Posted on 05/12/2011 10:28:54 PM PDT by jdoug666
The high court confirmed to Gary Kreep, of the United States Justice Foundation, that the case Alan Keyes, et al. v. Obama, Bowen, Biden, Huguenin, et al. No. 10-1351, was placed on the docket on May 4.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Praying for a just outcome.
.. Ding!
I hope Eternal Vigilance can tell us more.
| No. 10-1351 | ||||
| Title: |
|
|||
| Docketed: | May 4, 2011 | |||
| Lower Ct: | Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District |
| Case Nos.: | (C062321) |
| Decision Date: | October 25, 2010 |
| Discretionary Court | |
| Decision Date: | February 2, 2011 |
| ~~~Date~~~ | ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| May 2 2011 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 3, 2011) |
| ~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | ~~Phone~~~ |
| Attorneys for Petitioner: | ||
| Gary G. Kreep | United Sates Justice Foundation | (760) 788-6624 |
| 932 D Street, Suite 2 | ||
| Ramona, CA 92065 | ||
| ggklawoffice@gmail.com | ||
| Party name: Alan Keyes, et al. | ||
Thanks for the ping!
Praying for this every night.
Orly Taitz got the forged Obama BC, Nordyke BC, and other examples entered into evidence in a federal court today. Also an affidavit by an expert signed & notarized, saying directly that the Obama BC is a FORGERY. New anomalies you haven’t seen before are pointed out. The worm is turning.
See documents at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/55240893/Hornbeck-v-Salazar-Re-Obama-s-Forged-Birth-Certificate-Attachments-1-Exhibit-5-11-2011
Read it all at
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/
Yup, and how many FReepers suggested giving up on this eligibility issue, and to hell with our Constitution.
Quiet. The spelling police are sleeping.
Who woke me up? ;)
Thanks to both of you.
The supreme Court gasbags will shrug their shoulders and do nothing.... Nothing at all.
This is the case that the Supreme Court has been waiting for with plaintiffs who are candidates with arguable standing to challenge the “natural born citizen” eligibility of Obama.
From what I understand, SCOTUS would not agree to hear the case unless at least four of the nine justices thought there was both possible standing and remedy for the candidate plaintiffs.
Standing has been denied in all previous cases and remedy (removal of Obama by the courts for ineligibility, not by impeachment reserved only to Congress) has been argued to be unavailable to the courts by the Obama DOJ in the 9th Circuit. SCOTUS may disagree with Obama’s DOJ!
Now, at last, we may get to find out what “natural born citizen” means!
Either that or we have the best Supreme Court justices that red chinese renminbi can buy!
a new penthouse condo in shanghai for every supreme court justice that votes no standing!
:-(
An embarrassment. They have nothing, and are taking it to court.
If this is all they have, their case is lost.
Never.
And we are legion.
It is a forgery. Amazing.
She is intervening in the Hornbeck suit?? I have used some of the affidavits in that suit in a claim.
I don’t know why the Supremes even bother putting it on the docket. Its an insult to the collective American intelligence. We all know they will never take this issue up. They have either been warned off or scared off.
Michelle better go ahead a take another vacation because they will be out on the street soon.
PING!
They will not do their jobs on this issue.
They will not touch a black in the oval office.
Can’t tell you much more than you can read in public sources.
This case, of course, was the original case which was filed in CA state court. That state has kicked candidates off the ballot in the past for failure to meet the constitutional qualifications, most notably Eldridge Cleaver.
I think Gary Kreep did a great job to get it to this point, which was where they always knew it would end up.
Gary is a very principled, competent and capable attorney. While I may have little or no confidence left in the courts, I do have confidence in him.
You do what you can, and leave the rest to God.
Obama admits that his daddy was not a citizen. What is he gonna say to that? He lied previously?
I hope this thing has legs.
“If this is all they have, their case is lost.”
You’ve got to be referring to the DOJ. Obama boxed himself in when he admitted publicly that the recent b/c was authentic. It proved he cannot be a natural-born citizen since his father was never an American citizen. The SCOTUS has already ruled in four cases that both parents must be citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth.
“An embarrassment. They have nothing, and are taking it to court.”
You are referring to the DOJ, of course. I’m sure you and many other guilty demoncrats are scared to death.
Link to an Obot’s “happy dance” very detailed listing of over 70 unsuccessful trial court birther cases and over 40 lost appeals cases lacking only one update: Cert for Keyes v Bowen!
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20CASE%20LIST.pdf
I note that Obama, appears to be defending himself as a private citizen candidate (Perkins Coie) not as POTUS (DOJ).
Brief of Kreep was actually OK.
The SCOTUS could certainly find ineligibility, but it cannot remove the pResident. Team Obama's theory (and it's a good one) is that "Once in, it's Congress' Ballgame." Where the SCOTUS has shirked its duty is in refusing to consider the appeal on it's merits, so that if Congress were so inclined, it could use the finding to consider impeachment. Good luck with that!
It is none of the SCOTUS' business as to how Congress chooses to use the ruling. This sort of Constitutional brinksmanship is what Team Obama has counted upon since day 1. Think throwinbg a pass against a zone defense. Team Obama is running the receiver down the seam! Once this guy was allowed to run in 2007 and 2008, the cat was out of the bag. Every Red state had a Secretary of State that could have stopped Obama. They did not.
Here' what I think is going to happen: These cases will eventually wend their way to the SCOTUS AFTER the Mombasa MF leaves office. Now, fellow seers, when the hell will that be, exactly? I am betting that the Demo Candidate for 2012 will NOT be BHO, Jr, despite his frantic campaign activity. Health reasons.
The problem for the federal bench is that the DOJ’s DeJute argument in the 9th was that the Senate, not SCOTUS would ultimately get to define the A2 eligibility language and apply it to Obama.
Aren't federal judges extremely protective of their power to interpret the constitution?
Judge Berzon, a Clinton appointee in the 9th, assertively disputed DeJute’s argument that only the Senate gets to consider eligibility via an impeachment trial. DeJute answers her questions but she doesn't seem convinced to me:
(my own transcript...)
36:00 Constitutional discussion with DEJUTE
BERZON: If we did need to get to the political question…I was a little concerned about …you try to point to textual commitments in the Constitution to other branches, but they’re a little…vague, are they not? What provisions of the Constitution do you think are committing these eligibility determinations of an officer of a candidate, of an officer, of an actual official to Congress, the Electoral College or somewhere else?
DEJUTE: Right, well it isn’t that general, your Honor. It isn’t a federal official or some other person, it’s the sitting president.
BERZON: Alright.
DEJUTE: It’s a distinction worth noting because the commitment to the House is that that body has the sole authority under the Constitution…
BERZON: …to impeach.
DEJUTE: To impeach. And the Senate has the sole authority…
37:00 BERZON: But this wouldn’t be grounds for impeachment, would it?
DEJUTE: Wouldn’t it be a high crime and misdemeanor? I don’t know…we’re in the area of there has clearly been no case law. But I do know that if the Constitution says that the only body that can remove a sitting president is the Congress in both houses, then the…
37:22 BERZON: Where does it say that?
DEJUTE: Well, I just suggested, and you did accurately say “impeachment”…the House says that the House has the sole responsibility to impeach. The Senate has the sole responsibility to convict, and in the Nixon case, the United States Supreme Court has cautioned courts to allow impeachment proceedings as a quintessential non-judiciable element and to stay away because that is what the Senate has the sole responsibility to do, and, by definition, not the courts.
See the WND story at the top of the thread...
Keyes v Bowen is now on the SCOTUS docket, unless I am missing something. Doesn't this mean that it got through conference and Cert has been granted?
No, I’m just telling you - if the papers filed by Taitz and company are all they have - this is NOT high quality evidence. They seem to think that if only they throw enough golf balls, surely one of them will stick to the wall.
Unless I’ve missed something very significant - some diamond in the dustbin - they really don’t have a case, based on the evidence presented. Now I won’t say that I carefully read every single point, but as far as I can tell from a quick reading, I personally could destroy every single one of their points in a court of law. And that’s not what I do for a living. Although maybe I should look into it.
From what I see, BEST case scenario is that they lose the case. Worst case scenario is that they’re laughed out of the court. So don’t be surprised when one of those two things happens.
And it probably won’t be (in this case, at least) because the Court was prejudiced or wanted to protect a sitting President - although it might be for a few of the liberal Justices, and a lot of people will interpret the overall result that way. But it’ll mostly be because nothing they presented constituted proof of fraud beyond a reasonable doubt.
Of course, then Taitz & company will write a book about how they got shafted by the system, hit the book circuit, Joseph Farah will play it up big, you and I will waste more of our time and attention on the matter, and Taitz, Farah, and company will all make a lot of money and go on vacation.
You heard it here first.
To my knowledge, this is simply not true, in the sense that it is completely untrue.
If you have direct quotes and names of cases, then please cite them. If you're correct, I'll change my opinion.
LOL. I see. That explains why his cases keep getting dismissed.
If a party files a petition and it complies with the Rules of the SCOTUS; it gets placed on the docket by the clerk. The sad thing is that the real person who decides whether you have even a chance to get your case heard is most likely a single recent law schol graduate who may or maybe not has even read your initial petition.
I guess you think the courts are overwhelmingly principled today.
For someone with the screenname “curiosity” it’s amazing how incurious you are about Obama’s records.
Nah. You're not that original.
You have hit the target. This is why, according to my team's theory, the SCOTUS has abdicated responsibility at precisely the wrong instant in history. After the Hanging Chad Episode, they would, understandably, I guess, rather get root canals without novocaine from Orly than simply do their job.
The SCOTUS wants nothing to do with elections. Of course, "eligibility" has little or nothing to do with actual elections beyond defining rules for certification. They are so gunshy that they are taking every opportunity to dodge a fundamental constitutional question: "WTF exactly, is a "Natural Born Citizen, and who's responsible for making sure a Presidential/ Vice Presidential candidate is one?"
The SCOTUS is not responsible for certification. However, it is responsible for interpreting Article II. That is a responsibility they have found excellent legal ways and means to absolutely avoid. The best possible interpretation to be put on this lapse is that the SCOTUS is waiting for Obama to go away.
Yeah, you're right. This is a constitutional crisis. BTW, while I do have an opinion of what a NBC is, I would absolutely change my tag line and would accept whatever definition the SCOTUS came up with, win, lose, or draw, to end this madness. (I make leetle joke, no?)
The Obama Administration is ruling in opposition to SCOTUS on several matters right now. That is a dictatorship.
Okay. You heard it here second?
To my knowledge, this is simply not true, in the sense that it is completely untrue.
What you're going to get are pointers to cases where the court has said that two citizen parents plus native birth are definitely enough to make you a natural born citizen. But they've never said that the two parents part was a requirement. There's a difference between sufficient and necessary conditions, a difference that many birthers don't seem to grasp.
That's what I'm expecting, actually.
You should read some of my recent exchange regarding US v Wong Kim Ark. If you have the stomach for it.
Well, up until this week they have “evaded” the issue, but maybe they were just waiting for the “right” case and decided Keyes v Bowen was the case.
They may have been waiting for Obama to have been politically weakened sufficiently on a bipartisan basis for a ruling against Obama to be accepted without major social unrest resulting (see 2010 election results).
They may have gotten up to speed on the Vattel and John Jay letter definitions embraced by the founders and 14A drafters and all the other research on NBC, as seen on FR, which no one had really applied to either Obama or McCain as of 2008.
SCOTUS Pingie
First, Keyes v Bowen is not a Taitz case, although she will be there with bells on her toes with an amicus brief, no doubt! There will be dozens of other amicus briefs, too, I suspect.
There has never been a hearing on the merits to establish Obama's NBC status based on evidence produced in court-ordered discovery. This new case on the SCOTUS docket may result in that first discovery order and subsequent hearing on the merits. More likely, Obama will resign before it comes to that, if actually ordered by SCOTUS.
from the SCOTUS POV, that would solve a host of their real and imagined problems. They could dodge the bullet and eat their cake, too.
(Yes thanks, I do mix an excellent metaphor.)
That's it in a nutshell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
