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

[trumandogz]

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

There are three possibilities:

A. They are complicit.

B. They are ignorant.

C. Obama is a Natural Born Citizen.

I know the the answer cannot be B.

I know the answer cannot be A.

Therefore, C is the only logical answer.

[trumandogz]

I am sorry, I am not trying to be idiotic or the be a smart ass.

But you have to ask yourself why Bush, Cheney and Roberts did not raise a concern regarding BHO's NBC status.

And again, I do not see Bill and Hillary letting something so obvious slip between their fingers.

[Frantzie]

“People express themselves and they reveal themselves to be kooks.”

Was that an autobiographical comment?

Please provide links to those comments. You seem to have time to be obsessive about how the suit against Obama will get nowhere. If you really believe that then what is the problem?

My guess you know eventually, and sooner than later, we will find out. Based on Hillary taking the Sec. of State job and a few others things I cannot mention, she and Bill have the goods on Obama.

Have a nice night and say hello to your boss.

[Red Steel]

Therefore, C is the only logical answer.

No.

D) Bush not doing something explicitly against Obama probably for reasons unknown. However, he did sign an Executive Order on the 16th of January that could be used to uncover Obama in the future.

And Justice Roberts cannot act until he gets a case with 3 other justices to move it forward. But in both cases, Orly and Berg's that went before him, SCOTUS wrote "before judgement" meaning they will probably take a case when a lower court adjudicates the issue.

[trumandogz]

Please provide links to those comments.

I already provided you to a link to Dr. Edwin Vieir's rants about how The War on Terrorism is an illegal war and the Bush and Cheney should have been impeached.

And Phil Berg's writings on how Bush and Cheney were responsible for 9/11 is well documented as is Leo Donofrio's theory that he is being chased by men in yellow suits.

[trumandogz]

And Justice Roberts cannot act until he gets a case with 3 other justices to move it forward.

Chief Justice Roberts could have sent a message loud and clear to the American people if he had not delivered the oath of office to Obama, not once but twice.

[mojitojoe]

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

He isn’t an atheist, he’s a Muslim

[trumandogz]

And that would not constitutionally disqualify him from being president.

[mojitojoe]

I have to admit, and I don't like it, I agree with you about the 9/11 conspiracy people. Once they say that, they lose me. BUT I truly believe there is something he is hiding regarding the bc. I don't know if he was born in Hawaii, I doubted he was born in Kenya until they sealed all documents there and put a gag order on everyone. Then rahm disappeared to Africa for 2 weeks around Christmas time, very fishy. I still lean toward believing he was born in Canada. Canada all adds up, Kenya has holes in the story.

[mojitojoe]

Complicit, ignorant, afraid to admit they didn’t check this poser out cannot be ruled out.

[mojitojoe]

But you have to ask yourself why Bush, Cheney and Roberts did not raise a concern regarding BHO’s NBC status.

And again, I do not see Bill and Hillary letting something so obvious slip between their fingers.

They got duped. By the time they realized it, it was too late to pursue it without causing ww3. Don't rule out that Bill and Hillary know, that's why he appointed her. They may be the ones that eventually spill the beans. Bill doesn't like obama , that's obvious.

[mojitojoe]

My guess you know eventually, and sooner than later, we will find out. Based on Hillary taking the Sec. of State job and a few others things I cannot mention, she and Bill have the goods on Obama.

Have a nice night and say hello to your boss

DITTO!! It's good that Freepers have stopped leaking info here. Don't give them the good stuff, just enough to make Shauna and her pals keep them off unemployment. lol

[Uncle Chip]

Please provide names, documents, locations, dates, evidence that Barack Obama was ever verified as a “natural born citizen” and thus qualified to be president.

[Uncle Chip]

Is Barack Obama a “natural born citizen??? Yes or No.

[conservativegramma]

ping for later

[AnteMortem]

Sine ira et studio, silent enim leges inter arma.

[AnteMortem]

speak up

[BP2]

> 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.

Please understand that I fully agree with you on this point. However, there is an argument to be made for “political expression” as well. "Political expression" does NOT extend to HOLDING an office you're not eligible for; just running for office. What is the "balance" of ensuring "political expression" while protecting other parts (such as NBC) of the Constitution? That needs to be decided...

Take a look at these two cases (particularly the first) regarding "political expression."

More importantly, within these two cases lies (particularly the second) the LEGAL justifications (but not moral) for DENYING many of the cases against Obama up to this point (I simply cite these cases, I agree with little therein):

FRED HOLLANDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN, and REPUBLICAN
NATIONAL COMMITTEE,
4-30-08
http://electionlawblog.org/archives/Hollander-M2DisFAC.pdf

“KEITH LANCE ET AL. v. MIKE COFFMAN, COLORADO”
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO, No. 06–641.
Decided March 5, 2007
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-641.pdf

[nufsed]

I wish I knew what you knew. As a matter of fact there are other options. They didn't care. They don't want to fight. You see you did not exhaust your options, but you ask me to accept your statement as if it is the final word.

If you don't want to seek the truth, just move on and let us idiots play out our cards.

[nufsed]

The secretary of state of Cal requires the parties to vet their candidates for qualifications. That precludes them from nominating an unqualifed person. If you want to write in an unqualified person that's your business.

"Freedom of political expression" in this situation would not extend to nominating political parties.