KLAYMAN v. OBAMA et al

Filing 97

REPLY to opposition to motion re 85 MOTION For Entry Of Default And To Strike Government Defendants Answer To Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint re 83 Answer to Amended Complaint, filed by LARRY E. KLAYMAN, CHARLES STRANGE, MARY ANN STRANGE. (Klayman, Larry)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LARRY KLAYMAN, et. al
Plaintiffs,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, et. al
Civil Action No. 13-cv- 851 RJL
Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, Larry Klayman, Charles Strange and Mary Ann Strange, hereby file their
Reply to Government Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Government
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint.
Defendants’ opposition is an affront not just to the Plaintiffs and millions of American
citizens whose telephonic metadata has been illegally and unconstitutionally obtained and
accessed by the Government Defendants, but also this Court.
By unilaterally deciding not to admit or deny portions of the Third Amended Complaint,
claiming falsely and without invoking any legitimate privilege, the Government Defendants are
saying that they do not trust this Court to safeguard alleged national security information. This
Court has a national security clearance and it would be a gross understatement to argue that it is
infinitely more trustworthy to guard national security information that even the Director of
National Intelligence, James Clapper, who perjured himself before Congress and the other less

than truthful officials of the NSA and the other Government Defendants. Plain and simple,
Plaintiffs’ motion to strike is predicated on the Government Defendants having obstructed justice
by on their own arrogantly deciding what needed to be answered or not. They can simply file two
answers, one for the public file and one in camera for the Court. Of course, the Government
Defendants’ opposition does not address this proposed easy solution to their obstruction, and
would rather defy this Court and continue to cover-up material facts relevant to this case. This
conduct is more than scandalous, as set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(f), as a
reason to strike their pleading and as the Government Defendants concede, at a minimum, their
affirmative defenses.
Plaintiffs do not need to belabor their legal and common sense arguments. This Court can
see through the continued obstruction of the Government Defendants.
They should be ordered to respond fully to the Third Amended Complaint, or have their
deficient, dishonest and obstructionist answer stricken, as well as all affirmative defenses
stricken. The Government Defendants cannot and should not be able with impunity to act as if
they are above the law, as much severe damage has already been done with their illegal, and as
this Court found “almost Orwellian”, unconstitutional acts.
Dated: March 14, 2013
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Larry Klayman
Larry Klayman, Esq.
D.C. Bar No. 334581
Freedom Watch, Inc.
2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 14th day of March, 2014 a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Plaintiffs’ Reply To Government Defendants’ Opposition To Plaintiffs’ Motion To
Strike Government Defendants’ Answer To Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (Civil Action
No. 13-cv- 851) 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]

Attorney for Defendants.

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