AZ - LLF - 2012-05-09 DNC Motion For Sanctions EXHIBITS

Case 2:11-cv-02089-SRB Document 28-1 Filed 05/09/12 Page 1 of 21
INEX OF EXHITS TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Exhibit A
Email attaching Letter from Paul Eckstein and Draft Motion for Sanctions (April 16,2012)
Email from Van Irion to Paul Eckstein (May 7, 2012)
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Email from Paul Eckstein to Van Irion (May 7, 2012)
Fr
ien
ds
of T
he F
og Bo w. co m
EXHIBIT A
Fr
ien
ds
of T
he F
og Bo w. co m
Wendt, Clair (Perkins Coie)

From:
Sent: To:
Cc: .
Wendt. Clair (Perkins Coie) 16, 2012 5:34 PM Monday, April

Eckstein, Paul (Perkins Coie)
'van@libertlegalfoundation.com'
Subject: Attachments:
Dear Mr. Irion,
Libert Legal Foundation v. DNC
4-16-12 letter to Irion enclosing draft motion for sanctions.
Attached please find Mr. Eckstein's letter and enclosure. I have mailed the original to you today as well.
Thank you.
Clair H. Wendt I Perkins Coie LLP

LEGAL SECRETARY TO PAUL F. ECKSTEIN
2901 N. Central Avenue
Suite 2000
Phoenix. AZ 85012-2788 PHONE: 602.351.8163
FAX: 602.648.7122
E-MAIL: CWendt@perkinscoie.com
-J Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank you.
Fr
ien
ds
of T
1
he F
og Bo w. co m
pdf
og Bo w. co m
Perkins
Coie
2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000
Phoenix, AZ 85012-788
PHONE. 602.351.8000
Paul F. Ei;ksicin
l' (602) 351-8222
FAX 602.648.7000
PAX: (602) 648-7122

1l: PEi;kstcin@pcrkli;oic.i;om
ww.perklnscoie.com.
April 16,2012
VIA ELECTRONIC MAL AND U.S. MAL

Van Iron, Es. Libert Legal Foundaton
9040 Executive Park Drive, Suite 200 Knoxvile, 1N 37923 van@libertylegalfoundation.org
Re: Draft Motion for Sanctions
he F
Paul F. Ecksein
Perkins Cole ll
Liberty Legal Foundation, et aL v. National Democratic Par of
the USA, Inc, et al,
Case No. 2:11-cv-02089 (D. Ari.)

Dear Mr. Iron:
Ths fi repreents the Democratic Nationa Commttee and Congresswoma Debbie

Wasserm Schultz in the above-entitled acon. Put to Rule 11(c)(2) of
of T
the Federa Rules
of Civil Proceure, please fid atthed to ths letter a dr Motion for Sanctons, which we fuy
intend to fie if you do not withdrw the Second Amended Complait and/or dismiss ths cae
with prejudice within 2 i days.
Please feel free to contact me with comments or questions.
Fr
ien
PFElchw Enclosure
ds
63920-o001.0010ILGAL23398607.1
ANCHORAGE. BEIJING. BELLEVUE. BOISE. CHICAGO' DALLAS. DENVER' ios ANGelES. MADISON. PALO ALTO PHOENIX' PORTlAND. SAN DIEGO, SAN FRANCISCO. SEATTlE' SHANGHAI. WASHINGTON, D.C.
Paul F. Eckstin, BarNo. 001822
2
3
PEckstein@perkinscoie.com D. Andrew Gaona Bar No. 028414 AGaona@perkinscoie.com
PERI COlE LLP

Tele,phone: 602.351.8000
2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000
4
S
Facsimie: - 602.648. 7000
docketPHX@perkicoie.com
6
7
8
Attorneys for Defendants Democratic National Committee and Debbie Waseran Schultz
UNTED STATES DISTRCT COURT
9
10
11 LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNATION; JOHN
12 CREG MAONEY,
13 Plaitiffs,
14 v.
17
he F
Defendats.
DUMTf; LEONAR VOLODARKY;
lS NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF TH USA, INC.; DEMOCRATIC
WASSERM SCHTZ,
18
19 Puuant to Ru1 1 i of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants

20 Democratic National Committee (''ONC'') and. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
ds
2 1 ("Congresswoman Wassemian Schultz") move that the Cour impose sactions agaist
22 Van Irion, counsel for Plaintiffs in ths mater, because (1) the legal theory that colors
23 Plaintiffs' claims is unwaranted and has been rejected by each and ever court and
24 adminstrtive body to consider it, and (2) Plaintiff' Second Amended Complaint names
Fr
ien
2S as a defendat a sham organzation with no afliation with the DNC or Democratic Part.
26 Specifcally, the DNC and Congresswoma Wasseran Schultz request an order directing
27 Mr. Irion to pay all of their reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses incud in seeking
28 the dismissal of this frivolous and harassing lawsuit. This Motion is supported by the
of T
16 NATIONAL COMMTTE; AN DEBBIE
. .
og Bo w. co m
DRAFT
DISTRCT OF ARONA
No.2:11-cv-02089
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

(Ora Arguent Requested)
(Assigned to the Hon. Susan Bolton)
accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, which is incorporated herein by

reference.
2
3
MEMORAUM OF POIN AN AUTHORIIES

Baekground1
4
5
On October 25,2011, Plaitiffs Libert Lega Foundation, John Dumett, Leonard
6 7
8 9 10
11
Volodasky, and Creg Maroney filed a Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief, naming only the Nationa Democratic Par of the USA, Inc. and
Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz as defendants. (Doc. No.1) Plaintiffs purorted to
serve only the National Democratic Par of the USA, Inc. by cerified maiL. (Doc. No.
12) On December 4, 2011, prior to any par filing an answer or otherwse appearg in
the action, Plaintiffs filed 'a Firt Amended Class Action Complaint against the same
12 13
paries, along with a request for a preli injunction. (Doc. Nos. 8-9) On Januar 23,
2012, without the con~ent of the pares or leave of cour as requ~red by Federal Rule of
14 15
CiVil Procedure 15(a)(2), Plaiti filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint
("SAC") which added the DNC as an additional defendant. (Doc. No. 10) That same day,
of T
16
17 18 19
Plaintiffs also filed a Motion and Memoradum seekig the entr of a default judgment
against Defendant National Democratic Par of
he F
On Febru 29, 2012, the Cour ordered tht Plaitiffs' counel show cause as to
why servce on the National Democratic Par of the USA, Inc. by certified mail was
20
21
proper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 14) Plaintiffs' counsel
responded citig Rule 4(e)(I) of the Feder Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 4.2 of
ds
. .
-2-
og Bo w. co m
the USA, Inc. (Doc. No. 12)
the
22
Arzona RUles of
Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 15) On March 23,2012, the Cour held that
23
serice on the National Democratic Par of the USA, Inc. was improper, and ordered that
ien
24
25
No.
the case be dismissed unless proper servce was cied out with th days., (Doc.
17)
26
27 28
i The Background section of this Motion is nearly identical to the Statement of the
(Doc.
Fr
Case pres~I)ted in the DNC and Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz's Motion to Dismiss
NO.d
NO.2:11-eV-02089
i
2
3
Additionally, on March 22, 2012, the Cour entered an order fidig that
Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz had not
show cause for its failure to do so. (Doc. No. 16) On March 26,2012, Plaintiffs filed a
4
5
Motion and Memoradwn seekig the entr of a default judgment against

Congresswoman Wasser Schultz (Doc. No. 19), along with a response to the Co~'s
6 7
8
Mach 22 Order to Show Cause and alleged proof of servce (Doc. No. 20). On March 28,
2012, the Cour entered an additional order denying Plaitiffs' request for entr of a
default judgment again Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz because the proof of

service provided by Plaintiffs "fail(ed) to include a signed receipt." (Doc. No. 21)
9
10
11
Whle takg all of thes~ steps in the District of Arzona, the same Plaintiffs
intituted parallel proceedigs in Tennessee. Indeed just one day after filing the initial
12
13
Clas Action Complaint in the intat case, Pl~tiffs :fled a nearly ide~tical complaint in
Shelby County Chancery Cour. Liberty Legal Foun; v. Nat'l Democratic Party of
he F
og Bo w. co m
Argument
-3-
yet been served, and ordered Plaintiffs to
the
14
USA, Inc., No. CH-1l-1757 (Tenn. Ch. Ct. Shelby Cnty). Thee days prior to the fiing of
the First Amended Class Action Complaint with this Cour Plaitiff apparently filed a
IS
16
17 18 19
removed to the Wester District of Tenessee on Februar 23, 2012. Liberty Legal
.
Foun. v. Natl DemoCratic Party of
of T
nearly identical document in Shelby County Chacery Cour. The Tennessee case was
the USA, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02143-STA-cgc (W.O.
Tenn.). Curently before the Tenessee distrct cour are thee separte motions to dismiss
20
21
fied by the defendants and a motion to remand filed by the plaintiffs. See id. at Doc. Nos.
4-9, 12.
ds
22
23
On April ~ 2012, the DNC and Congressw:oman Wasserman Schultz served a
draft copy of this Motion for Sanctions on Mr. Irion as required by Rule 11
(c)(2). Mr.
ien
25 26 27 28
24
Iron's refual to voluntaly dismiss this action with prejudice within the 21-day time
period permitted by that rule reuies the filing of th Motion

Yea ago, Justice Cardozo provided us with perhaps the most poignant description
Fr
of the duty imposed on all lawyer: .

NO.2:11-eV-02089
Membersp in the bar is a priviege burdened with conditions. (A lawyer

2
3
is) received into that ancient felloWsp .for somethg more than private gai. He (becomes) an offcer of the' coui ~d, like the cour itself, an mstrent or agency to advance the ends of Justice.
4
5
People ex rel. Karlin v. Culkin, 162 N.E. 487,489 (N.Y. 1928) (Cardozo, C.L.) (citaon
and internal quotation marks omittd). The frvolous claims advanced by Mr. Iron in this
case demonstrate just how far we have stryed from ths noble goal. Simply put,
6 7
8
~'advanc(ing) the ends of justice" does not include using the cours to make claims that are
flatly untre in fuerce of a politca agenda. See Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp.
2d 1363, 1365 (M.D. Ga. 2009) ("When a lawyer uses the cours as a platfonn for
10. . political a agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer .
11 abuses (hs) privilege to practice law."), afjd, 2010 WL 892848 (11th Cir. Mar. 15,
12 2010).
13 By signg and fillig the SAC in this case (in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P.
14 15(a)(2)),2 Mr. Iron certfied to ths Cour that the allegations contained therein were "not
15 being presented for any improper purose," and that its "clai. . . and other legal
17 certfications were hollow promises; instead, Mr. Iron (1) presented ths cour with claims
18 that have no legal or factual basis, and (2) perhaps more distubingly, attempted to
he F
19 perpetrate a fraud on this cour by naming a sham organiztion as a defendat. As a

20 result, sanctions under Rule i 1 are appropriate and should be imposed to deter future
Fr
ien
ds
21 frvolous filings from Mr. Iron, and to send a message to those with whom he is alled
22. that the federal cour wil not tolerate their contiued abuse of the judicial process.
23
24
25
26
27
2 Rule 15(a)(2) r~uies consent of the pares or leave of cour for any amended
28
complait beyond the fi amended complaint. .
of T
16 contentions (were) warted by existig law." Fed. R Civ. P. i 1
og Bo w. co m
. -+
(b)(1), (b)(2). But those
~(). 2:11~"~089
1 I. THE COURT SHOULD IMOSE RULE 11 SANCTIONS AGAIST MR
IRON
2
3
Rule 11 of
the Federa Rules of Civil Procedure holds that by presenting any paper
4
5
to the cour, an attrney certfies that, anong other ~gs, "to the best of (his) knowledge,
inormation, and belief, formed afer an inquir reasonable mider the circumtances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper' purose, such as to has, litigation; (and) cause wmecessar delay, or needlessly increase the cost of
6 7
8
9
10
11
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are waranted by existing law or by a nonfrvolous argument for extending, modifyng, or
reversing existing law or for establishing new law(.)"
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 l(b)(I), (b)(2). The rue's central purose "is to deter baseless filings in
distrct cour and thus . . . strealie the adminstation and proceure of the federal
12
13
cour." Cooter & Gell v. HartmQ7 Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990). To that end, it.
14
15
"authories a distrct cour to impose sanctions on attorneys . . . who brig :fvolous

lawsuits in bad faith and for ulterior pwposes." Metabolic Research, Inc. v. Ferrell, 668
F.3d 1100, 1107 n.7 (9t Cir. 2012). To determine whether a filing is made for an
17
improper puIose or is frvolous, the cour mus apply an objective standard of

reaonableness. G.c. an KB. Ims., Inc. v. Wilson, 326 F.3d 1096, 1109 (9t Cir. 2003).
18
19
20
21
every cour and adminstrative trbunal that has been forced to consider it. With full
knowledge of the wholesale rejection of the conspiracy theory that President Barack
Obama is not qualified to serve as President of the United States, Mr. Irion nonetheless
Fr
ien
25
ds
22
23
signed and filed that paper with the Cour. In so doing, he ignored Supreme Court
24
precedent and the lack of legal support for his allegation, and failed to perorm a
reaonable inquir into the propriety of namng the "National Democratic Par of the
USA, Inc." as a defendat in ths action.3 Each of these grounds support the imposition
of
26
27
28 3
of T
16
Plaitiff' SAC is founded on a frvolous legal theory that bas been rejected by
sanctions against Mr. Iron.

As evidenced by their Motion to Dismiss, the DNC and Congresswoman
he F
og Bo w. co m
-5- .
NO.2:II-CV-02089
i A. Plaintis' Claims Lack of Legal Support.
2 Most fudamentally, sanctons aganst Mr. Iron are waranted because Plaintiffs'
3 entie cae rests on the unversaly rejected idea that President Obama is not quafied to
4 hold offce or ru for re-election becuse he is not a ''ntu born citien" of the United
5 States as requied by Arcle II of the United States Consitution. The arguent advanced
6 in the SAC (and the two complaits that precded it) relies entirely on Minor v.
7 Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1874), in which Plaintiffs allege that the United States
8' Supreme Court "defined 'natul-born citins'
9 prents who were its citizens.'" (Id.' 12)
10 In citig Mlnor, Mr. Iron represnts tht he ha read that decision. It is thus
1 i inexplicable that he fails to acknowledge that Minor expressly left open the question of
12 whether a child born to alen parents is a "natual' born citizen" because it was not
13 necessar to the disposition of the cae. See Minor, 88 U.S. at 167-68 (noting that it was
14 not necessar to resolve existig doubts as to whther a
he F
.'
15 "without reference to the citienship of
17 in effect decided just 23 yea late. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649,
18 . 702 (1898) (holding that a person born to non-citiens from China was a citizen of the
20 jurdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of
19 United States because "( e )ver pern born in the Unite States, and subject to the the Unitd Staes").
In liglt of
Fr
ien
ds
21
22
several. cour - in reportd decisions - have rejected the legal theory that colors
23
Plaintiffs' enti case. See Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 66 (D.N.H. 20(8)
24
25
("Those born 'in the United States, and subject to the jursdiction thereot have been
considered Amencan citizcns under Amencan law in effect since the tie of the founding
26
27
Wasserm Schultz also believe that Mr. Won failed to perfonn a reasonable inqui into the npeness of-this dispute, the Cour's subject matter Jursdiction over this dispute, and
Motion substatively discusses only the two grounds staed above, which constitute the
the Cour's personal jurdicton over them. For the sake of tie and economy, this
most egregious Rule 11 violatons commtt tiy Mr.. Iron in th case.
28
of T
16 more confounding is his failure to acknowledge that the question left open in Minor was
. .
the Supreme Cour's decision more than a centu ago in Wong Kim Ark,
og Bo w. co m
-6-
as 'all children born in a. countr of
child born in the United States,
their parnts," is a ''natul-born citizenD"). Even
NO.2:11-CV-02089
and thus eligible for the presidency.") (citations omitted); Ankeny v. Goernor of
2
3
916 N.E.2d 678t 688 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (citig Wong Kim Ark, and holding that both
President Obama and Senator John McCain were "nat born citizens" because ''persons
4
5
born within the borders of the United States are 'natual born (c)itizens' for Aricle II,
Section 1 puroses, regardles of the citinship of their parents"). The number of

reprtd decisions pales when compared with the' growhig numbe of state cour and state
6 7
8
adminstrtive bodies tht have been forc to confnt ths well-setted queston of law,
and in so doing have reached precisely the same result. 4
9
10
11
As a result of the long-stadig (and ever-expanding) body of law rejecting
Plaintiffs' legal theory, Plaintiffs' clai are frvolous because they are not supportd by
existing law. An inquir by a reasonable attorney would have revealed as much, and as a
12
13
result, Mr. Iron's failure to conduct such an inqui (or, alternatively, his choice to ignore
the results of that inquiry) warants the imposition of
he F
14
15
B. Plaintiffs Name a Sham Organiztion as a Defendant.
Aside from the underlying substative frvolity of Plaintiffs' clais, perhaps the
of T
16
17
most troubling example of Mr. Irion's sanctlonable conduct is his decision to name the
"National Democratic Par of
18 19
4 See, e.g., Allen v. Ariz. Democratic Party, No. C20121317 (Ariz. Pima Cnty.
Super. Ct. Ma. 7, 2012) (dismissing cas chaiiengi~ Obama's eligibilty to be on the
2012 ballot; fidig tht Ubama is a "natual born citi" under Wong Kim Ark; and
20
21
expressly rejecting arguent that Minor v. Happersett holds otherse), appeal filed (Ar. Ct. AP.:. Mar. gt 2012); Farar v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTA1'CE':121136-
60-MAlH (Ga. Offce of St. Adm.ll. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejectig challenge to Obama's
ien
ds
eligibilo/ to appear on 2012 ballot; fmding that Obam was born in U.S. an is a "natual
22
born citin"), decision adopted by Ga. Sec'y State. (Feb. 7t 2012)t appeal dismissed,
Farrar v. Obama, No. 2012CV21 1398 (Ga. Fulton Cnty. Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), recons.
23 .
24
25
denied (Mar. 14, 2012); Jackson v. Obama, 12 SORB GP 104 (Il. Bd. of Elections (Obama's bir certficate "clearly establishesot his eligibilty for offce as a ''Natual Born Citizen"), objection overruled
Heang Offcer Recommendation Jan. 27, 2012)
(TL State Bd. ~fEle~ons Feb. 3,2012). A complete)ist ?~ cases brou.Gt by "1?irters"-
htt:l/tesibria.iyepad.comlwhats your evidenceIBIRTIR%20CASE%20LIST .pdf.
complete . with li to may of the dispositions - . is available' at
26
27 28
In parcular, the DNe and Congresswoman Waserman Schultz diect the Cour's
the fact that
attention to Farrar, in which Mr. Iron served as counsel for one of the unsuccessful
challengers.. As a result, he canot in good faith claim that he was unaware of
Fr
the legal theory he advances here has 6een rejected in any number of previous decisions.
-7NO. 2:1 L-CV.Q2089
og Bo w. co m
. .
Rule 11 sactons.
Indiana,
the USA, Inc." as a defendant in this case, and to seek the
entry of default againt that entity. A r~onable inquir by Mr. Iron would have
revealed that the "National Democratic Par of the USA, Inc." is not affliated with the
DNC or the Democratic Par in any way, and tht it is a sham organation that ~ay be
2
3
4
5
afiated with the Shelby County (Tennessee) Republica Par. See Tenn. Secreta of
State, Business Entity Detal, National Democratic Par of the USA, me.,
htt://tnbear.tn.govCommercelFilingDetail.aspx?CN=091244127202157024172089179 ,
6 7
8
042105022040227133146 (last visited Apr. 10, 2012) (statng that the "Shelby County
Republican Par, In~." is an assumed named of the National Democratic Par of the
9
10
11
USA, Inc.).
Mr. Iron's litigation strtegy - both here and in the Tennessee action - apparently
involves naming this sham organtion as a defendat and ttemptig to obtan a default
12
13
judgment against it either for public relations puroses or as leverage agaist the
remaiing defendants. The conclusion- that he does so knowigly is supported by the
14
15
maner in which the Plaitiffs effectuted serce in this case, purortng to serve only the
"National Democratic Par of
17
therefore impose sactions on Mr. Iron to deter him from utilizg this deceptive sttegy
18 19
in the future.
of T
16
16) The Cour should not tolerte such an abuse of the judicial process, and should
20
21
Ths case is the latest in a long list of spurous attempts by the "birter movement"
Fr
ien
24
25
ds
22
23
to use the court as a tool in its campaign to force President Obama and those who support
hi to rieedlessly respond to frivolous challenges to his well-established sta as a
"natu born citin" of the United States. This continuous stream of litigation must be
stopped. The claims advance by plaintiff in ths case are unsupportd by existig law
and were made without reonable inquires into any number of substative and
26
27 28
procedural matters. . As a result, the DNC and Congresswoman Wasseran Schultz
respectfuly request that the Cour sanction Mr. Irion by ordering hi to pay their
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incured in defending this action, including the cost of
-8NO.2: LL-CV .(2089
he F
og Bo w. co m
Conclusion
the USA, Inc." until the Cour intervened. (See Doc. No.
. 1 preparg ths motion, in addition to whatever additional sanctons'
2 reasonable under the circumstaces.
4 Dated: April _' 2012

5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18 19
20
21
Fr
ien
ds
22
23
24
25
26 27 28
of T
16
he F
og Bo w. co m
PERSC~
the Cour fids just and
By: 'A:).
Paul F. Eckstein,Br. 001822
PEckstein(iperkinscoie.com D. AndrewGaona, Bar No. 028414 AGaona(iperkinscoie.com
2901 N. C"entr Avenue, Suite 2000
Telephone: 602.351.8000 Facsimle: 602.648.7000
Attorneys for Defendats
Democrtic National Committee and

Debbie Wasseran Schultz
-9-
NO. 2:1 i..V.02089
CERTICATE OF SERVICE
2
3
I hereby certify that on April -- 2012, I electronically trsmitted the attched

documents to the Clerk's Offce using the CMlCF System.
4
5
I hereby cerfy that on April -' 2012, the following were sered by the U.S.
Distrct Clerk's electronic system:
6
7
8
Mr. Van Irion (van@libertlegalfoundation.com)
9
63920-Gj .001 OILAU339803. 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
17 18
19
20
21
Fr
ien
25
ds
22
23
24
26
27
28
of T
16
he F
-10NO. 2:1 1-CV-0089
og Bo w. co m
sl
hAPr -
EXHIBITB
Fr
ien
ds
of T
he F
og Bo w. co m
Wendt. Clair (Perkins' Coie)

From:
Sent:
To: Cc:
Van Irion (van@libertlegalfoundation.org) Monday, May 07,20129:52 AM Eckstein, Paul (Perkins Cole)
Subject:
Wendt, Clair (Perkins Coie); dawn@Jibertlegalfoundation.org RE: Libert Legal Foundation v. DNC
Mr. Eckstein,
Regarding your "Draf Motion for Sanctions," you ar hereby notified of
Prior to filing Libert Legal Foundation's (LLF) complait I spoke to a stfer at the Tennessee Secreta of State's Offce regarding stadard operating procedures for Presidential elections. That ster inormed me that
the National Democratic Par always sends a notice to all Secretaies of State certifyg the name of the Par's
candidate. That staer also informed me that without such certfication from the national Par organzation, the
SOS would not put the Par's candidate's name on the stte ballot.
We were surrised when our attempts to serve the NDPUSA via certfied mail were retued as undeliverable.
Our attempt to obta a default judgment was simply intended to eliminate any possibilty of anyone associated
with that organzation acting despite a judgment agaist the other defendants, and alterntively to force anyone associated with that organzation to make an appearance in the case.
Your speculation about LLF's motives regarding our serce of process and motion for default are false.
Van Irion
Co-Founder, Lead Counsel
Fr
ien
LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION 9040 Executive Park Drive, Suite 200
Knoxvile, TN 37923
PhonelFax: 423-208-9953
ww.libertlegalfoundation.net
hf. l I r'''lr'''i'\'lr-~''
~! "- l.h: \ r . ~lJ!\L Ii:. ,4FOUND/\ll()t',
ds
of T
I have no knowledge regarding why the NDPUSA was formed, nor do I have any relationship with any of its organizers. To the best of my knowledge neither Libert Legal Foundation nor any pary to ths case have any the NDPUSA. To date I stil have no way of personal knowledge regarding the formation or operation of knowing who formed the NDPUSA, why it was formed, or whether it is associated with either the Democratic or Republican pares.
he F
1
I then performed a search for "Democratic Par" and "National Democratic Par" using the Tennessee Tennessee Secretar of State's internet search page. Since all entities doing business with or with the State of are requied to register with the State I assumed that any National Democratic Par organation would have the USA Inc., (NDPUSA) was the only entity that the SOS registered. The National Democratic Par of identified.
og Bo w. co m
the following facts:
Sent: Monday, April
From: Wendt, Clair (Perkins Coie) (mailto:CWenct@perkinscole.com) 16, 20128:34 PM
To: 'van@libertlegalfoundation.com'
Cc: Ecksein, Paul (Perkins Coie)
Subject: Libert Legal Foundation v. DNC
Dear Mr. Irion,
Attached please find Mr. Eckstein's letter and enclosure. I have mailed the original to you today as well.
Thank you.

LEGAL SECRETARY TO PAUL F. ECKSTEIN 2901 N. Cenlral Avenue Suite 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788
PHONE: 602.351.8163 FAX: 602.648.7122 E-MAIL: CWendl@perki!Jcoie.com
-J Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank you.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with Treasury Department and IRS regulations, we inform you that, unless expressly indicated otherwise, any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written by Perkins Coie LLP to be used, and cannot be used by the taxpayer, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another part any transaction or matter addressed herein (or any attachments).
**********
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message nd any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
Fr
ien
2
ds
of T
he F
og Bo w. co m
EXHIBIT C
Fr
ien
ds
of T
he F
og Bo w. co m
Gaona. D. Andrew (Perkins Coie)

From: Sent:
To: Cc:
Eckstein, Paul (Perkins Coie) Monday, May 07,20124:45 PM
van@libertlegalfoundation.org
Subject:
Wendt, Clair (Perkins Coie); dawn@libertylegalfoundation.org; Gaona, D. Andrew (Perkins Coie) RE: Liberty Legal Foundation v. DNC
Mr. Irion---I assume from your email below that you are NOT withdrawing your Second Amended Complaint in Liberty Legal Foundation et al v. National Democratic Party ofthe USA et al (Action No. 2:11-cv-02089 in the United States District Court of the District of Arizona). If i am wrong in my assumption, please let me know by email by 5 PM Phoenix time on Tuesday, May 8,2012.
Paul F. Eckstein
Perkins Coie LLP 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
Phoenix, Arizona 85012 T (602) 351-8222 F (602) 648-7122

****************************************
mai Ito: peckstein@perkinscoie.com
IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION: This communication is not intended or written by Perkins Coie LLP to be used, and cannot be used by the taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
From: Van Irion (mailto:van@libertlegalfoundation.org) Sent: Monday, May 07, 20129:52 AM To: Eckstein, Paul (Perkins Coie)
Subjec: RE: Libert Legal Foundation v. DNC
Mr. Eckstein,
of T
Cc: Wendt, Clair (Perkins Coie); dawn@libertlegalfoundation.org
he F
Regarding your "Draft Motion for Sanctions," you are hereby notified of
Prior to filing Libert Legal Foundation's (LLF) complaint I spoke to a staffer at the Tennessee Secretary of State's Office regarding standard operating procedures for Presidential elections. That staffer informed me that
the National Democratic Part always sends a notice to all Secretaries of State certifying the name of
candidate. That staffer also informed me that without such certification from the national Part organization, the SOS would not put the Part's candidate's name on the state ballot.
Fr
ien
I then performed a search for "Democratic Part" and "National Democratic Part" using the Tennessee Tennessee State's internet search page. Since all entities doing business within or with the State of Secretary of are required to register with the State I assumed that any National Democratic Part organization would have the USA Inc., (NPUSA) was the only entity that the SOS registered. The National Democratic Part of
identified.
I have no knowledge regarding why the NDPUSA was formed, nor do I have any relationship with any of its my knowledge neither Libert Legal Foundation nor any part to this case have any organizers. To the best of the NDPUSA. To date I stil have no way of personal knowledge regarding the formation or operation of
1
ds
og Bo w. co m
the following facts:
the Part's
knowing who formed the NDPUSA, why it was formed, or whether it is associated with either the Democratic or Republican parties.
surprised when our attempts to serve the NDPUSA via certified mail were returned as undeliverable. We were Our attempt to obtain a default judgment was simply intended to eliminate any possibility of anyone associated with that organization acting despite a judgment against the other defendants, and alternatively to force anyone associated with that organization to make an appearance in the case.
Your speculation about LLF's motives regarding our service of
Van Irion Co-Founder, Lead Counsel LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION 9040 Executive Park Drive, Suite 200 Knoxvile, TN 37923
PhonelFax: 423-208-9953
\vww. i i bertv legalfoundation .net
. -
'Ii FOUNDA'! ION 1J~1~ LIBERTY LEGAL
From: Wendt, Clair (Perkins Coie) (mailto:CWendt@perkinscoie.com)

Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 8:34 PM
To: 'van@libertlegalfoundation.com'
Cc: Eckstein, Paul (Perkins Coie)
Subject: Libert Legal Foundation v. DNC
Dear Mr. Irion,
Attached please find Mr. Eckstein's letter and enclosure. I have mailed the original to you today as welL.
Thank you.

2901 N. Central Avenue Suite 2000 Phoenix. AZ 85012-2788 PHONE: 602.351.8163 FAX: 602.648.7122 E-MAIL: cWendt@perkinscoie.com
LEGAL SECRETARY TO PAUL F. ECKSTEIN
-J Please consider the environment before printing this emaiL. Thank you.
Fr
ien
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with Treasury Department and IRS regulations, we inform you that, unless expressly indicated otherwise, any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written by Perkins Coie LLP to be used, and cannot be used by the taxpayer, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another part any transaction or matter addressed herein (or any attachments).
**********
2
ds
of T
he F
og Bo w. co m
process and motion for default are false.
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
Fr
ien
3
ds
of T
he F
og Bo w. co m

AZ - LLF - 2012-05-09 DNC Motion For Sanctions EXHIBITS

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

AZ - LLF - 2012-05-09 DNC Motion For Sanctions EXHIBITS

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 2:11-cv-02089-SRB Document 28-1 Filed 05/09/12 Page 1 of 21

INEX OF EXHITS TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Email from Paul Eckstein to Van Irion (May 7, 2012)

Case 2:11-cv-02089-SRB Document 28-1 Filed 05/09/12 Page 2 of 21

Case 2:11-cv-02089-SRB Document 28-1 Filed 05/09/12 Page 3 of 21

Wendt, Clair (Perkins Coie)

Wendt. Clair (Perkins Coie) 16, 2012 5:34 PM Monday, April

Libert Legal Foundation v. DNC

4-16-12 letter to Irion enclosing draft motion for sanctions.

Clair H. Wendt I Perkins Coie LLP

Case 2:11-cv-02089-SRB Document 28-1 Filed 05/09/12 Page 4 of 21

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000

PAX: (602) 648-7122

VIA ELECTRONIC MAL AND U.S. MAL

Re: Draft Motion for Sanctions

Liberty Legal Foundation, et aL v. National Democratic Par of

the USA, Inc, et al,

Case No. 2:11-cv-02089 (D. Ari.)

Ths fi repreents the Democratic Nationa Commttee and Congresswoma Debbie

the Federa Rules

Please feel free to contact me with comments or questions.

Case 2:11-cv-02089-SRB Document 28-1 Filed 05/09/12 Page 5 of 21

Paul F. Eckstin, BarNo. 001822

PEckstein@perkinscoie.com D. Andrew Gaona Bar No. 028414 AGaona@perkinscoie.com

PERI COlE LLP

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000

Facsimie: - 602.648. 7000

UNTED STATES DISTRCT COURT

11 LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNATION; JOHN

DUMTf; LEONAR VOLODARKY;

lS NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF TH USA, INC.; DEMOCRATIC

19 Puuant to Ru1 1 i of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants

16 NATIONAL COMMTTE; AN DEBBIE

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

(Assigned to the Hon. Susan Bolton)

Case 2:11-cv-02089-SRB Document 28-1 Filed 05/09/12 Page 6 of 21

accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, which is incorporated herein by

MEMORAUM OF POIN AN AUTHORIIES

On October 25,2011, Plaitiffs Libert Lega Foundation, John Dumett, Leonard

Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz as defendants. (Doc. No.1) Plaintiffs purorted to

Case 2:11-cv-02089-SRB Document 28-1 Filed 05/09/12 Page 7 of 21

Motion and Memoradwn seekig the entr of a default judgment against

default judgment again Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz because the proof of

yet been served, and ordered Plaintiffs to

the USA, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02143-STA-cgc (W.O.

On April ~ 2012, the DNC and Congressw:oman Wasserman Schultz served a

period permitted by that rule reuies the filing of th Motion

of the duty imposed on all lawyer: .

Case 2:11-cv-02089-SRB Document 28-1 Filed 05/09/12 Page 8 of 21

Membersp in the bar is a priviege burdened with conditions. (A lawyer

19 perpetrate a fraud on this cour by naming a sham organiztion as a defendat. As a

complait beyond the fi amended complaint. .

16 contentions (were) warted by existig law." Fed. R Civ. P. i 1

(b)(1), (b)(2). But those

Case 2:11-cv-02089-SRB Document 28-1 Filed 05/09/12 Page 9 of 21

1 I. THE COURT SHOULD IMOSE RULE 11 SANCTIONS AGAIST MR

"authories a distrct cour to impose sanctions on attorneys . . . who brig :fvolous

improper puIose or is frvolous, the cour mus apply an objective standard of

sanctions against Mr. Iron.

Case 2:11-cv-02089-SRB Document 28-1 Filed 05/09/12 Page 10 of 21

i A. Plaintis' Claims Lack of Legal Support.

9 prents who were its citizens.'" (Id.' 12)