LIBERI v TAITZ (E.D. PA) - Memorandum Opinion Paed-15309004274

8/8/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (E.D. PA) - Memorandum Opinion Paed-15309004274

1/15

IN THE UNITED STATES DTSTRICT COURT ?OR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LISA ~ ~ B E R I , e t a l . , CIVIL ACTIONNO. 09 1898Pla in t i f f s ,

v .ORLY TAITZ a t al.,

Defendants.

M E M O R A N D U M

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J . December 23, 2010

I . INTRODUCTIONBefore the Court are Pla in t i f f s ' writ ten Motion for

Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and Defendant. Ta i t z ' s o r a lmotion to r a temporary re s t ra in ing order . The Court read thepar t i es ' papers, reviewed the documentary evidence, and held ahearing on the matter on December 20, 2010. For the reasons se tfor th below, both motions wil l be denied and the Court cautionsthe par t ies , espec ia l ly the at torneys in the case, as to thep r o s p e c ~ of future sanct ions .

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUNDOn May 4, 2009, Pla in t i f f s Lisa Liberi ("Liberi") I

Phi l ip J . Berg, Esq. ("Be.'cg"l J the Law Offices of Phil ip J . Berg,

-1

Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 160 Filed 12/23/10 Page 1 of 15


2/15

Evelyn Adams a/k/a Momma E ("Adams"), Lisa Ostella ("Ostella") ,and Go Excel Global ( co l l e c t i v e ly , "Pla in t i f f s" ) in i t ia ted th isdefamation, l i be l , and slander act ion ag a in s t Defendants OrlyT a i t z 1 Esq. f DDS ("l 'a i tz" >, DefeYld o ur Freedoms Foundat ions , Inc .("DOFF") / Nei l Sankey. The Sankey Firm and Sankey Invest . igat . ions,Inc . ( co l l e c t i v e ly , "Sankey") , Edgar Hale; Caren !-Ia:e, PlainsRadio, K P ~ ~ AM ~ 6 ~ O . Bar H. Farms, Pla ins Radio Network( co l l e c t i v e ly , " the Hales"], and Linda Sue Belcher (col lect ively,"Defendants") . 1

In sum, Pla in t , i f f s and Defendants are par t of the"bir ther n movement, which is comprised of i nd iv idua l s who believetha t President Obama i s i ne l i g ib l e t o be President of th e UnitedSta tes because he was born in K e ~ y a , At one time , P l a i n t i f f s andDefendants worked together to a t t empt to prove Pres i d en t Obama'si l legi t imacy bu t inf ight ing among them led to th is l awsu i t .

Speci f ical ly , Pla in t i f f Phi l ip Berg accused DefendantOrly Ta i t z of improperly publ i sh ing the s o c i a l secur i ty number ofh is pa ra l ega l , Lisa Libe r i , along with defamatory in fo rmat ionregarding Liber: i 's p a s t h i s to ry of c r i mi n a l ac t i v i t y , on her

Some of these p a r t i e s r.ave a long and complicatedl i t i g a t i o n his tory. See e . g . , Berg v. Obama, 586 F.3d 234 (3dCir . 2009); Rhodes v ..MacDonald, 67 0 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (M.D. Ga.2009) {imposing $20,000 sanct ion on counsel Orly Tai tz fe r use ofthe l ega l process for an improper purpose), at_f'd Rh9des v.MacDonald, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5340 ( ~ l t h Cir. ~ m r . ~ 5 , 2010).This l i t : iga t ion appears to be part: o t t h i s overa l l dispute amongthe parties: .

-2



3/15

websi te . Defendants Edgar and Caren Hale, and Nei l Sankey areessen t ia l ly accused of working with Dr. Tai tz to defamePla. int i f f s . The Hale defendants own an i n t e rne t radio st ,a t ion inTexas on which Dr. Taitz appeared. Nei l Sankey i s a pr iva teinvest igator in Cal i fornia , al legedly hired by Dr. Taitz i:1 herquest to "destroy" Pla in t i f f s Berg and IJiberi,

I I I . PROCEDURAL HISTORYOn May 4, 2009, Pla in t i f f s f i l ed the i r Complaint along

with an Emergency Motion fo r an In junct ion and/or TemporaryRestra ining Order. On May 22, 2009 , Defendants Niel Sankey,Sankey I n v e s t i g a ~ i o n s , and sankey Inves t iga t ions , Inc, ( ~ S a n k e y Defendants ' l } f i l ed a Motion to Dismiss. On May 26, 2009Defendant Linda Belcher f i led a Motion to Dismiss. On May 26 ,2009 Defendants Edgar Ha:e and Caren Hale ("Hale D e f e n d a n ~ s " ) f i l ed a Motion to Dismiss.

On May 28, 2009, Defendants Orly Taitz and Defend OUrFreedoms Foundations, Inc. ("Taitz Defendants"} f i l ed a tJlotion toDismiss Due to Lack of Jur i sd ic t ion , an Answer, and an Opposit ionto the Motion fo r an Injunct ion. On June 9, 2009, Pla in t i f f sresponded to these motions, On June 11, 2009, Pla in t i f foresponded to the Motions to Dismiss f i led by Sankey Defendants,Belcher, and Hale Defendants. On June 23, 2009, Pla in t i f f s re f i l ed t he i r Emergency Motion for an In junct ion or Temporary

- 3



4/15

Res t ra in ing Order , T a i t z Defendants responded on June 24, 2009.On June 26 2009, t h i s Court issu.ed th e fol lmving f ive

orde rs : (l) gran t ing P l a i n t i f f ' s motion and dismiss ing DefendantsJames Sundquis t and Rock S a l t Publ i sh ing ; (2) denying withoutpre jud ice P l a i n t i f f ' s two Emergency Motions fo r an In junc t ionand /or a Temporary Res t ra in ing Order and denying all p a r t i e s 'motions to s t r i k e ; (3) order ing t h a t no fu r t h e r motions be f i l e dwithou t l eave o f t:he Court:- and t h a t pa r t i e s must r eq u es t t h i s byl e t t e r t o the Cour t ; (4) gran t ing Defendant T a i t z ' s Motions toS e t Aside Defau l t Judgment and denying P l a i n t i f f ' s many r eq u es t sf o r d e f au l t judgments ; and \S j i s su ing a ru l e to show cause whythe compla in t should n o t be severed and t r an s f e r r ed .

On Ju ly 27, 2009 r based upon a l e t t e r s e n t to th e Courtby P l a i n t i f f s , th e Cour t ordered t h a t P l a i n t i f f ' s new EmergencyMotion fo r th e Is suance o f an In junc t ion o r Res t r a i n i n g Order bedocke ted . Defendants Belcher , Hale , and Ta i t z responded onAugust 3, 2009. The Cour t held a hear ing on August 7, 2009, anddenied P l a i n t i f f ' s motion on A ~ g u s t 10, 2009, as wel l as denyingmany o th e r mot ions ,

On A ~ g u s t 141 2009, P l a i n t i f f s appealed the Cour t 'gd en ia l o f t h e i r motion fo r an i n junc t ion o r re s t r a i n i n g orde r toth e Thi rd C i rc u i t . On December 9, 2009, t h i s case was placed insuspense pending determina t ion o f the appea l . (See doc. no. 83..)On May 26, 2010, the Third C i r cu i t gran ted P l a i n t i f f s ' motion to

-4



5/15

' (/ithdraw t h e i r appea l , pursuant to Fed. R. App. p, 42{b i .Liber l v, T a i t z , No. 09-3403.

On June 3 , 2010, th e Court denied th e motions todismiss , and severed th e ac t ion and t r a n s f e r r e d th e c la ims toeach Dc,:c:ldant 's home j u r i s d i c t i on , On June 23, 2010, the Courtamended the or ig ina l t r a ~ s f e r order , a f t e r cons ide r ingP l a i n t i f f s ' Motion fo r Recons idera t ion and Defendan t s ' responses ,while still seve r ing and t r a ns f e r r i ng th e case . On Ju ly 2/ 2010,Defendant Taitz f i led a no t i ce of appeal arguing, among manyo t h e r t h ings , t h a t the Cour t d id no t have j u r i s d i c t io n i n t h i scase . Ta. i tz ' s appea l i s c u r r e n t l y pending .

Mcanwhile , on September 8 , 2010, Defendant Tai t z f i l eda Motion to Request D o c u m e ~ t s Missing From an IncompleteT r a n s c r i p t , She a l so faxed to th e Cour t many lengthy l e t t e r s andf i led responses on the docket r e ~ a t i n g to m at te r s on appea l . OnOctober 29, 2010, the Cour t ordered t h a t all fu r t he r motions andphone c a l l s be d i rec ted to th e Uni ted St a t e s Court o f Appeals fo rth e Thi rd C i r c u i t as th e case i s on appea l .

On November ],6, 20l0 J P l a i n t i f f s began sending l e t t e r sto this Cour t r eques t ing , fo r a t h i rd t ime , a TemporaryRes t ra in ing Order . On December 6 r 2010, P l a i n t i f f ' s f i l ed anEmergency Motion fo r a Temporary Res. : ra in ing Order with th e Thi rdC i r c u i t . On December 10, 2010, th e Thi rd Circu i t d i r ec tedP l a i n t i f f to f i l e a formal motior. be fo re t h i s Court as

- 5



6/15

P l a i ~ t i f f s ' previous requests were by l e t t e r to the Court. OnDecember 13, 2010, pursuant to th e Third Circui t ' s direct ion,th is Court scheduled a hearing on Pla in t i f f s ' motion for December20 , 2010.

IV . JURISDICTIONJur isdic t ion for th i s action is predicated upon

divers i ty of ci t izenship . 28 U.S.C. 1332. The ci t izenship ofa l l par t ies is as follows. For the Plaint i f f s : Berg and Liberiare Pennsylvania ci t izens ; Adams is an Oklahoma ci t izen; andOstel la and Go Global are ci t izens of New Jersey. ForDefendants: Taitz, DOFF, and Sankey are ci t izens of California;Sundquist and Rock Sal t Publishing are ci t izens of New Jersey;and Belcher and the Hales are ci t izens of Texas.

V. MOTIONS FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAlNING OlU)EROn December 20, 2010, the Court held a hearing

regarding Pla in t i f f s ' most recent Emergency Motion for aTemporary Restraining Order. Plaint i f f s Phi l l ip Berg , LisaLiberi , and Lisa Ostel la were p r e s e n ~ . Berg, a member of thePennsylvania bar, represented a l l of the Pla: tnt i ffs. DefendantOrly Taitz , a member of the Cali forn ia bar, was also present.Taitz represented herself and Defend Our Freedoms Foundation. Atthe hearing, the Court received and admitted a number of exhihi t s

- 6



7/15

offered by the par t i e s , heard argument, and heard test imony fromthree wLtnesses.

Pla in t i f f s argued tha t Defendants Orly Taitz and ~ i n d a Belcher, as well as a th i rd par ty, Geoff Staples , crea ted awebsite, ht to ; / / l i sa l iber i .com , in r e t a l i a t ioa fo r the i r f i l ingan appeal in th i s case. 'The website is s e t ~ u p as i f it wascrea ted by Liber i . The website includes sexua l innuendos, fa lsesta tements , and fa l se criminal his tory, a l l of which appear to bedesigned to pain t Liber i in an ' JIlfavorable l igh t . However,Liberi did not es tab l i sh the website or give permission to anyoneto es t ab l i sh the website ir. her name. Liber i f i led an onl ineabuse form with the domain reg is t ry and an onl ine abuse repor twith privacyprQtect .org . The domain was or ig ina l ly reported tobe regis te red to a Lisa Liber i of Nairobi with an email addressof convictedfelon@lisal iberi .com. As of now, the website i sal legedly reg i s t e red to a Geoff Staples of T e ~ a s ,

Pla in t i f f s fur the r al leged t ha t Tai tz , Belcher, andS ~ a p l e s sent ernails encouraging people to view the website .These emails were sent to email addresses found in Liberi ' s oldemail account, so t ~ a t her f r iends and contacts would bel ieve theemail was from her . Pla in t i f f s also a l lege tha t when they t r i edto g e ~ r e l i e f v ia a l e t t e r to th i s Court! the Defendantsre ta l i a ted by post ing the l e t t e r on the website .

Defendar.t Taitz r e s p o ~ d e d tha t P l a i n t ~ f f s have no

- 7

http:///reader/full/htto;//lisaliberi.comhttp:///reader/full/privacyprQtect.orgmailto:[email protected]:///reader/full/htto;//lisaliberi.comhttp:///reader/full/privacyprQtect.orgmailto:[email protected]


8/15

evidence t ha t she was involved in c rea t ing the websiteht tp ; / / l i sa l iber i . cQm. Taitz fur ther argued tha t anything postedabout Liberi on the website which i s in Tai tz ' s contro l ,www......9rlytai tzesq.com was t ru thfu l and not. slanderous ( i . e .Libe r i ' s ~ m u g s h o t H and cr imina l his tory}, Taitz fur the r al legedtha t Pla in t i f f s arc re ta l i a t ing against her fo r being a"whistleblower" about Liber i ' s criminal his tory a:1d i n v ~ o l vemcntwith monetary donations from the publ ic .

Pla in t i f f s ' f i r s t witness was Lisa Liber i . Liber it e s t i f i e d t ha t she did no t crea te th e websiteh t t p ~ l i g a l i ~ ~ ~ ~ . c o m d id not au thor i ze i t s crea t ion, and hasno t sent emai ls from the websi te ' s email accountc o n v i c t e d f e l o n @ l i s a ~ i b e r i . c o m Liber i also t e s t i f i ed tha t Taitzt r i ed to hi re a "hit-man" to harm her and her family and tha tl 'aitz has encouraged others to harm her sor.. On crossexaminat ion, Libe:ri conceded t ha t she was a convicted fe lon andt ha t she had no d i r ec t evidence l inking ~ h e website to DefendantsBelcher or Tai tz . Liber i also did not presen t any credibleevidence to support her claims of murder so l i c i t a t ion andkidnaping at tempts . During her test imony, Liberi was of tencombative and evas ive , and much o f her test imony was argumentwithout factual bas i s . For these reasons, the Court f inds t ha tLiber i1s t es t imony was no t c redib le .

Pla in t i f f s ' second witness was Lisa Oste l la . Os te l l a

-8

http:///reader/full/9rlytaitzesq.comhttp:///reader/full/http~ligali~~~~.comhttp:///reader/full/convictedfelon@lisa~iberi.comhttp:///reader/full/9rlytaitzesq.comhttp:///reader/full/http~ligali~~~~.comhttp:///reader/full/convictedfelon@lisa~iberi.com


9/15

t e s t i f i ~ d t ha t she had worked fo r Ta i t z a s he r web d es i g n e r . Shea l so ass i s ted Taitz with her webs i te "!!'tr!I.DefendOurFreedQIDS,orqand associated paypal accounts fo r co l l ec t ing donat ions to th es i t e . On cross-examination, O s te l l a conceded tha t she has lockedTa i t z out of her website ~ . D e f e n d O u r F r e e d Q m s . 9 r g and herassociated paypal accoun ts . Oste l la also conceded tha t she onlyhad discovered a l i nk between Geoff Stap le s and th e webs i tet t ~ J ~ I 2 . . . . i 1 L l _ l J ? a l i b e r i . com, not to Defendants Taitz and Belcher _ LikeLiberi , Ostel la was of ten combative and evasive during hertestimony, and much of h e r tes t imony was argument withou t f ac tu a lbasis . T h e e f o r e ~ th e Court also f inds t h a t O s t e l l a ' s testimonywas not c r ed ib l e .

Defendant Taitz ca l l ed one witness , Plaint i f f Phi l l i pBerg. 'Berg t e s t i f i ed regard ing h is previ.ous re la t ionship withGeoff Stap le s , t h a t Stap les did web design for Berg on avolun tee r b a s i s . Berg ' s tes t imony was also combative, evas ive ,and argumentat ive and th e C o u r ~ did not f ind h is t es t imony to behe lp fu l for establ i shing a f ac tua l record. 2 At th e conclusion ofh is d i r e c t examinat ion by Tai tz , Berg asked to reopen h is case tocal l Ta i t z to th e s tand, which th e Cour t den ied .

~ h e p a r t i e s also offered various documents i n to

The Court f inds t ha t th e w i t n ess ' r .os t i l e reac t ions toth e ques t ions asked were p a r t i a l l y t r i g g e r ed by Tai tz . T a i t z ' sques t ions were confus ing , h o s t i l e , and of len rose to th e l e v e l ofba i t ing th e w i t n esses .

-9



10/15

evidence. The Court f inds tha t the documents lacked any evidenceof authent ica t ion and thus , f inds much of the documentaryevidence to be unre l iab le .

Legal StandardPrel iminary in junct ive r e l i e f is "an e x ~ r a o r d i n a r y

remedy" and "should be granted only in l imi ted circumstances."Ko s P h a r m a c e u t i c a l . ~ ; r . . n . Q . v . Andrx Corp" 369 F .3d 700, 708 (3dCir . 2004) (c i t ing A m e : . t ; i c ~ n Tel. ,x..Xel. CQ. V Winback & ConserveMpx;ogram, I n c . , 42 F. 3d 1421, l427 (3d C i r . 1994) l . "A pa r t yseeking a prel iminary in junct ion must show: (1) a l ike l ihood ofsuccess on the meri ts ; (2) t h a t it wil l su f fe r i r reparable harmi f the in junct ion i s denied; (3) tha t g!'anting preliminary r e l i e fwil l not r e su l t in even grea ter harm to the nonmoving partYi and(4) tha t the pub:ic in te re s t favors such r e l i e f . " KQ2.P.barmacguticals, 369 F.3d a t 708 (c i t ing Allegheny Energy. Inc.v . DOE. I n c . , 171 F.3d 153, 158 (3d e i r . 1999)) ,

In th i s case, n e i ~ h e r p a r ~ y prevai l s and nei ther i s thevic tor . The Court wil l deny both motions fo r a temporaryres t ra ining order for the reasons tha t follow.

I.L.- Plair . t i f*.. . ~ o . t J o n fo r an E m e r g ~ n c y Temporary Restra in ingOrder

First# Pla in t i f f s f a i l to show t ha t they would l ike ly



11/15

succeed on the meri ts . The evidence proffered by the Pla in t i f fs ,both as documents and as witness testimony, was not found to becredible or re l iab le . Plaint i f f s fa i led to prove tha t namedDefendants Taitz and Belcher were direc t ly connected to thewebsite . The only evidence Pla in t i f f s provided was anunsubstant iated al legat ion tha t one Geoff Staples, reportedly theoperator o f th e website , had a p rev io u s re la t ionship with Bergand now has a connection to Taitz .

Second, Plaint i f f s also f a i l to show tha t they wouldsuffer i r reparable harm unless the Court were to issue aTemporary Restraining Order. The websi te , h t t . p . u ~ / l i s a l i b e r i , com,i s no longer ava i lab le to the public . Addit ional ly. theal legat ions that Taitz hired a hit-man and attempted to kidnapOste l la ' s children were not proven by any credible evidence.

As Pla in t i f f s ' motion fa i l s under the f i r s t and secondprongs, the Court wil l not continue the analys is as th is i s aconjunct ive t e s t . Thus, Pla in t i f f s ' Motion fo r EmergencyTemporary Rest ra in ing Order w i l l be denied ,

~ e f . g 1 1 g _ ~ n t Orly Taitz JL1-1otion fo r an E:nergency TemporaryRestraining O r d ~ ~

During the hearing, D e f e n d a r ~ Taitz argued chat i t i sthe Plaint i f f s tha t are engaged in harassing her and tha t it i sshe tha t needs protec t ion from them. The Ccurt wil l t r ea t th is

-11



12/15

argUlT'.ent as an o r a l Motion fo r a Temporary Res t r a i n i n g Ordera g a i n s t P l a i n t i f f s . Defendant T a i t z ' s motion w i l l also bedenied .

F i r s t , Ta i t z f a i l s to show t h a t she w i l l l i k e l y p r ev a i lon th e mer i t s . Ta i t z a l l e g e s t h a t P l a i n t i f f s a re con t inu ing tob r i n g ac t i o n s a g a i n s t h e r i n r e t a l i a t i o n of he r exe rc i se o f h e rf ree speech r i gh t s to ~ b l o w th e whis t l e" on P l a i n t i f f simpropr ie ty ( ~ . e ' T Berg l e t t i n g Liber l , a c o ~ v i c t e d felon! handledonations)" However, th e Court finds t h a t Tai tz d id not o f f e rc red ib le evidence to e s t a b l i s h t h a t she i s l i ke ly to succeed inth e c la im.

second, Tai tz f a i l s to show i r r ep a r ab l e harm. The onlyharm that T ai t z would a l leged ly s u f f e r i s to con t inue to have tol i t i g a t e t h i s c la im. This i s no t i r r ep a r ab l e hann.

As Defendant Ta i t z I s motion f a i l s under th e f i r s t andsecond prongs, th e Cour t w i l l n o t con t inue th e ana lys i s as t h i si s a ccr: junct ive t e s t . Thus, Defendant Orly Ta i t z ' s Motion fo r aTemporary Res t r a i n i n g Order will be denied .

V I. Rl!LATION TO THIS COURT'S ORDER TO SEVER AND TRANSFEROn June 3, 20l0 , th e Court severed t h i s ac t i o n and

t r a n s t e r r e d th e c la ims to each Defendan t l s home j u r i sd i c t i o n , adec i s ion pending appeal . The pa r t i e s I a c t i o n s and argumentr e l a t i ng to ? l a i n t i f f s ' most recen t Emergency Motion fo r a



13/15

Temporary Restraining Order fur ther supports th i s Court ' sr e a s o n ~ n g as to why th is case should be severed and t ransferred.

Prior to the scheduled hearing mult iple Defendants(other than the Berg-Taitz par t ies) contacted the Court toexpress t h a ~ it would be too expensive and inconvenient to makei t to a hearing in Pennsylvania tha t was scheduled within f ivedays . These concerns add weight to t.hc fourth "pr iva te factor"ar t icula ted by the Third Circu i t in considering a t ransfer ; tha tis ! the convenience of the pa!:'ties as indicated by t he i r r e l a t ivephysical and f inancia l condit ions. lo!..l.mlar_


14/15

operat ion i s organized l and w h e ~ e Liber i was convicted andallegedly on probation.

V II . BEHAVIOR OF THE PARTIESDuring the hearing the Court reminded Berg and Taitz

that sanctions may be or de r e d unde r Rule 11 , 28 U.S.C. 1927,and the inherent power of the Court. ~ ; ; , ; n re Cendant Corp. I260 F .3d 183, 199 (3d Ci r . 2001) ( c i t i n g Chambers v . N ! \ ~ C O , In c . ,501 U.S. 32, 43-44 (1991) ("The Supreme Court r e c e n t l y r ea f f i rmedt h a t a di s t r i c t court has inherent authori ty to impose sanctionsupon those who would abuse the jud ic ia l process."}

The Court has been pat ien t in deal ing with theseemotional issues but the par t ies continue to get closer to thel ine of improper conduct. For example: they continue to speakover each other in cour t ; object during another at torney 'sargument; and in terrupt and argue with witnesses.

Additior:.ally, very ser ious accusat ions were made duringth is hearing, such as: the hir ing of a hit-man to k i ~ ~ a party,the s teal ing a par ty ' s donation funds, and attempting to kidnap ac h i ld o f one of the par ty ' s to the lawsui t: The Cou:r:"t wi 11remind the lawyers tha t they were warned by the Court tha t makingsuch ser ious accusat ions without proof to back them up couldre su l t i n the i r re fe r ra l to the discipl inary board.

'rhere were co winners a t the hearing but surely there

- 1 4



15/15

was one loser - the search for t ruth in an environment ofdecorum. For th is sorry episode, both Tait3 and Berg bear muchof the blame.

V i i i . CONCLUSiONFor the reasons s ta ted above, both Pla in t i f f s '

Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining order and DefendantTai tz ' s oral Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order wil l bedenied. An. appropriate order wi l l follow,

- 15


Documents

LIBERI v TAITZ (E.D. PA) - Memorandum Opinion Paed-15309004274