Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
No. 09 3403
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
vs.
Defendant-Appellee.
__________________
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss w/o Costs & Request for Sanctions and
Costs by Appellees Orly Taitz and Defend Our Freedoms re: Appellant’s
Motion to Dismiss Appeal
__________________
I. INTRODUCTION TO OPPOSITION
appellants for their flagrant abuse of the court process and systematic attempt to
use the appellate process to harass, vex, and smear apellees as well as improperly
does not in the least support the contentions made by appellants, Berg and Liberi.
Likewise the request for injunctive relief seems void on its face and was dismissed
out of hand by the District Court and is (and was always) moot by appellants own
admission.
which appellees Taitz and Foundation have had to respond to including: lengthy
motions for judicial notice and numerous attempts to circumvent the Federal Rules
for a restraining order among other unfounded and frivolous requests. This court
denied each and every frivolous motion made by appellants totaling at least eleven
assertion, appellees did indeed respond to the appellants’ motions and requests
which were also filed in district court as bogus bad faith attachments to pleadings
and letters in the stayed proceedings below further compounding the appellees
an appearance is the cause of the dismissal request since any delay was self
transcripts that if provided would prove the lie being perpetrated and transcripts
voluntarily dismiss their own harassing and vexatious appeal. There was no reason
for appellees to enter an appearance until now when it has finally become plainly
evident that the entire interlocutory appeal was a bad faith tactical stunt by
appellees who never intended to provide the transcripts required to permit the
appeal to go forward.
denied unless costs and sanctions are had against appellants. Plaintiff Berg is an
attorney still in good standing with the Pennsylvania Bar but who has a record of
2008 Bankr. LEXIS 322 (ED PA 2008); Holsworth v. Berg, 2005 U.S. Dist.
here and in district court and subjected the court below and the appellees to the
expense and effort of responding to each and every one of their baseless assertions
which were light on the law but heavy on hearsay and defamation of appellees’
reputations.
misleading. Appellees have entered an appearance and request costs and sanctions
Appellants even while trying to dismiss their own moot and frivolous
appeal continue to spew forth a torrent of distorted and disputed “facts” including:
false statements attributed to the appellee Dr. Taitz, and nonexistent violations of
alleged and misstated court orders. These are not facts but unsupportable
allegations of some vast, vague and implausible conspiracy of the sort that on its
face will not survive the R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) facial plausibility standard as
Voluntary dismissal under FRAP Rule 42(b) is not appropriate where the
appellee has been put to trouble and expense because the appellant has not
followed the rules. See In The Matter of Penn Central Transportation Company,
630 F.2d 183,190 (3rd Cir. 1980) citing Blount v. State Bank and Trust Co., 425
While appellants try to mask the true reason for the request to dismiss the
the court and not anything done by appellees that has brought the request for
dismissal about. It is worth noting that Mr. Berg has exhibited a pattern and
practice of filing frivolous pleadings in the district court and then appealing when
he does not get his way. See the facts in Holsworth v. Berg, 322 Fed. Appx. 143
(3rd Cir. 2009). Despite being ordered to take additional courses in ethics, Mr.
Appellants have made their bed and now must lay in it. Appellees should at
the very least be permitted to present a bill of costs and sanctions should be
SANCTIONS
dismiss. The so-called reason has nothing to do with any alleged actions by
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110125122 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/30/2010
appellees but with appellants’ own failure to provide transcripts. In support of this
untimely request appellants have presented reasons that are patently irrelevant,
reasonable attorney could put his signature on such pleading after examining the
so called evidence. But this is exactly what Berg has done in his position as
between reason, fact and reality. Appellants are attempting to deceive the court.
While FRCP Rule 11 is not directly applicable to the appellate court since it
has not been incorporated by reference or otherwise in appellate rules of court, its
may be imposed for conduct inconsistent with its standards. In re Kelly, 808 F.2d
549 (7th Cir. 1986). Berg by putting his signature on the frivolous and deceptive
motion to dismiss with its false factual allegations against appellee Dr. Taitz has
opened himself up to sanctions should this Court wish to impose them sua sponte.
Further FRAP Rule 38 is also available to this Court and Appellees have
for the content of frivolous motions which waste judicial resources and are without
merit and therefore are potentially sanctionable under FRAP Rule 38. See Maier v.
Orr, 758 F.2d 1578, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Meeks v. Jewel Cos., 845 F.2d 1421
CONCLUSION
The motion to dismiss without costs and/or sanctions is not in good order.
have failed to comply with rules and not for the cooked up reason that mysterious
failure to follow the rules, that costs be awarded and that the court consider
___________________________
Orly Taitz, Appellee in Pro
Se and as Counsel for
Appellee Defend Our
Freedoms Foundation
was served by MAIL AND ELECTRONIC MAIL on April 29, 2010, on the following
parties:
Neil Sankey
The Sankey Firm, Inc. a/k/a The Sankey Firm
Case: 09-3403 Document: 003110125122 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/30/2010
Ed Hale
Caren Hale
Plains Radio
KPRN
Bar H Farms
1401 Bowie Street
Wellington, Texas 79095
Phone: (806) 447_0010 and (806) 447_0270
Email: plains.radio@yahoo.com and
Email: barhfarms@gmail.com and ed@barhfarms.net
___________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq
April 29, 2010