Ccccccc Special Report - A Briefing on the Litigation History of the Attorneys in Liberi v Taitz...

8/4/2019 Ccccccc Special Report - A Briefing on the Litigation History of the Attorneys in Liberi v Taitz (C.D. CA)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ccccccc-special-report-a-briefing-on-the-litigation-history-of-the-attorneys 1/45

Special Report

FROM THE C.C.C.C.C.C.C.*



http://ia600605.us.archive.org/17/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.497989/gov.uscourts.cacd.497989.343.0.pdf



C7 SPECIAL REPORT PART I: BERG LITIGATION HISTORY




HOW MANY CASES HAS BERG FILED IN THE PAST THREE YEARS ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF

Answer: Since August 2008, Berg has, on his own behalf, filed at least four complaints,thirteen appeals (in nine cases), and filed a motion seeking amicus curiae status toprotect his personal interest in one other appeal.

COMPLAINTS

1. Berg v. Obama, et al (2008)

U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 08-cv-04083-RBS

2. Berg, et al v. Obama, et al (Qui Tam Action) (2008)

U.S.D.C., District of Columbia, Case No. 1:08-cv-01933-RWR

3. Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al (2009)

U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 09-cv-01898-ECR.

This case was subsequently severed and transferred as follows:

a. Liberi, et al v. Belcher , et al (2011) U.S.D.C. Western District of Texas, Case No. 5:11-cv-00259-OLG, which was thentransferred to U.S.D.C., Northern District of Texas Case No. 2:11-cv-00090-J

b. Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al (2011)

U.S.D.C., Central District of California, Southern Division, Case No. 8:11-cv-00485 AG

4. Berg and Miller v. Weichert Realtors, et al (2009)

http://ia600402.us.archive.org/6/items/gov.uscourts.paed.281573/gov.uscourts.paed.281573.docket.html


http://ia700508.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.133905/gov.uscourts.dcd.133905.docket.html




http://ia700603.us.archive.org/13/items/gov.uscourts.txwd.476943/gov.uscourts.txwd.476943.docket.html



http://ia700605.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.txnd.205641/gov.uscourts.txnd.205641.docket.html



http://ia700605.us.archive.org/17/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.497989/gov.uscourts.cacd.497989.docket.html














2. Philip J. Berg, et al., v. U.S. Bank National Association, Trustee for LehmanBrothers-Structured Assets Loan Trust Sail 2005-7

a. NJ Superior Court, Case No. A-4696-08T2 (2008)

b. U.S. Supreme Court re Application for Stay, Case No. 08A1140 (2008)

3. Rambo v. Greene (2008) Superior Court of Pennsylvania Case No. 2467 EDA 2008

4. Berg as Relator v. Obama (2009)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Case No. 09-5362

5. Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al (2009) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Case No. 09-3403(Berg voluntarily dismissed appeal.)

6. Berg v. Akropolis (2009) Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Case No. 3104 EDA 2009

7. In re Berg (2009)1

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania , Case No. 51 MAP 2009

8. In re Philip Jay Berg (2009)

a. U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:09-cv-02803

b U S Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Case No 10 2243

http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/docketsheets/SuperiorCourtReport.aspx?docketNumber=2467%20EDA%202008




http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/docketsheets/SupremeCourtReport.aspx?docketNumber=51%20MAP%202009











IN HOW MANY CASES HAS BERG PERSONALLY BEEN A PARTY IN THE PAST THREE YEARS,

WITH A LIST OF CASE NAMES AND NUMBERS

Answer: Since August 2008, Berg has, on his own behalf, filed at least four complaints,thirteen appeals (in nine cases), and sought to serve as amicus curie in one appeal.Additionally, Berg has been a defendant in approximately six cases (upon informationand belief), and has been a party to four appeals (in three cases).

In addition to the cases listed in response to Question 1, and upon information and

belief, Mr. Berg has personally been a party to the following cases within the past threeyears.

COMPLAINTS

1. In re Berg (2009)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Montgomery County), No. 142 MD 2009

2. Holsworth v. Berg (2005)2 U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 05-CV-01116

3. Capital One Bank v. Philip J. Berg (2009) (upon information and belief, based on publicly available New Jersey court docket search for “Philip J. Berg” )

New Jersey Circuit Court (Mercer County), No. DC 001336 09

4. Fed. Nat’l. Mtg. v. Paula Berg et al (2009) (upon information and belief, based on publicly available New Jersey court docket search for “Philip J. Berg”)

New Jersey Chancery Court, No. F 004545 09

http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/docketsheets/CommonwealthCourtReport.aspx?docketNumber=142%20MD%202009




http://njcourts.judiciary.state.nj.us/web1/ACMSPA/













APPEALS

1. Holsworth v. Berg

(2005)3

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Case No. 05-4033

2. Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al (2010) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Case No. 10-3000


a. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 11-56079

b. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 11-56164







HOW MANY SANCTION ORDERS HAVE BEEN ISSUED AGAINST BERG – IN EITHER A PRO SE

OR REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY –

IN THE PAST THREE YEARS, IN WHAT AMOUNT OR OTHERFORM, AND IN WHICH CASES

Answer: At least four sanction orders (in four cases and/or appeals) have been issuedagainst Berg in the past three years:

1. Shecktor v. Louisville Ladder , No. 4:09-cv-01570 (M.D. Pa. 2009)

Sanction: Mr. Berg was sanctioned $1,000 as attorney fees payable to DefenseCounsel by Judge John E. Jones, III for a discovery issue. See Order Granting Motionto Compel (M.D. Pa. Jun. 23 2011).

2. Holsworth v. Berg , No. 05-4033 (3rd. Cir. 2005)

Sanction: After affirming a pre-2008 Rule 11 Sanction against Mr. Berg, the Court

ordered Mr. Berg to pay $15,849.00 in attorneys fees to appellees under Fed. R. App.Proc 38 for filing frivolous appeal. See Holsworth et al v. Berg et al, No. 05-4033, OrderGranting Appellee‘s Motion for Reimbursement of Fees Pursuant to FRAP 38 (3rdCir. Oct. 15, 2009).

3. In re Philip Jay Berg , No. 2:09-cv-02803 (E.D. Pa 2009)

Sanction: Mr. Berg‘s appeal of a bankruptcy order was dismissed as a ―sanction‖for failing to follow court rules. See Order Dismissing Appeal for Reasons Stated onthe Record (Mar. 25, 2010).

http://ia600600.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.pamd.77292/gov.uscourts.pamd.77292.docket.html


http://ia600600.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.pamd.77292/gov.uscourts.pamd.77292.63.0.pdf







http://ia600408.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.paed.309813/gov.uscourts.paed.309813.10.0.pdf














HOW MANY TIMES HAS A COURT ( A) DIRECTLY ADMONISHED, (B) DENIED OR REVOKED

PRIVILEGED, AND/OR (C) THREATENED BERG WITH SANCTIONS IN THE PAST THREEYEARS?

Answer: In addition to the sanctions identified above, Berg has been admonished, hadprivileges denied or revoked, and/or been threatened with sanctions in written orders4 at least fourteen times in at least five cases during the past three years:

1. Liberi et al v. Taitz et al , No. 2:09-cv-01898 (E.D. Pa)

a. Court Action/Admonishment : Court revoked Berg‘s right to file motions withoutprior leave of the court. See Order (Imposing Filing Restrictions) (Jun. 26, 2009).

b. Court Action/Admonishment : The Court devoted a section of its Memorandumto discussing the parties behavior:

―VII. BEHAVIOR OF THE PARTIES

During the hearing the Court reminded Berg and Taitz that sanctions may beordered under Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the inherent power of the Court. ... ***Additionally, very serious accusations were made during this hearing, such as:the hiring of a hit-man to kill a party, the stealing a party's donation funds, and

attempting to kidnap a child of one of the party's to the lawsuit. The Court willremind the lawyers that they were warned by the Court that making suchserious accusations without proof to back them up could result in their referral tothe disciplinary board












3. Hollister v. Soetoro , No. 1:08-cv-02254-JR (D.D.C) Outcome: Berg‘s client lost; Berg‘s local counsel sanctioned.

a. Court Action/Admonishment : Court declined to issue Rule 11 show cause orderagainst Berg, even though he found that Berg had filed frivolous case, in order toprevent Berg from further misusing public and private resources: ―Mr. Berg andLawrence J. Joyce, an attorney who lives in Tucson, Arizona, signed thecomplaint in this case. (They have been filing electronically although they havenot been admitted pro hac vice, see [# 10].) They are agents provocateurs-and anyattempt to sanction them for misuse of the public and private resources that havehad to be devoted to this case would only give them a forum to continue theirprovocation.‖ See Memorandum Opinion, 601 F.Supp.2d 179 (D.D.C. 2009).

b. Court Action/Admonishment : In memorandum order imposing sanctions onlocal counsel, the Court described the complaint drafted and signed by Berg(who was not admitted pro hac vice) as follows: ―The case offered no hopewhatsoever of success, and plaintiffs' attorneys surely knew it.‖). Memorandum

Order, 258 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2009). The court imposed a minimal sanction againstthe local counsel, noting that ―‗[o]thers similarly situated‘ – the people who putMr. Hemenway up to filing this foolish suit [referencing, via footnote, Berg] – areunlikely to be deterred, except by a penalty that would be unreasonable toimpose on Mr. Hemenway alone.‖ Id. and n.4.

4. Lincoln v. Daylight Chemical Info. Sys. Inc., et al , No. 8:10-cv-01573-AG –PLA (

C.D. Cal.)

Court Action/Admonishment : Court denied Berg‘s motion for pro hac vice

admission after a hearing See Order Denying Application of Non resident



http://ia600502.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.134576/gov.uscourts.dcd.134576.21.0.pdf


















filing such an amended complaint, Plaintiff must review the PFAC to removereferences to exhibits which are not to be attached. If Plaintiffs disregard these

instructions, the Court may strike the amended complaint, which may leavePlaintiffs without an operative complaint.‖ See Order Granting Motion for Leaveto Amend, Denying Motion to Strike and Motion to Dismiss, and ImposingRestriction on Filing at 7-8 (Jun. 14, 2011).

b. Court Action/Admonishment : Court admonished the parties as follows:

―The Court previously warned the parties that it might impose restrictions onfiling in this case. (Dkt. # 183.) The Court finds that such a restriction isappropriate at this time ... given the flood of filings before the Court. The Courtnow ORDERS all parties to seek leave of Court before filing any motions or otherdocuments in this case. A party seeking leave to file a motion or other documentmay do so by letter to the Court, with copies to all parties. The letter shall be nomore than two pages and shall set forth the nature of the motion or documentand good cause for its filing. The letter shall have no attachments or exhibits.

Upon a showing of good cause, the Court may grant leave to file. Failure tocomply with the letter and spirit of this order may result in sanctions, including the

summary denial of improperly requested motions, or other sanctions such as

dismissal or striking of the answer.

See Order Granting Motion for Leave to Amend, Denying Motion to Strike andMotion to Dismiss, and Imposing Restriction on Filing at 9 (Jun. 14, 2011)

(emphasis in original).

c. Court Action/Admonishment : Court admonished Berg as follows:


















―Many of the requests from the parties, and in particular from Orly Taitz, includeunnecessary rehashing of disputed facts. The Court is familiar with thebackground of this case and need not be reminded of, for example, the allegedcriminal history of plaintiff Lisa Liberi or Taitz‘s characterization of this case‘sprocedural history. The unnecessary inclusion of facts and arguments irrelevantto a particular request may weaken a party‘s showing of good cause.

Concerning this Court‘s June 14, 2011, Order, ALL FUTURE REQUESTS MUSTBE FOCUSED, CLEAR, AND CONCISE, WITH NO UNNECESSARYMATERIAL.‖

See Order Granting In Part And Denying In Part Requests For Leave To File (Jul.26, 2011) (allcaps in original).

e. Court Action/Admonishment : Court admonished Berg as follows:

―The Court is aware that some parties to this case have been involved in

numerous lawsuits and the Court has ongoing concerns about the litigationhistory and behavior of certain parties here. The Court must therefore ORDERthat Plaintiff Philip J. Berg and Defendant Orly Taitz file a document with theCourt by September 2, 2011, answering the following about themselves:

1) How many cases they have filed in the past three years on behalf ofthemselves or affiliated entities with a list of case names and numbers;

2) How many cases they have personally been a party to in the past three years(including cases they filed), with a list of case names and numbers; and








Stipulation before the Court granted Plaintiffs‘ motion to file a first amendedcomplaint. That information would have been helpful to this transferee Court inmaking a proper ruling on the motion for leave to amend. Plaintiffs‘ failure toinform the Court about the 2009 Stipulation demonstrates a worrisome lack ofcandor.‖ See Order Granting Motion to Dismiss at 4-5 (Aug. 23, 2011)








HOW MANY TIMES HAS A COURT EXPRESSLY CRITICIZED BERG FOR ( A) FAILING TO FOLLOW

THE RULES OR(

B)

FILING FRIVOLOUS PLEADINGS UNSUPPORTED BY LAW OR FACT IN AN

ORDER?

Answer: In addition to the sanctions identified above and the multiple courtadmonishments/ actions identified above, Berg‘s failure to follow the rules and/orrepeated filing of frivolous pleadings with no factual or legal support criticized by thecourts in written orders5 at least ten times (in eight cases) during the past three years:

1. Berg v. Obama , No. 08-cv-04083-RBS (E.D. Pa.)

Court found several of Berg‘s standing arguments ―frivolous and not worthy ofdiscussion.‖ See Memorandum Opinion, 574 F.Supp.2d 509, 521 (E.D. Pa. 2008).6

2. Berg v. Obama , No. 08-4340 (3rd Cir.)

a. Court denied motion, noting that Berg utterly failed to address lower court‘sruling in his motion. See Oct. 24, 2008 Order.

b. Court affirmed the lower court ruling, noting the ―obvious lack of any merit‖ inBerg‘s contentions. See Berg v. Obama, 586 F.3d 234, 239 (3rd Cir. 2009); see also id.at 242 (finding Berg‘s First Amendment and Due Process arguments to be―frivolous‖); id. at 242, n.6 (Berg‘s ―arguments that the District Court ignored

some of his voluminous motions and other pleadings not only suffer from fataldefects in their reasoning, but are irrelevant‖).7

3 Berg v Obama 1:08 cv 01933 RWR (D C Cir )




http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/084340p.pdf







4. Berg et al v. Weichert Realtors et al, No. 2:09-cv-00321 (E.D. Pa. 2009).

Court criticized Berg because he ―merely make[s] a conclusory allegation thatDefendants do not present meritorious defenses and fail[s] to contest the merit ofthe defenses ... ―Plaintiffs have failed to oppose or otherwise respond toDefendants‘ personal jurisdiction defense. This Court also advised Plaintiffs thatthey had to address this issue in their documents, but Plaintiffs did not do so.‖ See Order Denying Motion for Default at 6 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2009); see also); butsee Dec. 16, 2009 Order (setting aside portion of order dismissing case andtransferring the case to New Jersey).8

5. Liberi et al v. Taitz et al, No. 2:09-cv-01898 (E.D. Pa)

a. Court : ―This litigation involves an intramural dispute among persons who have,at times jointly, challenged the legitimacy of President Barack Obama‘spresidency.... The instant case is just one piece of this far flung litigation, which isnow pending in at least three federal courts. As an initial matter, the Court notes

that Plaintiffs filed the instant motion without first seeking leave of the Court, inviolation of the Court‘s explicit order, dated June 25, 2009 (doc. no. 78). AlthoughPlaintiffs assert that, pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of AppellateProcedure, their filing is proper, the Court disagrees.‖ See Order DenyingMotion for TRO (Aug. 25, 2009) .

b. See also Memorandum Opinion 759 F.Supp.2d 573, 579 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 23, 2010)

(providing litany of factual claims for which Berg failed to provide any credibleevidence).

6 Liberi et al v Taitz et al No 8:11 cv 00485 (C D Cal )






















7. In re Philip Jay Berg , No, 05-39380-bif (E.D. Pa.)

The court‘s blistering opinion excoriates Berg repeatedly for obfuscation andother improper behavior in the proceeding in passages too long to include in thissummary. See Memorandum Opinion, 407 B.R. 167, 174-75 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Apr.1, 2009).9

8. In re Berg , No. 142 M.D. 2009 (Pa. Cmwlth.)

Court : ―In ordering removal of Berg‘s name from judicial ballot for violation of

Notary Public law when he notarized his own judicial nomination petition, thecourt noted that ―it would be difficult to conclude that Berg acted with duediligence because, when Berg took the oath of office as a notary public, he waslegally charged with knowing the requirements of acting as a notary under theNotary Public Law.‖ See In re Berg, 973 A.2d 447 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009), aff'd 601 Pa.85, 971 A.2d 486 (Pa. 2009).

9. U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc. v. Berg , No. F-1888-07 (N.J. Super. A.D. unpublisheddisposition, 2010 WL 3932984 (N.J. Super. A.D. Oct. 5, 2010)

Court affirmed lower court‘s entry of foreclosure default (after determining thatBerg had filed a nononforming answer to complaint), and rejected Berg‘sarguments on appeal because, among other reasons, he did not move to vacate judgment within a reasonable time. See U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc. v. Berg,

unpublished disposition, 2010 WL 3932984 (N.J. Super. A.D. Oct. 5, 2010)

http://ia600502.us.archive.org/11/items/gov.uscourts.paeb.208169/gov.uscourts.paeb.208169.docket.html


http://ia600502.us.archive.org/11/items/gov.uscourts.paeb.208169/gov.uscourts.paeb.208169.470.0.pdf











A Briefing on the Litigation History of the Attorneys in Liberi v. Taitz, No. 8:11-cv-00485 (C.D. Cal.)– –

BERG TABLE OF CASES10

Case Caption Disclosed? Disposition? Criticized? Admonished? Sanctioned?

Asset Acceptance LLC v. Philip J. Berg, No. DC 011880 10( N.J. Cir. Ct. (Mercer) 2010)11 Berg and Miller v. Weichert Realtors, et al , No. 2:09-cv-00321 LDD (E.D. Pa. 2009) Settled

Berg v. Obama, et al, No. 08-cv-04083-RBS (E.D. Pa. 2008)

Berg v. Obama, et al, No. 08-4340 (3rd. Cir. 2008)

Berg v. Obama, et al, No. 08A391 (U.S. Application forInjunction 2008) Berg v. Obama, et al, Case No. 08A505 (U.S.Application for Injunction 2008) Berg v. Obama, et al, No. 08-570 (U.S. Petition for Writof Certiorari 2008)

Berg as Relator v. Obama , No. 1:08-cv-01933-RWR (D.C.D.2008) (Qui Tam Action)

Berg as Relator v. Obama, No. 09-5362 (D.C. Cir. 2009)(Qui Tam Action)

Berg v. Akropolis, No. 3104 EDA 2009 (Pa. Super. Ct.2009)

10 Disclosed? Y=N= -- -- Disposition? Win Loss Pending -- -- Criticized? Y= -- -- Admonished? Y= -- -- Sanctioned: Y=

11Listed upon information and belief, based on publicly available New Jersey court docket search for “Philip J. Berg.”






















Capital One Bank v. Philip J. Berg, No. DC 001336 09 (N.J.Cir. Ct. (Mercer) 2009)12 Fed. Nat’l. Mtg. v. Paula Berg et al, No. F 004545 09 (N.J.

Chanc. Ct. 2009)13 Hollister v. Soetoro, No. 1:08-cv-02254-JR (D.D.C)

Not within

scope Hollister v. Soetoro, et al, Nos. 09-5080 and 09-5161(consol.) (D.C. Cir. 2009).14

Holsworth v. Berg, No. 05-CV-01116 (E.D. Pa. 2005)15

Holsworth v. Berg, No. 05-4033 (3rd Cir. 2005)16

In re Berg, No. 142 MD 2009 (Pa. Commw. Ct.(Montgomery) 2009) (Notary Case)

In re Berg, No. 51 MAP 2009 (Pa. Supreme Ct. 2009)



14Mr. Berg filed “emergency” motion to participate as amicus curiae in appeal, citing personal stake in outcome of case as grounds,

15Although this case was initially filed before August 2008, Berg appealed the decision and that appeal was still pending after 2008. See Holsworth v. Berg, No. 05-4033, 332

Fed. Appx. 143, 2009 WL 1028039 (3rd Cir. 2009). Therefore, it qualifies as a case in which Berg has personally been a party to in the past three years. Note, however, that the

sanction order was issued long before August 2008, so it is not responsive to the court’s request for information.

16Although this appeal was initially filed before August 2008, the appeal was still pending after August 2008. See Holsworth v. Berg, No. 05-4033, 332 Fed. Appx. 143, 2009 WL

1028039 (3rd Cir. 2009). Therefore, it qualifies as a case in which Berg has personally been a party to in the past three years.

















http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054033np.pdf




















In re Philip Jay Berg, No, 05-39380-bif (E.D. Pa. Bankr.2005) (IRS)

Not within

scope17 In re Philip Jay Berg, No. 2:09-cv-02803 (E.D. Pa. 2009)

(appeal of bankr. order) In re Philip J. Berg, No. 10-2243 (3rd Cir. 2010)

In re Philip J. Berg, No. 208 DB 2010 (Disciplinary Boardof Pa. Supreme Ct 2010) Sup. Ct. of Pa. Pennsylvania,Case

Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al, No. 09-cv-01898-ECR (E.D. Pa.2009) Transferred

Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al, No. 09-3403 (3rd. Cir. 2009)(Berg appeal). Voluntarily

Dismissed Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al, No. 10-3000 (3rd Cir. 2010)(Taitz appeal).

Dismissed /Lack of

Jurisdiction

Liberi, et al v. Belcher, et al (N.D. Tex. 2011)18

17 Case was not within scope of Court’s inquiries.

18Case transferred from E.D. Pa to W.D. Texas (No. 5:11-cv-00259-OLG), and then to N.D. Texas.





http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/pa_attorney_public.php?id=9867&attname=Philip+J.+Berg+&violations=6




















Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al, No. 8:11-cv-00485 AG (C.D. Cal.2011)

Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al, No. 11-56079 (9th Cir. 2011)

(Taitz Parties appeal)

Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al, No. 11-56079 (9th Cir. 2011)(Taitz Parties appeal)

Lincoln v. Daylight Chemical Info. Sys. Inc., et al , No. 8:10-cv-01573-AG –PLA (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Not within

scope

Voluntarily

Dismissed Philip J. Berg, et al., v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc., Trustee for Lehman Brothers-Structured Assets Loan Trust Sail 2005-7 ,No. A-4696-08T2 (NJ Super. Ct. 2008)

Philip J. Berg, et al., v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc ..., No.08A1140 (U.S. Application for Injunction 2008)

Rambo v. Greene , No. 2467 EDA 2008 (Pa. Super. Ct.2008) Shecktor v. Louisville Ladder , No. 4:09-cv-01570 (M.D. Pa.2009) Thomas G. Oakes Assoc. v. Philip J. Berg, No. DC 004054 11(N.J. Super. Ct. (Mercer) 2011)19




















C7 SPECIAL REPORT PART II: TAITZ LITIGATION HISTORY




HOW MANY CASES HAS T AITZ FILED IN THE PAST THREE YEARS ON BEHALF OF HERSELF?

Answer: Since August 2008, Taitz has, on her own behalf, filed at least eight complaints, sought to intervene in two cases, and filed six appeals (in two cases).

COMPLAINTS

1. Taitz v. Obama (2010) U.S.D.C. District of Columbia, Case No. 1:10-cv-00151

2. Taitz v. Dunn (2010) Cal. Superior Ct (Orange County), Case No. 30-2010-00381664-CU-FR-CJC

3. Medical Dental Dev. LLC v. Pierson (2010) Cal. Superior Ct (Orange County), Case No. 30-2010-00367447-CU-BC-CJC

4. Taitz v. 21 Century Insurance Co. (2010) 20

Ca. Super. Ct. (Orange County), Small Claims Court, Case No. 2010-00381664-CU-FR-CJC

5. Taitz v. Astrue (2011)

U.S.D.C. District of Columbia, Case No. 1:11-cv-00402

6. Taitz v. Ruemmler (2011)

U.S.D.C. District of Columbia, Case No. 1:11-cv-01421

7. Taitz v. Astrue (2011) U S D C Hawaii Case No 1:11-mc-00158 (HID)



https://ocapps.occourts.org/civilwebShopping/DisplayCaseInformation.do?caseNbr=30-2010-00381664-CU-FR-CJC&src=case_src_dtl


https://ocapps.occourts.org/civilwebShopping/DisplayCaseInformation.do?caseNbr=30-2010-00367447-CU-BC-CJC&src=case_src_dtl








http://ia600600.us.archive.org/24/items/gov.uscourts.hid.98266/gov.uscourts.hid.98266.docket.html













a. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Case No. 10-3000 (2010)

b. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 11-56079 (2011)

c. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 11-56164 (2011)

3. Taitz v. Bowen California Supreme Court, Case No. S184384 (2010)

MOTIONS TO INTERVENE

1. Hornbeck Offshore Services, L.L.C. v. Salazar et al (2010) (Motion to Intervene) U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Louisiana, Case No. 2:10-cv-01663-MLCF-JCW(Taitz‘s motion to intervene in lawsuit challenging one of the Obama

Administration‘s post-oil spill drilling moratorium as unconstitutional on thegrounds that President Obama is not a natural born citizen was denied).

2. Florida et al. v. U.S. Dep. of Health & Human Svs. (2010) (Motion to Intervene)

Northern District of Florida, Case No. 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT(Taitz‘s motion to intervene in lawsuit challenging the Patient Protection andAffordable Care Act as unconstitutional on the grounds that President Obama is not

a natural born citizen was denied).

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1948743&doc_no=S184384


http://ia600505.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.laed.141146/gov.uscourts.laed.141146.docket.html


http://ia600505.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.laed.141146/gov.uscourts.laed.141146.262.0.pdf



http://ia700308.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.flnd.57507/gov.uscourts.flnd.57507.docket.html


http://ia700308.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.flnd.57507/gov.uscourts.flnd.57507.18.0.pdf











IN HOW MANY CASES HAS T AITZ PERSONALLY BEEN A PARTY IN THE PAST THREE YEARS,

WITH A LIST OF CASE NAMES AND NUMBERS

Answer: Since August 2008, Taitz has, on her own behalf, filed at least eight complaints, sought to intervene in two cases, and filed six appeals (in two cases).Additionally, Taitz has been a defendant in at least three cases (upon information andbelief), and has been a party to eight appeals or other filings.

In addition to the cases listed in response to Question 1, and upon information and

belief, Ms. Taitz has personally been a party to the following cases within the past threeyears.

COMPLAINTS

1. Liberi et al v. Taitz et al (2009)

U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:09-cv-01898

This case was subsequently severed and case involving Taitz was transferred to:

Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al (2011) U.S.D.C., Central District of CA, Southern Division, Case No. 8:11-cv-00485

2. Fazel v. Taitz (2010) Ca. Super. Ct. (Orange County), Small Claims Court, Case No. 30-2010-00405406-SC-

SC-HLH

3. Lincoln v. Daylight Chem. Info. Sys. Inc. et al (2010) U.S.D.C. Central District of California, Case No. 8:10-cv-01573-AG –PLA













OTHER FILINGS (EXCLUDING TRAFFIC COURT CASES21)

1. Rivernider et al v. U.S. Bank National Association (2009) U.S.D.C. Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:09-cv-81255

http://ia700506.us.archive.org/15/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.342089/gov.uscourts.flsd.342089.docket.html






HOW MANY SANCTION ORDERS HAVE BEEN ISSUED AGAINST T AITZ – IN EITHER A PRO SE

OR REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY – IN THE PAST THREE YEARS, IN WHAT AMOUNT OR OTHER

FORM, AND IN WHICH CASES

Answer: At least two sanction orders (in two cases) have been issued against Taitz inthe past three years:

1. Rhodes v. MacDonald et al , No. 4:09-cv-00106 (M.D. Ga.)22

Sanctions: Court imposed $20,000.00 sanction on Taitz due to attorney misconduct.See Order Imposing Sanctions, 670 F.Supp.2d 1363 (Oct. 13, 2009), aff’d, 368Fed.Appx. 949, 2010 WL 892848 (11th Cir. Mar. 15, 2010).

Selected excerpts from the Order include:

―The absolute absence of any legitimate legal argument, combined with the political

diatribe in her motions, demonstrates that Ms. Taitz’s purpose is to advance a politicalagenda and not to pursue a legitimate legal cause of action. Rather than citing tobinding legal precedent, she calls the President names, accuses the undersignedof treason, and gratuitously slanders the President‘s father. As the Court noted inan earlier order, counsel‘s wild accusations may be protected by the FirstAmendment when she makes them on her blog or in her press conferences, butthe federal courts are reserved for hearing genuine legal disputes, not as a

platform for political rhetoric and personal insults. Simply put, no reasonable basisexisted for counsel to believe that her legal cause of action was legitimate under existing

law or under a reasonable extension or modification of existing law. Thus, counsel’s

Complaint on behalf of Captain Rhodes was frivolous ‖ (Order (Slip Opinion) at 28 )

http://ia700400.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.docket.html


http://ia600400.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.28.0.pdf







Counsel’s misconduct was not an isolated event; it was part of a pattern that advanced

frivolous arguments and disrespectful personal attacks on the parties and the Court . This

pattern infected the entire proceeding, not just an isolated pleading. Her initial

Complaint was legally frivolous. Upon being so informed, counsel followed it with a

frivolous motion for reconsideration. In response to the Court‘s show cause order,she filed a frivolous motion to recuse. In all of counsel‘s frivolous filings, she hurledpersonal insults at the parties and the Court. Rather than assert legitimate legalarguments, counsel chose to accuse the Court of treason and of being controlledby the ―Obama Machine.‖ She had no facts to support her claims–but her

diatribe would play well to her choir. This pattern of conduct reveals that it will bedifficult to get counsel’s attention. A significant sanction is necessary to deter such

conduct.‖ (Order (Slip Opinion) at 32-33.)

―Although the Court has not thoroughly researched counsel‘s record to findsimilar instances of misconduct in other cases, the Court is aware of at least twoother cases related to this one where counsel engaged in similar conduct. First,

counsel filed the very same case on behalf of Captain Rhodes in the WesternDistrict of Texas and then refiled it here upon the Texas court‘s finding that shehad no reasonable possibility of success on the merits. Counsel filed anothersimilar action here on behalf of Major Cook in which she insisted on pursuingthe case even though the Army had revoked the deployment order. Then,counsel filed another action on behalf of Major Cook in the Middle District ofFlorida. That action was summarily dismissed, and upon losing there, counsel

filed a motion to recuse that judge; that motion to recuse was found to befrivolous. Counsel’s similar conduct in other actions demonstrates that substantial

sanctions are necessary to deter future misconduct.‖ (Order (Slip Opinion) at 34-35.)




HOW MANY TIMES HAS A COURT ( A) DIRECTLY ADMONISHED, (B) DENIED OR REVOKED

PRIVILEGED, AND/OR (C) THREATENED T AITZ WITH SANCTIONS IN THE PAST THREE

YEARS?

Answer: In addition to the sanctions identified above, Taitz has been admonished, hadprivileges denied or revoked, and/or been threatened with sanctions in written orders23 at least seventeen times (in seven cases) during the past three years:

1. Rhodes v. MacDonald et al , No. 4:09-cv-00106 (M.D. Ga.)

Outcome: Taitz‘s client lost, then fired her as counsel.

a. Court Action/Admonishment : Court found complaint frivolous and notifiedOrly that filing of future similar actions in that court will result in sanctions. SeeOrder Denying Motion for TRO at 1 (Sept. 16, 2009) (―After conducting a hearingon Plaintiff‘s motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff‘s claims are frivolous....Furthermore, Plaintiff‘s counsel is hereby notified that the filing of any future

actions in this Court, which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel tosanctions‖); see also id at 9 (―Plaintiff‘s complaint is not plausible on its face. Tothe extent that it alleges any ―facts,‖ the Complaint does not connect those factsto any actual violation of Plaintiff‘s individual constitutional rights. Unlike inAlice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.‖

2. Barnett Keyes et al v Obama et al , No. 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN (C.D. Cal.)

a. Court Action/Admonishment : Court admonished Taitz as follows:―Counsel Taitz refused to sign the substitution of attorney form presented to herby Plaintiffs Robinson and Drake This action was improper because a client has













and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking topresent arguments through cogent legal reasoning. ....

This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case beingheard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint uponDefendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not bedismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the originalcomplaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were notproperly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendantsonly after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that

defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service.Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitzeven asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on thebasis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. ....

Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes becauseshe did not want to work with their new counsel. See id.

Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters andphone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourageher supporters to attempt to influence this Court's decision. Despite theseattempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outsidepleas to influence the Court's decision.

Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz askedpotential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjurethemselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have subornedperjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court




discussed today in open court.‖ See Order Dismissing Multiple Motions, n.1(Jun. 26, 2009).

c. Court Action/Admonishment : The Court devoted a section of its Memorandumto discussing Taitz‘s behavior:

―VII. BEHAVIOR OF THE PARTIES

During the hearing the Court reminded Berg and Taitz that sanctions may beordered under Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the inherent power of the Court.

See In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 199 (3d Cir.2001) (citing Chambers v.NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43–44, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991)) (―TheSupreme Court recently reaffirmed that a district court has inherent authority toimpose sanctions upon those who would abuse the judicial process.‖) ***Additionally, very serious accusations were made during this hearing, such as:the hiring of a hit-man to kill a party, the stealing a party's donation funds, and

attempting to kidnap a child of one of the party's to the lawsuit. The Court willremind the lawyers that they were warned by the Court that making suchserious accusations without proof to back them up could result in their referralto the disciplinary board.

There were no winners at the hearing but surely there was one loser—the searchfor truth in an environment of decorum. For this sorry episode, both Taitz and

Berg bear much of the blame.‖

See Liberi v. Taitz, 759 F.Supp.2d 573, 579 (E.D. Pa. 2010)












b. Court Action/Admonishment : Court admonished Taitz as follows:

―The Court previously warned the parties that it might impose restrictions onfiling in this case. (Dkt. #183.) The Court finds that such a restriction isappropriate at this time ... given the flood of filings before the Court. The Courtnow ORDERS all parties to seek leave of Court before filing any motions or otherdocuments in this case. A party seeking leave to file a motion or other documentmay do so by letter to the Court, with copies to all parties. The letter shall be nomore than two pages and shall set forth the nature of the motion or documentand good cause for its filing. The letter shall have no attachments or exhibits.

Upon a showing of good cause, the Court may grant leave to file. Failure tocomply with the letter and spirit of this order may result in sanctions, including the

summary denial of improperly requested motions, or other sanctions such as

dismissal or striking of the answer.

See Order Granting Motion for Leave to Amend, Denying Motion to Strike andMotion to Dismiss, and Imposing Restriction on Filing at 9 (Jun. 14, 2011)

(emphasis in original).

c. Court Action/Admonishment : Court admonished Taitz as follows:

―Many of the requests from the parties, and in particular from Orly Taitz, includeunnecessary rehashing of disputed facts. The Court is familiar with thebackground of this case and need not be reminded of, for example, the alleged

criminal history of plaintiff Lisa Liberi or Taitz‘s characterization of this case‘sprocedural history. The unnecessary inclusion of facts and arguments irrelevantto a particular request may weaken a party‘s showing of good cause.










1) How many cases they have filed in the past three years on behalf ofthemselves or affiliated entities with a list of case names and numbers;

2) How many cases they have personally been a party to in the past three years(including cases they filed), with a list of case names and numbers; and

3) How many sanction orders have been issued against them – in either a pro seor representative capacity – in the past three years, in what amount or otherform, and in which cases.‖

See Order to Submit Information (Aug. 12, 2011) (underlining in original).

e. Court Action/Admonishment : Court admonished Taitz as follows: ―The partieshave submitted numerous new requests to file motions and other documents.The parties will increase their likelihood of prompt ruling by limiting themselvesto thoughtful requests and avoiding unnecessary submissions to the Court.‖ See

Order Granting and Denying Requests to File (Aug. 12, 2011)

f. Court Action/Admonishment : Court admonished Taitz as follows: ―The Court iscontinually frustrated by the extraneous information that OTI and other partiesinclude in their requests for leave to file. For example, in this request, the Courtfails to see how it is relevant that Orly Taitz has purportedly not filed anylawsuits against the plaintiffs here. The Court also fails to see how Taitz‘scrusade against President Barack Obama has any relevance to this request. The

Court may impose sanctions for extraneous arguments and statements in futurerequests, including references to President Obama, who appears to have no direct

relationship to the August 23 request.‖ See Order Denying Request (Aug. 23,2011) (bolding in original)














b. Court Action/Admonishment :

“RESTRICTIONS ON FUTURE FILINGS: For these three pending motionsand others, the Court has spent valuable time reviewing – and denying – onemotion to strike three documents (including a motion to strike), one unspecifiedand unjustified sanctions, and a motion apparently asking this Court to extendsanctions from another district. And one business day before the hearing,Defendants filed a ―Conditional Request to Vacate Motion for Sanctions.‖ ***

The Court now considers how best to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensivedetermination of this case, as the Court is charged to do under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 1.

The Court now ORDERS [parties including Taitz] to seek leave of Court beforefiling any motions or other documents in this case. ... A party seeking leave tofile a motion or other document may do so by letter to the Court, with copies to

all parties. The letter shall be no more than two pages and shall set forth thenature of the motion or document and good cause for its filing. The letter shallhave no attachments or exhibits. Upon a showing of good cause, the Court maygrant leave to file. Failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions.‖

See Order Denying Motion to Strike and Motions For Sanctions at 3-4 (Mar. 23,2011).24

7. Taitz v. Astrue , No. 1:11-cv-00402 (D.D.C.)

a Court Action/Admonishment: Court ordered that Taitz filings must not be










she can provide as to why she is now wasting the Court's time, as well as staffstime, with these improper redactions .‖)




HOW MANY TIMES HAS A COURT EXPRESSLY CRITICIZED T AITZ FOR ( A) FAILING TO

FOLLOW THE RULES OR (B) FILING FRIVOLOUS PLEADINGS UNSUPPORTED BY LAW OR FACT

IN AN ORDER?

Answer: In addition to the sanctions identified above and the multiple courtadmonishments/ actions identified above, Taitz‘s failure to follow the rules and/orrepeated filing of frivolous pleadings with no factual or legal support criticized by thecourts in written orders25 at least seventeen times (in eight cases) during the past threeyears:

1. Cook v. Simtech, Inc. et al , No. 8:09-cv-01382-RAL-EAJ (M.D. Fla.)

a. Court : ―Plaintiff's Application is not accompanied by a complaint and,therefore, fails to comply with the requirements of Local Rules 4.05(b)(2) and4.06(b)(1). Furthermore, as the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has observed,―[t]here is no such thing as a suit for a traditional injunction in the abstract .‖ See

Order Denying Motion for TRO (Jul. 23, 2009).

b. Court : ―The Court would observe, however, that Plaintiff‘s complaint is thequintessential ―shotgun‖ pleading that has been condemned on numerousoccasions by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.‖ See Order Denying Motionto Reinstate Original Verified Application for TRO and Dismissing Case at 3, n.1(Jul. 27, 2009).

c. Order Denying Motion for Recusal as frivolous and wholly without merit (Aug.6, 2009).

http://ia600401.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.flmd.229413/gov.uscourts.flmd.229413.docket.html


http://ia700401.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.flmd.229413/gov.uscourts.flmd.229413.3.0.pdf
















a. Court : ―A spurious claim questioning the President‘s constitutional legitimacymay be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court‘s placement of its

imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolouswould undoubtedly disserve the public interest.‖ See Order Denying Motion forTRO at 10, n.1 (Sep. 16, 2009).

b. Court : ―[F]inding that Taitz‘s ―claims and legal contentions asserted in thepresent motion are not warranted by existing law and that no reasonable basisexists to conclude that Plaintiff‘s arguments would be accepted as an extension,

modification, or reversal of existing law. Simply, put the motion is frivolous.Moreover, the Court further finds that Plaintiff‘s motion is being presented forthe improper purpose of using the federal judiciary as a platform to espousecontroversial political beliefs rather than as a legitimate forum for hearing legalclaims.‖ See Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration and Issuing Show CauseOrder re: Sanctions (Sep. 18, 2009).


a. Court : ―Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of theConstitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by theConstitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularlyelected by ―We the People‖–over sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs haveattacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim,

as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and foradhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction.Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic.Quite the contrary this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to



















6. Liberi et al v. Taitz et al , No. 2:09-cv-01898 (E.D. Pa)

a. Court : ―This litigation involves an intramural dispute among persons who have,at times jointly, challenged the legitimacy of President Barack Obama‘spresidency.... The instant case is just one piece of this far flung litigation, which isnow pending in at least three federal courts.‖ See Order Denying Motion forTRO (Aug. 25, 2009).

b. Court : ―Defendant Taitz‘s response does not substantively address Plaintiff

Berg‘s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, thus it is inappositeto the issues at bar.‖ See Memorandum Opinion (Jun. 22, 2010)

c. Court : Court denied Taitz‘s motion to stay transfer on grounds that courtalready ―issued rule to show cause as to why the case should not be severed andtransferred, and thereafter ruled to sever and transfer the case under applicablelaw. All of Defendant Taitz's other arguments are frivolous.‖ See Order

Denying Taitz‘s Motions (Jul. 14, 2010).

7. Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al , No. 8:11-cv-00485 (C.D. Cal.)

a. Court : ―This case is roiled by in-fighting, petty history, and an apparentdisregard for accuracy and fair play. Thus, the discernment of truth is a constantdifficulty for the Court. As Judge Robreno of the transferor court stated in an

order dated December 23, 2010, regarding the outcome of a hearing on requestsfor temporary restraining orders, ―There were no winners at the hearing butsurely there was one loser – the search for truth in an environment of decorum.‖ See Order Granting Motion for Leave to Amend Denying Motion to Strike and




























8. Rivernider et al v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n , No. 9:2009-cv-81255 (S.D. Fla.)

a. Court : ―[T]he voluminous filings by Dr. Taitz and plaintiff ... attacking one

another‘s credibility will not be discussed or considered because any connectionthey may have to the issues are too tenuous and remote to be considered.‖ SeeOrder Declining to Issue Sanctions (Feb. 9, 2011) at-11, n.1.

b. See also Order Denying Without Prejudice Motion to Substitute Counsel andMotion For Additional Time (Oct. 26, 2009) (denying motion to substitute Taitzas counsel due to her failure to follow applicable rules).



http://ia600506.us.archive.org/15/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.342089/gov.uscourts.flsd.342089.58.0.pdf












HOW MANY TIMES HAS A COURT EXPRESSLY CRITICIZED T AITZ FOR SUBMITTING

PURPORTED “EVIDENCE”?

Answer: In addition to the sanctions identified above and the multiple courtadmonishments/ actions identified above, and the multiple written criticism notedabove, Taitz‘s submission of questionable ―evidence‖ has been criticized by the courtsin written orders26 at least five times in three cases during the past three years:

1. Rhodes v. MacDonald et al , No. 4:09-cv-00106 (M.D. Ga.)

a. Court : ―One piece of ―evidence‖ Plaintiff‘s counsel relies upon deserves furtherdiscussion. Counsel has produced a document that she claims shows thePresident was born in Kenya, yet she has not authenticated that document. Shehas produced an affidavit from someone who allegedly obtained the documentfrom a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya by paying ―a cash ‗consideration‘ to aKenyan military officer on duty to look the other way, while [he] obtained the

copy‖ of the document. (Smith Decl. ¶ 7, Sept. 3, 2009.) Counsel has not,however, produced an original certificate of authentication from the governmentagency that supposedly has official custody of the document. Therefore, theCourt finds that the alleged document is unreliable due to counsel‘s failure toproperly authenticate the document. See Fed. R. Evid. 901.‖ See Order DenyingMotion for TRO at 10, n.1 (Sept. 16, 2009).

b.

Court : ―In support of this accusation, counsel submits the affidavit of Robert D.Douglas. Mr. Douglas states that on the day of the hearing in the Cook case, hesaw in the ―coffee shop‖ across the street from the federal courthouse someonewhom he recognized as Eric Holder the Attorney General Mr Douglas‘s













judge has never spoken to or even met is additional proof of a pattern offrivolous and outrageous conduct on the part of Ms. Taitz.‖ See Order ImposingSanctions at 16-17, 670 F.Supp.2d 1363 (Oct. 13, 2009), aff’d, 368 Fed.Appx. 949,

2010 WL 892848 (11th Cir. Mar. 15, 2010).


Court : ―Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 requires that individual's social-security numbers,taxpayer identification number, birth date, a minor's name, a minor's birthdate, or a financial-account number be redacted. In addition, Local Rule 79-

5.4 requires parties to redact social security numbers; names of minorchildren; dates of birth; financial account numbers; and home addresses.

Plaintiffs' filing contains, among other identifiers, Lisa Liberi's birth date andpartially redacted social security number that is redacted in a way that doesnot comport with the Local Rule instructions. Because Plaintiffs haveincluded the first five numbers of several persons' social security numbers,

and the Court's rule directs that only the last four numbers should beincluded, the Court is concerned that requiring the last four numbers wouldallow a person who had seen the improperly redacted original exhibit todeduce the entire social security number. As such, all social security numbersshall be fully redacted and no numbers shall be shown.‖

See Order Sealing Document Requiring Plaintiffs to Refile Opposition toMotion to Dismiss to Comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 (Sep. 30, 2011)

3. Taitz v. Astrue, No. 1:11-cv-00402 (D.D.C.)





















conclude that plaintiff has submitted a form that some individual obtainedthrough a false request and subsequently posted online. Plaintiff also submits a―verification results‖ page from the Social Security Number Verification System

(―SSNVS‖) indicating that social security number xxx-xx-4425 is ―not in file(never issued).‖ She argues that this page is further evidence that the SSA iscovering up the President‘s use of social security number xxx-xx-4425. The SSAuses the SSNVS to provide employers with a means of verifying the names andsocial security numbers of employees. See SSNVS Handbook,http://www.ssa.gov/employer/ssnvshandbk/ssnvsHandbook.pdf. ―Anyonewho knowingly and willfully uses SSNVS to request or obtain information from

SSA under false pretenses violates Federal law and may be punished by a fine,imprisonment or both.‖ Id. at 5. As with the registration acknowledgement formdiscussed above, the Court can only conclude that plaintiff has submitted a pagethat some individual obtained under false pretenses—that is, by representinghimself as the President‘s employer. The Court notes that both documentssubmitted by plaintiff are incomplete; the address on the registrationacknowledgment form and the employer identification number on the SSNVS

page have been blacked out, further confirming the documents‘ fraudulentorigins. For all of these reasons, the Court will disregard both documents as wellas any arguments made in reliance on them.‖

See Memorandum Opinion at 7-8, n.1 (Aug. 30, 2011) (internal citations to recordomitted).








A Briefing on the Litigation History of the Attorneys in Liberi v. Taitz, No. 8:11-cv-00485 (C.D. Cal.)

– –

TAITZ TABLE OF CASES27

Case Caption Disclosed? Disposition Criticized? Admonished? Sanctioned?

Barnett et al v Obama et al , No. 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN

(C.D. Cal.) Not within

scope Cook v. Simtech, Inc. et al , No. 8:09-cv-01382-RAL-EAJ (M.D. Fla.)

Not withinscope

Fazel v. Taitz, No. 30-2010-00405406-SC-SC-HLH (Ca.Super. Ct. (Orange) 2010) Unknown

Florida et a. v. U.S. Dep. of Health & Human Svs . , No..3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT(N.D. Fla. 2010 (motion tointervene)

Hornbeck Offshore Services, L.L.C. v. Salazar et al, No. 2:10-cv-01663-MLCF-JCW (E.D. La. 2010) Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al, No. 09-cv-01898-ECR (E.D. Pa.2009) Transferred

Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al, No. 09-3403 (3rd. Cir. 2009)(Berg appeal). Voluntarily

Dismissed Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al, No. 10-3000 (3rd Cir. 2010)

(Taitz appeal).

Dismissed /Lack of

Jurisdiction

27 Disclosed? Y=N= -- -- Disposition? Win Loss Pending -- -- Criticized? Y= -- -- Admonished? Y= -- -- Sanctioned: Y=




















– –


Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al, No. 8:11-cv-00485 AG (C.D. Cal.2011)

Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al, No. 11-56079 (9th Cir. 2011)

(Taitz Parties appeal)

Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al, No. 11-56079 (9th Cir. 2011)(Taitz Parties appeal)

Lincoln v. Daylight Chemical Info. Sys. Inc., et al , No. 8:10-cv-01573-AG –PLA ( C.D. Cal.). Voluntarily

Dismissed Medical Dental Development LLC v. Todd Pierson, No. 30-2010-00367447-CU-BC-CJC (Cal. Super. Ct. (Orange)2010)

Rhodes v. Gates, No. 5:09-cv-00703 (W.D. Tex. 2009) Not within

scope Rhodes v. MacDonald et al, No. 4:09-cv-00106 (M.D. Ga.2009)

Rhodes v. MacDonald, No. 09-15418 (11th Cir. 2009) Rhodes v. MacDonald, No. 10A56 (U.S. Supreme Ct(Application for Injunction) 2010) Rhodes v. MacDonald, No. 10-541 (U.S. Supreme Ct(Petition for Writ of Certiorari) 2010)

Rivernider et al v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. 9:2009-cv-81255 (S.D. Fla.)

Not within

scope Not Applicable Taitz v. 21 Century Insurance Co., No. 2010-00381664-CU-FR-CJC (Cal. Super. Ct. (Orange) Small Claims Ct. 2010) Unknown




























– –


Taitz v. Astrue , No. 1:11-cv-00402 (D.D.C. 2010)

Taitz v. Astrue, No. 1:11-mc-00158 (HID) (D. Haw. 2011) Taitz v. Dunn, No. 30-2010-00381664-CU-FR-CJC (Cal.Super. Ct. (Orange) 2010)

Taitz v. Bowen , No. S184384 (Cal. S.Ct. 2010) Taitz v. Fuddy, No. 1CC11-1-001731 (1st Cir. Ct. Haw.2011)

Taitz v. Obama, No. 1:10-cv-00151 (D.D.C.)

Taitz v. Ruemmler , No. 1:11-cv-01421 (D.D.C. 2011) State v. Taitz, No. SH673916 (Cal. Super. Ct. (Orange)Traffic Court) (disp. Sep. 15, 2008; bail forfeiture)

Not within

scope? State v. Taitz, No. SH753526 (Cal. Super. Ct. (Orange)Traffic Court) (disp. May 12, 2010; Traffic School)

Not within

scope? State v. Taitz, No. 12706NC (Cal. Super. Ct. (Orange)

Traffic Court) (disp. Apr. 19, 2011; bail forfeiture)

Not within

scope?

State v. Taitz, No. 14852LC (Cal. Super. Ct. (Orange)Traffic Court) (disp. Jan 15, 2010; case dismissed)

Not within

scope? State v. Taitz, No. SH713463 (Cal. Super. Ct. (Orange)Traffic Court) (disp. Jun. 26, 2009; bail forfeiture)

Not within

scope? State v. Taitz, No. SH749328 (Cal. Super. Ct. (Orange)Traffic Court) (disp. Dec. 21, 2009; bail forfeiture)

Not within

scope?









http://hoohiki1.courts.state.hi.us/jud/Hoohiki/Search.jsp;jsessionid=00002KI52O2QST0AIKGFZKR4KDY:138m3ojd7


















State v. Taitz, No. SJ026342PEB (Cal. Super. Ct. (Orange)Traffic Court) (disp. Sep. 30, 2009; bail forfeiture)

Not within

scope?

Ccccccc Special Report - A Briefing on the Litigation History of the Attorneys in Liberi v Taitz...

Documents

Transcript of Ccccccc Special Report - A Briefing on the Litigation History of the Attorneys in Liberi v Taitz...