Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 148

Filed 10/26/10 Page 1 of 8

Law Offices of: Philip J. Berg, Esquire 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Identification No. 09867 (610) 825-3134

Attorney for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LISA LIBERI, et al, Plaintiffs, vs. ORLY TAITZ, et al, Defendants.

: : : : : : Case No.: 09-cv-01898-ECR : : : :

PLAINTIFFS REPLY and REQUEST FOR THIS COURT TO TREAT PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS/REQUESTS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE UPON DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ and to STRIKE TAITZ'S FILING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 APPEARING as DOCKET ENTRY NO. 145 as UNOPPOSED Plaintiffs’ 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 files the within Reply to Defendant Orly Taitz [hereinafter at times "Taitz"] and Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc. [hereinafter “DOFF”] Response [Docket Entry 147] and Plaintiffs Request for this Court to treat Plaintiffs Motions/Requests for the issuance of an Order to Show Cause upon Orly Taitz and to Strike Defendant Taitz filing of

Z:\Liberi, et al, Taitz, et al, Plaintiffs’ Reply to Taitz's Response

1

Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 148

Filed 10/26/10 Page 2 of 8

September 28, 2010 appearing as Docket Entry No. 146 filed October 7, 2010, as unopposed. In support hereof, Plaintiffs aver as follows: On October 7, 2010 Plaintiffs filed a Motion requesting this Honorable Court to issue an Order to Show Cause upon Defendants Taitz and DOFF as to Why they Should Not be Sanctioned; Ordered to Pay Plaintiffs Attorney Fees; and Why their Filing of September 28, 2010, appearing as Docket Entry No. 145 should not be Stricken on the following grounds:    Taitz filings are and were Frivolous; Taitz filed as genuine several forged and altered documents; Taitz's filings were for improper purposes, they contained nothing but her usual rhetoric to "arouse" her supporters, contained nothing but conclusions of law, speculation, falsified statements, hearsay and unauthenticated documents; hearsay statements; and were improper, irrelevant, impertinent and immaterial to the within action; Taitz's failure to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Local Rules; Taitz's continued Obstruction of Justice by sending these forged/altered, hearsay documents to the Chief Judge and Judge Carter in the U.S. District Court, Central District of CA, Southern Division, the very Court this case is being transferred - in order to prejudice the Court in attempts to ensure Plaintiffs' case is not heard; Taitz's inappropriate and illegal actions; and Plaintiffs request to have Sealed Taitz's filing of September 28, 2010 appearing as Docket Entry No. 145.

 

 

Taitz Response filed October 22, 2010, appearing on this Court's Docket as Entry Number 147 fails to address any of the issues outlined in Plaintiffs Motion which is pending before this Court; failed to file a Brief Opposing Plaintiffs Motion; failed to file an Answer pertaining to Plaintiffs Motion Requesting this Court to issue an Order to Show Cause and Plaintiffs Request to Strike Defendant Taitz's filing of September 28, 2010 appearing as Docket

Z:\Liberi, et al, Taitz, et al, Plaintiffs’ Reply to Taitz's Response

2

Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 148

Filed 10/26/10 Page 3 of 8

Entry No. 145; and fails to cite any type of law or legal authority as to Why Plaintiffs Motions/Requests should not be Granted in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Local Rule 7.1(c ). In fact, all Defendants Orly Taitz and DOFF filed was a document entitled "Reply to 10.07.10 motion by the Plaintiffs, Defendant's request for the court to use its' inherent power to sanction the plaintiffs, Attorney Philip J. Berg and witness Shirley Waddell for repeated acts of fraud on the court and perjury…" The only other Mention of Plaintiffs Motion is in the first paragraph of Taitz's document on page 45 which states, "Response to Plaintiff's 10.07.10 motion…" and absolutely no answer, law or explanation as to Why Plaintiffs Motion should not be Granted. Instead, on October 22, 2010, Taitz and DOFF filed a stack of hearsay statements; hearsay documents; unauthenticated documents; further falsified statements; and filed documents completely irrelevant, speculative, improper, impertinent and immaterial to the within action. Taitz and DOFF's filing appearing as Docket Entry No.'s 143, 145, and 147, as well as many other filings, were filed for improper purposes as a publicity stunt to arouse Taitz's "audience" and supporters to further prejudice and harm the Plaintiffs. Moreover, as demonstrated by this filing of Taitz's, Taitz is attempting to intimidate Plaintiffs Witness, Shirley Waddell. As Plaintiffs are sure this Court is aware, Taitz is further obstructing justice in sending documents to the very Court and the Judges, this case is being transferred as demonstrated by her "supposed" Certificate of Service in attempts to prejudice the Judges and Court against Plaintiffs. Moreover, once again, Taitz failed to serve the undersigned. The lack of any Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for this Court to issue an Order to Show Cause and Plaintiffs Request to Strike Taitz's filing of September 28, 2010, appearing as Docket

Z:\Liberi, et al, Taitz, et al, Plaintiffs’ Reply to Taitz's Response

3

Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 148

Filed 10/26/10 Page 4 of 8

Entry No. 145 and/or Response to any of the allegations so plead deems the issues Admitted and Plaintiffs Motions/Requests Unopposed, including Plaintiffs Motion requesting this Honorable Court to issue an Order to Show Cause upon Orly Taitz as to Why she should not be Sanctioned and Why she should not be Ordered to Pay Plaintiffs Attorney fees. This Court's Local Rule 7.1(a) states in pertinent part: "…Every response in opposition to a motion shall be accompanied by a form of order, which, if approved by the court, will deny or amend the relief sought by the motion". This Court's Local Rule 7.1(c) states in pertinent part: "…any party opposing the motion shall serve a brief in opposition, together with such answer or other response which may be appropriate, within fourteen (14) days after service of the motion and supporting brief…In the absence of timely response, the motion may be granted as uncontested…" [emphasis added]. "As the District Court explained, the pertinent local court rule provides that "any party opposing [a] motion shall serve a brief in opposition...within fourteen (14) days after service of the motion.... In the absence of a timely response, the motion may be granted as uncontested...." Eastern District of Pennsylvania Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(c)"…Moreover, citing Local Rule 7.1(c) or a rule similar to it, courts have held that a Rule 11 sanctions motion can be granted by default. See, e.g., Geller v. Randi, 40 F.3d 1300, 1304 (D.C.Cir.1995); Aziz v. Pa. State Univ., 1998 WL 964483, at *3 (E.D.Pa. Nov.17, 1998); Carbone v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co., 1996 WL 420427, at *2 (E.D.Pa. July 25, 1996)." DiPaolo v. Moran, 407 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2005). Rule 11 authorizes sanctions against the signer of any pleading, motion or other paper. Fed. R.Civ.P. 11(b) and (c). The conduct at issue is Taitz's frivolous filings; the filing of false statements; filing of documents completely irrelevant, speculative, improper, impertinent and

Z:\Liberi, et al, Taitz, et al, Plaintiffs’ Reply to Taitz's Response

4

Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 148

Filed 10/26/10 Page 5 of 8

immaterial to the within action; and filing of forged/altered documents as genuine with her Motions and other papers signed by her. In Landon v. Hunt, 938 F.2d 450, 453 (3d Cir.1991) (per curiam) the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals stated, ("We have consistently held that `Rule 11 sanctions are proper only in situations involving a signed pleading.'" (quoting Schering Corp. v. Vitarine Pharms., Inc., 889 F.2d 490, 496 (3d Cir.1989)) (emphasis added in Landon). See also DiPaolo v. Moran, 407 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2005). In this Case, Plaintiffs Requested this Court to Issue an Order to Show Cause upon Defendant Orly Taitz pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11(c)(3) Why she should not be Sanctioned for her frivolous filings; filings of false statements; filings of forged and altered documents as genuine; the filing of documents for an improper purpose; etc. Therefore, Plaintiffs Motion must be Granted as Unopposed. Taitz also failed to Respond and/or Address Plaintiffs Request to Strike Defendant Taitz's filing of September 28, 2010, appearing as Docket Entry No. 145 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(f) and therefore must be Granted as Unopposed as supported by this Court's Local Rule, Rule 7.1(c ). For the reasons outlined in Plaintiffs Motion filed October 7, 2010 appearing as Docket Entry No. 146 and Plaintiffs Reply herein, Plaintiffs respectfully Request this Honorable Court to Grant Plaintiffs Motion/Request. Specifically, Plaintiffs Request this Honorable Court to Issue an Order to Show Cause upon Defendant Orly Taitz and Defend our Freedoms Foundation

Z:\Liberi, et al, Taitz, et al, Plaintiffs’ Reply to Taitz's Response

5

Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 148

Filed 10/26/10 Page 6 of 8

as to Why Orly Taitz Should Not be Sanctioned; Ordered to Pay Plaintiffs Attorney Fees in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand [$25,000.00] Dollars; and Grant Plaintiffs Motion/Request to Strike Defendant’s, Orly Taitz and Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc. “Reply to Motion” appearing as Docket Entry No. 145. Respectfully submitted,

Dated: October 26, 2010

s/ Philip J. Berg __________________________ PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiffs’

Z:\Liberi, et al, Taitz, et al, Plaintiffs’ Reply to Taitz's Response

6

Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 148

Filed 10/26/10 Page 7 of 8

Law Offices of: Philip J. Berg, Esquire 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Identification No. 09867 (610) 825-3134

Attorney for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LISA LIBERI, et al, Plaintiffs, vs. ORLY TAITZ, et al, Defendants.

: : : : : : Case No.: 09-cv-01898-ECR : : : :

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants Taitz and DOFF's Response to Plaintiffs Motion for an Order to Show Cause to be issued upon Defendant Orly Taitz as to Why She Should not be Sanctioned; Ordered to Pay Plaintiff’s Attorney Fees; and Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Defendant’s, Orly Taitz, et al and Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc., “Reply to Motion” was served this 26th day of October, 2010 electronically upon the following: Orly Taitz, et al. 31912 Monarch Crest Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc. a/k/a Defend our Freedoms Foundation 26302 La Paz, Suite 211 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com

Z:\Liberi, et al, Taitz, et al, Plaintiffs’ Reply to Taitz's Response

7

Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 148

Filed 10/26/10 Page 8 of 8

The Sankey Firm, Inc. 2470 Stearns Street #162 Simi Valley, CA 93063 By USPS Mail with Postage fully prepaid Neil Sankey P.O. Box 8298 Mission Hills, CA 91346 By USPS Mail with Postage fully prepaid Sankey Investigations, Inc. P.O. Box 8298 Mission Hills, CA 91346 By USPS Mail with Postage fully prepaid Linda Sue Belcher 201 Paris Castroville, Texas 78009 Home Phone: (830) 538-6395 Cell Phone: (830) 931-1781 Email: starrbuzz@sbcglobal.net and Email: Newwomensparty@aol.com Ed Hale Caren Hale Plains Radio KPRN Bar H Farms 1401 Bowie Street Wellington, Texas 79095 Phone: (806) 447-0010 and (806) 447-0270 Email: plains.radio@yahoo.com; ed@plainsradio.com; and barhfarms@gmail.com

s/ Philip J. Berg ________________________ PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiffs’

Z:\Liberi, et al, Taitz, et al, Plaintiffs’ Reply to Taitz's Response

8

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful