P. 1
LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 178 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND First MOTION to Dismiss Case under 425.16 AntiSLAPP - gov.uscourts.cacd.497989.178.0

LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 178 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND First MOTION to Dismiss Case under 425.16 AntiSLAPP - gov.uscourts.cacd.497989.178.0

|Views: 28|Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
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)
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

01/27/2013

pdf

text

original

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 1 of 20 Page ID #:4103

7

2

DR. ORLY TAITZ ESQ 29839 SANTA I4ARGAF,TTA pKg{y, STE 100 R,ANCHO SAI\TTA MARGARITA, cA 92688 PH 949-683-5411 FAX 949-766-7603
CENTR.AL DTSTRTCT

3

4

LIBERI ET AI,,
PI,AINTIFF,

US DISTRCT COI'RT OF CAJ,IFORNTA ) CASE NO.: 11-Cv-00485

5
6

vs.
TAITZ AT AL,
DEF"ENDAI\TT

1

I
9

) ) ) ) ) )

cccP 425.15 ervTrsrJAPP ) MOTTON
AS A SLAPP
PRESIDING

)

TO DTSMISS THE CASE
COMPLATNT

HON. AbIDREW GUTLFORD

DATE 05.23 .?OLL

) conRTRooM 10 D

TIME 10:00

10 11 12 13

I4
15 16

Notice to all parties and their counsel: on May 9, 2O7I defendants "Defend our Freedoms Foundation" and orly Taltz will move this court to strike and dismiss above mentioned complaint in its' entirety as a slApp action in a special cal-ifornia Rul-e 425.15 antiSLAPP action. This motion will be based on the memorandum of points and authorities below, exhibits att.ached to this complaint and oral argument.
MEMORAITDUM

tl
18 19

OE POTNTS AI{D AUTHORTTTES.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TabLe of Authorities

20
2T 22
)4.

A.
B

THE A}IT]-SI.APP STATUTE GOVERNS THE

DISPUTE..

......2 ....5

DEFENDAI{TS MET THEIR BURDEN TNDER ANTr-sr,APP

STATUTE.......5

C. CI.AIM ARISES OUT OF AN ISSUE OF PT'BLIC INTEREST...........8 D. PLATNTIFFS FAITED TO ESTABLISH BY COMPETENT AI{D ADMIS
EVIDENCE THAT THEY WTLL PRE\/AIL

24 25

AT TRTAL

.. ..

.1.2

1. Trrrs
2-

wHoLE cAsE FAILS {TNDER

12(8)1....
12 (8)6.

....L2
......14 ...L7 ...24

26
21 28

COI'IPLAINT

IN ITSi

ENTIRETY E.AILS ITNDER

I(A)COLNT
1.B)COUNT

1.. 2..

Liberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under CCCP 425.L6 AntiSLApp-

1

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 2 of 20 Page ID #:4104

1

2

3
4

3.. 1(D) COUNT 4.... 1(E) COLNT 5.... 1(F) COLNT 5....
1(C)COnNtr

...27 ....29 ....30 ....33

5
6 1
8

coNclusroN-..
AFFIDAVTT OF ORLY TAITZ

-...34
.......36

EXHIBITS:

1.

EXHIBIT 1

2OO8

sAt{
23

BERNARDTNO, qAr,rFORNrA,

CR

o

COTWICTIONS RECORD OF FORGERY

CIIARGES ATiID

10 CO}WICTIONS OF FORGERY,

10 11

I2
13 14 15 L6 77 18 19

OF OFFICIAL SEAL AIID GRAND THEFT OF PI.AINTIFF LI LIBERI in FSB -0449L4 The People of the State of California Lisa Liberi Richardson
2. Exhibit2
SA}T BERNARDINO CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT TRA}ISCRI

OF TESTIMONY OF OFFICER LIEBRICH, in FSB-044914 People of

State of CA v Lisa Liberi
CRIMINAI
CTIARGES

RICI{ARDSON ATTESTING

TO

19

OF PI.ATNTIFF LTSA LIBERT

3Exhibit

3

.

SI{ORN DECLARATfON

OF .ltFF STAPLES-FORMER

VIEB

FOR PHILIP BERG, ATTESTING TO trBERil S l,tAllUAL ITAIIDLING OF
CARD ACCOT'NTS OF DONORS.

CRED

20
21 22 1?
AA

4 Exhibit 4

SWORN

AFFIDAVIT OF TINDA BELCHER,

FORMER

VOLT'NTEE

RESEARCTIER FOR

PHILIP BERG.
ORDER-MEMORiANDUM

5. Exhibit 5 L2.23.20LL tiberi v Taitz.

BY iruDeE

ROBRENO

25

26
21 28

EABLE OF AUTITORITIES Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 3l-7F.3d1097,1709(9th cir.2003) .p5

Batzel v Smit.h, 333 F. 3d 1018, 7024 (9th cir 2003)
Liberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under
425.16 AntiSLAPP-

....p5

CCCP

2

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 3 of 20 Page ID I #:4105
I I

I I

I

1

Briggs v Eden council for Hope and opportunity, 19 cal 4th

11061
I

I

2 3

4

5
6 1
B

1110(Ieee) .....p5 Kantor v Wellesley Galleries, 1td 704 Fzd, 1088, 7092 (9th cf1 1983) .....p13 Vacek v United states postal service 441 F3d I24Bt 1250 (9th "t.l 2006) .. .. . .. ...p13
I

I

Kokkonen v Guardian life

insur. Co. of Am 511 US.

I

3't

5,

3'71
I I

(1ee4)....
2000)
Packard
1-e93

.....p13
p13

9

GouId Electronics v United States,220 F.3d 169, 1.76 (3d attl
I

10 L1 L2

v Provident National Bank ,

gg4

)

F. 2d,1039, 1045 (3d "frl pI4

I

l3
I4
15 16

J & R fce Cream corp. v. California Smoothie Licensing, 31 F. 3dl 1259, 1256 n.3 (3rd cir1994). ......p14 Joi-ner v Diamond M Drilling Co., 611 F. 2d. 1035, 1039 (5th Cirl
I

I

I

1,982)
Roche

.....p14

I I

l7
18 79

Weight w Kawasaki Motors Co (19S5, ED Va) 604 F supp 968. . . .pLA

I I
I I

20

2I
22

23
24 25

zo
21
2B

..p14 v Lincoln Prop. Co. (2004, CA4 Va) 373 F3d 610 Bautista v Pan American Wor1d Airl-ines , Irtc (7981, CA 9 Caf )l ....p14 828, Fzd 546, 126 BNA LRRM 2559, 107 CCH LC P 10159 Olsen v Quality Continuum Hospice (2004, DC NM) 380 F. Supp 2dl .....p14 L225. ....p15 McMann v. Doe (2006, DC Mass) 460 F Supp 2d... Olsen v Ouality continuum Hospice, Inc (2004, DC NM) 380 F. S,rppl ....p15 2d 7225 ... Eilla v Norfolk & southern Ry (2003. CAB Mo) 336 F3d 806....p15 Shahmoon Industries, fnc & Imperato (7964, CA3 NJ) 338 Fzd 449,1 .....p15 9 FR Serv 2d, 12F.22, Case 2....
I I

I

I I

I I I

I I

'l

I

I

I
I

I I

Liberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under

CCCP 425.L6 AntiSLAPP-

,

I I I

I
I

I

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 4 of 20 Page ID #:4106

1

2 3
4

5 6 1
8

9

10 11

I2
13 L4 15 16

I1
1B

19

20
21-

22

23

25

26

2l
2B

Jeter v Jim Walter Homes (L916, WD Okla) 474 F Supp 79I.259.p15 Tqbal v Ashcroft 729 S Ct at 1949. . .ppt1 , 27 Twombly v BeIl Atlantic 550 U.S. at 570.. .....p17 SpreweJ-1 v Golden State Warrior,256F3d97 9,988 (9th Cir 2001) .p11 Schmidt v Hermann 614 F. 2d L221, 1223 9th Cir 1980) ...ppl7. 29 Cal Civ Pro Code 5425.16(a).... .....p5 Cal Civ Pro Code S425.16(b) (1) . .....p8 28 USC 51291... .....p13 FRCP L2(b)1.... .....p72 FRCP 1,2(b) 6... ......p16 5c. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure S1206, (1969 & Supp.2005).... ...p1s 28 USC S I44 linto 28 USCS 51332 ....p15 Thomas v Board of Trustees, 195 U.S. 201 .270 (l-904)........p15 28 USC S144r (O) .... .....p15 Cal civ Pro 51798.81. . . . .p1B Cal Civ Pro 51198.84 (a-g) . . . .p19 18 USC 552510-22.... .....p2I 18 USC SS 210L-II ...p22 Department of justice Reorganization act of 2005. ......p22 H.R. 3402 5113, 113 (a) (3) .... .....p23 41 USC 5223 (a) (1) .. .....p23 47 usc 5223 (h) (1) (b) .. ......p23 15 USC S1l-25 ....pp30,31 . . .p29 ann. CaI C.C. P. 5527.6 (b) . lst Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ......p17 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution .....p17

Liberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under

CCCP

425.76 AntiSLAPP-

4

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 5 of 20 Page ID #:4107
I
I

tt lt

1

A.

THE ASITISI,APP STATUTE GO\ZERNS THE

DTSPUTE

I I

2 3

I

4

5
6 1
8

9

10 11

I2
13

"Motion to strike a state law craim under cal-ifornia 's ant:--f SLAPP statute may be brought in federal court.'rVess v. Cina-l Geigy Corp.USA, 3L1 F. 3d 7091 , 1109 (9th cir. 2003). The ant.il SLAPP statute was enacted to allow for early dismissal"q meritless first amendment cases aimed at chilling expressionl through costly, time consuming litigation." Batzel v Smith, 3331 F. 3d 1018, IO24 (9th cir. 2003). The statute should n"l construed broadly, " Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 5425.16 (a) ""1 j-nterpreted "in a manner favorable to the exercise of freedom ofl speech, not its curtailment, " Briggs v Eden Council for Hope andl Opportunity, 19 Cal 4th 1106-1119 (7ggg).
I I

I

I

I4

I

l5
16

B.

DEFEI{DAT\TES

MET TITEIR BI'RDEN T'NDER AI{TISI.APP STATUTE

I

I'7
1B

19 20

2I
22 23 'A 25
ll)

21 28

is Strategic Legal Action Against Public Participation.l Above action, Liberi et al v Taitz et al is a typical SLAPJ action filed by the plaintiffs in order to limit publicl participation and specifically to silence the defendants, wnol are whistle blowers, about the fact that Pennsylvania attorneyl Philip J. Berg, is employing as hj-s tegal assistant a .onr.i.t.J document forger and thief Lisa Liberi. Berg and Liberi knew .al all times that Liberi is indeed a convicted document forger andl thief, convicted in San Bernardino, CA. They origiinally fif"J this case in Phitadelphia, representing that Liberi is anl innocent, defamed woman in Pennsylvania, who was slandered -ndl defamed by the defendants. At all times they knew that she r""l not defamed, that she is indeed a convicted document forger fronrl
SLAPP
I I

I

I

I

I

I I

Liberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under

CCCP 425.16 AntiSLAPP-

a
I I

I
I

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 6 of 20 Page ID #:4108

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

B

9

10 11 L2 13

I4
15 76 17 18

I9
20 27 22

23
24

25
26 27 ao

cA, and that they are harassing the defendants with a st,App la suit. rn their attempt to cover up Liberi's identity they acte with unprecedent.ed malice and in further pleadings accused th defendants of multiple crimes, maliciously claiminq tha att.orney ra,tz tried to hire a hit man to kill Liberi, and fo that reason Liberi should not provide her pennsyrvania dri-ver license, and the court needs to berieve her word and proceed. i diversity without any documentary evidence. Similarly, the claimed that Plaintiff osterla was defamed, when Ta:tz publishe on her web site, that her former web master ostella locked rait out of the old web site for her foundation, ..Defend our Freed Foundation" and replaced Taitz pay pa1-account with her olrn However, after 72.2a.207r TRo hearing and cross examination o ostelfa by Taitz, ostella conceded that she indeed locked Tait out of the web site for her foundation and replaced Taitz pay pal account with her own. (Exhibit 72.23.2070 Order an memorandum of judge Robreno). This legal action was filed two years ago on May 4, 2a0g. rt wa filed approximately Lwo weeks after Dr. orly Taitz (hereinafte Tartz), president of "Defend our Freedoms Foundation" publishe a report by a licensed investigator Neil sankey (hereinafte sankey), that showed that Lisa Liberi (Hereninafter Liberi), pennsylvania attorney phirip legal assistant for Ber (Hereinafter Berg) has a criminal record of forgery, forqery o official- seal and theft. This report was made by Sankey based o information which is easiry and readily available in publi records. (Exhibit 1) . Recently, dt a motion hearing i Philadelphia Pennsylvania on 12.20.2010 during cross examinatio
Liberi v Taitz motion lo dismiss under: CCCP 425-L6 AntiSLApp-

6

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 7 of 20 Page ID #:4109 I
I

I
I

I

1

2

3
4

5 6 7

I
o

l0
t1
L2

l3

15

I6
11 18 19

20

2I
22 ?? 24
CR

z6
2'7

28

of Liberi by Taitz, Liberi admitted that she is indeed .l convicted felon from California. (Exhibit 4) Taitz, .t"o,l published true and correct information, that Lisa Ostel-la,1 former volunteer web master for "Defend Our freedoms Foundation"l (hereinafter "Foundation") has locked TatLz, president ofl Foundation, out of the old web site for the foundation andl replaced Taitz pay-pa1 account with her own, therefore rnyl donation given to Ostella or via pay-pal on the old web sitel from mid April would not go to the Foundation, but would go tol Ostella. At the same hearing on 12.20.20L0 at the crossl examination of Ostella, conducLed by Taitz, Ostella admittedl that she indeed locked Tartz out of the old web site of n.tl foundation and replaced Tai-tz pay pal account with her own Two weeks after publication Liberi, Berg, Law offj-ces of efrif:-pl Berg, Ostella, Go Excel Global (business name of Ostel-l-al -t-rOl Evelyn Adams a/k/a Momma E fil-ed a legal action in the easterl District of Pennsylvania against 14 named defendants and 2001 unnamed defendants. Nature of the suit is listed as 320 Assault,l 'l In this law sui! Libel-, Slander. Jurisdiction-diversity. Plaintiffs sued all the whistle blowers, who blew the whistle ..f Liberi, Ostella, Berg and Adams. The complaint is utl incomprehensibte B1 page mish-mash of allegations against tnl individuals and enti-ties. In a nut shelt Plaintif f s cl-aimed thad they were defamed by the publication of the above facts. Theyl attempted to create an impression that. Lisa Liberi, who worksl with attorney Berg is a different Lisa Liberi, not a convictedl felon from California. Pl-aintiffs attempted to create thisl impression by posting Attorney Berg's business address in PA asl
I I I
I I I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

l

I I

Liberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under

CCCP

425.L6 AntiSLAPP-

t

I
I I I

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 8 of 20 Page ID #:4110

1

2 3
4

5
6 1
8

9

10 11 L2

l3
L4

1s 16

t1
1B

19

20

2I
22 23 24

26
21
2B

Liberi I s address. They further made malicious, fraudulen accusations, that Liberi's address cannot be disclosed becaus she is afraid for her l-ife because attorney Taitz tried to hj-r a hit-man to kil1 her. Exhibit 4, last order by judge Robreno i Eastern Distri-ct of PA shows that Berg, Liberi and Ostella wer "evasive on the stand and not believable as witnesses". Judg Robreno found no foundation and no value in plaintiff' accusations and allegations and claims that Taitz tried t hire a hit-man to kill Liberi. C. CI,AIM ARISES OUT OF AI{ ISSI'E OE' PT'BLIC INTEREST Plaintiff's complaint stems from an act made in connect.ion wit a public issue or an issue of public interest, in furtheran of Defendantsr right of free speech under the United States o Cal-ifornia Constitutions. Civ Proc Code 5425.16(b) (1). fn 81 pages of complaint with a mumbo jumbo of bare slanderou allegations aqainst 14 named defendants and 200 unname defendants, there are only ]imited statements/publications, tha can be attributed to the defendants. and those were clearly mad in public interest: 1. Defendants published criminal record of Lisa Liberi TaLtz is a president of the "Defend our Freedoms foundation" Volunteer web master Ostella locked TaiLz out of the web site o her foundation and changed the code on the web site and replace Taitz pay-pal account with her own. At t.he same time Ostell used "Defend our Freedoms foundation" web site to defame Tait and promote another attorney, Philip J. Berg. Berg is engaged i nation wide fundraising and employinq as his assistant Lis Liberi, who has 26 criminal felony charges and at l-east 1
Liberi v Taitz motion to dlsmiss under
CCCP

425.16 AntiSLAPP-

B

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 9 of 20 Page ID #:4111

1

2 3
4

5 6 1
B

9

10 11

I2
13
L4

15 16

I1
1B

I9
)A

2I
22

24

25
26 27 28

felony convictions of theft, forgery of documents and forgery o official seal in cA alone. (Exhibit 1) and rg prior cri_mina charges (Exhibit 2) . Berg is submitting to multiple court documents prepared by this assistant. rt was in public interes to alert the public , that raitz was locked out of her ord we site and that it is being used to promote another attorney, whose assistant has an extensive criminar record. As members o the public were donating to Berg, they had to be warned that person with theft convictions is working as an assistant fo that attorney. Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 Affidavit of Lind Belcher, former researcher for Berg, and signed letter fr Jeoff staples, former web master for Berg attest to Liberi' handling of credit card inf ormati-on of d.onors. This is a important issue of public interest, and an effort, by Tartz, wh is the president of foundation and an offi-cer of the court t protect the donors against possible theft. Additionally, as Be was filing multiple documents in different courts, it wa important to warn members of the public, that some of th documents could not be genuine, considering the fact that hi assistant has convictions of forgery of documents and forgery o an of ficial sea]-. such publlcation by Taitz was truthful, privileged and entirely in public interest. rn the ocean o sfander and hearsay by the plaintiffs, there are a few specifi statements, attributed to the defendants, a1l- of which ar truthful statements made properly ion public interest. a. Complaint tl57 represents a retter from Taitz to Berg, wher TaiLz, believing that Berg is not aware of Liberi's record, alerted Berg that according to a licensed investigator Sankey,
l,iberi v TaiLz motion to dismiss under CCCp 425.16 AntiSLApp-

9

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 10 of 20 Page ID #:4112 I
I I

I

I

1

2
3

has an extensive crj-mj-na1 r".orO.l This is a statement made on issue of public interest, namely tfr.l fact that an assistant for an attorney has an extensive criminaff
I

Berg' s assistant Lisa Liberi

4

record

I
I

5
5

1

I
9

10 11 L2 13
T4

15 16

I-l
1B

I9
20

2I
22 23 24

25 26

zt
28

b. S66 alleqed statement, where Taitz provides the public wittl information regrardingr Liberi's probation officer. This is 1 statement made on issue of public lnterest.. If a convictedl forger and thief works with someone, who does nation widel fundraising and has access to credit cards of multiple donors,l it is in public interest to al-ert her probation officer c.$67 Quotes a comment Taitz allegedly made on her web siterl where she alerts her donors of Liberits cri-minal t""otO-l statement made in public interest. d. tl69 April 27 2009 alleged notation by TatLz on the new *.bl site of her foundation actualJ-y makes the case for tnel defendants. Complai-nt states that Tai-Lz sent an e-mail to Phil Berg, describinq Liberi's criminal record (true copy of thisl record is in exhibit 1) . CompJ-a j-nt quotes Taitz describing herl motivations, which are completely proper motivations in nuOficl interest:"I believe Mr. Berg should not be using a person wititl such past in his fund raising efforts and lega1 practice andl shoul-d issue a statement advising the donors and supportersrl that Ms. Lisa Liberi ls no longer employed by him or fri"l foundati-on and that he is reviewinq his donations and all feVafl records handled by Ms. Liberi. I believe the donors to Mr. Bergl foundati-on should get assurances that their donations were ,r".J for litigation and the cause and not to reimburse victims of u".l Liberi's prior schemes. . . " The plaintiffs in their own complaintl
I
I

I
I

I I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Liberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under

CCCP 425.L6 AntiSLAPP-

10

I

I I

I

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 11 of 20 Page ID #:4113
I I I

I
I

I

I
2 3
4

are making a case for this court to grant judgment for trrel defendants on their AntiSLAPP, as such statements by th"l defendant TatLz is a true and correct statement made on an i"",-,"1

of public interest"

I
I

5
6

'l
B

9

10 11 12 13

15 T6 77 18
1,9

20 27 22 23 24

25 26
2'7

28

2. Defendants published information in regards to web mastel Lisa Ostella's actions in lockingr Taitz out of the web site t"=l her foundation.l Yet again all of these statements are proper statements made inl public interest to advise the donors that former volunteerl webmaster Lisa Ostefla focked Taitz, president of "Defend O"1 Freedoms FoundaLion" out of the old web site for her foundatio{ and replace Taitz pay-paI account with her own, therefore thel donors will be advised that their donations will not go to thel foundation, but would go to Ostel-la. Not only it is permissivel and in public interest. but TatLz, ds the president of thel foundation was obligated to provide the donors with tfrisl information. As donors don't freguent the web site on a daifyl basis , LL was proper to post such reminders, and it was ttl public interest to warn donors As a matter of fact in 1f44 Ostella admits that she locked faitzl out and " Ostella changed the Pay-PaI script in the donationsl button to reflect her own account and removed Taitz's accountsl from the sites" and an order and memorandum of judge Robrenol states that Ostella conceded on the stand that. she locked Taitzl out and replaced the paypal account. Plaintiff provided serrera! alleged statements by Taitz, which state exactly that. 5lS62,l 67 ,68, 69 provide the same statement made on the issue ofl public interest, that a volunteer webmaster locked the prestd""al
I I I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Liberi v Taitz motion to dlsmiss under

CCCP

425.16 AntiSLAPP-

11

I

I

I
I

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 12 of 20 Page ID #:4114

of the foundation out of the web site for her foundatlon
2

an

3

account of the f ound.at j-on with he personal pay-pal account, whereby the donations will not go t

replaced

the

pay-pal

4

6

1

B

9

10 11 L2 13 74 15
1,6

I1
18 T9 20

the foundation, but would go to that former volunteer webmaster Not only it was proper for the defendants to make suc statements, but raitzr ds the president of the foundatj-on, ha an obligation to warn her supporters and donors.1162"sh (ostella) locked me out of my own found.ation site and refuses t give me the access codes. " llGB" My former web master Lis ostella has created an account that she called Defend ou Freedoms Network and i-s solicitlng donations, praying o unsuspected readers that would not not.ice the difference betwee Defend Our Freedoms Foundation and Defend our Freedoms Communit Please notice, your donations there will not qo to th foundation, they will go to her personal bank account, connecte Lo her personal e-mail address GoExcelGlobal". These ar statements made in connection with an issue of public interesL, specifically, where donations will- go. Since defendants me their initial anti-slApp burden, the burden shifts to th
Plaintiffto establish, "by competent and admissa.ble evidenee, "

2I
22

a reasonable probability that the plaintiff cl-ai-ms at tria-l "

will prevail on hi

23
24 25

C. PI,AINTIFFS 1. THIS

MUST ESTABLTSH gHAT TIIEY

WILL PREVAIL
ITAS TO BE

ON

THEIR

CT,ATMS

26
21 28

}THOLE CAT'SE OF ACTION

FAILS AND
1

DrsMrssED ut[DER FRCP 12 (B)

Liberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under

cCCp 425.16 Antisr,App-

12

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 13 of 20 Page ID #:4115

1

2 3

4

5
6

l I
9

10

t1 t2
13

I4
15

t6 I1
1B

I9
20 21 22

Prior to addressing the specific counts of the complaint Defendants assert that the cornplaint was filed in federal cou frivolousry in violation of section 12b (1) of Fed.eral_ rules civil Procedure. This legaI action was fiLed based on diversi of citizenship Federal Rule of ciwil proced,ure 12 (b) 1 provide for dismissal of a eomplaint for lack of subject mat jurisdiction. Any doubt as to whether jurisdiction exists i normally resorved against a finding of such jurisdiction. Kan v. we1Ies1ey Galleries, rtd 704 s2d 10ggt Log2 (gth cir.1gg3.) Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, it i "presumed that a cause ties outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the pa asserting jurisdietion." vacek v united states postal servi 447 F3d ],248, L25o (9tn cir 2006) (quoting Kokkonen v Guardi l-ife rns. co.of Asr 511 us. 3Tb, 377 (1994) (citation omitted)). For diversity of citizenship praintiffs were supposed. to prov docurnentary evidence of state citizenship of the parties at th time this lega1 action rras filed, in order to show that parties were diverse. JURISDICTION IS ALIVAYS BEFORE TIIE COI'RT A}ID THE COURT
HAS

A

DUTY TO DISMISS

A

CASE, WHERE

IT

ITAS NO

23
24 25 26 21 28

rn a recent case of s. Freedman and company, inc v Marvin Raa et ar # 05-1138 (from NJ #04-cv-01119) Third ci-rcuit. cour judges Honorable Barry, Smith and Ardisert found that unde precedent of Gould Electronics, inc v united states, 2zo 169, t] 6 (3d Cir.2000) Third Circuit court of Appeals ha jurisdiction to review under 28 U. S . C. S12 91 the issue o subject matter jurisdiction as a basis for dismissal of th case. Third circuit court of Appeals also found that a Distric court has a duty to raise doubts about its jurisdiction at time, and the party asserting jurisdiction ..bears the burden o
Liberi v Taitz
CCCP

JT'RTSDICTION

425.16 AntiSLAPP-

13

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 14 of 20 Page ID #:4116

10 11 72
L3 L4

l5
L6

L]
IB

slrowing that the case is properly before the court at al stages of litigation". Packard v Provident National Bank, 99 F. 2d 1039, 1045 (3d Cir. 1993) and similarly J& R rce cre Corp. v. Ca]ifornia Smoothie Licensing, 31 F. 3d 1259, 7265 n. (3'd cir rgg4)In its' opinion 1n Freedman v Raab Third Circuit proceeded t expand and. reiteratffis upon which jurisdictio depends must be alleged affirmatively and disti-nctly and canno be established argumentatively or by mere inference 5C. Wrigh & A. Mi-I-ler, Federa.l- Practice and Procedure S1205, at 18-'l (1969 & Supp. 2005); Thomas v Board of Trustees, I95 U.S. 201, 2I0 (1904) (holding that diversity jurisdiction, "or the fact upon which, in legal intendment, it rests, must be distinctl and positively averred in the pleadings, or should appea affirmatively and wit.h equal distinctness in other part of th record" ) I Joiner v. Diamond M Dril-]-inq Co 617 F. 2d 1035 (5th Cir 1982) 1039 ("fn order to adequately establish diversity jurisdiction, complaint must set forth with specificity a corporate party' state of incorporation and its principal place of business) "Fedco's bald allegations that the corporate parties ar citizens of certai-n states are insuffj-cient Lo carry its burde of pleading the diversity of the parties. " In cases in which jurisdiction is based on diversity of plaintiff that citizenship, has burden to show, first, applicable statute confers jurisdictlon, and, second, that assertion of jurisdiction is consonant with constitutional l-i-mi-tations of due process. Weight v Kawasaki Motors Corp. (7985, ED Va) 604 F
Supp 968.

l9
20 27 22

Party's mere allegation of diversity cannot satisfy its burden of establishing district courtrs jurisdiction,' citizenship of each real- party in interest must be estabJ-ished by preponderance of evidence. Roche v Lincofn Prop. Co. (2004, CA4 Va) 373 F3d
670.

24 25 26 21 zo

a state other than California but failing to allege that plaintlffs we.re alf c.itizens of California was not sufficient to give District since pleadings did not Court jurisdiction otherwise resolve issue of citizenship. Bautista v Pan Anterican World Airlines, Inc. (7987, CA9 CaI) B2B F2d 546, 126 BNA LRRM 2559, 707 CCH LC P 10759.
OLsen v Qual-ity Continuum Hospice, Inc. Supp 2d 7225

Complaint allegi-ng that defendant's corporate citizenship was in

fn

(2A04,DC NM) 380 F

Liberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under

CCCP

425.16 AntiSLAPP-

14

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 15 of 20 Page ID #:4117

l0
L1

court lacked jurisdiction over patient's craims because he failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because at time he filed complaint both he and hospice were citizens of st_ate; also patient only sougrht $ 10r 000 in cost and unspecified amount for other damages, whi-ch did not meet amount in controversy fn McMann v. Doe (2006, DC Mass) 460 F supp 2d compJ-aint against John Doe defendant a.lIeging Internet defamation was 4ismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because there was risk that if ,fohn Doe I s identity litere discovered there could have I>een no diversity, and courtrs jurisdictional- authority would have disappeared; court declined to read amended language of 28 uscs S 7447into 28 uscs s J332 because it woul_d have llowing case with only one "c"o*P party and only state law clalms to proceed initially in federal court ofsen v Qual-ity Continuum Hospice, rnc. (20a4lDC NM) 380 F Supp 2d 7225. fn moLorist's personal injury lawsuit against, inter alia, owners of property adjacent to private railroad.-track crossing where car-train accident occurred., pursuant to 28 uscs s 7447 (d) , appellate court lacked jurisdiction to re"ie- temand that implicitJ-y was based on lack of subject matter distri-ct I urisdiction; court. clearly was addressing jurisdictional issues--diversity of citizensihip, 2g uscs S 7332, and fraudulent joinder--and. when doing so, it property declined to decide doubtful question of state law and, instead., resolved ambiguity (lack of state law directry on point) in motorist's favor. FifJa v Norfofk & Southern R (2003, CAB Mo) 336 F3d
where record creates doubt as to jurlsdiction, trial court must determine whether there are ad.equate grounds to sustain its
2. 806.

t2
13

l4

l5
L6

I1
1B

I9
20 27 22

jurisdiction over subject mat.ter. shahmoon rndustries, rnc. v tnperato (7954, ce3 x,l) 338 rza qqg, 9 ra serv 2d 128.22, case

23
24

evidence.

Court has duty to look to its oriln jurisdiction and lack of sr'lrject matter jurisdiction may be asserted by court, sua sponte, at any time. Jeter v Jim Waf ter Homes, Inc. (7976, WD Okfa) .474 F Supp 797.259 decided by a preponderance of
-

Plaintiffs
26
2'1
ZO

refused to provide drivers ]-icense or an rD card tc
citizenship of the lead plaintiff Lisa Liberi

show the state
Defendants

provlded Liberi's criminal record from the San Bernard,ino, California court, showing Liberi being on probation
Liberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under
CCCP 4ZB.L6

AntiSLApp-

15

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 16 of 20 Page ID I #:4118
I I

I I

1

2

3
4

5 6 7 8 9

-LU

11

I2
13 L4 15

76
11
1B

19
20 IL 22 23 24 25

26
21 28

under supervision of the San Bernardino, California probationsl department, allowed to reside only j-n California or New ltexicorl not in any other state, not in Pennsylvania. TaiLz demanded tol see Liberi's proof of state citizenship. Originally Plaintiffsl claimed that they showed Judge Robreno Liberi's drivers licensel duri-ng 08.07 .2009 motion hearingr . Tar_Lz was not able to attendl this hearing and requested the transcript. On July 30r 20101 Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion, where they demanded tol keep the transcript seal-ed and accused the defendant anal attorney for the defendants Taitz of trying to hire a hit man tol kill Liberi and claimed that for this reason the tt-n""ri-ptl needs to be sealed. Judge Robreno ordered the transcriptl released to Tattz. The transcript showed that the Plaintiffs dfJ not provide Liberi's drivers license, and actually during thel heari-ng judge Robreno ordered Liberi and her attorney Berg Td FILE LIBERI's DRIVERS LICENSE VIITH COURT. The docket shows th-J Liberi and Berg NEVER FfIED LfBERT' S DRfVERS LfCENSE. ^1 Plai-ntiffs never fifed any documentary evidence of Liberj-'sl state citizenship, this 1ega1 action has to be dj-smissed underl 72bL, as the plaintiffs did not provide documentary evidence "fl state citizenship of the party to the action, necessary for thel court to assume jurisdiction in diversity, and the court doesl not have juri-sdiction over the case. This case was frivolouslyl filed in the federal court and specifically in the federal .outal in Pennsylvania simply to intimidate the defendants and try tq silence them COMPLA]NT IN ITS ' ENTIRETY FAILS UNDER 12 (B)' FA]LURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH A RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED
I I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

Li-beri v Taitz motion to dismiss under

CCCP 425.1,6 AntiSLAPP-

16

I
I

I
I

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 17 of 20 Page ID #:4119

1

2

3

lt I e court should dj-smiss a complaint when its allegations fail to I state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. civ pr. I 12 (b) (5). A complaint must allege "sufficient factual matter,

It tt

ll

rt ll

rt l'-l

I

I

4

l-----'l as true, accepted

I

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 L2 13

to state a claim t.o relief that i-s plausible I I on its face." fqbal, 129 S. Ct at 1g4g (quoting Twombly, 550 t--t I u.S. at 570). A court should not accept "threadbare recita]s of a cause of action's elements, supported by mere conclusory statements" id., or "allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact or unreasonable interfer"n.."" Sprewell v Golden State Warriors, 266 F3d 979, 9gB (9tn C:-r.2001).A pleading, that faj-ls to meet such standard, may be dismissed with prejudice schmidt v Hermann 674 F. 2d 722r, r2n

I

I

i
I I

I

I

I

I
I
I

t4
15 L6 71
1B

,r* .* trr* conNr t

I

r9
20 27 22 23 24

25 26
27
2B

rn count one plaintiff Liberi is suing under violation of thel First Amendment and Fourteenth amendment of the U.t.l constitution and California Civil Procedure 51798.81 The alfegations are completely frivolous. Plaintiffs are craimlng violation of First and Fourteenthl amendment, but do not provide a shred of evidence, explaininql what part of the 1st or 14th amendment was violated and how iJ was violated- They are talking about the fact that defendantl Taltz posted a report by Sankey, showing Liberi's criminall record. They do not explain, how does this represent J violation of the 1st and 14th amendment. First Amend"ment andl 14th amendment {as it relates to the states) guarantees al citizens a freedom of speech, press, religion and redress ofl grievances agiainst inf r!-ngement on such right by the feaeraff
I
I I I I

I

T,iberi v Taitz motion to dlsmiss under

CCCP 425.16 AntiSl,APP-

17

I I
I

I
I

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 18 of 20 Page ID #:4120
I I I I

I
I I

1

2

3
4

5
6
'7

8 9

10 11 12 13 74 15

relates to the 1st amendment and infringe*"na| by the State qovernment as lt relates to the 14th amendment. Taitz is not a federal or state government, she is .1 individual. "Defend our Freedoms foundation" is not a federal government, itl is a private, not for profit foundation, so this cause of -ctior.l does not refate to them. Additionally, Plaintiffs did not show 1 shred of evidence that will point out and explain, how did Taitzl or "Defend our Freedoms" private, not for profit foundationl infringed upon any freedoms guaranteed to the Plaintiffs. Howl did TaiLz or "Defend Our Freedoms Foundation" prevented tnel plalntiffs from exercising their Constitutionally guaranteedl
I I
I I I I

government, as it

I

I

rishts

I

76

I1
1B

I9
20
21 22

This part of the complaint is totally frj-vo1ous, representsl impossibilit.y as a matter of law and needs to be dismissed wj-thl prejudice and without leave to amend. Second part of count one relates to CA Civil Procedure 511gB.B7,l whi-ch is equally bizarre and insane. This statute relates tol buslnesses which maintain private information of theil
I I

I

I

I
I

customers.

arrange for the disposal, of customer records within its custody'l

orl
orl

71

98.87. A business shall take a-l-l reasonable steps to dispose,l

I

23
24

25 26
21
.O

control containing personal information when the record.s are no longer to be retained by the business by (a) shredding, (b)l erasing, or (c) otherwise modifying the personal informatj-on 1n thosel records to make it unreadable or undecipherable through any means

I

I

I

I
I

I

I I

I

Liberl v Taitz motion to dismiss under CCCP 425.16 AntiSLAPP- 18

I I

I
I I

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 19 of 20 Page ID #:4121

ll lr
1

lt tl Ir

2

3

lr r.itr

.atute lAgain, this statute is totally I l our Freedoms Foundation".

inappLicable inapplicable to Taitz ol or

,,OefenOl

I

4

tt
I

is an individual.
not for profitl

I

5 6

Defend our Freedoms foundation is a private, l--L---'---' foundation.
I

I

'l
8

Plaintiffs

refer

to the information regarding Lisa Lrberi,l of Liberi's
however l,isa Liberi was never a .,-,stor.J

I

claiming that publication violation of
S17 9B . B 1,

information renresentsl
I

9

10 11 72 13 L4 15

of either Ta:_tz of "Defend Our Freedoms" foundation, and tfrisl statute relates only to violations by businesses, which maintainl private information of their customers. Lastly, information published by Taitz, was a pub11c cri-minarl record of Liberi, which is public information, not private. Plaintiffs could not sue the Defendants under cA civ
I

I

I

I6
71 18

I

Even, tf arguendo, doy information published, was private, tnel
prol
I

I

t9
20
27 22

51798.81, as it does not relate to Defendants.

Further Plaintiffs

quote s1798. B4 sections b-g and convenientlyl

I

omit section (a) and attempl to manipulate and defraud the courtl by impLying that those sections are somehow relevant to 1s part
maintaining

I

tt,."l
I

defendants. when one reads s1798.84-a-g it clearly shows that itl
24 25

of

the same s1798, which relates
private information
17 9B .
B

to

businessesl customers.l

I

26
21
2B

of
(a

their
wa

business

I

again, as explained

4

.

) Any

j-ver of a provision .tl

I

this titJ-e is contrary t.o
Liberi v TaLtz motion to dismiss under
CCCP 425.16 AntiSLAPP-

I

I

19
I
I

I

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 20 of 20 Page ID #:4122

1 2 3
4

public policy and is void and unenforceable. (b) Any customer injured by a violation of this title may institute a civil action to recover damages. This c-laim fails as a matter of Iaw, as such it needs to dismissed with prejudice without leave to amendFurther on towards the end of the pleading for count one'
1n

b

5 6
1

!4L in their desperate attempt to silence the Defendants-whistl
blowers and prevent further disclosure to the public of the fac

I
9

that attorney Berg is working with a convicted documenL forger,
who drafts his pleadings,

Plaintiffs

simply listed

multipl

tn
11 72 13

statutes, threw in a plte a number of federal and state statute from different states without any connection to the defendant
and without any explanation, how do those statutes relate to th

\4
15

defendants and represent viable causes of action. The pleadin

is so deficient,
Iqbal ,
L29S
.

that it can't even be called a legal pleading
1940

I6
L]
1B

Ct at

(citing Twombly, 550 u. s . at 555 state
caus

t.hat the court should not accept "threadbare recitals of a here the Plaintiffs
list

I9
20

of action's elements, supported by mere conclusory statements did not even list
one after

the elements. They simpl
none of which has an
b

2I
zz
23 24

a dozen statutes,

another'

connection to the defendants. As such those claims need to
dismissed with prejudice and without leave to statutes are as follows: a. Social Violating specific security Social

amend. Th

25
26 21
LO

act.

Plaintiff

accused

Defendants

o

security

acL, but did not plead

an

act or any explanation, how did the Defendant
20

Liberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under CCCP 425-16 AntiSLAPP-

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)//-->