Liberi V Taitz Appellee Brief and Appendice I

Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340412 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2010
NO. 10-3000
__________________________
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________________________
LISA LIBERI, LISA OSTELLA, EVELYN ADAMS, PHILIP J. BERG, ESQ.,

LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG and GO EXCEL GLOBAL
Plaintiffs / Appellees,
v.
ORLY TAITZ, DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC., et al
Defendants / Appellants.
__________________________________________________________________
BRIEF OF APPELLEES
APPENDICE II and III FILED SEPARATELY
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Case No. 09-cv-01898-ECR
__________________________________________________________________
Philip J. Berg, Esquire

LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Ph: (610) 825-3134
Fx: (610) 834-7659
Email: philjberg@gmail.com
PA I.D. No. 09867
Attorney for Appellees

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
None of the Appelleese have any parent corporations and no publicly held
company, holding 10% or more of the company's stock. Appellees are not aware
of any publicly held corporations that are not party to this appeal and that has or
have a financial interest in the outcome of this proceeding.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT……………………………………..i
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………….…ii-iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………..…………iv-vii
COUNTER STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW………1
COUNTER STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES……………………………….2
COUNTER STATEMENT OF THE CASE……………………………………..2-3
COUNTER STATEMENT OF THE FACTS…………………………….…….3-11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT………………………………………….….…….12
ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………….……12-29
I. THE STANDARD OF REVIEW……………………………..…12-13
II. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY DISMISSED

DEFENDANTS JAMES SUNDQUIST AND ROCK
SALT PUBLISHING ON JUNE 25, 2009………………….…..14-16
III. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY SEVERED

AND TRANSFERRED THE UNDERLYING CASE…….……16-22
IV. APPELLANTS CLAIMS THAT JUDGE ROBRENO

REFUSED TO FILE DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
APPELLANT LINDA BELCHER IS UNFOUNDED………….22-24
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
Page(s)
V. APPELLANTS REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS

IMPROPER AND UNSUPPORTED AND ONLY
USED TO FURTHER THEIR ATTEMPTS TO
INTIMIDATE APPELLEES WITNESSES……………………..24-29
CONCLUSION………………………………………………………..………….30
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE……………………………………………...31
CERTIFICATE OF BAR MEMBERSHIP……………………………………….32
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE……………………………………………..…33-34
APPENDICE I WITH EXHIBITS "1" through "6"
APPENDICE II CONTAINS EXHIBITS "A" through "K"
APPENDICE III CONTAINS EXHIBITS "L" through "P"
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page(s)
Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d 155 (3d Cir. 1993)……………...13
Banket v. GC Am., Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23550

(E.D. Pa. Oct. 11, 2005)…………………………………………………………..21
Barnett v. Obama, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101206,

(C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009)…………………………………………………………...5
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007)…………………………………………...13
Carr v. Am. Red Cross, 17 F.3d 671 (3d Cir. 1994)………………………………13
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U. S. 61, 75 (1996)……………………………..…15
Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 439 U.S. 463 (1978)…………………………….13
Dominy v. CSX Transp., Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9422

(E.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 2006)……………………………………………………………21
Fasset v. Delta Kappa Epsilon, 807 F.2d 1150 (3d Cir. 1986)…………………...12
Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 82 S. Ct. 913,

8 L. Ed. 2d 39 (1962)…………………………………………………………..…19
Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, 541 U.S. 567 (2004)…..……………15, 16
Horn v. Lochart, 17 Wall, 570 (1873)…………………………………………….15
In re Amendt, 169 Fed. Appx. 93 (3d Cir. 2006)………………………………….22
In re Central Ice Cream Co., 836 F.2d 1068 (7th Cir.1987)………………...……29
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued
Cases Page(s)
In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. 401 F.3d 143,

2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 4012, 61 Fed. R. Serv. 3d
(Callaghan) 79 (3d Cir. 2005)……………………………………………………..13
In re United States, 273 F.3d 380 (3d Cir. 2001)………………………………....21
Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 878 (3d Cir. 1995)…..…18, 20, 21, 22
Kaufman v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 561 F.3d 144 (3d Cir. 2009)…………………..16
Lafferty v. Gito St. Riel, 495 F.3d 72 (3d Cir. 2007)………………………….18, 20
Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al,

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, Case No. 09-3403…………...………….2
Maier v. Orr, 758 F.2d 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1985)…………………………………….28
Meeks v. Jewel Cas., 845 F.2d 1421 (7th Cir. 1988)…………………………..28, 29
Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989)….………..…15, 16
Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1380 (M.D. Ga. 2009)……...……27
Rhodes v. MacDonald, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5340 (11th Cir. 2010)…………..27
Rodgers v. U.S. Steel Corp., 541 F.2d 365 (3d Cir. 1976)……………………..…13
Rogal v. Skilstaf, Inc., 446 F. Supp. 2d 334 (E.D. Pa. 2006)………………….…..22
Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964)……………………………………...21
Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 88 S. Ct. 269, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967)………..13
v
Cases Page(s)
Yakowicz v. Pennsylvania, 683 F.2d 778 (3d Cir. 1982)……………………….…13
STATUTES
Page(s)
28 U.S.C. §1391…………………………………………………………….…….21
28 U.S.C. §1404…………………………………………………...………….20, 21
28 U.S.C. §1406………………………………………………..…………………18
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL

AND
APPELLATE PROCEDURE
Page(s)
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 3…………………………………....13
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 4…………………………………....13
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 38………………..……………..27, 28
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 5…………………………………………28
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11………………………..………….27, 28
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 21……………………………..…….14, 15
vi
Page(s)
MISC.
17A Moores Federal Practice, §5524(2)……………………………………...…..18
vii
COUNTER STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
Appellees are not sure as to what Appellants' claim the issues on appeal are.
Appellees believe Appellants issues on appeal pertain to the Lower Court's
Transfer Order and the Lower Court's Order Dismissing Defendants, James
Sundquist and Rock Salt Publishing.1 Based on this, Appellees file the Counter
Statement as to the Issues believed to be Presented for Review.
1. Did the District Court correctly find it had Jurisdiction over the parties,
thereby severing the Case into two (2) Cases and transferring the Case against the
California Defendants to the U.S. District Court, Central District of California,
Southern Division and the Case against the Texas Defendants to the U.S. District
Court, Western District of Texas?
Answered in the Affirmative
2. Did the District Court correctly dismiss Defendants James Sundquist and
Rock Salt Publishing from the Case?
Answered in the Affirmative
1
Appellant Taitz, a licensed Attorney in this Court, on behalf of herself and Appellant Defendant
our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. did not file a properly formatted or prepared Notice of Appeal.
Moreover, Appellants failed to file a timely and/or properly prepared Concise Summary of the
Case. Appellants Brief was not of any assistance, as Appellants failed to file their Issues on
Appeal. In Appellants Notice of Appeal, they claim to be Appealing several other Orders, which
were not addressed in their Appellant Brief. Appellants failure to identify or argue an issue in
their Opening Brief constitutes Waiver of that Issue on Appeal. Therefore, Appellees will not
address them.
1
COUNTER STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
Although, this Case was previously under Appeal, see Liberi, et al v. Taitz,
et al, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Case No. 09-3403 (Voluntarily
dismissed in May 2010), the issues appealed from did not arise out of the
transactions at issue in this matter.2
COUNTER STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This Case arises out of the fact Appellant Taitz through her Corporation,
Appellant, Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. [hereinafter at times
"Appellants"] committed Defamation per se, Slander, Libel, Placing the Plaintiffs
in a False-Light; Invasion of Privacy, Harassment, Stalking, False Designations
and Descriptions of Facts, Request for Injunctive Relief, Violating the First and
Fourteenth Amendment by the continued publication and sending by mass
emailing; mailing and posting all over the Internet Appellee Lisa Liberi's
[hereinafter at times "Liberi"] full Social Security number, date of birth, address,
place of birth, mother's maiden name, father's name, place of birth, etc. See
2
Appellants failed to make reference to Related Cases in their initial Appellants Brief filed
November 2, 2010.
2
EXHIBIT "A" [Dkt No. 1]3. Appellees have suffered severe damages as a result
of Appellants actions and that was the reason they were forced to file suit.
This Case has nothing to do with a supposed "criminal record" as Appellant
Taitz's falsely claims in their Appellant Brief. Appellant Taitz's, who is a licensed
Attorney, continually files with this Court and the Lower Court, false statements as
to what the Case is about and the reasons Appellees filed the within action.
COUNTER STATEMENT OF THE FACTS GIVING RISE

TO THIS APPEAL
Summary of the Appeal. Appellants are claiming that Diversity
Jurisdiction did not exist and the Court did not have jurisdiction to transfer the
case, that the case had to be dismissed, which simply is not the case.
Moreover, Appellants are claiming Defendants Sundquist and Rock Salt
Publishing were citizens of New Jersey as were two (2) of the Plaintiffs.
Appellants claim the Court forced Sundquist and Rock Salt Publishing out of the
case, even though they opposed being dismissed. Appellants claim because James
Sundquist and Rock Salt Publishing were named in the suit, Diversity was lacking,
and the Case had to be dismissed, which again is untrue.
3
Dkt No. means the Lower Court's Docket Entry Number.
3
Appellant Taitz, a licensed attorney, states. "Lead Plaintiff is one Lisa Renee
Liberi, (hereinafter Liberi), who has at least 42 criminal charges and at least 10
criminal convictions, which include convictions of forgery of documents, forgery of
an official seal and grand theft. Liberi's latest conviction was in the state of CA, in
2008…" [Appellants Brief filed November 2, 2010, on pages 4-6]4, which is
complete nonsense.
Appellees filed their lawsuit against the Appellants on May 4, 2009. At that
time, Appellee Liberi's address was stated as "Plaintiff Liberi with a business
address of 555 Andorra Glen Court…". See EXHIBIT "A". At the same time,
Defendant Linda Belcher's (Appellant herein) address was cited as 201 Paris,
Castroville, Texas 78009-4516, which is her correct address as that is where she
was personally served.
The merits of the underlying case have yet to be heard. Furthermore,
Appellant Taitz will not be able to prove this as facts, as Liberi's middle name is
not 'Renee' (Renee is not now nor has it ever been, Appellee Liberi's middle
name); and Appellee Liberi, Appellee and attorney for Appellees, Philip J. Berg,
4
Most of Appellant, Attorney Taitz's arguments and statements in her Appellant Brief do not
pertain to the issues at hand and have no place in this Court. The purpose of Appellant Taitz's
Brief was not to support her reasons for Appeal, but instead to arouse her Supporters and
Followers against the Plaintiffs (Appellees herein) and in attempts to prejudice this Court against
the Appellees in violation of this Court's Local Rule, 28.1(d). Appellant Taitz has a habit of
filing things that do not pertain whatsoever to the Case, but instead arouse the emotions of her
4
Esquire, Intern Paralegal, has not been convicted in, nor charged in, ten (10)
separate criminal cases as claimed by Appellant, or attempting to be claimed on
behalf of Appellants by Attorney Taitz in their "Opening Appellants Brief'. Nor is
the underlying Case about Taitz supposedly "posting Liberi's criminal record".
Just to name a couple of examples, the Case regarding Appellee Lisa Liberi
against Appellant Orly Taitz is about Appellant, Attorney Taitz's through her
company, DOFF, threatening to take Philip J. Berg, Esquire down and to do so she
was going to destroy his Paralegal (Appellee Liberi) and get rid of her; illegally
running background checks, obtaining without a permissible purpose; illegally
posting on the World Wide Web (all over the Internet); illegally sending by mass
emailing, including internationally; sending by mass mailing; and handing out to
individuals Appellee Lisa Liberi's full Social Security number, date of birth, place
of birth, residence, husband's Social Security number, mother's maiden name,
father's name and other confidential information.5
This Case regarding Plaintiff/Appellant Lisa Liberi is about
Defendant/Appellee Attorney Taitz through Appellee DOFF committing
Defamation per se, Slander and Libel, and other Causes of Action, just to name a
followers. Moreover, Judge Carter believed Taitz to have suborned perjury from her witnesses,
see Barnett v. Obama, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101206, 55-56 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009).
5
With all the confidential information Appellant, Orly Taitz sent out on Appellee Lisa Liberi,
any unknown person has all the information to obtain primary identity documents in Appellee
Lisa Liberi's name.
5
couple of examples against Appellants, that Appellee Lisa Liberi was convicted of
Identity Theft; convicted of Real Estate Fraud pertaining to buying and selling the
same house over and over again; that Liberi was forging police reports; that Liberi
was convicted of forging credit reports; that Liberi stole from her (Appellant Taitz)
to pay her restitution in the amount of Twelve Thousand [$12,000.00] Dollars; that
Liberi's husband is on Parole and been stealing from her (Appellant); that Appellee
Lisa Ostella stole from Appellant Taitz by "hacking" her website and PayPal
Account; illegally ran background checks on Appellee Lisa Ostella; falsely
accused Appellee Lisa Ostella and her husband of stealing from her; that Appellees
Philip J. Berg, Esquire and Evelyn Adams stole large amounts of money from their
supporters and were under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigations
for the RICO Act; that is what the Plaintiffs/Appellees underlying case against the
Appellants is for, not what the Appellants claim. Appellant Taitz did all these
actions and more as an "Officer of the Court".
Procedural History. Appellees filed suit May 4, 2009 based on Diversity
and Federal Question Jurisdiction. See EXHIBIT "A"6. Appellant Taitz filed
6
Plaintiff/Appellee Lisa Liberi's home address was not provided on the Complaint and not
provided to Defendant/Appellant Orly Taitz due to the private information Taitz had and
continues to post all over the Internet and send by mass emailing, including internationally and
due to the threats Taitz made against Plaintiff/Appellee Liberi.
Since the lawsuit was filed, evidence points to the fact, Taitz may have attempted to hire a
convicted dangerous criminal to harm and injure Plaintiffs/Appellees and to carry out her threats.
6
Motions to Dismiss, which were denied. Thereafter, it was discovered that as a
result of Defendants James Sundquist and Rock Salt Publishing being located in
New Jersey, these two (2) Defendants destroyed Diversity. Appellees attempted to
dismiss the parties, however Defendants refused. Appellees filed a Motion
Seeking Leave to Dismiss James Sundquist and Rock Salt Publishing, [Dkt No.
62]. Appellant Taitz opposed Appellees Motion, [Dkt No. 68]. A hearing took
place on June 25, 2009 at which time James Sundquist and Rock Salt Publishing
were Dismissed and diversity was salvaged. See Judge Robreno's Order attached
hereto as EXHIBIT "B" [Dkt No. 76].
At the same time, June 25, 2009, the Lower Court issued an Order to Show
Cause upon the Plaintiffs/Appellees as to Why the Case should not be Dismissed;
Why the Case should not be Severed into two (2) cases; and Why the Case should
not be transferred to Texas and California. See the Court's Order attached as
EXHIBIT "C" [Dkt No. 80].
On or about August 26, 2009, Plaintiffs/Appellees Responded to the Lower
Court's Order to Show Cause [Dkt No.'s 106 and 107].
On or about September 24, 2009, Appellants filed their Response to
Appellees (Plaintiffs) Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause, [Dkt No.
108]. Appellants Response was non-responsive to the issue at hand and instead
7
was Appellants fourth or fifth Motion to Dismiss, which was completely improper,
as has been all of Appellants filings throughout the history of the underlying
action.
On September 29, 2010 Appellees filed their Reply to Appellants
Opposition, [Dkt No. 110].
In or about January 2010, while the underlying case was in suspense pending
the outcome of Appellees Appeal regarding the Request for an Emergency
Temporary Restraining Order or Injunction, Appellant, Attorney Taitz filed a letter
with Judge Robreno requesting Sanctions against the undersigned. Appellees sent
a letter response to Judge Robreno, which Judge Robreno Ordered filed on the
Docket, [Dkt No. 116].
On June 4, 2010, Judge Robreno issued his Memorandum and Order
Severing the underlying case and Transferring the Case against the California
Defendants to the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Southern
Division and the Case against the Texas Defendants to the U.S. District Court,
Western District of Texas. See EXHIBIT "D", Judge Robreno's Memorandum
[Dkt No. 117] and Judge Robreno's Order as EXHIBIT "E", [Dkt No. 118].
Due to a discrepancy regarding the Sankey Defendants and the fact one of
the Defendants, the Sankey Firm, who is in default, was not mentioned; Appellees
did an Emergency Motion for Reconsideration, [Dkt No. 120].
8
Appellant, Attorney Taitz filed an Opposition to Appellees Motion on June
14, 20107, [Dkt No. 121]. Once again, Appellant Taitz's Opposition was inapposite
and failed to address the issues at hand.
On June 23, 2010, Judge Robreno issued his Memorandum. See EXHIBIT
"F" [Dkt No. 123] and his Amended Order. See EXHIBIT "G" [Dkt No. 124].
The Court Amended its Order to reflect the Case against all the California
Defendants were being Transferred to the U.S. District Court, Central District of
California, Southern Division and the case against all the Texas Defendants were
being Transferred to the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas.8
On July 2, 2010, Appellant Taitz filed her Notice of Appeal and Motion to
Unseal the August 7, 2009 Transcript, [Dkt No. 129].
Appellees opposed Appellant Taitz's Motion to Unseal the August 7, 2009,
transcript, [Dkt No. 132 filed July 9, 2010], as the Appellants were well aware that
Appellants wanted the transcript, not because it pertained to the appeal, but to post
on her website, which she did. See EXHIBIT "H".
7
Appellant, Attorney Orly Taitz claims in her Appellate Brief, filed November 2, 2010 at page 7,
paragraph 2 "Taitz filed a motion for Reconsideration on 6.14.10, arguing that the court erred in
assuming jurisdiction, as plaintiff Liberi never provided any evidence of her PA citizenship".
This is completely untrue, as demonstrated in Docket Entry No. 121" what Taitz filed was
entitled "Response to Motion for Reconsideration of the Order to Sever and Transfer this Case
to Texas and California".
8
In Judge Robreno's Memorandum of 06/23/2010 he makes mention of a letter sent by
Defendant (Appellant) Neil Sankey. Appellees were never served with this letter and are
unaware as to the contents. See EXHIBIT "F", page 3, fn 1.
9
Appellants claim in their Appellants Brief, page 7, paragraph 2, "On
07.26.09 [sic] the plaintiffs filed yet another motion to keep the transcript of the
08.07.09 hearing under seal." This is completely untrue. Appellees filed a Motion
for Clarification or in the Alternative a Motion for Reconsideration, [Dkt No. 135].
After filing the Notice of Appeal in the Lower Court, Appellant, Attorney
Taitz continued filing Motions in the Lower Court requesting documents which do
not exist and requesting reconsideration of the Diversity issues. See EXHIBIT "I"
[Dkt. No. 143] filed September 8, 2010; although Appellants Motions were
improper, Appellees Responded on September 14, 2010 in order to protect
themselves. See EXHIBIT "J" [Dkt No. 144]. It should also be noted, Appellant,
Attorney Orly Taitz began sending her frivolous filings containing hearsay, forged
and altered documents and untrue statements to Chief Judge Audrey B. Collins and
Judge David O. Carter of the U.S. District Court, Central District of California,
Southern Division, in attempts to conflict out the very Court this case is being
transferred. See EXHIBIT "K".
Appellant Taitz then filed a Reply on September 28, 2010. See EXHIBIT
"L" [Dkt No. 145]. Appellant Taitz's filing contained suborned perjury, forged
and altered documents, and perjured statements.
Appellees finally filed a Motion on October 7, 2010 requesting the Lower
Court to Issue an Order to Show Cause upon Appellant, Attorney Taitz for filing
10
forged and altered documents, perjured statements and continually filing Motions
which the Lower Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain. See EXHIBIT "M", [Dkt
No. 146].
Appellants make many false assertions, false statements of filings, false
statements of events and other falsities pertaining to the case, which never
occurred.
Now, these same forged and altered documents, false and perjured affidavits
and other deficient documents which are double and triple hearsay, unauthenticated
and have absolutely nothing to do with this Appeal have been filed as Appellants
Addendum, Exhibits 4-7. In fact, Exhibit 7 contains full addresses and credit card
information which Appellant, Attorney Taitz filed through the ECF system, in
violation of the Federal Rules and this Court's local Rules9.
As this Court is aware, Appellate Court's will only consider those materials
that were before the District Court when it adjudicated the issues currently under
appeal. In the Case at bar, the June 25, 2009 Order Dismissing Defendants James
Sundquist and Rock Salt Publishing; and the Court’s June 23, 2010 Memorandum
and Order Severing and Transferring this Case. Appellants are attempting to rely
on documents, which again are unauthenticated, contain forged and altered
9
Appellant Taitz has continually used the Federal Docketing System to file full Social Security
numbers, dates of birth, and other private confidential information in violation of the Federal
Rules.
11
documents, contain perjured statements, etc. that were filed after the Notice of
Appeal. Therefore, Appellants Exhibits 4-7 are unveiling10. See e.g. Fasset v.
Delta Kappa Epsilon, 807 F.2d 1150, 1165 (3d Cir. 1986).
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
One of the most fundamental principles of Federal Court and its Jurisdiction
are cases in Diversity. If a Defendant is non-diversified, and a dispensable party, a
Court on its own can dismiss a dispensable Defendant who is destroying Diversity
Jurisdiction. Moreover, Appellants want to argue because Appellee Liberi refused
to provide a Pennsylvania Driver's License to them, Diversity is lacking, which
simply is not the case. It does not matter where Appellee Liberi resides as long as
it is not in the States of California or Texas, which the Court correctly found and
thereby ruling Diversity Jurisdiction is not disturbed.
ARGUMENT
I. THE STANDARD OF REVIEW
It is Appellees position that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the
Orders Appealed by Appellants.
The Order dismissing Defendants James Sundquist and Rock Salt Publishing
was a final Order issued on June 25, 2009. See EXHIBIT "D". Appeals from
10
an act or instance of presenting, displaying, or revealing, for the first time.
12
Final Orders are to be filed within thirty [30] days of the final order. See Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rules 3 and 4. The time limits in Appeals are
Jurisdictional, thus the “untimely appeal” strips this Court of Jurisdiction to
entertain the appeal, Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007).
The Orders Severing and Transferring the case, EXHIBITS "D", "E", "F"
and "G" are not final appealable Orders under either the text of 28 U.S.C. §1291
or the Collateral Order Doctrine. See Carr v. Am. Red Cross, 17 F.3d 671, 675 (3d
Cir. 1994); In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 401 F.3d 143, 2005 U.S. App.
LEXIS 4012, 61 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 79 (3d Cir. 2005); Coopers &
Lybrand v. Livesay, 439 U.S. 463, 468 (1978); Yakowicz v. Pennsylvania, 683 F.2d
778, 783, n.10 (3d Cir. 1982); Rodgers v. U.S. Steel Corp., 541 F.2d 365, 369 (3d
Cir. 1976).
The only way this Court would have jurisdiction over the Orders of the
Court Severing and Transferring the underlying Case is if the Appellants filed a
Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. If this Court deems Appellants Appeal as a
request for a Writ of Mandamus, then this Court's review would be largely
discretionary. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 401 F.3d 143, 2005 U.S.
App. LEXIS 4012, 61 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 79 (3d Cir. 2005), quoting
Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d 155, 163 (3d Cir. 1993); Will v.
13
United States, 389 U.S. 90, 96, 88 S. Ct. 269, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967)) (Citations
omitted).
II. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY DISMISSED

DEFENDANTS JAMES SUNDQUIST AND ROCK SALT
PUBLISHING ON JUNE 25, 2009
Appellees filed suit May 4, 2009 based on Diversity and Federal Question
Jurisdiction. It was discovered that two (2) Defendants, James Sundquist and Rock
Salt Publishing resided in the State of New Jersey as did two [2] of the Plaintiff's
(Appellees herein). Appellees sought a Stipulated Agreement from the
Defendants, to Dismiss Defendants Sundquist and Rock Salt, in order to save
diversity, which they refused. Appellees filed a Motion for Leave to Dismiss the
two (2) Defendants destroying diversity, which were dispensable, [Dkt No. 62 filed
June 18, 2009].
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 21 states in pertinent part:
"Rule 21 Misjoinder and Non-Joinder of Parties"
"Misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action. On motion

or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.
The Court may also sever any claim against a party".
14
As stated by Justice Scalia in Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, 541
U.S. 567 (2004) at 572-573 (discussing Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U. S. 61, 75
(1996):
"Caterpillar broke no new ground, because the jurisdictional defect it

addressed had been cured by the dismissal of the party that had destroyed
diversity. That method of curing a jurisdictional defect had long been an
exception to the time-of-filing rule. "[T]he question always is, or should
be, when objection is taken to the jurisdiction of the court by reason of the
citizenship of some of the parties, whether…they are indispensable parties,
for if their interests are severable and a decree without prejudice to their
rights may be made, the jurisdiction of the court should be retained and the
suit dismissed as to them" Horn v. Lochart, 17 Wall, 570, 579 (1873).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 21 provides that "[p]arties may be
dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or of its own
initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just." By now,
"it is well settled that Rule 21 invests district courts with authority to allow
a dispensable nondiverse party to be dropped at any time, even after
judgment has been rendered." Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490
U.S. 826, 832 (1989). Indeed the Court held in Newman-Green that courts
of appeals also have the authority to cure a jurisdictional defect by
dismissing a dispensable nondiverse party. Id at 837."
The Court did just that and properly applied our laws. Defendants James
Sundquist and Rock Salt Publishing were dispensable parties who were destroying
diversity. In order for the Court to maintain jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the
15
two (2) Defendants to cure the defect, which was just and proper. See Horn v.
Lockhart, 17 Wall. 570, 579 (1873); Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, 517
U.S. 567 (2004); Caterpillar v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996); Kaufman v. Allstate
N.J. Ins. Co., 561 F.3d 144, 150 (3d Cir. 2009).
It should be noted however, Appellants failed to address any law to
substantiate their position. In fact, Appellants claim "Sundquist filed an
opposition, he refused to be dismissed without prejudice (Document 54 Clerk's
Record), he demanded dismissal with prejudice and attorney's fees" [Appellants
Brief, pg. 20 ¶ 1]. This is completely untrue, Sundquist and Rock Salt never
responded in writing. Docket Entry No. 54 is Plaintiffs (Appellees herein)
Response in Opposition to Defendants Edgar and Caren Hale's Answer and Motion
to Dismiss, it had nothing to do with James Sundquist or Rock Salt Publishing [Dkt
No. 54 filed June 11, 2009].
The balance of Appellants arguments fail to touch upon or even address the
dismissal of Defendants James Sundquist and Rock Salt Publishing to save
diversity. Appellants arguments fail to address why they feel the Order of the
Court was incorrect. Appellants fail to support their appeal regarding this issue
with any legal authorities, cases or statutes. The Appellants arguments are
frivolous and must be denied.
16
III. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY SEVERED and

TRANSFERRED the UNDERLYING CASE
Appellants all through their Brief continue stating Appellee Lisa Liberi did
not prove her state of citizenship and therefore Diversity is lacking. [Appellants
Brief filed November 2, 2010, pages 9-25]. To the contrary, on August 7, 2009
during a Restraining Order Hearing, Appellee Lisa Liberi showed her state issued
Driver’s License to the Judge which confirmed that Appellee Lisa Liberi was not a
citizen of the State of California or Texas. Moreover, there are sworn Affidavits
from K. Strebel [Dkt No. 144-1 attached to EXHIBIT "J" and 146-5 attached to
EXHIBIT "M"]; Appellee Evelyn Adams [Dkt No. 144-7 attached to EXHIBIT
"J"] and the Verification of Lisa Liberi [Dkt No. 146-7 attached to EXHIBIT
"M"] testifying to the fact Appellee Liberi does not reside in the States of
California or Texas. Appellant Taitz failed to appear for the hearing and instead
went on a publicity tour to Russia, England and Israel. Further, the cases cited by
Appellant are not on point, they do not read as claimed in the Appellants Brief and
in fact, one of the cases has been over-ruled and another not properly cited. Not to
mention the fact, Appellants fail to cite one case from the Third Circuit or even
Pennsylvania.
Due to the threats against the Appellees by the Appellants and the fact that
Appellant Taitz put out every bit of confidential information on Appellee Liberi,
17
Judge Robreno Ordered that Appellee Liberi's address was not to be disclosed. See
the August 7, 2009 Transcript at p. 18, ll. 23-25 and p. 19, ll. 1-18. Appellants
next claim "The Court has no jurisdiction to transfer to another Federal Court a
case, where it did not have jurisdiction in the first place, as other Federal Courts
equally will not have jurisdiction". [Appellants Brief at page 13, ¶1]. This is
completely untrue.
As this Court is aware, even if diversity were lacking, which it is not and
was not, the District Court had the inherent power to transfer the case to the proper
jurisdiction. Appellees case was filed within the jurisdictional time limits.
California Court's require these types of cases to be filed within one [1] year. The
events that gave rise to the underlying action began occurring on April 17, 2009.
Had the District Court dismissed Appellees action, it would have barred Appellees
claims and any redress in which they are entitled. If a case is filed in the wrong
jurisdiction, and the statute has run, it has been the long standing of our Court's that
transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) would be proper in lieu of dismissal. See
Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 878 (3d Cir. 1995); 17A Moores
Federal Practice, §5524(2); Lafferty v. Gito St. Riel, 495 F.3d 72 (3d Cir. 2007).
As stated in Lafferty v. Gito St. Riel, 495 F.3d 72 at 77:
“Section 1406(a) comes into play where plaintiffs file suit in an improper
forum. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 878; Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, §
111.02. In those instances, district courts are required either to dismiss or
18
transfer to a proper forum. Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 465-
66, 82 S. Ct. 913, 8 L. Ed. 2d 39 (1962) (emphasizing that federal district
courts may transfer — rather than dismiss — cases that plaintiffs initially
brought in an improper forum, regardless whether they otherwise have
personal jurisdiction)."
Appellants next state "While Berg stated at the 08.07.09 hearing, that he will
provide the court with Liberi's driver's license and other documents, he never
provided any documents." [Appellants Brief, page 13, ¶2] Another false tale of
Appellant Taitz. Appellees never made such statement as proven by the August 7,
2009 Transcript on file with this Court. Appellants go on further "On the other
hand the court refused to consider any and all evidence provided by the
Defendants" [Appellants Brief, page 13, ¶2]. Appellants never provided any
admissible evidence. Appellant Taitz is a licensed attorney and should know the
Federal Rules of Evidence. All Appellants provided were unauthenticated
documents, hearsay statements, double and triple hearsay, forged and altered
documents, and documents which had nothing to do with the underlying case.
Appellant Taitz is only seeking Appellee Liberi's Driver's License to confirm
Appellee Liberi's address to carry out her threats. Moreover, Appellant Taitz
wants to publish on the internet and send by mass emailing Appellee Liberi's
Driver's License and address to ensure her followers and supporters continue
harassing her.
19
Appellant Taitz had illegally obtained a family photo of Appellee Liberi, her
husband and son. In turn, Appellant Taitz published this picture with a home
address purported to be that of Appellee Liberi. Appellant Taitz has called for her
supporters in the area she believes Appellees reside (Appellees are unsure as to
what she wanted her supporters to do), she has been stalking Appellee Liberi and
her family, including Liberi's son. Appellant Taitz threatened to have Appellee
Lisa Ostella's children professionally kidnapped; Appellant Taitz attempted to hire,
and may have hired, a dangerous convicted felon to carry out her threats against
the Appellees. Appellant Taitz has continually attempted to have Appellees Lisa
Ostella and Lisa Liberi falsely arrested. There was good reason for Judge Robreno
to refuse to disclose and verify Appellee Liberi's home address.
In considering whether to grant venue transfer under 28 USCS § 1404(a),
courts engage in a two-part test: (1) whether action might have been brought in
proposed transferee forum; and (2) whether transfer promotes convenience and
justice. Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873; . Lafferty v. Gito St. Riel, 495
F.3d 72, 77 (3d Cir. Pa. 2007) quoting Jumara.
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
20
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).
Section 1404(a) transfers are discretionary determinations made for the
convenience of the parties and presuppose that the Court has jurisdiction and that
the case has been brought in the correct forum. Lafferty v. Gito St. Riel, 495 F.3d
72, 77 (3d Cir. Pa. 2007) citing Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 878
(3d Cir. 1995).
However, the moving party is not required to show truly compelling
circumstances for change of venue, but rather that all relevant things considered,
the case would be better off transferred to another district. Dominy v. CSX Transp.,
Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9422 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 2006), supra., citing In re
United States, 273 F.3d 380, 388 (3d Cir. 2001).
In determining whether to transfer a case, the court must first determine
whether the action "might have been brought" in the proposed transferee district.
Banket v. GC Am., Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23550 at *10 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 11,
2005), citing Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616, 84 S.Ct. 805, 890, 11
L.Ed.2d 945 (1964). Assuming that this requirement has been satisfied, which it
has been herein, the Court must then assess a number of private and public interest
factors in addition to those enumerated in § 1404(a) (convenience of the parties
21
and witnesses and the interests of justice). Jumara v. State Farm Insurance
Company, 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995).
Specifically, the private interests have included: (1) the plaintiff's forum
preference as manifested in the original choice; (2) the defendant's choice of
forum; (3) where the claim arose; (4) the convenience of the parties as indicated by
their relative physical and financial conditions; (5) the convenience of the
witnesses--but only to the extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for
trial in one of the fora; and (6) the location of books and records. In re Amendt, 169
Fed. Appx. 93 at *8 (3d Cir. 2006), citing Jumara, at 879-80.
The public interests have included in a diversity case, the familiarity of the
two courts with state law. Id. Rogal v. Skilstaf, Inc., 446 F. Supp. 2d 334, 336 (E.D.
Pa. 2006).
In the case at bar, Judge Robreno took all issues into account. All
Defendants (Appellants herein) requested the Case be Transferred to their
prospective states as noted by the Lower Court in its Order Severing and
Transferring the Case. See EXHIBITS "D", "E", "F" and "G".
Appellants arguments fail to address why they feel the Order of the Court
was incorrect. Appellants fail to support their appeal regarding this issue with any
proper and binding legal authorities, cases or statutes. The Appellants arguments
are frivolous and must be denied. The Court's Orders Severing and Transferring
22
the within matter must be upheld.
IV. APPELLANTS CLAIMS THAT JUDGE ROBRENO REFUSED

TO FILE DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT,
LINDA BELCHER IS UNFOUNDED
Appellants next claim that Judge Robreno erred, showed bias and abuse of
judicial discretion in not docketing letters from Defendant Belcher and ruling and
not providing any answers to Belcher. Appellants go on further stating "When
Berg filed this case, he has written incorrect address for defendant Linda Belcher”
[Appellants Brief, page 22, ¶2] Again, this simply is not the case and Appellant,
Taitz is well aware her statements to this Court are falsified. At the time the
underlying case was filed, all parties were personally served. The address
provided for Appellant Linda Belcher was 201 Paris in Castroville, Texas. See
EXHIBIT "A". This is and was Appellant Belcher's physical address. Appellees
are not responsible for parties who refuse their mail or if the Court in fact sent a
document to the incorrect address. If a party changes their address or notices that
their address is incorrectly input, it is the duty of the party to contact the Court and
Appellees to correct the information.
Appellants next state "Berg was claiming, [sic] that he served Belcher,
however, in May of 2010 Belcher forwarded to the court a letter, stating that she
was not served with any pleadings from May of 2009 until May of 2010."
23
[Appellants Brief, page 22, ¶2]. This is again nonsense. Appellee Linda Belcher
was served, and she has had absolutely no problems responding to the Court
filings. What is more interesting however, is Appellant, Attorney Taitz states she
submitted the letters of Appellee Belcher on "06.14.10, 06.28.10, 07.02.10,
07.29.10, 08.02.10, 09.08.2010, 09.28.10, 10.21.10 and 1028.10 [sic]. (Appendix
volume 2, #3)."11 [Appellants Brief, page 23, ¶1]. This is not true either.
Appellant Taitz's "Addendum" contains seven [7] Exhibits. Appellants Exhibit
"5" is a letter from Appellee Linda Belcher dated October 21, 2010, and therefore,
fails to support the false statements as claimed by Appellant Taitz. This
10/21/2010 letter is the only letter supplied by Attorney Taitz and is dated after the
time the Notice of Appeal was filed.
Appellant, Attorney Taitz's statements and claims are completely
unwarranted, unfounded and unsupported by her own filings. This is yet another
falsified claim in attempts to support the Appellants frivolous appeal.
11
Appellants filed what they called an "Addendum" and failed to supply a proper Table of
Contents; none of the documents filed by Appellants are marked "volume 2, #3". On Appellants
Addendum, they have a single space sheet which lists Exhibits "1" through "7"; however, the
documents actually attached do not match the list in which Appellants filed. E.g., Vol. 2, #4.
August 7, 2009 transcript, the transcript is not attached anywhere, #4 are nine (9) pages of
unauthenticated, hearsay, double and triple hearsay documents which do not pertain to the
instant appeal, nor the underlying case.
24
V. APPELLANTS REQUEST for SANCTIONS is IMPROPER and

UNSUPPORTED and ONLY USED to FURTHER THEIR
ATTEMPTS to INTIMIDATE APPELLEES WITNESSES
Appellant, Attorney Taitz begins her paragraph with "As the Appendix Vol 2,
#1, 3, 4 [sic] clearly show Attorney Philip J. Berg used the district court and filed
pleadings based on fraud on the court and perjury and harassment of defendants."
[Appellants Brief, pg. 24, ¶2]. Appellant Attorney Taitz's Exhibit "1" are three
[3] pages, page one is the case caption (Appellants Cover page), page two is
entitled "Appendix Volume 1" with nothing else, and page three is a single list of
the supposed documents attached, which again does not match the documents
Appellant Taitz actually supplied. Appellant Taitz's Exhibit "3" is Judge
Robreno's June 25, 2009 Order Dismissing Defendants James Sundquist and Rock
Salt Publishing to save Diversity Jurisdiction. Appellant Taitz's Exhibit "4" are
nine pages of unauthenticated, unsupported, hearsay, double hearsay and triple
hearsay documents unrelated to the instant appeal and unrelated to the underlying
case.12 This is just another one of Appellant Taitz's falsified accusations against
the Appellees that is completely unsupported.
Appellant, Attorney Taitz continues with nothing but a barrage of false
statements, false recitations of the Appellees underlying case, false accusations,
12
On Appellant, Attorney Taitz’s list she shows Exhibit "4" as the August 7, 2009 Transcript.
However, she failed to attach the August 7, 2009 Transcript anywhere.
25
hearsay statements, all of which are unsupported by the Record of the Court,
unsupported by any Court filings, and are immaterial, impertinent and speculative
statements in attempts to arouse her supporters and prejudice this Court, which do
not pertain to the instant Appeal or the underlying case.
Appellant Taitz does not stop there; she then goes after Appellees witness,
Shirley Waddell, who is the mother of Appellee Lisa Liberi. In so doing,
Appellants, through counsel, Appellant Orly Taitz states "…Plaintiffs were not
content with lying by themselves, they enlisted Liberi's mother to lie and submit
perjured affidavits, claiming that Liberi was an innocent woman, even though
Liberi's mother was the one who previously posted bail..." Not only is this
statement absurd, it is completely untrue. Appellant Taitz did not attach any of
Shirley Waddell's Affidavits because she was well aware no where in any of her
Affidavits are the statements claimed by Taitz. This is proven by the fact
Appellant Taitz was unable to cite to a docket entry number, a date, or attach the
Affidavits, because they do not support Appellant Taitz's falsified statements. See
the 7/20/2009 Affidavit of Shirley Waddell, filed 8/18/2009 attached as EXHIBIT
"N"; the 9/14/2010 Affidavit of Shirley Waddell filed 09/14/2010 attached as
EXHIBIT "O"; and the 10/04/2010 Affidavit of Shirley Waddell filed 10/7/2010
attached a EXHIBIT "P". These are the only Affidavits of Shirley Waddell filed
in the Lower Court and no where are the statements claimed by Appellant Taitz.
26
Appellant Taitz's began filing requests with the Lower Court to have
Appellees Witness, Shirley Waddell Sanctioned on or about October 28, 2010.
Appellant Taitz's is obviously unhappy that witnesses of Appellees are telling the
true story about the wrongs committed by Appellant Taitz and the other
Defendants. Appellant Taitz has a history of going after individuals who do not
agree with her. In fact, Judge Land stated it best when he issued his order
Sanctioning Appellant Taitz for the same conduct she is exhibiting here, “The
Court concludes from this conduct that counsel did have intent to injure anyone
associated with the litigation who did not agree with her”13 [emphasis added]
Not only are Sanctions against Appellees Counsel, Philip J. Berg, Esq. and
Appellees Witness, Shirley Waddell unfounded and unsupported, Appellant Taitz's
has not properly filed her request. Appellants cite two [2] statutes, Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure (F.R.C.P.) Rule 11 and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
(F.R.A.P.) Rule 38.
F.R.C.P. 11 requires a party seeking sanctions to file a separate Motion,
separately from any other Motion and must describe the specific conduct, not
made up allegations. The party's Motion seeking Sanction's must be served
13
Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1380 (M.D. Ga. 2009) aff'd in Rhodes v.
MacDonald, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5340 (11th Cir. Ga. Mar. 15, 2010)
27
pursuant to F.R.C.P. 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the Court for
twenty-one [21] days after service, F.R.C.P. 11(c)(2
F.R.A.P. 38 also fails. F.R.A.P. 38 pertains to Appellants who file Frivolous
Appeals, like this appeal, and the Court can thereby Sanction the Appellants and
award damages and costs to the Appellees. Just like F.R.C.P. 11, a Motion for Rule
38 Sanctions must be made by a separately filed Motion.
Appellant Taitz then cites two (2) cases outside of this Court's district, which
do not support her position, nor do they help her at all. Maier v. Orr, 758 F.2d
1578, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and Meeks v. Jewel Cas., 845 F.2d 1421 (7th Cir.
1988). In particular, Maier goes to the heart of what Appellant Taitz has done all
through her Appellant Brief. Maier states at 1584:
"Counsel elected to file the present motion and supplemental affidavit on

the sole basis of a letter from one not involved in the case and without
investigating the accuracy of statements in that letter… The filing of such
papers in court without reasonable inquiry is an unacceptable practice. See
Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The present falsely based
motion has wasted judicial resources and has diminished the ready
availability of those resources to deserving litigants. It exceeds the bounds
of advocacy open to counsel as officers of the court. Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P.
provides for award of damages and costs to appellee…"
Taitz cites the case Meeks v. Jewel Companies, Inc., 845 F.2d 1421 (7th Cir.
28
1988) for the proposition that Rule 38 Sanctions should be imposed against the
undersigned, and although the case itself is not binding upon this Court, the
undersigned hopes the Court will take the following findings in the Meeks case into
account.
The Meeks Court stated @ 1422:
“…it is the defendant's request for Rule 38 sanctions that is frivolous. We

are troubled by the frequency with which lawyers in this court, whether
representing Appellants or Appellees, are including in their briefs
groundless requests for Rule 38 sanctions”.
“Any frivolous motion, pleading, or request is subject to sanctions,
including a motion or request for sanctions. In re Central Ice Cream Co.,
836 F.2d 1068, 1074 (7th Cir.1987).”
Again, this is Appellants, Attorney Orly Taitz's appeal, not Appellees.
Appellants are seeking Sanctions when Appellees had yet to file anything. Not
only is Appellants Appeal frivolous, it was filed for a completely improper
purpose, to delay the case from moving forward, to use the Court to publish
Appellant Taitz's false tales, forged and altered documents, false accusations, to
keep the emotions of her followers aroused and to of course, further damage the
Appellees who are being prejudiced by the allowance of Appellant, Attorney Orly
Taitz's improper and illegal behaviors.
29
CONCLUSION
Appellants appeal is frivolous and contains false statements, false recitations
of the case, forged and altered documents and false allegations. Appellants Appeal
must be denied, Appellants Request for Sanctions must be denied and this Court
should Affirm the Dismissal of Defendants James Sundquist and Rock Salt
Publishing. This Court should also affirm the Order Severing and Transferring this
Case as to the California Defendants (Appellants) to the U.S. District Court,
Central District of California, Southern Division and the case as to the Texas
Defendants (Appellants) to the U.S. District Court, Western Division.
Appellees are seeking Attorney Fees and Costs for the cost of defending this
frivolous appeal and anything else this Court deems just.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Philip J. Berg
November 7, 2010 ______________________________
Ph: (610) 825-3134
Fx: (610) 834-7659
Email: Philjberg@gmail.com
PA I.D. 9867
30
CERTFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(C), I hereby
certify that this Brief complies with the type-volume requirement of rule
32(a)(7)(B) in that it contains 6,979 words of text in Times New Roman, 14-point
font.
Pursuant to Third Circuit Rule 31.1(c), I hereby certify that the text of the
electronic version of the Brief of Appellees is identical to the text in the paper
copies of the Brief of Appellees. I also certify that a virus detection program,
Symantec Norton Anti-Virus Security 2009, has been run on the electronic version
of the Brief of Appellees and that no virus was detected.
s/ Philip J. Berg
__________________________
31
CERTIFICATE OF BAR MEMBERSHIP
I hereby certify that Philip J. Berg, Esquire is a member in good standing of
the bar of this Court.
s/ Philip J. Berg
__________________________
32
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of Appellees Brief;
Appendices I and II were served this 7th day of November, 2010 electronically
upon the following. Further, ten (10) hard copies of the Brief and four (4) hard
copies of each Appendice, Appendice I and II, were sent to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Orly Taitz, et al.

31912 Monarch Crest
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc. a/k/a

Defend our Freedoms Foundation
26302 La Paz, Suite 211
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
The Sankey Firm, Inc.

2470 Stearns Street #162
Simi Valley, CA 93063
By USPS Mail with Postage fully prepaid
Neil Sankey
4230 Alamo Street
Sankey Investigations, Inc.

4230 Alamo Street
33
Linda Sue Belcher

201 Paris
Castroville, Texas 78009
Email: starrbuzz@sbcglobal.net and
Email: Newwomensparty@aol.com
Ed Hale
Caren Hale
Plains Radio
KPRN
Bar H Farms
1401 Bowie Street
Wellington, Texas 79095
Email: plains.radio@yahoo.com; ed@plainsradio.com; and
barhfarms@gmail.com
s/ Philip J. Berg
________________________
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE
34
NO. 10-3000
__________________________
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________________________
LISA LIBERI, LISA OSTELLA, EVELYN ADAMS, PHILIP J. BERG, ESQ.,

LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG and GO EXCEL GLOBAL
Plaintiffs / Appellees,
v.
ORLY TAITZ, DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC., et al
Defendants / Appellants.
__________________________________________________________________
APPELLEES APPENDICE I
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Case No. 09-cv-01898-ECR
__________________________________________________________________

LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG
Ph: (610) 825-3134
Fx: (610) 834-7659
Email: philjberg@gmail.com
PA I.D. No. 09867

APPENDICE I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
EXHIBIT "1" Appellants, Orly Taitz and Defend our Freedoms

Foundations, Inc. Notice of Appeal……….......1-1 through 1-12
EXHIBIT "2" June 25, 2009 Order of Judge Robreno Dismissing

James Sundquist and Rock Salt Publishing………………….2-1
EXHIBIT "3" June 3, 2010 Memorandum of Judge Robreno

Severing and Transferring the Case…………….3-1 through 3-9
EXHIBIT "4" June 3, 2010 Order of Judge Robreno

Severing and Transferring the Case…………….4-1 through 4-2
EXHIBIT "5" June 23, 2010 Memorandum of Judge Robreno

Granting Appelles Motion for Reconsideration and
Amending the Court's Order severing and transferring
The case……………………………………...…5-1 through 5-6
EXHIBIT "6" June 23, 2010 Amended Order of Judge Robreno

Severing and Transferring the Case…………..6-1 through 6-2
i
EXHIBIT "1"
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110340413
003110210348
Document 128 Page:
Filed 07/02/10
1
4 Date Page
Filed: 111/07/2010
07/08/2010
of 12
11
Dr. Orly Taitt, Esq

Attorney Pro Se & Attorney
For Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
29839 Sanm Marxarim Parkway, Suite 100
Raneho Santa Margarita: CA 92688
Tel: (949) 683-.5411; Fax (949) 766--7603
E-Mail; dr_ taitz@yabOO.CODl
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LISA LillERI, et al., ) NOTICE OF APPEAL;

Plaintiffs ) REQUEST TO UNSEAL
) TRANSCRIPTS FOR APPI!:AL;
v. ) MOTION TO STAY TRANSFER
) PENDING APPEAL
ORL Y TAITZ, et aL, )
)
Defendants. )
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Defendants Taitz and .Defend our Freedoms Foundation are appealing following orders:
1. Order 76. Order is being appealed as defendant Sundquist was improperly pressured b~
the court to agree to be dismissed from the case without prejudice, even though he . ,.I
repeatedly refused to agree and demanded that the court rule on defendant's Motion to.:~.~
dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court erred, and improperly and u.
artificially created diversity and jurisdiction, where it did not exist. as Plaintiffs Osteua.:
and Go Excel Global and defendants SWldquist and Rock Salt publishing were from tRt?
same state ofNJ. This order showed bias mvoring plaintiffs and subjected defendants to
over a year of harassment by plaintiffs in the jurisdiction that did not exist, but was
improperly created by the court.
2. Court Improperly repeatedly refused to docket and consider responses by Defendant Linda
Belcher. Exhibit 1- Affidavit by Belcher.
3 Belcher stated that Plaintiffs attorney Berg committed fraud by claiming that he served
<
her. Berg admitted in hiSopl~dings that Belcher blocked his e-mails, but Berg did not
5eIVe her by mail. Not only Belcher was not served by Berg. but Berg also filed numerous
motions claiming that Belcher'S lack ofresponse is an indication ofher consent and
agreement to Berg's demands for sanctions against Taitt Taitz is submitting as an exhibit
an affidavit from Belcher, stating that:
Page 1-1
lLO/LOO d 65CO# II PO 6l0llll/BO
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110340413
003110210348
Document 128 Page:
Filed 07/02/10
2
5 Date Page
Filed: 211/07/2010
07/08/2010
of 12
11
A. Berg defrauded the court by claiming that he served Belcher, while he did not serve her
B. Berg- a licensed PA attorney, counsel for the plaintiffs and a plaintiff himself defrauded
the court by submitting a perjured statement to court, that Plaintiff Liberi was a citizen of PA
and giving his business address as her address, even though he knew that she was not a citizen
ofPA and could not be citjzen and resident ofPA, since according to her criminal conviction
in CA and terms ofher probation, she could reside only in CA or with her relatives in NM
until March of201].
C P1aintiffLiberi repeatedly committed petjwy and fraud on the court by claiming that she
was a resident of PA, even though she knew that she does not reside in PA and corresponds
and works with attorney Berg by way of mail and e-mails only, but not by actually residing in
FA
D. Attorney and PlamtiffBerg and Plaintiff Liberi defrauded the court on the issue of
tiberi's residence in order to artificially create Diversity ofResidency and J\J.risdiction and in
order to obfuscate the record of the case, since Liberi' s residency was at issue
E Liberi, as an assistant to Attorney Berg repeatedly solicited parties and requested that they
file ftaudulent complaints against Taitt, including complaints with CA State Bar. One of
individuals solicited by Liberi, was an individual Larry Sinclair. who has written a fraudulent
complaint and undermined Taitz case in Ca. Berg and Liberi used Sinclair's letter to further
prejudice this court against Taitz. Repeated refusal by this court to docket defendant Belcher's
affidavit was an abuse ofjudicial discretion and severely prejudiced the defendants and put
public at large at risk of falling victims ofsuch schemes.
4. Court made an error offact and law and abused its discretion by refusing f() docket and
consider response from Belcher, since it contained material facts, showing that Berg - a
licensed attorney. filed a frivolous action based on petjury and fraud and with intend to
harass defendants and pressure them into silence about the fuct that Berg was working
with Liberi- a convicted document forger and convicted thief. and that any and all
docwnents, coming from Berg's office were suspect for forgery. 1f court were to docket
and consider affidavit from Belcher. court would have come to a different decision and
instead offe-activating the case and severing and transferring to two jurisdictions. it
would have dismissed the case and sanctioned Berg and Plaintiffs for repeated acts of--,
fraud upon the court and perjury. Additionally. court put public at large at peril. as
Belcher's affidavit could warn the public about dangers that Liberi represented. .
5. Court made a similar error in not docketing responses from Sankey, Hale and Taitz. ~ a
number of occasions court docketed and was influenced by huindreds and probably .'./
thousands of pages ofinflammatory and prejudicial material that it allowed Berg to f[~,
whi1e not docketing and not considering material submitted by defendants, which s~ed
bias in favor of plaintiffs. -.
6. Order 109. Court made an error in allowing to include 1n the record prejudicial and "}
inflammatory material, irrelevant to the issue ofjurisdiction, that was viewed
7. Order 116 Court made an error in allowing the plaintiffs to file prejudicial inflammatory
material, not related to the issue ofjurisdiction, which was the only issue considered by
the court
8. Order 118. Court erred in its statement, that it grants defendants motion to severe and
transfer. Defendants did not ask for it. defendants asked for a motion to dismiss.
9. Court made an error and prejudiced the ~efenda.nts by not considering the responses by the
defendants contained in Documents 121 and 127.
Page 1-2
ZLO/GOOd 6!t801t 8L.O 6Z0Z/ZZ/80
Case:Case
10-3000 Document: 003110340413
2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 128 Page:
003110210348 6
Filed 07/02/10
3 Date Page
Filed: 311/07/2010
07/08/2010
of 12
11
10. Court made an error by not docketing document 127, as it was received on June 21 st,
making a decision without this document docketed and ultimately docketing it on June 27,
after the decision to which the document pertained was made by the court.
11. Order 123, 124 and Memorandmn Court made an error offact in it's statement that
Llberi was a resident ofPA It was an erroneous statement, going to the issue ofthe case.
Court erred in making this decision based on perjured statements of convicted forger and
thief plaintiff Liberi and her Attorney and co-plaintiffBerg, who was already sanctioned
twice for filing frivolous cases and by c.ompletely ignoring all evidence, coming from
official sources, such as Bankrupcy court in CA and Superior Court in CA" showing that
Liberi was not a resident ofPA and was under jurisdiction ofCA and CA probations
department.
12. Order 125. Court erred and showed bias by post factum granting Berg's motion for
reconsideration (document 120). while completely disregarding Taitz motion for
reconsideration and refusing to even docket letters sent by Sankey, Belcher and Hale.
13. Court erred in not COnsidering the defendant's responses in Document 121 and 127 and
specifically defendant's argument that the proper remedy will be to dismiss the case with
prejudice or alternatively without prejudice, as simply severing the case in two will be
prejudicial to the defendants, as Judges in TX and CA will have to deal with files
containing thousands ofentangled documents and pages ofprejudicial and inflammatory
material about numerous plaintiffs and will be prejudiced against the defendants from the
beginning.
Request to unseal transcripts

Defendant.'il were not notified that the transcripts were sealed, however from the appeal by
attorney for the plaintiffs and plaintiff pro se Berg(appeal was withdrawn by Berg. when he was
requested. to produce transcripts and didn't produce them) defendants found out that the.~,
transcripts were sealed. Defendants were not explained why were transcripts sealed. At this tjrite,
as defendants are planning to appeal several motions and as the transcripts are at issue,. :'C
defendants are requesting to unseal transcripts and provide the defendants with infonnatiqn
regarding the total oost of the copy of the transcript ;" ;
.
Letter Irequest for leave of court to file a motion for stay ofthe transfer oftbe cas€,
pending resolution of the appeal. "
f\)
As this court ordered to file a request for leave of court to file a motion, defendants are
requesting the comt to treat this letter as a request for leave of court to file a motion for stay of
transfer of the case against Defendant's Taitz and Defend Our Freedoms foundation. pending
resolution of appeal. Defendants are asking this court to consider this letter as a request for stay
of transfer. in order not to clutter the court with unnecessary additional pleadings.
Respectfully submitted,~/
lsi Orly Taitz ~ 4
Page 1-3
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110340413
003110210348
Document 128 Page:
Filed 07/02/10
7
4 Date Page
Filed: 411/07/2010
07/08/2010
of 12
11
Dr. Orty Taitz. in propria persona and on behalf of Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
07.01.2010
1declare under penalty of perjury that I served all the parties in the case
lsi Orly Taitz

Defendant Hale has moved and T 'tz does not have his new address and new e-mail!
Exhibit 1 affidavit of Linda Belcher
..
U'
Page 1-4
2:LO/1100"d 6!t80# 8L "110 62:02:/2:2:/80
Case:
· 06/24/2010 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER
10-3000
23:34 FAX Document 128
Document: 003110210348
003110340413 Filed 07/02/10
Page: 5
8 Date Page
Filed: 507/08/2010
of 12
11
11/07/2010
~OOl.
Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
11614 U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-1797
Fax; 261-299-7428
U.S. District Court,
&stem District of Pennsylvania Case Number: 09-cv~O 1898 ECR
LISA LlBERI, at ai,

Plaintiffs'
\'S.
ORLYT~etalf
Respondents
cc: Dr Otly Taitz
Via fax 949-766-7603
June 23, 2010
Your Honor,
I am Undo S. Belcher, appearing Pro Sa in this action. First, I want to alert

Your Honor that as of this date, I HAY! HOT RECEIVED ANY COPIES OF -."
SERG'S FIUNGS WITH ANY COURT SINCE THE WrrHDRAWAL OF OUR FORMlR
ArrORNEY~ TED HOPPE, LAST YEAR. I have little knowledge of what has .:;.;:.
been filed by Berg since that time. N
Berg previously stated to me that his computer has been damaged many
times due to malware, trojans, etc. Therefore, I will NOT accept any
electronic mail from him, especially attachments. He has been informed
several times defendants will not accept improper electronic service that
could infect our computers. Berg well knows I have not received copies of
his flDngs as evidenced by hi. own sworn aflfdavtts flied in this court. Your
Honor. Berg stated in Qn earlier document that he Is blocked from sending
me any electronIC mamngs.. Therefore he knows he did not provide me
copies of any of hIs pleadings.
Your Honor, I hove not agreed to anything by omfssion as I am told Berg
suggests. Berg has created a serious conflict of interest in represfimting
other plainffff's. ot the same time he represents himself. when he swears
(I) Page 1-5

lLO/!100'd B~SOIl
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER
Case: 10-3000 Document 128 Page:
Document: 003110340413
003110210348 Filed 07/02/10
9
6 Date Page
Filed: 611/07/2010
of 12
11. Ili002
07/08/2010
. 06/24v2010 23:34 FAl
copies were sent to all defendants especially when he stands to profit in

potential financial rewards by causing defc1tJlt. Berg was not required to
produce basic documentation to this court that all parties were properly
served and notified. which gives Berg an additional unfair advantage
over defendants appearing Pro Sel Berg benefits materially at my/our
expense in failure of this court to ensure all defendants have been
notified. failure to award financial damages to us for attomey's fees.
fai/lJr~ to ensure a just proce~ denying defendants equal protection
under the rules of civIl procedure and the Constitution foilure to prevent
harassment of defendants by Berg et at failure to prevent undue mental
and emotional stress, failure to dismiss this suit when Berg knew it was
Improper venue, as well as the shock I received 0 couple of days ogo
ofter the latest ruling was made on or about June 2, 2010. , sent a letter to
Your Honor before that ruling. bvt it apparently disappearedl Berg has
k.nowingly violated his oath as an offlcer of the court by making false
swom statements to the court in every document he has submitted to
Your Honor and shovld receive significant sanctions. He has knowingly
LIED to this court in every possible way and prevented me from the luxury
of maldng a proper response to his ongoing smears and lies.
I am requesting that Your Honor', ruling on or about June 2. 2010 and any
or
other subsequent rulngs be vacated $0 that I may obtain eopJes 8erg'$
pleading. and make proper response to his many false allegoftOl1$.
fClUure to vacate creates an untenable situation for defendant/s and
Imposes unrepresented defendants with an addfflonal burden by the lacK.-,
of fcdmess and gives the Impression thIs eourt Is giving a local attorney'':::'"
.
~', 'I.
" .
r
unfair adVantage over out of stctte defendonts. I feel tf ts partlcularty unfair"; :
as Berg was olowed to wfthdraw his actions against $ome defendants an~
not aD to Impact diversity with respect to the other defendants. ~~:
l".
I can also provide extensive evidence proving plaintiff Liberllives in NM, ~

not PA as stated In Your Honor'. last ruing, which" the boslt for this entlr&
case. libe,; did not reside in PA OS afleged prior to filing this suit. Adams, N
Berg and Uberi hove each rep~otedly stated during radio appearances
the NM Uberi is a convIcted felon and that we hove defamed plaintiffs by
insisting she is the some Usa tiberi. living in Sonta Fe, NM. The longuage of
Your Honor's I1JIIng that Uberl resides in fA upholds the fraud they are
perpetuating on donon and the ~otnf, elM using this particular language,
lobeb defendonls liars and defamers (lnd could coat us further damage.
9Mng furffter unfair advanfoge to Berg and In the process, mokes Your
Honor an unwitting partner IS this fraudulent scheme against the public.
Your Honor made a ruling without requiring proof Uberi lives in PA and
suggests serious implications that such a finding had been documented.
Page 1-6
llO/900"d SttEO# 8l : 110 SlOl/lG/ao
Case:
Case:Case
10-3000
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document:
Document:003110340413
003110210348
Document 128 Page:
Page:
Filed 10
07/02/10
7 Date
DatePage
Filed:
Filed:707/08/2010
11/07/2010
of 12
11
" 06/24~2010 23:35 FAX ~003
Berg, liberi and Adams wnl use this ruling to stote to the world that Uberi
does not reside in NM, but PA, when it is a blatant fraudulent fabricationl
As a result of the language used in stating Liberi lives in PA we also face
possible financial consequencesJ This gives another unfair advantage to
plaintiff's offer Berg Red to create a defavlt by this defendant.
Berg and I were online friends since t 998, but had an irreversible rift on or
about March 4th, 2()(Yf, We never met in person, nor have I ever been to
PAt Uberl and Berg knew I would be an opposition witness to expose their
false sworn OffIdavtts made against the other defendants and Included me
In CI bIatont attempt to discredIt and harass me. Berg has perpetuated a
gross fraud on this court and also manipulated Your Honor in order to
smear us and aggravate our various health issues. Berg. Uberi and Adams
hove exacerbated my grief and pain as much and as often as possible.
The history leading up to the filing of this suit ;s as follows. When f was
banned on March 6, 2009; 88f9's blog began dyfng CJnd suppol1 for Berg
waned otter .uppor#erJ (who donated large sums of funds to Berg)
became upset when It was revealed by Obama suppodelJ that UbMit a
convlcfed felon, was handling donors credit card Informaffon. had access
to these donations; and Ibm Berg knew Uberi had an extensive felony
crlmlna' n:cOld Involving fhefb.. financial crimes and forgeries. Support
shifted toward others. but especially towards Dr Taitz. Berg, Uberi and
Adorns blamed me for not lying about Liberi living in NM, insteod of PA as ::::
they falsely ollage. In retaliation for warnings by Dr Taitz, the Hale's and·
myself publicly to donors (we hod no other way to warn donors as we , ,
didn't have theIr contoct info or names) that their info was Gompromiset;J~)
by Berg employing a convicted felon as his poralegol; Berg, Libert Adams.,
and their agents (used as witnesses in this suit) began a malicious smear~:::
campaign against me/us and then this suit was filed as revenge. <I..
I believe this suit was initially motivated by liberi'$ jealousy of Dr Taitz, and

c..)
Berg. in retaliation for the loss of further donations and media attention,
which others like Ed and Coren Hole, PRN and Dr. Taitz received. The river
of money olso dried up Your Honor because Berg has refused fo ac:count
for hundred. of thousands of dollatlln donaffom thot I was told he had
received prior to March 6.. 2009. An accounting MUST be mode to ensure
donors were not soUcited for funds under false pretenses and misdirected
for other uses. I believe Berg gave Uberi permission to improperly misdirect
some of the funds for her own personal benefit, possibly to pay her covrt
ordered flnes/restltution as port of her probation since the $12,000 she
stated to me Berg owed in bills that were coming due on February 1, 2009
and March 1. 2009 equaled the amount Uberi was ordered to pay each
month. I also believe there may have been other pIons for the funds by
(3) Page 1-7

7.l0/)00 .1 flC;r.OJt
f)1 f)r'l P,7fl7177/flr'l
Case:Case
Case: 2:09-cv-01898-ER
10-3000
10-3000 Document: Document 128 Page:
Document:003110340413
003110210348 Filed 11
Page: 07/02/10
8 DatePage
Date Filed:807/08/2010
Filed: of 12
11
11/07/2010
'.06124-/2010 23:35 FAX ~004
Berg and/or Uberi than what donors were given to belIeve were needed
to finance Berg's legal challenge to Ohoma's e/igibility.llosf 00 faith and
belief in Berg's integrity.
I vehemenffy oppOSe any moHon by Berg et 01 of ANY sanctions brought

against Dr ralz, who to my knowledge has obeyed an court orders. The
incidents Berg Cited, falsely aHeging violations by Dr Taitz, I vndersfanci
were PRIOR to the in;tJal hearing and court orders by Your Honor. Dr Tam
actions, as well as all co-defendants, were motiVated by intent to worn
and protect donors when Berg KNEW Uberi a convicted felon. had
access to confidential financial information and was handHng vast
finanCial transactions, In otrecf violation of the terms of her probation. I
can produce evidence of all this Yovr Honor with a little time.
Your Honor. Berg has previously acted In the capacity COIl my attorney,
providing legal advice to me, and representation of me several years ago
and promised confidentiality of my identity to protect me and my family
from corrupt politico I operotives whom I hove exposed in the past 10 plus
yeoo. Berg knew it was an improper conflict of interest to represent oth~r..
plaintiff's against me. yet did it to retaliate against me for not covering uti
for him about Uberi's criminal history. Berg should be permanently bafTed~
and sanctioned from any further representQtlon of third parties against "
me. In TX. it is an absolute affirmative defense against allegations of f")
defamation when speaking the truth. We spolc.e only the truth with a .
proper and legitimate intent. There Is no defamation of plaintiff's. Cf..
Further. Berg knew of a friend of mine who wrote a book about Q

presidential candidate and used some of my research and ultimately
died as a result of the revelations in this book. As (I dlrect result 01 8erg 's
,.presentaHon of me os attorney, he (and later Ubed) learned my true
ldenllly and revealed it in revenge and refoliotion, knowing" might cost
mylile'
I informed Berg in mid March 2009 thot J intended to file a complaint

against him with the PA Bar Association for his defamatory actions against
me, Violating attorney-client priVilege and other dishonest acts, but that I
was waiting until he had exhausted his lawsuits against Oboma. Berg
offered legal representation of me again in writing as recently as March
2OCW, in when I came to believe was an attempt to extort me into sll~nce
about tiberi's lengthy criminal history. When I did not accept his offer ond
agree to keep secret UberI's criminal record and compromise of donors
credit cord Info, Berg exacted revenge by tncludlng me In thJs suB,
reveaRng my ldentfty, vlolaHng confidentiality and defaming me.
Page 1-8
7.l0/AOOri fiC;r.O: Ptpo SlOl/ll/BO
Case:
Case:Case
10-3000
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document:
Document:003110340413
003110210348
Document 128 Page:
Page:
Filed 12
07/02/10
9 Date
DatePage
Filed:
Filed:907/08/2010
11/07/2010
of 12
11
-, 06J24~2010 23:35 FAX IaJ005
Your Honor, of nofirne did Uber1ever state f() me her addre$$ was
conftdential. f provided to the court lost Aug 2009 the email which libeti
sent to me with her address to ship a box of Xmas presents In December
2008. Her nickname is "Usa" on my buddy list and thot is what shows in
chats I soved. Her email address is Uisaliberiataol.com, which is the exact
same as "Uisaliberi" as seen by any member of 001. There is no difference.
Berg and Uberi tied when they claimed if was not Uberi, or that it was
somehow manufactured evidence.
Liberi supplied at least two of her severol Sociol Security numbers to

bankruptcy courts and other places in swam affidavits which we found
listed in public records, available to anyone with fnternet access, NO ONE
violated her privacy. When I confronted Berg about Uberi's criminal
history in our last conversation, I told him' felt compelled to worn donors
that their account numbers were seriously compromised. 8efg dfd not
deny her crlmln", IWtory to me. or to thl' court because he can't. Ubed
suffered no '0ISe. or d(lm~g.. as 8e1g did not fire her and Uberf Is STIU
woridng full time as 8erg', paralegal (offen working more thon 40 hour
we.b) whn. fraudulently eolledfng SS disability ben.fllsl
Plaintiff's and their witnesses allege Ed Hale & I threatened them. NO ONE
EVER THREATENED THEM with anything except telling the truth! l toke
deafh threats very seriously. It is not 0 joking matter to me. I have been ,t;.'::'
flving with death threats for years as a result of my oppositional political.":: "',
~
t"~
/',
." .
research. Berg cannot produce any evidence against me making threqtsJ
because it does not eXistl Libert Berg and Adams have waged a vicious
smear campaign defaming me all over the Internet. We ore their victini} I
realized on or about March 4th, 2009 that for many weel<s I had been s;
systematically set up for false accusations of "hockingtt Bergls webslte-ey
Ubert, Adams and/or their agents. I do nol have the technical compuWJr
'klIII or Icnowl~ to do ANY of the things they allege. I was olso banned
'two days loter, which they pvblicly denied. Berg was mode well aware of
many honibre things done to me, which he dearly condoned and even
encouraged os proven by his own actions.
Your Honor, I supplied the chat which occurred on or about Jan 2. 2009
to the court last August, where Uberi bragged to me how she1 Marl<
McGrew, Adams and Berg had conspired to steat the Obama divorce
documents from Ed Hale, removed the PRN watermark and claimed
credit for the documents POid for by PRN listeners in a press release issued
by Berg, which I can produce. The dates on the different versions of
documents that were posted on their website/s prove It. The first one Berg
had posted on his website bears the court stamped dote and markings of
the one PRN had bought. but with the PRN wC3termark removed. Then
(5)
Page 1-9
1Il /
Case:Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER
10-3000 Document 128 Page:
Document: 003110340413
003110210348 Filed 07/02/10
13
10 DatePage 1011/07/2010
Filed: of 12
11
07/08/2010
, 06/24-/2010 23: 35 FAX IaJ006 ,
Berg replaced it on his website with the second one the PI sent them and
court stamped on Jon 2, 20091 Ed Hale can produce these. if he has not
olready.ln the press release by Berg, he fofsely accused Ed Hole of
stealing documents and claiming credit for the find. I need some time to
produce documentation to substantiote my accusations against Adams,
Berg, liberi and their ogents/wifne~es. I never delete anything, but often
saved files are misplaced on my computer and it takes time to locate.
Ed Hale recenfly informed me he was forced to shut down his radio

network becClUfe of th.t endless harassment, threats and lies by Berg, et
aL According to Ed Hale; 8erg, plaintiff's, and their witness I agents have
threatened candidates for office (who were guest hosts on PRN} with
inclusion in this suit, for simply appearing on the Plains Radio Network. The
people making the threots made mistakes that show clearly they were
agents of Berg and/or Uberi, When guests see how this court has allowed
us to be harassed and legally persecuted by Berg, Uberi and their agents
in an improper venue I vIolating our lights, wreaking havoc on our finances
ond destroying any sense of peace. of course they flee when threatened
with similar legal harassmentl PRN CQuld no longer get guests 05 a result
<">f the$e threats.
'~
To the best of my recollection, I spoke to Dr Toitz 1wice prior to my banning

on March 6, 2009 from Berg's website and blog. I have always freely
supplied my research to anyone who asked for it. I wasn't paid for my r ~j
research by Berg and am not under any obligation to keep it for his ..'.,
exclusive use, although Berg and Liberi shared my research freely with CiIF
the men who filed·sutts. I didnlt need to ask Berg's permission to share my
own research with Dr. Toi1z. Berg's accusations of my conspiring with Ore;,
Toitz against him prior to March 61h, 2009 are paranoid fabrications.
Berg has brought the entire legal profession into ill repute with his many lies
and corrupt behaviors. Berg and Uberi have been allowed to harass us in
PA courts for over a year, costing thousands of dollars in attorney's fees,
and other expenses and mode numerous false swom affidavits defaming
us without requirement of production of one shred of evidence of
wrongdoing. Berg allowed hIS paralegal. Uta Renee Rlchordson CourvDle
UberI, who physically resides cd 2983 Plaza Blanca. santa Fe, NM 87507
and whose home landUne phone Is 505-473-'186 to melle.. false
stcstemenfs to thIs court using his law office address as her own. If called to
appear, Berg and UberI can not produce 'PA state Issued ldenflftcatfon
proving that .he lived In PA when this suit was fi~.
The plaintiffs are not innocent victims. They are wrongful actors in this suit.
In numerous radio appearances broadcast Internationally. Uberi. Berg
Page 1-10
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
· 06/U/2010 23:36 FAX
Document: 003110340413
003110210348
Document 128 Page:
Filed 07/02/10
11
14 DatePage
Filed:
1111/07/2010
07/08/2010
of 12
11
141 007
and Adorns have attempted to falsely represent to the public that Uberi ;s
not the convicted felon Usa Renee Richardson CourviHe Liberi living in NM.
I do know of a person who Uberi told about her criminal post, leaving out
her guilty convictions and most of the charges and facts. This person ;s in
dire fear for her wellbeing if she comes forward, especially facing the
some degree of legal p8rsecvtion and harassment that we defendants
face..
Your Honor. Berg omitted information that Uberl attempted to get me to

do unSCrupuioUI things that bordered on crlmlnol. and I alway. refused.
One effort involved Uberi aSKing me to file false complaints against two
attorneys whom Uberi wonted to discredit. The first complaint she wonted
me to file was against an attomey in Al; Teresa laLOQgia, who supported
Obamo and is licensed to practice in Al, PA and DC as well as complain
against the low firm. Dickstein Shapiro, where she is employed; simply
because LoLogglo owned a website challenging Bergls evidence in his
lawsuit against Oboma. I still have the dossier Liberi sent me to use against
her. Ubetl olso a.ked me to file a false complalnf wIHt the CA Ik:Ir
AlsoekJflon against Dr Tailz. 'warned Dr Taifz of fills tact over a year ago
on 01 about April J6, 2009. I believe I still hove the dossier Uberl sent me __ L
against Dr. Toitz. I need time to locate and produce them. I strongly ~~
suspect Uberi may be behj~d complaints mode against Dr. Tatiz by othe~ .
with histOry of criminal behaviors, but I have no direct knowledge of if. I ~I
did once hear Liberi ask: one of the complainants against Dr foitz, Larry ,,)
Sinclair, to file a complaint during 0 three way phone conversation. I -n
have never known Dr T<lib to act as she has been accused by those with:!.
questionable motives and criminal histories Who are associates of Libert -Z;,
Berg should be reported to the PA Bar Association for investigation and

referred to state and federollaw enforcement for investigation of felony
crimes such as Berg. Uberi and her husband; Brent Uberi conspiring to
commit Social Security fraud, os well as Social Security fraud in Berg
paying Liberi's husband, Brent liber'!, Lisa Liberi's salary for paralegal work.
I reported this to the SSA's Inspector General's office. Usa tiberi also did
not get prior permission to file this suit from her probation officer in NM,
another very serious violation of the terms of her probation as directed by
the CA court There are other acts which need investigatins, 100.
Your Honor, 8et9 01$0 I<nowlnQly GAd deliberCJtely placed me and my

family in grove danger by revealing my Identify in this suit so that nvts who
support corrupt politicians that were previously exposed, ond who ore still
making death threats con eosHy locate me. Berg k.new the danger his
actions put us In and viciously did it anyway. He hos harmed me much
more than I can ever describe. I live in constant fear for my family. serg
Z.LO/llOd S!tf:O#
Page 1-11
(~)
2LO/eLOd 8<180#
<1L: PO BeOG/U/SO
Case:Case
10-3000 Document: 003110340413
2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 128 Page:
003110210348 15
Filed 07/02/10
12 DatePage
Filed:
1211/07/2010
07/08/2010
of 12
• \)612412010 23:36 FAX
ho$ used hi; education and law lIcens•• not as fools for truth and Justice,
but wrongfully as evil weapon. to exact revenge for our Integrity In
revealing to donors their credlt card Info was compromised by Ubed
having access to II.
Your Honor, I am pleading with you, please hold 8erg accountable for all
'lbe wrongs he has done to us. aU the perJured affidavits he suppfied to this
court, and all the damage he has done to each of us wHh public smean.
Berg has desiroyed my ability to perform any sort of poIltk:al research In
the future to expose convptlon and devastated any poaslble sense of
$eCurHy and/or safety for me or my family In the foreseeable Mure. I ask
Berg be ordtWed to pay all our attomey'$ fee. (e-xceedlnv $5tOO for the
H~Ies, Sankey and myself) and an other expenses and that thfs case be
diSmissed with prejudice so that he can not continue to use the courts to
harass and dalTlQQe us further.
I swear under penalty of petjury by the laws of the state of TeXQS, where t
reside. that the statements made in this document are true and correct to
the best of my k:nowledge. ;;:',
Thank you.
u..
Undo S. Belcher
201 Paris st.
Castroville, TX 78009
(,~ ) Page 1-12

?lo/2:l0"d SHOt
~l :vo GGOG/GG/80
EXHIBIT "2"
Case: 10-3000
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110340413
Document 76 Page:
Filed 17
06/26/09
DatePage
Filed:111/07/2010
of 1

LISA LIBERI et al., : CIVIL ACTION

: NO. 09-1898
Plaintiffs, :
:
v. :
:
ORLY TAITZ et al., :
:
Defendants. :
O R D E R
AND NOW, this 25th day of June, 2009, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss Defendants James
Sundquist and Rock Salt Publishing (doc. no. 62) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants James Sundquist
and Rock Salt Publishing are DISMISSED without prejudice.1
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Eduardo C. Robreno
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.
1
To the extent that Plaintiffs have requested that Mr.
Sundquist and Rock Salt Publishing compensate them for the cost
of service in this case, that request is DENIED. The dismissal
without prejudice of Mr. Sundquist and Rock Salt Publishing is
not conditioned upon any payment to Plaintiffs.
Page 2-1
EXHIBIT "3"
Case: Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110340413
Document 117 Page:
Filed19
06/04/10
Date Page
Filed: 111/07/2010
of 9

LISA LIBERI, et al., : CIVIL ACTION

: NO. 09-1898
Plaintiffs, :
:
v. :
:
ORLY TAITZ, et al., :
:
Defendants. :
M E M O R A N D U M
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J. June 3, 2010
I. BACKGROUND
On May 4, 2009, Plaintiffs Lisa Liberi (“Liberi”),
Philip J. Berg, Esq. (“Berg”), the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg,
Evelyn Adams a/k/a Momma E (“Adams”), Lisa Ostella (“Ostella”),
and Go Excel Global (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated this
defamation, libel and slander action against Defendants Orly
Taitz (“Taitz”), Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. (“DOFF”),
Neil Sankey, The Sankey Firm and Sankey Investigations, Inc.
(collectively, "Sankey"), Edgar Hale, Caren Hale, Plains Radio,
KPRN AM 1610, Bar H. Farms, Plains Radio Network (collectively,
“the Hales”), and Linda Sue Belcher (collectively,
“Defendants”).1
1
Some of these parties have a long and complicated
litigation history. See e.g., Berg v. Obama, 586 F.3d 234 (3d
Cir. 2009); Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (M.D. Ga.
2009) (imposing $20,000 sanction on counsel Orly Taitz for use of
the legal process for an improper purpose), aff'd Rhodes v.
MacDonald, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5340 (11th Cir. Mar. 15, 2010).
This litigation appears to be part of this overall dispute among
Page 3-1
Case: Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110340413
Document 117 Page:
Filed20
06/04/10
Date Page
Filed: 211/07/2010
of 9
Plaintiffs allege that, though at one time the parties
worked together on a movement to prove that President Barack
Obama is not a natural-born citizen, Defendants allegedly
published personal and defamatory information in a “quest to
destroy” Plaintiffs.
Jurisdiction for this action is predicated upon
diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The citizenship of
all parties is as follows. For Plaintiffs: Berg and Liberi are
Pennsylvania citizens, Adams is an Oklahoma citizen, and Ostella
and Go Global are citizens of New Jersey. For Defendants: Taitz,
DOFF, and Sankey are citizens of California, Sundquist and Rock
Salt Publishing are citizens of New Jersey, and Belcher and the
Hales are citizens of Texas.2
Here, Sankey, Hale, and Belcher have moved to dismiss
the case or, in the alternative, requested a transfer of venue,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), to the Western District of
Texas. Defendant Taitz moved to dismiss based on lack of
diversity jurisdiction, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and the
insufficiency of Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs filed responses
thereto, opposing each of Defendants’ motions to dismiss. This
Court denied all motions to dismiss without prejudice and
the parties.
2
On June 26, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion
to dismiss Defendants Sundquist and Rock Salt Publishing. See
doc. no. 76.
-2-
Page 3-2
Case: Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110340413
Document 117 Page:
Filed21
06/04/10
Date Page
Filed: 311/07/2010
of 9
subsequently, in order to focus the issues, issued a rule to show
cause as to why the action should not be severed and the claims
transferred to the home jurisdiction of each Defendant. The
parties have submitted multiple responses and replies thereto.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), it is proper for a
district court to issue an Order to Show Cause as to why an
action should not be transferred. See, e.g., Minkoff v. Chubb
Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29137 (D.N.J. Apr. 6, 2009). Here,
the Court directed Plaintiffs to show cause as to why their
complaint should not be dismissed on any one of the following
three grounds. First, why this case should not be dismissed for
lack of personal jurisdiction. Second, why this case should not
be severed into three (3) or fewer cases against the following
groups or Defendants: (i) the Hales; (ii) Belcher; (iii) Taitz,
DOFF, and Sankey. Third, why this case should not be transferred
to an appropriate district in either Texas or California,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).3
3
On August 10, 2009, Plaintiffs appealed the Court’s
denial of their motion for an injunction or restraining order to
the Third Circuit. On December 9, 2009, this case was placed in
suspense pending determination of the appeal. See doc. no. 83.
On May 26, 2010, the Third Circuit granted Plaintiffs’ motion to
withdraw their appeal, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). See
Liberi v. Taitz, No. 09-3403, dated 5/26/10.
Throughout the period of time Plaintiffs’ appeal was

pending before the Third Circuit, the parties filed numerous
motions, seeking leave to file further pleadings. However, since
the case was in suspense and inactive, Plaintiffs’ many requests
for leave to file are denied as moot.
-3-
Page 3-3
Case: Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110340413
Document 117 Page:
Filed22
06/04/10
Date Page
Filed: 411/07/2010
of 9
The matter is now ripe for disposition.
II. DISCUSSION
First, the Court has subject matter and personal
jurisdiction over Defendants. A federal district court may
exercise diversity jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, where
all parties are citizens of different states and the amount in
controversy sought exceeds $75,000. At the time of the filing of
the complaint, Plaintiffs Ostella and Go Global and Defendants
Sundquist and Rock Salt Publishing were citizens of New Jersey;
however, because their presence in the litigation would destroy
diversity, the New Jersey defendants were voluntarily dismissed
from the case by Plaintiffs. Therefore, all remaining parties
are diverse and there is no issue as to the amount in
controversy. Further, Plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case
for personal jurisdiction over each Defendant as the allegedly
defamatory statements at issue were directed towards Plaintiffs
in Pennsylvania and could be covered under the Pennsylvania long
arm statute. 42 Pa. C.S. § 5322(b) (providing that the
Pennsylvania long arm statute is coextensive with the due process
clause); Time Share Vacation Club v. Atl. Resorts, Ltd., 735 F.2d
61, 63 (3d Cir. 1984); Giusto v. Ashland Chem. Co., 994 F. Supp.
587, 592 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (“Moreover, defamation and libel may be
unique in that the act can be done in one place, but the effects
-4-
Page 3-4
Case: Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110340413
Document 117 Page:
Filed23
06/04/10
Date Page
Filed: 511/07/2010
of 9
may foreseeably be felt in some distant location.”).
Second, pursuant to § 1404(a) and in consideration of
“the convenience of parties and witnesses, [and] in the interest
of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any
other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section 1404(a) provides that “where a case
could have been brought against some defendants in the transferee
district, the claims against those defendants may be severed and
transferred while the claims against the remaining defendants,
for whom transfer would not be proper, are retained." D’Jamoos
v. Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., 566 F.3d 94, 110 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing
White v. ABCO Eng'g Corp., 199 F.3d 140, 144 (3d Cir. 1999)).4
Likewise, the Court may transfer all the severed claims to
different districts, provided each of the claims being
transferred satisfies § 1404(a). Id.
Pursuant to § 1404(a), “[o]nce a court determines that
venue would be proper in another district, the court must
consider ‘all relevant factors to determine whether on balance
the litigation would more conveniently proceed and the interests
of justice be better served by transfer to a different forum.’”
Sentry Select Ins. Co. v. LBL Skysytems, Inc., 486 F. Supp. 2d
4
In D’Jamoos, the Third Circuit contemplated a severance
and transfer of cases under § 1631, however the Circuit
specifically noted that, for purposes of inter-district
transferring, § 1631 and § 1404(a) were comparable. 566 F.3d at
110.
-5-
Page 3-5
Case: Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110340413
Document 117 Page:
Filed24
06/04/10
Date Page
Filed: 611/07/2010
of 9
496, 505 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (quoting Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co.,
55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995)). In considering a motion for
transfer under § 1404(a), the court should consider both private
and public interests. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879-80.
In this case, severance and transfer are warranted.
First, the Court, in its Order to Show Cause, apprised “all
relevant parties . . . that the court is considering a transfer”
so opposition could be filed. Id. at 144. Therefore, each party
to the litigation was on notice and was afforded an opportunity
to be heard on the issue.
Second, similar to the claims asserted in D’Jamoos, a
prima facie case for personal jurisdiction has been made over
each Defendant in Pennsylvania, allowing for transfer to their
respective home states. 566 F.3d at 109.
Third, in applying § 1404(a), the Court is directed by
Jumara to consider both public and private factors warranting
severance and transfer. The “private interests” to consider
include: (1) the plaintiff’s forum preference as manifested in
the original choice; (2) the defendant’s preference; (3) whether
the claim arose elsewhere; (4) the convenience of the parties as
indicated by their relative physical and financial conditions;
(5) the convenience of witnesses, only to the extent that a
witness may be unavailable for trial in one of the fora; and (6)
the location of books and records, again only to the extent they
-6-
Page 3-6
Case: Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110340413
Document 117 Page:
Filed25
06/04/10
Date Page
Filed: 711/07/2010
of 9
may be unavailable in one of the fora. Jumara, 595 F.3d at 879.
Relevant “public interests” include: (1) the
enforceability of any judgment; (2) practical considerations that
could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; (3) the
relative administrative difficulties in the two fora resulting
from court congestion; (4) local interest in deciding local
controversies at home; (5) public policies of the fora; and (6)
the familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable state law
in diversity cases. Id. at 879-880.
As to the private interests, other than the belief held
by all Defendants that President Barack Obama is not a natural-
born citizen, it appears that Defendants made the allegedly
defamatory statements independent of each other and not in a
concerted fashion. Further, under the facts alleged, each of
Defendants’ allegedly defamatory statements emanated from their
home jurisdictions.
Under these circumstances, private interests
overwhelmingly weigh in favor of transfer. Although Plaintiffs
initially sought this District as their forum, they have now
petitioned the Court to transfer the entire case to the Central
District of California. All Defendants have already made it
clear that they prefer to litigate in their home districts.
Therefore, the convenience of the parties and witnesses will be
served by transferring the case to a venue where the respective
-7-
Page 3-7
Case: Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110340413
Document 117 Page:
Filed26
06/04/10
Date Page
Filed: 811/07/2010
of 9
parties and witnesses reside.
As to the public factors, they also weigh in favor of
transfer. Issues revolving around the alleged defamatory
statements and the context in which they were made are best
decided by a local jury. Therefore, severance of the individual
claims and parties, and transfer to the home district of each of
the Defendants is warranted here.
III. CONCLUSION
After careful consideration of the convenience of the
parties and witnesses, interests of justice, judicial economy,
and private and public interests, the Court will SEVER the claims
into two independent actions and TRANSFER the cases back to the
appropriate jurisdictions.5
An appropriate order follows.
5
Claims against Defendants Linda Sue Belcher, Edgar
Hale, Caren Hale, Plains Radio Network, Bar H. Farms, and KPRN
A.M. 1610, Neil Sankey and Sankey Investigations, Inc. will be
transferred to the Western District Court of Texas, the
jurisdiction of which Belcher and the Hales are citizens. Claims
against Defendants Orly Taitz and Defend Our Freedoms Foundations
are transferred to the Southern Division of the Central District
of California, the jurisdiction of which Orly Taitz and Defend
Our Freedoms Foundations are citizens.
-8-
Page 3-8
Case: Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110340413
Document 117 Page:
Filed27
06/04/10
Date Page
Filed: 911/07/2010
of 9
-9-
Page 3-9
EXHIBIT "4"
Case: Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110340413
Document 118 Page:
Filed29
06/04/10
Date Page
Filed: 111/07/2010
of 2


: NO. 09-1898
Plaintiffs, :
:
v. :
:
:
Defendants. :
O R D E R
AND NOW, this 3rd day of June, 2010, it is hereby
ORDERED that to the extent that Defendants' motion seeks to sever
and transfer this case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
the motion is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court will now SEVER
the instant case into two separate, independent actions and
TRANSFER each action to the jurisdiction of the following
district courts. All claims pending against Defendants Linda Sue
Belcher, Edgar Hale, Caren Hale, Plains Radio Network, Bar H.
Farms, and KPRN A.M. 1610, Neil Sankey and Sankey Investigations,
Inc. are transferred to the Western District Court of Texas. All
claims pending against Defendants Orly Taitz and Defend Our
Freedoms Foundations are transferred to the Southern Division of
the Central District of California.
Page 4-1
Case: Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110340413
Document 118 Page:
Filed30
06/04/10
Date Page
Filed: 211/07/2010
of 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion to
dismiss or, in the alternative, motion to transfer (doc. no. 10)
is DENIED as moot.1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall be marked
CLOSED.
1
All requests for leave to file pleadings submitted
during the time the case was in suspense from December 9, 2009 to
June 2, 2010, and of which only one letter was made part of the
docket (see Berg Letter in Opp'n to Def. Taitz, dated Jan. 10,
2010, doc. no. 116), are denied as moot.
- 2 -
Page 4-2
EXHIBIT "5"
Case: Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110340413
Document 123 Page:
Filed32
06/23/10
Date Page
Filed: 111/07/2010
of 6


: NO. 09-1898
Plaintiffs, :
:
v. :
:
:
Defendants. :
M E M O R A N D U M
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J. June 22, 2010
I. BACKGROUND
On May 4, 2009, Plaintiffs Lisa Liberi (“Liberi”),
Philip J. Berg, Esq. (“Berg”), the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg,
Evelyn Adams a/k/a Momma E (“Adams”), Lisa Ostella (“Ostella”),
and Go Excel Global (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated this
defamation, libel and slander action against Defendants Orly
Taitz (“Taitz”), Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. (“DOFF”),
Neil Sankey, The Sankey Firm and Sankey Investigations, Inc.
(collectively, "Sankey"), Edgar Hale, Caren Hale, Plains Radio,
KPRN AM 1610, Bar H. Farms, Plains Radio Network (collectively,
“the Hales”), and Linda Sue Belcher (collectively, “Defendants”).
On June 3, 2010, the Court severed the action and
transferred the claims to each Defendant’s home jurisdiction.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Berg’s motion for leave to file a
motion for reconsideration (doc. no. 120), Defendant Taitz’s
response (doc. no. 121) and Defendant Sankey’s response (fax
Page 5-1
Case: Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110340413
Document 123 Page:
Filed33
06/23/10
Date Page
Filed: 211/07/2010
of 6
dated 6/11/10). On June 18, 2010, Plaintiff Berg filed a motion
for leave to file a motion to strike Defendant Taitz’s response
(doc. no. 122).
II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
A. Legal Standard
A motion for reconsideration is treated as the
“functional equivalent” of a motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) which
seeks to alter or amend a judgment. Fed. Kemper Ins. Co. v.
Rauscher, 807 F.2d 345, 348 (3d Cir. 1986) (internal citation
omitted). The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to
“correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence.” Harsco Co. V. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909
(3d Cir. 1985). Reconsideration is appropriate where the party
seeking reconsideration establishes “(1) an intervening change in
the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that
was not available when the court . . . [issued its previous
decision]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or
fact or prevent manifest injustice.” Max’s Seafood Cafe ex rel.
Lou Ann v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999); North
River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d
Cir. 1995); U.S. v. Cabiness, 278 F. Supp. 2d 478. 483-84 (E.D.
Pa. 2003) (Robreno, J.).
B. Proposed Grounds for Reconsideration
-2-
Page 5-2
Case: Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110340413
Document 123 Page:
Filed34
06/23/10
Date Page
Filed: 311/07/2010
of 6
On June 7, 2010, Plaintiff Berg faxed a motion for
leave to file a motion for reconsideration. See doc. no. 120
(docketed 6/13/10). Defendant Taitz responded by fax on June 10,
2010 and Defendant Sankey responded by fax on June 11, 2010. See
Taitz 6/10/10 Ltr., doc. no. 121 (docketed 6/14/10); see also
Sankey 6/11/10 Ltr. Mr. Sankey’s response was not filed of
record.1
In his letter, Plaintiff Berg lists eight purported
errors in the Court's 6/3/10 Order that severed the action and
transferred the claims to each of Defendants’ home jurisdictions.
Upon review, Plaintiff Berg actually raises only three discrete
issues. Importantly, Plaintiff Berg’s motion does not argue that
the legal conclusions set forth in the Memorandum were incorrect.
The three outstanding administrative errors raised by
Plaintiff Berg are grouped as follows.
1. Points 6, 8 and 9
Points 6, 8 and 9 are as follows:
1
Defendant Taitz’s response does not substantively
address Plaintiff Berg’s motion for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration, thus it is inapposite to the issues at bar.
Defendant Sankey’s letter disputes Plaintiff Liberi’s
assertions of Pennsylvania citizenship and argues that Plaintiff
Liberi is a citizen of New Mexico. See Sankey Ltr., dated June
11, 2010. However, diversity jurisdiction would only be
destroyed if Plaintiff Liberi was a citizen of either of the
states of which Defendants are citizens: California or Texas.
Thus, the issue is inapposite to Plaintiff Berg’s motion for
leave to file a motion for reconsideration and the legal
conclusions reached in this case.
-3-
Page 5-3
Case: Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110340413
Document 123 Page:
Filed35
06/23/10
Date Page
Filed: 411/07/2010
of 6
Point 6: There is a discrepancy in the Court’s Order of

June 3, 2010, docketed on June 4, 2010
appearing as Docket Entry No. 118;
Point 8: Amendment of this Court’s June 3, 2010 Order,

docketed June 4, 2010, appearing, as Docket
Entry No. 118 is proper. This Court has the
inherent Power to amend its Final Judgment;
and
Point 9: A proposed Order is attached to Plaintiffs’

Motion.
See Berg Mot. Reconsideration 2, doc. no. 120.
These notations are not relevant to the legal
disposition of this case. Therefore, Points 6, 8 and 9 will be
denied.
2. Points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
Points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are as follows:
Point 1: This Court concedes on page two (2), second

(2nd) paragraph of the Court’s Memorandum
[Doc. No. 117] that the Sankey Defendants,
which would be Neil Sankey, Sankey
Investigations, Inc. and The Sankey Firm, Inc.
a/k/a The Sankey Firm are citizens and
residents of the State of California;
Point 2: Defendants Neil Sankey and Sankey

Investigations, Inc. are not within the
jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court,
Western District of Texas, but instead are
located in the Central District of California;
Point 3: Although in Default, the Court made no mention

of transfer as to Defendant, The Sankey Firm,
Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm. Is the Court
planning on keeping this one Defendant and
allowing Plaintiffs to enter Default against
them?; If not then,
Point 4: The Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm is

a California Corporation, in the U.S. District
-4-
Page 5-4
Case: Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110340413
Document 123 Page:
Filed36
06/23/10
Date Page
Filed: 511/07/2010
of 6
Court, Central District of California,

Southern Division jurisdiction. Therefore,
transfer of Plaintiffs’ claims against this
Defendant is only proper to the U.S. District
Court, Central District of California,
Southern Division; and
Point 5: Defendants Neil Sankey, Sankey Investigations,

Inc. and The Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The
Sankey Firm conducted the offenses giving rise
to this suit from their office locations in
California.
See id. at 1-2.
The final Memorandum correctly identifies Defendants
Neil Sankey, The Sankey Firm and Sankey Investigations, Inc. as
citizens of California; however, the original Order, dated June
3, 2010, incorrectly transferred their case to Texas instead of
California. The enclosed Amended Order corrects this error and
transfers Neil Sankey, The Sankey Firm and Sankey Investigations,
Inc. to the Southern Division of the Central District of
California.
No prejudice has resulted because the cases have not
yet been transferred and the error has no impact on the legal
conclusions reached in this case. Therefore, Plaintiff Berg’s
motion for reconsideration is granted as to Points 1-5.
3. Point 7
Point 7 is as follows:
Point 7: None of the Parties to this Action asked for

severance of the Case; The Court’s Order
states Defendants Motion to Transfer is
Granted; and on page two (2) states
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the
-5-
Page 5-5
Case: Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110340413
Document 123 Page:
Filed37
06/23/10
Date Page
Filed: 611/07/2010
of 6
alternative, Motion to Transfer (doc. No. 10)

is Denied as Moot. First, Doc. No. 10 is an
Affidavit of Service, not a Motion to Dismiss
or in the alternative to Transfer. It is
believed the Court meant Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Transfer is Granted, as Plaintiffs’ had a
pending Motion to Transfer the Case.
See id. at 2.
In Point 7, Plaintiff Berg requests that Defendants’
motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion to transfer
(doc. nos. 24, 25) be denied as moot. However, in its 6/25/09
Order, the Court already denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss or,
in the alternative, motion to transfer (doc. nos. 24, 25). See
Ct. 6/25/09 Order, doc. no. 77.
Currently, there are no motions pending that have not
been previously denied as moot. As such, Point 7 will be denied
as moot. See docket.
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff Berg’s motion for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration will be granted. Points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the
motion for reconsideration will be granted and Points 6, 7, 8 and
9 will be denied as moot.
Plaintiff Berg’s motion for leave to file a motion to
strike Defendant Taitz’s response will be denied as moot.
An amended Order follows.
-6-
Page 5-6
EXHIBIT "6"
Case: Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110340413
Document 124 Page:
Filed39
06/23/10
Date Page
Filed: 111/07/2010
of 2


: NO. 09-1898
Plaintiffs, :
:
v. :
:
:
Defendants. :
AMENDED ORDER
AND NOW, this 22nd day of June, 2010, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Court Order, dated June 3, 2010, is AMENDED as
follows. On June 25, 2009, the Court issued a rule to show cause
upon Plaintiff as to why this case should not be (1) dismissed
for lack of personal jurisdiction; (2) severed into three or
fewer cases against the following groups or Defendants: (i) the
Hales; (ii) Belcher; (iii) Taitz, DOFF, and Sankey; and (3)
transferred to an appropriate district in either Texas or
California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).1 See Court Order,
doc. no. 80.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, upon consideration of
Plaintiffs’ responses to the rule to show cause, Defendants’
1
On June 25, 2009, the Court issued an order that no
further motions shall be filled without prior leave of the Court.
See Court Order, doc. no. 78. No motions granted leave to file
are currently pending.
Page 6-1
Case: Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110340413
Document 124 Page:
Filed40
06/23/10
Date Page
Filed: 211/07/2010
of 2
replies thereto and Plaintiff Berg's motion for reconsideration,
the Court will now SEVER the instant case into two separate,
independent actions and TRANSFER each action to the jurisdiction
of the following district courts. All claims pending against
Defendants Linda Sue Belcher, Edgar Hale, Caren Hale, Plains
Radio Network, Bar H. Farms, and KPRN A.M. 1610 are transferred
to the Western District Court of Texas. All claims pending
against Defendants Orly Taitz, Defend Our Freedoms Foundations,
Neil Sankey, The Sankey Firm and Sankey Investigations, Inc. are
transferred to the Southern Division of the Central District of
California.2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall be marked
CLOSED.
2
All requests for leave to file pleadings submitted
during the time the case was in suspense from December 9, 2009 to
June 4, 2010, of which only one letter was made part of the
docket (see Berg Letter in Opp'n to Def. Taitz, dated Jan. 10,
2010, doc. no. 116), are denied as moot.
- 2 -
Page 6-2

Liberi V Taitz Appellee Brief and Appendice I

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

Liberi V Taitz Appellee Brief and Appendice I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110340412 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2010

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

LISA LIBERI, LISA OSTELLA, EVELYN ADAMS, PHILIP J. BERG, ESQ.,

ORLY TAITZ, DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC., et al

On Appeal from the United States District Court

Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Attorney for Appellees

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

have a financial interest in the outcome of this proceeding.

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT……………………………………..i

COUNTER STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW………1

COUNTER STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES……………………………….2

COUNTER STATEMENT OF THE CASE……………………………………..2-3

COUNTER STATEMENT OF THE FACTS…………………………….…….3-11

I. THE STANDARD OF REVIEW……………………………..…12-13

II. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY DISMISSED

III. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY SEVERED

IV. APPELLANTS CLAIMS THAT JUDGE ROBRENO

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

V. APPELLANTS REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS

CERTIFICATE OF BAR MEMBERSHIP……………………………………….32

APPENDICE I WITH EXHIBITS "1" through "6"

APPENDICE II CONTAINS EXHIBITS "A" through "K"

APPENDICE III CONTAINS EXHIBITS "L" through "P"

Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d 155 (3d Cir. 1993)……………...13

Banket v. GC Am., Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23550

Barnett v. Obama, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101206,

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007)…………………………………………...13

Carr v. Am. Red Cross, 17 F.3d 671 (3d Cir. 1994)………………………………13

Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U. S. 61, 75 (1996)……………………………..…15

Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 439 U.S. 463 (1978)…………………………….13

Dominy v. CSX Transp., Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9422

Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 82 S. Ct. 913,

Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, 541 U.S. 567 (2004)…..……………15, 16

Horn v. Lochart, 17 Wall, 570 (1873)…………………………………………….15

In re Amendt, 169 Fed. Appx. 93 (3d Cir. 2006)………………………………….22

In re Central Ice Cream Co., 836 F.2d 1068 (7th Cir.1987)………………...……29

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. 401 F.3d 143,

In re United States, 273 F.3d 380 (3d Cir. 2001)………………………………....21

Lafferty v. Gito St. Riel, 495 F.3d 72 (3d Cir. 2007)………………………….18, 20

Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al,

Maier v. Orr, 758 F.2d 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1985)…………………………………….28

Meeks v. Jewel Cas., 845 F.2d 1421 (7th Cir. 1988)…………………………..28, 29

Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989)….………..…15, 16

Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1380 (M.D. Ga. 2009)……...……27

Rogal v. Skilstaf, Inc., 446 F. Supp. 2d 334 (E.D. Pa. 2006)………………….…..22

Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964)……………………………………...21

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Yakowicz v. Pennsylvania, 683 F.2d 778 (3d Cir. 1982)……………………….…13

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 3…………………………………....13

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 4…………………………………....13

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 38………………..……………..27, 28

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 5…………………………………………28

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11………………………..………….27, 28

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 21……………………………..…….14, 15

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

17A Moores Federal Practice, §5524(2)……………………………………...…..18

COUNTER STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Appellees believe Appellants issues on appeal pertain to the Lower Court's

Statement as to the Issues believed to be Presented for Review.

Answered in the Affirmative