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
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?
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
GeorgetownJD,
I may have to refer to you as “Reality Check” squared what with all the dripping sarcasm you’re producing.
-Phil
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.
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…..
Birthers lose whenever their cases are heard by real judges.
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
“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
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.
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.
If these plaintiffs were to file this suit again, the subsequent suit would be barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
“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.
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.