Hollister v Soetoro – Appeal 1221839 – BRIEF FOR APPELLEES PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA AND VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN December 27, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Appeal, Hollister v Soetoro, John Hemenway, Legal Cases.6 comments
CASE BEING CONSIDERED FOR TREATMENT PURSUANT
TO RULE 34(j) OF THE COURT’S RULES
_______________________________________________________
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
_______________________________________________________
No. 09-5080
Consolidating No. 09-5161
____________________________________________________
GREGORY S. HOLLISTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BARRY SOETORO, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia, No. 08-cv-2254
____________________________________________________
BRIEF FOR APPELLEES PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
AND VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN
____________________________________________________
Orly versus West December 26, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Keyes v Obama, Orly Taitz.4 comments
Orly versus the facts argued
ng:
- During the October 5 motion hearing pursuant to the motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction, the moving parties, the assistant US attorneys David DeJutte and Roger West have argued that they believe that the proper jurisdiction for this case is the District of Columbia.
The facts
From the Oct 5 hearing page 8 lines 13-23:
“THE COURT: And then in your argument you stated that minimally if the Court disagreed, it should be transferred to the D.C. District.
MR. WEST: No, Your Honor. The quo warranto — the plaintiffs have made the argument that the quo warranto aspects of this case should be transferred to the D.C. District. We have not suggested that that be transferred. If the — if, in fact, they wish to bring a quo warranto action, they should bring an original one in the D.C. District.
THE COURT: Thank you.”
Page 18 lines 7-14:
“MR. WEST: I don’t believe that quo warranto is applicable to the President of the United States. I would not concede that. However, if it were, the only statute that we know of that would cover this kind of a situation would be the D.C. statute. But I think that we’re not conceding at all that quo warranto would apply to the President of the United States.”
Kerchner v Obama – Appeal – Extension December 23, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Appeal, Kerchner et al v Obama, Mario Apuzzo.comments closed
Was Mario too busy arguing his case on the blogs that he was unable to timely file his brief and appendix?
12/21/2009 Appellants Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Darrell James Lenormand, Donald H. Nelsen, Jr. and Lowell T. Patterson verbally granted an extension of time to file brief & appendix until 01/19/2010. pursuant to Third Cir. LAR 31.4. (HAG)
Where Orly and Charlton fail to read or comprehend December 19, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Keyes v Obama, Keyes v Obama (Docs), Orly Taitz.comments closed
Unable to read the record, Orly had wondered if the ruling was indeed final and/or with prejudice and petitioned the Court for clarification. If she had just read the dismissal order and the defendants’ motion to dismiss, she would have known… Charlton’s claim that “Carter alters Oct. 29th ruling, ex post facto” has to be rejected for being at odds with the facts. Will he ‘print’ a retraction or correction?
From the defendant’s motion to dismiss, October 5, 2009:
Defendants, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby move this Court pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for an order dismissing plaintiffs’ action against them with prejudice.
From the Judge’s dismissal order October 29, 2009:
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
Nolu Chan on Orly’s latest in Rhodes v McDonalds December 19, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Jonathan Levy, Orly Taitz, Rhodes v McDonald.comments closed
Nolu Chan carefully shows why the claim that there were three sanctions is contradicted by the clear history of the case. Observing that Levy had an almost impossible case, the ‘three sanctions’ objection may appear to be somewhat desperate but there was nothing much to argue.
Nolu: Orly was given notice and an opportunity to respond. That is all that applies to this process. She was properly awarded sanctions.
Rhodes v McDonald – Appeal – Brief by Appellant December 18, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Appeal, Jonathan Levy, Legal Cases, Orly Taitz, Rhodes v McDonald.comments closed
Note: In a somewhat novel move, counsel is arguing that Orly was given three separate sanctions, however a closer scrutiny shows that there was only one sanction, and Orly was granted an opportunity to respond. PS Tesibira’s list of 60 failed court cases is cited… Win…
As a Friend of Politijab observes:
While your 3-sanction theory is creative, for Rule 11 purposes there was only a single sanction: the $20,000 fine. The fine was imposed pursuant to the court’s 9/18/09 order to show cause, which you have openly admitted provided your client with notice and an opportunity to respond. Since she had notice and an opportunity to respond to the 9/18/09 order, the fine imposed on 10/13/09 was done so in accordance with due process.
and
Citing to a case from the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands as the first citation of significance doesn’t strike me as good advocacy. It actually kind of made me giggle. Maybe that’s just me.
In other words, the first ’sanction’ was nothing more than a warning, the second ’sanction’ was an order to show cause, giving Orly the opportunity to respond, and the third one was the sanction, upped due to Orly’s failure to respond and her filing of a motion to recuse based on pretty far fetched arguments.
I also understand that the Appeals Court can in fact change the sanction if found appropriate.
No. 09 15418 BB
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
____________________
CAPTAIN CONNIE RHODES, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
vs. COLONEL THOMAS MACDONALD; et al.,
Defendant-Appellee.
__________________
APPELLANT ORLY TAITZ’S OPENING BRIEF
Appeal from Final Judgment of the United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia, Honorable Clayton Land District Court No. 4:09-cv-00106-CDL
Keyes/Barnett v Obama – Doc 104- Clarification December 16, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Keyes v Obama, Keyes v Obama (Docs), Orly Taitz.comments closed
12/16/2009 104 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: CLARIFYING ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS OF OCTOBER 29, 2009: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification 103[RECAP] regarding whether the October 29, 2009 Order was a dismissal with or without prejudice. The Courts dismissal of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint on October 29, 2009 was a dismissal without leave to amend and with prejudice. The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action. (rla) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
Considering that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure indicate that the statement, “dismissed with prejudice,” closes a case in such a way as to prevent the filing of a new action or the filing of an amended complaint to continue the case with a modified claim, Dr. Taitz’s filing gave the court the benefit of the doubt, and considered all the injustice and dishonesty already shown by Judge Carter as something that, in view of greater issues, could be overlooked for the present.But no such honor was to be found sitting at Judge Carter’s desk of tyranny.
Orly on terrorist watchlist? December 12, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Orly Taitz.comments closed
Orly posted a letter from the FBI stating that they have not files on her.
Orly’s minions who lack in read abilities, are quick to ‘conclude’
THIS IS PROOF THAT ORLY TAITZ IS ON THE FBI TERRORIST WATCH LIST, THIS LETTER NEEDS TO BE SENT TO JUDGE CARTER SO HE CAN SEE THE MASSIVE FRAID AND CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE AMERICAN HEROIN ORLY TAITZ. PUTTING HER ON THE TERRORIST WATCH LIST IS JUST THE FIST STEP. SOON IT’LL BE FEMA CAMPS. EVERYONE NEEDS TO EHAIL GLENN BECK AND URGE HER TO HAVE ORLY ON A SHOW. IF HE DOESN’T THEN THEIR NEEDS TO BE A MILLION MAN MARCH ON HIS SHOW TO PROTEST HIS COVERUP OF OBAMACARE FEMA CAMPS!
Of course Orly made the same ‘logical’ error
You got it. FBI is covering up Obama sitting in the White House with stolen ss numbers and they put me on the terrorist watch list for trying to bring this massive fraud and treason to trial. Thank you judge Land and Judge Carter for dispensing justice.December 8, 2009 | No Comments
Keyes/Barnett – Motion for Clarification December 11, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Keyes v Obama, Orly Taitz.comments closed
I guess, we can’t blame Orly for asking the Court for help interpreting the rules. Not yet on the docket
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Captain Pamela Barnett, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Barack Hussein Obama,
Michelle L.R. Obama,
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State,
Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense,
Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and President of the Senate,
Defendants.
Motion For Clarification
On 10.29.09. this court has issued an order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Cook v Good – Appeal – Brief for Appellant December 9, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Appeal, Cook v Good, Orly Taitz.comments closed
Orly filed a brief after the Court had closed the case due to failure to file the motion
12/08/2009 E-BriefTendered: Appellant by Orly Taitz Stefan Frederick Cook -No-
Explanation: No means that the motion is not pending
When I have some time I will point out some of the salient points in her ‘filing’, needless to say, it is incredibly poorly argued, especially since it is an appeal and should focus on the facts of the ruling. For instance, the so-called ‘retaliation’ by the military is irrelevant to the TRO.
Orly – Angry Bob December 5, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Just Plain Weird, Keyes v Obama, Orly Taitz.comments closed
On Orly’s blog, which still appears to be doing random redirects, we find a posting by someone named “Bob” or “Mike”
No bias grounds ? So hiring as your law clerk a person who works for the firm that defends Obama in all of these cases, in your opinion, does not present even the hint of bias or even unethical behavior on your part ? Unbelievable.
I understand “BoB”’s anger but the facts show that only in a few cases President Obama had Perkins-Coie represent him. So I am not sure what “Bob” means by “in all of these cases”. Furthermore, Perkins Coie is a large lawfirm and finally, the Clerk, although starting in October, was likely hired well before the case came before Judge Carter. And finally, unless the clerk involved was actually helping Carter with this case, there is no bias or unethical behavior on Judge Carter’s part. And if Orly believed it was improper, why did she fail to file a motion for Judge Carter to recuse himself? Even Orly may not have felt that there was a foundation for such and in fact, she does not even appear to be blaming the Judge as much as the DOJ.
Keyes/Barnett v Obama – Doc 101 – Reconsideration Denied December 5, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Keyes v Obama, Keyes v Obama (Docs), Orly Taitz.comments closed
Note: Ahhh.. So unexpected…
12/04/2009 101 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER Denying Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Reconsideration by Judge David O. Carter 90 . (See Order for details) (db) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
After reviewing the moving and opposing papers, the Court finds no factual, legal, or bias grounds upon which to grant the motion for reconsideration. Counsel largely repeats the same arguments made in her briefing and oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss, which is prohibited. To the extent that she does present new argument, it is without merit and does not meet the standard for reconsideration. The Court’s ruling that it lacks jurisdiction, and that Plaintiffs have failed to state aclaim on their remaining causes of action, stands.
Cook v Good – Here Comes Orly: Better late than never December 3, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Appeal, Cook v Good, Orly Taitz.comments closed
12/01/2009 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice: (Atty: Orly Taitz)
12/01/2009 Attorney Orly Taitz’ Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED by AGyarfas
12/02/2009 MOT2 (Notice of court action) issued. c:Eric Fleisig-Greene; c:Mark B. Stern; c:Orly Taitz
Keyes/Barnett v Obama – Doc 100 – Letter to Judge Carter… December 3, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Keyes v Obama, Keyes v Obama (Docs), Orly Taitz.comments closed
1. I am over 18 years old, I am a resident of Orange County, California, I am of sound mind and free of any mental disease and psychological impairment.
2. From 11.11.09. until 11.22.09. I was a delegate at the Continental congress 2009.
3. On 11.16.09. I met a guest speaker at the Congress Mr. John Samson, retired Immigration officer and currently a private investigator in the state of Colorado.
4. In my presence Mr. Samson ran the background report for Mr. Barack Obama attached as exhibit.
5. The report showed Mr. Obama’s date of birth to be 08.01.09. and not 08.04.09.
6. The report showed Equatorial Guinea as ethnicity.
I solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that all the facts stated and circumstances described above are true and correct statements.
Further declarant saith naught.
/s/ Orly Taitz 12.03.09.
What Orly forgets is the following disclaimer
In other words, the data in this so called on line background report is not warranted to be free from errors and its value is limited. You get what you pay for when doing an online ‘background’ investigation.
Hollister v Soetoro – Doc 1218512 – Opposition to Motion for Amicus Curiae December 2, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Appeal, Hollister v Soetoro, John Hemenway.comments closed
Oh lovely, another cat fight…
12/02/2009 Open Document JOINT RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1218512] by Mr. Gregory S. Hollister in 09-5080, Mr. John David Hemenway in 09-5161 to motion to participate as amicus curiae [1217859-2], motion to participate as amicus curiae [1217273-2] [Service Date: 12/02/2009 by email] Pages: 1-10. [09-5080, 09-5161]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
GREGORY S. HOLLISTER,et al.
Appellants,
v.
Barry Soetoro, et al.
Appellees.
OPPOSITION OF THE APPELLANTS GREGORY S. HOLLISTER AND JOHN D. HEMENWAY TO THE CORRECTED EMERGENCY MOTION OF LAWRENCE J. JOYCE, ESQUIRE and PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE TO FILE A BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS HOLLISTER AND HEMENWAY, SUPPORTING REVERSAL
The appellants Gregory S. Hollister and John D. Hemenway, the undersigned, hereby oppose the motion of the former counsel for appellant Hollister to be permitted to file an Amicus brief in this matter.
Hollister v Soetoro – Doc 1218426 – Motion to Substitute Reply Brief December 2, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Appeal, Hollister v Soetoro, John Hemenway.comments closed
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
GREGORY S. HOLLISTER, et al.
Appellants,
v.
Barry Soetoro, et al.,
Appellees.
MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE REPLY BRIEF
Appellants hereby move the court to substitute the Appellants’ Reply Brief of September 18, 2009, filed inadvertently in the court’s ECF “Training” sector rather than in its live data base, in lieu of the Reply Brief filed as an accompaniment to former counsel Joyce’s “Emergency” Motion of September 22, 2009.
Hollister v Soetoro – Doc 1218426 – Appellant Reply Brief December 2, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Appeal, Hollister v Soetoro, John Hemenway.comments closed
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
GREGORY S. HOLLISTER,
Appellant,
v.
Barry Soetoro, in his capacity as a natural person;
de facto President in posse;
and as de jure President in posse ,
also known as Barack Obama, et al.
Appellees.
Case Below 08-2254 JR
========= APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF =========
THE TACTIC OF MISREPRESENTING THE CLASSICAL EXPOSITION OF “STANDING” UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE
The brief of the appellees purposefully creates confusion by continually citing cases involving Article III standing where there is no specific grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts by Congress under Article III as there is if one actually applies the Interpleader Act in this case. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution states: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,….” Obviously, if the Framers had intended cases in which Jurisdiction of the federal courts was dependent upon the Constitution alone as opposed to the “laws of the United States” to be lumped together, then the Framers would have worded the Constitution accordingly. They did not do so, but these appellees misrepresent the three elements of the classical exposition of “standing” by the Supreme Court when one applies the Interpleader Act principles in this case. They do so in the apparent hope that the disregard for the Constitution by those whom they defend would be echoed by members of this court despite their oath to uphold it against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Hollister v Soetoro – Two new docket entries December 2, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Appeal, Hollister v Soetoro, John Hemenway.comments closed
Remember 1217985?
11/30/2009 Open Document CORRECTED AMICUS FOR APPELLANT BRIEF [1217958] filed by Philip J Berg, Esquire and Mr. Lawrence J Joyce, Esquire in 09-5080, 09-5161 [Service Date: 11/28/2009 ] Length of Brief: 6,998. [09-5080, 09-5161]
A modification event was logged, changing the status from filed to lodged.
11/30/2009 Open Document MODIFIED EVENT FROM FILED TO LODGED–CORRECTED AMICUS FOR APPELLANT BRIEF [1217958] lodged by Philip J Berg, Esquire and Mr. Lawrence J Joyce, Esquire in 09-5080, 09-5161 [Service Date: 11/28/2009 ] Length of Brief: 6,998. [09-5080, 09-5161]–[Edited 12/01/2009 by SMC]
Then Hemenway files a motion explaining that the original motion was filed on the training site of Pacer, not the actual docket…
Hollister v Soetoro – A truly confusing docket December 2, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Appeal, Hollister v Soetoro, John Hemenway.comments closed
Our Friends of Politijab provide us with the following analysis of what is happening with the Hollister v Soetoro appeal. It appears that one of the reply briefs was filed not on the docket but on the training site. Pacer provides the users with access to a training site to allow them to practice before submitting. Since submissions are final and irrevocable, this helps users avoid some of the common mistakes.Document 1218426, filed on December 01, 2009 by Hemenway explains:
Appellants hereby move the court to substitute the Appellants’ Reply Brief of September 18, 2009, filed inadvertently in the court’s ECF “Training” sector rather than in its live data base, in lieu of the Reply Brief filed as an accompaniment to former counsel Joyce’s “Emergency” Motion of September 22, 2009.
In advance of Counsel’s first online filing in this court, his assistant went to the ‘training’ section to determine its various aspects, and differences between this site and those other courts in which counsel’s assistant has filed electronically. When she went to the site to file the Appellants’ Reply brief on September 18, 2009, unbeknownst to her, she was returned to the ‘training’ rather than ‘live’ sector, and filed accordingly. She received an acknowledgement of docketing activity, and obtained a PACER docket sheet; she and the undersigned believed the filing was completed.
Cook v Good – Doc 17 – Order dismissing appeal returned to Judge Land December 1, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Cook v Good, Orly Taitz.comments closed
