Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 1 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ____________________

Pamela Barnett, Alan Keyes et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs.

Barack Obama, et al.,

Defendant-Appellee. __________________

APPELLANTS’ REPLY TO APPELLEE'S RESPONSE

Appeal from Final Judgment of the United States District Court, Central District of California, Honorable David O. Carter District Court No. CV-09-82
Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition 1

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 2 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

__________________

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ CSB #223433 29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy Ste 100 Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688 ph 949-683-5411 fax 949-766-7603 orly.taitz@gmail.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Table of Content INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................p3 A. Bias and abuse of judicial discretion in Judge Carter's refusal to rule on the motion for default judgment against Obama ..............................................p4 B. Judge Carter acted with bias and abuse of judicial discretion in including slanderous, defamatory statements about the Plaintiffs and Plaintiff's attorney, and by refusing to grant a hearing on the matter. ............................p7

Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition

2

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 3 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

C. . Carter showed bias and egregious abuse of judicial discretion and allowed improper influence in letting an attorney from the Defendant's law firm to draft his opinion...................................................................................................p10 D. Appellees misrepresented the fact of the case and US attorney's office improperly demanded for Obama to be served yet again through the U.S. attorney's office....................................................................................................p13 E. Third district Court of Appeals of the State of CA finds Presidential Eligibility Justiciable...........................................................................................p14 Introduction BIAS AND ABUSE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION BY THE DISTRICT COURT As the Appellants are limited to only 15 pages in the reply brief, the appellants will limit the reply to the most egregious issues of bias, abuse of judicial discretion, improper influence, and possibly criminal cover up exhibited in this case, particularly in regards to the fact that an attorney for the defendant's law firm, acted as a law clerk for the presiding judge. This case was dealing with fraud, perpetrated by Barack Obama prior to becoming U.S. President. Obama's personal attorney and White House Counsel Robert Bauer is a senior partner for Perkins Coie. Attorney-law clerk, drafting the opinion to dismiss the case, was also an employee of Perkins Coie.

Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition

3

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 4 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

A. Bias and abuse of judicial discretion in Judge Carter's refusal to rule on the motion for default judgment against Obama Most important issue in this case, is that Judge Carter's actions in relation to the motion for default were improper, represented bias, abuse of judicial discretion and represented fraud committed by Judge Carter in relation to the Plaintiffs, to Plaintiff's counsel Dr. Orly Taitz and to the country as a whole. In their opposition to Plaintiff's motion the defendants made a fraudulent statement: " It is submitted that the court’s decision to deny entry of default judgment against the President was in all respects proper." The U.S. attorneys know that Judge Carter (hereinafter Carter) NEVER denied entry of a default judgment . He simply refused to issue an order. As stated before, he first hearing was for a DEFAULT JUDGMENT. Therefore Judge Carter had an obligation to follow Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: In all other cases, the party must apply to the court for a default judgment. A default judgment may be entered against a minor or incompetent person only if represented by a general guardian, conservator, or other like fiduciary who has appeared. If the party against whom a default judgment is sought has appeared personally or by a representative, that party or its representative must be served with written notice of the application at least 3 days before the hearing. The court may conduct hearings or make referrals preserving any federal statutory right to a jury trial when, to enter or effectuate judgment, it needs to: (A) conduct an accounting; (B) determine the amount of damages;
Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition 4

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 5 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

(C) establish the truth of any allegation by evidence; or (D) investigate any other matter. So all he was empowered to do at that hearing was either grant the default (which he didn't ), deny the default ( which he didn't ) , or conduct hearings or make referrals when to make a judgment, it needs to establish the truth of any allegation by evidence or investigate any other matter. Thus, he had no right to set a trial date. As a result, the government had NO RIGHT to file a motion to dismiss.. This should have been an investigative hearing on evidence, by him, in order to determine if default judgment should be granted. By the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, he was not empowered to do anything else. He NEVER made a ruling on default judgment. As the transcript of the July 13, 2009 hearing shows, the Plaintiff's attorney Dr. Orly Taitz repeatedly requested for Judge Carter to rule on her motion for default judgment, simply rule one way or another, grant it or deny it. He never did. Clearly Obama was served with the process, as he sent an Assistant U.S. attorney to represent him. Instead of ruling one way or another, to grant or deny the notion for default, judge Carter improperly applied pressure and duress on plaintiff's attorney and demanded that she serve Obama the way "government wants". He never stated, that she did not serve him correctly, as he knew that she served him

Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition

5

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 6 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

on Inauguration Day, before he did anything as a president. She served him with a law suit, dealing with fraud, that he committed before getting into office, in order to satisfy his personal ego and in order to get into office. Judge Carter knew, that Taitz served Obama properly and that Obama was in default in that he never furnished an answer, so Judge Carter simply decided to act with bias and defraud the Plaintiff's Counsel and the Plaintiffs by promising that if Taitz serves Obama yet again, the way government wants, he would hear the case on its Merits. During the course of the hearing Carter repeatedly stated that this court has jurisdiction and the case would be heard on its merits, he stated that this is an important case for the country and the military, that it should not be decided on technicality, but rather decided on the merits, if he (Obama) wasn't eligible, he shouldn't be there (in the White House). (Appendix to Appellant's Brief, Clerk's record, 07.13.09 transcript) Taitz had no other option but to rely on the Honesty and Honor of a Federal Judge. Instead, Judge Carter defrauded her and her clients. He did precisely what he promised not to do. he dismissed the case on a technicality, claiming he had no jurisdiction and to add insult to injury, for good measure, he added slanderous statements about the plaintiffs and Taitz in order to demoralize the Plaintiffs and to destroy good name of their attorney, to assassinate her character.

Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition

6

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 7 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

B. Judge Carter acted with bias and abuse of judicial discretion in including slanderous, defamatory statements about the Plaintiffs and Plaintiff's attorney, and by refusing to grant a hearing on the matter. Defendants' claim Plaintiffs' assertion that Carter's actions showed bias 'are frivolous". Let's analyze , how is it frivolous? Carter included in his final order a reference to some letter, which was not part of the record, and stated that he was concerned about Taitz suborning perjury. After this slanderous order came out Taitz repeatedly demanded a hearing on this particular matter. She demanded an opportunity to prove in the hearing that it was malicious and egregious slander and defamation of character and that she never suborned perjury and that Judge Carter needs to remove this slanderous, unsupported and inflammatory statement out of his final order. If Carter was genuinely concerned with suborning perjury, he would have scheduled such hearing. He never did it, as he knew, that there was no subornation of perjury, there was no evidence to prove it. He simply included in his final order a slanderous accusation against the Plaintiff's counsel with a clear goal to assassinate the character of an attorney, who had plaintiffs with the strongest standing and who brought the strongest charges and strongest evidence,against Obama. Carter, in essence, was aiding and abetting Obama in commission of this massive fraud upon the citizens of this country, and he did it in a

Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition

7

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 8 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

coordinated effort, in a one-two punch attempted knockout assault on the plaintiff's counsel. Let's imagine for a moment that the shoe is on the other foot. Let's imagine, that Carter makes a slanderous accusation about the U.S. Attorneys Birotte, West and DeJute. Let's say he included in his order a statement that he is concerned about Birotte and West and DeJute murdering children and raping women. Would they still think that there is no bias and no abuse of judicial discretion in such actions of a judge? Let's imagine for a moment unthinkable, let's imagine that this court decides that there was no bias and no abuse of judicial discretion and this court decides to deny the appeal, and as a next step Taitz files a petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court and she files a criminal complaint with the Inspector General and with the Judicial Committees of both the House of Representatives and Senate. Let's imagine, that while the Supreme Court and the Judicial Committees are deliberating over those complaints, someone is sending a malicious letter accusing Judge Carter and the judges of this Honorable court of murdering children and raping women. Let's imagine for a moment that the Supreme Court of the United States and the Judicial Committees of the House of Representatives and Senate issue an opinion, where without giving the judges an opportunity to respond,

Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition

8

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 9 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

SCOTUS and Judicial Committees issue an opinion, that they are concerned about Federal Judge Carter and the judges of the Ninth Circuit court of Appeals murdering children and raping women. Would the judges of this court be amused? Would your honors feel that it is unbiased, for a court or a judicial committee to issue an opinion and include slanderous accusations without any shred of proof, without any evidence and without any opportunity to respond? Of course, it represents bias and abuse of judicial discretion. Not only did Carter's actions showed extreme bias and abuse of judicial discretion, those actions also showed extreme malice towards the Plaintiffs and their counsel. Not long ago Judge Bobby DeLauter was convicted of public corruption for giving a judgment to a party, who might help him get into a higher court. Clearly giving a decision in favor of the sitting president will help one get into a higher court. Not only did Carter act with bias against the plaintiffs who challenged the President, he acted with malice in assassinating the character of the plaintiff's attorney, he did it without any proof and without any hearing, with a clear goal of helping the Plaintiff, most powerful man in the world, President of the United States. If Carter's actions in relation to the very first motion, i.e. Motion for the Default judgment were improper, than all the other motions were irrelevant and the presence of the U.S. attorney's office in this case is improper and impermissible.

Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition

9

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 10 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

C. Carter showed bias and egregious abuse of judicial discretion and allowed improper influence in letting an attorney from the Defendant's law firm to draft his opinion. In the beginning of October, 2009 Carter hired as his law clerk for 6 months clerkship, one Siddharth Velamoor, attorney from Perkins Coie, a Defendant Obama's law firm. Senior partner in Perkins Coie is Robert Bauer, who is not only a personal attorney for Barack Obama, but also a White House Counsel. (Appendix F-Wikipedia Bio of Robert Bauer, showing him as a partner of Perkins Coie, Obama's personal attorney and White House Counsel). It is impossible to imagine a bigger case of conflict of interest and improper influence. Additionally, Velamoor's biography shows similar pattern of obfuscation of records, cover up and creation of fraudulent records as Obama’s. A Siddharth Velamoor page was created on an information site WikiBin. (Appendix E). This page addressed public concerns. "The hiring of Velamoor created some public speculation and controversy because Perkins Coie previously represented the defendant, Barack Obama, giving the appearance of a possible conflict of interest."id. This article was designed to calm the public concerns and it was done by planting fraudulent information. It claimed that Velamoor was a Columbia University graduate and was placed over a year prior to his hire. Currently, going to this web site and trying to print this page is causing the Internet connection to shut off. Similarly, Matindale.Com showed Velamoor to be a graduate of Columbia. ( Appendix B Link to Martindale.com), and a Columbia Journal of Environmental law showed Velamoor as one of the editors. The Problem with all of this information, was the fact that Velamoor did not study at Columbia and did not graduate from there. Further study of his biography showed that FindLaw.com and Westlaw list Velamoor as a Juris Doctor (JD) and a graduate of Commenius School of Law in Bratislava Slovakia. (Appendix A). When this conflicting information appeared, Martindale.com entry, showing Velamoor to be a Columbia graduate, was hastily de-linked, which shows a pattern of cover up. Exhibit G shows Commenius
Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition 10

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 11 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

University Faculty of Law web page. Based on the information on this web page, Velamoor could not possibly graduate from Law school there either. a. Exchange program for Faculty of Law requires a Masters degree in Law, Velamoor does not have a master's degree in law, so he could not have been accepted there. b. Faculty of law requires knowledge of Slovakian language. Velamoor's family is from India. He speaks English and possibly some Hindu, nothing Slavic in sight. His bio shows no studies of Slavic languages. Attorney for the Plaintiffs, Taitz, came from the Soviet Union and knows firsthand, how extremely difficult it is to switch between Slavic and English Languages. It is all but impossible for one with no Slavic Background to just waltz into a Law School in Bratislava and immediately write legal briefs in Slovakian language. c. Slovakia is a former Eastern Bloc Country, where the law is not based on British Common Law and the education program is different. Typically, it is a 5 year program. How could Velamoor finish it in three years by 2008 and before he even finished it, be on the list of federal court clerks, before he spent even one day studying US law, preparing for the bar in US and learning all new different terminology, already be on the list of law school graduates, accepted to be attorney-law clerks for federal judges . When and how did he do this? d. If a, b and c wasn't enough, here is another slight impediment. A list of programs for international applicants includes PhD in law, but it does not include
Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition 11

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 12 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

Juris Doctor-JD, which means, that Velamoor does not have a JD at all. So, how could he become an Attorney- Law Clerk for Judge Carter, if having a JD is a minimum requirement? Moreover, an even more important and burning question is as follows: knowing Velamoor's legal background, more appropriately lack thereof, who wrote an opinion to dismiss this case? Clearly Velamoor did not have knowledge and experience for it? Could it be that his boss in Perkins Coie, White House Counsel Robert Bauer had a hand in writing this opinion? Seeing all of the above, Watergate pales and looks like a traffic ticket in comparison to Obama-fraud -gate, Velamoor-Gate, Carter-Gate and Land-Gate. Plaintiffs are asking this court not only to reverse the decision of the lower court, but also to appoint an independent master or use its inherent power to appoint an independent counsel to investigate all of the facts provided above. D. Appellees misrepresented the fact of the case and US attorney's office improperly demanded for Obama to be served yet again through the U.S. attorney's office. Defendants in their brief state: "It is clear beyond question that the underlying lawsuit would necessarily operate against the President in his official capacity, by virtue of the fact, inter alia, that appellants are seeking his removal from office."

Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition

12

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 13 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

Appellees as well as court misrepresented the facts of the case and the Appellants pleadings. Appellants-Plaintiffs did not seek removal of the defendant from office. They did not question anything Obama did in his official capacity. Their main concern was fraud committed by Obama before getting into office and for his personal gain and ego, therefore the political doctrine is irrelevant for this case. Additionally, due to the above facts, the U.S attorney's office had no right to demand from the Plaintiff's attorney, that she serve them. The ORIGINAL complaint was filed in Jan 20,2009 BEFORE Obama was sworn in. Plaintiffs were not seeking removal from office. July 13 hearing should have been for default judgment only. It had nothing to do with seeking Obama's removal from office, as such, service under 4e was proper. According to Judge Carter, he simply wanted to accommodate the Department of Justice in order to expedite hearing of the case on the merits. Judge Carter: "In talking to you this way you are basically told, we are going to get to the MERITS of this very quickly. The government is just asking for what THEY believe is proper service." (emphasis added) (July 13 hearing transcript-Appellant's appendix and Clerk's record) E. Third district Court of Appeals of the State of CA finds Presidential Eligibility Justiciable. On 10.25.10 the Third District Court of Appeals of the State of California in it's order in relation to connected state case of Keyes et al v Bowen, which was
Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition 13

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 14 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

brought originally in the Superior Court of Ca in Sacramento 34-2008-80000096CU-WM-GDS by Taitz and Kreep against secretary of State Debra Bowen found, that Judicial review of Presidential eligibility is proper after the electoral college and Congress had an opportunity to review the matter. " Issues regarding qualifications
for president are quintessentially suited to the foregoing process. Arguments concerning qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. The members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are well qualified to adjudicate any objections to ballots for allegedly unqualified candidates. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review—if any—should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course. [Citation.]" (Robinson v. Bowen, supra, 567 F.Supp.2d at p. 1147.) No. C062321. Keyes et al v

Bowen et al.Court of Appeals of California, Third District, Sacramento.As the electoral college and the Congressional confirmation of the results of the 2008 electoral college have run their course, according to Keyes et al v Boen et al, Judicial review is proper and justiciable.
Certificate of Compliance The Appellant certifies that Appellant’s opening brief without caption and heading does not exceed the allowed 15 pages or allowed word or line count.

Wherefore the appellant respectfully requests: To find for the Appellants in that : 1. court erred in not granting Plaintiffs 05.27.09 motion for default judgment by the Plaintiffs 2. court erred in not granting 06.14.09. motion for reconsideration of 05.27.10 motion or for certification for appeal 3. court abused its judicial discretion and improperly applied pressure on Plaintiffs' counsel Taitz in demanding, that she serve the defendant Obama yet again, after he was already served four times by different means, that she serve the US Attorneys’ office for the purpose of them representing Obama and that due to duress and intimidation applied, her consent to serve them was not valid. Absent such consent to serve the defendant again, and due to the fact that the defendant did not provide an answer to the complaint, he was in default and post default discovery needs to be conducted. 4. court erred in its 10.29.2010 ruling granting defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition 14

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 15 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

Court erred in including defamatory, slanderous inflammatory statements about the Plaintiff’s counsel without giving the counsel an opportunity to respond and refusing any minimal inquiry into authenticity or veracity of such allegations,
4. sua sponte assignment to the independent Prosecutor and public integrity unit evidence of Obama's illegitimacy to US presidency, 5. sua sponte referral to the special prosecutor the matter of intimidation of Federal Judge David O. Carter by yet unknown individual(individuals) 6. cost and reasonable fees of appeal. /s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESq Applicant attests that everything in the above pleadings is true and correct to the best of her knowledge.

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

Certificate of Service

Applicant attests and certifies that a true and correct copy of the above was served on the:

Assistant US ATTORNEYS DAVID DEJUTE ROGER WEST (SERVED ELECTRONICALLY)

US Commission on Civil Rights 624 Ninth Street, NW Washington, DC 20425 C

Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition

15

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 16 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

Public Integrity Section Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington DC 20530-0001

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders The Honorable Mrs. Margaret Sekaggya Palais des Nations CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland International Criminal bar Hague

BPI-ICB-CAPI Head Office Neuhuyskade 94 2596 XM The Hague The Netherlands Tel : 0031 (70) 3268070 Fax : 0031 (70) 3353531 Email: info@bpi-icb.org Website: www.bpi-icb.org
Regional Office - Americas / Bureau régional - Amériques / Oficina regional - Américas 137, rue St-Pierre Montréal, Québec, Canada, H2Y 3T5 Tel : 001 (514) 289-8757 001 (514) 289-8757 Fax : 001 (514) 289-8590 Email: admin@bpi-icb.org Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition 16

0031 (70) 3268070

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 17 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

Website: www.bpi-icb.org

Laura Vericat Figarola BPI-ICB-CAPI Secretaria Barcelona laura_bpi@icab.es Address: Avenida Diagonal 529 1º2ª 08029 Barcelona, España tel/fax 0034 93 405 14 24

United Nations Commission for Civil Rights Defenders Orsolya Toth (Ms) Human Rights Officer Civil and Political Rights Section Special Procedures Division Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights tel: + 41 22 917 91 51 email: ototh@ohchr.org

Signed

/s/ Orly Taitz Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition 17

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 18 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

Dr Orly Taitz, ESQ 29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, ste 100 Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

Counsel certifies that above brief does not exceed allowed word count

/s/ Orly Taitz Dr Orly Taitz, ESQ 29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, ste 100 Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688 Appendix

Appendix-A
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/4073288_1?channel=CCC Education: Comenius University School of Law, Bratislava, Slovakia, 2008, J.D. Honors: Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar London School of Economics and Political Science, 2005 M.Sc. Dartmouth College, 2004, A.B.

Appendix B
Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition 18

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 19 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

http://www.martindale.com/Siddharth-Velamoor/33735949-lawyer.htm Education: Columbia University, J.D. Dartmouth College, A.B.

Appendix-C

Siddharth V. Velamoor
Firm: Perkins Coie

Address: 1201 Third Avenue Suite 4800 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Map & Directions Phone: Fax: E-mail: (206) 359-8099 (206) 359-9099 svelamoor@perkinscoie.com (206) 359-8099

Web site: http://www.perkinscoie.com

Position

Areas of Practice

Education

Lawyer Profile: Sid Velamoor is an associate in the firm's Product Liability practice. Current Employment Position(s): Associate

Areas of Practice: Product Liability Education:

Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition

19

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 20 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

Comenius University School of Law, Bratislava, Slovakia, 2008 J.D. Honors: Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar London School of Economics and Political Science, 2005 M.Sc. Honors: with merit Major: International Relations Dartmouth College, 2004 A.B. Honors: cum laude Major: Government Appendix D

Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition

20

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 21 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition

21

Robert Bauer

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 22 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

Appendix E
Home Contact Us

SEO Header Title
Home Articles Search Submit Article Contact Us Donate to Wikibin

Siddharth Velamoor

Siddharth Velamoor, a product liability attorney for the Seattle law firm Perkins Coie, began his term as a law clerk for United States District Court Judge David O. Carter in the Central District of California after a lawsuit (Barnett v. Obama) was filed in Carter's court challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be President of the United States. The hiring of Velamoor created some public speculation and controversy because Perkins Coie had previously represented the defendant, Barack Obama, giving the appearance of a possible conflict of interest. However, law clerks for federal judges follow a rotation that is planned many months in advance. Velamoor was chosen to serve as Carter's clerk for the October 2009-2010 season over a year before, prior to the 2008 election and months before Taitz filed the lawsuit. His specialty, product liability, is unrelated to the subject of Barnett v. Obama. Carter decided the case in favor of the Defendant on October 17th, a few weeks after Velamoor began his six month term as clerk. Velamoor received his law degree from Columbia University Law School, and his undergraduate degree from Dartmouth College.

Appendix F
Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition 22

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 23 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

Robert Bauer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

Robert Bauer

34th White House Counsel Incumbent Assumed office January 3, 2010 President Barack Obama

Preceded by Greg Craig

Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition

23

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 24 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

Political party Democratic Spouse(s) Anita Dunn Harvard College (B.A.) University of Virginia School of Law (J.D.) Lawyer

Alma mater

Profession

Robert Bauer is an American attorney who is currently serving as White House Counsel under President of the United States Barack Obama. He was formerly a partner at Perkins Coie. In November, 2009, he was named to be the next White House Counsel,[1] upon the resignation of Gregory Craig.[2] Bauer was President Obama's personal attorney and the general counsel of the Obama for America presidential campaign prior to his appointment as White House Counsel. He has also previously served as the general counsel to the Democratic National Committee,[3] and had advised Mr. Obama since Mr. Obama came to Washington, D.C. in 2005 as U. S. Senator.[4] Robert Bauer is said to be a potential replacement as Chief of Staff to President Obama should Rahm Emanuel step down.[5]

Contents
[hide] 1 Personal life 2 Education 3 References 4 External links

[edit] Personal life
Bauer is married to Anita Dunn, the former director of communications at the White House. [4] Together, they were described as Washington's new "power couple" in Newsweek magazine.[6]

[edit] Education
Bauer graduated from Phillips Exeter Academy in 1970, from Harvard College in 1973, and received his law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1976.

[edit] References
Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition 24

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 25 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

1. 2. 3. 4.

^ , http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/white_house_counsel_gregory_craig_1.php ^ Greg Craig out as White House Counsel ^ http://www.perkinscoie.com/rbauer/ ^ a b "Craig Steps Down as White House Lawyer" by Jeff Zeleny, The New York Times, November 13, 2009. Retrieved November 13, 2009. 5. ^ Bloomberg news, 09/22/2010 6. ^ http://www.newsweek.com/id/176312

[edit] External links
Biography of Robert Bauer, Perkins Coie

Exhibit G

Sitemap Slovak

Submit

Study > Information on admission Comenius University Faculty of Law Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition 25

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 26 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

Bachelor Programs Master Programs Ph.D. Study Programs Student’s Declaration On Concurrent or Previous Program of Study Information on admission Comenius University Faculty of Law o Bachelor program - the first degree in law – full-time and part-time programs o Master program of study for the second degree in law – full-time and part-time programs o Full-time and part-time programs of study for the third academic degree Continuing Education Law in Global Society program – AIS enrollment open!

Information on admission Comenius University Faculty of Law
1. Name of the School Univerzita Komenského (Comenius University) Bratislava, Právnická fakulta (Faculty of Law) Dean: Doc. JUDr. Marián Vrabko, CSc., mim.prof. Address: Šafárikovo nám. 6, 818 05 Bratislava Contacts: Dean’s Secretariat: tel. 421 02 59244 104 Fax: 421 592 44216; 421 02 59244 104

Students’ Affairs: tel.: 59244 107,199,190,306,189,311,169,501,500 fax: 592 44 408;

2. General Information about the School The Faculty of Law was established as part of Comenius University in June 1919. Augustín Ráth became its first Dean, and the classes opened in October 1921.

Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition

26

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 27 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

In almost 90 years of its history, the programs of study underwent many changes. At present the School offers the programs of study leading to three academic degrees based on the credit system. The mission of the School is to provide the programs of legal education enabling its graduates to make successful legal careers both at home and in the EU, and careers in other areas of communal and societal life. The aim of the School is to continuously improve the content and form in all levels of study programs by introducing modern teaching methods developed by its academic staff striving to for the best academic achievements and the highest scholarly distinctions. 3. A Survey of Accredited Programs of Study 4. Admission - General Terms and Conditions (for Study in Slovak Language) a/ Admission to full-time and part-time bachelor programs Applicants for admission to bachelor program must have completed full secondary general or vocational education and obtained a certificate of secondary education. Other requirements, such as the application deadline, admission procedures and the system of confirmation of compliance with the requirements will be published no later than two months before the application deadline. The program of study is compatible with the requirements of international rules for recognition and equivalence of academic degrees, as provided by special law. b/ Admission to full-time and part-time master programs Applicants seeking admission to programs of study for a second degree in law must have obtained the first degree in law. Other requirements, such as the application deadline, admission procedures and the system of confirmation of compliance with the requirements will be published no later than two months before the application deadline. c/ Admission to full-time and part-time Ph.D. programs Applicants seeking admission to doctoral programs of study must have completed the programs of study for the second degree in law or a combined program of study of the first and second degree in law. Other requirements, such as the application deadline, admission procedures and the system of confirmation of compliance with the requirements will be published no later than two months before the application deadline. d / Admission requirements for international applicants to full-time bachelor programs International applicants can seek admission based on scholarship/grants/exchange programs provided by any E.U. country, or as paying students from non-E.U. countries. Applicants are
Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition 27

Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 28 of 28

ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29

required to have completed general or vocational secondary education, to have obtained a certificate of secondary education and to be speaking Slovak. Other requirements, such as the application deadline, admission procedures and the system of confirmation of compliance with the requirements will be published no later than two months before the application deadline. Each applicant must submit a certificate of secondary education translated into Slovak or a certificate of validation (where the applicant comes from the country not having an agreement on equivalence of documents), and also a birth certificate. Entrance interviews are prescribed for students from non-E.U. countries. e/ Admission requirements for international applicants to full-time master programs International applicants will be required to have completed a bachelor program of study in law. Other requirements, such as the application deadline, admission procedures and entrance tests/interviews will be published no later than two months before the application deadline. Each applicant is required to submit a document of graduation from the program of study for the first degree in law translated into Slovak or a certificate of validation of a bachelor diploma certificate in law (where the applicant comes from the country not having an agreement on equivalence of documents), and also a birth certificate. f/ Admission requirements for international applicants to full-time and part-time Ph.D. programs International applicants seeking admission to doctoral programs of study must have completed the programs of study for the second degree in law or a combined program of study of the first and second degree in law, and to have a good command of the Slovak language. Other requirements, such as the application deadline, admission procedures and the system of confirmation of meeting the requirements will be published not later than two months before the application deadline. Each applicant must submit a master diploma certificate in law or a combined master and bachelor diploma certificate translated into Slovak or a certificate of validation (where the applicant comes from the country not having an agreement on equivalence of documents) and also a birth certificate.

Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition

28

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful