# uber arbitration settlement



## Jetty (May 8, 2019)

Can anyone tell me what the status is of payments being made to drivers in MA or CA from the uber arbitration settlement


----------



## Jetty (May 8, 2019)

Anyone received money from the uber arbitration settlement in CA or MA


----------



## NauticalWheeler (Jun 15, 2019)

No, I haven't, but send me some of yours.


----------



## hovig (Aug 14, 2014)

I got a check for $639 today. I haven't driven for Uber since 2017


----------



## TXUbering (May 9, 2018)

I received a jar of lube, not sure what this means.....


----------



## CJfrom619 (Apr 27, 2017)

Jetty said:


> Anyone received money from the uber arbitration settlement in CA or MA


Just got a 5 figure check in the mail this morning. Pay day boys!


----------



## woodywho (Sep 4, 2017)

TXUbering said:


> I received a jar of lube, not sure what this means.....


Well if it starts with K and ends in Y then it's not for rusty hinges ..." assume the position"  :cryin:


----------



## SFOspeedracer (Jun 25, 2019)

Using mine to give each pax 49ers tix


----------



## KK2929 (Feb 9, 2017)

CJfrom619 said:


> Just got a 5 figure check in the mail this morning. Pay day boys!


----------------------
Pictures or it did not happen .


----------



## NauticalWheeler (Jun 15, 2019)

KK2929 said:


> ----------------------
> Pictures or it did not happen .


It's junk mail from a payday lender that just looks like a check.


----------



## Las Vegas Dude (Sep 3, 2018)

You should be getting your 87 cents soon.


----------



## O-Side Uber (Jul 26, 2017)

Does it still count as settling if you don’t cash the .35 cent check from Uber? Mines is still sitting around here. It costed more to mail me the check than the amount it was for. ?


----------



## Jetty (May 8, 2019)

Really pitiful


----------



## Ubercraft (Dec 22, 2014)

TXUbering said:


> I received a jar of lube, not sure what this means.....


Since when did Uber start using lube? They would never be so kind to me!


----------



## YouWishYouKnewMe (May 26, 2015)

I’ve seen peeps on here with offer letters but I think payout is based on when your individual arbitration is settled... for the class members the final hearing is tomorrow at 1:30... I hope judge approves... before Uber goes out of business


----------



## percy_ardmore (Jun 4, 2019)

5 figures .00001


----------



## Shim9 (Sep 20, 2019)

Jetty said:


> Can anyone tell me what the status is of payments being made to drivers in MA or CA from the uber arbitration settlement


Payment is to paid out in the fall


----------



## Makeabuck (Jul 21, 2017)

Shim9 said:


> Payment is to paid out in the fall


I got the same answer. Others have gotten there's


----------



## YouWishYouKnewMe (May 26, 2015)

Today the settlement became final, 30 days from judge decision... we should hear something soon


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

It's possible the people that didn't forget to put their Social Security number on the original document are getting theirs first while those like me that screwed up and forgot to include it originally and had to add it later have to wait.


----------



## Juicy (Aug 28, 2019)

hovig said:


> I got a check for $639 today. I haven't driven for Uber since 2017


HELLO MAYBE IT A LONG LOST TIP. COUNT IT AS A BLESSING.


----------



## Jetty (May 8, 2019)

thanks


----------



## Juicy (Aug 28, 2019)

Jetty said:


> thanks


U WELCOME


----------



## ddomingo (Mar 3, 2019)

Jetty said:


> Can anyone tell me what the status is of payments being made to drivers in MA or CA from the uber arbitration settlement


Current Status
On October 8, 2019, an appeal was filed by an objector to the Settlement. No payments can be made while this appeal is pending. Plaintiffs are working to dismiss the appeal so that the district court's Settlement Approval Order can be affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and payments can be made to Settlement Class Members.


----------



## Jetty (May 8, 2019)

hi

this is as to the O’Connor class action not the arbitrations- where did em the information come from regarding attempts to dismiss the appeal? Thank you for your response


----------



## ddomingo (Mar 3, 2019)

Jetty said:


> hi
> 
> this is as to the O'Connor class action not the arbitrations- where did em the information come from regarding attempts to dismiss the appeal? Thank you for your response


https://www.uberlitigation.com/


----------



## Jetty (May 8, 2019)

thank you


----------



## Skinnyteensforlife (Aug 21, 2019)

The idiot who appealed has to meet all these deadlines for documents, all the way up until February 2020, he could fail to submit other deadlines before that but things don’t look good for us. Probably no checks until July 2020


----------



## L DaVinci (Oct 26, 2019)

Jetty said:


> Can anyone tell me what the status is of payments being made to drivers in MA or CA from the uber arbitration settlement


? ? ? seriously ? ? ?


----------



## YouWishYouKnewMe (May 26, 2015)

Fees paid by Mr Shaun Patrick Mendel


----------



## jlong105 (Sep 15, 2017)

KK2929 said:


> ----------------------
> Pictures or it did not happen .


He doesn't realize when you say 5 figures it means BEFORE The decimal.


----------



## Skinnyteensforlife (Aug 21, 2019)

I sent this guy a five page email with my rage


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

YouWishYouKnewMe said:


> Fees paid by Mr Shaun Patrick Mendel


Anybody picks up Shaun Patrick Mendel as a pax, stuff him in the trunk until February 2020.


----------



## peteyvavs (Nov 18, 2015)

CJfrom619 said:


> Just got a 5 figure check in the mail this morning. Pay day boys!


Sure you did, and Santa came to your house early because you're such a good Uber donk.


----------



## Jetty (May 8, 2019)

All of us should send Mendel emails


----------



## ddomingo (Mar 3, 2019)

Does anyone know why this donk Mendel is doing this?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

ddomingo said:


> Does anyone know why this donk Mendel is doing this?


Likely because the settlement offer sucks.


----------



## ddomingo (Mar 3, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Likely because the settlement offer sucks.


I guess that's relative. This has been going on for 5 years. I'm ready to be done. However I have read this guy that appealed is litigious and has numerous lawsuits against Uber. From what I have discovered is the appeal is based on the fact no one has been told the exact dollar amount. Just .37¢ a mile for all 'in trip' miles. I would also like to know. I think I have an accurate estimate and I am just ready to get paid.


----------



## ddomingo (Mar 3, 2019)

Bad news. This ******** has filed another appeal. This is final shot to Supreme Court.

Fuil Text:
1 FILED S. Patrick Mendel JAN 23 2020 1319 Washington Ave, #163 SUSAN Y. SOONG San Leandro, CA 94577 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT [email protected] NORTH DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Y |Ph. 415-812-8507 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION | O'CONNOR, Case No.: 13-03826-EMC Plaintiff, IVS NOTICE OF APPEAL BY PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant o Attached is the Notice of Appeal by Objector/Movant S. Patrick Mendel in 16 17 this case by Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court under Rule 18 of the Rules of the United States Supreme Court. A copy of the Petition has already been lodged with the Clerk of this Court to be included in the record. Dated: January 22, 2020 Signed S. Patrick Mendel NOTICE OF APPEAL 13-03826-EMC- 1 1 No. 20- In the Supreme Court of the United States NOTICE OF APPEAL JANUARY 22, 2020 From a Judgment and/or Orders of a United States Court of Appeals and the underlying Judgment and Orders of the United States District Courts as described below. In an abundance of caution this Additional Notice is being executed under Rule 18 of the Rules of the United States Supreme Court. Petitioners S. Patrick Mendel and Archie W. Overton Petition the United States Supreme Court by Writ of Certiorari under 28 U.S.C. $2101 sections "(c)" and "(e)." Petitioners have appealed three district court cases, Numbers 13-03826-EMC, 18- 02166-EMC and 19-03244-JST to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, within 30 days of the challenged Judgments and Orders made in the district court actions. Petitioners have appealed three cases, as described below from THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Petitioners' by Petition for Writ of Certiorari under 28 U.S.C. $2101 have simultaneously by Motion to the Ninth Circuit sought consolidation of the appellate cases and a stay of the Ninth Circuit cases and district court cases pending the determinations of the United States Supreme Court. Page 1 of 10 1 PROOF OF SERVICE In the Supreme Court of the United States S. PATRICK MENDEL and ARCHIE W. OVERTON Petitioners UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., et al. Respondents I, Belinda Kirk declare: I am a citizen of the United States, a resident of Alameda County, California, and am over 18 years of age. I am not a party to the within entitled action. My business/residence address is: 1986 Washington Ave, Apt. A San Leandro, CA 94577. On January 22, 2020 I served a copy of the following: 1. NOTICE OF APPEAL In this action, in The Supreme Court of the United States, by U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, at San Leandro, CA, with copies of the above documents to all "PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS" as listed above. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 22, 2020. Belinda Kuk Dated: January 22, 2020 BELINDA KIRK Page 10 of 10 1 The Ninth Circuit cases appealed by Writ of Certiorari are: 1. Ninth Circuit case No. 19-17073, appealing the District Court ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES was summarily dismissed contrary to standing Ninth Circuit precedent before Petitioners' had filed their opening brief and before the record of the district court could be examined, and Petitioners' claim this violated their right to due process, the Summary dismissal was issued on December 20th, 2019 and Petitioners' appeal within the 90 days as provided under 29 U.S.C. $2101(c). 2. Ninth Circuit case No. 18-16610, appealing District Court case No. 18-02166- EMC, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS with prejudice (Docket #92) upon the first challenge to the pro se complaint contrary to 50 years of Ninth Circuit precedent and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 15, which provide that at least one opportunity to amend should be granted. Petitioners timely appealed to the Ninth Circuit and have fully briefed and the case is pending any allowable oral argument and Ninth Circuit determinations. 3. Ninth Circuit case No. 19-17380, appealing District Court case No. 19-03244- JST, Petitioners' timely appealed ORDERS, #96 filed October 25, 2019, #97 filed October 25, 2019 and #105 filed November 22, 2019 Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss without prejudice to amending the complaint within 60 days was timely appealed to the Ninth Circuit. NOTICE: Attorneys for the defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. claim that an appeal cannot be taken from district court case 19-03244-JST because a final judgment has not issued. Their claim is completely without merit as Petitioners' properly sought consolidation of these cases as provided for under 28 U.S.C. $2101(e). The law says that IF the cases raise the same issues of law, they may be combined with a Petition for Writ of Certiorari BEFORE JUDGMENT for a determination by the U. S. Supreme Court! THESE CASES RAISE SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW THAT ARE RESULTING IN THE DOCUMENTED CARNAGE OF 57 DEATHS AND MURDERS, 10 SUICIDES, 454 RAPES AND NEARLY 6000 ASSAULTS AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONERS. Page 2 of 10 1 The United States Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and it requires in part that the President of the United States must be a natural born citizen. The respective political parties, both Democrat and Republican have violated the supreme law of the land by placing candidates before the people of the United States that are not "natural born citizens." The Constitution does not define the term "natural born citizen." However, the United States Supreme Court has defined the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" as persons born upon United States soil to United States citizen parents. SEE: Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) 21 Wall. 162 (1875). Barack Obama, a democrat candidate was according to his own admission, by presenting his birth certificate to the people and maintaining it for viewing upon the official United States governments Whitehouse.gov archives web site a copy of: his long form birth certificate showing that he was born in the State of Hawaii, to a foreign non-citizen father. At birth Barack Obama was a natural born subject of the Country of Great Britain and a citizen of the United States therefore having dual citizenship. The Congress of the United States, contrary to the United States Constitution accepted the voting of the American people and the Electoral College and moved Barack Obama into office contrary to the Supreme law of the land. Since Barack Obama was installed contrary to the constitution, several Republican candidates have run also for the office of the Presidency, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Ted Cruz. None of these gentlemen is or would qualify as natural born citizens as none of them were "born on United States soil to two United States citizen parents." According to the United States Supreme Court, under Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 179 (1803) such actions by the Congress and the Senate which are contrary to the mandates of the United States Constitution are violative of the Supreme law of the land and beyond their authority as granted by the Constitution. "Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law (or legislative action] repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." Page 3 of 10 1 The Supreme Court also said in Marbury, supra: (paragraph 178-179) "Why otherwise does it [the Constitution) direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support! "Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?" "If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or, to take this oath, becomes equally a crime." The judicial officers who accepted these appointments have accepted appointments to which their appointee had no authority to make as he was ineligible, not a natural born citizen under U.S. Supreme Court precedent to hold the office. The United States Constitution contains an "Appointments clause" which requires that the President of the United States as the Executive representative of the people can appoint "judicial officers" of the United States to their lifetime positions with the advice and consent of the Senate. To date 329 judicial officers have been appointed as judicial officers including 2 members of the United States Supreme Court. None of these judicial officials were appointed in conformance with the United States Constitution, and at least two (2) of them were assigned to hear the Petitioners complaints. Page 4 of 10 1 Petitioners object to these unconstitutionally appointed judicial officials and seek their disqualification of these assigned judicial officials to their cases. The Petitioners' have a right under the First Amendment to Petition the government, not imposters, for a redress of grievances' and a Fifth Amendment right to due process according to the law which includes the supreme law, the U. S. Constitution. SEE: Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177 (1995) and Lucia v. SEC 138 S. Ct. 2044, 585 U.S. _(2018) The Petition for Writ of Certiorari has been sent by U. S. Mail to the United States Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit and District Courts have been provided courtesy copies and the Petition has been lodged in the dockets of the respective cases within the time allowed by law. THE PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS AND APPEALS HAVE BEEN TIMELY SERVED THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ARE LISTED BELOW AS: CASE No. 18-16610 Petitioners: S. Patrick Mendel and Archie W Overton, Pro Se Respondents: | Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier-CA, LLC, Uber USA, LLC. Names of Counsel - Allison Ann Davis Sanjay Mohan Nangia Davis Wright Tremaine LLP San Francisco 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Page 5 of 10 1 Names of California Public Utilities Commission Parties Michael Picker, President, Carla J. Peterman, Liane Randolph, Clifford Rechtschaffen, Martha Guzman Aceves, Commissioners of the California Public | Utilities Commission Names of Counsel Edward Moldavsky California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102 CASE No. 19-17380 Petitioners: S. Patrick Mendel Respondents: Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier-CA, LLC, Uber USA, LLC, Travis Kalanick, Garrett Camp, Ryan Graves Names of Counsel Brian Rocca Address: One Market, Spear Street Tower, San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone number(s): (415) 442-1000 Email(s): [email protected] Names of Parties | LYFT, Inc., Logan Green, John Zimmer, Names of Counsel Peter Huston Address: 101 California Street, Suite 3600, San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone number(s): 415-291-6211Email(s): [email protected] Page 6 of 10 1 Names of Parties Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Shannon Liss-Riordan, Adelaide Pagano, Anne Kramer Names of Counsel Brian H. Gunn Address: 2175 N. California Blvd., Suite 645, Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3502 Telephone number(s): 925-280-0004Email(s): [email protected] Names of Federal Respondent Parties Elaine Chao, U.S. Secretary of Transportation, William Barr, Attorney General of the United States, Raymond Martinez, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Loretta Bitner, Chief, Office of Enforcement and Compliance, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Joseph Simons, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, The Honorable Sidney Runyan, Chief Justice, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, The Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton, Chief District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Names of Counsel JAMES A. SCHARF U.S. Attorney's Office/Civil Division 150 Almaden Blvd., Suite 900 San Jose, CA 95113 [email protected] (408) 535-5044 Names of California State Government Official Parties XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General of California Names of Counsel Jay Craig Russell Office of the California Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 [email protected] (415) 510-3517 Page 7 of 10 1 Names of California Public Utilities Parties | Michael Picker, President, Carla J. Peterman, Liane Randolph, Clifford Rechtschaffen, Martha Guzman Aceves, Commissioners of the California Public Utilities Commission Names of Counsel Edward Moldavsky California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102 [email protected] (415) 696-7334 Names of Respondent City of San Francisco Parties City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco International Airport Commission, Ivar C. Satero, Airport Director, Names of Counsel Raymond R. Rollan San Francisco City Attorney's Office 1390 Market Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 [email protected] (415) 554-3888 CASE No. 19-17073Petitioners: S. Patrick Mendel, (Movant-Objector below) Counsel for Petitioners: S. Patrick Mendel, Pro Se 1319 Washington Avenue, #163 San Leandro, CA 94577 Carpartners [email protected] (415)-812-8507 Page 8 of 10 1 Respondents: Names of Parties Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Shannon Liss-Riordan Names of Counsel Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esquire Plaintiff Attorney for Drivers Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. Suite # 2000 729 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 [email protected] (617) 994-5800 Names of Parties Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier-CA, LLC, Uber USA, LLC. Names of Counsel - Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. Theane D. Evangelis LEAD Attorney for Uber Technologies, Inc. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 [email protected] (213) 229-7520Respectfully submitted; Date: January 22, 2020 CÅ. Patrick Mendel arma Archie W. Overton Page 9 of 10


----------



## Skinnyteensforlife (Aug 21, 2019)

ddomingo said:


> Bad news. This @@@@@@@@ has filed another appeal. This is final shot to Supreme Court.
> 
> Fuil Text:
> 1 FILED S. Patrick Mendel JAN 23 2020 1319 Washington Ave, #163 SUSAN Y. SOONG San Leandro, CA 94577 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT [email protected] NORTH DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Y |Ph. 415-812-8507 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION | O'CONNOR, Case No.: 13-03826-EMC Plaintiff, IVS NOTICE OF APPEAL BY PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant o Attached is the Notice of Appeal by Objector/Movant S. Patrick Mendel in 16 17 this case by Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court under Rule 18 of the Rules of the United States Supreme Court. A copy of the Petition has already been lodged with the Clerk of this Court to be included in the record. Dated: January 22, 2020 Signed S. Patrick Mendel NOTICE OF APPEAL 13-03826-EMC- 1 1 No. 20- In the Supreme Court of the United States NOTICE OF APPEAL JANUARY 22, 2020 From a Judgment and/or Orders of a United States Court of Appeals and the underlying Judgment and Orders of the United States District Courts as described below. In an abundance of caution this Additional Notice is being executed under Rule 18 of the Rules of the United States Supreme Court. Petitioners S. Patrick Mendel and Archie W. Overton Petition the United States Supreme Court by Writ of Certiorari under 28 U.S.C. $2101 sections "(c)" and "(e)." Petitioners have appealed three district court cases, Numbers 13-03826-EMC, 18- 02166-EMC and 19-03244-JST to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, within 30 days of the challenged Judgments and Orders made in the district court actions. Petitioners have appealed three cases, as described below from THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Petitioners' by Petition for Writ of Certiorari under 28 U.S.C. $2101 have simultaneously by Motion to the Ninth Circuit sought consolidation of the appellate cases and a stay of the Ninth Circuit cases and district court cases pending the determinations of the United States Supreme Court. Page 1 of 10 1 PROOF OF SERVICE In the Supreme Court of the United States S. PATRICK MENDEL and ARCHIE W. OVERTON Petitioners UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., et al. Respondents I, Belinda Kirk declare: I am a citizen of the United States, a resident of Alameda County, California, and am over 18 years of age. I am not a party to the within entitled action. My business/residence address is: 1986 Washington Ave, Apt. A San Leandro, CA 94577. On January 22, 2020 I served a copy of the following: 1. NOTICE OF APPEAL In this action, in The Supreme Court of the United States, by U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, at San Leandro, CA, with copies of the above documents to all "PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS" as listed above. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 22, 2020. Belinda Kuk Dated: January 22, 2020 BELINDA KIRK Page 10 of 10 1 The Ninth Circuit cases appealed by Writ of Certiorari are: 1. Ninth Circuit case No. 19-17073, appealing the District Court ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES was summarily dismissed contrary to standing Ninth Circuit precedent before Petitioners' had filed their opening brief and before the record of the district court could be examined, and Petitioners' claim this violated their right to due process, the Summary dismissal was issued on December 20th, 2019 and Petitioners' appeal within the 90 days as provided under 29 U.S.C. $2101(c). 2. Ninth Circuit case No. 18-16610, appealing District Court case No. 18-02166- EMC, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS with prejudice (Docket #92) upon the first challenge to the pro se complaint contrary to 50 years of Ninth Circuit precedent and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 15, which provide that at least one opportunity to amend should be granted. Petitioners timely appealed to the Ninth Circuit and have fully briefed and the case is pending any allowable oral argument and Ninth Circuit determinations. 3. Ninth Circuit case No. 19-17380, appealing District Court case No. 19-03244- JST, Petitioners' timely appealed ORDERS, #96 filed October 25, 2019, #97 filed October 25, 2019 and #105 filed November 22, 2019 Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss without prejudice to amending the complaint within 60 days was timely appealed to the Ninth Circuit. NOTICE: Attorneys for the defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. claim that an appeal cannot be taken from district court case 19-03244-JST because a final judgment has not issued. Their claim is completely without merit as Petitioners' properly sought consolidation of these cases as provided for under 28 U.S.C. $2101(e). The law says that IF the cases raise the same issues of law, they may be combined with a Petition for Writ of Certiorari BEFORE JUDGMENT for a determination by the U. S. Supreme Court! THESE CASES RAISE SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW THAT ARE RESULTING IN THE DOCUMENTED CARNAGE OF 57 DEATHS AND MURDERS, 10 SUICIDES, 454 RAPES AND NEARLY 6000 ASSAULTS AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONERS. Page 2 of 10 1 The United States Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and it requires in part that the President of the United States must be a natural born citizen. The respective political parties, both Democrat and Republican have violated the supreme law of the land by placing candidates before the people of the United States that are not "natural born citizens." The Constitution does not define the term "natural born citizen." However, the United States Supreme Court has defined the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" as persons born upon United States soil to United States citizen parents. SEE: Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) 21 Wall. 162 (1875). Barack Obama, a democrat candidate was according to his own admission, by presenting his birth certificate to the people and maintaining it for viewing upon the official United States governments Whitehouse.gov archives web site a copy of: his long form birth certificate showing that he was born in the State of Hawaii, to a foreign non-citizen father. At birth Barack Obama was a natural born subject of the Country of Great Britain and a citizen of the United States therefore having dual citizenship. The Congress of the United States, contrary to the United States Constitution accepted the voting of the American people and the Electoral College and moved Barack Obama into office contrary to the Supreme law of the land. Since Barack Obama was installed contrary to the constitution, several Republican candidates have run also for the office of the Presidency, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Ted Cruz. None of these gentlemen is or would qualify as natural born citizens as none of them were "born on United States soil to two United States citizen parents." According to the United States Supreme Court, under Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 179 (1803) such actions by the Congress and the Senate which are contrary to the mandates of the United States Constitution are violative of the Supreme law of the land and beyond their authority as granted by the Constitution. "Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law (or legislative action] repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." Page 3 of 10 1 The Supreme Court also said in Marbury, supra: (paragraph 178-179) "Why otherwise does it [the Constitution) direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support! "Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?" "If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or, to take this oath, becomes equally a crime." The judicial officers who accepted these appointments have accepted appointments to which their appointee had no authority to make as he was ineligible, not a natural born citizen under U.S. Supreme Court precedent to hold the office. The United States Constitution contains an "Appointments clause" which requires that the President of the United States as the Executive representative of the people can appoint "judicial officers" of the United States to their lifetime positions with the advice and consent of the Senate. To date 329 judicial officers have been appointed as judicial officers including 2 members of the United States Supreme Court. None of these judicial officials were appointed in conformance with the United States Constitution, and at least two (2) of them were assigned to hear the Petitioners complaints. Page 4 of 10 1 Petitioners object to these unconstitutionally appointed judicial officials and seek their disqualification of these assigned judicial officials to their cases. The Petitioners' have a right under the First Amendment to Petition the government, not imposters, for a redress of grievances' and a Fifth Amendment right to due process according to the law which includes the supreme law, the U. S. Constitution. SEE: Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177 (1995) and Lucia v. SEC 138 S. Ct. 2044, 585 U.S. _(2018) The Petition for Writ of Certiorari has been sent by U. S. Mail to the United States Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit and District Courts have been provided courtesy copies and the Petition has been lodged in the dockets of the respective cases within the time allowed by law. THE PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS AND APPEALS HAVE BEEN TIMELY SERVED THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ARE LISTED BELOW AS: CASE No. 18-16610 Petitioners: S. Patrick Mendel and Archie W Overton, Pro Se Respondents: | Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier-CA, LLC, Uber USA, LLC. Names of Counsel - Allison Ann Davis Sanjay Mohan Nangia Davis Wright Tremaine LLP San Francisco 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Page 5 of 10 1 Names of California Public Utilities Commission Parties Michael Picker, President, Carla J. Peterman, Liane Randolph, Clifford Rechtschaffen, Martha Guzman Aceves, Commissioners of the California Public | Utilities Commission Names of Counsel Edward Moldavsky California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102 CASE No. 19-17380 Petitioners: S. Patrick Mendel Respondents: Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier-CA, LLC, Uber USA, LLC, Travis Kalanick, Garrett Camp, Ryan Graves Names of Counsel Brian Rocca Address: One Market, Spear Street Tower, San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone number(s): (415) 442-1000 Email(s): [email protected] Names of Parties | LYFT, Inc., Logan Green, John Zimmer, Names of Counsel Peter Huston Address: 101 California Street, Suite 3600, San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone number(s): 415-291-6211Email(s): [email protected] Page 6 of 10 1 Names of Parties Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Shannon Liss-Riordan, Adelaide Pagano, Anne Kramer Names of Counsel Brian H. Gunn Address: 2175 N. California Blvd., Suite 645, Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3502 Telephone number(s): 925-280-0004Email(s): [email protected] Names of Federal Respondent Parties Elaine Chao, U.S. Secretary of Transportation, William Barr, Attorney General of the United States, Raymond Martinez, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Loretta Bitner, Chief, Office of Enforcement and Compliance, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Joseph Simons, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, The Honorable Sidney Runyan, Chief Justice, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, The Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton, Chief District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Names of Counsel JAMES A. SCHARF U.S. Attorney's Office/Civil Division 150 Almaden Blvd., Suite 900 San Jose, CA 95113 [email protected] (408) 535-5044 Names of California State Government Official Parties XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General of California Names of Counsel Jay Craig Russell Office of the California Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 [email protected] (415) 510-3517 Page 7 of 10 1 Names of California Public Utilities Parties | Michael Picker, President, Carla J. Peterman, Liane Randolph, Clifford Rechtschaffen, Martha Guzman Aceves, Commissioners of the California Public Utilities Commission Names of Counsel Edward Moldavsky California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102 [email protected] (415) 696-7334 Names of Respondent City of San Francisco Parties City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco International Airport Commission, Ivar C. Satero, Airport Director, Names of Counsel Raymond R. Rollan San Francisco City Attorney's Office 1390 Market Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 [email protected] (415) 554-3888 CASE No. 19-17073Petitioners: S. Patrick Mendel, (Movant-Objector below) Counsel for Petitioners: S. Patrick Mendel, Pro Se 1319 Washington Avenue, #163 San Leandro, CA 94577 Carpartners [email protected] (415)-812-8507 Page 8 of 10 1 Respondents: Names of Parties Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Shannon Liss-Riordan Names of Counsel Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esquire Plaintiff Attorney for Drivers Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. Suite # 2000 729 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 [email protected] (617) 994-5800 Names of Parties Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier-CA, LLC, Uber USA, LLC. Names of Counsel - Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. Theane D. Evangelis LEAD Attorney for Uber Technologies, Inc. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 [email protected] (213) 229-7520Respectfully submitted; Date: January 22, 2020 CÅ. Patrick Mendel arma Archie W. Overton Page 9 of 10


This is actually a good thing. Mendel had 90 days to appeal to the Supreme Court. The fact that he did it now and didn't wait until the 89th day means we are going to get our checks sooner. The Supreme Court will throw this case out as soon as it's on the docket. Checks should be coming in March.


----------



## Wmmt (Feb 9, 2017)

Any new updates?


----------



## Skinnyteensforlife (Aug 21, 2019)

Wmmt said:


> Any new updates?


it's been 3 weeks since the appeal was sent to the Supreme Court, they haven't even looked at it yet


----------



## Wmmt (Feb 9, 2017)

Skinnyteensforlife said:


> it's been 3 weeks since the appeal was sent to the Supreme Court, they haven't even looked at it yet


Is there a deadline for when the courts need to finalize their decision?


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Wmmt said:


> Is there a deadline for when the courts need to finalize their decision?


Well, the case has been going on for what, 5 years now? Could be another 1 2 3 4 5 6 months / years (take your pick).


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Skinnyteensforlife said:


> This is actually a good thing. Mendel had 90 days to appeal to the Supreme Court. The fact that he did it now and didn't wait until the 89th day means we are going to get our checks sooner. The Supreme Court will throw this case out as soon as it's on the docket. Checks should be coming in March.


lol if they throw the case out you won't get a dime

you simply want them to deny his appeal


----------



## Skinnyteensforlife (Aug 21, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol if they throw the case out you won't get a dime
> 
> you simply want them to deny his appeal


ok mr technical lawyer guy


----------

