Covering up Minor v. Happerset SCOTUS precedent defining "Natural Born Citizen"

Originally posted by Libertygal
I debunked that whole assertion about legal fees pretty well in this post.

Where? I went to your link and all I found was a tired repeated claim that he spent $2,000,000, with absolutely nothing to show for it. There have been references to Obama's legal fees to Perkins Coie... although this was $1.4 million and all of it appeared to go towards elections fees. Nothing regarding the birther lawsuits that I personally saw.

Obama did have his lawyer appear at 3 of the 73 birther lawsuits... but that lawyer claimed that he was working for free. He could be lying, but the proof is in the soup, you just gotta find it. Maybe you can explain to us here Libertygal, why would have have to pay legal fees to hide documents when:

1. He is not obligated by the law to release those documents
2. When there has been no requirement made by the courts for him to release further documents.

Why would he need to pay if he is in no way under obligation? Is he paying to keep it secure? Must be a special 4 foot thick fault hidden somewhere in Arizona for that $2 million.

The BC issue and original vault copy? Sorry, that wasn't the vault copy that was released, because it doesn't exist!

You say the birth certificate doesn't exist, and? The birth certificates for the other 43 presidents don't exist.... thats what I say. How about that? Is this what you intend to do now? Just make a claim out of thin air and stubbornly stick by them? I'm not sure what much that's going to do towards making Obama ineligible. Maybe it's just easier for you to say something on this forum, but in the real world, in a court, you need to be provide solid evidence for your case.

So, please, do tell me how you settle for legal fees when according to you, it's all lies? It is right there in black and white. "Costs, expenses, and attorney's fees".

Nobody denied that Obama was paying a substantial amount towards legal fees, so did Bush, so did Clinton, so did Reagan. What people myself are saying here is where the evidence is that $2 million is going to this birther campaign?

And if you try the "I did not deny he is spending money to defend these cases, I am saying is he is not spending money trying to cover things up! line, defending these cases is the most obvious afront of attempting to cover it up.

Well where is the evidence his spending milliosn to defend these cases? I'm not even aware of him spending anything? I've viewed your links, they're the same rightwing garbage that has been posted here before. Do you have any impartial sources? any??

reply to post by Phoenix


Except that judges don't get to amend the constitution. Particularly when the amendment is tangental to the case they are overseeing.

Now if you want it refreshed, I'm sure it could be; and it would be overturned and blasted out of the water; a Y chromosome is no longer the sole determiner of human worth these days. Stanley Anne Durham is an American citizen. She could have gotten knocked up by a penguin and cranked that baby out on Mars, it would bean American citizen.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Libertygal

I debunked that whole assertion about legal fees pretty well in this post.

Where? I went to your link and all I found was a tired repeated claim that he spent $2,000,000, with absolutely nothing to show for it. There have been references to Obama's legal fees to Perkins Coie... although this was $1.4 million and all of it appeared to go towards elections fees. Nothing regarding the birther lawsuits that I personally saw.

Appeared. Key word to the whole topic.

The point was to demonstrate where the attorney was going to ask for legal fees, which I did. Arguing about the amount is semantics. You know it, I know it, we all know it.

You know as well as I do the legal fees to Perkins Coie is all encompassing. You know that is the firm that Bauer was in at the time. You know that Bauer is the appointed WH attorney now. Coincidence? Okay, if thats what you wish to believe.

Do you seriously think he is going to admit to the FEC he used campaign funds to defend birther suits prior to election? Because, that would be illegal, huh? It may even be questionable of the legality afterwards. Perhaps someone should look into that? Hm.

Obama did have his lawyer appear at 3 of the 73 birther lawsuits... but that lawyer claimed that he was working for free. He could be lying, but the proof is in the soup, you just gotta find it.

He had more than "a lawyer". He had a legal team,which I believe was reported as 3 lawyers and Joe Biden, if I am not mistaken, for this particular case.

The proof was posted. It was an exerpt from the legal document about sanctions, legal fees and attorney's fees, to *avoid* having to present the BC document requested in defense of allegations made that he was not constitutionally eligible, and therefore was requested to prove it with the BC before the military personel would take the orders. The lawyer claimed he was working for free? Yet, he asked for attorneys fees?

Isn't that fraud?

Maybe you can explain to us here Libertygal, why would have have to pay legal fees to hide documents when:

1. He is not obligated by the law to release those documents

If ONE of those cases had been heard on it's merits, then perhaps you could have made this assertion. The whole reasoning behind the law suits was to compell him to produce the document. None of the suits was heard on the merits of the case, they were all thrown out for standing. Hence, he spent money trying to avoid presenting it. That's kind of the whole claim.

The case referenced in my post was one that came closest. And, the response was threatening sanctions and to sue for legal fees and attorney fees for a lawyer that claimed he was working for free? Really?

2. When there has been no requirement made by the courts for him to release further documents.

Again, see the above statements. The suits were an attempt to compell him legally to produce the document, since he was so averse to doing so for any other reason. Hence, had a suit been heard on merits, it may have then legally compelled him to present the BC. Turns out all he needed was to be embarrassed in public, huh?

Why would he need to pay if he is in no way under obligation? Is he paying to keep it secure? Must be a special 4 foot thick fault hidden somewhere in Arizona for that $2 million.

What?

The BC issue and original vault copy? Sorry, that wasn't the vault copy that was released, because it doesn't exist!


You say the birth certificate doesn't exist, and? The birth certificates for the other 43 presidents don't exist.... thats what I say. How about that? Is this what you intend to do now? Just make a claim out of thin air and stubbornly stick by them? I'm not sure what much that's going to do towards making Obama ineligible. Maybe it's just easier for you to say something on this forum, but in the real world, in a court, you need to be provide solid evidence for your case.

Nope, I simply have my opinion, to which I am entitled, and I do not feel the vault certificate exists, else it would have been presented, instead of that hoakum that came out, and would look exactly like the other vault copies that have been posted from people born the same year in the same place. Posted all over the internet. Go see! But, it is decidedly different looking, and I stand by my opinion. To which I am entitled.

So, please, do tell me how you settle for legal fees when according to you, it's all lies? It is right there in black and white. "Costs, expenses, and attorney's fees".

Nobody denied that Obama was paying a substantial amount towards legal fees, so did Bush, so did Clinton, so did Reagan. What people myself are saying here is where the evidence is that $2 million is going to this birther campaign?

Nobody denied?

Wait, you just did, remember? "The attorney claimed he was working for free." *Right up there, in your words.* Isn't that fraud? The attempt to recoup losses you never acrued? Wow! That's kind of important, isn't it? Perhaps someone should look into that.

The moneys spent and aknowledged to the date last reported to the FEC are clearly in the FEC records. The only claim that need be made is "it was for campaign things" not "birther things", however, we all know birther issues were one of the biggest legal issues he had just prior to, during, and post election. It is all encompassing, and if we cannot get a birth certificate out of him, how are we going to get a real and true disclosure about how the legal fees were divied up. Are you serious?

The only way we could have gotten a real and true accounting, on *this case alone*, was if the court had passed those sanctions. But, the subject was promptly dropped, wasn't it? Curious, how they didn't think of that till they read it in the paper.

The facts are not open for speculation that he spent money hiding/refusing to disclose the BC, and from the evidence on the web about scrubbing, I am sure some monies passed hands there, as well. The only question is, *how much* money.

Now that he is the official appointed WH attorney, we *all* get to pay for it, now don't we?

We all know, don't we, lawyers aren't cheap nor free. Except he claimed he was working for free, but asked, in court, for attorney's fees? Oopsie. :blush:

And if you try the "I did not deny he is spending money to defend these cases, I am saying is he is not spending money trying to cover things up! line, defending these cases is the most obvious afront of attempting to cover it up.


Well where is the evidence his spending milliosn to defend these cases? I'm not even aware of him spending anything? I've viewed your links, they're the same rightwing garbage that has been posted here before. Do you have any impartial sources? any??

I give you credit for the attempt, I really do. You did exactly what I said would happen!

I consider the FEC impartial, and the legal documented evidence of the threat of sanctions, legal fees and attorney's fees (for a free attorney!!) came from your side, didn't it? Are you saying they aren't impartial? Oh, guess not, heh.

Also, if I am not mistaken, the case referenced in my post was well after the last FEC filing date on campaign funds spent on legal fees. So, that amount isn't even included, you know, for the *free* attorney.

Good attempt to derail the thread, but how about posting something on topic. Like, how the web has been scrubbed of anything that makes Obama appear in a negative light and how the sites have omitted quotes on the topic in the OP? I know you can.

I kinda like your obsession with me. I think it's cute.

PS I am not "rightwing". But good try.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Stanley Anne Durham is an American citizen. She could have gotten knocked up by a penguin and cranked that baby out on Mars, it would bean American citizen.

Well actually what is being sprouted now would infer that an alien could land in the US, give birth and the resulting ET would be considered a "Naturally Born US Citizen"...

Oh ..is this another one of those threads like the one I got sucked into a while back saying that "they" removed the term natural born citizen from all the dictionaries? Wow these people are tenacious...that's for sure.

Originally posted by Libertygal
You know as well as I do the legal fees to Perkins Coie is all encompassing. You know that is the firm that Bauer was in at the time. You know that Bauer is the appointed WH attorney now. Coincidence? Okay

I always assumed Bauer was part of Perkins and Coie? In anycase, whether he works for Perkins and Coie or not, the accusation from birthers in general is that the Obama administration is spending a substantial amount ($2 millions as most would claim) to deal with the birther issue. I fail to see any evidence that the whitehouse is spending that much anywhere.... infact, birthers are yet to trace even a cent back to one of the birther lawsuits let alone hiding the documents. I have no doubt money has been spent inevitably, considering we're talking about 73 birther lawsuits, although I'd assume along the lines of $50, $60.00??

Do you seriously think he is going to admit to the FEC he used campaign funds to defend birther suits prior to election?

You want Obama to admit to a baseless accusation? Why doesn't Bush just admit to being a reptillian? He should stop hiding his scaley skin.

If Obama is spending millions or $100,000's on lawsuits and hiding documents, provide the evidence. Surely you're not accusing him of something over zero evidence are you? The excuse that the money spent is been hidden in documents from Perkins because they're all encompassing of the legal fees is just your claim, that's it. The courts should take your word, and that's that.

.
The proof was posted.

This proof here:
Link

Sources like the one above? It just claims that birthers are being threatened by Obama's lawyer, and gives a link to another ideological website that claims the same thing. Nothing about documents from Perkins proving Obama spend millions or $100,000's against birther lawsuits and hiding documents.

It was an exerpt from the legal document about sanctions, legal fees and attorney's fees,

Can you link me the source again about this? Because it certainly cannot be the link about from your previous post.

to *avoid* having to present the BC document requested in defense of allegations made that he was not constitutionally eligible, and therefore was requested to prove it with the BC before the military personel would take the orders.

Yes, Obama needs to satisfy the birthers before the army can take orders, but the absence of a birth certificate for the other 43 presidents? This is perfectly fine. By your logic, everytime a soldier stands up against an order because he or she does not believe the president was born in the US, that president must spend a necessary amount of time satisfying that soldier? What nonsense.

If ONE of those cases had been heard on it's merits, then perhaps you could have made this assertion. The whole reasoning behind the law suits was to compell him to produce the document.

What do you mean the cases had to be heard on their merits in court? Removal of the presidency due to ineligibility or any other matter needs be dealt with by congress and congress specifically. The constitution leaves this responsibility to them. So not only were the lawsuits dismissed for being baseless, numerous judges made it clear, that the courts were not the place to deal with the presidents eligibility status. What's more, what merits?

You expect our judges to sit down and listen to somebody like Orly Taitz ramble on about how Obama's a fraud because his SS number is from Conneticut? Or how an owner of a scanner company found an Hawaiian issued birth certificate to be forgery? You want to waste the courts time and resources every time some person is unsatisfied with what the president has presented? You want to do this with this president?

Shall we set up long lines to hear the grievances of birthers? Shall we hear each and every case based on their merits? And if by chance the merits are head and the birthers are unsatisfied, shall we start again until every birther is satisfied? This is what you want? No?

Again, see the above statements. The suits were an attempt to compell him legally to produce the document, since he was so averse to doing so for any other reason. Hence, had a suit been heard on merits, it may have then legally compelled him to present the BC.

So your saying some or all of these lawsuits that were dismissed was due to Obama paying off the courts to ignore them? Now that's a stretch, but I'm guessing you don't have evidence for this do you? Because Obama removed that evidence as well? Right? There is absolutely no standing to obligate Obama to release every single document as per the public's request. He may be the president, but he still holds those fundamental constitutional rights, every president does and will for time to come. No court is going to make an exception to those rights on the basis of being president, and it was not going to change with the birther lawsuits, sorry.

Nope, I simply have my opinion,

That didn't really sound like a opinion to me. You made the accusation that Obama's birth certificate was non-existent. You're stating this as fact, not as an opinion. There is a difference.

Wait, you just did, remember? "The attorney claimed he was working for free." *Right up there, in your words.*

Yes I did, in 3 of the birther lawsuits that Obama's lawyer appeared in, he was working pro-bono, or for free, atleast according to the lawyer. In no way did I mean free as in all his services.

PS I am not "rightwing".

I'm not really concerned about what you claim not to be, I'm not buying it. 43 presidents, and this one must bend over to you because you're not happy he gained the presidency. Clearly this is a personal issue for you, not something of constitutional proportions. But yes, keep on making this about his eligibility.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


The majority of politicians are corrupt and hide their expenses.

We all know that and it's why they give themselves more money during recessions and why most are millionaires..

It's a fact of life now..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

The majority of politicians are corrupt and hide their expenses.

We all know that and it's why they give themselves more money during recessions and why most are millionaires..

It's a fact of life now..

I don't know as to the exactly number of politicians, but I will agree, there are corrupt politicians out there, and there are those who deny expenses toward hiding evidence of dishonesty. That being said, we cannot generalize every representitive out there. I cannot accuse Ron Paul of hiding the money he spent on hiding his supposed Canadian birth certificate, and then rationalize my accusation by saying politicians generally are corrupt. What is necessary is evidence.

Obama is in my view one in the same, he supported the patriot act, continued this drug war, continued to support the military industrial complex, and that's that. Corporations are making a killing under his presidency, more so than the time of Reagan or Bush. It stinks, but if we are to accuse him of using expenses illegally, or of being ineligible, evidence is still necessary.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Obama is in my view one in the same, he supported the patriot act, continued this drug war, continued to support the military industrial complex, and that's that. Corporations are making a killing under his presidency, more so than the time of Reagan or Bush. It stinks, but if we are to accuse him of using expenses illegally, or of being ineligible, evidence is still necessary.

So you freely admit he is NOT working for the people that elected him but don't believe he would USE the system in a corrupt fashion to stay where he is??

Sounds a little odd to me.

Originally posted by backinblack
So you freely admit he is NOT working for the people that elected him but don't believe he would USE the system in a corrupt fashion to stay where he is??

Sounds a little odd to me.

It's not hard to understand. He may be continuing the same cycle as previous presidents, but that doesn't mean he was born in Kenya or that he's ineligible to the presidency. He's actions in office cannot be applied as evidence that he is guilty of hiding documents of his birth.

It's not hard to understand. He may be continuing the same cycle as previous presidents, but that doesn't mean he was born in Kenya or that he's ineligible to the presidency. He's actions in office cannot be applied as evidence that he is guilty of hiding documents of his birth.

No, but it doesn't show him to be "For the People" or trustworthy either given his campaign promises and subsequent actions..

Sorta sounds like he LIED merely to garner votes IMO.

Why would I believe he isn't lying now?

reply to post by Southern Guardian



Funny, you still fail to address the topic of the thread, and instead keep attempting to derail it. Leave your personal vendettas at the door, I won't answer you again. It was fun, but *yawn* you bore me.

The document quoted in the link I posted was a letter sent from Bauer on Obamas behalf threatening to sue for attorney's fees if he didn't drop the case. That is proof enough that he is spending money to prevent being forced to present the BC. It is also not the only time a threatening letter was sent from Bauer with the same threats. If there are no attorney's fees, it is fraud. You said he was working for free, then try to back pedal on even that.

I suggest you find a hobby rather than replying to all of my Obama posts. The obsession is funny, but borders on kind of freaky.

I am not in this thread or any other to rehash the entire Obama saga for you. I ignored you all along, I will continue to do so.

I do not care what you think about what I think. I couldn't care less.

If you have so many questions still, go google them, otherwise, I suggest that you do try to get back on topic? It would be the polite thing to do.

Originally posted by backinblack

It's not hard to understand. He may be continuing the same cycle as previous presidents, but that doesn't mean he was born in Kenya or that he's ineligible to the presidency. He's actions in office cannot be applied as evidence that he is guilty of hiding documents of his birth.

No, but it doesn't show him to be "For the People" or trustworthy either given his campaign promises and subsequent actions..

Sorta sounds like he LIED merely to garner votes IMO.

Why would I believe he isn't lying now?

So you'd readily believe every accusation thrown out there about Obama because he's continuing the corrupt cycle in DC? Doesn't seem objective to me.

So you'd readily believe every accusation thrown out there about Obama because he's continuing the corrupt cycle in DC? Doesn't seem objective to me.

No but his record of lying makes me question and look for verification of everything he says and does..
Just like I would do with any "confirmed" liar...

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Can you link me the source again about this? Because it certainly cannot be the link about from your previous post.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0830d34ec05e.jpg[/atsimg]


If the attorney is working for free, then why are they threatening to sue for attorney's fees?

There's your link.

They dropped it when Hemenway replied that if he was sanctioned and made to pay all those fees, he would then be entitled to see the BC. Which they wanted to *avoid* having to show.

2+2 really does = 4, no matter how you try to twist it.

:Oh lookie what I missed.

Legal adviser Bauer to leave White House post

www.washingtonpost.com...

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Funny, you still fail to address the topic of the thread,

You went on about how Obama is hiding documents about the money he was supposedly spending against the birther campaign, and you're telling me I'm derailing? The issue from the OP was already addressed by others here. The OP claimed that there was a cover up of the Minor v. Happerset case, but that's just it. There are also numerous other sources to go to for the case. Not everything is a conspiracy.

I won't answer you again.

Nobody is forcing you to do anything.

The document quoted in the link I posted was a letter sent from Bauer on Obamas behalf threatening to sue for attorney's fees if he didn't drop the case. That is proof enough that he is spending money to prevent being forced to present the BC.

A letter from Bauer is not proof enough that money is being spent to deal with these birther lawsuits and in hiding government documents. It's a stretch to claim it to be so. If you were in court claiming that Obama spend millions against the birthers and in hiding documents, and you referenced a letter from his lawyer with no mention of any amount of money being spent or anything of the nature, do you expect the courts to take this as evidence?

If there are no attorney's fees, it is fraud. You said he was working for free, then try to back pedal on even that.

Bauer claimed he was working for free on 3 of the 73 birther lawsuits, he stated he was working "pro-bono". He could be lying, but then he could be telling the truth. It is another stretch to mark this as evidence enough that Obama is spending 100'000's or millions in covering up a conspiracy.

I suggest you find a hobby rather than replying to all of my Obama posts.

You're on a conspiracy forum participating in a birther thread, and you're complaining about the fact I'm responding to your posts?

I am not in this thread or any other to rehash the entire Obama saga for you.

But you do it in general anyway, don't you? If you're going to repeat the same misinformation on this forum, I can't stop you, but I will reply when feel the need to address your points.

Originally posted by Libertygal
If the attorney is working for free, then why are they threatening to sue for attorney's fees?

They still have their costs, wages to pay, it simply means that they are not charging Obama - people raising frivolous suits would have to pay for the lawyers expenses.

They dropped it when Hemenway replied that if he was sanctioned and made to pay all those fees, he would then be entitled to see the BC.

Wrong, they had to do nothing and the birth certificate would not have been seen - you still refuse to accept thatit is a private document!

Legal adviser Bauer to leave White House post

If you had done some research you would know why he left....

Bauer will return to private practice, where he once again will represent the president’s election team and the Democratic National Committee.

Originally posted by Libertygal
If the attorney is working for free, then why are they threatening to sue for attorney's fees?

Why would he be threating to sue for attorney's fees if this was all covered by Obama? In anycase, in 3 of the birther lawsuits, Bauer stated that he was working pro-bono. In many others he wasn't present and there was no need for him to do so. I'd assume that after a number of birther lawsuits and time and resources wasted upon responding to them, he'd seek something in return, and in this case he wasn't looking at the whitehouse.

Obama is your president and he may verywell be in 2013 again for a second term. You can deny and continue to make empty accusations but this will not be productive to removing him from office. I'm sure you'll be voting against him this coming elections? That's the only chance you'll get to removing him from office.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I don't care about removing him, just proving that he is a liar and a con artist. A usurper, if you will.

But, your illusions may come further crashing in. The truth hurts.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Libertygal
If the attorney is working for free, then why are they threatening to sue for attorney's fees?

They still have their costs, wages to pay, it simply means that they are not charging Obama - people raising frivolous suits would have to pay for the lawyers expenses.

BS lol. It means they are charging Obama and looking to recoup those losses back to him. Seriously?

They dropped it when Hemenway replied that if he was sanctioned and made to pay all those fees, he would then be entitled to see the BC.

Wrong, they had to do nothing and the birth certificate would not have been seen - you still refuse to accept thatit is a private document!

No you are wrong. If he had been sanctioned and assessed for fees, he would have been injured and therefor been entitled to the BC. I suggest you read up on the case.

Legal adviser Bauer to leave White House post

If you had done some research you would know why he left....

Bauer will return to private practice, where he once again will represent the president’s election team and the Democratic National Committee.

I know why he left. Your point?

Why are you making it seem like I didn't know?