STATE OF INDIANA

COUNTY OF MARION
DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, KARL
SWIHART, EDWARD KESLEH.
BOll KERN, FRANK WEYL, anti
VALERIA RIPLEY
Pia in tiffs,
v.
)
) SS:
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ELECTIONS COMMISSION, )
SECRETARY OF STATE OF )
INDIANA, DEPUTY ATTORNEY )
GENERAL JEFFERSON GARN, )
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL )
KATE SHELBY, 1310 RADIO/WTLC )
AMOS BROWN, IN HIS CAl' A CITY )
OF THE TALK SHOW HOST OF THE )
1310 RADIO/WTLC )
)
Defendants.
)
IN Tlll: 1\L\IHON SlWIO: HIOH < I'

SEP I H 2012 @
STATE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER RECENT OIU>ER GHANTIN<;
TAITZ PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
Defendants Indiana Election Commission (" JEC"), the Indiana Secretary of Statc. Deput y
Attorney General Jefferson Gam, and Deputy Attorney General Kate ' hc lby (coll ectively. the
"State Defendants"), by counsel, hereby respectfully move thi s Court to rcconsi J cr its OrJcr
granting PlaintiffOrly Taitzpro hac vice admission for purposcs of thi s case nml to vue ate the
same. In support of this filing, the State Defendants show the Court as follows:
1. PlaintiffOrly Taitz filed a Motion to Appear l'ru 11m: Vi<.' e on August 20. 20 12.
(Docket.)
2. That same day. Greg Black fil ed his in thi s cause.
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
e w
3.
stating,
On August 22,201 2, thi s Court denied Taitz' s Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice,
Comes now the Court and having reviewed pro se Plaintiff, 0. Taitz . .
Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice; Court does now deny same. A Pet1t10ner
has not complied with admi ssion and disciplining rul es for same;
J>laintiff 0. Taitz has failfcdl to comply with local rules regardmg
filing of pleadinglsl and orders; Court admonishes once
again continued to comply with local rules and fnal. RulefsJ.
Future pleading filed not in compliance with Rules w1ll be reJected by
the Court.
(Docket)(emphasis added.)
4. According to docket entries in this cause, it appears that Pl aintiffTaitz then fil ed
the following documents on the following dates:
a. Verified Petition for Temporary Admission - August 28, 20 12;
b. Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice - August 28, 20 12;
c. Proposed order on Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice - August 28,
2012;
d. Request for Preliminary Injunction and Oral Argument - September 4,
2012;
e. Motion for Preliminary Injunction - September 4, 20 12;
f. Proposed order on Request for Preliminary Inj unction and Oral Argument
-September 4, 20 12; and
g. Second Amended Complaint - September 4. 201 2.
(Docket.)
5. The State Defendants were never served with the Verified Petition for Temporary
Admission, Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice, or proposed order thereon.'
6. The State Defendants were made aware of those filings only after checking the
Court's docket when undersigned counsel received an order from the Court granting Plaintiff
Taitz's Motion lor Admission Pro Hac Vice on August 31, 201 2.
1
Deputy Attorney served with Plaintiffs' Request for Preliminary Injunction and
Oral Argument, Molton for Prehmmary Proposed order on Request for Preliminary Injunction and Oral
Argument, and Second Amended Complamt on September ll. 20 I 2. The certi fi catcs of service state that the
documents mailed on September 5, 2012. None of the documents are signed. No summons was included for
the new partres. No other State Defendant was served with said documents.
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
7.
f I
1. J>l t'l'{' t' a
1
'tz st
1
' tlt
1

1
s not served any or the State I >clt:ndants wit h
As o t11s ( ate, alll 1 < <
her Verified Petition for Temporary Admission, Motion lor Admi ssion l )ro !lac Vic', or
proposed order thereon. Consequentl y, undersigned counsel had to obtain copies of' those
documents from the Court on September I I, 2012.
8. There are two contlicting Orders on the docket in thi s matter. The fi rst, dat ed
August 22, 2012, denies PlaintiffTuitzpro hac vice admi ssion. admonishes Tait:1. to comply with
the rules of this Court, and states that all future filings by Tait:1. that violate those rules wi ll be
rejected. (Docket.) The second grunt s Tait z pro hac vice admi ssion based on fi I ings that violate
the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, Indi ana Admi ssion and Discipline Rule 3, and the Marion
County Local Rules.
9. The State Defendants were not given an opportunity to respond to Plaintiff Taitz' s
Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice because, again, PlaintiffTaitz did not serve any of the State
Defendants with the Verified Petition for Temporary Admi ssion, Motion for Admi ssion Pro 1/ac
Vice, or proposed order thereon.
9. The State Defendants are entitled to the opportunity to object to Pl aintiff Taitz's
filings and hereby do so.
10. In this Court's August 22, 20 I 2, Order denying Plaintiff Taitz's Motion to Appear
Pro Hac Vice, the Court noted Taitz's repeated failure to comply with the Tri al Rules and
admonished Taitz to comply with the Trial Rules. (Docket.) By 1 ~ 1 i l i n g to serve the State
Defendants or their counsel with her Verified Petition for Temporary Admi ssion, Motion for
Admission Pro Hac Vice, and proposed order thereon, Taitz has violated Indiana Rule of Trial
Procedure 5, which mandates that
each party and special judge, if any, shall be served with:
(I) every order required by its terms to be served;
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
(2) every pleading subsequent to the original complaint;
(3) every written motion except one which may be heard ex parte;
( 4) every brief submitted to the trial court;
(5) every paper relating to discovery required to be served upon a party;
and
(6) every written notice, appearance, demand, offer of judgment,
designation of record on appeal, or similar paper ... .
(B) Service: How made. Whenever a party is represented by ~ n attorney
of record, service shall be made upon such attorney unless servtce upon
the party himself is ordered by the court. Service upon the attorney o:
party shall be made by deli vering or mailing a copy ofthe papers to htm at
his last known address .. . .
(C) Certificate of Service. An attorney or unrepresented party tendering
a document to the Clerk for filing shall certify that service has been made,
list the parties served, and specify the date and means of service.
Ind. R. Trial P. 5 (emphasis added).
II . Nothing in the Trial Rules allows Taitz to file the documents in question ex parte.
The Verified Petition for Temporary Admission that was filed in this Court on August 28, 2012,
is not accompanied by a certificate of service, nor was that document served on undersigned
counsel. Those deficiencies constitute a violation of Rule 5(A), (8), and (C).
12. The Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice and proposed order thereon appear to be
accompanied by two identical certificates of service executed by a "Yulia Yun," who states in
the certificates that she is "not a party to this case." (Docket.) Because PlaintiffTaitz or her
counsel, Greg Black, did not submit the certificates of service, Taitz has violated Rule S(C) .
Moreover, those documents were never served on undersigned counsel, which constitutes a
violation of Rule 5(A) and (B).
13. Moreover, the documents filed with the Court were not properl y signed in
accordance with Indiana Rule ofTrial Procedure 11 and Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule
3. Rule 1 1 requires that
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
[ c ]very pleading or motion of a party shall be
signed by at least one (lJ attorney of record m his Indi vidual name,
whose address, telephone number, and attorney n.umber shall stated,
except that this provision shall not to plead1?gs and made
and transcribed at the trial or a heanng before the JUdge and received by
him in such form. A party who is not represented by
sign his pleading and state his address .... If a pleadmg or mot10n IS
not signed or is signed with the intent to defeat the of the
rule, it may be stricken as sham and false and the act10n procce? as
though the pleading had not been served. For a willful violatJOn.ofthis
rule an attorney may be subjected to appropriate disciplinary action.
Ind. R. Trial P. II (A) (emphasis added). Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 3 is quoted in
Taitz's Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice and states, in pertinent part,
(d) Responsibilities of Attorneys. Members of the bar of this state
serving as co-counsel under this rule shall sign all briefs, papers and
pleadings in the cause and shall be jointly responsible therefore. The
signature of co-counsel constitutes a certificate that, to the best of co-
counsel's knowledge, information and belief, there is good ground to
support the signed document and that it is not interposed for delay or any
other improper reason.
Ind. Admiss. Disc. R. 3, Sec. 2(d). Marion County Local Rule LR 49-TR8 Rule 204(E) likewise
requires the signature of an attorney who has appeared in the case on all pleadings and motions.
See LR49-TR8 Rule 204(E).
I 4. Greg Black filed his appearance as a sponsoring attorney for Plaintiff Taitz, and
Taitz's Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice includes a signature line for "Member of the Bar of the
State of Indiana and local Attorney Contact for Pro Hac Vice." Yet, the copy of the Motion that
was filed with the Court does not include a signature from Greg Black in violation of Rule I I
'
Admission and Discipline Rule 3, and LR49-TR8 Rule 204(E).
15. Similarly, Plaintiffs' Request for Preliminary Injunction and Oral Argument,
Motion for Preliminary Injunction, proposed order thereon, and Second Amended Complaint _
documents that were apparently filed after Taitz was granted pro hac vice admission _ contain
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
the same and numerous l)thcr , iolations of the rules of thi s Court. al l of which are discussed in
the State Motion to Dismiss (incorporated herein).
16. In accordance with thi s Court 's Order dated August 22,2012. this Court should
rej ect Te1i tz' s filings as violat ive of the rules of thi s Court. (Docket). The Order grant ing Taitz
the privilege ofpro hac vic!! admission should be vacated, and the Court should stand on its
August 22, 201 2. Order.
17. Thi s Court' s original assessment in the Order dated August 22, 2012, was correct.
Tait z has and continues to violate the rules of this Court even after the Court granted Taitz pro
hac vice admi ssion. See State Defendants' Motion to Dismi ss. The State Defendants were never
served with Taitz's Verified Petition for Temporary Admission, Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice,
and proposed order thereon, and did not have the opportunity to respond to those filings. The
Court's Order granting Taitz. pro hac vice admission should be vacated. Taitz has exhibited a
repeated inability to follow the rules of this Court and should not be granted the privilege of
appearing as an attorney on behalf of all Plaintiffs in thi s case.
18. Finally, PlaintiffTaitz has been sanct ioned on several occasions in other courts in
cases containing the same claims as the present matter. Though Taitz may not have any c urrent
pending discipline in the State of California, her behavior has been admonished by at least one
federal court. See State Respondents' Exhibit A to Motion for Sanctions. Taitz also accused this
Court of bias on the record at a previous hearing.
19. Taitz has not provided any compelling reason why this Court, in its discretion,
should allow Taitz to appear pro hac vice. The Court should vacate the Order granting Taitz the
privilege of pro hac vice admission and should stand on its Order denying Taitz's Motion to
Appear Pro Hac Vice.
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
20. The State Defendants do not waive any objections or defenses by filing this
Motion.
WHEREFORE, the State Defendants respectfully move this Court to reconsider and
vacate granting PlaintiffOrly Taitzpro hac vice admission in this matter, to stand on its August
22, 2012, Order denying Taitzpro hac vice admission, and for all other just and proper relief.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
By:
GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Attorney General of Indiana
Attorney No. 1958-98
Deputy Attorney General
Attorney No. 28065-49
Jefferson S. Gam
Deputy Attorney General
Attorney No. 29921-49
Kenneth L. Joel
Deputy Attorney General
Attorney No. 30271-49
counsel for the Indiana Election Commission and
the Indiana Secretary of State
Deputy Attorney General
Attorney No. 30271-49
counsel/or Deputy Attorneys General Jefferson S
Garn and Kale Shelby
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served upon all parties
and/or counsel of record listed below, by United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, on
September 18, 2012.
Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Stc I 00
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Karl Swihart
460 Austin Dri ve
Avon, IN 46123
Edward Kesler
3070 S. Leisure Place
West Terre Haute, IN 47885
Frank Weyl
70 I N. Brentwood Lane
Muncie, IN 47304
Bob Kern
1254 7 Crystal Point Drive
Indianapolis, IN 46236
Valeria I. Ripley
14334 Tonkel Road
Fort Wayne, IN 46845
Greg Black
P.O. Box 845
1647 East Main Street, Suite A
Plainfield, IN 46168
0FF'ICE OF INDIANA ArrORNEY GENERAL
Indiana Government Center South, 5th Floor
302 West Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770
Telephone: (317) 232-6304
Facsimile: (317) 232-7979
E-mail: Kate.Shelby@atg.in.gov
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
....... -....._ ..... -
STATE OF INDIANA
COUNTY OF MARION
DR O I ~ L Y TAITZ, ESQ, KARL
SWlllAH.T, EDWARD KESLER,
BOB KEl{N, FRANK WEYL, and
VALERIA RIPLEY
Plaintiffs,
v.
)
) SS:
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ELECTIONS COMMISSION, )
SECRETARY OF STATE OF )
INDIANA, DEPUTY ATTORNEY )
GENERAL JEFFERSON GARN, )
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL )
KATE SHELBY, 1310 RADIO/WTLC )
AMOS BROWN, IN HIS CAPACITY )
OF THE TALK SHOW HOST OF THE )
1310 RADIO/WTLC )
Defendants.
)
)
IN TI-lE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
CAUSE NO. 49014-1203-MI-012046
ORDER ON THE STATE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER
GRANTING TAITZPRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
Defendants Indiana Election Commission ("IEC"), the Indiana Secretary of State,
Deputy Attorney General Jefferson Gam, and Deputy Attorney General Kate Shelby
(collectively, the "State Defendants"), by counsel , filed their Motion to Reconsider this Court's
Order granting Plaintiff Orly Taitz pro hac vice admission in this matter. By that Motion, the
State Defendants also notified this Court that Plaintiffs failed to serve the State Defendants with
filings dated August 28, 2012, and September 4, 2012. And the Court, being duly advised in the
premises, now FINDS and ORDERS that the State Defendants' Motion is GRANTED. The
Court's Order granting Plaintiff Orly Taitz pro hac vice admission in this matter is VACATED.
The Court stands on its Order dated August 22, 2012, denying Taitz pro hac vice admission.
Plaintiffs are ORDERED to serve the State Defendants with all future filings and to adhere to
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
the rules of this Court. Any further failure by Plaintiffs to serve the State Defendants with their
filings in this cause shall constitute contempt of court .
SO ORDERED thi s _____ _ day of ________ , 2012.
Distribution:
Jefferson Gam
Kate Shelby
Kenneth L. Joel
Office of the Attorney General
I.G.C.S- 5
111
Floor
302 West Washington Street
Indiana pol is, IN 46204
Greg Black
P.O. Box 845
1647 East Main Street, Suite A
Plainfield, IN 46168
Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste I 00
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Karl Swihart
460 Austin Drive
Avon, IN 46123
HonorableS. K. Reid
Judge, MARIO!'.' SUPERIOR COURT 14
Edward Kesler
3070 S. Leisure Place
West Terre Haute, IN 47885
Frank Weyl
701 N. Brentwood Lane
Muncie, IN 47304
Bob Kern
12547 Crystal Point Dri ve
Indianapol is, IN 46236
Valeria I. Ripl ey
14334 Tonkel Road
Fort Wayne, IN 46845
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m