All of Obama's Legal Cases

US Courts System ^ | 2/10/2009 | US Courts

[BP2]

338 Total Party matches for selection OBAMA, B
for ALL COURTS

Mon Feb 10 7:57:00 2009

Selections 1 through 54 (Page 1)

	Next 54

Civil Cases
	Name	Court	Case No.	Filed	NOS	Closed
1	OBAMA, B	ilcdce	3:2008cv03169	08/04/2008	440	08/15/2008
Armstead v. HSBC Card Services et al
2	OBAMA, B.	ilndce	1:2008cv04487	08/08/2008	550	09/23/2008
Luevano v. Obama et al
3	OBAMA, B. H.	hidce	1:2009cv00006	01/06/2009	441	01/27/2009
Roy v. Bush et al
4	OBAMA, B. H.	hidce	1:2009cv00041	01/29/2009	441
Roy v. Obama
5	OBAMA, B. H.	hidce	1:2008cv00362	08/11/2008	440	08/27/2008
Roy vs. USDC
6	OBAMA, B. H.	hidce	1:2008cv00424	09/22/2008	441	10/22/2008
Roy v. USA Govt et al
7	OBAMA, B. H.	hidce	1:2008cv00580	12/22/2008	441
Roy v. Obama et al
8	OBAMA, B.H.	hidce	1:2009cv00048	02/03/2009	440
Roy vs. Obama
9	OBAMA, B.H.	hidce	1:2008cv00448	10/08/2008	440	10/27/2008
Roy v. Federal Election Commission et al
10	OBAMA, BARACK	dedce	1:2009cv00014	12/29/2008	550
Gadson v. Obama et al
11	OBAMA, BARACK	nhdce	1:1997mc00024	12/04/1997	0	12/09/1997
WILSON MASTER FILE v. ALL DEFENDANTS, et al
12	OBAMA, BARACK	kyedce	3:2008cv00028	06/10/2008	530	07/11/2008
Becker v. Mukasey et al
13	OBAMA, BARACK	tnmdce	3:2008mc00036	02/01/2008		02/05/2008
Ervin v. Bush et al
14	OBAMA, BARACK	ilndce	1:2007cv00053	01/16/2007	550	01/16/2007
Awala v. Norgle et al
15	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2009cv00079	01/14/2009	550	01/14/2009
HYLAND v. OBAMA et al
16	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv00088	01/14/2005	550	11/25/2005
RIVERA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
17	OBAMA, BARACK	candce	3:2007cv00109	01/09/2007	440
Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. et al v. Bush et al
18	OBAMA, BARACK	nddce	3:2008cv00126	12/16/2008	330
Gleeson v. McDonald
19	OBAMA, BARACK	tnmdce	3:2008cv00146	02/12/2008	440	02/12/2008
Ervin v. Bush et al
20	OBAMA, BARACK	txwdce	5:2008cv00159	02/28/2008	440	03/18/2008
Smith v. University of Texas At Austin et al
21	OBAMA, BARACK	nhdce	1:2008cv00185	05/09/2008	530	06/10/2008
Becker v. Blightler et al
22	OBAMA, BARACK	flndce	1:2007cv00187	09/28/2007	440	10/06/2008
MORRIS v. BUSH et al
23	OBAMA, BARACK	caedce	1:2006cv00195	02/22/2006	530	04/10/2006
(HC) Thomas v. Federal Congress et al
24	OBAMA, BARACK	flndce	1:2008cv00208	09/26/2008	440	12/12/2008
MORRIS v. LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO et al
25	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv00270	02/04/2005	530	04/09/2007
EL-MASHAD et al v. BUSH et al
26	OBAMA, BARACK	flmdce	3:2008cv00284	03/20/2008	441
Bloom et al v. The Democratic National Committe et al
27	OBAMA, BARACK	mndce	0:2008cv00360	02/11/2008	440	03/19/2008
Sinclair v. Obama et al
28	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv00492	03/10/2005	530	04/09/2007
AZIZ et al v. BUSH et al
29	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv00569	03/18/2005	530	04/09/2007
SALAHI et al v. BUSH et al
30	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv00748	04/11/2005	530	05/30/2007
ABOASSY et al v. BUSH et al
31	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv00765	04/15/2005	530
HABASHI et al v. BUSH et al
32	OBAMA, BARACK	ilndce	1:1996cv00823	02/13/1996	440	03/04/1996
Ewell v. Bd of Elect Comm, et al
33	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv00877	05/03/2005	530	04/09/2007
KHIALI-GUL v. BUSH et al
34	OBAMA, BARACK	flmdce	8:2008cv00948	03/20/2008	441	05/28/2008
Bloom et al v. The Democratic National Committe et al
35	OBAMA, BARACK	flmdce	3:2007cv00964	10/11/2007	440	11/26/2007
Herbert v. United States of America et al
36	OBAMA, BARACK	paedce	2:2006cv01055	03/09/2006	550	07/26/2006
RICHES v. BUSH et al
37	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv01124	06/07/2005	530	05/30/2007
MOUSOVI et al v. BUSH et al
38	OBAMA, BARACK	miwdce	1:2008cv01154	12/08/2008	440	01/06/2009
Hyland #228879 v. Levin et al
39	OBAMA, BARACK	flmdce	3:2008cv01164	12/04/2008	440
Herbert v. Obama et al
40	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv01189	06/14/2005	530	04/09/2007
KHALIFH et al v. BUSH et al
41	OBAMA, BARACK	flmdce	3:2008cv01201	12/15/2008	440	01/21/2009
Herbert v. United States of America et al
42	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2008cv01224	07/17/2008	530
GUL v. BUSH et al
43	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2008cv01228	07/17/2008	530
HADI v. BUSH et al
44	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2008cv01232	07/17/2008	530
BIN ATEF v. BUSH et al
45	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2008cv01237	07/17/2008	530
AL WADY v. BUSH et al
46	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv01353	07/05/2005	530	05/09/2007
SAIB et al v. BUSH et al
47	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2008cv01430	08/18/2008	550	09/11/2008
THORNTON-BEY v. OBAMA
48	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv01487	06/13/2008	530
SADKHAN v. BUSH et al
49	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv01497	07/29/2005	530
AL WIRGHI et al v. BUSH et al
50	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv01506	07/28/2005	530	05/15/2007
SHAFIIQ et al v. BUSH et al
51	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv01592	08/09/2005	530
ATTASH et al v. BUSH et al
52	OBAMA, BARACK	moedce	4:2008cv01757	11/12/2008	550	01/08/2009
Towne v. Obama
53	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2006cv01758	07/31/2008	530
SULIMAN et al v. BUSH et al
54	OBAMA, BARACK	candce	M:2006cv01791	08/14/2006	440
In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation

Next 54 ALL of Obama, Soetoro Court Cases on Scribd

[Frantzie]

Victor Davis Hanson at National Review and Stanford University is also a military expert.

Obama is destroying the country they are fighting to protect.

[MaxMax]

The only way to get rid of him is to defeat him in 2012.

I'm looking to 2010 and taking back the Congress and Senate.
Obama will spend the next two years castrated!

[Balata]

Don’t know if you saw this update.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88566

These lawsuits are gradually chipping away at this story and will eventually expose Obama.

[El Gato]

That was the common law meaning, and it is the meaning the US Supreme Court has ruled on.

They have not "ruled" on it. Which is not surprising. The only time the difference between a natural born citizen and one who acquires citizenship by whatever other means, is in eligibility to the office of President. Oh, sure there are time as a citizen requirements for other offices, but in no other case does being natural born or not matter.

The courts have only addressed the matter in dicta, that is in ways not necessary to reach the decision in the cases before them, which all concerned citizenship, not natural born citizenship.

There's only been one other instance where the issue could have come up, that of Chester Aurthur, who either did not know, or more likely hid, the fact that his father was not naturalized until 14 years after he was born. He was not even a Presidential candidate, but rather a Vice Presidential, who, while they must meet the same requirement (since the 12th amendment anyway) do not receive the same level of scrutiny as a candidate for an office "not worth a bucket of warm .." well you know. He'd been nominated in lieu of what his faction of the party really wanted, the renomination of Grant as the Party's Presidential candidate. But then President Garfield was killed and Arthur became President, but only served out the remainder of that term and was not nominated for one of his own. But it was not proved that his father was had been naturalized after his birth, until long after he was dead and gone, although there were suspicions even before he took office as VP.

There have been no other instances where the eligibilty due to the natural born citizen requirement has been in question. Thus, as a matter of law, it's still questionable, based only known and agreed facts, if he is eligible to the office he now occupies.

[trumandogz]

However, I believe all of those would have either been ignorant of any evidence or didn't care to follow-up on a sitting senator running for president.

I cannot imagine that Dick Cheney or John Roberts, who could have prevented Obama from taking office if he were not an NBC, are ignorant of Article II or simply too lazy to follow up on such a constitutional matter.

Moreover, there is no way of God's Green Earth that Bill and Hillary would have not been all over the NBC issue if they even had one shred of evidence that Obama were not a Natural Born Citizen. They would have outed Obama on the NBC question the day after the Iowa Caucus, if not sooner.

And then in the General Election, neither John McCain or Sarah Palin raised the NBC issue. Why do you think that is?

[trumandogz]

He's an atheist.

He very may well be an atheist but that would not disqualify him from being constitutionally qualified to be president.

[DMZFrank]

If your PARENTS transmitted a legal basis of foreign nationality to you that was valid at your birth, than you cannot be a natural born citizen. A citizen, yes. But you would not be natural born eligible for POTUS. That is not a slam but it appears to be what the founders and the statutes intended to prevent a POTUS with divided allegiances.

43 human beings have taken the presidential oath of office. One had a break in tenure, I forget which one. (maybe Grover Clevland) That means millions of capable and GREAT aMERICANS HAVE NOT BEEN PRESIDENT but most of them probably lived meaningful and heroic lives despite that. Don’t personalize it. It was a precaution that the founders saw as necessary to minimize (not eliminate) the possibility of a treasonous POTUS.

[El Gato]

I think the case of the “tribal” Indians illuminates the issue. If an Indian was born of assimilated parents, not formally under the jurisdiction of any tribe, then they were citizens. But if they were “tribal”, they were not, even though born in the United States and even somewhat under the jurisdiction thereof. I think they would have been considered US nationals, but were not citizens. It was only when the tribes were accorded status more in line with states, rather than nations, were all Indians considered citizens.

[nufsed]

If you do not meet the constitutional requirements to HOLD office, you can’t be voted for for that office. That would make your candidacy a fraud and your election a fraud. Any other interpretation is unsustainable because it makes a farce of the law of the land and your holding the office a violation of that law.

[nufsed]

I will donate, demonstrate, write, call e-mail, wear a T-shirt with my birth certificate on it, until the truth comes out.

[nufsed]

Please tell me what Cheney knows and why Roberts isn't pushing for a hearing. There is no excuse for silence when anyone who's been alive for the last 6 months knows about the issue.

Truth is a foundational value in a free society. When we rturn our heads and fail to act, we are tearing down our society as sure as any fanatic or enemy country.

When a presidnet can refuse to make his documents public, he is ignoring that value and is as big a criminal as there is. Hiding the truth is a crime against everyone of us.

[trumandogz]

This Dr. Edwin Vieira person who reference is indeed very interesting. Thanks for bringing his name to my attention. Here are a few things that Dr. Edwin Vieira has written in the not so distant past.

“Their audiences already realize that the official story of 9/11 is, to some extent, a legend—whether there was official omission, or even commission, something is not as it is being represented to be.”

Looks like Dr. Vieira is just another 9/11 Truther.

So now, Dr. Vieira can join the 9/11 Truther Phil Berg and the guy being chased men in yellow suits in his quest to show that Obama is not a natural born citizen.

“Their audiences already recognize that continued, let alone expanded, conflict in the Middle East will be, not merely impolitic, but also illegal, immoral, and just plain stupid—that it will gut and demoralize the Armed Forces, push this country closer and closer to bankruptcy, turn every decent individual in the whole world against the United States, and still leave the region more chaotic and dangerous than it is now.”

Dr. Vieira believes the the War on Terror is Illegal.

“Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are merely symptoms, not sources, of America’s present difficulties. They are not the Strombolis of this country’s political marionette show, but only the Pinocchios. Even were they removed by impeachment and conviction, greedy and anti-constitutional special-interest groups, both domestic and foreign, would continue to pull the top-level politicians’ strings.”

Dr. Vieira believes that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were mere puppets.

“The foundation of the Democrats’ reluctance is that, in order to impeach Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, the Democrats would have to declare the Administration’s actions—such as the incursion into Iraq, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and so on—to be “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. And “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”, not simply because those acts are impolitic or imprudent, but because they are unconstitutional. And if those acts are unconstitutional—and intentionally so, rather than merely the products of thoughtless negligence—then they are also criminal.”

And here, Dr. Vieira advocated for the Impeachment of Bush and Cheney!

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin64.htm

[nufsed]

Regarding your second paragraph. It doesn't make sense to me either. Unless they were all lulled to sleep by the internet posting of the COLB.

I think it was BJ Clinton who fired his first WH doctor when she asked him to read his medical records before she would renew his prescription.

It would have been hypocritical for them to ask for OB's records, but that's not a problem for the heads of the Clinton crime family.

[Frantzie]

We still live in a free country where people can express their views.

You obviously did not analyze his legal writings about Obama’s situation because he is spot on. You know he is right that eventually in probably 6 months or less O is going to have to pony up. His negatives will be pretty high then as the Dems ratings are imploding. Even the media will not be able to save him then.

You are somewhat obsessive. You guys must really be worried about O’s Kenyan BC. If it is not a problem why do you keep posting about it? Enjoy. LOL!

[trumandogz]

Please tell me what Cheney knows and why Roberts isn't pushing for a hearing. There is no excuse for silence when anyone who's been alive for the last 6 months knows about the issue.

When a presidnet can refuse to make his documents public, he is ignoring that value and is as big a criminal as there is. Hiding the truth is a crime against everyone of us.

So it is you position that Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are complicit with Obama in a conspiracy to install an unqualified person as President of the United States?

[nufsed]

Don’t be idiotic. I was replying to your statement and asking you if they did anything.

[nufsed]

On second thought they certainly didn't publically comment on the issue, so I have to ask why?

[nufsed]

Getting more interesting. Can you name any public official or candidate in either party who even mentioned it, except Bill Richardson who acknowledged that Obama was an immigrant?

[mlo]

"She was speaking Swahili on the Berg tape. The interpeter said that she said he was born in a hospital in Mombasa, kenya."

Kindly point that part out. At what time position on that recording?

Because that's not what I heard at all. They clearly, and several times, said he was born in "America" or "Hawaii". Even when the interviewer kept pressing, saying, "I thought he was born in Kenya" and "was he born in Mombassa", the response was no, "he was born in America" and "he was born in Hawaii".

[trumandogz]

We still live in a free country where people can express their views.

Yes, people can still express their views in this country and sometimes when they express their views they reveal themselves to be kooks.

Now, let's review the "views" of a few people:

Phil Berg: It is his view that President Bush and Dick Cheney are responsible for the Terrorist Attacks on 9/11/01 that murdered 3,000 Americans.

Dr. Edwin Vieir: It is his view that the War Against Terror is Illegal and that President Bush should have been impeached.

Leo Donofrio: It is his view that he is being chased by little men in yellow suits.

As for me, if I were walking down the street and a man stopped me and started ranting about the men in yellow suits that are chasing him, I would not believe an another word that he said.

And when someone tells me that they believe that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney murdered 3,000 people on 9/11, I can them a fool and do not listen to another word that they say.

And when I read an article by Dr. Edwin Vieira that says that he believes that the War on Terror is illegal and that Bush and Cheney should be impeached, I do not hold their opinion on any matter in high regard. Instead, I call them a kook.