Noonan v Bowen – CA Scotus denies petition

Supreme Court

Case Number S221700
Date Description Notes
10/06/2014 Petition for review filed Plaintiff and Appellant: Edward Noonan
Attorney: Jeremiah Lee Morgan
10/07/2014 2nd petition for review filed Plaintiff and Appellant: Pamela Barnett
Pro Per     CRC 8.25(b)
10/29/2014 Petitions for review denied

CA – Noonan v Bowen – Barnett

Noonan et al. v. Bowen et al.

Judgement was affirmed last month and Barnett is asking for a rehearing which undoubtably will be denied.

Case Number C071764

08/27/2014 Opinion filed.     (Signed Unpublished) The judgment is affirmed. Defendants shall recover their costs on appeal. (Cal Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)
09/12/2014 Rehearing petition filed.     by appellant Pamela Barnett. (Deemed timely filed pursuant to rule 8.25.)

CA – Dummett v Bowen – Appeals Court Confirms

Bowen to recover cost… Non-published opinion here

Dummett et al. v. Bowen
Case Number C073763
Description: Affirmed in full
Date: 07/21/2014
Status: Final
The judgment is affirmed. Bowen shall recover her costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)
Publication Status: Signed Unpublished
Author:     Robie, Ronald B.
Participants: Duarte, Elena J. (Concur)
Blease, Coleman A. (Concur)
Case Citation: none 

CA – Taitz v Obama – Appeal rehearing denied, case complete

Another success… Noone even showed up as Orly failed to properly serve them. Not that it mattered, Orly, once again managed to lose a case to an empty chair.

4th Appellate District Division 3

Docket (Register of Actions)
Taitz v. Obama et al.
Case Number G047746

10/23/2013 Cause argued and submitted. Merits. Cause called. Appellant Orly Taitz argued in propria persona. No appearance by respondent. Cause submitted.

10/31/2013 Opinion filed. (Signed Unpublished) Affirmed. Ikola Fybel Thompson

11/13/2013 Returned document for non-conformance. aplt faxed a motion for reconsideration received by fax on 11/13/13, not a fax file document thus no action will be taken by this court. ( Aplt faxed over motion twice to the court both fax rejected ).

11/14/2013 Rehearing petition filed. filed by aplt Orly Taitz.

11/14/2013 Order on motion filed. Appellant’s motion for reconsideration of the order on appeal received on November 13, 2013 is DEEMED a petition for rehearing. The clerk of this court is ordered to file the petition for rehearing forthwith.

11/18/2013 Order denying rehearing petition filed. THE COURT:* The petition for rehearing is DENIED. Ikola/Fybel/ Thompson

01/02/2014 Remittitur issued.

01/02/2014 Case complete.

CA – Grinols v Obama – The follies continue

Poor Orly, when asked if she would consent to a 30 day extension for the defendants to file their response, she said that she would consent, if they would consent to forwarding her complaints to the criminal division or to a Grand Jury…

The defense filed a notice with the court that they had asked Orly and that:

I discussed this request with Orly Taitz, counsel for Plaintiffs- Appellants, who stated that she would object to the request for a 30-day extension of time unless the “evidence of criminal activity” contained in appellants’ papers were forwarded to the criminal department of the California Attorney General’s office.

That was quite funny and now the Court has granted the motion for extension.

Orly, still clueless as to what happened:

They noted that I requested to transfer the evidence to the criminal department, but there is no proof any evidence was actually transferred to the criminal division.
Given her latest misguided attempts to get FOIA responses from Hawaii, related to the unfortunate death of Dr Fuddy, I surely hope that the courts wisen up to her ‘professionalism’.
After releasing the unredacted birth certificate of Johanna, causing significant damage to the Cold Case Posse’s claims, she is now diverting attention to Fuddy. Soros will be happy 😉

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.