Main Menu

Archive | January, 2010

The return of the Taitz

Prolific birther litigant Orly Taitz is back in a new episode of “the president is a usurper” in the DC District court.

Rather than gathering a long list of plaintiffs, Taitz is the sole pro se plaintiff in this case filed in the District of Columbia  January 27, 2010. Judge David O. Carter formerly rebuffed Taitz’s quo warranto claims in his California court since legislation requires all such lawsuits to be filed DC. Taitz has remedied that particular defect by filing this one in DC. It seems more of the same old same old, although better written than her former fare.

You can read it for yourself here.

News feature

From time to time, I’m going to provide some links to Obama Conspiracy media stories in articles like this:

11% of California voters are “birthers”

Sigh.

That’s the case according to a Field Corporation Poll released January 26, 2010. In addition to that hard core 11% who say they don’t believe Obama was born in the USA, another 22% aren’t sure.

Eighty-five percent of Democrats, but just 42% of Republicans, maintain that Obama was born in the U.S. There is also a wide divergence of opinion between liberals, 96% of whom believe Obama was born in America, and conservatives, of whom fewer than half feel this way (45%). …

Just 29% of the voters who say they identify a lot with the tea party movement believe that Obama is a U.S.-born citizen.

In 2008, there were about 17 million registered voters in California, so by extrapolation we find there about 1.9 million birthers in California (not counting those unsure and those not registered to vote).

More information on Obama’s legal bills

“The monetary cost to the government in defending these … cases was extremely minimal”

We reported earlier on this blog that an Obama attorney (Fredric Woocher) said there is nothing to the myth that Obama is paying his lawyers millions to fight eligibility cases. Woocher’s firm represented Obama in one of the very few cases where Obama attorneys actually filed anything, this time in California. Woocher’s firm was acting pro bono. Obama was represented in Keyes v. Bowen by Aimee Dudovitz, and associate of Strumwasser and Woocher. After this case was dismissed, costs of defense were assessed against the plaintiffs. Obama’s costs were noted as $520 and those of Joe Biden who shared the same attorney were also $520.

Now we have further evidence of minimal legal expenses from Roger West, an assistant US attorney in the central district of California, who represented the Government in the year-long lawsuit, Barnett v. Obama (formerly  known as Keyes v. Obama). West told Mother Jones Magazine that the case brought by Orly Taitz was so weak, that it didn’t take much time to file the motions necessary to have it dismissed. He said:

“I filed one motion that didn’t take too long, we’ve had two hearings and that’s it,” he says. “It’s not like we’ve devoted some sort of task force to this.”

Army Major Rebecca Ausprung, who defended the Army  in two cases involving service personnel challenging the President said:

“The monetary cost to the government in defending these two cases was extremely minimal,”

When Philip J. Berg was ordered to pay government costs to the Federal Elections Commission after losing his case and appeal, the bill? $20.40. (That amount did not include the attorneys’ time.)

Hawaii Department of Health Obama FAQ

This web page has been up since last summer, but somehow I failed to publish a link to it. I suppose in response to the flood of inquiries about Barack Obama’s birth certificate, the Hawaii Department of Health has decided to put up  a web page just to address questions about the Department of Health regulations.

WND Birther poll gives slim chance for lawsuits

2813 persons have responded to the following poll at WorldNetDaily. Only 5% of respondents believe that Obama’s eligibility will be determined by a civil lawsuit (even though this option was listed first on the poll).  I certainly agree with that conclusion, at least until the next election cycle.

What I found most remarkable was that the number one answer basically says that there is no proof available to the public that Obama is ineligible, but that they are certain of it anyway.

Thanks to my source, Deep Birther, for the link.

The truth is already out there, that he is hiding information precluding him from being eligible for the presidency 43% (1200)
We’ll never know the truth, unfortunately 16% (463)
When a new Congress takes over and presses the issue to a conclusion 15% (419)
When he’s indicted and proof will be demanded by a court 11% (308)
Money will change hands that will lead to key information suddenly becoming public 6% (171)
A civil lawsuit will finally see success 5% (133)
Other 2% (57)
Get over it. He’s already disclosed the truth that
he was born in Hawaii
1% (31)
He finally steps up to the plate, and releases his long-form, hospital birth certificate 1% (19)
A true relative or someone present at the birth will come out of the woodwork to reveal the truth 0% (10)
He’ll address America in a heartfelt discussion to come clean no matter what the truth is 0% (2)