Gary Kreep explains how he will respond to Carter's Ruling

AFFIRMS THAT THERE IS BASIS TO QUESTION IF BARNETT VS. OBAMA HAS BEEN DISMISSED

by John Charlton

(Nov. 10, 2009) — Last night Andrea Shea King interviewed Attorney Gary Kreep from Berlin, Germany, on the occasion of the 20th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall.  Attorny Kreep was in Berlin for the dedication of the Ronald Regan Wing of the Check-point Charlie Museum, and to attend a commemoration of the 71st Anniversary of the Jewish victims of Kristalnacht: the pogrom against Jews perpetrated by the Brown Shirts at Adolf Hitler’s direction in 1938.

Expecting that Attorney Orly Taitz, esq., was about to file a Motion for Reconsideration in Barnett vs. Obama, I had asked Andrea King by email before the interview with Gary Kreep, to ask him several questions, and she came through and got his responses.  (Thanks Andrea!)

TRANSCRIPT OF ANDREA SHEA KING INTERVIEW WITH ATTORNEY GARY KREEP — Nov. 9, 2009

Live from Berlin Germany:  20 minutes into interview…

Mrs. King: One of the gentlemen who knew that I was interviewing you tonight sent me an email. And he said, “Would  you please ask Gary Kreep if he is going to file a Motion for Reconsideration in Barnett vs. Obama; or if he will file a Request to file a Second Amended Complaint and ask for redressable relief for his clients; since Carter only accepted the Motion to Dismiss (in regard to Kreep’s clients) on account of no redressable relief being asked for by his clients.”

Attorny Kreep: . . . On September 5th, the Department of Justice filed their Motion challenging the First Amended Complaint filed by the (lead) attorney; now,  . . . as part of our attempt to save (the case), we filed a motion to sever our two clients, Dr. Drake and Mark, from the rest of the Plaintiffs in the case, because from what we saw were essentially insurmountable damage done by the other attorney to the case; and as part of that we filed a proposed Complaint for our severance; or in the alternative, we filed a Motion for a Second Amended Complaint with the Court.

Now, the Court, denied our Motion to Sever, without even having a hearing on it; he just denied it during the hearing on October 5th; and I raise the issue of our proposal for a Second Amended Complaint. And the Judge said that he would not rule on that at that time; but his Dimissal Motion wiped that out.

So we already tried that, as far as filing  Second Amended Complaint. And that is up on the Court’s website. Its also on the USJF website; so . . . We are not going to file a Motion to Reconsider, because, with all due respect to the (lead) attorney, we think, that there are so many grounds that that Complaint could be blown out on, we just don’t think it would be a good use of time; so we are not going to do it.

However, we are moving forward with an appeal; because we think and we hope that this case can be salvaged . . .in its core. And part of what we are going to do is that we are going to argue, that,  in effect, the case can be reduced to something along the lines of our proposed Second Amended Complaint, so that there is a base case.  So in other words, there’s a lot in that (First) Complaint which is . . . , so we are not going to try to defend that because it’s not defensible; so, it’s going to be a loss.

So we’re going to argue in essence, that the case can be reduced to something that is important, which is essentially asking for declaratory relief, asking the Court to declare that no justice has been obtained from Mr. Obama at all, whether Mr. Obama is to be eligible to serve as President.  That’s the core issue.

FOIA requests, all the other things that have been involved in the Complaint, all the mentioning  against Attorney General Holder, has nothing to do with the complaint.  The issue is whether he is eligible to serve.

And as the Court even commented at various times, it appreciated our efforts to open the Complaint instead of going off in all these tangents; unfortunately, we were hoping to give the Court grounds through what we were suggesting that the Court do, to give the Court a way to save this, and to allow it to go forward on those simple issues.

Unfortunately the Court did not see it that way and dismissed the entire case.

So what we feel we ought to do now is file a . . an appeal; and that is what we are going to do.

Mrs. King:  O.K.. The second part of his question was, that to “ask him also if the case has been dismissed with prejudice, and if Rule 54 and 58 have been complied with by the Court clerk.”

Attorney Kreep: I understand that there is some sort of . . on the Internet that the case has not been properly dismissed by the Ruling of the Court; and there’s some merit to that. And what’s happened is that, there should be a judgement issue dismissing the case; which hasn’t — which I have not seen has gone up on the website (of the Court) yet; it’s our position that we are not going to take the risk of waiting until that happens.  I always prefer to file a motion earlier rather than later — and I have actually had this happen one time, where an appellate Court threw out my Motion for Appeal, saying that it was premature, because of something king of strange happening with the judge, who didn’t even sign the ruling. But there was notice of the Ruling issued, but he did not sign the Ruling . . . So there is that issue of whether the case has been properly dismissed.

My strategy is . . . that I don’t wait and hope “maybe”; we are going to file a Notice of Appeal in the proper time zone/frames, or in other words, this month.