"Then, we agree. The fix is in. None of us were at this ex parte meeting."
Posted on 02/28/2009 5:18:23 AM PST by SvenMagnussen
Keyes v. Bowen, Obama, et. al. Superior Court of California County of Sacramento Case No. 34-2008-800000096-CU-WM-GDS
ORLY TA1TZ, Esq. (SBN 223433) 26302 La Paz Mission Viejo Ca 92691
THE LAW OFFICE OF GARY G. KREEP GARY G. KREEP (SBN 066482) 932 "D" Street, Suite 2 Ramona, California 92065
Attorneys for Petitioners
DECLARATION OF GARY G. KREEP IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS' OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENTS' MOTION TO QUASH
I, GARY G. KREEP, hereby declare as follows:
1. That I am the attorney for Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes; Dr. Wiley S. Drake, ST., and Markham Robinson, herein (hereinafter collectively referred to as "PETITIONERS"), that I am admitted to practice before all Courts of this State, and that, if called upon to do so, I could, and would, competently testify as follows:
2. That, on January 15,2009, PETITIONERS served a deposition subpoena for the production of business records on both Mr. Obama's attorneys and on Occidental College; that this service was made in error as it was not served first on Mr. Obama's attorneys at least five days prior to the custodian of record, as required by California Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CCP") § 1985.3(b)(3); that this error occurred because the volunteer process server did not serve the deposition subpoena as intended, but, instead, personally served the subpoena on the custodian of record on that date; that, otherwise, PETITIONERS would have been in compliance with CCP § 1985.3(b)(3); that PETITIONERS acted in good faith, however, by providing Occidental College and MR. OBAMA more notice than the twenty days statutorily required by CCP § 2020.410(c) to produce the documents requested; and that, even though PETITIONERS erred in the serving of the deposition subpoena, there was no injury to MR. OBAMA, as additional time was given on the "back end" that more then covered the error.
3. That MR. OBAMA failed to give written notice in a timely manner, as required, of the claimed error, in that CCP § 2025.410(a) provides:
"Any party served with a deposition notice that does not comply with Article 2 (commencing with Section 2025.210) waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection specifying that error or irregularity at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled, on the party seeking to take the deposition and any other attorney or party on whom the deposition notice was served."
4. That MR. OBAMA did not "promptly" serve PETITIONERS with written notice of the alleged error and, instead, waited 27 days before giving written notice, only four days prior to the date for the production of the documents specified in PETITIONERS' deposition subpoena; and that, although this Motion to Quash was served within the time limits permitted to object to an improperly served deposition notice, MR. OBAMA did not give prompt written notice of the error as required by CCP § 2025.410(a) and, thus, did not give PETITIONERS a meaningful opportunity to correct the error.
5. That MR. OBAMA's attorney, Mr. Woocher, was aware of PETITIONERS' noncompliance with CCP § 1985.3(b)(3) on January 16,2009, because, on that day Occidental College alerted Mr Woocher's office, informing him that the College had received PETITIONERS' deposition subpoena (Declaration of Frederic D. Woocher in Support of Motion to Quash ("Woocher Decl."), ^ 2); that same day, January 16, 2009, Mr. Woocher received a copy of PETITIONERS' subpoena by mail (Woocher Decl. ^ 3); that, at that time, Mr. Woocher contacted PETITIONERS' counsel by e-mail and requested that PETITIONERS withdraw their subpoena duces tecum until after the hearing scheduled for March 13, 2009, because he wanted to "avoid the expense of filing a motion to quash" (Woocher Decl. U 3); that Mr. Woocher did not, however, inform PETITIONERS of any error in the procedures in any of his correspondence or in any other conversation with the attorneys for PETITIONERS; that PETITIONERS did not receive notice of the alleged error until they received MR. OBAMA's Motion to Quash on February 12, 2009; and that, based on my communications, oral and written, with Mr. Woocher, I believe that the reason for the requested withdrawal of the subpoena until after the March 13, 2009, hearing, was that he was hoping that the matter would be dismissed at said hearing.
6. That, even though PETITIONERS acknowledge the procedural error in serving the deposition subpoena, because of MR. OBAMA's 27-day delay in giving PETITIONERS the required prompt written objection, specifying the error or irregularity, the Court should find that MR. OBAMA waived his objection to the error according to CCP § 2025.410(a); and that, therefore, the Court should deny MR. OBAMA's Motion to Quash and order production of the documents requested.
7. That MR. OBAMA's objection to PETITIONERS' discovery request is without merit.
8. That MR. OBAMA argues that the descriptions of documents sought by PETITIONERS are vague and overbroad; that PETITIONERS' request states that the documents sought consist of "Academic and housing records of Barack Hussein Obama, including but not limited to, approximately two years from September 1979 to June 1981" (PETITIONERS' DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS, issued on 1/15/09); and that this request is narrowly tailored and seeks documents that are directly relevant to this case.
9. That this request is not overbroad, as the documents sought are the records of only one student in a period of only two years, and not the records of all students who attended Occidental College for an undefined period of time; that, in addition, if PETITIONERS' discovery request was made too specific, MR. OBAMA could avoid the production of the relevant documents due to PETITIONERS missing the name of a particular document; that, since PETITIONERS do not know the exact documents regarding MR. OBAMA that are kept by Occidental College, this discovery request is as narrowly limited as possible, so that it is not burdensome for the College to produce.
10. That, furthermore, MR. OBAMA did not give specific objections to the discovery request, and that the CCP § 2031.240(b) requires that:
"(b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection of an item or category of item, the response snail do both of the following:
(1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, or land falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made. (2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), mat claim shall be expressly asserted."
11. That MR. OBAMA neither invoked any claim of privilege in his objection to PETITIONERS' discovery request nor set forth clearly the specific grounds of any objection other than to claim that it is vague, overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence; that the objections to PETITIONERS' discovery request are insufficient according to CCP § 2031.240(b) and, therefore, MR. OBAMA's Motion to Quash discovery should be denied.
12. That, contrary to the claims of Mr. Woocher in his pleadings, counsel for PETITIONERS did attempt lo resolve the underlying issue in a timely manner, that counsel for PETITIONERS attempted to obtain a hearing date from the Court prior to the December 15, 2008, vote of the Presidential Electors in the Electoral College, however, counsel for PETITIONERS was informed by the Clerk of Department 31 of the Sacramento County Superior Court that the Judge, himself, personally, had set the hearing Ibr March 13, 2009, that no ex parte attempts to hold any sort of hearing on the matter prior to December 13,2008, would be allowed, and that a fully noticed motion to advance the hearing date would have to be filed, according to statutory procedures and local court rules, thereby rendering it impossible for PETITIONERS to have a hearing prior to the December 15,2008, date.
13. That the delays in seeking the Court hearing were necessitated by the fact that volunteer and professional process servers had great difficulty serving the Electors due to incorrect addresses being provided for a number of them by the Democratic Party of the State of California, one of the Presidential Electors being misnamed, and the hostility, threats of having process servers arrested, and admitted attempts to avoid service by several of the Presidential Electors.
14. That I am informed and believe and thereon allege, that, for example, one of the Presidential Electors told the process server that she "owned" the public street in front of her house and was going to have the process server arrested for trespassing on it.
15. That counsel for PETITIONERS attempted to "meet and confer" with Mr. Strumwasser, one of the attorneys for MR. OBAMA, concerning this motion to quash, and that he was told in a telephone conversation with Mr. Strumwasser that there would be no negotiations on the subject.
16. That, since the original and the Amended Writ deal with the subject of ascertaining whether a candidate for President of the United States is eligible to serve in that office, pursuant to the United States Constitution, the information in the College records is relevant, and that, from those records, statements as to whether MR. OBAMA is, indeed, a "natural born citizen" may be found.
17. That, even with the Amended Writ, this issue is relevant, as the Amended Writ seeks to obtain Orders from this Court requiring the Secretary of State to ascertain said eligibility prior to placing a presidential candidate on the ballot in the future.
18. That, as stated in our previous pleadings herein, former California Secretaries of State have taken legal action to remove individuals from the ballot for failure to comply with the eligibility requirements to serve as President of the United States, although, in those cases, the issue had to do with the "age" requirement, not the "natural bom citizen" requirement.
19. That, if MR. OBAMA is not constitutionally eligible to serve as President of the United Slates, then no act that he takes is, arguably, valid, the laws that he signs would not be valid, the protective orders that he signs would be null and void, and every act that he takes would be subject to legal challenge, both in Courts of the United States of America, and in International Courts, and that, therefore, it is important for the voters to know whether he, or any candidate for President in the future, is eligible to serve in that office.
20. That MR. OBAMA's actions to block any attempt to inquire into his status as a "natural born citizen" raises questions which must be answered in order to avoid a situation where, perhaps several years in the future, it is discovered that he was not eligible to serve as President of the United States, and, therefore, all of his acts would be null and void, and that the resulting chaos could lead to a constitutional crisis, immobilizing the United States. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 25th day of February, 2009, at Ramona, California.
/s/ Gary G. Kreep, Esq. Attorneys for Petitioners
"Then, we agree. The fix is in. None of us were at this ex parte meeting."
if they get the records it’s going to be another geraldo/al capone moment. I suspect the evidence they seek was destroyed 2+ years ago
Keep the heat on this issue. The truth would be so simple to produce. Why is 0bama holding it up? I smell a rat...a DhimmiRat.
I think if he was such a hot shot barrister, He’d have changed his name before he got so high profile ... Gary KREEP ?
Kreep is evidently a “part-time” attorney and full time Republican activist...which goes a long way in explaining the posted pleading.
Gary Kreep. Unfortunate name.
if read aloud it’s music to the ear :)
yeah, & i’ve heard of Dr. Butts ,Proctologist-no kidding
If the subpoena was served in a manner that violated California law then why should Obama be obliged to respond to it?
I don’t think it went back that far. The fact he pretended to go to Hawaii to take care of his grandmother says he was there covering things up.
Makes me ill that someone could use their ill grandmother in such a manner.
Also, he sent Rahm to Africa to cover more up.
“if they get the records it’s going to be another geraldo/al capone moment. I suspect the evidence they seek was destroyed 2+ years ago” - henry_reardon
It’s a Subpoena Duces Tecum. A person representing Occidental College will have to appear to present the records and answer questions under oath. If they lie, the college could suffer irreparable harm.
Kreep merely wants to set the record straight. Obama claims he wants a transparent Presidency, but works overtime to coverup, obstruct and hide factual data.
Kreep wrote, “15. That counsel for PETITIONERS attempted to “meet and confer” with Mr. Strumwasser, one of the attorneys for MR. OBAMA, concerning this motion to quash, and that he was told in a telephone conversation with Mr. Strumwasser that there would be no negotiations on the subject.”
“That counsel for PETITIONERS attempted to “meet and confer” with Mr. Strumwasser, one of the attorneys for MR. OBAMA, concerning this motion to quash, and that he was told in a telephone conversation with Mr. Strumwasser that there would be no negotiations on the subject.””
Sven, Strumwasser doesn’t take the “part-time” lawyer Kreep seriously. As a general proposition, “part-time” lawyers file pleading which look like they have been drafted by part-timers. As a further general rule, “full time” lawyers seldom give “part-time” lawyers, especially those with a particular, or peculiar, ideological agenda, the time of day. Strumwasser, and I suspect the court, will give Mr. Kreep exactly the attention he and his pleading deserve.
Mr. Kreep has been actively defending the rights of Californians for years. You do a grave disservice to all of us with your remarks, which have no substance.
I agree, I just think he’s had every trace “sanitized”.I think lessons were learned from attempts by previous people to hide things. he seems to have been well supported and rose so quickly that opposition wasn’t really aware of him.
Obama is fighting to keep his college transcripts and housing records from seeing the light of day because he has something to hide.
“You do a grave disservice to all of us with your remarks, which have no substance.”
Are my words that dangerous or are the positions advanced by Kreep that weak and foolish?
Better than if the K and the P had been reversed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.