From Orly s site Today:
Press release: 3 years after the case against Obama was originally filed, the 9th Circuit dismisses it saying it is moot, too late.
Thank you Elderberry.
Posted on 10/21/2015 7:27:40 AM PDT by Elderberry
Obama’s forgery case was submitted to Judges DOROTHY W. NELSON, RICHARD R. CLIFTON and N. RANDY SMITH for decision. Two of the judges were appointed by George W. Bush and 1 by Jimmy Carter. It might be good for us or may mean nothing if the court decided to look the other way and ignore all of Obama’s stolen and forged IDs
The following transaction was entered on 10/20/2015 at 12:34:36 PM PDT and filed on 10/20/2015 Case Name: James Grinols, et al v. Electoral College, et al Case Number: 13-16359
From Orly’s site Today:
Press release: 3 years after the case against Obama was originally filed, the 9th Circuit dismisses it saying it is moot, too late
Posted on | November 2, 2015 | 17 Comments
Press release: 3 years after the case against Obama was originally filed, the 9th Circuit dismisses it saying it is moot, too late
Law offices of Orly Taitz
We have seen the courts simply covering up Obama’s use of bogus IDs. All of the cases filed against Obama prior to the general election were dismissed because they were not ripe yet. The case filed after the election was dismissed because it is moot. This is a total outrage and a cover up of the usurpation of the US presidency.
Further, the court erroneously stated that the plaintiffs did not seek injunctive relief, the court is wrong. Plaintiffs indeed seek the injunctive relief and it was denied.
Further, the court is sending a message to the secretaries of state and lower court judges: discriminate between the candidates, commit treason, cover up crimes and forgery and theft of IDs and we will further cover it up by saying: too late.
Bottom line, this is yet another proof that we do not have a system of Justice and any and all crimes committed by the establishment’s chosen puppets will be covered up by judges. This is tyranny!
Case: 13-16359, 11/02/2015, ID: 9740465, DktEntry: 52-1, Page 1 of 4
FILED
NOV 02 2015
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSU.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES GRINOLS; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-16359
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02997-MCEDAD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 20, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order dismissing their claim that
President Obama is not eligible to be the President of the United States and their
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Case: 13-16359, 11/02/2015, ID: 9740465, DktEntry: 52-1, Page 2 of 4
claim for violation of California Penal Code § 2150. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
1. We affirm the district court’s holding that Plaintiffs’ claim regarding
President Obama’s eligibility is moot.1 “Mootness, a question of law, is reviewed
de novo.†Tinoqui-Chalola Council of Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians v.
U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 232 F.3d 1300, 1303 (9th Cir. 2000). Factual determinations
underlying the district court’s decision are reviewed for clear error. Wolfson v.
Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045, 1053 (9th Cir. 2010).
“The exercise of judicial power under Art. III of the Constitution depends on
the existence of a case or controversy.†Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401
(1975). “There is thus no case or controversy, and a suit becomes moot, ‘when the
issues presented are no longer “live†or the parties lack a legally cognizable
interest in the outcome.’†Chafin v. Chafin, 133 S. Ct. 1017, 1023 (2013) (quoting
Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 721, 726 (2013)). A controversy does not
escape mootness simply because it existed at the time Plaintiffs originally filed
their claim. The controversy must continue to exist at all stages of review.
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997).
1While the district court based its decision on several alternative holdings,
we reach only the issue of mootness.
Case: 13-16359, 11/02/2015, ID: 9740465, DktEntry: 52-1, Page 3 of 4
An exception to the general principle of mootness exists for cases “capable
of repetition, yet evading review.†See S. Pac. Terminal Co. v. Interstate
Commerce Comm’n, 219 U.S. 498, 515 (1911). This exception is limited to
“‘extraordinary cases’†in which “(1) the duration of the challenged action is too
short to allow full litigation before it ceases, and (2) there is a reasonable
expectation that the plaintiffs will be subjected to it again.†Greenpeace Action v.
Franklin, 14 F.3d 1324, 1329 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Alaska Fish & Wildlife
Fed’n v. Dunkle, 829 F.2d 933, 939 (9th Cir. 1987)).
Plaintiffs’ case is moot. The issues presented are no longer live. Plaintiffs
initially sought to enjoin a series of events occurring prior to President Obama’s
inauguration on January 20, 2012. That request was denied by the district court
and Plaintiffs have not further pursued an injunction. Plaintiffs now seek
declaratory relief, but the declaratory judgment they seek would amount to nothing
more than an advisory opinion and would have no effect on the legal relationships
of the parties. Thus, we are prohibited from issuing such relief. See Chafin, 133 S.
Ct. at 1023.
The claim fails to meet the requirements of the exception for cases capable
of repetition, yet evading review. President Obama is currently serving his second
term as President of the United States, and is therefore constitutionally precluded
Case: 13-16359, 11/02/2015, ID: 9740465, DktEntry: 52-1, Page 4 of 4
from serving as President again. See U.S. CONST. amend. XXII, § 1. Plaintiffs
argue that President Obama could run for another political office. However, the
natural-born-citizen clause of the Constitution applies only to eligibility for the
office of President of the United States. U.S. Const. art. II, §1, cl. 5. Therefore, it
would be inapplicable to any other office President Obama may seek. Moreover,
such a scenario is too remote and speculative to meet the requirements of the
capable of repetition, yet evading review exception. Williams v. Alioto, 549 F.2d
136, 142 (9th Cir. 1977).
2. We also affirm the district court’s decision to decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claim for violation of California
Penal Code § 2150. Because the district court dismissed all claims over which it
had original jurisdiction, it did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c)(3). See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 & n.7
(1988).
AFFIRMED.2
2Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Motion for Judicial Notice/Supplement Record on
Appeal is denied.
From Orly s site Today:
Press release: 3 years after the case against Obama was originally filed, the 9th Circuit dismisses it saying it is moot, too late.
Thank you Elderberry.
Where is the freeper who despises Orly?
No doubt she is jumping up and down with happiness.
BuckeyeTexan?
I remember HumbleGunner is fond of her too.
When the fur flies, they should be remembered.
I don’t recall HumbleGunner posting hateful things about Orly, and then lying about it. In fact, I don’t recall seeing any Anti-Orly posts by HumbleGunner, but maybe a caustic remark occasionally. There is quite a difference.
Wow. It used to be nobody had standing. Now it’s “too late”.
I should of added the /s sarcasm flag to my comment about humblegunner.
Admin, why do we have these characters that are hard to read past? Obama’s establishment’s
If you are referring to me, Lucy, I have never lied about anything I’ve said about Orly. I own it.
She’s a lunatic attention whore running a freak show.
No, but tell us how you REALLY feel without sugar-coating it.
The Obama is ineligible movement made two monumental legal mistakes:
1) They failed to get the people who had standing to file suit to do so: That would be any combination of the Republican National Committee, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
2) The ineligibility movement alleged crimes (forgery, fraud, election fraud, document tampering and identity theft) yet they tried to adjudicate criminal activities via civil lawsuits. Crimes are adjudicated in criminal proceedings via grand juries, indictments and criminal trials, including an impeachment trial for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
And letting the lunatic attention whore run her freak show.
And perpetuating demonstrably false rumors.
However, in their defense ...
No one had the political will to fight Obama. He was a rock star.
Hillary Clinton supporter Philip Berg filed the first eligibility lawsuit against Obama on August 21, 2008.
Yep
Thanks for the ping.
I dunno if anything would have worked;
file before election -> too early
File after election -> no standing
File after election & delay by court -> too late
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.