liberi v taitz - 128 - notice of appeal by defend our freedoms foundations, inc - paed-15307916629

8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ - 128 - NOTICE OF APPEAL by DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC - paed-15307916629

1/12

Dr. Orly Taitt, EsqAttorney Pro Se& AttorneyFor Defend Our Freedoms Foundation29839 Sanm Marxarim Parkway, Suite 100Raneho Santa Margarita: CA 92688Tel: (949) 683-.5411; Fax (949) 766--7603E-Mail; dr_ [email protected]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYL VANIA

LISA LillERI, et al., ) NOTICE OF APPEAL;Plaintiffs ) REQUEST TO UNSEAL) TRANSCRIPTS FOR APPI!:AL;v. ) MOTION TO STAY TRANSFER) PENDING APPEALORLY TAITZ, et aL, ))Defendants. )NOTICE OF APPEALDefendants Taitz and .Defend our Freedoms Foundation are appealing following orders:1. Order 76. Order is being appealed as defendant Sundquist was improperly pressuredthe court to agree to be dismissed from the case without prejudice, even though he . ,.Irepeatedly refused to agree and demanded that the court rule on defendant's Motion t o . : ~ . ~ dismiss due to lack ofsubject matter jurisdiction. Court erred, and improperly and u.artificially created diversity and jurisdiction, where it did not exist. as Plaintiffs Osteua.:

and Go Excel Global and defendants SWldquist and Rock Salt publishing were from tRt?same state ofNJ. This order showed bias mvoring plaintiffs and subjected defendants toover a year of harassment by plaintiffs in the jurisdiction that did not exist, but wasimproperly created by the court.2. Court Improperly repeatedly refused to docket and consider responses by Defendant LindaBelcher. Exhibit 1- Affidavit by Belcher.3< Belcher stated that Plaintiffs attorney Berg committed fraud by claiming that he servedher. Berg admitted in h i S o p l ~ d i n g s that Belcher blocked his e-mails, but Berg did not

5eIVe her by mail. Not only Belcher was not served by Berg. but Berg also filed numerousmotions claiming that Belcher'S lack ofresponse is an indication ofher consent andagreement to Berg's demands for sanctions against Taitt Taitz is submitting as an exhibitan affidavit from Belcher, stating that:

lLO/LOO d 65CO# II PO 6l0llll/BO

Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 128 Filed 07/02/10 Page 1 of 11Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 128 Filed 07/02/10 Page 1 of 12
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/12

A. Berg defrauded the court by claiming that he served Belcher, while he did not serve herB. Berg- a licensed PA attorney, counsel for the plaintiffs and a plaintiffhimself defraudedthe court by submitting a perjured statement to court, that PlaintiffLiberi was a citizen of PAand giving his business address as her address, even though he knew that she was not a citizenofPA and could not be citjzen and resident ofPA, since according to her criminal convictionin CA and terms ofher probation, she could reside only in CA or with her relatives in NMuntil March of201].C P1aintiffLiberi repeatedly committed petjwy and fraud on the court by claiming that shewas a resident ofPA, even though she knew that she does not reside in PA and correspondsand works with attorney Berg by way ofmail and e-mails only, but not by actually residing inFAD. Attorney and PlamtiffBerg and Plaintiff Liberi defrauded the court on the issue oftiberi's residence in order to artificially create Diversity ofResidency and J\J.risdiction and inorder to obfuscate the record of the case, since Liberi's residency was at issueE Liberi, as an assistant to Attorney Berg repeatedly solicited parties and requested that theyfile ftaudulent complaints against Taitt, including complaints with CA State Bar. One ofindividuals solicited by Liberi, was an individual Larry Sinclair. who has written a fraudulentcomplaint and undermined Taitz case in Ca. Berg and Liberi used Sinclair's letter to furtherprejudice this court against Taitz. Repeated refusal by this court to docket defendant Belcher'saffidavit was an abuse ofjudicial discretion and severely prejudiced the defendants and putpublic at large at risk of falling victims ofsuch schemes.4. Court made an error of fact and law and abused its discretion by refusing f( ) docket andconsider response from Belcher, since it contained material facts, showing that Berg - alicensed attorney. filed a frivolous action based on petjury and fraud and with intend toharass defendants and pressure them into silence about the fuct that Berg was workingwith Liberi- a convicted document forger and convicted thief. and that any and alldocwnents, coming from Berg's office were suspect for forgery. 1fcourt were to docket

and consider affidavit from Belcher. court would have come to a different decision andinstead of fe-activating the case and severing and transferring to two jurisdictions. itwould have dismissed the case and sanctioned Berg and Plaintiffs for repeated acts of--,fraud upon the court and perjury. Additionally. court put public at large at peril. asBelcher's affidavit could warn the public about dangers that Liberi represented. .5. Court made a similar error in not docketing responses from Sankey, Hale and Taitz. anumber of occasions court docketed and was influencedby huindreds and probably . './thousands of pages of inflammatory and prejudicial material that it allowed Berg to f [ ~ , whi1e not docketing and not considering material submitted by defendants, which s ~ e d bias in favor ofplaintiffs. - .6. Order 109. Court made an error in allowing to include 1n the record prejudicial and"}inflammatory material, irrelevant to the issue ofjurisdiction, that was viewed7. Order 116 Court made an error in allowing the plaintiffs to file prejudicial inflammatorymaterial, not related to the issue ofjurisdiction, which was the only issue considered bythe court8. Order 118. Court erred in its statement, that it grants defendants motion to severe andtransfer. Defendants did not ask for it. defendants asked for a motion to dismiss.9. Court made an error and prejudiced the ~ e f e n d a . n t s by not considering the responses by thedefendants contained in Documents 121 and 127.

ZLO/GOOd 6!t801t 8L.O 6Z0Z/ZZ/80



3/12

10. Court made an error by not docketing document 127, as it was received on June 21 st,making a decision without this document docketed and ultimately docketing it on June 27,after the decision to which the document pertained was made by the court.11. Order 123, 124 and Memorandmn Court made an error of fact in it's statement thatLlberi was a resident ofPA It was an erroneous statement, going to the issue of the case.Court erred in making this decision based on perjured statements of convicted forger andthief plaintiffLiberi and her Attorney and co-plaintiffBerg, who was already sanctionedtwice for filing frivolous cases and by c.ompletely ignoring all evidence, coming fromofficial sources, such as Bankrupcy court in CA and Superior Court in CA" showing thatLiberi was not a resident ofPA and was under jurisdiction ofCA and CA probationsdepartment.

12. Order 125. Court erred and showed bias by post factum granting Berg's motion forreconsideration (document 120). while completely disregarding Taitz motion forreconsideration and refusing to even docket letters sent by Sankey, Belcher and Hale.13. Court erred in not COnsidering the defendant's responses in Document 121 and 127 andspecifically defendant's argument that the proper remedy will be to dismiss the case withprejudice or alternatively without prejudice, as simply severing the case in two will beprejudicial to the defendants, as Judges in TX and CA will have to deal with filescontaining thousands ofentangled documents and pages ofprejudicial and inflammatorymaterial about numerous plaintiffs and will be prejudiced against the defendants from thebeginning.

Request to unseal transcriptsDefendant.'il were not notified that the transcripts were sealed, however from the appeal byattorney for the plaintiffs and plaintiff pro se Berg(appeal was withdrawn by Berg. when he wasrequested. to produce transcripts and didn't produce them) defendants found out that t h e . ~ , transcripts were sealed. Defendants were not explained why were transcripts sealed. At this tjrite,as defendants are planning to appeal several motions and as the transcripts are at issue,. :'Cdefendants are requesting to unseal transcripts and provide the defendants with infonnatiqnregarding the total oost of the copy of the transcript ;" ;.-

Letter Irequest for leave of court to file a motion for stay ofthe transfer oftbe cas,pending resolution of the appeal. "f \ )

As this court ordered to file a request for leave of court to file a motion, defendants arerequesting the comt to treat this letter as a request for leave of court to file a motion for stay oftransfer of the case against Defendant's Taitz and Defend Our Freedoms foundation. pendingresolution of appeal. Defendants are asking this court to consider this letter as a request for stayof transfer. in order not to clutter the court with unnecessary additional pleadings.

Respectfully submitted, /lsi Orly Taitz 4



4/12

Dr. Orty Taitz. in propria persona and on behalf of Defend Our Freedoms Foundation07.01.2010

1declare under penalty of perjury that I served all the parties in the case

lsi Orly Taitz

Exhibit 1 affidavit ofLinda Belcher

Defendant Hale has moved and T 'tz does not have his new address and new e-mail!

U'..-

8L "110 62:02:/2:2:/82:LO/1100"d 6!t80#



5/12

06/24/2010 23:34 FAX ~ O O l .

Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 11614 U.S. Courthouse 601 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19106-1797 Fax; 261-299-7428U.S. District Court, &stem District ofPennsylvania Case Number: 0 9 - c v ~ O 1898 ECR LISA LlBERI, at ai,Plaintiffs'\'S.O R L Y T ~ e t a l f Respondentscc: Dr Otly Taitz Via fax 949-766-7603 June 23, 2010Your Honor,I am Undo S. Belcher, appearing Pro Sa in this action. First, I want to alertYour Honor that as of this date, I HAY!HOT RECEIVED ANYCOPIES OF -."SERG'S FIUNGS WITH ANY COURTSINCE THE WrrHDRAWAL OF OUR FORMlRA r r O R N E Y ~ TED HOPPE, LAST YEAR. I have little knowledge of what has .:;.;:.been filed by Berg since that time. NBerg previously stated to me that his computer has been damaged manytimes due to malware, trojans, etc. Therefore, I will NOT accept anyelectronic mail from him, especially attachments. He has been informedseveral times defendants will not accept improper electronic service thatcould infect our computers. Berg well knows I have not received copies ofhis flDngs as evidenced by hi. own sworn aflfdavtts flied in this court. YourHonor. Berg stated in Qn earlier document that he Is blocked from sendingme any electronIC mamngs.. Therefore he knows he did not provide mecopies of any of hIs pleadings.Your Honor, I hove not agreed to anything by omfssion as I am told Bergsuggests. Berg has created a serious conflict of interest in represfimtingother plainffff's. ot the same time he represents himself. when he swears

(I)lLO/!100'd B ~ S O I l



6/12

. 06/24v2010 23:34 FAl . Ili002

copies were sent to al l defendants especially when he stands to profit inpotential financial rewards by causing defc1tJlt. Berg was not required toproduce basic documentation to this court that al l parties were properlyserved and notified. which gives Berg an additional unfair advantageover defendants appearing Pro Sel Berg benefits materially at my/ourexpense in failure of this court to ensure all defendants have beennotified. failure to award financial damages to us for attomey's fees.f a i / l J r ~ to ensure a just p r o c e ~ denying defendants equal protectionunder the rules of civIl procedure and the Constitution foilure to preventharassment of defendants by Berg et at failure to prevent undue mentaland emotional stress, failure to dismiss this suit when Berg knew it wasImproper venue, as well as the shock I received 0 couple of days ogoofter the latest ruling was made on or about June 2, 2010. , sent a letter toYour Honor before that ruling. bvt it apparently disappearedl Berg hask.nowingly violated his oath as an offlcer of the court by making falseswom statements to the court in every document he has submitted toYour Honor and shovld receive significant sanctions. He has knowinglyLIED to this court in every possible way and prevented me from the luxuryof maldng a proper response to his ongoing smears and lies.I am requesting that Your Honor', ruling on or about June 2. 2010 and any other subsequent rulngs be vacated $0 that I may obtain eopJes or 8erg'$ pleading. and make proper response to his many false allegoftOl1$. fClUure to vacate creates an untenable situation for defendant/s and Imposes unrepresented defendants with an addfflonal burden by the lacK.-, of fcdmess and gives the Impression thIs eourt Is giving a local attorney'':::'" " . ~ ' , 'I.unfair adVantage over out of stctte defendonts. I feel tf ts part lcularty unfair"; :.as Berg was olowed to wfthdraw his actions against $ome defendants a n ~ not aD to Impact diversity with respect to the other defendants. ~ ~ :

l".

I can also provide extensive evidence proving plaintiff Liberllives in NM,not PA as stated In Your Honor'. last ruing, which" the boslt for this entlr&-case. libe,; did not reside in PA OS afleged prior to filing this suit. Adams, NBerg and Uberi hove each r e p ~ o t e d l y stated during radio appearancesthe NM Uberi is a convIcted felon and that we hove defamed plaintiffs byinsisting she is the some Usa tiberi. living in Sonta Fe, NM. The longuage ofYour Honor's I1JIIng that Uberl resides in fA upholds the fraud they areperpetuating on donon and the ~ o t n f , elM using this particular language,lobeb defendonls liars and defamers (lnd could coat us further damage.9Mng furffter unfair advanfoge to Berg and In the process, mokes YourHonor an unwitting partner IS this fraudulent scheme against the public.Your Honormade a ruling without requiring proof Uberi lives in PA and suggests serious implications that such a finding had been documented.

llO/900"d SttEO# 8l : 110 SlOl/lG/ao



7/12

" 0 6 / 2 4 ~ 2 0 1 0 23:35 FAX ~ 0 0 3

Berg, liberi and Adams wnl use this ruling to stote to the world that Uberidoes not reside in NM, but PA, when it is a blatant fraudulent fabricationlAs a result of the language used in stating Liberi lives in PA we also facepossible financial consequencesJ This gives another unfair advantage toplaintiff's offer Berg Red to create a defavlt by this defendant.Berg and I were online friends since t 998, but had an irreversible rift on orabout March 4th, 2()(Yf, We never met in person, nor have I ever been toPAt Uberl and Berg knew I would be an oppositionwitness to expose theirfalse sworn OffIdavtts made against the other defendants and Included meIn CI bIatontattempt to discredIt and harass me. Berg has perpetuated agross fraud on this court and also manipulated Your Honor in order tosmear us and aggravate our various health issues. Berg. Uberi and Adamshove exacerbated my grief and pain as much and as often as possible.The history leading up to the filing of this suit ;s as follows. When f wasbanned on March 6, 2009; 88f9's blog began dyfng CJnd suppol1 for Bergwaned otter .uppor#erJ (who donated large sums of funds to Berg)became upset when It was revealed by Obama suppodelJ that UbMit aconvlcfed felon, was handling donors credit card Informaffon. had accessto these donations; and Ibm Berg knew Uberi had an extensive felonycrlmlna' n:cOld Involving fhefb.. financial crimes and forgeries. Supportshifted toward others. but especially towards Dr Taitz. Berg, Uberi andAdorns blamed me for not lying about Liberi living in NM, insteod of PA as ::::they falsely ollage. In retaliation for warnings by Dr Taitz, the Hale's a n d myself publicly to donors (we hod no other way to warn donors as wedidn't have theIr contoct info or names) that their info was G o m p r o m i s e t ; J ~ ) by Berg employing a convicted felon as his poralegol; Berg, Libert Adams.,and their agents (used as witnesses in this suit) began a malicious s m e a r ~ : : : campaign against me/us and then this suit was filed as revenge.


8/12

' .06124-/2010 23:35 FAX ~ 0 0 4

Berg and/or Uberi than what donors were given to belIeve were neededto finance Berg's legal challenge to Ohoma's e/igibility.llosf 00 faith andbelief in Berg's integrity.I vehemenffy oppOSe any moHon by Berg et 01of ANY sanctions broughtagainst Dr ralz, who to my knowledge has obeyed an court orders. Theincidents Berg Cited, falsely aHeging violations by Dr Taitz, I vndersfanciwere PRIOR to the in;tJal hearing and court orders by Your Honor. Dr Tamactions, as well as al l co-defendants, were motiVated by intent to wornand protect donors when Berg KNEW Uberi a convicted felon. hadaccess to confidential financial information and was handHng vastfinanCial transactions, In otrecf violation of the terms of her probation. Ican produce evidence of al l this Yovr Honor with a little time.Your Honor. Berg has previously acted In the capacity COIl my attorney,providing legal advice to me, and representation of me several years agoand promised confidentiality of my identity to protect me and my familyfrom corrupt politico operotives whom I hove exposed in the past 10 plusyeoo. Berg knew it was an improper conflict of interest to represent o t h ~ r ..plaintiff's against me. yet did it to retaliate against me for not covering utifor him about Uberi's criminal history. Berg should be permanently b a f T e d ~ and sanctioned from any further representQtlon of third parties against "me. In TX. it is an absolute affirmative defense against allegations of f" )defamation when speaking the truth. We spolc.e only the truth with a .proper and legitimate intent. There Is no defamation of plaintiff's. Cf..Further. Berg knew of a friend of mine who wrote a book about Qpresidential candidate and used some ofmy research and ultimatelydied as a result of the revelations in this book. As ( I dlrectresult 01 8erg 's,.presentaHon of me os attorney, he (and later Ubed) learned my trueldenllly and revealed i t n revenge and refoliotion, knowing" might costmylile'I informed Berg in mid March 2009 thot Jintended to file a complaintagainst him with the PA Bar Association for his defamatory actions againstme, Violating attorney-client priVilege and other dishonest acts, but that Iwas waiting until he had exhausted his lawsuits against Oboma. Bergoffered legal representation of me again in writing as recently as March2OCW, in when I came to believe was an attempt to extort me into s l l ~ n c e about tiberi's lengthy criminal history. When I did not accept his offer ondagree to keep secret UberI's criminal record and compromise of donorscredit cord Info, Berg exacted revenge by tncludlng me In thJs suB,reveaRng my ldentfty, vlolaHng confidentiality and defaming me.

7.l0/AOOri fiC;r.O: Ptpo SlOl/ll/BO



9/12

-, 0 6 J 2 4 ~ 2 0 1 0 23:35 FAX IaJ005

Your Honor, of nofirne did Uber1ever state f( ) me her addre$$ wasconftdential. f provided to the court lost Aug 2009 the email which libetisent to me with her address to ship a box of Xmas presents In December2008. Her nickname is "Usa" on my buddy list and thot is what shows inchats I soved. Her email address is Uisaliberiataol.com, which is the exactsame as "Uisaliberi" as seen by any member of 001. There is no difference.Berg and Uberi tied when they claimed if was not Uberi, or that it wassomehow manufactured evidence.Liberi supplied at least two of her severol Sociol Security numbers tobankruptcy courts and other places in swam affidavits which we foundlisted in public records, available to anyone with fnternet access, NO ONEviolated her privacy. When I confronted Berg about Uberi's criminalhistory in our last conversation, I told him' felt compelled to worn donorsthat their account numbers were seriously compromised. 8efg dfd notdeny her crlmln", IWtory to me. or to thl' court because he can't. Ubedsuffered no '0ISe. or d ( l m ~ g .. as 8e1g did not fire herand Uberf Is STIUworidng full time as 8erg', paralegal (offen working more thon 40 hourwe.b) whn. fraudulently eolledfng SS disability ben.fllslPlaintiff's and their witnesses allege Ed Hale & I threatened them. NO ONEEVER THREATENED THEM with anything except telling the truth! l tokedeafh threats very seriously. It is not 0 joking matter to me. I have been ,t;.'::'

"' , t " flving with death threats for years as a result of my oppositional political.":: /' ,." .research. Berg cannot produce any evidence against me making threqtsbecause it does not eXistl Libert Berg and Adams have waged a viciousJsmear campaign defaming me all over the Internet. We ore their victini} Irealized on or about March 4th, 2009 that for many weel


10/12

, 06/24-/2010 23: 35 FAX IaJ006 ,

Berg replaced it on his website with the second one the PI sent them andcourt stamped on Jon 2, 20091 Ed Hale can produce these. if he has notolready.lnthe press release by Berg, he fofsely accused Ed Hole ofstealing documents and claiming credit for the find. I need some time toproduce documentation to substantiote my accusations against Adams,Berg, liberi and their o g e n t s / w i f n e ~ e s . I never delete anything, but oftensaved files are misplaced on my computer and it takes time to locate.Ed Hale recenfly informed me he was forced to shut down his radionetwork becClUfe of th.t endless harassment, threats and lies by Berg, etaL According to Ed Hale; 8erg, plaintiff's, and their witness I agents havethreatened candidates for office (who were guest hosts on PRN} withinclusion in this suit, for simply appearing on the Plains Radio Network. Thepeople making the threots made mistakes that show clearly they wereagents of Berg and/or Uberi, When guests see how this court has allowedus to be harassed and legally persecuted by Berg, Uberi and their agentsin an improper venue I vIolating our lights, wreaking havoc on our financesond destroying any sense of peace. of course they flee when threatenedwith similar legal harassmentl PRN CQuld no longer get guests 05 a result


11/12

06/U/2010 23:36 FAX 141007

and Adorns have attempted to falsely represent to the public that Uberi ;snot the convicted felon Usa Renee Richardson CourviHe Liberi living in NM.I do know of a person who Uberi told about her criminal post, leaving outher guilty convictions and most of the charges and facts. This person ;s indire fear for her wellbeing if she comes forward, especially facing thesome degree of legal p8rsecvtion and harassment that we defendantsface. .Your Honor. Berg omitted information that Uberl attempted to get me todo unSCrupuioUI things that bordered on crlmlnol. and I alway. refused.One effort involved Uberi aSKing me to file false complaints against twoattorneys whom Uberi wonted to discredit. The first complaint she wontedme to file was against an attomey in Al; Teresa laLOQgia, who supportedObamo and is licensed to practice in Al, PA and DC as well as complainagainst the low firm. Dickstein Shapiro, where she is employed; simplybecause LoLogglo owned a website challenging Bergls evidence in hislawsuit against Oboma. I still have the dossier Liberi sent me to use againsther. Ubetl olso a.kedme to file a false complalnf wIHt the CA Ik:IrAlsoekJflon against DrTailz. 'warned Dr Taifz of fills tact over a year agoon 01 about April J6, 2009. I believe I still hove the dossier Uberl sent me __ Lagainst Dr. Toitz. I need time to locate and produce them. I stronglysuspect Uberi may be b e h j ~ d complaints mode against Dr. Tatiz by o t h e ~ ..-with histOry of criminal behaviors, bu t I have no direct knowledge of if. Idid once hear Liberi ask: one of the complainants against Dr foitz, Larry ,,)Sinclair, to file a complaint during 0 three way phone conversation. I -nhave never known Dr T


12/12

\)612412010 23:36 FAX

ho$ used hi; education and law lIcens not as fools for truth and Justice,but wrongfully as evil weapon. to exact revenge for our Integrity Inrevealing to donors their credlt card Info was compromised by Ubedhaving access to II.Your Honor, I am pleading with you, please hold 8erg accountable for all'lbe wrongs he has done to us. aU the perJured affidavits he suppfied to thiscourt, and all the damage he has done to each of us wHh public smean.Berg has desiroyed my ability to perform any sort of poIltk:al research Inthe future to expose convptlon and devastated any poaslble sense of$eCurHy and/or safety for me or my family In the foreseeable Mure. I askBerg be ordtWed to pay all our attomey'$ fee. (e-xceedlnv $5tOO for theH ~ I e s , Sankey and myself) and an other expenses and that thfs case bediSmissedwith prejudice so that he can not continue to use the courts toharass and dalTlQQe us further.I swear under penalty of petjury by the laws of the state of TeXQS, where treside. that the statements made in this document are true and correct tothe best of my k:nowledge. ;;:',

Thank you.u..

Undo S. Belcher201 Paris st.Castroville, TX 78009

Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 128 Filed 07/02/10 Page 12 of 12