gohmert v pence
NOTE HIS COS CLArence clerk, Bunch of az FAKE ELECTORS:
LOUIE GOHMERT,TYLER BOWYER, NANCY COTTLE, JAKE HOFFMAN, ANTHONY KERN,JAMES R. LAMON, SAM MOORHEAD, ROBERT MONTGOMERY, LORAINE PELLEGRINO, GREG SAFSTEN, KELLI WARDAND MICHAEL WARD,
Applicants, v. THE HONORABLE MICHAEL R. PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY. Respondent.
EMERGENCY APPLICATION TO THE HONORABLE SAMUEL A. ALITO AS CIRCUIT JUSTICE FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAY AND INTERIM RELIEF PENDING RESOLUTION OF A TIMELY FILED PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI
William L. Sessions Texas Bar No. 18041500 SESSIONS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 14591 North Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 Dallas, TX 75254 Tel: (214) 217-8855 Fax: (214) 723-5346 Email: lsessions@sessionslaw.net Lawrence J. Joseph DC Bar #464777
LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. JOSEPH 1250 Connecticut Av NW, Ste 700 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 355-9452 Fax: (202) 318-2254 Email: ljoseph@larryjoseph.com Counsel for Applicants Sidney Powell* Texas Bar No. 16209700
SIDNEY POWELL, P.C. 2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 72519 Tel: (214) 628-9514 Fax: (214) 628-9505 Email: sidney@federalappeals.com Howard Kleinhendler NY Bar No. 2657120
HOWARD KLEINHENDLER ESQUIRE 369 Lexington Ave., 12th Floor New York, New York 10017 Tel: (917) 793-1188 Fax: (732) 901-0832 Email: howard@kleinhendler.com * Counsel of Record
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/16/jan-6-gohmert-lawsuit-pence-524839
no lnx many
INSURRECTION FALLOUT
The Jan. 6 puzzle piece that's going largely ignored
Rep. Louie Gohmert sued then-Vice President Mike Pence on Dec. 27. Donald Trump’s involvement in the case remains unclear.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), who is now running for Texas attorney general, has said little about his lawsuit. | Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
By KYLE CHENEY
12/16/2021
As Donald Trump and his allies squeezed then-Vice President Mike Pence to single-handedly stop Joe Biden’s presidency in the weeks ahead of Jan. 6, they used one particular tool that’s been largely ignored ever since.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) sued Pence on Dec. 27, just as Trump was ratcheting up his pressure campaign against his vice president. Backed by a squad of lawyers associated with Trump ally and conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell, Gohmert argued Pence should assert unilateral control over certification, governed only by the vague wording of the Twelfth Amendment.
Gohmert’s move forced Pence to publicly resist Trump’s subversion of the election, only a week before the fateful Jan. 6 joint session of Congress. When the Justice Department stepped in to defend Pence from the lawsuit on Dec. 29, it marked the first time Pence signaled he wouldn’t fold to Trump’s demands.
Pence allies have long believed that Trump played a role in Gohmert’s legal strategy, and they’ve indicated that Trump was frustrated that the Justice Department intervened to defend his vice president against Gohmert’s suit. But what remains unknown is just how involved Trump was in Gohmert’s legal strategy. A spokesperson for the former president did not respond to a request for comment.
And while it’s unclear whether the Jan. 6 select panel is probing the genesis of Gohmert’s suit — which was quickly rejected by federal district and appellate courts in Texas — one committee member described it as an important episode in the runup to the violence at the Capitol.
“It’s a significant detail in that it was part of a plan to isolate and coerce Pence,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.).
A litany of new details about Trump’s pressure campaign against Pence have emerged in recent weeks. Those include memos from Trump attorneys John Eastman and Jenna Ellis that lay out fringe legal rationales for halting certification, as well as proof of further public and private force exerted by Trump himself. Gohmert’s suit is rarely mentioned in the publicly available pre-Jan. 6 timetable.
Gohmert’s goal, outlined in the suit, was to force Pence to ignore the 130-year-old law that governs the final certification of presidential elections and instead wield total authority over the proceedings. Pence ultimately decided that he lacked this power and his role was almost entirely ceremonial. He revealed his final decision on Jan. 6, shortly before a pro-Trump mob ransacked the Capitol amid chants that he was a “traitor” and should be hanged.
As for why Gohmert led the suit, Powell has publicly indicated that one reason was because Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has jurisdiction over his home state of Texas. Alito, Powell argued, might have bought more time for pro-Trump forces to reverse the results by blocking Pence from certifying Biden’s victory. (There’s no evidence Alito was considering this).
MOST READ
Sasse likely to resign from Senate, putting all eyes on Ricketts
Kari Lake’s Arizona campaign looks like nothing you’ve seen before
Proud Boys leader pleads guilty to seditious conspiracy over Jan. 6 actions
How Influential Senate Democrats Shut Down a Bid to Call Witnesses Against Trump
The Capitol riot worked in Powell’s favor but also against it, in her stated view: It delayed a last-ditch Jan. 6 attempt to seek Supreme Court consideration of Gohmert’s suit but also provided more time for Alito to weigh the suit that afternoon. The decision by Pence and congressional leaders to keep certifying votes after the riot dealt a mortal blow to Gohmert’s legal fight, Powell said.
“Had [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi not rushed, the outcome of the case could have been different, and the President as well,” Powell wrote on her website in September.
Powell did not respond to requests for comment for this story but told POLITICO in September that she “was not speaking with the President in that time frame” around Gohmert’s suit. She did, however, famously meet with Trump in the Oval Office on Dec. 18 along with Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn and other advisers working to help Trump stay in power.
Gohmert, who is now running for Texas attorney general, has said little about his lawsuit. His office declined multiple requests for comment.
The Texan made headlines at the time, though, after the district court rejected his court challenge. He said the effect of the court decision would leave street violence as the only option to contest the election.
“In effect, the ruling would be that you’ve got to go to the streets and be as violent as antifa and BLM,“ Gohmert said on Newsmax on Jan. 1.
One aspect of Gohmert’s legal fight that went unnoticed at the time but is relevant in hindsight:One of Pence’s Justice Department defenders was Jeffrey Clark, then acting assistant attorney general.
In recent months, House and Senate investigators have revealed thatClark was marshaling allies inside DOJ who might help him deploy the department in support of Trump’s bogus claims of voter fraud.He pressured department leaders to issue a letter calling into question the results in multiple states, a push that then-Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen resisted. Trump came within inches of removing Rosen and installing Clark as acting attorney general, but relented amid a promise of mass resignations.
Rosen told congressional investigators that he viewed Clark’s role in the Gohmert suit as a sign that Clark had begun to come back into the fold, only to realize later that his colleague was still in contact with Trump about taking over the department.
A source familiar with Rosen’s thinking said that even in hindsight, it’s not clear Clark’s involvement with the Pence suit was improper.
“The outcome in that case was correct, and there’s no evidence even in hindsight so far that Clark tried to do anything sketchy on that front,” the source said.
But it’s unclear whether Pence ever realized that Clark — while simultaneously fending off Gohmert’s case — was in talks with Trump about effectively commandeering the DOJ on the president’s behalf. The Senate investigation of Clark’s actions showed that one day after his name first appeared in the Pence case, he told Rosen that Trump would be making him acting attorney general within hours.
An attorney for Clark declined to answer questions about Clark’s involvement in the Gohmert lawsuit.
“Mr Clark has taken a strong stance to protect President Trump’s Executive Privilege,” attorney Harold MacDougald said. “He will continue to do so.”
The Jan. 6 committee has already voted to hold Clark in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify but has deferred asking the House to send the matter to the Justice Department while it awaits Clark’s return for a deposition as soon as this week. Clark’s attorney has indicated that his client intends to plead the Fifth, and the panel has indicated that it expects Clark to do so on a question-by-question basis.
The House panel investigating the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol insurrection meets to vote on pursuing contempt charges against Jeffrey Clark.
[CONGRESS
Jan. 6 investigators’ new challenge: Trump allies pleading the Fifth]
On Wednesday, Clark’s former deputy Ken Klukowski was seen heading into an interview with Jan. 6 committee investigators.
In revisiting the Gohmert case, POLITICO reached out to each of the lawyers involved, includingPowell associates Howard Kleinhendler, Julia Haller and Lawrence Joseph. Joseph was one of the attorneys who crafted Texas’ failed legal effort — later joined by Trump with a brief signed by Eastman — to get the Supreme Court to invalidate election results in four key states Biden won.
“I do not talk about litigation with the media unless a client directs me to do so, which has not happened,” Joseph said in an email.
A fourth attorney, Texas-based William Lewis Sessions, also declined to comment and copied Gohmert’s House email address on the reply.
“The areas of interest you have indicated are ones for which I either have no knowledge or which I believe are protected by a privilege,” he said. “The person who would have the best knowledge is Representative Gohmert, who was one of my clients.”
Gohmert did not respond to this email or a subsequent one.
FILED UNDER: JOE BIDEN, JOE BIDEN 2020, MIKE PENCE, DONALD TRUMP,
some lnx
In revisiting the Gohmert case, POLITICO reached out to each of the lawyers involved, including Powell associates Howard Kleinhendler, Julia Haller and Lawrence Joseph. Joseph was one of the attorneys who crafted Texas’ failed legal effort — later joined by Trump with a brief signed by Eastman — to get the Supreme Court to invalidate election results in four key states Biden won.
:{
}:
---
ref sidney
...We had one silver bullet—that made them all panic. Our fifth and final election law case did not challenge the election of any single state. Instead, it raised a constitutional challenge to the Electoral Count Act itself.
The Electoral Count Act was passed by Congress in 1887 and sought to alter the effect of the 12th Amendment of the US Constitution. The 12th Amendment provides that, in a disputed election, the Vice President would shift the determination of the election to the House, where the House of Representatives chooses the President by “one vote per state delegation”—a fitting design as House members are elected every two years and therefore subject to their constituents’ viewpoints more directly than Senators with six-year terms. The Electoral Count Act shifted the determination of the election away from the House to a bicameral process.
Under the 12th Amendment’s one vote per state delegation, in 2020, Republicans had a substantial lead with 27 states where Republicans outnumbered Democrats, 3 states where representation was tied, and 20 states where Democrats led. If the 12th Amendment applied, Trump may or may not have won outright as some Republicans opposed him; however, as long as Biden were denied the majority of states, then Pence would have been the victor; and in either case, Biden would have properly been denied the presidency.
Our case, Louis Gohmert, et al., Applicants v. Michael R. Pence, Vice President of the United States, challenged use of the Electoral Count Act as unconstitutional. Our filing was immediately brought to the attention of Nancy Pelosi who sought to become party and oppose us, but Reps. McCarthy and Scalise opposed her in an internal House leadership vote. McCarthy and Scalise supported Ghomert and the application of the 12th amendment. Republican Leadership’s opposition prevented Pelosi from being able to join as a party to the lawsuit, so instead, she was forced to file an Amicus brief.
We filed for an injunction at SCOTUS on January 6th, the day of the electoral count. We filed electronically and had a congressman deliver the paper filing required by SCOTUS. The Congressman was turned back by Capitol Hill Police, due to the unrest. We succeeded in getting the case docketed at 3:51 pm on January 6th.
Given Pelosi’s participation as amicus, she would receive notice of the Gohmert filing for an injunction with the Supreme Court. She would understand that Justice Alito could alone enter an injunction against use of the Electoral Count Act because he is the Circuit Justice for Louie Gohmert’s district.
Abandoning any concern for mass covid infection from the deplorables in the Capitol, Pelosi fired her political kill shot: she shockingly announced at 6:30 pm that members would resume the count at 8 pm—just hours after Michael Byrd killed Ashley Babbitt and demonstrators were still in the Capitol.
While Vice President Pence presided over the ceremony, curiously, it was Pelosi herself who announced counting would resume. At 8:00, the process promptly resumed, objections failed to prevent Biden’s election, and the joint session was dissolved by Pence at 3:44 a.m.
Notably, Pelosi’s rush to restart at 8 pm did not prevent the process’ continuation to January 7th. Members could have gone home to rest and resumed the vote early in the morning without losing a day. In other words, nothing would have changed regarding the date of the completion of the count. The absurdity of driving Congress to complete a process amidst such unrest was driven by something entirely different.
Speaker Pelosi had to act quickly to prevent Justice Alito from enjoining application of the Electoral Count Act and throwing a big wrench in the democrats’ coup.
The next morning, with no comment, SCOTUS denied the injunction without prejudice — a rapid response as Pelosi had already beaten the Court to it. Had Pelosi not rushed, the outcome of the case could have been different, and the President as well.
wiki stub 8 22
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_J._Joseph
Lawrence J. (Larry) Joseph is an American lawyer, known for his role in President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 United States Presidential Election.[1] Since 2003, he has practiced in an independent law office, allowing him to take on cases he describes as "politically incorrect".[2]
Joseph has filed a number of amicus curiae briefs in support of President Trump, including in cases involving Congressional subpoena of his tax returns.[3][4] He has also filed briefs with the United States Supreme Court on behalf of APA Watch, of which he was an officer.[5][6]
Role in the 2020 Presidential election
In December 2020, Joseph was hired as a special counsel to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to author a lawsuit Texas v. Pennsylvania aimed at overturning election results in several other states.[7][8]
The Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit,[9] which was widely condemned including by Republican elected officials, a group of whom described it as "mak[ing] a mockery of federalism and separation of powers" in an amicus curiae brief.[10]
In the same month, Joseph was named as attorney for the plaintiff in Gohmert v. Pence, another attempt to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. The lawsuit was similarly dismissed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the Supreme Court.
References
- ^ Rutenberg, Jim; Becker, Jo; Lipton, Eric; Haberman, Maggie; Martin, Jonathan; Rosenberg, Matthew; Schmidt, Michael S. (January 31, 2021). "77 Days: Trump's Campaign to Subvert the Election". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-11-21.
- ^ "About Attorney Lawrence J. Joseph". Law Office of Lawrence J. Joseph. Retrieved 2021-02-01.
- ^ Wolf, Richard (May 11, 2020). "Supreme Court battle over Donald Trump's finances carries risks for all three branches". USA Today. Retrieved 2021-02-01.
- ^ "Appearances as counsel by Lawrence J. Joseph". Certpool. Retrieved 2021-02-01.
- ^ "Entity Information - APA Watch". State Corporation Commission Clerk's Information System. Retrieved 2021-02-01.
- ^ "Scotus Preview 1: Immigration and border issues". Daily Journal. Retrieved 2021-02-01.
- ^ Platoff, Emma (December 8, 2020). "In new lawsuit, Texas contests election results in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania". The Texas Tribune. Retrieved 2021-02-01.
- ^ Montellaro, Zach; Cheney, Kyle; Gerstein, Josh (December 9, 2020). "Trump looks to jump into Texas case to overturn election results". Politico. Retrieved 2021-02-01.
- ^ Bravin, Jess; Paul, Deanna (2020-12-12). "Supreme Court Rejects Texas Challenge to Biden's Victory in Presidential Election". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2021-02-01.
- ^ "MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND BRIEF OF CARTER PHILLIPS, STUART GERSON, JOHN DANFORTH, CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, LOWELL WEICKER, ET AL, AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS AND IN OPPOSITION TO (1) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BILL OF COMPLAINT AND (2) MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR STAY AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAY". United States Supreme Court. Retrieved 2021-02-01.
External links
off bs
Experienced Legal Counsel
Appeals & Administrative Law
Attorney in Washington, D.C.
Lawrence J. Joseph
ATTORNEY AT LAW
The Law Office of Lawrence J. Joseph was formed in Washington, DC, in 2003. The firm’s practice areas include federal trial and appellate work, administrative law, and business counseling and disputes. Within the administrative-law field, the firm’s caseload falls primarily in the health and environmental fields.[// wm l sessions]
In addition to representing clients in their appeals, thefirm regularly files amicus curiae (or “friend of the court”) briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court, in all regional federal Courts of Appeals, and occasionally in state supreme courts or federal trial courts.
The firm’s office is located in Washington, DC, with contact information available below.
ABOUT THE FIRM
Larry Joseph began practicing law in 1991 and formed his firm in 2003 to undertake a "politically incorrect" representation that he could not undertake at his prior firm.
Since 2003, his firm has focused on counseling industry, organizations, and individuals before state, federal, and local administrative agencies, trial courts, and appellate courts. Although he consults and litigates in private disputes, most of his caseload involves a governmental plaintiff or defendant and public-policy implications.
As shown in more detail on his bio page, Mr. Joseph is admitted to practice law in California and the District of Columbia, as well most federal Courts of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, many other states allow out-of-state attorneys to practice in their jurisdictions, under certain conditions.
The firm's independent structure enables its working with clients and prospective clients to develop flexible billing arrangements, including fixed-fee representations, monitoring for a capped monthly fee, and straight hourly billing.
WORK WITH A SEASONED LITIGATION ATTORNEY
Contact the Firm for More Information
PRACTICE AREAS
Amicus Briefs
Also known as "friend of the court" briefs – provide an opportunity to supplement the briefing by the parties to litigation.
READ MORE
Administrative Law
Many of the legal requirements that directly affect us come from administrative agencies, rather than Congress or state and local legislative bodies.
READ MORE
Business Law
The Law Office of Lawrence J. Joseph understands that you want to accomplish your mission without wasting time on unproductive disputes.
READ MORE
THE KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL TO GET RESULTS
Larry Joseph began practicing law in 1991 and formed his firm in 2003 to
undertake a "politically incorrect" representation that he could not undertake at his prior firm.
Since 2003, his firm has focused on counseling industry, organizations, and individuals before state, federal, and local administrative agencies, trial courts, and appellate courts. Although has consults and litigates in private disputes, most of his caseload involves a governmental plaintiff or defendant and public-policy implications.
"A good case starts with a thorough understand of your situation and clearly defined options moving forward."
As show in more detail on his bio page, Mr. Joseph is admitted to practice
law in California and the District of Columbia, as well most federal Courts of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, many other states allow out-of-state attorneys to practice in their jurisdictions, under certain conditions.
The firm's independent structure enables its working with clients and prospective clients to develop flexible billing arrangements, including fixed-fee representations, monitoring for a capped monthly fee, and straight hourly billing.
Bar Admissions
- District of Columbia, 1999
- California, 1991
- U.S. Supreme Court
- U.S Courts of Appeal for the D.C., 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Circuits, with e-filing privileges in 7th and 8th Circuits for amicus briefs
- U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Central, Eastern, Northern & Southern Districts of California, Western District of Michigan, and Western District of Pennsylvania
Education
- J.D., Harvard Law School, 1991
- B.A., Franklin & Marshall College, 1984
w
hat Are Amicus Briefs?
Amicus curiae briefs – also known as friend of the court briefs – provide an opportunity to supplement the briefing by the parties to litigation. Typically filed in appellate courts, amicus brief can nudge a court in the right direction or help convince a court that it lacks jurisdiction even to decide an issue. For example, a trade association might support its member in an enforcement action; or an individual might have a court case that depends on how a higher court handles someone else’s appeal.
Do You Need an Attorney?
The Law Office of Lawrence J. Joseph in Washington, D.C. has filed more than a hundred appellate amicus briefs, in not only the U.S. Supreme Court but also all regional federal circuits. The firm also occasionally files in state supreme courts and state or federal trial courts. The firm’s amicus clients have ranged from U.S. and state senators and representatives, state and local government, trade associations, public-interest groups, and concerned individuals.
For example, inEngine Mfrs. Ass’n v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., No. 02-1343 (U.S.), the Supreme Court used an argument from the firm’s amicus brief for the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, American Trucking Associations, Inc., Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association, National Association of Home Builders, and Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition to find broader federal preemption of emission standards than the petitioner Engine Manufacturers Association argued. Although courts often decline to adopt merits arguments by non-parties, federal courts typically accept jurisdictional arguments raised by amicus briefs.
Other examples of the firm’s amicus brief include the following:
If you are interested in filing an amicus brief, the firm will evaluate your case and propose arguments without charge.
Contact the firm for more information. Joseph's Washington, D.C.-based office serves people throughout the country.
powell lawyer
virtual office PO box? dupont circle
Workspace Solutions In Dupont Circle - Metro Officeshttps://www.metroffice.com › locations › washington-dc
1250 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 ... Situated one block from Dupont Circle in downtown's Golden Triangle, 1250 Connecticut Avenue is ...
Virtual Office Address at 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW ...https://www.davincivirtual.com › ... › Washington
Suite 700. Washington, DC 20036 ... Our virtual office locations at 1250 Connecticut Avenue NW in Washington, DC have everything to meet your virtual ...
Contact Us - Bisceglie & Gritthttps://biscegliegritt.com › contact-us
1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.. Suite 700. Washington, DC 20036. E-mail Address: info@biscegliegritt.com. Telephone: (202) 778-1160. Closest Metro Stations:
Metro Offices - Dupont Circle | LiquidSpacehttps://liquidspace.com › dc › washington › metro-offic...
Metro Offices - Dupont Circle. 1250 Connecticut Ave NW, 700, Washington, DC 20036 - Confirmed Open. Health & Safety Metro Offices - Dupont Circle. 4.6 (12).
Rating: 4.6 · 12 reviews
Company — Prime Grouphttp://www.primegroupllc.com › contactus
1250 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 700. Washington, DC 20036. info@primegroupllc.com. Untitled.jpg. Name *. First Name. Last Name. Email Address *. Subject *.
1250 Connecticut Avenue - Preferred Office Networkhttps://preferredofficenetwork.com › Properties
The 1250 Connecticut Avenue business center provides office space and meeting space in ... 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 700, Washington DC 20036.
Washington, D.C. Office 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite ...http://www.whda.com › whda › assets › FilePDF
1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW. Suite 700. Washington, D.C. 20036. Tel: 202-822-1100. Fax: 202-822-1111. Our office is a 5-10 walk from the.
1 page
Contact - Fight For Children UAE, marathon, valero??
https://fightforchildren.org › contact
1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 700. Washington, DC 20036. Phone: 202.772.0400. Fax: 202.772.0401. Email: ffc.email@fightforchildren.org ...
Metro Offices - 1250 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, DChttps://m.yelp.com › ... › Shared Office Spaces
Korie M. Business Owner. Hi Melissa,… read more. Useful. Funny. Cool. Map. 1250 Connecticut Ave NW. Ste 700. Washington, DC 20036. Dupont Circle, Downtown.
Rating: 4 · 1 review
Burris Logistics - Washington, DC - MapQuesthttps://www.mapquest.com › ... › Washington
1250 Connecticut Ave NW, Ste 700, Washington, DC 20036. (866) 287-7475. Claim this business · (866) 287-7475. Favorite. More. Directions. MapQuest ...
Related searches
1250 connecticut ave nw washington, dc 20036
700 12th street, nw suite 700 washington, dc 20005
601 13th street nw, suite 900 south washington, dc 20005
davinci virtual office
davinci virtual office washington dc
1725 i street nw, suite 300 washington, dc 20006
2 wisconsin circle suite 700 chevy chase, md 20815
metro offices