F

r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

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

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY OR f G f N A L
STATE OF GEORGIA
*
DAVID FARRAR, LEAH LAX, CODY
*
FILED IN OFFICE
ROBERT JUDY, LAURIE ROTH,
Plaintiffs,
v.
*
*
*
*
*
CIVIL ACTION
FILE NO. 2012CV21
BARACK OBAMA and BRIAN KEMP,
*
..
SECRETARY OF STATE,
*
it
*
Defendants.
*
*
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE
The above matter is before the Court on the Motion for Pro Hac Vice of Orly Taitz, Esq.,
filed on February 13, 2012. Now, having considered Ms. Taitz' s Motion for Pro Hac Vice, the
Court finds as follows:
In preparing and filing her Motion for Pro Hac Vice, Ms. Taitz failed to comply with the
requirements of Uniform Superior Court Rule 4.4. Uniform Superior Court Rule 4.4 specifically
provides that a Domestic Lawyer seeking to be admitted pro hac vice in a proceeding pending in
the State of Georgia shall file a Verified Application for Admission in the Court where the
litigation is filed including the following:
1. The applicant's residence and business address;
2. The name, address and phone number of each client sought to be represented;
3. The courts before which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the
respective period(s) of admission, and contact information as to each such court;
4. Whether the applicant: (a) has been denied admission pro hac vice in this state, (b)
had admission pro hac vice revoked in this state, or (c) has otherwise formally been
Farrar, et al. v. Sarack Ohama, et al.
Civil Action No. 2012CV211398
Order Denying Motion for Pro Hac Vice
Page 1
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

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

disciplined or sanctioned by any court in this state. If so, specify the nature of the
allegations; the name of the authority bringing such proceedings; the caption of the
proceedings; the date filed; and what findings were made and what action was taken
in connection with those proceedings;
5. Whether any formal, written disciplinary proceeding has ever been brought against
the applicant by a disciplinary authority in any other jurisdiction and, as to each such
proceeding: the nature of the allegations; the name of the person or authority bringing
such proceedings and contact information as to such person or authority; the date the
proceedings were initiated and finally concluded; the style of the proceedings; and the
findings made and actions taken in connection with those proceedings;
6. Whether the applicant has been held formally in contempt or otherwise sanctioned by
any court in a written order for disobedience to its rules or orders, and, if so: the
nature of the allegations; the name and contact information of the court before which
such proceedings were conducted; the date of the contempt order or sanction; the
caption of the proceedings; and the substance of the court's rulings (a copy of the
written order or transcript of the oral rulings shall be attached to the application);
7. The name and address of each court or agency and a full identification of each
proceeding in which the applicant has filed an application to appear pro hac vice in
this state within the preceding two years; the date of each application; and the
outcome of the application;
8. An averment as to the applicant's familiarity with the Georgia Rules of Professional
Conduct, local court rules and court procedures of the court before which the
applicant seeks to practice;
9. The name, address, telephone number and bar number of an active member in good
standing of the bar of this state who will sponsor the applicant's pro hac vice request.
The bar member shall appear of record together with the Domestic Lawyer.
The majority of the required information set forth above was not included in the Motion
for Pro Hac Vice of Ms. Taitz as required by Uniform Superior Court Rule 4.4(E)(1). Moreover,
the Motion included no Verification affirming that the applicant read the application, was
knowledgeable as to its contents, and that said contents were true. The Motion also failed to
demonstrate, through proof of service, that it would be served upon the Office of the General
Counsel of the State Bar of Georgia in accordance with Uniform Superior Court Rule 4.4(D).
Farrar, et al. v. Sarack Obama, et al.
Civil Action No. 2012CV211398
Order Denying Motion for Pro Hac Vice
Page 2
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

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

Lastly. the Motion did not include the name, Georgia Bar license number, or signature of an
attorney licensed to practice in the State of Georgia who will also be acting as counsel of record
in this litigation.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND
ADJUDGED that the Motion for Pro Hac Vice of Orly Taitz, Esq. is DENIED at this time.
SO ORDERED this the } 5 day of Febmary, 2012.
Copies to:
Via U.S. Mail:
David Farrar
2059 Cavesprong Road
Cedartown, Georgia 30125
Via Email and U.S. Mail:
Orly Tatiz, Esq.
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, Suite 100
Rancho Santa Matgarita, California 92688
Orl y. T ai tz@gmail.com
Michael K. Jablonski, Esq.
260 Brighton Road, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30309-1523
michael.jablonski@comcast.net
Vincent Robert Russo, Jr., Esq.
Georgia Secretary of State's Office
Executive Office
214 State Capitol
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
vrusso@sos.ga.gov
Farrar, et al. v. Barack Ohama, et al.
Civil Action No. 2012CV211398
Order Denying Motion for Pro Hac Vice
~ ~ , D ~
CYNTHIA D. WRIGHT, Chief Judge
Fulton County Superior Court
Atlanta Judicial Circuit
Page 3