Page 309 of 312

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

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:05 pm
by Myron
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.

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

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:12 pm
by wavey davey
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.

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

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:34 pm
by tjh
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 ]

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

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:03 pm
by tjh
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.

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

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:56 pm
by mimi
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

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

Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:25 am
by Myron
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?

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

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm
by Foggy
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?

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

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:53 pm
by Reality Check
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.

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

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:46 pm
by Paul Lentz
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.

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

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:58 pm
by Foggy
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:

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

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

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

Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 5:25 pm
by Reality Check
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.

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

Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 11:46 am
by AnitaMaria
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.

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

Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 4:54 pm
by Reality Check
The government waived the right to respond so this one is dead.

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

Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 4:59 pm
by Piffle
Now there's a shocker. Thanks, RC! =D>

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

Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 5:01 pm
by Sterngard Friegen
It was already DoA. The U.S. just confirmed it wasn't worth the time to respond to it.
ABBC3_SPOILER_SHOW

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

Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 5:02 pm
by realist
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.

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

Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 9:16 am
by Reality Check
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.

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

Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 4:16 pm
by Reality Check
The case has been distributed for conference on June 7th.

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

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:48 am
by realist
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.

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

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:53 am
by TexasFilly
Who knew? :mrgreen: ?(

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

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:09 am
by SueDB
What a big surprise....WOW

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

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:14 am
by Whatever4
Shocker.

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

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:17 am
by mary
Please pass me the smelling salts.

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

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:55 am
by SueDB
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: