"Don’t suppress the Spirit, and don’t stifle those who have a word from the Master. On the other hand, don’t be gullible. Check out everything, and keep only what’s good. Throw out anything tainted with evil."
-- 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 (The Message)

WND: More TN Lawmakers Sign Up for Eligibility Lawsuit

In a previous post, we found out that Tennessee Rep. Eric Swafford (R) signed a consent form that he’d be party to a lawsuit over demanding to see the President’s vital documentation to confirm his eligibility for the presidency.

Yesterday, WorldNetDaily followed up on this development by reporting that three more TN State Reps have similarly signed up – Glen Cassada, Stacey Campfield and Frank Niceley (Dr. Taitz also said that “[m]ore lawmakers are reviewing the documents and expressed tentative consent.”):

A new lawsuit is being prepared by a California attorney who already has four cases pending over the issue of President Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy to Oval Office, and this one will include a demand from state lawmakers who forward state funds to Washington for documentation of his qualifications.

Orly Taitz told WND today that she’s preparing the complaint but is holding onto it and will file it shortly to give state legislators a chance to join the action as plaintiffs.

Four already have signed up, including state Rep. Eric Swafford of Tennessee, who agreed to be a plaintiff “for a Writ of Mandamus to obtain original birth certificate, immigration records, passports and other vital records for Barry Soetero aka Barack Hussein Obama.”

Taitz told WND the case also probably will include members of the military as plaintiffs, since both state lawmakers and military officers are obliged to follow orders from the president of the United States and both have a need to know those orders are legitimate.

“In the military, those would be unlawful orders, and [following them] would subject the officers to courts-martial,” she said. “In the legislatures, they cannot follow any of his bills or orders … they don’t know who he is.

“As far as we know he is a foreign national … Why should state legislators send any funds from the state to a foreign national?” she said.

“While we are working on the complaint, I’m gathering support from different states,” she said.

-Phil

If you liked this post, subscribe to my RSS feed!

82 Responses to “WND: More TN Lawmakers Sign Up for Eligibility Lawsuit

  • 1
    Sue
    February 12th, 2009 11:21

    If anyone has bothered to read some of Orly’s allegations, at some point, Orly will be required to back up her allegations with actual evidence/proof of her allegations perhaps. As of this date, I have seen none as in the other lawsuits that have been filed. What Orly has is rumors and false/misleading information that is represented as “evidence”.

    One example being this in one of Orly’s “open letters.”

    “Later it was reported that he studied at Occidental college in Ca under the name Barry Soetoro and there was an entry in the journal of the California assembly in re. to grants given to foreign exchange students, one Soetoro from Indonesia.”

    Would someone please provide the evidence/source to validate the above statement please.

  • 2
    Randy
    February 12th, 2009 11:21

    Can anyone shed light on what situations are there where State legistlatures send funds to Washington? I remember a discussion on talk radio in the early 90′s suggesting that States should withhold their collections of Federal gas taxes in an escrow account to ensure that the States are not sending more funds to Washington than they receive back in benefits.

    If these States are ready to FULLY implement their 10th Amendment sovereignty declarations, then on what basis is any entity sending any funds to Washington?

  • 3
    Roderick
    February 12th, 2009 11:29

    Now the State Legislators have a right to start dismissing judges who decide that Phil Berg or Orly Taitz is a crackpot and they just don’t feel like hearing from a crackpot. It is supposed to be a law that you are to meet the certain criteria as set forth in the Constitution. Everybody has to meet those requirements that is running for this particular office and if you are elected without meeting that criteria you have achieved coup d’etat. This is a very shameful day in American history and as bad as this fella’ wants to be President I fear the worse. I fear that he is going to be discovered not to meet the qualifications. I fear that judges may be removed for taking bribes to dismiss these cases. I fear that this is not going to go away anytime until background checks down to the day he was born are properly fulfilled and to the satisfaction of “We the People”. Stay tuned and you’ll have a good one.

  • 4
    Phil
    February 12th, 2009 11:40

    Randy,

    I would suggest going about looking for whatever legislation that the feds passed which require, say, the States to redeem funds back to DC RE: gas taxes.

    The feds do have the authority and power (but no right) to instruct States in terms of taxation for any given Act.

    Thanks for the comment,

    -Phil

  • 5
    Sue
    February 12th, 2009 11:55

    Phil,

    Saw this on a blog:

    “Ed Hale closed his board to all posters unless they pay $10/month. Need a password now.”

    “He also removed all the posts that questioned Berg and Orly. Those threads are GONE.”

    If factual, don’t you find this quite interesting? Seems to me the “patriots” go out of their way to prevent what “appears to be factual information with sources provided” regarding their “messiahs”(Berg/Orly.) “Pot calling kettel black?” While it is certainly the owners of these blogs right to censor posters as this is America, I find it interesting to also note that to my knowledge, no pro-Obama site has censored anyone with differing opinions to date. However, censorship/banning of anyone seems to be rampant on all the “patriots” blogs. They defend “freedom of speech” yet they censor/monitor/moderate what is written/spoken. That pretty much tells me that they “defend freedom of speech” as long as whatever is being said/written agrees with their ideology/opinions. How patriotic/American and upholding the Constitution. LOL

  • 6
    Sharon
    February 12th, 2009 11:56

    All of this “argument” is basic to our Constitution that seems to be either ignored, amended or disrespected continuously. We must impress upon the Judiciary that we are aware and are not going to accept influence peddling any longer. Remember??Transparency now rules!!

  • 7
    angi
    February 12th, 2009 12:08

    Roderick –
    Where did you get this information:

    Now the State Legislators have a right to start dismissing judges who decide that Phil Berg or Orly Taitz is a crackpot and they just don’t feel like hearing from a crackpot.

    Is this something that is particular to TN?

  • 8
    1Lishell
    February 12th, 2009 12:16

    Roderick,
    I believe that most, if not all, of Berg’s and Orly’s cases are in federal court. State legislatures cannot “dismiss” federal judges.

    Simply because you don’t like the outcome does not mean that judges are corrupt, that they are applying the law wrong, or that they “just don’t feel like hearing from a crackpot.” It means that you don’t like the outcome.

    In these cases, the decision to dismiss has been correct, because there is no claim for which relief can be granted.

    Mandamus, which is the normal remedy Berg requests, is not appropriate. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, mandamus is “issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly.”

    “Mandatory or purely ministerial duties” would be things like ordering a state agency to respond to a FOIA request if the requested materials are not exempt from FOIA.

    There’s also the fact that Rule 81(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil PRocedure abolished the ability of district courts to issue writs of mandamus.

  • 9
    Phil
    February 12th, 2009 12:19

    Sue,

    My libertarian side always comes out on issues such as what you bring up.

    Mr. Hale owns a forum. Therefore, he gets to make the rules for his forum. If people do not wish to follow through on his requirements for membership or continued postings, they can freely patronize other sites with their money and/or intellectual property.

    While your argument RE: censorship is a valid item for discussion, I would hasten to note that the 1st Amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard or offended.

    For me, I have chosen to take the route that while all commentary is moderated here — and I reserve the right to modify said comments for various forms of appropriateness — I would rather have open commentary than mandatory subscriptions. To be open for praise means one must be open for critique.

    -Phil

  • 10
    Sue
    February 12th, 2009 12:41

    Phil,

    Did you miss my statement:

    “While it is certainly the owners of these blogs right to censor posters as this is America, I find it interesting to also note that to my knowledge, no pro-Obama site has censored anyone with differing opinions to date.”

    I said the same thing you did just in a different way. And I agree with your statement.

  • 11
    da verg
    February 12th, 2009 12:44

    Sue

    Why should orly release any information that obots can get their hands on and distort:

    - like when obots got into the state dept. last year to burn obama’s passport and other records on file?
    - like when they posted a bogus BC on the internet?

    Why? Your post above doesn’t make any sense whatsoever, you must be a far far far left wing liberal? No?

  • 12
    Phil
    February 12th, 2009 12:51

    Sue,

    No, didn’t miss the statement. However, I don’t think that the profit motive is reasonable grounds to determine the efficacy of one site over another.

    In sum, I’m glad you agree that how any given site decides to moderate itself is its business and if anyone doesn’t like it, they can move on.

    -Phil

  • 13
    Sue
    February 12th, 2009 13:03

    Roderick,

    Here is some information on the subject in TN.

    http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/GENINFO/bio/appeals/biotca.htm

    http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/geninfo/Bio/Supreme/Biosc.htm

  • 14
    Sue
    February 12th, 2009 13:08

    da verg,

    “like when obots got into the state dept. last year to burn obama’s passport and other records on file?”
    - “like when they posted a bogus BC on the internet?”

    Your above statement, would you please provide a factual source/evidence for your statement.

  • 15
    Sue
    February 12th, 2009 13:14

    da verg,

    Forgot to respond to this: “you must be a far far far left wing liberal? No?”

    NO!

  • 16
    Obot 1024
    February 12th, 2009 13:39

    “Why should orly release any information that obots can get their hands on and distort:”

    Secret evidence…how very 18th Century English.

    “- like when obots got into the state dept. last year to burn obama’s passport and other records on file?”

    Except that did not happen.

    Someone snooped into passport files of Obama and other politicians and they were arrested.

    Lueders was part of a small group of State Department employees and contractors who were charged after the disclosure that workers at the agency had accessed the passport files of then-Sen. Obama and fellow presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John McCain without authorization. The inspector general’s office at the State Department later found that the breaches of the PIERS database had been more widespread than at first thought.

    For instance, the inspector general looked at the passport files of 150 politicians, entertainers and athletes and found that 127 of the files had been improperly accessed at least once between September 2002 and last March. The 127 files were accessed a total of 4,148 times during that time frame, and one was viewed 356 times by 77 users, according to the inspector general.

    “- like when they posted a bogus BC on the internet?”

    Bogus according to two anonymous posters; one on free republic with a claimed PhD in a discipline that does not exist and the other the disgraced TechDude who was nailed faking his credentials.

    But please send Orly and Berg every dime you can spare.

  • 17
    DJ
    February 12th, 2009 14:09

    My first question would be:

    Where was Rep. Eric Swafford’s (of Tennessee) and others objection to the electorial votes when the house and senate certified votes?

    Better answer that question right now!

  • 18
    Cymraeg
    February 12th, 2009 14:29

    You are wrong. In my decades of legal practice I have never seen influence peddling in the Federal Courts. There have been maany times when I have been unhappy with their decisions, but I have to admit that they are doing their best to intrepret the Constitution and the prior court decisions decided thereunder. One of the primary precepts of the courts is that plaintiffs must have standing to have their complaints tried on their merits. A court cannot hear a case where the plaintiffs do not have standing. Taitz, Berg, et.al. know this and they knew or should have known their cases would be dismissed. What their real motives are is anybody’s guess.

  • 19
    Cymraeg
    February 12th, 2009 14:43

    Have any of the birthers asked Taitz, Berg, Martin, or any of the others who are hustling money to file on the web an audit by a CPA of the funds they have solicited?

  • 20
    1Lishell
    February 12th, 2009 15:21

    da verg, what’s the point of hiding information? It’s gonna be public record as soon as it’s filed with the court.

  • 21
    Sue
    February 12th, 2009 15:43

    Phil,

    “Ed Hale closed his board to all posters unless they pay $10/month. Need a password now.”

    “He also removed all the posts that questioned Berg and Orly. Those threads are GONE.”

    Phil,

    Regarding the above. Just visited there and as of yet I could see no “membership fee” requirement posted, however, was a thread stating may go to “members only” but that thread was locked. Orly’s “legal stylings” that were posted there (public record), however, have been “scrubbed.” (Hmmm, thought only Obama did this.LOL). And I’m sure there are other posts that have been deleted/scrubbed too. But, I did not need a password. Perhaps that is being set up as we speak? But, in all fairness, did not want to post something that may or may not be factual. Guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

  • 22
    Phil
    February 12th, 2009 15:53

    DJ,

    These are State Reps and Senators, not federal. Therefore, it was out of their hands.

    -Phil

  • 23
    JeffM
    February 12th, 2009 15:58

    Sue, there have been at least 2 forgery experts (that we know about), one of which is from Arizona, who have stated noticeable forgery techniques used on Soetoro’s COLB posted on the internet.

    That is the evidence needed to question its validity and that is the evidence available to the courts. A simple cross-check with the FBI and I’m sure it would be sufficient to show it is indeed a forgery.

  • 24
    Sue
    February 12th, 2009 16:24

    Cymraeg,

    I’m not a birther but I’d bet money they haven’t. Since these are “donations” and they aren’t actually the plaintiffs in these cases, can they request an accounting? (Orly has made me avoid the word “demand” because she uses it so much–everything is “demand, demand, demand.”)

  • 25
    Today’s Blogs: February 12, 2009
    February 12th, 2009 17:01

    [...] Yesterday, WorldNetDaily followed up on this development by reporting that three more TN State Reps have similarly signed up – Glen Cassada, Stacey Campfield and Frank Niceley (Dr. Taitz also said that “[m]ore lawmakers are reviewing the documents and expressed tentative consent.”): [Full post] [...]

  • 26
    Patrick McKinnion
    February 12th, 2009 18:00

    On 28 January, Dr. Taitz had posted some links to stories she claimed had “proved” that Obama went by the name “Barry Soetoro” at Occidental College.

    http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/proof-obama-went-by-barry-soetoro-at.html

    The problem was that none of the articles in question mentioned the word “Soetoro” at all. It mentioned his old nickname of “Barry”, but that’s not exactly a deep dark secret.

    Anyway, the articles were:

    http://abagond.wordpress.com/2008/04/11/obama-at-occidental-college/
    http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/08/america/obama.php
    http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/29/local/me-oxy29
    http://www.oxy.edu/x8270.xml
    http://www.verdugomonthly.com/article.php?id=382&IssueNum=32

    Again, while the articles mention many times the name “Barry”, there’s not a mention anywhere of “Soetoro”. It’s not a “smoking gun” as much as a leaky water pistol.

  • 27
    cpabooks
    February 12th, 2009 18:03

    Cymraeg, an audit may not be required depending on what kind of entity is receiving the money. If the money is going directly to individuals simply out of kindness and not with a motive to received a charitable deduction of a tax deduction, anyone could gift money up to the annual limits (without being gift-taxed)of $12,000 (in 2008) and $13,000 (in 2009) per person per year. In other words, you could give me $13,000 today and nothing more need be done. If you were to pay me for this very excellent accounting advice, I would of course have to declare your pay as income to me.

  • 28
    Patrick McKinnion
    February 12th, 2009 19:58

    Personal opinion – It’s Ed “Sasquatch Slayer” Hale’s to do what he wills. If he thinks he can serve enough content to his customers for them to pay for it, fly on at it, (former Libertarian, can’t you tell?) :-)

    That being said, I think he’s running the risk of “preaching to the choir”, and that he’s not going to get his message out past that base.

    Many of the “birther” blogs have fairly draconian censorship policies, which I personally see as discouraging people curious about the issue. It’s hard to ask questions over at, say, “Obama Crimes” without being called an “Obot” and eventually banned or otherwise driven away. On the other hand, many of the “anti-birther” blogs seem to show a more open policy. I know that we at “Yes To Democracy” have a no censorship policy and birthers are welcome to come over and discuss/debate the issue with us. Same with several other sites I can think of.

    That being said, there’s a couple “birther-friendly” sites that have a same or simular policy. Jeff at “America’s Right”, (even though he seems to be getting away from the issue), and Phil here at “The Right Side of Life” come to mind. I don’t always AGREE with Phil mind you, but I can respect him and share information with him as well.

  • 29
    Melanie
    February 12th, 2009 20:08

    That kind of question doesn’t go over particularly well with Orly Taitz. Earlier today a poster asked a question (for the third or fourth time) and mentioned that he had donated $$$. Here is Orly’s response:

    “You are also on my site. Paid for by me. None of your donations have paid for the you to come on here and question me.”

  • 30
    1Lishell
    February 12th, 2009 20:35

    Forgery experts?

    Here’s a fairly thorough debunking of one “Expert” including confirmation that the guy basically tried to steal Adam Fink’s resume. Adam Fink is a forensics investigator in Missouri. Techdude is impersonating a forensics investigator in Missouri.

    http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/210-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis.html

  • 31
    Phil
    February 12th, 2009 20:42

    Patrick McKinnion,

    As always, thanks for the kind words.

    I believe an open debate on critical issues of the day is the best way to get to know an argument for the purpose of getting to the truth of a given matter. I don’t believe that censorship gets one towards that goal.

    -Phil

  • 32
    1Lishell
    February 12th, 2009 20:49

    Cymraeg,
    That’s a great question. I got a commingling sensation when I first read about the paypal stuff.

  • 33
    Carrie
    February 12th, 2009 20:49

    It is NOT for Dr. Orly to prove anything.

    Under the Rules of Evidence, it is the legal DUTY of Barack Obama who claims he is qualified to the position of POTUS.

    So far, Barack has not NOT shown any proof!!!!!!!

    When you apply for a job, the employer will ask for to present your credentials.!!!

    Visit this website, I found this useful for beginners

    http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth/

    Barack is fooling 300 million Americans!!!!!!

  • 34
    Carrie
    February 12th, 2009 20:57

    Cymraeg
    You are a lawyer? It’s a shame for you to espouse the theory that a CITIZEN does not have standing to question the most basic of requirements — Natural Born Citizenship for POTUS?

    You lawyers are so caught up with technicalities that you allow the same to cover up fraud and injustice.

    It is not the letter of the law that kills, but the spirit that gives life.

    Justices knows no technicalities.

    Come back to the ground, mr. lawyer and think like a common man with common sense.

  • 35
    Patrick McKinnion
    February 12th, 2009 21:47

    Actually, in a court of law the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defendant. It’s up to the accuser to prove their claims to the point their claims are stated to be factual in a court of law.

    Remember, the policy here in the United States is “Innocent until Proven Guilty in a a Court of Law”. So far the claims against Obama haven’t passed muster enough to make it out of initial hearings, much less heard in a court trial.

  • 36
    Patrick McKinnion
    February 12th, 2009 21:50

    So, lawyer defending Obama equals someone “caught up with technicalities that you allow the same to cover up fraud and injustice”.

    And lawyer attacking Obama is a “brave patriot using the law to defend the Constitution and this country”, correct?

    Isn’t that just a wee bit hypocritical??

  • 37
    Patrick McKinnion
    February 12th, 2009 21:57

    Let’s see:

    “Polarik” – Unknown internet “expert”. Has not given out any way of proving the training, background, or education he claims. Uses no terminology in common with forensic document analysis or computer security. Faceless, nameless, hides behind supposed claims of threats, except in court documents, when he claims it’s to protect his job instead.

    “TechDude” – Unknown internet “expert”. Has not given out any way of proving the training, background, or education he claims. Uses no terminology in common with forensic document analysis or computer security. Faceless, nameless, hides behind supposed claims of threats. Claims a resume identical to a known security analyst that has disavowed anything to do with him.

    Sandra Lines (Arizona) – Known document expert, states that an internet graphic of a document cannot be proven unless you compare it to the original – exactly the claim also made by Dr. Neal Krawetz in refuting “Polarik”. Did NOT state it was a forgery, simply said you can’t say it’s real OR fake unless you compare it to the original.

    Only one of those people actually gave their real names on bona fides – and they didn’t say it was a forgery, only that it was impossible to tell for certain unless one could compare it to the original.

  • 38
    1Lishell
    February 12th, 2009 22:12

    Carrie,
    Rule 11(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that by signing a filing, the signer certifies that “The factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.”

    In this case, the factual contentions (that Obama was born in Kenya or whatever) have no evidentiary support so far, and likely will not have evidentiary support based on statements by the Hawaiian department of health and the COLB posted on factcheck.org.

    You are wrong about the rules of evidence, as well. The burden of proof is on Orly Taitz to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (not hearsay or rumor or innuendo, but actual physical evidence) that Obama is not eligible.

  • 39
    DJ
    February 13th, 2009 03:20

    Thanks Phil!

  • 40
    DJ
    February 13th, 2009 03:25

    Hi Phil,

    What funds are they referering too? I called the Austing and the Governor today and they actually were irritated that I was asking about this information and finally said “well you will just have to submit a letter to the office of budget…”

    Isn’t this public information and how do we we find out about what, how much and where what is being sent to Washington? I am not familiar with th eworkings of the state but I want to see if we can get them involved in the suit.

    Do you think these people hav ea lagit chance in a case?

  • 41
    DJ
    February 13th, 2009 03:32

    When was Factcheck.org appoi0nted the official and legal governmental verificcation entity?

  • 42
    DJ
    February 13th, 2009 03:51

    Whatever censorship the referenced blog site is alleged to have participated in, it is any where close to the damage the MSM has inflicted on our Country. The damage by MSM in silencing and censorship of this matter and free press of Mr. Obama’s vetting, or lack thereof, could very well be the event that causes the end of America’s freedoms, civil rights, liberties and constitution.

  • 43
    richCares
    February 13th, 2009 08:00

    notice how Berg touts each case so as to enhance his fund raising, the Hollister “frivilous” order is never mentioned, he has more “denied”s than any lawyer yet continues his fund raising, and with all his failures no one requests a refund. Strange!

  • 44
    vma224
    February 13th, 2009 08:23

    the hate that drives the Birthers is irrational, if you don’t like Obama’s politics then find a candidate that you can support for 2012, send him money, support him and vote for him. That is the patriotic thing to do, this Birher nonsense goes no where, just a means for Orly & Berg to scam for funds. These people live in a world of hate, don’t share it with us.

  • 45
    Phil
    February 13th, 2009 08:24

    DJ,

    I think Dr. Taitz is speaking of the taxes that States collect to send to the feds.

    I don’t know what the chances are regarding a case like this; that depends on the actual verbiage of the complaint.

    -Phil

  • 46
    Phil
    February 13th, 2009 08:28

    vma224,

    Your verbal invectives aside, it’s possible that the best candidate for 2012 could be a “her,” not a “him.” :)

    -Phil

  • 47
    Phil
    February 13th, 2009 08:30

    richCares,

    And the profit motive affects the efficacy of a case how…?

    I’m not suggesting that Mr. Berg has the best cases out there, but the idea that he wants to make some money off the cases isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

    -Phil

  • 48
    Sue
    February 13th, 2009 09:19

    I think it is interesting that Orly “demands transparency” (Orly really likes that word “demand”), yet says this?:

    “Earlier today a poster asked a question (for the third or fourth time) and mentioned that he had donated $$$.”

    “You are also on my site. Paid for by me. None of your donations have paid for the you to come on here and question me.”

    Hmm, how does Orly know the money she took from whoever asked her the question didn’t go to pay for “her site?” Is the above answer being “transparent?”

    cpabooks,

    “If the money is going directly to individuals simply out of kindness and not with a motive to received a charitable deduction of a tax deduction, anyone could gift money up to the annual limits (without being gift-taxed)of $12,000 (in 2008) and $13,000 (in 2009) per person per year. In other words, you could give me $13,000 today and nothing more need be done.”

    If I understand the above correctly, those who donate cannot use these donations as a tax deduction and those who receive these donations do not have to declare them as income depending on how the donations are set up, correct?

  • 49
    Melanie
    February 13th, 2009 09:34

    The states collect and hold federal taxes as a trust fund, on behalf of the consumers who purchased the gasoline. They’re going to have some serious legal problems if they refuse to turn over trust monies.

  • 50
    Sue
    February 13th, 2009 09:38

    Patrick,

    This statement was in Orly’s letter to Senator Grassley as I recall:

    “Later it was reported that he studied at Occidental college in Ca under the name Barry Soetoro and there was an entry in the journal of the California assembly in re. to grants given to foreign exchange students, one Soetoro from Indonesia.”

    I have not seen any reliable evidence that Obama went by Soetoro at Occidental college and would you please direct me to the proof/evidence regarding the “Journal of the California Assembly of a grant to foreign exchange students, one Soetoro from Indonesia.” Was this “one Soetoro’s first name Barry?

  • 51
    Melanie
    February 13th, 2009 09:39

    See above. Excise taxes, e.g., on gasoline, beer, alcohol, tires, etc. These are referred to as trust fund taxes — they are collected from the consumers at the time of sale and held IN TRUST ON behalf of the consumers, to be accounted for and turned over to the feds.

    Doc Orly has a loser argument here. But what else is new?

  • 52
    Phil
    February 13th, 2009 09:51

    Melanie,

    My interpretation of Dr Taitz’ statement was that she was using the funds issue in an analogous fashion to demonstrate what she believes is the absurdity of having a usurper in the presidency.

    -Phil

  • 53
    Sue
    February 13th, 2009 10:01

    1Litshell,

    This Rule: “Rule 11(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that by signing a filing, the signer certifies that “The factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.”

    Is why GeorgetownJD made this statement: “Suffice it to say, if they assert that the online COLB demonstrates that Obama was born in Honolulu, they have actual, admissible evidence to back it up. They are not required, at this point in the proceedings, to produce it.”

    Well, when they are competent, reputable lawyers.

  • 54
    Sue
    February 13th, 2009 10:10

    Phil,

    Ditto to what Patrick said. We can “disagree without being disagreeable.”

  • 55
    Patrick McKinnion
    February 13th, 2009 10:41

    And there *isn’t* any reliable evidence that Obama went by the name “Barry Soetoro” at Occidential College. In fact, based on all available evidence, he went by “Barack Obama”, with a nickname of “Barry” Same as high school, (his HS yearbook shows a last name of Obama).

    Dr. Orly can “claim” all she wants, but the burden of proof is on her shoulders, and so far we’ve not seen anything to support said claim

  • 56
    Sue
    February 13th, 2009 11:24

    Patrick,

    Has there been any reliable evidence/proof/source to support this?

    “Journal of the California Assembly of a grant to foreign exchange students, one Soetoro from Indonesia”

  • 57
    1Lishell
    February 13th, 2009 12:56

    Sue,
    That’s correct.

  • 58
    richCares
    February 13th, 2009 15:44

    Usurper: To seize and hold by force and without legal authority.

  • 59
    george
    February 13th, 2009 17:02

    Pretty funny reading posts by Obots saying Orly does not have a chance etc etc. They never address the kenyan born usurper. If they were not concerned that the Obama fraud will be exposed, they would not be post here. Tick tock – eventually it will get to SCOTUS.

  • 60
    george
    February 13th, 2009 17:04

    Seems the OBots like to spam message board so they must be concerned that the Obam frasud is going to be exposed sooner than later.

  • 61
    Patrick McKinnion
    February 13th, 2009 19:00

    Sue -

    I haven’t found any yet.

  • 62
    Melanie
    February 13th, 2009 20:51

    I interpreted it differently. Orly solicits donations for the purpose of paying the costs of the suits — then she inadvertently let it slip that the work was being performed by volunteers at no cost. The poster questioned her about why she was using volunteers to serve documents instead of professional process servers, after all, he/she had made donations based on the representation that funds were needed for such costs. Orly responded by informing the poster that his/her donations did not entitle him/her to ask such questions.

    It’s an interesting thread, if you care to read it.

  • 63
    1Lishell
    February 13th, 2009 21:48

    Phil,
    The profit motive can be a conflict of interest and possibly a violation of the rules of professional conduct.

    For instance, Rule 1.8(f)(1) of Pennsylvania’s Disciplinary Rules of Professional conduct states that “A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless the client gives informed consent.”

    Rule 1.8(f)(2) states that “A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship.”

  • 64
    Phil
    February 13th, 2009 21:53

    1Lishell,

    Obviously one would have to find out whether or not the conditions have been met, as they very well could be. In which case, the point is moot.

    -Phil

  • 65
    ??????????
    February 13th, 2009 22:12

    vma224:

    You say hate??? I say it is love for our U.S. Constitution and our country. I know by the fact that President Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen only by the fact that his father was born a Kenyan. It doesn’t matter where Obama was born. We detest that someone is running our country who is not eligible for that most important position. He is violating our laws in more ways than one. Two laws that I can think of that violates our Constituion are moving the Census under control of the White House and his sitting in the position of the Office of President for which he knows he is violating both. I don’t know why you go to the websites to share all of this “so called hate”. Please don’t dictate to me about sharing. I am so far free to share whatever views I choose. This may not be for long unless we watch very closely and act very quickly as to President Obama’s actions. Obviously, we so called birthers cannot change your mind. Eventually, perhaps, Obama will change your mind. Only time will tell.

  • 66
    Anonymous
    February 14th, 2009 19:44

    No! The Potus works for the people. He is employed by every US citizen. We are the employer he is the employee. It is the responsibility of each SOS to sign off on each presidential canidate running for office before putting them on the ballot. With the seal of appoval from the SOS’s, they are to make sure every candidate has me the constitutional requirements first. Please, Go and demand a copy of BO’s COLB from your SOS’s and call the White House and demand a copy be sent to you. You are a citizen and you have the right to see it.

  • 67
    sus
    February 15th, 2009 13:20

    the MSM hasn’t covered the birth certificate story because, just as Berg can’t make a case in Court, there is no evidence. The MSM won’t cover.

    the Globe will cover.

    World Net Daily will cover.

    But, credible news outlets will not cover if the only evidence is rumour.

    As for Ed Hale’s board, and ObamaCrimes, and the PUMA sites, if you disagree or show a rumour to be debunked, you are banned.

    We wouldn’t want truth to spoil the momentum.

  • 68
    sus
    February 15th, 2009 13:31

    You can read, but if you try to post, you need a password.

    His posts went down to 3 a day, so now he’s offering a free membership if he decides you are deserving of one.

    my guess, even if you pay the $10, should you start posting against the birth conspiracy theory, you will have your posts deleted, and soon after that, be banned.

  • 69
    Phil
    February 15th, 2009 16:10

    sus,

    Isn’t it nice that not all proponents of eligibility (or, in my case, I simply don’t know about the President’s eligibility) such as this site don’t ban folks such as yourself?

    Perhaps, at some point, the constant griping about being banned will eventually pass, as it obviously doesn’t happen everywhere.

    -Phil

  • 70
    Phil
    February 15th, 2009 16:12

    sus,

    And if that’s how Mr. Hale chooses to operate, then all the more power to him. People who don’t approve of the way Mr. Hale operates his forum are free to go elsewhere.

    -Phil

  • 71
    Bart
    February 15th, 2009 22:03

    It is amazing how you can continue to believe that Obummer’s policies are going to help us. Not only that, are you interested to see if he is a citizen. And if it is proven that he is not will you support our laws, as a Republic and ask for his ouster?

    And frankly, I support Palin/Steele 2012.

  • 72
    sus
    February 17th, 2009 19:15

    Apparently they did. 8 comments in 24 hours does not an exciting forum make. And, that was after he gave free memberships to those who applied and he felt deserved the freebie.

    As for deleting all posts that go against the message, you’re right. It’s his board.

  • 73
    Doo Dah
    February 19th, 2009 16:05

    Supporting evidence to open Occidental records include

    1. No one recalls a Barack Obama, but they do recall Barry Soetoro at Occidental College.

    2. Classmate friend reports Barack Obama was known as Barry Soetoro in Occidental College and that Barry changed his name to Barack Obama in his last year before leaving for Columbia under his new name.

    3. 80% of scholarships to black students at colleges are granted to foreign students, not American black students.

    4. Barack Obama obviously lied when he said he never used any other names in his bar application. He was using Barry Soetoro since Indonesia right up to it appears Occidental College.

    5. If Barack lies about his name, chances are he’s lying about himself a lot, especially when he feels compelled to sealed every living record he has on life before he became Senator.

    6. Dr. Orly is getting close legally because Obama’s lawyer sent back a threat to Dr. Orly’s plaintiffs concerning her subpoena to open his records. Obama’s lawyer incidently (no kidding) has worked for the Muslim Brotherhood, a well known group identified by the FBI as a terrorist organisation working under the auspices of goodwill. One asks where Obama found this lawyer.

  • 74
    Nobama09
    February 20th, 2009 02:05

    I think a Live birth Hawaii certificates proves he was born in Kenya live birth means he was born but not in Hawaii, most of the 08 election and his website said his Birthday was May 4th 1961, until he was challanged now it’s Aug 10th, all of Obamas website archives seems to have disapeared! I know he was going to Ocidental college under name of Barry Soetoro a foriegn born student under Indonesian passport all his college records are sealed as is the Hawaii live birth document! He is listed in Indonesia as a a Muslim Citizen of Indonesia! That means he has British Citizenship by birth, and Indonesian Citizeship, and never became a US Citizen!Obama was never vetted because everyone thought Hillary would be anointed, Obama was winning not by voters but by Caucuses in certain states, because Queen Hillary assumed Obama would fail! The Dems are hell bent as is the NBC ABC CBS CNN all ACORN Obama INC networks to prop up a fraud, I think we should all join the Tea party in Chicago in july !
    There is one law suite that the Supreme Court has not ruled on, if they do every stupid moronic thing Obama has started is null and void all his apointmens would be gone, GOD I hope that will happen, 30 days today and we are so close to becoming a socialist nation where sucess is punished and failure and race is rewarded! His military skills are ————————————————1500000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, he doesn’t know a tank from a battle ship, his policies will cause world war 3, he is the biggest moron on the planet because he is incompetent to lead rule or even be president. he has undone 8 years of safe gaurds against terrorist, and goes on an interview with a Arab TV saying he a Muslim by his roots!!
    The Obama inc Media needs to be sued to tell the truth of this coup, lets undo the damages sue every democrat for not vetting Obama/Barry Soetoro, sue them for a trillion dollars thats what Obama and friends did to the USA on Sept 16 where Soros, Chavez, Iran Russia, China all the Terrorist countries pulled out 250 billion dollars an hour out of the MONEY MARKETS FUNDS causing this diaster we are in now, the lost the US economy 1.5 tillion dollars to get a fraud Obama their lord elected illegaly! The tea party starts now, if he wasn’t hiding anything give us his Havard records where hwe was listed as a foreign student, and a real birth certificate. Mad an a Revolution to take our country away from these commy socialist frauds! Read this Bush got a statue of Churchill from English Government for our role in Iraq, Obama said get this thing out of the White Now Half Breed House and sent it back to the English government insulting them, Churchill was greatist hero of World war 11 to the Brits, Obama stupid delusional arogant a puppet for Greg Craig and all the commies that now run America!!!! Call write melt the phones lines Obama is incompetent and unqualified an the biggest MUSLIM Trojan horse fraud ever to take over America on the word hope and change!!!! Take America back now!!!

  • 75
    Jon
    February 20th, 2009 12:05

    Solution Obama releases his certificate of live birth now in a vault…Obama refuses we can assume he is NOT a natural born citizen and he should be removed from office by whatever means necessary.

  • 76
    Researcher
    February 20th, 2009 18:20

    BO should provide accurate, un-invented documentation to prove he is eligible to hold office or step down. There is a confidence problem between he and the military. The military (Col. Holister v. Barry Soetoro AKA Barack Obama) questions whether it is illegal to obey ANY command from the “usurper” in the Pres office.

    We are in the midst of a Constitutional Crisis. BO may be the person that brings the U.S. down.

  • 77
    Tom C
    February 21st, 2009 00:54

    Please tell me what is unsubstantiated about the fact that Obama’s father was not an American citizen. Also, to be a natural born citizen doesn’t both parents have to be American citizens? And will you or someone else post some proof from the files of the colleges he attended showing what name he enrolled under. And will anyone in this whole wide world please post a vault copy, the one with doctors’ signatures, not a Certificate of Live Birth, which will not even get you a drivers license in most states. And last but not least, who will help contribute to raise the $12.00 needed to get a vault copy of Obama’s Birth Certificate and send it to him so he can show us? I’m from Missouri and I just say “Show Me,” then I will take my evil suspecting little mind and shut up.

  • 78
    Nancy
    February 21st, 2009 09:20

    All he needs to do to end the controversy is to comply with what the Constitution requires of everyone in his position. Why is he paying lawyers to keep it suppressed?? Makes no sense. His JOB IS TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION and it starts with the president. Why so hard to understand??

  • 79
    gofer
    February 21st, 2009 16:44

    Who cares about the legal haggling going back and forth?? Why are people even talking about who has to prove what? The real question is:

    WHY is OBama paying a team of lawyers to prevent release of his vault birth certificate and his college records?? This has been standard fare in past Presidencies. Does it not even make some of you people ask WHY? Would you tell an interviewer for a job, sorry my records are sealed?? He would throw you out!

    And, IF it does come to light, months or years from now, you have a crisis.

    I find it disturbing that people, apparently, don’t care about a President being totally open about his background. If he was a Conservative, it’s all you would hear about.

  • 80
    Gerald Miks
    February 21st, 2009 19:35

    So why doesn’t Obama simply order the official birth certificate and make it public? That is if such actually exists. When he was recently vacationing in Hawai, why didn’t he simply pick up the “official” document and put the issue to rest?

  • 81
    Gin789
    February 22nd, 2009 21:08

    I have read all the comments and all I have to say is…….If he has nothing to hide why is he spending all that money and time to fight the release of his records. He knows very well that through his Kenyan Father he has dual citizenship as his Mother was too young to pass hers to him. He is not legal and anyone who loves this country and believes in the Constitution as the law of our land should do all in their power to get this FRAUD out of office. Everything that he does will have to be undone and we will end up being the laughing stock of the world . Also I believe that most of the world already know he is illegal.

  • 82
    Kathy
    February 22nd, 2009 21:28

    These law suits were dismissed due to lack of standing, they stated “we” do not have the right to ask the question, not that the question was answered.
    Show me the records-all of them; they are now “historical records” Riddle me this batman which hospital has claimed that the president was born there?
    Kathy

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.