LIBERI V TAITZ (THIRD CIRCUIT) - Reply by Appellants Defend Our Freedoms FNDTN and Orly Taitz To Response Response - 2-9-11 Transport Room

Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110433419 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2011
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
Liberi v Taitz 02.07.2011 Reply to Response 1

__________________
APPELLANTS’ REPLY TO APPELLEES’ RESPONSE
On 02.01.2011 Appellees filed a response. There is a discrepancy between the

notation on the docket and the caption on the response itself.
The docket states:
02/01/2011 ECF FILER: Response filed by Appellees Evelyn Adams, Philip J. Berg, Go Excel
Global, Law Ofc of Philip J. Berg, Lisa Liberi and Lisa M. Ostella in Opposition to
Motions to recuse Judges Greenaway and Jordan and for judicial notice & Motion for
Attorney Fees in the amount of $5,000 for time spent in responding to the motions.
Certificate of Service dated 02/01/2011. --[Edited 02/02/2011 by AWI] (PJB)
The caption on the pleadings does not include words “Judicial notice”. It is
possible, that it was accidentally omitted, therefore the Appellants reply to the
opposition on all accounts.
A. REPLY TO THE OPPOSITION TO JUDICIAL NOTICE

1. First document in the Judicial notice is the transcript of the hearing held on
12.20.2011 in front of Judge Robreno. Appellees themselves made this
notice a part of the proceedings, as they filed a motion for TRO with the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals, accusing Appellants of committing multiple
crimes. Third Circuit Court of Appeals referred this matter to the District
Court for hearing, thus this hearing became an integral part of the Appeal.
If the transcript and the disposition of the hearing are not reviewed by the
Third circuit Court of Appeals, the Third Circuit would be prejudiced against
the Appellants. The Transcript is absolutely essential for the Appeal. The
essence of the appeal is that the Plaintiffs/Appellees committed fraud by
claiming that the Plaintiff/Appellee Lisa Liberi is the resident of PA, not Lisa
Liberi, who was convicted in 2008 in CA and who is on probation under the
supervision of the San Bernardino, California Department of Probations.
The court erroneously assumed jurisdiction in this case, based on a
fraudulent assertion by Liberi and her attorney Berg. During the

12.20,2010 hearing, during the cross examination of Liberi, conducted by

the Appellant and attorney for the Appellants Taitz, Liberi admitted that
she is indeed Lisa Liberi, a felon, convicted in 2008 in CA. This admission
has de facto and de jure decided the Appeal in favor of the Appellants. Such
request for judicial notice was not frivolous, but proper, done in good faith
and evidence is material for the resolution of the appeal. Additionally,
cross examination of Plaintiff/ Appellee Ostella revealed that serious
accusation mounted against Taitz, specifically allegations that Taitz
attempted to kidnap Ostella's children didn't even come from Ostella, but
rather were made up by by attorney Berg. this behavior by a licensed PA
attorney Philip J Berg is so outrageous and represents such malice and such
egregious misconduct by a licensed attorney, that sua sponte sanctions by
this court against Berg are warranted. this exhibit supports motion for
sanctions filed by the Appellants.
2.
Second document provided as an exhibit with the Motion for the

Judicial Notice was the 12.23.2010 order by judge Robreno issued after
the 12.20.2011 hearing. Judge Robreno stated that there was no bases
for the Motion for the TRO and he did not find any basis for the
accusations made by the Plaintiffs/Appellees. Taitz conducted cross
examination of the Plaintiffs/Appellees Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella and
examination of the Plaintiff/Appellee Attorney Berg. Judge Robreno
found all three Plaintiffs/Appellees evasive and not believable: p.9
“Berg’s testimony was also combative, evasive and argumentative and
the court did not find his testimony to be helpful for establishing a
factual record”; p 8 “… Liberi also testified that Taitz tried to hire a “hit-
man” to harm her and her family and that Taitz encouraged others to
harm her son. On cross examination, Liberi conceded that she was a
convicted felon and that she had no direct evidence linking the website
to Defendants Belcher or Taitz. Liberi also did not present any credible
evidence to support her claims of murder solicitation and kidnapping
attempts. During her testimony Liberi was often combative and evasive,

and much of her testimony was argument without factual basis. For this
reasons, the court finds that Liberi’s testimony was not credible”; in
regards to Plaintiff/Appellee Ostella p9 “On cross examination, Ostella
conceded that she locked Taitz out of the web site
www.DefendOurFreedomsFoundation.org and her associated paypal
accounts. Ostella also conceded that she only had discovered a link
between Geoff Staples and the website http:/lisaliberi.com, not to
defendants Taitz and Belcher. Like Liberi, Ostella was often combative
and evasive during her testimony, and much of her testimony was
argument without factual basis. Therefore, the court also finds that
Ostella’s testimony was not credible.” Id 12.23.2010 order and
memorandum by judge Eduardo Robreno in Liberi v Taitz This
request for the judicial notice was timely and proper and evidence
provided was material. It showed that indeed Liberi was the convicted
felon. It showed that allegations and accusations by all the plaintiffs and
their attorney Berg was without any factual basis. This supports the
position of the Appellants, that the Plaintiffs/ Appellees committed
egregious fraud on the court both in the District court and the Court of
Appeals and perjury, not only by defrauding the court in regards to
Liberi’s state citizenship, but also in defrauding the court, while accusing
the Defendants/Appellees of multiple crimes. Plaintiffs/Appellees and
their attorney accused the defendants and particularly attorney Taitz of
serious crimes, such as attempting to hire a hit man to kill Liberi and
kidnap Liberi’s and Ostella’s children. They did it without a shred of
evidence and with malice, which not only supports the Appeal, but it
also supports motion for sanctions, filed by the Appellants.
3. Summary of the 2008 California conviction of Liberi of 10 felonies of

forgery and fraud and subsequent probation limitation is proper and
material, as coupled with Liberi's admission, that she is indeed a
convicted felon, makes Liberi's claims of PA residency impossible. Her
probation summary stipulates that she is not allowed to reside in any
other state but Ca and NM, therefore she can't reside in PA. I shows that

the court erred in assuming jurisdiction in diversity and the case needs
to be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.
4. A letter of the San Bernardino, California DA is material and proper

evidence, which was obtained recently, as it tends to show that Plaintiff
/Appellee Lisa Liberi is still under supervision of the San Bernardino CA
probations department
5. Recent announcement by the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme

Court of Pennsylvania, that a disciplinary hearing for Philip J. Berg is
scheduled for 02.23.2011 is an indication that a. Mr. Berg might not be
able to proceed as an attorney on this case after 02.23.2011.
Additionally, the staff of the disciplinary board will not schedule a
disciplinary hearing for an attorney and make it public knowledge,
unless they believe there is a good probability that indeed disciplinary
action will be taken. This is consistent with what the Appellants and
Taitz were saying all along, that Berg acted with malice and showed
egregious misconduct by an attorney, where he made up outrageous
accusations of capital crimes without a shred of evidence and with a
goal of covering up prior fraud on the court and perjury.
B MOTION TO RECUSE
1. As Appeallants stated in their motion, the appellants believed that

Judge Greenaway and Judge Jordan were prejudiced by prior
proceedings
As stated before Judge Greenaway issued a dissending opinion in the

motion to dismiss filed by the Appellees. Judges Barry and Fisher
decided that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over this
case and the appeal went forward. The appellants are concerned that if
judge Greenaway believes that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals does
not have jurisdiction to hear this case at all, than he will be inclined to
rule in favor of the Appellees and less likely to consider the merits of
the appeal, which deals with the fact that judge Robreno assumed

jurisdiction over this case without a shred of documentary evidence of

the state citizenship of the lead plaintiff Liberi. Moreover, without a
shred of documentary evidence, judge Robreno wrote in his order that
Liberi is a resident of PA, while ignoring all the evidence to the contrary
presented by the appellants.
Appellants argued that if this order by judge Robreno is allowed to stand

and the case is transferred to another jurisdiction, than a new judge
might decide, that this issue was already adjudicated and issue a
summary judgment.
Additionally, not challenging the jurisdiction goes against the principles

of the Judicial economy, as this whole class can be disposed immediately
due to lack of jurisdiction.
Yet another consideration is the fact that not reviewing the issue of
jurisdiction would be against the public policy. In the case at hand the
Plaintiffs filed a de-facto SLAPP (Strategic Law suit against public
participation) against the defendants, who were the whistle blowers and
who blew the whistle about the fact that attorney Philip J. Berg is using
as a paralegal Lisa Liberi, a felon, recently convicted in CA of forgery and
theft. Berg and Liberi claimed that she is a different person, residing in
PA, later they conceded that she is indeed a felon recently convicted in
CA. In spite of all the evidence and in spite of Liberi's admission, judge
Robreno inexplicably continues writing in his order that Liberi is a
resident of PA and is allowing Berg and Liberi to proceed with their
$800 million dollar case for defamation of character and slander. Prior
opinion by judge Greenaway de facto aids Berg and Liberi in defrauding
the public at large and the courts and gives green light to other felons,
like Liberi to find an attorney, who would violate the code of ethics and
would help them hide their identity.
2. Judge Jordan was the judge, who wrote the opinion in the prior
appeal 09-3903 in the same case of Liberi v Taitz, which was filed by the
Plaintiffs, where they were seeking a TRO, which would serve as a de -
facto gag order to silence the whistle blowers. On 08.29.2009 Berg filed
out a transcript order form, where he attested to the fact that he made
financial arrangements for purchase of the transcript. In reality, no such
arrangements were made, not a cent was paid and Berg used the court
of Appeals and the District court for 7 months as a dumping ground to
dump literally thousands of pages of unrelated defamatory and
inflammatory material with a sole goal of harassing and intimidating the
defendants and accusing the defendants of multiple crimes.
When the clerk of this court, Marcia Waldron, issued an order to show
cause, why the transcript was not made and not forwarded to the court
of Appeals, Joanne Carr, the clerk of the District court provided a
response that according to her inderstanding, the Plaintiffs, appellants
in that the first appeal, were supposed to get an order from judge
Robreno, authorizing the reporter to prepare the transcript, and that no
payment was made by the Plaintiffs for the transcript . Berg responded
stating that he never got the exact amount of the fee necessary for the
purchase of the transcript.
Marcia Waldron issued yet another order:
04/12/2010 Order (Clerk) considering Response by Court Reporter and Reply by Appellants
2 pg, 21.78 KB
to Order to Show Cause. The parties are hereby ORDERED to advise the Clerk
in writing within fourteen (14) days from teh date of this order whether the
appropriate motion has been filed in the District Court so that the Court
Reporter can transcribe the proceedings and whether financial arrangements
ahve been made. Action on the Order to Show Cause is deferred pending the
parties' responses to this Order, filed. (SLC)
Nine days later Berg filed a motion to withdraw his appeal.
Defendants argued, that if Berg and Liberi believed, that her life was
indeed in danger, they would have paid the transcript fee and filed a
necessary motion in the District Court to release the transcript and
have the hearing. They did not do this for seven months. When they saw
that they might be sanctioned by this court for not getting the transcript
and for not paying for it for seven months, they abruptly filed for leave
of court to dismiss their appeal.
Yet, again this was an example of the Plaintiffs using the courts as a tool
of harassing the defendants for as long as they pleased and later
withdrawing the appeal.
The defendants asked this court to decide with prejudice and to

sanction the Plaintiffs and specifically their attorney Berg, for defrauding
this court for seven months, claiming that the financial arrangements
were made, while knowing full well, that it was not done and simply
using this court to harass the defendants. Judge Jordan wrote a short
opinion, allowing the Berg to withdraw his appeal without paying any
fees of the other side.
The Defendants, who are Appellants in this case are concerned that
Judge Jordan could have been prejudiced against them by voluminous
filings by the Plaintiffs.
The requests to recuse in 28 U.S. C. §455 were done in good faith a

recusal standards are even more rigorous than the due process
standards.
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White,
536 U.S. 765, 122 S.Ct. 2528, 2002 WL 1378604, 153 L.Ed.2d 694, 70 USLW
4720, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5776, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7259, 15 Fla. L.
Weekly Fed. S 518, U.S., June 27, 2002 (NO. 01-521)
...recusal standards more rigorous than due process requires,
Laird v. Tatum,
409 U.S. 824, 93 S.Ct. 7, 1972 WL 130949, 34 L.Ed.2d 50, U.S.Dist.Col., October
10, 1972 (NO. 71-288) Supreme Court justice has a duty to sit where not disqualified which is
equally as
strong as the duty to not sit where disqualified. (Per Mr. Justice Rehnquist, on
motion to recuse ...

The appellants have no knowledge, as to how, why and by whom the

appeal panels are chosen. The appellants are acting out of abundance of
caution, as it appears that two out of three judges on this panel, might
be already prejudiced against the appeal.
As the panel could see and appreciate, a number of occurrences in this

case are totally inexplicable. As the Appellant elaborated previously,
there were multiple example of the district court not docketing the
defendants pleadings or not docketing specific documents within such
pleadings. As the Appellants argued, Judge Robreno pressured one of
the defendants, James Sundquist, to agree to have the case against him
dismissed without prejudice, even though this defendant wrote in his
pleadings that he did not want to have the case dismissed without
prejudice, and was seeking dismissal with prejudice as a final resolution
in this case. The defendants provided this court examples of transcript
made by the court reporter Donna Anders, where she simply removed
from the certified court transcript the whole cross examination of the
party and neatly arranged the direct examination of the other party
right below to create an impression that the cross never took place,
which needs to be investigated as a possible obstruction of justice and
tampering with evidence by the employee of the court itself. Lastly, in
an absolutely mind boggling move, after Plaintiff Liberi admitted of her
recent felony conviction in CA, and in light of the probation conditions,
forbidding her to reside in PA, Judge Robreno continues to write in his
order that she is a resident of PA, which is evidence of bias and abuse of
judicial discretion and possibly judicial misconduct. All of those
occurrences make U.S. federal courts look like courts in Egypt or
reminiscent of the courts Taitz observed in her native Soviet Union. All
of the above make her concerns reasonable and valid while hoping that
the Circuit court of Appeals will finally give some teeth to the doctrine of
jurisdiction of Federal court in Diversity cases based on real
documentary evidence and not based on fraudulent statements by the

Appellees, which were given by Judge Robreno more weight and value,
than documentary evidence presented by the Appellants.
After witnessing all of the above, Appellant Taitz was justified in her
reasonable request to recuse made on her own behalf and on behalf of
the "Defend Our Freedoms Foundation" where she is a president. She
provided zealous representation for the foundation, where she serves as
a president.
Additionally, opposition by the Appellees yet again spews multiple

allegations of crimes, whereby previous decisions by Judge Robreno and
Third Circuit Court of Appeals repeatedly found no value in such
allegations, repeatedly found their allegations to be rhetoric not based
in fact. Just as previously Appellees accused the Appellants of hiring a
hit-man to kill Liberi and to kidnap children, they continue with the
same modus operandi and accuse the appellants of further illegal
behavior. Appellees' response and allegations in it further support the
Appellants motion for sanctions against the Appellees and their attorney
Philip Berg.
SUMMARY
APPELLANTS MOTIONS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND TO RECUSE WERE

VALID AND BROUGHT FORWARD MATERIAL NEW EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL AND IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEALANT'S
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST THE APPELLEES.
02.07.2011
/s/ Taitz
Counsel for Appellant Taitz pro se and
for the Defend Our freedoms foundation

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Appellants certify that the true and correct copy if
the above motion was served on the Appellees and parties listed below on
02.08.2011
ATTORNEY’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the:
APPELLANTS REPLY TO APPELLEES' RESPONSE
was served by ECF and/or mail on 02.08.2011, on the following parties:
Theodor McKee
Chief Judge
Third Circuit Court of Appeals
20614 US courthouse
601 Market str.
Philadelphia PA 19106
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

LIBERI V TAITZ (THIRD CIRCUIT) - Reply by Appellants Defend Our Freedoms FNDTN and Orly Taitz To Response Response - 2-9-11 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 (THIRD CIRCUIT) - Reply by Appellants Defend Our Freedoms FNDTN and Orly Taitz To Response Response - 2-9-11 Transport Room

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110433419 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2011

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

LISA LIBERI, et al.,

ORLY TAITZ, et al.,

District Court No. 09_cv_01898_ECR

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Liberi v Taitz 02.07.2011 Reply to Response 1

APPELLANTS’ REPLY TO APPELLEES’ RESPONSE

On 02.01.2011 Appellees filed a response. There is a discrepancy between the

The docket states:

A. REPLY TO THE OPPOSITION TO JUDICIAL NOTICE

Liberi v Taitz 02.07.2011 Reply to Response 2

12.20,2010 hearing, during the cross examination of Liberi, conducted by

Second document provided as an exhibit with the Motion for the

Liberi v Taitz 02.07.2011 Reply to Response 3

3. Summary of the 2008 California conviction of Liberi of 10 felonies of

Liberi v Taitz 02.07.2011 Reply to Response 4

4. A letter of the San Bernardino, California DA is material and proper

5. Recent announcement by the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme

1. As Appeallants stated in their motion, the appellants believed that

As stated before Judge Greenaway issued a dissending opinion in the

Liberi v Taitz 02.07.2011 Reply to Response 5

jurisdiction over this case without a shred of documentary evidence of

Appellants argued that if this order by judge Robreno is allowed to stand

Additionally, not challenging the jurisdiction goes against the principles

Marcia Waldron issued yet another order:

Nine days later Berg filed a motion to withdraw his appeal.

The defendants asked this court to decide with prejudice and to

The requests to recuse in 28 U.S. C. §455 were done in good faith a

Liberi v Taitz 02.07.2011 Reply to Response 8

The appellants have no knowledge, as to how, why and by whom the

As the panel could see and appreciate, a number of occurrences in this

Liberi v Taitz 02.07.2011 Reply to Response 9

Additionally, opposition by the Appellees yet again spews multiple

APPELLANTS MOTIONS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND TO RECUSE WERE

Counsel for Appellant Taitz pro se and

for the Defend Our freedoms foundation

Liberi v Taitz 02.07.2011 Reply to Response 10

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the:

APPELLANTS REPLY TO APPELLEES' RESPONSE

was served by ECF and/or mail on 02.08.2011, on the following parties:

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

601 Market str.

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

Liberi v Taitz 02.07.2011 Reply to Response 11

Cell Phone: (818) 212_7615

FAX: (805) 520_5804 and (818) 366_1491

Linda Sue Belcher

Castroville, Texas 78009

Home Phone: (830) 538_6395

Cell Phone: (830) 931_1781

Email: Newwomensparty@aol.com and

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

Liberi v Taitz 02.07.2011 Reply to Response 12