Thursday, October 28, 2010

Attorney Taitz and attorney Kreep filed their Reply Briefs in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The first snippet is from the Taitz Brief followed by a snippet from the Kreep Brief. Full Briefs embedded below.

Appellants include Capt. Pamela Barnett, Richard Norton Bauerbach, Capt. Robin D. Biron, Col. John D. Blair, Mr. David L. Bosley, Ms. Loretta G. Bosley, Capt. Harry G. Butler, Rep. Glenn Casada, Jennifer Leah Clark, Timothy Comerford, Charles Crusemire, Thomas S. Davidson, Rep. Cynthia Davis, Matthew Michael Edwards, Lt. Jason Freese, Mr. Kurt C. Fuqua, Officer Clint Grimes, Julliett Ireland, D. Andrew Johnson, Israel D. Jones, Timothy Jones, Alan Keyes, Ph. D., David Fullmer LaRoque, Gail Lightfoot, Lita M. Lott, Major David Grant Mosby, Steven Kay Neuenschwander, Frank Niceley, Robert Lee Perry, Col. Harry Riley, Sgt. Jeffrey Wayne Rosner, Capt. David Smithey, John Bruce Steidel, Douglas Earl Stoeppelwerth, Rep. Eric Swafford, Capt. Neil B. Turner, Richard E. Venable, Jeff Graham Winthrope and Mark Wriggle


As the Appellants are limited to only 15 pages in the reply brief, the appellants will limit the reply to the most egregious issues of bias, abuse of judicial discretion, improper influence, and possibly criminal cover up exhibited in this case, particularly in regards to the fact that an attorney for the defendant’s law firm, acted as a law clerk for the presiding judge. This case was dealing with fraud, perpetrated by Barack Obama prior to becoming U.S. President. Obama’s personal attorney and White House Counsel Robert Bauer is a senior partner for Perkins Coie. Attorney-law clerk, drafting the opinion to dismiss the case, was also an employee of Perkins Coie.

A. Bias and abuse of judicial discretion in Judge Carter’s refusal to rule on the motion for default judgment against Obama

Most important issue in this case, is that Judge Carter’s actions in relation to the motion for default were improper, represented bias, abuse of judicial discretion and represented fraud committed by Judge Carter in relation to the Plaintiffs, to Plaintiff’s counsel Dr. Orly Taitz and to the country as a whole.

In their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion the defendants made a fraudulent statement: “ It is submitted that the court’s decision to deny entry of default judgment against the President was in all respects proper.”

The U.S. attorneys know that Judge Carter (hereinafter Carter) NEVER denied entry of a default judgment . He simply refused to issue an order. As stated before, he first hearing was for a DEFAULT JUDGMENT. Therefore Judge Carter had an obligation to follow Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

In all other cases, the party must apply to the court for a default judgment. A default judgment may be entered against a minor or incompetent person only if represented by a general guardian, conservator, or other like fiduciary who has appeared. If the party against whom a default judgment is sought has appeared personally or by a representative, that party or its representative must be served with written notice of the application at least 3 days before the hearing. The court may conduct hearings or make referrals preserving any federal statutory right to a jury trial when, to enter or effectuate judgment, it needs to:

(A) conduct an accounting;

(B) determine the amount of damages;

(C) establish the truth of any allegation by evidence; or

(D) investigate any other matter.

So all he was empowered to do at that hearing was either grant the default (which he didn’t ), deny the default ( which he didn’t ) , or conduct hearings or make referrals when to make a judgment, it needs to establish the truth of any allegation by evidence or investigate any other matter. Thus, he had no right to set a trial date. As a result, the government had NO RIGHT to file a motion to dismiss.. This should have been an investigative hearing on evidence, by him, in order to determine if default judgment should be granted. By the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, he was not empowered to do anything else. He NEVER made a ruling on default judgment.

As the transcript of the July 13, 2009 hearing shows, the Plaintiff’s attorney Dr. Orly Taitz repeatedly requested for Judge Carter to rule on her motion for default judgment, simply rule one way or another, grant it or deny it. He never did.

Clearly Obama was served with the process, as he sent an Assistant U.S. attorney to represent him. Instead of ruling one way or another, to grant or deny the notion for default, judge Carter improperly applied pressure and duress on plaintiff’s attorney and demanded that she serve Obama the way “government wants“. He never stated, that she did not serve him correctly, as he knew that she served him on Inauguration Day, before he did anything as a president. She served him with a law suit, dealing with fraud, that he committed before getting into office, in order to satisfy his personal ego and in order to get into office. Judge Carter knew, that Taitz served Obama properly and that Obama was in default in that he never furnished an answer, so Judge Carter simply decided to act with bias and defraud the Plaintiff’s Counsel and the Plaintiffs by promising that if Taitz serves Obama yet again, the way government wants, he would hear the case on its Merits. During the course of the hearing Carter repeatedly stated that this court has jurisdiction and the case would be heard on its merits, he stated that this is an important case for the country and the military, that it should not be decided on technicality, but rather decided on the merits, if he (Obama) wasn’t eligible, he shouldn’t be there (in the White House). (Appendix to Appellant’s Brief, Clerk’s record, 07.13.09 transcript)

Taitz had no other option but to rely on the Honesty and Honor of a Federal Judge. Instead, Judge Carter defrauded her and her clients. He did precisely what he promised not to do. he dismissed the case on a technicality, claiming he had no jurisdiction and to add insult to injury, for good measure, he added slanderous statements about the plaintiffs and Taitz in order to demoralize the Plaintiffs and to destroy good name of their attorney, to assassinate her character. -SNIP- Full Taitz Brief embedded below.


This Appeal of the order granting Respondent Barack Obama’s Motion to Dismiss is limited to the issues affecting Appellant’s Dr. Wiley Drake (hereinafter referred to as “DRAKE”) and Markham Robinson (hereinafter referred to as “ROBINSON”). . It is our understanding that Dr. Taitz will be addressing the issues affecting her clients in her Reply Brief.

This action was brought by, among others, Plaintiffs Dr. Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson (hereinafter referred to as “APPELLANTS”). Dr. Wiley Drake was the Vice Presidential nominee for the American Independent Party in the 2008 Presidential Election on the California ballot. Markham Robinson was the Chairman of the American Independent Party and was a pledged Presidential Elector for the American Independent Party in the 2008 Presidential Election for the California ballot. Dr. Taitz is representing Plaintiff Dr. Alan Keyes (hereinafter referred to as “KEYES”), herein, who was the Presidential nominee for the American Independent Party in the 2008 Presidential Election on the California ballot.


Barack Hussein Obama (hereinafter referred to as “OBAMA”) contends that APPELLANTS lack standing because “they cannot demonstrate a particularized injury in fact traceable to Defendants’ conduct as would be necessary to establish standing.” (Appellees’ Answering Brief, page 12). To support this contention, OBAMA cited Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which states:

“We have consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government-claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large-does not state an Article III case or controversy.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) 504 U.S. 555, 573.

The Court in Lujan cited examples of generally available grievances about government including: a suit challenging the propriety of certain federal expenditures (Id. at 574); a suit contending that Justice Black's appointment to this Court violated the Ineligibility Clause (Id. at 574); a suit challenging the Government's failure to disclose the expenditures of the Central Intelligence Agency (Id. at 575); and a suit to block an execution on the basis of ‘the public interest protections of the Eighth Amendment' (Id. at 577). The Court explained that, in these examples, the plaintiffs were alleging injuries that applied equally to the public at large. Unlike the examples in the Lujan case, KEYES and DRAKE were running for President and Vice President of the United States, respectively, and were on the ballot in California. APPELLANTS did not suffer a generalized injury that was no different than any suffered by the public at large, and, instead, were harmed in that one of the competitors for the office of President ran for that office without the right to do so, thus denying APPELLANTS the right to compete fairly in the election. (Hollander v. McCain (2008) 566 F.Supp.2d 63). As APPELLANTS discussed in their opening brief, the Hollander v. McCain Court noted, “courts have held that a candidate or his political party has standing to challenge the inclusion of an allegedly ineligible rival on the ballot, on the theory that doing so hurts the candidate's or party's own chances of prevailing in the election.” (Id. at 68). APPELLANTS have reason to believe that OBAMA was, and is, ineligible to serve in the office of President and his inclusion on the ballot in California hurt APPELLANTS’ chance at prevailing in the state, and, for that reason, APPELLANTS have standing in this matter, and the granting of the motion to dismiss should be vacated.

OBAMA further argues that, if a candidate for a particular office lacks the votes to win an election, the candidate cannot show any injury if another candidate who won the election unlawfully ran for the office (Appellees’ Answering Brief, page 12-13). This argument would seem to indicate that, if a candidate for office lacks any chance at prevailing, he or she has no interest in whether his or her opponents are following the applicable election rules. The current rules regarding Presidential elections allow for a candidate to run for the office of President of the United States even if that candidate is not on the ballot in other states. However, if such a candidate could never challenge the eligibility of a national candidate on the grounds that this candidate could never win the office, does that mean that third party candidates should never run for the office of President because they could never challenge any improper action of the national candidates? Does the law, therefore, provide opportunities for, and encourage, majority party presidential candidates to skirt or ignore election rules and since, according to APPELLANTS, third party presidential challengers would never have standing to challenge such violations of the rules on the grounds that no third party candidate could ever hope to win enough votes? -SNIP- Full Kreep Brief embedded below.

Previous reports on Barnett/Keyes v Obama can be found here. Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Obama & the Hawaii Department of Health and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [].
Barnett/Keyes et al. v Obama et al. - Appeal - Taitz - Reply Brief for Review - 9th Circuit - 10/27/10
Barnett/Keyes et al. v Obama et al. - Appeal - Kreep - Reply Brief for Review - 9th Circuit - 10/27/10
Barnett/Keyes et al v. Obama et al - 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - Appellees'(Obama) Answering Brief - 10/...
Obama Ineligible - I tried and lied but it won't go away! Wash Times Natl Wkly 2010-10-04 pg 5



  2. Barack Hussein Obama (hereinafter referred to as “OBAMA”) contends that APPELLANTS lack standing because “they cannot demonstrate a particularized injury in fact traceable to Defendants’ conduct as would be necessary to establish standing.

    What a complete joke. Why not just provide the documentation that would prove you're eligible? Oh, that's right, YOU CAN'T! Born a Brit not legit!

  3. If the media would report the truth about Obama's ineligibility he would be run out of the White House quicker than you can say imposter.

  4. That is exactly why the media will not report the truth about it. They know he would be run out and they're protecting him. They should be charged as accomplices.

  5. Why can't someone sue the DNC?

  6. Obama will pay in due time. Many people know about his fraud and many more are learning about it. The truth always prevails.

  7. The mid-term elections are just around the corner. The subpoena's should fly with the new Congress. In addition, contestants for the presidency need to register with all 50 Secretary of States in 2011. Let's hold their feet to the fire to ensure that they verify constituional elegibility for all the candidates.

  8. With all the voter fraud going on I will be surprised if the Conservatives and Republicans will get in It's a damn scary election


“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)

Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.