STATE
OF
INDIANACOUNTY
OF
MARION
DR.
ORLY
TAITZ
,
ESQ
,
KARL
SWIHART,EDWARD
KESLEH.BOll
KERN, FRANK
WEYL,
anti
VALERIA
RIPLEY
Pia in tiffs,
v.
)
)
SS
:
)
))
)))
))
)
)
ELECTIONS COMMISSION,
)
SECRETARY
OF
STATE
OF
)INDIANA,
DEPUTY ATTORNEY
)
GENERAL
JEFFERSON
GARN,
)ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
)
KATE
SHELBY,
1310
RADIO/WTLC
)
AMOS BROWN,
IN
HIS
CAl'
A
CITY
)
OF
THETALKSHOW HOST OF
THE
)1310
RADIO/WTLC
)
)
Defendants.
)
IN
Tlll•
:
1\L\IHO
N
S
lWI
O:
HIOH
<
'
(H
I
I~
I'
.
FII~El)
SEP
I
H
201
2
@
STATE
DEFENDANTS' MOTION
TO
RECONSIDER
RECENT
OIU>ER
GHANTIN<;
TAITZ
PRO
HAC
VICE
ADMISSION
Defendants Indiana
Election
Commission
("J
EC"
),theIndiana
Sec
retary
of
Stat
c.
D
eput
yAttorney General
Jefferson
Gam,
and
Deputy
Attorney GeneralKate'hcl
by(co
ll
ec
tively.t
he"State
Defendants"),
by
counsel,
hereby
re
spectfully
mo
vethis
Co
urtto
rcco
nsiJ
cr
its
OrJcr
granting
PlaintiffOrly
Taitzpro
hac vice
admi
ss
ion
for
purp
os
cs
of
this ca
se
n
ml
to
vue
ate
thesame.Insupport
of
this filing, the
State
Defendant
s s
how
th
e Courtasfollows:
1.
PlaintiffOrly
Taitzfileda
Motion
to
Appear
l'ru
11
m:V
i<.'
e
on
August20.2012.
(Docket.)
2.
That
same
day.Greg
Black
fil
ed
his
a
ppcaram:
~
in
thisc
au
se.
w
3.statin
g,
On August
22,2
01
2,thisCourtdeniedTaitz'sMotiontoAppear
P
ro
Hac Vice,
ComesnowtheCourt and
ha
v
in
greviewed prose Plaintif
f,
0.
Taitz.
MotiontoAppear
Pr
o
Hac
Vice;
Court doesnow deny same.A Pet1t10ner
has
notcomplied with admi
ss
ion
and
disciplining
rul
esforsame;
f~rther
J>laintiff
0.
Taitz
has failfcdl
to
comply with local rules
regardmg
filing
of
pleadinglsl
and
orders;
Court
admonishes
.Piai~ti~fTaitz
onceagain continued to complywithlocal rules
and
Ind1a~a
fnal.
RulefsJ.
Future
pleading filed not in compliance with Rules
w1ll
be
reJected bythe Court.(Docket)(emphasis added.)4.According
to
docketentries
in
thiscause,
it
appearsthat
Pl
aintiffTaitz then filed
the following documentsonthefollowingdates:
a.VerifiedPetition
for
Temporary Admission-August
28,
20
12;
b.
Motion
for
Admission
Pro
Hac
Vi
ce-
August 28,20
12
;c.Proposedorder on Motion for Admission
Pro
Ha
c
Vice
-
August
28
,2012;
d.
Request
for
PreliminaryInjunctionand Oral Argument-September 4,
2012;
e.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction-September 4,
2012;
f.
Proposedorder on Request
for
Preliminary
In
junctiona
nd
Oral Argument
-September
4,
20
12;
and
g.
SecondAmended Complaint-September 4.
2
01
2.
(Docket.)5.The State Defendantswereneverserved with the Verified Petition forTemporary
Admission, Motion for Admission
ProHac
Vice,
orproposedorder thereon.'
6.
The State Defendantsweremadeaware
of
thosefilingsonlyafter checkingthe
Court's docket when undersignedcounselreceivedan order from theCourtgranting Plaintiff
Taitz's Motion
lor
Admission
Pro Hac
Vice
on
August
31,
2012.
1
Deputy Attorney
G~neralKate.s~elby
w~s
fin~lly
served
with
Plaintiff
s'
Re
qu
es
t
fo
r Prelimina
ry
In
junc
ti
on
an
dOral Argument,
Molton
for
Prehmmary
I~JunctJOn,
Proposedorder on Request
for
Prelimina
ry
Injunctiona
nd
Oral
Argument,
and
Second Amended Complamton September
ll.
20
I2.The ce
rti
fi
cat
cs
of
serv
ic
estate
th
at thedocuments
~ere
mailed
on
September
5,
2012
.
None
of
the
documents aresigned.No s
umm
onswas
in
cluded
for
the
new
partres.
No
other State Defendant
was
served
with
said documents.
7.
fI·
1.
J>l
·t'l'{·t'a
1
t
zst
1
tlt
1·1
snotservedany
or
th
e StateI
>clt:
ndantswith
As
o
t11s
(
at
e,
alll 1
<••
<
her
Verified Petition for TemporaryAdmission,Motion l
or
Admission
l)ro
!la
c
Vic£',
or
proposed order
th
ereo
n.
Consequentl
y,
undersignedco
un
sel hadto obtain
cop
iesof'
th
osedocuments from
th
e CourtonSeptember I I,201
2.
8.
Thereare
tw
ocontlicting Orders
on
th
edocket
in
thisma
tt
er.The
fi
rst,dated
August22,2012,deniesPlaintiffTuitzpro
h
ac
vice
admission.admonish
es
Tait:1
.to
comp
lywith
the rules
of
this Court,andstatesthata
ll
futurefilingsby
Tait:1
.thatviolatethoserules
wi
ll
be
rejected.(Docket.) Theseco
nd
gru
nt
s
Ta
it
z
pro
hac vice
admission
basedon
fi
I
n
gs
th
atviolate
the Indiana Rules
of
Trial Procedure,IndianaAdmissiona
nd
DisciplineRule 3,andtheMarion
County Local Rules.
9.
The State Defendants were notgivenanopportunitytorespond toPlaintiff
Taitz'
s
Motion for Admission
Pro
HacVice
because,again,PlaintiffTaitzdidnotserve
any
of
the StateDefendants with the Verified Petitionfor TemporaryAdmission, MotionforAdmission
Pro
1/
ac
Vice,
or
proposed order thereon.
9.
The State Defendants are entitled
to
theopportunitytoobject
to
Pl
aintiff
Taitz's
filings and hereby do so.
10.
In this Court's August
22,
20 I
2,
Orderdenying Plaintiff Tait
z's
Motion to
Appe
ar
Pro Hac
Vice,
the Court noted
Taitz's
repeatedfailuretocomply withtheT
ri
al Rules and
admonished Taitz to comply with the Trial Rules.(Docket.)
By
1 ~
1
iling
toservetheState
Defendants
or
their counsel with her Verified Petition forTemporaryAdmission,Motionfor
Admission
Pro
Hac
Vice,
and proposed
order
thereon,
Taitz
has violated Indiana Rule
of
TrialProcedure
5,
which mandates that
each party
and
special judge,
if
any, shall
be
served
with:
(I)
every
order
required by its terms to
be
served;
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
In - 2012-09-20 - SOS Motion to Reconsider Pro Hac Vice Admission
615
Reads
4
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
Get Scribd Mobile
To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.
We'll never share your phone number.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
