liberi v taitz (appeal) - appellants' reply to taitz response to motion to withdraw or dismiss -...
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
1/28
U.S. District Court,Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case Number: 09-cv-01898 ECR
Court of Appeals No. Case Number: 09-3403
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT__________________________
LISA LIBERI, et al,
Plaintiffs Appellants,
v.
ORLY TAITZ, et al,
Respondents Appellees.
_________________________
APPELLANTS REPLY TO APPELLEES, ORLY TAITZ AND DEFEND
OUR FREEDOMS OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS MOTION TOWITHDRAW THEIR APPEAL or in the ALTERNATIVE TO DISMISSTHEIR APPEAL PURSUANT TO F.R.A.P. 42(b) and APPELLANTS
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLEE TAITZSFRIVOLOUS MOTION/REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
_____________________
Philip J. Berg, Esquire555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531(610) 825-3134
Attorney for the Appellants
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/01/2010
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
2/28
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
TABLE OF CONTENTS...i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....ii-iii
APPELLANTS REPLY TO APPELLEE TAITZS
OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTSMOTION TO
WITHDRAW THEIR APPEAL OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE DISMISS THEIR APPEAL
PURSUANT TO F.R.A.P. 42(b)......1-22
I. APPELLEE TAITZ FAILED TO SIGN HERPLEADINGS AND THEREFORE, THE
PLEADINGS MUST BE STRICKEN .....1-2
II. TAITZ FAILED TO RESPOND TO ANY OF
THE FACTS PRESENTED IN APPELLANTS
MOTION; FAILED TO GIVE ANY CAUSE
NOT TO DISMISS THE APPEAL; THEREFORE,
APPELLANTS MOTION MUST BE GRANTED
AND THE APPEAL DISMISSED,.2-15
III. TAITZS OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS MOTION
TO DISMISS and TAITZS REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS ARE FRIVILOUS, NOT COMPLIANT
WITH THE RULES OF COURT; and MUST
BE DENIED. SANCTIONS MUST ISSUE
UPON TAITZ PURSUANT TO F.R.A.P. 46 (c),15-22
CONCLUSION,.22
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.23-24
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/01/2010
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
3/28
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page(s)
Third Circuit Court of Appeals
Swartzwelder v. McNeilly, 297 F.3d 228 (3rd Cir. 2002)..8
Walsh v. Schering-Plough Corp., 758 F.2d 889 (3d Cir. 1985)....2, 16, 17, 20, 21
Court of Appeals for other Circuits
Aircraft Trading & Services, Inc. v. Braniff, Inc.,
819 F.2d 1227, 1236 (2d Cir.1987).....18
In re Central Ice Cream Co., 836 F.2d 1068, 1074 (7th Cir.1987).....18
Meeks v. Jewel Companies, Inc., 845 F.2d 1421 (7th Cir. 1988)...17-18
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Prison Health Servs., Inc. v. Umar,
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12267 (E.D. Pa. May 8, 2002).8
Other U.S. District Court Cases
Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1380 (M.D. Ga. 2009).....11, 19
Barnett v. Obama,2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101206, 55-56 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009)..21
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/01/2010
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
4/28
iii
FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
Page(s)
Rule 38...16-18
Rule 42(b)....1, 2, 4, 13
Rule 46(c)16
Local Appellate Rule [LAR] 46.4......1-2
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Page(s)
MISCELANIOUS
Page(s)
Canon 2....20
Miller, The Adversary System:
Dinosaur or Phoenix, 69 Minn.L.Rev. 25 (1984)18
Rule 11....2, 17
DR 1-102(a)(4).........20
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/01/2010
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
5/28
1
Appellants filed their Motion to Voluntarily Withdraw their Appeal or in
the Alternative to Dismiss their Appeal pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure [F.R.A.P.] 42(b) on or about Wednesday, April 21, 2010.
Ironically, Appellee Orly Taitz [hereinafter at times Taitz] did not enter
her appearance in the within Appeal until Monday, April 26, 2010, five (5) days
after Appellants moved to dismiss. Appellee Taitz apparently entered her
appearance on behalf of herself and her corporation, Defend our Freedoms
Foundations, Inc. [hereinafter at times DOFF].
Appellee Taitz then filed herunsigned Opposition to Appellants Motion
to Withdraw and/or Dismiss their Appeal pursuant to F.R.A.P. 42(b) on Friday,
April 30, 2010 and then filed an unsigned Addendum on the same date, which
appears to be the exact same thing as her Opposition.
I. APPELLEE TAITZ FAILED TO SIGN HER PLEADINGS ANDTHEREFORE, THE PLEADINGS MUST BE STRICKEN:
Taitz has failed to sign her pleadings filed with this Court on April 30, 2010,
which is not the first time. Therefore Taitzs pleadings must be stricken.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals Local Rule [LAR] Rule 46.4 states:
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/01/2010
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
6/28
2
46.4 Signing of Documents
All documents, motions and briefs must be signed by an attorney or by aparty appearing pro se. Electronically filed documents must be signed witheither an electronic signature or s/ typed name.
LAR 46.4 was derived from the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 11
which states in pertinent part, Every pleading, motion, and other paper of a party
represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of recordIf a
pleading, motion, or other paper is not signed, it shall be stricken See also
Walsh v. Schering-Plough Corp., 758 F.2d 889 (3d Cir. 1985).
For these reasons, Taitzs pleadings must be stricken and Appellants
Motion to Withdraw or in the Alternative to Dismiss their Appeal pursuant to
F.R.A.P. 42(b) must be Granted and their Appeal Dismissed.
II. TAITZ FAILED TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THE FACTSPRESENTED IN APPELLANTS MOTION; FAILED TO GIVE
ANY CAUSE NOT TO DISMISS THE APPEAL; THEREFORE,
APPELLANTS MOTION MUST BE GRANTED AND THE
APPEAL DISMISSED:
Appellants incorporate their Motion to Withdraw their Appeal or in the
Alternative Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.A.P. 42(b) as if fully set forth
herein.
In Taitzs Opposition she states she opposes Appellants Motion to Dismiss
the Appeal without costs and thereby demands costs and sanctions. However,
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/01/2010
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
7/28
3
Taitz fails to cite to any type of costs, which of course there are not any as she just
entered her appearance after Appellants Motion.
Taitz claims that the underlying case in this matter involves an
incomprehensible and totally frivolous and extortionate lawsuitin damages by a
politically motivated Pennsylvania attorney, his legal assistant and other
accomplices. Taitz by her own admission, which is filed in the lower Court,
threatened to take Attorney Philip J. Berg down and to do so Taitz stated she
would destroy his paralegal, Lisa Liberi and anyone associated with them. Taitz
filed false police reports against Appellants Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella; slandered
and libeled the Appellants; threatened the Appellants; posted all over the internet
and sent by mass emailing continuously to millions of people, including
internationally, the Social Security number; date of birth; mothers maiden name;
place of birth; name; and other private confidential information of Appellant, Lisa
Liberi. At the same time she did this, Taitz also posted from the Federal Bureau of
Investigations [FBI] website testimony to a subcommittee on the confidentiality of
Social Security numbers and the high rise in identity theft. Taitz illegally obtained
and publicized all the personal identifying information of Appellant Lisa Liberi for
the purpose of her identity to be stolen and cause her damages. Unfortunately,
Taitz was successful.
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/01/2010
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
8/28
4
Taitz next claims that Appellants damages are supposedly based on a
California statute which does not in the least support the contentions made by
appellants. First, the issue of damages and any statute to support said damages
are not before this Court. Despite this, Taitz statements are untrue and contradict
Taitzs own admissions filed in the lower Court pertaining to the statute in
question.
Taitz next claims the request for injunctive relief seems void on its face
and was dismissed out of hand by the District Court and is (and was always) moot
by appellants own admission. This statement by Taitz is false and another
deception upon this Court. Appellants request for a Temporary Injunction and/or
Restraining Order was denied by the lower Court, nothing has been dismissed, as
Taitz is well aware of. Moreover, Taitz statements are purposely to mislead this
Court and the Internet world wherein Taitz publishes her Court filings. What
Appellants stated in their Motion to Withdraw their Appeal or in the Alternative to
Dismiss their Appeal pursuant to F.R.A.P. 42(b) was, Since the filing of the
Appeal for the Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction,
Defendant/Respondent Taitz has continued her distribution of Plaintiff Liberis
Social Security number, date of birth, place of birth, mothers maiden name and
other private confidential identifying information [Appellants Motion, p. 1]. At
this point and juncture, a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction will not
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/01/2010
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
9/28
5
prevent damages from incurring, which is the sole purpose of an emergency
temporary restraining order and/or injunctionas damages incurred pending the
outcome of their appeal are severe and a temporary Restraining order and/or
Injunction are moot at this point [Appellants Motion, pp. 4-5]. Appellants have
never stated their request for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction
has always been moot as Taitz claimed. This statement by Taitz is a complete
lie to again mislead this Court.
Taitz next claims that appellants have filed numerous frivolous motions
in this court which Appellees Taitz and Foundation have had to respond to
including; lengthy motions for judicial notice and numerous attempts to
circumvent the Federal Rules of Evidence through incompetent and irrelevant
affidavits and attachments; motions to expedite, motions for sanctions, a transfer
to California and a motion for a restraining order among other unfounded and
frivolous requests. See Appellee Taitz Opposition at pp. 2-3. Appellants herein
filed two [2] motions, unlike Taitzs false statements in her opposition. The docket
speaks for itself. Appellants have not filed motion for sanctions with this Court,
the only party who filed a previous Motion with this Court for Sanctions, and the
current Request in Taitzs Opposition to Appellants Motion to Dismiss their
Appeal, was Taitz herself. See Taitzs filing of January 11, 2010 and April 30,
2010 appearing on this Courts Docket. Appellants have not filed any motions
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/01/2010
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
10/28
6
with this Court for the case to be transferred to California and the entire purpose
for the appeal was for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or
Injunction to prevent the damages that have now occurred to Appellants.
Appellants are unsure as to Taitz statement on page three (3) of her
Opposition wherein she states defending against this malevolent legal jihad by
appellants. The word malevolent means wishing evil or harm to another or
others; showing ill will; ill-disposed; malicious; evil; harmful; injurious: and
Astrology, evil or malign in influence.1
Now, the word Jihad means a holy war
undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims; Islam An individual's striving for spiritual
self-perfection; Islam A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidel;
A crusade or struggle.2 To begin with, Appellants filed their appeal in good faith
as they did not agree with the lower Courts rulings. Being that none of the
Appellants and/or their witnesses have called for or declared a war on anyone; the
fact Appellants nor their witnesses have ever threatened anyone; they are not
Muslim, nor do any of the Appellants and/or their witnesses practice the Islamic or
Muslim religions, Appellee Orly Taitz has not made any sense in her ramblings.
Moreover, the only parties who have acted malicious, wishing harm to others, been
1 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/malevolent
2 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jihad
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/01/2010
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
11/28
7
injurious, harmful and many other things is Appellee Orly Taitz herself. Orly Taitz
has threatened the Appellants; she has threatened to have one of the Appellants
children professionally kidnapped; she has called for the political purging of
Appellants claiming they are Obama supporters (the word purge in the political
sense means to kill); filed false law enforcement reports against two (2) of the
Appellants, Liberi and Ostella; see EXHIBIT A, drove around Apellee Ostellas
home and childrens schools claiming she was driving police department to police
department attempting to have Appellee Ostella falsely arrested, see EXHIBIT
B; publishing via the internet and mass emailing, including Internationally and
multiple republishing Appellant Liberis full social security number, date of birth,
name, place of birth, mothers maiden name and other private and confidential
information; illegally accessing and obtaining Appellants Ostella and Liberis
credit reports; Appellees Sankey and Hale advertised Appellant Liberis credit
information on a public radio program stating Liberi had just taken out a loan; and
many other illegal tactics performed by Appellees and Appellee Taitzs.
Taitz next states to this Court, It is particularly galling that appellants
claim delay by Appellees in entering an appearance is the cause of the dismissal
request since any delay was self inflicted by appellants inability to provide this
court necessary transcripts that appellants now refuse to produce. Another
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/01/2010
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
12/28
8
deception upon this Court by Taitz. No where in Appellants Motion to Withdraw
and/or Dismiss their Appeal did they claim the delay in the proceedings was the
fault of Appellees for their failure to enter their appearance. What Appellants
stated in their Motion was, In the case at bar, the Appellees have neverentered
their appearance and therefore have not bore any costs and there are absolutely
no terms to agree too. [Appellants Motion, p. 6]. As for the transcript, although
repeated attempts were made to obtain the transcript, Appellants never received
the cost of the transcript until April 16, 2010. See EXHIBIT C. Again, Taitz
was well aware of this as it was pointed out in Appellants Motion. Moreover,
Appellants have never refused to produce the transcript or anything else. As Taitz
is fully aware, as she is an attorney, a temporary Injunction and/or Restraining
Order is to prevent damages and will only issue to prevent damages in which
monetary damages will not suffice. See Swartzwelder v. McNeilly, 297 F.3d 228,
234 (3rd Cir. 2002);Prison Health Servs., Inc. v. Umar, Civil Action No. 02-2642,
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12267 (E.D. Pa. May 8, 2002). Appellants Liberi and
Ostella have suffered severe damages due to Taitz continued improper, damaging
and illegal behaviors, therefore, at this point and time a Temporary Injunction
and/or Restraining Order will not suffice.
Taitz next asserts Transcripts that if provided would prove the lie being
perpetrated and transcripts that appellants now refuse to produce choosing to
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/01/2010
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
13/28
9
escape justice by trying to voluntarily dismiss their own harassing and vexatious
appeal. Appellee Taitz was not even present for the August 7, 2009 hearing as
she failed to appear. Thus, Taitz is unaware of what took place in Court on that
date. Her statements prove the lie the only lying that has taken place is by
Appellee Taitz and the other Appellees. Moreover, Taitz continues her rhetoric
rant, claiming Appellants refuse to turn over the transcript, etc. Appellants filed
their request for the transcript in August 2009, shortly after the filing of their
Appeal. Not only did Appellants serve the Court transcriber with the transcript
request, this very Court also served it upon the Court Transcriber. Despite the
numerous calls and attempts made to the Court for the cost of the transcript,
Appellants were not provided the cost until April 16, 2010, see EXHIBIT C.
Taitz then states was a bad faith tactical stunt by appellees If this
statement is truly what Taitz meant to type, Appellants must agree. This would be
the first honest statement Taitz has made. All of the Appellees, including Taitz
actions and behaviors both with the Court and outside the Court have been done by
Appellees in bad faith and to continue their injurious behaviors towards
Appellants.
Taitz next continues with her rhetoric regarding the undersigned and his
clients. Taitz cites to cases which have absolutely no bearing to the within Appeal
and have no place herein. Taitz states Appellants Appeal should not be dismissed
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/01/2010
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
14/28
10
without costs and sanctions. What costs? Again, Taitz had not entered her
appearance until almost a week after Appellants Motion to Dismiss the Appeal
was filed. Sanctions? For what? Appellants filed their Appeal as they felt the
lower Court was wrong in its assessment and felt the Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Injunction would prevent damages. For whatever reason this Appeal has
been sitting, the facts still remain, Taitz has continued her behaviors and violated
the lower Courts rulings, by continuing her publication of Appellant Liberis
Social Security number, date of birth, place of birth, mothers maiden name and
other very private confidential information. In fact, Taitzs publication of Liberis
full Social Security number is still present on the internet3 where Taitz posted it
herself. See EXHIBIT D. It should also be noted, the websites are set to re-
publish every three [3] hours, which is republication and sent out to an
undetermined amount of RSS feeds and social networks.
Taitz continues spewing her rhetoric that Appellants case and Appeal are to
harass, vex, and smear Appellees as well as improperly manufacture evidence to
be used in the case below. This of course, is completely untrue. Manufactured
evidence? What evidence is Taitz claiming was manufactured? Of course, none.
Appellants have not manufactured anything, however, Taitz and Appellee Neil
Sankey have, which was filed with this Court in August 2009. Appellants only
3 www.repubx.com and http://69.84.25.250/blogger/post/Dossie6.aspx
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/01/2010
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
15/28
11
filed what was taken directly from Taitzs different websites; her mass emailing;
and affidavits of individuals who have witnessed the unacceptable and damaging
behaviors of Taitz. Judge Land4 said it best, The Court concludes from this
conduct that counsel did have intent to injure anyone associated with the
litigation who did not agree with her [emphasis added].
As a result of Taitzs continued republication of Appellant Liberis Social
Security number and other private data, and the severe damages in which she has
suffered, Appellants herein have sought Leave from the lower Court to have Taitz
held in Civil and/or Criminal Contempt. See EXHIBIT E.
Taitz further states, Appellants filed thousands of pages of pleadings here
and in district court and subjected the court below and the Appellees to the
expense and effort of responding to each and every one of their baseless
assertions Again, untrue and another deception upon this Court by Taitz. What
occurs in the lower Court, with the exception of the two [2] Court Orders
(Interlocutory) under Appeal, have absolutely nothing to do with the Appeal
herein. Moreover, Taitz had only responded to one [1] thing in this Appeal,
Appellants second (2nd) Motion to Expedite filed on December 27, 2009, nothing
4
Judge Land,Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1380 (M.D. Ga. 2009)
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/01/2010
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
16/28
12
else. And, as previously stated, the docket speaks for itself. Taitz is doing nothing
more than lying to this very Court in an attempt to deceive this very Court. It
should also be noted, Appellants would not be forced to file all the Exhibits, if
Taitz would not have authored and published them for the sole purpose of harming
and causing injuries to t he Appellants. All exhibits filed are Taitzs own writings
and publishings and Affidavits of witnesses and parties who have personal
knowledge of the events.
Taitz then states, As usual this [sic] appellants motion is manufactured,
deceitful, untrue and misleading. The only deceitful party here is Taitz, as her
entire filing is filled with untruths and lies attempting to deceive this Court.
Moreover, what is manufactured, deceitful, untrue and/or misleading in Appellants
filing? Of Course, Taitz didnt state because the answer is nothing. Appellants
stated facts in their Motion and the only party attempting to prolong the dismissal
of this appeal is Taitz herself by her senseless and baseless filing. It should also be
noted by this Court, that Appellant Liberi has recently filed a Criminal Complaint
wherein the Defendants and perpetrators of the crimes against Liberi are Taitz and
Sankey. The criminal report was forwarded to the Sheriffs Department in
California. Appellant Liberi has asked for full prosecution of Appellees Taitz and
Sankey, et al as a result of the damages Appellant Liberi has suffered due to
Taitzs illegal acts including but not limited to continued publication of Liberis
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 16 Date Filed: 05/01/2010
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
17/28
13
Social Security number, date of birth, place of birth, mothers maiden name, and
other private confidential information; the illegal access of Appellants Ostella and
Liberis credit reports by Taitz and Sankey; the false filing of police reports against
Appellants Ostella and Liberi; and other criminal acts by Appellees Taitz and
Sankey.
Taitz then asserts that Appellants have failed to cite facts and have only
asserted unsupportable allegations of some vast, vague and implausible
conspiracy of the sort that on its face will not survive the R.Civ. P. 8(a)(2) facial
plausibility standard as interpreted by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949
(2009). This assertion by Taitz is completely absurd. First, there is no place for
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [F.R.C.P.] 8(a)(2) in Appellants Motion to
Withdraw and/or Dismiss their Appeal. Nor is the case ofAshcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.
Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) appropriate in this Appeal, it does not apply. What Taitz
failed to inform this Court is the fact she herself has filed in excess of three [3]
Motions to Dismiss Appellants underlying case, which not only is in violation of
the F.R.C.P. but were also denied by the lower Court. Appellants pleadings are
very clear, and outline the reasons they are seeking Withdraw or Dismissal of their
Appeal.
Taitz next asserts that Voluntary dismissal under FRAP Rule 42(b) is not
appropriate where the Appellee has been put to trouble and expense because the
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 17 Date Filed: 05/01/2010
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
18/28
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
19/28
15
Taitz then asserts that she should be allowed to present a bill of costs and
sanctions should be considered by this Court as no explanation has been provided
by appellants as to why transcripts were not provided. First, a Briefing Schedule
has not even been issued by this Court; and Taitz did not enter her appearance
until April 26, 2010, after Appellants filed their Motion, thus Appellee Taitz has
not incurred any costs. Next, Appellants clearly stated in their Motion to
Withdraw and/or Dismiss their Appeal as well as in their Response to the Court
Reporters Response to this Courts Order to Show Cause why she should not be
held in Contempt for her Failure to Produce the Transcript as to why they
[Appellants] had been unable to pay for the transcript, they were not provided the
cost of the transcript until April 16, 2010, five [5] days prior to the filing of their
Motion. One cannot purchase a transcript for which you do not have the cost of.
III. TAITZS OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS MOTION TODISMISS and TAITZS REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS ARE
FRIVILOUS, NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE RULES OF
COURT; and MUST BE DENIED. SANCTIONS MUST ISSUE
UPON TAITZ PURSUANT TO F.R.A.P. 46 (c):
In Taitzs Response in Opposition to Appellants Motion to Dismiss their
Appeal, she also requests Sanctions against the undersigned. Taitz request for
Sanctions is frivolous and filed for an improper purpose. In fact, her entire
pleading(s) filed April 30, 2010 are frivolous, incompliant with the Rules of Court,
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 19 Date Filed: 05/01/2010
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
20/28
16
and was done so to further delay the within Appeal and waist judicial resources.
Taitz is also attempting to prolong the dismissal of this Appeal so the case in the
lower Court cannot proceed forward. Therefore, Taitzs Request for Sanctions
must be denied; Taitz Pleadings must be Stricken for her Failure to sign them; she
must be Sanctioned and ordered to pay attorney fees for her Frivolous Filings; her
attempts to waist judicial resources; to cost Appellants additional Attorney Fees;
and her prolonging the Dismissal of Appellants Appeal so their case in the lower
Court stays at a stand still and cannot move forward.
As stated in Walsh v. Schering-Plough Corp., 758 F.2d 889, 895 (3d Cir.
1985):
Undoubtedly, it was just such considerations that gave rise to the recentamendment to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. That Rule, promulgated to keep attorneys"honest" in their pleading practice, now authorizes sanctions to be imposedwhen an attorney violates his certificate that good grounds support his
pleading and that the pleading is not interposed for delay. Moreover, ourown Fed.R.App.P. 46(c) provides for action being taken by us in the eventthat an attorney who practices before us exhibits conduct unbecoming amember of the bar or fails to comply with any rule of the court.
5
5
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(c) provides:
c) Disciplinary Power of the Court over Attorneys. A court of appeals may, afterreasonable notice and an opportunity to show cause to the contrary, and after hearing, ifrequested, take any appropriate disciplinary action against any attorney who practicesbefore it for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar or for failure to comply withthese rules or any rule of the court.
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 20 Date Filed: 05/01/2010
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
21/28
17
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides:
Every pleading, motion, and other paper of a party represented by anattorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in hisindividual name, whose address shall be stated. A party who is notrepresented by an attorney shall sign his pleading, motion or other paperand state his pleading, motion or other paper and state his addressThesignature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that he hasread the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge,information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well groundedin fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for theextension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is notinterposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to causeunnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. If a
pleading, motion, or other paper is not signed, it shall be strickenIf apleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the
court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the
person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate
sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or
parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the
filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable
attorney's fee. [emphasis added]
It is evident to me that unfortunately there are some counsel who abusethe judicial process and by doing so make our task and the tasks of ourcolleagues far more difficult. Historically, attorneys have been reluctant to"blow the whistle" on their colleagues or to seek sanctions against theiropponents. Perhaps as Professor Miller notes in a recent article written in adiscovery context,6 they are mindful of a variation on the golden rule "Donot seek sanctions against what is done to you today, for it may be whatyou will try on your opponent tomorrow."
Taitz cites the case Meeks v. Jewel Companies, Inc., 845 F.2d 1421 (7th Cir.
1988) for the proposition that Rule 38 Sanctions should be imposed against the
undersigned, and although the case itself is not binding upon this Court, the
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 21 Date Filed: 05/01/2010
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
22/28
18
undersigned hopes the Court will take the following findings in the Meeks case into
account. The Meeks Court stated @ 1422:
The plaintiff's appeal, although not meritorious, is plainly not frivolous; itis the defendant's request for Rule 38 sanctions that is frivolous. We aretroubled by the frequency with which lawyers in this court, whetherrepresenting appellants or Appellees, are including in their briefsgroundless requests for Rule 38 sanctions.
Any frivolous motion, pleading, or request is subject to sanctions,including a motion or request for sanctions. In re Central Ice Cream Co.,836 F.2d 1068, 1074 (7th Cir.1987). We remind the bar that sanctions will
be forthcoming if counsel routinely request Rule 38 sanctions without
careful investigation to determine that the appeal or defense sought to besanctioned is indeed frivolous. See alsoAircraft Trading & Services, Inc. v.
Braniff, Inc., 819 F.2d 1227, 1236 (2d Cir.1987).
The request for Rule 38 sanctions is DENIED, and, as a modest sanctionfor the filing of that frivolous request, the defendant shall bear its costs ofdefending the appeal even though it won.
Here, Taitz for the second time has asked this Court for unwarranted
Sanctions based on her own frivolous filings. Appellants filed their Appeal in
good faith. Appellants incorporate all their filings, outlined on this Courts
docket, as if fully set forth herein. Every filing by Appellants pertained to the
issues presented to the Court and were done so in good faith. Appellant Taitz on
the other hand, has failed to follow the Courts rules; has filed frivolous pleadings;
has made false allegations against the undersigned and his clients; has failed to
serve the undersigned; has failed to sign her pleadings; has made false statements
6 Miller, The Adversary System: Dinosaur or Phoenix, 69 Minn.L.Rev. 25 (1984).
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 22 Date Filed: 05/01/2010
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
23/28
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
24/28
20
inappropriate actions and behaviors. Taitz inappropriate filings also violated
Former Cannon 228.
It should also be noted, Judge Carter in the U.S. District Court located in
California9 also had dealings with Orly Taitz, Appellee herein. Judge Carter stated
29], dismissing Taitz Case, that Taitz continually failed to comply with the Courts
Rules and Procedures; Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact the Court in
efforts to manipulate the Court. Judge Carter stated he was deeply concerned that
Orly Taitz had suborned perjury from witnesses she (Taitz) intended to call before
his (Judge Carters) Court, as the Court received several sworn affidavits stating
Orly Taitz had asked them to lie and to perjure their testimony. Just as Taitz is
doing herein, she is lying and falsifying information to this Court in attempts to
manipulate the Court; she has failed to follow this Courts Procedures and Rules;
she has perjured her own statements; she has purposely mis-represented
8 The Court stated in Walsh v. Schering-Plough Corp., 758 F.2d 889, 896 (3d Cir. 1985)
Former Canon 22, 62 ABA Rep. at 1112-1113 provides:
The conduct of the lawyer before the Court and with other lawyers should be
characterized by candor and fairness. * * * It is unprofessional and dishonorable to dealother than candidly with the facts * * * in drawing affidavits and other documents andin the presentation of causes.
Canon 22 has been superseded by DR 1-102(a)(4) which provides that a lawyer shallnot engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
in his ruling of October 29, 2009, on page twenty-eight and twenty-nine [28 and
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 24 Date Filed: 05/01/2010
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
25/28
21
Appellants filings as well as Judge Robrenos June 25, 2009 Order; and she has
falsely accused Appellants and the undersigned of what Taitz herself is actually
doing.
The Court in Walsh v. Schering-Plough Corp., 758 F.2d at 896-897 went on
further stating:
If we take no steps to resolve the issue which these affidavits have nowpresented to us, we run the risk not only of losing the respect of the bar, butof damaging the professional standards that lawyers look to us to uphold.Every member of the bar has had his character and fitness tested and
reviewed before obtaining a license to practice. We, together, with othercourts, are charged with maintaining at least that level of honesty and
professionalism in the conduct of those who, once having obtained the rightto practice, continue to exercise that right before us.
...So too, as each instance of charged professional misconduct is ignoredby us or deemed unworthy of our attention, our professional tapestry willimperceptibly, but surely, lose its form, its structure and its shape.
Thus, in my opinion it is no answer to characterize the issue before us asone not worth our consideration. If we do not require strict adherence to
principles which mandate candor and truthfulness, and if we refuse todecide and enforce claimed violations of those fundamental precepts, wewill have only ourselves to blame if intolerable and proscribed practices ofthe bar become the rule rather than the exception.
It has taken the undersigned approximately ten [10] hours to review, discuss
with his clients; research and respond to this frivolous filing of Appellee Taitz.
9
Judge David O. Carter,Barnett v. Obama, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101206, 55-56 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 20
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 25 Date Filed: 05/01/2010
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
26/28
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
27/28
-
8/9/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL) - Appellants' Reply to Taitz Response to Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss - Transport Room
28/28
Neil SankeyThe Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm (unrepresented)
Sankey Investigations, Inc.2470 Stearns Street #162Simi Valley, CA 93063
Email: [email protected]
Linda Sue Belcher201 Paris
Castroville, Texas 78009Email: [email protected] and
Email: [email protected]
Ed HaleCaren Hale
Plains RadioKPRN
Bar H Farms1401 Bowie Street
Wellington, Texas 79095Email: [email protected];[email protected];
ed@barhfarnet; and [email protected]
________________________PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE
s/ Philip J. Berg
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110126340 Page: 28 Date Filed: 05/01/2010