Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 1 of 46

Dr. OrlVTaitl. Esq

Attorney Pro Se & Attorney

For Defend Our Freedom5 Foundation

29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, Suite 100

Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7603

f.~ ~.. EB
f'E§ 1- ~Ql1
MIOHML '" I\".,z, CIflk
G)'_ Pop.Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LISA lISERI, et al.. ) case # 09-1898 Uberi v Taitz

) Hon Eduardo Robteno preslding

) S9 E and 60 B motions to correct errors in 12,23.2010 rulin"

, Motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter ju!1sdiction

) Motion for sanctions against the plaintiffs and plaintifW attorney

Plaintiffs ) Philp J_ Serg

v. I
)

ORty TAITZ, et al., )

01.22 2011 59 E and 60 B motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion for
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney PhUlp J. Berg 1
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 2 of 46

Defendants. )

59 E MOTION TO AMEND OR ALTER RULING and 60 B motion

Defendants Dr. Orly Taitz ESq and Defend Our Freedoms foundation, hereinfter
"Defendants" are properly filing this 59 E motion to correct a material error of
fact in the 12.23.2010 order issued after 12.20.2010 TRO hearing, which was
instigated by the plaintiffs as well as provide new evidence, a letter from Michael
Ramos, District Attorney of San Bernardino county, California, verifying that
indeed Plaintiff Lisa Liberi is currently on probation, under the supervision of San
Bernardino CA probation Department . ~ .. ' .. f.!.')
Rule 60 II Motion 't.tl j c tq\\
\. . Clerk
••\".w.£i1.1.. ,,\;,..4.•. ()\ell<
Rule 60. RI.:!icf from Judgment or Order p1 '!J[V\lI"'WI- . . .JJeP
fI:,_ _ _
(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, Etc, On motion and
upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (l} mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under RCFC S9(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore
denominated jntrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, Of other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon
which it is. based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment
should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the
judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons Il}, (2), and (3) not more
than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this
subdivision !b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. This rule does not
limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a jUdgment, order,
or proceeding, or to set asjde a judgment ror fraud upon the court.

On 12.23. 2010 this court entered a ruling in relation to the TRO hearing held on
12.20.2010. Unfortunately yet again without a shred of documentary evidence
this court erroneously entered in its' order a statement "Lisa Liberi is a resident of
PA" . Defendants believe that a clerk simply copied this part of the order from a
prior order. It is possible, that the court was confused before, while making a
01,22.2011 S9 E and 60 B motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion for
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Philip 1. Berg 2
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 3 of 46

prior order on 06.04,2010, however at the hearing on 12.20.2010 plaintiff liberi

conceded that she is indeed a convicted felon from California, She admited that
she was convicted in California in 2008, Defendants repeatedly submitted to this
court a summary of Liberi's 2008 conviction, which included 23 charges and
conviction of 10 felonies of forgery, forgery of an official seal and theft. Summary
of conditions of her probation contains a condition, whereby from March 23
2008 until March 23 2011 Liberi is allowed to reside only in Ca or with her family
in NM. She is not allowed to reside in PA and she did not reside in PA in May of
2009, when she filed this complaint, she does not reside in PA now. It was fraud
on the court, committed in order to create jurisdiction in diversity by virtue of
fraud on the court.

In your order Your Honor stated that liberi admitted that she was convicted in
2008 in CA, Your Honor has also stated that it is "alleged" that she is on
probation, which lead the defendant to believe that your Honor erroneously
believes that Uberi is no longer on probation. Defendants are providing to your
Honor a letter sent by the Probation department of the San Bernardino CA Exhibit
1 and from Mike Ramos, District Attorney of the San Bernardino CA district
Attorney's office, stating that Usa liberi is indeed under supervision of the San
Bernardino CA probation department. (Exhibit 2). While the probation
department is not ready to revoke her probation and return her to incarceration
yet and investigation of her actions in this court continues, it is clearly stated that
she is on probation with the San Bernardino, California probation department,

Your Honor has stated that the plaintiffs, including Uberi were evasive and not
believable as witnesses on the stand. Vour honor did not find any basis for the
allegations made by the plaintiffs. Similarly the claims of the plaintiffs of liberi
being resident of PA are not true either, as demonstrated by the letter from the
San Bernardino, California District Attorneys' office.

On the stand Uberi continued defrauding Your Honor. Liber; statcd that she was
convicted of tax evasion only, In reality the summary of her convictions shows
that she was convicted of 10 felonies, which included forgery of documents and
theft. Similarly, the letter sent to you and to the defendants by Co·plaintiff and
01.22.2011 59 E and 60 8 motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion for
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney PhHip j. Berg 3:
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 4 of 46

attorney for plaintiffs Berg provides an admission against interest by Berg himself,
where he admits to the fact that tiberi is a convicted felon and he admits to his
knowledge of this fact, ( 12,22,2010 letter to the Court by Philip J, Berg), Yet again
Berg continues defrauding your honor by claiming that Liberi has only one
conviction, while the official record shows conviction of 10 felonies, Berg
continues denigrating defendants and a number of attorneys, who are posting on
the web site Fogbow.com, While Defendants have disagreements with above
mentioned attorneys from Fogbow as well, Berg's letter was sent with malice,
with intent to defraud your Honarfurther and to try to silence, to intimidate any
whistle blowers: both Taitz and other attorneys, reporting that Berg is employing
a convicted document forger and convicted thief Usa liberi and submitting to this
court, as well as the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the
United States documents and pleadings prepared by this recently convicted forger
on probation,

On 08,07,2009 during yet another frivolous TRO hearing instigated by the

Plaintiffs, Vour Honor ordered the Plaintiffs to file with the court a copy of tiberi's
identifying documents, Examination of the docket and documents filed in this
case shows that Uberi and Berg never complied and never filed her drivers'
license or any other documentary evidence of her residence in PA. Taking into
consideration Uberi's admission to felony conviction in Ca in2008 and summary of
her probation conditions, as well as January 11, 2011 letter from District Attorney
Mike Ramos by Deputy district Attorney James Secord, it is clear that Liberi is not
a resident of Pennsylania.

The Defendants respectfully move this court to correct an error in the

memorandum and order and delete statement "liberi is a resident of
Pennsylvania", Defendants move the court to make a correct determination,
that "the Plaintiffs never filed with this court any documentary evidence of
liberi's residence in Pennsylvania or any other state and cannot maintain a
legal action in diversity without providing proof of state residence. The
defendants provided the court with the documentary evidence, showing that

01.22,2011 S9 E and 60 B motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion for
sanctions against the Plaintfffs and their attorney Philip 1. Berg 4
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 5 of 46

Liberi is under supervision of the San Bernardino California probation department

allowed to reside only in California or New Mexico, but not Pennsylvania."

B. JURISDICTION IS ALWAYS BEFORE THE COURT AND THE COURT HAS A DUTY
TO DISMISS A CASE, WHERE IT HAS NO JURISDICTION

In a recent case of S..freedman and Company, inc v Marvin Raab et al # 05­

1138 (from NJ #04-cv-01119) Third Circuit court judges Honorable Barry, Smith
and Aldisert found that under precedent of Gould Electronics, inc v United
states, 220 F. 3d 169, 176 (3d Cir.2000) Third Circuit court of Appeals had
jurisdiction to review under 28 V.S.c. §1291 the issue of subject matter
jurisdiction as a basis for dismissal of the case. Third Circuit court of Appeals
also found that a District Court has a duty to raise doubts about its
jurisdiction at any time, and the party asserting jurisdiction "bears the burden
of showing that the case is properly before the court at all stages of
litigation". Packard v Provident !'jational Bank, 994 F. 2d 1039, 1045 (3d Cir.
1993) and similarly J& Rice cyeam Corp, v. Califgrnla Smoothi" Licensing, 31 F.
3d 1259, 1265 n.3 (3'd Cir 1994).

In its' opinion in Freedman v Raab Third Circuit proceeded to expand and

reiterate that "the basis upon which jurisdiction depends must be alleged
affirmatively and distinctly and cannot be established argumentatively or by
mere inference Sc. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §1206,
at 78-79 (1969 & Supp. 2005); Thomas. v Board of Tsustees, 195 V.S. 207, 210
(1904) (holding that diversity jurisdiction, "or the facts upon which, in legal
intendment, it rests, must be distinctly a nd positively averred in the pleadings,
or should appear affirmatively and with equal distinctness in other part of the
record"); Joiner v. Diamond M Drilling Co., ~77 F. 2d 1035, 1039 (5" !;ir 1982)
("In order to adequately establish diversity jurisdiction, a complaint must set
forth with specificity a corporate party's state of incorporation and its principal
place of business). "Fedco's bald allegations that the corporate parties are
citizens of cerlain states are insufficient to carry its burden of pleading the
diversity of the parties."
In cases in which jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, plaintiff has
burden to show, first, that applicable statute confers jurisdiction, and, second,
that assertion of jurisdiction is consonant with constitutional limitations of due

0122 201159 E and 60 B motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion for
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Philip 1. Berg 5
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 6 of 46

process. Weight v Kawasaki Motors Corp. (1985, ED Va) 604 F Supp 968.

Party's mere allegation of diversity cannot satisfy Its burden of establishing

district court's Jurisdiction; citizenship of each real party in interest must be
established by preponderance of evidence. Rodle v Uncoln Prop. Co. (2004, CA4
Va) 373 F3d 610.

Complaint alleging that defendant's corporate citizenship was in a state other

than California but failing to allege that plaintiffs were all citizens of California was
not sufficient to give District Court jurisdiction since pleadings did not otherwise
resolve issue of citizenship. f).aulisto v Pan American World Airlines, Inc, (1987,
CA9 Col) 828 F2d 546, 126 BNA LRRM 2559, 107 CCH LC P 10159~

In Olsen v Quality Continuum Hospice, Inc. (2004,DC NM) 380 F SUPll2d 1225

Court lacked jurisdiction over patient's claims because he failed to establish

diversity jurisdiction because at time he filed complaint both he and hospice were
citizens of State; also patient only sought $ 10,000 in cost and unspecified amount
for other damages, which did not meet amount in controversy

In McMann v. Doe (2006, DC Mass) 460 F Supp 2d complaint against John Doe
defendant alleging Internet defamation was dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction because there was risk that if John Doe's Identity were discovered
there could have been no diversity, and court's jurisdictional authority would
have disappeared; court declined to read amended language of 28 § uses
1441into 28 uses § 1332 because it would have accomplished much broader
result of allowing case with only one party and only state law claims to proceed
initially in federal court. Qlsen v Qlio/itv Continuum Hospice, Inc. (2004,oC NM}
380 F Supp 2d 1225,

In motorist's personal injury lawsuit against, inter alia, owners of property

adjacent to private railroad-track crossing where car-train accident occurred,
pursuant to 28 USCS § 1447(dL appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review

01,22,2011 S9 E and 60 a motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and matlon for
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Philip J. Berg 6
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 7 of 46

remand that implicitly was based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction; district
court clearly was addressing jurisdictiona' issues--diversity of citizenship, 28 USCS
§ 1332, and fraudulent joinder--and when doing so, it properly declined to decide
doubtful question of state law and, instead, resolved ambiguity (lack of state 'aw
directly on point) in motorist's favor. Filla v Notiolk & SoutlJpn ,Ry. (2003, CA8
Mo1336 F3d 806.

Where record creates doubt as to jurisdiction, trial court must determine whether
there are adequate grounds to sustain its jurisdiction over subject matter.
Shohmooa Ind,!strles, Inc. v im/Jerato (1964, CA3 NJI 338 F2d 449, 9 FR SeN 2d
128.22, Case 2.

Court has duty to look to its own jurisdiction and lack of subject matter
jurisdiction may be asserted by court, sua sponte, at any time. Jeter v jim Wolter
Homes, Inc. (1976, WD Oklo) 414 F Supp 791.259. decided by a preponderance of
evidence.

For a year and a half the Plaintiffs used this court as a tool to harass the
Defendants/whistle blowers. Until now this court might have believed Uberi and
Berg's allegations, however at the last hearing Liberi admitted that she is a felon,
convicted in California in 2008. Her admission in combination with the evidence
presented by the defendants in the form of Uberl's probation record and a letter
from the San Bernardino California DA Mike Ramos show that liberi could not
possibly reside in PA, as according to her current probation she can reside only in
Ca or NM. As such the court has a duty to dIsmiss this case due to lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.

C. An error in Liberi's state citizenship goes to the ultimate question in this case
and cannot be made without any documentary evidence

This is the case of defamation of character and slander. The Plaintiffs state that
Lisa Liberi, paralegal to attorney Berg and Berg himself were slandered when Taitz
published a summary of Liberi's 2008 conviction of 10 felonies. Liberi and Berg
claim, that she is a different Lisa Liberi, who resided in PA and was slandered. On
12.20.2010 liberi admitted that she is a convicted felon, that she was convicted in

01.:22,201159 E and 60 8 motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matt€'r jurisdiction and motion for
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Philip 1. Berg 7
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 8 of 46

2008 in California of theft. Tait' provided her probation record, showing that she
is not allowed to live in PA.

If notation in 12.23.2010 order, stating that liberi is a resident of PA is not

stricken from the record and the case is not properly dismissed due to total lack
of subject matter jurisdiction, if this case is transferred somewhere else, a new
judge might issue a summary judgment based on this erroneous finding and
Appellants will suffer even more damages.

D. NOT STRIKING AN ERRONEOUS NOTATION IS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY AND

Will GIVE GREEN LIGHT TO OTHER FELONS ON PROBATION, LIKE L1BERI, TO

DEFRAUD MULTIPLE COURTS.

In this case a felon on probation Lisa liberi and her attorney Philip J Berg
committed fraud on the court and perjury, claiming that Liberi is a resident of PA
and that she was defamed by the publication of criminal record of Lisa Liberi, as
they claimed that she is a different person, a different Lisa liberi, resident of PA. If
erroneous finding is not corrected by this court and the court continues to allow
liberi and Berg to maintain this case in diversity without filing a shred of
documentary evidence of Liberi's state citizenship, than it will be a most
dangerous precedent, a green light for any criminal, any felon to simply assume
another identity, find an attorney, who would violate code of professional ethics
and file frivolous law suits to harass innocent individuals and whistle blowers.

E MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS AND ATTORNEY PHILIP J

BERG FOR fiLING A FRIVOLOUS LEGAL ACTION WITH MALICE AND FOR MAKING

OUTRAGEOUS MALICIOUS ACCUSATIONS OF CAPITAL CRIMES AGAINST THE

DEFENDANTS WITH THE PURPOSE OF COVERING UP PRIOR FRAUD AND

SILENCING THE WHISTLE BLOWERS.

This is the case, where the defendants are the true victims.

While your Honor has written in his order on 12.23.2010, that there were no
winners during the 12.20.2010 hearing, in reality there was a winner. This winner
was the Truth, as the defendant and an attorney for the defendants Taitz during
her cross examination of the Plaintiffs was able to uncover the truth and open

01.22.2011 59 E and 60 8 motion to dismiss due to lack af subject matter jurisdiction dnd motion for
sanctions against the Plaintiff!; and their attorney Philip J, Berg 8
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 9 of 46

the eyes of this court to simple facts, that this court did not seem to see for some
reason before.

Tailz has proven to this court that

1. Liberi is indeed a convicted felon from CA. The cou rt stated in its' order that
Liberi conceded that she was a convicted in CA in2oo8 and that Uberi is evasive
and not believable as a witness.

2. Plaintiff Ostella indeed caused defendants TailZ and "Defend Our Freedoms

Foundation" an immeasurable damage. This court noted that Ostella conceded

that she locked Taitz out of the web site of her foundation and that she replaced

Taitz pa-pal account with her own. Your Honor found Ostella to be evasive and

not believable as a witness.

3. Your Honor noted that there was no basis for the allegations made by the

Plaintiffs.

EGREGIOUS VIOLATIONS BY ATIORNEY PHILIP J. BERG OF THE

PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

Adopted by Order of the Supreme Court 01 Pennsylvania dated October 16, 1987
effective April 1, 1988
Text contains recent revisions & amendments which became
effective January 1, 2005, January 6, 2005, March 17, 2005, April 23, 2005 and July
1,2006

A. MULTIPLE COUNTS OF EGREGIOUS ATIORNEY MISCONDUCT

AND VIOLATIONS OF RULES 3.3, 4.1 AND 8.4

Rules 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal

Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others

01-22 201159 £: and 60 B motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdictIon and motion for
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Philip J. Berg 9
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 10 of 46

Rule 8.4 Misconduct (Exhibit Rules of professional conduct Adopted by the

Supreme Court of PA Rules 3.3, 4.1,8.4)

Philip J. Berg by his own admission employed Lisa Uberi as his legal

assistant and paralegal from end of 2006jbeginlng of 2007 until now. By his

own admission Berg submitted to court pleadings drafted by Liberi,

specifically in Berg v Obamg 2:08-cv-04083-RBS, which he submitted to the

Eastern District of PA, Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court

of the United States. In his 12.22.2010 letter to Your Honor and cc-ed to the

defendants, Berg states "It Is true that Plaintiff Liberl was convicted of a

felony, in one case, not multiple cases, however Miss Liberi worked

extremely hard putting her life together." So, after a year and a half of

harassment of Taltz with a frivolous $800 million dollar law suit for

defamation and slander, claiming that Llberi was an innocent victim of

defamation, Berg and Liberi admitted that she is indeed a recently convicted

felon. Berg claims that she is putting her life together, but how does she do

it' She did It by accusing attorney Taitz of capital crimes of attempting to

hire a hit man to kill her and doing this for the sole purpose of hiding her

drivers' license, which would show that she did not reside in Pennsylvania.

She Is putting her life together by defrauding this court for a year and a half.

Her attorney Berg is right there, committing this egregious fraud on the

court together with her. This Is a fiagrant Violation of rule 3.3, 4.1 and 8.4

01.22.201159 E and 60 B motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion for
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Phlltp 1. 8erg 10
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 11 of 46

Count 2

In and around mid April 2009 Taltz published on the web site of her

foundation an official summary of Liberi's convictions, which is available for

public review on the official website for the San Bernardino County, Ca

Superior Court. This printout showed Liberi's 2008 convictions of 10 counts

of forgery, forgery of an official seal and theft. Taitz did it with a proper

purpose of warning the public at large, that nothing submitted to court by

Philip J. Berg can be considered as genuine in light of his aSSistant's

conviction and in light of the fact, that Berg was conducting a Nationwide

fund raising and on the pages of his web site ObamaCrimes.com was asking

the donors to provide their credit card information, their address and other

personal information, which became available to Lisa Liberi, who was

recently convicted of multiple counts of theft. Only a few days after Taitz

published such record, Berg filed a $800 million dollar legal action for

Slander and Defamation of character, where he claimed that he and

his assistant were defamed by an accusation of Liberi committing

crimes. Berg claimed that Liberl Is a resident of PA and both of them

were defamed. At that time Berg clearly knew that Liberi does not

reside in PA and filed a frivolous legal action for defamation and

slander with the onlV purpose of harassment and intimidation of the

01.22,201159 E and 60 B motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion for
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Philip J. Berg 11
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 12 of 46

defendants and in order to defraud the tribunal, whereby he violated

Rule 3.3, 4.1 and 8.4

COUNT 3

When Taitz demanded proof of Uberi's residence in PA and proof, that she is

a different person, Berg committed yet another act of egregious fraud on the

court and without a shred of evidence stated that Liberi's drivers license

needs to be sealed because attorney Orly Taltz tried to hire a hit man to kill

Liberi. Berg is an attorney and without a drop of conscience, without a drop

of honesty and integrity he accused a fellow attorney of a capital crime,

knowing full well, that he does not have any evidence to substantiate such

an outrageous accusation. Additionally, he accused a Career police officer

and a licensed investigator Neil Sankey of hacking Liberi's computer and

stalking her, he accused a veteran Pamela Barnett of forging a letter from

Linda Belcher, he accused his former assistant and researcher Linda Belcher

of forging Uberi's e-mails and forging an official seal, as well as of having a

criminal record, he accused a retired veteran and engineer Neil Turner of

being a White Supremacist Militiaman, who Is stalking Liberi, he accused a

talk show hOst Ed Hale of stalking and stealing a document. Ail along Berg

knew, that he is working with a convicted forger, that nobody ever

threatened them, he knew that all the crimes, that he Is making up are a

repertoire of his assistant Lisa Liberi, he knew that all the individuals that he
01.22 201159 E and 60 Bmotion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion tor
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Philip J. Berg 12
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 13 of 46

is accusing are simply whistleblowers, who blew the whistle on him and

Liberi, he knew that none Of these individuals ever committed any crimes,

were never convicted of any crimes, yet Berg went to the extent of

assasSinating good name of multiple Innocent individuals with the

sole purpose of covering up for a fact that he continuously submits

to courts documents prepared by a convicted document forger and

for the fact that he doe.. fundralslng with a convicted thief. Berg

filed thousand.. of pages of pleadings with such accusations In the

Eastern District of PA as well as the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

By doing so Berg violated rule 3.3, 4.1, 8.4

COUNT 4
As Berg claimed that Llberi's life Is in danger, at the 08.07.09 hearing Your
Honor allowed Berg to file Liberi's PA drivers license under seal
The transcript on page 19

"Mr. Berg: ... her actual address I think would be detrimental

The Court: "Well, the actual address we could do without it.

Mr. Berg: Okay. could that be on other people, 100, or just on Miss Liberl?

The court: Well you could disclose It and file it with the court under seal."

on page 47 of the transcript of the same hearing during direct examination of

Liberi by Berg:

01.22.1011 S9 E and 60 8 motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion for
sanctions against tile Plaintiffs and their attorney Philip J. Berg 13
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 14 of 46

"Q. You heard my statement before. You will supply your correct address and

identifying information which we will give the court under seal, is that correct?

A Yes, sir/'

Berg and Liberi promised to file Liberi's drivers' license under seal. Berg and Liberi

defrauded the court yet again and did not file Liberi's drivers license or any

identifying documents. The docket of the case shows, that no identifying

documents were ever filed. When Taitz properly filed her motion to dismiss due

to the fact, that Liberi never provided any documents, showing her state

citizenship, and that the case at hand filed based on diversity has to be dismissed,

Berg and Liberi continued defrauding the District court and the Third Circuit

Court of Appeals, claiming that they provided necessary documents and

continuously accusing defendants of crimes in order to confuse both courts.

Wherefore, Berg violated rule 3.3, 4.1 and 8.4.

COUNTS

Berg acted with malice and made up slanderous accusation that Tai!> attempted

to kidnap children of Lisa Ostella

On cross examination of Lisa Ostella by attorney Taitz during 12.20.2011 hearing

01.22,2011 S9 E and 60 B motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdlction and rnotion for
sanctions against the PlaIntiffs and their attorney Philip J. Berg 14
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 15 of 46

Taitz:" ...1am an attorney and you have accused me of trying to hire a hit man and

kidnap your children"

A-I did not make those accusations

Q Who made those accusations?

A Those weren't made by me

Q But can you tell me who made those statements? Where ..

A they are in the court filings on this

Q And who made those?

A I don't know who writes that

Q And who made those court filings?

A They came from my attorneys law office

Q You mean they came from Mr. Berg. Right?

A His law office, yes

Further on

01.2:2.201159 E and 60 B motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion tor
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Phlhp 1. Berg 15
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 16 of 46

Taitz: "I went to New Jersey to report you, report the fact that you locked me out

of the account of my foundation and you replaced my Paypal with your Paypal. I

went to new Jersey to report diversion of funds from my foundation. Instead you

accuse me of going to New Jersey to kidnap your children on that trip. From

what?

A No, I didn't accuse you of going to kidnap my children on that trip. I have an

affidavit.

The witness: Tab K, sir, in the binder I gave you.

The Court to what effect?

The witness: Tab K is the Gentleman that was with her when she drove around

New Jersey.

Ms. Taitz: He is not here. This i,--he is the-­

The witness: His affidavit is here

Ms. Tait,; But this is Hearsay. I cannot question him

The witness: Affidavits are not hearsay.

By Ms. Taitz

01.22.201159 E and 60 Bmotion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion for
sanctions against the PlaintIffs and their attorney Philip J. Berg 16
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 17 of 46

Q Does it say anywhere in this affidavit that I was going to kidnap your children?

A No, I didn't say it was.

Q Does it say that I was going to report you to the police, yes or no?

A Yes, you came

Q O'kay, thank you.

Here there is a clear example how PA licensed attorney Philip J, Berg acted with

unheard of level of malice. He simply manufactured horrific accusations against

attorney [aitz without any shred of evidence. This misconduct by an attorney is so

egregious, that he should not be allowed to practice law.

Similarly this court has found that there was no basis for other allegations made

by the plaintiffs.

On the other hand there was nothing done wrong by the defendants. This case

was filed on May 5, 2009. It was filed after the defendants published truthful

information, a summary of the 2008 CA criminal conviction of ten counts of

forgery and theft of Lisa Liberi, paralegal of attorney Berg, who works with him

via e-mails and mail, not residing in PA.

OL22.2011 59 E and 60 B motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion fo~
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Philip J. Berg 17
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 18 of 46

Taitz, also, notified her supporters that the old web site of her foundation,

"Defend our Freedoms Foundation" was taken over by former volunteer web

master Lisa Ostelia, that any donations given after Ostelia locked Taitz out of the

web site will not benefit the foundation, but rather will go to Ostella.

On the stand, while Ostella initially claimed that Taitz accused her of stealing

$10,000, when asked to provide evidence, she was not able to find any such

evidence, but rather read a statement saying exactly what Taitz stated before,

that the web site was taken over by Ostelia, that paypal account was replaced and

any donations given by donors will not benefit the foundation, but will go to

Ostella .

On cross examination astelia conceded that she took over the web site and

replaced Taitz e·mail address with her own in connection to pay pal. She also

conceded that she created a stamp with Taitz signature and affixed it to multiple

documents. She daimed that Taitz allowed her to cut and past her signature,

however she did not have any proof of it. She also could not explain how a

signature copied from a document signed in April of 2009 appeared on a

document created in January 2009, 3 months earlier. Her testimony showed that

01.22,2011 59 E and 60 B motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion for
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Philip J. Berg 18
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 19 of 46

there was no consent from Taitz for Ostella to forge her signature and post it on

multiple documents.

So this is not a case, where the parties are on equal footing. To put both parties in

the same category equals to a judge saying" I will not be biased to either side: the

rapist and the rape victim are equally liable."

This is a case of a year and a half of emotional, financial and legal rape of the

Defendants and particularly Taitz by the Plaintiffs and particularly plaintiffs

attorney Berg. They took over her web site, her pay-pal account, denigrated her,

filed a frivolous law suit for $800 million dollars and harassed and terrorized her

for a year and a half with thousands of pages of irrelevant, inadmissable,

inflammatory and prejudicial pleadings. They claimed that Liberi was a different

person, not a felon from CA, however at the latest hearing Liberi conceded that

she is a felon from CA. Ostella conceded to locking Taitz out of the web site of the

foundation, where Taitz was the preSident, she conceded that she replaced her

pay pal account with her own in connection to that foundation web site. Most

egregious misconduct was the fact that in order to cover up for their prior fraud

and perjury, the Plaintiffs and Berg claimed that Liberi's drivers license cannot be

produced because she is afraid of Taitz, because Taitz tried to hire a hit man to kill

01.22.201159 I: and 60 B motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdlction and motion for
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Philip J. Berg 19
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 20 of 46

her and kidnap children of Ostella. They demanded sanctions against Taitz, they

demanded that this court report her to authorities, knowing full well that there is

not a grain of truth to these allegations. This court already found in its' December

23,2010 ruling that there was no proof of any of these allegations.

Both Berg and Liberi have a long history of frivolous legal actions and sanctions.

Taitz submits an article from "legal Intelligencer', showing that Berg repeatedly

engages in such conduct. Berg was previously repeatedly sanctioned. In Re Berg,

2008 Bankr. LEXIS 322 (EO PA 2008); Holsworth v. Berg, 200S U.S. Dis!. LEXIS 15393 (ED

PA 2005). Liberi has engaged in the same conduct as well.

A July 25,2005 article from The Legallntelligencer, "Lawyer Slapped With $10K in

Sanctions for 'laundry list of Unethical Actions' sums the situation here up:

"Finding that a Pennsylvania lawyer had committed a "laundry list of unethical

actions," a federal judge has imposed more than $10,000 in sanctions and

ordered the lawyer to complete six hours of ethics training. U.S. District Judge J.

Curtis Joyner's la-page opinion in Holsworth v. Berg is packed with criticism of the

conduct of attorney Philip Berg of lafayette Hill, Pa."Other attorneys should look

to Mr. Berg's actions as a blueprint for what not to do when attempting to

effectively and honorably perform the duties of the legal profession," Joyner

01.22,201159 E and 60 B motion to dismISS due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion for
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Philip J. Berg 20
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 21 of 46

wrote. "This court has grown weary of Mr. Berg's continuous and brazen

disrespect toward this court and his own clients. Mr. Berg's actions ... are an

enormous waste of judicial time and resources that this court cannot, in good

conscience, allow to go unpunished," Joyner wrote. In the suit, Berg is accused of

legal malpractice by former clients who claim his failure to respond to an ERISA

claim against them led to a default judgment. But the sanctions against Berg stem

from his decision to file a third-party counterclaim of fraud against a pension fund

that had sued his former clients, according to court papers. Joyner blasted Berg

for filing the fraud claim, calling it an "irresponsible decision" because the claim

was "utterly barren of any scintilla of legal principles." Berg's motion was rejected

and a default judgment of more than $5,300 was entered against his clients. The

judgment swelled to more than $10,000 when Carpenters Health later

successfully moved for a supplemental judgment to recover more than $4,700 in

attorney fees for its efforts in responding to Berg's untimely motions. Holsworth

and his wife later filed a legal malpractice suit against Berg in the Philadelphia

County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that Berg negligently failed to represent

them in the Carpenters Health case. A year later, in February 2005, Berg moved to

join Carpenters Health as a third-party defendant in the malpractice suit,

demanding more than $20,000 in damages. In his counterclaim, Berg alleged that

01.22,201159 E and 60 B motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion for
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Ph1l!p J. Berg 21
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 22 of 46

the ERISA suit filed by Carpenters Health in 2001, which led to the malpractice

claim against him, was "a fraud upon the court and a fraudulent taking from the

Holsworths."Carpenter Health's lawyers removed the case to federal court and

filed a motion to dismiss the claim. Joyner agreed, finding that Berg's fraud claim

was "frivolous" and was motivated by an intent "to harass Carpenters Health and

the Holsworths, as well as to delay and disrupt the administration of justice." The

claim was fatally flawed, Joyner found, because Berg had no standing to bring suit

against Carpenters Health and had "failed to conduct even a minimally reasonable

inquiry before filing his complaint." Granting summary judgment in favor of

Carpenters Health, Joyner said he found it "wholly unnecessary" even to consider

the facts of the ERISA case because it was "abundantly clear" that Carpenters

Health was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Joyner invited Carpenters

Health to file a motion for Rule 11 sanctions. When it did, Joyner found that Berg

"continued his trend of unprofessional conduct " ... "Berg's fraud claim, Joyner

said, was "inadequately pled, not grounded in fact, time-barred, and utterly

irrelevant to the pending malpractice action against him." ... "ln his sanctions

order, Joyner ordered Berg to reimburse Carpenters Health the $10,668 in

attorney fees and costs it incurred in defending the claim. He also ordered Berg to

complete six credits of ethics courses certified by the Pennsylvania Board of

01.22.1:01159 E and 60 B motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdictIon and motion for
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Philip J. Berg 22
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 23 of 46

Continuing Legal Education, and recommended that Berg be investigated by the

Pennsylvania Bar Association's Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional

Responsibility. "

Similarly Berg demanded disbarment of the Supreme court Justices Sandra Day

O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

http://en, wikipedia.org/wiki/pnilip _J._Berg

In October 2004, Berg filed Rodriguez v. Bush 04-4952 E~tern Distrlct afPA, accusing the
President of the United St;:ltes and 155 other parties of complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

This 237-page clvillawsuir!)Jll; included allegation~ pursuant to the Rj{:O (Racketeer I1~fluenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act) again~t The United S.tate,~__ OL~erjJ:a, the Federa-'J2m~r~s;~
Mflllugement Ag§lSY, the DcWIi11,em of Homeland Security, Gool'ge Herbert Walker Bltsh,
George \Valkcr Bush. Richu.rd Cheney, Dunald H. Rumsfeld.and numerous others, totaling 156
defendants in the U.S, District COUlt for the Ea"tern District of Pennsylvania,

Thi~ lawsuit made hundreds of allegations ., ... ; that phone calls made by some of the victims, as
rcported by their family members. were not actually made but were "faked" hy the government
using "voke morphing" technology, that a mis,siic, not American Airlines Flight 77. struck the
Pentagon; 1hat United Airlines Bight 93 was shot down by tht'- U,S. military; that the defendants
had foreknowledge of the attacks and actively com.pircd to bring them about; that [he defendant"
engaged in kidnapping. arson, murder, treason, conspiracy, trafficking in narcotic",
embezzlement, securitles fraud, Insider trading, identity and credit card theft, blat:kmaiL
trafficking in humans, and the ahduction and sale of women and children for !5CX. ,.
http://en, wikipedia,org/wikl/Philip _J. _Berg

_~odriguez v Bush was originally brought in front of Your Honor, in Eastern

District of PA, it was eventually transferred to NY and dismissed on all counts

against all plaintiffs,

OL22.201159 E and 60 8 motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter Jurisdiction and motion for
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Philip J. Berg 23
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 24 of 46

At the same time, in 2004-2006, when Liberi was incarcerated, she filed multiple

frivolous legal actions. Her first legal action Liberi v Sheriff's department et 31

5:04-cv-01524-VAP was a 30 million dollar case against multiple individuals,

including District attorneys' office, her prior attorneys, judges, sheriffs'

department, policemen and detectives and many others. It was a frivolous legal

action, which caused an enormous emotional distress and financial hardships to

many, it was dismissed after her attorney was sanctioned multiple times and

after her attorney dropped Liberi as a client. Not satisfied, Liberi filed pro se yet

another frivolous RICO law suit for $280 million against the San Bernardino

County, CA, West Valley Correctional facility, district attorneys, police officers,

police detectives, numerous law enforcement officials Li~a Liberi v West Valle~

Center et al 2:05-cv-0301S-VAP-SGL In a similar modus operandi she accused

multiple innocent individuals of committing crimes. Her legal action was

dismissed. As shown in these examples, Both Liber; and Berg have a history and

modus operandi of filing multimillion dollar law suits for the sole purpose of

harassment. They caused immeasurable financial and emotional damage to the

defendants and they need to be stopped now. This court has inherent powers to

punish egregious misconduct by an attorney and Appellees. Dismissal of

underlying legal action, sanctions, award of attorneys' fees and costs to the
01.22.201159 E and 60 B motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion for
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and theIr attorney Philip 1. Berg 24
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 25 of 46

Appellants are appropriate. Sanctions and reporting Philip J Berg to the

Disciplinary Board of the PA Supreme Court is appropriate. On February 23, 2011

a three member panel is conducting a disciplinary hearing against Philip Berg. It

will benefit the public at large, if this court sanctions Berg for egregious attorney

misconduct and forwards the records of these proceedings to the 02.23.2011

Disciplinary hearing for the members of the panel to see a full picture of Berg's

misconduct. It will be appropriate for this court to sanelion Usa liberi for her

egregious fraud on the court and forward such findings to San Bernardino, CA

probation department. In GMAC bank v HTIFC 248IBD 182 IE.D. Pa. 2008} Your

Honor sanctioned attorney Ziccardi $29,322.61 for his client's behavior during

one deposition. Here we have a case of egregious misconduct and attorney

simply manufacturing outrageous allegations and accusations of capital crimes

of murder for hire and kidnapping without a SHRED OF EVIDENCE and with a

sole purpose of harassment, silencing the whistle blowers, causing severe

emotional distress and severe economic damages for a year and a half. If

plaintiffs and Berg are not sanctioned now, they will continue the same conduct

and will cause more damage to the Defendants and the public at large.

01.22.201159 E and 60 S motion to dismiss due to latk of subject matter jurisdiction and motion for
sanctions against the Plaintiff's and their attorney Philip J. Berg 2S
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 26 of 46

CONCLUSION

Defendants respectfully request

1. Correction of a material flagrant error in 12.23.2010 memorandum and

order. Instead of "Lisa liberi is a resident of PA", the order needs to state
that Liberi provided her attorney's business address in PA as her address,
however she never filed with court any documentary evidence of her
address in PA or any other state. Liberi admitted that she is a convicted
felon and that she was convicted in 2008 in California. Defendants provided
a summary of her 2008 conviction of California, which includes 10 felonies
and a provision of her probation, allowing her to reside only in California or
with her relatives in New Mexico, Defendants are residents of California. As
the Plaintiffs never filed any documentary evidence of Liberi's state
citizenship, no federal district court can assert jurisdiction over this case in
Diversity of state citizenship and the court has no other choice, but to
dismiss this action due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction under FRCP S9
E and 60 e,
2. Sanctions against the plaintiffs and their attorney Philip j, Berg $25,000 for
acting with malice and filing a frivolous legal action for the purpose of
harassment, for defrauding the court in relation to Uberi's state citizen,hip.
3. Sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Philip J, Berg $25,000 for
committing fraud on the court and filing a legal action claiming that Liberi
was a different person, slandered by the defendants' publication, while
knowing that she is indeed a convicted felon from California, and that she
did not reside in Pennsylvania,
4, Sanctions against the Plaintiff's attorney Philip J, Berg $50,000 for acting
with malice and making up allegations accusing the defendants of capital
crimes of kidnapping and attempt to hire a hit man to kill Uberi without any
evidence to such allegations and with the goal to attempt to hide non­
existent Pennsylvania drivers license. r'.
1_) ..
,./
<V'
'7 / ; 7/-"
II
l: 5:(,~) I ..­
ATTORNEY'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

01.22.2011 59 E and 60 B motion to dismiSS due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion for
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Philip J. Berg 26
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 27 of 46

I HEREBY CERTU'Y THAT A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE:

5910,60 B MOTIONS TO CORRECT ERRORS IN 12,23,2010 MEMORANDUM AND

ORDER AND TO DISMISS THE CASE DUE TO LACK 01' SUBJECT MATIER
JURISDICTION

MOTION FOR SANCTlON"S AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS AND PLAINTiffS'

ATTORNEY PHILIP J, BERG

was served by mail ur electronic mail on 01.22.201 t 011 the following partles:

Neil Sankey

The Sankey, Firm, Inc, aIkIa The Sankey hrm .

Sankey Investigations, Inc,

2470 St&'U11S Street # 162

Simi Valley, CA 93063

Phone: (S05) 520_315 I and (818) 366_0919

Cell Phone: (818) 212_7615

PAX: (805) 520_5804 and (818) 366_1491

Email: nsankey@thcsafikcyfirm.com

Linda Sue Belcher

201 Paris

Castroville, Texas 78009

Horne Phone: (830) 538_6395

01.22.2011 59 E and 60 B motIon to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and tnotion for
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Philip J. Berg 27
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 28 of 46

Cell Phone: (830) 931_1781

Email: Ncwwomensparty@aoLcom and

Email: starrbuzz@shcglonal.net

Ed Hale

Carea Hale

Plains Radio

KPRN

Bar H Farms

140 I Bowie Street

Wellington, Texas 79095

Phone: (806) 447_0010 and (806) 447_0270

Email: pJains.radio@yahoo.comand

Email: barhfarms@gmail.comanded@barhfarms.net

Philip Berg, Esq.

Lisa Liberi clo Law Office of Philip Berg

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444_2531

(610) 825_3134

FAX (010) 834_7659

E_Mail: philjberg@gmail.com

01.22.201159 E and 60 B motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion for
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney PhlUp J. Berg 28
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 29 of 46

?ubllc Integrity Section

Department of Justice

9S0 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington DC 20530-0001

Disciplinary Board
Supreme Court of PA
820 Adams Ave, ste 170

Trooper, PA 19403

lsi Orly Taitz

--- ... -~-- .. ----

Dr. Orly Taitz. Esq

01.22.2011

PROPOSED ORDER

UNITED STATES DlSTRCT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

01.22.2011 59 E and 60 B motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion for
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Philip J. Berg 29
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 30 of 46

USA UBERI, ET AL, §

PLAINTI FFS, §

V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-CV-01898-ER

ORlYTAITZ, ET AL §

DEFENDANTS §

ORDER

AND NOW, CHIS _--,OAY OF JANUARY-----···_·-2011, IT IT HEREBY

ORDERED AND DECREED TO GRANT DEFENDANT'S 01.22.201159 £ AND 60 B MOTION AND MOTION

FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS AND PLAINTIFF'S ATIORNEY PHILIP J. BERG

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATE JANUARY _ _ _ _ _2011 US DISTRICT JUDGE

EDUARDO ROBRENO

01,22.2011 59 E and 60 B motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion for
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Philip J, Berg 30
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 31 of 46

EXHIBIT 1

01.22"2011 S9 E and 60 B motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion for

sanctior'\s against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Philip J. Berg 31

 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 32 of 46

-----fi66

Case FWV028000 Defendants

¥

Seq Defendant Next Court Date status Agency I Arrest Date Count 1 charge VIOlation Date
DR Number

RA
I 110013759 05/1812001 0511812001

ALIAS, UBERI, LISA R

ALIAS: COURVltLERICHARDSON, USA

ALIAS: UBERI, LISA A

 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 33 of 46

-----('Hi

5 0 - - - =::---6

Case FWV028000 ~ Defendants

Seq Defendant Next Coort Date Status Agency I Afros! Dale Count 1 Charge Violaflon Date
DR Number

RA
1 110013759 0511812001 0511812001

ALIAS UBER!, USA R

ALIAS: COURVlllERICHARDSON, LISA

ALIAS: UBERI, USA A

 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 34 of 46

Fine and Penalty Restitution Fine Rasiituoon to Victim

o NlA

Ca•• FWV02_ Defendant 1608112 LIBERI, LISA RENEE - Charge.

An-est Charges

Violation
Count Charge severity De&::ription Pie, $tatus
Dilte

PC 459 F BURGLARY 0511812001

Filed Charges

Violation
Count CharjJe Severity Description Status
Date

GRAND THEFT PROPERTYIETC

PC 487(A) F 05116/2001 HTA
OVER $400

2 PC 470(0) F FORGERY 0511812001 HTA

3 PC 472 F FORGE OFFICIAL SEAL 05/16/2001 HTA

OffER/ETC FALSEJFORGED
4 PC 11S1A) F
INSTRUMENT TO FILE
0511812001 HTA

GRAND THEFT. PROPERTYIETC

5 PC 487(A) F 05/18/2001 HTA
OVER $400

6 PC 470(0) F FORGERY 05/18/2001 HTA

7 PC 472 F FORGE OFFICIAL SEAL 05/1812001 HTA

OFFER/ETC FALSEIFORGED
8 PC 11,(A) F 0511812001 HTA
INSTRUMENT TO FILE
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 35 of 46

GRAND THEFT: PROPERTY/ETC

9 PC 487(A) F 0511812001 HTA
OVER $400

GRAND THEFT: PROPERTY/ETC

10 PC .a7(A) F 0511812001 HTA
OVER $400

PC GRAND THEFT:
11 F 0511812001 HTA
487(DH1) AUTOMOBILEIANIMAUETC

GRAND THEFT: PROPERTY/ETC

12 PC 4a7(A) F 0511812001 HTA
OVER $400

PC GRAND THEFT'
13 F 0511812001 HTA
487(0)(1) AUTOMO!lJLElANIMAUETC

GRAND lHEFT: PROPERTY/ETC

14 PC 487(A) F 0511812001 HTA
OVER $400

PC GRAND THEFT:
HTA
15 F 0511812001
487(0)(1) AUTOMOBILElANIMAUETC

GRAND THEFT PROPERTYJETC

16 PC 487(1\) F 05118/2001 HTA
OVER $400

GRAND THEFT: PROPERTY/ETC

17 PC 487(A) F 0511812001 HTA
OVER $400

Infor Charges

Violation
Count Charge Severity Description
Date
Pkl. Status

GRAND THEFT' PROPERTYIETC

1 PC 487(A) F 05116120(11 GUILTY CONVCTED
OVER $400

PC
2 F NONSUFFICIENT FUNDS: CHECKS 0511812001 GUIl.TY CONVICTED
476A(A)

3 PC 470(0) F FORGERY 05118/2001 DISMISSED

4 PC 472 F FORGE OFF1CtAl SEAl 05/1812001 D1SM1SSED

OFFERiETC FALSEIFORGED
5 PC 115(A) F 05f1812Q01 GUILTY CONVICTED
lNSTRUMENT TO FILE
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 36 of 46

GRAND THEFT: PROPERTY/ETC

6 PC 487(A) F 0511812001 (lUlLTY CONVICTED
OVER $400

MAKING, POSSESSING, UITERfNG

7 PC 416 F 0511812001 DISMISSED
FICnOUS INSTRS

8 PC 470(0) F FORGERY 05/1812:001 DISMISSED

9 PC 472 F FORGE OFFICIAL SEAL 0511812001 GUILTY CONVICTED

OFFER/ETC FAlSE/FORGED
10 PC 115(A) F 0511812001 DISMISSED
INSTRUMENT TO FILE

GRAND THEFT: PROPERTYIETC

11 PC 481(A) F 0511812001 GUilTY CONVICTED
OVE.R $400

GRAND THEFT: PRoPERTYIETC

12 PC 487{A) F 0511812001 GUILTY CONVICTED
OVER $400

PC GRAND THEFT:
13 F 05/1812001 DISMISSED
481(0)(1) AUTOMOBILEJANIMAUETC

GRANO THEFT: PROPERTYlETC

14 PC 481(A) F 0511812001 DISMISSED
OVER $400

PC GRAND THEFT:
15 F 0511812001 DISMISSED
4B7(0)(1) AUTOMOBILElANIMAlIETC

GRAND THEFT: PROPERTYIETC

16 PC 487(A) F 05118/2001 DISMISSED
OVER $400

17
PC F
GRAND THEFT;
05118/2001 DISMISSED
487(D)(1) AUTOMOBILEfANIMAUETC

GRAND THEFT: PROPERTYIETC

18 PC 467(A) F 0511812001 GUILTY CONVICTED
OVER $400

GRANO THEfT: PROPERTY/ETC

19 PC481(A) F 0511812001 GUILTY CONVICTED
OVER $400

OFFER/ETC FAISElfORGFD
20 PC 11S(AI F 05118/2001 GUILTY CONVICTED
INSTRUMENT TO FILE

21 PC 470{O) F FORGERY 0511812001 D'SM~SSED

22 PC 470(0) F fORGERY 0511812001 DISMISSED

 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 37 of 46

23 PC 472 F FORGE OFFICIAL SEAL 05/1812001 DISMISSED

Ca.e FWV028000 Defendant 1608112 LIBERI. LISA RENEE - Probation

Probation TJIPfJ. FORMAL Grunted' 03121/2008 Expire.' 03/2112011

SUPERVISED PROBATION GRANTED FOR A PERIQO OF 36 MONTHS ON FOLLOWING TERMS

AND CONDITIONS.

SERVE 26 DAYS IN A SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY JAIL FAC1UTY, WITH CREDIT FOR
TIME SERVED, A MATTER OF 26 DAYS, PLUS CONDUCT CREDIT PURSUANT TO 1..
1)
PC4019 NO ABIDE BY ALL RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE FACIUTY WITHOUT THE
POSS4BIUTY OF COUNTY PAROLE

21 VIOLATE NO LAW.

REPORT TO THE PROB OFFICER IN PERSON IMMEDIATELY 0- NO THEREAfTER ONCE

EVERY FOURTEEN (14) DAYS OR AS DIRECTED. REPORT TO THE PROS OFFICER IN
3) PERSON IMMEDIATELY 0- NO THEREAfTER ONCE EVERY FOURTEEN (14) DAYS OR
AS DIRECTED.

COOPERATE WITH THE PROBATION OFFICER IN A PLAN OF REHABILITATION AND

4) FOLLOW ALL REASONABLE DlRECTIVES OF THE PROBATION OFFICER

SEEK AND MAINTAJN GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT. OR ATTEND SCHOOL. AND KEEP THE
5)
PROBATION OFFICER INFORMED Of STATUS OF EMPLOYMENT. OR SCHOOL.

KEEP THE PROBATION OfFICER INFORMED OF PLACE OF RESIDENCE AND

COHABITANTS ANO GIVE WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE PROBATION OFfICER TWENTY­
FOUR (24) HOURS PRIOR TO ANY CHANGES. PRIOR TO ANY MOVE PROVIOE
WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION TO THE POST OfFICE TO FORWARD MAIL TO THE NEW
ADDRESS. PERMlT VISITS AND SEARCHES OF PLACES OF RESIDENCE BY AGENTS
Of THE ?ROBATlON DEPT. AND/OR LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
6) ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT VISITS AND SEARCHES Of PLACES OF
RESIDENCE BY AGENTS OF THE PROBATION DEPT. ANDIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT VlSITS AND
SEARCHES OF PLACES OF RESIDENCE BY AGENTS Of THE ?ROBATION DEPT.
ANDIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PROBATION; NOT DO ANYTHING TO INTERFERE
WITH THIS REQUIREMENT. OR DETER OFFICERS FROM FULfllUNG THIS
REQUIREMENT. SUCH AS THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS Of PROBATION; NOT DO
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 38 of 46

ANYTHING TO INTERFERE WITH THIS REQUIREMENT. OR DETER OFFICERS FROM

FULfilliNG THIS REQUIREMENT. SUCH AS ERECTING ANY LOCKED FENCES/GATES
THAT WOULD DENY ACCESS TO PROBATION OFFICERS. OR HAVE ANY ANIMALS ON
THE PREMISES THAT WOULD REASDNASL Y DETER. ERECTING ANY LOCKED
FENCESIGATES THATWCULD DENY ACCESS TO PROBATION OFFICERS. OR HAVE
ANY ANIMALS ON n~E PREMISES THAT WOULD REASONABLY DETER. THREAT
THREATEN THE SAFETY Of. OR INTERFERE WITH. OFFICERS ENFORCING THIS
TERM EN THE SAfETY OF. OR INTERFERE WITH. OFFICERS ENFORCING THIS TERM.

NEITHER POSSESS NOR HAVE UNDER YOUR CONTROL ANY DANGEROUS OR

7) DEADlY WEAPONS OR EXPLOSIVE DEVICES OR MATERIALS TO MAKE EXPLOSiVE
DEVICES

SUBMIT TO A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF YOUR PERSON. RESIDENCE ANDIOR

PROPERTY UNDER YOUR CONTROL AT ANY TIME OF THE DAY OR NIGHT BY ANY
8)
LAW·ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WITH OR WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT. AND WITH
OR WITHOUT CAUSE (PEOPLE -V- BRAVO).

NEITHER USE NOR POSSESS ANY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITHOUT MEDICAL

9) PRESCRIPTION. A PHYSICIANS'S WRITIEN NOTICE IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE
PROBATION OFFICER

SUBMIT TO A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TEST AT DIRECTION OF PROBATION

10) OFFICER EACH TEST IS SUBJECT TO AN $11.00 FEE. TO BE COLLECTED BY
CENTRAL COLLECTIONS

11 ) NOT POSSESS ANY TYPE OF ORUG PARAPHERNALIA. AS DEFINED IN H&S113645(D)

PARTICIPATE IN A COUNSELING PROGRAM AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION

OFFICER. SUBMIT MONTHLY PROOF OF ATTENDANCE AND/OR SUCCESSFUL
12)
COMPLETION TO TKE PROBATION OFFICER AS DIRECTED AND BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR PAYMENT OF ALL PROGRAM FEE(S).

NOT ASSOCIATE WITH KNOWN CONVICTED FELONS OR ANYONE ACTIVELY

13)
ENGAGED IN CRIMiNAl ACTIVITY e·OR CODEFENDANT(S) OR VICTIM(S).

NOT ASSOCIATE WITH KNOWN ILLEGAL USERS OR SELLERS OF CONTROLLED

14)
SUBSTANCES.

NOT MAINTAIN A CHECKING ACCOUNT OR COMPlETE OR ENDORSE ANY CHECKS

15) UNLESS MADE PAYABLE TO YOU AND NOT HAVE ANY BLANK CHECKS IN YOUR
POSSESSION WITHOl/T PERMISSION OF THE PROBATION OfFICER.

SUBMIT A RECORD OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURES TO TKE PROBATION OFFICER

16)
QUARTERLY

NEITHER POSSESS NOR USE ANY CREDIT CARD WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE
17)
PROBATION OFFICER.
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 39 of 46

NOT DRIVE OR POSSESS KEYS OR DOCUMENTATION TO ANY MOTOR VEHICLE

18) UNLESS LEGALLY REGISTERED TO YOU OR AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER
EXCEPT IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT.

REPORT ALL MOTOR VEHICLES REGISTERED TO YOU TO THE PROBATION OFFICER

19)
WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS OF ACQUISITION.

SUBMIT TO AND COOPERATE IN A FIELD INTERROGATION BY ANY PEACE OFFICER

20)
AT ANY TIME OF THE DAY OR NIGHT.

CARRY AT ALL TIMES A VALID DRIVERS LICENSE OR DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR

VEHICLES IDENTIFICATION CARD AND DISPLAY SUCH IDENTIFICATION UPON
21)
REQUEST BY ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE PO. CONTAINING
YOUR TRUE NAME AGE AND CURRENT ADDRESS

ENROLL IN THE DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAM AT THE DIRECTION OF THE

22) PROBATION OFFICER AND SHOW PROOF OF ENROLLMENT TO THE PR08ATION
OFFICER WITHIN SEVEN IJ) DAYS,

MAKE RESTITUTION TO THE VlCTIM(S) (SEE PROBATION REPORT) IN THE AMOUNT

23) OF $9223.77 PLUS A 10% ADMINISTRATIVE FEE, TO BE PAID THROUGH CENTRAL
COLLECTIONS

MAKE RESmUTION TO THE VICTIM (SEE PROBATION REPORT) IN THE AM OUNT OF

24) $35000.00 PLUS A 10% ADMINISTRATIVE FEE, TO BEPAID THROUGH CENTRAL
COLLECTIONS

MAKE RESTlruTlON TO THE VICTIM (SEE PROBATION REPORl) IN THE AMO UNT OF
25) _1.00 PLUS A 10% ADMINISTRATIVE FEE, TO BE PAID THROUGH CENTRAL
COLLECTIONS

PAY A RESTITUTION FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF $20000, PLUS A TEN PERCENT (10%)
26)
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE THROUGH CENTRAL COLLECTIONS,

THE DEFENDANT IS NOT TO filE ANY LAWSUIT/LEGAL ACTION WITHOUT PRIOR

27)
CONTACT WITH PROBATION OFFICER

DO NOT Al'PLY FOR CREDIT OR A LOAN WITHOUT PRIOR CONTACT WITH

26)
PROBATION OFFICER

29) COMPLY WITH ANY COURT.oRDERED PAYMENT SCHEDULE.

MAKE REsmUTION TO VICTIM (SEE PROBATION REPORT) IN AN AMOUNT TO BE

30)
DETERMINED BY PROBATION,

MAKE RESTITUTION TO VICTIM (SEE PROBATION REPORT) IN AN AMOUNT TO BE

31)
DETERMINED BY PROBATION.
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 40 of 46

PROBATION MAY BE SERVED THROUGH INTER STATE COMPACT AGREEMENT IN

32)
THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO UPCN APP\<OVAl FROM PROBATION
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 41 of 46

EXHIBIT 2

OL22.2011 S9 E and 60 B motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion for
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Philip J. Berg 32

 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 42 of 46

MICHELLE SCRAY KIRK DAYTON

Chief Probation Officer D. scan FRYMIRE
C¥HOI FUZYE

12/6/10

Law Office orOdy Taitz

29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, Suite 300
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

Dear Ms. Taitz,

I receIved your documents and have scnt your complaint to the appropriate authorities.

Thank you.

~~~
Division Director II
San Bernardino County Probation D~partment

BRF/tb

p Probation Administration o Juvenile Community Corrections

175 West Fifth StrAel. San Bernardino, CA 92415-0460
o Adutt Community Corrections
401 North Arrowhead Avenue. San Bernardino. CA 92415-0006
o RanchD Cucamonga Community Corrections
8303 Haven Avenue. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
o Morongo Basin CQmmunJty Corrections
6527 While Feather Road. Joshua Tre9, CA 92252
o Central Valley Juvenile Det$ntiQR & Assessment Center
900 East G!lbert Street· San Bernardino. CA 92415-0941
o Gateway Program
!:I High Desert Juvenile Detention and Assessment Center
740 East Gilbert Street. San Bemardino, CA 92415-0940
21101 Oale EvanS Parkway -Apple Valley, CA 92307
150 West Fifth Street. San Bernardino, CA 92415-0460
o Barstow Community Corrections
301 East Mt View. Barstow, CA 92311
o Victorville Community COrTltctfon5
15505 Civic Drive. Victorville, CA 92392
o youth Justice Center
900 East Gilbert Street, Bldg. 31 • San Bernardino, CA 92415-0941
o Weat Valley Juvenile Detention & Asse$$ment Center
9478 Etiwanda Avenue. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 43 of 46

EXHIBIT 3

01,22.2011 59 E and 60 B motion to dismiss due to lack ot subject matter jurisdiction and motion fur
sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Philip J. Berg 33

 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 44 of 46

County of San Bernardino

Office of the District Attorney

MICHAEL A. RAMOS. District Attorney

File Number:
2002A)()·000Il876
January 11. 2011

VIA FACSIMILE (949) 78<>-7603;

E~MAJL ~:rJy t~~~IJJi1:gJn2,lf £QUr; and,

BY FIRST ClASS MAli..

Orly Taitz. Esq.

law Offices of Dr. Orly T.ilz. Esq.

29839 Santa Margarita Parkway. Suite 100

Rancho Santa Margarita. CA 92688

RE Usa Richardson Litleri. Case No. FVW 028000

Dear Ms. Taitz;

The matter of the revocation of probation submiUed by you concerning Lisa

Richardson Litleri was referred to the San Bernardino County Probation Department fur
investigation. 1\ is my understanding that 1hefe was insufficient evidence to substantiate the
claims of Ms. Liberl. violations of the le!ms of her probatIOn

Please be advised that this office does not investigate probation violations. Ihat IS the
function of the Probation Department Our offce will only proceed on an action to violate a
defendants probation based 011 an investigation by the Probation Department and submitted
10 this off"" for prosecution. ff you have evidence of a violation. please frnward that
evidence to the Probation Department. This office will take no Iul1hef steps at this tlme.

Yours very truly;

MICHAELA RAMOS
San Bernardino County DlslricI Attorney

\-­
A ......··-­
I~~
.' ---.-~~.-~~
esRSa
1QI,pu1y District Attorney
co: Michael Fermin. S.D.DA

412 West HospItakty Lane, :r

F!o¢r, San BernArdino, California 9241s..0023
(909) S91-33{}1 • Fax {90S} 891-3626
 Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 45 of 46

EXHIBIT 4

OL22.201159 E and 60 B motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion for

sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney Philip J. Berg 34

Disciplinary Boaru of the Supreme Court ofPcnnsylvania Page I oft

Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 165 Filed 02/01/11 Page 46 of 46

The Disciplinaryof Board

the Supreme Courl of Pennsylvania

Auorn~) If); <)1-l67

Berg, Philip J.

PENDING PROCEEDINGS

I'LTITIO\ FOR DIM Ii'l ',\1:

DB NO. DATE
208 DB 20101011812010
208 DB 20101211312010
208 DB 2010 1211712010
208 DB 2010 12/1712010
DESCRIPTION EFFECTIVE
PETITION FOR DISCIPLINE F'''IL-=E=O-­
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR DISCIPLINE FILED
BY RESPONDENT
HEARING SCHEDULED
(0212312011), 09:30 AM DISTRICT II
PETITION REFERRED TO HEARING
COMMITTEE
BARRETT, MALLON, SANTARELli

HISTORY

-----. __.__ .... _ - - - - - _ . ­

©2007·2011 The Disciplinary Buard uflhe Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. I

Disclaimer

For questions or conunents regarding the websfte, plea.;;e contact us at

comments@padisdplinal1'buaro.urg.

http://www.padisciplinaryhnard.orglpn_attorney-public.php?id~9867&aunatnFBcrg..!.2C...1I15/20 II