LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss -...

8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room

1/28

U.S. District Court,Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case Number: 09-cv-01898 ECR

Court of Appeals No. Case Number: 09-3403

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT__________________________

LISA LIBERI, et al,

Plaintiffs Appellants,

v.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Respondents Appellees.

_________________________

APPELLANTS REPLY TO APPELLEES, ORLY TAITZ AND DEFEND

OUR FREEDOMS OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS MOTION TOWITHDRAW THEIR APPEAL or in the ALTERNATIVE TO DISMISSTHEIR APPEAL PURSUANT TO F.R.A.P. 42(b) and APPELLANTS

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLEE TAITZSFRIVOLOUS MOTION/REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

_____________________

Philip J. Berg, Esquire555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531(610) 825-3134

Attorney for the Appellants

Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/01/2010


2/28

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pages

TABLE OF CONTENTS...i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....ii-iii

APPELLANTS REPLY TO APPELLEE TAITZS

OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTSMOTION TO

WITHDRAW THEIR APPEAL OR IN THE

ALTERNATIVE DISMISS THEIR APPEAL

PURSUANT TO F.R.A.P. 42(b)......1-22

I. APPELLEE TAITZ FAILED TO SIGN HERPLEADINGS AND THEREFORE, THE

PLEADINGS MUST BE STRICKEN .....1-2

II. TAITZ FAILED TO RESPOND TO ANY OF

THE FACTS PRESENTED IN APPELLANTS

MOTION; FAILED TO GIVE ANY CAUSE

NOT TO DISMISS THE APPEAL; THEREFORE,

APPELLANTS MOTION MUST BE GRANTED

AND THE APPEAL DISMISSED,.2-15

III. TAITZS OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS MOTION

TO DISMISS and TAITZS REQUEST FOR

SANCTIONS ARE FRIVILOUS, NOT COMPLIANT

WITH THE RULES OF COURT; and MUST

BE DENIED. SANCTIONS MUST ISSUE

UPON TAITZ PURSUANT TO F.R.A.P. 46 (c),15-22

CONCLUSION,.22

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.23-24



3/28

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page(s)

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Swartzwelder v. McNeilly, 297 F.3d 228 (3rd Cir. 2002)..8

Walsh v. Schering-Plough Corp., 758 F.2d 889 (3d Cir. 1985)....2, 16, 17, 20, 21

Court of Appeals for other Circuits

Aircraft Trading & Services, Inc. v. Braniff, Inc.,

819 F.2d 1227, 1236 (2d Cir.1987).....18

In re Central Ice Cream Co., 836 F.2d 1068, 1074 (7th Cir.1987).....18

Meeks v. Jewel Companies, Inc., 845 F.2d 1421 (7th Cir. 1988)...17-18

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Prison Health Servs., Inc. v. Umar,

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12267 (E.D. Pa. May 8, 2002).8

Other U.S. District Court Cases

Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1380 (M.D. Ga. 2009).....11, 19

Barnett v. Obama,2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101206, 55-56 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009)..21



4/28

iii

FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE

Page(s)

Rule 38...16-18

Rule 42(b)....1, 2, 4, 13

Rule 46(c)16

Local Appellate Rule [LAR] 46.4......1-2

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Page(s)

MISCELANIOUS

Page(s)

Canon 2....20

Miller, The Adversary System:

Dinosaur or Phoenix, 69 Minn.L.Rev. 25 (1984)18

Rule 11....2, 17

DR 1-102(a)(4).........20



5/28

1

Appellants filed their Motion to Voluntarily Withdraw their Appeal or in

the Alternative to Dismiss their Appeal pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure [F.R.A.P.] 42(b) on or about Wednesday, April 21, 2010.

Ironically, Appellee Orly Taitz [hereinafter at times Taitz] did not enter

her appearance in the within Appeal until Monday, April 26, 2010, five (5) days

after Appellants moved to dismiss. Appellee Taitz apparently entered her

appearance on behalf of herself and her corporation, Defend our Freedoms

Foundations, Inc. [hereinafter at times DOFF].

Appellee Taitz then filed herunsigned Opposition to Appellants Motion

to Withdraw and/or Dismiss their Appeal pursuant to F.R.A.P. 42(b) on Friday,

April 30, 2010 and then filed an unsigned Addendum on the same date, which

appears to be the exact same thing as her Opposition.

I. APPELLEE TAITZ FAILED TO SIGN HER PLEADINGS ANDTHEREFORE, THE PLEADINGS MUST BE STRICKEN:

Taitz has failed to sign her pleadings filed with this Court on April 30, 2010,

which is not the first time. Therefore Taitzs pleadings must be stricken.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals Local Rule [LAR] Rule 46.4 states:



6/28

2

46.4 Signing of Documents

All documents, motions and briefs must be signed by an attorney or by aparty appearing pro se. Electronically filed documents must be signed witheither an electronic signature or s/ typed name.

LAR 46.4 was derived from the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 11

which states in pertinent part, Every pleading, motion, and other paper of a party

represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of recordIf a

pleading, motion, or other paper is not signed, it shall be stricken See also

Walsh v. Schering-Plough Corp., 758 F.2d 889 (3d Cir. 1985).

For these reasons, Taitzs pleadings must be stricken and Appellants

Motion to Withdraw or in the Alternative to Dismiss their Appeal pursuant to

F.R.A.P. 42(b) must be Granted and their Appeal Dismissed.

II. TAITZ FAILED TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THE FACTSPRESENTED IN APPELLANTS MOTION; FAILED TO GIVE

ANY CAUSE NOT TO DISMISS THE APPEAL; THEREFORE,

APPELLANTS MOTION MUST BE GRANTED AND THE

APPEAL DISMISSED:

Appellants incorporate their Motion to Withdraw their Appeal or in the

Alternative Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.A.P. 42(b) as if fully set forth

herein.

In Taitzs Opposition she states she opposes Appellants Motion to Dismiss

the Appeal without costs and thereby demands costs and sanctions. However,



7/28

3

Taitz fails to cite to any type of costs, which of course there are not any as she just

entered her appearance after Appellants Motion.

Taitz claims that the underlying case in this matter involves an

incomprehensible and totally frivolous and extortionate lawsuitin damages by a

politically motivated Pennsylvania attorney, his legal assistant and other

accomplices. Taitz by her own admission, which is filed in the lower Court,

threatened to take Attorney Philip J. Berg down and to do so Taitz stated she

would destroy his paralegal, Lisa Liberi and anyone associated with them. Taitz

filed false police reports against Appellants Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella; slandered

and libeled the Appellants; threatened the Appellants; posted all over the internet

and sent by mass emailing continuously to millions of people, including

internationally, the Social Security number; date of birth; mothers maiden name;

place of birth; name; and other private confidential information of Appellant, Lisa

Liberi. At the same time she did this, Taitz also posted from the Federal Bureau of

Investigations [FBI] website testimony to a subcommittee on the confidentiality of

Social Security numbers and the high rise in identity theft. Taitz illegally obtained

and publicized all the personal identifying information of Appellant Lisa Liberi for

the purpose of her identity to be stolen and cause her damages. Unfortunately,

Taitz was successful.



8/28

4

Taitz next claims that Appellants damages are supposedly based on a

California statute which does not in the least support the contentions made by

appellants. First, the issue of damages and any statute to support said damages

are not before this Court. Despite this, Taitz statements are untrue and contradict

Taitzs own admissions filed in the lower Court pertaining to the statute in

question.

Taitz next claims the request for injunctive relief seems void on its face

and was dismissed out of hand by the District Court and is (and was always) moot

by appellants own admission. This statement by Taitz is false and another

deception upon this Court. Appellants request for a Temporary Injunction and/or

Restraining Order was denied by the lower Court, nothing has been dismissed, as

Taitz is well aware of. Moreover, Taitz statements are purposely to mislead this

Court and the Internet world wherein Taitz publishes her Court filings. What

Appellants stated in their Motion to Withdraw their Appeal or in the Alternative to

Dismiss their Appeal pursuant to F.R.A.P. 42(b) was, Since the filing of the

Appeal for the Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction,

Defendant/Respondent Taitz has continued her distribution of Plaintiff Liberis

Social Security number, date of birth, place of birth, mothers maiden name and

other private confidential identifying information [Appellants Motion, p. 1]. At

this point and juncture, a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction will not



9/28

5

prevent damages from incurring, which is the sole purpose of an emergency

temporary restraining order and/or injunctionas damages incurred pending the

outcome of their appeal are severe and a temporary Restraining order and/or

Injunction are moot at this point [Appellants Motion, pp. 4-5]. Appellants have

never stated their request for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction

has always been moot as Taitz claimed. This statement by Taitz is a complete

lie to again mislead this Court.

Taitz next claims that appellants have filed numerous frivolous motions

in this court which Appellees Taitz and Foundation have had to respond to

including; lengthy motions for judicial notice and numerous attempts to

circumvent the Federal Rules of Evidence through incompetent and irrelevant

affidavits and attachments; motions to expedite, motions for sanctions, a transfer

to California and a motion for a restraining order among other unfounded and

frivolous requests. See Appellee Taitz Opposition at pp. 2-3. Appellants herein

filed two [2] motions, unlike Taitzs false statements in her opposition. The docket

speaks for itself. Appellants have not filed motion for sanctions with this Court,

the only party who filed a previous Motion with this Court for Sanctions, and the

current Request in Taitzs Opposition to Appellants Motion to Dismiss their

Appeal, was Taitz herself. See Taitzs filing of January 11, 2010 and April 30,

2010 appearing on this Courts Docket. Appellants have not filed any motions



10/28

6

with this Court for the case to be transferred to California and the entire purpose

for the appeal was for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or

Injunction to prevent the damages that have now occurred to Appellants.

Appellants are unsure as to Taitz statement on page three (3) of her

Opposition wherein she states defending against this malevolent legal jihad by

appellants. The word malevolent means wishing evil or harm to another or

others; showing ill will; ill-disposed; malicious; evil; harmful; injurious: and

Astrology, evil or malign in influence.1

Now, the word Jihad means a holy war

undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims; Islam An individual's striving for spiritual

self-perfection; Islam A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidel;

A crusade or struggle.2 To begin with, Appellants filed their appeal in good faith

as they did not agree with the lower Courts rulings. Being that none of the

Appellants and/or their witnesses have called for or declared a war on anyone; the

fact Appellants nor their witnesses have ever threatened anyone; they are not

Muslim, nor do any of the Appellants and/or their witnesses practice the Islamic or

Muslim religions, Appellee Orly Taitz has not made any sense in her ramblings.

Moreover, the only parties who have acted malicious, wishing harm to others, been

1 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/malevolent

2 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jihad



11/28

7

injurious, harmful and many other things is Appellee Orly Taitz herself. Orly Taitz

has threatened the Appellants; she has threatened to have one of the Appellants

children professionally kidnapped; she has called for the political purging of

Appellants claiming they are Obama supporters (the word purge in the political

sense means to kill); filed false law enforcement reports against two (2) of the

Appellants, Liberi and Ostella; see EXHIBIT A, drove around Apellee Ostellas

home and childrens schools claiming she was driving police department to police

department attempting to have Appellee Ostella falsely arrested, see EXHIBIT

B; publishing via the internet and mass emailing, including Internationally and

multiple republishing Appellant Liberis full social security number, date of birth,

name, place of birth, mothers maiden name and other private and confidential

information; illegally accessing and obtaining Appellants Ostella and Liberis

credit reports; Appellees Sankey and Hale advertised Appellant Liberis credit

information on a public radio program stating Liberi had just taken out a loan; and

many other illegal tactics performed by Appellees and Appellee Taitzs.

Taitz next states to this Court, It is particularly galling that appellants

claim delay by Appellees in entering an appearance is the cause of the dismissal

request since any delay was self inflicted by appellants inability to provide this

court necessary transcripts that appellants now refuse to produce. Another



12/28

8

deception upon this Court by Taitz. No where in Appellants Motion to Withdraw

and/or Dismiss their Appeal did they claim the delay in the proceedings was the

fault of Appellees for their failure to enter their appearance. What Appellants

stated in their Motion was, In the case at bar, the Appellees have neverentered

their appearance and therefore have not bore any costs and there are absolutely

no terms to agree too. [Appellants Motion, p. 6]. As for the transcript, although

repeated attempts were made to obtain the transcript, Appellants never received

the cost of the transcript until April 16, 2010. See EXHIBIT C. Again, Taitz

was well aware of this as it was pointed out in Appellants Motion. Moreover,

Appellants have never refused to produce the transcript or anything else. As Taitz

is fully aware, as she is an attorney, a temporary Injunction and/or Restraining

Order is to prevent damages and will only issue to prevent damages in which

monetary damages will not suffice. See Swartzwelder v. McNeilly, 297 F.3d 228,

234 (3rd Cir. 2002);Prison Health Servs., Inc. v. Umar, Civil Action No. 02-2642,

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12267 (E.D. Pa. May 8, 2002). Appellants Liberi and

Ostella have suffered severe damages due to Taitz continued improper, damaging

and illegal behaviors, therefore, at this point and time a Temporary Injunction

and/or Restraining Order will not suffice.

Taitz next asserts Transcripts that if provided would prove the lie being

perpetrated and transcripts that appellants now refuse to produce choosing to



13/28

9

escape justice by trying to voluntarily dismiss their own harassing and vexatious

appeal. Appellee Taitz was not even present for the August 7, 2009 hearing as

she failed to appear. Thus, Taitz is unaware of what took place in Court on that

date. Her statements prove the lie the only lying that has taken place is by

Appellee Taitz and the other Appellees. Moreover, Taitz continues her rhetoric

rant, claiming Appellants refuse to turn over the transcript, etc. Appellants filed

their request for the transcript in August 2009, shortly after the filing of their

Appeal. Not only did Appellants serve the Court transcriber with the transcript

request, this very Court also served it upon the Court Transcriber. Despite the

numerous calls and attempts made to the Court for the cost of the transcript,

Appellants were not provided the cost until April 16, 2010, see EXHIBIT C.

Taitz then states was a bad faith tactical stunt by appellees If this

statement is truly what Taitz meant to type, Appellants must agree. This would be

the first honest statement Taitz has made. All of the Appellees, including Taitz

actions and behaviors both with the Court and outside the Court have been done by

Appellees in bad faith and to continue their injurious behaviors towards

Appellants.

Taitz next continues with her rhetoric regarding the undersigned and his

clients. Taitz cites to cases which have absolutely no bearing to the within Appeal

and have no place herein. Taitz states Appellants Appeal should not be dismissed



14/28

10

without costs and sanctions. What costs? Again, Taitz had not entered her

appearance until almost a week after Appellants Motion to Dismiss the Appeal

was filed. Sanctions? For what? Appellants filed their Appeal as they felt the

lower Court was wrong in its assessment and felt the Temporary Restraining Order

and/or Injunction would prevent damages. For whatever reason this Appeal has

been sitting, the facts still remain, Taitz has continued her behaviors and violated

the lower Courts rulings, by continuing her publication of Appellant Liberis

Social Security number, date of birth, place of birth, mothers maiden name and

other very private confidential information. In fact, Taitzs publication of Liberis

full Social Security number is still present on the internet3 where Taitz posted it

herself. See EXHIBIT D. It should also be noted, the websites are set to re-

publish every three [3] hours, which is republication and sent out to an

undetermined amount of RSS feeds and social networks.

Taitz continues spewing her rhetoric that Appellants case and Appeal are to

harass, vex, and smear Appellees as well as improperly manufacture evidence to

be used in the case below. This of course, is completely untrue. Manufactured

evidence? What evidence is Taitz claiming was manufactured? Of course, none.

Appellants have not manufactured anything, however, Taitz and Appellee Neil

Sankey have, which was filed with this Court in August 2009. Appellants only

3 www.repubx.com and http://69.84.25.250/blogger/post/Dossie6.aspx



15/28

11

filed what was taken directly from Taitzs different websites; her mass emailing;

and affidavits of individuals who have witnessed the unacceptable and damaging

behaviors of Taitz. Judge Land4 said it best, The Court concludes from this

conduct that counsel did have intent to injure anyone associated with the

litigation who did not agree with her [emphasis added].

As a result of Taitzs continued republication of Appellant Liberis Social

Security number and other private data, and the severe damages in which she has

suffered, Appellants herein have sought Leave from the lower Court to have Taitz

held in Civil and/or Criminal Contempt. See EXHIBIT E.

Taitz further states, Appellants filed thousands of pages of pleadings here

and in district court and subjected the court below and the Appellees to the

expense and effort of responding to each and every one of their baseless

assertions Again, untrue and another deception upon this Court by Taitz. What

occurs in the lower Court, with the exception of the two [2] Court Orders

(Interlocutory) under Appeal, have absolutely nothing to do with the Appeal

herein. Moreover, Taitz had only responded to one [1] thing in this Appeal,

Appellants second (2nd) Motion to Expedite filed on December 27, 2009, nothing

4

Judge Land,Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1380 (M.D. Ga. 2009)



16/28

12

else. And, as previously stated, the docket speaks for itself. Taitz is doing nothing

more than lying to this very Court in an attempt to deceive this very Court. It

should also be noted, Appellants would not be forced to file all the Exhibits, if

Taitz would not have authored and published them for the sole purpose of harming

and causing injuries to t he Appellants. All exhibits filed are Taitzs own writings

and publishings and Affidavits of witnesses and parties who have personal

knowledge of the events.

Taitz then states, As usual this [sic] appellants motion is manufactured,

deceitful, untrue and misleading. The only deceitful party here is Taitz, as her

entire filing is filled with untruths and lies attempting to deceive this Court.

Moreover, what is manufactured, deceitful, untrue and/or misleading in Appellants

filing? Of Course, Taitz didnt state because the answer is nothing. Appellants

stated facts in their Motion and the only party attempting to prolong the dismissal

of this appeal is Taitz herself by her senseless and baseless filing. It should also be

noted by this Court, that Appellant Liberi has recently filed a Criminal Complaint

wherein the Defendants and perpetrators of the crimes against Liberi are Taitz and

Sankey. The criminal report was forwarded to the Sheriffs Department in

California. Appellant Liberi has asked for full prosecution of Appellees Taitz and

Sankey, et al as a result of the damages Appellant Liberi has suffered due to

Taitzs illegal acts including but not limited to continued publication of Liberis



17/28

13

Social Security number, date of birth, place of birth, mothers maiden name, and

other private confidential information; the illegal access of Appellants Ostella and

Liberis credit reports by Taitz and Sankey; the false filing of police reports against

Appellants Ostella and Liberi; and other criminal acts by Appellees Taitz and

Sankey.

Taitz then asserts that Appellants have failed to cite facts and have only

asserted unsupportable allegations of some vast, vague and implausible

conspiracy of the sort that on its face will not survive the R.Civ. P. 8(a)(2) facial

plausibility standard as interpreted by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949

(2009). This assertion by Taitz is completely absurd. First, there is no place for

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [F.R.C.P.] 8(a)(2) in Appellants Motion to

Withdraw and/or Dismiss their Appeal. Nor is the case ofAshcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.

Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) appropriate in this Appeal, it does not apply. What Taitz

failed to inform this Court is the fact she herself has filed in excess of three [3]

Motions to Dismiss Appellants underlying case, which not only is in violation of

the F.R.C.P. but were also denied by the lower Court. Appellants pleadings are

very clear, and outline the reasons they are seeking Withdraw or Dismissal of their

Appeal.

Taitz next asserts that Voluntary dismissal under FRAP Rule 42(b) is not

appropriate where the Appellee has been put to trouble and expense because the



18/28


19/28

15

Taitz then asserts that she should be allowed to present a bill of costs and

sanctions should be considered by this Court as no explanation has been provided

by appellants as to why transcripts were not provided. First, a Briefing Schedule

has not even been issued by this Court; and Taitz did not enter her appearance

until April 26, 2010, after Appellants filed their Motion, thus Appellee Taitz has

not incurred any costs. Next, Appellants clearly stated in their Motion to

Withdraw and/or Dismiss their Appeal as well as in their Response to the Court

Reporters Response to this Courts Order to Show Cause why she should not be

held in Contempt for her Failure to Produce the Transcript as to why they

[Appellants] had been unable to pay for the transcript, they were not provided the

cost of the transcript until April 16, 2010, five [5] days prior to the filing of their

Motion. One cannot purchase a transcript for which you do not have the cost of.

III. TAITZS OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS MOTION TODISMISS and TAITZS REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS ARE

FRIVILOUS, NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE RULES OF

COURT; and MUST BE DENIED. SANCTIONS MUST ISSUE

UPON TAITZ PURSUANT TO F.R.A.P. 46 (c):

In Taitzs Response in Opposition to Appellants Motion to Dismiss their

Appeal, she also requests Sanctions against the undersigned. Taitz request for

Sanctions is frivolous and filed for an improper purpose. In fact, her entire

pleading(s) filed April 30, 2010 are frivolous, incompliant with the Rules of Court,



20/28

16

and was done so to further delay the within Appeal and waist judicial resources.

Taitz is also attempting to prolong the dismissal of this Appeal so the case in the

lower Court cannot proceed forward. Therefore, Taitzs Request for Sanctions

must be denied; Taitz Pleadings must be Stricken for her Failure to sign them; she

must be Sanctioned and ordered to pay attorney fees for her Frivolous Filings; her

attempts to waist judicial resources; to cost Appellants additional Attorney Fees;

and her prolonging the Dismissal of Appellants Appeal so their case in the lower

Court stays at a stand still and cannot move forward.

As stated in Walsh v. Schering-Plough Corp., 758 F.2d 889, 895 (3d Cir.

1985):

Undoubtedly, it was just such considerations that gave rise to the recentamendment to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. That Rule, promulgated to keep attorneys"honest" in their pleading practice, now authorizes sanctions to be imposedwhen an attorney violates his certificate that good grounds support his

pleading and that the pleading is not interposed for delay. Moreover, ourown Fed.R.App.P. 46(c) provides for action being taken by us in the eventthat an attorney who practices before us exhibits conduct unbecoming amember of the bar or fails to comply with any rule of the court.

5

5

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(c) provides:

c) Disciplinary Power of the Court over Attorneys. A court of appeals may, afterreasonable notice and an opportunity to show cause to the contrary, and after hearing, ifrequested, take any appropriate disciplinary action against any attorney who practicesbefore it for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar or for failure to comply withthese rules or any rule of the court.



21/28

17

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides:

Every pleading, motion, and other paper of a party represented by anattorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in hisindividual name, whose address shall be stated. A party who is notrepresented by an attorney shall sign his pleading, motion or other paperand state his pleading, motion or other paper and state his addressThesignature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that he hasread the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge,information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well groundedin fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for theextension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is notinterposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to causeunnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. If a

pleading, motion, or other paper is not signed, it shall be strickenIf apleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the

court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the

person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate

sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or

parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the

filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable

attorney's fee. [emphasis added]

It is evident to me that unfortunately there are some counsel who abusethe judicial process and by doing so make our task and the tasks of ourcolleagues far more difficult. Historically, attorneys have been reluctant to"blow the whistle" on their colleagues or to seek sanctions against theiropponents. Perhaps as Professor Miller notes in a recent article written in adiscovery context,6 they are mindful of a variation on the golden rule "Donot seek sanctions against what is done to you today, for it may be whatyou will try on your opponent tomorrow."

Taitz cites the case Meeks v. Jewel Companies, Inc., 845 F.2d 1421 (7th Cir.

1988) for the proposition that Rule 38 Sanctions should be imposed against the

undersigned, and although the case itself is not binding upon this Court, the



22/28

18

undersigned hopes the Court will take the following findings in the Meeks case into

account. The Meeks Court stated @ 1422:

The plaintiff's appeal, although not meritorious, is plainly not frivolous; itis the defendant's request for Rule 38 sanctions that is frivolous. We aretroubled by the frequency with which lawyers in this court, whetherrepresenting appellants or Appellees, are including in their briefsgroundless requests for Rule 38 sanctions.

Any frivolous motion, pleading, or request is subject to sanctions,including a motion or request for sanctions. In re Central Ice Cream Co.,836 F.2d 1068, 1074 (7th Cir.1987). We remind the bar that sanctions will

be forthcoming if counsel routinely request Rule 38 sanctions without

careful investigation to determine that the appeal or defense sought to besanctioned is indeed frivolous. See alsoAircraft Trading & Services, Inc. v.

Braniff, Inc., 819 F.2d 1227, 1236 (2d Cir.1987).

The request for Rule 38 sanctions is DENIED, and, as a modest sanctionfor the filing of that frivolous request, the defendant shall bear its costs ofdefending the appeal even though it won.

Here, Taitz for the second time has asked this Court for unwarranted

Sanctions based on her own frivolous filings. Appellants filed their Appeal in

good faith. Appellants incorporate all their filings, outlined on this Courts

docket, as if fully set forth herein. Every filing by Appellants pertained to the

issues presented to the Court and were done so in good faith. Appellant Taitz on

the other hand, has failed to follow the Courts rules; has filed frivolous pleadings;

has made false allegations against the undersigned and his clients; has failed to

serve the undersigned; has failed to sign her pleadings; has made false statements

6 Miller, The Adversary System: Dinosaur or Phoenix, 69 Minn.L.Rev. 25 (1984).



23/28


24/28

20

inappropriate actions and behaviors. Taitz inappropriate filings also violated

Former Cannon 228.

It should also be noted, Judge Carter in the U.S. District Court located in

California9 also had dealings with Orly Taitz, Appellee herein. Judge Carter stated

29], dismissing Taitz Case, that Taitz continually failed to comply with the Courts

Rules and Procedures; Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact the Court in

efforts to manipulate the Court. Judge Carter stated he was deeply concerned that

Orly Taitz had suborned perjury from witnesses she (Taitz) intended to call before

his (Judge Carters) Court, as the Court received several sworn affidavits stating

Orly Taitz had asked them to lie and to perjure their testimony. Just as Taitz is

doing herein, she is lying and falsifying information to this Court in attempts to

manipulate the Court; she has failed to follow this Courts Procedures and Rules;

she has perjured her own statements; she has purposely mis-represented

8 The Court stated in Walsh v. Schering-Plough Corp., 758 F.2d 889, 896 (3d Cir. 1985)

Former Canon 22, 62 ABA Rep. at 1112-1113 provides:

The conduct of the lawyer before the Court and with other lawyers should be

characterized by candor and fairness. * * * It is unprofessional and dishonorable to dealother than candidly with the facts * * * in drawing affidavits and other documents andin the presentation of causes.

Canon 22 has been superseded by DR 1-102(a)(4) which provides that a lawyer shallnot engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

in his ruling of October 29, 2009, on page twenty-eight and twenty-nine [28 and



25/28

21

Appellants filings as well as Judge Robrenos June 25, 2009 Order; and she has

falsely accused Appellants and the undersigned of what Taitz herself is actually

doing.

The Court in Walsh v. Schering-Plough Corp., 758 F.2d at 896-897 went on

further stating:

If we take no steps to resolve the issue which these affidavits have nowpresented to us, we run the risk not only of losing the respect of the bar, butof damaging the professional standards that lawyers look to us to uphold.Every member of the bar has had his character and fitness tested and

reviewed before obtaining a license to practice. We, together, with othercourts, are charged with maintaining at least that level of honesty and

professionalism in the conduct of those who, once having obtained the rightto practice, continue to exercise that right before us.

...So too, as each instance of charged professional misconduct is ignoredby us or deemed unworthy of our attention, our professional tapestry willimperceptibly, but surely, lose its form, its structure and its shape.

Thus, in my opinion it is no answer to characterize the issue before us asone not worth our consideration. If we do not require strict adherence to

principles which mandate candor and truthfulness, and if we refuse todecide and enforce claimed violations of those fundamental precepts, wewill have only ourselves to blame if intolerable and proscribed practices ofthe bar become the rule rather than the exception.

It has taken the undersigned approximately ten [10] hours to review, discuss

with his clients; research and respond to this frivolous filing of Appellee Taitz.

9

Judge David O. Carter,Barnett v. Obama, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101206, 55-56 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 20



26/28


27/28


28/28

Neil SankeyThe Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm (unrepresented)

Sankey Investigations, Inc.2470 Stearns Street #162Simi Valley, CA 93063

Email: [email protected]

Linda Sue Belcher201 Paris

Castroville, Texas 78009Email: [email protected] and

Email: [email protected]

Ed HaleCaren Hale

Plains RadioKPRN

Bar H Farms1401 Bowie Street

Wellington, Texas 79095Email: [email protected];[email protected];

ed@barhfarnet; and [email protected]

________________________PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE

s/ Philip J. Berg


LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss -...

Documents

Transcript of LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss -...