Barnett Keyes et al v Obama, Obama attorneys response, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

What does the above statement mean? Those in denial about Obama, his character and his past tend to dismiss such statements as fiction. I assure you that it is based on solid facts, court records. Here is one of many examples.

From the Obama attorneys response to the appeal in the Barnett/Keyes lawsuit appeal in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“PAMELA BARNETT, Captain, et al., )
Plaintiffs/Appellants,

v.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, et al.,

Defendants/Appellees.”

“APPELLEES’ ANSWERING BRIEF
APPEAL FROM THE
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SANTA ANA
SA CV 09-00082 DOC
ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.
United States Attorney
LEON W. WEIDMAN
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Civil Division
ROGER E. WEST
Assistant United States Attorney
First Assistant Chief, Civil Division
DAVID A. DeJUTE
Assistant United States Attorney
Room 7516 Federal Building
300 North Los Angeles Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Telephone: (213) 894-2461/2574
Facsimile: (213) 894-7819
Attorneys for Defendants/Appellees”

Yes, that’s right, three taxpayer funded government attorneys representing Obama, helping him to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and proof that he is eligible to be president.

Instead of presenting simple proof of eligibility, as John McCain and others have done, Obama has continued for over 2 years to avoid presenting proof.

Here is just a snippet of the legalese, the horsecrap, what I believe is an illegal manuever by government attorneys to aid and abet Obama in violating the law of the  land.
“Regarding the military plaintiffs, any injury which they may be suffering has
never been identified with any precision at all. Certainly, military personnel may
face risk of injury in the course of their duties, but the military plaintiffs have
pointed to no such concrete risks that they themselves presently face. Even if the Court could find standing on the basis of such injuries, however, it is even more highly speculative that any such injury would be redressed by a change in the identity of the Commander-in-Chief. The military plaintiffs, therefore, cannot meet the redressability prong on this basis.”

“Moreover, the military plaintiffs also lack standing because members of the
military cannot challenge the orders of a superior in a judicial forum. See, e.g.
Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 300, 304, 103 S.Ct 2362, 76 L.Ed.2d 586
(1984) (holding that “[c]ivilian courts must, at the very least, hesitate long before entertaining a suit which asks the court to tamper with the established relationship between enlisted military personnel and their superior officers” because “that relationship is at the heart of a necessarily unique structure of the military establishment” and noting that the “disruption of ‘[t]he peculiar and special relationship of the soldier to his superiors’ that might result if the soldier were allowed to hale his superiors into court.” (quotation omitted); United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669, 682-83, 107 S.Ct 3054, 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (1987) (holding that members of the military cannot raise Constitutional claims against military officials for injuries incident to service because “congressionally uninvited intrusion into military affairs by the judiciary is inappropriate”).”

“It is well settled that when the United States Constitution makes a “textually
demonstrable constitutional commitment” of an issue to another branch of
government, other than the judiciary, that issue presents a non-justiciable political question.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/39302812/Barnett-Keyes-et-al-v-Obama-et-al-9th-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals-Appellees-Obama-Answering-Brief-10-13-10

Citizen Wells ending comment.

Aside from the fact that the attorneys helping Obama are engaging in an illegal activity, knowing full well that he has no proof of eligibility:
Congress does indeed have the right and responsibility to insure that the president is eligble. That, however, does not preclude other branches from performing their critical functions of checks and balances and highest responsibility to uphold and defend the US Constitution. Nor does any power provided by the Constitution preclude or preempt a citizen, having taken an oath to defend the Constitution or not, from adhering to the rule of law, the supreme law of the land and performing their civic duty.