Log In | Register
Another significant factor is the estimated $1.7 million Obama has spent on court cases to prevent any of the documentation of his life to be revealed to the public.
D.C. court case demands Obama explain eligibility
Seeded on Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:24 PM EST
Article Source: WorldNetDaily News- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (36)
Do you really believe this @!$%#, or are you just seeding it hoping for pageviews?
- 9 votes
#1 - Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:44 PM ESTif obama has nothing to hide why spend millions hiding something?
as this case is filed in the correct venue / DC, it will not be so easily dismissed.
anyway, will make for some fun reading... LOL
- 3 votes
He hasn't spent anything.
It will be dismissed, as has every single other case of this kind. If you care to put money on the outcome, I'm more than willing to take whatever you have saved up.
- 6 votes
Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 1 Filed 01/27/10 Page 1 of 95
http://files.onset.freedom.com/ocregister/news/2010/01/orly2.pdf
- 2 votes
It will be dismissed, as has every single other case of this kind.
last one got dismissed because of the wrong venue "wrong court"
think that will happen this time also? the same thing?
- 2 votes
Yes, it will. Did you happen to read the statement by Judge Clay Land?
When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the Judicial Code of Conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge's rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice.
Like I said, if you want to put money on the outcome, I'll take that bet.
- 4 votes
ROFL! Taitz is trying to claim the $20,000 on sanctions she got slapped with as an injury!
AND she's trying to blame the "convicted, indicted, and admitted forgers" that SHE brought into her other cases on Obama.
The woman is priceless.
- 4 votes
Like I said, if you want to put money on the outcome, I'll take that bet.
LOL
I have stated no opinion, or taken sides on this issue I do however have questions.
like I said / fun to watch. / fun to read
seems people get all upset when you question their messiah
and that makes it even funnier "for me"
if Obama can not take the heat - that is his problem.
When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law.
proving she has no reasonable basis for believing her case is supported by law
is going to be a lot harder than one might think
I have no emotional attachment to this or any issue I do not hate Obama - disagree on some issues yes, other issues no. this is not about Obama to me it is a legal quandary involving the highest office in the country
one heck of a legal and political puzzle, amazing, interesting, dumbfounding, and disturbing all at once, like a train wreck in motion.. replace Obama with any other name and I would still be just as interested in the process. the constitution guarantees that process. is the constitution dead? I say no.
so all I am really saying is this case has been filed
it is in the correct venue this time, and it can not be ignored
if it moves to "disclosure" things will either be settled right there
or
things will get really interesting,,, LOL
those are the current facts
let the show begin :)
- 3 votes
Very entertaining to see you lefties in denial. The truth will come out someday, we'll see who is laughing then!
- 1 vote
The truth will come out someday, we'll see who is laughing then!
It's out.
We're still laughing.
- 4 votes
seems people get all upset when you question their messiah
Don't mistake my confidence for outrageous emotion. I'm not a gambling man, I only make bets I know I can win. How is it, you ask, that I am so confident? Well...
it is in the correct venue this time, and it can not be ignored
Ever heard of standing? I guarantee that if this case isn't dismissed due to jurisdiction, it will be dismissed for lack of standing.
BTW, weimmom, that bet is open to you too. I'll even get Tyler to moderate and make it official. $1,000 minimum.
- 1 vote
The case, brought by California attorney Orly Taitz on behalf of herself, was assigned to Chief Judge Royce Lamberth.
And the nutjobs keep rolling along... someone should tell her and her allies that their 15 minutes of fame are over. Why don't they just be honest and say "Proof or no proof, there is absolutely no way we will ever accept Barack Obama as President of the United States?"
We hates him, Precious!!
- 4 votes
#2 - Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:45 PM ESTUthaclena, your going to be in trouble for insulting Gollum like that!
- 4 votes
More birther nonsense! WorldNet Daily(That bastian of unbiased reporting) tells us about another worthless suit from the birther queen herself Orly Taitz!
LOSER!
- 4 votes
#3 - Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:48 PM ESTAnother lawsuit filed by Orly Taitz.
I think we need to file a lawsuit demanding to see her "long form" birth certificate, proof that she is licensed to practice law and last but not least, documentation that she is a legal citizen of the United States of America.
- 1 vote
#4 - Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:50 PM ESTI'm thinking we need to START with proof that she's a legal citizen.
- 3 votes
Taitz = spud-mothering jackanape! Flipper-lickin' snorkel sucker - oops! that was a skin diver I used to know!
- 2 votes
#5 - Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:55 PM ESTWhy hasn't O'keefe broke the birther story wide open? Isn't he supposed to be the new face of conservative journalism? Why is he messing around in Louisiana, when he could be in Hawaii finding out the "truth"? (heavy sarcasm)
- 6 votes
#6 - Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:57 PM ESTI love how they always toss out the Millions Spent by Obama as proof of their claims. Only thing wrong with that is there is no proof that hes spent even a nickel on this issue. If someones posts proof from a Reliable Source (not the usual Teabagger sites) then I would be willing to change my opinion.
- 4 votes
#8 - Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:16 PM ESTThere aer many reasons why this will never work. Two main ones: Who can bring a Quo Warranto proceeding, and who is considered an "interested party".
DC Code Title 16, Chapter 35 describes the Quo Warranto proceeding.
Subchapter I. Actions Against Officers of the United States.
16-3501: A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.
So far so good. Now we know what a Quo Warranto action is and when it can be brought.
16-3502: The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application, or until the relator files a bond with sufficient surety, to be approved by the clerk of the court, in such penalty as the court prescribes, conditioned on the payment by him of all costs incurred in the prosecution of the writ if costs are not recovered from and paid by the defendant.
Uh-oh. Now we are running into problems. Seems that only person that can issue the writ is the AG or a US Attorney. Is there no recourse?
16-3503: If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs.
Ah, so a private attorney apparently can apply to have the writ issued. Ok, so that is cleared up.
But wait, there may be another problem. According to the Quo Warranto statutes (16-3541):
When a quo warranto proceeding is against a person for usurping an office, on the relation of a person claiming the same office, the relator shall set forth in his petition the facts upon which he claims to be entitled to the office.
Apparently, the person that institutes the writ, either through the AG or US Attorney, must also be an interested party that can also show a claim to the office.
So, please tell me. How in the hell does the ditz from Rancho Margaritaville have a claim to the office of the President?
- 5 votes
#9 - Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:22 PM ESTWho but World Nut Net Daily would refer to Taitiz as "a prominent attorney"? lol
- 2 votes
#10 - Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:06 PM ESTPretty much nobody. "Attorney who is unable to be licensed in any state but California, as she did not attend an accredited school, and who's likely to be disbarred once they get around to it" is a bit more accurate.
- 4 votes
Still waiting for impartial proof of those millions spent.
#11 - Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:25 PM ESTI'm still waiting for a rebuttal to my quoting of the DC Code.
- 1 vote
Still waiting for impartial proof of those millions spent.
I've been waiting a looooong time for that, from many, many people.
- 1 vote
Still waiting for impartial proof of those millions spent
maybe it will come out in court...
and we can all stop waiting
LOL
- 1 vote
Me, I'm waiting. I'm waiting for the judge hearing the appeal on Orly's sanctions to double it again and tell her to pay it. I'm waiting for the California Bar to get off their tails and yank her license.
- 1 vote
Who's waiting? It's been a done deal for a long time...
What's been a "done deal" for a long time? Surely you're not talking about proof that Obama has spent tons of money defending the "birther" court cases. No one has ever provided any proof.
- 1 vote
#12 - Mon Feb 1, 2010 1:19 PM EST Another significant factor is the estimated $1.7 million Obama has spent on court cases to prevent any of the documentation of his life to be revealed to the public. defending himself in spurious cases that have yet to prove a damn thing.
- 1 vote
#13 - Mon Feb 1, 2010 2:07 PM ESTFor your reading enjoyment, Roy.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp
#14 - Mon Feb 1, 2010 5:08 PM ESTFletch... Did you read past the e-mail that Snopes was debunking?
(I've seen this before, somebody posting a Snopes article saying, "See! This proves THIS!" And the actual bit AFTER what Snopes posts are the actual facts which tears apart the original article.)
Or were you trying to support Roy's position?
- 2 votes
I don't see anything in that, that proves Obama spent any money or that proves he was born anywhere but here in Hawaii.
#15 - Mon Feb 1, 2010 6:59 PM ESTAnother significant factor is the estimated $1.7 million Obama ....
The key word here is estimated. Estimated by the same people who believe he is a baby-eating acid-pissing socialist Martian bent on world domination.
- 3 votes
Where are you seeing that, I can't find it on the page I linked.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
