OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

At what point do I get to say, "I TOLD YA SO"?

Because then we could all have a big group hug.

I'm refreshing my page every minute. Keep voting me down. I'm DYING laughing at you guys here!!!!

Stings a bit, doesn't it?

Oh yes!! YES!!!! We're only 20 minutes in and we're at -9!!

Your voting patterns give me an idea of your intellectual capacity. I LOVE being right.

Come on, carpenturr1!!! I know you've read this. You just posted the Shuhubria lies in another thread.

You just got effed in the A again by the courts. That's twice this week so far. And now the courts have given us a huge clue about how much your efforts are REALLY costing the president.

Throw me a bone here. Tell me how this black robed nazi ought to be run out of town on a rail. Tell me how Keyes will succeed on appeal. Tell me about the usurpation of the Constitution by ole big ears in the White House.

Dang man!! Your job is to keep me amused!! And you ain't holding up your end!!!

Goes to show we have a crooked court systen, and they have cheer leaders.

Yes!! Harold!!! My MAN!!! Crooked court system for $400, Alex!!!

Hey wait. Hold up. I was at -11 and now I'm at -10. I DON'T WANT ANY INTELLIGENT VOTES. Yeti, evrport, Allison, don't vote in this thread.

I only want birfer votes. Keep em' coming, baby!!

Hey blkmnkr, I still disagree with you but your ball busting is funny as hell. I've been keeping up.

Cheers,

your disagreeing pal

santorajj

Santorajj, you're the only birfer here who gets the joke. The rest of them are humorless drones.

But, hey, I just realized something. I'd said that Obama has paid less than $10K in birfer fees. Apparently, that's not true. THE PLAINTIFFS ARE PAYING OBAMA'S LEGAL FEES!!!!!

That's just wrong. You ever see that commercial with the girl with the hairy pits? "That's just wrong"??

The deck is completely stacked in Obama's favor. And now I find out he's actually paying next to NOTHING in attorney's fees? He has lost a case yet. The courts are awarding him dismissal fees.

That's just wrong. TOO funny.

I meant to say: "He hasn't lost a case yet".

Sorry.

Now I AM starting to feel a LITTLE sorry for you guys.

But I HAVE been laughing non-stop for the past 90 minutes.

One of many, and your extrapolating is very weak. One data point does not make a graph.

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

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.

But then, apparently a million dollars isn't much to Barry.

A Sen. Barack Obama, with a donation of nearly $1 million, and a son of Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi were among the biggest contributors to the presidential campaign of controversial Kenyan leader Raila Odinga.

Officials in Kenya became disaffected with Odinga after confirming he signed a memorandum of understanding with Sheik Abdullahi Abdi, the chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum, or NAMLEF. In the Aug, 27, 2007, agreement, Odinga promised that within six months of becoming president, he would "rewrite the Constitution of Kenya to recognize Shariah as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared religions."

The ex-Odinga officials also stated that, as Christians, they were appalled to see Odinga use tribal violence as a strategy to gain power after he lost the election by some 250,000 votes to sitting President Mwai Kibaki, a member of Kenya's majority Kikuyu tribe.

Odinga called on fellow Luo tribal members to protest alleged voter fraud, resulting in a brutal wave of machete-wielding violence that killed an estimated 1,000 members of the Kikuyu tribe in January and February. Some 800 Christian churches also were destroyed or burned to the ground, without a single mosque being damaged.

Just another pass. You get as much justice as you can afford.

"Obama For America paid $688,316.42 to international law firm Perkins Coie between January and March 2009."

And what was Perkins Cole doing for the president? Do you think they are solely dedicated to birfer cases? He doesn't have other legal issues?

Jiminy Cricket, you're thick. And arrogant. You spend MORE time trying to convince yourselves that you are more important than you are.

The judge in the Keyes vs Bowen case just told you how valuable your case is--worth the price of a dismissal and nothing more.

Hey blkmnkr,

I,by nature am a very peaceful guy and you're right, I DO get where your coming from.I just don't get why my fellow birfers are getting so pissed. You are making salient points, they are making salient points and in the end somebody is going to come out right and someone wrong. There is just no need to get personal. BUT.... your salvos, I must admit, are much more entertaining. Keep up the good work!!

"SYMPHONY IN EBONICS"....genius.

I wonder if the MSM will cover this?

Well, atleast not all the people of earth are under his spell, or nation(whatever).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476677973008511.html#mod=djemEditorialPage

Can you tell ALL THE WORLD whether this was dismissed like all the others BEFORE it ws heard on the merits?

And don't say there aren't any merits...that's for the palintiff to delineate during an acutal trial..if we can overcome the left wing keeping the merits from being heard...rejoicing over judge's rulings like "that's been thoroughly twittered" is shameful

Justice is blind?

Santorajj,

The other birfers take this seriously. I don't. This whole thing is a complete lark for me. If I am honest with myself, I may be paying Linda Starr and a few others back for banning me repeatedly from obamacrimes.com when I asked pertinent legal questions. I'm asking the same legal questions now that I asked then, except back then I really didn't know the answers and just wanted some help in figuring this guy Obama out. Believe me, if he's not NBC, I'll be the first to yell about putting his ass out in the street. I'll come back to this board and personally apoligize to every person I mocked.

But I believe it is the birfers who are being fooled here. Phil Berg does not have your interests in mind. Orly Taitz DOES have your interests in mind, but she's NUTS. And I mean that in a clinical sense; it's not ridicule.

In between now and then, I remain vigilant for the first birfer who can tell me how Stanley Ann Dunham returned to America from Kenya in two days on a commercial airline. I want to know what law compels Obama to produce personal documents to the public. I want to know how Berg expects to argue his evidence, given that I was able to completely dissect them the first time I read them, and I am not a lawyer. When I heard the story about how the PUMAS invented this whole birfer story, that's when I went viral. And that's why a lot of these birfers are cringing every time I post.

dj: "Can you tell ALL THE WORLD whether this was dismissed like all the others BEFORE it ws heard on the merits?"

DJ, Phil Berg's super sekrit case was dismissed yesterday, too. Phil claimed that he was able to try to sell his case, based on the merits, and it was still kicked to the curb.

So you can't claim the story hasn't been heard.

Re: MSM Coverage....

Foget about the MSM, has anyone covered this apart from NativeBornCitizen?

re: The need for Stanley Ann to return from Kenya in 2 days. Why did she have to do that?

Oops, too late, subtract one.

"Yeti, evrport, Allison, don't vote in this thread. "

Yes, why did she have to return?

redkite, Have you not read my questions in the thread about the Kenyan Birth Theory?

Basically birfers claim that Obama's mother traveled to Kenya in the summer of 1961. She wasn't allowed to fly back to American in time to have her baby, so she bore Barack Jr. at Coast Provincial Hospital on August 4, 1961. Then she bolted the hospital and, in less than 48 hours, flew from Nairobi to Cairo to Rome to London to NYC to San Francisco to Honolulu. THERE WERE NO DIRECT COOMERCIAL FLIGHTS in 1961. She then arrived in Honolulu on 8/6/61 in time to post two fake birth announcement in local newspapers.

People who believe in Obama's Kenyan birth must swallow this canard, and they must also explain how she did it without a passport. State Department records show she didn't apply for a passport until 1967.

Back in October, when I was on the fence, I agitated for someone to get the State Department records. They got them, but since the records didn't show a 1961 departure from the United States, the records were discounted as invalid. It was clear she'd gone to Kenya; the missing passport was an inconvenient hanging thread.

"She then arrived in Honolulu on 8/6/61 in time to post two fake birth announcement in local newspapers."

Why? Why did she have to do it in person?

My home town paper printed birth announcements the same week my child was born, but 3500 miles away?

"and they must also explain how she did it without a passport. State Department records show she didn't apply for a passport until 1967."

She was married to a British Passport carrier and could easily traveled under that passport. You should look up British Passport rules.

My mother, aunt and grandmother *never* had their own passports and traveled extensively. My mother only recently got her own passport, only because she is a widow.

So...

- Who is reporting this apart from NativeBorn

- She DID not need to get back to Kenya in 2 days as you claim

- She DID not need her own passport

Ok, redkite, suppose she had someone else post a fake announcement for her. Why? That shows uncommon foresight, doesn't it?

Additionally, birth announcement usually come from hospitals, not common citizens. (I know, I know, what about home births?)

I'll give you reasonable doubt on that one.

But not on the passport thing. You mom or aunt or whomever may have been married to a passport weenie, but Stanley Ann Dunham was not. It defies credulity that any American doctor would allow an 18 year old pregnant woman to endure a long battery of painful immunization shots (several weeks worth) in order to travel to Africa in the first place. To say she traveled there without a passport and was able to get back into America from Africa without a passport borders on insanity. There isn't a shred of proof it happened. You are arguing TOO many 'ifs'.

Look, redkite, rather than go thru these wild stretches of imagination, lets boil the argument down to its legal underpinnings.

We're in court. What proof of a Kenyan birth will Berg offer? The Shuhubria affidavit? Any decent lawyer would get that document thrown out as hearsay. Berg would have to bring Sarah Obama from Kenya to testify directly.

Suppose he does this? What's she going to say? She's going to say Obama Jr. was born in America, exactly like she said on the part of the tape that Berg edited.

But suppose she says Obama was born in Kenya.

Obama's lawyers subpoena Dr. Fukino and Dr. Okubo. Both of these DOH officials carry the full weight of law in the State of Hawaii. They will testify that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Who is the court going to believe?

Think like a lawyer for a minute. Maybe you'd stop getting your asses kicked in court.

"To say she traveled there without a passport and was able to get back into America from Africa without a passport borders on insanity."

She was a dependent on Sr's passport. Perfectly legitimate and very common (even today) for British Subjects and their spouse's to travel on one passport.

Would a student in the 60's 'go to the man, pay him and get violated with questions and photos' or perfectly legally travel under her husbands after a quick trip to the British consulate with the marriage certificate?

I guess you do not know Stanley Ann very well.

"I guess you do not know Stanley Ann very well."

I don't know her at all. But I know how the law works.

If it comes down to a question between Sarah Obama's word and Dr. Fukino's word, Dr. Fukino is going to win in court. She is a government SME. Sarah Obama is an old lady with a faulty memory. That's how the lawyers will spin it.

redkite,

Here's something else. Are you suggesting that traveling on her husband's passport would expunge all records of her international travel from U.S. databases?

The State Department issued her passport in 1967. There is no record of international travel for Stanley Ann Dunham before 1967.

So she just eased into and out of America, a white woman, on her African husband's passport. In 1961? In America? And nobody took notes or asked questions?

Did you know that the State Department revoked Paul Robeson's passport without comment in the fifties because he traveled outside the U.S. and made critical comments about her? He was a black guy and an unrepentant communist.

This may answer my question earlier today about institutional standing:

California Judge Ruling in Keyes’ Lawsuit on Obama Qualifications

March 13th, 2009

The decision says, “Defendants contend that Election Code sec. 6901 requires the Secretary of State to place on the ballot the names of the candidates submitted to her by a recognized political party and that she has no discretion to override the party’s selection. The Court finds that the First Amended Petition fails to state a cause of action against the Secretary of State…*Federal law establishes the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice President. That procedure is for objections to be presented before the U.S. Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15.”*

http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/03/13/california-judge-ruling-in-keyes-lawsuit-on-obama-qualifications/

I was wondering if any judge had remarked this way.

Ack, I'm in the wrong thread with that. Sorry.

"I guess you do not know Stanley Ann very well."

"I don't know her at all. But I know how the law works."

I was drawing your attention to a 'free spirited student in the 60's'. i.e. Take the cheapest route that required the least effort.

From your change in subject, I assume you agree that it is plausible she could have legally traveled to Kenya without needing her OWN passport.

"If it comes down to a question between Sarah Obama's word and Dr. Fukino's word, Dr. Fukino is going to win in court. She is a government SME. Sarah Obama is an old lady with a faulty memory. That's how the lawyers will spin it."

Two questions embedded here, rolled up together.

I do not think, it would not be a case of Dr. Fukino's word vs. Sarah's word.

I do not think Sarah's testimony would hold up. Old women, suspect translation etc. Any 1/2 component lawyer would run her ragged if she were ever to take the stand. I do not think she would take the stand though. No one wants to make an old grandmother cry, regardless on what side of the bar you are.

I find Dr. Fukino's statements thus far very astute and quite clever. I would love to see her in the stand, but again I do not think if a case was tried she would be placed on the stand. Neither side would call her. Her statements are on the record and I believe accurate.

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

Super - no indication what is on the certificate.

Long before she would be called, discovery would have obtaining the long form version and answered all of our questions, making Dr. Fukino's statement moot.

So you're saying discovery is the intent of all this? What are you going to do when the long form you seek turns out to be the same COLB that he posted on his fightthesmears site?

And what, do you suppose, are the chances of getting past standing and onto discovery?

BTW, you DO realize I am going to go back and check to see if B.O Sr. left the United States in summer 1961 and returned after Aug 4, 1961? I'd only checked Stanley Ann's records prior to this. That will put your theory about traveling on her husband's passport to rest in my mind. It's a good point, and one I hadn't considered.

Here is the other ass whipping your birfers took this week. Note that Berg admits that he got a chance to argue his case:

(Washington, DC – 06/11/2009) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama's lack of Constitutional "qualifications/eligibility" to serve as President of the United States and his cases that are still pending, Berg vs. Obama [2 cases – 1 under seal] and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, et al announced today that United States Attorney General Eric Holder refused to prosecute President Barack H. Obama for Obama illegally running for and holding the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois because he was Constitutionally ineligible to be a U.S. Senator.

A False Claims Act [FCA] case is when a person has knowledge that another party has obtained money from the Government based on a false claim. In this instance, in order to be a United States Senator, you must be a United States Citizen for nine [9] years. Obama is not a United States Citizen and therefore, usurped the Office of U.S. Senator for Illinois and obtained payment from the U.S. Department of the Treasury based on his false statements that he was a U.S. Citizen and constitutionally eligible to serve the position of United States Senator.

Berg said, “What a miscarriage of justice! At a closed door hearing on June 9, 2009 because of the status of the “sealed case,” sealed because of the nature of the case, that being a “Qui Tam” or FCA [False Claims Action] case, the Attorney General through his representatives refused to proceed with the prosecution of Obama for fraudulently serving as a U.S. Senator from Illinois for 3 ½ years. [FCA cases are usually used in Medicare/Medicaid fraud cases]”

Berg continued, “I presented overwhelming evidence that Obama was ineligible to be a U.S. Senator and therefore, Obama fraudulently received a salary and benefits of nearly $1 Million Dollars.

Since the case was ‘Dismissed with Prejudice’ it is now ‘Unsealed’ and the record is open for review. The case, Berg vs. Obama, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 08-cv-1933 and is available on Pacer or our website, obamacrimes.com. I, Phil Berg, will be Appealing this case !”

Berg said, “During oral argument, I raised the issue of a ‘Conflict of Interest’ as Attorney General Holder’s boss is the President Barack H. Obama, so how could they properly review this case? I suggested the appointment of a Special Prosecutor. I also raised the issue that any Discovery used in the Government’s decision to have the case dismissed, which was secured by the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney General’s Office should be turned over to me as the Relator, however, no Discovery was turned over.”

Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution entrusts the Executive, which includes the United States Attorney General, with duty to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. Berg stated, “I am very disappointed that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder through his Staff has failed to uphold his duties.”

Berg concluded, "I am not giving up and am continuing my legal fight to prove Obama is not constitutionally qualified/eligible to be President of the United States. I am proceeding for the 305 + million people in 'our' U.S.A., for 'our' forefathers and for the 1.5 million men and women that have died defending our Constitution in the many wars over the years and the 1.5 million men and women who were injured in those wars,"

More on Bowen vs Keyes:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?cat=177

Alan Keyes comments about the financial sanctions imposed by the court:

“Why should they demand penalties against citizens who are simply seeking the enforcement of the Supreme Law of the Land? It is simply because their persistence runs contrary to the will of a supposedly popular demagogue? This smacks of tyrannical arrogance. That Obama thus signals his intent to bring financial ruin on those who won’t accept his cover-up of the circumstances of his birth is a tactical escalation,” Keyes said.

“As one of the targets of this escalation, I need no more convincing proof of the ruthless disposition so far successfully masked by his empty rhetoric of hope and change. Obviously he means to offer hope only to those willing to surrender their most basic rights. To any who insist on questioning his actions, he offers the drastic change of ruin and destruction. So be it. We shall be among those who learn firsthand the meaning of the sacrifices made by the Founders of our free republic, as they pledged and gave up their lives, their fortunes and the world’s esteem,” Keyes said.

hee-hee-hee!! Pay them fees, Alan!!! You wouldn't want birfers to go around with the perception that the PRESIDENT is paying for his own lawyers, would you?

BEEEEYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAATTTTCCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Read this motion to quash carefully. Try to understand what law REALLY is and what it is not. Obama is NOT trying to hide anything here. The plaintiffs HAVED NOT SHOWN THAT THE INFORMATION THEY SEEK IS RELEVANT TO THE CASE THEY FILED.

4. MOTION TO QUASH OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN, AND 55 CALIFORNIA ELECTORS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER THAT THE DEPOSITION OF THE CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS OF OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE NOT BE TAKEN.

Respondents President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and the 55 California Electors named as respondents move for an order quashing the subpoena by petitioners directed to third party Occidental College demanding access to President Barack Obama’s “academic and housing records.” In the alternative, they seek an order that the deposition of the custodian of records of Occidental College not be taken.

The moving parties seek relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1987.1, 2025.410, and 2025.420. They contend that the subpoena and the associated notice to the consumer were improperly served. They contend that the subpoena is vague and overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

The motion is granted on all grounds stated. Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3 requires that a copy of subpoena seeking access to confidential consumer records be served on the consumer whose records are sought at least five days before service on the custodian of records. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1985.3(b)(3).) If served by mail within this State, this time limit is extended to ten days pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(a). In this case, the notice and subpoena to Occidental College were mailed either the day before or the very same day Occidental College was served. (Woocher Decl., pars. 2-3 and Exs. 1-2.) This is insufficient.

Petitioners contend that respondents waived any objection by failing to object for twenty-seven days. The Court finds this argument without merit. The motion to quash was filed within the period provided for by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410(b).

The Court further finds that the two categories of documents petitioners seek are vague, overbroad, and are of no relevance to this litigation. Petitioners demand access to all of President Obama’s “academic and housing records.” However, the relevance of such records is not established. The issues raised in the First Amended Petition concern the duties, if any, of the respondents to demand proof of natural born citizenship of a candidate for President. Petitioners have not shown that any of the documents sought could assist in answering this question. Petitioners’ argument that they could have sought even more documents is not persuasive, nor is their argument that more specific objection was needed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240(b).

Moreover, this lawsuit is moot as to issues concerning President Obama. The Court on this date is prepared to sustain demurrers to the petition without leave to amend. But even if the court were to overrule the demurrers, the First Amended Petition contains no claims as to which the records sought are relevant.

The motion to quash the subpoena is GRANTED.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16344067

This one the newest lawsuits that is in the works. Charles Kerchner and his attorney Mario Apuzzo have worked hard to the come up with perfect lawsuit that will finish Obama once in far all.

Charles has approached the issue differently by suing other relevent parties:

Dick Chaney is being sued for failure to conduct the Joint Session of Congress properly.

Congress is being sued for failing to vet Obama, insuring he was eligible and ignoring the countless concerns of American Citizens.

The fundemental argument of this suit is to argue to define a Natural Born Citizen as one being born on US soil to 2 US Citizens.

Using this definition, Congress is conduct a congressional hearing using this definition to determine if Obama is eligible to serve as POTUS.

If the congressinal hearing reveals Obama is not eligible, he is to removed from office.

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

3. Why do birthers think Barack Obama is not eligible to be President?

Birthers believe Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen and, for that reason alone, he is not eligible to serve as President. They say that, in order to be a natural born citizen, you must meet two requirements:

You must be born in the United States; and

Both of your parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of your birth.

According to birthers, it does not matter how your parents became U.S. citizens. They could have acquired citizenship at birth. They could have been immigrants who became citizens through naturalization. At one time in American history, a woman's citizenship was that of her husband. A woman became a U.S. citizen automatically when she married a man who was already a U.S. citizen. For you to be a natural born citizen, your parents had to be citizens at the time of your birth, but they did not have to be natural born citizens.

21. If President Obama's birth certificate shows conclusively that he was born in Hawaii, would it end the eligibility controversy?

Definitely not! President Obama has stated publicly that his father was not a U.S. citizen. According to the birthers' understanding of history and law, if his father was not a U.S. citizen, President Obama cannot be a Constitutional natural born citizen, regardless of where he might have been born. If President Obama was born in Hawaii, he could be regarded as a statutory natural born citizen, but he would not necessarily be a Constitutional natural born citizen.

Regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama's presidential eligibility will never be settled or resolved, until the Supreme Court decides whether the U.S.-born children of non-U.S.-citizen parents are Constitutional natural born citizens.

"ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."

— thomas jefferson

jy22077, it doesn't matter what happens. The fact is that the Supreme Court has already decided what consitutes a Natural Born Citizen. Take a look at Perkins v. Elg. That throws out the claim of the birthers that dual-citizenship disqualifies him. They declared someone who at one point held both U.S. and Swedish Citizenship to be a "Natural-Born Citizen". Perkins v. Elg, baby.

You're right on one thing, though. The dilusional right will never believe that Obama will never be elidgable, no matter how much evidence comes up that he is.

The Supreme Court has, on occasion, used the word "citizen" in reference to certain individuals who were either not born in the United States or not born of U.S.-citizen parents. Such individuals were citizens by law or by naturalization, but the Supreme Court has never referred to them as "natural born citizens". In those few cases in which the Supreme Court has declared an individual to be a "natural born citizen", the individual was always U.S.-born to U.S.-citizen parents. For example, in Perkins v. Elg (1939), Miss Elg was declared to be a natural born citizen. She was born in the United States and, when she was born, both of her parents were naturalized U.S. citizens.

"Dick Chaney is being sued for failure to conduct the Joint Session of Congress properly.

Congress is being sued for failing to vet Obama, insuring he was eligible and ignoring the countless concerns of American Citizens."

AAHHHHHHHHH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're kidding, right?

You're suing Cheney because he failed to call for objections to the Electoral College vote? This, despite the fact that the Constition says explicitly that ALL OBJECTIONS HAVE TO BE MADE IN WRITING PRIOR TO THE VOTE? AND EACH WRITTEN OBJECTION HAS TO HE SIGNED BY AT LEAST ONE SENATOR AND ONE CONGRESSMAN FROM THE STATE MAKING THE OBJECTION?

Good god!!! The stupid must REALLY burn!!!!

And you, KYjelli2207, think this lawsuit has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, especially insofar as Cheney hates Obama, but operated EXACTLY according to his Constitutional duties as President of the Senate?

Wowwie wow wow. The tardliness never ceases.

Addition the Perkins case dealt with a citizen who was not the POTUS. That changes things. The courts have never addressed the Natural Born Citizenship definition in terms of a citizen who is the POTUS. A citizen who the POTUS is inherently different from a citizen who not the POTUS because of the powers and abilities endowed to the POTUS.

So- jy22077- what you are saying is that because he is president the same laws don't apply?

I need one of those high paid cheap lawyers.lol So the lawyer chrged 520 bucks to file for a dismissal.But does your draft show the retainer?Maybe the travel charges too?Libtards are getting so stupid they may just have to rename this kind of stupid.Mixing moron and stupid just gets you morstupid.

>>You're suing Cheney because he failed to call for objections to the Electoral College vote? This, despite the fact that the Constition says explicitly that ALL OBJECTIONS HAVE TO BE MADE IN WRITING PRIOR TO THE VOTE? AND EACH WRITTEN OBJECTION HAS TO HE SIGNED BY AT LEAST ONE SENATOR AND ONE CONGRESSMAN FROM THE STATE MAKING THE OBJECTION?

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

Actually, it's not the Constitution, but 3 USC 15 that specifies the procedure for certifying electoral votes, and it specifies calling for objections, "if any". As you noted, any objection is required to be submitted in writing; and the procedure used by Mr. Cheney, using the words "without objection", is well established in Robert's Rules of Order as an acceptable method of expediting proceedings in cases where no objections are expected.

shadowmongoose: "So the lawyer chrged 520 bucks to file for a dismissal.But does your draft show the retainer?Maybe the travel charges too?"

Also, it might be that the case was so ridiculously open and shut that the fancy, high priced law firm assigned it to a first year law clerk? Might that not be the case?

As for the retainer, your guys keep noting that Obama has paid this law firm $688K from January to March. His overall legal bills, like any president, are substantial. He just completed a grueling national campaign for the presidency, after all.

We're trying to estimate the total cost of the BIRFER lawsuits. And since Keyes was a presidential candidate with standing to sue, HIS LAWSUIT WAS THE STRONGEST ONE OUT THERE. Gary Kreep is a far better lawyer than either Phil Berg or Orly Taitz.

So if they only awarded $520 bucks in attorneys fees (which includes travel and expenses, as any attorney would ask in his petition for sanctions), HOW CHEAP HAVE THE OTHER BIRFER SMACKDOWNS BEEN!!!

OBAMA ISN'T PAYING A DAMN PENNY TO DEFEND THESE BIRFER SUITS.

Every time you've asked the "Why is he paying millions to defend himself" you've been implying a lie.

"So you're saying discovery is the intent of all this?"

"And what, do you suppose, are the chances of getting past standing and onto discovery? "

I could be associated to the 'birther' moniker but I am rather more pragmatic than some(most). As much as I would like to see this go to court before 2012, I honestly do not give it much chance. But, that is OK.....

What *WILL* happen by 2012 is that the State Election Boards will have passed eligibility verification legislation. If these very important questions are not raised now, this legislation will not have gotten on the state books.

The concept behind Mario and Charles's lawsuit is really simple. They want Congress to conduct a Congressional Hearing on Obama's eligibility with full supenoa power just like they did with McCain. Congress is use the definition of a Natural Born Citizen (Of course the argument is that a Natural Born Citizen is one born in the US to 2 US Citizens) and determine if Obama qualifies. If Obama doesn't qualify, Congress is to remove him. This hearing is to be in satisfaction to Charle's (And other Plantiffs) Constitional and Due Process Rights.

Of course one of the underlying issues is if Charles has standing to do this. Mario has studied this for long time and believes he can win and establish that Charles in fact does have standing. We will just have wait and see. Regardless of what happens to the case, it will be going to SCOTUS.

Who is Charles Kerchner? What arguments will Mario use to show he has standing? My understanding is that only persons with a direct, tangible interest in the 2008 election, i.e. presidential candidates, have standing. All these arguments about military officers and ordinary citizens having standing have a consistent 100% loss rate in the courts.

redkite: "I could be associated to the 'birther' moniker but I am rather more pragmatic than some(most). As much as I would like to see this go to court before 2012, I honestly do not give it much chance. But, that is OK.....

What *WILL* happen by 2012 is that the State Election Boards will have passed eligibility verification legislation. If these very important questions are not raised now, this legislation will not have gotten on the state books."

Redkite, I will relieve of the burden of my viciously acerbic tongue, inasmuch as you really have a clear view of what's going to happen in these birfer cases. Verification legislation will get a little tighter.

Consider yourself off my "I told you so, dummy" list.

I believe the way Mario and Charles lawsuit is structored and setup they be able to establish standing. I have listened to Charles many times in interviews. He one smart guy. Obama needs to be removed. Obama has deep-seeded conflicts of loyality with the US and is completely inappropriate to serve as the POTUS.

And for those of you birfers who think that tightening verification means that Obama will show his "long form vault BC", get over it. The government accepts the COLB he posted on his website as bonafide. Not forensic testing needed.

All it means is that he'll show the COLB when applying for candidacy.

SOOOOOORRRRRRRRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY.

Addition, Charles has offered a mountain of evidence which bolsters the argument that the POTUS must be born on US Soil to 2 US Citizens. A citizen who has inherent birth tides to the foreign world has proved true again and again in Obama's case. The Constitutional Safeguard of the POTUS having to be a Natural Born Citizen with 100% US Allegiance has been shown to be foreclosed again again in Obama's case. Obama has shown since that day of his birth that he has conflicted and divided loyalities.

jy22077, "Obama needs to be removed."

You are setting yourself up for one of my patented, King hell "I told you so"s. Apuzzo's fishing expedition will fail. While I admit he is a better lawyer than Berg and Orly, he has a huge monolith of long established legal precedent in front of him. It's not just unlikely he will win this, especially by bringing Cheney into the mix. It's a guaranteed loser.

I challenge anyone who can go in and whip out a notebook computer and show an image of their COLB and expect to move foward in the process. The COLB that Fact Check saw has never been seen again. Obama will continue to be harrassed, dogged, and pressed on releasing his Vault Copy Birth Certificate for the next 4 years and perhaps 8 years. People will not stop until Obama releases his Vault Copy Birth Certificate. Let there be no doubt. This issue will stoked, discussed, prodded, and pushed for the next 8 years. The lawsuits will continue. Obama will eventually release his Vault Copy Birth Certificate.

jy22077: "This issue will stoked, discussed, prodded, and pushed for the next 8 years. The lawsuits will continue. Obama will eventually release his Vault Copy Birth Certificate. "

Maybe he'll release in in his memoirs after his second term. The only thing these birfer lawsuits will produce is monetary sanctions against the plaintiffs.

Have fun paying Obama's legal bills.

It is interesting that they keep asking for more time. Since Mario has included different branches of government in his suit which are adversaries of each other, It may that they are asking for more time because simply don't how to defend such a lawsuit. Mario has been very complete and has really got them between a rock and hard place. It will be curious to see what happens after June 29, 2009.

Oh, and if you want to see the Factcheck COLB, here it is:

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg

jy22077,

World Net Daily verified the birth certificate examined by FactCheck:

"However, FactChecker.org says it obtained Obama’s actual birth certificate and that the document was indeed real. The site discredited some of the claims of Internet bloggers, such as that the certificate as viewed in a scanned copy released by Obama’s campaign lacked a raised seal. FactChecker.org also established that many of the alleged flaws in the document noted by bloggers were caused by the scanning of the document.

*A separate WND investigation into Obama’s birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic.*"

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Photograph of certificate examined by FactCheck and World Net Daily:

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_3.jpg

Redkite:

I was going over Phil's lawsuit. It explicitly says:

"Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half brother and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya," the suit states. "Reports reflect Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth."

Phil is not alleging that anyone other than Stanley Ann Dunham flew to Hawaii from Kenya and fraudulently registered Obama's birth. While your suggestion that she may have had someone else do it is enough to generate reasonable doubt in my mind, Phil's own court pleadings about the matter lead us back to the question of how Stanley Ann Dunham returned to Hawaii from Mombasa, Kenya in two days in 1961, using the commercial airline routes available at the time.

Additionally, Phil made the claim about Sarah Obama's statement in August, 2008. But his actual granny affidavit wasn't filed until October, 2008. Nor was the granny interview conducted until October, 2008. What was the factual basis of this assertion when Phil's first lawsuit was filed? Can you not see how he made the assertion in his lawsuit, then sent Ron McCrae to "verify" his assertions with confusing questions to an 86 year old woman two months later? His original complaint was based on NOTHING. He lied. He'd never spoken to the woman.

If anyone has criminal incompetence in this case it is Phil Berg.

Notice all my posts are removed all the while the troll blackmambo is all over the board.

This site is for propagandists, liars and trolls who support the obama.

Borrowed from a friend, a retired geek.

Obama and 'The Polishing of the Turds'

The legacy of Barack Obama will be written in History as 'The Polishing of the Turds'.

The expression (polishing turds) is used mostly in the Software Industry and means to make a piece of poorly written and virtually unfixable software appear to function by giving it a 'Smart' and Pleasant user interface.

You may have noticed that Barack Obama uses the word 'Solve' quite often.

Obama states he will 'Solve' the Education crisis.

Obama states he will 'Solve' the Economy crisis.

Obama states he will 'Solve' the Islamic Terrorist crisis.

Obama states he will 'Solve' the Health Care crisis.

Obama uses his 'Toothy Smile' and 'Teleprompter Words', in an attempt to 'Polish Turds' that have never worked or never will.

Totalitarian Indoctrination of children in Government Schools, like the Vladimir Lenin 'Turd', “Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik (Marxist/Communist) forever”, is 'Shined Up' and called 'Social Justice'.

Nationalizations of Major American Industries, is 'Shined Up' from the Marxist/Socialist 'Turd' and called 'Saving and Creating Jobs'.

The 'Turd' of Islamic Jihad (which promises death and destruction), is 'Shined Up' and called 'Mutual Acceptance' and 'Working Together'.

The 'Socialized Health Care Turd' is 'Shined Up' and called 'ObamaCare for All'.

When Barack Obama asks his followers, 'Will You Polish these Turds' - they Chant in unison 'Yes We Can'.

carpenturr1: "Notice all my posts are removed all the while the troll blackmambo is all over the board."

That's because I'm telling the truth and you're dropping turds every time you open your mouth.

Carpenturr1, thanks for the plagiarized critique of Obama's policies. It just goes to show that my original assessment of you and yours was spot on correct.

You dislike Obama. You dislike his policies. You are using this birfer thing to try to get him out of office. You don't really believe any of the tenets of birferism. You haven't offered a shred of evidence that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. Nor have you even attempted to debunk my assessments of birfer arguments. You haven't BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. This birfer thing is your best vehicle (according to the fulsome settlings you call brains) to get Obama out of office. It doesn't matter to you if the birfer allegations are true or not.

You are a troll and because you support obama, you are part of the fraud, so you will not be stopped from trolling and attacking posters.

You are a very good representative of this administration.

A troll, a liar, a low life

And yet you still haven't offered a shred of proof supporting any of your ideas.

How's it feel to be getting your ass kicked consistently by me AND the president?

Showing Proof that Obama was born in Hawaii is a necessary but an insufficient fact that Obama is Natural Born and able to serve as POTUS. Obama must provide proof that his father was not Kenyan (Obama Sr.) and was an American Citizen.

Hey folks... rikker sent me. It amuses me that you're even trying to argue his flawless logic and the ACTUAL facts.

Quick shout-out to jy22077... you couldn't be more incorrect. Obama's father WAS Kenyan... there's no proof to the contrary and there doesn't need to be. It's an established fact.

Here's another established fact for you... if you're born in the United States, say... Hawaii... you are a natural born citizen. According to the law as it currently exists, the citizenship of the parents DOES NOT MATTER if you are born on U.S. soil. Hell, I learned that in first or second grade like most people... where were you that day?

You can actually forget the Birth Certificate Issue…..

Sen. Leahy Says Obama Not Eligible

On April 10, 2008, Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was a ‘natural born Citizen,’ as specified in the Constitution and eligible to run for President.

“Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,” said Leahy. “I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate.”

At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.

“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.

“That is mine, too,” said Leahy.

What’s interesting here is that Sen. Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, confirms that a “natural born” citizen is the child of American citizen parents.

Parents — that’s two. That’s BOTH parents.

Every time the words, “citizen” and “parent,” are used by Sen. Leahy and Sec. Chertoff, the plural case, “citizens” and “parents,” is used. The plural case is the operative case.

It is Sen. Leahy’s opinion — his own recorded words, in a formal Senate Resolution and on his U. S. Senate website — that Barack Obama is not a “natural born” citizen, and therefore not eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief, regardless of his birthplace.

Obama had one American parent –singular — his mother. His father was a citizen of Kenya, and a subject of Great Britain.

Obama, himself, “at birth,” was a citizen of Kenya, and a subject of Great Britain — he says so on his own campaign website. This fact introduces the concept of “divided loyalties,” — the reason the founders created the eligibility requirement in the first place — a fact that further underlines Obama’s ineligibility.

The source of this information is Sen. Leahy’s own website. The webpage contains a statement about the resolution; the resolution, itself; the Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.); and an excerpt of Sec. Chertoff’s testimony.

The plural word “parents” is used four times. When used to identify the parents, the word “citizens” is used five times. That’s nine times that Sen. Leahy, on his own website describes the eligibility requirement. There is NO PLACE in any of these four documents where the singular case of “parent” or “citizen” is used.

Obama is a co-signer of this resolution. So, I guess he too agrees that one needs two American parents to be eligible for POTUS — except he doesn’t care — after all, he’s the Obamamessiah. Rules don’t apply to him. Same kind of thing he has/is doing with Inspector Generals (Americorps).

I went to get my passport the other day. I presented a document that did not have a doctor's signature or hospital on it, though it listed the city of my birth. I guess the hospital where I was born would have a detailed form with all kinds of data on it, none of which would be needed to prove my citizenship. I got my passport. In fact, I used this same document to get my drivers license and my mother as a child used it to register me for kindergarden.

Now, I guess there is a remote possiblity that I am actually the illegitimate spawn of two aliens who crash landed in Lincoln, Nebraska and my mother helped cover up the whole thing since she's some member of a secret society that I remain to this day unaware of. Until I see evidence though, I'm going with what the document says, much like how I go with the document that Obama has produced. In the western system of law, the burden of proof lies on the accuser. One cannot make wild allegations and expect a court system to facilitate a fishing expedition. You need evidence. So far, those that allege that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii have produced conjectures that barely pass the smell test because they are usually of the form "Well she could have travelled to Africa this way" or "someone could have planted those birth notices somehow" If you want the public, let alone a court, to take your claims seriously, you should find travel documents, witnesses who will testify to Obama's birth under oath, immigration papers, etc and make a compelling case that leaves no doubt to a Kenyan birth.

Of course, birthers don't want to do that. They want a magical means of undoing the results of the previous election. Such a sentiment is anti-democratic, unconstitutional, and not going to happen.

PS, I await when the birthers will actually deal with the damage done to the constitution by the Great Usurper Charles Curtis.

Well the the big question what Obama used to get a passport? He could not have used the COLB posted online or what Fact Check because it didn't exist. Obama's COLB only exists from 2007 On. What did Obama use to get his passport?

rikker you seem welleinformed.AmI correct tosay this whole case is now over ?

"Well the the big question what Obama used to get a passport? He could not have used the COLB posted online or what Fact Check because it didn't exist. Obama's COLB only exists from 2007 On. What did Obama use to get his passport?"

*Gasp* *Shock*... Wow, I don't know, could it be he had ANOTHER COLB when he applied for his passport in the early 1980s? (Or an equivilent document?) And that the 2007 document was acquired by the campaign as, you know, proof of who he was for his campaign lawyers, DNC lawyers, and anyone else who might have mounted a challenge? And that maybe Obama might not want to just give his one document to his campaign and just request a new one so others could have copies? The horror. The subterfuge. The secrecy.

No can't be, he must have been born in Kenya. Which was so well hidden that no one can find a single document that would even suggest he wasn't born in Hawaii. But that's all part of the master conspiracy dating from 1961 because Stanely Ann Dunham and some very powerful and sinister forces plotted this so that her bi-racial son could usurp the Presidency some 47 years later. Because people would go to all that trouble for half a century for unspecified but clearly sinister reasons.

Have I given you birfers my daily "I TOLD you so"? No? Well here it is:

I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!

Nyuck! Nyuck!! NYUCK!!!!

Cool, now bring on the sanctions!

Oh, my birfer friends!

You have yet to provide a SINGLE shred of evidence against Obama!

-You need discovery to "prove" your case. Well, that fact alone shows that you have NO evidence. Nada. Zilch.

-You rely on non-Constitutional arguments to "support" your "theory" about the definition of NBC. How sad is that! I DARE any of you birfers to support your "definition" of a NBC using the CONSTITUATION. You can't. It isn't possible. So, you dig up some guy's book on the issue, and claim that the framers of the Constitution must have read that guy's book and agreed with him. How unfortunate that the framers of the CONSTITUTION didn't think to quote or even refer to de Vattel. Why didn't they? Because they were not forming a Constitution based on other countries laws.

-If this were indeed the "greatest Constitutional crisis in American history", don't you think the government would do something? After all, only Congress can remove a sitting POTUS. These lawsuits are meaningless. And, they are OBVIOULSY frivolous...or a court would hear the case. How many cases have been heard. Hmmmm, let me think....ZERO, NADA, ZILCH!

-I an appreciate that you would want a POTUS that you dislike out of office. I think some birfers are motivated by racism, but certainly not all. I wanted Bush out of office...through Constitutional means. I didn't make up some ridiculous conspiracy theory to obtain what I hoped would have happened to Bush (impeachment). And I didn't donate $$$$ to support greedy lawyers who won't even give you an accounting of how they have spent your donations. Talk about a lack of transparency!

- There comes a point when you birfers have to admit that this conspiracy has nothing to do with the Constitution. It has to do with your desires to remove a POTUS that you dislike. How do I know that the birfers have no Constitutional motivation? I know because you are trying to over-ride my Constitutionally supported vote. You want to nullify the results of a Constitutionally legitimate election.

-One suggestion. Rather than waste your time on a conspiracy that is going no where and never will, why don't you work on writing to your gov representatives about issues that matter. I suspect most of you are Republicans. I am not. But, the economy and foreign policy affect us all. Try spending some of your energy on real issues.

Wow, still no "proof". I thought the birfers had this in the bag! I guess not.

They can't produce what doesn't exist, Silly!!