LIBERI v TAITZ (ORLY APPEAL) - Motion to Dismiss Appeal

1

U.S. District Court,Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case Number:09-cv-01898 ECR Court of Appeals No. Case Number:10-3000

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

Ο

_____________

LISA LIBERI, et al,

Plaintiffs’ - Appellees’,v.

ORLY TAITZ, et al and DEFEND OUR FEEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC.,

Defendants - Appellants. ____________

Ο

_____________

APPELLEES, LISA LIBERI, LISA OSTELLA, PHILIP J. BERG,ESQUIRE, EVELYN ADAMS, GO EXCEL GLOBAL, AND LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL FOR LACK OF JURISIDICTION and REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS and ATTORNEY FEES for APPELLANTS FRIVOLOUS APPEAL

_____________________

Philip J. Berg, Esquire555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531(610) 825-3134

Attorney for the Appellees’

Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110231358 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2010

2

Appellees’, Lisa Liberi [hereinafter “Liberi”]; Philip J. Berg, Esquire[hereinafter “Berg”], the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg; Evelyn Adams a/k/aMomma E [hereinafter “Adams”]; Lisa Ostella [hereinafter “Ostella”]; and GoExcel Global by and through their undersigned counsel, Philip J. Berg, Esquire,hereby move, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 27, to Dismiss the Appeal for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291 and Request Sanctions and Attorney fees for Appellants, Orly Taitz, et al and Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc.[hereinafter at times Appellants] filing of the within frivolous Appeal.Appellant Orly Taitz’s Appeal of the Court’s Order of June 25, 2009,appearing as docket entry 76 is time barred. This Order dismissed JamesSundquist and Rock Salt Publishing, which was a Final Order and any Appealthereto, had to have been filed within thirty [30] days of the Court’s Order.

See

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 3. Therefore, Appeal of this Court’sJune 25, 2009 Order appearing as Docket Entry number 76 is time barred.

See

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,Rule 4.Appellant Orly Taitz’s Appeal of the Court’s Order of September 29, 2009,appearing as Docket Entry 109, is completely improper; is not a final order; and istime barred. This Court issued an Order on June 25, 2009, which directed any party filing with the Court to first seek Leave. Docket Entry 109 is the Court’sOrder allowing Plaintiffs’ (Appellees herein) to file a Reply to Defendant

Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110231358 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2010

3

(Appellant herein) Orly Taitz’s Response in Opposition to the Plaintiffs’ Responseto the Court’s Rules to Show Cause and Plaintiffs’ Request to File a Request for Judicial Notice. When Plaintiffs’ sought Leave to File their Reply, Appellants

never

opposed Plaintiffs’ Requests for Leave of Court. Nor did Appellants opposethe filings. Thus, they waived their rights, and issues cannot be raised for the firsttime on appeal.

See Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth alliance v. Browner

, 121F.3d 106 (3d Cir.1997), (Third Circuit Judge Samuel Alito held that issues raisedfor the first time on appeal are waived, except in “extraordinary circumstances.”)There are

no

extraordinary circumstances here.Moreover, Orders appealed from are to be filed within thirty [30] days, notten [10] months later.

See

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 3 andFederal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 4. The time limits in appeals are jurisdictional. Thus, if an appeal is not timely filed, the Appellate Court is without jurisdiction.

SeeBowles v. Russell

, 551 U.S. 205 (2007).Appellant, Orly Taitz’s appeal of the January 21, 2010 Order, appearing asDocket Entry number 116, is also time barred, not to mention the fact it is not anAppealable Order. The Court’s Order of January 21, 2010, appearing as DocketEntry number 116, was an Order to file Plaintiffs’ [Appellees herein] Attorney’sLetter in Response to Defendant’s [Appellant herein] Orly Taitz’s Request fromthe Court to File a Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions against the undersigned.

Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110231358 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/27/2010