Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Case #10-3000
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT
____________________________________
Liberi et al –Appellees
V
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, Taitz and Belcher –appellants
1
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242718 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
Defend Our Freedoms foundation was forced to start a new website for her
foundation, when her former volunteer web master Lisa Ostella without any
authorization took over the website of her foundation and continued soliciting
donations from supporters, whereby diverting funds from the foundation, while at
the same time denigrating Taitz and promoting attorney Philip Berg.
2. At the same time Taitz was contacted by Linda Belcher, former volunteer for
Attorney Philip Berg, whereby Belcher disclosed that assitant for Berg, Lisa
3. Taitz and licensed investigator Sankey did their due diligence conducted
James Secord, probation officer, victims, pulled all the public records and verified
that indeed assitant for attorney Berg, is Lisa Liberi, an individual, convicted in
CA in 2008, who received eight years prison term, which was reduced to
probation until March of 2011. According to the terms of her probation, she is
allowed to reside only in CA or NM. Exhibit 6-3 Superior court of San Bernardino
aka Lisa Courville Richardson, aka Lisa Courville Rich, aka Lisa Richardson.
showing 10 felony convictions. Exhibit 6-4 Superior Court of CA, San Bernardino
County counts of indictments FSB044914 for Lisa Liberi and Exhibit 5 Superior
court of CA, San Bernardino County Case FWV082000 indictments for Lisa
2
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242718 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
Liberi. Indictments show multiple schemes, where through forgery and fraud
4. In and around April of 2009 Taitz has contacted Berg by two e-mails, forwarded
to him Liberi's conviction summary and advised him that she is aware of Liberi's
past, that she is aware that Liberi assists Berg by preparing documents for him and
mailing those to him and that she had a number of concerns. She was concerned
about the fact that Berg and Liberi went on a number of radio shows, where they
announced that Liberi was an able assistant for Berg, that she has prepared his
case Berg v Obama, that contained affidavits from Kenya, attesting to Obama's
birth there. Taitz asked Berg to allow her and forensic document expert to examine
the original documents from Africa, to make sure that those are not forged, as it
was possible in light of Liberi's convictions just a year earlier. While Taitz believes
that Mr. Obama needs to unseal his original birth certificate with the name of the
hospital and doctor, she was concerned about those affidavits from Africa, as those
will only undermine the case, and disclosure had to be made. In light of the fact
that Berg and Liberi were conducting a nation wide fundraising for that case
fundraising and cannot handle credit cards of others. Additionally Taitz advised
Berg, that his association with Lisa Ostella, Taitz former web master constitutes
3
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242718 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
5. Berg never responded to Taitz, but instead continued his attacks on her, never
granted her right to see original affidavits from Africa, used in Berg v Obama and
continued fundraising.
convictions and all the above information and published Liberi's summary of
7. On 05.04. 2009 Berg filed current legal action 09-1898 in the Eastern District of
PA, based on diversity and claimed Libel, Assault and Slander. Berg sued all of the
parties who blew the whistle on him, Liberi and Ostella. He sued Taitz, her
volunteer Linda Belcher, talk show host Ed Hale, Hale's radio station and Hale's
wife Caren and a number of other entities . Berg, also included in this case a
separate conflict that talk show host Evelyn Adams aka Momma E had with Ed
Hale. The essence of his allegation was, that Lisa Liberi, who works for him, is a
different Lisa Liberi, that she is an innocent woman, residing in PA, and she is not
Lisa Liberi, who was convicted in CA. While Berg included residential addresses
of all the parties, he never provided any address for Liberi in the state of PA, but
8. From May of 2009 until now, for over a year, Berg has never provided a shred
of evidence, proving that Liberi resided in PA at the time he filed the law suit.
9. Defendants filed motions, stating that prior to even getting into the essence of
4
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242718 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
10 . While the issue of jurisdiction was being considered by the court Berg filed a
motion for temporary restraining order, seeking a de facto gag order on any and
allow information about the plaintiffs. This motion was denied by the court after
12. On February 17, 2010 Third Circuit Court of Appeals received a United States
Government Memorandum from Joan Carr, from USDC in the Eastern District of
case;09-3403. It stated: “On September 24, 2009 David Hayes left a voice
message for counsel regarding the transcripts requested. Counsel was also notified
that the proceeding held August 7, 2009 was under seal and an order of court
date our office has not received payment, a motion to unseal has not been docketed
nor has a transcript purchase order form been submitted to the District Court.
Taitz was concerned about the fact that an order to seal the transcript was issued
by Judge Robreno, but never docketed. Taitz, as a party, was never notified of such
seal of records, and there was never any explanation given, as to why was the
13. On 07.02. 10 Taitz filed an appeal of a different order and filed a motion to un
all the parties were notified that the transcript was sealed due to the fact that it
14. On 07.14.10. Judge Robreno issued an order, denying the motion to unseal the
transcript, stating that the transcript was not sealed. Clearly there was a
contradiction. The same Federal Judge cannot issue an order to seal the transcript,
whereby a special motion would be necessary to unseal it, and later deny such
motion, stating that the transcript was never sealed. Berg filed yet another motion
to keep the transcript under seal. Finally, yesterday, on August 4 2010, nearly a
year after the hearing Judge Robreno issued an order, stating that the transcript was
not sealed and Taitz was finally able to get the transcript. Berg continuously
defrauded the defendants, clerks and judge Robreno by claiming that the transcript
was sealed, trying to de facto achieve the gag order he desired, by stating the same
lie time and again to the clerks and judges, so that they would believe it.
15. The same United States government memorandum contained a second page,
that satisfactory financial arrangements have been completed with the court
reporter for payment of the cost of the transcript. The method of payment is private
funds. signature Philip Berg. Date August 28, 2009. Petitioner (Appellant)
Telephone 610-825-3134.
16. On 07.21.10 Taitz was finally able to talk to clerk David Hayes from US
district court for the Eastern District of PA. Taitz asked why the cost of transcript
was $1,100, a high fee for a copy, in light of the fact that according to certification
of Berg, he already made financial arrangements with the court reporter to pay for
the transcript back in August of 2009, and the copy should be less expensive. Mr.
6
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242718 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
Hayes checked the records. Philip Berg never made any financial
arrangements. He never paid a cent. For nine month Berg and his clients and co-
appellants harassed all of the defendants/ appellees by claiming that they have an
prejudicial and inflammatory material with both the District Court and the Court of
Appeals, in a scheme to prejudice both judges of the District Court and the Court
of Appeals against the defendants, while knowing all along that they never paid
for the transcript and never ordered the transcript and defrauded both courts and
the defendants.
17. During the same conversation Taitz inquired if there was any order from Judge
Robreno to delete from the electronic docket exhibits that she filed on 06.14.10.
which included Liberi's filing for banruptcy in Ca, her declaration made in her
criminal case in Ca and summary of her criminal convictions. All of the documents
were brought with the proper purpose of showing her being subject to the
juridiction of the state of CA and showing that there was no diverisity with Taitz,
also a resident of Ca, therefore grounds for dismissal due to lack of diversity and
lack of jurisdiction. Those documents also showed Liberi's signature, being the
same as filed with her original verified complaint. Mr. Hayes knew of no such
order from judge Robreno. No other clerk knew of any such order. Exhibit 6-7 Lisa
Liberi's Bankruptcy Court, Central District of CA filing. brought with the proper
Cucamonga, San Bernardino county CA, where she was arrested and convicted.
For the purpose of this filing social security number of Liberi was redacted to show
7
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242718 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
only the four last digits, however defendants can provide an unredacted copy,
18 Taitz inquired with the clerks, if there was any order from judge Robreno to
seal the initial verified complaint, filed by Berg on behalf of the plaintiffs,
containing a sample of Liberi's hand writing, which was the same handwriting as
shown on her filing for bankruptcy and her declaration made in the Superior court,
which were filed by Taitz as Exhibits in document 121, which were deleted from
the electronic docket as well. No clerk could provide an answer, why the complaint
19. During a year of litigation Berg repeatedly signed certifications, claiming that
he served all of the defendants, including defendant Linda Belcher and that her
silence is a sign of her agreement with all of Berg's allegations and demands.
20. In June of 2010 Taitz was contacted by Belcher, who forwarded to Taitz a
copy of her written statement, made under penalty of perjury (Exhibit 6-8), that
she did not receive any pleadings from Berg since her attorney Mr. Hoppe
resigned in Summer of 2009. Ms. Belcher stated in her letter, that was mailed and
faxed to the court, but never docketed, that she refused to be served by e-mail due
8
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242718 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
20. In her letter under penalty of perjury Belcher stated, that Lisa Liberi has
personally asked Belcher to file fraudulent complaints against Taitz and against
another attorney Theresa LaLoggia from the firm Dickstein Shapiro. Ms. LaLoggia
is a member of PA bar. Again, under penalty of perjury Belcher stated that she was
present on a three way phone call, when Liberi asked another individual, Larry
Sinclair, who has an extensive criminal record to file such complaint against Taitz.
Sinclair filed a fraudulent complaint against Taitz with Judge Carter, fraudulently
claiming that Taitz has asked him to state something that was not true, accusing
Taitz of suborning perjury. That undermined Taitz case in front of judge Carter,
who included mention of this complaint in his ruling. Later Berg and Liberi
included this decision from judge Carter in their pleading in front of judge Robreno
to claim that Taitz does not have a good character for veracity, that she suborns
perjury and that her pleadings are not to be trusted. This Exhibit #6-8 was brought
for the proper purpose, as an example of how a licensed attorney Berg used
convicted criminals in order to defraud and manipulate two federal judges: Judge
David O. Carter in Ca and judge Eduardo Robreno in PA, in order to achieve his
purpose of framing and undermining Taitz, a person, who blew the whistle on him
and his assistant Liberi. It is brought for the proper purpose of supporting a motion
for an order to show cause, why sanctions should not be assessed against Berg and
20. Exhibit 6-9, Printout of the transcript of the testimony of Investigator Liebrich,
given under penalty of perjury during preliminary hearing before judge John M.
07.29.04 during her incarceration. This exhibit is brought for the proper purpose
of showing a common scheme and modus operandi of Liberi committing fraud and
conversation Lisa Liberi had with her husband Brent Liberi where she is planning
a "hit", a "green light" on her own sister Cheryl Richardson after Ms. Richardson
cooperated with the police and disclosed 19 previous charges against Lisa Liberi.
Liebrich:"... she was going to have somehow get her arrested and then spread
through the jail system that she was quote unquote "a rat" and she told her husband
Question from the court: "And what happens when inmates discover that another
inmate is a snitch?
things: they are attacked and or killed. In fact, you brought up L. A. County, in the
last year five have been killed within the jail system". Exhibit 6-10 shows a
photograph of Lisa Liberi with her husband Brent Liberi, and judge Robreno can
see, that it is the same woman, who appeared in front of him on August 7, 2009
and claimed that she is an innocent woman, who was never convicted of any
crimes and was slandered and defamed by the defendants (picture of her son was
10
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242718 Page: 11 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
21. Exhibit 6-11Shows a declaration under penalty of perjury Lisa Liberi made
her motion to Recuse the Office of the district of the County of San
Bernardino. Her social security number is redacted to show only the last
four digits. Only the first and last pages are filed with the current motion,
full document was previously filed with the document 121, where the
the hard copy with the court. Exhibit 6-12 is the signature page of the
verification filed by Liberi in her motion for TRO filed on July 15, 2009 by
her attorney Berg in the current action for defamation and slander. These
last two exhibits show the same signature. One can see the signature of
charges and the same signature of Lisa Liberi, who filed this action for
and was slandered and defamed by the defendants. It also shows that she is
11
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242718 Page: 12 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
Appellants just recently filed this appeal. Marcia Waldron, the clerk of
this court recently issued an order to the district court to release the
transcript by August 23, 2010. The Appellants will have at least 40 days
have improperly jumped the gun and filed a premature Motion to dismiss
before Appellants had time to fully review the transcript and file a proper
Appellees filed their motion to dismiss in this court, they filed a motion
to keep the transcript under seal. This motion to dismiss prior the
Appellants and waste their time and to try to keep hidden from the
Berg.
II. All of the orders being appealed are relating to one issue.
Under Cohen v Beneficial Industries Loan Corp. 337 US 541 (1949) „an
from and collateral to rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied
review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate
consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated” Id., 337 US at 546.
While several orders are listed, in reality those are representing a continuation of
one order, as only one issue was decided in the District court for the Eastern
12
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242718 Page: 13 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
diversity and jurisdiction. Plaintiffs, by virtue of fraud on the court and perjury
claimed that their lead Plaintiff Lisa Liberi is a resident of PA, an innocent woman,
residing in PA, who was never convicted of any crimes and was defamed by the
defendants who posted her criminal wrap sheet in CA. Plaintiffs claimed that
Liberi was never convicted in CA. It is a well established doctrine, that residency
evidence. In case at hand the docket does not show any shred of evidence of Liberi
residing in PA. There is only a statement by her and her attorney and co-plaintiff
Berg and Berg‟s business address given as Liberi‟s address. District court
completely disregarded any and all evidence brought by the defendants showing
that Liberi did not reside in PA and could not reside in PA based on the conditions
of her probation.
The main issue of the appeal, is whether a district court has power to decide an
issue of diversity and jurisdiction without any shred of any evidence? This matter
was separate from the issue of defamation and slander, which is the basis of the
PA. Defendants Taitz and Defend Our Freedoms Foundation were seeking
dismissal of the case based on lack of jurisdiction. Since the plaintiffs did not
provide any factual evidence of Liberi’s residence in PA, the court had no
basis to establish diversity of citizenship; therefore it did not have any basis to
13
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242718 Page: 14 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
dismissed in PA.
Third Circuit Court of appeals established a three prong test to evaluate the
party to the district and attorney for the party can defraud the tribunal,
her Attorney’s business address in that state, and the court completely
attorney, in this case Philip J. Berg? If the answer is no, than the case
goes back to the District court for proper evidentiary hearing in regards
and will encourage plaintiffs attorneys to simply lie about the residency
of their clients, as they would know, that they can do it with impunity
this order will be allowed to stand, and the case is severed and
transferred to Ca and TX, it would be taken at it’s face value, the courts
there will assume that the district court in PA has held evidentiary
14
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242718 Page: 15 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
and the Circuit courts of Appeals there will not be able to review those
orders, as the 9th circuit court of Appeals in CA and the 5th circuit court
from PA, therefore this matter needs to be reviewed now and the Third
Circuit court of Appeals is not only a proper forum , but is the only
proper forum based on Carr v Am. Red Cross 17 F 3d 671, 675 (3d Cir
1994).
As such current appeal is proper and brought in the proper jurisdiction of the Third
Additionally, this is not a purely transfer order, but an order of severance of the
case after the plaintiffs used it as a dumping ground for prejudicial, inflammatory
App. Lexis 25231 (3rd Cir 2001) (Quoting Nascone v Spudnuts,) brought by the
on probation with the probation department of the state of CA and allowed to live
intermittently either in CA or New Mexico, but not any other state. Since
defendants Sankey, Taitz, Sankey firm and Defend our Freedoms Foundation are
residents of Ca, there was no Diversity and the case had to be dismissed due to lack
plaintiffs Ostella and GoExcelGlobal were also residents of New Jersey. Sundquist
sought an order to dismiss with prejudice. Court dismissed him without prejudice,
15
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242718 Page: 16 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
therefore the disposition regarding Sundquist was not final and Berg can refile a
legal action against him at any time. Additionally, the court improperly pressured
in creating diversity, which never existed. The court showed bias in favor of the
defendants, showing that to be a complete fraud on the court. Therefore, the orders
were not barred and had to be seen as interrelating to one and only issue decided,
issue of diversity and citizenship of the parties. The court showed improper
abuse of it‟s judicial discretion by stating that Liberi‟s residence was in PA. As
such all of the orders need to be seen as interrelated or as a basis to the final order
in documents 123 and 124, as well as order relating to the Motion for
III. Order being appealed represents a de facto final order of the case with the
Case at hand was filed by the plaintiffs against numerous defendants residing in Ca
and TX. For over a year The Plaintiffs continued filing hundreds and by now
defendants, while the court was waiting for the results of the interlocutory appeal
filed by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff and the attorney for the Plaintiffs Philip J. Berg
defrauded the District Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals by claiming
that he ordered the transcript of the hearing and made financial arrangements. In
16
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242718 Page: 17 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
reality he never made any arrangements, he never paid a cent, but simply used the
District Court as well as the Court of Appeals as a dumping ground for irrelevant,
this appeal is the fact, that this is a an appeal of “de facto” final order as far as
current action is concerned, as the case was severed in two and forwarded to TX
and CA. The order states, that current action contained two distinct separate
disputes arising out of two nuclei of events. As the case was severed, Ca
longer be defendants in CA case, however the file is full to the brim with hundreds
of pages of prejudicial filings about all of the defendants, which will make it
extremely difficult for the presiding judge in CA or TX to make sense of. Current
Motion to Dismiss, that is being opposed is stating that it is not a final judgment, it
is an interlocutory appeal and claims that it is untimely and improper. First of all,
orders, denying their TRO/injunction requests, orders that were issued in August of
2009 and in two months earlier in June of 2009. Additionally, as argued herein,
this is a de-facto final order of the current case, since the only issue decided in
PA was jurisdiction, and the appeal is stating that the court erred in this order by
denying the appellants motion to dismiss, and creating two cases full of entangled
evidence, the proper order was supposed to be dismissal of the case 09-1898 in
17
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242718 Page: 18 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
defendants.
IV. Appellees and their attorney Philip J Berg should not be allowed to profit
from the fraud on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the District court
1. they claimed that the lead plaintiff Liberi resides in PA, while indeed she did not
reside in PA, and was not allowed to reside in PA or any other state except CA or
2. Berg defrauded this court and the District Court by claiming that he made
financial arrangements to purchase the transcript, while in reality he did not pay a
3. Berg defrauded this court and the District court by claiming that the transcript of
August 7, 2009 hearing was sealed, while in reality it was not sealed, and it took
making fraudulent and highly prejudicial and untrue statements, claiming that the
defendants and specifically Doctor and Attorney Orly Taitz made statements where
she stated that she will “purge the plaintiffs”, “she will take them down,” that she
hired a criminal to hack into her own pay –pal account to steel money from herself
in order to kidnap the son of the plaintiff, convicted document forger and thief
Liberi and children of her former webmaster Ostella, who was diverting funds
18
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242718 Page: 19 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
from the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, CA foundation, where Dr. Taitz is a
president.
Berg simply arrogantly loaded the docket in both the District Court and the court
of Appeals with all this slanderous untrue material built on fraud and perjury and is
trying to draw profit out of it. It would be against the public policy to grant his
motion based on fraud and perjury. Berg‟s diabolical lack of Conscience and
complete disregard for the truth is staggering and can be only matched by the
diabolical disrespect for the truth by his lead plaintiff and paralegal, convicted
document forger and convicted thief Lisa Liberi. Berg is completely defrauding
this tribunal. For example, he brought forward the case of Rhodes v MacDonald,
the only case where Taitz was ever sanctioned, but he is not disclosing to the
tribunal the fact that in Rhodes the decision to sanction her was a political decision,
due to the fact, that she dared to represent two military officers, questioning their
deployment, and her pro-bono legal action interfered with the deployment, that this
is not a settled case, and it is being currently appealed in the Supreme Court of the
United States. On the other hand Berg does not mention two cases, where he
actually was sanctioned specifically for what he is doing in this case, defrauding
the court. Berg is the one who should be sanctioned for bringing both the original
case and the appeal based on fraud, in order to cover up his prior illegal dealings
harassed all the defendants for a year and a half with a frivolous law suit based on
fraud on the court and his own perjury , and he is demanding sanctions against
Taitz. Fed RAP 46 c and Walsh v Schering-Plough Corp., 758 F2d at 896-897
19
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242718 Page: 20 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
apply to Berg and his despicable behavior “ We, together, with other courts are
charged with maintaining at least that level of honesty …” Taitz brings forward
exhibits 1-6 with sworn statements by a decorated military officer and a Desert
storm veteran Pamela Barnett, decorated Scotland Yard Officer and licensed
investigator Neil Sankey, Berg‟s own volunteer Linda Belcher, Talk show host Ed
Hale, his wife Caren Cieli Hale, all of whom depict Berg and/or Liberi as
complete and/or pathological liers. Not only Berg has to be severely sanctioned for
a year and a half of fraud on the District court and the Court of Appeals, but both
of them and the rest of the plaintiffs need to be criminally prosecuted for repeated
tribunal
Appellants would like to draw the attention of this court to improper evidence
Page 15, 16, 17 of this motion to dismiss contains screen shots of a blog Politijab,
name “Foggy”, claiming that defendant Linda Belcher is “full of shit”. It is mind
boggling that a licensed PA attorney Philip Berg would bring such “evidence” as
basis for his motion to dismiss. Submitting such evidence shows total disrespect
for the tribunal and the system of Justice and shows that Appellees and their
attorney Berg have submitted this motion with an improper purpose to simply
harass the appellants and waste their time. Additionally, Berg was warned in his
prior appeal to stick to the issues and refrain from attacks. He continues his
20
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242718 Page: 21 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
“that Taitz filed a bunch of ramblings that amounted to nothing” p.6 of current
motion. He completely disregards the truth and the facts. For example, in the prior
appeal of this very case filed by Berg as #09-3403, Liberi v Taitz Third circuit
court of Appeals Berg has filed a total of 11 motions and requests for judicial
material, all of which were promptly denied by this court and Berg finally
withdrew his appeal after an order to show cause was issued. So, who is the one,
filing a bunch of ramblings that amount to nothing? Based on the history in this
Additionally, 90% of the statements in the current motion are either fraudulent
in the framework of the answer to the motion to dismiss, as 90% of the issues
brought in this motion are not related to the appeal itself, and again Berg failed to
VII Time to submit the appeal was tolled and extended by the fact that Berg
Belcher is an indigent and had only limited representation in the District Court for
2 months only in June, July of 2009. After that time Berg was supposed to serve
her personally. Belcher refused to be served by e-mail due to the malware threat
and she was never served by Mail. As a matter of fact the defendant/appellant
Belcher, according to her sworn testimony, was not served by Berg with any
pleadings from the end of July. The court‟s own docket showed that in December
21
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242718 Page: 22 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
2009 an order was mailed from the court to Belcher, but came back around
January of 2010 as undeliverable, with a wrong address. Belcher has written to the
District court, complaining that she was not served and the orders from end of July
of 2009 need to be set aside, due to the fact that she was denied her 14 th
amendment rights of Due process and Equal Protection. Her letter, mailed and
faxed to the court was not docketed and was not considered. Due to the fact that
there was no service of process to the defendant Belcher, the time to respond to the
orders will toll till the time she first knew about the orders, which was May-June
2010. Other defendants/appellants were, also, negatively affected by the fact that
Berg did not serve Belcher. Belcher was an insider, who knew both Berg and
Liberi. Belcher was in contact with Berg for some 12 years, much of the
information the rest of the defendants had, came from the information, supplied by
Belcher, therefore the time frame to respond will toll for the rest of the defendants/
VI Order to file a leave of court prior to filing motions did not bar this appeal
This is probably the most ridiculous argument of the whole motion. As Berg
and prejudicial material, the defendants pleaded with the district court to stop this
paper avalanche, used to burry the defendants and simply harass them. The district
court issued an order to file a motion for leave of court on any filings with this
district court. This order has nothing to do with the Appeal with the Court of
Appeals. District court cannot take away from a party it‟s 14 th Amendment due
process right to file an appeal. If that would be a case, every judge will issue such
22
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242718 Page: 23 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
orders and no party will be able to appeal any of the decisions of the District court
judges. Additionally, District court released this case and ordered it transferred,
therefore the motion to file for the leave of court became moot as to the District
VII. Appellees should be sanctioned for repeated acts of fraud on the court
attorney for the appellees committed multiple acts on fraud upon this court, and the
District court, which warrants sanctions against him. Only one of multiple
examples of such fraud is the Exhibit 6-2, Transcript Request order filed by Berg
in his appeal in case 09-3403 Liberi v Taitz that he filed with this very court in
August of 2009. The transcript order form clearly states that not making financial
this court for over half a year as a dumping ground for prejudicial and
did not obtain the transcript, he simply withdrew his appeal leaving the defendants
emotional distress due to horrific defamatory allegations made by Berg and the rest
of the Plaintiffs. Apellees and particularly Berg should not be rewarded for their
fraud, perjury, uttering and diabolical disregard of the truth and the system of
Wherefore
23
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242718 Page: 24 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
premature, frivolous, improper and unsupported by law and fact and grant
Respectfully submitted,
parties :
Philip Berg
Neil Sankey
Linda Belcher
201 Paris
Castroville TX 78009
24
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242718 Page: 25 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
Wellington TX 79095
Exhibits
1. Liberi v Taitz Motion for leave of court to file a surreply and Affidavit
by Pamela Barnett
2. Affidavit of Caren Cieli- Hale
3. Affidavit of Edgar Hale
4. Affidavit of Neil Sankey
5. Affidavit of Linda Belcher
6. 60 B Motion for Reconsideration
25
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242719
Document 138 Page:
Filed 08/02/10
1 Date Page
Filed: 108/06/2010
of 14
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242719
Document 138 Page:
Filed 08/02/10
2 Date Page
Filed: 208/06/2010
of 14
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242719
Document 138 Page:
Filed 08/02/10
3 Date Page
Filed: 308/06/2010
of 14
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242719
Document 138 Page:
Filed 08/02/10
4 Date Page
Filed: 408/06/2010
of 14
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242719
Document 138 Page:
Filed 08/02/10
5 Date Page
Filed: 508/06/2010
of 14
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242719
Document 138 Page:
Filed 08/02/10
6 Date Page
Filed: 608/06/2010
of 14
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242719
Document 138 Page:
Filed 08/02/10
7 Date Page
Filed: 708/06/2010
of 14
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242719
Document 138 Page:
Filed 08/02/10
8 Date Page
Filed: 808/06/2010
of 14
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242719
Document 138 Page:
Filed 08/02/10
9 Date Page
Filed: 908/06/2010
of 14
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242719
Document 138 Page:
Filed 08/02/10
10 DatePage
Filed:
1008/06/2010
of 14
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242719
Document 138 Page:
Filed 08/02/10
11 DatePage
Filed:
1108/06/2010
of 14
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242719
Document 138 Page:
Filed 08/02/10
12 DatePage
Filed:
1208/06/2010
of 14
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242719
Document 138 Page:
Filed 08/02/10
13 DatePage
Filed:
1308/06/2010
of 14
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242719
Document 138 Page:
Filed 08/02/10
14 DatePage
Filed:
1408/06/2010
of 14
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242720 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242720 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
09/17/2029 06:03 110493 P.001/080
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242721
Document 136 Page:
Filed 07/29/10
1 Date Page
Filed: 108/06/2010
of 51
Il5J [§ © [§ U'\'i' ~ - (\
,.,
JUL 2 8 2010
J
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT :::
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICf OF PENNSYLVANIA
Court as well as the Court of Appeals, and due to the fact that the plaintiff here Lisa
forgery, forgery of an official seal and gmnd theft, this motion is addressed to the
presiding judge The Hon Eduardo Robreno; as well as the Chief Judge of US District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania The Hon Harvey Bartle, ill; and the Chief
Judge for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals~ The Hon Randall Ray Rader. It is cc-ed to
the Public Integrity Unit of the Department ofJustice, Civil Rights Commission in
Washington DC, the PA State Bar, the Philadelphia DA, Audrey B. Collins.. the Chief
Judge of the Centtal District of CA, Judge David O. Carter Centml District of CA, San
Bernardino County, the California Probation Department, and the San Bernardino
1. In an around April of 2009 Attorney Orly Taitz, who is also a president of Defend
Our Freedoms foundation, was forced to start a new website for her foundation,. when her
former volunteer web master Lisa Ostella - without any authorization ~ took over the
website of her foundation and continued soliciting donations from supporters. whereby
diverting funds from the foundati~ while at the same time denigrating Taitz and
2. At the same time Taitz was contacted by Linda Belcher. a former volunteer ~r
-1
Attorney Philip Berg, whereby Belcher disclosed that assistant for Berg.- Lisa LibeJi;
-... .
3. Taitz and licensed investigator Sankey did their due diligence by conducting multiple
interviews of Lieberi's arresting officer, District attorney on the case. James Secor~
probation officer. victims, and pulled all the public records and verified that indeed the
assistant for attomey Berg, is Lisa Liberi, an individual. convicted in CA in 2008, who
received an eight years prison tenn, which was reduced to probation until March of
2011. According to the terms of her probation., she is allowed to reside only in CA or
FWV028000, defendant 1608112 Lisa Renee Liberi, aka Lisa Courville Richardson,. aka
Lisa Courville Rich, aka Lisa. Richardson. showing 10 felony convictions. Exhibit 4
Lisa Liberi and Exhibit 5 Superior court of C~ San Bernardino County Case
FWV082000 indictments for Lisa Liberi. Indictments show multiple schemes, where
4. In and around April of 2009 Taitz contacted Berg by two e-mails, forwarded to him
Uberils conviction snmmary and advised him that she is aware of Liberi's past. that she is
aware that Liberi assists Berg by preparing documents for him and mailing those to him.
and that she had a number of concerns. She was concerned about the met that Berg aDd
Liberi went on a number ofradio shows, where they announced that Liberi. was an ~Je
c.)
assistant for Ber~ that she has prepared his case Berg v O~ that contained affida:l4fs
from Kenya" attesting to Obama's birth there. Taitz asked Berg to allow her and'l:D!!r
CAi
w
forensic document expert to examine the original documents from Africa, ro make sure
that those are not forged, as it was possible in light of Liberi's convictions just a year
earlier. While Taitz believed, that Mr. Obama needs to unseal bis original birth certificate
with the name of the hospital and doctor, she was concerned about those affidavits from
Africa, as possibly being forged and undermining the case Taitz bas incorporated this
evidence in her legal actions and wanted to make sure she didn"t tmknowingly
incorporate something that was forged. Additionally Berg and Liberi were conducting a
nation wide fimdraising for that case (Exhibit 6 Example of advertising of fundIaising).
Taitz advised Berg, that according to tenns of her probation. Liberi cannot be associated
with any fundraising and cannot handle credit cards of others. Additionally, Taitt advised
Bergt that his association with Lisa Ostella. Taitz former web master, constitutes
5. Berg never responded to Taitt, but instead continued his attacks on her. never granted
her right to see the original affidavits from Africa, used in Berg v Obama and continued
fimdraising.
6. Taitz forwarded to the Department of Justice and FBI Liberi's summary of convictions
and all the above information and published Liberi's summary of convictions to warn the
public.
7. On 05.04. 2009 Berg filed current legal action 09-1898 in the Eastern District of:PA,
"
~ .-
r ...
based on diversity and claimed Libel. Assault and Slander. Berg sued all of the paAjes
C)
who blew the whistle on him, Liberi and Ostella. He sued Taitz, her foundation. Salt ~k
......
-..,;,
Christian publishing, Licensed investigator Sankey. former vohmteer Linda Belcher,lYk
w
show host Ed Hale, Hale's radio station and Hale's wife Caren and a number of other
entities . Berg, also included in this case a separate conflict that talk show host Evelyn
Adams aka Momma E had with Ed FIale. The essence of his allegation was, that Lisa
Liberi, who works for him, is a different Lisa Liberi, that she is an innocent woman,
residing in PA, and she is not the same Lisa Liberi. who was convicted in CAw While
Berg included residential addresses of all the parties, he never provided any address for
Liberi in the state ofP A. but instead provided his business address as her address.
8. From May of 2009 until now, for over a year, Berg has never provided a shred of
evidence, proving that Liberi resided in FA at the time he filed the Jaw suit.
9. Defendants filed motions. stating that prior to even getting into the essence of the case,
10. While the issue of jwisdiction was being considered by the court, Berg filed a motion
for a temporary restraining order, seeking a de faciO gag order on any and all information
about the plaintiffs. This motion was denied by the court after hearing on August 7, 2009,
,
" .
12. On February 17,2010 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals received a United S~
,-, ,
'-,~.1
Government Memorandum from Joan Carr, from USDC in the Eastern District of !!J.\.
---
......It ; , "
regarding the transcripts requested. Counsel was also notified that the proceeding held
August 7, 2009 was UDder seal and an order of court would be ~ to unseal the
proceeding and have a transcript produced. To date our office has not received payment,
a motion to unseal has not been docketed nor has a transcript purchase order form been
submitted to the District Court. Taitz was concerned about the fact that an order to seal
the transcript was issued by Judge Robreno, but never docketed. Tai1z. as a party, was
never notified of such seal of records, and there was never any explanation given. as to
why was the transcript sealed, as clearly there was no justification for it.
13. On 07.02. 10 Tai1z filed an appeal of a different order and filed a motion to unseal the
clainring that all the parties were notified that the transcript was sealed due to the fact that
14. On 07.14.10. Judge Robreno issued an order, denying the motion to unseal the
transcript; stating that the transcript was not sealed. Clearly there was a contradiction.
The same f'ederal Judge cannot issue an order to seal the transcript. whereby a special
motion would be necessary to unseal i4 and later deny such motion, stating that" the
c:::.;;
15. The same United States government memorandum contained a second p~,
c..~
"Transcript Purchase Order'*, which was earlier filed by Berg on 08.29.2009 as cIocutrleht
:financial arrangements have been completed with the court reporter for payment ofthe
cost of the tl.':anscript. The method of payment is private funds. signature Philip Berg.
16. On 07.21.10 Taitz was finally able to talk. to clerk David Hayes from US district court
for the Eastern DiS1rict ofPA. Taitz asked why the cost of transcript was $I,l00~ a high
fee for a copy, in light of the fact that according to certification of Berg, he already made
finaneial arrangements with the court reporter to pay for the transcript back in August of
2009, and the copy should be less expensive. Mr. Hayes eheeked tile records. Plailip
Berg never made any financial1iU'l"allgements. He Dever paid a eeDt. For nine months.
Berg and his clients and co-appellants harassed all of the defendants/ appellees by
claiming that they have an emergency, they have filed hundreds and thousands of pages
of unrelated prejudicial and inflammatory material with both the District Court and the
Court of Appeals, in a scheme to prejudice judges of the District Court and the Court of
Appeals against the defendants, while knowing all along that they never paid for the
......
transcript and never ordered the transcript and defrauded both courts and the def~.
I''':
c.J
17. During the same conversation, Taitz inquired if there was any order from J4e
-,.
Robreno to delete from the electronic docket exhibits that she filed on 06.14.10. wbjjl,
w
included Liberi's filing for bankruptcy in Ca. her declaration made in her criminal case in
Ca and summary of her criminal convictions. All of the documents were brought with the
proper purpose ofshowing her being subject to the jurisdiction ofthe state ofCA and
showing that there was 00 diversity with Taitt, also a resident of CEl, therefore grounds
for dismissal due to lack of diversity and lack of jurisdiction. Those documents also
showed Liberi~ signature, being the same as filed with her original verified complaint.
Mr. Hayes knew of 00 such order from judge Robreno. No other clerk knew of any such
order. Exhibit 7 Lisa Liberi's Bankruptcy Court, Cen1ral District of CA filing. brought
with 1he proper purpose to show Liberi's pattern of handwriting and her address in
Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino county CA, where she was arrested and convicted.
For the purpose of this filing social security number of Liberi was redacted to show only
the four last digits, however defendants can provide an unredacted copy, which is also
18 Taitt inquired with the clerks if there was any order from Judge Robleno to seal the
initial verified complaint~ filed by Berg on behalf ofthe plaintiffs, containing a sample of
Uberi's hand writing, which was the same handwriting as shown 00 her filin~or
t"_",,
bankruptcy and her declaration made in the Superior court, which were filed by Tai*,as
1"':
exhibits in Document 121. which were deleted from the electronic docket as well. No
-0
clerk could provide an answer~ why the complaint was not available on the electro*. , ",'"
" \ ."
docket.
19. During a year of litigation Berg repeatedly signed certifications, claiming that he
served all of the defendants. including defendant Linda Belcher and that her silence is a
20. In June of 201 0 Taitz was rontacted by Belcher, who forwarded to Taitz a ropy of
her written statement, made under penalty of perjury (Exhibit 8), that she did not
receive any pleadings from Berg since her attomey Mr. Hoppe resigned in Summer of
2009. Ms. Belcher stated in her letter ( that was mailed and fuxed to the court,. but never
docketed) that she refused to be served by e-mail due to malware on Berg's computers
21. In her letter under penalty ofpetjUIY Belcher stated." that Lisa Liberi personalJyasked
Belcher to file fraudulent complaints against Taitz and against another attorney Theresa
LaLoggia from the fum Dickstein Shapiro. Ms. LaLoggia is a member ofPA bar. Again,
under penalty of perjury Belcher stated that she was present on a three way phone call.
when Liberi asked another individual, Larry Sinclair, who has an extensive criminal
record, to file such complaint against Taitz. Sinclair filed a fraudulent complaint against
t::;'>
Taitz with Judge Carter, fraudulently claiming that Taitz asked him to state somethi~
that was IIDt true, accusing Taitt of suborning peljury. That undermined Taitz's ~
front of judge Carter, who included mention of this complaint in his ruling. Later BeiS
..
--~
and Liberi included this decision from Judge Carter in their pleading in front of judrt,
Robreno to claim that Taitz does not have a good character for veracity, that she suborns
perjury and that her pleadings are not to be trusted. This Exhibit 8 was brought fOf the
criminals in order to defraud and manipulate two federal judges: Judge David O. Carter
in Ca and Judge Eduardo Robreno in PA. in order to achieve his purpose of framing and
undermining Taitz, a person, who blew the whistle on him and his assistant Liberi. It is
brought for the proper pmpose of supporting a motion for an order to show cause, why
sanctions should not be assessed against Berg and the rest of the plaintiffs for fraud on
the courts.
Investigator Liebricht, given under penalty of perjury during preliminary hearing before
on 07.29.04 during her incarceration. This exhibit is brought for the proper purpose of
showing a common scheme and modus operandi of Liberi conunitting fraud and
engaging in conspiracy of using fellow criminals and ftaming and undennining innocent
individuals. In the testimony, inspector Liebrich is testifying about a conversation ~sa --7'
~""
Liberi had with her husband Brent Liberi where she is planning a "hit", a "green light., ( >
r"":
on her own sister Cheryl Richardson after Ms. Richardson cooperated with the police iiid
4J
disclosed 19 previous charges against Lisa Liberi. Liebrich:" ... she was going to ~ .!);
c:,.)
somehow get her arrested and then spread through the jail system that she was quOte
unquote "a rat" and she told her husband Brent, "You know what they do to rats injail'r
Question fr()Jll the court: "And what happens when inmates discover that another inmate
is a snitch?
Answer: There is what is known as a conttact, a green light on time. Different things:
they are attacked and or killed Tn fact, you brought up L. A. County, in the last year five
have been killed within the jail system". ExIu"bit 10 shows a an authenticating
Declaration and a photograph of Lisa Liberi with her husband Brent Liberi, and Judge
Robreno can see, that it is the same woman, who appeared. in front ofhim on August 7,
2009 and claimed that she is an innocent woman. who was never convicted of any crimes
and was slandered and defiuned by the defendants (picture of her son was removed from
23. Exhibit 11 shows a declaration under penalty of perjury Lisa Liberi made on
September 21,2006 in the Superior Court of San Bernardino county in her motion to
recuse the Office of the District of the County of San Bernardino. Her social security
number is redacted to show only the last four digits. Only the first and .last pages are filed
with the cummt motion. full docwnent was previously filed with the docmnent 121,
--'
where the document was removed from the electronic docket, but is supposed to be in~e
hard copy with the court. Exhibit 12 is the signature page of the verification fil~y
C)
LiOOri in her motion for 'fRO filed on July 15.2009 by her attorney Berg in the c~
-.... ,j ".'.'..,."
action for defamation and slandet- These last two exhibits show the same signature. QBe
can see the signature of Lisa Liberi. who is on trial in CA with a total of 23 charges and
10 convictions and with a testimony of officer Liebrich regarding 19 prior charges and
the same signature of Lisa Liber4 who filed this action for defamation, claiming under
penalty ofpeIjury. that she is an innocent woman, resident of Pennsylvania, who does
not have a criminal record and was slandered and defamed by the defendants. It also
shows that she is USiDg multiple social security numbers, which reinforces the statement
Respunse to motion by the plaintiffs to seal the record and deny the defendants
Apparently Berg believes ~ if you tell a lie often enough, people will start believing in
it Berg filed yet another emergency motion and Taiz is responding the next day on July
27, 2010 and apologizes to the court for the fact that this response could use more polish.
however since at a prior occasion this court bas granted Berg's motion within one day.
before Taitz could respond, this response is being faxed and filed with the court next day
to make sure there is no order to grant Pla:intifI's motion before defendants had an
opportunity to respond. Exhibit 2 shows" Transcript purchase order" filled out and
certified by Berg on August 29,2009. h is similar to one filed out by Taitz recently. If~
transcript was really sealed, Berg would not be filing a Tmnscript purchase order ~.~
".., ,
purchase the transcript of August 7, 2009 hearing. He would be :tiling a motion willi
""',
judge Robreno to unseal it first. Berg didn't do it, since he knew that the transcript was ..
c....!'
never sealed. Berg wanted to seal it, as Berg wanted to seal the lips of the defendantt
who were the whistle blowers, he wanted to silence them, but there was no seal. The only
difference between Berg's purehase order and Taitz purchase order, is the fact that Berg
committed yet another fraud on the court Not only the transcript was not sealed, but Berg
never purchased it, he never paid a cent, even though he certified it Taitt actually paid
for the transcript and sent to the elm of the court David Hayes, a check for $1, 100 for
the purchase. Taitz inquired with both Joan Carr and David Hayes. what happened, why
Berg claimed there was a seal. why a letter from Joan. Carr stated that there was a seal,
but the order :from Judge Robreno states that there was no seal. Mr. Hayes checked the
record and left a message on Taitz phone recording machine (available for review) that
there was no seal, it was an error. In the conversation Hayes stated that he checked the
record, and it only shows a request by Berg to seal the record, but DO such order by Judge
Robreno.
This appear to be one of the schemes by Berg and possibly Liberi, where they are
submitting fm:udulent statements often enough to induce the parties to believe that those
are true. This is an egregious violation of the code of professional ethics by an attorney.
Additionally. in his motion Berg is reviewing the weaknesses of the appeal by Taitt and
trying to justify his request for the court to deny Taitz her right to purchase a transcript
This is a totally frivolous notion, not based on law or fact. Strength or weakness of the
appeal, is the matter to be decided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, not the ~
. ......~
court. Berg wants the trial court to deny the defendants right to purchase a copy ofrthe
C)
transcript of the hearing, which is a basis of the appeal in the first place; and b~n
which the appeal will be decided by the court of appeals. Such order by the District ct.Brt
,
would be a Bagrant violation of Taitz 14111 amendment rights to due process and equal
..
~
protection under the law. Berg is an attorney and knows that such order would be totally
unconstitutional, and his Emergency motion to deny Tai1z her right to purchase a
transcript of the hearing needs to be denied as totally frivolous, and an order to show
cause should be issued "Why Berg and plaintiffs should not be sanctioned for repeatedly
defrauding the District Court and the Court of Appeals" and for bringing frivolous
motions.
Rule 60 B motion
(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud. Etc.
On motion and upon such terms as are just, 1he court may relieve a party or a party's
legal representative from a final judgment, order. or proceeding for the foUowiDg reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence~ surprise. or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence
which by due diligence could not have been. discovered in time to move for a new trial
under RCFC 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentatio~ or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5)
-'
the judgment has been satisfied. released, or discharg~ or a prior judgment upon w:&ith
t,,_
..
it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that;.t!le
cu
judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying ~f
from the operation of the judgment The motion shall be made within a reasonable ti5~~
and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year after the judgmen~ order. or
proceeding was entered or taken. A motion wder this subdivision (b) does not affect the
finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a
As stated previously, there is new infonnation. showing multiple oounts of fraud on the
court
1. Fraud was commi~ when the Court of Appeals and the District Court were told
that there was a seal on transcrip~ when no such seal ever existed.
2. Fraud on the court was committed when Attorney Berg certified a statement that he
3. Fraud was oommitted by Attorney Berg and the plaintiffs in their claim thai plaintiff
4. Fraud was committed by Liberi) when she solicited a fraudulent complaint agaifiit
-"~
Attomey Taitz. to be made by Larry Sinclair and this fraudulent complaint was later wi&l
i'"'.:
C)
by Attorney Berg and. Liberi to prejudice two judges: Judge Carter and Judge Ro~
opportunity to respond.
Due to the fraud on the oourt, the court erroneously included in its Order to Sever the
case a statement that Lisa Liberi is a resident of PA. This statement is based on fraud on
of evidence. The party e1ainring diversity of citizenship bas the burden to show such
diversity by preponderance of evidence. The following cases show that when a party
c]airning diversity did not show citizenship of the parties by preponderance of evidence.
the cases in federal courts were indeed dismissed. not severed and transferred.
show, ~ that applicable statute confers jurisdiction, and, second, that assertion of
process. Weight v Kawasaki Motors Corp, (J985, ED Va) 604 F Supp 968.
preponderance of evideu.ee. Roche )1 Lincbhl. pop. Co. (lON, CA.4 Va) 373 F3d 610:..",
-,.
- ~ , " \'
Complaint alleging that defendant's corporate citizenship was in a state other thai[;
.. ~
California but failing to allege that plaintiffs were all citizens of California was not
sufficient to give District Court jurisdiction since pleadings did not otherwise resolve
issue of citizenship. Bautista v Pan American World Airlines. 1rt.c. (J987. CA9 Cal) 828
F2d 546. 126 BNA LRRM 2559. 107 CCH LC P 10159. Court lacked jurisdiction over
filed complaint both he and hospice were citizens of State. Olsen y Quality Continuum
Complaint against John Doe defendant alleging Internet defamation was dismissed for
lack of subject matter jmisdiction because there was risk that if John Doe's identity were
discovered there could have been no diversity, and court's jurisdictional authority would
have disappeared; court declined to read amended language of28 uses § 1441
into 28 uses § 1332 because it would have accomplished much broader result of
allowing case with only one party and only state law claims to proceed initially in federal
lack of subject mattel' jurisdiction; district court clearly was addressing jurisdi~
Cd
Where record creates doubt as to jurisdiction, trial ~ourt must detenniue whether
there are adequate grounds to swstaiD its jurisdiction over subject matter.
SIulhI!l9011 11lf!.Blries, Inc. 1l'Impmdo (l9f!4. C4J NI) 338 F24 149. 9 FR Serv 2d
12&227 Cast! 2.
Court has duty to look to its own jurisdiction aDd lack of subject matter jurisdiction
Dlay be asserted by court, sua sponte, at any time. Jeter v r"" WqIter HotIfA Inc..
(1976...WD OW 414 F SIII!p 791.259. dedded by a preponderance of evideDee.
PJ.aintiffs did not present any evidence, not a shred of evidence, showing Liberi to be a
resident of PA. Defendants have shown that according to her probation she can reside
only in CA or NM, she is subject to the jurisdiction of CA, therefore the case at hand has
to be dismissed as citizenship of Liberi was not provided to resolve the issue of diversity
PAil has to be removed from the order. as it is significant to the essence of the case and
was never proven by the plaintiffs by preponderance of evidence as required for the _c
PUIpOse5 of diversity or even by any shred of evidence. This case in front of the counis
for slander and defamation: Plaintiffs claim that at the time the case was filed, Liberi ~
-on
not the person" who was convicted in CA and was residing in New Mexico. bu~
.. ,
'r'
.'
.
different person. an innocent woman, .residing in PA, who was never convicted of ~ .
criminal offenses. Previous order by this comt to sever and transfer this ~ states that
Uberi is a resident of Pa and for purposes of jurisdiction and diversity it makes no
difference whether Liberi is a resident ofCA or New Mexico. However, when this court
includes in its order and simply repeats a fiaudulent and perjured stateJ:nent by the
plaintiffs. that Liberi is a resident of PA, it :makes an assertion of fact, which may be used
by two federal judges in 'IX and CA to decide against the defendants. The court is de
facto rewarding Berg and Liberi for their fraud and pajury~ VYhi1e in reality this court
should have sanctioned them for it and demanded from th.em a payment of the costs and
fees incurred by the defendants. Doe to this e.....r by the court, whieh was induced by
frau colDDlitted by the plaintiffs and exacerbated by some employees ofthis very court,
defendants seek: a dismissal of the case or in the alternative change in the order to sever,
establish Libert's residency at the time tms legal action was :fil~ so that the defcn<lants
will be able to subpoena Uberi's probation officer and prosecuting district attorney to
testify to the fact that the plaintiffs defrauded the court and that Libert did not reside in
PA at the time this legal action was filed, therefore the whole action was totally frivolous,
not grounded in fact or law. Due to other legal actions Taitz will not be available to
attend such action until August 16 and will not be available on August 17, 18 and 20. She
-'
o
will be available on other dates for such a hearing, to establish residency of Liberi ~
error made in "Order To sever and Transfer" from 06.04.10. and order of06.23. 10
-"
As fraud was committed on the court, there is a need to ascertain, whicb parties were
[l] The United States Court ofAppeals for the Sixth Circuit has set forth five elements of
fraud upon the court which consist of conduct: Ill. On the part of an officer of the court;
2. That is directed to the 'judicial machinery' itself; 3. That is intentionally false, willfully
blind to the truth., or is in reckless disregard for the truth; 4. That is a positive averment or
is concealment when one is under a duty to disclose; 5. That deceives the COurt"
Although other United States Courts of Appeals have not articulated express elements of
fraud upon the com as the Sixth Circuit did, the doctrine has been characterized "as a
scheme to interfere with the judicial machinery performing the task of impartial
adjudication, as by preventing the opposing party from fairly presenting his case or
F,2d 1801 195 (8th Cir.I976) (citations omitted); see also Rozier)'. Ford Motor Co., 573
F:2d 1332. 1338 (jth Cir.1978) (holding "only the most egregious misconduct. such as
which an attomey is impli~ win constitute a fraud on the courtlt). Additionally, fr~d
r,
upon the court differs from fraud on an adverse party in that it "is limited to fraud which
-t)
Other United States Courts of Appeals expressly require that fraud upon the court must
involve an officer ofllie court. See 660. P. Reintjes Co. )'. Riley Stoker CorD:, 71 F3d
44, 48 (1$1 Cir.J995); Demianluk. 10 F3d at 348. The Ninth Circuit noted that "one
species of bud upon the court occurs when an 'officer of the court' perpetrates fraud
affecting the ability of the court or jury to impartially judge a case." PUlnJ2Jrrev Y.
Thompson Tool Co.. 62 F.3d 1128, 1130 (!!th Cir.1995); see also Weese v. Schukm.an. 98
F.3d 542, 553 (lOch Cir.1996) (noting that "fraud on the court should embrace only that
species of fraud which does or attempts to, subvert the integrity of the court itself, or is a
fraud perpetrated by officers Qfthe court") (citation omitted); Kerwit Med Prods., Inc. v.
N. & H Instruments. Inc.. 616 F.2d 833t 837 (lith Cir.1980> (same).
Party that was seeking to seal the transcript were the Plaintiffs, as during the hearing on
August: 7, defendant Hale) Internet Radio talk show host brought to court records of his
radio shows, where he demonstrated that Berg and the rest of the plaintiffs repeatedly
defrauded the court by taking out bits and pieces of his radio programs. putting those
together and claiming defamation. During purported "seal" of the ttanscript Berg and
rest of the plaintiffs used the DisUict Court and the Court of Appeals as the dumping
ground, where they dumped hundreds and thousands of pages of unrelated, inflammatory
and defamatory material, among them forged documents, perjured and fraud~
,r".'
! !~ . . '
-~. t >
statements., all in an effort to prejudice both courts against the Defendants. T$itz
I'.:
C}
complained repeatedly that forged documents and perjured and fraudulent statements
-n
were used, demanded criminal investigation, but nothing was done. Taitz and the rest of·
~
the defendants have suffered damages in the form of severe emotional distress ana-
On 07.09.10 Berg filed response in opposition to motion filed by Taitz, where he c1aimed
yet again that the transcript was sealed., even though there was no such seal. Finally Berg
filed a motion on 07.26.10 claiming that the transcript was seal~ while indeed it was not
sealed.
The issue of order to "seal the tnmsc.ript" clearly showed that fraud was committed.
Such actions cannot go on in the Federal Court, and Taitz demands investigation and
sanctions against the guilty party, as welJ as compensation for damages suffered. This is
particularly important as one of the plaintiffS in this case, Lisa Liberi. an assistant to
attorney Berg, is a convicted document forger. In 2008 Liberi was convicted in San
an official seal, grand theft and got eight years in prison. (Prosecuting Assistant DA-
James Secord). Her eight year prison term. was reduced to time served and probation
until MaICh of 2011. Liberi is allowed to ser\le her probation only in CA or in NM. where
her family resides. When Taitz and other defendants provided this infonnation to publi~
plaintiffs filed a frivolous law suit, where they claimed that Liberi resided in P~
however th~ never pNVided a shred of evidenu to prove tIl_t Liberi resided in P A.,
they gave Berg's office ad<kess as her address, while defendants provided court records
from CA showing that according to her probation she is not allowed to live anywhere ~
CA and NM. On July 9. 2010 Berg filed a motion in opposition. to unseal the transcrik ( .' .
claiming that the transcript was sealed, even though there was no such seal. Moreover, ~
-0
never responded to the issue of Liberi's residency, trying to avoid the issue and stating m:..
-
his 07.09.2010 pleadings that Liberi showed up at the hearing and showed a docum~
that she is not a resident of CA or TX. He never responded to a simple request to show
that sbe resided in PA at the time current KnOll was filed. This matter goes to the
essence of the case, as Berg and Liberi filed this whole legal action, claiming that Liberi
is not the criminal who was convicted in CA of forgery and grand theft., and resides in
either CA or NM, but rather she is an innocent WOrnaIl; who resides in PA, and she and
Berg were defam~ when it was disclosed by the defendants that she is a convicted
document forger, who prepared or handled documents for Berg via mail and fax. and
Defendant in this ease, Linda Belclter, has repeatedly mailed ad faJ:ed to Judge
Robleno a letter, where she stated that Attorney :oer. defrauded the court by
stating under penalty of peljnry, that he served the defendant Belcber. (Filed Notice
of Appeal with letter from Belcher, exhibit 2) Belcher stated that she refused service by
e--mail due to maIware in Berg's computers. She stated that she was never served by mail.
Her letter stated., that Berg committed double :fraud on the co~ not only by not serving
Belcher wnh pleadings, but also claiIning, that the fact that she did not respond meant
that she agreed with the allegations in Berg' 8 pleadings. Belcher stated that her rights to
due process were violated. she demanded to vacate all. orders made based on any .and all
pleadings by Berg submitted after June 2009, the time, when her attorney, Mr. Hoppe
Additionally, in her sworn statement Ms. Belcher alerted the court that she ~a
-n
volunteer researcher for Berg, had multiple phone conversations with Berg and Li~
-....
and that Liberi approached her and others, including one Larry Sinclair, requesting to •
furudulent complaints about Taitz. Belcher stated that she personally was on a three way
conference call with Liberi and Sinclair, where Liberi asked Sinclair to file such
fraudulent complaint about Taitz. Larty Sinclair indeed filed such fraudulent complaint
about Taitz in the Central District ofC~ case 09-cv-82, presiding judge David O. Carter.
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242721
Document 136 Page:
Filed 07/29/10
24 DatePage
Filed:
2408/06/2010
of 51#0493 P.024/080
Of utmost con~ was the fact that Belcher repeatedly demanded to docket her letter
and repeatedly she was denied such oppOrtunity. Belcher stated that she faxed her letter
to the chambets of Judge Robreno, called the chambers and was told by the clerks that
the letter was submitted to Judge Robreno, and it is up to him whether to docket her
letter.
Taitz demands investigation and clarification. Was Belcher's letter ever forwarded to
Judge Robreno by the clerks? Why was she denied her 14t1l Amendment Constitutional
rights of due process and equal rights to have her response docketed and get a response
from the judge? Belcher is an indigent; residing in Texas. She has no access to pacer and
cannot afford an attorney. She was victimized by actions of Berg and did not get any
reliefftom the ooWi.. When Taitz included Belcher's letter, that was forwarded to her, in
her July 2,2010 motion, it was completely ignored by the court. While Taitz does not
represent Belcher, the fact that Belcher's letter to the court was never docketed and was
complexly ignored, negatively affected all of the defendants, including Taitz and Defel!<i
':"-'
, ~-;. "
Taitz was deeply concerned and perplexed by the arrogant, brazen fraud being commimct
-;-1
.....
by Berg and the rest of the plaintiffs. Of outmost concern is behavior by Liberi. Just bQ;
..
c..l' •
Crinrinal Record of case FWV028000 shows 23 criminal charges and 16"
previously 19 more charges (Exhibit 9). Why isn't she afraid of going back to prison?
Why isn't Berg afraid to be disbarred in light of his two prior sanctions? Why isn't he
It is a known fact that FBI, Department of Justio.'l use convicted cri:mina1s as informers
and agitators. Recent trial of talk show host Hal Turner gave public a glimpse of how
"patriot" leaders are used as informers and agitators. Is this a situation where criminals
are brazen, because they know, that they have a back and they will not be convi~ no
matter how much fraud on the court they commit, how much pajury or forgery do they
commit? Taitz is requesting a clarification from the court, whether indeed the court is
aware of any special informer status with the department ofJustio.'l given to the plaintiffs
and Berg? The defendants are requesting a clarification, if there is a ~ck" for Liberi
and/or Berg and other defendants represented by someone in this court? That would
exp~ why Berg and Liberi are so brazen and submit pleading after pleading with bold
lies, defrauding the courts time and again. This might explain, why Linda Belcher's
response was never docketed. This would explain, why somebody deleted from the
electronic docket some of the exhibits, submitted by the defendans, why the original
complaint is not available on pacer. why the court docketed on 01.21.10 a letter ~
Berg,. his response to Taitz request fOT sanctions; which contained hundreds of pages'R!
o.J
irrelevant, defamatory, inflammatory material; but refused to docket actual request f~
~
sanctions or the reply to the letter by Berg from 01.20.10; why a letter was sent by Joan-..
...-
v·~
Carr to the court of Appeals, stating that according to clerk David Hayes the transcript
was seal~ while in fact it was not sealed. Taitz requests clarification. whether there is
an individual (s) in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, who js
(are) providing a "back" to Berg, Liberi and the rest of the plaintiffs. by manipulating the
Taitt is seeking clarification, if the woman pictured on the Exhibit 10, photograph of
Brent Liberi and Lisa tiberi, who was convicted of 10 criIninal counts in 2008 in CA, is
indeed the woman that your Honor, Judge Eduardo Robreno saw right in front of him on
August 7. 2009 during the motion hearing in Liberi et al v Taitz et al when she claimed
that she is an innocent resident of Pennsylvania, who had no convictions and was
slandered and defamed when the defendant published an official report of criminal
Taitz is seeking clarification, if the woman pictured on the Exhibit 10, photograph of
Brent Liberi and Lisa Liberi, who was convicted of 10 criminal counts in 2008 in CA. is
indeed the woman that court reporter Joseph Matkowski saw right in front of him on
August 7, 2009 during the motion hearing in Liberi et al v Taitz et at when she claimed
that she is an innocent resident of Pennsylvania, who had no convictions and was
(~';:)
slandered and defamed when the defendant published an official report of criminal;:: ,.." ,"'.
; I ~, .
'-', "
j ','.
Taitz is seeking clarification, if the woman pict:un::d on the Exhibit 10, photograph
-..
o:L~
en
Brent Liberi .and Lisa Liberi~ who was convicted of 10 criminal cotmfs in 2008 in CA, is
indeed the woman that the clerk: for Honorable Judge Eduardo Robreno saw right in front
ofhim on August 7.2009 during the motion bearing in Liberi et al v Taitz et at when she
claimed that she is an innocent resident ofPennsylvania, who had no convk.1ions and was
slandered and defamed when the defendant published an official report of criminal
Taitz is seeking clarification. if the woman pictured on the Exhibit 10. photograph of
Brent Liberi and Lisa. Liberi. who was convicted of 10 crimina1 counts in 2008 in CA,. is
indeed the woman that the bailiff for honorable Judge Eduardo Robreno saw right in
front of him on August 7. 2009 during the motion hearing in Liberi et at v Taitz et a1
when she claimed that she is an innocent resident of Pennsylvani~ who bad no
convictions and was slandered and defamed when the defendant published an official
Taitz is seeking clarification, if the woman piCtured on the Exhibit 10, photograph of
Brent Liberi and Lisa Liberi, who was convicted of 10 criminal counts in 2008 in CA, is
indeed the woman that secret service officer in the courtroom. ofJudge Eduardo Robreno
saw right in front of him on August 7, 2009 during the motion hearing in Liberi et a1 v
Taitz et at when she claimed that she is an innocent resident of Pennsylv~ who 1Jad.no
o
convictions and was slandered and defamed when the defendant published an 0ff?~ial
. "
""',
~'~
..
__ ~
C;'i
: I ••
Did the member of PA bar and the Bar of the US District Court for the Eastern Dist:foit\
of PA and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Attomey Philip J. Berg defraud both the
US District Court and the Court ofAppeals by claiming that the transcript was sealed in
order to cover up for the fact that he is working with a convicted document forger Lisa
Liberi. currently on probation in CA, and to cover up that he previously defrauded both
US District Court and the Court ofAppeals by claiming that she is a d.i:ffurent Lisa Liberi,
not a convicted forger from CA, when he signed the complaint in this case claiming
Did the CIMs forward to Judge Robreno letters, faxed by defendant Linda Belcher,
where she stated that the member of PA bar and US District Court and the Court of
Appeals PA attorney Philip J. Berg repeatedly defrauded the court by claiming that he
served Belcher with pleadings and that her silence meant acquiescence with his
Request for order to show c::aase wily sanetiOdS should not be asserted. against
Among those parties Attomey Berg, plaintiffs and employees of the District Court ofthe
-,
.+
Eastern District of Pensylvania, who were involved in the above mentioned fraud. ~
256.SllDreme Court afthe United States, ,Argued Februmy 27, 1991. Decided June 6,
FIFTIl CIRCUIT. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. "This case
requires us to explore the soope of the inherent power of a fede.ml court to sanction a
litigant for bad-faith conduct. Specifically, we are asked to determine whether the District
Court, sitting in diversity, properly invoked its inherent power in assessing as a sanction
for a party's bad-faith conduct attorney's fees and related expenses paid by the party's
opponent to its attomeys. We hold that the District Court acted within its discretion, and
Food Max: of Mississippi, inc.. 332 F.3d 796 (5th Cireuit 2003) the court found that
In this case actions by the eotm.Sel Philip Berg represented a reprehensible egregious
unknowingly and inocently relies on the affidavit by a party, who might be committing
ftaud, in this case Attorney Berg clearly knew that Liberi does not reside in PA, that she
does not show up for work in his office, yet he maliciously defrauded the defendants and
three courts: US District Court of PA, Third Circuit Court of Appeals and US District
Court in CA, and harassed the defendants with a frivolous law suit in order to continue
fundraising with tiberi, recently convicted thief on probation, and to continue filing i!ih
this court documents prepared by a convicted forger Liberi and to undennine and silente
r<
c.)
Taitz, who blew the whistle on him. Berg exhibited the same behavior, as he exhlb~
previously before Honorable Curtis Joyner in this very district, for which he waS
V' .
CJ1
sanctioned over $10,000 to cover the attorneys fees of the opposing party.
U.s. District Judge J. Curtis Joynets to-page opinion in Holsworth v. Berg. as seen
below and as was thoroughly covered in Intelligencer. which is brought with a proper
purpose of showing modus operandi in Berg repeatedly defrauding the court and bringing
frivolous legal actions with the sole purpose ofharassing the opponents.
Holsworth v. Berg, 322 Fed. Appx. 143 (3rd Circuit 2009); Holsworth v. Berg, 2005
U.s. Dist. LEXlS 15393 (ED PA 2005) was packed with criticism of the conduct of
"Other attorneys shQuld look to Mr. Berg's actions as a blueprint for what not to do when
attempting to effectively and honorably perform the duties of the legal profession,tI
Joyner wrote:"lbis court has grown weary of Mr. Berg's continuous and brazen
disrespect toward this court and his own clients. Mr. Berg's actions ... are an enormous
waste of judicial time and teSOurces that this court cannot, in good conscience. allow to
go lUlplmisbed."
In the suit, Berg is accused of legal malpractice by former clients who claim his failure to
But the sanctiOIlS against Berg stem from his decision to file a third~party counterclaim.,of
l~
fraud against a pension fund that had sued his former clients. 2(;COrding to court • .
1"';
Joyner blasted Berg for filing the fraud claim, calling it an "irresponsible decisi6rl."
because the claim was "uttedy barren of any scintilla of legal principl€="
..
c,.5 '
In the ERISA suit, Bergts former clients Richard Holsworth and his compai9.
Richard1s General Contracting -- were sued by a group ofpension funds led by the
Carpenters Health claimed that Holsworth and his company had failed to make required
According to court papers, Joyner found that Berg "neglected to file a response to
[Carpenter Health's] claim or provide any legal defense whatsoever for his client It
Even after a default judgment was entered against Holswo~ Joyner found that Berg
"remained silent." In April 2002 - two months after the default judgment was granted
and 11 months after the suit was first fiJed Joyner fomtd that Berg "broke his silence"
Bergts motion was rejected and a default judgment of more than $5,300 was entered
against his clients. The judgment swelled to more than $10,000 when Carpenters Health
later successfully moved for a supplemental judgment to recover more than $4,700 in
Holsworth and his wife later filed a legal malpractice suit against Berg in the Philadellbia
County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that Berg negligently failed to represent theitf
r<
in the Catpenters Health case.
.,
-'
c.,..,,~ I
A year later, in February 2005, Berg moved to join Carpenters Health as a third-~
defendant in the malpractice suit demanding more than $20t OOO in damages.
,
In his counterclaim. Berg alleged that the ERISA suit filed by Carpenters Health in 2001,
which led to the malpractice claim against him, was "a fraud upon the court and a
~~ Health's 'lawyers removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to
dismiss the claim. Joyner ~ finding that Berg's fraud claim was "frivolous" and was
motivated by an intent "to harass Carpenters Health and the Holsworths. as well as to
The claim was fatally flawed,. Joyner found, because Berg had no standing to bring suit
against Carpenters Health and had "failed to conduct even a minimally reasonable inquiry
"wholly unnecessary" even to consider the facts of the ERISA case because it was
"abundantly clear" that Carpenters Health was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. <..,.,.,)
Joyner invited Carpenters Health to file a motion for Ru1e 11 sanctions. When it diCi, i _
Joyner found that Berg "continued his trend of unprofessional conduct by, once again, c>
In a footnote, Joyner said Berg's response to the sanctions motion was due on May 26. In
a phone call to chambers on May 31, Joyner said, Berg's assistant requested permission to
move for an extension oftime, saying Berg had been out oftown for two or three weeks
Joyner said he agreed to acapt such a request if it were filed the next day, but none was.
Instead, Joyner said. a letter signed by Berg's assistant was faxed to chambers on June 2.
his professional obligations. this court was not inclined to permit Mr- Berg to further
In a June 2 opinion. Joyner found that Berg had violated Rule 11 by "filing a complaint
completely devoid ofany basis in met or law, as would be apparent to any reasonable
Berg's :fraud claim, Joyner said, was "inadequately pled., not grOlmded in fact; -_$.
time- ,
barred, and utterly irrelevant to the pending malpractice action against him. tt
-r.l
In his sanctions order, Joyner ordered Berg to reimburse Carpenters Health the $10#;8
..
-'
in attorney fees and costs it incurred in defending the claim. He also ordered Beiji to
complete six credits of ethics courses certified by the Pennsylvania Board of Continuing
Legal Education, and recommended that Berg be investigated by the Pennsylvania Bar .
On June 16, Berg filed amotion for reconsideration urging that the sanctions imposed on
Berg conceded in his brief that "there were numerous procedural errors,untimely
responses and omissions," but said he "did not do so with intention or defiance. t!
Joyner flatly rejected the motion, saying "in no way, shape or form do the 'extenuating
circUlllStaJJ.ces' proffered by Mr. Berg even begin to justify, excuse, or explain his
unprofessional and unethical course of conduct throughout this matter. These transparent
excuses are not only patently insufficient to meet the legal standard for a motion(~!?r
reconsideration, they are insulting to this court and demeaning to the legal profession. "'::~,
"""
Wherefore defendants respectfully request the court:
current action 09-1898 due to multiple acts of fraud on the court and perjury by
the Plaintiffs and their attorney and for filing a frivolous action, not ground in fact
prejudice. In the alternative Defendants seek correction of the order to sever and
transfer and deletion from the order a notation "Uberi is a resident of PA" and
after August 20th. Defendants request a subpoena to be issued by this court for
Mr. James Secord, assistant District Attorney for San Bernardino county CA,
Liberi's prosecuting DA. as well as her probation officer, to testify at such fact
finding hearing on the issue of diversity.:in order for the defendants to be able to
prove by preponderance of evidence that Liberi did not reside in PA and current
action was bro'Ught for impmper purpose of harassing and silencing the
defendants.
4. Defendants are tequesting this court to issue an order for plaintiff's attorney
Philip Berg, as well as the plaintiffs and other possible culpable parries to show
cause, why they should not be saoctioned for repeated acts of fraud on the court,
perjury and filing a frivolous action with the sole purpose to harass the
defendants.
1'..:
J
,
,
'.
w:
c.n
07.27.10.
I certify under penalty of perjury. that I served above pleadings on following parties and
authorities:
HonRandallRayRader
Philadelphia PA 19106
Philadelphia PA 19106
""',.'""
~ , .I'
---....
--:')
-~
Neil Sankey
Linda Belcher
201 Paris
Castroville TX 78009
wellington TX 79095
Philadelphia, PA
US Attorneys' office
James Secord
909-387-8309
www.co.san-bemardino.ca.uslda
Probation Department
S. Bernardino, CA
Audrey B. Collins
Chief Judge
US District Court
..
-'
USDC Central Dis1rict of CA
Was~ DC 20425 C
Department of Justice
Washington DC 20S3()..O()()l
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
-!
email: OWth~
lsI OrlyTaitz ~
07.27.10.
Proposed order
I"":
c;
..
-' , ,
c,..""
,(11
Law offices of
v )
0rIy Taitt et aI )
Defendants
~-l C~,
ORDER ~.-, r
-n
day of JuJ;y 2010 after consideration of Plainti~·
AND NOW, this,_ __
c..:.
..
emergency motion for clarification or in the alternative Motion for Reconsideration CfJf
this courts July 13, 2010; and after consideration of the defendants response to the
Plaintiff and attorney for plaintiffs Philip J Berg is ordered to show cause, why he should
not be sanctioned for repeated acts of fraud on' this court as well as on the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals and for filing a frivolous legal action not based on fact and law.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Eduardo C Robreno, J
_.: '1
-..,.
.
UNlTED'STATES GOVERNMENT
MOIORANDUM
~: I
February 17, 2010
...
1: am w:r:1:t.iJlg' in xe.8pOll88 to Your R.u.le To Show" cause :i.n
t:.:be above ,captioneCl case ..
.
To date our office has DOt received payment ... a motiOn to
UD.8eal bas not be~ d:ocket.ed nor has a. transcript purchase o~:r;
fom beeD. sW::mdtted to the :District Court. '"'fi
--'
..
09/17/2029Case:
Case
10-3000
06:09 2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242721
Document 136 Page:
Filed 07/29/10
44 DatePage
Filed:
4408/06/2010
of#0493
51 P.044/080
IICAt'lSCJUff n,'BQWIQIDU
,wDHAPltwt"'" .
[ -- ~~~~~~d~ :::¢i:"~~:: j
L 1liititt...... -..at..
.......,ac..
JganCtm'
jIIQCII . . . . . . . _ _. . . . . . . . . iOIII
...,,_JIf1JIt........ ~......,
1IIIfIII..,....__
~
""Iasu, cf~ ,,1JJ . . . .I!IIlCI'Ibd.•
I j 114lIIMd. .
fII. .proqedII......,......,
.......................
rwe_...
,.w,........
to .... tbIct.,~ ... tIeIaw ............................... _INOT.
;.
-Jaq. . . . . . _Seate. . . . . . .
. , 'e'
Pe!iIiptm lApps!tan!sl
•
(SiC} 825-3134
M4JIII. . . . ., . . ..w.a__.fIIY-..._ _ __
09/17/2029Case:
08:09
Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242721
Document 136 Page:
Filed 07/29/10
45 DatePage
Filed: #0483
51 P.045/0BO
4508/06/2010
of
Wherefore, defendants respectfully motion for the judgment for the complaint be dismissed
due to lackof venue and jurisdiction, together with the costs and disbursements ofthis action.
Dated 06.08.09.
Pro Se and on behalfof Defend our Freedoms Foundation and as a president of Defend Our
Freedoms Foundation
:1 .' ., ;1 '
~'!
~'/ .......~_ .... '.~ ...____ ._~~_. ,~~ __.,
':•i__.___........ .".,., .•".. ."" __......__.,ii_._,.",
.! d'._.. ".,.~~,.~ ...,. _"..... . :1 )., .;
_~._o><,l-.,,,.,, ...__,_,............... ..
~::.)
,
~'o!'~'1.
; It '
,........ _-.._.-:: : ..
.~------.----~------~-'''------''''-='-~''-'''''-:''~''iT'l'.! -l
.jALlAS:
, LIBERI, LISA A f
...... ~ ~, .
" -'__.....~.~ ___....._"'T. ".- ~ i' .'
v." i
C' 1
I
..". ~
jALlAS: LIBERI, LISA RENEE
1
....."-..,'="_ _ _.._-'-'..~_... _ ..... "
. .. ..... 'L....__.....__...._....... _ ........_..__......................, .., ...',............... _............._..............................,...._,_ .......................,=..=.....=_."" •..\
;iALlAS: UBERI, LISA !
!
\ALIAS: RICHARDSON, LISA RENEE-----~....---~.. ~.. --··--~··'....-··
i
I
6
OB:09
09/17/2029Case:
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER
10-3000 Document 136
Document: 003110242721 Filed 07/29/10
Page: 46 DatePage 51 P.04B/080
10493
4608/06/2010
Filed: of
Custody N/A .
__ iL,__,
•
"__,_~. _j" ,~i '.i.
:.! , ,..
1,.
i
:1 ,1 :~ ;,
~·~"-;;'-:F-o-rma.....c.;;I==·=···~=''':~112008 . :1031211201'
, j :j
, .
."
~
iN/A ~1N/A:i i
~---'.
· Arreat Charges
7
09/17/2029 08:09 #0493 P. 047/080
Case:
Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242721
Document 136 Page:
Filed 07/29/10
47 DatePage
Filed:
4708/06/2010
of 51
~
.... ..'.{i
".~
.Co;;;'i li:5harge :i
!Viofation Tp,~""-'!Status
,
"j Wate
.:, ,1
~'"-~'''''-'''-''''.''' ,..._·...·...······_···_'~'_n~. '"'~'"~''' \''''',,,-, ..' _..__ ...~"."~ .':, .... - ... ,.~ .. !
.1 :105/18/2001. 'j
;;
'-6- fpc 470(0) :IF :IFo~ERY . .--fci5l1 W2oo1i-l-----"·=.. .~-HTA ~<.:; ,:~.",. ;- -"-·,~ l,
:-1 -f .... ~:r!
"iF'--"-";lFORGE OFFICI.AiSEAL-- - - .........- 8/=2=00=1'-'-"'---- 'ifHTA . -~;:~
, :!
" ••,.. ~,.,. _ ......._ .. "~W_,.,.: t.. "_~" .., .'.'. ~t~. ~. . _,. ,.'"".~'"' _,_. . .._.. _._. .__._. .~_._.. "._.~·l. ,. , ~,. . .,~.~., ~. ,." .'" -~ ....~. ___...:.t ... \. ,..,,_,.~~{.,; '~"'"~
8 !PC 115(A)-!F ;iOFFERIETC FALSE/FORGED .,.i.•05/18/2001! ,!HTA ~ ;
: '
:; , , ' ;
:\lNSTRUMENT TO FILE
, ,!
, i '
,j ; -...
ii
i........ ,.,.. ~ ... ~~,_u:l, ~.,. . _~"" . "'.,,~."",....""~M_·.'~ -~:j .. ',!;--~=l==-....,. ~:" ..- ·i
:1F'H=T""'A"-""";';;;;=4!
12 !PC 487(A) jF jGRAND THEFT: PROPERTY/ETC :05118/2001 q
~~ .~
'. 'lOVER $400
,j .. :
i
J ..... ! " ,~,~.: i.~,. ~ .. ,
•·13·_·--!Pc;fF··_····· ·'i.·GRAN[)'THEFT:
it
:\487(D)(1)i .,;AUTOMOBILE/ANIMAUETC :i
".. . . . _.._.'t, . __.~. . , . . . ~·-t_._., _" . ,___,lL.._,. ,. __ ....~".\'\ . _.""'.'". ,'___.._.. _.,',."".,.. . . _."'~,_,_, .~
14 'ipc 487{A) :IF ·F:':iG==R~A,.;;..N~D=T~H=E=FT;;...:-P-R;.:;.::O=P=E=R~TY:=I=ET=C=-......:.;:::.lO::::5/=1~8f=20=O'-1-j-··--··-·:HTA· . l
• ·r
J
/~ J~
lOVER $400 '! -j :1 ,
i
.« • •, . ~---,.~. :! .".,_,_"l., ,.,,_r_ .. __ '~ .. ~. __"" ...,.....j
~- -""==:..:...:.:;.l..
. ., .......:F"L-=....-"-...;.. . =--=ji:;;;.;..".;....:.=='rl°::::..:.V:....E-:.;;R==$=40=O="'--_..;;.;;;;:;=====:..;,i-
.17.iPC 487(A} '!F:GRAND'TH'E-Fr: PROPERTY/ETC'····"",j05/18/20011
1
..
~l
··fHTA·· j .
: 'lOVER $ 4 00;!i
'. • •• __ • • • •n ••••• : t ,,",., '"" ~ ..__... .~ "."," __.. ~. '~." ,~._~
t •• ",,. •__""", ..__"__ •.• ___ ...... u ••, . . .,, _ _ _ ."':L. ~ ~: j,_,__ ""~_,, \" :: ~
, Infor Charges
." .. ....... ...... ..
.fVi~i;ti~~-'-
, "--~~ "",,-,.~, ,,
~ ~
. _..."._:_...._m.__ .
2 apc
td . . __._"..i!" ... ",... .
IF
u ...._........._,.
lNONSUFFICIENT FUNDS: CHECKS105l1812001;GUILTY :jCONViCTEO,:'(
:i
476A(A) ': ~I ~! .- ;!i~: ::1 '
... ~ __ ._._.,_... 'i j ~" :,~ r~": ~
~lpC 470(D)jF jFORGERY "_ _ m H05/1'812001-- .!OISMIWsED 1
.. ..-'"'-' ...
~"--
~ .,
".-.' '
"'__ ~_""~'.""'\'\" ......"'"'M_'_" ., • ,""......." •• ,.~."."._.u"".."_"" "'''' '\,"'_""'~_'.__.~:_..... . .,."_,,,~~t.,~, ,;t... ~"'; '. _,__,. . ,f
,___
4,.lpC 472!Fl!FORGE OFFICIAL SEAL 105/1812001 ,I:
't
'lolsMISSED ',':
t r . ••
;;OF·FERfETC'··FALSElFORGED •
i • 'hNSTRUMENT TO F I L E ! ,.; !
::1 .j :.i;l "1
I -'lOVER $400
.J,
. :1.' 'i. . .
- f......_........__..... ~
r--_~;f
..
..........._....._.. ~ . . _.... _._ ._....... r
I :-~
':.;...;.;:;:==
1
~1:'-'PC--=11=·5·(=A}=·;;~:F""'"-'---r.:::!O-;;:-PF=E=R:-:::/ET=C-=F:-:-AL:"":S:'::"E~;F:-::'O-=R7G=ED~'---""'"!:;-:-!05::-:/1-:-81-;-2-'-OO-'-1-=7'; '-'-clDISMISSED r
; ' I
'~ •
ilNSTRUMENT TO FILE
t!
,! , ! .i, I
'~ .; ::,~, .
~ :1 ,::~ ,.. :i_..
11"---·fpC ·487(A} j!F ,. ', . . "-·(GRAN·DTHEFT: PROPERTY/ETC'''''',. ~:,'05l;8J2001 ' ','",!;;<iuiLTY 'i!.;:::"C"::O---N---V~ICT~E:::':'D:.::::j!.,:,
12
J.. . . . . _ _. ,!!OVE~~~~_
lpC 487{Ar"F1GRAND THEFT: PROPERTYIETC
.:L . . . . .,'. . .
';r-:-'_ - - - - ' . - ' - ' - , { . , . .
. i,:.05/18/20011GUILTYiCONVicTED t
487
'16 '" JpC-487(A) ;!F'" ·· .... ·-·;j'G·RAND THEFT: PROPERTY/ETC ;:05/1812001 , .. ·_-'I"D,SM,SSED....-l
;
!
'.,1 •::.OVER
. $400 :i,
I
•
't i,
.._._. . . . . . . . :.:... . . . _ ,_u~,t. .,.....~....... ~~ ._._ . _.~"._ . ~~, . . __ ._~_" . ,. ""_.. . . , ._. . , ~.,_ ... ,. '~i. !.... ;i j
.17 ,iPC .IF '!GRAND THEFT: '105/'812001 .--- "i!OISMiSSED -1
_.. _
: 18
j~~~D)(1}
;lpC 487(A):F
L.. _.__t~~~~~.BI_L~ANIMAUETCI I l, . _ .".1
PROPERTY/ETC---"~"j.!:05/18/2001iGUrLTY'lCONVICTED I
i1GRAND THEFT:
.. p ...
.IF !
....._'...."."__ ,,..,,'" • ""'n""" 'n'" ........ .._.,_ _.._ ... _ ;,
10
') SERVE 26 DAYS IN A SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY JAIL FACILITY, WITH CREDIT FOR
TIME SERVED, A MATTER OF 26 DAYS, PLUS CONDUCT CREDIT PURSUANT TO 1
PC4019 ND ABIDE BY ALL RULES AND REGLILATIONS OF THE I=ACILITY WITHOUT TH~
POSSIBILITY OF COUNTY PAROLE.
2) VIOLATE NO LAW.
5) SEEK AND MAINTAIN GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT, OR ADEND SCHOOL, AND KEEP THE
PROBATION OFFICER INFORMED OF STATUS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR SCHOOL
11
09/17/2029 06:10 #0493 P,051/0BO
Case:Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242721
Document 136 Page:
Filed 07/29/10
51 DatePage
Filed:
5108/06/2010
of 51
.~ ... ..:
13) NOT ASSOCIATE WITH KNOWN CONVICTED FELONS OR ANYONE ACTIVELY
14) NOT ASSOCIATE WITH KNOWN ILLEGAL USERS OR SELLERS OF CONTROLLED v,,\'
SUBSTANCES, 0"
UNLESS MADE PAYABLE TO YOU AND NOT HAVE ANY BLANK CHECKS IN YOUR
QUARTERLY.
17) NEITHER POSSESS NOR USE ANY CREDIT CARD WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE
PROBATION OFFICER.
19) REPORT ALL MOTOR VEHICLES REGISTERED TO YOU TO THE PROBATION OFFICER
12
OS:Case
09/17/2029 Case: 2:09-cv-01898-ER
1010-3000 Document: Document 136-1 Page:
003110242722 Filed 107/29/10 Page 08/06/2010
Date Filed: 1 of 48 P.052/080
#0493
23) MAKE RESTITUTION TO THE VICTlM(S) (SEE PROBATION REPORT) IN THE AMOUNT
OF $9223.77 PLUS A 10"'/0 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE, TO BE PAID THROUGH CENTRAL
COLLECTIONS
24) MAKE RESTITUTION TO THE VICTIM (SEE PROBATION REPORT) IN THE AM OUNT OF
$35000.00 PLUS A 10% ADMINISTRATIVE FEE, TOBEPAID THROUGH CENTRAL
COLLECTIONS
25) MAKE RESTITUTION TO THE VICTIM (SEE PROBATION REPORT) IN THE AMO UNTOF
$06951.08 PLUS A 10% ADMINISTRATIVE FEE, TO BE PAID THROUGH CENTRAL
COLLECTIONS
26) PAY A RESTITUTION FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF $200.00, PLUS A TEN PERCENT (10%)
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE THROUGH CENTRAL COLLECTIONS. ~.
27) THE DEFENDANT IS NOT TO FILE ANY LAWSUITIlEGAL ACTION WITHOUT PRIQ,R
CONTACT WITH PROBATION OFFICER.
28) DO NOT APPLY FOR CREDIT OR A LOAN WITHOUT PRIOR CONTACT WITH
PROBATION OFFICER.
-..
../
=
. . =
...
--:r-- ;~
,
.....=
......._•._.;=::._.=
IDR Number!
.....,;.;;.
.. '---- ,---~.=.-.""'". . ....
,i
:.;;:='".... =.-. ~----=:="------'
;1
'~5;18/2001
!
m •• _'o<_..-:.t-.._•... ~""._ .. ". . •.•'"",~".
.,."'~" "'"~- •• ~""~-" ... ,.~,-~- .. ~! "'"
.! ':
..............1...
1110013759.1.... __ .1:
..-~--= ~;
jALlAS; L1BER!. LISA R
.,
.. "~-~:!-.-,-''''' .....
.!
:;:
~~ , ... ~ .... ,.,..-.......... -". -," ... -.---~."".-,-...,.... ~.~,, .. ---"".-...." ........
. ~jALIAS; UBERI, LISA A
:i
I ......._................. . _~~. _ _ --"==_
'iALlAS:
., RICHARDSON, LISA C
.
'!ALlAS: COURVILLERICH, LISA
... .,·L......... ............"........ .__ ......... .
l
.1
W<_~'" I"'" "'.,,·.t'~_"~F'" ~, ...".'".
14
09/17/2029 Case:
08:Case
1110-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242722
Document 136-1 Page:
Filed 307/29/10
Date Filed:
Page 08/06/2010
3 of 48 P.054/080
#0493
:- ~-----i
... ,--,.,.-'"" . ."'.~:~ , "... ,._ . .,.___,.. ;t,?'_..._.. ~,.... .,.,.~_.._,.". ~" . . ,.. , __~._~ .._, ...._ 4
······!NJA'!NlA
:; • .." .....," ~., .••_..
..... ~
:1.·--··.···· .. '-.-~..v . . ·--i
.;! :1
.Arrest Charges
filed .Charges
.....j
i
i
:1
--------------------, .,.
'IPC 487{A) t.1GRAND THEFr: PROPERTY/ETC .105/18/2001 .!.
------rl--------~
:;.I.HTA .t.:
15
Case
09/17/2029 Case:
OS:11 2:09-cv-01898-ER
10-3000 Document 136-1 Page:
Document: 003110242722 Filed 407/29/10 Page 08/06/2010
Date Filed: 4 of 48 P.055/080
#0493
;f :q ! :
; : ! I O V E R $400 '!:1
H i:i .~~_. _."' . ". ." . . ",~,~"_" . ~ ~;-j__---'-==.::.;'
'lPC 487(A)~~IF----TGRAND THEFT: PROPERTY/ETC·'i05l1·8i2001·'·liHTA
" M•• ' " ' . , .. . . . . , , . , . .. " . .
! 10 '!
~!! 'IOVER $400 1'.1
~. ______.:L__ ...._._._..._,L...... _.)L ,.._. _____.__..... '·1
·11 jpc '!Fk~RAND THEFT: }:l5/i'S/200,'r" -'-':lHTA"''''-- ,
:1.487 (0)(1) ,! ~IAUTOMOBILE/ANIMALIETC l i 'I
",',., ........ __..)..._._ .......J........ ,.. ",, , " . ",.. ".,."."'."" .... _.;L.. . . . ""__._,_... L,.,,,.._....,.._.,_.'L . .-.- ";;,p..-...,,, .• ~.:
.12 ,jPc 487(A) ;!F -!GRAND THEFT: PROPERTvIETC :,1.-,05/1812001 '.,1,.; ',l,·HTA ,::.;, :"t:
') :l! '!oVER $400 . " Lt
i:
,! :~ j . j
. ".. . j_.. ._._." . . . tl.._. _.J~~ER $400 ......_......_..... ____.....J"".. ," ." ___ . ._. :_ ..1_._.... 0 ' ,
'15 ;~pclF .!GRAND THEFT:!05/1812oo1i ;:HTA l
487
:1 (0)(1) <! ..... __ .tUTOMOBILEIANIMAlJETC 'j . 1., __.__. . J
:-'6'-"-:;PC 487{A)'iF :!GRANO THEFT; PROPERTY/ETC ,!05l1812001:jHTA
· J ;, ;!OVER $ 4 0 0 , ; 1
___...____ L ... _.. _......._... 1...............J " ..". '_ .._".. . ...........__.._._ ...... .T . 'i .. _._~l_ .. ,._..__...
•17 :;,:.:,PC 487(A) ;,',I;F!GRAND THEFT: PROPERTY/ETC:06/1812001 .,1" ':lHTA
.; ;\ :jOVER $400 ': 1 ;!
•• , .' .;..... _.~ '_ •• _~n.~~.''' __ ' w,- 4•• ~ '"" _••_ .'_" 1, •• _ ". • ._ ....... ~" __ ,_~~,.._~.~". ,__ ,",_.,,~ __ ,,_, __ n •.••••..••: "_"4"""_"''''__ '''''_'~'" __''' .. J ,,,",.,,~ __, • .~
·Infor Charges
~"_,, .._ ·._...___" .... _ ........."·M'·' , . , " _ .," " •.-.'"'_,,_....._'" .._ ..... _",__,.,• . "",_,.~,
16
.,•...:.'" ',.1.
I ..__.3._.. . .j
~ ...···ire·"'---- :1r-F--'-;;';!NONSUFFICIENi FUNDS: CHECKS :1°5/1812001 ,!GUILTYi~C"';;;O"';;;N';":";'v=ic=T=--E-D":':';l
;;476A(A)ijl! '1 :1'
. . __.:l'SSEO--!
:- J ;: .j -1
7--:i.,p-C-4-76--;rl~r~~~~~i~~rNG~UmRrNG
.. !1::~1-r
-8-- !PC 470(0) :IF:!FORGERY''' ....... ,-",. ..,."... .....- ..... 1°5/1812001 :!DISMISSED
!____ •• __
-S-"jPC 472
._.;~ .. u, • • • , ••••
-r . . .".
_;L",,__,",. ~. . _~~; ."" __ .. ,.
·1.:~.~GE OFFICIAL'SEAL"'"-''''' .."..·.._.. ;[05/18/2001
';;
,tGLli'LTY·JI;;-C-":ON=V::;;;'-~C=-:;~!=,"E=·D::.:::i'L
'10""--fpc 115(A)IF 'IOFFERiErC FALSElFC>RGED ·[05/1812001;-..··_.. ·· ··.. jDISMI$$EO-''1'\I; ..
'.1 .\ ;iINSTRUMENT TO FILE ~! .1 '; r~, 1
';i ,." ..•,_"."__.. :~_ ", ......._.• "_,, •. ,0, ",,...:,,..., ..• -"••-.. -----,---.~L '. :.. .
H.- ,,".~~-,,. "-'-~ ~
: 11 .!pe 487(A)
,; .:1. lOVER $ 4 0 0 \ d',: - i
i ;1 j . i : -- ~
::, _.••_ .... _~ .. ":i,~.,,,'.,_,. '''':~" ____ ~,.,_,.._ ........:l....._.. ~,.,_~"...'' . _
u""'"_""-'_",,'L, ".. '''. ,... ,.------".~:!.,
,. . ....,...,;i,.".......• ,,' ~.-.-:u::.,.~
,., ........__ ••__ •_ _ _.. ¥ __
12!PC 487{A) 'iF :lGRAND THEFT: PROPERTY/ETC 'j05/18/2oo1 !GUILTY !jCONVIC leW 1
. .__.. ".~~L . ~. .
'13'jPC
_q..
t
'I·· ..... l.... . . . ,",....
;!GAAND THEFT:
-.. . ... . . , . _.. .'[,............. ,.".,... . ,_.L··..
;!05/1812001 ,!~
, i.. ,- . ·". lDISMISSED ~
c""-' i
17
09/17/2029 Case
Case:
OS:11 2:09-cv-01898-ER
10-3000
Document 136-1 Page:
Document: 003110242722 Filed 607/29/10 Page 08/06/2010
Date Filed: 6 #0493
of 48 P.0571080
~."-." .. ~-.'.~ .,.~., . ,' ~., """'....'..,, ..,,.... "--.0.-.- ..... ........... ___
irc--~-4~.~~,,;;::~(~=~=~-'·:;;::r=-.:="-·=·"·""-"~0R·G~-ER-Y--....=....=......
... ==.. =.~. ="=·--=·"-=···="···="-""=- :iOM ~OO1 'l'-. . =.~···=~.~.=·:"l~~~.I.~SE~.....1
. 23 :iPC
,:
472 iF
;t
:,!;;;;;;F=O=R=G';"'E-O-F-F"':':IC;;;;:IA:::':L:::':S=E=A:;;;;:L===='i05l18/2001l 'IDISMISSED i
." ~._,. ~i _.. ,_~~,, __ ,."~ _~. " • .~
. j. . ...._ ~'_'_"I" ... , ... '''__'' ""~_.,. .. _ ..... ",,," " :1,w._,,_.,,", .__ ._. ,_.~'" ..."...:L ;i )
1) SERVE 26 , DAYS
IN A SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
,
JAil FACILITY, WITH CREDIT FOFC
TIME SERVED, A MATTER OF 26 DAYS, PLUS CONDUCT CREDIT PURSUANT TO , ..
_";;'i
PC4019 ND ABIDE BY ALL RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE FACILITY WITHOUT ToWE
POSSIBILITY OF COUNTY PAROLE.
2) VIOLATE NO LAW.
5) SEEK AND MAINTAIN GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT, OR ATTEND SCHOOL, AND KEEP THE
PROBATION OFFICER INFORMED OF STATUS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR SCHOOL
18
09/17/2029 Case:
Case
08:12 10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242722
Document 136-1 Page:
Filed 707/29/10
Date Filed: 7 #0493
of 48 P.058/080
Page 08/06/2010
7) NEITHER POSSESS NOR HAVE UNDER YOUR CONTROL ANY DANGEROUS OR· .;
DEADLY WEAPONS OR EXPLOSIVE DEVICES OR MATERIALS TO MAKE EXPLOSW
DEVICES.
19
09/17/2029 06:12
Case:
Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242722
Document 136-1 Page:
Filed 807/29/10
Date Filed: 8#0493
of 48 P.059/080
Page 08/06/2010
OllamaCrimes.oom Page 1 of6
ObamaCrimes.com
by the La~~' Offic~s of Philip J. Ik.r.g I http://philjbcrg.com
[.~ _ _ _ _---JI~
OWma I;rime& Is UMllab!!It _ "" tho;! _ of
..... l. IIeIlI COIIOI!IftIftlI!:IIe i!tifIibiIity of Pr\lsicIent IMt.
Soetaro/OIIama. For _ on Phil). IJ4!rII. 'IIsIt;
laW 0I5C:e5 of Philip J. IJag
1ItIJ>;/I~aJm
for 1il1rT1E!dIaU! Release! - OS/2l!I2010 555 ~ GlEn Court. SuIte 12
FoI furlller Infb~ CQo1tJct; ~'HilI, PA 1944+2531
Philip J. genJ, E!QUire (610) 825-3134
$5 Andorra GIe"1 COUIt s..wte 12 (800) 993-I'kJt tl44!iJ
lafayel:!e HUl PA 19444-ml !'ox(610) 8'34. 7659
~'-' :~~
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 815·3134 -
(BOO) 9W-PHlI. [1445]
Fax (610) 834-"1659 ~ ~
....:. 'z-"-c7
,,:
~jbC:f9@(lill1lm'lCnmes.rom ~,--.:.~.~ .~;:~~~
THE 06AMA BIRTH CEIlIIFICATE I IUGtBILlTY 1 OSAMACARE
All doMdons IlD oIfset!:lle otr.II: of ~....- COIIClMJII'9 !:lie
MARCIl ON WASHlN6TON DATE
eligibility of B.& SOeI:i:Irv/CItoIIIIIiI lIn!~. Beco_ a
HAS BEEN QIANG.ED
""'PP'lI'W'" of WI" effurt IlD ftnd tile tnJtII
frOm MeIIWJriId D;sy WeekeAd
j~1
I ~:,:,,7.1 :-:~,
(L.afa¥ette HIlI. PA - O5/7IJI10) - Philip J. Berg, E!lqUire, me ftm AI!DmI!y WIlO filed suit ~ ~8d< H.
Oi)aMa ~\g Qb.l"",'s1llCk of ·QUallftcaUons" to serve as Presi:Ient ~ tIwl: Unit<id ~ stilted lI1at
t = -iii''';U''O /vi!la. _sterCard . DiSc;over
"'WE THE FEOPtE" by and through Phliip J. Berg and Obamao:rime"",..J;;Om is SIX)IlSOr1I1g lhe OIIAMA ~ wilt '"'-i<can also be maiied IlCI the _ _ _
INImt camfICATE / WGl8ILlTYJ 0IIAMACAlt1! MM;h on washfl1!jtOO. IIbo¥e ~.
DQAadons _ _ _ 1lD 1IeIp!luppO<t dti:s ~ J
Out< \"Q ~1)Ilng ~ and lhe ImIlO!tiiOO! or this Marcil, ~ ~ ~ the OBAMA IIlRTIi
CERTIfICATE! t:uGl6lI..lTY! OlWIACARf MiII'd'I on W~ing\Qo _ pa;tponed from MemorIal Day -~.)
VV~ to someUme III ~/5eptemf:ler 2010. "ThI::...,., d;Itt: WlU be anrlO!.llO!!d shortlv.
All i~rs llEIItioPil!ln!l are lE!Clues1I!CI tD bring II copy off:lM:ir Birth Cet'llftcate,
the CI'Udai Issues AlgardMlg OIliIma. the 'IMPOSTOR", (:QnOnuc to grow. 1iOWe'II!r. me most impOo1iInt - ---
iSSUe IS otsma !lOt being CMStlWtiOn/jily eligible to be President~ 1) not bei<'lg "nawra.f oom"being tx:rn ifimyspace..
!!I Mombasa, Kenya; and Z) eM!IllllO<"E! i~!he I'ect \hat OOOma was ~ or ~
tl)' hiS ~, UllO soeIt;Jro, lind his scI>oo1 ro:ord m I.ndcInesfa IndiCaII!s lI"o! "lmpo$\OI',· ~ Il$
'8any SoetDro" and his naIIOOaIJty IleIIIg "IrIi:IOneSia", otl;!ma,!he T"'f'Q5tJ:lI"s legal name is -Sany
SQeIDro". Obama must be sIJ:lIJIle<I! WE THE PEOPLE call, bv W<1Y of thc largest mElIdl eYe!" on
Wilsi1lngtDn, oC ~ a "Peaa!fuI ReVoiu!ion' and I'Ort:e 0bIl..... It> pre-. he IS Q:in~lIy eI!!JIbIe or
f'<!SI!lf1 from offlar. vES WE CAN !
TIle a:.st or the ~ OIl WasllitogtTJn ~ Il!l<~\/!(t. We must ral!ili! FIfty TlIOtlsand l$SO.ooo.oo) DollarS to
(.::M!r tl\e (1)$1: of tl\e ~ ;ndudiFllJ ~ !his III1POlt!nt event
DooaU! tDday tll help crtIfN \he e:<pI!!l5I<S at !!liS Ma,en ~ ~ our ConstitutIon.
An updatllQ nier ~ our MM.h ;';~. ~ stiiIY tuned tD obamaaImes.oom ror tile MW date. N.st; ~'=:
PhUfp IlErQ
FQr CIIIIIies of;aU I'n!s8 ~ and cau.t: Pleadings" go to: =;,,,d~;
.maat~ ptuUD<lI"90(Jl11~U,
com
~~~t"...:::!>:
Nonll
ConstlMlOn, IndOnesia., Media, News, OOStna'$ CiWetl!III'P. Pn:s& Rt-~ A.urnQrS, U~I>.@(j, vomr "1'IAAl Cn!iI!o: Your llddQO<
Ft'/~135(lJO"11f11e!ltS
Phil iler'!l is PI'Cud to ho: ~~ In Dr. Jawara King's 1a!e5t. boQk
NOIlI!
• 1W'Pf!'l;ll.lRTH OF )lU!
• HAPP'!: FATtt:R'S DAY
09/17/202908:12
Case:
Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242722
Document 136-1 Page:
Filed 907/29/10
Date Filed:
Page 08/06/2010
9 110493
of 48 P.060/080
- ObaMaCrimes.oom Page 20f6
\MARCHONWASIDNG1oN
.• HIIR'I'
-~
Memorial Qaf
• May 31, ~:JQIn PhIIIpJ. a..g. eq. "" tI1e~
.~on~
.. l'hlII*.yCOl ..... ~
Thi$i$I'IOt\l'le~~~int • C!ses
..
.~
• ObaiIloil's 0ti1eiIsbic
New dati!! Ie be IIdiIOunCed ~.
.~
.. Pre!lS PI!IeaSeS
8ARAI;K 08ANA IS NOT !;UGIJlLIlIDSERVl!AS PRfSIDEJ'fT OFTHElJIItITI:I:I STATI1i$
• RQmOrl;
DUE TO THE FOLI.OWIMG: . ~
., "n1c Uni\l:d Stlm!. O:x..atution 1'OOildale!. I:llEo PNsiClent or tfie lkIitea stites must be a unl!ed SWtilS
• VoIJ!r RlIII<I
'nalllnll born" Cltizetl - Arti¢Ie IT, sectson I;
tar: --'~"'------~'-'~'-', ~
911forthetruth _00intI1iIaItY
• Obama i:I ~n ~ O~ as he wllS acJopblClIad<nOWIl!(Ige!l ~ tjs s!EpIiI!her, Lola ~, "" - . . - . . EIgiIiilr '*iYe boffl NaIIo'aI !IcI'/I NaIIo'aII!I>rn
InaooesIiID 0tImt; and ~Cbsna~
"!lM! ~ "'11 (Oba~) ligneCI itt!;) UlIN ~ Obama on Ma!tI\ 23, 20W IS UIIClIIIlSIibIII ObamaCrimesM1tn.! Pl*lpJ. Beog
and willable sinee ~ is in::IigibIe ~ ser;e 8$ ~ or fIW1lJtli!e<l stM. ~~~StIIIml,l5~
COO!adIon
For ~ ~ I'I\iIip J. !leIg, Esquire. Obamaalmes.com is 9POOSO!'iIlg IIle 'OBAMA IIRTIt
cmTIFICAlE I B.IGIBIUIY / OBAI'IACARIi" MardJ on washlngwnln w~, D.C. 'The MardI
wiD be: ~kj(! to !.ometime it1 AugUst I september 2010. .
,.
AlllndMduals partidpmi~ arc ~ to ,,"ng 8 W(ty or their 8irt/l Certifie8te.
~oc in
or
The oost I:llEo Mat!;!\ on WatihingIOO Is~. we must raise Rfty Tt100sand 00IIars ($50,000,00] to
Vl'llid XJo!frl.l
a:Ner tile mst t:t tile HaIth Indudin!i promoting tIi$ i~t event.
~'liblloClay to help a:Ner tile expenses of tl1Is March and dm!nd our ConstItuIioo.
-----
N~me:_ ...
c,,"
_J
Add~
City, S'Iltte{Zlp:
!!rna.;
rei like tIl help! _$20 _$~ _$100 _$loo _$250 _$1,000 $_ _~
PhIlIp). ~, ~., ~s:; And"m! G:!fl Court Suite 12. I..1!fayet1& Hill, PA 19444·2531 (..lol S2~-3134
DQwnloast Flyer
htto:llobamacrimes.ooml 712112010
09/17/2029Case:
06:12
Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242722
Document 136-1 Page:
Filed 10
07/29/10
Date Page
Filed:10
08/06/2010
of 48 P 061/080
#0493
.....wedC¥. . Joilt~ta_lISle,..
1(11'1(:. . . . -n.:t. mIIIfdIIIn. and 1rar:I8 MIr!M):
~------------~------------------------~~------------"--"-
........AIt!.................. (EM' ...... ~ 0II0112OO'l "FU..EJ)'l+ 14:SS
o ............_ ............b'fllCrllullunao~~ RSlZ-Z284!PC
r:xJ 1lIIbiIr... 1 , _ .... .,.....-~ .. ID!duIMt_....liilfl_. . ._ . . . t "'DB.BTOR:
. . .llIndI........ cMlJuIDn 1D1IIIRC:IIad....... l.lBBRL USA
1UDGE: HON. P. Carroll - M5
TJ.CS1'IiE; WHIR. CH:Jn (COMPJ,..ETE)
34tA. MTG:' C!JIlOl2OOl 11:00 USB
re~~iAiiiiiiiii-=-;o;:..--"""':=:"':----=I\.-.-..,r=-----'=;...· "ADB.: "S420'1"vte1i'Ih Sl. Room lOQB ).ini
$5O.ODO,Olft to
$1QOmlIbt
~
-'
Of
.
192949
....... "'c.b&or(Oorp~
I dIcIar1t _ _ PI'*IY of CKIPY l1li ... h'OImeIort IiIRMded In ltD
, . . . . III till 8IlId ~ IftII Nt , 111M tIMn IdhI:IItIBd to fie tit
peI9cn en bIIIhIIIf of........... " .
1M deI*Ir ~ II!IlW ~ acccIdwlCe wIIt\ . . c:h:iP* of . . 11.
. . .QdJ........... ~ • ...."anepcnon' ~ '* cb:II.mant. dID;JdcIIIic:II'Ia
...... ~1fI:ImIIno1D'" awoaplatli dldaian 1br9lK!b paISOft.
09/17/2029 08:13 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 136-1 Page:
Filed 12
07/29/10
'.", Case:
.--':'- ... ::.':'-""-_ 10-3000
...... -,.._,- Document: 003110242722 Date Page
Filed:12 of 48 P,083/080
08/06/2010
#0493
·~:7 .
I.':
';0,..
"'" ,.
..... ......~*~.it'......
"':~'.
. ,'."
• I .• '
, ','
. ~
.. --J
........
N
.;" C>
.. . . . .", ~
. '. ."'
g..•
'. It' 1.'1"1~~1~ 'It '11'1111'tilli<II'~~'"l~~,~~
1Ii4. «;
i . ! "...•...•.•.. . . . . . . . •.
"'1'
C>
0::>
C>
Case
08/17/2028 Case:
06:14 2:09-cv-01898-ER
10-3000 Document: Document 136-1 Page:
003110242722 Filed 14
07/29/10
Date Page
Filed:14 of 48 P.065/080
#0483
08/06/2010
,.', .
.,' " .
';"',' :,,::
, .~ • • >1."
~.c~ ••
'::., '
, ..
'.': "
,I \.'
, " ..
··Ogaiti$thftriW#hthePABOr·A.iXjotiortjhlS~f<tmQfoly~ ~f ..... . .
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 136-1 Filed 07/29/10 Page 16 of 48
#0493 P.067/080
Case:
09/17/2029 06 15 10-3000 Document: 003110242722 Page: 16 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
:",-'.'"
09/17/2029 Case
08:18
Case: 2:09-cv-01898-ER
10-3000 Document: Document 136-1 Page:
003110242722 Filed 17
07/29/10
Date Page
Filed:17 of 48
08/06/2010
#0493 P.08B/OBO
" :, . .
",:'; . ' . ..
" ~
:; ""
,''<, .'
,\"
'.
:'.: '.'
,", , ,. ":"
'. , .' "
"", .
.t "
. '" ,.
.. ~.' .
. " .'
..........
',':, ' .
.
. . ". . "".,:':'>"" ,
':' ....
;5~a~~-t~1~f#t=~
:",'
. ': .
,': .. '
...., "
, ,
"., .........•.:
".;"
09/17/2029 0618 #0493
Case
Case: 2:09-cv-01898-ER
10-3000 Document 136-1 Page:
Document: 003110242722 Filed 20
07/29/10
Date Page
Filed:20 of 48 P071/080
08/06/2010
:7
10 Defendant.
11
12
20
FOR THE DEFENDANT: EDI M.D. FAAL
21 Attorney at Law
.22
.23
··24
09/17/2029Case:
06:1810-3000 Document: 003110242722 Page: 21 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
r-__------------~~------------------~----------~------~------~I0493 P.072/080
113
SECORD~
5
12
13
14
right. Anything further?
15
I would recall Investigator Liebrich to the stand for
16
18
19
21 1:0110'IJ15:
22
24 DIRECT EXAMINA~ION
25 BY ~~. SECORD~
26
Q.
A. That'S correct.
27
All right. In the course ot your
28
Q.
09/17/2029 0618
Case:
Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242722
Document 136-1 Page:
Filed 22
07/29/10
Date Page
Filed:22
08/06/2010
of 48
#0493 P073/080
11 A. 63 in total.
17 A. That I S correct..
115
9 It. Yes.
1.4 was angry at her and was basically done with her
15 sister.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What did she say?
A. First thi.ng was that she believed that her
20
21 sister had an outstanding warrant in the State of
Arizona. She was going to somehow get her arrested and
22
23
then spread throughout the jail system that she was
quote unquote 11a ratll and she. told her husband Brent,
24
25 uYou know what they do to rats in jail?"
26
Q. Investigator Leibrich{ you weX'e with the L.A.
:as correct?
09/17/2029 06:19 #0493 P.075/080
Case
Case: 2:09-cv-01898-ER
10-3000 Document 136-1 Page:
Document: 003110242722 Filed 24
07/29/10
Date Page
Filed:24 of 48
08/06/2010
:2 Q. Did you evel:;' work the j,ai I?
3 A Oh , yes.
:;:, 22 was not going to tell anybody where she was going to
,~ ,
23 go.
'.:. 24 Q. Okay. Did she also indicate anything to her
25 husband about finding a new job?
26 A. She inquired of her husband that even though
",< 21 he liked his job , she ask~dhimt "You can find a
r
(" 28 trans.fe.r, can't you? We should leave. Letts go to
~-,
,.;,
Case
09/17/2029Case: 2:09-cv-01898-ER
10-3000
08:19 Document: Document 136-1 Page:
003110242722 Filed 25
07/29/10
Date Page
Filed:25 of 48 P. 078/080
08/06/2010
#0493
117
1 Georgia, Florida anywhere. 11
2
MR. SECORD: Nothing further.
3
THE COURT: Mr. Faal_
5 CROSS-EXAMINATION
6 BY MR. FAAL:
14 leave and nat tell anyone where she was. going to go.
18 correct?
19 A. !n the prior 19 charges, yes.
20 Q. Yes?
21 Yes.
IN THE ujNITED 8TATES DIS1RlCT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF,
'I i
PENNSYLV AN1.A
!
!
LISA LIBERl, ~t al.• ) CIVIL ACTION
) NO. ()9 - 18989
)
)
v. ) DECLARATION BYNEIL SAN'KEY,
) PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR
ORLY TAl14let at. )
i
! )
~rendants. )
)
)
)
I, Neil ~eY7
I do hereby declare as follows: ,_
18 years old, ~ not suffer from any mental disease or impainnent and I have personal ~."
. ~, '
knowledge ofail! the facts set wIth in this Declaration, and ifcalled to testifY thereto, 1 CO~l and
i
wonld do so ~tly and truthfully.
!
2. In ~ay of20091 met with and interviewed John Mark Allen who informed me that
1
he had been the/ boyfriend ofLisa Liberi. also known as Lisa Richmdson, and that be was the
i
futher of their
,
sOD.
!
3. John!gave roo a photo-ropy ofa pbotograph which be told ~ was an accurate and
i
true reproducti~ ofa photograph ofLisa Libeti and her husband Brent. A copy of that
i
pb.otogmph is ~ and signed by me.
09/17/2029 08:19 #0493 P.07B/OBO
Case:
Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242722
Document 136-1 Page:
Filed 27
07/29/10
Date Page
Filed:27
08/06/2010
of 48
#0428 P.003/005
07/27/2010 13:18 8055205804 SANKEV
!
·
i~ca1 with ~e woman claiming to be Lisa Liberi in Your Honoris COurt on August 7, 20e9 in
t ~
Philadelphia. !j co
7. I dec~ onder penalty of perj\Jl'y mder the laws of the State of California that the~~
! c..:
foregoing is ~ and conect This Declaration was exectrted on July 27, 2010 at Simi Valle§!'
,I
.
I
CalifM\ia. l
,(:n/ ~("
Date I
09/17/2029 08:20 #0493
Case:
Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242722
Document 136-1 Page:
Filed 28
07/29/10
Date Page
Filed:28 48 P.079/080
08/06/2010
of
07/27/2010 13:188Q55205804 SANKEV #0428 P.004/005
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE
CE,TIFICATE OF ACKNO'VLEDG:MENT
i
State of Califomia i
i
Comrtyof ~'"
;
!
On , '1:1\\0 1 heforemc, loretta J. Cabuyadao7 Notary Public
i (Ht:re-msert came lIIliI mle oHM 0f'Ii«:r)
i
pe1S01lallyappean'ld i ~ i l ~\9..y.,
I . ,
0*
who proved to me the basis of satis:fil.l;:tory ~dc:nce to Qe the ~(s) wiNse nam~s) Ware subscribed to
capacity(ies),.aild *
the witliin ~ and at:lmow]edged t6 me that hefsb~ey executed the·same in bis/berltheU; authorized
by hislhcrlthdr signature(s) on the instrnment the pel'SOn(s).:>or the entity upon. behalf Of
which the pet'SOn(s) ~ executed the instrument.
i
I certify under P~TY OF PERJURY under the laws ofthe Stme ofCa1ifbmia that the foregCJiQg paragnlpn
is true and CO!TCCl i
;
.
i
i
•
S"~
~~ . N!lie 1
;
i : ;;;
PESC[ffiF.ITON OF nmATl'ACHEO
I
OOCUM.'BNT
.
ned~q;h£~~n~
-IT'*q:~~docvmeIIt~)
•. Stale and COUI4y ~ IIIlISt be:: 1bc. saetc and. CoolJt1 ~.;OIe ~
NwnwofPages _1_ Document Date sigaer(J)par$OMll1~bdm:tbenotl:ry ~fm~~
! '------ .. DID qf~ - " be l'hc dale tba( 1he ~$)~;ppMreCl whids.
~a&obctbcsamcd!m:1he~$~
111_
F.ft hi$ Qr - -
• 11M: nota>'7 ]lllb'k as it ~ ~hI bb or 1M
WiiIi .illl"ial ~b:r~~ *14~ Y<*' ddo(~ jI!IJbIiQ}.
• P;iui: Ux·~) d~ ~$) wbo ~ ~ *' \bor; time ut
, ~
CAPAct1Y CLAIMED BY 'llJE SIGNER " Indi.aiie Ule ~ ~ 01: ~ ft:InM ~ ~ off~ f«= CUI.
~~ Iw;e) orcircliogheorrecl.ibr:DIL Fiikn to~~thi!s
CJ liI4ividuaJ. ($) ~maylali.lO-~of~~
O~~ • The ~ !IIIIIS ~ ifiIlIIr lie aJci:ar .m:ld phglqp~ ~
! l~ mil!it iIOt ~lm or IiDes.lfaaJ ~ ~~ ira
(1".) i sdciea·III'eiIl~~~.~~fOl'lJ.
.. ~ oflli. DI*I'Y public D:IIIISI ma!.di 1hc~.iIQ tiS ~ . . om. of
Ll Partner(s) i 'ibQ(lQWIIy ~ .
o Altomey--.m.fa.;t ~ A~ ~ is not m.'jllimd belt CCIIIIcI IfiIP to . . . tIii;j
o TIUStee(s) . ~i$Ji(ifJft~tr~toadift'trtDl~
o ~ __-+______________ ~_ ..
~
IJ:IclIeItI: tl~ IN ~ of~ ~1JIIf1br;r at J.lIIgeS 8Dd dIlL
~ dJ; CIpICiIy ~ by _ Jipcr.lfthe ~ ~ is a
corp<A&e~, iz:!dk:ate 1M ~ (i.e. m>. cro.~
• Secvrdr auxb tbi$~ to dlc sijJll'l(l cIommJcDf :
09/17/2029 OS:20 #0493 P,080/080
07/2112010Case:
Case
10-3000
13:18 2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242722
8055205804 Document SANKEV
136-1 Page:
Filed 29
07/29/10
Date Page
Filed:29
08/06/2010
of 48 P.005/()05
'()42S
I
I
i•
I
I
I
!
,.."
.....,..~, .
0'
J.
ii
!
f
09/17/2029 06:21 #0484 P.001/019
Case:
Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242722
Document 136-1 Page:
Filed 30
07/29/10
Date Page
Filed:30
08/06/2010
of 48
4. I don't suffer from any mental disease or impairment and have personal
knowledge of the following and certify under penalty of perjury and under the
laws of CA that foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
, .. ~
\
\
"
attached photograph of her with her second husband Brent Liberi and\~r.
,! .• ~ v
c:)
Allen's son.
8. The picture of Mr. Allen's and Ms. Uberi's son was removed for his priVacy. ; ....
(...o.'ii'
9. Mr. Allen has provided a description of Liberi's height and general buift°and
provided information regarding Liberi's criminal history and history of her
incarceration and probation.
11. I have forwarded attached photograph to Ed and Caren Hale, who were
present at the emergency court hearing on AUgU5t 7, 2009 in Liberi et al v Taitz
et al and I personally talked to caren Hale, who identified the woman on the
photograph as the same woman who was in court, testifying that she was Usa
09/17/2029 08:21 #0494 P.002/019
Case
Case: 2:09-cv-01898-ER
10-3000 Document 136-1 Page:
Document: 003110242722 Filed 31
07/29/10
Date Page
Filed:31 of 48
08/06/2010
Uberi resident of PA, who was slandered and defamed by the plaintiffs 1 who
published the official criminal record of Lisa Liberi in CA.
4~'
Signed
07 R 1 /0
Dated
(. .,'"
..
-'
09/17/2029 08:21
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 136-1 Page:
Filed 32
07/29/10
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242722 Date Page
Filed:32 of 48 P.003/019
#0494
08/06/2010
.' .'
'
09/17/2029 06:21
Case:
Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242722
Document 136-1 Page:
Filed 33
07/29/10
Date Page
Filed:33 #0494
48 P004/018
08/06/2010
of
...
I:
i
I
2
I, Lisa tiberi, do hereby declare that:
4 1 am the defendant in the within action and am making this Declaration in support of my
5 Motion to recuse the Office of the District for the County of San Bernardino.
6
1. 0Jl numerous occasions during the pendency of this action. DDA Secord bas made
7
8 reference to a criminal record which I purportedly had in the State of Texas. These references
9 were made during my atteJ:npts to obtain an OR release or bail reduction and appear to have been
lOan attempt to prejudice the Court against me. The attempt was apparently.success:fuI as the
11 Court wouldn't even grant electrOnic monitoring.
12
2. While it is true that in or about 1985, I was arrested in Ware, Texas, my ~qther.
,.:;::.::..::
13
Shirley Waddell posted bail for me, no charges were filed against me and, obviously::~ waS:~~;
14
. . ,
-c";
3. My attorney asked me what the District Attorney was talking about In an ~ to
16
17 establish the truth, I went to the Texas Department ofPublic Safety. Crime ~J:ds
-.. '
18
19
my name as Lisa R. Richardson and as Lisa R. Courville with my date of birth, May 28,
20
1965, no criminal records were fmmd. (A true and correct cOPy oithe search is attached
21
hereto and)noorporated in by reference as Exhibit 1.)
22
23 4. I then went to Instant Criminal Checks and paid to run my name with my social security
25 found. (A true and correct copy ofthe instant cri:tninal check is attached hereto and
26
incorporated in byreference as Exhibit 2.)
27
28
DECLARATIONOFUSALmEru
09/17/2029 0821 #0494 P 005/019
Case:
Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242722
Document 136-1 Page:
Filed 34
07/29/10
Date Page
Filed:34
08/06/2010
of 48
on my case. ,
1
2
33., For the above afonmelitioued reasons, I respectfully request that D.D.A-James Secord ,
3
arid ,tJre San Bernardino CO\Dlty District Attomey's office be recused to insme me a
4
cha,nce at a fair trial.
5 . I declare under the penalty ofperjury of the .laws of the StateofCalifomia the foregoing is
6
10
11
12
13
14
(', .
15 r<
-0
16
17
-.. ,
.
,
'
18
19
20
21
Z].
23
24
25
26
27
28
D~TIONOFUSALmIDU
09/17/2029 06:21 #0494 P.006/019
Case
Case: 2:09-cv-01898-ER
10-3000 Document 136-1 Page:
Document: 003110242722 Filed 35
07/29/10
Date Page
Filed:35 of 48
08/06/2010
.,
/r:;x..,
I declare UDder the penalty of Perjury of the laws of the United States and' subject
to the penalties of 18 Pa C.S. Section 4904 that the foregoing is triie and correct.
LISAUBERI. Plaintiff
FSB04491
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) COURT CASE NO
)
. Plaintiff )
)
)
vs. )
) FELONY COMPLAINT
Lisa Liberi , )
aka Lisa R. Uberi, }
aka Lisa Renee Liberi, . )
) DA CASE NO 2004-00-0034761
aka Liaa C. Richardson, )
aka Lisa Courville-Rich, ')
)
)
Defendant )
------------~----------~~~=---
On or about November 15, 2002, in the above named judicial district, ttj~ cri~~.pf
ATIEMPT TO FILE FALSE OR FORGED INSTRUMENT, in violation of PENAL COD~.sECT,ON
115{a), a felony, was committed by Usa Liberi, who did unlawfully and knowingly proc~ andO.ffer
a false and forged instrument to be filed, registered, and recorded in a public offi~' withi~··,this
(..!;
state, which instrument1 if genuine, might be filed, registered, and recorded under 'elaw of this
state orthe United States.
COUNT 2
On or about November 15,2002, in the above named judicial distrtct, the crime of
FORGERY, !n violation of PENAL CODE SECT!ON 470(d). a felony, was committed by Lisa
Liberi, who did, with the intent to defraUd, falsely make, alter, forge and counterfeit, utter, publish,
pass and attempt to offer to pass, as true and genuine, a Department of Motor Vehicle form Lien
Satisfaied I Title Holder Releas containing the purported signature of Cheryl A. Olston, knowing
the same to be false, altered, forged and counterfeited.
Page 1
Complaint DA CASE NO: 200+00-0034761
09/17/2029 06:22 #0494
Case:
Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242722
Document 136-1 Page:
Filed 37
07/29/10
Date Page
Filed:37 of 48 P008/019
08/06/2010
..... . *****
COUNT 3
On or about November .15, 2002, in the above named judicial district, the crime of
FORGERY, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 470(d), a felony, was committed by lisa
Liberi, who did, with the intent to defraud, falsely make, alter, forge and counterfeit, utter, publish,
pass and attempt to offer to pass, as true and genuine, a Department of Motor Vehicle form Lien
Satisfaied I Title Holder Relsas containing the purported signature of Alicia P. Becerra, knowing'
the same to be false, altered, forged and counterfeited.
COUNT 4
On or about November 15, 2002, in the above named judicial district, the crime of
COUNTERFEIT SEAL, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 472, a felony, was committed by
Lisa Liberi, who did unlawfully and with intent to defraud, forge and counterfeit the seal.of AliCia P.
' . . ' , . \~. -:,.~
Becerra, a Notary Public, and did. falsely make forge and counterfeit an impression pu;t'!Orti~ ~to,
." ". ,.;
be an impression of said seal, and did possess such counterfeited seal and impression, 'j(nowingit
" c;
..• ,,) ,
* * " ... *
Page 2
Complaint DA CASE NO: 2oo4..QO-0034761
09/17/2029 06:22 #0494
Case
Case: 2:09-cv-01898-ER
10-3000 Document 136-1 Page:
Document: 003110242722 Filed 38
07/29/10
Date Page
Filed:38 of 48P 009/019
08/06/2010
Fyrther, attached hereto and incorporated herein are official reports and documents of a law
"'J.'
enforcement agency which the undersigned believe.s establish probable cause for the arrest of
defendant(s) Lisa Liberi , for the above-listed crimes_ Wherefore, a warrant of arrest is requested
for Lisa Liberi .
ichaelLerbriC
DECLARANT AND COMPLAINANT
. ,
• r
..
......: '.
..
"I'
, . ,': ~
j.,
Page 3
Complaint DA CASE NO: 2004-00-0034761
09/17/2029 08:22 #0494
Case
Case: 2:09-cv-01898-ER
10-3000 Document 136-1 Page:
Document: 003110242722 Filed 39
07/29/10
Date Page
Filed:39 of 48P 010/019
08/06/2010
ORIG!NAL
)
)
)
Defendant )
------~------------------------)
INFORMATION
SUMMARY
I',,:.
~
...---...
~~t
··-Ct. Charge .$petial
Range Defendant Allegation
No.
1
Charge
PC487(a) 16-2-3
16·2-3
Lisa Renee Richardson
2 PC476a(a)
Page 1
Information DA CASE NO; 2002-00-000&376
09/17/2029 08:22 #0494 P,011/019
Case:
Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242722
Document 136-1 Page:
Filed 40
07/29/10
Date Page
Filed:40
08/06/2010
of 48
c>
-'..
Page 2
Information OA CASE NO: 2002-00-0008876
09/17/2029 06:22 #0494
Case:
Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242722
Document 136-1 Page:
Filed 41
07/29/10
,,' ., Date Page
Filed:41 of 48P.012/019
08/06/2010
The District Attorney of the County of San Bernardino, by this Information alleges that: .
COUNT 1
On or about August 29. 2001, in the above named judicial district, the crime of GRAND
THEFT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 487(a), a felony, was
committed by Lisa Renee Richardson, who did unlawfully take money and personal property of a
value exceeding Four Hundred Dollars ($400). to wit, money in the sum of $38,000, the property of
Business Bank of California.
COUNT 2
On or about August 28, 2001, in the above named judicial district, the crime of NON~
SUFFICIENT FUND CHECK MULTIPLE CHECKS (FELONY), in violation of PENAL CO~
SECTION 476a(a}, a felony, was committed by Usa Renee Richardson, who did unlawfu(I~, an<i)
fraudulently make, draw, utter, and deliver checks and drafts for the payment of money t~ total
amoun(pf whiGh_~xceede" Two Hundr~d Dollars ($20Q), her:.t?inafier I~sted:
....... ~ . , '"
••
v.,
,[)
knowing at the time of such making; drawing, uttering, and delivering, that he/she had not sufficient
funds in, and credit with, said bank to meet the said checks and drafts and all other checks, drafts,
and orders upon such funds then outstanding in full upon their presentation for payment; the said
defendant(s) at all of said times having the intent then and there to cheat and defraud said persons
and corporation(s).
Page 3
Information OA CASE NO: 2002-00-0008876
09/17/2029 06 22 #0494
Case:
Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242722
Document 136-1 Page:
Filed 42
07/29/10
Date Page
Filed:42 of 48P.013/019
08/06/2010
*****
COUNT 3
On or about July 16, 2002, in the above named judicial district, the crime of FORGERY, in
violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 470(d}, a felony, was committed by Lisa Renee Richardson,
who did, with the intent to defraud, falsery ma.ke, alter, forge and counterfeit, utter, publish, pass and
attempt to offer to pass, as true and genuine, Release of Lien, knowing the same to be false, altered.
forged and counterfeited ..
*****
COUNT 4
On or about July 18, 2002, in the above named judicial district, the crime of COUNTERFEIT .
SEAL, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 472, a felony, was committed by Lisa Renee
Richardson, who did unlawfully and with intent to defraud, forge and counterfeit a. Superior Court of
California for the County of San Bernardino and did falsely make forge and counterfeit anjmpression
'-' -"1
purpQrting to be an impre~ion of~aid sea.!l and djd pOS§jess su~h co~!1t~rfeited seal. a.:ndimpr~q'n,
"_.- : '~. -~
"''''***
..
..... 4
COUNT 5
On or about July 18, 2002, in the above named judicial district, the crime of ATTEMPT TO
FILE FALSE OR FORGED INSTRUMENT, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 115(a), a felony,
was committed by Lisa Renee Richardson, who did unlawfully arid knowingly procure and offer a
false and forged instrument to be filed, registered, and recorded in a public office within this state,
which instrument, if genuine, might be filed, registered, and recorded under a law of this state or the
United States.
Page 4
Information DA CASE NO: 2002-00-0008876
09/17/2029 08:22
10494 P 014/019
Case:
Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242722
Document 136-1 Page:
Filed 43
07/29/10
Date Page
Filed:43
08/06/2010
of 48
*****
COUNT 6
On or about October 24, 2000, in the above named judicial district, the crime of GRAND
THEFT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 487(a), a felony, was
committed by Lisa.Renee Richardson, who did unlawfully take money and personal property of a
value exceeding Four Hundred Dollars ($400). to wit, money in the amount of $8,459, the property of
-Pomona First Federal. the property of Pomona First Federal.
*****
COUNT 7
On or about October 24, 2000, in the above named judicial district, the crime of FORGERY, in
violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 476, a felony, was committed by Lisa Renee Richardson, who
made, passed, uttered, and published, and attempted to do so, with intent to defraud a p~n,
- ...and
.,
possessed 1 with like intent, to utter, pass and publish, a fictitious and altered bill, note, a~d2cheQ~;'~::
puroorting to .be the bill, no~e. and_check, S1lnd other instrum~nt in writing fQr the pqyment ftmoney .
and property of a real and fictitious financial institution.
***** -'..
COUNT 8
On or about July 16, 2002, in the above named judicial district, the crime of FORGERY, in
violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 470{d), a felony, was committed by Lisa Renee Richardson,
who did, with the intent to defraud, falsely make, alter, forge and counterteit, utter, publish, pass and
attempt to offer to pass, as true and genUine, Release of Lien, knowing the same to be false, altered,
forged and counterteited.
Page 5
Information DA CASE NO; 2002-00-0008876
09/17/2029 06:23
Case:
Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242722
Document 136-1 Page:
Filed 44
07/29/10
Date Page ItO of
Filed:44 4 9 4 P, 015/019
08/06/2010
48
*****
COUNT 9 '
On or about July 18, 2001, in the above named judicial district, the crime of COUNTERFEIT
SEAL, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 472, a felony, was c;:ommitted by Lisa Renee
Richardson, who did unlawfully' and with intent to defraud, forge and counterfeit a Superior Court of
California for the County of San Bernardino and did falsely make forge and, counterfeit an impression
purporting to be an impression of said seal, and did possess such counterfeited seal and impression,
- '
COUNT 10
On or about July 18,2002, in the above named judicial district, the crime of ATTEMPT TO
FILE FALSE OR FORGED INSTRUMENT, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 115(a). a felony,
was committed by Lisa Renee Richardson, who did uniawfully and knowingly procure and offer a
Hfalse and fQrged jn!;itrument to b~Jiled, r~g.ister~<t andJ9C9.rQf;'!d ina Dut>.lie offic~w:ithin this ,state,
which instrument, if genuine, might be filed, registered, and recorded under a law of this ~te or the
*****
COUNT 11
-..
c.,'
V')
On or about May 3, 2001, in the above named judicial district, the crime of GRANDiHEFT OF
PERSONAL PROPERTY, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 487(a), a felony, was committed by
Lisa Renee Richardson, who did unlawfully take money and personal property of a value exceeding
Four Hundred Dollars ($400), to wit, money in the amount of $35,000 the property of Community
Bank.
Page 6
Information DA CASE NO: 2002'()O·OOO8876
09/17/2029 08:23
Case:
Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242722
Document 136-1 Page:
Filed 45
07/29/10
Date Page #0494
Filed:45 of 48P.018/019
08/06/2010
."
*****
COUNT 12
On or about July 3,2001, in the above named judicial district, the crime of GRAND THEFT OF
PERSONAL PROPERTY, inviolation of PENAL CODE SECTION 487(a), a felony. was committed by
Lisa Renee Richardson, who did unlawfully take money and personal property of a value exceeding
Four Hundred Dollars.($400)". to wit, money in the amount of $31 ,457 the property of USA Federal
Credit Union.
***1<*
COUNT 13
. ..
On or about July 3, 2001, in the above named judicial district, the crime of GRAND THEFT
AUTO, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 487(d)(1), a felony, was committed by Lisa Renee
Richardson, who did unlawfully take an automobile, 1998 Lincoln Versailles, vehicle identification
~-,-'
, '
. i "
COUNT 14
. -..
On or about July 3, 2001, in the above named judicial district. the crime of GRAND ~EFT OF
PERSONAL PROPERTY, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 487(a), a felony, was committed by
Lisa
.
Renee
.
Richardson, who did unlawfully take money and personal
. property of a value exceeding
Four Hundred Dollars ($400), to wit, money in the amount of $23,494 the property of USA Federal
Credit Union.
*****
COUNT 15
On or about July 3, 2001,. in the above named judicial district, the crime of GRAND THEFT
AUTO, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 487(d)(1), a felony. was committed by Lisa Renee
Page 7
Information DA CASE NO: 2002-00-0008876
09/17/2029 08:23
Case:
Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242722
Document 136-1 Page:
Filed 46
07/29/10
Date Page to 494
Filed:46 of 48P, 017 1019
08/06/2010
Richardson, who did unlawfully take an automobile, 2001 Chevrolet Camaro Z28, vehicle
identification number 2G1 FP22GX12120621.
*****
. COUNT 16
, .
On or about September 12, 2001, in the above named judicial district, the crime of GRAND
THEFT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 487(a), a felony, was
committed by Usa ReneeRichardson, who did unlawfully take money and personal property of a
value exceeding Four Hundred Dol/ars ($400), to wit, money in the amount of $21 ,305 the property of
USA Federal Credit Union.
COUNT 17
On or about August 30,2001, in the above named judicial distriCt. the crime of GRAND
THEFT AUTO. in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 487(d)(1), a felony, was committed 91 Lisa
Renee Richardson, who did unlawfully take an automobile, 1'999 DOdge Grand Caravan 81; ve~!~
identification number 284GP44RXR455666'. 1"-: .:,1
**"'**
..
.......,r
COUNT 18
On or about September 12,2001, in the above named judicial district, the crime of GRAND
THEFT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 487(a), a felony, was
committed by Lisa Renee Richardson, who did unlawfully take money and personal property of a
value exceeding Four Hundred Dollars ($400), to wit, money in the amount of $15.242, the property
of USA Federal Credit Union.
pageS
Information DA CASE NO: 2002--00·0008876
09/17/2029 0823 #0494 P018/019
Case:
Case
10-3000
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110242722
Document 136-1 Page:
Filed 47
07/29/10
Date Page
Filed:47
08/06/2010
of 48
*****
COUNT 19
On or about August 30, 2001, in the above named judicial district, the crime of GRAND
THEFT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 487(a), a felony, was
committed by Lisa Renee Richardson, who did unlawfu"y take money and personal property of a
value exceeding Four Hundred Dollars ($400), to wit, money in the amount of $228,600 the property
. of M.D.C. Holdings, Inc., dba Home America.
SPECIAL ALLEGATIONS
*****
Page 9
Information OA CASE NO: 2002-00-0008876'
09/17/2029 08:23 #0494 P019/019
Case
Case: 2:09-cv-01898-ER
10-3000 Document 136-1 Page:
Document: 003110242722 Filed 48
07/29/10
Date Page
Filed:48 of 48
08/06/2010
may disclose or permit to be disclosed to a defendant the address or telephone number of a victim or
witness whose name is disclosed to the attorney pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1054.1 unless
specifically permitted to do so by the court after a hearing and a showing of good cause,"
MICHAEL A. RAMOS
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
County of San Bernardino'
State of California
By:
Dated: _ _ _ _ _ __
..
-~
v',
\0
Page 10
Information DA CASE NO: 2002..oQ-0008876
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242723 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242724 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110242725 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
08.06.10