MD – Fair v Obama – COSA – Denied

Denied without a written opinion. No big surprise.

Most decisions of the Court of Special Appeals are not reported, as Maryland Rule 8-605.1 requires the Court to report only those opinions that are of substantial interest. Reported appellate opinions are posted on the day they are filed.

Copies of unreported opinions can be obtained from the clerk’s office where the unreported opinion was filed. To request a copy, write the Clerk of the Court in the Court of Appeals or the Court of Special Appeals, citing the parties, docket/term, date filed and include a check for $10.00 for each copy, made payable to the Clerk of the Court.

MD – Fair v Obama – COSA – Brief

Trying to argue that US v WKA is erroneous or should not be interpreted as common sense and law dictates. A lot of words with no content.

Case No. 1287 – Term 2012

========================================================

IN THE
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS
OF MARYLAND

========================================================

TRACY A. FAIR and MARY C. MILTENBERGER, on behalf of themselves.

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

ROBERT WALKER, Chairman of The Maryland State Board of Elections, et al.

Defendants-Appellees,

========================================================

BRIEF OF APPELLANTS TRACY A. FAIR and MARY C. MILTENBERGER

On Appeal from the Maryland Circuit Court for Carroll County
The Honorable Judge Thomas F. Stansfield
Case No. 06-C-12-060692
========================================================

Continue reading

NY – Laity v State SCOTUS – Still hopeful

Robert C. Laity ‏@RobertCLaity 2h

@Scotus I’m coming back April 25,2014 with a Petition for Rehearing. Second chances are good. For the Court and myself. Obama is a usurper

No chance that a rehearing will lead to the hoped for result. Just because Robert believes that somehow our President is a usurper. Even assuming that he is ineligible, he was properly elected and thus can be at worst be a de facto President. Too bad they cannot even get these principles of law correctly. Oh well.

Someone give the man a shoulder to cry on :-)

MS – Taitz v Democrat Party – SOS Joinder

Document Number: 108
Docket Text:
Joinder in Document by Secretary of State of Mississippi to [106] Response in Opposition to Motion filed by Democrat Party of Mississippi (Matheny, Justin)

In addition to the Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee’s arguments adopted herein by reference, Secretary of State Hosemann submits that the Plaintiff’s latest filing consists of irrelevant, inadmissible, and otherwise inappropriate arguments and documents, and Secretary of State Hosemann’s pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Docket No. 8, should be granted for all the reasons previously submitted to the Court through his prior briefing and argument.

MS – Taitz v Democrat Party – Response in opposition to motion for leave

Wow, in a few well chosen words, Begley explains why Orly’s so-called evidence fails.

Plaintiff Taitz, who has been an attorney for over 11 years, in her latest motion seeks to introduce what she describes as three items of “additional evidence and rulings supporting her opposition to defendants motion to dismiss” [sic]. The items in question are neither evidence nor rulings; they are also wholly irrelevant to the disposition of the fully-briefed dispositive motions.

Document Number: 106

Docket Text:
RESPONSE in Opposition re [105] MOTION for Leave to File ADDITIONAL NEW FACTS AND OPINIONS filed by Democrat Party of Mississippi (Begley, Samuel)

MS – Orly v Democrat Party – Motion for leave

Orly appears to be really intent on having the court delay its ruling until after President Obama has left office… She has filed a motion for leave to file new facts and opinions. None of which really help her case.

Document Number: 105

Docket Text:
MOTION for Leave to File Additional New Facts and Opinions filed by Orly Taitz. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1 – Orly Taitz for AG PAC, # (2) Exhibit 2 – Transcription of Court Recording, 13-15085, # (3) Exhibit 3 – Supreme Court of Alabama Doc.)(ND)

FL – Voeltz v SOS III – Per Curiam Affirmed

I looked at Voeltz III and the docket mentions: 03/13/2014 Affirmed – Per Curiam Affirmed

Did I miss something?

Ruling http://opinions.1dca.org/pc_pdf/13-0083.pdf

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

MICHAEL C. VOELTZ ,
Appellant,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA,
Florida Democratic Party nominee
for President to the 2012
Democratic National Convention;
KEN DETZNER, Secretary of State of Florida;
FLORIDA ELECTIONS CANVASSING COMMISSION,
Appellee .
CASE NO. 1D 13 – 83

Opinion filed March 13, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County . Kevin Carroll , Judge .

Larry Klayman, Washington, D.C. , for Appellant.

Mark Herron, Joseph Brennan Donnelly, and Robert J. Telfer III of Messer Caparello, P.A., Tallahassee; Stephen F. Rosenthal of Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Miami , and Richard B. Rosenthal of The Law Offices of Richard B. Rosenthal, P.A., Miami, for Appellee

President Barack Obama; J. Andrew Atkinson, General Counsel, and Ashley E. Davis, Assistant General Counsel for Appellees Florida Secretary of State Kenneth W. Detzner and The Florida Elections Canvassing Commission.

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, RAY, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.

AL – McInnish v Chapman – Klayman responds

Klayman, the attorney whose case was recently ‘dismissed’ all the way up to the Alabama Supreme Court has mentioned that the case may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

While this would certainly please some of the birthers, it seems fair to point out that the issue that remains is extremely narrow and that the Supreme Court would not be interested in hearing about the claims that President Obama is somehow ineligible. As even the dissenting Judge Moore observed, that time has long since passed when he became President Elect.

This well-written and thoughtful opinion by Chief Justice Moore will hopefully give courage to other judges to tell it like it is. Indeed, I have appeals pending in Florida, and the majority decision of the Alabama justices will likely be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court under a petition for writ of certiorari.

Moore told it like it is: It’s over… Next time, the Secretary of State is still under no obligation to determine the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, although she may, in certain cases do so. Alabama and California are on the record, with other states to follow these precedents.

While Klayman may have ‘cases on appeal’ they too will fail to successfully raise the issues the birthers so desperately are seeking even though the courts, and the Department of Health of Hawaii have ruled, verified and certified as to the eligibility of President Obama.

There is btw no majority decision in this case. But we should wait to see if Klayman figures it out.

Few other judges in this nation have the courage of Chief Justice Moore. The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, who held the Clintons to account in the late ’90s and early 2000s and ruled that Bill Clinton had committed a crime, and Richard J. Leon, who just ruled against the National Security Agency’s “almost Orwellian” surveillance on all Americans, are among the most endangered of species.

Ah, Judge Lamberth whose rulings in various cases have all rejected the birther claims. Yes, he too has been very courageous. But perhaps Klayman is confusing courage with ruling in a pleasing manner?

As to Florida, they too ruled that any relief to be found lies with Congress. Good luck to Mr Klayman on that.

Orly’s draft letter to AL Supreme Court Justice Moore

When the law fails, it’s time for flattery [Warning: Link to Orly's blog, click at your own risk]… In a draft letter to Judge Moore she ‘observes’ that

Orly: I read your brilliant analysis in McInnish v Chapman, a case relating to Barack Obama’s run for the U.S. President while using a fabricated birth certificate.

Orly insists, without much legal supporting evidence that under 18 USC 3332, any judge may forward information to a grand jury. In fact the only legal cases she does reference have no relevance to the issue, but are meant to remind Moore of what a Federal Judge did when he forced Moore to remove a religious statue.

What Orly, and others, may have failed to realize is that there are two statutes under which a grand jury may be convened and these grand juries are very different beasts.

Continue reading

Vogt v USDC WA – Supreme Court

Douglas Vogt has filed a petition of writ of Certiorari with the US Supreme Court. Apparently unfamiliar with the role of the Supreme Court, Mr Vogt filed his writ and sealed affidavit, failing to recognize that there is only one issue before the Supreme Court: Did the lower Court err in its decision to reject Vogt’s request to bring the case to the attention of a Grand Jury.

The court found that

Nevertheless, Mr. Vogt fails to address any of the case authority cited by the court in its order to show cause indicating that (1) there is no private right of action under either 18 U.S.C. § 4 or 18 U.S.C. § 2382, (2) private parties generally lack standing to institute a federal criminal prosecution, and (3) private citizens or voters, such as Mr. Vogt, lack standing to challenge President Obama’s qualifications to hold office through the use of misprision of felony or misprision of treason statutes, or otherwise, because they have suffered no particularized injury.

Vogt ‘argues’ that

It is imperative that the United States Supreme Court hear Petitioner’s claim as soon as practicable. This Court’s expedited consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari is warranted in order to ensure that Vogt’s allegations related to the ineligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, II, to be President be promptly heard by the body Constitutionally designated and empowered to initially investigate and then determine that question, to wit, a Federal Grand Jury.

Vogt’s allegations are irrelevant to the Supreme Court

Filed at the U.S. Supreme Court on March 20th, 2014:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Douglas Vogt, Petitioner,
vs.
United States District Court, Western District of Washington, Respondent.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington and the United States Circuit Court for the Ninth Circuit

Petitioner’s Motions to: (i) Expedite and (ii) Seal Affidavit

Petitioner, Douglas Vogt, respectfully requests that this Court: (i) expedite its consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari in this case and (ii) seal the attached affidavit of Douglas Vogt which demonstrates the forgery of the Certificate of Live Birth of Barack Hussein Obama.

AK – Lamb v Obama – Smack…

No. 1485 S-15155 Lamb v. Obama [other civil]
http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/webd … m-1485.pdf

Mr. Lamb clearly lacks interest-injury standing to sue because he cannot establish any injury in fact, nor can he show a genuine controversy. Mr. Lamb claims that his failure to vote was his injury. However, the Supreme Court has “consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government — claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large” — does not present a controversy.Mr. Lamb’scomplaint alleges nothing more than non-justiciable abstract and theoretical claim
Ouch
The court is under no obligation to accept as true Mr. Lamb’s complaint that is full of legal conclusions and bald assertions cloaked as facts. Bare legal conclusions are not entitled to the benefit of the presumption of truth and are not accorded every favorable inference.
Moreover, Mr. Lamb has failed to plead any facts that fit within any cognizable legal theory. Mr. Lamb’s complaint gives his version of the history of Mr. Obama’s life and presidency; however he neither states nor provides allegations sufficient for any recognized cause of action. Even if the complaint and summons were properly served, Mr. Lamb had standing, and this court had jurisdiction, Mr. Lamb pleads no claim entitled to relief.
That should be the end of it…

MS – Orly v Democrat Party – Reply to opposition in detail

With comments interspersed. Will update over time, Orly’s response is fascinating and very Orlyesque. I am not a lawyer, just my best reading.

IN THE US DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ et al
v.
Democratic Party of Mississippi et al )

CASE 12-CV-280 HON HENRY WINGATE

REPLY TO OPPOSITION AND IN SUPPORT OF RELEVANCE TO NEW MATERIAL FACTS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT ON 01.21.2013

On January 22 parties held a phone conference with Judge Wingate. During the conference Hon Judge Wingate ordered Defendants to respond within 2 weeks to January 21 “Notice of New Material Facts” filed by Plaintiff Taitz. Taitz to reply within a week after the last response. Further, this court brought to the attention of the parties a comment that Judge Wingate’s law clerk found as being posted on the web site of Orly Taitz, OrlyTaitzESQ.com, by one Virgil E. Byrd, where aforementioned Virgil Byrd made an allegation of ex-parte communication by this court and made defamatory statements. (Exhibit 1 “Virgil E. Byrd” comment.) Hon. Judge Wingate advised the parties that he will contact the US Attorney for the Southern District of MS and he will be seeking  a criminal investigation to ascertain identity of the individual who made this comment.

Continue reading

MS – Taitz v Democrat Party – Docket as of 2014/02/12

U.S. District Court
Southern District of Mississippi (Northern (Jackson))
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA
Taitz et al v. Democrat Party of Mississippi et al
Assigned to: District Judge Henry T. Wingate
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson

Case in other court:  Circuit Court of Hinds County, Ms, 251-12-00107 CIV

Continue reading

MS – Orly v Democrat Party – Reply to opposition

Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 2/12/2014 at 2:55 PM CST and filed on 2/12/2014
Case Name: Taitz et al v. Democrat Party of Mississippi et al
Case Number: 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA
Filer: Orly Taitz
Document Number: 104
Docket Text:

Reply to Opposition and in Support of Relevance to New Material Facts submitted to the Court on 1/21/2013, filed by Orly Taitz. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1 – Virgil E. Byrd comment, # (2) Exhibit 2 – American Thinker Article, # (3) Exhibit 3 – 7/18/2013 Text Order)(ND)

Guthrie v US – 1:13-cv-0234-SEB-DKL – Entry and Order Dismissing Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
PAUL A. GUTHRIE,
Plaintiff,
VS. 1:13-cv-0234-SEB-DKL
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, et al.,
Defendants.

Entry and Order Dismissing Action

I

Paul A. Guthrie commenced this action shortly after a prior action docketed as Guthrie v. Obama, etal., No. 1:13-cv-0080-JMS-DKL (S.D.Ind. Jan. 18, 2013)(hereafter “the prior action”) was dismissed. Upon its initial examination of this case, the court noted that “[t]he plaintiff is recycling claims put to rest” in the prior action. The plaintiff was given a period of time in which to show cause why the present action should not be summarily dismissed “for the same reasons.”

The plaintiff has responded to the foregoing directions by asserting that the disposition of the prior action was invalid. This apparently explains why he has tried again and this time has added Judge Magnus-Stinson as a defendant.

Continue reading

Guthrie v US – 1:13-cv-0234-SEB-DKL- MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

1) Defendant Obama was placed on all 50 State ballots, unlawfully selected in an illegal fraudulent election, and unlawfully installed and maintained in the Office of President once in 2008/09 and again in 2012/13, contrary to the Constitution because Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States of America. He was selected and installed despite numerous protests in dozens of court challenges, stemming from before both Presidential elections, claiming that Obama was not and is not a natural born Citizen, as required by Article II of the Constitution of the United States of America. Not one court case before this one has stated the correct definition and meaning of Article II natural born Citizen, the discovered Natural Law Theory of the Father definition, as all previous cases relied upon the provably incorrect Unity Theory (of both U.S. soil territory jurisdiction birth and both parents must be U.S. citizens, all inclusive), or the government’s Positive Law Theory definition (U.S. soil jurisdiction birth, or mother is a U.S. citizen, inclusive or mutually exclusive, either one will do according to the government as long as a State citizen father is not a factor in the creation of the natural born Citizen offspring or natural born Citizen status.)

Continue reading

Guthrie v US – 1:13-cv-0234-SEB-DKL – MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1) Plaintiff Guthrie filed his case [number 1:13 -CV- 0234 SEB - DKL] and made service of process upon the defendants, with the last defendant being served on March 4, 2013. The Proof of Service verification for all of the defendants has been filed with the Court. Not counting the day of March 4, then 21 days from the time the defendants were served expires at the end of the day March 26, 2013.

2) It is now more than 21 days and there has been no reply from the defendants. Guthrie is now entitled to a default judgment. Here is the language in the Summons served upon the defendants that describes the rules of civil procedure regarding the time allotted for a reply to plaintiff’s suit and the consequences for failure to respond:
A lawsuit has been filed against you. Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3), you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff, whose name and address are:

Continue reading

Guthrie v US – case 1:13-CV-0234-SEB-DKL – MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE

MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE

1) Every one of the defendants, by virtue of their employment in their offices, has a duty to know what an Article II natural born Citizen is and whether or not Obama is one, in order to establish whether or not the defendants are valid representatives of the constitutional government engaged in lawful duties on behalf of the American People, so as not to be defrauding the American People and so that they can properly do their jobs and enforce the criminal codes and Constitution. Furthermore, if the defendants did not know or comprehend what a natural born Citizen was before they received Guthrie’s complaint, by the facts presented therein they certainly now know what a natural born Citizen is and that Obama is not one.

Continue reading