LIBERI V TAITZ (APPEAL) - Motion by Appellents - 5-16-10 - Transport Room

Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110145601 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2010
U.S. District Court,

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case Number: 09-cv-01898 ECR
Court of Appeals Case Number: 09-3403
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________ Ο _____________
LISA LIBERI, et al,

Plaintiffs’ – Appellants’,
v.
ORLY TAITZ, et al,
Respondents’ – Appellees’.
____________ Ο _____________
APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE APPELLEE, EDGAR HALE’s

LETTER OF FACTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST APPELLEE
ORLY TAITZ; AND REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES
TO BE ASSESSED AGAINST APPELLEES EDGAR HALE AND
ORLY TAITZ IN FAVOR OF APPELLANTS’ COUNSEL
_____________________
Philip J. Berg, Esquire

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
(610) 825-3134
Attorney for the Appellants’
Appellants’, Lisa Liberi [hereinafter “Liberi”]; Philip J. Berg, Esquire
[hereinafter “Berg”], the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg; Evelyn Adams a/k/a
Momma E [hereinafter “Adams”]; Lisa Ostella [hereinafter “Ostella”]; and Go
Excel Global by and through their undersigned counsel, Philip J. Berg, Esquire,
hereby file the within Motion to Strike Appellee Edgar Hale’s Letter of Facts filed
with this Court on May 13, 2010 and Appellants’ Request for Sanctions against
Appellee Orly Taitz; and Attorney Fees to be paid by Appellees Taitz and Hale.
Appellee Edgar Hale [hereinafter at times “Hale”] Letter to this Court filed
on May 13, 2010 was filed by Hale for an improper purpose; to waste judicial
resources and to cost Appellants’ additional Attorney Fees. Appellee Hale’s Letter
contains nothing more than hearsay statements; hearsay documents; speculation;
conclusory statements immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous statements and
material, and are completely irrelevant, impertinent and immaterial to the within
action and therefore, must be stricken. Moreover, Appellee Hale, by his own
admission and as better explained herein is working with Appellee Orly Taitz
[hereinafter at times “Taitz”] to file the within frivolous letter and perpetrate a
Fraud upon this Court.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS:
None of the Appellees, with the exception of Taitz who prior to any entry of
appearance, opposed Appellants’ Motion to expedite their appeal, have taken any
type of interest in the within Appeal until five (5) days after Appellants’ filed their
Motion to Withdraw or in the Alternative Dismiss their Appeal pursuant to Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure [F.R.A.P.] 42(b), as well documented by the Docket.
Appellants filed a Motion to Withdraw their Appeal or in the Alternative a
Motion to Dismiss their Appeal pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
[F.R.A.P.] Rule 42(b).
Appellee Orly Taitz entered her Appearance on behalf of herself and her
Corporation, Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. [hereinafter “DOFF”], on
April 26, 2010, five (5) days after Appellants filed their Motion to Withdraw or in
the Alternative to Dismiss their Appeal.
Appellees Taitz and DOFF then filed their Opposition to the Appellants’
Motion on April 30, 2010 and raised numerous new issues and a Request for Costs
and Sanctions. Appellants’ filed their Reply to Taitz opposition on May 1, 2010.
Appellees Taitz and DOFF then filed a Motion to Strike Appellants’ Reply
filed on May 1, 2010 to Appellees Opposition, which appears on the Court Docket
on May 5, 2010. Appellants opposed Taitz Motion to Strike, Request for
Sanctions and Costs on May 7, 2010. At which time, Appellants’ requested this
Court to Strike Taitz’s Motion to Strike, for Sanctions and Costs as Taitz filed the
Motion for an improper purpose.
2
On May 11, 2010, Appellee Hale sent a letter to Judge Robreno. In this
letter to Judge Robreno, Hale states, “I am working with Dr. Taitz on how is best
to present this to the court…” [emphasis added], admitting he is working with
Orly Taitz. Hale also attached the same Exhibits as he has with this Court in his
filing of May 13, 2010 to his letter sent to Judge Robreno on May 11, 2010. The
difference, Appellee Hale has altered the Exhibits he filed with this Court from
those he submitted to Judge Robreno in the lower Court. Appellee Hale’s May
11, 2010 letter with Exhibits as submitted to Judge Robreno, is attached hereto as
EXHIBIT “A”.
As you can see the side by side pictures in EXHIBIT “B”, copies of the
emails filed by Hale on May 13, 2010 in this Court as Exhibit “6”, page twenty-
two (22) is missing the email from Hale to Chelene Nightingale which was in the
chain. The email filed by Hale is far different then Hale’s Exhibit “3” to Judge
Robreno in Hale’s May 11, 2010 letter. Attached hereto as EXHIBIT “C” are
side by side pictures of Hale’s Exhibit “6”, pages twenty-two (22) and twenty-three
(23) filed by Hale with this Court May 13, 2010 and Hale’s letter of May 11, 2010
to Judge Robreno, Exhibit “3”, pages twenty-five (25) and twenty-six (26) and a
copy of the email forward received by the undersigned from Jim Simpton on May
9, 2010. As you can see, in Exhibit “6” Hale removed his email to Chelene
Nightingale with is attachement as he did not want this Court to see the exchanges
3
with him. And, even Hale’s exhibits filed in this Court and with Robreno do not
match, they have different font, one is bold, etc.
Attached hereto as EXHIBIT “D” is a side by side of Hale’s Exhibit “6”,
page twenty-four (24) filed in this Court May 13, 2010, compared to what Hale
sent to Judge Robreno in his May 11, 2010 letter as Exhibit “3”, page thirteen (13).
You will see that Hale has blacked out parts that he did not want the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals to see and he confused himself. In Edgar Hale’s filing with this
Court on May 13, 2010, at page 7 Hale states on the Appellants’ Exhibit two (2)
filed with this Court on May 7, 2010, the word “this” is spelled correctly, that he
had corrected the word “this” ten (10) minutes after it was posted. However, on
Exhibit “6” the word “this” is mis-spelled “thsi” and implies that the undersigned
and/or the Appellants altered Exhibit “6”. However, Appellants’ only filed two (2)
exhibits. Exhibit “6” which Hale is referring to, is his very own Exhibit which he
filed with this Court and sent to Judge Robreno. Thus, Hale is correct, Exhibit “6”
has been altered, but it was altered and filed by Hale on May 13, 2010 with this
Court and on May 11, 2010 with Judge Robreno.
Hale next states on page seven (7) of his May 13, 2010 “Your Honors, I
have searched the PACER account for these emails to Evelyn Adams aka
Momma E. I have not been able to find them in any papers submitted by Mr.
Berg…That means that these emails had to come from one of two sources. They
4
had to come from Mrs. Adams or Mr. Berg law office.” [emphasis added].
Unfortunately Appellee Hale has lied to this Court again. Please see attached
hereto as EXHIBIT “E”, Hale’s Exhibit “3” pages 28-29 attached to his May 11,
2010 letter he sent to Judge Robreno. As you can clearly see, Hale obtained these
documents off of Pacer. Moreover, if you notice the Pacer header in EXHIBIT
“E”, you will see that Plaintiffs’ (Appellants’) filed the document in the lower
Court in response to Judge Robreno’s Rules to Show Cause, which the lower
Court’s docket reflects.
Appellants’ (Plaintiffs’) were forced to respond to Hale’s frivolous filings to
Judge Robreno and pointed out the fact that Hale’s’ admission to working with
Taitz, has been Plaintiffs’ (Appellants’) argument the entire time. Moreover,
Plaintiffs’ (Appellants’) pointed out to Judge Robreno, that by Hale’s own
admission, Orly Taitz had orchestrated the letter to be sent to Judge Robreno by
Hale. Plaintiffs’ (Appellants’) May 12, 2010 Response to Hale’s May 11, 2010
letter to Judge Robreno, without Exhibits, is attached hereto as EXHIBIT “F”.
Appellee Hale then files his letter with this Court on May 13, 2010,
however, removed statements and altered the exhibits to offset Plaintiffs’
(Appellants’) response to his letter to Judge Robreno, as he was aware Appellants’
would also point out to this Court his discrepancies and his admission to working
with Appellee Orly Taitz. Hale’s alteration to his Exhibits was a Fraud perpetrated
5
upon this Court in attempts to place the Appellants’ in a false light before this
Court and to further delay the dismissal of Appellants’ Appeal. Since Hale has
admitted working with Orly Taitz, see EXHIBIT “A”, with the filing of Hale’s
letters to this Court and the lower Court, and the fact Taitz is an attorney licensed
to practice law in California, and admitted to this Court, she is culpable in
perpetrating the Fraud upon this Court and having these frivolous filings for
improper purposes.
Appellants’ request this Court to compare Hale’s Exhibits in EXHIBIT “A”
to the Exhibits filed by Hale in this Court on May 13, 2010. It is imperative for
this Court to see that Hale is falsely accusing Appellant Lisa Liberi and the
undersigned of manufacturing evidence, when it is in fact Hale and Taitz who have
not only manufactured the evidence, but filed the manufactured evidence with this
Court. It may be in everyone’s best interest for this Court to contact Judge
Robreno in the lower Court and request him to submit a copy of the May 11, 2010
letter he received from Appellee Hale.
Appellee Hale states, “In fact, on the June 25, 2009 hearing, Dr. Taitz
introduced the criminal record of Lisa Liberi to the court. Mr. Berg made no
objection nor challenged that evidence.” [Hale letter, p. 2]. This is completely
untrue. First, Appellee Hale was not present for the June 25, 2009 hearing.
Appellee Taitz was present at the June 25, 2009 Hearing; however, she did not
6
furnish any documents to the Court. Appellee Hale needs to learn that when he
makes these false allegations, he has the burden of proof, not the Appellants’.
In addition, Hale falsely accuses Appellants’ of having something to do with
a person by the name of Jim Simpton, who obviously Hale has had conflicts with.
Hale’s accusations are completely untrue. Hale apparently sent a letter he was
sending to the Third Circuit to a California Governor Candidate, Chelene
Nightingale and to a person named Jim Simpton. Although, I do not know Jim
Simpton, I did receive an email from him on May 9, 2010. Although Mr.
Simpton’s email is self explanatory, it contains an email exchange between
Appellee Hale, Jim Simpton and Chelene Nightingale. The email also contained a
letter addressed to this Court from Appellee Hale, which the undersigned was
never served with. A copy of the email the undersigned received from Jim
Simpton and the attachments to the email are attached hereto as EXHIBIT “G”.
As can clearly be seen, Hale removed crucial parts of the email chains, filed
with this Court, see EXHIBIT “B” between Hale, Jim Simpton and the California
Governor Candidate, Ms. Nightingale. The Court will also notice, the letter Hale
had addressed to this Court, dated May 7, 2010, in the email he sent to Chelene
Nightingale, attached hereto as EXHIBIT “G” is far different then the letter
actually filed by Hale on May 13, 2010 in this Court.
7
It may also be in the best interest of all parties to this appeal for this very
Court to issue a Court Order upon Chelene Nightingale to turn over the emails she
in fact received from Appellee Hale. This will further show this Court the
alterations Appellee Hale made to the Exhibits before filing them with this Court
on May 13, 2010.
Appellee Hale also raised the issues regarding Jim Simpton in his letter of
May 11, 2010 to Judge Robreno. However, in the letter to Judge Robreno,
attached as EXHIBIT “A” he accused Appellant, Evelyn Adams for the email he
received from Mr. Simpton. You can clearly see this was addressed in my
Response to Judge Robreno, see EXHIBIT “F”. Appellant Adams has been off
the internet since she was diagnosed with Cancer and began her chemotherapy and
radiation treatments, which was on or about November 30, 2009. Since this time,
Appellant Adams, who is a seventy-two (72) year old woman has been extremely
ill. As you can see, once Appellee Hale was served with the undersigned’s
response to his letter, he has altered it to again placing the undersigned in a false
light before this Court in order to prejudice both the undersigned as well as the
Appellants’.
With the exception of Orly Taitz’s Opposition to Appellants’ Request to
Expedite their Appeal, none of the Appellees have responded to any of Appellants’
filings and/or taken any type of interest in the within matter.
8
It was only after Appellants’ filed their Motion to Withdraw their Appeal or
in the alternative to Dismiss their Appeal was filed, Appellees Taitz and Hale
began their frivolous filings with this Court as they realized once the Appeal is
withdrawn or dismissed, the case in the lower Court will move forward.
Appellees Hale and Taitz filings are nothing more than an attempted tactical
advantage to prolong dismissal of the within Appeal; to cost Appellants additional
Attorney Fees; to waste Judicial Resources; and to cause delay in the Dismissal of
Appellants’ Motion to Withdraw or in the alternative to Dismiss pursuant to
F.R.A.P. 42(b), which further delays their case.
Further, Hale and Taitz used their filing processes to falsely accuse
Appellants’ of crimes; and to make unsubstantiated allegations against the
Appellants in efforts to place the Appellants’ in a false light before this Court in
order to prejudice them and in attempts to confuse this Court as to the issues
pending before it.
It should also be noted, Appellants’ responded to Appellee Taitz regarding
her false allegation that Appellants’ file documents with this Court and then
republish them. In the Appellants Response filed May 7, 2010 it was pointed out
to this Court that it was actually Orly Taitz who republishes the Court’s filings,
whether they were available on Pacer or not. In Appellants’ May 7, 2010 filing,
web links were supplied and there were even links to Appellee Hale’s website
9
showing he had republished the filing of Appellee Taitz. Appellee Hale has done
this again, Hale’s letter filed with this Court on May 13, 2010 is published on his
website. See EXHIBIT “H”. As if that was not enough, during Hale’s radio
program on May 14, 2010, Hale did nothing but slander and libel the undersigned
and then went on the attack of another individual the undersigned has worked
with.1
Appellee Hale’s filing with this Court on May 13, 2010 does not touch upon
any issues pending before this Court. Instead, his filing contains nothing more
than hearsay statements; hearsay documents; speculation; conclusory statements
immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous statements and material, and are
completely irrelevant, impertinent and immaterial to the within action and
therefore, must be stricken.
As this Court is well aware, pro se parties are required to follow all the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and to conduct themselves in an honest
manner; there are no exceptions. Fera v. Baldwin Borough, 350 Fed. Appx. 749
(3d Cir. 2009); Mindek v. Rigatti, 964 F.2d 1369 (3d Cir. 1992).
For these reasons, Appellee Hale’s filing must be Stricken; Appellee Taitz
must be Sanctioned; and Appellees Hale and Taitz must be ordered to pay
1
The Lions Den Radio Show hosted by Edgar Hale. May 14, 2010, 8-10 p.m. Central Standard Time at
approximately 9:25 p.m. CST into the show. Appellee Hale also posted the PDF documents that he filed with this
Court on May 13, 2010 and announced this on his radio program.
10
Appellants Attorney Fees in the amount of Ten Thousand [$10,000.00] Dollars
within fourteen (14) days.
II. APPELLEE EDGAR HALE’S LETTER FILED MAY 13, 2010

MUST BE STRICKEN:
Appellee Hale’s Letter filed May 13, 2010 contains nothing more than
hearsay statements; hearsay documents; speculation; conclusory statements
immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous statements and material, and are
completely irrelevant, impertinent and immaterial to the within action; and fails to
embark upon or even address Appellants’ Motion to Withdraw or in the
Alternative to Dismiss their Appeal pursuant to F.R.A.P. 42(b).
Moreover, as admitted by Hale in his letter dated May 11, 2010 to Judge
Robreno in the lower Court, he is working with Appellee Orly Taitz. Appellee
Taitz orchestrated Appellee Hale’s filings in order to waste judicial resources; cost
Appellants’ astronomical amounts of Attorney Fees; to increase the Appellants’
costs; to cause delay in the dismissal of Appellants Appeal; and to delay the case
moving forward in the lower Court.
In so doing, Appellee Taitz and Hale perpetrated a Fraud upon this Court by
Altering the Exhibits filed with Hale’s Letter on May 13, 2010.
As this Court is aware, “Scandalous" generally refers to any allegation that
unnecessarily reflects on the moral character of an individual or states anything in
11
repulsive language that detracts from the dignity of the Court. Courts will
typically strike so-called scandalous material only if it is irrelevant and immaterial
to the issues in controversy. See Moore's for proposition that statement may be
stricken as "scandalous" only when it contains allegation "that unnecessarily
reflects on the moral character of an individual or states anything in repulsive
language that detracts from the dignity of the Court").
This Court has the inherent power to "strike from any pleading any
insufficient or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter.” See
Geruschat v. Ernst Young LLP (In re Seven Fields Dev. Corp.), 505 F.3d 237, 248
(3d Cir. Pa. 2007).
Hale’s filing, orchestrated by Taitz, was spiteful; unprofessional; malicious;
impertinent; redundant; scandalous; and done with malice. Hale’s frivolous filing
is part of the reason he is being sued.
Taitz orchestrated this filing and had Hale file it with the Altered Exhibits to
waist judicial resources; publicize their false allegations about the Appellants;
and to delay the proceedings to dismiss Appellants Appeal so the Case against
Appellees can move forward. See Farid v. Murphy, 945 F.2d 394 (3d Cir. 1991)
(The Court sua sponte strikes as scandalous and impertinent the second paragraph
under the heading "plaintiff" at page 10 of the brief for Appellees. The Court
deems the inclusion of that paragraph in the brief to be unprofessional, and deems
12
footnote 7, by which counsel apparently sought to justify the inclusion of the
material, to be disingenuous.). The Court must strike Taitz’s Motion to Strike filed
May 5, 2010.
For the aforementioned reasons, Hale’s Letter filed with this Court must be
Stricken from the Record.
III. SANCTIONS AGAINST TAITZ ARE WARRANTED and

APPELLEES TAITZ AND HALE MUST BE ORDERED TO
PAY APPELLANTS’ ATTORNEY FEES:
Appellees Taitz and Hale will not stop at their crusade; they will continue
harassing Plaintiffs’ herein; they will continue their illegal activities until this
Court puts a stop to it or someone is physically hurt. Taitz orchestrated Hale’s
filing by Hale’s own admission, “I am working with Dr. Taitz on how is best to
present this to the court…” [emphasis added], see EXHIBIT “A”. Appellee Taitz
is an inexperienced Attorney who has managed to be remembered in every Court
that she has appeared.
In fact, Appellee Taitz is not new to the world of Sanctions. In the Order of
Sanctions, Judge Land said it best, “The Court concludes from this conduct that
counsel did have intent to injure anyone associated with the litigation who did
13
not agree with her”2 [emphasis added]. Judge Land even discussed in his ruling
the false and unsubstantiated accusations Orly Taitz, Defendant herein, made
against him. Judge Land stated, “…Rather, counsel used the motion for
reconsideration as a platform to repeat her political diatribe against the President,
to accuse the undersigned of treason, and to maintain that "the United States
District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external
control, and . . . subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which
Plaintiff has previously protested."3 [emphasis added]. After Judge Land issued
an Order to Show Cause upon Orly Taitz, Appellee herein, as to Why She Should
Not be Sanctioned, Taitz filed a Motion to Recuse Judge Land. In so doing, and as
outlined in the case, “Counsel seeks recusal of the undersigned for the following
reasons: (1) baseless speculation that the undersigned may have engaged in ex
parte communication with the Attorney General; (2) fictitious allegations that
the undersigned has a financial interest in the outcome of the case based on
ownership of stock in Microsoft and Comcast; (3) frivolous argument that the
Court cannot issue monetary sanctions as a penalty to deter future misconduct
under Rule 11;…”4 [emphasis added]. Judge Land’s Sanction Order and Opinion
2
Judge Land, Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1380 (M.D. Ga. 2009)
3
Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d at 1369
4
14
was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. See
Rhodes v. MacDonald, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5340 (11th Cir. Ga. Mar. 15, 2010).
Judge Land was not the only Federal Court Judge. Judge David O. Carter,
in his ruling dismissing Orly Taitz’s, Appellee herein, lawsuit stated in his ruling
of October 29, 2009, dismissing Taitz Case, that Taitz continually failed to comply
with the Court’s Rules and Procedures; and Taitz encouraged her supporters to
contact the Court in efforts to manipulate the Court. Judge Carter stated he
was deeply concerned that Orly Taitz had suborned perjury from witnesses she
(Taitz) intended to call before his (Judge Carter’s) Court, as the Court received
several sworn Affidavits stating Orly Taitz had asked them to lie and to perjure
their testimony.5
Appellee Taitz unfortunately has a history which has spilled over into this
Appeal and has prohibited the same falsities towards Federal Judges; U.S. Supreme
Court Clerks; Defendant Taitz “targeted” Judge Carter’s law Clerk; and has
“targeted” any and everyone who stands in her way of what she wants, just as she
has been doing and continues doing to the Plaintiffs’ herein; just as Defendant
Taitz has a known history of falsely accusing her victims of the crimes she is
5
Judge David O. Carter, Barnett v. Obama, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101206, 55-56 (C.D. Cal.
Oct. 29, 2009)
15
actually committing. It is clear, Taitz is doing it to the Plaintiffs’ herein, who are
victims of Defendant Taitz’s illegal and dangerous behaviors.
The more Plaintiffs’ attempt to protect themselves and defend themselves,
Appellee Taitz has her followers and the other Appellees herein go after them
(Appellants’). Appellants’ have been falsely accused of crimes by the Appellees’,
when it is the Appellees’ who are committing the crimes; just like the Fraud
perpetrated upon this Court with Hale’s May 13, 2010 filing.
Hale’s filing must be stricken and his Requests must be Denied. As Hale
stated, he is working with Appellee Taitz who agitates such behavior. Appellees
Taitz and Hales’ false allegations are based on nothing but hearsay statements;
speculation; conclusory statements; immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous
statements and material; and are completely irrelevant, impertinent and immaterial
to the within action. Moreover, Taitz and Hale perpetrated a Fraud upon this Court
by Altering the Exhibits filed with Hale’s Letter on May 13, 2010. Appellee Taitz
and Hale must be stopped from these frivolous filings and continued illegal
activities.
As stated in Walsh v. Schering-Plough Corp., 758 F.2d 889, 895 (3d Cir.
1985):
“Undoubtedly, it was just such considerations that gave rise to the

recent amendment to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. That Rule, promulgated to
keep attorneys "honest" in their pleading practice, now authorizes
sanctions to be imposed when an attorney violates his certificate
16
that good grounds support his pleading and that the pleading is not
interposed for delay. Moreover, our own Fed.R.App.P. 46(c)
provides for action being taken by us in the event that an attorney
who practices before us exhibits conduct unbecoming a member
of the bar or fails to comply with any rule of the court.6”
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides:”
“Every pleading, motion, and other paper of a party

represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one
attorney of record in his individual name, whose address shall be
stated. A party who is not represented by an attorney shall sign his
pleading, motion or other paper and state his pleading, motion or
other paper and state his address…The signature of an attorney or
party constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading,
motion, or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge,
information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well
grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith
argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing
law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such
as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase
in the cost of litigation. If a pleading, motion, or other paper is
not signed, it shall be stricken…If a pleading, motion, or other
paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion
or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who
signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate
sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party
or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred
because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper,
including a reasonable attorney's fee.” [emphasis added]
“It is evident to me that unfortunately there are some counsel who

abuse the judicial process and by doing so make our task and the
6
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(c) provides:
“c) Disciplinary Power of the Court over Attorneys. A court of appeals may, after
reasonable notice and an opportunity to show cause to the contrary, and after hearing, if
requested, take any appropriate disciplinary action against any attorney who practices
before it for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar or for failure to comply with these
rules or any rule of the court.”
17
tasks of our colleagues far more difficult. Historically, attorneys

have been reluctant to "blow the whistle" on their colleagues or to
seek sanctions against their opponents. Perhaps as Professor
Miller notes in a recent article written in a discovery context,7 they
are mindful of a variation on the golden rule "Do not seek
sanctions against what is done to you today, for it may be what
you will try on your opponent tomorrow."
Until this Court takes a stance and holds Appellee Taitz accountable for her
manipulative and wrong behaviors, she will continue her barrage of frivolous
filings; she will continue orchestrating Appellees frivolous filings; and the fraud
perpetrated upon this Court by Appellees Taitz and Hale will continue.
As a result of Appellees Taitz’s and Hale’s Fraud upon this Court and Hale’s
Frivolous Filings, Appellants are entitled to be reimbursed for their Attorney Fees.
For these reasons, Taitz must be Sanctioned and Appellees Taitz and Hale
must be ordered to pay Appellants’ Attorney Fees in the amount of Ten Thousand
[$10,000.oo] Dollars within fourteen (14) days.
IV. CONCLUSION:
For all the aforementioned reasons, Appellants respectfully request this
Court to Grant their Motion and Strike Appellee Edgar Hale’s Frivolous Filing
with this Court on May 13, 2010; deny Appellee Hale’s Request for $100,000 to be
7
Miller, The Adversary System: Dinosaur or Phoenix, 69 Minn.L.Rev. 25 (1984).
18
paid by the Appellants’ to the Appellees; Grant Appellants’ Request and Sanction
Appellee Orly Taitz for Orchestrating the Frivolous Filing and attempting to
perpetrate a Fraud upon this Court; Award Appellants’ Attorney Fees in the
amount of Ten Thousand [$10,000.00] Dollars; and Grant Appellants Motion to
Withdraw or Dismiss their Appeal pursuant to F.R.A.P. 42(b).
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: May 16, 2010 s/ Philip J. Berg

____________________________
(610) 825-3134
19


_____________ Ο _____________
LISA LIBERI, et al,

v.
ORLY TAITZ, et al,
_____________ Ο _____________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
_____________________
I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify that Appellants’ Motion to Strike
Appellee Hale’s May 13, 2010 filing; Appellants Request for Sanctions against
Appellee Taitz and Attorney Fees to be paid by Appellees Taitz and Hale was
served upon Appellees, this 16th day of May 2010 electronically upon the
following:
Orly Taitz
Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc. (unrepresented)
26302 La Paz Ste 211
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
And by Fax to (949) 766-7603
20
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, Continued
Neil Sankey
The Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm (unrepresented)
Sankey Investigations, Inc.
2470 Stearns Street #162
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Email: nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com
Linda Sue Belcher

201 Paris
Castroville, Texas 78009
Email: Newwomensparty@aol.com and
Email: starrbuzz@sbcglobal.net
Ed Hale
Caren Hale
Plains Radio
KPRN
Bar H Farms
1401 Bowie Street
Wellington, Texas 79095
Email: plains.radio@yahoo.com; barhfarms@gmail.com;
ed@barhfarnet; and ed@plainsradio.com
s/ Philip J. Berg
________________________
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE
21
EXHIBIT “A”
Edgar S. Hale III

1401 Bowie Street
Wellington, TX 79095
May 11, 2010
Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno

United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
11614 U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-1797
Send by US Mail to the above address.................................39 Pages
Re: Liberi, et al. v. Orly Taitz, et al, Case No. 09-cv-01898 ECR
Dear Judge Robreno:
I am a pro se defendant in the above entitle case. I am writing you this letter because
of the harassment that Plaintiffs are inflicting upon myself and The Plains Radio
Network.
Your Honor, I have a person by the name of Chelene Nightingale, who is running for
governor in the State of California, who is going to host a talk show on The Plains
Radio Network each Thursday evening at 8 PM Central time . I received an email
from her on May 7,2010 with an email letter attached. Exhibit 2. As you can see by
this email, it is designed to put Plains Radio out of business. I have had several of our
guests receive something from this person over the last 3 or 4 months. I did not know
until now who that person was. I can now say that this has to be one of the Plaintiffs
page 1 of 37pages
in this case. It is obvious that it had to come from them. The reason is very simple. They
are including in this email a copy of the posting in my forum, similar to what was
attached as evidence in their pleading to the 3rd District Court of Appeals.. This person
also included several emails to Mrs. Adam aka Momma E. Only the plaintiffs would
have access to those emails that are attached to that email #1. This was not taken from
the pacer account , since the header on the pdf file would have shown that they came
from pacer. This came from a private source and not from the court system. You can
see by this email #1, that they are threatening to bring Ms Nightingale into this court
action. This is a quote from that email to Ms. Nightingale. It is threatening to her and is
designed to stop Plains Radio.
“to be inadvertently pulled into this lawsuit because of your involvement with Ed”
Only Mr. Berg would have that power to do that. Your Honor, this is deplorable. These
people will stop at nothing to silence Plains Radio Network. This person has sent similar
emails to Gino DeSimone, who is running for Governor in Nevada and Bruce Olsen,
who is running for Governor in Arizona. Gino and Bruce are hosting shows on the Plains
Radio Network.
Your Honor, they say “This information is also on PACER and is public knowledge”.
The person who sent these emails, was in fact one of the Plaintiffs or someone who
is working with the plaintiffs because they are the only ones who have had the original
emails. It had to come from Mr. Berg or Mrs. Adams. No one else had access to these
page 2 of 37pages
emails except Mr. Berg, Lisa Liberi and Mrs. Adams. If it was not one of them that sent
these emails out, then it was someone working for them. In either case, these emails
were turned over to someone who would use them to destroy myself and Plains Radio.
If these email documents had been taken from the Pacer system, then they would have
been marked as Exhibit 1 , which we downloaded from the PACER system for use in our
letter to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.
e.g. Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER document 96 Filed 08/10/09 Page 1 of 1.
When you look at exhibit 2, please pay attention to the fact that none of the email
documents have the Pacer marking. Then look at the exhibit 3, which has the Pacer ID
marking on them . Proof positive that this is the work of the Plaintiffs. They are
responsible. These attachments had to be first hand knowledge and in the
possession of someone very close to or one of the plaintiffs. The threat to Ms.
Nightingale was designed to keep her from doing a show on Plains Radio.
“to be inadvertently pulled into this lawsuit because of your involvement with Ed”
This was a attempt to destroy Plains Radio. This proves beyond any doubt that the
plaintiffs are harassing Plains Radio. These people must be severely punished for this
harassment to me and Plains Radio.
See Exhibit 2.
Your honor, this person sent a 2nd email, Exhibit 3, to Ms. Nightingale, with attachments
page 3 of 37pages
that proves beyond a doubt that all this information came from the Plaintiffs. This email
has documents that were on the Pacer System. If you will notice in exhibit 2, you will
see an email to Momma E. Look at these emails close and you will see no Pacer ID
marks on them. These were sent in the 1st email to Ms. Nightingale. Only the plaintiffs
have these original documents.
In the 2nd email, they realize that they made a mistake by sending those email without
the Pacer ID, so in the 2nd email, they attached the same emails but this time they had
copies taken from the Pacer system. The same document that did not have the pacer ID
(Exhibit 2), in the email #2 (Exhibit 3) had the Pacer Id on each of them. This proves
that the 1st set of email documents came from Berg or Ms Adams. Here is the Pacer ID
marks on the 2nd set of Momma E emails documents.
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 106-8 Filed 08/26/09

Everyone of those emails had the above Pacer ID mark on them. Now there is more in
the 2nd email that proves it is Berg and Adams who are doing this or someone working
with them. One of the attachments to email #2 was a document that a case was
dismissed in Wellington, TX. This again was given to Berg and Adams. It has no Pacer
ID marks. Only one of those two had this document. Your Honor, these people are
trying to destroy Plains Radio and myself. Mr Berg has done nothing but lie to the court
while out to destroy the defendants. These emails were designed to stop Ms. Nightingale
from hosting a talk show at Plains Radio. In the 1st email, they are threatening to bring
page 4 of 37pages
Ms. Nightingale into this law suit. In the 2nd email, this statement is made:
Ed Hale is trying to involve or entwine you with his portion of this lawsuit.
Your Honor. This is the 2nd email that threatened Ms Nightingale. Every time we have
a guest on our network, these people send out emails with nothing but lies packed in
them. Mr. Berg and Mrs Adams are out to destroy me and the Plains Radio Network.
The damage that they are causing could put Plains Radio out of business unless Your
Honor can do something to stop these people. I have asked yahoo mail to track this
person but they will not give me any information without a court order. I would like for
your Honor to issue such a court order to yahoo, this person's internet service
provider and also the Pacer System in order to find the origins of these emails. The
Pacer System would show us who requested these copies and further enhance their
identity. We need this information to put a stop to this harassment.
I believe that without a doubt, I have proved that Mr Berg and Mrs. Adams are involved
in this. Mrs Adams is the only one who had these original emails and she sent them to
her attorney Mr Berg. Your Honor, no one else had access to these original emails
without the Pacer system ID Marks. That alone proves that they are the one who are
responsible for this harassment of myself and all the other Defendants.
In the 2nd email, Your Honor, you will see where this person is trying to get Ms.
Nightingale to contact Mr Berg. They give all his information in this email. Your
page 5 of 37pages
Honor, you will also notice in the 2nd email, this person is trying to get MS. Nightingale
to contact Mr. Berg. This is a a quote from the 2nd email.
You could also contact Mr. Phillip Berg to ascertain the validity of what I have said.
This means your Honor, that Mr. Berg is in on this harassment of myself and Plains.
I attached a unfinished copy of my letter to the reply email that I sent to Ms.
Nightingale. I also included this person's email address in it. What this person did was
exactly as I wanted them to do. When they realized I was going to use this as evidence
in my letter to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, they tried to correct their mistakes. Mr.
Berg calls himself a attorney, but he sure isn't the brightest one around when he gets
caught with his pants down as he did with this one.
Your Honor, this is a serious matter. I believe that Mr Berg has violated his position as
an attorney to the court. I would like to ask the court to sanction Mr Berg by removing
his law license and file criminal charges against him. I believe that Mrs. Adam should
also be held accountable for her role in this and criminal charges should be placed
against her if she is involved.
Your Honor, I will present to the court with in the next week or so, proof that Lisa Liberi
is still manufactoring evidence and that Mr. Berg has lied to the court here in
Wellington, Tx. I am working with Dr. Taitz on how is best to present this to the
court, Ms. Liberi probation department and the local distrcit attorney here in
Collinsworth County. This all occurred in March of 2009, when I filed a lawsuit against
page 6 of 37pages
Mrs. Adams to stop her from damaging me futher. I have proof that cannot be denined
that these act did in fact happen.
I am attaching the letter sent to the Court of Appeals, 3rd District to this letter.
I realize your Honor that you have this case in suspension. However, due to the
nature of what I have proved here, I would like for the court to accept this letter and
exhibits. Your Honor as Mr. Berg stated in his letter, “THIS MUST STOP”, I agree, this
must stop.
The letter that Mr. Berg sent to Your Honor, dated May 10th, Exhibit 4, is a smoke
screen to cover up what I have discovered. Mr Berg realized what I had found out and he
knew I would be contacting Your Honor. So he sent Your Honor a letter yelling “foul”
because he knew what what was coming. Your Honor, please stop Mr. Berg from
attempting to destroy all of the defendants.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Signed/ Edgar S. Hale III
page 7 of 37pages
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

LISA LIBERI, et al,
Plaintiffs
v.
ORLY TAITZ, et al,
Respondents
I, Edgar S. Hale III, hereby certify that this letter has been served
on this 11th day of May 2010 electronically upon the following:
PHILIP J. BERG
philjberg@gmail.com
Orly Taitz, et al and

Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc.
Ph: (949) 683-5411
Fax: (949) 766-7603
By Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
Counsel in pro se
Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. is unrepresented
Neil Sankey
The Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm
Phone: (805) 520-3151and (818) 366-0919
Cell Phone: (818) 212-7615
FAX: (805) 520-5804 and (818) 366-1491
Linda Sue Belcher

201 Paris
Home Phone: (830) 538-6395
Cell Phone: (830) 931-1781
Page 36 of 37 pages
Page 37 of 37 pages
Exhibit #1
page 8 of 37pages
This document was taken from the Pacer account. It shows the
Pacer ID.
page 9 of 37pages
Exhibit #2
page 10 of 37pages
This Email was sent to Ms. Nightingale on May 6, 2010 (Email #1)
From: Jim Simpton [mailto:jimsimpton@ymail.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 1:58 AM
To: chelene@nightingaleforgovernor.com
Subject: An Ed Hale Posting You Should See, And The Ones That Ed Will Never
Tell You About
Hi Chelene,
As you will be a host on Plainsradio starting on May 13th, I thought you

might find this information of interest.
Attached is a copy of what Ed Hale has posted in his forum tonight. This is
a copy of a filing that Orly Taitz has filed in the same lawsuit that Ed
Hale is involved in. This is from the PACER system and as such, is public
knowledge.
Ed Hale is only giving one side of the story here. He is trying to conduct
himself as if he is a court of law.
In all fairness, attached are just 3 emails from the great volume of
evidence that is in this lawsuit showing the very reason that Ed Hale is
being sued. This information is also on PACER and is public knowledge.
The threat to Ms. Nightingale
With the dire straights that our country is in and the attention that you
need to put into getting us out of this mess, to be inadvertently pulled
into this lawsuit because of your involvement with Ed would indeed be a very
sad thing.
Items posted by Ed in his forum reflect upon everybody that is associated
page 11 of 37pages
with the site and the forum, including the show hosts.
Only time will tell as to what happens but this could be the soap opera of
the summer.
Sincerely,
Concerned Citizen / Jim
Dr Taitz trun the tables on Berg - Read thsi Ed Hale Post.pdf

Ed Hale 1-1-2009 Email to Evelyn - MommaE.pdf
Ed Hale 9-6-2008 Email to Evelyn-MommaE.pdf
page 12 of 37pages
page 13 of 37pages
page 14 of 37pages
page 15 of 37pages
page 16 of 37pages
Exhibit #3
page 17 of 37pages
This email was sent to Ms. Nightingale on May 10, 2010 (Email #2)
X-Symantec-TimeoutProtection: 0
Return-path: <jimsimpton@ymail.com>
Envelope-to: chelene@nightingaleforgovernor.com
Delivery-date: Sun, 09 May 2010 01:01:23 -0400
Received: from n14.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.206.41])
by vps.patriot2web.com with smtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <jimsimpton@ymail.com>)
id 1OAydk-0007Hp-F3
for chelene@nightingaleforgovernor.com; Sun, 09 May 2010

01:01:23 -0400
Received: from [68.142.200.221] by n14.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with

NNFMP; 09 May 2010 05:01:17 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.82] by t9.bullet.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP;

09 May 2010 05:01:11 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.109] by t2.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with

NNFMP; 09 May 2010 05:01:10 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with

NNFMP; 09 May 2010 05:01:10 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
page 18 of 37pages
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 179083.1239.bm@omp113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 61041 invoked by uid 60001); 9 May 2010 05:01:09

-0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ymail.com;

s=s1024; t=1273381269;
bh=8LHfRKLi6hcPUgXt4NrnQoCw5C3ZoofiPtWNq/OrdnU=;
h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-
Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
b=WCTwHFHov/BUizS/SHembmXzbMRn8ch45sRL87L8+WeQDZ+VP
X+VKIFuzLrAYKJLLtez1rf+yRh9lEdlLnvUVMr0kmKIM9pJkw11UB
btdN9/auiGkX3/g6i9sjaLs+7oR7l3RKwKJAc2ezH8kMZIwQPSr3kOM
ETs8Qbi/SkV3bQ=
DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=ymail.com;
h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-
Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
b=qFQJfQmpLcnweB8EahiCzCm5vctzd8QqnlaK27KY0CEh3+P/ticbj
IdJLswXc9dM9uEh5xFInKF0W5nGkN80+SUg/kNkaVL9d2L76wMsB5
raBpK5EBKnNlw3jzLhxN5G26EhDEJno1Rq1Gfpj9w8CU0lSw537GA4
nhNFPiMf8lU=;
Message-ID: <356880.60017.qm@web114201.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
X-YMail-OSG:
eaB6RVEVM1kRmm.dFLOIXDc2EJMTJB971DbGZDDk2xz9N0N
oAs0Dmz5MSv2908ZdyojWGfzJ_Dri4GFH_fXvqy4AlWRhfihYXBnp
Wdl7N9M
page 19 of 37pages
2AG5wbVwi1pMjrbHpdhBXSB2T.pWG9ew4fZG.YfBTopoSDwHHFo3
V_Zhrr4I
mYEEdWiQzF5FjUtMCExx9F0TRgSf52Fo1iyxWz2y7njBcxoFz4lBsG
QKh29a
Yos9MXj3OzOAaGGTzHby8J7uT_9DIiAWCj486rgQtbKaIXi.N30H.at
CgEPS
qGj8-
Received: from [64.9.158.54] by web114201.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via

HTTP; Sat, 08 May 2010 22:01:09 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/348.5 YahooMailWebService/0.8.103.269680
Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 22:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jim Simpton <jimsimpton@ymail.com>
Subject: Update: An Ed Hale Posting You Should See, And The Ones
That Ed Will Never Tell You About - Further Information For You
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0-916959345-

1273381269=:60017"
X-NAS-BWL: Found match for 'jimsimpton@ymail.com' on the allowed

list (862 addresses, 0 domains)
X-NAS-Classification: 0
page 20 of 37pages
X-NAS-MessageID: 20905
X-NAS-Validation: {FFDDCD6C-B597-484D-BA90-708AD2F6F82C}

Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2010 10:01 PM
Subject: Update: An Ed Hale Posting You Should See, And The Ones
That Ed Will Never Tell You About - Further Information For You
Dear Ms. Nightingale,
The original reason why I sent you the examples of Ed Hale was to give
you an insight to his demeanor toward women. This is the reason he is
being sued in the Federal lawsuit referenced below.
Thru a strange quirk, or possibly a mistake on Ed Haleâ€™s part,

intentional or otherwise, I have received a copy of this email with the
PDF attachment that Ed Hale sent you.
The emails that Ed Hale does not remember writing are part of the
lawsuit that he is involved in. I have attached the relevant part of the
Document 106 of this lawsuit. â€“ â€œCase 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document
page 21 of 37pages
106-8 Filed 08/26/09â€� The courts will decide the validity of these
emails but you can read them for yourself in the attached PDF.
Ed Hale further states that Evelyn Adams, (aka â€œMommaEâ€�)

â€œMomma E stole the 1964 Obama vs. Obama divorce decree that we
found in Hawaii. She then posted on her site as if it was hers.â€�
What Ed Hale fails to disclose is the fact this matter has already been
thru the court system in Wellington, Texas in a small claims action
brought by Ed Hale and was â€œDismissed With Prejudiceâ€�. Please
see the attached PDF titled â€œOrder to Dismiss - Wellington Small
Claims Plains Radio, Ed Hale vs. Evelyn Adamsâ€�
Ed Hale is not new to making threats. I have attached PDFâ€™s of the

threats he has made to me for expressing my opinions and disclosing
facts. Until it is no longer allowed in this country, I will continue to
express my opinion and disclose facts â€“ which I can prove.
Ed Hale is one of the appellees in the above Federal lawsuit. One of the
others in this lawsuit is Orly Taitz who, strangely enough, is running for
Secretary of State in California. When and if you are successful in your
run for Governor, it will be your duty to initiate an immediate
investigation into the possible criminal actions that she has done to cause
identity theft. Orly Taitz is the second part of this same lawsuit.
page 22 of 37pages
As to the PDF that Ed Hale has sent you that he is â€œgoing to file with
the 3rd court of appealsâ€�, I feel it is my duty and right to forward it to
the attorney of record for the plaintiffs, which I am doing at this
moment.
Law Offices of: Philip J. Berg, Esquire
(610) 825-3134
philjberg@gmail.com
You might also consider submitting a compliant to Mr. Phillip Berg as

this not a proper litigation procedure.
Threat to Ms. Nightingale
It is my opinion that Ed Hale is trying to involve or entwine you with his

portion of this lawsuit. This would be the last thing you would need to
happen to your campaign, to become part of a Federal lawsuit. You have
the right and ability to access any and all PACER documents to read.
You could also contact Mr. Phillip Berg to ascertain the validity of what I
have said.
Sincerely,
page 23 of 37pages
----- Forwarded Message ----

From: "ed@redrivernewsonline.com" <ed@redrivernewsonline.com>
To: Chelene <chelene@nightingaleforgovernor.com>
Sent: Sat, May 8, 2010 10:55:36 AM
Subject: Re: FW: An Ed Hale Posting You Should See, And The Ones
That Ed Will Never Tell You About
Chelene: I do not know if I sent those emails. Yes I am in a lawsuit with

Berg. Momma E stole the 1964 Obama vs Obama divorce decree that we
found
in Hawaii. She then posted on her site as if it was hers. I have a copy of
a chat log that proves beyond any doubt that they stole it from Plains
Radio. This person writing this letter will not give thier name nor
address, but instead hide behind invisiablity. I am attaching a pdf file
that I am going to file with the 3rd court of appeals on Monday. I think
when you look at this, you will see why I am being attacked. Also if you
would please copy the full header on this, I will contact yahoo about it.
I am going to add this email to that pdf file. This is a example of what
Berg will have his people do to stop Plains Radio. Thanks, Ed
Gentlemen,
page 24 of 37pages
This was in my email. Please explain what this is all about.
Kindest Regards,
Chelene Nightingale
<http://www.nightingaleforgovernor.com/>
www.NightingaleForGovernor.com
office: 310-237-5590
email: chelene@nightingaleforgovernor.com
Time for "we the people" to take back our Golden State in 2010!

Subject: An Ed Hale Posting You Should See, And The Ones That Ed
Will
Never
Tell You About
page 25 of 37pages
Hi Chelene,

Attached is a copy of what Ed Hale has posted in his forum tonight. This
is
knowledge.
into this lawsuit because of your involvement with Ed would indeed be a
very
sad thing.
page 26 of 37pages
Items posted by Ed in his forum reflect upon everybody that is

associated with the site and the forum, including the show hosts.
the summer.
Sincerely,
Case 2-09-cv-01898-ER Document 106-8 Filed 08-26-09.pdf

Ed Hale Threat to Me - Jim Simpton.pdf
Ed Threat 4-3-2010 1-34-01 AM.pdf
Order to Dismiss - Wellington Small Claims Plains Radio, Ed Hale vs. Evelyn Adams.pdf
page 27 of 37pages
page 28 of 37pages
page 29 of 37pages
page 30 of 37pages
page 31 of 37pages
Exhibit 4
This is the letter sent to Judge Roberno on May 10, 2010
page 32 of 37pages
LAW OFFICES OF
PHILIP J. BERG
PHILIP J. BERG
CATHERINE R. BARONE
BARBARA MAY
(610) 825-3134
FAX (610) 834-7659
NORMAN B. BERG, Paralegal [Deceased] E-Mail:

philjberg@gmail.com
May 10, 2010

601 Market Street
Sent via Fax to (267) 299-7428...................................................................................................11 Pages
Defendant Taitz, et al Letter requesting Leave to File a Request for Judicial Notice
Dear Judge Robreno:
I’m in receipt of Defendant Orly Taitz’s April 21, 2010 letter, which I am assuming was sent
to Your Honor. Unfortunately, Defendant Taitz addressed the letter to herself and failed to cite any
type of case number or case name. A copy of Defendant Taitz’s letter is attached hereto as EXHIBIT
“A”, which the undersigned did not receive until today, May 10, 2010.
Once again Defendant Taitz flagrantly misrepresents to Your Honor that she (Taitz) has not
used “www.repubex.com” for a year. Defendant Taitz is aware www.repubex.com does not exist. If
you look at the first page of Dossier #6 that Defendant Taitz authored and published, and the very
document Defendant Taitz published Plaintiff Lisa Liberi’s Social Security number; date of birth;
place of birth; and other private, confidential identifying information, which is attached hereto as
EXHIBIT “B”, Defendant Taitz lists at the top under her name her website as www.repubx.com.
Further, in my April 21, 2010 letter to Your Honor, I attached current print screens of the
website, www.repubx.com, which showed the date the print-screen photo was taken. In addition, the
print-screen photos showed “Orly Taitz” published it. Defendant Taitz has sent this Dossier #6 to
everyone, posted it all over the internet, sent it out on RSS Feeds to other websites and social
networks.
Z:\Liberi Ltr to Judge Robreno May 10, 2010 1
Page 33 of 39 pages
Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno May 10, 2010

Page Two
Moreover, I was forced to respond to Defendant Taitz’s frivolous filings in the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals, and after I pointed out and filed with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals the same
print-screen photos, Defendant Taitz had it removed from www.repubx.com, which was on or about
nd rd
May 2 or 3 2010. However, it is still available in the Internet’s cache. In addition, Defendant
1
Taitz’s Dossier #6 with Lisa Liberi’s full Social Security number is still available on the Internet ,
which if this Court pulls said website, you will see Defendant’s Taitz picture and again her claim that
her website is www.repubx.com.
It is clear that Defendant Taitz misrepresented to Your Honor the website name and website
address, so she could not be held as lying to this Court again. However, in my opinion,
her misrepresentation to this Court at this time is just as bad as her previous lies.
The letter of Defendant Taitz fails to cite any law or legal authority to support her Opposition
and fails to cite any law or legal authority for her request for Sanctions against me and the parties I
represent. Moreover, Defendant Taitz letter contains misrepresentations to this Court and contains
nothing more than false allegations about the Plaintiffs; hearsay statements; speculation; conclusory
statements; immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous statements and material; and are completely
irrelevant, impertinent and immaterial to the within action.
Not only am I unsure as to whether this letter was actually sent to you, but I am also uncertain
as to what she is opposing. The filing sent to Your Honor by me on April 21, 2010 was a courtesy
copy of Appellants (Plaintiffs’) Motion to Withdraw and/or Dismiss their Appeal; and a renewed
Request for Leave to file Plaintiffs Motion to have Defendant Orly Taitz held in Civil and/or Criminal
Contempt.
As for Plaintiffs’ request to have Orly Taitz held in Civil and/or Criminal Contempt, Plaintiffs’
attached proof of their allegations, which was taken directly from Defendant Orly Taitz’s website. If
Your Honor would like renewed Affidavits and/or Verifications of parties who observed Defendant
Taitz’s postings on her website, I will be happy to comply.
Defendant Taitz even had the audacity to claim she did not publish Plaintiff Liberi’s Social
Security number after June 25, 2009, which is yet another direct lie to Your Honor. Not only have I
submitted to Your Honor a Court Order from a California Judge in the U.S. District Court, Central
District of CA, Southern Division, Judge Carter regarding Defendant Taitz Dossier #6 with Plaintiff
Liberi’s Social Security number; there are numerous Affidavits on file with this Court, outlining the
dates Defendant Taitz republished Plaintiff Liberi’s Social Security number as well as copies of
Defendant Taitz’s publishings.
1
See http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=1478 and http://www.oilforimmigration.org
Page 34 of 37 pages

Page Three
Due to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella, caused by Defendant
Taitz, criminal reports have been taken by law enforcement from Plaintiffs Liberi and Ostella against
Defendants Taitz and Neil Sankey for their illegal access to Plaintiffs Liberi and Ostella’s credit
reports; Defendant Neil Sankey’s illegal access to Plaintiff Lisa Liberi’s full Social Security Number
and other private identifying information; the distribution by Taitz of Plaintiff Liberi’s Social Security
number and private identifying information with the intent to have her identity stolen, which has now
occurred; Defendant Taitz’s false law enforcement reports against Plaintiffs Liberi and Ostella; and
other illegal activities of Defendants Taitz and Sankey. Said criminal reports have been forwarded to
the California Sheriff’s Department with a request for full prosecution of Defendants Taitz and
Sankey.
As I’m sure this Court has noticed, Defendant Taitz’s has a history of falsely accusing her
victims of the very crimes which Taitz is committing, just as she has done to the Plaintiffs’ and me in
her April 21, 2010 letter. Taitz also has a history of “targeting” individuals, as she has done with my
clients and me.
Your Honor, this must stop. The more Defendant Taitz is allowed to get away with her illegal
actions, the more she becomes empowered and the worse Defendant Taitz’s illegal actions are towards
the Plaintiffs’ herein.
Defendant Taitz April 21, 2010 Request must be Denied. Defendant Taitz must be
held accountable. It should also be noted, none of the Defendants, including Defendant Taitz, has
opposed the filing of the Motion for Civil and/or Criminal Contempt against Defendant Taitz;
Reimbursement to Plaintiff Liberi for the Damages suffered as a result of Defendant Taitz’s continued
violations of this Court’s rulings; Sanctions; and Award of Attorney Fees. In the alternative,
Plaintiffs’ Request this Court to issue an Order to Show Cause upon Defendant Taitz, et al, which
has not been opposed by any of the Defendants, as to Why Defendant Taitz Should Not be held
in Civil and/or Criminal Contempt for her continued Republication of Plaintiff Liberi’s Social
Security number in violation of Your Honor’s Court Rulings and Orders; and why she (Defendant
Taitz, et al) should not be Ordered to reimburse Plaintiff Liberi for the Damages she has suffered as a
result; Sanctions; and for Attorney Fees.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Philip J. Berg
PJB:jb
Enclosures
Z:\Liberi Ltr to Judge Robreno May 10, 2010
Page 35 of 37 pages
EXHIBIT “B”
21
Hale's 5/13/2010 Filing in the 3rd Circuit Hales 5/11/2010 Letter to Judge Robreno
Exhibit "6" - P. 22 of 29 Exhibit "3" which is supposed to be the same
The email header from Chelene Nightingale Email chain which was filed with the 3rd Circuit
was added and Ed Hale's email to Chalene
has been deleted.
Appellee Hale has removed the email from himself to Chalene Nightingale,which was at the top of the page
before the email from Chalene Nightingale, which Hale added the email header to. Ed Hale did not want
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to see he was sending Court documents to this CA Governor Candidate.
The documents are not the same in the least and have been altered by Appellee Hale. There was never
an email header for the email from Chelene Nightingale which states "This was in my mail. Please
explain what this is all about."
See Page Two, below is the email forward from Jim Simpton to Counsel for the Appellants on 5/9/2010
Email chain forwarded from Jim Simpton to Philip J. Berg on May 9, 2010.
EXHIBIT “C”
Appellee Edgar Hales Filing in the 3rd Circuit Court of Edgar Hale's letter to Judge Robreno on 5/11/2010
Appeals on 5/13/2010 - Exhibit "6", pp. 22 and 23 Exhibit "3", pp. 25-26
Both of the above documents are completely different. Different, font, color (bolding); and
Appelle Hale has put a black line through "This is from the PACER system and as such, is public
knowledge"; and also put a black line through "This information is also on PACER and is public
knowledge".
See page two (2) below, which is an email forward from Jim Simpton to Counsel for Appellants'
Email forward from Jim Simpton on 5/9/2010 to Appellate's Counsel
EXHIBIT “D”
Appellee Hale's filing with the 3rd Circuit Court of Edgar Hale's letter to Judge Robreno on 5/11/2010
Appeals on May 13, 2010, p. 24 Exhibit 3, p. 13
As can clearly be seen above, Appellee Hale has blacked out what he did not want the 3rd Circuit
Court of Appeals to see. At the very top, originally on the Exhibit to Judge Robreno, Hale added
"Please note the title above this. It does not show it came from Placer" In the middle of the page
under THE PLAINS RADIO NETWORK, it is blacked out on the copy filed with the 3rd Circuit by
Appellee Hale. However, Edgar Hale added to the copy to Robreno "This is the same page that
Berg presented to the Court. It was not taken from Pacer".
Moreover, the screen shots presented to the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit by Appellants' on
May 7, 2010, Appellee Hale stated that Appellants' Exhibit "2" has the word "This" spelled correctly.
See Appellee Hale's May 13, 2010 filing in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals on page 7. However,
Hale states on Exhibit 6, the word is mis-spelled "thsi" and he had the word corrected, implying
Counsel for the Appellants' or the Appellants' had altered their Exhibit. However, Appellants only
had two (2) Exhibits attached to their May 7, 2010 filing with this Court. Exhibit "6" is the Exhibit
"6" Appellee Edgar Hale filed with this Court on May 13, 2010 and filed the same document as Exhibit.
"3" to his May 11, 2010 letter to Judge Robreno, see page two (2) below. Hale is correct, Exhibit 6
to the 3rd Circuit filing and Exhibt 3 to the May 10, 2010 letter to Judge Robreno have been altered,
but as can clearly be seen, the documents were altered and filed by Appellee Edgar Hale.
Appellee Edgar Hale Exhibit "3", page 13, to his May 11, 2010 letter to Judge Robreno.
See below the header of this page in white on the blue banner, the word "this" is mis-spelled "...%20thsi..."
page 13 of 37pages
the word is mispelled "thsi" as
reflected on the print screens Appellants filed with this Court.
This is not what Appellants' filed - this at all times has been Appellee Edgar Hale's Exhibit, appearing as Exhibit 6 in this
Court and as Exhibit 3 to Hale's May 10, 2010 letter to Judge Robreno.
EXHIBIT “E”
24
Appellee Hale states on Page 7 of his letter filed in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on
May 13, 2010 that he could not find the emails sent to Evelyn Adams a/k/a Momma E anywhere
in Pacer that had been filed by counsel for the Appellants'.
Not true, see the following three (3) pages which were attached to Edgar Hale's letter of
May 10, 2010 to Judge Robreno as Exhibit "3" pages 28-29. Moreover, the Pacer heard
on the above pages, is from Plaintiffs' (Appellents') Response to the Lower Court's Rules
to Show Cause, which you can clearly see on the lower Court's docket.
Unfortunately, Appellee Edgar Hale lied to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals again.
page 28 of 37pages
page 29 of 37pages
EXHIBIT “F”
LAW OFFICES OF
PHILIP J. BERG
PHILIP J. BERG
CATHERINE R. BARONE
BARBARA MAY
(610) 825-3134
FAX (610) 834-7659
NORMAN B. BERG, Paralegal [Deceased] E-Mail: philjberg@gmail.com
May 12, 2010

601 Market Street
Sent via Fax to (267) 299-7428...................................................................................................29 Pages
Defendant Edgar Hale’s letter dated May 10, 2010 to this Court
Dear Judge Robreno:
I am in receipt of Defendant Edgar Hale’s letter dated May 10, 2010 to this Court. The letter is
unsigned and contains nothing more than false allegations about Plaintiffs Lisa Liberi, Evelyn Adams
and myself; hearsay statements; speculation; conclusory statements; immaterial, impertinent, and
scandalous statements and material; and are completely irrelevant, impertinent and immaterial to the
within action.
Further Defendant Hale’s letter to Your Honor was sent for improper reasons, including costing
Plaintiffs’ additional attorney fees and to waste judicial resources. This letter, other than a few
admissions, which I will point out, does not even dignify a response.
I would like to point several things out. Defendant Hale is falsely accusing Plaintiff Lisa Liberi
of “manufacturing evidence” which is completely untrue. Defendants have “manufactured”
documents, which Plaintiffs’ brought to this Court’s attention last year. Defendants have altered,
forged and manufactured emails in the name of Plaintiffs Liberi and Ostella, copies of which were
submitted to this Court and outlined in Plaintiffs Response to this Court’s Rules to Show Cause and
evidenced by the Exhibits filed along with Plaintiffs’ Response. It should also be noted, none of which
were ever refuted by the Defendants. I am incorporating by references Plaintiffs’ Response and all
Exhibits filed with Plaintiffs’ Response to this Court’s Rules to Show Cause, appearing on the Docket
as Docket Entries 106 and 107.


Page Two
I would also like to remind this Court, the Plaintiffs’ arguments have always been that
Defendants Edgar Hale, Caren Hale, Neil Sankey, Linda Belcher and the rest of the Defendants teamed
up with Defendant Taitz and targeted the Plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania jurisdiction. Mr. Hale has now
graciously admitted such, wherein he states “I am working with Dr. Taitz on how is best to present
this to the court, Ms. Liberi probation department and the local district attorney here in Collinsworth
County.” [emphasis added]. Plaintiff Liberi has never been to Collinsworth County. Defendant Hale’s
letter to Your Honor also provides the proof necessary that Defendant Taitz’s has orchestrated this
event with Defendant Hale.
Defendant Taitz’s is an Attorney licensed in the State of California to practice Law. As such,
this Court must sanction her for her actions and forward the information to the California State Bar for
immediate investigation.
Defendant Hale is correct, he did file suit against Plaintiff Evelyn Adams in or about March
2009, and I represented Plaintiff Adams in that action. The Court dismissed the action with
prejudice. The dismissal of this Wellington, Texas lawsuit was posted by Plaintiff Adams on her
website, as she was being harassed with Defendant Hale’s false allegations. Anyone could have
downloaded the dismissal.
Defendant Hale falsely accuses the other Plaintiffs and me of working with Jim Simpton. This
is completely untrue. I do not know who Jim Simpton is; however, I did receive an email from this
person on May 9, 2010. See EXHIBIT “A”. Mr. Simpton’s email is self-explanatory. The email also
contained an email exchange between Defendant Hale and a Chelene Nightingale. I didn’t know who
Ms. Nightingale was until now. Apparently Ms. Nightingale is a Candidate for Governor for the State
of California. None of the Plaintiffs reside in California and therefore would have no reason to follow
her or even be aware of her. However, Defendant Hale attached a letter he supposedly sent to the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals. See EXHIBIT “B”. Although Defendant Hale claims he served it
upon me electronically, he never did. I learned of this supposed filing when I received Jim Simpton’s
email. I will however, address the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit if Defendant Hale’s
letter is ever filed. As for the emails that Defendant Hale sent to Plaintiff Evelyn Adams (MommaE),
those were included in the lawsuit filed May 4, 2009, which is public record. Anyone could have
extracted the emails from the actual lawsuit. Contrary to Defendant Hale’s statements, the emails
incorporated into the lawsuit would not bear an ECF filing header.
The truth of the matter, and it has been well documented with Your Honor and the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals, Defendants’ have a nasty habit of publishing all of the filings in the within
action, even those that have not been docketed. The emails Defendant Hale sent to Plaintiff Adams
were outlined in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint filed May 4, 2009. It seems all the documents filed in this
Court as well as the Third Circuit Court of Appeals end up on a website www.scribd.com. I am
unaware of who is uploading the documents into this website; however, Defendants Hale and Taitz
publish their filings on their own websites. In fact, I just responded to Defendant Taitz’s false
allegations that the Plaintiffs’ and I publish all our filings on the Internet, which was a direct lie to the


Page Three
Third Circuit Court of Appeals. No sooner did Defendant Taitz file the statement with the Court of
Appeals, Defendant Hale published Defendant Taitz’s filing on his website.
As this Court is aware, Plaintiffs (Appellants) moved to have their appeal dismissed. Due to
the time it has been pending, and the fact Defendant Orly Taitz has continued her republication of
Plaintiff Liberi’s Social Security Number, the damage is so severe a Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Injunction is moot at this point. I sent Your Honor a courtesy copy of the Appellants’ filing on
April 21, 2010. Moreover, we never received the cost of the August 7, 2009 transcript until April 16,
2010, which is on file with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs’ Moved to Withdraw and/or
Dismiss their Appeal as a Temporary Restraining Order or Injunction will not suffice at this juncture.
In my letter to Your Honor yesterday, I pointed out that due to the damages suffered by
Plaintiffs Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella, caused by Defendant Taitz, criminal reports have been taken
by law enforcement from Plaintiffs Liberi and Ostella against Defendants Taitz and Neil Sankey
for their illegal access to Plaintiffs Liberi and Ostella’s credit reports; Defendant Neil Sankey’s
illegal access to Plaintiff Lisa Liberi’s full Social Security Number and other private identifying
information; the distribution by Taitz of Plaintiff Liberi’s Social Security number and private
identifying information with the intent to have her identity stolen, which has now occurred; Defendant
Taitz’s false law enforcement reports against Plaintiffs Liberi and Ostella; and other illegal activities
of the Defendants.
These Defendants will stop at nothing, and is the very reason they are being sued. Defendant
Hale next states, “The letter that Mr. Berg sent to Your Honor dated May 10th…is a smoke screen to
cover up what I have discovered. Mr. Berg realized what I had found out and he knew I would be
contacting Your Honor. So he sent Your Honor a letter yelling “foul” because he knew what was
coming”. All I can say is “nuts”1. My letter to Your Honor, as explained in my May 10, 2010 letter,
was in response to Defendant Taitz’s letter dated April 21, 2010, which I did not receive until May 10,
2010. I have not had any type of communications with any of the Defendants, other than responding
to their continued frivolous filings. I am also objecting to Defendant Hale’s exhibits, as they are
hearsay and unauthenticated. As for Gino DeSimone and Bruce Olsen, I do not know who these
parties are or anything about any emails sent to them.
Defendant Hale has gone to great length attacking Plaintiff Evelyn Adams. Mrs. Adams has
been off the Internet and radio since she was diagnosed with Cancer. Mrs. Adams for the last several
months has been going through Chemotherapy and Radiation; she is a seventy-two [72] year old
woman who has been extremely ill.
Defendant Hale has obviously had other altercations involving other individuals and started his
own dilemma with this California Governor Candidate by sending information involving our case to
her that I was supposed to be served with.
1
General Anthony Clement McAuliffe’s single word reply to a German surrender ultimatum during the Battle of the Bulge,
World War II


Page Four
Plaintiffs’ case has been pending now for over a year. Plaintiffs have served Subpoenas for
information directly related to the within action. However, one of the company’s Subpoenaed feel
they do not need to supply the information as the within Court has suspended Plaintiffs’ action and the
Company felt all discovery was stayed as well. Due to the size of this case and the complexity
involved, Plaintiffs’ hereby Move for an Order of this Court clarifying Discovery is not Stayed.
Defendant Taitz and Hale will not stop at their crusade; they will continue harassing Plaintiffs’
herein; they will continue their illegal activities until this Court puts a stop to it or someone is hurt.
Defendant Taitz is an inexperienced Attorney who has managed to be remembered in every Court,
which she has appeared. In fact, Defendant Taitz is not new to the world of Sanctions. In the Order of
Sanctions, Judge Land said it best, “The Court concludes from this conduct that counsel did have
intent to injure anyone associated with the litigation who did not agree with her”2 [emphasis added].
Judge Land even discussed in his ruling the false and unsubstantiated accusations Orly Taitz,
Defendant herein, made against him. Judge Land stated “…Rather, counsel used the motion for
reconsideration as a platform to repeat her political diatribe against the President, to accuse the
undersigned of treason, and to maintain that "the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit
are subject to political pressure, external control, and . . . subservience to the same illegitimate chain
of command which Plaintiff has previously protested."3 [emphasis added]. After Judge Land issued
an Order to Show Cause upon Orly Taitz, Defendant herein, as to Why She Should not be Sanctioned,
Taitz filed a Motion to Recuse Judge Land. In so doing, and as outlined in the case, “Counsel seeks
recusal of the undersigned for the following reasons: (1) baseless speculation that the undersigned
may have engaged in ex parte communication with the Attorney General; (2) fictitious allegations
that the undersigned has a financial interest in the outcome of the case based on ownership of stock
in Microsoft and Comcast; (3) frivolous argument that the Court cannot issue monetary sanctions as
a penalty to deter future misconduct under Rule 11;…”4 [emphasis added]
Judge Land was not the only Federal Court Judge. Judge David O. Carter, in his ruling
dismissing Orly Taitz’s, Defendant herein, lawsuit stated in his ruling of October 29, 2009, dismissing
Taitz Case, that Taitz continually failed to comply with the Court’s Rules and Procedures; Taitz
encouraged her supporters to contact the Court in efforts to manipulate the Court. Judge Carter stated
he was deeply concerned that Orly Taitz had suborned perjury from witnesses she (Taitz) intended to
call before his (Judge Carter’s) Court, as the Court received several sworn Affidavits stating Orly Taitz
had asked them to lie and to perjure their testimony.5
Defendant Taitz unfortunately has a history which is spilling over into this Case and has
prohibited the same falsities towards Federal Judges; U.S. Supreme Court Clerks; Defendant Taitz’s
2
Judge Land, Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1380 (M.D. Ga. 2009)
3
4
5
Judge David O. Carter, Barnett v. Obama, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101206, 55-56 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009)


Page Five
“targeted” Judge Carter’s law Clerk; and has “targeted” any and everyone who stands in her way of
what she wants, just as she has been doing and continues doing to the Plaintiffs’ herein, in order to
confuse the issues that are before this Court, in hopes this Court will dismiss the within action;
Defendant Taitz has a known history of falsely accusing her victims of the crimes she is actually
committing. It is clear, Taitz is doing it to the Plaintiffs’ herein, who are victims of Defendant Taitz’s
illegal and dangerous behaviors.
The more Plaintiffs’ attempt to protect themselves and defend themselves, Defendant Taitz has
her followers and the other Defendants herein go after them (Plaintiffs’). Plaintiffs’ have been falsely
accused of crimes by the Defendants; Defendants’ have illegally accessed Plaintiffs Liberi and
Ostella’s credit reports; publicized Plaintiff Liberi’s credit information, including that she had recently
taken out a loan; publicized the private confidential identifying information of Plaintiff Liberi,
including her full Social Security number; Defendant Taitz threatened to have Plaintiff Ostella’s
children professionally kidnapped; Defendant Taitz and her “lover” Charles Edward Lincoln, III drove
around New Jersey where Plaintiff Ostella’s resides and her child attend school; and many other
crimes against the Plaintiffs’.
All of Defendant Hale’s Requests must be Denied. As Hale stated, he is working with
Defendant Taitz who agitates such behavior. Defendants Taitz and Hales’ false allegations are based
on nothing but hearsay statements; speculation; conclusory statements; immaterial, impertinent, and
scandalous statements and material; and are completely irrelevant, impertinent and immaterial to the
within action. Defendant Taitz and Hale must be stopped from these frivolous filings and continued
illegal activities. Plaintiffs’ also renew their Request for Leave of Court to file their Motion to hold
Defendant, Orly Taitz in Civil and/or Criminal contempt; for damages paid to Plaintiff Liberi;
Sanctions and Attorney Fees. Or, in the alternative, for this Court to issue an Order to Show Cause
upon Defendant Taitz as to Why She Should Not be Held in Civil and/or Criminal Contempt; Why She
Should Not be Ordered to Reimburse Plaintiff Liberi for her Damages; Why She Should Not be
Sanctioned; and Why She Should Not be Ordered to pay Attorney Fees.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Philip J. Berg
PJB:jb
Enclosures


Page Six
cc: Orly Taitz, et al and

Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc.
Ph: (949) 683-5411
Fax: (949) 766-7603
By Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
Counsel in pro se
Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. is unrepresented
Neil Sankey
The Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm
Phone: (805) 520-3151and (818) 366-0919
Cell Phone: (818) 212-7615
FAX: (805) 520-5804 and (818) 366-1491
Linda Sue Belcher

201 Paris
Home Phone: (830) 538-6395
Cell Phone: (830) 931-1781
Ed Hale
Caren Hale
Plains Radio
KPRN
Bar H Farms
1401 Bowie Street
Wellington, Texas 79095
Phone: (806) 447-0010 and (806) 447-0270
Email: plains.radio@yahoo.com and
Email: barhfarms@gmail.com and ed@barhfarms.net

EXHIBIT “G”
From: Jim Simpton <jimsimpton@ymail.com>

Date: Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:15 AM
Subject: Case 2-09-cv-01898 - A Document That Has Fallem Into My Hands
To: Phillip Berg <philjberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Lisa Liberi <lisaliberi@gmail.com>
Dear Mr. Berg,
My Name is Jim Simpton.
You do not know me but I have definitely heard of you and your heroic and tireless efforts to expose
Obama. I have followed your efforts for years.
Thank you.
However, the purpose of my correspondence today is to forward to you an email exchange that I have
been involved in between Ms. Chelene Nightingale and myself. Ms. Nightingale was a guest on Ed
Hale's Plainsradio recently. I contacted Ms. Nightingale in an attempt to alert her to Ed Hale's past
actions and the lawsuit he is a defendant in - your lawsuit.
Ed Hale enticed Ms. Nightingale to become a host on his Plainsradio site. I wanted Ms. Nightingale to
know just what Ed Hale had done to other female hosts on his 'network'. I forwarded to Ms.
Nightingale several of the emails he sent to Evelyn Adams that are part of this lawsuit and available on
PACER.
Amazingly, when Ed Hale responded back to Ms. Nightingale to try and talk his way out of the
evidence of the emails, he erroneously / deliberately / stupidly sent a copy of the email to me. In this
email, he is sending a copy of what Ed Hale is supposedly going to file with the Appeals Court on
Monday, guessing that to be May 10th.
It is my opinion that Ed Hale is trying to implicate or entwine Ms. Nightingale in his legal troubles.
The letter that Ed Hale is supposedly sending is attached and titled "Letter to court of appeals".
I feel it is my right, and my duty to forward it on to you.
I have also attached PDF copies of the 3 emails that I sent to Chelene Nightingale so as to reference the
emails Ed Hale "does not know if he sent."
He has also threatened me several times. For reference, I am sending PDF copies of those threats also.
Respectfully,
6 attachments — Download all attachments

Letter to court of appeals.pdf
1138K View Download


52K View Download
51K View Download
Ed Hale 9-6-2008 Email to Evelyn-MommaE.pdf
38K View Download
Ed Hale Threat to Me - Jim Simpton.pdf
101K View Download
Ed Threat 4-3-2010 1-34-01 AM.pdf
181K View Download
----- Forwarded Message ----

From: "ed@redrivernewsonline.com" <ed@redrivernewsonline.com>
To: Chelene <chelene@nightingaleforgovernor.com>
Sent: Sat, May 8, 2010 10:55:36 AM
Subject: Re: FW: An Ed Hale Posting You Should See, And The Ones That Ed Will Never Tell You
About
Chelene: I do not know if I sent those emails. Yes I am in a lawsuit with

Berg. Momma E stole the 1964 Obama vs. Obama divorce decree that we found
in Hawaii. She then posted on her site as if it was hers. I have a copy of
a chat log that proves beyond any doubt that they stole it from Plains
Radio. This person writing this letter will not give their name nor
address, but instead hide behind invisibility. I am attaching a pdf file
that I am going to file with the 3rd court of appeals on Monday. I think
when you look at this, you will see why I am being attacked. Also if you
would please copy the full header on this, I will contact yahoo about it.
I am going to add this email to that pdf file. This is an example of what
Berg will have his people do to stop Plains Radio. Thanks, Ed
Gentlemen,
This was in my email. Please explain what this is all about.
Kindest Regards,
Chelene Nightingale
<http://www.nightingaleforgovernor.com/>
office: 310-237-5590
email: chelene@nightingaleforgovernor.com
Time for "we the people" to take back our Golden State in 2010!


Subject: An Ed Hale Posting You Should See, And The Ones That Ed Will Never Tell You About
Hi Chelene,

Attached is a copy of what Ed Hale has posted in his forum tonight. This
is
knowledge.
into this lawsuit because of your involvement with Ed would indeed be a
very
sad thing.
Items posted by Ed in his forum reflect upon everybody that is associated

with the site and the forum, including the show hosts.
the summer.
Sincerely,


_____________ Ο _____________
LISA LIBERI, et al,
v.
ORLY TAITZ, et al,
Edgar S. Hale III

1401 Bowie Street
Wellington, TX 79095
May, 7,2010
Your Honors:
My name is Edgar S. (Ed) Hale III and I am a pro se Appellee in the above case. I have
no legal training so I am writing this in letter form to your Honors. I would like to to
present some facts that Mr Berg will not present to the court. Here are the facts:
1). I attended the August 7, 2009 hearing in Philadelphia. PA.. Mr. Berg presented
witnesses in which they told their stories. Judge Robreno allowed me to cross
examine these witnesses. I proved that each of them was lying to the court. I had
over 100 sound clips from different shows that they had done on radio, that in
their own words, proved beyond a doubt that they were lying on the witness
stand.
2). Judge Robreno in his ruling on the TRO said at the bottom of it, the reason it was
1 Of 16 pages
being denied was that the chance of the plaintiff of prevailing was unlikely.
This is the reason that Mr. Berg will not produce to this court a copy of the
transcripts. It will in fact destroy his case. See Exhibit 1
Mr. Berg and Ms Liberi have fabricated and manufactured evidence in this case with no
facts to back them up. Now they are presenting to the court what I posted in
my forum at Plains Radio. This was nothing more than what was posted on the pacer
site, but they make it look like it is a crime. These people use what we call in Texas
“ if you throw enough cow poop on the wall some of it has got to stick.” Well Your
Honors, that is exactly what Berg and Liberi are doing.
I have one point to make. If Lisa Liberi is not the same person that Dr. Taitz says she is,
why then has she not submitted any evidence to prove this to be a lie. Liberi has for the
last year had ample opportunity to show the court that this is not true. Never once has
she said she does not live in New Mexico and never once has she or Berg produced any
evidence that would prove otherwise. In fact, on the June 25, 2009 hearing, Dr. Taitz
introduced the criminal record of Lisa Liberi and Mr. Berg made no objection nor
challenged that evidence. If Mr. Berg and Lisa Liberi are so positive it is not the
same person, when are they going to provide proof of this. No, they cannot. All they can
do is say “this isn't my middle name”. Well, provide it all and stop telling lies to the
court.
2 Of 16 pages
Your Honors, for a year , I have seen hundreds if not thousands of pages of
papers that Berg has filed with the court. I have yet to see any proof of what Berg
alleges. It is easy for them to say this and that, but ask them for proof. They cannot and
will not provide any proof. The proof is in the August 7, 2009 transcripts which Mr.
Berg will not get because it will show your Honors the truth.
The truth is that Mr. Berg and the others have done nothing but lie to the court. They
wanted to destroy The Plains Radio Network. The reason is very simple. I told the truth
about them. Berg has made a living off of donations from suckers he has conned into
believing that he can get Obama out of the White House. Of all those cases Berg filed,
not one of them every got anywhere. Why? Because they were just like this case,
nothing but lies and fabrications. I went on the air and told people that Berg was a con
artist. I presented evidence to back up my claim. I showed where Berg has been doing
this since 2004, when he sued George Bush and several more members of the
government claiming that Bush allowed 9/11 to happen.
Mr. Berg also published a letter to the world asking for other governments to come
here and arrest Bush. He wanted him tried and hung. How can you have any respect for
a person who wants the President of our country, arrested, tried and hung?
See Exhibit 2.
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.politics/2008-11/msg01915.html
Berg even had a Paypal button on his old web site to collect donations in 2004.This
3 Of 16 pages
website where he was saying Bush and Cheney should be hung. He has been taking
advantage of people since 2004 by making them think he can take out our government.
This lawsuit has cost me several 1000's of dollars. It has nearly destroyed Plains Radio.
If this case continues and Berg and company keep telling their lies, then it will
destroy Plains. Mr. Berg will try and silence anyone who tells the truth about him.
Now he is raising money again to have a march in Washington DC. My question is very
simple, What good will that do to help our country? The only good that will come out
of this is to line the pockets of Mr. Berg. He does not want anyone to expose him as the
crook that he is. This man's motivation is pure “money”. He does not care about
anyone or anything. All he wants is some more suckers to give him their hard earned
money. See where Berg on Berg website, where he wants donations to help him raise
$50,000 to have the march on DC. The 9/12/2009 march on DC had over 2 million
people and it only costs around $5000.00. What does Berg want with the rest of the
money? To line his pockets! See Exhibit 3 http://obamacrimes.com/
Your Honors, Mr. Berg also demanded the disbarment of 3 U. S. Supreme Court Justices
O'Connor, Scalia and Thomas. See Exhibit 4
http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=5348
Mr. Berg has a history of filing these kind of lawsuits as you can see by this exhibit.
On June 2, 2005, U.S. District Judge J. Curtis Joyner granted the motion for sanctions
4 Of 16 pages
against Mr. Berg. Please read this line in from Judge Joyner ruling: “The court also
found that Berg's claim was motivated by a "desire to harass" and "delay litigation."
Does this not fit a pattern that Mr. Berg is using here? The actual document is available
on pacer. See Exhibit 5.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Berg#Malpractice_and_ethics_violations
Your Honors, something has to be done about all the lies, fabrication of evidence and
plain old harassment that the plaintiffs have inflicted on all of the defendants. This is
a pattern that Mr. Berg has been using for years now.. Mr. Berg must be punished
for his actions. Mr. Berg must be held accountable.
Your Honor, I am asking the court to remove this man's law licenses and file criminal
charges against him. He is a disgrace to the law profession. Your Honors, I would also
ask the court to make the Plaintiffs to pay each of the Defendants $100,000.00 each.
This would put a stop to this stupid law suit filed by Mr. Berg.
Your Honors, I don't believe that asking the court to remove Mr. Berg law license is
asking too much based on the history that he has. I do not believe that asking the court to
make the Plaintiffs pay to each of the Defendants the sum of $100.000.00, is too much,
based on the history of Mr. Berg. The damage that has been inflicted on The Plains
Radio Network is much more than that. We had several 1000's of people listening to us
and now it is in the low 100's. We are in the process of building it back up, but if Mr.
Berg is allowed to continue with this, we will lose it all. Right now, we are having a hard
5 Of 16 pages
time paying the bills and we may have to shut Plains Radio down. Only time will tell.
Your Honor, thank you so very much for allowing me to present my side of the story.
I believed that I have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Berg has been doing
this sort of thing for years. It is now time to the court to end this law suit once and for
all. I respectfully ask that the court remove Mr. Berg law license, award $100,000.00 to
each of the Defendants from each of the Plaintiffs.
I would like to add one other thing. Mr. Berg state that I scrub (erase) my website. This
is one of the boldest lies he has ever told. That information is still up there and it will
stay up. Again Mr. Berg is liar. How can the court believe anything this man says after
what I have shown to the court in this letter?
This was taken from Mr. Berg filing. I think this should apply to him also.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(c) provides:

“c) Disciplinary Power of the Court over Attorneys. A court of appeals may, after
reasonable notice and an opportunity to show cause to the contrary, and after hearing, if
requested, take any appropriate disciplinary action against any attorney who practices
before it for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar or for failure to comply with
these rules or any rule of the court.”
Again thank you very much for your time and consideration.
6 Of 16 pages
Exhibit 1
7 Of 16 pages
8 Of 16 pages
Exhibit 2
9 Of 16 pages
10 Of 16 pages
Exhibit 3
11 Of 16 pages
12 Of 16 pages
Exhibit 4
13 Of 16 pages
14 Of 16 pages
Exhibit 5
15 Of 16 pages
16 Of 16 pages

LISA LIBERI, et al,

v.
ORLY TAITZ, et al,
I, Edgar S. Hale III, hereby certify that I have made service on the follow via E-mail.
Orly Taitz
Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc. (unrepresented)
Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
And by Fax to (949) 766-7603
Neil Sankey
The Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm (unrepresented)
Linda Sue Belcher

201 Paris

17 Of 16 pages
(610) 825-3134
philjberg@gmail.com
s/Edgar S. Hale III
18 Of 16 pages
EXHIBIT “H”
http://www.plainsradio.com/PLAINS~1/forum.html#bn-forum-1-1-3764075825/0/0/search/1/thread/berg
forum http://www.plainsradio.com/PLAINS~1/forum.html
http://www.plainsradio.com/PLAINS~1/forum.html#bn-forum-1-1-3764075825/6712/1122659/show
Web Counter
The Plains Radio Network Forum

Listen to Patriotic Music
Index
Recent Posts Click here to download plugin. Search: berg by keywords search
Start a New Post Board | Threaded
Author Comment View Entire Thread
Ed Hale Re: You Tell 'em ED! Quote Reply
I am glad that you posted this and not me. Berg would be yelling
"FOUL" otherwise to the court with another 50 pages of "cow poop".
May 13, 2010 - 1:30PM Also, something that might interest you is filed in the lower court. It
was filed on Wednesday. Might be worth your looking into.
Mr Berg and Ms Liberi, I had nothing to do with the above post so

don't yell at me.
State Texas
Index
1 of 1 5/14/2010 10:58 PM
forum http://www.plainsradio.com/PLAINS~1/forum.html
http://www.plainsradio.com/PLAINS~1/forum.html#bn-forum-1-1-3764075825/6712/1122657/show
Web Counter
The Plains Radio Network Forum

Listen to Patriotic Music
Index
Recent Posts Click here to download plugin. Search: berg by keywords search
Start a New Post Board | Threaded
Author Comment
cj You Tell 'em ED! Quote Reply
"I am asking Mr. Berg, when he responds to this, please just prove
where I am wrong with "FACTS" and not you usual "cow poop". As
May 13, 2010 - 1:11PM we say in Texas, "We don't need your bull" because our cow died".
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31309925/LIBERI-v-TAITZ-APPEAL-Document-From-Pro-
Se-Appellee-Hale-Transport-Room
Ed Hale Re: You Tell 'em ED! Quote Reply
I am glad that you posted this and not me. Berg would be yelling
"FOUL" otherwise to the court with another 50 pages of "cow poop".
May 13, 2010 - 1:30PM Also, something that might interest you is filed in the lower court. It
was filed on Wednesday. Might be worth your looking into.
Mr Berg and Ms Liberi, I had nothing to do with the above post so

don't yell at me.
State Texas
Index
1 of 1 5/14/2010 11:00 PM

LIBERI V TAITZ (APPEAL) - Motion by Appellents - 5-16-10 - Transport Room

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LIBERI V TAITZ (APPEAL) - Motion by Appellents - 5-16-10 - Transport Room

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110145601 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2010

U.S. District Court,

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

LISA LIBERI, et al,

APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE APPELLEE, EDGAR HALE’s

Philip J. Berg, Esquire

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

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

contains nothing more than hearsay statements; hearsay documents; speculation;

conclusory statements immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous statements and

Fraud upon this Court.

Motion to Withdraw or in the Alternative Dismiss their Appeal pursuant to Federal

Rules of Appellate Procedure [F.R.A.P.] 42(b), as well documented by the Docket.

Appellants filed a Motion to Withdraw their Appeal or in the Alternative a

Motion to Dismiss their Appeal pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,

[F.R.A.P.] Rule 42(b).

Corporation, Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. [hereinafter “DOFF”], on

the Alternative to Dismiss their Appeal.

on May 5, 2010. Appellants opposed Taitz Motion to Strike, Request for

Motion for an improper purpose.

to present this to the court…” [emphasis added], admitting he is working with

match, they have different font, one is bold, etc.

Attached hereto as EXHIBIT “D” is a side by side of Hale’s Exhibit “6”,

Court and on May 11, 2010 with Judge Robreno.

Court’s docket reflects.

Appellants’ (Plaintiffs’) were forced to respond to Hale’s frivolous filings to

Plaintiffs’ (Appellants’) pointed out to Judge Robreno, that by Hale’s own

letter to Judge Robreno, without Exhibits, is attached hereto as EXHIBIT “F”.

however, removed statements and altered the exhibits to offset Plaintiffs’

(Appellants’) response to his letter to Judge Robreno, as he was aware Appellants’

to practice law in California, and admitted to this Court, she is culpable in

Appellants’ request this Court to compare Hale’s Exhibits in EXHIBIT “A”

letter he received from Appellee Hale.

In addition, Hale falsely accuses Appellants’ of having something to do with

sending to the Third Circuit to a California Governor Candidate, Chelene

Simpton’s email is self explanatory, it contains an email exchange between

actually filed by Hale on May 13, 2010 in this Court.

on May 13, 2010.

With the exception of Orly Taitz’s Opposition to Appellants’ Request to

filings and/or taken any type of interest in the within matter.

advantage to prolong dismissal of the within Appeal; to cost Appellants additional

Appellants’ Motion to Withdraw or in the alternative to Dismiss pursuant to

F.R.A.P. 42(b), which further delays their case.

Appellants’ of crimes; and to make unsubstantiated allegations against the

pending before it.

It should also be noted, Appellants’ responded to Appellee Taitz regarding

than hearsay statements; hearsay documents; speculation; conclusory statements

immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous statements and material, and are

completely irrelevant, impertinent and immaterial to the within action and

therefore, must be stricken.

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and to conduct themselves in an honest

Appellants Attorney Fees in the amount of Ten Thousand [$10,000.00] Dollars

within fourteen (14) days.

II. APPELLEE EDGAR HALE’S LETTER FILED MAY 13, 2010

hearsay statements; hearsay documents; speculation; conclusory statements

immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous statements and material, and are

embark upon or even address Appellants’ Motion to Withdraw or in the

Alternative to Dismiss their Appeal pursuant to F.R.A.P. 42(b).

Appellants’ astronomical amounts of Attorney Fees; to increase the Appellants’

moving forward in the lower Court.

As this Court is aware, “Scandalous" generally refers to any allegation that

unnecessarily reflects on the moral character of an individual or states anything in

typically strike so-called scandalous material only if it is irrelevant and immaterial