09-56827 Drake Vs Obama (51 minute video)
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
And not assure that someday he may become President but rather to secure him a place on the government dole.
We are just watching the movie “Wag The Dog” all over again!!!
The Diversion Continues.
Even if Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama had been birthed in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House he is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
You need to go to Leo Donofrio’s site and see what Ms. Tickly has discovered, Wow. She should have been there to testify!!!
Thank you and check your freepmail!
Cheers!
Deliberately not *PINGING* the aforementioned troll as an overt gesture of disrespect.
Cheers!
Well, well, well!!! Very suspect. Actually, more than suspect, damning!
Check your freepmail. It’ll cheer you right up if you haven’t seen it yet.
If Obama is not a legitimate President, does that quench his Sovereign Immunity from suit for ordering the death of bin Laden?
Can Al Qaeda sue him, and thence the US, for not exercising proper diligence in keeping only legitimate claimants to the Presidency?
Cheers!
Good grief. I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did.
Did he kick and scream while being escorted, Cajun likes it when they kick and scream, that way the *Viking Kitties* can use excessive force.
I would guess that he may have already come back in via a side door - he seemed like a retread and buddies with someone here who copies and pastes nonsense in 0h0m0’s support non-stop.
brrrski isn’t a troll, he is probley a computer generated hack....
LOL Was
That's a much less likely possibility than the "birth certificate form" presented by the White House being created electronically out of multiple images in the last few weeks. The late Dr. Sinclair's signature could have been obtained from an old document in possession of his widow - an ardent Democrat with connections even now to the Hawaii DOH - and used as a piece of the forged BC.
Well, that was interesting.
When addressing standing the Lady Judge said, I think of an ordinary citizen's ability to gain it, "Unfortunately, that's not the law." I'm not sure standing is actually law. I think it's more procedure and/or precedent which isn't quite the same thing. Perhaps someone who knows more about this than I would chime in, and whether it makes a difference in these cases. (I.e., how bound is the judge to follow the rules of standing?)
As to the question of before, during, or after, and what remedies can be sought, I wish someone would have used horse racing as an analogy. Every race has conditions of eligibility. (The simplest example is that the Derby is for three year-old horses only.) Beyond the conditions for a single race, there are rules that govern all races in a particular jurisdiction: the horse, owner, trainer and jockey all have to be registered, the horse may not be given certain medications for a set period of time before the race, etc.
Sometimes a horse is entered who isn't eligible; and the stewards reject the entry. Sometimes a horse fails a pre-race drug test and is scratched. And then the race is run, some horse wins, the winning bettors are paid, and the purse is distributed to the top finishers in the race. Maybe the winning owner gets a trophy or a julep cup. After that the winner comes under increased scrutiny for additional drugs or drugs that take a longer time to detect. If this winner is found, post hoc, to not have been eligible, he is declared to have been ineligible. Not everything can be set right after the fact, but the things that can be set right are. There is no way to recover the money from the winning bettors so they don't even try. But they do redistribute the purse money and the owner of the disgraced horse has to give back the julep cup if he got one. Sometimes the trainer or the jockey (who might have been found to have illegally stimulated the horse with an electrical device) are suspended or banned from racing entirely.
Orly Taitz has her rough edges, and I'll admit that I am predisposed to like her, but I thought her argument was the best. The judges, who asked pretty good questions I thought, had few questions for her.
And the government guy could have just presented the "birth certificate" Obama released last week. But for some reason he did not.
ML/NJ
I'm not sure if it would have been considered within the rules to present physical evidence at this hearing before the 9th Circuit. The appeal was supposed to be "on the law" as opposed to "on the facts."
And if the Court were to accept the purported "birth certificate" as evidence, the government ran the risk of that document providing an argument to the plaintiffs, or to other plaintiffs in other cases, that Obama was ineligible for POTUS because of his father's lack of citizenship.
Good comments.
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.