LIBERI v TAITZ, et al (APPEAL) - Emergency Motion filed by Appellants Evelyn Adams, Philip J. Berg,...

8/14/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ, et al (APPEAL) - Emergency Motion filed by Appellants Evelyn Adams, Philip J. Berg, Go Excel Global, Law Ofc of Philip J. Berg, Lisa Liberi and

1/64

U.S. District Court,

Court of Appeals Case No. 09-3403

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________________________

LISA LIBERI, et al,

Petitioner Appellant,

v.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Respondents Appellee.

__________________________

APPELLANTS EMERGENCY MOTION TO EXPEDITE THIS COURTS RULINGS IN

THE ABOVE REFERENCED APPEAL

_____________________

Counsel: PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE

LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531(610) 825-3134

Identification No. 09867

Attorney for the Appellants

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case Number: 09-cv-01898-ECR

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


2/64

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

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

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

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

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

and docketed on August 14, 2009 of Judge Robrenos Order of August 7, 2009,

denying Plaintiffs (Appellants herein) Motion for an Emergency Temporary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 27, 2009.

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

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

that goes by without any assistance by our Courts, the more comfortable the



3/64

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

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

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

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

Appellants Motion to expedite this Interlocutory Appeal and expedite a

ruling on Appellants pending Motion for an Emergency Temporary Restraining

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Robrenos Order of December 11,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



4/64

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

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

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

responded and/or opposed Appellants Emergency Motion for a Temporary

Restraining Order or Injunction pending Appeal and therefore, Appellants Motion

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

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

uncontested).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hiding of Assets.

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

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

Appellees Neil Sankey; Sankey Investigations, Inc.; and the Sankey Firm, Inc a/k/a



5/64

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

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

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

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

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

Appellees can also be collected against their spouses assets.

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

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

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

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

Appellants Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or

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

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

with the issuance of an Emergency Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order

pending the outcome of Appellants Appeal.

Since the filing of Appellants Appeal herein and Appellants Emergency

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

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

believe the Appellees are attempting to transfer, hide, liquidate and move off-shore



6/64

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

in favor of the Appellants.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

theBarnettCase, to re-file her documents with all Social Security numbers, date of

births and other personal information redacted as he, Judge Carter, was

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

private confidential information being made public. This September 2009 Court

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

for Judicial Notice.

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

the Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a the Sankey Firm and Taitz have published further



7/64

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

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

records; addresses; parents maiden names, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

the Taitzs assets. A copy of this Affidavit was filed with this Court with a

Request for Judicial Notice.

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

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

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

California, Southern Division as Appellees assets are located within that Courts

jurisdiction and Appellants fear of the Appellees liquidating and hiding their

assets.

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

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

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

and Berg and placed it on the World Wide Web at Scribd prior to its filing in the



8/64

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

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

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

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

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

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

republishing of Taitzs Dossier #6, which again contains the full social security

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

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

on or about December 8, 2009.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A.



9/64

The Appellees and their followers have continued their stocking behaviors

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

distribution of slanderous, libelous, and tortuous statements pertaining to

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

Liberis and the other Appellants private confidential information, including but

not limited to full social security numbers, mothers maiden name, date of birth,

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

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

spreading of completely private and confidential information of Appellant Liberi in

unrelated cases.

Without a prompt disposition of the pending Interlocutory Appeal and

Appellants Emergency Motion for a Temporary Injunction and/or Restraining

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

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

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

of births, mothers maiden name, place of birth and/or any other extremely

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

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

Appellees.



10/64

Appellants will continue to suffer irreparable injury that the Court cannot

fully compensate if Appellants Emergency Motion for Expedited Rulings on their

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appellants respectfully request this Honorable Court to Expedite Appellants

Appeal and Expedite Appellants Emergency Motion for an Emergency Temporary

Restraining Order and/or Injunction as a result of the lower Courts December 11,

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

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

a case must file a motion within fourteen (14) dayssetting forth the exceptional

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

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

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

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

of the United States shallexpedite consideration of any actionfor temporary or

preliminary relief).



11/64

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

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

EXHIBIT C.

WHEREFORE, Appellants respectfully request this Honorable Court to

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

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

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

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

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

the outcome of this Appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: December 27, 2009 ___________________________

Philip J. Berg, Esquire555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531(610) 825-3134

Attorney for the Appellants

s/ Philip J. Berg



12/64

EXHIBIT A



13/64

There are two matters pending before the Court. First,1

the parties responses to this Courts Rule to Show Cause (doc.

no. 80), ordering that Plaintiffs show cause as to why their

complaint should not be dismissed on the following three grounds:

(1) why this case should not be dismissed for lack of personal

jurisdiction, (2) why this case should not be severed into three

or fewer cases against the following groups or Defendants: (i)

Edgar & Caren Hale, Plains Radio Network, Bar H. Farms and KPRN

AM 1610; (ii) Linda S. Belcher; (iii) Orly Taitz, Defend Our

Freedoms Foundations, Inc., Neil Sankey, Sankey Investigations,

Inc. and The Sankey Firm, and (3) why this case should not be

transferred to an appropriate district in either Texas or

California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). Second, Plaintiffsletter to the Court, dated November 29, 2009, requesting leave to

file a motion to transfer to the Central District of California.

Given that Plaintiffs have taken an appeal to the

Courts denial of their motion for an injunction or restraining

order, dated August 10, 2009 (doc. no. 83), and that none of the

matters pending are intended to preserve the status quo, the

Court will await adjudication of the appeal before proceeding to

rule on these matters.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LISA LIBERI et al., : CIVIL ACTION

: NO. 09-1898

Plaintiffs, ::

v. :

:

ORLY TAITZ et al., :

:

Defendants. :

O R D E R

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

ORDERED that this case shall be placed in suspense until further

order of the Court.1

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Eduardo C. Robreno

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 115 Filed 12/11/2009 Page 1 of 1Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 13 Date Filed: 12/27/2009


14/64

EXHIBIT B



15/64

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

LAW OFFICES OF

PHILIP J. BERG

555 AndorraGlen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531PHILIP J. BERGCATHERINE R. BARONEBARBARA MAY

(610) 825-3134

FAX (610) 834-7659

NORMAN B. BERG, Paralegal [Deceased] E-Mail:[email protected]

November 29, 2009

Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno

United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

11614 U.S. Courthouse601 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19106-1797

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

Re: Liberi, et al. v. Orly Taitz, et al, Case No. 09-cv-01898 ECR

Leave to file Plaintiffs Emergency Motion to Transfer Venue of the within Case to theUnited States District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division________

Dear Judge Robreno:

Pursuant to this Courts Order of June 25, 2009 Plaintiffs are seeking Leave of this Court to

file the attached Emergency Motion to Transfer Venue of the within action to the United States DistrictCourt, Central District of California, Southern Division located in South Orange County at 411 West

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

Plaintiffs bring to this Courts attention that all Defendants have prior hereto requested thisCourt to transfer this case to California or Texas, although Plaintiffs are unaware of the Defendants

position to Plaintiffs request herein.

Thank you.

Respectfully,

Philip J. Berg

PJB:jb

Enclosures



16/64

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

Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno November 29, 2009

United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Page Two of Two

cc: Orly Taitz, et al and

Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc.

26302 La Paz Ste 211

Mission Viejo, CA 92691Ph: (949) 683-5411

Fax: (949) 586-2082By Email: [email protected] in pro se

Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. is unrepresented

Neil Sankey

The Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey FirmSankey Investigations, Inc.

2470 Stearns Street #162Simi Valley, CA 93063

Phone: (805) 520-3151and (818) 366-0919

Cell Phone: (818) 212-7615FAX: (805) 520-5804 and (818) 366-1491

Email: [email protected]

Linda Sue Belcher

201 Paris

Castroville, Texas 78009Home Phone: (830) 538-6395Cell Phone: (830) 931-1781

Email: [email protected] andEmail: [email protected]

Ed Hale

Caren HalePlains Radio

KPRN

Bar H Farms

1401 Bowie StreetWellington, Texas 79095

Phone: (806) 447-0010 and (806) 447-0270

Email: [email protected] andEmail: [email protected] and [email protected]



17/64

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


LISA LIBERI, et al, Plaintiffs,

vs.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,Defendants.

::::::::::

Assigned to Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno

Case No.: 09-cv-01898-ECR

ORDER

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

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

it is hereby

ORDERED and DECREED that Plaintiffs Emergency Motion to Transfer

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

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

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

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

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Date: November _____, 2009 ______________________________

Eduardo C. Robreno, Judge

U.S. District Court for the EasternDistrict of Pennsylvania



18/64


Law Offices of:PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Attorney for: PlaintiffsIdentification No. 09867(610) 825-3134



LISA LIBERI, et al,Plaintiffs,

vs.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Defendants.

::::

::::::



PLAINTIFFS EMERGENCY MOTION REQUESTING TRANSFER OF VENUE

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) FROM THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT,

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT,

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



19/64


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

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

Although this is a Diversity Case and venue is proper in bothlocations, the vast majority of the Defendants are located in Southern

California;

Defendants Orly Taitz, Esquire a/k/a Orly Taitz a/k/a Dr. Orly Taitza/k/a Law Offices of Orly Taitz a/k/a Orly Taitz, Inc [hereinafter

Taitz], Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. [hereinafter

DOFF], Neil Sankey [hereinafter Sankey], Sankey Investigations,Inc. and the Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm own and

operate their businesses and own property within the United States

District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division;

The Statute relied on by the Plaintiffs and the Statute the Plaintiffsare asking to be utilized and upheld is a California Statute, California

Civil Code 1798, et sequitur;

There is a concern that Defendant Taitz and DOFF are attempting toliquidate their assets and sign away their rights to the assets owned

and operated by Taitz, DOFF and Taitzs husband, Yosef Taitz.

California is a Community Property State, any judgment obtainedagainst Taitz is also collectable from any assets owned by herhusband, Yosef Taitz;

Transfer of venue is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) as aresult of California being able to enforce the Judgment, practical

considerations that would expedite and simplify the trial; Californiaslocal interest in deciding the local controversies at home, in particular

upholding Californias Civil Code 1798, et sequitur; and this is a

Diversity Case and the United States District Court, Central Districtof California, Southern Division is very familiar with this State Law.

All Defendants have asked this Court to transfer the within Case toCalifornia and the Case must be tried together as there was a commonscheme in the actions of the Defendants which have severely harmed

and damaged the Plaintiffs.



20/64


WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully prays that this Honorable Court Grant

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

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

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

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: November 29, 2009 _____________________________

Philip J. Berg, EsquireAttorney for the Plaintiffs


Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Identification No. 09867(610) 825-3134



21/64


Law Offices of:PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Attorney for: PlaintiffsIdentification No. 09867(610) 825-3134



LISA LIBERI, et al,Plaintiffs,

vs.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Defendants.

::::::::::



PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF

THEIR EMERGENCY MOTION REQUESTING TRANSFER OF VENUE

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) FROM THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT,EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT,

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Defendant Taitz through DOFF and Defendant Sankey through Sankey

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

Adams by publicizing Liberis full Social Security number, date of birth, mothers

maiden name, place of birth and other personal information of Liberis, including

information about Liberis medical conditions, child, husband, etc. and has targeted all

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



22/64


publicized Ostellas name, address, maiden name, where her family resides, parents

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

husbands information, etc. Taitz filed false law enforcement reports with the Federal

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

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

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

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

accused Liberis husband of diverting funds from Berg; falsely accused Liberi of being

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

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

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

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

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

associates, etc.

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

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

lies about Plaintiffs and Sankey continued his distribution of Liberis private

confidential information as well as Adams and Ostellas. In fact, Sankey and Hale

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

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

accessed Liberis credit report or applied for and taken out credit in Liberis name.

Sankey, Taitz and Hale then altered and forged Ostellas emails and published them on

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



23/64


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and further published Liberis private confidential information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



24/64

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

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

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

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

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

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

judgment obtained against the Defendants is also collectible against the Defendants

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

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

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

Transfer Act, Cal Civ Code 3439, et sequitur.

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

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

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

sequitur, Plaintiff Liberis award pursuant to statute alone against Taitz and DOFF is in

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

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

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

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

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

Taitz, DOFF and Taitzs portion of her spouses Assets.

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

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

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

8



25/64


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

are criminal in nature and therefore, Liberi was instructed to report Sankeys illegal

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

and demand prosecution.

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

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

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

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

telephone number (714) 338-4750.

For the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request this

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

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

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


II. TRANSFER OF VENUE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN

DIVISION IS PROPER IN THIS CASE:

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

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

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

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

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

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



26/64


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

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

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

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

brought." 28 U.S.C. 1391(a).

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

to venue and transfer of cases within the Federal Court systems.28 U.S.C. 1404(a) onlyprovides for the transfer of a case where both the original and the requested venue are

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



27/64


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2006).

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

California; Southern Division to enforce any judgments obtained, as the bulk of the

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

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

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

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

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

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



28/64







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

SINGLE LAWSUIT AS THE DEFENDANTS HAVE ALL SHARED

A COMMON SCHEME AND THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE

LAWSUIT SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE U.S. DISTRICT

COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERNDIVISION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1404(a):

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

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

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

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

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

Defendants, United States v. Private Sanitation Indus. Assn of Nassau/Suffolk, Inc. , 793

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



29/64


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

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

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

generally are regarded as comprising a transaction or occurrence).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cola Metro. Bottling Co., 86 F.R.D. 4, at *6 (E.D. Pa. 1979).Here, the Defendants all joined forces with Taitz to destroy Berg and destroy his

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

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

lawsuits and caused the Plaintiffs to suffer injuries.

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

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



30/64


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plaintiffs witnesses.

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

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

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

witnesses and jurors as well as waste judicial resources.



31/64


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

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

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

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

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






IV. CONCLUSION:

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

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

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

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

4750.

. Respectfully submitted,

Dated: November 29, 2009 _____________________________

Philip J. Berg, EsquireAttorney for the Plaintiffs


Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Identification No. 09867(610) 825-3134



32/64


EXHIBIT A



33/64

Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2009 Page 19 of 37Case: 09-3403 Document: 00319959621 Page: 33 Date Filed: 12/27/2009


34/64



35/64



36/64



37/64



38/64

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

EXHIBIT B

17



39/64

Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2009 Page 6 of 30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA---PALM BEACH

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

AFFIDAVIT AND DECLARATION OF CHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN, II I1. My name is Charles Edward Lincoln, III. I am over the age of 18, of sound mind,and have never been convicted of any crime of moral turpitude within the meaning ofBeltran-Tirado v. INS, 213 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2000) and Quintero-Salazar v.Keisler, 506 F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 2007); I write this affidavit from personal knowledge.2. I have a J.D. from the University of Chicago in addition to a Ph.D. from HarvardUniversity and am a former judicial law clerk to the Honorable Kenneth L. Ryskamp inthis United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, having applied formy clerkship in March 1991 and completed my term in September 1993.3. I was later disbarred due to a December 1999 indictment, which I can only callpolitically motivated and unjust, although I take full responsibility for my own errors. Ialso apologize to this United States District Court, and in particular to the HonorableKenneth L. Ryskamp, for the dishonor my misfortunes may have brought to this court, inthe past and at the present time, by my failures and indiscretions, especially in light of thehonor which Judge Ryskamp bestowed upon me by hiring me as his law clerk.4. Dr. OrIy Taitz was aware of all details ofmy background, and in May 2009, hiredme to work with her as a consultant and law clerk on a series of cases relating to theAffidavitofCharles EdwardLincoln, III, in Response to Order to Show Cause, 1Document 21, DatedNovember 13,2009, regarding promised legal representationin this Case by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire



40/64


Article II Constitutional eligibility of the current President of the United States, BarackH. Obama. I continued to work with her through November 4,2009.5. I prepared all the documents, which Dr. Taitz signed in this case, as I have beenpreparing almost all (approximately 95-98%) the documents she has signed in all of herrecent cases pending in Federal court in any and every state where she has appeared. Inever caused any papers to be filed, in this or any other case, which she had not approvedand signed or authorized to be electronically signed or submitted.6. I was responsible for delivering all papers in this case to Robert H. Rivernider forfiling. I certainly never gave him any documents, which I knew or suspected to befraudulent in any way, shape or form.7. I never knowingly submitted any false documents to this Court nor did I submitany documents I had any imaginable reason to believe were false. I submitted everydocument signed by Orly Taitz or any other person only in the belief that these werelegitimate documents.8. Our agreement was a mixture of pay plus exchange of services. Since I am nolonger a licensed attorney I have been involved in real estate management and mortgagefinance. Dr. Orly Taitz agreed to represent me as legal counsel9. What has happened here is that, much to our mutual discomfort I am sure, OrlyTaitz and I had an intense but adulterous love affair, which continued until November 4,2009. I can say nothing in our defense except that I fell in love with Dr. Taitz and sherepeated on dozens of occasions that she loved me, but could not leave her husbandbecause she did not want to lose "her children and her life."10. I am not proud of these facts, but put together they constitute the simple ifunremarkably tawdry background against which Dr. Taitz' behavior and accusationsagainst me/all the Plaintiffs in this case must be judged and evaluated.

Affidavit ofCharles Edward Lincoln, III, in Response to Order to Show Cause, 2Document 21, DatedNovember 13,2009, regardingpromised legal representationin this Case by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire



41/64


11. Dr. Taitz terminated our relationship in the aftermath of the October 12, 2009,disclosures made by one Lucas Daniel Smith on the internet which in rather grotesquelyvulgar and sensationalistic manner revealed my love affair with Dr. Taitz to the world,and not coincidentally, to arly's husband Yosef Taitz, whom arly has consistentlydescribed to me as viciously controlling, verbally, and emotionally abusive, he is the kindof husband who will not allow his wife to speak freely at the dinner table or in front ofher children or guests, and who becomes violently angry if his wife is not at home bysunset on the Sabbath for family/home prayer.12. I provided copies of my affidavit to both Dr. Taitz and her attorney Dr. JonathanH. Levy ofHilton Head, South Carolina and Washington.13. Dr. Levy warned me that I could expect "strong and vengeful" action from Dr.Taitz' when I spoke to him last on Thursday, November 12, 2009, although he did notcondone such acts, and specifically qualified that he had absolutely nothing to do withDr. Taitz' prior letter to this Court Noted "Received" at Docket Entry 1 in this case.14. I have no other explanation for what Dr. Taitz is doing in this case, but I will givethe following opinions:15. Dr. Taitz' letters to the court and her Sunday November 15, 2009, communicationto me bye-mail (a true and correct copy ofwhich is attached as Exhibit A), are the acts ofan extremely unhappy woman who got caught having an adulterous love affair by herhusband and the entire world at the moment ofmaximum political and public exposure inher entire life.16. Dr. Kathy Garcia-Lawson's separate affidavit submitted alongside this oneaddresses the concerns raised in Dr. Taitz' E-mail.17. Neither my affair with Dr. arly Taitz nor anything else which I have doneconstitutes a fraud on this court, nor any other court, nor any reason for the Court todismiss my Complaint jointly filed with Robert H. and MarshaG. Rivernider.Affidavit ofCharles Edward Lincoln, III, in Response to Order to Show Cause, 3Document 21, DatedNovember 13,2009, regarding promised legal representationin this Case byDr. Orly Taitz, Esquire



42/64


18. It is terribly embarrassing and a professional disgrace when personal lives intrudethemselves upon Court Judicial Proceedings.19. If this Court feels that the events have in any way colored this Court's perceptionof the parties or ability to judge the facts of the case between the Plaintiffs and theDefendants impartially, or if the Court feels that it will be prejudiced against thePlaintiffs because ofmy and Dr. Taitz' love affair, which had NOTHING whatsoever todo with the validity of a mortgage or assignments between US BANK, Robert H. andMarsha G. Rivernider, and Charles Lincoln, this Court should consider recusal ratherthan dismissing the case.20. As undignified, unprofessional, and unseemly as this Plaintiffs exchange withDr. Taitz may seem, it is merely reflective (at the absolute worst) of this Plaintiffs andDr. Taitz' emotional immaturity in the handling of their personal lives, and do not reflecton ANY of the other matters raised in Plaintiffs' Response to the Court's Second Orderto Show Cause and the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in any way, shape or form.

Further affiant sayeth naught.Signed, declared under penalty ofperj , and executed in Palm Beach Gardens,

Florida, on this Monday the 16 th day ofNo ember,

B y : ~ o - - - - : : , . J F - - - " " - - = ~ , . q q . . . ~ , - + - : ' - 4 - ~ ~ ~ - - - " o C = - - -arIes Ed ara co n, IIIc/o Peyton Yates Freiman603 Elmwood Place, Suite #6Austin, Texas 78705Telephone: 512-968-2500E-mail: [email protected] Address:c/o Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson2620 Nature's WayPalm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410Telephone: 512-968-2500/512-923-1889Facsimile: 561-691-1423

Affidavit ofCharles Edward Lincoln, III, in Response to Order to Show Cause, 4Document 21, Dated November 13,2009, regarding promised legal representationin this Case byDr. Orly Taitz, Esquire



43/64


NOTARY'S JURATCharles Edward Lincoln, III, appeared in person before me on this Monday the

16 th day ofNovember, 2009, in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and having been by meduly sworn upon his oath he did verify the truth of all the statements of fact set forthabove, and did declare and acknowledge the statements of opinion made above and thesincerity of their submission to the Court.

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

ALEJANDROVERANotary Public, State 01FloridaCommisslon#00812909My comm. expires Aug. 7, 2012

Printed Name o f N o t a r y : _ - - - ' - / ) - ' - ' ~ ' _ _ = B J , " _ _ _ _ ' _ 4 ~ A J _ j _ ao_ __={)._(_-f)p_'__ _

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

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

Affidavit ofCharles EdwardLincoln, III, in Response to Order to Show Cause, 5Document 21, DatedNovember 13,2009, regardingpromised legal representationin this Case by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire



44/64


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

Affidavit ofCharles EdwardLincoln, III, in Response to Order to Show Cause, 6Document 21, DatedNovember 13,2009, regardingpromised legal representationin this Case by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire



45/64

Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2009 Page 12 of 30rucken

Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ ([email protected])Charles LincolnSonntag, den 15. November 2009,9:45:01 UhrCharles, you need to see a doctor and your case needs to be stayed pending tr-nt

Page 1

received your two phone messages. In the first message your speech was extremely blurry, unclear, second messagunded like you were a different person.I believe that you need urgent evaluation and treatment by a psychiatrist. All ofyour behavior as of late, all of the eils to me, my husband and my attorney suggest the same. You are hurting me, my husband, my children, your wiur son, Rverniders and yourselfI am sending a declaration to judge Dimitrious in FL, letting him know, that I believe you are in need of urgentychiatric evaluation and possibly treatment, and I believe that case needs to be stayed pending your evaluation anr. Orly Taitz ESQ839 Santa Margarita Pkwy ste 100ho SantaMargaritaCa 92688949-683-5411x 949-766-7603

g41.mai1.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.gx=1&.rand=17q8i4v26j71i 11/15/2



46/64


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

Marsha G. Rivernider, RobertH. Rivernider, Charles Edward Lincoln, I I I v.U.S. Bank, NA., Combined Response to SecondOrder to Show Cause Filed 11-02-09 andMotion to6Dismissedfiled 9-24-09, with reservation ofPlaintiffs' Rights to File Motion to Convert 12(b)(6) toRule 56MSJ



47/64


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERNDISTRICT OF FLORIDA---PALM BEACH

v.

MARSHA G. RIVERNIDER,ROBERT H. RIVERNIDER,CHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN, III,Plaintiffs,

U.S. BANKNATIONAL ASSOCIATION,AS TRUSTEE FOR THE C-BASSMORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-BACKEDCERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-CBS,And all JOHN & JANE DOES 1-50Defendants.

Case No. 09-91255-CIVHON. W.P. DIMITROULEAS

Affidavit of PsychologistRegarding Charles E. Lincoln

AFFIDAVIT OF DR. KATHY GARCIA-LAWSON1. My name is Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson. I am over the age of 18 andotherwise competent to make this affidavit.2. I received a Ph.D. from Nova Southeastern University in Clinical Psychologywhere I also completed a one year postdoctoral specialty in psychoanalytic psychologyand technique followed by a two year postdoctoral residency at 45 th Street Mental HealthCenter in West Palm Beach, Florida (now called "Oakwood").3. A true and correct (i f slightly out of date) copy ofmy vita is attached asExhibit B to this Affidavit.4. Since 1995 I have engaged in the private practice of clinical psychology withmy current office location at 2401 PGA Boulevard, Suite 128, Palm Beach Gardens,Florida 33410.5. I have known Charles Edward Lincoln, III, since Saturday, May 11,2008,when he called me to discuss my concerns regarding rampant abuses in the Family LawCourts and in Family Law/Divorce/Child Custody systems generally.6. I consider him to be a good-hearted, honorable, and trustworthy man, as wellas a competent and well-read student of the law and constitutional history and theory.Affidavit ofDr. KathyAnn Garcia-Lawson, Ph.D. in Support o fCharles Lincoln's 1Response to Order to Show Cause, Document 21, Dated November 13,2009,regarding promised legal representation in this Case by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire



48/64


7. I am perfectly aware of his background and status as a disbarred attorney, butin some ways, I think his background makes him more useful and trustworthy than manylicensed attorneys who cannot criticize the system because they depend upon it and arepart of it.8. One ofmy past attorneys, Montgomery Blair Sibley, was suspended in boththe District ofColumbia and Florida, as well as threatened with disbarment, because ofhis criticism of the judiciary and the unconstitutional operation of the Family Courtswhich routinely deny due process of law in an arbitrary and capricious manner, to thegreat injury of spouses and children all over the United States.9. In January-May of2009, I became interested in the work ofDr. Orly Taitzagainst the constitutional eligibility ofPresident Barack H. Obama. I made contact withDr. Taitz who indicated that she lacked competent assistance in her litigation, whose endgoal of removing the President I supported on moral, philosophical, and politicalgrounds, and I suggested to her that she contact Charles Lincoln and see whether theycould work together, which they quickly began to do.10. Sometime in early-mid July 2009, Charles Lincoln confided to me in a late-night telephone call that he was involved in a very intense love affair with Orly Taitz aswell as working for her constantly to the exclusion of everything else in his life. Charlessaid that he had been very lonesome since he separated from his wife Elena in late July2002, and that Orly had made him "feel alive" and he believed that they could worktogether and accomplish things he could never do on his own.11. Although he was calling me and updating me as a friend, that night CharlesLincoln at that time said that he was very disturbed by the events, which had transpiredwith Orly, a married woman, and requested that I advise him as a psychologist. I spoketo Charles about Orly about 3-4 times a week after that, sometimes more.

Affidavit ofDr. KathyAnn Garcia-Lawson, Ph.D. in Support ofCharles Lincoln's 2Response to Order to Show Cause, Document 21, DatedNovember 13, 2009,regarding promised legal representation in this Case byDr. Orly Taitz, Esquire



49/64


12. Charles has also come to visit me in Palm Beach Gardens on three separateoccasions since this started, and Orly is always on his mind, as are his concerns with theirrelationship.13. I should make it clear that Charles was never a formal patient ofmine, neverpaid me for services, and I consider our relationship still to be that of friends rather thandoctor-patient. I counseled him professionally as ifhe were a patient ofmine, but moreinformally than formally, as I would do to any friend in need.14. I did my best to advise Charles to terminate his relationship with Orly, afterall I am an advocate for Christian marriage and monogamy.15. I had the opportunity to travel to Orange County, California, on the weekendof October 2-6 in Orange County, California, and did spend some time meeting with Orlyand Charles as they worked together on the Obama litigation.16. Charles had asked for my professional observations concerning theauthenticity ofOrly' s feelings towards him.17. I, like others close to Charles, were gravely concerned about the sincerity ofOrly's involvement with Charles or whether she was taking advantage of a lonely man inexchange, quid pro quo, of his drafting of her pleadings.18. I have no personal knowledge of any of the papers passing between Charlesand Orly in this case or any other case, but I cannot imagine any reason why Charleswould have needed to falsify documents from Orly because they worked together, veryintensely, for five months and I know he wrote more documents which she signed thanshe ever wrote on her own, by a very dramatic factor.19. Charles copied me on almost everything he wrote for Orly, including his legalresearch for her, and his output was nothing less than prodigious. I was concerned for hiswell-being and his general health because Orly's demands on him sometimes seemedexcessive.Affidavit ofDr. KathyAnn Garcia-Lawson, Ph.D. in Support ofCharles Lincoln's 3Response to Order to Show Cause, Document 21, Dated November 13,2009,regarding promised legal representation in this Case by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire



50/64


20. I have read arly's SundayNovmeber 15,2009, e-mail attached as Exhibit Ato this affidavit and in my professional opinion, this tum of events seems to be rooted invindictiveness and hostility, and I find it suspect thatfher conduct and actions have soradically changed in the immediate aftermath of the October 29,2009, dismissal of theObama case before Judge Carter's case.21. I have wondered whether arly's involvment with Charles was strictly a resultof her interest in using him on the Obama case, and I think that arly may have been"leading Charles" on and that she never really intended to follow through on hercommitments to the mortgage litigation.22. In my time of knowing Charles I have found him always to be forthright andhonest in a genuine and caring individual.23. I would be happy to testify on his behalfor elaborate upon this affidavit inresponse to any questions which the Court might have in the future.24. I find it quite unfortunate that this inappropriate and personal relationship hasfound its way to contaminate a significant case such as the present one, but I agree thatCharles had the need to be forthcoming and truthful regarding all the circumstancesbearing on his defense againstarly's charges.25. It is my professional opinion that Charles Edward Lincoln suffers from nopsychological disorders, excluding possible occasional mild depression brought on byloneliness, and I see no cause to recommend him for psychiatric evaluation of any kind.26. I have also met Bob Rivemider and nothing in my observation of eitherLincoln or Rivemider suggests to me that they were likely to have been attempting tofalsify Orly's involvement in this case in any way. I am aware that Orly did appear orattempt to appear in several other cases for Charles E. Lincoln involving mortgages andreal-estate around the United States.

Further affiant sayeth naught.Affidavit ofDr. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, Ph.D. in Support ofCharles Lincoln's 4Response to Order to Show Cause, Document 21, Dated November 13,2009,regarding promised legal representation in this Case by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire



51/64


Signed, declared under penalty of perjury, and executed in Palm Beach Gardens,Florida, on this Monday the 16th day ofNovember, 2009.

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

Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson appeared in person beforeme on this Monday the 16thday ofNovember, 2009, in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and having been by me dulysworn upon her oath she did verify the truth of all the statements of fact set forth above,and did declare and acknowledge the statements of her professional opinion made aboveand the sincerity of their submission to the Court.I am an officer authorized to administer oaths and take testimony under the laws

of the State of Florida, my principle place of business being in Palm Beach /ounty,Florida.

ALEJANDRO VERANotary Public, State of FloridaCommission,00812909My oomm. ellplres Aug. 7, 2012

Printed Name ofNotary: I/If3,Y19/J JOd tZJ2A

Business Address:d 5 0 S fG-4. Wi) 'Pes:;. Pc- 33//0

My Commission Expires:_--,-.t1.....;O


52/64


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

Affidavito fDr. KathyAnn Garcia-Lawson, Ph.D. in Support ofCharles Lincoln's 6Response to Order to Show Cause, Document 21, DatedNovember 13,2009,regarding promised legal representation in this Case by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire



53/64

Case 9:09-cv-81255-WPD Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2009 Page 20 of 30rucken

Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ ([email protected])Charles LincolnSonntag, den 15. November 2009,9:45:01 UhrCharles, you need to see a doctor and your case needs to be stayed pending tr-nt

Page 1

received your two phone messages. In the first message your speech was extremely blurry, unclear, second messagunded like you were a different person.believe that you need urgent evaluation and treatment by a psychiatrist. All of your behavior as of late, all of the eils to me, my husband and my attorney suggest the same. You are hurting me, my husband, my children, your wir son, Rverniders and yourselfam sending a declaration to judge Dimitrious in FL, letting him know, that I believe you are in need ofurgentychiatric evaluation and possibly treatment, and I believe that case needs to be stayed pending your evaluation andr. Orly Taitz ESQ839 Santa Margarita Pkwy ste 100cho Santa Margarita Ca 92688949-683-5411949-766-7603

11/15/2



54/64


Exhibit B:Professional VitaKathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, Ph.D.,In Psychology with specialtyIn Psychoanalytic Technique

Affidavit ofDr. KathyAnn Garcia-Lawson, Ph.D. in Support ofCharles Lincoln's 7Response to Order to Show Cause, Document 21, Dated November 13,2009,regarding promised legal representation in this Case by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire



55/64


VITAKathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, Ph.D.

A. Personal DataAddress:Telephone:DOB:

2620 Natures Way, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410561.624.8725February 4, 1958B. Educational Background

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Montclair State College, Upper Montclair,NJ 07043Major: PsychologyMinor: Counseling, Human Services and GuidanceNova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33314Major: Counseling PsychologyMajor: School Guidance and CounselingNova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33314Ph.D. - Clinical PsychologyAdvanced Training: Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy ProgramNova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33314Family and County Court Mediation TrainingBroward County Bar Association, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33314

B.A. 1982

M.S. 1990M.S. 1990

Ph.D. 1995199610-12-04

C. Professional MembershipAmerican Psychological Association

D. Current PositionPrivate Practice in Clinical Psychology2401 PGA Boulevard, Ste.128, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

E. Clinical Experience

1992-Present

1995- Present

1.

2.

Essex Rehabilitation Center, Verona, NJ GroupTherapy with dually diagnosed patients.Glenbeigh Hospital of the Palm Beaches, West Palm Beach, FLGroup psychotherapy with adolescents with eating disorders andsubstance abuse problems.

1

1981-19821988-1989



56/64


Clinical Experience (continued).3.

4.

5.

Humana Hospital West Palm Beach, FLGroup psychotherapy with adolescents in a long-term residentialpsychiatric program. Group and individual psychotherapy withgeriatric patients in short-term facility. Provided crisis intervention toadults.

Nova University Comm. Mental Health Clinic, Coral Springs, FLDual Diagnosis Program: Provided individual short-term and longterm psychotherapy. Intake interviewing, treatment planning,testing, and evaluation of patients.

45 th Street Mental Health Center, West Palm Beach, FLProvided individual and group psychotherapy to adolescents andadults in both out-patient and in-patient facilities. Treatmentplanning, testing, and evaluation was conducted. Providedindividual and family therapy to school-age children throughcontract with Palm Beach Board ofEducation.

1989-1990

1992-1993

1993-1996

F. Teaching Experience1.2.3.4.

Palm Beach School Board, West Palm Beach, FL (ESE)Embry Riddle Aeronautical University (Psychology Classes)Palm Beach Community College (Psychology Classes) BarryUniversity (Psychology Classes)

1988-199019921990-19941994G. Administration

1. Developed the psycho-educational program at Glenb

LIBERI v TAITZ, et al (APPEAL) - Emergency Motion filed by Appellants Evelyn Adams, Philip J. Berg,...

Documents

Transcript of LIBERI v TAITZ, et al (APPEAL) - Emergency Motion filed by Appellants Evelyn Adams, Philip J. Berg,...