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.
Keyter v Obama – Complaint December 16, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Keyter v Obama.comments closed
Note: Does Anthony not know that he cannot file criminal complaints? See more here
[A Similar Motion was filed in cases 09-516 and 09-517 against Members of Congress and against US Supreme Court Justices]
CRIMINAL ACTION No.
Note: This Criminal Case was incorrectly designated as Civil Case No. 09cv-518JAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
- [UNITED STATES OF AMERICA] -
Plaintiff in Criminal Action
ANTHONY P. KEYTER
Complaining Witness
vs.
PRESIDENT OBAMA AND CABINET
Defendants in Criminal Action
____________________________________________________
URGENT MOTION FOR ARREST OF DEFENDANTS
Complaining Witness, Anthony P. Keyter, files this urgent motion for the arrest of the Defendants pursuant United States Code statute 18USC3041, and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCrimP) Rules 4 and 41 – on the strength of the ‘Affidavit of Complaining Witness/ Criminal Complaint’ filed with this Court on October 5, 2009.
Beverly v FEC – Doc 35 – Motion to Dismiss December 16, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Beverly v US.comments closed
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ARNOLD DEWALT BEVERLY,
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION,
Defendant.
Currently pending before the Court is defendant Federal Election Commission’s (“FEC”) motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The complaint in this case is vague, but essentially appears to be an ex parte application for injunctive relief based on Defendant’s failure to assist Plaintiff in announcing his write-in candidacy for President of the United States. See Court’s Docket Doc. No. 1. The Court denied the application. Subsequently, Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment based on the FEC’s refusal to act on his telephone calls and threat against Plaintiff to stop calling. See Court’s Docket Doc. Nos. 6, 10. Plaintiff filed a further memorandum regarding partial summary judgment that was similar to the first memorandum, but included a discussion relating to government oversight and the natural born citizenship status of the President of the United States. See Court’s Docket Doc. No. 23.
(more…)
Beverly v FEC – CA Eastern – Docket December 16, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Beverly v US.comments closed
U.S. District Court
Eastern District of California – Live System (Fresno)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-cv-01538-AWI-GSA
|
Beverly v. Federal Elections Commission Assigned to: Judge Anthony W. Ishii Referred to: Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act |
Date Filed: 10/14/2008 Date Terminated: 01/28/2009 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights: Voting Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant |
Beverly v US – Petition for a writ of Certiorari December 16, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Beverly v US.comments closed
Petitioner
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Respondent
——-♦——-
On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari
To The United States Court Of Appeals
For The Ninth Circuit
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
——-♦——-
ARNOLD DEWALT BEVERLY
[702] 418-7710 ProSe
i
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
In ARNOLD DEWALT BEVERLY v. UNITED STSTES OF AMERICA in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ORDER Filed Sep. 30, 2009 within the 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 6.11. Removed FRCP 12 (d); the courts below denied petitioner relief to in the court’s own words “protect the courts interest” and as a result a procedural miscarriage of justice would result. The question presented is:
Why has the court refused to examine high crimes the Law makes criminal and denied due process?
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.
Re: American Grand Jury (TN) – Doc 1 – Denied December 6, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Re: American Grand Jury (TN).comments closed
Note: Another American Grand Jury presentment denied. This time in Tennessee. Somehow the reports on this failure were slow to trickle through, but the diligent work of the Friends of Politijab unearthed this beauty. The Court has also provided useful information that can be used in filings in other locales.
11/06/2009 1 ORDER: The Court is in receipt of certain documents identified as “Grand Jury Presentments” filed by Mack H. Ellis. The documents purport to represent grand jury presentments for fraud, treason and election fraud against President Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic National Convention. Leave to file this presentment is DENIED. Further, though the papers presented to the Clerk of Court shall not be filed, they shall be assigned a miscellaneous number along with this Order for the Court’s record.. Signed by Chief Judge Todd J. Campbell on 11/6/09. (# 1 [RECAP] Attachment-Affidavit of Process-Serve and # 2 Attachment-Grand Jury Presentments)(as) (copy mailed to Mack Ellis) Modified on 11/6/2009 (af). (Entered: 11/06/2009)
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.
