CA – Noonan v Bowen – Educating the confused

In their reply brief to the Court of Appeal of the State of California, 3rd Appellate district, it is ‘argued’ that:

RESPONDENT OBAMA is as much a foreigner as he is a U.S. citizen, if in fact he is one. It cannot be legally stated that OBAMA is without foreign national citizenship/allegiance.

While it is true that under British Law, our President may have been born a Citizen of the UK, or one of its variants, it is also clear that under US law, he was born on US soil and therefore a US citizen and natural born. See for instance US v Wong Kim Ark.

Thus the claim that he is disqualified because of English law is somewhat outrageous and ignores the fact that our Country separated itself from it several centuries ago. As to claims that he was adopted by Soetoro, again, these unfounded assertions have no relevance to the nationality of our President.

As to the term allegiance, it needs to be properly understood in its legal context and there is no doubt that he has no foreign allegiance by any meaning of the word.

Of course, this is irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is the dismissal of the petition for writ of mandamus.

CA – Noonan v Bowen – Noonan & Dummett

Dummett sent an email to Noonan announcing that his case had been separated from Noonan’s case:

My case was successfully separated from yours and has been re-filed April 26,2013 in a Sacramento Superior Court.

We will be arguing your facts plus some additional ones such as Obama not having the required signatures needed to appear on the ballot.

I doubt that Dummett has any case but one cannot blame him for trying. These poor people are so upset with the fact that we have President Obama that they are willing to forego any logic or reason in their pursuit of ‘justice’

Continue reading

CA – Noonan v Bowen – Noonan & Dummett

Dummett sent an email to Noonan announcing that his case had been separated from Noonan’s case:

My case was successfully separated from yours and has been re-filed April 26,2013 in a Sacramento Superior Court.

We will be arguing your facts plus some additional ones such as Obama not having the required signatures needed to appear on the ballot.

I doubt that Dummett has any case but one cannot blame him for trying. These poor people are so upset with the fact that we have President Obama that they are willing to forego any logic or reason in their pursuit of ‘justice’

Continue reading

CA – Noonan v Bowen – Noonan & Dummett

Dummett sent an email to Noonan announcing that his case had been separated from Noonan’s case:

My case was successfully separated from yours and has been re-filed April 26,2013 in a Sacramento Superior Court.

We will be arguing your facts plus some additional ones such as Obama not having the required signatures needed to appear on the ballot.

I doubt that Dummett has any case but one cannot blame him for trying. These poor people are so upset with the fact that we have President Obama that they are willing to forego any logic or reason in their pursuit of ‘justice’

Continue reading

CA – Noonan v Bowen – Noonan & Dummett

Dummett sent an email to Noonan announcing that his case had been separated from Noonan’s case:

My case was successfully separated from yours and has been re-filed April 26,2013 in a Sacramento Superior Court.

We will be arguing your facts plus some additional ones such as Obama not having the required signatures needed to appear on the ballot.

I doubt that Dummett has any case but one cannot blame him for trying. These poor people are so upset with the fact that we have President Obama that they are willing to forego any logic or reason in their pursuit of ‘justice’

Continue reading

CA – Noonan v Bowen – Superior Ct Sacramento – Docket

Noonan’s failed adventures started in California when he filed several cases. Noonan v Bowen has most recently been dismissed. It will be instructive to outline how Noonan failed to convince the Court and present some of his more foolish efforts, such as an ex-parte hearing…

Noonan has not taken too well when he realized that the Court had rejected, quite predictably, his claims and arguments, even before he could get to the ‘merits’ of the case. Of course, even if Noonan had overcome the fundamental issues of mootness, standing etc, he would still have failed.

Entry Date Document Title
2/25/2013 2:29 PM Gary Kreep return receipt for RT
2/20/2013 4:03 PM 3DCA return receipt for RT
12/24/2012 1:13 PM Notice of Filing of Designation and Notice to Reporters to Prepare Transcripts
10/18/2012 12:07 PM Appellant’s Notice Designating Record on Appeal (Edward Noonan)
10/11/2012 4:20 PM Respondent’s Notice Designating Record on Appeal (08/02/12 Appeal)
9/14/2012 4:34 PM Appellant’s Notice Designating Record on Appeal (09/04/12 appeal)
9/14/2012 4:30 PM 3DCA Appeal not Selected Notice
9/6/2012 3:46 PM Notice of Filing Notice of Appeal
9/6/2012 3:44 PM Notice of Appeal
9/4/2012 4:34 PM Notice of Change of Address/Telephone No.
8/7/2012 11:28 AM Notice of Filing Notice of Appeal
8/7/2012 11:27 AM Notice of Appeal
7/5/2012 11:29 AM Judgment
7/5/2012 11:15 AM Order After Hearing
6/19/2012 3:40 PM Correspondence
6/15/2012 11:17 AM Ruling on Notice of Related Cases and Order Transferring Case
5/25/2012 2:11 PM Declaration – Other
5/25/2012 2:11 PM Proof of Service – MAILING
5/25/2012 9:00 AM Minute Order
5/24/2012 1:20 PM Opposition
5/24/2012 1:16 PM Notice of Appearance for Oral Argument..
5/24/2012 8:44 AM Noonan, et al., v. Bowen, et al.: Tentative Ruling on Demurrers to Petition
5/21/2012 3:56 PM Opposition
5/21/2012 2:08 PM Declaration – Other
5/21/2012 11:17 AM Proof of Service
5/18/2012 4:14 PM Reply
5/18/2012 11:11 AM Reply
5/14/2012 3:39 PM Substitution of Attorney
5/14/2012 3:36 PM Opposition
5/14/2012 3:36 PM Opposition
4/26/2012 1:52 PM Request – Judicial Notice
4/26/2012 1:45 PM Memorandum of Points and Authorities
4/26/2012 1:37 PM Notice – Other
4/23/2012 3:50 PM Memorandum of Points and Authorities
4/23/2012 3:50 PM Demurrer
4/23/2012 3:29 PM Proof of Service – MAILING
4/16/2012 5:21 PM Notice to Filing Party
4/16/2012 5:17 PM Declaration – Other
4/16/2012 5:13 PM Declaration – Other
4/16/2012 5:03 PM Declaration – Other
4/13/2012 4:19 PM Declaration – Other
4/12/2012 4:03 PM Declaration of Omitted First Amended Pet re: Writ of Mandate
4/12/2012 4:03 PM Declaration of Omitted First Amended Pet re: Writ of Mandate
4/11/2012 1:46 PM Notice to Filing Party
4/9/2012 11:02 AM Order – Other
4/4/2012 4:24 PM Response
4/3/2012 2:13 PM Proof of Service – MAILING
3/29/2012 8:42 AM Proof of Personal Service – Petition
3/26/2012 11:17 AM Notice of Related Case
3/23/2012 9:00 AM Minute Order
3/22/2012 1:37 PM Noonan v. Bowen — Order Vacating Demurrer Hearing
3/22/2012 1:13 PM FIRST Amended Petition
3/16/2012 9:00 AM Minute Order
3/16/2012 9:00 AM Minute Order
3/15/2012 4:01 PM Response
3/15/2012 4:01 PM Memorandum of Points and Authorities
3/15/2012 4:01 PM Ex Parte Application – Other
3/15/2012 4:01 PM Declaration – Other
2/16/2012 3:04 PM Demurrer
2/16/2012 3:04 PM Memorandum of Points and Authorities
2/16/2012 9:46 AM Demurrer
2/16/2012 8:44 AM Proof of Service
2/16/2012 8:41 AM Request – Judicial Notice
2/16/2012 8:35 AM Demurrer
2/16/2012 8:27 AM Memorandum of Points and Authorities
2/9/2012 4:59 PM Notice of Reassigned Case Number
1/27/2012 11:37 AM Notice of Case Assignment Sac
1/27/2012 11:10 AM Civil Case Cover Sheet
1/26/2012 5:00 PM Proof of Service
1/26/2012 5:00 PM Proof of Service
1/6/2012 11:10 AM Petition for Writ of Mandate

Noonan v Bowen – SCOTUS – Status

For those who are still waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on Noonan v Bowen, remember that Orly only filed an application for stay and never petitioned the court to actually here the case.

No. 12A606
Title:
Edward Noonan, et al., Applicants
v.
Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed: December 13, 2012
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of California
  Case Nos.: (S207078)

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 11 2012 Application (12A606) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 13 2012 Application (12A606) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 26 2012 Application (12A606) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 9 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.
Jan 9 2013 Application (12A606) referred to the Court.
Feb 19 2013 Application (12A606) denied by the Court.

CA – Noonan v Bowen – SCOTUS – Noonan explains

Noonan gives his personal view on the SCOTUS appeal:

Kennedy is a pro-sodomite Judge…

“The next step will be to appeal to the U.S. Supreme-Court-Cesspool. Our case will be submitted to pro-Sodomite Anthony Kennedy. The ungodly Justice Kennedy sided with the court’s liberal wing on the two major sodomite-rights cases to date,Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans.

It is totally insane to believe that there can be any righteous and fair hearing to be received under the guardianship of the brain-dead sinner that Kennedy has proved himself to be.”

Wow… Yes, that explains…

Continue reading

CA – Noonan v Bowen – Cal. Sup. Ct. – Docket

Orly has filed a petitition with the California Supreme Court under the Court’s original jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in proceedings for extraordinary relief in the nature of mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition. The court also has original jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 10).

Her filing was initially denied by the Court’s clerk but they changed their mind and allowed Orly to file after all. Expect a denial by tomorrow morning :-)

Orly is confused

Breaking news! Supreme Court of CA to rule whether Obama should be declared illegitimate for theU.S. Presidency due to his use of forged IDs and a fraudulently obtained CT Social Security number. Loss of 55 CA electoral votes will certainly mean new elections in the U.S.

Uh, the Supreme Court may deny to heat the case. And new elections? Really… Not gonna happen.

Once it receives a petition for review, the court has at least 60 days in which to make its decision. It assigns the case to legal staff to draft a conference memorandum, which summarizes the case facts, outlines the issues, and makes a recommendation to the court whether the case presents sufficiently important issues for review. A decision to review is made at the court’s weekly conference—at which over 250 petitions are usually considered—if at least four justices vote to accept a particular case for review.

Court data last updated: 12/05/2012 12:05 PM

Supreme Court Case: S207078

Court of Appeal Case(s): no data found

Case Caption: NOONAN v. BOWEN

Case Category: Original Proceeding – Civil

Start Date: 12/04/2012

Case Status: case initiated

Issues: none

Case Citation: none

Cross Referenced Cases: No Cross Referenced Cases Found

Docket (Register of Actions)NOONAN v. BOWEN

Case Number S207078Date Description Notes

12/04/2012 Petition for writ of mandate/prohibition with request for stay filed Petitioner: Noonan, Edward

Attorney: Orly TaitzPetitioner: MacLeran, Thomas Gregory

Attorney: Orly TaitzPetitioner: Judd, Keith

Attorney: Orly TaitzPetitioner: Taitz, Orly, Dr.

Attorney: Orly Taitz

12/04/2012 Retained for consideration (mandate/prohibition)

CA – Judd v Obama – Proof of service

Orly is insisting on going down the path of financial self destruction by  serving Media Outlets and others who will quickly file anti-SLAPP responses, resulting in Orly being responsible for the cost. I believe Klayman found out how a single defendant could cost about $28,000 and she is suing Judge Land who awarded Orly $20,000 in sanctions… Not very smart…
09/29/2012 10 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Leah Lax, Keith Judd, Larry Rappaport, Lucien Vita, Orly Taitz, David Farrar, Carol Vita, Thomas G MacLeran, upon Defendant Michael Astrue served on 9/11/2012, answer due 10/2/2012; John Avlon served on 9/21/2012, answer due 10/12/2012; Ballot Law Commission of State of Hew Hampshire served on 9/17/2012, answer due 10/8/2012; Board of Directors of California Republican Party served on 9/24/2012, answer due 10/15/2012; Debra Bowen served on 9/17/2012, answer due 10/8/2012; CNN served on 9/21/2012, answer due 10/12/2012; William A Chatfield served on 9/11/2012, answer due 10/2/2012; Clearchannel Communications served on 9/17/2012, answer due 10/8/2012; Patrick R Donahoe served on 9/11/2012, answer due 10/2/2012; Elizabeth Emken served on 9/25/2012, answer due 10/16/2012; Dianne Feinstein served on 9/17/2012, answer due 10/8/2012; Forbes Magazine served on 9/22/2012, answer due 10/13/2012; William M Gardner served on 9/17/2012, answer due 10/8/2012; Alice Travis Germond served on 9/17/2012, answer due 10/8/2012; Eric Holder served on 9/11/2012, answer due 10/2/2012; John and Ken Show served on 9/17/2012, answer due 10/8/2012; KFI AM 640 served on 9/17/2012, answer due 10/8/2012; Brian P Kemp served on 9/18/2012, answer due 10/9/2012; John Kobelt served on 9/17/2012, answer due 10/8/2012; Clay D Land served on 9/11/2012, answer due 10/2/2012; Dean C Logan served on 9/17/2012, answer due 10/8/2012; MSNBC served on 9/24/2012, answer due 10/15/2012; Chris Matthews served on 9/24/2012, answer due 10/15/2012; Lynn Matusow served on 9/21/2012, answer due 10/12/2012; Janet Napolitano served on 9/11/2012, answer due 10/2/2012; Barack Obama served on 9/21/2012, answer due 10/12/2012; Obama for America served on 9/19/2012, answer due 10/10/2012; Alvin Onaka served on 9/20/2012, answer due 10/11/2012; Nancy Pelosi served on 9/17/2012, answer due 10/8/2012; Brian Schatz served on 9/20/2012, answer due 10/11/2012; Natalie E Tennant served on 9/17/2012, answer due 10/8/2012; Kevin Underhill served on 9/22/2012, answer due 10/13/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon defendants in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by method of service not specified. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 09/29/2012)
And the documents
09/29/2012 10 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Leah Lax, Keith Judd, Larry Rappaport, Lucien Vita, Orly Taitz, David Farrar, Carol Vita, Thomas G MacLeran

Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 09/29/2012)