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

bob · **Posted:** Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:40 pm

SJ Merc: Supreme Court refuses to hear 'birther' argument again

Executive summary: Denninined!

This was Kreep's clients; Taitz didn't bother to file a cert. petition.

aarrgghh · **Joined:** Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:05 pm **Posts:** 1251

freeper gulch: da fix iz in!!!

Wurlitzer wrote:

we are simply cash cows to be milked for the ruling elite’s enjoyment

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23548

Rocks really are smarter than freepers.

Mr. Gneiss · **Joined:** Sat Jan 01, 2011 1:37 am **Posts:** 566

realist wrote:

Rocks really are smarter than freepers.

Why, thank you realist! :-bd

I guess.

SueDB · **Posted:** Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:22 pm

aarrgghh wrote:

freeper gulch: da fix iz in!!!

Wurlitzer wrote:

we are simply cash cows to be milked for the ruling elite’s enjoyment by the unscrupulous likes of Corsi, Taitz, Von Aryan etc.

fify

bob · **Posted:** Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:35 pm

Sweet, sweet birther tears at ORYR:

Quote:

Ed K wrote:

treasonous rulings/decisions are to be expected as the norm. We no longer can expect the constitution to be our governing document.

Hotlanta Mike wrote:

No comment = no justice. Term limits are in order for SCOUTUS.

Quote:

The Constitution Killers...

Quote:

Why don't they consider that these individuals have 'legal standing' to file such a suit? They are U.S. Citizens, aren't they? Aren't we all equal?

SueDB · **Posted:** Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:39 pm

channeling through bob some birfer scrawled out wrote:

Why don't they consider that these individuals have 'legal standing' to file such a suit? They are U.S. Citizens, aren't they? Aren't we all equal?

No, there are 2 kinds of citizens natural/native born and naturalized. Naturalized citizens cannot serve as the US President. So...no, we are all NOT equal in the eyes of the US Constitution.

wavey davey · **Posted:** Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:11 pm

So, this case is not just merely dead, it's really most sincerely dead.

BillTheCat · **Joined:** Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:25 pm **Posts:** 1428

wavey davey wrote:

So, this case is not just merely dead, it's really most sincerely dead.

AnitaMaria · **Joined:** Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm **Posts:** 2107

Kreep sent out this fundraising email last week regarding this case. http://grassroots.activehosted.com/inde ... acce5e.116

Quote:

...
We had received NO notice from the High Court that the Conference Committee on our case would be held this week. We discovered that the case had been distributed to the Justices when we checked the Supreme Court's website. Gee Gary. The Conference date has been posted on the Supreme Court web site since at least since May 22nd, but you just figured it out last week?

This is our high profile lawsuit that has been making its way through the federal court system since 2009. It is Barack Hussein Obama's worst nightmare. Hmmm...really, because the government didn't even submit an opposition to this case.
...
I need to raise $24,300 by Thursday, in order to pay for all of our computerized legal research, the "moot court" practice sessions, the printing of our briefs, and all of the other expenses of preparing our arguments and pleadings in this landmark case. I guess Gary owes the Supreme Court a thank you for saving him that $24,300.
...
Drake v. Obama is the case that could finally hold Mr. Obama accountable. This is our chance to change history.
That is why Barack Obama and his legal team are fighting us tooth and nail. They know that, if we win this case, states will have to certify that Barack Hussein Obama is eligible to serve as our President. No fight. No teeth. No nails.

Any. Day. Now.

chinacreekpj · **Joined:** Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:09 pm **Posts:** 1334

AnitaMaria wrote:

Kreep sent out this fundraising email last week regarding this case. http://grassroots.activehosted.com/inde ... acce5e.116

Quote:

...
We had received NO notice from the High Court that the Conference Committee on our case would be held this week. We discovered that the case had been distributed to the Justices when we checked the Supreme Court's website. Gee Gary. The Conference date has been posted on the Supreme Court web site since at least since May 22nd, but you just figured it out last week?

This is our high profile lawsuit that has been making its way through the federal court system since 2009. It is Barack Hussein Obama's worst nightmare. Hmmm...really, because the government didn't even submit an opposition to this case.
...
I need to raise $24,300 by Thursday, in order to pay for all of our computerized legal research, the "moot court" practice sessions, the printing of our briefs, and all of the other expenses of preparing our arguments and pleadings in this landmark case. I guess Gary owes the Supreme Court a thank you for saving him that $24,300.
...
Drake v. Obama is the case that could finally hold Mr. Obama accountable. This is our chance to change history.
That is why Barack Obama and his legal team are fighting us tooth and nail. They know that, if we win this case, states will have to certify that Barack Hussein Obama is eligible to serve as our President. No fight. No teeth. No nails.

Any. Day. Now.

I believe Kreep is likely the most successful birther fundraiser as I'm sure Farah is charging him mucho bucks to rent the WND email sucker list. If he didn't get more out of it than he put in, he wouldn't continue doing it.

jtmunkus · **Joined:** Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm **Posts:** 3496

Am I correct in assuming that the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the Kreep's case is in itself a precedent that can be cited to in the future?

Curious Blue · **Posted:** Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:18 am

No. A denial of cert just means that the Court decided not to hear a case. It's not a ruling one way or another that can be cited.

Generally a notation (cert denied) will be added when citing to the lower level case in the future, though it isn't technically necessary.

Piffle · **Posted:** Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:46 am

Curious Blue wrote:

No. A denial of cert just means that the Court decided not to hear a case. It's not a ruling one way or another that can be cited.

Generally a notation (cert denied) will be added when citing to the lower level case in the future, though it isn't technically necessary.

^^^ This.

It is not only unnecessary, but some consider it proper to include only if the case is relatively recent (say, less than two years or so). In this context "cert denied" indicates that the lower court's decision is final and not still subject to being reversed, remanded or otherwise modified by a court of last resort.

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:54 am

wavey davey wrote:

So, this case is not just merely dead, it's really most sincerely dead.

As Orlena is part of the fun, she shirley will need to bring it to the International Bar in The Hague

neonzx · **Joined:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am **Posts:** 4216

Quote:

5 Responses to “Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Birth Certificate Case”

Veritas
June 13th, 2012 @ 9:48 am

Might it reach them again, but in a modified form, as in Indiana?

orly taitz
June 13th, 2012 @ 10:15 am

no, you can’t do that

Well geez, I did not know that a denial to petition for writ of mandamus means you can't petition the court again?

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

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

Who is online