LIBERI v TAITZ (ORLY APPEAL) - Motion to Dismiss Appeal - Transport Room

8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (ORLY APPEAL) - Motion to Dismiss Appeal - Transport Room

1/40

1

U.S. District Court,Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case Number: 09-cv-01898 ECR

Court of Appeals No. Case Number: 10-3000

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT__________________________

LISA LIBERI, et al,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.ORLY TAITZ, et al and DEFEND OUR FEEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC.,

Defendants - Appellants.

_________________________

APPELLEES, LISA LIBERI, LISA OSTELLA, PHILIP J. BERG,ESQUIRE, EVELYN ADAMS, GO EXCEL GLOBAL, AND

LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL FOR LACK OF JURISIDICTION andREQUEST FOR SANCTIONS and ATTORNEY FEESfor APPELLANTS FRIVOLOUS APPEAL

_____________________

Philip J. Berg, Esquire

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531(610) 825-3134

Attorney for the Appellees

Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110231358 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2010


2/40


3/40

3

(Appellant herein) Orly Taitzs Response in Opposition to the Plaintiffs Response

to the Courts Rules to Show Cause and Plaintiffs Request to File a Request for

Judicial Notice. When Plaintiffs sought Leave to File their Reply, Appellants

never opposed Plaintiffs Requests for Leave of Court. Nor did Appellants oppose

the filings. Thus, they waived their rights, and issues cannot be raised for the first

time on appeal. See Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth alliance v. Browner, 121

F.3d 106 (3d Cir.1997), (Third Circuit Judge Samuel Alito held that issues raised

for the first time on appeal are waived, except in extraordinary circumstances.)

There are no extraordinary circumstances here.

Moreover, Orders appealed from are to be filed within thirty [30] days, not

ten [10] months later. See Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 3 and

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 4. The time limits in appeals are

jurisdictional. Thus, if an appeal is not timely filed, the Appellate Court is without

jurisdiction. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007).

Appellant, Orly Taitzs appeal of the January 21, 2010 Order, appearing as

Docket Entry number 116, is also time barred, not to mention the fact it is not an

Appealable Order. The Courts Order of January 21, 2010, appearing as Docket

Entry number 116, was an Order to file Plaintiffs [Appellees herein] Attorneys

Letter in Response to Defendants [Appellant herein] Orly Taitzs Request from

the Court to File a Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions against the undersigned.



4/40

4

Defendant Orly Taitz never opposed the filing of the Letter or the Courts Order to

file the undersigneds Letter docketed, and therefore any objection thereto was

waived by Defendant Taitz, Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth alliance v.

Browner, 121 F.3d 106 (3d Cir.1997). Moreover, this is not a final appealable

Order and even if it were, it is time barred. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

Rule 3 and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 4. Therefore, this Court

is without jurisdiction.

The Order of June 3, 2010, docketed June 4, 2010, appearing as Docket

Entry number 118 was amended and therefore, is moot. Moreover, the Order of

June 3, 2010 is not an Appealable Final Order under either the text of 28 U.S.C.

1291 or the Collateral Order Doctrine.

The Memorandum and Order of June 22, 2010, docketed June 23, 2010,

appearing as Docket Entry numbers 123 and 124 is the Courts Amended Order

Transferring the Underlying Case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the

Central District, Southern Division of California and the Western District of Texas.

The Memorandum and Order are not Appealable Final Orders under either the text

of 28 U.S.C. 1291 or the Collateral Order Doctrine.

The Courts Order of June 22, 2010, docketed on June 23, 2010, appearing

as Docket Entry number 125 is the Courts Order granting in part Plaintiffs

Motion for Reconsideration of the Courts Order of June 3, 2010, docketed June 4,



5/40

5

2010 appearing as Docket Entry number 118. This Order is not an Appealable

Order under either the text of 28 U.S.C. 1291 or the Collateral Order Doctrine.

For the reasons stated herein, this Court does not have jurisdiction to here

the within Appeal and therefore, must be Dismissed.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS:

This action arises due to damages caused by the Defendants due to

Defendants slander, libel, assault and publication of Plaintiffs private identifying

information, including Social Security number, just to name a few. The case was

filed under diversity jurisdiction.

It was discovered that two [2] of the Defendants, James Sundquist and Rock

Salt Publishing were located in New Jersey, as did two [2] of the Plaintiffs. These

two [2] Defendants had ceased their illegal behaviors and therefore were

disposable Defendants. Plaintiffs moved to have James Sundquist and Rock Salt

Publishing dismissed as they were disposable Defendants and they destroyed

diversity. The Court agreed and dismissed the two [2] parties. At the same time

the Lower Court ruled that all parties must seek Leave of Court to File any

documents.

Appellant Orly Taitz filed numerous Motions to Dismiss with the Lower

Court, claiming Plaintiff Liberi was a resident of New Mexico and the proper



6/40

6

jurisdiction for the underlying action was in fact California, all of which were

denied. On June 25, 2009, the Court issued Rules to Show Cause upon Plaintiffs

as to Why the Case Should Not be Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction; Why the

Case Should Not be Severed; and Why the Case Should Not be Transferred to the

Defendants Jurisdictions. The Court further Ordered that Plaintiffs were to file

affidavits and evidence with their response.

At the end of August 2009, Plaintiffs complied and Filed their Response to

the Courts Rules to Show Cause. Plaintiffs filed numerous affidavits and

numerous postings which were obtained directly from the Defendants websites.

Plaintiffs filed hundreds of pages showing the Lower Court had Jurisdiction over

the Defendants.

Defendant Orly Taitz was the only party to file a Reply to Plaintiffs

Response. Unfortunately, Appellee Taitz, who is a licensed attorney in the State of

California, failed to address any issues before the Court and instead filed a bunch

of ramblings that amounted to nothing.

Plaintiffs sought Leave of Court to File a Reply to Appellant Taitzs

ramblings and also sought Leave of Court to File a Request for Judicial Notice of

particular documents. On September 29, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiffs Leave

and allowed Plaintiffs to File their Reply and Requests for Judicial Notice.



7/40

7

Shortly thereafter, it was brought to the attention of Plaintiffs that Appellant

Orly Taitz may be attempting to liquidate her assets. For this reason, and due to

the fact Appellant Taitzs assets were located in California, Plaintiffs sought Leave

of Court to File a Motion to Transfer the underlying case to the U.S. District Court,

Central District of California, Southern Division. Appellant Taitz failed to

properly respond to Plaintiffs Request for Leave or Motion to Transfer.

In or about the end of December / early January 2010, Appellant Taitz

sought Leave of Court to File a Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiffs Counsel.

Counsel for the Plaintiffs Responded in Opposition and pointed out to the Court

that Appellant Taitz failed to sign her document; failed to follow the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure; and the Courts local rules and many other deficiencies. On

January 21, 2010, the Court Ordered Plaintiffs Counsels Letter Filed and placed

on the Docket. Appellant Taitz did not object, nor did Appellant Taitz file any

type of a Reply.

Due to the previous pending Appeal, the Court had placed the underlying

action in suspense pending the outcome of the previous Appeal. Appellants Filed a

Motion to Withdraw and/or Dismiss their Appeal, which was granted by this Court

in May 2010.

Thereafter, Judge Robreno removed the underlying action from suspense

and on June 3, 2010, Docketed June 4, 2010 issued a Memorandum and Order



8/40

8

Severing the case and Transferring the case to the Central District of California,

Southern Division for the California Defendants and to the Western District of

Texas for the Texas Defendants. There was a discrepancy in the Order where three

[3] of the California Defendants were inadvertently transferred to Texas. In the

Memorandum the Court noted Appellant Taitzs and Defendant Sankeys Replies,

and noted they were inapposite to the issues before the Court. It should also be

noted, Defendant Sankey never served Plaintiffs with his letter.

On June 13, 2010, Plaintiffs filed an Emergency Motion for Reconsideration

based on the fact three [3] of the California Defendants were inadvertently being

transferred to Texas.

Following this filing, on June 14, 2010, Appellant Taitz filed what she called

a Motion for Reconsideration. However, Appellant Taitzs Motion was not

compliant with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; did not contain a

Memorandum of Law; failed to cite the case number; Appellant Taitz failed to cite

any new law or circumstances; failed to show where the Court had erred, if that is

what she was claiming; and failed to cite any type of law as to why the Courts

ruling was incorrect. Moreover, Appellant Taitz used the Court to again republish

and file Appellee Liberis full Social Security number and then blamed the Clerks

of the Court. In this filing, Appellant Taitz now claims that Appellee Liberi is a

resident and citizen of California, which is untrue. Appellant Taitz takes it further



9/40

9

and basis her arguments on a hearsay letter from Defendant Belcher. It should be

noted, the creator of this letter in the name of Linda Belcher appears to be Pamela

Barnett, an employee/volunteer of Appellant Orly Taitz. The properties in the

document match the properties of documents and filings prepared by Pamela

Barnett in other cases. It should also be noted, this letter of Linda Belchers, which

is nothing more than hearsay and fabricated stories, was never served upon

Plaintiffs and only shows carbon copied to Orly Taitz.

On June 22, 2010, docketed June 23, 2010, Judge Robreno issued his

Memorandum and Order Granting in part Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration.

In addition, on this same date, Judge Robreno issued his Amended Order regarding

the Severing and Transfer of the Case, which was completely proper pursuant to

our laws.

Thereafter, on June 28, 2010, Appellant Orly Taitz filed her Response and

Requested to treat Plaintiffs Emergency Motion as Admissions to Fraud and

Perjury. Again, there is no applicable law cited and the entire pleading is a bunch

of ramblings based upon a hearsay letter that Appellant Taitz participated in

creating.

On July 2, 2010, Appellant Taitz Filed her Notice of Appeal;

Motion/Request to Unseal sealed transcript; and Motion/Request for a Stay of

the Transfer Pending the Outcome of this Appeal.



10/40

10

On July 9, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Appellant Taitzs

Motions/Requests. At the same time and within the pleading, Plaintiffs Counsel

put Appellant Orly Taitz on notice that the Orders of June 25, 2009; September 29,

2009 and January 21, 2010 she was attempting to Appeal were time barred and the

Orders of June 3, 2010 and June 22, 2010 were not appealable final Orders under

either the text of 28 U.S.C. 1291 or the Collateral Order Doctrine. See EXHIBIT

A.

Therefore, this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain Appellant Taitzs

Appeal of the numerous Orders.

II. THIS COURT LACKS JURISIDCTION TO HEAR

APPELLANT TAITZ APPEAL OF THE JUNE 25, 2009;

SEPTEMBER 29, 2009; and JANUARY 21, 2010 ORDERS as

APPELLENT FAILED TO TIMELY FILE HER NOTICE OF

APPEAL:

Appellant Orly Taitz and Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. are

attempting to Appeal the Courts Orders of June 25, 2009 [Docket Entry number

76]; September 29, 2009 [Docket Entry number 109]; and January 21, 2010

[Docket Entry number 116], however the Appeal to these particular Orders are

time barred.

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 3 states in pertinent part:

(a) Filing the Notice of Appeal.



11/40

11

(1) An appeal permitted by law as of right from a district

court to a court of appeals may be taken only by filing a

notice of appeal with the district clerk within the time

allowed by Rule 4. At the time of filing, the appellant

must furnish the clerk with enough copies of the notice to

enable the clerk to comply with Rule 3(d).

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure states in pertinent part:

(a) Appeal in a Civil Case.

(1) Time for Filing a Notice of Appeal.

A. In a civil case, except as provided in Rules 4(a)(1)(B),

4(a)(4), and 4(c), the notice of appeal required by

Rule 3 must be filed with the district clerk within 30

days after the judgment or order appealed from is

entered.

In a civil case, the Notice of Appeal "must be filed with the district clerk

within 30 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered." FED. R.

APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that, because

this time limit derives from statute, it is jurisdictional, and no judicially-created

doctrine of unique circumstances may excuse such an untimely appeal from being

dismissed.Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007).

Therefore, this Court is without Jurisdiction to entertain Appellant Orly

Taitzs Appeal of the Lower Courts June 25, 2009 Orders [Docket Entry number



12/40

12

76]; September 29, 2009 [Docket Entry number 109]; and January 21, 2010

[Docket Entry number 116].

III. THIS COURT LACKS JURISIDICTION TO HEAR

APPELLANT ORLY TAITZS APPEAL on the JUNE 3, 2010

and JUNE 22, 2010 ORDERS as they are not APPEALABLE

FINAL ORDERS:

Appellant Taitz is attempting to Appeal the Orders of June 3, 2010, docketed

June 4, 2010 [Docket Entry number 118]; June 22, 2010, docketed June 23, 2010

[Docket Entry numbers 123, 124, and 125] which are not final Orders under either

the text of 28 U.S.C. 1291 or the Collateral Order Doctrine. As this Court is well

aware, normally, appeals must await a "final order" on the case that resolves all the

issues, such as a dismissal or judgment, Carr v. Am. Red Cross, 17 F.3d 671, 675

(3d Cir. 1994). The June 3, 2010 and June 22, 2010 Orders Appellant Taitz is

attempting to Appeal are not appealable.

As stated in In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 401 F.3d 143; 2005 U.S.

App. LEXIS 4012; 61 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 79 (3rd Cir. 2005) at *30

Courts of Appeals acquire jurisdiction over appeals through final orders under 28

U.S.C. 1291; collateral orders under the doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 93 L. Ed. 1528, 69 S. Ct. 1221 (1949);

interlocutory orders concerning injunctions under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a); questions

certified for appeal by the district court and then certified by the appellate court



13/40

13

under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b); or certification by the district court pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 54(b) of a "final" judgment when disposition has been had of less than all

parts or issues in a given case.

Even if the interlocutory Appeal were permitted, which it is not, Defendant

Taitzs Appeal would still fail. Orders that are not final are guided by the

Collateral Order Doctrine. See Carr v. Am. Red Cross, 17 F.3d 671, 675 (3d Cir.

1994) (citing Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978)). The

Third Circuit Court of Appeals has construed the Collateral Order Doctrine

narrowly, and in so doing stated, lest the exception swallow up the salutary

general rule that only final orders may be appealed. Yakowicz v. Pennsylvania,

683 F.2d 778, 783 n.10 (3d Cir. 1982) (quoting Rodgers v. U.S. Steel Corp., 541

F.2d 365, 369 (3d Cir.1976)).

There are three [3] requirements that must be met under the Collateral Order

Doctrine, in order for our Appellate Courts to be able to review an interlocutory

appeal, which Appellant Taitzs is unable to meet. Under the Collateral Order

Doctrine, the Third Circuit has held that the Court can review an otherwise

interlocutory appeal if the District Courts order: (1) conclusively determines the

disputed question, (2) resolves an important question that is unrelated to the merits

of the underlying case, and (3) would effectively be unreviewable on appeal from a

final judgment. See Carr v. Am. Red Cross, 17 F.3d 671, 675 (3d Cir. 1994) (citing



14/40

14

Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978)) The Third Circuit Court

of Appeals has held they cannot exercise jurisdiction over a collateral order unless

all three requirements of the Collateral Order Doctrine are satisfied. See Carr, 17

F.3d at 675.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held, In general, an order

transferring a case is not a final order and, hence, not appealable. In re United

States, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 25231 (3d Cir 2001) (quotingNascone v. Spudnuts,

Inc., 735 F.2d 763, 764 (3d Cir. 1984).

Therefore, this Court is without jurisdiction and Appellant Taitzs Appeal

must be Dismissed.

IV. SANCTIONS and the AWARD of ATTORNEY FEES IN

FAVOR OF APPELLES COUNSEL ARE WARRANTED:

The within Appeal is completely Frivolous. Appellant Taitz was well aware

that the Orders she was attempting to Appeal are non appealable as the Orders of

June 25, 2009; September 29, 2009; and January 21, 2010 are time barred and the

Orders of June 3, 2010 and June 22, 2010 are not Final Orders. Despite this, she

has failed to Withdraw her Appeal and insists on moving forward.

Appellant Taitz is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of

California and licensed to practice before this Court. Unfortunately, this Court is



15/40

15

not the only Court Appellant Taitz has failed to follow the rules and unfortunately

files frivolous pleadings.1

Appellant Taitz has been Sanctioned before in October 2009, for this very

exact conduct. Unfortunately, Judge Lands Sanctions were not persuasive, as

Taitz continues her disrespect for our Courts, Court Rules; and continues her

barrage of frivolous filings. Appellant Taitz will continue filing her frivolous

papers, if this Court does not put a stop to it.

As stated in Walsh v. Schering-Plough Corp., 758 F.2d 889, 895 (3d Cir.

1985):

Undoubtedly, it was just such considerations that gave rise to therecent amendment to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. That Rule, promulgated tokeep attorneys "honest" in their pleading practice, now authorizessanctions to be imposed when an attorney violates his certificatethat good grounds support his pleading and that the pleading is notinterposed for delay. Moreover, our own Fed.R.App.P. 46(c)

provides for action being taken by us in the event that an attorneywho practices before us exhibits conduct unbecoming a memberof the bar or fails to comply with any rule of the court.2

1 See Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (M.D. Ga. 2009) affd in Rhodes v.MacDonald, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5340 (11th Cir. Ga. Mar. 15, 2010) (Judge Land increasedthe Sanctions against Taitz to Twenty Thousand [$20,000.00] Dollars in attempts to deter herfrom her frivolous filings.) See alsoBarnett v. Obama, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101206 (C.D. Cal.Oct. 29, 2009).

2Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(c) provides:

c) Disciplinary Power of the Court over Attorneys. A court of appeals may, afterreasonable notice and an opportunity to show cause to the contrary, and after hearing, ifrequested, take any appropriate disciplinary action against any attorney who practicesbefore it for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar or for failure to comply withthese rules or any rule of the court.



16/40


17/40

17

frivolous appeal, which is a complete waste of this Courts Judicial Resources; an

attempt to delay the proceedings; and increased the Appellees litigation costs,

which was clearly Appellant Taitzs motive.

The Court in Walsh v. Schering-Plough Corp., 758 F.2d at 896-897 went on

further stating:

If we take no steps to resolve the issue which these affidavitshave now presented to us, we run the risk not only of losing therespect of the bar, but of damaging the professional standards thatlawyers look to us to uphold. Every member of the bar has had his

character and fitness tested and reviewed before obtaining alicense to practice. We, together, with other courts, are chargedwith maintaining at least that level of honesty and professionalismin the conduct of those who, once having obtained the right to

practice, continue to exercise that right before us.

...So too, as each instance of charged professional misconduct isignored by us or deemed unworthy of our attention, our

professional tapestry will imperceptibly, but surely, lose its form,its structure and its shape.

Thus, in my opinion it is no answer to characterize the issuebefore us as one not worth our consideration. If we do not requirestrict adherence to principles which mandate candor andtruthfulness, and if we refuse to decide and enforce claimedviolations of those fundamental precepts, we will have onlyourselves to blame if intolerable and proscribed practices of the

bar become the rule rather than the exception.

For the reasons stated herein, this Court must grant Sanctions against

Appellant Taitz in attempts to deter her from inappropriate behavior and frivolous

3 Miller, The Adversary System: Dinosaur or Phoenix, 69 Minn.L.Rev. 25 (1984).



18/40

18

filings. In addition, the Court must Order Taitz to pay Appellees Attorney fees in

the amount of Fifteen Thousand [$15,000.00] Dollars to cover the costs for

Appellant Taitzs frivolous filings pertaining to the within frivolous appeal.

IV. CONCLUSION:

For all the aforementioned reasons, Appellees, Lisa Liberi, Lisa Ostella,

Philip J. Berg, Esquire, Evelyn Adams, Go Excel Global, and The Law Offices of

Philip J. Berg respectfully request this Court to Dismiss Appellants Orly Taitz and

Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Appeal; and Grant Appellees Request for

Sanctions and Attorney Fees.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: July 27, 2010 ____________________________ Philip J. Berg, Esquire555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531(610) 825-3134

Attorney for the Appellees

s/ Philip J. Berg



19/40

19

EXHIBIT A



20/40

Z:\Liberi Plaintiffs Response/Memorandum in Opp to Defendant Taitzs Motions to unseal and transfer 07.07.2010 1

Law Offices of:PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Attorney for: PlaintiffsIdentification No. 09867(610) 825-3134

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LISA LIBERI, et al,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,Defendants.

::::::::::

Case No.: 09-cv-01898-ECR

Assigned to Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE and MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION

TO DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS REQUEST TO UNSEALTRANSCRIPTS and FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL

NOW COME Plaintiffs, Lisa Liberi [hereinafter Liberi]; Philip J. Berg,

Esquire [hereinafter Berg], the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg; Evelyn Adams a/k/a

Momma E [hereinafter Adams]; Lisa Ostella [hereinafter Ostella]; and Go Excel

Global by and through their undersigned counsel, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, and hereby

Respond in Opposition to Defendant Orly Taitzs Request to Unseal Transcripts and

Request to Stay the Transfer of the Case to California pending the outcome of her

Appeal. In support hereof, Plaintiffs aver as follows:

Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 132 Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 19Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110231358 Page: 20 Date Filed: 07/27/2010


21/40


Defendant Orly Taitz failed to serve her Notice of Appeal, Request toStay the Transfer of the Case to California, pending Appeal, and her

Motion to Unseal Transcripts and failed to file a Certificate ofService;

Defendant Taitz is attempting to appeal Orders which are notappealable as they are Interlocutory and not final Orders;

Defendant Taitz fails to meet the requirements to AppealInterlocutory Orders as established by the Collateral Order Doctrine;

Defendant Orly Taitzs filing appearing as Docket Entries 128, 130and 131 are frivolous; and filed for an improper purpose to further

delay the proceedings; to waste judicial resources; and to costPlaintiffs additional Attorney Fees;

Defendant Orly Taitzs filing appearing as Docket Entries 128, 130and 131 fails to cite any cognizable reasons why a Stay of Action isRequested;

Defendant Orly Taitzs filing appearing as Docket Entries 128, 130and 131 fails to cite any type of legal authority or law to support herrequests;

Defendant Orly Taitzs filing appearing as Docket Entries 128, 130and 131 are not in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure;

The only Transcript Sealed is the Transcript of August 7, 2009, whichwas Plaintiffs Motion for an immediate Temporary RestrainingOrder and offers nothing regarding Defendant Taitzs reasons for

Appeal;

The Transcript of August 7, 2009 contains the Social Security numberof Plaintiff Liberi;

Defendant Orly Taitzs Appeal is based on an Ex Parte Letter which

Plaintiffs were never served with and is not a proper basis for anappeal;

Defendant Orly Taitzs Appeal of this Courts Order of June 25, 2009is time barred;

Defendant Orly Taitzs filings appearing as Docket Entries 128, 130and 131 are an attempt to deceive this Court. All Defendants



22/40


requested transfer of the within case as documented in their filings

appearing as Docket Entry numbers 23, 24, 25 and Taitz own filings

appearing as Docket Entries 35, 48, 50, and 53, just to name a few,stating California is the proper jurisdiction of this Case;

Defendant Taitzs Appeal of this Courts Orders appearing as DocketEntry numbers 109; 116; 118; 123; 124; and 125 are completelyimproper as outlined below and therefore do not warrant any type of

Stay; and

Plaintiffs will be severely damaged and prejudiced if DefendantTaitzs Request/Motion for Stay is Granted.

I. FACTS:

Plaintiffs filed suit against the Defendants on May 4, 2009 for amongst other

things the publication of Plaintiff Liberis Social Security number; date of birth; place of

birth; and other confidential information.

Contrary to Defendant Orly Taitzs filings appearing as Docket Entry numbers

128, 130 and 131 filed July 2, 2010, all Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss, appearing

as Docket Entries twenty-three through twenty-five [23-25], which are Defendants one

line answers: Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint or in the Alternative to Transfer the

case to the Western District of Texas. And in Defendant Orly Taitzs own filings

appearing as Docket Entry numbers 35, 48, 50, and 53, just to name a few, wherein

Defendant Orly Taitz clearly states California is the proper jurisdiction.

Moreover, Defendant Taitzs clearly fails to raise Plaintiffs Motion to Transfer

the within action, which again went unopposed as none of the Defendants responded to

Plaintiffs Motion, except for Defendant Taitzs Letter Brief for Sanctions against the

undersigned for filing Plaintiffs Motion to Transfer Venue.



23/40


As demonstrated by the Docket of this Case, Defendant Taitz has continually filed

ramblings in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In fact, Defendant Taitz

Waived all of her Affirmative Defenses by not filing her Answer timely, but also by the

fact when she did file her Answer, it was only a simple general denial of all allegations,

which is completely improper in the Federal Courts. See Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, Rule 12.

Defendant Orly Taitz states in her Notice of Appeal that she is Appealing the

Courts Orders appearing as Docket Entry numbers 76; 109; 116; 123; 124; and 125

which is completely improper.

This Courts Order of June 25, 2009, appearing as Docket Entry 76 is time barred.

This Order dismissed James Sundquist and Rock Salt Publishing, which was a final Order

and any Appeal thereto had to have been filed within thirty [30] days of the Courts

Order. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 3. Therefore, Appeal of this Courts

June 25, 2009 Order appearing as Docket Entry number 76 is time barred. See Federal

Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 4.

This Courts Order of September 29, 2009, appearing as Docket Entry 109, is

completely improper and is time barred. This Court issued an Order on June 25, 2009,

which directed any party filing with the Court to first seek Leave. Docket Entry 109 is

this Courts Order allowing Plaintiffs to file a reply, which is permitted pursuant to the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to Defendant Orly Taitzs Response in Opposition to

the Plaintiffs Response to this Courts Rules to Show Cause and Plaintiffs Request to

file a request for Judicial Notice. When Plaintiffs sought leave to file their reply, none

of the Defendants opposed Plaintiffs requests for leave or Plaintiffs filings. Thus, they



24/40


waived their rights, and issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See

Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth alliance v. Browner, 121 F.3d 106 (3d Cir.1997),

(Third Circuit Judge Samuel Alito held that issues raised for the first time on appeal are

waived, except in extraordinary circumstances.) There are no extraordinary

circumstances here.

This Courts Order of January 21, 2010, appearing as Docket Entry number 116,

was an Order to file Plaintiffs Attorneys Letter in response to Defendant Orly Taitzs

request from the Court to file a Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions against the undersigned.

Of course, as usual, Defendant Orly Taitz who is a licensed attorney in the State of

California, Request and Motion failed to bear her signature; failed to cite any type of

legal authority or law; and was actually Defendant Taitzs fourth or fifth Motion to

Dismiss which is completely improper. Defendant Orly Taitz never opposed the filing of

the Letter or this Courts Order to file the undersigneds letter docketed, and therefore

any objection thereto was waived by Defendant Taitz.

This Courts Order of June 3, 2010, appearing as Docket Entry number 118 was

amended on June 22, 2010 and therefore, any Appeal thereto is Moot.

The June 22, 2010 Order of this Court explains that the Court had issued Rules to

Show Cause upon Plaintiffs as to Why the Case should not be Dismissed for Lack of

Personal Jurisdiction; Why the Case should not be Severed into three (3) or fewer cases

against the following groups or Defendants (i) the Hales; (ii) Belcher; (iii) Taitz, DOFF,

and Sankey; and Why the Case should not be Transferred to the appropriate district in

either Texas or California. Plaintiffs Responded to the Courts Rules to Show Cause;

Defendant Taitz filed a Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs Response, however, failed



25/40


to touch upon any of the issues which were pending and failed to cite any type of legal

authority as to why Plaintiffs Response failed.

Defendant Taitzs attempts to appeal Order 123, there is no such Order

appearing on the Docket. Docket Entry number 123 is this Courts Memorandum

pertaining to Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration. At no time, has Defendant Taitz

filed a Motion objecting to this Memorandum; a Motion for clarification; or a Motion at

all pertaining to this Courts Memorandum appearing as Docket Entry 123. As stated

previously, you cannot raise issues for the first time on appeal. See Southwestern

Pennsylvania Growth alliance v. Browner, 121 F.3d 106 (3d Cir.1997).

This Courts Order of June 22, 2010, appearing on the docket as Docket Entry

number 124 amends the Courts previous Order of June 3, 2010 appearing as Docket

Entry number 118. In this particular Order, the Court grants Plaintiffs Motion for

Reconsideration as to points one through five [1-5]; Amends its Order of June 3, 2010;

and thereby Severed the Case and Transferred the Case against the California Defendants

to California and the Case against the Texas Defendants to Texas upon its own Rules to

Show Caused issued June 25, 2009, which was completely proper.

This Courts Order of June 23, 2010 appearing as Docket Entry 125 grants

Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration as to points one through five [1-5]. Defendant

Taitz had the opportunity to respond to Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration, however,

failed to properly do so. Therefore, the Court found Defendant Taitzs response does

not substantively address Plaintiff Bergs motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration, thus it is inapposite to the issues at bar. Again, which was completely

proper by this Court.



26/40


All through Defendant Orly Taitzs ramblings, she states the Court failed to take

into account her filings, which is completely untrue, as it is noted in this Courts

Memorandums of June 3, 2010 and June 22, 2010. Moreover, Defendant Taitz screams

that this Court failed to take into consideration Defendants Sankey and Belchers Letters.

This Court gave more leeway to the other Defendants. Defendants Sankey and

Belchers Letters were never served upon the Plaintiffs and therefore were ex parte

communications, which are completely improper. Despite this, the Court did mention

Defendant Sankeys Letter, which was how Plaintiffs learned that Sankey sent a Letter

to the Judge. Plaintiffs learned of Defendant Belchers Letter as it was posted all over

the Internet and posted by Defendant Orly Taitz on her website1.

The entire basis used by Defendant Taitz in her Appeal is the Letter of Defendant

Linda Belcher. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that Defendant Orly

Taitz orchestrated the Letter signed by Defendant Linda Belcher. This is proven by the

mere fact that on page one of Defendant Belchers Letter the only party carbon copied is

Orly Taitz and no one else. This in itself is a fraud upon the Courts. Moreover,

Defendant Belchers Letter contains nothing but hearsay; speculation; inaccurate and

false statements; and does nothing more than recite Defendant Orly Taitzs recent filings

with this Court.

It has just come to the undersigneds attention that the entire Letter of Defendant

Belcher, again as orchestrated by Defendant Taitz, was a complete fraud upon this Court.

A person who posted on Philip J. Bergs website by the name of Tina Conner, was told

by Linda Sue Belcher, referred in the post as LSB, that she Linda Sue Belcher sought

out Orly Taitz to continue her revenge against Philip J. Berg, Esquire and Lisa Liberi,

1 www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=12091



27/40


Plaintiffs herein. Further, according to the post on Politijab2

by LMK a/k/a Tina Conner,

Defendant Orly Taitz was willing to allow Defendant Linda Sue Belcher to help her

(Defendant Taitz) target Philip J. Berg, Esquire. See EXHIBIT 1 attached hereto. This

Court may recall, Defendant Orly Taitz threatened to take Philip J. Berg, Esquire down

and to do so she (Defendant Taitz) was going to destroy his paralegal, Plaintiff Lisa

Liberi herein, which was admitted by Defendant Orly Taitz in her Court filings.

Most importantly, however, is the fact the Orders Defendant Taitz is attempting to

Appeal are not Appealable Orders.

II. THE ONLY TRANSCRIPT SEALED IS FROM THE AUGUST 7, 2009

HEARING WHICH DOES NOT PERTAIN TO DEFENDANT TAITZS

APPEAL and THEREFORE, THERE IS NO BASIS TO UNSEAL THIS

PARTICULAR TRANSCRIPT:

Defendant Taitzs filings appearing as Docket Entry numbers 128, 130 and 131

requests this Court to Unseal Transcripts claiming none of the Defendants were aware

that the Transcripts were sealed. This is hogwash to say the least. The only Transcript

which touches upon Defendant Taitzs Notice of Appeal is the June 25, 2009 Transcript

which is not sealed.

The only Transcript Sealed is the Transcript of August 7, 2009, which was the

Hearing of Plaintiffs Motion for an Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and has

nothing to do with Defendant Taitzs Appeal. In this August 7, 2009 Transcript is

Plaintiff Liberis full Social Security number and the parties names, addresses, etc. all of

which was Sealed to protect the parties. All parties present for this Hearing were made

aware the proceedings, all exhibits, and the Transcript were Sealed. The Court may

2 http://politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=153264#p153264



28/40


recall Plaintiff Liberi showed this Court documents bearing her residential address, which

was not California or Texas. There is absolutely no basis for this transcript pertaining to

Defendant Taitzs Appeal, nothing in the Defendants Appeal addresses anything

regarding this particular Hearing or any Order thereto. Unless of course, Defendant Taitz

is planning on using the Transcript to further publish Plaintiff Liberis Social Security as

she has continued doing since the filing of the within lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant

Taitzs request is not in conformity with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as

Defendant Taitz failed to put the case number, failed to cite with particularity the relief

sought and/or the reason for said relief; failed to file a brief with any type of legal

authority or law; failed to serve the parties; and failed to file a Certificate of Service in

violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 5; 7(b); 8; 10(a); Local Rules

7.1(a); and 7.1(c). Moreover, the Orders Defendant Taitz is attempting to Appeal are not

Appealable Orders.

Therefore, Defendant Taitzs Request to Unseal this particular Transcript must be

Denied.

III. DEFENDANT TAITZ REQUEST/MOTION TO STAY THE

TRANSFER OF THE WITHIN CASE TO CALIFORNIA PENDING

HER APPEAL FAILS ON ITS FACE:

Defendant Orly Taitz next asks this Court to Stay the Transfer of the Case to

California, however, Defendant Taitz, as usual, failed to follow the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure; failed to cite any type of cognizable claim as to why the transfer should be

stayed pending appeal; failed to cite any type of prejudice if the transfer is not stayed;

fails to cite any type of legal authority or law; and failed to serve any of the parties

associated with the case, which is demonstrated by the fact Defendant Taitz failed to file



29/40


a Certificate of Service all in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 5;

7(b); 8; 10(a); Local Rules 7.1(a); and 7.1(c).

Defendant Taitzs Motion to Stay the Transfer of the Case to California pending

the outcome of her Appeal fails in every aspect of our laws.

It is well settled law in Pennsylvania in order to succeed on a Motion to Stay

pending Appeal, the Court must address four (4) issues: (1) the movant's likelihood of

success on the merits; (2) whether the movant will suffer irreparable harm if the request

is denied; (3) whether third parties will be harmed by the stay; and (4) whether granting

the stay will serve the public interests, Susquenita Sch. Dist. v. Raelee, 96 F.3d 78, 80 (3d

Cir. 1996);In re Penn Cent. Transp. Co., 457 F.2d 381, 384-85 (3d Cir. 1972).

Here, Defendant Taitzs has failed to address any of the issues required. If a stay

is granted, Plaintiffs will be severely prejudiced and harmed by said stay. Plaintiffs

filed their case on May 4, 2009, since this time no action has been taken. Meanwhile,

Defendant Taitzs has continued her aggressive and illegal behaviors; she has continued

her Republication of Plaintiff Liberis Social Security number and other confidential

information. Defendant Taitz has absolutely no regard to any of the Courts Orders, and

therefore, Plaintiffs continue suffering irreparable harm by Defendant Taitzs actions.

The Plaintiffs case must be transferred so it may be heard and damages can be awarded

for the wrongs committed by the Defendants.

There is absolutely no likelihood of success with Defendant Taitz Appeal.

Defendant Taitz is Appealing Interlocutory Orders. As this Court is well aware,

normally, appeals must await a "final order" on the case that resolves all the issues, such

as a dismissal or judgment, Harris v. Kellogg, Brown, & Root Servs, 2009 U.S. Dist.



30/40


LEXIS 36253 (W.D. PA 2009). The Orders Defendant Taitz is attempting to Appeal are

not appealable. Interlocutory Appeals are governed by 28 U.S.C. 1292, which also

fails in the case herein.

Even if the Interlocutory Appeal were permitted, which it is not, Defendant

Taitzs Appeal would still fail. Interlocutory Appeals are guided by the Collateral Order

Doctrine, which also fails in the case herein. See Carr v. Am. Red Cross, 17 F.3d 671,

675 (3d Cir. 1994) (citing Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978)).

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has construed the Collateral Order Doctrine

narrowly, and in so doing stated, lest the exception swallow up the salutary general

rule that only final orders may be appealed. Yakowicz v. Pennsylvania, 683 F.2d 778,

783 n.10 (3d Cir. 1982) (quoting Rodgers v. U.S. Steel Corp., 541 F.2d 365, 369 (3d

Cir.1976)).

There are three [3] requirements that must be met in order to appeal an

Interlocutory Order, which Defendant Taitzs is unable to meet. The Third Circuit Court

of Appeals has held they cannot exercise jurisdiction over a Collateral Order unless all

three requirements of the Collateral Order Doctrine are satisfied. See Carr, 17 F.3d at

675.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held In general, an order transferring a

case is not a final order and, hence, not appealable. In re United States, 2001 U.S. App.

LEXIS 25231 (3d Cir 2001) (quoting Nascone v. Spudnuts, Inc., 735 F.2d 763, 764 (3d

Cir. 1984).

For these reasons, Defendant Taitzs Request for a Stay must be Denied.



31/40


IV. CONCLUSION:

For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Orly Taitzs Request/Motion to Unseal

the August 7, 2009 Transcript and Request/Motion to Stay the Transfer of the Case to

California pending Appeal, must be Denied.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: July 9, 2010 ______________________________ Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Attorney for Plaintiffs

s/ Philip J. Berg



32/40


EXHIBIT 1



33/40

Report this postReply with quote

Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

by LM K Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:54 pm

TollandRCR wrote:

Foggy wrote:For those who missed her act back then and would care to dip into the deepest sort ofmadness, I have a simple textfile where she addresses several of the current PJ members ...

Is there a shred of truth to her claim that she dug out Republican corruption for a decade?

Absolutely not. Linda is full of shit. She also claims to have motivated Berg to sue Bush and Cheney for 9/11.

Like all the players in birferstan, Linda is mentally ill. Later I will share more about my exploits with LSB. I don't know if she has caughtthe few comments that I have made here outing my birfer persona Tina Conner, a nice uber Christian woman homeschooling her 2sons and looking into living off the grid because the gubermint was too damn scary. LSB liked Tina, and Tina learned some things

about LSB. She claims to have been raped by GWBush when he was governor. She uncovered the Kilian papers (we knew thatbefore Tina milked LSB for info). She uncovered the "truth" about 9/11. Her works has been so astonishing that she has to protecther identity. And on and on and on.

In reality, LSB is mostly home-bound because of depression and anxiety. She is really poor, and lives in a dump with her major white-supremacist boyfriend (some of us have researched LSB and have tracked her boyfriend's white-supremacist online activities). Linda

just needs to feel like she is a threat to the entire GOP structure. In reality, I think she claims to have done these things so she can"prove" that she knows what she is talking about regarding the Usurper (to convince folks to donate to Berg ... perhaps she wasgetting $$$$ from the donations) and to deflect racism accusations. Well, her boyfriend is an uber racist. LSB is as well.

Linda's claims are only true in her imaginary world. Not even Orly will give LSB the time of day, even through LSB went to her and toldher she was right about Berg and LisaL as a peace offering and proof of her transferred loyalties to Orly.. LSB is the one thatmotivated Orly to get involved in this mess about LisaL as an act of revenge. Orly was willing to let LSB help her target Berg. Beyondthat, Orly completely ignores LSB .

Palin has shown she still has the attention span of a hummingbird on a nectar jag.

Timothy Egan

LM KPosts: 6237Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:59 pmLocation: A Liberal-Socialist-Swine Ivory Tower

Private message

http://politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=153264#p153264



34/40



35/40



36/40



37/40


Law Offices of:Philip J. Berg, Esquire555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Identification No. 09867(610) 825-3134 Attorney for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LISA LIBERI, et al,

Plaintiffs,vs.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,Defendants.

:::::::

:::

Case No.: 09-cv-01898-ECR

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of Plaintiffs

Response/Memorandum to Defendant Taitzs Request/Motion to Unseal Transcripts and

Request/Motion to Stay the Transfer of the Case to California pending Appeal was served

this 9th

day of July 2010 electronically upon the following:

Orly Taitz

Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc. (unrepresented)

26302 La Paz Ste 211

Mission Viejo, CA 92691Email: [email protected]

Neil SankeyThe Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm (unrepresented)

Sankey Investigations, Inc.2470 Stearns Street #162

Simi Valley, CA 93063

Email: [email protected]



38/40


Linda Sue Belcher

201 Paris

Castroville, Texas 78009Email: [email protected] and


Ed Hale

Caren Hale

Plains RadioKPRN

Bar H Farms

1401 Bowie StreetWellington, Texas 79095

Email: [email protected]; [email protected];

ed@barhfarnet; and [email protected]

________________________PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE

s/ Philip J. Berg



39/40

20

U.S. District Court,Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case Number: 09-cv-01898 ECR

Court of Appeals No. Case Number: 10-3000

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________________________

LISA LIBERI, et al,

Plaintiffs Appellants,

v.ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Defendants Appellees.__________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

_____________________

I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify that Appellees, Lisa Liberi, Lisa

Ostella, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, Evelyn Adams, Go Excel Global, and The Law

Offices of Philip J. Berg Motion to Dismiss Appellants Orly Taitz and Defend our

Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Appeal; and for Sanctions and Attorney Fees was

served upon the parties, this 27th day of July 2010 electronically upon the

following:

Orly TaitzDefend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc. (unrepresented)

26302 La Paz Ste 211Mission Viejo, CA 92691




40/40

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, Continued

Neil Sankey

Sankey Investigations, Inc.Post Office Box 8298 Mission Hills, CA 91346By USPS with Postage fully prepaid

The Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm (unrepresented)2470 Stearns Street #162 Simi Valley, CA 93063

By USPS with Postage fully prepaid

Linda Sue Belcher

201 ParisCastroville, Texas 78009

Email: [email protected] andEmail: [email protected]

Ed HaleCaren Hale

Plains RadioKPRN

Bar H Farms1401 Bowie StreetWellington, Texas 79095

Email: [email protected];[email protected];ed@barhfarnet; and [email protected]

________________________PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE

s/ Philip J. Berg


Documents

LIBERI v TAITZ (ORLY APPEAL) - Motion to Dismiss Appeal - Transport Room