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

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

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

#7726

Post by BillTheCat » Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:04 pm

Haha nice!It's all over the news, just heard it on KCBS in the Bay Area :-bd
'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

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

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

#7727

Post by AnitaMaria » Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:11 pm

I never saw a single post in birferstan about this case going to the Supreme Court. This was the case where Orly promised everyone a trial, the case that spawned the "we can have him out of office in 30 days" video (featuring the recently-resurfaced Morgan Ward), the case that Orly has claimed spurred Obama to release his LFBC to distract attention away from the appeal hearing. And now nobody gives a shit about it. ;;)

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.)

#7728

Post by SueDB » Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:12 pm

Those in the know didn't give a shit about it from the beginning.
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26937
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#7729

Post by bob » Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:40 pm

SJ Merc: [/break1]mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_20831441/supreme-court-refuses-hear-birther-argument-again]Supreme Court refuses to hear 'birther' argument again





Executive summary: Denninined!





This was Kreep's clients; Taitz didn't bother to file a cert. petition.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
aarrgghh
Posts: 1747
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:05 pm
Contact:

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

#7730

Post by aarrgghh » Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:48 pm

[/break1]freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2894055/posts]freeper gulch: da fix iz in!!!





we are simply cash cows to be milked for the ruling elite’s enjoyment :(( :(( :(( :(( :((

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

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

#7731

Post by realist » Mon Jun 11, 2012 4:04 pm

Rocks really are smarter than freepers.
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

Mr. Gneiss
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:37 am

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

#7732

Post by Mr. Gneiss » Mon Jun 11, 2012 4:11 pm

Rocks really are smarter than freepers.Why, thank you realist! :-bd I guess. :-k

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.)

#7733

Post by SueDB » Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:22 pm

[/break1]freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2894055/posts]freeper gulch: da fix iz in!!!





we are simply cash cows to be milked for the ruling elite’s enjoyment by the unscrupulous likes of Corsi, Taitz, Von Aryan etc. :(( :(( :(( :(( :((fify
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26937
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#7734

Post by bob » Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:35 pm

Sweet, sweet birther tears at [/break1]blogspot.com/2012/06/us-supreme-court-evades-another-obama.html?showComment=1339446423087#c2932155548843372507]ORYR:treasonous rulings/decisions are to be expected as the norm. We no longer can expect the constitution to be our governing document.No comment = no justice. Term limits are in order for SCOUTUS.The Constitution Killers...Why don't they consider that these individuals have 'legal standing' to file such a suit? They are U.S. Citizens, aren't they? Aren't we all equal?
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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.)

#7735

Post by SueDB » Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:39 pm

Why don't they consider that these individuals have 'legal standing' to file such a suit? They are U.S. Citizens, aren't they? Aren't we all equal?No, there are 2 kinds of citizens natural/native born and naturalized. Naturalized citizens cannot serve as the US President. So...no, we are all NOT equal in the eyes of the US Constitution. ?( ?( ?(
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

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

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

#7736

Post by wavey davey » Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:11 pm

So, this case is not just merely dead, it's really most sincerely dead.

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

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

#7737

Post by BillTheCat » Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:18 pm

So, this case is not just merely dead, it's really most sincerely dead. :lol:
'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

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

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

#7738

Post by AnitaMaria » Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:36 pm

Kreep sent out this fundraising email last week regarding this case. [/break1]activehosted.com/index.php?action=social&c=ec8956637a99787bd197eacd77acce5e.116]http://grassroots.activehosted.com/inde ... acce5e.116





...


We had received NO notice from the High Court that the Conference Committee on our case would be held this week. We discovered that the case had been distributed to the Justices when we checked the Supreme Court's website. Gee Gary. The Conference date has been posted on the Supreme Court web site since at least since May 22nd, but you just figured it out last week?





This is our high profile lawsuit that has been making its way through the federal court system since 2009. It is Barack Hussein Obama's worst nightmare. Hmmm...really, because the government didn't even submit an opposition to this case.


...


I need to raise $24,300 by Thursday, in order to pay for all of our computerized legal research, the "moot court" practice sessions, the printing of our briefs, and all of the other expenses of preparing our arguments and pleadings in this landmark case. I guess Gary owes the Supreme Court a thank you for saving him that $24,300.


...


Drake v. Obama is the case that could finally hold Mr. Obama accountable. This is our chance to change history.


That is why Barack Obama and his legal team are fighting us tooth and nail. They know that, if we win this case, states will have to certify that Barack Hussein Obama is eligible to serve as our President. No fight. No teeth. No nails. Any. Day. Now.

chinacreekpj
Posts: 1347
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:09 pm

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

#7739

Post by chinacreekpj » Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:51 pm

Kreep sent out this fundraising email last week regarding this case. [/break1]activehosted.com/index.php?action=social&c=ec8956637a99787bd197eacd77acce5e.116]http://grassroots.activehosted.com/inde ... acce5e.116





...


We had received NO notice from the High Court that the Conference Committee on our case would be held this week. We discovered that the case had been distributed to the Justices when we checked the Supreme Court's website. Gee Gary. The Conference date has been posted on the Supreme Court web site since at least since May 22nd, but you just figured it out last week?





This is our high profile lawsuit that has been making its way through the federal court system since 2009. It is Barack Hussein Obama's worst nightmare. Hmmm...really, because the government didn't even submit an opposition to this case.


...


I need to raise $24,300 by Thursday, in order to pay for all of our computerized legal research, the "moot court" practice sessions, the printing of our briefs, and all of the other expenses of preparing our arguments and pleadings in this landmark case. I guess Gary owes the Supreme Court a thank you for saving him that $24,300.


...


Drake v. Obama is the case that could finally hold Mr. Obama accountable. This is our chance to change history.


That is why Barack Obama and his legal team are fighting us tooth and nail. They know that, if we win this case, states will have to certify that Barack Hussein Obama is eligible to serve as our President. No fight. No teeth. No nails. Any. Day. Now.I believe Kreep is likely the most successful birther fundraiser as I'm sure Farah is charging him mucho bucks to rent the WND email sucker list. If he didn't get more out of it than he put in, he wouldn't continue doing it.

User avatar
jtmunkus
Posts: 5692
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm
Location: Cone of Silence

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

#7740

Post by jtmunkus » Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:12 am

:mememe: Am I correct in assuming that the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the Kreep's case is in itself a precedent that can be cited to in the future?

Curious Blue
Posts: 2462
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:42 am

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

#7741

Post by Curious Blue » Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:18 am

No. A denial of cert just means that the Court decided not to hear a case. It's not a ruling one way or another that can be cited. Generally a notation (cert denied) will be added when citing to the lower level case in the future, though it isn't technically necessary.

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

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

#7742

Post by Piffle » Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:46 am

No. A denial of cert just means that the Court decided not to hear a case. It's not a ruling one way or another that can be cited. Generally a notation (cert denied) will be added when citing to the lower level case in the future, though it isn't technically necessary.^^^ This.It is not only unnecessary, but some consider it proper to include only if the case is relatively recent (say, less than two years or so). In this context "cert denied" indicates that the lower court's decision is final and not still subject to being reversed, remanded or otherwise modified by a court of last resort.

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 21749
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

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

#7743

Post by RTH10260 » Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:54 am

So, this case is not just merely dead, it's really most sincerely dead.As Orlena is part of the fun, she shirley will need to bring it to the International Bar in The Hague ?(

User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 6112
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

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

#7744

Post by neonzx » Wed Jun 13, 2012 2:50 pm

5 Responses to “Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Birth Certificate Case”





Veritas


June 13th, 2012 @ 9:48 am





Might it reach them again, but in a modified form, as in Indiana?





orly taitz


June 13th, 2012 @ 10:15 am





no, you can’t do that


Well geez, I did not know that a denial to petition for writ of mandamus means you can't petition the court again?
To which Trump replied, Fuck the law. I don't give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26937
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#7745

Post by bob » Fri Jul 12, 2013 9:53 pm

On PPSimmons, someone claiming to be Harry Butler (a plaintiff in this case) claims he (and other military members) were arrested by the Secret Service for birthering:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

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

#7746

Post by TexasFilly » Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:07 pm

Old Carl wasn't too interested in Harry's claim that he and other military types had been arrested. Why hasn't Orly been screaming about her Plaintiffs' being arrested?





Money quote from Harry Butler, saying he first learned about "this" back in 2007 when "I was traveling overseas: Saudi Arabia;Hawaii and the Middle East". :lol:





And what, exactly, is a "Gulfstream Aerospace Pilot"?
I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill! I believe Dr. Ford!

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.)

#7747

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:08 pm

:yankyank:

User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7347
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

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

#7748

Post by raicha » Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:19 pm

Old Carl wasn't too interested in Harry's claim that he and other military types had been arrested. Why hasn't Orly been screaming about her Plaintiffs' being arrested?





Money quote from Harry Butler, saying he first learned about "this" back in 2007 when "I was traveling overseas: Saudi Arabia;Hawaii and the Middle East". :lol:





And what, exactly, is a "Gulfstream Aerospace Pilot"?[/break1]aviationjobs.me/2013/04/g550-non-type-rated-captains-gulfstream-aerospace-us.html]http://www.aviationjobs.me/2013/04/g550 ... ce-us.html

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

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

#7749

Post by TexasFilly » Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:26 pm

Gracias.
I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill! I believe Dr. Ford!

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

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

#7750

Post by mimi » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:38 am

On PPSimmons, someone claiming to be Harry Butler (a plaintiff in this case) claims he (and other military members) were arrested by the Secret Service for birthering:Bull.

Post Reply

Return to “Birther Case Discussion”