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:


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. […]


There’s more to the article here: