Skip to comments.Live Updates From Obama Eligibility Hearing At The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena
Posted on 05/02/2011 12:20:12 PM PDT by rxsid
click here to read article
Now that I have read rxsid’s #145 - never mind.
Wish Attorney Orly would bring up..it is a violation of the Law of Nations......
There is to much fixation on the birth certificate...everyone has their own agenda on free republic...promote their blogs..promote their children to be natural born citizens when one of the parents was not a citizen at birth. They want adopted children from foreign countries eligible.
The Law of Nations is enough...it is that simple. Ms Orly the Law of Nations is law and Congress must bow to it. It is what the Founders wanted. It is written in the Constitution.
Step away from the birth certificate forgery. The one presented is enough to show Obama is illegal.
SECURITY OF LIBERTY.
§ 104. The sixth and last of the avowed purposes of the people in the establishment of their government, and for the accomplishment of which they of course intend their government shall be responsible, is “ to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Here the last and most valued of the natural and constitutional rights of the people is placed, expressly for security and safety, directly under the care and guardianship of the government of the United States. The provision is afterwards supported and assisted by an auxiliary Article, recognizing the common-law right to personal freedom, and perpetuating the common-law remedy, by habeas corpus, against its infringement ; and by another, making a direct and absolute prohibition of any deprivation of it, otherwise than by due process of law. That, in the ‘middle of the third generation after the adoption of such a Constitution by the American people , there should have existed in their midst four millions of people, partly of their own posterity, mostly natural-born citizens of the United States, and universally resident inhabitants of the land, subject to its government and entitled to its protection
So there we have it. Natural born are those born (their Posterity) to American citizens AFTER the adoption of the US Constitution. Children born to foreigners need not apply for the presidency.
Attorney Orly Taitz Trumps DOJ’s Argument That Obama Can’t Be Dealt With After Election...
Attorney Orly Taitz trumps the Department of Justice’s argument that Obama can’t be dealt with after the election...
Just filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: Attention clerk of the court;
On May 2, 2011 undersigned conducted oral argument in the above captioned case in front of Honorable Justices Berzon, Fisher and Pregerson. Justices were trying to ascertain, what would be the correct timing in filing a legal action, questioning legitimacy of the President of the United States.
FRAP 28 (j) Citation of Supplemental Authorities
Third District Court of Appeals of CA, in Keyes et al v Bowen et al C 062321 Third District Court of Appeals of CA which was based on a prior decision in Robinson v Bowen 567 F. Supp. 2d at p1147 from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA. Both Robinson and Keyes dealt with the challenge of presidential eligibility. Robinson dealt with the challenge of the eligibility of senator McCain in light of his birth in the city of Colon, Panama and Keyes challenged eligibility of senator Obama in light of lack of long form birth certificate. Both cases were filed against the Secretary of State of CA Debra Bowen. Both the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA and the Third District court of Appeals in Ca concurred that the proper time to challenge presidential eligibility, is after the election and after the congressional confirmation.
Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial reviewif anyshould occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course. [Citation.] (Robinson v. Bowen, supra, 567 F.Supp.2d at p. 1147.) (emphasis added)
Undersigned would like to remind this court that she filed this action on the Inauguration day. Defendant, Mr. Obama, could not memorize the oath of office and Chief Justice Roberts had to come back to the White House and give Mr. Obama a make up oath. By that time Taitz already filed this legal action. As such, the timing was perfect: it was executed after the legislative process ran its course and before the defendant, Mr. Obama, was sworn in..
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
Attorney for 40 plaintiffs in case 10-55084.
Orly Taitz on Peter Tilden show next!!!
790 KABC LA, 7:30 AM Pacific Time.
Call 1-800 -222-KABC
I hope you get that to people like Orly and Trump and anyone else who may be able to do something. Obviously the Rs in DC and all “pundits” are shams and refuse to touch it. Even talk show people who are Constiutional scholars refuse to touch it.
I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn but here’s my .02. These charges should be able to be brought up at any time during the campaign, after the electoral vote, any time during the usurption, and at any point in time after that. I don’t know what the limitation periods are for fraud and treason but that’s what this is. It’s not like he suddenly became immune after the vote. He’s committing a crime every minute he squats in our House.
The tax payer paid DOJ lawyers for the defendant arguing that ineligibility is fixed by elections (only) is stunning.
What they are clearly trying to say, then, is that a simply majority of voters could vote in Arnold Schwarzenegger and there's not a darn thing anyone could do about until the next election cycle.
If we were a "pure" Democracy...that might be the case. But not in a Constitutional Republic. The others not in the majority have the Constitutional right to be protected from an ineligible candidate/candidate elect/office holder.
It's traitorous to our Republic and our Constitution otherwise.
Thanks grey_whiskers. Since his partisans run the so-called Justice Dep’t, and many a fed bench, he’s got little to worry about.
"05/06/2011 45 Received non party letter dated 04/30/2011 re: "Express mandates of the US Code require a forced conclusion in this case. PANEL .  [09-56827, 10-55084] (CW)
05/09/2011 46 Received letter dated 05/05/2011 re: non party -general comments re appeal PANEL .  [09-56827, 10-55084] (CW)
05/10/2011 47 Received letter dated 04/30/2011 re: 3rd non party form letter re: express mandates. CASEFILE .  [09-56827, 10-55084] (CW)"
What does the part mean:
“Because mandate of express federal law “absolutely require” the Plaintiffs to win their primary objective (regardless of any arguments raised) your panel’s sole remaining duties are: to rule in their favor accordingly; and to grant all relief that is necessarily essential and subsequent thereto.”
The non-party letter writer is, essentially, trying to make the “case” that the plaintiff’s case must be heard.
Thanks, it looked to my very non-lawyerly brain, that they had some kind of precedent or legally binding reason for their statement.
"On May 2, 2011 undersigned conducted oral argument in the abovecaptioned case in front of Honorable Justices Berzon, Fisher andPregerson. Please, see below additional information per FRAP 28 (j).
On May 11, 2011 Judge Joseph Wilkinson in Eastern District of Louisiana issued anorder granting leave of court to file my Reply to opposition to intervene in case10-1663 Hornbeck v Salazar. (Exhibit 1)_Reply and exhibits were filed. Decisionregarding motion to intervene was issued on May 12, 2011. (Exhibit 2) This orderand exhibits bear vital importance in the case at hand and show the following:
1. Other courts and districts refrain from deciding the issue of Barack Obamas legitimacy for US presidency, relying on the 9 th Circuit to make a determinationin this matter.
2. Exhibits provided in Hornbeck v Salazar, particularly sworn affidavit of typographic and scanning machines expert, Mr. Douglas Vogt, provideirrefutable proof that Mr. Obama indeed posted on the official site WhiteHouse.gov a forgery and not a true and correct copy of an original birthcertificate, issued in 1961.
3. This fraud and uttering of a forged birth certificate, along with invalid SocialSecurity number, by an individual occupying the position of the President andcommander in chief of the US military, is so egregious and represents such aclear danger to US National Security, that this issue needs to be decided in themost expedient matter and appeal should be granted expeditiously.
4. I believe that the forgery, submitted by Mr. Obama, possibly included a birthcertificate number, originally issued to one Virginia Sunahara, born August 4,1961 in Wahaina hospital and transferred to Kapiolani hospital, due to medicalcomplications, and deceased at Kapiolani and around August 5, 1961. In addition to vital records for Mr. Obama, previously requested in thiscomplaint, I am requesting a court order of discovery of vital records of deceased Virginia Sunahara, as well as birth certificate for Mr. Obamas half sister, Maya Soetoro, believed to be issued under statute 338-17 for a foreignborn child of a Hawaiian resident."
The Judge Wilkinson's Order in the HORNBECK v. SALAZAR case in LA that Taitz refers to in the filing at the 9th:
" ORDERED: XXX : DENIED. Local Rules 7 .2 and78.l provide that motions will be decided solely on briefs, without oral argument, unless a party requests oral argument no later than "three days after receipt of opposition memorandum to a motion," and the court permits it. No request for oral argument as required by the local rules was made in this case. Nevertheless, the proposed intervenor, Dr. Orly Twtz, proceeding pro se and having traveled to the court from California under the mistaken impression that a live hearing would be conducted, was permitted to be heard orally. Opposing counsel were notified, appeared and presented argument. Having considered the oral argument, together with the written submissions in connection with the motion, including the government's opposition, the record as a whole and the applicable law, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED for the following reasons.
Movant concedes that she does ngt seek intervention ofright, but only permissive intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). Record Doc. No. 252-2 at p. 7,.[f 25. As to permissive interventiono Rule 24(b) provides: "(1) On timel)' motion, the court malz permit anyone to intervene who: (A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or (B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact. . . . (3) In exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether the interventionwill unduly delay orprejudice the adjudication ofthe original parties' rights. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(l), (3) (emphasis added).
Intervention may be permitted only "on timely application," Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(l) (emphasis added). When determining whether a motion to intervene is timely, a court must consider: (1) how long the potential intervenor knew or reasonably should have known of her stake in the case into which she seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice, if any, the existing parties may suffer because the potential intervenor failed to intervene when she knew or reasonably should have known of her stake in that case; (3) the prejudice, if any, the potential intervenor may suffer if the court does not let her intervene; and(4) any unusual circumstances that weigh in favor of or against a finding of timeliness. In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litig., 570 F.3d 244, 247-48 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Stallworth v. Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257,263-66 (5th Cir. 1977)); Effiohn Int'l Cruise Holdings, Inc. v. A&L Sales. Inc. ,346 F .3d 552, 560-61 (5th Cir. 2003). ).
In addition, "[i]f there is no right to intervene under Rule 24(a), it is wholly discretionary with the court whether to allow intervention under Rule 24(b), and even though there is a common question of law or fact, or the requirements of Rule 24(b) are otherwise satisfied, the court may refuse to allow intervention. . . . If the would-be intervenor already is a party to other litigation in which the intervenor's rights can be fully determined, . . . this may persuade the court to deny leave to intervene." 7C Charles Alan Wright, ArthurR. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure $ 1913 at 476 and n.5 (citing Kneeland v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 806 F.2d 1285, 1289 (5th Cir. 1987)) and 487-89 (3d ed. 2007) (emphasis added).
Considering the foregoing factors in this instance, this court must exercise its considerable discretion to deny intervention. I cannot conclude that the proposed intervention shares any common issue of law or fact with the main case. While the intervenor - like the original plaintiffs - asserts the invalidity of the moratorium action taken by defendants, the legal and facfual basis of intervenor's claim - i.e., the President's place of birth or citizenship - is entirely different from the legal and factual assertions ofthe original claimants. Evaluating the timeliness factors also weighs heavily againstpermittingthis intervention. The intervenor's actual stake inthe original litigation is negligible when compared to the stake of the original plaintiffs. The prejudice to the existing parties in permitting the intervention would be extreme, given the wholly extraneous nature ofthe proposed intervenor's legal and factual assertions to the claims and defenses raised by the original parties. It appears from the proposed intervenor's submissions that her claims have already been the subject of similar efforts by her in a "pending civil suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Record Doc. No. 252-3 at p.36, u's 17 and 18, which she advised at oral argument is now pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where she recently made an appearance before that court. This is a strong indicator that any prejudice to intervenor in denying the motion to intervene in this case would be slight, since her claims have already been asserted in another lawsuit in her home venue and any decision by that court may well have res judicata or collateral estoppel effect in this court. Finally, the o'unusual circumstances" of the timing of the assertion of intervenor's claims and the President's recent public postings contesting those claims, which the proposed intervenor and her experts assert in the reply papers are forgeries, weigh against any exercise of this court's discretion to permit this intervention in a different existing case.
For all ofthe foregoing reasons, the motion is DENIED. This intervention should not be permitted. "
Denied. Well, color me surprised they’re still evading the issue. There’s that “timely” bs excuse again when every minute he occupies MY house, he’s committing a crime. Orly should have stuck with the NBC.
I think she's grasping at straws here. She's not going to get any brownie points with this.
thanks for posting update
So the Salazar case is going nowhere, but we’re still waiting for the 9th to rule? Thanks for the update in any event. Now that Trump is out (he never got the NBC issue anyway), isn’t there anyone to challenge this Fraud=in-chief?