February 24, 2009
UPDATED: There’s some confusion about the Keyes v Bowen case, the Occidental College Subpoena, the Motion to Quash it and the question of financial sanctions. See the links for everything below.
This is how I understand it.
It has been born out in previous cases that “there exists no designated official in the federal government, or the government of the states, directly charged with the responsibility of determining whether any Presidential candidate meets the qualifications of Article H of the Constitution of the United States.”
And the courts have consistently ruled that citizens, including retired military on ready reserve, have no “standing” to demand barry prove his eligibility.
So Keyes et al sued the California Secretary of State, Sandra Bowen, claiming that she had a duty to make sure the candidates she put on the ballot were in fact constitutionally eligible.
They also claimed that each California Elector has “an affirmative duty to discover whether the candidate for President for which the elector is seeking election is a ‘natural bom’ citizen.”
Specifically, they sought “to enjoin Secretary Bowen from both certifying to the Governor the names of the California Electors, and from transmitting to each presidential Elector a Certificate of Election, until such documentary proof is produced and verified showing that [President Obama] is a ‘natural born’ citizen of the United States and does not hold citizenship in Indonesia, Kenya or Great Britain.”
Basically means they wanted to stop the certification of the vote before it got to Dick Cheney.
Problem is they didn’t bring suit until November 13th and did nothing further to stop them. And then there’s the simple issue of identifying a “mandatory duty with which Respondents failed to comply with”.
There are three outstanding motions set to be heard on March 13, 2009.
And then came the Occidental College subpoena. I’m not sure how they got to that idea. I understand the intent and the potential of what might be found – but why did so much time lapse and why was the suit started 9 days after the election? I don’t know if it anything to do with Lightfoot v Bowen – wanting a back up of sorts like Wrotnowski to Donofrio.
And here is where the real screw up was – if the statute barry’s lawyers cited is valid, Kreep did not follow proper procedure for the serving of the subpoena.
Why? How could a such a simple mistake be made?
Kreep was to serve barry 5 days (in person) or 10 days (by mail) before they served Occidental College. And when they served Occidental College they should have provided proof that barry was notified in accordance with the statute. Both were sent via mail on 1-15. There is mention of a “Certificate of Compliance” when they clearly were not.
So because it was not properly served Occidental is not legally bound to comply.
11-13 Keyes v Bowen Petition for Writ of Mandate filed
1-15 Subpoenas were served to Occidental College and Bowen et al via US Mail.
1-16 Woocher mailed Keyes’ counsel Gary Kreep to request they “cancel or withdraw the subpoena” at least until March 13th when those three motions would be heard. The cancellation would be without prejudice and could be reinstated if the case was still alive on March 14th.
Means they wanted to prevent discovery until the case was thrown out. The same thing they did with Berg v Obama.
1-27 Woocher again contacted Kreep to ask the same thing.
2-2 Kreep emailed Woocher that he wasn’t going to withdraw or cancel the subpoena.
2-11 Woocher filed the notice and the Motion to Quash.
According to barry’s lawyers the case is moot because:
Keyes et al have not identified a single “mandatory duty” the respondents Bowen et al failed to do.
The subpoena “seeks irrelevant information that could not, under any circumstances, lead to discovery of admissible evidence in this case”. [lie]
The subpoena was not properly served.
It’s too late for a writ of mandate barring Bowen et al from certifying the vote because it has already been done and barry and Biden were sworn in “on or about” Jan 20th.
I did find these words interesting and wonder why they were included:
The central issue in this lawsuit — putting aside the significant jurisdictional and timeliness questions — is whether any Respondent had a legal duty to demand proof of natural born citizenship from the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee.
None of the documents sought by Petitioners could possibly assist in answering this question.
Now that is a blatant lie and one they should not have said out loud. It smacks of guilt – not legalese. If he was registered as barry soetoro – like his classmates knew him to be – there is plenty. And if he received financial aid for being a “foreign citizen” then the deal is sealed.
That one statement reinforced the fact that he continues to fight something that according to him and his gazillion lawyers doesn’t need fighting.
Why does a man claiming transparency need to be compelled to produce anything?
He lies every time he mentions that word.
And as far as the threat of monetary sanctions – this is what was at the end of the motion:
Respondent moving parties do not, with this motion, exercise their rights under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1987.2, 2025.410, and 2025.420 to seek recompense for their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs necessarily incurred in bringing this motion. However, Respondent moving may do so in the future if Petitioners continue to misuse the discovery process.
Again it seems a tad desperate. If they are so certain that nothing of relevance could be obtained from the subpoena, that the subpoena was improperly served and that the case is moot – why the threat?
2-11 Occidental College Subpoena: Motion to Quash (text)
2-11 Occidental College Subpoena: Notice of Motion to Quash (pdf)
2-11 Occidental College Subpoena: Motion to Quash (pdf)
2-20 Occidental College Subpoena: Discussion of Motion to Quash
2-24 Keyes: “Obama is a radical Communist!”
3-13 Scheduled Hearing
*3-13 Occidental College Subpoena: QUASHED