Tweet
Shock Filing: Obama DOJ Respond To Sheriff Joe Arpaio Lawsuit; We're Confused But Served
Birther Report
12/8/2014
Excerpt:
As reported here, Sheriff Joe Arpaio is seeking an injunction to halt Obama's unconstitutional illegal immigration action. On December 6th, 2014, the Department of Justice on behalf of Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Jeh Johnson, and Leon Rodriquez, argued Sheriff Arpaio's counsel did not properly serve the lawsuit, creating confusion.
Obama, et al., filed the following on December 6th, 2014:
Attorney Larry Klayman filed the following on December 5th, 2014:
[Exhibit 1 embedded ...]
You can read every filing thus far in the Arpaio v. Obama, et al., lawsuit here. Exhibit 1 embedded ......
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/12...espond-to.html
Birther Report
12/8/2014
Excerpt:
As reported here, Sheriff Joe Arpaio is seeking an injunction to halt Obama's unconstitutional illegal immigration action. On December 6th, 2014, the Department of Justice on behalf of Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Jeh Johnson, and Leon Rodriquez, argued Sheriff Arpaio's counsel did not properly serve the lawsuit, creating confusion.
Obama, et al., filed the following on December 6th, 2014:
"Plaintiff’s attempt to effectuate service through email and through an attorney not assigned to this case created confusion. Notwithstanding that initial confusion, undersigned counsel has now entered an appearance and will seek to confer with plaintiff’s counsel prior to the Court’s December 9, 2014, deadline to propose a schedule for briefing plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Lastly, on the question of the service of the complaint, plaintiff is required to follow the strictures of Rule 4(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for serving the United States. That includes serving the United States Attorney’s Office and the Attorney General through hand delivery or registered or certified mail. It does not include emailing the complaint to a Department of Justice attorney. It does appear, however, that plaintiff has at the very least effectuated service on the United States Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia consistent with Rule 4."
Attorney Larry Klayman filed the following on December 5th, 2014:
Pursuant to the Court’s Order of December 4, 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel immediately sought to have Defendants served with the Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction through their Department of Justice counsel. The Summonses and Complaint were both previously served on Defendants by U.S. Postal Service Certified Mail on November 25, 2014, however, Plaintiffs are awaiting return receipts of the Certified Mail mailings.
Plaintiff emailed the Complaint, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and the Court’s Order of December 4, 2014 to the DOJ attorneys now assigned to this lawsuit and then followed up with a voicemail to each of them. Plaintiff sought to have Defendants’ counsel accept service of process through email, and requested a time to confer about a proposed schedule to govern the preliminary injunction proceedings. Defendants’ counsel has accepted service of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction yet refused to accept service of the Complaint. It is inexplicable not to accept service of process if their intent was to follow the letter and intent of the Court’s order of December 4, 2014, especially given the fact that the Summonses and Complaint have already been served via Certified Mail. Further, Defendants did not respond with a date to confer regarding the proposed scheduling of the preliminary injunction proceedings. Attached as Exhibit 1 is all the correspondence which follow the Court’s order of December 4, 2014.
Plaintiff emailed the Complaint, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and the Court’s Order of December 4, 2014 to the DOJ attorneys now assigned to this lawsuit and then followed up with a voicemail to each of them. Plaintiff sought to have Defendants’ counsel accept service of process through email, and requested a time to confer about a proposed schedule to govern the preliminary injunction proceedings. Defendants’ counsel has accepted service of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction yet refused to accept service of the Complaint. It is inexplicable not to accept service of process if their intent was to follow the letter and intent of the Court’s order of December 4, 2014, especially given the fact that the Summonses and Complaint have already been served via Certified Mail. Further, Defendants did not respond with a date to confer regarding the proposed scheduling of the preliminary injunction proceedings. Attached as Exhibit 1 is all the correspondence which follow the Court’s order of December 4, 2014.
[Exhibit 1 embedded ...]
You can read every filing thus far in the Arpaio v. Obama, et al., lawsuit here. Exhibit 1 embedded ......
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/12...espond-to.html