Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
AZ - LLF - 2012-05-23 LLF Opposition to Motion for Sanctions.pdf - Adob

AZ - LLF - 2012-05-23 LLF Opposition to Motion for Sanctions.pdf - Adob

Ratings: (0)|Views: 619|Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on May 23, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

05/24/2012

pdf

text

original

 
1 of 21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION;JOHN DUMMETT;LEONARD VOLODARSKY;CREG MARONEY,PlaintiffsCASE NO: 2:11-cv-02089-SRBJudge: BoltonNATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTYof the USA, Inc.;DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE;DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ,Defendants
OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS
Pursuant to this Court
’s Rules,
Van Irion submits this Opposition andMemorandum in Opposition to Defendant
s’
Motion for Sanctions.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
 
Introduction
Defendants’ motion for sanctions accuses an attorney with a pristine ethical record
of attempting to perpetrate a fraud on this court. Yet the facts at hand leave no possibilitythat
Defendants’
accusations are true.
Case 2:11-cv-02089-SRB Document 31 Filed 05/23/12 Page 1 of 21
 
2 of 21
Defendants’ motion also asserts that attorney Irion’s legal theory cannot possibly
prevail. Yet the legal theory asserted is based upon precedent from a legal
 holding
of theUnited States Supreme Court.
 All 
contrary authority relies upon dicta. It is well-established that dicta cannot abrogate binding precedent, regardless of how often it isrepeated. Neither repetition of dicta nor emotionally-charged disagreement withprecedent grants authority to abrogate precedent.
Defendants’ assertion that attorney Irion “misrepresented as a holding a questionthat the Supreme Court expressly left open” and “ignored subsequent Supreme Court precedent on point,” is refuted by a simple reading of the cases at issue. Defendants’
assertions are a gross misrepresentation to this Court.
II.
 
Demonstrably False Allegation of Fraud on the Court
Defendants’ theory is that attorney Irion somehow knew that the National
Democratic Party of the USA, Incorporated (NDPUSA) is a sham organization, and thatattorney Irion decided to take advantage of this information by naming NDPUSA in orderto get a default judgment against NDPUSA. Doc. 28 at 8-9.
Alternatively, Defendants’
claim that attorney Irion failed to perform a reasonable pre-litigation inquiry and that
such an inquiry “would have revealed that the ‘National Democratic Party of the USA,Inc.’ is not affiliated with the DNC or the Democratic Party in any way.”
 Id 
. at 8.These allegations are provably false.
Case 2:11-cv-02089-SRB Document 31 Filed 05/23/12 Page 2 of 21
 
3 of 21
A.
 
Reasonable Inquiry
i.
 
Communications with Secretary of State’s Office
 
Prior to filing the instant litigation attorney Irion spoke with a staffer at the
Tennessee Secretary of State’s office regarding standard operating procedures for 
Presidential elections. Decl. Van Irion ¶2. That staffer informed attorney Irion that theNational Democratic Party always sends a notice to all Secretaries of State certifying the
name of the Party’s candidate.
 Id 
. That staffer also informed attorney Irion that withoutsuch certification from the national party organization, the Secretary of State would not
 place the Party’s candidate’s name on the Tennessee ballot.
 Id 
.
ii.
 
Search for “Democratic” Entities
 
Attorney Irion then searched
the Tennessee Secretary of State’s
records for
information on any entity operating with the terms “Democratic Party” or “NationalDemocratic Party.”
 Id 
.
 
at
 ¶3.
Since all entities doing business within or with the state of Tennessee are required to register with the state attorney Irion assumed that the NationalDemocratic Party organization would be registered. The NDPUSA was the only entitythat appeared to be a national Democratic Party organization.
 Id 
.
 A copy of a recent search is attached showing that the NDPUSA is the onlyorganization that c
omes up in a search for “National Democratic Party.” Ex.1. A copy of another recent search is attached showing that “Democratic Coalition Inc.” and“Democratic Party of Tennessee Inc.” come up when searching for “Democratic.”
Ex.2.
“Democratic Coalition Inc.” and “Democratic Party of Tennessee Inc.”
both have the
Case 2:11-cv-02089-SRB Document 31 Filed 05/23/12 Page 3 of 21

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
GeorgetownJD added this note|
Not terribly persuasive, is it?
Jack Ryan liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->