Keyes v. Bowen

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34884
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Keyes v. Bowen

#51

Post by realist » Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:34 pm



Here's a profile of the O-bot judge:



Michael Kenny has been a prosecutor, a civil litigator, a government attorney overseeing elections practices and the head of a state agency with a $250 million annual budget. Many attorneys might dream of having just one of these jobs, and Kenny acknowledges that his career has been one with few disappointments.



“I’ve been very fortunate,” he said. “I’ve had some absolutely great jobs. ”But perhaps none of those will compare to Kenny’s latest challenge: serving on the bench of the Sacramento County Superior Court. Judge Kenny was sworn in on January 23, 2003, following an appointment by Gov. Gray Davis last December.



Before taking the bench, Judge Kenny was most recently the executive officer of the California Air Resources Board, the state agency charged with monitoring and combating pollution. But the judge is no stranger to the courtroom, having started his career as a litigator at the Sacramento firm of James & Kilpatrick and worked for five years as a deputy district attorney in San Joaquin Country. Judge Kenny went on to work for the California Fair Political Practices Commission, where helped enforce campaign rules and conflict of interest laws. The judge served as general counsel to the Air Resources Board from 1990 through 1996, when the board selected him to become its executive officer.

See: [/break1]sacbar.org/members/saclawyer/nov_dec2003/kenny.html]http://www.sacbar.org/members/saclawyer ... kenny.htmlemphasis mine



Gee, I wonder if that made him familiar with election laws!
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

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

Keyes v. Bowen

#52

Post by Curious Blue » Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:39 pm



It's pretty obvious from the cases on the tentative ruling list for Dept 31 that Judge Kenny is currently assigned to handle cases dealing with election law & litigation involving public agencies; this is not the regular law & motion dept. I mean, here are the titles of some other cases on today's calendar:- minkus v dept. of health care services- chaidez v board of administration of california public employees' retirement system - village concepts, inc. v california department of housing and community development- mitchell engineering v county of sacramento -- california correctional peace officers' association v schwarzenegger - mir v. medical board I don't think you'd see such a concentration of public agency cases if the court wasn't specifically directing them to specific judges.

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

Keyes v. Bowen

#53

Post by Curious Blue » Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:47 pm



I'd also note that under California procedure, an award of costs (as distinct from attorney fees) to the prevailing party at the end of a lawsuit is automatic -- it wouldn't require a further motion to the judge, but rather the filing of a cost bill with the clerk.

bogus info
Posts: 5592
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:19 pm

Keyes v. Bowen

#54

Post by bogus info » Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:49 pm



If this is entered as the court's final order,Just curious, for what reason would this not be entered as the court's final order?

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

Keyes v. Bowen

#55

Post by Curious Blue » Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:01 pm



None, but technically the parties do have a right to show up to court tomorrow to argue their case.There was some dust-up between Orly & Gary Kreep and I'm not sure which attorney is handling the case at this point. Orly probably isn't smart enough to know that she needed to get the tentative ruling and notify the clerk of her intent to appear by 4 pm today.... but Kreep would know. The question would be whether Kreep would pursue it.A court won't change its tentative ruling unless there are new facts or law brought to its attention -- Judges vary in how strict they are with counsel who show up to argue without good reason. I don't see any way around the logic of the current tentative ruling. So no... this one won't change. The reason the courts issue tentative rulings is to cut down their caseload & save time by eliminating the need for attorneys to appear and argue routine matters, and also to narrow the scope of argument in more complex matters. If I was representing Obama or Bowen in this case and received notice that the other side wanted to argue -- I'd show up in court and let them say whatever they wanted, but the only thing I would say to the judge after announcing my appearance would be, "We agree with everything stated in the tentative ruling. Unless Your Honor has any questions for us, we submit." (My first & most important rule as a lawyer, seldom observed by others: "Know when to stop talking.")

bogus info
Posts: 5592
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:19 pm

Keyes v. Bowen

#56

Post by bogus info » Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:41 pm



(My first & most important rule as a lawyer, seldom observed by others: "Know when to stop talking.")Yep, my husband calls it put your mouth in neutral and your brain in gear.



Orly is ranting and raving on her blog. Go see what she's up to next under Orly's poopies. It will blow your socks off.

User avatar
Jez
Posts: 2602
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:05 pm
Location: Out there, Somewhere...
Occupation: Thread Killer

Keyes v. Bowen

#57

Post by Jez » Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:12 pm



Question: What is Laches?The Secretary of State also contends the action is barred by the doctrine of laches.  This may be more properly considered a defense to be pleaded and proved rather than as a ground for demurrer in this action.  Neither the opposition nor the reply address the issue of laches. 
I have learned silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet, strange, I am ungrateful to those teachers.

~Khalil Gibran

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

Keyes v. Bowen

#58

Post by Curious Blue » Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:57 pm



laches = undue delay in bringing an action.It is an equitable defense -- based on the theory that a party who is lax about enforcing their rights should be denied relief, especially if their failure to act in a timely way has made the relief sought more difficult.

bogus info
Posts: 5592
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:19 pm

Keyes v. Bowen

#59

Post by bogus info » Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:00 pm



Curious Blue,By the way, thank you for taking the time to explain things.

User avatar
Jez
Posts: 2602
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:05 pm
Location: Out there, Somewhere...
Occupation: Thread Killer

Keyes v. Bowen

#60

Post by Jez » Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:49 pm



Curious Blue,By the way, thank you for taking the time to explain things. Ditto. Thanks bunches. I really really really really really appreciate it. :)Actually, that's for everybody that takes the time to answer the many inane questions I manage to come up with.
I have learned silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet, strange, I am ungrateful to those teachers.

~Khalil Gibran

User avatar
Highlands
Posts: 3600
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:19 am
Location: 3rd Rock From the Sun

Keyes v. Bowen

#61

Post by Highlands » Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:58 pm



Curious Blue,By the way, thank you for taking the time to explain things. Ditto. Thanks bunches. I really really really really really appreciate it. :)Actually, that's for everybody that takes the time to answer the many inane questions I manage to come up with. x3
If you took out all of the blood vessels in your body and lined them up, you would be dead. #science

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

Keyes v. Bowen

#62

Post by mimi » Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:20 am



[/break1]freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2205683/posts]From Free Republic



Keyes v. Bowen in Sacramento Superior Court Tomorrow, Friday 13th

Sacramento County Superior Court Website ^ | 3/12/09 | Barneica



Posted on 3/12/2009 10:47:08 PM by barnieca



Just found this out today through an email. Don't know why Gary Kreep didn't let us know.



Court tomorrow at 9 a.m. Will go and report back.



Obama's attorneys Strumwasser, Woocher, LLP and a D.C. Pro Hac attorney Robert F. Bauer prepared a 167 page document to try to get the case thrown out.



When are the Obama supporters going to wake up to the fact Obama is hiding his birth, college and passport records because they will reveal he is NOT a natural born citizen and possibly not legally a citizen?



Strumwasser, Woocher charges $600/Hour.



If you have problems with link go to [/break1]saccourt.com/publicdms2/DefaultDMS.aspx]https://services.saccourt.com/publicdms ... ltDMS.aspx and type in the case number - 80000096, with the filing year 2008.



Please pray for Gary Kreep in court tomorrow and pray that Judge Michael P. Kenny will make Obama provide all of the pertinent documents regarding his citizenship.



God bless America, please!!Barneica is Pamela Barnett (one of the Lightfoot plaintiffs. Remember her? The retired military person.)

Apparently she is going to the Courthouse for this hearing.

And, where did she hear about a 167-page document? Maybe Orly.

This report from her should be good.



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

Keyes v. Bowen

#63

Post by Curious Blue » Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:38 am



The 167 page document is an "appendix" that simply has copies of various cases or proceedings that were cited in the briefs, other than California cases. In other words, legal stuff that the judge might not have ready access to. It actually looks kind of interesting, so I'm putting it up on scribd.Link: [/break1]scribd.com/doc/13239422/Appendix-of-Non-California-Authorities] ... uthorities

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

Keyes v. Bowen

#64

Post by mimi » Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:47 am



Thanks CB. I didn't think Obama's lawyers wrote any briefs that lenghy. If I recall, they only get 20 minutes to speak.

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

Keyes v. Bowen

#65

Post by mimi » Fri Mar 13, 2009 7:56 am



I guess the Kreep is beginning a fundraising blitz. This plea has started to circulate. I'm guessing it's just the beginning.just a snippet:USJF Fights in Court Tomorrow Friday the 13thThat’s right, not only does Mr. Obama continue to categorically refuse to produce the decisive evidence proving his “natural-born” citizenship, his high-priced LA-based “dream team” of attorneys has USJF squarely in its crosshairs! And they’re loading both barrels!Mr. Obama’s attorneys have publically state he intends to first spend and then “sanction” USJF out of existence!Click to Help USJF Demand Mr. Obama Show Us the Truth! [Ed. there are 3 different places in the release with a clickable donation site.] So unless you help, his hired guns could blow a fatal financial hole in USJF’s operations. Listen to the ominous warning issued by Frederic D. Woocher, head of the Strumwasser and Woocher team:“Please be advised, in particular, that in the event we are forced to file a motion to quash and we prevail in that motion, we will seek the full measure of monetary sanctions provided for in the Code of Civil Procedures.” That, in legal terms, is more than merely an answer to our citizenship challenge - it’s a declaration of war! You don’t need to don an attorney’s glasses to read between the lines of this ultimatum:MR. OBAMA WILL DESTROY USJF UNLESS WE DROP THE CASE.That we cannot do!It goes on...

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

Keyes v. Bowen

#66

Post by mimi » Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:44 am



From Free RepublicLisa Ostella is wondering why there is a hearing today:To: barniecaI thought Gary Kreep had this rescheduled for June???23 posted on 3/13/2009 8:08:34 AM by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity [/break1]barofintegrity.us]http://www.barofintegrity.us) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]To: barnieca; Jim Robinson; LucyT; Iowan; PhilDragoo; Krodg; getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL; Kevmo; ...I don’t know why this thread is posted.The original date of the hearing is:Keyes v Bowen Notice 34-2008-80000096-CU-WM-CDSCourtNotice of Hearing DateCourt Notice of Hearing Date for Keyes v BowenSacramento Superior Court scheduled for March 31, 2009, Northern California. Gary Kreep and Orly TaitzAnd as far as I know, Gary Kreep, on his own, rescheduled it for June. Regardless, neither date is for a hearing today.24 posted on 3/13/2009 8:20:52 AM by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity [/break1]barofintegrity.us]http://www.barofintegrity.us)[/break1]freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2205683/posts]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2205683/posts

User avatar
Sequoia32
Posts: 4742
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:47 pm

Keyes v. Bowen

#67

Post by Sequoia32 » Fri Mar 13, 2009 2:06 pm



A "MINUTE ORDER" was just posted.I guess Kreep showed up.
So far every case of Ebola in this country got it by helping people. So relax, Republicans, you're in the clear. - Tina Dupuy

bogus info
Posts: 5592
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:19 pm

Keyes v. Bowen

#68

Post by bogus info » Fri Mar 13, 2009 2:47 pm



A "MINUTE ORDER" was just posted.What does this mean?

User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7767
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Edmonds. WA
Contact:

Keyes v. Bowen

#69

Post by PatGund » Fri Mar 13, 2009 2:59 pm



QUASHED!! Now Bauer can follow up on his threat to move for sanctions, as he said he would if they prevailed. Keyes is not going to be a happy camper...AGAIN!! No, Bauer specifically did not request sanctions in the moving papers-- so I doubt that they will seek them.They will be entitled to costs of suit. (Their filing fees + motion fees).And I strongly suspect SoS Bowen will seek court costs and fees from her office as well - California is in too much of a financial hole for her not to.

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

Keyes v. Bowen

#70

Post by mimi » Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:31 pm



California Judge Ruling in Keyes’ Lawsuit on Obama Qualifications March 13th, 2009 On March 13, California Superior Court Judge Michael Kenney tentatively ruled against Alan Keyes, in the lawsuit concerning whether President Barack Obama meets the constitutional qualifications to be president, and whether the California Secretary of State should have put him on the ballot. The case is Keyes v Bowen, 34-2008-8000096-CU-WM-GDS. The 6-page opinion seems to strengthen the rights of political parties to place anyone they wish on the November ballot, regardless of that candidate’s qualifications.The decision says, “Defendants contend that Election Code sec. 6901 requires the Secretary of State to place on the ballot the names of the candidates submitted to her by a recognized political party and that she has no discretion to override the party’s selection. The Court finds that the First Amended Petition fails to state a cause of action against the Secretary of State…Federal law establishes the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice President. That procedure is for objections to be presented before the U.S. Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15.”In 1968, the California Secretary of State refused to list Eldridge Cleaver on the November ballot as the presidential nominee of the Peace & Freedom Party. Cleaver and PFP sued the Secretary of State, but the State Supreme Court refused to hear the case, by a 6-1 vote. Cleaver and the party then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, but that Court refused, 393 U.S. 810 (October 7, 1968). In this current Keyes lawsuit, attorneys for the Defendants claimed there was no such lawsuit. The attorney for Keyes did not have the California Supreme Court citation (58 Minutes 411), nor the U.S. Supreme Court cite, so he wasn’t able to establish the existence of this 40-year old precedent that does seem to give the Secretary of State the authority to refuse a party’s choice for president, if the Secretary of State thinks the party chose someone who doesn’t meet the constitutional qualifications. Keyes will appeal and his appeal will include the Cleaver precedent citation.Eldridge Cleaver had been removed from the California ballot because the Secretary of State had learned that he was only 33 years old.[/break1]ballot-access.org/2009/03/13/california-judge-ruling-in-keyes-lawsuit-on-obama-qualifications/]http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/03/13 ... fications/

Justin
Posts: 1360
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:20 pm

Keyes v. Bowen

#71

Post by Justin » Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:45 pm



Federal law establishes the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice President. That procedure is for objections to be presented before the U.S. Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15.Can anyone better at the law citations than myself pull up the mentioned U.S. Code so we're all on the same page as to what this judge was referring to? Perhaps it's something quoted or seen before, but this seems important to me. I'm assuming it refers to impeachment, but I'd like to be certain.

Koyaan
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:28 pm

Keyes v. Bowen

#72

Post by Koyaan » Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:47 pm



Federal law establishes the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice President. That procedure is for objections to be presented before the U.S. Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15.Can anyone better at the law citations than myself pull up the mentioned U.S. Code so we're all on the same page as to what this judge was referring to? Perhaps it's something quoted or seen before, but this seems important to me. I'm assuming it refers to impeachment, but I'd like to be certain.No, not impeachment. It's about counting the electoral votes and allowing for objections.



[/break1]law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000015----000-.html]3 USC 15



k

Justin
Posts: 1360
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:20 pm

Keyes v. Bowen

#73

Post by Justin » Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:06 pm



So... when the judge states that the "exclusive" means for challenging the qualifications of the President and VP was back in January during the counting of electoral votes... that basically equates to "everyone bringing these cases is up shit creek without a paddle". Am I way off the mark in thinking that?Sounds a lot like "game, set, match" to me.

bogus info
Posts: 5592
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:19 pm

Keyes v. Bowen

#74

Post by bogus info » Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:23 pm



[/break1]therightsideoflife.com/?p=4561]http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=4561Keyes v. Bowen: Tentative Ruling Issued; Update: Keyes will Appeal

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

Keyes v. Bowen

#75

Post by mimi » Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:38 pm



Pam Barnett (a/k/a Barnieca, Plaintiff in the Lightfoot case) is back from the Courthouse with [/break1]freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2205683/posts?page=28#28]her report on the freepers board:





To: barnieca



I was at the proceedings today for Keyes v. Bowen.



Hon. Michael P. Kenny presided and upheld his Tentative Ruling.



Gary Kreep, Esq. represented Plaintiffs.



Peter Kraus Esq. represented defendant Secretary of State Bowen.



Michael J. Strumwasser, Esq. represented defendant Barack Obama.



Pro Hac Vice Robert F. Bauer, Esq. was a no show.



Proceedings began about 9am at the Superior Court of California, Dept. 31 as scheduled.



Kreep, Kraus and Strumwasser all spoke. Kreep made the argument that it’s the SOS’s job to qualify Presidential candidates and Strumwasser and Kraus argued that it wasn’t the SOS’s job to qualify federal candidates that it was the U.S. Congress’s job to qualify the POTUS.



Judge Kenny obviously agreed with this agrument from looking at his ruling. Kenny made a comment in court along the lines of ‘a state SOS does not have the power to overturn a ruling of POTUS qualification by the U.S. Congress.’ (not a direct quote) This brings us back to the argument that the SOS’s should have checked qualifications before placing POTUS candidates on the ballot. If the SOS does not do the investigation of a candidate and the U.S. Congress does not do the investigation of candidate then any person qualified or NOT can be appointed POTUS by the U.S. Congress, to include illegal aliens under 35 y.o. that had just migrated to America. (Is Hugo Chavez going to be our next POTUS?)



“As California’s chief elections officer, the Secretary of State is responsible for overseeing all state and federal elections,” this is Debra Bowen’s statement on the SOS CA website [/break1]sos.ca.gov/elections/best-practices.htm]http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/best-practices.htm

Bowen’s statement on the website contradicts her attorney’s and Obama’s attorney arguments that it is NOT her job as SOS to qualify candidates for POTUS.



With this statement and ruling, Kenny is saying it is fine to Usurp the POTUS Constitutional Requirements in State elections and it is up to the U.S. Congress to find the mistake.



Kreep is already working on the appeal.



28 posted on 3/13/2009 1:42:42 PM by barnieca ([/break1]theobamafile.com]http://www.theobamafile.com)

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”