To contact us Click
HERE
Team Obama (U.S. Atty.) Seeks More Time To Quash California Subpoenas; Files Opposition For Temporary Restraining Order To Halt Electoral College
As reported
here Dr. Orly Taitz subpoenaed numerous individuals involved in the Grinols v. Electoral College including Barack Obama. The U.S. Attorney just filed a motion to extend time for responding to the subpoenas and filed the opposition to the motion for a temporary restraining order to halt the electoral count. Last week a
hearing was set for January 3rd, 2013.
EXCERPTS:
DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR RESPONDING TO PLAINTIFFS’ SUBPOENAS
First, you have not delivered a copy of each subpoena to the persons named in the
subpoenas, as required by of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). Instead, you have simply mailed by Federal Express copies of your subpoenas to either the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Hawaii (in the case of your subpoena to the President) or to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (in the case of your subpoenas to the Commissioner of Social Security, the Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service, and the Director of Selective Service). In the case of your subpoena to Darrell Issa, your subpoena does not reflect any service whatsoever.
Second, with the exception of the President (who is a named party), the subpoenas require the named individuals to travel more than 100 miles to the place specified for production of documents. Such a requirement in a subpoena to a non-party is prohibited absent court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(2)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c (3)(A)(ii).
Third, you have not provided “a reasonable time to comply” with the subpoenas, in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(i). This objection applies equally to all of the subpoenas, but is particularly egregious in the case of the subpoena directed to Darrell Issa because the subpoena was issued on December 24, 2012, was not served on Mr. Issa, and directs him to produce documents by 5:00 pm on December 26, 2012.
Fourth, the subpoenas would require the disclosure of documents prohibited from disclosure by the Privacy Act. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A (iii).
Fifth, the subpoenas subject all of the named persons to an undue burden because: (1)
the plaintiffs named in your underlying lawsuit – Grinols v. Electoral College, 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD – lack standing to sue, (2) the claims are barred by the Speech or Debate Clause, and (3) the claims are barred by the political question doctrine.
Sixth, you do not appear to have made any attempt to comply with any of the agencies’ Touhy regulations in connection with your subpoenas. See Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462, 464-65 (1951).
[...]
Federal Defendants intend to file a formally noticed motion to quash the subpoenas forthwith and hereby ask the Court to extend the deadline for responding to the subpoenas until after the Court disposes of the motion to quash the subpoenas.
[...]
MOTION CONTINUED BELOW OR HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/118079864
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
The Petition lists Barack Obama in his capacity as “Candidate for the U.S. President in 2012,” the Electoral College, the Congress, the Vice President of the United States in his capacity as President of the Senate, the Governor of California, and the California Secretary of State, as defendants.
However, none of the defendants has been properly served under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i). Plaintiffs have provided only the U.S. Attorney’s Office with their Petition and Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, not any of the named federal defendants.
Moreover, the Petition was simply mailed to the U.S. Attorney’s Office by Federal Express, not by certified or registered mail as Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i) requires, and it was not addressed to the civil process clerk. The motion for a temporary restraining order was also simply mailed to the U.S. Attorney’s Office by Federal Express, not by certified or registered mail, see id., and the U.S. Attorney’s Office was not notified by plaintiffs of the existence of the Court’s minute order setting a briefing schedule on the motion for a temporary restraining order by 4:00 pm on December 20, 2012, as directed in the Court’s minute order. Finally, to the extent plaintiffs seek to sue the President in his individual capacity (they have sued the President in his capacity as “Candidate for the U.S. President in 2012), plaintiffs have not properly served the President pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e), (f), or (g). The plaintiffs have also failed to serve their Petition and motion for a temporary restraining order on the Attorney General’s Office under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i). By the filing of this opposition, federal defendants do not waive any objections to insufficiency of service of process.
[...]
Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims for three independent reasons. First, plaintiffs fail to demonstrate the existence of any personal and specific injury-in-fact traceable to the conduct of any of the defendants that is redressable by the relief they seek and, thus, fail to establish the prerequisites of constitutional standing. Second, the conduct that plaintiffs seek to enjoin, i.e., the counting of electoral college votes at the joint session of Congress on January 4, 2013, and the declaration of who was elected President, is immunized from judicial supervision by the Speech or Debate Clause of Article I of the Constitution. Third, plaintiffs' ultimate request for relief – to enjoin a joint session of Congress in order for the Judiciary to determine whether a candidate for President is a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of the Presidential Qualifications Clause – implicates a political question that renders this action nonjusticiable. These failings require denial of plaintiffs' request for preliminary injunctive relief and dismissal of the
complaint.
[...]
Whether or not the President is in possession of a valid social security card, selective service registration or any particular type of birth certificate is simply irrelevant to his eligibility for the Presidency under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.
[...]
Because any preliminary relief would throw the result of the 2012 Presidential election into doubt, disrupt the continuity of governance, and intrude into the internal matters entrusted by the Constitution to the Congress, there can be no question that the grant of the injunction that Plaintiffs seek would substantially harm the interests other interested parties, including the Congress and all Americans, including over a hundred million voters, who have an interest in the final and conclusive resolution of this election. Such concerns are magnified by the fact that the relief that plaintiffs’ seek would constitute a mandatory preliminary injunction that would alter the status quo by precluding congressional determination of any objections to the electoral count and that the preliminary relief sought would constitute the ultimate relief in the case with respect to the 2013 counting of the votes.
Furthermore, where plaintiffs plead nothing other than a wholly attenuated claim to injury, no public interest is served by granting the relief plaintiffs seek. To the contrary, unsettling the results of the election and disrupting the operation of Congress on the basis of plaintiffs' conclusory allegations works an immeasurable harm to the public. In such circumstances, plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order should be denied.
[...] - Court filings via Dr. CONspiracy.
OPPOSITION CONTINUED BELOW OR HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/118079957
CASE DETAILS: California Judge Sets Hearing For TRO Enjoining Congress From Certifying Obama’s Votes - CLICK HERE.
Grinols et al v Electoral College et al - Motion To Extend Time For Responding To Subpoenas - California El...
Grinols et al v Electoral College et al - Opposition To Temporary Restraining Order - California Electoral...
2006: Obama In Kenya: I Am So Proud To Come Back Home - VIDEO HERE.
2007: Michelle Obama Declares Obama Is Kenyan And America Is Mean - VIDEO HERE.
2008: Michelle Obama Declares Barack Obama's Home Country Is Kenya - VIDEO HERE.
FLASHBACK: Obama Is The Original Birther! Obama In 1991 Stated In His Own Bio He Was Born In Kenya. DETAILS HERE.
WATCH SHERIFF OBAMA INVESTIGATION PRESS CONFERENCE HERE: CLICK HERE.
-ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
New Ad - AZ Sheriff Arpaio - Obama Birth Cert & Draft Reg Card Are Forged! Wash Times Natl Wkly - 12 Ma...
| More Share Options
Chicago has a long tradition of padding its vote totals by placing homeless and deceased persons on its voter registration list. Jim Laski, who once served as the City Clerk of Chicago, second in power only to the mayor, noted in his book My Fall From Grace that fraudulent voters were registered to addresses that included cemeteries, municipal buildings, and taverns. The taverns, at least, are understandable: politically connected city workers spent so much time on bar stools the Board of Elections thought they lived there.
The issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President has always been whether he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” And that issue has always been about answering two questions: (1) whether he was born in the United States and (2) whether at the time of his birth in the United States he was born to United States citizen parents, for a “natural born Citizen” is defined as a child born in a country to parents who were citizens of that country. See Mario Apuzzo, The Two Constitutional Obstacles Obama Has to Overcome to be President, at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2008/12/two-constitutional-obstacles-obama-has.html (published on December 20, 2008).
ABC News propagates: Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie announced tonight Lt. Gov. Brian Schatz will replace the late Sen. Daniel Inouye as the U.S. senator from Hawaii -- not Sen. Inouye's first choice.
Plaintiff Michael Voeltz, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files his Reply in Support of Expedited Motion for Rehearing on an emergency basis, as time is extremely short before the electoral college votes on January 6, 2013.
The following was written in response to Bob Unruh’s recent WND article (“Democrat Demands Eligibility Hearing Now”) on the petition by Attorney Larry Klayman on behalf of Democrat Plaintiff Michael C. Voeltz for determination by the court as to the eligibility of Democrat candidate Barack Obama.
