I wanna go to the court with you...
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
"Live Updates From Obama Eligibility Hearing At The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena..."
Here is the 3rd or 4th reason for the timed hit on Osama bin Laden.
Answer: The fix is in.
I read that Obama (Mr I,I,I) gave the go ahead for this operation to kill Osama bin Laden last week.
Is this why he released his “Fake” Certificate of Live Birth... last week???
Hoping the information about Osama bin Laden would over shadow
his “Fake” COLB!!
PS: Mr I, I, I interrupted Trumps “Celebrity Apprentice” to make his
announcement................... “8 hrs” after this event actually took place!!
Was this a stick it in your eye (to Trump) for Obama to make this
announcement at this particular time???
Praying here that this hearing is the start to taking out Obama Bin Biden and restoring the Constitution. Lets make this a really great day!!!
Will there be an expert there to debunk the phony birth certificate? ‘cuz you know 0bama’s people are going to say that this is a non-story since Zero already released his newly-minted long-form and they’ll ask for a dismissal.
Why are TAXPAYERS spending money on this?????
It is a simple matter to prove or disprove one’s natural born citizenship. Simply release the **common** documents that many Americans routinely release for security clearances and many other reasons.
Cost to Obama: Hm?... $150. total!
I also find it outrageous that the Kenyan usurper is using federal employees to defend his personal eligibility to serve in office.
"Court of Appeals Docket #: 09-56827 Docketed: 11/17/2009
Nature of Suit: 2440 Other Civil Rights
Wiley Drake, et al v. Barack Obama, et al
Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Central California, Santa Ana
Fee Status: Paid
Originating Court Information:
District: 0973-8 : 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN
Court Reporter: Blanca Aguilar, Official Court Reporter
Trial Judge: David O. Carter, District Judge
Date Filed: 01/20/2009
| Date Order/Judgment: | Date Order/Judgment EOD: | Date NOA Filed: | Date Rec'd COA: |
| 10/29/2009 | 10/29/2009 | 11/16/2009 | 11/16/2009 |
11/03/2010 34 Filed clerk order: The reply brief [30] submitted by Capt. Pamela Barnett, Richard Norton Bauerbach, Capt. Robin D. Biron, Col. John D. Blair, Mr. David L. Bosley, Ms. Loretta G. Bosley, Capt. Harry G. Butler, Rep. Glenn Casada, Jennifer Leah Clark, Timothy Comerford, Charles Crusemire, Thomas S. Davidson, Rep. Cynthia Davis, Matthew Michael Edwards, Lt. Jason Freese, Mr. Kurt C. Fuqua, Officer Clint Grimes, Julliett Ireland, D. Andrew Johnson, Israel D. Jones, Timothy Jones, Alan Keyes, Ph. D., David Fullmer LaRoque, Gail Lightfoot, Lita M. Lott, Major David Grant Mosby, Steven Kay Neuenschwander, Frank Niceley, Robert Lee Perry, Col. Harry Riley, Sgt. Jeffrey Wayne Rosner, Capt. David Smithey, John Bruce Steidel, Douglas Earl Stoeppelwerth, Rep. Eric Swafford, Capt. Neil B. Turner, Richard E. Venable, Jeff Graham Winthrope and Mark Wriggle in 09-56827 is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, with a gray cover, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. [7533792] [09-56827, 10-55084] (PK)
11/08/2010 35 Received 7 paper copies of Reply brief [30] filed by Capt. Pamela Barnett, Richard Norton Bauerbach, Capt. Robin D. Biron, Col. John D. Blair, Mr. David L. Bosley, Ms. Loretta G. Bosley, Capt. Harry G. Butler, Rep. Glenn Casada, Jennifer Leah Clark, Timothy Comerford, Charles Crusemire, Thomas S. Davidson, Rep. Cynthia Davis, Matthew Michael Edwards, Lt. Jason Freese, Mr. Kurt C. Fuqua, Officer Clint Grimes, Julliett Ireland, D. Andrew Johnson, Israel D. Jones, Timothy Jones, Alan Keyes, Ph. D., David Fullmer LaRoque, Gail Lightfoot, Lita M. Lott, Major David Grant Mosby, Steven Kay Neuenschwander, Frank Niceley, Robert Lee Perry, Col. Harry Riley, Sgt. Jeffrey Wayne Rosner, Capt. David Smithey, John Bruce Steidel, Douglas Earl Stoeppelwerth, Rep. Eric Swafford, Capt. Neil B. Turner, Richard E. Venable, Jeff Graham Winthrope and Mark Wriggle. [7539545] [10-55084, 09-56827] (SD)
03/30/2011 36 Notice of Oral Argument on MAY Calendar. Please return ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE form to: PASADENA Office. Attention: The Notice of Docket Activity may not list your case number. Please open attached documents to view details about your case. [7698759] [09-56827, 10-55084] (LN)
04/13/2011 37 Received 7 paper copies of Opening brief [17] filed by Capt. Pamela Barnett, et al. (Sent to panel) [7715535] [09-56827, 10-55084] (SD)
04/20/2011 38 Filed (ECF) Appellants Capt. Pamela Barnett, Richard Norton Bauerbach, Capt. Robin D. Biron, Col. John D. Blair, Mr. David L. Bosley, Ms. Loretta G. Bosley, Capt. Harry G. Butler, Rep. Glenn Casada, Jennifer Leah Clark, Timothy Comerford, Charles Crusemire, Thomas S. Davidson, Rep. Cynthia Davis, Matthew Michael Edwards, Lt. Jason Freese, Mr. Kurt C. Fuqua, Officer Clint Grimes, Julliett Ireland, D. Andrew Johnson, Israel D. Jones, Timothy Jones, Alan Keyes, Ph. D., David Fullmer LaRoque, Gail Lightfoot, Lita M. Lott, Major David Grant Mosby, Steven Kay Neuenschwander, Frank Niceley, Robert Lee Perry, Col. Harry Riley, Sgt. Jeffrey Wayne Rosner, Capt. David Smithey, John Bruce Steidel, Douglas Earl Stoeppelwerth, Rep. Eric Swafford, Capt. Neil B. Turner, Richard E. Venable, Jeff Graham Winthrope and Mark Wriggle in 10-55084, - Capt. Pamela Barnett, Richard Norton Bauerbach, Capt. Robin D. Biron, Col. John D. Blair, Mr. David L. Bosley, Ms. Loretta G. Bosley, Capt. Harry G. Butler, Rep. Glenn Casada, Jennifer Leah Clark, Timothy Comerford, Charles Crusemire, Thomas S. Davidson, Rep. Cynthia Davis, Matthew Michael Edwards, Lt. Jason Freese, Mr. Kurt C. Fuqua, Officer Clint Grimes, Julliett Ireland, D. Andrew Johnson, Israel D. Jones, Timothy Jones, Alan Keyes, Ph. D., David Fullmer LaRoque, Gail Lightfoot, Lita M. Lott, Major David Grant Mosby, Steven Kay Neuenschwander, Frank Niceley, Robert Lee Perry, Col. Harry Riley, Sgt. Jeffrey Wayne Rosner, Jeffrey Schwilk, Capt. David Smithey, John Bruce Steidel, Douglas Earl Stoeppelwerth, Rep. Eric Swafford, Thomas J. Taylor, Capt. Neil B. Turner, Richard E. Venable, Jeff Graham Winthrope and Mark Wriggle in 09-56827 Motion for miscellaneous relief [request for additional time at oral argument]. Date of service: 04/20/2011. [7723926] [10-55084, 09-56827] (OT)
04/21/2011 39 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk:BJB): Plaintiffs-Appellants’ motion, filed on April 20, 2011, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The time for oral argument will be raised from 15 minutes to 20 minutes total for each side, to be divided equally among counsel. Plaintiffs-Appellants’ counsel for the earlier docketed case, No. 09-56827, will argue first in both opening and rebuttal. IT IS SO ORDERED. [7725815] [09-56827, 10-55084] (BJB)
04/28/2011 40 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk:PA)C-Span applied to videotape for later broadcast the case captioned above, scheduled to be heard in Pasadena, CA on May 2, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. C-Span's request to videotape is GRANTED. [7734029] [09-56827, 10-55084] (PA)
04/29/2011 41 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk:PA): KABC-TV, Channel 7 applied to videotape for later broadcast the case captioned above, scheduled to be heard in Pasadena, CA on May 2, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. KABC-TV, Channel 7's request to videotape is GRANTED. [7734421] [09-56827, 10-55084] (PA)
04/29/2011 42 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk:PA):CBS Network News applied to videotape for later broadcast the case captioned above, scheduled to be heard in Pasadena, CA on May 2, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. CBS Network News’ request to videotape is GRANTED. [7735426] [09-56827, 10-55084] (PA)
05/02/2011 43 ARGUED AND SUBMITTED TO HARRY PREGERSON, RAYMOND C. FISHER and MARSHA S. BERZON. [7736891] [09-56827, 10-55084] (FB)
Same information for Taitz's case (above is Kreep's):
Court of Appeals Docket #: 10-55084 Docketed: 01/19/2010
Nature of Suit: 3440 Other Civil Rights
Pamela Barnett, et al v. Barack Obama, et al
If Obama is not a legitimate President, does that quench his Sovereign Immunity from suit for ordering the death of bin Laden?
Can Al Qaeda sue him, and thence the US, for not exercising proper diligence in keeping only legitimate claimants to the Presidency?
Cheers!
From Dr. Taitz's site:
"I need to explain a couple of points, which people might not know or understand. I filed this case as the only attorney on inauguration day. Gary Kreep joined only towards the end. I represent Ambassador Alan Keyes, 10 state representatives and 30 members of the military. Kreep represents only 2 clients. After Carter ordered the case dismissed Kreep filed his appeal right away. I filed a motion for reconsideration in order to preserve several issues on appeal. After Carter denied my motion for reconsideration, I filed my appeal. Kreep had only one issue -standing of his 2 clients, members of American independent party: Drake and Robinson, and the judges were saying that they do not have any particular standing. their standing does not differ from standing of others.I have 40 clients with different standing and more hearings and motions and decisions, as I was an attorney on the case the whole time. Unfotunately a dirty trick was played in relation to time to speak during the oral argument.
Additionally, it was a complete outrage, where a concerted effort was made by this Perkins Coie attorney and the court to attack me personally and try to elevate Kreep. You would see that for the longest time only I and Mario were continuing to push Vattel’s definition of Natural born. Kreep and Berg were fighting us. If arguendo the birth certificate would be valid, than it would end the whole issue of eligibility. If you read all of Kreep’s and Berg’s arguments until now, they argued, that Natural born is one born in the country. I was arguing that it is a combination of birth and citizenship of parents. Also, none of the attorneys dared to touch the issue of social secuity fraud.
Of great concern is the fact that Kreep and Berg harassed me with frivolous law suits, which cost me a lot of time and money. If these people are really on our side, why are they harassing me with law suits?
I filed a motion with the court of Appeals asking for the maximum time, which is 20 minutes for the defendant and 20 for the plaintiffs. The court of appeals granted maximum time and stated that we need to divide it equally between 2 cases and the case with the lower numerical number goes first. Kreep’s appeal started with 09-, my started with 10-, so he was first. He was supposed to talk for 10 minutes and stop and let me speak for 10 minutes. Instead Kreep did something totally creepy: he spoke for 18 minute and said that he wants the remaining 2 minutes for rebuttal. He clearly saw that the clock was set for 20 minutes, which was supposed to be divided. Luckily, as I stepped to the lectern, I noticed that the clock showed 2 minutes left and argued and demanded my full 10 minutes, but what Kreep did, was a really dirty trick. Yet another one.
... "
Complete posting, here: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=21319
obumpa
"05/06/2011 45 Received non party letter dated 04/30/2011 re: "Express mandates of the US Code require a forced conclusion in this case. PANEL . [7744218] [09-56827, 10-55084] (CW)
05/09/2011 46 Received letter dated 05/05/2011 re: non party -general comments re appeal PANEL . [7746150] [09-56827, 10-55084] (CW)
05/10/2011 47 Received letter dated 04/30/2011 re: 3rd non party form letter re: express mandates. CASEFILE . [7747226] [09-56827, 10-55084] (CW)"
"On May 2, 2011 undersigned conducted oral argument in the abovecaptioned case in front of Honorable Justices Berzon, Fisher andPregerson. Please, see below additional information per FRAP 28 (j).On May 11, 2011 Judge Joseph Wilkinson in Eastern District of Louisiana issued anorder granting leave of court to file my Reply to opposition to intervene in case10-1663 Hornbeck v Salazar. (Exhibit 1)_Reply and exhibits were filed. Decisionregarding motion to intervene was issued on May 12, 2011. (Exhibit 2) This orderand exhibits bear vital importance in the case at hand and show the following:
1. Other courts and districts refrain from deciding the issue of Barack Obama’s legitimacy for US presidency, relying on the 9 th Circuit to make a determinationin this matter.
2. Exhibits provided in Hornbeck v Salazar, particularly sworn affidavit of typographic and scanning machines expert, Mr. Douglas Vogt, provideirrefutable proof that Mr. Obama indeed posted on the official site WhiteHouse.gov a forgery and not a true and correct copy of an original birthcertificate, issued in 1961.
3. This fraud and uttering of a forged birth certificate, along with invalid SocialSecurity number, by an individual occupying the position of the President andcommander in chief of the US military, is so egregious and represents such aclear danger to US National Security, that this issue needs to be decided in themost expedient matter and appeal should be granted expeditiously.
4. I believe that the forgery, submitted by Mr. Obama, possibly included a birthcertificate number, originally issued to one Virginia Sunahara, born August 4,1961 in Wahaina hospital and transferred to Kapiolani hospital, due to medicalcomplications, and deceased at Kapiolani and around August 5, 1961. In addition to vital records for Mr. Obama, previously requested in thiscomplaint, I am requesting a court order of discovery of vital records of deceased Virginia Sunahara, as well as birth certificate for Mr. Obama’s half sister, Maya Soetoro, believed to be issued under statute 338-17 for a foreignborn child of a Hawaiian resident."
The Judge Wilkinson's Order in the HORNBECK v. SALAZAR case in LA that Taitz refers to in the filing at the 9th:
" ORDERED: XXX : DENIED. Local Rules 7 .2 and78.l provide that motions will be decided solely on briefs, without oral argument, unless a party requests oral argument no later than "three days after receipt of opposition memorandum to a motion," and the court permits it. No request for oral argument as required by the local rules was made in this case. Nevertheless, the proposed intervenor, Dr. Orly Twtz, proceeding pro se and having traveled to the court from California under the mistaken impression that a live hearing would be conducted, was permitted to be heard orally. Opposing counsel were notified, appeared and presented argument. Having considered the oral argument, together with the written submissions in connection with the motion, including the government's opposition, the record as a whole and the applicable law, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED for the following reasons.Movant concedes that she does ngt seek intervention ofright, but only permissive intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). Record Doc. No. 252-2 at p. 7,.[f 25. As to permissive interventiono Rule 24(b) provides: "(1) On timel)' motion, the court malz permit anyone to intervene who: (A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or (B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact. . . . (3) In exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether the interventionwill unduly delay orprejudice the adjudication ofthe original parties' rights. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(l), (3) (emphasis added).
Intervention may be permitted only "on timely application," Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(l) (emphasis added). When determining whether a motion to intervene is timely, a court must consider: (1) how long the potential intervenor knew or reasonably should have known of her stake in the case into which she seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice, if any, the existing parties may suffer because the potential intervenor failed to intervene when she knew or reasonably should have known of her stake in that case; (3) the prejudice, if any, the potential intervenor may suffer if the court does not let her intervene; and(4) any unusual circumstances that weigh in favor of or against a finding of timeliness. In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litig., 570 F.3d 244, 247-48 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Stallworth v. Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257,263-66 (5th Cir. 1977)); Effiohn Int'l Cruise Holdings, Inc. v. A&L Sales. Inc. ,346 F .3d 552, 560-61 (5th Cir. 2003). ).
In addition, "[i]f there is no right to intervene under Rule 24(a), it is wholly discretionary with the court whether to allow intervention under Rule 24(b), and even though there is a common question of law or fact, or the requirements of Rule 24(b) are otherwise satisfied, the court may refuse to allow intervention. . . . If the would-be intervenor already is a party to other litigation in which the intervenor's rights can be fully determined, . . . this may persuade the court to deny leave to intervene." 7C Charles Alan Wright, ArthurR. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure $ 1913 at 476 and n.5 (citing Kneeland v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 806 F.2d 1285, 1289 (5th Cir. 1987)) and 487-89 (3d ed. 2007) (emphasis added).
Considering the foregoing factors in this instance, this court must exercise its considerable discretion to deny intervention. I cannot conclude that the proposed intervention shares any common issue of law or fact with the main case. While the intervenor - like the original plaintiffs - asserts the invalidity of the moratorium action taken by defendants, the legal and facfual basis of intervenor's claim - i.e., the President's place of birth or citizenship - is entirely different from the legal and factual assertions ofthe original claimants. Evaluating the timeliness factors also weighs heavily againstpermittingthis intervention. The intervenor's actual stake inthe original litigation is negligible when compared to the stake of the original plaintiffs. The prejudice to the existing parties in permitting the intervention would be extreme, given the wholly extraneous nature ofthe proposed intervenor's legal and factual assertions to the claims and defenses raised by the original parties. It appears from the proposed intervenor's submissions that her claims have already been the subject of similar efforts by her in a "pending civil suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Record Doc. No. 252-3 at p.36, u's 17 and 18, which she advised at oral argument is now pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where she recently made an appearance before that court. This is a strong indicator that any prejudice to intervenor in denying the motion to intervene in this case would be slight, since her claims have already been asserted in another lawsuit in her home venue and any decision by that court may well have res judicata or collateral estoppel effect in this court. Finally, the o'unusual circumstances" of the timing of the assertion of intervenor's claims and the President's recent public postings contesting those claims, which the proposed intervenor and her experts assert in the reply papers are forgeries, weigh against any exercise of this court's discretion to permit this intervention in a different existing case.
For all ofthe foregoing reasons, the motion is DENIED. This intervention should not be permitted. "