Uncharted Waters—Ramona Attorney Back in Court Over Obama Citizenship

It's a type of case that has never come this far in the courts before, and the judiciary and attorneys are at odds over how to handle it.

Uncharted legal waters.

That's how Ramona attorney summed up the judicial dilemma surrounding the question of whether President Barack Obama is eligible for his office and how Americans should generally deal with an eligibility issue once a president takes office.

On Monday, Kreep and lawyer of Rancho Santa Margarita once again asked the courts to allow them to present their cases and bring evidence in their fight to show that Obama isn't a U.S. citizen.

It's not a simple request.

At this stage, the court isn't hearing details about what Kreep and Taitz may have found as evidence. This phase involves convincing the courts that judges have the right to rule on eligibility matters.

Taitz and Kreep's cases were dismissed by the U.S. District Court in Santa Ana in 2009 because the judge didn't believe the court had the jurisdiction to decide the eligibility of the president.

But if the courts don't, who does?

The answer, according to Deputy U.S. Attorney David DeJute, is Congress. DeJute represented Obama in Monday's oral arguments at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena.

But that wasn't the final answer either.

Judge Marcia Berzon raised the 20th Amendment. “If there's a difficulty regarding eligibility, Congress shall decide by law,” she said.

“By law,” she repeated, which would seem to imply that the courts have to get involved. Or not.

“The courts need to be involved to enforce the constitution,” Kreep argued.

“That's not the issue,” DeJute told Berzon. “The candidates don't have standing.”

Kreep represents two members of a small, conservative Christian political party called the American Independent Party. His plaintiffs, Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson, feel that the playing field in the 2008 presidential election wasn't fair because Obama, they believe, won the race without having the requirements to hold the job. His candidacy eclipsed their effort because of the size of their party, but the election wasn't fair if he wasn't eligible, they claim.

Standing means eligibility to bring a case before the courts. DeJute and at least one judge questioned whether the general public can come into court and complain about another candidate's eligibility after that person has been sworn into office, just because they didn't get elected.

Kreep stood his ground. “This is about the Constitution,” he argued. “The public has a right to enforce the Constitution.”

Even if the public can go into court to argue these types of matters, sometimes that right may have limitations, such as timing, according to Berzon.

“You did not file a claim at the time when relief might have been plausible,” she told Kreep. Taitz filed the original case, which was split when two plaintiffs were removed and began working with Kreep instead. She filed the case on Inauguration Day “before Obama did anything as president,” she said. But the judges questioned whether that was too late.

“There's no point arguing eligibility when someone hasn't been elected and if we wait until after the election, we're too late,” Kreep contended. “We don't know who's going to be elected.”

One of the judges and the Deputy U.S. Attorney concurred that the judiciary is likely responsible for these types of matters until a person is elected and then the responsibility rests with Congress.

The judges asked Kreep what he would want as the ultimate relief.

“Our expectation is that Obama would vacate the office and Vice President [Joe] Biden would become president,” he replied.

Relief means the actions or awards that could be possible to remedy an “injury.” Kreep contends the injury is that his clients couldn't get elected.

The judges on Monday also questioned the "political question" involved in the cases.

“It's a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question,” Kreep stated. “Is the person eligible or not, based on evidence? We disagree with Judge Carter [of the federal court] that it's a political question.”

All-in-all, the public got a lesson in U.S. Constitution 101 on Monday but no one knows where the discussion will lead because this exact type of case hasn't come up before.

There's a way to remove a president from office. Impeachment. However, Kreep argued, if the president was never eligible in the first place, then he isn't really president, so impeachment wouldn't apply.

“Nobody is willing to take on this issue,” Kreep told the three judges. “John McCain was the subject of congressional hearings on whether he was eligible and a ruling was issued. Why McCain and not Obama?” he asked.

Three attorneys flew in to help Kreep prepare for oral arguments. Phillip J. Berg came from Philadelphia and J. Thomas Smith flew in from Tennessee. Both attorneys have worked on similar cases. The third lawyer asked to remain anonymous.

Berg said it's always hard to know how judges will decide but he, like Kreep, hopes the appellate judges will remand the case back to the federal court for a judge to decide. He said the attorneys need a chance to do discovery and bring evidence.

Taitz represents 30 clients, some of whom are in the military and one is an ambassador. She said her case needs to be overturned due to errors made by the U.S. District Court judge. She also said that there has been undue influence from the U.S. Attorney's Office and the White House in the judicial proceedings so far, referencing a friend of the White House who she says was “placed as a clerk” for the federal court judge.

“I'm from the Soviet Union,” she said. “I would expect that there but not in the United States.”

As she wrapped up, Taitz said, “We went to Congress and the Joint Chiefs of the military. We exhausted all our avenues. Mr. Kreep is right. The courts need to decide.”

DeJute told the judges that the U.S. Attorney's Office was basing its case on two issues: “They need to show injury and they don't have standing.” No one from the office would offer comments following the arguments.

After the hearing, a group of people surrounded Taitz as she displayed copies of several personal documents that she said Obama has provided the public. She talked about what she believes are discrepancies.

John Florance from Simi Valley was among the general public at the hearing. The 61 year old took a day off work in the wholesale produce industry. He said, “I'm just a frustrated witness. Government employees aren't saying anything. The silence is deafening. Why don't they just bring it out in the open and deal with it?”

A Rancho Mirage woman, Pat Levy, turned out in support of Taitz. She described herself as a retired business owner.

The panel of three judges will take an indeterminate time to issue a ruling.

Smith, the attorney who flew in from Tennessee, said there have been about 100 lawsuits filed nationwide over the question of the president's eligibility. According to Berg and Kreep, these two cases in California are the only ones to make it as far as oral arguments. If the appellate court sends the cases back to the federal court, Kreep anticipates that the U.S. Department of Justice will file a writ with the Supreme Court to block them.

NYOD May 03, 2011 at 08:44 PM
Jeezus H Christ! Do you realize the implication here: the president of the United States is forging a legal document, as well as the signatures of his mother and the doctor, as well as the signature of the current registrar for the State of Hawaii. Ya think that registrar will notice? He's only one of the nation's foremost authorities in maintaining the security of vital records. "Say there, Dr. Onaka, did you notice that the President of the United States created his own Hawaiian birth certificate and signed your name?" Ah . . . the birther answer: Onaka is in on the deception. Now we're really talking impeachment! Ya gotta know that this is as impeachable as Bill and Hillary killing Vince Foster! Beyond the certificate, no doubt he and his wily attorney also forged the cover letter from the State of Hawaii. He is a sneaky, sneaky president.
Jim Baker May 03, 2011 at 08:54 PM
Kate, You might want to review this website: http://prowlland.wordpress.com/2008/12/23/senate-proves-obama-is-ineligible/ That resolution in facts proves Obama is ineligible to be President.
Julie Pendray May 03, 2011 at 09:05 PM
Thank you all for your interesting comments on the court appeal regarding the president. Ramona Patch is seeking opinions from legal scholars. Stay tuned.
Naeok Sadzewicz May 03, 2011 at 11:00 PM
"seeking opinions from legal scholars" that will be interesting, you can also check out the many lawyers at fowbow.
Naeok Sadzewicz May 04, 2011 at 02:24 AM
the court released the audio from Kreeps case takes about 10 min to download http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000007341 after listening to it it becomes clear what the result will be note to Jim Baker, your link is to the aricle that Kate said Kreep misrepresented(as you did)
KenyanBornObama May 04, 2011 at 04:22 AM
Obama is TOAST! The video that will END the Obama Presidency! Birthers Get Last Laugh & Demand Formal Apology! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1DHZmeMXyE&feature=channel_video_title
james hernandez May 04, 2011 at 02:59 PM
I've never seen so many bad losers in politics! The Tea Baggers, who love to stand on the street and wave flags, where were you during the Iraq war, when thousands of US military were being killed? Anyone who opposed the war was called unAmerican, that they were against God and Country, and were traitors. George Bush went AWOL for a length of time where he was on a drinking binge, cocaine binge and god knows what else, but we we'll never know cause his dad went in and not only changed the records but removed some. Most Americans were OK with that because he was white, christian and republican, I don't know which was the most important, being white or being republican.(has to be white) So now we have a black President and we have kreeps who is going to prove he isn't American, WOW, I hope this story doesn't make National headlines cause it will make Ramona look like the butt of the country.
solar1 May 04, 2011 at 03:14 PM
Mr. Hernandez, you are the only one who has brought up race. Seems to me your the one with the problem of skin color.
Jim Baker May 04, 2011 at 04:14 PM
Naeok, And what do you have to say about the birth certificate Obama's released on Fiday, April 29th. Here is what one of several orgainations has to say about it....It is totally a fraud. Obama birth certificate is not real: In reverse order from last to first: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85yVkL94_BU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gscd6ENFDRY&feature=relmfu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eOfYwYyS_c&feature=relmfu
Jim Baker May 04, 2011 at 04:50 PM
Naeok, If you read Senate Resoluton 511 carefully, it defined that a natural born citizen as one born of parents who are citizens of the US. If this is the position of the Senate then, Obama is not eligble to be President. By his own ommission, his father was born in Kenya and not a citizen of America.
Naeok Sadzewicz May 04, 2011 at 05:22 PM
U-Tube video link of Court Proceeding (Kreeps testmony) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBLA2NdQZoM
KenyanBornObama May 04, 2011 at 06:40 PM
I agree with Solar1! The facts in this video say NOTHING about race, whatsoever! 100% sourced with Government documents and the Founders writings! The video that will END the Obama Presidency! Birthers Get Last Laugh & Demand Formal Apology http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1DHZmeMXyE&feature=channel_video_title Oh and Orly's transcripts are here too (listen in): http://www.youtube.com/user/KenyanBornObamAcorn?feature=mhum#p/c/8B03E0249044BA3B/0/yGr-KHa0Tas
Naeok Sadzewicz May 04, 2011 at 07:01 PM
"The video that will END the Obama Presidency! Birthers Get Last Laugh & Demand Formal Apology" sure they will, but you should take serious effort in understanding your delusion is ratherr silly, you need to find and support a candidate to oppose Obama, if you don't he will be relected, your whine won't affect this outcome.
Ted May 04, 2011 at 09:24 PM
Natural born citizenship is determined by who your parents were, not where you were born. Since Obama's father was a foreign subject, the question of Obama's eligibility is up for legal interpretation.
Naeok Sadzewicz May 05, 2011 at 11:09 PM
According to the Washington Post, millions of Birthers disappear, is it the FEMA camps http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/number-of-birthers-plummets/2011/05/04/AF3GAZxF_blog.html
Doug Curlee May 06, 2011 at 04:36 AM
no..it's the vast majority of the "birthers" waking up and realizing they've been sucked in by far right wing hate sites and talk radio hosts awho are basically in it to make a buck.. and they're making LOTS of bucks off the backs of gullible people..
Ned May 06, 2011 at 12:37 PM
The persuasion of the gullible, by RW talk radio and FAUX News, cannot be underestimated. The hate and paranoia they drive up is hilarious. Thanks for the comedy folks.
Naeok Sadzewicz May 06, 2011 at 03:42 PM
Those in Denial do not believe the following press release: On April 25, 2011, pursuant to President Obama‟s request, Director Fuddy personally witnessed the copying of the original Certificate of Live Birth and attested to the authenticity of the two copies. Dr. Alvin Onaka, the State Registrar, certified the copies.
Naeok Sadzewicz May 06, 2011 at 11:04 PM
Quote from Salt Lake Tribune: Anyone who remains a birther should seek treatment from a psychiatrist for paranoia. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/51719992-82/percent-americans-birther-edwards.html.csp
Peter Riordan May 10, 2011 at 04:31 AM
IS Ramona Patch backing this "non-story nonsensical neo-McCarthian hogwash? " and why am I even wasting this amount of time on this farcical charade? Time to train your ears recognize the truth and separate it from political sewage and rhetorical spewage.
Julie Pendray May 10, 2011 at 01:41 PM
Reporting on news doesn't mean we're backing anything. This is a national story with a local angle.
Craig S. Maxwell May 10, 2011 at 05:29 PM
"Neo-McCarthian?" How ironic that this expression retains (for some) its pejorative connotation. Is the author aware of the Venona papers and other documents (released in 1995) that have exonerated McCarthy from the most serious charges against him; namely, that his accusations were baseless (and paranoid) Thus: "The year 1995 was an epochal one for the study of American Communism. For in that year,...[because of] Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, who had long specialized in intelligence matters, some 2,900 documents collectively known as "the Venona papers"...were de-classified and published. These were radio messages from the top KGB agents in Washington and New York to their superiors in Moscow from...1943 to 1948. The Venona papers, together with these archives, made it absolutely clear that the American Communist Party was from its beginning the willing agent of Soviet intelligence, obedient to its orders, financed by its contributions, and serving not only as a propaganda organ for Soviet policies but as a generous source for the recruitment of It is now plain that by 1945 every important branch of the American government, from the White House itself to the State Department, the Defense Department, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department, the Office of Strategic Services (predecessor to the CIA), and the Office of War Information, to name only a few, was infested with Communists busily doing the work of the Soviet Union.
Naeok Sadzewicz May 10, 2011 at 07:36 PM
Polish people initially supported MCarthy as they thought he was anti-communist, then droppeed all support when they found he was a flake, Not a single individual was prosecuted from anything McCarthy did, any names released by McCarthy were already known by the FBI, McCarthy was a drunk, the Verona papers havve nothing to do with McCarthy. As one of those Polish people, I have had family members tortured and killed by communists and I say McCarthy was a drunk and did nothing. The fight against communism did not have an ally in McCarthy a drunk (from which he died of)
Craig S. Maxwell May 10, 2011 at 08:04 PM
McCarthy was an anti-communist. He was also an alcoholic and a bully. These are not mutually exclusive categories. In spite of his character flaws, he wanted to reveal something--a state dept. riddled with communist infiltrators and sympathizers--that was denied by very nearly everyone else at the time (FBI very much included). The Verona papers confirmed McCarthy's accusations. Yes, its too bad he wasn't an effective spokesman for anti-communism. We could have used one. Communism was the deadliest ideological scourge in human history, and the left's response to it ranged from mild sympathy to enthusiastic support.
Kodama June 04, 2011 at 10:44 PM
The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in "Kenya, East Africa". This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. How could Obama's father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the "British East Africa Protectorate". But, this is not the only thing that just does not jive. The other item is the hospital that Obama was born in. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home", respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?
Doug Curlee June 05, 2011 at 01:50 AM
for god's sake.. give it up..get a life! stop listening to right wing radio and checking right wing websites.. think! use your heads! that debate is OVER!. doug
Kodama June 05, 2011 at 06:29 AM
Not right wing, just the facts. Kenya as formed several years later the birth of Obama’s father. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya_African_National_Union Here is a story picked from a huge offering on the net about the hospital merge. Dates do not match. Go figure? This is the story of two hospitals: Kauikeolani Children's Hospital and Kapi‘olani Maternity Home. Concerned about the welfare of Hawaii's mothers, Queen Kapi‘olani held luau and bazaars to raise the $8,000 needed to open Kapi‘olani Maternity Home in 1890.She endowed her legacy with “Kulia i ka nu‘u” or “Strive for the highest.” In 1908, Albert and Emma Kauikeolani Wilcox donated $50,000 to start a children's hospital. The community, concerned that two of every seven infants in Hawai‘i did not live to see their first birthday, rallied to match the Wilcox's gift. A year later, Kauikeolani Children's Hospital opened. The two hospitals joined in 1978 to become Kapi‘olani Medical Center for Women & Children. Staying true to its mission, the non-profit hospital has played a vital role in the health of Hawaii's women, children and adolescents. It is staffed with highly skilled, compassionate physicians and nurses, dedicated to providing the finest care for Hawaii's families. Let’s put name calling and political horse penning aside and get back to the reporter’s ceded, “The Facts, Just the Facts. You guys are a hack now.
Naeok Sadzewicz June 05, 2011 at 03:45 PM
This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" then why does the Birther touted Nordyke Twins BC plus my daughters 1965 BC say "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". kinda weird Huh, or is it just palin silly! why do you make stuff up? according to wikipedia In 1931, its name was changed to the Kapiʻolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapiolani_Medical_Center_for_Women_and_Children
Naeok Sadzewicz June 05, 2011 at 03:53 PM
here's a link to 1961 Nordyke BC, it clealy shows Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_y8ag4VGcCHo/TP38McJqQrI/AAAAAAAAKE8/nlSl8VNRMEo/s1600/NordykeBirthCertificate.jpg so tell us again that Obama's BC can't say Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in 1961 you people are so essy to mislead!
Naeok Sadzewicz June 05, 2011 at 04:06 PM
"In 1978, it merged with Kapiʻolani Hospital to become Kapiʻolani Medical Center for Women and Children." That's True, now scroll down to see: In 1931, its name was changed to the Kapiʻolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital scroll a bit more and see In 1971, its name was changed to Kapiʻolani Hospital. so 1931 to 1971 it was Kapiʻolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital what is your issue with that (other than reading comprehension) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapiolani_Medical_Center_for_Women_and_Children


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »