LIBERI V TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition To First MOTION To Disqualify Counsel Philip J. Erg - 52728311

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 173 Filed 04/10/11 Page 1 of 4 Page ID
#:4020
1 Philip J. Berg, Esquire (PA I.D. 9867)

2
E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com
LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG
3 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
4 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659
5 Attorney in pro se and for Plaintiffs
6
Lisa Ostella, and Go Excel Global
7 c/o Philip J. Berg, Esquire
8 E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
9
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
10 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659
11
Plaintiffs in pro se pending Mr. Berg’s Pro Hac Vice
12 Lisa Liberi
Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659
16 Plaintiff in pro se pending Mr. Berg’s Pro Hac Vice
17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
18
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
19 SOUTHERN DIVISION
LISA LIBERI, et al, :
20 : CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:
:
21 Plaintiffs, : 8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW)
:
22 : PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE IN
vs. :
23 : OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS
: MOTION REQUEST TO
24 : TERMINATE PHILIP J. BERG,
ORLY TAITZ, et al, :
25 : ESQUIRE AS AN ATTORNY ON
: THE CASE
26 Defendants. :
: Date of Hearing: May 9, 2011
27 : Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m.
: Location: Courtroom 10D
28
Liberi_Response_Opp_Taitz_Termin_Berg_04_08_11 -2.
1
#:4021
1 PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS

2
ORLY TAITZ and DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC.
MOTION REQUEST TO TERMINATE PHILIP J. BERG, ESQ. AS AN
3 ATTORNEY ON THE CASE
4
5 COMES NOW Plaintiffs, Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter at times
6
“Berg”]; Lisa Ostella [hereinafter at times “Ostella”]; Lisa Liberi [hereinafter at
7
8 times “Liberi”]; Law Offices of Philip J. Berg; and Go Excel Global and files the
9 within Response in Opposition; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; and

10
Declarations in Opposition to Defendants, Orly Taitz [hereinafter at times “Taitz”]
11
12 and Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. [hereinafter at times “DOFF”]
13
improper Motion to Terminate Berg as Counsel on the Case. In support hereof,
14
15
Plaintiffs aver the following:
16
17 1. Taitz failed to sign her Motion and therefore, it must be stricken, see
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P.) 11(a) and this
18 Court’s Local Rule (L.R.) 11-1;
19
2. Taitz includes a statement called “Affidavit”; however, it is not
20
notarized or signed under the Penalty of Perjury and therefore, must
21 not be considered. As a result, Taitz’s Motion is not in compliance
with this Court’s L.R. 7-6 and therefore must be denied, L.R. 7-12;
22
23 3. Taitz and DOFF fail to cite to any facts to support their request or
contention for said Motion in violation of the Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1);
24
25 4. Taitz and DOFF have failed to comply with the this Court L.R. 7-3
and “meet and confer” with the opposing parties ten (10) days prior to
26 the filing of their Motion;
27
5. Taitz also failed to comply with the Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 and this Court’s
28 L.R. 11-3.8(c) in failing to place the Court’s caption on her Motion;
2
#:4022
1 and failing to number her paragraphs; Taitz also failed to comply with
2
this Court’s L.R. 11-3.8(a), by failing to include her California State
Bar Number and email address;
3
4 6. Attorney Philip J. Berg, Esq. is not only a Plaintiff in the within
action, he has yet to file his Application for Pro Hac Vice status
5 regarding the other Plaintiffs. Thus, Taitz and DOFF Motion is
6 completely improper;
7
7. Taitz and DOFF have failed to cite one case; or legal authority which
8 would give this Court the authority to grant their request, much less to
support their request; and
9
10 8. Berg should be admitted Pro Hac Vice as he meets all the criteria
required, has been litigating the case since May 4, 2009, is familiar
11 with the case, and readily available and willing to represent the
12 Plaintiffs, once he applies for Pro Hac Vice admission.
13
For the reasons stated herein, Defendants Taitz and DOFF Motion to
14
15
Terminate Philip J. Berg, Esquire as an attorney on this case must be Denied.
16
17
Respectfully submitted,
18
19
20
Dated: April 10, 2011 /s/ Philip J. Berg
21 Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Pennsylvania I.D. 9867
22
Telephone: (610) 825-3134
26
Attorney in Pro Se and Counsel for the
27 other Plaintiffs pending Pro Hac Vice
28 admission
3
#:4023
1 Dated: April 10, 2011 /s/ Lisa Ostella

2
LISA OSTELLA; and
GO EXCEL GLOBAL
4 LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG
6
Plaintiffs in pro se pending Mr. Berg’s
7
admission Pro Hac Vice
8
9
10 Dated: April 10, 2011 /s/ Lisa Liberi
11 LISA LIBERI
c/o Philip J. Berg, Esquire
14
15 Plaintiff in pro se pending Mr. Berg’s
admission Pro Hac Vice
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 173-1 Filed 04/10/11 Page 1 of 2 Page ID
#:4024
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 SOUTHERN DIVISION
6
7 :
LISA LIBERI, et al
8
: CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:
:
:
:
10 vs. : PROPOSED ORDER DENYING
:
11 : DEFENDANTS MOTION TO
: TERMINATE PHILIP J. BERG,
12 ORLY TAITZ, et al, :
: ESQ. AS AN ATTORNEY ON THE
13 : CASE
Defendants. :
14 : Date of Hearing: May 09, 2011
: Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m.
15 : Location: Courtroom 10D
16
17 ORDER
18
On May 9, 2011, Defendants Motion Request to Terminate Philip J. Berg,
19
20
Esquire as an Attorney on the case came on for hearing. The Court having
21 reviewed and considered the moving papers, the Plaintiffs Opposition thereto, the
22
records on file with this Court, having heard Oral Argument and for GOOD
23
24 CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and DECREED:
25
Defendants, Orly Taitz and Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Motion
26
is hereby DENIED.
27
28
1
#:4025
1 IT IS SO ORDERED
2
3
4 Dated: May ___, 2011 ______________________________
Judge of the United States District
5 Court, Central District of California,
6 Southern Division
7
Respectfully submitted by:
8
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
9
10 Pennsylvania I.D. 9867
13 Telephone: (610) 825-3134
14
Lisa Ostella; and
15 Go Excel Global
16
19 Lisa Liberi
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
#:4026

2
Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659
6
9
10 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659
11
12 Lisa Liberi
Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659
17
18
20
21 LISA LIBERI, et al :
22 :
Plaintiffs, : 8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW)
23 :
:
24 vs. : PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OF
:
25 : SERVICE
26 :
:
27 Defendants. :
:
28 :
Liberi, et al Response & Memorandum Cert of Svc. 04/09/2011 1

#:4027
1
I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs
2
3 Response in Opposition to Defendants Orly Taitz and Defend our Freedoms Foundations,
4 Inc. Motion to Terminate Philip J. Berg, Esq. as Counsel on the within Case was served
5
through the ECF filing system and/or mail as indicated below, this 10th day of April 2011
6
upon the following:
7
8 Orly Taitz
26302 La Paz Ste 211
9
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
10 Ph: (949) 683-5411
11 Fax: (949) 586-2082
Email: orly.taitz@gmail.com and
12 Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
13 Served via the ECF Filing System
14 Attorney in pro se and for Defendant Defend our
15 Freedoms Foundation, Inc.
16
The Sankey Firm, Inc.
17 2470 Stearns Street #162
18
Simi Valley, CA 93063
By USPS Mail with Postage fully prepaid
19
20 Neil Sankey
P.O. Box 8298
21 Mission Hills, CA 91346
22 By USPS Mail with Postage fully prepaid
23
Sankey Investigations, Inc.
24 P.O. Box 8298
Mission Hills, CA 91346
25
26
27 /s/ Philip J. Berg
_______________________

#:4028

2
Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659
6
9
10 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659
11
12 Lisa Liberi
Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659
17
18
LISA LIBERI, et al, :
20 : CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:
:
vs. :
22 : PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN
:
23 : SUPPORT OF THEIR IN
: OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS
24 ORLY TAITZ, et al, : MOTION TO TERMINATE PHILIP
:
25 : J. BERG, ESQUIRE AS AN
Defendants. :
26 : ATTORNY ON THE CASE
: Date of Hearing: May 9, 2011
28 Location: Courtroom 10D
Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 1

#:4029
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………….………..i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………....ii-iii
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES…………………….…1-14
I. FACTS……………………………………………………..............2-6
II. TAITZ AND DOFF’s MOTION/REQUEST DOES NOT

COMPLY WITH THE FED. R. CIV. PROC. OR THIS
COURT’S L.R.’s…………………….…………………………….6-9
III. DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ADDRESS ANY REASON

BERG SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE,
DEFENDANTS MOTION MUST BE DENIED………………...9-14
CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………..14
i
#:4030
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES Page(s)
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U. S. 279 (1991)……………………………………...13
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937,

173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)………………………………………………….………..4
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)……………………………………...….4
Panzardi-Alvarez v. United States, 879 F.2d 975 (1st Cir. 1989)………………....12
Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993)……………………………………….13
United States v. Garrett, 179 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 1999)……………………….....12
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140,

126 S. Ct. 2557, 165 L. Ed. 2d 409 (2006)……………………………………11, 13
United States v. Lillie, 989 F.2d 1054 (9th Cir. 1993)………………………..…..12
United States v. Panzardi-Alvarez, 816 F.2d 813 (1st Cir. 1987)………..……….12
United States v. Walters, 309 F.3d 589, 592-93 (9th Cir. 2002)…...................12, 13
FEDERAL STATUTES Page(s)
28 U.S.C. §1746……………………………………………………………………7
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Page(s)
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7………………………………………….……...8
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10……………………………………………...…8
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11………………………………………………..9
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12……………………………………………..3, 4
ii
#:4031
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued
LOCAL RULES Page(s)
Local Rule 7-3………………………………………………………………..…….6
Local Rule 7-6………………………………………………………………..…….8
Local Rule 7-12…………………………………………………………………….8
Local Rule 11.1……………………………………………………………………..9
Local Rule 11.3-8…………………………………………………………………..8
Local Rule 11-9…………………………………………………………………….9
Local Rule 83-2.3.1……………………………………………………………….11
Local Rule 83-2.3.2……………………………………………………………….11
Local Rule 83-7 …………………………………………………………………....9
iii
#:4032
1 I. FACTS:
2
1. On May 4, 2009, Plaintiffs, Philip J. Berg, Esq., [hereinafter at times
3
4 “Berg”] Lisa Ostella [hereinafter at times “Ostella”] Lisa Liberi [hereinafter at
5 times “Liberi”], The Law Offices of Philip J. Berg, and Go Excel Global filed suit
6
against Defendants Orly Taitz [hereinafter at times “Taitz”], Defend our Freedoms
7
8 Foundations, Inc. [hereinafter at times “DOFF”]; Neil Sankey [hereinafter at times
9
“Sankey”]; Sankey Investigations, Inc; and The Sankey Firm, Inc.1 for amongst
10
11 other things: Invasion of Privacy; Intrusion of Plaintiffs solitude and seclusion;
12 placing Plaintiffs in a false light before the public; Appropriation of Plaintiffs

13
name, picture and alike; Cyber-stalking; Stalking; Cyber-bullying; Harassment;
14
15 Filing of false criminal reports; Defamation, Slander, Libel and violation of Cal.
16
Civ. P. 1798, et seq. for the illegal background checks, including but not limited to
17
18
primary identification documents, insurance, medical, sealed Court case
19 information, illegal access to Plaintiffs credit reports, cyber-stalking, stalking

20
Plaintiffs Ostella and Liberi, contacting and harassing individuals Plaintiffs have
21
22 known; and for the illegal distribution of Liberi’s full Social Security number, date
23
of birth, mother’s maiden name, place of birth, spouses name, spouses Social
24
25
26
1
The Sankey Firm, Inc. is in default. Default was entered against them in June 2009, the default
27 was set-aside to allow this Defendant to Answer the Complaint; however, to date they have
failed to Answer the Complaint and Enter their Appearance.
28

#:4033
1 Security number, spouses date of birth and other extremely private information,2 as
2
well as private data pertaining to Ostella. Said suit was originally filed in the U.S.
3
4 District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania and recently transferred to this
5 Court.
6
2. As this Court can see from the Docket, Defendant Taitz on behalf of
7
8 herself and DOFF have continued filing documents which falsifies what this case
9
is about; why this case was filed; and many falsified stories and accusations against
10
11 the Plaintiffs. Taitz is under the impression the Court will not read and catch her
12 in her dishonest tactics, due to the barrage of paper, which unfortunately Taitz has
13
been successful with up until this date. These actions of Taitz’s have caused an
14
15 avalanche of paper as Plaintiffs have been forced to respond and reiterate what this
16
case actually represents. The further barrage of paper is due to Taitz’s continued
17
18
publications on her website, through postal mail, statements in radio appearances,
19 and posting all over the Internet, giving false interpretations of this case, falsely
20
accusing the Plaintiffs (the victims) of what she is actually doing, and her
21
22 continued cyber-stalking, cyber-bullying and stalking of the Plaintiffs.
23
3. Defendant Taitz has also filed approximately six (6) Motions, if not
24
more, to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, all of which were denied, as
25
26 documented by the Court’s docket. Also, as this Court is aware, a party is only
27
28 2
Since Plaintiffs Complaint is drafted pursuant to PA laws, Plaintiffs will be seeking leave to

#:4034
1 entitled to file a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 on one occasion

2
and anything not raised in the initial Motion is deemed waived; thus Taitz’s
3
4 Motions were incompliant with the Fed. R. Civ. P.’s. Taitz asserted the Ashcroft v.
5 Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
6
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) cases as a
7
8 basis for dismissal, however, the Pennsylvania Federal Court found Plaintiffs
9
Complaint compliant with the pleading requirements outlined in Iqbal and
10
11 Twombly and Denied Taitz’s Motions to Dismiss.
12 4. Taitz has done everything in her power, and been successful in her
13
attempts, to prejudice the Plaintiffs and delay the proceedings in the within case,
14
15 including the transfer of this case to this Court, by her improper appeal, which
16
delayed the transfer for approximately nine (9) months. All the meanwhile, Taitz
17
18
has continued her illegal tactics which gave rise to this case, further damaging and
19 harming the Plaintiffs.

20
5. Taitz has now filed, on behalf of herself and DOFF, an improper
21
22 Motion to Terminate Mr. Berg from being Counsel in the within case. Taitz
23
Motion fails to adhere to the Fed. R. of Civ. P., and this Court’s L.R.’s. Not to
24
mention the fact, it is completely improper as there is not even a pending Motion
25
26 for Pro Hac Vice admission at this time. Moreover, Berg is also a Plaintiff in the
27
28
properly amend their Complaint to bring the Complaint within the standards of California law.

#:4035
1 within action and therefore, Taitz cannot terminate him from the case. Taitz has
2
been an Attorney in California since 2002, she knows the Court rules or should,
3
4 and these types of frivolous Motions which are incompliant with the Fed. R. Civ.
5 P. and the Court’s L.R.’s should not be permitted. If allowed, Taitz will further
6
“paper” this Court and file heaps of frivolous pages, again as demonstrated by the
7
8 Court’s docket.
9
6. In addition, Taitz is doing nothing more than attempting to make
10
11 litigation so expensive for the Plaintiffs’ that they will be deprived their right to
12 redress for Taitz’s and the other Defendants wrongs. This problem also would
13
cause the filing of multiple documents, instead of one document signed by the
14
15 Attorney, and force the other Plaintiffs to have to travel to California, pay for
16
hotels, rental cars, etc. for hearings, when it is far more cost efficient to have the
17
18
original Attorney argue any Motions, whether filed by Plaintiffs or Opposed by
19 Plaintiffs, or argue at any ordered hearing. Not to mention the fact that neither
20
Ostella nor Liberi are Attorneys.
21
22 7. Philip J. Berg, Esquire has been counsel for all Plaintiffs in the within
23
case since the day of its inception. Berg is familiar with the events giving rise to
24
the suit and the events which have occurred within the case. To bring new counsel
25
26 in at this late stage of the litigation, would be extremely prejudicial to Plaintiffs
27
Ostella and Liberi, as it would take an astronomical amount of time to bring a new
28

#:4036
1 Attorney up to speed, and further delay proceedings. Further, it would be far more
2
expensive for the Plaintiffs, without Counsel of record who knows the case, its
3
4 history, and who is more than capable of arguing the matter on behalf of Ostella
5 and Liberi.
6
8. For the reasons stated herein, Taitz Motion/Request must be Denied.
7
8 II. TAITZ and DOFF’s MOTION/REQUEST FAILS TO COMPLY
with the FED. R. CIV. P. and THIS COURT’S L.R’s.
9
10 9. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
11
herein.
12
13 10. Taitz and DOFF’s Motion/Request fails to comply with the Fed. R .of
14 Civ. Proc. and/or this Court’s L.R.’s.
15
11. As this Court is aware of, prior to the filing of any Motion, the party
16
17 filing the Motion must “meet and confer” with the opposing parties and/or their
18
Counsel within the required ten (10) day period prior to the filing of their Motion,
19
20 see this Court’s L.R. 7-3. As a result of Taitz’s failure to follow the rules and
21 “meet and confer” with opposing counsel, Taitz was unable to comply with the
22
section of this Court’s L.R. 7-3 which required the following brief statement, “This
23
24 motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3 which
25
took place on (date).” See this Court’s L.R. 7-3.
26
27
28

#:4037
1 12. Prior to the filing of their Motion, Taitz and DOFF were required to
2
“meet and confer” with the Plaintiffs and/or their counsel, which Taitz and DOFF
3
4 failed to comply with.
5 13. Furthermore, this Court’s L.R. 7-6 provides that “factual contentions
6
involved in any motion . . . shall be presented, heard, and determined upon
7
8 declarations and other written evidence alone”. In Taitz and DOFF’s Motion,
9
Taitz includes what she entitles an “Affidavit”. As this Court is aware, Affidavits
10
11 are notarized documents with a seal and are made under the Penalty of Perjury.
12 Taitz statement in her Motion does not even qualify as an unsworn Declaration
13
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746:
14
15 28 U.S.C. §1746 states in particular part:
16
“Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule,
17
regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is
18
required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved
19
by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or
20
affidavit, in writing of the person making the same…such matter may,
21
with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or
22
proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement,
23
in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under
24
penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:
25
26
(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or
27 commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of
28

#:4038
1 perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).

2 (Signature)”.”
3 14. Taitz’s “Affidavit” is not notarized, is not signed under the penalty of
4
perjury and therefore must not be considered. Thus, Taitz has failed to comply
5
6 with this Court’s L.R. 7-6 and the Court must Deny Taitz and DOFF’s Motion or
7
consider Taitz’ failure to comply with this Court’s Local Rules as consent to deny
8
the Motion, see this Court’s L.R. 7-12.
9
10 15. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1) states, “A request for a court order must be
11
made by motion. The motion must: (A) be in writing unless made during a hearing
12
13 or trial; (B) state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order; and (C)
14 state the relief sought.” [emphasis added] Taitz failed to cite any grounds for her
15
Motion/Request to have Berg Terminated as Counsel.
16
17 16. Taitz also failed to put her California Bar number and email address
18
on her title page of her Motion, in violation of this Court’s L.R. 11-3.8(a) and the
19
20 Title of the Court in violation of this Court’s L.R. 11-3.8(c).
21 17. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 states in pertinent part, “(a) Caption; Names of
22
Parties. Every pleading must have a caption with the court's name…” This Rule
23
24 further states. “A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs,
25
each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances”, see Fed. R. Civ.
26
27 Proc. 10(b). Taitz’s and DOFF failed to put the Court’s Caption on their
28 Motion/Request and failed to number each of their paragraphs.

#:4039
1 18. More importantly, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 states: “Signing Pleadings,

2
Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions (a) Signature.
3
4 Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one
5 attorney of record in the attorney's name — or by a party personally if the party is
6
unrepresented. The paper must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and
7
8 telephone number…The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is
9
promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention.” As can
10
11 be seen by Taitz’s filing, Taitz failed to sign the Motion, and therefore, it must be
12 stricken. See also this Court’s L.R. 11-1. Failure to abide by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and
13
this Court’s L.R. 11 grants this Court the power to sanction the attorney. See Fed.
14
15 R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3) and this Court’s L.R.’s 11-9 and 83-7.
16
19. For the reasons stated herein, Defendants, Orly Taitz and Defend our
17
18
Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Motion to Terminate Philip J. Berg, Esq. must be
19 Denied.
20
III. DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ADDRESS ANY REASON BERG
21 SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE.
22 DEFENDANTS MOTION MUST BE DENIED
23
20. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
24
25 herein.
26
21. In Violation of the Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1), Taitz and DOFF only assert
27
28
the statute and what the basis and/or requirements for the granting of an Attorney’s

#:4040
1 Pro Hac Vice application is. Taitz and DOFF fail to assert why Berg should not be
2
admitted Pro Hac Vice, or how Berg fails to meet the requirement of the statute.
3
4 The reason is Taitz could not state any facts that show Berg fails to meet the
5 requirements to be entered Pro Hac Vice. Berg is a Pennsylvania Attorney in
6
“Good Standing”, he has properly litigated the within case, he has been honest with
7
8 his statements and litigation, contrary to Attorney Orly Taitz3.
9
22. Berg has not even filed an Application for the admission Pro Hac
10
11 Vice as of this date, as soon as he does, Taitz will bring yet another Motion,
12 Request, and/or Opposition to said Motion and further dump a barrage of paper on
13
this Court.
14
15 23. However, to address the issues now, instead a second time when
16
Taitz’s refiles her Motion(s), Plaintiffs are entitled to Counsel of their choosing.
17
18
Berg meets the statutes requirements to be granted Pro Hac Vice admission and he
19 is ready and willing to proceed with his representation of the Plaintiffs here in
20
California, just as he has shown, he was more than proficient in the litigation and
21
22 representation of the Plaintiffs in Pennsylvania.
23
24 3
Taitz has a continued history in this case of misstating the facts, filings, contents thereof and
25 even the Court’s rulings, which is proven by the Court’s docket and all Taitz’s own filings that
continually contradict themselves. Taitz seems to believe that the Court will not read anything,
26 allowing her to get away with her fraudulent, frivolous and improper tactics. To date, Taitz has
been successful with these improper tactics due to the avalanche of paper on file, which again
27 was caused by Taitz’s continued filings. However, should the Court read the documents filed,
the Court will see Taitz’s dishonest tactics, statements, and false allegations.
28

#:4041
1 24. The Central District requires any person "who is a member of good
2
standing of, and eligible to practice before, the bar of any United States Court, or
3
4 of the highest court of any State . . . and who has been retained to appear before
5 this Court, may, upon written application and in the discretion of the Court, be
6
permitted to appear and participate Pro Hac Vice in a particular case." See this
7
8 Court’s L. R. 83-2.3.1. Here, there is no question: Berg is in “Good Standing” with
9
the U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA; U.S. District Court, Eastern District
10
11 of PA; the PA Supreme Court; and the U.S. Supreme Court. Furthermore, Berg is
12 familiar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules, as
13
required.
14
15 25. The Central District has noted situations which disqualify otherwise
16
qualified attorneys from Pro Hac Vice admission, such as when an attorney, "(a)
17
18
Resides in California; or (b) Is regularly employed in California; or (c) Is regularly
19 engaged in business, professional, or other similar activities in California." See this

20
Court’s L. R. 83-2.3.2, none of which apply to Berg.
21
22 26. In United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 141, 126 S. Ct.
23
2557, 165 L. Ed. 2d 409 (2006) the Supreme Court accepted the government's
24
concession that a trial court wrongfully denied a Defendant the right to counsel of
25
26 choice where the court refused to grant Pro Hac Vice admission to an attorney the
27
28

#:4042
1 Defendant hired who was willing and prepared to begin representation

2
immediately. 126 S. Ct. at 2560-61.
3
4 27. An individual’s “right to the counsel of his choice includes the right to
5 have an out-of-state lawyer admitted Pro Hac Vice." United States v. Lillie, 989
6
F.2d 1054, 1056 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by
7
8 United States v. Garrett, 179 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 1999). "[A] decision denying a
9
Pro Hac Vice admission necessarily implicates constitutional concerns." Panzardi-
10
11 Alvarez v. United States, 879 F.2d 975, 980 (1st Cir. 1989) (citation omitted).
12 28. The mere fact that a party to the action seeks to retain an out-of-state
13
attorney does not hinder the efficacious administration of justice. His choice of
14
15 counsel must be respected unless it would unreasonably delay proceedings or
16
burden the court with counsel who was incompetent or unwilling to abide by court
17
18
rules and ethical guidelines. United States v. Walters, 309 F.3d 589, 592-93 (9th
19 Cir. 2002) quoting United States v. Panzardi-Alvarez, 816 F.2d 813, 817-818 (1st
20
Cir. 1987).
21
22 29. The Ninth Circuit has held “applying a local rule mechanistically,
23
without discussion of whether the interest of the "fair, efficient and orderly
24
administration of justice" required denial of the application.” When a District
25
26 Court does not find that permitting an out-of-state Attorney to appear would hinder
27
or delay the proceedings. or, the failure of the court to interpret the rule as denying
28

#:4043
1 him the discretion to consider whether legitimate reasons existed for denial of the
2
application. The Ninth Circuit has stated that such discretion is implicit in the
3
4 introductory phrase, "Unless authorized by the Constitution or acts of Congress."
5 United States v. Walters, 309 F.3d 589, 592-93 (9th Cir. 2002).
6
30. As pointed out in United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140,
7
8 141, 126 S. Ct. 2557, 165 L. Ed. 2d 409 (2006) “Erroneous deprivation of the right
9
to counsel of choice, "with consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and
10
11 indeterminate, unquestionably qualifies as 'structural error.'" Sullivan v.
12 Louisiana, 508 U. S. 275, 282 (1993). It "def[ies] analysis by 'harmless error'

13
standards" because it "affec[ts] the framework within which the trial proceeds" and
14
15 is not "simply an error in the trial process itself." Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U. S.
16
279, 309-310 (1991). Different attorneys will pursue different strategies with
17
18
regard to myriad trial matters, and the choice of attorney will affect whether and on
19 what terms the defendant…decides to go to trial. It is impossible to know what

20
different choices the rejected counsel would have made, and then to quantify the
21
22 impact of those different choices on the outcome of the proceedings. This inquiry
23
is not comparable to that required to show that a counsel's deficient performance
24
prejudiced a defendant.” Pp. 8-11.
25
26 31. In the instant case, Berg has been litigating the within case for the past
27
two (2) years, since May 4, 2009. Once Berg files his application for Pro Hac
28

#:4044
1 Vice, or anytime thereto, there is absolutely no reason for this Court to deny Berg’s
2
admission Pro Hac Vice. To do so, would only deprive Plaintiffs of their counsel
3
4 of choice; further delay the proceedings; cost Plaintiffs’ astronomical amounts of
5 money in trying to bring a new attorney up to speed; and waste judicial resources.
6
32. For these reasons, Taitz and DOFF’s Motion must be Denied.
7
8 IV. CONCLUSION:
9
33. For the reasons outlined herein, Defendants, Orly Taitz and Defend
10
11 our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Motion to Terminate Philip J. Berg, Esquire as
12 Attorney for the Plaintiffs must be Denied. Further, it is imperative for this Court
13
to enforce Defendant Orly Taitz, a licensed California Attorney, to follow all the
14
15 Federal Rules of Civil Procedures and this Court’s Local Rules, as any party pro se
16
would be required to do.
17
18 Respectfully submitted,
19
20 Dated: April 10, 2011 /s/ Philip J. Berg
24 Telephone: (610) 825-3134
25
26 Attorney in Pro Se and Counsel for the
27
other Plaintiffs pending Pro Hac Vice
admission
28

#:4045
1
2
3 Dated: April 10, 2011 /s/ Lisa Ostella
4 LISA OSTELLA; and
GO EXCEL GLOBAL
7
8
Plaintiffs in pro se pending Mr. Berg’s
9
Admittance Pro Hac Vice
10
11
12
13
Dated: April 10, 2011 /s/ Lisa Liberi
14 LISA LIBERI
16
18
Plaintiff in pro se pending Mr. Berg’s
19 Admittance Pro Hac Vice
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:4046

2
Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659
6
9
10 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659
11
12 Lisa Liberi
Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659
17
18
20
21 LISA LIBERI, et al, :
22 :
23 :
: DECLARATION OF PHILIP J.
24 vs. :
: BERG, ESQUIRE
25 :
ORLY TAITZ, et al, : Date of Hearing: May 09, 2011
: Location: Courtroom 10D
27 Defendants. :
:
28 :
Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire 1

#:4047
1 DECLARATION OF PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE

2
3 I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, am over the age of 18 and am a party to the within
4
action. I have personal knowledge of the facts herein, and if called to do, I could
5
6 and would competently testify. I am making this Declaration under the penalty of
7 perjury of the Laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746.

8
1. I am an Attorney in good standing, licensed to practice law in the
9
10 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I am licensed to practice in the U.S.
11
District Courts, Middle and Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Third
12
13
Certificate Court of Appeals, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court; and the U.S.
14 Supreme Court.
15
2. I am familiar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the pleading
16
17 requirements outlined in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed.
18 2d 868 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127
19
S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007); and this Court’s Local Rules.
20
21 3. I am the attorney of record for the Plaintiffs in the matter of Liberi, et
22
al v. Taitz, et al, U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 09-cv-
23
24 01898 ECR, which was recently transferred to this Court.
25 4. Although, I have not filed my application for Pro Hac Vice admission
26
in this case, Orly Taitz on behalf of herself and her Corporation, Defend our
27
28 Freedoms Foundations, Inc. filed a Motion to have me terminated as counsel

#:4048
1 without any type of foundation. This is another tactic by Defendant Taitz to

2
prejudice the Plaintiffs, refuse the Plaintiffs their choice of Counsel; and to
3
4 increase the cost to Plaintiffs so they are unable to afford the litigation, and
5 therefore, obtain the redress they are entitled.
6
5. This lawsuit recently transferred to this Court was filed by me on
7
8 behalf of the Plaintiffs on May 4, 2009. I have been litigating this case on
9
behalf of the Plaintiffs since that time.
10
11 6. The basis of the within lawsuit is due to Defendants, Orly Taitz
12 through her company, Defendant Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc.

13
and Defendants, Neil Sankey, Sankey Investigations, Inc.; and the Sankey
14
15 Firm, Inc.’s for amongst other things, Invasion of Privacy; Intrusion of
16
Plaintiffs Solitude and Seclusion; Publication of Private Facts; Placing One
17
18
in a False Light before the Public; Appropriation of Plaintiffs Name and
19 Alike; Cyber-stalking; Stalking; Cyber-bullying; Harassment; Filing of False

20
Criminal Reports; Defamation; Slander; Libel; and violation of Cal. Civ. P.
21
22 1798, et seq. as well as many other violations for the illegal background
23
checks, including but not limited to primary identification documents,
24
insurance, medical, sealed Court case information, illegal access to Plaintiffs
25
26 credit reports, cyber-stalking, stalking Plaintiffs Ostella and Liberi,
27
contacting and harassing individuals Plaintiffs have known and for the
28

#:4049
1 illegal distribution of Liberi’s full Social Security number, date of birth,

2
mother’s maiden name, place of birth, spouses name, spouses Social
3
4 Security number, spouses date of birth and other extremely private
5 information, as well as private data pertaining to Ostella. Furthermore, Taitz
6
through DOFF and the Sankey Defendants destroyed and caused damage to
7
8 Ostella and Berg’s businesses, Law Offices of Philip J. Berg and Go Excel
9
Global.
10
11 7. While this case was before Federal Judge Robreno in the Eastern
12 District of Pennsylvania, Defendant Orly Taitz on behalf of herself and

13
Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. filed numerous Motions to Dismiss,
14
15 which was completely improper. The important factor is that Defendant
16
Orly Taitz claimed the Complaint failed to comply with the pleading
17
18
standards of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868
19 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct.
20
1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). Judge Robreno in the U.S. District Court,
21
22 Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that Plaintiffs Complaint was in fact
23
compliant with the pleading requirements of Twombly and Iqbal and Denied
24
Defendant Taitz’s Motions to Dismiss.
25
26 8. Plaintiffs will be seeking Leave to file a First Amended Complaint to
27
bring their Complaint in compliance with the California laws, as the
28

#:4050
1 Complaint is currently compliant with the Pennsylvania laws, where it was

2
originally filed.
3
4 9. I am familiar with the events giving rise to the within action; and I am
5 readily available and willing to continue representing the Plaintiffs in this
6
California Court. For new counsel to step in at this late juncture would be
7
8 disastrous and prejudicial to the Plaintiffs. Due to Defendant Taitz’s
9
continued filing and “papering” the Court, she has convoluted this case and
10
11 has been successful in confusing what the case actually represents. It will
12 take months to bring a new attorney up-to-date regarding the within case.
13
Furthermore, it forces Counsel to respond each and every time, which has
14
15 been and continue being extremely expensive.
16
10. In addition, Defendant Orly Taitz has been very dishonest in her
17
18
filings and statements with the Court. She has misstated what is on file with
19 the Court; misstated the facts giving rise to the lawsuit; made many false
20
allegations against the Plaintiffs for actions she is actually doing; she has
21
22 filed forged documents from her witness, Geoff Staples; she continues
23
misrepresenting what the Court’s rulings and Orders state; she misrepresents
24
what documents filed by the Plaintiffs state and pertain to; and many other
25
26 dishonest tactics.
27
28

#:4051
1 11. Each time Plaintiffs are forced to respond to Defendant Taitz barrage
2
of filings, Plaintiffs are forced to attach copies of all of Defendant Taitz’s
3
4 publications on her website, postings on the Internet, emails, and proof of
5 forged documents and inaccurate and untruthful statements of Defendant
6
Taitz and her “supposed” witnesses. This in itself creates an avalanche of
7
8 paper.
9
12. I am informed, believe and thereon allege, Defendant Taitz continues
10
11 these tactics as she does not think anyone will read the documents due to the
12 size and content. To date, this has proven true for her, otherwise, if the
13
documents and heaps of paper were read; they Court would “catch”
14
15 Defendant Taitz in her illegal tactics.
16
13. Defendant Taitz is well aware that all the Plaintiffs in this action all
17
18
reside out-of-state. It is far easier to have counsel familiar with the case
19 argue at any hearing which may arise. Plaintiffs Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella
20
are not attorneys.
21
22 14. Disallowing me to continue my representation of my clients, would be
23
extremely prejudicial; cause further unnecessary delays, waste judicial
24
resources and severely increase the Plaintiffs cost of litigation.
25
26
27
28

#:4052
1 I declare under the penalty of perjury of the Laws of the United States and
2
California that the foregoing is true and correct.
3
4
5 Executed this 10th day of April, 2011 in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
6
County of Montgomery.
7
Philip J. Berg, Esquire, Declarant
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:4053
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 SOUTHERN DIVISION
6
7 :
LISA LIBERI, et al
8
:
:
:
10 vs. : PROPOSED ORDER DENYING
:
11 : DEFENDANTS MOTION TO
: TERMINATE PHILIP J. BERG,
12 ORLY TAITZ, et al, :
: ESQ. AS AN ATTORNEY ON THE
13 : CASE
Defendants. :
14 : Date of Hearing: May 09, 2011
: Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m.
15 : Location: Courtroom 10D
16
17 ORDER
18
On May 9, 2011, Defendants Motion Request to Terminate Philip J. Berg,
19
20
Esquire as an Attorney on the case came on for hearing. The Court having
21 reviewed and considered the moving papers, the Plaintiffs Opposition thereto, the
22
records on file with this Court, having heard Oral Argument and for GOOD
23
24 CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and DECREED:
25
Defendants, Orly Taitz and Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Motion
26
is hereby DENIED.
27
28
1
#:4054
1 IT IS SO ORDERED
2
3
4 Dated: May ___, 2011 ______________________________
Judge of the United States District
5 Court, Central District of California,
6 Southern Division
7
Respectfully submitted by:
8
9
13 Telephone: (610) 825-3134
14
Lisa Ostella; and
15 Go Excel Global
16
19 Lisa Liberi
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
#:4055

2
Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659
6
9
10 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659
11
12 Lisa Liberi
Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659
17
18
20
21 LISA LIBERI, et al :
22 :
23 :
:
24 vs. : PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OF
:
25 : SERVICE
26 :
:
27 Defendants. :
:
28 :

#:4056
1
I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs
2
3 Memorandum of Points and Authorities and the Declaration of Philip J. Berg’s in support
4 of their Response in Opposition to Defendants Orly Taitz and Defend our Freedoms
5
Foundations, Inc. Motion to Terminate Philip J. Berg, Esq. as Counsel on the within Case
6
were served through the ECF filing system and/or mail as indicated below, this 10th day
7
8 of April 2011 upon the following:
9 Orly Taitz
10 26302 La Paz Ste 211
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
11
Email: orly.taitz@gmail.com and
12 Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
13
Served via the ECF Filing System
14 Attorney in pro se and for Defendant Defend our

15 Freedoms Foundation, Inc.
16 The Sankey Firm, Inc.
17 2470 Stearns Street #162
Simi Valley, CA 93063
18
19
Neil Sankey
20
P.O. Box 8298
21 Mission Hills, CA 91346
23 Sankey Investigations, Inc.

24 P.O. Box 8298
Mission Hills, CA 91346
26
_______________________

LIBERI V TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition To First MOTION To Disqualify Counsel Philip J. Erg - 52728311

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

LIBERI V TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 173 - Opposition To First MOTION To Disqualify Counsel Philip J. Erg - 52728311

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 173 Filed 04/10/11 Page 1 of 4 Page ID

1 Philip J. Berg, Esquire (PA I.D. 9867)

1 PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS

9 within Response in Opposition; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; and

1 Dated: April 10, 2011 /s/ Lisa Ostella

1 Philip J. Berg, Esquire (PA I.D. 9867)

Liberi, et al Response & Memorandum Cert of Svc. 04/09/2011 1

Liberi, et al Response & Memorandum Cert of Svc. 04/09/2011 2

1 Philip J. Berg, Esquire (PA I.D. 9867)

Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES…………………….…1-14

II. TAITZ AND DOFF’s MOTION/REQUEST DOES NOT

III. DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ADDRESS ANY REASON

Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U. S. 279 (1991)……………………………………...13

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937,

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

Panzardi-Alvarez v. United States, 879 F.2d 975 (1st Cir. 1989)………………....12

Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993)……………………………………….13

United States v. Garrett, 179 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 1999)……………………….....12

United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140,

United States v. Lillie, 989 F.2d 1054 (9th Cir. 1993)………………………..…..12

United States v. Panzardi-Alvarez, 816 F.2d 813 (1st Cir. 1987)………..……….12

FEDERAL STATUTES Page(s)

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Page(s)

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7………………………………………….……...8

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10……………………………………………...…8

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11………………………………………………..9

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12……………………………………………..3, 4

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

LOCAL RULES Page(s)

Local Rule 7-3………………………………………………………………..…….6

Local Rule 7-6………………………………………………………………..…….8

Local Rule 7-12…………………………………………………………………….8

Local Rule 11.1……………………………………………………………………..9

Local Rule 11.3-8…………………………………………………………………..8

Local Rule 11-9…………………………………………………………………….9

Local Rule 83-2.3.1……………………………………………………………….11

Local Rule 83-2.3.2……………………………………………………………….11

Local Rule 83-7 …………………………………………………………………....9

12 placing Plaintiffs in a false light before the public; Appropriation of Plaintiffs

19 information, illegal access to Plaintiffs credit reports, cyber-stalking, stalking

Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 2

Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 3

1 entitled to file a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 on one occasion

19 harming the Plaintiffs.

Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 4

Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 5

Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 6

27 commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of

Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 7

1 perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).

28 Motion/Request and failed to number each of their paragraphs.

Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 8

1 18. More importantly, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 states: “Signing Pleadings,

Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 9

Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 10

19 engaged in business, professional, or other similar activities in California." See this

Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 11

1 Defendant hired who was willing and prepared to begin representation

Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 12

12 Louisiana, 508 U. S. 275, 282 (1993). It "def[ies] analysis by 'harmless error'

19 what terms the defendant…decides to go to trial. It is impossible to know what

Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 13