LIBERI V TAITZ (APPEAL - 3rd CIRCUIT) - Appellants' Reply To Appellees' Brief - Transport Room

Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110355535 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2010
No. 10-3000
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________________
LISA LIBERI, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
vs.
ORLY TAITZ, et al.,
Defendant-Appellants.
__________________
District Court No. 09_cv_01898_ECR

Eastern District of Pennsylvania
__________________
APPELLANT'S REPLY TO APPELLEES' BRIEF
DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ.

CSB #223433
Attorney Pro Se &
Attorney for Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
29839 S. Margarita Pkwy. Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
ph. 949-683-5411
fax 949-766-7603
Appellant's reply to Appellees' Brief on behalf of Defend Our Freedoms Foundation and Orly Taitz 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................p3
2. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIENCE...................................................p4
3. SUMMARY OF THE
ARGUMENT...........................................................p4
4. LEGAL ARGUMENT..........................................................................p6
A. DECISION TO ASSUME JURISDICTION IN DIVERSITY WITHOUT
VERIFICATION OF THE STATE CITIZENSHIP GOES AGAINST PRIOR
RULINGS OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS....p6
B.APPELLEE'S ATTACKS ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE THIRD
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS FRIVOLOUS.................................p12
C. STATE CITIZENSHIP IS AT THE CORE OF THE CASE……..…......p13
D. APPELLEES COMMITTED FRAUD ON THE COURT AND PERJURY
BY CLAIMING THAT THEY PROVIDED LIBERI’S DRIVERS LICENSE
TO JUDGE ROBRENO……………………………........……p17
E. APPELLEES DISCUSSION OF VENUE IS IRRELEVANT AND WAS
DONE IN ORDER TO CREATE CONFUSION, AS AT ISSUE IS THE
FACT, THAT THERE WAS NO JURISDICTION FOR FEDERAL COURT
TO SIT IN DIVERSITY, REGARDLESS OF VENUE…...p18
F. PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATIONS……………………………..p19
G. APPELLEES ARE MISREPRESENTING THE ISSUES ON APPEAL IN
RELATION TO THE DISMISSAL OF THE DEFENDANTS JAMES
SUNDQUIST AND SALT ROCK PUBLISING………………………..p20
H. FRAUD ON THE COURT BY BERG AND LIBERI COMMITTED, AS
NO IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS WERE ROVIDED….......……..p22
I. JUDGE ROBRENO'S FINDINGS WENT TO THE CORE OF THE CASE
AND WERE IMPROPER TO BE MADE WITHOUT THE EVIDENCEp25
J. APPELLANTS REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS PROPER AND
SUPPORTED BY FACT AND LAW AND NECESSARY TO STOP
EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT BY BERG AND THE PLAINTIFFS..p26
5. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………p30
6. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE………………………………………………....
p31
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1.Packard v Provident National Bank, 994 F. 2d 1039, 1045 (3d Cir. 1993)p8
2. Gould Electronics, inc v United states, 220 F. 3d 169, 176 (3d Cir.2000)p 8
3. J& R Ice cream Corp. v. California Smoothie Licensing, 31 F. 3d 1259, 1265
n.3 (3rd Cir 1994)……………………………………………………………..p8
4. 5C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §1206, at 78-79
(1969 & Supp. 2005)………………………………………………………..p8
5. Thomas v Board of Trustees, 195 U.S. 207, 210 (1904)……………….p8
6. Joiner v. Diamond M Drilling Co., 677 F. 2d 1035, 1039 (5th Cir 1982).p9
7.Weight v Kawasaki Motors Corp. (1985, ED Va) 604 F Supp 968……….p9
8. McMann v Doe (2006, DC Mass) 460 F Supp 2d ………………………..p10
9. Bautista v Pan American World Airlines, Inc. (1987, CA9 Cal) 828 F2d 546,
126 BNA LRRM 2559, 107 CCH LC P 10159………………………………….…p10
10. Roche v Lincoln Prop. Co. (2004, CA4 Va) 373 F3d 610……………….…p9
11.Olsen v Quality Continuum Hospice, Inc. (2004,DC NM) 380 F Supp 2d
1225………….…………………………………………………………………….……..p10
12.Filla v Norfolk & Southern Ry. (2003, CA8 Mo) 336 F3d 806……………....p11
13. Jeter v Jim Walter Homes, Inc. (1976, WD Okla) 414 F Supp 791.259……..p11
14. Shahmoon Industries, Inc. v Imperato (1964, CA3 NJ) 338 F2d 449, 9 FR Serv
2d 12B.22, Case 2………………………………………………………………………p11
CERTIFICATION
Reply brief does not exceed allowed 7,000 words
Hard paper copy of the reply brief is identical to the electronic copy
SUMMARY OF THE REPLY
This appeal revolves around the fact, that presiding Judge Eduardo Robreno erred,
showed bias and abuse of judicial discretion in assuming jurisdiction over this
case and entering an order to sever and transfer the case, with the notation that the
plaintiff "Lisa Liberi is a resident of Pennsylvania" without a shred of evidence of
state residence of the lead plaintiff Lisa Liberi. During 08.07.09 hearing before
Judge Robreno Lisa Liberi and her attorney and Co-plaintiff Phil Berg promised to
provide Liberi's address and identifying documents and file them under seal,
however,- they defrauded the court and they never provided any identifying
documents. Transcript of the hearing in question and the docket show, that there
are no identifying documents submitted. The Plaintiffs/Appellees could resolve
this matter by providing just one page- a certified copy of Liberi's PA driver's
license, they could resolve it by submitting it to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
under seal. They never did it. Instead, they submitted over 900 pages of irrelevant,
inflammatory and defamatory material in order to obfuscate the fact, that they
committed fraud, that Liberi did not reside in PA at the time the law suit was filed,
that PA attorney Philip J. Berg is employing as his paralegal a convicted document
forger and thief , Lisa Liberi, who was convicted in 2008 in CA, who is currently
on probation and not allowed to reside in any state aside from CA and NM. Berg
yet again violated the rules of professional discipline and filed this whole case
with the purpose of harassing and intimidating the defendants, who were
whistle blowers and exposed Berg and Liberi to the public. Actions of Judge
Robreno represent error of fact and law and abuse of judicial discretion, in that he
refused to rule on the defendants multiple motions to dismiss due to lack of
jurisdiction, he refused to take into consideration any and all identifying evidence,
presented by the defendants, who are out of state defendants, instead he ruled in
favor of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's attorney Berg, who is a local Philadelphia
attorney, even though Berg did not provide a shred of evidence of Liberi's PA
residence. Judge Robreno, also, under the color of authority, violated the
Constitutional rights of due process of out of state pro se defendant Linda Belcher,
who repeatedly complained, that she was not served with the pleadings. Judge
Robreno simply ignored all of her letters and complaints, did not docket her letters
and did not rule on her complaints.(Appendix, Affidavit by Linda Belcher )
Additionally, District Court repeatedly did not docket important exhibits and
pleadings provided by the defendants, particularly ones, that were incriminating
Berg and Liberi, whereby showing bias.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. DECISION TO ASSUME JURISDICTION IN DIVERSITY WITHOUT
VERIFICATION OF THE STATE CITIZENSHIP GOES AGAINST PRIOR
RULINGS OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
Appellees did not provide any response to the main question, why should the
jurisdiction be asserted in diversity without any evidence of the lead plaintiff's
state citizenship. Appellee’s argument can be summarized to 2 points:
1. Decision to severe the case was proper in relation to venue
2. Precedents cited by the Appellants, who are CA residents, come from other
circuits, mostly CA and not Third Circuit Court of Appeals cases.
In response, the Appellants are stating, that Venue is not being appealed. Before
the Venue is in play, the Federal Court system as a whole is supposed to have
jurisdiction over the case. This case was filed based on Diversity jurisdiction,
where the Appellees claim, that the lead plaintiff is a resident of PA, while the
defendants were residents of CA, TX and NJ. Appellees stated at 08.07.09.
hearing that they will submit the plaintiff Lisa Liberi’s identifying documents,
however they defrauded the court and never submitted those documents.
Presiding Judge Eduardo Robreno, might have thought that those were
submitted at some point, however the docket shows, that at no time within a
year and a half those were ever submitted. As such, the Plaintiffs never
established Liberi’s state citizenship for purposes of diversity.
In regards to the second point questioning the position of the- Third Circuit
Court of Appeals in regards to the state citizenship, it repeatedly ruled that it is
upon the party, claiming diversity to show that it exists. It has to be shown by
the preponderance of evidence.
In the recent unpublished case of S. Freedman and Company, Inc v Marvin
Raab, 180 Fed. Appx. 316 (3rd Cir. 2006) not cited here as precedent, Third
Circuit Court Judges Honorable Barry, Smith and Aldisert found that under the
precedent of Gould Electronics, Inc v United states, 220 F. 3d 169, 176 (3d Cir.
2000) the Third Circuit court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review under 28
U.S.C. §1291 the issue of subject matter jurisdiction as a basis for dismissal of
the case. Third Circuit Court of Appeals also found that a District Court has
a duty to raise doubts about its jurisdiction at any time, and that the party
asserting jurisdiction “bears the burden of showing that the case is properly
before the court at all stages of litigation”. See Packard v Provident National
Bank, 994 F. 2d 1039, 1045 (3d Cir. 1993) and similarly J& R Ice cream Corp.
v. California Smoothie Licensing, 31 F. 3d 1259, 1265 n.3 (3rd Cir 1994).
In its’ opinion in Freedman v Raab theThird Circuit proceeded to expand and
reiterate that “the basis upon which jurisdiction depends must be alleged
affirmatively and distinctly and cannot be established argumentatively or by
mere inference” See 5C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure
§1206, at 78-79 (1969 & Supp. 2005); Thomas v Board of Trustees, 195 U.S.
207, 210 (1904) (holding that diversity jurisdiction, “or the facts upon which, in
legal intendment, it rests, must be distinctly and positively averred in the
pleadings, or should appear affirmatively and with equal distinctness in other
part of the record”); Joiner v. Diamond M Drilling Co., 677 F. 2d 1035, 1039
(5th Cir 1982) (“In order to adequately establish diversity jurisdiction, a
complaint must set forth with specificity a corporate party’s state of
incorporation and its principal place of business). “Fedco’s bald allegations
that the corporate parties are citizens of certain states are insufficient to carry its
burden of pleading the diversity of the parties.”
In cases in which jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, plaintiff has
burden to show, first, that applicable statute confers jurisdiction, and, second, that
assertion of jurisdiction is consonant with constitutional limitations of due
process. Weight v Kawasaki Motors Corp. (1985, ED Va) 604 F Supp 968.
Party's mere allegation of diversity cannot satisfy its burden of establishing
district court's jurisdiction; citizenship of each real party in interest must be
established by preponderance of evidence. Roche v Lincoln Prop. Co. (2004,
CA4 Va) 373 F3d 610.
Complaint alleging that defendant's corporate citizenship was in a state other than
California but failing to allege that plaintiffs were all citizens of California was not
sufficient to give District Court jurisdiction since pleadings did not otherwise
resolve issue of citizenship. Bautista v Pan American World Airlines, Inc. (1987,
CA9 Cal) 828 F2d 546, 126 BNA LRRM 2559, 107 CCH LC P 10159.
In Olsen v Quality Continuum Hospice, Inc. (2004,DC NM) 380 F Supp 2d 1225
Court lacked jurisdiction over patient's claims because he failed to establish
diversity jurisdiction because at time he filed complaint both he and hospice were
citizens of State.
In McMann v. Doe (2006, DC Mass) 460 F Supp 2d complaint against John Doe
defendant alleging Internet defamation was dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because there was risk that if John Doe's identity were
discovered there could have been no diversity, and court's jurisdictional
authority would have disappeared; court declined to read amended language of
28 USCS § 1441into 28 USCS § 1332 because it would have accomplished much
broader result of allowing case with only one party and only state law claims to
proceed initially in federal court Olsen v Quality Continuum Hospice, Inc.
(2004,DC NM) 380 F Supp 2d 1225.
In motorist's personal injury lawsuit against, inter alia, owners of property adjacent
to private railroad-track crossing where car-train accident occurred, pursuant to 28
USCS § 1447(d), appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review remand that
implicitly was based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction; district court clearly
was addressing jurisdictional issues--diversity of citizenship, 28 USCS § 1332, and
fraudulent joinder--and when doing so, it properly declined to decide doubtful
question of state law and, instead, resolved ambiguity (lack of state law directly on
point) in motorist's favor. Filla v Norfolk & Southern Ry. (2003, CA8 Mo) 336 F3d
806.
Where record creates doubt as to jurisdiction, trial court must determine
whether there are adequate grounds to sustain its jurisdiction over subject
matter. Shahmoon Industries, Inc. v Imperato (1964, CA3 NJ) 338 F2d 449, 9 FR
Serv 2d 12B.22, Case 2.
Court has duty to look to its own jurisdiction and lack of subject matter
jurisdiction may be asserted by court, sua sponte, at any time. Jeter v Jim
Walter Homes, Inc. (1976, WD Okla) 414 F Supp 791.259. decided by a
preponderance of evidence.
In this case the Plaintiffs did not present any evidence, not a shred of evidence,
showing Liberi to be a resident of PA. Defendants have shown that according to
her probation she can reside only in CA or NM, she is subject to the jurisdiction of
CA, therefore the case at hand has to be dismissed as citizenship of Liberi was not
provided to resolve the issue of diversity to allow it to proceed in Federal court. If
the Federal court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case, it is supposed to be
dismissed. 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.
B. APPELLEE'S ATTACKS ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE THIRD
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ARE FRIVOLOUS
Before the Appellants filed their opening brief, the Appellees filed a Motion to
dismiss the Appeal, claiming that this court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Their motion was denied. Now, in their Appellee's response, the Appellees did not
address the appeal itself and are engaged yet again in attacking the jurisdiction of
this court. This is frivolous, as the issue of the Jurisdiction of the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals to hear this brief was already decided and established. The
Appellees did not bring one single case as a precedent, supporting their
position, that the District court could properly assert jurisdiction in Diversity
without the Plaintiff/Appellee submitting her identification documents,
showing her state citizenship. They did not provide any such precedents, because
they simply do not exist. Instead, Appellees are trying to confuse the court by
discussing irrelevant issues and bringing precedents on irrelevant issues, which are
not on Appeal, such as Jurisdiction of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and
Venue. Similarly, venue is not at issue, as without the jurisdiction in Federal Court
system venue is irrelevant.
C. STATE CITIZENSHIP IS AT THE CORE OF THE CASE
As stated in the opening brief, the state citizenship of plaintiff Liberi is at the core
of the case, as this case was filed in the beginning of May 2009 after
Defendants/Appellants published on the web site/blog of DOFF foundation a copy
of the verified criminal record of Lisa Liberi, assistant to attorney Philip J Berg,
showing that she was charged in CA in 23 counts of forgery of documents and
grand theft and in 2008 was convicted of 10 charges of forgery of documents, of
forgery of the official seal and grand theft and she is currently on probation,
allowed to reside in CA or NM only. On May 4, only a few days after the
publication of Liberi’s criminal record, Berg and Liberi responded by filing their
complaint, where they claimed that Lisa Liberi is a different woman, who resides
in PA, who is innocent and who was slandered and defamed by this publication. As
such, her state residence is extremely important not only for the purposes of
diversity, but for the resolution of the case. Plaintiffs cannot hide it. Taitz properly
demanded to see Liberi's PA drivers' license. Without any shred of evidence Liberi
and Berg accused Taitz, the rest of the defendants and multiple other individuals of
committing multiple crimes, including stalking, forgery and attempt to hire a hit
man to kill Liberi. They claimed, that because of danger to her life Liberi's drivers’
license cannot be shown. Judge Robreno gave them an opportunity to file Liberi’s
PA driver’s license under seal, Taitz agreed to accept a redacted PA drivers’
license without the street address, with only the state information. That shows, that
nobody ever tried to hurt them. They never filed any drivers’ license with the
court. The reason for not providing Liberi’s PA drivers’ license, is not in the
imaginary threats, but rather in the fact, that she does not possess a PA drivers
license, her PA residence was fraud on the court and perjury on part of Berg and
Liberi, and if they will have to provide her actual drivers license, it will show it to
be either CA or NM license, making it clear, that it is indeed the same Lisa Liberi,
who was convicted in CA and allowed to reside only in CA or NM. Additionally,
Appellants filed a motion to strike and motion for sanctions against Appellees and
their attorney Berg, as without a shred of evidence Appellees repeatedly accused
the Appellants of multiple crimes, whereby Berg showed egregious violation of the
Code of professional ethics and egregious misconduct by an attorney. Not only
Berg was knowingly working with a convicted forger and thief, he defamed
innocent people and accused them of multiple serious crimes in order to cover his
involvement with a forger.
Additionally, Berg is trying to confuse this court and perpetrate his fraud further by
making ambiguous statements. P5 of the Appellees' brief "Liberi... has not been
convicted in, nor charged in, ten (10) separate criminal cases". At first glance it
might look like she is an innocent woman, who was defamed. In reality Berg is
simply twisting the truth and the facts. As the Appendix (Appellant's Appendix
Liberi's mug shot and criminal record) shows, in 2008 a plea bargain was reached,
where she was convicted of 10 felony counts out of 23 charges against her in CA.
Berg is saying that she was not convicted in 10 separate criminal cases, creating an
illusion that she was defamed, but it simply means, that there were 10 felony
convictions within 1 case in CA. Docket document #136, also includes a transcript
of a prior hearing in CA, where Detective Liebricht testified regarding Liberi’s
prior 19 criminal charges, mostly in TX.
Berg states, that Liberi's middle name is not Renee, trying to put doubt in the
minds of the Judges, to make them believe, that she is a different person. In reality,
the same criminal record shows that Liberi used 9 different aliases, where she used
her prior married name Courville or maiden name Richardson or short for
Richardson- “Rich” or combination thereof as a middle name instead of her
middle name Renee, sometimes she used only letter R. Berg is trying to create an
illusion of Liberi being a different person, while he knows that she is indeed the
same person, who was convicted in CA, and who is not allowed to reside in PA, he
is continuously and egregiously violating the requirement of candor before the
tribunal and continuously and repeatedly is defrauding the court. On the other hand
Defendants/ Appellants provided witness identification (Appendix to the opening
brief, Affidavits of Ed Hale and Caren Hale), stating that Lisa Liberi, who
appeared in PA before judge Robreno, is indeed the same Lisa Liberi, who is
shown on the attached mug shots of Lisa Liberi, convicted in CA.
.Appellants, provided transcripts from CA, showing that Liberi's mother, Shirley
Waddell, who was filing hundreds of pages of affidavits in PA in Liberi v Taitz, in
support of her daughters legal action for defamation and slander, claiming that her
daughter is an innocent woman who was defamed and slandered by this monster
Attorney Orly Taitz, was actually the same Shirley Waddell, who paid bail bond
premium to bail her daughter out of prison in CA. (Appendix to Appellants’
opening brief, 2004 Superior Court of CA, San Bernardino County transcript of
the bail bond hearing of Lisa Liberi). Additionally, Taitz provided signature
samples from CA, showing that the same signature was used by Liberi to sign her
motions in her criminal case in CA. (Document 145, reply to opposition to
Motion). Considering the fact, that Liberi’s state citizenship is at the core of the
case, the court had a heightened obligation to make sure that the Appellees provide
Liberi’s drivers’ license and prove her state citizenship. The court erred in not
demanding such compliance and in ignoring all the evidence, provided by the
defendants.
D. APPELLEES COMMITTED FRAUD ON THE COURT AND PERJURY
BY CLAIMING THAT THEY PROVIDED LIBERI’S DRIVERS LICENSE
TO JUDGE ROBRENO
a. In his response attorney Berg claims that he showed Judge Robreno Liberi's Driver's
license, that Judge Robreno's decision to assume jurisdiction is based on the driver's
license, submitted to court on 08.07.09. This statement constitutes fraud on this court.
Transcript of 08.07.09 hearing states, that Berg asked Judge Robreno, if he can provide
Liberi's license under seal, however the transcript does not state, that Berg actually ever
provided it.
b. Examination of the transcript shows, that there are no documents attached to it at all.
There is no license under seal or not under seal. There is no notation from a court
reporter, stating, that any documents were given by Liberi or Berg to judge Robreno,
there is only a promise by Liberi to provide her identifying documents at some later time.
c. Affidavit of Ed Hale (Appellants' appendix) states, that the plaintiffs did not provide
Judge Robreno with any documents and that they left the court room the same time as the
defendants. He also states, that Lisa Liberi, who appeared at the hearing in PA in front of
Judge Robreno, is the same Lisa Liberi, as depicted on the mug shot from CA.
d. . Affidavit of Caren Hale (Appellants appendix) states, that the plaintiffs did not
provide Judge Robreno with any documents and that they left the court room the same
time as the defendants. He also states, that Lisa Liberi, who appeared at the hearing in PA
in front of Judge Robreno, is the same Lisa Liberi, as depicted on the mug shot from CA
e. If arguendo Berg, who is a PA attorney, went to Judge Robreno at some later time and
showed him some document, some driver's license, it would be an impermissible ex-parte
communication and it violated the rights of the defendants for an impartial hearing,
particularly in light of the fact that Lisa Liberi has multiple convictions for forgery of
documents, and it is more likely than not that if Berg ever showed any document to judge
Robreno, it was a forged document. The defendants were entitled to see any documents
provided by Berg to Judge Robreno, examine those documents and make sure those
documents were not forged. As stated, there are no identifying documents anywhere on
the docket. Berg, also, refers to statements by Kelly Strebel, who is an unemployed truck
driver in Utah and Evelyn Adams, aka Momma E, a retiree in OK, who are claiming, that
Liberi does not reside in CA or TX. No foundation was ever provided, as to how do they
know, where Liberi resides. Anybody can state anything. Their statements do not satisfy
the best evidence rule. Adams is a party to this action, Strebel is Liberi’s and Berg’s
supporter and volunteer. State residence needs to be established by proper identifying
documents such as a drivers license. Judge Robreno requested it during 08.07.09 hearing,
Liberi and Berg promised to submit it and file under seal, but never submitted it. There
are no identifying documents anywhere in the file of this case, therefore the case has to
be dismissed, as Liberi's state citizenship was never established.
E. APPELLEES DISCUSSION OF VENUE IS IRRELEVANT AND WAS
DONE IN ORDER TO CREATE CONFUSION, AS AT ISSUE IS THE
FACT, THAT THERE WAS NO JURISDICTION FOR FEDERAL COURT
TO SIT IN DIVERSITY, REGARDLESS OF VENUE
Berg is trying to simply confuse this court by discussing venue. The venue is not
at issue. Before venue is discussed, at issue is jurisdiction. Did the federal court
have any jurisdiction to sit in diversity and hear this case. For purpose of diversity
the plaintiffs had to provide evidence of citizenship of each and every party and
show it by preponderance of evidence. The Plaintiffs did not provide one single
document, that it evidentiary of Plaintiff Liberi's state citizenship. The docket
shows no evidence: there is no Pennsylvania driver's license anywhere in this
docket. In order to cover up the fact, that there is no driver's license, plaintiffs
made up outrageous slanderous accusations and committed fraud on the court and
perjury by accusing defendant Taitz of trying to hire a hit man to kill Liberi. This
is an outrageous behavior by a licensed attorney Berg. Taitz filed a separate
motion to sanction attorney Berg for filing with court accusations of capital crimes
with the sole purpose of harassment of defendants. As no evidence of state
residence was ever provided, venue is irrelevant. the federal court system has no
jurisdiction over this case regardless of venue.
F. PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
This issue is so important, that it has to be decided by the court of Appeals and
even Supreme Court, if need be. It is simply insane to believe, that a criminal can
make up a story, harass whistle blower's with a frivolous law suit, make up
outrageous allegations, that the victims are threatening this criminal , that any and
all evidence needs to be sealed because of an imaginary accusation, and based
upon that, a judge makes a decision without any shred of evidence. If this standard
is allowed to stand, than it is de facto the end to the system of Justice. It means,
that any time anyone can accuse anybody of crimes and demand that the court
make a finding of fact based on such insane allegations of imaginary threats.
Additionally, in this case Berg has filed multiple motions, seeking a temporary
restraining order to keep the case sealed. All of such motions were denied by both
the District court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. If the courts did not find
any value in Appellees claims of threats, than it was an error for Judge Robreno
not to demand Lisa Liberi's PA driver's license and not to provide it to the
defendants in order to show Liberi's citizenship for the purposes of diversity.
G. APPELLEES ARE MISREPRESENTING THE ISSUES ON APPEAL IN
RELATION TO THE DISMISSAL OF THE DEFENDANTS JAMES
SUNDQUIST AND SALT ROCK PUBLISING.
James Sundquist in his pleadings and during 06.25.09 hearing before Judge
Robreno repeatedly demanded to have his motion to dismiss to be decided with
prejudice. Both Appellants, who are CA residents, and James Sundquist, NJ
resident, in their pleadings and during the hearing requested for the court to
ascertain the residency of each party and to rule with prejudice. Judge Robreno
never demanded proof of Liberi’s PA residence and refused to rule with prejudice.
Instead, during the hearing, he repeatedly applied pressure on James Sundquist to
agree to be dismissed without prejudice. Defendants already incurred expenses in
preparing responsive pleadings and traveling to PA. If Judge Robreno were to
demand proof of Liberi’s state residence on June 25, 2009, the case would have
ended then and there, as Liberi and Berg had nothing to show. Instead, Judge
Robreno dismissed James Sundquist without prejudice and left him unable to
collect from Berg and plaintiffs and he left Sundquist exposed to further
harassment form Berg, if Sundquist were to speak up the truth about Berg and
Liberi. Additionally, Judge Robreno allowed Berg to continuously terrorize all of
the defendants with slander by the Plaintiffs and Berg for a year and a half. The
Appeal does not state that judge Robreno had no discretion, it stated, that he acted
with bias in favor of local attorney Berg and his clients, even though Berg and his
clients were clearly committing fraud on the court and perjury, the Appeal states
that judge Robreno abused his judicial discretion. Dismissal of Sundquist is part
and parcel of the issue of diversity, that was brought back by Judge Robreno
after he lifted his order of suspension on June 4, 2010. Additionally, Taitz was
waiting resolution of Berg’s appeal, which he filed in August of 2009 with the
Third Cicuit Court of Appeals and which he withdrew only in April of 2010, after
an order to show cause was issued by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and she
was subject to order of suspension of the case imposed by judge Robreno on
12.11.09 and lifted only on 06.04.10. Therefore, her appeal was timely and proper.
Appellees made another fraudulent statement, claiming, that James Sundquist
did not respond in writing. Docket entry No 68 clearly shows, that on 06.24.09
James Sundquist together with Taitz filed a response in opposition to Plaintiffs “ex
Parte” motion to leave to dismiss, to “drop” defendants James Sundquist and Rock
Salt Publishing without prejudice. This is only one very vivid example,
demonstrating how attorney Berg continuously commits fraud on the court and
simply enters in his pleadings fraudulent statements.
H. FRAUD ON THE COURT BY BERG AND LIBERI COMMITTED, AS
NO IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS WERE PROVIDED.
In their 11. 07.10 pleadings Appellees stated, that they simply showed judge
Robreno Liberi's driver's license and the finding that Liberi is a resident of PA was
made based on the fact, that Liberi and her attorney Berg showed her driver's
license during the hearing. This is a complete fraud on the court and is contradicted
by sworn affidavits of ED and Caren Hale and by the transcript itself. The
transcript on page 19
"Mr. Berg: ... her actual address I think would be detrimental
The Court: "Well, the actual address we could do without it.
Mr. Berg: Okay. could that be on other people, too, or just on Miss Liberi?
The court: Well you could disclose it and file it with the court under seal."
on page 47 of the transcript of the same hearing during direct examination of
Liberi by Berg:
"Q. You heard my statement before. You will supply your correct address and
identifying information which we will give the court under seal, is that correct?
A Yes, sir."
So both the sworn affidavits of Ed and Caren Hale and the transcript of the hearing
show, that Liberi and Berg did not show Judge Robreno any documents during the
hearing. They both stated, that at some later time they would provide Liberi's
identifying information under seal, however the transcript and the docket
(Appellants appendix) do not show any identifying information ever provided to
the court, neither with the transcript, nor at any time later. Berg and Liberi simply
defrauded the court. They wanted her information hidden, as they knew, that she
was not residing in PA and this whole lawsuit was filed with the sole purpose to
harass. Judge Robreno denied Berg's motion for temporary restraining order. Berg
appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and filed multiple emergency
motions and requests for judicial notices. All were denied by this court. The Third
Circuit court of Appeals issued an order to show cause to Berg, why he did not
provide the copy of the transcript of the above hearing, that he was appealing. Berg
knew, that his fraud on the court is about to be discovered, the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals will see, that Berg and Liberi promised to file Liberi's identifying
documents, but never did it, so Berg abruptly withdrew his appeal of the 08.07.09
ruling. He demanded to transfer the case to CA. By that time, it was a year since
the case was originally filed, and ten months since 08.07.09 hearing, there were
thousands of pages filed by Berg, so quite possibly Judge Robreno did not
remember or did not notice, that Berg never filed Liberi's identifying papers, so
Judge Robreno issued an order to sever and transfer the case and noticed in his
memorandum, that Liberi is a resident of PA, probably believing that Berg was
telling the truth and at some point filed the documents, which of course was never
done. At that point Taitz filed an appeal, as she knew, that no identifying
documents were ever filed. On 09.04.10. Taitz filed a motion with Judge Robreno
"Motion-request for missing documents". Taitz was specifically asking for Liberi's
identifying documents. On 10.29.10 Judge Robreno issued an order "That all future
motions need to be addressed to the Third Circuit". Request for missing documents
was denied without prejudice". As such the transcript and the docket clearly show,
that Berg and Liberi were supposed to supply Liberi's correct address and
identifying information and provide it to the court under seal, however they never
did it. They defrauded the District Court and the Third Circuit court of Appeals.
They wasted hours and hours of time of two courts, they inflicted enormous
financial damage and enormous emotional distress, however, they knew full well,
that they never provided any identifying information. They acted in an egregious
manner, accusing numerous innocent individuals of multiple serious crimes, they
caused an elderly individual Ed Hale to suffer a heart attack and they brought
many others to the brink of a heart attack, yet they knew all along, that they are
committing an egregious fraud.
This is the reason, why the Defendants/Appellants are asking not only for a
dismissal of the case, but also for severe sanctions against the plaintiffs and
Attorney Berg.
I. JUDGE ROBRENO'S FINDINGS WENT TO THE CORE OF THE CASE
AND WERE IMPROPER TO BE MADE WITHOUT THE EVIDENCE
As stated previously, the core of the case, is Liberi's claim, that she is a different
Liberi, not one convicted in CA, but one residing in PA. When Judge Robreno
included in his 06.04.10 order and memorandum a statement, that "Lisa Liberi is a
resident of Pennsylvania" he not only made a finding of jurisdiction, he made a
finding essential to the case, as Liberi claims to be a different person. Defendants
are entitled to see the evidence, based on which he made such a determination.
J. APPELLANTS REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS PROPER AND
SUPPORTED BY FACT AND LAW AND NECESSARY TO STOP
EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT BY BERG AND THE PLAINTIFFS
Case at hand is a $800 million legal action for Slander and Defamation of
character, where Plaintiffs claimed that the defendants/appellants defamed Berg
and his legal assistant Liberi by "false criminal accusations" (p77 Verified
complaint Liberi v Taitz.) P66 of the complaint states, that "the defendants
..."made false statements about Liberi, claiming she had a criminal record of
convictions". Appellees claimed that Liberi is a resident of PA, who was placed in
false light. P75 of the complaint states "Plaintiffs and their businesses have
invested considerable effort and expense in establishing goodwill in their names
and in promoting their careers and professional reputation. Liberi in promoting her
profession as a skillful and highly competent Legal Assistant and Paralegal. Beg in
promoting his profession as skillful and highly competent provider as a prominent
attorney with a professional staff and law firm". They claimed that they were
defamed by Taitz publication of the record of Liberi's criminal convictions of
forgery and theft in CA. Taitz rightfully demanded to see Liberi's PA drivers'
license as a proof, that she is a different person. Berg filed a frivolous action for
$800 million dollars to simply cover up for the fact, that he works with a
convicted forger and thief. Taitz submits an article from "Legal Intellegencer',
showing that Berg repeatedly engages in such conduct. Berg was previously
repeatedly sanctioned. In Re Berg, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 322 (ED PA 2008); Holsworth
v. Berg, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15393 (ED PA 2005). Liberi has engaged in the same
conduct as well.
A July 25, 2005 article from The Legal Intelligencer, “Lawyer Slapped With $10K
in Sanctions for 'Laundry List of Unethical Actions' sums the situation here up:
“Finding that a Pennsylvania lawyer had committed a "laundry list of unethical
actions," a federal judge has imposed more than $10,000 in sanctions and ordered
the lawyer to complete six hours of ethics training. U.S. District Judge J. Curtis
Joyner's 10-page opinion in Holsworth v. Berg is packed with criticism of the
conduct of attorney Philip Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa."Other attorneys should look
to Mr. Berg's actions as a blueprint for what not to do when attempting to
effectively and honorably perform the duties of the legal profession," Joyner wrote.
"This court has grown weary of Mr. Berg's continuous and brazen disrespect
toward this court and his own clients. Mr. Berg's actions ... are an enormous waste
of judicial time and resources that this court cannot, in good conscience, allow to
go unpunished," Joyner wrote. In the suit, Berg is accused of legal malpractice by
former clients who claim his failure to respond to an ERISA claim against them led
to a default judgment. But the sanctions against Berg stem from his decision to file
a third-party counterclaim of fraud against a pension fund that had sued his former
clients, according to court papers. Joyner blasted Berg for filing the fraud claim,
calling it an "irresponsible decision" because the claim was "utterly barren of any
scintilla of legal principles." Berg's motion was rejected and a default judgment of
more than $5,300 was entered against his clients. The judgment swelled to more
than $10,000 when Carpenters Health later successfully moved for a supplemental
judgment to recover more than $4,700 in attorney fees for its efforts in responding
to Berg's untimely motions. Holsworth and his wife later filed a legal malpractice
suit against Berg in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that
Berg negligently failed to represent them in the Carpenters Health case. A year
later, in February 2005, Berg moved to join Carpenters Health as a third-party
defendant in the malpractice suit, demanding more than $20,000 in damages. In his
counterclaim, Berg alleged that the ERISA suit filed by Carpenters Health in 2001,
which led to the malpractice claim against him, was "a fraud upon the court and a
fraudulent taking from the Holsworths."Carpenter Health's lawyers removed the
case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss the claim.Joyner agreed, finding
that Berg's fraud claim was "frivolous" and was motivated by an intent "to harass
Carpenters Health and the Holsworths, as well as to delay and disrupt the
administration of justice." The claim was fatally flawed, Joyner found, because
Berg had no standing to bring suit against Carpenters Health and had "failed to
conduct even a minimally reasonable inquiry before filing his complaint." Granting
summary judgment in favor of Carpenters Health, Joyner said he found it "wholly
unnecessary" even to consider the facts of the ERISA case because it was
"abundantly clear" that Carpenters Health was entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law. Joyner invited Carpenters Health to file a motion for Rule 11 sanctions. When
it did, Joyner found that Berg "continued his trend of unprofessional conduct "...
"Berg's fraud claim, Joyner said, was "inadequately pled, not grounded in fact,
time-barred, and utterly irrelevant to the pending malpractice action against
him."..."In his sanctions order, Joyner ordered Berg to reimburse Carpenters Health
the $10,668 in attorney fees and costs it incurred in defending the claim. He also
ordered Berg to complete six credits of ethics courses certified by the Pennsylvania
Board of Continuing Legal Education, and recommended that Berg be investigated
by the Pennsylvania Bar Association's Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional
Responsibility."
At the same time, in 2005-2006, when Liberi was incarcerated, she filed a
frivolous RICO law suit for $280 million against the San Bernardino County, CA,
West Valley Correctional facility, district attorneys, police officers, police
detectives, numerous law enforcement officials Lisa Liberi v West Valley Center
et al 2:05-cv-03015-VAP-SGL. In a similar modus operandi she accused multiple
innocent individuals of committing crimes. Her legal action was dismissed. Both
Liberi and Berg have a history and modus operandi of filing multimillion dollar
law suits for the sole purpose of harassment. They caused immeasurable financial
and emotional damage to the defendants and they need to be stopped now. This
court has inherent powers to punish egregious misconduct by an attorney and
Appellees. Dismissal of underlying legal action, sanctions, award of attorneys' fees
and costs to the Appellants are appropriate. Sanctions in the form of reporting
Philip J Berg to the Disciplinary Board of the PA Supreme Court for sanctions or
disbarment, as well as reporting of Lisa Liberi to the San Bernardino, CA
probation department for revocation of her probation and her return to
incarceration to serve her eight year prison term, will be appropriate in this case.
CONCLUSION
Appellees never provided any proof of Appellee Liberi’s PA state residency that
they claim, that she had. The Court erred, and abused its judicial discretion in
assuming jurisdiction over the case without any evidence of State Citizenship of
Plaintiff Liberi. The Court also erred in refusing James Sundquist opposition-
motion. Court erred in completely ignoring multiple letters from
Defendant Belcher, where she stated, that she was not served with pleadings by the
Plaintiffs.
As the State citizenship of the lead Plaintiff was never established by the court, the
District Court had no jurisdiction in diversity and the case needs to be dismissed
due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
DATED: November 21, 2010
__/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ_______

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ Appellant in
Pro Se and as Counsel for
Appellant Defend Our Freedoms
Foundation
ATTORNEY’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the:
APPELLANTS REPLY
was served by ECF and ELECTRONIC MAIL on November 22,, 2010, on the following parties:
Neil Sankey
The Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm
Sankey Investigations, Inc.
2470 Stearns Street #162
Simi Valley, CA 93063

Phone: (805) 520_3151and (818) 366_0919
Cell Phone: (818) 212_7615
FAX: (805) 520_5804 and (818) 366_1491
Email: nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com
Linda Sue Belcher

201 Paris
Castroville, Texas 78009
Home Phone: (830) 538_6395
Cell Phone: (830) 931_1781
Email: Newwomensparty@aol.com and
Email: starrbuzz@sbcglobal.net
Ed Hale
Caren Hale
Plains Radio
KPRN
Bar H Farms
1401 Bowie Street
Wellington, Texas 79095
Phone: (806) 447_0010 and (806) 447_0270
Email: plains.radio@yahoo.com and
Email: barhfarms@gmail.com and ed@barhfarms.net
Philip Berg, Esq.

Lisa Liberi c/o Law Office of Philip Berg
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444_2531
(610) 825_3134
FAX (610) 834_7659
E_Mail: philjberg@gmail.com
Disciplinary Board
Supreme Court of Pensylvania
820 Adams Ave, ste 170
Trooper, PA 19403
Philadelphia District Attorneys' office
3 South Penn square
Philadelphia, PA
US Attorneys' office
Eastern District of PA
615 Chestnut str, ste 1250
Philadelphia PA 19106-4100
James Secord
Assistant District attorney
San Bernardino County
316 North Mountain view
San Bernardino CA 92415-0004
909-387-8309
www.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/da
San Bernardino County, CA
Probation Department
175 w. Fifth str. 4th floor
S. Bernardino, CA
Public Integrity Section
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington DC 20530-0001
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders
The Honorable Mrs. Margaret Sekaggya
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
International Criminal bar Hague
United Nations Commission for
Civil Rights Defenders
Orsolya Toth (Ms)
Human Rights Officer
Civil and Political Rights Section
Special Procedures Division
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
tel: + 41 22 917 91 51
email: ototh@ohchr.org
/S/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

___________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq
11.22.10

LIBERI V TAITZ (APPEAL - 3rd CIRCUIT) - Appellants' Reply To Appellees' Brief - Transport Room

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 (APPEAL - 3rd CIRCUIT) - Appellants' Reply To Appellees' Brief - Transport Room

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110355535 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2010

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

LISA LIBERI, et al.,

ORLY TAITZ, et al.,

District Court No. 09_cv_01898_ECR

APPELLANT'S REPLY TO APPELLEES' BRIEF

DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ.

A. DECISION TO ASSUME JURISDICTION IN DIVERSITY WITHOUT

VERIFICATION OF THE STATE CITIZENSHIP GOES AGAINST PRIOR

RULINGS OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS....p6

B.APPELLEE'S ATTACKS ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE THIRD

CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS FRIVOLOUS.................................p12

C. STATE CITIZENSHIP IS AT THE CORE OF THE CASE……..…......p13

D. APPELLEES COMMITTED FRAUD ON THE COURT AND PERJURY

BY CLAIMING THAT THEY PROVIDED LIBERI’S DRIVERS LICENSE

E. APPELLEES DISCUSSION OF VENUE IS IRRELEVANT AND WAS

DONE IN ORDER TO CREATE CONFUSION, AS AT ISSUE IS THE

FACT, THAT THERE WAS NO JURISDICTION FOR FEDERAL COURT

TO SIT IN DIVERSITY, REGARDLESS OF VENUE…...p18

F. PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATIONS……………………………..p19

G. APPELLEES ARE MISREPRESENTING THE ISSUES ON APPEAL IN

RELATION TO THE DISMISSAL OF THE DEFENDANTS JAMES

SUNDQUIST AND SALT ROCK PUBLISING………………………..p20

H. FRAUD ON THE COURT BY BERG AND LIBERI COMMITTED, AS

NO IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS WERE ROVIDED….......……..p22

I. JUDGE ROBRENO'S FINDINGS WENT TO THE CORE OF THE CASE

AND WERE IMPROPER TO BE MADE WITHOUT THE EVIDENCEp25

J. APPELLANTS REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS PROPER AND

SUPPORTED BY FACT AND LAW AND NECESSARY TO STOP

EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT BY BERG AND THE PLAINTIFFS..p26

3. J& R Ice cream Corp. v. California Smoothie Licensing, 31 F. 3d 1259, 1265

n.3 (3rd Cir 1994)……………………………………………………………..p8

(1969 & Supp. 2005)………………………………………………………..p8

5. Thomas v Board of Trustees, 195 U.S. 207, 210 (1904)……………….p8

7.Weight v Kawasaki Motors Corp. (1985, ED Va) 604 F Supp 968……….p9

8. McMann v Doe (2006, DC Mass) 460 F Supp 2d ………………………..p10

126 BNA LRRM 2559, 107 CCH LC P 10159………………………………….…p10

11.Olsen v Quality Continuum Hospice, Inc. (2004,DC NM) 380 F Supp 2d

2d 12B.22, Case 2………………………………………………………………………p11

Reply brief does not exceed allowed 7,000 words

SUMMARY OF THE REPLY

plaintiff "Lisa Liberi is a resident of Pennsylvania" without a shred of evidence of

are no identifying documents submitted. The Plaintiffs/Appellees could resolve

that PA attorney Philip J. Berg is employing as his paralegal a convicted document

refused to rule on the defendants multiple motions to dismiss due to lack of

and did not rule on her complaints.(Appendix, Affidavit by Linda Belcher )

pleadings provided by the defendants, particularly ones, that were incriminating

Berg and Liberi, whereby showing bias.

A. DECISION TO ASSUME JURISDICTION IN DIVERSITY WITHOUT

VERIFICATION OF THE STATE CITIZENSHIP GOES AGAINST PRIOR

RULINGS OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

jurisdiction be asserted in diversity without any evidence of the lead plaintiff's

state citizenship. Appellee’s argument can be summarized to 2 points:

1. Decision to severe the case was proper in relation to venue

circuits, mostly CA and not Third Circuit Court of Appeals cases.

defendants were residents of CA, TX and NJ. Appellees stated at 08.07.09.

established Liberi’s state citizenship for purposes of diversity.

Court of Appeals in regards to the state citizenship, it repeatedly ruled that it is

the preponderance of evidence.

In the recent unpublished case of S. Freedman and Company, Inc v Marvin

v. California Smoothie Licensing, 31 F. 3d 1259, 1265 n.3 (3rd Cir 1994).

In its’ opinion in Freedman v Raab theThird Circuit proceeded to expand and