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

#:4103

DR. ORLY TAITZ ESQ

7 29839 SANTA I4ARGAF,TTA pKg{y, STE 100
R,ANCHO SAI\TTA MARGARITA, cA 92688
2 PH 949-683-5411 FAX 949-766-7603
3
US DISTRCT COI'RT
CENTR.AL DTSTRTCT OF CAJ,IFORNTA
4
LIBERI ET AI,, ) CASE NO.: 11-Cv-00485
)
5
PI,AINTIFF, ) MOTTON
cccP 425.15 ervTrsrJAPP
) TO DTSMISS THE CASE
6
vs. ) AS A SLAPP COMPLATNT
) HON. AbIDREW GUTLFORD
1
TAITZ AT AL, ) PRESIDING
I ) DATE 05.23 .?OLL
) TIME 10:00
9
DEF"ENDAI\TT
) conRTRooM 10 D
10 Notice to all parties and their counsel: on May 9, 2O7I
11 defendants "Defend our Freedoms Foundation" and orly Taltz will
12 move this court to strike and dismiss above mentioned complaint
13 in its' entirety as a slApp action in a special cal-ifornia Rul-e
I4 425.15 antiSLAPP action. This motion will be based on the
15 memorandum of points and authorities below, exhibits att.ached to
16 this complaint and oral argument.
tl MEMORAITDUM OE POTNTS AI{D AUTHORTTTES.
18 TABLE OF CONTENTS
19 TabLe of Authorities ......2
20 A. THE A}IT]-SI.APP STATUTE GOVERNS THE DISPUTE.. ....5
2T B DEFENDAI{TS MET THEIR BURDEN TNDER ANTr-sr,APP STATUTE.......5
22 C. CI.AIM ARISES OUT OF AN ISSUE OF PT'BLIC INTEREST...........8
)4. D. PLATNTIFFS FAITED TO ESTABLISH BY COMPETENT AI{D ADMIS
24 EVIDENCE THAT THEY WTLL PRE\/AIL AT TRTAL .. .. .1.2

25 1. Trrrs wHoLE cAsE FAILS {TNDER 12(8)1.... ....L2

26 2- COI'IPLAINT IN ITSi ENTIRETY E.AILS ITNDER 12 (8)6. ......14
21 I(A)COLNT 1.. ...L7
28 1.B)COUNT 2.. ...24

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 1(C)COnNtr3.. ...27
2 1(D) COUNT 4.... ....29
3 1(E) COLNT 5.... ....30
4 1(F) COLNT 5.... ....33
5 coNclusroN-.. -...34
6 AFFIDAVTT OF ORLY TAITZ .......36
1 EXHIBITS:
8 1. EXHIBIT 1 2OO8 sAt{ BERNARDTNO, qAr,rFORNrA, CR

o COTWICTIONS RECORD OF 23 CIIARGES ATiID 10 CO}WICTIONS OF FORGERY,

10 FORGERY OF OFFICIAL SEAL AIID GRAND THEFT OF PI.AINTIFF LI
11 LIBERI in FSB -0449L4 The People of the State of California
I2 Lisa Liberi Richardson
13 2. Exhibit2 SA}T BERNARDINO CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT TRA}ISCRI

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

15 State of CA v Lisa Liberi RICI{ARDSON ATTESTING TO 19

L6 CRIMINAI CTIARGES OF PI.ATNTIFF LTSA LIBERT

77 3Exhibit 3 . SI{ORN DECLARATfON OF .ltFF STAPLES-FORMER VIEB

18 FOR PHILIP BERG, ATTESTING TO trBERil S l,tAllUAL ITAIIDLING OF CRED

19 CARD ACCOT'NTS OF DONORS.

20 4 Exhibit 4 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF TINDA BELCHER, FORMER VOLT'NTEE

21 RESEARCTIER FOR PHILIP BERG.

22 5. Exhibit 5 L2.23.20LL ORDER-MEMORiANDUM BY iruDeE ROBRENO

1? tiberi v Taitz.
AA

25

26 EABLE OF AUTITORITIES
21 Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 3l-7F.3d1097,1709(9th cir.2003) .p5
28 Batzel v Smit.h, 333 F. 3d 1018, 7024 (9th cir 2003) ....p5

Liberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under CCCP 425.16 AntiSLAPP- 2

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

1 Briggs v Eden council for Hope and opportunity, 19 cal 4th 11061
I

2 1110(Ieee) .....p5 I

I
3 Kantor v Wellesley Galleries, 1td 704 Fzd, 1088, 7092 (9th cf1
4 1983) .....p13 I

5 Vacek v United states postal service 441 F3d I24Bt 1250 (9th
"t.l
6 2006) .. .. . .. ...p13
I

1 Kokkonen v Guardian life insur. Co. of Am 511 US. 3't 5, 3'71

B (1ee4).... .....p13 I

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

I
9

10 2000) p13 I

L1 Packard v Provident National Bank , gg4 F. 2d,1039, 1045 (3d "frl

L2 1-e93 ) pI4 I

I
l3 J & R fce Cream corp. v. California Smoothie Licensing, 31 F. 3dl
I

I4 1259, 1256 n.3 (3rd cir1994). ......p14 I

15 Joi-ner v Diamond M Drilling Co., 611 F. 2d. 1035, 1039 (5th Cirl
16 1,982) .....p14 I

l7 Weight w Kawasaki Motors Co (19S5, ED Va) 604 F supp 968. . . .pLA I

18 Roche v Lincoln Prop. Co. (2004, CA4 Va) 373 F3d 610 ..p14 I

Bautista v Pan American Wor1d Airl-ines , Irtc (7981, CA 9 Caf )l

I

79
I

20 828, Fzd 546, 126 BNA LRRM 2559, 107 CCH LC P 10159 ....p14 I

2I Olsen v Quality Continuum Hospice (2004, DC NM) 380 F. Supp 2dl

I

22 L225. .....p14 I

23 McMann v. Doe (2006, DC Mass) 460 F Supp 2d... ....p15 I

I

24 Olsen v Ouality continuum Hospice, Inc (2004, DC NM) 380 F. S,rppl

....p15
I

25 2d 7225 ... I

zo Eilla v Norfolk & southern Ry (2003. CAB Mo) 336 F3d 806....p15 'l I

21 Shahmoon Industries, fnc & Imperato (7964, CA3 NJ) 338 Fzd 449,1
I

2B 9 FR Serv 2d, 12F.22, Case 2.... .....p15 I

I
I

Liberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under CCCP 425.L6 AntiSLAPP- , 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 Jeter v Jim Walter Homes (L916, WD Okla) 474 F Supp 79I.259.p15

2 Tqbal v Ashcroft 729 S Ct at 1949. . .ppt1 , 27
3 Twombly v BeIl Atlantic 550 U.S. at 570.. .....p17
4 SpreweJ-1 v Golden State Warrior,256F3d97 9,988 (9th Cir 2001) .p11
5 Schmidt v Hermann 614 F. 2d L221, 1223 9th Cir 1980) ...ppl7. 29
6 Cal Civ Pro Code 5425.16(a).... .....p5
1 Cal Civ Pro Code S425.16(b) (1) . .....p8
8 28 USC 51291... .....p13
9 FRCP L2(b)1.... .....p72
10 FRCP 1,2(b) 6... ......p16
11 5c. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure S1206,
I2 (1969 & Supp.2005).... ...p1s
13 28 USC S I44 linto 28 USCS 51332 ....p15
L4 Thomas v Board of Trustees, 195 U.S. 201 .270 (l-904)........p15
15 28 USC S144r (O) .... .....p15
16 Cal civ Pro 51798.81. . . . .p1B
I1 Cal Civ Pro 51198.84 (a-g) . . . .p19
1B 18 USC 552510-22.... .....p2I
19 18 USC SS 210L-II ...p22
20 Department of justice Reorganization act of 2005. ......p22
21- H.R. 3402 5113, 113 (a) (3) .... .....p23
22 41 USC 5223 (a) (1) .. .....p23
23 47 usc 5223 (h) (1) (b) .. ......p23
15 USC S1l-25 ....pp30,31
25 ann. CaI C.C. P. 5527.6 (b) . . . .p29

26 lst Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ......p17

2l 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution .....p17
2B

Liberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under CCCP 425.76 AntiSLAPP- 4

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

1 A. THE ASITISI,APP STATUTE GO\ZERNS THE DTSPUTE

I

2 I

I
3 "Motion to strike a state law craim under cal-ifornia 's ant:--f
4 SLAPP statute may be brought in federal court.'rVess v. Cina-l
5 Geigy Corp.USA, 3L1 F. 3d 7091 , 1109 (9th cir. 2003). The ant.il
6 SLAPP statute was enacted to allow for early dismissal-
"q
1 meritless first amendment cases aimed at chilling expressionl
8 through costly, time consuming litigation." Batzel v Smith, 3331
I

9 F. 3d 1018, IO24 (9th cir. 2003). The statute should n"l

construed broadly, " Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 5425.16 (a)
I

10
""1
11 j-nterpreted "in a manner favorable to the exercise of freedom ofl
I2 speech, not its curtailment, " Briggs v Eden Council for Hope andl
13 Opportunity, 19 Cal 4th 1106-1119 (7ggg). I

I4 I

l5 B. DEFEI{DAT\TES MET TITEIR BI'RDEN T'NDER AI{TISI.APP STATUTE I

I
16 SLAPP is Strategic Legal Action Against Public Participation.l
I'7 Above action, Liberi et al v Taitz et al is a typical SLAPJ
I

1B action filed by the plaintiffs in order to limit publicl

19 participation and specifically to silence the defendants, wnol I

20 are whistle blowers, about the fact that Pennsylvania attorneyl

2I Philip J. Berg, is employing as hj-s tegal assistant a .onr.i.t.J
22 document forger and thief Lisa Liberi. Berg and Liberi knew .al
I

23 all times that Liberi is indeed a convicted document forger andl

'A
thief, convicted in San Bernardino, CA. They origiinally fif"J
I

25 this case in Phitadelphia, representing that Liberi is anl

ll) innocent, defamed woman in Pennsylvania, who was slandered -ndl
defamed by the defendants. At all times they knew that she r""l
I

21

28 not defamed, that she is indeed a convicted document forger fronrl

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 cA, and that they are harassing the defendants with a st,App la
2 suit. rn their attempt to cover up Liberi's identity they acte
3 with unprecedent.ed malice and in further pleadings accused th
4 defendants of multiple crimes, maliciously claiminq tha
5 att.orney ra,tz tried to hire a hit man to kill Liberi, and fo
6 that reason Liberi should not provide her pennsyrvania dri-ver
1 license, and the court needs to berieve her word and proceed. i
B diversity without any documentary evidence. Similarly, the
9 claimed that Plaintiff osterla was defamed, when Ta:tz publishe
10 on her web site, that her former web master ostella locked rait
11 out of the old web site for her foundation, ..Defend our Freed
L2 Foundation" and replaced Taitz pay pa1-account with her olrn
13 However, after 72.2a.207r TRo hearing and cross examination o
I4 ostelfa by Taitz, ostella conceded that she indeed locked Tait
15 out of the web site for her foundation and replaced Taitz pay
76 pal account with her own. (Exhibit 72.23.2070 Order an
17 memorandum of judge Robreno).
18 This legal action was filed two years ago on May 4, 2a0g. rt wa
I9 filed approximately Lwo weeks after Dr. orly Taitz (hereinafte
20 Tartz), president of "Defend our Freedoms Foundation" publishe
27 a report by a licensed investigator Neil sankey (hereinafte
22 sankey), that showed that Lisa Liberi (Hereninafter Liberi),
23 legal assistant for pennsylvania attorney phirip Ber
24 (Hereinafter Berg) has a criminal record of forgery, forqery o
25 official- seal and theft. This report was made by Sankey based o
26 information which is easiry and readily available in publi
27 records. (Exhibit 1) . Recently, dt a motion hearing i
ao 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

1 of Liberi by Taitz, Liberi admitted that she is indeed .l

2 convicted felon from California. (Exhibit 4) Taitz, .t"o,l
I
3 published true and correct information, that Lisa Ostel-la,1
I

4 former volunteer web master for "Defend Our freedoms Foundation"l

I
5 (hereinafter "Foundation") has locked TatLz, president ofl
I

6 Foundation, out of the old web site for the foundation andl
I

7 replaced Taitz pay-pa1 account with her own, therefore rnyl

donation given to Ostella or via pay-pal on the old web sitel
I

I
o from mid April would not go to the Foundation, but would go tol
I
l0 Ostella. At the same hearing on 12.20.20L0 at the crossl
I

t1 examination of Ostella, conducLed by Taitz, Ostella admittedl

L2 that she indeed locked Tartz out of the old web site of n.tl
l3 foundation and replaced Tai-tz pay pal account with her own I

Two weeks after publication Liberi, Berg, Law offj-ces of efrif:-pl

15 Berg, Ostella, Go Excel Global (business name of Ostel-l-al -t-rOl
I6 Evelyn Adams a/k/a Momma E fil-ed a legal action in the easterl
District of Pennsylvania against 14 named defendants and 2001
I

11

18 unnamed defendants. Nature of the suit is listed as 320 Assault,l'l

19 Libel-, Slander. Jurisdiction-diversity. In this law sui!
I

20 Plaintiffs sued all the whistle blowers, who blew the whistle ..f
2I Liberi, Ostella, Berg and Adams. The complaint is utl
I

22 incomprehensibte B1 page mish-mash of allegations against tnl

?? individuals and enti-ties. In a nut shelt Plaintif f s cl-aimed thad
I

24 they were defamed by the publication of the above facts. Theyl

I

CR attempted to create an impression that. Lisa Liberi, who worksl

I

z6 with attorney Berg is a different Lisa Liberi, not a convictedl

2'7 felon from California. Pl-aintiffs attempted to create thisl
l

28 impression by posting Attorney Berg's business address in PA asl

I
I

I
Liberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under CCCP 425.L6 AntiSLAPP- t
I

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

1 Liberi I s address. They further made malicious, fraudulen

2 accusations, that Liberi's address cannot be disclosed becaus
3 she is afraid for her l-ife because attorney Taitz tried to hj-r
4 a hit-man to kil1 her. Exhibit 4, last order by judge Robreno i
5 Eastern Distri-ct of PA shows that Berg, Liberi and Ostella wer
6 "evasive on the stand and not believable as witnesses". Judg
1 Robreno found no foundation and no value in plaintiff'
8 accusations and allegations and claims that Taitz tried t
9 hire a hit-man to kill Liberi.
10 C. CI,AIM ARISES OUT OF AI{ ISSI'E OE' PT'BLIC INTEREST
11 Plaintiff's complaint stems from an act made in connect.ion wit
L2 a public issue or an issue of public interest, in furtheran
l3 of Defendantsr right of free speech under the United States o
L4 Cal-ifornia Constitutions. Civ Proc Code 5425.16(b) (1).
1s fn 81 pages of complaint with a mumbo jumbo of bare slanderou
16 allegations aqainst 14 named defendants and 200 unname
t1 defendants, there are only ]imited statements/publications, tha
1B can be attributed to the defendants. and those were clearly mad
19 in public interest:
20 1. Defendants published criminal record of Lisa Liberi
2I TaLtz is a president of the "Defend our Freedoms foundation"
22 Volunteer web master Ostella locked TaiLz out of the web site o
23 her foundation and changed the code on the web site and replace
24 Taitz pay-pal account with her own. At t.he same time Ostell
used "Defend our Freedoms foundation" web site to defame Tait
26 and promote another attorney, Philip J. Berg. Berg is engaged i
21 nation wide fundraising and employinq as his assistant Lis
2B 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 felony convictions of theft, forgery of documents and forgery o

2 official seal in cA alone. (Exhibit 1) and rg prior cri_mina
3 charges (Exhibit 2) . Berg is submitting to multiple court
4 documents prepared by this assistant. rt was in public interes
5 to alert the public , that raitz was locked out of her ord we
6 site and that it is being used to promote another attorney,
1 whose assistant has an extensive criminar record. As members o
B the public were donating to Berg, they had to be warned that
9 person with theft convictions is working as an assistant fo
10 that attorney. Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 Affidavit of Lind
11 Belcher, former researcher for Berg, and signed letter fr
I2 Jeoff staples, former web master for Berg attest to Liberi'
13 handling of credit card inf ormati-on of d.onors. This is a
L4 important issue of public interest, and an effort, by Tartz, wh
15 is the president of foundation and an offi-cer of the court t
16 protect the donors against possible theft. Additionally, as Be
I1 was filing multiple documents in different courts, it wa
1B important to warn members of the public, that some of th
I9 documents could not be genuine, considering the fact that hi
)A assistant has convictions of forgery of documents and forgery o
2I an of ficial sea]-. such publlcation by Taitz was truthful,
22 privileged and entirely in public interest. rn the ocean o
sfander and hearsay by the plaintiffs, there are a few specifi
24 statements, attributed to the defendants, a1l- of which ar
25 truthful statements made properly ion public interest.
26 a. Complaint tl57 represents a retter from Taitz to Berg, wher
27 TaiLz, believing that Berg is not aware of Liberi's record,
28 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

1 Berg' s assistant Lisa Liberi has an extensive crj-mj-na1 r".orO.l

2 This is a statement made on issue of public interest, namely tfr.l
3 fact that an assistant for an attorney has an extensive criminaff I

4 record I

b. S66 alleqed statement, where Taitz provides the public wittl

I

5 information regrardingr Liberi's probation officer. This is

1
1 statement made on issue of public lnterest.. If a convictedl
I
I forger and thief works with someone, who does nation widel
I

9 fundraising and has access to credit cards of multiple donors,l

10 it is in public interest to al-ert her probation officer I
I

11 c.$67 Quotes a comment Taitz allegedly made on her web siterl

L2 where she alerts her donors of Liberits cri-minal t""otO-l
statement made in public interest.
I

13 I

T4 d. tl69 April 27 2009 alleged notation by TatLz on the new *.bl

site of her foundation actualJ-y makes the case for tnel
I

15

16 defendants. Complai-nt states that Tai-Lz sent an e-mail to Phil

I-l Berg, describinq Liberi's criminal record (true copy of thisl
I

1B record is in exhibit 1) . CompJ-a j-nt quotes Taitz describing herl

I

I9 motivations, which are completely proper motivations in nuOficl

20 interest:"I believe Mr. Berg should not be using a person wititl
2I such past in his fund raising efforts and lega1 practice andl
I

22 shoul-d issue a statement advising the donors and supportersrl

23 that Ms. Lisa Liberi ls no longer employed by him or fri"l
I

24 foundati-on and that he is reviewinq his donations and all feVafl

25 records handled by Ms. Liberi. I believe the donors to Mr. Bergl
26 foundati-on should get assurances that their donations were ,r".J
zt for litigation and the cause and not to reimburse victims of u".l
I

28 Liberi's prior schemes. . . " The plaintiffs in their own complaintl

I

Liberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under CCCP 425.L6 AntiSLAPP- 10

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

I
5 2. Defendants published information in regards to web mastel
6 Lisa Ostella's actions in lockingr Taitz out of the web site t"=l
'l her foundation.l
B Yet again all of these statements are proper statements made inl
9 public interest to advise the donors that former volunteerl I

10 webmaster Lisa Ostefla focked Taitz, president of "Defend O"1

11 Freedoms FoundaLion" out of the old web site for her foundatio{
12 and replace Taitz pay-paI account with her own, therefore thel
donors will be advised that their donations will not go to thel
I

13

foundation, but would go to Ostel-la. Not only it is permissivel

15 and in public interest. but TatLz, ds the president of thel
T6 foundation was obligated to provide the donors with tfrisl
I

77 information. As donors don't freguent the web site on a daifyl

18 basis , LL was proper to post such reminders, and it was ttl
1,9 public interest to warn donors I

20 As a matter of fact in 1f44 Ostella admits that she locked faitzl

I

27 out and " Ostella changed the Pay-PaI script in the donationsl
I

22 button to reflect her own account and removed Taitz's accountsl

23 from the sites" and an order and memorandum of judge Robrenol
24 states that Ostella conceded on the stand that. she locked Taitzl
25 out and replaced the paypal account. Plaintiff provided serrera!
I

26 alleged statements by Taitz, which state exactly that. 5lS62,l

2'7 67 ,68, 69 provide the same statement made on the issue ofl
28 public interest, that a volunteer webmaster locked the prestd""al I

I
Liberi v Taitz motion to dlsmiss under CCCP 425.16 AntiSLAPP- 11
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 an

2 replaced the pay-pal
account of the f ound.at j-on with he
3 personal pay-pal account, whereby the donations will not go t
4 the foundation, but would go to that former volunteer webmaster
Not only it was proper for the defendants to make suc
6 statements, but raitzr ds the president of the foundatj-on, ha
1 an obligation to warn her supporters and donors.1162"sh
B (ostella) locked me out of my own found.ation site and refuses t
9 give me the access codes. " llGB" My former web master Lis
10 ostella has created an account that she called Defend ou
11 Freedoms Network and i-s solicitlng donations, praying o
L2 unsuspected readers that would not not.ice the difference betwee
13 Defend Our Freedoms Foundation and Defend our Freedoms Communit
74 Please notice, your donations there will not qo to th
15 foundation, they will go to her personal bank account, connecte
1,6 Lo her personal e-mail address GoExcelGlobal". These ar
I1 statements made in connection with an issue of public interesL,
18 specifically, where donations will- go. Since defendants me
T9 their initial anti-slApp burden, the burden shifts to th
20 Plaintiff- to establish, "by competent and admissa.ble evidenee, "
2I a reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail on hi
22 cl-ai-ms at tria-l "
23

24 C. PI,AINTIFFS MUST ESTABLTSH gHAT TIIEY WILL PREVAIL ON

25 THEIR CT,ATMS

26 1. THIS }THOLE CAT'SE OF ACTION FAILS AND ITAS TO BE

21 DrsMrssED ut[DER FRCP 12 (B) 1
28

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 Prior to addressing the specific counts of the complaint

2 Defendants assert that the cornplaint was filed in federal cou
3 frivolousry in violation of section 12b (1) of Fed.eral_ rules
4 civil Procedure. This legaI action was fiLed based on diversi
5 of citizenship Federal Rule of ciwil proced,ure 12 (b) 1 provide
6 for dismissal of a eomplaint for lack of subject mat
l jurisdiction. Any doubt as to whether jurisdiction exists i
I normally resorved against a finding of such jurisdiction. Kan
9 v. we1Ies1ey Galleries, rtd 704 s2d 10ggt Log2 (gth cir.1gg3.)
10 Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, it i
t1 "presumed that a cause ties outside this limited jurisdiction,
t2 and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the pa
13 asserting jurisdietion." vacek v united states postal servi
I4 447 F3d ],248, L25o (9tn cir 2006) (quoting Kokkonen v Guardi
15 l-ife rns. co.of Asr 511 us. 3Tb, 377 (1994) (citation omitted)).
t6 For diversity of citizenship praintiffs were supposed. to prov
I1 docurnentary evidence of state citizenship of the parties at th
1B time this lega1 action rras filed, in order to show that
I9 parties were diverse.
20 JURISDICTION IS ALIVAYS BEFORE TIIE COI'RT A}ID THE COURT
21 HAS A DUTY TO DISMISS A CASE, WHERE IT ITAS NO
22 JT'RTSDICTION
rn a recent case of s. Freedman and company, inc v Marvin Raa
23 et ar # 05-1138 (from NJ #04-cv-01119) Third ci-rcuit. cour
24
judges Honorable Barry, Smith and Ardisert found that unde
precedent of Gould Electronics, inc v united states, 2zo
25 169, t] 6 (3d Cir.2000) Third Circuit court of Appeals ha
jurisdiction to review under 28 U. S . C. S12 91 the issue o
26
subject matter jurisdiction as a basis for dismissal of th
21
case. Third circuit court of Appeals also found that a Distric
court has a duty to raise doubts about its jurisdiction at
28 time, and the party asserting jurisdiction ..bears the burden o

Liberi v Taitz CCCP 425.16 AntiSLAPP- 13

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

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
10
1039 (5th Cir 1982)
11
("fn order to adequately establish diversity jurisdiction,
complaint must set forth with specificity a corporate party'
72 state of incorporation and its principal place of business)
"Fedco's bald allegations that the corporate parties ar
L3
citizens of certai-n states are insuffj-cient Lo carry its burde
L4
of pleading the diversity of the parties. "
In cases in which jurisdiction is based on diversity of
l5 citizenship, plaintiff has burden to show, first, that
applicable statute confers jurisdictlon, and, second, that
L6
assertion of jurisdiction is consonant with constitutional
L] l-i-mi-tations of due
process. Weight v Kawasaki Motors Corp. (7985, ED Va) 604 F
IB Supp 968.
l9 Party's mere allegation of diversity cannot satisfy its burden
20
of establishing district courtrs jurisdiction,' citizenship of
each real- party in interest must be estabJ-ished by preponderance
27 of evidence. Roche v Lincofn Prop. Co. (2004, CA4 Va) 373 F3d
670.
22

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

a state other than California but failing to allege that
24 plaintlffs we.re alf c.itizens of California was not sufficient to
give District Court jurisdiction since pleadings did not
25 otherwise resolve issue of citizenship. Bautista v Pan Anterican
26
World Airlines, Inc. (7987, CA9 CaI) B2B F2d 546, 126 BNA LRRM
2559, 707 CCH LC P 10759.
21
fn OLsen v Qual-ity Continuum Hospice, Inc. (2A04,DC NM) 380 F
zo Supp 2d 7225

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

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*Pand only state law clalms to proceed
party initially in federal
court ofsen v Qual-ity Continuum Hospice, rnc. (20a4lDC NM) 380 F
Supp 2d 7225.
l0
L1
fn moLorist's personal injury lawsuit against, inter alia,
owners of property adjacent to private railroad.-track crossing
t2 where car-train accident occurred., pursuant to 28 uscs s
7447 (d) , appellate court lacked jurisdiction to re"ie- temand
13
that implicitJ-y was based on lack of subject matter
l4 I urisdiction; distri-ct court. clearly was addressing
jurisdictional issues--diversity of citizensihip, 2g uscs S 7332,
l5 and fraudulent joinder--and. when doing so, it property declined
to decide doubtful question of state law and, instead., resolved
L6
ambiguity (lack of state law directry on point) in motorist's
I1 favor. FifJa v Norfofk & Southern R (2003, CAB Mo) 336 F3d
806.
1B where record creates doubt as to jurlsdiction, trial court must
determine whether there are ad.equate grounds to sustain its
I9 jurisdiction over subject mat.ter. shahmoon rndustries, rnc. v
20
tnperato (7954, ce3 x,l) 338 rza qqg, 9 ra serv 2d 128.22, case
2.
27
Court has duty to look to its oriln jurisdiction and lack of
22 sr'lrject matter jurisdiction may be asserted by court, sua
23
sponte, at any time. Jeter v Jim Waf ter Homes, Inc. (7976, WD
Okfa) .474 F Supp 797.259 decided by a preponderance of
-

24 evidence.
Plaintiffs refused to provide drivers ]-icense or an rD card tc
26 show the state citizenship of the lead plaintiff Lisa Liberi
2'1 Defendants provlded Liberi's criminal record from the San
ZO 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
#:4118 I
I

1 under supervision of the San Bernardino, California probationsl

2 department, allowed to reside only j-n California or New ltexicorl
I
3 not in any other state, not in Pennsylvania. TaiLz demanded tol
I
4 see Liberi's proof of state citizenship. Originally Plaintiffsl
I
5 claimed that they showed Judge Robreno Liberi's drivers licensel
6 duri-ng 08.07 .2009 motion hearingr . Tar_Lz was not able to attendl
7 this hearing and requested the transcript. On July 30r 20101
I

8 Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion, where they demanded tol

I

9 keep the transcript seal-ed and accused the defendant anal

-LU attorney for the defendants Taitz of trying to hire a hit man tol
11 kill Liberi and claimed that for this reason the tt-n""ri-ptl
I
I2 needs to be sealed. Judge Robreno ordered the transcriptl
13 released to Tattz. The transcript showed that the Plaintiffs dfJ
I

L4 not provide Liberi's drivers license, and actually during thel

15 heari-ng judge Robreno ordered Liberi and her attorney Berg Td
76 FILE LIBERI's DRIVERS LICENSE VIITH COURT. The docket shows th-J
I
11 Liberi and Berg NEVER FfIED LfBERT' S DRfVERS LfCENSE.
^1
1B Plai-ntiffs never fifed any documentary evidence of Liberj-'sl
I

19 state citizenship, this 1ega1 action has to be dj-smissed underl

20 72bL, as the plaintiffs did not provide documentary evidence "fl
I
IL state citizenship of the party to the action, necessary for thel
court to assume jurisdiction in diversity, and the court doesl
I

22
I
23 not have juri-sdiction over the case. This case was frivolouslyl
24 filed in the federal court and specifically in the federal .outal
in Pennsylvania simply to intimidate the defendants and try tq
I

25

26 silence them I

21 COMPLA]NT IN ITS ' ENTIRETY FAILS UNDER 12 (B)'

I
I

28 FA]LURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH A RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED

I

Li-beri v Taitz motion to dismiss under CCCP 425.1,6 AntiSLAPP- 16 I

I

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

ll
It
tt
lt
1
I e court should dj-smiss a complaint when its allegations fail to
rt
I state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. civ pr.
I

l'-l
2
I

3
I 12 (b) (5). A complaint must allege "sufficient factual matter,
l-----'l
accepted as true, to state a claim t.o relief that i-s plausible
I

4
I I

5
I on its face." fqbal, 129 S. Ct at 1g4g (quoting Twombly, 550 I

6
t--t
I u.S. at 570). A court should not accept "threadbare recita]s of
i
7 a cause of action's elements, supported by mere conclusory I

8 statements" id., or "allegations that are merely conclusory, I

9 unwarranted deductions of fact or unreasonable interfer"n..""

I
10 Sprewell v Golden State Warriors, 266 F3d 979, 9gB (9tn
I
11 C:-r.2001).A pleading, that faj-ls to meet such standard, may be
L2 dismissed with prejudice schmidt v Hermann 674 F. 2d 722r, r2n I
I

13 ,r* .* trr* I

conNr t
I
t4
I
15 rn count one plaintiff Liberi is suing under violation of thel
L6 First Amendment and Fourteenth amendment of the U.t.l
71 constitution and California Civil Procedure 51798.81
I
1B The alfegations are completely frivolous.
r9 Plaintiffs are craimlng violation of First and Fourteenthl
I

20 amendment, but do not provide a shred of evidence, explaininql

27 what part of the 1st or 14th amendment was violated and how iJ
I

22 was violated- They are talking about the fact that defendantl
23 Taltz posted a report by Sankey, showing Liberi's criminall
24 record. They do not explain, how does this represent J
violation of the 1st and 14th amendment. First Amend"ment andl
I

25

26 14th amendment {as it relates to the states) guarantees al I

27 citizens a freedom of speech, press, religion and redress ofl

2B grievances agiainst inf r!-ngement on such right by the feaeraff

I
T,iberi v Taitz motion to dlsmiss under CCCP 425.16 AntiSl,APP- 17
I
I

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

1 government, as it relates to the 1st amendment and infringe*"na|

2 by the State qovernment as lt relates to the 14th amendment. I

I
3 Taitz is not a federal or state government, she is .1
4 individual. I

"Defend our Freedoms foundation" is not a federal government, itl

I
5

6 is a private, not for profit foundation, so this cause of -ctior.l

I
'7 does not refate to them. Additionally, Plaintiffs did not show
1
8 shred of evidence that will point out and explain, how did Taitzl
I

9 or "Defend our Freedoms" private, not for profit foundationl

I

10 infringed upon any freedoms guaranteed to the Plaintiffs. Howl

I
11 did TaiLz or "Defend Our Freedoms Foundation" prevented tnel
12 plalntiffs from exercising their Constitutionally guaranteedl
13 rishts I

74 This part of the complaint is totally frj-vo1ous, representsl

I

15 impossibilit.y as a matter of law and needs to be dismissed wj-thl

I
76 prejudice and without leave to amend. I

I1 Second part of count one relates to CA Civil Procedure 511gB.B7,l

I

1B whi-ch is equally bizarre and insane. This statute relates tol

I

I9 buslnesses which maintain private information of theil

20 customers.
71 98.87. A business shall take a-l-l reasonable steps to dispose,l I

21 orl
22
arrange for the disposal, of customer records within its custody'l
orl
23 control containing personal information when the record.s are no
longer to be retained by the business by (a) shredding, (b)l I

24 erasing, I

25
or (c) otherwise modifying the personal informatj-on 1n thosel
records I

26 to make it unreadable or undecipherable through any means

I
21 I

I
.O

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

I
I

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

tl #:4121

Ir
lllr
1
lAgain, this statute
.atute is totally inappLicable
inapplicable to Taitz or
ol ,,OefenOl
I
l our Freedoms Foundation".
2

lrr.itr I

4 tt
I

I
is an individual.
Defend our Freedoms foundation is a private,
l--L---'---'
not for profitl
I

5
foundation. I
6

'l
Plaintiffs refer to the information regarding Lisa Lrberi,l I

8
claiming that publication of Liberi's information renresentsl
9 violation of S17 9B . B 1, however l,isa Liberi was never a .,-,stor.J
I
10
of either Ta:_tz of "Defend Our Freedoms" foundation, and tfrisl
11
statute relates only to violations by businesses, which maintainl
72
private information of their customers. I

13 I

L4
Lastly, information published by Taitz, was a pub11c cri-minarl
15 record of Liberi, which is public information, not private. I

I
I6 Even, tf arguendo, doy information published, was private, tnel
71 I
Plaintiffs could not sue the Defendants under cA civ prol
18
51798.81, as it does not relate to Defendants.
I

t9
I

20
Further Plaintiffs quote s1798. B4 sections b-g and convenientlyl
27 omit section (a) and attempl to manipulate and defraud the courtl I

22
by impLying that those sections are somehow relevant to tt,."l
I
defendants. when one reads s1798.84-a-g it clearly shows that itl
24
I
1s part of the same s1798, which relates to businessesl
25

26
maintaining private information of their business customers.l
I

21 again, as explained 17 9B . B 4 . (a ) Any wa j-ver of a provision .tl I

2B this titJ-e is contrary t.o I

Liberi v TaLtz motion to dismiss under CCCP 425.16 AntiSLAPP- 19

I

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

public policy and is void and unenforceable.

1
(b) Any customer injured by a violation of this title may
2
institute a civil action to recover damages.
This c-laim fails as a matter of Iaw, as such it needs to b
3 dismissed with prejudice without leave to amend-
4
Further on towards the end of the pleading for count one' 1n
5
!4L in their desperate attempt to silence the Defendants-whistl
6

blowers and prevent further disclosure to the public of the fac

1

I that attorney Berg is working with a convicted documenL forger,

9 who drafts his pleadings, Plaintiffs simply listed multipl
tn
statutes, threw in a plte a number of federal and state statute
11
from different states without any connection to the defendant
72
and without any explanation, how do those statutes relate to th
13

\4 defendants and represent viable causes of action. The pleadin

15 is so deficient, that it can't even be called a legal pleading
I6 Iqbal , L29S . Ct at 1940 (citing Twombly, 550 u. s . at 555 state
L]
t.hat the court should not accept "threadbare recitals of a caus
1B
of action's elements, supported by mere conclusory statements
I9

20
here the Plaintiffs did not even list the elements. They simpl
2I list a dozen statutes, one after another' none of which has an
zz connection to the defendants. As such those claims need to b
23
dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. Th
24
statutes are as follows:
25
a. Social security act. Plaintiff accused Defendants o
26

21 Violating Social security acL, but did not plead an

LO specific act or any explanation, how did the Defendant

Liberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under CCCP 425-16 AntiSLAPP- 20