Obama In Contempt Of Court, Disputes Claims
Friday, November 4, 2011 6:49
The request comes from Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, which brought a case against the White House over Obama's development of Obamacare.
Klayman has alleged that Obama's multiple meetings with representatives of Planned Parenthood and other organizations constituted a federal advisory committee, and that refusing to release details about the meetings violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
It was in August when a U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts ruled that part of the case could advance, determining that Klayman "has alleged sufficiently … that the committee here was an advisory committee under the FACA.."
He noted Freedom Watch "may be entitled to mandamus review against the president, and dismissing the complaint [as the White House wanted] on separation of powers grounds would be premature."
Now Klayman has filed a motion for order to show cause, suggesting strongly that the White House is thumbing its nose at the court and its orders.
In fact, that's exactly what is alleged.
"In an attempt to circumvent the court's order, defendant President Barack Obama's supplemental memorandum on mootness effectively rebukes and thus 'thumbs its nose' at the court's memorandum of opinion and order of Aug. 12, 2011," the motion explains.
That happened because the White House did not respond to questions about whether the special advisory committee still is, in fact, meeting.
"Plaintiff had consistently and meritoriously maintained that such ongoing meetings and/or communications must still be taking place, since implementation of what has become known as 'Obamacare' involves thousands of regulations, and there is much at stake concerning such healthcare reform, particularly during this period leading up to the presidential elections in 2012," Klayman argues.
He noted that the court agreed with his argument that "a de facto federal advisory committee could exist was properly pled."
"The court … [ordered] defendants to advise whether meetings and/or communications were still ongoing with nongovernmental persons and entities," he wrote. "Despite defendants' own acknowledgment of the court's unequivocal order, defendants have opted to avoid compliance, seeking to side-step answering candidly and honestly. … Defendants have merely submitted the disingenuous, nonresponsive, and misleading sworn declaration of Kimberly D. Harris, deputy assistant and deputy counsel to the president in the office of the White House Counsel.
"In this sworn declaration, defendants to seek to sidestep perjury allegations they were forced to admit that such meetings and communications were, in fact, taking place in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act," Klayman wrote.
But instead of answering, the defendants "brazenly alleged that the court's 'assumptions are misplaced.'"
He continued, "The Aug. 12 order from the judge told the defendants to respond to a simple question: whether 'the committee has stopped meeting in the wake of Congress passing and the president signing' the bill.
"Now the White House explains it is "difficult to respond," Klayman's motion said.
The statement of Harris admitted "PlannedParenthood and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, along with many other individuals and entities, attended meetings at the White House, at times in groups, to express their views on health care reform."
But then she explained, "there was and is no such committee [so] there are no committee documents and no past, present or future committee meetings."
Klayman argued that the White House is trying to stall a response and trying to mislead the court with issues that already have been determined.
"Perhaps because they think given their stature is 'above the law," the argument noted.
"Civil contempt is proper given defendants' failure to comply with the court's order and intentional refusal to respond to the court's question," Klayment wrote.
The August ruling came in a claim filed by Freedom Watch in 2009 alleging that as Obama pushed various interests hard for support for Obamacare, the White House set up a team of lobbyists from the Chamber of Commerce, Planned Parenthood, the AARP, American Medical Associatino and others.
The committee was to discuss the issue and build support for it.
It was last winter when the White House refused to give up information about negotiations with various groups over Obamacare, saying he has a "privilege" to keep such communications concealed.
Among other arguments, a letter from Marcia Berman, a senior counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, told Klayman, "Defendants object to the subpoena on the grounds that it seeks information that is protected by various recognized privileges, such as the deliberative process privilege and the presidential communications privilege."
Klayman, who founded Judicial Watch and, more recently, Freedom Watch USA, is in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., contending the president's conduct falls within the scope of the act that "requires the president to come clean on why he has caved in to the pharmaceutical industry, preventing the importation of prescription drugs that would lower prices for consumers, why he has become the lackey of Planned Parenthood in championing government financed abortions, and why the AMA (American Medical Association) and AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) are now his great friends."
He said, "Freedom Watch will not rest until the American people know all the facts about this historic and ill advised health care legislation, which most Americans – be they conservative, middle of the road or liberal – think we cannot afford and do not want as it is written," he said when the case was launched.
These arguments are in addition to the multiple lawsuits that allege Obamacare's demand that consumers buy the insurance specified by the government or pay massive penalties simply is unconstitutional. That dispute appears to be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court at any time now, as lower courts have issued conflicting rulings.
Klayman, the only lawyer ever to have obtained a court ruling that a U.S. president committed a crime, has pursued cases against the Clintons, Dick Cheney, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
He built a reputation that prompted writers for the NBC drama series "The West Wing" to create a character, "Harry Klaypool," based on his work
Read more: Obama in contempt of court, Obamacare dispute claims http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=363821#ixzz1ciVLKPmK
No comments:
Post a Comment