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

User avatar
Estiveo
Posts: 6941
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Trouble's Howse

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

#7676

Post by Estiveo » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:07 am

Orly will still be gnashing her beak and attempting to file writs of mandingo to be getting all actions of userperator retrovirusly kicked-out-uhpated in 2025. (should she live that long)Sekrit Stuffs!
not a death threat...but have you checked the actuarial tables for a 50 year old ex-soviet broad with tarantula eyes and anger issues?


Image Image Image Image Image

User avatar
jtmunkus
Posts: 5642
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm
Location: Cone of Silence

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

#7677

Post by jtmunkus » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:18 am

51.



User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 8645
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a joint project of the U.S. and Canada
Contact:

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

#7678

Post by Kriselda Gray » Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:41 am

Orly's new petition contains this gem on p. 6:6. The Court erred in completely disregarding financial damages to Plaintiff Presidential candidate Keyes, who also ran against Obama for US senate in 2004. Keyes and Obama were top finishers in the senatorial election. If it is found that Obama indeed committed fraud, than Keyes has unique damages in the form of salary and lifetime benefits of a U.S. Senator. :lol: :lol:Uh.... I didn't think NBCship was required for the Senate, so none of their "he's not an NBC" arguments would apply to his Senatorial career, right? So then why the hell does Keyes think that he was somehow hurt by Obama, except in that he lost the Senate race - FAIRLY. :roll:


Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush

SCMP = SovCits/Militias/Patriots.

Thor promised to slay the Ice Giants
God promised to quell all evil
-----
I'm not seeing any Ice Giants...

User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 8645
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a joint project of the U.S. and Canada
Contact:

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

#7679

Post by Kriselda Gray » Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:15 am

Does that defy basic logic? I don’t think so. If you knew anything about Constitutional and statutory construction, you’d realize that it’s in your beloved adopted Constitution. So let’s try a simpler analogy. It’s kind of like how a football referee can’t assess a 15-yard penalty for celebrating in the end zone after the game is over. But if the celebration gets way out of hand, you can call the cops, but not the referee. OK?BEAUTIFUL analogy, Piffle!


Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush

SCMP = SovCits/Militias/Patriots.

Thor promised to slay the Ice Giants
God promised to quell all evil
-----
I'm not seeing any Ice Giants...

Myron
Posts: 675
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:44 pm

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

#7680

Post by Myron » Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:46 am

Just for the sake of argument, how is Obama ineligible to be a Senator?Orly has not seen the naturalization papers either. So Obama must be an illegal alien.That makes nr 6 even gemmier, of course. Another case, wrong jurisdiction and a completely different legal argument. But Orlylaw allows it.The Maid of Orlyans mistakenly attacking the Burgundians rather than the English. Which state will turn out to be her [link]Compiègne,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Compi%C3%A8gne[/link]? :twisted:Orly missed class the day when they talked about you cannot raise new issues in an appeal, right?



User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 8645
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a joint project of the U.S. and Canada
Contact:

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

#7681

Post by Kriselda Gray » Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:03 pm

Orly missed class the day year when they talked about you cannot raise new issues in an appeal anything related to the actual practice of law, right?FIFY


Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush

SCMP = SovCits/Militias/Patriots.

Thor promised to slay the Ice Giants
God promised to quell all evil
-----
I'm not seeing any Ice Giants...

Myron
Posts: 675
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:44 pm

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

#7682

Post by Myron » Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:05 pm

Also, too, isn't Kreep now representing Keyes?Why is she making arguments invovling a plaintiff she does not represent?



User avatar
bob
Posts: 23534
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#7683

Post by bob » Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:07 pm

Also, too, isn't Kreep now representing Keyes?Kreep represents Drake and Robinson.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

Paul Pieniezny
Posts: 1484
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:42 am

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

#7684

Post by Paul Pieniezny » Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:11 pm

Orly missed class the day when they talked about you cannot raise new issues in an appeal, right?Was there ever such a day. Maybe Taft sent her a written task per e-mail and it got stuck in her yahoo.I am not a lawyer, but even I can see that the only connection between 6) and her original case is the names of the plaintiff and the defendant. Orly has the gall to call herself a human rights defender but does not notice that what she is proposing here would constitute a serious infraction of human rights, since she is the fu..ing plaintiff in this case! "Oh wait, I cannot get you on account of A because the judge says I was not harmed on A. No problem, I will appeal and get you on account of B."The real problem is how could someone with so liitle logical sense, ever pass a Bar exam that is reputed to be so difficult?



Myron
Posts: 675
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:44 pm

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

#7685

Post by Myron » Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:50 pm

Also, too, isn't Kreep now representing Keyes?Kreep represents Drake and Robinson.I should have known that.This begs the question. Keyes is insane but is a reasonably intelligent man. Does he even know that an incompetent attorney is filing appeals for him right now? When was the last time Keyes commented on these cases?



User avatar
bob
Posts: 23534
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#7686

Post by bob » Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:01 pm

When was the last time Keyes commented on these cases?Keyes' [/break1]com/]current-but-not-totally-current site has full-steam-ahead birthing on it.





I wonder if birthers (including Keyes) have figured out that they need a birther candidate on the ballot for even a hope to litigate birther suits past the primaries?


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 23534
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#7687

Post by bob » Sat Feb 04, 2012 5:50 pm

WND: [/break1]wnd.com/2012/02/california-judges-use-1-liner-on-eligibility-case/]California judges use 1-liner on eligibility case


9th Circuit on petition for rehearing: 'Denied'





A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals responded to an appeal of a challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president with one word: “Denied.”





[...]





The court today said, “The petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en bank filed by Plaintiffs-Appellants Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson are denied.”Kreep's clients.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 11146
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Here
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

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

#7688

Post by Whatever4 » Sat Feb 04, 2012 6:01 pm

WND: [/break1]wnd.com/2012/02/california-judges-use-1-liner-on-eligibility-case/]California judges use 1-liner on eligibility case


9th Circuit on petition for rehearing: 'Denied'





A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals responded to an appeal of a challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president with one word: “Denied.”





[...]





The court today said, “The petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en bank filed by Plaintiffs-Appellants Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson are denied.”Kreep's clients. =)) =)) =)) What a week!


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (R-ME)

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 11146
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Here
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

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

#7689

Post by Whatever4 » Sat Feb 04, 2012 6:07 pm

Here's the 1-pager, ironically stamped 2/2. Groundhog's Day, again. File, appeal, denined. Repeat. [/break1]net/wp-contentsrc="uploads/2012/02/Drake-Order-02-02-2012.pdf]http://usjf.net/wp-contentsrc="http://t ... loads/2012 ... 2-2012.pdf


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (R-ME)

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34345
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#7690

Post by realist » Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:50 am

As Tes would say... for *completeness* ;)





09/10/2010 126 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 109 filed by Robert Lee Perry, Robin D Biron, John Bruce Steidel, Alan Keyes PhD, Douglas Earl Stoeppelwerth, Julliett Ireland, Charles Crusemire, Jeffrey Wayne Rosner, D Andrew Johnson, Pamela Barnett, Loretta G Bosley, David Smithey, Kurt C Fuqua, Richard Norton Bauerbach, Thomas S Davidson, Frank Niceley, Harry Riley, David L Bosley, Timothy Comerford, Clint Grimes, Timothy Jones, Cynthia Davis, Mark Wriggle, Eric Swafford, Jennifer Leah Clark, Jason Freese, Glenn Casada, David Fullmer LaRoque, Richard E Venable, Steven Kay Neuenschwander, Israel D Jones, Jeff Graham Winthrope, Gail Lightfoot, Neil B Turner, Harry G Butler, John D Blair, David Grant Mosby, Lita M Lott, Matthew Michael Edwards, Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 94 filed by Markham Robinson, Wiley S Drake, CCA # 09-56827, 10-. Appellees' motion for an extension of time to file the answering brief is granted. The answering brief is due October 13, 2010. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. Order received in this district on 9/28/2010. (lr) (Entered: 10/04/2010)





02/02/2012 [link]127,[/link] ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 94 filed by Markham Robinson, Wiley S Drake, CCA # 09-56827. The petition for rehearing en banc filed by Plaintiff's Appellants Alan Keyes et al. (Dkt. No. 61) is DENIED. Order received in this district on 2/2/12. (car) (Entered: 02/08/2012)





02/10/2012 [link]128,[/link] MANDATE of 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 94 CCA # 09-56827. The decision of the district court is affirmed. Appellants' emergency petition for writ of mandamus, filed November 8, 2011, is denied. Mandate received in this district on 2/10/2012. (dmap); Modified on 2/16/2012 (dmap). (Entered: 02/16/2012)





02/15/2012 [link]129,[/link] MANDATE of 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,, 109 , Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 94 , CCA # 09-56827, 10-55084. The Judgment of the district court is Affirmed. Mandate received in this district on 2/15/12. (car) (Entered: 02/17/2012)







ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

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

#7691

Post by AnitaMaria » Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:02 pm

Kreep has taken his case to the Supreme Court. See docket entry below:No. 11-1225 Title: Alan Keyes, et al., Petitionersv.Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.Docketed: April 12, 2012Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case Nos.: (09-56827) Decision Date: December 22, 2011 Rehearing Denied: February 2, 2012~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Apr 10 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 14, 2012)The pleading is available at [link]Kreep's website,https://usjf.net/2012/04/petition-and-e ... e-v-obama/[/link]



User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

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

#7692

Post by BillTheCat » Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:07 pm

Kreep has taken his case to the Supreme Court. See docket entry below:No. 11-1225 Title: Alan Keyes, et al., Petitionersv.Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.Docketed: April 12, 2012Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case Nos.: (09-56827) Decision Date: December 22, 2011 Rehearing Denied: February 2, 2012~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Apr 10 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 14, 2012)The pleading is available at [link]Kreep's website,https://usjf.net/2012/04/petition-and-e ... e-v-obama/[/link]hahaha gl with that! :lol: 4) BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA (hereinafter referred to as “OBAMA”),purported President of the United States, Defendant-RespondentWord has it that Kreep is a purported human being.


'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34345
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#7693

Post by realist » Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:22 pm

Perhaps it's my old age and short memory, but since when does Kreep represent Keyes? Did he steal Orly's "client"? :P


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14549
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

#7694

Post by Reality Check » Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:32 pm

Kreep states that Keyes was added to the Taitz complaint along with Drake and Robinson without their consent. I had heard that claim made about Drake and Robinson but not Keyes. Is this new information? I know later Orly tried to remove Drake and Robinson when she filed an amended complaint.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34345
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#7695

Post by realist » Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:45 pm

Kreep states that Keyes was added to the Taitz complaint along with Drake and Robinson without their consent. I had heard that claim made about Drake and Robinson but not Keyes. Is this new information? I know later Orly tried to remove Drake and Robinson when she filed an amended complaint.I never heard that brought up while the cases were in the lower courts. IIRC only Drake and Robinson were named in Kreep's appeals and Keyes remained on Orly's.Frankly, after Keyes v Bowen, I doubt Keyes even knew he was still a named party in any suit. :lol:


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 25602
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

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

#7696

Post by Foggy » Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:49 pm

Keyes is so crazy he'd never complain unless there was some risk of personal liability.


... and how does that make you feel?
What is it you are trying to say?
:think:

User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6042
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm

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

#7697

Post by June bug » Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:06 pm

Kreep states that Keyes was added to the Taitz complaint along with Drake and Robinson without their consent. I had heard that claim made about Drake and Robinson but not Keyes. Is this new information? I know later Orly tried to remove Drake and Robinson when she filed an amended complaint.AFAIK this is new information. In any case, after making that claim, Kreep never again refers to his act of just adding Keyes to the list of petitioners on this request. Zero, zip, zilch, nada. He's just there by majik, I guess!



tjh
Posts: 2920
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

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

#7698

Post by tjh » Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:28 pm

Didn't Keyes show up at one or more of the hearings ... with The Obly and not associating with Kreep?



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34345
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#7699

Post by realist » Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:34 pm

Didn't Keyes show up at one or more of the hearings ... with The Obly and not associating with Kreep?I don't remember Keyes ever being present at any of the hearings in Keyes (later, thanks to Orlylaw) Barnett v Obama.I still don't think he knew he was a party to anything after Keyes v Bowen, and I'm not sure he even knew that was appealed.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

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

#7700

Post by mimi » Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:38 pm

He has referred to Obly as his lawyer, but I don't know for how long. I forget when the big split happened.



Post Reply

Return to “Birther Case Discussion”