WND: Obama Campaign Paid $1 million to Fight Eligibility Lawsuits?

by Phil on 04/23/2009

WorldNetDaily is reporting what some — including myself — have been careful to substantiate: how much the President has been spending on eligibility lawsuits. Many rumors had been going around the Internet that the actual figure was at least $1 million, and recently the Politico had reported nearly three-quarters of a million dollars had been paid to a top law firm this year.

According to the following posting, WND appears to further substantiate the $1 million figure:

According to Federal Election Commission records, Obama For America paid $688,316.42 to international law firm Perkins Coie between January and March 2009.


FEC’s Obama For America 2009 April quarterly report, disbursements by payee

The campaign also compensated Perkins Coie for legal services between Oct. 16, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2008 – to the tune of $378,375.52.

Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie – top lawyer for Obama, Obama’s presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and Obama’s Organizing for America – is the same Washington, D.C., lawyer defending President Obama in lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be president.

As WND reported earlier, Bauer sent a letter to plaintiff Gregory Hollister, a retired Air Force colonel, of Hollister v. Soetoro, threatening sanctions if he doesn’t withdraw his appeal of the eligibility case that earlier was tossed by a district judge because the issue already had been “twittered.”

Bauer’s warning was dated April 3 and delivered via letter to the plaintiff’s attorney, John D. Hemenway. It is not the first such warning issued. Lawyers trying to kill a similar California lawsuit filed on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes also said they would seek sanctions against the plaintiff’s attorneys in that case unless they left the issue of the president’s eligibility alone.

“For the reasons stated in Judge Robertson’s ruling, the suit is frivolous and should not be pursued,” Bauer’s letter warned. “Should you decline to withdraw this frivolous appeal, please be informed that we intend to pursue sanctions, including costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 and D.C. Circuit Rule 38.”

Bauer also represented Obama and the DNC in Philip Berg’s eligibility lawsuit and various other legal challenges. He and the White House have not responded to WND’s request for comment.

Perkins Coie serves high-profile clients such as Microsoft, Amazon and Starbucks. In 2006, the firm also represented Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s alleged bodyguard and driver.

The FEC allows elected officials to use campaign funds to pay legal fees only if the action/investigations arise as a result of their tenure in office or campaigns, according to Politico.

The FEC report also reveals Obama For America has spent nearly $9.5 million in the first three months of this year – of which $6,365 in legal fees paid by Obama For America also went to Oldaker, Biden & Belair, a firm founded by Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.

This information — particularly the copy of the letter sent by Mr. Bauer to Mr. Hemenway — seems to reasonably substantiate that the President has spent approximately $1 million during and after his campaign to fight these suits. And unless it can be shown that the post-election legal payments were unlawful, there is nothing illegal about any of this.

Yet, what it does point out is that the President is going to great lengths to be sure that he fights every possibility of his vital documentation being revealed.

-Phil

There are 69 comments in this article:

  1. 04/23/2009Jerry says:

    I’m not in the least surprised, Obama has something to hide. These actions prove that.

  2. 04/23/2009Barack Obama Birth Certificate Thread - Politics and Other Controversies - Page 243 - City-Data Forum says:

    […] spends $1,000,000 dollars to fight the eligibility claims instead of $10 dollars to have a real COLB sent to congress […]

  3. 04/23/2009Jacqlyn Smith says:

    I haven’t seen Sue commenting here lately….hopefully she has given up on her “pro bono” stance after this report has been made public!!! Poor Sue…..the truth hurts!!!!

  4. 04/23/2009earl says:

    You are asserting that all legal fees paid to Perkins Coie were for eligibility cases? How did you verify that? How can you tell from a one line payee notation that Perkins Coie did no other legal work for the campaign, that they worked only on eligibility? How did you conclude that Bauer spent $1 million defending Obama from his letter to Heminway?

    Based on the defense’s filings so far in all the eligibility cases to date, it is a stretch to think that $1 million worth of legal work has done on Obama’s behalf.

    But there’s lots of stretching in the eligibility lexicon.

  5. 04/23/2009MIDDLE CLASS GUY says:

    Is it legal for Chairman Soetoro to use campaign funds to pay legal expenses related to the eligibiliy cases? Recently Sarah Palin was not allowed to use campaign funds for legal expenses unrelated to the election.

    Thanks, Ken

  6. 04/23/2009JeffM says:

    Perhaps he’s inventing a time machine and these are patent attorneys he’s paying for…

  7. 04/23/2009ch says:

    Interesting. Using the money stolen under false circumstances with campaign fraud to protect the fraud. A crime to cover up the crime. Very creative. Chicago Mob 101. Hope you can get a good profile on Robert Bauer, his education and work background, if he is “natural or native,” buddies with Blago and Geithner, and why he supports treason, treachery and tries to win out of court by intimidation since he cannot win like a man inside a court, just like Obama eliminating other candidates so he wins by default. Also wonder why Perkins Coie works to help bodyguards of Osama bin Laden. I am sure their international status helps in Indonesia and Kenya! Very interesting web. Birds of a feather squak together. The good lawyers have no fear of a courtroom!

  8. 04/23/2009ch says:

    Why would the campaign pay %6000 to Philadelphia Fire Emergency Services??? Is that legal?

  9. 04/23/2009Roderick says:

    Good evening everybody and thanks for tuning in once again. Hope you’ll are having a nice day and let’s get to the crux of the matter. All of this money has been wasted by ‘bamy. What a waste of $600,000-$1,000,000 dollars. Do you know what I could do with that kind of money? Why I could go live on an island for the rest of my life. What a pity, what a shame down the drain and now he’s got to forge a birth certificate because when all of the states ask for pertinent documentation in the next presidential election Bauer won’t be able to do a thing except look at the State Senators and shake his fist at them. Then all of what ‘bamy has attempted to do during his “administation” will be in question and all bauer will be able to do is shake his fist at “We the People” and get mad because he can’t defend the pathetic fool anymore. That is if ‘bama survives the impeachment hearings that are most assuredly coming his way in the not too distant future. That is if he can even survive the pending citizens indictments that are already sitting on the table. Crime does not pay you’ll. Sooner or later your partners in crime are going to turn you in for leniency. Blagojevich and ‘bama go back a few years and are partners in crime. Kerry is already jumping ship and won’t be offering this imposter an ounce of help when those trials start. How many citizens grand juries are forming? Answer: Alot

  10. 04/23/2009ch says:

    Robert Bauer
    Partner
    Perkins & Coie
    Washington, D.C.
    PHONE: 202.434.1602
    FAX: 202.434.1690
    RBauer@perkinscoie.com

    http://www.perkinscoie.com/rbauer/

    Maybe we should encourage Mr. Bauer to respect his fellow citizens in the judicial system with some phone calls and e-mails.

  11. 04/23/2009Benaiah says:

    Where’s The Birth Certificate Magnetic Bumper Sticker
    http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2722

  12. 04/23/2009Practical Kat says:

    This is really, really stupid.

    It is the logical equivalent of looking at someone’s grocery bills for the past 3 months and claiming that they spent $2000 on candy because some tiny fraction of the grocery money was spent on candy.

    The law firm in question handles the bulk of legal issues related to the campaign. Eligibility lawsuits are a tiny fraction of the work the lawyers do.

  13. 04/23/2009Phil says:

    earl,

    You are asserting that all legal fees paid to Perkins Coie were for eligibility cases? How did you verify that? How can you tell from a one line payee notation that Perkins Coie did no other legal work for the campaign, that they worked only on eligibility? How did you conclude that Bauer spent $1 million defending Obama from his letter to Heminway?

    Based on the defense’s filings so far in all the eligibility cases to date, it is a stretch to think that $1 million worth of legal work has done on Obama’s behalf.

    But there’s lots of stretching in the eligibility lexicon.

    I never actually said that the fees absolutely were for the eligibility cases. I think the verbiage I used was “appears” and “seems,” because I don’t know the specific details of the general line items.

    What I do know is that documentation has been sent back and forth between various parties that show that the President’s legal representation is, in fact, making legal threats against petitioners. There’s nothing illegal about that, but it goes to show circumstantial motive behind the line items.

    -Phil

  14. 04/24/2009earl says:

    Phil says:
    April 23, 2009 at 11:12 pm

    “doumentation has been sent back and forth between various parties that show that the President’s legal representation is, in fact, making legal threats against petitioners”

    Well, the one letter you posted above that you know of. Drafted by a paralegal at Bob Bauer’s request, reviewed, modified, edited, returned to Bauer for signature….guessing it was worth $750 billable by Perkins Coie would be an overestimate. Plus postage. This housekeeping stuff doesn’t really cost that much which is why so many people are able to pursue the plaintiff side as a hobby.

  15. 04/24/2009Sharon 2 says:

    The law firm in question handles the bulk of legal issues related to the campaign. (Practical Kat)

    I would like your explanation of this:

    Q&A with Robert F. Bauer
    ShareThis
    By Erik Lundegaard

    http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:4ZQrGPwHb4sJ:www.superlawyers.com/washington-dc/article/QandA-with-Robert-F-Bauer/d22c9644-14b4-4aa1-a17f-55590b7778d0.html+obama+for+america+headquarters+bauer+law+firm&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

    What did you do as general counsel?

    I recruited an in-house [legal] staff that grew, and that was highly, highly capable, headed by chief staff counsel Kendall Burman. A presidential campaign like this—which would have been an undertaking in any event, but this was innovatively run, and raised and spent $750 million-plus—presented a whole host of [legal] issues. It’s almost impossible for me to catalog the different things that came across our desks—topped off by our building the most ambitious election-protection program, in collaboration with the national party, that had ever been on the ground.

    ******

    His personal law firm did not handle the campaign issues. There was an in house legal staff that did.

    What say you?

  16. 04/24/2009Sharon 2 says:

    More:

    Law Blog Q&A: Obama-Campaign Lawyer Kendall Burman (Chief Staff Counsel)

    http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:4ZQrGPwHb4sJ:www.superlawyers.com/washington-dc/article/QandA-with-Robert-F-Bauer/d22c9644-14b4-4aa1-a17f-55590b7778d0.html+obama+for+america+headquarters+bauer+law+firm&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

    Gotcha. Now, you’re 29. I take it you don’t know all there is to know about business tax or employment law, right? So what do you do when you have questions?

    Bob Bauer at Perkins Coie. He’s the lead outside counsel for the campaign, and he’s really my boss. There are a handful of lawyers at Perkins in D.C. who do a lot of work with Bob and handle bigger-ticket issues.

  17. 04/24/2009Sharon 2 says:

    Phil, correct my first comment “His personal law firm did not handle the campaign issues.” to handle the bulk of the campaign issues.

  18. 04/24/2009Practical Kat says:

    I recruited an in-house [legal] staff that grew, and that was highly, highly capable, headed by chief staff counsel Kendall Burman. A presidential campaign like this—which would have been an undertaking in any event, but this was innovatively run, and raised and spent $750 million-plus—presented a whole host of [legal] issues. It’s almost impossible for me to catalog the different things that came across our desks—topped off by our building the most ambitious election-protection program, in collaboration with the national party, that had ever been on the ground.

    ******

    His personal law firm did not handle the campaign issues. There was an in house legal staff that did.

    What say you?

    You misunderstand. Kendall Berman is the 29 year old daughter of one of Bauer’s partners, a few years out of law school, who was put in charge of handling low-level routine matters. The part that Bauer said is “impossible to catalog” is the stuff he was handling after he handed off the routine matters to the kiddie staff in Chicago. All the important or complicated stuff was handle by Bauer and other lawyers in his firm:

    Gotcha. Now, you’re 29. I take it you don’t know all there is to know about business tax or employment law, right? So what do you do when you have questions?

    Bob Bauer at Perkins Coie. He’s the lead outside counsel for the campaign, and he’s really my boss. There are a handful of lawyers at Perkins in D.C. who do a lot of work with Bob and handle bigger-ticket issues.

    See: Interview with Kendall Berman –http://www.uslaw.com/library/Legal_News/Law_Blog_QA_ObamaCampaign_Lawyer_Kendall_Burman.php?item=58622

  19. 04/24/2009Sharon 2 says:

    PK,

    Bauer himself says that the in-house staff grew and handled the many issues that came across their desks. That a young lawyer with connections was chosen to head it up is their choice. The big ticket items, of course, are eligibility cases.

  20. 04/24/2009Greg Goss says:

    Earl,

    Here is the deal Earl. We don’t care if he spent One Dollar to keep his past from the people who elected him to lead us. But we need to know who he his and keeping that from us and YOU is shameful to say the least. Why don’t you and your ilk demand he shut US up providing the documentation that proves who he claims to be?

  21. 04/24/2009Benaiah says:

    Capitol briefly evacuated, White House locked down
    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97OVSF80&show_article=1

    “WASHINGTON (AP) – A small, single-engine plane [was mistaken as The Truth] …forcing anxious officials to place the White House in temporary lockdown and take steps to evacuate the U.S. Capitol. [After consulting with Robert F. Bauer, the White House dispatched] …two F-16 fighter jets and two Coast Guard helicopters …to intercept the plane [with a letter threatening to pursue sanctions, including costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees]…”

  22. 04/24/2009Benaiah says:

    Model Rules of Professional Conduct
    Advocate
    Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal

    (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

    (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

    (2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

    (3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

    (b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.

    (c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.

    (d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.

  23. 04/24/2009Benaiah says:

    Model Rules of Professional Conduct

    Rule 1.6 Confidentiality Of Information

    (a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).

    (b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:

    (1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;

    (2) to prevent the client from committing a crime or fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer’s services;

    (3) to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client’s commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer’s services;

    (4) to secure legal advice about the lawyer’s compliance with these Rules;

    (5) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer’s representation of the client; or

    (6) to comply with other law or a court order.

  24. 04/24/2009Benaiah says:

    Model Rules of Professional Conduct
    Advocate
    Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel

    A lawyer shall not:

    (a) unlawfully obstruct another party’ s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;

    (b) falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law;

    (c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists;

    (d) in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or fail to make reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party;

    (e) in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused; or

    (f) request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party unless:

    (1) the person is a relative or an employee or other agent of a client; and

    (2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the person’s interests will not be adversely affected by refraining from giving such information.

  25. 04/24/2009Benaiah says:

    Model Rules of Professional Conduct
    Advocate
    Rule 3.5 Impartiality And Decorum Of The Tribunal

    A lawyer shall not:

    (a) seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror or other official by means prohibited by law;

    (b) communicate ex parte with such a person during the proceeding unless authorized to do so by law or court order;

    (c) communicate with a juror or prospective juror after discharge of the jury if:

    (1) the communication is prohibited by law or court order;

    (2) the juror has made known to the lawyer a desire not to communicate; or

    (3) the communication involves misrepresentation, coercion, duress or harassment; or

    (d) engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal.

  26. 04/24/2009Benaiah says:

    Model Rules of Professional Conduct
    Advocate
    Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity

    (a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.

    (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may state:

    (1) the claim, offense or defense involved and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved;

    (2) information contained in a public record;

    (3) that an investigation of a matter is in progress;

    (4) the scheduling or result of any step in litigation;

    (5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and information necessary thereto;

    (6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved, when there is reason to believe that there exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest; and

    (7) in a criminal case, in addition to subparagraphs (1) through (6):

    (i) the identity, residence, occupation and family status of the accused;

    (ii) if the accused has not been apprehended, information necessary to aid in apprehension of that person;

    (iii) the fact, time and place of arrest; and

    (iv) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies and the length of the investigation.

    (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer’s client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.

    (d) No lawyer associated in a firm or government agency with a lawyer subject to paragraph (a) shall make a statement prohibited by paragraph (a).

  27. 04/24/2009Benaiah says:

    Model Rules of Professional Conduct
    Transactions With Persons Other Than Clients
    Rule 4.1 Truthfulness In Statements To Others

    In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

    (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or

    (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.

  28. 04/24/2009Benaiah says:

    Model Rules of Professional Conduct
    Transactions With Persons Other Than Clients
    Rule 4.4 Respect For Rights Of Third Persons

    (a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.

    (b) A lawyer who receives a document relating to the representation of the lawyer’s client and knows or reasonably should know that the document was inadvertently sent shall promptly notify the sender.

  29. 04/24/2009Benaiah says:

    Model Rules of Professional Conduct
    Law Firms And Associations
    Rule 5.1 Responsibilities Of Partners,Managers, And Supervisory Lawyers

    (a) A partner in a law firm, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

    (b) A lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

    (c) A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyer’s violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if:

    (1) the lawyer orders or, with knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or

    (2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the other lawyer practices, or has direct supervisory authority over the other lawyer, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.

  30. 04/24/2009KJ says:

    “All the eligibility suits are garbage”.
    Threats against opposing counsel.
    A large legal bill.

    Very interesting

    What exactly is an election-protection program?

    In the past, there were claims that any lawyer would consider it an honor to defend the President pro bono against these frivolous lawsuits.
    It could be an honor, but apparently it is not pro bono.

    Does the fact that these lawyers are apparently not working pro bono mean that they know?

    Does this indicate that the suits are not all that frivolous?

    Or is some the garbage from his past being cleaned up?
    Must be a lot of garbage.

    Humor me if you will.
    Several opposition posters posting here are familiar names on other blogs discussing eligibility.
    Are you being paid?
    Or do you just like the guy and wish that people would leave him alone?

  31. 04/24/2009Practical Kat says:

    The big ticket items, of course, are eligibility cases.

    No, the big ticket items are FEC / campaign finance issues and “election protection” efforts and litigation.

    The eligibility cases were small potatoes stuff that were handled with very simple motions to dismiss based on jurisdictional & standing issues. A 1st year law student could have handled that level of litigation -(Its the sort of thing that could be given as an assignment in a legal writing class). It gets a little more costly on appeal, because briefing requirements are more stringent — but these are still simple cases with very simple issues from a legal standpoint.

    The eligibility suits were handled by Bauer’s firm and not the “in house” staff at Chicago, who were probably not involved in any litigation or formal filings — but we’ve seen all the pleadings filed by Bauer’s office, so its pretty easy to reconstruct the hours spent on these cases. It’s a nuisance, but not high-fee stuff.

    I’d point out that one way that fees were kept down was by following a conservative, and cost-effective, strategy of moving to dismiss each case at the outset. Stuff like discovery really runs up expenses — so despite the claim that Obama has spent hundreds of thousands to fight these cases, it is precisely because of the strategy of moving to dismiss quickly that it is unlikely that total legal fees in these cases have run up beyond a drop in the bucket.

    (It does run up several thousand per case, but that’s because lawyers are going to charge for everything they do, even if it is relatively pro forma. If you see a 3 page form document filed in a case by a big law firm, you can assume that someone has been billed $1000 for the preparation of that form. Typically a junior associate would prepare the paperwork, and then simply because the client is important, a senior partner reads & signs the paperwork- so the client is billed at the associate’s rate for preparation, and billed again for the same stuff at the partner’s rate for the review of the same document.)

    The election protection stuff involved a lot of investigation and assembly of facts, plus emergency, expedited litigation through trial and appellate courts — all of which would require a team of lawyers working long hours, so that’s where costs would run up.

  32. 04/24/2009Phil says:

    Practical Kat,

    No, the big ticket items are FEC / campaign finance issues and “election protection” efforts and litigation.

    What would be interesting is to see if GW Bush accrued the same type of expenditures, relatively speaking, during 2000 and 2004, but especially for the 2000 election. I would look it up, but I’m bowled over with emails and comments to moderate.

    -Phil

  33. 04/24/2009JeffM says:

    Now, what was it the pro-usurping, non-patriotic, anti-Constitutional folks on here were saying again???

    That we have no proof that Soetoro was spending upwards of $750,000 in legal fees to protect his past? Interesting.

  34. 04/25/2009Practical Kat says:

    What would be interesting is to see if GW Bush accrued the same type of expenditures, relatively speaking, during 2000 and 2004, but especially for the 2000 election

    Both Bush & Gore established post-election fundraising entities to cover litigation expenses in 2000 -which would have been exempt from the donor limitations that apply to campaign funds. See:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/13/us/counting-the-vote-the-republicans-bush-campaign-creates-fund-for-vote-fight.html

    Bush raised $14 million to cover legal costs related to the Florida recount; Gore spent about $3.2 million – but part of the reason that Gore paid less is that his power-house attorney, Davis Boies, worked pro bono:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6075028
    http://cityfile.com/profiles/david-boies

  35. 04/25/2009brygenon says:

    Phil wrote,

    What would be interesting is to see if GW Bush accrued the same type of expenditures, relatively speaking, during 2000 and 2004, but especially for the 2000 election. I would look it up, but I’m bowled over with emails and comments to moderate.

    Interesting it is. Bush had a ‘compliance’ fund, separate from his campaigns. Donations to the compliance fund do not count toward limits on campaign contributions, and the compliance money is, or is supposed to be, entirely devoted to the campaign’s compliance with FEC funding rules. John McCain also used a compliance fund, which disbursed $1.5 million in the first quarter of 2009:

    http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q1/C00446104.html

    Also perhaps interesting, Rudy Giuliani withdrew from the presidential race back in January of last year, yet his campaign spent over $50,000 on legal consulting in the first quarter of this year:

    http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q1/C00430512/B_PURPOSE_C00430512.html

    Legal fees were Ron Paul’s campaign’s one and only declared expense this quarter:

    http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q1/C00432914/B_PURPOSE_C00432914.html

    Obama’s presidential campaign was the best funded and consequently most expensive ever. That may or may not be a big deal, but there’s nothing at all surprising in that his campaign is still writing checks for various expenses, including legal council. There remains no evidence that he has spent any significant amount of money fighting eligibility suits.

    Some eligibility suits include bodies part of the U.S. government among defendants. Government lawyers are paid, so those suits are inflicting costs upon taxpayers, and the birthers, not President Obama, are to blame.

  36. 04/25/2009Sharon 2 says:

    A 1st year law student could have handled that level of litigation -(Its the sort of thing that could be given as an assignment in a legal writing class).

    <<< Yet Bauer handled it himself, who handled the big ticket cases, except for eligibility, which could be handled by first year law students, except that it was handled by the attorneys doing the big ticket stuff. (big ticket

    ***

    I’d point out that one way that fees were kept down was by following a conservative, and cost-effective, strategy of moving to dismiss each case at the outset.

    Gee, isn’t that what lawyers are supposed to do?

    ***

    The election protection stuff involved a lot of investigation and assembly of facts, plus emergency, expedited litigation through trial and appellate courts — all of which would require a team of lawyers working long hours, so that’s where costs would run up.

    <<<
    From the Kendall Burman interview:

    Are you working around the clock?

    It’s pretty much a 24/7 job; you just have to make yourself available all the time. For now, I’m getting sleep, but that’s not always true right around the time of the individual primaries. Voter issues come up, the field gets very active right before a primary.

    I think someone should inform Kendall at the kiddie in-house operation that she actually doesn’t do the work she says, according to Practical Kat.

  37. 04/25/2009earl says:

    Greg Goss says:
    April 24, 2009 at 1:15 pm
    “Why don’t you and your ilk demand he shut US up providing the documentation that proves who he claims to be?”

    Me and my ilk understand the basis of the US legal system: It is you and your ilk that have to prove he’s not who he claims to be. Burden of proof is always on the accuser. Bring it on. If you and your ilk had any proof, Obama wouldn’t be in the White House today.

    The only reason this whole charade lives on is that you eligibility challengers must have all flunked civics. Your ignorance of the law, the Constitution and the way our governnment works is embarrassing.

  38. 04/25/2009Benaiah says:

    Capitalism ‘threatens life on the planet’
    http://rabble.ca/news/2009/04/declaration-cuman%C3%A1-capitalism-threatens-life-planet

    “We, the Heads of State and Government of Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Venezuela [Willima Ayer’s and Obama’s friend Hugo Chavez]…

    1. Capitalism is leading humanity and the planet to extinction…

    2. Capitalism has caused the environmental crisis, by submitting the necessary conditions for life in the planet, to the predominance of market and profit…

    3. The global economic crisis, climate change, the food crisis and the energy crisis are the result of the decay of capitalism, which threatens to end life and the planet…”

    So, when does Obama apologize to the UN-Americans for the United States leading humanity and the planet to extinction, for the environmental crisis, for the global economic crisis, climate change, the food crisis and the energy crisis?

    So, when does the DHS add “capitalists” to Obama’s list of “domestic terrorists”?

  39. 04/25/2009Phil says:

    Practical Kat,

    Both Bush & Gore established post-election fundraising entities to cover litigation expenses in 2000 -which would have been exempt from the donor limitations that apply to campaign funds. See:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/13/us/counting-the-vote-the-republicans-bush-campaign-creates-fund-for-vote-fight.html

    Bush raised $14 million to cover legal costs related to the Florida recount; Gore spent about $3.2 million – but part of the reason that Gore paid less is that his power-house attorney, Davis Boies, worked pro bono:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6075028
    http://cityfile.com/profiles/david-boies

    Excellent. Then we’ve simply established that there is anecdotal evidence that such expenditures can occur for costs above and beyond routine election matters. That’s really all I was attempting to establish.

    Of course, I expect you to completely disagree with that conclusion, and that’s fine.

    -Phil

  40. 04/25/2009Phil says:

    earl,

    Greg Goss says:
    April 24, 2009 at 1:15 pm
    “Why don’t you and your ilk demand he shut US up providing the documentation that proves who he claims to be?”

    Me and my ilk understand the basis of the US legal system: It is you and your ilk that have to prove he’s not who he claims to be. Burden of proof is always on the accuser. Bring it on. If you and your ilk had any proof, Obama wouldn’t be in the White House today.

    The only reason this whole charade lives on is that you eligibility challengers must have all flunked civics. Your ignorance of the law, the Constitution and the way our governnment works is embarrassing.

    While I know you like going on and on about this issue with fellow commenters, there really is only one question to be answered, and I’d like your answer to the following question:

    If Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 lays out the eligibility requirements for the President, who is responsible for making sure that any candidate meets these requirements and how do they go about executing that responsibility?

    Thanks,

    -Phil

  41. 04/25/2009DCA says:

    The birther cases have ALL failed without much effort. There is now way they’ve spent a million on this. They’ve had nothing to do.
    If you ever got BHO in court they’d simply pull out that Hawaii COLB you all seem to dismiss (Hawaii says itis Prima Facie evidence) and have the State of Hawaii vouch for it. Case closed.
    Why would Pres. Obama spend anytime of these cases. They just get them dismissed. Cue: 100 responses about how “its a forgery….”
    Nonsense. I love these cases. The first to judges handed Berg his ass and warned him. The next judge will look at the prior two judges decisions and whack the plaintiffs for costs. If I were Obama’s lawyers I’d actually build up a bank of billable hours and expenses and have the records ready to hand to the judge.

  42. 04/25/2009Practical Kat says:

    Excellent. Then we’ve simply established that there is anecdotal evidence that such expenditures can occur for costs above and beyond routine election matters. That’s really all I was attempting to establish.

    Of course, I expect you to completely disagree with that conclusion, and that’s fine.

    I don’t know why we would disagree. As I said — the bulk of payment to Bauer’s firm probably went to handling FEC matters & election protection actions litigation in the various states.

  43. 04/25/2009Phil says:

    DCA,

    The birther cases have ALL failed without much effort.

    In reality, nothing has failed, as no cases ever made it to the discovery phase and have been dismissed based on standing.

    No eligibility case has won or lost on the merits, so it’s difficult to say that any have failed, per se, except to fail on standing, which is a completely different issue altogether.

    -Phil

  44. 04/26/2009brygenon says:

    Phil wrote,

    In reality, nothing has failed, as no cases ever made it to the discovery phase and have been dismissed based on standing.

    No eligibility case has won or lost on the merits, so it’s difficult to say that any have failed, per se, except to fail on standing, which is a completely different issue altogether.

    Phil, reality is what it is no matter how much you kick and scream. Birhter suits always fail; you guys are zero for dozens. That none of them survive the first motion to dismiss is not a point in your favor.

    The birther case has so little merit that Obama’s serious opponents never wanted anything to do with this nonsense.

  45. 04/26/2009Sharon 2 says:

    Here is part of my comment again:

    From the Kendall Burman interview:

    Are you working around the clock?

    It’s pretty much a 24/7 job; you just have to make yourself available all the time. For now, I’m getting sleep, but that’s not always true right around the time of the individual primaries. Voter issues come up, the field gets very active right before a primary.

    I think someone should inform Kendall at the kiddie in-house operation that she actually doesn’t do the work she says, according to Practical Kat.

    PK, you have no proof that the bulk of the cases were handled by Bauer’s firm. It handled a lot of work, as campaigns do, but you don’t know how much the in house firm handled. The in-house group started with Kendall but then grew, according to Bauer. Just because you say it is so, doesn’t mean that it is so.

    I’ll again repeat your kind of pretzel logic and my response:

    “A 1st year law student could have handled that level of litigation -(Its the sort of thing that could be given as an assignment in a legal writing class).”

    <<< Yet Bauer handled it himself, who handled the big ticket cases, except for eligibility, which could be handled by first year law students, except that it was handled by the attorneys doing the big ticket stuff.

    ******************

    I see big ticket in the sense of importance as well as money. Bauer handled the case himself; otherwise, he would have passed it off to the “kiddies.” I don’t think that case alone cost nearly $700,000 but you are downplaying its importance. As you explained, just a simple response to a case will end up in a few thousand dollar price tag. Multiply that by the number of eligibility cases around the country (check Phil’s tally), some requiring more work than others. There is only one attorney who publicly stated that he worked pro bono (I wonder if there was some kind of quid pro quo).

    Money is being spent on the eligibility cases.

  46. 04/26/2009DCA says:

    Well lack of any results is usually considered a failure. Your lack of standing should tell you something.
    So far the Birthers are something like 0 for 35. This is the stupidest quest I’ve seen in a while. I eat lunch with our firm’s attorney – she just laughs at the lameness of this and finds it entertaining to watch.

    Your entire case rests on the assumption that the BHO forged a birth document in plain sight of the issuing state agency. You’ve NEVER seen the COLB yourself. Factsheck and Snopes did – THEY attest to it and so does the DoH of Hawaii. It will be the PRIMA FACIE evidence in any court. You’ve got exactly zero evidence. You will never get in front of court with this. The next judge is going to find a way to smack you hard for court costs.

  47. 04/26/2009Phil says:

    brygenon,

    Phil, reality is what it is no matter how much you kick and scream. Birhter suits always fail; you guys are zero for dozens. That none of them survive the first motion to dismiss is not a point in your favor.

    The birther case has so little merit that Obama’s serious opponents never wanted anything to do with this nonsense.

    I’ve already castigated you in a previous comment that will certainly make you kick and scream, and I’m going to do it again.

    While it is clearly your prerogative to think and believe what you wish, my opinion is that since you refuse to question this President about anything that he does and you go further by essentially browbeating those of us who wish to question this President about his history.

    Since you insist upon taking this into the personal realm, then I’ll make sure you get what you give.

    To suggest that nobody should question this President over his past and further suggest that somehow those who do such questioning are somehow doing something wrong is both treasonous and unpatriotic.

    -Phil

  48. 04/26/2009Phil says:

    DCA,

    Well lack of any results is usually considered a failure. Your lack of standing should tell you something.
    So far the Birthers are something like 0 for 35. This is the stupidest quest I’ve seen in a while. I eat lunch with our firm’s attorney – she just laughs at the lameness of this and finds it entertaining to watch.

    Lack of standing does tell me something: it says that the “wrong” people are bringing the cases to the Judiciary. If one is being intellectually honest (which, per the tone of your comment, I’m not going to expect such a thing from you), one knows that the actual merits of the case have never been considered except in the court of public opinion.

    Your entire case rests on the assumption that the BHO forged a birth document in plain sight of the issuing state agency.

    That is incorrect. Most folks who are sympathetic with my view already know that at least two forensics experts have already concluded that such certification is inconclusive with respect to determining eligibility. Therefore, the truth of the matter is that there is zero background documentation on this politician that anyone can use to substantiate his eligibility one way or the other.

    -Phil

  49. 04/26/2009PatriciaT says:

    With a key fed witness now dead I am really concerned that any true evidence will be destroyed. The vault birth certificate is in Hawaii. There are so many that will go to any length to protect his lies that I fear the vault document will end up stolen or the building it is kept in will be destroyed.

    I pray the FBI or someone high up has taken the necessary steps to protect this vital information before there is no trace of it…forever.

    God please leat the truth be revealed on this evil man Obama.

  50. 04/26/2009Practical Kat says:

    I see big ticket in the sense of importance as well as money. Bauer handled the case himself; otherwise, he would have passed it off to the “kiddies.”

    It’s “important” because of who the client is, not the level of the case. Bauer signed his name to pleadings, but they were probably drafted by lower level staff at his office.

    I don’t think that case alone cost nearly $700,000 but you are downplaying its importance.

    I’m just looking at the documents and running my own mental clock as to how they would translate into billable hours — and then comparing that to the really time consuming & labor-intensive stuff that I know was going on with the election & various FEC filings.

    As you explained, just a simple response to a case will end up in a few thousand dollar price tag. Multiply that by the number of eligibility cases around the country (check Phil’s tally), some requiring more work than others.

    That’s true — and legal fees definitely do add up. The Obama campaign had plenty of money in its coffers — so there was no reason for the law firm to skimp on billing. But you are still probably looking at the range of tens of thousands and not hundreds of thousands, because as long as the cases are resolved on pleadings, they are not labor intensive.

    But the fact that money is being paid is simply the result of being sued. So it doesn’t mean much except that a lot of people have brought frivolous lawsuits against a person who had the funds to pay lawyers to take care of defending the suits, and the lawyers are going to bill for their time when they have a rich client.

    If the goal of the birthers was to harass the President-elect to force him to spend needless money on lawyers to defend garbage law suits – they had the wrong target. The Obama campaign ended up with money to burn – you are talking about a drop in the bucket of a man who could afford to run hour long infomercials on major networks a week before the election. Thousands of dollars spent by a campaign with millions left over in its coffers.

    If the goal of the birthers was to make Obama’s personal lawyer a little bit richer…. well, they definitely did achieve that. Easy money for the lawyers, especially at a time when the other stuff is winding down — I’m sure Mr. Bauer appreciates the revenue.

    There is only one attorney who publicly stated that he worked pro bono (I wonder if there was some kind of quid pro quo).

    You are correct that there was only 1 that I know of – it was an attorney (or firm) in California, where Bauer may not be licensed to practice, so would have to associate with a local counsel. There’s no need for a formal quid pro quo – there are a lot of attorneys who would be happy to volunteer for something like that. For one thing, it’s good public relations for the firm – an easy win, some potential press coverage, and then the firm has bragging rights that Barack Obama is one of their clients. Of course, long term there can be a benefit for doing a favor for someone who has already been elected President — that lawyer has a possible avenue of access to the President or his staff, through his attorney, in the future. It’s useful for any attorney to know people in high places. So on an informal level… you could call it a “quid pro quo” or you could call it “professional courtesy”…. but there are probably lawyers all over the country who would leap at the chance to offer a few hours of pro bono services to a US President.

  51. 04/27/2009brygenon says:

    Phil wrote:

    brygenon [wrote],

    Phil, reality is what it is no matter how much you kick and scream. Birhter suits always fail; you guys are zero for dozens. That none of them survive the first motion to dismiss is not a point in your favor.

    The birther case has so little merit that Obama’s serious opponents never wanted anything to do with this nonsense.

    I’ve already castigated you in a previous comment that will certainly make you kick and scream, and I’m going to do it again.

    Must be hard to discern at this distance; that’s laughter.

    While it is clearly your prerogative to think and believe what you wish, my opinion is that since you refuse to question this President about anything that he does and you go further by essentially browbeating those of us who wish to question this President about his history.

    Since you insist upon taking this into the personal realm, then I’ll make sure you get what you give.

    To suggest that nobody should question this President over his past and further suggest that somehow those who do such questioning are somehow doing something wrong is both treasonous and unpatriotic.

    Wow are you bad at the browbeating game. I hit you with what reality is and you come back with what Phil thinks? Plus you offer me yet another opportunity to point out that I have no problem with asking the questions — my point is, has been, and will continue to be, that questions do not remain open simply because you refuse to face the answers. Barack Obama is the only U.S. President to show his birth certificate.

  52. 04/27/2009Phil says:

    brygenon,

    Barack Obama is the only U.S. President to show his birth certificate.

    Incorrect. He has shown what he claims is his certification of live birth, which is not a birth certificate.

    Also, I’m still trying to figure out what “is the only US President to show his birth certificate” is supposed to mean. I suppose it’s an attempt to counter the concept of questioning this President’s history, where he has shown zero documentation about his background. Therefore, since nobody else has, in theory, shown their background documentation, we’re subsequently not to ask about this politician’s?

    Interesting. I didn’t know there was a statute of limitations on the number of times one is allowed to use Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

    As an aside, I know how you, specifically, like to go on ad nauseum about how you are completely satisfied with zero documentation being revealed on this President and that folks like myself are simply living in a dream world because our specific questions aren’t being answered. However, I guess you don’t really care about the Constitution, then, since there is zero verifiable documentation to substantiate this President’s eligibility, one way or the other?

    Remember, at least two forensics examiners have already gone on record about the certification RE: eligibility. If you’re not willing to accept that, then I don’t think I’d go around saying that folks like myself refuse to accept reality, if I were you.

    -Phil

  53. 04/27/2009Practical Kat says:

    Remember, at least two forensics examiners have already gone on record about the certification

    I know about Patricia Lines, who did not say what you claim she said… but who is the other?

  54. 04/27/2009brygenon says:

    Phil says:

    Incorrect. He has shown what he claims is his certification of live birth, which is not a birth certificate.

    You can check it out here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    Note that it is, “CERTIFICATE NO. 151 1961 010641″, and in the last two words on the front of the doc it refers to itself as, “THIS CERTIFICATE”.

    Also, I’m still trying to figure out what “is the only US President to show his birth certificate” is supposed to mean.

    It means the truth is pretty much the opposite of what the birthers pretend.

  55. 04/27/2009Phil says:

    Practical Kat,

    I know about Patricia Lines, who did not say what you claim she said… but who is the other?

    If you wish to disbelieve what she said — especially as I’ve already displayed her actual affidavit verbiage at least once to you — that is your prerogative.

    The bottom line is that she and Dr. Ron Polarik — whom I’m sure you’re simply salivating to say that since he has chosen to remain anonymous, that absolutely must mean that he cannot have credentials (as if somehow he is obligated to share anything with anyone along those lines), and someone about whom Ms. Lines spoke in her affidavit — have both said that the certification of live birth is inconclusive with respect to determining eligibility.

    However, simply for the sake of discussion, let’s just say that you simply refuse to believe all that. All you have to do is show me a forensics expert who’s willing to sign an affidavit clearly showing that they think the certification of live birth is conclusive enough for an authority figure to substantiate eligibility.

    Remember, neither you, me, nor anyone else has the authority to declare that Barack Hussein Obama is eligible to be President. In fact, in light of no legal enforcement of the eligibility clause, there really is no (Clintonian) “controlling legal authority” over this; it’s a he-said, he/she-said issue, which is why there’s a call for the Judiciary to rule.

    This is why I think folks are very unpatriotic to suggest that there are some, such as myself, who refuse to accept what they’ve deemed as acceptable evidence. Neither one of us has the ultimate authority to make a clear distinction about this man. And further, there’s nothing wrong with anyone bringing the question forward.

    So, again, you can either accept the evidence as it is or you can reject it. Either way, in my view, the question remains.

    -Phil

  56. 04/27/2009Phil says:

    brygenon,

    It means the truth is pretty much the opposite of what the birthers pretend.

    You haven’t answered my question; maybe you’ve misunderstood, so I’ll try it again, in a different way:

    Show me how it makes any sense that because the eligibility question hasn’t been consistently asked of every presidential candidate that this somehow disqualifies the question from being asked about this President.

    -Phil

  57. 04/28/2009brygenon says:

    Phil wrote,

    You haven’t answered my question; maybe you’ve misunderstood, so I’ll try it again, in a different way:

    Refusing to face the answer does not make them go away.

    Show me how it makes any sense that because the eligibility question hasn’t been consistently asked of every presidential candidate that this somehow disqualifies the question from being asked about this President.

    Want to know where Obama was born? You can find out at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html. Want to know what “natural born citizen” means? You can find out at http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ.

  58. 04/28/2009brygenon says:

    Phil wrote:

    Practical Kat [wrote],

    I know about Patricia Lines, who did not say what you claim she said… but who is the other?

    If you wish to disbelieve what she said — especially as I’ve already displayed her actual affidavit verbiage at least once to you — that is your prerogative.

    I assume you both mean Sandra Lines, and if we look at her declaration, we find that Practical Kat is telling the truth; Phil, not so much.

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/executedsandralinesdeclaration_1.pdf

    Contrary to Phil’s repeated reporting, she says nothing about drawing a conclusion on eligibility. She says the Internet images, specifically the ones with the certificate number redacted, cannot be relied upon as genuine. She did not examine the actual paper certificate, which the Obama campaign made available at their Chicago headquarters.

    Annenberg Political Fact-Check did examine the actual document, and took their own photographs of it: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

  59. 04/28/2009Phil says:

    brygenon,

    Refusing to face the answer does not make them go away.

    Then, since you don’t think I’m answering your questions, and you refuse to back up your historical claim about other Presidents, then apparently we can’t move forward on this issue.

    -Phil

  60. 04/28/2009Phil says:

    brygenon,

    I assume you both mean Sandra Lines, and if we look at her declaration, we find that Practical Kat is telling the truth; Phil, not so much.

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/executedsandralinesdeclaration_1.pdf

    Contrary to Phil’s repeated reporting, she says nothing about drawing a conclusion on eligibility. She says the Internet images, specifically the ones with the certificate number redacted, cannot be relied upon as genuine. She did not examine the actual paper certificate, which the Obama campaign made available at their Chicago headquarters.

    As Bill O’Reilly says, “the spin stops here.”

    Do have a look at what Ms. Lines went on record to have actually said on my original report:

    4. In my experience as a forensic document examiner, if an original of any document exists, that is the document that must be examined to obtain a definitive finding of genuineness or non-genuineness. In this case, examination of the vault birth certificate for President-Elect Obama would lay this issue to rest once and for all.

    Just in case I have to spell it out for you, she is not referring to the certification of live birth in her last sentence; she is referring to the “vault” birth certificate — as in, the original 1961 certificate, “if an original of any document eixts” (as she states in the opening sentence) — not to the original 2007 certification of live birth.

    Your spin is that Ms. Lines didn’t analyze the paper copy of the online certificate of live birth. While that may be true, she specifically refers to the original certificate in paragraph 4 on which the certification is based.

    -Phil

  61. 04/28/2009brygenon says:

    Phil wrote,

    Then, since you don’t think I’m answering your questions, and you refuse to back up your historical claim about other Presidents, then apparently we can’t move forward on this issue.

    Move forward? Obama is President and you are a conspiracy theorist. I’m not trying to move, just to make clear where we are.

  62. 04/28/2009Phil says:

    brygenon,

    Move forward? Obama is President and you are a conspiracy theorist. I’m not trying to move, just to make clear where we are.

    Considering that I don’t know you and you don’t know me, and my official stance RE: the President’s eligibility is that “I don’t know,” I’m not sure I’d be throwing around such verbiage.

    After all, I could say that you’re unpatriotic and a traitor to America because you won’t further question this President’s eligibility based solely on the absolute lack of evidence when it’s partially your responsibility to do so.

    Oh, wait — is the DHS watching…?

    -Phil

  63. 04/29/2009NYC Fly-by - Page 3 - VolNation says:

    […] of mission, photo shoot for F-16, 747 was $328,835 Barry’s got to keep up that public image. He certainly has something to hide, just what I don’t know. […]

  64. 04/29/2009Benaiah says:

    An open letter to Robert Bauer:

    Please don’t forget to disclose THE VENUS, 12 U.S. 253 (1814), and Vattel’s Law of Nations to the courts in your defense of the Usurper in Chief.

    To fail to disclose THE VENUS and Vattel’s Law of Nations would be a breach of the Model Code of Professional Conduct.

    Model Code of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3, states,
    (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
    (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal…
    (2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel;

    With regard to Vattel, the Supreme Court of the United States, in THE VENUS, specifically stated, “Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”

    Vattel’s Law of Nations, § 212, states “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    Hence, natural born citizens, “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    Unfortunatley, your client’s father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., was not a citizen of the United States.

    Thus, even if Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii, he is NOT a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America.

    Thus, your client is a usurper, and you are obligated to disclose this FACT…

  65. 05/1/2009kathy says:

    I find it interesting that the only “evidence” offered up to the eligibility questions is name calling. Obviously some have no interest in knowing the answer…they are totally satisfied to have Mr. Obama in the white house and that is enough for them.
    Wikipedia states that Mr. Obama was a British subject at birth by virtue of his father’s status as one. He and one other president were born British subjects. The other one, Chester Arthur, lied and did everything humanly possible to keep his birth status a secret…I guess I’ll have to look up the page I read that on, for backing.

  66. 06/4/2009When Nothing is Truly Historic « Clinging to G & G says:

    […] vault copy birth certificate — Not released — Lawyers fees — greater than $1,000,000 — birth certificate — […]

  67. 06/18/2009Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation « Stop Socialism Now says:

    […] vault copy birth certificate — Not released — Lawyers fees — greater than $1,000,000 — birth certificate — […]

  68. 11/22/2009Jennifer says:

    It seems to me that the President could end the frivolity if he just submitted the sealed documentation from the Hawaiian HHS; I had to provide a certified copy of my BC to obtain a driver’s license. I ask, what is more important….establising my sitizenship to drive, or establishing one for the President of the US?

    It seems we the citizens can force the issue by next election…we can make it mandatory for all person seeking to hold to prove their citizenship to the states. It can’t be a federal madate as the feds can’t regulate state electin laws, but we can certainly force our states to mandate supporting documents!

  69. 03/3/2011OBAMA BORN IN HAWAHI OR KENYA? : THE FACTS « ON THE BORDER says:

    […] […]

Write a comment:

You have to log in to write a comment.