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

[Red Steel]

Since Ark was declared a citizen by birth, and not by naturalization, ultimately, he could not have been declared anything but a natural born citizen.

Wrong. he's not natural born because his PARENTS were foreigners subject to an Emperor.

Perkins v. Elg defined what is a natural born citizen born is. A person born on US soil and having PARENTS of U.S. citizens.

Wong Kim Ark v. U.S. case did not.

[Red Steel]

You're arguing the dissenting opinion. It is not the dissenting opinions which hold sway in our jurisprudence.

No I'm not. The supreme court in the Ark case never called him a 'natural born citizen'.

[Cyropaedia]

What you don't seem to be understanding is that the Naturalization Act of 1870 only related to NATURALIZATION. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with who was a CITIZEN BY BIRTH.

Wrong. The citizenship clause involves two classes of individuals: individuals that are born here (the first group), and individuals that are naturalized here. And both must actually be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in order to acquire citizenship.

Being born within the United States doesn't necessarily confer citizenship. Rep. Sargent was referring to both groups within the context of the Naturalization Act of 1870.

Here's even more :

"So what was to be the premise behind America’s first and only constitutional birthright declaration in the year 1866? Simply all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States - that is to say - not only must a child be born within the limits of the United States, but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely under its laws. Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as “All persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States.” Obviously he did not have natural allegiance in mind since under common law it did not matter who owed allegiance in advance.

Sen. Trumbull felt the words, “That all persons born in the United States and owing allegiance thereto are hereby declared to be citizens” would be more than sufficient to fulfill this goal. However, after investigation it was found the United States had no authority to make citizens of those temporarily residing in the United States who owed only a “temporary allegiance.” Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, added on March 1, 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except … children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.

Bingham would go on to argue before the House in 1871 that “Dr. [John Emilio] Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended today, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”

Furthermore :

"During the debates of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, both its primary framers, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull listened to concerns of including such persons as Chinese, Mongolians, and Gypsies to citizenship. Additionally, Sen. Fessenden (co-chairman of the Reconstruction Committee) raised the question of persons born of parents from abroad temporarily in this country - an issue he would not have raised if Congress were merely reaffirming the common law doctrine - and of course, the question of Indians.

Sen. Trumbull attempted to assure Senators that Indians were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Sen. Johnson argued that Sen. Trumbull was in error in regards to the Indian’s not being under the jurisdiction of the United States. This must have raised concerns with Howard because he strongly made it known that he had no intention whatsoever to confer citizenship upon the Indians under his amendment, no matter if born within or outside of their tribal lands.

In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather then assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provides the answer, with Trumbull declaring:

The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html

[Cyropaedia]

Here's another excellent legal opinion form the Heritage Foundation :

"From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship

by John C. Eastman, Ph.D Legal Memorandum #18

It is today routinely believed that under the Citi zenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, mere birth on U.S. soil is sufficient to obtain U.S. citizen ship. However strong this commonly believed inter pretation might appear, it is incompatible not only with the text of the Citizenship Clause (particularly as informed by the debate surrounding its adoption), but also with the political theory of the American Founding.

It is time for Congress to reassert its plenary authority and make clear, by resolution, its view that the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase of the Citizen ship Clause has meaning of fundamental importance to the naturalization policy of the nation.

The Original Understanding of the Citizenship Clause

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amend ment provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”[1] As manifest by the con junctive “and,” the clause mandates citizenship to those who meet both of the constitutional prerequi sites: (1) birth (or naturalization) in the United States and (2) being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The widely held, though erroneous, view today is that any person entering the territory of the United States—even for a short visit; even illegally—is considered to have subjected himself to the juris diction of the United States, which is to say, sub jected himself to the laws of the United States. Surely one who is actually born in the United States is therefore “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and entitled to full citizenship as a result, or so the common reasoning goes.

Textually, such an interpretation is manifestly erroneous, for it renders the entire “subject to the jurisdiction” clause redundant. Anyone who is “born” in the United States is, under this interpre tation, necessarily “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Yet it is a well-established doc trine of legal interpretation that legal texts, includ ing the Constitution, are not to be interpreted to create redundancy unless any other interpretation would lead to absurd results.[2]

The “subject to the jurisdiction” provision must therefore require something in addition to mere birth on U.S. soil. The language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, from which the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was derived, provides the key to its meaning. The 1866 Act provides: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”[3] As this formulation makes clear, any child born on U.S. soil to parents who were temporary visitors to this country and who, as a result of the foreign citizenship of the child’s parents, remained a citizen or subject of the parents’ home country was not entitled to claim the birth right citizenship provided by the 1866 Act.

The jurisdiction clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is somewhat different from the juris­diction clause of the 1866 Act, of course. The positively phrased “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States might easily have been intended to describe a broader grant of citizenship than the negatively phrased language from the 1866 Act, one more in line with the modern understanding. But the relatively sparse debate we have regarding this provision of the Fourteenth Amendment does not support such a reading.

When pressed about whether Indians living on reservations would be covered by the clause since they were “most clearly subject to our jurisdiction, both civil and military,” for example, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, responded that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant subject to its “complete” juris diction, “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.”[4] And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the jurisdiction clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be construed to mean “a full and complete jurisdiction,” “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now”[5] (i.e., under the 1866 Act). That meant that the children of Indians who still “belong[ed] to a tribal relation” and hence owed allegiance to another sovereign (however dependent the sovereign was) would not qualify for citizenship under the clause. Because of this interpretative gloss, provided by the authors of the provision, an amendment offered by Senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin explicitly to exclude “Indians not taxed,” as the 1866 Act had done, was rejected as redundant.[6]

The interpretative gloss offered by Senators Trumbull and Howard was also accepted by the Supreme Court—by both the majority and the dissenting justices—in The Slaughter-House Cases.[7] The majority in that case correctly noted that the “main purpose” of the clause “was to establish the citizenship of the negro” and that “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”[8] Justice Steven Field, joined by Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Bradley in dissent from the principal holding of the case, likewise acknowledged that the clause was designed to remove any doubts about the constitu­tionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that all persons born in the United States were as a result citizens both of the United States and of the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.[9]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm18.cfm#_ftnref7

[Uncle Chip]

There is no evidence that Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon and Bush were/are not natural born citizens and there is no evidence that Obama is not a natural born citizen.

Here let me correct your totally disingenuous pontification:

There is substantial evidence that Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon ... Bush were all natural born citizens of the U.S.[as amatter of fact there is no evidence to the contrary], but there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that Obama is a natural born citizen of the U.S.[and there is substantial evidence that he is not].

Perhaps the fact that you are not a natural born citizen of the U.S. as you admit has clouded your judgment of what is evidence and what is not.

[Scanian]

I agree that Zero messing with the military will cause him some problems. I have serious doubts about any promises that Ed Hale makes. He lost all credibility with me weeks ago.

[DMZFrank]

Moat births are not as memorable as those which might cause a recall of the facts attendant to the birth of a future POTUS. I am a retired cop. I can make reference to several cases that were routine or not particularly significant upon my initial involvement. Later that individual or some circumstance related to the original case would assume a high profile and cause me to search my memory bank and recall the original players.

I find that no one yet has made such a similar connection to Hussein’s alleged birth in the US exetremely improbable. Not impossible but improbable, as is the likelihood that Hussein is a constitutional Natural Born Citizen.

[DMZFrank]

Phillip Berg made a Filing to the lower federal court in New Jersey wherin he said that Sarah had said that she was present in the Kenyan delivery room when Hussein was born, along with many other formal allegations. Hussein did not answer ANY of them other than as a motion to dismiss. Uder existing Federal Civil Court rules, those allegations are deemed admitted to by the plaintiff. This is why this case needs to be heard on the merits. Millions of Americans are aware of these facts and whether you like it or not, they have doubts about a vital issue that a legitimate president could resolve very easily.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Uder existing Federal Civil Court rules, those allegations are deemed admitted to by the plaintiff.

Only in Berg's dubious legal opinion. Obama's lawyers did respond to the allegations with the motion to dismiss, which was granted.

[sometime lurker]

Moat births are not as memorable as those which might cause a recall of the facts attendant to the birth of a future POTUS. I am a retired cop. I can make reference to several cases that were routine or not particularly significant upon my initial involvement. Later that individual or some circumstance related to the original case would assume a high profile and cause me to search my memory bank and recall the original players.

I admit I'm not familiar with how much the officer involved would be exposed to the names, but I can tell you from experience that medical people often have minimal contact with the names. A non-complicated delivery in the 1980's (sorry, no experience in the 1960's) meant delivering the patient who the doc may or may not have met previously, then two daily post-delivery rounds, which may or may not be done by the same doc, and one 6-week follow up. The delivery room nurses would not be the same as the ward nurses.

I remember the names of very few patients. Most of those I recall I either saw repeatedly over a long period, or were the very few who had something medically memorable.

I could have delivered someone who is now a celebrity, and I would not know it. I think you'll find most doctors and nurses say the same.

[Michael Michael]

Here's another excellent legal opinion form the Heritage Foundation :

Which conveniently ignores the following:

The provision before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation.

And the fact that there was no objection to this whatsoever.

[DMZFrank]

There is a space on the actual birth certificate (as opposed to the forged Certification Of Live Birth that Hussein proffers) for the attending physician signature or license number and the address for the attending physician or hospital.

I would think that someone would have taken at least a perfunctory glance at the legal document that they were signing. A name like Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is so unusual , particularly linked to the first black president that again, I find it highly improbable that no Hawaiian physician, nurse, registrar, or clerk involved is alive or that they are all dead, and not one has stepped forward to claim their place in history.

There are too many improbababilities that I have to swallow, particularly involving a POTUS with a record of prevarication that I have not seen in any president, including Bill Clinton. I would note that the only living human beings who claim to be present at his birth live in Kenya and say that he was born there.

[Michael Michael]

I find it highly improbable that no Hawaiian physician, nurse, registrar, or clerk involved is alive or that they are all dead, and not one has stepped forward to claim their place in history.

Not everyone is so vainglorious.

[DMZFrank]

Sarah obama seems to be.

[canaan]

“A Certificate of Live Birth, the long form BC, is not proof of when and where the parents were born.”

My long form BC says where my parents were born, although it does not say when. However, I’m guessing that info was entered based on my parents’ testimony, not on their showing their own BCs when I was born.

I do believe that BO’s original BC should be brought into discovery, for two reasons. One, there is no reason to believe something on the internet is factual, and two, the long form will provide additional information which may be important.

I see people on these threads arguing that the internet COLB proves something. But their entire argument rests on the assumption that what is on the internet is valid and not a forgery. To repeat - their argument rests on an assumption. Therefore, IMO, we can’t spend too much time on their argument, because the logic or illogic of it is all hypothetical, as long as it rests on an assumption.

[TigersEye]

My copy of a Certification of Live Birth lists my parent’s place of birth too. It isn’t proof of that though. Only their BCs would be.

[Michael Michael]

One, there is no reason to believe something on the internet is factual...

You mean stuff like claims he was born in Kenya, that his certificate's a fake, etc.?

I agree. There is no reason to believe something on the Internet is factual.

[sometime lurker]

I would think that someone would have taken at least a perfunctory glance at the legal document that they were signing. A name like Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is so unusual , particularly linked to the first black president that again, I find it highly improbable that no Hawaiian physician, nurse, registrar, or clerk involved is alive or that they are all dead, and not one has stepped forward to claim their place in history.

I'm not addressing what the Kenyan relatives say or don't say, (I would have to listen to the audio), or disputing the prevarication.

What I am saying is that the doc may or may not have glanced at the name. The baby may not even have had a name yet, but even if he did, you're expecting a lot out of the poor doc. I could have delivered some one with the craziest name in the world, and might not have remembered it. If I do remember, I'm more likely to recall a crazy name like "king of all Africa" then something difficult to recall and pronounce. You know police procedure, I know medical - docs don't tend to remember things like this unless they continue to care for the family long term.

Hang your case on what you can prove, not on unrealistic expectations for medical memories.

[DMZFrank]

This is not a matter that I would introduce in court to prove Hussein’s ineligibility. This is one of those “indicators” that raise red flags for investigators. Sorta like Sherlock Holmes dog that didn’t bark, it leads you to ask about other anomalies.

What you say is not impossible, it probably does happen with the majority of cases that a harried intern/obstetrician might handle. I just find it highly curious in connection with the birth of the first black president that no medical practioner serving in a Hawaiian hospital within the time frame of his birth would not check as to whether or not they were involved with Hussein’s birth, and then come forward to say so. Again, I think it improbable, though not impossible.

[sometime lurker]

I just find it highly curious in connection with the birth of the first black president that no medical practioner serving in a Hawaiian hospital within the time frame of his birth would not check as to whether or not they were involved with Hussein’s birth, and then come forward to say so. Again, I think it improbable, though not impossible.

I wouldn't even know how to begin checking on who I delivered 20 some odd years ago, much less 40 some odd years ago. I doubt the hospital would help me with that, since it clearly has no medical purpose for the patient. Further, they may not even still have those records depending on state law, and if they do, they're likely on paper and in storage off site. I can tell you that trying to get an older chart volume stored off site for a patient I'm currently treating is a real chore - I can only imagine what's involved for a patient who is no longer being treated by that doc.

This doesn't add to your argument's credibility, especially to any medical personnel who are reading this - I'd recommend you stick to less speculative and more verifiable.