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

7/31/2019 AZ - LLF - 2012-05-09 DNC Motion for Sanctions EXHIBITS

1/21

INEX OF EXHITS TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Exhibit A Email attaching Letter from Paul Eckstein and Draft Motion for Sanctions(April 16,2012)

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

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


2/21

EXHIBIT A



3/21

Wendt, Clair (Perkins Coie)From:Sent:To:Cc: .Subject:Attachments:

Wendt. Clair (Perkins Coie)Monday, April 16, 2012 5:34 PM'[email protected]'Eckstein, Paul (Perkins Coie)Libert Legal Foundation v. DNC4-16-12 letter to Irion enclosing draft motion for sanctions. pdf

Dear Mr. Irion,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 LLPLEGAL SECRETARY TO PAUL F. ECKSTEIN2901 N. Central AvenueSuite 2000Phoenix. AZ 85012-2788PHONE: 602.351.8163FAX: 602.648.7122E-MAIL: [email protected]

-J Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank you.

1



4/21

PerkinsICoie

Paul F. Ei;ksicinl' (602) 351-8222PAX: (602) 648-71221l: PEi;kstcin@pcrkli;oic.i;om

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000Phoenix, AZ 85012-788

PHONE. 602.351.8000FAX 602.648.7000

ww.perklnscoie.com.

April 16,2012

VIA ELECTRONIC MAL AND U.S. MALVan Iron, Es.Libert Legal Foundaton9040 Executive Park Drive, Suite 200Knoxvile, 1N [email protected]: 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.)

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 the Federa Rulesof Civil Proceure, please fid atthed to ths letter a dr Motion for Sanctons, which we fuyintend to fie if you do not withdrw the Second Amended Complait and/or dismiss ths caewith prejudice within 2 i days.Please feel free to contact me with comments or questions.

Paul F. EckseinPFElchwEnclosure63920-o001.0010ILGAL23398607.1

ANCHORAGE. BEIJING. BELLEVUE. BOISE. CHICAGO' DALLAS. DENVER' ios ANGelES. MADISON. PALO ALTOPHOENIX' PORTlAND. SAN DIEGO, SAN FRANCISCO. SEATTlE' SHANGHAI. WASHINGTON, D.C.

Perkins Cole ll



5/21

Paul F. Eckstin, BarNo. [email protected]. Andrew Gaona Bar No. [email protected] COlE LLP2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788Tele,phone: 602.351.8000Facsimie: - 602.648. [email protected] for Defendants Democratic NationalCommittee and Debbie Waseran Schultz

1

234S6789

1011 LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNATION; JOHNDUMTf; LEONAR VOLODARKY;12 CREG MAONEY,

DRAFT

UNTED STATES DISTRCT COURTDISTRCT OF ARONA

No.2:11-cv-02089MOTION FOR SANCTIONS(Ora Arguent Requested)(Assigned to the Hon. Susan Bolton)

13 Plaitiffs,14 v.lS NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY OFTH USA, INC.; DEMOCRATIC16 NATIONAL COMMTTE; AN DEBBIEWASSERM SCHTZ,171819 Puuant to Ru1 1 i of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants20 Democratic National Committee (''ONC'') and. Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Defendats.

2 1 ("Congresswoman Wassemian Schultz") move that the Cour impose sactions agaist22 Van Irion, counsel for Plaintiffs in ths mater, because (1) the legal theory that colors23 Plaintiffs' claims is unwaranted and has been rejected by each and ever court and24 adminstrtive body to consider it, and (2) Plaintiff' Second Amended Complaint names. .S 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 directing27 Mr. Irion to pay all of their reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses incud in seeking28 the dismissal of this frivolous and harassing lawsuit. This Motion is supported by the



6/21

1

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, which is incorporated herein byreference.

MEMORAUM OF POIN AN AUTHORIIESBaekground1On October 25,2011, Plaitiffs Libert Lega Foundation, John Dumett, Leonard

Volodasky, and Creg Maroney filed a Class Action Complaint for Declaratory andInjunctive Relief, naming only the Nationa Democratic Par of the USA, Inc. andCongresswoman Wasserman Schultz as defendants. (Doc. No.1) Plaintiffs purorted toserve 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 inthe action, Plaintiffs filed 'a Firt Amended Class Action Complaint against the sameparies, 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 ofCiVil 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,Plaintiffs also filed a Motion and Memoradum seekig the entr of a default judgmentagainst Defendant National Democratic Par of the USA, Inc. (Doc. No. 12)

On Febru 29, 2012, the Cour ordered tht Plaitiffs' counel show cause as towhy servce on the National Democratic Par of the USA, Inc. by certified mail wasproper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 14) Plaintiffs' counsel. .esponded citig Rule 4(e)(I) of the Feder Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 4.2 of theArzona RUles of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 15) On March 23,2012, the Cour held thatserice on the National Democratic Par of the USA, Inc. was improper, and ordered thatthe case be dismissed unless proper servce was cied out with th days., (Doc.No. 17)i The Background section of this Motion is nearly identical to the Statement of theCase pres~I)ted in the DNC and Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz's Motion to Dismiss(Doc. NO.d

-2- NO.2:11-eV-02089



7/21

i23456789

1011121314IS16171819202122232425262728

Additionally, on March 22, 2012, the Cour entered an order fidig thatCongresswoman Wasserman Schultz had not yet been served, and ordered Plaintiffs toshow cause for its failure to do so. (Doc. No. 16) On March 26,2012, Plaintiffs filed aMotion and Memoradwn seekig the entr of a default judgment againstCongresswoman Wasser Schultz (Doc. No. 19), along with a response to the Co~'sMach 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 adefault judgment again Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz because the proof ofservice provided by Plaintiffs "fail(ed) to include a signed receipt." (Doc. No. 21)

Whle takg all of thes~ steps in the District of Arzona, the same Plaintiffsintituted parallel proceedigs in Tennessee. Indeed just one day after filing the initialClas Action Complaint in the intat case, Pl~tiffs :fled a nearly ide~tical complaint inShelby County Chancery Cour. Liberty Legal Foun; v. Nat'l Democratic Party of theUSA, Inc., No. CH-1l-1757 (Tenn. Ch. Ct. Shelby Cnty). Thee days prior to the fiing ofthe First Amended Class Action Complaint with this Cour Plaitiff apparently filed anearly identical document in Shelby County Chacery Cour. The Tennessee case wasremoved to the Wester District of Tenessee on Februar 23, 2012. Liberty Legal.Foun. v. Natl DemoCratic Party of the USA, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02143-STA-cgc (W.O.Tenn.). Curently before the Tenessee distrct cour are thee separte motions to dismissfied by the defendants and a motion to remand filed by the plaintiffs. See id. at Doc. Nos.4-9, 12.

On April ~ 2012, the DNC and Congressw:oman Wasserman Schultz served adraft copy of this Motion for Sanctions on Mr. Irion as required by Rule 11 (c)(2). Mr.Iron's refual to voluntaly dismiss this action with prejudice within the 21-day timeperiod permitted by that rule reuies the filing of th Motion

ArgumentYea ago, Justice Cardozo provided us with perhaps the most poignant description

of the duty imposed on all lawyer: .-3- NO.2:11-eV-02089



8/21

123456789

Membersp in the bar is a priviege burdened with conditions. (A lawyeris) received into that ancient felloWsp .for somethg more than privategai. He (becomes) an offcer of the' coui ~d, like the cour itself, anmstrent or agency to advance the ends of Justice.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,~'advanc(ing) the ends of justice" does not include using the cours to make claims that areflatly 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 "not15 being presented for any improper purose," and that its "clai. . . and other legal16 contentions (were) warted by existig law." Fed. R Civ. P. i 1 (b)(1), (b)(2). But those17 certfications were hollow promises; instead, Mr. Iron (1) presented ths cour with claims18 that have no legal or factual basis, and (2) perhaps more distubingly, attempted to19 perpetrate a fraud on this cour by naming a sham organiztion as a defendat. As a20 result, sanctions under Rule i 1 are appropriate and should be imposed to deter future21 frvolous filings from Mr. Iron, and to send a message to those with whom he is alled22. that the federal cour wil not tolerate their contiued abuse of the judicial process.

232425262728

2 Rule 15(a)(2) r~uies consent of the pares or leave of cour for any amendedcomplait beyond the fi amended complaint. .

-+ ~(). 2:11~"~089



9/21

1 I. THE COURT SHOULD IMOSE RULE 11 SANCTIONS AGAIST MRIRON23456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627

Rule 11 of the Federa Rules of Civil Procedure holds that by presenting any paperto 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,cause wmecessar delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (and)(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are waranted byexisting law or by a nonfrvolous argument for extending, modifyng, orreversing 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 indistrct cour and thus . . . strealie the adminstation and proceure of the federalcour." Cooter & Gell v. HartmQ7 Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990). To that end, it."authories a distrct cour to impose sanctions on attorneys . . . who brig :fvolouslawsuits in bad faith and for ulterior pwposes." Metabolic Research, Inc. v. Ferrell, 668F.3d 1100, 1107 n.7 (9t Cir. 2012). To determine whether a filing is made for animproper puIose or is frvolous, the cour mus apply an objective standard ofreaonableness. G.c. an KB. Ims., Inc. v. Wilson, 326 F.3d 1096, 1109 (9t Cir. 2003).

Plaitiff' SAC is founded on a frvolous legal theory that bas been rejected byevery cour and adminstrative trbunal that has been forced to consider it. With fullknowledge of the wholesale rejection of the conspiracy theory that President BarackObama is not qualified to serve as President of the United States, Mr. Irion nonethelesssigned and filed that paper with the Cour. In so doing, he ignored Supreme Courtprecedent and the lack of legal support for his allegation, and failed to perorm areaonable inquir into the propriety of namng the "National Democratic Par of theUSA, Inc." as a defendat in ths action.3 Each of these grounds support the impositionof sanctions against Mr. Iron.

28 3 As evidenced by their Motion to Dismiss, the DNC and Congresswoman-5- . NO.2:II-CV-02089



10/21

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 to4 hold offce or ru for re-election becuse he is not a ''ntu born citien" of the United5 States as requied by Arcle II of the United States Consitution. The arguent advanced6 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 States8' Supreme Court "defined 'natul-born citins' as 'all children born in a. countr of9 prents who were its citizens.'" (Id.' 12)

10 In citig Mlnor, Mr. Iron represnts tht he ha read that decision. It is thus1 i inexplicable that he fails to acknowledge that Minor expressly left open the question of12 whether a child born to alen parents is a "natual' born citizen" because it was not13 necessar to the disposition of the cae. See Minor, 88 U.S. at 167-68 (noting that it was14 not necessar to resolve existig doubts as to whther a child born in the United States,15 "without reference to the citienship of their parnts," is a ''natul-born citizenD"). Even16 more confounding is his failure to acknowledge that the question left open in Minor was17 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. .19 United States because "( e )ver pern born in the Unite States, and subject to the20 jurdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the Unitd Staes").2122232425262728

In liglt of the Supreme Cour's decision more than a centu ago in Wong Kim Ark,several. cour - in reportd decisions - have rejected the legal theory that colorsPlaintiffs' enti case. See Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 66 (D.N.H. 20(8)("Those born 'in the United States, and subject to the jursdiction thereot have beenconsidered Amencan citizcns under Amencan law in effect since the tie of the foundingWasserm Schultz also believe that Mr. Won failed to perfonn a reasonable inqui intothe npeness of-this dispute, the Cour's subject matter Jursdiction over this dispute, andthe Cour's personal jurdicton over them. For the sake of tie and economy, thisMotion substatively discusses only the two grounds staed above, which constitute themost egregious Rule 11 violatons commtt tiy Mr.. Iron in th case.

.' -6- NO.2:11-CV-02089



11/21

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223 .2425262728

and thus eligible for the presidency.") (citations omitted); Ankeny v. Goernor ofIndiana,

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 ''personsborn 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 ofreprtd decisions pales when compared with the' growhig numbe of state cour and stateadminstrtive bodies tht have been forc to confnt ths well-setted queston of law,and in so doing have reached precisely the same result. 4

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 byexisting law. An inquir by a reasonable attorney would have revealed as much, and as a. .result, Mr. Iron's failure to conduct such an inqui (or, alternatively, his choice to ignorethe results of that inquiry) warants the imposition of Rule 11 sactons.

B. Plaintiffs Name a Sham Organiztion as a Defendant.Aside from the underlying substative frvolity of Plaintiffs' clais, perhaps the

most troubling example of Mr. Irion's sanctlonable conduct is his decision to name the"National Democratic Par of the USA, Inc." as a defendant in this case, and to seek the4 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 the2012 ballot; fidig tht Ubama is a "natual born citi" under Wong Kim Ark; andexpressly 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'seligibilo/ to appear on 2012 ballot; fmding that Obam was born in U.S. an is a "natualborn 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.denied (Mar. 14, 2012); Jackson v. Obama, 12 SORB GP 104 (Il. Bd. of ElectionsHeang Offcer Recommendation Jan. 27, 2012) (Obama's bir certficate "clearlyestablishesot his eligibilty for offce as a ''Natual Born Citizen"), objection overruled(TL State Bd. ~fEle~ons Feb. 3,2012). A complete)ist ?~ cases brou.Gt by "1?irters"-complete . with li to may of the dispositions - . is available' athtt:l/tesibria.iyepad.comlwhats your evidenceIBIRTIR%20CASE%20LIST .pdf.

In parcular, the DNe and Congresswoman Waserman Schultz diect the Cour'sattention to Farrar, in which Mr. Iron served as counsel for one of the unsuccessfulchallengers.. As a result, he canot in good faith claim that he was unaware of the fact thatthe legal theory he advances here has 6een rejected in any number of previous decisions.

-7- NO. 2:1 L-CV.Q2089



12/21

1

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

entry of default againt that entity. A r~onable inquir by Mr. Iron would haverevealed that the "National Democratic Par of the USA, Inc." is not affliated with theDNC or the Democratic Par in any way, and tht it is a sham organation that ~ay beafiated with the Shelby County (Tennessee) Republica Par. See Tenn. Secreta ofState, Business Entity Detal, National Democratic Par of the USA, me.,htt://tnbear.tn.govCommercelFilingDetail.aspx?CN=091244127202157024172089179,042105022040227133146 (last visited Apr. 10, 2012) (statng that the "Shelby CountyRepublican Par, In~." is an assumed named of the National Democratic Par of theUSA, Inc.).

Mr. Iron's litigation strtegy - both here and in the Tennessee action - apparentlyinvolves naming this sham organtion as a defendat and ttemptig to obtan a defaultjudgment against it either for public relations puroses or as leverage agaist theremaiing defendants. The conclusion- that he does so knowigly is supported by themaner in which the Plaitiffs effectuted serce in this case, purortng to serve only the"National Democratic Par of the USA, Inc." until the Cour intervened. (See Doc. No.16) The Cour should not tolerte such an abuse of the judicial process, and shouldtherefore impose sactions on Mr. Iron to deter him from utilizg this deceptive sttegyin the future.

ConclusionThs case is the latest in a long list of spurous attempts by the "birter movement"

to use the court as a tool in its campaign to force President Obama and those who supporthi 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 bestopped. The claims advance by plaintiff in ths case are unsupportd by existig lawand were made without reonable inquires into any number of substative andprocedural matters. . As a result, the DNC and Congresswoman Wasseran Schultzrespectfuly request that the Cour sanction Mr. Irion by ordering hi to pay theirreasonable attorneys' fees and costs incured in defending this action, including the cost of

-8- NO.2: LL-CV .(2089



13/21

. 1 preparg ths motion, in addition to whatever additional sanctons'the Cour fids just and

2 reasonable under the circumstaces.34 Dated: April _' 201256789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

PERSC~By: 'A:).Paul F. Eckstein,Br. 001822PEckstein(iperkinscoie.comD. AndrewGaona, Bar No. 028414AGaona(iperkinscoie.com2901 N. C"entr Avenue, Suite 2000Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788Telephone: 602.351.8000Facsimle: 602.648.7000

Attorneys for DefendatsDemocrtic National Committee andDebbie Wasseran Schultz

-9- NO. 2:1 i..V.02089



14/21

1

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

CERTICATE OF SERVICEI hereby certify that on April -- 2012, I electronically trsmitted the attched

documents to the Clerk's Offce using the CMlCF System.I hereby cerfy that on April -' 2012, the following were sered by the U.S.

Distrct Clerk's electronic system:

Mr. Van Irion ([email protected])

sl hA- Pr3920-Gj .001 OILAU339803. 1

-10- NO. 2:1 1-CV-0089



15/21

EXHIBITB



16/21

Wendt. Clair (Perkins' Coie)From:Sent:To:Cc:Subject:

Van Irion ([email protected])Monday, May 07,20129:52 AMEckstein, Paul (Perkins Cole)Wendt, Clair (Perkins Coie); [email protected]: Libert Legal Foundation v. DNC

Mr. Eckstein,Regarding your "Draf Motion for Sanctions," you ar hereby notified of the following facts:Prior to filing Libert Legal Foundation's (LLF) complait I spoke to a stfer at the Tennessee Secreta ofState's Offce regarding stadard operating procedures for Presidential elections. That ster inormed me thatthe National Democratic Par always sends a notice to all Secretaies of State certifyg the name of the Par'scandidate. That staer also informed me that without such certfication from the national Par organzation, theSOS would not put the Par's candidate's name on the stte ballot.I then performed a search for "Democratic Par" and "National Democratic Par" using the TennesseeSecretar of State's internet search page. Since all entities doing business with or with the State of Tennesseeare requied to register with the State I assumed that any National Democratic Par organation would haveregistered. The National Democratic Par of the USA Inc., (NDPUSA) was the only entity that the SOSidentified.I have no knowledge regarding why the NDPUSA was formed, nor do I have any relationship with any of itsorganizers. To the best of my knowledge neither Libert Legal Foundation nor any pary to ths case have anypersonal knowledge regarding the formation or operation of the NDPUSA. To date I stil have no way ofknowing who formed the NDPUSA, why it was formed, or whether it is associated with either the Democraticor Republican pares.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 associatedwith that organzation acting despite a judgment agaist the other defendants, and alterntively to force anyoneassociated 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 IrionCo-Founder, Lead CounselLIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION9040 Executive Park Drive, Suite 200Knoxvile, TN 37923PhonelFax: 423-208-9953ww.libertlegalfoundation.net

hf. l I r'''lr'''i'\'lr-~''Ii:. ,4 "- l.h: \ r . ~lJ!\L! FOUND/\ll()t',

1



17/21

From: Wendt, Clair (Perkins Coie) (mailto:[email protected])Sent: Monday, April 16, 20128:34 PMTo: '[email protected]'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.

Clair H. Wendt I Perkins Coie LLPLEGAL SECRETARY TO PAUL F. ECKSTEIN2901 N. Cenlral AvenueSuite 2000Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788PHONE: 602.351.8163FAX: 602.648.7122E-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 youthat, unless expressly indicated otherwise, any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including anyattachments) is not intended or written by Perkins Coie LLP to be used, and cannot be used by the taxpayer, for thepurpose 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 ordisclosing the contents. Thank you.

2



18/21

EXHIBIT C



19/21

Gaona. D. Andrew (Perkins Coie)

Subject:

Eckstein, Paul (Perkins Coie)Monday, May 07,20124:45 [email protected], Clair (Perkins Coie); [email protected]; Gaona, D. Andrew (PerkinsCoie)RE: Liberty Legal Foundation v. DNC

From:Sent:To:Cc:

Mr. Irion---I assume from your email below that you are NOT withdrawing your Second Amended Complaint in LibertyLegal Foundation et al v. National Democratic Party ofthe USA et al (Action No. 2:11-cv-02089 in the United StatesDistrict Court of the District of Arizona). If i am wrong in my assumption, please let me know by email by 5 PM Phoenixtime on Tuesday, May 8,2012.

Paul F. EcksteinPerkins Coie LLP2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000Phoenix, Arizona 85012T (602) 351-8222F (602) 648-7122mai Ito: [email protected]****************************************IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION: This communication is not intended or written by Perkins Coie LLP to be used, andcannot be used by the taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under theInternal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.From: Van Irion (mailto:[email protected])Sent: Monday, May 07, 20129:52 AMTo: Eckstein, Paul (Perkins Coie)Cc: Wendt, Clair (Perkins Coie); [email protected]: RE: Libert Legal Foundation v. DNC

Mr. Eckstein,Regarding your "Draft Motion for Sanctions," you are hereby notified of the following facts:Prior to filing Libert Legal Foundation's (LLF) complaint I spoke to a staffer at the Tennessee Secretary ofState's Office regarding standard operating procedures for Presidential elections. That staffer informed me thatthe National Democratic Part always sends a notice to all Secretaries of State certifying the name of the Part'scandidate. That staffer also informed me that without such certification from the national Part organization, theSOS would not put the Part's candidate's name on the state ballot.I then performed a search for "Democratic Part" and "National Democratic Part" using the TennesseeSecretary of State's internet search page. Since all entities doing business within or with the State of Tennesseeare required to register with the State I assumed that any National Democratic Part organization would haveregistered. The National Democratic Part of the USA Inc., (NPUSA) was the only entity that the SOSidentified.I have no knowledge regarding why the NDPUSA was formed, nor do I have any relationship with any of itsorganizers. To the best of my knowledge neither Libert Legal Foundation nor any part to this case have anypersonal knowledge regarding the formation or operation of the NDPUSA. To date I stil have no way of

1



20/21

knowing who formed the NDPUSA, why it was formed, or whether it is associated with either the Democraticor Republican parties.We were surprised when our attempts to serve the NDPUSA via certified mail were returned as undeliverable.Our attempt to obtain a default judgment was simply intended to eliminate any possibility of anyone associatedwith that organization acting despite a judgment against the other defendants, and alternatively to force anyoneassociated with that organization to make an appearance in the case.Your speculation about LLF's motives regarding our service of process and motion for default are false.Van IrionCo-Founder, Lead CounselLIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION9040 Executive Park Drive, Suite 200Knoxvile, TN 37923PhonelFax: 423-208-9953\vww. i i bertv legalfoundation .net. -

1J~1~ LIBERTY LEGALIi FOUNDA'! IONFrom: Wendt, Clair (Perkins Coie) (mailto:[email protected])Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 8:34 PMTo: '[email protected]'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.

Clair H. Wendt I Perkins Coie LLPLEGAL SECRETARY TO PAUL F. ECKSTEIN2901 N. Central AvenueSuite 2000Phoenix. AZ 85012-2788PHONE: 602.351.8163FAX: 602.648.7122E-MAIL: [email protected] 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 youthat, unless expressly indicated otherwise, any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including anyattachments) is not intended or written by Perkins Coie LLP to be used, and cannot be used by the taxpayer, for thepurpose 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



21/21

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 ordisclosing the contents. Thank you.

3


Documents

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