NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS JUDGE CARTER IN BARNETT v. OBAMA!

esseff44 · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:39 pm

realist wrote:

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:

Taitz v. Obama was also mentioned in this decision in the part about "quo warranto" and who can bring it and where.

Reality Check · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:48 pm

I just checked Orly's poor excuse for a blog and there is no mention of the dismissal.

jtmunkus · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:50 pm

Where's this put us -

86-0

?

One of the funniest parts of watching clowns spin plates is when they come crashing to the floor when said clown tries to keep too many in the air.

esseff44 · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:53 pm

Reality Check wrote:

I just checked Orly's poor excuse for a blog and there is no mention of the dismissal.

She is still figuring out how to turn this into a victory for her and her FM's. In Orlylaw, there are no failures; there are only steps to the next opportunity to challenge the courts with more pleadings and motions saying the same thing.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:54 pm

Has the newspaper, the Post & Email, covered it, or did it miss the deadline with the paper already going to press for today (and with the trucks and newsboys already loading their bikes)?

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23927

jtmunkus wrote:

Where's this put us -

86-0

?

87 I believe.

bob · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:57 pm

1. Petition for rehearing
2. Petition for rehearing en banc
3. Petition for full court en banc rehearing
4. Cert. petition to SCOTUS
5. CAMPAIGN TO IMPEACH TREASONOUS JUDGES!!!

Please donate generously. Taitz for U.S. Senate!

ZekeB · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:58 pm

One needs to remember that Hawaii is in the 9th District, too. Also.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23927

bob wrote:

1. Petition for rehearing
2. Petition for rehearing en banc
3. Petition for full court en banc rehearing
4. Cert. petition to SCOTUS
5. CAMPAIGN TO IMPEACH TREASONOUS JUDGES!!!

Please donate generously. Taitz for U.S. Senate!

She's probably already drafting a scathing petition and won't let her minions know of the "defeat" until she can show them the next step to "victory." $\:D/$

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23927

ORYR has posted on the decision...

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Affirmed Judge Carter's Ruling: No Standing

Quote:

"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."

And they posted the oral argument video. :-bd

And Jack's Opinion, but with their tag "copy courtesy of."

And there's one comment thus far... typical birther blather...

Quote:

Anonymous said...[Reply]

did anybody expect differently?

they can spit on the law and there are no consequences.

they can tell you a person running for president has no standing.

they can tell you to wait until after the election and then after the election they can tell you that you should have filed before the election. there are no consequences to them doing that.

they can do anything they want
because There Are No Consequences

nobody to call them to account. nobody

it is madness to even think that anything is going to be done. complete madness

Reality Check · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:12 pm

verbalobe · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:16 pm

But... but... the panel listened so respectfully to Orly's oral argument! They didn't challenge her at all! If they were going to have all these objections, they should have brought them up then, so she could answer them! They were gotten to! It's not fair!

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23927

Comment, from ORYR

Quote:

DrJim77 said...[Reply]

This decision seems to affirm that a 2012 POTUS candidate has standing and redressibilty if the legal challenge occurs before the 2012 election. Lets go get em !!!!

Go get 'em, Doc. :lol:

bob · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:24 pm

ORYR comments:

DrJim77 wrote:

This decision seems to affirm that a 2012 POTUS candidate has standing and redressibilty if the legal challenge occurs before the 2012 election. Lets go get em !!!!

Hint to DrJim77: "Candidate" means more than filing with the FEC.

Quote:

Maybe we'll have better luck in these upcoming state lawsuits. Since elections are a state matter and not an issue between the states, the federal courts should not be a factor. I just hope that the state courts cannot use this ruling as legal precedent.

Good to know an election for a federal office is not a state matter.

HalfWhiteHalfKenyan wrote:

This is the craziest and most insane thing I have ever witnessed in my life. Nobody will stand up for the constitution or the justice system and remove the usurper from office. Where is the new information dean haskins promised us 2 months ago? Where are the 1000 pages of information sheriff arpaio says he has found on obama since august? What the fuck are they waiting on!!!! Release the information NOW!!!!

Arpaio and Haskins: Your audience demands you!

bobsbox wrote:

Apparently you obots must think Dr. Edwin Vieira is a conspiracy theorist. From 2008 his view on standing...

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

I don't know if he's a conspiracy theorist, but he is completely nutters.

fiascoist · **Joined:** Sat Jun 04, 2011 12:42 am **Posts:** 35

Is the dicta in the footnote the same or different dicta birthers have been parading for months? I'm guessing the secret dicta from the Court was deleted someplace by someone nefarious.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9708

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

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.

I don't like that phrasing either, but being born as a citizen and not needing to be naturalized is synonymous with saying one is NBC. I assume the judges neither know nor care that birthers have a fantastic delusion that there is some imaginary third class of citizens.

jtmunkus · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:04 pm

Appeals court tosses Obama birthplace challenge

By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press – 6 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The so-called birther movement was dealt another legal blow Thursday when a federal appeals court tossed out a lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship and his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that none of the challengers had legal standing to file the lawsuit on Jan. 20, 2009, the day Obama was inaugurated. The three-judge panel cited various reasons for disqualifying six sets of plaintiffs, who included Obama's political rivals, taxpayers and military personnel.

...

Reality Check · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:06 pm

Let's not forget that there were two losing Birther attorneys on this one. No word from Kreep on his USJF blog either.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23927

I still believe that Orly is busy draftingcopying and pasting her "victory" motion/petition and until she has that done, so she can claim she expected to lose and it was a necessary step in the process (or some such bullshit) she's not going to inform her minions of the loss.

Just my .02.

As to Kreep, I think he knew it was a loser, but it most likely put a few bucks in the coffers of his "foundation," so you'll see some quote from him from some blogger (perhaps his site) and maybe a sound bite or two on some birfer radio show, but that's it. I'd be very surprised if he takes it to SCOTUS.

jtmunkus · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:22 pm

Quote:

Orly Taitz, one of the challengers' lawyers, said she would ask the appeals court to convene a special 11-judge panel to reconsider the case. If she's turned down there, she said she would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

bob · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:25 pm

realist wrote:

I'd be very surprised if he takes it to SCOTUS.

I'd be very surprised if Kreep does not take it to SCOTUS.

Kreep took Keyes v. Bowen to SCOTUS, which involved a question of state law.

Going to SCOTUS means more clicks on the donation button.

Given Kreep's "urgency" (and Taitz's incompetence), I expect a SCOTUS denial in October 2012 (for a case involving the 2008 election).

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23927

jtmunkus wrote:

Quote:

Orly Taitz, one of the challengers' lawyers, said she would ask the appeals court to convene a special 11-judge panel to reconsider the case. If she's turned down there, she said she would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

So she's copying and pasting the request for an en banc hearing, and when it's done and she can post it she'll tell her minions. :lol:

Orly... Hint: The Ninth will say no and SCOTUS will not take it up.

But you'll get some birther bucks in the meantime.

bob · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:18 pm

9th's homepage (sans links):

9th wrote:

Cases of Interest

(12/22/11) ("Birther" appeal)
(12/09/11) U.S. v. Loughner, Nos. 11-10339, 11-10432, 11-10504
(12/02/11) Perry v. Brown/Coleman v. Brown - Prop 8
(11/25/11) Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Peter H. Arkinson, Trustee, No. 11-35162 (Amicus Briefs invited by 1/19/12)
(11/16/11) Doe #1 et al. v. Sam Reed, et al., Nos. 09-35818, 09-35826, 09-35863, 11-35854
(11/09/11) Log Cabin Republicans v. USA, Nos. 10-56634, 10-56813 (Don't Ask, Don't Tell)