FL – Klayman v Judicial Watch – Surreply denied

Klayman wants to file a sur-reply but the court is not in the mood.

New docket entry:
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY AND MEMORANDUM TO CORRECT MISSTATEMENTS TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED REPLY BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

04/01/2014 104 ORDER denying 103 Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply. Signed by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga on 4/1/2014. (ps1) (Entered: 04/01/2014)

Klayman v Judicial Watch, et al. FLSD – Petition to enforce Subpoena denied

Klayman loses another motion, this time in Florida.

2014-03-25 7 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING PETITION TO ENFORCE SUBPOENA by Judge Audrey B. Collins denying 1 Motion to Compel Arbitration: The Court will resolve this matter without oral argument and therefore VACATES the April 7, 2014 hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78, Local Rule 7-15. For the following reasons, the Petition is DENIED. (see document for further details) (bm) (Entered: 03/25/2014)

Why? Simply said, Klayman made some fundamental errors. From the minutes:

First, Petitioner did not attach the relevant documents (e.g., the Taitz Subpoena) to his Petition. As such, Petitioner did not meet his burden of going forward.

Second, the Taitz Subpoena – attached as Exhibit 7 to the Opposition – is deficient in several respects.

So why was the subpoena deficient?

As Judge Simonton noted, Petitioner has not shown that he served Taitz with the subpoena. Petitioner claims he did serve Taitz and purports to attach the proof of service to his memorandum, but the memorandum has no attachments. The Taitz Subpoena’s proof of service page is blank. A Notice of Deposition (attached to the Opposition, Exh. 3) purports to have served counsel for Respondent, and states that pro se parties on the attached service list were served , but the service list does not identify Taitz. In short, Petitioner has not cured his lack of service problem. Petitioner’s subpoena also fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45: this rule requires a deposition subpoena to be issued from the court where the action is pending (S.D. Fl.), but Petitioner obtained his subpoena from a different court (C.D. Cal.). Third, the Scheduling Order in the Florida litigation shows that the discovery deadline passed on January 31, 2014. See Scheduling Order, Opp’n Exh. 2. As such, it appears that Petitioner is no longer entitled to conduct discovery for in the Florida litigation.

Quite a handful simple procedural errors.

FL – Voeltz v SOS III – Per Curiam Affirmed

I looked at Voeltz III and the docket mentions: 03/13/2014 Affirmed – Per Curiam Affirmed

Did I miss something?

Ruling http://opinions.1dca.org/pc_pdf/13-0083.pdf

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

MICHAEL C. VOELTZ ,
Appellant,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA,
Florida Democratic Party nominee
for President to the 2012
Democratic National Convention;
KEN DETZNER, Secretary of State of Florida;
FLORIDA ELECTIONS CANVASSING COMMISSION,
Appellee .
CASE NO. 1D 13 – 83

Opinion filed March 13, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County . Kevin Carroll , Judge .

Larry Klayman, Washington, D.C. , for Appellant.

Mark Herron, Joseph Brennan Donnelly, and Robert J. Telfer III of Messer Caparello, P.A., Tallahassee; Stephen F. Rosenthal of Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Miami , and Richard B. Rosenthal of The Law Offices of Richard B. Rosenthal, P.A., Miami, for Appellee

President Barack Obama; J. Andrew Atkinson, General Counsel, and Ashley E. Davis, Assistant General Counsel for Appellees Florida Secretary of State Kenneth W. Detzner and The Florida Elections Canvassing Commission.

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, RAY, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.

AL – McInnish v Chapman – Klayman responds

Klayman, the attorney whose case was recently ‘dismissed’ all the way up to the Alabama Supreme Court has mentioned that the case may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

While this would certainly please some of the birthers, it seems fair to point out that the issue that remains is extremely narrow and that the Supreme Court would not be interested in hearing about the claims that President Obama is somehow ineligible. As even the dissenting Judge Moore observed, that time has long since passed when he became President Elect.

This well-written and thoughtful opinion by Chief Justice Moore will hopefully give courage to other judges to tell it like it is. Indeed, I have appeals pending in Florida, and the majority decision of the Alabama justices will likely be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court under a petition for writ of certiorari.

Moore told it like it is: It’s over… Next time, the Secretary of State is still under no obligation to determine the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, although she may, in certain cases do so. Alabama and California are on the record, with other states to follow these precedents.

While Klayman may have ‘cases on appeal’ they too will fail to successfully raise the issues the birthers so desperately are seeking even though the courts, and the Department of Health of Hawaii have ruled, verified and certified as to the eligibility of President Obama.

There is btw no majority decision in this case. But we should wait to see if Klayman figures it out.

Few other judges in this nation have the courage of Chief Justice Moore. The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, who held the Clintons to account in the late ’90s and early 2000s and ruled that Bill Clinton had committed a crime, and Richard J. Leon, who just ruled against the National Security Agency’s “almost Orwellian” surveillance on all Americans, are among the most endangered of species.

Ah, Judge Lamberth whose rulings in various cases have all rejected the birther claims. Yes, he too has been very courageous. But perhaps Klayman is confusing courage with ruling in a pleasing manner?

As to Florida, they too ruled that any relief to be found lies with Congress. Good luck to Mr Klayman on that.

Klayman on Gallup’s Freedom Friday

Listen

Now compare to the order by the Florida Supreme Court and notice how Larry’s description appears to be at odds with the actual order. Klayman is not taking it too well why courts have rejected his and the countless other cases and looks for ‘explanations’ that somehow these judges were corrupted… Fascinating and quite educational…

Wise v. Bennett (Ariz. Super. Ct.)

The Fogbow announces:

Arizona’s Politics blog has posted the motion for Sanctions and Attorney Fees submitted by the group seeking to recall Arpaio. It is posted as a series of images instead of as a single document so it’s difficult to read, but it looks like they are alleging the complaint is frivolous and asking for sanctions in the form of attorney fees, costs, and damages.

Another Klayman adventure :-) Things are getting expensive…