STATE OF INDIANA

COUNTY OF MARION
ORLY TAITZ, KARL SWIHART,
EDWARD KESLER, BOB KERN,
and FRANK WEYL
Petitioners,
v.
)
) SS:
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
INDIANA ELECTION COMMISSION, )
and INDIANA SECRETARY OF )
STATE,
Respondents.
)
)
)
IN THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
CAUSE NO. 49D14-1203-MI-012046
APR 172012
a,ly'>IA ( wM-P

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Respondents, the Indiana Election Commission ("IEC") and the Indiana Secretary of
State, by Deputy Attorneys General Kate Shelby and Jefferson Gam, pursuant to Indiana Rule of
Trial Procedure 11 and Indiana Code 34-52-1-1, hereby respectfully move the Court sanction
Petitioners and their counsel, if any, for bringing frivolous, umeasonable, and groundless claims
against Respondents and to award Respondents their costs and attorney fees incurred in their
defense in this cause.
I. PETITIONERS' COMPLAINT IS FRIVOLOUS, UNREASONABLE, AND
GROUNDLESS
For the reasons set forth in Respondents' Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in
Support thereof, I Petitioners' Petition for Emergency Injunctive and Declaratory Relief
("Petition") against Respondents is frivolous, umeasonable, and groundless. A claim is frivolous
if
I Respondents hereby incorporate their Motion to Dismiss and in SUppOtt of said
Motion into this filing.
1
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

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

it is taken primarily for the purpose of harassment, if the attorney is unable to
make a good faith and rational argument on the merits of the action, or if the
lawyer is unable to support the action taken by a good faith and rational argument
for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
Elbert v. Elbert, 579 N.E.2d 102, 114 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). In order to determine if a claim is
unreasonable, a court must look "to the totality of the circumstances, including the law and facts
ascertainable at the time of filing." McDonald v. McDonald, 631 N .E.2d 522, 524 (Ind. Ct. App.
1994). A claim is unreasonable if "no reasonable attorney would consider the claim worthy of
litigation." Id., citing General Collections, Inc. v. Decker 545 N.E.2d 18, 20 (Ind. Ct. App.
1989). "A claim or defense is 'groundless' if no facts exist which support the legal claim
presented by the losing party." Alaska Seaboard Partners Ltd. P'ship v. Hood, 949 N.E.2d 1247,
1256 (Ind. Ct. App. 201\).
Petitioners' Petition is an unlawful attempt to circumvent the judicial review process and
the requirements of Indiana Administrative Orders and Procedures Act, Indiana Code 4-21.5-1-
1 et seq. ("AOPA"). Two of the Petitioners - Orly Taitz and Bob Kern - do not have standing to
seekjudicial review ofIEe's unanimous decision to deny the challenges to President Obama's
qualifications for the office of United States President because they did not file challenges with
the IEC that were heard during the February 24th meeting wherein the IEC denied the other
Petitioners' challenges. See Ind. Code 4-21.5-5-2. Furthermore, Petitioners failed to meet the
procedural requirements of AOPA, divesting this Court of its authority to entertain this matter.
See Ind. Code 4-21.5-5-7; Ind. Code 4-21.5-5-8; Ind. Code 4-21.5-5-14.
Moreover, Petitioners are not entitled to injunctive or declaratory relief because said
relief is not available under AOP A. See Scales v. Hospitality House of Bedford, 593 N.E.2d
1283, 1286 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992). Even if the Petition was construed as a request for a stay under
Indiana Code 4-21.5-5-9, Petitioners did not verity their request, did not provide a bond, are
2
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

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

requesting relief that is not available (disruption of the status quo), and have failed to prove that
the IEC's unanimous denial of the challenges was illegal or invalid. Indeed, it is clear that the
IEC does not have the power to detennine a candidate or incumbent President's qualifications for
the office of United States President. The United States Constitution has reserved that power
exclusively to Congress. See U.S. Const., Art. II, 1. The IEC had no choice but to
unanimously deny Petitioners' challenges.
In view of these facts and laws, which are known to Petitioners (at least one of whom is
an attorney), "no reasonable attorney would consider" their claims against Respondents as
"worthy oflitigation." Id. at 524. Petitioners have no "good faith or rational argument on the
merits" of their claims against Respondents. Elbert, 579 N.E.2d at 114. Finally, "no facts exist
which support" Petitioners' claims against Respondents. Alaska Seaboard Partners Ltd. P'ship,
949 N.E.2d at 1256. Petitioners cannot circumvent AOPA by requesting injunctive and
declaratory relief in this Court and not mentioning the administrative proceedings in front of the
IEC. The relief that Petitioners seek is not allowable pursuant to Indiana law. The IEC
required by the United States Constitution to deny Petitioners' frivolous challenges to President
Obama's qualifications for United States President. Petitioners' claims against Respondents fail
as a matter of law on their face. They are frivolous, unreasonable, and groundless.
II. THIS COURT SHOULD SANCTION PETITIONERS AND AWARD COSTS AND
FEES TO RESPONDENTS
Upon reviewing Petitioners' claims, the incoherent and irrelevant exhibits attached
thereto, and Indiana law, Deputy Attorney General Jeff Garn contemplated sending a Rule 11
letter to one or more of the Petitioners who properly filed their contact information with the
Court. However, after receiving a phone call from Bob Kern, wherein Kern stated that he was
going to sue Garn for defamation, Gam realized that no productive conversations regarding the
3
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

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

merits of this case could be had between Petitioners and counsel for Respondents in this case.
It is also important to note that Petitioner Taitz has been sanctioned in at least one case
wherein she challenged President Obama's qualifications for the office of United States
President. See Order by the Middle District of Georgia, attached hereto and incorporated herein
as Respondents' Exhibit 1. Taitz has taken her frivolous political fight all over this country, and
her conduct has been admonished. See id.
Petitioners' action is frivolous, unreasonable, and groundless. Consequently, this Court
should sanction Petitioners pursuant to Indiana Rule of Trial Procedure 11. The Petition is not
suppOlted on good grounds, and no reasonable attorney would bring such a suit. Judgment in
favor of Respondents and monetary penalties are appropriate sanctions in this instance.
Moreover, this Court should award Respondents their costs and attorney fees in
defending this suit pursuant to Indiana Code 34-52-1-1. That provision states:
(a) In all civil actions, the party recovering judgment shall recover costs, except in
those cases in which a different provision is made by law.
(b) In any civil action, the court may award attorney's fees as part of the cost to
the prevailing party, ifthe court finds that either party:
(1) brought the action or defense on a claim or defense that is frivolous,
unreasonable, or groundless;
(2) continued to litigate the action or defense after the party's claim or
defense clearly became frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless; or
(3) litigated the action in bad faith.
Ind. Code 34-52-1-1(a) and (b). As stated above, Petitioners' claims against Respondents are
"frivolous, umeasonable, or groundless." Id. At least one Petitioner, Orly Taitz, has "continued
to litigate" her claims after being admonished in other courts for her actions. Id. Finally,
Petitioners did not have a good faith basis for bringing this suit. Petitioners' own exhibits make
4
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

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

it clear that their case is frivolous, groundless, and unreasonable. Respondents are, therefore,
entitled to their costs and attorney fees incurred in their defense.
2
Petitioners' frivolous, unreasonable, and groundless Complaint has wasted judicial
resources, the State's resources,. and taxpayer dollars. This Court should sanction Petitioners and
by imposing monetary penalties on them and awarding judgment in favor of Respondents, and
the Court should award Respondents their costs and attorney fees incurred in the defense of this
matter.
WHEREFORE, Respondents respectfully move this Court to sanction Petitioners and to
award Respondents their costs and attorney fees in this matter.
By:
Respectfully submitted,
GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Indiana Attorney General
Attorney No. 1958-98
Kate Shelby
Deputy Attorney General
Attorney No. 28065-49
VERIFICATION FOR SECTION II OF THIS MOTION:
I AFFIRM UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING
REPRESENTATIONS ARE TRUE TO THE BEST 0 Y KNO EDGE AND BELIEF.
lefferso am
Deputy Attorney General
Attorney No. 29921-49
'Counsel for Respondents will file an affidavit that sets forth their attorney fees in this matter if the Court grants this
Motion.
5
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
a r ~ counsel of record listed below, by United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, on this
~ ' d a y of April, 2012:
Information has not been provided to the Court or undersigned counsel regarding a
mailing address for the following Petitioners: Edward Kesler, Frank Weyl and Bob Kern.
Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Karl Swihalt
460 Austin Drive
Avon, IN 46123
OFFICE OF INDIANA ArrORNEY GENERAL
Indiana Government Center South, 5
th
Floor
302 West Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770
Telephone: (317) 232-6304
Facsimile: (317) 232-7979
E-mail: kate.shelby@atg.in.gov
Kate Shelby
Deputy Attorney General
6
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

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