Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
#:4103
1 1(C)COnNtr3.. ...27
2 1(D) COUNT 4.... ....29
3 1(E) COLNT 5.... ....30
4 1(F) COLNT 5.... ....33
5 coNclusroN-.. -...34
6 AFFIDAVTT OF ORLY TAITZ .......36
1 EXHIBITS:
8 1. EXHIBIT 1 2OO8 sAt{ BERNARDTNO, qAr,rFORNrA, CR
1? tiberi v Taitz.
AA
25
26 EABLE OF AUTITORITIES
21 Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 3l-7F.3d1097,1709(9th cir.2003) .p5
28 Batzel v Smit.h, 333 F. 3d 1018, 7024 (9th cir 2003) ....p5
1 Briggs v Eden council for Hope and opportunity, 19 cal 4th 11061
I
2 1110(Ieee) .....p5 I
I
3 Kantor v Wellesley Galleries, 1td 704 Fzd, 1088, 7092 (9th cf1
4 1983) .....p13 I
5 Vacek v United states postal service 441 F3d I24Bt 1250 (9th
"t.l
6 2006) .. .. . .. ...p13
I
10 2000) p13 I
I
l3 J & R fce Cream corp. v. California Smoothie Licensing, 31 F. 3dl
I
15 Joi-ner v Diamond M Drilling Co., 611 F. 2d. 1035, 1039 (5th Cirl
16 1,982) .....p14 I
18 Roche v Lincoln Prop. Co. (2004, CA4 Va) 373 F3d 610 ..p14 I
79
I
20 828, Fzd 546, 126 BNA LRRM 2559, 107 CCH LC P 10159 ....p14 I
22 L225. .....p14 I
25 2d 7225 ... I
zo Eilla v Norfolk & southern Ry (2003. CAB Mo) 336 F3d 806....p15 'l I
21 Shahmoon Industries, fnc & Imperato (7964, CA3 NJ) 338 Fzd 449,1
I
I
I
I
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 4 of 20 Page ID
#:4106
2 I
I
3 "Motion to strike a state law craim under cal-ifornia 's ant:--f
4 SLAPP statute may be brought in federal court.'rVess v. Cina-l
5 Geigy Corp.USA, 3L1 F. 3d 7091 , 1109 (9th cir. 2003). The ant.il
6 SLAPP statute was enacted to allow for early dismissal-
"q
1 meritless first amendment cases aimed at chilling expressionl
8 through costly, time consuming litigation." Batzel v Smith, 3331
I
10
""1
11 j-nterpreted "in a manner favorable to the exercise of freedom ofl
I2 speech, not its curtailment, " Briggs v Eden Council for Hope andl
13 Opportunity, 19 Cal 4th 1106-1119 (7ggg). I
I4 I
I
16 SLAPP is Strategic Legal Action Against Public Participation.l
I'7 Above action, Liberi et al v Taitz et al is a typical SLAPJ
I
21
I
I
I
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 6 of 20 Page ID
#:4108
1 cA, and that they are harassing the defendants with a st,App la
2 suit. rn their attempt to cover up Liberi's identity they acte
3 with unprecedent.ed malice and in further pleadings accused th
4 defendants of multiple crimes, maliciously claiminq tha
5 att.orney ra,tz tried to hire a hit man to kill Liberi, and fo
6 that reason Liberi should not provide her pennsyrvania dri-ver
1 license, and the court needs to berieve her word and proceed. i
B diversity without any documentary evidence. Similarly, the
9 claimed that Plaintiff osterla was defamed, when Ta:tz publishe
10 on her web site, that her former web master ostella locked rait
11 out of the old web site for her foundation, ..Defend our Freed
L2 Foundation" and replaced Taitz pay pa1-account with her olrn
13 However, after 72.2a.207r TRo hearing and cross examination o
I4 ostelfa by Taitz, ostella conceded that she indeed locked Tait
15 out of the web site for her foundation and replaced Taitz pay
76 pal account with her own. (Exhibit 72.23.2070 Order an
17 memorandum of judge Robreno).
18 This legal action was filed two years ago on May 4, 2a0g. rt wa
I9 filed approximately Lwo weeks after Dr. orly Taitz (hereinafte
20 Tartz), president of "Defend our Freedoms Foundation" publishe
27 a report by a licensed investigator Neil sankey (hereinafte
22 sankey), that showed that Lisa Liberi (Hereninafter Liberi),
23 legal assistant for pennsylvania attorney phirip Ber
24 (Hereinafter Berg) has a criminal record of forgery, forqery o
25 official- seal and theft. This report was made by Sankey based o
26 information which is easiry and readily available in publi
27 records. (Exhibit 1) . Recently, dt a motion hearing i
ao Philadelphia Pennsylvania on 12.20.2010 during cross examinatio
6 Foundation, out of the old web site for the foundation andl
I
I
o from mid April would not go to the Foundation, but would go tol
I
l0 Ostella. At the same hearing on 12.20.20L0 at the crossl
I
11
20 Plaintiffs sued all the whistle blowers, who blew the whistle ..f
2I Liberi, Ostella, Berg and Adams. The complaint is utl
I
I
Liberi v Taitz motion to dismiss under CCCP 425.L6 AntiSLAPP- t
I
I
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 8 of 20 Page ID
#:4110
4 record I
13 I
15
I
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 11 of 20 Page ID
#:4113 I
I
I
I
I are making a case for this court to grant judgment for trrel
2 defendants on their AntiSLAPP, as such statements by th"l
3 defendant TatLz is a true and correct statement made on an i"",-,"1
of public interest"
I
4 I
I
5 2. Defendants published information in regards to web mastel
6 Lisa Ostella's actions in lockingr Taitz out of the web site t"=l
'l her foundation.l
B Yet again all of these statements are proper statements made inl
9 public interest to advise the donors that former volunteerl I
13
27 out and " Ostella changed the Pay-PaI script in the donationsl
I
I
Liberi v Taitz motion to dlsmiss under CCCP 425.16 AntiSLAPP- 11
I
I
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 12 of 20 Page ID
#:4114
24 evidence.
Plaintiffs refused to provide drivers ]-icense or an rD card tc
26 show the state citizenship of the lead plaintiff Lisa Liberi
2'1 Defendants provlded Liberi's criminal record from the San
ZO Bernard,ino, California court, showing Liberi being on probation
22
I
23 not have juri-sdiction over the case. This case was frivolouslyl
24 filed in the federal court and specifically in the federal .outal
in Pennsylvania simply to intimidate the defendants and try tq
I
25
26 silence them I
I
I
llrt
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 17 of 20 Page ID
#:4119
ll
It
tt
lt
1
I e court should dj-smiss a complaint when its allegations fail to
rt
I state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. civ pr.
I
l'-l
2
I
3
I 12 (b) (5). A complaint must allege "sufficient factual matter,
l-----'l
accepted as true, to state a claim t.o relief that i-s plausible
I
4
I I
5
I on its face." fqbal, 129 S. Ct at 1g4g (quoting Twombly, 550 I
6
t--t
I u.S. at 570). A court should not accept "threadbare recita]s of
i
7 a cause of action's elements, supported by mere conclusory I
13 ,r* .* trr* I
conNr t
I
t4
I
15 rn count one plaintiff Liberi is suing under violation of thel
L6 First Amendment and Fourteenth amendment of the U.t.l
71 constitution and California Civil Procedure 51798.81
I
1B The alfegations are completely frivolous.
r9 Plaintiffs are craimlng violation of First and Fourteenthl
I
22 was violated- They are talking about the fact that defendantl
23 Taltz posted a report by Sankey, showing Liberi's criminall
24 record. They do not explain, how does this represent J
violation of the 1st and 14th amendment. First Amend"ment andl
I
25
I
T,iberi v Taitz motion to dlsmiss under CCCP 425.16 AntiSl,APP- 17
I
I
I
I
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 18 of 20 Page ID I
#:4120 I
I
I
3 Taitz is not a federal or state government, she is .1
4 individual. I
21 orl
22
arrange for the disposal, of customer records within its custody'l
orl
23 control containing personal information when the record.s are no
longer to be retained by the business by (a) shredding, (b)l I
24 erasing, I
25
or (c) otherwise modifying the personal informatj-on 1n thosel
records I
I
.O
I
Liberl v Taitz motion to dismiss under CCCP 425.16 AntiSLAPP- 18 I
I
I
I
lt
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 19 of 20 Page ID
tl #:4121
Ir
lllr
1
lAgain, this statute
.atute is totally inappLicable
inapplicable to Taitz or
ol ,,OefenOl
I
l our Freedoms Foundation".
2
lrr.itr I
4 tt
I
I
is an individual.
Defend our Freedoms foundation is a private,
l--L---'---'
not for profitl
I
5
foundation. I
6
'l
Plaintiffs refer to the information regarding Lisa Lrberi,l I
8
claiming that publication of Liberi's information renresentsl
9 violation of S17 9B . B 1, however l,isa Liberi was never a .,-,stor.J
I
10
of either Ta:_tz of "Defend Our Freedoms" foundation, and tfrisl
11
statute relates only to violations by businesses, which maintainl
72
private information of their customers. I
13 I
L4
Lastly, information published by Taitz, was a pub11c cri-minarl
15 record of Liberi, which is public information, not private. I
I
I6 Even, tf arguendo, doy information published, was private, tnel
71 I
Plaintiffs could not sue the Defendants under cA civ prol
18
51798.81, as it does not relate to Defendants.
I
t9
I
20
Further Plaintiffs quote s1798. B4 sections b-g and convenientlyl
27 omit section (a) and attempl to manipulate and defraud the courtl I
22
by impLying that those sections are somehow relevant to tt,."l
I
defendants. when one reads s1798.84-a-g it clearly shows that itl
24
I
1s part of the same s1798, which relates to businessesl
25
26
maintaining private information of their business customers.l
I
I
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 178 Filed 04/25/11 Page 20 of 20 Page ID
#:4122
20
here the Plaintiffs did not even list the elements. They simpl
2I list a dozen statutes, one after another' none of which has an
zz connection to the defendants. As such those claims need to b
23
dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. Th
24
statutes are as follows:
25
a. Social security act. Plaintiff accused Defendants o
26