Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110130818 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2010

No. 09 3403

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________________

LISA LIBERI, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs.

ORLY TAITZ, et al.,

Defendant-Appellee.
__________________

District Court No. 09_cv_01898_ECR

Eastern District of Pennsylvania
__________________

Motion to Strike and/or Extension of Time to File Sur Reply by

Appellees in Response to Appellants’ Reply
__________________

DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ.

CSB #223433
Attorney Pro Se &
Attorney for Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
29839 S. Margarita Pkwy. Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
ph. 949-683-5411
fax 949-586-2082
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110130818 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2010

I. INTRODUCTION

Appellees Dr. Taitz and Foundation (hereinafter referred to as appellees)

are aghast at the reply brief by Berg, Office of Berg, Liberi, Ostella, Adams, and

Go Excell Global (appellants) totaling 22 pages with seemingly hundreds of pages

of exhibits attached full of horrific slander. Taitz would like to remind this court

that not one single document, not one word coming out of the office of Philip

Berg can be considered as true and genuine and given full face value without an

analysis of a forensic document expert, simply because all of the “documents” and

“affidavits” submitted are prepared and handled by Berg’s assistant Lisa Renee

Liberi (aka Lisa Liberi Richardson), who is a career forger with some ten

convictions of forgery of documents, forgery of an official seal and grand

theft. (Exhibit 1 Opposition to request for TRO with exhibit San Bernardino

County, CA Superior Court Convictions Record of Lisa Liberi). Therefore the

only document, that would have any value in considering this interlocutory appeal

would be the transcript of the 08.07.2009 TRO motion hearing in front of judge

Robreno, which is at issue in this appeal . Attorney Berg was told by the clerk of

judge Robreno, that he needs to file a motion to unseal the transcript of the TRO

hearing, at which judge Robreno has denied Berg’s TRO motion. Upon the order

to unseal, Berg could pay for the transcript and submit it to this Honorable court

for Appeals. First of all the pattern of fraud committed by Berg is easy to trace by
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110130818 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/05/2010

looking at the short reply from Marcia Waldron, clerk of USDC for the Eastern

district of PA. She states clearly “Counsel was also notified that the proceedings

held April 7, 2009 was under seal and an order of court would be necessary to

unseal the proceedings and have a transcript produced. To date our office has not

received payment, a motion to unseal has not been docketed not has a transcript

purchase order form been submitted to the District Court” For nine month Berg

and the rest of the appellants have harassed this court. District court and

appellees with hundreds of pages of defamatory material, yet Berg never admitted

the fact that he never filed a short motion to unseal the transcript. Attorney

Berg has never truthfully admitted his failure to file this one page motion to

unseal the transcript. Why didn’t Attorney Berg file one short motion with judge

Robreno to obtain the transcript? Why instead did he bombard both Judge

Robreno and this court with hundreds of pages of garbage, consisting of horrific

slander, perjury, defamation of character, prepared by Appellant Liberi, (legal

assistant of appellant Attorney Berg) who has ten convictions of forgery of

documents, forgery of an official seal and grand theft (Superior court of CA case

FSB-044914, Hon M Pacheco, Superior Court of CA Case no FWV 028000

Gerard W. Brown People of the state of CA v Lisa Renee Richardson (aka

Liberi)), as well as by Lisa Ostella, who admitted to forging signature of Appellee

attorney Taitz, falsely claiming that Taitz allowed her to forge her signature and

who diverted funds from the foundation which is run by Taitz; by Convicted felon

Lucas Smith and by Convicted felon and indicted forger Charles Lincoln? The
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110130818 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/05/2010

answer is simple. If Berg were to provide this court with the transcript, it would be

clear to this court that judge Robreno has made a correct decision in denying

Berg’s TRO motion, that all of the allegations were nothing but slander,

harassment, perjury and hearsay. If this court would like to indulge in reading the

transcripts of the hearings of Liberi’s prior criminal proceedings, this court will

see a clear modus operandi, where Liberi takes bits and pieces of different

documents, signatures, seals, pastes them and creates “documents” of her own,

whereby in the state of CA she has stolen hundred of thousands of dollars from

victims using forgery, perjury and fraud. When apprehended, she has mounted

horrible allegations against everybody in the vicinity, including arresting officers,

district attorney, employees of the correctional institutions, San Bernardino county

and so on. Her right to bring legal actions in Ca was limited due to her actions.

Liberi was convicted recently, in 2008, and her prison term was reduced to

probation due to health reasons. Only a few months after Liberi plead to ten

felony counts, including forgery of documents, Berg started employing her and

submitted to the Eastern District of PA, as well as this Honorable court and the

Supreme Court of the United States a complaint in a case Berg v Obama. Shortly

after submitting the case Berg and Liberi made appearances on radio talk shows,

including the shows of Appellant Evelyn Adams and Appellee Ed Hale. On a

number of shows Berg stated that Liberi is his able legal assistant, who prepared

the case of Berg v Obama, where Berg submitted to court affidavits from Kenya

attesting to Barack Obama’s birth there.

Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110130818 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/05/2010

Appellee Taitz is a licensed attorney in CA, admitted in the Supreme Court

of the United States, she is a Doctor of Dental Surgery as well and a candidate on

the Ballot running for the position of the Secretary of State of Ca. Taitz is a

president of the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation. She was contacted by

Appellant Lisa Ostella, who offered her services as a volunteer web master and

who routinely volunteers as a web master for a number of politicians and

community leaders. When Taitz found out that her web site pay-pal account was

hacked, she reported this event to the FBI immediately. Ostella has threatened,

that if Taitz does not withdraw her complaint to FBI, Taitz will not be allowed to

use Ostella’s web server. When Taitz refused to withdraw her complaint to FBI,

Ostella used her privilege of a web master, locked Taitz from the web site of her

foundation and continued soliciting donations from unsuspecting donors. Later, in

the pleadings submitted to this court she admitted to forging Taitz signature, but

falsely claimed that Taitz permitted her to forge her signature. When problems

with Ostella unfolded, Taitz was contacted by a former volunteer of Philip Berg,

Linda Belcher, appellee in this case, who related to Taitz, that an assistant for

Berg, Lisa Liberi also might be involved in financial improprieties. Belcher

related to Taitz her knowledge regarding Liberi’s criminal record of forgery and

theft. Taitz has verified this record with the investigator Sankey, appellee in this

case, with District Attorney James Secord, her arresting officer and her probation

officers Dawn Hellwig and Rose Bobchack. Taitz has contacted Berg and

forwarded to Berg excerpts of Liberi’s criminal convictions. Taitz has related to

Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110130818 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/05/2010

Berg that she has legal cases, where she included by reference information

provided by Berg in Berg v Obama, specifically affidavits from Kenya, regarding

Obama’s birth there. Taitz has asked Berg to allow her and a forensic document

expert to examine the originals of those affidavits, as there was a high likelihood

of forgery due to Liberi’s recent convictions. Taitz has also advised Berg that he

may want to bring an account to review the donations received in light of Liberi’s

recent convictions of grand theft. Any attorney with any measure of integrity and

respect for the law and the system of justice, with a drop of professional ethics in

his blood would have disassociated himself from an individual of such

questionable past and would advise this court and other courts of a possibility of

forgery in the documents submitted. Instead, Berg has filed an absolutely frivolous

legal action against all of the appellees, seeking to keep them silent, he filed a

ridiculous legal action for nearly a billion dollars and continued bombarding

appellees with hundreds and hundreds of pages of garbage, with no connection to

the case. Berg teamed up not only with Liberi, but also with Ostella and a couple

of other individuals with past convictions or indictments of forgery and fraud.

Currently Berg and his associates are advertising an eligibility and anti-

healthcare bill march on Washington and soliciting donations nationwide for

that march. While Taitz shares concerns regarding the eligibility and the Health

care bill on Constitutional grounds, she is concerned about individuals like Berg,

Liberi and Ostella causing real damage to those issues and to the public at large.

Taitz simply became an attorney, who exposed Berg and his associates, their
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110130818 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/05/2010

past and dealings, she is an attorney in the way, and Berg has rubber stamped

pleadings coming from his associates with one goal of attacking Taitz and

taking heat of himself and possible criminal prosecution of himself, Liberi

and Ostella.

Berg is fully aware that Taitz never violated any orders and Berg’s allegations

are nothing but fraud on the court. For example, Berg knows that Taitz does

not own a web site repubex, that she used that website for a couple of weeks over

a year ago, when Ostella locked her out of her website. Taitz has presented this

information a year ago, (exhibit Motion to dismiss Due to Lack of Jurisdiction

exhibit 3) Berg knows fully well that Taitz had nothing to do with that web site for

over a year and used her own web site OrlyTaitzEsq.com, yet Berg continues to

defraud the court by falsely accusing Taitz of violating orders. Taitz does not

want to waste the time of this court with piles of documents, but rather submits a

couple of documents, that illustrate the actions of Liberi. Exhibit 1 05.28.2009

Opposition to TRO, which contains Liberi’s criminal record, showing multiple

recent convictions, and exhibit 4 testimony of officer Liebrich during Liberi’s bail

hearing regarding Liberi’s threats against her sister Cheryl Richardson. The

transcript states that when Cheryl Richardson started cooperating with police and

implicated Liberi in the case being tried and provided information regarding

Liberi’s thirteen prior criminal charges, Liberi has stated in recorded phone call

from jail, that she wants to have her sister framed, arrested and she wants to spread

the word in the prison population, that her sister is a rat. She proceeded telling her
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110130818 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/05/2010

husband “you know what they do in prison to rats”. When asked by the court

“what happens when inmates discover that another inmate is a snitch?” officer

Liebrich responded “ There is what is known as a contract, a green light on them.

Different things; they are attacked and /or killed. In fact, you brought up L.A.

County, in the last year five have been killed within the jail system”. Taitz has

provided Berg with this information and related to him that his continuous

harassment of Taitz and other appellees puts everybody in danger, particularly in

light of Liberi’s extensive criminal past and violent propensities. Again, instead of

putting an end to his frivolous law suit, Berg went further and rubber stamped and

submitted to this court absolutely horrific, despicable, false slanderous

accusations about Taitz. Without a shred of evidence Berg accused Taitz of

seeking professional help in kidnapping Ostella’s children. Clearly such insane

horrific accusation could only be concocted in a violent criminal mind of Liberi,

however the bigger problem is the fact that Berg, a licensed PA attorney has put

his name and signature on this slander and submitted this horrendous defamation

of character as a fact. People like this should not be allowed to practice law. This

is an attorney, who submitted to this very court and the Supreme Court of the US

in Berg v Obama documents prepared by a recently convicted forger, this is an

attorney who is conducting Nationwide donations drive using a recently convicted

thief as his assistant, this is an attorney, who is hurling accusation with zero

evidence to support them. Berg and his clients, the rest of the appellants, are so

dangerous to the society that Taitz is asking this Honorable court not only to grant
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110130818 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/05/2010

her motion to strike Berg’s latest filing with hundreds of pages of defamation of

character, but she is also asking this court sua sponte to forward the pleadings

presented in this case to the Attorney General of Pennsylvania and District

Attorney of Philadelphia for purpose of criminal investigation and prosecution of

Berg, Liberi, Ostella and their associates for perjury, forgery, uttering, fraud upon

the court and Liberi’s multiple violations of her probation.

Additionally Berg’s latest motion violates rules of this court. Appellees seek

either that the reply brief be stricken in its entirety or permission to file a detailed

sur reply brief of equal length be granted to refute the libel per se allegations of

criminal activity in the reply brief. Appellees further seek attorney fees in the

amount of their actual costs to be submitted to the court upon resolution of this

matter.

Appellees further request that Berg be referred to the Third Circuit Court

Disciplinary Committee for investigation of ethical breeches in that he has used

an appellate proceeding to make unfounded desperate criminal accusations against

Appellee Dr. Taitz. Those insane vicious slanderous accusations are a matter of

public record, appellee Taitz is a candidate on the California primary ballot for

the position of California Secretary of State in a tight two candidate race and

appellants are trying to derail that candidacy.

II. THE REPLY BRIEF VIOLATES THE RULES

Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110130818 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/05/2010

FRAP Rule 27(a)(4) states “A reply must not present matters that do not

relate to the response.” Appellants’ entire reply brief is largely an attempt to

manipulate Rule 27 by claiming anything and everything including false

allegations of kidnapping children and unauthenticated exhibits of hearsay are

relevant to rebut the allegation that appellants’ motions to date and indeed the

underlying appeal are frivolous. The unauthenticated Grimm’s fairy tales of Dr.

Taitz being submitted by appellants would be almost laughable were it not for

appellants’ penchant for republishing this muck once it obtains the court’s file

stamp.

Appellants have also ignored page limits, the unauthenticated and bad faith

exhibits not withstanding. A reply brief is limited to 10 pages under FRAP Rule

27(d)(2) and not the 22 pages plus hundreds of pages of nonsense exhibits and tall

tales about appellees. The reply brief should be stricken on page limit abuse alone.

III. THE UNAUTHENTICATED EXHIBITS ARE SCANDALOUS AND

SHOULD BE STRICKEN

The exhibits dealing with unauthenticated libelous allegations of

kidnapping, conspiracy to commit murder and other criminal acts should be

stricken in their entirety. Those allegations represent nothing but vicious slander.

They have nothing to do with appellants’ motion to dismiss nor do they respond to

appellees’ points about appellants’ previous abusive filings or inability to secure a

transcript. See generally USX v. Liberty Mutual, 444 F.3d 192, 202 (3rd Cir. 2006)
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110130818 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/05/2010

for the proposition that a motion to strike is to be granted when a brief goes

beyond the underlying purpose of the proceeding.

IV. A SUR BRIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO

A MOTION TO STRIKE TO PERMIT RESPONSE TO CRIMINAL

ALLEGATIONS AND THE REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

As noted, appellee Dr. Taitz is horrified and shocked that she is being

accused by appellants including an attorney still in good standing of conspiracy to

kidnap children and commit perjury. Appellees are entitled to a full response of

these hideous allegations if they are not stricken.

V. SANCTION ARE WARRANTED

This court should sua sponte sanction attorney Berg and appellants. Berg

has put his signature on these horrific slanderous allegations against Dr. Taitz.

Berg has teamed up with felons in slandering Taitz without any basis with a goal

of silencing her. Berg is fully aware that Taitz never violated any orders, never

did anything illegal, never caused any harm to appellants. Berg and

appellants are acting with depraved indifference to the truth and has harmed

Taitz, her reputation, her family, have caused severe emotional distress and

severe financial damage in having to fly to Philadelphia to the District Court

hearing, having to read thousands of pages of defamation that they threw at her,

having to respond to numerous motions and requests for judicial notice. In this

court alone Berg has filed 11(eleven) motions and requests for judicial notice with

hundreds and hundreds of pages completely unrelated to the interlocutory appeal

Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110130818 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/05/2010

of the decision by judge Robreno made in August of 2009. Berg was fully aware

that what he is filing, is nothing but slander and unrelated material, yet he did it to

harass Taitz into silence and to prejudice the court against her.

VI CONCLUSION

The appellants’ reply brief goes beyond anything appellee has ever

witnessed before, attorney Berg and the rest of the Appellants have acted in a

totally depraved manner, with total and complete disregard to the truth and to the

rule of law. They have manufactured allegations without a grain of truth. While

this behavior can be expected from convicted felons like Liberi and Lincoln,

actions of PA licensed attorney Berg are absolutely despicable and diabolical.

Berg knows that Taitz has simply exposed him and his associates, that he was

caught submitting to this very court documents prepared by a recently convicted

forger, he knew that there is a very high likelihood of forgery, he knows that his

law license is in danger and his associates out of total desperation created all of the

above slander to kill the messenger. The courts should not be used as a free for all

to commit defamation against other parties and accuse them of capital crimes.

Liberi has used the strategy of inventing allegations against the law enforcement

before in order to reduce her sentence and make a deal. Liberi and Berg are

defrauding this court and manufacturing evidence, simply because they know that

if the law is enforced, Liberi’s probation will be revoked and she will be going

back to prison in California to serve her eight year term. Berg and the rest of the

appellants know that there is a good possibility of them following Liberi.

Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110130818 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/05/2010

Criminals should not be allowed to manufacture horrendous defamatory

allegations in order to harass the victims and harass attorneys who exposed them.

Bottom line, Attorney Berg was told by the district court to file just one

simple motion to unseal the transcript and submit it to the court of appeals.

Berg has never filed this one simple motion and caused Taitz severe emotional

distress and financial damages by filing hundreds of pages of unrelated

motions, therefore his reply to response should be striken from the record,

the appeal should be dismissed with prejudice and the appellees should be

reimbursed their costs and fees.

DATED: May 4, 2010

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq

Orly Taitz, Appellee in Pro

Se and as Counsel for
Appellee Defend Our
Freedoms Foundation
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110130818 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/05/2010

ATTORNEY’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the:

APPELLEES’ OPPOSITION AND EXHIBIT ONE

was served ELECTRONIC MAIL on May 4, 2010, on the following parties:

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
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110130818 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/05/2010

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

Philip Berg, Esq.

Lisa Liberi c/o Law Office of Philip Berg
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444_2531
(610) 825_3134
FAX (610) 834_7659
E_Mail: philjberg@gmail.com

/s/ Dr. Orly taitz

___________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq
April 29, 2010
Case:
Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130819
Document 36-1 Page:
Filed 05/28/09
1 Date Filed:
Page 105/05/2010
of 22
Case:
Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130819
Document 36-1 Page:
Filed 05/28/09
2 Date Filed:
Page 205/05/2010
of 22
Case:
Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130819
Document 36-1 Page:
Filed 05/28/09
3 Date Filed:
Page 305/05/2010
of 22
Case:
Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130819
Document 36-1 Page:
Filed 05/28/09
4 Date Filed:
Page 405/05/2010
of 22
Case:
Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130819
Document 36-1 Page:
Filed 05/28/09
5 Date Filed:
Page 505/05/2010
of 22
Case:
Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130819
Document 36-1 Page:
Filed 05/28/09
6 Date Filed:
Page 605/05/2010
of 22
Case:
Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130819
Document 36-1 Page:
Filed 05/28/09
7 Date Filed:
Page 705/05/2010
of 22
Case:
Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130819
Document 36-1 Page:
Filed 05/28/09
8 Date Filed:
Page 805/05/2010
of 22
Case:
Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130819
Document 36-1 Page:
Filed 05/28/09
9 Date Filed:
Page 905/05/2010
of 22
Case:
Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130819
Document 36-1 Page:
Filed 05/28/09
10 DatePage
Filed:1005/05/2010
of 22
Case:
Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130819
Document 36-1 Page:
Filed 05/28/09
11 DatePage
Filed:1105/05/2010
of 22
Case:
Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130819
Document 36-1 Page:
Filed 05/28/09
12 DatePage
Filed:1205/05/2010
of 22
Case:
Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130819
Document 36-1 Page:
Filed 05/28/09
13 DatePage
Filed:1305/05/2010
of 22
Case:
Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130819
Document 36-1 Page:
Filed 05/28/09
14 DatePage
Filed:1405/05/2010
of 22
Case:
Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130819
Document 36-1 Page:
Filed 05/28/09
15 DatePage
Filed:1505/05/2010
of 22
Case:
Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130819
Document 36-1 Page:
Filed 05/28/09
16 DatePage
Filed:1605/05/2010
of 22
Case:
Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130819
Document 36-1 Page:
Filed 05/28/09
17 DatePage
Filed:1705/05/2010
of 22
Case:
Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130819
Document 36-1 Page:
Filed 05/28/09
18 DatePage
Filed:1805/05/2010
of 22
Case:
Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130819
Document 36-1 Page:
Filed 05/28/09
19 DatePage
Filed:1905/05/2010
of 22
Case:
Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130819
Document 36-1 Page:
Filed 05/28/09
20 DatePage
Filed:2005/05/2010
of 22
Case:
Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130819
Document 36-1 Page:
Filed 05/28/09
21 DatePage
Filed:2105/05/2010
of 22
Case:
Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130819
Document 36-1 Page:
Filed 05/28/09
22 DatePage
Filed:2205/05/2010
of 22
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110130820
003110023894 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2010
02/17/2010
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110130820
003110023894 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2010
02/17/2010
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110130821 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2010
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110130821 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2010
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110130821 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/05/2010
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110130821 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/05/2010
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110130821 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/05/2010
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110130821 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/05/2010
Case:Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130822
Document 35 Filed
Page:05/28/09
1 DatePage
Filed:105/05/2010
of 23
Case:Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130822
Document 35 Filed
Page:05/28/09
2 DatePage
Filed:205/05/2010
of 23
Case:Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130822
Document 35 Filed
Page:05/28/09
3 DatePage
Filed:305/05/2010
of 23
Case:Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130822
Document 35 Filed
Page:05/28/09
4 DatePage
Filed:405/05/2010
of 23
Case:Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130822
Document 35 Filed
Page:05/28/09
5 DatePage
Filed:505/05/2010
of 23
Case:Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130822
Document 35 Filed
Page:05/28/09
6 DatePage
Filed:605/05/2010
of 23
Case:Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130822
Document 35 Filed
Page:05/28/09
7 DatePage
Filed:705/05/2010
of 23
Case:Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130822
Document 35 Filed
Page:05/28/09
8 DatePage
Filed:805/05/2010
of 23
Case:Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130822
Document 35 Filed
Page:05/28/09
9 DatePage
Filed:905/05/2010
of 23
Case:Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130822
Document 35 Filed
Page:05/28/09
10 Date
Page
Filed:
1005/05/2010
of 23
Case:Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130822
Document 35 Filed
Page:05/28/09
11 Date
Page
Filed:
1105/05/2010
of 23
Case:Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130822
Document 35 Filed
Page:05/28/09
12 Date
Page
Filed:
1205/05/2010
of 23
Case:Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130822
Document 35 Filed
Page:05/28/09
13 Date
Page
Filed:
1305/05/2010
of 23
Case:Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130822
Document 35 Filed
Page:05/28/09
14 Date
Page
Filed:
1405/05/2010
of 23
Case:Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130822
Document 35 Filed
Page:05/28/09
15 Date
Page
Filed:
1505/05/2010
of 23
Case:Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130822
Document 35 Filed
Page:05/28/09
16 Date
Page
Filed:
1605/05/2010
of 23
Case:Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130822
Document 35 Filed
Page:05/28/09
17 Date
Page
Filed:
1705/05/2010
of 23
Case:Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130822
Document 35 Filed
Page:05/28/09
18 Date
Page
Filed:
1805/05/2010
of 23
Case:Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130822
Document 35 Filed
Page:05/28/09
19 Date
Page
Filed:
1905/05/2010
of 23
Case:Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130822
Document 35 Filed
Page:05/28/09
20 Date
Page
Filed:
2005/05/2010
of 23
Case:Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130822
Document 35 Filed
Page:05/28/09
21 Date
Page
Filed:
2105/05/2010
of 23
Case:Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130822
Document 35 Filed
Page:05/28/09
22 Date
Page
Filed:
2205/05/2010
of 23
Case:Case
09-3403
2:09-cv-01898-ER
Document: 003110130822
Document 35 Filed
Page:05/28/09
23 Date
Page
Filed:
2305/05/2010
of 23