You are on page 1of 13

Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319988497 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2010

U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case Number: 09-cv-1898-ECR
Court of Appeals Case No: 09-3403

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________ Ο _____________

LISA LIBERI, et al,

Petitioner – Appellant,
v.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Respondents – Appellee.

_____________ Ο _____________

APPELLANTS’ OBJECTIONS or IN THE ALTERNATIVE
REPLY TO APPELLEE ORLY TAITZ, et al’s RESPONSE TO
APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO EXPEDITE AS UNTIMELY; and
APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
_____________________

Counsel: PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE
LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
(610) 825-3134
Identification No. 09867

Attorney for the Appellants’
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319988497 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2010

Appellants’, 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 Objects to the filing of Appellee, Orly Taitz, et al’s Response to

Appellants’ Motion to Expedite as untimely and Appellees Motion for Sanctions

filed with this Court or in the alternative Appellants’ Reply thereto. Appellee

Taitz’s Response was not docketed until January 19, 2010 but shown as filed

January 11, 2010.

I. APPELLANTS’ HEREBY OBJECT TO APPELLEE ORLY
TAITZ, et al’s RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO
EXPEDITE

Appellants’ filed their Motion to Expedite on December 27, 2009. Pursuant

to the Third Circuit’s Local Rule, Rule 4.1 Taitz’s Response was due on or before

January 4, 2010.

This Court’s Local Rule 4.1 states in pertinent part:
“A response to the motion, if any, must be filed within seven (7)
calendar days after service of the motion...”

Appellee Taitz’s was served with Appellants’ Motion on December 27, 2009

at the time of filing. Taitz has failed to adhere to the Appellate rules and therefore

Taitz’s Response and Motion for Sanctions must be dismissed.
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319988497 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/20/2010

II. APPELLEE TAITZ FILED HER RESPONSE AS COUNSEL
FOR APPELLEE DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS,
INC. WHEN TAITZ IS NOT LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW
BEFORE THIS COURT and HAS FAILED TO ENTER HER
APPEARANCE and APPELLANTS HEREBY OBJECT

Appellee Orly Taitz, et al is a licensed attorney in the State of California. As

this Court is aware, you must be a member of the bar of this Court in order to

practice law before the Court, Third Circuit L.A.R. 46.1(a). Appellee Taitz on the

Cover of her Response has herself listed as Co-Counsel; however, no other counsel

is listed, and then under her signature page has “Counsel for Defend our Freedoms

Foundations, Inc.” Appellee Taitz is not licensed to practice law in the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, much less this very Court. Thus, Taitz is

attempting to practice law without a license, which is a crime.

In addition, if Appellee Taitz was planning to represent anyone other than

herself, then she must apply for admission to the bar of this Court when she enters

her appearance. See this Court’s Local Appellate Rules 46.1(b).

Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, within ten (10)

days of the docketing of an appeal, any parties entitled to participate in the appeal

must enter their appearance. See the Third Circuit Local Rules, 46.2. Appellee has

not entered her appearance or her appearance to represent any other party to this

Appeal. She is just attempting to file in this very Court.
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319988497 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/20/2010

III. APPELLEE TAITZ’S ATTACHMENTS TO HER UNTIMELY
RESPONSE MUST BE STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD

Taitz has attached approximately fifty-seven [57] pages to her untimely

Response that have absolutely nothing to do with this Appeal and/or Appellants’

Motion to Expedite. The attached pages obviously were meant to do nothing more

than attempt to prejudice this Court against the Appellants. Moreover, she has

pages and pages regarding Charles Edward Lincoln, III. Charles Edward Lincoln,

III was Appellee Taitz’s Law Clerk and “Lover”. Taitz and Mr. Lincoln broke up

and Taitz’s has now made nasty allegations against Mr. Lincoln in the U.S. District

Court, Southern District of Florida. However, Mr. Lincoln has absolutely nothing

to do with Appellants’ case herein. It should be noted however, the filings in

August in the case herein in the lower Court were not only prepared by but also

Appellee Taitz’s name was signed by Mr. Lincoln with Taitz’s authorization, as

Taitz’s was out of the Country. It appears from this that Appellee Taitz has used

this Court to publicly attack her past lover, Charles Edward Lincoln, III.

Appellant Taitz has accused Appellants herein of using “irrelevant,

prejudicial and incompetent double or triple hearsay” and/or “manufactured,

deceitful, untrue and misleading” documents. However, in this one filing by

Appellee Taitz, all the attachments to her Response are in fact irrelevant,

prejudicial, incompetent, double or triple hearsay, deceitful, untrue and misleading

and filed by Appellee Taitz for an improper purpose.
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319988497 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/20/2010

As Appellee Taitz’s is fully aware, her statements pertaining to jurisdiction

have been fully addressed in the Lower Court and touched upon in Appellants’

pending Emergency Request for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction

pending appeal.

For the above reasons, all attachments to Appellee Taitz’s untimely

Response filed with this Court on January 11, 2010, must be stricken from the

record.

IV. APPELLEE TAITZ’S UNTIMELY RESPONSE TO
APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO EXPEDITE MUST BE
STRICKEN

Appellee Taitz’s first two [2] paragraphs do not pertain in any way to the

Appellants’ Motion to Expedite and were simply filed for an improper purpose to

attempt to prejudice this Court against the Appellants’. In fact, Taitz’s untimely

Response does not address Appellants’ Motion to Expedite, therefore, it must be

stricken from the record.

Taitz next states that “Berg and Liberi” submit their “frivolous and

comprehensible” Motion based on evidence that is irrelevant, prejudicial and

incompetent, double or triple hearsay and fails to support Appellants claims.

Taitz’s fails to address Appellants’ Motion to Expedite and instead is attempting to

litigate Appellants’ issues raised in support of their request.
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319988497 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/20/2010

Appellants’ based their Motion to Expedite on Judge Robreno’s Order

December 11, 2009, appearing on the lower Court’s docket as docket entry #115.

Appellants attached a copy of Judge Robreno’s Order as Exhibit “A” to their

Motion. Appellants’ also explained they had a pending Motion to Transfer their

Case to the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division,

and attached their Letter and Motion to Judge Robreno seeking Leave to file their

Motion to Transfer. Judge Robreno states in his December 11, 2009 Order that the

issues pending before his Court are his Rules to Show Cause and Plaintiffs’

(Appellants herein) requested Leave to file their Motion to Transfer. Appellants’

also raised the issues of importance on having their Motion to Transfer heard

immediately and the fact Judge Robreno suspended Appellants’ case pending the

ruling from this Court. Appellants’ asserted their concern about Appellee Taitz,

her husband and the other Appellees transferring their assets, hiding their assets,

etc. A simple Lexis search shows Appellee Taitz has already liquidated one of her

Dental Offices; an Affidavit from Taitz’s former “Lover”, Charles Edward

Lincoln, III, was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of

Florida in an unrelated matter. In his Affidavit Mr. Lincoln states a conversation

between Appellee Taitz and him that Yosef Taitz, Appellee Taitz’s husband, was

requiring Orly Taitz to sign over her portions of the family assets.
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319988497 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/20/2010

Appellee Taitz’s next states, “The Appellants evidence is manufactured,

deceitful, untrue and misleading…The so called exhibits have not even been filed

with the court below since Judge Robreno has suspended the case and previously

he has forbidden any filing without leave of court, since Appellant Berg and his

assistant Liberi continuously bombarded the court and the appellees with hundreds

of pages of irrelevant slander and defamation of character, while not providing

any intelligible response to judge’s order to show cause…”. Appellee Taitz as a

California licensed attorney knows the requirements to properly address any issues

before the Court. Instead, she has nothing but gibberish which does not pertain to

the Motion to Expedite filed by the Appellants’. The exhibits attached to

Appellants Motion to Expedite include Judge Robreno’s Order as Exhibit “A”;

Plaintiffs (Appellants herein) Letter requesting Leave to file their Motion to

Transfer and their attached Motion as Exhibit “B”; and a Proposed Scheduling

Order as Exhibit “C”. Appellants’ cannot figure out what Taitz is claiming to be

“irrelevant, prejudicial and incompetent double or triple hearsay” and/or

“manufactured, deceitful, untrue and misleading.”

It should also be noted Appellee Taitz’s continues to reference “Berg” and

“Liberi”, however, there are five (5) Appellants’ involved in this Appeal which this

Motion to Expedite was filed on behalf of.
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319988497 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/20/2010

Appellee Taitz has failed to properly Respond and/or oppose Appellants’

Motion to Expedite. Taitz has not filed any basis or supporting law for this Court

to deny Appellants Motion to Expedite.

For the above reasons, Appellants Motion to Expedite must be Granted.

V. APPELLEE TAITZ’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Taitz claims Appellants Motion to Expedite is “incompetent and vexatious”.

Taitz then raises the Third Circuit Local Rule 4.1 stating it governs expedited

appeals. Taitz goes on claiming “Appellants waited eight months to make such a

request, this is contrary to Local Rule 4.1 which calls for such requests to be made

promptly. In support of this untimely request Appellants have filed materials that

are patently irrelevant, harassing, improbable, prejudicial and improper.” [Taitz

Response p. 4].

What this Court’s Local Rules 4.1 states is

“A party who seeks to expedite a case must file a motion within
fourteen (14) days after the opening of the case setting forth the
exceptional reason that warrants expedition. If a reason for
expedition arises thereafter, the moving party must file a motion
within fourteen days of the occurrence that is the basis of the
motion. [emphasis added]

As clearly pointed out in Appellants’ Motion to Expedite, the reason that

gave rise to the Motion to Expedite was Judge Robreno’s Order of December 11,

2009 suspending Plaintiffs’ (Appellants’ herein) case pending the ruling from this

Court. According to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, you exclude the
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319988497 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/20/2010

day of the event which triggers the period, in this case December 11, 2009 is

excluded and you begin to count beginning with the 12th of December. See

F.R.A.P. 26(a)(1)(A). The Motion deadline for Appellants’ Motions to Expedite is

fourteen (14) days, however, the fourteenth [14th] day was a Saturday, therefore the

time is extended to the end of the following Monday, which was December 28,

2009. See F.R.A.P. 26(a)(1)(C). In the instant case, Appellants’ filed their Motion

to Expedite on December 27, 2009 as reflected on the Docket. Thus, Appellants

Motion to Expedite was timely filed. See Bartlik v. United States, DOL, 62 F.3d

163 (6th Cir. 1995) (FRAP 26(a) and FRCP 6(a), merely provides a method of

computing time and does not operate to expand limitation periods; if material is

due on Saturday, Sunday, federal holiday, or day on which court clerk's office is

closed, will be timely if filed on next day courthouse, or other designated place for

filing, is open for business.) See also Keyser v Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist.,

265 F.3d 741 (2001, CA9 Cal).

Taitz continues her rant stating the concern to the Appellees, whom Taitz

does not and cannot represent, is the tone and content of the Motion. Taitz

continues stating, “even a cursory reading of the Motion and exhibits indicate a

disconnect between reason, fact and reality. A third party unrelated to this

litigation apparently has made an allegation in a completely unrelated matter…”

Appellants are unsure what is meant by tone and content of Appellants Motion.
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319988497 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/20/2010

Again, the exhibits attached to Appellants Motion are Judge Robreno’s Order as

Exhibit “A”; Plaintiffs’ (Appellants’ herein) Letter seeking Leave to File their

Motion to Transfer with the Attached Motion as Exhibit “B”; and the Proposed

Scheduling Order required pursuant to L.A.R. 4.1 as Exhibit “C”. Appellants’ can

only assume the third party Taitz is referring to is Charles Edward Lincoln, III’s

Affidavit. However, that Affidavit is attached to Plaintiffs’ (Appellants’ herein)

Motion to Transfer which is not before this Court. Despite that, Mr. Lincoln’s

statements regarding his conversations with Taitz and the issue of transfer of assets

by Taitz to her husband is directly related to the Motion to Transfer.

Taitz then goes into argument completely unrelated to the Appeal with this

Court. Taitz states, “Appellants even go as far as to submit an affidavit filed by the

affiant’s psychologist…” Again, the only thing Appellants can make of this is to

assume she is referring to the Exhibit attached to Charles Edward Lincoln III’s

Affidavit and part of Charles Edward Lincoln III’s Affidavit. The Affidavit is a

Court filed Document in the United States District Court, Central District of

Florida and Mr. Lincoln is available to testify should the lower court request it.

Taitz is requesting this Court to Sanction the undersigned as a punishment

for the undersigned representation of his clients, which is completely ludicrous.

Appellee Orly Taitz, et al an Attorney in California has filed a Responsive

pleading which fails to address any reason this Court should not Expedite the
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319988497 Page: 11 Date Filed: 01/20/2010

Appeal as requested by Appellants’. Instead, Taitz’s pleading should be stricken in

its entirety for Taitz’s failure to follow the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure

and this Court’s Local Rules; for Taitz’s failure to Enter her Appearance;

attempting to represent Appellee Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. without

being a member of the bar of this Court; Taitz’s fifty-six [56] pages of attachments

have nothing to do with Appellants’ Motion to Expedite, but was filed for an

improper purpose in attempts to prejudice this Court against the Appellants’; Taitz

has failed to cite any law to support her contention that Appellants’ Motion to

Expedite should be Dismissed; and, it appears Taitz only filed her responsive

pleadings to punish the Appellants’ for attempting to protect their interests.

VI. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, Appellants’ Motion to Expedite should be

Granted. Appellee, Orly Taitz, et al’ s Request for Sanctions must be Denied or

Dismissed.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: January 20, 2010 s/ Philip J. Berg
____________________________
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
(610) 825-3134

Attorney for the Appellants’
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319988497 Page: 12 Date Filed: 01/20/2010

U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case Number: 09-cv-1898-ECR
Court of Appeals Case No: 09-3403

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________ Ο _____________

LISA LIBERI, et al,

Petitioner – Appellant,
v.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Respondents – Appellee.

_____________ Ο _____________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
_____________________

I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify that Appellants’ Objections and

Reply to Appellee Orly Taitz, et al was served via email this 20th day of January,

2010 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
Also by Fax (949) 766-7603
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319988497 Page: 13 Date Filed: 01/20/2010

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

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 and ed@barhfarnet

s/ Philip J. Berg
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Attorney for Appellants’