Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
LIBERI v TAITZ (E.D. PA) - 165 - MOTION TO AMEND OR ALTER RULEING - pdf.165.0

LIBERI v TAITZ (E.D. PA) - 165 - MOTION TO AMEND OR ALTER RULEING - pdf.165.0

Ratings: (0)|Views: 138|Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
02/01/2011 165 59 E MOTION TO AMEND OR ALTER RULEING AND 60B MOTION, FILED BY ORLY TAITZ, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(gn, ) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
02/01/2011 165 59 E MOTION TO AMEND OR ALTER RULEING AND 60B MOTION, FILED BY ORLY TAITZ, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(gn, ) (Entered: 02/02/2011)

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on Feb 02, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/03/2011

pdf

text

original

 
Dr. OrlVTaitl.
Esq
Attorney
Pro Se
&
Attorney
For Defend Our Freedom5 Foundation29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, Suite
100
Rancho
Santa
Margarita
CA
92688Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7603
f.~
~
..
EB
f'E§
1-
~Ql1
MIOHML
'"
I\".,z,
CIflk
G)'_
Pop.Clerk
IN
THE UNITED
STATES
DISTRICT
COURTFOR
THE
EASTERN
DISTRICT
OF
PENNSYLVANIA
LISA
lISERI,
et
al..
)
case
#
09-1898 Uberi v Taitz) Hon Eduardo
Robteno
preslding
)
S9
E and 60 B
motions
to
correct
errors
in 12,23.2010
rulin"
, Motion
to
dismiss
due
to
lack
of
subject
matter
ju!1sdiction)
Motion for
sanctions
against
the
plaintiffs
and
plaintifW
attorney
Plaintiffs
) Philp
J_
Serg
v.
I
)
ORty
TAITZ,
et
al.,
)
01.22
2011 59 E
and
60
B motion
to
dismiss
due
to
lack
of
subject
matter
jurisdiction
and motion forsanctions against
the
Plaintiffs and
their attorney
PhUlp
J.
Berg 1
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 1 of 46
 
Defendants. )
59 E
MOTION
TO
AMEND
OR
ALTER
RULING
and 60
B
motion
Defendants Dr. Orly Taitz
ESq
and Defend Our Freedoms foundation, hereinfter"Defendants" are properly filing this
59
E motion
to
correct a material
error
of
fact
in
the 12.23.2010 order issued after 12.20.2010
TRO
hearing, which wasinstigated
by
the plaintiffs
as
well
as
provide new evidence, a
letter
from Michael
Ramos,
District Attorney
of
San
Bernardino county, California, verifying
that
indeed Plaintiff
Lisa
Liberi
is
currently on probation, under the supervision
of
San
Bernardino
CA
probation Department .
~
..
'
..
f.!.')
Rule 60
II
Motion
't.tl
j
c
tq\\
\. .
Clerk
••
\".w.£i1.1..
,,\;,..4.
•.
()\ell<
Rule
60.
RI.:!icf
from Judgment
or
Order
p1
'!J[V\lI"'WI-
...
JJeP
fI:,
___
(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence;
Excusable
Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud,
Etc, On
motion andupon
such
terms
as
are
just,
the
court
may
relieve a party or a party's legal representative from
a
finaljudgment, order,
or
proceeding for the following reasons:
(l}
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, orexcusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due
diligence
could not have beendiscovered in time
to
move
for
a
new
trial under
RCFC
S9(b);
(3)
fraud (whether heretoforedenominated jntrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation,
Of
other misconduct
of
an
adverse party; (4) thejudgment
is
void;
(5)
the judgment
has
been satisfied, released,
or
discharged,
or
a prior
judgment
uponwhich
it
is.
based has
been reversed
or
otherwise vacated, or
it
is no
longer equitable that the judgmentshould have prospective application; or
(6)
any other reason justifying relief from the operation
of
thejudgment.
The
motion shall
be
made within a reasonable time, and for reasons
Il},
(2),
and
(3)
not morethan one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding
was
entered
or
taken. A motion under thissubdivision !b) does not affect the finality
of
a judgment
or
suspend its operation.
This
rule does notlimit the power
of
a court to entertain an independent action
to
relieve a party from a jUdgment, order,
or
proceeding,
or
to
set asjde a judgment
ror
fraud upon the court.
On
12.23. 2010 this court entered a ruling in relation
to
the
TRO
hearing held on12.20.2010. Unfortunately
yet
again
without
a shred
of
documentary evidencethis court erroneously entered in its' order a statement "Lisa Liberi
is
a resident
of
PA"
. Defendants believe
that
a clerk simply copied this part
of
the order from a
prior
order.
It
is
possible,
that
the court was confused before, while making a
01,22.2011
S9
E
and
60 B motion to dismiss due to lack
of
subject matter jurisdiction and motion forsanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Philip
1.
Berg 2
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 2 of 46
 
prior order on
06.04,2010,
however at the hearing on
12.20.2010
plaintiff
liberi
conceded
that
she
is
indeed a convicted felon from California,
She
admited
that
she
was convicted in California in
2008,
Defendants repeatedly submitted
to
thiscourt a summary
of
Liberi's
2008
conviction, which included
23
charges andconviction
of
10
felonies
of
forgery, forgery
of
an
official
seal
and
theft. Summary
of
conditions
of
her probation contains a condition, whereby from March
23
2008
until March
23
2011
Liberi
is
allowed
to
reside only
in
Ca
or
with her family
in
NM.
She
is
not allowed
to
reside in
PA
and she did
not
reside
in
PA
in
May
of
2009, when she filed this complaint, she does not reside
in
PA
now.
It
was fraudon
the
court, committed in order
to
create jurisdiction
in
diversity
by
virtue
of
fraud on
the
court.
In
your order Your Honor stated
that
liberi
admitted
that
she
was
convicted
in
2008
in
CA,
Your Honor
has
also stated
that
it
is
"alleged"
that
she
is
on
probation, which lead the defendant
to
believe
that
your Honor erroneouslybelieves
that
Uberi
is
no longer on probation. Defendants are providing
to
yourHonor a
letter
sent by the Probation department
of
the
San
Bernardino
CA
Exhibit1 and
from
Mike
Ramos,
District Attorney
of
the
San
Bernardino
CA
districtAttorney's office, stating
that
Usa
liberi
is
indeed under supervision
of
the
San
Bernardino
CA
probation department. (Exhibit 2). While the probationdepartment is
not
ready
to
revoke her probation and return her
to
incarceration
yet
and investigation
of
her actions in this court continues,
it
is
clearly stated
that
sheis
on probation
with
the
San
Bernardino, California probation department,Your Honor
has
stated
that
the plaintiffs, including Uberi were evasive and
not
believable
as
witnesses on the stand. Vour honor did
not
find any
basis
for
theallegations made by the plaintiffs. Similarly the claims
of
the
plaintiffs
of
liberi
being resident
of
PA
are
not true
either,
as
demonstrated by the letter from the
San
Bernardino, California District Attorneys' office.
On
the stand Uberi continued defrauding Your Honor. Liber; statcd
that
she
wasconvicted
of
tax evasion only, In reality the summary
of
her convictions shows
that
she
was convicted
of
10
felonies, which included forgery
of
documents andtheft. Similarly, the
letter
sent
to
you and
to
the defendants by Co·plaintiff and
01.22.2011
59
E and 60 8 motion
to
dismiss due
to
lack
of
subject
matter
jurisdiction and motion
for
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and
their
attorney
PhHip
j.
Berg
3:
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 3 of 46

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->