High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
1
U.S. District Court,Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case Number: 09-cv-01898 ECR Court of Appeals No. 09-3403
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
Ο
_____________
LISA LIBERI, et al,
Plaintiffs’ – Appellants’,v.
ORLY TAITZ, et al,
Respondents’ – Appellees’. ____________
Ο
_____________
APPELLANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
_____________________
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD
:Please Take Notice that Appellants’, Lisa Liberi [hereinafter “Liberi”]; Philip J. Berg,Esquire [hereinafter “Berg”], the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg; Evelyn Adams a/k/a Momma E[hereinafter “Adams”]; Lisa Ostella [hereinafter “Ostella”]; and Go Excel Global by and throughtheir undersigned counsel, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby submits this Request for Judicial Notice of Judge David O. Carter, Judge of the United States District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division, Order of October 29, 2009 in the case of
Captain Pamela Barnett,et al v. Obama, et al
, Case No. SACV 09-cv-0082.Appellants’ request this Court to take Judicial Notice, pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 201, of the attached Court Order of the United States District Court, Central District of
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319882499 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2009
2
Honorable Court to take Judicial Notice of Judge Carter’s findings, which are as follows:
Page 28, Lines 2-28
:
“F. Conduct of Plaintiffs’ Counsel”
“The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ argumentsthrough Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counselhas favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present argumentsthrough cogent legal reasoning…The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs avoice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and bymaking every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongstthe rhetoric.”“This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint uponDefendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not bedismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the originalcomplaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants onlyafter the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counselmake significant accommodations for her to effect service.
Taitz alsocontinually refused to comply with court rules and procedure
.
Taitz evenasked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basisthat he required her to comply with the Local Rules.
See
Order DenyingPls.’ Mot. For Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato’s Aug. 5, 2009, Order;Denying Pls’ Mot. To Recuse Mag. J. Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App.For Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8, 2009).
Taitz also attemptedto dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she didn’t want to work with their new counsel.
See id.
” [
emphasis added by Philip J. Berg, Esquire
]California, Southern Division, Judge David O. Carter. In particular, Appellants
'
are requesting this
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319882499 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2009
3
“
Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both vialetters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorneyto encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court’s decision.Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has notconsidered any outside pleas to influence the Court’s decision.
” [
emphasisadded by Philip J. Berg, Esquire
]
Page 29, Lines 1-7:
“
Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits thatTaitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court toperjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may havesuborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.
”[
emphasis added by Philip J. Berg, Esquire
]“While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had theopportunity to be heard,
the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’counsel in her efforts to influence this Court
.” [
emphasis added by Philip J.Berg, Esquire
]
Page 29, Lines 22-28 and Page 30 Lines 1:
“Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of theConstitution;…
Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every priorcourt that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous forrefusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of theconstitution which set forth its jurisdiction.
Respecting the constitutional roleand jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Courtconsiders commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.” [
emphasis added by Philip J. Berg, Esquire]
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319882499 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/31/2009
Add a Comment