CA Noonan v Bowen Obama Ballot Challenge Case Grinds On In The Shadows

Posted by By at 28 November, at 07 : 30 AM Print

CA Noonan v Bowen Obama Ballot Challenge Case Grinds On In The Shadows

This is the premiere California Ballot Challenge case, such as it is, now in appeal. It is being sloooooow-walked through the system by the Peoples’ Republik of Cal-ee-Fornia. The formerly “Golden State’s” extreme left wing Attorney General and Secretary of State have done everything possible to squash it, legally or illegally.

They incorrectly claim that SOS Bowen has no responsibility to vet candidates, even though she has before and even though a Supreme Court precedent supports “ministerial duty” of a SOS. When confronted with that, plaintiffs were told that vetting is discretionary, as if it would be logical to vet some obscure third party candidates, but not a likely winner, who has very serious questions challenges to his eligibility. The case never got to trial, as it was stopped by a motion to dismiss. Read about it in our earlier postings on our CA news page.

We spent nearly all the money raised by our legal non-profit for a FL challenge handled by Larry Klayman, so our Founder Pamela Barnett went the Pro Se route, while Noonan was represented by Gary Kreep. It appears  that Pamela and Gary achieved similar results. I can hardly guarantee that they will win this one, given the outrageous things which CA did with the original case, but there is some value in getting word to the public, recording their lies and illegal actions and to set the stage for future actions. While we don’t have any expensive lawyers to fund for Pamela, there are various fees, travel and other expenses she could use help with:

Donate Now!Donate Now!

HELP WITH OBAMA ELIGIBILITY LEGAL BATTLES. IT’S NOT OVER YET!

Read more on WHY help is needed

 Now just waiting for the records to be moved to the appeals court and the briefing schedule to be set.

California 3rd Appellate District

Court data last updated: 11/27/2012 02:05 PM

Case Summary

Docket

Briefs

Disposition

Parties and Attorneys

Trial Court

Parties and Attorneys

Noonan et al. v. Bowen et al.
Case Number C071764

 

Party

Attorney

Noonan, Edward : Plaintiff and Appellant Gary G. Kreep
United States Justice Foundation
932 D Street, Suite 3
Ramona, CA 92065
Barnett, Pamela : Plaintiff and Appellant
2230 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 340-160
Rocklin, CA 95765
Pro Per
Bowen, Debra : Defendant and Respondent Anthony R. Hakl III
Office of the State Attorney General
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Obama, as President et al., Barack Hussein, II : Defendant and Respondent Fredric D. Woocher
Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90024

Click here to request automatic e-mail notifications about this case.

—-

Past case postings:
.
Here we go again, with the “California 7?…

CA Ballot Challenge Hijinks

by 

Will the corruption never cease? We (the California…

CA Atty General Counterrattacks “California 7,” Noonan and Dummett Litigants’ Ballot Challenges

by 

Kamela Harris (above, with The One), Democrat CA…

Obama Not Qualified to be on CA Ballot, say 2 Presidential Candidates and others

by 

Go get ‘em, Ed, John, other plaintiffs and…

Friday Noonan v Bowen California Hearing Postponed

by 

Plaintiff Capt. Pamela Barnett (Ret.) announced that the…

Dummett et al v Bowen & Dem’s Filed in CA

by 

I wasn’t allowed to talk about it, but…

“California 7? Hearing for Friday, 3/23

by 

Flash: Hearing postponed because of new developments –

CA Complaint Status

by 

Just got this from Plaintiff Ed Noonan. They…

Breaking: CA Voters, including Presidential Candidate, Challenge Obama on California Ballot

by 

NaturalBornNews    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Breaking News: January…

Ballot News Blog, California News

Related Posts

One Comment

  1. Very confusing. It looks as though the State of California wants to pass the buck. Just who IS responsible for vetting the bona fides of a presidential candidate? If the secretaries of state are not, what’s the point of the nominating convention honchos needing to inform them of their candidates? Just a formality??

    And I note that the 2008 Democrat Nom. Convention/Pelosi changed the wording of the notification to most of the states deleting the phrase about their candidate being constitutionally eligible: Doesn’t that make them liable for not noticing that little matter??? And a point: How did the 2012 Dem Nom Convention word ITS notification to the SOSs: Did it use the same wording as in ’08? STILL with no admittance to the constitutionally eligible issue???

    All very disgusting stuff. America – the Banana Republic of NorteAmerica…..but still, as you say: It’s important to leave a paper trail, so that when justice is served, all those who are guilty of dereliction of duty will be exposed.

    Stan, 6 months ago Reply


Post Your Comment

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE