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
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 178.1 - # 1[RECAP] Appendix part 2 AntiSLAPP - gov.uscourts.cacd.497989.178.1

LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 178.1 - # 1[RECAP] Appendix part 2 AntiSLAPP - gov.uscourts.cacd.497989.178.1

Ratings: (0)|Views: 8|Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
# 1[RECAP] Appendix part 2 AntiSLAPP - 04/25/2011 178[RECAP] NOTICE OF MOTION AND First MOTION to Dismiss Case under 425.16 AntiSLAPP DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC., ORLY TAITZ. Motion set for hearing on 5/23/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments: # 1[RECAP] Appendix part 2 AntiSLAPP, # 2[RECAP] Exhibit criminal record of 23 charges and 10 felony convictions of Plaintiff Lisa Liberi, # 3[RECAP] Exhibit testimony of Detective Liebrich regarding 19 prior criminal charges of Plaintiff Lisa Liberi, # 4 Exhibit letter from web master Geoff Staples regarding Liberi handling credit cards of the donors, # 5 Exhibit Affidavit of Linda Belcher regarding Liberi's access to merchant accounts, # 6 Exhibit memorandum by Judge Robreno)(Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 04/26/2011)
# 1[RECAP] Appendix part 2 AntiSLAPP - 04/25/2011 178[RECAP] NOTICE OF MOTION AND First MOTION to Dismiss Case under 425.16 AntiSLAPP DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC., ORLY TAITZ. Motion set for hearing on 5/23/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments: # 1[RECAP] Appendix part 2 AntiSLAPP, # 2[RECAP] Exhibit criminal record of 23 charges and 10 felony convictions of Plaintiff Lisa Liberi, # 3[RECAP] Exhibit testimony of Detective Liebrich regarding 19 prior criminal charges of Plaintiff Lisa Liberi, # 4 Exhibit letter from web master Geoff Staples regarding Liberi handling credit cards of the donors, # 5 Exhibit Affidavit of Linda Belcher regarding Liberi's access to merchant accounts, # 6 Exhibit memorandum by Judge Robreno)(Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 04/26/2011)

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on Apr 26, 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

04/26/2011

pdf

text

original

 
viorate
it. rhis
craim
is
rrivolous
and
needs
ro .l
dismissed
withprejudice
and
withoutleaveto amend
I
Californj-apriwacylaws,Civil
Code
51798
et seAuitur.-lthis section relatesonly to
governmental
agencies"1
""".:.,::',.;.::,".:"
"::":.J:'.;J:
#:.:
""."::i
businesses
and Plaintiffswere never their
customers,l
therefore
this
claim
does
not relateto the
defendants
r"alneeds
to
be
di-smissed
under
\2b6.
I
Pennsylvania
privacyact,
Defendants
are citizens
"1
"
:.'"::'
"
:"
;.':"
^
:::"
"
;:;,
"':.:
"".
;'
"
":::
"',
J::'
:,
:
I
eeds
to
be
dismissed
under
12
(b)
6.
I
California buslness andprofessionalcode
2251'7
(a)fnislsection doesnotspecifyany civil- actions,penalt.ies"d
I
remedies.
This claim
needs
to
be
dismissed
under
12
(b)
6.
I
E.lectronic
communications
privacyact-Plaintiffs did
".al
provide
any
explanation as to
what
electronic
communicationl
they arereferring to, what didthe
d.efend.ants
do
aJ
I
violate this act
and
how
didit i-njure theelaintiffs.lthis
claim
needs
to
be
dismissed
under
1,2
(b)
6.
I
'"
:'":r--'r'"'"';'
";"."*
:^:.
=
.::""
."]I"'*
":":"
",'""::l
'"':::",",..:".,_,: ._":_:..:::':_:_,:,,"is]
d.
a
f.
b.
1
2
3
4
56
'/
B
9
1011T213
T4
15
L6
1'7
1B
1920
21,
22
1a1A
25
26
2728
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178-1 Filed 04/25/11 Page 1 of 16 Page ID#:4123
 
1
2
3
4
61
B
9
1011L2137415
16
1118
1920
2t
2223
2425
26
2'7
28
g.
explanation
how
did. the
d.efendants
viotare
=."."1
communications
act.Additionaltythisstatutererates
tol
electronicinterceptionof oralcommunications."^-^l
"'l
Plaintiffs didnotprovideashred of evid.ence"1electronicinterceptionsof oral-
communicati_ons
done
byl
Defend.ants
and
theref
ore this claim fail-s
and
needs
to
-^l
"1
dismissed
under
12
(b)
6.
I
18USC
SS2701-11
isa criminal statute, that
does
""al
:"";.,""i;,
.";:"=:."::":",':.*
.""-i',".'*
".""*':l
stored
communications.
Plaintiffs did notprovide
anyl
evidence
of
such
access
by the
defendants.
As
such
thi"l
claim
needs
to
be
dismissed.
under
12
(b)
6.
I
Cyber
Harassment,
cyber
stalkingretc. in violation of
thJ
I
women's
viol-enceact- Plaintiffs did notprovider"1
evidence
ofcyber stalkingor cyber
harassment
and
did
notl
I
explain
how
Dr. Taitz,
who
is a
woman
and
a
doctor
and
n.tl
private
foundation
are
violent
towards
women,
whi-ch
furtfreJ
;:::"":,:
,.,:.
":"
:":'l
""
""
::::,:.":'":""':
.;;,"'"'
I
Department ofjusticeReorganization actof
2005.1
Plaintiffs did notprovide
any
explanation,
how
departmenl
ofjustice
reorqanizatj-on
actrelates to Dr. Taitz
and
n.j
foundation
and
how
didtheyviolate it.
II
Liberi
v
Taitzmotion
to
dismiss
under
CCCP 425.16
AntiSLAPP-
22
I
h.
1.
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178-1 Filed 04/25/11 Page 2 of 16 Page ID#:4124
 
123
4
5
6
1
89
1011L213141576
r'7
1B
1920
2t
22
23
2425
26
27
)a
I
I
I
I
I
I
+ U D
1A
J
.
n
-
,..
r*02
,
t
itled"preventionofcyberstalking,,..dl
I
numbered.
S113,
S113
(a)
(3)pl-aintiffsdid notprovide
.l
I
shred ofevidenceof
Defendants
being
engaged
in
cybed
I
stalking
and
did notprovide
any
explanation,
how
does
thisl
I
act relates to Defendants.
II
k.Cyber-stalking and
cyber-harassment
lawsinviolation
"al
I
thecommunications, act 47 USC
5223(a)
(1)O
andl
I
5223
(h) (1)
(B)
. Again, t.he complaintdoes not contain
al
I
shredof
evidence
of cyberstalkingby the
Defendants.
fnel
fact that
Defendants
publishedtruthful information
-norrt[
I
the Plaintiffs
does
not represent cyberstalking.
Uor"orrutrl
I
4'7
USC
5223
relatesto
Obscene
or
harassing telephone
callsl
I
intheDistrict.of
Columbia
or in interstateor
foreignl
I
communications.
Plaintiffsdidnotprovideashred"tl
I
evidence
ofany such
phoneca11s
bythe defendants. fnisl
I
claimfails
under
12
(b)
6.
II
Simp1y
qlancingat this
smorgasbord
ofstate and
federall
statutes
with
no
coherent
pleading,
as
to
how
these
statutes
ut.l
I
connected
to the
defendants,
how
did theyviolate those
statutesl
I
and
without
any
ptausibilityof these statutesbeing in
any
wayl
I
connected
to the defendants,
show
that thiscount
completellzl
I
fails L2b6requirementof theclaim to beplausible
andl
I
probable,
additionally it is clear,that Plaintiffs are
sfmnf{
throwing
a
number
of
stalutes
at
defendants
to tryto
int.imidatel
I
Liberiv
TaLtz
motion
to
dismiss
under
CCCP 425.76
AntiSLAPP-
23
III
I
I
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178-1 Filed 04/25/11 Page 3 of 16 Page ID#:4125

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)//-->