WND: Obama Campaign Paid $1 million to Fight Eligibility Lawsuits?
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 payeeThe 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
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!
[...] vault copy birth certificate — Not released — Lawyers fees — greater than $1,000,000 — birth certificate — [...]
[...] vault copy birth certificate — Not released — Lawyers fees — greater than $1,000,000 — birth certificate — [...]
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.
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…
[...] 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. [...]
brygenon,
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
Phil wrote,
Move forward? Obama is President and you are a conspiracy theorist. I’m not trying to move, just to make clear where we are.
brygenon,
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:
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
brygenon,
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
Phil wrote:
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
Phil wrote,
Refusing to face the answer does not make them go away.
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.
brygenon,
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
Practical Kat,
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
Phil says:
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”.
It means the truth is pretty much the opposite of what the birthers pretend.
I know about Patricia Lines, who did not say what you claim she said… but who is the other?
brygenon,
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
Phil wrote:
Must be hard to discern at this distance; that’s laughter.
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.