Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 30 Filed 01/27/11 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:568

1
DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ SB#223433
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PKWY
2
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688, STE 100
3 PH 949-683-5411 FAX 949-766-7603
4 E-MAIL orly.taitz @gmail.com
5
Attorney FOR DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATION,
ORLY TAITZ INC, APPEALING DENTISTRY
6

8
CHARLES LINCOLN, ) CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-01573-AG
9 PLAINTIFF, ) DEFENDANTS’DEFEND OUR
10 VS. ) FREEDOMS FOUNDATION, ORLY
11 DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL,et al ) TAITZ INC AND APPEALING
DEFENDANT ) DENTISTRY opposition to ex-
12
) parte motion by the
13
) Plaintiff to shorten the
14 ) defendants time to respond
15 ) filed by the Plaintiff on
) 01.26.2011
16

17

18
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
19
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE Defendants Defend Our Freedoms
20
Foundation, Orly Taitz, inc and Appealing Dentistry

21
(collectively “Defendants”) are filing this opposition
22
to the Plaintiff's ex-parte motion filed on 01.26.2011
23
Your Honor,

24
This is the second ex-parte motion filed by the

25
Plaintiff in a short period of time. The plaintiff did

26
not provide the defendants with a notice of this motion

27
prior to filling.

28
The Plaintiff is abusing the ex-parte provision.

Opposition to the second ex-parte motion filed by the plaintiff 1

 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 30 Filed 01/27/11 Page 2 of 14 Page ID #:569

1 Ex-parte motions are highly prejudicial to the opposing

2 side and do not give the opposing side any time to
3 respond. Those motions are reserved for exigent
4 circumstances, real emergencies. There is no emergency
5 in this case. Taitz, who is a licensed practicing
6 dentist and also and attorney is representing her
7 dental practice Dr. Orly Taitz, inc, DBA Appealing
8 Dentistry and who is also representing her not for
9 profit foundation "Defend our Freedoms Foundation" did
10 not get any prior notice of this ex-parte. She
11 accidently checked her e-mails yesterday and found an
12 e-mail from the ECF, showing that the ex-parte motion
13 requesting to shorten her time to respond to the
14 Plaintiff's motion was filed. Taitz, who also has a
15 family and three children, had to work at night after
16 full day of work with patients, in order to respond to
17 this ex-parte motion. It is now 7 am and Taitz will
18 have to go to work in two hours and work yet another
19 full day of doing dentistry without any sleep. Such
20 actions by the Plaintiff are an abuse of the Judicial
21 system and are simply designed to harass the
22 defendants.
23 The Plaintiff, who is an attorney by education, though
24 disbarred in all four states, where he used to be
25 licensed, never the less is aware of the rules of the
26 court and is aware that ex-parte motions are
27 extraordinary proceedings. He filed a frivolous legal
28 action, where without any shred of evidence he accused
Opposition to the second ex-parte motion filed by the plaintiff 2
 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 30 Filed 01/27/11 Page 3 of 14 Page ID #:570

1 the law office of licensed attorney and licensed

2 dentist Orly Taitz of being a RICO enterprise,
3 Racketeering Influenced Corrupt organization. He is
4 suing her, her law office, her dental office, her
5 husband, her husband's employer, all simply because
6 Taitz refuses to work with him. He simply attached an
7 unsigned draft of an agreement, that he wanted Taitz to
8 sign as a basis for his law suit. Taitz already
9 provided this court with the PACER printout showing
10 that the Plaintiff, Charles Lincoln, is a vexatious
11 plaintiff, who was or is a party to some 70 legal
12 actions around the country, whereby he sues multiple
13 individuals and organizations and his favorite cause of
14 action is RICO. Current action fits within his usual
15 modus operandi, as seen by multiple cases on Pacer,
16 previously submitted by Taitz. When Lincoln is evicted
17 from an apartment, he, his friend and assistant Peyton
18 Freiman, his son Lincoln the 4th and his other friends
19 sue multiple entities in RICO. When recently Lincoln
20 didn't pay his car rental bill for about half a year
21 and his car was repossessed, yet again he by and
22 through his friend Freiman, his son Lincoln the 4th and
23 his accomplice Kathy Garcia Lawson, sued Enterprise
24 rent a car and a whole group of employers, yet again
25 claiming that repossession of the car was burglary and
26 threatening RICO. He is simply harassing individuals
27 all over the country with multiple RICO actions with a
28 hope of getting some pay off for him to go away and not
Opposition to the second ex-parte motion filed by the plaintiff 3
 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 30 Filed 01/27/11 Page 4 of 14 Page ID #:571

1 harass them with an avalanche of voluminous legal

2 briefs.
3 As Lincoln is disbarred, he habitually files legal
4 actions, de facto being an attorney on the case, but
5 signing papers as a co-plaintiff or trustee. Lincoln
6 knows that it represents an unlicensed practice of law
7 and he needs a licensed attorney as a cover. That is
8 the reason Lincoln tried to enlist Taitz. Lincoln
9 originally contacted Taitz and offered his help in
10 research as a paralegal and presented himself as a
11 supporter who fights for citizens' civil rights and who
12 was persecuted by the government. Originally Taitz as
13 many others, including several licensed attorneys
14 before her, believed him. Later, Taitz found out that
15 Lincoln signed her name on pleadings and submitted them
16 to court. When Taitz reported this to the judge,
17 Lincoln claimed that Taitz signed the documents in
18 question and accused her of lying. When Taitz provided
19 a statement from a forensic document expert, showing
20 that her signature was forged, Lincoln changed his
21 story and admitted that he indeed signed the documents
22 in question and claimed that Taitz allowed him to sign
23 her name on documents. Taitz further found other
24 examples of unethical and illegal actions by Lincoln
25 and refused to have any further dealings with him. In
26 TX Lincoln found an attorney Andrea Athalay. Taitz
27 provides Atalay's affidavit filed in court in TX, where
28 Athalay stated that Lincoln forged her signature on
Opposition to the second ex-parte motion filed by the plaintiff 4
 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 30 Filed 01/27/11 Page 5 of 14 Page ID #:572

1 pleadings. When Lincoln was fined a total of $200,000in

2 both federal and state courts in Texas and was
3 prevented from filing any more cases there before he
4 pays those sanctions, he moved his operations to CA.
5 Typically Lincoln approaches attorneys offering
6 services as a paralegal.
7 Lincoln offered Taitz his services as a paralegal to
8 help her in a case involving PA attorney Philip J Berg.
9 After providing minimal assistance and getting all the
10 information about Taitz, Lincoln changed sides and
11 joined forces with Berg against Taitz and caused Taitz
12 enormous damage.
13 Currently Lincoln is seeking a second ex-parte motion
14 to accommodate him and Berg, whom he wants to bring now
15 from PA as his attorney against Taitz on pro hac vice
16 request.
17 Previously, Lincoln did not file a timely opposition to
18 the 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Some 10 days after the
19 deadline to file, he filed an ex-parte motion demanding
20 more time to accommodate an out of state attorney Berg,
21 stating that he, Lincoln, is a poor pro se Plaintiff,
22 even though he is a former attorney and knew that he
23 was supposed to respond or at least file a timely
24 request for additional time. This motion was granted
25 immediately before Taitz had an opportunity to respond
26 and object. Later Lincoln contacted Mr. Pallares, who
27 represents Taitz law office, and asked to change a
28 hearing on a motion to strike and AntiSLAPP filed by
Opposition to the second ex-parte motion filed by the plaintiff 5
 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 30 Filed 01/27/11 Page 6 of 14 Page ID #:573

1 Mr. Pallares. Even though Taitz opposed this in writing

2 and filed two requests for judicial notice, due to a
3 communication problem Mr. Pallares, attorney for Taitz,
4 changed the date to accommodate Lincoln and signed the
5 stipulation. Current ex-parte motion is the third
6 request to change the date and it is a second ex-parte
7 in less than a month. Lincoln is treating the court of
8 law as his personal secretary, as a yo-yo toy, filing
9 ex-parte motions on a whim without any justification,
10 asking for extra month for him to respond, asking for
11 less time for the Defendants to respond, therefore
12 prejudicing the defendants. While Lincoln does not have
13 a permanent job or a business and his main occupation
14 is simply being a vexatious plaintiff, Taitz is a
15 licensed dentist and she has a family and three
16 children and can't just drop everything and respond
17 immediately to every ex-parte motion filled by Lincoln
18 which contains nothing but outrageous slander, and
19 which was filed with the purpose of harassment. Lincoln
20 did not provide any legitimate reason for an ex-parte
21 motion. He is not sick, his house is not on fire,
22 nobody is dying. His reason for this ex-parte motion is
23 that he believes that that Request for Judicial
24 Notice, previously filed by Taitz, is prejudicial to
25 attorney Berg, who is not even an attorney on this
26 case, who didn't apply for pro hac vice yet, and it is
27 prejudicial not even in this case, but in another case.
28 How is filling a Request for Judicial notice in this
Opposition to the second ex-parte motion filed by the plaintiff 6
 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 30 Filed 01/27/11 Page 7 of 14 Page ID #:574

1 case is prejudicial in another case? There is no

2 connection. The real reason for filing of this
3 despicable motion is giving his friend Berg an
4 opportunity to spew a truck load of outrageous untrue,
5 defamatory, slanderous statements about Taitz, for
6 which both Lincoln and Berg should be severely
7 sanctioned.
8 On the other hand Taitz filed a proper request of
9 Judicial notice of the following:
10 1. That in his first ex-parte as well as second ex-
11 parte Lincoln was requesting to change the dates of
12 hearings in order to accommodate Philip J Berg, a PA
13 attorney, whom he wants to bring as a pro hac vice
14 counsel. Taitz noted that for pro hac vice there should
15 be a signature of a licensed CA attorney as a co-
16 sponsor and there is no CA attorney on this case.
17 2. Taitz provided a true and correct copy of the on-
18 line announcement that the Disciplinary Board of the
19 state of PA filed a complaint against Philip J. Berg
20 and a three member panel disciplinary hearing against
21 Philip J. Berg is scheduled for February 23, 2011.
22 Though Berg is not suspended or disbarred yet, such
23 hearings are not scheduled on a whim. Your Honor served
24 as the President of the CA bar and knows that the staff
25 attorneys meticulously gather evidence and do not file
26 a disciplinary hearing complaint without substantial
27 likelihood that it will be followed by an action by the
28 Disciplinary Board. This printout from the PA
Opposition to the second ex-parte motion filed by the plaintiff 7
 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 30 Filed 01/27/11 Page 8 of 14 Page ID #:575

1 Disciplinary board was filed with a proper purpose of

2 showing that even if Berg's license is not suspended
3 yet, there is a good likelihood that it will be
4 suspended or revoked after the 02.23.2011 hearing, less
5 than a month from now, therefore Berg cannot serve as
6 an attorney on this case.
7 3. Taitz provided information, showing that Berg was
8 already sanctioned by two federal judges, which adds
9 likelihood that there will be an action against his
10 license at the 02.23.2011 disciplinary hearing.
11 4.Taitz provided proper information that paralegal for
12 Philip J. Berg, one Lisa Liberi was convicted in 2008
13 in San Bernardino CA of 10 counts of forgery and theft.
14 5. Taitz provides with this pleading a letter from Mr.
15 Mike Ramos, District Attorney of San Bernardino County.
16 Though it shows that currently there is not sufficient
17 information for revocation of Liberi's probation and
18 return of her to incarceration yet, it does confirm
19 that she is still under supervision of the probation
20 department of San Bernardino CA. This shows yet another
21 reason, why Berg's license is likely to be suspended at
22 the 02.23.2011 hearing. Additionally, attorney is
23 expected to show candor towards the tribunal. What kind
24 of respect and candor towards the tribunal is attorney
25 showing, when he is working with recently convicted
26 document forger and thief, who is still on probation.
27 This shows, that granting Philip J Berg pro hac vice in
28

Opposition to the second ex-parte motion filed by the plaintiff 8

 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 30 Filed 01/27/11 Page 9 of 14 Page ID #:576

1 this case undermines the tribunal and integrity of the

2 court and makes mockery of the court.
3 6. None of this information is hearsay or prejudicial.
4 The information comes from the official governmental
5 records, this information is relevant, material and
6 brought with the proper purpose of showing that
7 granting Philip J. Berg pro hac vice will undermine the
8 tribunal.
9 7. Liberi v Taitz (10-3000 Third Circuit Court of
10 Appeals) case is currently on Appeal with the Third
11 Circuit court of Appeals and there is a very high
12 likelihood that this whole case will be dismissed
13 during the upcoming 02.09.2011 hearing, as the basis of
14 the appeal is the fact, that the District judge Eduardo
15 Robreno assumed jurisdiction in diversity and wrote in
16 his order that Liberi is a resident of Pennsylvania
17 based on fraudulent statements by attorney Berg and his
18 paralegal document forger Liberi, while in reality
19 Liberi did not reside in PA and is on probation under
20 the supervision of the San Bernardino CA probation
21 department, not allowed to live in PA. In that case
22 Attorney Berg never filed Liberi's identification
23 documents with court as requested by the judge.
24 Consequently, Taitz believes that this case will be
25 shortly dismissed by the Third Circuit Court of
26 Appeals, finding an order to assume jurisdiction and
27 transfer the case to be made in error. Even, if that
28 case is not dismissed and only transferred, the same
Opposition to the second ex-parte motion filed by the plaintiff 9
 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 30 Filed 01/27/11 Page 10 of 14 Page ID
#:577

1 motion to dismiss will be filed here, therefore this

2 case is about to be dismissed shortly one way or
3 another. Even if this case lingers, true governmental
4 records are proper evidence, it is not prejudicial,
5 they are relevant and were allowed into evidence by
6 both the District Court judge Eduardo Robreno in PA and
7 by the Third Court of Appeals. If those documents were
8 not found to be prejudicial in a case, where Berg and
9 Liberi are actually a party, why would those documents
10 be prejudicial in Lincoln's case, where Berg and Liberi
11 are not a party? Taitz did not bring evidence, relating
12 to Berg and Liberi on her own. She brought it only in
13 response to Lincoln's repeated demands to change the
14 dates of the hearings in order to accommodate an out of
15 state attorney Berg. It was proper and relevant for
16 Taitz to respond by showing that this court should not
17 grant Plaintiff's requests as Berg's license to
18 practice law might be suspended or revoked within a
19 month as a result of his upcoming 02.23.2011
20 disciplinary hearing. Even if the disciplinary board
21 decides to limit their action with a reprimand and not
22 suspension or revocation of Berg's license, the fact
23 that Berg is using as a paralegal a recently convicted
24 document forger, would make granting pro hac vice to
25 him unwise and even reckless, even if he finds a CA
26 attorney who will be willing to co-sign his pro hac
27 vice request.
28

Opposition to the second ex-parte motion filed by the plaintiff 10

 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 30 Filed 01/27/11 Page 11 of 14 Page ID
#:578

1 8. While the Plaintiff provided unfounded and

2 outrageous slander, defendants provide the transcript
3 of the latest 12.20.2010 hearing in Liberi et al v
4 Taitz et al (Exhibit 2) and 12.23.2011 memorandum by
5 U.S. District Judge Robreno (Exhibit 3). Berg and his
6 paralegal Liberi filed their complaint after Taitz
7 published on her web site a 2008 court record of
8 Liberi's conviction of 10 counts of forgery and theft
9 in CA. Berg and Liberi claimed that Berg's paralegal
10 Liberi is a different person residing in PA, not a
11 document forger and thief convicted in CA, and they
12 claimed they were defamed by the publication. When
13 Taitz demanded to see Liberi's PA drivers license,
14 Liberi and Berg claimed that Liberi should not submit
15 to court her drivers' license because she is afraid for
16 her life and they made up an outrageous slanderous
17 allegation that attorney Taitz tried to hire a hit man
18 to kill Liberi and to kidnap children of another
19 individual Lisa Ostella. In his memorandum judge
20 Robreno stated that there was no basis for any of the
21 allegations by Berg, Liberi and Ostella, that that they
22 were evasive and not believable as witnesses. Judge
23 Robreno stated that attorney Berg's paralegal, Lisa
24 Liberi conceded that she is indeed a convicted felon,
25 Ostella conceded that she, as a volunteer web master,
26 indeed locked Taitz out of the website of her
27 foundation and replaced Taitz pay-pal account with her
28 own. (pay-pal switch means, that if donors were to
Opposition to the second ex-parte motion filed by the plaintiff 11
 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 30 Filed 01/27/11 Page 12 of 14 Page ID
#:579

1 donate to Taitz foundation, the funds would go to

2 Ostella and not Taitz and not her foundation.) At the
3 same hearing at the cross examination Berg's own
4 client, web master Ostella stated that she never made
5 allegations of kidnapping, that those allegations were
6 made up by her attorney Berg. It clearly shows a
7 pattern of malice and egregious misconduct by an
8 attorney, whereby PA attorney Berg simply made up
9 despicable accusations of capital crimes without any
10 basis and with the sole purpose of covering up for
11 prior fraudulent statements. This shows total disregard
12 to the tribunal and additional reason for him not get
13 pro hac vice in this case or any other case for that
14 matter.
15 CONCLUSION
16 The plaintiff filed an improper second ex-parte motion.
17 There is no justifiable reason for it. He did not
18 notify the defendants of his impending ex-parte. Ex
19 parte motions are inherently prejudicial to non-moving
20 side. Defendants request the court to deny this ex-
21 parte motion and provide equal consideration to both
22 sides. The defendants will provide an answer to the
23 original motion in due time, as required by local rules
24 and plan to file a motion for sanctions against both
25 Lincoln and Berg for outrageous slander and for using
26 court of law for improper purpose of slander and
27 harassment.
28

Opposition to the second ex-parte motion filed by the plaintiff 12

 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 30 Filed 01/27/11 Page 13 of 14 Page ID
#:580

2 Respectfully submitted
3 /s/Orly Taitz
4 Dr.Orly Taitz, ESQ
5 01.27.2011
6

7 AFFIDAVIT OF ORLY TAITZ

8 1. I, Orly Taitz, am a resident of CA, I am over 18
9 years old, do not suffer from any mental impairment and
10 I have personal knowledge of the foregoing:
11 2. An announcement of the 01.23.2011 impending
12 disciplinary hearing against attorney Philip J. Berg is
13 a true and correct copy of the announcement of Philip
14 Berg disciplinary hearing posted on the web site of
15 Pennsylvania disciplinary board.
16 3. A letter, verifying that Lisa Richardson Liberi,
17 (paralegal to attorney Philip J. Berg)is indeed a
18 convicted felon, currently on probation with San
19 Bernardino probation department, is a true and correct
20 copy of the letter received by me by both e-mail and
21 mail.
22 4. A summary of 2008 conviction of Lisa Liberi of 10
23 counts of forgery and theft, is indeed a true and
24 correct copy of such summary of convictions, posted by
25 the San Bernardino County Superior court.
26 5. A record of two sanctions by Federal Judges of
27 attorney Berg are true and correct copy of such record
28 readily available on PACER, West Law and Lexis Nexis.
Opposition to the second ex-parte motion filed by the plaintiff 13
 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 30 Filed 01/27/11 Page 14 of 14 Page ID
#:581

1 I certify under penalty of perjury and under the laws

2 of the state of California that the above statements
3 are true and correct.
4 Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
5 /s/ Orly Taitz
6 01.27.2011
7

10

11 FEDERAL COURT PROOF OF SERVICE

12 I certify under penalty of perjury and under the laws
13 of CA that I served the Plaintiff via ECF and or mail
14 on 01.27.2011
15
Dated this 01.27.2011
16 /s/Orly Taitz
17 Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy
18 Rancho Santa Margarita CA
92688
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Opposition to the second ex-parte motion filed by the plaintiff 14