Posted on 05/02/2011 12:20:12 PM PDT by rxsid
"Live Updates From Obama Eligibility Hearing At The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena...
Gary from GUL will be giving me periodic phone updates from the hearing in Pasadena, California. This post will be updated as news is forthcoming...
11:55(et): Gary just informed me that the hearing has been put at the end of the docket and will begin in about 1-2 hours after the original scheduling time of 9am California time. It is the the 4th case on the docket. Gary reports that ABC, CBS and CSPAN are in the courtroom. Atty Kreep informed Gary that CSPAN will be broadcasting the oral arguments live on CSPAN TV. I have yet to see it mentioned at CSPAN.
12:03(et): Gary just informed me that attorney Phil Berg is there assisting attorney Kreep at the hearing...
12:35(et): Captain Barnett just emailed me from the hearing; hi in court now. our case is last. Orly Taitz, Gary Kreep, Phil Berg, Wiley Drake, myself and a few supporters are here. Didn't see Alan Keyes.
1:32(et): Captain Barnett; earlier I heard a self-identified DOJ attorney joking with an AP writer that he couldn't believe that they had to be here (court) in referring to the obama eligibility case. They were both laughing so I gave them a 1 page memo on Natural Born and it' importantance and the country's adhereance to the two citizen parent and born within the jurisdiction of the United States requirement that Obama is the only "president" except Chester Arthur who concealed and destroyed his records that did not meet the two citizen requirement. Peace out for now.
2:47(et): Gary just informed me that oral arguments will begin in about 5 minutes. He said the court room is packed with about 80 people and a few in the overflow room. He stated numerous different media outlets are at the hearing.
Stay tuned for more updates..."
Taitz brief:
Barnett/Keyes et al. v Obama et al. - Appeal - Taitz - Reply Brief for Review - 9th Circuit - 10/27/10
Kreep brief:
Barnett/Keyes et al. v Obama et al. - Appeal - Kreep - Reply Brief for Review - 9th Circuit - 10/27/10
Thanks for the ping. Sounds like Kreep is a creep. And to make the case that “born in the country” is a NBC. What’s their game?
To run interference for the Usurper...
BTTT...
Are Berg and Kreep competing to get recognition of being the firsts to file or is it a macho showdown. Why NOT be unity to fight the same case on the same level???
Regarding the b.c. Leo Donofrio is very impressed by Miss Tickly’s exposing tampering with the document!!!
Interesting, running interference might be. To think that born in the country with foreign father is a NBC cannot be based on lack of understanding.
"This is a supplemental brief, that I filed in the 9th Circuit Court of AppealsAttention clerk of the court:
On May 2, 2011 undersigned conducted oral argument in the above captioned case in front of Honorable Justices Berzon, Fisher and Pregerson. Justices were trying to ascertain, what would be the correct timing in filing a legal action, questioning legitimacy of the President of the United States.
FRAP 28 (j) Citation of Supplemental Authorities
Third District Court of Appeals of CA, in Keyes et al v Bowen et al C 062321 Third District Court of Appeals of CA which was based on a prior decision in Robinson v Bowen 567 F. Supp. 2d at p1147 from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA. Both Robinson and Keyes dealt with the challenge of presidential eligibility. Robinson dealt with the challenge of the eligibility of senator McCain in light of his birth in the city of Colon, Panama and Keyes challenged eligibility of senator Obama in light of lack of long form birth certificate. Both cases were filed against the Secretary of State of CA Debra Bowen. Both the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA and the Third District court of Appeals in Ca concurred that the proper time to challenge presidential eligibility, is after the election and after the congressional confirmation.
“Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review–if any–should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course. [Citation.]” (Robinson v. Bowen, supra, 567 F.Supp.2d at p. 1147.) (emphasis added)
Undersigned would like to remind this court that she filed this action on the Inauguration day. Defendant, Mr. Obama, could not memorize the oath of office and Chief Justice Roberts had to come back to the White House and give Mr. Obama a make up oath. By that time Taitz already filed this legal action. As such, the timing was perfect: it was executed after the legislative process ran its course and before the defendant, Mr. Obama, was sworn in..
Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ"
I thought she did a credible job, as I listened to the CSPAN video.
I also caught something that deJute (US Atty) said, when asked by a judge: what would be the appropriate time to challenge?
His response: the election.
We seem to have one coming up...
Has anyone ever checked to see if Taitz is actually admitted to practice?
She needs to hire a bright law student to proof read her submissions before filing.
So there is another hearing after this one? I have not been following this one too closely....
I suspect so. That true, rx?
Even if the fed attorney was referring to a candidate’s right to timely protest the eligibility of another primary candidate, the attorney conveniently made no mention of the fact that Congress, in order to perform its duty during the 12th A’s Joint Session, empowered itself via statute to challenge a President elect’s eligibility.
That leads to what may be one of plaintiff’s arguments - until the Joint Session closed, a court could conclude Congress had not yet completed its statutory procedure and judicial intervention was premature and improper. I.e., no triable issue arose until after the Joint Session.
Under that view, the objective would be to obtain meaningful court involvement subsequent to the Session and sufficiently in advance of the first day of the term of office.
The problem now, of course, is that he is the President and the only branch able to remove him is Congress. The best any court can do is to hand down a felony conviction or confirm that NBC requires two citizen parents, in which case Congress will be embarrassed if it takes no action.
Now that I have read rxsid’s #145 - never mind.
Wish Attorney Orly would bring up..it is a violation of the Law of Nations......
There is to much fixation on the birth certificate...everyone has their own agenda on free republic...promote their blogs..promote their children to be natural born citizens when one of the parents was not a citizen at birth. They want adopted children from foreign countries eligible.
The Law of Nations is enough...it is that simple. Ms Orly the Law of Nations is law and Congress must bow to it. It is what the Founders wanted. It is written in the Constitution.
Step away from the birth certificate forgery. The one presented is enough to show Obama is illegal.
CHAPTER X.
SECURITY OF LIBERTY.
§ 104. The sixth and last of the avowed purposes of the people in the establishment of their government, and for the accomplishment of which they of course intend their government shall be responsible, is “ to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Here the last and most valued of the natural and constitutional rights of the people is placed, expressly for security and safety, directly under the care and guardianship of the government of the United States. The provision is afterwards supported and assisted by an auxiliary Article, recognizing the common-law right to personal freedom, and perpetuating the common-law remedy, by habeas corpus, against its infringement ; and by another, making a direct and absolute prohibition of any deprivation of it, otherwise than by due process of law. That, in the ‘middle of the third generation after the adoption of such a Constitution by the American people , there should have existed in their midst four millions of people, partly of their own posterity, mostly natural-born citizens of the United States, and universally resident inhabitants of the land, subject to its government and entitled to its protection
So there we have it. Natural born are those born (their Posterity) to American citizens AFTER the adoption of the US Constitution. Children born to foreigners need not apply for the presidency.
Attorney Orly Taitz Trumps DOJ’s Argument That Obama Can’t Be Dealt With After Election...
Attorney Orly Taitz trumps the Department of Justice’s argument that Obama can’t be dealt with after the election...
Just filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: Attention clerk of the court;
On May 2, 2011 undersigned conducted oral argument in the above captioned case in front of Honorable Justices Berzon, Fisher and Pregerson. Justices were trying to ascertain, what would be the correct timing in filing a legal action, questioning legitimacy of the President of the United States.
FRAP 28 (j) Citation of Supplemental Authorities
Third District Court of Appeals of CA, in Keyes et al v Bowen et al C 062321 Third District Court of Appeals of CA which was based on a prior decision in Robinson v Bowen 567 F. Supp. 2d at p1147 from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA. Both Robinson and Keyes dealt with the challenge of presidential eligibility. Robinson dealt with the challenge of the eligibility of senator McCain in light of his birth in the city of Colon, Panama and Keyes challenged eligibility of senator Obama in light of lack of long form birth certificate. Both cases were filed against the Secretary of State of CA Debra Bowen. Both the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA and the Third District court of Appeals in Ca concurred that the proper time to challenge presidential eligibility, is after the election and after the congressional confirmation.
“Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review–if any–should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course. [Citation.]” (Robinson v. Bowen, supra, 567 F.Supp.2d at p. 1147.) (emphasis added)
Undersigned would like to remind this court that she filed this action on the Inauguration day. Defendant, Mr. Obama, could not memorize the oath of office and Chief Justice Roberts had to come back to the White House and give Mr. Obama a make up oath. By that time Taitz already filed this legal action. As such, the timing was perfect: it was executed after the legislative process ran its course and before the defendant, Mr. Obama, was sworn in..
Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
Attorney for 40 plaintiffs in case 10-55084.
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/05/atty-taitz-trumps-dojs-argument-that.html
Orly Taitz on Peter Tilden show next!!!
790 KABC LA, 7:30 AM Pacific Time.
Call 1-800 -222-KABC
I hope you get that to people like Orly and Trump and anyone else who may be able to do something. Obviously the Rs in DC and all “pundits” are shams and refuse to touch it. Even talk show people who are Constiutional scholars refuse to touch it.
I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn but here’s my .02. These charges should be able to be brought up at any time during the campaign, after the electoral vote, any time during the usurption, and at any point in time after that. I don’t know what the limitation periods are for fraud and treason but that’s what this is. It’s not like he suddenly became immune after the vote. He’s committing a crime every minute he squats in our House.
The tax payer paid DOJ lawyers for the defendant arguing that ineligibility is fixed by elections (only) is stunning.
What they are clearly trying to say, then, is that a simply majority of voters could vote in Arnold Schwarzenegger and there's not a darn thing anyone could do about until the next election cycle.
If we were a "pure" Democracy...that might be the case. But not in a Constitutional Republic. The others not in the majority have the Constitutional right to be protected from an ineligible candidate/candidate elect/office holder.
It's traitorous to our Republic and our Constitution otherwise.
Thanks grey_whiskers. Since his partisans run the so-called Justice Dep’t, and many a fed bench, he’s got little to worry about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.