Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

How many eligibility lawsuits are there?

Seems everyone wants to if or how Obama has spent on lawyers. No matter what one says or gives links to its all a lie.

HOW DOES ONE EXPLAIN HOW THESE ARE BEING PAID?

here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

* New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

* Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama case alleging he wasn't qualified even to be U.S. senator and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.

* Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

* Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

* Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.

* Chicago lawyer Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

* Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.

* In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

* Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.

* In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.

* In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

* California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. She also has brought forward several other cases and has conducted several public campaigns to generate awareness of the issue.

* In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

* In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.

* In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

* In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.

* In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

* In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

* In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.

* In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

* In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.

Looking forward to your answers, what do you think?

Update:

Sadcat, you might be a lawyer so you know what the phrase 'prove it' means.

8 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    All it takes to get one of these lawsuits dismissed is a single motion to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim under which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

    So far, every one of these lawsuits has been dismissed on one of these two bases.

    These memos are VERY cheap to write. That's because they all look the same. It takes about one hour of an associate's time to do it. And they always succeed.

    The cost for Obama and the DNC in defending these lawsuits is probably trivial.

    How do I know these things? Because I'm a lawyer, and I write these motions myself all the time.

  • 1 decade ago

    Not much energy today.. just a simple observation that any public figure has the likelihood of attorneys hired on standing basis (not for any specific action). Meaning.. if they are on standby, there is nothing "extra" being spent. There is no documentation anywhere of "millions being spent".

    You can go in depth to search the various cases, if you choose. To my knowledge, ALL HAVE BEEN dumped/ refused except the Keyes one. If possible to step back and look at this without bias.. the core question is if ANYONE has legal right to ask a court, to allow them authority to dispute someone's birth and citizenship. Strip the arguments of the "merits".. each plaintiff is asking a court for access to Obama's birth certificate. In every single case.. the plaintiff is a private citizen, not a govt agency.

    Despite ridicule and name calling.. I have said this repeatedly.. birth certificates are legally private records. Meaning.. only the govt has legal authority to demand you provide them. If you apply for a job, they can set the standard that you provide your birth certificate. You are still making a choice in applying for that job. The "job" does not independently have the right to ask a judge to give them your record.

    Again.. legal framing of the question:

    WHO HAS authority to dispute the citizenship of anyone?

    WHO has authority to ask for legally protected records?

    Private citizens don't have that right. The govt does have that right. It is not the govt filing for proof of anything. If private citizens do not have that authority, thus, they don't have "standing" for any lawsuit.

    The other question comes to merits of a case. IF ANY CASE went beyond standing to be heard.. then the question is raised.. does the plaintiff have CREDIBLE (and I really stress the word "credible") facts/ proof that there is reason to dispute being eligible and/or place of birth.

    At that point.. does the "evidence" in any way become more believable than a legal authority? The authority in this, is the State of Hawaii (among others) who have publicly and more than once.. clearly said..he was born in Hawaii.

    IS there ANY valid reason to claim that the entire Federal govt, has failed to evaluate these "questions" or evidence? My opinion is no.

    The lawsuits don't have standing. They don't have merit.

    It takes understanding of the bottom line reason as to why each of the cases were thrown out. Many of the blogs are misleading as to the exact rulings, or reasons.

  • grob
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Honestly it is typical republican crap. This from the party that supposedly hates lawyers so much. When democrats are in power republicans typically pick some crap and sue sue sue over it.

    Remember Whitewater?

    There is nothing here. Besides, have you ever heard Alan Keyes? He's quite insane.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    As these are thrown out of court, one by one, Obama's legal team can sue to demand repayment of legal fees by the person who brought the frivilous lawsuit in the first place.

    And I can certainly guarantee that they will do so.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I think they are completely hopeless, because President Obama was born in Hawaii, and everybody knows it. A pathetic little minority simply refuses to accept the truth.

  • Trivial lawsuits are dismissed without further ado and without the person accused having to spend a penny.

    If I sue you for being a terrorist but have no evidence to back it up, you won't even know about it --my attempt will be dismissed by the authorities right after they hear what I have to say.

  • 1 decade ago

    This is like saying that if I accused someone of anything, and they forcefully denied it, they must be guilty. Wackos trying to sue does not merit make.

    And, once more, this is the best they got...

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I only read the one from my home state....

    California, and It had NOTHING to do with Obama... it was about Ron Paul.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.