Birther Case Standings: (0-*201) - *207* Cases (and 6 pending)

muldrake · **Posted:** Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:36 am

I noticed this weird case on the scorecard: The Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri et al v. Obama et al, which is listed as "sealed." I went to PACER for the Western District of Missouri, and the docket doesn't indicate any motion to seal or anything otherwise indicating that these are not public documents like any others. Despite this, when I click on any of the docket entries, as you certainly noticed when you were putting the scorecard together, I get the generic message you often get in either criminal cases or other cases containing a lot of sensitive private information (Social Security disability cases spring to mind): You do not have permission to view this document.

Do we know that this is, in fact, sealed? If so, why? It appears to be nothing more or less than a typical kook suit by a bunch of nuts naming a bunch of defendants chosen at random from a pile of crazy. Could it be marked as sealed in error?

PatGund · **Posted:** Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:37 am

muldrake wrote:

Do we know that this is, in fact, sealed? If so, why? It appears to be nothing more or less than a typical kook suit by a bunch of nuts naming a bunch of defendants chosen at random from a pile of crazy. Could it be marked as sealed in error?

I put a copy of this one together from posts the plaintiff had made. Let's just say it's VERY offensive.

mimi · **Posted:** Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:44 am

They had it posted online. I mean the plaintiffs. It's sealed because it's disgusting.

muldrake · **Posted:** Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:31 am

PatGund wrote:

muldrake wrote:

Do we know that this is, in fact, sealed? If so, why? It appears to be nothing more or less than a typical kook suit by a bunch of nuts naming a bunch of defendants chosen at random from a pile of crazy. Could it be marked as sealed in error?

I put a copy of this one together from posts the plaintiff had made. Let's just say it's VERY offensive.

I found some of this stuff on looking for it. It's offensive, but it's barely more offensive than thousands of pages of insane, anti-Semitic garbage Andy Martin filed before getting permanently barred from the federal courts, and that wasn't sealed. It somewhat perturbs me that there is no order of record sealing this material. I'd kind of like to see the ruling dismissing the case, and I can hardly see how the court's own order is, itself, so offensive as to need to be sealed.

While I can sympathize on one level with the desire of the court not to be in the business of distributing vile filth, the orders and opinions of courts are presumptively public record and to seal those, as well, doesn't seem to be good policy.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:00 am

muldrake wrote:

PatGund wrote:

muldrake wrote:

Do we know that this is, in fact, sealed? If so, why? It appears to be nothing more or less than a typical kook suit by a bunch of nuts naming a bunch of defendants chosen at random from a pile of crazy. Could it be marked as sealed in error?

I put a copy of this one together from posts the plaintiff had made. Let's just say it's VERY offensive.

I found some of this stuff on looking for it. It's offensive, but it's barely more offensive than thousands of pages of insane, anti-Semitic garbage Andy Martin filed before getting permanently barred from the federal courts, and that wasn't sealed. It somewhat perturbs me that there is no order of record sealing this material. I'd kind of like to see the ruling dismissing the case, and I can hardly see how the court's own order is, itself, so offensive as to need to be sealed.

While I can sympathize on one level with the desire of the court not to be in the business of distributing vile filth, the orders and opinions of courts are presumptively public record and to seal those, as well, doesn't seem to be good policy.

I concur. I read one of the documents, apparently before it was sealed. While it was vile garbage it's not like that stuff hasn't been seen before.

Sunlight is still the best disinfectant.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23547

I searched and found "reference" to this case but no individual thread (at least that I found) regarding this case which Twinx sent me these comments from Citizen Wells. I've done no further search on it (limited time recently) but I'll post it here and you can have at it if you wish.

Again, credit to Twinx for the following:

Quote:

Link to Citizen Wells

Lt Col Donald Sullivan V NC Board of Elections, Elaine Marshall, NC Secretary of State, Update, December 7, 2009, Obama eligibility, Obama Kenyan born
December 7, 2009 · 10 Comments

Here is the latest update December 7, 2009, from Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan, plaintiff in a lawsuit against North Carolina Board of Elections, and Elaine F. Marshall, Secretary of State For North Carolina. Following the update is a copy of the lawsuit.

“Sullivan v. Secretary of State for North Carolina, 08CVS1076
RE: Obama Eligibility

12-4-09: Hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to amend, alter or vacate Judge Cobb’s order of October 10, 2008, dismissing subject lawsuit with prejudice.

Judge Cobb called the case for hearing at 11:00 AM. Present were myself and Brandon Truman, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the Defendant. I made my statement in support of my motion to delete the words “with prejudice” from the order dismissing the case. I wanted this done because my filing of the second complaint against Obama’s eligibility included as defendants both the secretary of state and the board of elections. The “with prejudice” made any future complaint against the secretary of state filed by me, including mine, moot “res judicata”.

There is a load more to read, including the citing of 'new' (or rather, old, made up) 'evidence', but I can't make head nor tail of it. :oops:

OReally Factor · **Joined:** Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:52 am **Posts:** 62

Ankeny updates posted on IN Clerk site:

11/13/09 ****RECEIVED 11/16/09: THREE (3) MANILLA ENVELOPES MARKED
CONFIDENTIAL ADDRESSED TO COURT OF APPEALS' JUDGES. ENVELOPES
CONTAIN "OBJECTION RE: ANKENY, ET AL. V. GOVERNOR OF INDIANA"
FROM PAUL ANDREW MITCHELL. DOCUMENTS FORWARDED TO COURT OF
APPEALS' ADMINISTRATION FOR REVIEW. MS 11/17/09

12/09/09 APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR REHEARING (9) CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE (9) BY MAIL DATE 12/09/09 JS 12/11/09

P.A.M. inserted himself and mailed his objection 11/13? The decision was issued on the 12th.

Looks like the circus is going to need another tent ... -xx

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23547

I have copied the above post into the Ankeny folder for discussion there.

Tes · **Posted:** Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:38 pm

Updated to add two additional cases (with thanks to LeonardApple for the extra Sullivan case, and thanx to the Appellee's Brief in Hollister for the new McCain/PA case that we didn't have.)

String cite also updated.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:44 pm

Thanks, Tes. What exactly are the new cases? Do you know who the birfer lawyers were? And is it now 62-0 or 64-0?

Tes · **Posted:** Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:08 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Thanks, Tes. What exactly are the new cases?

Neither are "new" but both are "newly discovered" --

1. The extra Sullivan case - i.e., #58 on the score card: Sullivan v. Secretary of State, No. 08CV1076. As noted in FN 1, there are references to yet another Sullivan case, No. 08CV1153 - but I can't find more about that one and am not sure whether it was its own case, or was the class action, renumbered to 08CVS-021393 (shown as #59).

2. The McCain/PA case referenced in the Hollister Appellee's Brief - i.e., #32 on the score card: In re John McCain's Ineligibility to be on Presidential Primary Ballot in Pa

(I also changed Roy v. the World to the one cited in the appellee's brief - i.e., #32 on the score card: Roy v. FEC (WD Wa), and then hung the prior footnote about how he's brought a bunch of similar suits around the country off of that case. However, that didn't change the total number of cases.)

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Do you know who the birfer lawyers were?

Like most birther cases, these two appear to have been brought pro se.

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

And is it now 62-0 or 64-0?

It's 62-0. Two cases - both FOIA claims - are still pending. Those two cases are Allen v. Soetoro (D.Az) and Strunk v. Dept. of State (D.D.C.). Links to dockets for both of these cases available on the score card.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:11 pm

Tes wrote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Thanks, Tes. What exactly are the new cases?

Neither are "new" but both are "newly discovered" --

1. The extra Sullivan case - i.e., #58 on the score card: Sullivan v. Secretary of State, No. 08CV1076. As noted in FN 1, there are references to yet another Sullivan case, No. 08CV1153 - but I can't find more about that one and am not sure whether it was its own case, or was the class action, renumbered to 08CVS-021393 (shown as #59).

2. The McCain/PA case referenced in the Hollister Appellee's Brief - i.e., #32 on the score card: In re John McCain's Ineligibility to be on Presidential Primary Ballot in Pa

(I also changed Roy v. the World to the one cited in the appellee's brief - i.e., #32 on the score card: Roy v. FEC (WD Wa), and then hung the prior footnote about how he's brought a bunch of similar suits around the country off of that case. However, that didn't change the total number of cases.)

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Do you know who the birfer lawyers were?

Like most birther cases, these two appear to have been brought pro se.

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

And is it now 62-0 or 64-0?

It's 62-0. Two cases - both FOIA claims - are still pending. Those two cases are Allen v. Soetoro (D.Az) and Strunk v. Dept. of State (D.D.C.). Links to dockets for both of these cases available on the score card.

That's for the (as usual) comprehensive and clear response. :-bd

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23547

Just FYI - speaking of Strunk, I do have some documents that were downloaded, but I've been remiss in publishing. I will be out most of the day today, but will update this evening when I return. :oops:

OReally Factor · **Joined:** Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:52 am **Posts:** 62

Attorneys confirm "we haven't spent much time" defending Obama ....

"The case has dragged on for more than a year, mostly because Taitz, a graduate of an online, unaccredited law school, failed to serve the defendants. Judge David O. Carter dismissed the suit in October for a host of reasons, but Taitz has appealed. Yet West says that far from bleeding his office, Taitz and her co-counsel Gary Kreep have assembled such a weak case that he hasn’t had to spend much time on it. “I filed one motion that didn’t take too long, we’ve had two hearings and that’s it,” he says. “It’s not like we’ve devoted some sort of task force to this.”

And, according to Mother Jones, Army Major Rebecca Ausprung, who handled two of the birther cases against the Department of the Army that disputed Obama’s authority as commander in chief, says she spent a few hours drafting motions and doing research. “The monetary cost to the government in defending these two cases was extremely minimal,” she says.

And finally, in another case, dismissed by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, the Federal Election Commission was invited to submit a bill for its expenses in dealing with the case. The bill was $20.40.

http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/01/26/a ... ask-force/

No Birther Task Force?!

GreatGrey · **Posted:** Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:39 pm

OReally Factor wrote:

Attorneys confirm "we haven't spent much time" defending Obama ....

Taken from the article I posted in the "Orly Makes the News" thread. viewtopic.php?f=24&t=653&p=105866#p105866

Beat ya by just 4 minutes

OReally Factor · **Joined:** Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:52 am **Posts:** 62

GreatGrey wrote:

OReally Factor wrote:

Attorneys confirm "we haven't spent much time" defending Obama ....

Taken from the article I posted in the "Orly Makes the News" thread. http://politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.p ... 66#p105866

Beat ya by just 4 minutes

well done! :-bd

(It seems I can never decide which thread is the best fit for some of these items)

Don't you love the "it's not like we have some sort of birther task force" line :lol:

lyssandri · **Posted:** Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:54 pm

OReally Factor wrote:

Don't you love the "it's not like we have some sort of birther task force" line :lol:

Yeah, that was classic :mrgreen:

Bob Weber · **Joined:** Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:26 pm **Posts:** 685

OReally Factor wrote:

Attorneys confirm "we haven't spent much time" defending Obama ....

I kinda got that feeling when Orly tried to put Larry Sinclair & Lucas Smith on the stand at the hearing before Judge Carter, and no defense lawyer seemed to have any idea as to who they were. (PJ'ers coulda told 'em!) I'd bet my last nickel that (1) Smith had no idea Orly wanted him to testify and (2) he shit the proverbial brick when Orly made her motion. IANAL, but it seems to me that even though Smith's unwitnessed written statement as to how he got the Kenyan phony BC is a tissue of lies, as long as Smith never gets on the witness stand, he's essentially immune from a perjury charge. But on the witness stand.....

It was right after this that Smith denounced Orly. He musta figured he'd better get out while he could.

Tes · **Posted:** Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:11 pm

FYI, the Birther ScoreCard is (finally) updated: Score now 0-64.

Changes:
Updated Allen v. Soetoro (D.AZ) - Dismissed
Added Meroni v McHenry County (Il. St. Ct.) & Dismissal of same
Added Taitz v. Obama (D.D.C.) - New, pending case.

bob · **Posted:** Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:21 pm

Tes wrote:

Updated Allen v. Soetoro (D.AZ) - Dismissed

We can't quite close the books on this one. The partial motion to dismiss only disposed of the claims against Obama. Allen also did a FOIA request for Obama's mother, and that'll take a motion for summary judgment to close out.

Tes · **Posted:** Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:34 pm

bob wrote:

Tes wrote:

Updated Allen v. Soetoro (D.AZ) - Dismissed

We can't quite close the books on this one. The partial motion to dismiss only disposed of the claims against Obama. Allen also did a FOIA request for Obama's mother, and that'll take a motion for summary judgment to close out.

Bob -you're absolutely right. I need to add a note re: dismissed as to Obama, with explanation re: what's still there. THANK YOU.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:43 am

Tes wrote:

bob wrote:

Tes wrote:

Updated Allen v. Soetoro (D.AZ) - Dismissed

We can't quite close the books on this one. The partial motion to dismiss only disposed of the claims against Obama. Allen also did a FOIA request for Obama's mother, and that'll take a motion for summary judgment to close out.

Bob -you're absolutely right. I need to add a note re: dismissed as to Obama, with explanation re: what's still there. THANK YOU.

All true, but still a victory on the Obama eligibility front.

Tes · **Posted:** Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:52 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Tes wrote:

bob wrote:

Tes wrote:

Updated Allen v. Soetoro (D.AZ) - Dismissed

We can't quite close the books on this one. The partial motion to dismiss only disposed of the claims against Obama. Allen also did a FOIA request for Obama's mother, and that'll take a motion for summary judgment to close out.

Bob -you're absolutely right. I need to add a note re: dismissed as to Obama, with explanation re: what's still there. THANK YOU.

All true, but still a victory on the Obama eligibility front.

Agreed. The case as to OBAMA/re: his eligibility - is over.

ZekeB · **Posted:** Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:46 pm

Tess: Does Chalice's Epic Fail today count on the birther scorecard? Or was this such a non-event that it can't even be counted?

Tes · **Posted:** Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:24 pm

ZekeB wrote:

Tess: Does Chalice's Epic Fail today count on the birther scorecard? Or was this such a non-event that it can't even be counted?

It's a court case appearing on the court's docket.
She raised Obama's eligibility issues (among other things).
YES - it counts - updated version to be published soon.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Birther Case Standings: (0-201) - 207* Cases (and 6 pending)

Who is online