Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
TN - 2012-05-25 - LLF - DNC Motion for Sanctions

TN - 2012-05-25 - LLF - DNC Motion for Sanctions

Ratings: (0)|Views: 85 |Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on May 29, 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

05/29/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 251612 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEELIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION,JOHN DUMMETT, LEONARDVOLODARSKY, CREG MARONEY,Plaintiffs,vs.NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY OFTHE USA, INC., DEMOCRATICNATIONAL COMMITTEE, TENNESSEEDEMOCRATIC PARTY, DEBBIEWASSERMAN SCHULTZ, and CHIPFORRESTER,Defendants.))))))))))))))))Case No. 2:12-cv-02143-cgcRemoval of Case No. CH-11-1757-3 FromChancery Court for the State of Tennesseein Shelby County
DEFENDANTS’ CONSOLIDATED MOTION FOR AND MEMORANDUM INSUPPORT OF SANCTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, Defendants, the TennesseeDemocratic Party (“TNDP”), and Chip Forrester (collectively the “TNDP Defendants”) file thisConsolidated Motion and Memorandum in Support of Sanctions requesting this Court imposesanctions against Plaintiffs Liberty Legal Foundation, John Dummett, Leonard Volodarsky andCreg Maroney (collectively the “Plaintiffs”) and Plaintiffs’ counsel because Plaintiffs’ claimsare: 1) offered for an improper purpose; 2) not warranted under existing facts and law and arefrivolous; and/or 3) aimed at unreasonably and vexatiously imposing undue costs on theDefendants.
INTRODUCTION
This lawsuit has no basis in fact and law. Had Plaintiffs and their counsel performed areasonable search of relevant precedent and publicly available information, Plaintiffs and their
Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA-cgc Document 25 Filed 05/25/12 Page 1 of 17 PageID 316
 
 251612 2
counsel would have known that this lawsuit was frivolous, misguided, and legally unfounded.Yet Plaintiffs and their counsel did not perform such a search most likely because Plaintiffs andtheir counsel offer this suit not for its merits but simply to harass and annoy the parties andthrough them President Barack Obama.As the Court is well aware, this is obviously not the first time that President Obama’spolitical foes have pursued these frivolous claims. No less than eighteen different cases invarious federal and state tribunals have been filed challenging President Obama’s qualificationsto hold the office of President of the United States,
1
and, as should be abundantly obvious, noneof these cases have succeeded. All that have reached a decision have been dismissed on thepleadings or on the merits, and some have resulted in sanctions against those bringing these typesof claims.
See e.g.
,
Kerchner 
, 612 F.3d 204 (sanctioning attempts to challenge PresidentObama’s eligibility to hold the Office of the President);
 Rhodes v. Macdonald 
, 2009 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 85485 (M.D. Ga. 2009) (same);
see also Ankeny v. Governor,
916 N.E.2d 678, 684-89(Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (finding that President Obama is a natural born citizen qualified to hold theoffice of President of the United States);
Farrar, et. al. v. Obama
, Dkt. No. 1215136-60 (Ga.Secretary of State, 2012) (same).
1
 
The following cases have proceeded to decisions in federal appellate courts.
 
 Drake v. Obama
,664 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2011) (Constitutional claims by military personnel, taxpayers, politicalrepresentatives, a family relative, and candidates against the President based on his allegedineligibility to hold office were properly dismissed for lack of Article III standing);
Kerchner v.Obama
, 612 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2010) (Even if placing an ineligible candidate on the ballotharmed voters, the injury was too general for U.S. Const. art. III standing as all voters had aninterest in proper application of the U.S. Constitution and laws;
 Berg v. Obama
, 586 F.3d 234(3d Cir. 2009) (An order dismissing an action seeking a declaratory judgment that defendantthen-Presidential candidate was ineligible under U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5, and an injunctionbarring him from running for President was affirmed because the plaintiff lacked standingbecause he had suffered no injury particularized to him);
 In Re Paul Andrew Mitchell
, 304 F.App’x. 113 (3rd Cir., Dec. 22, 2008) (denying petition for writ of mandamus regarding challengeto Obama’s eligibility). For a list of all cases located by Defendants’ counsel which containallegations that President Obama fails to satisfy Article II standing requirements, see
Exhibit A
.
Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA-cgc Document 25 Filed 05/25/12 Page 2 of 17 PageID 317
 
 251612 3
The Court should put an end to these meritless attacks on President Obama bysanctioning the conduct of Plaintiffs and their counsel under either Rule 11 or 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
BACKGROUND
The Amended Complaint’s sole purpose is to prevent President Obama’s name fromappearing on the Tennessee ballot. (Amended Complaint ¶¶ 1, 4.) The Amended Complaintalleges that President Obama is not a natural-born citizen or is otherwise not qualified to hold theOffice of President of the United States and therefore his name should not appear on theTennessee ballot. (Amended Complaint 1.)Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Defendants from filing relevant documents with theTennessee Secretary of State identifying President Obama as the Democratic candidate in theupcoming November 2012 Presidential Election. (Amended Complaint ¶¶ 4, 7-8.) Plaintiffs alsoseek a declaration that any representation by the Defendants that President Obama is qualified tohold the office of the President of the United States would constitute negligence or fraud, and theyseek an injunction preventing the Defendants from issuing any letters, certificates, or otherdocuments to the Tennessee Secretary of State indicating that President Obama is the TNDP’snominee for the 2012 presidential election. (Amended Complaint at Prayer for Relief ¶¶ 1-2.)After reviewing the Complaint and other pleadings filed by the Plaintiffs in ShelbyCounty, which Plaintiffs filed prior to Defendants’ proper removal of this case to this Court,Defendants sent, on March 1, 2012, a Rule 11 letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel demanding Plaintiffswithdraw their Amended Complaint. This letter is attached to the Declaration of Benjamin A.Gastel as Exhibit A (“Gastel Decl.”).
2
On March 19, 2012, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a reply emaildetailing the investigation he undertook prior to filing his Amended Complaint, which principallyconsisted of reviewing documents with the Tennessee Secretary of State. (Gastel Decl., Ex. B.)
2
 
This declaration is filed contemporaneously herewith.
Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA-cgc Document 25 Filed 05/25/12 Page 3 of 17 PageID 318

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)//-->