Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/18757347/LIBERI-v-TAITZ-102-Emergency-MOTION-for-Temporary-Restraining-Order-Pending-Appeal
Timestamp: 2017-03-23 00:13:51
Document Index: 766734081

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 201', '§1512', '§ 4951', '§ 4952', '§ 36', '§ 201', '§ 652', '§ 652', '§ 652', '§ 652', '§ 652', '§ 652', 'art, 13']

LIBERI v TAITZ - 102 - Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Pending Appeal | Injunction | Plaintiff
BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIALISA LIBERI, et al, Plaintiffs,
: : : Assigned to Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno : : : Case No.: 09-cv-01898-ECR : : : :
ORDER AND NOW, this _____ day of August, 2009, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that: (1) Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for an Emergency Injunction or Restraining
Order pending the outcome of Plaintiffs’ Appeal is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED: (A) Defendant’s Orly Taitz a/k/a Dr. Orly Taitz a/k/a Law Offices of Orly Taitz a/k/a Orly Taitz, Inc; Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc.; Neil Sankey; Sankey Investigations; The Sankey Firm, Inc. and/or anyone on their behalf are enjoined from any further distribution, dissemination publishing, emailing, and/or sending out through the Internet RSS feed, etc. Lisa Liberi’s Social Security number, date of birth, mother’s maiden name and other private personal identifying information or any of the other Plaintiffs’, Evelyn Adams a/k/a MommaE; Lisa Ostella; Philip J. Berg, Esquire; Go Excel Global and The Law Offices of Philip J. Berg’s personal identifying information;
Defendant’s Linda Sue Belcher a/k/a Linda S. Belcher a/k/a Linda Starr
a/k/a Newwomensparty a/k/a Stitchenwitch a/k/a Eva Braun a/k/a Web Sergeant a/k/a Katy a/k/a www.obamacitizenshipdebate.org and Edgar (Ed) Hale a/k/a JD Smith; Caren Hale and/or anyone on their behalf are enjoined from retaliating against and/or any further threatening; harassing; or intimidating of Plaintiffs’ witnesses or potential witnesses; and are enjoined from publishing any of the Plaintiffs’ and/or Plaintiffs’ witnesses names, addresses, telephone numbers, or any other personal information. C. All Defendants’ are enjoined from any further harassment of the Plaintiffs’
including the filing of false police reports; soliciting individuals on the world wide web and internet from contacting police departments and/or law enforcement agencies where the Plaintiffs reside over falsified claims; D. Defendant, Linda Sue Belcher, et al is hereby enjoined from any further
manufacturing of any type of documents bearing the name of Lisa Liberi or her email address of Llisaliberi@aol.com and/or LisaLiberi@gmail.com and/or her screen name of Llisaliberi. E. Defendants’ are hereby ORDERED to adhere to and follow all of this
Court’s Rulings and Orders.
Date: August _____, 2009
______________________________ Eduardo C. Robreno, Judge U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
LISA LIBERI, et al, Plaintiffs,
ORDER AND NOW, this _____ day of August, 2009, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that Lisa Liberi is to be issued a new Social Security Number by the Social Security Administration. Lisa Liberi is to make an immediate application to the Social Security Administration for the issuance of a new Social Security Number.
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTION OR RESTRAINING ORDER PENDING THE OUTCOME OF PLAINTIFFS’ APPEAL, PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, RULE 8 _____________________ TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
NOW COMES Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned Counsel, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby makes this Emergency Motion for the issuance of an Emergency Injunction or Restraining Order, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellant Procedure, Rule 8, pending the outcome of Plaintiffs’ appeal Enjoining Defendants, Orly Taitz, et al from publication and distribution of Plaintiff Lisa Liberi’s Social Security number and Plaintiffs’ maiden names, home addresses, phone number, etc. and private information, harassment of the Plaintiffs’; invading Plaintiffs’ Privacy, including but not limited to Intrusion upon One’s Seclusion; Public Disclosure of Private Facts; Placing the Plaintiffs’ in a False Light in the Public Eye; Slander;
Z:\Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al\ Emergency Injunction pending Appeal
Libel and many others in violation of Pennsylvania Privacy Acts 74 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 201 (West 2006); violation of California Privacy Laws, California Civil Code 1798 et sequitur, amongst many others and to enjoin Defendant’s Edgar Hale, Caren Hale and Linda Sue Belcher from any further threats or threatening statements veered at Plaintiffs’ witnesses. Threatening witnesses or witness intimidation is in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1512; Pennsylvania Statute 18 Pa.C.S. § 4951. Intimidation and/or threatening of Plaintiffs’ witnesses and potential witnesses is a felony in the first degree, see 18 Pa.C.S. § 4952; Texas. Penal Code § 36.06, in Texas threatening a witness is a felony in the third degree on the following grounds:
Plaintiffs’ will succeed on the merits of their Appeal and their case; Plaintiffs’ will continue to suffer irreparable harm if the emergency Injunction or Restraining Order is not granted; Plaintiffs’ do not have any other remedy at law; Defendants, especially Taitz, have repeated their illegal and unacceptable behaviors which is grounds for the issuance of an emergency Injunction or Restraining Order; There will not be any harm or prejudice to the Defendants’ if the emergency Injunction or Restraining Order is granted; and The Public Interest supports the issuance of Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Emergency Injunction or Restraining Order pending the outcome of Plaintiffs’ Appeal.
WHEREFORE, for good cause shown, Plaintiffs’, Lisa Liberi; Philip J. Berg, Esquire; Evelyn Adams; Lisa Ostella; Law Offices of Philip J. Berg; and Go Excel Global respectfully requests this Honorable Court for an emergency Injunction or Restraining Order against Defendant’s Orly Taitz, et al; Edgar Hale; Caren Hale; Linda Sue Belcher and anyone acting on their behalf pending the resolution of Plaintiffs’ Appeal. Plaintiff Lisa Liberi further requests
this Court for an Order to obtain a new social security number from the Social Security Administration.
Dated: August 17, 2009 Philip J. Berg, Esquire Attorney in Pro Se 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 (610) 825-3134 Identification No. 09867
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN EMERGENCY INJUNCTION OR RESTRAINING ORDER, PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, RULE 8, PENDING THE OUTCOME OF PLAINTIFFS’ APPEAL
As better explained herein, Plaintiffs’ will succeed on the merits of the within case.
Defendants’ failed to assert any affirmative defenses, with the exception of personal jurisdiction, which was addressed in Plaintiffs’ Counsel letter of July 30, 2009 to Your Honor. Without the issuance of this Injunction or Restraining Order, Plaintiffs will continue suffering irreparable harm. The Defendants, especially Taitz have repeated their wrongful action which gave rise to this lawsuit and therefore, is a sound basis for the issuance of an emergency Injunction or Restraining Order. Defendants’ will not suffer any harm by the issuance of the Injunction or Restraining and the Public Interest supports the issuance of the emergency Injunction or Restraining Order.
In or about February 2009, Defendant, Orly Taitz, et al [hereinafter “Taitz”] made the
threat to take Plaintiff Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter “Berg”] down and to do so she would destroy his Paralegal, Plaintiff Lisa Liberi [hereinafter “Liberi”] and get rid of her. It should be noted, Taitz is a licensed Attorney in the State of California.
Taitz then accused Liberi and her husband, all over the internet and by mass emailing, of
having accounts set up on Berg’s foundation website and were diverting funds from Berg. Berg immediately made a public statement that no one had stolen from him and he was not a foundation.
Shortly thereafter, Taitz put out a criminal record claiming it to belong to Liberi and
stated that Liberi had been convicted of, just to name a few, Identity Theft; Manufacturing or
altercation of Police Reports; Manufacturing or Altering credit Reports; that Liberi was stealing money from Berg to pay her Twenty-One Thousand [$21,000.00] Restitution Payments; that Liberi had a long lengthy criminal record going back to the 1990’s; that Liberi and Plaintiff Lisa Ostella [hereinafter “Ostella”] had “hacked” her website and her PayPal Account stealing donations; that Ostella had “hijacked” her [Taitz] website; filed false police reports against Liberi and Ostella attempting to have them arrested on her false and unfounded allegations; filed falsified criminal reports against Liberi and Ostella with the Federal Bureau of Investigations [FBI]; Taitz falsely told law enforcement that she and Berg worked together and fundraised together; Taitz put out that Plaintiffs’ were all Obama Supporters calling them “Obots” and then stated that President Obama and his Supporters [Obots] needed to be “purged”, all the time knowing her statements were false and dangerous..
On or about April 17, 2009, Taitz put out what she called her “Dossier #6”. Taitz Dossier
#6 was all about Liberi. In fact, in Dossier #6 Taitz put Liberi’s full Social Security number; date of birth; and other private personal information. Dossier #6 is attached hereto as EXHIBIT “A” first two (2) pages are screen shots showing Liberi’s full social security number is in two (2) locations of Taitz’s website and blog area as of August 15, 2009, dossier 6 begins with page three (3) and Liberi’s full social security number located in dossier 6 is on the last page of the Exhibit. It should be noted, dossier #6 appears on six (6) separate web links of Taitz website and blog: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=8; http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?m-20090417; http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?cat=3&paged=2; http://orlytaitzesq.com/dossier-006.htm;
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?cat=29; and http://orlytaitzesq.com/drorlytaitzesq/documentation/Dossier6.doc
Taitz had this Dossier #6 sent out all over the internet requesting all websites to post her
Dossier #6, emailed to in excess of One Hundred and Forty Thousand [140,000] individuals and businesses including internationally by her own admission, and mailed to various law enforcement agencies, military officers, etc. In this Dossier #6, is an email from a licensed private investigator, Defendant Neil Sankey [hereinafter “Sankey”] who emailed Liberi’s full Social Security number and other personal identifying information to Taitz and also a reporter with World Net Daily.
Thereafter, Taitz had posted on her website and all over the internet for everyone to call
the Santa Fe Probation Department because Liberi was on probation and not allowed around credit cards. Taitz supplied the phone number for this location.
In or about the end of April early May 2009, Taitz began accusing Ostella of locking her
[Taitz] out of her website; hijacking her website; and stealing donations coming into her company, Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc., all of which she again knew was false. Ostella owned the domain names and Ostella was paying for the server the website was sitting on, which was her [Ostella’s] account.
Plaintiffs’ filed suit on May 4, 2009, which Taitz was served with on May 5, 2009;
Defendant Linda S. Belcher [hereinafter “Belcher”] on May 5, 2009 and Defendant Edgar Hale [hereinafter “Hale”] on or about May 6, 2009. Along with service of the Summons and
Complaint was a Motion for an Emergency Injunction or Restraining Order.
From April 17, 2009 through June 27, 2009, Taitz has placed on her blog approximately
twenty [20] articles regarding Liberi, Berg, Adams and Ostella, which are degrading, harassment Z:\Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al\ Emergency Injunction pending Appeal 6
of the Plaintiffs’; invading Plaintiffs’ Privacy, including but not limited to Intrusion upon Plaintiff’s Seclusion; Public Disclosure of Private Facts; Use of Another’s Name or Likeness; False Light in the Public Eye; Slander; Libel and many others in violation of Pennsylvania Privacy Acts 74 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 201 (West 2006); violation of California Privacy Laws, California Civil Code 1798 et sequitur. See EXHIBITS “A-V”.
Taitz failed to answer the complaint on May 26, 2009 as set by the Court and when she
did respond late only stated, “Taitz and Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. deny all allegations,” therefore waiving all their affirmative defenses. All the other Defendants did the same thing and filed an Answer stating they objected to venue and denied all the allegations, also, waiving all their affirmative defenses.
The Court set a Status Hearing and Scheduling Conference for June 25, 2009.
Meanwhile, Plaintiffs’ filed again for their Motion for an Emergency Injunction or Restraining Order.
On June 22, 2009 Taitz published Liberi’s mother’s maiden name, where Liberi was born
and other personal identifying information. See EXHIBIT “T”.
On June 25, 2009, the Hearing took place where the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for
an Emergency Injunction or Restraining Order and gave Taitz, who was present and the other Defendants’ Attorney very strong words. The Court stated Taitz was not to continue the
publication or republication of Liberi’s Social Security number or other personal identifying information and gave guidelines in which the Defendants were to conduct themselves. The Court then issued an Order with a footnote stating that Defendants were to conduct themselves as discussed in Court. In addition the Court Ordered that no one was to file a Motion without Leave of Court and Leave of Court could be sought by letter format and the Court issued Rules
upon Plaintiffs’ to Show Cause why the Case Should Not be Transferred or Split Up and Transferred and Plaintiffs’ were to support their Responses with Affidavits.
The evening of June 25, 2009, Hale and Belcher had a radio show on Hale’s radio
program, Plains Radio. During this show Hale and Belcher began making threatening remarks to Plaintiffs’ witnesses and statements that were considered intimidating our witnesses. Belcher and Hale stated the following: Please note: Linda Starr is an a/k/a of Linda Sue Belcher Linda Starr: “Well I feel like the Judge threw Berg a bone today. Because he said, ok, you made all of these allegations and I'm gonna wait and give you a chance to support the allegations you made with proof and evidence. And sworn affidavits with real identities. Not fake IDs. They are gonna have to put their real identities out there.” [emphasis added] Ed Hale: “Yeah and I'm gonna tell you something. When these affidavits come in that they claim that they have. These people's names are gonna be known. Their addresses are gonna be known. And you know something, we are gonna know who they are. And you know what; we will go after them with a vengeance. And prove that they are liars also.” [emphasis added] Caryn: “Who are you talking about?” Ed Hale: “All of these affidavits that Berg claims he has. We are talking about...” Caryn: “From just?...” Linda Starr: “Caryn here is the deal. They are not going to be allowed to use usernames. In order to produce sworn affidavits in court they are gonna be notarized they are gonna have to use their real names.” Caryn: “Ok.” Ed Hale: “Yeah, there is no more hiding.” Linda Starr: “Then we can identify them.” Caryn: “And these are people that are using their user names that are making all of these statements.” Ed Hale: “That's correct.”
Linda Starr: “That's right”. Caryn: “Ok.” Ed Hale: “But now they have to come out from behind the anonymity of the internet. And they have to come out and face us. And you know something...?” Caryn: “And they will probably refuse to do it for Berg, huh?” Ed Hale: “Let me tell you something. It’s easy as hell...” Linda Starr: “Ron Polarik's ID is gonna be exposed.” Ed Hale: “Let me tell you something...” Linda Starr: “All these people that want to know who he is, it's gonna come out who he is.” Ed Hale: “Let me tell you something and listen to this.” Caryn: “We're listen...” Ed Hale: “This is what is hilarious in a way. The people that have told Berg, on the Internet, oh let's just use Chilieman for an example. That Ed Hale wanted him to give him money so he can give it to Berg. Well let me tell you something. Chilieman, you can't hide no more. You're gonna have to come out and say who you are and where you are.” [emphasis added] Linda Starr: “Oh we know who he is. We know...” [emphasis added]
Several of Plaintiffs’ witnesses heard the above radio show and sent Plaintiffs’ counsel
letters and email stating they would not do an Affidavit or Testify until the Court took action to protect the Plaintiffs’ and their witnesses from danger and from the harassment Liberi and the other Plaintiff’s have endured.
Two [2] days later, on June 27, 2009, Taitz put a new post on her website inferring Liberi
had placed a “hit” or a “contract” on her sister and a year later she was dead. Taitz further stated it is not inconceivable that Liberi would put a “hit” or “contract” on an Attorney and her family, meaning her, who “outed” Liberi. Taitz went on further calling for a Pathologist and asking for
people who resided in New Mexico to contact the Santa Fe Police Department, Detective Lopez, the Santa Fe Probation Department, San Bernardino County District Attorney, and gave all the phone numbers. See EXHIBIT “V”.
On July 16, 2009 the republication of Liberi’s Social Security number and personal
identifying information as well as Hale and Belcher’s threats to Plaintiff’s witnesses were sent to the Judge requesting leave to file another Motion for an Emergency Injunction or Restraining Order.
A few days later, Berg’s witness in another case, who used a false name on the internet to
protect himself and his family, full name, his college degrees and where he resided was placed on Edgar Hale’s website at www.plainsradio.com and then Belcher placed this information on her own website at www.obamacitizenshipdebate.org, following up with her threat that “Polarik” would be exposed. On July 17, 2009, this information was also sent to the Court.
On or about July 24, 2009, Taitz set up a brand new website where under “supporting
documents” she again published Dossier #6 with Liberi’s full Social Security number. Taitz also set her website and blog to refresh every three [3] hours through the RSS feed which means the dossier #6 with Liberi’s full Social Security number and other personal identifying information is republished on the internet and appears at the top of the search engines when searches are performed and resends to all the websites located on her RSS feed.
On July 27, 2009, the Court Ordered Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Emergency Injunction or
Restraining Order to be filed. The Court set Response dates of August 3, 2009 and a Hearing date of August 7, 2009 at 10:30 a.m.
On August 3, 2009 Taitz filed a Response to the Emergency Injunction claiming she
would be out of the Country and requested a continuance. At the same time, without Leave of
Court as ordered by Judge Robreno, Taitz filed a Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiffs’ counsel.
On or about July 30, 2009, Mr. Hoppe, Counsel for Hale, Defendants Belcher, et al,
Sankey, et al sent a letter to the Judge requesting a continuance and raising the issue of personal jurisdiction. Counsel for the Plaintiffs’ responded and cited out how the Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants’. Attached to Counsel’s response was two (2) emails which
Counsel for the Plaintiffs’ received regarding the witnesses concerns and fear after hearing the threats made by Belcher and Hale. See EXHIBIT “W”. The Court denied Mr. Hoppe’s request for the continuance.
Present at the Hearing on August 7, 2009 was Edgar Hale and his wife Caren, Liberi,
Ostella, Plaintiff Evelyn Adams [hereinafter “Adams”], Berg’s webmaster, and K. Strebel.
The Judge Ordered that the witnesses must give their names when testifying however;
their addresses could be supplied “Under Seal” to the Court. The Court also Ordered the Hearing and all documents presented at the Hearing “Under Seal.” The Hearing began at 10:30 a.m. and did not conclude until 1:15 p.m. Berg did not put all witnesses on the stand due to the amount of Court time he was permitted. Ostella and Liberi testified they were in fear for their lives and the lives of their children and family. Liberi testified another woman has now begun using her Social Security number in Houston, Texas and a copy of a lexis printout was provided; Liberi explained to the Court that she was in the “Safe at Home” program as a result of her and her son being the victims of severe domestic violence crimes. The Court asked Liberi if that is when her Social Security number was changed and Liberi testified yes, but that is all ruined now since Taitz published her Social Security number, date of birth, mother’s maiden name, where she was born and other personal identifying information. Liberi also testified that it was against
the law to publish a party’s Social Security number and a crime, summary offense in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Liberi also testified that she never worked or applied for work with Taitz; did not give authorization for Taitz to obtain her private confidential information, including but not limited to Social Security number, date of birth, mother’s maiden name, etc.; and was unaware until April 17, 2009 that Taitz had illegally obtained her private confidential information. Neither Taitz nor Sankey had any permissible purpose. At all times, Liberi believed and expected that her social security number, mother’s maiden name, place of birth and other confidential private information would be maintained confidential.
Berg informed the Court that Taitz had violated the Court’s Orders by re-publishing
Liberi’s Social Security number and other personal identifying information; refusing to remove it and continuing to send it out.
The Court took the matter under advisement. On August 10, 2009, the Court denied
Plaintiffs’ Emergency Injunction or restraining order, which is currently under appeal with United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellant Procedure, Rule 8, Plaintiffs’ must first file an
emergency motion with this Court seeking an emergency Injunction or Restraining Order pends Appeal prior to filing with the United States Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit.
Plaintiffs’ have been placed in a horrible situation. Plaintiffs’ have until August 25, 2009
to answer this Court’s Rules to Show Cause why the case should not be transferred; why this Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants; and why this case should not be split up into different cases and transferred. In this Court’s rulings, the Court was very specific and stated Plaintiffs’ must file affidavits in support of their response. As a result of the Defendants actions which are continuing, four (4) important witnesses of Plaintiffs’ heard Mr. Hale and Ms.
Belcher’s statements and have watched Ms. Taitz and Mr. Sankey get away with their actions of publishing Plaintiffs’ private and confidential information all over the internet and by mass emailing. Thus, they have refused to submit an affidavit or testify until this Court takes actions to protect. During the hearing, Mr. Hale claimed he did not threaten any witnesses that his statements were not to threaten or intimidate. When a party hears statements being made and the tone of voice they are made in, there is no way for Plaintiffs’ witnesses to know if Mr. Hale meant something different, instead they take the statement at face value, which is what has happened here. If what Mr. Hale stated was true, then an Injunction or Restraining Order will not harm him or the other Defendants’ in any way as they will be simply prevented from illegal activities.
Testimony was also given in Court by Ostella that a Taitz follower, Pamela Feldman has
been posting threats against all Plaintiffs’ on her blog and tracing Pamela Feldman led to a criminal conviction for “Murder.” Feldman was let off early due to her psychiatric conditions, which followed with further violent crimes.
This Court has the inherent power to grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Emergency
Injunction or Restraining Order pending Appeal. Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(c) in germane part provides: “When an appeal is taken from an interlocutory or final judgment granting, dissolving, or denying an injunction, the court in its discretion may suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction during the pendency of the appeal upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as it considers proper for the security of the rights of the adverse party.”
Where entire case revolves around proposed activities being enjoined pending appeal,
plaintiff's application for injunction pursuant to Rule 62(c) will be granted. J. Weingarten, Inc. v Potter (1964, SD Tex) 233 F Supp 833, 57 BNA LRRM 2343, 50 CCH LC P 19262. Court will grant injunction under Rule 62(c) for limited period in order to afford plaintiff opportunity to
formally perfect her appeal from judgment of court where no substantial harm to public interest would result and plaintiff stands to be irreparably injured if injunction does not issue. Davila v Texas (1980, SD Tex) 489 F Supp 803.
The standard for obtaining an injunction pending appeal is identical to the standard for
granting a preliminary injunction. See Clark v. U.S. Bank N.A., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23060, 14 (D. Pa. 2004); Walker v. O'Bannon, 487 F. Supp. 1151, 1161 (W.D. Pa. 1980). As a result, the moving party must demonstrate to the court that the following four factors weigh in its favor: "(1) the likelihood that the moving party will succeed on the merits; (2) the extent to which the moving party will suffer irreparable harm without injunctive relief; (3) the extent to which the nonmoving party will suffer irreparable harm if the injuction is issued; and (4) the public interest." Shire U.S., Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc. 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir. 2003). Whether or not to grant the injunction is within the sound discretion of the court. See id.
This Court Ordered that before any motion is filed, movant must seek leave of Court.
However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has directed Plaintiffs’ to follow Federal Rules of Appellate Rules, Rule 8 and file the within Motion, therefore, Plaintiffs’ are complying with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s directive.
Plaintiffs’ Meet the Burden for this Court to Issue the Emergency Injunction or Restraining Order:
The traditional standard for granting a Preliminary Injunction requires the Plaintiff to
show that in the absence of its issuance he will suffer irreparable injury and also that he is likely to prevail on the merits. It is recognized, however, that a district court must weigh carefully the interests on both sides, Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 925 (U.S. 1975), Adams v.
Freedom Forge Corp., 204 F.3d 475, 482 (3d Cir. Pa. 2000); AT&T v. Winback & Conserve Program, Inc., 42 F.3d 1421, 1427 (3d Cir. 1994); Acierno v. New Castle Cty., 40 F.3d 645, 653 (3d Cir. 1994); In re Arthur Treacher's Franchisee Litig., 689 F.2d 1137, 1143 (3d Cir. 1982). If relevant, the Court should also examine the likelihood of irreparable harm to the nonmoving party and whether the injunction serves the public interest. See AT&T v. Winback, 42 F.3d at 1427. Plaintiffs are clearly entitled to an Emergency Injunction or Restraining Order, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to halt the dangerous and illegal behaviors of the Defendants’.
Specifically, this Court must grant Plaintiffs Injunction or Restraining Order because: (1)
there is reasonable probability that Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits; (2) the Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief; (3) there will be little or no harm to the Defendants’ if relief is granted; and (4) the public interest demands a grant of relief. See, e.g. Swartzwelder v. McNeilly, 297 F.3d 228, 234 (3rd Cir. 2002); Prison Health Servs., Inc. v. Umar, Civil Action No. 02-2642, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12267 (E.D. Pa. May 8, 2002). The standards for a preliminary injunction and a TRO are the same. Mertz v. Houstoun, 155 F. Supp.2d 415, 425 n.12 (E.D. Pa 2001); Bieros v. Nicola, 857 F. Supp. 445, 446-47 (E.D. Pa. 1994). While the degree of probability of success on the merits required to obtain such relief varies among Federal Courts of Appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit requires only a “reasonable likelihood” of success. See Johnson & Johnson Orthopedics, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 715 F. Supp. 110, 112 n.1 (D. Del. 1989). Plaintiffs easily meet each of the requirements for an Injunction or Restraining Order.
B. Standards to Be Applied on A Request for an Injunction:
This Court has jurisdiction and the inherent power to issue an Injunction to enjoin Taitz
from publication and distribution of Plaintiff Lisa Liberi’s Social Security number and private information, harassment of the Plaintiffs’; invading Plaintiffs’ Privacy, including but not limited to Intrusion upon One’s Seclusion; Public Disclosure of Private Facts; Use of Another’s Name or Likeness; False Light in the Public Eye; Slander; Libel and many others and to enjoin Defendant’s Edgar Hale, Caren Hale and Linda Sue Belcher from any further threats or threatening statements veered at Plaintiffs’ witnesses. pending Appeal. Plaintiffs the outcome of their
The standard to be applied in regards to an Emergency Injunction requires the Court to
consider: (1) the threat of irreparable harm if the stay is not granted; (2) the absence of harm to opposing parties if the stay or temporary injunction is granted; (3) the likelihood of success, and (4) whether there was any prior ruling on the application by another judge of a lower court. Rosker v. Goldberg, 448 U.S. 1306, 1308 (1980).
This Court in this case simply denied Plaintiffs’ request for an Injunction or Restraining
Order. The lower Court even denied Plaintiff Liberi’s request for an Order to obtain a new Social Security number in attempts to give her some type of protection, see EXHIBIT “X”, which has been appealed to the U.S. District Court for the Third District. C. Likelihood of Success on the Merits:
Of the four (4) considerations, the likelihood of success is arguably the most important.
Here Plaintiffs’ have a great probability of succeeding on the Merits of the Case.
First, all of the Defendants waived any affirmative defenses, thus no issues remain for the
trial Court. For these reasons, the consideration – a likelihood of success on the merits – is strongly in favor of the Plaintiff. Moreover, just to name a few things, according to the tort
standards, Plaintiffs’ will clearly be successful on the merits of the case pertaining to the following: i. Public Disclosure of Private Facts:
One who gives publicity to the private life of another is subject to liability for invasion of his privacy if the matter publicized is of a kind that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and is not of legitimate concern to the public. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 652D (1977). The key elements of this form of invasion of privacy are: (1) publicity (2) of a highly objectionable kind (3) given to private facts about another. Publicity is defined as a communication to the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter is substantially certain to become one of public knowledge. Finally, the matter that is communicated must be such that a reasonable person would feel justified in feeling seriously aggrieved by its dissemination.
The above is clearly met. Liberi and all citizens of the United States expect that their
Social Security number, mother’s maiden name and place of birth are maintained confidential. Taitz clearly violated and is responsible for this Tort as Taitz published Liberi’s Social Security number, mother’s maiden name and where she was born. Taitz also had Ostella’s mother’s maiden name, address, parents’ address, business associates, etc. all published by another party on her behalf. Taitz further violated this when she published information pertaining to Liberi’s sister’s death, which the family maintained confidential. See the Affidavit of Shirley Waddell attached as EXHIBIT “Y”, all of which is highly offensive to a reasonable person. McNemar v. Disney Store, 91 F.3d 610, 616 (3d Cir. Pa. 1996) citing Bisbee v. John C. Conover Agency, Inc., 186 N.J. Super. 335, 452 A.2d 689, 691-92 (N.J. App. Div. 1982) (adopting 3 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D) ii. False Light in the Public Eye:
One who gives publicity to a matter that places another before the public in a false light is subject to liability for invasion of that person's privacy. However, the false light in which the person was placed must be highly offensive to a reasonable
person, and it must have been publicized either with knowledge that it was false or with a reckless disregard concerning its truth or falsity. Id. at § 652E (1977).
Taitz placed Liberi, Ostella, Adams and Berg in a false light in the Publics eye. Taitz
falsely accused Liberi and Ostella of “hacking” her website and stealing and diverting funds from her; inferred Liberi murdered her own sister; falsely claimed Liberi had a criminal record going back to the 1990’s; falsely accused Liberi of being convicted of amongst other things, Identity theft, Manipulating Police Reports; Manipulating Credit Reports; Real Estate Fraud, etc; falsely accused Berg and Adams of being “Obots” and calling for the purging of President Obama and his supporters; Falsely accused Berg of lying to the Courts; falsely accused Adams of diverting funds from her; etc. All of which was done with malice and knowledge the information she (Taitz) was publicizing was completely false and Taitz did so with a reckless disregard concerning its truth. All of which is be highly offensive to a reasonable person. iii. Intruding Upon Another's Seclusion:
One who intentionally intrudes upon either the solitude or private affairs of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Restate 2d of Torts, § 652B (1977).
The dissemination of Social Security numbers has almost always been held to be a
violation of the Privacy Act. Doe v. Chao, 306 F.3d 170, 175 (4th Cir. 2003) (finding a violation in the dissemination of Social Security numbers of those receiving Black Lung benefits);
Display of Social Security numbers is a form of dissemination and is, therefore,
impermissible. Kentucky Rest. Concepts, Inc. v. City of Louisville, 209 F. Supp. 2d 672, 687 (W.D. Ky. 2002); Russell v. Bd. of Plumbing Exam'rs of Westchester, 74 F. Supp. 2d 339, 348 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (finding a violation of Section 7 in requiring Social Security numbers to apply
for a plumbing license, printing the number on the face of the license and requiring display of the license).
Taitz had no permissible purpose to have a private investigator dig into Liberi’s private
and confidential affairs. Sankey had absolutely no right to illegally obtain her Social Security number and send it out over the internet especially to a reporter with World Net Daily. Taitz sent Liberi’s Social Security number and other private confidential information across the internet, had it posted on other’s websites, has it posted on her website in three (3) locations; sent it out by mass email to over One Hundred and Forty Thousand [140,000] individuals and businesses including Internationally by her own admission. Taitz also violated the lower Court with the publishing of Ostella and Adams’ personal information. Taitz further violated this when she published information pertaining to Liberi’s sister’s death, which the family maintained confidential, all of which is be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Kline v. Sec. Guards, Inc., 386 F.3d 246, 258 (3d Cir. Pa. 2004) citing Harris v. Easton Publishing Co., 335 Pa. Super. 141, 483 A.2d 1377, 1383 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984) (citing Marks v. Bell Tel. Co., 460 Pa. 73, 331 A.2d 424 (Pa. 1975); Vogel v. W.T. Grant Co., 458 Pa. 124, 327 A.2d 133, 136 (Pa. 1974)). At no time did Liberi give authorization to Taitz or Sankey to obtain her private social security number, mother’s maiden name, date of birth, place of birth, etc. and was unaware of what Taitz and Sankey were doing until the publication of Taitz dossier #6.
As state in Summers v. Bailey, 55 F.3d 1564 (11th Cir. Ga. 1995) at 1566
”personal liberty includes not only freedom from physical restraint, but also the legal right "to be let alone." “Pavesich v. New England Life Ins. Co., 122 Ga. 190, 50 S.E. 68, 71 (1905).”
The Restatement recognizes that conduct that is repeated with such persistence and
frequency as to amount to a "course of hounding the plaintiff, [and] becomes a substantial
burden to his existence" may constitute an invasion of privacy. § 652B, comment d. Pennsylvania courts, moreover, have specifically refused to recognize a separate tort of harassment on the ground that an action for invasion of privacy will ordinarily be an adequate remedy for highly offensive conduct which unreasonably interferes with another's right to be left alone." DeAngelo v. Fortney, 357 Pa. Super. 127, 515 A.2d 594, 596 (Pa. Super. 1986); Speight v. Personnel Pool of America, Inc., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9974, 1993 W.L. 276859 at 4-5 (E.D.Pa. July 20, 1993) (Padova, J.) (repeated harassment that amounts to hounding and becomes a substantial burden to a plaintiff may be an intrusion upon seclusion). Other courts including Florida also recognize this general principle. See, e.g., Tucker v. American Employers' Insurance, 171 So. 2d 437 (Fla. Dist. Ct. Ap. 2nd 1965) (genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether defendant's shadowing of plaintiff constituted invasion of privacy); Summers v. Bailey, 55 F.3d 1564, 1567 (11th Cir. 1995) (conduct constituting offensive, frightening and unreasonable surveillance of plaintiff's private affairs supports cause of action for intrusion into seclusion).
In defamation cases involving commercial speech by non-media Defendants about
private individuals, even when that speech touches on matters of public concern, the speech is not entitled to elevated levels of First Amendment protection, and therefore proof of falsity is not required, *28. Fanelle v. LoJack Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17767 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 7, 2000) at
“In Pennsylvania, the right to privacy is the qualified right to be left alone, the violation
of which is an actionable tort when the alleged invasion of that right is unlawful or unjustifiable. See Harris by Harris v. Easton Pub. Co., 335 Pa. Super. 141, 152, 483 A.2d 1377, 1383 (1984). "'The gist of privacy is the sense of seclusion, the wish to be obscure and alone, and it is a
trespass to abuse these personal sensibilities.'" Id. (quoting Bennett v. Norban, 396 Pa. 94, 99, 151 A.2d 476, 479 (1959)). An action for invasion of privacy is not one tort but is instead comprised of the following four separate torts: (1) intrusion upon seclusion; (2) appropriation of name or likeness; (3) publicity given to private life; and (4) publicity placing a person in false light. See id. "The Restatement [(Second) of Torts §§ 652A-652E (1977)] most ably defines the elements of invasion of privacy as that tort has developed in Pennsylvania." Id.” Speight v. Personnel Pool of Am., Inc., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9974, 15-19 (E.D. Pa. July 20, 1993) at *18, *19.
Plaintiffs’ will continue to suffer irreparable injury that the Court cannot fully
compensate should Plaintiffs’ prevail. The damages done with Liberi’s Social Security number and other personal information will not stop because this Court case concludes. Instead, it can take Liberi years to re-establish her self, even if this Court Orders a new Social Security number for her. The identity theft and security damages being suffered by Liberi cannot be undone nor can it be prevented or fully rectified by final judgment after trial. Therefore, an Injunction or Restraining Order is imperative. See International Bhd. of Teamsters v. Local, 810, 19 F.3d 786, 794 (2d Cir. 1994); Deerfield Med. Ctr. v. City of Deerfield Beach, 661 F.2d 328, 338 (5th Cir. 1981) (injury is irreparable if it cannot be undone by monetary damages). Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 749 F.2d 380, 386 (7th Cir. 1984) (irreparable harm is harm that cannot be prevented or fully rectified by final judgment after trial).
Thus, the likelihood of success weighs heavily in favor of the Plaintiffs’. All of the Defendants’ illegal behaviors have been substantial and would be highly
offensive to the ‘the ordinary reasonable person’. In addition, the intrusion into the private
affairs and privacy of the Plaintiffs’ have caused the Plaintiffs’ mental suffering, shame and humiliation, as it would cause to any person of ordinary sensibilities. D. Irreparable Harm if the Injunction is NOT Granted:
The irreparable harm requirement is met if a Plaintiff demonstrates a significant risk that
he or she will experience harm that cannot adequately be compensated after the fact by monetary damages. See Frank's GMC Truck Center, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 847 F.2d 100, 102-03 (3d Cir. 1988).
The mere fact Taitz through Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc., without Liberi’s
knowledge or authorization, publicized Liberi’s Social Security number and other personal identifying information, outlined above indicates irreparable harm. Liberi has already fallen victim to identity theft by another her Social Security number in another state. Liberi will continue to be at serious risk of individuals using her information, illegally obtaining credit and assuming Liberi’s identity. This must be stopped. Liberi has already fallen victim to identity theft as a result. See Lisa Liberi’s Verification attached as EXHIBIT “Z.” It is apparent Taitz has absolutely no regard to the laws of our states or any respect for the Honorable Court. Taitz is on a mission to destroy Liberi and each time she is allowed to get away with her wrong doings, Taitz actions intensify.
Although the Court warned Taitz and an Order was issued that the Defendants were to
conduct themselves as discussed in Court, Taitz has simply ignored the Court and continued spreading Liberi’s Social Security number and other private confidential information and posting it on the internet. Taitz had another individual put on the internet Ostella’s maiden name, address, address of her family members, business associates, requests for people to contact the police department where Ostella resides, etc.
As also stated above, Taitz is clearly out to destroy Liberi and has already destroyed
Liberi’s reputation, caused serious emotional distress to Liberi and her parents by maliciously bringing up Liberi’s sister’s death and then inferring Liberi “murdered” her sister.
All of the Defendants behaviors and illegal actions have been extremely humiliating,
embarrassing, and have caused Plaintiffs severe emotional distress.
Liberi, and all the Plaintiffs’ live in fear every day. Plaintiffs’ are afraid that Taitz, Hale
or Belcher’s followers are going to harm their families or themselves.
As this Court is aware, Disclosure of confidential information is a basis for the issuance
of an Injunction or Restraining Order. See JAK Prod., Inc. v. Wiza, 986 F.2d 1080, 1084 (7th Cir. 1993). Moreover, when the harmful actions are repeated, as they have been in this case, this is another basis for the issuance of an immediate Injunction or Restraining Order. See, e.g., Louis W. Epstein Family P'ship v. K-mart Corp., 828 F. Supp. 328, 338-39 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (stating that there is "no adequate remedy at law if the injury is of a repeated or continuing character"), aff’d in part and rev'd in part, 13 F.3d 762 (3d Cir. 1994); Northeast Women's Ctr., Inc. v. McMonagle, 665 F. Supp. 1147 (E.D. Pa. 1987) (noting that irreparable harm is a component of adequacy of the legal remedy and stating, "the legal remedy is inadequate if the Plaintiff's injury is a continuing one, where the best available remedy would relegate the Plaintiff to filing a separate claim for damages each time it is injured anew"), aff'd in part and remanded, 868 F.2d 1342 (3d Cir. 1987).
All the Plaintiffs’ have lost their good will based on the actions outlined above with
Taitz. Losses incapable of measurement may be irreparable harm. See Western Holding Group, Inc. v. Mayaguez Port Comm'n., 611 F. Supp. 2d 149, 189 (D.P.R. 2009) (It is sufficient for Plaintiff to show that injury is not accurately measurable, given that irreparable harm is a natural
sequel) quoting Multi-Channel TV Cable Co. v. Charlottesville Quality Cable Operating Co., 22 F.3d 546, 551-552 (4th Cir. 1994) (loss of goodwill constituted irreparable harm, warranting preliminary injunction). Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1991).
Hale and Sankey have already announced over Plains Radio’s radio show that Liberi took
out a loan, which was true. Hale also admitted on his radio program that he received the documents with Liberi’s personal information from Sankey, which Sankey substantiated on the air. There are only two (2) ways they could have known this. One, illegally accessing Liberi’s credit reports; or two applying and obtaining credit in Liberi’s name. It can takes months to learn of new accounts opened illegally. In addition, Belcher is manufacturing documents using Liberi’s name, Belcher now has every bit of personal identifying information of Liberi’s and Belcher has a criminal record of theft and fraud type crimes. Liberi is scared to death of what she will learn a year from now that her Social Security number and personal identifying information has been used for/by Taitz, Hale, Sankey, Belcher and other’s who have Liberi’s information, which is in the hundreds of thousands if not millions.
In addition and as serious, Defendant’s Hale and Belcher have been threatening As a result, two (2) of the Plaintiffs’ most
Plaintiffs’ witnesses and potential witnesses.
important witnesses are in fear to provide “Affidavits” or testify until this Court intervenes and provides some safety mechanism’s to protect the witnesses of the Plaintiffs’ from the Defendant’s threats. Plaintiffs’ have been Ordered to respond to the Court’s Rules to Show cause and support their response with affidavits. Unless some protection measures by the Court are taken, Plaintiffs’ will not be able to comply with the Affidavits. Plaintiffs’ witnesses are in fear they too will be destroyed by the Defendants’ as Liberi has been and continues to be and as
the other Plaintiffs’ have been and continue to be harmed and injured by the Defendants’ illegal behaviors. See EXHIBIT “AA.”
Plus, without the issuance of the within Emergency Injunction, Plaintiffs’ will be
deprived of their due process rights and equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the United States Constitution to provide and bear witnesses to testify on their behalf; Plaintiffs’ will be deprived of their due process rights and equal protection of the laws in seeking redress for the damages they have suffered as a result of the Defendants wrong doings. Plaintiffs’ will continue to suffer harassment and emotional distress.
It should also be noted, although the hearing on August 7, 2009 was placed “Under Seal”
as with all documents presented to the Court at this Hearing, Hale has read Affidavits filed during Court on his radio program, Plains Radio, since the Hearing. In addition, as you can see from the attached exhibits, Belcher has posted her manufactured evidence which she had provided to the Court on her website.
Moreover, Belcher prepared an Affidavit with two [2] documents she presented to the
U.S. District Court as evidence. The first document was a “supposed” email Liberi had sent to her in December 2008 and the second document was a “supposed” chat log she had with Liberi on AOL, January 3, 2009. Both of these documents were found to be fabricated and forged documents. The “chat log” Belcher posted on her website at obamacitizenshipdebate.org,
appears she emailed this document to herself on August 4, 2009, as it was sent to and from Newwomensparty, which is Belcher’s screen name on AOL. It should also be noted: Liberi has not spoken to Belcher or had any “chat sessions” on AOL with Belcher since March 5, 2009 and has not emailed Belcher since March 6, 2009. Liberi has been on AOL for approximately seven [7] years, her screen name has always been Llisaliberi, which is always present on AOL “chat
sessions” and her AOL email address Llisaliberi@aol.com, which appears on all emails sent. Liberi did not have this chat with Linda and the Chat is clearly a manufactured document as it has Liberi’s screen name as “Lisa.” Attached as EXHIBIT “BB” is a screen print (similar to a picture) of Belcher’s website showing the manufactured “chat session”; and AOL chat boxes showing Liberi’s screen name as Llisaliberi and NOT “Lisa”.
Belcher also has posted another “supposed” email sent from Liberi to Berg. This too is a
manufactured email, if you look at the time zone it says “Central Time” which is Texas where Belcher resides. Liberi’s emails have never shown “Central” time zone. This particular email shows from Llisaliberi to Philjberg@gmail.com. Llisaliberi is not a proper email address. Attached as EXHIBIT “CC” is a screen shot (a computer picture) of what is on the front page of Linda S. Belcher’s website; a screen shot of Linda S. Belcher’s website which shows this fabricated and manufactured email; an email to and from Linda S. Belcher (Newwomensparty) and Lisa Liberi showing what Lisa Liberi’s correct email address is; and an email to and from Philip J. Berg, Esq. and Lisa Liberi again showing Lisa Liberi’s AOL email address. You will notice Liberi’s emails show coming to and going from Llisaliberi@aol.com, not Llisaliberi.
Belcher not only committed criminal offenses in forging and creating documents in
Liberi’s name, she also pulled a fraud upon the Court and perjured herself.
The above forgeries and fabricated document in Liberi’s name by Belcher and the fact
Hale and Sankey along with an unknown amount of other individuals have illegally accessed and obtained Liberi’s credit reports or they are obtaining credit in Liberi’s name, it can take six [6] months or longer before a person learns credit has been obtained by others fraudulently and then it is truly a mess and very difficult to clean up. Identity theft is rampant in our society today, not
to mention individuals outside the country who also received Liberi’s Social Security number and other private information from Taitz via email.
Plaintiffs’ are being deprived their constitutional rights to bear and present witnesses.
With the threats and intimidation of any witness who supplies an Affidavit, Plaintiffs’ have four [4] witnesses who have severe concerns and until the Court takes appropriate action to ensure their safety and privacy of their information they will not submit an Affidavit. Deprivation of constitutional rights by the Defendants is reason for the grant of an Emergency Injunction or Restraining Order. See Pittsburgh League of Young Voters Educ. Fund v. Port Auth., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65885 (W.D. Pa. July 30, 2009); Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373, 96 S. Ct. 2673, 49 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1976); AIDS Action Comm. v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 42 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 1994).
Social Security numbers are different from addresses and telephone numbers. A Party’s
social security number is a key or a tool, created by the government and unique for each individual. Access to an individual’s SSN enables a new holder to obtain access to and to control, manipulate or alter other personal information, see Greidinger v. Davis, 988 F.2d 1344, 1353-54 (4th Cir., 1993)
Regardless of the laws, Taitz has continued to publish, disseminate, re-publish and post
all over the internet Liberi’s social security number, mother’s maiden name, date of birth, place of birth, etc. The Defendants have simply ignored the Court’s rulings and failed to abide by the Court’s Orders. Without the Injunction, Plaintiffs’ have absolutely NO protection. E. Harm to Opposing Party:
Granting Plaintiffs’ Writ for an Emergency Injunction or Restraining Order will not
result in any harm to the Defendants’ as Plaintiffs’ are merely attempting to protect their private confidential information; their privacy; false information being sent out, etc.
Consideration of the relative harm to the Defendant and the public interest also weighs
heavily in favor of Plaintiffs’. See Adams v. Freedom Forge Corp., 204 F.3d 475 (3d Cir. Pa. 2000) at 484 (noting district court should consider these two elements where relevant). First, the irreparable harm Plaintiffs’ would suffer in the absence of a preliminary injunction substantially outweighs the harm to the Defendants’. Issuing a preliminary injunction against the Defendants’ will not adversely affect the public interest. To the contrary, the prevention of First and
Fourteenth Amendment violations; illegal disclosure of a person’s Social Security number, date of birth, mother’s maiden name, where one was born, etc. weighs in favor of protecting the general public interest. Even events affecting only private citizens, is in the general public interest." F.T. Int'l, Ltd. v. Mason, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14979 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 11, 2000), at *2. See also United States ex rel. Rahman v. Oncology Assocs., 198 F.3d 489, 496-97 (4th Cir. 1999). F. Risk to the Public Interest:
The risk to the public interest is huge, just as the risk to the Plaintiffs. If the Defendants’ are allowed to continue their illegal activities, then none of the citizens of the United States are safe from having their privacy invaded; Intrusion upon their Seclusion; Public Disclosure of Private Facts; being placed in a False Light in the Public Eye; Slander; Libel and many others. The risk to the public will be great if the Defendants are not enjoined from their illegal behaviors.
WHEREFORE, for good cause shown, Plaintiffs’, Lisa Liberi; Philip J. Berg, Esquire; Evelyn Adams; Lisa Ostella; Law Offices of Philip J. Berg; and Go Excel Global respectfully requests this Honorable Court for an emergency Injunction or Restraining Order against Defendant’s Orly Taitz, et al; Edgar Hale; Caren Hale; Linda Sue Belcher and anyone acting on their behalf pending the resolution of Plaintiffs’ Appeal. Plaintiff Lisa Liberi further requests this Court for an Order to obtain a new social security number from the Social Security Administration. Respectfully submitted,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify that Plaintiffs’ Emergency Request for an Immediate Injunction or Restraining Order pending the resolution of Plaintiff’s Appeal was served upon the following Defendants via email this 17th day of August, 2009
Orly Taitz Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc. (unrepresented) 26302 La Paz Ste 211 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com Neil Sankey The Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm (unrepresented) Sankey Investigations, Inc. 2470 Stearns Street #162 Simi Valley, CA 93063 Email: nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com
Philip J. Berg, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs’
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulLIBERI v TAITZ - 102 - Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Pending Appeal by Jack Ryan0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadInterests: Types, Government & PoliticsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
Relatedhow_to_avoid_foreclosureby Byob Rodriguezbanks-foreclosingby api-19786525LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 190.8 - Plaintiffs Exhibits 45-47 to Amended Complaint.190.8by Jack RyanLIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. - JUDGMENT - Transport Room 3rd Circuit Judgmentby Jack RyanHica v Bentley Opinion 2011-09-28by jdk2111TRO_P&Aby mlkralRockrose, L.L.C. v. First American Title & Escrow of Magic Valley, Inc. et al - Document No. 15by Justia.comDevesa vs Arbes -G.R. No. 4891. March 23, 1909by dbgrazeTRO Signed, Enteredby cbsradionewsAFT Michigan et al v. State of Michigan et al - Document No. 4by Justia.comLIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 442 - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION to Dismiss Case - gov.uscourts.cacd.497989.442.0by Jack RyanTRO_Rosales_Adelmanby AviS.AdelmanJoseph Carroll, Charles Peterson and Charles Turecamo, as Treasurer, Orchestra Leaders of Greater New York v. American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada, Herman D. Kenin, as President of Said Federation, Stanley Ballard, as Secretary of Said Federation, and George v. Clancy, as Treasurer of Said Federation, Associated Musicians of Greater New York, Local 802, and Al Manuti, as President of Local 802, Max L. Arons, as Secretary of Local 802, and Hi Jaffe, as Treasurer of Local 802, 295 F.2d 484, 2d Cir. (1961)by Scribd Government DocsNortheastern Florida Chapter of the Association of General Contractors of America, a Florida Corporation Not for Profit v. City of Jacksonville, Florida, a Florida Municipal Corporation, Tommy Hazouri, in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of Jacksonville, Florida, 896 F.2d 1283, 11th Cir. (1990)by Scribd Government DocsRule 58 - Special Lawsby Mich DonaireHelio LLC v. Palm, Inc. - Document No. 62by Justia.comGlasco, Barbara, Wendy Jackman, Doleta Gentry, Della Washington and the Hill Manor Tenants Association, an Unincorporated Association, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated v. Hills, Carla, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, H. R. Crawford, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Assistant Secretary for Housing Management in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Newark Community Housing Corporation, a Corporation of the State of New Jersey and Booker Realty Management Corporation, a Corporation of the State of New Jersey. City of Newark, Intervenor, 558 F.2d 179, 3rd Cir. (1977)by Scribd Government Docs14 DFA and BSP vs Falcon.pdfby Mary Edreen ManiegoAccusoft Corp. v. Quest Diagnostics Incby IlyaMorgan Stanley DW Inc. v. Siegel - Document No. 10by Justia.comUnlawful Detainer (Sample)by Anonymous qiGzRADso(PC) Jackson v. Solano County Sheriff et al - Document No. 4by Justia.comDBP v CAby ZannyRyanQuirozJimmy McClendon A/K/A Billy McClendon Harold Lund Peter Sumatkak David Michael Bauer Carl Ray Lopez Bruce David Morawe Thomas Young Ruthie Duran Deborah Lavera Janelle Roybal Dannette Difiori Maria Sisneros Larry Green Bartel Haley Michael Cote Joe Ray Herrera Josie Kriena Debbie Lucero David Shawkin Marc A. Gillette George Chavez Eliseo Baca Clint Barras Francisco Melendez Samual Herrod Vincent Padilla Carl Duckworth Joseph W. Anderson Paul Johnson Fred Mall Hector Lopez Ricky Rose Herbert King, Sr. James Parks Michael A. Johnson Johnny Vallejos Joe Newberry Darryl Craft Albert Willy William P. Jimmy Augustine Tapia Richard A. Smith Robert Lovato Roy Whatley Marty Begay Martin Valdivia Tallie Thomas Augustine Jackson Donald Hall Carl Sur Steve Esquibel Lonnie Whatley James Saiz Bryon Zamora Allen M. Sawyer Patrick Benny Romero Richard C. Kopecky Phillip Shumate Nelson Romero Steve Johnson Bennie F. Garcia Louie Chavez Brian Salazar Richard Gallegos Larry Stroud James Burks Brad Fischeby Scribd Government Docs2014 04 11 ICR Submission Re Stay1by James_L_Bennett8. Spouses Alfredo and Shirley Yap v Iecby Elah Viktoria N. TañosoStarter Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Converse, Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee, 170 F.3d 286, 2d Cir. (1999)by Scribd Government DocsWinter Park Town Council lawsuit against Grand County Board of Commissioners seeking to overturn county approval of Serene Wellness marijuana dispensary by jasonblevinsSimilar To LIBERI v TAITZ - 102 - Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Pending AppealSkip carouselhow_to_avoid_foreclosurebanks-foreclosingLIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 190.8 - Plaintiffs Exhibits 45-47 to Amended Complaint.190.8LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. - JUDGMENT - Transport Room 3rd Circuit JudgmentHica v Bentley Opinion 2011-09-28TRO_P&ARockrose, L.L.C. v. First American Title & Escrow of Magic Valley, Inc. et al - Document No. 15Devesa vs Arbes -G.R. No. 4891. March 23, 1909TRO Signed, EnteredAFT Michigan et al v. State of Michigan et al - Document No. 4LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 442 - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION to Dismiss Case - gov.uscourts.cacd.497989.442.0TRO_Rosales_AdelmanJoseph Carroll, Charles Peterson and Charles Turecamo, as Treasurer, Orchestra Leaders of Greater New York v. American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada, Herman D. Kenin, as President of Said Federation, Stanley Ballard, as Secretary of Said Federation, and George v. Clancy, as Treasurer of Said Federation, Associated Musicians of Greater New York, Local 802, and Al Manuti, as President of Local 802, Max L. Arons, as Secretary of Local 802, and Hi Jaffe, as Treasurer of Local 802, 295 F.2d 484, 2d Cir. (1961)Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Association of General Contractors of America, a Florida Corporation Not for Profit v. City of Jacksonville, Florida, a Florida Municipal Corporation, Tommy Hazouri, in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of Jacksonville, Florida, 896 F.2d 1283, 11th Cir. (1990)Rule 58 - Special LawsHelio LLC v. Palm, Inc. - Document No. 62Glasco, Barbara, Wendy Jackman, Doleta Gentry, Della Washington and the Hill Manor Tenants Association, an Unincorporated Association, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated v. Hills, Carla, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, H. R. Crawford, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Assistant Secretary for Housing Management in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Newark Community Housing Corporation, a Corporation of the State of New Jersey and Booker Realty Management Corporation, a Corporation of the State of New Jersey. City of Newark, Intervenor, 558 F.2d 179, 3rd Cir. (1977)14 DFA and BSP vs Falcon.pdfAccusoft Corp. v. Quest Diagnostics IncMorgan Stanley DW Inc. v. Siegel - Document No. 10Unlawful Detainer (Sample)(PC) Jackson v. Solano County Sheriff et al - Document No. 4DBP v CAJimmy McClendon A/K/A Billy McClendon Harold Lund Peter Sumatkak David Michael Bauer Carl Ray Lopez Bruce David Morawe Thomas Young Ruthie Duran Deborah Lavera Janelle Roybal Dannette Difiori Maria Sisneros Larry Green Bartel Haley Michael Cote Joe Ray Herrera Josie Kriena Debbie Lucero David Shawkin Marc A. Gillette George Chavez Eliseo Baca Clint Barras Francisco Melendez Samual Herrod Vincent Padilla Carl Duckworth Joseph W. Anderson Paul Johnson Fred Mall Hector Lopez Ricky Rose Herbert King, Sr. James Parks Michael A. Johnson Johnny Vallejos Joe Newberry Darryl Craft Albert Willy William P. Jimmy Augustine Tapia Richard A. Smith Robert Lovato Roy Whatley Marty Begay Martin Valdivia Tallie Thomas Augustine Jackson Donald Hall Carl Sur Steve Esquibel Lonnie Whatley James Saiz Bryon Zamora Allen M. Sawyer Patrick Benny Romero Richard C. Kopecky Phillip Shumate Nelson Romero Steve Johnson Bennie F. Garcia Louie Chavez Brian Salazar Richard Gallegos Larry Stroud James Burks Brad Fische2014 04 11 ICR Submission Re Stay18. Spouses Alfredo and Shirley Yap v IecStarter Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Converse, Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee, 170 F.3d 286, 2d Cir. (1999)Winter Park Town Council lawsuit against Grand County Board of Commissioners seeking to overturn county approval of Serene Wellness marijuana dispensary O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao De Vegetal, Also Known as Uniao Do Vegetal (Usa), Inc., a New Mexico Corporation on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of All of Its Members in the United States Jeffrey Bronfman, Individually and as Vice-President of Udv-Usa Daniel Tucker, Individually and as Vice-President of Udv-Usa Christina Barreto, Individually and as Secretary of Udv-Usa Fernando Barreto, Individually and as Treasurer of Udv-Usa Christine Berman, Mitchel Berman, Jussara De Almeida Dias, Also Known as Jussara Almeida Dias, Patricia Domingo, David Lenderts, David Martin, Maria Eugenia Pelaez, Bryan Rea, Don St. John, Carmen Tucker, and Solar Law, Individually and as Members of Udv-Usa v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States Asa Hutchinson, Administrator of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration Paul H. O'neill, Secretary of the Department of Treasury of the United States David C. Iglesias, United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico David F. Fry, Bam Historic District Association v. Edward I. Koch, Mayor of the City of New York, 723 F.2d 233, 2d Cir. (1983)LIBERI v TAITZ - 102 - Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Pending Appeal AboutBrowse booksSite directoryAbout ScribdMeet the teamOur blogJoin our team!Contact UsPartnersPublishersDevelopers / APIMembershipsJoin todayInvite FriendsGiftsSupportHelpFAQAccessibilityPressPurchase helpAdChoicesLegalTermsPrivacyCopyrightCopyright © 2017 Scribd Inc. .Terms of service.Accessibility.Privacy.Mobile Site.Site Language: English中文EspañolالعربيةPortuguês日本語DeutschFrançaisTurkceРусский языкTiếng việtJęzyk polskiBahasa indonesiaYou're Reading a Free PreviewDownloadAboutBrowse booksSite directoryAbout ScribdMeet the teamOur blogJoin our team!Contact UsSupportHelpFAQAccessibilityPressPurchase helpAdChoicesPartnersPublishersDevelopers / APILegalTermsPrivacyCopyrightMembershipsJoin todayInvite FriendsGiftsStay ConnectedCopyright © 2017 Scribd Inc. .Terms of service.Accessibility.Privacy.Mobile Site.Site Language: English中文EspañolالعربيةPortuguês日本語DeutschFrançaisTurkceРусский языкTiếng việtJęzyk polskiBahasa indonesiaAre you sure?This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?CANCELOKWe've moved you to where you read on your other device.Get the full title to continueGet the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.Restart preview{{ title }}{[ if (!is_document) { ]}{[ } ]}{[ if (is_article || is_issue) { ]}from {{ publication.name }}{[ } else { ]}{[ if (typeof authors !== 'undefined' && authors.length) { ]}{[ if (!is_document) { ]}by {[ } else { ]}uploaded by {[ } ]}{[ for (var i=0; i < authors.length; i++) { ]}{[ if (i > 0) { ]}, {[ } ]}{{ authors[i].name }}{[ } ]}{[ } else { ]}{{ publisher.name }}{[ } ]}{[ } ]}{{ length }}{[ if (typeof download_url !== undefined && download_url) { ]}Download{[ } ]}{{ title }}Collection{{ formatted_count }}View collection