Freedom First!'s Blog Has Moved

The blog for Freedom First! has moved to a new web address, I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but save the new one in your favorites. I'm still posting and updating the blog, it just has a new address. It also has a slightly new look, and hopefully I'm finding new ways to update it here and there.

http://buttonknowsbests.blogspot.com/

Attorney Larry Klayman Fires Back Filing Motion For Emergency Rehearing In Florida Electoral Challenge

Plaintiff's Reply In Support Of Expedited Motion For Rehearing

Plaintiff Michael Voeltz, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files his Reply in Support of Expedited Motion for Rehearing on an emergency basis, as time is extremely short before the electoral college votes on January 6, 2013.

First, Defendant Obama's "argument" that Plaintiff did not request a hearing is absurd and frivolous. Indeed, in Plaintiff's Emergency Response to the Court's Order of December 13, 2012 it states plainly that he did request a hearing and once Plaintiff filed the Motion for Temporary Injunction, an evidentiary one as well. However, the court’s hastily crafted precipitous Order Dismissing Complaint was an obvious attempt to extinguish Plaintiff's right to any hearing, evidentiary or otherwise.

Second, contrary to the potentially politically motivated decisions of three judges of this Court, Section 102.168, Florida Statutes, plainly provides that Plaintiff does have a right to contest eligibility and candidate fraud in this Court.

Third, the role of the Electoral College is not in lieu of Florida law but complimentary to Florida law. It is axiomatic and constitutionally sacrosanct that states have rights; this should come as no surprise to anyone who has read the Florida and U.S. Constitutions, in particular in the 10th Amendment. The state obviously has a right and a duty to police candidacy fraud and ineligibility before its voters are lead down the primrose path to voter nullification by dishonest candidates for either state or federal office. In this case, involving defendant Barack H. Obama, federal law does not take precedence over clear cut unambiguous, and black letter Florida statutory law for the following reasons: [...] - Hat tip George Miller @ OBC2012.

MOTION CONTINUED BELOW OR HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/118082460

PREVIOUS REPORTS HERE: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/search?q=Voeltz+Obama
Voeltz v Obama - Motion For Emergency Hearing - Florida Obama Electoral Challenge - 12/26/2012 For original article go to:http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/12/attorney-klayman-files-motion-for-rehearing.html

Team Obama (U.S. Atty.) Seeks More Time To Quash California Subpoenas

As reported here Dr. Orly Taitz subpoenaed numerous individuals involved in the Grinols v. Electoral College including Barack Obama. The U.S. Attorney just filed a motion to extend time for responding to the subpoenas and filed the opposition to the motion for a temporary restraining order to halt the electoral count. Last week a hearing was set for January 3rd, 2013. EXCERPTS:

DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR RESPONDING TO PLAINTIFFS’ SUBPOENAS

First, you have not delivered a copy of each subpoena to the persons named in the subpoenas, as required by of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). Instead, you have simply mailed by Federal Express copies of your subpoenas to either the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Hawaii (in the case of your subpoena to the President) or to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (in the case of your subpoenas to the Commissioner of Social Security, the Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service, and the Director of Selective Service). In the case of your subpoena to Darrell Issa, your subpoena does not reflect any service whatsoever.

Second, with the exception of the President (who is a named party), the subpoenas require the named individuals to travel more than 100 miles to the place specified for production of documents. Such a requirement in a subpoena to a non-party is prohibited absent court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(2)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c (3)(A)(ii).

Third, you have not provided “a reasonable time to comply” with the subpoenas, in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(i). This objection applies equally to all of the subpoenas, but is particularly egregious in the case of the subpoena directed to Darrell Issa because the subpoena was issued on December 24, 2012, was not served on Mr. Issa, and directs him to produce documents by 5:00 pm on December 26, 2012.

Fourth, the subpoenas would require the disclosure of documents prohibited from disclosure by the Privacy Act. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A (iii).

Fifth, the subpoenas subject all of the named persons to an undue burden because: (1) the plaintiffs named in your underlying lawsuit – Grinols v. Electoral College, 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD – lack standing to sue, (2) the claims are barred by the Speech or Debate Clause, and (3) the claims are barred by the political question doctrine.

Sixth, you do not appear to have made any attempt to comply with any of the agencies’ Touhy regulations in connection with your subpoenas. See Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462, 464-65 (1951). [...]

Federal Defendants intend to file a formally noticed motion to quash the subpoenas forthwith and hereby ask the Court to extend the deadline for responding to the subpoenas until after the Court disposes of the motion to quash the subpoenas. [...]

MOTION CONTINUED BELOW OR HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/118079864

There's more to the article here: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/12/obama-seeks-more-time-to-quash-subpoenas.html

Liberty and Union, Now and Forever

The history of Liberty is a history of the limitations of governmental power not the increase of it. — Woodrow Wilson

Developing: U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts To Rule On Obama Eligibility Case

Developing: U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice 

John Roberts To Rule On Obama Eligibility Case?

Dr. Orly Taitz reports that her case, Noonan v Bowen, was submitted to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

Dr. Taitz's headline posted at her blog reads: "BREAKING NEWS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JOHN ROBERTS TO RULE ON NOONAN, MACLERAN, JUDD, TAITZ V BOWEN"

I suspect this is normal operating procedure when a case is re-submitted for review. My guess is the outcome will be the same.

SCOTUS Docket Listing for the case:

For original article go to: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/12/supreme-court-to-rule-on-obama-eligibility.html

Dr. Taitz Attempts To Subpoena Obama & Other Top Officials For Electoral Challenge Hearing

Grinols et al v. Electoral College et al: Dr. Orly Taitz Attempts To Subpoena Obama And Other Top Officials For The January 3rd Electoral Challenge Hearing

As reported here a California judge scheduled a hearing to rule on whether to stop Congress from certifying Obama's electoral votes. In preparation for the hearing Taitz issued numerous subpoenas seeking to compel top officials to appear at the hearing. The individuals subpoenaed include Barack Obama, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, Selective Service System Director Lawrence Romo, Social Security Administration Commissioner Michael Astrue, and Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe.

OBAMA SUBPOENA BELOW OR HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/118045976

CASE DETAILS: California Judge Sets Hearing For TRO Enjoining Congress From Certifying Obama’s Votes - CLICK HERE.
Grinols et al v. Electoral College et al - Obama Subpoena For California Electoral Challenge Hearing - 12/2...
For original article go to: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/12/taitz-attempts-to-subpoena-obama.html

Team Obama Freaks: Seeks To Stop Discovery; Obama Subpoena Imposes Undue Burden

Team Obama Freaks: Seeks To Stop Discovery; 

Obama Subpoena Imposes Undue Burden

OBAMA FREAKS: SEEKS TO STOP SIBLEY AND SUPPRESS SIBLEY’S SUBPOENAS

WASHINGTON D.C. - A clearly panicked and desperate Barack Hussein Obama, II has dispatched his lawyers to intervene in Montgomery Blair Sibley’s Electoral College lawsuit to stop Sibley’s subpoenas from revealing information which could prove devastating to Mr. Obama. Ironically wearing the veil of the United States, Mr. Obama’s lawyers filed on his behalf their Motion of the United States for a Stay of Discovery Or, Alternatively, to Quash Subpoenas and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, to Stay All Discovery, and for Sanctions.

In Response, Sibley has filed his: Response to Motion of The United States to Stay Discovery Or Quash Subpoenas andPlaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Reply to Defendants’ Omnibus Response.

Sibley said: “Let me strip away the legal gobbledygook and speak plainly: Obama doth protest too much, methinks. There comes a point when Judge Bates should not be ignorant as a judge of what he knows as a man.1 Unless everyone wants to behave like ostriches, we cannot ignore the mounting evidence of Mr. Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Simply stated, what is Mr. Obama hiding and why he is so fearful that his 20th Century records will be released? James Madison said: ‘A popular Government, without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy, or perhaps both.’ I fear we are at Madison’s long-ago predicted Prologue.” - E n d -

FULL MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY BELOW OR HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/118031611

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY BELOW OR HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/118034208

Previous reports on Mr. Sibley's case here: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/search?q=montgomery+sibley
Sibley v. Alexander - Obama Motion To Stay Discovery - Obama Electoral Challenge - 12/25/2012For original article go to: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/12/obama-seeks-to-stop-discovery.html