Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored

Attorney General Bates – Opinions on Natural and Foreign Born

NBC — Tue, 21 May 2013 19:35:09 +0000

Attorney General Bates explains his understanding of who are natural-born citizens, and explains why children born abroad to US citizen parents are under common law not citizens. The logical conclusion is that such children are neither born citizens and thus not natural-born. Bates was Attorney General under Lincoln from 1861 to 1864.

Source: Opinions of Attorney General Bates on Citizenship, African Americans, 1862

Page 8

We have natural born citizens (Constitution article 2, 5) not made by law or otherwise, but born. And this class is the large majority; in fact the mass of our citizens; for all others are exceptions specially provided for by law. As they became citizens in the natural way, by birth, so they remain citizens during their natural lives unless, by their own voluntary ac,t they expatriate themselves and become citizens or subjects of another nation. For we have no law (as the French) have to decitizenise a citizen, who has become such either by the natural process of birth, or by the legal process of adoption And in this connection the Constitution says not one word, and furnishes not one hint, in relation to the color or to the ancestral race of the “natural born citizen”. Whatever may have been said in the opinions of judges and lawyers, and in State statutes, about negroes mulattoes and persons of color the Constitution is wholly silent upon that subject. The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is, in fact made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural — home born — and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien — foreign born– making the latter as far as nature, will allow like the former

and page 12

As far as I know Mr Secretary you and I have no better title to the citizenship which we enjoy than the accident of birth the fact that we happened to be born in the United States And our Constitution in speaking of natural born citizens uses no affirmative language to make them such but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle common to all nations and as old as political society that the people born in a country do constitute the nation and as individuals are natural members of the body politic If this be a true principle and I do not doubt it it follows that every person born in the country is at the moment of birth prima facie a citizen and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the natural born right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive and without any reference

Page 13

In the United States it is too late now to deny the political rights and obligations conferred and imposed by nativity; for our laws do not pretend to create or enact them, but do assume and recognize them as things known to all men, because pre existent and natural; and therefore things of which the laws must take cognizance Acting out this guiding thought our Constitution does no more than grant to Congress (rather than to any other department the power to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization”. And our laws made in pursuance thereof indue the made citizen with all the rights and obligations of the natural citizen. And so strongly was Congress impressed with the great legal fact that the child takes its political status in the nation where it is born, that it was found necessary to pass a law to prevent the alienage of children of our known fellow citizens who happen to be born in foreign countries. The act of February 10, 1855, 10 Statutes, 604, provides that “persons” (not white persons,) “persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. Provided, however, That the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States

Continuing Page 14

But for that act, children of our citizens who happen to be born at London, Paris, or Rome, while their parents are there on a private visit of pleasure or business, might be brought to the native home of their parents, only to find that they themselves were aliens in their fathers’ country, incapable of inheriting their fathers’ land and with no right to demand the protection of their fathers’ government. That is the law of birth at the common law of England clear and unqualified and now both in England and America, modified only by statutes, made from time to time, to meet emergencies as they arise

Filed under: Attorney General Bates, Citizenship, Common Law, Foreign Birth, Natural Born

1790 – “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”

NBC — Mon, 20 May 2013 21:21:07 +0000

Some have argued that the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts were merely declarative of the fact that children born abroad to US citizens were always considered to have been (natural-born) citizens under jus sanguinis but the phrasing does not support such an interpretation.

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

[..]

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

The use of the term ‘may be born’ and ‘shall be’ suggests a prospective rather than a declarative act

Filed under: Foreign Birth, Naturalization Acts, US - 1795

Naturalization Act 1795 – “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject”

NBC — Mon, 20 May 2013 21:21:03 +0000

“An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).

For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States:

[...]

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

Note the use of “shall be considered” which is prospective and suggests that the law is not declarative of common law.

Filed under: Foreign Birth, Naturalization Acts, US - 1795

AL – McInnish v Goode – ADP responds…

NBC — Mon, 20 May 2013 21:10:09 +0000

At the Fogbow we learn from Realist that

I have it on Very Good Authority that the ADP has filed their response to Klayman’s Motion to Strike.

[Update]: Here it is

View this document on Scribd

Filed under: AL - McInnish v Chapman, Alabama, State Election Challenges

CRS Maskell – Presidential Qualifications

NBC — Mon, 20 May 2013 17:29:06 +0000

Jack Maskell, a legislative attorney for the Congressional Research Service, has written a report for Congress (R42097) titled “Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement“

While his research on the eligibility issue related to birth on soil is quite well presented, I have some serious concerns with his statements about the eligibility of children born abroad to citizen parents.

I will be publishing my finding in a series of blog postings.

Let’s outline how the Court in United States v Wong Kim Ark resolved the question. Maskell explains:

The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. The use of the phrase in the Constitution may have derived from a suggestion in a letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Convention expressing concern about having the office of Commander-in-Chief “devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” as there were fears at that time about wealthy European aristocracy or royalty coming to America, gaining citizenship, and then buying and scheming their way to the presidency without long-standing loyalty to the nation. At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution …” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”

So the question now becomes much simpler: Did Common Law include the concept of Jus Sanguinis, or was citizenship by descent implemented by statute? Under our Constitution, Congress has the plenary power to define a uniform rule of naturalization and from 1790 onwards, it has used its power to define citizenship by descent through various statutes.

Filed under: Congressional Research Service, Maskell Tagged: CRS, Maskell, R42097

AL – McInnish v Chapman – George Miller

NBC — Fri, 17 May 2013 17:49:06 +0000

At the ObamaBallotChallenge (sic), George Miller responds with some interesting claims. I will try to examine them to see if they add any relevant information.

We reported on the Zullo affidavit recently and were wondering why new evidence was being submitted for an appeal, which isn’t usually permissible. Well, some of you may remember the Democrats’ recent submission of an “Obama” “birth certificate,” along with other falsehoods and nonsense. Since they did not attempt that before in the original case, it would seem that it was not admissible, since appeals are not supposed to accept new evidence.

First of all it is important to understand the difference between evidence and exhibits. The ‘argument’ raised by the plaintiffs is that the Secretary of State had DUTY to follow up on the ‘research’ by the Cold Case Posse which they claimed shows evidence of fraud. However, as the ADP points out, far more credible evidence contradicted these claims. Note that under Alabama law, the SOS has to act if she receives “knowledge from an official source arising from the performance of her duties”. The ‘research’ by the Sheriff’s office cannot be considered as such. Certainly the ‘evidence’ is at best speculative and does not reach any conclusion that our President is ineligible. Note also that in their motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs themselves brought up the PDF document of the Long Form Birth Certificate. So this is not ‘new evidence’. The motion also mentions the statements made by Hawaiian officials, claiming that they are inconsistent. So again, this is not new evidence.

All in all, there is a much better case that the Court will allow the Amicus Brief to stand, while it has no choice but to reject the affidavit by private citizen Zullo.

George Miller also refers to other falsehoods and nonsense submitted by the ADP in their brief but does not clarify the extent of this. While he may not like the arguments the brief submits, he needs to do a bit more than just rejecting them because he does not like them.

Some people are also wondering why Arpaio/Zullo haven’t taken their case to prosecutors or AG, either, a question I often ponder myself. I have heard from three reliable sources that they discussed this with at least one prosecutor, not to mention multiple legislators and not found anyone who has acted yet. He was told by a prosecutor that there wasn’t enough proof. Proof? Proof for what?

Perhaps George can explain why Sheriff Arpaio did not sign the affidavit in his official capacity and instead the affidavit was signed by private citizen Zullo? As to the lack of proof, there is no evidence of fraud as fraud requires some specific standards. Just because the Cold Case Posse believes that a highly compressed copy of the original document shows evidence of tampering does not make this fraudulent. And as such, no self respecting prosecutor or even legislator will take up the case. Now I understand that George hopes that if they did, they could finally get the discovery that would show fraud, but without a foundation, there is no chance that any court would grant such a fishing expedition.

Filed under: AL - McInnish v Chapman, Alabama, State Election Challenges

Educating Orly – Fraudulent SSN

NBC — Fri, 17 May 2013 03:47:11 +0000

Orly, still convinced that the social security number used by our President was not his but rather belonged to a 120 year old named Harrison Bounel is informed why she is wrong, but apparently she fails to recognize the relevance:

On March 26, 2013 I traveled to Stamford Connecticut where the number in question was issued and met with employees of the Social Security Administration: Representative Madeline Mercado, Assistant Manager Mrs. Sheridan (she refused to give her first name) and General Manager Mrs. Booker (she refused to give her first name). I demanded an explanation, why SSA is refusing to release the SS-5 for an extremely aged individual over 120 years old. I was told that this is a protected number and local office has no access to the information. I was shown a computer screen that stated that in case of any inquiries in regards to this number, employees of the SSA are supposed to call a specific number at the SSA Headquaters. (it was a 410- MD number). So, there is clearly a gate keeper at this number. This gatekeeper happens to be one Dawn Wiggins, as all the correspondence and FOIA requests in regards to the Social Security number REDACTED, which are sent from different parts of the country by different individuals and investigators seeking information on Harrison Bounel and Barack Obama, are always being handled by one SSA employee, Dawn Wiggins, while FOIA requests in regards to other Social Security numbers are handled by different employees.

In other words, the reason why e-verify now fails is because too many people have tried to verify President Obama’s Social Security Number and the Social Security Administration has placed a tag on the number. When Susan Daniels accessed the President’s social security number using e-verify she received what the WND inappropriately described as a notice of mismatch. The ‘SSN does not match’ was not tagged but the SSA record does not verify, other reason. The SSA found a discrepancy in the record. While Daniels jumps to the conclusion that since several of the indicators that could trigger this response involve fraud, that therefor it must be fraud. She overlooks the fact that there are several indicators which may point to a more likely explanation:

SSN Assignment Based on Harassment/Abuse/Life Endangerment
Fraud – OIG Investigated
Fraud SSN Misuse

Filed under: Uncategorized

AL – McInnish v Chapman – SCOA – (In)admissible hearsay

NBC — Fri, 17 May 2013 02:12:35 +0000

Recently we have seen two filings in this case that are of some interest. The first one is an Amicus Brief by the Alabama Democratic Party (ADP), the other a motion to strike this brief by Klayman et al, which includes an affidavit by a private citizen named Mike Zullo.

I’d like to explore why the ADP’s brief which mentions the newspaper birth announcements and various other documents is admissible while the affidavit by Zullo is not.

Klayman attempts to argue that in name of fairness, if the court were to allow the Amicus Brief, he should be allowed to enter Zullo’s affidavit. But Klayman may be unaware of something relevant here. The first issue is judicial notice, the second is admissibility of evidence which involves hearsay and authentication.

Rule 201 of the Alabama Rules of Evidence describes the concept of judicial notice

A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

It is debatable if what the Amicus Brief asks falls under rule 201, but it is clear that Zullo’s affidavit does not fall under a fact that falls under Rule 201.

Secondly, admissibility of evidence. Hearsay evidence is not admissible. Thus we look at hearsay

Rule 801: Definitions

(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Rule 803: Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial.

(8) PUBLIC RECORDS AND REPORTS. Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however, when offered against the defendant in criminal cases, matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel, or (C) in civil actions and proceedings and against the state or governmental authority in criminal cases, factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.

(9) RECORDS OF VITAL STATISTICS. Records or data compilations, in any form, of vital statistics such as those relating to births, fetal deaths, deaths, or marriages, if the report thereof was made to a public office pursuant to requirements of law.

(16) STATEMENTS IN ANCIENT DOCUMENTS. Statements in a document in existence thirty years or more the authenticity of which is established.

Finally self-authentication

Rule 902: Self-authentication

(1) DOMESTIC PUBLIC DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL. A document bearing a seal purporting to be that of the United States, or of any State, district, Commonwealth, territory, or insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or of a political subdivision, department, officer, or agency thereof, and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution.

(4) CERTIFIED COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS. A copy of an official record or report or entry therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification, by certificate complying with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this rule or complying with any applicable statute or other rule of court.

(6) NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS. Printed materials purporting to be newspapers or periodicals.

It should be clear that few of the statements made in the affidavit are admissible under the hearsay rule, while many of the evidence provided by the ADP would not be considered hearsay and in many cases would qualify as self authenticating.

Hope this clarifies.

Filed under: AL - McInnish v Chapman, Alabama, State Election Challenges, Uncategorized Tagged: admissibility, hearsay, self-authentication

the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Cold Case Posse – County Attorney Montgomery

NBC — Thu, 16 May 2013 18:04:22 +0000

Brian Reilly wrote an ‘open letter‘ to Maricopa County Attorney Montgomery after Sheriff Arpaio held his press conference. The Attorney responds to a reference to the Arizona Code related to fraud

Arizona Revised Statute, Chapter 23, Sec. 13-2311 states in part, “…any person who, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud or deceive, knowingly falsifies, conceals or covers up a material fact by trick, scheme or device or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing such writing or document contains any false fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry is guilty of a class 5 felony.”

As anyone who can read would understand, the statute requires that the statement or claim is false, or fictitious. So unless you can show that President Obama’s birth certificate was falsified, there is no case to be made. Which is why the focus by the Cold Case Posse on a low resolution copy of the original, is so irrelevant as it can never show any evidence of fraud without having studied the original documents. And we know that the original documents have been verified and certified by the Department of Health of the State of Hawaii.

What follows is the reply by the County Attorney, trying to explain these issues:

Reply from Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery as a result of open letter. He will perform if the evidence is there.

Regards,

Brian Reilly

Dear Mr. Reilly,

Thank you for taking the time to write and for the concerns you have expressed. There are a couple of points of analysis, though, in determining whether a criminal charge can be filed, regardless of the charge or who the suspect might be. The first is whether I have jurisdiction over the case. That requires that some conduct had to have occurred in Maricopa County for me to have jurisdiction. From the Sheriff?s Office investigation into suspect documents produced by the White House to date, that investigation has not revealed any evidence that conduct occurred in Maricopa County. I have discussed this with the Sheriff. As for any issues regarding qualifications or information provided regarding the Presidential Election itself, that is a statewide election. Under Arizona law, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General have jurisdiction over statewide elections. I do not.

I will share with you, as well, that the criminal statute you cited in your message requires additional evidence that the MCSO investigation to date has not uncovered. Specifically, we would need evidence to affirmatively prove that Mr. Obama is not a US citizen. To date, there has been evidence presented leading to speculation that documents have been forged and other documents do not exist. That alone, though, is not sufficient evidence to present to a grand jury and actually have a reasonable likelihood of conviction. I cannot speak for other prosecutors at the state level around the rest of the country or for prosecutors at the federal level but Arizona?s ethics rules do not permit prosecutors to file a charge they can only hope to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at a later stage.

I stand ready and willing, however, to review any case submitted for charges and, if the evidence is there, I will prosecute regardless of who the suspect/defendant may be.

Sincerely,

Bill Montgomery

Maricopa County Attorney

On ObamaBallotChallenge (sic) George Miller ‘responds’ showing the poor logic behind the claims of fraud, forcing him in the end to embrace the flawed ‘two citizen parent’ position which runs against Supreme Court Precedent and other court precedents. The Vattel rules were raised in US v Wong Kim Ark and rejected. Simple…

Mr. Montgomery:

It seems like you are being deliberately obtuse.

1. Why would we have to prove that AKA “Obama” is not a US citizen for you to move on felony fraud charges?

[NBC: That is not a complex issue: in order to prove fraud one has to prove that the document falsifies a material fact. Since the document in question is a highly compressed copy of the original document, it cannot be used to establish that fraud has taken place.]

It is established beyond reasonable doubt by Maricopa County Sheriff’s Dept. and other entities that the electronic “birth certificate” image Obama is using is a very badly produced forgery. That’s a felony in itself. Why are we even debating this? Obama is perpetrating this fraud on Maricopa County (as well as everywhere else) residents, is he not?

[NBC: Assuming that George is correct here, and there is no real evidence that even the PDF was forged, if he believes releasing a highly compressed PDF is a felony then let him cite the relevant statute. While George my believe that President Obama is perpetrating a fraud, there is just no good evidence to support this.]

If someone was selling stolen merchandise in Maricopa county, would it matter that the goods were first stolen elsewhere? No, you would be required by law to act upon it, just as you are now for “Obama.” Why don’t you start with that, which would lead to discovery and unraveling some of the other mysteries of the fraud who calls himself “Obama?”

[NBC: Now we learn the true motivation: Discovery... A fishing expedition...]

2. Isn’t it true that Obama failed to prove his eligibility when challenged and that SOS Bennett accepted incomplete and inadequate evidence? In any case, even if he was born in HI as “Barack Hussein Obama, on Aug. 4, 1961 (which HI failed to confirm), which looks increasingly unlikely, his father was admittedly a foreigner, meaning that Obama is not natural born, according to established precedent, repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.

[NBC: ROTFL, The DOH of HI certified and verified the information on the document. Lacking any evidence of fraud, Miller appears to be backtracking to the untenable position that a natural born citizen must be born to a two citizen parent. He even claims that this was held up 'repeatedly' by the Supreme Court, even though the facts reject such a conclusion.]

-George Miller

Filed under: Uncategorized

Exploring the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Cold Case Posse

NBC — Thu, 16 May 2013 05:10:07 +0000

First of all the official name of the corporate entity registered with the Arizona Corporation Commission is “the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Cold Case Posse”. The entity is a 501(c)(3) organization with three officers:

Mike Zullo, Ken Strachan and Mike Kowalski, all directors. Note that the Sheriff holds no position in the entity and thus the entity by itself has no law enforcement authorities attached to it.

So, compare the affidavit attached to the Klayman motion to strike, signed by Mike Zullo in his personal capacity, with the Arpaio affidavit which was signed by Arpaio in his official duty and duly notarized.

So let’s speculate a little. It is clear to me that Sheriff Arpaio did not submit any affidavit and that he cannot delegate his law enforcement authority to a private citizen.

I can understand why Sheriff Arpaio no longer wants to sign affidavits and I can understand why Zullo/Klayman would like to have the Court or the public believe that the document was filed under the law enforcement authority of the Sheriff of Arizona [1] but I see nothing that raises the document to the level of an official work product.

In other words, these are just speculations by a private citizen. And although Zullo claims that

Posse members of the MCSO are delegated their law enforcement authority by the Maricopa County Sheriff.

But the Sheriff found it necessary to send a deputy with them to Hawaii… Not much of ‘law enforcement authority’ had been delegated…

So is the entity (Maricopa County Sheriff’s Cold Case Posse) at this moment operating without Sheriff Arpaio? Why would Arpaio not sign the affidavit in his official position? Remember that “Maricopa County Sheriff’s Cold Case Posse” is a 501(c)(3) entity and is not under any control of the Sheriff. So what authority does the 501(c)(3) present to the court? I’d say nothing more than that of a knitting circle.

[1] Klayman writes “This additional evidence , prepared by investigator (sic) Michael Zullo, and coming from an official source, the Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, go to the very heart of the issues presented on appeal (uhuh).” and “The affidavit of Investigator Zullo, who is a deputy of the Sheriff of Maricopa County,” suggest that Klayman may believe that this was in fact filed under the authority of Arpaio and his office but I fail to see under what legal argument such a claim can be made. In fact, if the affidavit is presented as the ‘investigative findings, by the Sheriff of Maricopa County’ then this would likely become pure and simple hearsay.

It would be interesting to explore the angle as to whether or not Mike is truly operating as a ‘deputy’ of the Sheriff of Maricopa County or just a private individual. Ragsdale would have a field day here, I am sure.

Finally, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office Cold Case Posse web page at Facebook shows a less than neutral position on President Obama…

Filed under: Uncategorized

MCSO Posse does not have arrest power.

NBC — Thu, 16 May 2013 03:13:58 +0000

Arpaio, and perhaps Zullo may believe that these volunteers have arresting power but the office of the Compliance Division of Maricopa County has responded that they do not.

Letter From Ashley Osolin, Legal Liaison, Compliance Div., Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, to author re Response to Request for Information (obtained by author with a public records request on Apr. 12, 2011) (claiming that “[p]osse members do not have arrest powers, therefore they cannot arrest for either State or Federal charges”).

Source: LOCAL IMMIGRATION PROSECUTION: A STUDY OF ARIZONA BEFORE SB 1070 by Ingrid V. Eagly, 58 UCLA LAW REVIEW 1749 (2011)

So they certainly do not appear to have the same law enforcement powers as a law enforcement officer. The question now becomes: does an investigation done by a posse have any legal relevance when the Sheriff does not sign off on its results? Or is it a work product like that of a knitting circle?

The fact that Zullo signed as an individual appears to suggest the latter.

Filed under: Arpaio - Cold Case Posse

Zullo Affidavit – Not much…

NBC — Wed, 15 May 2013 21:48:05 +0000

Zullo gets it but still insists on analyzing a PDF document which he believes shows evidence of tampering even though the document has been authenticated, verified and certified.

Additionally, Hawaii State Statues and Hawaii Department of Health policy do not authorize the Hawaii Department of Health to create a computer generated .pdf file as an officially certified document severing (sic) as a verification of a live birth event.

Halelujah… So the PDF is irrelevant and as to the claims that the document was falsified, there is no probative evidence as the document was highly compressed and many of the artifacts can be attributed to the compression workflow used.

So what now? The fact that the Department of Hawaii has verified and certified the information provides prima facie evidence and the mere possibility of fraud of the original document has not been argued very convincingly.

The admission is powerful as it undermines any relevance of the analysis of the PDF. Well done.

Zullo also observes

“The White House PDF has no evidential value at all. And the simple truth is it could never be submitted to any court as a bona fide certified verification of the birth event. I think one has to come to the conclusion that the White House attorneys and Mr. Obama himself, as an attorney, would be acutely aware of that fact.”

Finally he gets it. And why he believes that the White House attorneys do not appreciate this is beyond me. Needless to say, the Alabama Supreme Court is not the proper jurisdiction to have this heard.

Fascinating stuff. Why Zullo is so helpful to undermine the relevance of his ‘investigation’? I have no idea.

Filed under: Arpaio - Cold Case Posse

AL – McInnish v Chapman – SCOA – Motion to Strike

NBC — Wed, 15 May 2013 21:40:26 +0000

Motion to strike Amicus Brief

Another funny one. Perhaps Klayman does not appreciate the meaning of ‘Judicial Notice’ versus an ‘Affidavit’ which contains nothing of the kind

And yes, the Court can take judicial notice of newspaper articles, and statements by the Officials of the Department of Health of Hawaii.

View this document on Scribd

Filed under: AL - McInnish v Chapman, Alabama, State Election Challenges

CA – Grinols v Electoral College – 9th CCOA -13-70744 – Docket Mandamus

NBC — Wed, 15 May 2013 21:35:08 +0000

Court of Appeals Docket #: 13-70744	Docketed: 02/28/2013 Termed: 04/01/2013
James Grinols, et al v. USDC-SAC	Docketed: 02/28/2013 Termed: 04/01/2013
Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Eastern California, Sacramento
Fee Status: Paid

Case Type Information:

1) original proceeding

2) mandamus/prohibition

3) 2255 habeas corpus

Originating Court Information:
District: 0972-2 : 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD
Court Reporter: Kelly Ann O’Halloran
Trial Judge: Morrison C. England, Junior, Chief District Judge
Date Rec’d COA:
02/27/2013

02/27/2013	1	FILED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. NOTIFIED REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST OF FILING. [8530853] (HC)
04/01/2013	2	Filed order (HARRY PREGERSON, SUSAN P. GRABER and CARLOS T. BEA): Petitioners have not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the petition is denied. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. DENIED. [8572746] (AF)

Filed under: CA - Grinols v Electoral College, California, State Election Challenges

CA – Grinols v Electoral College – 9th CCOA (13-15627) – Docket Appeal Default

NBC — Wed, 15 May 2013 21:32:12 +0000

Court of Appeals Docket #: 13-15627	Docketed: 04/03/2013
Nature of Suit: 2441 Civil Rights Voting	Docketed: 04/03/2013
James Grinols, et al v. Electoral College, et al
Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Eastern California, Sacramento
Fee Status: Paid

Case Type Information:

1) civil

2) united states

3) null

Originating Court Information:
District: 0972-2 : 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD
Trial Judge: Morrison C. England, Junior, Chief District Judge
Date Filed: 12/12/2012
Date Order/Judgment:	Date Order/Judgment EOD:	Date NOA Filed:	Date Rec’d COA:
03/26/2013	03/26/2013	04/01/2013	04/01/2013

04/03/2013	1	DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Mediation Questionnaire due on 04/10/2013. Transcript ordered by 05/01/2013. Transcript due 05/31/2013. Appellants James Grinols, Keith Judd, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan and Robert Odden opening brief due 07/10/2013. Appellees Electoral College, Governor of California, Barrack Obama, President of the Senate, Secretary of State of California and U.S. Congress answering brief due 08/09/2013. Appellant’s optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. [8575694] (RT)
04/26/2013	2	Filed (ECF) Appellants James Grinols, Keith Judd, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan and Robert Odden Motion to hear this case before the panel which will hear case 13-15085. Date of service: 04/26/2013. [8606982] (OT)
05/15/2013	3	Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: SLJ): A review of the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over the appeal because an order denying a motion for default judgment is not a final appealable order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Bird v. Reese, 875 F.2d 256 (9th Cir. 1989) (order). Moreover, a review of the district court docket shows that a final order granting appellees’ motions to dismiss has not yet been filed. Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellants shall move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellants elect to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of the memorandum. If appellants do not comply with this order, the Clerk shall dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court. [8629706] (WL)

Filed under: CA - Grinols v Electoral College, California, State Election Challenges, Uncategorized

CA – Grinols v Electoral College – Docket

NBC — Wed, 15 May 2013 21:14:44 +0000

U.S. District Court
Eastern District of California – Live System (Sacramento)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD

Grinols et al v. Electoral College et al
Assigned to: Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd

Case in other court:

USCA, 13-15627

Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question

Date Filed: 12/12/2012
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights: Voting
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
James Grinols	represented by	Orly Taitz Law Offices of Dr. Orly Taitz 29839 Santa Margarita Parkway Suite 100 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 949-683-5411 Fax: 949-766-7603 Email: orly.taitz@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Robert Odden	represented by	Orly Taitz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Edward Noonan	represented by	Orly Taitz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Keith Judd	represented by	Orly Taitz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Thomas Gregory MacLeran	represented by	Orly Taitz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Electoral College	represented by	Edward A Olsen , GOVT United States Attorney’s Office 501 I Street Suite 10-100 Sacramento, CA 95814 916-554-2700 Fax: 916-554-2900 Email: edward.olsen@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
President of the Senate	represented by	Edward A Olsen , GOVT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Governor of California	represented by	George Michael Waters Department Of Justice, Office Of The Attorney General 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916-323-8050 Fax: 916-324-8835 Email: george.waters@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Secretary of State of California	represented by	George Michael Waters (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
U.S. Congress	represented by	Edward A Olsen , GOVT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Barack Hussein Obama	represented by	Edward A Olsen , GOVT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed	#	Docket Text
12/12/2012	1	CIVIL COVER SHEET by James Grinols, Keith Judd, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan, Robert Odden (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 12/12/2012)
12/13/2012	2	COMPLAINT and MOTION FOR STAY against Electoral College, Governor of California, Barack Hussein Obama, President of the Senate, Secretary of State of California, U.S. Congress by Edward Noonan, Robert Odden, James Grinols, Keith Judd, Thomas Gregory MacLeran. (Attachments: # 1 Redacted exhibits pp1-25, # 2 Redacted exhibits pp26-50, # 3 Redacted exhibits pp51-75, # 4 Redacted exhibits pp76-100, # 5 Redacted exhibits pp101-107)(Taitz, Orly) Modified on 12/13/2012 (Meuleman, A). Modified on 12/14/2012 (Donati, J). (Entered: 12/13/2012)
12/13/2012	3	RECEIPT number #CAE200049184 $350.00 fbo James Grinols, et al by Orly Taitz on 12/13/2012. (Meuleman, A) (Entered: 12/13/2012)
12/13/2012	6	CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form, # 2 VDRP Form) (Meuleman, A) (Entered: 12/13/2012)
12/13/2012	7	SUMMONS ISSUED as to Electoral College, Governor of California, Barack Hussein Obama, President of the Senate, Secretary of State of California, U.S. Congress with answer to complaint due within 60 days. Attorney Orly Taitz, Esq. 29839 Santa Margarita Ste. 100 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688. (Meuleman, A) (Entered: 12/13/2012)
12/14/2012	8	ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/14/12 DENYING Plaintiffs’ 2 Request. If the parties wish to proceed with their request for a temporary restraining order, they are hereby ordered to file the documents listed in this order by 12/21/12. (Manzer, C) (Entered: 12/14/2012)
12/18/2012	9	SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED: Electoral College, Governor of California, and Secretary of State of California served on 12/18/2012, answer due 1/8/2013. (Taitz, Orly) Modified on 12/19/2012 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 12/18/2012)
12/18/2012	10	SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED: Barack Hussein Obama served on 12/18/2012, answer due 1/8/2013. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
12/18/2012	11	SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED: President of the Senate, and U.S. Congress served on 12/18/2012, answer due 2/18/2013. (Taitz, Orly) Modified on 12/19/2012 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 12/18/2012)
12/20/2012	12	MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Defendants. Motion Hearing set for 12/20/2012 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order , # 2 Affidavit of Notice, affidavit of Irreparable harm, # 3 Supplement Checklist, # 4 Supplement Proposed stipulation, # 5 Proof of Service Certificate of service)(Taitz, Orly) Modified on 12/21/2012 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 12/20/2012)
12/20/2012	13	AMENDED MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy for Chief District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: On the Court’s own motion, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 12 is set for hearing on January 3, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 7. Oppositions are to be filed not later than December 26, 2012 and a reply, if any, by December 28, 2012. Plaintiffs’ counsel is ordered to give notice of this minute order to Defendants by 4:00 p.m., December 20, 2012. (Deutsch, S) Modified on 12/20/2012 (Deutsch, S). (Entered: 12/20/2012)
12/21/2012	14	CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by James Grinols, Keith Judd, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan, Robert Odden re 13 Minute Order,,, Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings,,. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
12/23/2012	15	NOTICE of subpoena, summons, TRO motion, complaint and exhibits served on Barack Obama through the U.S. Attorney for the District of Hawaii by All Plaintiffs re 13 Minute Order. (Taitz, Orly) Modified on 12/27/2012 (Becknal, R). (Entered: 12/23/2012)
12/24/2012	16	NOTICE of subpoena to produce documents served on commissioner of Social Security Michael Astrue by All Plaintiffs re 13 Minute Order. (Taitz, Orly) Modified on 12/27/2012 (Becknal, R). (Entered: 12/24/2012)
12/24/2012	17	NOTICE of Subpoena on Darrell Issa, Chair of House Oversight Committee to produce documents by All Plaintiffs re 13 Minute Order. (Taitz, Orly) Modified on 12/27/2012 (Becknal, R). (Entered: 12/24/2012)
12/24/2012	18	NOTICE Redacted subpoena on Michael Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security by All Plaintiffs re 13 Minute Order. (Taitz, Orly) Modified on 12/27/2012 (Becknal, R). (Entered: 12/24/2012)
12/25/2012	19	NOTICE of subpoena to appear at 01/03/2013 hearing served on Lawrence Romo, director of Selective Service by All Plaintiffs re 13 Minute Order. (Taitz, Orly) Modified on 12/27/2012 (Becknal, R). (Entered: 12/25/2012)
12/26/2012	20	NOTICE of subpoena on Michael Astrue, commissioner of Social Security to appear on 01/03/2013 and produce documents by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) Modified on 12/27/2012 (Becknal, R). (Entered: 12/26/2012)
12/26/2012	21	NOTICE corrected subpoena on Lawrence Romo, director of Selective Service by All Plaintiffs re 13 Minute Order. (Taitz, Orly) Modified on 12/27/2012 (Becknal, R). (Entered: 12/26/2012)
12/26/2012	22	NOTICE subpoena served on Postmaster General to appear on 01/03/2013 and testify in regards to forged U.S. mail stamp affixed to Obama’s alleged selective service certificate by All Plaintiffs re 13 Minute Order. (Taitz, Orly) Modified on 12/27/2012 (Becknal, R). (Entered: 12/26/2012)
12/26/2012	23	NOTICE subpoena served on Barack Obama through the US Attorney in HI and copy through the US Attorney in Washington DC by All Plaintiffs re 13 Minute Order. (Taitz, Orly) Modified on 12/27/2012 (Becknal, R). (Entered: 12/26/2012)
12/26/2012	24	NOTICE subpoena on Alvin Onaka to produce original birth certificate and original microfilm of birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama by All Plaintiffs re 13 Minute Order. (Taitz, Orly) Modified on 12/27/2012 (Becknal, R). (Entered: 12/26/2012)
12/26/2012	25	OPPOSITION by Electoral College, Barack Hussein Obama, President of the Senate, U.S. Congress to 12 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. Attorney Olsen, Edward A added. (Olsen, Edward) (Entered: 12/26/2012)
12/26/2012	26	OPPOSITION by Governor of California to 12 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. Attorney Waters, George Michael added. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Waters, George) (Entered: 12/26/2012)
12/26/2012	27	EX PARTE APPLICATION by Electoral College, Barack Hussein Obama, President of the Senate, U.S. Congress for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Subpoenas. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Edward A. Olsen)(Olsen, Edward) (Entered: 12/26/2012)
12/28/2012	28	NOTICE of second and third service on Alvin Onaka, registrar of the Health Department in Hawaii, which was done by process server at the Health Department in Hawaii and at the office of Attorney General of Hawaii by All Plaintiffs re 13 Minute Order. (Taitz, Orly) Modified on 1/3/2013 (Reader, L). (Entered: 12/28/2012)
12/28/2012	29	MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy for Chief District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: The Court is in receipt of the Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Subpoenas (ECF No. 27). All counsel in this case are ordered to personally appear for the January 3, 2013 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Hearing at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 7. The Court will not entertain requests for telephonic appearances. The parties are further ordered to be prepared to discuss the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, as well as, any and all issue pertaining to the subpoenas. The parties are also reminded of the official court closure for the new year holiday (December 31, 2012 and January 1, 2013). (Deutsch, S) (Entered: 12/28/2012)
12/28/2012	30	REPLY by James Grinols, Keith Judd, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan, Robert Odden to RESPONSE to 12 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Reply to governor (part2), # 2 Exhibit Letter from senator Sessions, # 3 Exhibit letter from senator McCain, # 4 Exhibit letter from the CA Bar stating that the issue of Obama’s birth certificate is a matter of National security)(Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 12/28/2012)
12/28/2012	31	MOTION to STRIKE part of the opposition to TRO improperly filed by the U.S. attorney on behalf of a private party-Candidate for office Barack Obama by James Grinols, Keith Judd, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan, Robert Odden. Motion Hearing set for 1/3/2013 at 02:00 PM before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 12/28/2012)
12/30/2012	32	NOTICE Fifth service of summons on Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 12/30/2012)
12/30/2012	33	NOTICE Fifth proof of service on the U.S. Congress through the Secretary of the Senate by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 12/30/2012)
12/30/2012	34	NOTICE Fifth service of summons, complaint, TRO order and motion and notice of subpoenas on the U.S. Congress through the clerk of the House by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 12/30/2012)
12/30/2012	35	NOTICE of the Sifth service on the US Congress through the Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 12/30/2012)
12/30/2012	36	NOTICE Sixth service on the U.S. congress through the Speaker of the House John Boehner by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 12/30/2012)
12/30/2012	37	NOTICE sixth service on Congressman Mike Rogers by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 12/30/2012)
12/30/2012	38	NOTICE of service on chair of house Committee on Homeland Security Peter King by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 12/30/2012)
12/30/2012	39	NOTICE of service on member of the Judiciary Committee and subcommittee on constitution Congressman Steve King by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 12/30/2012)
12/30/2012	40	NOTICE Sixth Service on Senator McCain by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 12/30/2012)
12/30/2012	41	NOTICE of service on Senator Joe Lieberman by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 12/30/2012)
12/30/2012	42	NOTICE of service on chair of the House Subcommittee on social Security Congressman Sam Johnson by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 12/30/2012)
12/30/2012	43	NOTICE of service on member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and Subcommittee on investigations Michelle Bachmann by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 12/30/2012)
01/01/2013	44	NOTICE OF FILING DOCUMENT IN PAPER by All Plaintiffs: Video DVD Exhibit to Reply to Opposition to TRO. (Taitz, Orly) [Rec'd 1/2/2013; routed one copy to MCE Chambers, routed one copy to file room] Modified on 1/2/2013 (Michel, G). (Entered: 01/01/2013)
01/01/2013	45	NOTICE Amended subpoenas and notice to the U.S. Attorney by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 01/01/2013)
01/02/2013	46	REPLY to OPPOSITION to Temporary Restraining Order re 13 Minute Order. (Taitz, Orly) Modified on 1/7/2013 (Mena-Sanchez, L). (Entered: 01/02/2013)
01/02/2013	47	ORDER regarding oral arguments at the January 3, 2013 Motion Hearing. Signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 1/2/2013. (Deutsch, S) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
01/03/2013	48	MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.: After hearing argument from counsel the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 12 . A formal, written order will be issued shortly and will be the controlling ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion. Plaintiffs’ Counsel present: Orly Taitz. Defendants’ Counsel present: Edward Olsen and George Waters. Court Reporter: Kelly O’Halloran. Interpreter none present. (Deutsch, S) (Entered: 01/03/2013)
01/04/2013	49	NOTICE of Additional proof of service by All Plaintiffs re 13 Minute Order. (Taitz, Orly) Modified on 1/9/2013 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 01/04/2013)
01/10/2013	50	NOTICE of additional proof of service by personal service of defendants by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
01/16/2013	51	MOTION for RECONSIDERATION of 52 Order denying Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by James Grinols, Keith Judd, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan, Robert Odden. Motion Hearing SET for 1/17/2013 at 02:00 PM before Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1-4) (Taitz, Orly) Modified on 1/17/2013 (Michel, G). (Entered: 01/16/2013)
01/16/2013	52	ORDER denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 12 . Signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 1/16/2013. (Deutsch, S) (Entered: 01/16/2013)
01/16/2013	53	MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy for Chief District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: Plaintiffs attempted to file a Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 51) on January 16, 2013 and set a hearing on their Motion for January 17, 2013. However, Plaintiffs failed to properly file their Motion in accordance with Local Rule 230(b) and Local Rule 230 (j). As such, Plaintiffs’ Motion is defective and will not be set for a hearing. For future motions, Plaintiffs must comply with Local Rule 230.(Deutsch, S) (Entered: 01/16/2013)
01/17/2013	54	TRANSCRIPT of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order held on 1/3/13, before Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr, filed by Court Reporter Kelly OHalloran, Phone number 916-448-2712 E-mail kohalloran@comcast.net. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it also may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction must be filed within 5 court days. Redaction Request due 2/7/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/19/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/18/2013. (O’Halloran, K) (Entered: 01/17/2013)
01/18/2013	55	ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 1/17/2013 ORDERING that Defendant’s 27 Ex Parte Motion to Extend the Time for Responding to Plaintiffs’ Subpoenas is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to modify their subpoenas in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, allowing Defendants a reasonable amount of time to comply. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
01/19/2013	56	MOTION for RECONSIDERATION by plaintiffs of 52 Order denying TRO. Motion Hearing set for 2/21/2013 at 02:00 PM before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Taitz, Orly) Modified on 1/22/2013 (Donati, J). (Entered: 01/19/2013)
01/27/2013	57	NOTICE of a new subpoena with an additional time to comply issued and being served on defendant Barack Obama per 01.17.2013 order of Honorable Judge England by All Plaintiffs re 55 Order,. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 01/27/2013)
01/28/2013	58	MOTION to DISMISS by Governor of California, Secretary of State of California. Attorney Waters, George Michael added. Motion Hearing set for 3/7/2013 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. (Waters, George) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
01/28/2013	59	DECLARATION of John Kim in SUPPORT OF 58 MOTION to DISMISS. (Waters, George) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
01/28/2013	60	REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE by Governor of California, Secretary of State of California in re 58 Motion to Dismiss. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2Exhibit B thru D)(Waters, George) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
01/29/2013	61	NOTICE of subpoena to produce documents and records on a defendant, member of Congress Senator Barbara Mikulski by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
01/29/2013	62	NOTICE of Proof of service of a renewed subpoena on Defendant Barack Obama by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
01/29/2013	63	NOTICE Proof of service on Senator Mikulski through the U.S. Attorney’s office by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
01/30/2013	64	NOTICE Notice of DEFAULT of DEFENDANT Obama, request for an expedited DEFAULT Judgment and post judgment discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) [CONSTRUED as a MOTION for DEFAULT JUDGMENT ] Modified on 2/28/2013 (Donati, J). (Entered: 01/30/2013)
02/01/2013	65	NOTICE of clarification given to the Counsel for Defendants, U.S. Attorney Olsen that Defendant Obama is indeed sued as an individual, as a candidate for office, who committed fraud as a candidate, not as a Federal employee by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) Modified on 2/4/2013 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 02/01/2013)
02/01/2013	66	NOTICE of Amended Subpoena on Defendant member of Congress Senator Barbara Mikulski by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 02/01/2013)
02/07/2013	67	OPPOSITION by Electoral College, Barack Hussein Obama, President of the Senate, U.S. Congress to 56 MOTION for RECONSIDERATION re 52 Order. (Olsen, Edward) (Entered: 02/07/2013)
02/07/2013	68	OPPOSITION by Governor of California, Secretary of State of California to 56 MOTION for RECONSIDERATION re 52 Order. (Waters, George) (Entered: 02/07/2013)
02/11/2013	69	AMENDED COMPLAINT by James Grinols, Keith Judd, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan, Robert Odden. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2 to the Amended Complaint, # 2 Certificate of Service, # 3 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Jeffrey Stephan Coffman, # 4 Exhibit Affidavit of Albert Hendershot)(Taitz, Orly) Modified on 2/12/2013 (Meuleman, A). Modified on 2/12/2013 (Donati, J). (Entered: 02/11/2013)
02/12/2013	70	MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy for Chief District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: On the Court’s own motion and pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 56), scheduled for hearing on 2/21/2013, is submitted without oral argument. The hearing date of 2/21/2013 is vacated. If the Court determines that oral argument is needed, it will be scheduled at a later date.(Deutsch, S) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
02/15/2013	71	MOTION to DISMISS by Electoral College, Barack Hussein Obama, President of the Senate, U.S. Congress. Motion Hearing set for 3/21/2013 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities)(Olsen, Edward) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
02/21/2013	72	NOTICE of Withdrawal by Governor of California, Secretary of State of California re 58 MOTION to DISMISS. (Waters, George) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
02/26/2013	83	NOTICE to Court re: First Amendment Petition for redress from Keith Judd. (Mena-Sanchez, L) (Entered: 03/07/2013)
02/28/2013	73	MOTION to DISMISS by Governor of California, Secretary of State of California. Motion Hearing SET for 3/21/2013 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. (Waters, George) Modified on 3/1/2013 (Michel, G). (Entered: 02/28/2013)
02/28/2013	74	DECLARATION of John Kim in support of 73 Motion to Dismiss. (Waters, George) Modified on 3/1/2013 (Michel, G). (Entered: 02/28/2013)
02/28/2013	75	REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE re 73 Motion to Dismissb y Governor of California, Secretary of State of California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2Exhibit B to E, # 3 Declaration of Service) (Waters, George) Modified on 3/1/2013 (Michel, G). (Entered: 02/28/2013)
02/28/2013	76	MOTION to STAY all proceedings by James Grinols, Keith Judd, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan, Robert Odden. Motion Hearing SET for 3/21/2013 at 02:00 PM before Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. (Taitz, Orly) Modified on 3/1/2013 (Michel, G). (Entered: 02/28/2013)
02/28/2013	77	NOTICE to RESCHEDULE MOTION HEARING as to 73 Motion to Dismiss. Motion Hearing RESET for 4/18/2013 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service) (Waters, George) Modified on 3/1/2013 (Michel, G). (Entered: 02/28/2013)
03/01/2013	78	AMENDED Notice to Reschedule Motion to Dismiss 77 by Governor of California, Secretary of State of California. (Waters, George) Modified on 3/5/2013 (Mena-Sanchez, L). (Entered: 03/01/2013)
03/01/2013	79	ORDER denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 56). Signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 3/1/2013. (Deutsch, S). Modified on 3/1/2013 – Order attached. (Deutsch, S). (Entered: 03/01/2013)
03/04/2013	81	NOTICE of CM/ECF Technical Failure on 3/1/2013 by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.. [RECEIVED in paper on 3/4/2013] (Donati, J) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
03/04/2013	82	OPPOSITION by plaintiffs to 73 MOTION to DISMISS. [RECEIVED in paper on 3/4/2013 pursuant to 81 Notice of CM/ECF Technical Failure] (Donati, J) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
03/08/2013	84	MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy A. Shaddox-Waldrop for Chief District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr. on 03/08/2013: On the Court’s own motion, 76 Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay and 71 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss currently set for hearing on 03/21/2013 are RESET for 4/18/2013 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. The Motions 71 and 76 will now be heard on 04/18/2013 with 73 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (Shaddox-Waldrop, A) (Entered: 03/08/2013)
03/08/2013	85	NOTICE of Subpoena on Chair of the Judiciary Committee Congressman Bob Goodlatte and immediate past Chair Congressman Lamar Smith and proof of service by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 03/08/2013)
03/09/2013	86	NOTICE of Subpoenas and proof of service on member of the Judiciary Committee and Chair of the Oversight Committee Darrell Issa and Member of the Judiciary Committee Jim Jordan by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 03/09/2013)
03/09/2013	87	NOTICE of subpoenas and proof of service on members of the Judiciary Committee Ron DeSantis, Keith Rothfus by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 03/09/2013)
03/09/2013	88	NOTICE of subpoenas and proof of service on members of the Judiciary Committee George Holding and Doug Collins by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 03/09/2013)
03/09/2013	89	NOTICE of subpoenas and proof of service on members of the Judiciary Committee Raul Labrador and Judge Ted Poe by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 03/09/2013)
03/09/2013	90	NOTICE of subpoenas and proof of service on Trey Gowdy and Michelle Bachmann by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 03/09/2013)
03/10/2013	91	NOTICE of subpoena and proof of service on Congressmen John Campbell and Joe Heck by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 03/10/2013)
03/11/2013	92	ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 3/11/13 DENYING 64 Motion for Default Judgment and 76 Motion to Stay. (Manzer, C) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
03/12/2013	93	MOTION for RECONSIDERATION re 92 Order on Motion for Default Judgment, Order on Motion to Stay by James Grinols, Keith Judd, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan, Robert Odden. Motion Hearing set for 3/21/2013 at 02:00 PM before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4 p 1-20, # 5 Exhibit 4 p 21-40, # 6 Exhibit 4 p 41-60, # 7 Proof of Service)(Taitz, Orly) Modified on 3/13/2013 (Donati, J). (Entered: 03/12/2013)
03/13/2013	94	MOTION (ex parte application) to correct Amended complaint by James Grinols, Keith Judd, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan, Robert Odden. Motion Hearing set for 3/21/2013 at 02:00 PM before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed order)(Taitz, Orly) Modified on 3/14/2013 (Donati, J). (Entered: 03/13/2013)
03/14/2013	95	REPLY by Electoral College, Barack Hussein Obama, President of the Senate, U.S. Congress re 82 Opposition to Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Olsen, Edward) (Entered: 03/14/2013)
03/15/2013	96	MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy for Chief District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: The Court reviewed Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 69.) The Amended Complaint is 20 pages. There are no repeat pages as Plaintiffs allege in their ex parte application to amend their Complaint. (ECF No. 94.) When Plaintiffs initially filed their case, they received an Order Requesting Joint Status Report. (ECF No. 6.) Paragraph 6 of the Order Requesting Joint Status Report limits any briefs or papers to 20 pages. Any party wishing to file lengthier document must first seek relief from said page limitation requirement from the Court. In this case, Plaintiffs filed a 20 page Amended Complaint. As Plaintiffs have already reached the page limitation, the Court does not give leave to amend. Plaintiffs’ ex parte request (ECF No. 94) is denied.(Deutsch, S) (Entered: 03/15/2013)
03/18/2013	97	EX PARTE MOTION for RECONSIDERATION by James Grinols, Keith Judd, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan, Robert Odden. (Attachments: # 1Proposed Order)(Taitz, Orly) Modified on 3/22/2013 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 03/18/2013)
03/19/2013	98	ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 3/14/13: The Court directs Plaintiffs’ counsel to both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Eastern District of California’s Local Rules. Chambers staff will disregard all communication that does not comply with both sets of rules. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 03/19/2013)
03/21/2013	99	MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy for Chief District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: On the Court’s own motion and pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration 93 , scheduled for hearing on 3/21/2013, is submitted without oral argument. The hearing date of 3/21/2013 is vacated. If the Court determines that oral argument is needed, it will be scheduled at a later date. (Deutsch, S)(Deutsch, S) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
03/21/2013	100	[DISREGARD ENTRY - DOCKETED IN ERROR] MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy for Chief District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: The Court received the Ex Parte Motion to Remand 11 . The parties are directed to file a proposed order for consideration of this filing. Pursuant to Local Rule 137(b), regarding the requirements for proper filing of a proposed order, you are required to email the proposed order (in WordPerfect or Microsoft Word) to chambers in addition to filing the pdf version via the CM/ECF system. Pursuant to Local Rule 101, the definition for “signature”, you may enter /s/ for signatures for all counsel. Please submit your proposed order today, in word processing format to: mceorders@caed.uscourts.gov. (Deutsch, S)(Deutsch, S) Modified on 3/21/2013 (Deutsch, S). (Entered: 03/21/2013)
03/21/2013	101	CLERK’S NOTICE of DOCKET CORRECTION: The 3/21/2013 Minute Order (docket entry #100) was filed in ERROR and is HEREBY VACATED. Please DISREGARD docket entry 100. (TEXT ONLY ENTRY) (Donati, J) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
03/21/2013	102	MOTION to recuse counsel for Defendants and MOTION to expedite under the local rule 144 (FRCP 6) by James Grinols, Keith Judd, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan, Robert Odden. Motion Hearing set for 4/18/2013 at 02:00 PM before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proof of Service, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibt 4)(Taitz, Orly) Modified on 3/22/2013 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 03/21/2013)
03/26/2013	103	ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 3/26/2013 DENYING 93 Motion for Reconsideration. (Donati, J) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
04/01/2013	104	NOTICE of APPEAL by James Grinols, Keith Judd, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan, Robert Odden re: 92 Order DENYING Motion for Default Judgment. (Taitz, Orly) Modified on 4/2/2013 (Donati, J). (Entered: 04/01/2013)
04/01/2013	105	ORDER of USCA #13-70744, Petitioners have not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. Accordingly, the petition is denied. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case.(Reader, L) Modified on 4/2/2013 (Reader, L). (Entered: 04/02/2013)
04/02/2013	106	NOTICE of issuance of subpoena for Congressman Goodlatte, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee to appear at 04/18/2013 hearing by James Grinols, Keith Judd, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan, Robert Odden re 84 Minute Order. (Taitz, Orly) Modified on 4/2/2013 (Donati, J). (Entered: 04/02/2013)
04/02/2013	107	APPEAL PROCESSED to Ninth Circuit re 104 Notice of Appeal filed by Keith Judd, Robert Odden, James Grinols, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan. Filed dates for Notice of Appeal 4/1/2013, Complaint 12/13/2013 and Appealed Order / Judgment 3/11/2013. Court Reporter: n/a. Fee Status: Not Paid – Billed James Grinols, Robert Odden, Edward Noonan, Keith Judd, Thomas Gregory MacLeran (Attachments: # 1 Appeal Information, # 2 Bill for Appeal Fee, # 3 Certificate of Record) (Donati, J) (Entered: 04/02/2013)
04/02/2013	108	NOTICE of subpoena for Congressman Darryl Issa to appear at 04/18/2013 hearing by James Grinols, Keith Judd, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan, and Robert Odden. (Taitz, Orly) Modified on 4/3/2013 (Shaddox-Waldrop, A). (Entered: 04/02/2013)
04/03/2013	111	USCA APPEAL FEES received in the amount of $ 455 (Receipt # CAE200051591) from Orly Taitz on 4/3/13 in USCA Case Number Unknown re 104 Notice of Appeal filed by Keith Judd, Robert Odden, James Grinols, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 04/03/2013)
04/03/2013	112	OPPOSITION by Defendants Electoral College, Barack Hussein Obama, President of the Senate, U.S. Congress to 104 Notice of Appeal. (Olsen, Edward) (Entered: 04/03/2013)
04/03/2013	113	NOTICE of subpoena to U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner and Assistant Attorney Ed Olsen to appear at April 18th hearing. (Taitz, Orly) Modified on 4/4/2013 (Shaddox-Waldrop, A). (Entered: 04/03/2013)
04/03/2013	114	JOINDER by Defendants Governor of California, Secretary of State of California to 112 Opposition of 104 Notice of Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of service)(Waters, George) Modified on 4/4/2013 (Shaddox-Waldrop, A). (Entered: 04/03/2013)
04/03/2013	115	OPPOSITION by James Grinols, Keith Judd, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan, Robert Odden to 73 MOTION to DISMISS. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 04/03/2013)
04/04/2013	116	OPPOSITION by Electoral College, Barack Hussein Obama, President of the Senate, U.S. Congress to 102 MOTION to recuse counsel for Defendants. (Olsen, Edward) (Entered: 04/04/2013)
04/04/2013	117	ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 4/4/2013 VACATING the 4/18/2013 hearing on Defendants’ 71 and 72 Motions to Dismiss and CONTINUING the hearings to for 4/22/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr. The 4/18/2013 hearing on the102 Motion to Recuse is VACATED and will be reset if necessary. (Deutsch, S) Modified on 4/5/2013 (Donati, J). (Entered: 04/04/2013)
04/04/2013	118	ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 4/4/2013 DENYING 97 Motion for Reconsideration. (Deutsch, S) Modified on 4/5/2013 (Donati, J). (Entered: 04/04/2013)
04/15/2013	119	MEMORANDUM by Governor of California, Secretary of State of California in SUPPORT of 73 MOTION to DISMISS. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Of Service)(Waters, George) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
04/15/2013	120	EX PARTE APPLICATION to Strike Motion to Dismiss by James Grinols, Keith Judd, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan, Robert Odden . (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 Newspaper Article showing Kamala harris being a fundraiser for Obama and Obama being a fundraiser for Kamala Harris, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Letter from the General Counsel of the House of representatives stating that the GC is representing the members of Congress, #4 Exhibit Exhibit 3 Statement from Presiidential elector Don Ascoli)(Taitz, Orly) Modified on 4/16/2013 (Shaddox-Waldrop, A). (Entered: 04/15/2013)
04/16/2013	121	USCA CASE NUMBER 13-15627 for 104 Notice of Appeal filed by Keith Judd, Robert Odden, James Grinols, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
04/16/2013	122	PROPOSED ORDER re Ex-Parte Application re 120 Ex Parte Application,, by James Grinols, Keith Judd, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan, Robert Odden. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
04/18/2013	123	NOTICE of Affidavit and letters from 18 high ranking members of the U.S. military to Judge England by James Grinols, Keith Judd, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan, Robert Odden. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 04/18/2013)
04/19/2013	124	NOTICE by All Plaintiffs. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 04/19/2013)
04/22/2013	125	MINUTES for proceedings held before Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.: MOTION HEARING held on 4/22/2013. After argument from counsel, the court granted the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 71 and 73) without leave to amend for the Plaintiffs. A written, formal order is forthcoming. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Recuse (ECF No. 102) is denied as moot. The clerk’s office was directed to close this case forthwith. (Deutsch, S) (Entered: 04/22/2013)

Filed under: CA - Grinols v Electoral College, California, State Election Challenges

CA – Grinols v Electoral College – 9th Circuit – Lacking jurisdiction

NBC — Wed, 15 May 2013 18:53:15 +0000

Poor Orly, she cannot even pursue the court’s rejection of her motion for default. Saves the 9th Circuit some time as it has really no choice but to follow the lower court’s well reasoned opinion.

Case Name: James Grinols, et al v. Electoral College, et al
Case Number: 13-15627

Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: SLJ): A review of the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over the appeal because an order denying a motion for default judgment is not a final appealable order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Bird v. Reese, 875 F.2d 256 (9th Cir. 1989) (order). Moreover, a review of the district court docket shows that a final order granting appellees’ motions to dismiss has not yet been filed. Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellants shall move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellants elect to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of the memorandum. If appellants do not comply with this order, the Clerk shall dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court. [8629706] (WL)

Filed under: CA - Grinols v Electoral College, California, State Election Challenges

AL – McInnish v Chapman – Affidavit Zullo

NBC — Wed, 15 May 2013 04:24:44 +0000

As I had predicted, the affidavit was not signed by Sheriff Arpaia but rather by the volunteer Mariscopa County Cold Case Posse which has no investigative powers. In fact, as such it does not differ much from a knitting club.

So far the affidavit appears to raise no relevant issues, and will be rejected per the rules of the Supreme Court of Alabama.

View this document on Scribd

Filed under: AL - McInnish v Chapman, Alabama, State Election Challenges

AL – McInnish v Chapman – SC AL – Appellants’ reply brief

NBC — Wed, 15 May 2013 02:05:50 +0000

SCOAL 2013-05-14 – McInnish|Goode v Chapman - Appellants’ Reply Brief

Please tell me that this is not how Klayman’s briefs read like… Have we been punked. This reads more like something a 15 year old would write, full of circular logic.

Wow… I thought that the Alabama case was going to settle it once and for all. Of course, the issue raised was quite limited and the Court rules do not allow for new information to be introduced, which would exclude any affidavit by the Cold Case Posse knitting club.

Sigh… I was hoping for some real fireworks in Alabama… But it’s all a dud…

View this document on Scribd

Filed under: AL - McInnish v Chapman, Alabama, State Election Challenges

CA – Taitz v Obama – Sup. Ct – Docket

NBC — Mon, 13 May 2013 00:57:56 +0000

Case Summary:

Case Id:	30-2012-00582135-CU-PT-CJC
Case Title:	TAITZ VS OBAMA
Case Type:	PETITIONS – OTHER
Filing Date:	07/09/2012
Category:	CIVIL – UNLIMITED

ROA	Docket	Filing Date	Document
2	CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET FILED BY TAITZ, ORLY ON 07/09/2012	07/09/2012	1 pages
3	CASE ASSIGNED TO JUDICIAL OFFICER UNASSIGNED ON 07/09/2012.	07/09/2012	1 pages
4	PAYMENT RECEIVED BY FOR 194 – COMPLAINT OR OTHER 1ST PAPER IN THE AMOUNT OF 435.00, TRANSACTION NUMBER 11180010 AND RECEIPT NUMBER 11003902.	07/09/2012	1 pages
5	PETITION – NEW CASE INITIATION FILED BY TAITZ, ORLY ON 07/09/2012	07/09/2012	74 pages
6	EX PARTE APPLICATION – OTHER FILED BY TAITZ, ORLY ON 07/10/2012	07/10/2012	110 pages
7	SUMMONS ISSUED AND FILED FILED BY TAITZ, ORLY ON 07/10/2012	07/10/2012	1 pages
8	PAYMENT RECEIVED BY FOR 36 – MOTION OR OTHER (NOT 1ST) PAPER REQUIRING A HEARING IN THE AMOUNT OF 60.00, TRANSACTION NUMBER 11180692 AND RECEIPT NUMBER 11004584.	07/10/2012	1 pages
9	EX PARTE SCHEDULED FOR 07/11/2012 AT 09:00:00 AM IN C17 AT CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER.	07/10/2012	NV
10	EX PARTE SCHEDULED FOR 07/12/2012 AT 09:00:00 AM IN C17 AT CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER.	07/10/2012	NV
11	PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS FILED BY TAITZ, ORLY ON 07/11/2012	07/11/2012	3 pages
12	PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS FILED BY TAITZ, ORLY ON 07/11/2012	07/11/2012	3 pages
13	PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS FILED BY TAITZ, ORLY ON 07/11/2012	07/11/2012	3 pages
14	PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS FILED BY TAITZ, ORLY ON 07/11/2012	07/11/2012	3 pages
15	PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS FILED BY TAITZ, ORLY ON 07/11/2012	07/11/2012	3 pages
16	NOTICE – OTHER (CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF EX PARTE) FILED BY TAITZ, ORLY ON 07/11/2012	07/11/2012	NV
17	EX PARTE SCHEDULED FOR 07/13/2012 AT 02:30:00 PM IN C17 AT CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER.	07/12/2012	NV
18	EX PARTE CONTINUED TO 07/13/2012 AT 02:30 PM IN THIS DEPARTMENT.	07/12/2012	NV
19	MINUTES FINALIZED FOR EX PARTE 07/12/2012 09:00:00 AM.	07/13/2012	1 pages
20	MINUTES FINALIZED FOR EX PARTE 07/13/2012 02:30:00 PM.	07/16/2012	1 pages
21	DECLARATION OF NOTICE OF PARTIES REGARDING EX PARTE HEARING ON JULY 13, 2012	07/13/2012	12 pages
22	REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT SUBMITTED BY TAITZ, ORLY REJECTED ON 08/24/2012.	08/24/2012	1 pages
23	NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT FILED BY TAITZ, ORLY ON 08/28/2012	08/28/2012	7 pages
24	STATUS CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 10/22/2012 AT 08:30:00 AM IN C17 AT CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER.	09/21/2012	2 pages
25	PAYMENT RECEIVED BY FOR 37 – REQUESTS NOT REQUIRING A HEARING: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING OR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; STIPULATION AND ORDER; SERVICE BY POSTING OR PUBLICATION IN THE AMOUNT OF 20.00, TRANSACTION NUMBER 11247422 AND RECEIPT NUMBER 11071314.	10/19/2012	1 pages
26	REQUEST – OTHER (TO RESCHEDULE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE) FILED BY TAITZ, ORLY ON 10/19/2012	10/19/2012	3 pages
27	STATUS CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 10/29/2012 AT 09:00:00 AM IN C19 AT CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER.	10/22/2012	NV
28	STATUS CONFERENCE CONTINUED TO 10/29/2012 AT 09:00 AM IN THIS DEPARTMENT.	10/22/2012	NV
29	MINUTES FINALIZED FOR STATUS CONFERENCE 10/22/2012 08:30:00 AM.	10/22/2012	1 pages
30	CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL OC GENERATED	10/22/2012	1 pages
31	EX PARTE APPLICATION – OTHER (FOR DEFAULT) FILED BY TAITZ, ORLY ON 10/25/2012	10/25/2012	2 pages
32	EX PARTE SCHEDULED FOR 10/25/2012 AT 01:30:00 PM IN C19 AT CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER.	10/25/2012	NV
33	PAYMENT RECEIVED BY FOR 36 – MOTION OR OTHER (NOT 1ST) PAPER REQUIRING A HEARING IN THE AMOUNT OF 60.00, TRANSACTION NUMBER 11250975 AND RECEIPT NUMBER 11074867.	10/25/2012	1 pages
34	MINUTES FINALIZED FOR EX PARTE 10/25/2012 01:30:00 PM.	10/25/2012	1 pages
35	EX PARTE APPLICATION – OTHER (TO COMPEL PRODUCTION) FILED BY TAITZ, ORLY ON 10/29/2012	10/29/2012	123 pages
36	EX PARTE APPLICATION – OTHER (TO STAY) FILED BY TAITZ, ORLY ON 10/29/2012	10/29/2012	31 pages
37	EX PARTE SCHEDULED FOR 11/01/2012 AT 01:30:00 PM IN C19 AT CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER.	10/29/2012	NV
38	EX PARTE SCHEDULED FOR 11/01/2012 AT 01:30:00 PM IN C19 AT CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER.	10/29/2012	NV
39	PAYMENT RECEIVED BY FOR 36 – MOTION OR OTHER (NOT 1ST) PAPER REQUIRING A HEARING, 36 – MOTION OR OTHER (NOT 1ST) PAPER REQUIRING A HEARING IN THE AMOUNT OF 120.00, TRANSACTION NUMBER 11252619 AND RECEIPT NUMBER 11076511.	10/29/2012	1 pages
40	PAYMENT RECEIVED BY FOR 44 – COPY OF ANY RECORD (PER SIDE) IN THE AMOUNT OF 11.00, TRANSACTION NUMBER 11252630 AND RECEIPT NUMBER 11076522.	10/29/2012	1 pages
41	STATUS CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 11/01/2012 AT 01:30:00 PM IN C19 AT CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER.	10/29/2012	NV
42	STATUS CONFERENCE CONTINUED TO 11/01/2012 AT 01:30 PM IN THIS DEPARTMENT.	10/29/2012	NV
43	MINUTES FINALIZED FOR STATUS CONFERENCE 10/29/2012 09:00:00 AM.	10/29/2012	1 pages
44	PROOF OF SERVICE FILED BY TAITZ, ORLY ON 10/29/2012	10/29/2012	10 pages
45	NOTICE OF RULING FILED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE ON 11/02/2012	11/02/2012	4 pages
46	MINUTES FINALIZED FOR MULTIPLE EVENTS 11/01/2012 01:30:00 PM.	11/05/2012	2 pages
47	DECLARATION – OTHER (DECLARATION OF D. JAY RITT IN OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION OF PLAINTIFF ORLY TAITZ FOR MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOUCUMENTS FROM THIRD PARTY OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE; IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS) FILED BY OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE ON 11/01/2012	11/01/2012	4 pages
48	OPPOSITION (MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION OF PLAINTIFF ORLY TAITZ FOR MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM THIRD PARTY RESPONDENT OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE; IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA; AND IN SUPPORT OF) FILED BY OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE ON 11/01/2012	11/01/2012	9 pages
49	DECLARATION – OTHER (DECLARATION OF CARL A. BOTTERUD IN OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION OF PLAINTIFF ORLY TAITZ FOR MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM THIRD PARTY WITNESS OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE; IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS) FILED BY OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE ON 11/01/2012	11/01/2012	38 pages
50	MINUTES FINALIZED FOR UNDER SUBMISSION RULING 11/07/2012 09:48:00 AM.	11/07/2012	2 pages
51	CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL OC GENERATED	11/07/2012	1 pages
53	NOTICE – OTHER (NOTICE OF PROOF OF SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS EMKEN, FEINSTEIN, OBAMA FOR NOVEMBER 1, 2012 HEARING) FILED BY TAITZ, ORLY ON 11/01/2012	11/01/2012	22 pages
54	NOTICE – OTHER (NOTICE OF AN ADDITIONAL PROOF OF SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS OBAMA, EMKEN, FEINSTEIN BY PERSONAL SERVICE) FILED BY TAITZ, ORLY ON 11/01/2012	11/01/2012	10 pages
55	ORDER	11/07/2012	1 pages
56	PETITION – NEW CASE INITIATION HAS BEEN DISMISSED.	11/07/2012	NV
57	CORRESPONDENCE FILED BY TAITZ, ORLY ON 10/18/2012	10/18/2012	1 pages
58	NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED	12/03/2012	2 pages
59	PAYMENT RECEIVED BY FOR 24 – TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL IN THE AMOUNT OF 100.00, TRANSACTION NUMBER 11273646 AND RECEIPT NUMBER 11097538.	12/03/2012	1 pages
60	NOTICE – OTHER (NOTIFICATION OF FILING NOTICE OF APPEAL) FILED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE ON 12/05/2012	12/07/2012	NV
61	RECEIPT FOR RECORDS AND PAPERS	12/12/2012	1 pages
62	NOTICE – OTHER (NOTICE OF DEFAULT) FILED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE ON 12/14/2012	12/14/2012	1 pages
63	DESIGNATION OF RECORD ON APPEAL FILED BY TAITZ, ORLY ON 12/24/2012	12/24/2012	11 pages
64	NOTICE – OTHER (NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE W/CRC RULE 8.140) FILED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE ON 12/27/2012	12/27/2012	1 pages
65	NOTICE – OTHER (NOTICE OF INABILITY TO PROVIDE A REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT) FILED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE ON 12/27/2012	12/27/2012	1 pages
66	NOTICE – OTHER (NOTICE OF DEFAULT) FILED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE ON 12/27/2012	12/27/2012	1 pages
67	PAYMENT RECEIVED BY FOR REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT DEPOSIT IN THE AMOUNT OF 325.00, TRANSACTION NUMBER 11288185 AND RECEIPT NUMBER 11112077.	12/27/2012	1 pages
68	NOTICE – OTHER (NOTICE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY W/CRC RULE 8.140) FILED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE ON 01/14/2013	01/14/2013	1 pages
69	ORDER G047746: APPEAL DISMISSED	01/16/2013	2 pages
70	ORDER G047746	01/29/2013	3 pages
71	ORDER G047746: APPEAL REINSTATED	02/05/2013	2 pages
72	DESIGNATION OF RECORD ON APPEAL FILED BY TAITZ, ORLY ON 02/05/2013	02/05/2013	14 pages
73	NOTICE – OTHER (NOTICE OF MAILING REGISTER OF ACTIONS) FILED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE ON 02/05/2013	02/05/2013	1 pages
74	NOTICE – OTHER (NOTICE OF ELECTION TO PROCEED BY CRC RULE 8.124) FILED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE ON 02/05/2013	02/05/2013	1 pages
75	DISBURSEMENT ON TRUST 293381 TO DR. ORLY TAITZ ESQ ISSUED IN THE AMOUNT OF 325.00 DUE TO OTHER.	02/22/2013	NV

Participants:

Name	Type	Start Date
ELIZABETH EMKEN	DEFENDANT	07/09/2012
DAN HUGHES	DEFENDANT	07/09/2012
ORLY TAITZ	PLAINTIFF	07/09/2012
OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE	DEFENDANT	11/05/2012
RICK WILLIAMS	DEFENDANT	07/09/2012
BARACK OBAMA	DEFENDANT	07/09/2012
DIANE FEINSTEIN	DEFENDANT	07/09/2012

Hearings:

Description	Date	Time	Department	Judge

Filed under: CA - Orly v Obama

Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored

Attorney General Bates – Opinions on Natural and Foreign Born

1790 – “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”

Naturalization Act 1795 – “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject”

AL – McInnish v Goode – ADP responds…

CRS Maskell – Presidential Qualifications

AL – McInnish v Chapman – George Miller

Educating Orly – Fraudulent SSN

AL – McInnish v Chapman – SCOA – (In)admissible hearsay

the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Cold Case Posse – County Attorney Montgomery

Exploring the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Cold Case Posse

MCSO Posse does not have arrest power.

Zullo Affidavit – Not much…

AL – McInnish v Chapman – SCOA – Motion to Strike

CA – Grinols v Electoral College – 9th CCOA -13-70744 – Docket Mandamus

CA – Grinols v Electoral College – 9th CCOA (13-15627) – Docket Appeal Default

CA – Grinols v Electoral College – Docket

U.S. District Court Eastern District of California – Live System (Sacramento) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD

CA – Grinols v Electoral College – 9th Circuit – Lacking jurisdiction

AL – McInnish v Chapman – Affidavit Zullo

AL – McInnish v Chapman – SC AL – Appellants’ reply brief

CA – Taitz v Obama – Sup. Ct – Docket

U.S. District Court
Eastern District of California – Live System (Sacramento)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD