would] be better served in this forum." Jumara v.
State Farm Ins. Co. 55 F.3d 879 (3d Cir. 1995).
The Plaintiffs’ have all agreed and subjected themselves to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. Several of the Plaintiffs’ are in fact Pennsylvania residents and subjected to this
Court’s jurisdiction. The Defendants all reside in different states, New Jersey, Texas, and
California, of which they are located within different districts of the United States District
Courts. Moreover, this Court has personal jurisdiction over several of the Defendants, including,
Belcher. Thus 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(3) clearly applies and this Court is the proper venue.

The Federal Courts in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania operate efficiently. There is
little lag time between the filing of the Complaint, the conduction of discovery and the
scheduling of trial. Undersigned counsel does not know the volume of litigation in the Western
District of Texas, but believes that it would dwarf the volume of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. Likewise, the cost of proceeding in Eastern Pennsylvania would pale in
comparison to those in Western Texas in terms of attorneys' fees, hotel accommodations and
restaurant pricing.
The only considerations that would encourage this Court to transfer the action to the
Western District of Texas would be Belcher’s preference. Clearly, this Court should show great
deference to the Plaintiffs’ preference to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania. Most of the witnesses and virtually all of the documents are located here.
In deciding a Motion to Dismiss all well-pleaded allegations in the Complaint are taken
as true unless contradicted by the Defendants' Affidavits and the Court may examine facts
outside the Complaint to determine proper venue. Resource Bank, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2980,
*3, citing Fellner v. Philadelphia Toboggan Coasters, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23839, *1
(E.D. Pa. October 18, 2005); see also Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure 3d., § 1352
(2004).
Belcher has failed to contradict any of the plead allegations, she has not raised any
affirmative defenses or any defenses for that matter and therefore has waived them, she has
offered absolutely no facts outside the Complaint. The issue of Plaintiffs’ entitlement for the
Defendants’, including Belcher’s, wrong doings and the requested amounts in the lawsuit to be
paid to the Plaintiffs’ may be so obvious that the Court may be able to decide the matter by

means of Summary Judgment. Defaults have already been entered against three [3] of the
Defendants, Orly Taitz, et al; Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc.; and The Sankey Firm.
As noted above, under Section 1406(a), Belcher bears the burden of establishing the need
for the transfer of this action to an alternate venue. Given that the critical factors for deciding a
motion to transfer, transfer of the action is inappropriate under Section 1406(a) because the locus
of operative facts for purposes of venue lie in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. For this
reason, Belcher’s Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative transfer the action must be denied.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the above aforementioned reasons, Defendant, Linda Sue Belcher a/k/a Linda S.
Belcher a/k/a Belcher Starr a/k/a Newwomensparty a/k/a Stitchenwitch a/k/a Eva Braun a/k/a
Web Sergeant a/k/a www.obamacitzenshipdebate.org Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative the
action be transferred to the Western District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) must be
denied.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: June 11, 2009 s/ Philip J. Berg

__________________________
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE

EXHIBIT “A”

PLAINS RADIO CHAT
ON OR ABOUT MAY 27, 2009
www.plainsradio.com
http://extremetracking.com/open?login
Chat during Plains Radio, et al ongoing radio show:
lindastarr: look this is Phil & Lisa's standard bs to try to intimidate us

lindastarr: I am not worried
babs: Robbie, Robt Gibbs is a joke anyway....the story broke on Fox
lindastarr: they can't shut me up
pof: forum-------->
http://pub29.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=2442810129&frmid=8&msg
id=0
LindaB: don;t let them get you down Linda
lindastarr: I am not revealing private info like a Ss# or drivers license number
rosemary has joined.
amy1: Lindab.. You must have a legal background. Hope you call in to talk to orly
GHOSTfighter: berg is and will always be a fraud working for obama
rrobin: Did Berg drop his suit yet?
LindaB: after all they did to you, and you are still strong girl!!!
lindastarr: but I will tell all the dirty little secrets
peggy has left.
lindastarr: nope but trust me, he will wish he had
GoBucks: Lindab do you know anything about the law?????????
GHOSTfighter: he has been working for hillary since day one now he is working for
obama
Ed_Hale: no Dr orly done screwed up - she did not get her papers filed according to
Berg
pof: no rrobin

GHOSTfighter:
Robbie: Robert Gibbs was asked where the "long Form" is and Gibbs said it was posted
on the internet. Gibbs obviously doesn't realize that isn't an official Long Form Hawaii
birth certificate. Plus it is electronic and not admissible.
LindaB: gobucks, yes I do work with an attorney now for years
MoralsMan1:
id=1021692&cmd=show
Ed_Hale: somethign is rotten in Denmark here
lindastarr: by the time this is finally over, he will go to bed every night of his life
wishing he never filed this case
GHOSTfighter: that was a set up
lindastarr: Carol is going to find out about some interesting dirt Lisa told me
rosemary has left.
lindastarr: of course, it's possible it isn't true if Phil wants to denounce her as a
lair
babs: Robbie, he also said Hawaii has released all the info, another lie.
swift: i wished the reporter would have followed up with a next question about the
school or why a million dollars have been spent
Bearfoot: going green is a global scheme - thats why no drilling -nafta
LindaB: Orly needs to respond to Berg's new motion Asap
GHOSTfighter: something dont smell right
lindastarr: liar
MoralsMan1: That Is The Draft, Go To It And Read It And Use It All Over, Send Or
Hand Out To Ur Sheriffs, Judges, State Reps. And State Senators, This Is Not Meant
For Anyone In The Federal Government>>>>
id=1021692&cmd=show
KC4TX: cant believe Orly wouldnt do whats needed
lindastarr: but in order to have peace at home, he will have to say she's a lair
lindastarr: cuz I got details

lindastarr: who said she hasn't
lindastarr: hehehe
babs: That reporter went on to say that 400,000 people still want to know.
Ed_Hale: i know that she had a answer and it was sent to me of Thrusday and I
released it last night
GHOSTfighter: orly is verybusy saving america
amy1: Now I am worried
Ed_Hale: go here and look at it
LindaB: linda, you need to counterclaim and tell your side, expose them for what they
are
GHOSTfighter: she knows this law suite is bs
lindastarr: and he might have to answer some questions to the bar ethics
panel\stop it
Ed_Hale: www.plainsradio.com/orly.html
lindastarr: oh I can do that on the Internet where the Whole World will find out
Details
rainbird has left.
lindastarr: Bad Details
chuger has left.
==================================
booted
===================================
You have joined room: Lobby

Welcome!
Toby has left.
lindastarr: lol
babs: Getting some cross talk
pof: when i click on the forum it kicks me out... and its in a dif window altogether
jessie3 has left.

Ken-in-AR has joined.
lindastarr: gee you think we are stirring up some toruble?
Toby has joined.
lindastarr: trouble
babs: Boots me everytime I try to go into the forum from here pof.
amy1: We Have to get this country back
BobH has joined.
TruPatriot: Open one window in Explorer, and forum in firefox.
Mop has left.
mary12 has left.
jessie3 has joined.
pof: if I right click on it and go to open in another window it wont do it
==================================

EXHIBIT “B”

PLAINS RADIO CHAT
ON OR ABOUT MAY 28, 2009
www.plainsradio.com
http://extremetracking.com/open?login
Chat during Plains Radio, et al ongoing radio show:

http://www.globemagazine.com/ Ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa .
babs: Is he the one that is joining Orly suit?
GoBucks has joined.
LUGNUT96: just be careful linda
LindaB: Linda, over at Oc they are worried you will counter-file for them, will you do that
and why not already?
Ed_Hale: well spill the beans on waht they did to Plains
Bearfoot: lol
lindastarr: is that larry sinclair?
Ken-in-AR has left.
lindastarr: Oh I am going to make people wish they had stood up with me for the
side of truth and justice
Ed_Hale: Linda B - we want them to drop it - if they don't we will file against them
LUGNUT96: right lindastarr
lindastarr: I'm collecting ammunition
lindastarr: nope
LindaB: they are saying all kindsa crap over there it seems at Oc, but Mommae won't
even talk about the case, or Ed, only will say vbad things about orly
Ed_Hale: Beleive you me - what I show Monday night is not 1/1000 of what we have
Pmb09: linda you need to get to Olmos Basin and practice shooting
Ed_Hale: Momma E now knows that I have proof she lied
Leecamp has joined.
LUGNUT96: yes humm can teach ya how to shoot linda s
Ed_Hale: i don't know if it was lisa or her but I know and can prove they lied
LindaB: but, Ed, can you counter-claim after the answer period, what do the rules say,

be careful not to miss your chance just because of some stupid procedure rule, please,
they did some bad crap to linda especially
lindastarr: I have proof straight form Lisa Liberi
Ed_Hale: I do not want thier money - I only want the truth
GoBucks: Lindastar......i am collecting Ammo also
lindastarr: et me tell you wht, they were Stupid to file against me
lindastarr: I can bury them in ocurt
lindastarr: which is why they had to try to discredit me
lindastarr: I am going to help Ed & Caren with at least two false allegations Momma E
and Lisa made
Katy: lindastarr- Yes, the Globe is talking about Larry S.
LUGNUT96: Ed we know ya w3ant the truth but you still need to counter sue them
Ed_Hale: yes Linda has copies of Im that proves that they stole the 1964 divorce
decree
LindaB: linda, you are a good researcher, but don't make the Phil kinda mistakes, he
always screws up on timing and rules and all, just make sure you don;t miss the chance
to counter-claim, then hit him with everything you have
lindastarr: who said we aren
lindastarr: 't?
swift: sounds like we are building the confederate state im all for it
lindastarr: we have one year to file suit for defamation
manoncanal has joined.
lindastarr: we aren't obliged to file in Pa
LUGNUT96: oh yeah that is right
rubia has left.
Ed_Hale: Lindab we have one of the best attorney in the state of Texas - we are trying
to get this dimissed or moved to Texas, failign that then we will counter file and bunch
more
Bergs_Worst_Nightmare has joined.
lindastarr: Phil has had four or five admissions Pro Hac Vice to Texas to try cases in this
state since Dec 2000

lindastarr: he cna't claim he has never had any connection here
lindastarr: he's got a cse pending right now I'm told defending Lisa for another
one of "identity thet" cases
MoralsMan1: Ed, Try To Call Stacey And Eric One More Time
Ed_Hale: If those people are smart they will now dismiss this and say we are sorry
Ed_Hale: I have been Phil
MoralsMan1: K
lindastarr: they arfne't nearly as smart as they think they are
swift: time to dig my confederate flag out of starage lol
Ed_Hale: You got Ed Pitts on and Dr Mike will join you at 9
KC4TX: We need to get everyone we can to go here and donate for the Rally in
Washington on Sept. 12 and 13th
even if it's only $5.00 it will help. Even if you can't go you should donate. This is for all of
us and our country.
http://www.freedomsfirst.org/
lindastarr: better make it a big one
MoralsMan1: K
LindaB: did you see Phil filed for a default judgment against Orly cause she missed the
fling deadline yesterday
LindaB: it is on pacer
lindastarr: he's playing with fire
Ed_Hale: omg Orly did that
Ed_Hale: i know she sent it to a process server and they were to file it
Shreck has joined.
LindaB: Orly seems to have missed the deadline, so Phil filed today for default judgment
Ed_Hale: our was sent by Fed Ex
lindastarr: he has one day to withdraw all of this suit
lindastarr: beleive me, he doesn't want me to start dishing on the worst dirt I know
babs: She has been working her butt on on this issue and travelling all over.
lindastarr: she sent her stuff
LUGNUT96: right babs

babs: off*
LindaB: Linda, you should all send him a request to settle by dropping, if he gets a
default against orly you might all be held jointly liable
lindastarr: someone is playing games
ilikenewtandthebeaut has joined.
lindastarr: screw that
swift: our country would be fixed if we would send all the lawyers to china
Shreck has left.
ilikenewtandthebeaut: hello ppl
lindastarr: he can't get a default judgement
lindastarr: he ha sno case
LindaB: they may try to get joint and several liability, be careful
Shreck has joined.
lindastarr: it doesn't matter what he hopes to get
lindastarr: he can't get anything from me in Texas
lindastarr: he will play hell getting one thin dime
Ed_Hale: Well I know ours was filed on time and I am sure Orly was also
lindastarr: someone is playing games with Orly's response
LUGNUT96: you think so linda s
babs: I don't doubt it, they have been playing games with her stuff all along.
lindastarr: Phil is going to end up wishing he had never started this mess
Ed_Hale: yes i had her response since last Thrusday - I know she sent it over night to
that process server
babs: Do you think they are intercepting her mail too?
lindastarr: the federal courts give extra days before defaulting for mail delays expecially
when there is a holiday
Ed_Hale: Dr Orly is going to be on here around 9:30 our timne and we will find out
lindastarr: 9:15 she told me an hour ago
Mop has joined.
LUGNUT96: ok good Ed
babs: Find out off the air, please Ed

lindastarr: Nop is that our mop?
lindastarr: Hi Mop
Ed_Hale: ok Linda call her and ask her about this default judgement ? if it is true or what
Ed_Hale: then call me on 806-447-0270
lindastarr: she had to go pick up her son
Ed_Hale: or the home number
lindastarr: ok
Ed_Hale: ok I will ask her off the air
lindastarr: calling
Ed_Hale: wait
LUGNUT96: lol Ed
LUGNUT96: it will be along wait
babs: Thank the reps for us, Morals.
Ed_Hale: ok now was trying one of them Tenn rep
LUGNUT96: oh cool
peggy: will tennessee recognize martial law from the fed
Ed_Hale: cannot beleive they would not come on here - a million people waiting for
them to call
LUGNUT96: We need something done for Arizona
Ed_Hale: Linda calling you now
LindaB: Ed, it is not a judgment yet, it is simply a motuion for judgment by berg, he says
she missed the deadline and asks that default be enrtered against her. if awarded he
will move for joint and several liablitlity, meaning, he will try to get all defewndanrts to
pay
LUGNUT96: who Ed
MoralsMan1: K
lindastarr: she said she used a service and it was supposed to be done
peggy: will tennessee recognize martial law from the fed
lindastarr: she is checking on it but will be on at 9:15 our time
pof: %%%% they are still trying to get Trans-texas Corridor passed! ...........calls needed
Now to Kill Hb 300........(512) 463-4630 between 8 Am - 5 Pm. Most are there late into

the evening, to get your reps direct phone numbers,
LUGNUT96: good Linda S
LUGNUT96: who is working on Az to do all that also
LUGNUT96: anyone know
babs: Pof change the color of your fonts to hot pink or something....
peggy: Will Tennessee Recognize Federal Martial Law
LindaB: If the service screwed up, Orly will need to claim against them and join them in
the lawsuit Asap to protect herself
Ed_Hale: Ralph does he has been talkign to those folk in Az
LUGNUT96: ah ok Ed thanks
LUGNUT96: have not heard nothing of it though here Ed
daffodil: pof does it look as if the corridor will pass?
Robbie has joined.
peggy: Will Tennesse Recognize Martial Law From Govt Federal
KC4TX: hi Robbie
LUGNUT96: Hey Kc
MoralsMan1: Got Booted Off Ed
KC4TX: hey
LUGNUT96: thought ya was hiding lol
peggy: Are U Eligible For Recall Phil
KC4TX: lol hiding in plain site
MoralsMan1: Yes
LUGNUT96: Anyone Know The Score Of Hockey of redwing and hawks
LUGNUT96: lol
LUGNUT96: yes ya was
LUGNUT96: teehee
KC4TX:
LUGNUT96: lol I would ask scarbs but he is not here yet lol
peggy: How Can U Join A Volunteer Miltia If U Are Eligible For Re Call
pof: I'm going to post it on the forum... go read !!!!!!!!!!!! Highway Robbery !!!! literally !!!
daffodil: peggy that is a good question tenn will or will not recognize fed mart law

pof has left.
MoralsMan1: Ed, Are U There, Got Booted Off Of The Phone
lindastarr: Orly will be here at 9:15
babs: Ed Ed Ed
kjTX: what happened?
peggy: will tennesse recognize federal martial law
LUGNUT96: ok linda star
lindastarr: I called her and then called Ed
redjax1: hello, what happened?
LUGNUT96: Ed
hmriley has left.
peggy: Ed Needs To Cut In
LUGNUT96: lol
LUGNUT96: buzzy signal
LUGNUT96: Ed Cut In
kjTX: d e a d a i r . . .
lindastarr: wait until I start about some of Phil's dirty rotten secrets
lindastarr: what she has to hold over Phil's head
sparrow: will look niiiiice ed, those solar lights
still-lost: Tain't nuttin but Hillbillys in Tensee...lol
Ed_Hale: it will honey this and honey that all night
sparrow: lol
GHOSTfighter: Now She Has To See Ed Atnight
sparrow: caren's so Cute
Ed_Hale: I got her 8 of them walk way lights
lindastarr: Ihave them in fornt of my house along my sidewalk and they do look nice
lindastarr: Except my trees are too full during summer
Ed_Hale: and 2 of those hanging candle lights
bland-va: Linda , thank you for the info about the bugging
KC4TX: still not smart to get Morals on your bad side
lindastarr: so they cna't collect long enough to stay lit very long

bho-crap_on_a_stick has left.
still-lost: tehee
KC4TX:
TruPatriot has joined.
bland-va: Lol
lindastarr: oh I'm going to start spilling some real dirt tomorrow
GHOSTfighter: Linda
lindastarr: yep
Bearfoot:
kjTX: linda - here in the chat room?
TruPatriot: Hi Everyone at Plains
still-lost: sounds skeery
KC4TX: good like dirt
GHOSTfighter: Hey Tru
KC4TX: hi Tru
lindastarr: about the denigrating way Lisa used to talk about one of Phil's female clients
who was a major substance abuser
sparrow: hi trupatriot
daffodil: hi tru
bland-va: <<<<< gives Linda Prayers
lindastarr: and she claimed thisowman was crazy as a loon but was blackmailing Phil
sparrow: a client? yikes
lindastarr: and Phil thought she was his friend keeping his dirty rotten secrets
lindastarr: yep
Pylgram has joined.
sparrow: big no no
lindastarr: but I wasn't ever an insider, don't ya know?
sparrow: lol
babs: Broke client, lawyer confidentality?
lindastarr: worse than that
jessie3 has joined.

TruPatriot: Goodness. Any more good news on the suits today?
lindastarr: tomorrow I'll be dropping some bigger bombs about Phil and that client
lindastarr: oh he did that iwth me
sparrow: live on air or in chat?
babs: uh oh
lindastarr: broke attorney client privilege
lindastarr: haven't decided yet
babs: you going to file with Aba?
sparrow: bad news that
KC4TX: Lubby's shooting
lindastarr: somebody call Momma E and be sure to let Phil know what a great
paralegal Lisa is
lindastarr: already got it gong
babs: Ok good
lindastarr: and Phil acknowedged they were going to represent me
lindastarr: in an email where he attempted to extort me into silence
lindastarr: about Lisa's past
babs: What?
TruPatriot: Linda, Just be careful
lindastarr: oh no, i'm not going to be careful
lindastarr: I'm going to start revealing All his dirty rotten secrets
babs: You are peed off right now....be careful what you say in here, please.
lindastarr: remember they kept insisting I was never an insider?
LUGNUT96: yes linda becareful
babs: For your own safety
lindastarr: nah
lindastarr: I have decided it's war baby
lindastarr: they ahve done pissed off the wrong person
LUGNUT96: understood linda
KC4TX:
kjTX: give 'em hell, Linda!!!!!!

Ed_Hale: Still no answer Phil
lindastarr: they want to blow my alias to protect my family?
bland-va: linda, if it's war, send phil B a dead fish
LUGNUT96: we also got to get the congress peeps to not vet this new person for judge
lindastarr: let them see what a real war is all about
babs: Linda, feels better than being hurt by it...getting mad, you should get over it
easier.
lindastarr: oh no you don't know me
swift: linda thats what i keep saying about obama lol
lindastarr: I carry grudges for a Loooonnnngggg time
babs: That's what I mean by being careful...let them look the fools....
TruPatriot: Yep. Keeps you from becoming a victim.
Ed_Hale: go get em Linda
lindastarr: Phil hasn't a snowball's chance inhell of prevailing agaisnt Obama
redrock: Linda give them Hale Texas style
lindastarr: Orly is our best hope
LUGNUT96: yes linda I agreee
lindastarr: I hope everyone demands a full accounting formhim
lindastarr: I've been playingnice, but no More
babs: We knew that for a long time. She is dedicated for sure.
lindastarr: who is dedicated?
babs: Orly
Pmb09 has joined.
lindastarr: now they are bugging my phone?
LUGNUT96: is it also the home phone as well linda
babs: No telling what ob is capable of.....
LUGNUT96: use a bull horn in the phone
Ed_Hale: dang Linda Lisa sure does not like you at all
Ken-in-AR: The issue didn’t go away with the campaign, and now it’s found its way into
the West Wing. At Robert Gibbs’ Wednesday briefing, radio host Lester Kinsolving
asked whether the White House would satisfy several hundred thousand petitioners by

releasing “a certified copy of [obama’s] long-form birth certificate.” Gibbs appeared
incredulous. “you’re looking for the president’s birth certificate? It’s on the Internet,
Lester.” “long-form, listing his hospital and physician,” Kinsolving clarified. Laughing,
Gibbs replied: “lester, this question, in many ways, continues to astound me. The state
of Hawaii provided a copy with the seal of the president’s birth. “I know there are,
apparently, at least 400,000 people who continue to doubt the existence of and the
certification by the state of Hawaii, of the president’s birth there,” he continued. “But it’s
on the Internet because we put it on the Internet for each of those 400,000 to download.
I certainly hope by the fourth year of our administra
lindastarr: nope
lindastarr: that's how I know it's an illegal buggin
lindastarr: and can anyone think of any criminals who might want to learn
confidential info by bugging my phone?
bland-va: sounds like the caller doesn't read the new laws either
lindastarr: that's cuz she knows I know too many secrets
lindastarr: when Phil finds out about her telling me about that crazy female client, he is
going to be soooo pissed
babs: You stay public
lindastarr: look I'm not afraid of potus
babs: Good let him know who he stuck up for.
lindastarr: I've now stood up against my second one
babs: his goons....
babs: He's will do anything personally.
lindastarr: they come here to this redneck town they are going to be
sent home
lindastarr: maybe in pieces
babs: Not
TruPatriot: Ken: Is there a link for that?
GHOSTfighter: Linda
LindaB has joined.

lindastarr: Lisa tried to get me to take the credit counseling for that crazy woman when
Phil filed her bankruptcy this year
lindastarr: that's a crime too but I owuldn't do it
babs: Ken, I sure hope you sent where ever you got that link, an email correctly the lie
Robert Gibbs spoke.
hmriley has joined.
rubia has joined.
babs: L- thank God for your good sense.
daffodil: Ken who is Randy Forbes?
Ken-in-AR: http://globalgrind.com/content/673921/birth-certificate-question-gibbs-on-
burgeoningcontroversy/?sc=1
bland-va has left.
Pmb09: babs I posted that video of gibbs in the forum
lindastarr: I hope Momma e's spies are having fits and telling Phil & Lisa who are having
coronaries right about now
Ed_Hale: roflmao @ Linda
lindastarr: Hey Ed when I get fired up, I'm very dangerous
babs: That site said the info came from politico.com....
Ken-in-AR: Randy Forbes is Congressman from Va, with his resolution for Spiritual
Hertiage week, that Us was founded on Christian principles
Ed_Hale: well about time
daffodil: ken thanks
babs: Pmb ya'll are so smart.
Ed_Hale: now they are after you cause they realize Ed an't no one to mess with after
Monday night
LUGNUT96: yes Linda we are all like that
lindastarr: Gina and David already know I'm going to start spilling all the beans aobut
Phil & Lisa
LUGNUT96: fired up
Pmb09: http://repubx.com/
lindastarr: no they've been after me

Katy: . For all the late comers: The Globe strikes again: (latest issue) Michelle
Obama's Fury (Big angry picture of Michelle) "first Lady Michelle Obama is
spearheading a shocking White House cover-up, insiders say in a blockbuster Globe
world exclusive. Sources detail the cunning tactics furious Michelle is using to muzzle
the man who claims to have had gay sex and cocaine encounters with the President as
she battles to protect her husband's image. It's must reading for every American!"
http://www.globemagazine.com/ Ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa .
babs: Is he the one that is joining Orly suit?
GoBucks has joined.
LUGNUT96: just be careful linda
LindaB: Linda, over at Oc they are worried you will counter-file for them, will you do that
and why not already?
Ed_Hale: well spill the beans on waht they did to Plains
Bearfoot: lol
lindastarr: is that larry sinclair?

Law Offices of:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,

:
:
:
:
Plaintiffs, : Case No.: 09-cv-01898-ECR
:
vs. :
:
Defendants.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition
to Defendant, Linda Sue Belcher, et al, Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative transfer the case
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) was served this 11th day of June 2009 via United States Postal
Service with postage fully prepaid upon the following:
Linda Sue Belcher

201 Paris Street
Castroville, Texas 78009-4516
s/ Philip J. Berg
________________________
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE

55 - 2009!06!11 - Opposition Re #24 Belcher Motion To Dismiss

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

55 - 2009!06!11 - Opposition Re #24 Belcher Motion To Dismiss

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

www.obamacitzenshipdebate.org Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative the Action be

www.obamacitzenshipdebate.org Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative the Action be

transferred to the Western District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) is DENIED.

Dated: June _____, 2009 _____________________________

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to Defendant Belcher’s Motion to Dismiss 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT, LINDA SUE BELCHER

a/k/a Eva Braun a/k/a Web Sergeant a/k/a www.obamacitzenshipdebate.org [hereinafter

District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) on the following grounds:

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to Defendant Belcher’s Motion to Dismiss 2

• This Court has subject matter Jurisdiction pursuant to Diversity Jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332, as outlined in Plaintiffs’ Complaint;

give any type of legally sufficient defense;

Pennsylvania website blog;

Plaintiffs’ if they avail themselves to her “redneck town”;

U.S.C. 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(2) and §1391(a)(3);

• Pursuant to Diversified Jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. §1332(a); and Venue

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to Defendant Belcher’s Motion to Dismiss 3

Dated: June 11, 2009 s/ Philip J. Berg

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to Defendant Belcher’s Motion to Dismiss 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE

pushing for the filing of the lawsuit against President Obama.

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to Defendant Belcher’s Motion to Dismiss 5

events, Belcher happily availed herself to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Offices of Philip J. Berg.

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to Defendant Belcher’s Motion to Dismiss 6

posting of the Sealed Case.

Belcher immediately stated, “send the e-mail to me at newwomensparty@aol.com and I will

never received the e-mail.

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to Defendant Belcher’s Motion to Dismiss 7

On or about March 6, 2009, Belcher continued her unacceptable behaviors, badmouthing

never received anything. Instead, Belcher blocked Berg’s e-mail address.

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to Defendant Belcher’s Motion to Dismiss 8

taken it even further.

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to Defendant Belcher’s Motion to Dismiss 9

On May 16, 2009, Belcher posted at http://obamacitizenshipdebate.org/2009/05/linda-starr-on-

plains-radio.html#comment-254 the following:

Berg’s common-law wife (Carol) in Pennsylvania.

lindastarr: look this is Phil & Lisa's standard bs to try to intimidate us

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to Defendant Belcher’s Motion to Dismiss 10

Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania company.

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to Defendant Belcher’s Motion to Dismiss 11

May 28, 2009 Belcher posted on her website at wwwobamacitizenshipdebate.org

“Today is Lisa Liberi's 44th birthday!”

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to Defendant Belcher’s Motion to Dismiss 12

Moreover, this is a diversified jurisdiction case, venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

For the above aforementioned reasons, Defendant, Belcher’s “Motion to Dismiss” or in

the alternative to be transferred must be denied.

II. MOTION PRACTICE, F.R.C.P. 7.1 AND LOCAL RULE 7.1(c)

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 7(b) states in pertinent part:

Rule 7. Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions and Other Papers

(b) Motions and Other Papers

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to Defendant Belcher’s Motion to Dismiss 13

be dismissed or in the alternative transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a).

proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(3). Pursuant to diversified

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to Defendant Belcher’s Motion to Dismiss 14

For the above aforementioned reasons, this Motion must be denied.

III. THE STANDARD OF GRANTING RULE 12 MOTIONS

As a general matter, in ruling on a Rule 12 motion to dismiss a court is to consider all

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to Defendant Belcher’s Motion to Dismiss 15

Dated: June _, 2009 _________________________