liberi v taitz (c.d. ca) - 178 - notice of motion and first motion to dismiss case under 425.16...

8/7/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 178 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND First MOTION to Dismiss Case under 425.16 AntiSLAPP - g

1/20

7

2

3

4

56

1I9

10111213I41516tl1819202T22)4.2425262128

DR. ORLY TAITZ ESQ29839 SANTA I4ARGAF,TTA pKg{y, STE 100R,ANCHO SAI\TTA MARGARITA, cA 92688PH 949-683-5411 FAX 949-766-7603US DISTRCT COI'RTCENTR.AL DTSTRTCT OF CAJ,IFORNTALIBERI ET AI,,

PI,AINTIFF,vs.TAITZ AT AL,

DEF"ENDAI\TT

) CASE NO.: 11-Cv-00485)) cccP 425.15 ervTrsrJAPP) MOTTON TO DTSMISS THE CASE) AS A SLAPP COMPLATNT) HON. AbIDREW GUTLFORD) PRESIDING) DATE 05.23 .?OLL) TIME 10:00) conRTRooM 10 DNotice to all parties and their counsel: on May 9, 2O7Idefendants "Defend our Freedoms Foundation" and orly Taltz willmove this court to strike and dismiss above mentioned complaintin its' entirety as a slApp action in a special cal-ifornia Rul-e425.15 antiSLAPP action. This motion will be based on thememorandum of points and authorities below, exhibits att.ached tothis complaint and oral argument.

MEMORAITDUM OE POTNTS AI{D AUTHORTTTES.TABLE OF CONTENTS

TabLe of Authorities ......2A. THE A}IT]-SI.APP STATUTE GOVERNS THE DISPUTE.. ....5B DEFENDAI{TS MET THEIR BURDEN TNDER ANTr-sr,APP STATUTE.......5C. CI.AIM ARISES OUT OF AN ISSUE OF PT'BLIC INTEREST...........8D. PLATNTIFFS FAITED TO ESTABLISH BY COMPETENT AI{D ADMISEVIDENCE THAT THEY WTLL PRE\/AIL AT TRTAL .. .. .1.21. Trrrs wHoLE cAsE FAILS {TNDER 12(8)1.... ....L22- COI'IPLAINT IN ITSi ENTIRETY E.AILS ITNDER 12 (8)6. ......14I(A)COLNT 1.. ...L71.B)COUNT 2.. ...24

Liberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under CCCP 425.L6 AntiSLApp- 1

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 1 of 20 Page ID#:4103


2/20

1

2

3

4

5618o

1011I2131415L67718192021221?AA

25262128

1(C)COnNtr 3.. ...271(D) COUNT 4.... ....291(E) COLNT 5.... ....301(F) COLNT 5.... ....33coNclusroN-.. -...34AFFIDAVTT OF ORLY TAITZ .......36EXHIBITS:1. EXHIBIT 1 2OO8COTWICTIONS RECORD OFFORGERY OF OFFICIALLIBERI in FSB -0449L4Lisa Liberi Richardson

sAt{ BERNARDTNO, qAr,rFORNrA, CR23 CIIARGES ATiID 10 CO}WICTIONS OF FORGERY,SEAL AIID GRAND THEFT OF PI.AINTIFF LIThe People of the State of California

2. Exhibit2 SA}T BERNARDINO CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT TRA}ISCRIOF TESTIMONY OF OFFICER LIEBRICH, in FSB-044914 People ofState of CA v Lisa Liberi RICI{ARDSON ATTESTING TO 19CRIMINAI CTIARGES OF PI.ATNTIFF LTSA LIBERT3Exhibit 3 . SI{ORN DECLARATfON OF .ltFF STAPLES-FORMER VIEBFOR PHILIP BERG, ATTESTING TO trBERil S l,tAllUAL ITAIIDLING OF CREDCARD ACCOT'NTS OF DONORS.4 Exhibit 4 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF TINDA BELCHER, FORMERRESEARCTIER FOR PHILIP BERG.5. Exhibit 5 L2.23.20LL ORDER-MEMORiANDUM BY iruDeE ROBRENOtiberi v Taitz.

EABLE OF AUTITORITIESVess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 3l-7F.3d1097,1709(9th cir.2003)Batzel v Smit.h, 333 F. 3d 1018, 7024 (9th cir 2003) ....p5

Liberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under CCCP 425.16 AntiSLAPP- 2

VOLT'NTEE

.p5



3/20

1

2

3

4

561B

910L1L2l3I41516l71879202I22232425zo212B

IIIII

IIBriggs v Eden council for Hope and opportunity, 19 cal 4th 110611110(Ieee) .....p5 IIKantor v Wellesley Galleries, 1td 704 Fzd, 1088, 7092 (9th cf11983) .....p13 I

Vacek v United states postal service 441 F3d I24Bt 1250 (9th "t.l2006) .. .. . .. ...p13IKokkonen v Guardian life insur. Co. of Am 511 US. 3't 5, 3'71(1ee4).... .....p13 IIGouId Electronics v United States,220 F.3d 169, 1.76 (3d attl2000) p13 I

Packard v Provident National Bank , gg4 F. 2d,1039, 1045 (3d "frl1-e93 ) pI4 I

IJ & R fce Cream corp. v. California Smoothie Licensing, 31 F. 3dlI1259, 1256 n.3 (3rd cir1994). ......p14 I

Joi-ner v Diamond M Drilling Co., 611 F. 2d. 1035, 1039 (5th Cirl1,982) .....p14 IIWeight w Kawasaki Motors Co (19S5, ED Va) 604 F supp 968. . . .pLA IIRoche v Lincoln Prop. Co. (2004, CA4 Va) 373 F3d 610 ..p14 IIBautista v Pan American Wor1d Airl-ines , Irtc (7981, CA 9 Caf )lI828, Fzd 546, 126 BNA LRRM 2559, 107 CCH LC P 10159 ....p14 IIOlsen v Quality Continuum Hospice (2004, DC NM) 380 F. Supp 2dlIL225. .....p14 IIMcMann v. Doe (2006, DC Mass) 460 F Supp 2d... ....p15 IIOlsen v Ouality continuum Hospice, Inc (2004, DC NM) 380 F. S,rpplI2d 7225 ... ....p15 IEilla v Norfolk & southern Ry (2003. CAB Mo) 336 F3d 806....p15 I'l

Shahmoon Industries, fnc & Imperato (7964, CA3 NJ) 338 Fzd 449,1I9 FR Serv 2d, 12F.22, Case 2.... .....p15 IIIILiberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under CCCP 425.L6 AntiSLAPP- , IIIIII



4/20

1

23

4

5618

91011I213L41516I11B192021-

2223

25262l2B

Jeter v Jim Walter Homes (L916, WD Okla) 474 F Supp 79I.259.p15Tqbal v Ashcroft 729 S Ct at 1949. . .ppt1 , 27Twombly v BeIl Atlantic 550 U.S. at 570.. .....p17SpreweJ-1 v Golden State Warrior,256F3d97 9,988 (9th Cir 2001) .p11Schmidt v Hermann 614 F. 2d L221, 1223 9th Cir 1980) ...ppl7. 29Cal Civ Pro Code 5425.16(a).... .....p5Cal Civ Pro Code S425.16(b) (1) . .....p828 USC 51291... .....p13FRCP L2(b)1.... .....p72FRCP 1,2(b) 6... ......p165c. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure S1206,(1969 & Supp.2005).... ...p1s28 USC S I44 linto 28 USCS 51332 ....p15Thomas v Board of Trustees, 195 U.S. 201 .270 (l-904)........p1528 USC S144r (O) .... .....p15Cal civ Pro 51798.81. . . . .p1BCal Civ Pro 51198.84 (a-g) . . . .p1918 USC 552510-22.... .....p2I18 USC SS 210L-II ...p22Department of justice Reorganization act of 2005. ......p22H.R. 3402 5113, 113 (a) (3) .... .....p2341 USC 5223 (a) (1) .. .....p2347 usc 5223 (h) (1) (b) .. ......p2315 USC S1l-25 ....pp30,31ann. CaI C.C. P. 5527.6 (b) . . . .p29lst Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ......p1714th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution .....p17




5/20

1

23

4

5618

91011I213I4l516I'71B

19202I2223'A25ll)

2128

ttltII

IA. THE ASITISI,APP STATUTE GO\ZERNS THE DTSPUTE III

"Motion to strike a state law craim under cal-ifornia 's ant:--fSLAPP statute may be brought in federal court.'rVess v. Cina-lGeigy Corp.USA, 3L1 F. 3d 7091 , 1109 (9th cir. 2003). The ant.ilSLAPP statute was enacted to allow for early dismissal- "qmeritless first amendment cases aimed at chilling expressionl

Ithrough costly, time consuming litigation." Batzel v Smith, 3331F. 3d 1018, IO24 (9th cir. 2003). The statute should n"l

Iconstrued broadly, " Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 5425.16 (a) ""1j-nterpreted "in a manner favorable to the exercise of freedom oflspeech, not its curtailment, " Briggs v Eden Council for Hope andlOpportunity, 19 Cal 4th 1106-1119 (7ggg).

I

IB. DEFEI{DAT\TES MET TITEIR BI'RDEN T'NDER AI{TISI.APP STATUTE IISLAPP is Strategic Legal Action Against Public Participation.l

Above action, Liberi et al v Taitz et al is a typical SLAPJIaction filed by the plaintiffs in order to limit publiclIparticipation and specifically to silence the defendants, wnol

are whistle blowers, about the fact that Pennsylvania attorneylPhilip J. Berg, is employing as hj-s tegal assistant a .onr.i.t.Jdocument forger and thief Lisa Liberi. Berg and Liberi knew .al

Iall times that Liberi is indeed a convicted document forger andlthief, convicted in San Bernardino, CA. They origiinally fif"J

Ithis case in Phitadelphia, representing that Liberi is anlinnocent, defamed woman in Pennsylvania, who was slandered -ndlIdefamed by the defendants. At all times they knew that she r""l

not defamed, that she is indeed a convicted document forger fronrlIILiberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under CCCP 425.16 AntiSLAPP- aIIII



6/20

1

2

3

4

5

6

1B

91011L213I415761718I92027222324252627ao

Liberi v Taitz motion lo dismiss under: CCCP 425-L6 AntiSLApp- 6

cA, and that they are harassing the defendants with a st,App lasuit. rn their attempt to cover up Liberi's identity they actewith unprecedent.ed malice and in further pleadings accused thdefendants of multiple crimes, maliciously claiminq thaatt.orney ra,tz tried to hire a hit man to kill Liberi, and fothat reason Liberi should not provide her pennsyrvania dri-verlicense, and the court needs to berieve her word and proceed. idiversity without any documentary evidence. Similarly, theclaimed that Plaintiff osterla was defamed, when Ta:tz publisheon her web site, that her former web master ostella locked raitout of the old web site for her foundation, ..Defend our FreedFoundation" and replaced Taitz pay pa1-account with her olrnHowever, after 72.2a.207r TRo hearing and cross examination oostelfa by Taitz, ostella conceded that she indeed locked Taitout of the web site for her foundation and replaced Taitz paypal account with her own. (Exhibitmemorandum of judge Robreno). 72.23.2070 Order anThis legal action was filed two years ago on May 4, 2a0g. rt wafiled approximately Lwo weeks after Dr. orly Taitz (hereinafteTartz), president of "Defend our Freedoms Foundation" publishea report by a licensed investigator Neil sankey (hereinaftesankey), that showed that Lisa Liberi (Hereninafter Liberi),legal assistant for pennsylvania attorney phirip Ber(Hereinafter Berg) has a criminal record of forgery, forqery oofficial- seal and theft. This report was made by Sankey based oinformation which is easiry and readily available in publirecords. (Exhibit 1) . Recently, dt a motion hearing iPhiladelphia Pennsylvania on 12.20.2010 during cross examinatio



7/20

IIIIIof Liberi by Taitz, Liberi admitted that she is indeed .l

convicted felon from California. (Exhibit 4) Taitz, .t"o,lIpublished true and correct information, that Lisa Ostel-la,1Iformer volunteer web master for "Defend Our freedoms Foundation"lI(hereinafter "Foundation") has locked TatLz, president oflIFoundation, out of the old web site for the foundation andlIreplaced Taitz pay-pa1 account with her own, therefore rnylIdonation given to Ostella or via pay-pal on the old web sitel

from mid April would not go to the Foundation, but would go tolIOstella. At the same hearing on 12.20.20L0 at the crosslIexamination of Ostella, conducLed by Taitz, Ostella admittedl

that she indeed locked Tartz out of the old web site of n.tlfoundation and replaced Tai-tz pay pal account with her own ITwo weeks after publication Liberi, Berg, Law offj-ces of efrif:-plBerg, Ostella, Go Excel Global (business name of Ostel-l-al -t-rOlEvelyn Adams a/k/a Momma E fil-ed a legal action in the easterl

IDistrict of Pennsylvania against 14 named defendants and 2001unnamed defendants. Nature of the suit is listed as 320 Assault,l'lLibel-, Slander. Jurisdiction-diversity. In this law sui!

IPlaintiffs sued all the whistle blowers, who blew the whistle ..fLiberi, Ostella, Berg and Adams. The complaint is utl

Iincomprehensibte B1 page mish-mash of allegations against tnlindividuals and enti-ties. In a nut shelt Plaintif f s cl-aimed thad

Ithey were defamed by the publication of the above facts. TheylIattempted to create an impression that. Lisa Liberi, who workslIwith attorney Berg is a different Lisa Liberi, not a convictedl

felon from California. Pl-aintiffs attempted to create thisllimpression by posting Attorney Berg's business address in PA aslIIILiberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under CCCP 425.L6 AntiSLAPP- tIII

1

234

5

67Io

l0t1L2l3

15I6111819202I22??24CR

z62'7

28



8/20

1

23

4

5618

91011L2l3L41s16t11B

19202I222324

26212B

Liberi I s address. They further made malicious, fraudulenaccusations, that Liberi's address cannot be disclosed becausshe is afraid for her l-ife because attorney Taitz tried to hj-ra hit-man to kil1 her. Exhibit 4, last order by judge Robreno iEastern Distri-ct of PA shows that Berg, Liberi and Ostella wer"evasive on the stand and not believable as witnesses". JudgRobreno found no foundation and no value in plaintiff'accusations and allegations and claims that Taitz tried thire a hit-man to kill Liberi.C. CI,AIM ARISES OUT OF AI{ ISSI'E OE' PT'BLIC INTERESTPlaintiff's complaint stems from an act made in connect.ion wita public issue or an issue of public interest, in furtheranof Defendantsr right of free speech under the United States oCal-ifornia Constitutions. Civ Proc Code 5425.16(b) (1).fn 81 pages of complaint with a mumbo jumbo of bare slanderouallegations aqainst 14 named defendants and 200 unnamedefendants, there are only ]imited statements/publications, thacan be attributed to the defendants. and those were clearly madin public interest:1. Defendants published criminal record of Lisa LiberiTaLtz is a president of the "Defend our Freedoms foundation"Volunteer web master Ostella locked TaiLz out of the web site oher foundation and changed the code on the web site and replaceTaitz pay-pal account with her own. At t.he same time Ostellused "Defend our Freedoms foundation" web site to defame Taitand promote another attorney, Philip J. Berg. Berg is engaged ination wide fundraising and employinq as his assistant LisLiberi, who has 26 criminal felony charges and at l-east 1

Liberi v Taitz motion to dlsmiss under CCCP 425.16 AntiSLAPP- B



9/20

1

2

3

4

56

1B

91011I213L41516I11BI9)A2I22

2425262728

felony convictions of theft, forgery of documents and forgery oofficial seal in cA alone. (Exhibit 1) and rg prior cri_minacharges (Exhibit 2) . Berg is submitting to multiple courtdocuments prepared by this assistant. rt was in public interesto alert the public , that raitz was locked out of her ord wesite and that it is being used to promote another attorney,whose assistant has an extensive criminar record. As members othe public were donating to Berg, they had to be warned thatperson with theft convictions is working as an assistant fothat attorney. Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 Affidavit of LindBelcher, former researcher for Berg, and signed letter frJeoff staples, former web master for Berg attest to Liberi'handling of credit card inf ormati-on of d.onors. This isimportant issue of public interest, and an effort, by Tartz,is the president of foundation and an offi-cer of the courtprotect the donors against possible theft. Additionally, as Bewas filing multiple documents in different courts, it waimportant to warn members of the public, that some of thdocuments could not be genuine, considering the fact that hiassistant has convictions of forgery of documents and forgery oan of ficial sea]-. such publlcation by Taitz was truthful,privileged and entirely in public interest. rn the ocean osfander and hearsay by the plaintiffs, there are a few specifistatements, attributed to the defendants, a1l- of which artruthful statements made properly ion public interest.a. Complaint tl57 represents a retter from Taitz to Berg, wherTaiLz, believing that Berg is not aware of Liberi's record,alerted Berg that according to a licensed investigator Sankey,

awht

l,iberi v TaiLz motion to dismiss under CCCp 425.16 AntiSLApp- 9



10/20

III

I

IBerg' s assistant Lisa Liberi has an extensive crj-mj-na1 r".orO.lThis is a statement made on issue of public interest, namely tfr.lIfact that an assistant for an attorney has an extensive criminaffrecord IIb. S66 alleqed statement, where Taitz provides the public wittl

information regrardingr Liberi's probation officer. This is 1statement made on issue of public lnterest.. If a convictedlIforger and thief works with someone, who does nation widelIfundraising and has access to credit cards of multiple donors,l

it is in public interest to al-ert her probation officer IIc.$67 Quotes a comment Taitz allegedly made on her web siterl

where she alerts her donors of Liberits cri-minal t""otO-lIstatement made in public interest. Id. tl69 April 27 2009 alleged notation by TatLz on the new *.blIsite of her foundation actualJ-y makes the case for tnel

defendants. Complai-nt states that Tai-Lz sent an e-mail to PhilBerg, describinq Liberi's criminal record (true copy of thisl

Irecord is in exhibit 1) . CompJ-a j-nt quotes Taitz describing herlImotivations, which are completely proper motivations in nuOficlinterest:"I believe Mr. Berg should not be using a person wititl

such past in his fund raising efforts and lega1 practice andlIshoul-d issue a statement advising the donors and supportersrl

that Ms. Lisa Liberi ls no longer employed by him or fri"lIfoundati-on and that he is reviewinq his donations and all feVafl

records handled by Ms. Liberi. I believe the donors to Mr. Berglfoundati-on should get assurances that their donations were ,r".Jfor litigation and the cause and not to reimburse victims of u".l

ILiberi's prior schemes. . . " The plaintiffs in their own complaintlIILiberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under CCCP 425.L6 AntiSLAPP- 10II

I

1

23

4

55

1I9

1011L213T41516I-l1BI9202I2223242526zt28



11/20

I2

3

4

56'lB

910111213

15T677181,9

202722232425262'728

III

IIIare making a case for this court to grant judgment for trreldefendants on their AntiSLAPP, as such statements by th"l

defendant TatLz is a true and correct statement made on an i"",-,"1Iof public interest" II2. Defendants published information in regards to web mastel

Lisa Ostella's actions in lockingr Taitz out of the web site t"=lher foundation.lYet again all of these statements are proper statements made inl

Ipublic interest to advise the donors that former volunteerlwebmaster Lisa Ostefla focked Taitz, president of "Defend O"1Freedoms FoundaLion" out of the old web site for her foundatio{and replace Taitz pay-paI account with her own, therefore thel

Idonors will be advised that their donations will not go to thelfoundation, but would go to Ostel-la. Not only it is permissiveland in public interest. but TatLz, ds the president of thelfoundation was obligated to provide the donors with tfrisl

Iinformation. As donors don't freguent the web site on a daifylbasis , LL was proper to post such reminders, and it was ttlpublic interest to warn donors IAs a matter of fact in 1f44 Ostella admits that she locked faitzl

Iout and " Ostella changed the Pay-PaI script in the donationslIbutton to reflect her own account and removed Taitz's accountsl

from the sites" and an order and memorandum of judge Robrenolstates that Ostella conceded on the stand that. she locked Taitzlout and replaced the paypal account. Plaintiff provided serrera!

Ialleged statements by Taitz, which state exactly that. 5lS62,l67 ,68, 69 provide the same statement made on the issue ofl

Ipublic interest, that a volunteer webmaster locked the prestd""alILiberi v Taitz motion to dlsmiss under CCCP 425.16 AntiSLAPP- 11III



12/20

2

3

4

6

1B

9

1011L21374151,6

I118T9202I22232425262128

of the foundation out of the web site for her foundatlon anreplaced the pay-pal account of the f ound.at j-on with hepersonal pay-pal account, whereby the donations will not go tthe foundation, but would go to that former volunteer webmasterNot only it was proper for the defendants to make sucstatements, but raitzr ds the president of the foundatj-on, haan obligation to warn her supporters and donors.1162"sh(ostella) locked me out of my own found.ation site and refuses tgive me the access codes. " llGB" My former web master Lisostella has created an account that she called Defend ouFreedoms Network and i-s solicitlng donations, praying ounsuspected readers that would not not.ice the difference betweeDefend Our Freedoms Foundation and Defend our Freedoms CommunitPlease notice, your donations there will not qo to thfoundation, they will go to her personal bank account, connecteLo her personal e-mail address GoExcelGlobal". These arstatements made in connection with an issue of public interesL,specifically, where donations will- go. Since defendants metheir initial anti-slApp burden, the burden shifts to thPlaintiff- to establish, "by competent and admissa.ble evidenee, "a reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail on hicl-ai-ms at tria-l "C. PI,AINTIFFS MUST ESTABLTSH gHAT TIIEY WILL PREVAIL ON

THEIR CT,ATMS1. THIS }THOLE CAT'SE OF ACTION FAILS AND ITAS TO BEDrsMrssED ut[DER FRCP 12 (B) 1

Liberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under cCCp 425.16 Antisr,App- 12



13/20

1

23

4

56

lI9

10t1t213I415t6I11B

I9202122232425262128

parties were diverse.JURISDICTION IS ALIVAYS BEFORE TIIE

HAS A DUTY TO DISMISS A CASE,

Liberi v Taitz CCCP 425.16 AntiSLAPP- 13

Prior to addressing the specific counts of the complaintDefendants assert that the cornplaint was filed in federal coufrivolousry in violation of section 12b (1) of Fed.eral_ rulescivil Procedure. This legaI action was fiLed based on diversiof citizenship Federal Rule of ciwil proced,ure 12 (b) 1 providefor dismissal of a eomplaint for lack of subject matjurisdiction. Any doubt as to whether jurisdiction exists inormally resorved against a finding of such jurisdiction. Kanv. we1Ies1ey Galleries, rtd 704 s2d 10ggt Log2 (gth cir.1gg3.)Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, it i"presumed that a cause ties outside this limited jurisdiction,and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the paasserting jurisdietion." vacek v united states postal servi447 F3d ],248, L25o (9tn cir 2006) (quoting Kokkonen v Guardil-ife rns. co.of Asr 511 us. 3Tb, 377 (1994) (citation omitted)).For diversity of citizenship praintiffs were supposed. to provdocurnentary evidence of state citizenship of the parties at thtime this lega1 action rras filed, in order to show that

COI'RT A}ID THE COURTWHERE IT ITAS NO

JT'RTSDICTIONrn a recent case of s. Freedman and company, inc v Marvin Raaet ar # 05-1138 (from NJ #04-cv-01119) Third ci-rcuit.judges Honorable Barry, Smith and Ardisert found thatprecedent of Gould Electronics, inc v united states, 2zocourunde

169, t] 6 (3d Cir.2000) Third Circuit court of Appeals hajurisdiction to review under 28 U. S . C. S12 91 the issue osubject matter jurisdiction as a basis for dismissal of thcase. Third circuit court of Appeals also found that a Districcourt has a duty to raise doubts about its jurisdiction attime, and the party asserting jurisdiction ..bears the burden o



14/20

L3

101172

L4l5L6L]IBl9202722

24252621zo


slrowing that the case is properly before the court at alstages of litigation". Packard v Provident National Bank, 99F. 2d 1039, 1045 (3d Cir. 1993) and similarly J& R rce creCorp. v. Ca]ifornia Smoothie Licensing, 31 F. 3d 1259, 7265 n.(3'd cir rgg4)-In its' opinion 1n Freedman v Raab Third Circuit proceeded texpand and. reiteratffis upon which jurisdictiodepends must be alleged affirmatively and disti-nctly and cannobe established argumentatively or by mere inference 5C. Wrigh& A. Mi-I-ler, Federa.l- Practice and Procedure S1205, at 18-'l(1969 & Supp. 2005); Thomas v Board of Trustees, I95 U.S. 201,2I0 (1904) (holding that diversity jurisdiction, "or the factupon which, in legal intendment, it rests, must be distinctland positively averred in the pleadings, or should appeaaffirmatively and wit.h equal distinctness in other part of threcord" ) I Joiner v. Diamond M Dril-]-inq Co 617 F. 2d 10351039 (5th Cir 1982)("fn order to adequately establish diversity jurisdiction,complaint must set forth with specificity a corporate party'state of incorporation and its principal place of business)"Fedco's bald allegations that the corporate parties arcitizens of certai-n states are insuffj-cient Lo carry its burdeof pleading the diversity of the parties. "In cases in which jurisdiction is based on diversity ofcitizenship, plaintiff has burden to show, first, thatapplicable statute confers jurisdictlon, and, second, thatassertion of jurisdiction is consonant with constitutionall-i-mi-tations of due

process. Weight v Kawasaki Motors Corp.Supp 968. (7985, ED Va) 604 FParty's mere allegation of diversity cannot satisfy its burdenof establishing district courtrs jurisdiction,' citizenship ofeach real- party in interest must be estabJ-ished by preponderanceof evidence. Roche v Lincofn Prop. Co. (2004, CA4 Va) 373 F3d670.Complaint allegi-ng that defendant's corporate citizenship was ina state other than California but failing to allege thatplaintlffs we.re alf c.itizens of California was not sufficient togive District Court jurisdiction since pleadings did nototherwise resolve issue of citizenship. Bautista v Pan AntericanWorld Airlines, Inc. (7987, CA9 CaI) B2B F2d 546, 126 BNA LRRM2559, 707 CCH LC P 10759.fn OLsen v Qual-ity Continuum Hospice, Inc. (2A04,DC NM) 380 FSupp 2d 7225



15/20

13l4l5L6

l0L1t2

I1

I91B

2027222324

262'1

court lacked jurisdiction over patient's craims because hefailed to establish diversity jurisdiction because at time hefiled complaint both he and hospice were citizens of st_ate; alsopatient only sougrht $ 10r 000 in cost and unspecified amount forother damages, whi-ch did not meet amount in controversyfn McMann v. Doe (2006, DC Mass) 460 F supp 2d compJ-aint againstJohn Doe defendant a.lIeging Internet defamation was 4ismissedfor lack of subject matter jurisdiction because there was riskthat if ,fohn Doe I s identity litere discovered there could haveI>een no diversity, and courtrs jurisdictional- authority wouldhave disappeared; court declined to read amended language of 28uscs S 7447into 28 uscs s J332 because it woul_d have"c"o*P llowing case with only oneparty and only state law clalms to proceed initially in federalcourt ofsen v Qual-ity Continuum Hospice, rnc. (20a4lDC NM) 380 FSupp 2d 7225.fn moLorist's personal injury lawsuit against, inter alia,owners of property adjacent to private railroad.-track crossingwhere car-train accident occurred., pursuant to 28 uscs s7447 (d) , appellate court lacked jurisdiction to re"ie- temandthat implicitJ-y was based on lack of subject matterI urisdiction; distri-ct court. clearly was addressingjurisdictional issues--diversity of citizensihip, 2g uscs S 7332,and fraudulent joinder--and. when doing so, it property declinedto decide doubtful question of state law and, instead., resolvedambiguity (lack of state law directry on point) in motorist'sfavor. FifJa v Norfofk & Southern R (2003, CAB Mo) 336 F3d806.where record creates doubt as to jurlsdiction, trial court mustdetermine whether there are ad.equate grounds to sustain itsjurisdiction over subject mat.ter. shahmoon rndustries, rnc. vtnperato (7954, ce3 x,l) 338 rza qqg, 9 ra serv 2d 128.22, case2.Court has duty to look tosr'lrject matter jurisdictionsponte, at any time. Jeter

its orilnmay bev Jim Wafjurisdiction and lackasserted by court, ofsua

WDer Homes, Inc. (7976,Okfa) .474 F Supp 797.259 -evidence. decided by a preponderance ofPlaintiffs refused to provide drivers ]-icense or an rD card tcshow the state citizenship of the lead plaintiff Lisa Liberi

DefendantsBernard,ino,

provlded Liberi's criminal record from the SanCalifornia court, showing Liberi being on probationOLiberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under CCCP 4ZB.L6 AntiSLApp- 15



16/20

1

2

34

5678

9

-LU

11I213L41576111B1920IL22232425262128

III

IIunder supervision of the San Bernardino, California probationsl

department, allowed to reside only j-n California or New ltexicorlInot in any other state, not in Pennsylvania. TaiLz demanded tolIsee Liberi's proof of state citizenship. Originally PlaintiffslIclaimed that they showed Judge Robreno Liberi's drivers licensel

duri-ng 08.07 .2009 motion hearingr . Tar_Lz was not able to attendlthis hearing and requested the transcript. On July 30r 20101

IPlaintiffs filed an emergency motion, where they demanded tolIkeep the transcript seal-ed and accused the defendant anal

attorney for the defendants Taitz of trying to hire a hit man tolkill Liberi and claimed that for this reason the tt-n""ri-ptl

Ineeds to be sealed. Judge Robreno ordered the transcriptlreleased to Tattz. The transcript showed that the Plaintiffs dfJ

Inot provide Liberi's drivers license, and actually during thelheari-ng judge Robreno ordered Liberi and her attorney Berg TdFILE LIBERI's DRIVERS LICENSE VIITH COURT. The docket shows th-J

ILiberi and Berg NEVER FfIED LfBERT' S DRfVERS LfCENSE.^1Plai-ntiffs never fifed any documentary evidence of Liberj-'sl

Istate citizenship, this 1ega1 action has to be dj-smissed underl72bL, as the plaintiffs did not provide documentary evidence "flIstate citizenship of the party to the action, necessary for thel

Icourt to assume jurisdiction in diversity, and the court doeslInot have juri-sdiction over the case. This case was frivolouslyl

filed in the federal court and specifically in the federal .outalIin Pennsylvania simply to intimidate the defendants and try tqsilence them I

COMPLA]NT IN ITS ' ENTIRETY FAILS UNDER 12 (B)' IIFA]LURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH A RELIEF CAN BE GRANTEDI

ILi-beri v Taitz motion to dismiss under CCCP 425.1,6 AntiSLAPP- 16 II

II



17/20


18/20

IIIIIIIgovernment, as it relates to the 1st amendment and infringe*"na|

by the State qovernment as lt relates to the 14th amendment. IITaitz is not a federal or state government, she is .1

individual. II"Defend our Freedoms foundation" is not a federal government, itl

is a private, not for profit foundation, so this cause of -ctior.lIdoes not refate to them. Additionally, Plaintiffs did not show 1shred of evidence that will point out and explain, how did TaitzlIor "Defend our Freedoms" private, not for profit foundationlIinfringed upon any freedoms guaranteed to the Plaintiffs. HowlIdid TaiLz or "Defend Our Freedoms Foundation" prevented tnelplalntiffs from exercising their Constitutionally guaranteedlIrishtsIThis part of the complaint is totally frj-vo1ous, representslIimpossibilit.y as a matter of law and needs to be dismissed wj-thlIprejudice and without leave to amend. ISecond part of count one relates to CA Civil Procedure 511gB.B7,lIwhi-ch is equally bizarre and insane. This statute relates tolIbuslnesses which maintain private information of theilcustomers.I71 98.87. A business shall take a-l-l reasonable steps to dispose,lorlarrange for the disposal, of customer records within its custody'lorlcontrol containing personal information when the record.s are no Ilonger to be retained by the business by (a) shredding, (b)lerasing, Ior (c) otherwise modifying the personal informatj-on 1n thoselrecords Ito make it unreadable or undecipherable through any meansII

I

II

ILiberl v Taitz motion to dismiss under CCCP 425.16 AntiSLAPP- 18 IIIII

1

2

34

56'7

89

10111213741576I11BI92021222324252621.O



19/20

lttlIrlllrlAgain, this statute is totally inapplicable to Taitz olI .atute is totally inappLicable to Taitz or ,,OefenOll our Freedoms Foundation".Ilr

I r.itr is an individual. IttDefend our Freedoms foundation is a private, not for profitll--L---'---'foundation.IIPlaintiffs refer to the information regarding Lisa Lrberi,l

claiming that publication of Liberi's information renresentslviolation of S17 9B . B 1, however l,isa Liberi was never a .,-,stor.J

I

of either Ta:_tz of "Defend Our Freedoms" foundation, and tfrislstatute relates only to violations by businesses, which maintainlIprivate information of their customers.ILastly, information published by Taitz, was a pub11c cri-minarlIrecord of Liberi, which is public information, not private.IEven, tf arguendo, doy information published, was private, tnelI

Plaintiffs could not sue the Defendants under cA civ prolI51798.81, as it does not relate to Defendants.IFurther Plaintiffs quote s1798. B4 sections b-g and convenientlylIomit section (a) and attempl to manipulate and defraud the courtl

by impLying that those sections are somehow relevant to tt,."lIdefendants. when one reads s1798.84-a-g it clearly shows that itlI

1s part of the same s1798, which relates to businesseslImaintaining private information of their business customers.lIagain, as explained 17 9B . B 4 . (a ) Any wa j-ver of a provision .tl

this titJ-e is contrary t.o IILiberi v TaLtz motion to dismiss under CCCP 425.16 AntiSLAPP- 19II

I

1

2

3

4

56'l8

910117213L415I67118t9202722

242526212B



20/20

123

4

561

I9

tn117213\415I6L]1BI9202Izz2324252621LO

public policy and is void and unenforceable.(b) Any customer injured by a violation of thisinstitute a civil action to recover damages.This c-laim fails as a matter of Iaw, as such itdismissed with prejudice without leave to amend-

a. Social securityViolating Socialspecific act or

act. Plaintiff accusedsecurity acL, but did

any explanation, how did

title mayneeds to b

Defendants onot plead anthe Defendant

Further on towards the end of the pleading for count one' 1n!4L in their desperate attempt to silence the Defendants-whistlblowers and prevent further disclosure to the public of the facthat attorney Berg is working with a convicted documenL forger,who drafts his pleadings, Plaintiffs simply listed multiplstatutes, threw in a plte a number of federal and state statutefrom different states without any connection to the defendantand without any explanation, how do those statutes relate to thdefendants and represent viable causes of action. The pleadinis so deficient, that it can't even be called a legal pleadingIqbal , L29S . Ct at 1940 (citing Twombly, 550 u. s . at 555 statet.hat the court should not accept "threadbare recitals of a causof action's elements, supported by mere conclusory statementshere the Plaintiffs did not even list the elements. They simpllist a dozen statutes, one after another' none of which has anconnection to the defendants. As such those claims need to bdismissed with prejudicestatutes are as follows:

and without leave to amend. Th

Liberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under CCCP 425-16 AntiSLAPP- 20


liberi v taitz (c.d. ca) - 178 - notice of motion and first motion to dismiss case under 425.16...

Documents