Klayman et al v. Obama et al

RESPONSE re MOTION to Continue the Status Conference Until the Following Week

D.D.C.August 31, 2015

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LARRY KLAYMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States, et al., Defendants. Case Nos: 1:13-cv-851-RJL 1:13-cv-881-RJL 1:14-cv-092-RJL Assigned to Judge Richard J. Leon PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE Plaintiffs respectfully oppose the Government Defendants’ Motion to continue the status conference. As this Court concluded during the first status conference of this case, time is of the essence as this matter is at the “pinnacle of national importance.” Previously, during a status conference on October 31, 2013, the Court warned the Government Defendants not to seek delays in this case as it is at the pinnacle of public national interest. Specifically, the Court emphasized: “We work 24/7 around this courthouse, my friend. 24/7. I don’t want to hear anything about vacations, weddings, days off. Forget about it. This is a case at the pinnacle of public national interest, pinnacle. All hands 24/7. No excuses. You got a team of lawyers. Mr. Klayman is alone apparently. You have litigated cases in this courthouse when it is matters of this consequence and enormity. You know how this Court operates.” 1 1 Despite the Court’s order granting a preliminary injunction on December 16, 2013, the Government Defendants did not file a notice of appeal until almost three (3) weeks later on January 3, 2014. A simple notice of appeal could have been filed forthwith consistent with the Court’s direction to accelerate any appeals given the Court’s stay of the preliminary injunction order. As set forth below, this delay is consistent with the Government Defendants’ and the Obama Justice Department’s goal to delay adjudication of these cases. The Government Case 1:13-cv-00881-RJL Document 103 Filed 08/31/15 Page 1 of 3 2 Tr. of Status Conference on October 31, 2013 at pg. 7. The Court’s observation nearly two years ago is even more relevant today given the Government Defendants’ concerted effort to delay adjudication of the appeal in which they succeeded. During this time, “almost-Orwellian” violations of the Fourth Amendment continued. Ironically, as held by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of the Columbia in United States v. Mills, 571 F.3d 1304, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 2009), even one day for a constitutional violation is one day too many. Importantly, Mills also stands for the proposition that injury is presumed from a constitutional violation. For the foregoing reasons, and because the Justice Department has over 7,000 lawyers, 6 of whom have entered notices of appearances in this case, including The Deputy Assistant Attorney General, there is no just cause for more delay. Dated: August 31, 2015 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Larry Klayman Larry Klayman, Esq. Freedom Watch, Inc. D.C. Bar No. 334581 2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 345 Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (310) 595-0800 Email: leklayman@gmail.com Attorney for Plaintiffs Defendants’ attempted and succeeded at other delays while the above-styled cases were on appeal. Case 1:13-cv-00881-RJL Document 103 Filed 08/31/15 Page 2 of 3 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 31st day of August, 2015, a true and correct copy of the foregoing 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 (202) 514-3358 Email: James.Gilligan@usdoj.gov Attorney for Defendants. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Larry Klayman Larry Klayman, Esq. D.C. Bar No. 334581 2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 345 Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (310) 595-0800 Case 1:13-cv-00881-RJL Document 103 Filed 08/31/15 Page 3 of 3