Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 24 Filed 01/09/11 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:480

Dr. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ SB#223433

1 29839 SANTA MARGARITA PKWY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688, STE 100
2 PH 949-683-5411 FAX 949-766-7603
E-MAIL orly.taitz @gmail.com
3 Attorney FOR DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATION,
ORLY TAITZ INC, APPEALING DENTISTRY
4

5
) CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-01573-AG
6 CHARLES LINCOLN, ) DEFENDANTS’DEFEND OUR
) FREEDOMS FOUNDATION, ORLY
7 PLAINTIFF, ) TAITZ INC AND APPEALING
) DENTISTRY JOINDER TO
8 VS. ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
) STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S FIRST
9 DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL,et al ) CLAIM FOR RELIEF PURSUANT
) TO CALIFORNIA CODE 425.16
10 DEFENDANT ) AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
IN REGARDS TO DEFENDANTS
11 MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT
TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL
12 PROCEDURE 12(B)(1) AND (6)
DATE JANUARY 10, 2011
13 TIME 10:00 AM CRTRM 10 D
14

15 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

16 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to federal rules of
17 Civil Procedure Rule 10( c,)Defendants Defend Our
18 Freedoms Foundation, Orly Taitz, inc and Appealing
19 Dentistry (collectively “Defendants”) hereby join and
20 incorporate by reference Defendants, Law offices of
21 Orly Taitz and Orly Taitz, inc motion to strike
22 pursuant to CA code 425.16 as well as provide
23 additional information to defendants' Daylight Chemical
24 and Yosef Taitz Motion (collectively “Daylight
25 Chemical”)to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
26 Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). (DKT 6)
27 Defendants bring this joinder on the grounds that such
28 motions apply to the Plaintiff’s claims against the
Joinder 1
 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 24 Filed 01/09/11 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:481

1 defendants. In the interest of Judicial economy,

2 Defendants make this joinder, because the resolution of
3 this motion will address whether Plaintiff has
4 sufficiently pled his RICO claim against all defendants
5 and whether this court will retain subject matter
6 jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint as well as
7 attorneys fees and damages against the Plaintiff for
8 filing a frivolous legal action with malice against all
9 of the defendants.
10 Defendants incorporate by reference the argument and
11 reasoning of the above motions as if fully plead herein
12 and additionally provide the following argument and
13 evidence.
14 1. Plaintiff asked for more time on both motions,
15 stating that he is a pro se plaintiff and needs
16 more time to hire a licensed attorney. Defendants
17 would like to point out the fact that the Plaintiff
18 is a Juris Doctor with a degree from the university
19 of Chicago. He used to be licensed in four states:
20 CA, TX, FL and LA. Even though he was disbarred in
21 all four states after his felony conviction in TX,
22 he possesses legal knowledge and cannot be treated
23 as a helpless pro se lay person. This information
24 is provided with the proper purpose of showing that
25 the Plaintiff has requisite knowledge of FRCP.
26 2. The plaintiff is a vexatious plaintiff and
27 Defendants present as Exhibit 1 a printout of 72
28 legal actions filed by the Plaintiff in multiple
Joinder 2
 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 24 Filed 01/09/11 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:482

1 Federal Courts around the country. This number does

2 not include multiple legal actions he filed in
3 state courts. One can see that RICO is one of his
4 favorite causes of action and he often files RICO
5 actions against multiple individuals, organizations
6 and companies. Though the Defendants do not know of
7 any RICO actions that the Plaintiff ever won, this
8 evidence is brought for the proper purpose of
9 showing that the plaintiff is thoroughly familiar
10 with the procedure and the type of action he filed.
11 The plaintiff claimed that he was injured about a
12 year and a half ago and as such, if he felt that he
13 needed a licensed attorney to represent him, he had
14 a year and a half to find one. The essence to this
15 case boils down to the fact that the Plaintiff is
16 angry because attorney Orly Taitz refuses to work
17 with him. He attached to his complaint a draft of
18 an agreement, that was not signed by Taitz as proof
19 of the fact that she is obligated to be his
20 attorney. Taitz is both a licensed attorney and a
21 licensed dentist. Out of anger and with a desire to
22 harass, the Plaintiff filed an utterly insane law
23 suit, where he claims that Taitz law office is an
24 Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization and he
25 is suing on this basis Taitz, her law office and
26 for good measure he is also suing her dental
27 office, a not for profit organization, where she is
28 a president, her husband and her husband's
Joinder 3
 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 24 Filed 01/09/11 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:483

1 employer. The first amended complaint provided no

2 shred of evidence to show that Taitz law office is
3 a racketeering influenced corrupt organization and
4 that any of the defendants committed any acts that
5 would fall under the class of the predicate acts
6 under RICO. It is a nuisance utterly insane law
7 suit, and that is the reason, why there is no
8 licensed attorney representing Lincoln, as no
9 licensed attorney in his right mind would place his
10 name and bar number under those pleadings. Lincoln
11 did not find an attorney for a period of a year and
12 a half and reading the pleadings, it is clear that
13 he is not likely to find a licensed CA attorney in
14 the future.
15 3. In his pleadings Lincoln mentions Pennsylvania
16 attorney Philip J. Berg as a prospective attorney
17 for Lincoln, however the docket does not show any
18 filing by Berg, stating that Berg is intending to
19 be involved in this case. If arguendo one were to
20 believe that Berg would like to be an attorney on
21 this case, he cannot do so, as he is not licensed
22 in the state of CA. In order to receive a pro hac
23 vice Berg would need to satisfy following
24 conditions: a. Lincoln would need to find a CA
25 licensed attorney, who would serve as a local
26 counsel, b. Berg will need to show that he is an
27 out of state attorney in good standing, that he was
28 not sanctioned and that he possess a good
Joinder 4
 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 24 Filed 01/09/11 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:484

1 character. A. Plaintiff’s pleadings show that there

2 is no CA attorney willing to associate himself with
3 this case and with Berg. Without a local counsel
4 pro hac vice cannot be granted. B. Berg was already
5 sanctioned twice by federal judges In Re Berg, 2008
6 Bankr. LEXIS 322 (ED PA 2008); Holsworth v. Berg, 2005
7 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15393 (ED PA 2005).Federal judge
8 Curtis Joyner has written: "Other attorneys should
9 look to Mr. Berg's actions as a blueprint for what
10 not to do when attempting to effectively and
11 honorably perform the duties of the legal
12 profession," Joyner wrote: "This court has grown
13 weary of Mr. Berg's continuous and brazen
14 disrespect toward this court and his own clients.
15 Mr. Berg's actions ... are an enormous waste of
16 judicial time and resources that this court cannot,
17 in good conscience, allow to go unpunished,".
18 Exhibit 2. C. In 12.23.10 order by Judge Robreno in
19 the case Liberi, Berg et al v Taitz 09-1898 USDC
20 EDP, presiding judge Robreno has deemed Berg, his
21 “paralegal” Lisa Liberi and his web assistant Lisa
22 Ostella as “evasive and not believable witnesses”.
23 At the same hearing Berg’s paralegal Liberi has
24 admitted that she is indeed a convicted felon,
25 convicted in CA in 2008 of theft. Defendants
26 provide as Exhibit 3 Liberi’s mug shot and summary
27 of her convictions and probation limitations, which
28 include convictions for forgery of documents,
Joinder 5
 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 24 Filed 01/09/11 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:485

1 forgery of an official seal, theft, grand theft

2 auto and so on. Clearly this court would not find
3 it a sign of good moral character, an attorney,
4 using as a “paralegal” a convicted document forger.
5 (she is currently on probation with San Bernardino
6 County.). For all of the above reasons, even if
7 Philip J. Berg were to seek pro hac vice, he cannot
8 obtain it and waiting another month for PA Attorney
9 Philip J. Berg to show up here, just to dismiss his
10 potential pro hac vice, to dismiss this case is
11 unwarranted and represents another month of
12 needless emotional distress for the defendants.
13 4. Aside from the fact that the Plaintiff did not show
14 any evidence of any predicate crimes or corrupt
15 organizations to justify federal court jurisdiction
16 under RICO, which he claims in his pleadings, he
17 also did not show diversity. Not only he filed
18 legal actions with this very court as a resident of
19 the state of CA, he also filed in 2010 a "Candidate
20 Intention statement", stating his intention to run
21 against Barbara Boxer in CA Democratic party
22 primary. Lincoln was featured in a statewide
23 brochure, listing all the individuals who filled
24 out "Candidate intention statements" by the
25 required deadline. For such statement Lincoln had
26 to provide his permanent address in Ca and had to
27 do it under the penalty of perjury. Though
28 ultimately Lincoln did not have required support
Joinder 6
 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 24 Filed 01/09/11 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:486

1 and failed to qualify as a certified candidate on

2 the ballot, the fact that he appeared in the
3 brochure of intended candidates, shows that not
4 only he resided in CA under the address he
5 submitted to this court in a prior case, he
6 intended Ca to be his primary and permanent
7 residence. Defendants are submitting a certified
8 copy of Lincoln's 2010 "California Candidate
9 Information Statement" provided by the Registrar of
10 voters, showing Lincoln residing in Pasadena,
11 California. Exhibit 4
12 5. Defendants are also submitting Exhibit 5, a docket
13 report of a case Lincoln v Freiman 8:08-cv-00696-
14 JDW-EAJ. This evidence is brought to properly show
15 a common modus operandi of bad faith by Lincoln in
16 filing frivolous RICO law suits against relatives
17 of individuals, who do not want to work with
18 Lincoln and showing that Lincoln claimed diversity
19 in that case, by specifically stating that he is
20 not a resident of TX. In Lincoln v Freiman, Lincoln
21 sued Lenny Freiman and Claudia Yates Freiman,
22 parents of a young man Peyton Yates Freiman, who is
23 listed as Lincoln's trustee in this case, and who
24 resided with Lincoln at 4 Via Corbina, Rancho Santa
25 Margarita CA 92688 until they were evicted around
26 October 2009 and who later resided with Lincoln at
27 Sea Horse motel in San Clemente CA. Based on the
28 complaint in Lincoln v Freiman, it appear that
Joinder 7
 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 24 Filed 01/09/11 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:487

1 Peyton Freiman's parents did not want their son

2 associating with and working with a convicted felon
3 and disbarred attorney Charles Lincoln(aka Charlie
4 Linck). In response Lincoln slapped both parents,
5 their business and their business partner with a
6 multimillion dollar RICO law suit and claimed
7 diversity of citizenship as well. In this case,
8 conducted in 2008-2009 Lincoln claimed diversity,
9 as Freimans are citizens of TX and he claimed to be
10 citizen of MA. This evidence is brought with a
11 proper purpose of showing that Lincoln's assertions
12 of being a resident of TX are false and it shows a
13 common modus operandi of filing nuisance frivolous
14 RICO law suits against multiple individuals for
15 harassment purpose only.
16 CONCLUSION
17 In conclusion Defendants join both motions to dismiss
18 filed by other defendants in this case and pray for
19 this court to dismiss this case at the earliest
20 convenience on the pleadings and not wait yet another
21 month until February. Just reading the complaint
22 without any motions to dismiss, is sufficient for any
23 judge, who is awake, while reading, to immediately
24 dismiss the case, as it does not show a grain of sanity
25 or any shred of fact or law to justify jurisdiction of
26 the Federal court under RICO. Above evidence shows that
27 diversity of citizenship is a complete sham and fraud
28 on the court, as Plaintiff filed in this very court
Joinder 8
 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 24 Filed 01/09/11 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:488

1 legal actions as a resident of CA and even ran for

2 office in the same year as a resident of CA. Lincoln V
3 Freiman, as well as multiple other cases within some 70
4 cases Lincoln filed in federal courts show that Lincoln
5 routinely was simply playing games and listing
6 residency of different states, simply to artificially
7 create diversity, which does not exist and harass
8 multiple individuals. This case is a clear nuisance,
9 brought with the purpose of harassment and the purpose
10 of infliction of severe emotional distress to Orly
11 Taitz and her family. Taitz and her family and
12 businesses are real victims here and pray that this
13 court dismiss this insanity immediately based on the
14 pleadings and not wait extra month for the scheduled
15 motion hearing and award the defendants costs and fees.
16 Respectfully submitted ,
17 /s/Orly Taitz
18 Dr.Orly Taitz, ESQ
19 01.02.2011
20

21

22 FEDERAL COURT PROOF OF SERVICE

23 I certify under penalty of perjury and under the laws
24 of CA that I served the Plaintiff with the above NOTICE
25 OF JOINDER via mail on January 8, 2010. Plaintiff is
26 being served by the ECF on January 8, 2010
27
Dated this 01.08.2011
28 /s/Orly Taitz
Joinder 9
 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 24 Filed 01/09/11 Page 10 of 10 Page ID
#:489

1 Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy
2 Rancho Santa Margarita CA
92688
3

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Joinder 10