Grinols v Electorial College, Judge England will hear motion for restraining order

[bsteadman]

Judge England confirms that he will hear the motion for the Temporary Restraining Order filed by me in Grinols et al v Electoral college et al, seeking to enjoin the U.S. Congress from certifying votes for Obama and seeking to enjoin Obama from taking an oath of office until the issue of his forged IDs is ascertained on the merits. It looks like this judge is not joking. I am praying to God that the whole country will be able to finally see the original documents, which I subpoenaed from Obama, Registrar Onaka, Commissioner of Social Security Astrue, Director of SSS Romo and Postmaster General Donahoe

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
Orly Taitz, Esq.
12/28/2012

View the complete post at:

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=372071

[bsteadman]

Winnowing the Grinols

Obama Conspiracy Theories
Dr. Conspiracy
12/29/2012

WARNING: Site is not 'birther' friendly

Excerpt:

In form, Grinols v. Electoral College is an extremely important case. The 2012 Presidential Election hangs in the balance. Pending before the Court is a motion for a temporary restraining order that would stay the Constitution itself and could declare Barack Obama ineligible for the Presidency. In substance, it is just a crank with no legal standing spouting some conspiracy theories and asking for something that has no basis in law.

The motions are filed for the hearing January 3 on Orly Taitz’ motion for a temporary restraining order in the case of Grinols v. Electoral College. Taitz wants to stop Congress from certifying the the election on January 4.

Defendants filed notices of objection, and Taitz has replied. (See links to documents at the end of the article.) As I see it, there are five major issues in this case:

1. Injunction against California defendants is moot
2. Proper service of Defendants
3. Representation of Obama by the US Attorney
4. Standing of Plaintiffs
5. Jurisdiction of the Court

The California Defendants provided a copy of the certification of the Electoral College vote that had been sent to the President of the Senate on or before Taitz filed her motion for a temporary restraining order. They say that it’s too late for the court to stop them from doing what’s already done. Taitz, amazingly, says it’s not moot, but I cannot explain her reasoning.

The Federal Defendants (Obama, Biden and the Congress) argue that service was defective, that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require service by “registered or certified mail.” Taitz claims that Federal Express is “registered or certified mail,” although she provides no precedent. FRCP 4 (g)(i)(1)(A)(ii)(B) says specifically:

"send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the civil-process clerk at the United States attorney’s office"

Do you think FedEx might file an amicus brief here? Sorry Orly, but this has been decided already in the 9th Circuit case of Magnuson v. Video Yesteryear. The Court, noting some ambiguity in the law, cited a number of cases on point including one from the 7th Circuit that concluded that “delivery by Federal Express is not ‘mail’ for the purposes of Rule 4.” This is somewhat complex and real attorneys might want to do a more careful analysis of this issue. Taitz also didn’t address the complaint to the “civil-process clerk.”

According to Taitz, she sued the President in his personal capacity (as a candidate) and that it is inappropriate for the US Attorney to represent him.

"As defendant Obama was sued as a candidate for office and not as the US President, he was not entitled to be represented by the U.S. attorney’s office."

She has moved to strike everything in the US Attorney’s reply related to Obama. This objection, however, ties back to service. Taitz attempted to serve Obama through the US Attorney in Sacramento. There are only two possibilities here: either Taitz served the President in his official capacity through the US Attorney, or she did not serve him at all. I have some sympathy for Taitz’ objection to the US Attorney representing Obama, but I have no sympathy for her not serving the President with the complaint and expecting him to respond.

The issue of standing has been discussed at length since Berg v. Obama, and I won’t reiterate that here. Taitz argues that her minor party presidential candidates and her Electoral College candidates have standing. So far courts haven’t found standing in the various mixes of defendants, including presidential candidates who had no chance of winning.

Finally, to address the elephant in the room, Defendants argue that the federal courts cannot tell the Congress how to perform their legislative function. Taitz says that under her temporary restraining order, Congress is free to debate Obama’s eligibility, thereby fulfilling their role under the Constitution; she just wants to preclude them from doing anything that results in Obama becoming President again. Taitz cites one case of a TRO, Hedges et al v Obama et al 12-cv-00331. She argues that since the Courts can declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, they can declare a presidency unconstitutional. What Taitz didn’t find was any precedent where a Court restrained Congress from carrying out its legislative functions.

I think what Taitz is saying is that the Court doesn’t have the jurisdiction to stop Congress from certifying the election, but that it has the power to delay it, decide Obama’s eligibility, and then inform Congress of its decision so that Congress can be informed before they certify the election.

This leaves one loose end, and that is the court’s jurisdiction to enjoin Barack Obama from taking the oath of office. Taitz cites Miller v. Campbell 3:10-cv-00252. Taitz says: “Murkowski was enjoined from taking the oath of office as the U. S. Senator until the constitutional issues were resolved.” As far as I can tell from reading about the case, Taitz is lying. The Court did enjoin the certification of the election pending decisions on the counting of certain write-in votes, but it did not enjoin Murkowski from taking the oath of office.

Orly Taitz’ briefs are getting better, but no amount of lawyering can get around the fact that she’s wrong on the law.
.....................................

View the complete post at:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/...g-the-grinols/

[bsteadman]

Free Republic is running a thread titled, "Judge England" and the upcoming "Eligibility Challenge" of Illegal-Alien Barack Obama' which was started 12/31/2012 by 'ednoonan7'

The thread references a press release from Orly Taitz, esq.

View the complete Free Republic thread at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2973797/posts

As one of the litigants in Attorney Orly Taitz's upcoming Barry Soetoro (aka BHO) eligibility case (Jan 3, 2013), I have doubts that Judge Morrison C. England, Jr can be objective about removing the Usurper-in-Chief from office. England will be incapable of being fair and honest in this "Soetoro eligibility" matter. I will admit that England was nominated by George W. Bush (on March 21, 2002) for the seat on the Federal bench but I can hardly believe that England is a stalwart GOPer.

I have been unhappy with England in the past. He was the "conservative turncoat" who decided anyone that contributed money to Prop 8 could be "outed" in newspaper articles. The same leftist garbage is currently being pulled back East where names of private GUN OWNERS are being highlighted in the local newspapers. This so-called Judge (England) ruled that it is okay to ridicule and give out names and addresses of those that contribute to anti-gay causes and campaigns.

See: http://www.sfgate.com/default/articl...st-2326456.php

Judge England disregarded Supreme Court rulings that allowed the NAACP and the Socialist Workers Party to conceal their membership or contribution lists after encountering public hostility. But the anti-gay patriots were not allowed the same status. Thus, I do not feel kindly towards Mr. England.

Plaintiff: Edward C. Noonan National Chairman – American Resistance Party

(Excerpt) Read more at americanresistanceparty.org ... - http://www.americanresistanceparty.org/

[bsteadman]

Update 7:25pm TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER DENIED via RC Radio Blog

MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.: After hearing argument from counsel the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 12 . A formal, written order will be issued shortly and will be the controlling ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion. Plaintiffs' Counsel present: Orly Taitz. Defendants' Counsel present: Edward Olsen and George Waters. Court Reporter: Kelly O'Halloran. Interpreter none present. (Deutsch, S) (Entered: 01/03/2013)

View further updates at:

http://birtherheadlines.blogspot.com...lege-temp.html

For added perspective on the current state of the U.S. Judiciary, see also:

http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/I...-by-T-S-Elliot

[bsteadman]

Update: Grinols v. Electoral College; California Judge Rejects Obama Electoral Challenge

Birther Report
1/3/2013

Excerpt:

Judge rejects birther challenge to electoral count
By Associated Press Via Honolulu Star-Advertiser
[ update below ]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A federal judge in Sacramento has rejected a challenge by so-called “birthers” seeking to halt the counting of Electoral College votes for President Barack Obama.

U.S. District Court Judge Morrison C. England on Thursday rejected a petition for a temporary restraining order filed by Orly Taitz, an attorney who has lost challenges in several states seeking to overturn Obama’s election.

SOURCE: http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/b...ral_count.html

MORE AP DETAILS: The judge said the petition did not meet the basic requirements for a restraining order, including that attorneys prove their case is likely to succeed at a trial, and said the plaintiffs lacked standing, failed to submit legal documents on time and had made unsupported claims. "The state of Hawaii has already certified all of this to be not true," the judge said.

CONTINUED HERE: http://www.auburnjournal.com/article...lectoral-count

MORE: The Sacramento Bee's take here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/03/509...er-claims.html

PREVIOUS REPORT: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...nst-obama.html

View the complete Birther Report presentation at:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...challenge.html