I know he's a Judge they keep locked in the backroom now doing menial stuff, but...

http://articles.latimes.com/1987-12-07/ ... ive-lawyer

Is there any published case information for the case against the Communist mother? Was it appealed? What was the final outcome?

The way I understand it, it was based on a derivative of the Smith Act. This is made relevant again by the sheer number of Teagagger 2385ers out there who are going to go ape very soon....

The way I understand this, she lost her child because she belonged to a 2385 organization.

Whatever it was happened 25 years ago -- or more. How could this be relevant to anything?

What is relevant is that Kreep continues to represent clients while he sits on the bench. That's happening today.

What is your interest in the matter you posted? Since it was your first post and this is ancient history, you apparently have some.

This has to do with the absurdly large number of 2385 declarations from the far right at this point in time.

I have made a study of pretty much anything Smith Act related, and I am eager to read any cases from 1970 onward. This appears to be based on a Smith Act derivative.

Call it a hobby pursuing an option.

Case name or case number would be helpful on this. I just want to know the exact legal theory used, and if it was indeed a Smith Act derivative. Can we take the children away from those who organize for overthrow? He apparently was successful, at least in California.

I could swear I remember reading this article at lunch at Point Mugu the day it came out. I cannot recall the final outcome though, and surely it was appealed.

Looks like a hit and run with no interest in conversation.

Well, with a nym of "LoyalAmerican" is it any wonder?

No, not so.

Amazing how folks here believe everyone lives and breathes Fogbow and never leaves or signs off for anything to do with real life and must post at least every several minutes and/or that with a new member posts must be approved and all mods and the absolute dick tater are paid overtime to hang around 24/7.

Don't let grumps scare you off.

I would suggest that our new friend contact Kreep's "foundation" for further information. Or, in the alternative, as Ducky says, the Google is your friend.

I'm not a hit and run... I've been browsing the filings for a couple of weeks now... Thank you for linking and all of your effort. I am just asking concerning a linked problem, and have also been researching solutions for what I feel is about to be taken to the next level when she gets her slapdown at the SCOTUS.

All I can find reference to online is the title of the newsletter from 1987, and it seems that everyone is quoting sdcitybeat.com quoting the Times from 1987: "USJF Wins First Round of Battle to Save 12-Year-Old From Communism".

I'm not a lawyer (one of these days), but, I have researched 2385 related cases as a potential solution to the militia nuts (now Teagaggers and a coalition of others), ever since the early 1990's. This country has never seen this level of it, at least since around 1860.

I just got done looking through the USJF website, which is actively maintained with stories "News Editor", pretty much geared towards what I am researching. Unfortunately, the site doesn't have an "early history" section, at least that I can find.

I did a cursory search. And that was what I was thinking: a case name or number certainly would be helpful. The name of a litigant would be helpful. So: Didn't find anything with the limited information provided.

Welcome, LoyalAmerican.

Huh? Who's getting slapped down at SCOTUS and for what?

What "solutions" would you be researching for that?

I thought your inquiry was about Kreep. As far as I know he has nothing pending at SCOTUS.

Unless it was appealed, it would be a family court case and very tricky to find much more than limited docket information on, especially at this late date. Considering who counsel for the bad guys was, though, I would imagine the Kreep side lost. Just a hunch.

And it is a good hunch to have. Kreep doesn't have much of a track record for cases in which he has directly participated.

Also, this request concerns 1980s, i.e., the dark ages. Even if the case was appealed, it would only appear in the database if it was published. I don't know of any legacy databases for unpublished cases.

Yeah, I'm drawing a blank too. I want to find this case. I will post updates here if I find something.

Sorry for being so terse, just a little tired.

Thank you for the initial search of your resources, Bob. Justia didn't find anything but two under USJF 1987, the NDAA case and another one, both were recent, and not the goods.

Is there a publicly accessible State of California site that would be useful?

Not that I know of. The California courts do have a website for all of its opinions, but published cases would appear in the usual databases, and it keeps the unpublished cases online for only 60 days.

Do you know in which county this case might have originated? The article said Kreep's client was "San Francisco-area" man. Assuming that means the actual City and County of San Francisco, a call to its superior court couldn't hurt. (Its online services are "buggy," to be polite.)

1. The so-called "slapdown" Taitz is about to get from SCOTUS will be nothing more than a routine one-word denial of a laughably incompetent application to stay something that cannot be stayed (i.e., because it's already happened, among other things). Although Taitz and a few other morons may have billed her latest fail-in-the-making as some sort of important court action, it is nothing of the sort.

2. Frankly, I find it hard to imagine that Taitz's bloviations and litigation antics are linked to anything important. She's basically a lone wolf who cannot even play well with other birthers, much less serious revolutionaries. At worst, we can expect a half-dozen lunatics to throw a few Cheetos at their TV sets or computer screens.

3. If your fascination with Smith Act prosecutions has anything to do with current conspiracy theories or fear-mongering about how the government is poised to round up dissenters who advocate the overthrow of the government, fuggedaboudit. AFAIK, this stuff went out of vogue in the late 50s. The Obama administration has better things to do.

My apologies for the snarky response. Welcome to the Board!!!!

Welcome, Jez is a bit busy, so please be patient until she gets back for your welcome packet and decoder ring. The cookies are here and the muffins are over there...

If, as might be the case, Kreep's heroic intervention to save a 12-year-old from the evils of Communist thinking was, in fact, a routine family court custody matter, you might be out of luck finding a meaningful record of the proceedings since, in many jurisdictions, custody hearings are not made public.

Oh yeah, and Welcome to the Fogbow.

I was under the impression Taitz was, and it's her fans that I am concerned about. I had my family threatened a month ago today by some on Facebook, and all that does is energize me.

I could be wrong, but I really think these Teagagging militia freaks are about to go ape. I've taken to calling them Spooneristas, after their base argument.

I was just reading about Kreep as Judge, and this case was mentioned, and that's what caught my eye, because, I even think I remember reading the Times article that day at lunch at Point Mugu (12/07/1987) that mentioned this case. I could be wrong, but IIRC, KABC even carried it that night.

1987, Maoist mother as an active organizer of a group that openly organizes for violent overthrow..that's what the law he used was about, not that she was Commie. They might have taken the kid. I somehow find it hard to believe the woman would have been in SD County, and if she was, I would find it very hard to believe if the child wasn't taken, especially in 1987. I would think Ventura County would probably be out of the question too, and if she was there, same deal. These are just common sense hunches though.

I wonder if the Union Tribune or the Times would have any followups in their archives?

Anyhow, I have to get some sleep. Thanks. I'll try to dig deeper tomorrow.

Kreep the judge. Formerly enforcing the Smith Act and taking babies away from their politically incorrect parents.

Or Taitz, twlithotu, presenting her cases before SCOTUS and getting smacked down?

I just can't keep up on this thread.

I am with Stern. Confused and trying to figure out what thus thread is actually about other than a new poster who is overly tired.

Respectfully submitted,

MetoDc

Dunno about you, but I'm having difficulty understanding how a private attorney (i.e., a USJF lawyer such as the Kreepulous one) would find himself in a position to enforce the Smith Act.

GIGO in action (gum-flapping in, gum-flapping out).

No. Enforcing the Smith Act in a custody proceeding.