NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS JUDGE CARTER IN BARNETT v. OBAMA!

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:39 pm

I haven't read it yet, but the opinion is here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/o ... 956827.pdf

raicha · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:41 pm

Woot! Merry Christmas!

:-bd

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23532

New Docket Entry...

Quote:

12/22/2011 57 FILED OPINION (HARRY PREGERSON, RAYMOND C. FISHER and MARSHA S. BERZON) The District Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims for lack of Article III standing. Moreover, the District Court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs’ quo warranto, FOIA, or RICO claims. Accordingly, the dismissal by the District Court is AFFIRMED. Appellants’ emergency petition for writ of mandamus, filed November 8, 2011, is DENIED. . Judge: HP Authoring, Judge: RCF , Judge: MSB . FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [8009729] [09-56827, 10-55084] (PH)

I'll link it shortly

Whatever4 · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:46 pm

It was planned to happen so the case can go to the Supreme Court. WIN!!!

Joseph Robidoux III · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:48 pm

An early Christmas present. Thanks.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:49 pm

A very vanilla decision. The Ninth Circuit departs from Carter's opinion only as to candidate or competitive standing, finds that it might otherwise exist, but that the complaint was filed too late (after President Obama was inaugurated) to make a viable claim because any standing that existed had lapsed. Thus, plaintiffs did not meet the redressability component of the standing requirement.

The second footnote also appears to assume that being born in the U.S. means one is a natural born Citizen, but it sloppily conflates being a citizen with being a natural born citizen and relies on the 14th amendment. It will stir the pot among the lunatics for a while.

The opinion also lumps Kreep and Taitz together as representing the plaintiffs and appellants. I like that.

raicha · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:50 pm

I'm disappointed that the decision does not reach the issue of "political question" but holds that the political candidates and electors had no standing because they filed after the election was over.

This leaves the door open for 2012 candidate to file challenges in California.

However, footnote 2 is a concise statement of meaning of "natural born citizen".

Birther counsel, please appeal this ASAP.

[-o<

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:58 pm

Memo to Taitz and Apuzzo: Here's what the Ninth Circuit thinks of your stoopid two-citizen parent theory, at page 6, footnote 2:

Quote:

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court held that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment conferred citizenship on anyone born in the United States, regardless of his
parents’ citizenship. 169 U.S. 649, 650 (1898).

Dismissed in a fragment of a footnote, citing the case we have always said disposed of the issue. Although, as I wrote above, it conflates "citizenship" with "natural born Citizenship."

Edit: I just noticed. President Obama's Hawai'ian birth certificate didn't seem to come up, so to the extent Taitz is relying on that in her ridiculous action and motion for reconsideration in Hawai'i, it's no longer available to her.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23532

raicha wrote:

I'm disappointed that the decision does not reach the issue of "political question" but holds that the political candidates and electors had no standing because they filed after the election was over.

This leaves the door open for 2012 candidate to file challenges in California.

However, footnote 2 is a concise statement of meaning of "natural born citizen".

Birther counsel, please appeal this ASAP.

[-o<

Indeed, please do.

While it certainly defines "natural born citizen," the nutz have always contended that "citizen" is not "natrual born citizen." They refuse to accept there are only two types, born and naturalized, regardless what the Constitution or the law states.

It would be "nice" if the courts would for the court, in a ruling, to so state. Of course they have in WKA and other cases, but a "modern" statement might eliminate all the but the Orlys and Apuzzos and Donofrios and the very hard-core wackos.

Just sayin'.

esseff44 · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:01 pm

Another one bites the dust! Isn't that the second one today?

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23532

esseff44 wrote:

Another one bites the dust! Isn't that the second one today?

Yep... birfer tears (or screeches) at the holiday season.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:03 pm

esseff44 wrote:

Another one bites the dust! Isn't that the second one today?

But it's not over yet. Taitz can now go to SCOTUS again, spend a couple thousand more dollars on printing costs, and allow us to be regaled over her incompetence.

Birtherism - the gift that keeps giving.

ZekeB · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:04 pm

esseff44 wrote:

Another one bites the dust! Isn't that the second one today?

Holiday presents for all.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23532

Orly must not have located the opinion in her yahoo yet. :lol:

Litlebritdifrnt2 · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:04 pm

Shorter Ninth Circuit to Orly "You were a day late dear, too bad, so sad"

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:06 pm

Litlebritdifrnt2 wrote:

Shorter Ninth Circuit to Orly "You were a day late dear, too bad, so sad"

Yes, but footnote 2 makes it clear this is not the Circuit in which to be filing a new challenge. That plus President Obama's birth certificate (COLB or LFBC, take your choice) essentially end the controversy as a legal matter.

bob · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:08 pm

Cites Kerchner v. Obama! Thanks, Apuzzo! :-bd

And Berg v. Obama! Thanks, Berg! :-bd

And this is a published opinion! Thanks, Taitz and Kreep! :-bd

I had predicted* HP was the authoring judge.

* In my head.

jtmunkus · **Joined:** Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm **Posts:** 3495

Birthers setting precedent all over the place!

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23532

bob wrote:

Cites Kerchner v. Obama! Thanks, Apuzzo! :-bd

And Berg v. Obama! Thanks, Berg! :-bd

And this is a published opinion! Thanks, Taitz and Kreep! :-bd

I had predicted* HP was the authoring judge.

* In my head.

Yes, the boss appreciates the birthers setting precedent all over the country.

In a lower-court dismissal in FL today, Connerat v Obama, they cited Taitz v Obama. :lol:

majorbabs · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:16 pm

bob wrote:

Cites Kerchner v. Obama! Thanks, Apuzzo! :-bd

And Berg v. Obama! Thanks, Berg! :-bd

And this is a published opinion! Thanks, Taitz and Kreep! :-bd

I had predicted* HP was the authoring judge.

* In my head.

Don't forget Taitz v Obama -- Orly's quo warranto filing in DC. That must suck to have your own case used against you in a court of law. :mrgreen:

bob · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:17 pm

Quote:

Once the 2008 election was over and the President sworn in, Keyes, Drake, and Lightfoot were no longer “candidates” for the 2008 general election.

So Keyes, etc. should have filed before the election, not after.

Because the 9th says no one has standing, it necessarily lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate the natural-born citizen issue.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:17 pm

Can someone compile every jurisdiction in which Taitz has lost a birther case? The number is mind boggling.

The Ninth Circuit case legally forecloses further actions in the nine western states.

Looks like Taitz is going to have to fly elsewhere for her future activities.

Edit: Bob, I am looking at the practical effect of footnote 2. Taitz can't ply her trade here any more. No matter how good or bad that footnote is, it will be cited as authority in any new action in any of the western states and will be deemed determinative by any court on the Vattel issue. Apuzzo can huff and puff as much as he wants, but it's gone as a practical matter. Too bad the Ninth Circuit didn't cite Ankeny.

bob · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:27 pm

I agree that your reading of the footnote is what the 9th intended, but countless electrons will be killed in explaining how the 9th was actually contrasting the difference between a citizen and a natural-born citizen. I boldly predict birthers will argue that the 9th is winking its agreement. It will not deter birthers; it may even encourage them.

And it is dicta.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23532

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Can someone compile every jurisdiction in which Taitz has lost a birther case? The number is mind boggling.

The Ninth Circuit case legally forecloses further actions in the nine western states.

Looks like Taitz is going to have to fly elsewhere for her future activities.

The Ninth Circuit
The Eleventh Circuit
Western District of TX
USDC D.C.

If you wish to count NOLA, the Fifth Circuit

I may have missed some. (?)

My circuit is still untouched AFAIK. :lol:

bob · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:28 pm

ObBirthers: IT IS A FAKE!!!

Where's the judges' signatures? Where's the clerk's official seal?

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS JUDGE CARTER IN BARNETT v. OBAMA!

Who is online