56_2009!06!11_opposition Re #25 Hale Motion to Dismiss

8/14/2019 56_2009!06!11_opposition Re #25 Hale Motion to Dismiss

1/41

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to the Hales, et al Motion to Dismiss1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LISA LIBERI, et al,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Defendants.

:

:::::::::

Case No.: 09-cv-01898-ECR

ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the United States District Court Judge, Honorable Eduardo

C. Robreno on Defendants Edgar Hale; Caren Hale; Plains Radio a/k/a Plains Radio, Inc; Bar H

Farms; and KPRN AM 1610 Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative the Action be transferred to

the Western District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406(a). Having reviewed the Motion and

Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to said Motion and for good cause shown, it is hereby

ORDERED that Defendants Edgar Hale; Caren Hale; Plains Radio a/k/a Plains Radio,

Inc; Bar H Farms; and KPRN AM 1610 Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative the Action be

transferred to the Western District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406(a) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: June _____, 2009 _____________________________Hon. Eduardo C. RobrenoUnited States District Court Judge

For the Eastern District of PA


2/41


Law Offices of:Philip J. Berg, Esquire555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Identification No. 09867(610) 825-3134 Attorney for Plaintiffs



LISA LIBERI, et al,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Defendants.

:::::

:::::


PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS,

EDGAR HALE; CAREN HALE; PLAINS RADIO a/k/a PLAINS RADIO, INC.;

BAR H FARMS; and KPRN AM 1610 MOTION TO DISMISS or IN THE

ALTERNATIVE TRANSFER THE ACTION TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF

TEXAS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1406(a)

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,

Philip J. Berg, Esquire files the within Response in Opposition to Defendants, Edgar Hale;

Caren Hale [hereinafter the Hales]; Plains Radio a/k/a Plains Radio, Inc [hereinafter Plains

Radio]; Bar H Farms; and KPRN AM 1610 [hereinafter KPRN] Motion to Dismiss or in the

alternative to transfer the within action to the Western District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1406(a) on the following grounds:


3/41


The Hales; Plains Radio; Bar H Farms; and KPRN Motion is an improper Motion.

The Hales; Plains Radio; Bar H Farms; and KPRN fail to support their Motion to Dismiss

or in the alternative to transfer the case to the Western District of Texas with any type of

Statute or supporting Law. Orly Taitz, Esq. by her own admission prepared The Hales;

Plains Radio; Bar H Farms; and KPRN Answer and Motion to Dismiss. Despite this,

Plaintiffs will assume The Hales; Plains Radio; Bar H Farms; and KPRN are filing said

Motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12;

This Court has subject matter Jurisdiction pursuant to Diversity Jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, and Federal Question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 as

outlined in Plaintiffs Complaint;

The Hales; Plains Radio; Bar H Farms; and KPRN Motion fails to address any

claims in Plaintiffs Complaint and fails to give any type of legally sufficient defense;

The Hales; Plains Radio; Bar H Farms; and KPRN subjected themselves to the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania when they accepted donations on behalf of

www.obamacrimes.com, a Pennsylvania website owned and operated by Berg and the

Law Offices of Philip J. Berg;

The Hales; Plains Radio; Bar H Farms; and KPRN are NOT within the Western

District of Texas jurisdiction;

The Hales; Plains Radio; Bar H Farms; and KPRN have failed to state any type of

hardships; has failed to list any witnesses in the Western District of Texas; and have

failed to state any type of convenience issues pertaining to witnesses;

Pursuant to Diversified Jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. 1332(a); and Venue

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(3), because the Defendants all reside in different states


4/41


and different jurisdictions, this Court only has to have personal jurisdiction over one (1)

Defendant, which has been met in the within Action

This Court is the proper forum and venue is proper for this case pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1391(a)(2) and 1391(a)(3).

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: June 11, 2009 _____________________________Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Attorney for Plaintiffs

s/ Philip J. Berg


5/41





LISA LIBERI, et al,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Defendants.

:::::

:::::


MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE

IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE

ALTERNATIVE TRANSFER THE ACTION TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF

TEXAS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1406(a)

ARGUMENT

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

As better outlined in Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants, The Hales through their

companies, Bar H Farm, KPRN and Plains Radio began operating a radio program, Plains Radio,

through a tower, which they own, KPRN. The Radio show is an internet radio show that is

broadcast through different stations. Plains Radio also has a website and chat room located at

plainsradio.com. that Mr. and Mrs. Hale control.

In or about June 2008, Mr. and Mrs. Hale contacted Evelyn Adams and requested she co-

host their radio shows on Plains Radio Network, an internet radio show. Mrs. Adams quit and


6/41


left Plaintiffs radio show on or about August 21, 2008. Defendants Hale banned Mrs. Adams

computer IP address from his website located at http://www.plainsradio.com, thus Adams could

not access his website at all as she was permanently banned.

Shortly thereafter, Adams began hosting another show, Momma E Radio Rebels and co-

hosted shows on Monks Media. Once Adams began with her own show, Defendants Mr. & Mrs.

Hale began slandering Adams name on their radio show.

Berg filed the first action questioning President Obamas citizenship and Constitutional

qualifications to hold the Office of President of the United States on August 21, 2008.

During this time, Mr. & Mrs. Hale requested the appearance of Philip J. Berg on their

radio show, Plains Radio through their tower KPRN. Berg was the first attorney who filed a

lawsuit against Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama regarding his citizenship issues.

Berg agreed to appear several times.

Bergs office than received calls regarding donations that Mr. Hale was seeking on behalf

of Berg. The callers were concerned and wanted verification that the Hales were in fact

authorized to seek donations on behalf of Berg. The Hales through their companies, KPRN, Bar

H Farms and Plains Radio also put out false statements claiming they had President Obamas

Kenyan birth certificate sent directly to Berg, which was completely false.

Berg discontinued associations with the Hales and their companies and ceased all

communications with the Hales. The Hales became extremely angry.

The Hales through Plains Radio, KPRN began making horrible slanderous statements

against Plaintiffs, Adams and Berg.

The Hales on their radio programs on Plains Radio through their tower, KPRN, stated

Berg was a crook; he was conning and scamming people. Mr. Hale was cussing Berg, calling


7/41


him a shyster and falsely claiming Berg had lied that he in fact had the Kenyan Birth Certificate

of Barack H. Obama because he (Mr. Hale) had obtained it for him, that Bergs law license was

going to be taken away, etc., all the time knowing these statements were false. Mr. and Mrs.

Hale and others on their behalf also sent out this false information across the internet and through

mass mailings from Bar H.

At the same time the Hales through their radio program, Plains Radio and their tower,

KPRN, began calling Adams heinous names including but not limited to Bitch, Whore,

Worthless Piece of Shit, a Fraud, a Liar, a Thief, etc. These remarks were broadcast

through KPRN AM 1610 in Wellington, Texas, through talkstreamlive.com, posted on the Hales

internet website blogs and sent out by Hales via the internet by mass mailing through Bar H.

The Hales through their companies, Plains Radio, KPRN and Bar H were encouraging many

individuals to call into Adams radio shows and tell Adams how stupid she was and what a liar

she was. Mr. & Mrs. Hale gave out Mrs. Adams Radio show internet website and phone

numbers. Mr. & Mrs. Hale went further and encouraged individuals to call into the show and

harass Adams, which they did.

The Hales through Plains Radio and KPRN had listeners and staffs publish Adams home

address and telephone number on the internet, which resulted in Mrs. Adams receiving

threatening, harassing and degrading phone calls at all hours of the day and night stating Mrs.

Adams, should stop trashing Ed Hale and leave Ed Hale alone. Defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Hale

were well aware Adams has never harassed or trashed them.

The Hales through Plains Radio gave false statements regarding Adams which includes

but is not limited to her radio shows; falsely accusing Adams of trashing them; falsely


8/41


accusing Adams of stealing written documents, being the Obama divorce papers; falsely

accusing Adams of defrauding the State of California for her disability, etc.

The Hales through Plains Radio posted on their internet website blog and sent mass e-

mailings from Bar H falsely accusing Adams of stealing their Obama divorce records. Mr.

and Mrs. Hale falsely claim they have their copy of the Obama divorce papers copyrighted

when in fact Adams had possession of the said records prior to Mr. and Mrs. Hales receipt of

said divorce papers, which they were well aware of.

The Hales went on further through Plains Radio advising and posting on their internet

website blog; they sent mass e-mailings through Bar H falsely accusing Adams of having a

criminal record; and falsely claiming Adams has a history of lying and stealing. Mr. and Mrs.

Hale also falsely claimed that Adams hides who she is on her radio shows; Mr. Hale even went

as far as making the open threat, your day is coming you piece of shit, referring to Adams. In

furtherance of this, Mr. Hale attached an unknown and unidentified printout of a woman by the

name of Evelyn A. Adams with a date of birth of November 9, 1937, whom he was aware, was a

completely different person.

In or about January 2009, Berg sent a Cease and Desist letter on behalf of Adams that

was served upon the Hales; Plains Radio; Bar H Farms; and KPRN. Unfortunately, the slander

statements; libel postings and threats did not stop.

In or about March 2009 the Hales through Plains Radio filed a false lawsuit against

Adams. To further perpetrate their fraud and for further harassment, The Hales and Plains Radio

did not have Adams served correctly and only served her with the Collingsworth County Small

Claims Citation.


9/41


As a result, Adams had to hire Berg to respond to the Defendants frivolous small claims

lawsuit. Liberi from Bergs Office called the Collingsworth County Small Claims Court and

informed them Adams was not served with any type of Complaint. The Justice read the

Complaint on file and stated the Hales through Plains Radio claimed Adams stole their

copyrighted Obama Divorce papers. Berg responded to the Defendants frivolous lawsuit,

supplied the Collingsworth County Court with copies of the Obama divorce papers that were

given to Adams and the Hales case was Dismissed with Prejudice.

The Hales were very unhappy with the fact Berg responded on behalf of Adams to his

frivolous lawsuit. The Hales then prepared a letter, which they claimed they sent to the Justice

of the Peace of Collingsworth County stating it is a fact Berg and Adams conspired to raise

money for Berg; it is a fact that Berg is not licensed to practice law within the state of Texas;

Liberis e-mail sent to Adams with the Obama divorce papers was a forgery; Liberis e-mail

was doctored; Berg and Adams have partnered together and has collected thousands of dollars

from people based on lawsuits that had no chance of success; Berg has been proven to be a

shyster; Berg is under investigation by several Federal agencies; Berg and Adams have conned

thousands of Americans out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, etc. This very letter was never

sent to Judge Henard, Justice of the Peace of the Collingsworth County Court, Precinct One,

Number One, instead the Hales posted it on their radio show website, plainsradio.com and sent it

out in mass e-mailing from Bar H which was nothing more than further slander and libel.

Mr. Hale continued his above behaviors and began sending harassing e-mails to Liberi.

In one of his e-mails, Mr. Hale went as far and threatened Liberi and Berg stating, You and

berg are going to regreat getting into this [sic].


10/41


The Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H Farms were served with the within lawsuit

on May 7, 2009. Since these Defendants were served the Hales behavior through their

Companies have intensified and they have been inciting anger and encouraging hate and anger

towards the Plaintiffs.

Moreover, they have conspired with Defendants Taitz, et al; Defend our Freedoms

Foundation; Neil Sankey; Sankey Investigations, Inc.; Linda Sue Belcher, et al to further harm

the Plaintiffs herein and have now included Liberi; Ostella; and Go Excel Global.

The Hales have been having the other Defendants on their Plains Radio Show. Neil

Sankey through the Sankey firm, whom he is not licensed with, emailed Orly Taitz, et al Liberis

full Social Security number which Orly Taitz, et al sent out to over One Hundred and Forty

Thousand [140,000] individuals and companies. On or about May 28, 2009, Neil Sankey

appeared on Plains Radio hosted by the Hales. Neil Sankey stated Ostella sent him emails and

asked for Liberi to be investigated, which was untrue. Three [3] days later, on May 31, 2009

altered and forged emails were posted by Orly Taitz, et al on her website at

www.orlytaitzesq.com, see EXHIBIT A. Also, on May 28, 2009, Defendant Edgar Hale

made it clear that Neil Sankey had sent him documents he claimed pertained to Lisa Liberi and

on the documents the Hales received from Neil Sankey, Liberis full Social Security number,

date of birth and other personal identifying information was present. Defendant Edgar Hale then

stated to Neil Sankey, Didnt Lisa Liberi just take out a loan? Knowing Neil Sankey had

provided the Hales, Defendant, Orly Taitz, et al and thousands of other individuals with Liberis

full Social Security number and personal identifying information, this was very concerning,

Liberi immediately checked her credit to see if there were any third party unauthorized inquiries

on her credit, Liberi did not find any. However, now that Plaintiffs are aware of the fact those


11/41


Defendants, the Hales, Neil Sankey and Orly Taitz, et al have conspired and forged and altered

emails, Liberi is afraid they have also fraudulently applied for credit and loans in her name.

Why else would the Hales talk about a loan Liberi had just taken out which he was told by Neil

Sankey? Also on May 28, 2009 is the same day Defendant Linda Sue Belcher, et al threatened

Liberi and Berg in Plains Radio chat area, which the Hales were well aware of and allowed.

Moreover, the Hales, Orly Taitz, et al; Linda Sue Belcher, et al; Neil Sankey, et al have all been

on Plains Radio with the Hales and have all continued slandering the Plaintiffs; wishing harm

upon the Plaintiffs; posting libel about the Plaintiffs; and threatening the Plaintiffs.

The Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN and Bar H Farms have not given any type of defenses to

the within lawsuit. They have not given any valid reason or legal basis for the within case to be

transferred to Western Texas nor have they given any valid reason for the dismissal of Plaintiffs

action, as they cannot. The Hales; Bar H Farms; KPRN; and Plains radio are NOT located

within the Western District of Texas jurisdiction and they subjected themselves to the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania when they accepted donations on behalf of Berg and continue soliciting

donations from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to pay for a legal defense of the within

action and targeted their illegal actions towards Plaintiffs, some of which are residents of

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania which is within this Courts jurisdiction and Plaintiffs have

suffered injuries within this Courts jurisdiction.

For the above aforementioned reasons, Defendants the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN and

Bar H Farms Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative transfer the within case to the Western

District of Texas must be denied.


12/41


II. MOTION PRACTICE, F.R.C.P. 7.1 AND LOCAL RULE 7.1(c)

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 7(b) states in pertinent part:

Rule 7. Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions and Other Papers

(b) Motions and Other Papers

(1) In General.

A request for a court order must be made by motion. The motion must:

(A) be in writing unless made during a hearing or trial;(B) state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order; and

(C) state the relief sought

Defendants, The Hales, Plains Radio, KPRN and Bar H Farm have failed to adhere to the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as this Courts local rule. They file a one-page

document that they entitle Answer and Motion to Dismiss without a Brief, as required. They

claim this Court is without venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b); that this Court does not have

Jurisdiction of the parties and therefore, the case should be dismissed or in the alternative

transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406(a).

It is important for this Court to be aware, these particular Defendants announced

publicly on their radio show that Orly Taitz, Attorney at law and also a Defendant in the within

action prepared this document on behalf of The Hales, Plains Radio, KPRN and Bar H Farm. In

addition, Defendant Orly Taitz, et al herself announced that she prepared all of the Defendants

Answers and Motions to Dismiss on their behalves.

Defendants Answer and Motions fail to give any type of defense to the within action;

fails to give any type of affirmative defenses; lacks any valid reasons to dismiss the case or

transfer the case; fails to give any type of convenience issues; fails to give any type of hardships;

lacks any type of supporting law and lacks any authority for this Court to grant the relief they are

requesting. Furthermore, this case is a complete diversity jurisdiction case, venue is proper


13/41


pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(3). Pursuant to diversified

jurisdiction and 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(3), and the fact the Defendants reside in different states,

California, New Jersey, and Texas and within different jurisdictions within the different states

there is no other venue. It is only required for this Court to have personal jurisdiction over one

[1] Defendant to satisfy the venue requirements pertaining to all the Defendants in Diversified

Jurisdiction cases.

Moreover and most important, the Hales, Plains Radio, KPRN, and Bar H Farms are

NOT located within the Western District of Texas as they claim. These particular Defendants

are located in Wellington, Texas within Collingsworth County that is in the jurisdiction of the

Northern District of Texas, in the city of Amarillo.

For the above aforementioned reasons, this Motion must be denied.

III. THE STANDARD OF GRANTING RULE 12 MOTIONS

Although, The Hales, Plains Radio, KPRN and Bar H Farms have failed to raise exactly

what statute and or Rule they were filing their Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs will assume it is

under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12. If this is correct, The Hales, Plains Radio,

KPRN and Bar H Farms have not met their burden for this Court to grant their relief.

Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may raise and a

Court grant a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal

jurisdiction, improper venue and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

As a general matter, in ruling on a Rule 12 motion to dismiss a Court is to consider all

the well-pleaded allegations in the Complaint, as well as the content of any exhibit attached to

the Complaint. SeePhillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233, 234 (3d Cir. 2008); In re


14/41


Rockefeller Center Properties, Inc. Securities Litigation, 184 F.3d 280, 287 (3d Cir. 1999);

Palmer v. City of Harrisburg, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33381, *6-7 (M.D. Pa. 2008).

When there is a challenge to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) or to the

existence of personal jurisdiction over a Defendant under Rule 12(b)(2), not only may a Court

look beyond the pleadings, but it then becomes the Plaintiff's burden to show that there is either

subject matter or personal jurisdiction. SeeArbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct.

1235, 1244 (2006) (subject matter jurisdiction); Smith v. Garb, 988 F. Supp 868, 869 (E.D. Pa.

1997), aff'd w/o op. 159 F.3d 1353 (3d Cir. 1998) (same); IMO Industries v. Kierkert AG, 155

F.3d 254, 257 (3d Cir. 1998) (personal jurisdiction).

Not only did The Hales, Plains Radio, KPRN and Bar H Farms fail to raise or assert any

type of a defense in their Answer and their Motion to Dismiss as required, Myers v. American

Dental Ass'n, 695 F.2d 716, 720 (3d Cir. 1982), they are attempting to have this case dismissed

or transferred claiming they are located in the Western District of Texas, [Defendants

Motion, p. 1, 1] which they do not. The Hales, Plains Radio, KPRN and Bar H Farms are

located in the NORTHERN DISTRICT of Texas, Amarillo.

For the above aforementioned reasons, The Hales, Plains Radio, KPRN and Bar H Farms

have not met the standards for their Motions to Dismiss to be granted. Thus, The Hales, Plains

Radio, KPRN and Bar H Farms Motions must be denied.


15/41


IV. WITH THE ISSUE OF VENUE OR PERSONAL JURISDICTION, THIS COURT

IS THE PROPER VENUE AND HAS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE

HALES; PLAINS RADIO; KPRN; and BAR H FARMS UNDER THE

PENNSYLVANIA LONG-ARM STATUTE.

As this Court is aware this is a complete diversified jurisdictional case. None of the

Defendants reside within this State; a substantial part of the events gave raise to Plaintiffs

claims within this District; and Taitz, DOFF and two (2) other Defendants were and are subject

to personal jurisdiction in this Courts District. 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C.

1391(a)(3).

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 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).

As to Section 1391(a)(2), "[t]he test for determining venue is not the Defendant's

'contacts' with a particular district, but rather the location of those 'events or omissions giving

rise to the claim' . . . ." Cottman Transmission Systems, Inc. v. Martino, 36 F.3d 291, 294 (3d Cir.

1994).

As to Section 1391(a)(3), the other basis for venue here cited by Plaintiffs, that

subsection applies because there is not another district in which Plaintiffs claims may otherwise

be brought; therefore, an express condition for the application of Section 1391(a)(3) - lack of

another district in which the action may be brought - is satisfied.


16/41


Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "a district court may assert personal

jurisdiction 'over non-resident Defendants to the extent permissible under the law of the state

where the district court sits.'"Remick, 238 F.3d at 255 (quotingPennzoil Prods. Co. v. Colelli &

Assocs., Inc., 149 F.3d 197, 200 (3d Cir. 1998)). Under Pennsylvania's long-arm statute, 42 Pa.

Cons. Stat. Ann. 5322(b), Pennsylvania Courts may "exercise personal jurisdiction over non-

resident defendants to the constitutional limits of the due process clause of the fourteenth

amendment."Remick v. Manfredy, 238 F.3d 248, 253 (3d Cir. Pa. 2001)at 255 (quoting MellonBank (East) PSFS, Nat'l Ass'n v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1221 (3d Cir. 1992)).

There are two types of personal jurisdiction a court may assert over a Defendant --

general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction. Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, 960 F.2d at 1221. If

general jurisdiction exists, a court may exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident Defendant as to

any claim against [him], regardless of whether the subject matter of the cause of action has any

connection to the forum." Id. General Jurisdiction normally is invoked only when a Defendant

has maintained "systematic and continuous" contacts with the forum state. Marten, 499 F.3d at

296 (citingHelicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-15, 104 S. Ct.

1868, 80 L. Ed. 2d 404 & n.8 (1984));Remick, 238 F.3d at 255. Conversely, specific jurisdiction

"is present only if the Plaintiffs cause of action arises out of a Defendant's forum-related

activities, such that the Defendant should reasonably anticipate being hauled into court in that

forum." Remick, 238 F.3d at 255 (quoting Vetrotex Certainteed Corp. v. Consol. Fiber Glass

Prods. Co., 75 F.3d 147, 151 (3d Cir. 1996)); see also Marten, 499 F.3d at 296 ("Specific

jurisdiction exists when the claim arises from or relates to conduct purposely directed at the

forum state.").


17/41


The Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United

States limits the reach of state long-arm statutes and precludes personal jurisdictional over a

nonresident defendant unless the nonresident has "certain minimum contacts with [the forum]

such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and

substantial justice.'" International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).

Personal jurisdiction over a defendant may be specific or general. Specific Jurisdiction

exists if the Plaintiff's cause of action is related to or arises out of the defendant's contacts with

the forum state or with the defendant's forum-related activities. Helicopteros Nacionales de

Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n.8 (1984). In other words, Specific personal

jurisdiction exists when a defendant has "'purposefully directed [its] activities at residents of the

forum and the litigation results from alleged injuries that "arise out of or are related to" those

activities.'"BP Chemicals, Inc., 229 F.3d at 259, quoting fromBurger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,

471 U.S. 462, 472, 105 S. Ct. 2174 (1985). For there to be general jurisdiction over a defendant,

its contacts "with the forum, whether or not related to the litigation, [must be] 'continuous and

systematic.'" Id., quoting fromHelicopteros Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 416,

104 S. Ct. 1868 (1984). As to individual defendants, "as a general rule, 'individuals performing

acts in a state in their corporate capacity are not subject to the courts of that state for those acts.'"

Nat'l Precast Crypt Co. v. Dy-Core of Pennsylvania, 785 F. Supp 1186, 1191 (W.D. Pa. 1992).

General jurisdiction exists when the claim does not arise from the defendant's contact

with the forum state, but the defendant has nonetheless maintained "continuous and systematic"

contacts with the forum state. Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414 n.9. The type of contacts, which if

continuous and systematic, may give rise to general jurisdiction are ownership of property in the

forum state, solicitation of business in the forum state, business activities in the forum state


18/41


or the sale of products to persons or entities within the forum state.Litman v. Walt Disney World

Co., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5115, *18 (01-CV-3891) (E.D. Pa. 2002). Those contacts must be

"extensive and pervasive" to provide a basis for personal jurisdiction. Reliance Steel Products

Co. v. Watson, Ess, Marshall & Enggas, 675 F.2d 587 (3d Cir. 1982) (citing Compagnie des

Bauxites de Guinea v. Insurance Co. of North America, 651 F.2d 877, 890 (3d Cir. 1981)

(Gibbons, J., dissenting), aff'd, 456 U.S. 694, 102 S. Ct. 2099, 72 L. Ed. 2d 492 (1982)).

The Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms have not claimed nor can they say the

forum of this Court is inconvenient or that they do not have any connections to this forum, or

that this forum does not have any jurisdiction over them, as they have attempted in their so

called Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Transfer the Case. The Hales; Plains Radio;

Bar H Farms; and KPRN subjected themselves to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, this

Courts jurisdiction when they soliciting and accepting donations on behalf of a Pennsylvania

Company, www.obamacrimes.com owned and operated by Berg and the Law offices of Philip J.

Berg. Moreover, the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN and Bar H Farms made sure they were

subjected to the Jurisdiction of this Court by directing their actions towards Plaintiffs and other

parties who donated their time and worked for Bergs Pennsylvania Law Firm.

It is obvious the Hales, Plains Radio, KPRN and Bar H Farms libel postings, slanderous

statements and threats were clearly directed at the Plaintiffs, Adams, Berg, the Law Offices of

Philip J. Berg; Liberi; Ostella; and Go Excel Global within Pennsylvania and within

Montgomery County and further substantiates Plaintiffs argument that this State and this Court

are in fact the proper forum and this Court has personal jurisdiction over the Hales, Plains Radio,

KPRN and Bar H Farms.


19/41


This very Court maintains both General Jurisdiction over the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN;

and Bar H. Farms as they subjected themselves to this Courts jurisdiction by soliciting

donations on behalf of Berg, www.obamacrimes.com and the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg, a

Pennsylvania Company located in Montgomery County, of which their illegal activities stem

from. Moreover, all of the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H Farms illegal and outrageous

conducts have effected the Plaintiffs within this Court Jurisdiction. Moreover, the Hales; Plains

Radio; KPRN; and Bar H Farms continue to this date, their outrageous and illegal behaviors,

which satisfies the systematic and continuous contacts within this forum. In addition, this

Court also have Specific Jurisdiction over the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H Farms as

Plaintiffs causes of actions relate to the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms

electronic communications with a group in this forum and the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and

Bar H. Farms has purposely directed to this forum injuries to Plaintiffs within this Courts

forum which Plaintiffs cause of actions are based.

With our new Internet Cyber Space abilities, the Internet also confers jurisdiction upon

this Court and in this forum. Whether jurisdiction is proper in cases involving the Internet

"depends on where on a sliding scale of commercial interactivity the web site falls." Id. Where a

Defendant is "clearly doing business through its web site in the forum state, and where the claim

relates to or arises out of use of the web site, the Zippo Court held that personal jurisdiction

exists."Id. (citing Zippo Manufacturing. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 at 1124

(W.D. Pa. 1997). To make this determination, the Zippo Court focused on whether the

interactivity of a commercial Web site reflects "purposeful availment" or intended interaction

with residents of the forum state. See id. (citation omitted). Purposeful availment is demonstrated

when a defendant "(1) directs electronic activity into the State, (2) with the manifested intent of


20/41


engaging in business or other interactions within the State, and (3) that activity creates, in a

person within the State, a potential cause of action cognizable in the State's courts." Toys "R" Us,

Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446, 451 (3d Cir. N.J. 2003)at 453 (citation omitted).

All of the criteria outlined in Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446, 451 (3d

Cir. N.J. 2003) have been met and undoubtedly this Court has jurisdiction over the Hales; Plains

Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms and this Court is the proper forum for this action. Thus,

Defendant the Hales, Plains Radio, KPRN and Bar H Farms Motion to Dismiss must be denied.

V. THE MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE VENUE

PROPERLY LIES IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(3).

Defendants, the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms move this Court to

dismiss the action under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) for improper venue, or in the alternative transfer the

case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406(a). However, the provisions of Section 1406(a) do not apply,

as venue is proper in this Courts Jurisdiction. As demonstrated below, venue is indeed proper.

Title 28 U.S.C. 1391(a), which governs venue in civil actions where jurisdiction is

founded solely on diversity of citizenship, provides that an action may be filed in either of three

judicial districts: (1) where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State; (2)

in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; or (3) 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.

In the instant case, the Defendants do not reside within the same state. This case is a

complete diversity jurisdiction case. As better-outlined 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C.

1391(a)(3) clearly apply. Defendants the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms as

well as Linda Sue Belcher, et al, Orly Taitz, et al and Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc. are


21/41


subject to the personal jurisdiction of this particular Court. The Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and

Bar H. Farms clearly subjected themselves to this Courts jurisdiction when they solicited and

accepted donations on behalf of Berg; his website, obamacrimes.com; and his law firm, the Law

Offices of Philip J. Berg all of which are located within the State of Pennsylvania, County of

Montgomery. Moreover, the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms subjected

themselves to this Courts jurisdiction by attacking and enticing hatred towards Berg; the Law

Offices of Philip J. Berg; Liberi, Bergs paralegal, Ostella; and Adams.

Venue disputes are governed by either 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) or by 28 U.S.C. 1406(a).

1406(a) only applies where the original venue is improper. Under 1406(a), "the district court

of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or

in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been

brought." 28 U.S.C. 1406(a). If venue is improper, the district court has limited discretion; it

can either dismiss the case or transfer it to a district in which it could have originally been

brought. However, it must do one or the other.

Under 1406(a), the burden is on the moving party to establish that the transfer is

warranted. See Conners v. R&S Parts Servs., Inc., 248 F.Supp.2d. 394, 396 (E.D. Pa. 2003)

(holding that "the burden is on the moving party to establish that a balancing of proper interests

weigh in favor of the transfer); Myers v. Am. Dental Ass'n, 695 F.2d 716, 724-5 (3d Cir. 1982);

Resource Bank v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2980, at *4; Consolidated

Risk Services. v. Automobile Dealers WC Self Insurance Trust, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41475, *2

(E.D. Pa. June 21, 2006) (holding that "the defendant should ordinarily bear that burden of

showing improper venue in connection with a motion to dismiss" under 1406). Plaintiffs

submit that the Hales, Plains Radio, KPRN and Bar H Farms have not, and cannot, meet its


22/41


burden, particularly since the venue selected by Plaintiffs is to be given substantial deference.

Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, (3rd

Cir. 1970) at 25.

The Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms did not file a Brief in support of their

request to dismiss the within action or transfer the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406(a). The

Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms simply allege, Venue is improperly laid in this

District under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and this defendant and any names they may go by are only

connected to in their state of residence; and venue would be properly laid in the western district

of Texas, San Antonio Division. The Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms then

Demands and prays that the complaint be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and/or improper

venue or in the alternative transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406(a). The Hales; Plains Radio;

KPRN; and Bar H. Farms has not shown this venue is improper. However, it is clear venue in

the Western District of Texas is NOT proper venue. The Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar

H. Farms do not reside in, do not conduct business in or have anything to do with the Western

District of Texas. The Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms address is located in

Wellington, Texas (Collingsworth County) which is located in the Northern District of Texas.

Initially, it should be noted that a Plaintiff's choice of forum is traditionally entitled to

substantial deference. See Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir.1970). As such,

Plaintiffs choice of forum should be honored by this Court, particularly since it is a proper

forum for this action under 1391(a)(2) or (3).

Notably, the provisions of Section 1406(a) apply only when venue in the selected district

is improper. Jumara v. State Farm Insurance Co., 55 F.3d 873, 878 (3d Cir.1995). Because

venue of this action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is proper under 28 U.S.C.

1391(a)(2) and/or 28 U.S.C. 1391(a) (3), the provisions of Section 1406(a) do not apply, and


23/41


do not afford the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms from Plains Radio with a basis

to transfer this action to another venue.

Moreover, all documents, all information pertaining to Bergs website, witnesses of the

Plaintiffs that will testify they obtained the chat and down loaded the radio programs of the

Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms from Plains Radio wherein the Plaintiffs have

been slandered; libeled; threatened; and other illegal behaviors against the Plaintiffs by the

Defendants, the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms and Linda Belcher, et al, threats

regarding Liberis heart problems and Liberi having a heart attack, the Hales; Plains Radio;

KPRN; and Bar H. Farms slanderous statements, libel postings, threats to all Plaintiffs, are

located within this Courts jurisdiction. Berg would have to close down his law firm for several

days to travel to another state to litigate the within action. Transferring venue would be

inconvenient to Plaintiffs witnesses; would cause a situation Plaintiffs witnesses would not be

able to testify as they would be unable to travel to another States forum due to health and

financial reasons; Defendant Linda Sue Belcher, who is in Western Texas, has already threatened

Berg and Liberi if they come to her redneck town they would be forced out, maybe in pieces

and therefore a transfer is not in the interest of justice. The Hales, Plains Radio, KPRN and Bar

H Farms did not cite any hardship; inconvenience to witnesses; any witnesses she may have;

nothing. Therefore, "the interest of justice [would] be better served in this forum." Jumara v.

State Farm Ins. Co. 55 F.3d 879 (3d Cir. 1995).

The Plaintiffs have all agreed and subjected themselves to the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania. Several of the Plaintiffs are in fact Pennsylvania residents and subjected to this

Courts jurisdiction. The Defendants all reside in different states, New Jersey, Texas, and

California, of which they are located within different districts of the United States District


24/41


Courts. Moreover, this Court has personal jurisdiction over several of the Defendants, including,

Orly Taitz, et al; Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc.; the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and

Bar H. Farms. Thus 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(3) clearly applies and this Court is the proper venue.

The Federal Courts in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania operate efficiently. There is

little lag time between the filing of the Complaint, the conduction of discovery and the

scheduling of trial. Undersigned counsel does not know the volume of litigation in the Western

District of Texas, but believes that it would dwarf the volume of the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania. Likewise, the cost of proceeding in Eastern Pennsylvania would pale in

comparison to those in Western Texas in terms of attorneys' fees, hotel accommodations and

restaurant pricing.

The only considerations which would encourage this Court to transfer the action to the

Western District of Texas would be another Defendant, Linda Belcher, et al preference. Clearly,

this Court should show great deference to the Plaintiffs preference to the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Most of the witnesses and virtually all of the

documents are located here.

In deciding a Motion to Dismiss all well-pleaded allegations in the Complaint are taken

as true unless contradicted by the Defendants' Affidavits and the Court may examine facts

outside the Complaint to determine proper venue.Resource Bank, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2980,

*3, citing Fellner v. Philadelphia Toboggan Coasters, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23839, *1

(E.D. Pa. October 18, 2005); see also Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure 3d., 1352

(2004).

The Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms have failed to contradict any of the

plead allegations; they have not raised any affirmative defenses and therefore has waived them,


25/41


she has offered absolutely no facts outside the Complaint. The issue of Plaintiffs entitlement for

the Defendants, including the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms, wrong doings and

the requested amounts in the lawsuit to be paid to the Plaintiffs may be so obvious that the Court

may be able to decide the matter by means of Summary Judgment. Defaults have already been

entered against three [3] of the Defendants, Orly Taitz, et al; Defend our Freedoms Foundation,

Inc. and The Sankey Firm.

As noted above, under Section 1406(a), the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H.

Farms bears the burden of establishing the need for the transfer of this action to an alternate

venue. Given that the critical factors for deciding a motion to transfer, transfer of the action is

inappropriate under Section 1406(a) because the locus of operative facts for purposes of venue

lie in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. For this reason, the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and

Bar H. Farms from Plains Radio Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative transfer the action must

be denied.

VI. CONCLUSION

For the above aforementioned reasons, Defendants, Edgar Hale; Caren Hale; Plains

Radio a/k/a Plains Radio, Inc.; KPRN AM 1610; and Bar H. Farms Motion to Dismiss or in the

alternative the Action be transferred to the Western District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1406(a) must be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: June 11, 2009 __________________________

PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIREAttorney for Plaintiffs

s/ Philip J. Berg


26/41


EXHIBIT A


27/41

Z:\Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al Decl of Lisa Ostella 1




LISA LIBERI, et al,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Defendants.

::::

::::::


DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF LISA OSTELLA

I, Lisa Ostella, am a Plaintiff in the within action. I have personal knowledge of

the facts herein and if called to do so, I could and would competently testify under oath.

I declare as follows:

1. I purchased the domain names defendourfreedoms.us;defendourfreedoms.net and defendourfreedoms.com in or about early December.

I am the rightful owner of said domain names.

2. In or about November 2008 to April 2009, I donated my time as one of thewebmasters to Orly Taitz, one of the within Defendants.

3. Orly Taitz stated she had been having problems with her blog atwww.drorlyblogspot.com, so I migrated her domain name defendourfreedoms.us

and moved her blog over to my account on GoDaddy, which I paid for.


28/41


4. In or about March 2009, someone changed the email address attached toOrly Taitzs PayPal account from [email protected] to [email protected].

This could have simply been a typographical error. Four separate individuals had

access to the scripting associated with the sidebar on the blog site.

5. In or about early March Orly began claiming her PayPal account andwebsite were being hacked. I and Charlie, another webmaster explained to Ms.

Taitz that her websites and PayPal account had not been hacked.

6. Despite this, Ms. Taitz filed a false report with the Orange CountySheriffs Department located in California and the Federal Bureau of

Investigations also located in Southern California.

7. I told Ms. Taitz if she did not retract the false report, she would have tofind another webhost and webmaster.

8. Ms. Taitz refused to retract her falsified police report, so I told her to finda new host.

9. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Taitz began falsifying stories about me stating Ihad hacked her PayPal account, websites and stole foundation monies, which is

and was completely false. My email address and phone number does appear on

Ms. Taitz PayPal account as I set up her PayPal Account for her. To date, Ms.

Taitz has not removed my email address. However, my email address is not the

email address funds are sent to.

10. Next, Ms. Taitz began claiming Plaintiff Liberi and I are the same person,the entire time knowing this was a false statement.


29/41


11. Ms. Taitz went on radio appearances, sent emails and posted on her newwebsite/blog at www.orlytaitzesq.com that I was stealing her donations, I was

redirecting her donations, I had stolen her domains and that I had locked her out

of her website. Again, all of which Ms. Taitz knew was falsified.

12. Through-out April and May 2009, Defendant Orly Taitz began posting onher website at www.orlytaitzesq.com documents which she wrote and prepared

labeling myself and all the other Plaintiffs in this Action as Obots, President

Obama supporters and inferring we were his clique. Taitz wrote and distributed

Dossier #6 with Plaintiff Liberis full social security number and personal

identifying information. Taitz also posted an article she wrote labeled We need

Political Penicillin which was calling for volunteers to form a civilian army, a

militia and calling for guns, ammo, money to purchase more guns, ammo and

communications to fight against Oppressive Government.

13. Defendant Taitz then wrote a document which she titled Update on LisaLiberi, Paralegal to Phil Berg. In this post stating Just like the country needs to

be purged of Obama and his clique, that are in power by virtue of forgery, fraud

and consealment of vital records, the patriots of this country need to purge their

ranks.

14. In mid May 2009, I received a phone call stating Defendant Taitz wastelling people professionals were going to kidnap my children.

15. I immediately contacted my local police department, North BrunswickPolice Department and filed a criminal report, Report No.9024817. The Officer


30/41


who took the report put the incident type/Offense as Terroristic Threats/Threat to

kill (2C:12-3B). This report was assigned to Detective Cano.

16. Now it appears Defendants Neil Sankey and Orly Taitz have conspiredtogether and not only altered and forged but created emails using my email

address and claiming I wrote the emails and sent them. See EXHIBIT 1.

17. Defendant Neil Sankey went onto Defendant Plains Radio on May 28,2009 which was hosted by Defendants Edgar Hale and Caren Hale. Neil Sankey

stated that I sent him an email claiming Lisa Liberi, Philip J. Bergs Assistant;

name was really Richards and had a Police Record for ID [sic

] theft. This is

completely false. I have never sent any such email to Neil Sankey or anyone else.

18. May 31, 2009, I received several emails, one from another webmaster,Charlie. In the email was the following post which Defendant Orly Taitz posted

on her website:

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=1843

Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation 26302 La Paz ste 211, Mission Viejo CA 92691 Copyright 2009

From reader Bob S. Did anyone see Hank Paulson coming out of his house lately?

Re Keyes v Obama

I am trying to stay away from Liberi-Berg issue, but i

got more questions and here is more info.

I was asked by a number of people to explain why the name of Lisa Ostella is on thedossier #4.


31/41


When I was in Washington DC, I did not have an access to the Internet, as I was visiting

the Director of the Selective Service William Chatfield and offices of several senators

and was on the phone with the assistant and legal counsel for Admiral Malin. A lot ofpeople asked me for an update and I called Lisa Ostella, the web master ,and asked her to

post it on the Internet. As you can see, the fact that she signed

DefendOurfFeedomsFoundations, and she put her name as an assistant to me, clearlyshows that she knew it is my foundation, under my name and she could sign as an

assistant only as long as she was helping me. The moment I transferred to another

webmaster, she had and has no right to advertise on behalf of the DefendOurFreedomsfoundation, solicit donations and pocket the money.

You can also see (in the attachment) that she was the one that contacted the privateinvestigator Mr. Sankey, and provided him the information that Lisa Liberi , assistant to

Phil Berg, has a criminal record. Based on her report Mr. Sankey has investigated and

confirmed this information, that indeed Lisa Liberi has this lengthy record of forgery ofdocuments and forgery of an official seal and grand theft. Lisa Ostella changed her tune

only after this whole issue with pay-pal came out. At first she and the rest of theplaintiffs came out with an outrageous lie that my husband was spying on people. Nowthey dismissed their law suit against my husband- and everybody knows that it was amanufactured charge.

As you can see, she was well aware about Liberis criminal record, as was Berg and

Liberi herself. Their legal action is nothing but perjury and an attempted obstruction of

justice. I have written in the pleadings that the only address that Liberi provided,was Bergs office address and the reason is that she indeed resides in NM and is the Lisa

Liberi with the criminal record. I received an e-mail recently that in the last couple of

days Lisa Liberi has gotten a PA drivers license. If she got one in the last couple of days,that doesnt change the fact that she resided in NM and that all of them committed

perjury. If anything, getting a PA drivers license now is yet another attempt to obstruct

justice.

As I have said before, I dont get intimidated by either Obama or by Berg. One cannot

file a fraudulent and malicious legal action against me and expect to shut me up and makeme stop reporting on illegal and criminal activity. All that these people are doing, is

adding counts of fraud, perjury and obstruction of justice. The only thing Berg can do, is

come clean, disassociate himself from Lisa Liberi, who has a record of forgery and heneeds to hire a forensic document examiner to check all the records handled by Lisa

Liberi. We cannot win in court with forged records. This information was already on the

blogs before I got it and it will be on the blogs, his continuing denial of clear evidencehas no merit and undermines everybody in the resistance movement, everybody who

wants to get to the truth. The only way to win, is by clean evidence, unsealing the vital

records and letting the Supreme Court decide the issue of the Natural Born Citizen.

> From: [email protected]

> To: [email protected]> Subject: RE: HELLO ??? (again)


32/41


> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:02:00 -0700

>

> Indeed it would. If you would pass this on to Dr.O, I will go out to San Bdo> this week and have a look at the 2002 file, dontcha think?

> N

>> Original Message

> From: Lisa Ostella [mailto:[email protected]]

> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 4:49 PM> To: Neil Sanky

> Subject: RE: HELLO ??? (again)

>> Hmm, if the forged documents actually came out of Phil Bergs office, well,

> filing lawsuits would be an excellent cover, huh?

>

> Factcheck is in Pennsylvania.

>> As is Phil Berg.

>>

> Lisa Ostella

> Defend Our Freedoms Foundation> http://defendourfreedoms.org

> Peace through Strength

> http://www.barofintegrity.com >

>

>>

>

>

>>

> > From: [email protected]

> > To: [email protected]> > Subject: RE: HELLO ??? (again)

> > Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:35:46 -0700

> >> > Yes but a SEAL !!, and HOW MANY aliases?

> >

> > Original Message> > From: Lisa Ostella [mailto:[email protected]]

> > Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:46 PM

> > To: Neil Sanky> > Subject: RE: HELLO ??? (again)

> >


33/41


> > Insight, such as, Lisa Liberi (Phil Bergs assistant) really being Lisa

> > Richards, with a police record for ID theft?> >> > Mighty convenient talent to have when there are multiple identities flying

> > around.

> >> > Ive not researched that insight yet. I didnt have a warm and fuzzy

> > interaction with (redacted name of volunteer )So I dont know if this is planted info

droppings> > or not.

> >

> >> > Lisa Ostella

> > Defend Our Freedoms Foundation

> > http://defendourfreedoms.org

> > Peace through Strength

> > http://www.barofintegrity.com > >

This entry was posted on Sunday, May 31st, 2009 at 2:19 pm and is filed underUncategorized. You can

follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, ortrackbackfrom

your own site.

Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire is proudly powered by WordPress

Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

19.

The above emails are altered and forged emails as broken down in

EXHIBIT 1. I did not authorize any party to alter, fabricate, draft or send out

emails using my email address, name and/or Company name.

20. I have also reported the crimes of Conspiracy to Commit a Felony andForgery to Detective Cano with the North Brunswick Police Department as a

result of Defendants Neil Sankey and Orly Taitz criminal activities.


34/41


I declare under the penalty of Perjury of the laws of the United States that the

foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 8th

day of June, 2009.

__________________________

LISA OSTELLA, Plaintiff

s/ Lisa Ostella


35/41


EXHIBIT 1


36/41

1

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com

/blog1/?p=1843

Dr.OrlyTaitzE

squire

DefendOurFreedomsFoundation26302LaPazste211,Missio

nViejoCA92691Copyright2009

FromreaderBobS.Didanyon

eseeHankPaulsoncomingout

ofhishouselately?

ReKeyesvObama

Iamt

ryingtostayawayfromL

iberi-Bergissue,

butigotmorequestionsandhereismor

einfo.

Iwasaskedbyanumberofpeopletoexplainwhythenameof

LisaOstellaisonthedossier#4.

WhenIwasinWashingtonDC

,Ididnothaveanaccessto

the

Internet,asIwasvisitingthe

DirectoroftheSelectiveServ

ice

WilliamChatfieldandofficeso

fseveralsenatorsandwason

the

phonewiththeassistantandlegalcounselforAdmiralMalin.A

lot

ofpeopleaskedmeforanupdateandIcalledLisaOstella,thew

eb

master,andaskedhertopost

itontheInternet.Asyoucan

see,thefactthatshesignedDefendOurfFeedomsFoundations,and

sheputhernameasanassistant

tome,clearlyshowsthatshekn

ew

itismyfoundation,undermy

nameandshecouldsignas

an

assistantonlyaslongasshe

washelpingme.Themom

ent

Itransferredtoanotherwebmaster,shehadandhasnorightto

advertiseonbehalfoftheDefendOurFreedomsfoundation,sol

icit

donationsandpocketthemoney.

Youcanalsosee(intheattach

ment)thatshewastheonethat

contactedtheprivateinvestigato

rMr.Sankey,andprovidedhim

theinformationthatLisaLiber

i,assistanttoPhilBerg,has

a

criminalrecord.Basedonherre

portMr.Sankeyhasinvestigate

d

andconfirmedthisinformation,thatindeedLisaLiberihasth

is

lengthyrecordofforgeryofdoc

umentsandforgeryofanofficial

sealandgrandtheft.LisaOstellachangedhertuneonlyafterth

is


37/41

2

wholeissuewithpay-palcame

out.Atfirstsheandtherestof

theplaintiffscameoutwithan

outrageousliethatmyhusban

d

wasspyingonpeople.Nowtheydismissedtheirlawsuitagain

st

myhusband-andeverybodykn

owsthatitwasamanufacture

d

charge.

Asyoucansee,shewaswellawareaboutLiberiscriminal

record,aswasBergandLibe

riherself.Theirlegalaction

is

nothingbutperjuryandanatt

emptedobstructionofjustice.

I

havewritteninthepleadingsthattheonlyaddressthatLiberi

provided,wasBergsofficeaddressandthereasonisthatsh

e

indeedresidesinNMandisth

eLisaLiberiwiththecriminal

record.Ireceivedane-mailrecentlythatinthelastcoupleof

daysLisaLiberihasgottenaPA

driverslicense.Ifshegotonein

thelastcoupleofdays,thatd

oesntchangethefactthatsh

e

residedinNM

andthatallofthem

committedperjury.

If

anything,gettingaPA

driverslicense

now

isyetanother

attempttoobstructjustice.

AsIhavesaidbefore,Idontge

tintimidatedbyeitherObamaor

byBerg.Onecannotfileafraudulentandmaliciouslegalactio

n

againstmeandexpecttoshutm

eupandmakemestopreportin

g

onillegalandcriminalactivity.

Allthatthesepeoplearedoing,

isaddingcountsoffraud,perjuryandobstructionofjustice.Th

e

onlythingBergcando,iscomeclean,disassociatehimselffrom

LisaLiberi,whohasarecordo

fforgeryandheneedstohire

a

forensicdocumentexaminerto

checkalltherecordshandledb

y

LisaLiberi.Wecannotwinin

courtwithforgedrecords.Th

is

informationwasalreadyontheblogsbeforeIgotitanditwillb

e

ontheblogs,hiscontinuingdenialofclearevidencehasnomerit

and

undermines

everybody

in

the

resistance

movemen

t,

everybodywhowantstogettothetruth.Theonlywaytowin,is

bycleanevidence,unsealingthevitalrecordsandlettingth

e

SupremeCourtdecidetheissueoftheNaturalBornCitizen.

***ThefollowingEmailswiththeaboveposthavebeen

alteredandforged


38/41

3

FORGEDANDALTERNEDEMAILplacedonOrlyTaitzswebsite

ORIG

INALCORRECTUN-ALTER

EDEMAILWHICH

athttp://www.orlytaitzesq.c

om/blog1/?p=1843BYOrly

Taitz

WAS

SENTANDRECEIVED:

NUMBER1:

NUM

BER1:

>

From:nsankey@thesankeyfirm

.com

>From

:[email protected]

>

To:[email protected]

>To:[email protected]

>

Subject:RE:HELLO???(again)

>Subject:RE:HELLO???(again)

>

Date:Sun,15Mar200917:02:00-0700

>Date:Sun,

15Mar200917:02:00-0700

>

>

>

Indeeditwould.Ifyouwould

passthisontoDr.O,IwillgoouttoSanBdo

>IfyouwouldpassthisontoDr.O,

Iwillgo

outtoSanBdo

>

thisweekandhavealookatth

e2002file,dontchathink?

>this

>

>N

>

N

>

>N

UMBER2:

NUMBER2:

>OriginalMessage

>From:LisaOstella[mailto:[email protected]]

NOSU

CHEMAILEXISTSNEVERSENTNUMBER2ON

>Sent:Sunday,March15,20094:49PM

ORLYTAITZWEBSITEISACOMPLETEM

ANUFACTURED

>To:NeilSanky

ANDFORGEDEMAIL

>Subject:RE:HELLO???(again)

>

>Hmm,iftheforgeddocumentsac

tuallycameoutofPhilBergsoffice,well,

>filinglawsuitswouldbeanexcellentcover,huh?

>>ornot.

>FactcheckisinPennsylvania.

>

>AsisPhilBerg.

>

>

>LisaOstella

>DefendOurFreedomsFoundatio

n

>http://defendourfreedoms.org

>PeacethroughStrength

>http://www.barofintegrity.com

>


39/41

4

NUMBER

3:

NUMBER

3:

>>From:nsankey@thesankeyfirm

.com

Actual

EmailNoAlterationsonthisdocument

>>To:[email protected]

>>Subject:RE:HELLO???(again)

>>Date:Sun,15Mar200916:35:46-0700

>>

>>YesbutaSEAL!!,andHOWM

ANYaliases?

>>

NUMBER

4:

NUMBER

4:

>>OriginalMessage

>>----

-OriginalMessage-----

>>From:LisaOstella[mailto:[email protected]]

>>Fro

m:LisaOstella[mailto:lisaostella@h

otmail.com]

>>Sent:Sunday,March15,2009

3:46PM

>>Sent:Sunday,March15,

20093:46PM

>>To:NeilSanky

>>To:NeilSanky



>>

>>

>>Insight,suchas,LisaLiberi(Ph

ilBergsassistant)reallybeingLisa

>>I've

notresearchedthatinsightyet.Idid

n'thaveawarmandfuzzy

>>Richards,withapolicerecordforIDtheft?

>>interactionwithSarah.

SoIdon'tknowifthisisplantedinfodroppings

>>

>>ornot.

>>Mightyconvenienttalenttohavewhentherearemultipleidentities

flying

>>

>>around.

>>

>>

>>LisaOstella

>>Ivenotresearchedthatinsight

yet.Ididnthaveawarmandfuzzy

>>DefendOurFreedomsFoundation

>>interactionwith(redactedname

ofvolunteer)SoIdontknowifthisisplantedinfo

>>De

fendOurFreedomsFoundation

droppings

>>http://defendourfreedoms.org

>>ornot.

>>http://defendourfreedoms.org

>>

>>PeacethroughStrength

>>LisaOstella

>>http://www.barofintegrity.com

>>PeacethroughStrength

>>http://www.barofintegrity.com

>>

Thisen

trywaspostedon

Sun

day,M

ay31st,

2009at

2:1

9pm

andisfiledun

der

Unca

tegorize

d.

Youcan

followanyre

sponses

tothisen

try

throug

hthe

RSS

2.0

feed.

Youcan

leavearesponse,

or

trac

kback

fromyourownsi

te.

Dr.

Orly

Tai

tzEsqu

ireis

prou

dlypowered

by

Word

Press

En

tries

(RSS)an

dCommen

ts(RSS).


40/41

5

***

NoteonNumber4:The

smileyintheforgedemailbearstheexactsamesmileyfaceuse

dbyOrlyTaitzonherwebsiteat

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=1445

***

NOTENEILSANKE

YWITHTHESANKEYFIR

MWASONPLAINSRADIO,www.plainsradio.comONMAY28,2009WHEREIN

NEILSANKEYSTATED:

IRECEIVEDANEMAILFROMLISAOSTELLASTATINGLISALIBERI(PHILBE

RGSASSISTANT)WAS

R

EALLYLISARICHARDSWITHAPOLICERECORDFOR

IDENTIFICATIONTHEFT.


41/41


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,


LISA LIBERI, et al,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Defendants.

:::::

:::::


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of Plaintiffs Response in Opposition

to Defendant, Edgar Hale; Caren Hale; Plains Radio a/k/a Plains Radio, Inc; KPRN AM 1610;

and Bar H. Farms Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative transfer the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1406(a) was served this 11th

day of June 2009 via United States Postal Service with postage

fully prepaid upon the following:

Mr. Ted Hoppe, Esquire

Hoppe & Martin

423 McFarlan Road, Suite 100Kennett Square, PA 19348

Attorney for Defendants: Ed Hale; Caren Hale;

Plains Radio; KPRN; andBar H Farms

________________________PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE

s/ Philip J. Berg

56_2009!06!11_opposition Re #25 Hale Motion to Dismiss

Documents