KLAYMAN v. OBAMA et al

Filing 106

MOTION To Remove Stay On Preliminary Injunction Order Of December 16, 2013 re 48 Memorandum & Opinion, 49 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, by LARRY E. KLAYMAN, CHARLES STRANGE, MARY ANN STRANGE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Klayman, Larry)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
LARRY KLAYMAN, et. al.,
Plaintiffs,

v.
Civil Action Nos:
13-cv-851
13-cv-881
14-cv-92

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, et. al.
Defendants.

Judge Richard J. Leon

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMOVE STAY ON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
ORDER OF DECEMBER 16, 2013

Plaintiffs, Larry Klayman, Charles Strange, and Mary Ann Strange, move this honorable
Court in Klayman et. al v. Obama et. al., (No. 13-cv-851) (“Klayman I”) to remove the stay of its
preliminary injunction order of December 16, 2013. Not surprisingly, the Government and
Individual Government Defendants, who have not even shown the forthrightness to respond to
the Third Amended Complaint, based on proven falsehoods that they were not served (see
Motion For Entry Of Default And To Strike Government Defendants’ Answer To Plaintiffs’
Third Amended Complaint), oppose unstaying the December 16, 2013 preliminary injunction
order.
Contrary to the Government and Individual Government Defendants, whose strategy and
tactics have been to do everything possible to slow down the appellate and lower court
proceedings to drag this case out for political and other illegitimate, non-litigation purposes,

1

Plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari before judgment to accelerate
the ultimate adjudication of this Court’s finding that in “almost-Orwellian” fashion Fourth
Amendment rights have been violated. Notably, the Government and Individual Government
Defendants did not file a petition on their own, nor did they join in Plaintiffs’ petition. It suits
their purposes to not have an early decision by the Supreme Court, so long as this Court’s stay
order stays in effect, so the Government and Individual Government Defendants can continue to
do as they please and violate Plaintiffs and the entire citizenry’s Fourth Amendment rights. On
Monday April 7, 2014, the Supreme Court declined to hear Plaintiffs’ petition.
Coupled with this, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has yet
to set a briefing schedule (almost four months after this Court’s preliminary injunction order of
December 16, 2013), as the Government Defendants represented that they needed a substantial
amount of additional time to “consider” motions practice before judgment.
It is thus clear that this Court’s ruling and preliminary injunction of December 16, 2013,
will now wind its way through the court system slowly and that during this time period the
Fourth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs and the citizenry will continue to be egregiously violated.
Just recently, in yet another lie that was disclosed, the ethically challenged Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper, who along with his comrades in the Obama administration have
repeatedly lied under oath to Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”),
had to do yet another mea culpa to save his derriere from prosecution for this perjury and admit
to Senator Ron Wyden of the Senate Intelligence Committee that personnel of the National
Security Agency (“NSA”) have been accessing, listening to, and reading the telephonic and
email communications of ordinary Americans who have no connection to terrorism and no
communication with terrorists, domestically and overseas. Of course, Clapper and his corrupt

2

enablers at the NSA do not need to do much to short-circuit justified criminal prosecution; the
Obama Justice Department, true to its continuing inaction if not cover-up of a myriad of what
our equally felonious president calls his phony scandals, will not hold anyone in this
administration accountable, be it this NSA, IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious or whatever
“scandal du jour” arises now and in the future. The Clapper letter to Senator Wyden and a
concurrent New York Times press report are attached as Exhibit 1 and speak loudly for
themselves.
Importantly, the revelation made to Senator Wyden proves that the Government and
Individual Government Defendants have repeatedly lied not just to Congress, the FISC and the
American people, but to this Court, with the help of their pliant Obama Justice Department
lawyers. In short, it is now clear that Internet surveillance did not cease in 2011 as has been
represented by them in moving to dismiss certain claims in Klayman II (No. 13-cv-881, D.D.C),
and the same is true of overseas phone calls under PRISM. The Obama Justice Department has
thus argued that relevant portions of the Second Amended Complaint in Klayman II should be
dismissed as a result. But now that their and their clients’ lies have predictably been exposed,
this court, sua sponte, should respectfully issue an order to show cause and hold their corrupt feet
to the fire and strongly sanction them for their unethical and illegal conduct.
As for the lifting of the stay order of December 16, 2013, this is respectfully the
minimum the Court should be prepared to do under these outrageous circumstances. And, by
doing so, it would not only serve to protect Plaintiffs, the citizenry and the American people
from the criminality, but also serve to light a fire under the Government and Individual
Defendants to move this and the other companion cases along and not continue to obstruct and
delay at every turn in an effort to “run the clock out.”

3

A number of motions are pending in Klayman I (No. 13-cv-851, D.D.C.), Klayman II
(No. 13-cv-881, D.D.C.), and now Klayman III (No. 14-cv-92, D.D.C.), where the Government
Defendants, consistent with their obstruction and delay tactics, now want to stay certification of
the class and oppose it altogether. There is a clear-cut pattern in all three cases to avoid the
Government Defendants’ and Individual Defendants’ day of legal reckoning.
For all of these compelling reasons, and to protect Plaintiffs and all Americans whose
privacy rights and freedoms have been trampled upon by an out of control tyrannical government
establishment, run primarily by Defendant Barack Obama and his enablers, this Court must step
in and lift the stay of the preliminary injunction order of December 16, 2013.
Plaintiffs contacted Defendants’ counsel to seek consent for this motion. Defendants’
counsel indicated that they do not consent to this motion.

Dated: April 11, 2014
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Larry Klayman
Larry Klayman, Esq.
General Counsel
Freedom Watch, Inc.
D.C. Bar No. 334581
2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 345
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiffs and the Class

4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 11th day of April, 2014, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Motion to Remove Stay On Preliminary Injunction Order Of December 16, 2013
(Civil Action Nos. 13-cv-851, 13-cv-881, and 14-cv-92) was submitted electronically to the
District Court for the District of Columbia and served via CM/ECF upon the following:

James J. Gilligan
Special Litigation Counsel
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 883
Washington, D.C. 20044
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Attorneys for Defendants.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Larry Klayman
Larry Klayman, Esq.
General Counsel
Freedom Watch, Inc.
D.C. Bar No. 334581
2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 345
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

5