Keyes v. Bowen: Tentative Ruling Issued; Update: Keyes will Appeal
Update: Per commenter “P. Barnett,” an individual closely associated with these filings:
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 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.
Update: Ballot-Access.org reports the following:
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. [emphasis mine]
The emboldened part is a rather scary aspect concerning the concept of tyranny by political party. Further, it is becoming equally scary that the attorney(s) for the Defendant are not being thorough in their research with respect to these cases. With all due respect to Dr. Taitz et al., please take a moment to catch your breath and proceed forward much more deliberately. You appear to be making the mistakes of a rookie attorney.
You are fortunate; the judge has not said in any way that you cannot appeal the decision. Ergo, proceed with bold caution.
California Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny issued a Tentative Ruling on the pending case, Keyes v. Bowen. As commenter “Practical Kat” points out:
A Tentative Ruling is not final and counsel for parties will be afforded an opportunity for oral argument tomorrow, if they so request. But in practice, it is extremely rare for California Judges to deviate from tentative rulings, and the very detailed statement of law include in this ruling will probably be incorporated in the final order.
Orders include the following excerpts from the Ruling…
1. APPLICATION OF ROBERT F. BAUER FOR APPROVAL TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE
Robert F. Bauer applies for an order permitting him to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this action on behalf of respondents President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden. No opposition has been received. The Court finds that the application complies with the requirements of rule 9.40 of the California Rules of Court. Accordingly, the application is GRANTED. …
2. SECRETARY OF STATE DEBRA BOWEN’S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE …
Secretary of State Debra Bowen contends that there is no basis for mandamus relief because the Secretary of State has no “ministerial duty” to demand detailed proof of citizenship from Presidential candidates. The Court finds this argument persuasive and sustains the demurrer on this ground. A traditional writ of mandate can only issue if the respondent has a clear, present, and usually ministerial duty and the petitioner has a clear, present, and beneficial interest in the performance of that duty. (Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 731-732; Taylor v. Board of Trustees (1984) 36 Cal.3d 500, 507; McCabe v. Snyder (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 337, 340.) Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 provides that a writ of mandate will lie “to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from office, trust or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085, subd. (a).)
Petitioners have not identified any authority requiring the Secretary of State to make an inquiry into or demand detailed proof of citizenship from Presidential candidates. Elections Code section 6901 requires the Secretary of State to provide local elections officials with a certified list of the names and party affiliations of candidates nominated by their respective parties to appear on the November 4, 2008 Presidential General Election ballot. Elections Code section 15505 requires the Secretary of State to certify to the Governor the names of the electors receiving the highest number of votes. Petitioners have not met their burden of demonstrating that the Secretary of State has a clear or present ministerial duty to demand documentary proof that any future Presidential candidate is qualified to serve as President of the United States. Such a duty is not imposed by of Elections Code section 12172.5 which provides that the secretary of state “shall see that state election laws are enforced.” Accordingly, there is no basis for mandamus relief. (See Barnes v. Wong (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 390, 395.)
The Secretary of State also demurs on the ground that the petition is moot and there is no judiciable controversy insofar as it relates to the 2008 General Election. The Court agrees and sustains the demurrer on this ground. Elections Code section 15505 requires that on December 1, or as soon thereafter as the election results have been received from all counties, the Secretary of State shall certify the names of the ascertained Electors and then transmit to each presidential elector a certificate of election. Petitioners refer to this code provision in the First Amended Petition filed February 23, 2009. (See FAP, par. 65.) Nowhere do petitioners allege that the Secretary of State failed to perform that duty. They do, however, allege that the Electoral College has voted (FAP, par. 79) and that Mr. Obama has been inaugurated as the President of the United States. (FAP, par. 63.) The action is moot insofar as it relates to the 2008 General Election. (See Treber v. Superior Court (1968) 68 Cal.2d 128, 134.)
The Secretary of State also demurs on the ground that the controversy is not ripe as it relates to future elections. The Court sustains the demurrer on this ground as well. A controversy is “ripe” when it has reached, but has not passed, the point that the facts have sufficiently congealed to permit an intelligent and useful decision to be made. (Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Comm’n (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158, 171.) The issues must be framed with sufficient concreteness and immediacy to allow the Court to render a conclusive and definitive judgment, rather than an advisory opinion based on hypothetical facts or speculative future events. (Id. at pp. 170-173.) The Court concludes the petition does not meet these criteria. …
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.
Finally, the Secretary of State persuasively argues that the appropriate remedy for an issue concerning the qualifications of a President is an action before the United States Congress pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 3 U.S.C. section 15. (See Robinson v. Bowen (N.D. Cal. 2008) 567 F.Supp.2d 114.)
The Court is not persuaded that petitioners will be able to amend their First Amended Petition to state a cause of action against the Secretary of State. Therefore, the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. …
3. DEMURRER OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN, AND CALIFORNIA ELECTORS TO PETITIONERS’ FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and the California Electors named as respondents demur to petitioners’ first amended petition for writ of mandate on the grounds that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against any of the named Respondents (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e)), that the Court has no jurisdiction over the subject of this action (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(a)), and that to the extent the First Amended Petition seeks relief as to future elections, it suffers from a defect or misjoinder of parties (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(d)).
The Court sustains the demurrer on the ground that the First Amended Petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against any of the named Respondents (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e)). The current pleading does not seek any relief as to either President Obama or Vice President Biden.
Although petitioners allege that documents, statements or other lawsuits raise questions about whether President Obama is a natural born citizen, it does not allege that either the President or the Vice President has failed to perform any mandatory duty under either state or federal law. The allegation that “it is incumbent on the candidates to present the necessary documentation confirming his or her eligibility” (FAP, par. 68) is insufficient to satisfy the pleading requirements for a petition for writ of mandate. (See San Diego Cotton Club v. State Bd. of Equalization (1934) 139 Cal.App. 655, 658.) …
These respondents demur that the Court has no jurisdiction over the subject of this action (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(a)). The demurrer is sustained on this ground as well. Federal law establishes the procedure for election of the President and Vice President and 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 United States Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15. Petitioners’ belief in the importance of their arguments is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court.
These respondents also contend that the case is not justiciable—that it is moot in all respects except those that are unripe. The Court finds this argument well taken. The case is clearly moot. The Secretary of State already placed the candidates’ names on the ballot, the election has already taken place, the Electors were certified elected by the Secretary of State, met and cast their votes, the governor certified those results and transmitted them to the President of the Senate, and President Obama and Vice President Biden have now been inaugurated and are engaged in the duties of their offices. It is too late for relief against the Secretary of State and the California Electors as to the 2008 General Election. And as to any future election, the claims are not ripe. There is no actual controversy which admits of definitive and conclusive relief, as distinguished from an advisory opinion upon a hypothetical state of facts. (Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura (1973) 10 Cal.3d 110, 117; Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Comm’n (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158.)
The Request of President Barack Obama et al. for Judicial Notice in Support of Demurrer is GRANTED.
The Court is not persuaded that petitioners will be able to amend their First Amended Petition to state a cause of action against President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, or the named California Electors. Therefore, the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. …
4. MOTION TO QUASH OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN, AND 55 CALIFORNIA ELECTORS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER THAT THE DEPOSITION OF THE CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS OF OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE NOT BE TAKEN.
Respondents President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and the 55 California Electors named as respondents move for an order quashing the subpoena by petitioners directed to third party Occidental College demanding access to President Barack Obama’s “academic and housing records.” In the alternative, they seek an order that the deposition of the custodian of records of Occidental College not be taken.
The moving parties seek relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1987.1, 2025.410, and 2025.420. They contend that the subpoena and the associated notice to the consumer were improperly served. They contend that the subpoena is vague and overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
The motion is granted on all grounds stated. Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3 requires that a copy of subpoena seeking access to confidential consumer records be served on the consumer whose records are sought at least five days before service on the custodian of records. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1985.3(b)(3).) If served by mail within this State, this time limit is extended to ten days pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(a). In this case, the notice and subpoena to Occidental College were mailed either the day before or the very same day Occidental College was served. (Woocher Decl., pars. 2-3 and Exs. 1-2.) This is insufficient.
Petitioners contend that respondents waived any objection by failing to object for twenty-seven days. The Court finds this argument without merit. The motion to quash was filed within the period provided for by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410(b).
The Court further finds that the two categories of documents petitioners seek are vague, overbroad, and are of no relevance to this litigation. Petitioners demand access to all of President Obama’s “academic and housing records.” However, the relevance of such records is not established. The issues raised in the First Amended Petition concern the duties, if any, of the respondents to demand proof of natural born citizenship of a candidate for President. Petitioners have not shown that any of the documents sought could assist in answering this question. Petitioners’ argument that they could have sought even more documents is not persuasive, nor is their argument that more specific objection was needed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240(b).
Moreover, this lawsuit is moot as to issues concerning President Obama. The Court on this date is prepared to sustain demurrers to the petition without leave to amend. But even if the court were to overrule the demurrers, the First Amended Petition contains no claims as to which the records sought are relevant.
The motion to quash the subpoena is GRANTED.
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
-Phil
70 responses to Keyes v. Bowen: Tentative Ruling Issued; Update: Keyes will Appeal
Par for the course…
seems to me that the case was filed before a number of these events oocurred and court is disingenuous in holding the case until after the events occurred, and would they have acted before the events occurred then more than half of their statements would be BS
The most interesting point distinguishing Keyes v. Bowen among other birther suits is Alan Keyes’s standing. Keyes was one of six presidential candidates named on the 2008 California ballot, and thus however good or bad his case challenging the California electoral process may be, he at least has standing to bring that case. Standing was not the only issue on which other such suits were dismissed, but this is the most prominent of the suits in which standing is no issue at all.
Assuming this tentative ruling stands, we have a clear court decision, albeit a state and not federal court, on who has authority to determine presidential eligibility. The judge did not himself decide Barack Obama’s eligibility, but he said who makes that call:
On on the eight day of January 2009, the U.S. Congress certified the election of Barack Obama to the presidency. So once Judge Kenny’s decision is final, the birthers will have to stop claiming that no court has ruled on the merits of their case… Yeah, in my dreams. No doubt birthers will go on doing what conspiracy theorists do, as is their First Amendment right.
Yes, They keep dismissing all concerns, but the questions still remain. Proclaiming that the college records are irrelevant is ridiculous. To any, but the seekers of truth, those documents from a man that spent a good part of his childhood living abroad are most certainly relevant to this case.Would it be legal to obtain them? Maybe or maybe not,but to claim they are irrelevant is a farce. It’s time for people to say enough, we need to know the truth, what ever that may be, and to hell with standing, mootness,irrelevancy, or any other means the lawyers have used to keep these common documents from the light of day.
Less than 24 hours after Joe the plumber(a private citizen, not running for anything) dared to question a statement made by Mr. Obama, the media and the obama campaign had released any and all of his personal records to smear his name and belittle his one small question. Where was the outrage for trampling this mans rights to keep his personal information private? Where was the left, liberal minded that vault the claim of being for the common man? It seems only if one has the audacity or means to conceal ones past, is it illegal to release another’s documents.
And what about the governor of Alaska? She was completely unknown when nominated,yet less than six weeks later we knew more about her than we have ever learned about a sitting, supposed POTUS.
The unbiased media traveled the 3000 miles to Wasilla and anchorage and dug deep, but we are to believe they forgot where Chicago was to even ask about the difference of online COLBS from Hawaii and all other states vault birth certs….or the countries(plural) that Obama claims to have lived in,or shady mortgage deals,or acorn vote registrars registering the same voters over and over for $$$ , or racist ministers, or terrorist bombers?
It is about time, when ordinary citizens from every walk of life demand the truth, with or without the courts approval.
When is it ever logical to destroy the supreme law (the constitution itself) to keep from breaking a minor law or two that even if broken, and usurpation is found to be untrue, would be no more than a misdemeanor, and minor blip to history. But if found to be realized, that usurpation has indeed taken place, but alas, found much too late to act in a timely manner,leaving no way to reverse what the Usurpation had done, thus destroying our constitution and union itself…when is that ever the right thing to do? The first I think, I believe, would justify the means and the act itself. I fear that the time will be soon to find out either way. God help us if it is the latter.
Orly is reacting to this ruling. All the subpoeanas she sent out will be squashed now even though they never never had power anyway because state subpoeanas can not dictate to federal agencies. Hence, the reason why no one ever responded.
This almost isn’t news…sad.
I think this court is biased. I don’t understand how this issue is moot when we have a foreign usurper who is raising havoc on our nation and destroying us every day. They are granting the BS that is on the zero’s side. I think this judge had too much kool-aid.
brygenon,
Excellent comment.
Thanks,
-Phil
Brygenon,
“Keyes was one of six presidential candidates named on the 2008 California ballot, and thus however good or bad his case challenging the California electoral process may be, he at least has standing to bring that case.”
I do read on my own and am learning as I go. Are you saying that Keyes simply had standing because he was in the race. So if I had run I, too, would have standing? I thought that Keyes would have had to prove that Obama not being a candidate would have provided Keyes a reasonable chance of winning. Keyes has never won anything so how does Obama not running change his continuing election record? Or am I just all wrong?
I think this court is biased.
Accusation of judicial bias after an adverse ruling? Never saw that one coming.
I don’t understand how this issue is moot
Because Taitz (excuse me, “Keyes”) only asked the court to stop the California SoS from certifying the election, which occurred months ago. Taitz, when filing the suit, should have immediately moved for an injunction, but didn’t.
Proclaiming that the college records are irrelevant is ridiculous.
Because this lawsuit concerned only the duties of the Secretary of State. Obama’s college records would have shed no light on those duties.
seems to me that the case was filed before a number of these events occurred and court is disingenuous in holding the case until after the events occurred, and would they have acted before the events occurred then more than half of their statements would be BS
Not the court’s fault; it didn’t “hold” anything. Taitz should have immediately moved for injunctive relief, but didn’t. In fact, Taitz was the one who scheduled this hearing out in March.
These cases are constantly being heard by biased liberal judges. I think the focus should be on the US Supreme Court and the Attorney General Eric Holden. 10,000,000 emails and phone calls need to be made to the attorney general. The US Supreme Court Justices need to be tracked down and followed so the chance to bring this issue up can be asked to them with each and every public appearence of the US Supreme Court Justices.
Send 10,000,00 emails to Eric Holden.
Send 10,000,000 letters to the US Supreme Court Justices.
James,
WorldNetDaily.com has already been doing that.
-Phil
Are you saying that Keyes simply had standing because he was in the race. So if I had run I, too, would have standing?
None of the respondents in Keyes v. Bowen raised lack of standing as a defense, which implies they thought Keyes had standing. And Keyes would appear to met the criteria for standing as discussed in the Berg v. Obama dismissal order.
So it would appear that any candidate would have standing. Mind you, Keyes was nominated by a political party. Whether a certified write-in candidate would also be granted standing is unknown.
Well, not 10,000,000.
And you do know that SCOTUS doesn’t decide cases based on the amount of letters sent, by rather by applying the law to facts presented?
And that the justices are protected by U.S. Marshals, to guard them from stalkers?
I think the argument has been that since the SOS of has taken an oath to honor and defend the US Constitution, they any inquiry into Obama’s constitutional qualifications should have part of the SOS’s constitutional duties. Addition any action of the SOS of California to ignore or otherwise quash this issue would be in violation of the SOS’s sworn oath to uphold the US Constitution.
This is the opinion of one little mind
I believe that “The People of the United States” should have the right to ask for proof of a Certificate of birth and or any person’s citizenship who wants to be the president of the United States of America!
How-ever with that being said, I do not believe that anything will be done at this point because of my simple minded reasoning:
If it was proven that Barack Obama or Barry was not qualified by LAW to be President and the election was taken away. It is my opinion that every major city would be up in flames. The mindset of this country has changed from a rational nature to one of entitlement over LAW! The example to prove my thought is the Rodney King incident in LA. In short a non-law-abiding individual was “perceived” to be mistreated by law-enforcement. A court of law sends down their ruling (Right or Wrong) and the city is sent into lawlessness!
Think about it before responding aimlessly with emotion only, like in LA!
Running is probably not enough — heck, people could have written in your name. Obviously you are right that Keyes had no serious chance of winning, but being one of six candidates named on the ballot is stronger than being “in the race”.
Most importantly, the defendants did not challenge Keyes’s standing, and the (tentative) decision makes no note of the issue. Some of the same defendants did challenge the plaintiff’s standing in other birther cases; where they so challenged, they always won.
I’m no expert on standing and I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I thought myself to be. I may have been giving the birthers more than they’re due, but in this case they at least had a reasonable argument for standing. This is a California suit, and Keyes was one of six presidential candidates named on the California ballot.
Incidentally, Keyes came in 5′th in California, receiving just shy of 0.3% of the popular vote, but birthers have held that three of the four candidates who beat him are ineligible. McCain was born in Panama; Obama and Nader were born to parents who were not both U.S. citizens. Indulging the fantasy that far, Bob Barr should have won California, with almost one half of one percent of the popular vote.
But wait, there’s more: birthers have held that it is a crime to run under anything other than one official ‘legal name’. Barr’s legal first name would have to be ‘Robert’, and not, as was on the California ballot, ‘Bob’. Thus Barr is also disqualified, and the winner of California’s mother-load of 55 electoral votes should have been Alan Keyes.
“Bryan, you’re being facetious,” one might think. Well, yeah, of course.
These cases are constantly being heard by biased liberal judges.
Freepers loved Judge Kenny last year.
brygenon,
A well-written — though, in some parts, I disgree — comment.
-Phil
I think the argument has been that since the SOS of has taken an oath to honor and defend the US Constitution, they any inquiry into Obama’s constitutional qualifications should have part of the SOS’s constitutional duties.
While it may sound appealing, it doesn’t state a legal cause of action.
Can she bring it again? and file the injunction?
MikeS
Agreed, the current bank, home, job, stock-market debacle wouldn’t have anything on the stripping of the first Black man elected President….. Now that would be a mess!
Resistance is futile! Even if it means following the LAW….what a shame!
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 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.
Orly just announced that she is demanding that every living being on planet earth will be called to testify why they do not agree that President Obama should be removed. If they do not respond within 3 days she will quo warranto their ass.
Bob,
Let’s assume that Soetoro’s college records were uncorked before the election showing he received foreign financial aid from Indonesia.
Assuming this to be known by the SoS, you are saying that Bowen should have continued to keep “Obama” on the ballot regardless of the evidence in hand? What would the ministerial duty be then?
After all, other state SoS’ removed Calero from their ballots. Maybe we should ask them why they did.
OBAMA will not make it. Soon to replaced. RONALD WILSON REAGAN will replace OBAMA as Pro-tem,and then obtain the office. REAGAN was never dead, and is healed today. As this may seems to you like I am a nut case, there are those who know. As for the exact time for this to take place? Best ansewer is Reagan returns when least expected, without warning, speaking flatteries, and healed. Obama will slip into history without a fight.
The whole world will wonder after Reagan, not to be concerned about cities burning when Obama is busted.
Glacialhills,
Beautifully put. Thank you for forming these thoughts.
So the way I read this, the motion to quash the subpoena for school records from Occidental was granted….what about the part where soetoro’s high-price superlawyers were going to request sanctions against Gary and Orly. My read on what you posted here is the judge merely sided with everything that did not benefit Keyes’ case but left the door open to appeal, right?
Looks like the slime law firm covering barry’s behind was merely shooting its big mouth off trying to imtimidate us into backing down.
So, we don’t get the records right now. On to the appeal. And now we really know what all of barry’s cash is buying…..delays, extra time, and another date facing the inevitable.
Another day closer to knowing the truth about barry soetoro.
I wish Bob would go away
Even the Supremes dragged their feet. The O powers that be believe that their postponing and putting off any of these brave peoples’ actions will make this Problem go away.
It will not.
But if you want them to arrive, you may want to address your emails to EEric HOLDER.
What would she “enjoin”?
The case died in December, because it was trying to prevent the Secretary of State from performing a series of acts culminating in the certification of the electoral college vote. Absent the invention of a time machine, you can’t prevent acts that have already taken place, and courts do not have the power of time travel.
An appeal is frivolous, because the case is moot. It has nothing to do with what side or what opinion you hold. Once the ACT has taken place, it is too late to stop it.
The attorneys who purport to “appeal” from moot cases for injunctive relief are flat out unethical, especially when they send out fund raising appeals based on such litigation or appeals — basically they are maintaining fraudulent lawsuits as a pretense for collecting money from naive people who do not understand the process.
I strongly disagree. The (perceived) threat of riots in cities, because of the removal of a usurper multi-racial politician, is no excuse at all to sit back and allow the open destruction of our Constitution.
Of course, the botttom line is that Obama was qualified without a doubt, despite the “birthers” contrary fantasies.
At the first twinkling of the issue (which really was not as Berg initially charged), a COLB that had been earlier ordered was posted for the world to see. The facts are clear upon it, the birth in Honolulu HI more than 35 years prior. The form says it is “prima facie” proof of the facts upon it.
Nobody has brought any charge, much less successfully effected a judicial finding that the posted COLB is anything but bona fide.
There now have been at least four occasions where the “conservative four” of the SCOTUS could have opted to take on the case, but have not.
Meanwhile the courts and the taxpayers have been burdened with these frivolous actions, and possibly a couple of unscrupulous self-aggrandizing lawyers have been currently enriched, or created a persona for future enrichment.
From the Seattle Times about Orly’s appearance at a speech by the Chief Justice:
“Roberts spoke before a packed house of some 1,200 people at the annual Bellwood Memorial Lecture Series at the University of Idaho.
“At one point during the audience question period, Orly Taitz, a woman from Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif., said she had documents proving that President Obama was not born in the United States and thus could not be president. While audience members laughed, she said she had half a million signatures of people demanding the Supreme Court hear the matter.
“Roberts cut her off by saying that if she had documents with her, she should give them to security officers. He also said he could not discuss the issue.”
THE CONCERN OVER THE REMOVAL OF OBAMA WILL CAUSE RIOTS IS NOT TRUE. OBAMA WILL BE REMOVED AND SOON. RONALD WILSON REAGAN WILL REPLACE OBAMA AS PRO-TEM PRESIDENT. REAGAN WAS NEVER DEAD AND IS WELL TODAY. OBAMA WILL SLIP INTO HISTORY WITHOUT A FIGHT. REAGAN WILL OBTAIN THE OFFICE THROUGH INTRIGUE. REAGAN WILL RETURN WELL, WHEN LEAST EXPECTED, WITHOUT WARNING, SPEAKING FLATTERIES (GREAT COMMUNICATOR).
THIS POSTING IS NOT A JOKE. FOR ALL THOSE WORKING ON GETTING THIS CASE TO COURT, OR TO MILITARY, IT WILL SUCCEED. THE REST IS ALREADY TO TAKE PLACE. THE WHOLE WORLD WILL FOLLOW AFTER HIM (RONALD WILSON REAGAN).
well heres the thing.. if he is illegal he NEEDS to be removed at all costs…. if it starts riots then these too has to be quashed…
its time the constitution takes its right place in the usa… if some fool judges puts the fear of riots in place of law then we are a country most sorry…
will
ERIC MILLER,
Considering that it has been said — somewhere, out there — that Barack Hussein Obama is, essentially, the embodiment of Franklin Denalo Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, you are apparently in good company as the occupier of the White House.
-Phil
2burmdad,
Please cite your source(s).
-Phil
MaineSkeptic,
Thanks for the report. Do you have a link to the story?
-Phil
ERIC MILLER,
My sources tell me that the Gipper is asking that you would kindly STEP OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK KEY for future comments.
-Phil
These cases are constantly being heard by biased liberal judges. (quote)
Freepers loved Judge Kenny last year. (Bob)
By that comment I see that you troll quite a bit. First, you must read Free Republic quite often to key in on a point that only a person who lives at the site would know or remember. Secondly, I am sure you used the term Freeper with the utmost respect.
From Seattle Times
Chief Justice John Roberts discusses Lincoln
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_id_roberts_idaho.html
“. . .At one point during the audience question period, Orly Taitz, a woman from Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif., said she had documents proving that President Obama was not born in the United States and thus could not be president. While audience members laughed, she said she had half a million signatures of people demanding the Supreme Court hear the matter.
Roberts cut her off by saying that if she had documents with her, she should give them to security officers. He also said he could not discuss the issue. . . .”
Actually, President Obama’s attorneys are working pro bono. As in, they aren’t getting paid, and they aren’t getting paypal.
How would President Obama’s grades show what sort of financial aid President Obama was receiving? Keyes/Taitz didn’t request President Obama’s FAFSAs or financial aid records, they requested President Obama’s academic records.
Sharon 2,
Thanks for that. I’ve updated the other posting concerning Lightfoot v. Bowen with your comment.
-Phil
You’re quite welcome for the comment. It’s great to be useful! I wonder what kind of investigation was done by the reporter who referred to Ms. Taitz as “a woman from Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif.” The reporter got the name but failed to id her as an attorney? (not even sarcastically referring to her as an attorney with a law degree from the internet)
First, you must read Free Republic quite often to key in on a point that only a person who lives at the site would know or remember.
Google: Learn it, live it, love it. Before this story spread, it was on the first page of results for the judge.
My read on what you posted here is the judge merely sided with everything that did not benefit Keyes’ case but left the door open to appeal, right?
There’s a right to appeal in almost all cases from the trial court.
Looks like the slime law firm covering barry’s behind was merely shooting its big mouth off trying to imtimidate us into backing down.
“You” should have backed down; the judge agreed with “the slime law firm covering barry’s behind.”
The decision to not seek sanctions was curious. But if they’re working pro bono, they can’t seek their fees since there are none.
“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 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.
Those statements aren’t contradictory at all, unless you have a very broad definition of the word “oversee.”
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.
No; the judge is saying the law, as written, tasks Congress with that responsibility. (And what does the U.S. Constitution have to say about state elections?) If you don’t like the law, there are ways to change it.
If these plaintiffs were to file this suit again, the subsequent suit would be barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Let’s assume that Soetoro’s college records were uncorked before the election showing he received foreign financial aid from Indonesia.
Are we also assuming that U.S. citizens cannot receive foreign aid from Indonesia? And are we also assuming it was impossible for Obama to have lied to Indonesia about his origins?
In other words, such evidence is rather circumstantial; it also has no bearing on whether the secretary of state has a duty to investigate.
Further, it is becoming equally scary that the attorney(s) for the Defendant are not being thorough in their research with respect to these cases.
Ballot-Access reported: “The attorney for Keyes did not have the California Supreme Court citation (58 Minutes 411), nor the U.S. Supreme Court cite”.
It was Keyes’ attorneys (Kreep, Taitz) that were not being thorough by not providing the court or the defendants (respondents, technically) with the proper cite. It isn’t the defendants’ job to do the plaintiffs’ job for them.
Ballot-Access.org did say, “In this current Keyes lawsuit, attorneys for the Defendants claimed there was no such lawsuit [the Cleaver one].” Now you are just reposting what Ballot-Access said (and then commenting on the post without verifying its accuracy), but Ballot-Access doesn’t cite where the defendants’ attorneys made such a claim. Is it in the demurrer or motion to dismiss?
Ballot-Access’ citation to the California Supreme Court case (“58 Minutes 411″) is interesting. It is impressive that it can cite to the case, but it isn’t in the correct citation format, so there’s no way to verify.
The California Supreme Court Cleaver case was never published, which implies it had a similar procedural history as the Lightfoot case (petition filed the California Supreme Court that was summarily denied). Which means whatever was filed in the California Supreme Court (and ruled upon) has no legal precedent, but of course the historical precedent can be cited. However, it is difficult acertain the importance of the secretary of state’s decision in Cleaver’s case, as the secretary may have been wrong, Cleaver’s petition could have been rejected on other grounds, etc.
And the Cleaver case is unrelated to the mootness issue, which is the simpliest, quickest, and most obvious ground on which the appellate court can (and will) affirm.
“I wish Bob would go away”
Why, because Bob knows the law and debunks this conspiracy? Typical. Delete or ban anything that doesn’t agree with this conspiracy theory. Then if that doesn’t work, claim the judges, congress, AG, media everybody in the world are part of the conspiracy. Imply that people who don’t buy into this BS are thugs, communists, marxists, socialists, etc. Claim obots are getting paid to disrupt the birthers.
From where I sit, it appears to be the representatives for the birthers that are the ones who are getting a payday from all this. Haven’t seen any paypal donate buttons on the obots websites. LOL
sue,
It is rather funny, actually. But then again, liberals don’t believe in free market capitalism, so I guess they see the profit motive as being inherently evil.
Ah well, more for the rest of us to get.
-Phil
Birthers lose whenever their cases are heard by real judges.
MikeS
Riots? Do you mean unorganized resistance and lawlessness? Riots like those that occurred in LA following Rodney King or those in Detroit during the 1960′s?
When there is a festering wound in America, there is the strong possibility of riots. When Americans live in tents, while politicians tax and make fuel/heat unaffordable, there can be riots. When Americans whisper in corners that the government is illegally usurping their Constitutional rights, there can be riots. When people freeze to death while elected leaders party and eat Kobe beef, there can be riots. When Americans can’t ask a simple question about the Commander in Chief, there can be riots. When a political party actively censors the media, be afraid of riots. When struggling citizens look for help and a Obama stimulus check, and see rich bankers get richer, be afraid of riots. When active military personnel start questioning the POTUS eligibility, get nervous. When you start seeing all of the above at once, be afraid of Civil War.
The last Civil War in this country cost roughly 6% of the entire US population. When you consider 21st century technology, you could probably place a log on that figure and guess somewhere between 150-200 million Americans could die. The risk before this Country is so large, it can’t be measured.
Now, if we just had a few vital records on the POTUS it might ease the tensions…..
Don’t forget those student housing records that were subpoenaed. If Obama failed to return a complete set of sheets and pillow cases and was therefore denied a full refund of his dorm room deposit, that could be the BIG BREAK we’ve all been waiting for.
GeorgetownJD,
I may have to refer to you as “Reality Check” squared what with all the dripping sarcasm you’re producing.
-Phil
Constitution of the State of Florida, excerpt from Article VI:
SECTION 3. Oath.–Each eligible citizen upon registering shall subscribe the following: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Florida, and that I am qualified to register as an elector under the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida.”
On December 15, 2008, when the verdant Mr. Connerat shook the hand of Secretary of State Kurt Browning, to whom he personally served his Petition for Stay, duly filed in the Florida Supreme Court as case [SC08-2338], the Secretary would have been perspicacious to consider his allegiance to protecting the Constitution of the United States of America. Perhaps he considered, and ignored.
Nevertheless, the Electors voted, and it was ‘business as usual’ in Tallahassee. At a minimum, in an abundance of caution, he could have postponed the Electoral Vote until Gov. Charlie Crist returned from his honeymoon, but he did not do so, rushing the process forward without circumspection, instead.
The Gov. should have attended anyway, as he would have been required, under Law, to oversee the replacement of any Elector, not present. It’s a good thing perfect attendance was attained, on that gloomy and sad day in Florida’s history.
Col. Joe –
Biology is a strange science. I know I descend from you, yet you invoke my ire by ’second-guessing’ the actions of our Governor. I am certain that if the Florida Meeting of Electors were invalid due to his non-attendance, then some able body would have filed a lawsuit, by now challenging such validy, or lack therof.
I don’t know how you “Continental Soldiers” fight battles, but here in Florida, it’s done in a civil manner. My admonition to you, sir: “Do not get our Chief Executive involved.” I have decided not to pursue further legal action, regarding SC08-2338, and I have absolutely no interest in waking this sleeping dog. As former Governor Lawton Chiles would say, “That dog don’t hunt” anyway.
Charlie Crist is ‘panning’ for gold in Wahshington. Which reminds me, please give the General my personal best.
Sincerely,
Spencer Connerat – natural born citizen
Pinellas county, Florida
Dear Son –
We had a lovely church service this morning, and prayed for Alan Keyes to persevere in his quest to reveal the Truth. My only advice to you is to misspell nary a word, when you write. Although we are a free country, at last, our quills must still defer to l’élégance of the King’s English, for the majority of our prose, or facsimile thereof…lest we forget our heritage, and how to govern ourselves.
Again, I quote, from YOUR Florida Constitution – this time, from Article II:
SECTION 9. English is the official language of Florida.–
(a) English is the official language of the State of Florida.
Carpe diem, and I’ll see you at the “ol’ fishin’ hole” soon!
Col. Joe
Hardly a surprising ruling. Any halfway knowledgeable attorney would have predicted it almost word for word. The commentary reads a ton into this decision to try to make it seem irrational. That is a lot of nonsense. If you really think this paves the way for Hugo Chavez to be president, you need your head examined.
In California:
Pro bono attorney entitled to monetary sanctions for discovery abuses
http://tiny.cc/8EJsD
I don’t have any way to shepardize as you probably do.
Bob wrote:
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.
Those statements aren’t contradictory at all, unless you have a very broad definition of the word “oversee.”
>>>combine this with the facts that the SOS did “oversee” and disqualify prior candidates per the Constitutional requirements, then one has to ask the question why didn’t they do their due diligence in this case? They set a precedent, and they didn’t oversee it. Does it have anything to do with the fact that Bowen is a Democrat and so is Obama? That is prejidicial and SOS is not performing their duties, they are neglient, and in this case they were warned in writing by many people, so they are grossly neglient in performing duties that they have readily performed, on more than one occassion , in the past.
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.
No; the judge is saying the law, as written, tasks Congress with that responsibility. (And what does the U.S. Constitution have to say about state elections?) If you don’t like the law, there are ways to change it.
>>>There is no where in the Constitution that says that Congress has the responsible, or any on the Federal level, to oversee how States run their elections, quite the opposite, my friend. It gives the State’s the power to oversee their elections. Again if Obama was a Republican , would the court decision be any different?
Bob wrote:
“”Let’s assume that Soetoro’s college records were uncorked before the election showing he received foreign financial aid from Indonesia.
Are we also assuming that U.S. citizens cannot receive foreign aid from Indonesia? And are we also assuming it was impossible for Obama to have lied to Indonesia about his origins?
In other words, such evidence is rather circumstantial; it also has no bearing on whether the secretary of state has a duty to investigate.”"
>>>>you are right, the OBAMA college paperwork doesn’t prove anything as required with 100% certainty, if would just further prove that he is a lie and a cheat, or he’s telling the truth if the paperwork is consistent with his birth certificate. He can always argue that he didn’t know for sure, either way.
For example, if his records show that he’s an Indonesian citizen and getting foreign aid, that just gets us back to the fact that he perjuried himself or committed fraud when he signed all those CERTS saying he is qualified under the Constitution requirements. Unfortunately, he can’t be impeached for crimes he commmitted before he was POTUS, there are other ways he can be removed. For example, CA state law says he can go to jail for this crime of not being electorally qualified. Then he will go to jail, Congress won’t impeach him. However, taking this one step further, it would go back raise the question, the originally question of where he was born. If his originally BC says Hawaii then that raises the issue of NBC status again. He’s still a US citizen, despite applying , fraudelently for foreign aid. BERG will argue that his mother wasn’t old enough, at the law at the time , to pass US citizenship along. Others will say no, you are US citizen if born in US,no matter what. But that still doesn’t make him a NBC. Either way the college records could be construed as red herring. The real documentation to hang your hat on leads back to the original BC. That always remains the critical path in any of these cases.
Perhaps you missed the conclusion: “In other words, such evidence is rather circumstantial; it also has no bearing on whether the secretary of state has a duty to investigate.”
Nothing in the school records would provide direct evidence about Obama’s citizenship (or residency). And nothing in the school records would address the secretary of state’s duties. Which is why the court quashed the subpoena.
why didn’t they do their due diligence in this case
As the court correctly noted, the secretary of state isn’t required to investigate. Although the prior secretary of state may have done so it Cleaver’s case doesn’t mean the current secretary of state is obligated to do so now, for the simple reason that the prior secretary of state may have been wrong in removing Cleaver from the ballot.
And any attempt to base this ruling purely on partisan politics is rather baseless, as multiple states have use comparable logic is rejecting these types of suits. (And, yes, if McCain was president and this type of suit was brought against him, the result would have been the same.)
I did a search to find Michael P. Kenney’s political affiliation but found this link in the search and the link information states it thus”
“California; Elections for Statewide offices and Congress; … The decision of the Secretary of State was affirmed by Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny (King v Bowen) on 24 August. Mr…..”
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G08/CA.phtml”
Does this rate as a conflict of interest since it apears the judge on this case affirmed the results and should the judge recuse himself because of it?