Recently in Linda's Blog Category

Today's Court Proceedings in PA

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

Please tune in tonight to the www.plainsradio.com chat where Ed will be coming on to give details of today's court proccedings. I don't want to deprive Ed of the right to tell this story about events in court today.  It is a very amusing story and one everyone will want to hear.

Adams, Berg, Liberi and Ostella were all proven as having made false sworn affidavits to Judge Robreno's court. Of the overwhelming mountain of evidence I supplied to Ed Hale to present in court were two documents accompanied by my sworn affidavit that these were true copies of the originals saved on my laptop.  I am also posting just one of them...followed by a press release issued by Berg later that day, Jan. 2, 2009

Forwarded Message:

Subj: Lisa Liberi chat 01/02/2009 
Date: 8/4/2009 11:02:53 A.M. Central Daylight Time
From: Newwomensparty
To: Newwomensparty

 
 
 "Lisa" [2:28 A.M.]:  you hung up on me earlier, I was typing away and you were GONE......
Newwomensparty [2:28 A.M.]: 
the puter froze
"Lisa" [2:29 A.M.]:  awwww
"Lisa" [2:29 A.M.]:  gotcha
Newwomensparty [2:29 A.M.]:  same old same old
"Lisa" [2:29 A.M.]:  well at least we are lucky to have these stinking puters.  LMAO
Newwomensparty [2:29 A.M.]:  listen is it ok to tell people Sarah Palin wanted to use this stuff?
Newwomensparty [2:29 A.M.]:  yep
"Lisa" [2:30 A.M.]:  I wouldn't say that because we don't know that for sure.  We had someone saying they were related, but everything we were told did not pan out, remember Palin was supposed to call Phil, no call, no response, nothing
Newwomensparty [2:30 A.M.]:  hmmm
Newwomensparty [2:30 A.M.]:  I didn't know that
"Lisa" [2:30 A.M.]:  yeah, we never heard from Palin and there was never any mention by Palin to the paperwork which was "supposedly" given to Palin
"Lisa" [2:31 A.M.]:  so in all fairness to Palin, I would not say that
Newwomensparty [2:31 A.M.]:  ok
Newwomensparty [2:31 A.M.]:  maybe it was obama trolls
"Lisa" [2:31 A.M.]:  you never know
Newwomensparty [2:31 A.M.]:  makes ya wonder
Newwomensparty [2:31 A.M.]:  larry creeped into our blog tonight
Newwomensparty [2:34 A.M.]:  well I am going to bed soon
Newwomensparty [2:34 A.M.]:  what about you?
Newwomensparty [2:34 A.M.]:  hey b4 I forget
Newwomensparty [2:34 A.M.]:  jsutice now is trying to reach you
Newwomensparty [2:34 A.M.]:  he's going to UT AG tomorrow
Newwomensparty [2:34 A.M.]:  early
Newwomensparty [2:34 A.M.]:  he needs some stuff
"Lisa" [2:35 A.M.]:  this is hush hush, if those divorce papers exsist, we will have them before Ed Hale's show tomorrow
Newwomensparty [2:36 A.M.]:  what?
Newwomensparty [2:36 A.M.]:  from who?
"Lisa" [2:36 A.M.]:  PI's are always worth something... :)
Newwomensparty [2:36 A.M.]:  lol
Newwomensparty [2:36 A.M.]:  that guy you know over there?
"Lisa" [2:36 A.M.]:  nope
"Lisa" [2:36 A.M.]:  another guy
Newwomensparty [2:36 A.M.]:  I thought they had to pull them form storage?
"Lisa" [2:36 A.M.]:  I just make friends everywhere
Newwomensparty [2:36 A.M.]:  I am sure you do
"Lisa" [2:37 A.M.]:  LOL
Newwomensparty [2:37 A.M.]:  lol
Newwomensparty [2:37 A.M.]:  you be bad
Newwomensparty [2:37 A.M.]:  does Momma E know?
"Lisa" [2:37 A.M.]:  ya know if ever there is truly a payback, this is one of them.... cha ching!
Newwomensparty [2:37 A.M.]:  lol
Newwomensparty [2:37 A.M.]:  yep CHA CHING!
"Lisa" [2:37 A.M.]:  she does
"Lisa" [2:37 A.M.]:  Brent had to wait on me cause I was on the phone to Hawaii
Newwomensparty [2:37 A.M.]:  huh?
Newwomensparty [2:37 A.M.]:  brent?
"Lisa" [2:38 A.M.]:  also getting a better set of the Soetoro divorce records with a certification seal
Newwomensparty [2:38 A.M.]:  is this someone Joanne found for you?
"Lisa" [2:38 A.M.]:  nope
"Lisa" [2:38 A.M.]:  a large PI firm
Newwomensparty [2:38 A.M.]:  oh gee
Newwomensparty [2:38 A.M.]:  what did the Pi say they said
Newwomensparty [2:38 A.M.]:  that he was born in kenya?
Newwomensparty [2:38 A.M.]:  that is th esmoking gun
Newwomensparty [2:38 A.M.]:  if they say that, it's all over for Barry
Newwomensparty [2:39 A.M.]:  that's his mother's sworn statement to a court
"Lisa" [2:39 A.M.]:  well he wouldn't tell me too much, he would get them, have them certified and email me a copy, and send us a hard copy via fed ex.  he is also doing an affidavit for us
Newwomensparty [2:39 A.M.]:  do you realize what will happen?
"Lisa" [2:39 A.M.]:  yeah, ed hale will threaten to sue us... LMAO
Newwomensparty [2:39 A.M.]:  how can he get them that fast if they aren't in storage?
"Lisa" [2:39 A.M.]:  because the file was already pulled for dear Ed
Newwomensparty [2:40 A.M.]:  oic
"Lisa" [2:40 A.M.]:  so Ed saved us some money
Newwomensparty [2:40 A.M.]:  omg he will be so pissed
Newwomensparty [2:40 A.M.]:  and you kow what?
"Lisa" [2:40 A.M.]:  yep cause you know he will try and sell them
Newwomensparty [2:40 A.M.]:  lol
"Lisa" [2:40 A.M.]:  us we'll post them
Newwomensparty [2:41 A.M.]:  lol
"Lisa" [2:41 A.M.]:  yep, I told phil, we may as well get a cleaner certified copy of the soetoro divorce records so Orly can't say we stole hers... LOL
Newwomensparty [2:41 A.M.]:  lol
Newwomensparty [2:41 A.M.]:  yep
"Lisa" [2:41 A.M.]:  kill 2 birds with one stone
"Lisa" [2:41 A.M.]:  and
"Lisa" [2:41 A.M.]:  there is more
"Lisa" [2:41 A.M.]:  the PI we are using has connections in Indonesia
Newwomensparty [2:41 A.M.]:  OMG
"Lisa" [2:42 A.M.]:  Phil goes did you talk to him about what we need in Indonesia, I said I approached it, but did not get into great detail, want to see what he emails us tomorrow first then I will find out costs, etc.
"Lisa" [2:42 A.M.]: 
I told Phil I did not want to run up a huge bill before seeing something delivered
"Lisa" [2:42 A.M.]: 
Phil agreed
Newwomensparty [2:42 A.M.]:  good idea
Newwomensparty [2:42 A.M.]:  u b so smart
"Lisa" [2:43 A.M.]:  only sometimes
"Lisa" [2:43 A.M.]:  LMAO
"Lisa" [2:43 A.M.]:  i'm so excited Linda
Newwomensparty [2:43 A.M.]:  :-D
Newwomensparty [2:43 A.M.]:  I bet you are
"Lisa" [2:43 A.M.]:  ok now that was scarry
Newwomensparty [2:43 A.M.]:  what was?
"Lisa" [2:43 A.M.]:  Your little guy up there
Newwomensparty [2:43 A.M.]:  why
Newwomensparty [2:43 A.M.]:  it's a huge shit eating grin
"Lisa" [2:43 A.M.]:  he is missing his hair and he is green
Newwomensparty [2:43 A.M.]:  no he's a big waterdrop
Newwomensparty [2:43 A.M.]:  because of my theme storms
Newwomensparty [2:44 A.M.]:  the lightning
"Lisa" [2:44 A.M.]:  awwwwwww, that explains it.  LMAO
"Lisa" [2:44 A.M.]:  :)
"Lisa" [2:44 A.M.]:  mine is a puppy
Newwomensparty [2:44 A.M.]:  you got a happy faced dog
Newwomensparty [2:44 A.M.]:  yep
"Lisa" [2:44 A.M.]:  a funny looking puppy
"Lisa" [2:44 A.M.]:  :O
"Lisa" [2:44 A.M.]:  oops
Newwomensparty [2:44 A.M.]:  OMG do you think this will finaly get the proof
"Lisa" [2:44 A.M.]:  I don't know
"Lisa" [2:44 A.M.]:  I hope so
Newwomensparty [2:45 A.M.]:  if the divorce says he was born in kenya, it's all over for soetoro
"Lisa" [2:45 A.M.]: 
yepper
Newwomensparty [2:45 A.M.]:  Phil's practice will go crazy taking down Barry
"Lisa" [2:45 A.M.]:  Phil wanted me to keep it quite but I had to tell someone... I was busting at the seams
"Lisa" [2:46 A.M.]: 
I made sure to ask him to email me a set and send the originals... awwwwww hahahahahha
"Lisa" [2:46 A.M.]:  I know
Newwomensparty [2:46 A.M.]:  that's what I meant
Newwomensparty [2:46 A.M.]:  my god, is it possible we will finally prove this case?
"Lisa" [2:47 A.M.]:  Hawaii is 3 hours behind me, and four behind you, five behind Phil, I had to make sure Phil understood that because I told Phil, 1:00 p.m. your time is 8:00 a.m. Hawaii time.  LMAO
Newwomensparty [2:47 A.M.]:  I told people to tell him I said so
"Lisa" [2:47 A.M.]:  well that is good
"Lisa" [2:47 A.M.]:  I told Phil if the papers state our friend was born in Kenya then we MUST post them ASAP
Newwomensparty [2:47 A.M.]:  so if we get them up before Ed, he's gonna crap out
"Lisa" [2:48 A.M.]:  gonna shit his little pants
Newwomensparty [2:48 A.M.]:  yep
"Lisa" [2:48 A.M.]:  remember he will say he got them, but he won't release them, he will try to charge money for them
Newwomensparty [2:48 A.M.]:  he is gonna be so pissed 
"Lisa" [2:49 A.M.]:  I want ours up before he releases anything because otherwise he will tell everyone that we stole them from him.  We already have the receipt from the PI for services paid in full
Newwomensparty [2:49 A.M.]:  LOL Payback is a bitch
"Lisa" [2:49 A.M.]:  yep
"Lisa" [2:49 A.M.]:  you got that right
"Lisa" [2:50 A.M.]:  such a payback
"Lisa" [2:50 A.M.]:  that is what he gets for running his big mouth
"Lisa" [2:50 A.M.]: 
the PI asked Phil and I "you are working this late?  don't you ever sleep" Phil and I laughed
"Lisa" [2:51 A.M.]: 
the PI is also going to search around for other things for us... LMAO
"Lisa" [2:54 A.M.]:  where did you go?
Newwomensparty [2:54 A.M.]:  right here
"Lisa" [2:55 A.M.]:  I made myself tired.  LMAO
Newwomensparty [2:55 A.M.]:  I'm blogging
Newwomensparty [2:55 A.M.]:  you tired?
Newwomensparty [2:55 A.M.]:  you jest
"Lisa" [2:55 A.M.]:  I am now, I had been working on this since before I went to dinner
Newwomensparty [2:55 A.M.]:  christ
Newwomensparty [2:55 A.M.]:  did the pi have this already
"Lisa" [2:55 A.M.]:  then at first I couldn't reach Phil, so I called back and he answered... I was like whewwwwww
Newwomensparty [2:55 A.M.]:  or is he getting it tomorrow
Newwomensparty [2:56 A.M.]:  or does he know what they say for sure?
"Lisa" [2:56 A.M.]:  no, he is pulling it Friday (today) am at 8:00 a.m.
Newwomensparty [2:56 A.M.]:  my god Lisa, if those papers say he was born in africa that's it
Newwomensparty [2:56 A.M.]:  that's our case
Newwomensparty [2:56 A.M.]:  is it possible barry doesn't know what they say?
"Lisa" [2:57 A.M.]:  he said he didn't remember, but I think he knows because he mentioned Maui, that is where the Obama's were married and he stated he gleaned the information from the divorce records (i.e., marriage place and birth place)
Newwomensparty [2:57 A.M.]:  omg
Newwomensparty [2:57 A.M.]:  omg
"Lisa" [2:57 A.M.]:  he did not want to verify what was sent to Ed, he wanted our business
Newwomensparty [2:57 A.M.]: 
you got the same guy Ed did?
Newwomensparty [2:57 A.M.]:  lol
Newwomensparty [2:58 A.M.]:  ed is going to be so pissed
"Lisa" [2:58 A.M.]: 
shhhhhhhhh, did I forget to mention that?  ROFLMAO
Newwomensparty [2:58 A.M.]:  no I won't tell
Newwomensparty [2:58 A.M.]:  how did you find out who he is?
"Lisa" [2:58 A.M.]:  yep
"Lisa" [2:58 A.M.]:  I did, evil aren't I
Newwomensparty [2:58 A.M.]:  yes u are
Newwomensparty [2:58 A.M.]:  how did you get his name?
"Lisa" [2:58 A.M.]:  my friend Mark McGrew the guy who did the articles for Prava
Newwomensparty [2:59 A.M.]: 
he found it?
Newwomensparty [2:59 A.M.]: 
I don't understand
"Lisa" [2:59 A.M.]: 
he got it from Ed
Newwomensparty [2:59 A.M.]: 
omg
"Lisa" [2:59 A.M.]: 
ROFLMAO
Newwomensparty [2:59 A.M.]:  ed is going to be so pissed off
Newwomensparty [2:59 A.M.]:  I wonder if he'll figure out what happened
"Lisa" [2:59 A.M.]:  that's what I meant, if ever there is a payback, this is one...
Newwomensparty [2:59 A.M.]:  yep this is a payback on several levels
"Lisa" [2:59 A.M.]:  nah we won't disclose who the PI is
Newwomensparty [2:59 A.M.]:  i wonder if ed will figure it out
Newwomensparty [3:00 A.M.]:  lol
"Lisa" [3:00 A.M.]:  we will however, have to file his affidavit with the Court
Newwomensparty [3:00 A.M.]: 
not necessarily if you have the certified copies
"Lisa" [3:00 A.M.]: 
we will still file it because we did not physically obtain the certified copies
Newwomensparty [3:00 A.M.]:  It'll really trash ed thoroughly Lisa
"Lisa" [3:00 A.M.]:  good
"Lisa" [3:00 A.M.]:  he stole our PI
Newwomensparty [3:01 A.M.]:  Do you really think he's conning people to get $?
"Lisa" [3:01 A.M.]:  he was trashing Phil again tonight. Momma E says so.
Newwomensparty [3:01 A.M.]:  oh he will be so sorry
Newwomensparty [3:01 A.M.]:  he was?
Newwomensparty [3:01 A.M.]:  how do you know?
"Lisa" [3:01 A.M.]:  well you know what is even funnier 
Newwomensparty [3:01 A.M.]: 
what?
"Lisa" [3:01 A.M.]: 
we paid less then 1/2
Newwomensparty [3:01 A.M.]:  LOL
Newwomensparty [3:01 A.M.]:  that is hysterical
"Lisa" [3:02 A.M.]:  I know and that is with the PI getting the certified  Soetoro records also
Newwomensparty [3:02 A.M.]:  ok now how can we turn this inbot a slam dunk to boot Barry
Newwomensparty [3:02 A.M.]:  not inbot, isn't
Newwomensparty [3:03 A.M.]:  geez I can't type
"Lisa" [3:03 A.M.]:  well if he was born in Kenya which we have always believed, we couldn't help ourselves.. LMAO
"Lisa" [3:03 A.M.]:  it will also slam Orly Taitz
Newwomensparty [3:03 A.M.]: 
no I mean how will we boot barry
"Lisa" [3:03 A.M.]: 
remember she believes donofrio
Newwomensparty [3:03 A.M.]:  why?
Newwomensparty [3:03 A.M.]:  what does she have to do with it?
Newwomensparty [3:03 A.M.]:  oic
"Lisa" [3:04 A.M.]:  she is telling everyone Barry was born in Hawaii and because his dad was a foreigner, barry is not a "natural born" remember, I gave her the law to correct her and she slammed me
Newwomensparty [3:04 A.M.]:  I forgot that
"Lisa" [3:04 A.M.]:  you know what is even funnier than that 
Newwomensparty [3:04 A.M.]:  what?
"Lisa" [3:05 A.M.]:  she has some military she is filing suit for, but some are active military and her suit will get tossed on that basis, they can't use our Article III courts if they are active military
Newwomensparty [3:05 A.M.]:  I know 
"Lisa" [3:05 A.M.]:  but i'm so stupid because I don't have my actual license
"Lisa" [3:05 A.M.]:  hmmmmmmm
Newwomensparty [3:05 A.M.]:  hmmmm 
Newwomensparty [3:06 A.M.]:  why wouldn't you be smart like a licensed attorney?
"Lisa" [3:06 A.M.]:  Exactly
Newwomensparty [3:06 A.M.]:  it's going to destroy soetoro's
Newwomensparty [3:06 A.M.]:  they are starting their girls monday in DC school
"Lisa" [3:06 A.M.]:  I know, they left Hawaii tonoght and they are staying in in a hotel
"Lisa" [3:06 A.M.]:  in D.C.
Newwomensparty [3:07 A.M.]:  yep
Newwomensparty [3:07 A.M.]:  they can't get in to the blair house early
Newwomensparty [3:07 A.M.]:  wh said NO
Newwomensparty [3:07 A.M.]:  and MO is pissed
"Lisa" [3:07 A.M.]:  I think we should fly to D.C. and invite them out to dinner, I think we should share with them, what do you think?
Newwomensparty [3:07 A.M.]:  yep
Newwomensparty [3:07 A.M.]:  better yet
"Lisa" [3:08 A.M.]:  you know the fact they were declined into that house early tells me something else may be up
Newwomensparty [3:08 A.M.]:  I think you should fly out to go with Phil and do a major press conference in front of the SCOTUS
Newwomensparty [3:08 A.M.]:  for real
"Lisa" [3:08 A.M.]:  the fact they have young kids they would have let anyone else into the blair house early
Newwomensparty [3:08 A.M.]:  stay at Phil's house and stay a week to make the rounds with him
Newwomensparty [3:09 A.M.]:  do you think bush is pulling any strings?
Newwomensparty [3:09 A.M.]:  manipulating things
"Lisa" [3:09 A.M.]:  he may be why else would they have denied the blair house to the Obama's?
"Lisa" [3:09 A.M.]:  your only talking 2 weeks
Newwomensparty [3:09 A.M.]:  or go meet with Fitz and Bush
"Lisa" [3:09 A.M.]:  that would be awsome
Newwomensparty [3:10 A.M.]:  hey say they have other guests there
Newwomensparty [3:10 A.M.]:  you have to go and be with phil to out barry & michelle
"Lisa" [3:10 A.M.]: 
why not let them stay at the white house?
Newwomensparty [3:10 A.M.]: 
stay a week at his house so you don't have to pay for a hotel 
Newwomensparty [3:10 A.M.]: 
and go everywhere with him
Newwomensparty [3:10 A.M.]: 
take a big hat and sunglasses
Newwomensparty [3:10 A.M.]: 
lol
Newwomensparty [3:10 A.M.]: 
make the rounds on tv
"Lisa" [3:10 A.M.]: 
LMAO, I got a visual of the hat being bigger than me.  LMAO
Newwomensparty [3:10 A.M.]: 
you want to hide your identity from the public, why? 
Newwomensparty [3:11 A.M.]:  wouldn't be hard
Newwomensparty [3:11 A.M.]:  everything is bigger than you
"Lisa" [3:11 A.M.]:  I know... too funny, don't want any nuts coming after me
Newwomensparty [3:11 A.M.]:  the minute you get that proof, I'm calling my congressman on his cell phone
Newwomensparty [3:11 A.M.]:  let me know right away
"Lisa" [3:11 A.M.]:  I will
"Lisa" [3:11 A.M.]:  I know we will get something
"Lisa" [3:12 A.M.]:  just hope it says what we need it too
Newwomensparty [3:12 A.M.]:  if we get proof he was born in kenya, I have to know before it goes public
"Lisa" [3:12 A.M.]:  I will have to do a supplemental for Justice Scalia
Newwomensparty [3:12 A.M.]:  yeah but you have to do a press release too
Newwomensparty [3:13 A.M.]: 
and that means get your butt out there with phil
"Lisa" [3:13 A.M.]: 
Phil does the press releases, I do all the legal pleadings.  LOL
Newwomensparty [3:13 A.M.]: 
yeah but you need to be there for this
Newwomensparty [3:13 A.M.]: 
it may make a difference in the scheduled conferencing
Newwomensparty [3:13 A.M.]: 
they may want it right away
"Lisa" [3:13 A.M.]: 
he will probably pay $200 and have a press conference at the national press club
Newwomensparty [3:13 A.M.]: 
OMG will everyone else be there?
Newwomensparty [3:14 A.M.]:  who said bo was born in HI
"Lisa" [3:14 A.M.]: 
oh please... ya know we should invite them just so we can say "In your FACE"
Newwomensparty [3:14 A.M.]:  that's why I asked
Newwomensparty [3:14 A.M.]:  don't tell anyone in advance what you have
Newwomensparty [3:14 A.M.]:  lol
Newwomensparty [3:14 A.M.]:  let Gail post it as you are doing the press conference at the last minute
"Lisa" [3:14 A.M.]:  LMAO 
Newwomensparty [3:14 A.M.]:  this is so exciting
Newwomensparty [3:15 A.M.]:  I'll never get to sleep now
"Lisa" [3:15 A.M.]:  Phil said he wanted to give it to Krisi with Fox Toledo because she was nice enough to air the interview of him
Newwomensparty [3:15 A.M.]:  hey did you see Alberto Gonzales can't get a job with any law firm
Newwomensparty [3:15 A.M.]:  lol
"Lisa" [3:15 A.M.]:  because of the investigation?
Newwomensparty [3:15 A.M.]:  will she come to the press club?
"Lisa" [3:15 A.M.]:  I'm sure she would
Newwomensparty [3:16 A.M.]:  no because he was the AG and ordered torture
Newwomensparty [3:16 A.M.]:  as well as acted like he was Bush's lawyer and not the AG
"Lisa" [3:16 A.M.]:  isn't he being prosecuted though
Newwomensparty [3:16 A.M.]:  Mukasey will have the same problem
Newwomensparty [3:16 A.M.]:  he made assertions to get confirmed and lied
Newwomensparty [3:16 A.M.]:  no one will touch these crooks
Newwomensparty [3:17 A.M.]:  AG is in trouble and under indictment in tx
"Lisa" [3:17 A.M.]:  good... on that note I'm off to bed, i'm about to fall over, too much excitement
Newwomensparty [3:17 A.M.]:  yep
Newwomensparty [3:17 A.M.]:  this is so dleicious
Newwomensparty [3:17 A.M.]:  so delicious
"Lisa" [3:17 A.M.]:  good night, as soon as i hear something I will let you know, but remember Hawaii is 4 hours behind you.
Newwomensparty [3:17 A.M.]:  yes I know
Newwomensparty [3:17 A.M.]:  thanks 
"Lisa" [3:17 A.M.]:  good night dear
Newwomensparty [3:17 A.M.]:  we can still dump him 
Newwomensparty [3:17 A.M.]:  y too
Newwomensparty [3:17 A.M.]:  you too
Newwomensparty [3:18 A.M.]:  hugs
"Lisa" [3:18 A.M.]:  back at ya....
"Lisa" signed off at 3:18 A.M.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Press Release 01 02 09 
Date: 1/3/2009 1:22:18 A.M. Central Daylight Time
From: Llisaliberi
To: philjberg@gmail.com
 

For Immediate Release:  - 01/02/2009

 

For Further Information Contact:

 

Philip J. Berg, Esquire           

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12                                                     

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Cell (610) 662-3005                     U.S. Supreme Court No. 08 - 570

(610) 825-3134

(800) 993-PHIL [7445]

Fax (610) 834-7659

 

philjberg@obamacrimes.com

Philip J. Berg, Esquire Obtained the Obama 1964 Divorce File

 

(Lafayette Hill, PA - 01/02/09) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama's lack of "qualifications" to serve as President of the United States and his case, Berg vs. Obama, [is in the U.S. Supreme Court with two (2) Conferences scheduled on 1/09/09 & 1/16/09] announced he had obtained the divorce file of Stanley Ann D. Obama vs. Barack H. Obama which was filed in the First District Court of Hawaii on January 20, 1964.  The Obama divorce was finalized on March 5, 1964.  Mr. Berg's office obtained these records several months ago.

 The Obama divorce records state there was one [1] child born to the parties on August 4, 1961, a son, by the name of Barack Hussein Obama, II.  There is absolutely no mention of where the child was born.

For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to

obamacrimes.com

This is a real victory for people speaking the truth against those would silence some voices, all the while these same people are hypocritically demanding the truth to be revealed about a certain other important person. 

Texas Appellate Court Deals Blow to Islamist Lawfare -- Upholds Free Speech


Texas Appellate Court Deals Blow to Islamist Lawfare  --  Upholds Free Speech Rights of Internet Journalist; Muslim Groups Appeal

Thursday, July 2, 2009

General - Kaufman VictoryANN ARBOR, MI - Yesterday, seven Texas-area Muslim organizations filed an appeal of the unanimous ruling of the Texas Second Court of Appeals at Forth Worth, which protected the free speech rights of internet journalists and at the same time dealt a blow to the legal jihad being waged by radical Muslim groups throughout the United States.  The Court ruling authored by Justice Terrie Livingston, dismissed the libel lawsuit filed against internet reporter Joe Kaufman by the seven Muslim organizations.

The lawsuit against Kaufman was funded by the Muslim Legal Fund for America.  The head of that organization, Khalil Meek, admitted on a Muslim radio show that lawsuits were being filed against Kaufman and others to set an example.  Indeed, for the last several years, Muslim groups in the U.S. have engaged in the tactic of filing meritless lawsuits to silence any public discussion of Islamic terrorist threats.  This tactic, referred to by some as Islamist Lawfare uses our laws and legal system to silence critics and promote Islamic rule in America.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan provided the lead attorney to represent Kaufman, at no charge.  The Law Center attorney, Brandon Bolling, was assisted by Texas attorney Thomas S. Brandon, Jr. who acted as local counsel, and Los Angeles, CA attorneys William Becker, Jr. and Manuel S. Klausner.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, "This frivolous lawsuit is an example of the legal jihad being waged by radical Islamic organizations throughout our nation.  These lawsuits are aimed at stifling the free speech rights of Americans who dare to expose their agenda.  They  intentionally file lawsuits to intimidate reporters who seek to expose their agenda.  By making it costly to defend against their lawsuits, they hope journalists will refrain from writing about the threat to our nation."

Kaufman, a full-time investigative reporter, has written extensively on Radical Islamic terrorism in America.  He was sued because of his September 28, 2007 article titled "Fanatic Muslim Family Day" published by Front Page Magazine, a major online news website.  Kaufman's article exposed the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the Islamic Association of Northern Texas (IANT) ties to the radical terrorist group Hamas.

Kaufman's article called ICNA a radical Muslim organization that has ties to Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.  According to Kaufman, ICNA is an umbrella organization for South Asian-oriented mosques and Islamic centers in the United States created as an American arm of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) of Pakistan.

A 1991 internal memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood laid out their plan to destroy America from within:  "[The Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

According to former FBI agent John Guandolo, who worked several years in the Bureau's Counter Terrorism Division, every major Muslim organization is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Significantly, neither ICNA nor IANT, which were mentioned in Kaufman's article, sued Kaufman.  It is speculated that ICNA and IANT were afraid of being subjected to pretrial discovery. 

On the other hand, none of the seven plaintiffs that sued Kaufman were even mentioned in his article.  

The seven Muslim organizations that sued Kaufman are the Islamic Society of Arlington, Texas, Islamic Center of Irving, DFW Islamic Educational Center, Inc., Dar Elsalam Islamic Center, Al Hedayah Islamic Center, Islamic Association of Tarrant County, and Muslim American Society of Dallas.  All are affiliated with CAIR, one of the unindicted co-conspirators in the successful federal prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation.

In what should be welcomed news to internet journalists, the Appellate Court specifically rejected the Plaintiffs' contention that Kaufman is not a "media defendant."  The Court held that the Texas statute that gives procedural protections to traditional electronic and print media, including the right to a pretrial appeal, also covers internet journalists.  Thus, the Texas Statue entitled Kaufman the right to appeal the lower court's denial of his motion to dismiss the frivolous libel claim before a time-consuming and expensive trial.  Most parties have to wait until after a trial before they can appeal an unfavorable lower court ruling.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America's Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life.  It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America.  The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities.  It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.  You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.


See bold highlights (self explanatory) ...

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

[Legal Question for the lawyers out there: Is a suit for malpractice the same thing as a grievance?] 

I find it especially ironic he feels entitled to appeal sanctions imposed upon him for defauting his clients case, yet files for default against Dr. Orly Taitz like five minutes after the deadline for response and attempts to obtain default judgment against the Sankey Firm even though the answer was filed in a timely fashion. The more I learn, the more horrified I am that i entrusted this to a person I thought was my friend.  A person I believed deserved my loyalty and friendship.  A person I defended from all insults and attacks, not once, not twice, not just a hundred times. I defended this person countless times and was "in-their-faces" when anyone dared to challenge his integrity or notives. 

One thing this entire disgusting episode has taught me, is that what means friendship to me, is not necessarily what friendship means to another person. I am betrayed and discarded like used Kleenex.  And he surrounds himself with liars.  I am ashamed I ever allowed myself to be so deceived. We have all been deceived.  What have all those donations been used for?  Demand answers people.  Do NOT allow yourselves to be deceived as I was.  And if he will not account for the donations voluntarily, go to the US Attorney General. I guarantee you, the DOJ must be salivating for a reason to find out for you. 

One thing that will definitely come out, Ron Polarik's true identity.  He has defamed me and I will know his name. I want everyone to know his name. Since he placed his life in the hands of a proven criminal, he will learn to live with the consequences. He has been deceived and made a fool, too. At least I am not alone. Welcome to the Club of the Deceived and Betrayed, Ron. It really feels awful to put your trust and faith in liars who betray you. And yet, Ron trashed me out one side of his face, and with the other asked me to tell Orly he isn't "in cahoots" with the PA gang.  HA!   

Just wait until this goes to court. I can't wait for the questions to be completely answered so that EVERYONE will finally know the truth.  A lot of truths will come out and when they do, I will be completley vindicated, as will Orly, Ed, Caren and Neil.  Even James of Rock Salt Publishing will be vindicated. Isn't it amazing that a person who is suing the POTUS to expose the truth is willing to go to such lengths to hide their own dirty little secrets?  I find it incredibly sad.  And to think it isthe lawyer seeking the truth and free speech to tell it, but so deseperately wants to shut us up that he requested a gag order to prevent us form reporting crimes to various proper law enforcement agencies!  Does it make anyone curious why he doesn't want any law enforcement agencies investigating our claims?        

LAW OFFICES OF

PHILIP J. BERG

Please note new address 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

PHILIP J. BERG

CATHERINE R. BARONE

BARBARA MAY

CAROLINE HOGUE (610) 825-3134

FAX (610) 834-7659

NORMAN B. BERG, Paralegal E-Mail: philjberg@gmail.com

March 29, 2009

Honorable Jo Rita Henard

Justice of the Peace

COLLINGSWORTH COUNTY COURTHOUSE

Precinct Number One, Place Number One

800 W. Avenue

Wellington, TX 79095

Fax: (806) 447-5418

Sent via Fax................................................................................................5 Pages

Re: Plains Radio Network v. Evelyn Adams, File No. 2009-03

Defendant's Answer due by March 30, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.

Judge Henard,

Please find attached hereto Mr. Berg's Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice for filing in the

above referenced matter. A proposed Order is attached hereto for the Court's convenience.

Please do not hesitate contacting our office should you require anything additional.

Respectfully,

Lisa Liberi

Assistant to Philip J. Berg

LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG

I:\FORMS\PJB, Motion Pro Hac Vice 03 29 2009

1

Law Offices of:

PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Attorney for: Evelyn Adams

Identification No. 09867

(610) 825-3134

IN THE COLLINGSWORTH COUNTY COURTHOUSE

PRECINCT NUMBER ONE, PLACE NUNBER ONE

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, JO RITA HENARD

_____________________________________________

PLAINS RADIO NETWORK; ED HALE

Plaintiff,

Vs.

EVELYN ADAMS

Defendant.

:

File No: 2009-03

MOTION FOR THE ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE

Philip J. Berg, Esquire, moves this Court for admission Pro Hac Vice in the above

referenced matter. In support of this Motion, Philip J. Berg, Esquire avers the following:

1. My office address is 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12, Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-

2531. My telephone number is (610) 825-3134. The facsimile number is (610) 834-7659

and my e-mail is philjberg@gmail.com.

2. I was admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in November

1971; the Bar of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in

1972; the Bar of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1983; and the

Bar of the United States Supreme Court in 1996.

I:\FORMS\PJB, Motion Pro Hac Vice 03 29 2009

2

3. I am an attorney in good standing with the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania and I do not have any pending disciplinary matters against me.

4. I have not been admitted Pro Hac Vice in this Court and I do not practice law

from an office located in the County of Collingsworth, State of Texas.

5. I have represented the Defendant, Evelyn Adams, in regards to Mr. Hale and

Plains Radio Network, prior to the filing of the within action. Mrs. Adams has further

retained me to provide legal representation in connection with the above-captioned matter.

6. I have never been subject to grievance proceedings or involuntary removals while a member of the Bar of any State or Federal Court. I have not been charged, arrested or convicted of a criminal offense or offenses.

7. I have read the Rules of this Court and will comply with the standards of practice

adopted therein and with the local rules of civil procedure.

8. Plaintiff will not be prejudiced in any way if I am specially admitted in this

matter; however, Defendant will be severely prejudiced, if denied.

9. No good cause exists to deny my special admission.

WHEREFORE, I Philip J. Berg, Esquire, respectfully request this Honorable Court to

specially admit me Pro Hac Vice to practice in the Collingsworth County Courthouse, Precinct

Number One, Place Number One, before the Justice of the Peace, The Honorable Jo Rita Henard.

Date: March 29, 2009 Respectfully submitted,

_______________________________

Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Attorney for Evelyn Adams

I:\FORMS\PJB, Motion Pro Hac Vice 03 29 2009

3

Law Offices of:

PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Attorney for: Evelyn Adams

Identification No. 09867

(610) 825-3134

IN THE COLLINGSWORTH COUNTY COURTHOUSE

PRECINCT NUMBER ONE, PLACE NUNBER ONE

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, JO RITA HENARD

_____________________________________________

PLAINS RADIO NETWORK; ED HALE

Plaintiff,

Vs.

EVELYN ADAMS

Defendant.

:

File No: 2009-03

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Philip J. Berg, Esquire hereby certifies that on March 29, 2009 a true and correct copy of

Philip J. Berg's Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice was served First Class Mail with postage

full prepaid upon the following:

Ed Hale

Plains Radio Network

1401 Bowie Street

Wellington, Texas 79095

_____________________________

PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE

I:\FORMS\PJB, Motion Pro Hac Vice 03 29 2009

4

IN THE COLLINGSWORTH COUNTY COURTHOUSE

PRECINCT NUMBER ONE, PLACE NUNBER ONE

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, JO RITA HENARD

_____________________________________________

PLAINS RADIO NETWORK; ED HALE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EVELYN ADAMS,

Defendant.

:

File No: 2009-03

ORDER

AND NOW, this _______ day of March, 2009, after consideration of Philip J. Berg's

Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice and any response thereto, it is hereby

ORDERED and DECREED that Philip J. Berg's Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice is

GRANTED.

BY THE COURT:

______________________________

Jo Rita Henard, Justice of the Peace

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 05-4033

_____________

RICHARD HOLSWORTH; ELIZABETH HOLSWORTH

v.

PHILIP J. BERG; CARPENTERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND OF

PHILADELPHIA AND VICINITY; CARPENTERS PENSION AND

ANNUITY FUND OF PHILADELPHIA AND VICINITY; CARPENTERS

SAVINGS FUND OF PHILADELPHIA AND VICINITY;

CARPENTERS

JOINT APPRENTICE COMMITTEE; NATIONAL APPRENTICESHIP AND

HEALTH AND SAFETY FUND; METROPOLITAN REGIONAL COUNSEL

OF CARPENTERS, EASTERN FUND; UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF

CARPENTERS; CARPENTERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF

PHILADELPHIA AND VICINITY

Philip J. Berg,

Appellant

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

District Court No. 05-CV-01116

District Judge: The Honorable J. Curtis Joyner

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

April 17, 2009

Before: McKEE, SMITH, and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

(Filed: April 17, 2009)

The District Court had jurisdiction pur 1 suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Although the

underlying civil action was remanded to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, the

District Court retained jurisdiction to resolve the motion for sanctions under Rule 11. See

Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 394-95 (1990). We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Although this appeal was subsequently stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 as a result of Berg's filing of a voluntary petition under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, we may proceed as the stay of this appeal was lifted by an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dated February 7, 2008.

2

OPINION

SMI, TH Circuit Judge.

Philip J. Berg appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying his motion for reconsideration of the sanctions

it imposed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.1 For the reasons set forth

below, we will affirm.

Berg, a Pennsylvania attorney, represented Richard Holsworth, who was a

defendant in a civil action brought by the Appellees (hereafter referred to as "Carpenters

Funds") in 2001 to collect amounts due under ERISA. After default judgment was

entered in favor of the Carpenters Funds and against Holsworth in 2002, Holsworth sued

Berg in state court in 2004, alleging legal malpractice. In response, Berg filed not only an

answer to Holsworth's complaint, but also a third-party complaint against the Carpenters

Funds that alleged that they had collected more than their due in the ERISA action and

had perpetrated a "fraud upon the Court . . . ." The Carpenters Funds immediately

3

notified Berg by letter that his third-party complaint was baseless and that the Carpenters

Funds would seek sanctions if the third-party complaint was not dismissed.

Berg did not respond. The Carpenters Funds removed the matter to the District

Court, filed a motion for summary judgment, and sought leave to file a motion for

sanctions under Rule 11. Berg did not oppose the motion. The District Court granted

summary judgment in favor of the Carpenters Funds, as well as leave to file a motion for

sanctions. The motion for sanctions was promptly filed, seeking $10,668.78 in attorneys'

fees and cost incurred in the third-party action. The Court granted a request from Berg's

office for an extension of time, but Berg failed to file any opposition to the motion. In a

thorough memorandum, the District Court explained that Berg's third-party complaint

was frivolous on several grounds. The Court imposed sanctions against Berg, which

directed, inter alia, that Berg pay the requested attorneys' fees and costs and that he

complete six hours of continuing legal education (CLE) in ethics.

Berg filed a timely motion for reconsideration. He did not dispute the District

Court's determination that the third-party complaint was frivolous on several grounds.

Instead, Berg urged the Court, in the interest of justice, to reconsider the monetary

assessment and the CLE requirement because of extenuating circumstances. Berg

asserted that such reconsideration was appropriate where a Court's decision is based on

untimely responses. The District Court rejected Berg's invitation to reconsider the

sanctions it had imposed. It explained that Berg's untimely responses had no bearing on

the determination that his third-party complaint was frivolous. It concluded there was no

4

basis to grant the relief Berg requested because the applicable law had not changed and

the facts that Berg raised were known before the motion for sanctions had been filed.

This timely appeal followed. On appeal, Berg does not take issue with the District

Court's determination that the filing of the third-party complaint was frivolous and

warranted the imposition of sanctions. Instead, he asserts that the sanctions imposed were

excessive, that he has completed the mandated CLE hours, and that the monetary sanction

should be forgiven or reduced. In an attempt to mitigate the sanctions imposed, Berg

again cites to the extenuating circumstances he brought to the District Court's attention in

his motion for reconsideration.

Although Berg did not identify whether his motion for reconsideration was

pursuant to Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b), we view such a motion "as the 'functional

equivalent' of a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment." Fed. Kemper Ins. Co.

v. Rauscher, 807 F.2d 345, 348 (3d Cir. 1986) (internal citation omitted). "A proper

motion to alter or amend judgment must rely on one of three major grounds: (1) an

intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not available

previously; or (3) the need to correct clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." N.

River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995) (internal

quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted). We review the denial of a motion for

reconsideration for an abuse of discretion. Id.

Berg's contention that reconsideration should have been granted in light of the

extenuating circumstances he brought to the attention of the District Court is not

5

persuasive. Most of the circumstances on which Berg relies existed before the Carpenters

Funds even filed their motion for sanctions. As a result, these circumstances did not

constitute new evidence in favor of reconsideration. For that reason, we conclude that the

District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration.

Because Berg's appeal of the denial of his motion for reconsideration was timely,

it "brings up the underlying judgment for review." Fed. Kemper, 807 F.2d at 348 (internal

citation and quotation marks omitted). Berg does not challenge the determination to

impose sanctions. Rather, he challenges the severity of the sanction, contending that the

amount assessed was excessive. We cannot ignore, however, that despite notice of the

amount sought, Berg never challenged the severity of the sanctions imposed. In the

motion for reconsideration, Berg sought to excuse what he perceived as the reason for the

sanctions, but he did not contend that the sanctions were excessive. In Newark Morning

Ledger Co. v. United States, 539 F.2d 929 (3d Cir. 1976), we observed that we "generally

refuse to consider issues that are raised for the first time on appeal." Id. at 932. "This

general rule applies with added force where the timely raising of the issue would have

permitted the parties to develop a factual record." In re Am. Biomaterials Corp., 954 F.2d

919, 927-28 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing Newark Morning Ledger, 539 F.2d at 932-33).

Accordingly, we will not disturb the sanctions imposed by the District Court.

********************************************************************************************************

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1122023117263

Lawyer Slapped With $10K in Sanctions for 'Laundry List of Unethical Actions'

Shannon P. Duffy
07-25-2005


Finding that a Pennsylvania lawyer had committed a "laundry list of unethical actions," a federal judge has imposed more than $10,000 in sanctions and ordered the lawyer to complete six hours of ethics training.

U.S. District Judge J. Curtis Joyner's 10-page opinion in Holsworth v. Berg is packed with criticism of the conduct of attorney Philip Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa.

"Other attorneys should look to Mr. Berg's actions as a blueprint for what not to do when attempting to effectively and honorably perform the duties of the legal profession," Joyner wrote.

"This court has grown weary of Mr. Berg's continuous and brazen disrespect toward this court and his own clients. Mr. Berg's actions ... are an enormous waste of judicial time and resources that this court cannot, in good conscience, allow to go unpunished," Joyner wrote.

In the suit, Berg is accused of legal malpractice by former clients who claim his failure to respond to an ERISA claim against them led to a default judgment.

But the sanctions against Berg stem from his decision to file a third-party counterclaim of fraud against a pension fund that had sued his former clients, according to court papers.

Joyner blasted Berg for filing the fraud claim, calling it an "irresponsible decision" because the claim was "utterly barren of any scintilla of legal principles."

In the ERISA suit, Berg's former clients -- Richard Holsworth and his company, Richard's General Contracting -- were sued by a group of pension funds led by the Carpenters Health and Welfare Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity.

Carpenters Health claimed that Holsworth and his company had failed to make required payment of fringe benefit contributions.

According to court papers, Joyner found that Berg "neglected to file a response to [Carpenter Health's] claim or provide any legal defense whatsoever for his client."

Even after a default judgment was entered against Holsworth, Joyner found that Berg "remained silent."In April 2002 -- two months after the default judgment was granted and 11 months after the suit was first filed -- Joyner found that Berg "broke his silence" by filing a petition to strike the judgment or to open the default judgment.

Berg's motion was rejected and a default judgment of more than $5,300 was entered against his clients.The judgment swelled to more than $10,000 when Carpenters Health later successfully moved for a supplemental judgment to recover more than $4,700 in attorney fees for its efforts in responding to Berg's untimely motions.

Holsworth and his wife later filed a legal malpractice suit against Berg in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that Berg negligently failed to represent them in the Carpenters Health case.

A year later, in February 2005, Berg moved to join Carpenters Health as a third-party defendant in the malpractice suit, demanding more than $20,000 in damages.

In his counterclaim, Berg alleged that the ERISA suit filed by Carpenters Health in 2001, which led to the malpractice claim against him, was "a fraud upon the court and a fraudulent taking from the Holsworths."

Carpenter Health's lawyers removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss the claim.Joyner agreed, finding that Berg's fraud claim was "frivolous" and was motivated by an intent "to harass Carpenters Health and the Holsworths, as well as to delay and disrupt the administration of justice."

The claim was fatally flawed, Joyner found, because Berg had no standing to bring suit against Carpenters Health and had "failed to conduct even a minimally reasonable inquiry before filing his complaint."

Granting summary judgment in favor of Carpenters Health, Joyner said he found it "wholly unnecessary" even to consider the facts of the ERISA case because it was "abundantly clear" that Carpenters Health was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Joyner invited Carpenters Health to file a motion for Rule 11 sanctions. When it did, Joyner found that Berg "continued his trend of unprofessional conduct by, once again, failing to file a timely response."

In a footnote, Joyner said Berg's response to the sanctions motion was due on May 26. In a phone call to chambers on May 31, Joyner said, Berg's assistant requested permission to move for an extension of time, saying Berg had been out of town for two or three weeks and would not be returning until June 9.

Joyner said he agreed to accept such a request if it were filed the next day, but none was.

Instead, Joyner said, a letter signed by Berg's assistant was faxed to chambers on June 2, requesting that the deadline be extended until June 27.

Joyner said he refused because "in light of Mr. Berg's persistent and repeated neglect of his professional obligations, this court was not inclined to permit Mr. Berg to further delay the review of Carpenters Health's ripe motion."

In a June 2 opinion, Joyner found that Berg had violated Rule 11 by "filing a complaint completely devoid of any basis in fact or law, as would be apparent to any reasonable attorney after the slightest inquiry."

Berg's fraud claim, Joyner said, was "inadequately pled, not grounded in fact, time-barred, and utterly irrelevant to the pending malpractice action against him."

In his sanctions order, Joyner ordered Berg to reimburse Carpenters Health the $10,668 in attorney fees and costs it incurred in defending the claim. He also ordered Berg to complete six credits of ethics courses certified by the Pennsylvania Board of Continuing Legal Education, and recommended that Berg be investigated by the Pennsylvania Bar Association's Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility.

On June 16, Berg filed a motion for reconsideration urging that the sanctions imposed on him should be forgiven due to "extenuating circumstances," including health problems, a three-week European business trip and financial difficulties.

Berg conceded in his brief that "there were numerous procedural errors, untimely responses and omissions," but said he "did not do so with intention or defiance."

Joyner flatly rejected the motion, saying "in no way, shape or form do the 'extenuating circumstances' proffered by Mr. Berg even begin to justify, excuse, or explain his unprofessional and unethical course of conduct throughout this matter. These transparent excuses are not only patently insufficient to meet the legal standard for a motion for reconsideration, they are insulting to this court and demeaning to the legal profession."

Berg, reached in his office, declined to comment on Joyner's decision except to say that he is considering whether to file an appeal.

Carpenters Health was represented by attorneys Sanford G. Rosenthal and Eric B. Meyer of Jennings Sigmond.

May 28th! Happy Birthday...

| 6 Comments | No TrackBacks

Today is Lisa Liberi's 44th birthday!   

We want to be sure she knows how we all feel about her.  We want to be sure she knows we all send very special birthday wishes to her, especially those of us who Lisa personally banned (after repeatedly claiming she didn't know how to do anything techie)...like the moderators and supporters (basically anyone who learned the truth about her criminal past), people who Phil is now claiming I "stole".  I want to ask a silly little question that has really perplexed me since this suit was served to someone else at my home. Is it even possible to "steal" people over the Internet?  Since I was a volunteer, we didn't have any sort of signed contract, or even a verbal non-compete agreement.  And Lisa and Momma E keep claiming I was never an "insider".  The people who came to me and asked me to start my own Troll free forum weren't solicited.  There are a total of six of us who started this forum. 

I was not the one who wrote the invitation that was sent out to others, many of whom had expressed disgust with the mismanagement and takeover of OC by the Trolls. (You know me, if I had written it, I'd have put my name on it. I did "tweak" it though. LOL)  So again, how does Phil explain his accusation that I stole people?  I just can't seem to wrap my mind around the fact that he thinks he owns people. Wasn't slavery outlawed? 

FYI, as I stated previously, I have learned that Phil is just about out of money.  And I also learned today that my informant is correct. It is my understanding from a person who spoke to Phil:  Phil is currently soliciting funds under false pretenses, NOT to pursue the Obama eligibility question as he suggests, but actually to persecute us legally for speaking the truth about Lisa's lies and criminal background and Momma E's false assertions in sworn affidavits. I really don't want to embarass and humiliate an old lady of such advanced age, but this suit is forcing me to do it.) And my documentation will prove I am the one speaking the truth, NOT Lisa, or Momma E. Speaking the truth is an absolute affirmative defense to false allegations of slander, libel and defamation. 

[I really hate to expose the truth about you Momma E because until you started waging a smear campaign against me, I once liked you. And fyi, I am not mentally unstable as has been alleged by Lisa and Phil. I suffer from major depression, not delusions, or psychosis.]   

HAPPY 44TH BIRTHDAY, LISA LIBERI!!!   

Response to Patriot

| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks

NOTHING was obtained from anywhere other than the Internet and is easily found by anyone with Internet access.  I would NEVER ASK to settle with Berg. I did nothing wrong, and I told the truth. After all my years of friendship and loyalty to him, he kicked me to the curb for a LIAR. Then adding injury to insult, I have been GROSSLY DEFAMED by the three of them, Phil, Lisa and Momma E.. 

You are asking me to speak sweetly to him? After all that they have done to me and my family and the pain they deliberately and maliciously inflicted upon me and upset my family so much?  I will speak sweetly to Phil Berg when pigs grow feathers and fly.  I never even want to hear his name again.  HELL will freeze over before I settle or apologize for speaking the truth! 

The one bargaining chip they had with me was my fear of my family being put in jeopardy by my name getting out there. Phil knows a friend of mine DIED for doing what I do and another is still getting death threats after nearly 5 years of speaking the truth.  Phil & Lisa exposed  me and my family to these real dangers and NOTHING they say or do now can ever make it right again. They are going to lose because we have OVERWHELMING evidence that we are speaking the truth! 

Contrary to every assertion, the language in the suit states that every plaintiff is suing every defendant.  

 PS: I did not publish your comments as they were too insulting by suggesting I should go begging to Phil Berg for his mercy and asking to settle. Like I said, that'll happen when pigs grow feathers and fly!  

 

 

General Defamation Laws of US and Texas

| 2 Comments | No TrackBacks

 I wish to state that it is an absolute affirmative defense to false allegations of slander and libel when one is speaking the truth.  We have absolute and overwhelming evidence to support our contentions and that false sworn affidavits were attached as exhibits in the suit against me and others.

I am absolutely innocent of Defamation, Slander, and/or Libel; and I will prove it very soon by publishing certain information in the proper forum.  Further, maliciously libelous information accusing me of extensive criminal convictions, using numerous aliases, were included in the suit and have been disseminated extensively in false statements throughout the Internet as well as on Internationally broadcast radio shows; against me, as well as other allegations made against third parties. The responsible parties will be held accountable in the appropriate jurisdictions. 

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/defamation

 
Defamation

Defamation is the general term for a legal claim involving injury to one's reputation caused by a false statement of fact and includes both libel (defamation in written or fixed form) and slander (spoken defamation). The crux of a defamation claim is falsity. Truthful statements that harm another's reputation will not create liability for defamation (although they may open you up to other forms of liability if the information you publish is of a personal or highly private nature).

Defamation in the United States is governed by state law. While the U.S. Constitution sets some limits on what states can do in the context of free speech, the specific elements of a defamation claim can -- and often do -- vary from state to state. Accordingly, you should consult your state's law in the State Law: Defamation section of this guide for specific information.

Generally speaking, a person who brings a defamation lawsuit must prove the following:

  1. The defendant published the statement. In other words, that the defendant uttered or distributed it to at least one person other than the plaintiff. You don't need to be a media mogul to be a publisher. There is no requirement that the statement be distributed broadly, to a large group, or even to the general public. If you publish something on the Internet, you can assume that this requirement has been met.
  2. The statement was false. This means that statements of pure opinion, which cannot be proven true or false, cannot form the basis of a defamation claim (e.g., a statement that Bill is a jerk, is clearly a statement of opinion). Moreover, because truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim, the plaintiff must prove that the specific statement at issue is false. This is not to say that every detail you publish must be perfectly accurate to avoid liability. If you get a few minor details wrong, this will not necessarily negate the truth of what you say so long as the statement at issue is substantially true. See the section on Substantial Truth for more information.
  3. The statement is about the plaintiff. The statement need not name the person explicitly if there is enough identifying information that those who know the person will recognize the statement as being about him or her. For more information, see the section on Who Can Sue For Defamation.
  4. The false statement actually harmed the reputation of the plaintiff, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive. Generally speaking, a defamatory statement is a false statement of fact that exposes a person to hatred, ridicule or contempt, lowers him in the esteem of his peers, causes him to be shunned, or injures him in his business or trade. For more information, see the section on What is a Defamatory Statement.
  5. The statement was published with some level of fault. Fault requires that the defendant did something he should not have done or failed to do something he should have. Depending on the circumstances, the plaintiff will either need to prove that the defendant acted negligently, if the plaintiff is a private figure, or with actual malice, if the plaintiff is a public figure or official. The level of fault that must be proven is discussed in the Actual Malice and Negligence section of the legal guide.
  6. The statement was published without any applicable privilege. A number of privileges may be available depending on what the defendant published and the source(s) he relied on for the information. For more information, see the section on Defamation Privileges and Defenses in this guide.

Keep in mind that the republication of someone else's defamatory statement can itself be defamatory. In other words, you won't be immune simply because you are quoting another person making the defamatory statement, even if you properly attribute the statement to it's source. For example, if you quote a witness to a traffic accident who says the driver was drunk when he ran the red light and it turns out the driver wasn't drunk and he had a green light, you can't hide behind the fact that you were merely republishing the witness' statement (which would likely be defamatory).

On the other hand, if you repeat what someone else said or wrote in an official hearing or official document, there's an important privilege that may protect you provided you attribute the information you gathered and are accurate in your reporting. See the section on Defamation Privileges and Defenses for information on this, and other, privileges.

There also is an important provision under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that may protect YOU if a third party - not you or your employee or someone acting under your direction - posts something on your blog or website that is defamatory. We cover this protection in more detail in the section on Publishing the Statements and Content of Others.

Damages for Defamation

In most states, the plaintiff must also prove that the defamatory statement caused him or her actual damage. Actual damages include such things as the loss of a job because of the defamatory statement, but can also include mental anguish or suffering associated with the defamation. Some jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where damage is presumed if the defamatory statement relates to one of the following subjects:

  • Impugns a person's professional character or standing;
  • States or implies that an unmarried person is unchaste (e.g., is sexually active);
  • States or implies that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease; or
  • States or implies that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude (e.g., theft or fraud).

See the State Law: Defamation section of this guide for specific information on what each state recognizes. 

If a plaintiff succeeds in proving defamation, he or she is entitled to recover what is called compensatory damage, which is the payment of money to compensate the plaintiff for the wrong that has been done. This includes not only out-of-pocket expenses (e.g., doctor's bills), but also personal humiliation, mental anguish and suffering, and lost wages and benefits if the defamation caused the plaintiff to lose employment. In limited circumstances, a plaintiff may also be able to recover punitive damages, which are awarded in addition to compensatory damages and are intended to punish the defendant.

Note that some states require that a plaintiff must first ask the defendant to correct or remove the defamatory statement in order to be entitled to certain types of damages. See the section on Correcting or Retracting Your Work After Publication for more information.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 

Texas Defamation Law

Note: This page covers information specific to Texas. For general information concerning defamation, see the Defamation Law section of this guide.

Elements of Defamation

In Texas, the elements of a defamation claim are

  1. publication of a statement;
  2. that was defamatory concerning the plaintiff;
  3. with the requisite degree of fault.

WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex. 1998). The elements of a defamation claim are for the most part similar to the elements discussed in the general Defamation Law section, with the following clarifications:

Public and Private Figures

Texas law defines when a plaintiff is a public official, all-purpose public figure, and limited-purpose public figure in more-or-less the way described in the general Actual Malice and Negligence section. Some examples of individuals deemed to be public officials or all-purpose public figures by Texas courts include:

  • law enforcement officers including a county sheriff, a deputy sheriff, and an undercover narcotics agent with the Texas Department of Public Safety;
  • a Texas Child Protective Services specialist in charge of investigating cases of alleged child abuse and neglect and providing services for the children involved;
  • an assistant regional administrator of a branch office of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission; and
  • a court-appointed child psychologist in a child custody case who had the authority to determine visitation rights.

Some examples of individuals deemed to be limited-purpose public figures by Texas courts include:

  • a candidate for city counsel, because he thrust himself into the middle of a public controversy;
  • a former special counsel for a court of inquiry investigating alleged irregularities in county fund management;
  • a zoologist who actively participated in a controversy involving his work with kinkajous by appearing on television, giving interviews to magazines, and orchestrating a letter-writing campaign;
  • a broadcast news reporter who hosted a segment that regularly appeared on television;
  • an abortion clinic protester who regularly appeared on a public street near the entrance to the clinic;
  • a group of hackers called Legion of Doom who sought publicity in a controversy over computer security.

Actual Malice and Negligence

In Texas, a private figure plaintiff bringing a defamation lawsuit must prove that the defendant was at least negligent with respect to the truth or falsity of the allegedly defamatory statement. Public officials, all-purpose public figures, and limited-purpose public figures must prove that the defendant acted with actual malice, i.e., knowing that the statement was false or recklessly disregarding its falsity. See the general page on actual malice and negligence for details on these standards.

Privileges and Defenses

Texas courts recognize a number of privileges and defenses in the context of defamation actions, including substantial truth, the opinion and fair comment privileges, and the fair report privilege. Although the Texas Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue, many lower courts in Texas have recognized a privilege similar to the neutral reportage privilege.

The CMLP has not identified any cases in Texas that recognize the wire service defense.

There also is an important provision under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that may protect YOU if a third party - not you or your employee or someone acting under your direction - posts something on your blog or website that is defamatory. We cover this protection in more detail in the section on Publishing the Statements and Content of Others.

Most of the privileges and defenses to defamation can be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defendant acted with actual malice. This does not apply to immunity under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Fair Report Privilege

In Texas, the fair report privilege protects a "fair, true, and impartial account" of various official proceedings and meetings, including:

  • court proceedings, including reports of the contents of pleadings filed with the court;
  • executive or legislative proceedings, including proceedings of legislative committees;
  • proceedings before a managing board of an educational or charity institution supported from public funds;
  • proceedings of the governing body of a city or town, of a county commissioners court, or of a public school board; and
  • public meetings on matters of public concern.

One court has applied the fair report privilege to reporting based on a police department press release. See Freedom Commc'n v. Sotelo, 2006 WL 1644602 (Tex. App. June 15, 2006).

A plaintiff may overcome the fair report privilege by showing that the defendant acted with actual malice.

Neutral Reportage Privilege

The Texas Supreme Court has neither recognized or rejected the neutral reportage privilege. Many lower courts have recognized a similar privilege, without calling it "neutral reportage." Under the rule set forth in these cases, when the media reports on an accusation made by a third party, it can defend itself by showing that the accusation was in fact made and under investigation, rather than by showing that the underlying allegation was substantially true. See Dolcefino v. Turner, 987 S.W.2d 100, 109 (Tex. App. 1998). This privilege extends to investigations and accusations made by government and non-government actors and organizations. Proof of actual malice defeats this privilege.

Wire Service Defense

The CMLP has not identified any cases in Texas that recognize the wire service defense. If you are aware of any cases, please notify us.

Statute of Limitations for Defamation

Texas has a one (1) year statute of limitations for defamation. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code sec. 16.002.

Texas has adopted the single publication rule. For a definition of the "single publication rule," see the Statute of Limitations for Defamation section.

Texas state courts have not yet considered whether the single publication rule applies to postings on the Internet, but a federal appeals court applying Texas law recently adopted it in the Internet context. See Nationwide Bi-Weekly Admin., Inc. v. Belo Corp., 512 F.3d 137 (5th Cir. 2007). See also Hamad v. Center for the Study of Popular Culture, No. A-06-CA-285-SS (W.D. Tex. June 26, 2006) (adopting single pubication rule for Internet publications).

Linda Starr on Plains Radio

| 4 Comments | No TrackBacks
  Linda Starr was able to lay out her side of the story, associated with the lawsuit brought onto her and others by Phil Berg. Plains Radio gave Linda a full 2 hours to explain her side, and take phone calls from curious callers.
  Overall, a very good appearance. Check out Plains Radio's website for possible archives of the show. We may be able to provide a link to the show right here, soon.

The Definition of Libel

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
Merriam-Webster Dictionary Results: libel
2 results for: libel
Main Entry:  libel   !lI-bul
Pronunciation:   \ ˈlī-bəl  \ 
Function:  noun
Etymology:  Middle English, written declaration, from Anglo-French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book
Date:  14th century
Results
1 a. 1 a a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought b. b archaic a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2 a. 2 a a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1). b (1) a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) . (2) defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) . (3) the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) . (4) the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary copyright © 2009 by Merriam-Webster, incorporated
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IT IS AN ABSOLUTE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ACCUSATIONS OF SLANDER THAT ONE IS SPEAKING THE TRUTH.  I spoke the truth and I will be vindicated. One thing I've always despised is a liar because you never will know what is the truth, about anything. 
 
I WILL BE PROVEN INNOCENT and these frivilous, defamatory and libelous suits against all of us will be dismissed. Every single bit of information that was obtained and shared is available online to anyone with Internet access. It didn't take very long to find the revelations reported in the April 2, 2008 edition of the San Bernardino Sun, which POLITIJAB.com posted months before any of us knew anything about any allegations, which I only learned on March 6th, 2009. Why weren't these other entities/people sued, FIRST, or at least in addition to us?        
 
I still believe Barry's true name is Soetoro and that he is not an American citizen.  HOWEVER, the evidence to be offered against him is now tainted by the disreputable character of the person who claims to have gatheled the evidence.  
 
Sad to say I learned the hard way that not everyone's definition of friendship is the same. My heart is broken by a person I erroneously believed for over 10 years was my friend.  It has been made stunningly clear by third parties with malicious intentions that Phil was never MY friend, so I have been deceived for all these years. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

May 11, 2009

| 9 Comments | No TrackBacks

I will be writing about my feelings regarding this frivilous lawsuit and how it is impacting me, my life, my family and my friends. I will also be writing about my observations about how this ridiculous suit is impacting my co-defendant's.

Many of you know that I have stated numerous times that Phil & I were friends for more than 10 years.  I can't point to an exact date when we met, but it was during the Impeachment of President Clinton and our activism against his removal from office.  We both opposed it and were very strong activists in preventing it. Phil would attend protests, and I would organize from the safety of my room which I rarely left.  We would often speak on the phone for hours late at night about politics, our families, and our lives. Me in my room in Texas and him in his office in Philadelphia.  We became friends,at least I believed we were friends.

I understand according to the ways Lisa and Momma E publicly describes our relationship since the filing of these ridiculous suits, Phil was never my friend at all. Maybe Phil & I have vastly differing ideas of what constitutes friendship. However, I know he identified me as his friend from Texas on numerous radio appearances when telling people how he got involved with the Obama Citizenship Legal Suits and Debate from all my phone calls to him. Maybe someone should ask him how he defines a friend. According to Lisa and Momma E, I was just some Internet email acquaintance who never meant anything to Phil.  [If that is all I ever meant to him, I can't begin to describe how utterly betrayed I feel NOW or how devastatingly betrayed I felt on March 6th when Phil banned me, especially after having defended him and his actions in filing suit against Obama for all these months when he was attacked by Obama Trolls. And especially after Phil knew I'd been through hell and intense counseling for many years to get back to a semi-normal life again.]

I spoke to his mother occasionally. When he wanted to run in the Primary to become the Democratic nominee in opposition to Rick Santorum for the US Senate, Phil asked me to speak to his mother and convince her why he ought to run. When he was actually running, and when on occasion he had some time constraints that prevented his having time to write speeches for public appearances, he asked me to write a few speeches for him. When I had a legal matter to address, it was Phil who helped me to resolve it in '99.      

In 2000, when Bush and Cheney both became Republican canddiates from the state of Texas, in direct violation to the Constitution, I worked from my room to assist Phil with research on Cheney's Residency and Homesteading of his mansion in Dallas, Texas. Phil filed suit and Republican judges appointed by Reagan and Bush 41 denied and ruled against him, in direct violation of the Constitution, on appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court.

I was diagnosed with Major Affective Depressive Disorder and Agoraphobia which is defined as an abnormal fear of being in crowds, public places, or open areas and sometimes is accompanied by anxiety attacks. Never at any time in my life have I ever been suspected of delusions, psychosis, or mental nstability. Depression and mental instability are vastly different issues. Serious is a serious mood disorder, not an indicator of competence. What none of you know is what was the original cause for my deep Depression and Agoraphobia.

Though it is a painful memory, I was the victim of a very brutal and vicious sexual assault by a co-worker whom I had lunch with and realized this man was not someone I wanted to get to know further. That night he came to my apartment at 2:30 in the morning and having been asleep, I remember groggily wondering how he knew where I lived while I unhooked the chain and opened the door under the false pretense he had a flat tire. As soon as I did, I realized my mistake as he forcefully pushed his way in and backed me into my bedroom by the front door.  He pushed me down onto the bed. I was screaming and fighting to push him back and off of me, but he was a big former Golden Gloves Boxer and I was NO MATCH for his size or strength.  He was about 6 foot tall while I am 5' 1 1/2".  During this assault, my son, (whom I love more than life itself) was used as the weapon against me to silence my screams under threats of hurting him if he came to assist me.  I nearly bit my lip off while this sick man was taking particular delight in hurting me. 

Througout the assault in what seemed like an eternity but was probably closer to an hour, he kept telling me how I was his woman, how he intended to make me have a baby so I better not be using birth control, and how my body was his territory while he marked me with hickies everywhere. When it was over, I was covered with bruises, abrasions and hickies. It was nearly 100 degrees and I had to wear turtlenecks with long sleeves and black tights to hide my injuries for the next week. My son and other co-workers immediatley noticed the change in me from an outgoing, gregarious personality to jumpy, skittish and hyper vigilant. He made it clear he better not catch me talking to any other man and he'd be watching me.  I was afraid to go out of my apartment often peeking from behind the mini-blinds to make sure he hadn't come back or was watching me and I was terrified to walk to my car when I'd leave work to go home after 9 at night.  I had horrible nightmares and relived my assault over and over and over in my mind.  I couldn't talk about it without feeling nauseated and knew if I reported it, I'd be the one out of a job.  The car dealership was certainly not going to fire it's top salesman. It was on May 5th.      

This man proceeded to terrorize and stalk me in the following months.  As a co-worker on my night and weekend second job (which I needed and there were 10,000 applicants for every job opening at the time), he would often come up behind me attemting to put his hand up my skirt or under my sweater.  He made lewd sexual jokes to me and about me to the other salesmen. I became so frightened that I was constantly peeking out the window behind the blinds in my apartment to see if he was watching me. I was afraid to call the police and report it for fear he might hurt my son in retaliation.  I moved to another apartment miles away from my two jobs, which were each down the street from where I had been living.  I closed the whole ordeal up inside me and never talked about it. Gradually I began to function better so that I almost was able to live a normal existence. I don't say life because inside I was being eaten up with shame and guilt and overwhelming feelings of humiliation. This is what happens to women who are victims of sexual assault.  We blame ourselves for whatever foolish mistake we made, the clothes we wore, or the fact that in my case, I'd had lunch with someone I didn't know was a nutcase and sexual predator who was fixated on me. It is the source of so much of the suffering we go through.

I was later in a 3 year relationship full of domestic abuse and physical violence.  As soon as I discovered I was pregnant the abuse started, but felt I had to try to get him some help for what I found out were childhood abuse issues.  I was often hit for some unknown reason depending on whether or not the alcoholic was mad at the world, or simply if he didn't like the way I drove down the street. There was an inch thick file of police reports from them having to drag him off me.  The neighbors would call police when they saw him smacking me in the yard, or if they heard my screams. Finally, I was sexually assaulted again. I held it together until he was sent to jail and I cratered.  My father died leaving me with unresolved abandonment issues.  My brother in law died suddenly and we'd been as close as a real brother and sister.

Events in my life kept knocking me down.  I had moved in with my mother because I couldn't really take care of my baby on my own since I was no longer functioning. It took many years of intense counseling for me to recover enough so that I could move back to my own home.

Phil asked me about what had caused me to be so Depressed and not leaving my home to go out anywhere.  I told him a little bit about it, but remember, I was in therapy and could still hardly talk about it. I clearly remember telling him what I recently shared with Lisa, that May 5th is always a very difficult day for me and maybe would always be a source of a lot of pain for me.  When I moved back to my home July 2002, we drifted apart, but still when we spoke, it was like it had been yesterday each time I called him.  It was a friendship I expected to last the rest of Phil's life, since he was so much older than me.  I cared about him and his mother and when his brother died in December, I was very concerned about his 93 year old Mother's well being.

When I realized we needed a lawyer to address this issue, I brought the Obama Citizenship issue to Phil in June and again in July 2008, I had to convince him there was something wrong with the posted COLB on Obama's website. I told him he was the only lawyer I knew with big enough brass balls in the country who would take this up and do it justice.  He told me in June to go back and do some more research. Then in July, he introduced me to Lisa to further the research and see if we could come up with enough evidence to justify a suit.  We began working together about the third week in July.  It wasn't long before she told me she lived in NM. I asked her how she managed to work for him from so far away and she responded by fax, email and phone calls. At no time, did she EVER say it was a big secret, OR that she had been a victim of donestic violence, she just said that she'd been involved in some big scandal when she lived in San Bernardino, CA and would rather people not know she lived in NM. The way she talked, I got the impression it had to do with her old job and some sort of whistleblower thing that he son's father had also been involved in.  I didn't check her out when she said that becaue so many splits with ex's are bitter and angry.  Police are often called, etc. I never thought past hearing "breakup" and never gave it any thought again.  I had no reason to suspect Lisa's credibility. 

During the course of the litigation, and the setup and management of ObamaCrimes.com, I came to believe that Lisa was my friend. I was certainly hers and finally I told her about my ordeal when once again she asked me about my debilitating illness that caused me to isolate for so long. Finally, after all these years, I was able to talk about it at length with someone I felt cared and understood without judging me for making a mistake and opening a door when I was half asleep. 

Looking back now, I remember ironically how often Lisa used to say there are NO COINCIDENCES in life. I had no idea she was capable of such cruelty and lack of human empathy. She put on a good show of being my friend, yet later I learned from Phil, while I was trying to resolve the conflicts that began occuring in earnest in January, trying to make peace right up until March 4th, Lisa was compiling a 37 page dossier of complaints against me. With my heart sinking and swiftly getting broken to pieces, I realized as I listened to her lies to Phil on March 4th, there was no way this was going to end with my friendship with Phil intact.  I knew if I said anything truthful against Lisa, Phil wasn't going to listen. I tried to let things cool down all of March 5th and 6th, and then Lisa lowered the boom on me without another word.  No one would take my phone call, or answer my emails all of that day. Lisa had clearly sand bagged me from behind and had been doing so for many months.  When I tried to call Phil, he hung up on me.  I was heartbroken and devastated, but soon learned that wasn't the worst things Lisa & Phil had in store for me.  People were telling me awful stories of things Lisa had been saying behind my back for months.

Lisa knew very well the significance of May 5th for me and nothing in this world will ever convince me that it was a coincidence they chose May 4th to file suit or that I was the first person served. The plaintiff's statements were sgned April 25, 209, so what was the delay? Lisa had to have made special arrangements to serve me so fast after filing on May 4th and I think Lisa manipulated events to coincide with that May 5th date. She is targeting me for so much infliction of additional pain.  Not only was I betrayed by Phil and Lisa and Momma E, but the knowledge of the absolute cruelty with which I was treated, discarded and banned has been staggering. I have had every possible emotion from betrayal, hurt, anger, right through to devastation at the date they filed suit and had me served. 

My entire world has imploded. Jay my significant other, went postal because he had been warning me about Lisa and Phil for months. And I had been defending them with my whole heart and soul, that they weren't like he was describing. Jay told me repeatedly I couldn't trust Lisa and that any friendship I had with Phil was gone.  They were using me for personal gain and that once I stopped doing Lisa's dirty work, I'd be dropped. Jay kept insisting it was a money deal for them and they weren't sharing one penny with me. Lisa had me out on the blog claiming the donations were going solely to expenses and costs and no one was taking any money for pay.  I was such a fool.  I fell for her lies and manipulations hook, line and sinker.

Though I have never had a conversation or exchanged an email with Ed or Caren Hale prior to last week, I do intend to start making appearances on the various shows they broadcast. I feel I have the ability to vindicate them  and have a moral responsibility to do so. And while revealing all of this is very painful for me (Not to mention has upset my sons very terribly), people must be made to understand the abuse and depth of humiliation I am receiving at the hands of Phil, Lisa and now Momma E. I never imagined in all these 10 plus years while I believed in my heart that we were friends, that Phil was capable of such utter cruelty to a person whom he KNEW had already been seriously kicked around by life.  And no matter how hard I try to understand, I can't fathom Momma E's efforts to defame, hurt and humiliate me, when I've never said a bad thing about her to anyone.  It baffles my ability to comprehend such actions from people I honestly cared for deeply and defended from vicious attacks from Obama Trolls on the OC blog with all of my being.

Watch for more in the coming days and weeks.  I welcome honest comments and hope people will recognize the hurtful injustices done to me, and understand how I feel used, abused and discarded.     

 

   

 

 

Home

Please Donate


Please help support our efforts to provide you with this troll free forum and to begin our media campaign by donating now. Thank you. The Administration Team at Obama Citizenship Debate.  


New Chat Room


Join the chat:

CHAT NOW

Recent Comments

  • Linda Starr: Please stay tuned as we have a very exciting surprise read more
  • charlene4: Hi Linda! Sorry I have not been around much, but read more
  • chris: See Obama's official myspace page; he now says he is read more
  • Tina Connor: Hi Linda: So, I have been tracking the new Kenyan read more
  • JBH: Hello All: Everyone should worry and then get on the read more
  • kaks: The whole citizenship situation, and its related cases, has created read more
  • Mark: You (and WND, until they scrubbed their website) have it read more
  • CaptainAstro: I hope Lisa's birthday was great! I wonder what she read more
  • Linda Starr: Yes, they are! I have it on good authority that read more
  • Constitutionalist: Birthdays are always filled with surprises! read more

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Linda's Blog category.

Lawsuit Updates is the previous category.

News About Us is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.