Letter to Judge Guilford seeking a leave to file antiSLAPP

Posted on | March 20, 2013 | 3 Comments

Letter to Judge Guilford seeking a leave to file antiSLAPP
Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita, ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
03.19.2013

Hon Judge Guilford,

Defendants “Defend Our Freedoms Foundation”, Law offices of Orly Taitz and Orly Taitz, inc are  respectfully requesting a leave of court to file a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under the antiSLAPP statute. 425.16
Previously this court denied the motion to dismiss the original complaint in antiSLAPP and refused to give defendants a leave of court to file an antiSLAPP motion to dismiss the Amended complaint. The 9th Circuit has reversed and stricken the ruling by this court denying the motion to dismiss the original complaint in antiSLAPP  and remanded the case to this court for further proceedings. This court requires a leave of court prior to filing any motions, therefore a request for a leave of court is being filed herein.  This court has already granted Orly Taitz, as an individual, a leave of court to file an antiSLAPP motion to dismiss (strike) the FAC and currently DOFF,   Orly Taitz, inc and Law Offices of Orly Taitz are seeking a similar leave to file an antiSLAPP motion.   ”Motion to strike a state law claim under California ‘s anti–SLAPP statute may be brought in federal court.Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.USA, 3L1 F. 3d 7091 , 1109 (9th cir. 2003). The antiSLAPP statute was enacted to allow for early dismissal- “of meritless first amendment cases aimed at chilling expression through costly, time consuming litigation.” Batzel v Smith, 3331 F. 3d 1018, IO24 (9th cir. 2003). The statute should be construed broadly, ” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 5425.16 (a) interpreted “in a manner favorable to the exercise of freedom of speech, not its curtailment, ” Briggs v Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity, 19 Cal 4th 1106-1119 (1999).
For antiSLAPP motion to succeed following requirements need to be met:
1. SLAPP law suit was filed to limit public participation in free speech
2.Plaintiffs cannot meet the burden of probability of prevailing on the merits
1. Speech in question represented posting by Taitz, providing supporters with truthful information that her old website was taken over by former volunteer webmaster Lisa Ostella, who is currently working with another attorney Berg, who in turn uses as his legal assistant Lisa Liberi, who was recently convicted of 10 felony counts of grand theft and forgery. This was a protected speech and had a great public value, alerting the donors and supporters. The law suit at hand was filed based on fraud, where Plaintiffs attempted to defraud the public and this court and create an impression that Liberi was a different person, not a convicted forger and thief, that  posting of a criminal record defamed her and Berg. The law suit was filed with an intent to intimidate Taitz into silence. Additional intent was Berg’s desire to keep Liberi’s criminal record under wraps, intimidate Taitz not to talk about it, as Berge was being sued by the Disciplinary Board of Pennsylvania and Liberi was his witness and alibi. (The board has already ruled that Berg should be suspended from practice of law and Berg is appealing this decision. Recently a motion was filed for the Supreme Court of PA to render its’ decision.
2. The Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of prevailing  as this court has already dismissed this complaint against most other defendants, finding that Liberi was indeed convicted and all the information came from public records and was entered into public records by Liberi, herself, therefore there was no defamation and no invasion of private information. Additionally the case cannot succeed as the 12b(1) motion has not been adjudicated on the merits yet, the case was filed on May 4, 2009 based on diversity of state citizenship. Prior judge, Judge Robreno, ordered Liberi and Berg to file with the court Liberi’s drivers license to prove diversity of state citizenship and for four years Liberi and Berg have been in contempt of court and never filed Liberi’s license and never proved diversity. For that reason alone the Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of succeeding, and the case has to be dismissed, and Plaintiffs have to be severely sanctioned for 4 years of contempt of court. Additionally, this case cannot succeed on the merits against Orly Taitz, inc, as Orly Taitz inc is a Dental office of Dr. Orly Taitz, who is both a dentist and an attorney and there is no connection between the dental office of Dr. Taitz and the dispute at hand. Additionally, Law office of Orly Taitz is not a legal entity. There is no corporation or LLC or any other entity by the name Law Offices of Orly Taitz. one has zero probability of succeeding against the legal entity, which does not even succeed.
For all of the above reasons the leave to file the antiSLAPP should be granted.
Respectfully
/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ
cc Philip Berg (via e-mail)
cc Mark Colen (via e-mail)