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.
The thought of “it has layers” being said in a federal appeals court has me giddy.
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.
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
Can I get a glass of milk to go with that long form?
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!
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.
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.
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.
Looks like Barack Sr. ‘s Immigration file was released:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File
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.
Yeah, just like Kennedy.
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.
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.
“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!
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
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?
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.
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.
A troll posted this at another site – I hope it’s true:
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
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
That describes nearly every politician, except the manizers, since the founding.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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
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.
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.
Osama Bin Laden killed by US troops.
Yup, that’s the one that got Osama killed when it was delivered.
Idiot