PDA

View Full Version : Judge throws Obama Citizenship suit out of court so hard it bounces



Frozen Sooner
3/6/2009, 06:09 PM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jvhtmoNEnyP1Bu6Ol4zJsN94mlewD96O5TV03

Judge assails cases doubting Obama's citizenship
By NEDRA PICKLER 23 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) A federal judge on Thursday threw out a lawsuit questioning President Barack Obama's citizenship, lambasting the case as a waste of the court's time and suggesting the plaintiff's attorney may have to compensate the president's lawyer.

In an argument popular on the Internet and taken seriously practically nowhere else, Obama's critics argue he is ineligible to be president because he is not a "natural-born citizen" as the Constitution requires.

In response last summer, Obama's campaign posted his Hawaiian birth certificate on its Web site. But the lawsuit argues it is a fake and that Obama was actually born in his father's homeland of Kenya, even though Hawaiian officials have said the document is authentic.

"This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do," U.S. District Judge James Robertson said in his written opinion.

The lawsuit didn't even use Obama's legal name but called him "Barry Soetoro," the name he went by while attending elementary school in Indonesia. It's one of many that has been filed claiming Obama is ineligible to serve as president.

Robertson ordered plaintiff's attorney John Hemenway of Colorado Springs, Colo., to show why he hasn't violated court rules barring frivolous and harassing cases and shouldn't have to pay Obama's attorney, Bob Bauer, for his time arguing that the case should be thrown out.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

tommieharris91
3/6/2009, 06:12 PM
IBD/L :pop:

SCOUT
3/6/2009, 06:19 PM
I will admit that I am not particularly informed on this one, but I am a little curious. The facts seem pretty straight forward to me. 1) People claimed that he was not born in the US because there wasn't a birth certificate. 2) He produced his birth certificate. 3) They said it's fake. 4) None of this matters because his Mother was a US citizen.

What exactly are they trying to argue and what evidence do they have?

JohnnyMack
3/6/2009, 06:21 PM
IB Rush, Tuba or 85 says something witty.

Frozen Sooner
3/6/2009, 06:24 PM
At the time of his birth, you had to either be born inside the United States or be the child of two US Citizens to be a natural-born citizen.

They're trying to argue he was born in Kenya. They claim that the birth certificate posted on his website is a forgery, and have shown some inconclusive evidence that the document bears signs of having been tampered with in Photoshop.

olevetonahill
3/6/2009, 06:24 PM
I didnt Vote for him But I aint a Far out dude either .
I think this Part is Funny as hell tho:D

"This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do," U.S. District Judge James Robertson said in his written opinion.

KC//CRIMSON
3/6/2009, 06:24 PM
IB Rush, Tuba or 85 says something witty.


It's hard to talk with a mouth full of crow.

Penguin
3/6/2009, 06:25 PM
Who is this Obama character you people keep talking about?

tommieharris91
3/6/2009, 06:37 PM
Who is this Obama character you people keep talking about?

His real name is Barry Soetoro,you idiots.

NYC Poke
3/6/2009, 06:52 PM
At the time of his birth, you had to either be born inside the United States or be the child of two US Citizens to be a natural-born citizen.

They're trying to argue he was born in Kenya. They claim that the birth certificate posted on his website is a forgery, and have shown some inconclusive evidence that the document bears signs of having been tampered with in Photoshop.


In the alternative, weren't they arguing that he was an Indonesian citizen (and a Muslim :eek: ) because of something his stepdad wrote an an Indonesian school enrollment form when Obama was 8? Because, you know, we allow US citizenship to be stripped away because of something a foreign stepparent writes on a school enrollment form, or something.

Frozen Sooner
3/6/2009, 07:23 PM
That very well could be. That'd explain the bizarre caption.

Okla-homey
3/7/2009, 08:32 AM
Litigation is pointless at this stage. Even if plaintiffs could turn up conclusive and unassailable evidence the President is not a natural born US citizen, it wouldn't matter. No US court would put the country through the upheaval that would result as a result of a ruling he wasn't constitutionally qualified for the office.

Therefore, IMHO, lawyers approached by these folks who wish to press the matter should have sent them a "You are stupid"* letter and declined the representation.

*When client's turn up and insist on suing someone for some perceived slight, generally citing "the principle of the thing" as clients sometimes do, the lawyer should look into the matter. If the lawyer investigates and determines that even if he prevails, nothing much will change, or the cost of litigation far outweighs any possible benefit to the client, a friend of mine who has been successfully practicing for over thirty years sends them a letter. In that letter he calls his "you are stupid" letter, he tells them its simply not worth it, good luck with that, and to find someone else.

85Sooner
3/7/2009, 08:59 AM
Seems to me that it should be easy to prove. So why is that every time it is thrown out, it is done so with no legal precedents but rather with a ho hum it doesn't matter opinion. Just curious. Doesn't matter either way he is in. BTW no crow here, Barry has done just about everything the right said he would and that is at light speed.

1890MilesToNorman
3/7/2009, 09:56 AM
Why do we hold our politicians to a lower standard then they do us? many times in life I had to provide my BC to get something or other, why not for president?

Harry Beanbag
3/7/2009, 10:21 AM
Why do we hold our politicians to a lower standard then they do us? many times in life I had to provide my BC to get something or other, why not for president?

Probably because most politicians can't live up to any higher standards. They are whoring garbage.

Frozen Sooner
3/7/2009, 01:32 PM
The inability of some to let go of a delusion is amusing. Obama HAS provided his birtch certificate.

Harry Beanbag
3/7/2009, 01:34 PM
The inability of some to let go of a delusion is amusing.


I agree.

King Crimson
3/7/2009, 01:35 PM
don't be so naive, he had to take the oath of office TWICE.

2+2=

soonerscuba
3/7/2009, 01:35 PM
Seems to me that it should be easy to prove. So why is that every time it is thrown out, it is done so with no legal precedents but rather with a ho hum it doesn't matter opinion. Just curious. Doesn't matter either way he is in. BTW no crow here, Barry has done just about everything the right said he would and that is at light speed.You do realize you're the right wing equivalent to a guy with a chicken-wire cage and a cinder block, correct?

Frozen Sooner
3/7/2009, 01:51 PM
I agree.

Yeah. Some people are actually under the delusion they're an independent.

Gandalf_The_Grey
3/7/2009, 01:59 PM
http://jj.am/gallery/d/2478-2/worffrustration.gif



Seems to me that it should be easy to prove. So why is that every time it is thrown out, it is done so with no legal precedents but rather with a ho hum it doesn't matter opinion. Just curious. Doesn't matter either way he is in. BTW no crow here, Barry has done just about everything the right said he would and that is at light speed.

Vaevictis
3/7/2009, 02:23 PM
Seems to me that it should be easy to prove. So why is that every time it is thrown out, it is done so with no legal precedents but rather with a ho hum it doesn't matter opinion. Just curious.

Try reading the actual rulings instead of just running your mouth. They do cite legal precedents.

Vaevictis
3/7/2009, 02:38 PM
For example, in this case, if you spend maybe 2 minutes searching for the case (Hollister v. SOETORO et al) you'll find the following link:

http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008cv02254/134576/

You go down to the most recent ruling (March 5). There are two documents labeled, "ORDER" and "MEMORANDUM." Open up the order.

It's one page long. I'm sure your attention span can handle this, but in the off chance it can't, the order basically says, "I call shenanigans. Case dismissed. See memorandum for why. Oh, also, give me damn good reasons why I shouldn't sanction you for said shenanigans."

Open up the memorandum. It's five pages long. I mean seriously, what the hell is wrong with you ****ing people that you can't read six pages of documentation?

Anyway, cutting to the chase:


Plaintiff having invoked both diversity and the federal interpleader statute 28 USC S 1355 (...)

Plaintiff has not cited a single case that lends even colorable support to the notion that his alleged "duties" can be the "money or property" to which the interpleader statute applies.

Basically, the plaintiff tried to use a novel way to get standing to bring the case. Judge says, "Hey, not only is that theory 'novel', it's so novel that you have no actual statute, common law principle, or citation supporting your theory. GET THE **** OUT."

47straight
3/7/2009, 03:23 PM
For example, in this case, if you spend maybe 2 minutes searching for the case (Hollister v. SOETORO et al) you'll find the following link:

http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008cv02254/134576/

You go down to the most recent ruling (March 5). There are two documents labeled, "ORDER" and "MEMORANDUM." Open up the order.

It's one page long. I'm sure your attention span can handle this, but in the off chance it can't, the order basically says, "I call shenanigans. Case dismissed. See memorandum for why. Oh, also, give me damn good reasons why I shouldn't sanction you for said shenanigans."

Open up the memorandum. It's five pages long. I mean seriously, what the hell is wrong with you ****ing people that you can't read six pages of documentation?

Anyway, cutting to the chase:



Basically, the plaintiff tried to use a novel way to get standing to bring the case. Judge says, "Hey, not only is that theory 'novel', it's so novel that you have no actual statute, common law principle, or citation supporting your theory. GET THE **** OUT."


Most of these have been thrown out for standing.


That will be harder with an army officer's suit that I saw was filed. I still don't think it's going anywhere, though.

batonrougesooner
3/7/2009, 03:35 PM
FWIW, I had to produce an actual copy of my birth certificate a couple of weeks ago at the tag agency to renew my barely expired driver's license. Good thing Obama has a limo driver.

Frozen Sooner
3/7/2009, 03:36 PM
Most of these have been thrown out for standing.


That will be harder with an army officer's suit that I saw was filed. I still don't think it's going anywhere, though.


I'm interested to see whether the court severs the issues of standing to sue to remove President Obama as CiC and the issue of this particular officer having standing to sue to not recognize him as such.

Frozen Sooner
3/7/2009, 03:40 PM
In response last summer, Obama's campaign posted his Hawaiian birth certificate on its Web site. But the lawsuit argues it is a fake and that Obama was actually born in his father's homeland of Kenya, even though Hawaiian officials have said the document is authentic.


FWIW, I had to produce an actual copy of my birth certificate a couple of weeks ago at the tag agency to renew my barely expired driver's license. Good thing Obama has a limo driver.
http://jj.am/gallery/d/2478-2/worffrustration.gif

Gandalf_The_Grey
3/7/2009, 03:41 PM
FWIW, I had to produce an actual copy of my birth certificate a couple of weeks ago at the tag agency to renew my barely expired driver's license. Good thing Obama has a limo driver.

Did the tag agency accuse you after bringing it in that you had photoshopped it?

Vaevictis
3/7/2009, 03:44 PM
Did the tag agency accuse you after bringing it in that you had photoshopped it?

More like, "Did Bubba from down the road decide to sue claiming your birth certificate was fake after the state's duly appointed representative accepted the birth certificate and gave you your license?"

85Sooner
3/7/2009, 04:17 PM
The inability of some to let go of a delusion is amusing. Obama HAS provided his birtch certificate.

Fine! has a judge ruled that it has been provided and thus the suit thrown out for lack of cause? Again, if he has provided it GREAT, rule that way and end the inquiries.

Gandalf_The_Grey
3/7/2009, 04:28 PM
I think that was why the judge wasn't very happy about this case and was going to make the lawyer pay Obama's lawyers fees.

Frozen Sooner
3/7/2009, 04:28 PM
Most of these have been thrown out for standing.


That will be harder with an army officer's suit that I saw was filed. I still don't think it's going anywhere, though.

Whoops. This suit was filed by a retired Colonel and raised the same issues as the suit I think you're referring to.

Gandalf_The_Grey
3/7/2009, 04:33 PM
Should Barack Obama get out his real birth certificate and show it to every U.S. Citizen? Would that make you guys happy?

Harry Beanbag
3/7/2009, 05:35 PM
Yeah. Some people are actually under the delusion they're an independent.

Yep, most of this board is "independent".

LosAngelesSooner
3/7/2009, 06:09 PM
Should Barack Obama get out his real birth certificate and show it to every U.S. Citizen? Would that make you guys happy?No.

The Tin Foil Hat wearers would just start fretting that Al-Quaeda can now perfectly forge a U.S. birth certificate...since, you know, they got him elected as their Manchurian Candidate and all. :rolleyes:

LosAngelesSooner
3/7/2009, 06:10 PM
Yep, most of this board is "independent" from reality.
Fixed.

Vaevictis
3/7/2009, 06:26 PM
Fine! has a judge ruled that it has been provided and thus the suit thrown out for lack of cause? Again, if he has provided it GREAT, rule that way and end the inquiries.

So far, all the court cases I've seen have been dismissed on the basis that the plaintiff has no standing to bring the case.

IIRC, most of these rulings rely on a precedent set in a case where someone was suing McCain for much the same reason.

It never gets to the point where any actual facts are decided (eg, regarding the validity of the birth certificate, etc). The judges just say, "You have no standing to bring suit. See the McCain case. Get out of here."

85Sooner
3/7/2009, 11:44 PM
Thank you for the honest response some ****s on this board don't seem to have comprehension in their vocabulary.

tommieharris91
3/8/2009, 12:00 AM
This thread is a living, breathing contradiction.

Frozen Sooner
3/8/2009, 12:49 AM
Thank you for the honest response some ****s on this board don't seem to have comprehension in their vocabulary.

And some on this board don't seem to understand where burden of proof lies, particularly when a claim strains credulity.

Get this straight-you do not have the legal right to compel Barack Obama to appear in court and show his birth certificate. This is settled case law.

However, he has shown his birth certificate to the general public and has kept it on display for several months. The issue is not in question, thus there is nothing for the court to rule on. The dingleberries who keep filing these suits have yet to even show that there's a legitimate controversy.

Frozen Sooner
3/8/2009, 01:07 AM
Litigation is pointless at this stage. Even if plaintiffs could turn up conclusive and unassailable evidence the President is not a natural born US citizen, it wouldn't matter. No US court would put the country through the upheaval that would result as a result of a ruling he wasn't constitutionally qualified for the office.

Therefore, IMHO, lawyers approached by these folks who wish to press the matter should have sent them a "You are stupid"* letter and declined the representation.

*When client's turn up and insist on suing someone for some perceived slight, generally citing "the principle of the thing" as clients sometimes do, the lawyer should look into the matter. If the lawyer investigates and determines that even if he prevails, nothing much will change, or the cost of litigation far outweighs any possible benefit to the client, a friend of mine who has been successfully practicing for over thirty years sends them a letter. In that letter he calls his "you are stupid" letter, he tells them its simply not worth it, good luck with that, and to find someone else.

Way to throw the conspiracy idiots a bone there, Homey. ;)

Vaevictis
3/8/2009, 02:28 AM
Thank you for the honest response some ****s on this board don't seem to have comprehension in their vocabulary.

I think mostly they're sick and ****ing tired of hearing this crap. I've personally explained why these cases keep getting thrown out multiple times on this board.

The worst part is that, thanks to the magic of Google, it only takes a few minutes to take a look at the actual rulings and figure out what's going on yourself.

I mean, seriously, the judge's ruling on this was six pages long and the truly relevant section amounted to maybe a paragraph. It doesn't require a great investment of time to understand what happened here.

The people who drudge this crap up without bothering to read the actual ruling should spend a little more time being a human and a little less time being a parrot.

Harry Beanbag
3/8/2009, 05:35 AM
Google is your friend. It can make you really smart.

Vaevictis
3/8/2009, 06:05 AM
Google is your friend. It can make you really smart.

It can help with you being better informed, anyway. Primary sources abound.

batonrougesooner
3/8/2009, 06:27 AM
It's just more of a source of curiosity for me but it does make me wonder exactly how the process goes when you file to run for POTUS.

Do you go to the Capital and file with the Sec State? Do you have to produce an actual copy of your birth certificate? What is the vetting process regarding the authenticity of these documents? I suspect in the past it has been cursory at best since I doubt there ever has been a question such as this.

LosAngelesSooner
3/8/2009, 02:34 PM
Thank you for the honest response some ****s on this board don't seem to have comprehension in their vocabulary.

Heh...


http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif Judge throws Obama... (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2587950#post2587950) 3/7/2009 09:45 PM 85Sooner (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/member.php?u=36509) your one of them

YOU'RE right...some of us on this board DON'T seem to "have comprehension in their vocabulary." LOL :D

JohnnyMack
3/8/2009, 04:13 PM
When spelling smack backfires, we all win.

NYC Poke
3/8/2009, 05:40 PM
Even if these cases had standing they're doomed to failure. When Obama would produce his certified copy of his birth certificate (which I'm sure he could, as Hawaiian officials have said the BC is authentic), the plaintiffs would have to come up with some pretty compelling evidence to show that's it's somehow invalid, a near impossiblity for a certified government record. It would have to go way beyond the "But I heard his mother was in Kenya at the time" insanity we've all been hearing. Even if they found eyewitnesses who allege they witnessed Obama being born in Kenya, that's not enough to overcome the presumption of the authenticity of the certificate.

Likewise, the efforts to show that that he somehow lost his US citizenship while in Indonesia. You need to take some pretty affirmative steps to renounce your citizenship. In the case of the American Taliban, John Walker Lindh, the prosecution argued that he had renounced his citizenship by taking up arms against his country, and the court rejected that argument, saying that even THAT was not enough. They would have to come with something way more compelling than something his stepfather wrote on a school enrollment form, something along the lines of him going to the State Department and saying "I renounce my US citizenship. I renounce my US citizenship. I renounce my US citizenship." Probably along with him writing in blood that he was formally renouncing his US citizenship. And I'm fairly certain that no such evidence exists.

eta: These lawsuits should be regarded as the foolishness that they are, regardless of your political inclinations.

bonkuba
3/8/2009, 07:55 PM
Probably because most politicians can't live up to any higher standards. They are whoring garbage.


Best post EVAR!!! I believe all politicians should be forced to wash their mouth out with buckshot.:D

Half a Hundred
3/8/2009, 09:07 PM
Even if these cases had standing they're doomed to failure. When Obama would produce his certified copy of his birth certificate (which I'm sure he could, as Hawaiian officials have said the BC is authentic), the plaintiffs would have to come up with some pretty compelling evidence to show that's it's somehow invalid, a near impossiblity for a certified government record. It would have to go way beyond the "But I heard his mother was in Kenya at the time" insanity we've all been hearing. Even if they found eyewitnesses who allege they witnessed Obama being born in Kenya, that's not enough to overcome the presumption of the authenticity of the certificate.

Likewise, the efforts to show that that he somehow lost his US citizenship while in Indonesia. You need to take some pretty affirmative steps to renounce your citizenship. In the case of the American Taliban, John Walker Lindh, the prosecution argued that he had renounced his citizenship by taking up arms against his country, and the court rejected that argument, saying that even THAT was not enough. They would have to come with something way more compelling than something his stepfather wrote on a school enrollment form, something along the lines of him going to the State Department and saying "I renounce my US citizenship. I renounce my US citizenship. I renounce my US citizenship." Probably along with him writing in blood that he was formally renouncing his US citizenship. And I'm fairly certain that no such evidence exists.

eta: These lawsuits should be regarded as the foolishness that they are, regardless of your political inclinations.

These lawsuits are the legal equivalent of "he can't be president, I mean, just LOOK at him!"

47straight
3/8/2009, 09:24 PM
I'm interested to see whether the court severs the issues of standing to sue to remove President Obama as CiC and the issue of this particular officer having standing to sue to not recognize him as such.


I tried to parse this and I can't. Maybe cuz it's the weekend? :confused:


And your other post regarding burden of proof is half-right... right on the burden, wrong on the legal assessment of the evidence. ;) That class will come, though.

47straight
3/8/2009, 09:26 PM
When spelling smack backfires, we all win.

Once I called a whorn newb troll a "moran" and he tried to bring the spelling smack. I almost couldn't contain myself at the thick, juicy grade-a irony.

Frozen Sooner
3/8/2009, 10:17 PM
I tried to parse this and I can't. Maybe cuz it's the weekend? :confused:


And your other post regarding burden of proof is half-right... right on the burden, wrong on the legal assessment of the evidence. ;) That class will come, though.

Fair enough on the second part. :D I look forward to it.

To more clearly state:

Would the court's ruling be broad (ie either defendant is or is not eligible to be CinC) or narrow (ie plaintiff has shown that reasonable doubt does exist as to defendants eligibility and plaintiff is granted injunctive relief to only plaintiff.)

However, thinking about it, it makes no sense for the second scenario. So never mind.

47straight
3/8/2009, 11:47 PM
In your second scenario, are you saying that basically the plaintiff doesn't have to follow orders? That would be a slick way out, but I have no idea if that would be an option.

Frozen Sooner
3/8/2009, 11:59 PM
Yep, that's what I'm getting at.

Completely unworkable, though, 'cause it'd lead to anarchy in the Armed Forces. Totally against public policy.