Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/56054952/LIBERI-v-TAITZ-C-D-CA-190-18-Plaintiffs-Exhibits-91-95-to-Amended-Complaint-190-18
Timestamp: 2017-03-23 18:55:33
Document Index: 175114912

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1206', '§1291', '§1206', '§ 1441', '§ 1332', '§ 1447', '§ 1332']

LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 190.18 - Plaintiffs Exhibits 91-95 to Amended Complaint.190.18 | Probation
BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinCase 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5184Filed 05/20/11 Page 1 of 51 Page ID
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5185
Filed 05/20/11 Page 2 of 51 Page ID
Exhibit "91" Pg. 682
Why is Lisa Liberi not back in prison? Why is District Attorney not schedu...
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=15376
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=15376 #:5186
Filed 05/20/11 Page 3 of 51 Page ID
Posted on | November 6, 2010 | Comments Off
Exhibit "91" Pg. 683
5/2/2011 1:25 AM
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5187
Filed 05/20/11 Page 4 of 51 Page ID
Exhibit "91" Pg. 684
LIBERI , LISA
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5188
Filed 05/20/11 Page 5 of 51 Page ID
Case FWV028000 – Defendants Seq Defendant 1 Next Court Date Status Agency / Arrest Date Count 1 Charge Violation Date DR Number RA LIBERI , LISA R 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 PC 115(A) 110013759 ALIAS: LIBERI, LISA R ALIAS: COURVILLERICHARDSON, LISA ALIAS: LIBERI, LISA A ALIAS: RICHARDSON, LISA C ALIAS: COURVILLERICH, LISA ALIAS: LIBERI, LISA RENEE ALIAS: LIBERI, LISA ALIAS: RICHARDSON, LISA RENEE
Issued Affidavit Warrant Type Status NONE N/A N/A Granted Expiration Probation Type Formal 03/21/2008 03/21/2011 CTS Sentence Convicted Date County Jail 01/25/2008 26 Days 26 Days State Prison Max Sentence N/A N/A Fine and Penalty Restitution Fine Restitution to Victim 0 N/A Case FWV028000 Defendant 1608112 LIBERI, LISA RENEE – Charges Arrest Charges Count Charge 1 PC 459 Filed Charges Severity Description F BURGLARY Violation Date 05/18/2001 Plea Status
Exhibit "91" Pg. 685
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5189
Count Charge Severity Description
Filed 05/20/11 Page 6 of 51 Page ID
Violation Date 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 Violation Date 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 Plea Status
PC 487(A) F PC 470(D) F PC 472 F PC 115(A) F PC 487(A) F PC 470(D) F PC 472 F PC 115(A) F PC 487(A) F PC 487(A) F PC 487(D)(1) F
PC 487(A) F PC 487(D)(1) F
PC 487(A) F PC 487(A) F
GUILTY CONVICTED GUILTY CONVICTED DISMISSED DISMISSED GUILTY CONVICTED GUILTY CONVICTED
Exhibit "91" Pg. 686
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5190
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PC 476 F PC 470(D) F PC 472 F PC 115(A) F PC 487(A) F PC 487(A) F PC 487(D)(1) F
Filed 05/20/11 Page 7 of 51 Page ID
05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 DISMISSED DISMISSED GUILTY CONVICTED DISMISSED GUILTY CONVICTED GUILTY CONVICTED DISMISSED DISMISSED DISMISSED DISMISSED DISMISSED GUILTY CONVICTED GUILTY CONVICTED GUILTY CONVICTED DISMISSED DISMISSED DISMISSED
PC 487(A) F PC 487(A) F PC 115(A) F PC 470(D) F PC 470(D) F PC 472 F
MAKING, POSSESSING, UTTERING FICTIOUS INSTRS FORGERY FORGE OFFICIAL SEAL OFFER/ETC FALSE/FORGED INSTRUMENT TO FILE GRAND THEFT: PROPERTY/ETC OVER $400 GRAND THEFT: PROPERTY/ETC OVER $400 GRAND THEFT: AUTOMOBILE/ANIMAL/ETC GRAND THEFT: PROPERTY/ETC OVER $400 GRAND THEFT: AUTOMOBILE/ANIMAL/ETC GRAND THEFT: PROPERTY/ETC OVER $400 GRAND THEFT: AUTOMOBILE/ANIMAL/ETC GRAND THEFT: PROPERTY/ETC OVER $400 GRAND THEFT: PROPERTY/ETC OVER $400 OFFER/ETC FALSE/FORGED INSTRUMENT TO FILE FORGERY FORGERY FORGE OFFICIAL SEAL
Case FWV028000 Defendant 1608112 LIBERI, LISA RENEE – Probation Probation Type: FORMAL Granted: 03/21/2008 Expire: 03/21/2011
SUPERVISED PROBATION GRANTED FOR A PERIOD OF 36 MONTHS ON FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS: SERVE 26 DAYS IN A SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY JAIL FACILITY, WITH CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED, A MATTER OF 26 DAYS, PLUS CONDUCT CREDIT PURSUANT TO 1-PC4019 ND 1) ABIDE BY ALL RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE FACILITY WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF COUNTY PAROLE. 2) VIOLATE NO LAW. REPORT TO THE PROB OFFICER IN PERSON IMMEDIATELY 0- ND THEREAFTER ONCE EVERY FOURTEEN (14) DAYS OR AS DIRECTED. REPORT TO THE PROB OFFICER IN 3) PERSON IMMEDIATELY 0- ND THEREAFTER ONCE EVERY FOURTEEN (14) DAYS OR AS DIRECTED. COOPERATE WITH THE PROBATION OFFICER IN A PLAN OF REHABILITATION AND 4) FOLLOW ALL REASONABLE DIRECTIVES OF THE PROBATION OFFICER.
Exhibit "91" Pg. 687
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5191
Filed 05/20/11 Page 8 of 51 Page ID
SEEK AND MAINTAIN GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT, OR ATTEND SCHOOL, AND KEEP THE PROBATION OFFICER INFORMED OF STATUS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR SCHOOL. KEEP THE PROBATION OFFICER INFORMED OF PLACE OF RESIDENCE AND COHABITANTS AND GIVE WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE PROBATION OFFICER TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS PRIOR TO ANY CHANGES. PRIOR TO ANY MOVE PROVIDE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION TO THE POST OFFICE TO FORWARD MAIL TO THE NEW ADDRESS. PERMIT VISITS AND SEARCHES OF PLACES OF RESIDENCE BY AGENTS OF THE PROBATION DEPT. AND/OR LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT VISITS AND SEARCHES OF PLACES OF RESIDENCE BY AGENTS OF THE PROBATION DEPT. AND/OR LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT VISITS AND SEARCHES OF PLACES OF RESIDENCE BY AGENTS OF THE PROBATION DEPT. AND/OR LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PROBATION; NOT DO ANYTHING TO INTERFERE WITH THIS REQUIREMENT, OR DETER OFFICERS FROM FULFILLING THIS REQUIREMENT, SUCH AS THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PROBATION; NOT DO ANYTHING TO INTERFERE WITH THIS REQUIREMENT, OR DETER OFFICERS FROM FULFILLING THIS REQUIREMENT, SUCH AS ERECTING ANY LOCKED FENCES/GATES THAT WOULD DENY ACCESS TO PROBATION OFFICERS, OR HAVE ANY ANIMALS ON THE PREMISES THAT WOULD REASONABLY DETER, ERECTING ANY LOCKED FENCES/GATES THAT WOULD DENY ACCESS TO PROBATION OFFICERS, OR HAVE ANY ANIMALS ON THE PREMISES THAT WOULD REASONABLY DETER, THREAT THREATEN THE SAFETY OF, OR INTERFERE WITH, OFFICERS ENFORCING THIS TERM. EN THE SAFETY OF, OR INTERFERE WITH, OFFICERS ENFORCING THIS TERM. NEITHER POSSESS NOR HAVE UNDER YOUR CONTROL ANY DANGEROUS OR DEADLY WEAPONS OR EXPLOSIVE DEVICES OR MATERIALS TO MAKE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES. SUBMIT TO A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF YOUR PERSON, RESIDENCE AND/OR PROPERTY UNDER YOUR CONTROL AT ANY TIME OF THE DAY OR NIGHT BY ANY LAW-ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITH OR WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT, AND WITH OR WITHOUT CAUSE (PEOPLE -V- BRAVO). NEITHER USE NOR POSSESS ANY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITHOUT MEDICAL PRESCRIPTION. A PHYSICIANS’S WRITTEN NOTICE IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE PROBATION OFFICER. SUBMIT TO A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TEST AT DIRECTION OF PROBATION OFFICER. EACH TEST IS SUBJECT TO AN $11.00 FEE, TO BE COLLECTED BY CENTRAL COLLECTIONS NOT POSSESS ANY TYPE OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA, AS DEFINED IN H&S11364.5(D) PARTICIPATE IN A COUNSELING PROGRAM AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER, SUBMIT MONTHLY PROOF OF ATTENDANCE AND/OR SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION TO THE PROBATION OFFICER AS DIRECTED AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF ALL PROGRAM FEE(S). NOT ASSOCIATE WITH KNOWN CONVICTED FELONS OR ANYONE ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY B-OR CODEFENDANT(S) OR VICTIM(S). NOT ASSOCIATE WITH KNOWN ILLEGAL USERS OR SELLERS OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, NOT MAINTAIN A CHECKING ACCOUNT OR COMPLETE OR ENDORSE ANY CHECKS UNLESS MADE PAYABLE TO YOU AND NOT HAVE ANY BLANK CHECKS IN YOUR POSSESSION WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PROBATION OFFICER. SUBMIT A RECORD OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURES TO THE PROBATION OFFICER QUARTERLY. NEITHER POSSESS NOR USE ANY CREDIT CARD WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PROBATION OFFICER.
Exhibit "91" Pg. 688
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5192
Filed 05/20/11 Page 9 of 51 Page ID
NOT DRIVE OR POSSESS KEYS OR DOCUMENTATION TO ANY MOTOR VEHICLE UNLESS LEGALLY REGISTERED TO YOU OR AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER, EXCEPT IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT. REPORT ALL MOTOR VEHICLES REGISTERED TO YOU TO THE PROBATION OFFICER WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS OF ACQUISITION. SUBMIT TO AND COOPERATE IN A FIELD INTERROGATION BY ANY PEACE OFFICER AT ANY TIME OF THE DAY OR NIGHT. CARRY AT ALL TIMES A VALID DRIVERS LICENSE OR DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES IDENTIFICATION CARD AND DISPLAY SUCH IDENTIFICATION UPON REQUEST BY ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE PO. CONTAINING YOUR TRUE NAME AGE AND CURRENT ADDRESS ENROLL IN THE DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAM AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PROBATION OFFICER, AND SHOW PROOF OF ENROLLMENT TO THE PROBATION OFFICER WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS. MAKE RESTITUTION TO THE VICTIM(S) (SEE PROBATION REPORT) IN THE AMOUNT OF $9223.77 PLUS A 10% ADMINISTRATIVE FEE, TO BE PAID THROUGH CENTRAL COLLECTIONS MAKE RESTITUTION TO THE VICTIM (SEE PROBATION REPORT) IN THE AM OUNT OF $35000.00 PLUS A 10% ADMINISTRATIVE FEE, TO BEPAID THROUGH CENTRAL COLLECTIONS MAKE RESTITUTION TO THE VICTIM (SEE PROBATION REPORT) IN THE AMO UNT OF $66951.08 PLUS A 10% ADMINISTRATIVE FEE, TO BE PAID THROUGH CENTRAL COLLECTIONS PAY A RESTITUTION FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF $200.00, PLUS A TEN PERCENT (10%) ADMINISTRATIVE FEE THROUGH CENTRAL COLLECTIONS. THE DEFENDANT IS NOT TO FILE ANY LAWSUIT/LEGAL ACTION WITHOUT PRIOR CONTACT WITH PROBATION OFFICER. DO NOT APPLY FOR CREDIT OR A LOAN WITHOUT PRIOR CONTACT WITH PROBATION OFFICER. COMPLY WITH ANY COURT-ORDERED PAYMENT SCHEDULE. MAKE RESTITUTION TO VICTIM (SEE PROBATION REPORT) IN AN AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED BY PROBATION. MAKE RESTITUTION TO VICTIM (SEE PROBATION REPORT) IN AN AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED BY PROBATION. PROBATION MAY BE SERVED THROUGH INTER STATE COMPACT AGREEMENT IN THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO UPON APPROVAL FROM PROBATION.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Eastern Division – Riverside) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:05-cv-00309-UA l Lisa Liberi v. West Valley Detention Center et al Assigned to: Judge Unassigned Demand: $280,000,000 Cause: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act Date Filed: 04/15/2005 Date Terminated: 04/28/2005 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 470 Racketeer/Corrupt Organization Jurisdiction: Federal Question represented by Michelle D Strickland Michelle D Strickland Law Offices P O Box 2238 Colton, CA 92324
Plaintiff Lisa Liberi
Exhibit "91" Pg. 689
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5193
Filed 05/20/11 Page 10 of 51 Page ID
951-782-8555 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V. Defendant West Valley Detention Center Defendant San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department Defendant Gary Penrod San Bernardino County Sheriff Defendant Paul Morrison Defendant Doe Deputies assigned to West Valley Detention Center Defendant Doe Nurses assigned to West Valley Detention Center Defendant Dr Shin Yin Liong MD Defendant Doe Contractors assigned to West Valley Detention Center Defendant John Heary Nursing Supervisor Defendant Brian Fratt Deputy
Exhibit "91" Pg. 690
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5194
Defendant County of San Bernardino Defendant San Bernardino County District Attorneys Office Defendant James Secord Deputy District Attorney Defendant Mike Leiberich Defendant V L Hamilton Defendant Michael A Ramos District Attorney Defendant Joan Borba Judge Defendant Craig Wyatt Zibell individually and doing business as Allways Allways 4U Bail Bonds also known as Allways For-U Bail Bonds Defendant Angelo Michael Verlingo Defendant Bar Triangle Bail Bonds Inc doing business as Boones Bail Bonds
Filed 05/20/11 Page 11 of 51 Page ID
Exhibit "91" Pg. 691
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5195
Defendant Seneca Insurance Company Inc Defendant John Mark Allen Defendant US Federal Credit Union also known as United Services of America Defendant Melinda Rosas Wevely Defendant Julie Misleh Defendant Houts & Associates Defendant Randolph C Houts Defendant Rob Henderson Defendant DOES 1 through 10 inclusive
Filed 05/20/11 Page 12 of 51 Page ID
Date Filed 04/15/2005 04/15/2005 04/15/2005
# Docket Text LODGED COMPLAINT submitted by plaintiff fwd to Duty Magistrate Judge: (SGL)., filed by plaintiff Lisa Liberi.(am, ) (Entered: 04/27/2005) 1 REQUEST to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Declaration in Support filed by plaintiff Lisa Liberi. (am, ) (Entered: 04/27/2005) 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, waiver of filing fees, costs and service of process by the US Marshall filed by plaintiff Lisa Liberi. Lodged Lodged Orders. (am, ) (Entered: 04/27/2005)
Exhibit "91" Pg. 692
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5196
Filed 05/20/11 Page 13 of 51 Page ID
PLACED IN FILE – NOT USED re Order for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and service of process by the US Marshal submitted by plaintiff Lisa Liberi. (am, ) (Entered: 04/28/2005) 3 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Case number has been corrected. The correct case number is CV 05-3015 VAP (SGLx). All previosly filed documents under ED CV 05-309 will be docketed and housed under case number CV 05-3015 VAP (SGLx). This case is closed. Case opening clerk assigned this to Magistrate Judge Larson in error. (la, ) (Entered: 04/29/2005)
You can see, that Lisa Liberi harassed the county, the judge, the DA office , policemen, correctional institution, where she was incarcerated, and other with a frivolous law suit, demanding 280 million dollars from all of the county officials. Her case was dismissed, for failure to prosecute, but it looks like this harassment was enough for the DA and the judge to ultimately reduce her 8 year prison term for 10 counts of forgery and theft to 3 years probation. Now Liberi with the help of her attorney Philip J. Berg is slandering and defaming multiple innocent individuals. They filed yet another frivolous law suit in PA claiming her to be an innocent woman residing in PA. and not the same Liberi, who was convicted in CA. The judge got the mug shot and could see, that it is the same person. The witnesses identified her as the same person. When Liberi and Berg were asked to produce her PA driver’s license, they came up with an insane an slanderous accusation that her PA drivers license cannot be produced because Attorney Orly Taitz tried to hire a hit man to kill her. Even though Liberi is the one who is a convicted forger and thief, Liberi and Berg accused multiple individuals, who never committed any crimes of multiple acts of forgery and theft. District Attorney’s office was supposed to revoke her probation long time ago and send her back to prison to serve her 8 year prison term. They were supposed to prosecute Philip J. Berg for aiding and abetting felon on probation to violate terms of her probation, for filing a legal action with the purpose of harassment. It has been a year and a half and they were not prosecuted yet. You may ask why? The reason is simple: we have now the criminals telling the government what to do by virtue of filing RICO law suits against governmental officials as Liberi filed her RICO suit against everyone in the county in 2005. The end result is that such officials don’t want to bother with such criminals and let them get away with murder. Please, help end this nightmare and this enormous waste of my time and money, that I should be using for better purposes. Please demand from the San Bernardino District Attorney’s office and San Bernardino county Grand Jury to finally do their job and prosecute Liberi and Berg. There has to be an end to this. You can now understand, why others are not prosecuted for commission of crimes. If a common criminal like Liberi is allowed to do what she wants, you can understand, how they are intimidated of others. We have to end this. Please, demand that the San Bernardino, CA District Attorney do his job. If he is intimidated by common criminals and not willing to do his job, then he needs to resign and a new DA has to be appointed. Our government should be there to protect us from criminals, not aiding and abetting criminals and their unscrupulous attorneys in terrorising innocent individuals, who happen to be whistle blowers. Category: Events, HOT ITEMS!, Help Needed, Latest News, Legal Actions
NEW! CA REP CENTRAL COMMITTEE LIST CAMPAIGN FLIER for Orly Taitz as CA SOS CAMPAIGN FLIER for Orly Taitz as CA SOS, 2 Per Page How to contact public Integrity unit See The PDF File Here
Exhibit "91" Pg. 693
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5197
Filed 05/20/11 Page 14 of 51 Page ID
EXHIBIT “92”
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5198
Filed 05/20/11 Page 15 of 51 Page ID
Exhibit "92" Pg. 694
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?attachment_id=15377
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?attachment_id=15377 #:5199 VIDEOS Home
Filed 05/20/11 Page 16 of 51 Page ID
Lisa Liberi mug shot
Exhibit "92" Pg. 695
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5200
Filed 05/20/11 Page 17 of 51 Page ID
EXHIBIT “93”
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5201
Filed 05/20/11 Page 18 of 51 Page ID
Exhibit "93" Pg. 696
Why it is important to go after criminals | Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=15393
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=15393 #:5202 VIDEOS Home
Filed 05/20/11 Page 19 of 51 Page ID
Why it is important to go after criminals
Posted on | November 7, 2010 | 4 Comments Why is Lisa Liberi not I agree with you that having a convicted felon help a lawyer is a bad back in thing. But what should Lisa Liberi be in jail now? What has she done prison? Why since she was put on parole? Complained that you were harassing her? is District sf67463@smegma.gov Is that a crime? Attorney not 67.159.56.162 scheduling a explanation from Orly: hearing for Liberi and Berg did not just complain, they filed a law suit in revocation of Philadelphia for nearly a billion dollars against me, investigator probation? Submitted on 2010/11/06 at 5:25pm
Exhibit "93" Pg. 697
5/2/2011 1:38 AM
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 Filed 05/20/11 Page 20 of 51 Page ID Sankey, owner of a Christian publishing house James Sundquist, talk #:5203 show host Ed Hale, his wife, his radio station, Mr.Sankey’s firm and so on. The basis of their law suit was slander and defamation of character. they claimed that Lisa Liberi , working for Berg does not send information to Berg from out of state, but rather lives in PA. they said that she is a different woman, who was never convicted of any crimes and I defamed them by posting a criminal record of Liberi. They claimed, that though she has the same first, middle and last name and the same birth date she is a different person. I produced her mug shot. The judge could see, that the woman, who appeared before him is the same woman, who was convicted in CA. In spite of the fact, that I provided her mug shot, identical signature from CA, information, pointing out the same first, middle, last name, same birth dates, these criminals are still claiming, that she is not the same woman and continue harassing me with the same law suit. They are committing perjury, fraud on the court and they committed a number of other crimes, which I will not list at the moment. Violation of law is grounds for revocation of her probation Not only they filed a frivolous law suit based on perjury and fraud, Berg and Liberi viciously defamed multiple individuals in order to cover up the fact, that a convicted forger and thief Lisa Liberi is employed by Answer attorney Philip J. Berg. They are refusing to provide her PA driver’s license to prove, that she is indeed a resident of PA. They are trying to below will shed some justify this refusal by claiming that she is afraid for her life because I light into why tried to hire a hit man to kill her. Berg is acting like a criminal. He is accusing an innocent person of crimes in order to cover up a fact, that the system is not working he is working with a criminal, that he is conducting a Nation wide donation drive by using a convicted thief on probation as his assistant. He should be disbarred for doing this. Just as he accused me, he accused multiple individuals of stalking, perjury, forgery and so on. People like this should not be allowed to practice law. It is true, that sometimes people of questionable character contact public figures and volunteer their help. It happened to me and it happens to everybody, however, after it is found, that such person is doing illegal things, it is up to the lawyer to disassociate himself from such individuals. that what I did. that is what Berg was supposed to do a year and a half ago. Instead he and Liberi engaged in cover up and have been harassing me and many others with a frivolous law suit for nearly a billion dollars, they slandered and defamed multiple innocent individuals. Their behavior was criminal. This is not about one woman saying something. this is about a criminal behavior. My question is, why are the courts allowing this to go on? Presiding Judge Eduardo Robreno was supposed to get a verification of her PA citizenship for the purpose of diversity. If a party refuses to provide her prove of citizenship, a law suit based on diversity cannot go on. It is supposed to be dismissed. If this would be allowed, any criminal would commit any crimes and claim that he is a different person. Why didn’t Robreno demand her prove of PA citizenshio immediately?
Exhibit "93" Pg. 698
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 Filed 05/20/11 Page 21 of 51 Page ID #:5204 Why didn’t he dismiss this case and sanction them and didn’t report Berg to the dpsciplinary board of the PA Supreme Court for disbarment? Why didn’t he forward the pleadings to the DA in CA to have her probation revoked? How could he stare at her mug shot of a felon, convicted in CA that looks just like her and in good conscience believe, that she is another woman in PA? You can see the level of corruption. If this is not exposed and dealt with, each and every one of you are at mercy of criminals. You can see, what was done to Lakin, to Fitzpatrick. You can see, that we lost the system of justice. We see the same people serving as foremen of grand juries for 20 years, we see the judges not following the law and completely disregarding evidence. You can see attorneys like Berg allowed to continue to prctice law, while bringing law suits clearly based on fraud and perjury and vicious defamation of others, you can see the district attorneys offices and grand juries not indicting dangerous criminals. We have to end this immediately, or any one of you will be the next victim of this regime of criminalsareus.org that replaced the system of Justice in U.S. Yesterday I did a program for a European TV network with a reach to 120 million people. I am trying to bring to the attention of the International community total lawlessness in U.S., which we saw lately. Category: HOT ITEMS!, Legal Actions, Letters from Readers and Patriots, Letters/Feedback from Readers
4 Responses to “Why it is important to go after criminals” 1. Politijabber November 7th, 2010 @ 10:51 am So, to put the question differently, how is being a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit a violation of probation? 2. dr_taitz@yahoo.com November 7th, 2010 @ 12:51 pm committing crimes is a violation: perjury, fraud on the court committed in this case is a violation. additionally she was not allowed to have any access to credit cards of others. according to witnesses she had access and processed the credit card records of others. 3. Jim November 7th, 2010 @ 7:52 pm If she didn’t notify her probation officer about filing the lawsuit, she is in violation of her probation. If she did notify him, the n it is more proof that she committed perjury and fraud on the court by claiming that she was not the same Lisa Liberi. 4. Jim November 7th, 2010 @ 8:23 pm
Exhibit "93" Pg. 699
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5205
Filed 05/20/11 Page 22 of 51 Page ID
EXHIBIT “94”
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5206
Filed 05/20/11 Page 23 of 51 Page ID
Exhibit "94" Pg. 700
Submitted yesterday in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals | Dr. Orly Taitz...
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=15801
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=15801 #:5207 VIDEOS Home
Filed 05/20/11 Page 24 of 51 Page ID
Submitted yesterday in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
Posted on | November 23, 2010 | 1 Comment No. 10-3000 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Exhibit "94" Pg. 701
5/2/2011 2:01 AM
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5208 LISA LIBERI, et al.,
Filed 05/20/11 Page 25 of 51 Page ID
APPELLANT’S REPLY TO APPELLEES’ BRIEF
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 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Exhibit "94" Pg. 702
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 Filed 05/20/11 Page 26 of 51 Page ID #:5209 1. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………p3 2. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIENCE……………………………………………p4 3. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT…………………………………………………..p4 4. LEGAL ARGUMENT………………………………………………………………..p6 A. DECISION TO ASSUME JURISDICTION IN DIVERSITY WITHOUT VERIFICATION OF THE STATE CITIZENSHIP GOES AGAINST PRIOR RULINGS OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS….p6 B.APPELLEE’S ATTACKS ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS FRIVOLOUS……………………………p12 C. STATE CITIZENSHIP IS AT THE CORE OF THE CASE……..………p13 D. APPELLEES COMMITTED FRAUD ON THE COURT AND PERJURY BY CLAIMING THAT THEY PROVIDED LIBERI’S DRIVERS LICENSE TO JUDGE ROBRENO…………………………………..……p17 E. APPELLEES DISCUSSION OF VENUE IS IRRELEVANT AND WAS DONE IN ORDER TO CREATE CONFUSION, AS AT ISSUE IS THE FACT, THAT THERE WAS NO JURISDICTION FOR FEDERAL COURT TO SIT IN DIVERSITY, REGARDLESS OF VENUE……p18 F. PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATIONS……………………………..p19 G. APPELLEES ARE MISREPRESENTING THE ISSUES ON APPEAL IN RELATION TO THE DISMISSAL OF THE DEFENDANTS JAMES SUNDQUIST AND SALT ROCK PUBLISING………………………..p20 H. FRAUD ON THE COURT BY BERG AND LIBERI COMMITTED, AS NO IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS WERE ROVIDED……….……..p22 I. JUDGE ROBRENO’S FINDINGS WENT TO THE CORE OF THE CASE AND WERE IMPROPER TO BE MADE WITHOUT THE EVIDENCEp25 J. APPELLANTS REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS PROPER AND SUPPORTED BY FACT AND LAW AND NECESSARY TO STOP EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT BY BERG AND THE PLAINTIFFS..p26 1. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………p30 2. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE…………………………………………………. p31
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 1.Packard v Provident National Bank, 994 F. 2d 1039, 1045 (3d Cir. 1993)p8 2. Gould Electronics, inc v United states, 220 F. 3d 169, 176 (3d Cir.2000)p 8 3. J& R Ice cream Corp. v. California Smoothie Licensing, 31 F. 3d 1259, 1265 n.3 (3rd Cir 1994)……………………………………………………………..p8 4. 5C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §1206, at 78-79 (1969 & Supp. 2005)………………………………………………………..p8
Exhibit "94" Pg. 703
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 Filed 05/20/11 Page 27 of 51 Page ID #:5210 5. Thomas v Board of Trustees, 195 U.S. 207, 210 (1904)……………….p8 6. Joiner v. Diamond M Drilling Co., 677 F. 2d 1035, 1039 (5th Cir 1982).p9 7.Weight v Kawasaki Motors Corp. (1985, ED Va) 604 F Supp 968……….p9 8. McMann v Doe (2006, DC Mass) 460 F Supp 2d ………………………..p10 9. Bautista v Pan American World Airlines, Inc. (1987, CA9 Cal) 828 F2d 546, 126 BNA LRRM 2559, 107 CCH LC P 10159………………………………….…p10 10. Roche v Lincoln Prop. Co. (2004, CA4 Va) 373 F3d 610……………….…p9 11.Olsen v Quality Continuum Hospice, Inc. (2004,DC NM) 380 F Supp 2d 1225………….…………………………………………………………………….……..p10 12.Filla v Norfolk & Southern Ry. (2003, CA8 Mo) 336 F3d 806……………….p11
13. Jeter v Jim Walter Homes, Inc. (1976, WD Okla) 414 F Supp 791.259……..p11 14. Shahmoon Industries, Inc. v Imperato (1964, CA3 NJ) 338 F2d 449, 9 FR Serv 2d 12B.22, Case 2………………………………………………………………………p11
CERTIFICATION Reply brief does not exceed allowed 7,000 words Hard paper copy of the reply brief is identical to the electronic copy SUMMARY OF THE REPLY This appeal revolves around the fact, that presiding Judge Eduardo Robreno erred, showed bias and abuse of judicial discretion in assuming jurisdiction over this case and entering an order to sever and transfer the case, with the notation that the plaintiff “Lisa Liberi is a resident of Pennsylvania” without a shred of evidence of state residence of the lead plaintiff Lisa Liberi. During 08.07.09 hearing before Judge Robreno Lisa Liberi and her attorney and Co-plaintiff Phil Berg promised to provide Liberi’s address and identifying documents and file them under seal, however,- they defrauded the court and they never provided any identifying documents. Transcript of the hearing in question and the docket show, that there are no identifying documents submitted. The Plaintiffs/Appellees could resolve this matter by providing just one page- a certified copy of Liberi’s PA driver’s license, they could resolve it by submitting it to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals under seal. They never did it. Instead, they submitted over 900 pages of irrelevant, inflammatory and defamatory material in order to obfuscate the fact, that they committed fraud, that Liberi did not reside in PA at the time the law suit was filed, that PA attorney Philip J. Berg is employing as his paralegal a convicted document forger and thief , Lisa Liberi, who was convicted in 2008 in CA, who is currently on probation and not allowed to reside in any state aside from CA and NM. Berg yet again violated the rules of professional discipline and filed this whole case with the purpose of harassing and intimidating the defendants, who were whistle blowers and exposed Berg and Liberi to the public. Actions of Judge Robreno represent error of fact and law and abuse of judicial discretion, in that he refused to rule on the defendants multiple motions to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction, he refused to take into
Exhibit "94" Pg. 704
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 Filed 05/20/11 Page 28 of 51 Page ID #:5211 consideration any and all identifying evidence, presented by the defendants, who are out of state defendants, instead he ruled in favor of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney Berg, who is a local Philadelphia attorney, even though Berg did not provide a shred of evidence of Liberi’s PA residence. Judge Robreno, also, under the color of authority, violated the Constitutional rights of due process of out of state pro se defendant Linda Belcher, who repeatedly complained, that she was not served with the pleadings. Judge Robreno simply ignored all of her letters and complaints, did not docket her letters and did not rule on her complaints. (Appendix, Affidavit by Linda Belcher ) Additionally, District Court repeatedly did not docket important exhibits and pleadings provided by the defendants, particularly ones, that were incriminating Berg and Liberi, whereby showing bias. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. DECISION TO ASSUME JURISDICTION IN DIVERSITY WITHOUT VERIFICATION OF THE STATE CITIZENSHIP GOES AGAINST PRIOR RULINGS OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS Appellees did not provide any response to the main question, why should the jurisdiction be asserted in diversity without any evidence of the lead plaintiff’s state citizenship. Appellee’s argument can be summarized to 2 points: 1. Decision to severe the case was proper in relation to venue 2. Precedents cited by the Appellants, who are CA residents, come from other circuits, mostly CA and not Third Circuit Court of Appeals cases. In response, the Appellants are stating, that Venue is not being appealed. Before the Venue is in play, the Federal Court system as a whole is supposed to have jurisdiction over the case. This case was filed based on Diversity jurisdiction, where the Appellees claim, that the lead plaintiff is a resident of PA, while the defendants were residents of CA, TX and NJ. Appellees stated at 08.07.09. hearing that they will submit the plaintiff Lisa Liberi’s identifying documents, however they defrauded the court and never submitted those documents. Presiding Judge Eduardo Robreno, might have thought that those were submitted at some point, however the docket shows, that at no time within a year and a half those were ever submitted. As such, the Plaintiffs never established Liberi’s state citizenship for purposes of diversity. In regards to the second point questioning the position of the- Third Circuit Court of Appeals in regards to the state citizenship, it repeatedly ruled that it is upon the party, claiming diversity to show that it exists. It has to be shown by the preponderance of evidence. In the recent unpublished case of S. Freedman and Company, Inc v Marvin Raab, 180 Fed. Appx. 316 (3rd Cir. 2006) not cited here as precedent, Third Circuit Court Judges Honorable Barry, Smith and Aldisert found that under the precedent of Gould Electronics, Inc v United states, 220 F. 3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000) the Third Circuit court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review under 28 U.S.C. §1291 the issue of subject matter jurisdiction as a basis for dismissal of the case. Third Circuit Court of Appeals also found that a District Court has a duty to raise doubts about its jurisdiction at any time, and that the party asserting jurisdiction “bears the burden of showing that the case is properly before the court at all stages of litigation”. See Packard v Provident National Bank, 994 F. 2d 1039, 1045 (3d Cir. 1993) and similarly J& R Ice cream Corp. v. California Smoothie Licensing, 31 F. 3d 1259, 1265 n.3 (3rd Cir 1994). In its’ opinion in Freedman v Raab theThird Circuit proceeded to expand and reiterate that “the basis upon which jurisdiction depends must be alleged affirmatively and distinctly and cannot be established argumentatively or by mere inference” See 5C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §1206, at 78-79 (1969 & Supp. 2005); Thomas v Board of Trustees, 195 U.S. 207, 210 (1904) (holding that diversity jurisdiction, “or the facts upon which, in legal intendment, it rests, must be distinctly and positively averred in
Exhibit "94" Pg. 705
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 Filed 05/20/11 Page 29 of 51 Page ID #:5212 the pleadings, or should appear affirmatively and with equal distinctness in other part of the record”); Joiner v. Diamond M Drilling Co., 677 F. 2d 1035, 1039 (5th Cir 1982) (“In order to adequately establish diversity jurisdiction, a complaint must set forth with specificity a corporate party’s state of incorporation and its principal place of business). “Fedco’s bald allegations that the corporate parties are citizens of certain states are insufficient to carry its burden of pleading the diversity of the parties.” In cases in which jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, plaintiff has burden to show, first, that applicable statute confers jurisdiction, and, second, that assertion of jurisdiction is consonant with constitutional limitations of due process. Weight v Kawasaki Motors Corp. (1985, ED Va) 604 F Supp 968.
Party’s mere allegation of diversity cannot satisfy its burden of establishing district court’s jurisdiction; citizenship of each real party in interest must be established by preponderance of evidence. Roche v Lincoln Prop. Co. (2004, CA4 Va) 373 F3d 610. Complaint alleging that defendant’s corporate citizenship was in a state other than California but failing to allege that plaintiffs were all citizens of California was not sufficient to give District Court jurisdiction since pleadings did not otherwise resolve issue of citizenship. Bautista v Pan American World Airlines, Inc. (1987, CA9 Cal) 828 F2d 546, 126 BNA LRRM 2559, 107 CCH LC P 10159.
In Olsen v Quality Continuum Hospice, Inc. (2004,DC NM) 380 F Supp 2d 1225 Court lacked jurisdiction over patient’s claims because he failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because at time he filed complaint both he and hospice were citizens of State. In McMann v. Doe (2006, DC Mass) 460 F Supp 2d complaint against John Doe defendant alleging Internet defamation was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because there was risk that if John Doe’s identity were discovered there could have been no diversity, and court’s jurisdictional authority would have disappeared; court declined to read amended language of 28 USCS § 1441into 28 USCS § 1332 because it would have accomplished much broader result of allowing case with only one party and only state law claims to proceed initially in federal court Olsen v Quality Continuum Hospice, Inc. (2004,DC NM) 380 F Supp 2d 1225. In motorist’s personal injury lawsuit against, inter alia, owners of property adjacent to private railroad-track crossing where car-train accident occurred, pursuant to 28 USCS § 1447(d), appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review remand that implicitly was based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction; district court clearly was addressing jurisdictional issues–diversity of citizenship, 28 USCS § 1332, and fraudulent joinder–and when doing so, it properly declined to decide doubtful question of state law and, instead, resolved ambiguity (lack of state law directly on point) in motorist’s favor. Filla v Norfolk & Southern Ry. (2003, CA8 Mo) 336 F3d 806. Where record creates doubt as to jurisdiction, trial court must determine whether there are adequate grounds to sustain its jurisdiction over subject matter. Shahmoon Industries, Inc. v Imperato (1964, CA3 NJ) 338 F2d 449, 9 FR Serv 2d 12B.22, Case 2. Court has duty to look to its own jurisdiction and lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be asserted by
Exhibit "94" Pg. 706
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 Filed 05/20/11 Page 30 of 51 Page ID #:5213 court, sua sponte, at any time. Jeter v Jim Walter Homes, Inc. (1976, WD Okla) 414 F Supp 791.259. decided by a preponderance of evidence. In this case the Plaintiffs did not present any evidence, not a shred of evidence, showing Liberi to be a resident of PA. Defendants have shown that according to her probation she can reside only in CA or NM, she is subject to the jurisdiction of CA, therefore the case at hand has to be dismissed as citizenship of Liberi was not provided to resolve the issue of diversity to allow it to proceed in Federal court. If the Federal court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case, it is supposed to be dismissed. The court has no jurisdiction to transfer to another Federal Court a case, where it did not have jurisdiction in the first place, as other Federal Courts equally will not have jurisdiction.
B. APPELLEE’S ATTACKS ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ARE FRIVOLOUS Before the Appellants filed their opening brief, the Appellees filed a Motion to dismiss the Appeal, claiming that this court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Their motion was denied. Now, in their Appellee’s response, the Appellees did not address the appeal itself and are engaged yet again in attacking the jurisdiction of this court. This is frivolous, as the issue of the Jurisdiction of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to hear this brief was already decided and established. The Appellees did not bring one single case as a precedent, supporting their position, that the District court could properly assert jurisdiction in Diversity without the Plaintiff/Appellee submitting her identification documents, showing her state citizenship. They did not provide any such precedents, because they simply do not exist. Instead, Appellees are trying to confuse the court by discussing irrelevant issues and bringing precedents on irrelevant issues, which are not on Appeal, such as Jurisdiction of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and Venue. Similarly, venue is not at issue, as without the jurisdiction in Federal Court system venue is irrelevant. C. STATE CITIZENSHIP IS AT THE CORE OF THE CASE As stated in the opening brief, the state citizenship of plaintiff Liberi is at the core of the case, as this case was filed in the beginning of May 2009 after Defendants/Appellants published on the web site/blog of DOFF foundation a copy of the verified criminal record of Lisa Liberi, assistant to attorney Philip J Berg, showing that she was charged in CA in 23 counts of forgery of documents and grand theft and in 2008 was convicted of 10 charges of forgery of documents, of forgery of the official seal and grand theft and she is currently on probation, allowed to reside in CA or NM only. On May 4, only a few days after the publication of Liberi’s criminal record, Berg and Liberi responded by filing their complaint, where they claimed that Lisa Liberi is a different woman, who resides in PA, who is innocent and who was slandered and defamed by this publication. As such, her state residence is extremely important not only for the purposes of diversity, but for the resolution of the case. Plaintiffs cannot hide it. Taitz properly demanded to see Liberi’s PA drivers’ license. Without any shred of evidence Liberi and Berg accused Taitz, the rest of the defendants and multiple other individuals of committing multiple crimes, including stalking, forgery and attempt to hire a hit man to kill Liberi. They claimed, that because of danger to her life Liberi’s drivers’ license cannot be shown. Judge Robreno gave them an opportunity to file Liberi’s PA driver’s license under seal, Taitz agreed to accept a redacted PA drivers’ license without the street address, with only the state information. That shows, that nobody ever tried to hurt them. They never filed any drivers’ license with the court. The reason for not providing Liberi’s PA drivers’ license, is not in the imaginary threats, but rather in the fact, that she does not possess a PA drivers license, her PA residence was fraud on the court and perjury on part of Berg and Liberi, and if they will have to provide her actual drivers license, it will show it to be either CA or NM license, making it clear, that it is indeed the same Lisa Liberi, who was convicted in CA and allowed to reside only in CA or NM. Additionally, Appellants filed a motion to strike and motion for sanctions against Appellees and their attorney Berg, as without a shred of evidence Appellees repeatedly accused the Appellants of multiple
Exhibit "94" Pg. 707
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 Filed 05/20/11 Page 31 of 51 Page ID #:5214 crimes, whereby Berg showed egregious violation of the Code of professional ethics and egregious misconduct by an attorney. Not only Berg was knowingly working with a convicted forger and thief, he defamed innocent people and accused them of multiple serious crimes in order to cover his involvement with a forger. Additionally, Berg is trying to confuse this court and perpetrate his fraud further by making ambiguous statements. P5 of the Appellees’ brief “Liberi… has not been convicted in, nor charged in, ten (10) separate criminal cases”. At first glance it might look like she is an innocent woman, who was defamed. In reality Berg is simply twisting the truth and the facts. As the Appendix (Appellant’s Appendix Liberi’s mug shot and criminal record) shows, in 2008 a plea bargain was reached, where she was convicted of 10 felony counts out of 23 charges against her in CA. Berg is saying that she was not convicted in 10 separate criminal cases, creating an illusion that she was defamed, but it simply means, that there were 10 felony convictions within 1 case in CA. Docket document #136, also includes a transcript of a prior hearing in CA, where Detective Liebricht testified regarding Liberi’s prior 19 criminal charges, mostly in TX. Berg states, that Liberi’s middle name is not Renee, trying to put doubt in the minds of the Judges, to make them believe, that she is a different person. In reality, the same criminal record shows that Liberi used 9 different aliases, where she used her prior married name Courville or maiden name Richardson or short for Richardson- “Rich” or combination thereof as a middle name instead of her middle name Renee, sometimes she used only letter R. Berg is trying to create an illusion of Liberi being a different person, while he knows that she is indeed the same person, who was convicted in CA, and who is not allowed to reside in PA, he is continuously and egregiously violating the requirement of candor before the tribunal and continuously and repeatedly is defrauding the court. On the other hand Defendants/ Appellants provided witness identification (Appendix to the opening brief, Affidavits of Ed Hale and Caren Hale), stating that Lisa Liberi, who appeared in PA before judge Robreno, is indeed the same Lisa Liberi, who is shown on the attached mug shots of Lisa Liberi, convicted in CA. .Appellants, provided transcripts from CA, showing that Liberi’s mother, Shirley Waddell, who was filing hundreds of pages of affidavits in PA in Liberi v Taitz, in support of her daughters legal action for defamation and slander, claiming that her daughter is an innocent woman who was defamed and slandered by this monster Attorney Orly Taitz, was actually the same Shirley Waddell, who paid bail bond premium to bail her daughter out of prison in CA. (Appendix to Appellants’ opening brief, 2004 Superior Court of CA, San Bernardino County transcript of the bail bond hearing of Lisa Liberi). Additionally, Taitz provided signature samples from CA, showing that the same signature was used by Liberi to sign her motions in her criminal case in CA. (Document 145, reply to opposition to Motion). Considering the fact, that Liberi’s state citizenship is at the core of the case, the court had a heightened obligation to make sure that the Appellees provide Liberi’s drivers’ license and prove her state citizenship. The court erred in not demanding such compliance and in ignoring all the evidence, provided by the defendants. D. APPELLEES COMMITTED FRAUD ON THE COURT AND PERJURY BY CLAIMING THAT THEY PROVIDED LIBERI’S DRIVERS LICENSE TO JUDGE ROBRENO a. In his response attorney Berg claims that he showed Judge Robreno Liberi’s Driver’s license, that Judge Robreno’s decision to assume jurisdiction is based on the driver’s license, submitted to court on 08.07.09. This statement constitutes fraud on this court. Transcript of 08.07.09 hearing states, that Berg asked Judge Robreno, if he can provide Liberi’s license under seal, however the transcript does not state, that Berg actually ever provided it. b. Examination of the transcript shows, that there are no documents attached to it at all. There is no license
Exhibit "94" Pg. 708
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 Filed 05/20/11 Page 32 of 51 Page ID #:5215 under seal or not under seal. There is no notation from a court reporter, stating, that any documents were given by Liberi or Berg to judge Robreno, there is only a promise by Liberi to provide her identifying documents at some later time. c. Affidavit of Ed Hale (Appellants’ appendix) states, that the plaintiffs did not provide Judge Robreno with any documents and that they left the court room the same time as the defendants. He also states, that Lisa Liberi, who appeared at the hearing in PA in front of Judge Robreno, is the same Lisa Liberi, as depicted on the mug shot from CA. d. . Affidavit of Caren Hale (Appellants appendix) states, that the plaintiffs did not provide Judge Robreno with any documents and that they left the court room the same time as the defendants. He also states, that Lisa Liberi, who appeared at the hearing in PA in front of Judge Robreno, is the same Lisa Liberi, as depicted on the mug shot from CA e. If arguendo Berg, who is a PA attorney, went to Judge Robreno at some later time and showed him some document, some driver’s license, it would be an impermissible ex-parte communication and it violated the rights of the defendants for an impartial hearing, particularly in light of the fact that Lisa Liberi has multiple convictions for forgery of documents, and it is more likely than not that if Berg ever showed any document to judge Robreno, it was a forged document. The defendants were entitled to see any documents provided by Berg to Judge Robreno, examine those documents and make sure those documents were not forged. As stated, there are no identifying documents anywhere on the docket. Berg, also, refers to statements by Kelly Strebel, who is an unemployed truck driver in Utah and Evelyn Adams, aka Momma E, a retiree in OK, who are claiming, that Liberi does not reside in CA or TX. No foundation was ever provided, as to how do they know, where Liberi resides. Anybody can state anything. Their statements do not satisfy the best evidence rule. Adams is a party to this action, Strebel is Liberi’s and Berg’s supporter and volunteer. State residence needs to be established by proper identifying documents such as a drivers license. Judge Robreno requested it during 08.07.09 hearing, Liberi and Berg promised to submit it and file under seal, but never submitted it. There are no identifying documents anywhere in the file of this case, therefore the case has to be dismissed, as Liberi’s state citizenship was never established. E. APPELLEES DISCUSSION OF VENUE IS IRRELEVANT AND WAS DONE IN ORDER TO CREATE CONFUSION, AS AT ISSUE IS THE FACT, THAT THERE WAS NO JURISDICTION FOR FEDERAL COURT TO SIT IN DIVERSITY, REGARDLESS OF VENUE Berg is trying to simply confuse this court by discussing venue. The venue is not at issue. Before venue is discussed, at issue is jurisdiction. Did the federal court have any jurisdiction to sit in diversity and hear this case. For purpose of diversity the plaintiffs had to provide evidence of citizenship of each and every party and show it by preponderance of evidence. The Plaintiffs did not provide one single document, that it evidentiary of Plaintiff Liberi’s state citizenship. The docket shows no evidence: there is no Pennsylvania driver’s license anywhere in this docket. In order to cover up the fact, that there is no driver’s license, plaintiffs made up outrageous slanderous accusations and committed fraud on the court and perjury by accusing defendant Taitz of trying to hire a hit man to kill Liberi. This is an outrageous behavior by a licensed attorney Berg. Taitz filed a separate motion to sanction attorney Berg for filing with court accusations of capital crimes with the sole purpose of harassment of defendants. As no evidence of state residence was ever provided, venue is irrelevant. the federal court system has no jurisdiction over this case regardless of venue. F. PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATIONS This issue is so important, that it has to be decided by the court of Appeals and even Supreme Court, if need
Exhibit "94" Pg. 709
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 Filed 05/20/11 Page 33 of 51 Page ID #:5216 be. It is simply insane to believe, that a criminal can make up a story, harass whistle blower’s with a frivolous law suit, make up outrageous allegations, that the victims are threatening this criminal , that any and all evidence needs to be sealed because of an imaginary accusation, and based upon that, a judge makes a decision without any shred of evidence. If this standard is allowed to stand, than it is de facto the end to the system of Justice. It means, that any time anyone can accuse anybody of crimes and demand that the court make a finding of fact based on such insane allegations of imaginary threats. Additionally, in this case Berg has filed multiple motions, seeking a temporary restraining order to keep the case sealed. All of such motions were denied by both the District court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. If the courts did not find any value in Appellees claims of threats, than it was an error for Judge Robreno not to demand Lisa Liberi’s PA driver’s license and not to provide it to the defendants in order to show Liberi’s citizenship for the purposes of diversity. G. APPELLEES ARE MISREPRESENTING THE ISSUES ON APPEAL IN RELATION TO THE DISMISSAL OF THE DEFENDANTS JAMES SUNDQUIST AND SALT ROCK PUBLISING. James Sundquist in his pleadings and during 06.25.09 hearing before Judge Robreno repeatedly demanded to have his motion to dismiss to be decided with prejudice. Both Appellants, who are CA residents, and James Sundquist, NJ resident, in their pleadings and during the hearing requested for the court to ascertain the residency of each party and to rule with prejudice. Judge Robreno never demanded proof of Liberi’s PA residence and refused to rule with prejudice. Instead, during the hearing, he repeatedly applied pressure on James Sundquist to agree to be dismissed without prejudice. Defendants already incurred expenses in preparing responsive pleadings and traveling to PA. If Judge Robreno were to demand proof of Liberi’s state residence on June 25, 2009, the case would have ended then and there, as Liberi and Berg had nothing to show. Instead, Judge Robreno dismissed James Sundquist without prejudice and left him unable to collect from Berg and plaintiffs and he left Sundquist exposed to further harassment form Berg, if Sundquist were to speak up the truth about Berg and Liberi. Additionally, Judge Robreno allowed Berg to continuously terrorize all of the defendants with slander by the Plaintiffs and Berg for a year and a half. The Appeal does not state that judge Robreno had no discretion, it stated, that he acted with bias in favor of local attorney Berg and his clients, even though Berg and his clients were clearly committing fraud on the court and perjury, the Appeal states that judge Robreno abused his judicial discretion. Dismissal of Sundquist is part and parcel of the issue of diversity, that was brought back by Judge Robreno after he lifted his order of suspension on June 4, 2010. Additionally, Taitz was waiting resolution of Berg’s appeal, which he filed in August of 2009 with the Third Cicuit Court of Appeals and which he withdrew only in April of 2010, after an order to show cause was issued by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and she was subject to order of suspension of the case imposed by judge Robreno on 12.11.09 and lifted only on 06.04.10. Therefore, her appeal was timely and proper. Appellees made another fraudulent statement, claiming, that James Sundquist did not respond in writing. Docket entry No 68 clearly shows, that on 06.24.09 James Sundquist together with Taitz filed a response in opposition to Plaintiffs “ex Parte” motion to leave to dismiss, to “drop” defendants James Sundquist and Rock Salt Publishing without prejudice. This is only one very vivid example, demonstrating how attorney Berg continuously commits fraud on the court and simply enters in his pleadings fraudulent statements. H. FRAUD ON THE COURT BY BERG AND LIBERI COMMITTED, AS NO IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS WERE PROVIDED. In their 11. 07.10 pleadings Appellees stated, that they simply showed judge Robreno Liberi’s driver’s license and the finding that Liberi is a resident of PA was made based on the fact, that Liberi and her attorney Berg showed her driver’s license during the hearing. This is a complete fraud on the court and is contradicted by sworn affidavits of ED and Caren Hale and by the transcript itself. The transcript on page 19 “Mr. Berg: … her actual address I think would be detrimental
Exhibit "94" Pg. 710
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 Filed 05/20/11 Page 34 of 51 Page ID #:5217 The Court: “Well, the actual address we could do without it. 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.” So both the sworn affidavits of Ed and Caren Hale and the transcript of the hearing show, that Liberi and Berg did not show Judge Robreno any documents during the hearing. They both stated, that at some later time they would provide Liberi’s identifying information under seal, however the transcript and the docket (Appellants appendix) do not show any identifying information ever provided to the court, neither with the transcript, nor at any time later. Berg and Liberi simply defrauded the court. They wanted her information hidden, as they knew, that she was not residing in PA and this whole lawsuit was filed with the sole purpose to harass. Judge Robreno denied Berg’s motion for temporary restraining order. Berg appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and filed multiple emergency motions and requests for judicial notices. All were denied by this court. The Third Circuit court of Appeals issued an order to show cause to Berg, why he did not provide the copy of the transcript of the above hearing, that he was appealing. Berg knew, that his fraud on the court is about to be discovered, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will see, that Berg and Liberi promised to file Liberi’s identifying documents, but never did it, so Berg abruptly withdrew his appeal of the 08.07.09 ruling. He demanded to transfer the case to CA. By that time, it was a year since the case was originally filed, and ten months since 08.07.09 hearing, there were thousands of pages filed by Berg, so quite possibly Judge Robreno did not remember or did not notice, that Berg never filed Liberi’s identifying papers, so Judge Robreno issued an order to sever and transfer the case and noticed in his memorandum, that Liberi is a resident of PA, probably believing that Berg was telling the truth and at some point filed the documents, which of course was never done. At that point Taitz filed an appeal, as she knew, that no identifying documents were ever filed. On 09.04.10. Taitz filed a motion with Judge Robreno “Motion-request for missing documents”. Taitz was specifically asking for Liberi’s identifying documents. On 10.29.10 Judge Robreno issued an order “That all future motions need to be addressed to the Third Circuit”. Request for missing documents was denied without prejudice”. As such the transcript and the docket clearly show, that Berg and Liberi were supposed to supply Liberi’s correct address and identifying information and provide it to the court under seal, however they never did it. They defrauded the District Court and the Third Circuit court of Appeals. They wasted hours and hours of time of two courts, they inflicted enormous financial damage and enormous emotional distress, however, they knew full well, that they never provided any identifying information. They acted in an egregious manner, accusing numerous innocent individuals of multiple serious crimes, they caused an elderly individual Ed Hale to suffer a heart attack and they brought many others to the brink of a heart attack, yet they knew all along, that they are committing an egregious fraud. This is the reason, why the Defendants/Appellants are asking not only for a dismissal of the case, but also for severe sanctions against the plaintiffs and Attorney Berg. I. JUDGE ROBRENO’S FINDINGS WENT TO THE CORE OF THE CASE AND WERE IMPROPER TO BE MADE WITHOUT THE EVIDENCE As stated previously, the core of the case, is Liberi’s claim, that she is a different Liberi, not one convicted in CA, but one residing in PA. When Judge Robreno included in his 06.04.10 order and memorandum a
Exhibit "94" Pg. 711
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 Filed 05/20/11 Page 35 of 51 Page ID #:5218 statement, that “Lisa Liberi is a resident of Pennsylvania” he not only made a finding of jurisdiction, he made a finding essential to the case, as Liberi claims to be a different person. Defendants are entitled to see the evidence, based on which he made such a determination. J. APPELLANTS REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS PROPER AND SUPPORTED BY FACT AND LAW AND NECESSARY TO STOP EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT BY BERG AND THE PLAINTIFFS Case at hand is a $800 million legal action for Slander and Defamation of character, where Plaintiffs claimed that the defendants/appellants defamed Berg and his legal assistant Liberi by “false criminal accusations” (p77 Verified complaint Liberi v Taitz.) P66 of the complaint states, that “the defendants …”made false statements about Liberi, claiming she had a criminal record of convictions”. Appellees claimed that Liberi is a resident of PA, who was placed in false light. P75 of the complaint states “Plaintiffs and their businesses have invested considerable effort and expense in establishing goodwill in their names and in promoting their careers and professional reputation. Liberi in promoting her profession as a skillful and highly competent Legal Assistant and Paralegal. Beg in promoting his profession as skillful and highly competent provider as a prominent attorney with a professional staff and law firm”. They claimed that they were defamed by Taitz publication of the record of Liberi’s criminal convictions of forgery and theft in CA. Taitz rightfully demanded to see Liberi’s PA drivers’ license as a proof, that she is a different person. Berg filed a frivolous action for $800 million dollars to simply cover up for the fact, that he works with a convicted forger and thief. Taitz submits an article from “Legal Intellegencer’, 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. 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: “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 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
Exhibit "94" Pg. 712
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 Filed 05/20/11 Page 36 of 51 Page ID #:5219 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 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.” At the same time, in 2005-2006, when Liberi was incarcerated, she filed a 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-cv03015-VAP-SGL. In a similar modus operandi she accused multiple innocent individuals of committing crimes. Her legal action was dismissed. 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. This court has inherent powers to punish egregious misconduct by an attorney and Appellees. Dismissal of underlying legal action, sanctions, award of attorneys’ fees and costs to the Appellants are appropriate. Sanctions in the form of reporting Philip J Berg to the Disciplinary Board of the PA Supreme Court for sanctions or disbarment, as well as reporting of Lisa Liberi to the San Bernardino, CA probation department for revocation of her probation and her return to incarceration to serve her eight year prison term, will be appropriate in this case. CONCLUSION Appellees never provided any proof of Appellee Liberi’s PA state residency that they claim, that she had. The Court erred, and abused its judicial discretion in assuming jurisdiction over the case without any evidence of State Citizenship of Plaintiff Liberi. The Court also erred in refusing James Sundquist opposition-motion. Court erred in completely ignoring multiple letters from Defendant Belcher, where she stated, that she was not served with pleadings by the Plaintiffs. 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 lack of subject matter jurisdiction. DATED: November 21, 2010 __/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ_______ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ Appellant in Pro Se and as Counsel for Appellant Defend Our Freedoms Foundation ATTORNEY’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the: APPELLANTS REPLY was served by ECF and ELECTRONIC MAIL on November 22,, 2010, on the following parties:
Exhibit "94" Pg. 713
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5220 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 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
Filed 05/20/11 Page 37 of 51 Page ID
Exhibit "94" Pg. 714
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5221 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 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 San Bernardino County, CA Probation Department 175 w. Fifth str. 4th floor S. Bernardino, CA Public Integrity Section
Filed 05/20/11 Page 38 of 51 Page ID
Exhibit "94" Pg. 715
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5222 Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington DC 20530-0001
Filed 05/20/11 Page 39 of 51 Page ID
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 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 11.22.10 Category: Uncategorized
One Response to “Submitted yesterday in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals” 1. F.A. Leonetti November 23rd, 2010 @ 10:46 am Some may find this a bit off the wall, but I enjoy reading legal briefs, and quite frankly, this rates and
Exhibit "94" Pg. 716
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5223
Filed 05/20/11 Page 40 of 51 Page ID
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5224
Filed 05/20/11 Page 41 of 51 Page ID
Exhibit "95" Pg. 717
In spite of nearly 500 pages of horrific defamation of my character by Phil...
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=16425
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=16425 #:5225 VIDEOS Home
Filed 05/20/11 Page 42 of 51 Page ID
In spite of nearly 500 pages of horrific defamation of my character by Philip J. Berg, Lisa Liberi, her mother Dorothy Waddell and the rest of their accomplices, Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied their motion for restraining order against me. I am free to post this truthful information, showing that Lisa Liberi, assistant for attorney Philip J. Berg, is
Exhibit "95" Pg. 718
5/2/2011 2:11 AM
a convicted document forger and thief, who got 8 year prison term in CA in 2008, and who is currently on probation. The question remains: why is licensed attorney Berg continuously working with a convicted forger Liberi and submitting documents to multiple courts ans viciously attacking me and other innocent individuals?
Posted on | December 12, 2010 | 3 Comments
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5226
Filed 05/20/11 Page 43 of 51 Page ID
Exhibit "95" Pg. 719
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5227
Filed 05/20/11 Page 44 of 51 Page ID
Exhibit "95" Pg. 720
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5228 Case FWV028000 – Defendants Seq Defendant 1
Filed 05/20/11 Page 45 of 51 Page ID
Exhibit "95" Pg. 721
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5229 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 PC 487(A) F PC 470(D) F PC 472 F PC 115(A) F PC 487(A) F PC 470(D) F PC 472 F PC 115(A) F PC 487(A) F PC 487(A) F PC F 487(D)(1) PC 487(A) F PC F 487(D)(1) PC 487(A) F PC F 487(D)(1) PC 487(A) F PC 487(A) F
Filed 05/20/11 Page 46 of 51 Page ID
Exhibit "95" Pg. 722
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 Filed 05/20/11 Page 47 of 51 Page ID #:5230 MAKING, POSSESSING, UTTERING 7 PC 476 F 05/18/2001 DISMISSED FICTIOUS INSTRS 8 PC 470(D) F FORGERY 05/18/2001 DISMISSED 9 PC 472 F FORGE OFFICIAL SEAL 05/18/2001 GUILTY CONVICTED OFFER/ETC FALSE/FORGED 10 PC 115(A) F 05/18/2001 DISMISSED INSTRUMENT TO FILE GRAND THEFT: PROPERTY/ETC 11 PC 487(A) F 05/18/2001 GUILTY CONVICTED OVER $400 GRAND THEFT: PROPERTY/ETC 12 PC 487(A) F 05/18/2001 GUILTY CONVICTED OVER $400 PC GRAND THEFT: 13 F 05/18/2001 DISMISSED 487(D)(1) AUTOMOBILE/ANIMAL/ETC GRAND THEFT: PROPERTY/ETC 14 PC 487(A) F 05/18/2001 DISMISSED OVER $400 PC GRAND THEFT: 15 F 05/18/2001 DISMISSED 487(D)(1) AUTOMOBILE/ANIMAL/ETC GRAND THEFT: PROPERTY/ETC 16 PC 487(A) F 05/18/2001 DISMISSED OVER $400 PC GRAND THEFT: 17 F 05/18/2001 DISMISSED 487(D)(1) AUTOMOBILE/ANIMAL/ETC GRAND THEFT: PROPERTY/ETC 18 PC 487(A) F 05/18/2001 GUILTY CONVICTED OVER $400 GRAND THEFT: PROPERTY/ETC 19 PC 487(A) F 05/18/2001 GUILTY CONVICTED OVER $400 OFFER/ETC FALSE/FORGED 20 PC 115(A) F 05/18/2001 GUILTY CONVICTED INSTRUMENT TO FILE 21 PC 470(D) F FORGERY 05/18/2001 DISMISSED 22 PC 470(D) F FORGERY 05/18/2001 DISMISSED 23 PC 472 F FORGE OFFICIAL SEAL 05/18/2001 DISMISSED Case FWV028000 Defendant 1608112 LIBERI, LISA RENEE – Probation Probation Type: FORMAL Granted: 03/21/2008 Expire: 03/21/2011
Exhibit "95" Pg. 723
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 Filed 05/20/11 Page 48 of 51 Page ID #:5231 COOPERATE WITH THE PROBATION OFFICER IN A PLAN OF REHABILITATION AND 4) FOLLOW ALL REASONABLE DIRECTIVES OF THE PROBATION OFFICER. SEEK AND MAINTAIN GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT, OR ATTEND SCHOOL, AND KEEP THE 5) PROBATION OFFICER INFORMED OF STATUS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR SCHOOL. KEEP THE PROBATION OFFICER INFORMED OF PLACE OF RESIDENCE AND COHABITANTS AND GIVE WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE PROBATION OFFICER TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS PRIOR TO ANY CHANGES. PRIOR TO ANY MOVE PROVIDE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION TO THE POST OFFICE TO FORWARD MAIL TO THE NEW ADDRESS. PERMIT VISITS AND SEARCHES OF PLACES OF RESIDENCE BY AGENTS OF THE PROBATION DEPT. AND/OR LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT VISITS AND SEARCHES OF PLACES OF RESIDENCE BY AGENTS OF THE PROBATION DEPT. AND/OR LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT VISITS AND SEARCHES OF PLACES OF RESIDENCE BY AGENTS OF THE PROBATION DEPT. AND/OR LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH 6) THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PROBATION; NOT DO ANYTHING TO INTERFERE WITH THIS REQUIREMENT, OR DETER OFFICERS FROM FULFILLING THIS REQUIREMENT, SUCH AS THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PROBATION; NOT DO ANYTHING TO INTERFERE WITH THIS REQUIREMENT, OR DETER OFFICERS FROM FULFILLING THIS REQUIREMENT, SUCH AS ERECTING ANY LOCKED FENCES/GATES THAT WOULD DENY ACCESS TO PROBATION OFFICERS, OR HAVE ANY ANIMALS ON THE PREMISES THAT WOULD REASONABLY DETER, ERECTING ANY LOCKED FENCES/GATES THAT WOULD DENY ACCESS TO PROBATION OFFICERS, OR HAVE ANY ANIMALS ON THE PREMISES THAT WOULD REASONABLY DETER, THREAT THREATEN THE SAFETY OF, OR INTERFERE WITH, OFFICERS ENFORCING THIS TERM. EN THE SAFETY OF, OR INTERFERE WITH, OFFICERS ENFORCING THIS TERM. NEITHER POSSESS NOR HAVE UNDER YOUR CONTROL ANY DANGEROUS OR DEADLY 7) WEAPONS OR EXPLOSIVE DEVICES OR MATERIALS TO MAKE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES. SUBMIT TO A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF YOUR PERSON, RESIDENCE AND/OR PROPERTY UNDER YOUR CONTROL AT ANY TIME OF THE DAY OR NIGHT BY ANY LAW-ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITH OR WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT, AND WITH OR WITHOUT CAUSE (PEOPLE -V- BRAVO). NEITHER USE NOR POSSESS ANY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITHOUT MEDICAL 9) PRESCRIPTION. A PHYSICIANS’S WRITTEN NOTICE IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE PROBATION OFFICER. SUBMIT TO A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TEST AT DIRECTION OF PROBATION 10) OFFICER. EACH TEST IS SUBJECT TO AN $11.00 FEE, TO BE COLLECTED BY CENTRAL COLLECTIONS 11) NOT POSSESS ANY TYPE OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA, AS DEFINED IN H&S11364.5(D) PARTICIPATE IN A COUNSELING PROGRAM AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER, SUBMIT MONTHLY PROOF OF ATTENDANCE AND/OR SUCCESSFUL 12) COMPLETION TO THE PROBATION OFFICER AS DIRECTED AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF ALL PROGRAM FEE(S). NOT ASSOCIATE WITH KNOWN CONVICTED FELONS OR ANYONE ACTIVELY 13) ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY B-OR CODEFENDANT(S) OR VICTIM(S). NOT ASSOCIATE WITH KNOWN ILLEGAL USERS OR SELLERS OF CONTROLLED 14) SUBSTANCES, NOT MAINTAIN A CHECKING ACCOUNT OR COMPLETE OR ENDORSE ANY CHECKS 15) UNLESS MADE PAYABLE TO YOU AND NOT HAVE ANY BLANK CHECKS IN YOUR POSSESSION WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PROBATION OFFICER.
Exhibit "95" Pg. 724
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 Filed 05/20/11 Page 49 of 51 Page ID #:5232 SUBMIT A RECORD OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURES TO THE PROBATION OFFICER 16) QUARTERLY. NEITHER POSSESS NOR USE ANY CREDIT CARD WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE 17) PROBATION OFFICER. NOT DRIVE OR POSSESS KEYS OR DOCUMENTATION TO ANY MOTOR VEHICLE 18) UNLESS LEGALLY REGISTERED TO YOU OR AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER, EXCEPT IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT. REPORT ALL MOTOR VEHICLES REGISTERED TO YOU TO THE PROBATION OFFICER 19) WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS OF ACQUISITION. SUBMIT TO AND COOPERATE IN A FIELD INTERROGATION BY ANY PEACE OFFICER 20) AT ANY TIME OF THE DAY OR NIGHT. CARRY AT ALL TIMES A VALID DRIVERS LICENSE OR DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES IDENTIFICATION CARD AND DISPLAY SUCH IDENTIFICATION UPON 21) REQUEST BY ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE PO. CONTAINING YOUR TRUE NAME AGE AND CURRENT ADDRESS ENROLL IN THE DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAM AT THE DIRECTION OF THE 22) PROBATION OFFICER, AND SHOW PROOF OF ENROLLMENT TO THE PROBATION OFFICER WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS. MAKE RESTITUTION TO THE VICTIM(S) (SEE PROBATION REPORT) IN THE AMOUNT 23) OF $9223.77 PLUS A 10% ADMINISTRATIVE FEE, TO BE PAID THROUGH CENTRAL COLLECTIONS MAKE RESTITUTION TO THE VICTIM (SEE PROBATION REPORT) IN THE AM OUNT OF 24) $35000.00 PLUS A 10% ADMINISTRATIVE FEE, TO BEPAID THROUGH CENTRAL COLLECTIONS MAKE RESTITUTION TO THE VICTIM (SEE PROBATION REPORT) IN THE AMO UNT OF 25) $66951.08 PLUS A 10% ADMINISTRATIVE FEE, TO BE PAID THROUGH CENTRAL COLLECTIONS PAY A RESTITUTION FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF $200.00, PLUS A TEN PERCENT (10%) 26) ADMINISTRATIVE FEE THROUGH CENTRAL COLLECTIONS. THE DEFENDANT IS NOT TO FILE ANY LAWSUIT/LEGAL ACTION WITHOUT PRIOR 27) CONTACT WITH PROBATION OFFICER. DO NOT APPLY FOR CREDIT OR A LOAN WITHOUT PRIOR CONTACT WITH 28) PROBATION OFFICER. 29) COMPLY WITH ANY COURT-ORDERED PAYMENT SCHEDULE. MAKE RESTITUTION TO VICTIM (SEE PROBATION REPORT) IN AN AMOUNT TO BE 30) DETERMINED BY PROBATION. MAKE RESTITUTION TO VICTIM (SEE PROBATION REPORT) IN AN AMOUNT TO BE 31) DETERMINED BY PROBATION. PROBATION MAY BE SERVED THROUGH INTER STATE COMPACT AGREEMENT IN THE 32) STATE OF NEW MEXICO UPON APPROVAL FROM PROBATION.
Exhibit "95" Pg. 725
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5233
Filed 05/20/11 Page 50 of 51 Page ID
Exhibit "95" Pg. 726
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 190-18 #:5234 Category: HOT ITEMS!, Latest News, Legal Actions
Filed 05/20/11 Page 51 of 51 Page ID
3 Responses to “In spite of nearly 500 pages of horrific defamation of my character by Philip J. Berg, Lisa Liberi, her mother Dorothy Waddell and the rest of their accomplices, Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied their motion for restraining order against me. I am free to post this truthful information, showing that Lisa Liberi, assistant for attorney Philip J. Berg, is a convicted document forger and thief, who got 8 year prison term in CA in 2008, and who is currently on probation. The question remains: why is licensed attorney Berg continuously working with a convicted forger Liberi and submitting documents to multiple courts ans viciously attacking me and other innocent individuals?” 1. dr_taitz@yahoo.com December 12th, 2010 @ 2:22 pm no, within an hour they cancelled the remand and mandate. There is only denial of their motion 2. Politijabber December 12th, 2010 @ 4:53 pm You think publishing this is without legal consequence? 3. dr_taitz@yahoo.com December 13th, 2010 @ 9:15 am the only legal consequence is disbarrment of Philip J. Berg for fraud on the court and perjury and filing this legal action for the purpose of harassment of me
For now the strategy worked for Obama: when you google him, you get the announcement first, then obamacare, then birth certificate I just did a TV interview. When it is available, I will post it Is Obama wagging the dog today before he is going down tomorrow??? from supporter Chantal
Exhibit "95" Pg. 727
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulLIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 190.18 - Plaintiffs Exhibits 91-95 to Amended Complaint.190.18 by Jack Ryan0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescription18 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "91" thru "95"18 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "91" thru "95"Interests: Types, Research, LawRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedApril 26by Jon CampbellXenia Green v. Robert Abrams, Attorney General of the State of New York, N.Y. County District Attorney's Office, Commissioner of Corrections, County of New York, 984 F.2d 41, 2d Cir. (1993)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Souser, 405 F.3d 1162, 10th Cir. (2005)by Scribd Government DocsUK Home Office: PC89%202005by Home OfficeUnited States v. Parris, 4th Cir. (1997)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Lightner, 4th Cir. (2008)by Scribd Government DocsCuyo vs People of the Philippines
by skimeinto4668State v. Duran, Ariz. Ct. App. (2016)by Scribd Government Docs(GR) Icao v Apalisok (1989)_pdf-notes_flattened_201408092114.pdfby Reinerr NuestroCalhoun v. Colorado Attorney General, 10th Cir. (2014)by Scribd Government DocsJob Description Administrative Assistant 4-30-24by Matthew Mac IsaacHR Policyby Answaf AnsuJudicial Remediesby Ai Ai HarderProbation Under Criminal Lawby Akash MeenaCrim Digestsby Rock StoneEL BANCO POPULAR & Cv WILCOX, 255 U.S. 72 (1921)by Scribd Government DocsCustomary IL to Hard Soft Laws Casesby Anonymous 96BXHnSziWilliam David Bromwell, Personal Representative of the Estate of Elizabeth Naomi Bromwell, Deceased John Darrow, Sr., Personal Representative of the Estate of John Darrow, Jr., Deceased and Ormand Keith Adams and Mitchell J. Cornwell, Personal Representatives of the Estate of Brian Kent Adams, Deceased and Pete L. Wurm v. Michigan Mutual Insurance Company and Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Company, 115 F.3d 208, 3rd Cir. (1997)by Scribd Government DocsUK Home Office: Cumbriaby Home OfficeMansell v. United States, 4th Cir. (1996)by Scribd Government DocsNorth v. Peters, 138 U.S. 271 (1891)by Scribd Government DocsHR casesby Left Hook Olek3-Bicerra vs. Tenezaby Reg Versozaimportant case lawsby Antyoday IndiaSwierzbinski v. Holder, 10th Cir. (2011)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Cale, 10th Cir. (1997)by Scribd Government DocsSpecial Proceeding Cases.pdfby Nor LitsJalosjos vs. Comelecby Manang Ven TioSimilar To LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 190.18 - Plaintiffs Exhibits 91-95 to Amended Complaint.190.18Skip carouselApril 26Xenia Green v. Robert Abrams, Attorney General of the State of New York, N.Y. County District Attorney's Office, Commissioner of Corrections, County of New York, 984 F.2d 41, 2d Cir. (1993)United States v. Souser, 405 F.3d 1162, 10th Cir. (2005)UK Home OfficeUnited States v. Parris, 4th Cir. (1997)United States v. Lightner, 4th Cir. (2008)Cuyo vs People of the Philippines
State v. Duran, Ariz. Ct. App. (2016)(GR) Icao v Apalisok (1989)_pdf-notes_flattened_201408092114.pdfCalhoun v. Colorado Attorney General, 10th Cir. (2014)Job Description Administrative Assistant 4-30-24HR PolicyJudicial RemediesProbation Under Criminal LawCrim DigestsEL BANCO POPULAR & Cv WILCOX, 255 U.S. 72 (1921)Customary IL to Hard Soft Laws CasesWilliam David Bromwell, Personal Representative of the Estate of Elizabeth Naomi Bromwell, Deceased John Darrow, Sr., Personal Representative of the Estate of John Darrow, Jr., Deceased and Ormand Keith Adams and Mitchell J. Cornwell, Personal Representatives of the Estate of Brian Kent Adams, Deceased and Pete L. Wurm v. Michigan Mutual Insurance Company and Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Company, 115 F.3d 208, 3rd Cir. (1997)UK Home OfficeMansell v. United States, 4th Cir. (1996)North v. Peters, 138 U.S. 271 (1891)HR cases3-Bicerra vs. Tenezaimportant case lawsSwierzbinski v. Holder, 10th Cir. (2011)United States v. Cale, 10th Cir. (1997)Special Proceeding Cases.pdfJalosjos vs. ComelecUnited States v. Wayland White, Jr., 344 F.2d 92, 4th Cir. (1965)193190LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 190.18 - Plaintiffs Exhibits 91-95 to Amended Complaint.190.18