Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110375004 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2010

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

December 7, 2010

No. 10-3000

LISA LIBERI, et al.

v.

ORLY TAITZ, et al.

(E.D. Pa. No. 2-09-cv-01898)

Present: JORDAN, GREENAWAY, JR. and WEIS, Circuit Judges

Motion by Appellees Evelyn Adams, Philip J. Berg, Go Excel Global, Law

Office of Philip J. Berg, Lisa Liberi and Lisa M. Ostella for an Emergency
Temporary Restraining Order against Appellants, their witness, Geoff
Staples, and anyone on their behalf, requesting the following:

a. Enjoining them from further cyber-stalking, harassment, intimidation

and retaliation, using Appellee Lisa Liberi’s name fraudulently and
illegally; and illegal activities directed at Appellee Lisa Liberi or any
of the Appellees;

b. For the removal and deletion of a website fraudulently set-up in

Appellee Lisa Liberi’s name;

c. The deletion and removal of all Email addresses fraudulently set-up

and any other Email addresses illegally using the name of Appellee
Lisa Liberi;

d. The removal of Appellee Lisa Liberi’s picture from the Internet.

Respectfully,
Clerk/AWI
Case Listed for 02/09/2011.
 Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110375004 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2010

_________________________________ORDER________________________________

The foregoing Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, including a request
for relief in the nature of mandamus, is DENIED. Appellees have not demonstrated
entitlement to extraordinary relief in this Court. While the District Court has directed
that all future motions be filed in this Court, it is appropriate for the District Court to
consider this Motion in the first instance. Appellees state that they sent a letter by
facsimile to the District Judge's Chambers. However, this informal request did not
properly preserve or advance their rights. Even assuming that the issues raised by
Appellees in the present Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order are related
to this appeal, an assumption that is not easily made, it is nevertheless appropriate in this
case for the Appellees to first formally apply to the District Court for relief. Accordingly,
the Motion is remanded to the District Court to allow Appellees to file their request in the
District Court. The District Court may then determine whether relief is warranted or
whether the dispute outlined in the Motion actually represents a separate dispute that
should be handled in a separate action in a court with the necessary jurisdiction and
venue.

By the Court,

/s/ Kent A. Jordan

Circuit Judge

Dated: 10 December 2010

 Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110375017 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2010

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

MARCIA M. WALDRON UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TELEPHONE

CLERK FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 215-597-2995
21400 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
601 MARKET STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-1790
Website: www.ca3.uscourts.gov

December 10, 2010

Ms. Linda S. Belcher

210 Paris Street
Castroville, TX 78009

Philip J. Berg
555 Andorra Glen Court
Suite 12
LaFayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita
Suite 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

RE: Lisa Liberi v. Orly Taitz

Case Number: 10-3000
District Case Number: 2-09-cv-01898

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Today, December 10, 2010 the Court issued a case dispositive order in the above-captioned
matter which serves as this Court's judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 36.

If you wish to seek review of the Court's decision, you may file a petition for rehearing. The
procedures for filing a petition for rehearing are set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 35 and 40, 3rd Cir.
LAR 35 and 40, and summarized below.

Time for Filing:

14 days after entry of judgment
45 days after entry of judgment in a civil case if the United States is a party

Page Limits:
15 pages
 Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110375017 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2010

Attachments:
A copy of the panel's dispositive order only. No other attachments are permitted without first
obtaining leave from the Court.

Unless the petition specifies that the petition seeks only panel rehearing, the petition will be
construed as requesting both panel and en banc rehearing. If separate petitions for panel
rehearing and rehearing en banc are submitted, they will be treated as a single document and will
be subject to a combined 15 page limit. If only panel rehearing is sought, the Court's rules do not
provide for the subsequent filing of a petition for rehearing en banc in the event that the petition
seeking only panel rehearing is denied.

Please consult the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the timing and
requirements for filing a petition for writ of certiorari.

Very truly yours,

Marcia M. Waldron,
Clerk

By: Anthony Infante,

Case Manager