Main Menu

Kreep: “Computers are too good these days.”

The birther talking points always include the question: “why doesn’t Barack Obama release his long form birth certificate and make all this go away.” Well, this is the third day of the long form era, and I have yet to see anything go away. Case in point: Barnett v Obama. The RamonaPatch newsletter reports this today from attorney Gary Kreep:

“We don’t know whether it’s a real birth certificate until our forensic expert has a chance to look at the original,” he said. “All we can go by is what’s on the White House website, which looks like a combination of several documents. Computers are too good these days.”

One wonders why they can’t go by what two Hawaii governors, one Republican and one Democrat, have said, but I digress.

The 60-year-old Kreep is looking forward to what he says maybe the most important 10 minutes of his life next Monday, May 2, when he presents oral arguments on behalf of Wiley Drake and  Markham Robinson before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Kreep says that three other unnamed attorneys are flying in to help him and forensic document analyst Sandra Lines is also coming. Kreep will share the spotlight with Orly Taitz who will also have 10 minutes to present her argument on behalf Alan Keyes and of her bevy other defendants. Kreep notes that this is the first of the eligibility cases to reach oral arguments at the appellate stage.

Like all Obama eligibility cases the key issue is that of standing. Can the Plaintiff bring a suit that the court has jurisdiction to hear? This case brings an interesting mix of plaintiffs, a failed presidential candidate, electors, active and retired soldiers and just plain voters. Judge Carter, who heard the original case, said no standing. Readers may recall that this is the lawsuit when Orly Taitz filed not one but two fake Kenyan birth certificates and her infamous claim that Obama has 39 social-security numbers.

The RamonaPatch newsletter is one of those special local sources of in-depth coverage that we so benefit from. Ramona, California, is Gary Kreep’s home town.

, , , , ,

32 Responses to Kreep: “Computers are too good these days.”

  1. avatar
    sactosintolerant April 29, 2011 at 11:14 pm #

    The thought of “it has layers” being said in a federal appeals court has me giddy.

  2. avatar
    DP April 29, 2011 at 11:48 pm #

    Birthers will triumph, revealing Obama’s mendacity for all to see, when they penetrate to the creamy filling layer at the center of Obama’s golden, spongy birth certificate.

  3. avatar
    richCares April 30, 2011 at 12:00 am #

    the state of Hawaii verified and has a link to Obama’s Birth Certificate, that makes it Official no need for a forensic experts, if you believe it is fake call the FBI, call the Canadian Mounties, arrest eveyone in Hawaii for waterboarding to find Elvis as he knows where the Kenyan BC lis located. What a waste, he will be lucky if he is not sanctioned

  4. avatar
    Stanislaw April 30, 2011 at 12:13 am #

    DP:
    Birthers will triumph, revealing Obama’s mendacity for all to see, when they penetrate to the creamy filling layer at the center of Obama’s golden, spongy birth certificate.

    Can I get a glass of milk to go with that long form?

  5. avatar
    G April 30, 2011 at 12:28 am #

    Don’t these folks realize that they are supposed to limit their appeal to addressing why they think the ruling was unfair? He’s got 10 minutes (in which he better hope he goes first, otherwise Orly will suck up all his time and more) in which he better focus on those aspects.

    If he hasn’t had enough time in all these months to craft a 10 minute succinct response to why he feels the ruling or process leading to the ruling was unfair without needing to fly in 3 other lawyers and a “forensic document analyst” to watch him bloviate, then he has no business in law.

    *sheesh* And I thought he was supposed to be the “competent one”…well, when your teamed with Orly, I guess the bar has been set abyssmally low!

    Can’t wait to get the FULL transcript report of this – it is guaranteed to be a circus act and EPIC FAIL of massive proportions!

  6. avatar
    mimi April 30, 2011 at 12:29 am #

    I heard The Kreep on The Andrea Shea King show on Monday. Two of the lawyers coming in to help The Kreep are Tom Smith of Tennessee and Phil Berg.

    Smith was the guy who was fighting the mosque in Murfreesboro. He’s been involved with the Kreep in Birtherism since the beginning according to this:

    http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message673694/pg1

    Here is a post from the economist about the mosque:
    http://www.economist.com/node/17528070

    I forget who the others are. No, I can’t listen again.

  7. avatar
    Sterngard Friegen April 30, 2011 at 12:50 am #

    G wrote: “Don’t these folks realize that they are supposed to limit their appeal to addressing why they think the ruling was unfair?”

    That’s not the standard on appeal. The question is whether the ruling is contrary to law. “Fairness” is doled out by trial courts sitting in equity (sometimes).

  8. avatar
    G April 30, 2011 at 1:14 am #

    Sterngard Friegen: G wrote: “Don’t these folks realize that they are supposed to limit their appeal to addressing why they think the ruling was unfair?”That’s not the standard on appeal. The question is whether the ruling is contrary to law. “Fairness” is doled out by trial courts sitting in equity (sometimes).

    Thank you for the clarification.

  9. avatar
    misha April 30, 2011 at 2:05 am #

    mimi: Two of the lawyers coming in to help The Kreep are…and Phil Berg.

    What’s interesting, is that Kreep had links to Holocaust deniers on his homepage. They have since been removed. Politics make strange bedfellows, and Kreep and Berg are overlooking that nasty association.

  10. avatar
    Sean April 30, 2011 at 4:31 am #

    Looks like Barack Sr. ‘s Immigration file was released:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File

  11. avatar
    Bovril April 30, 2011 at 8:10 am #

    All it shows is what is already know….

    He was not a particularly pleasant person, was a womanizer, adequate but not special academics and the early ’60’s didn’t look too favorably on mixed race marriages even at Harvard.

    To me it shows the President mother, whilst not having particularly good taste in men, did have strength and drive and her son seems none the worse for it.

  12. avatar
    misha April 30, 2011 at 9:42 am #

    Bovril: was a womanizer

    Yeah, just like Kennedy.

  13. avatar
    Sean April 30, 2011 at 10:07 am #

    Bovril:
    All it shows is what is already know….

    He was not a particularly pleasant person, was a womanizer, adequate but not special academics and the early ’60′s didn’t look too favorably on mixed race marriages even at Harvard.

    To me it shows the President mother, whilst not having particularly good taste in men, did have strength and drive and her son seems none the worse for it.

    But more importantly, it shows no indication of going back to Kenya. In fact Aug 8 1961 was when one of his visas ran out and he wanted an extension. it would be foolish if not impossible for him to go back to Kenya at that point.

  14. avatar
    richCares April 30, 2011 at 12:36 pm #

    CBS has requested permission to video Orly’s/Kreep’s court case, word has it that since they granted permission, they have been looking for screech filters.

  15. avatar
    dch April 30, 2011 at 1:26 pm #

    “He was not a particularly pleasant person, was a womanizer, adequate but not special academics …”

    The same thing can be said about Newt Gingrich! Bring it On in 2012!

  16. avatar
    richCares April 30, 2011 at 3:53 pm #

    Obama’s lawyer will show up and show the “whip it out” clip from blazing saddles
    http://movieclips.com/TAMYB-blazing-saddles-movie-welcome-sheriff/
    courtesy of Misha

  17. avatar
    Judge Mental April 30, 2011 at 6:06 pm #

    Did anyone else notice this bit in the Ramona interview with Kreep…..

    ……”He said he traveled to Pakistan in the 1980s, but on what kind of passport? He said he didn’t have a U.S. passport until he was senator in 2004,”……

    That’s a new one on me. Anyone got any idea where Kreep got the notion that Obama himself had said (somewhere, sometime) that he didn’t have a US passport until 2004?

  18. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 30, 2011 at 6:16 pm #

    G: in which he better hope he goes first, otherwise Orly will suck up all his time and more

    On the other hand, if Orly goes first, after her the judge will be prepared for anything, up to and including Michael Norris entering the court room in a burkah and doing an impression of Perry Mason quoting Lord Coke with an Australian accent. Nothing that Kreep say will make him sound like a freak (not that it will make the slightest of difference, of course).

    If Kreep goes in first, and he mentions layers. the judge will think he is misreading the word “lawyers”.

    And I am sure none of the layers have standing.

  19. avatar
    Sean April 30, 2011 at 6:37 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: And I am sure none of the layers have standing.

    Interesting thing about the “layers.” Adobe Illustrator is a pretty popular product. Kinda tough for a graphics “expert” to make a professional opinion of the BC being a fake without thousands, if not millions of people that can easily prove the “expert” wrong.

  20. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 30, 2011 at 6:52 pm #

    A troll posted this at another site – I hope it’s true:

    KABC-TV, Channel 7 applied to videotape for later broadcast the case below, scheduled to be heard in Pasadena, CA on May 2, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. KABC-TV, Channel 7′s request to videotape is GRANTED.

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILEY S. DRAKE; et al.,Plaintiffs – Appellants,and Ambassador ALAN KEYES, Ph. D.; et al.,Plaintiffs,

    v.

    BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA; et al.,Defendants –

    Appellees. No. 09-56827D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-ANCentral District of California,Santa AnaORDER PAMELA BARNETT, Captain; et al.,Plaintiffs – Appellants,v.BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA; et al.,Defendants – Appellees.

  21. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 30, 2011 at 6:54 pm #

    Judge Mental: Anyone got any idea where Kreep got the notion that Obama himself had said (somewhere, sometime) that he didn’t have a US passport until 2004?

    Kreep’s an idiot, but after being elected to the Senate in 2004, Obama would have been eligible to get an “official” passport, for use only when traveling abroad in relation to his duties as a US Senator. He would have retained his “tourist” passport, for use when traveling abroad for personal reasons, like a vacation. See: http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_836.html

  22. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 30, 2011 at 7:00 pm #

    Just a note — in 2005, Obama was part of a Senate delegation that had their passports seized, briefly, by the Russians who were demanding permission to inspect their plane, and detained the Senators for 3 hours. This appears to have been Obama’s first foreign travel as a US Senator:

    http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-08-29/news/17385399_1_delegation-nuclear-warheads-russian-ministry

  23. avatar
    Majority Will April 30, 2011 at 10:34 pm #

    dch:
    “He was not a particularly pleasant person, was a womanizer, adequate but not special academics …”

    The same thing can be said about Newt Gingrich!Bring it On in 2012!

    That describes nearly every politician, except the manizers, since the founding.

  24. avatar
    Sean May 1, 2011 at 2:32 am #

    I guess they can do their worst on Obama’s Dad.

    But they’re beating a dead African. Nothing you can say about Barack Sr., true or made up will change anything about his son.

    He was a drunk womanizing A-hole who lost his legs and life in a DUI that claimed the life of another motorist.

    ……but he never left the US between 1959 and 1965.

  25. avatar
    Judge Mental May 1, 2011 at 7:11 am #

    Expelliarmus: Kreep’s an idiot, but after being elected to the Senate in 2004, Obama would have been eligible to get an “official” passport, for use only when traveling abroad in relation to his duties as a US Senator. He would have retained his “tourist” passport, for use when traveling abroad for personal reasons, like a vacation. See: http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_836.html

    So I guess it’s probably no more than the usual word play tactic of pretending that someone saying they got a diplomatic type or other special kind of passport in 2004 somehow means that they never had any passport at all pre 2004.

    Thanks Exp.

  26. avatar
    brygenon May 1, 2011 at 8:27 am #

    G: If he hasn’t had enough time in all these months to craft a 10 minute succinct response to why he feels the ruling or process leading to the ruling was unfair without needing to fly in 3 other lawyers and a “forensic document analyst” to watch him bloviate, then he has no business in law.

    The hard part is preparing for questions from the judges. I suspect Kreep is as baffled as the rest of us as to why the Court needs oral arguments. Even if he believes in his case, the complaint in the record is bat-guano by Orly Taitz. Judge Carter denied Kreep leave to file an amendment complaint.

    Kreep also has to be ready to rebut the arguments of the defense, but he can probably predict what issues he’ll need to cover for that.

  27. avatar
    Reality Check May 1, 2011 at 9:00 am #

    GeorgetownJD speculated on RC Radio that the Ninth Circuit is particularly interested in standing and that they almost always grant oral arguments on cases where standing was an issue in the lower court. We shall see tomorrow. I don’t want to get my hopes up that they want to provide a platform and lots of figurative rope to la Taitz.

    Regardless, the event promises to provide some unique entertainment to those of us who have been following those crazy wascals, the Birthers, for two years. Does anyone want to speculate on how close Kreep will sit to Taitz at the plaintiffs table? Will they make eye contact? Will they even speak? So many questions.

  28. avatar
    G May 1, 2011 at 12:43 pm #

    brygenon: The hard part is preparing for questions from the judges. I suspect Kreep is as baffled as the rest of us as to why the Court needs oral arguments. Even if he believes in his case, the complaint in the record is bat-guano by Orly Taitz. Judge Carter denied Kreep leave to file an amendment complaint.

    I thought that Orly or Kreep specifically pleaded to be given Oral Arguments in one of their many filings leading up to this.

    As with anything involving Orly, there has been so much back & forth filing since the original case and now and also so many different crazy cases, that they tend to blur together in my mind…

    But I guess I was sort of left with the impression that the Court just decided to grant them that request and probably saw it as a fairly harmless procedural concession…

  29. avatar
    gotcha libs May 1, 2011 at 4:05 pm #

    Intercepted Email

    §س§…ة عزيزي
    و…رة أخرى أحبطت §لكف§ر.
    وقد…ت ´ه§دة …يل§د nerarly §ل…ث§لية §لتي قد…ت inteligencia §لح…ق§ء ليبر§لية كل §ل§دلة §لتي يحت§جونه§ ل…و§صلة دع… ع…ي§ء ر¦§ستي.
    و§لرع§ع §لج…هوري …رة أخرى في كل §لحن§جر §لآخرين، ك…§ ك§ن …قرر§، وذلك بفضل لأخو§تن§ و´قيقه في §ل§سك§ وغيره§ …ن §لدول 56. وسنحتر… …س§ه…ة وsacrafices …ن س§رة أورلي، …ي´يل ودون§لد لسنو§ت ق§د…ة.
    ونحن سوف سحق §لك§فر.
    §لأع…§ل ج§نب§ ، وكيف يت… زوج§ت وأطف§ل. …ي´يل و§لفتي§ت هي بخير. §لج…يع حق§ يت…تع §لر§¦ع سلة ف§كهة.
    كل خير.
    ب§ء حسين. ي§
    30 أبريل 2011

  30. avatar
    brygenon May 1, 2011 at 10:42 pm #

    Reality Check: GeorgetownJD speculated on RC Radio that the Ninth Circuit is particularly interested in standing and that they almost always grant oral arguments on cases where standing was an issue in the lower court. We shall see tomorrow. I don’t want to get my hopes up that they want to provide a platform and lots of figurative rope to la Taitz.

    I very much doubt the Court if scheduled oral arguments in order to see Orly go bat-guano, and I would be disappointed in them if they did. The issue on standing is whether the Court can redress the alleged injury. I don’t see how, and even if the Court could, the prayer for relief neglects to directly ask for actual redress.

    G: But I guess I was sort of left with the impression that the Court just decided to grant them that request and probably saw it as a fairly harmless procedural concession…

    I think you and GeorgetownJD are probably at least close to correct on the reason. I still don’t have my head around why that was reason enough.

    Unless I’m misreading the order, Kreep will go first in both argument and rebuttal. I expect he’ll talk about the actual legal issues, and having that out of the way should encourage Taitz to focus on default judgement, Judge Carter’s new law clerk, social-security numbers, judicial bias against her, and Vattel’s Law of Nations.

  31. avatar
    katahdin May 1, 2011 at 11:01 pm #

    Osama Bin Laden killed by US troops.

  32. avatar
    Horus May 2, 2011 at 2:14 pm #

    gotcha libs: §س§…ة عزيزي

    Yup, that’s the one that got Osama killed when it was delivered.
    Idiot