Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
BARNETT|KEYES v OBAMA (APPEAL - 9th CIRCUIT) - 52-1 - - TransportRoom.52-1

BARNETT|KEYES v OBAMA (APPEAL - 9th CIRCUIT) - 52-1 - - TransportRoom.52-1

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,953 |Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
11/07/2011 52 Filed (ECF) Appellees Joseph R. Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Robert M. Gates, Barack Hussein Obama and Michelle L.R. Obama in 09-56827, 10-55084 response opposing motion (). Date of service: 11/07/2011. [7957482] [09-56827, 10-55084] (REW)
11/07/2011 52 Filed (ECF) Appellees Joseph R. Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Robert M. Gates, Barack Hussein Obama and Michelle L.R. Obama in 09-56827, 10-55084 response opposing motion (). Date of service: 11/07/2011. [7957482] [09-56827, 10-55084] (REW)

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on Nov 08, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/09/2011

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUITWILEY S. DRAKE, et al.,)NO. 09-56827)Plaintiffs/Appellants,)D.C. No. 8:09-CV-00082-DOC)Central District of Californiav.)Santa Ana)BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, et al.,))Defendants/Appellees. ))PAMELA BARNETT, Captain, et al.,)NO. 10-55084)Plaintiffs/Appellants,)D.C. No. 8:09-CV-00082-DOC)Central District of Californiav.)Santa Ana)BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, et al.,))Defendants/Appellees. )
APPELLEES’ OPPOSITION TO “EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT
 
OF MANDAMUS”
APPEAL FROM THETHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THECENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SANTA ANASA CV 09-00082 DOCANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.United States AttorneyLEON W. WEIDMANAssistant United States AttorneyChief, Civil DivisionROGER E. WESTAssistant United States AttorneyFirst Assistant Chief, Civil DivisionDAVID A. DeJUTEAssistant United States AttorneyRoom 7516 Federal Building300 North Los Angeles StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012Telephone: (213) 894-2461/2574Facsimile: (213) 894-7819Attorneys for Defendants/Appellees
Case: 10-55084 11/07/2011 ID: 7957482 DktEntry: 52-1 Page: 1 of 6
 
I.INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTAppellees, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby set forth theirOpposition to Appellants’ “Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus.” Asdemonstrated infra, the Petitioners have no standing herein, this case presents non- justiciable political questions, the person against whom mandamus is sought is nota party, and the grounds set forth in Appellants’ moving papers are factually falseand legally frivolous.II.APPELLANTS ARE NOT PROPER PARTIES HEREIN BECAUSETHEY LACK STANDING, AND THE CASE PRESENTS NON-JUSTICIABLE POLITICAL QUESTIONSAs set forth in Appellees’ Answering Brief, filed herein on or about October13, 2010, Appellants are not proper parties, as they lack standing to bring theaction, and this case presents non-justiciable political questions. These arguments,as well as others supporting the dismissal of this case, are set forth in Appellees’Answering Brief, a copy which is attached hereto for the Court’s convenience asAppendix 1, and will not be repeated here.III.APPELLANTS HAVE NOT SET FORTH A LEGAL BASIS FOR THISCOURT TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER LORETTA FUDDY,WHO IS NOT A PARTY TO THIS CASEAppellants seek a Writ of Mandamus from this Court directing LorettaFuddy, who is the Director of Health of the State of Hawaii, to allow Appellants’counsel, Orly Taitz, and her forensic document “experts” to examine the original1961 long-form birth certificate of President Obama. Counsel provides no legalbasis whatever to support the issuance of such a writ to a non-party. In the absenceof such showing, the Petition should be denied.
1
Case: 10-55084 11/07/2011 ID: 7957482 DktEntry: 52-1 Page: 2 of 6
 
IV.THE FACTUAL BASIS PROFERRED BY APPELLANTS IN SUPPORTOF THEIR PETITION IS BLATANTLY FALSEAt several points in their Petition, Appellants allege that, during the May 2,2011 hearing before this Court, Appellees’ counsel argued that this case was mootby virtue of the fact that President Obama had authorized the release of his long-form birth certificate from the State of Hawaii, and had posted it on an officialwebsite. Specifically, at Page 4 of the Petition, Appellants’ counsel states:“During the May 2, 2011 hearing Assistant U.S. AttorneyDavid DeJute, Attorney for the Defendant BarackHussein Obama, argued, that a few days prior the hearingMr. Obama had produced his long-form birth certificateto the public by posting it on the official website of theWhite House. . . . He argued that due to release of thealleged certified copy of such birth certificate, the appealat hand is moot, is fait accompli [sic]”Again, at Page 10 of the Petition, Appellants’ counsel states as follows:“If the requested Writ of Mandemus [sic] is not granted,Appellants will be greatly prejudiced, as their case isintimately connected to the Birth certificate in question.Appellees introduced the alleged certified copy as proof of existence of the document in question on file and asbasis for their position that the appeal needs to bedismissed. Without access to the original Appellantscannot disprove allegations by the Appellees.” (emphasissupplied).The aforesaid statements in the Petition, proferred as a principal factual basis
2
Case: 10-55084 11/07/2011 ID: 7957482 DktEntry: 52-1 Page: 3 of 6

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->