[STARWISE]

Someone please explain to me the legal imperative and judicial and ethical propriety of taxpayer funds via the work of US attorneys being expended to defend a potus, when the cause and premise of the lawsuits were initiated when the subject was but a candidate, legally worthy of verification of eligibility.

[STARWISE]

~~PING!

[butterdezillion]

It’s the same reason why Saddam Hussein charged the widows for the bullets with which Saddam executed their husbands.

The bills we should be paying are the costs for the FBI to do their job of catching criminals.

See http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/

[hondact200]

I stumbled upon this letter on Saturday. Conressman Bobby L. Rush wrote a letter on January 11, 2010 regarding Bararack barry Soetoro finacial transcripts being released from Occidential College, Barry attended OC on through financial assistance as a international student from Indonesia. I accessed the letter at www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?letter_id=4501135561

[Dryman]

“FREE THE LONG FORM!”

[jwparkerjr]

If he's spending one penny more than the $10 or so it would take to bring all of this to a conclusion, one way or the other, then it's because he has something to hide. Once he spent $11 every penny after that is just further proof the pressure should not stop.

In a country where an subdivision homeowners’ association can foreclose on someone’s house, homesteaded property, because they haven't mowed the yard, or failed to paint it in an approved color scheme, or insist on flying an AMERICAN flag, it's pitiful that the President of the United States can thumb his nose at proving his eligibility.

[ncfool]

What was this Houston Texas newspaper trying to tell us back in June 2008 when it ran this masthead on their site?



Why during the election did this web site owner feel threatened enough to immediately pull the web site down frm the internet?

[Stosh]

So Ms. Mencimer spends 1,277 words on an article entitled “What’s Obama’s Birther Legal Bill?”, and so far as I can tell, she never answered her own question.

Hey, Stephanie, here’s another question you can avoid answering: “What’s the name of the doctor who attended Obama’s birth?”

[stephenjohnbanker]

Just add this to the 10,000 OTHER laws broken by this administration.

[wintertime]

I am surprised that Mother Jones is bring up the subject. By doing this they generate curiosity about his eligibility. ( Hm? Why would they do that?)

[FrankR]

"During Obama's 2008 run for the White House, his campaign and a host of other credible sources repeatedly debunked the conspiracy theory that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and was thus ineligible to serve as president. "

"Credible sources?" His campaign, a "credible source"? Nothing has been debunked, only side stepped. Hawaii officials swear they have "seen" his birth certificate...well, we all have, but it's a worthly piece of forgery which is NOT the long form and proves nothing.


"But this failed to quell the "birther" movement, whose acolytes have filed more than 60 civil lawsuits challenging the president's citizenship. None of these suits have gone anywhere in court."

Where's there is smoke, there is fire...the mere fact that over 60 lawsuits have been filed, proves that. There exists "reasonable doubt" that has - for far - NOT been quelled by any of the obamaland attorneys and their "proof"...which is mostly lip service.


"But birthers say that's because Obama has unleashed a phalanx of powerful lawyers to silence them—spending $1.7 million in the process, according to WorldNetDaily (WND), an enthusiastic online promoter of the birthers' cause."

This, coming from "Mother Jones"...'nuff said.


"Given the sheer number of cases, it seems plausible that the president and the government may have been forced to devote real resources to their defense."

Then why doesn't the obamaTATOR produce some proof and stop this further burden on the courts?


"But in fact the opposite may be true: The birthers' own copious legal bungling could wind up costing them more than obama will have to spend defending himself. "

Wait...what exactly is obama defending himself from? Illegally witholding documentation to prove his eligibility as president. So far as I know, refusing to show one's birth certificate is NOT a crime...especially not one worthy of spending over a million dollars to HIDE.

But it is against the law and the Constitution to serve as the U.S. President without being a natual born citizen, and that is all the "birthers" want proven. These same people being labled as "birthers" were required by government and local officials at one time or another to show THEIR birth certificates...I'm 64 and recently had to show mine to sign up for Social Security.

So if the rest of us are required by governments to show OUR birth certificates, doesn't that then make the government a "BIRTHER" TOO? "

The old dem/liberal/progressive/populist/socialist double standard at full beam across the land.

I urge all those planning to attend the next Tea Party gathering in D.C. to make a reduced copy of your birth certificate...about the size of a drivers license, get get one of those I.D. lanyards at the local office supply, and proudly wear your birth certficate around your neck at the next gathering...with the slogan, "Hey, obama, we'll show you ours if you'll show us yours".

[Trod Upon]

Let me get this straight...they make a blanket denial of 1.7 million and then fail to give the “correct” figure? What is the denial based on? Do they concede he’s spent even a penny on the issue? Not as far as I can tell. Get serious.

[DaGman]

I’d like to know why is it that after 60+ suits that go no where, people are even being allowed to file these frivolous suits and waste taxpayer money over a lost cause that never was.

[Candor7]

For all her buster,Stephanie Mencimer has obfiscated and dodged the question as to why Obama has spent 2 million dollars defending these cases instead of producing a true certified copy of his Certificate of Birth Long Form? That only coasts about 50 bucks.

Why spend 2 million when all Obama needs to spend in 50 bucks, Eh Stephanie?

WELL STEPHANIE, I AM WAITING FOR AN ANSWER!

Conclusion: Obama spent 2 million because his defacto birth is nnot in the United STates of America as required by Article II of the Constotution. What else could one logically conclude, eh?

Stephanie is 2 cards short a dick,,,,eerrr deck!!!!

[john mirse]

Ergo, WND concluded, Obama must be devoting that entire $1.7 million to crushing birthers in court. This is a ridiculous claim: Even after an election is over a presidential campaign has plenty of need for lawyers as it winds down operations and meets campaign finance law requirements.

******

I found the above statement interesting.

I wish the author would explain in more detail about the work that high-priced lawyers would need to do for Obama AFTER the campaign was over, and why the high-priced lawyers would present such big bills to Obama or to his campaign after the campaign was over. Just food for thought.

[john mirse]

A US District Court judge dismissed the "frivolous" case and reprimanded the 83-year-old lawyer for filing it. Nonetheless, Hemenway appealed, prompting Bauer to send him a letter warning that Obama would seek sanctions if he pursued the matter.

******

I'm not sure if it was this case or another case, but, as I recall, Obama's lawyers threatened to have the anti-Obama lawyers pay the Obama's lawyers fees if the anti-Obama lawyers did not drop the case.

I don't know what happened, but it would have been interesting to see the amount of the bill that the pro-Obama lawyers would have submitted to the court.

I bet the bill would have been a lot more than the $10 dollars that it would have cost Obama to get his long form birth certificate from Hawaii. With the public display of that $10 birth certificate, Obama could finally put this Obama birth certificate issue to rest.

[john mirse]

But in fact the opposite may be true: The birthers' own copious legal bungling could wind up costing them more than Obama will have to spend defending himself.

*******

I believe that Obama is a liar and a fraud because he won't release his Hawaii long form birth certificate and his college records.

That being said, it is sad that Obama has forced American citizens to spend thousands of dollars in court so that they can examine a long form birth certificate that Obmaa can release publicly or get a copy of for the huge sum of around $10.

What a sad president this President Obama.

[john mirse]

During Obama's 2008 run for the White House, his campaign and a host of other credible sources repeatedly debunked the conspiracy theory that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and was thus ineligible to serve as president.

*******

I find statements like the one above fascinating.

That is, I wonder how people can be so positive that Obama was born in Hawaii---or any where else---if they have not seen Obama's Hawaii long form birth certificate that has the doctor's signature and the hospital name.

However, if the people mentioned above have been allowed by Obama to see his Hawaii long form birth certificate, then why can't the rest of America see it?

My theory is: None of the people mentioned in the statement above have seen Obama's long form birth certificate, and so there is no way they can know for sure where Obama was born.

[john mirse]

During Obama's 2008 run for the White House, his campaign and a host of other credible sources...."

******

Is the writer unbelievably claiming above at the beginning of the article that Obama's campaign is a CREDIBLE SOURCE that proved that Obama was born in Hawaii?

Do I start laughing now or wait until later?

Obama's campaign a credible source? Yeah, right.

[jamese777]

A majority of Obama eligibility lawsuits do not even name Obama as the defendant. For example, of the 7 lawsuits that made it to the US Supreme Court for justices’ conference there was: (1) Berg v Obama (Obama’s lawyers chose not to submit a brief to Justice Souter); (2)Craig v US (did not name Obama as defendant); (3)Donofrio v Wells (did not name Obama as defendant); (4)Herbert v Obama et. al (Obama presented no defense in the Federal Court for Middle Florida or at the US Supreme Court); (5)Lightfoot v Bowen (Obama not named as a defendant); (6)Schneller v Cortes (Obama not named as a defendant); and (7)Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Obama not named as a defendant).
There is no legal expense when you are not named as a defendant.
As far as I can tell, Obama has had attorneys for 3 out of 64 eligibility lawsuits: Berg v Obama, Holliser v Soetoro and Keyes v Bowen. Since none of these lawsuits has gone to trial and have been dismissed, the legal expenses are minimal.
Once the Chief Justice swore Barack Obama in, the Justice Department handles all legal issues for the president. There appear to be an additional seven lawsuits in which Justice Department attorneys filed briefs.
When somebody sues you, you have to respond.
But even at the state court level, most of the suits do not name Obama personally. A few more examples of Obama eligibility suits that do not name Obama as the defendant: Ankeney et. al v Mitch Daniels, the Governor of Indiana (Strange bedfellows suit: the Republican Attorney General of Indiana defended the Governor and Obama); Beverly v FEC; Brockhousen v Andrade; Broe v Reed; Connerat v Browning; Constitution Party v Lingle, The Governor of Hawaii; Cook v Good, Marquis v Reed...on and on I could go...

[Non-Sequitur]

Someone please explain to me the legal imperative and judicial and ethical propriety of taxpayer funds via the work of US attorneys being expended to defend a potus, when the cause and premise of the lawsuits were initiated when the subject was but a candidate, legally worthy of verification of eligibility.

All of the cases mentioned in the article were filed after Obama was sworn in. The U.S. Attorney's Office represents the president in any civil matters.