Sie sind auf Seite 1von 64

Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

U.S. District Court,


Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case Number: 09-cv-01898-ECR
Court of Appeals Case No. 09-3403

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________ Ο _____________

LISA LIBERI, et al,

Petitioner – Appellant,
v.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Respondents – Appellee.

_____________ Ο _____________

APPELLANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO EXPEDITE THIS COURT’S RULINGS IN


THE ABOVE REFERENCED APPEAL
_____________________

Counsel: PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE


LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
(610) 825-3134
Identification No. 09867

Attorney for the Appellants’


Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

Appellants, Lisa Liberi [hereinafter “Liberi”]; Philip J. Berg, Esquire

[hereinafter “Berg”], the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg; Evelyn Adams a/k/a

Momma E [hereinafter “Adams”]; Lisa Ostella [hereinafter “Ostella”]; and Go

Excel Global by and through their undersigned counsel, Philip J. Berg, Esquire,

hereby submit this Emergency Motion to Expedite the Appellants Appeal, filed

and docketed on August 14, 2009 of Judge Robreno’s Order of August 7, 2009,

denying Plaintiffs (Appellants herein) Motion for an Emergency Temporary

Restraining Order and/or Injunction; and expedite its rulings on Appellants

Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction pending

the outcome of this Appeal, filed with this Court on August 27, 2009.

Appellants are asking this Court to Order Appellants Brief (if required) to be

filed in their appeal on or before Friday, January 8, 2010; Appellees Response (if

required) on or before Friday, January 15, 2010 and any response thereto on or

before January 19, 2010. Appellants are further asking this Court for an expedited

ruling on their Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or

Injunction pending the outcome of the Appeal, which was filed with this Court on

August 27, 2009.

This case was filed May 4, 2009, almost eight months (8) months ago, and

nothing has taken place in the case, not even a Scheduling Order. The more time

that goes by without any assistance by our Courts, the more comfortable the
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

Appellees become and continue their illegal and damaging behaviors, as proven by

the history of this case. All of the Defendants (Appellees herein) have waived their

affirmative defenses, and basically admitted to all the wrongs, thus Appellants will

be filing the appropriate Motions once the case is permitted to move forward.

Appellants Motion to expedite this Interlocutory Appeal and expedite a

ruling on Appellants pending Motion for an Emergency Temporary Restraining

Order and/or Injunction is permitted pursuant to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Third Circuit Local Rule, L.A.R. 4.1 (2008). Appellants Motion to Expedite is

based upon the Order issued by Judge Robreno of the United States District Court,

Eastern District of Pennsylvania, docketed December 11, 2009 as Doc. No. 115,

suspending Appellants case pending the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third

Circuit, Rulings on Appellants Interlocutory Appeal. A copy of the U.S. District

Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Robreno’s Order of December 11,

2009 is attached hereto and incorporated in by reference as EXHIBIT “A”. This

is extremely prejudicial to the Appellants, as explained below, as Appellants have

a pending Motion to Transfer their Case to the U.S. District Court, Central District

of California, Southern Division, see EXHIBIT “B”, due to the Appellees threat

of liquidating their assets which are located in the State of California.

This pending Appeal stems from an Order of the lower Court denying

Plaintiffs (Appellants herein) Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or


Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

Injunction. In addition, Appellants have a pending Emergency Motion for a

Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction, filed on or about August 27, 2009

pending the outcome of their Interlocutory Appeal. None of the Appellees have

responded and/or opposed Appellants Emergency Motion for a Temporary

Restraining Order or Injunction pending Appeal and therefore, Appellants Motion

is uncontested. See Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.3 (2008) (“…In the absence of a

timely response, the Court may treat a Motion without such certification as

uncontested”).

When issues regarding assets being sold, hidden, transferred or moved off-

shore while the parties are involved in litigation require immediate attention and

action by the other parties. Under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, any type

of transfer or liquidation by a Defendant or Appellee during the course of

litigation, is unlawful, See Cal Civ Code § 3439, et sequitur (Uniform Fraudulent

Transfer Act). It is imperative to obtain an Order from the U.S. District Court,

Central District of California, Southern Division, freezing the Appellees assets and

immediately file actions to undue the illegal liquidation, transfer, selling of, and

hiding of Assets.

Appellants are informed, believe and thereon allege Appellee, Orly Taitz, et

al; her husband, Yosef Taitz; Appellee Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc.;

Appellees Neil Sankey; Sankey Investigations, Inc.; and the Sankey Firm, Inc a/k/a
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

The Sankey Firm are attempting to hide their assets and moving their assets off-

shore to avoid collection by the Appellants who are entitled to monetary damages

as a result of the Appellees wrongful, damaging and illegal behaviors. Again,

these Appellees assets are located in the State of California. In addition, California

is a community property state; therefore, any judgment obtained against one of the

Appellees can also be collected against their spouse’s assets.

None of the Appellees have entered an appearance or filed any of their initial

case opening documents and/or information as outlined in the Case Opening Letter

of August 17, 2009. Thus, Appellants are unaware if any of the Appellees will be

participating in this Appeal. In addition, none of the Appellees have responded to

Appellants Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or

Injunction pending the outcome of this Appeal, filed with this Court on August 27,

2009. Therefore, Appellants can only assume the Appellees are in full agreement

with the issuance of an Emergency Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order

pending the outcome of Appellants Appeal.

Since the filing of Appellants Appeal herein and Appellants Emergency

Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction, the Appellees

damaging behaviors have not only continued, but now Appellants have reason to

believe the Appellees are attempting to transfer, hide, liquidate and move off-shore
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

their assets, which Appellants depend upon for collection of any judgment issued

in favor of the Appellants.

In September 2009, Taitz used the Federal Docketing System in a case

unrelated to the Appellants herein and filed her famous Dossier #6 which

contained falsified information about Liberi, her Social Security number, date of

birth, and other private, confidential and personal information in the case of

Barnett, et al v. Obama, et al, Case No. 09-cv-00082 filed in the United States

District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division before Judge

Carter. Counsel herein sent a letter to Judge Carter and requested the sealing of

Appellee Taitz, et al’s Filing of Dossier #6 as it violated the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the California local rules. Judge Carter in turn issued an Order

Sealing the Court Filing of Dossier #6 and Ordered Appellee Taitz, the attorney in

the Barnett Case, to re-file her documents with all Social Security numbers, date of

birth’s and other personal information redacted as he, Judge Carter, was

concerned about the confidentiality of Liberi, her spouse and other individuals

private confidential information being made public. This September 2009 Court

Order of Judge Carter has been filed with this Court by Appellants’ with a Request

for Judicial Notice.

In addition, it appears Appellees Neil Sankey, Sankey Investigations, Inc.

the Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a the Sankey Firm and Taitz have published further
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

private confidential information of the Appellants on the internet. This includes,

but is not limited to, Adoption records; Social Security numbers; Social Security

records; addresses; parents maiden names, etc.

Moreover, Appellee Taitz was caught in a love affair with a client of hers

and her law clerk, Charles Edward Lincoln, III, by her husband Yosef Taitz.

According to an Affidavit on file with the U.S. District Court, Southern District of

Florida, Mr. Lincoln claims that Taitz broke off their affair as Taitz’s husband,

Yosef Taitz, was demanding Appellee Orly Taitz, et al to sign off all her rights to

the Taitz’s assets. A copy of this Affidavit was filed with this Court with a

Request for Judicial Notice.

On or about November 29, 2009, Appellants sought leave from the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Robreno to file

a Motion to Transfer their Case to the U.S. District Court, Central District of

California, Southern Division as Appellees assets are located within that Court’s

jurisdiction and Appellants fear of the Appellees liquidating and hiding their

assets.

On or about December 2, 2009, Appellee Orly Taitz, et al filed another letter

in the Federal Docketing System, in a case unrelated to any of the Appellants

herein (Barnett Case) with a bunch of false accusations against Appellants Liberi

and Berg and placed it on the World Wide Web at Scribd prior to its filing in the
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

Federal Docketing System. Neither Liberi nor Berg have anything to do with the

Barnett case filed in California and the only reason these documents have been

Filed by Appellee Orly Taitz, et al is to use the Federal Docketing System to

further her illegal, harmful, damaging behaviors towards Appellant Liberi,

Appellant Berg, the other Appellants and any party associated with them. In

addition, once Appellee Taitz posted this letter on the internet, it also caused the

republishing of Taitz’s Dossier #6, which again contains the full social security

number, date of birth and other very personal private information of Appellant

Liberi. Appellants requested this Court to take Judicial Notice of these documents

on or about December 8, 2009.

On December 11, 2009, Judge Robreno, U.S. District Court, Eastern District

of Pennsylvania, the lower Court, issued an Order that two (2) issues were pending

before his Court. The first was the Court’s Rules to Show Cause and the second

issue was Plaintiffs’ (Appellants herein) letter seeking Leave to File their Motion

to Transfer the case to the U.S. District Court, Central District of California,

Southern Division. However, to preserve status quo, Judge Robreno stated he was

not going to rule on the issues pending the ruling of the Third Circuit Court of

Appeals on Plaintiffs (Appellants herein) Interlocutory Appeal. See EXHIBIT

“A”.
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 9 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

The Appellees and their followers have continued their stocking behaviors

towards the Appellants herein. Appellee Orly Taitz, et al has continued wide

distribution of slanderous, libelous, and tortuous statements pertaining to

Appellants Liberi, Ostella, Berg and the other Appellants and wide distribution of

Liberi’s and the other Appellants private confidential information, including but

not limited to full social security numbers, mother’s maiden name, date of birth,

place of birth, Adoption records, etc. In fact, Appellee Orly Taitz has now resorted

to using the Federal Docketing System to further her criminal activities and

spreading of completely private and confidential information of Appellant Liberi in

unrelated cases.

Without a prompt disposition of the pending Interlocutory Appeal and

Appellants Emergency Motion for a Temporary Injunction and/or Restraining

Order, Appellants will continue to suffer irreparable injuries and damages which

monetary awards alone will not suffice. Moreover, Appellants do not have any

legal remedies of law to prohibit the posting of their Social Security Number, date

of births, mother’s maiden name, place of birth and/or any other extremely

sensitive and confidential information placed all over the world wide web and

provided by mass emailing by Appellee Orly Taitz, et al or any of the other

Appellees.
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 10 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

Appellants will continue to suffer irreparable injury that the Court cannot

fully compensate if Appellants Emergency Motion for Expedited Rulings on their

Pending Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction pending

Appeal and Appellants actual Interlocutory Appeal is not granted. Deerfield Med.

Ctr. v. City of Deerfield Beach, 661 F.2d 328, 338 (5th Cir. 1981) (injury is

irreparable if it cannot be undone by monetary damages). Roland Mach. Co. v.

Dresser Indus., Inc., 749 F.2d 380, 386 (7th Cir. 1984) (irreparable harm is harm

that cannot be prevented or fully rectified by final judgment).

Appellants respectfully request this Honorable Court to Expedite Appellants

Appeal and Expedite Appellants Emergency Motion for an Emergency Temporary

Restraining Order and/or Injunction as a result of the lower Court’s December 11,

2009 Order suspending the Plaintiffs (Appellants herein) case pending the rulings

of this Court. See Third Circuit L.A.R. 4.1 (2008) (“A party who seeks to expedite

a case must file a motion within fourteen (14) days…setting forth the exceptional

reason that warrants expedition. If a reason for expedition arises thereafter; the

moving party must file a motion within fourteen (14) days of the occurrence that is

the basis of the motion…”) In re Walsh, 229 Fed. Appx. 58, 61 (3d Cir. 2007). See

also 28 U.S.C. §1657(a) (“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each Court

of the United States shall…expedite consideration of any action…for temporary or

preliminary relief…”).
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 11 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

Pursuant to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals L.A.R. 4.1 (2008),

Appellants have attached a proposed Scheduling Order for the within Appeal as

EXHIBIT “C”.

WHEREFORE, Appellants respectfully request this Honorable Court to

Grant their Motion to Expedite their Appeal and Order Appellants Brief (if

required) to be filed on or before Friday, January 8, 2010; Appellees Responsive

Brief (if required) on or before Friday, January 15, 2010; and any response thereto

on or before January 19, 2010 and Expedite the Ruling on Appellants Pending

Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction Pending

the outcome of this Appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: December 27, 2009 s/ Philip J. Berg


___________________________
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
(610) 825-3134

Attorney for the Appellants’


Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 12 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

EXHIBIT “A”
Case:
Case09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 00319959621
Document 115 Page:
Filed13
12/11/2009
Date Filed:
Page
12/27/2009
1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LISA LIBERI et al., : CIVIL ACTION


: NO. 09-1898
Plaintiffs, :
:
v. :
:
ORLY TAITZ et al., :
:
Defendants. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 9th day of December, 2009, it is hereby

ORDERED that this case shall be placed in suspense until further

order of the Court.1

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Eduardo C. Robreno
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

1
There are two matters pending before the Court. First,
the parties’ responses to this Court’s Rule to Show Cause (doc.
no. 80), ordering that Plaintiffs show cause as to why their
complaint should not be dismissed on the following three grounds:
(1) why this case should not be dismissed for lack of personal
jurisdiction, (2) why this case should not be severed into three
or fewer cases against the following groups or Defendants: (i)
Edgar & Caren Hale, Plains Radio Network, Bar H. Farms and KPRN
AM 1610; (ii) Linda S. Belcher; (iii) Orly Taitz, Defend Our
Freedoms Foundations, Inc., Neil Sankey, Sankey Investigations,
Inc. and The Sankey Firm, and (3) why this case should not be
transferred to an appropriate district in either Texas or
California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Second, Plaintiffs’
letter to the Court, dated November 29, 2009, requesting leave to
file a motion to transfer to the Central District of California.
Given that Plaintiffs have taken an appeal to the
Court’s denial of their motion for an injunction or restraining
order, dated August 10, 2009 (doc. no. 83), and that none of the
matters pending are intended to preserve the status quo, the
Court will await adjudication of the appeal before proceeding to
rule on these matters.
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 14 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

EXHIBIT “B”
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 15 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

LAW OFFICES OF
PHILIP J. BERG
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
PHILIP J. BERG
CATHERINE R. BARONE
BARBARA MAY
(610) 825-3134

FAX (610) 834-7659

NORMAN B. BERG, Paralegal [Deceased] E-Mail: philjberg@gmail.com

November 29, 2009

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

Sent via Fax to (267) 299-7428...................................................................................................45 Pages

Re: Liberi, et al. v. Orly Taitz, et al, Case No. 09-cv-01898 ECR
Leave to file Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Transfer Venue of the within Case to the
United States District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division________

Dear Judge Robreno:

Pursuant to this Court’s Order of June 25, 2009 Plaintiffs’ are seeking Leave of this Court to
file the attached Emergency Motion to Transfer Venue of the within action to the United States District
Court, Central District of California, Southern Division located in South Orange County at 411 West
Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516 with telephone number (714) 338-4750.

Plaintiffs’ bring to this Courts attention that all Defendants have prior hereto requested this
Court to transfer this case to California or Texas, although Plaintiffs’ are unaware of the Defendants
position to Plaintiffs’ request herein.

Thank you.

Respectfully,

Philip J. Berg
PJB:jb
Enclosures

Z:\Liberi Ltr to Judge Robreno Nov. 29, 2009 1


Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 16 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno November 29, 2009


United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Page Two of Two

cc: Orly Taitz, et al and


Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc.
26302 La Paz Ste 211
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Ph: (949) 683-5411
Fax: (949) 586-2082
By Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
Counsel in pro se
Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. is unrepresented

Neil Sankey
The Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm
Sankey Investigations, Inc.
2470 Stearns Street #162
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Phone: (805) 520-3151and (818) 366-0919
Cell Phone: (818) 212-7615
FAX: (805) 520-5804 and (818) 366-1491
Email: nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com

Linda Sue Belcher


201 Paris
Castroville, Texas 78009
Home Phone: (830) 538-6395
Cell Phone: (830) 931-1781
Email: Newwomensparty@aol.com and
Email: starrbuzz@sbcglobal.net

Ed Hale
Caren Hale
Plains Radio
KPRN
Bar H Farms
1401 Bowie Street
Wellington, Texas 79095
Phone: (806) 447-0010 and (806) 447-0270
Email: plains.radio@yahoo.com and
Email: barhfarms@gmail.com and ed@barhfarms.net

Z:\Liberi Ltr to Judge Robreno Nov. 29, 2009 2


Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 17 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LISA LIBERI, et al, :


Plaintiffs, :
: Assigned to Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
:
vs. :
: Case No.: 09-cv-01898-ECR
:
:
ORLY TAITZ, et al, :
Defendants. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this _____ day of ___________________, 2009, upon Plaintiffs’

Emergency Motion to Transfer Venue; any responses thereto; and for good cause shown,

it is hereby

ORDERED and DECREED that Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Transfer

Venue to the United States District Court, Central District of California, Southern

Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) is hereby GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transfer the

within Case to the United States District Court, Central District of California, Southern

Division located in South Orange County at 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA

92701-4516 with telephone number (714) 338-4750.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Date: November _____, 2009 ______________________________


Eduardo C. Robreno, Judge
U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania

Z:\Liberi Motion to Transfer Venue to South Orange County, CA 11 28 09 1


Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 18 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

Law Offices of:


PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Attorney for: Plaintiffs
Identification No. 09867
(610) 825-3134

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LISA LIBERI, et al, :


Plaintiffs, :
vs. :
: Case No.: 09-cv-01898-ECR
:
:
:
ORLY TAITZ, et al, : Assigned to Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
Defendants. :
:

PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION REQUESTING TRANSFER OF VENUE


PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) FROM THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT,
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT,
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

NOW COMES the Plaintiffs’, Lisa Liberi [hereinafter “Liberi”], Philip J. Berg,

Esquire [hereinafter “Berg”], the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg, Evelyn Adams a/k/a

Momma E [hereinafter “Adams”], Lisa Ostella [hereinafter “Ostella”] and Go Excel

Global by and through their undersigned counsel and respectfully requests this Honorable

Court to grant their Emergency Motion to Transfer Venue of the within case from this

Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the

United States District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division located in

Z:\Liberi Motion to Transfer Venue to South Orange County, CA 11 28 09 2


Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 19 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

South Orange County at 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516 with

telephone number (714) 338-4750. In support hereof, Plaintiffs’ aver as follows:

• Although this is a Diversity Case and venue is proper in both


locations, the vast majority of the Defendants are located in Southern
California;

• Defendants Orly Taitz, Esquire a/k/a Orly Taitz a/k/a Dr. Orly Taitz
a/k/a Law Offices of Orly Taitz a/k/a Orly Taitz, Inc [hereinafter
“Taitz”], Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. [hereinafter
“DOFF”], Neil Sankey [hereinafter “Sankey”], Sankey Investigations,
Inc. and the Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm own and
operate their businesses and own property within the United States
District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division;

• The Statute relied on by the Plaintiffs’ and the Statute the Plaintiffs’
are asking to be utilized and upheld is a California Statute, California
Civil Code 1798, et sequitur;

• There is a concern that Defendant Taitz and DOFF are attempting to


liquidate their assets and sign away their rights to the assets owned
and operated by Taitz, DOFF and Taitz’s husband, Yosef Taitz.

• California is a Community Property State, any judgment obtained


against Taitz is also collectable from any assets owned by her
husband, Yosef Taitz;

• Transfer of venue is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) as a


result of California being able to enforce the Judgment, practical
considerations that would expedite and simplify the trial; California’s
local interest in deciding the local controversies at home, in particular
upholding California’s Civil Code 1798, et sequitur; and this is a
Diversity Case and the United States District Court, Central District
of California, Southern Division is very familiar with this State Law.

• All Defendants have asked this Court to transfer the within Case to
California and the Case must be tried together as there was a common
scheme in the actions of the Defendants which have severely harmed
and damaged the Plaintiffs.

Z:\Liberi Motion to Transfer Venue to South Orange County, CA 11 28 09 3


Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 20 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs’ respectfully prays that this Honorable Court Grant

their Motion and Transfer Venue of the within Case to the United States District Court,

Central District of California, Southern Division located in South Orange County at 411

West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516 with telephone number (714) 338-4750.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: November 29, 2009 _____________________________


Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Attorney for the Plaintiffs’
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Identification No. 09867
(610) 825-3134

Z:\Liberi Motion to Transfer Venue to South Orange County, CA 11 28 09 4


Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 21 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

Law Offices of:


PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Attorney for: Plaintiffs
Identification No. 09867
(610) 825-3134

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LISA LIBERI, et al, :


Plaintiffs, :
vs. :
: Case No.: 09-cv-01898-ECR
:
:
:
ORLY TAITZ, et al, : Assigned to Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
Defendants. :
:

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF


THEIR EMERGENCY MOTION REQUESTING TRANSFER OF VENUE
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) FROM THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT,
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT,
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Defendant Taitz through DOFF and Defendant Sankey through Sankey

Investigations and the Sankey Firm have invaded the privacy of Liberi, Ostella, and

Adams by publicizing Liberi’s full Social Security number, date of birth, mother’s

maiden name, place of birth and other personal information of Liberi’s, including

information about Liberi’s medical conditions, child, husband, etc. and has targeted all

the work Liberi has performed for Berg in Pennsylvania. Taitz through DOFF has also

Z:\Liberi Motion to Transfer Venue to South Orange County, CA 11 28 09 5


Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 22 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

publicized Ostella’s name, address, maiden name, where her family resides, parents

names and where they reside, etc. and Taitz has also published Adams name, address,

husband’s information, etc. Taitz filed false law enforcement reports with the Federal

Bureau of Investigations (FBI); police departments; called for people where the

Plaintiffs’ reside; falsely accused Liberi and Ostella of “hacking” her paypal account and

website or forum; falsely accused Adams and Berg of diverting funds and making money

off of her company name; falsely accused Liberi of “murdering” her sister; falsely

accused Liberi’s husband of diverting funds from Berg; falsely accused Liberi of being

convicted of crimes including but not limited to identity theft, manipulation of police

reports, manipulation of credit reports, real estate crimes, etc., which has placed the

Plaintiffs’ in the false light before the publics eye; slandering the Plaintiffs’; harassed the

Plaintiffs; invaded the Plaintiffs’ seclusion; publicly disclosed private facts about the

Plaintiffs’; destroyed the Plaintiffs’ reputation; and interfered with the Plaintiffs’ business

associates, etc.

Shortly thereafter, the Hales had Taitz through DOFF and Sankey through Sankey

Investigations and the Sankey Firm on their radio show. Taitz continued her malicious

lies about Plaintiffs’ and Sankey continued his distribution of Liberi’s private

confidential information as well as Adams and Ostella’s. In fact, Sankey and Hale

announced on the radio show on May 28, 2009 that Liberi had recently taken out a loan,

which she had. The only way they would have known this is if they had illegally

accessed Liberi’s credit report or applied for and taken out credit in Liberi’s name.

Sankey, Taitz and Hale then altered and forged Ostella’s emails and published them on

the internet. Edgar Hale admitted in an email to Liberi that Taitz used him to assault

Z:\Liberi Motion to Transfer Venue to South Orange County, CA 11 28 09 6


Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 23 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

Liberi to get to Berg. The Hales also have viciously attacked, slandered, harassed and

threatened Adams. The Hales have admitted in writing that is on file with this Court,

Taitz, DOFF and the other Defendants used them to “assault” Liberi to take down Berg.

Belcher joined forces with Taitz in or about January 2009 in their attempts to

destroy Berg and Liberi. Belcher sent out mass emails with all kinds of false statements

about Liberi and Berg. Belcher filed false reports with the Social Security

Administration, manufactured emails and “chat logs” which she had filed with this Court;

and further published Liberi’s private confidential information.

As a result, Plaintiffs’ filed suit on May 4, 2009 of which all Defendants were

served. The Defendants’ Answers to the Plaintiffs’ Complaint were due May 26, 2009.

Taitz and DOFF failed to timely Answer Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore, default was

entered against them, and they waived their rights to raise any type of affirmative

defenses. Despite this, Taitz and DOFF untimely filed a one sentence denial as their

Answer and a “Motion to Dismiss” without any type of supporting law.

Since the time Plaintiffs’ filed suit, the Defendants actions and behaviors have

continued. Taitz, DOFF, Sankey, Sankey Investigations, Inc, and the Sankey Firm, Inc.

a/k/a the Sankey Firm are located in California. The majority of their Assets are located

in California. In addition, Taitz’s owns two [2] Dental Practices in the jurisdiction of the

United States District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division and she and

her husband own a Software Engineering company with their headquarters located in the

jurisdiction of the United States District Court, Central District of California, Southern

Division with offices over seas, in New Jersey and Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Z:\Liberi Motion to Transfer Venue to South Orange County, CA 11 28 09 7


Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 24 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

Furthermore, according to Affidavits on file in the United States District Court,

Southern District of Florida, Taitz was having a “love affair” with her law Clerk,

disbarred Attorney Charles Lincoln. Mr. Lincoln has filed his Affidavits claiming Yosef

Taitz has demanded that Orly Taitz sign all her rights to the Assets over to him (Yosef

Taitz), see EXHIBITS “A” and “B”. California is a community property state. Any

judgment obtained against the Defendants is also collectible against the Defendants

spouse and their assets, even if not in the other party’s name. Also in California, as well

as many other states today, it is illegal to transfer ownership of property or assets when

the party knows there is pending litigation against them. See the Uniform Fraudulent

Transfer Act, Cal Civ Code § 3439, et sequitur.

Because there has been a threat of Taitz signing away her rights to the family

assets, which are valued at approximately Twenty-Five Million [$25,000,000.00] Dollars

and based on the award of statutory penalties pursuant to California Civil Code 1798, et

sequitur, Plaintiff Liberi’s award pursuant to statute alone against Taitz and DOFF is in

excess of Eight Hundred and Seventy Million [$870,000,000.00] Dollars for just one

count. Thus, Plaintiffs’ are relying on the assets owned by Taitz, DOFF and her spouse,

Yosef Taitz, in order to collect against any judgment granted by the Court. For these

reasons, it may be imperative for Plaintiffs’ to move the United States District Court,

Central District of California, Southern Division for an Ex Parte Order freezing all of

Taitz, DOFF and Taitz’s portion of her spouses Assets.

Sankey, Sankey Investigations, Inc., and the Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a the Sankey

Firm are licensed in California, conduct business in and are located in Southern

California. In addition, Plaintiff Liberi has been speaking with and learned the California

Z:\Liberi Motion to Transfer Venue to South Orange County, CA 11 28 09 8


Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 25 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

licensing bureau of Private Investigators, the actions of Sankey through his corporations

are criminal in nature and therefore, Liberi was instructed to report Sankey’s illegal

actions to the County District Attorney where Sankey and his Corporations are located

and demand prosecution.

In addition, all the Defendants requested the within case be transferred to

California or Texas. Texas is an improper venue, however, venue is proper in both

Pennsylvania and the United States District Court, Central District of California,

Southern Division, located at 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516 with

telephone number (714) 338-4750.

For the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiffs’ respectfully request this

Honorable Court to Grant their Emergency Motion and Transfer the within action to the

United States District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division located

within South Orange County at 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516 with

telephone number (714) 338-4750.

II. TRANSFER OF VENUE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT


COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN
DIVISION IS PROPER IN THIS CASE:

In considering whether to grant venue transfer under 28 USCS § 1404(a), courts

engage in a two-part test: (1) whether action might have been brought in proposed

transferee forum; and (2) whether transfer promotes convenience and justice. Excelsior

Designs, Inc. v Sheres, 291 F Supp 2d 181 (E.D. NY 2003).

In a diversity action like this one, venue is proper "only in (1) a judicial district

where any Defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial

Z:\Liberi Motion to Transfer Venue to South Orange County, CA 11 28 09 9


Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 26 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim

occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or

(3) a judicial district in which any Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time

the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be

brought." 28 U.S.C. §1391(a).

It is in the public and private interests that the Federal Laws be upheld pertaining

to venue and transfer of cases within the Federal Court systems. 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) only

provides for the transfer of a case where both the original and the requested venue are

proper. Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 878.

Section 1404(a) transfers are discretionary determinations made for the

convenience of the parties and presuppose that the Court has jurisdiction and that the case

has been brought in the correct forum. Lafferty v. Gito St. Riel, 495 F.3d 72, 77 (3d Cir.

Pa. 2007) citing Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 878 (3d Cir. 1995).

However, the moving party is not required to show truly compelling

circumstances for change of venue, but rather that all relevant things considered, the case

would be better off transferred to another district. Dominy v. CSX Transp., Inc., 2006

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9422 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 2006), supra., citing In re United States, 273

F.3d 380, 388 (3d Cir. 2001).

In determining whether to transfer a case, the court must first determine whether

the action "might have been brought" in the proposed transferee district. Banket v. GC

Am., Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23550 at *10 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 11, 2005), citing Van

Dusen, 376 U.S. at 616, 84 S. Ct. at 809. Assuming that this requirement has been

satisfied, which it has been herein, the court must then assess a number of private and

Z:\Liberi Motion to Transfer Venue to South Orange County, CA 11 28 09 10


Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 27 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

public interest factors in addition to those enumerated in § 1404(a) (convenience of the

parties and witnesses and the interests of justice). Jumara v. State Farm Insurance

Company, 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995). Specifically, the private interests have

included: (1) the plaintiff's forum preference as manifested in the original choice; (2) the

defendant's choice of forum; (3) where the claim arose; (4) the convenience of the parties

as indicated by their relative physical and financial conditions; (5) the convenience of the

witnesses--but only to the extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial

in one of the fora; and (6) the location of books and records. In re Amendt, 169 Fed.

Appx. 93 at *8 (3d Cir. 2006), citing Jumara, at 879-80. The public interests have

included: (1) the enforceability of the judgment; (2) practical considerations that could

expedite or simplify trial; (3) the relative administrative difficulty in the two fora

resulting from court congestion; (4) the local interest in deciding local controversies at

home; (5) the public policies of the fora; and (6) in a diversity case, the familiarity of the

two courts with state law. Id. Rogal v. Skilstaf, Inc., 446 F. Supp. 2d 334, 336 (E.D. Pa.

2006).

It would be far easier for the United States District Court, Central District of

California; Southern Division to enforce any judgment’s obtained, as the bulk of the

Defendants assets are located in that Court’s jurisdiction. This particular Court that the

Plaintiffs’ are seeking the case to be transferred to is readily familiar with their own State

statutes, California Civil Code 1798, et sequitur, which the Plaintiffs’ rely upon. It is in

the public interest to see that California upholds its statutes when wrongs have been

committed; and the United States District Court, Central District of California, Southern

Division has the ability to expedite and/or simplify the trial.

Z:\Liberi Motion to Transfer Venue to South Orange County, CA 11 28 09 11


Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 28 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

For the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiffs’ respectfully request this

Honorable Court to Grant their Emergency Motion and Transfer the within action to the

United States District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division located

within South Orange County at 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516 with

telephone number (714) 338-4750.

III. IT IS IMPERATIVE TO KEEP THIS CASE TOGETHER IN A


SINGLE LAWSUIT AS THE DEFENDANTS HAVE ALL SHARED
A COMMON SCHEME AND THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE
LAWSUIT SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE U.S. DISTRICT
COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN
DIVISION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1404(a):

Determination of whether the claims or parties should be severed is more

appropriately made when the Court can determine which issues will go to trial, Miller v.

Hygrade Food Prods. Corp., 202 F.R.D. 142, 145 (E.D. Pa. 2001). To address this issue

now is simply premature because this action has not proceeded beyond the pleading

stage, and the Court has yet to sort out the intricacies of the relationships among the

Defendants’, United States v. Private Sanitation Indus. Ass’n of Nassau/Suffolk, Inc., 793

F. Supp. 1114, 1154 (E.D. N.Y. 1992). Indeed, although Plaintiffs strongly disagree, this

case could possibly develop so that Plaintiffs cannot prove that Defendants acted in a

common way; however, because the record is not fully developed, it is premature to

foreclose Plaintiffs from pursuing that opportunity. Foreman Indus., Inc. v. Gen. Motors

Corp., 34 B.R. 712, 715 (S.D. Ohio 1983).

The purpose of Rule 20(a) is to "promote trial convenience and expedite the final

determination of disputes, thereby preventing multiple law suits." 7 Charles Alan Wright,

et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1652 at 395 (3d ed. 2001); see also Formosa

Z:\Liberi Motion to Transfer Venue to South Orange County, CA 11 28 09 12


Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 29 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

Plastics Corp., U.S.A. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71712 (D.N.J. Aug.

14, 2009) citing Mosley v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330, 1332 (8th Cir. 1974)

(all 'logically related' events entitling a person to institute a legal action against another

generally are regarded as comprising a transaction or occurrence).

Courts generally apply a case-by-case approach in determining whether a

particular factual situation meets the same transaction or occurrence test. See 7 Charles

Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1653 at 409 (3d ed. 2001); Blood v.

Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21529 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 17, 2009) citing

Mosley, 497 F.2d at 1333. The test mirrors the one applied under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 13(a), under which "'Transaction' is a word of flexible meaning. It may

comprehend a series of many occurrences, depending not so much upon the

immediateness of their connection as upon their logical relationship.'" Mosley, 497 F.2d

at 1333 (emphasis added) (quoting Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange, 270 U.S. 593,

610, 46 S. Ct. 367, 371, 70 L. Ed. 750 (1926)); see also In re University Med. Ctr., 973

F.2d 1065, 1086 (3d Cir. 1992) (recognizing logical relationship test under Rule 13(a)).

Identifying each event is not demanded. See Mosley, 497 F.2d at 1333; King v. Pepsi

Cola Metro. Bottling Co., 86 F.R.D. 4, at *6 (E.D. Pa. 1979).

Here, the Defendants’ all joined forces with Taitz to destroy Berg and destroy his

paralegal, Liberi and get rid of her and any other parties associated with Berg and Liberi.

All of the Defendants’ went after the Plaintiffs, due to their association with Berg and his

lawsuits and caused the Plaintiffs’ to suffer injuries.

Furthermore, none of the Defendants have raised the issue, cited or established

any legally cognizable prejudice as a result of hearing together all of the Plaintiffs’ claims

Z:\Liberi Motion to Transfer Venue to South Orange County, CA 11 28 09 13


Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 30 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

against all of them responsibly for Plaintiffs’ injuries; however, there would be great

prejudice to the Plaintiffs. First, severance would be a tactical boon to all Defendants. If

the case is separated and tried in different locations, the Defendants’ would then point to

the other Defendants’ not named in those particular actions if these claims were not tried

together, leaving the jury wondering why a claim had not been brought against the other

Defendants. e.g., The case against Taitz and Sankey is separated and moved to California

while the case against the Hale Defendants is moved to Texas. First problem with this is

all the Plaintiffs’ would have to travel to three (3) different locations and Hale would

blame Taitz for the actions, which would cause the jury to wonder why the Plaintiff failed

to name Taitz. The permutations of this prejudice are boundless. The jury might give a

compromise verdict, in which case Plaintiffs would not get the full value of their

damages. Next, there are many parties who are willing to be witnesses against the

Defendants named herein. Severance of these claims would cause each of the witnesses

to have to be brought to Court three (3) or more times in different States to testify to a

pattern of facts and opinions, where experts are concerned, which are common to all

Defendants. Not to mention the fact, Plaintiffs’ witnesses would have to be deposed

three (3) times if the case is severed. This would triple all costs associated with

Plaintiffs’ witnesses.

Severance would cause inconvenience and prejudice to the parties, especially the

Plaintiffs’ and their witnesses. In addition, it would undermine Plaintiffs’ ability to

contest the Defense case, in light of the fact that this triplication would burden all the

witnesses and jurors as well as waste judicial resources.

Z:\Liberi Motion to Transfer Venue to South Orange County, CA 11 28 09 14


Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 31 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

These are important reasons to try the case as a single, coherent whole, and

Plaintiffs’ urge the Court not to undermine that. Severance is an extraordinary procedure

and cannot be justified unless it will substantially further the ends of judicial economy,

prevention of delay and prejudice, and otherwise serve the ends of justice. This standard

has not been met in this case and therefore, the case should not be severed.

For the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiffs’ respectfully request this

Honorable Court to Grant their Emergency Motion and Transfer the within action to the

United States District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division located

within South Orange County at 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516 with

telephone number (714) 338-4750.

IV. CONCLUSION:

For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs’ respectfully request this Honorable Court

to grant their Emergency Motion and Transfer the entire case to the United States District

Court, Central District of California, Southern Division located in South Orange County

at 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516 with telephone number (714) 338-

4750.

. Respectfully submitted,

Dated: November 29, 2009 _____________________________


Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Attorney for the Plaintiffs’
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Identification No. 09867
(610) 825-3134

Z:\Liberi Motion to Transfer Venue to South Orange County, CA 11 28 09 15


Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 32 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

EXHIBIT “A”
Z:\Liberi Motion to Transfer Venue to South Orange County, CA 11 28 09 16
Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Case: 09-3403 Document:
Document00319959621
20 Entered on
Page:
FLSD33Docket
Date11/13/2009
Filed: 12/27/2009
Page 19 of 37
Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Case: 09-3403 Document:
Document00319959621
20 Entered on
Page:
FLSD34Docket
Date11/13/2009
Filed: 12/27/2009
Page 20 of 37
Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Case: 09-3403 Document:
Document00319959621
20 Entered on
Page:
FLSD35Docket
Date11/13/2009
Filed: 12/27/2009
Page 21 of 37
Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Case: 09-3403 Document:
Document00319959621
20 Entered on
Page:
FLSD36Docket
Date11/13/2009
Filed: 12/27/2009
Page 22 of 37
Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Case: 09-3403 Document:
Document00319959621
20 Entered on
Page:
FLSD37Docket
Date11/13/2009
Filed: 12/27/2009
Page 23 of 37
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 38 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

EXHIBIT “B”
Z:\Liberi Motion to Transfer Venue to South Orange County, CA 11 28 09 17
Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Case: 09-3403 Document:
Document
00319959621
22 Entered on
Page:
FLSD39Docket
Date11/17/2009
Filed: 12/27/2009
Page 6 of 30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA---PALM BEACH

MARSHA G. RIVERNIDER, §
ROBERT H. RIVERNIDER, §
CHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN, III, §
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. § Case No. 09-91255-CIV
§ HON. W.P. DIMITROULEAS
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, §
AS TRUSTEE FOR THE C-BASS §
MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-BACKED §
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-CBS, §
And all JOHN & JANE DOES 1-50 § AFFIDAVIT REGARDING
Defendants. § ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD
§
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
AFFIDAVIT AND DECLARATION OF CHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN, III

1. My name is Charles Edward Lincoln, III. I am over the age of 18, of sound mind,

and have never been convicted of any crime of moral turpitude within the meaning of

Beltran-Tirado v. INS, 213 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2000) and Quintero-Salazar v.

Keisler, 506 F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 2007); I write this affidavit from personal knowledge.

2. I have a J.D. from the University of Chicago in addition to a Ph.D. from Harvard

University and am a former judicial law clerk to the Honorable Kenneth L. Ryskamp in

this United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, having applied for

my clerkship in March 1991 and completed my term in September 1993.

3. I was later disbarred due to a December 1999 indictment, which I can only call

politically motivated and unjust, although I take full responsibility for my own errors. I

also apologize to this United States District Court, and in particular to the Honorable

Kenneth L. Ryskamp, for the dishonor my misfortunes may have brought to this court, in

the past and at the present time, by my failures and indiscretions, especially in light of the

honor which Judge Ryskamp bestowed upon me by hiring me as his law clerk.

4. Dr. OrIy Taitz was aware of all details of my background, and in May 2009, hired

me to work with her as a consultant and law clerk on a series of cases relating to the

Affidavit of Charles Edward Lincoln, III, in Response to Order to Show Cause, 1


Document 21, Dated November 13,2009, regarding promised legal representation
in this Case by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire
Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Case: 09-3403 Document:
Document
00319959621
22 Entered on
Page:
FLSD40Docket
Date11/17/2009
Filed: 12/27/2009
Page 7 of 30

Article II Constitutional eligibility of the current President of the United States, Barack

H. Obama. I continued to work with her through November 4,2009.

5. I prepared all the documents, which Dr. Taitz signed in this case, as I have been
preparing almost all (approximately 95-98%) the documents she has signed in all of her
recent cases pending in Federal court in any and every state where she has appeared. I
never caused any papers to be filed, in this or any other case, which she had not approved

and signed or authorized to be electronically signed or submitted.

6. I was responsible for delivering all papers in this case to Robert H. Rivernider for

filing. I certainly never gave him any documents, which I knew or suspected to be
fraudulent in any way, shape or form.

7. I never knowingly submitted any false documents to this Court nor did I submit

any documents I had any imaginable reason to believe were false. I submitted every

document signed by Orly Taitz or any other person only in the belief that these were

legitimate documents.

8. Our agreement was a mixture of pay plus exchange of services. Since I am no

longer a licensed attorney I have been involved in real estate management and mortgage

finance. Dr. Orly Taitz agreed to represent me as legal counsel

9. What has happened here is that, much to our mutual discomfort I am sure, Orly

Taitz and I had an intense but adulterous love affair, which continued until November 4,

2009. I can say nothing in our defense except that I fell in love with Dr. Taitz and she
repeated on dozens of occasions that she loved me, but could not leave her husband

because she did not want to lose "her children and her life."

10. I am not proud of these facts, but put together they constitute the simple if

unremarkably tawdry background against which Dr. Taitz' behavior and accusations

against me/all the Plaintiffs in this case must be judged and evaluated.

Affidavit ofCharles Edward Lincoln, III, in Response to Order to Show Cause, 2


Document 21, Dated November 13,2009, regarding promised legal representation
in this Case by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire
Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Case: 09-3403 Document:
Document
00319959621
22 Entered on
Page:
FLSD41Docket
Date11/17/2009
Filed: 12/27/2009
Page 8 of 30

11. Dr. Taitz terminated our relationship in the aftermath of the October 12, 2009,
disclosures made by one Lucas Daniel Smith on the internet which in rather grotesquely

vulgar and sensationalistic manner revealed my love affair with Dr. Taitz to the world,
and not coincidentally, to arly's husband Yosef Taitz, whom arly has consistently

described to me as viciously controlling, verbally, and emotionally abusive, he is the kind


of husband who will not allow his wife to speak freely at the dinner table or in front of

her children or guests, and who becomes violently angry if his wife is not at home by

sunset on the Sabbath for family/home prayer.

12. I provided copies of my affidavit to both Dr. Taitz and her attorney Dr. Jonathan

H. Levy of Hilton Head, South Carolina and Washington.

13. Dr. Levy warned me that I could expect "strong and vengeful" action from Dr.

Taitz' when I spoke to him last on Thursday, November 12, 2009, although he did not

condone such acts, and specifically qualified that he had absolutely nothing to do with

Dr. Taitz' prior letter to this Court Noted "Received" at Docket Entry 1 in this case.

14. I have no other explanation for what Dr. Taitz is doing in this case, but I will give

the following opinions:

15. Dr. Taitz' letters to the court and her Sunday November 15, 2009, communication

to me bye-mail (a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit A), are the acts of

an extremely unhappy woman who got caught having an adulterous love affair by her

husband and the entire world at the moment of maximum political and public exposure in

her entire life.

16. Dr. Kathy Garcia-Lawson's separate affidavit submitted alongside this one

addresses the concerns raised in Dr. Taitz' E-mail.

17. Neither my affair with Dr. arly Taitz nor anything else which I have done

constitutes a fraud on this court, nor any other court, nor any reason for the Court to

dismiss my Complaint jointly filed with Robert H. and Marsha G. Rivernider.

Affidavit ofCharles Edward Lincoln, III, in Response to Order to Show Cause, 3


Document 21, Dated November 13,2009, regarding promised legal representation
in this Case by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire
Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Case: 09-3403 Document:
Document
00319959621
22 Entered on
Page:
FLSD42Docket
Date11/17/2009
Filed: 12/27/2009
Page 9 of 30

18. It is terribly embarrassing and a professional disgrace when personal lives intrude

themselves upon Court Judicial Proceedings.

19. If this Court feels that the events have in any way colored this Court's perception

of the parties or ability to judge the facts of the case between the Plaintiffs and the

Defendants impartially, or if the Court feels that it will be prejudiced against the

Plaintiffs because of my and Dr. Taitz' love affair, which had NOTHING whatsoever to

do with the validity of a mortgage or assignments between US BANK, Robert H. and

Marsha G. Rivernider, and Charles Lincoln, this Court should consider recusal rather

than dismissing the case.

20. As undignified, unprofessional, and unseemly as this Plaintiffs exchange with

Dr. Taitz may seem, it is merely reflective (at the absolute worst) of this Plaintiffs and

Dr. Taitz' emotional immaturity in the handling of their personal lives, and do not reflect

on ANY of the other matters raised in Plaintiffs' Response to the Court's Second Order

to Show Cause and the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in any way, shape or form.

Further affiant sayeth naught.

Signed, declared under penalty of perj , and executed in Palm Beach Gardens,

Florida, on this Monday the 16th day of No ember,

By:~o----::,.JF---""--=~,.qq...~,-+-:£'-4-~~~---"oC=---
arIes Ed ara co n, III
c/o Peyton Yates Freiman
603 Elmwood Place, Suite #6
Austin, Texas 78705
Telephone: 512-968-2500
E-mail: charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com
Alternative Address:
c/o Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson
2620 Nature's Way
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
Telephone: 512-968-2500/512-923-1889
Facsimile: 561-691-1423

Affidavit ofCharles Edward Lincoln, III, in Response to Order to Show Cause, 4


Document 21, Dated November 13,2009, regarding promised legal representation
in this Case by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire
Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Case: 09-3403 Document:
Document00319959621
22 Entered on
Page:
FLSD43Docket
Date11/17/2009
Filed: 12/27/2009
Page 10 of 30

NOTARY'S JURAT

Charles Edward Lincoln, III, appeared in person before me on this Monday the
16th day of November, 2009, in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and having been by me
duly sworn upon his oath he did verify the truth of all the statements of fact set forth
above, and did declare and acknowledge the statements of opinion made above and the
sincerity of their submission to the Court.

I am an officer authorized to administer oaths and take testimony under the laws
of the State of Florida, my principle place of bus' eing in Palm Beac County,
Florida.

ALEJANDRO VERA
Notary Public, State 01 Florida
Commisslon# 00812909
My comm. expires Aug. 7, 2012

Printed Name ofNotary:_---'-/)-'-'~'__=BJ,"____'_4~AJ_j_a


o_ __={)._(£_-f)p_'__ _

Business AddresscQ)'"dS ~ RL-IJ.u fBC Ft,. S34/(J

My Commission Expires: l):..-()=->::C-"------_?-~Gd:>'-O=....c...I;;=+-----


)

Affidavit ofCharles Edward Lincoln, III, in Response to Order to Show Cause, 5


Document 21, Dated November 13,2009, regarding promised legal representation
in this Case by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire
Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Case: 09-3403 Document:
Document00319959621
22 Entered on
Page:
FLSD44Docket
Date11/17/2009
Filed: 12/27/2009
Page 11 of 30

Exhibit A:
Sunday, November 15,2009
E-Mail from
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire

Affidavit ofCharles Edward Lincoln, III, in Response to Order to Show Cause, 6


Document 21, Dated November 13,2009, regarding promised legal representation
in this Case by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire
Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Drucken Case: 09-3403 Document:
Document00319959621
22 Entered on
Page:
FLSD45Docket
Date11/17/2009
Filed: 12/27/2009
Page 12 ofPage
30 1 of 1

Von: Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ (dr_taitz@yahoo.com)


An: Charles Lincoln
Datum: Sonntag, den 15. November 2009,9:45:01 Uhr
Betreff: Charles, you need to see a doctor and your case needs to be stayed pending tr-nt

Charles,
I received your two phone messages. In the first message your speech was extremely blurry, unclear, second message
sounded like you were a different person.
I believe that you need urgent evaluation and treatment by a psychiatrist. All of your behavior as of late, all of the e-
mails to me, my husband and my attorney suggest the same. You are hurting me, my husband, my children, your wife,
your son, Rverniders and yourself
I am sending a declaration to judge Dimitrious in FL, letting him know, that I believe you are in need of urgent
psychiatric evaluation and possibly treatment, and I believe that case needs to be stayed pending your evaluation and
treatment.
Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita Ca 92688
ph. 949-683-5411
fax 949-766-7603
orlytaitzesq.com
drtaitz.com
taitzofficesuites.com

http://de.mg41.mai1.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.gx=1 &.rand=17q8i4v26j71 i 11/15/2009


Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Case: 09-3403 Document:
Document00319959621
22 Entered on
Page:
FLSD46Docket
Date11/17/2009
Filed: 12/27/2009
Page 13 of 30

AFFIDAVIT NUMBER 2:
Dr. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, Ph.D.

Marsha G. Rivernider, Robert H. Rivernider, Charles Edward Lincoln, III v.


U.S. Bank, N A., Combined Response to Second Order to Show Cause Filed 11-02-09 and Motion to 6
Dismissedfiled 9-24-09, with reservation ofPlaintiffs' Rights to File Motion to Convert 12(b)(6) to
Rule 56MSJ
Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Case: 09-3403 Document:
Document00319959621
22 Entered on
Page:
FLSD47Docket
Date11/17/2009
Filed: 12/27/2009
Page 14 of 30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA---PALM BEACH

MARSHA G. RIVERNIDER, §
ROBERT H. RIVERNIDER, §
CHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN, III, §
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. § Case No. 09-91255-CIV
§ HON. W.P. DIMITROULEAS
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, §
AS TRUSTEE FOR THE C-BASS §
MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-BACKED §
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-CBS, §
And all JOHN & JANE DOES 1-50 § Affidavit of Psychologist
Defendants. § Regarding Charles E. Lincoln
§
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
AFFIDAVIT OF DR. KATHY GARCIA-LAWSON

1. My name is Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson. I am over the age of 18 and

otherwise competent to make this affidavit.

2. I received a Ph.D. from Nova Southeastern University in Clinical Psychology

where I also completed a one year postdoctoral specialty in psychoanalytic psychology

and technique followed by a two year postdoctoral residency at 45 th Street Mental Health

Center in West Palm Beach, Florida (now called "Oakwood").

3. A true and correct (if slightly out of date) copy of my vita is attached as

Exhibit B to this Affidavit.

4. Since 1995 I have engaged in the private practice of clinical psychology with

my current office location at 2401 PGA Boulevard, Suite 128, Palm Beach Gardens,

Florida 33410.

5. I have known Charles Edward Lincoln, III, since Saturday, May 11,2008,

when he called me to discuss my concerns regarding rampant abuses in the Family Law

Courts and in Family Law/Divorce/Child Custody systems generally.

6. I consider him to be a good-hearted, honorable, and trustworthy man, as well

as a competent and well-read student of the law and constitutional history and theory.

Affidavit ofDr. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, Ph.D. in Support ofCharles Lincoln's 1


Response to Order to Show Cause, Document 21, Dated November 13,2009,
regarding promised legal representation in this Case by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire
Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Case: 09-3403 Document:
Document00319959621
22 Entered on
Page:
FLSD48Docket
Date11/17/2009
Filed: 12/27/2009
Page 15 of 30

7. I am perfectly aware of his background and status as a disbarred attorney, but

in some ways, I think his background makes him more useful and trustworthy than many

licensed attorneys who cannot criticize the system because they depend upon it and are

part of it.

8. One of my past attorneys, Montgomery Blair Sibley, was suspended in both

the District of Columbia and Florida, as well as threatened with disbarment, because of

his criticism of the judiciary and the unconstitutional operation of the Family Courts

which routinely deny due process of law in an arbitrary and capricious manner, to the

great injury of spouses and children all over the United States.

9. In January-May of2009, I became interested in the work of Dr. Orly Taitz

against the constitutional eligibility of President Barack H. Obama. I made contact with

Dr. Taitz who indicated that she lacked competent assistance in her litigation, whose end

goal of removing the President I supported on moral, philosophical, and political

grounds, and I suggested to her that she contact Charles Lincoln and see whether they

could work together, which they quickly began to do.

10. Sometime in early-mid July 2009, Charles Lincoln confided to me in a late-

night telephone call that he was involved in a very intense love affair with Orly Taitz as

well as working for her constantly to the exclusion of everything else in his life. Charles

said that he had been very lonesome since he separated from his wife Elena in late July

2002, and that Orly had made him "feel alive" and he believed that they could work

together and accomplish things he could never do on his own.

11. Although he was calling me and updating me as a friend, that night Charles

Lincoln at that time said that he was very disturbed by the events, which had transpired

with Orly, a married woman, and requested that I advise him as a psychologist. I spoke

to Charles about Orly about 3-4 times a week after that, sometimes more.

Affidavit ofDr. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, Ph.D. in Support of Charles Lincoln's 2


Response to Order to Show Cause, Document 21, Dated November 13, 2009,
regarding promised legal representation in this Case by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire
Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Case: 09-3403 Document:
Document00319959621
22 Entered on
Page:
FLSD49Docket
Date11/17/2009
Filed: 12/27/2009
Page 16 of 30

12. Charles has also come to visit me in Palm Beach Gardens on three separate

occasions since this started, and Orly is always on his mind, as are his concerns with their

relationship.

13. I should make it clear that Charles was never a formal patient of mine, never

paid me for services, and I consider our relationship still to be that of friends rather than

doctor-patient. I counseled him professionally as ifhe were a patient of mine, but more

informally than formally, as I would do to any friend in need.

14. I did my best to advise Charles to terminate his relationship with Orly, after

all I am an advocate for Christian marriage and monogamy.

15. I had the opportunity to travel to Orange County, California, on the weekend

of October 2-6 in Orange County, California, and did spend some time meeting with Orly

and Charles as they worked together on the Obama litigation.

16. Charles had asked for my professional observations concerning the

authenticity of Orly' s feelings towards him.

17. I, like others close to Charles, were gravely concerned about the sincerity of

Orly's involvement with Charles or whether she was taking advantage of a lonely man in

exchange, quid pro quo, of his drafting of her pleadings.

18. I have no personal knowledge of any of the papers passing between Charles

and Orly in this case or any other case, but I cannot imagine any reason why Charles

would have needed to falsify documents from Orly because they worked together, very

intensely, for five months and I know he wrote more documents which she signed than

she ever wrote on her own, by a very dramatic factor.

19. Charles copied me on almost everything he wrote for Orly, including his legal

research for her, and his output was nothing less than prodigious. I was concerned for his

well-being and his general health because Orly's demands on him sometimes seemed

excessive.

Affidavit ofDr. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, Ph.D. in Support of Charles Lincoln's 3


Response to Order to Show Cause, Document 21, Dated November 13,2009,
regarding promised legal representation in this Case by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire
Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Case: 09-3403 Document:
Document00319959621
22 Entered on
Page:
FLSD50Docket
Date11/17/2009
Filed: 12/27/2009
Page 17 of 30

20. I have read arly's Sunday Novmeber 15,2009, e-mail attached as Exhibit A

to this affidavit and in my professional opinion, this tum of events seems to be rooted in

vindictiveness and hostility, and I find it suspect thatfher conduct and actions have so
radically changed in the immediate aftermath of the October 29,2009, dismissal of the

Obama case before Judge Carter's case.

21. I have wondered whether arly's involvment with Charles was strictly a result

of her interest in using him on the Obama case, and I think that arly may have been

"leading Charles" on and that she never really intended to follow through on her

commitments to the mortgage litigation.

22. In my time of knowing Charles I have found him always to be forthright and

honest in a genuine and caring individual.

23. I would be happy to testify on his behalf or elaborate upon this affidavit in

response to any questions which the Court might have in the future.

24. I find it quite unfortunate that this inappropriate and personal relationship has

found its way to contaminate a significant case such as the present one, but I agree that

Charles had the need to be forthcoming and truthful regarding all the circumstances

bearing on his defense against arly's charges.

25. It is my professional opinion that Charles Edward Lincoln suffers from no

psychological disorders, excluding possible occasional mild depression brought on by

loneliness, and I see no cause to recommend him for psychiatric evaluation of any kind.

26. I have also met Bob Rivemider and nothing in my observation of either

Lincoln or Rivemider suggests to me that they were likely to have been attempting to

falsify Orly's involvement in this case in any way. I am aware that Orly did appear or

attempt to appear in several other cases for Charles E. Lincoln involving mortgages and

real-estate around the United States.

Further affiant sayeth naught.

Affidavit ofDr. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, Ph.D. in Support of Charles Lincoln's 4


Response to Order to Show Cause, Document 21, Dated November 13,2009,
regarding promised legal representation in this Case by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire
Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Case: 09-3403 Document:
Document00319959621
22 Entered on
Page:
FLSD51Docket
Date11/17/2009
Filed: 12/27/2009
Page 18 of 30

Signed, declared under penalty of perjury, and executed in Palm Beach Gardens,

Florida, on this Monday the 16th day of November, 2009.

"
() -r-.';,-'..:::o.._'1,-"U=,,--v / ,} /1P .
BY:--:;-;:----,-;-=~,__-'-t::::-"-.'----;-' --:;:(,:;:-t:.(.&_'.:....t-.:..../'--
l..-;:::', . . - __
Kathy Ann Gar . -Lawson, Ph.D.
2401 PGA Boulevard, Suite 128
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
Office Telephone: 561-694-2772
Facsimile: 561-691-1423

NOTARY'S JURAT

Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson appeared in person before me on this Monday the 16th
day of November, 2009, in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and having been by me duly
sworn upon her oath she did verify the truth of all the statements of fact set forth above,
and did declare and acknowledge the statements of her professional opinion made above
and the sincerity of their submission to the Court.

I am an officer authorized to administer oaths and take testimony under the laws
of the State of Florida, my principle place of business being in Palm Beach /ounty,
Florida.

ALEJANDRO VERA
Notary Public, State of Florida
Commission, 00812909
My oomm. ellplres Aug. 7, 2012

Printed Name of Notary: I/If3,Y19/J JOd tZJ2A

Business Address: d50S fG-4. Wi) 'Pes:;. Pc- 33£//0

My Commission Expires:_--,-.t1.....;O<:::........:=G-,,-'-<l-7+-'.....c9--..D..L...:-42=~ _

Affidavit ofDr. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, Ph.D. in Support ofCharles Lincoln's 5


Response to Order to Show Cause, Document 21, Dated November 13,2009,
regarding promised legal representation in this Case by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire
Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Case: 09-3403 Document:
Document00319959621
22 Entered on
Page:
FLSD52Docket
Date11/17/2009
Filed: 12/27/2009
Page 19 of 30

Exhibit A:
Sunday, November 15, 2009
E-Mail from
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire

Affidavit ofDr. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, Ph.D. in Support ofCharles Lincoln's 6


Response to Order to Show Cause, Document 21, Dated November 13,2009,
regarding promised legal representation in this Case by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire
Drucken
Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Case: 09-3403 Document:
Document00319959621
22 Entered on
Page:
FLSD53Docket
Date11/17/2009
Filed: 12/27/2009
Page 20 of 30 1 of 1
Page

Von: Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ (dr_taitz@yahoo.com)


An: Charles Lincoln
Datum: Sonntag, den 15. November 2009,9:45:01 Uhr
Betreff: Charles, you need to see a doctor and your case needs to be stayed pending tr-nt

Charles,
I received your two phone messages. In the first message your speech was extremely blurry, unclear, second message
sounded like you were a different person.
I believe that you need urgent evaluation and treatment by a psychiatrist. All of your behavior as of late, all of the e-
mails to me, my husband and my attorney suggest the same. You are hurting me, my husband, my children, your wife,
your son, Rverniders and yourself
I am sending a declaration to judge Dimitrious in FL, letting him know, that I believe you are in need of urgent
psychiatric evaluation and possibly treatment, and I believe that case needs to be stayed pending your evaluation and
treatment.
Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita Ca 92688
ph. 949-683-5411
fax 949-766-7603
orlytaitzesq.com
drtaitz.com
taitzofficesuites.com

http://de.mg41.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.gx=1&.rand=17q8i4v26j7li 11/15/2009
Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Case: 09-3403 Document:
Document00319959621
22 Entered on
Page:
FLSD54Docket
Date11/17/2009
Filed: 12/27/2009
Page 21 of 30

Exhibit B:
Professional Vita
Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, Ph.D.,
In Psychology with specialty
In Psychoanalytic Technique

Affidavit ofDr. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, Ph.D. in Support of Charles Lincoln's 7


Response to Order to Show Cause, Document 21, Dated November 13,2009,
regarding promised legal representation in this Case by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire
Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Case: 09-3403 Document:
Document00319959621
22 Entered on
Page:
FLSD55Docket
Date11/17/2009
Filed: 12/27/2009
Page 22 of 30

VITA

Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, Ph.D.

A. Personal Data

Address: 2620 Natures Way, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410


Telephone: 561.624.8725
DOB: February 4, 1958

B. Educational Background

1. Montclair State College, Upper Montclair, NJ 07043


Major: Psychology B.A. 1982
Minor: Counseling, Human Services and Guidance

2. Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33314


Major: Counseling Psychology M.S. 1990
Major: School Guidance and Counseling M.S. 1990
Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33314
3. Ph.D. - Clinical Psychology
Ph.D. 1995
Advanced Training: Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy Program
4. Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33314 1996

Family and County Court Mediation Training 10-12-04


5. Broward County Bar Association, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33314

C. Professional Membership

American Psychological Association 1992-Present

D. Current Position

Private Practice in Clinical Psychology


2401 PGA Boulevard, Ste.128, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
1995- Present
E. Clinical Experience

1. Essex Rehabilitation Center, Verona, NJ Group


Therapy with dually diagnosed patients. 1981-1982

2. Glenbeigh Hospital of the Palm Beaches, West Palm Beach, FL 1988-1989


Group psychotherapy with adolescents with eating disorders and
substance abuse problems.

1
Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Case: 09-3403 Document:
Document00319959621
22 Entered on
Page:
FLSD56Docket
Date11/17/2009
Filed: 12/27/2009
Page 23 of 30

Clinical Experience (continued).

3. Humana Hospital West Palm Beach, FL 1989-1990

Group psychotherapy with adolescents in a long-term residential


psychiatric program. Group and individual psychotherapy with
geriatric patients in short-term facility. Provided crisis intervention to
adults.

4. Nova University Comm. Mental Health Clinic, Coral Springs, FL 1992-1993

Dual Diagnosis Program: Provided individual short-term and long-


term psychotherapy. Intake interviewing, treatment planning,
testing, and evaluation of patients.

5. 45 th Street Mental Health Center, West Palm Beach, FL 1993-1996

Provided individual and group psychotherapy to adolescents and


adults in both out-patient and in-patient facilities. Treatment
planning, testing, and evaluation was conducted. Provided
individual and family therapy to school-age children through
contract with Palm Beach Board of Education.

F. Teaching Experience

1. Palm Beach School Board, West Palm Beach, FL (ESE) 1988-1990


2. Embry Riddle Aeronautical University (Psychology Classes) 1992
3. Palm Beach Community College (Psychology Classes) Barry 1990-1994
4. University (Psychology Classes) 1994

G. Administration

1. Developed the psycho-educational program at Glenbeigh Hospital.


2. Editor for Books and Article Reviews for Southeast Florida Association
for Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy (SEFAPP) Newsletter.
3. Grant proposal for prevention ofjuvenile delinquency.
4. Consultant to Florida's Commission on Marriage and Family Initiatives-Cited
as a consultant in the Commission's Report, Is No-Fault at Fault?, released
March, 2008.

H. Dissertation

The Effects ofthe Sudden Death ofa Psychotherapist on Patients

I. Publications

Garcia-Lawson, Kathy (1997). Thoughts on Termination - Practical Considerations:


Journal of Psychoanalytic Psvchology, 14(2),239-257.

Garcia-Lawson, Kathy (2000), Sudden Death ofthe Therapist: Effects on the Patient:
Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 30(1) 85-103.

Non-published: Family Law

Garcia-Lawson, Kathy, Baker, Josiah, and Posthumus, Stanley, (2006) Protecting


Florida Families- Ending the Divorce Epidemic: A Social Disease. Presented to the
Childrens Rights Council, November, 2006 in Washington DC and at the State of
Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD
Case: 09-3403 Document:
Document00319959621
22 Entered on
Page:
FLSD57Docket
Date11/17/2009
Filed: 12/27/2009
Page 24 of 30

Florida South Legislative Meeting.

J. Areas of Research/Interest: Activist in Safeguarding Marriage and Family.

K References

Available Upon Request.

2
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 58 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

Law Offices of:


Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Identification No. 09867
(610) 825-3134 Attorney for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LISA LIBERI, et al, :


Plaintiffs, :
vs. :
:
ORLY TAITZ, et al, :
: Case No.: 09-cv-01898-ECR
Defendants.
:
:
:
:

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of Plaintiffs’ Emergency

Motion to Transfer Venue to the U.S. District Court, Central District of California,

Southern Division was served this 29th day of November 2009 electronically upon the

following:

Orly Taitz
Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc. (unrepresented)
26302 La Paz Ste 211
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com

Neil Sankey
The Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm (unrepresented)
Sankey Investigations, Inc.
2470 Stearns Street #162
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Email: nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com

Z:\Liberi Motion to Transfer Venue to South Orange County, CA 11 28 09 18


Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 59 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

Linda Sue Belcher


201 Paris
Castroville, Texas 78009
Email: Newwomensparty@aol.com and
Email: starrbuzz@sbcglobal.net

Ed Hale
Caren Hale
Plains Radio
KPRN
Bar H Farms
1401 Bowie Street
Wellington, Texas 79095
Email: plains.radio@yahoo.com; barhfarms@gmail.com;
ed@barhfarms.net; and ed@plainsradio.com

________________________
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE

Z:\Liberi Motion to Transfer Venue to South Orange County, CA 11 28 09 19


Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 60 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

EXHIBIT “C”
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 61 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

09-3403

Lisa Liberi, et al v. Orly Taitz, et al

2:09-cv-01898

BRIEFING AND SCHEDULING ORDER

It is ORDERED that the brief for Appellant(s) and the joint appendix shall be filed
and served on or before January 8, 2010.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the brief(s) for Appellee(s) shall be filed and
served on or before January 15, 2010.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that a reply brief, if any, shall be filed and served on
or before January 19, 2010.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that in the event of default by Appellant in filing the


brief and appendix as directed, the appeal may be dismissed without further notice.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that If Appellee fails to file a brief within the time
directed, the matter will be listed on Appellant(s) brief only and Appellee(s) may
be subject to such sanctions as the court deems appropriate.

It is noted that, where applicable, parties must comply with 3rd Cir. LAR 31.2
which provides: A local, state or federal entity or agency, which was served in
the district court and which is the appellee, must file a brief in all cases in which a
briefing schedule is issued unless the court has granted a motion seeking
permission to be excused from filing a brief. The rule does not apply to entities or
agencies that are respondents to a petition for review unless the entity or agency is
the sole respondent or to entities or agencies which acted solely as an adjudicatory
tribunal.

This Court requires the filing of briefs by counsel in both electronic and paper
format. 3rd Cir. LAR 31.1(b). Pro se litigants are exempt from the electronic filing
requirement. Appendices are not required to be filed electronically.
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 62 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

Checklists regarding the requirements for filing a brief and appendix are available
on the Court’s website at www.ca3.uscourts.gov.

For the Court,

_______________________________

Dated: ______________, 20____

cc: Philip J. Berg, Esq. Counsel for the Appellants


Appellee Orly Taitz, Esq. in Pro Se
Appellee Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. c/o Orly Taitz
Appellee Neil Sankey in Pro Se
Appellee Sankey Investigations, Inc. c/o Neil Sankey
Appellee The Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm c/o Neil Sankey
Appellee Edgar Hale, et al in Pro Se
Appellee Caren Hale in Pro Se
Appellee Plains Radio Network, et al c/o Edgar and Caren Hale
Appellee KPRN AM 1610 c/o Edgar and Caren Hale
Appellee Bar H Farms c/o Edgar and Caren Hale
Appellee Linda Sue Belcher, et al in Pro Se
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 63 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

U.S. District Court,


Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case Number: 09-cv-01898-ECR
Court of Appeals Case No. 09-3403

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________ Ο _____________

LISA LIBERI, et al,

Petitioner – Appellant,
v.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Respondents – Appellee.

_____________ Ο _____________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
_____________________

I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify that Appellants’ Emergency Motion

to Expedite Appellants Appeal and Ruling on Appellants Emergency Motion for a

Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction was served via email this 27th day

of December, 2009 upon the following:

Orly Taitz
Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc. (unrepresented)
26302 La Paz Ste 211
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 64 Date Filed: 12/27/2009

Neil Sankey
The Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm (unrepresented)
Sankey Investigations, Inc.
2470 Stearns Street #162
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Email: nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com

Linda Sue Belcher


201 Paris
Castroville, Texas 78009
Email: Newwomensparty@aol.com and
Email: starrbuzz@sbcglobal.net

Ed Hale
Caren Hale
Plains Radio
KPRN
Bar H Farms
1401 Bowie Street
Wellington, Texas 79095
Email: plains.radio@yahoo.com;
barhfarms@gmail.com and ed@barhfarnet

s/ Philip J. Berg
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Attorney for Appellants’