Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California & Appeal, Ninth Circuit

User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5598
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California & Appeal, Ninth Circuit

#151

Post by northland10 »

Our long national nightmare is over... well, at least the long wait is over. Too lazy to bother saving and uploading the PDF so I just copied the very short memorandum.

Oh looky, Drake v Obama.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Todd W. Robinson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

George F.X. Rombach and Constitution Association, Inc. appeal from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action challenging Kamala Harris’s eligibility to serve as Vice President. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action because plaintiffs lacked standing. See Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774, 782 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissing a voter’s claim that President Obama was ineligible for the office because the plaintiff asserted nothing “more than a generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Am. Diabetes Ass’n v. United States Dep’t of the Army, 938 F.3d 1147, 1154-55 (9th Cir. 2019) (setting forth the requirements to establish organizational standing).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California & Appeal, Ninth Circuit

#152

Post by bob »

northland10 wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:05 pm Oh looky, Drake v Obama.
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

When some jerk* called into some circle jerk with Gibbs about their case, Drake v. Obama was mentioned. Gibbs, who had admitted to consulting with Taitz, had never heard of it, but was nonetheless certain he'd prevail.

For the nerds:
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Two nominees from the Big Dog; one from Obama. :towel:

* :whistle:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California & Appeal, Ninth Circuit

#153

Post by Reality Check »

Well George it is either ask for an en banc hearing or on to SCOTUS. :boxing:
User avatar
realist
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:25 am

Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California & Appeal, Ninth Circuit

#154

Post by realist »

bob wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:21 pm
northland10 wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:05 pm Oh looky, Drake v Obama.
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

When some jerk* called into some circle jerk with Gibbs about their case, Drake v. Obama was mentioned. Gibbs, who had admitted to consulting with Taitz, had never heard of it, but was nonetheless certain he'd prevail.

For the nerds:
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Two nominees from the Big Dog; one from Obama. :towel:

* :whistle:
From OldBow:
Leo Donofrio

#1026

Post by bob » Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:41 pm

Donofrio's blog: IT’S TIME FOR A WRIT QUO WARRANTO, PRESIDENT TRUMP.

Donofrio's blog: 9th Circuit: Quo Warranto In DC District Court Is Proper Action For Trump To Contest Biden’s Election Based On Fraud:

In my previous post, I discussed a Writ of Quo Warranto – the very statute specifically enacted by Congress to challenge fraudulent or mistaken federal election results. I explained that a sitting President could be ousted from the White House by a civil jury at the District Court for the District of Columbia if fraud or even just plain error led to a President having been erroneously elected.

* * *

I promised further research, and having found a perfect case from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, I will keep this post short and punchy. If anyone tells you that a President of the United States can only be removed from office by the impeachment process, send them here.

In Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774 (2011), a class of various plaintiffs sued in federal district court in California to challenge President Obama’s eligibility after he had been sworn in as President. . . .

The district court held that the only proper venue for a federal quo warranto action was in the D.C. District Court, not in California.

On appeal, the 9th Circuit affirmed, holding that a federal quo warranto action must be brought under the quo warranto statute enacted by Congress. . . .

There it is. The most liberal federal judicial circuit in the nation held that a sitting President may be subjected to defending a quo warranto action for removal in the D.C. District Court, pursuant to the federal quo warranto statute, § 16-3501.

This is the proper legal procedure. The candidate plaintiffs in Drake v. Obama had no possibility of winning after the election, and this played into the Court’s statements. But they didn’t need to reach that issue, as the case was brought in the wrong venue. The actual holding of the case states that “the proper venue to file such claims against the President of the United States would be the District of Columbia.”. Therefore, the Court’s statement on venue is the established precedent of the case.

The Court specifically held that a sitting President can be subjected to defending his election by a writ of quo warranto brought in the D.C. District Court.

President Trump can never say he exhausted every legal option to present the evidence of election fraud and error before the American people, if he fails to avail himself of the very statute enacted to correct fraud and error in federal elections. The people who bravely testified and signed sworn affidavits deserve their day in court.
:brickwallsmall:

This is incredibly lazy, even by Donofrio's standards: The "proof" that a president can be removed by a quo warrant petition is ... two Taitz rulings that denied her quo warranto claims.
Image
Image X 4
Image X 32
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California & Appeal, Ninth Circuit

#155

Post by bob »

Oldbow recap of some jerk* and Gibbs' 2020 "conversation":
Gibbs: "I spent hours talking with Gary Kreep and Orly Taitz." :shock: "They said you'll never get to the merits; you'll get stuck on procedural technicalities." [I cannot believe we found someone dumber than Taitz and Kreep.]

Some jerk asked about Berg v. Obama and Drake v. Obama. Gibbs: "The organization has standing because it is focused on the Constitution." Some jerk asks about competitive standing: "The courts are wrong." :roll:

Some jerk turns to the merits, i.e., their exact two-citizen-parents argument has been rejected on the merits; Gibbs: "No federal court has said so!"; some jerk: "Tisdale v Obama"; Gibbs: "Your research is better than mine, but that court was wrong!"
25 months to be proven correct. :towel:


Oh, Rondeau's once-favorite shiny, the Kancel Kamala account on Twitter, is still at it; e.g.:

:brickwallsmall:


* :whistle:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Frater I*I
Posts: 3210
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:52 am
Location: City of Dis, Seventh Circle of Hell
Occupation: Certificated A&P Mechanic
Verified: ✅Verified Devilish Hyena
Contact:

Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California & Appeal, Ninth Circuit

#156

Post by Frater I*I »

Finally the 9th slammed a stake threw this thing's heart....

Now they need to decapitate it, stuff the head with wolf's-bane, and burn in separate pyres... :torches:
"He sewed his eyes shut because he is afraid to see, He tries to tell me what I put inside of me
He's got the answers to ease my curiosity, He dreamed a god up and called it Christianity"

Trent Reznor
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California & Appeal, Ninth Circuit

#157

Post by Reality Check »

Here is the opinion. Short and sweet but they did throw in a little zinger at the end:
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
21-56287-2023-01-26.pdf
(181.7 KiB) Downloaded 35 times
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California & Appeal, Ninth Circuit

#158

Post by bob »

"For completeness," CourtListener also has the denial.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
johnpcapitalist
Posts: 809
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:59 pm
Location: NYC Area
Verified: ✅ Totally legit!

Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California & Appeal, Ninth Circuit

#159

Post by johnpcapitalist »

Reality Check wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 2:53 am Here is the opinion. Short and sweet but they did throw in a little zinger at the end:
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
21-56287-2023-01-26.pdf
I suspect that these guys are sufficiently dense that they won't appreciate just how much contempt is wrapped up in a rejection so terse. It's practically the equivalent of a rubber stamp like this:
no.png
no.png (14.75 KiB) Viewed 293 times
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California & Appeal, Ninth Circuit

#161

Post by bob »

Fresh from their loss in the 9th ("It is in the 9th right now!"):



Executive summary: Vattel! Vattel! Vattel!

Also FIVE SCOTUS cases!: "The Venus"; Shanks; Dred Scott; Minor;* Wong Kim Ark. :yawn:


* "A case about inheritance." :roll:
Image ImageImage
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”