In form, Grinols v. Electoral College is an extremely important case. The 2012 Presidential Election hangs in the balance. Pending before the Court is a motion for a temporary restraining order that would stay the Constitution itself and could declare Barack Obama ineligible for the Presidency. In substance, it is just a crank with no legal standing spouting some conspiracy theories and asking for something that has no basis in law.
The motions are filed for the hearing January 3 on Orly Taitz’ motion for a temporary restraining order in the case of Grinols v. Electoral College. Taitz wants to stop Congress from certifying the the election on January 4.
Defendants filed notices of objection, and Taitz has replied. (See links to documents at the end of the article.) As I see it, there are five major issues in this case:
- Injunction against California defendants is moot
- Proper service of Defendants
- Representation of Obama by the US Attorney
- Standing of Plaintiffs
- Jurisdiction of the Court
The California Defendants provided a copy of the certification of the Electoral College vote that had been sent to the President of the Senate on or before Taitz filed her motion for a temporary restraining order. They say that it’s too late for the court to stop them from doing what’s already done. Taitz, amazingly, says it’s not moot, but I cannot explain her reasoning.
The Federal Defendants (Obama, Biden and the Congress) argue that service was defective, that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require service by “registered or certified mail.” Taitz claims that Federal Express is “registered or certified mail,” although she provides no precedent. FRCP 4 (g)(i)(1)(A)(ii)(B) says specifically:
send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the civil-process clerk at the United States attorney’s office
Do you think FedEx might file an amicus brief here? Sorry Orly, but this has been decided already in the 9th Circuit case of Magnuson v. Video Yesteryear. The Court, noting some ambiguity in the law, cited a number of cases on point including one from the 7th Circuit that concluded that “delivery by Federal Express is not ‘mail’ for the purposes of Rule 4.” This is somewhat complex and real attorneys might want to do a more careful analysis of this issue. Taitz also didn’t address the complaint to the “civil-process clerk.” Continue Reading →