LIBERI V TAITZ (APPEAL - 3rd CIRCUIT) - Appellants' Reply To Appellees' Response To Appellants' Motion To Strike and For Sanctions - Transport Room

Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110361741 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2010
No. 10-3000
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________________
LISA LIBERI, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
vs.
ORLY TAITZ, et al.,
Defendant-Appellants.
__________________
District Court No. 09_cv_01898_ECR
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
__________________
APPELLANT'S REPLY TO APPELLEES' RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS MOTION
TO STRIKE AND FOR SANCTIONS
DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ.
CSB #223433
Attorney Pro Se &
Attorney for Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
29839 S. Margarita Pkwy. Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
ph. 949-683-5411
fax 949-766-7603
Appellant's reply to Appellees' Brief on behalf of Defend Our Freedoms Foundation and Orly Taitz 1
Table of Authorities
1.Liberi v Sheriff's department et al Central District of CA 5:04-cv-01524-VAP p15
2. Rodriguez v. Bush 04-4952 Eastern District of PA........................................ p14
3. In Re Berg, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 322 (ED PA 2008).............................................p13
4. Holsworth v. Berg, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15393 (ED PA 2005)....................... p 13
5. Lisa Liberi v West Valley Center et al 2:05-cv-03015-VAP-SGL....................... p 15
6. Berg v Obama Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2:08-cv-04083-RBS ...............p6
7. FRAP Rule 38, §1927...........................................................................................p2
8. Pennsylvania rules of professional ethics Rule 3.3.............................................p6
9. Pennsylbania Rules of professional ethics Rule4.1............................................p6
10. Pennsylvania rules of professional ethics Rile 8.4...........................................p6
SUMMARY OF THE REPLY
Appellants Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ and Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
(hereinafter Appellants) file this following reply to Appellees response to
Appellants Motion for Sanctions and to Strike, seeking to strike Appellees'
response to Appellant's opening brief and for sanctions against the
Appellees and their attorney Philip J. Berg for multiple counts or egregious
fraud on the court, perjury and for accusing Appellants of multiple crimes,
Reply to Response to the Motion to strike and sanctions against the Appellees and Attorney Philip J.
Berg 1
including attempt to hire a hit man to kill Appellee Liberi, while such
manufactured accusations were made with the only purpose to cover up
the fact that the Plaintiffs/Appellees have filed this legal action for
harassment purpose only.
ARGUMENT
Appellants filed a motion to strike the Appellees' Response brief and for
sanctions, as the Appellees brief was not responsive to the subject matter
of the appeal, they never submitted Appellee's Lisa Liberi's drivers license
or any other identifying documents and they attempted to mislead the court
by submitting over 900 pages of unrelated and inflammatory and
defamatory material instead of providing only one page- a certified
copy of Lisa Liberi's PA drivers license. Appellees filed a motion to
strike and for sanctions under FRAP Rule 38, §1927. In response to the
motion to strike and for sanctions, yet again Appellees listed as "facts"
outrageous allegation, manufactured by the Appellees with the sole
purpose of papering this court, confusing this court and distracting it from
the subject matter of the Appeal.
The appeal revolves around three issues:
1. This case was filed by the Plaintiffs/Appellees based on diversity of
citizenship. Appellees never filed Plaintiff Lisa Liberi's drivers' license or
Berg 2
any other identifying documents to prove her state citizenship. Without
proof of state citizenship, the District court cannot assert jurisdiction in
diversity and the case needs to be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.
Appellees never responded, why should this court assume
jurisdiction in diversity without proof of the lead plaintiff's state
citizenship.
2. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs attorney Philip Berg defrauded the court by
promising to Judge Robreno during the 08.07.09 hearing to file Appellee
Lisa Liberi's(hereinafter Liberi) identifying documents and never doing it.
(Appellant's appendix, transcript of the 08.07.09 hearing) Appellees never
responded, why shouldn''t they be sanctioned for defrauding the
court and never filing with the court Liberi's drivers' license as they
were instructed to do.
3. In order to cover up for the fact that they never filed Liberi's drivers'
license, Appellees and their Co-Appellee and Attorney Philip J. Berg
(hereinafter Berg) without any shred of evidence manufactured allegations
of multiple crimes, supposedly committed by all the defendants and many
other individuals. Berg engaged in egregious attorney misconduct and
without a shred of evidence accused Appellants of trying to hire a hit man
to kill Liberi, kidnap children, forgery, stalking, braking into computer,
Berg 3
forgery of seal and so on, even though neither one of the
Appellants/defendants ever committed any crimes, was never
convicted of any crimes, and the only person, who actually was charged
with 42 counts and convicted of 10 counts of forgery, forgery of seal and
grand theft, was Lisa Liberi herself. In their response to motion Appellees
engaged in more unfounded egregious allegations and accusations of
crimes. Due to the fact, that the Reply to the Response is limited in
number of pages allowed, Appellants cannot address those additional
fabricated allegations and will limit this Reply only to the issues relevant to
the Appeal and to the Motion to Strike and for Sanctions. Appellees never
responded, why shouldn't they be sanctioned for manufacturing
allegations of crimes and particularly accusing Attorney Taitz of
capital crime, of attempted to hire a hit man and kill Liberi.
Taitz already stated in her pleadings in the District Court and the Court of
Appeals, that she is willing to accept a redacted PA drivers license of Lisa
Liberi as evidence of her PA residence. Berg asked Judge Robreno to
allow him to file Liberi's license under seal. This permission was granted,
Judge Robreno ordered Appellee Liberi and her attorney Berg to file her
drivers' license under seal, Berg and Liberi promised to do so, however
they never filed Liberi's drivers license. There is no Liberi's drivers
Berg 4
license filed, there is no notation in the docket showing Appellees ever filing
such license. The reason Berg and Liberi never filed Liberi's license, is
because they filed this legal action based on fraud and perjury. This is a
800 million dollar legal action for Slander and Defamation of Character.
Appellees claimed that Lisa Liberi is an innocent individual, resident of PA
and an assistant to attorney Berg, who was defamed by the Appellants,
who published her criminal record from CA. In reality both Berg and Liberi
clearly knew that Liberi is indeed a felon on probation, convicted in CA,
and they are refusing to provide proof of her state citizenship, as it
will reveal that they engaged in fraud and perjury all along and filed
this legal action for harassment purposes only. Both Liberi and Berg
have a long history of filing multimillion dollar legal actions for
harassment purposes only and they need to be stopped. Berg needs
to be sanctioned not only for violation of FRAP Rule 38 §1927, but
also based on multiple counts of violations of rules of Professional
conduct of PA Supreme Court Adopted by Order of the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania dated October 16, 1987 effective April 1, 1988.Text contains recent
revisions & amendments which became effective January 1, 2005, January 6,
2005, March 17, 2005, April 23, 2005 and July 1, 2006
Berg 5
A. MULTIPLE COUNTS OF EGREGIOUS ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

AND VIOLATIONS OF RULES 3.3, 4.1 AND 8.4
Rules 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal
Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others
Rule 8.4 Misconduct (Exhibit 2 Rules of professional conduct Adopted by the
Supreme Court of PA Rules 3.3, 4.1, 8.4)
COUNT 1
Philip j. Berg by his own admission employed Lisa Liberi as his legal assistant
and paralegal from end of 2006/beginning of 2007 until now. By his own
admission Berg submitted to court pleadings drafted by Liberi, specifically in
Berg v Obama 2:08-cv-04083-RBS, which he submitted to the Eastern District
of PA, Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United
States. At least from March 2009 Berg was on notice about Liberi's criminal
past, as he was alerted by his researcher Linda Sue Belcher and by CA
attorney Dr. Orly Taitz. Berg knew that Liberi does not reside in PA and is
not allowed to reside in any other state, but CA, where she was under the
supervision of the department of Probations and NM, where her father and
step mother lived, and where she was allowed to spend time intermittently.
Berg knew that he does not have any employees physically working in his
small office in PA and that Liberi is assisting him via e-mails, faxing and
mail. When Taitz requested Berg to allow her access to original affidavits,
attesting to Barack Obama's birth in Africa, Berg had an obligation toward
the tribunal to allow such access, and notify the Eastern District of PA, Third
Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, that those affidavits could
have been forged. Instead, he continued claiming that the individuals, whose
Berg 6
affidavits he submitted, are afraid for their lives and kept them under seal.
While Taitz believed, that in general transparency in Government and
eligibility are important issues and need to be adjudicated, the fact that Berg
refused to allow any access to the original documents, prepared or handled
by a convicted forger, currently on probation, and submitted to the District
Court, Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme court shows flagrant
violation of rule 3.3, 4.1 and 8.4
Count 2
In and around mid April 2009 Taitz published on the web site of her
foundation an official summary of Liberi's convictions, which is available for
public review on the official website for the San Bernardino County, Ca
Superior Court. This printout showed Liberi's 2008 convictions of 10 counts
of forgery, forgery of an official seal and theft. Taitz did it with a proper
purpose of warning the public at large, that nothing submitted to court by
Philip J. Berg can be considered as genuine in light of his assistant's
convictions, and due to the fact that Berg was conducting a Nationwide
fundraising, whereby on the pages of his web site ObamaCrimes.com he was
asking the donors to provide their credit card information, their address and
other personal information, which became available to Lisa Liberi, who was
recently convicted of multiple counts of theft. Only a few days after Taitz
published such record, Berg filed a $800 million dollar legal action for
Berg 7
Slander and Defamation of character, where he claimed that he and his
assistant were defamed by an accusation of Liberi committing crimes. Berg
claimed that Liberi is a resident of PA and both of them were defamed. At
that time Berg clearly knew that Liberi does not reside in PA and filed a
frivolous legal action for defamation and slander with the only purpose of
harassment and intimidation of the defendants and in order to defraud the
tribunal, whereby he violated Rule 3.3, 4.1 and 8.4
COUNT 3
When Taitz demanded proof of Liberi's residence in PA and proof, that she is
a different person, Berg committed yet another act of egregious fraud on the
court and without a shred of evidence stated that Liberi's drivers license
needs to be sealed because attorney Orly Taitz tried to hire a hit man to kill
Liberi. Berg is an attorney and without a drop of conscience, without a drop
of honesty and integrity he accused a fellow attorney of a capital crime,
knowing full well, that he does not have any evidence to substantiate such
an outrageous accusation. Additionally, he accused a career police officer
and a licensed investigator Neil Sankey of hacking Liberi's computer and
stalking her, he accused a veteran Pamela Barnett of forging a letter from
Linda Belcher, he accused his former assistant and researcher Linda Belcher
of forging Liberi's e-mails and forging an official seal, as well as of having a
criminal record, he accused a retired veteran and engineer Neil Turner of

Berg 8
being a White Supremacist Militiaman, who is stalking Liberi, he accused a
talk show host Ed Hale of stalking and stealing a document. All along Berg
knew, that he is working with a convicted forger, that nobody ever
threatened them, he knew that all the crimes, that he is making up are a
repertoire of his assistant Lisa Liberi, he knew that all the individuals that he
is accusing are simply whistleblowers, who blew the whistle on him and
Liberi, he knew that none of these individuals ever committed any crimes,
were never convicted of any crimes, yet Berg went to the extent of
assassinating good name of multiple innocent individuals with the sole
purpose of covering up for a fact that he continuously submits to courts
documents prepared by a convicted document forger and for the fact that he
does fundraising with a convicted thief. Berg filed thousands of pages of
pleadings with such accusations in the Eastern District of PA as well as the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals. By doing so Berg violated rule 3.3, 4.1, 8.4
COUNT 4
As Berg claimed that Liberi's life is in danger, at the 08.07.09 hearing Judge
Eduardo Robreno allowed Berg to file Liberi's PA drivers license under seal
The transcript on page 19
"Mr. Berg: ... her actual address I think would be detrimental
The Court: "Well, the actual address we could do without it.
Berg 9
Mr. Berg: Okay. could that be on other people, too, or just on Miss Liberi?
The court: Well you could disclose it and file it with the court under seal."
on page 47 of the transcript of the same hearing during direct examination of
Liberi by Berg:
"Q. You heard my statement before. You will supply your correct address and
identifying information which we will give the court under seal, is that correct?
A Yes, sir." Berg and Liberi promised to file Liberi's drivers license under seal. Berg
and Liberi defrauded the court yet again and did not file Liberi's drivers license or
any identifying documents. The docket of the case shows, that no identifying
documents were ever filed. When Taitz properly filed her motion to dismiss due
to the fact, that Liberi never provided any documents, showing her state
citizenship, and that the case at hand filed based on diversity has to be dismissed,
Berg and Liberi continued defrauding the District court and the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals, claiming that they provided necessary documents and continuously
accusing defendants of crimes in order to confuse both courts. Wherefore, Berg
violated rule 3.3, 4.1 and 8.4.
VIOLATION OF RULE 1.15 SAFEKEEPING PROPERTY
Berg 10
COUNT 5.
Sworn affidavits of Linda Sue Belcher, former researcher for Philip J. Berg
and Geoff Staples, former web master for Berg (Appendix to Appellants
Opening Brief, Affidavits of Linda Belcher and Geoff Staples) show that Lisa
Liberi had access to the Pay-Pal account and Merchant Account, connected to
Berg's web site ObamaCrimes.com. Moreover, Belcher stated, that Berg
created a pay-pal account in the name of his girlfriend Carol and connected
it to the web site and Liberi created a web site in the name of her husband
Brent Liberi and it was connected to the web site as well. The public at large
donated to that web site to help the legal actions Berg was conducting and
specifically to help in an action filed on behalf of Colonel Greg Holister
Hoister v Soetoro, et al 1:2008cv02254 in the district of Columbia and in the
Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Gregory Hollister v. Barry Soetoro, et al (09-5080) and John Hemenway v.
Barry Soetoro (09-5161). The public believed that the donations
are going to benefit Colonel Hollister, whom Berg represented on
appeal, and help co-counsel in the case Washington DC attorney
John Hemingway. The public was not aware of the fact, that the
funds were going into the PayPal account for Berg's girlfriend
Carol and Liberi's husband Brent. Taitz does not have access to
Berg 11
Berg's, his girlfriend, Liberi's and her husband's accounts,
however in the interest of protection of Berg's former client
Colonel Hollister, his co-counsel and of the public at large this
court should forward this matter to the disciplinary board of the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court for further investigation and
prosecution.
Additionally, according to Liberi's terms of probation she was not
allowed to open any credit card accounts or handle any credit
cards without knowledge and consent of the probation
department, she was not allowed to travel out of state and she
was supposed to notify the probation department prior to filing
any legal actions, as she was previously convicted of multiple
counts of forgery and theft and was a vexatious plaintiff in CA,
filing a frivolous legal action against the San Bernardino County
CA, West Valley Correctional institution, where she was
incarcerated, multiple police officers, detectives and the District
Attorney's office. Appellants do not know, whether Liberi gave
proper notification to the probation department, however, it is
highly unlikely, as the probation department, probably would not

Berg 12
allow Liberi to continue preparing pleadings for Berg for multiple
courts, managing a web site with a merchant account and a
PayPal account, filing frivolous legal actions and swear under
oath, that she is a different Lisa Liberi, who resides in PA and who
was defamed by the defendants. It is appropriate for this court to
sanction Appellee Liberi and forward to the probation department
of the San Bernardino County CA a record of these proceedings
and such sanctions.
B. Sanctions against the Appellees and attorney Philip J.
Berg are proper, as there is a modus operandi of them
repeatedly and egregiously filing legal actions for
harassment purposes only and wrongfully accusing
multiple individuals of committing multiple crimes
Taitz submits an article from "Legal Intelligencer' (Exhibit 1), showing that Berg
repeatedly engages in such conduct. Berg was previously repeatedly sanctioned.
In Re Berg, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 322 (ED PA 2008); Holsworth v. Berg, 2005 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 15393 (ED PA 2005). Liberi has engaged in the same conduct as well.
Berg 13
Similarly Berg demanded disbarment of the Supreme court Justices Sandra Day
O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Berg
In October 2004, Berg filed Rodriguez v. Bush 04-4952 Eastern District of PA, accusing the
President of the United States and 155 other parties of complicity in the 9/11 attacks. This 237-
page civil lawsuit[6][7] included allegations pursuant to the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act) against The United States Of America, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, George Herbert Walker Bush,
George Walker Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld,and numerous others, totaling 156
defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This lawsuit made
hundreds of allegations "...; that phone calls made by some of the victims, as reported by their
family members, were not actually made but were "faked" by the government using "voice
morphing" technology; that a missile, not American Airlines Flight 77, struck the Pentagon; that
United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down by the U.S. military; that the defendants had
foreknowledge of the attacks and actively conspired to bring them about; that the defendants
engaged in kidnapping, arson, murder, treason, conspiracy, trafficking in narcotics,
embezzlement, securities fraud, insider trading, identity and credit card theft, blackmail,
trafficking in humans, and the abduction and sale of women and children for sex. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Berg
Rodriguez v Bush was originally brought in front of the same judge Hon Eduardo
Robreno, Eastern District of PA, it was eventually transferred to NY and
dismissed on all counts against all plaintiffs.
At the same time, in 2004-2006, when Liberi was incarcerated in CA, she filed
multiple frivolous legal actions. Her first legal action Liberi v Sheriff's department
et al 5:04-cv-01524-VAP was a 30 million dollar case against multiple individuals,
including District attorneys' office, her prior attorneys, judges, sheriffs'
department, policemen and detectives and many others. It was a frivolous legal
Berg 14
action, which caused an enormous emotional distress and financial hardships to
many, it was dismissed after her attorney was sanctioned multiple times and
after her attorney dropped Liberi as a client. Not satisfied, Liberi filed pro se yet
another frivolous RICO law suit for $280 million against the San Bernardino
County, CA, West Valley Correctional facility, district attorneys, police officers,
police detectives, numerous law enforcement officials Lisa Liberi v West Valley
Center et al 2:05-cv-03015-VAP-SGL. In a similar modus operandi she accused
multiple innocent individuals of committing crimes. Her legal action was
dismissed. As shown in these examples, Both Liberi and Berg have a history and
modus operandi of filing multimillion dollar law suits for the sole purpose of
harassment. They caused immeasurable financial and emotional damage to the
defendants and they need to be stopped now.
CONCLUSION
Appellees never provided any proof of Appellee Liberi’s PA state residency that
they claim, that she had. The Court erred in assuming jurisdiction over the case
without any evidence of State Citizenship of Plaintiff Liberi. As the State
citizenship of the lead Plaintiff was never established by the court, the District
Court had no jurisdiction in diversity and the case needs to be dismissed due to
Berg 15
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellees' responsive brief did not address the
issues on Appeal and Appellees' filing of 900 pages of irrelevant defamatory and
inflammatory material is improper. Sanctions are proper against the Appellees
and against Attorney Philip J Berg under FRAP Rule 38 §1927 for multiplying
proceedings and for repeated multiple acts of fraud on the court and filing a legal
action with an improper goal of harassment of the Defendants/Appellants.
Additional sanctions are proper against Appellees' attorney Philip J. Berg for
repeated violations of Rule 3.3, 4.1, 8.4, 1.15 of professional ethics
DATED: November 25, 2010
__/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ_______
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ Appellant in

Pro Se and as Counsel for
Appellant Defend Our Freedoms
Foundation
I certify that an antivirus program was run the Brief at hand does not contain
computer viruses.
/s/DR. Orly Taitz, ESQ
Appellants request the court indulgence in accepting this reply brief with a slightly
higher number of pages in the body of the brief.
Berg 16
ATTORNEY’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the:
APPELLANTS REPLY TO APPELLEES' RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS

MOTION TO STRIKE AND SANCTIONS
was served by ECF and ELECTRONIC MAIL on November 29, 2010, on the following parties:
Neil Sankey
The Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm
Sankey Investigations, Inc.
2470 Stearns Street #162
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Phone: (805) 520_3151and (818) 366_0919
Cell Phone: (818) 212_7615
FAX: (805) 520_5804 and (818) 366_1491
Email: nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com
Linda Sue Belcher
201 Paris
Castroville, Texas 78009
Home Phone: (830) 538_6395
Cell Phone: (830) 931_1781

Berg 17
Email: Newwomensparty@aol.com and
Email: starrbuzz@sbcglobal.net
Ed Hale
Caren Hale
Plains Radio
KPRN
Bar H Farms
1401 Bowie Street
Wellington, Texas 79095
Phone: (806) 447_0010 and (806) 447_0270
Email: plains.radio@yahoo.com and
Email: barhfarms@gmail.com and ed@barhfarms.net
Philip Berg, Esq.
Lisa Liberi c/o Law Office of Philip Berg
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444_2531
(610) 825_3134
FAX (610) 834_7659
E_Mail: philjberg@gmail.com
Disciplinary Board
Berg 18
Supreme Court of Pensylvania
820 Adams Ave, ste 170
Trooper, PA 19403
Philadelphia District Attorneys' office
3 South Penn square
Philadelphia, PA
US Attorneys' office
Eastern District of PA
615 Chestnut str, ste 1250
Philadelphia PA 19106-4100
James Secord
Assistant District attorney
San Bernardino County
316 North Mountain view
San Bernardino CA 92415-0004
909-387-8309
www.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/da
Berg 19
San Bernardino County, CA
Probation Department
175 w. Fifth str. 4th floor
S. Bernardino, CA
Public Integrity Section
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington DC 20530-0001
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders
The Honorable Mrs. Margaret Sekaggya
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
International Criminal bar Hague

Berg 20
United Nations Commission for
Civil Rights Defenders
Orsolya Toth (Ms)
Human Rights Officer
Civil and Political Rights Section
Special Procedures Division
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
tel: + 41 22 917 91 51
email: ototh@ohchr.org
/S/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
___________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq
11.25.10
EXHIBIT 1
A July 25, 2005 article from The Legal Intelligencer, “Lawyer Slapped With $10K in
Sanctions for 'Laundry List of Unethical Actions' sums the situation here up:
Berg 21
“Finding that a Pennsylvania lawyer had committed a "laundry list of unethical
actions," a federal judge has imposed more than $10,000 in sanctions and
ordered the lawyer to complete six hours of ethics training. U.S. District Judge J.
Curtis Joyner's 10-page opinion in Holsworth v. Berg is packed with criticism of
the conduct of attorney Philip Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa."Other attorneys should
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," Joyner
wrote. "This 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 resources that this court cannot, in good
conscience, allow to go unpunished," Joyner wrote. In the suit, Berg is accused of
legal malpractice by former clients who claim his failure to respond to an ERISA
claim against them led to a default judgment. But the sanctions against Berg stem
from his decision to file a third-party counterclaim of fraud against a pension fund
that had sued his former clients, according to court papers. Joyner blasted Berg
for filing the fraud claim, calling it an "irresponsible decision" because the claim
was "utterly barren of any scintilla of legal principles." Berg's 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

Berg 22
successfully moved for a supplemental judgment to recover more than $4,700 in
attorney fees for its efforts in responding to Berg's untimely motions. Holsworth
and his wife later filed a legal malpractice suit against Berg in the Philadelphia
County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that Berg negligently failed to represent
them in the Carpenters Health case. A year later, in February 2005, Berg moved to
join Carpenters Health as a third-party defendant in the malpractice suit,
demanding more than $20,000 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 fraudulent taking from the
Holsworths."Carpenter Health's lawyers removed the case to federal court and
filed a motion to dismiss the claim. Joyner agreed, 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 delay and disrupt the administration of justice." 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 before filing his complaint." Granting summary judgment in favor of
Carpenters Health, Joyner said he found it "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

Berg 23
Health to file a motion for Rule 11 sanctions. When it did, Joyner found that Berg
"continued his trend of unprofessional conduct "... "Berg's fraud claim, Joyner
said, was "inadequately pled, not grounded in fact, time-barred, and utterly
irrelevant to the pending malpractice action against him."..."In his sanctions
order, Joyner ordered Berg to reimburse Carpenters Health the $10,668 in
attorney fees and costs it incurred in defending the claim. He also ordered Berg 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 Association's Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional
Responsibility."
EXHIBIT 2
RULES OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS, SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Rules 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal or fail to
correct a false
statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the
lawyer;
(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction
known to
the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not
disclosed by opposing counsel;
or
(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the
lawyer’s client, or a
Berg 24
witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence before a tribunal
or in an ancillary
proceeding conducted pursuant to a tribunal's adjudicative authority, such as
a deposition, and the
lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable
remedial measures, including, if
necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence,
other than the
testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably
believes is false.
(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who
knows that a person
intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent
conduct related to the proceeding
shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure
to the tribunal.
(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of
the proceeding,
and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise
protected by Rule 1.6.
(d) n an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all
material facts known to the
lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether
or not the facts are adverse.
Comment:
[1] This Rule governs the conduct of a lawyer who is representing a client in
the proceedings of
a tribunal. See Rule 1.0(m) for the definition of “tribunal.” It also applies
when the lawyer is representing a
client in an ancillary proceeding conducted pursuant to the tribunal’s
adjudicative authority, such as a
deposition. Thus, for example, paragraph (a)(3) requires a lawyer to take
reasonable remedial measures if
the lawyer comes to know that a client who is testifying in a deposition has
offered evidence that is false.
[2] This Rule sets forth the special duties of lawyers as officers of the court
to avoid conduct that
undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process. A lawyer acting as an
advocate in an adjudicative
proceeding has an obligation to present the client's case with persuasive
force. Performance of that duty
while maintaining confidences of the client, however, is qualified by the
advocate's duty of candor to the
Berg 25
tribunal. Consequently, although a lawyer in an adversary proceeding is not

required to present an impartial
exposition of the law or to vouch for the evidence submitted in a cause, the
lawyer must not allow the
tribunal to be misled by false statements of law or fact or evidence that the
lawyer knows to be false.
Representations by a Lawyer
[3] An advocate is responsible for pleadings and other documents prepared
for litigation, but is
usually not required to have personal knowledge of matters asserted therein,
for litigation documents
ordinarily present assertions by the client, or by someone on the client's
behalf, and not assertions by the
lawyer. Compare Rule 3.1. However, an assertion purporting to be on the
lawyer's own knowledge, as in an
affidavit by the lawyer or in a statement in open court, may properly be
made only when the lawyer knows
the assertion is true or believes it to be true on the basis of a reasonably
diligent inquiry. There are
circumstances where failure to make a disclosure is the equivalent of an
affirmative misrepresentation. The
obligation prescribed in Rule 1.2(d) not to counsel a client to commit or
assist the client in committing a
fraud applies in litigation. Regarding compliance with Rule 1.2(d), see the
Comment to that Rule. See also
the Comment to Rule 8.4(b).
Offering Evidence
[5] Paragraph (a)(3) requires that the lawyer refuse to offer evidence that
the lawyer knows to
be false, regardless of the client’s wishes. This duty is premised on the
lawyer’s obligation as an officer of
the court to prevent the trier of fact from being misled by false evidence. A
lawyer does not violate this Rule
if the lawyer offers the evidence for the purpose of establishing its falsity.
[6] If a lawyer knows that the client intends to testify falsely or wants the
lawyer to introduce
false evidence, the lawyer should seek to persuade the client that the
evidence should not be offered. If the
persuasion is ineffective and the lawyer continues to represent the client, the
lawyer must refuse to offer the
false evidence. If only a portion of a witness's testimony will be false, the
lawyer may call the witness to
testify but may not elicit or otherwise permit the witness to present the
testimony that the lawyer knows is
Berg 26
false.
Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others
In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:
(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or
(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is
necessary to avoid aiding
and abetting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is
prohibited by Rule 1.6. MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROFESSION
Rule 8.1 Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters
An applicant for admission to the bar, or a lawyer in connection with a bar
admission application or
in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not:
(a) knowingly make a false statement of material fact; or
(b) fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by
the person to have
arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for
information from an
admissions or disciplinary authority, except that this Rule does not require
disclosure of information
otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.
Rule 8.4 Misconduct

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly
assist or induce
another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty,
trustworthiness or
fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or
official or to achieve
results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;
VIOLATION OF RULE 1.15 SAFEKEEPING PROPERTY

(a) A lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in a
lawyer’s possession in
connection with a client-lawyer relationship separate from the lawyer’s own
property. Such property shall be
identified and appropriately safeguarded. Complete records of the receipt,
maintenance and disposition of
Berg 27
such property shall be preserved for a period of five years after termination
of the client-lawyer relationship
or after distribution or disposition of the property, whichever is later.
(b) Upon receiving property of a client or third person in connection with a
client-lawyer
relationship, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except
as stated in this Rule or
otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client or third person,
a lawyer shall promptly deliver
to the client or third person any property that the client or third person is
entitled to receive and, upon
request by the client or third person, shall promptly render a full accounting
regarding such property.
40
(c) When in connection with a client-lawyer relationship a lawyer is in
possession of property in
which two or more persons, one of whom may be the lawyer, claim an
interest, the property shall be kept
separate by the lawyer until the dispute is resolved. The lawyer shall
promptly distribute all portions of the
property as to which the interests are not in dispute.
(d) In those parts of this Rule dealing with funds of clients or third persons
which the lawyer
receives in connection with a client-lawyer relationship, excluding funds
which the lawyer receives while
acting as fiduciary for an estate, trust, guardianship or conservatorship, the
following definitions are
applicable:
(1) Trust Account means an interest-bearing account in a financial
institution, as defined
in Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement 221, in which the lawyer deposits such
funds.
(2) Qualified funds means such funds when they are nominal in amount or
are
reasonably expected to be held for such a short period of time that sufficient
interest income will not
be generated to justify the expense of administering a segregated account.
(3) Nonqualified Funds means all other such funds.
(4) An Interest On Lawyer Trust Account (IOLTA Account) is an
unsegregated Trust
Account for the deposit of Qualified Funds by a lawyer.
(5) The IOLTA Board means the Pennsylvania Interest on Lawyers Trust
Account Board.
Berg 28
(e) The responsibility for identifying an account as a Trust Account shall be

that of the lawyer in
whose name the account is held. A lawyer shall not deposit the lawyer’s own
funds in a Trust Account
except for the sole purpose of paying bank services charges on that account,
and only in an amount
necessary for that purpose. A lawyer shall deposit into a Trust Account legal
fees and expenses that have
been paid in advance, to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are earned
or expenses incurred, unless
the client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing, to the handling of
fees and expenses in a different
manner. At all times while a lawyer holds funds of a client or third person in
connection with a client-lawyer
relationship, the lawyer shall also maintain another account that is not used
to hold such funds.
(f) All Nonqualified Funds shall be placed in a Trust Account or in another
investment vehicle
specifically agreed upon by the lawyer and the client or third person which
owns the funds.
(g) All Qualified Funds shall be placed in an IOLTA Account. The rate of
interest payable on an
IOLTA Account shall not be less than the highest rate or dividend generally
available from the financial
institution to its non-IOLTA Account customers when the IOLTA Account
meets or exceeds the same
minimum balance and other account eligibility qualifications applicable to
those other accounts. In no event
shall the rate of interest payable on an IOLTA Account be less than the rate
paid by the financial institution
on negotiable order of withdrawal accounts (NOW) or super negotiable order
of withdrawal accounts. An
account shall not be considered an IOLTA Account unless the financial
institution at which the account is
maintained shall:
(1) Remit at least quarterly any interest earned on the account to the IOLTA
Board.
(2) Transmit to the IOLTA Board with each remittance and to the lawyer who
maintains
the IOLTA Account a statement showing at least the name of the account,
service charges or fees
deducted, if any, the amount of interest remitted from the account and the
average daily balance, if
available.
Berg 29
(h) A lawyer shall be exempt from the requirement that all Qualified Funds
be placed in [8] A lawyer must participate in the Pennsylvania Lawyers Fund
for Client Security. It is a
means through the collective efforts of the bar to reimburse persons who
have lost money or property as a
result of dishonest conduct of a lawyer.
43
[9] Paragraphs (g) through (l) provide for the Interest on Lawyer Trust
Account (IOLTA)
program, and the definitions in paragraph (d) distinguish two types of funds
of clients and third persons held
by a lawyer: Qualified Funds, which must be placed in an IOLTA account,
and Nonqualified Funds, which are
to be placed in an interest bearing account unless the client or third person
specifically agrees to another
investment vehicle for the benefit of the client or third person. There are
further instructions in Rules 219
and 221 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement and in the
Regulations of the Interest on
Lawyers Trust Account Board, 204 Pa. Code, § 81.1 et seq., which are
referred to as the IOLTA Regulations.
[1] A lawyer should hold property of others with the care required of a
professional fiduciary.
The obligations of a lawyer under this Rule apply when the lawyer has come
into possession of property of
clients or third persons because the lawyer is acting or has acted as a lawyer
in a client-lawyer relationship
with some person. Securities should be kept in a safe deposit box, except
when some other form of
safekeeping is warranted by special circumstances. All property which is the
property of clients or third
persons, including prospective clients, must be kept separate from the
lawyer's business and personal
property and, if monies, in one or more Trust Accounts. The responsibility
for identifying an account as a
Trust Account shall be that of the lawyer in whose name the account is held.
Whenever a lawyer holds funds
of a client or third person, the lawyer must maintain at least two accounts:
one in which those funds are
held and another in which the lawyer's own funds may be held. A lawyer
should maintain on a current basis
books and records in accordance with sound accounting practices
consistently applied and comply with any
Berg 30
recordkeeping rules established by law or court order.

[2] The following books and records shall be maintained for each Trust
Account:
(i) bank statements and check registers (which shall include the payee, date,
amount
and the client matter involved);
(ii) all transaction records returned by the financial institution, including
canceled checks
in whatever form and records of electronic transactions;
(iii) records of deposits and a ledger separately listing each deposited item
and the client
or third person for whom the deposit is being made.
[3] The records required by this Rule may be maintained in electronic or
other form if they can
be retrieved in printed hard copy. Electronic records must be regularly
backed up by an appropriate storage
device.
[4] While normally it is impermissible to commingle the lawyer’s own funds
with client funds,
paragraph (e) provides that it is permissible when necessary to pay bank
service charges on that account.
Accurate records must be kept regarding that part of the funds which are the
lawyer’s.
[5] Lawyers often receive funds from which the lawyer’s fee will be paid. The
lawyer is not
required to remit to the client funds that the lawyer reasonably believes
represent fees owed. However, a
lawyer may not hold funds to coerce a client into accepting the lawyer’s
contention. The disputed portion
of the funds must be kept in a Trust Account and the lawyer should suggest
means for prompt resolution of
the dispute, such as arbitration. The undisputed portion of the funds shall be
promptly distributed.
[6] Paragraph (c) also recognizes that third parties may have lawful claims
against specific funds
or other property in a lawyer’s custody such as a client’s creditor who has a
lien on funds recovered in a
personal injury action. A lawyer may have a duty under applicable law to
protect such third-party claims
against wrongful interference by the client. In such cases, when the third
party claim is not frivolous under
applicable law, the lawyer must refuse to surrender the property to the client
unless the claims are resolved.
Berg 31
A lawyer should not unilaterally assume to arbitrate a dispute between the

client and the third party. When
there are substantial grounds for dispute as to the person entitled to the
funds, the lawyer may file an action
to have a court resolve the dispute.
[7] Other applicable law may impose pertinent obligations upon a lawyer
independent of any
Berg 32

LIBERI V TAITZ (APPEAL - 3rd CIRCUIT) - Appellants' Reply To Appellees' Response To Appellants' Motion To Strike and For Sanctions - Transport Room

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

LIBERI V TAITZ (APPEAL - 3rd CIRCUIT) - Appellants' Reply To Appellees' Response To Appellants' Motion To Strike and For Sanctions - Transport Room

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110361741 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2010

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Attorney Pro Se &

Attorney for Defend Our Freedoms Foundation

29839 S. Margarita Pkwy. Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

1.Liberi v Sheriff's department et al Central District of CA 5:04-cv-01524-VAP p15

2. Rodriguez v. Bush 04-4952 Eastern District of PA........................................ p14

3. In Re Berg, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 322 (ED PA 2008).............................................p13

4. Holsworth v. Berg, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15393 (ED PA 2005)....................... p 13

5. Lisa Liberi v West Valley Center et al 2:05-cv-03015-VAP-SGL....................... p 15

6. Berg v Obama Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2:08-cv-04083-RBS ...............p6

7. FRAP Rule 38, §1927...........................................................................................p2

8. Pennsylvania rules of professional ethics Rule 3.3.............................................p6

9. Pennsylbania Rules of professional ethics Rule4.1............................................p6

10. Pennsylvania rules of professional ethics Rile 8.4...........................................p6

SUMMARY OF THE REPLY

(hereinafter Appellants) file this following reply to Appellees response to

Appellants Motion for Sanctions and to Strike, seeking to strike Appellees'

response to Appellant's opening brief and for sanctions against the

manufactured accusations were made with the only purpose to cover up

harassment purpose only.

by submitting over 900 pages of unrelated and inflammatory and

defamatory material instead of providing only one page- a certified

copy of Lisa Liberi's PA drivers license. Appellees filed a motion to

outrageous allegation, manufactured by the Appellees with the sole

the subject matter of the Appeal.

The appeal revolves around three issues:

1. This case was filed by the Plaintiffs/Appellees based on diversity of

citizenship. Appellees never filed Plaintiff Lisa Liberi's drivers' license or

any other identifying documents to prove her state citizenship. Without

proof of state citizenship, the District court cannot assert jurisdiction in

diversity and the case needs to be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

Appellees never responded, why should this court assume

jurisdiction in diversity without proof of the lead plaintiff's state

2. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs attorney Philip Berg defrauded the court by

promising to Judge Robreno during the 08.07.09 hearing to file Appellee

Lisa Liberi's(hereinafter Liberi) identifying documents and never doing it.

(Appellant's appendix, transcript of the 08.07.09 hearing) Appellees never

responded, why shouldn''t they be sanctioned for defrauding the

were instructed to do.

license, Appellees and their Co-Appellee and Attorney Philip J. Berg

(hereinafter Berg) without any shred of evidence manufactured allegations

of multiple crimes, supposedly committed by all the defendants and many

other individuals. Berg engaged in egregious attorney misconduct and

without a shred of evidence accused Appellants of trying to hire a hit man

to kill Liberi, kidnap children, forgery, stalking, braking into computer,

forgery of seal and so on, even though neither one of the

Appellants/defendants ever committed any crimes, was never

with 42 counts and convicted of 10 counts of forgery, forgery of seal and

engaged in more unfounded egregious allegations and accusations of

number of pages allowed, Appellants cannot address those additional

responded, why shouldn't they be sanctioned for manufacturing

allegations of crimes and particularly accusing Attorney Taitz of

capital crime, of attempted to hire a hit man and kill Liberi.

Appeals, that she is willing to accept a redacted PA drivers license of Lisa

Liberi as evidence of her PA residence. Berg asked Judge Robreno to

they never filed Liberi's drivers license. There is no Liberi's drivers

Appellees claimed that Lisa Liberi is an innocent individual, resident of PA

and an assistant to attorney Berg, who was defamed by the Appellants,

clearly knew that Liberi is indeed a felon on probation, convicted in CA,

and they are refusing to provide proof of her state citizenship, as it

have a long history of filing multimillion dollar legal actions for

harassment purposes only and they need to be stopped. Berg needs