Liberi v Taitz Decl of Philip J Berg in Opposition to Reed MTD Doc 391-3

8/4/2019 Liberi v Taitz Decl of Philip J Berg in Opposition to Reed MTD Doc 391-3

1/40

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire 1

1

2

3

4

5

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:[email protected]

LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659Attorney in pro se and for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR 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: October 17, 2011Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m.Location: Courtroom 10D

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

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 391-3 Filed 09/25/11 Page 1 of 40 Page ID#:9355


2/40


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Courts, Middle and Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Third Circuit Court of

Appeals; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court; and the U.S. Supreme Court.

2. This case is not about a venomous spat among members of a

venomous political clique. Lisa Liberi and I have never worked with Orly Taitz

or any of the Sankey Defendants. This case is about Orly Taitz threatening to take

me down and to do so she was going to destroy my paralegal, Lisa Liberi, and get

rid of her. And, the database companies that sold my clients private information to

Orly Taitz and the Sankey Defendants to carry out Orly Taitzs [Taitz] threats.

3. There were several Meet and Confer conversations between James

McCabe, Esquire, Attorney for the Reed Defendants and me. One telephonically

and the rest by way of email and letters.

4. I saw the note of Mr. McCabes as fn 1, on page 1 of the Reed

Defendants Brief, which is ridiculous. My office contacted Lexis Legal Division

and conversed with Mindy Meeks, Paralegal to Lexis Attorneys. Ms. Meeks is

who corrected the company names and advised the Agent for Process of Service

Mr. McCabe was aware of this as I sent it to his office by way of email and letter

See EXHIBIT A.

5. I did inform Mr. McCabe I would be happy to correct any corporation

I incorrectly named. Mr. McCabe wanted me to dismiss all the Reed Defendants

except Accurint, which I refused to, do. Mr. McCabe asked me if I would amend



3/40


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

our Complaint. I stated I would amend the Complaint if necessary, but I would not

delete the Reed Defendants and only name Accurint. See EXHIBIT A.

6. On June 14, 2011, I sent Mr. McCabe another letter in response to his

email and letter. I broke down all the Reed Defendants, and why they were being

sued. I again refused to dismiss all Reed Defendants except for Accurint. See

EXHIBIT B.

7. I sent a letter to Reed Elsevier, Inc. on February 28, 2010 regarding

the illegal sale of my clients private data including but not limited to their names

addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, places of birth, maiden names

mothers maiden names, fathers names, financial data, credit reports and other

private information. I received a phone message from Linda Clark, Sr. Corporate

Counsel of LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics Group, Inc. stating she

would be calling me back to set-up a telephone conference if I was agreeable.

8. I did not hear back from Ms. Clark, so I sent her another letter on

March 10, 2010. In this letter, I again reemphasized the seriousness of what had

taken place with my clients and the three [3] Federal Trade Commission [FTC]

Orders violated.

9. At the request of Ms. Clark we had a telephone conference call on

March 23, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. During this call, Ms. Clark admitted that Neil Sankey

was using his son, Todd Sankey with The Sankey Firms account. Ms. Clark



4/40


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

confirmed that Todd Sankey and The Sankey Firms account had been cancelled

Ms. Clark stated that Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella were not the only victims of

what Sankey had done. Ms. Clark stated that Lexis was also a victim as the

Sankeys had violated their terms and conditions of use. I told Ms. Clark about the

incorrect information Lexis maintained on my clients, which I wanted deleted and I

wanted my clients opted out. I mentioned to Ms. Clark that LexisNexis

ChoicePoint, Inc. and Accurint had violated three [3] FTC Court Orders with

allowing the illegal access and dissemination of my clients private information

Ms. Clark stated no, I did not have my information correct, and they (Lexis)

simply agreed to the Orders by the FTC.

10. Several days later, I received an email on behalf of Ms. Clark. The

email gave instructions of forms my clients needed to fill out to be opted out of the

Lexis systems. My clients complied.

11. On March 26, 2010, I sent a third letter to Ms. Clark verifying some

aspects of our telephone conversation. See EXHIBIT C.

12. I never received anything from Ms. Clark verifying that my clients

had been opted out and meanwhile, Mrs. Liberi was able to pull her reports. I sent

another letter to Ms. Clark.

13. Because the Reed Defendants refused to cooperate in removing the

incorrect information on my clients; refusing to furnish reports to my clients;



5/40


6/40


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 EXHIBIT A



7/40

From: Philip Berg

Date: Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Subject: Re: Liberi, et al. v. Taitz, et al., No. 11-485 (C.D. Cal)To: "Hrvatin, Adriano"

Mr. Hrvatin,

I will be happy to discuss this with Mr. McCabe upon his return. Forwhatever reason you seem to believe that we are only dealing with anAccurint report which is not accurate. Defendants, including Orly Taitz,

Yosef Taitz and the Sankey Defendants obtained Lexis reports, Accurintreports and credit reports from ChoicePoint. Defendants Orly Taitz andthe Sankey Defendants have admitted they obtained the private datafrom LexisNexis, ChoicePoint and Intelius. Intelius also obtains its

information directly from LexisNexis. Further, Orly Taitz has admitted inCourt filings that she obtained Plaintiffs private data directly fromLexisNexis and ChoicePoint.

Additionally, Defendants Yosef Taitz, Daylight and Oracle obtained myclients private data directly from LexisNexis' databases as LexisNexisdid not have proper security in place. Defendant Yosef Taitz,CEO/President of Daylight in his recent MTD stated your clients areliable. Defendant Orly Taitz stated she obtained Plaintiffs private datafrom your clients, LexisNexis, and ChoicePoint, Inc. directly and from

the Sankey Defendants who also obtained Plaintiffs private data directlyfrom LexisNexis and ChoicePoint, Inc. Orly Taitz went on further statingyour clients are liable for all the damages.

From February 2010 through the end of June 10, 2010, I was dealing withLinda Clark with LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics Group, Inc.who admitted her division was responsible for the reports in questionand the investigation. A letter was faxed from Linda Clark to my officefrom "LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics Group; and ChoicePointa division of LexisNexis" on June 10, 2010.

Linda Clark then brought in Jennifer Jung, Director and Sr, CorporateCounsel in Miamisburg, Ohio. During a telephone conference call withLinda Clark and Jennifer Jung, Ms. Jung identified her division asLexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. However, a letter received from JenniferJung came from the LexisNexis Legal Department in Ohio.

Exb. "A", pg. 7



8/40

Jennifer Jung retaliated against my client, Plaintiff Lisa Liberi. Ms. Jungcancelled Lisa Liberis Lexis account and made untrue prejudicialstatements to the school Ms. Liberi was attending and refused to renewLisa Liberi's Lexis account because Mrs. Liberi filed a Complaint withthe Company.

Both of my clients, Plaintiffs Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella, wrote toAccurint for a copy of their report. The letter was sent to your client withproof of delivery. Accurint sent a generic letter from LexisNexis RiskSolutions stating they are not a credit reporting agency as defined bythe FCRA, so I understand why you would like everyone else dismissed.

My clients also wrote to LexisNexis in Georgia for their full reports. Theletters were sent to your client with proof of delivery. Although over ayear later, to date, my clients never received a response or their reports

as required by law.

Further, in order to obtain products and accounts, you obtain them fromLexisNexis Risk Solutions, see

https://www.lexisnexis.com/risk/

According to Reed Elsevier's press release located at http://www.reed-elsevier.com/mediacentre/pressreleases/2008/Pages/AcquisitionofChoicePointIncCompleted.aspx, Reed Elsevier, Inc.

Your client's press release states in part:

"On 21 February 2008, Reed Elsevier announced that it had reachedagreement to acquire ChoicePoint for a total cost of $4.1billion. ChoicePoint brings to Reed Elseviers risk managementbusiness a leading position in providing unique data and analytics to theinsurance sector and highly complementary products in the screening,authentication and public records areas. On 16 September 2008 ReedElsevier announced that the acquisition had received clearance from the

US Federal Trade Commission."

Pursuant to the FTC Court Orders obtained against Seisint, Inc., they tooshow Reed Elsevier, Inc. as the owner of said Company.

Exb. "A", pg. 8



9/40

Prior to the filing of the Complaint, my paralegal was in touch via emailand telephone with:Melinda (Mindy) S. Meek

OSBA Certified Senior Paralegal

LexisNexis Litigation Department

9443 Springboro Pike

Miamisburg, Ohio 45342

Ms. Meek is the one who stated that she verified with the attorneys andChoicePoint was LexisNexis ChoicePoint, Inc., a division of ReedElsevier, Inc. as were the other lists of Defendants. Ms. Meek also statedthat all parties were to be served through CT Corp. in Los Angeles.

As stated, this case is far more than an Accurint Report and I am at aloss as to why you believed that the case only revolved around a singleAccurint report.

If any of the parties are not named correctly, we will be happy to correctthat. I am available next week to discuss the case in whole with Mr.McCabe.

Respectfully,

Philip J. Berg555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Ph: (610) 825-3134Fx: (610) 834-7659Cell: (610) 662-3005

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Hrvatin, Adriano wrote:

Exb. "A", pg.



10/40

Dear Mr. Berg:

We would like to speak with you to request plaintiffs' dismissal of certain of the Reed-associateddefendants. The Reed-associated defendants (other than LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc. f/k/aSeisint, Inc.) wish to avoid filing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 on the ground that the complaint'sallegations do not adequately state a claim against them. LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc. wouldnot oppose an amendment to the complaint naming "LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc. f/k/a Seisint,Inc." as the sole Reed-associated defendant. This communication is intended to meet the pre-filingrequirements of C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-3.

The complaint names as defendants the following entities:

1. Reed Elsevier Inc.;2. LexisNexis Group, Inc., a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.;3. LexisNexis, Inc., a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.;4. LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc.;5. LexisNexis Seisint, Inc., d/b/a Accurint, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.;6. LexisNexis ChoicePoint, Inc., a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.; and7. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.

Defendants 2, 3, 5 and 6 listed above do not exist. You are correct that LexisNexis Group is a division ofReed Elsevier Inc., but it is not a separate corporation. "LexisNexis Seisint, Inc." appears to be amisnomer for the corporation formerly known as Seisint, Inc. Seisint was never a division of ReedElsevier Inc. it was and is a separate corporation. Similarly, "LexisNexis ChoicePoint, Inc." appears tobe a misnomer for ChoicePoint Inc., a corporation whose stock was acquired by a Reed Elsevieraffiliate. Like Seisint, ChoicePoint, Inc. was never a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. it was a separatecorporation. We ask that you dismiss these defendants.

Reed Elsevier Inc. (1) and LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. (7) are currently existingcorporations. However, neither corporation has been involved in the preparation or sale of Accurintreports. We ask that you dismiss them as well.

Any claim based on the sale of an Accurint report or reports in 2009 should be made against "LexisNexisRisk Data Management Inc. f/k/a Seisint, Inc." Until January 1, 2010, one Reed subsidiary was namedLexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group Inc. (4, above). Effective January 1, 2010, the name ofthat corporation was changed to LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL Inc. Since January 1, 2010, LexisNexisRisk Solutions FL Inc. has operated the Accurint business. That corporation, though, was not the oneinvolved in the Accurint business at the time Mr. Sankey was alleged to have obtained an Accurint reportor reports about the plaintiffs. Until January 1, 2010, the Accurint operations (including databasemaintenance and report preparation) were conducted by Seisint, Inc., a corporation that has sincechanged its name to LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc.

Based on the foregoing, we ask that you dismiss the Reed-associated defendants presently named. Wehave no objection to the dismissal of those entities without prejudice. That way, if you later conclude thatthe facts are not as we have stated them, you may re-name the dismissed defendant. As noted,LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc. would not oppose an amendment to the complaint to name"LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc. f/k/a Seisint, Inc." as a defendant.

Please let us know if you would like to discuss this request by telephone. I am in the office and generallyavailable; Jim is currently on vacation but returns to work early next week.

Exb. "A", pg.



11/40


12/40

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28EXHIBIT B

12



13/40

James McCabe, Esquire re Reed Elsevier, Inc. Defendants 1

LAW OFFICES OF

PHILIP J. BERG555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531PHILIP J. BERG

______________

(610) 825-3134

NORMAN B. BERG, Paralegal [Deceased]

Fax (610) 834-7659

E-Mail:[email protected]

September 14, 2011

James F. McCabe, EsquireMorrison & Foerster425 Market StreetSan Francisco, CA 94105-2482

By Email [email protected] = 3 Pages

Re: Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al,

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

Dear Mr. McCabe:

Im in receipt of your letter dated September 9, 2011. As my paralegal informed you, I was inCalifornia for a hearing in this case on Monday, September 12

th.

Your letter raises very interesting points that I will address.

Mr. Sankey did not only obtain an Accurint report as you continue improperly claiming. Mr.

Sankey and Orly Taitz obtained credit reports on my clients from ChoicePoint, Inc. and backgroundreports from Accurint and LexisNexis. In addition, LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics Group

confirmed information and then retaliated against Plaintiff Liberi. Further, I sent a letter to LexisNexis

regarding the incorrect information the Reed Defendants maintain on my clients and uploaded to

Equifax. LexisNexis never corrected the information. My clients sent letters to the Reed Defendantsseeking copies of their reports and the correction of the wrong information again, to date, the

corrections have not been made and Plaintiff Liberi never received one report and Plaintiff Ostella

only received one.

You now raise the issue of a Family Law file in California pertaining to Plaintiff Lisa Liberi.Plaintiff Liberi does not have a Family Law file in California. The file you are mentioning is aPaternity Action. Paternity actions in the State of California are treated as adoptions and therefore, are

confidential. Any Social Security number obtained from a Court document in Plaintiff Liberis

paternity action was illegally accessed and obtained and would have only contained Mrs. Liberis oldSocial Security number, not her new one. Orly Taitz disclosed Plaintiff Liberis new Social Security

number all over the Internet and sent to over a million people and businesses. Orly Taitz also admitted

in Court filings she obtained Plaintiffs Liberi and Ostella private data from LexisNexis, ChoicePoint

Exb. "B", pg. 1



14/40


James F. McCabe, Esquire September 14, 2011

Morrison & Foerster

Page Two

and Intelius. This would also explain and confirm that Defendant Orly Taitz also obtained Plaintiff

Ostellas adoption records from your clients.

LexisNexis Group is inadvertently named as LexisNexis Group, Inc. It appears that

LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., who is properly named, owns ChoicePoint, Inc. LexisNexis Groupoperates LexisNexis.com and Lexis.com, which Plaintiff Lisa Liberi had an account with. Mrs.

Liberis account allowed her access to the people finder functions, which gave Social Security

numbers; dates of birth; address information; phone numbers, and other private data. LexisNexisoffers both front end view, which Mrs. Liberi had and back end view. LexisNexis shows to be a

division of Reed Elsevier, Inc. I named LexisNexis, Inc. a division of Reed Elsevier, Inc., which

should have been LexisNexis a division of Reed Elsevier, Inc.

LexisNexis Group and LexisNexis have what is called People Information. In this section,you can obtain the first five [5] numbers of ones Social Security number; address, date of birth; names

used; relatives; phone numbers and other private data. LexisNexis Group and LexisNexis have SocialSecurity numbers affixed to my clients which have never belonged to my clients; have combined Mrs.

Liberis old and new Social Security numbers and further endangered her and her family; have placed

incorrect birth dates for my clients; incorrect addresses; names; and other incorrect private data, all ofwhich has been uploaded to Equifax. LexisNexis Group and LexisNexis were placed on notice on

more than one occasion regarding the illegal disclosure and incorrect information, with a demand for

corrections. To date, LexisNexis Group and LexisNexis have ignored the information and demands.

Jennifer Jung is also located within LexisNexis Group. Jennifer Jung is who retaliated against

Mrs. Liberi, canceling her Lexis account and badmouthing her to her school, with false statements andfalse allegations.

Moreover, LexisNexis a division of Reed Elsevier, Inc. also furnished Mrs. Liberis California

Drivers License information. Todd Sankey, Neil Sankey, The Sankey Firm, Orly Taitz and YosefTaitz illegally obtained Mrs. Liberis California Drivers License information from LexisNexis. Mr.

Neil Sankey admitted this and discussed this on radio shows with other individuals. California

Drivers License information is private and confidential.

ChoicePoint, Inc. who Orly Taitz, Yosef Taitz and the Sankey Defendants obtained credit

reports from on my clients, which again Orly Taitz and Yosef Taitz have admitted, and Mr. Sankey

discussed the credit details on a radio show regarding Mrs. Liberi, also has incorrect information,including but not limited to Social Security numbers, dates of birth, names and other private data.

ChoicePoint, Inc. was placed on notice on more than one occasion regarding the illegal disclosure, the

incorrect information and the demand for correction. To date, ChoicePoint, Inc. has ignored theinformation. ChoicePoint, Inc. also uploaded the incorrect information to Equifax.

Exb. "B", pg. 1



15/40


James F. McCabe, Esquire September 14, 2011

Morrison & Foerster

Page Three

LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. maintains all files on an individual. In order to obtain your

free file, you are required to write to them, furnish your Drivers License, Social Security number,address information, etc. My clients wrote to LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. seeking their files,

however, Plaintiff Ostella only received one partial file and Plaintiff Liberi never received anything in

return. Both Plaintiffs submitted their requests with proof of delivery. LexisNexis Risk and

Information Analytics Group and ChoicePoint, Inc. are located on the facsimile cover sheet with theletter addressed to me from Linda Clark, LexisNexis in-house counsel. Linda Clark admitted the

events regarding my clients and stated that LexisNexis was also a victim.

As also stated to Mr. Hrvatin in my email response to him earlier, Prior to the filing of the

Complaint, my paralegal was in touch via email and telephone with:

Melinda (Mindy) S. Meek

OSBA Certified Senior ParalegalLexisNexis Litigation Department

9443 Springboro Pike

Miamisburg, Ohio 45342

Ms. Meek verified with the Lexis attorneys that ChoicePoint was LexisNexis ChoicePoint, Inc.,

a division of Reed Elsevier, Inc. as were the other lists of Defendants. Ms. Meek also stated that all

parties were to be served through CT Corp. in Los Angeles.

For these reasons, I cannot and will not agree to dismiss every Reed entity with the exception

of Accurint, as that is completely improper. I am willing however, to correct the names of the

Corporations named in Plaintiffs lawsuit to properly reflect the entities legal names. Further, if weneed to amend, I will also be adding Reed Elsevier PLC and Reed Elsevier NV, both located in New

York, as it appears from the Reed website that they own LexisNexis, LexisNexis Group and Reed

Elsevier, Inc.

Of course, I feel it best to settle our claims, especially in light of Orly Taitz, Yosef Taitz and

the Sankeys statements. And, in light of the Courts findings in its September 12, 2011 TentativeRuling, see page 11, second paragraph in regards to Orly Taitz, Yosef Taitz and Daylight Chemical

Information Systems, Inc.

Thank you.

Respectfully,

Philip J. Berg

PJB:jb

Exb. "B", pg. 1



16/40

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28EXHIBIT C

16



17/40

Z:\Liberi\Letter to Reed Elsevier, Inc., et al May 10, 2010 1

LAW OFFICES OF

PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531PHILIP J. BERGCATHERINE R. BARONE

BARBARA MAY(610) 825-3134

FAX (610) 834-7659

NORMAN B. BERG, Paralegal [Deceased] E-Mail:[email protected]

May 10, 2010

PERSONAL and CONFIDENTIAL

Andrew Prozes, President

REED ELSEVIER, INC.LEXISNEXIS GROUP, INC.

SEISINT, INC. d/b/a ACCURINT

CHOICEPOINT, INC.125 Park Avenue, Suite 2300

New York, New York 10017

Re: Illegal Disclosure of Private Data and Credit Reports on Lisa Ren Liberi and Lisa Ostella

Dear President Prozes:

I sent you a letter on February 28, 2010 regarding the illegal access to my clients personalconfidential information. In turn, you handed the letter over to Linda Clark, Senior Corporate Counsel

for handling. Unfortunately, nothing was handled. Instead, the private data that was shared with Ms.

Clark regarding my clients was updated on my clients accounts with your Corporations, Affiliates and

Subsidiaries, further endangering my clients. And, your Corporations, Affiliates and Subsidiariesrefused to opt my clients out, even though they are victims of heinous crimes, some of which your

Corporations, Affiliates and Subsidiaries were complicit in.

The last letter I sent was on March 26, 2010 and I did not even receive a courtesy response.

For this reason, your Corporations, Affiliates and Subsidiaries were served a subpoena on Wednesday,April 28, 2010, in which documents are due in my office no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 17, 2010. Acopy of the subpoena served upon your company and my letter of March 26, 2010 are attached hereto

for your review.

In addition, as outlined in my letters, I have prepared a Complaint to be submitted to the

Federal Trade Commission, U.S. Department of Justice, Department of Commerce, U.S. Senate Armed

Sent by Federal Express................................................................... 53 Pages

Exb. "C", pg.



18/40

Z:\Liberi\Letter to Reed Elsevier, Inc., et al May 10, 2010 2

Andrew Prozes, President May 10, 2010REED ELSEVIER, INC.

LEXISNEXIS GROUP, INC.


CHOICEPOINT, INC.

Page Two of Two

Services Committee; U.S. Security and Exchange Commission and my clients local Federal Bureau of

Investigations for full review and prosecution. I have attached a courtesy copy for your review. I haveomitted all exhibits due to their confidential nature and your companys failure to maintain my clients

information confidential and the fact your companies further updated my clients records with the

confidential information I provided in my letters to you and your company.

I will be forwarding the Federal Trade Commission Complaint within ten (10) days should

your Corporations choose to not settle these matters.

I also wanted to inform you how disappointed I was with the treatment I received from LindaClark. Not only did she treat me as if I did not know what I was talking about, she made it very clear

that your company did not take the FTC Orders against your corporations, affiliates and subsidiariesseriously. In addition, Ms. Clark outright lied to me which was very unbecoming.

In addition, I received a letter from Jennifer L. Jung, Director and Sr. Corporate Counsel,refusing to comply with the subpoena in our Federal Case, which I have referenced above. I have

attached a copy of Ms. Jungs letter; a copy of a Lexis Report on Reed Elsevier, Inc. showing CT

Corporation in New York as your Registered Agent; and the Servers receipt showing who at CTCorporation was served.

As stated, I will refrain from sending the complaint for ten (10) days from the date of this letter.After which, I will forward it to all the agencies outlined in the attached. I will also be moving forwardwith a lawsuit against Reed Elsevier, Inc. your Corporations, Affiliates and Subsidiaries, as I must

protect my clients interest.

Please do not hesitate contacting my office should you have any questions or need anything

additional.

Thank you.

Respectfully,

Philip J. Berg

PJB:jb

Enclosures

Exb. "C", pg. 1



19/40

AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents. Information. or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTfor the

))))))

(l f the action is pending in another district, state where:

Plaintiffv . Civil Action No.

Defendant

SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTSOR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTIONTo:

o Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the followingdocuments, electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying, testing, or sampling ofthematerial:

Place: Date and Time:

o Inspection of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, orother property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting partymay inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.Place: Date and Time:

The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule45 (d) and (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, areattached.

Date:CLERK OF COURT ~~ .c ./).o A. Signature ofClef-k or Deputy Cler.

OR

Attorney's signature

The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (nameofparty)______________________________ ' who issues or requests this subpoena, are:

09-cv-01898ECR

Liberi,etal

Taitz,etal

X

TheInformation;Documents;andObjectsOutlined inAttachment "A"hereto.

To be sent by Certified Mail; Courier, e.g. Fed Ex; or Personal Service To:PhilipJBerg,Esquire555AndorraGlenCourt,Suite12,LafayetteHill,PA19444-2531

OnorbeforeMay17,2010@5:00p.m.E.S.T.

April26,2010

EasternDistritoPennsylvania

Michael E. Kunz, Clerk of Court, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of PA, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106

125ParkAvenue,Suite2300,NewYork,NewYork10017ChoicePoint, Inc.; and all un-named subsidiaries thereofAndrewProzes,President,ReedEl Sevier,Inc.;LexisNexisGroup,Inc.;Seisint,Inc.dbaAccur



20/40


21/40

Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of PA, Case No. 09-cv-01898 ECR2

3. PRODUCE ANY AND ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THE

INDIVIDUALS LISTED IN #2 FROM JANUARY 1, 2008 TO

PRESENT AND TO WHOM THE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED

PRODUCE A LIST and/or COPIES OF ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THE

PARTIES LISTED IN #2, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO:

Maiden name(s); past and present addresses; Social Security number(s); date ofbirth(s); place of births; credit reporting/credit reports; alias; friends; family members;education; voting records; parents names; professional licensing; employment data;death records; adoption records; criminal records; civil records; associations; telephonenumbers; and any other information and searches pertaining to and obtained on theindividuals named in #2;

Produce the permissible purpose used and/or given in order to obtain said informationon each party the information was provided and Produce any and all verification thereof

by your Corporations and Companies; and

Produce a list of individuals and/or companies the information was provided to fromthe date of January 1, 2008 to present.

Exb. "C", pg. 21



22/40

Lexis_ltr_to_Linda_Clark_03_26_10_A.doc 1

LAW OFFICES OF

PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531PHILIP J. BERGCATHERINE R. BARONE

BARBARA MAY(610) 825-3134

FAX (610) 834-7659

NORMAN B. BERG, Paralegal [Deceased] E-Mail:[email protected]

March 26, 2010

PERSONAL and CONFIDENTIAL

Linda K. Clark, EsquireSr. Corporate Counsel

LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics GroupREED ELSEVIER, INC.



CHOICEPOINT, INC.6601 Park of Commerce Blvd.

Boca Raton, FL 33487

Re: Conversation of March 23, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. regarding the Illegal Disclosure

of Private Data and Credit Reports on Lisa Ren Liberi and Lisa Ostella____

Dear Ms. Clark:

Thank you for taking the time to speak with me with your Security Investigator, Kevin Foley,

on the line. I must say however, I was very disappointed in our conversation for several reasons.

At the start of our conversation, you asked me what we would like Lexis to do, to assist in what

has occurred to my clients. I stated to you that I wanted all of my clients information taken out of the

LexisNexis Group of Corporations and businesses databases. You stated my clients would have tocomplete an opt-out form, which you would email me. You had promised to email me forms to fill out

in order for my clients to opt-out and get all their personal private data out of your systems. Instead,you have sent a website link and want my clients to fill out again, very private information. YourCorporations and Businesses have already proven that my clients data is not secure with your

Organization and since your Corporations and Businesses, collect and store data provided, my clients

fear you will hand out further confidential information on them; sell it to others who havesubscriptions; and hand it to people who are not authorized to receive it, just as you have already done.

Therefore, I again renew my demand that my clients information and private data, be immediately

removed from your systems, all of your systems with all of your Corporations; Businesses; and

Sent by Fax to (561) 981-0869...................................................................15 Pages

Exb. "C", pg. 22



23/40


Linda K. Clark, Esquire March 26, 2010Sr. Corporate Counsel

LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics Group

REED ELSEVIER, INC.



CHOICEPOINT, INC.

Page Two

Affiliates, without my clients giving any further information! Otherwise, I will be forced to file

action to enjoin your Corporations and Businesses from any further disclosures of my clients private

data; and to Court Order the removal of their private data from all your systems.

Further, contrary to your inferences, I am up to date with the troubles LexisNexis Group of

Corporations and businesses have had with the FTC. To begin with, in the case of U.S. v.

ChoicePoint, Inc. the FTC filed a complaint against ChoicePoint, Inc., a LexisNexis Company for

amongst other things:

Violations of FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681 b(a) (providing credit reports toindividual(s) without a permissible purpose to obtain a consumer report);

Violations of Section 607(a) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. purposes listed under 1681 e(a)

o (Failure to maintain reasonable procedures to limit the furnishing ofconsumer reports to the Section 604;

o Failure to make reasonable efforts to verify the uses certified by each user

prior to furnishing such user a consumer report;

o Failure to examine or audit its subscribers to ensure that they were in fact

using consumer report information for permissible purposes;

o Failure to implement reasonable procedures, such as site visits, audits, or

other verification, for users who typically have both permissible andimpermissible purposes for using consumer reports);

Violation of Section 607(a) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681 e(a); and the useof unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the

FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a).

o (Pursuant to Section 621(a)(1) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681 s(a)(1), the

alleged violations of the FCRA constituted unfair or deceptive acts or

practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C 45(a));

o For failure to employ reasonable and appropriate measures to secure the

personal information it collects for sale to its subscribers, includingreasonable policies and procedures to (1) verify or authenticate the identitiesand qualifications of subscribers; or (2) monitor or otherwise identify

unauthorized subscriber activity.

o In addition, for failure to employ reasonable and appropriate security

measures to protect consumers' personal information. All of the above was,and is, an unfair act or practice in or affecting commerce in violation of

Exb. "C", pg. 23



24/40




REED ELSEVIER, INC.



CHOICEPOINT, INC.

Page Three

Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a).

Moreover, the FTC found ChoicePoint violated the FTC Act by making falseor misleading representations and/or statements that consumers private data

was secure, as ChoicePoint had claimed they implemented reasonable andappropriate measures to ensure the safety and confidentiality of consumers

private data, all of which your Corporations and Businesses reported to the

Securities and Exchange Commission; Shareholders; and the public, whichwas untrue information in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C

45(a).

The case, In the Matter of Reed Elsevier, Inc. and Seisint, Inc. Corporations, the

circumstances were similar except involved the breach of private confidential information in other

sectors of the Reed Elsevier, Inc. and LexisNexis Group of Corporations and businesses.

All of the above, LexisNexis Group; ChoicePoint, Inc; Seisint, Inc. d/b/a Accurint and your

other businesses have once again done to my clients Lisa Ren Liberi, her spouse and Lisa M. Ostella

and her spouse, except by acts far more egregious then the above referenced cases.

You also stated that the FTC cases were old, but as you can clearly see the Orders are fromFebruary 2006; July 2008; and October 2009. The 2006 and 2009 Orders are for twenty [20] years andthe Order issued in 2008 is for five years [5] for the service upon new employees; and twenty [20]

years for the reporting.

Mr. Sankey did not have any permissible purpose to obtain all the private data of my clients,

again as outlined in my letters of February 28, 2010 and March 10, 2010. As also previously stated, all

of this is documented in the case ofLiberi, et al v. Taitz, et alof which Neil Sankey is a Defendant.

During our conversation, you stated that full social security numbers are not available. I

contested stating they were. To substantiate my position, see http://faq.accurint.com/;

http://www.lexisnexis.com/terms/privacy/data1; and www.reedelsevier.com/.../PDFFiles/re-ln-privacy-and-security.pdf.

2, which are your Corporations and Businesses own statements regarding full social

security number availability and confidentiality of individuals private data. On the Internet3

Reed

Elsevier, Inc. and LexisNexis Group state, Restricting the display of full Social Security numbers and

1 Updated December 17, 20082 Updated 20093 www.reedelsevier.com

Exb. "C", pg.



25/40




REED ELSEVIER, INC.



CHOICEPOINT, INC.

Page Four

Drivers License numbers to businesses and entities that have verifiable identities and have a

substantiated need for sensitive personal information, and who are permitted such access pursuant toLexisNexis policies. Norm Willox, Chief Officer for Privacy, Industry, and Regulatory Affairs withLexisNexis spoke before the Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy; Committee on

Finance United States Senate on the issues of Protecting the Social Security Number; an Issue ofPrivacy or Security on July 11, 2002; One Hundred Seventh Congress, Second Session on S 848

4. In

his speech, Mr. Wilcox stated:

Thank you for this opportunity to address the committee. My name is Norm Willox and

I am chief privacy officer for LexisNexis. Our company is committed to the responsible

use of Social Security numbers and other personally identifiable information

[emphasis added]

In his prepared statement Mr. Wilcox stated:

Good afternoon. My name is Norm Willox, and I am Chief Officer for Privacy, Industry,and Regulatory Affairs for LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. On behalf of

LexisNexis, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the importance of

preserving access to social security numbers (SSNs) by responsible businesses likeLexisNexis, and to share with the Subcommittee our comments on S. 848. [emphasis added]

LexisNexis would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Breaux and the other

members of this Subcommittee, as well as Senators Feinstein, Hatch, and Gregg for theirinvaluable work on the important issue of SSN privacy. Our company is committed to the

responsible acquisition and use of SSNs, and shares the Subcommittees concern about

the potential misuse of data for identity theft and other harmful purposes. Indeed, in thefight against identity theft, where verifying an individuals identity is crucial, information

from commercial databases such as LexisNexis is absolutely essential [emphasis added]

LexisNexis policy does allow the full display of SSNs to a limited and selective set ofcustomers that qualify through our stringent SSN access process. [emphasis added]

4 S.848 Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act of 2001 (Introduced in Senate) including the Prohibition of the

display, sale, or purchase of social security numbers; and S.848 Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act of 2001

(Reported in Senate), also including the Prohibition of the display, sale, or purchase of social security numbers

Exb. "C", pg. 25



26/40




REED ELSEVIER, INC.



CHOICEPOINT, INC.

Page Five

The above is contrary to your statements to me. You then stated Neil Sankey did not havethat type of subscription allowing him access to full social security numbers, which clearly was

untrue, as he used the Sankey Firms access and obtained my clients private data including but notlimited to full social security numbers; dates of births; maiden names; mothers maiden names; place

of birth; adoption records of Lisa M. Ostella; addresses; phone numbers, death records of Mrs. Liberis

sister; and other private confidential information, all of which is available through your Corporationsand businesses.

In addition, you stated to me that you would not and could not monitor all of your subscribers

searches to ensure they are obtaining the information for permissible purposes. That is a shame, asLexisNexis Group of Corporations and Businesses are Court Ordered to monitor their subscribers

searches and ensure they have a permissible purpose for the information they have obtained5. In Reed

Elsevier, Inc. and LexisNexis Group Privacy and Security Pamphlets6, your Corporations and

Businesses state, Security includes the various mechanisms LexisNexis implements to protect the

LexisNexis information systems and the data accessed through its databases from potentialunauthorized access and LexisNexis policies. LexisNexis customers requesting access to sensitive

data must be authenticated and verified before being allowed access to LexisNexis data, which again

is contrary to your statements to me. In the FTC complaints against ChoicePoint, Inc.; Reed

Elsevier; LexisNexis Group and all their Corporations and Businesses was the statement,ChoicePointalso failed to monitor or otherwise identify unauthorized activity by subscribers,

7; and it is apparent,

that your corporations disclosed to the FTC that you in fact did track the searches your customers made

as the FTC referenced this in their complaint, stating, and track searches their customers make.8

In the stipulated judgment between your Corporations and Businesses and the FTC, for the

violation of the February 2006 Court Order issued in the case of U.S. v. ChoicePoint, Inc., the Court

Ordered the following9:

5U.S. v. ChoicePoint, Inc., Case No. 06-cv-0198, FTC File No. 052-3069; Court Order of February 15, 2006; U.S. v.

ChoicePoint, Inc., Case No. 06-cv-0198 Supplemental Court Order of October 14, 2009; and In the Matter of Reed

Elsevier, Inc. and Seisint, Inc. corporations, FTC File No. 052-3094, Docket No. C-4226 Court Order of July 29, 2008.6 www.reedelsevier.com7 FTC Complaint, p. 6, 14 in the matter ofU.S. v. ChoicePoint, Inc., Case No. 06-cv-0198, FTC File No. 052-30698 FTC Complaint, p. 2 9 in the case ofIn the Matter of Reed Elsevier, Inc. and Seisint, Inc. corporations, FTC File No.

052-3094, Docket No. C-42269

U.S. v. ChoicePoint, Inc., a Corporation, Case No. 1:06:cv-0198-JTC, Supplemental Stipulated Judgment and Order for

Permanent Injunction and Monetary Relief, p. 2, F and G

Exb. "C", pg. 26



27/40




REED ELSEVIER, INC.



CHOICEPOINT, INC.

Page Six

F. The Final Order, inter alia, requires Defendant to establish and implement, and

thereafter maintain a comprehensive information security program that is reasonably

designed to protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of personal information

col1ected from or about consumers. (paragraph III.) The Final Order further requires

Defendant to conduct regular testing or monitoring of the effectiveness of the

safeguards key controls, systems, and procedures. (paragraph III.A.3.) [emphasisadded]

G. Defendant experienced a one-month period of unauthorized access to personal

information, that the FTC alleges Defendant should have detected, during which anunknown person began using the account of one of Defendant's subscribers to obtain personal

information about consumersThe FTC alleges that Defendant's failure to detect the

unauthorized access resu1ted from Defendant's failure to establish and maintain

procedures to insure that a key electronic monitoring application was operating for afour-month period. This electronic monitoring application was used to monitor

customer access to, and use of, the database that was breached. The FTC further alleges

that this reveals that Defendant had failed, for a four-month period, "to establish and

implement, and thereafter maintain. a comprehensive information security program

that is reasonably designed to protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity ofpersonal information collected from or about consumers." The FTC alleges thatDefendant failed, for that same four-month period, to conduct regular monitoring of the

effectiveness of one of the safeguards' key controls, systems, and procedures, as required by

Part III.A.3 of the Final Order, thereby violating the Final Order [emphasis added]

Moreover, you, Linda K. Clark, Esquire, on behalf of the LexisNexis Group of Corporations

and Business sent a letter on May 1, 2009 to The Honorable Douglas F. Ganslwer, Attorney General ofMaryland, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland regarding two (2) customers of LexisNexis

Group. Your two (2) customers opened and obtained subscriptions from ChoicePoint, Inc. and

Exb. "C", pg. 27



28/40




REED ELSEVIER, INC.



CHOICEPOINT, INC.

Page Seven

LexisNexis and used the services of the LexisNexis Group of Corporations to fraudulently obtain

individuals credit reports, social security numbers, dates of birth, address information, etc. These two

(2) customers of LexisNexis also opened fraudulent mail boxes used to receive credit cards applied forand received fraudulently in the names of individuals and the social security numbers of individuals

they obtained from LexisNexis group of Corporations.

In the letter to the Honorable Douglas F. Ganslwer you state:

The unauthorized access to personal information by the former LexisNexis customers

between June 14, 2005 and October 10, 2007, and the information accessed may have

included the name, date of birth, and/or social security number of potentially affected

consumersOver the course of the last several years and since this occurrence, LexisNexishas taken a number of steps to strengthen its privacy and security safeguards to improve the

overall protection of consumers' information. Some of the measures we have put in place

include the implementation of a standards-based security control framework that drivesprotections for our network, access, and monitoring of product use to detect and respond to

potentially fraudulent activity. We also limit access to sensitive personally identifiable

information except where there is a critical business need coupled with a permissible purpose

for such access. LexisNexis has implemented numerous policies, procedures and standardsthat set forth clear parameters for data governance across the organization and for

customers. LexisNexis also maintains a robust program of audit and compliance that servesas a system of checks and balances to assure that security controls are functioning efficiently

and effectively and that polices [sic], procedures and standards are being followed.

Again, all ofwhich is contrary to what you told me and completely untrue, otherwise, these

egregious acts which LexisNexis Group of Corporations and Businesses assisted with, would havenever occurred against my clients, Lisa Ren Liberi, her spouse; Lisa M. Ostella; and her spouse.

Reed Elsevier, Inc.; LexisNexis Group; ChoicePoint, Inc.; Seisint, Inc. d/b/a Accurint and your

other businesses have violated all three (3) FTC Court Orders; have violated State and Federal Lawsoutlined in my letters to you of February 28, 2010 and March 10, 2010; have caused my clients severe

damages; and have placed my clients, especially Lisa Ren Liberi, her spouse and child, in severe

danger.

Exb. "C", pg. 2



29/40






CHOICEPOINT, INC.

Page Eight

I would also like to know from your Security Investigator, Kevin Foley, how your Corporations

save their-user end data. I am well aware that your systems with LexisNexis Group Corporations and

Businesses were upgraded the weekend of March 12, 2010. This is concerning, for a few differentreasons. Your Corporations and Businesses obviously use application programming interface

databases, LexisNexis Group of Corporations and Businesses stored users information regarding their

searches in the LexisNexis Group of Corporations and Businesses. Depending on how the users searchhistories were stored depends on what is still available. If the users search data was backed-up and as

stored URLs, then your Corporations and businesses no longer have access due to the mappingchanges with the upgrade to your systems. This, in our case, is critical pertaining to Neil Sankey, The

Sankey Firm, Sankey Investigations, Inc. and Orly Taitz.

Im concerned as I sent you a lot of information regarding the wrongs committed against my

clients by Neil Sankey, The Sankey Firm and Sankey Investigations, Inc., including the furnishing bythe LexisNexis Group of Corporations and Businesses of Lisa Ren Liberis full social security

number, date of birth, place of birth, friends, family members, mothers maiden name, Mrs. Liberis

maiden name, her spouses name and social security number, her parents name, and much more; andLisa M. Ostellas social security number, date of birth, spouses name, adoption records, family

members names, mothers maiden name, parents names and much more. Neil Sankey did not have

any type of permissible purpose, and used the log-in details of the Sankey Firm, his sons companywhere he is not employed, which constitutes illegal access, which your Corporations and Businessesassisted with. Moreover, you allowed the illegal access through ChoicePoint, Inc. to my clients credit

reports, information from which was disclosed on a radio program about Mrs. Liberi. As if that wasnot enough, Mrs. Liberis Lexis record with your company, has been altered and changed, addingnames and social security numbers which have never been used by or belonged to my client, Lisa Ren

Liberi. If the data pertaining to your subscribers and the people for whom you maintain confidential

information was not backed-up properly, then you have lost all the search criteria used by Neil Sankey,Sankey Investigations, Inc.; the Sankey Firm and Orly Taitz, which also violates the FTC Orders

against your Corporations. Your President, your Corporations and Businesses and you have been

aware of this since February 28, 2010.

Have you reported these breaches to law enforcement? Have you reported Neil Sankey for his

unauthorized access to private data? No, your president, your Corporations and Businesses and you

have not taken any steps to correct any of these problems, which your Corporations and Businesseshave created for my clients. Instead, you have ignored the wrong-doings, and denied everything which

has occurred. Unfortunately, the same events also happened to President Barack H. Obama, again with

the assistance of LexisNexis Group of Corporations.

Exb. "C", pg.



30/40






CHOICEPOINT, INC.

Page Nine

All of this is also contrary to the LexisNexis Group of Corporations privacy policies published

by Reed Elsevier, Inc.; Seisint, Inc. d/b/a Accurint; LexisNexis Group; and ChoicePoint, Inc. and the

publications regarding full social security numbers. These actions on behalf of the LexisNexis Groupof Corporations and Businesses are not only in violation of the Court Orders obtained by the FTC,

that, according to my conversation with you, are not important, but also with the Security and

Exchange Commission.

During our telephone conference call you asked me to submit a demand of what my clientswanted.

As outlined in my letters to your Corporations and Companies on February 28, 2010 and March

10, 2010, Reed Elsevier, Inc.; LexisNexis Group; ChoicePoint, Inc.; Seisint, Inc. d/b/a Accurint and

your other businesses are in violation of the following laws, statutes and regulations:

1. FTC Court Orders of February 15, 2006; July 29, 2008 and October 14, 2009;

2. Violation of California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) 1798, et sequitur;3. Invasion of Privacy;

4. Invasion of personal liberty / Right to be left alone;

5. Intruding upon anothers seclusion;6. Placing one in a false light before the public;7. Willful noncompliance with Federal Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)

15 U.S.C. 1681b, 1681n, 1681c-2, 1681e, 1681o, 1681r;

8. Willful noncompliance with California Civil Code 1785.11; 1785.14;1785.25; and 1785.31, et sequitur

9. Violation of the Federal Credit Reporting Laws for publishing information that

is not true and does not belong to Lisa Ren Liberi;10. Harassment;

11. Endangerment;

12. Gross Negligence;

13. Slander/libel14. Disclosure of private facts;

15. Liberi is now a victim of serious identity theft; and

16. Liberis entire identity has been stolen and is being used by the unknown.17. Liberi, her spouse and child were in the California Safe at Home program, provided a

confidential address and new social security number as a result of her being a victim of

serious stalking type crimes. LexisNexis Group of Corporations and Businesses have

Exb. "C", pg. 3



31/40


Linda K. Clark, Esquire March 26, 2010Sr. Corporate CounselLexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics GroupREED ELSEVIER, INC.LEXISNEXIS GROUP, INC.


CHOICEPOINT, INC.

Page Ten

destroyed this program for Liberi and placed her, her child and spouse in serious danger.

As such, my clients are entitled to damages pursuant to, just to name a few, the following:

1. CA Civil Procedure (CCP) 1798.53; 1798.81.5(c); 1798.84; 1798.85;2. CA Civil Code: 1785.11; 1785.14; 1785.25; and 1785.31, et sequitur

3. 15 U.S.C. 1681b, 1681n, 1681c-2, 1681e, 1681o, 1681r4. Actual Damages;5. Special Damages;6. General Damages;7. Statutory damages;8. Punitive Damages; and9. Attorney fees and costs.

As I stated in my prior letter dated February 28, 2010 and March 10, 2010, the acts of ReedElsevier, Inc.; LexisNexis Group; ChoicePoint, Inc.; Seisint, Inc. d/b/a Accurint and your other

Businesses are in clear violation of the California Privacy Protection Laws, CCP 1798, et sequitur,which carries anywhere from Five Hundred [$500.00] Dollars to Three Thousand [$3,000] Dollars perviolation [each person the information was sent to] just in statutory damages, and the Fair CreditReporting laws, which your companies have previously been sued for, cases which your companiessettled out of Court.

In the case herein, the statutory damages would be based on all the individuals andcompanies my clients private data, obtained from your companies/corporations, were sent to by NeilSankey, Sankey Investigations, Inc., The Sankey Firm, Inc. and Orly Taitz, Esquire which is in excessof One Million [1,000,000] individuals.

The exposure to the companies you represent just using the violation of the above Californiastatute, as a minimum, is in excess of $500 Million not counting punitive damages.

Therefore, our demand to settle these cases within the next two [2] weeks is for One HundredMillion Dollars [$100,000,000.00], which is far less than a verdict that will include statutory damages,actual damages, punitive damages, attorney fees, costs; and fines imposed by the FTC, DOJ and USAttorneys, etc.

Exb. "C", pg. 3



32/40






CHOICEPOINT, INC.

Page Eleven

If these two [2] cases are not settled within two [2] weeks, then I have no other alternative

then to proceed legally in order to protect my clients.

Finally, as I stated in my first paragraph of this letter, I was very disappointed in our

conversation for several reasons. I have set forth the numerous times that you violated basic rules of

respect with your misstatements and not conveying the truth. I can only assume that your actions werean attempt to verify my knowledge of the situation, but I have serious doubts. Please refrain from such

conduct as it is not becoming.

Respectfully,

Philip J. Berg

PJB:jb

cc: Lisa Ren LiberiLisa Ostella

Exb. "C", pg. 32



33/40


EXHIBIT A

Exb. "C", pg. 3



34/40


http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.ActionQuerySearch Results for Private Investigator

Search Results for Private Investigator

Search Sankey

This information is updated Monday through Friday - Last updated: MAR-22-2010

To see all the information for a licensee, click on the highlighted name. This will also includedisciplinary actions if any are present.

Name Type Number Status City/CountySANKEY INVESTIGATIONS INC PI 10905 CLEAR MISSION HILLS

LOS NGELES

SANKEY INVESTIGATIVE SVS PI 17312 DELINQUENT GRANADA HILLSLOS ANGELES

Records 1 to 2

http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=10905&P_LTE_ID=651

BUREAU OF SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES

Licensee Name: SANKEY INVESTIGATIONS INCLicense Type: Private InvestigatorLicense Number: 10905

License Status: CLEAR DefinitionExpiration Date: January 31, 2011Issue Date: March 22, 1988City: MISSION HILLSCounty: LOS ANGELESActions: No

Business Owners

No records returnedRelated Licenses/Registrations/Permits

No records returned

Disciplinary Actions

No information available from this agencyDisciplinary Documentation


Exb. "C", pg. 3



35/40




Licensee Name: SANKEY INVESTIGATIVE SERVICESLicense Type: Private InvestigatorLicense Number: 17312License Status: DELINQUENT DefinitionExpiration Date: December 31, 2008Issue Date: December 09, 1994City: GRANADA HILLSCounty: LOS ANGELESActions: No

Business Owners

SANKEY GILES NEIL

,Related Licenses/Registrations/PermitsNo records returned

Disciplinary ActionsNo information available from this agencyDisciplinary Documentation




Licensee Name: THE SANKEY FIRMLicense Type: Private InvestigatorLicense Number: 17582License Status: CLEAR DefinitionExpiration Date: April 30, 2011

Issue Date: April 21, 1995City: SIMI VALLEYCounty: VENTURAActions: No

Business Owners

SANKEY TODD SPENSER

Exb. "C", pg.



36/40


,

Related Licenses/Registrations/Permits

No records returned

Disciplinary Actions

No information available from this agencyDisciplinary Documentation


Exb. "C", pg.



37/40Exb. "C", pg.



38/40

View:ResultsList|Full

9of2

7

Search:

CorporateFilingsSea

rch

>SearchResults>Corporate

FilingReportRequest

Terms:

company(ReedElsevier,Inc.)state(NY)(EditSearch|NewSearch)

SelectforDelivery

FurtherSearches

Uniform

CommercialCode

Filings

CriminalRecords

New

YorkSecretaryo

fState

CorporateFiling1

BusinessInformation

FilingNumber:113

4190

Name:REE

DELSEVIERINC.

NameType:LEG

AL

StandardProcessAddress:111

8THAVE

NEW

YORK,

NY10011-5201

OriginalProcessAddress:111

EIGHTHAVENUE

NEW

YORK

NY

1

of2

5/6/20109:25PM

Exb. "C", pg. 38



39/40

CorporateFiling1

100

11

BusinessAddress:STE350

NEW

TON,

MA02458

BusinessType:FOR

EIGNBUSINESS

Status:ACT

IVE

ForeignStateof

Incorporation:MASSACHUSETTS

PlaceIncorporated:NEW

YORK

DateIncorporated:12/

31/1986

ForeignIncorporationDate:07/

22/1986

Terms:PER

PETUAL

StatusComment:GOODSTANDINGSTATUSCANONLYBEDETERM

INEDBYPERFORMINGASEARCHINTHEREC

ORDSOFBOTHTHE

DEP

ARTMENTOFSTATECORPORATIONRECORDS

ANDTHEDEPARTMENTOFTAXANDFINANC

E

RegisteredAgent

Name:CTCORPORATIONSYSTEM

Title:REG

ISTEREDAGENT

RegisteredAgentAddress111

8THAVE

NEW

YORK,

NY10011-5201

CorporateFiling2

BusinessInformation

FilingNumber:113

4190

Name:REE

DPUBLISHINGUSAINC.

NameType:PRI

OR

StandardProcessAddress:15COLUMBUSCIR

NEW

YORK,

NY10019-1107

OriginalProcessAddress:15COLUMBUSCIRCLE

NEW

YORK

NY100

237723

BusinessAddress:275

WASHINGTONST

NEW

TON,

MA02458-1611

BusinessType:FOR

EIGNBUSINESS

Status:ACT

IVE

ForeignStateof

Incorporation:MASSACHUSETTS

PlaceIncorporated:NEW

YORK

CountyIncorporated:NEW

YORK

DateIncorporated:12/

31/1986

ForeignIncorporationDate:07/

22/1986

Terms:PER

PETUAL

of2

5/6/20109:25PM

Exb. "C", pg. 39



40/40

Invoice/Status

Receipt Date 4/27/2010

Invoice # 100422

Philip J. Berg

555 Andorra Glen Court Suite 12Lafayette Hill PA19444 2531

Client Reference #

Invoice Total

NY Server LLC-Corporate Office173 North Main St #375

Sayville, NY 11782

Toll Free 1 877 358 4515

email [email protected]

Service of Process throughout New York State

Item Description/Log Amount

A Proce... 1-Paypal Inc. c/o National Registered Agents 875 Avenue of the Americas Suite 501 New York NY 10001 85.00

Served 4/28/10 1235 PM upon Maria Gonzalez 0.00A Proce... 2-Reed El Seveier c/o CT Corporation 111 8th Avenue NY NY 10011 85.00Served 4/28/10 105 PM upon Paula Kash 0.00

Fee Dis... 20New Client -20.00

$150.00


Liberi v Taitz Decl of Philip J Berg in Opposition to Reed MTD Doc 391-3

Documents

Transcript of Liberi v Taitz Decl of Philip J Berg in Opposition to Reed MTD Doc 391-3