LIBERI V TAITZ (E.D. PA) - 166 - RESPONSE in Opposition Re 165 MOTION To Amend/Correct - pdf.166.0

Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 166 Filed 02/03/11 Page 1 of 17
Law Offices of:

Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Identification No. 09867
(610) 825-3134 Attorney for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
:
LISA LIBERI, et al, :
:
Plaintiffs, :
:
vs. : Case No.: 09-cv-01898-ECR
:
ORLY TAITZ, et al, :
:
Defendants. :
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ’S

FRIVOLOUS MOTION TO CORRECT ERRORS; FRIVOLOUS MOTION TO
DISMISS; and FRIVOLOUS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Plaintiffs by and through their undersigned counsel, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby
Oppose Defendant, Orly Taitz’s [hereinafter “Defendant”], who is an attorney licensed to
practice Law, frivolous Motion to Correct Errors pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 59(e) and 60(b); frivolous Motion to Dismiss; and frivolous Motion
for Sanctions. In support thereof, Appellees set forth the following:
1. Defendants’ Motion(s) are frivolous.
2. This Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as the

issues are under Appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
3. Defendants are asking for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 59(e) of the Court’s December 23, 2010 Memorandum. Motion’s for
Liberi\Plaintiffs’ Resp. in Opposition to Def. Taitz’s Frivolous Motion(s) 02/03/2011 1

Reconsideration must be filed ten (10) days of the Court’s ruling. Therefore
Defendants’ Motion is untimely and must be denied.
4. Defendants in the alternative are trying to Amend the Court’s December 23, 2010
Memorandum pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b).
Defendants’ request is not based on “an intervening change of controlling law”; the
“availability of new evidence”, or the “need to correct a clear error or prevent
manifest injustice”, nor was the motion filed timely. Therefore, Defendants’
Motion must be denied.
5. Defendants have again intentionally misquoted and misstated the facts of the case;
testimony; documents on file with this Court and part of the Court’s Record; and
what this case is about, which is extremely prejudicial to the Plaintiffs.
6. Defendants’ Exhibits are unauthenticated documents, hearsay documents,

redundant, irrelevant, immaterial, and scandalous material, in violation of the
Federal Rules of Evidence.
7. Defendants’ Motions are not only unwarranted, but it is in violation of Fed. R.

Civ. P. 11.
For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ filing of February 1, 2011, Docket Entry No.
165, must be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: February 3, 2011 s/ Philip J. Berg

____________________________
(610) 825-3134
Attorney for the Plaintiffs’

Law Offices of:


:
:
Plaintiffs, :
:
:
:
Defendants. :
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANTS’ FRIVOLOUS MOTION TO CORRECT ERRORS; FRIVOLOUS
MOTION TO DISMISS; and FRIVOLOUS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
On July 2, 2010, Defendant Orly Taitz [hereinafter at times “Defendant”] Appealed
Jurisdiction of this Court; this Court’s Order Severing and Transferring the within case to
California and Texas; and this Court’s Order Dismissing Defendants James Sundquist and Rock
Salt Publishing.
Although the Appeal is still pending, Defendants have now filed another Motion with this
Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) asking this Court to Amend its prior Orders,
the same Orders currently under Appeal; Motion to Dismiss, which is Defendants’ fifth or sixth
Motion to Dismiss; and Motion for Sanctions, of which this Court is without jurisdiction to
entertain.

Moreover, Defendant has again misquoted and misstated what the within lawsuit is
about; misquoted and misstated testimony; misquoted and misstated the contents of documents
on file and part of the Court’s record; and misquoted and misstated the facts therewith.
Defendant has continued these improper and dishonest actions over and over again, which the
Court has allowed. Defendant’s continued misquoting and misstating of these items have been
extremely prejudicial to the Plaintiffs.
For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ Motion must be Denied.
I. THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS AS THE ISSUES ARE CURRENTLY UNDER
APPEAL
This Court issued an Order on or about June 3, 2010 Severing and Transferring the within
Case to California and Texas. The Court then amended its Order on or about June 22, 2010,
Severing the case and Transferring the case against all 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, which all of the Defendants
requested.
On July 2, 2010, Defendant Orly Taitz Appealed this Court’s Orders of June 3, 2010 and
June 22, 2010. Defendant Taitz also appealed this Court’s Jurisdiction and this Court’s Order of
June 25, 2009 Dismissing Defendants James Sundquist and Rock Salt Publishing.
Defendant Taitz is now bringing yet another Motion to Dismiss for lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction before this Court demanding dismissal of the within action, which has been
previously denied several times. Defendant Taitz claims that diversity was lacking because one
of the Plaintiffs was on probation in the State of California.

Defendant Taitz’s arguments fail. None of the Plaintiffs resided in or were citizens of the
States of California or Texas when this action was brought. Nor do any of the Plaintiffs
currently reside in the States of Texas and/or California. Therefore, Diversity is not disturbed.
Furthermore, you are only entitled to bring a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 one time. This makes Defendants’ sixth or seventh Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12,
in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2).
Despite this, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Defendant Taitz’s Motion as
Defendant is appealing the issues. The filing of a Notice of Appeal "confers jurisdiction on the
Court of Appeals and divests the District Court of control over those aspects of the case involved
in the appeal”. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S.Ct. 400, 74
L.Ed.2d 225 (1982) (per curiam).
Therefore, Defendants’ Motion must be Denied.
II. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) or FED. R.

CIV. P. 60(b) are UNTIMELY and THEREFORE MUST BE DENIED
Defendant Taitz is asking this Court to reconsider its December 23, 2010 Memorandum
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or in the alternative Amendment of Judgment pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b). Defendant Taitz was served with this Court’s December 23, 2010
Memorandum and Order on the same date via email from this Court. Defendant Taitz has not
cited to “an intervening change of controlling law”; the “availability of new evidence”, or the
“need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice” as required by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Moreover, Motions for Reconsideration are to be filed within ten (10) days.
Defendant Taitz was aware of the contents of this Court’s December 23, 2010 Memorandum and
Order since December 23, 2010, and had the ability to file her Motion for Reconsideration within

the allotted ten (10) day period pursuant to statute. Therefore their Motions are not timely and
must be Denied.
A Court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion only when it finds an "intervening change of
controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent
manifest injustice." Choi v. Kim, 258 Fed. App’x 413, 416 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing North River Ins.
Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). The party seeking
reconsideration bears the burden of establishing one of these grounds. Max’s Seafood Café ex
rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999); In re Loewen Group Inc. Sec.
Litig., 2006 WL 27286, at *1 (E.D.Pa. Jan. 5, 2006) (“In a motion for reconsideration, the burden
is on the movant.”) (internal quotation omitted).
As this Court is aware and as outlined in Broadcast Music, Inc. v. La Trattoria E., Inc.,
No. CIV.A. 95-1784, 1995 WL 552881, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 1995), it is unsettled among the
Courts how to treat motions to reconsider:
“The [United States] Supreme Court has noted that, “[s]uch a motion is not
recognized by any of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third Circuit has
sometimes ruled on such motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and
at other times under Rule 60(b). A motion to reconsider may, therefore, be
treated as a Rule 59(e) motion for amendment of judgment or a Rule 60(b) motion
for relief from judgment or order.”
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provides in relevant part that, “[a]ny motion to
alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e).
Generally, a motion for reconsideration will only be granted if: (1) there has been an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) new evidence, which was not previously available, has
become available; or (3) it is necessary to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest
injustice. Reich v. Compton, 834 F. Supp. 753, 755 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (citing Dodge v.

Susquehanna Univ., 796 F. Supp., 829, 830 (M.D. Pa. 1992)), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 57 F.3d
270 (3d Cir. 1995); McDowell Oil Serv., Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 817 F. Supp. 538,
541 (M.D. Pa. 1993). Furthermore, “With regard to the third ground...any litigant considering
bringing a motion to reconsider based upon that ground should evaluate whether what may seem
to be a clear error of law is in fact simply a disagreement between the Court and the litigant.”
The Supreme Court has stated that Rule 59(e) is generally invoked "only to support
reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a decision on the merits." White v. New
Hampshire Dep't of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 451, 102 S. Ct. 1162, 71 L. Ed. 2d 325
(1982).
Fed. R. of Civ. P. 60(b) requires a showing of (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or
excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have
been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously
called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the
judgment is void; or (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an
earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer
equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. None of which apply herein.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a court to grant relief from a final judgment
if "applying [the judgment] prospectively is no longer equitable," or if there is "any other reason
that justifies relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5), (6). A litigant seeking such relief must show
"extraordinary circumstances." See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 162
L. Ed. 2d 480 (2005); Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht, 754 F.2d 120, 127 (3d Cir.
1985).

Even if Defendant were asking for Relief from Final Judgment, her Motion still fails as
she fails to meet the showing of any of the elements and did not meet the “extraordinary
circumstances” requirement. Even if this Court were to treat Defendants’ Motion as a Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) Motion, it still fails. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has
noted that "some courts have held that legal error without more cannot be corrected under Rule
60(b)," while other courts "have held that legal error may be characterized as 'mistake' within the
meaning of Rule 60(b)(1), but only where the motion is made. . .within the time allowed for
appeal." Page v. Schweiker, 786 F.2d 150, 154-55 (3d Cir. 1986). In the present case, assuming
Page allows for the possibility that a claim of legal error can be raised under Rule 60(b)(1), if the
motion is made before expiration of the time to appeal. Defendant filed her motion after the
thirty-day [30] period to appeal had expired, rendering Rule 60(b)(1) unavailable.
Further, Defendant claims she is basing her Motion on new evidence. The new evidence
is a “supposed” letter from a Deputy District Attorney with San Bernardino. However, that letter
is dated January 11, 2011 and Defendant has admitted she received the letter by email as well as
regular mail. Defendant Taitz does not explain how this letter pertains to her requested relief,
nor does it appear to have anything to do with Defendants’ requested relief. Defendant Taitz’s
arguments are the same rhetoric that she has been screaming since before she filed her Notice of
Appeal in July 2010. Defendant Taitz was aware of the contents of this Court’s Memorandum
and Order since December 23, 2010 and has no explanation as to why she could not and did not
bring the motion within the ten [10] days as required pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

III. DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ CONTINUES MISQUOTING and MISSTATING

WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT; TESTIMONY GIVEN; DOCUMENTS FILED
AS PART OF THE RECORD; and RULINGS AND ORDERS OF THIS
COURT, WHICH IS DISHONEST and EXTREMELY PREJUDICIAL TO
THE PLAINTIFFS
Defendant Taitz continues stating that this case was brought against her because she was
a “whistleblower” and published Plaintiff Liberi’s criminal record. This is not true as
demonstrated by the Complaint on file with this Court. Plaintiff Liberi is not the only Plaintiff in
this Case, as Defendants would have you believe.
Plaintiffs brought action against Defendant Taitz as a result of Taitz’s publication of
Plaintiff Liberi’s full Social Security Number; Date of Birth; Place of Birth; Mother’s Maiden
name; address; and other confidential information; as well as Invasion of Privacy; Harassment;
Cyber-Stalking; Defamation, Libel and slander for all of Defendant Taitz’s false accusations,
false statements, and publication of false information, just to name a few.
Defendant Taitz claims Plaintiff Liberi testified on December 20, 2010 that she has been
convicted of Tax Evasion. See Defendant’s Motion, p. 3 last paragraph. Plaintiff Liberi never
testified she had been convicted of Tax Evasion and it is no where in the December 20, 2010
transcript.
Defendant Taitz states, “This is the case of defamation of character and slander. The
Plaintiffs state that Lisa Liberi, paralegal to attorney Berg and Berg himself were slandered
when Taitz published a summary of Liberi’s 2008 conviction of 10 felonies. Liberi and Berg
claim, that she is a different Lisa Liberi who resided in PA and was slandered”. See Defendants’
Motion, p. 7, ¶ C; p. 8 ¶ D; pp. 9-10 ¶ A; p. 12, first paragraph. This statement is falsified and
Defendant Taitz is well aware her statements are untrue. Plaintiffs’ Complaint speaks for itself,

no where in the Complaint or any other pleadings filed by the Plaintiffs are the statements
claimed by Defendant Taitz or anything close to what Defendant Taitz has alleged.
Defendant Taitz continues stating Plaintiff Liberi claimed Taitz attempted to hire a “hit
man” to have her (Liberi) killed. See Defendants’ Motion, p. 10, last paragraph; p. 11, first
paragraph. As demonstrated by the December 20, 2010 Transcript, Liberi never made such a
statement. Plaintiff Liberi did state that she believes Defendant Taitz attempted to hire Ruben
Nieto, a dangerous convicted felon, to harm Liberi and her family. Liberi further stated that
Ruben Nieto resides forty-five [45] minutes from Liberi’s home. Plaintiff Liberi testified that
Ruben Nieto attempted to get paid by Defendant Taitz in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand
[$25,000.00] Dollars in three [3] consecutive payments to avoid the Ten Thousand [$10,000.00]
Dollar reporting pursuant to the Patriot Act, on two (2) separate occasions. Defendant Taitz tried
to confuse the Court and claim the money requests were sent to Plaintiff Ostella. Plaintiff Liberi
testified that Plaintiff Ostella was only listed as a Customer Service contact and a PayPal ID was
associated with the payment requests from Ruben Nieto, the same PayPal ID associated with
Defendant Taitz’s PayPal account. Plaintiff Liberi asked Defendant Taitz during the hearing, if
she (Taitz) was claiming it was not her PayPal account. Defendant Taitz answered “no”, which
confirmed it was in fact her PayPal account. See the December 20, 2010 transcript, pp. 89-93, ll.
1-28.
Defendant Taitz then misquotes the August 7, 2009 hearing transcript. See Defendant’s
Motion, p. 13 under Count 4. The word driver’s license is not mentioned. The first portion is
discussing the filing of the witnesses address information. Plaintiff Liberi’s address was
furnished to the Court when Liberi showed her driver’s license to Judge Robreno. However,

Plaintiff Liberi’s address was further addressed in letters faxed to Judge Robreno when
Defendant Taitz published Plaintiff Liberi’s home address all over the Internet.
Contrary to Defendants’ statements, at no time did Plaintiffs accuse Pamela Barnett of
forgery; nor accused Neil Turner of stalking Plaintiff Liberi; Attorney Berg did not make up a
story about Defendant Taitz kidnapping Plaintiff Lisa Ostella’s Children, this is taken out of
context and not properly stated in Defendant Taitz pleading. What Plaintiff Ostella stated was
that Ruben Nieto and the threat of Defendant Taitz kidnapping Plaintiff Ostella’s children were
not related that they were two [2] separate instances. See the December 20, 2010 transcript, p.
129, ll. 16-28. In addition, there is an Affidavit of Plaintiff Ostella regarding Defendant Taitz’s
threats to kidnap Ostella’s children on file with the Court and how Plaintiff Ostella learned of the
threat.
Plaintiffs have only given a few instances of the false statements by Defendant Taitz. It
would be best for this Court to ask Defendant Taitz to provide proof to the Court of the
statements she claims were made by the Plaintiffs.
One of the lowest forms of deceit in legal arguments is the use of misleading ellipses.
Replacing part of a quotation or statement with ellipses can completely change the meaning of
the original passage. This form of deceit is particularly reprehensible because it assumes that the
reader is too trusting or lazy to look up the original quote or statement.
Defendant Orly Taitz is an attorney duly licensed to practice law. Defendant Taitz’s
conduct involving her flagrant misrepresentations of the record; of testimony; of what the case is
about; the misrepresentation of the contents of documents on file with the Court, etc. are gross
violations of the high standards of professional conduct that our Courts are supposed to expect
and demand of Attorneys.

There is absolutely no excuse for Defendant Taitz’s continued blatant distortion of this
Case; the Record of this Case; testimony; contents of the documents on file with this Court; and
this Court’s Orders. In fact, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 is supposed to prevent these types of actions by
Defendant Orly Taitz, however, Defendant Taitz will continue her dishonest pleadings and
statements, as she has done, until the Court takes action to stop it.
There is absolutely no legal legitimacy into Defendant Taitz’s pleadings. The actions of
Defendant Taitz have been extremely prejudicial to the Plaintiffs and the Court has allowed
Defendant Taitz to re-write what Plaintiffs’ case represents. This Court has the inherent power
to take action when Attorneys, like Defendant Taitz, continue filing dishonest frivolous
pleadings, which lack any merit within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). See Doering v.
Union County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 857 F.2d 191, 194 (3d Cir. 1988) and Mary Ann
Pensiero, Inc. v. Lingle, 847 F.2d 90, 94 (3d Cir. 1988).
IV. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION CONTAINS HEARSAY STATEMENTS and

DOCUMENTS, UNAUTHENTICATED DOCUMENTS and are REDUNDANT,
IMPERTINENT, IRRELEVANT and SCANDOLOUS MATERIAL
Defendants’ Motion contains irrelevant, speculative and hearsay statements throughout
their Motion, which are inadmissible. See Federal Rules of Evidence [Fed. R. Evid.] §§ 401, 402,
801(c), 805 and are therefore inadmissible pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. § 802.
In addition, Defendant Taitz has included Exhibits, all of which are irrelevant in violation
of Fed. R. Evid. §§ 401 and 402. Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence defines "relevant
evidence" as: "'Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of
any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable
than it would be without the evidence." See Renda v. King, 347 F.3d 550, 553 (3d Cir. 2003).

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or
by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative, Fed. R.
Evid. §403. See also Allegheny Gen. Hosp. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 228 F.3d 429, 442 (3d Cir.
2000).
Defendants’ Motion contains hearsay, double and triple hearsay statements and
documents in violation of Fed. R. Evid. § § 801(c) and 805. Hearsay is defined by Fed. R. Evid.
§ 801(c) as “hearsay as statements "offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted".
There are exceptions to the hearsay rules, however, hearsay documents and statements must be
relevant to the case in order to fall under any of the exceptions. The hearsay documents and
statements being offered by Defendant are not relevant to the within case. See U.S. v.
Hernandez, 176 F.3d 719 (3d Cir. 1999). Hearsay is not admissible unless it falls under one of
the exceptions to the hearsay rule contained in the Federal Rules of Evidence, none of the
exceptions apply to the Defendants hearsay statements and documents, therefore the hearsay
documents and statements are inadmissible pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. § 802. See U.S. v.
Hernandez, 176 F.3d 719 (3d Cir. 1999).
Defendants’ Exhibits are unauthenticated in violation of Fed. R. Evid. §§ 901, 902 and
1005. Authenticity of evidence, in the broad sense of the word, is fundamental to litigation and
is one of the most basic functions. There are several ways outlined in the Fed. R. Evid. regarding
the authentication of evidence, none of which Defendant Taitz’s complied with. Fed. R. Evid.
901(a) requires documents to be authenticated in order for them to be admissible. See Philbin v.
Trans Union Corp., 101 F.3d 957, 961 n. 1 (3d Cir. 1996).

Moreover, Defendants’ Motion is packed with speculative statements; hearsay
statements; and Exhibits, which are insufficient defenses, irrelevant, redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, and are scandalous matter. "Immaterial" refers to a matter that has no bearing on
the controversy before the Court. "Impertinent matter consists of statements that do not pertain,
and are not necessary, to the issues in question.”. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
V. DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS IMPROPER

and in VIOLATION of the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Defendant Taitz has incorporated in her pleading a “Motion for Sanctions”, which not
only is completely improper, it is unfounded.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(C)(2) states:
“A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must
describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must
be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the
challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or
appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the
court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the
reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred for the motion.”
Defendant Taitz did not file a Motion separately from the within Motion; Defendant
Taitz failed to serve her request for Sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5; Defendant Taitz
failed to serve the Motion for Sanctions upon the Plaintiffs twenty-one [21] days prior to its
filing; and Defendant Taitz failed to describe specific conduct in this case that allegedly violates
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).
Moreover, this Court’s record reflects a continued course of vexatious conduct on the part
of Defendant Orly Taitz. Therefore, if Sanctions are warranted, upon anyone, they clearly

should be imposed by this Court upon Defendant Orly Taitz. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx
Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 402, 110 S. Ct. 2447, 110 L. Ed. 2d 359 (1990).
For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Orly Taitz’s Motion must be Denied.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ Motion must be Denied. Plaintiffs respectfully
request this Court to grant them Attorney fees in the amount of Five Thousand [$5,000.00]
Dollars for the time spent in researching and responding to Defendants’ frivolous Motion(s).
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: February 3, 2011 s/ Philip J. Berg

____________________________
(610) 825-3134
Attorney for the Plaintiffs’

Law Offices of:


:
:
Plaintiffs, :
:
:
:
Defendants. :
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition
to Defendants Motions was served this 3rd day of February 2011 electronically upon the
following:
Orly Taitz
Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc. (unrepresented)
26302 La Paz Ste 211
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
Neil Sankey
Sankey Investigations, Inc.
P.O. Box 8298
Mission Hills, CA 91346
By First Class Mail with Postage fully prepaid

The Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm (unrepresented)

2470 Stearns Street #162
Simi Valley, CA 93063
By First Class Mail with Postage fully prepaid
Linda Sue Belcher

201 Paris
Castroville, Texas 78009
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
Email: plains.radio@yahoo.com; barhfarms@gmail.com;
ed@barhfarnet; and ed@plainsradio.com
s/ Philip J. Berg
________________________
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE

LIBERI V TAITZ (E.D. PA) - 166 - RESPONSE in Opposition Re 165 MOTION To Amend/Correct - pdf.166.0

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 (E.D. PA) - 166 - RESPONSE in Opposition Re 165 MOTION To Amend/Correct - pdf.166.0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 166 Filed 02/03/11 Page 1 of 17

Law Offices of:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ’S

Oppose Defendant, Orly Taitz’s [hereinafter “Defendant”], who is an attorney licensed to

for Sanctions. In support thereof, Appellees set forth the following:

1. Defendants’ Motion(s) are frivolous.

2. This Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as the

3. Defendants are asking for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Liberi\Plaintiffs’ Resp. in Opposition to Def. Taitz’s Frivolous Motion(s) 02/03/2011 1

6. Defendants’ Exhibits are unauthenticated documents, hearsay documents,

7. Defendants’ Motions are not only unwarranted, but it is in violation of Fed. R.

165, must be denied.

Dated: February 3, 2011 s/ Philip J. Berg

Liberi\Plaintiffs’ Resp. in Opposition to Def. Taitz’s Frivolous Motion(s) 02/03/2011 2

Law Offices of:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR OPPOSITION TO

On July 2, 2010, Defendant Orly Taitz [hereinafter at times “Defendant”] Appealed

Liberi\Plaintiffs’ Resp. in Opposition to Def. Taitz’s Frivolous Motion(s) 02/03/2011 3

extremely prejudicial to the Plaintiffs.

For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ Motion must be Denied.

I. THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN DEFENDANTS’

of the Plaintiffs was on probation in the State of California.

Liberi\Plaintiffs’ Resp. in Opposition to Def. Taitz’s Frivolous Motion(s) 02/03/2011 4

L.Ed.2d 225 (1982) (per curiam).

Therefore, Defendants’ Motion must be Denied.

II. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) or FED. R.

Liberi\Plaintiffs’ Resp. in Opposition to Def. Taitz’s Frivolous Motion(s) 02/03/2011 5

is on the movant.”) (internal quotation omitted).

Courts how to treat motions to reconsider:

Liberi\Plaintiffs’ Resp. in Opposition to Def. Taitz’s Frivolous Motion(s) 02/03/2011 6

reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a decision on the merits." White v. New

Fed. R. of Civ. P. 60(b) requires a showing of (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or

called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the

Liberi\Plaintiffs’ Resp. in Opposition to Def. Taitz’s Frivolous Motion(s) 02/03/2011 7

For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ Motion must be Denied.

Liberi\Plaintiffs’ Resp. in Opposition to Def. Taitz’s Frivolous Motion(s) 02/03/2011 8

III. DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ CONTINUES MISQUOTING and MISSTATING

this Case, as Defendants would have you believe.

Plaintiffs brought action against Defendant Taitz as a result of Taitz’s publication of

false statements, and publication of false information, just to name a few.

Liberi\Plaintiffs’ Resp. in Opposition to Def. Taitz’s Frivolous Motion(s) 02/03/2011 9

Liberi\Plaintiffs’ Resp. in Opposition to Def. Taitz’s Frivolous Motion(s) 02/03/2011 10

Contrary to Defendants’ statements, at no time did Plaintiffs accuse Pamela Barnett of

statements she claims were made by the Plaintiffs.

reader is too trusting or lazy to look up the original quote or statement.

and demand of Attorneys.

Liberi\Plaintiffs’ Resp. in Opposition to Def. Taitz’s Frivolous Motion(s) 02/03/2011 11

Pensiero, Inc. v. Lingle, 847 F.2d 90, 94 (3d Cir. 1988).

IV. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION CONTAINS HEARSAY STATEMENTS and

Defendants’ Motion contains irrelevant, speculative and hearsay statements throughout

Liberi\Plaintiffs’ Resp. in Opposition to Def. Taitz’s Frivolous Motion(s) 02/03/2011 12

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially

by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative, Fed. R.

Hernandez, 176 F.3d 719 (3d Cir. 1999).

Liberi\Plaintiffs’ Resp. in Opposition to Def. Taitz’s Frivolous Motion(s) 02/03/2011 13

Moreover, Defendants’ Motion is packed with speculative statements; hearsay

For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ Motion must be Denied.

V. DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS IMPROPER

only is completely improper, it is unfounded.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(C)(2) states:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).