Tweet
Klayman Vs Obama: Opposition To Halt Discovery Filed By Attorney Klayman
Birther Report
1/15/2014
Excerpt:
Klayman Vs Obama: Opposition To Halt Discovery Filed By Attorney Klayman
IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Larry Klayman, et. al v. Barack Hussein Obama II, et. al
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS PENDING APPEAL OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATE SUA SPONTE SANCTIONS
[[[ EXHIBITS EMBEDDED ... ]]]
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs, Larry Klayman, Charles Strange, and Mary Ann Strange, hereby strongly oppose the Government Defendant’s (hereinafter the NSA Defendant) motion as yet another attempt to delay adjudication of this case. Previously, during a status conference on October 31, 2013, the Court warned the NSA Defendant not to seek delays in this case as it is at the pinnacle of public national interest. Specifically, the Court emphasized:
“We work 24/7 around this courthouse, my friend. 24/7. I don’t want to hear anything about vacations, weddings, days off. Forget about it. This is a case at the pinnacle of public national interest, pinnacle. All hands 24/7. No excuses. You got a team of lawyers. Mr. Klayman is alone apparently. You have litigated cases in this courthouse when it is matters of this consequence and enormity. You know how this Court operates.”
_____________________
Despite the Court’s order granting a preliminary injunction on December 16, 2013, the NSA Defendant did not file a notice of appeal until almost three (3) weeks later on January 3, 2014. A simple notice of appeal could have been filed forthwith consistent with the Court’s direction to accelerate any appeals given the Court’s stay of the preliminary injunction order. As set forth below, this delay is consistent with the NSA Defendant’s and the Obama Justice Department’s goal to delay adjudication of these cases.
Tr. of Status Conference on October 31, 2013 at pg. 7. Exhibit 1. Following the granting of a preliminary injunction in Case No. 13-851, the NSA Defendant, having previously covered up and then lied under oath to other courts, Congress, and the public over its secretive practice of collecting metadata on and thus spying on over 300 million American citizens without regard to there being probable cause of contacts with terrorists or terrorist groups overseas, predictably seeks to slow down the adjudication of this case as well as a related case (No. 13-881) in an attempt to throw a monkey wrench into this Court’s judicial authority, hoping that appellate courts will vitiate this Court’s ruling that Defendant NSA has violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Already, the NSA Defendant has sought to flout the authority of this Court by going back, ex parte in secretive star chamber proceedings, to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and had it rubber stamp another ninety (90) days for it to continue to violate, in an “almost Orwellian” fashion, the constitutional rights of all Americans, despite this Court’s ruling of December 16, 2013 declaring this conduct unconstitutional. Obviously, the FISC was inclined to waste little time rolling over to the NSA Defendant and its enablers such as Director of National Security James Clapper, who previously perjured himself before Congress, to save face and thus to justify the FISC’s prior secretive illegal rulings at the expense of hundreds of millions of American citizens who are not under legitimate investigation and have no connection to terrorism.
In this regard, this Court called the NSA Defendant’s technology “almost-Orwellian” and ruled: “I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for the purposes of querying it and analyzing it without judicial approval.” Memorandum Opinion of December 16, 2013 at pg. 64. The Court continued, “ . . . [the public] interest looms larger in this case, given the significant privacy interests at stake and the unprecedented scope of the NSA’s collection and querying efforts, which likely violate the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 65.
II. STANDARD FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL
“A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result.” Nken v. Holder, __ U.S. __ 129 S. Ct. 1749, 1761 (2009) (citing Virginian R. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 672 (1926)). It is instead “an exercise of judicial discretion,” and “[t]he propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.” Id. The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion. Id. The standard for a stay pending appeal is a difficult threshold to satisfy. The four factors that are traditionally considered when evaluating whether to issue a stay are: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Nken v. Holder, __ U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. at 1761. Simply put, none of these factors weigh in favor of a stay and therefore the Court must deny the NSA Defendant’s motion for stay.
III. ARGUMENT
Respectfully, this Court must reject this effort of delay for the following straightforward reasons: First, it is clear that the NSA Defendant, despite this Court’s ruling of gross unconstitutionality, is continuing to violate, in an egregious fashion, the Fourth Amendment rights of over 300 million Americans, and this case must proceed to discovery and ultimately to trial, as alluded to by the Court during the status conference of October 31, 2013. Specifically,
.................................................. ...
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/01...n-to-halt.html
Birther Report
1/15/2014
Excerpt:
Klayman Vs Obama: Opposition To Halt Discovery Filed By Attorney Klayman
IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Larry Klayman, et. al v. Barack Hussein Obama II, et. al
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS PENDING APPEAL OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATE SUA SPONTE SANCTIONS
[[[ EXHIBITS EMBEDDED ... ]]]
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs, Larry Klayman, Charles Strange, and Mary Ann Strange, hereby strongly oppose the Government Defendant’s (hereinafter the NSA Defendant) motion as yet another attempt to delay adjudication of this case. Previously, during a status conference on October 31, 2013, the Court warned the NSA Defendant not to seek delays in this case as it is at the pinnacle of public national interest. Specifically, the Court emphasized:
“We work 24/7 around this courthouse, my friend. 24/7. I don’t want to hear anything about vacations, weddings, days off. Forget about it. This is a case at the pinnacle of public national interest, pinnacle. All hands 24/7. No excuses. You got a team of lawyers. Mr. Klayman is alone apparently. You have litigated cases in this courthouse when it is matters of this consequence and enormity. You know how this Court operates.”
_____________________
Despite the Court’s order granting a preliminary injunction on December 16, 2013, the NSA Defendant did not file a notice of appeal until almost three (3) weeks later on January 3, 2014. A simple notice of appeal could have been filed forthwith consistent with the Court’s direction to accelerate any appeals given the Court’s stay of the preliminary injunction order. As set forth below, this delay is consistent with the NSA Defendant’s and the Obama Justice Department’s goal to delay adjudication of these cases.
Tr. of Status Conference on October 31, 2013 at pg. 7. Exhibit 1. Following the granting of a preliminary injunction in Case No. 13-851, the NSA Defendant, having previously covered up and then lied under oath to other courts, Congress, and the public over its secretive practice of collecting metadata on and thus spying on over 300 million American citizens without regard to there being probable cause of contacts with terrorists or terrorist groups overseas, predictably seeks to slow down the adjudication of this case as well as a related case (No. 13-881) in an attempt to throw a monkey wrench into this Court’s judicial authority, hoping that appellate courts will vitiate this Court’s ruling that Defendant NSA has violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Already, the NSA Defendant has sought to flout the authority of this Court by going back, ex parte in secretive star chamber proceedings, to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and had it rubber stamp another ninety (90) days for it to continue to violate, in an “almost Orwellian” fashion, the constitutional rights of all Americans, despite this Court’s ruling of December 16, 2013 declaring this conduct unconstitutional. Obviously, the FISC was inclined to waste little time rolling over to the NSA Defendant and its enablers such as Director of National Security James Clapper, who previously perjured himself before Congress, to save face and thus to justify the FISC’s prior secretive illegal rulings at the expense of hundreds of millions of American citizens who are not under legitimate investigation and have no connection to terrorism.
In this regard, this Court called the NSA Defendant’s technology “almost-Orwellian” and ruled: “I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for the purposes of querying it and analyzing it without judicial approval.” Memorandum Opinion of December 16, 2013 at pg. 64. The Court continued, “ . . . [the public] interest looms larger in this case, given the significant privacy interests at stake and the unprecedented scope of the NSA’s collection and querying efforts, which likely violate the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 65.
II. STANDARD FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL
“A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result.” Nken v. Holder, __ U.S. __ 129 S. Ct. 1749, 1761 (2009) (citing Virginian R. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 672 (1926)). It is instead “an exercise of judicial discretion,” and “[t]he propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.” Id. The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion. Id. The standard for a stay pending appeal is a difficult threshold to satisfy. The four factors that are traditionally considered when evaluating whether to issue a stay are: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Nken v. Holder, __ U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. at 1761. Simply put, none of these factors weigh in favor of a stay and therefore the Court must deny the NSA Defendant’s motion for stay.
III. ARGUMENT
Respectfully, this Court must reject this effort of delay for the following straightforward reasons: First, it is clear that the NSA Defendant, despite this Court’s ruling of gross unconstitutionality, is continuing to violate, in an egregious fashion, the Fourth Amendment rights of over 300 million Americans, and this case must proceed to discovery and ultimately to trial, as alluded to by the Court during the status conference of October 31, 2013. Specifically,
.................................................. ...
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/01...n-to-halt.html