Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 198 Filed 05/23/11 Page 1 of 21 Page ID

#:5656

DR. ORLY TLITZ ESQ

29839 SANTA MARGARTTA PKWY, STE 100

RANCHO SANTA MARGARTTA, CA 92688

PH 949-683-541 1 FAX 949 -7 66-7 603

US DISTRCT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIBERI ET AL, ) CASE NO.: 11-CV-00485

PLAINTIFF, )

vs. ) OPPOSTTTON TO MOTION FOR

TATTZAT AL, ) LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN

DEFENDAI{T ) AMENDED COMPLAINT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Liberi w Taltz OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

-1-
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 198 Filed 05/23/11 Page 2 of 21 Page ID
#:5657

1. ANTISLAPP WAS FILED BEFORE THE MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COUR

TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT...... ..................p5

2. ANSWER AND FIRST AMENDED WERE FILED OVE,R TWO Y

AGO....... ..............p6

3. DEFENDANTS WILL BE GREATLY PREJUDICED IF THE MOTION I

GRANTED............. ..............p6

4. THERE WAS NO PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT ATTACHED

5. AFTER TWO YEARS OF LITIGATION, THE PLAINTIFFS

CONTEMPLATING A NEW COMPLAINT WITH 17 CAUSES OF ACTION..p

6. BERG FILE,D MULTIPLE FRIVOLOUS LEGAL ACTIONS FO

HARASSME,NT PURPOSE, AND THIS MOTION WILL ALLOW HIM

FILE ANOTHER FRIVOLOUS LEGAL ACTIONS FOR PURPOSE O

HARASSMENT..... .............p1 1

7. LISA LIBERI IS A FELON WITH 46 CRIMINAL CI{ARGES

CONVICTION OF 10 COUNTS OF FORGERY OF DOCUMENTS

GRAND THEFT. ALLOWING HER TO FILE ANOTHER COMPLAINT, WIL

SIGNIFY A GREEN LIGHT FOR A CAREER CRIMINAL TO COMMIT M

SLANDER AND HARASSMENT..... ................p14

Llberi v Taitz OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

-2
 Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 198 Filed 05/23/11 Page 3 of 21 Page ID
#:5658

5; t ! 5 F-'4 co t:
<=x.\
(J\

22
= * i + aq E-6 o\
a)
vca:
j-u
=+
O.
F
H

2 o,j 2 iA:l :=
Ff
tu
.v'1, E

"i :iq
o
;-:d
:^ O
n

e ? E ? lF tlr.:f a:=i t'l

o

t=i? ig CJ
r\
v-
:F-iA
c.)
: tr-
trl
E

=EilH
*:-e,:Uial\iA
aeE:fr.:3:O
s lJ.{
$
Orf):N
o_x x
,i.31\
i
:
io
v-'
z
Ed
F]
H
t'r

Z H E ? e i iE s H
t-.,t
o 2 € I
IJJvj
r\ Ca
iF o
Fl
F
trr.rlYc^,-q - &
:-() ./-$q D
o
F +ar-2e ()

z O .2 X L i', t!
o
=ciFrr= lz'E,3: - H

;;
uTLJJC=iz'^'E'
z 6 s = :x p F
a
c
;-*()vO-
-)Yl-
lr
T=OU
-\l -o
l'.1
Fll
&
o
' '

= O9'8,9G
trr

=--.
; c rcJF..-r-P
-\)d z
o
H
trl tqrnH F

=*l=Hi:5?a
=
EE
Xi6;- L! : R t d
H
F
trl
AA]-e
=-hrt.=
l-tri-
O
E
o
F
zo
ccc.Sqj CC

F
-;iico==iclrJ'-
ctri 6 X -q 'tl
g H
E:
--vg H

- =. - (J-q)=Ln a
F4
c'')
6.
O
z
i9?'-ri r-qE
lJ.] I cn tu
tu
cn o

E F A * eeZE il 3 +-Ug sf,

gdr&e r-.i
.h
I +l
N

xs-
il2 =
l.i

?0
4
-.1

6H
(n rd
Aio.qo' F

i j 3 E 4i d a
(n
H +.]
z a.'e\q)=
6\NA
c''! 6
v O

S Efr d j a =.J-l
-e rr: z
cc
tr
o
tr
(.)

i =
= ? *,5 x;; = b -a
-.1
c.) J
trr
+.1
-\/jo.i
J N Ca V n @ F- O o) O il N Ca d n I r o O O 11 N (n s n I r o
Jddidr:ddiliNNNNNNNNN
 Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 198 Filed 05/23/11 Page 4 of 21 Page ID
#:5659

1
3. Hill v. City of El Segundo, C.A.9 (Cal.)2002, 33 Fed.Appx. 254,2002
2
460320, Unreported. Federal Courts 433; ; States
3
Hill v. City of El Segundo, C.A.9 (Cal.)20A2, 33 Fed.Appx. 254, 2002
4

5 460320, Unreported. Federal Courts 433; ; States

6
Holsworth v Berg. 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexrs
1

I ............p11

9
In Re Berg, 2008 Banks. Lexis 322 (ED PA 2008)......p11
10

11
Liberi v Sheriffs department et al 5:04-cv-01524-vap... .....p14

I2 Lisa Liberi v West Valle)' Center et al 2:05-cv-03015-VAP-SGL.......................p14

13

1-4
Mission Power Eneineering Co. v. Continental Gas. Co. 883 F. Supp. 488 (C.D
1E Cal. 1995) ................p19

16

I1

1B

19

2A

27

22

23

24

25

26

27

2A

Liberi v Taitz OPPOSITION TO MOTTON FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FTLE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

-4
 Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 198 Filed 05/23/11 Page 5 of 21 Page ID
#:5660

)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
3

5 Defendants Orly Taitz and Defend our Freedoms foundation vehemently op

6
Plaintiffs' motion for leave of court to file amended complaint after two years o
1

8
litigation and after the answer was filed two years ago for following reasons.
9
1. ANTISLAPP WAS FILED BEFORE THE MOTION FOR LEAVE OF
10
COURT TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
11

T2 Antislapp motion was filed prior to plaintiffs motion for leave of court to file a

13
first amended complaint. Antislapp stavs the case and the plaintiffs are
14

15 precluded from filing an amended complaint until the court rules on

I6
antiSLAPP. California's anti- SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public
\1

18
Participation) statute may be applied in federal diversity suits; application of the

19 statute's special motion to strike and the availability of fees and costs would not
20
result in a direct collision with the Federal Rules, despite commonality ofpurpose
27

22 in weeding out meritless claims. U.S. ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles &
23
Space Co., Inc., C.A.9 (Cal.)1999, 190 F.3d 963, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 2196,
24

530 U.S. 1203,147 L.F.d.2d232. Federal Courts 415; Federal Courts 433.

26
California's Anti-strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP)
21
Statute is applicable to state law counterclaims asserted in a federal diversity
28

Liberi v Taitz OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

-5
 Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 198 Filed 05/23/11 Page 6 of 21 Page ID
#:5661

1
action. Mello v. Great Seneca Financial Co.p., C.D.Ca1.2007,526 F.Supp.2d 1024.

2
Federal Courts 433. Califonnia's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public
3
participation) statute, which was enacted to allow early dismissal of meritless First
4

5 Amendment cases aimed at chilling expression through costly litigation, is not

6
preempted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is applicable in federal
1

B
cases. Hillv. Cig'of El Segundo, C.A.9 (Cal.)2002, 33 Fed.Appx.254,2002 WL

9
46032A, Unreported. Federal Courts 433; ; States 18.15 (emphasis added)
10

11

I2
2. ANSWER AND FIRST AMENDED WBRE FILED OVER TWO YEARS
13

14 AGO
15
Answer and first amended answer was filed two years ago on 06.15. 2009
15

L'1 on the complaint, as it was filed. Allowi

1B
was filed- after two ears of litisation
I9

20
the Defendants and will cause severe financi

2I severe emotional distress.

22
3. DBFENDANTS WILL BE GREATLY PREJUDICED IF THE MOTIO
23

24 IS GRANTED

26

21

2B

Liberi v TaiLz OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FTLE AN AMENDED COMP],AINT

-6
 Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 198 Filed 05/23/11 Page 7 of 21 Page ID
#:5662

1
Complaint was filed two years ago in Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs sought injuncti

2
relief against the defendants. After Judge Robreno denied two motions
3
injunctive relief, Plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Third Circuit court of Appeals
4

5 When the plaintifTs saw, that their appeal of the denial of the injunctive relief i
6
about to be denied by the court of Appeals, they withdrew the appeal. Now, wh
1

8
the Plaintiffs are concerned,that the AntiSlapp will be granted, they are sudden

9
seeking a leave of court to file an amended complaint. After two years of litigati
10
after filing AntiSLAPP and an answer, the defendants will be greatly prejudiced i
11

L2 the court grants the plaintiffs a leave of court to file an amended complaint.
13
4. THERE WAS NO PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT ATTACHED T
L4

THE MOTION
76
Motion for leave of court to file an amended complaint
L1

1B
amended comolaint attached to it. There is no

I9 attached. This makes the motion improper.

2A

2T
5. AFTER TWO YEARS OF LITIGATION, THE PLAINTIFFS

22 CONTEMPLATING A NEW COMPLAINT WITH 17 CAUSES OF ACTION

23
. Recently received Rule 26 joint report from the plaintiffs shows that the plainti
24

are contemplating to file a completellr different complaint, with new causes o

zo
action and new fact pattern and events not related to the original complaint. Whil
21
the original complaint was filed in May of 2}}9,Plaintiffs refer to events and
28

Llberi v Tailz OPPOSITION TO MOTTON FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

-'7
 Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 198 Filed 05/23/11 Page 8 of 21 Page ID
#:5663

1
slanderous allegations of events that purportedly happened two years later in 2011

2
Defendants suffered severe emotional distress dealing with unprecedented sl
3
and defamation of character and harassment inflicted upon them by the Plaintiffs i
4

5 their complaint and during fwo years of litigation. Defendant Taitz has sufTere
6
severe health problems and was under care of her medical doctor for two years
1

8
to stress and severe emotional distress caused by the Plaintiffs' depraved
9
behavior in filing a completely frivolous law suit and malicious sland
10
allegations within the complaint and further pleadings. None of the precedent
7I

12 quoted by the Plaintiffs in their motion bear any relevance to the case at hand,
13
there is substantial prejudice against the Defendants to allow the Plaintiffs leave o
14

15 court to file an amended complaint after two years and thousands of pages o

L6
pleadings. Plaintiffs filed a frivolous complaint on May 5 of 2009, wh
11

1B
defendants truthfully reported that the old web site of Defend Our Freedom
19 Foundation was taken over by former volunteer web master Lisa Ostella. Tai
20
also reported that Ostella is currently using the old web site for the Defend ou
2L

22 Freedoms foundation for purpose of denigrating Taitz and promoting att

23
Berg. Ostella was using the list of donors of Taitz and send them e-mails, that w
24

25 defamatory of Taitz and promoting Berg. Taitz has advised her donors a
26
supporters that Berg is employing as his legal assistant a convicted docume
21

?O
forger and thief Lisa Liberi. Taitz has posted on a new website a true and co

Liberi v Tailz OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

_B
 Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 198 Filed 05/23/11 Page 9 of 21 Page ID
#:5664

1
report from Califomia superior court, showing that Lisa Liberi indeed has 2

2
criminal charges in San Bernardino county, CA alone,(not counting her pn
3

criminal charges), that she reached a plea bargain, according to which she
4

5 convicted of 10 felony counts of forgery, forgery of an official seal and grand theft
6
This information was proper and relevant, as it showed that personal financia
1

I information of donors is at risk and there is a serious question of veracity o

9
pleadings submitted to multiple courts by Berg, as those pleadings are prepared b
10
a convicted forger.
11

I2 This revelation was damaging to Berg, as it weight badly on his career and hi
13
nationwide fund raising. In order to cover up for this fact, Berg, Liberi and Ostell
T4

15 acted in egregious manner with egregious depraved heart malice and on May 5

I6
2011 filed a complaint for defamation, slander and assault. They tried to create
T7

1B
impression that Lisa Liberi is a different Lisa Liberi, an innocent woman in PA

19 They gave Berg's business address as her address. Berg was seeking an injunction
2A
he was trying to silence Taitz about Liberi's criminal record and he was trying t
2t

22 intimidate her with insane $800 million dollar complaint. For two years Taitz h
23
to endure multiple injunction hearings, where Plaintiffs were seeking an injunctio
24

25
and a gag order, all of which were denied. During August 8,2009 motion heari

26 judge Robreno ordered Liberi to file with court her identifying records. Lib
21
never filed her identifting records and never proved her state residency at the tim
28

LibeTi w Taitz OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO EILE AN AMENDED COMPLATNT

-9
 Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 198 Filed 05/23/11 Page 10 of 21 Page ID
#:5665 I

1
the complaint was filed. 12b1 lack of diversity is part of the current motion tl
I

2
dismiss. When Taitz demanded proof of diversity and documentury proof o{
I

3
Liberi's state residency, Liberi, Berg and Ostella acted with unprecedented .naticl
4 I

5 and filed pleadings, where they accused Taitz of trying to hire a hit man and kil{
I
6
Liberi and kidnap children of Ostella. In their July 30, 2010 pleadings, plaintiffsl
1
I

B
not only maliciously accused Taitz of such crimes, but they also urged j"dg1
I

9
Robreno, to forward the file to authorities and prosecute Taitz for trying to hire
10
l I

l1
hit man to kill Liberi and kidnap children of Ostella. Taitz suffered severfl
I

L2 emotional distress and severe health damages due to such egregious behavior byl

13 I

the Plaintiffs. During Decemb er 20, 2010 motion hearing, called by the plaintiffs,l
L4
I

15 (fifth time when the Plaintiffs demanded injunction against defendants) Liberif
I
16
admitted that she is indeed a convicted felon from California and Ostella admittedj
I1 I

18
that she never claimed thatTaitztried to kidnap her children,that those allegationsl
l
L9 were simply made up by Berg. Exhibit 2 Transcript of December 20,2011 hearin{
20 I

before judge Robreno Exhibit 3 Order by judge Robreno stating that Liberil
2I
I

22 conceded to being a felon from Califomia, Ostella conceded that she locked Tartd
I
23
out of the web site for her foundation and replacedTattzpay-pal account with hell
24
I

25
own. These findings by judge Robreno are indicative that the complaint is about tol

26
be dismissed on AntiSLAPP. Anticip ating that the complaint is about t" bJ
21 I

dismissed in its' entirety on antiSLAPP the Plaintiffs are trying to file a newl
28

LibCTT V TAitZ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMENDED

'O'N''O'*' I

| -ro
l-l
lr
I

tl
 Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 198 Filed 05/23/11 Page 11 of 21 Page ID
#:5666

1
complaint, bring new facts and new oauses of action. After two years

2
unrelenting harassment and vicious slander of the defendants by the Plaintiffs, th
3
defendants are entitled to have a determination on the complaint, as it was filed an
4

5 have it dismissed expeditiously.

6
6. BE,RG PREVIOUSLY FRIVOLOUS LEGAL ACTIONS FOR HARASS
1

B
PURPOSE, AND THIS MOTION WILL ALLOW HIM TO FILE ANO
9
FRIVOLOUS LEGAL ACTIONS FOR PURPOSE OF I{ARASSMENT
10

11
Berg is a litigious plaintiff, who was sanctioned repeatedly by the federal
72

13
for his baseless filings. Holsworth v Berg. 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15393 (ED P

L4 2005) and In Re Berg, 2008 Banks. Lexis 322 (ED PA 2008). Finding that
15
Pennsylvania lawyer had commiued a "laundry list of unethical actions," a
16

71 judge has imposed more than $10,000 in sanctions and ordered the lawyer t
1B
complete six hours of ethics training. U.S. District Judge J. Curtis Joyner's 10-
19

2A
opinion in Holsworth v. Berg is packed with criticism of the conduct of

21-
Philip Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa. "Other attorneys should look to Mr. Berg'
22
actions as a blueprint for what not to do when attempting to effectively
24 honorably perform the duties of the legal profession," Joyner wrote. "This cou
25
has grown weary of Mr. Berg's continuous and brazen disrespect toward this
26

21 and his own clients. Mr. Berg's actions ... are an enoffnous waste of judicial tim

28

Liberi v Taitz OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMtrNDED COMPLAINT

- 1i
 Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 198 Filed 05/23/11 Page 12 of 21 Page ID
#:5667

1
and fesources that this court cannot, in good conscience, allow to go unpunished,

2
Joyner wrote. Berg demanded disbarment of the Supreme Court Justices Sand
3
Dav O'Connor, Anthonin Scalia and Clarence Thoma
4

5 http I I en.wikipedia. org/wikiiPhilip_J._B erg In October 2A0 4, Berg fi led Rodri

:

6
v. Bush, accusing the President of the United States and 155 other parties o
1

8
complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

10 This 237-page civil lawsuit included allegations pursuant to the RICO (Racket

11
Influenced and Comrpt Organizations Act) against 'fhe ljnited Stateg Of America
72

the Federal Erlre:rgency Ma-nagernqnt ,AgE)qc,v, the Dp nt of F{

13

1A
Securiry, Gelrp,e Herbert Walker Bush, GBqrgq W-alker Eush, Rlg.hard ChsneJ
15
Donald FL Rumsfeid,and numerous others, totaling 156 defendants in the U.S
16

L1 District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

1B

19 This lawsuit made hundreds of allegations including allegations that the Twi
20
Towers were destroyed by means of "controlled demolitions;" that members of
2I

22 LD]"{Y were ordered, on instructions of the !fu!, not to talk about it; that

23
FDNY conspired with l..affy_SilVerstein to deliberately destroy TWTC; th
24
projectiles were fired at the Twin Towers from "pods" affixed to the underside o
25

26 the planes that struck them; that FEMA is working with the US govemment t
21
create "American Gulag" concentration camps which FEMA will run once

Liberi v Taitz OPPOSITION TO MOTTON FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMtrNDED COMPLAINT

-12
 Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 198 Filed 05/23/11 Page 13 of 21 Page ID
#:5668

1
federal goveffrment's plan to impose martial law is in place; that phone calls

2
by some of the victims, as reported by their family members, were not actuall
3
made but were "faked" by the government using "voice morphing" technology
4

5 that a missile, not American Airlines Flight 77, struck the Pentagon; that Unite
6
Airlines Flight 93 was shot down by the U.S. military; that the defendants
1

B
foreknowledge of the atfacks and actively conspired to bring them about; that th

9
defendants engaged in kidnapping, arson, murder, treason, conspiracy, trafficki
10

11
in narcotics, embezzlement, securities fraud, insider trading, identity and credi
72 card theft, blackmail, trafficking in humans, and the abduction and sale of wome
13
and children for sex. The matter was transferred to the Southern District of N
74

15 York on May 2,2005. On June 26,2006, the court dismissed the claims against
I6
USA, DHS, and FEMA, and gave the plaintiff until July 7, 2006 to show
I1

18
why his lawsuit should not be dismissed with respect to the other 153 defendants

L9 The plaintiff failed to do so, and the court dismissed all of the claims against all o
20
the remaining 153 defendants on July 17, 2006.
21

22
Similarly Berg made absolutely insane malicious accusations against
23

24 defendants in this case, accusing attomey Taitz of trying to hire ahitman to kil
25
Berg's assistant, career forger Lisa Liberi and kidnap children of web maste
26

21 Ostella, he also accused a retired police officer and licensed investigator Nei
2B

Liberi v Taltz OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

_ 13
 Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 198 Filed 05/23/11 Page 14 of 21 Page ID
#:5669

1
Sankey of stalking Liberi and hacking into her computer. Allowing Berg to file

2
whole new complaint, will simply give him an opportunity to bring more frivol
3
claims, depraved heart malicious claims and cause more severe emotional di
4

5 to the Defendants.
6
7. LISA LIBERI IS A FELON WITH 46 CRIMINAL CHARGES AND WA
1

8
COVICTED OF 10 COUNTS OF FORGERY OF DOCUMENTS AND GRAN
9
THEFT. ALLOWING HER TO FILE, ANOTHER COMPLAINT, WI
10
SIGNIFY A GREEN LIGHT FOR A CAREER CRIMINAL TO COMMIT MO
LI

l2 SLANDER AND HARASSMENT

13

L4

15 Liberi is a convicted felon with 46 criminal charges and at least 10 felon

L6
convictions of forgery and theft. She is not believable as a witness. Liberi is also
L1

1B
vexatious plaintiff and while incarcerated here in California, she sued

L9 Bernardino county, District Attomey's office, police officers, detectives

20
millions of dollars. all of those leeal actions were dismissed . Libgri v Sheriff
2I

22 department et al 5:04-cv-01524-vap. After filing a frivolous legal action for 43

23
million against the Sheriffs department, Liberi filed a $280 million legal acti
24

25
against West Valley Correction center, where she was incarcerated and dozens o

)6
other defendants, such as police officers, detectives, District Attomey, doctors
21
nurses at the correctional facility and many others. her action was dismissed in i
2B

Liberi v Taitz OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPI'ATNT

-L4
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 198 Filed 05/23/11 Page 15 of 21 Page ID
#:5670

entirety against all of the defendants, however she caused enormous em

distress to multiple innocent individuals. Lisa Liberi v West Valle)' Center et

2:05-cv-03015-VAP-SGL This goes to show, that if allowed to file a

complaint, there is a high probability, that she will file new baseless frivolou
allegations and Taitz will have to spend significant amount of time and money an

will sutTer more severe emotional distress, while dealing with them.

8. JURISDICTION AT THE TIME THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED, WAS NO

ADJUDICATE,D YET. FOR TWO YEARS THE PLAINTIFFS DID N

PROVIDE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF LIBERI'S RESIDENCE, TH

CASE NEEDS TO BE DISMISSED DUE TO LACK OF DOCUMENTAR

PROOF OF DIVERSITY AT THE, TIME OF FILI}.{G.

Ironically the issue of jurisdiction in Federal court was not adjudicated yet. I

June of 2009 Judge Robreno issued an order for Plaintiffs to show cause, why th

case should not be dismissed due to lack of personal jurisdiction in PA

transferred. The motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction w

dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. At the same time Judge Robreno deni

Plaintiffs motion for injunction against the Defendants. Plaintiffs filed an appeal o

the order denying injunction. After some 9 months the Court of Appeals issued

order to show cause, why the transcript was not filed with the court of Appeal

Defendants believe that the Plaintiffs did not file the transcript of July 8, 2

Liberi v Taitz OPPOSITTON TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FTLE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

- 15
 Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 198 Filed 05/23/11 Page 16 of 21 Page ID
#:5671

I injunction motion hearing, as it would have shown that Liberi never filed h

2
identification documents with the district court, did not provide docu
3
proof of her state citizenship, and therefore this case needs to be dismissed due
4

q
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Anticipating that his appeal will be dismi
6
Berg voluntarily withdrew his appeal. A year ago District court issued an order
1

B
transfer this case to Califomia. At that time defendants demanded the district

9
to rule on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction and not drag the case, when th
10
is no jurisdiction in federal court. As the district court did not adjudicate this
11

72 the defendants filed an appeal seeking adjudication of the issue of subject

13
jurisdiction. Originally the Third Circuit 3 judge panel in a2:1 decision ruled,
L4

15 the Third Circuit has jurisdiction to rule on the appeal. After 9 month the panel

76
changed. Two judges, who originally ruled that the Third Circuit has jurisdiction
I1

1B
were removed from the panel and replaced. The new panel ruled, that the thi

L9 circuit does not have jurisdiction, as the case was transferred and all pendi
20
motions are to be ruled upon by the transferee court. As such, it is up to this
2I

22 to rule with prejudice on the Defendants' motion to dismiss due to lack of subje
23
matter jurisdiction in light of the fact. that the Plaintiffs never provid
24

25 documentary evidence of Liberi's state residency at the time the case was filed.

z6
the Plaintiffs are expecting the court to rule on jurisdiction and antiSLAPP,
2',1

2B

Liberi v TaL:Lz OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OE COURT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLATNT

-16
 Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 198 Filed 05/23/11 Page 17 of 21 Page ID
#:5672

1
motion for leave of court to file an amended complaint has to be stayed and

2
moot.
3

9. PRE,VIOUSLY LIBERI FILED SIMILAR ACTIONS FOR PURPOSE O

4

5 HARASSMENT Notion by the Plaintiffs that they need a leave of court to file
6
amended complaint, because they are not familiar with CA law, is preposterous
1

8
Plaintiffs filed similar actions in California before and specifically used Californi
9
statutes in this case. Liberi filed this case and used the same California privac
10
laws previously, when she filed her frivolous action against the county and distri
l1

L2 attorney. In her prior case against the district attorney's office, she claimed
13
the district attomey's office violated her and her son's privacy and unlawfully
L4

some information from her divorce file as evidence in her criminal prosecution, s

L6
similarly accused district Attomey James Secord of harassing her and violating
L1

1B
privacy. Her campaign of harassment using California privacy laws as a too

19 apparently worked. While the District Attorney had 23 felony charges against
20
in one case and four more felony counts in another case, the District A
2L

22 settled with her pleading to 10 felony counts only and her eight year prison
23
was reduced to three years probation. Emboldened by this victory over the Distri
24

25
Attorney's office, Liberi decided to use the same policy against the Defendants i

26
this case. Reading the pleadings in Liberi's prior case and this case at hand, it i
21

2B
cTear that the Plaintiffs are well versed in California laws and tried to

LibeTi v Taitz OPPOSIT]ON TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF' COURT TO FILtr AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

-71
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 198 Filed 05/23/11 Page 18 of 21 Page ID
#:5673

California privacy laws against the Defendants. It simply didn't work in this

as it worked before. While District attorney's office is an agency, that is entrust

with some records, Taitz and Defend Our Freedoms foundation are not an agency

Liberi was not their customer and the privacy laws as Liberi used as a tool o

harassment before were not applicable in this case and didn't work. At any rate i

shows that Plaintiffs are familiar with CA law and filed their complaint based o

Ca laws and statutes.

10 PLAINTIFFS FIARASSED DEFENDANTS WTTH THOUSANDS O

PAGES OF SLANDER AND DEFAMATION FOR TWO YEARS.

It as ironic, that the Plaintiffs recently filed a motion, asking for an order of leav

of court to file any fuither pleadings, in reality, this was the motion that th

Defendants originally filed in Pennsylvania to stop paper terrorism by

Plaintiffs. The original complaint was some 90 pages, an injunction motion fil

by the Plaintiffs and denied by prior judge, Judge Robreno, contained over

pages of exhibits, that were left in hard copy and found by judge Robreno of

probative value. Plaintiffs brief in the Court of Appeals contained 950 pages o

exhibits. By now the defendants endured two years of having to respond to severa

thousands of pages of pleadings and exhibits, filed by the Plaintiffs.. to allow th

plaintiffs to file a new complaint, represents undue hardship on the defendan

bordering on cruel and unusual punishment.

Liberi v Taitz OPPOSTTION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
 Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 198 Filed 05/23/11 Page 19 of 21 Page ID
#:5674

1
11. DEFENDANTS OPPOSE SUPPLEME,NTAL FILING ON 05.20 .2OII, ONE

2
BUSINESS DAY BEFORE THE OPPOSITION WAS DUE
3

4
On Friday, May 20,2011, only one day before this current opposition was due,

5
Plaintiffs decided to ambush the defendants and grossly prejudice this court with
6
dump of over 800 pages of supplemental material. This was done after this cou

1
specifically denied the Plaintiffs an ambush, they contemplated by asking for ex
B
parte filing. When official ex-parte was denied, the Plaintiffs decided to go ov

9
the head of this court by creating a de-facto ex-parte and dumping 800 pages on th

LO
defendants one working day before the opposition was due. Local Rules 7-1

L1 allows this court to disregard documents, which are not submitted timely. LR 7-1

L2
provides: "The Court may decline to consider any memorandum or other paper

13
filed within the deadline set by order or local rule. The failure to file any requi

L4
paper, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to th
15
granting or denial of the motion." "When unsupportable allegations are made i

L6 regular noticed motions, they can to a great extent be neutralized by a well

I1 prepared rebuttal. In papers prepared on short notice, however, the lawyers t

18
often simply make allegations that have no supporting evidence to back them up

79
Even more pemicious is another tendency: the advocates draw conclusions th

20 appear to be supported by voluminous exhibits, but are not borne out when t

21
evidence is reviewed with more deliberation and more careful rebuttal than i

22
possible in hasty hearings on ex parte motions." Mission Power Engineering Co. v.

23 Continental Gas. Co. 883 F. Supp. 488 (C.D. Cal. 1995)

Current submission of over 800 pages lbusiness day before the opposition is due
24

25 is part and parcel of the same modus operandi of continuous harassment with
26
to inflict severe emotional distress, that the defendants suffered for two years now
21

28
which was masterminded by Lisa Richardson Liberi, a vexatious felon
Liberi v Taitz OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FTLE AN AMENDED COMPI,AINT

- 19
 Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 198 Filed 05/23/11 Page 20 of 21 Page ID
#:5675

1
multiple felony convictions of forgery and thefb, working as a legal assistant for

2
elderly Pennsylvania attorney, who is clearly not properly supervising her. Thi
3

4
comes on the hills of 12.20.2010 hearing in Philadelphia, when the plainti
5 demanded yet another emergency hearing and ambushed the defendants with
6
pages of "evidence", which was never served on the defendants prior to the
1

I and which were filed in hard copy in Philadelphia, unavailable in PACER. Th

9
antics by the Plaintiffs coupled with insane allegations, which were a
10

11
discredited by judge Robreno in his 12.23.2010 ruling, have caused Tai

L2 president of the "Defend our Freedoms foundation" severe emotional distress

13
subsequent hormonal deplession, which will necessitate medical care for the
L4

15 of her life. Lastly, considering Liberi's multiple felony convictions of forgery an

t6
forgery of the official seal, show that none of the "evidence" can be conside
r'7

1B
without proper verifi cation and authentication.

I9

20

2I

22 Respectfully submitted,
23

24

25 /s/ Orly Tai

26
0sl23l20tt
21
Dr. Orly Taitz, ES
2B

Llberi v Taitz OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AI,IENDED COMPLAINT

_24
 Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 198 Filed 05/23/11 Page 21 of 21 Page ID
#:5676
I

3
"",:::;l::::*
4

5 r decrare under or.' ' copy the abovj I

6
'""'ot"]ffi;::,i::-:""-"",
pleadings was seryed on all the parties on05.23.2011 via ECF or e-mail
7
I

9
lslDr. Orly Taitz, ESQ I

10

Foundation"
I
Afforney pro se and for "Defend our Freedoms
11

I
72
I

13

I
I4

15 I

L6
I

L]
I
1B

L9 I

I
20

2L I

22 I

23 I

24
I
25

26
I

21

2.8
I

Libera v raitz oPPosIrIoN ro MorIoN *-_";:t" oF couRr ro FILE AN AMENDED .orr*rr,

I