CAN OBAMA’S ATTORNEYS DISPROVE THE CLAIMS OF FALSE IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS?
by Sharon Rondeau
(Dec. 28, 2012) — Atty. Orly Taitz has announced on her website that Judge Morrison C. England has confirmed that he will be holding a hearing on January 3, 2013 on her motion for a Temporary Restraining Order requesting the enjoining of the electoral votes from the state of California in the November 6 presidential election.
The case, Grinols et al v. Electoral College, names Barack Obama; the president of the Senate, Joe Biden; the Electoral College; Gov. Jerry Brown of California; California Secretary of State Debra Bowen; and the U.S. Congress as defendants by plaintiffs consisting of two electors and three 2012 presidential candidates.
On December 27, the U.S. attorneys representing the defendants filed an opposition to Taitz’s motion. Judge England indicated that he has also received an ex parte motion from the defendants’ attorneys asking for more time to respond to Taitz’s subpoenas. “Additionally, they asked him if they could appear by phone. This must be an embarrassment for them – the whole thing. The judge said, ‘No, all parties must appear at the hearing in person, and all of the attorneys have to be ready to argue the motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.’ He let them know that it’s not going to be dismissed without a hearing,” Taitz told The Post & Email.
Taitz is not required to pay mileage expenses for the attorneys representing the defendants, although she was required to submit checks for travel expenses for witnesses. “I need to pay only for the witnesses,” she said. Taitz also noted that the judge will review the issue of the subpoenas at the hearing.
In their opposition brief, the defendants’ attorneys, U.S. attorney Benjamin Wagner and Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward A. Olsen, had claimed that Taitz had not filed the subpoenas properly (page 4). When we asked Taitz why she thought they had made the claim, she responded, “First of all, they are jumping the gun. Secondly, if subpoenas are not served properly and they don’t want to appear, the proper thing to do is to file a Motion to Quash the subpoena, which they did not do. In the case we had in Georgia, Obama’s attorney said the same thing: that the subpoenas were not filed properly. they filed a motion to quash my subpoenas; I filed an opposition, and as a result, the judge said that all of the subpoenas issued by me were issued properly, and he had to comply and provide all of the documents. But then, Obama didn’t show up; his attorney didn’t show up, and the judge changed his position.”
In this case, it’s true that some of the witnesses are beyond a 100-mile radius, but if they are, then they are entitled to file a motion with the judge to quash the subpoenas or modify. Then I would be entitled to respond, and if I can show that the subpoena was a necessity, that I did not have any other means, and that I accommodated them to cover the expenses for travel, then the subpoena can be granted (enforced) or slightly modified. They might still file it, but so far they have not.
It’s interesting, because they contacted me and said, “You better withdraw your subpoenas or we’ll file a Motion to Quash. Well, they didn’t. They filed only a motion asking for more time to respond. We’ll see. If they file a Motion to Quash, I’ll respond, and the judge will rule on it. That’s what happened in Georgia, and the judge ruled in my favor.
Taitz stated that she is currently working on her reply to the defendants’ opposition, which must be filed by midnight on Friday.
Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news. She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.