10. We are asked to believe that it's okay to use government lawyers to defend someone for a possible crime he committed before he was elected to office.
11. We are asked to believe that it is ethical for an incoming office holder to sign an order forbidding the relase of any of their documents. 12. We are being asked to believe it is better to look good in the eyes of name callers, liberal shills, and the media rather than pursue the truth.
oh stop..snort!! LOL
In addition to OUR lovely taxes despicably paying for O’s representation by the DOJ attorneys in these cases, Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie (married to Glenn Beck’s new best friend, Anita Dunn) is one of the legal firms Obama uses (Obama For America), which must file quarterly reports with the FEC, as, of course, his campaign never ends.
From the Obama For America FEC report for July 2009, for the time period from April 10, 2009 to June 30, 2009, the amount disbursed for legal services Perkins Coie is:
$291,310
Same period - disbursed to Right Now Technologies for
legal services (Bozeman, MT)
$625
Same period - disbursed to Morgan, Lewis & Bockius for
legal services
$4,250
Cash on hand beginning of reporting period
$9,958,960
Receipts this reporting period
$948,576
Total disbursements this reporting period
$1,987,582
Cash on hand end of reporting period
$8,919,953
http://query.nictusa.com/pdf/843/29934510843/29934510843.pdf#navpanes=0
__________________________________________________________
*snip*
In the case, being handled largely by Gary Kreep of the U.S. Justice Foundation, he recently subpoenaed the records documenting the attendance by Obama, or possibly the student when he was known as Barry Soetero, from Occidental College.
The lawyer for the college, Stuart W. Rudnick of Musick, Peeler & Garrett, urgently contacted Fredric D. Woocher of Strumwasser & Woocher.
“This firm is counsel to Occidental College. The College is in receipt of the enclosed subpoena that seeks certain information concerning President-Elect Barack Obama,” he wrote via fax.
“Inasmuch as the subpoena appears to be valid on its face, the College will have no alternative but to comply with the subpoena absent a court order instructing otherwise.”
Within hours, Woocher contacted Kreep regarding the issue, telling him, “It will likely not surprise you to hear that Obama opposes the production of the requested records.
“In order to avoid the needless expense of our bringing and litigating a Motion to Quash the subpoena, I am writing to ask whether you would be willing to agree voluntarily to cancel or withdraw the subpoena”
Woocher warned, “Please be advised, in particular, that in the event we are forced to file a motion to quash and we prevail in that motion, we will seek the full measure of monetary sanctions provided for in the Code of Civil Procedures.”
Why?
Is it a coincidence that both the Occidental lawyers and the Obama lawyers have addresses at 100 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles? And, that Woocher, selected as a “Southern California Super Lawyer, 2009; practices “political law” — what’s “political law?”
There’s at least 48 legal cases attempting to gain access to various documents from Obama’s past. In this one case, Obama is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to hide his bona fides, and using a “Super Lawyer” to do it. You do the math. Obama is spending millions to hide his past from the American People.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/a-renewed-debate-about-obamas-birth-certificate/2/
__________________________________________________________
Obama Attorney Threatens Distinguished Veteran on Obama Birth Certificate Issue: Why?
Posted by papundits on 04/16/2009
Exclusive by Margaret Calhoun Hemenway
(Editor’s note: Barack Obama’s lawyer, Robert F. Bauer, is threatening a D.C. attorney with “sanctions,” because the attorney is simply requesting that Obama show proof of his birth. No legalizing on our part. No exaggeration. No political manipulation. Just the facts in black and white.
We have the shocking letter dated April 3 . The president of the United States is threatening sanctions – and the word “sanctions” is used in the threat — against attorney John Hemenway. Read on.)
After the flippant dismissal by U.S. Circuit Court Judge James Robertson of the lawsuit to attempt to determine whether Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve as President, D.C. attorney John Hemenway received a letter from a lawyer representing Barack Obama and Joe Biden, his Vice President.
(Hemenway had joined the suit launched by Hillary Clinton’s ally, Philip Berg, the former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania and attorney Lawrence Joyce of Arizona, in an attempt to force President Obama to disclose his birth records, currently being protected against public scrutiny by the Obama legal team at a reported cost of as much as one million dollars.)
The entire letter, written by Obama attorney Robert F. Bauer, states the following (and we note that there is no reference in this letter to an existing valid Birth Certificate for Barack Obama, as opposed to a Certificate of Live Birth, and there is no claim that a valid Birth certificate exists which can be shown to the American people, an act that immediately would shut down this query):
“I represent President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden. I write to request that, in light of the District Court’s March 24, 2009 Rule 11 order in Hollister v. Soetoro, No. 08-2254, you withdraw the appeal filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No. 09-5080. For the reasons stated in Judge Robertson’s order, the suit is frivolous and should not be pursued.
Should you decline to withdraw this frivolous appeal, please be informed that we intend to pursue sanctions, including costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees, pursuant to federal Rule Appellate Procedure 38 and D.C. Circuit Rule 38.”
Mr. Hemenway’s response to the letter was a promise to “write and protest and attack those against the demand that Obama show proof of his birth, and I will continue to do anything I can think of doing that might perhaps deter or injure those who are opposed to “transparency” and “openness” and honesty in governmental operations-all those good and vague promises that Obama threw out in speeches read from his teleprompter.”
Mr. Hemenway added, “The lawyer for Obama, Robert Bauer, has abused his privileges as an attorney, because I can regard his premature (and totally inaccurate) threats to seek some sanction against me as a threat to keep me from performing my duty to my client. It won’t work and he will soon see that it has not worked to intimidate me.”
In his opinion, “many judges and other officials are simply crassly violating their oaths of office. Since I had been in the Department of State and served in Moscow for two years, I am mindful of an expression used by the Russians: “Nada dakazat’ kulak!” (You must show them your fist!)”
Hemenway also pledged:
“…to appeal the slap taken at me (the so-called “reprimand”) by Judge James Robertson who tried unsuccessfully to label our efforts as “frivolous” but who did not have the guts to sanction me under Rule 11.
(This would have given me-and others engaged in this important battle -standing in the Court of Appeals.)
I will do my duty to Colonel Hollister, who technically is a client, even though I never agreed initially to follow the case in the Court of Appeals. The military, as Colonel Hollister’s interest demonstrates, is quite concerned with the basic issue of ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ orders originating from a ‘legitimate’ or ‘illegitimate’ commander-in-chief.
Recall that Judge Robertson never did admit attorneys Berg or Joyce to practice in his court, never had a hearing and never examined evidence because he didn’t seek any. The Judge gave the impression that his decision was predicated solely on ‘blogging and twittering’.”
For the many others who have contacted him and expressed interest in this cause, Hemenway invoked Churchill’s admonition: “If a matter of principle is involved in a course of action, then never give up-never – never – never.” The most important part of that quote is the “matter of principle.”
It was not just a display of the stubborn nature of Churchill. Following that advice, we can see that here, we have a grave matter of principle.
If Obama can break such a basic, fundamental rule of the Constitution, then what is to keep him from ignoring or suspending other basic rights, such as the Writ of Habeas Corpus?
Last, Hemenway points out:
“Mr. Bauer claims his father was an attorney in Vienna who opposed the union with Germany (the so-called “Anschluss”) and promoted anti-Nazi political movements while he was in Austria. He says his father left Austria in 1940. Very few people left greater Germany after 1939, when the war started.
In any event, if Bauer’s background includes such a family history of opposition to anti-rule-of-law monsters, how does he explain his support for this Chicago-styled conspiracy to violate a basic requirement of the United States Constitution?”