56 - 2009!06!11 - Opposition Re #25 Hale Motion To Dismiss

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
:
LISA LIBERI, et al, :
:
Plaintiffs, :
:
vs. : Case No.: 09-cv-01898-ECR
:
ORLY TAITZ, et al, :
:
Defendants. :
ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the United States District Court Judge, Honorable Eduardo
C. Robreno on Defendant’s Edgar Hale; Caren Hale; Plains Radio a/k/a Plains Radio, Inc; Bar H
Farms; and KPRN AM 1610 Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative the Action be transferred to
the Western District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a). Having reviewed the Motion and
Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to said Motion and for good cause shown, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant’s Edgar Hale; Caren Hale; Plains Radio a/k/a Plains Radio,
Inc; Bar H Farms; and KPRN AM 1610 Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative the Action be
transferred to the Western District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: June _____, 2009 _____________________________

Hon. Eduardo C. Robreno
United States District Court Judge
For the Eastern District of PA
Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to the Hales, et al Motion to Dismiss… 1

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

:
:
Plaintiffs, :
:
:
:
Defendants. :
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS,

EDGAR HALE; CAREN HALE; PLAINS RADIO a/k/a PLAINS RADIO, INC.;
BAR H FARMS; and KPRN AM 1610 MOTION TO DISMISS or IN THE
ALTERNATIVE TRANSFER THE ACTION TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
TEXAS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §1406(a)
Plaintiffs’ Lisa Liberi [hereinafter “Liberi”]; Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter “Berg”],
the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg; Evelyn Adams a/k/a Momma E [hereinafter “Adams”]; Lisa
Ostella [hereinafter “Ostella”]; and Go Excel Global by and through their undersigned counsel,
Philip J. Berg, Esquire files the within Response in Opposition to Defendant’s, Edgar Hale;
Caren Hale [hereinafter “the Hales”]; Plains Radio a/k/a Plains Radio, Inc [hereinafter “Plains
Radio”]; Bar H Farms; and KPRN AM 1610 [hereinafter “KPRN”] Motion to Dismiss or in the
alternative to transfer the within action to the Western District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1406(a) on the following grounds:

• The Hales; Plains Radio; Bar H Farms; and KPRN Motion is an improper Motion.
The Hales; Plains Radio; Bar H Farms; and KPRN fail to support their Motion to Dismiss
or in the alternative to transfer the case to the Western District of Texas with any type of
Statute or supporting Law. Orly Taitz, Esq. by her own admission prepared The Hales;
Plains Radio; Bar H Farms; and KPRN Answer and Motion to Dismiss. Despite this,
Plaintiffs’ will assume The Hales; Plains Radio; Bar H Farms; and KPRN are filing said
Motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12;
• This Court has subject matter Jurisdiction pursuant to Diversity Jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332, and Federal Question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 as
outlined in Plaintiffs’ Complaint;
• The Hales; Plains Radio; Bar H Farms; and KPRN Motion fails to address any
claims in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and fails to give any type of legally sufficient defense;
• The Hales; Plains Radio; Bar H Farms; and KPRN subjected themselves to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania when they accepted donations on behalf of
www.obamacrimes.com, a Pennsylvania website owned and operated by Berg and the
Law Offices of Philip J. Berg;
• The Hales; Plains Radio; Bar H Farms; and KPRN are NOT within the Western
District of Texas jurisdiction;
• The Hales; Plains Radio; Bar H Farms; and KPRN have failed to state any type of
hardships; has failed to list any witnesses in the Western District of Texas; and have
failed to state any type of convenience issues pertaining to witnesses;
• Pursuant to Diversified Jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. §1332(a); and Venue
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(3), because the Defendants all reside in different states

and different jurisdictions, this Court only has to have personal jurisdiction over one (1)
Defendant, which has been met in the within Action
• This Court is the proper forum and venue is proper for this case pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1391(a)(2) and §1391(a)(3).
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: June 11, 2009 s/ Philip J. Berg

_____________________________
Attorney for Plaintiffs’

Law Offices of:

:
:
Plaintiffs, :
:
:
:
Defendants. :
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE

IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE TRANSFER THE ACTION TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
TEXAS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §1406(a)
ARGUMENT
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
As better outlined in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Defendants, The Hales through their
companies, Bar H Farm, KPRN and Plains Radio began operating a radio program, Plains Radio,
through a tower, which they own, KPRN. The Radio show is an internet radio show that is
broadcast through different stations. Plains Radio also has a website and chat room located at
plainsradio.com. that Mr. and Mrs. Hale control.
In or about June 2008, Mr. and Mrs. Hale contacted Evelyn Adams and requested she co-
host their radio shows on Plains Radio Network, an internet radio show. Mrs. Adams quit and

left Plaintiff’s radio show on or about August 21, 2008. Defendants Hale banned Mrs. Adams
computer IP address from his website located at http://www.plainsradio.com, thus Adams could
not access his website at all as she was permanently banned.
Shortly thereafter, Adams began hosting another show, Momma E Radio Rebels and co-
hosted shows on Monks Media. Once Adams began with her own show, Defendants Mr. & Mrs.
Hale began slandering Adams name on their radio show.
Berg filed the first action questioning President Obama’s citizenship and Constitutional
qualifications to hold the Office of President of the United States on August 21, 2008.
During this time, Mr. & Mrs. Hale requested the appearance of Philip J. Berg on their
radio show, Plains Radio through their tower KPRN. Berg was the first attorney who filed a
lawsuit against Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama regarding his citizenship issues.
Berg agreed to appear several times.
Berg’s office than received calls regarding donations that Mr. Hale was seeking on behalf
of Berg. The callers were concerned and wanted verification that the Hales were in fact
authorized to seek donations on behalf of Berg. The Hales through their companies, KPRN, Bar
H Farms and Plains Radio also put out false statements claiming they had President Obama’s
Kenyan birth certificate sent directly to Berg, which was completely false.
Berg discontinued associations with the Hales and their companies and ceased all
communications with the Hales. The Hales became extremely angry.
The Hales through Plains Radio, KPRN began making horrible slanderous statements
against Plaintiffs, Adams and Berg.
The Hales on their radio programs on Plains Radio through their tower, KPRN, stated
Berg was a crook; he was conning and scamming people. Mr. Hale was cussing Berg, calling

him a shyster and falsely claiming Berg had lied that he in fact had the Kenyan Birth Certificate
of Barack H. Obama because he (Mr. Hale) had obtained it for him, that Berg’s law license was
going to be taken away, etc., all the time knowing these statements were false. Mr. and Mrs.
Hale and others on their behalf also sent out this false information across the internet and through
mass mailings from Bar H.
At the same time the Hales through their radio program, Plains Radio and their tower,
KPRN, began calling Adams heinous names including but not limited to “Bitch,” “Whore,”
“Worthless Piece of Shit,” “a Fraud,” “a Liar,” a “Thief,” etc. These remarks were broadcast
through KPRN AM 1610 in Wellington, Texas, through talkstreamlive.com, posted on the Hale’s
internet website blogs and sent out by Hale’s via the internet by mass mailing through Bar H.
The Hales through their companies, Plains Radio, KPRN and Bar H were encouraging many
individuals to call into Adams radio shows and tell Adams how stupid she was and what a liar
she was. Mr. & Mrs. Hale gave out Mrs. Adams Radio show internet website and phone
numbers. Mr. & Mrs. Hale went further and encouraged individuals to call into the show and
harass Adams, which they did.
The Hales through Plains Radio and KPRN had listeners and staffs publish Adams home
address and telephone number on the internet, which resulted in Mrs. Adams receiving
threatening, harassing and degrading phone calls at all hours of the day and night stating Mrs.
Adams, “should stop trashing Ed Hale and leave Ed Hale alone.” Defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Hale
were well aware Adams has never harassed or trashed them.
The Hales through Plains Radio gave false statements regarding Adams which includes
but is not limited to her radio shows; falsely accusing Adams of “trashing” them; falsely

accusing Adams of stealing written documents, being the “Obama” divorce papers; falsely
accusing Adams of defrauding the State of California for her disability, etc.
The Hales through Plains Radio posted on their internet website blog and sent mass e-
mailings from Bar H falsely accusing Adams of “stealing” their “Obama” divorce records. Mr.
and Mrs. Hale falsely claim they have their copy of the “Obama” divorce papers copyrighted
when in fact Adams had possession of the said records prior to Mr. and Mrs. Hale’s receipt of
said divorce papers, which they were well aware of.
The Hales went on further through Plains Radio advising and posting on their internet
website blog; they sent mass e-mailings through Bar H falsely accusing Adams of having a
criminal record; and falsely claiming Adams has a history of lying and stealing. Mr. and Mrs.
Hale also falsely claimed that Adams hides who she is on her radio shows; Mr. Hale even went
as far as making the open threat, “your day is coming you piece of shit,” referring to Adams. In
furtherance of this, Mr. Hale attached an unknown and unidentified printout of a woman by the
name of Evelyn A. Adams with a date of birth of November 9, 1937, whom he was aware, was a
completely different person.
In or about January 2009, Berg sent a Cease and Desist letter on behalf of Adams that
was served upon the Hales; Plains Radio; Bar H Farms; and KPRN. Unfortunately, the slander
statements; libel postings and threats did not stop.
In or about March 2009 the Hales through Plains Radio filed a false lawsuit against
Adams. To further perpetrate their fraud and for further harassment, The Hales and Plains Radio
did not have Adams served correctly and only served her with the Collingsworth County Small
Claims Citation.

As a result, Adams had to hire Berg to respond to the Defendants frivolous small claims
lawsuit. Liberi from Berg’s Office called the Collingsworth County Small Claims Court and
informed them Adams was not served with any type of Complaint. The Justice read the
Complaint on file and stated the Hales through Plains Radio claimed Adams stole their
copyrighted “Obama” Divorce papers. Berg responded to the Defendants frivolous lawsuit,
supplied the Collingsworth County Court with copies of the “Obama” divorce papers that were
given to Adams and the Hales case was Dismissed with Prejudice.
The Hales were very unhappy with the fact Berg responded on behalf of Adams to his
frivolous lawsuit. The Hales then prepared a letter, which they claimed they sent to the Justice
of the Peace of Collingsworth County stating it is a fact Berg and Adams conspired to raise
money for Berg; it is a fact that Berg is not licensed to practice law within the state of Texas;
Liberi’s e-mail sent to Adams with the “Obama” divorce papers was a forgery; Liberi’s e-mail
was doctored; Berg and Adams have partnered together and has collected thousands of dollars
from people based on lawsuits that had no chance of success; Berg has been proven to be a
shyster; Berg is under investigation by several Federal agencies; Berg and Adams have conned
thousands of Americans out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, etc. This very letter was never
sent to Judge Henard, Justice of the Peace of the Collingsworth County Court, Precinct One,
Number One, instead the Hales posted it on their radio show website, plainsradio.com and sent it
out in mass e-mailing from Bar H which was nothing more than further slander and libel.
Mr. Hale continued his above behaviors and began sending harassing e-mails to Liberi.
In one of his e-mails, Mr. Hale went as far and threatened Liberi and Berg stating, “You and
berg are going to regreat getting into this” [sic].

The Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H Farms were served with the within lawsuit
on May 7, 2009. Since these Defendants were served the Hale’s behavior through their
Companies have intensified and they have been inciting anger and encouraging hate and anger
towards the Plaintiffs’.
Moreover, they have conspired with Defendants’ Taitz, et al; Defend our Freedoms
Foundation; Neil Sankey; Sankey Investigations, Inc.; Linda Sue Belcher, et al to further harm
the Plaintiffs’ herein and have now included Liberi; Ostella; and Go Excel Global.
The Hales have been having the other Defendants’ on their Plains Radio Show. Neil
Sankey through the Sankey firm, whom he is not licensed with, emailed Orly Taitz, et al Liberi’s
full Social Security number which Orly Taitz, et al sent out to over One Hundred and Forty
Thousand [140,000] individuals and companies. On or about May 28, 2009, Neil Sankey
appeared on Plains Radio hosted by the Hales. Neil Sankey stated Ostella sent him emails and
asked for Liberi to be investigated, which was untrue. Three [3] days later, on May 31, 2009
altered and forged emails were posted by Orly Taitz, et al on her website at
www.orlytaitzesq.com, see EXHIBIT “A”. Also, on May 28, 2009, Defendant Edgar Hale
made it clear that Neil Sankey had sent him documents he claimed pertained to Lisa Liberi and
on the documents the Hales received from Neil Sankey, Liberi’s full Social Security number,
date of birth and other personal identifying information was present. Defendant Edgar Hale then
stated to Neil Sankey, “Didn’t Lisa Liberi just take out a loan?” Knowing Neil Sankey had
provided the Hales, Defendant, Orly Taitz, et al and thousands of other individuals with Liberi’s
full Social Security number and personal identifying information, this was very concerning,
Liberi immediately checked her credit to see if there were any third party unauthorized inquiries
on her credit, Liberi did not find any. However, now that Plaintiffs’ are aware of the fact those

Defendants, the Hales, Neil Sankey and Orly Taitz, et al have conspired and forged and altered
emails, Liberi is afraid they have also fraudulently applied for credit and loans in her name.
Why else would the Hales talk about a loan Liberi had just taken out which he was told by Neil
Sankey? Also on May 28, 2009 is the same day Defendant Linda Sue Belcher, et al threatened
Liberi and Berg in Plains Radio chat area, which the Hales were well aware of and allowed.
Moreover, the Hales, Orly Taitz, et al; Linda Sue Belcher, et al; Neil Sankey, et al have all been
on Plains Radio with the Hales and have all continued slandering the Plaintiffs’; wishing harm
upon the Plaintiffs; posting libel about the Plaintiffs; and threatening the Plaintiffs’.
The Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN and Bar H Farms have not given any type of defenses to
the within lawsuit. They have not given any valid reason or legal basis for the within case to be
transferred to Western Texas nor have they given any valid reason for the dismissal of Plaintiffs’
action, as they cannot. The Hales; Bar H Farms; KPRN; and Plains radio are NOT located
within the Western District of Texas jurisdiction and they subjected themselves to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania when they accepted donations on behalf of Berg and continue soliciting
donations from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to pay for a legal defense of the within
action and targeted their illegal actions towards Plaintiffs’, some of which are residents of
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania which is within this Court’s jurisdiction and Plaintiffs’ have
suffered injuries within this Court’s jurisdiction.
For the above aforementioned reasons, Defendant’s the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN and
Bar H Farms “Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative transfer the within case to the Western
District of Texas must be denied.

II. MOTION PRACTICE, F.R.C.P. 7.1 AND LOCAL RULE 7.1(c)
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 7(b) states in pertinent part:
Rule 7. Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions and Other Papers
(b) Motions and Other Papers

(1) In General.
A request for a court order must be made by motion. The motion must:
(A) be in writing unless made during a hearing or trial;
(B) state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order; and
(C) state the relief sought
Defendants, The Hales, Plains Radio, KPRN and Bar H Farm have failed to adhere to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as this Court’s local rule. They file a one-page
document that they entitle Answer and Motion to Dismiss without a Brief, as required. They
claim this Court is without venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b); that this Court does not have
Jurisdiction of the parties and therefore, the case should be dismissed or in the alternative
transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a).
It is important for this Court to be aware, these particular Defendants’ announced
publicly on their radio show that Orly Taitz, Attorney at law and also a Defendant in the within
action prepared this document on behalf of The Hales, Plains Radio, KPRN and Bar H Farm. In
addition, Defendant Orly Taitz, et al herself announced that she prepared all of the Defendants’
Answers and Motions to Dismiss on their behalves.
Defendants Answer and Motions fail to give any type of defense to the within action;
fails to give any type of affirmative defenses; lacks any valid reasons to dismiss the case or
transfer the case; fails to give any type of convenience issues; fails to give any type of hardships;
lacks any type of supporting law and lacks any authority for this Court to grant the relief they are
requesting. Furthermore, this case is a complete diversity jurisdiction case, venue is proper

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(3). Pursuant to diversified
jurisdiction and 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(3), and the fact the Defendants reside in different states,
California, New Jersey, and Texas and within different jurisdictions within the different states
there is no other venue. It is only required for this Court to have personal jurisdiction over one
[1] Defendant to satisfy the venue requirements pertaining to all the Defendants in Diversified
Jurisdiction cases.
Moreover and most important, the Hales, Plains Radio, KPRN, and Bar H Farms are
NOT located within the Western District of Texas as they claim. These particular Defendants
are located in Wellington, Texas within Collingsworth County that is in the jurisdiction of the
Northern District of Texas, in the city of Amarillo.
For the above aforementioned reasons, this Motion must be denied.
III. THE STANDARD OF GRANTING RULE 12 MOTIONS
Although, The Hales, Plains Radio, KPRN and Bar H Farms have failed to raise exactly
what statute and or Rule they were filing their Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs’ will assume it is
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12. If this is correct, The Hales, Plains Radio,
KPRN and Bar H Farms have not met their burden for this Court to grant their relief.
Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may raise and a
Court grant a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal
jurisdiction, improper venue and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
As a general matter, in ruling on a Rule 12 motion to dismiss a Court is to consider all
the well-pleaded allegations in the Complaint, as well as the content of any exhibit attached to
the Complaint. See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233, 234 (3d Cir. 2008); In re

Rockefeller Center Properties, Inc. Securities Litigation, 184 F.3d 280, 287 (3d Cir. 1999);
Palmer v. City of Harrisburg, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33381, *6-7 (M.D. Pa. 2008).
When there is a challenge to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) or to the
existence of personal jurisdiction over a Defendant under Rule 12(b)(2), not only may a Court
look beyond the pleadings, but it then becomes the Plaintiff's burden to show that there is either
subject matter or personal jurisdiction. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct.
1235, 1244 (2006) (subject matter jurisdiction); Smith v. Garb, 988 F. Supp 868, 869 (E.D. Pa.
1997), aff'd w/o op. 159 F.3d 1353 (3d Cir. 1998) (same); IMO Industries v. Kierkert AG, 155
F.3d 254, 257 (3d Cir. 1998) (personal jurisdiction).
Not only did The Hales, Plains Radio, KPRN and Bar H Farms fail to raise or assert any
type of a defense in their Answer and their Motion to Dismiss as required, Myers v. American
Dental Ass'n, 695 F.2d 716, 720 (3d Cir. 1982), they are attempting to have this case dismissed
or transferred claiming they are located in the Western District of Texas, [Defendants
Motion, p. 1, ¶ 1] which they do not. The Hales, Plains Radio, KPRN and Bar H Farms are
located in the NORTHERN DISTRICT of Texas, Amarillo.
For the above aforementioned reasons, The Hales, Plains Radio, KPRN and Bar H Farms
have not met the standards for their Motions to Dismiss to be granted. Thus, The Hales, Plains
Radio, KPRN and Bar H Farms Motions must be denied.

IV. WITH THE ISSUE OF VENUE OR PERSONAL JURISDICTION, THIS COURT
IS THE PROPER VENUE AND HAS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE
HALES; PLAINS RADIO; KPRN; and BAR H FARMS UNDER THE
PENNSYLVANIA LONG-ARM STATUTE.
As this Court is aware this is a complete diversified jurisdictional case. None of the
Defendants’ reside within this State; a substantial part of the events gave raise to Plaintiffs’
claims within this District; and Taitz, DOFF and two (2) other Defendant’s were and are subject
to personal jurisdiction in this Court’s District. 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C.
§1391(a)(3).
In a diversity action like this one, venue is proper "only in (1) a judicial district where
any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part
of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any
defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no
district in which the action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. §1391(a).
As to Section 1391(a)(2), "[t]he test for determining venue is not the Defendant's
'contacts' with a particular district, but rather the location of those 'events or omissions giving
rise to the claim' . . . ." Cottman Transmission Systems, Inc. v. Martino, 36 F.3d 291, 294 (3d Cir.
1994).
As to Section 1391(a)(3), the other basis for venue here cited by Plaintiffs’, that
subsection applies because there is not another district in which Plaintiffs’ claims may otherwise
be brought; therefore, an express condition for the application of Section 1391(a)(3) - lack of
another district in which the action may be brought - is satisfied.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "a district court may assert personal
jurisdiction 'over non-resident Defendants to the extent permissible under the law of the state
where the district court sits.'" Remick, 238 F.3d at 255 (quoting Pennzoil Prods. Co. v. Colelli &
Assocs., Inc., 149 F.3d 197, 200 (3d Cir. 1998)). Under Pennsylvania's long-arm statute, 42 Pa.
Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5322(b), Pennsylvania Courts may "exercise personal jurisdiction over non-
resident defendants to the constitutional limits of the due process clause of the fourteenth
amendment." Remick v. Manfredy, 238 F.3d 248, 253 (3d Cir. Pa. 2001) at 255 (quoting Mellon
Bank (East) PSFS, Nat'l Ass'n v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1221 (3d Cir. 1992)).
There are two types of personal jurisdiction a court may assert over a Defendant --
general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction. Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, 960 F.2d at 1221. If
general jurisdiction exists, a court may exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident Defendant as to
any claim against [him], regardless of whether the subject matter of the cause of action has any
connection to the forum." Id. General Jurisdiction normally is invoked only when a Defendant
has maintained "systematic and continuous" contacts with the forum state. Marten, 499 F.3d at
296 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-15, 104 S. Ct.
1868, 80 L. Ed. 2d 404 & n.8 (1984)); Remick, 238 F.3d at 255. Conversely, specific jurisdiction
"is present only if the Plaintiffs’ cause of action arises out of a Defendant's forum-related
activities, such that the Defendant should reasonably anticipate being hauled into court in that
forum." Remick, 238 F.3d at 255 (quoting Vetrotex Certainteed Corp. v. Consol. Fiber Glass
Prods. Co., 75 F.3d 147, 151 (3d Cir. 1996)); see also Marten, 499 F.3d at 296 ("Specific
jurisdiction exists when the claim arises from or relates to conduct purposely directed at the
forum state.").

The Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States limits the reach of state long-arm statutes and precludes personal jurisdictional over a
nonresident defendant unless the nonresident has "certain minimum contacts with [the forum]
such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.'" International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).
Personal jurisdiction over a defendant may be specific or general. Specific Jurisdiction
exists if the Plaintiff's cause of action is related to or arises out of the defendant's contacts with
the forum state or with the defendant's forum-related activities. Helicopteros Nacionales de
Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n.8 (1984). In other words, Specific personal
jurisdiction exists when a defendant has "'purposefully directed [its] activities at residents of the
forum and the litigation results from alleged injuries that "arise out of or are related to" those
activities.'" BP Chemicals, Inc., 229 F.3d at 259, quoting from Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
471 U.S. 462, 472, 105 S. Ct. 2174 (1985). For there to be general jurisdiction over a defendant,
its contacts "with the forum, whether or not related to the litigation, [must be] 'continuous and
systematic.'" Id., quoting from Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 416,
104 S. Ct. 1868 (1984). As to individual defendants, "as a general rule, 'individuals performing
acts in a state in their corporate capacity are not subject to the courts of that state for those acts.'"
Nat'l Precast Crypt Co. v. Dy-Core of Pennsylvania, 785 F. Supp 1186, 1191 (W.D. Pa. 1992).
General jurisdiction exists when the claim does not arise from the defendant's contact
with the forum state, but the defendant has nonetheless maintained "continuous and systematic"
contacts with the forum state. Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414 n.9. The type of contacts, which if
continuous and systematic, may give rise to general jurisdiction are ownership of property in the
forum state, solicitation of business in the forum state, business activities in the forum state

or the sale of products to persons or entities within the forum state. Litman v. Walt Disney World
Co., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5115, *18 (01-CV-3891) (E.D. Pa. 2002). Those contacts must be
"extensive and pervasive" to provide a basis for personal jurisdiction. Reliance Steel Products
Co. v. Watson, Ess, Marshall & Enggas, 675 F.2d 587 (3d Cir. 1982) (citing Compagnie des
Bauxites de Guinea v. Insurance Co. of North America, 651 F.2d 877, 890 (3d Cir. 1981)
(Gibbons, J., dissenting), aff'd, 456 U.S. 694, 102 S. Ct. 2099, 72 L. Ed. 2d 492 (1982)).
The Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms have not claimed nor can they say the
forum of this Court is inconvenient or that they do not have any connections to this forum, or
that this forum does not have any jurisdiction over them, as they have attempted in their so
called “Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Transfer the Case”. The Hales; Plains Radio;
Bar H Farms; and KPRN subjected themselves to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, this
Court’s jurisdiction when they soliciting and accepting donations on behalf of a Pennsylvania
Company, www.obamacrimes.com owned and operated by Berg and the Law offices of Philip J.
Berg. Moreover, the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN and Bar H Farms made sure they were
subjected to the Jurisdiction of this Court by directing their actions towards Plaintiffs’ and other
parties who donated their time and worked for Berg’s Pennsylvania Law Firm.
It is obvious the Hales, Plains Radio, KPRN and Bar H Farms libel postings, slanderous
statements and threats were clearly directed at the Plaintiffs’, Adams, Berg, the Law Offices of
Philip J. Berg; Liberi; Ostella; and Go Excel Global within Pennsylvania and within
Montgomery County and further substantiates Plaintiffs’ argument that this State and this Court
are in fact the proper forum and this Court has personal jurisdiction over the Hales, Plains Radio,
KPRN and Bar H Farms.

This very Court maintains both General Jurisdiction over the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN;
and Bar H. Farms as they subjected themselves to this Court’s jurisdiction by soliciting
donations on behalf of Berg, www.obamacrimes.com and the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg, a
Pennsylvania Company located in Montgomery County, of which their illegal activities stem
from. Moreover, all of the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H Farms illegal and outrageous
conducts have effected the Plaintiffs’ within this Court Jurisdiction. Moreover, the Hales; Plains
Radio; KPRN; and Bar H Farms continue to this date, their outrageous and illegal behaviors,
which satisfies the “systematic and continuous” contacts within this forum. In addition, this
Court also have Specific Jurisdiction over the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H Farms as
Plaintiffs’ causes of actions relate to the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms
electronic communications with a group in this forum and the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and
Bar H. Farms has purposely directed to this forum injuries to Plaintiffs’ within this Court’s
forum which Plaintiffs’ cause of actions are based.
With our new Internet Cyber Space abilities, the Internet also confers jurisdiction upon
this Court and in this forum. Whether jurisdiction is proper in cases involving the Internet
"depends on where on a sliding scale of commercial interactivity the web site falls." Id. Where a
Defendant is "clearly doing business through its web site in the forum state, and where the claim
relates to or arises out of use of the web site, the Zippo Court held that personal jurisdiction
exists." Id. (citing Zippo Manufacturing. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 at 1124
(W.D. Pa. 1997). To make this determination, the Zippo Court focused on whether the
interactivity of a commercial Web site reflects "purposeful availment" or intended interaction
with residents of the forum state. See id. (citation omitted). Purposeful availment is demonstrated
when a defendant "(1) directs electronic activity into the State, (2) with the manifested intent of

engaging in business or other interactions within the State, and (3) that activity creates, in a
person within the State, a potential cause of action cognizable in the State's courts." Toys "R" Us,
Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446, 451 (3d Cir. N.J. 2003) at 453 (citation omitted).
All of the criteria outlined in Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446, 451 (3d
Cir. N.J. 2003) have been met and undoubtedly this Court has jurisdiction over the Hales; Plains
Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms and this Court is the proper forum for this action. Thus,
Defendant the Hale’s, Plains Radio, KPRN and Bar H Farm’s Motion to Dismiss must be denied.
V. THE MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE VENUE

PROPERLY LIES IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(3).
Defendants, the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms move this Court to
dismiss the action under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) for improper venue, or in the alternative transfer the
case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). However, the provisions of Section 1406(a) do not apply,
as venue is proper in this Court’s Jurisdiction. As demonstrated below, venue is indeed proper.
Title 28 U.S.C. §1391(a), which governs venue in civil actions where jurisdiction is
founded solely on diversity of citizenship, provides that an action may be filed in either of three
judicial districts: (1) where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State; (2)
in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; or (3) in
which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if
there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.
In the instant case, the Defendants’ do not reside within the same state. This case is a
complete diversity jurisdiction case. As better-outlined 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C.
§1391(a)(3) clearly apply. Defendants the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms as
well as Linda Sue Belcher, et al, Orly Taitz, et al and Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc. are

subject to the personal jurisdiction of this particular Court. The Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and
Bar H. Farms clearly subjected themselves to this Court’s jurisdiction when they solicited and
accepted donations on behalf of Berg; his website, obamacrimes.com; and his law firm, the Law
Offices of Philip J. Berg all of which are located within the State of Pennsylvania, County of
Montgomery. Moreover, the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms subjected
themselves to this Court’s jurisdiction by attacking and enticing hatred towards Berg; the Law
Offices of Philip J. Berg; Liberi, Berg’s paralegal, Ostella; and Adams.
Venue disputes are governed by either 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) or by 28 U.S.C. §1406(a).
§1406(a) only applies where the original venue is improper. Under §1406(a), "the district court
of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or
in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been
brought." 28 U.S.C. §1406(a). If venue is improper, the district court has limited discretion; it
can either dismiss the case or transfer it to a district in which it could have originally been
brought. However, it must do one or the other.
Under §1406(a), the burden is on the moving party to establish that the transfer is
warranted. See Conners v. R&S Parts Servs., Inc., 248 F.Supp.2d. 394, 396 (E.D. Pa. 2003)
(holding that "the burden is on the moving party to establish that a balancing of proper interests
weigh in favor of the transfer); Myers v. Am. Dental Ass'n, 695 F.2d 716, 724-5 (3d Cir. 1982);
Resource Bank v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2980, at *4; Consolidated
Risk Services. v. Automobile Dealers WC Self Insurance Trust, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41475, *2
(E.D. Pa. June 21, 2006) (holding that "the defendant should ordinarily bear that burden of
showing improper venue in connection with a motion to dismiss" under §1406). Plaintiffs’
submit that the Hales, Plains Radio, KPRN and Bar H Farms have not, and cannot, meet its

burden, particularly since the venue selected by Plaintiffs’ is to be given substantial deference.
Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, (3rd Cir. 1970) at 25.
The Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms did not file a Brief in support of their
request to dismiss the within action or transfer the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a). The
Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms simply allege, “Venue is improperly laid in this
District under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)” and “this defendant and any names they may go by are only
connected to in their state of residence; and venue would be properly laid in the western district
of Texas, San Antonio Division.” The Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms then
“Demands and prays” that the complaint be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and/or improper
venue or in the alternative transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a). The Hales; Plains Radio;
KPRN; and Bar H. Farms has not shown this venue is improper. However, it is clear venue in
the Western District of Texas is NOT proper venue. The Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar
H. Farms do not reside in, do not conduct business in or have anything to do with the Western
District of Texas. The Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms address is located in
Wellington, Texas (Collingsworth County) which is located in the Northern District of Texas.
Initially, it should be noted that a Plaintiff's choice of forum is traditionally entitled to
substantial deference. See Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir.1970). As such,
Plaintiffs’ choice of forum should be honored by this Court, particularly since it is a proper
forum for this action under § 1391(a)(2) or (3).
Notably, the provisions of Section 1406(a) apply only when venue in the selected district
is improper. Jumara v. State Farm Insurance Co., 55 F.3d 873, 878 (3d Cir.1995). Because
venue of this action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is proper under 28 U.S.C. §
1391(a)(2) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) (3), the provisions of Section 1406(a) do not apply, and

do not afford the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms from Plains Radio with a basis
to transfer this action to another venue.
Moreover, all documents, all information pertaining to Berg’s website, witnesses of the
Plaintiffs’ that will testify they obtained the chat and down loaded the radio programs of the
Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms from Plains Radio wherein the Plaintiffs’ have
been slandered; libeled; threatened; and other illegal behaviors against the Plaintiffs’ by the
Defendants’, the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms and Linda Belcher, et al, threats
regarding Liberi’s heart problems and Liberi having a heart attack, the Hales; Plains Radio;
KPRN; and Bar H. Farms slanderous statements, libel postings, threats to all Plaintiffs, are
located within this Court’s jurisdiction. Berg would have to close down his law firm for several
days to travel to another state to litigate the within action. Transferring venue would be
inconvenient to Plaintiffs’ witnesses; would cause a situation Plaintiffs witnesses would not be
able to testify as they would be unable to travel to another State’s forum due to health and
financial reasons; Defendant Linda Sue Belcher, who is in Western Texas, has already threatened
Berg and Liberi if they come to her “redneck” town they would be forced out, maybe in pieces
and therefore a transfer is not in the interest of justice. The Hales, Plains Radio, KPRN and Bar
H Farms did not cite any hardship; inconvenience to witnesses; any witnesses she may have;
nothing. Therefore, "the interest of justice [would] be better served in this forum." Jumara v.
State Farm Ins. Co. 55 F.3d 879 (3d Cir. 1995).
The Plaintiffs’ have all agreed and subjected themselves to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. Several of the Plaintiffs’ are in fact Pennsylvania residents and subjected to this
Court’s jurisdiction. The Defendants all reside in different states, New Jersey, Texas, and
California, of which they are located within different districts of the United States District

Courts. Moreover, this Court has personal jurisdiction over several of the Defendants, including,
Orly Taitz, et al; Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc.; the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and
Bar H. Farms. Thus 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(3) clearly applies and this Court is the proper venue.
The Federal Courts in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania operate efficiently. There is
little lag time between the filing of the Complaint, the conduction of discovery and the
scheduling of trial. Undersigned counsel does not know the volume of litigation in the Western
District of Texas, but believes that it would dwarf the volume of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. Likewise, the cost of proceeding in Eastern Pennsylvania would pale in
comparison to those in Western Texas in terms of attorneys' fees, hotel accommodations and
restaurant pricing.
The only considerations which would encourage this Court to transfer the action to the
Western District of Texas would be another Defendant, Linda Belcher, et al preference. Clearly,
this Court should show great deference to the Plaintiffs’ preference to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Most of the witnesses and virtually all of the
documents are located here.
In deciding a Motion to Dismiss all well-pleaded allegations in the Complaint are taken
as true unless contradicted by the Defendants' Affidavits and the Court may examine facts
outside the Complaint to determine proper venue. Resource Bank, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2980,
*3, citing Fellner v. Philadelphia Toboggan Coasters, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23839, *1
(E.D. Pa. October 18, 2005); see also Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure 3d., § 1352
(2004).
The Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms have failed to contradict any of the
plead allegations; they have not raised any affirmative defenses and therefore has waived them,

she has offered absolutely no facts outside the Complaint. The issue of Plaintiffs’ entitlement for
the Defendants’, including the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H. Farms, wrong doings and
the requested amounts in the lawsuit to be paid to the Plaintiffs’ may be so obvious that the Court
may be able to decide the matter by means of Summary Judgment. Defaults have already been
entered against three [3] of the Defendants, Orly Taitz, et al; Defend our Freedoms Foundation,
Inc. and The Sankey Firm.
As noted above, under Section 1406(a), the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and Bar H.
Farms bears the burden of establishing the need for the transfer of this action to an alternate
venue. Given that the critical factors for deciding a motion to transfer, transfer of the action is
inappropriate under Section 1406(a) because the locus of operative facts for purposes of venue
lie in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. For this reason, the Hales; Plains Radio; KPRN; and
Bar H. Farms from Plains Radio Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative transfer the action must
be denied.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the above aforementioned reasons, Defendants, Edgar Hale; Caren Hale; Plains
Radio a/k/a Plains Radio, Inc.; KPRN AM 1610; and Bar H. Farms Motion to Dismiss or in the
alternative the Action be transferred to the Western District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1406(a) must be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: June 11, 2009 s/ Philip J. Berg

__________________________
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE

EXHIBIT “A”

Law Offices of:

:
:
Plaintiffs, :
:
:
:
Defendants. :
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF LISA OSTELLA
I, Lisa Ostella, am a Plaintiff in the within action. I have personal knowledge of
the facts herein and if called to do so, I could and would competently testify under oath.
I declare as follows:
1. I purchased the domain names defendourfreedoms.us;
defendourfreedoms.net and defendourfreedoms.com in or about early December.
I am the rightful owner of said domain names.
2. In or about November 2008 to April 2009, I donated my time as one of the
webmaster’s to Orly Taitz, one of the within Defendants.
3. Orly Taitz stated she had been having problems with her blog at
www.drorlyblogspot.com, so I migrated her domain name defendourfreedoms.us
and moved her blog over to my account on GoDaddy, which I paid for.
Z:\Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al – Decl of Lisa Ostella 1

4. In or about March 2009, someone changed the email address attached to
Orly Taitz’s PayPal account from orly_taitz@gmail.com to orly_taitz@gmail.org.
This could have simply been a typographical error. Four separate individuals had
access to the scripting associated with the sidebar on the blog site.
5. In or about early March Orly began claiming her PayPal account and
website were being hacked. I and Charlie, another webmaster explained to Ms.
Taitz that her websites and PayPal account had not been hacked.
6. Despite this, Ms. Taitz filed a false report with the Orange County
Sheriff’s Department located in California and the Federal Bureau of
Investigations also located in Southern California.
7. I told Ms. Taitz if she did not retract the false report, she would have to
find another webhost and webmaster.
8. Ms. Taitz refused to retract her falsified police report, so I told her to find
a new host.
9. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Taitz began falsifying stories about me stating I
had hacked her PayPal account, websites and stole foundation monies, which is
and was completely false. My email address and phone number does appear on
Ms. Taitz PayPal account as I set up her PayPal Account for her. To date, Ms.
Taitz has not removed my email address. However, my email address is not the
email address funds are sent to.
10. Next, Ms. Taitz began claiming Plaintiff Liberi and I are the same person,
the entire time knowing this was a false statement.

11. Ms. Taitz went on radio appearances, sent emails and posted on her new
website/blog at www.orlytaitzesq.com that I was stealing her donations, I was
redirecting her donations, I had stolen her domains and that I had locked her out
of her website. Again, all of which Ms. Taitz knew was falsified.
12. Through-out April and May 2009, Defendant Orly Taitz began posting on
her website at www.orlytaitzesq.com documents which she wrote and prepared
labeling myself and all the other Plaintiffs’ in this Action as “Obots”, President
Obama supporters and inferring we were his clique. Taitz wrote and distributed
Dossier #6 with Plaintiff Liberi’s full social security number and personal
identifying information. Taitz also posted an article she wrote labeled “We need
Political Penicillin” which was calling for volunteers to form a civilian army, a
militia and calling for guns, ammo, money to purchase more guns, ammo and
communications to fight against “Oppressive Government”.
13. Defendant Taitz then wrote a document which she titled “Update on Lisa
Liberi, Paralegal to Phil Berg. In this post stating “Just like the country needs to
be purged of Obama and his clique, that are in power by virtue of forgery, fraud
and consealment of vital records, the patriots of this country need to purge their
ranks. “
14. In mid May 2009, I received a phone call stating Defendant Taitz was
telling people professionals were going to kidnap my children.
15. I immediately contacted my local police department, North Brunswick
Police Department and filed a criminal report, Report No.9024817. The Officer

who took the report put the incident type/Offense as Terroristic Threats/Threat to
kill (2C:12-3B). This report was assigned to Detective Cano.
16. Now it appears Defendant’s Neil Sankey and Orly Taitz have conspired
together and not only altered and forged but created emails using my email
address and claiming I wrote the emails and sent them. See EXHIBIT “1”.
17. Defendant Neil Sankey went onto Defendant Plains Radio on May 28,
2009 which was hosted by Defendant’s Edgar Hale and Caren Hale. Neil Sankey
stated that I sent him an email claiming Lisa Liberi, Philip J. Berg’s Assistant;
name was really Richards and had a Police Record for “ID” [sic] theft. This is
completely false. I have never sent any such email to Neil Sankey or anyone else.
18. May 31, 2009, I received several emails, one from another webmaster,
Charlie. In the email was the following post which Defendant Orly Taitz posted
on her website:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=1843
Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation 26302 La Paz ste 211, Mission Viejo CA 92691 Copyright 2009
« From reader Bob S. Did anyone see Hank Paulson coming out of his house lately?
Re Keyes v Obama »
I am trying to stay away from Liberi-Berg issue, but i

got more questions and here is more info.
I was asked by a number of people to explain why the name of Lisa Ostella is on the
dossier #4.

When I was in Washington DC, I did not have an access to the Internet, as I was visiting
the Director of the Selective Service William Chatfield and offices of several senators
and was on the phone with the assistant and legal counsel for Admiral Malin. A lot of
people asked me for an update and I called Lisa Ostella, the web master ,and asked her to
post it on the Internet. As you can see, the fact that she signed
DefendOurfFeedomsFoundations, and she put her name as an assistant to me, clearly
shows that she knew it is my foundation, under my name and she could sign as an
assistant only as long as she was helping me. The moment I transferred to another
webmaster, she had and has no right to advertise on behalf of the DefendOurFreedoms
foundation, solicit donations and pocket the money.
You can also see (in the attachment) that she was the one that contacted the private
investigator Mr. Sankey, and provided him the information that Lisa Liberi , assistant to
Phil Berg, has a criminal record. Based on her report Mr. Sankey has investigated and
confirmed this information, that indeed Lisa Liberi has this lengthy record of forgery of
documents and forgery of an official seal and grand theft. Lisa Ostella changed her tune
only after this whole issue with pay-pal came out. At first she and the rest of the
plaintiffs came out with an outrageous lie that my husband was spying on people. Now
they dismissed their law suit against my husband- and everybody knows that it was a
manufactured charge.
As you can see, she was well aware about Liberi’s criminal record, as was Berg and
Liberi herself. Their legal action is nothing but perjury and an attempted obstruction of
justice. I have written in the pleadings that the only address that Liberi provided,
was Berg’s office address and the reason is that she indeed resides in NM and is the Lisa
Liberi with the criminal record. I received an e-mail recently that in the last couple of
days Lisa Liberi has gotten a PA drivers license. If she got one in the last couple of days,
that doesn’t change the fact that she resided in NM and that all of them committed
perjury. If anything, getting a PA drivers license now is yet another attempt to obstruct
justice.
As I have said before, I don’t get intimidated by either Obama or by Berg. One cannot
file a fraudulent and malicious legal action against me and expect to shut me up and make
me stop reporting on illegal and criminal activity. All that these people are doing, is
adding counts of fraud, perjury and obstruction of justice. The only thing Berg can do, is
come clean, disassociate himself from Lisa Liberi, who has a record of forgery and he
needs to hire a forensic document examiner to check all the records handled by Lisa
Liberi. We cannot win in court with forged records. This information was already on the
blogs before I got it and it will be on the blogs, his continuing denial of clear evidence
has no merit and undermines everybody in the resistance movement, everybody who
wants to get to the truth. The only way to win, is by clean evidence, unsealing the vital
records and letting the Supreme Court decide the issue of the Natural Born Citizen.
> From: nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com

> To: lisaostella@hotmail.com
> Subject: RE: HELLO ??? (again)

> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:02:00 -0700
>
> Indeed it would. If you would pass this on to Dr.O, I will go out to San Bdo
> this week and have a look at the 2002 file, dontcha think?
>N
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Lisa Ostella [mailto:lisaostella@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 4:49 PM
> To: Neil Sanky
>
> Hmm, if the forged documents actually came out of Phil Berg’s office, well,
> filing lawsuits would be an excellent cover, huh?
>
> Factcheck is in Pennsylvania.
>
> As is Phil Berg.
>
>
> Lisa Ostella
> Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
> http://defendourfreedoms.org <http://defendourfreedoms.org/>
> Peace through Strength
> http://www.barofintegrity.com <http://www.barofintegrity.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > From: nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com
> > To: lisaostella@hotmail.com
> > Subject: RE: HELLO ??? (again)
> > Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:35:46 -0700
>>
> > Yes but a SEAL !!, and HOW MANY aliases?
>>
> > —–Original Message—–
> > From: Lisa Ostella [mailto:lisaostella@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:46 PM
> > To: Neil Sanky
>>

> > Insight, such as, Lisa Liberi (Phil Berg’s assistant) really being Lisa
> > Richards, with a police record for ID theft?
>>
> > Mighty convenient talent to have when there are multiple identities flying
> > around.
>>
> > I’ve not researched that insight yet. I didn’t have a warm and fuzzy
> > interaction with (redacted name of volunteer )So I don’t know if this is planted info
droppings
> > or not.
>>
>>
> > Lisa Ostella
> > Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
> > http://defendourfreedoms.org <http://defendourfreedoms.org/>
> > Peace through Strength
> > http://www.barofintegrity.com <http://www.barofintegrity.com/>
>>
This entry was posted on Sunday, May 31st, 2009 at 2:19 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can
follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from
your own site.
Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire is proudly powered by WordPress

Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
19. The above emails are altered and forged emails as broken down in
EXHIBIT “1”. I did not authorize any party to alter, fabricate, draft or send out
emails using my email address, name and/or Company name.
20. I have also reported the crimes of Conspiracy to Commit a Felony and
Forgery to Detective Cano with the North Brunswick Police Department as a
result of Defendant’s Neil Sankey and Orly Taitz criminal activities.

I declare under the penalty of Perjury of the laws of the United States that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 8th day of June, 2009.
s/ Lisa Ostella
__________________________
LISA OSTELLA, Plaintiff

EXHIBIT “1”
Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation 26302 La Paz ste 211, Mission Viejo CA 92691 Copyright 2009
« From reader Bob S. Did anyone see Hank Paulson coming out of his house lately?
Re Keyes v Obama »
I am trying to stay away from Liberi-Berg issue,
but i got more questions and here is more info.
I was asked by a number of people to explain why the name of
Lisa Ostella is on the dossier #4.
When I was in Washington DC, I did not have an access to the

Internet, as I was visiting the Director of the Selective Service
William Chatfield and offices of several senators and was on the
phone with the assistant and legal counsel for Admiral Malin. A lot
of people asked me for an update and I called Lisa Ostella, the web
master ,and asked her to post it on the Internet. As you can
see, the fact that she signed DefendOurfFeedomsFoundations, and
she put her name as an assistant to me, clearly shows that she knew
it is my foundation, under my name and she could sign as an
assistant only as long as she was helping me. The moment
I transferred to another webmaster, she had and has no right to
advertise on behalf of the DefendOurFreedoms foundation, solicit
donations and pocket the money.
You can also see (in the attachment) that she was the one that
contacted the private investigator Mr. Sankey, and provided him
the information that Lisa Liberi , assistant to Phil Berg, has a
criminal record. Based on her report Mr. Sankey has investigated
and confirmed this information, that indeed Lisa Liberi has this
lengthy record of forgery of documents and forgery of an official
seal and grand theft. Lisa Ostella changed her tune only after this
1
whole issue with pay-pal came out. At first she and the rest of
the plaintiffs came out with an outrageous lie that my husband
was spying on people. Now they dismissed their law suit against
my husband- and everybody knows that it was a manufactured
charge.
As you can see, she was well aware about Liberi’s criminal
record, as was Berg and Liberi herself. Their legal action is
nothing but perjury and an attempted obstruction of justice. I
have written in the pleadings that the only address that Liberi
provided, was Berg’s office address and the reason is that she
indeed resides in NM and is the Lisa Liberi with the criminal
record. I received an e-mail recently that in the last couple of
days Lisa Liberi has gotten a PA drivers license. If she got one in
the last couple of days, that doesn’t change the fact that she
resided in NM and that all of them committed perjury. If
anything, getting a PA drivers license now is yet another
attempt to obstruct justice.
As I have said before, I don’t get intimidated by either Obama or

by Berg. One cannot file a fraudulent and malicious legal action
against me and expect to shut me up and make me stop reporting
on illegal and criminal activity. All that these people are doing,
is adding counts of fraud, perjury and obstruction of justice. The
only thing Berg can do, is come clean, disassociate himself from
Lisa Liberi, who has a record of forgery and he needs to hire a
forensic document examiner to check all the records handled by
Lisa Liberi. We cannot win in court with forged records. This
information was already on the blogs before I got it and it will be
on the blogs, his continuing denial of clear evidence has no merit
and undermines everybody in the resistance movement,
everybody who wants to get to the truth. The only way to win, is
by clean evidence, unsealing the vital records and letting the
Supreme Court decide the issue of the Natural Born Citizen.
***The following Emails with the above post have been altered and forged
2
FORGED AND ALTERNED EMAIL placed on Orly Taitz’s website ORIGINAL CORRECT UN-ALTERED EMAIL WHICH
at http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=1843 BY Orly Taitz WAS SENT AND RECEIVED:
NUMBER 1: NUMBER 1:
> From: nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com > From: nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com

> To: lisaostella@hotmail.com > To: lisaostella@hotmail.com
> Subject: RE: HELLO ??? (again) > Subject: RE: HELLO ??? (again)
> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:02:00 -0700 > Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:02:00 -0700
> >
> Indeed it would. If you would pass this on to Dr.O, I will go out to San Bdo > If you would pass this on to Dr.O, I will go out to San Bdo
> this week and have a look at the 2002 file, dontcha think? > this
> >N
>N >
>
NUMBER 2: NUMBER 2:
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Lisa Ostella [mailto:lisaostella@hotmail.com] NO SUCH EMAIL EXISTS – NEVER SENT NUMBER 2 ON
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 4:49 PM ORLY TAITZ WEBSITE IS A COMPLETE MANUFACTURED
> To: Neil Sanky AND FORGED EMAIL
>
> Hmm, if the forged documents actually came out of Phil Berg’s office, well,
> filing lawsuits would be an excellent cover, huh?
> > or not.
> Factcheck is in Pennsylvania.
>
> As is Phil Berg.
>
>
> Lisa Ostella
> Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
> http://defendourfreedoms.org <http://defendourfreedoms.org/>
> Peace through Strength
> http://www.barofintegrity.com <http://www.barofintegrity.com/>
>
3
NUMBER 3: NUMBER 3:
> > From: nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com Actual Email – No Alterations on this document

>> To: lisaostella@hotmail.com
> > Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:35:46 -0700
>>
> > Yes but a SEAL !!, and HOW MANY aliases?
>>
NUMBER 4: NUMBER 4:
> > —–Original Message—– > > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Lisa Ostella [mailto:lisaostella@hotmail.com] > > From: Lisa Ostella [mailto:lisaostella@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:46 PM > > Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:46 PM
> > To: Neil Sanky > > To: Neil Sanky
> > Subject: RE: HELLO ??? (again) > > Subject: RE: HELLO ??? (again)
>> >>
> > Insight, such as, Lisa Liberi (Phil Berg’s assistant) really being Lisa > > I've not researched that insight yet. I didn't have a warm and fuzzy
> > Richards, with a police record for ID theft? > > interaction with Sarah. So I don't know if this is planted info droppings
>> > > or not.
> > Mighty convenient talent to have when there are multiple identities flying >>
> > around. >>
>> > > Lisa Ostella
> > I’ve not researched that insight yet. I didn’t have a warm and fuzzy > > Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
> > interaction with (redacted name of volunteer )So I don’t know if this is planted info > > Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
droppings > > http://defendourfreedoms.org <http://defendourfreedoms.org/>
> >or not. > > http://defendourfreedoms.org <http://defendourfreedoms.org/>
>> > > Peace through Strength
> > Lisa Ostella > > http://www.barofintegrity.com <http://www.barofintegrity.com/>
> > Peace through Strength

> > http://www.barofintegrity.com <http://www.barofintegrity.com/>
>>
This entry was posted on Sunday, May 31st, 2009 at 2:19 pm and is filed under
Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire is proudly powered by WordPress

Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
4
*** Note on Number 4: The smiley in the forged email bears the exact same smiley face used by Orly Taitz on her website at
*** NOTE – NEIL SANKEY WITH THE SANKEY FIRM WAS ON PLAINS RADIO, www.plainsradio.com ON MAY 28, 2009 WHEREIN
NEIL SANKEY STATED: I RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM LISA OSTELLA STATING LISA LIBERI (PHIL BERG’S ASSISTANT) WAS
REALLY LISA RICHARDS WITH A POLICE RECORD FOR IDENTIFICATION THEFT.
5
Law Offices of:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,

:
:
Plaintiffs, :
:
:
:
Defendants. :
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition
to Defendant, Edgar Hale; Caren Hale; Plains Radio a/k/a Plains Radio, Inc; KPRN AM 1610;
and Bar H. Farms Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative transfer the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1406(a) was served this 11th day of June 2009 via United States Postal Service with postage
fully prepaid upon the following:
Mr. Ted Hoppe, Esquire

Hoppe & Martin
423 McFarlan Road, Suite 100
Kennett Square, PA 19348
Attorney for Defendants: Ed Hale; Caren Hale;
Plains Radio; KPRN; and
Bar H Farms
s/ Philip J. Berg
________________________
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE

56 - 2009!06!11 - Opposition Re #25 Hale Motion To Dismiss

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

56 - 2009!06!11 - Opposition Re #25 Hale Motion To Dismiss

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

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

Dated: June _____, 2009 _____________________________

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to the Hales, et al Motion to Dismiss… 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS,

§1406(a) on the following grounds:

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to the Hales, et al Motion to Dismiss… 2

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

• This Court has subject matter Jurisdiction pursuant to Diversity Jurisdiction

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

outlined in Plaintiffs’ Complaint;

Eastern District of Pennsylvania when they accepted donations on behalf of

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

Law Offices of Philip J. Berg;

District of Texas jurisdiction;

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

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

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to the Hales, et al Motion to Dismiss… 3

Defendant, which has been met in the within Action

U.S.C. §1391(a)(2) and §1391(a)(3).

Dated: June 11, 2009 s/ Philip J. Berg

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to the Hales, et al Motion to Dismiss… 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE

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

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

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to the Hales, et al Motion to Dismiss… 5

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

Hale began slandering Adams name on their radio show.

Berg agreed to appear several times.

communications with the Hales. The Hales became extremely angry.

against Plaintiffs, Adams and Berg.

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to the Hales, et al Motion to Dismiss… 6

mass mailings from Bar H.

harass Adams, which they did.

were well aware Adams has never harassed or trashed them.

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to the Hales, et al Motion to Dismiss… 7

said divorce papers, which they were well aware of.

completely different person.

statements; libel postings and threats did not stop.

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to the Hales, et al Motion to Dismiss… 8

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

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to the Hales, et al Motion to Dismiss… 9

towards the Plaintiffs’.

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to the Hales, et al Motion to Dismiss… 10

suffered injuries within this Court’s jurisdiction.

District of Texas must be denied.

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to the Hales, et al Motion to Dismiss… 11

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

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

(b) Motions and Other Papers

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

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

Answers and Motions to Dismiss on their behalves.

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to the Hales, et al Motion to Dismiss… 12

Northern District of Texas, in the city of Amarillo.

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

III. THE STANDARD OF GRANTING RULE 12 MOTIONS

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

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to the Hales, et al Motion to Dismiss… 13

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

Dated: June _, 2009 _________________________