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

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

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

#7701

Post by Myron » Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:05 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.That goes back to my original question. I could have sworn that at one point, Keyes went with Kreep.

User avatar
wavey davey
Posts: 1492
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:01 pm

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

#7702

Post by wavey davey » Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:12 pm

Didn't Keyes show up at one or more of the hearings ... with The Obly and not associating with Kreep?Nope, Keyes was never at any of the hearings. However, he did have one or more TV interviews with Obly.

tjh
Posts: 2938
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

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

#7703

Post by tjh » Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:34 pm

Nope, Keyes was never at any of the hearings. However, he did have one or more TV interviews with Obly.I've just been going down memory lane ... with your fine report at


Wavey Davey's belated report.


viewtopic.php?f=50&t=4900&start=425#p59713





Drake was there ..http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thre ... 73&posts=8 -- which also said





The case goes forward, and Markham and Wiley were reinstated with the attorney they requested, Gary Kreep.





VIDEO LINK: Plaintiff Dr. Alan Keyes' comments on today's proceedings begin at about 0:30


minutes on the clock (use slider to advance clock.) Dr. Keyes' comments continue until about


01:27 on the clock. Dr. Keyes discusses this matter and a variety of other topics .... and is


always interesting to hear. [ LInk goes to their front page ]

tjh
Posts: 2938
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

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

#7704

Post by tjh » Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:03 pm

Here's Kreep's motion to keep Wiley and Robinson in the case: was apparently silent, so he stayed with The Obly. I don't see how Kreep can suddenly complain about that.
Edit: Wiley and Robinson were both there.

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31131
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

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

#7705

Post by mimi » Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:56 pm

that Here's Kreep's motion to keep Wiley and Robinson in the case: was apparently silent, so he stayed with The Obly. I don't see how Kreep can suddenly complain about that.
Edit: Wiley and Robinson were both there.
That's dated August 19, 2009.Keyes referred to Obly as his lawyer after that.Judge Confirms Eligibility Trial to ProceedOctober 7, 2009 · 65 commentsI just received a call from Orly Taitz, my attorney in the case seeking proof of Obama’s eligibility for the Office of President of the United States. Judge Carter has release a statement declaring that the dates he set for the hearing and trial on the eligibility issue are confirmed, and it will move forward as scheduled. Apparently he was not swayed by the Obama lawyer’s arguments.[/break1]com/?p=118]xxhttp://loyaltoliberty.com/?p=118

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

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

#7706

Post by Myron » Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:25 am

I would like to interview all of the plaintiffs and ask three questions:1. Are you aware that you are a plaintiff?2. Are you aware that this case is still going through the appeals courts?3. Do you know who is representing you?

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28475
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

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

#7707

Post by Foggy » Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 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]IIRC, and correct me if I'm wrong again, Obama's attorneys have a choice whether to:[*:2nd8mdev]file a response,[*:2nd8mdev]waive a response (in writing), or[*:2nd8mdev]ignore the whole thing and go out for pizzaAnd as I further understand it, EVEN IF THEY CHOOSE OPTION 3, the case will still be dumped at one of them notorious Friday morning conferences, UNLESS THE COURT ASKS for a response to be filed.In other words, the only difference between Options 2 and 3 is courtesy to the court or analness of the lawyer or some other factor, because if the court doesn't ASK for a response, we've concluded the case is dead before the Friday conference begins, they're just keeping the tubes hooked up for appearance's sake.Should we be looking for a response? Should this be on the Birther Events Calendar?
Any time my questions are all fully answered, I know I'm asking the wrong questions. - Bernard Samson

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15686
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

#7708

Post by Reality Check » Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:53 pm

I added it to the Calendar as we have all the others. My understanding is that for cases where the US Government is the defendant the Court will notify the Office of the Attorney General (Solicitor General I assume) that the case is going to be denied and only request a response if the case has made it past the review by the pool clerks. Dwight Sullivan royally pissed off Mario Apuzzo when he told Mario he knew his case was going in the crapper as soon as the government declined to respond.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Paul Lentz
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:56 pm
Location: Downtown O-town

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

#7709

Post by Paul Lentz » Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:46 pm

IIRC, and correct me if I'm wrong again, Obama's attorneys have a choice whether to:[*:k0tg19ml]file a response,[*:k0tg19ml]waive a response (in writing), or[*:k0tg19ml]ignore the whole thing and go out for pizzaAnd as I further understand it, EVEN IF THEY CHOOSE OPTION 3, the case will still be dumped at one of them notorious Friday morning conferences, UNLESS THE COURT ASKS for a response to be filed.In other words, the only difference between Options 2 and 3 is courtesy to the court or analness of the lawyer or some other factor, because if the court doesn't ASK for a response, we've concluded the case is dead before the Friday conference begins, they're just keeping the tubes hooked up for appearance's sake.Should we be looking for a response? Should this be on the Birther Events Calendar?Foggy, you are correct in the available options (response, written waiver of response, no response/no waiver filed). There are tactical advantages to each option (for example, if I represent the defendant/respondent, and I want to move the schedule along, but I feel no need to actually respond, I will file a waiver of response very early in the response period. That filing would then trigger distribution for conference (could save as much as 3 weeks--or even 3 months if we're close to summer recess). On the other hand, if I feel no need to move the case along at all--or see either no advantage in doing so, or some amusement value in dragging it out, I might file a waiver of response on the last day in the response period...or I might not file the waiver at all and let the response period expire. Either way, the distribution to conference will occur on the ordinary schedule.) It is only after the distribution for conference that a response may/will be requested by the court (well, typically one of the justices individually), and when that occurs, a new response deadline is established, and thus a new date for distribution for conference...so it delays the resolution.As you alluded, when no request for response is made following the respondent's waiver of response (or no response), you can place real money on a bet for 'cert denied' following conference (actually, you can pretty much assume that the case is on the "dead list" and will not be discussed at the conference at all).As I recall, in most of the birfer cert petitions which have been filed with SCOTUS, particularly those naming President Obama as a respondent, a formal waiver of response has been filed, generally within the last couple of days prior to the end of the response period. In a couple of the cases, I believe the respondent didn't even bother with the waiver filing, but I think that's been less typical than the wait-'til-the-last-day-and-slap-'em-in-the-face-with-a-waiver filing. Opinions vary as to whether the filing of a response waiver on the last day, or the complete lack of response/waiver, is more insulting to the petitioner. Personally, I see filing the formal waiver of response as more insulting, as well as a tidier business practice. OMMV.
The love of power will not win over the power of love.
Orlando, Florida 6/12/16

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28475
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

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

#7710

Post by Foggy » Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:58 pm

Thanks, Paul. I sorta remembered the outlines. I can't see them ever taking up this case ... anyway, while I was asking whether it should be on the calendar, R.C. went ahead and added it just to be on the safe side. :lol:
Any time my questions are all fully answered, I know I'm asking the wrong questions. - Bernard Samson

User avatar
Paul Lentz
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:56 pm
Location: Downtown O-town

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

#7711

Post by Paul Lentz » Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:08 pm

Thanks, Paul. I sorta remembered the outlines. I can't see them ever taking up this case ... anyway, while I was asking whether it should be on the calendar, R.C. went ahead and added it just to be on the safe side. :lol:Oh, I definitely think the response deadline ought to be on the calendar, if only to help mark yet another special day of birfer fail. :mrgreen:
The love of power will not win over the power of love.
Orlando, Florida 6/12/16

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15686
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

#7712

Post by Reality Check » Sat May 12, 2012 5:25 pm

The government response to the Petition for Writ in Barnett|Keyes v Obama is due Monday. Keep an eye on the docket this week for a waiver from the Solicitor General.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

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

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

#7713

Post by AnitaMaria » Sun May 13, 2012 11:46 am

I sure hope the Obot operative in charge of tampering with the Supreme Court docket doesn't screw up again like he did with Orly's sanctions case. Entering that data on a Saturday almost blew the whole usurpation.

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15686
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

#7714

Post by Reality Check » Mon May 14, 2012 4:54 pm

The government waived the right to respond so this one is dead.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

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

#7715

Post by Piffle » Mon May 14, 2012 4:59 pm

Now there's a shocker. Thanks, RC! =D>

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44735
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#7716

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon May 14, 2012 5:01 pm

It was already DoA. The U.S. just confirmed it wasn't worth the time to respond to it.
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34848
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#7717

Post by realist » Mon May 14, 2012 5:02 pm

The government waived the right to respond so this one is dead.Unless SCOTUS requests a response. They won't, but just sayin'.Such as...un 10 2005 Application (04A1048) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 22, 2005 to July 22, 2005, submitted to The Chief Justice.Jun 15 2005 Application (04A1048) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until July 22, 2005.Jul 22 2005 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 25, 2005)[highlight]Aug 22 2005 Waiver of right of respondent Zurich American Insurance Co. to respond filed.[/highlight]Aug 31 2005 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2005.[highlight]Sep 7 2005 Response Requested . (Due October 7, 2005)[/highlight]Oct 6 2005 Brief of respondent Zurich American Insurance Co. filed.Oct 19 2005 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 4, 2005.
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15686
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

#7718

Post by Reality Check » Thu May 17, 2012 9:16 am

This case has not been distributed for conference yet. My guess is that it will be distributed for the conference on the 24th and then it will be officially dead on May 29th. That is the day after Memorial Day. I don't think Orly even submitted her own petition on this one did she? She let Kreep do the boring work since she had more exciting things to do in the Courts of Bun Dogs.




Edit: It looks Ike the date is June 7th.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15686
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

#7719

Post by Reality Check » Thu May 24, 2012 4:16 pm

The case has been distributed for conference on June 7th.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34848
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#7720

Post by realist » Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:48 am

Update... DENINED!





No. 11-1225


Title:


Alan Keyes, et al., Petitioners


v.


Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.


Docketed: April 12, 2012


Lower 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)


May 14 2012 Waiver of right of respondents Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, et al. to respond filed.


May 22 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 7, 2012.


Jun 11 2012 Petition DENIED.
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

TexasFilly
Posts: 18208
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

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

#7721

Post by TexasFilly » Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:53 am

Who knew? :mrgreen: ?(
I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill! I believe Dr. Ford!

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

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

#7722

Post by SueDB » Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:09 am

What a big surprise....WOW
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12131
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

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

#7723

Post by Whatever4 » Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:14 am

Shocker.
"[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 (I-ME)

mary
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:37 pm

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

#7724

Post by mary » Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:17 am

Please pass me the smelling salts.

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

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

#7725

Post by SueDB » Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:55 am

Please pass me the smelling salts. and the brandy. =)) Frankly Frank...I think a nice cold bottle of Carta Nevada from the ice bucket would be most appropriate. :mrgreen:
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

Post Reply

Return to “Birther Case Discussion”