Liberi Et Al V Taitz Et Al - Berg Decl - Opt Doc 502

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502 Filed 04/19/12 Page 1 of 39 Page ID #:12621
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Philip J. Berg, Esquire (PA I.D. 9867) E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659 Attorney in Pro Se and for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION : : : : Plaintiffs, : : : : : : : : Defendants. : : :
LISA LIBERI, et al,
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW) DECLARATION OF PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE Date of Hearing: May 14, 2012 Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m. Location: Courtroom 10D
vs. ORLY TAITZ, et al,
DECLARATION of PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, am over the age of 18 and am a party to the within action. I have personal knowledge of the facts herein, and if called to do, I could and would competently testify. I am making this Declaration under the penalty of perjury of the Laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746. 1. I am an Attorney in good standing, licensed to practice law in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I am licensed to practice in the U.S. District Courts, Middle and Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Third Circuit Court of
Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Appeals; the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court; and the U.S. Supreme Court. And, I am the Attorney of Record for all the Plaintiffs in this case. 2. I am making this Declaration in support of Plaintiffs Opposition to
Reed Elsevier, Inc.; ChoicePoint, Inc.; LexisNexis; Seisint, Inc. d/b/a Accurint; LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk and Analytics Group, LLC; and LexisNexis Group, collectively [Reed Defendants] Motion for Summary Judgment [MSJ]. A. 3. DISCOVERY THE REED DEFENDANTS: On November 30, 2011, I served on behalf of Plaintiffs the Reed
Defendants with their Initial Disclosures that included approximately Five Thousand [5,000] pages. On December 12, 2012, I sent a settlement demand to James McCabe, Esquire Attorney for the Reed Defendants. In said demand, I stated I had not received the Reed Defendants Initial Disclosures and if the Reed Defendants did not intend to settle then they needed to serve their Initial Disclosures. 4. Mr. McCabe never responded to me. On January 3, 2012, I sent a
demand letter to all Defendants stating if I did not receive their Initial Disclosures by January 10, 2012, then I would be seeking Leave to file Motions to Compel. In
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
this letter, I reminded the Reed Defendants that Trial was fast approaching in June 2012. 5. On January 10, 2012, Michael B. Miller, Esquire, Attorney for the
Reed Defendants sent me a letter stating they would not supply Initial Disclosures until January 24, 2012, that he was treating his letter as a Meet and Confer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. I responded to Mr. Miller granting him until January 24, 2012 and informing him that I would be propounding Plaintiffs Discovery upon each of the Reed Defendants. 6. I served each of the Reed Defendants with Plaintiffs Discovery on
January 13, 2012, by way of Interrogatories; Request for Admissions; and Request for Production of Documents. 7. On January 26, 2012, not receiving the Reed Defendants Initial
Disclosures, I sent another letter to Mr. McCabe and Mr. Miller again demanding the Reed Defendants Initial Disclosures. Mr. Miller responded stating he had sent the Reed Defendants Initial Disclosures, but once he returns to his office he would Email them to me, which he did. Of course, the Reed Defendants failed to provide anything but objections claiming I never met and conferred with counsel for the Reed Defendants pursuant to Rule 26, which was contrary to Mr. Millers letter of January 10, 2012.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
8.
On January 30, 2012, I called and spoke to Mr. Miller regarding the
incomplete Initial Disclosures received from the Reed Defendants. Mr. Miller treated the call as a Meet and Confer as to the Reed Defendants intentions of filing a Motion for Summary Judgment. I followed up his call with an Email confirming the conversation. I also sent an Email regarding a Meet and Confer regarding the incomplete and improper Initial Disclosures and my intent on seeking Leave to file a Motion to Compel. Mr. Miller again responded stating I had not complied with the Meet and Confer Requirements and he was unsure as to how the information supplied by me pertained to his intentions of filing a Motion for Summary Judgment. 9. The Meet and Confer was rescheduled for Wednesday, February 1,
2012 at 3:00 p.m. During this Meet and Confer, Mr. Miller wanted the Reed Defendants Discovery re-served, which extended the date due for another month; and Mr. Miller stated he would be filing for a Protective Order, which I agreed to stipulate to. Mr. Miller also stated he would be setting depositions, but the dates could be discussed and he did not intend the specific dates to go forward; and that he would be sending Plaintiffs the Reed Defendants Supplemental Disclosures. 10. On February 2, 2012, I re-served the Reed Defendants Discovery on
Mr. Miller via Email as requested by Mr. Miller. The Reed Defendants Answers were due March 5, 2012. The Reed Defendants again failed to comply.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
11.
On February 3, 2012, Plaintiffs received the Reed Defendants
Discovery propounded on them and set Depositions of Lisa Ostella; Lisa Liberi; and me in California on February 28, 2012; March 1, 2012, and March 2, 2012, without discussing any dates with me and not even giving thirty [30] days notice and prior to the date Discovery was due. 12. On February 22, 2012, I sent another Email to Mr. Miller informing
him that I had not received the requested Protective Order; had not received the Supplemental Initial Disclosures as promised; nor had I received any communications regarding the depositions dates set by Mr. Miller. I asked that Mr. Miller please provide me with dates of availability so I could coordinate the dates for Depositions. I never received any dates from Mr. Miller. 13. Mr. Miller responded stating the Deposition dates were deemed
opened and adjourned; and Plaintiffs would receive Supplemental Initial Disclosures the following week. 14. On February 27, 2012, Mr. Miller sent me another Email stating he
was fine with conducting Depositions after Discovery responses had been served. 15. On March 1, 2012, Mr. Miller Emailed me asking for yet another
extension of time until March 12, 2012, to respond to the Plaintiffs Discovery propounded on each of the Reed Defendants. Mr. Miller also called me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
16.
I received an Email from Mr. Miller stating I had agreed to extend the
Reed Defendants until March 12, 2012 to respond to Plaintiffs Discovery, which was not true. I immediately responded stating I must receive the Reed Defendants Responses to Discovery by 5:00 p.m. EST on Thursday, March 8, 2012. 17. On March 2, 2012, I finally received what the Reed Defendants called
their Initial Disclosures. The Initial Disclosures again were wholly deficient and lacked the required information as outlined in Rule 26. Mr. Miller stated he would not supply certain information until after the Protective Order was filed, a true and correct copy is attached hereto as EXHIBIT 1. 18. On March 6, 2012, Mr. Miller sought Leave of Court to file a Motion
for Summary Judgment. On this same date, Mr. Miller sent an Email to me stating he would call me on Friday of the week of the 12th of March to discuss Deposition dates. I never received a call from Mr. Miller regarding Depositions dates. 19. I finally received responses to Plaintiffs Discovery requests from the
Reed Defendants. The Reed Defendants Answers were wholly deficient. The only responses that contained any type of a response, besides boilerplate objections, was from Defendant Seisint, Inc. d/b/a Accurint [Accurint]. Reed Elsevier, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc.; LexisNexis Group; ChoicePoint, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.; and LexisNexis asserted
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
boilerplate objections to every single Interrogatory, Request for Production and Request for Admissions. 20. On March 25, 2012, I sent a letter dated March 26, 2012 to Mr. Miller
and Mr. McCabe outlining the deficiencies in what they called Responses to Plaintiffs Discovery as to each of the Reed Defendants. I informed Mr. Miller and Mr. McCabe that if they wished to conduct the Meet and Confer telephonically to please provide dates within the next forty-eight [48] hours that they are available. I stated otherwise, if I did not receive Supplemental Responses to the Reed Defendants Responses within seven [7] days, I would be seeking Leave of Court to file A Motion to Compel. I also informed counsel for the Reed
Defendants that all Requests for Admissions served upon the Reed Defendants had been deemed Admitted. See EXHIBIT 2. Instead of properly responding to discovery, the Reed Defendants filed the within Motion for Summary Judgment. 21. The Accurint responses I received did respond to a couple of the
Interrogatories, but failed to produce any of the documentation asked for. Accurint stated they would not supply the information until a Protective Order was in place, but the Reed Defendants have never filed their request for a Protective Order. See EXHIBIT 3, which is Accurints Responses to Plaintiffs Interrogatories; See EXHIBIT 4, which is Accurints Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
of Documents; and See EXHIBIT 5, which is Accurints Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Admissions. 22. I have attached as EXHIBIT 6 Defendant ChoicePoint, Inc.s
Responses to Plaintiffs Interrogatories; as EXHIBIT 7 ChoicePoint, Inc.s Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production; and as EXHIBIT 8 ChoicePoint, Inc. Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Admissions. As for each of the other Reed Defendants, all of their Responses are pretty much identical to ChoicePoint, Inc.s boilerplate objections that they call their Responses. 23. Although the Reed Defendants admit that the Sankey Firm, Inc.
through Neil Sankey and Todd Sankey conducted searches on the Plaintiffs through Accurint and reports were sold on the Plaintiffs from Accurint to IRBsearch, LLC, a reseller for the Accurint product, each of the Reed Defendants have refused to turn over any searches conducted or reports they have sold regarding any of the Plaintiffs. Defendant Accurint admits that searches were conducted and reports were sold on Plaintiff Liberi and her husband Brent on March 16, 2009; April 6, 2009; April 15, 2009; April 19, 2009; and May 7, 2009; and on Plaintiff Ostella and her husband Frank on April 13, 2009 and April 19, 2009. 24. I have attempted to work with the Reed Defendants through their
counsel; unfortunately, it has turned into nothing more than delay tactics and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
games. The Reed Defendants refusal to disclose the discovery information sought by Plaintiffs; refusal to provide the information they maintain on the Plaintiffs; and refusal to provide the searches and reports sold on the Plaintiffs, is very prejudicial to the Plaintiffs as it prohibits the Plaintiffs from being able to respond to the Reed Defendants MSJ, and on this basis alone, the Reed Defendants MSJ should be Denied. B. 25. DISCOVERY THE SANKEY DEFENDANTS: I had several conversations with Marc Colen, Attorney for Neil
Sankey, Todd Sankey, Sankey Investigations, Inc. and The Sankey Firm, Inc. collectively [Sankey Defendants] in regards to their Initial Disclosures and Plaintiffs requested Discovery. 26. On January 20, 2012 I received a stack of documents from Mr. Colen
as the Sankey Defendants Initial Disclosures. Included in these documents were searches conducted directly through Accurint on Plaintiff Lisa Liberi on March 16, 2009. See EXHIBIT 91. 27. This search on Plaintiff Lisa Liberi was run using Mrs. Liberis name
and address. The search on Mrs. Liberi returned Mrs. Liberis name, Social Security number, both old and new, date of birth and addresses. Each name listed
I have redacted all personal information in the searches and reports conducted on all the Plaintiffs, which are attached as Exhibits to this Declaration. The actual documents received from the Sankey Defendants were not redacted.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
as belonging to Mrs. Liberi included Mrs. Liberis Social Security number and date of birth, although many of the names never belonged to or were used by Mrs. Liberi. See the Declaration of Lisa Liberi filed concurrently herewith. I have redacted Mrs. Liberis Social Security numbers and month and day of birth for this filing. As indicated by the Accurint search attached as EXHIBIT 9 this search was conducted directly in the Accurint database located at
https://secure.accurint.com/app/bps/main by Neil Sankey and The Sankey Firm, Inc. Contrary to the Reed Defendants and Neil Sankeys statements that neither Neil Sankey nor The Sankey Firm, Inc. had accounts with Accurint, and none of the searches were conducted directly from any of the Reed Defendants, the searches conducted on Mrs. Liberi were run directly from Accurints database by Neil Sankey and The Sankey Firm, Inc. as depicted on EXHIBIT 9 on the bottom left of each page. 28. Plaintiff Lisa Liberis comprehensive report obtained by The Sankey
Firm, Inc. on March 16, 2009 was included with the Sankey Defendants Initial Disclosures. See a true and correct copy of Liberis comprehensive report attached as EXHIBIT 10. Mrs. Liberis report contains her, name; every name ever used, including maiden; addresses; both her old and new Social Security numbers; date of birth; income, education, employment, home values, unlisted and unpublished telephone numbers; spouses name, date of birth, addresses, Social
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Security number; friends including their names, Social Security numbers, relatives including their friends, relatives, dates of birth, addresses, home value, income, education,; Mrs. Liberis relatives including names, addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, friends and relatives, including their Social Security numbers, dates of birth, home values, education, income, relative and friends information, every name ever used, including maiden names; income, home value;
2 education; neighbors names, addresses and private data, judgments, liens, etc.
29.
In addition, Mrs. Liberis report contains her unlisted and unpublished
cell phone number; her cell phone carrier; her employment history with her Social Security number, her position, time employed, address of employer; judgments going back to 1993 containing Mrs. Liberis name, Social Security number, address, creditor, amount of the Judgment, and date filed; bankruptcy information; criminal data, etc. The report also contains names of Mrs. Liberi with her Social Security number and date of birth that have never been Mrs. Liberis names or used by Mrs. Liberi, etc. 30. All Social Security numbers furnished in Mrs. Liberis
Comprehensive Report show the time period the number was issued and what state the Social Security number was issued out of. As can be seen, this comprehensive report goes to Mrs. Liberis personal information, general reputation, character,
As shown in the Comprehensive Reports, the reports contain three (3) degrees of relatives. 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
personal characteristics, mode of living, income, credit standing, credit capacity and credit-worthiness (Judgments and bankruptcy), etc., as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act [FCRA], 15 U.S.C. 1681a(d)(1). 31. Also included in the Sankey Defendants Initial Disclosures was a
Comprehensive Report run by The Sankey Firm, Inc. on April 6, 2009 on Brent Liberi, spouse of Plaintiff Lisa Liberi. See EXHIBIT 11, the Comprehensive report run on Brent Liberi. As shown on this Comprehensive Report, this report includes: i. Mr. Liberis full name; date of birth; Social Security number and every address he has ever resided; criminal record, although it shows none; unlisted and unpublished telephone numbers; income; home value; age; average years of education; on owned real estate, who the mortgage was financed with; bankruptcy; and a tax lien from 1994, showing unpaid although it was paid in full; neighbors, friends, relatives, including their names, addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, home values, income, etc. This report also contains incorrect information as to Mr. Liberi affixed by Accurint to Mr. Liberi by Mr. Liberis Social Security number, date of birth, etc.;
12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
3
ii.
Mr. Liberis sister, Brandy Heller3, Mrs. Hellers Social Security number, date of birth, age, addresses, maiden name, spouses name, addresses, date of birth, years of education, Social Security numbers, relatives, home values, income, etc.
iii.
Mr. Liberis parents names, including his step-father, their addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, relatives, any other name ever used, home values, income, years of education, etc.
iv.
Mr. Liberis wifes names, Social Security number (both old and new), addresses, relatives, friends, home value, income, etc.
v.
Mr. Liberis in-laws (Plaintiff Liberis parents), including their names, addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, home values, income, relatives, etc.
vi.
Mr. Liberis sister-in-law, Social Security number, date of birth, addresses, names ever used, date of death, friends and associates, age, home value, income, years of education, relatives, etc.
All Social Security numbers furnished in this Comprehensive Report show the time period the number was issued and what state the Social Security number was issued out of. As can be seen, this comprehensive report goes to Mr. Liberis personal information, general reputation, character, personal characteristics, mode
Brandy Heller is Mr. Liberis sisters married name. 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
of living, income, credit standing, credit capacity and credit-worthiness (bankruptcy and Tax Lien), etc. as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act [FCRA], 15 U.S.C. 1681a(d)(1). 32. The Sankey Defendants did not turn over all the reports they
purchased on the Plaintiffs. I have demanded the additional reports, and missing pages, but the Sankey Defendants have refused to furnish them. 33. I served Plaintiffs First Set of Discovery on the Sankey Defendants
January 19, 2012 by way of Email and through the United States Postal Service, Priority Mail, signature required. Mr. Colen acknowledged the discovery sent by Email on his clients and signed for the hard copies of Plaintiffs Discovery on January 21, 2012. The Sankey Defendants Responses were due on or before February 20, 2012. This includes Neil Sankey and Sankey Investigations, Inc. who on March 9, 2012 filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. 34. Plaintiffs Discovery served upon the Sankey Defendants included
Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents and Request for Admissions. 35. To date, The Sankey Defendants have failed to respond to any of the
Plaintiffs Discovery requests, including each of the Request for Admissions that were propounded. // // // //
14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
C. 36.
DECLARATION OF NEIL SANKEY: In support of the Reed Defendants MSJ, they filed the Declaration of
Neil Sankey, See Docket Number [DN] 494. In this Declaration Neil Sankey claims he did not conduct any searches through or purchase any reports from any of the Reed Defendants; and that he did not obtain Plaintiff Lisa Liberis Social Security number or date of birth from any of the searches run or reports purchased; that he obtained Mrs. Liberis Social Security number and date of birth from Court filings made by Mrs. Liberi, all of which is completely untrue as explained below. 37. Neil Sankey through The Sankey Firm Inc., using log-in ID
nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com ran searches through Accurint on Plaintiff Lisa Liberi on March 16, 2009. See EXHIBIT 9. This search returned Mrs. Liberis name, date of birth, addresses and both her old and new Social Security number. 38. Neil Sankey attached as Exhibit A to his Declaration a supposed
Court filing claiming Mrs. Liberi filed this Declaration with the San Bernardino County Superior Court in Case FWV-028000 and it contained her Social Security number, date of birth and husbands information. 39. I went to the San Bernardino County Superior Court online at
http://www.sb-court.org/ and accessed Case No. FWV-028000 from the Courts website at http://openaccess.sb-court.org/OpenAccess/. I accessed the receipts for documents and copies purchased online at http://openaccess.sb-
15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
court.org/OpenAccess/CRIMINAL/fine.asp?casenumber=FWV028000&courtcode =X&defnbr=1608112&defseq=1&otnmseq=0&dsn=. See EXHIBIT 12. As can be seen, copies of documents located in the file were purchased on May 12, 2009, Receipt No. 20090512-2255, in the amount of $45.00 and June 20, 2011, Receipt No. 20110620-2397, in the amount of $116.00. 40. I also pulled in PACER the Bankruptcy case that Neil Sankey claims
to have obtained filings by Mrs. Liberi, which Neil Sankey claims to have obtained Mrs. Liberis Social Security number and date of birth. I attempted to access Schedule D, DN 9 on the Bankruptcy Docket, but was unable to as it was restricted. I then attempted to download each docket number, again it stated restricted. None of the documents filed in this Bankruptcy case are available online from PACER. When trying to access the documents, I received a notice restricted. See EXHIBIT 13, indicating the documents are sealed. 41. Neil Sankeys Exhibit B to his Declaration, DN 494-2 was not
obtained by Neil Sankey until after July 11, 2011, either directly from Orly Taitz or from this Courts Docket. On July 11, 2011, Peter Cook, Esquire filed them in this case. See DN 280-4 and Orly Taitz filed them the same day, DN 283-5. Mr. Cook also filed a Declaration stating he obtained the Bankruptcy documents in Liberis name from PACER, which is impossible as all the documents are restricted. By reviewing these documents in DN 280-4 and 283-5, you see two
16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(2) PACER headers that over-lap each other; identical to the Exhibit B attached to the Declaration of Neil Sankey, DN 494-2, pp. 2-8. 42. Neil Sankeys Exhibit A appearing as DN 494-1, pp. 2-9 were also
obtained from Orly Taitz or downloaded from this Courts Docket. Orly Taitz filed this exact document, as depicted on Neil Sankeys Exhibit B, on July 11, 2011. See DN 283-2. 43. See the date line below that shows Neil Sankey obtained Plaintiff
Liberi and her husbands private data from the Accurint searches and reports purchased, not from a Bankruptcy or Criminal Court filing as he claims. DATE EVENT
March 16, 2009
Neil Sankey ran searches on Lisa Liberi through Accurint. The search returned Name, Addresses, Social Security numbers and date of birth. See Exb. 9 attached hereto.
March 16, 2009
Neil Sankey through The Sankey Firm, Inc. obtained a Comprehensive Report on Lisa Liberi. The report included all of Liberis private data, addresses and spouses information. See Exb. 10 attached hereto.
Neil Sankey through The Sankey
17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
April 6, 2009
Firm, Inc. obtained a Comprehensive Report on Brent Liberi. See Exb. 11 attached hereto.
April 10, 2009
Neil Sankey through The Sankey Firm, Inc. sent an Email to Bob Unruh with Lisa Liberis old and new Social Security numbers; date of birth; spouses name, date of birth, Social Security number; friends names and Social Security numbers, etc. See Exb. 14 attached hereto.
April 13, 2009
Neil Sankey through The Sankey Firm, Inc. sent Orly Taitz a copy of the Email sent to Bob Unruh on April 10, 2009 with all Liberis private information. See Exb. 15 attached hereto.
April 17, 2009
All of Liberis private data was posted all over the Internet by Orly Taitz.
May 12, 2009
Documents purchased in Case No. FWV-028000 in the San Bernardino
18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
County Superior Court by Orly Taitz. See Exb. 12 attached hereto.
July 11, 2011
Peter Cook, Esq. and Orly Taitz file supposed pages of a Bankruptcy filing. See DNs 280-4 and 283-5.
July 11, 2011
Orly Taitz files the supposed Declaration from San Bernardino County Superior Court. See DN 2832. Neil Sankey provides the Reed Defendants with a Declaration with the Court documents filed by Peter Cook, Esq. and Orly Taitz on July 11, 2011 as Exhibits A and B to his (Neil Sankey) Declaration, DN 494, 494-1 and 494-2, claiming these are the documents where he obtained Liberis Social Security number, date of birth and husbands information, but as can be seen, Neil Sankey did not have the Court documents until after July 11, 2011. The truth is Neil Sankey obtained Liberis private data from the Reports he obtained from Accurint.
April 4, 2012
44.
As admitted by the Reed Defendants in their Motion for Summary
Judgment, Neil Sankey through The Sankey Firm, Inc. ran comprehensive reports
19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
on Plaintiff Lisa Liberi and her husband Brent on March 16, 2009; April 6, 2009; April 15, 2009; April 19, 2009; and May 7, 2009, before any copies of documents were purchased from Case No. FWV-028000 on file with the San Bernardino County Superior Court and before Neil Sankey obtained the supposed Bankruptcy filing from Orly Taitz or this Courts docket on July 11, 2011. 45. On April 10, 2009, Neil Sankey from The Sankey Firm, Inc. compiled
an Email and sent the Email to Bob Unruh, Reporter with World Net Daily, attached as EXHIBIT 14. From: Neil SANKEY [mailto:nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com] Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:01 AM To: Bob Unruh Subject: LISA LIBERI etc Bob here are some bare facts about Bergs assistant. See below and attachments. I dont know how much of the story you have already, but is essentially about WHO she really is and the questions that unfortunately brings up about Berg. Call, if you need to, at your convenience.
Neil Sankey Investigator & Consultant. THE SANKEY FIRM Simi Valley, California 93063 nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com 805 520 3151 818 212 7615 cell
20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(Addendum) LISA RENEE LIBERI. Bn 5/28/1965. 462-45-xxxx, 622-19-4312 (& others) According to the Police she was born COURVILLE and married a Richardson (Possible Alan Douglas Richardson, currently residing in Las Vegas.) IF it was the other way around, then the Courville is Bill Marshall Courville 11/10/61 of Houston, Tx. 457-71-x I have several SS#s for her and a LOT of AKAs. Her real SS# is probably 462-45xxxx. Most prominent otherwise are 563-60-xxxx, 572-17-x, 622-19-x She went BK in 2002 Her brother is probably Lawrence E Morris of Fontana and Rancho Cuc, CA. He was born 1/16/64 Her Husband, Brent J, a Parolee, I have not researched that. Is probably Brent J McCormack 563-77, also uses 331-02-x There is also a Jerry HELLER and Douglas Cramer look interesting, but where do you stop. This Email, as shown above, contains Mrs. Liberis old and new Social Security number, friends, spouses, etc. that was taken directly from the comprehensive reports and searches conducted in Accurint attached hereto as EXHIBITS 9, 10 and 11. 46. All of the above information contained in the Email was sent to Bob
Unruh by Neil Sankey of The Sankey Firm, Inc. on April 10, 2009 and to Orly Taitz on April 13, 2009. True and correct copies of Sankeys April 13, 2009 Email is attached as EXHIBIT 15; EXHIBITS 14 and 15 sent out by Neil Sankey by and through The Sankey Firm, Inc. contain information taken directly from the reports obtained by The Sankey Firm, Inc. See EXHIBITS 9, 10 and 11 attached hereto. The supposed records obtained from a Bankruptcy Court
21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
and a Criminal file does not contain the above information that is outlined in the Email sent by Neil Sankey of The Sankey Firm, Inc. 47. Neil Sankey by and the through The Sankey Firm, Inc.s Email above,
is the exact Email located in Orly Taitzs Dossier No. 6, which I received from Orly Taitz on April 17, 2009 and that Orly Taitz sent out to millions of individuals and companies, posted all over the Internet, posted numerous times on Orly Taitz websites at www.orlytaitzesq.com and www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1; sent through Social Networks; mailed through the United States Postal Service; hand delivered; and provided to law enforcement agencies by Orly Taitz in making her false criminal reports against Plaintiffs Ostella and Liberi; sent Internationally; and is still available on the Internet online at
http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=1478. 48. There is no question, Neil Sankey by and through The Sankey Firm,
Inc. obtained Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs spouses Social Security numbers, dates of birth and other private data from the Reports purchased from Accurint. D. THE REED DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: The Reed Defendants have introduced new witnesses and documents
49.
they failed to provide me in discovery. 50. The names of Lisa Simmons and Lisa Policastro and Exhibits A,
B and C attached to Lisa Simmons Declaration were not disclosed in the Reed
22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Defendants Initial Disclosures or Plaintiffs Discovery requests.
I asked for
discovery on all the Reed Defendants and requested the identity of individuals with knowledge of facts relevant to this case. Lisa Simmons and Lisa Policastro were not disclosed or produced. Plaintiffs also asked for the production of documents relevant to this case. The Reed Defendants failed to identify the witnesses, Lisa Simmons and Lisa Policastro or turn over any information or documents, and instead present them in their Motion for Summary Judgment for the first time, as a tactical advantage over the Plaintiffs. By way of illustration, the following
unproduced documents were attached as exhibits to the Declaration of Lisa Simpson: Application for services between Todd Sankey, The Sankey Firm, Inc. and IRBsearch, LLC; See Exhibit A to the Declaration of Lisa Simmons; LexisNexis Risk & Analytics Group Application and Agreement attached to the Declaration of Lisa Simmons as Exhibit B; and Accurint and IRBsearch, LLC Re-Seller Agreement attached to the Declaration of Lisa Simmons as Exhibit C. 51. All of these types of documents were the subject of specific discovery
requests. See, Exhibit 1 (The Reed Defendants Response to Interrogatories
23
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
served upon Accurint4) at pages 41-45, Exhibit 3, Interrogatory No.s 1, 2, 6, 16, 19, 20 and 24 at pages 57-58, 62, 70-72 and 75-76; Exhibit 4, Request for Production No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pages 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97 (Plaintiffs January 13, 2012 First Request for Production) (requesting, inter alia, All documents with the permissible purpose obtained from each Defendant provided access to the Plaintiffs data and all documents reflecting the verification process; All contracts, agreements, documents and informationconcerning agreements and correspondence with third-parties, including but not limited to Merlin, Intelius, Inc.to obtain consumer, customers and/or Plaintiffs peoplefinder data5, Personal Identifiers, Financial Data, Personal Identifying data, Criminal Data; All documents, data compilations, and tangible things that You may use to support Your defenses to the claims in Plaintiffs complaint; All documents concerning, regarding or referring to theGramm-
All the Discovery served on each of the Reed Defendants entities named in this lawsuit received similar if not the same discovery requests, but Accurint called LNRDMI by the Reed Defendants in their Motion for Summary Judgment, is the only Defendant who gave any type of response. All the other responses from the other Reed Defendants were nothing more than boilerplate objections as shown in Exhibits 6, 7, and 8 attached hereto at pages 117-174.
5
Peoplefinder data is defined in the Request for Production of Documents as name, Social Security number, date of birth, etc. that identifies a specific person.
24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Leach Bliley Act, including but not limited to agreements, requirements, policies, etc.; and All searches performed on any of the Plaintiffs and all Plaintiffs reports sold to third parties; and All documentation,
correspondence, information and data, in all forms including electronically, pertaining to Plaintiffs, provided to and shared with all your affiliates, controlled and uncontrolled, business aggregates, 3rd party entitiesand any other business, corporation. 52. Plaintiffs have been denied the opportunity to analyze these
documents; been denied the ability to depose and examine Defendants Employees, Lisa Simmons and Lisa Policastro; and resellers of the Reed Defendants, including IRBsearch, LLC. 53. information. The Reed Defendants had ample opportunity to disclose this The Court should strike these unproduced documents; and the
testimony (Declarations) of Lisa Simmons and Lisa Policastro pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. 54. The Reed Defendants in their Motion for Summary Judgment again
are raising the issues regarding the names of each entity, which was previously addressed by the Court.
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
55.
LexisNexis Group is inadvertently named as LexisNexis Group, Inc.
LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., who is properly named, owns and controls Seisint, Inc. d/b/a Accurint, ChoicePoint, Inc. LexisNexis Group, LexisNexis and LexisNexis Risk Analytics Group, Inc. LexisNexis Group operates
LexisNexis.com and Lexis.com, which Plaintiff Lisa Liberi had an account with. All the Reed entities are owned and operated by Reed Elsevier, Inc. 56. As confirmed by Adriano Hrvatin, Esquire, counsel for the Reed
Defendants, The Reed entities named in this lawsuit changed their name after the events took place. In an Email to me on August 5, 2011. See EXHIBIT 16, Mr. Hrvatin stated: Any claim based on the sale of an Accurint report or reports in 2009 should be made against "LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc. f/k/a Seisint, Inc." Until January 1, 2010, one Reed subsidiary was named LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group Inc.... Effective January 1, 2010, the name of that corporation was changed to LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL Inc. Since January 1, 2010, LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL Inc. has operated the Accurint business. That corporation, though, was not the one involved in the Accurint business at the time Mr. Sankey was alleged to have obtained an Accurint report or reports about the plaintiffs. Until January 1, 2010, the Accurint operations (including database maintenance and report preparation) were conducted by Seisint, Inc., a corporation that has since changed its name to LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc. 57. These claims by the Reed Defendants were made in their Motion to
Dismiss, DN 381 filed September 16, 2011. Plaintiffs in their Opposition to the Reed Defendants Motion to Dismiss sought Leave to Amend their Complaint to
26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
correct the names of the entities. This Court in its Ruling of October 17, 2011, DN 414, Granting in part and Denying in part the Reed Defendants Motion to Dismiss Denied Plaintiffs Leave to Amend and stated on page 8: Although the Court agrees that the FAC is shoddy and overlong, it does not find that it is so poorly-defined or unnavigable that it fails to provide the Reed Defendants with sufficient notice as to the charges brought against them. The Court itself is confused as to the relationship between the separate Reed Defendants, and does not believe that a self-elected, complicated corporate structure should block litigation. It appears from the Reed Defendants own Motion that they can decipher which Defendant did what, based on their knowledge of their own corporate structure. Similarly, while a specific Claim analyzed below might lack individualized support, the FAC as a whole raises sufficient factual matter to survive a general attack against it. [emphasis added], 58. The Reed Defendants in their Motion for Summary Judgment claim
none of the Sankey Defendants had an account directly with any of them. This is disputed in Todd Sankeys Motion to Withdraw their Admissions deemed admitted filed Friday, April 13, 2012 and appears as DN 496-1 at pp. 8-9, c, d and e where Todd Sankey and The Sankey Firm, Inc. discuss their password to Lexis; and accessing the Lexis database, which contradicts Neil Sankeys statements in his Declaration and the Reed Defendants claims regarding the Sankeys accounts and furnishing the Sankeys Plaintiffs consumer reports. 59. The Reed Defendants in their Motion for Summary Judgment claim
none of the entities named in Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint are Consumer/Credit Reporting Agencies and do not sell consumer/credit reports.
27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
However, Exhibit A attached to the Declaration of Lisa Simmons in support of their MSJ speaks for itself and discredits the Reed Defendants claims regarding the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 60. Lisa Simmons Exhibit A attached to declaration, DN 492-1 is The
Sankey Firm, Inc. and Todd Sankeys application for an account with IRBsearch, LLC. In this Application prepared and signed by Defendant Todd Sankey, Todd Sankey marked several boxes for his permissible purpose or legal entitlement. Of interest, and confirming the reports were prepared and sold as consumer reports as defined by the FCRA, are the following boxes marked by Todd Sankey and the Sankey Firm, Inc.s for their permissible purposes to receive reports and information: SECTION C i. 1(B) As necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer by verifying the identification information contained in applications for employment, housing or insurance; 8. To the extent specifically permitted or required under other provisions of law and in accordance with the Right in Financial Privacy Act of 1976, to law enforcement agencies (including a Federal function regulator, the Secretary of the Treasury, a State Insurance authority, or the Federal Trade Commission), self-regulatory organizations, or for an investigation on a matter related to safety.
ii.
SECTION E iii. 2. To verify the accuracy of information about a person who provided the information to you (or to your client) but only if used to recover on a
28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
debt against the person or pursue legal remedies against the person for fraud; and iv. 5. Use by an Insurer (or its agent) in connection with claims investigation activities, antifraud activities, rating or underwriting.
Reports for Employment, debt collection, and Insurance are all consumer reports governed by the FCRA. See 15 U.S.C. 1681a(d)(1)(A); 15 U.S.C. 1681a(d)(1)(B); 15 U.S.C. 1681b(a)(3)(A); 15 U.S.C. 1681b(a)(3)(B); and 15 U.S.C. 1681b(a)(3)(C). 61. The Reed Defendants claim they do not prepare or sell credit reports.
Consumer and credit reports are the same reports as defined by the FCRA. 62. Contrary to their statements, each and every Reed Defendant has
settled Fair Credit Reporting Act cases for FCRA violations. Just to list a few out of the hundreds of cases, See: Seoane v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL, Inc., et al, U.S.D.C., Southern District of California, Case No. 3:11cv00908L WMC Heaton v. Reed Elsevier, Inc., Seisint, Inc., LexisNexis Risk & Information Management Group, Inc., et al. U.S.D.C., District of South Carolina, Case No. 3:10cv00274JFA Thoman v. Reed Elsevier, Inc., LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics Group, Inc., et al U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 3:09cv00559JAG Dunn v. Reed Elsevier, Inc., et al U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 3:09cv00486JAG Dinwiddie v. LexisNexis U.S.D.C., Northern District of Georgia, Case No. 1:10cv03516RLV ECS
29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
United States v. ChoicePoint, Inc., No. 1:06-CV-0198 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 15, 2006), United States v. ChoicePoint, Inc., No. 1:06-CV-0198-JTC (N.D. Ga. Oct. 14, 2009) Miller v. Seisint Inc. d/b/a Accurint U.S.D.C., Northern Indiana, Case No. 1:07-cv-00230-PPS-RBC Witriol v. LexisNexis Group, C05-02392 MJJ, 2006 WL 4725713 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2006) Goode v. LexisNexis Risk & Info. Analytics Group, Inc., 2:11-CV-2950-JD, 2012 WL 975043 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2012) Payne v. Trans Union, LLC, CIV.A. 09-0568, 2010 WL 1254298 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2010) Other Defendants include LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics Group Inc. and Reed Elsevier Inc. Knechtel v. Choicepoint, Inc., No. 085018 (D.N.J. Nov. 23, 2009) Other Defendants included LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics Group, Inc., and Reed Elsevier, Inc. Carlton v. Choicepoint, Inc., No. 085779 (D.N .J. Nov. 23, 2009) Other Defendants included LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics Group, Inc., and Reed Elsevier, Inc. Marricone v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., No. 091123 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 9, 2009). Other Defendants included LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics Group, Inc. and Reed Elsevier, Inc.
63.
The Reed Defendants are in the business of assembling, evaluating,
selling and distributing consumer credit information and other personal and confidential consumer information obtained from Governmental, State and other entities, distributing consumer credit reports and other private consumer
30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
information to third parties and organizations for profit through Interstate Commerce. 64. Information contained on each individual by the Reed Defendants
includes but is not limited to Social Security Numbers; Family names; Addresses; telephone numbers; Relatives names and Addresses; Places of Birth; Mothers Maiden Names; Dates of Birth; Employers; Income; banking information; Home prices and values; Marriage information; criminal records; credit records including but not limited to judgments, liens and bankruptcies, etc.; Insurance records; medical records; friends and associates names, addresses, telephone numbers, etc.; business contacts, civil and bankruptcy filing information; and many other instances of private data on individuals. 65. The Reed Defendants own, possess and maintain computer databases
of consumer identity and credit information for use in generating and providing background and credit reports and in verifying information supplied by individuals and businesses as part of business transactions, such as debt collectors, credit, insurance, private investigation, employment and/or housing applications. Defendants databases include the credit activity and personal identifying data of millions of individuals in the United States, including Plaintiffs. The Reed
Defendants obtain the information contained within their databases from other entities such as other Financial Institutions, State and Federal Government
31
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
agencies; Mortgage Companies; Utility companies; Banks; and Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies. 66. The Reed Defendants sell consumer reports and other personal
information to third parties. In so doing they communicate information relating to consumers creditworthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, family ties and/or mode of living. The
information is used or expected to be used by Defendants and third parties to serve as a factor in establishing consumers eligibility for personal, family or household credit, insurance, housing and/or employment. 67. The information and reports that the Reed and Intelius Defendants
furnish and sell to third parties constitute Consumer Reports within the meaning of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681a(d), and the California equivalents, CCRAA, California Civil Code 1785.3(c). 68. The Reed Defendants sell and furnish these consumer reports to their
business customers, in interstate commerce, for monetary fees and dues. Each of the Reed Defendants are a Consumer Reporting Agency within the meaning of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681a(f), and a Consumer Credit Reporting Agency within the meaning of the CCRAA, California Civil Code 1785.3(d). 69. As narrowly defined in the FCRA 1681b; CCRAA, California Civil
Code 1785.11 and the ICRAA, California Civil Code 1786.12, the Reed
32
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Defendants may furnish and sell Consumer Reports and/or Files to any person or entity for limited purposes only. 70. The Reed Defendants sold and sell, without any type of verification
process or permissible purpose Plaintiffs private data to the Sankey Defendants and IRBsearch, LLC for resell who in turns sold and sells consumers consumer reports, with their private data, including the Plaintiffs to anyone with a credit card without any type of consent from the consumer, the consumers knowledge, verification process and/or permissible purpose. 71. The Reed Defendants were notified by Ostella and Liberi that they The Reed
maintained incorrect information on the Plaintiffs in their files.
Defendants refused to investigate and/or correct the information contained in their databases pertaining to the Plaintiffs consumer reports, all of which was done in violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b). 72. The Reed Defendants have admitted they are governed by the Graham The GLBA allows Each time a
Leach Bliley Act [GLBA], 15 U.S.C. 1681, et. seq.
disclosure of financial information under limited circumstances.
consumers financial data is sought; the financial Institution must notify the consumer and allow them the opportunity to opt-out of their information being provided to the company. There are limited circumstances in which a company, like Accurint or any of the other Reed Defendants may obtain information from a
33
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
financial institution, without notice to the consumer, none of which any of the Reed Defendants qualify for except as being a consumer credit reporting agency. 73. The Reed Defendants failed to establish reasonable security
precautions or maintain reasonable administrative procedures to preclude the selling, disclosing and/or distribution of the Plaintiffs consumer reports and confidential information to the unauthorized third parties, including but not limited to Neil Sankey, Todd Sankey and The Sankey Firm, Inc.; and other private investigative entities and individuals, who in turn used the information to carry out their threats against the Plaintiffs; place the Plaintiffs and their families in dangerous situations; and to destroy the Plaintiffs and their credit data. 74. The Reed Defendants have, without authorization; consent; or a
permissible purpose disclosed Plaintiffs consumer reports; financial information; family information; and personal identifying information to unauthorized third parties with no permissible purpose(s) for receiving and using such information. The Reed and Intelius Defendants released this information, by their own admission, to IRBsearch, LLC, Neil Sankey, The Sankey Firm, Inc., and Todd Sankey, who provided it to Defendant Orly Taitz, in order for Orly Taitz to carry out her threats to harm and destroy the Plaintiffs, which she did. 75. Plaintiffs sought their reports from each of these Defendants. Plaintiff
Ostella received an incomplete report from Lexis, nothing from the other
34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Defendants; Ostellas spouse did not receive a report from any of the Defendants; Plaintiff Liberi was not provided any of her reports from any of these Defendants, nor was her husband. The only thing Liberi received was a letter from Accurint, sent from LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. stating she did not have an Accurint file. 76. The entire basis of the Reed Defendants Motion for Summary
Judgment is based on their claims they are not a consumer reporting agency and do not sell consumer reports as defined by the FCRA. But, Accurint admits to selling Plaintiffs reports to IRBsearch, LLC, who they claim sold the reports to Neil Sankey and The Sankey Firm, Inc. The Reed Defendants claim they have
agreements with IRBsearch, LLC that the information obtained from the Accurint databases is not to be used for FCRA purposes. 77. The Reed Defendants failed to take protective actions with their
partners and third-party vendors to protect the private confidential identifying information and consumer/credit reports of the Plaintiffs in violation of the California Information Practices Act, California Civil Code 1798.81.5(c). 78. On or about February 28, 2010, I sent letters to the Reed Defendants
informing Defendants of their breaches and the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs. My letter explained how Plaintiffs were victims of serious crimes as a result of the breach and therefore, Plaintiffs and their counsel demanded to have all their
35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
confidential information and their families confidential information removed from the Reed Defendants databases. 79. Linda Clark, Esquire with LexisNexis Group, Inc. (LexisNexis Risk
Solutions, Inc.) agreed to remove Plaintiffs data from the front view only. 80. After Defendant LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. (LexisNexis Group)
received my letter of February 28, 2010, Linda Clark, Director and Sr. Corporate Counsel of LexisNexis Group (LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.) called and set a telephone conference. During this conference, Linda Clark stated they too were victims referring to the illegal acts of Neil Sankey, Todd Sankey and The Sankey Firm, Inc. Linda Clark also asked what my clients wanted, that they would not pay a lot of money, but would pay something. These statements were confirmed to Linda Clark when a draft copy of the FTC Complaint was sent to her. At no time did Linda Clark deny her statements. 81. On or about April 28, 2010 the Reed Defendants were served with a
Subpoena. The Subpoena was seeking all searches conducted by Neil Sankey, Todd Sankey, The Sankey Firm, Inc. and the other Defendants on Plaintiffs Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella. I received a letter from Jennifer L. Jung, Director and Sr. Counsel over the Information Technology Division of the Lexis Corporations located in Ohio, with a bunch of objections, and refused to comply with the Subpoena.
36
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
82.
Another phone appointment was set by Linda Clark for May 18, 2010
with Jennifer L. Jung. During this call, I notified Ms. Clark and Ms. Jung that Plaintiff Lisa Liberi had a Lexis account. 83. Thereafter, the Reed Defendants through their Director and Sr.
Corporate Counsel in Ohio, Jennifer L. Jung, retaliated against Plaintiff Lisa Liberi for filing complaints with their Corporations. After the May 18, 2010 telephone conference, Jennifer L. Jung shut down Plaintiff Liberis Lexis account and gave false information to Plaintiff Liberis school claiming Plaintiff Liberi was using her Lexis account commercially. Plaintiff Liberi attempted to renew her Lexis
subscription to further her education, but was refused and had to cancel all her advanced and continuing educational courses. The Reed Defendants knew this information was false, but did it to penalize Plaintiff Liberi and cause her severe damages for daring to file complaints against them. 84. The Reed Defendants are all bound by three (3) Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) stipulated Court Orders to ensure the protection of parties private data, due to numerous other breaches in the security of individuals data. See U.S. v. ChoicePoint, Inc., Case No. 06-cv-0198, FTC File No. 052-3069; Court Order of February 15, 2006; U.S. v. ChoicePoint, Inc., Case No. 06-cv-0198 Supplemental Court Order of October 14, 2009; and In the Matter of Reed
37
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Elsevier, Inc. and Seisint, Inc. Corporations, FTC File No. 052-3094, Docket No. C-4226 Court Order of July 29, 2008. 85. It was pointed out to the Reed Defendants during our conversations
that they were in clear violations of these three (3) Court Orders by their disclosure of Plaintiffs consumer/credit reports containing their private identifying data. Linda Clark stated that the FTC Orders were old and they (Defendants) simply agreed to them. It is and was very apparent, the Reed Defendants had and have absolutely no regard for the privacy or security of Plaintiffs consumer/credit reports containing their private data and had and have absolutely no intent in complying with the FTC Orders against them at the cost of Plaintiffs privacy and security of their consumer/credit reports containing their private data. 86. In the Reed Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, they seek
Judgment based on Neil Sankeys Declaration and false perjured statements. This should not be permitted by the Court. 87. The Reed Defendants, including Accurint, market their reports to the Attached as EXHIBIT 17 is
Insurance and Credit Collection industry.
Accurints advertisement of their reports for sale to the Debt Collection market, which I obtained by going to Accurints website at
http://www.lexisnexis.com/risk/solutions/contact-locate/skip-tracing-accurintcollections.aspx; and
38
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
http://www.lexisnexis.com/risk/downloads/casestudy/midpoint.pdf and took screen shots (pictures) of the pages. Attached as EXHIBIT 18 is Accurints
advertisement of their reports for sale to the Insurance Industry, which I obtained by going to Accurints website at and
http://www.lexisnexis.com/risk/downloads/literature/accurint-insurance.pdf
downloading the PDF file. The Reed Defendants are a Consumer/Credit Reporting Agency and they sell consumer/credit reports as explained herein and in Plaintiffs Memorandum in opposition to the Reed Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. I declare under the penalty of perjury of the Laws of the United States and California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 20 th day of April, 2012 in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, County of Montgomery. /s/ Philip J. Berg Philip J. Berg, Esquire, Declarant
39
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502-1 Filed 04/19/12 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:12660
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT 1
40
From: Miller, Michael B. <MBMiller@mofo.com> Date: Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 9:44 PM Subject: Liberi et al. v. Taitz et al..pdf attached To: philjberg@gmail.com Phil, Please see the attached, reflecting our previous discussion. Have a good weekend. Regards, Mike
Michael B. Miller | Morrison & Foerster LLP | 1290 Avenue of the Americas | New York, New York 10104 | Tel.: (212) 468-8009 | Fax: (212) 468-7900 | Email: mbmiller@mofo.com
<<Liberi et al. v. Taitz et al..pdf>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ =====================================================================
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message.
41
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
JAMES F. McCABE (CA SBN 104686) JMcCabe@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 Facsimile: 415.268.7522 Of Counsel: MICHAEL B. MILLER Mbmiller@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10104 Telephone: 212.468.8009 Facsimile: 212.468.7900 Attorneys for Defendants Reed Elsevier, Inc., LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc., LexisNexis, Inc., LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., LexisNexis ChoicePoint, Inc., LexisNexis Seisint, Inc., d/b/a Accurint, and LexisNexis Group, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION LISA LIBERI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ORLY TAITZ, et al., Defendants. Case No. 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW INITIAL DISCLOSURES OF THE LEXISNEXIS DEFENDANTS (II)
Defendants Reed Elsevier Inc., LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc., LexisNexis, Inc., LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., LexisNexis ChoicePoint, Inc., LexisNexis Seisint, Inc., d/b/a Accurint, and LexisNexis Group,
INITIAL DISCLOSURES OF THE LEXISNEXIS DEFENDANTS CASE NO. 8:11-CV-00485-AG-AJW ny-1011713
42
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Inc. (collectively referred to as LexisNexis) submit their initial disclosures consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) and to the extent agreed to by the parties. LexisNexis objects to Plaintiffs failure to comply with the conference and other requirements of Rule 26, and reserves its rights with respect to these initial disclosures, the other Rule 26 requirements and any further discovery in this case. However, LexisNexis has agreed to provide these initial disclosures without waiving its rights under Rule 26 or otherwise. LexisNexis reserves the right to amend, supplement or otherwise modify these disclosures as appropriate pursuant to applicable law, rule or court order or as additional information becomes known or available to LexisNexis. It reserves the right to assert all appropriate claims, positions, theories and defenses in this case, to produce and rely on additional documents and to depose and otherwise rely at trial and otherwise on witnesses not listed herein.
DISCLOSURES
LexisNexis objects to the disclosure requirements to the extent they call for the production of information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work-product doctrine. All requirements will be read to exclude production of protected information. LexisNexis provides the information below without any admission of the relevance or admissibility of any particular information and without waiver of the attorney-client privilege, attorney workproduct doctrine or other basis for non-disclosure. Based on the information currently available to LexisNexis, its initial disclosures are as follows:
1. INDIVIDUALS
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A), LexisNexis believes the following individuals will likely have discoverable information that LexisNexis may use to challenge the claims and support its defenses, potentially in addition to other individuals listed in other parties initial disclosures: Jennifer Jung, Linda
43
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Clark, and Kevin Foley. Each of these individuals can be contacted through counsel for the Defendant. LexisNexis does not consent to or authorize any communication between its employees and plaintiff, plaintiffs counsel or counsels agents that is otherwise prohibited by applicable rules of ethics and professional conduct. Each of these individuals will have knowledge with respect to Defendants marketing and general business activities; the information services and products provided by Defendants; and communications with plaintiffs and/or other defendants relating to this litigation. LexisNexis also states, on information and belief, that each of the plaintiffs and defendants have percipient or general knowledge of the facts of this case. LexisNexis is informed and believes that each of these witnesses may be contacted through their counsel in this case. Discovery and investigation are ongoing. LexisNexis reserves the right to supplement this list as additional facts are disclosed in discovery.
2. DOCUMENTS
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(B), and as further discussed with counsel for plaintiffs, LexisNexis believes the following documents may contain information that LexisNexis may use to challenge the claims and support its defenses: (i) materials concerning the nature and source of certain information obtained by other parties in this matter or alleged to have been obtained by other parties in this matter, (ii) documents that will demonstrate the nature of the information services and products provided by Defendants to other parties in this case and more generally, including publicly available documents (some of which appear at www.accurint.com) and certain terms and conditions, agreements, disclaimers, and other material; (iii) documents relating to communications between various plaintiffs and LexisNexis that may be relevant to this matter; and (iv) documents possessed by other parties in this case which will support Defendants defenses, including documents provided in various other disclosures by other parties. LexisNexis will provide such documents for inspection and
44
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
copying through the discovery process, upon the Courts entry of an appropriate protective order in this matter. LexisNexiss search for documents is ongoing. It reserves the right to supplement this list of documents.
3. DAMAGES
Not applicable.
4. INSURANCE
Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iv), LexisNexis states that it has no insurance agreement implicated by this litigation at this stage of the proceedings. LexisNexis will provide for inspection and copying, upon the Courts entry of an appropriate protective order in this matter, any insurance agreement under which an insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment in this action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment, should any such agreement become relevant. Dated: As of January 24, 2012 (March 2, 2012) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By: /s Michael B. Miller Michael B. Miller Attorneys for Defendants Reed Elsevier, Inc., LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc., LexisNexis, Inc., LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., LexisNexis ChoicePoint, Inc., LexisNexis Seisint, Inc., d/b/a Accurint, and LexisNexis Group, Inc.
45
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT 2
46
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502-2 Filed 04/19/12 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:12667 LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
PHILIP J. BERG ______________ (610) 825-3134 NORMAN B. BERG, Paralegal [Deceased] Fax (610) 834-7659 E-Mail: philjberg@gmail.com
March 26, 2012 James F. McCabe, Esquire Morrison & Foerster 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Sent via Email to JMcCabe@mofo.com Re: Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al, Case No. 8:11-cv-00485 AJG
Dear Mr. McCabe: Please treat this letter as a meet and confer as Plaintiffs are intending to file a Motion to Compel proper responses to their Discovery requests from each of your clients. I am happy to telephonically discuss the issues outlined below, but request a date and time you are available within the next forty-eight [48] hours. On January 13, 2012, I served Discovery requests upon LexisNexis; ChoicePoint; Accurint; Reed Elsevier, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.; and LexisNexis Group [hereinafter at times the Reed Defendants] by way of Interrogatories; Request for Admissions; and Request for Production of Documents. After my meet and confer on February 2, 2012 with Mr. Miller, I re-served all the Discovery requests upon these specific Defendants. Responses thereto were due on or before March 5, 2012. Instead of timely responding, the Reed Defendants through Mr. Miller sought additional time. I agreed to a couple of days and finally received what the Reed Defendants considered as their responses to the entire requested Discovery on March 8, 2012. The Reed Defendants responses to all Discoveries are wholly deficient. Once I received the Reed Defendants supposed responses, I reviewed each and every response. The Reed Defendants did not reply to any discovery, including the requests for production of documents. Instead, the Reed Defendants asserted boilerplate objections. Plaintiffs are entitled to full and complete responses so they have the opportunity to properly prepare their case for trial. For instance, Plaintiffs asked for the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all persons who supplied information responsive to these interrogatories, which Plaintiffs are entitled to. In lieu of properly answering the Interrogatories, the
Liberi, et al, Berg letter to Reed Defendants re improper responses to discovery 03.26.2012
47
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502-2 Filed 04/19/12 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:12668 James F. McCabe, Esquire Morrison & Foerster Page Two March 26, 2012
Reed Defendants objected as vague and ambiguous; overbroad; unduly burdensome; oppressive; and harassing claiming it seeks information not relevant to the within litigation. The Reed Defendants further objected on the basis it supposedly seeks the identification of in-house or outside legal counsel retained or consulted for litigation. These are improper objections and are wholly unsubstantiated. Plaintiffs are entitled to learn of any party who may have information pertaining to the claims and litigation against the Reed Defendants. A. Farber and Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 188 (C.D. Cal. 2006); Eureka Fin. Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 136 F.R.D. 179, 182-83 (E.D. Ca. 1991); Flanagan v. Benicia Unified Sch. Dist., 2008 WL 2073952, (E.D. Ca. 2008); Buss v. Western Airlines, Inc. 738 F. 2d 1053, 1053-54 (9th Cir. 1984). The same type of responses were provided by the Reed Defendants for every single Interrogatory; Request for Admissions; and Request for Production of Documents. The Reed Defendants also objected to each and every Request for Admissions, which is completely inappropriate. "Parties may not view requests for admission as a mere procedural exercise requiring minimally acceptable conduct." Marchand v. Mercy Medical Center, 22 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir. 1994). The goal of the Federal Rules "is full and efficient discovery, not evasion and word play." Id. "The grounds for objecting to a request must be stated." FED. R. CIV. P.36(a)(5). Answers to Requests for Admissions must admit or deny the admission, be specific, must fairly respond to the substance of the matter, and must be made in good faith. See FED. R.CIV. P. 36(a)(4). [Emphasis added], Marchand 22 F.3d at 936. Each of the Reed Defendants objections are similarly stated. The Reed Defendants never admit or deny the requests, nor does it explain why it is unable to answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). The Reed Defendants boilerplate objections are repeatedly made without reference to any grounds that might support them. The Reed Defendants merely insert the language of the request. The Reed Defendants responses are inadequate and their objections baseless and improper. In every single Request for Admission, the Reed Defendants object as vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. These objections are improper because they are evasive word play. Marchand, 22 F.3d at 936. Failure to Respond properly to a Request for Admission within the time permitted, deems the admissions admitted, Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b); A. Farber and Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 188 (C.D. Cal. 2006); OCampo v. Hardisty, 262 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1958); Conlon v. U.S., 474 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir. 2007); and United States v. Kasuboski, 834 F.2d 1345, 1350 (7th Cir.1987). Same goes for Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents. For instance, Plaintiffs Request for Production No. 1, Plaintiffs ask for all documents and electronic data, including front and back end view, concerning each of the named Plaintiffs. The Reed Defendants object on the grounds that it is unintelligible, vague and ambiguous, particularly as to the phrases front and back end view and concerning each of the named plaintiffs; and that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and harassing to the extent that it seeks information that is not relevant to this litigation. [O]bjections such as 'overly burdensome and harassing' are improper-especially when a party fails to submit any evidentiary declarations supporting such objections." A. Farber and Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 188 (C.D. Cal. 2006). Besides labeling them as such, the Reed Defendants
48
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502-2 Filed 04/19/12 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:12669 James F. McCabe, Esquire Morrison & Foerster Page Three March 26, 2012
give no support to their claims that Plaintiffs requests are unduly oppressive and burdensome. These objections are completely inadequate and also improperly made. Each of the Reed Defendants are fully aware of who each of the Plaintiffs are and that this litigation stems from the illegal disclosure of Plaintiffs reports to unauthorized third parties. Marchand, 22 F.3d at 936. Excessive evasion or resistance to reasonable discovery requests pose significant problems. Burlington N. & Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Mont., 408 F.3d 1142, 1148 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiffs are at a loss as to how such facts could reveal communications between the Reed Defendants and their counsel, and the Reed Defendants have not offered a reasonable theory in support of their objections. Plaintiffs seek information, not documents or tangible things created by Defendants in anticipation of litigation. One of the primary purposes of Discovery is to uncover the facts on which your opponents' claim or defense is based: such facts are clearly discoverable. See, e.g., A. Farber and Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 188 (C.D. Cal. 2006). The Reed Defendants cannot refuse to disclose facts simply because the Interrogatory requires their attorney to cull through the universe of information to determine what is, and what is not, responsive. If that were the case, the liberal rules of discovery would be ineffective because any selection would arguably reveal the "mental impressions" of counsel. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for broad discovery in civil actions. "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). This provision is liberally construed so that parties may conduct the wideranging Discovery necessary to avoid surprise at trial and properly evaluate and resolve their dispute. A. Farber and Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 188 (C.D. Cal. 2006). With this said, if the Reed Defendants refuse to supplement their Responses to Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents within the next seven [7] days, then Plaintiffs will be seeking leave to file and filing a Motion to Compel. Regarding the Reed Defendants failure to properly and adequately respond to Plaintiffs Request for Admissions, as stated above, they are deemed admitted.
Respectfully,
Philip J. Berg
PJB:jb cc: Michael B. Miller, Esquire by Email to MBMiller@mofo.com
49
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT 3
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT 4
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT 5
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT 6
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT 7
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT 8
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT 9
175
176
177
178
179
180
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT 10
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT 11
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502-12 #:12904
Filed 04/19/12 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT 12
284
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502-12 Filed 04/19/12 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:12905 http://openaccess.sb-court.org/OpenAccess/CRIMINAL/fine.asp?casenumber=FWV028000&courtcode=X& defnbr=1608112&defseq=1&otnmseq=0&dsn=
285
FWV028000 - Fine Information - San Bernardino Main
http://openaccess.sb-court.org/OpenAccess/CRIMINAL/fine.asp?casenu...
Home Case Report

Case Number:
Charges Fine Info
Actions Images
Minutes
Probation
Case FWV028000 Defendant 1608112 LIBERI, LISA R

Defendant 1 of 1 Date To Pay: Prior NSF: N N/A First Payment: Last Payment:
Payment Amount: $0.00
Fine Number Fine Type Fine Description Original Amount Paid To Date Current Due
Total:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Case FWV028000 Defendant 1608112 LIBERI, LISA R - Payment Information

Date 05/15/2003 10/23/2003 10/29/2003 11/20/2003 12/10/2003 02/22/2006 05/12/2009 06/20/2011 Action Description Miscellaneous Payment of $3.00 Received. Miscellaneous Payment of $4.50 Received. Miscellaneous Payment of $5.00 Received. Miscellaneous Payment of $1.00 Received. Miscellaneous Payment of $80.00 Received. Miscellaneous Payment of $5.00 Received. Miscellaneous Payment of $45.00 Received. Miscellaneous Payment of $116.00 Received. Receipt Number 20030515-0153 20031023-1510 20031029-1226 20031120-0446 20031210-0837 20060222-0826 20090512-2255 20110620-2397 Amount $3.00 $4.50 $5.00 $1.00 $80.00 $5.00 $45.00 $116.00
286
1 of 1
4/10/2012 3:09 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT 13
287
288
CM/ECF - U.S. Bankruptcy Court (v4.2 - LIVE)
https://ecf.cacb.uscourts.gov/doc1/973016039506
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502-13 #:12909 The document is not available.
289
1 of 1
4/6/2012 12:43 PM
290
https://ecf.cacb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?477290122212235-L_1_0-1
Filed 04/19/12 Page 5 of 8 Page ID CLOSED
U.S. Bankruptcy Court Central District Of California (Riverside) Bankruptcy Petition #: 6:02-bk-22845-PC
Assigned to: Peter Carroll Chapter 7 Voluntary No asset Debtor Lisa Liberi 11952 Huntley Dr Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 SAN BERNARDINO-CA SSN / ITIN: xxx-xx-4312 aka Lisa Rene Liberi Trustee Robert Whitmore (TR) 3600 Lime St Ste 616 Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 276-9292 Filing Date 08/07/2002 08/07/2002 08/07/2002 08/07/2002 08/07/2002 08/07/2002 08/07/2002 08/07/2002 08/07/2002 08/07/2002 # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Docket Text Voluntary petition under chapter 7 [CAC] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Exhibit "C" is not required [CAC] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Statement of related cases [CAC] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Notice of available chapters [CAC] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Summary of schedules [CAC] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Schedule A filed [CAC] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Schedule B filed [CAC] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Schedule C filed [CAC] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Schedule D filed [CAC] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Schedule E filed [CAC] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Date filed: 08/07/2002 Date terminated: 10/29/2002 Date dismissed: 10/08/2002
represented by Curtis R Aijala 123 W B St Ste C Ontario, CA 91762 909-983-0877 Email: curtis.aijala@verizon.net
291
1 of 4
4/14/2012 5:44 PM
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502-13 #:12912 08/07/2002 08/07/2002 08/07/2002 08/07/2002 08/07/2002 11 12 13 14 15
Schedule F filed [CAC] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Schedule G filed [CAC] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Schedule H filed [CAC] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Schedule I filed [CAC] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Schedule J filed [CAC] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Declaration concerning debtor's schedules [CAC] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Statement of financial affairs [CAC] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Statement of intention [CAC] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Disclosure of attorney fees [CAC] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Attorney's state bar number on page 1 of petition form [CAC] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Verification of creditor matrix [CAC] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Matrix [mailing list] [CAC] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Declaration of attorney's limited scope of appearance [CAC] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Signature[s] page 2 of petition form B1 for attorney [CAC] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Notice of 341a meeting [requested from BNC] hearing on 09/10/2002 at 11:00 a.m. at 3420 Twelfth St. Room 100B Riverside, CA 92501[Rescheduled] [FIN] (Entered: 08/08/2002) Certificate of mailing RE: Item# 25 [BNC] (Entered: 08/13/2002) Request for special notice filed by HomeAmerica Mortgage Corp with cert of service [RSA] (Entered: 08/15/2002) Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY filed by Homeameica Mortgage Corporation re 11952 Huntly Dr., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 with proof of service hearing on 09/11/2002 at 09:00 a.m. at 3420 Twelfth Street, Courtroom 303, Riverside, CA 92501[Disposed] [LEO] (Entered: 08/20/2002)
08/07/2002 08/07/2002 08/07/2002 08/07/2002
16 17 18 19
08/07/2002 08/07/2002 08/07/2002
20 21 22
08/07/2002
23
08/07/2002
24
08/08/2002 08/10/2002
25 26
08/14/2002
27
08/19/2002
28
292
2 of 4
4/14/2012 5:44 PM
08/27/2002
29
Notice of motion & motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY filed by General Motors Acceptance Corp re: 2002 Chevrolet Suburban Vin# 3GNFK16T22G245951 with proof of service hearing on 09/18/2002 at 09:00 a.m. at 3420 Twelfth Street, Courtroom 303, Riverside, CA 92501[Disposed] [RSA] (Entered: 08/29/2002) Hearing held re: mtn for rlf from stay by Homeamerica Mortgage; tentative ruling is final, mtn is granted as to the trustee & terminated as to debtors estate; as to debtors exemption, their is no equity for the estate & no evidence the trustee can administer the prop erty for the benefit of creditors; court awards no attorneys fees & costs, all other rlf is denied ct recorder M Avalos RE: Item# 28 [RSA] (Entered: 09/12/2002) ORDER granting [in whole or in part] relief from the automatic stay REAL PROPERTY filed by Homeamerica Mortgage Corp w/ntc of entry & cert of mlg RE: Item# 28 [RSA] (Entered: 09/12/2002) Trustee worksheet; meeting continued due to non appearance postponed to 10/01/2002 at 3:00 p.m. at 3420 Twelfth St. Room 100, Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Item# 25 [RSA] (Entered: 09/13/2002) Hearing held re: mtn for rlf from stay by General Motors Acceptance Corp; submit a tentative ruling; attached tentative ruling is final order of the court; order to follow [see minute sheet for further information] ct recorder M Avalos RE: Item# 29 [RSA] (Entered: 09/19/2002) ORDER granting [in whole or in part] relief from the automatic stay PERSONAL PROPERTY filed by General Motors Acceptance Corp w/ntc of entry & cert of mlg RE: Item# 29 [RSA] (Entered: 09/19/2002) Trustee worksheet; request to dismiss case for failure to appear at the 341 meeting for the second time RE: Item# 32 [RSA] (Entered: 10/07/2002) ORDER and notice of dismissal for failure to appear at 341a meeting of creditors with 180-day restriction[req. from BNC] RE: Item# 35 [RSA] (Entered: 10/08/2002) Certificate of mailing RE: Item# 36 [BNC] (Entered: 10/11/2002) Final report of trustee in a dismissed case [KIP] (Entered: 10/28/2002) ORDER closing case [DSM] (Entered: 10/29/2002) Receipt of Certification Fee - $18.00 by 43. Receipt Number 60080560. (admin) (Entered: 06/06/2011)
09/11/2002
30
09/11/2002
31
09/12/2002
32
09/18/2002
33
09/18/2002
34
10/03/2002
35
10/08/2002 10/10/2002 10/25/2002 10/29/2002
36 37 38 39
06/03/2011
293
3 of 4
4/14/2012 5:44 PM
PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt
04/14/2012 16:38:51 PACER Login: Docket Description: Report Billable Pages: 2 Client Code: Search Criteria: Cost: 6:02-bk-22845-PC Fil or Ent: filed From: 1/13/2000 To: 4/16/2012 Doc From: 0 Doc To: 99999999 Term: included Format: html 0.20
294
4 of 4
4/14/2012 5:44 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT 14
295
From: Neil SANKEY [mailto:nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com] Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:01 AM To: Bob Unruh Subject: LISA LIBERI etc Bob here are some bare facts about Bergs assistant. See below and attachments I dont know how much of the story you have already, but is essentially about WHO she really is and the questions that unfortunately brings up about Berg. Call, if you need to, at your convenience. Neil Sankey Investigator & Consultant. THE SANKEY FIRM Simi Valley, California 93063 nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com 805 520 3151 818 212 7615 cell
(Addendum) LISA RENEE LIBERI. Bn 5/28/1965. 462-45-xxxx, 622-19-4312 (& others)
According to the Police she was born COURVILLE and married a Richardson (Possible Alan Douglas Richardson, currently residing in Las Vegas .) IF it was the other way around, then the Courville is Bill Marshall Courville 11/10/61 of Houston , Tx. 457-71-x I have several SS#'s for her and a LOT of AKA's. Her real SS# is probably 462-45-xxxx. Most prominent otherwise are 563-60-xxxx, 57217-x, 622-19-x She went BK in 2002 Her brother is probably Lawrence E Morris of Fontana and Rancho Cuc , CA . He was born 1/16/64 Her Husband, Brent J, a Parolee, I have not researched that. Is probably Brent J McCormack 563-77, also uses 331-02-x There is also a Jerry HELLER and Douglas Cramer look interesting, but where do you stop?.
296
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT 15
297
From: Neil SANKEY nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com Subject: FW: LISA LIBERI etc To: dr_taitz@yahoo.com Date: Monday, April 13, 2009, 7:04 PM Here is the Liberi stuff you requested. This is also what I sent to Bob Unruh . From: Neil SANKEY [mailto:nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com] Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:01 AM To: Bob Unruh Subject: LISA LIBERI etc Bob here are some bare facts about Bergs assistant. See below and attachments I dont know how much of the story you have already, but is essentially about WHO she really is and the questions that unfortunately brings up about Berg. Call, if you need to, at your convenience. Neil Sankey Investigator & Consultant. THE SANKEY FIRM Simi Valley, California 93063 nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com 805 520 3151 818 212 7615 cell
(Addendum) LISA RENEE LIBERI. Bn 5/28/1965. 462-45-xxxx, 622-19-4312 (& others)
According to the Police she was born COURVILLE and married a Richardson (Possible Alan Douglas Richardson, currently residing in Las Vegas .) IF it was the other way around, then the Courville is Bill Marshall Courville 11/10/61 of Houston , Tx. 457-71-x I have several SS#'s for her and a LOT of AKA's. Her real SS# is probably 462-45-xxxx. Most prominent otherwise are 563-60-xxxx, 57217-x, 622-19-x She went BK in 2002 Her brother is probably Lawrence E Morris
298
of Fontana and Rancho Cuc , CA . He was born 1/16/64 Her Husband, Brent J, a Parolee, I have not researched that. Is probably Brent J McCormack 563-77, also uses 331-02-x There is also a Jerry HELLER and Douglas Cramer look interesting, but where do you stop?.
299
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT 16
300
From: Hrvatin, Adriano <AHrvatin@mofo.com> Date: Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:07 PM Subject: Liberi, et al. v. Taitz, et al., No. 11-485 (C.D. Cal) To: Philip Berg <philjberg@gmail.com> Cc: "McCabe, Jim" <JMcCabe@mofo.com>
Dear Mr. Berg: We would like to speak with you to request plaintiffs' dismissal of certain of the Reedassociated defendants. The Reed-associated defendants (other than LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc. f/k/a Seisint, Inc.) wish to avoid filing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 on the ground that the complaint's allegations do not adequately state a claim against them. LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc. would not oppose an amendment to the complaint naming "LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc. f/k/a Seisint, Inc." as the sole Reed-associated defendant. This communication is intended to meet the pre-filing requirements of C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-3.
The complaint names as defendants the following entities: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Reed Elsevier Inc.; LexisNexis Group, Inc., a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.; LexisNexis, Inc., a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.; LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc.; LexisNexis Seisint, Inc., d/b/a Accurint, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.; LexisNexis ChoicePoint, Inc., a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.; and LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.
Defendants 2, 3, 5 and 6 listed above do not exist. You are correct that LexisNexis Group is a division of Reed Elsevier Inc., but it is not a separate corporation. "LexisNexis Seisint, Inc." appears to be a misnomer for the corporation formerly known as Seisint, Inc. Seisint was never a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. it was and is a separate corporation. Similarly, "LexisNexis ChoicePoint, Inc." appears to be a misnomer for ChoicePoint Inc., a corporation whose stock was acquired by a Reed Elsevier affiliate. Like Seisint, ChoicePoint, Inc. was never a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. it was a separate corporation. We ask that you dismiss these defendants.
Reed Elsevier Inc. (1) and LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. (7) are currently existing corporations. However, neither corporation has been involved in the preparation or sale of Accurint reports. We ask that you dismiss them as well.
Any claim based on the sale of an Accurint report or reports in 2009 should be made against "LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc. f/k/a Seisint, Inc." Until January 1,
301
2010, one Reed subsidiary was named LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group Inc. (4, above). Effective January 1, 2010, the name of that corporation was changed to LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL Inc. Since January 1, 2010, LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL Inc. has operated the Accurint business. That corporation, though, was not the one involved in the Accurint business at the time Mr. Sankey was alleged to have obtained an Accurint report or reports about the plaintiffs. Until January 1, 2010, the Accurint operations (including database maintenance and report preparation) were conducted by Seisint, Inc., a corporation that has since changed its name to LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc.
Based on the foregoing, we ask that you dismiss the Reed-associated defendants presently named. We have no objection to the dismissal of those entities without prejudice. That way, if you later conclude that the facts are not as we have stated them, you may re-name the dismissed defendant. As noted, LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc. would not oppose an amendment to the complaint to name "LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc. f/k/a Seisint, Inc." as a defendant. Please let us know if you would like to discuss this request by telephone. I am in the office and generally available; Jim is currently on vacation but returns to work early next week. Thank you for your time and attention. Adriano Adriano Hrvatin | Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street | San Francisco, California 94105 Tel: 415.268.6207 | Fax: 415.268.7522 | ahrvatin@mofo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ =====================================================================
302
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
303
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT 17
304
http://www.lexisnexis.com/risk/solutions/contact-locate/skip-tracing-accurint-collections.aspx ID Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502-17 Filed 04/19/12 Page 2 of 4 Page #:12925
305
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502-17 Filed 04/19/12 Page 3 of 4 Page http://www.lexisnexis.com/risk/solutions/contact-locate/skip-tracing-accurint-collections.aspx ID #:12926
306
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502-17 Filed http://www.lexisnexis.com/risk/downloads/casestudy/midpoint.pdf04/19/12 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:12927
307
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT 18
308
http://www.lexisnexis.com/risk/downloads/literature/accurint-insurance.pdf Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502-18 Filed 04/19/12 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:12929
LexisNexis Accurint for Insurance
Identify, detect and investigate more efficiently and profitably.
Market-leading technologies and premium information sources help leading insurers nationwide increase efficiency, productivity and profitability.
Comprehensive yet affordable

Industry-leading, value-added, publicly available record-related searches, with access t national and o international news and other sour es that reveal c connections among people, businesses, assets and locations that cant be found in public records Proprietary property and casualty claims-specific content and searches with LexisNexis Carrier Discovery SM and LexisNexis Claims Discovery SM Exceptional depth and br eadth of driver and vehicle content and related searches, with access t one of the o most comprehensive vehicle history databases of public and proprietary sources Unparalleled client support and training, with 24/7 customer service, technical support and search assistance; individual or gr oup training; and a dedicated account manager always available to answer questions and recommend solutions
How are we different?

Advanced analytics for identity verification, linking and risk decision-making Proprietary content and technology advantages for the claims market 35+ years of deep industry knowledge and expertise Seamless integration into critical customer workflows
Use Accurint for Insurance to:

Validate and verify customer-provided information. Help resolve claims. Detect, investigate and prevent fraud (including rate evasion). Subrogate for collection/recovery.
Risk Solutions Insurance
309
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Philip J. Berg, Esquire (PA I.D. 9867) E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659 Attorney in pro se and for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION : : : Plaintiffs, : : : : : : Defendants. : :
LISA LIBERI, et al,
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW) PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
vs. ORLY TAITZ, et al,
I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify a true and correct copy of the Declaration
of Philip J. Berg, Esquire in support of Plaintiffs Opposition to the Reed Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment was served through the ECF filing system this 20th day of April 2012 upon the following:
James F McCabe Morrison & Foerster 425 Market St San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Email: jmccabe@mofo.com Attorney for Defendants: Reed Elsevier, Inc.; LexisNexis Group; LexisNexis; LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.; LexisNexis Seisint, Inc. d/b/a Accurint; Choicepoint, Inc.
Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Cert of Svc re Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Marc Steven Colen, Esq. Law Offices of Marc Steven Colen 5737 Kanan Road, Ste. 347 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Email: mcolen@colenlaw.com Attorney for Defendants: Todd Sankey; and The Sankey Firm, Inc. Orly Taitz 29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, Suite 100 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Email: orly.taitz@gmail.com and Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com Attorney for Defendant Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc.
Kim Schumann, Esquire Jeffrey P. Cunningham, Esquire SCHUMANN, RALLO & ROSENBERG, LLP 3100 Bristol Street, Suite 400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Email: pcookA@srrlawfirm.com Attorney for Defendants Orly Taitz; Orly Taitz, Inc.; and Law Offices of Orly Taitz /s/ Philip J. Berg Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Cert of Svc re Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Liberi Et Al V Taitz Et Al - Berg Decl - Opt Doc 502

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

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

Liberi Et Al V Taitz Et Al - Berg Decl - Opt Doc 502

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502 Filed 04/19/12 Page 1 of 39 Page ID #:12621

LISA LIBERI, et al,

vs. ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502 Filed 04/19/12 Page 2 of 39 Page ID #:12622

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502 Filed 04/19/12 Page 3 of 39 Page ID #:12623

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502 Filed 04/19/12 Page 4 of 39 Page ID #:12624

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502 Filed 04/19/12 Page 5 of 39 Page ID #:12625

On February 3, 2012, Plaintiffs received the Reed Defendants

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502 Filed 04/19/12 Page 6 of 39 Page ID #:12626

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502 Filed 04/19/12 Page 7 of 39 Page ID #:12627

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502 Filed 04/19/12 Page 8 of 39 Page ID #:12628

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502 Filed 04/19/12 Page 9 of 39 Page ID #:12629

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502 Filed 04/19/12 Page 10 of 39 Page ID #:12630

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502 Filed 04/19/12 Page 11 of 39 Page ID #:12631

In addition, Mrs. Liberis report contains her unlisted and unpublished

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502 Filed 04/19/12 Page 12 of 39 Page ID #:12632

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502 Filed 04/19/12 Page 13 of 39 Page ID #:12633

Brandy Heller is Mr. Liberis sisters married name. 13

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502 Filed 04/19/12 Page 14 of 39 Page ID #:12634

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502 Filed 04/19/12 Page 15 of 39 Page ID #:12635

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502 Filed 04/19/12 Page 16 of 39 Page ID #:12636

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502 Filed 04/19/12 Page 17 of 39 Page ID #:12637

March 16, 2009

March 16, 2009

Neil Sankey through The Sankey

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502 Filed 04/19/12 Page 18 of 39 Page ID #:12638

April 10, 2009

April 13, 2009

April 17, 2009

May 12, 2009

Documents purchased in Case No. FWV-028000 in the San Bernardino

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502 Filed 04/19/12 Page 19 of 39 Page ID #:12639

County Superior Court by Orly Taitz. See Exb. 12 attached hereto.

July 11, 2011

July 11, 2011

As admitted by the Reed Defendants in their Motion for Summary

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502 Filed 04/19/12 Page 20 of 39 Page ID #:12640

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502 Filed 04/19/12 Page 21 of 39 Page ID #:12641

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502 Filed 04/19/12 Page 22 of 39 Page ID #:12642

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 502 Filed 04/19/12 Page 23 of 39 Page ID #:12643

Defendants Initial Disclosures or Plaintiffs Discovery requests.

requests. See, Exhibit 1 (The Reed Defendants Response to Interrogatories

Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire