BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

Mr. Gneiss · **Joined:** Sat Jan 01, 2011 1:37 am **Posts:** 567

Bonefied

Reminds me of a surveyor's play on words for bona fide rights....bony fried rice.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:27 pm

Has mandemus been denined yet?

Sequoia32 · **Posted:** Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:32 pm

Piffle wrote:

Sequoia32 wrote:

MaineSkeptic wrote:

I want to know who bonefied them.

Is that a term for "boned and butterflied"?

I think he meant bonerfied which is another way of saying...

[-X

Oh, nevermind.

Our minds are certainly in different places... 'course when I posted I was dining on a beautiful piece of fish with a tarragon butter sauce...

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6634

Bonefied!

PaulG · **Posted:** Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:31 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Has mandemus been denined yet?

Isn't mandemus high where Bill and Ted went to school?

Estiveo · **Posted:** Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:58 am

PaulG wrote:

Isn't mandemus high where Bill and Ted went to school?

Indeed. Subject of a fun song by the Ataris, too. Also.

Epectitus · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:55 pm **Posts:** 2360

Estiveo wrote:

PaulG wrote:

Isn't mandemus high where Bill and Ted went to school?

Indeed. Subject of a fun song by the Ataris, too. Also.

Offtopic :

I am stunned by how much I enjoyed that song.

raicha · **Posted:** Sat Nov 05, 2011 10:29 am

Orly's petition is based on a knowing misrepresentation to the Court that the gov't "introduced" the LFBC "by reference" at the May 2nd oral argument.

She has lied to two courts about this: the 9th Circuit and the Hawaii Circuit Couirt.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23571

New Docket Entry...

Quote:

11/07/2011 52 Filed (ECF) Appellees Joseph R. Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Robert M. Gates, Barack Hussein Obama and Michelle L.R. Obama in 09-56827, 10-55084 response opposing motion (). Date of service: 11/07/2011. [7957482] [09-56827, 10-55084] (REW)

Quote:

From the foregoing, it is submitted that the principal factual basis proferred
by Appellants for issuance of the requested Writ of Mandamus herein is patently
false, and the Petition should be denied.1

Quote:

1 Similar misconduct by this very counsel in, inter alia, proferring alleged
facts which were not true, resulted in a $20,000 sanction entered against her by the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Geogia. See Rhodes v.
McDonald, 670 F.Supp. 2d 1363 (M.D. Georgia 2009).

There are attachments. I did not download them. No idea what they are yet.

Quote:

1 Open document Main Document 6
2 Open document appendix 1 35
3 Open document appendix 2 31
4 Open document appendix 3 33
5 Open document appendix 4 20
6 Open document proof of service 1

Edit: ETA: I know what they are now having skimmed the pleading. If it's felt they're needed we can get them.

AnitaMaria · **Joined:** Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm **Posts:** 2118

Ooh--they also point out that she lied to the court in HI:

Quote:

The aforesaid false statements were also proferred by counsel for Appellantin the case of Taitz v. Fuddy, et al., Civil No. 11-1-1731 (Cir. Ct. of the FirstCircuit, State of Hawaii). In a hearing held in that case on October 12, 2011, Ms.Taitz represented to the Hawaiian Court that she needed an Order from it requiringthe defendant to produce the original long-form birth certificate because counselfor President Obama had argued before this Court that the case was moot by virtueof the fact that the President had released his birth certificate. (See transcript inTaitz v. Fuddy, Appendix 2 infra at Pg. 22, ll 13-20, and Pg. 23, ll 8-17

bob · **Posted:** Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:01 pm

AnitaMaria wrote:

Ooh--they also point out that she lied to the court in HI

Fans of TFB?

The footnote referencing Judge Land is basically as close as you can get to requesting sanction without expressly requesting sanctions. The government wants the court to do the heavy lifting.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23571

bob wrote:

AnitaMaria wrote:

Ooh--they also point out that she lied to the court in HI

Fans of TFB?

The footnote referencing Judge Land is basically as close as you can get to requesting sanction without expressly requesting sanctions. The government wants the court to do the heavy lifting.

This little zinger is not bad either...

Quote:

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
Appellees, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby set forth their
Opposition to Appellants’ “Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus.” As
demonstrated infra, the Petitioners have no standing herein, this case presents nonjusticiable
political questions, the person against whom mandamus is sought is not
a party, and the grounds set forth in Appellants’ moving papers are factually false
and legally frivolous.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:12 pm

bob wrote:

AnitaMaria wrote:

Ooh--they also point out that she lied to the court in HI

Fans of TFB?

The footnote referencing Judge Land is basically as close as you can get to requesting sanction without expressly requesting sanctions. The government wants the court to do the heavy lifting.

I concur with bob, J's holding.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9385

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

bob wrote:

AnitaMaria wrote:

Ooh--they also point out that she lied to the court in HI

Fans of TFB?

The footnote referencing Judge Land is basically as close as you can get to requesting sanction without expressly requesting sanctions. The government wants the court to do the heavy lifting.

I concur with bob, J's holding.

And I assume also with the implied conclusion that the court is unlikely to do the heavy lifting and it really will take one of these government attorneys actually requesting sanctions before it will happen.

Mikedunford · **Posted:** Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:38 pm

AnitaMaria wrote:

Ooh--they also point out that she lied to the court in HI:

Quote:

The aforesaid false statements were also proferred by counsel for Appellantin the case of Taitz v. Fuddy, et al., Civil No. 11-1-1731 (Cir. Ct. of the FirstCircuit, State of Hawaii). In a hearing held in that case on October 12, 2011, Ms.Taitz represented to the Hawaiian Court that she needed an Order from it requiringthe defendant to produce the original long-form birth certificate because counselfor President Obama had argued before this Court that the case was moot by virtueof the fact that the President had released his birth certificate. (See transcript inTaitz v. Fuddy, Appendix 2 infra at Pg. 22, ll 13-20, and Pg. 23, ll 8-17

And went to the trouble of getting the transcript in order to include it in this brief. They're pissed.

Res Ipsa · **Posted:** Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:51 pm

I have a minor issue with the government requesting sanctions in a civil matter. I am willing to bet there is a strong DoJ policy against it.

Where the government is a litigant, are there additional due process considerations in connection with them seeking a punitive sanction, which are not present among private litigants?

It may be that they keep a very cool hand on that button.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9385

Res Ipsa wrote:

I have a minor issue with the government requesting sanctions in a civil matter. I am willing to bet there is a strong DoJ policy against it.

Where the government is a litigant, are there additional due process considerations in connection with them seeking a punitive sanction, which are not present among private litigants?

It may be that they keep a very cool hand on that button.

I agree with that to a limit. However, my personal limit was reached well over a year ago, as this malignant harridan has wasted taxpayer dollars on an utterly fraudulent campaign of litigation she knows is fraudulent. Now that she has gone into outright fraud on the court, knowingly presenting flat-out lies that are easily revealed by a look at the transcript, it is time for sanctions.

She has gone from crackpot assertions and suborning perjury to stealing the President's records and then having the gall to file the stolen records that prove her a criminal.

It's time to push the button. It was time a long time ago.

Piffle · **Posted:** Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:09 pm

It's a shame that DoJ didn't find a way to slip in a zigger about how she's filed essentially the same mandemus in the District of Columbia Circuit.

A little history about how Astrue moved west to the U.S. District Court in Hawaii might have made for a fun footnote as well.

OSC [-o<

Res Ipsa · **Posted:** Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:13 pm

I hear you, Loh. I'm just saying that if there is a 5th Amendment issue, which there may not be, then I can understand the approach of laying it out there and letting the judge do it if he wants.

kate520 · **Posted:** Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:28 pm

Is the 9thCircuit ever going to release their decision? It's been 6 months.

raicha · **Posted:** Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:30 pm

It's nice to see the government attorneys all fired up and calling out Orly for the lying sack that she is. Repeatedly.

Piffle · **Posted:** Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:34 pm

raicha wrote:

It's nice to see the government attorneys all fired up and calling out Orly for the lying sack that she is. Repeatedly.

Yes indeedie!

verbalobe · **Posted:** Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:35 pm

Orly doubles down on "the transcripts have been scrubbed" in 3... 2... 1...

DaveMuckey · **Posted:** Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:46 pm

West and DeJute are on the case, I see. They've been through this dance before. How soon before a resounding NUTS! is heard?

:-bd

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:54 pm

Perhaps counsel in D.C. will take a cue and point out the same frivolous "mandemus" petition filed in the 9th Circuit. And, if we're really lucky, perhaps someone, somewhere, will finally say "perhaps sanctions or vexatious litigant status" is in order. I don't think that would implicate 5th amendment issues.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

Who is online