Defense responses are due today in the case of Grinols v. Electoral College, Orly Taitz’ attempt on behalf of some losers in the last election to stop Obama’s second term as President of the United States.
Are you being served?
Chief Judge Morrison C. England of the Federal District Court for Eastern California ordered that responses to Taitz’ motion for an emergency temporary restraining order against California state officials, California Electors, the Congress, the President of the Senate and Barack Obama, that would halt certification of the California vote (too late, already happened), and stay the Congress certifying from the election, and Barack Obama from taking the oath of office, be filed by today, December 26, 2012.
As in any Taitz case, one always has a question of whether defendants have actually been served with complains and subpoenas in accordance with court rules. Observers have noted that some of Taitz’ documents of service in this case have the wrong dates on them, further adding doubts about the process. Apparently Taitz again (I’ve lost track of how many times this has happened), filed a document with President Obama’s unredacted social-security number on it in violation of the rules. We can probably tell by the end of today who has not been properly served by lack of response; however, responses do not necessarily indicate who has been served. No defendant has yet to appear in the case.
In anticipation of the hearing scheduled one week from tomorrow (January 3, 2012), Taitz fired off a flurry of subpoenas to various folks including: Barack Obama (to appear with lots of documents), Social Security Administration Commissioner Michael Astrue, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (pictured right), the Postmaster General, and Selected Service System Director Lawrence Romo.
While irrational optimism (or perhaps Obot troll hyperbole) appears in comments at the Taitz web site (e.g. “With all the legitimate evidence Orly has on her side and no compelling defense on their side, you would think the judge would rule in Orly’s favor by the simple fact that obamma’s (sic) ‘guilty by omission’”), these motions are an exercise in futility. Judge Alsup, writing for the Northern District Court of California in the case of Robinson v. Bowen, said:
Arguments concerning qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. The members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are well qualified to adjudicate any objections to ballots for allegedly unqualified candidates. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is
committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review — if any — should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.
A previous E.D. Cal. case, Dawson v. Obama, was dismissed for lack of standing in 2009.
The Grinols did not steal Christmas.
Opposition filed
Papers were filed late today in opposition to the Taitz temporary restraining order and subpoenas:
- Opposition to TRO by Electoral College, Barack Hussein Obama, President of the Senate, U.S. Congress through Attorney Edward A. Olson
- Opposition to TRO by Governor of California through Attorney George Michael Waters and Attachment
- Ex parte motion for extension of time to respond to subpoenas by Electoral College, Barack Hussein Obama, President of the Senate, U.S. Congress and Declaration.
January 3rd is going to be fun. 🙂
Is that a BBC reference I spot?
It’s gearing up to be an entertaining birthday, indeed!
LOVE this one…
John Merrick
December 26th, 2012 @ 10:01 am
Orly, when Obama is finally brought to justice for high crimes and treason, will you be seeking the death penalty? We have to send a message that our Constitution is sacred.
No responses filed yet.
This article has been updated with opposition motions from the federal defendants and the Governor of California.
Can you spot the typo in the federal response in opposition of the TRO?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/118065677/Grinols-v-Electoral-College-ECF-25
To paraphrase Beetlejuice; I’ve seen birthers get their hopes dashed in court about 200 times, and it keeps getting funnier, Every-Single-Time-I-See-it!
United States v. Ark?
“As in any Taitz case, one always has a question of whether defendants have actually been served with complains and subpoenas in accordance with court rules.”
With respect, I must disagree. There is never, in any Taitz case, a reasonable question of whether defendants have actually been served. Service of process is not something that Taitz ever gets right. Although I might be mistaken, I do not believe that Taitz has ever managed proper service without a great deal of assistance. Even then, she still usually manages to get multiple things wrong.
Defendants appear before courts in Orly’s cases out of a sense of caution, a desire to speed the resolution of the situation for the benefit of their clients and the courts, or because they are being buried under a mountain of improperly served, inartfully collated, misordered, defectively stapled, and incoherent pleadings. They do not appear because they are obliged to appear because they have been properly served.
I was just using understatement in my article. I agree that Taitz has persistent problems with service, not the least of which is her use of Federal Express instead of registered mail.
One reason defendants respond to the service anyway is that a case dismissed for insufficient service is dismissed without prejudice; the plaintiff can file the suit again. Better to get it over with. And Taitz doesn’t learn because her ineffective service generally works anyhow because defendants waive it.
How Orly Taitz got admitted to the California bar continues to be the greatest mystery of all in this Obama conspiracy business.
That’s one I noticed, but not the one I was looking for, a misspelled word.
Was it the “Let” that should be “yet?” I saw that in one of the papers, I believe.
Edit: Nevermind – I can’t seem to find it again…
What I had in mind was “Lugan” instead of “Lujan.”
I ask myself this same question all the time.
Where does the name Soebarkah come from? I never heard of it until a couple of months ago. Is that really a true alias?
It was a scratched out notation on a copy passport application document within the Stanley Ann passport application file released under FOIA. It was in a section normally used for entering the name of a child to be removed from the passport. To the best of my memory without digging for the document, it isn’t actually known who wrote it or why. There is no record of anyone called Soebarkah ever having been on her passport in the first place nor any other instance elsewhere of anyone referring to Obama as “Soebarkah” (not that it is even known if the notation “Soebarkah” does actually definitely refer to Obama even in this case)
Forgot to mention that it was our very own Doc’s FOIA request which produced the documents in question. There’s one of the many discussions of it here…
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/what-is-the-akond-of-soebarkah/
Hope that helps.
Thanks J.M.