LIBERI V TAITZ (ORLY APPEAL) - Motion To Dismiss Appeal - Transport Room

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

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
(610) 825-3134
Attorney for the Appellees’
1
Appellees’, 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 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 James
Sundquist and Rock Salt Publishing, which was a Final Order and any Appeal
thereto, 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’s
June 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 is
time 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’s
Order allowing Plaintiffs’ (Appellees herein) to file a Reply to Defendant
2
(Appellant herein) Orly Taitz’s Response in Opposition to the Plaintiffs’ Response
to 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 oppose
the filings. Thus, they waived their rights, and issues cannot be raised for the first
time on appeal. See Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth alliance v. Browner, 121
F.3d 106 (3d Cir.1997), (Third Circuit Judge Samuel Alito held that issues raised
for 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, not
ten [10] months later. See Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 3 and
Federal 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. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007).
Appellant, Orly Taitz’s appeal of the January 21, 2010 Order, appearing as
Docket Entry number 116, is also time barred, not to mention the fact it is not an
Appealable Order. The Court’s Order of January 21, 2010, appearing as Docket
Entry number 116, was an Order to file Plaintiffs’ [Appellees herein] Attorney’s
Letter in Response to Defendant’s [Appellant herein] Orly Taitz’s Request from
the Court to File a Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions against the undersigned.
3
Defendant Orly Taitz never opposed the filing of the Letter or the Court’s Order to
file the undersigned’s Letter docketed, and therefore any objection thereto was
waived by Defendant Taitz, Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth alliance v.
Browner, 121 F.3d 106 (3d Cir.1997). Moreover, this is not a final appealable
Order and even if it were, it is time barred. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Rule 3 and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 4. Therefore, this Court
is without jurisdiction.
The Order of June 3, 2010, docketed June 4, 2010, appearing as Docket
Entry number 118 was amended and therefore, is moot. Moreover, the Order of
June 3, 2010 is not an Appealable Final Order under either the text of 28 U.S.C.
§1291 or the Collateral Order Doctrine.
The Memorandum and Order of June 22, 2010, docketed June 23, 2010,
appearing as Docket Entry numbers 123 and 124 is the Court’s Amended Order
Transferring the Underlying Case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the
Central District, Southern Division of California and the Western District of Texas.
The Memorandum and Order are not Appealable Final Orders under either the text
of 28 U.S.C. §1291 or the Collateral Order Doctrine.
The Court’s Order of June 22, 2010, docketed on June 23, 2010, appearing
as Docket Entry number 125 is the Court’s Order granting in part Plaintiffs’
Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order of June 3, 2010, docketed June 4,
4
2010 appearing as Docket Entry number 118. This Order is not an Appealable
Order under either the text of 28 U.S.C. §1291 or the Collateral Order Doctrine.
For the reasons stated herein, this Court does not have jurisdiction to here
the within Appeal and therefore, must be Dismissed.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS:
This action arises due to damages caused by the Defendants due to
Defendants slander, libel, assault and publication of Plaintiff’s private identifying
information, including Social Security number, just to name a few. The case was
filed under diversity jurisdiction.
It was discovered that two [2] of the Defendants, James Sundquist and Rock
Salt Publishing were located in New Jersey, as did two [2] of the Plaintiffs. These
two [2] Defendants had ceased their illegal behaviors and therefore were
disposable Defendants. Plaintiffs moved to have James Sundquist and Rock Salt
Publishing dismissed as they were disposable Defendants and they destroyed
diversity. The Court agreed and dismissed the two [2] parties. At the same time
the Lower Court ruled that all parties must seek Leave of Court to File any
documents.
Appellant Orly Taitz filed numerous Motions to Dismiss with the Lower
Court, claiming Plaintiff Liberi was a resident of New Mexico and the proper
5
jurisdiction for the underlying action was in fact California, all of which were
denied. On June 25, 2009, the Court issued Rules to Show Cause upon Plaintiffs
as to Why the Case Should Not be Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction; Why the
Case Should Not be Severed; and Why the Case Should Not be Transferred to the
Defendants Jurisdictions. The Court further Ordered that Plaintiffs were to file
affidavits and evidence with their response.
At the end of August 2009, Plaintiffs complied and Filed their Response to
the Court’s Rules to Show Cause. Plaintiffs filed numerous affidavits and
numerous postings which were obtained directly from the Defendants websites.
Plaintiffs’ filed hundreds of pages showing the Lower Court had Jurisdiction over
the Defendants.
Defendant Orly Taitz was the only party to file a Reply to Plaintiffs
Response. Unfortunately, Appellee Taitz, who is a licensed attorney in the State of
California, failed to address any issues before the Court and instead filed a bunch
of ramblings that amounted to nothing.
Plaintiffs sought Leave of Court to File a Reply to Appellant Taitz’s
ramblings and also sought Leave of Court to File a Request for Judicial Notice of
particular documents. On September 29, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiffs Leave
and allowed Plaintiffs to File their Reply and Requests for Judicial Notice.
6
Shortly thereafter, it was brought to the attention of Plaintiffs’ that Appellant
Orly Taitz may be attempting to liquidate her assets. For this reason, and due to
the fact Appellant Taitz’s assets were located in California, Plaintiffs sought Leave
of Court to File a Motion to Transfer the underlying case to the U.S. District Court,
Central District of California, Southern Division. Appellant Taitz failed to
properly respond to Plaintiffs Request for Leave or Motion to Transfer.
In or about the end of December / early January 2010, Appellant Taitz
sought Leave of Court to File a Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiffs Counsel.
Counsel for the Plaintiffs Responded in Opposition and pointed out to the Court
that Appellant Taitz failed to sign her document; failed to follow the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure; and the Court’s local rules and many other deficiencies. On
January 21, 2010, the Court Ordered Plaintiffs Counsel’s Letter Filed and placed
on the Docket. Appellant Taitz did not object, nor did Appellant Taitz file any
type of a Reply.
Due to the previous pending Appeal, the Court had placed the underlying
action in suspense pending the outcome of the previous Appeal. Appellants Filed a
Motion to Withdraw and/or Dismiss their Appeal, which was granted by this Court
in May 2010.
Thereafter, Judge Robreno removed the underlying action from suspense
and on June 3, 2010, Docketed June 4, 2010 issued a Memorandum and Order
7
Severing the case and Transferring the case to the Central District of California,
Southern Division for the California Defendants and to the Western District of
Texas for the Texas Defendants. There was a discrepancy in the Order where three
[3] of the California Defendants were inadvertently transferred to Texas. In the
Memorandum the Court noted Appellant Taitz’s and Defendant Sankey’s Replies,
and noted they were inapposite to the issues before the Court. It should also be
noted, Defendant Sankey never served Plaintiffs’ with his letter.
On June 13, 2010, Plaintiffs filed an Emergency Motion for Reconsideration
based on the fact three [3] of the California Defendants were inadvertently being
transferred to Texas.
Following this filing, on June 14, 2010, Appellant Taitz filed what she called
a Motion for Reconsideration. However, Appellant Taitz’s Motion was not
compliant with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; did not contain a
Memorandum of Law; failed to cite the case number; Appellant Taitz failed to cite
any new law or circumstances; failed to show where the Court had erred, if that is
what she was claiming; and failed to cite any type of law as to why the Court’s
ruling was incorrect. Moreover, Appellant Taitz used the Court to again republish
and file Appellee Liberi’s full Social Security number and then blamed the Clerks
of the Court. In this filing, Appellant Taitz now claims that Appellee Liberi is a
resident and citizen of California, which is untrue. Appellant Taitz takes it further
8
and basis her arguments on a hearsay letter from Defendant Belcher. It should be
noted, the creator of this letter in the name of Linda Belcher appears to be Pamela
Barnett, an employee/volunteer of Appellant Orly Taitz. The properties in the
document match the properties of documents and filings prepared by Pamela
Barnett in other cases. It should also be noted, this letter of Linda Belcher’s, which
is nothing more than hearsay and fabricated stories, was never served upon
Plaintiffs’ and only shows carbon copied to Orly Taitz.
On June 22, 2010, docketed June 23, 2010, Judge Robreno issued his
Memorandum and Order Granting in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration.
In addition, on this same date, Judge Robreno issued his Amended Order regarding
the Severing and Transfer of the Case, which was completely proper pursuant to
our laws.
Thereafter, on June 28, 2010, Appellant Orly Taitz filed her Response and
Requested to treat Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion as Admissions to Fraud and
Perjury. Again, there is no applicable law cited and the entire pleading is a bunch
of ramblings based upon a hearsay letter that Appellant Taitz participated in
creating.
On July 2, 2010, Appellant Taitz Filed her Notice of Appeal;
Motion/Request to Unseal “sealed” transcript; and Motion/Request for a Stay of
the Transfer Pending the Outcome of this Appeal.
9
On July 9, 2010, Plaintiffs’ filed their Opposition to Appellant Taitz’s
Motions/Requests. At the same time and within the pleading, Plaintiffs’ Counsel
put Appellant Orly Taitz on notice that the Orders of June 25, 2009; September 29,
2009 and January 21, 2010 she was attempting to Appeal were time barred and the
Orders of June 3, 2010 and June 22, 2010 were not appealable final Orders under
either the text of 28 U.S.C. §1291 or the Collateral Order Doctrine. See EXHIBIT
“A”.
Therefore, this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain Appellant Taitz’s
Appeal of the numerous Orders.
II. THIS COURT LACKS JURISIDCTION TO HEAR

APPELLANT TAITZ APPEAL OF THE JUNE 25, 2009;
SEPTEMBER 29, 2009; and JANUARY 21, 2010 ORDERS as
APPELLENT FAILED TO TIMELY FILE HER NOTICE OF
APPEAL:
Appellant Orly Taitz and Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. are
attempting to Appeal the Court’s Orders of June 25, 2009 [Docket Entry number
76]; September 29, 2009 [Docket Entry number 109]; and January 21, 2010
[Docket Entry number 116], however the Appeal to these particular Orders are
time barred.
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 3 states in pertinent part:
“(a) Filing the Notice of Appeal.
10
(1) An appeal permitted by law as of right from a district

court to a court of appeals may be taken only by filing a
notice of appeal with the district clerk within the time
allowed by Rule 4. At the time of filing, the appellant
must furnish the clerk with enough copies of the notice to
enable the clerk to comply with Rule 3(d).”
“Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure states in pertinent part:
(a) Appeal in a Civil Case.

(1) Time for Filing a Notice of Appeal.
A. In a civil case, except as provided in Rules 4(a)(1)(B),
4(a)(4), and 4(c), the notice of appeal required by
Rule 3 must be filed with the district clerk within 30
days after the judgment or order appealed from is
entered.”
In a civil case, the Notice of Appeal "must be filed with the district clerk
within 30 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered." FED. R.
APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that, because
this time limit derives from statute, it is jurisdictional, and no judicially-created
doctrine of unique circumstances may excuse such an untimely appeal from being
dismissed. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007).
Therefore, this Court is without Jurisdiction to entertain Appellant Orly
Taitz’s Appeal of the Lower Court’s June 25, 2009 Orders [Docket Entry number
11
76]; September 29, 2009 [Docket Entry number 109]; and January 21, 2010
[Docket Entry number 116].
III. THIS COURT LACKS JURISIDICTION TO HEAR

APPELLANT ORLY TAITZ’S APPEAL on the JUNE 3, 2010
and JUNE 22, 2010 ORDERS as they are not APPEALABLE
FINAL ORDERS:
Appellant Taitz is attempting to Appeal the Orders of June 3, 2010, docketed
June 4, 2010 [Docket Entry number 118]; June 22, 2010, docketed June 23, 2010
[Docket Entry numbers 123, 124, and 125] which are not final Orders under either
the text of 28 U.S.C. §1291 or the Collateral Order Doctrine. As this Court is well
aware, normally, appeals must await a "final order" on the case that resolves all the
issues, such as a dismissal or judgment, Carr v. Am. Red Cross, 17 F.3d 671, 675
(3d Cir. 1994). The June 3, 2010 and June 22, 2010 Orders Appellant Taitz is
attempting to Appeal are not appealable.
As stated in In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 401 F.3d 143; 2005 U.S.
App. LEXIS 4012; 61 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 79 (3rd Cir. 2005) at *30
“Courts of Appeals acquire jurisdiction over appeals through final orders under 28
U.S.C. § 1291; collateral orders under the doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 93 L. Ed. 1528, 69 S. Ct. 1221 (1949);
interlocutory orders concerning injunctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a); questions
certified for appeal by the district court and then certified by the appellate court
12
under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); or certification by the district court pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(b) of a "final" judgment when disposition has been had of less than all
parts or issues in a given case. “
Even if the interlocutory Appeal were permitted, which it is not, Defendant
Taitz’s Appeal would still fail. Orders that are not final are guided by the
Collateral Order Doctrine. See Carr v. Am. Red Cross, 17 F.3d 671, 675 (3d Cir.
1994) (citing Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978)). The
Third Circuit Court of Appeals has construed the Collateral Order Doctrine
narrowly, and in so doing stated, ‘“lest the exception swallow up the salutary
general rule’ that only final orders may be appealed.” Yakowicz v. Pennsylvania,
683 F.2d 778, 783 n.10 (3d Cir. 1982) (quoting Rodgers v. U.S. Steel Corp., 541
F.2d 365, 369 (3d Cir.1976)).
There are three [3] requirements that must be met under the Collateral Order
Doctrine, in order for our Appellate Court’s to be able to review an interlocutory
appeal, which Appellant Taitz’s is unable to meet. Under the Collateral Order
Doctrine, the Third Circuit has held that the Court can review an otherwise
interlocutory appeal if the District Court’s order: (1) conclusively determines the
disputed question, (2) resolves an important question that is unrelated to the merits
of the underlying case, and (3) would effectively be unreviewable on appeal from a
final judgment. See Carr v. Am. Red Cross, 17 F.3d 671, 675 (3d Cir. 1994) (citing
13
Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978)) The Third Circuit Court
of Appeals has held they cannot exercise jurisdiction over a collateral order unless
all three requirements of the Collateral Order Doctrine are satisfied. See Carr, 17
F.3d at 675.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held, “In general, an order
transferring a case is not a final order and, hence, not appealable.” In re United
States, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 25231 (3d Cir 2001) (quoting Nascone v. Spudnuts,
Inc., 735 F.2d 763, 764 (3d Cir. 1984).
Therefore, this Court is without jurisdiction and Appellant Taitz’s Appeal
must be Dismissed.
IV. SANCTIONS and the AWARD of ATTORNEY FEES IN

FAVOR OF APPELLES COUNSEL ARE WARRANTED:
The within Appeal is completely Frivolous. Appellant Taitz was well aware
that the Orders she was attempting to Appeal are non appealable as the Orders of
June 25, 2009; September 29, 2009; and January 21, 2010 are time barred and the
Orders of June 3, 2010 and June 22, 2010 are not Final Orders. Despite this, she
has failed to Withdraw her Appeal and insists on moving forward.
Appellant Taitz is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of
California and licensed to practice before this Court. Unfortunately, this Court is
14
not the only Court Appellant Taitz has failed to follow the rules and unfortunately
files frivolous pleadings.1
Appellant Taitz has been Sanctioned before in October 2009, for this very
exact conduct. Unfortunately, Judge Land’s Sanctions were not persuasive, as
Taitz continues her disrespect for our Court’s, Court Rules; and continues her
barrage of frivolous filings. Appellant Taitz will continue filing her frivolous
papers, if this Court does not put a stop to it.
As stated in Walsh v. Schering-Plough Corp., 758 F.2d 889, 895 (3d Cir.
1985):
“Undoubtedly, it was just such considerations that gave rise to the

recent amendment to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. That Rule, promulgated to
keep attorneys "honest" in their pleading practice, now authorizes
sanctions to be imposed when an attorney violates his certificate
that good grounds support his pleading and that the pleading is not
interposed for delay. Moreover, our own Fed.R.App.P. 46(c)
provides for action being taken by us in the event that an attorney
who practices before us exhibits conduct unbecoming a member
of the bar or fails to comply with any rule of the court.2”
1
See Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (M.D. Ga. 2009) aff’d in Rhodes v.
MacDonald, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5340 (11th Cir. Ga. Mar. 15, 2010) (Judge Land increased
the Sanctions against Taitz to Twenty Thousand [$20,000.00] Dollars in attempts to deter her
from her frivolous filings.) See also Barnett v. Obama, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101206 (C.D. Cal.
Oct. 29, 2009).
2
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(c) provides:
“c) Disciplinary Power of the Court over Attorneys. A court of appeals may, after
reasonable notice and an opportunity to show cause to the contrary, and after hearing, if
requested, take any appropriate disciplinary action against any attorney who practices
before it for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar or for failure to comply with
these rules or any rule of the court.”
15
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides:”
“Every pleading, motion, and other paper of a party represented by an

attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in his
individual name, whose address shall be stated. A party who is not
represented by an attorney shall sign his pleading, motion or other paper
and state his pleading, motion or other paper and state his address…The
signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that he has
read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge,
information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded
in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the
extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not
interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause
unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. If a
pleading, motion, or other paper is not signed, it shall be stricken…If a
pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the
court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the
person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate
sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or
parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the
filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable
attorney's fee.” [emphasis added]
“It is evident to me that unfortunately there are some counsel who abuse
the judicial process and by doing so make our task and the tasks of our
colleagues far more difficult. Historically, attorneys have been reluctant to
"blow the whistle" on their colleagues or to seek sanctions against their
opponents. Perhaps as Professor Miller notes in a recent article written in a
discovery context,3 they are mindful of a variation on the golden rule "Do
not seek sanctions against what is done to you today, for it may be what
you will try on your opponent tomorrow."
Appellant Taitz was well aware the Orders she was appealing were either
time barred or were not appealable final Orders under either the text of 28 U.S.C.
§1291 or the Collateral Order Doctrine. Despite this, she decided to continue her
16
frivolous appeal, which is a complete waste of this Court’s Judicial Resources; an
attempt to delay the proceedings; and increased the Appellees litigation costs,
which was clearly Appellant Taitz’s motive.
The Court in Walsh v. Schering-Plough Corp., 758 F.2d at 896-897 went on
further stating:
“If we take no steps to resolve the issue which these affidavits

have now presented to us, we run the risk not only of losing the
respect of the bar, but of damaging the professional standards that
lawyers look to us to uphold. Every member of the bar has had his
character and fitness tested and reviewed before obtaining a
license to practice. We, together, with other courts, are charged
with maintaining at least that level of honesty and professionalism
in the conduct of those who, once having obtained the right to
practice, continue to exercise that right before us.”
“...So too, as each instance of charged professional misconduct is

ignored by us or deemed unworthy of our attention, our
professional tapestry will imperceptibly, but surely, lose its form,
its structure and its shape.”
“Thus, in my opinion it is no answer to characterize the issue

before us as one not worth our consideration. If we do not require
strict adherence to principles which mandate candor and
truthfulness, and if we refuse to decide and enforce claimed
violations of those fundamental precepts, we will have only
ourselves to blame if intolerable and proscribed practices of the
bar become the rule rather than the exception.”
For the reasons stated herein, this Court must grant Sanctions against
Appellant Taitz in attempts to deter her from inappropriate behavior and frivolous
3
Miller, The Adversary System: Dinosaur or Phoenix, 69 Minn.L.Rev. 25 (1984).
17
filings. In addition, the Court must Order Taitz to pay Appellees’ Attorney fees in
the amount of Fifteen Thousand [$15,000.00] Dollars to cover the costs for
Appellant Taitz’s frivolous filings pertaining to the within frivolous appeal.
IV. CONCLUSION:
For all the aforementioned reasons, Appellees, Lisa Liberi, Lisa Ostella,
Philip J. Berg, Esquire, Evelyn Adams, Go Excel Global, and The Law Offices of
Philip J. Berg respectfully request this Court to Dismiss Appellants Orly Taitz and
Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Appeal; and Grant Appellees Request for
Sanctions and Attorney Fees.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: July 27, 2010 s/ Philip J. Berg

____________________________
(610) 825-3134
Attorney for the Appellees’
18
EXHIBIT “A”
19
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110231358
Document 132 Page:
Filed 20
07/09/10
DatePage
Filed:107/27/2010
of 19
Law Offices of:

PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Attorney for: Plaintiffs’
Identification No. 09867
(610) 825-3134
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, : Assigned to Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
Defendants. :
:
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE and MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION

TO DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ’S REQUEST TO UNSEAL
TRANSCRIPTS and FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL
NOW COME Plaintiffs’, 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 through their undersigned counsel, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, and hereby
Respond in Opposition to Defendant Orly Taitz’s Request to Unseal Transcripts and
Request to Stay the Transfer of the Case to California pending the outcome of her
Appeal. In support hereof, Plaintiffs aver as follows:
Z:\Liberi Plaintiffs’ Response/Memorandum in Opp to Defendant Taitz’s Motions to unseal and transfer 07.07.2010 1
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110231358
Document 132 Page:
Filed 21
07/09/10
DatePage
Filed:207/27/2010
of 19
 Defendant Orly Taitz failed to serve her Notice of Appeal, Request to

Stay the Transfer of the Case to California, pending Appeal, and her
Motion to Unseal Transcripts and failed to file a Certificate of
Service;
 Defendant Taitz is attempting to appeal Orders which are not

appealable as they are Interlocutory and not final Orders;
 Defendant Taitz fails to meet the requirements to Appeal

Interlocutory Orders as established by the Collateral Order Doctrine;
 Defendant Orly Taitz’s filing appearing as Docket Entries 128, 130

and 131 are frivolous; and filed for an improper purpose to further
delay the proceedings; to waste judicial resources; and to cost
Plaintiffs’ additional Attorney Fees;

and 131 fails to cite any cognizable reasons why a Stay of Action is
Requested;

and 131 fails to cite any type of legal authority or law to support her
requests;

and 131 are not in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure;
 The only Transcript Sealed is the Transcript of August 7, 2009, which

was Plaintiffs’ Motion for an immediate Temporary Restraining
Order and offers nothing regarding Defendant Taitz’s reasons for
Appeal;
 The Transcript of August 7, 2009 contains the Social Security number

of Plaintiff Liberi;
 Defendant Orly Taitz’s Appeal is based on an Ex Parte Letter which

Plaintiffs’ were never served with and is not a proper basis for an
appeal;
 Defendant Orly Taitz’s Appeal of this Court’s Order of June 25, 2009
is time barred;
 Defendant Orly Taitz’s filings appearing as Docket Entries 128, 130

and 131 are an attempt to deceive this Court. All Defendants
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110231358
Document 132 Page:
Filed 22
07/09/10
DatePage
Filed:307/27/2010
of 19
requested transfer of the within case as documented in their filings

appearing as Docket Entry numbers 23, 24, 25 and Taitz own filings
appearing as Docket Entries 35, 48, 50, and 53, just to name a few,
stating California is the proper jurisdiction of this Case;
 Defendant Taitz’s Appeal of this Court’s Orders appearing as Docket

Entry numbers 109; 116; 118; 123; 124; and 125 are completely
improper as outlined below and therefore do not warrant any type of
Stay; and
 Plaintiffs’ will be severely damaged and prejudiced if Defendant

Taitz’s Request/Motion for Stay is Granted.
I. FACTS:
Plaintiffs’ filed suit against the Defendants on May 4, 2009 for amongst other
things the publication of Plaintiff Liberi’s Social Security number; date of birth; place of
birth; and other confidential information.
Contrary to Defendant Orly Taitz’s filings appearing as Docket Entry numbers
128, 130 and 131 filed July 2, 2010, all Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss, appearing
as Docket Entries twenty-three through twenty-five [23-25], which are Defendants one
line answers: Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint or in the Alternative to Transfer the
case to the Western District of Texas. And in Defendant Orly Taitz’s own filings
appearing as Docket Entry numbers 35, 48, 50, and 53, just to name a few, wherein
Defendant Orly Taitz clearly states California is the proper jurisdiction.
Moreover, Defendant Taitz’s clearly fails to raise Plaintiffs’ Motion to Transfer
the within action, which again went unopposed as none of the Defendants responded to
Plaintiffs’ Motion, except for Defendant Taitz’s Letter Brief for Sanctions against the
undersigned for filing Plaintiffs’ Motion to Transfer Venue.
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110231358
Document 132 Page:
Filed 23
07/09/10
DatePage
Filed:407/27/2010
of 19
As demonstrated by the Docket of this Case, Defendant Taitz has continually filed
ramblings in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In fact, Defendant Taitz
Waived all of her Affirmative Defenses by not filing her Answer timely, but also by the
fact when she did file her Answer, it was only a simple general denial of all allegations,
which is completely improper in the Federal Courts. See Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 12.
Defendant Orly Taitz states in her Notice of Appeal that she is Appealing the
Court’s Orders appearing as Docket Entry numbers 76; 109; 116; 123; 124; and 125
which is completely improper.
This Court’s Order of June 25, 2009, appearing as Docket Entry 76 is time barred.
This Order dismissed James Sundquist and Rock Salt Publishing, which was a final Order
and any Appeal thereto had to have been filed within thirty [30] days of the Court’s
Order. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 3. Therefore, Appeal of this Court’s
June 25, 2009 Order appearing as Docket Entry number 76 is time barred. See Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 4.
This Court’s Order of September 29, 2009, appearing as Docket Entry 109, is
completely improper and is time 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
this Court’s Order allowing Plaintiffs’ to file a reply, which is permitted pursuant to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to Defendant Orly Taitz’s Response in Opposition to
the Plaintiffs’ Response to this Court’s Rules to Show Cause and Plaintiffs’ Request to
file a request for Judicial Notice. When Plaintiffs’ sought leave to file their reply, none
of the Defendants’ opposed Plaintiffs’ requests for leave or Plaintiffs’ filings. Thus, they
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110231358
Document 132 Page:
Filed 24
07/09/10
DatePage
Filed:507/27/2010
of 19
waived their rights, and issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See
Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth alliance v. Browner, 121 F.3d 106 (3d Cir.1997),
(Third Circuit Judge Samuel Alito held that issues raised for the first time on appeal are
waived, except in “extraordinary circumstances.”) There are no extraordinary
circumstances here.
This Court’s Order of January 21, 2010, appearing as Docket Entry number 116,
was an Order to file Plaintiffs’ Attorney’s Letter in response to Defendant Orly Taitz’s
request from the Court to file a Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions against the undersigned.
Of course, as usual, Defendant Orly Taitz who is a licensed attorney in the State of
California, Request and Motion failed to bear her signature; failed to cite any type of
legal authority or law; and was actually Defendant Taitz’s fourth or fifth Motion to
Dismiss which is completely improper. Defendant Orly Taitz never opposed the filing of
the Letter or this Court’s Order to file the undersigned’s letter docketed, and therefore
any objection thereto was waived by Defendant Taitz.
This Court’s Order of June 3, 2010, appearing as Docket Entry number 118 was
amended on June 22, 2010 and therefore, any Appeal thereto is Moot.
The June 22, 2010 Order of this Court explains that the Court had issued Rules to
Show Cause upon Plaintiffs’ as to Why the Case should not be Dismissed for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction; Why the Case should not be Severed into three (3) or fewer cases
against the following groups or Defendants (i) the Hales; (ii) Belcher; (iii) Taitz, DOFF,
and Sankey; and Why the Case should not be Transferred to the appropriate district in
either Texas or California. Plaintiffs’ Responded to the Court’s Rules to Show Cause;
Defendant Taitz filed a Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Response, however, failed
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110231358
Document 132 Page:
Filed 25
07/09/10
DatePage
Filed:607/27/2010
of 19
to touch upon any of the issues which were pending and failed to cite any type of legal
authority as to why Plaintiffs’ Response failed.
Defendant Taitz’s attempts to appeal “Order 123”, there is no such Order
appearing on the Docket. Docket Entry number 123 is this Court’s Memorandum
pertaining to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration. At no time, has Defendant Taitz
filed a Motion objecting to this Memorandum; a Motion for clarification; or a Motion at
all pertaining to this Court’s Memorandum appearing as Docket Entry 123. As stated
previously, you cannot raise issues for the first time on appeal. See Southwestern
Pennsylvania Growth alliance v. Browner, 121 F.3d 106 (3d Cir.1997).
This Court’s Order of June 22, 2010, appearing on the docket as Docket Entry
number 124 amends the Court’s previous Order of June 3, 2010 appearing as Docket
Entry number 118. In this particular Order, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Reconsideration as to points one through five [1-5]; Amends its Order of June 3, 2010;
and thereby Severed the Case and Transferred the Case against the California Defendants
to California and the Case against the Texas Defendants to Texas upon its own Rules to
Show Caused issued June 25, 2009, which was completely proper.
This Court’s Order of June 23, 2010 appearing as Docket Entry 125 grants
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration as to points one through five [1-5]. Defendant
Taitz had the opportunity to respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration, however,
failed to properly do so. Therefore, the Court found “Defendant Taitz’s response does
not substantively address Plaintiff Berg’s motion for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration, thus it is inapposite to the issues at bar.” Again, which was completely
proper by this Court.
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110231358
Document 132 Page:
Filed 26
07/09/10
DatePage
Filed:707/27/2010
of 19
All through Defendant Orly Taitz’s ramblings, she states the Court failed to take
into account her filings, which is completely untrue, as it is noted in this Court’s
Memorandums of June 3, 2010 and June 22, 2010. Moreover, Defendant Taitz screams
that this Court failed to take into consideration Defendants Sankey and Belcher’s Letters.
This Court gave more leeway to the other Defendants. Defendant’s Sankey and
Belcher’s Letters were never served upon the Plaintiffs’ and therefore were ex parte
communications, which are completely improper. Despite this, the Court did mention
Defendant Sankey’s Letter, which was how Plaintiffs’ learned that Sankey sent a Letter
to the Judge. Plaintiffs’ learned of Defendant Belcher’s Letter as it was posted all over
the Internet and posted by Defendant Orly Taitz on her website1.
The entire basis used by Defendant Taitz in her Appeal is the Letter of Defendant
Linda Belcher. Plaintiffs’ are informed, believe and thereon allege that Defendant Orly
Taitz orchestrated the Letter signed by Defendant Linda Belcher. This is proven by the
mere fact that on page one of Defendant Belcher’s Letter the only party carbon copied is
Orly Taitz and no one else. This in itself is a fraud upon the Courts. Moreover,
Defendant Belcher’s Letter contains nothing but hearsay; speculation; inaccurate and
false statements; and does nothing more than recite Defendant Orly Taitz’s recent filings
with this Court.
It has just come to the undersigned’s attention that the entire Letter of Defendant
Belcher, again as orchestrated by Defendant Taitz, was a complete fraud upon this Court.
A person who posted on Philip J. Berg’s website by the name of Tina Conner, was told
by Linda Sue Belcher, referred in the post as “LSB”, that she Linda Sue Belcher sought
out Orly Taitz to continue her revenge against Philip J. Berg, Esquire and Lisa Liberi,
1
www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=12091
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110231358
Document 132 Page:
Filed 27
07/09/10
DatePage
Filed:807/27/2010
of 19
Plaintiffs’ herein. Further, according to the post on Politijab2 by LMK a/k/a Tina Conner,
Defendant Orly Taitz was willing to allow Defendant Linda Sue Belcher to help her
(Defendant Taitz) target Philip J. Berg, Esquire. See EXHIBIT “1” attached hereto. This
Court may recall, Defendant Orly Taitz threatened to take Philip J. Berg, Esquire down
and to do so she (Defendant Taitz) was going to destroy his paralegal, Plaintiff Lisa
Liberi herein, which was admitted by Defendant Orly Taitz in her Court filings.
Most importantly, however, is the fact the Orders Defendant Taitz is attempting to
Appeal are not Appealable Orders.
II. THE ONLY TRANSCRIPT SEALED IS FROM THE AUGUST 7, 2009

HEARING WHICH DOES NOT PERTAIN TO DEFENDANT TAITZ’S
APPEAL and THEREFORE, THERE IS NO BASIS TO UNSEAL THIS
PARTICULAR TRANSCRIPT:
Defendant Taitz’s filings appearing as Docket Entry numbers 128, 130 and 131
requests this Court to Unseal Transcripts claiming none of the Defendants were aware
that the Transcripts were sealed. This is hogwash to say the least. The only Transcript
which touches upon Defendant Taitz’s Notice of Appeal is the June 25, 2009 Transcript
which is not sealed.
The only Transcript Sealed is the Transcript of August 7, 2009, which was the
Hearing of Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and has
nothing to do with Defendant Taitz’s Appeal. In this August 7, 2009 Transcript is
Plaintiff Liberi’s full Social Security number and the parties’ names, addresses, etc. all of
which was “Sealed” to protect the parties. All parties present for this Hearing were made
aware the proceedings, all exhibits, and the Transcript were Sealed. The Court may
2
http://politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=153264#p153264
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110231358
Document 132 Page:
Filed 28
07/09/10
DatePage
Filed:907/27/2010
of 19
recall Plaintiff Liberi showed this Court documents bearing her residential address, which
was not California or Texas. There is absolutely no basis for this transcript pertaining to
Defendant Taitz’s Appeal, nothing in the Defendant’s Appeal addresses anything
regarding this particular Hearing or any Order thereto. Unless of course, Defendant Taitz
is planning on using the Transcript to further publish Plaintiff Liberi’s Social Security as
she has continued doing since the filing of the within lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant
Taitz’s request is not in conformity with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as
Defendant Taitz failed to put the case number, failed to cite with particularity the relief
sought and/or the reason for said relief; failed to file a brief with any type of legal
authority or law; failed to serve the parties; and failed to file a Certificate of Service in
violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 5; 7(b); 8; 10(a); Local Rules
7.1(a); and 7.1(c). Moreover, the Orders Defendant Taitz is attempting to Appeal are not
Appealable Orders.
Therefore, Defendant Taitz’s Request to Unseal this particular Transcript must be
Denied.
III. DEFENDANT TAITZ REQUEST/MOTION TO STAY THE

TRANSFER OF THE WITHIN CASE TO CALIFORNIA PENDING
HER APPEAL FAILS ON ITS FACE:
Defendant Orly Taitz next asks this Court to Stay the Transfer of the Case to
California, however, Defendant Taitz, as usual, failed to follow the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure; failed to cite any type of cognizable claim as to why the transfer should be
stayed pending appeal; failed to cite any type of prejudice if the transfer is not stayed;
fails to cite any type of legal authority or law; and failed to serve any of the parties
associated with the case, which is demonstrated by the fact Defendant Taitz failed to file
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110231358
Document 132 Page:
Filed 07/09/10
29 DatePage
Filed:
1007/27/2010
of 19
a Certificate of Service all in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 5;
7(b); 8; 10(a); Local Rules 7.1(a); and 7.1(c).
Defendant Taitz’s Motion to Stay the Transfer of the Case to California pending
the outcome of her Appeal fails in every aspect of our laws.
It is well settled law in Pennsylvania in order to succeed on a Motion to Stay
pending Appeal, the Court must address four (4) issues: (1) the movant's likelihood of
success on the merits; (2) whether the movant will suffer irreparable harm if the request
is denied; (3) whether third parties will be harmed by the stay; and (4) whether granting
the stay will serve the public interests, Susquenita Sch. Dist. v. Raelee, 96 F.3d 78, 80 (3d
Cir. 1996); In re Penn Cent. Transp. Co., 457 F.2d 381, 384-85 (3d Cir. 1972).
Here, Defendant Taitz’s has failed to address any of the issues required. If a stay
is granted, Plaintiffs’ will be severely prejudiced and harmed by said stay. Plaintiffs’
filed their case on May 4, 2009, since this time no action has been taken. Meanwhile,
Defendant Taitz’s has continued her aggressive and illegal behaviors; she has continued
her Republication of Plaintiff Liberi’s Social Security number and other confidential
information. Defendant Taitz has absolutely no regard to any of the Court’s Orders, and
therefore, Plaintiffs continue suffering irreparable harm by Defendant Taitz’s actions.
The Plaintiffs’ case must be transferred so it may be heard and damages can be awarded
for the wrongs committed by the Defendants.
There is absolutely no likelihood of success with Defendant Taitz Appeal.
Defendant Taitz is Appealing Interlocutory Orders. As this Court is well aware,
normally, appeals must await a "final order" on the case that resolves all the issues, such
as a dismissal or judgment, Harris v. Kellogg, Brown, & Root Servs, 2009 U.S. Dist.
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110231358
Document 132 Page:
Filed 07/09/10
30 DatePage
Filed:
1107/27/2010
of 19
LEXIS 36253 (W.D. PA 2009). The Orders Defendant Taitz is attempting to Appeal are
not appealable. Interlocutory Appeals are governed by 28 U.S.C. §1292, which also
fails in the case herein.
Even if the Interlocutory Appeal were permitted, which it is not, Defendant
Taitz’s Appeal would still fail. Interlocutory Appeals are guided by the Collateral Order
Doctrine, which also fails in the case herein. See Carr v. Am. Red Cross, 17 F.3d 671,
675 (3d Cir. 1994) (citing Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978)).
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has construed the Collateral Order Doctrine
narrowly, and in so doing stated, “‘lest the exception swallow up the salutary general
rule’ that only final orders may be appealed.” Yakowicz v. Pennsylvania, 683 F.2d 778,
783 n.10 (3d Cir. 1982) (quoting Rodgers v. U.S. Steel Corp., 541 F.2d 365, 369 (3d
Cir.1976)).
There are three [3] requirements that must be met in order to appeal an
Interlocutory Order, which Defendant Taitz’s is unable to meet. The Third Circuit Court
of Appeals has held they cannot exercise jurisdiction over a Collateral Order unless all
three requirements of the Collateral Order Doctrine are satisfied. See Carr, 17 F.3d at
675.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held “In general, an order transferring a
case is not a final order and, hence, not appealable.” In re United States, 2001 U.S. App.
LEXIS 25231 (3d Cir 2001) (quoting Nascone v. Spudnuts, Inc., 735 F.2d 763, 764 (3d
Cir. 1984).
For these reasons, Defendant Taitz’s Request for a Stay must be Denied.
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110231358
Document 132 Page:
Filed 07/09/10
31 DatePage
Filed:
1207/27/2010
of 19
IV. CONCLUSION:
For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Orly Taitz’s Request/Motion to Unseal
the August 7, 2009 Transcript and Request/Motion to Stay the Transfer of the Case to
California pending Appeal, must be Denied.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: July 9, 2010 s/ Philip J. Berg

______________________________
Attorney for Plaintiffs’
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110231358
Document 132 Page:
Filed 07/09/10
32 DatePage
Filed:
1307/27/2010
of 19
EXHIBIT “1”
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110231358
Document 132 Page:
Filed 07/09/10
33 DatePage
Filed:
1407/27/2010
of 19
http://politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=153264#p153264
Report this post

Reply with quote
Liberi v. Taitz, et al.
by LM K » Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:54 pm
TollandRCR wrote:
Foggy wrote:For those who missed her act back then and would care to dip into the deepest sort of
madness, I have a simple textfile where she addresses several of the current PJ members ...
Is there a shred of truth to her claim that she dug out Republican corruption for a decade?
Absolutely not. Linda is full of shit. She also claims to have motivated Berg to sue Bush and Cheney for 9/11.
Like all the players in birferstan, Linda is mentally ill. Later I will share more about my exploits with LSB. I don't know if she has caught
the few comments that I have made here outing my birfer persona Tina Conner, a nice uber Christian woman homeschooling her 2
sons and looking into living off the grid because the gubermint was too damn scary. LSB liked Tina, and Tina learned some things
about LSB. She claims to have been raped by GWBush when he was governor. She uncovered the Kilian papers (we knew that
before Tina milked LSB for info). She uncovered the "truth" about 9/11. Her works has been so astonishing that she has to protect
her identity. And on and on and on.
In reality, LSB is mostly home-bound because of depression and anxiety. She is really poor, and lives in a dump with her major white-
supremacist boyfriend (some of us have researched LSB and have tracked her boyfriend's white-supremacist online activities). Linda
just needs to feel like she is a threat to the entire GOP structure. In reality, I think she claims to have done these things so she can
"prove" that she knows what she is talking about regarding the Usurper (to convince folks to donate to Berg ... perhaps she was
getting $$$$ from the donations) and to deflect racism accusations. Well, her boyfriend is an uber racist. LSB is as well.
Linda's claims are only true in her imaginary world. Not even Orly will give LSB the time of day, even through LSB went to her and told
her she was right about Berg and LisaL as a peace offering and proof of her transferred loyalties to Orly.. LSB is the one that
motivated Orly to get involved in this mess about LisaL as an act of revenge. Orly was willing to let LSB help her target Berg. Beyond
that, Orly completely ignores LSB.
Palin has shown she still has the attention span of a hummingbird on a nectar jag.
Timothy Egan
LM K
Posts: 6237
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: A Liberal-Socialist-Swine Ivory Tower
Private message
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110231358
Document 132 Page:
Filed 07/09/10
34 DatePage
Filed:
1507/27/2010
of 19
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110231358
Document 132 Page:
Filed 07/09/10
35 DatePage
Filed:
1607/27/2010
of 19
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110231358
Document 132 Page:
Filed 07/09/10
36 DatePage
Filed:
1707/27/2010
of 19
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110231358
Document 132 Page:
Filed 07/09/10
37 DatePage
Filed:
1807/27/2010
of 19
Law Offices of:

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. :
:
ORLY TAITZ, et al, :
: Case No.: 09-cv-01898-ECR
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of Plaintiffs’
Response/Memorandum to Defendant Taitz’s Request/Motion to Unseal Transcripts and
Request/Motion to Stay the Transfer of the Case to California pending Appeal was served
this 9th day of July 2010 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
The Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm (unrepresented)
Sankey Investigations, Inc.
2470 Stearns Street #162
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Email: nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110231358
Document 132 Page:
Filed 07/09/10
38 DatePage
Filed:
1907/27/2010
of 19
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
________________________
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’ – Appellants’,
v.
ORLY TAITZ, et al,
Defendants’ – Appellees’.
_____________ Ο _____________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
_____________________
I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify that Appellees, Lisa Liberi, Lisa
Ostella, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, Evelyn Adams, Go Excel Global, and The Law
Offices of Philip J. Berg Motion to Dismiss Appellants Orly Taitz and Defend our
Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Appeal; and for Sanctions and Attorney Fees was
served upon the parties, this 27th day of July 2010 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
20
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, Continued
Neil Sankey
Sankey Investigations, Inc.
Post Office Box 8298 Mission Hills, CA 91346
By USPS with Postage fully prepaid
The Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm (unrepresented)

2470 Stearns Street #162 Simi Valley, CA 93063
By USPS 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
________________________
21

LIBERI V TAITZ (ORLY APPEAL) - Motion To Dismiss Appeal - 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 (ORLY APPEAL) - Motion To Dismiss Appeal - Transport Room

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

U.S. District Court,

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

LISA LIBERI, et al,

APPELLEES, LISA LIBERI, LISA OSTELLA, PHILIP J. BERG,

Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Appellees’, Lisa Liberi [hereinafter “Liberi”]; Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Momma E [hereinafter “Adams”]; Lisa Ostella [hereinafter “Ostella”]; and Go

Appellants, Orly Taitz, et al and Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc.

[hereinafter at times Appellants] filing of the within frivolous Appeal.

appearing as docket entry 76 is time barred. This Order dismissed James

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 3. Therefore, Appeal of this Court’s

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 4.

Order allowing Plaintiffs’ (Appellees herein) to file a Reply to Defendant

(Appellant herein) Orly Taitz’s Response in Opposition to the Plaintiffs’ Response

time on appeal. See Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth alliance v. Browner, 121

There are no extraordinary circumstances here.

jurisdiction. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007).

Letter in Response to Defendant’s [Appellant herein] Orly Taitz’s Request from

waived by Defendant Taitz, Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth alliance v.

The Order of June 3, 2010, docketed June 4, 2010, appearing as Docket

§1291 or the Collateral Order Doctrine.

of 28 U.S.C. §1291 or the Collateral Order Doctrine.

the within Appeal and therefore, must be Dismissed.

This action arises due to damages caused by the Defendants due to

Defendants slander, libel, assault and publication of Plaintiff’s private identifying

filed under diversity jurisdiction.

Publishing dismissed as they were disposable Defendants and they destroyed

affidavits and evidence with their response.

Response. Unfortunately, Appellee Taitz, who is a licensed attorney in the State of

of ramblings that amounted to nothing.

Plaintiffs sought Leave of Court to File a Reply to Appellant Taitz’s

Shortly thereafter, it was brought to the attention of Plaintiffs’ that Appellant

Central District of California, Southern Division. Appellant Taitz failed to

properly respond to Plaintiffs Request for Leave or Motion to Transfer.

In or about the end of December / early January 2010, Appellant Taitz

Thereafter, Judge Robreno removed the underlying action from suspense

[3] of the California Defendants were inadvertently transferred to Texas. In the

noted, Defendant Sankey never served Plaintiffs’ with his letter.

On June 13, 2010, Plaintiffs filed an Emergency Motion for Reconsideration

a Motion for Reconsideration. However, Appellant Taitz’s Motion was not

Barnett, an employee/volunteer of Appellant Orly Taitz. The properties in the

document match the properties of documents and filings prepared by Pamela

Plaintiffs’ and only shows carbon copied to Orly Taitz.

Memorandum and Order Granting in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration.

Requested to treat Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion as Admissions to Fraud and

of ramblings based upon a hearsay letter that Appellant Taitz participated in

On July 2, 2010, Appellant Taitz Filed her Notice of Appeal;

Motion/Request to Unseal “sealed” transcript; and Motion/Request for a Stay of

the Transfer Pending the Outcome of this Appeal.

On July 9, 2010, Plaintiffs’ filed their Opposition to Appellant Taitz’s

Therefore, this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain Appellant Taitz’s

Appeal of the numerous Orders.

II. THIS COURT LACKS JURISIDCTION TO HEAR

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 3 states in pertinent part:

“(a) Filing the Notice of Appeal.

(1) An appeal permitted by law as of right from a district

“Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure states in pertinent part:

(a) Appeal in a Civil Case.

this time limit derives from statute, it is jurisdictional, and no judicially-created

dismissed. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007).

Therefore, this Court is without Jurisdiction to entertain Appellant Orly

[Docket Entry number 116].