Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 1 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 Lisa Ostella, and Go Excel Global c/o Philip J. Berg, Esquire E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659 Plaintiffs in pro se pending Mr. Berg’s Pro Hac Vice Lisa Liberi c/o Philip J. Berg, Esquire E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659 Plaintiff in pro se pending Mr. Berg’s Pro Hac Vice UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION LISA LIBERI, et al, Plaintiffs, vs. ORLY TAITZ, et al, Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW) PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO TERMINATE PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE AS AN ATTORNY ON THE CASE Date of Hearing: May 9, 2011 Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m. Location: Courtroom 10D Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:4028 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………….………..i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………....ii-iii MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES…………………….…1-14 II. TAITZ AND DOFF’s MOTION/REQUEST DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE FED. R. CIV. PROC. OR THIS COURT’S L.R.’s…………………….…………………………….6-9 III. DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ADDRESS ANY REASON BERG SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE, CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………..14 DEFENDANTS MOTION MUST BE DENIED………………...9-14 I. FACTS……………………………………………………..............2-6 Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 2 of 18 Page ID #:4029 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s) Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)………………………………………………….………..4 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)……………………………………...….4 Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993)……………………………………….13 United States v. Garrett, 179 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 1999)……………………….....12 United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 126 S. Ct. 2557, 165 L. Ed. 2d 409 (2006)……………………………………11, 13 United States v. Panzardi-Alvarez, 816 F.2d 813 (1st Cir. 1987)………..……….12 United States v. Walters, 309 F.3d 589, 592-93 (9th Cir. 2002)…...................12, 13 FEDERAL STATUTES Page(s) 28 U.S.C. §1746……………………………………………………………………7 FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Page(s) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11………………………………………………..9 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12……………………………………………..3, 4 Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U. S. 279 (1991)……………………………………...13 United States v. Lillie, 989 F.2d 1054 (9th Cir. 1993)………………………..…..12 Panzardi-Alvarez v. United States, 879 F.2d 975 (1st Cir. 1989)………………....12 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7………………………………………….……...8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10……………………………………………...…8 Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 3 of 18 Page ID #:4030 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued LOCAL RULES Page(s) Local Rule 7-3………………………………………………………………..…….6 Local Rule 7-6………………………………………………………………..…….8 Local Rule 7-12…………………………………………………………………….8 Local Rule 11.1……………………………………………………………………..9 Local Rule 11.3-8…………………………………………………………………..8 Local Rule 11-9…………………………………………………………………….9 Local Rule 83-2.3.2……………………………………………………………….11 Local Rule 83-7 …………………………………………………………………....9 Local Rule 83-2.3.1……………………………………………………………….11 Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 4 of 18 Page ID #:4031 Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 2 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 I. FACTS: 1. On May 4, 2009, Plaintiffs, Philip J. Berg, Esq., [hereinafter at times “Berg”] Lisa Ostella [hereinafter at times “Ostella”] Lisa Liberi [hereinafter at times “Liberi”], The Law Offices of Philip J. Berg, and Go Excel Global filed suit against Defendants Orly Taitz [hereinafter at times “Taitz”], Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. [hereinafter at times “DOFF”]; Neil Sankey [hereinafter at times “Sankey”]; Sankey Investigations, Inc; and The Sankey Firm, Inc.1 for amongst other things: Invasion of Privacy; Intrusion of Plaintiffs solitude and seclusion; placing Plaintiffs in a false light before the public; Appropriation of Plaintiffs name, picture and alike; Cyber-stalking; Stalking; Cyber-bullying; Harassment; Filing of false criminal reports; Defamation, Slander, Libel and violation of Cal. Civ. P. 1798, et seq. for the illegal background checks, including but not limited to primary identification documents, insurance, medical, sealed Court case information, illegal access to Plaintiffs credit reports, cyber-stalking, stalking Plaintiffs Ostella and Liberi, contacting and harassing individuals Plaintiffs have known; and for the illegal distribution of Liberi’s full Social Security number, date of birth, mother’s maiden name, place of birth, spouses name, spouses Social 1 The Sankey Firm, Inc. is in default. Default was entered against them in June 2009, the default was set-aside to allow this Defendant to Answer the Complaint; however, to date they have failed to Answer the Complaint and Enter their Appearance. Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 5 of 18 Page ID #:4032 Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 3 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, spouses date of birth and other extremely private information,2 as well as private data pertaining to Ostella. Said suit was originally filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania and recently transferred to this Court. 2. As this Court can see from the Docket, Defendant Taitz on behalf of herself and DOFF have continued filing documents which falsifies what this case is about; why this case was filed; and many falsified stories and accusations against the Plaintiffs. Taitz is under the impression the Court will not read and catch her in her dishonest tactics, due to the barrage of paper, which unfortunately Taitz has been successful with up until this date. These actions of Taitz’s have caused an avalanche of paper as Plaintiffs have been forced to respond and reiterate what this case actually represents. The further barrage of paper is due to Taitz’s continued publications on her website, through postal mail, statements in radio appearances, and posting all over the Internet, giving false interpretations of this case, falsely accusing the Plaintiffs (the victims) of what she is actually doing, and her continued cyber-stalking, cyber-bullying and stalking of the Plaintiffs. 3. Defendant Taitz has also filed approximately six (6) Motions, if not more, to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, all of which were denied, as documented by the Court’s docket. Also, as this Court is aware, a party is only 2 Since Plaintiffs Complaint is drafted pursuant to PA laws, Plaintiffs will be seeking leave to Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 6 of 18 Page ID #:4033 Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 4 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 entitled to file a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 on one occasion and anything not raised in the initial Motion is deemed waived; thus Taitz’s Motions were incompliant with the Fed. R. Civ. P.’s. Taitz asserted the Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) cases as a basis for dismissal, however, the Pennsylvania Federal Court found Plaintiffs Complaint compliant with the pleading requirements outlined in Iqbal and Twombly and Denied Taitz’s Motions to Dismiss. 4. Taitz has done everything in her power, and been successful in her attempts, to prejudice the Plaintiffs and delay the proceedings in the within case, including the transfer of this case to this Court, by her improper appeal, which delayed the transfer for approximately nine (9) months. All the meanwhile, Taitz has continued her illegal tactics which gave rise to this case, further damaging and harming the Plaintiffs. 5. Taitz has now filed, on behalf of herself and DOFF, an improper Motion to Terminate Mr. Berg from being Counsel in the within case. Taitz Motion fails to adhere to the Fed. R. of Civ. P., and this Court’s L.R.’s. Not to mention the fact, it is completely improper as there is not even a pending Motion for Pro Hac Vice admission at this time. Moreover, Berg is also a Plaintiff in the properly amend their Complaint to bring the Complaint within the standards of California law. Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 7 of 18 Page ID #:4034 Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 5 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 within action and therefore, Taitz cannot terminate him from the case. Taitz has been an Attorney in California since 2002, she knows the Court rules or should, and these types of frivolous Motions which are incompliant with the Fed. R. Civ. P. and the Court’s L.R.’s should not be permitted. If allowed, Taitz will further “paper” this Court and file heaps of frivolous pages, again as demonstrated by the Court’s docket. 6. In addition, Taitz is doing nothing more than attempting to make litigation so expensive for the Plaintiffs’ that they will be deprived their right to redress for Taitz’s and the other Defendants wrongs. This problem also would cause the filing of multiple documents, instead of one document signed by the Attorney, and force the other Plaintiffs to have to travel to California, pay for hotels, rental cars, etc. for hearings, when it is far more cost efficient to have the original Attorney argue any Motions, whether filed by Plaintiffs or Opposed by Plaintiffs, or argue at any ordered hearing. Not to mention the fact that neither Ostella nor Liberi are Attorneys. 7. Philip J. Berg, Esquire has been counsel for all Plaintiffs in the within case since the day of its inception. Berg is familiar with the events giving rise to the suit and the events which have occurred within the case. To bring new counsel in at this late stage of the litigation, would be extremely prejudicial to Plaintiffs Ostella and Liberi, as it would take an astronomical amount of time to bring a new Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 8 of 18 Page ID #:4035 Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 6 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 Attorney up to speed, and further delay proceedings. Further, it would be far more expensive for the Plaintiffs, without Counsel of record who knows the case, its history, and who is more than capable of arguing the matter on behalf of Ostella and Liberi. 8. For the reasons stated herein, Taitz Motion/Request must be Denied. II. TAITZ and DOFF’s MOTION/REQUEST FAILS TO COMPLY with the FED. R. CIV. P. and THIS COURT’S L.R’s. 9. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 10. Taitz and DOFF’s Motion/Request fails to comply with the Fed. R .of Civ. Proc. and/or this Court’s L.R.’s. 11. As this Court is aware of, prior to the filing of any Motion, the party filing the Motion must “meet and confer” with the opposing parties and/or their Counsel within the required ten (10) day period prior to the filing of their Motion, see this Court’s L.R. 7-3. As a result of Taitz’s failure to follow the rules and “meet and confer” with opposing counsel, Taitz was unable to comply with the section of this Court’s L.R. 7-3 which required the following brief statement, “This motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3 which took place on (date).” See this Court’s L.R. 7-3. Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 9 of 18 Page ID #:4036 Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 7 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 12. Prior to the filing of their Motion, Taitz and DOFF were required to “meet and confer” with the Plaintiffs and/or their counsel, which Taitz and DOFF failed to comply with. 13. Furthermore, this Court’s L.R. 7-6 provides that “factual contentions involved in any motion . . . shall be presented, heard, and determined upon declarations and other written evidence alone”. In Taitz and DOFF’s Motion, Taitz includes what she entitles an “Affidavit”. As this Court is aware, Affidavits are notarized documents with a seal and are made under the Penalty of Perjury. Taitz statement in her Motion does not even qualify as an unsworn Declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746: 28 U.S.C. §1746 states in particular part: “Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same…such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form: (2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 10 of 18 Page ID #:4037 Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 8 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 perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.” 14. Taitz’s “Affidavit” is not notarized, is not signed under the penalty of perjury and therefore must not be considered. Thus, Taitz has failed to comply with this Court’s L.R. 7-6 and the Court must Deny Taitz and DOFF’s Motion or consider Taitz’ failure to comply with this Court’s Local Rules as consent to deny the Motion, see this Court’s L.R. 7-12. 15. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1) states, “A request for a court order must be made by motion. The motion must: (A) be in writing unless made during a hearing or trial; (B) state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order; and (C) state the relief sought.” [emphasis added] Taitz failed to cite any grounds for her Motion/Request to have Berg Terminated as Counsel. 16. Taitz also failed to put her California Bar number and email address on her title page of her Motion, in violation of this Court’s L.R. 11-3.8(a) and the Title of the Court in violation of this Court’s L.R. 11-3.8(c). 17. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 states in pertinent part, “(a) Caption; Names of Parties. Every pleading must have a caption with the court's name…” This Rule further states. “A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances”, see Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 10(b). Taitz’s and DOFF failed to put the Court’s Caption on their Motion/Request and failed to number each of their paragraphs. Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 11 of 18 Page ID #:4038 Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 9 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 18. More importantly, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 states: “Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions (a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name - or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and telephone number…The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention.” As can be seen by Taitz’s filing, Taitz failed to sign the Motion, and therefore, it must be stricken. See also this Court’s L.R. 11-1. Failure to abide by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and this Court’s L.R. 11 grants this Court the power to sanction the attorney. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3) and this Court’s L.R.’s 11-9 and 83-7. 19. For the reasons stated herein, Defendants, Orly Taitz and Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Motion to Terminate Philip J. Berg, Esq. must be Denied. III. DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ADDRESS ANY REASON BERG SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE. DEFENDANTS MOTION MUST BE DENIED 20. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 21. In Violation of the Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1), Taitz and DOFF only assert the statute and what the basis and/or requirements for the granting of an Attorney’s Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 12 of 18 Page ID #:4039 Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 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 Pro Hac Vice application is. Taitz and DOFF fail to assert why Berg should not be admitted Pro Hac Vice, or how Berg fails to meet the requirement of the statute. The reason is Taitz could not state any facts that show Berg fails to meet the requirements to be entered Pro Hac Vice. Berg is a Pennsylvania Attorney in “Good Standing”, he has properly litigated the within case, he has been honest with his statements and litigation, contrary to Attorney Orly Taitz3. 22. Berg has not even filed an Application for the admission Pro Hac Vice as of this date, as soon as he does, Taitz will bring yet another Motion, Request, and/or Opposition to said Motion and further dump a barrage of paper on this Court. 23. However, to address the issues now, instead a second time when Taitz’s refiles her Motion(s), Plaintiffs are entitled to Counsel of their choosing. Berg meets the statutes requirements to be granted Pro Hac Vice admission and he is ready and willing to proceed with his representation of the Plaintiffs here in California, just as he has shown, he was more than proficient in the litigation and representation of the Plaintiffs in Pennsylvania. 3 Taitz has a continued history in this case of misstating the facts, filings, contents thereof and even the Court’s rulings, which is proven by the Court’s docket and all Taitz’s own filings that continually contradict themselves. Taitz seems to believe that the Court will not read anything, allowing her to get away with her fraudulent, frivolous and improper tactics. To date, Taitz has been successful with these improper tactics due to the avalanche of paper on file, which again was caused by Taitz’s continued filings. However, should the Court read the documents filed, the Court will see Taitz’s dishonest tactics, statements, and false allegations. Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 13 of 18 Page ID #:4040 Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 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 24. The Central District requires any person "who is a member of good standing of, and eligible to practice before, the bar of any United States Court, or of the highest court of any State . . . and who has been retained to appear before this Court, may, upon written application and in the discretion of the Court, be permitted to appear and participate Pro Hac Vice in a particular case." See this Court’s L. R. 83-2.3.1. Here, there is no question: Berg is in “Good Standing” with the U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of PA; the PA Supreme Court; and the U.S. Supreme Court. Furthermore, Berg is familiar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules, as required. 25. The Central District has noted situations which disqualify otherwise qualified attorneys from Pro Hac Vice admission, such as when an attorney, "(a) Resides in California; or (b) Is regularly employed in California; or (c) Is regularly engaged in business, professional, or other similar activities in California." See this Court’s L. R. 83-2.3.2, none of which apply to Berg. 26. In United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 141, 126 S. Ct. 2557, 165 L. Ed. 2d 409 (2006) the Supreme Court accepted the government's concession that a trial court wrongfully denied a Defendant the right to counsel of choice where the court refused to grant Pro Hac Vice admission to an attorney the Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 14 of 18 Page ID #:4041 Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 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 Defendant hired who was willing and prepared to begin representation immediately. 126 S. Ct. at 2560-61. 27. An individual’s “right to the counsel of his choice includes the right to have an out-of-state lawyer admitted Pro Hac Vice." United States v. Lillie, 989 F.2d 1054, 1056 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Garrett, 179 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 1999). "[A] decision denying a Pro Hac Vice admission necessarily implicates constitutional concerns." Panzardi- Alvarez v. United States, 879 F.2d 975, 980 (1st Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). 28. The mere fact that a party to the action seeks to retain an out-of-state attorney does not hinder the efficacious administration of justice. His choice of counsel must be respected unless it would unreasonably delay proceedings or burden the court with counsel who was incompetent or unwilling to abide by court rules and ethical guidelines. United States v. Walters, 309 F.3d 589, 592-93 (9th Cir. 2002) quoting United States v. Panzardi-Alvarez, 816 F.2d 813, 817-818 (1st Cir. 1987). 29. The Ninth Circuit has held “applying a local rule mechanistically, without discussion of whether the interest of the "fair, efficient and orderly administration of justice" required denial of the application.” When a District Court does not find that permitting an out-of-state Attorney to appear would hinder or delay the proceedings. or, the failure of the court to interpret the rule as denying Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 15 of 18 Page ID #:4042 Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 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 him the discretion to consider whether legitimate reasons existed for denial of the application. The Ninth Circuit has stated that such discretion is implicit in the introductory phrase, "Unless authorized by the Constitution or acts of Congress." United States v. Walters, 309 F.3d 589, 592-93 (9th Cir. 2002). 30. As pointed out in United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 141, 126 S. Ct. 2557, 165 L. Ed. 2d 409 (2006) “Erroneous deprivation of the right to counsel of choice, "with consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate, unquestionably qualifies as 'structural error.'" Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U. S. 275, 282 (1993). It "def[ies] analysis by 'harmless error' standards" because it "affec[ts] the framework within which the trial proceeds" and is not "simply an error in the trial process itself." Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U. S. 279, 309-310 (1991). Different attorneys will pursue different strategies with regard to myriad trial matters, and the choice of attorney will affect whether and on what terms the defendant…decides to go to trial. It is impossible to know what different choices the rejected counsel would have made, and then to quantify the impact of those different choices on the outcome of the proceedings. This inquiry is not comparable to that required to show that a counsel's deficient performance prejudiced a defendant.” Pp. 8-11. 31. In the instant case, Berg has been litigating the within case for the past two (2) years, since May 4, 2009. Once Berg files his application for Pro Hac Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 16 of 18 Page ID #:4043 Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 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 Vice, or anytime thereto, there is absolutely no reason for this Court to deny Berg’s admission Pro Hac Vice. To do so, would only deprive Plaintiffs of their counsel of choice; further delay the proceedings; cost Plaintiffs’ astronomical amounts of money in trying to bring a new attorney up to speed; and waste judicial resources. 32. For these reasons, Taitz and DOFF’s Motion must be Denied. IV. CONCLUSION: 33. For the reasons outlined herein, Defendants, Orly Taitz and Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. Motion to Terminate Philip J. Berg, Esquire as Attorney for the Plaintiffs must be Denied. Further, it is imperative for this Court to enforce Defendant Orly Taitz, a licensed California Attorney, to follow all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures and this Court’s Local Rules, as any party pro se would be required to do. Respectfully submitted, Dated: April 10, 2011 /s/ Philip J. Berg Philip J. Berg, Esquire Pennsylvania I.D. 9867 LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com Attorney in Pro Se and Counsel for the other Plaintiffs pending Pro Hac Vice admission Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 17 of 18 Page ID #:4044 Liberi, et al Memorandum in support of their Response in Opposition 04.09.2011 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 Dated: April 10, 2011 /s/ Lisa Ostella LISA OSTELLA; and GO EXCEL GLOBAL c/o Philip J. Berg, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Plaintiffs in pro se pending Mr. Berg’s Admittance Pro Hac Vice Dated: April 10, 2011 /s/ Lisa Liberi LISA LIBERI c/o Philip J. Berg, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Plaintiff in pro se pending Mr. Berg’s Admittance Pro Hac Vice Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 174 Filed 04/10/11 Page 18 of 18 Page ID #:4045
