Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186 #:4323

Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 5 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Philip J. Berg, Esquire Pennsylvania I.D. 9867 LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com Lisa Ostella and Go Excel Global, Plaintiffs c/o Philip J. Berg, Esquire 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Lisa Liberi, Plaintiff c/o Philip J. Berg, Esquire 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Attorney in pro se and for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION LISA LIBERI, et al, : : : Plaintiffs, : : : : : : : : : : Defendants. : : : :

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW) PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS, ORLY TAITZ AND DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC. ANTI-SLAPP MOTON AND MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) Date of Hearing: June 13, 2011 Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m. Location: Courtroom 10D

vs. ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Liberi, et al, Plaintiffs Opposition to Taitz and DOFF Anti-SLAPP Motion and Motion to Dismiss

1

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186 #:4324

Filed 05/05/11 Page 2 of 5 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS ANTI-SLAPP MOTION and MOTION TO DISMISS COMES NOW Plaintiffs, Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter at times “Berg”]; Lisa Ostella [hereinafter at times “Ostella”]; Lisa Liberi [hereinafter at times “Liberi”]; Go Excel Global and Law Offices of Philip J. Berg and files the within Response in Opposition; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; and Declarations in Opposition to Defendants, Orly Taitz [hereinafter at times “Taitz”] and Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. [hereinafter at times “DOFF”] AntiSLAPP Motion and Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). In support hereof, Plaintiffs aver the following: 1. Taitz’s Motion is again not in compliant with this Court’s Local Rules

[L.R.] in that she failed to use double spacing [L.R’s. 11-3.2 and 11-3.6]; paragraphs are not properly numbered [L.R.11-3.2]; Taitz Memorandum of Points and Authorities exceeded the twenty-five [25] page limit [L.R. 11-6] ; and Taitz failed to give proper notice [L.R. 6-1]. 2. Taitz has previously filed an Anti-SLAPP Motion, See this Court’s

Docket Number 61 filed June 16, 2009; and several Motions to Dismiss pursuant to the Fed. R. of Civ. P. 12, which is completely improper. Further, Taitz and DOFF waived all their affirmative defenses by not timely pleading them and not

Liberi, et al, Plaintiffs Opposition to Taitz and DOFF Anti-SLAPP Motion and Motion to Dismiss

2

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186 #:4325

Filed 05/05/11 Page 3 of 5 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

raising them in their previous Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Motions to Dismiss and therefore, they are precluded from doing so now. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2). 3. The California Anti-SLAPP statute, California Civil Code [“Cal. Civ.

Code”] §425.16 and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution does not apply to speech which invades ones privacy; is false, slander, libel, and/or defamation; constitutes Cyber-stalking, Cyber-harassment, and/or Cyber-bullying; and/or violates any other protected right. Therefore, Taitz’s Motion fails. 4. Plaintiffs have a pending Motion for Leave to Amend their

Complaint, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) does not apply as full diversity exists; and Plaintiffs have stated claims in which relief can be granted and therefore, Taitz and DOFF’s Motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) fails. 5. Plaintiffs OBJECT to Taitz and DOFF’s Exhibits attached to their

Motion as they are unauthenticated, hearsay, double and triple hearsay documents in violation of the Federal Rules of Evidence [“Fed. R. Evid.”]. Further, Taitz and DOFF’s Exhibits do not fall under any of the Exceptions outlined in the Fed. R. Evid. and were filed to prejudice the Plaintiffs; therefore, Taitz and DOFF’s Exhibits are inadmissable. 6. Plaintiffs Opposition is based upon their Opposition, the attached

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support hereof; Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire; Declaration of Lisa Liberi; and upon records on file with this Court

Liberi, et al, Plaintiffs Opposition to Taitz and DOFF Anti-SLAPP Motion and Motion to Dismiss

3

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186 #:4326

Filed 05/05/11 Page 4 of 5 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and such further oral and/or documentary evidence that may be presented at the time of the Hearing. 7. For the reasons stated herein, Defendants Taitz and DOFF Anti-

SLAPP and Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) must be denied. In addition, Plaintiffs seek Leave to File their First Amended Complaint. Respectfully submitted,

Dated: May 4, 2011

/s/ Philip J. Berg Philip J. Berg, Esquire Pennsylvania I.D. 9867 LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com Attorney in Pro Se and Counsel for Plaintiffs

Dated: May 4, 2011

/s/ Lisa Ostella LISA OSTELLA and GO EXCEL GLOBAL, Plaintiffs c/o Philip J. Berg, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Liberi, et al, Plaintiffs Opposition to Taitz and DOFF Anti-SLAPP Motion and Motion to Dismiss

4

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186 #:4327

Filed 05/05/11 Page 5 of 5 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: May 4, 2011

/s/ Lisa Liberi LISA LIBERI, Plaintiff c/o Philip J. Berg, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Liberi, et al, Plaintiffs Opposition to Taitz and DOFF Anti-SLAPP Motion and Motion to Dismiss

5

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-1 #:4328

Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 5 Page ID

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………….………..i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………….....ii-v MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES…………………….…1-24 I. II. FACTS……………………………………………………..............1-4 CALIFORNIA’S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE, CAL. CIV. CODE §425.16 DOES NOT APPLY TO THE WITHIN ACTION…………………….…………………………………….4-12 THIS COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION and PLAINTFFS HAVE PLEAD CAUSES WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED………………………………………….....12-22 A. B. IV. Taitz and DOFF’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) Claims..……...12-17 Taitz and DOFF’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Claims…….…17-22

III.

TAITZ AND DOFF EXHIBITS VIOLATE THE FED. R. EVID. 801(c), 805 AND ARE INADMISSABLE PER FED. R. EVID. 802; and CONTAIN UNAUTHENTICATED DOCUMENTS IN VIOLATION OF FED. R. EVID. 901, 902 and 1005……………………………………………………..22-24 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………...24

V.

i

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-1 #:4329

Filed 05/05/11 Page 2 of 5 Page ID

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s)

Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 121 [87 Cal.Rptr.2d 132; 980 P.2d 846]………………………………………………...8 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)…………………2, 17 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)……………………………...…...2, 3, 17 Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 72 S. Ct. 725, 96 L. Ed. 919 (1952)……….8 Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co., (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 746……………………..9 Bourjaily v. U.S., 483 U.S. 171, 107 S. Ct. 2775, 97 L. Ed. 2d 144 (1987)………22 Castaneda v. United States, 546 F.3d 682, 684 n. 1 (9th Cir.2008)………………12 Colwell v. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 558 F.3d 1112, 1121 (9th Cir. 2009)……………………………………….…12, 13 Doe v. See, 557 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2009)…………………………………12 Dunn & Bradstreet,Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, (1985) 472 U.S. 749, 762……….8 Episcopal Church Cases, (2009) 45 Cal.4th 467, 477 [87 Cal. Rptr. 3d 275, 198 P.3d 66]………………………………………………...9 Evans v. Unkow, (1995) 38 Cal. App. 4th 1490 [45 Cal.Rptr.2d 624]……………..7 Fisher v. Larsen, (1982) 138 Cal. App. 3d 627, 640 [188 Cal. Rptr. 216]……..…..7 Flatley v. Mauro, (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, 313……………………………………...8 Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 89 S.Ct. 1843, 23 L.Ed.2d 404 (1969)…….17 Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co., (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 438, [97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 179, 2 P.3d 27]……………………………………………….…11
ii

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-1 #:4330

Filed 05/05/11 Page 3 of 5 Page ID

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued CASES Page(s)

Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir.1995)……………………..17, 22 Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2008)…….….17 Navellier v.Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 89 [124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 530, 52 P.3d 703]………………………………………..….5, 11 New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686…………………………………………………….8 Orr v. Bank of Am, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002)……………..…...23 Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 658, 675 [35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 31]………………………..…11 Rancho La Costa, Inc. v. Superior Court, (1980) 106 Cal. App. 3d 646, 667 [165 Cal. Rptr. 347]………………………………………………………………...7 Reader's Digest Assn. v. Superior Court, (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 258, [208 Cal. Rptr. 137, 690 P.2d 610]…………………………………………………8 St. Clair v. City of Chico, 880 F.2d 199, 201 (9th Cir. 1989)………………….…..13 Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 192 [25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 298, 106 P.3d 958]…………………………………………….…5 Witriol v. LexisNexis Group, (N.D.Cal., Feb. 10, 2006,No. C05-02392) 2006 U.S.Dist. Lexis 26670……………………………………………………….19 World Financial Group, Inc. v. HBW Ins. & Financial Services, Inc., (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1561, 1570 [92 Cal. Rptr. 3d 227]……………………….9

iii

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-1 #:4331

Filed 05/05/11 Page 4 of 5 Page ID

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued U.S. CONSTITUTION Page(s)

First Amendment……………………………………………………………….8, 18 Fourteenth Amendment…………………………………………………………...18 CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION Page(s)

Article. I, § 2, subd. (a)……………………………………………………………..9

STATE STATUTES

Page(s)

California Civil Code §425.16……………………………………………………...4 California Civil Code §1798.53…………………………………………………...19 California Civil Code §1798.81………………………………………………...…18 California Civil Code §1798.81.5(c)……………………………………………...18 California Civil Code §1798.84…………………………………………..……….19 FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Page(s)

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8………………………………………………..19 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)…………………………………..2, 3, 12 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2)…………………………………..2, 3, 17

iv

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-1 #:4332

Filed 05/05/11 Page 5 of 5 Page ID

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE

Page(s)

Federal Rules of Evidence 801(c)……………………………………………...….22 Federal Rules of Evidence 802………………………………………………..22, 24 Federal Rules of Evidence 805…………………………………………………....22 Federal Rules of Evidence 901……………………………………………......22, 23 Federal Rules of Evidence 902…………………………………………….….22, 23 Federal Rules of Evidence 1005………………………………………………22, 23

v

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 #:4333

Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 25 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Philip J. Berg, Esquire Pennsylvania I.D. 9867 LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com

Attorney in pro se and for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION : : LISA LIBERI, et al, : CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: : Plaintiffs, : 8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW) : : : PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF vs. : : POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN : SUPPORT OF THEIR OPPOSITION : TO DEFENDANTS ANTI-SLAPP ORLY TAITZ, et al, : : MOTION AND MOTION TO Defendants. : DISMISS PURSUANT TO 12(b)(1) : : and 12(b)(6) : : Date of Hearing: June 13, 2011 : Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom 10D : Location: PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS and AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS ANTI-SLAPP AND MOTION TO DISMISS I. 1. FACTS: On May 4, 2009, Plaintiffs, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, [hereinafter at

times “Berg”] Lisa Ostella [hereinafter at times “Ostella”] and Lisa Liberi [hereinafter at times “Liberi”] filed suit against Defendants Orly Taitz [hereinafter

Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

1

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 #:4334

Filed 05/05/11 Page 2 of 25 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

at times “Taitz”], Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. [hereinafter at times “DOFF”]; Neil Sankey [hereinafter at times “Sankey”]; Sankey Investigations, Inc. [hereinafter at times “Sankey Inv.”]; and The Sankey Firm, Inc. [“hereinafter at times “Sankey Firm”] for amongst other things, Invasion of Privacy; Invasion of One’s Right to Solitude; Placing One in a False Light Before the Public; Cyberstalking; Stalking; Cyber-bullying; Harassment; and violation of Cal. Civ. P. 1798, et seq. for the illegal background checks, illegal access to Plaintiffs credit reports, contacting and harassing Plaintiffs friends and family and for the illegal distribution of Liberi and Ostella’s full Social Security number, date of birth, mother’s maiden name, maiden names, place of birth, spouses name, spouses Social Security number, spouses date of birth and other extremely private information. Said suit was originally filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania and recently transferred to this Court. 2. Defendant Taitz has also filed approximately six (6) Motions, if not

more, Motions to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, all of which were denied, as documented by the Court’s Docket. Also, as this Court is aware, a party is only entitled to file a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to the Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12 on one [1] occasion and anything not raised in the initial Motion is deemed waived, thus Taitz’s Motions were incompliant with the Fed. R. Civ. Proc.’s. Taitz asserted the Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009), and Bell

Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

2

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 #:4335

Filed 05/05/11 Page 3 of 25 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) cases as a basis for dismissal, however, the Pennsylvania Federal Court found Plaintiffs Complaint compliant with the pleading requirements outlined in Iqbal and Twombly and denied Taitz’s Motions to Dismiss. 3. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference Taitz’s Anti-SLAPP Motion

and Motions to Dismiss appearing as Docket Entry numbers [“Dkt no.’s”] 35 filed May 28, 2009; 48 filed May 28, 2009; 53 filed June 9, 2009; 59 filed June 11, 2009; 61 filed June 16, 2009; 93 filed August 3, 2009; 165 filed February 1, 2011; and 178 filed April 25, 2011. 4. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference Plaintiffs Oppositions to

Taitz’s Motions to Dismiss pursuant to the Anti-SLAPP statute and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) as if fully set forth here in length, Docket Numbers 49 filed June 8, 2009; 54 filed June 11, 2009; 63 filed June 18, 2009; 64 filed June 21, 2009; and Plaintiffs Response to the Court’s Order to show cause appearing as Dkt no’s 106 filed August 26, 2009; 107 filed August 27, 2009; and 110 filed September 29, 2009. 5. Taitz has now filed, on behalf of herself and DOFF, another Anti-

SLAPP Motion and Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), which is completely improper as Taitz and DOFF waived their

Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

3

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 #:4336

Filed 05/05/11 Page 4 of 25 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

affirmative defenses and cannot raise them now; full diversity exists; and Plaintiffs have a pending Motion for Leave to Amend their Complaint. 6. For the reasons stated herein, Taitz’s Motion must be Denied and

Plaintiffs should be Granted Leave to File their First Amended Complaint. II. CALIFORNIA’S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE, CAL. CIV. CODE §425.16 DOES NOT APPLY TO THE WITHIN ACTION. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their Complaint, Docket Entry No.

7.

1 filed May 4, 2009, as if fully set forth here at length. 8. Plaintiffs also incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as

if fully set forth here at length. 9. Taitz in her Response to Plaintiffs Application for an Ex Parte Order

stated Plaintiffs committed fraud upon the Court by stating Taitz had filed a previous Anti-SLAPP Motion. Taitz states she has never filed an Anti-SLAPP motion. [See Taitz filing of April 30, 2011, Docket No. 182, p. 2, ¶5]. 10. Taitz statement is untrue. To set the record straight, Taitz filed an

Anti-SLAPP motion, almost identical to the one she filed April 25, 2011, on June 16, 2009 appearing as Docket No. 61. See the screen shot below: // // // // // //
Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

4

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 #:4337

Filed 05/05/11 Page 5 of 25 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

11.

A cause of action is subject to being stricken under the Anti-SLAPP

statute when two [2] conditions are met. The cause of action must (1) arise from protected speech or petitioning; and (2) lack even minimal merit. See Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 89 [124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 530, 52 P.3d 703]. See also Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 192 [25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 298, 106 P.3d 958]. Our Courts determine whether the two [2] conditions have been met by using a two-step inquiry that involves shifting burdens. 12. The first prong must determine ‘whether the Defendant has made a

threshold showing that the challenged cause of action’ arises from an act in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. Taitz and DOFF are unable to over-come this first prong. Taitz’s repeated

publications on her website, on the Internet, on videos and on radio programs about

Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 #:4338

Filed 05/05/11 Page 6 of 25 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiffs, most of which were false statements, were not of public importance or public issues. 13. Liberi and Ostella are not public figures, they are not in the public

eye and their lives are not newsworthy and nothing in Ostella and Liberi’s lives are a public issue. Despite this, Taitz has continued Slandering, Libeling and

Defaming Liberi, Ostella and Berg on radio shows, TV shows and publications on her website and the internet which is not tolerated by the laws of our State and/or our United States Constitution, and has caused permanent damage to the Plaintiffs. 14. As demonstrated by all the Exhibits filed by Plaintiffs, Taitz

continued publishing pictures of Liberi, Liberi and Ostella’s private data, including but not limited to full Social Security number, date of birth, place of birth and mother’s maiden name, spouses names and private data, etc. Taitz and the other Defendants conducted illegal background checks and illegal access to Plaintiffs credit reports; Taitz repeatedly published false statements about the Plaintiffs, including but not limited to “Liberi is a career document forger; Ostella and Liberi stole monies from Taitz non-profit foundation, DOFF (Plaintiffs have not stolen any monies from Taitz or DOFF. Regardless, Taitz claims DOFF is a non-profit, however, Plaintiffs cannot locate DOFF’s registration as a non-profit organization); Liberi was convicted of Identity Theft, Forgery of Documents, Falsifying Police and Credit Reports, real estate fraud, Ostella forged Taitz’s

Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

6

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 #:4339

Filed 05/05/11 Page 7 of 25 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

name/signature, that Ostella had a criminal record, Liberi handled Berg’s fundraising, Liberi had access to Berg’s donators credit cards, Liberi’s husband was on parole, Liberi and her husband had two (2) credit card accounts set up on Berg’s website, that Ostella’s husband was benefiting from the monies stolen by Ostella, Liberi, Ostella and Berg were harassing, slandering, defaming Taitz, etc., all the time knowing the information was false. Taitz publicized all these false statements repeatedly with malice. 15. Taitz continued publishing in excess of a hundred times, that Liberi

had a criminal record and published a “supposed” rap sheet or court print-out, the same documents Taitz stated on numerous occasions was that of Plaintiff Lisa Ostella. Additionally, Taitz filed numerous false law enforcement reports claiming Liberi and Ostella were the same person, that Liberi and Ostella stole monies from Taitz’s foundation, that Liberi and Ostella “hijacked” Taitz’s website, etc. 16. The repeated publication and publicizing of Taitz false statements,

and information pertaining to Liberi, Ostella and Berg evidences malice. See Fisher v. Larsen, (1982) 138 Cal. App. 3d 627, 640 [188 Cal. Rptr. 216]; Rancho La Costa, Inc. v. Superior Court, (1980) 106 Cal. App. 3d 646, 667 [165 Cal. Rptr. 347], Evans v. Unkow, (1995) 38 Cal. App. 4th 1490 [45 Cal.Rptr.2d 624] quoting Fisher v. Larsen, (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 627, 640, [188 Cal. Rptr. 216]; and

Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

7

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 #:4340

Filed 05/05/11 Page 8 of 25 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reader's Digest Assn. v. Superior Court, (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 258, [208 Cal. Rptr. 137, 690 P.2d 610]. 17. False allegations, accusations and reporting of the false information

are not Free Speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 72 S. Ct. 725, 96 L. Ed. 919 (1952), (the Court held that libelous speech is not protected by the U.S. Constitution). Plaintiffs herein are not public figures, however, even if they were, there is absolutely no question that Taitz’s false allegations were done with Malice and therefore, are not protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution or California’s Anti-SLAPP statute. See New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). See also Dunn & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, (1985) 472 U.S. 749, 762 (plur. opn. of Powell, J.) [stating that when speech "concerns no public issue" and is "wholly false and clearly damaging," it "warrants no special protection" under the First Amendment]. It is settled in California that not all speech or petition activity is constitutionally protected. See Flatley v. Mauro, (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, 313; Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., supra, (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121 [87 Cal.Rptr.2d 132; 980 P.2d 846][87 Cal. Rptr.2d 132; 980 P.2d 864 at p. 134 [“the right to free speech is not absolute”]. Our California Courts have stated, “Allowing sanctions is consistent with the text of the state constitutional provision, which makes anyone who

Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

8

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 #:4341

Filed 05/05/11 Page 9 of 25 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

"abuse[s]" the right of freedom of speech "responsible" for the misconduct.” (Cal. Const., art. I, § 2, subd. (a); See Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co., (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 746. 18. The second prong is whether the Plaintiffs have demonstrated a

probability of prevailing on the claim. Plaintiffs agree they must Amend their Complaint to bring it in compliance with the California Laws. However, there is no question whether Plaintiffs will prevail on their claims. Defendant Taitz’s statements were not free speech but instead were false personal attacks on Plaintiffs; a violation of Plaintiffs privacy rights; and constitute Cyber-stalking, Cyber-harassment and Cyber-bullying; Slander, Libel, Defamation; Harassment and other violations. The law is that there must be a public interest in the specific speech or conduct alleged in the complaint: “‘The fact that “a broad and amorphous public interest” can be connected to a specific dispute is not sufficient to meet the statutory requirements’ of the Anti-SLAPP statute.”. See World Financial Group, Inc. v. HBW Ins. & Financial Services, Inc., (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1561, 1570 [92 Cal. Rptr. 3d 227]; See also Episcopal Church Cases, (2009) 45 Cal.4th 467, 477 [87 Cal. Rptr. 3d 275, 198 P.3d 66]. 19. Taitz continued publishing that Berg is employing a convicted

“document forger and thief” and foreign affidavits were filed in one of Berg’s cases which was handled by a “career document forger”. Taitz further claims that

Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

9

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 Filed 05/05/11 Page 10 of 25 Page ID #:4342

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Liberi fundraises for Berg and has access to credit cards, which is harmful to Berg’s donators. [Taitz Motion, pp. 5-12]. Liberi has never been convicted of forging documents or document forgery. Liberi is a paralegal; she researches the laws and drafts briefs pertaining to a legal issue. Liberi does not fundraise; Liberi does not have anything to do with Berg’s financial accounts. Further, Taitz and the other Defendants did not have authorizations from the Plaintiffs, nor any type of permissible purpose or legal basis to conduct background checks, obtaining Plaintiffs private data and/or credit reports. Taitz and the other Defendants did not have any type of permissible purpose and violated our very laws by publicizing Liberi’s full Social Security number, date of birth, place of birth, pictures, maiden name, mother’s maiden name, father’s name, home address and telephone number, Liberi’s husband’s name, date of birth and Social Security number, and the private identifying information of Ostella, and her husband. Taitz continues claiming she is a “whistleblower”, which is not true. Whistleblowers report on actual violations and/or crimes, they do not create them based on false information, as Taitz has done. 20. Taitz continues claiming that Liberi and Berg filed the case in

Pennsylvania claiming Liberi was an innocent woman and resided in Pennsylvania based upon Taitz’s disclosure of Liberi’s “criminal record”. This again is

completely false. First, Taitz has not disclosed any “criminal record” of Liberi’s.

Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

10

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 Filed 05/05/11 Page 11 of 25 Page ID #:4343

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Taitz has been publishing and republishing a print-out obtained from an unknown place. This same print-out has been altered several times by the Defendants in their claims about Liberi and this same print-out that Taitz claimed was the record of Plaintiff Ostella. Liberi has never disclosed her residency in the Court

pleadings; however, Taitz has published Liberi’s home address and telephone number all over the Internet. This lawsuit was filed based on the harassment, falsified stories, falsified allegations, and the publication of Plaintiffs private data, etc. by the Defendants, not for the reasons Taitz would have you believe. 21. Plaintiffs have clearly demonstrated a probability of prevailing on

their claims for Invasion of Privacy; Slander, Libel, Defamation; Cyber-stalking, Cyber-bullying, Cyber-harassment; Appropriation of one’s name and like; harassment; and their other causes of action. 22. In the words of the Supreme Court, Plaintiff needs to show only a

“minimum level of legal sufficiency and triability.” Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co., (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 438, fn. 5 [97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 179, 2 P.3d 27].) In the words of other Courts, Plaintiff needs to show only a case of “minimal merit.” Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 658, 675 [35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 31], quoting Navellier v. Sletten, (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 95, fn. 11 [124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 530, 52 P.3d 703].

Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

11

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 Filed 05/05/11 Page 12 of 25 Page ID #:4344

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

23.

For the reasons stated herein, Taitz and DOFF’s Anti-SLAPP Motion

and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) must be Denied. Plaintiffs are also seeking Leave to File their First Amended Complaint. III. THIS COURT HAS SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION and PLAINTIFFS HAVE PLEAD CAUSES WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED: Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their Complaint, Docket Entry No.

24.

1 filed May 4, 2009, as if fully set forth here at length. 25. Plaintiffs also incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as if

fully set forth here at length. A. Taitz and DOFF’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) Claims: 26. A Rule 12(b)(1) challenge to subject matter jurisdiction can be

“facial,” in which case the Court assumes the Plaintiff’s factual allegations to be true and draws all reasonable inferences in its favor. Doe v. See, 557 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2009); Castaneda v. United States, 546 F.3d 682, 684 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2008). Or, the motion may be a “factual” or “speaking” motion, where the movant may submit materials outside the pleadings to support its motion. In that case, “‘[i]t then becomes necessary for the party opposing the motion to present affidavits or any other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing that the court, in fact, possesses subject matter jurisdiction.’” Colwell v. Dep’t of

Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

12

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 Filed 05/05/11 Page 13 of 25 Page ID #:4345

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Health and Human Servs., 558 F.3d 1112, 1121 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting St. Clair v. City of Chico, 880 F.2d 199, 201 (9th Cir. 1989)). 27. Taitz claims this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction based on

Plaintiffs filing of Diversity jurisdiction. Taitz claims Plaintiffs have not satisfied the Diversity requirement by providing her with proof of Liberi’s home address. [Taitz Motion, pp. 13-17], and that Judge Robreno Ordered Liberi and Berg to file Liberi’s Driver’s License [Taitz Motion p. 16]. This is ludicrous. Judge Robreno has never ordered Liberi to file her Driver’s License with the Court. Liberi did provide her address information to Judge Robreno on August 7, 2009 in Open Court as well as in writing “under Seal”. Taitz has published Liberi’s home address numerous times, for protection reasons Liberi has not provided her home address in Court pleadings due to the continued harassment, cyber-stalking, cyberharassment, cyber-bullying and Taitz continued inciting against the Plaintiffs. See Plaintiffs response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause appearing as Docket Entry No.’s 106 filed August 26, 2009; 107 filed August 27, 2009; and 110 filed September 29, 2009; and Plaintiffs Opposition and Affidavits of K. Strebel, Evelyn Adams, Shirley Waddell, Lisa Ostella appearing as Docket Entry No. 144 filed September 14, 2010; and Plaintiffs Request for Sanctions, Affidavits of Lisa Ostella, K. Strebel, Shirley Waddell, Philip J. Berg and the verification of Lisa Liberi appearing as Docket Entry No. 146 filed October 7, 2010.

Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

13

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 Filed 05/05/11 Page 14 of 25 Page ID #:4346

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

28.

Taitz filed Liberi’s home address in this Court’s Docket on July 29,

2010 appearing as Docket Entry No. 136, in part two 136-1, page 17, ¶4. 29. Taitz does not have any valid reason to access Liberi’s Driver’s

License as she is demanding [Taitz Motion, p. 16]. Taitz will publish Liberi’s Driver’s License on the Internet and all over the World Wide Web as she has done with Liberi and Ostella’s full Social Security number, date of birth, place of birth, home address, father’s name, mother’s maiden name, and other private confidential information, which Taitz illegally obtained. As demonstrated by Taitz filing, Dkt No. 136-1, p. 17, ¶4, Taitz was already fully aware of where Liberi resides. Taitz is defrauding this Court by her continued attempts claiming Liberi resides in California. Further, Liberi showed Judge Robreno her Driver’s License, Social Security card and Birth Certificate on August 7, 2009 to prove Liberi did not reside in the State of California. In addition, this Court should have documents provided to Judge Robreno “under Seal” with Liberi’s home address. 30. Liberi will not provide her Driver’s License to Taitz for the reasons

mentioned above and for the reason Liberi is concerned Taitz attempted to hire a dangerous man to harm Plaintiff, her family and Plaintiff Ostella and her family. Ironically, this person, Ruben Nieto resides in Albuquerque, NM forty-five [45] minutes from Liberi’s home and attempted to get paid by Taitz on two (2) separate occasions in consecutive requests from PayPal totaling Twenty-Five Thousand

Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

14

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 Filed 05/05/11 Page 15 of 25 Page ID #:4347

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

[$25,000] Dollars. As this Court is aware, any payments over Ten Thousand [$10,000] Dollars are reported pursuant to the Patriot Act. Liberi will be happy to show her Driver’s License to the Court in Camera, if the Court feels it necessary. Also, during this time, Taitz and her Assistant, Charles Edward Lincoln, III drove around New Jersey where Ostella and her family reside and her children attend school, this was after Taitz threatened to have Ostella’s children professionally kidnapped. As a result, Ostella and her family sold their home to an Investor, at a loss, out of fear of having people view their home while they were there, and moved to protect their family from Taitz and her supporters. 31. Further, Taitz published on her website several times that a report she

filed against Ostella and Liberi was forwarded to New Mexico as that is where Liberi resides. See Taitz post on her website at

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=1346 where Taitz states that Theresa Standford of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department sent Taitz’s criminal report against Ostella and Liberi to the Santa Fe Police Department where Liberi resides. See also Taitz’s post, “More on Lisa Liberi, contact her probation officer in Santa Fe New Mexico 505-827-8627. She is not allowed to be anywhere near other people's credit cards. By Orlytaitz April 17, 2009” at

http://216.221.102.26/blogger/post/More-on-Lisa-Liberi-contact-her-probationofficer-in-Santa-Fe-New-Mexico-505-827-8627-She-is-not-allowed-to-be

Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

15

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 Filed 05/05/11 Page 16 of 25 Page ID #:4348

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

anywhere-near-other-peoples-credit-cards.aspx. Taitz post “Follow up on Lisa Liberi, paralegal to Phil Berg” at http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=36 Taitz states that Liberi’s address in New Mexico can be verified with the probation officer Joanne Martinez fax 505-476-2368, phone 505-827-8627; “I need two articles and update on Lisa Liberi” at http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=807 Taitz states Liberi resides in New Mexico and summonses all her supporters and readers to report Liberi to the Santa Fe Probation Department, and Taitz gives the number; “Information update on both Liberi and Obama” at

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=834 Taitz states Liberi resides in New Mexico and summonses her readers and supporters to contact the Santa Fe Probation Office and gives the number; “I need to get more answers” at

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=978. Taitz again tells her readers Liberi resides in New Mexico, there are hundreds of more posts by Taitz regarding Liberi and where she resides. See these posts and the others filed in Plaintiffs Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause appearing as Docket Entry No.’s 106 filed August 26, 2009; 107 filed August 27, 2009; and 110 filed September 29, 2009; and Plaintiffs Opposition and Affidavits of K. Strebel, Evelyn Adams, Shirley Waddell, Lisa Ostella appearing as Docket Entry No. 144 filed September 14, 2010; and Plaintiffs Request for Sanctions, Affidavits of Lisa Ostella, K. Strebel,

Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

16

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 Filed 05/05/11 Page 17 of 25 Page ID #:4349

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Shirley Waddell, Philip J. Berg and the Verification of Lisa Liberi appearing as Docket Entry No. 146 filed October 7, 2010. 32. fails. B. Taitz and DOFF’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Claims: 33. Dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is appropriate only where the Taitz is well aware of Liberi’s residence and therefore her Motion

complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). For purposes of a Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, and the court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, 89 S.Ct. 1843, 23 L.Ed.2d 404 (1969). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ A claim has facial plausibility when the Plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the Defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Leave to Amend must be Granted unless it is clear that the complaint's deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir.1995).

Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

17

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 Filed 05/05/11 Page 18 of 25 Page ID #:4350

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

34.

Taitz first raises the issue of “Count 1”; Plaintiffs assume she means

Plaintiffs First Cause of Action. Taitz claims Plaintiffs did not raise viable issues under the First and Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Cal. Civ. Code §1798.81 [Taitz’s Motion, p. 17, ll. 15-28, pp. 18-20, ll. 1-28]. Taitz states that Plaintiffs claim a violation as a result of Taitz publishing a report by Sankey “showing Liberi’s criminal record” [Taitz Motion, p. 17, ll. 15-28]. This is a complete fraud upon the Court by Taitz and a purposeful false recitation of Plaintiffs First Cause of Action. 35. Plaintiffs clearly claim the violation of privacy was Taitz and the

other Defendants illegal access and distribution of Liberi and Ostella’s full Social Security number, date of birth, place of birth, mother’s maiden name, father’s name, address and other private data; as well as Taitz slander, libel and defamation falsely accusing Liberi of being convicted of “identity theft”, “real estate fraud”, altering/forging Police and Credit Reports”; having 46, 80, 100, 200 criminal counts against her; having a current criminal case pending against her, and many other false statements about Liberi, Ostella, Berg and invasion of their privacy. Plaintiffs cite to Cal. Civ. Code §1798.81.5(c) which has to do with a business that discloses personal information…pursuant to a contract with a nonaffiliated third party and the requirement of a contract that the third party implement and maintain confidentiality of the private data. This is far different than Taitz’s claim of Cal.

Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

18

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 Filed 05/05/11 Page 19 of 25 Page ID #:4351

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Civ. Code §1798.81. See Plaintiffs Complaint, p. 62, ¶¶ 144-157. The invasion of privacy by Taitz and DOFF, as plead, are also in violation of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.84 and 1798.53. See Witriol v. LexisNexis Group, (N.D.Cal., Feb. 10, 2006, No. C05-02392) 2006 U.S.Dist. Lexis 26670. 36. Taitz next refers to Plaintiffs Second Cause of Action. Taitz contends

that this cause fails as truth is a true defense to slander and Taitz published Liberi’s criminal convictions, and states Plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence [Taitz Motion p. 24, ll. 14-28; p. 25, ll. 1-28]. A complaint is only supposed to put the Defendants on notice as to what they allegedly did wrong, notice pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiffs have filed hundreds of pages of Taitz’s posts

substantiating their causes of actions. If the allegations are disputed the issues of proof are diverted to Trial, not in the initial stages of a lawsuit. Taitz again misleads this Court. As clearly plead in Plaintiffs Complaint, Liberi claims the Libel, Slander and Defamation pertained to Taitz false statements that Liberi had a criminal record going back to 1990; Liberi had convictions of amongst other things, identity theft, falsification of police reports, falsification of credit reports, falsification of documents, claiming Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella were one and the same, falsely inferring and stating Liberi murdered her sister, falsely claiming Liberi and Ostella were diverting funds from Taitz’s PayPal account; falsely claiming Liberi and Ostella were working together; falsely claiming Liberi was a

Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

19

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 Filed 05/05/11 Page 20 of 25 Page ID #:4352

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

“career forger”; falsely accusing Liberi of being convicted of numerous counts of forgery; falsely claiming Liberi was diverting funds from Berg and the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg; falsely claiming Liberi was posting on blogs under aliases; falsely claiming Liberi was committing crimes, falsely claiming Liberi, Ostella and Berg were “trashing Taitz”, falsely claiming Liberi had to pay TwentyOne Thousand [$21,000] Dollars per month in restitution, falsely claiming Liberi was convicted of amongst other things, identity theft, falsifying police reports, falsifying credit reports, forging documents, etc. See Plaintiffs Complaint on p. 66, ¶¶ 158-166. 37. Taitz then claims that the allegations regarding Ostella were all true,

that Taitz provided truthful information. The fact is, Taitz falsely accused Ostella of stealing from her; “hijacking” her (Taitz’s website); of having a criminal record, and many other things. Taitz then misquotes Ostella’s testimony during the

December 20, 2010 Restraining Order Hearing. Ostella has never stolen anything from Taitz, never diverted anything from Taitz. For protection purposes, Ostella did lock the website access of all of her (Ostella’s) websites. Ostella changed the PayPal script for the donation button to reflect her own account on defendourfreedoms.net and redirected defendourfreedoms.us, the site Taitz was using, to point to a lawsuit by someone named Arnold Beverly and removed Taitz’s accounts from the site. Ostella placed notifications on all her webpages

Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

20

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 Filed 05/05/11 Page 21 of 25 Page ID #:4353

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

that the sites were no longer Taitz’s Defend our Freedom Foundation, Inc. and Ostella posted “Understanding the Internet 101” at to

http://defendourfreedoms.net/2009/04/12/understanding-the-internet-101.aspx

ensure people understood Taitz’s sites were never ”hacked”. It is important to note, Ostella’s PayPal account was never on the site (blog database) Taitz was using, defendourfreedoms.us. 38. Taitz next claims Plaintiffs cause for Harassment, Count 4 fails. Taitz

then cites to the criminal statute for harassment, “Ann. Cal. C.C.P. §527.6(b)”. [Taitz Motion, pp. 29, ll. 22-28; p. 30, ll. 1-5.] Taitz is incorrect again; this is a civil case and Taitz has continually harassed the Plaintiffs, as recent as May 2011. Harassment is defined as: “a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person. See Cal. Civ. Code §1708.7(b)(4). Plaintiffs clearly demonstrated the harassment, cyber-

stalking, cyber-harassment, and cyber-bullying by Taitz continued posting, publications, broadcasts, and interviews continually providing Plaintiffs private data; false allegations against Plaintiffs; Taitz seeking third parties to harass the

Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

21

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 Filed 05/05/11 Page 22 of 25 Page ID #:4354

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiffs; Taitz publication of Liberi’s pictures; Taitz false claims of victimization, etc. See Plaintiffs Complaint at pp. 72-73, ¶¶ 174-181. 39. Taitz next states that Plaintiffs Counts Five and Six are frivolous and

without merit. Counts Five and Six are well explained in Plaintiffs Complaint. See Plaintiffs Complaint pp. 75-79, ¶¶ 182-196. 40. Taitz does not make any mention of Count Three of Plaintiffs

Complaint. For the reasons stated herein, Taitz and DOFF’s Motion must be Denied. Plaintiffs have clearly pleaded valid claims; however, Plaintiffs do need to amend their complaint, and therefore requests this Court to grant them leave to amend. Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir.1995). IV. TAITZ AND DOFF EXHIBITS VIOLATE THE FED. R. EVID. 801(c), 805 AND ARE INADMISSABLE PER FED. R. EVID. 802; and CONTAIN UNAUTHENTICATED DOCUMENTS IN VIOLATION OF FED. R. EVID. 901, 902 and 1005 Hearsay is defined as “a statement, other than one made by the

41.

declarant offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). Fed. R. Evid. 805 is the Hearsay within Hearsay rule, none of the exceptions apply to Taitz and DOFF’s filings. “Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules…”. See Fed. R. Evid. 802; See also Bourjaily v. U.S., 483 U.S. 171, 175, 107 S. Ct. 2775, 97 L. Ed. 2d 144 (1987). Taitz and DOFF’s

Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

22

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 Filed 05/05/11 Page 23 of 25 Page ID #:4355

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

exhibits attached to their Motion as well as many statements in their Motion are hearsay, double and triple hearsay and therefore are not admissible. 42. Taitz and DOFF’s Exhibits filed with their Anti-SLAPP and Motion

to Dismiss, filed April 25, 2011, Docket No. 178 include attachments and Exhibits which are unauthenticated in violation of the Fed. R. Evid. 901, 902 and 1005. 43. Authenticity of evidence, in the broad sense of the word, is

fundamental to litigation and is one of the most basic functions. There are several ways outlined in the Fed. R. Evid. regarding the authentication of evidence, none of which Taitz and DOFF complied with. As the Ninth Circuit has held, “The authentication of a document requires ‘evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims’” Id. Quoting Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). “A document authenticated through personal knowledge must be attached to an affidavit, and the affiant must be a competent “witness who wrote [the document], signed it, and used it, or saw others do so.” Orr v. Bank of Am, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002), Id at 773-774 & n. 8 quoting Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1). 44. In particular, Docket No. 178-2 pages 1-8 are “supposed” court

records, however, they are not certified and no one from the Court has attested to the authenticity of the documents and are hearsay, double and triple hearsay documents; Docket No. 178-3 is a “supposed” Court transcript, which is not a

Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

23

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 Filed 05/05/11 Page 24 of 25 Page ID #:4356

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

complete document, it is not certified, and does not contain a certification from the Transcriber and therefore is unauthenticated and is hearsay, double and triple hearsay; Docket No. 178-4 pages 1-16 is a statement by Geoff Staples with attached copies of emails which have been altered and forged, illegally inputting Plaintiff Liberi’s email address, see Docket No. 146 filed October 7, 2009. Geoff Staples statement and attachments are untruthful, hearsay, double and triple hearsay and therefore are inadmissible; and Docket No. 178-5 is an Affidavit of Linda Belcher which contains untruths, hearsay, double and triple hearsay and therefore, is inadmissible. 45. For these reasons, Taitz and DOFF’s Exhibits must be excluded and

not used by the Court as evidence as they are unauthenticated, hearsay, double and triple hearsay and inadmissible, Fed. R. Evid. 802.

V. 46.

CONCLUSION: For the reasons outlined herein, Defendants, Orly Taitz and Defend

our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Anti-SLAPP Motion and Motion to Dismiss must be Denied. In addition, Plaintiffs Request this Court to Grant them Leave to Amend their Complaint. // // // //
Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

24

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-2 Filed 05/05/11 Page 25 of 25 Page ID #:4357

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Respectfully submitted, Dated: May 4, 2011 /s/ Philip J. Berg Philip J. Berg, Esquire Pennsylvania I.D. 9867 LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com Attorney in Pro Se and Counsel for Plaintiffs Dated: May 4, 2011 /s/ Lisa Ostella LISA OSTELLA and GO EXCEL GLOBAL, Plaintiffs c/o Philip J. Berg, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 /s/ Lisa Liberi LISA LIBERI, Plaintiff c/o Philip J. Berg, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Dated: May 4, 2011

Liberi, et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Response in Opposition

25

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-3 #:4358

Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 7 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Philip J. Berg, Esquire Pennsylvania I.D. 9867 LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION LISA LIBERI, et al, : : : Plaintiffs, : : : : : : : : : : Defendants. : : : :

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW) DECLARATION OF LISA LIBERI Date of Hearing: June 13, 2011 Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m. Location: Courtroom 10D

vs. ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Declaration of Lisa Liberi I, Lisa Liberi, am over the age of eighteen [18] and am a party to the within action. I have personal knowledge of the facts herein, and if called to do, I could and would competently testify. I am making this Declaration under the penalty of perjury of the Laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746. 1. I filed suit against Ms. Taitz and the other Defendants as a result of

the illegal background check conducted on me; the illegal access of my credit
Declaration of Lisa Liberi

1

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-3 #:4359

Filed 05/05/11 Page 2 of 7 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

reports; the illegal disclosure of my full Social Security number, date of birth, place of birth, mother’s maiden name, father’s name, home address, telephone number, the harassment of my friends and family, and Ms. Taitz’s disclosure of my private details to John Mark Allen, my son’s father who my son and I were provided protection from as a result of the crimes committed against us. Ms. Taitz continues twisting the reasons Plaintiffs filed suit and continues misstating the truth. 2. Ms. Taitz continues stating I am a career document forger and that I

have a criminal record going back to the 1990’s. This is not true; I do not have a criminal record going back to the 1990’s and I have not been convicted of forgery of documents or document forgery. 3. Ms. Taitz knows where I reside as she put my home address out all

over the Internet and filed it with this Court on July 29, 2010. In fact, a dangerous criminal, Ruben Nieto, who attempted to get paid by Ms. Taitz lives in Albuquerque, New Mexico, forty-five [45] minutes from my house. 4. Ms. Ostella was set-up as Ms. Taitz’s customer contact in Ms. Taitz’s

PayPal account. This did not give Ms. Ostella access to Ms. Taitz accounts, but instead it carbon copied Ms. Ostella’s email address for PayPal payment requests from Ms. Taitz’s PayPal account.

Declaration of Lisa Liberi

2

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-3 #:4360

Filed 05/05/11 Page 3 of 7 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

5.

Further, Ms. Taitz has harassed every governmental agency in New

Mexico to the point they called in the New Mexico Attorney General to put a stop to Ms. Taitz harassing and illegal behaviors. 6. Moreover, Ms. Taitz called on her readers, followers and supporters to

contact the law enforcement agency where I reside; she continued calling on them to further cyber-stalk; cyber-harass; and cyber-bully me, which they did. 7. I have received nonstop phone calls stating I am going to meet my

maker real soon if I don’t drop this lawsuit against Ms. Taitz. I have had strange individuals show up at my home, peeking in my windows, scrambling my phones, all after Ms. Taitz’s publication of my home address and telephone number. 8. My local law enforcement has been forced to take reports for stalking,

cyber-stalking, cyber-harassment, cyber-bullying; fraud; forgery; identity theft; threats, where they have listed the prime suspect as Orly Taitz. This is a result of Orly Taitz publishing and continued republishing of her threats against me, her calling for her supporters for help regarding me; and her continued publishing of my full Social Security number, my maiden name, my mother’s maiden name, my father’s name, my home address, my place of birth, my date of birth and my husband’s primary identification information. As a result, my husband and my identities have been stolen, our credit has been used repeatedly, accounts have been set-up fraudulently in our names using our identifying information, my credit

Declaration of Lisa Liberi

3

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-3 #:4361

Filed 05/05/11 Page 4 of 7 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

report shows me residing in States I have never resided including but not limited to Massachusetts and Iowa. All the law enforcement reports were forwarded to the Federal Bureau of Investigations as the crimes crossed several state lines. 9. As a result of Ms. Taitz’s continued harassment, cyber-stalking,

cyber-bullying, cyber-harassment, and other illegal acts, I have had to have emergency service from the paramedics numerous times, emergency room visits, cardiac treatments and hospitalizations due to the complications I suffered with my heart and other medical conditions, resulting from stress induced by Orly Taitz and the other Defendants. This has cost my family in excess of $250,000.00. My medical bills to date were provided to Judge Robreno on December 20, 2010. 10. Ms. Taitz is well aware of what she is doing; she has talked about my

medical complications on her radio shows, TV appearances and in her pleadings filed with this Court. 11. Ms. Taitz is well aware of the fact I do not reside in the State of

California. Ms. Taitz has stalked my son; has published trips my son has taken; and private details about my son. My son attends school in New Mexico where we reside and admitted to this in Ms. Taitz’s statements in her radio appearance on the Andrea Shea-King Radio show which can be found on the Internet at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/askshow/2010/08/31/the-andrea-shea-kingshow.mp3. In this Radio program, Ms. Taitz states:

Declaration of Lisa Liberi

4

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-3 #:4362

Filed 05/05/11 Page 5 of 7 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

“…Against Neil Sankey, a top notch private investigator who was the first one to find all of this information on Social Security numbers…I'm sorry but this woman Lisa Liberi is supposed to be back in prison…And I have provided directions, I have provided the pictures. Here's her picture that came from her boyfriend: ‘That's Lisa Liberi, I have a child with her”’. 12. As I am sure this Court is aware, directions can be to a location or it

can be to do something. 13. Ms. Taitz continues in this radio program accusing me of being a

career document forger; and then states I accused her of trying to hire a “hitman” to kidnap my son, and then Taitz asks her audience, did something happen to Liber’s son? I have never claimed Taitz attempted to hire a “hitman” or that Ms. Taitz was going to have my son kidnapped. Ms. Taitz is the one who continually uses “hitman”. I have stated that it appears Ms. Taitz has attempted to hire a dangerous criminal to harm Lisa Ostella, me and our family’s. 14. Orly Taitz threatened to take Mr. Berg down and to do so she was

going to destroy me and get rid of me. Ms. Taitz also threatened to have Ms. Ostella’s children professionally kidnapped. A man in Albuquerque, NM attempted to get paid by Ms. Taitz in three [3] consecutive money requests totaling TwentyFive Thousand [$25,000.00] Dollars. The requests came in consecutively in the

Declaration of Lisa Liberi

5

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-3 #:4363

Filed 05/05/11 Page 6 of 7 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

amount of Nine Thousand [$9,000.00] Dollars and two (2) in the amount of Eight Thousand [$8,000.00] Dollars totaling Twenty-Five [$25,000.00] Dollars, as on file with this Court. Mr. Nieto requested payment twice, on May 25, 2009 and May 29, 2009, in the middle of the night. It was concerning to see the requests were under the Ten Thousand [$10,000.00] Dollar reporting amounts pursuant to the Patriot Act. 15. A spokeo was run on this man, Rubin Nieto and his email address.

Spokeo returned that Mr. Nieto resided in Albuquerque, NM and provided his birth date. A simple search of the New Mexico Judiciary System returned Mr. Nieto’s convictions for Aggravated Assault. Further searches confirmed Mr. Nieto was not an Attorney, or a Private Investigator, or a trade which a licensed attorney would hire for permissible purposes. Instead, Mr. Nieto has websites selling porno and marijuana seeds. 16. So yes, I do believe Ms. Taitz attempted to hire this man to carry out

her threats towards me and Mrs. Ostella, to harm me and my family and harm Mrs. Ostella and her family. Ms. Taitz never disputed that Mr. Nieto’s PayPal money requests were not from her PayPal account. I asked Ms. Taitz on December 20, 2010 in Judge Robreno’s Courtroom if she was saying the PayPal account the money requests from Mr. Nieto was not her PayPal account, and Ms. Taitz answered “NO”, because they were. See the December 20, 2010 Transcript, page

Declaration of Lisa Liberi

6

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-3 #:4364

Filed 05/05/11 Page 7 of 7 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

94, lines 7-11, filed on the docket January 14, 2011, appearing as Docket Entry 162. 17. Further, anything I confirm regarding my address information with

this Court will be placed all over the Internet by Ms. Taitz. For this reason, I will not provide a copy of my Driver’s License to Ms. Taitz or even show it to her for that matter.

I declare under the penalty of perjury of the Laws of the United States and California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 4th day of May, 2011. /s/ Lisa Liberi Lisa Liberi, Declarant

Declaration of Lisa Liberi

7

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-4 #:4365

Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 6 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Philip J. Berg, Esquire Pennsylvania I.D. 9867 LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION LISA LIBERI, et al, : : : Plaintiffs, : : : : : : : : : : Defendants. : : : :

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW) DECLARATION OF PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE Date of Hearing: June 13, 2011 Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m. Location: Courtroom 10D

vs. ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, am over the age of eighteen [18] and am a party to the within action. I have personal knowledge of the facts herein, and if called to do, I could and would competently testify. I am making this Declaration under the penalty of perjury of the Laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746. 1. I am an Attorney in good standing, licensed to practice law in the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I am licensed to practice in the U.S.
Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

1

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-4 #:4366

Filed 05/05/11 Page 2 of 6 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

District Courts, Middle and Eastern District of Pennsylvania; the Third Circuit Court of Appeals; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court; and the U.S. Supreme Court. 2. Plaintiffs were forced to file suit against Defendants, including Orly

Taitz and Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. for their illegal background checks, illegal access of Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella’s credit reports, and the publication of all their confidential primary identification information. The publication of private data included but was not limited to their full Social Security numbers; dates of birth; place of birth; mother’s maiden name; father’s name; credit details; and other private data. 3. Plaintiffs did not bring suit as a result of Taitz disclosure of a

“supposed” criminal record of Liberi. However, in Plaintiffs Complaint there is a cause of action for Slander, Defamation and Libel as a result of Defendants publication that Liberi had been convicted of crimes that she had not been; Defendants false publication that Ostella had a criminal record; that Liberi has a criminal history going back to the 1990’s; that Liberi has a pending criminal case against her; that Liberi and Ostella stole monies from Taitz and her Foundation; that Liberi and Ostella “hacked” Taitz PayPal account and website, and many other false accusations.

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

2

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-4 #:4367

Filed 05/05/11 Page 3 of 6 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

4.

Taitz still to this date continues claiming Liberi is a “career forger”

and been convicted of forgery of documents and forgery, which is not true. Liberi has never been convicted of forging documents or forgery of any documents. 5. Plaintiffs have filed a Motion Seeking Leave to Amend their

Complaint. However, Plaintiffs are also Seeking to Amend their Complaint in their Response in Opposition to Defendants Taitz and Defend our Freedoms Anti-SLAPP Motion and Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). 6. Further, Taitz has claimed she never filed a previous Anti-SLAPP

Motion and Plaintiffs have committed Fraud upon the Court by claiming she had. The truth of the matter, as demonstrated by the Docket, Taitz filed an Anti-SLAPP Motion almost identical to the one filed April 25, 2011, on June 16, 2009, which appears as Docket Entry No. 61. 7. Further, Taitz claims that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction

in that Liberi has not proven to her or provided her with her (Liberi’s) Driver’s License. Liberi is not a citizen of the State of California and Taitz has failed to address why she feels diversity is lacking. Diversity is proven by the fact that none of the Plaintiffs reside in the same state as any of the Defendants. None of the Plaintiffs reside in the State of California. It is not

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

3

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-4 #:4368

Filed 05/05/11 Page 4 of 6 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

a requirement that every party provide their Driver’s License in Diversity Cases. 8. Taitz is well aware of where Liberi resides. Taitz has called for her

supporters to commit certain acts where Liberi resides. Taitz has filed false police reports against Liberi where Liberi resides; Taitz has harassed the Probation Department where Liberi resides; Taitz has published repeatedly Liberi’s home address and telephone number as well as filed it with this Court. 9. Taitz threatened to take me down and to do so she said she was going

to destroy Lisa Liberi, my paralegal, and get rid of her. 10. Liberi, for security reasons, will not provide Taitz her Driver’s

License. Taitz has given Liberi’s home address to a man who was convicted of crimes against Liberi and her son, who a restraining order was pending against and as a fact, Liberi was provided a confidential address for her and her son’s protection. Taitz will publish Liberi’s Driver’s License as she has done with Liberi’s Social Security number, date of birth, place of birth, mother’s maiden name, father’s name, etc. 11. Liberi is a certified Paralegal. Liberi does not fundraise for me; she

does not access any of my financial accounts, does not have access to any of

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

4

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-4 #:4369

Filed 05/05/11 Page 5 of 6 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

my donor’s credit card details and Liberi is not an Investigator. Liberi researches the laws and drafts briefs accordingly. 12. Taitz continues claiming that she is a whistleblower and the public

had a right to know that Liberi was a career document forger and that Liberi has been convicted of a crime, etc. Again, Liberi has never been convicted of forging documents. Taitz fails to tell this Court she employed

approximately five (5) felons, some with convictions of forgery and others with violent convictions. Charles Edward Lincoln, III has a felony

conviction(s); Larry Sinclair has felony convictions and served prison time; Lucas Smith has felony convictions of forgery of identification documents and Taitz filed a “forged” Kenyan Birth Certificate in President Obama’s name procured by Lucas Smith in Judge Carter’s Court; and several other felons; however, Taitz never disclosed any information pertaining to them. 13. The conduct of the Defendants, as outlined in Plaintiffs Complaint

and will be better outlined in Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint constitutes cyber-stalking; cyber-bullying; cyber-harassment; invasion of privacy; and other dangerous conducts. As a result, the Plaintiffs have suffered severe damages. 14. For the reasons outlined herein and in Plaintiffs Response in

Opposition, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support thereof and

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

5

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-4 #:4370

Filed 05/05/11 Page 6 of 6 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

my Declaration, Defendants Motion must be Denied and Plaintiffs should be Granted Leave to Amend their Complaint.

I declare under the penalty of perjury of the Laws of the United States and California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 5th day of May, 2011 in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, County of Montgomery. /s/ Philip J. Berg Philip J. Berg, Esquire, Declarant

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

6

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-5 #:4371

Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 2 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Philip J. Berg, Esquire Pennsylvania I.D. 9867 LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com Lisa Ostella and Go Excel Global, Plaintiffs c/o Philip J. Berg, Esquire 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Lisa Liberi, Plaintiff c/o Philip J. Berg, Esquire 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Attorney in pro se and for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION LISA LIBERI, et al, vs. ORLY TAITZ, et al, : : Plaintiffs, : : : : : : : : Defendants. : : :

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW) PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF THEIR RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION

I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Response in Opposition, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof; Declaration of Lisa Liberi; and Philip J. Berg’s Declaration, to Defendants Orly Taitz and

Liberi, et al Cert of Svc of Plaintiffs Response in Opposition

1

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-5 #:4372

Filed 05/05/11 Page 2 of 2 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Anti-SLAPP Motion and Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) were served through the ECF filing system and/or mail as indicated below, this 5th day of May 2011 upon the following:

Orly Taitz 26302 La Paz Ste 211 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Ph: (949) 683-5411 Fax: (949) 586-2082 Email: orly.taitz@gmail.com and Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com Served via the ECF Filing System Attorney in Pro Se and for Defendant Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc. The Sankey Firm, Inc. 2470 Stearns Street #162 Simi Valley, CA 93063 By USPS Mail with Postage fully prepaid Defendant in Pro Se Neil Sankey Sankey Investigations, Inc. P.O. Box 8298 Mission Hills, CA 91346 By USPS Mail with Postage fully prepaid Defendants in Pro Se /s/ Philip J. Berg Philip J. Berg, Esquire Pennsylvania I.D. 9867 LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com
2

Liberi, et al Cert of Svc of Plaintiffs Response in Opposition

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-6 #:4373

Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 2 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 Plaintiffs Proposed Order Denying Defendants Anti-SLAPP Motion and Motion to Dismiss

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION LISA LIBERI, et al, vs. ORLY TAITZ, et al, : : Plaintiffs, : : : : : : : Defendants. : : : : : : : :

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW) PLAINTIFFS [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS ORLY TAITZ AND DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC. ANTI-SLAPP MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)

ORDER Defendants, Orly Taitz and Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. AntiSLAPP Motion and Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) came on for Hearing June 13, 2011. The Court having reviewed and considered the moving papers, the Plaintiffs Opposition thereto, the records on file with this Court and for GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and DECREED: Defendants Anti-SLAPP Motion and Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) are hereby DENIED.

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 186-6 #:4374

Filed 05/05/11 Page 2 of 2 Page ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

It is a further ORDER of this Court, Plaintiffs are GRANTED Leave to File their First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs must file their First Amended

Complaint within twenty-one [21] days of the date of this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: June _____, 2011

______________________________ Judge Andrew J. Guilford

Respectfully submitted by: Philip J. Berg, Esquire Pennsylvania I.D. 9867 LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com LISA OSTELLA; and GO EXCEL GLOBA c/o Philip J. Berg, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 LISA LIBERI c/o Philip J. Berg, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
2 Plaintiffs Proposed Order Denying Defendants Anti-SLAPP Motion and Motion to Dismiss

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful