Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
AZ - LLF - 2012-06-05 - LLF Lodged Supplemental Response to Motion for

AZ - LLF - 2012-06-05 - LLF Lodged Supplemental Response to Motion for

Ratings: (0)|Views: 37|Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
06/05/2012
36
LODGED Proposed Supplemental Response in Opposition to Motion for Sanctions re: 35 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Response in Opposition to Motion for Sanctions . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Liberty Legal Foundation. (Irion, Van) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
06/05/2012
36
LODGED Proposed Supplemental Response in Opposition to Motion for Sanctions re: 35 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Response in Opposition to Motion for Sanctions . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Liberty Legal Foundation. (Irion, Van) (Entered: 06/05/2012)

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on Jun 06, 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

06/06/2012

pdf

text

original

 
1 of 6Van R. Irion, (TN Bar No.024519)
Liberty Legal Foundation
9040 Executive Park Drive, Ste. 200Attorney for Plaintiffs(423) 208-9953van@libertylegalfoundation.com
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 Party of theUSA, Inc.;Democratic National Committee;Debbie Wasserman-Schultz,Defendants
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS
Pursuant to this Court
’s Rules,
Liberty Legal Foundation submits thisSupplemental Response in Opposition and Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant
s’
 Motion for Sanctions.
I.
 
Defendants
Reply Asserts New Grounds for Sanctions
Defendants
Motion for Sanctions asserted that attorney Van Irion intentionallynamed a sham organization and attempted to keep this lawsuit a secret from the DNC in
Case 2:11-cv-02089-SRB Document 36 Filed 06/05/12 Page 1 of 6
 
2 of 6order to obtain a default judgment without opposition from the DNC. Doc.28 at 1 and 8-9. Now that overwhelming evidence has been submitted proving beyond any doubt thatDefendants
accusation is absurd, Defendants have changed their accusation.Defendants
Reply now accuses attorney Irion of failing to perform an adequatepre-litigation investigation into the National Democratic Party of the USA Inc. Doc.34 at3-4. Apparently Defendants now acknowledge that their very serious accusation againstattorney Irion were not remotely supportable. Even if their new accusation was true,raising new grounds for sanctions in a reply brief violates basic due process and Rule11
s safe harbor provision.Defendants
last-minute attempt to change the focus of this Court by raising newgrounds also fails because the new grounds are false. Attorney Irion has alreadyexplained why he named the National Democratic Party of the USA. Doc. 31, Opp. Mtn.Sanct., at 3-7. He also explained why the current litigation is associated with Arizona.
 Id 
.Most importantly, he explained the fact that the Defendants intentionally withheldinformation from this Court regarding the five assumed names of the NationalDemocratic Party of the USA.
 Id 
. at 5-7.Now that the Defendants have changed their accusation to claim that attorney Irionfailed to perform a reasonable inquiry, Liberty Legal Foundation discloses that thecharter for the National Democratic Party of the USA states as its purpose
To raisefunds, Nominate and Elect Democrats in all 50 states in the United States.
Ex.1. Further,Liberty Legal Foundation
s investigators have discovered that the apparent organizer of the National Democratic Party of the USA was a registered Democrat voter in 2010.
Case 2:11-cv-02089-SRB Document 36 Filed 06/05/12 Page 2 of 6
 
3 of 6Finally, even if the Defendants
new grounds for sanctions were true,inadvertently naming an incorrect party does nothing to harm the DNC. By changing itsaccusation the DNC essentially admits that it cannot support its initial accusation thatattorney Irion was trying to obtain a default judgment without the DNC opposing. So, theworst possible action attorney Irion can be accused of is failing to perform an adequatepre-litigation investigation. However, even if this was true, the DNC is not harmed byattorney Irion naming a party that, according to the DNC, has no affiliation with theDNC. Even if this latest accusation were true, the only party that would have beenharmed would have been the National Democratic Party of the USA.Because the DNC
s initial accusation is unsupportable, and because its newaccusation violates Rule 11
s safe harbor provision, the Defendants
motion for sanctionsmust be
DENIED
.
II.
 
Defendants Repeat Misrepresentation of Law
Defendants’
Reply repeats a misrepresentation of Law to this Court. Despite aclear distinction between the term
citizen
and
natural born citizen
made by theSupreme Court in
 Minor v. Happersett 
, and despite this distinction being pointed out byPlaintiffs
Opposition, the Defendants
insist upon repeating their assertion of law thatcompletely ignores this distinction. Doc. 34 at 2;
discussing and quoting
88 U.S. 162(1875).Disagreement with legal interpretation is not the same as misrepresentation to theCourt. The Defendants have every right to disagree with the Plaintiffs on interpretation of 
Case 2:11-cv-02089-SRB Document 36 Filed 06/05/12 Page 3 of 6

You're Reading a Free Preview

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