You are on page 1of 17

Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110349784 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2010

No. 10 3000

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT


____________________

LISA LIBERI, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs.

ORLY TAITZ, et al.,

Defendant-Appellee.
__________________

District Court No. 09_cv_01898_ECR


Eastern District of Pennsylvania
__________________

Motion for for Sanctions and Costs and Motion to Strike Appellees’
Brief by Appellees Orly Taitz and Defend Our Freedoms re: Appellant’s
Motion to Dismiss Appeal
__________________

DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ.


CSB #223433
Attorney Pro Se &
Attorney for Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
29839 S. Margarita Pkwy. Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
ph. 949-683-5411
fax 949-586-2082
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110349784 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2010

I. INTRODUCTION

Dr. Taitz and Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (hereinafter referred to as

Appellants) bring a Motion to Strike the Appellee’s Response Brief as well as to

sanction Appellees’ attorney Berg under 28 USC § 1927 for attorney fees and

penal sanctions.

The underlying case in this matter involves an incomprehensible and totally

frivolous and extortionate lawsuit for nearly a billion dollars in damages by a

politically motivated Pennsylvania attorney, his legal assistant who is a convicted

felon and other accomplices. The instant appeal deals in the main with the matter

of diversity jurisdiction and in particular whether district judge Eduardo Robreno

erred in creating a new standard, mainly assuming jurisdiction in a case based on

Diversity of Citizenship without any identifying documents of state citizenship of

the lead plaintiff, even though the standard is to provide proof of the citizenship by

preponderance of evidence. Whether Despite filing over 900 pages of largely

irrelevant exhibits in their so called appendix – that question remains unanswered

because nothing was ever submitted to the District Court to support the District

Court’s erroneous finding nor provided in the Response brief. Case at hand was

filed on May, 4, 2009 by Pennsylvania Attorney Philip J. Berg (hereinafter Berg)

as a plaintiff and an attorney for plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiff is one Lisa Liberi, who

has at least 42 criminal charges and at least 10 criminal convictions, which include
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110349784 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/17/2010

convictions of forgery of documents, forgery of an official seal and grand theft.

Liberi's latest conviction was in the state of CA, in 2008, when she received eight

year prison term, which was subsequently reduced to three years probation due to

her medical problems. (case FWV028000, defendant 1608112 Lisa Renee Liberi,

aka Lisa Courville Richardson, aka Lisa Courville Rich, aka Lisa Richardson and

case FSB044914 for Lisa Liberi ) (Appendix 1 Lisa Liberi's mug shot and

summary of above criminal convictions ). According to Berg's own affidavit filed

on 10.07.10 in this case, he employs Liberi as his paralegal and she drafted

pleadings, which he filed with courts. Berg is known as an attorney, who filed

legal actions against Bush administration, claiming, that President Bush was

involved in 9/11 attacks. Berg was also the first attorney to file a legal action

questioning Barack Obama's eligibility to U.S. presidency. His case Berg v Obama

was filed in the Eastern District of PA, this Court and the Supreme Court of the

United States. Berg admitted that Berg v Obama complaint was drafted by Liberi

and filed with the courts by him. Orly Taitz is a president of Defend Our

Freedoms foundation (DOFF). She is licensed as a Doctor of Dental Surgery and

as an attorney in the state of CA. Taitz is very outspoken in regards to the need for

transparency in the government and adherence to the Constitution and made 36

trips all over the country, lecturing about the need for preservation of

Constitutional liberties and consequences of losing such liberties, as she saw in

her youth in her native Soviet Union. Taitz contacted Berg and let him know that

she is concerned about the fact, that he filed with different courts documents and
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110349784 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/17/2010

briefs prepared by a convicted document forger Lisa Liberi. Taitz asked Berg, if

he would allow her and a forensic document expert review the originals of the

affidavits from Africa, attesting to Obama's birth there. Taitz let Berg know, that

while she believes that this constitutional issue needs to be resolved in courts and

original vital records need to be reviewed, use of a document forger does not help

the case. Taitz, also, advised Berg, that Liberi is currently on probation until

March of 2011. She is under supervision of San Bernardino, CA probation

department and according to the terms of her probation she is not allowed to

handle credit cards of others. Berg runs large nationwide donations drives, where

thousands of people donated, since he has cases against both Bush and Obama

administrations. Taitz advised Berg, that he is endangering the public by

continuously working with a convicted thief Liberi. Berg never responded and

never agreed to allow Taitz and her expert to review the original documents from

Africa in question. Taitz posted on the website for her foundation a report

prepared by CA licensed investigator Neil Sankey, which showed lengthy criminal

record of Lisa Liberi. It was done with a proper purpose of warning the public. In

response Berg filed this legal action on 05. 04.09 in the Eastern District of PA

District Court. He listed jurisdiction under diversity and nature of the suit Assault,

Libel, Slander. In this suit he claimed that he and his paralegal were slandered,

because, she is not Lisa Liberi, who was convicted in CA and allowed to reside

only in CA and NM according to her probation, but rather a different Lisa Liberi,

who happens to have the same first, name and the same birth date, but allegedly is
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110349784 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/17/2010

a different woman, an innocent woman, who is residing in PA and working in

Berg's office. Berg never provided Liberi's home address, but rather gave his

business address as her address. Taitz has provided the court with a positive ID

of Liberi's mug shot, as one, who was convicted in CA and also one who appeared

in front of the Presiding Judge Eduardo Robreno in this case, claiming to be a

different woman. Aside from Taitz and her foundation Berg sued a number of

other individuals and entities, all of whom were whistleblowers, exposing to the

public the fact, that Attorney Berg is using a convicted forger and thief Lisa Liberi

as his assistant. Berg filed multiple motions in the District Court and in the Third

Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting this case to be sealed, claiming that Liberi's

life is in danger. Neither the District court nor the Third Circuit Court of Appeals

ever found any value in Berg's claims and never granted his motions. The District

Court case was suspended by Judge Robreno, while Berg filed his appeal. When

the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order to show cause to Berg, to show

why within a period of half a year he never produced a transcript, that he was

appealing, Berg abruptly withdrew his interlocutory appeal. On 06. 04.10 Judge

Robreno issued an order and memorandum, where he assumed jurisdiction over

the case based on Diversity of citizenship and ordered the case severed into two

cases and transferred to TX and CA.

Taitz filed a motion for Reconsideration on 06.14.10, arguing that the court erred

in assuming jurisdiction, as plaintiff Liberi never provided any evidence of her

PA citizenship. On 06.23.10 the court denied defendant's motion as moot. No


Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110349784 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/17/2010

explanation was provided, why is it moot. On 07.02.10 Taitz filed a notice of

Appeal and requested transcripts of two hearings held by the court: on 06.25.09

and on 08.07.09. On 07.26.09 Berg filed yet another motion to keep the transcript

of the 08.07.09 hearing under seal. Berg, also, filed a motion with the Third

Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal due to lack of jurisdiction. Third

Circuit Court of Appeals denied Berg's motion.

On 07.29.2010 defendants responded in the District Court by pointing out, that the

plaintiffs did not provide a shred of evidence of Liberi's state residency.

On 07.30.10. Plaintiffs filed a reply, where they claimed, that Judge Robreno's

06.04.10. order and memorandum, stating "Liberi is a resident of PA" is based on

vital records, including driver's license, allegedly submitted to Judge Robreno

during 08.07.09 hearing, but such records need to be sealed. Plaintiffs made up an

outrageous accusation, where without a shred of evidence, they claimed that

Attorney and Doctor Orly Taitz tried to hire a hit man to kill Lisa Liberi, and that

is the reason, why Liberi's allegedly existing Pennsylvania driver's license needs

to be sealed and the court needs to decide that she is a resident of PA without

providing the defendants with any proof or any evidence of her residence.

On 08.31.10 the transcript of the 08.07.09 hearing was released to the Third

Circuit Court of Appeals and published on court public terminal. The transcript

showed, that during the hearing the Plaintiff's attorney Berg and Plaintiff Liberi

promised to provide the court Liberi's driver's license, they asked for permission to

file it under seal, however they never filed such Driver's license. The driver's
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110349784 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/17/2010

license is not an exhibit with the transcript of the hearing and is not listed with any

exhibits anywhere on the docket. On 10.28.10 with her motion pleadings Taitz

provided the court with the Affidavits of Caren Hale and Ed Hale (Appendix 3),

who were present at the 08.07.09 hearing and declared under penalty of perjury,

that Attorney Berg did not tend to Judge Robreno any documents, and that Berg

left the courtroom at the same time as they did. They also identified Lisa Liberi, as

the same person, who is depicted on the mug shot as a California convicted felon

and as the same woman, who appeared during the 08.07.09 hearing, claiming to be

a different person, who was not convicted of any crimes and who resides in PA.

Instead of responding to the issue of lack of evidence of Liberi's state

residence, Appellees and their attorney Berg have attempted to hijack these

proceedings and turn them into a little circus of horrors. In the first act of the

drama, they attempt to confuse the issue with an avalanche of irrelevancies. The

second act involves sleight of hand and juggling facts in an attempt to deliberately

obfuscate the issues and mislead the Court. The final act is a barrage of

unsupported and defamatory allegations that Appellant Taitz is a would-be

murderer and kidnapper of women and children and has supposedly hired a hit

man and solicited White Supremacists to carry out her evil plot. Sanctions as

severe as possible under the law are warranted in this case.

Appellant anticipated that Berg would be a problem. In a pending motion

below, Berg has made these same false allegations of murder, mayhem, and

kidnapping against Appellant Taitz. At some expense she hired Third Circuit
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110349784 Page: 8 Date Filed: 11/17/2010

counsel Jonathan Levy for the express purpose of meeting and conferring with the

nettlesome Berg pursuant to this Court’s Order that the parties submit a joint

appendix. The affidavit of Jonathan Levy is direct and to the point: 1. Berg would

not cooperate regarding the Court’s wish the parties file a joint appendix; 2. Berg

leveled the allegations of murder and kidnapping to Levy in an aggressive manner

and attempted intimidate Levy by telling him he needs to control his client. See

Affidavit of Levy.

Appellant does not want to repeat these false charges anymore than

necessary except to say they are without a shred of evidence. Appellant is Dr Orly

Taitz, is a licensed Attorney and licensed Dr. of Dental Surgery. She is a mother of

three, she was never convicted of any crimes, she was never charged with any

crimes, she never committed any crimes. Attorney Berg’s antics have finally

crossed the line. This is a far worse situation than the previous frivolous pleadings

by Berg. See In Re Berg, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 322 (ED PA 2008); Holsworth v.

Berg, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15393 (ED PA 2005). Attorney Berg is a menace to

the profession and must be stopped. Berg and his clients without a shred of

evidence have accused Appellant of a capital crime when Appellant’s only wish is

to get as far away from Berg, Liberi and the others as possible.

II LEGAL ARGUMENT 28 USC § 1927

28 USC § 1927 states:

§ 1927. Counsel's liability for excessive costs


Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110349784 Page: 9 Date Filed: 11/17/2010

Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United
States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case
unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally
the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such
conduct.

Attorney Berg is the poster boy for § 1927. The appeal in the matter is a

relatively simple review of diversity jurisdiction upon which a transfer order was

based. Berg has filed current action based on diversity, claiming, that his client

Lisa Liberi is a resident of Pennsylvania, without providing any evidence of her

Pennsylvania residency. Taitz, and Defend our Freedoms Foundation, both CA

residents, provided the District court with Liberi's mug shot and summary of her

criminal convictions and probation conditions in CA, stating, that Liberi is on

probation until April 23, 2011 and is allowed to serve her probation only in CA or

NM. Liberi is not allowed to reside in PA. Taitz has provided the court with

witness identification of her mug shot, stating that the same Lisa Liberi who

appears on the mug shot as convicted in CA, appeared at the 08.07.09 hearing in

Liberi v Taitz before judge Robreno claiming to be a different person. At the

hearing Berg and Liberi stated, that they will file with the court Liberi's identifying

documents. Without a shred of evidence they claimed that Liberi is afraid for her

life and that the defendant, Dr. Taitz, tried to hire a hit man to kill her. They asked

for the permission of the court to file her PA drivers' license under seal, however

they never filed it at all. The reason for it is catch 22. The whole law suit is filed as

a slander and defamation of character law suit. Berg and Liberi are claiming that

when Taitz published on her web site Liberi, criminal record and warned the
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110349784 Page: 10 Date Filed: 11/17/2010

public of the criminal record of Liberi, assistant to attorney Berg, she defamed

them, because Liberi is a different person. She is not Lisa Liberi, who was

convicted in CA and allowed to reside only in Ca or NM, but an innocent different

Lisa Liberi, who resides in PA. Berg knows that if he does not provide Liberi's PA

drivers license, attesting to her PA residence, the case needs to be dismissed due to

lack of jurisdiction, as each party to a diversity case needs to prove her residence

based on diversity of citizenship. Berg will need to be sanctioned for harassing the

defendants with thousands of pages of unrelated inflammatory and defamatory

material instead of taking 1 minute and providing 1 page- a certified copy of

Liberi's PA drivers' license. Taitz agreed to accept a redacted drivers license,

without a street address or even city address. The transcript of the above 08.07.09

hearing and further docket shows, that Berg and Liberi never provided the court

with her driver's license or any other documents, attesting to her PA residence.

The reason they never provided a copy of Liberi's PA drivers license, is because

they committed fraud on the court and perjury, since at the time of filing this legal

action, May 4, 2009, Liberi did not reside in PA and was not allowed to reside in

any other state, but CA or NM. IF Berg and Liberi, were to show her drivers'

license, it would be either CA or NM, which would show that she is indeed the

same Lisa Liberi, who was convicted in CA and allowed to reside in CA or NM

only, she is not a different innocent Lisa Liberi, residing in PA and yet again the

case will need to be dismissed, as it would be crystal clear, that it was filed for
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110349784 Page: 11 Date Filed: 11/17/2010

harassment purpose only , based of fraud and perjury by both PA attorney Philip J.

Berg and his assistant Lisa Liberi.

Just as Berg did not provide Liberi's drivers license or ID to the district court, he

equally never provided the Third Circuit Court of Appeals this one page, one

piece of evidence needed for the Federal court to assert jurisdiction in a case based

on diversity of citizenship. Instead of following the Court’s direction and creating

a joint appendix, Berg submitted an astounding 900 page appendix and brief

whose main purpose is to mislead, vex, and harass. After 900 pages of unrelating

material, there is still no PA drivers' license, no PA ID. Berg succeeded in

misleading judge Robreno by simply burying him under thousands of pages of

unrelated material and Berg is trying to pull the same scheme in the Third Circuit

Court of Appeals.

After wading through the 900 plus page appendix it is clear that besides

harassing, vexing, and multiplying the proceedings, Berg is also misleading the

Court. A simple question is put forth the in Appellants’ brief, did or did not Berg

ever submit Liberi’s driver’s license or any other indicia of her state citizenship to

the court as he claimed he did – the simple answer is that he refused to answer that

question and instead launched on a jihad against Appellant in which no accusation

is to far fetched or vulgar to tar her reputation as an attorney, mother, and human

being.

The Fifth Circuit has found that an attorney who maintains an obviously

unwinnable position may be sanctioned under § 1927 for attorney fees incurred.
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110349784 Page: 12 Date Filed: 11/17/2010

Edwards v. General Motors, 153 F.3d. 242, 246 (5th Cir. 1994). Accusing

Appellant of murder and kidnapping and wasting the Court’s time on an

unsupportable allegation surely meets these criteria. Before a court may assess

fees under 28 USCS § 1927, the attorney must intentionally file or prosecute a

claim that lacks plausible legal or factual basis. Indianapolis Colts v Baltimore,

775 F2d 177 (7th Cir. 1985).

§ 1927 is applicable to appellate briefs. A penalty of $ 1,000 was imposed

upon counsel under § 1927 for submitting appellate briefs which utilized typo-

graphical techniques to effectively reduce 70-page brief to 50 pages in

contravention of Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Westinghouse Electric

Corp. v NLRB, 809 F2d 419 (7th Cir. 1987). Lack of meaningful argument in a

brief filed on behalf of appellant rendered appeal frivolous and needlessly

burdened appellees, thus justifying assessment of costs against appellant's counsel

personally. Lisa v Fournier Marine Corp., 866 F2d 530 (1st Cir. 1989). Attorney

was sanctioned $500 where a brief cited no relevant cases, devoted itself almost

entirely to a non-issue in the case, and failed to make even one citation to record

where relevant. Plattenburg v Allstate Ins. Co., 918 F2d 562 (5th Cir. 1990).

By comparison to the above, the wild accusations, harassments, and

multiplication of the records by Berg seem horrendous indeed and must be

sanctioned.

III. STRIKING THE APPELEE'S RESPONSE BRIEF IS APPROPRIATE


Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110349784 Page: 13 Date Filed: 11/17/2010

While FRCP Rule 11 is not directly applicable to the appellate court since it

has not been incorporated by reference or otherwise in appellate rules of court, its

requirements help to define conduct becoming to member of bar, and sanctions

may be imposed for conduct inconsistent with its standards. In re Kelly, 808 F.2d

549 (7th Cir. 1986). Berg by putting his signature on the frivolous and deceptive

Reply Brief with its false factual allegations against Dr. Taitz has opened himself

up to sanctions should this Court wish to impose them sua sponte.

Further FRAP Rule 38 is also available to this Court and Appellants have

gone to the trouble to file this motion. Appellees’ counsel is responsible for the

content of the frivolous brief which is a waste of judicial resources and is without

merit and therefore is potentially sanctionable under FRAP Rule 38. See Maier v.

Orr, 758 F.2d 1578, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Meeks v. Jewel Cos., 845 F.2d 1421

(7th Cir. 1988). Striking the Appellee's Response Brief is both appropriate and

warranted under the circumstances.

IV CONCLUSION

The Appellee's Response brief is incompetent, frivolous and vexatious. No

reasonable attorney could put his signature on such a pleading after examining the

so called evidence. But this is exactly what Berg has done in his position as

appellees’ attorney. Even a cursory reading of the brief indicates a disconnect

between reason, fact and reality. Appellees are attempting to deceive the court

about the issues and facts.


Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110349784 Page: 14 Date Filed: 11/17/2010

Sanctions are called for here under FRAP Rule 38, § 1927, or the Court’s

inherent powers - something must be done. A Reply Brief on the issue of diversity

jurisdiction is not the time or place to fabricate allegations of attempted murder

and kidnapping of children! Attorney Berg never produced any identification

documents for his client Lisa Liberi, a lead plaintiff, to substantiate his claim, that

she is a resident of PA. He never responded to the simple question, why should the

Federal court assert jurisdiction in diversity without any evidence of the state

citizenship. Instead, Berg and Liberi continued committing perjury, fraud on the

court, and multiplying proceedings with the only purpose of harassment. They

have done it for a year and a half. It is time to stop this behavior and to sanction

this egregious conduct and egregious violation of the code of professional ethics

by a licensed PA attorney Philip J. Berg.

DATED: NOV 16, 2010

__/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ__________


Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
Appellant in Pro Se and as
Counsel for Appellant
Defend Our Freedoms
Foundation
Exhibit 1
Affidavit of Member of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals Bar Attorney Jon Levy
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110349784 Page: 15 Date Filed: 11/17/2010

ATTORNEY’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the:

APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO SANCTION AND STRIKE

was served by ECF or electronic mail on NOV 16, 2010, on the following parties:

Neil Sankey
The Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm
Sankey Investigations, Inc.
2470 Stearns Street #162
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Phone: (805) 520_3151and (818) 366_0919
Cell Phone: (818) 212_7615
FAX: (805) 520_5804 and (818) 366_1491
Email: nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com

Linda Sue Belcher


201 Paris
Castroville, Texas 78009
Home Phone: (830) 538_6395
Cell Phone: (830) 931_1781
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
Phone: (806) 447_0010 and (806) 447_0270
Email: plains.radio@yahoo.com and
Email: barhfarms@gmail.com and ed@barhfarms.net

Philip Berg, Esq.


Lisa Liberi c/o Law Office of Philip Berg
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110349784 Page: 16 Date Filed: 11/17/2010

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444_2531


(610) 825_3134
FAX (610) 834_7659
E_Mail: philjberg@gmail.com

Public Integrity Section

Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington DC 20530-0001

/s/ Orly Taitz


___________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq
11.16. 2010
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110349785 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2010

I]NITED STATES COI]RT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCINT

LisaLiberi et al,
Plainitffs Apellees,
No. 10-3000

Dr. Orly Taitz,et al.,


Defendants-Appellants,

Affidavit in SuDDortof Motion

Levy,declareasfollows:
l, Jonathan

I am an attomeyin good standingwith the Third Circuit Coult ofAppeals. I am not an


attomeyofr€cordin this matterbut did contactMr. PhilipBerg,plaintiffandattomeyfor
plaintiffs, on behalfof Dr. Taitz. Dr. Taitz wasextremelyrcluctantto contactMr. Berg
because ofseriouscriminalaccusations Mr. Bergis makingaboutDr. Taitz

I contactedMr. B€rgin regardsto theCourt'sorderofseptember9, 2009whichordered


the to delivera JointAppendixto theCout on or beforeOctober19,2010.Mr.
parties
Bergindicatedhe wouldnot bejoiningDr. Taitzin filing a JointAppendixbut woulddo
his own.

Secondly, thereis a F.R,C.P.Rule60 Motionpendingin thetrial courtin theEastem


DistrictofPennsylvania regardingthis case.I askedMr. Bergifhe wouldstipulateto a
continuanceto await the outcomeofthe Rule 60 motion, he answeredin the negative.

Also of seriousconcemis that Mr. Berg repeatedlyaccusedDr. Taitz of att€mpted


murderfor hire ofplaintiffLiberi andattemptingto anangethe kidnappingofplaintiff
Ostella'schildren.Mr. BergstatedI wassomehowresponsible for my client'salleged
acuons.

I declarcthat the aboveis true andconect underpenaltyofperjury at Bluffton, South


Carolinathis 14'ndayofNovember2010.

Le\T
Jonathan