Posted on 05/23/2010 10:49:17 AM PDT by opentalk
Obama eligibility lawsuits, Update May 22, 2010, Obama attorneys, Perkins Coie
You have witnessed the veiled attempts from the mainstream media to cover for Obama. You have heard the irrational responses from rabid Obama supporters, heavy kool aid drinkers. And still, with the help of law firms like Perkins Coie and taxpayer funded government attorneys, Obama continues to hide his birth certificate and college records.
Perkins Coie has been busy.
How much has the Obama camp spent on private and government attorneys? Who knows. Who cares. The important fact is that he is hiding something. Something big.
Obama for America, in the quarter ending April 2010, disbursed $ 261,206.69 to Perkins Coie, a law firm that has represented Obama in multiple eligibility lawsuits.
I expected as much from the mainstream ( Marxist) media. What absolutely sticks in my gut is the so-called conservative media.
Rush, Beck, OReilly, Hannity, Medved, Boortz, Ingram, Coulter, Malkin,...and the rest, have been silent. Beck, OReilly, and Coulter were especially insulting.
They are:
1) Stupid
2) phonies
3) Cowards
Since we know that they are **not** stupid then they must be phonies and/or cowards.
Personally, some things are deal breakers. I will never trust these guys again! If they are phonies:
They will sell their talents to the fascist oligarchy and spit shine the jack boots crushing our necks.
If they are cowards they should remember that **NOW** is the time to stand against evil. Because the fascist oligarchy will:
**throw them off the air anyway!
** carry out their threats against them and their families anyway!
** steal their money anyway!
** reveal their deepest darkest most private secrets anyway!
That was his first official act even before signing his executive order to shut down GITMO.
the initial filing in the case was filed at 2:50 am on January 20, 2009, after Congress had confirmed the electoral college vote of Obama but just before he became bound to the Constitution through his oath of office.
It is also the most significant difference between the Kerchner case and all other cases filed on this subject.
First, the filing date and time occurred after the process had completed its course but before he took the oath of office and became bound to the Constitution. This process includes the election, the vote of the electoral college, and Congress’ action on January 8, 2009.
The significant point here is that Obama as a private citizen, and as the President-elect, still had an affirmative obligation to prove himself constitutionally eligible for the office.
from link thread
Obama’s Straw Man Defense - Kerchner v. Obama, Article II, eligibility
thank you, that’s quite disturbing..
--Obama continues to stonewall the release his bona fides to the American People. These documents include his long-form birth certificate, his medical records, passport records, as well as other records that may possibly be relevant, such as records regarding Obama’s possible adoption by his Indonesian stepfather or college application and tuition financial aid records which would reveal whether Obama was ever registered as a foreign student.
Federal Election Commission records show more than $1,650,000 in payments made by Obama for America to Perkins Coie, while the law firm was representing Obama in various court cases which have sought to obtain Obama’s long-form birth certificate to determine if he is a “natural born” citizen
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.
Year-End 2008 Obama for America disbursements to Perkins Coie were: $173,052.52
Amended post-general election Obama for America disbursements to Perkins Coie were: $205,323.00
April 2009 Obama for America quarterly disbursements to Perkins Coie were: $688,316.42
July 2009 Obama for America quarterly disbursements to Perkins Coie were: $270,754.18
October 2009 Obama for America quarterly disbursements to Perkins Coie were: $314,018.06
January 2010 Obama for America quarterly disbursements to Perkins Coie are not yet available.
Now that Bauer is safely tucked away in the White House, Obama has resorted to illegally using Justice Department attorneys to represent him in his ongoing battle to hide his questionable background from the American People.
The use of civil servants to further Obama’s coup d’etat is clearly illegal. Torm Howse, the co-founder, and National Board Director of United Civil Rights Councils of America says the statutory law of the United States Code is extremely clear, even often in multiple ways...
No, he did not. Any assertion to the contrary is based on a complete misunderstanding of the legislative and executive branch history involved. The quoted statement is a demonstrably false assertion that has been debunked multiple times and yet still keeps circulating back.
This all begins in 1974 when Congress passed the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act of 1974, placing the presidential records of Richard Nixon in federal custody to prevent their destruction. The legislative action was intended to reduce secrecy, while allowing historians to perform their responsibilities. The Presidential Records Act of 1978 expanded such protection of historical records, by mandating that the records of former presidents would automatically become the property of the federal government upon his leaving the Oval Office, and then transferred to the Archivist of the United States, thereafter to be made available to the public after no more than 12 years.
Got that? It's Presidential Records, not personal records. Presidential records are defined by statute: “The term “Presidential records” means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, his immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.” The original law, as amended, and the Executive Orders related to it subsequently promulgated by Reagan, Bush and Obama deal only with those records generated in their official capacity as President while they were President. It has absolutely nothing to do with anyone’s kindergarden, baptism, school or other career records. That is a fact.
In January of 1989, Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12667 to clarify how the Executive Office would manage its obligations under the Presidential Records Act. It's stated purpose was as follows: “By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of Executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows...”
Got that? Reagan issued the first Executive Order on this subject. Obama’s later Executive Order on the same subject is very similar to Reagan's.
Now George W. Bush comes along. Rightly or wrongly, he believes Reagan's Executive Order is too generous in allowing records to be accessed. The presidential papers of Ronald Reagan were due to be made public when George W. Bush took office in January 2001. However, in a White House memo dated March 23, 2001, the Counsel to the President conveyed the following to U.S Archivist John W. Carlin:
“Section 2(b) of Executive Order 12667, issued by former President Ronald Reagan on January 16, 1989, requires the Archivist of the United States to delay release of Presidential records at the instruction of the current President. On behalf of the President, I instruct you to extend for 90 days (until June 21, 2001) the time in which President Bush may claim a constitutionally based privilege over the Presidential records that former President Reagan, acting under Section 2204(a) of Title 4, has protected from disclosure for the 12 years since the end of his Presidency. This directive applies as well to the Vice Presidential records of former Vice President George H.W. Bush.”
This instruction to the archivist was repeated on June 6, 2001,before the 90 days had elapsed, giving a new deadline of August 31, 2001. On the day of this deadline, Alberto Gonzales instructed the Archivist to wait a few additional weeks.On November 1, 2001, Bush got around to issuing Executive Order 13233, which revoked Reagan's Executive Order 12667 to replace it with one more restrictive int he access it allowed to the records of former U.S. Presidents:
Got that? Bush replaced Reagan's Executive Order on how the Executive Office would manage its responsibilities under the Presidential Records Act with more restrictive rules. A lot of historians were annoyed, but no one else really cared. The historians sued, parts of Bush's Executive Order were overturned by a court in 2007, and still no one else really cared.
Now along comes Obama. Rightly or wrongly, he believes Bush's Executive Order is too restrictive. He cancels it and releases Executive Order 13489 which substantially restores the status quo to that of Reagan's Executive Order 12667. Note the similarity in stated purpose to Reagan's Order: “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows...”
Again, it's about managing Presidential Records, which are the records one generates while actually President, and has nothing whatsoever to do with any President's personal records before or after he became President. That is a fact. Conservatives are supposed to acknowledge and respect facts.
I love your posts.
How is he managing to get away with this misuse of U.S. attorneys Why are professional attorneys allowing themselves to be used illegally? Is this ethical? Where are their state bar associations?
How in the world do you explain how we know everything about President Bush from conception to present day, yet know nothing more about Obama then we did 2 1/2 years ago.
I think Obama is using this law and other legal (or maybe not so legal) tactics to conceal his private life pre and post election. Except for his stupid autobiography what do we actually know about this man?
Thanks for the history lesson, but Obama is a man not to be trusted. Got That?
I’m confused, but I got it..thanks
He hasn't "concealed" anything that isn't already protected by existing privacy laws. Try requesting Bush's birth certificate and kindergarten records and see how far you get.
Well la-de-da, he hasn't exactly volunteered anything of any substance either.
It seems to me that President Bush made a great deal of detail about his pre-elected private life available to the public. The rest of the details were 'dug up' by a very curious press.
Now we have a President who offers absolutely no information and a press that has only very recently become uncharacteristically incurious.
That wasn’t directed at you FreeperDoll.
lol.. thanks....still learning the ropes...
Obama is certainly using the law to withhold the records you want. But there's nothing mysterious about it. For the most part it's simply basic privacy laws that apply to any of us.
In one of the active eligibility cases, Kerchner v. Obama—
the initial filing in the case was filed at 2:50 am on January 20, 2009, after Congress had confirmed the electoral college vote of Obama but just before he became bound to the Constitution through his oath of office.
It is also the most significant difference between the Kerchner case and all other cases filed on this subject.
First, the filing date and time occurred after the process had completed its course but before he took the oath of office and became bound to the Constitution. This process includes the election, the vote of the electoral college, and Congress’ action on January 8, 2009.
The significant point here is that Obama as a private citizen, and as the President-elect, still had an affirmative obligation to prove himself constitutionally eligible for the office.
from link thread
Obama’s Straw Man Defense - Kerchner v. Obama, Article II, eligibility
--This is to inform everyone that the Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al case has been tentatively listed on the merits on Tuesday, June 29, 2010, in Newark, New Jersey. It may be necessary for the panel to move the case to another day within the week of June 28, 2010. The Court will notify us if there is a change.
The panel will determine if there will be oral argument and if so, how much time each side will have to argue. We will know if there will be oral argument no less that one week prior to June 29, 2010.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.