Post on 08-Apr-2018
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
1/37
Liberi_Response_Opp_Taitz_Termin_Berg_04_08_11 -2.
1
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Philip J. Berg, Esquire (PA I.D. 9867)E-mail: philjberg@gmail.comLAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659Attorney in pro se and for Plaintiffs
Lisa Ostella, and Go Excel Globalc/o Philip J. Berg, EsquireE-mail: philjberg@gmail.com555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659
Plaintiffs in pro se pending Mr. Bergs Pro Hac Vice
Lisa Liberic/o Philip J. Berg, EsquireE-mail: philjberg@gmail.com555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659Plaintiff in pro se pending Mr. Bergs Pro Hac Vice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
SOUTHERN DIVISIONLISA LIBERI, et al,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ORLY TAITZ, et al,
Defendants.
:::::::::::::::::
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:
8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW)
PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE INOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS
MOTION REQUEST TOTERMINATE PHILIP J. BERG,ESQUIRE AS AN ATTORNY ONTHE CASE
Date of Hearing: May 9, 2011Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m.Location: Courtroom 10D
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 173 Filed 04/10/11 Page 1 of 4 Page ID#:4020
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
2/37
Liberi_Response_Opp_Taitz_Termin_Berg_04_08_11 -2.
2
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTSORLY TAITZ and DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC.MOTION REQUEST TO TERMINATE PHILIP J. BERG, ESQ. AS AN
ATTORNEY ON THE CASE
COMES NOW Plaintiffs, Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter at times
Berg]; Lisa Ostella [hereinafter at times Ostella]; Lisa Liberi [hereinafter at
times Liberi]; Law Offices of Philip J. Berg; and Go Excel Global and files the
within Response in Opposition; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; and
Declarations in Opposition to Defendants, Orly Taitz [hereinafter at times Taitz]
and Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. [hereinafter at times DOFF]
improper Motion to Terminate Berg as Counsel on the Case. In support hereof,
Plaintiffs aver the following:
1. Taitz failed to sign her Motion and therefore, it must be stricken, seeFederal Rules of Civil Procedure ( Fed. R. Civ. P .) 11(a) and thisCourts Local Rule ( L.R.) 11-1;
2. Taitz includes a statement called Affidavit; however, it is notnotarized or signed under the Penalty of Perjury and therefore, mustnot be considered. As a result, Taitzs Motion is not in compliancewith this Courts L.R. 7-6 and therefore must be denied, L.R. 7-12;
3. Taitz and DOFF fail to cite to any facts to support their request or contention for said Motion in violation of the Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1);
4. Taitz and DOFF have failed to comply with the this Court L.R. 7-3and meet and confer with the opposing parties ten (10) days prior tothe filing of their Motion;
5. Taitz also failed to comply with the Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 and this CourtsL.R. 11-3.8(c) in failing to place the Courts caption on her Motion;
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 173 Filed 04/10/11 Page 2 of 4 Page ID#:4021
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
3/37
Liberi_Response_Opp_Taitz_Termin_Berg_04_08_11 -2.
3
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and failing to number her paragraphs; Taitz also failed to comply withthis Courts L.R. 11-3.8(a), by failing to include her California StateBar Number and email address;
6. Attorney Philip J. Berg, Esq. is not only a Plaintiff in the withinaction, he has yet to file his Application for Pro Hac Vice statusregarding the other Plaintiffs. Thus, Taitz and DOFF Motion iscompletely improper;
7. Taitz and DOFF have failed to cite one case; or legal authority whichwould give this Court the authority to grant their request, much less tosupport their request; and
8. Berg should be admitted Pro Hac Vice as he meets all the criteria
required, has been litigating the case since May 4, 2009, is familiar with the case, and readily available and willing to represent thePlaintiffs, once he applies for Pro Hac Vice admission.
For the reasons stated herein, Defendants Taitz and DOFF Motion to
Terminate Philip J. Berg, Esquire as an attorney on this case must be Denied.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: April 10, 2011 /s/ Philip J. BergPhilip J. Berg, EsquirePennsylvania I.D. 9867LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Telephone: (610) 825-3134E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com
Attorney in Pro Se and Counsel for theother Plaintiffs pending Pro Hac Viceadmission
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 173 Filed 04/10/11 Page 3 of 4 Page ID#:4022
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
4/37
Liberi_Response_Opp_Taitz_Termin_Berg_04_08_11 -2.
4
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: April 10, 2011 /s/ Lisa OstellaLISA OSTELLA; andGO EXCEL GLOBALc/o Philip J. Berg, EsquireLAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Plaintiffs in pro se pending Mr. Bergsadmission Pro Hac Vice
Dated: April 10, 2011 /s/ Lisa Liberi
LISA LIBERIc/o Philip J. Berg, EsquireLAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Plaintiff in pro se pending Mr. Bergsadmission Pro Hac Vice
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 173 Filed 04/10/11 Page 4 of 4 Page ID#:4023
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
5/37
1
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LISA LIBERI, et al
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ORLY TAITZ, et al,
Defendants.
:::::::::::::::::
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:
8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW)
PROPOSED ORDER DENYINGDEFENDANTS MOTION TOTERMINATE PHILIP J. BERG,ESQ. AS AN ATTORNEY ON THECASE
Date of Hearing: May 09, 2011Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m.Location: Courtroom 10D
ORDER
On May 9, 2011, Defendants Motion Request to Terminate Philip J. Berg,
Esquire as an Attorney on the case came on for hearing. The Court having
reviewed and considered the moving papers, the Plaintiffs Opposition thereto, the
records on file with this Court, having heard Oral Argument and for GOOD
CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and DECREED:
Defendants, Orly Taitz and Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Motion
is hereby DENIED .
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 173-1 Filed 04/10/11 Page 1 of 2 Page ID#:4024
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
6/37
2
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: May ___, 2011 ______________________________ Judge of the United States DistrictCourt, Central District of California,Southern Division
Respectfully submitted by:
Philip J. Berg, EsquireE-mail: philjberg@gmail.comPennsylvania I.D. 9867LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Telephone: (610) 825-3134
Lisa Ostella; andGo Excel GlobalE-mail: philjberg@gmail.comc/o Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Lisa LiberiE-mail: philjberg@gmail.comc/o Philip J. Berg, Esquire555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 173-1 Filed 04/10/11 Page 2 of 2 Page ID#:4025
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
7/37
Liberi, et al Response & Memorandum Cert of Svc. 04/09/2011 1
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Philip J. Berg, Esquire (PA I.D. 9867)E-mail: philjberg@gmail.comLAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659Attorney in pro se and for Plaintiffs
Lisa Ostella, and Go Excel Globalc/o Philip J. Berg, EsquireE-mail: philjberg@gmail.com555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659
Plaintiffs in pro se pending Mr. Bergs Pro Hac Vice
Lisa Liberic/o Philip J. Berg, EsquireE-mail: philjberg@gmail.com555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659Plaintiff in pro se pending Mr. Bergs Pro Hac Vice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LISA LIBERI, et al
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ORLY TAITZ, et al,
Defendants.
:::::::::::::::
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:
8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW)
PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 173-2 Filed 04/10/11 Page 1 of 2 Page ID#:4026
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
8/37
Liberi, et al Response & Memorandum Cert of Svc. 04/09/2011 2
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs
Response in Opposition to Defendants Orly Taitz and Defend our Freedoms Foundations,
Inc. Motion to Terminate Philip J. Berg, Esq. as Counsel on the within Case was served
through the ECF filing system and/or mail as indicated below, this 10 th day of April 2011
upon the following:
Orly Taitz26302 La Paz Ste 211
Mission Viejo, CA 92691Ph: (949) 683-5411
Fax: (949) 586-2082Email: orly.taitz@gmail.com and
Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.comServed via the ECF Filing System
Attorney in pro se and for Defendant Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc .
The Sankey Firm, Inc.2470 Stearns Street #162Simi Valley, CA 93063
By USPS Mail with Postage fully prepaid
Neil SankeyP.O. Box 8298
Mission Hills, CA 91346By USPS Mail with Postage fully prepaid
Sankey Investigations, Inc.
P.O. Box 8298Mission Hills, CA 91346
By USPS Mail with Postage fully prepaid
_______________________Philip J. Berg, Esquire
/s/ Philip J. Berg
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 173-2 Filed 04/10/11 Page 2 of 2 Page ID#:4027
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
9/37
Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 1
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Philip J. Berg, Esquire (PA I.D. 9867)E-mail: philjberg@gmail.comLAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659Attorney in pro se and for Plaintiffs
Lisa Ostella, and Go Excel Globalc/o Philip J. Berg, EsquireE-mail: philjberg@gmail.com555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659
Plaintiffs in pro se pending Mr. Bergs Pro Hac Vice
Lisa Liberic/o Philip J. Berg, EsquireE-mail: philjberg@gmail.com555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659Plaintiff in pro se pending Mr. Bergs Pro Hac Vice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
SOUTHERN DIVISIONLISA LIBERI, et al,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ORLY TAITZ, et al,
Defendants.
::::::::::::::::
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:
8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW)
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM INSUPPORT OF THEIR IN
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTSMOTION TO TERMINATE PHILIPJ. BERG, ESQUIRE AS ANATTORNY ON THE CASE
Date of Hearing: May 9, 2011Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m.Location: Courtroom 10D
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 1 of 18 Page ID#:4028
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
10/37
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
TABLE OF CONTENTS...i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....ii-iii
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.1-14
II. TAITZ AND DOFFs MOTION/REQUEST DOES NOT
COMPLY WITH THE FED. R. CIV. PROC. OR THISCOURTS L.R.s..6-9
III. DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ADDRESS ANY REASONBERG SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE,
CONCLUSION..14
DEFENDANTS MOTION MUST BE DENIED...9-14
I. FACTS..............2-6
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 2 of 18 Page ID#:4029
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
11/37
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES Page(s)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S. Ct. 1937,173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)...4
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544,127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)....4
Sullivan v. Louisiana , 508 U.S. 275 (1993).13
United States v. Garrett , 179 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 1999).....12
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez , 548 U.S. 140,126 S. Ct. 2557, 165 L. Ed. 2d 409 (2006)11, 13
United States v. Panzardi-Alvarez , 816 F.2d 813 (1st Cir. 1987)...12
United States v. Walters , 309 F.3d 589, 592-93 (9th Cir. 2002)...................12, 13
FEDERAL STATUTES Page(s)
28 U.S.C. 17467
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Page(s)
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11..9
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12..3, 4
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U. S. 279 (1991)...13
United States v. Lillie , 989 F.2d 1054 (9th Cir. 1993)....12
Panzardi-Alvarez v. United States , 879 F.2d 975 (1st Cir. 1989)....12
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7....8
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10...8
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 3 of 18 Page ID#:4030
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
12/37
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued
LOCAL RULES Page(s)
Local Rule 7-3...6
Local Rule 7-6...8
Local Rule 7-12.8
Local Rule 11.1..9
Local Rule 11.3-8..8
Local Rule 11-9.9
Local Rule 83-2.3.2.11
Local Rule 83-7 ....9
Local Rule 83-2.3.1.11
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 4 of 18 Page ID#:4031
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
13/37
Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 2
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. FACTS:
1. On May 4, 2009, Plaintiffs, Philip J. Berg, Esq., [hereinafter at times
Berg] Lisa Ostella [hereinafter at times Ostella] Lisa Liberi [hereinafter at
times Liberi], The Law Offices of Philip J. Berg, and Go Excel Global filed suit
against Defendants Orly Taitz [hereinafter at times Taitz], Defend our Freedoms
Foundations, Inc. [hereinafter at times DOFF]; Neil Sankey [hereinafter at times
Sankey]; Sankey Investigations, Inc; and The Sankey Firm, Inc. 1 for amongst
other things: Invasion of Privacy; Intrusion of Plaintiffs solitude and seclusion;
placing Plaintiffs in a false light before the public; Appropriation of Plaintiffs
name, picture and alike; Cyber-stalking; Stalking; Cyber-bullying; Harassment;
Filing of false criminal reports; Defamation, Slander, Libel and violation of Cal.
Civ. P . 1798, et seq. for the illegal background checks, including but not limited to
primary identification documents, insurance, medical, sealed Court case
information, illegal access to Plaintiffs credit reports, cyber-stalking, stalking
Plaintiffs Ostella and Liberi, contacting and harassing individuals Plaintiffs have
known; and for the illegal distribution of Liberis full Social Security number, date
of birth, mothers maiden name, place of birth, spouses name, spouses Social
1 The Sankey Firm, Inc. is in default. Default was entered against them in June 2009, the defaultwas set-aside to allow this Defendant to Answer the Complaint; however, to date they havefailed to Answer the Complaint and Enter their Appearance.
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 5 of 18 Page ID#:4032
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
14/37
Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 3
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Security number, spouses date of birth and other extremely private information, 2 as
well as private data pertaining to Ostella. Said suit was originally filed in the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania and recently transferred to this
Court.
2. As this Court can see from the Docket, Defendant Taitz on behalf of
herself and DOFF have continued filing documents which falsifies what this case
is about; why this case was filed; and many falsified stories and accusations against
the Plaintiffs. Taitz is under the impression the Court will not read and catch her
in her dishonest tactics, due to the barrage of paper, which unfortunately Taitz has
been successful with up until this date. These actions of Taitzs have caused an
avalanche of paper as Plaintiffs have been forced to respond and reiterate what this
case actually represents. The further barrage of paper is due to Taitzs continued
publications on her website, through postal mail, statements in radio appearances,
and posting all over the Internet, giving false interpretations of this case, falsely
accusing the Plaintiffs (the victims) of what she is actually doing, and her
continued cyber-stalking, cyber-bullying and stalking of the Plaintiffs.
3. Defendant Taitz has also filed approximately six (6) Motions, if not
more, to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, all of which were denied, as
documented by the Courts docket. Also, as this Court is aware, a party is only
2 Since Plaintiffs Complaint is drafted pursuant to PA laws, Plaintiffs will be seeking leave to
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 6 of 18 Page ID#:4033
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
15/37
Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 4
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
entitled to file a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P . 12 on one occasion
and anything not raised in the initial Motion is deemed waived; thus Taitzs
Motions were incompliant with the Fed. R. Civ. P.s . Taitz asserted the Ashcroft v.
Iqbal , 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) cases as a
basis for dismissal, however, the Pennsylvania Federal Court found Plaintiffs
Complaint compliant with the pleading requirements outlined in Iqbal and
Twombly and Denied Taitzs Motions to Dismiss.
4. Taitz has done everything in her power, and been successful in her
attempts, to prejudice the Plaintiffs and delay the proceedings in the within case,
including the transfer of this case to this Court, by her improper appeal, which
delayed the transfer for approximately nine (9) months. All the meanwhile, Taitz
has continued her illegal tactics which gave rise to this case, further damaging and
harming the Plaintiffs.
5. Taitz has now filed, on behalf of herself and DOFF, an improper
Motion to Terminate Mr. Berg from being Counsel in the within case. Taitz
Motion fails to adhere to the Fed. R. of Civ. P. , and this Courts L.R.s . Not to
mention the fact, it is completely improper as there is not even a pending Motion
for Pro Hac Vice admission at this time. Moreover, Berg is also a Plaintiff in the
properly amend their Complaint to bring the Complaint within the standards of California law.
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 7 of 18 Page ID#:4034
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
16/37
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
17/37
Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 6
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Attorney up to speed, and further delay proceedings. Further, it would be far more
expensive for the Plaintiffs, without Counsel of record who knows the case, its
history, and who is more than capable of arguing the matter on behalf of Ostella
and Liberi.
8. For the reasons stated herein, Taitz Motion/Request must be Denied.
II. TAITZ and DOFFs MOTION/REQUEST FAILS TO COMPLYwith the FED. R. CIV. P. and THIS COURTS L.Rs.
9. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
herein.
10. Taitz and DOFFs Motion/Request fails to comply with the Fed. R .of
Civ. Proc. and/or this Courts L.R.s .
11. As this Court is aware of, prior to the filing of any Motion, the party
filing the Motion must meet and confer with the opposing parties and/or their
Counsel within the required ten (10) day period prior to the filing of their Motion,
see this Courts L.R. 7-3. As a result of Taitzs failure to follow the rules and
meet and confer with opposing counsel, Taitz was unable to comply with the
section of this Courts L.R. 7-3 which required the following brief statement, This
motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3 which
took place on (date). See this Courts L.R. 7-3.
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 9 of 18 Page ID#:4036
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
18/37
Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 7
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12. Prior to the filing of their Motion, Taitz and DOFF were required to
meet and confer with the Plaintiffs and/or their counsel, which Taitz and DOFF
failed to comply with.
13. Furthermore, this Courts L.R. 7-6 provides that factual contentions
involved in any motion . . . shall be presented, heard, and determined upon
declarations and other written evidence alone. In Taitz and DOFFs Motion,
Taitz includes what she entitles an Affidavit. As this Court is aware, Affidavits
are notarized documents with a seal and are made under the Penalty of Perjury.
Taitz statement in her Motion does not even qualify as an unsworn Declaration
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746:
28 U.S.C. 1746 states in particular part:
Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule,
regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter isrequired or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved
by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or
affidavit, in writing of the person making the samesuch matter may,
with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or
proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement,
in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under
penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:
(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or
commonwealths: I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 10 of 18 Page ID#:4037
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
19/37
Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 8
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).
(Signature).
14. Taitzs Affidavit is not notarized, is not signed under the penalty of
perjury and therefore must not be considered. Thus, Taitz has failed to comply
with this Courts L.R. 7-6 and the Court must Deny Taitz and DOFFs Motion or
consider Taitz failure to comply with this Courts Local Rules as consent to deny
the Motion, see this Courts L.R. 7-12.
15. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1) states, A request for a court order must be
made by motion. The motion must: (A) be in writing unless made during a hearing
or trial; (B) state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order ; and (C)
state the relief sought. [emphasis added] Taitz failed to cite any grounds for her
Motion/Request to have Berg Terminated as Counsel.
16. Taitz also failed to put her California Bar number and email address
on her title page of her Motion, in violation of this Courts L.R. 11-3.8(a) and the
Title of the Court in violation of this Courts L.R. 11-3.8(c).
17. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 states in pertinent part, (a) Caption; Names of
Parties. Every pleading must have a caption with the court's name This Rule
further states. A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs,
each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances, see Fed. R. Civ.
Proc . 10(b). Taitzs and DOFF failed to put the Courts Caption on their
Motion/Request and failed to number each of their paragraphs.
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 11 of 18 Page ID#:4038
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
20/37
Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 9
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18. More importantly, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 states: Signing Pleadings,
Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions (a) Signature.
Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one
attorney of record in the attorney's name or by a party personally if the party is
unrepresented. The paper must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and
telephone numberThe court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is
promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention. As can
be seen by Taitzs filing, Taitz failed to sign the Motion, and therefore, it must be
stricken. See also this Courts L.R. 11-1. Failure to abide by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and
this Courts L.R. 11 grants this Court the power to sanction the attorney. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3) and this Courts L.R.s 11-9 and 83-7.
19. For the reasons stated herein, Defendants, Orly Taitz and Defend our
Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Motion to Terminate Philip J. Berg, Esq. must be
Denied.
III. DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ADDRESS ANY REASON BERG
SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE
DEFENDANTS MOTION MUST BE DENIED
20. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
herein.
21. In Violation of the Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1), Taitz and DOFF only assert
the statute and what the basis and/or requirements for the granting of an Attorneys
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 12 of 18 Page ID#:4039
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
21/37
Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 10
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Pro Hac Vice application is. Taitz and DOFF fail to assert why Berg should not be
admitted Pro Hac Vice , or how Berg fails to meet the requirement of the statute.
The reason is Taitz could not state any facts that show Berg fails to meet the
requirements to be entered Pro Hac Vice . Berg is a Pennsylvania Attorney in
Good Standing, he has properly litigated the within case, he has been honest with
his statements and litigation, contrary to Attorney Orly Taitz 3.
22. Berg has not even filed an Application for the admission Pro Hac
Vice as of this date, as soon as he does, Taitz will bring yet another Motion,
Request, and/or Opposition to said Motion and further dump a barrage of paper on
this Court.
23. However, to address the issues now, instead a second time when
Taitzs refiles her Motion(s), Plaintiffs are entitled to Counsel of their choosing.
Berg meets the statutes requirements to be granted Pro Hac Vice admission and he
is ready and willing to proceed with his representation of the Plaintiffs here in
California, just as he has shown, he was more than proficient in the litigation and
representation of the Plaintiffs in Pennsylvania.
3 Taitz has a continued history in this case of misstating the facts, filings, contents thereof andeven the Courts rulings, which is proven by the Courts docket and all Taitzs own filings thatcontinually contradict themselves. Taitz seems to believe that the Court will not read anything,allowing her to get away with her fraudulent, frivolous and improper tactics. To date, Taitz hasbeen successful with these improper tactics due to the avalanche of paper on file, which againwas caused by Taitzs continued filings. However, should the Court read the documents filed,the Court will see Taitzs dishonest tactics, statements, and false allegations.
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 13 of 18 Page ID#:4040
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
22/37
Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 11
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24. The Central District requires any person "who is a member of good
standing of, and eligible to practice before, the bar of any United States Court, or
of the highest court of any State . . . and who has been retained to appear before
this Court, may, upon written application and in the discretion of the Court, be
permitted to appear and participate Pro Hac Vice in a particular case." See this
Courts L. R. 83-2.3.1. Here, there is no question: Berg is in Good Standing with
the U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA; U.S. District Court, Eastern District
of PA; the PA Supreme Court; and the U.S. Supreme Court. Furthermore, Berg is
familiar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Courts Local Rules, as
required.
25. The Central District has noted situations which disqualify otherwise
qualified attorneys from Pro Hac Vice admission, such as when an attorney, "(a)
Resides in California; or (b) Is regularly employed in California; or (c) Is regularly
engaged in business, professional, or other similar activities in California." See this
Courts L. R. 83-2.3.2, none of which apply to Berg.
26. In United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez , 548 U.S. 140, 141, 126 S. Ct.
2557, 165 L. Ed. 2d 409 (2006) the Supreme Court accepted the government's
concession that a trial court wrongfully denied a Defendant the right to counsel of
choice where the court refused to grant Pro Hac Vice admission to an attorney the
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 14 of 18 Page ID#:4041
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
23/37
Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 12
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant hired who was willing and prepared to begin representation
immediately. 126 S. Ct. at 2560-61.
27. An individuals right to the counsel of his choice includes the right to
have an out-of-state lawyer admitted Pro Hac Vice." United States v. Lillie , 989
F.2d 1054, 1056 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by
United States v. Garrett , 179 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 1999). "[A] decision denying a
Pro Hac Vice admission necessarily implicates constitutional concerns." Panzardi-
Alvarez v. United States , 879 F.2d 975, 980 (1st Cir. 1989) (citation omitted).
28. The mere fact that a party to the action seeks to retain an out-of-state
attorney does not hinder the efficacious administration of justice. His choice of
counsel must be respected unless it would unreasonably delay proceedings or
burden the court with counsel who was incompetent or unwilling to abide by court
rules and ethical guidelines. United States v. Walters , 309 F.3d 589, 592-93 (9 th
Cir. 2002) quoting United States v. Panzardi-Alvarez , 816 F.2d 813, 817-818 (1st
Cir. 1987).
29. The Ninth Circuit has held applying a local rule mechanistically,
without discussion of whether the interest of the "fair, efficient and orderly
administration of justice" required denial of the application. When a District
Court does not find that permitting an out-of-state Attorney to appear would hinder
or delay the proceedings. or, the failure of the court to interpret the rule as denying
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 15 of 18 Page ID#:4042
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
24/37
Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 13
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
him the discretion to consider whether legitimate reasons existed for denial of the
application. The Ninth Circuit has stated that such discretion is implicit in the
introductory phrase, "Unless authorized by the Constitution or acts of Congress."
United States v. Walters , 309 F.3d 589, 592-93 (9 th Cir. 2002).
30. As pointed out in United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez , 548 U.S. 140,
141, 126 S. Ct. 2557, 165 L. Ed. 2d 409 (2006) Erroneous deprivation of the right
to counsel of choice, "with consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and
indeterminate, unquestionably qualifies as 'structural error.'" Sullivan v.
Louisiana, 508 U. S. 275, 282 (1993). It "def[ies] analysis by 'harmless error'
standards" because it "affec[ts] the framework within which the trial proceeds" and
is not "simply an error in the trial process itself." Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U. S.
279, 309-310 (1991). Different attorneys will pursue different strategies with
regard to myriad trial matters, and the choice of attorney will affect whether and on
what terms the defendantdecides to go to trial. It is impossible to know what
different choices the rejected counsel would have made, and then to quantify the
impact of those different choices on the outcome of the proceedings. This inquiry
is not comparable to that required to show that a counsel's deficient performance
prejudiced a defendant. Pp. 8-11 .
31. In the instant case, Berg has been litigating the within case for the past
two (2) years, since May 4, 2009 . Once Berg files his application for Pro Hac
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 16 of 18 Page ID#:4043
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
25/37
Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 14
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Vice , or anytime thereto, there is absolutely no reason for this Court to deny Bergs
admission Pro Hac Vice. To do so, would only deprive Plaintiffs of their counsel
of choice; further delay the proceedings; cost Plaintiffs astronomical amounts of
money in trying to bring a new attorney up to speed; and waste judicial resources.
32. For these reasons, Taitz and DOFFs Motion must be Denied.
IV. CONCLUSION:
33. For the reasons outlined herein, Defendants, Orly Taitz and Defend
our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Motion to Terminate Philip J. Berg, Esquire as
Attorney for the Plaintiffs must be Denied. Further, it is imperative for this Court
to enforce Defendant Orly Taitz, a licensed California Attorney, to follow all the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures and this Courts Local Rules, as any party pro se
would be required to do.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: April 10, 2011 /s/ Philip J. BergPhilip J. Berg, EsquirePennsylvania I.D. 9867LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Telephone: (610) 825-3134E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com
Attorney in Pro Se and Counsel for theother Plaintiffs pending Pro Hac Viceadmission
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 17 of 18 Page ID#:4044
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
26/37
Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 15
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: April 10, 2011 /s/ Lisa OstellaLISA OSTELLA; andGO EXCEL GLOBALc/o Philip J. Berg, EsquireLAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Plaintiffs in pro se pending Mr. BergsAdmittance Pro Hac Vice
Dated: April 10, 2011 /s/ Lisa LiberiLISA LIBERIc/o Philip J. Berg, EsquireLAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Plaintiff in pro se pending Mr. BergsAdmittance Pro Hac Vice
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 18 of 18 Page ID#:4045
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
27/37
Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire 1
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Philip J. Berg, Esquire (PA I.D. 9867)E-mail: philjberg@gmail.comLAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659Attorney in pro se and for Plaintiffs
Lisa Ostella, and Go Excel Globalc/o Philip J. Berg, EsquireE-mail: philjberg@gmail.com555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659
Plaintiffs in pro se pending Mr. Bergs Pro Hac Vice
Lisa Liberic/o Philip J. Berg, EsquireE-mail: philjberg@gmail.com555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659Plaintiff in pro se pending Mr. Bergs Pro Hac Vice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LISA LIBERI, et al,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ORLY TAITZ, et al,
Defendants.
:::::::::::::::
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:
8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW)
DECLARATION OF PHILIP J.BERG, ESQUIRE
Date of Hearing: May 09, 2011Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m.Location: Courtroom 10D
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174-1 Filed 04/10/11 Page 1 of 7 Page ID#:4046
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
28/37
Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire 2
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE
I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, am over the age of 18 and am a party to the within
action. I have personal knowledge of the facts herein, and if called to do, I could
and would competently testify. I am making this Declaration under the penalty of
perjury of the Laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746.
1. I am an Attorney in good standing, licensed to practice law in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I am licensed to practice in the U.S.
District Courts, Middle and Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Third
Certificate Court of Appeals, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court; and the U.S.
Supreme Court.
2. I am familiar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the pleading
requirements outlined in Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed.
2d 868 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127
S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007); and this Courts Local Rules.
3. I am the attorney of record for the Plaintiffs in the matter of Liberi, et
al v. Taitz, et al , U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 09-cv-
01898 ECR, which was recently transferred to this Court.
4. Although, I have not filed my application for Pro Hac Vice admission
in this case, Orly Taitz on behalf of herself and her Corporation, Defend our
Freedoms Foundations, Inc. filed a Motion to have me terminated as counsel
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174-1 Filed 04/10/11 Page 2 of 7 Page ID#:4047
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
29/37
Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire 3
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
without any type of foundation. This is another tactic by Defendant Taitz to
prejudice the Plaintiffs, refuse the Plaintiffs their choice of Counsel; and to
increase the cost to Plaintiffs so they are unable to afford the litigation, and
therefore, obtain the redress they are entitled.
5. This lawsuit recently transferred to this Court was filed by me on
behalf of the Plaintiffs on May 4, 2009. I have been litigating this case on
behalf of the Plaintiffs since that time.
6. The basis of the within lawsuit is due to Defendants, Orly Taitz
through her company, Defendant Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc.
and Defendants, Neil Sankey, Sankey Investigations, Inc.; and the Sankey
Firm, Inc.s for amongst other things, Invasion of Privacy; Intrusion of
Plaintiffs Solitude and Seclusion; Publication of Private Facts; Placing One
in a False Light before the Public; Appropriation of Plaintiffs Name and
Alike; Cyber-stalking; Stalking; Cyber-bullying; Harassment; Filing of False
Criminal Reports; Defamation; Slander; Libel; and violation of Cal. Civ. P.
1798, et seq. as well as many other violations for the illegal background
checks, including but not limited to primary identification documents,
insurance, medical, sealed Court case information, illegal access to Plaintiffs
credit reports, cyber-stalking, stalking Plaintiffs Ostella and Liberi,
contacting and harassing individuals Plaintiffs have known and for the
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174-1 Filed 04/10/11 Page 3 of 7 Page ID#:4048
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
30/37
Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire 4
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
illegal distribution of Liberis full Social Security number, date of birth,
mothers maiden name, place of birth, spouses name, spouses Social
Security number, spouses date of birth and other extremely private
information, as well as private data pertaining to Ostella. Furthermore, Taitz
through DOFF and the Sankey Defendants destroyed and caused damage to
Ostella and Bergs businesses, Law Offices of Philip J. Berg and Go Excel
Global.
7. While this case was before Federal Judge Robreno in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Defendant Orly Taitz on behalf of herself and
Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. filed numerous Motions to Dismiss,
which was completely improper. The important factor is that Defendant
Orly Taitz claimed the Complaint failed to comply with the pleading
standards of Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868
(2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct.
1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). Judge Robreno in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that Plaintiffs Complaint was in fact
compliant with the pleading requirements of Twombly and Iqbal and Denied
Defendant Taitzs Motions to Dismiss.
8. Plaintiffs will be seeking Leave to file a First Amended Complaint to
bring their Complaint in compliance with the California laws, as the
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174-1 Filed 04/10/11 Page 4 of 7 Page ID#:4049
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
31/37
Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire 5
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Complaint is currently compliant with the Pennsylvania laws, where it was
originally filed.
9. I am familiar with the events giving rise to the within action; and I am
readily available and willing to continue representing the Plaintiffs in this
California Court. For new counsel to step in at this late juncture would be
disastrous and prejudicial to the Plaintiffs. Due to Defendant Taitzs
continued filing and papering the Court, she has convoluted this case and
has been successful in confusing what the case actually represents. It will
take months to bring a new attorney up-to-date regarding the within case.
Furthermore, it forces Counsel to respond each and every time, which has
been and continue being extremely expensive.
10. In addition, Defendant Orly Taitz has been very dishonest in her
filings and statements with the Court. She has misstated what is on file with
the Court; misstated the facts giving rise to the lawsuit; made many false
allegations against the Plaintiffs for actions she is actually doing; she has
filed forged documents from her witness, Geoff Staples; she continues
misrepresenting what the Courts rulings and Orders state; she misrepresents
what documents filed by the Plaintiffs state and pertain to; and many other
dishonest tactics.
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174-1 Filed 04/10/11 Page 5 of 7 Page ID#:4050
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
32/37
Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire 6
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11. Each time Plaintiffs are forced to respond to Defendant Taitz barrage
of filings, Plaintiffs are forced to attach copies of all of Defendant Taitzs
publications on her website, postings on the Internet, emails, and proof of
forged documents and inaccurate and untruthful statements of Defendant
Taitz and her supposed witnesses. This in itself creates an avalanche of
paper.
12. I am informed, believe and thereon allege, Defendant Taitz continues
these tactics as she does not think anyone will read the documents due to the
size and content. To date, this has proven true for her, otherwise, if the
documents and heaps of paper were read; they Court would catch
Defendant Taitz in her illegal tactics.
13. Defendant Taitz is well aware that all the Plaintiffs in this action all
reside out-of-state. It is far easier to have counsel familiar with the case
argue at any hearing which may arise. Plaintiffs Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella
are not attorneys.
14. Disallowing me to continue my representation of my clients, would be
extremely prejudicial; cause further unnecessary delays, waste judicial
resources and severely increase the Plaintiffs cost of litigation.
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174-1 Filed 04/10/11 Page 6 of 7 Page ID#:4051
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
33/37
Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire 7
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I declare under the penalty of perjury of the Laws of the United States and
California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 10 th day of April, 2011 in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
County of Montgomery.
/s/ Philip J. BergPhilip J. Berg, Esquire, Declarant
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174-1 Filed 04/10/11 Page 7 of 7 Page ID#:4052
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
34/37
1
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LISA LIBERI, et al
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ORLY TAITZ, et al,
Defendants.
:::::::::::::::::
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:
8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW)
PROPOSED ORDER DENYINGDEFENDANTS MOTION TOTERMINATE PHILIP J. BERG,ESQ. AS AN ATTORNEY ON THECASE
Date of Hearing: May 09, 2011Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m.Location: Courtroom 10D
ORDER
On May 9, 2011, Defendants Motion Request to Terminate Philip J. Berg,
Esquire as an Attorney on the case came on for hearing. The Court having
reviewed and considered the moving papers, the Plaintiffs Opposition thereto, the
records on file with this Court, having heard Oral Argument and for GOOD
CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and DECREED:
Defendants, Orly Taitz and Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Motion
is hereby DENIED .
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174-2 Filed 04/10/11 Page 1 of 2 Page ID#:4053
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
35/37
2
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: May ___, 2011 ______________________________ Judge of the United States DistrictCourt, Central District of California,Southern Division
Respectfully submitted by:
Philip J. Berg, EsquireE-mail: philjberg@gmail.comPennsylvania I.D. 9867LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Telephone: (610) 825-3134
Lisa Ostella; andGo Excel GlobalE-mail: philjberg@gmail.comc/o Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Lisa LiberiE-mail: philjberg@gmail.comc/o Philip J. Berg, Esquire555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174-2 Filed 04/10/11 Page 2 of 2 Page ID#:4054
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
36/37
Liberi, et al Response & Memorandum Cert of Svc. 04/09/2011 1
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Philip J. Berg, Esquire (PA I.D. 9867)E-mail: philjberg@gmail.comLAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659Attorney in pro se and for Plaintiffs
Lisa Ostella, and Go Excel Globalc/o Philip J. Berg, EsquireE-mail: philjberg@gmail.com555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659
Plaintiffs in pro se pending Mr. Bergs Pro Hac Vice
Lisa Liberic/o Philip J. Berg, EsquireE-mail: philjberg@gmail.com555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659Plaintiff in pro se pending Mr. Bergs Pro Hac Vice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LISA LIBERI, et al
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ORLY TAITZ, et al,
Defendants.
:::::::::::::::
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:
8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW)
PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174-3 Filed 04/10/11 Page 1 of 2 Page ID#:4055
8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition to First MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Philip J. erg - 52728311
37/37
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs
Memorandum of Points and Authorities and the Declaration of Philip J. Bergs in support
of their Response in Opposition to Defendants Orly Taitz and Defend our Freedoms
Foundations, Inc. Motion to Terminate Philip J. Berg, Esq. as Counsel on the within Case
were served through the ECF filing system and/or mail as indicated below, this 10 th day
of April 2011 upon the following:
Orly Taitz26302 La Paz Ste 211
Mission Viejo, CA 92691Email: orly.taitz@gmail.com and
Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.comServed via the ECF Filing System
Attorney in pro se and for Defendant Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc .
The Sankey Firm, Inc.2470 Stearns Street #162Simi Valley, CA 93063
By USPS Mail with Postage fully prepaid
Neil SankeyP.O. Box 8298
Mission Hills, CA 91346By USPS Mail with Postage fully prepaid
Sankey Investigations, Inc.
P.O. Box 8298Mission Hills, CA 91346
By USPS Mail with Postage fully prepaid
_______________________Phili J B E i/s/ Philip J. Berg
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174-3 Filed 04/10/11 Page 2 of 2 Page ID#:4056