1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPIJACKSON DIVISIONDR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ., BRIAN FEDORKA,LAURIE ROTH, LEAH LAX, and TOMMacLERANPLAINTIFFSVS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-cv-280 HTW-LRADEMOCRAT PARTY OF MISSISSIPPI,SECRETARY OF STATE MISSISSIPPI,BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA, OBAMAFOR AMERICA, NANCI PELOSI,DR. ALVIN ONAKA, LORETTA FUDDY,MICHAEL ASTRUE, JOHN DOES, JOHNDOES 1-100DEFENDANTS
COUNSEL FOR MISSISSIPPI DEMOCRATIC PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
’S
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TAITZ’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
The undersigned counsel for the Mississippi Democratic Party, through its governing entity, theMississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee
(“MDEC”)
, files this Response in Opposition to
Plaintiff Orly Taitz’s (“Taitz”) Motion for Sanctions [Docket No. 25]
and states:
1.
In her latest motion (which the Court has ordered be sealed due to her violation of Fed. R. Civ.Proc. 5.2), Taitz seeks sanctions against MDEC Counsel based on her claim that counsel asked the Courtto
take judicial notice of President Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate
(“LFBC”)
, which was includedas an exhibit to
the MDEC’s
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
(“MDEC Motion”)
[Docket No. 15]
See
Motion for Sanctions at 3.
1
Taitz asserts this is sanctionable based on her notion that the LFBC is aforgery.
1
Taitz had already included a copy of the LFBC
–
albeit one that was difficult to read - as an exhibit to an exhibit to her FirstAmended Complaint.
See, e.g.,
Docket No. 1-1 at 69. To the extent Taitz is somehow claiming that she can attach the LFBCas exhibits to her pleadings but other parties are precluded from doing so, her argument is beyond specious and should besoundly rejected.
Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA Document 30 Filed 05/21/12 Page 1 of 10
22.
As even a cursory reading of MDEC Motion and First Amended Memorandum in Support of
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“MDEC Memo”) [Docket No. 18] clearly demonstrates, Taitz’s
Motion is factually and legally frivolous and wholly without merit. In order to impose sanctions, theremust be some sanctionable conduct.
See, e.g.,
Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper
, 447 U.S. 752, 765-767(1980) (bad faith conduct by counsel is required before sanctions may be imposed). No such conductexists here.
The MDEC did not ask the Court to take judicialnotice of President O
bama’s
Long Form Birth Certificate.
3.
The f
allacy of Taitz’s
claim that MDEC Counsel asked the court to take judicial notice is clearfrom a basic review of the pleadings at issue. Simply put, and as anyone who took care to read the motioncan see, MDEC Counsel
did not ask the Court to take judicial notice of President Obama’s
Long Form
Birth Certificate (“
LFBC
”)
in the MDEC Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
See
MDEC Motion at ¶11. Nor did MDEC Counsel make any such request in the
MDEC’s
memorandum filed in support of themotion.
See
MDEC Memo at 18-20.
2
4.
In fact, in the course of setting forth why the
First Amended Complaint (“
FAC
”)
[Docket No. 1-1]must be dismissed, MDEC Counsel cited to applicable authority (MDEC Memo at 18)
–
which
Taitz’s
Motion for Sanctions has utterly failed to even address, much less distinguish
–
demonstrating that
“irrespective of the contents of President Obama’s publicly released birth records,”
the Court may take judicial notice of several
statements made by the Hawaii Department of Health
verifying that Obamawas born in Hawaii, regardless of the existence or contents of the LFBC.
See
MDEC Memo at 18. Inother words, not only did MDEC Counsel
not ask the Court to take judicial notice of President Obama’s
LFBC
––
but MDEC Counsel expressly stated that the LFBC itself was
irrelevant
to the Court’s
2
The MDEC also made no such request in the original memorandum filed in support of its motion [Docket No. 16].
Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA Document 30 Filed 05/21/12 Page 2 of 10
3consideration of its motion. And even if the LFBC would be relevant (which, as MDEC Counsel had justbeen explained, it is not), the Court could take judicial notice of other
statements made by the Hawaii Department of Health
regarding the document.
See id.
at 19-20. In short,
Taitz’s claim that
MDECCounsel asked this Court to take judicial notice of the LFBC is simply wrong and, as such, her Motion forSanctions should be
DENIED
.
The MDEC had no obligation to accept the incompetent, incorrect, andalready discredited information that Taitz provided to it.
5.
Taitz claims that the alleged request for judicial notice of the LFBC
–
which MDEC Counsel didnot, in fact, make
–
were “
knowing
” and “malicious”
because, at the time they attached a copy of theLFBC to the MDEC Motion, they
“were in possession of testimony showing such documents to beforgeries.”
See
Motion for Sanctions at 3. Specifically, Taitz claims that counsel had the following
“testimony” in their possession:
“1. Sworn te
stimony for
[sic]
a computer expert Felicito Papa, attesting that a documentin question, an alleged copy of a long form birth certificate is a computer generated forgery(Exhibit 2, Affidavit of Felicito Papa first Amended Complaint).
[“Papa Affidavit.”]
2. Transcript of the Public announcement and press conference by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona and investigator Zullo, advising the public that the long formbirth certificate in question is a forgery (Exhibit 3
First Amended Complaint, Transcript of Sheriff Joe Arpaio).
[“Arpaio Press Conference Materials
.
”]
3. Sworn testimonybya seniordeportationofficerJohnSampson, attesting tothefactthat
thedocumentinquestion is a forgery (Exhibit 4 (First Amended Complaint, affidavit of
senior Deportation officer john
Sampson).
[“Sampson Affidavit.”]
4. Sworntestimonybya scanning and copyingmachinesexpert Douglas Vogt, attesting to
thefactthatthedocumentinquestion isa forgery. (Exhibit 5) (First Amended Complaint
Affidavit of Scanning and Copying machines
expert Douglas Vogt).
[“Vogt Affidavit.”]”
Taitz Motion at 3-4.
3
3
While not referenced in her Motion for Sanctions, Taitz filed with her motion an “
Orly Taitz for U.S. Senate presents
”
DVD,seeking donations to her current political campaign for the U.S. Senate in the State of California.
See
Docket No. 26. Giventhat (a) the transcript of the hearing reflected in the DVD is already included in the record (
see
Docket No. 1-1 at 112-157), and
Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA Document 30 Filed 05/21/12 Page 3 of 10
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
2012-05-21 - MS SDMS - MDEC Response to Motion for Sanctions
932
Reads
4
Readcasts
1.3K
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
