Main Menu

Tag Archives | Noonan v. Bowen

Birther ballot case goes to California Supreme Court

But is the California Supreme Court Constitutional?

That’s what was reported by Gerbil Report™ from a press release of the “American Resistance Party.”1 The article, “Are Part Alien Judges Constitutional?” focuses on one newly-appointed associate justice of the California Supreme Court who was born in Mexico. Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar was recently nominated by Governor Jerry Brown to the Court, and confirmed unanimously by the California Commission on Judicial Appointments. Cuéllar has some impressive credentials that can be read in his Wikipedia article, or at the LA Times.

Because they were unable to find anything showing that Cuéllar was a US Citizen, the ARP assumed that he wasn’t. Curiously, the California Judicial Branch Fact Sheet that describes qualifications for judges does not mention any citizenship requirement, nor is it a requirement for admission to the California Bar. Nevertheless, Cuéllar is, according to his Constitution Project biography, a US Citizen. But even if Cuéllar is a naturalized citizen he is not, argues the ARP, constitutionally qualified to be a judge on the California Supreme Court because of some tortured reading of the US Constitution, specifically the 11th Amendment that precludes foreign persons from suing a state.

They assert:

Mr. Cuéllar has failed to prove in any written statement or eligibility statement in the past to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has refuted (sic) his Mexican citizenship. It is his responsibility to do so, if and when, he attains an office that is under the purview of the U.S. Constitution and California Constitution.

The ARP probably is unaware of the oath that naturalized citizens take:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; …

So while not applicable in this particular instance, the ARP do argue that dual citizens (not 100% citizens) cannot serve in any capacity under the California or US Constructions. Their argument seems nonsense. Where were they when Michele Bachmann (Swiss) and Ted Cruz (Canadian) served in the House and Senate (respectively)?

The case in question is Noonan v. Bowen, a long dismissed ballot challenge, being appealed from the Third Appellate District. Edward Noonan and co-appellant Pamela Barnett are being represented by Nathaniel J. Oleson of the US Justice Foundation. The case number is S221700.

Read More:


The case was denied review.

1Edward Noonan is founder and National Committee Chair of the American Resistance Party.

Future news: Supreme Court rejects Taitz plea

In a tersely worded decision later today, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision to let stand the California electoral votes for Barack Obama. The Court failed to be persuaded by Taitz’ allegations of stolen social-security numbers and forged Selective Service applications, and they remained unmoved by Taitz’ threats of treason charges against them. The stay requested by Taitz in the case of Noonan v. Bowen was not granted, leaving Barack Obama securely in the position of President of the United States.

In a related story, the Court also announced that it had denied cert in the case of Sibley v. Obama.

Given that it’s a foregone conclusion, I thought I might as well write the article, and scoop the competition.


Birthers deny that the Supreme Court even saw the case, and don’t read their own orders.

Orly Taitz ~ U.S. Supreme Court Grants Expedited Decision On Obama Fraud For Tuesday February 19, 2013

Happy Presidents Day, by the way.

I got the title of this article from Twitter this morning. I’ve spent a little time replying to such things online, and what I say is that the only thing “decided” last Friday, and to be announced February 19, is whether the Supreme Court will grant a stay of the counting of votes in the 2012 Presidential Election in California.

pot of melted cheeseGiven that Bender’s time travel codes are as fictional as Taitz’s allegations of a stolen Obama social-security number, there is no way the Supreme Court can stay something that happened already: It would create a time paradox in which both the Obots and the birthers would meld into a vat of temporally overheated Cheese Whiz. Since Taitz hasn’t even filed a petition for the Supreme Court to hear the substance of her appeal, there is nothing for them to decide about “Obama fraud” even if they were inclined to do so; and even if she had filed a writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and all they would do in any case would to be to refer the case back to the original court for a trial.

Nevertheless, I have grown tired of trying to explain this to birthers, so I give up. The Supreme Court did indeed decide the question of social-security fraud in the case of Obama and they will announce their decision tomorrow, and if dismissed, that means that Orly Taitz’ entire pile of evidence is wrong, her theories are wrong, and the birthers have lost well and truly, let them forever hold their peace. Amen.

Taitz demands signature from Supreme Court

Not only was Taitz not satisfied with the computer-generated birth certificate released by the Obama Campaign in 2008 that lacked the signature of the attending physician at his birth at Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, she’s demanding to see the signatures from the justices of the Supreme Court when they deny her petition for a stay in the case of Noonan v. Bowen this Friday. Taitz wrote in a draft “Supplemental Brief” that she posted on her web site:

The nation has a right to know who is committing high treason: 9 justices of the Supreme Court of clerks, who hide the pleadings and sworn affidavits from justices. For that reason plaintiffs respectfully demand signatures of the justices on the order or on the front page of the application. If there are no actual signatures of the justices the plaintiffs and the nation as a whole will know that the justices never saw a word of pleadings an the case was "ruled upon" by court employees with unknown allegiance. Plaintiffs also demand to know the names of the court employees who summarized the case, provided it to the justices and compiled the list of approved or denied applications.

imageThis document remains labeled “Draft” and one wonders if Taitz is foolhardy enough to actually send such an accusatory and inflammatory document to the Court. Perhaps she is just posturing for her followers.

The hard part about playing chicken is knowin’ when to flinch.

— Capt. Bart Mancuso
The Hunt for Red October

Taitz threatens Supreme Court with treason charge

As you probably know, the Supreme Court of the United States put the case of Noonan v. Bowen (actually a petition for a stay) on the list for its February 16th conference. The Court has not asked for a response (meaning that they aren’t seriously considering the case), but Orly Taitz, attorney for Noonan, filed something anyway [link to Taitz web site].

No one is going to accuse Orly Taitz of trying to suck up to the Supreme Court, since part of the brief is a demand for the two Obama appointees on the Court to recuse themselves, and she accuses a clerk of the Court of monkey business in a previous case of hers before the Court, Lightfoot v. Bowen, and then lying to cover it up.

And Nazis—did I mention Nazis? Here’s one of several:

Based on the behavior of the U.S. judges during the Obama regime, it is clear that Justice Breyer did not teach the Russian judges democracy and the independence of the judiciary but it is the other way around, the Russian judges taught American counterparts some telephone justice akin to the “judges letters” sent to judges during the NAZI regime.

Oh, and if the Court doesn’t hear her case, they will be guilty of:

It is time, it is high time for the Supreme Court of the United States to act, to assume the jurisdiction, as not doing so will be treason to the constitution.

TREASON? 😯 This brief is so “over the top” that we may be looking at a crash landing on the Moon!

Taitz headed back to DC for protest

Orly Taitz carrying anti-Obama protest signAfter her last dismal showing in DC (two supporters), Orly Taitz is once again headed to the the Federal District [Link to Taitz web site] to picket the Supreme Court and lobby Congress, calling attention to her case, Noonan v. Bowen, scheduled for conference at the Supreme Court next Friday, February 15. Orly has high hopes for a much larger turnout, perhaps as many as 5 people this time (from Tennessee, Texas, Ohio, California and Nevada).

I would go and support you on Tuesday at 11, but I have to stay home and picket my nose.