IN THE SUPERIOR COURTOFFULTON COUNTY
OR
f
GN
A
L
STATEOFGEORGIA
*
DAVID FARRAR, LEAH LAX, CODY
*
FILEDIN
OFFICE
ROBERT JUDY,LAURIE ROTH,Plaintiffs,
v.
*****
CIVIL ACTIONFILE NO. 2012CV21BARACK OBAMA and BRIAN KEMP,
*
~
..
~~~~~--~
SECRETARY OF STATE,
*
Z~/l-CV
it
~ll<;(
*
Defendants.
**
ORDER DENYINGMOTION
FOR
PRO
HAC
VICE
Theabovematter is before the Court on the Motion for
Pro Hac
Vice
of
Orly Taitz,Esq
.,
filed on February
13,
2012. Now, having considered Ms.Taitz's Motion for
Pro Hac
Vice,
theCourt finds
as
follows:
In
preparing and filing her Motion for
Pro HacVice,
Ms
.Taitz failed
to
complywiththerequirements
of
Uniform Superior Court Rule 4.4. Uniform Superior Court Rule 4.4 specificallyprovides that a DomesticLawyerseeking
to
be admitted
pro hacvice
in a proceeding pending inthe State
of
Georgia shall file a Verified Application for Admission in the Courtwherethelitigation is filed including the following:1.The applicant'sresidence and business address;
2.
Thename, address and phone number
of
eachclient sought
to
be represented;
3.
The courts beforewhichthe applicant has been admitted
to
practiceand therespective period(s)
of
admission, and contact information
as
to
each such court;4.Whetherthe applicant:(a)has been deniedadmissionpro hacviceinthis state,
(b)
had admission pro hacvicerevokedinthisstate, or (c) has otherwise formally been
Farrar,
et
al.
v.
Sarack
Ohama,
et
al.
Civil
Action
No.
2012CV211398
Order
Denying Motion for
Pro Hac Vice
Page 1
disciplined or sanctioned by any court
in
this state.
If
so, specify the nature
of
theallegations; the name
of
the authority bringing such proceedings; the caption
of
theproceedings; the date filed; and what findings were made and what action was takenin connection with those proceedings;
5.
Whether any formal,written disciplinary proceeding has ever been brought againstthe applicant by a disciplinary authority in any other jurisdiction and,
as
to
each suchproceeding: the nature
of
the allegations; the name
of
the person or authority bringingsuch proceedings and contact information as
to
such person or authority; the date theproceedings were initiated and finally concluded; the style
of
the proceedings; and thefindings made and actions taken in connection with those proceedings;6.Whether the applicant has been held formally in contempt or otherwise sanctioned byany court
in
a written order for disobedience
to
its rules or orders, and,
if
so:
thenature
of
the allegations; the name and contact information
of
the court before whichsuch proceedings were conducted; the date
of
the contempt order or sanction;thecaption
of
the proceedings; and the substance
of
the court's rulings (a copy
of
thewritten order or transcript
of
the oral rulings shall be attached to the application);
7.
The name and address
of
each court or agency and a full identification
of
eachproceeding inwhichthe applicant has filed
an
application
to
appear pro hacviceinthis state within the preceding two years; the date
of
each application; and theoutcome
of
the application;
8.
An
averment
as
to
the applicant's familiarity with the Georgia Rules
of
ProfessionalConduct, local court rules and court procedures
of
the court before which theapplicant seeks
to
practice;
9.
The name, address, telephone number and bar number
of
an active member in goodstanding
of
the bar
of
this state who will sponsor the applicant's pro hacvicerequest.The bar member shall appear
of
record together with the Domestic Lawyer.The majority
of
the required information set forth above was not included in the Motionfor
Pro HacVice
of
Ms. Taitz
as
required by Uniform Superior Court Rule 4.4(E)(1).Moreover,the Motion included
no
Verification affirming that the applicant read the application,wasknowledgeable
as to
its contents,and that said contents were true. The Motion also failed
to
demonstrate, through proof
of
service, that it would
be
served upon the Office
of
the GeneralCounsel
of
the State Bar
of
Georgia in accordancewithUniform Superior Court Rule 4.4(D).
Farrar,
et
al.
v.
Sarack
Obama,
et
al.
Civil Action
No.
2012CV211398
Order
Denying Motion for
Pro Hac
Vice
Page 2
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
2012-02-15 FARRAR v OBAMA (APPEAL FCSC) - ORDER Denying Taitz Motion for Admission pro hac vice
1.3K
Reads
7
Readcasts
4.4K
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
