Skip to comments.Broe v. Reed: Motion for Expedited Discovery, Subpoenas (Obama's Washington case)
Posted on 12/16/2008 6:54:14 AM PST by BP2
Broe v. Reed: Motion for Expedited Discovery, Subpoenas December 16th, 2008
Yesterday, DecaLogosIntl.org reported that James Broe, one of 13 Plaintiffs in Broe v. Reed, has filed a motion for expedited discovery and authority to issue subpoenas in Washington State Supreme Court:
Names and Designation of Persons Filing Motion
COMES NOW, James E. Broe, Kenneth R. Seal, Robert Baker, Mark Sussman, Stan Walter, Bill Wise, Andy Stevens, Ed Crawford, Jason Lagen, Louise Workman, Jocelyn Murcelli, Mike Murcelli and Kevin McDowell, by and through counsel of record Stephen Pidgeon, pursuant to RAP 17.3(a), the Rules of Discovery, CR 26-37, and CR 45 governing the issuance of subpoenas, and Move this Honorable Court for an order allowing the issuance of two subpoenas for the purpose of obtaining admissible evidence in this case, and expediting discovery pursuant to the proposed schedule.
Plaintiffs seek an Order allowing plaintiffs expedited discovery by means of two subpoenas, one to be served on the Secretary of State of the State of Washington, to discover the following items: I) the Declaration of Candidacy of Barack Obama as filed in the State of Washington; 2) all records concerning the candidacy and disallowance of Socialist Workers Party candidate Frank Colero within the Secretary of States office; and one to be served upon the Director of the Department of Health in the State of Hawaii, to discover the following items: 3) the Birth Certificate of Barack Obama in Hawaii, and 4) all supporting documentation regarding the registration of the birth of Barack Obama in Hawaii. Plaintiffs seek an order which establishes the following schedule.
Plaintiffs are to serve the Secretary of State of the State of Washington with a Subpoena in the form attached hereto as approved by the Court no later than the close of business on Friday, December 19, 2008, and responses shall be served upon Plaintiffs counsel Stephen Pidgeon no later than the close of business on December 28, 2008.
Plaintiffs are to serve the State of Hawaii Department of Health with a Subpoena in the form attached hereto as approved by the Court no later than the close of business on Monday, December 22, 2008, and responses shall be served upon Plaintiffs counsel. no later than the close of business on December 28, 2008.
More on the story here: http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1825
Very good news indeed!
Is it on the actual court calander? I doubt there will be oral arguments in the WA SC. It is the most corrupt state supreme court in the country and if you think they are going to follow the law, you are sadly mistaken.
“It is the most corrupt state supreme court in the country and if you think they are going to follow the law, you are sadly mistaken.”
So should we just stop and not try?
“Broe v. Reed” has a haunting ring to it.
Don’t sue me bro!
FYI: As a followup to the filing of a challenge to President-elect Obamas votes in Washington state, the state Supreme Court has set an en banc conference for Jan. 8.
This means all of the justices participate in deciding whether to take the case, not just a department (half the court) or, as more usual, just the court commissioner. The challengers, James Broi and 12 others, are represented by Bellevue attorney Stephen Pidgeon
So we sit and do nothing? Please, tell us what YOU are doing about this mess we're in.
Ping! Here is the link to the MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY:
Dont "STAY ME," Broe!
Dont "STAY ME," Broe!
Don't REED my birth records, BROE!
I am all for going after Obama’s constitutional qualifications for President.
When it comes to going after the corrupt justices on the WA SC, I take a back seat to NO ONE.
Thanks for the ping.
That is one of the most well-reasoned and well-written motions I’ve seen in these BC cases.
Coincidentally, I recently made a couple of posts about discovery and pre-action discovery in BC threads here.
I’d like to see a judge grant the motion and force the defendant to appeal or comply. of course, they’ll probably appeal, but it will be hard to show an abuse of discretion if the lower court writes a legally valid opinion.
Also, i think the media spin and perspective would have to change some if it came out that it is the “concealers” who are appealing and fighting this issue in the higher courts.
So what does this "going after" action include? How can we help?
My original post was based on my personal knowledge of the corruption withing the Washington State SC and the offices of governor and AG.
I'll be in the USSC sometime in the next two months, and they will accept my case. The other stuff I can't discuss right now.
And can you guess who plans to visit Hawaii on December 22?
Barack Obama that's who.