[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.
ANN 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.
Recent Comments