Main Menu

Tag Archives | Gary Kreep

What, a new eligibility lawsuit appeal?

Claiming a specific injury because of an ineligible president, Christopher John Rudy is suing the government for $90, a fee he had to pay as the result of a law signed by Barack Obama, whom Rudy alleges is not really the president. Of course, this case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

The original case (1:2013cv00278) was filed in the Virginia Eastern District Court in March of 2013. The order dismissing the case agreed with the Patent Office’s contention that the courts lacked jurisdiction to decide presidential eligibility because it was a political question. A political question is defined by guidelines set down by the Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962), existing when any of the following holds:

  1. textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;
  2. a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue;
  3. the impossibility of resolving the issue without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion;
  4. the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution of the issue without expressing a lack of respect due to the coordinate branches of government;
  5. an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or
  6. the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.

Defendants cited to three of the criteria (1, 5 and 6) and said: “numerous articles and amendments of the U. S. Constitution, when viewed together, make clear that the issue of the President’s qualifications and his removal from office are textually committed to the legislative branch and not the judicial branch.”

The decision was appealed to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (case number 14-1056), and the lower court ruling was affirmed without comment on April 11, 2014.

What makes this latter-day case a little more interesting is the submission of an amicus brief by the United States Justice Foundation (Gary Kreep’s old outfit). This time the USJF attorney is William J. Olson. The USJF is a non-profit, right-wing nut job public interest organization. The USJF brief claims that up until now, “no one has questioned the validity of a law signed by the president.” That is, of course, is factually wrong. Orly Taitz did that in Taitz v. Sebelius.  Very sloppy work, Mr. Olson. Our old buddy Herb Titus makes an appearance on the docket also, I presume with the amicus brief.

The Supreme Court appeal was docketed July 10, and assigned case number 14-36. Here is the USJF brief, and it is quoted from in the WorldNetDaily article referenced below.


The Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari on October 6, 2014.

Read more:

Tag team: Taitz + Apuzzo

imageA most curious article title [Link to Taitz site] appeared on the Orly Taitz blog a few days back. It said: “Update: I talked to attorney Mario Apuzzo, he stated, he will assist as much as he can.” I could hardly let that pass without comment.

I must admit that the first thought that came to mind was “poor Mario.” Partnerships with Taitz tend to go badly because she exhibits no respect for the other party and has no concept of confidentiality (like posting on the Internet that she had talked to Apuzzo). Taitz and Berg are involved in a messy lawsuit, former client Connie Rhodes said she was going to file a bar complaint against Taitz because Taitz filed actions on behalf of Rhodes without authorization, a major feud erupted between her and her co-counsel Gary Kreep, and now Taitz is petitioning the court to issue sanctions against her co-plaintiff Leah Lax in Mississippi. Apuzzo, on the other hand, seems arrogant and dismissive of others. There would seem to me to be a distinct personality conflict.

Apuzzo, for his part, has largely ignored Taitz on his blog except to note once that an article on her site is something that he actually wrote. On the other hand Taitz did mention Apuzzo in a substantive way, criticizing him [Link to Taitz web site] for that silly article saying that Obama was really Bari Shabazz and the son of Malcolm X.

Usually in a collaboration, one plays upon the strengths of the other. In this case we have one attorney whose evidence (copied from the Internet) has been rejected by multiple courts and another whose legal theories have been labeled as “without merit”  by others. I don’t see that as a combination for success. Any bets as to how long it will take Taitz to add Apuzzo to her RICO complaint?

Gary Kreep on presidential eligibility

You may recall Gary Kreep, founder of the United States Justice Foundation and attorney for some of the defendants in the federal lawsuit Keyes/Barnett v Obama. Kreep is credited with first involving Dr. Orly Taitz in Obama eligibility litigation.

In a video Interview with Bill Keller, a TV and Internet evangelist at, Kreep explains the constitutional requirements for the US presidency:

The constitutional requirements to serve as president are very simple. You have to be 35 years old, you have to have resided in the United States for 14 years and you have to be quote natural born citizen unquote, which is the issue we’re dealing with regarding Mr. Obama.

There’s been a few Supreme Court decisions that discuss this matter, but basically what it means it’s that either you have to be born in the United States, which Mr. Obama claims he was or if you were born in a foreign country one of your parents had to have been a United States citizen and the parent needed to have been a resident of the United States for at least 10 years, at least 5 years of which were after age 14.

Kreep Interview starts 5 minutes in

Thanks, Gary, for clearing that up for my readers.

Reading Judge Carter

Judge David O. Carter

Judge David O. Carter

I’ve had a few days to think about the transcript from the October 5, 2009, hearing in Barnett v. Obama. I am not the first to try to figure out where Judge David O. Carter is leaning based on his comments during the hearing.

The bulk of the Judge’s questions related to two issues: the standing of the plaintiffs and the political process for removing a president. It seems to me that these two questions focus on the criteria under which Judge Carter may dismiss the case.

Judge Carter seems to be concerned with the question: if the plaintiffs are right that President Obama is not eligible, what is the mechanism under the Constitution through which their complaint is redressed? In his view, there most be some avenue for a citizen to seek redress for a legitimate complaint. Continue Reading →

Notes from the infectious disease ward

Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq

Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq

While Orly Taitz’s blog is infected with the H1N1 Swine Malware, I’ll continue sporadic reports, using my full body respirator virtual machine browser. [Recall last April it was that Orly said not to get H1N1 vaccinations.] It looks like Orly is including email addresses of the folks whose emails she posts.

  • Post from queenofshina: Orly, I filed an official complaint with the FBI’s cyber division on Saturday about your Site being hacked…
  • Post from Lowell Banner: It have cancelled [sic] my emails from WND. Farah and Kreep are just in this for the money…
  • From Reader Gary Maslaac (who signed his note “Eddie”): Dear Champion of Freedom, The article focused mainly on Gary A. [sic] Creep [sic], [sic] it appeared you were in the court but contributed nothing. This report is a dis service [sic] to readers and is scarcely accurate…
  • From Reader carmen: Dr. Orly, Thank you for the unbelievable amount of good you are doing…. The favor of God is on you and with you…
  • From Reader KBB: Last week, I emailed my entire address list and advised them to not give a dime to USJF and specifically to Gary Kreep…
  • From Reader pip: …That pesky Judge seriously needs to consider growing a backbone [not clear which judge]
  • NOTICE: I got a phone call from Liza Mundy, Washington Post reporter. She stated that the article was postponed to Tuesday. I guess theya [sic] are waiting for judge Carter’s opinion.
  • NADA [appropriately named article contains no text]

Kreepy tales and other things from Orly

Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq

Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq

Today Orly Taitz tells us that the Washington Post who interviewed her, and who had a photographer do a photo shoot yesterday, will be publishing what Orly calls an “article- biographical expose about me and my legal challenges of Obama’s eligibility” this Monday, October 5, timed for the hearing before Judge Carter in California. This should be most enlightening and I will certainly be looking forward to the article on Monday, as well as haunting Politijab for any news of how the hearing went. [Everyone is invited to listen to Reality Check Radio on Blog Talk Radio Monday night at 9 EDT. A poster at Politijab will be at the motion hearing in Barnett and will give a same day account.]

Orly continues to hammer USJF attorney Gary Kreep who is now part of the Barnett v. Obama case representing Markham Robinson and Wiley Drake. She accuses Kreep of messing up her case and doing nothing to help. Now she accuses him of stiffing her out of a $2,000 contribution from a named donor.

Then Orly makes the inexplicable comment:

“I used this motion to simply pour dirt on me.”