Posted on 12/26/2009 6:59:53 AM PST by westcoastwillieg
Obama for America filed its FEC report as recently as October 15, 2009. The receipts as well as disbursements reported, including the $331K+ disbursement over the three months of July, August and September 2009 to Perkins Coie, are those billed to that campaign, not to the DNC or Organizing for America. Try again.
Obama for America and Organizing for America are the same entity. The point is that Obama for America/Organizing for America did not close down and they are not wrapping up a campaign. They’re still in operation. They’re still paying for event rentals, equipment rentals, payroll services, legal services, web hosting, and on and on.
Perkins Coie is their general counsel. Of course Obama for America still has legal expenses.
You try again. You didn’t address post 258.
May be hiring? Um... 69 million Americans already hired him. Nearly fourteen months ago.
You assume that because Perkins Coie filed only 8 documents in the courts, that’s all they’ve done on the eligibility suits? Are you kidding?
Do you think it took an hour to write each of those documents? You don’t think they are researching the law, the opposition and their submissions, and tracking all the other cases, meeting with DOJ lawyers, communicating with Obama as their client and/or his designated White House staff, etc? What planet are you on?
Do you know what a firm like Perkins Coie or Wilmer Cutler charges for a young associate’s time, never mind a senior partner? $10K or $20K a month would be reasonable attorney fees for a major candidate’s presidential campaign. In excess of $100K per month is not by any stretch reasonable, if serving as general counsel is their only role. I would not argue that their fees are unreasonable, but let’s call them what they are: expenses to avoid any close scrutiny of Obama’s eligibility to sit in the Office of President of the United States. To that end, this is chump change.
What do lawyers have to do with event rentals, payroll services, web hosting, etc. Each and every one of those is itemized and paid for separately in the reports. The $331K reported to the FEC on October 15, 2009 was ONLY for Perkins Coie over a three month period which began 8 months after the election.
You seem unable to explain how the legal expenses for Obama for America or its successor managed to pay only $1M for legal expenses from January 2007 up thru the November 2008 election, when activity relating to the campaign is most intense, but $1.7M in the 11 months AFTER the election.
I appreciate your stretching for your guy, but you have yet to provide the rational explanation requested for the enormous discrepancy in legal expenditures, both between McCain/Obama post-election and especially between Obama pre- and post-election.
New York Slimes white-wash any connection Sutton-Soetoro, NOT a word about the usurper!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/nyregion/28percyreax.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EcC0QAd0Ug
Not a word mentioned about these enablers,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIVO8MZYXo8
admitted forgeries
Do you have a college education? Your reading comprehension is pathetic.
I never said any of those miscellaneous services were legal expenses. I said they were expenses paid for by Obama for America after the election because it is still in operation.
Well of course Perkins Coie had activity related to those filings. But to think that it cost anywhere close to $1.7m is ludicrous. And in that three month period that you mention they did not represent Obama in any eligibility cases. So those legal fees were likely for legal services as general counsel.
Yes, I explained the discrepancy. Read it again.
Resorting to insult now, are you? Talk about pathetic!
You didn’t esxplain a thing. Not a thing. And that is because you can’t.
It is not true that Perkins Coie did not represent Obama in any of the eligibility suits during that 3 month period. You are simply wrong. Not for the first time, either.
How is your bringing up those other expenses relevant? You raised them merely to obfuscate in the absence of a rational explanation for an enormous discrepancy in legal expenditures between the lengthy pre- and shorter post-election period.
You don’t think a phalanx of Perkins Coie attorneys were working in the background in the California, Florida and Georgia cases? Are you really that naive? I think I know the answer, you don’t have to reply. In fact, please don’t.
Correct.
I was replying to danamco's analogy that I had made over a year ago (see post #249)before Obama was elected.
danamco used 'being hired' rather than 'have been' hired however, I understood what he meant.
STE=Q
Obama’s people would love to have concerned citizens following every possible thread. But we have Barry's assertion about who his father was, and his claim in “Dreams...” that he has seen his birth certificate, and thus knows that he is legitimate. So unless you represent a group of people wishing to challenge the legitimacy of the marriage of Barry's parents, it makes no sense to question the status of Obama Sr’s marriage to Stanley Ann. It makes as much sense as attempting to discover if Stanley Ann forsook her U.S. citizenship as did so many 60s radicals. To claim that Obama’s legitimacy to the presidency is only valid if his father can be shown to be a bigamist is not consistent with the intent of the founders that the allegiance of the commander in chief be insured, and that there be no legal or emotional ties to any other country.
The best brief on McCain's problem was written by Gabriel Chin, a professor at U of Arizona. Panama was one of a very few countries with U.S. military bases which applied jus soli to any child born on its soil. A case could be made that McCain is a Panamanian citizen. The U.S. passed a non-retroactive bill the year after McCain was born to rectify the Panamanian exception. McCain, it turns out, did provide a birth certificate, which showed that he was born in Colon, not on the Coco Solo base, which didn't have a hospital. His vulnerability squelched any objections to Obama’s jus sanguinis violation, which was just as flagrant. McCain was, after all, a war hero and POW. One could argue, and I agree, that no one would question McCain's allegiances, but running for president is not a right.
Most U.S. citizens are natural born citizens. The illegitimate son of Hugo Chavez, born to a prostitute from Ukraine in San Diego can become a senator, but not president, unless the Jay, Washington, Marshall, Hamilton, Vattel, Waite, Bingham, U.S. Common Law definition of NBC is upheld. He would be a "native-born" citizen by our 14th Amendment, just as Obama has described himself. "Native-born" is not the same as "Natural-born." Our titular president shares his father's dreams of a Marxist Kenya and campaigned for his Marxist cousin, Odinga, supporting the conversion of Kenya, a Christian majority nation to Sharia Law by 2010 during the Kenyan presidential elections in 2007.
Here is one case from New Hampshire. It wasn't settled out of court, but the judge refused to grant standing, in spite of the fact that the case was brought by a candidate for president, Hollander.
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Hollander-Order-7-24-08.pdf
I agree with you that the Senate didn't have the power to make McCain an NBC, and that Obama’s ineligibility is a jus sanguinis and not a jus soli deficit. Neither was constitutionally qualified. That was the strategy. Let Congress decide who was eligible.
But we still pretend to separation of powers. The legal path to the removal of a usurper president has not been tested. Two senators have been removed. If Obama isn't removed, the law suits sure to follow to disqualify any bill he signed are sure to come. He hasn't the executive authority to confirm legislation.
Woman: "Of course I will."
John: "Well I only have $20 on me right now."
Woman: "What kind of girl do you think I am?"
John: "I thought we already established that."
Spending any amount of money to hide what the people that voted for him have a right to see is simply wrong.
Perkins Coie didn’t represent Obama in any new eligibility cases during that three month period of time. If I’m wrong, show me where and I’ll retract. I’ve already documented the only two cases in which Perkins Coie did represent Obama.
For the third time, the point in mentioning those other expenses is to point out that Obama for America is still operating and still has expenses, including legal expenses. So the fact that OFA continues to pay Perkins Coie for “Legal Services” as general counsel is to be expected.
No amount of evidence will convince you otherwise. So I don’t know why you began this conversation. You’ve not addressed (or not comprehended) the key points I’ve offered.
Yes, let’s do stop the merry-go-round.
I believe, and Bill Ayers claims, that Ayers wrote Dreams and loaded it with political spin. We don't know whether the BC Obama supposedly saw was from HI or Kenya, or whether he saw one at all, as he has not released his HI vital records.
In Dreams, Obama (or Ayers) states that he himself is not certain that his parents were ever married and that he didn't dare look into it for fear of what he might find. This shows that on the public record, Obama is not concerned about being perceived as a possibly illegitimate. Recently HI did release a vital record for the Dunham-Obama marriage, so I am convinced it happened.
But an HI marriage would be invalid (a legal nulity) if bigamous under the 1902 Kenya Marriage Act, and the 1948 BNA forbids passing UK citizenship to illegitimate children which would eliminate dual citizenship.
My contention is that if, for example, D’Onofrio’s quo warranto challenge to Obama’s eligibility based on dual citizenship backs Obama into a corner, it will be Obama himself who will use the bigamy of his father as a “get out of jail free” to negate D’Onofrio’s assertion that a person “governed by the 1948 BNA” at birth can't be NBC and can't be president.
Again, if discovery opens up a Kenya birth with proof that meets the FRE, Obama is toast.
This shows that on the public record, Obama is not concerned about being perceived as a possibly illegitimate.
“I agree with you that the Senate didn't have the power to make McCain an NBC, and that Obama’s ineligibility is a jus sanguinis and not a jus soli deficit.”
I never said and do not agree that Obama’s potential ineligibility solely a jus sanguinus and not a jus soli deficit.
Based on Obama’s “in your face” assertion that he fails the jus sanguinus NBC test (or would have us believe that) by claiming to be “governed by the 1948 BNA” I believe he is confident he can't be beaten on that issue due to the apparent bigamy of his parents marriage (negating 1948 BNA) or the confusing mess of Wong Kim Ark (see stupid recent Indiana Appeals Court decision).
Based on Obama’s “to the death” defense of continued concealment of his HI vital records, I can only conclude that an eligibility issue is being hidden and for me that issue can only be a jus soli issue, ie and big legal hint that he could have been and in fact was born in Kenya.
If Herlihy and her firm knew, under attorney-client privilege that Obama knew he was born in Kenya and that his HI vital record showed a home birth reported by grandma, perhaps amended well after the birth, Herlihy at the direction of her firm, would have been keen to attempt to get Congress to throw out the whole NBC formulation under cover of helping McCain with his constitutionally dubious eligibility.
Only disclosure of Obama’s original HI vital records can satisfy my doubts about Obama’s jus soli NBC status.
We are talking about the person being hired (elected) to the highest office in our country??
As his "employer" don't we have the right to know???
I have been asked by an employer where I went to school, the dates attended, and when I graduated; never have I been asked how my education was paid for. If I were asked, I would say it was none of their business and walk out.
Nor would I consider it my employer's business to know who my parents are or whether or not they were married at the time of my birth.
I continue to be stunned at how much some are willing to sell in exchange for a paycheck.
I was replying to danamco's analogy that I had made over a year ago (see post #249)before Obama was elected.
Ok, I see that now.
Giving the benefit of the doubt, I am going to assume that your use of the word “new” in your response was not to be dependent on the what the meaning of ‘is’ is. Because, as you well know, any “new” cases would be handled by DOJ. Perkins Coie is responsible only for a few suits filed before the Inauguration.
That said, I would refer you to the docket for Hollister v. Soetoro. You will note that during the months of August/September 2009 there was extensive activity, including Perkins Coie’s filing of a 6,532 word Appelllees Brief, and receipt of Hollister’s 32 page Appellants Brief and Appendix, together with various motions, letters, etc.
I look forward to your retraction.
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.