Main Menu

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.)

117 Responses to More information on Obama’s legal bills

  1. avatar
    Scientist January 27, 2010 at 7:53 am #

    The birthers believe their “cases” are enormously deep and masterfully-argued and so must require massive efforts to oppose. Of course, we all know that they are ridiculous to the point of being farcical and that a mediocre second-year law student could write a brief destroying them. In addition, the birther lawyers (or liars) all plagiarize each other and make the same arguments in all their “cases”, so the defense can re-cycle their briefs as well.

    I am certain that if the DOJ were to compile a list of the 100 cases that they are devoting the most efforts to, all the birther “cases” would rank at 4,376. They are discussed on the internets; in real courts, not so much.

  2. avatar
    Black Lion January 27, 2010 at 9:00 am #

    Here is an interesting article I am sure you won’t see on FOX, Brietbarts so called Big Goverment website, or any of the other prepetual hate Obama sites….

    ACORN ‘gotcha’ man arrested in attempt to tamper with Mary Landrieu’s office phones-

    “Alleging a plot to tamper with phones in Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office in the Hale Boggs Federal Building in downtown New Orleans, the FBI arrested four people Monday, including James O’Keefe, 25, a conservative filmmaker whose undercover videos at ACORN field offices severely damaged the advocacy group’s credibility.

    Also arrested were Joseph Basel, Stan Dai and Robert Flanagan, all 24. Flanagan is the son of William Flanagan, who is the acting U.S. attorney for the Western District of Louisiana. All four men were charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony.

    An official close to the investigation said one of the four was arrested with a listening device in a car blocks from the senator’s offices. He spoke on condition of anonymity because that information was not included in official arresting documents.

    ACORN spokesman Kevin Whelan said the arrest calls O’Keefe’s credibility into question, and used the opportunity to point out that he “edited (ACORN videos) to make things look as bad as possible.” He said, for instance, that O’Keefe actually wore a normal dress shirt when he was in the ACORN offices, but spliced in shots of him dressed as a pimp in the final videos.”

    http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/acorn_gotcha_man_arrested_for.html

    I wonder why the silence by the right all of a sudden about Mr. O’Keefe? I wonder if anyone thinks that he will be back on Hannity and the other FOX shows? I think the odds are good because the opposition to President Obama is not shy on who they are associated with as long as they can attack and discredit the President, as evidenced with O’Keefe’s so called attack on the ACORN organazation. Either way tt looks like Mr. O’Keefe is in a lot of trouble. I’m just curious if his buddies like Hannity or the other FOX actors and Brietbart will help him out of his current situation…

  3. avatar
    misha January 27, 2010 at 11:34 am #

    Yeah, Watergate II. I always knew O’Keefe would finally go too far. His Fox buddies are not going to help him out. A crying shame.

    He should get Liddy to help him.

  4. avatar
    Hallie Roberts January 27, 2010 at 3:43 pm #

    Obama could quickly put all this to rest simply by providing his long-form hospital-generated birth certificate. Why oh why won’t he do that? We have to wonder: what is he hiding?

  5. avatar
    Scientist January 27, 2010 at 3:45 pm #

    Are you authorized to speak for all those who have filed lawsuits?

  6. avatar
    SFJeff January 27, 2010 at 3:51 pm #

    Considering every lawsuits alleges at least two other reasons President Obama shouldn’t have been eligible besides whether Obama was born in Hawaii why would anyone believe your assertion?

    He isn’t hiding anything. He is ignoring you.

  7. avatar
    JoZeppy January 27, 2010 at 4:10 pm #

    You don’t acknowledge idiots and nuts that will never be satisfied. You ignore them. He provided them a legal document from the State of Hawaii that says he was born in Hawaii, what more do they need?

  8. avatar
    G January 27, 2010 at 4:44 pm #

    *yawn* Repetitive and stupid concern trolling.

    This question has been repeatedly and definitively addressed from multiple angles for well over a year.

    Anyone who is still asking it has either been living in a cave and is too lazy to look up the truth for themselves or is extremely disingenuous and in complete denial of reality.

    Bottom line: he provided a birth certificate and the state of HI both confirmed he was born there (on several occasions) as well as confirming that the form he provided IS the only form they offer and the valid format and form for such certification of birth place in HI. There is no “long form” that you can request from that state and there hasn’t been one for much longer than a decade.

  9. avatar
    richCares January 27, 2010 at 6:00 pm #

    G, you didn’t write slowly enough, remember you are writing to an idiot, so type more slowly please!

  10. avatar
    misha January 27, 2010 at 6:19 pm #

    @Hallie Roberts:

    Good point.

    The “long form” you are looking for is available right here.

  11. avatar
    G January 27, 2010 at 8:48 pm #

    🙂 Good point, richCares!

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2010 at 8:58 pm #

    Hallie Roberts: Obama could quickly put all this to rest simply…

    I answer this question here:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/why-doesnt-he-show-the-damn-thing/

  13. avatar
    Preston January 27, 2010 at 9:04 pm #

    Lets see, if you have real facts and a good lawyer then you will go to trial, this has not happened, no facts just assumptions, more than likely, your logic is crude to say the least, but very funny. You guys need to win a case, but until then, you guys will continue to appear dumb, crazy or racist, or maybe all three. Keep plucking that chicken because I love what you are doing.

  14. avatar
    John January 27, 2010 at 11:21 pm #

    I agree with Hallie. Release of the long-form would reduce much of the contraversy. To date, there no coorborative evidence that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. Yes, we the COLB and Hawaiian Offical statements but they still don’t cut because both the COLB and the statements are derived from unknown information. We don’t know the deravation of either the COLB or the statements. What is needed coorborative information. What would that be:
    Doctor’s signature
    Witness’s signature

  15. avatar
    aarrgghh January 28, 2010 at 12:00 am #

    john, singing LALALAICANTHEARYOU:

    Yes, we the COLB and Hawaiian Offical statements but they still don’t cut because both the COLB and the statements are derived from unknown information. We don’t know the deravation of either the COLB or the statements.

    you’re lucky you have us to listen to your grade school whining, because not one single adult, from george bush to john mccain to john roberts, gives a flying taitz because they know what “prima facie” and “full faith and credit” means, which the teacher has been explained many times.

    mccain lost. get over it and grow up.

  16. avatar
    NbC January 28, 2010 at 12:21 am #

    There is no controversy, not in court, not in the media. Only in the minds of a few.

    Simple really… Per COLB he was born on US soil and thus natural born, that’s prima facie legal evidence and sufficient to establish President Obama’s eligibility.

    Of course 60+ cases have failed so far.

  17. avatar
    Greg January 28, 2010 at 12:44 am #

    Assuming the COLB is authentic, we do know the derivation of the COLB. It has a signature on the back that says, “I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health.”

    You know what that means, John?

    It is a true copy or abstract of the record on file with the State of Hawaii.

    That’s all the corroboration you should need.

    If that’s not enough, it has a state seal.

  18. avatar
    Hawaiiborn January 28, 2010 at 2:24 am #

    The COLB is the only form that Hawaii offers to its residents. That form is prima facie evidence that can be used in court.

    Its up to the birthers to prove that the information on the form is incorrect.

  19. avatar
    chufho January 28, 2010 at 2:31 am #

    the day of reckoning approaches

  20. avatar
    chufho January 28, 2010 at 2:32 am #

    a real document what he provided wasnt provided by he and it aint authenticated duh!!!!!

  21. avatar
    chufho January 28, 2010 at 2:35 am #

    yfos they will and you just helped

  22. avatar
    chufho January 28, 2010 at 2:39 am #

    Preston, how is your life without ambition working out for ya

  23. avatar
    chufho January 28, 2010 at 2:42 am #

    good work John plowing through this feild of clods with logic is quite easy, you are up against obamas best defense team trying to throw out all this false info, such a riot

  24. avatar
    Mike January 28, 2010 at 2:45 am #

    What are you, a movie voice-over artist?

  25. avatar
    Greg January 28, 2010 at 2:50 am #

    a real document what he provided wasnt provided by he and it aint authenticated duh!!!!!

    Put the bottle down. Go to bed.

  26. avatar
    chufho January 28, 2010 at 2:51 am #

    you like obama keeps cutting these huge peices of lie pie and try serving it up but news flash america dont want no more slices

  27. avatar
    Greg January 28, 2010 at 2:55 am #

    you like obama keeps cutting these huge peices of lie pie and try serving it up but news flash america dont want no more slices

    Unpopular isn’t the same as ineligible.

    Do you realize that, or are you only using the eligibility thing as a ruse because you never liked Obama?

  28. avatar
    Lupin January 28, 2010 at 4:34 am #

    A new game.

    Complete the following sentence:

    “Obama could quickly put all this to rest simply by…”

    My personal choice:

    “…dressing up in a Godzilla suit and trampling over a miniature replica of Wall Street while singing The Internationale.”

  29. avatar
    Lupin January 28, 2010 at 4:38 am #

    Might the “coorborative” evidence that would reduce the “contraversy” be a “deravation” from a frumious bandersnatch?

    “They sought it with thimbles, they sought it with care;
    They pursued it with forks and hope…”

  30. avatar
    richCares January 28, 2010 at 5:24 am #

    the clod says….

  31. avatar
    aarrgghh January 28, 2010 at 6:04 am #

    “Obama could quickly put all this to rest simply by…”

    not being black.

  32. avatar
    Greg January 28, 2010 at 7:14 am #

    not being a Democrat.

  33. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 28, 2010 at 7:18 am #

    John: I agree with Hallie.Release of the long-form would reduce much of the contraversy.To date, there no coorborative evidence that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii.Yes, we the COLB and Hawaiian Offical statements but they still don’t cut because both the COLB and the statements are derived from unknown information.We don’t know the deravation of either the COLB or the statements.What is needed coorborative information.What would that be:
    Doctor’s signature
    Witness’s signature

    Filed vs. Accepted

    BO’s COLB is “Filed” because the HI DoH was following a Court Order to create and preserve a vital record for BO based on information dictated in the Court Order.

    If the HI DoH had received an application for creation of a vital record where the information pertaining to BO’s birth were attested to by a Doctor, Hospital Admin and mother’s signature, then the COLB would have stated “Accepted.”

    When Barry Soetoro was 10-years-old his birth father, BO Sr., complained to the HI Family Court he was not properly notified and did not consent to the Soetoro adoption. The Court heard testimony and examined evidence on Barry’s birth and subsequent adoption by Soetoro. After the Court granted BO Sr. relief, the Court ordered the HI DoH to create a new vital record for Barack Hussein Obama II.

    Barack’s original vital record, the one that was “accepted” due to an attestation of credible witness(es), was sealed by Court Order when the Soetoro adoption was finalized.

  34. avatar
    Scientist January 28, 2010 at 8:24 am #

    Sven: I’m not very smart and couldn’t even begin to argue these fine points of the law with someone as brilliant as you. Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain, supposing your story is true, what difference does this make to me and to my life? Please use only very simple terms. Thanks.

  35. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 28, 2010 at 9:18 am #

    Barack Hussein Obama’s II vital record was created and preserved in 1971-72 due to Court Order by the Hawaii District Court, Honolulu, HI.

    The vital record is “filed” and not “accepted” because witness testimony and evidence presented was heard by a Hawaii Court and not attested to by a Hospital Admin or Doctor before an authorized person employed by the Hawaii DoH.

  36. avatar
    Scientist January 28, 2010 at 9:41 am #

    And this affects my life how? I’m serious here and think I deserve an answer. Why should I care about someone’s adoption fight in the 1970s?

  37. avatar
    JoZeppy January 28, 2010 at 9:47 am #

    What’s it like living in a fact optional world where you can make things up, with no requirement of evidence as you go?

  38. avatar
    richCares January 28, 2010 at 9:55 am #

    making this up does not count as evidence, are you really that dumb to fall for made up carp?

  39. avatar
    racosta January 28, 2010 at 10:33 am #

    sven makes some ridiculous comments as seen above, he does not seem smart enough to make these up on his own. I am curious as to where he get this stupid stuff from, is it Orly’s site or some ignorant wingers site? He appears to beleive that stuff (which has no evidence, none at all, yet he accepts it) Just curious as to source!

  40. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 28, 2010 at 11:21 am #

    racosta: sven makes some ridiculous comments as seen above, he does not seem smart enough to make these up on his own. I am curious as to where he get this stupid stuff from, is it Orly’s site or some ignorant wingers site? He appears to beleive that stuff (which has no evidence, none at all, yet he accepts it) Just curious as to source!

    I’m confident BHO’s II COLB was “filed” and the Nordyke twins’ COB was “accepted.”

    And, according to BHO’s II autobiography, he and the Nordyke twins were born within a few hours of each other at the same hospital.

    Racosta, I find this troubling … the Hawaii Revised Statutes indicate that in some instances a Birth Certificate is not evidence of U.S. Citizenship.

    Rev. Stat. § 338-20.5

    The Department of Health shall establish a Hawaii certificate of birth for a person born in a foreign country and for whom a final decree of adoption has been entered in a court of competent jurisdiction in Hawaii, when it receives the following:

    * A properly certified copy of the adoption decree or certified abstract thereof on a form approved by the department
    * A copy of any investigatory report and recommendation that may have been prepared by the Director of Social Services
    * A report on a form approved by the Department of Health setting forth the following:
    o Date of the assumption of custody
    o The sex, color, or race of the child
    o The approximate age of the child
    o The name and address of the adoptive parent(s)
    o The name given to the child by the adoptive parent(s)
    o The true or probable country of birth
    o A request that a new certificate of birth be established
    * The true or probable country of birth shall be known as the place of birth, and the date of birth shall be determined by approximation. This report shall constitute an original certificate of birth.

    After preparation of the new birth certificate in the new name of the adopted person, the Department of Health shall seal and file the certified copy of the adoptive decree, investigatory report, and recommendation of the Director of Human Services, if any, the report constituting the original certificate of birth, and the request for a new certificate of birth. The sealed documents may be opened by the department only by an order of a court of record or when requested in accordance with § 578-14.5 or 578-15.

    The new certificate of birth shall show the true or probable foreign country of birth and that the certificate is not evidence of U.S. citizenship for the child for whom it is issued or for the adoptive parents.

  41. avatar
    Whatever4 January 28, 2010 at 11:45 am #

    Mmmmmm….pie…..

  42. avatar
    richCares January 28, 2010 at 11:59 am #

    Obama’s COLB does not say Kenya, it says Honolulu, Hawai as place of birth. (sven states Hawaii gov as saying “The new certificate of birth shall show the true or probable foreign country of birth”)

    Thanks for the verification, again you have no proof of your position!

  43. avatar
    richCares January 28, 2010 at 12:06 pm #

    I’m confident BHO’s II COLB was “filed” and the Nordyke twins’ COB was “accepted.”

    sorry, all BC since 1961 say “filed” as does my daughters (born 1965 in Hawaii)

    you are full of weasel word as well as that brown stuff!

  44. avatar
    racosta January 28, 2010 at 12:14 pm #

    hey sven, Dr. C totally debunked your “date filed” claim. just search Dr. C’s site for “filed vs accepted”. Keep up will you, your beliefs are always so easy to debunk.

  45. avatar
    SFJeff January 28, 2010 at 12:37 pm #

    I am finding myself reading this blog just to catch up with the latest chapter of Sven’s novel.

    I am on pins and needles about whether Obama Sr. and Barry Soetero ever reunite in the country of their birth, and whether Obama Sr. kidnaps Barry from Indonesia and sweeps him off to Narnia.

  46. avatar
    NbC January 28, 2010 at 12:54 pm #

    Yes, filed is found on more recent COLBs while accepted was found on older COLBs. Makes sense since filed is the more relevant date.

    Ignorance causes so much trouble for our poor birthers. So desperate to have reality morphed to their fantasies..

  47. avatar
    Scientist January 28, 2010 at 1:08 pm #

    The certificates for my kids (different states, not Hawaii) say filed not accepted. As I said on the other thread, they are the ONLY people of whose birth circumstances I can be 100% certain. We scientists would call that a control and conclude that the presence of the term filed is a sign of validity.

  48. avatar
    misha January 28, 2010 at 1:25 pm #

    “you like obama keeps cutting these huge peices of lie pie”

    Actually, I keep hoping for a slice of grasshopper pie. Yummy. Thanks for looking at my cat’s BC.

    I enjoy watching your crowd squirm.

  49. avatar
    NbC January 28, 2010 at 1:31 pm #

    More fantasy… So far the COLB remains unassailed

  50. avatar
    Black Lion January 28, 2010 at 2:58 pm #

    Jeff, I think Sven’s work of fiction is coming along very well…I am looking forward to reading his next chapter…If this was a soap I am sure that chapter would have young Barry finding out his father was Jackie Robinson, American Hero…

  51. avatar
    Black Lion January 28, 2010 at 3:03 pm #

    I saw this article and found it interesting….

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-worldnetdaily27-2010jan27,0,4140446.story

    “If Farah believes Obama is bad for the country, the president has been indisputably good for Farah’s business.

    WorldNetDaily’s unique visitors nearly doubled to 2 million a month after Obama took office, according to Nielsen’s ratings. Farah says his traffic is at least twice that, citing private data from Google Analytics, a traffic-counting service. By either count, that’s higher than the online readership of the conservative mainstay National Review, not to mention many of the nation’s regional newspapers.

    Revenue is on track to hit $10 million annually, Farah says. (That figure could not be independently verified.) His success comes in no small part from the storehouse of “birther” T-shirts, books, DVDs and postcards for sale in his virtual “superstore.”

    Note the point about Obama being good for business…This is what it is all about…Making money…from vultures like Farah to idiots like Orly and her crew, it is all about making a buck off the ignorance, hatred, and stupidity of the people that hate the President…What is even more disturbing is how stupid these people are because they don’t realize that they are being used….

  52. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 28, 2010 at 3:13 pm #

    Scientist: The certificates for my kids (different states, not Hawaii) say filed not accepted.As I said on the other thread, they are the ONLY people of whose birth circumstances I can be 100% certain.We scientists would call that a control and conclude that the presence of the term filed is a sign of validity.

    Were your kids adopted? Can a birth parent submit a request for creation and preservation of a vital record without an attestion by a doctor or a mid-wife present at the delivery?

    NbC: Yes, filed is found on more recent COLBs while accepted was found on older COLBs. Makes sense since filed is the more relevant date.Ignorance causes so much trouble for our poor birthers. So desperate to have reality morphed to their fantasies..

    The correct classification in 1961 for BHO’s II birth father, BO Sr., would have been “Negro.”

    The correct classification for in 1971-72 for BHO’s II birth father, BO Sr, would have been African and not African American since his father was not an American citizen.

    Clearly, BHO’s II vital record was created in 1971-72 by order of the Court.

  53. avatar
    SFJeff January 28, 2010 at 3:22 pm #

    “Clearly, BHO’s II vital record was created in 1971-72 by order of the Court.”

    And here I keep asking Sven for proof….

  54. avatar
    NbC January 28, 2010 at 3:25 pm #

    Good luck. Sven is allergic to proof…

  55. avatar
    NbC January 28, 2010 at 3:28 pm #

    The correct classification in 1961 for BHO’s II birth father, BO Sr., would have been “Negro.”

    Since the form is filled out by the parents, it is up to them to categorize themselves. Nuff said.. Ignorance once again prevails over facts.

  56. avatar
    Scientist January 28, 2010 at 3:45 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Were your kids adopted? Can a birth parent submit a request for creation and preservation of a vital record without an attestion by a doctor or a mid-wife present at the delivery?

    You never answered my question: supposing your story is true, what difference does this make to me and to my life?

    When you do, I will consider yours.

  57. avatar
    racosta January 28, 2010 at 4:32 pm #

    in Hawaii race is entered by parents, you will see white, caucasion, Philpino, japanese, Chinese, Haole, etc (many of these are not races) My daughters BC shows Japanese, Polish. (neither are races). Sven’s BC shows “dumb shit” under the race category.

    Besides, no African (from Africa) would ever use the term “Negro”!

  58. avatar
    Joseph January 28, 2010 at 11:41 pm #

    Black Lion, how does it feel to be a cheap [expletive deleted, Doc C.], Dr. Conspiracy? You’re both lower than any crack whore on Earth. Obama continues to fail and you bastards continue to tell obvious lies, what a perfect combination. Marxism is dead, you damned fool [expletive deleted, Doc C.].

  59. avatar
    Joseph January 28, 2010 at 11:43 pm #

    Ammunition sales continue to increase.

  60. avatar
    chufho January 29, 2010 at 2:35 am #

    stay focused

  61. avatar
    Hawaiiborn January 29, 2010 at 3:55 am #

    Page views doesn’t equal unique visits….could be all the reloading his followers are doing….for the “higher” traffic.

  62. avatar
    NBc January 29, 2010 at 5:54 am #

    And…. how much longer… My eyes are really starting to water…

  63. avatar
    Lupin January 29, 2010 at 8:38 am #

    The Everest of ignorance that is the American birther always gives rise to endless stupefaction.

    To think that Obama (whose economic team is to the right of Richard Nixon) is a Marxist, or, for that matter, that Marxism is dead is so massively wrong that I wouldn’t even know where to begin.

  64. avatar
    Black Lion January 29, 2010 at 11:05 am #

    Joseph, really? Lets be honest. The only reason you are attempting to denigrate , me, Dr. C, and other so called eligibility supporters is because you are narrow minded bigot. You know deep down that the President is eligible, but you can’t accept the fact that he is indeed the President. So you make up lies and distort the truth and the law to somehow support your untenable position. But at the end of the day one intelligent people refute your ridiculous theories and accusations, you know that there is nothing left. So you resort to some cheap expletives thinking that somehow it would bother any of us. All it does is show how pathetic you are. And amusing. Go cry in a corner with the knowledge that Obama will be the President for the next couple of years at least…

  65. avatar
    Bovril January 29, 2010 at 11:34 am #

    To late, Dr C’s already banned him……

  66. avatar
    kimba January 29, 2010 at 11:35 am #

    Please to explain what exactly is a “long-form hospital-gerneated birth certificate”, where you got the idea one exists for Barack Obama, where one would get such a document from a birth in 1961 and why you believe such a mythical document would have legal weight greater than the document issued by the State of Hawaii as proof of birth.
    I find it amusing that the idea of Obama hiding some mythical document, versus accepting the legal document he has provided persists more than one year into his Presidency. Shorter: I’d like to have some of whatever you’re smoking.

  67. avatar
    richCares January 29, 2010 at 11:55 am #

    this thread was on the fake “Obama spent millions” claims by dumb birthers. Don’t respond to hijack comments or ignorant rants (i.e.joseph). They can’t properly answer the thread topic so they attemp hijacking.

  68. avatar
    G January 29, 2010 at 2:48 pm #

    Joseph says:

    “Ammunition sales continue to increase.”

    So, who cares? What is that supposed to mean?

    Are you trying to make some sort of pathetic threat here or against our elected government in general?

    Are you advocating criminal intent?

    Or are you just pointing out that the easily paranoid and gullible will continue to waste their money stocking up on excessive and overpriced ammo that in no reasonable situation will they ever need to use?

    As they say, a fool and their money are soon parted…

  69. avatar
    SFJeff January 29, 2010 at 4:02 pm #

    “You’re both lower than any crack whore on Earth.”

    I defer to your superior personal knowledge of crack whores.

  70. avatar
    Branin January 29, 2010 at 4:06 pm #

    The $20.40 is a cute number and used on a bunch of non-birther websites, but if you actually look at the filing (available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/23331432/BERG-v-OBAMA-APPEAL-ECF-FILER-BILL-OF-COSTS-filed-on-behalf-of-Appellee-Fed-Election-Comm-Transport-Room), you can see the amount is only the filing and copying costs, not the actual costs including legal time. I’m not a birther, but leaving this line in the article hurts the credibility of the rest of the article.

  71. avatar
    NbC January 29, 2010 at 5:40 pm #

    You have a point, appeals can only recover such administrative costs.

  72. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- January 29, 2010 at 7:42 pm #

    Do you talk to your fellow successful African-American lawyers that way, Joseph?

    P.S. One year plus in and Barack Hussein Obama is still our President.

  73. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- January 29, 2010 at 7:46 pm #

    We have the law, the court cases, and, oh yeah, the President of our United States. What do you have?

  74. avatar
    misha January 29, 2010 at 8:41 pm #

    “You’re both lower than any crack whore on Earth.”

    Tell me more about crack whores. I’d like to learn more. Thanks in advance.

    BTW, I’ve seen some call girls here. What’s the difference?

  75. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 29, 2010 at 10:12 pm #

    Your point is well taken, and I have updated the article.

  76. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 29, 2010 at 10:19 pm #

    A long-form hospital birth certificate is the form the hospital fills out to send to the health department. Up until a few years ago the Hawaii Department of Health photocopied these things onto security paper and that was the “birth certificate” one got. You can see one filled out by the same hospital Obama was born at one day later here: http://media.photobucket.com/image/nordyke%20twins%20birth%20certificate%20hawaii/hercuroc/090728birthcert.gif

    I can’t say why a computer computer-generated document would carry any more or less legal weight since by Hawaiian law, they are equally valid.

  77. avatar
    Whatever4 January 30, 2010 at 12:05 am #

    The whole point behind certified birth certificates is so people don’t have to try to validate the information themselves. The State says that everything checked out when the birth occurred, that all necessary forms were filled out at the time, and that there’s no question that the child was born at the place and time listed. Hawaii certified that the information printed on it was correct. Any other information is irrelevant to the primary issue of who, where, when.

  78. avatar
    misha January 30, 2010 at 12:47 am #

    “I’d like to have some of whatever you’re smoking.”

    Yeah, if the fumes would help asthma, let me know. It sounds like powerful stuff.

  79. avatar
    Lupin January 30, 2010 at 2:39 am #

    “You’re both lower than any crack whore on Earth.”

    Let’s not insult Martian crack whores.

  80. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 30, 2010 at 9:18 am #

    The good news is that Orly is asking to see Barack’s original vital record on file the Hawaii DoH and the birth record used by the SoS to validate Barry’s U.S. Citizenship before a U.S. passport was issued to Barry. Each record states BHO II and Barry Soetoro was born in Honolulu, HI.

    As long as Orly doesn’t ask for the complete file for Barry Soetoro with the U.S. State Department, her quo warranto will go no where.

  81. avatar
    Scientist January 30, 2010 at 9:56 am #

    Sven: Again I must ask you, why anyone should care. What effect does any of this have on me and my family?

    Orly’s quo warranto will go nowhere because it is barred by law and the Constitution. She could ask for a ham sandwich and she wouldn’t get it.

  82. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 30, 2010 at 11:09 am #

    Scientist: Quo warranto will go nowhere because it is barred by law and the Constitution.She could ask for a ham sandwich and she wouldn’t get it.

    We know Orly request the AG to file Quo Warranto …

    Attn Mr. Eric Holder

    United States Attorney General

    950 Pennsylvania Ave NW

    Washington DC 20530-0001 USA

    Dear Mr. Holder,

    On March 1st on behalf of my clients I have submitted to you a request to file Quo Warranto against Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. The request was filed due to following troubling facts:

    1. According to a number of licensed investigators National Databases show Mr. Obama using as many as 39 different Social Security numbers, which included the numbers of deceased individuals and numbers never assigned.

    2. Number 042-68-4425 that Mr. Obama used for most of his life and is currently using while residing in the White House, is a number assigned to an individual born in 1890, who resided in the state of Connecticut and this Social Security number was issued in the state of Connecticut where Mr. Obama never resided.

    3. One of the leading forensic experts in the country Ms. Sandra Ramsey Lines has prepared an affidavit, stating that Mr. Obama’s short version Certification of Life Birth cannot be treated as genuine without seeing the original on file in the Health Department in HI.

    4. The state of Hawaii since 1911 had in its statutes a provision allowing Foreign born children of Hawaiian residents of get Hawaiian Birth Certificates(currently statute 338-17) and currently statute 338-5 allows one to get a birth certificate based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence from the hospital.

    5. In spite of over 100 law suits filed around the country and 12 Citizen Grand Jury indictments Mr. Obama refused to sign a consent to unseal his original birth certificate currently sealed in the Health Department of the state of Hawaii and all the other vital records.

    6. Ms. Chiuomi Fukino, Director of the Health Department of the State of Hawaii has provided a statement that there is a document on file in Hawaii, however she refused to provide any information, as to what document is on file: whether it is a Birth Certificate given to a foreign born child of Hawaiian resident, whether it is an amended Birth certificate, obtained when Mr. Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather. She refused to answer any questions as to whether his birth certificate was obtained based on a proper hospital birth certificate or based on a statement of one of his relatives only, which needs to be corroborated.

    7. Regardless of place of birth of Mr. Obama, since birth and until now Mr. Obama had a split allegiance. He had British citizenship at birth, Kenyan since age 2 and Indonesian since age 5. Allegiance to other Nations goes as a clear violation of the Natural citizenship clause of the article 2 section 1 of the Constitution.

    8. Under the Freedom of Information act 5 US 552, since no response was provided to numerous certified mail letters received by your office nine months ago, I demand a written response or Administrative hearing on the matter within 30 days. On behalf of my clients I demand an answer, as to when the Quo Warranto against Mr. Obama will be filed by the US Attorney General office, or in the alternative if the Attorney General office refuses to file Quo Warranto, I demand an ex-relator status for my clients to proceed with the Quo Warranto action against Mr. Obama in the DC court or the Supreme Court of the United States.

    Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ

    Counsel to the plaintiffs-ex relators.

    And according to our friend, “RetiredLawyer,” at NBc’s site: “If the AG decides not to bring a QW action, the person who brought the information to to he AG may file an action under seal (that is nothing is in the public file) to request a hearing on whether the AG had any reason not to file the QW action.”

    Apparently, the Court found the AG didn’t have a reason not to file Quo Warranto; thus, opening the door for Orly to file.

  83. avatar
    Scientist January 30, 2010 at 11:31 am #

    Orly “requested” Atty Gen Holder to file Quo Warranto. I have “requested” Sec Geithner to give me $ 1 billion. The 2 “requests” are equally silly and have been responded to in the same manner.

    The difference as far as I am concerned is that the 1st is of no importance to me and will have no effect on my life. The 2nd is very important to me and will greatly affect my life.

  84. avatar
    richCares January 30, 2010 at 11:31 am #

    “Apparently, the Court found the AG didn’t have a reason not to file Quo Warranto; thus, opening the door for Orly to file.”

    suggestion: look up definition of “apparently”, it may help you in avoiding delusions. This issue is over!

  85. avatar
    racosta January 30, 2010 at 11:36 am #

    sven always brings up same old and debunked talking points, is he adverse to learning? If he actaully believes the stuff he spouts I need his address (I have a bridge to sell). No one can be that dumb, he must be an Obat attempting satire.

  86. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 30, 2010 at 12:12 pm #

    richCares:

    Not only is Orly asking for Quo Warranto, but an evidentiary hearing and requests ” … this Honorable court to use its inherent powers to order Sua Sponte an evidentiary hearing on this particular issue for possible criminal prosecution of identity theft and social security fraud …”

  87. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 30, 2010 at 12:19 pm #

    I think of Obama as my brother and I worry because I care too much.

  88. avatar
    Scientist January 30, 2010 at 12:23 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Not only is Orly asking for Quo Warranto, but an evidentiary hearing

    She can ask for a pony too. She won’t get any of those.

  89. avatar
    Ballantine January 30, 2010 at 12:28 pm #

    I finally read Orly’s complaint and it is sad. A cry to help really. She doesn’t even attempt to argue how she has standing to bring a quo warranto action by herself. The attorney general or US attorney has complete discretion to bring such an action and the only other person who can bring the action is an interested person. She also doesn’t even try to explain how the president can be subject to quo warranto. Then she makes some kind of claims for damages without even pleading a cause of action that she should recover damages. This really isn’t a complaint, but an opportunity to whine.

  90. avatar
    racosta January 30, 2010 at 2:46 pm #

    Sure she will, and what will you say on it’s guaranteed rejection? If you think this will go anywhere then you really need psychiatric help.

  91. avatar
    richCares January 30, 2010 at 2:59 pm #

    Sven, this will be as successful as her Jan 26th court date! Got to hand it to you though, no matter how often Orly fails, you still believe her, that’s makes you her hero, but to us you are just another dumb birther! What is your eduction level, third grade or are you just blinded by hate?

  92. avatar
    NBc January 30, 2010 at 3:15 pm #

    The court will never grant her wishes, especially given the lack of any evidence.

  93. avatar
    NBc January 30, 2010 at 3:20 pm #

    Sven: Apparently, the Court found the AG didn’t have a reason not to file Quo Warranto; thus, opening the door for Orly to file.

    According to the relevant rulings you are wrong on two counts.

    1. The decision to file or not to file a QW is unreviewable by the Courts

    2. If the AG does not file then only a direcly interested party with a tangible interest in the office can file a QW through leave of Court

    Orly again will fail because of the legal precedents.

    The Code-making a distinction between a ‘third person’ and an ‘interested person’-recognizes also that there might be instances in which a person might have such an interest in the matter as to entitle him to a hearing, even where he had failed to secure the consent of the Attorney General or district attorney to use the name of the United States.

    But if the established facts show that, as a matter of law, he was not an ‘interested person,’ the court had no authority to grant him permission to use the name of the government, and the case must be dismissed. So that the fundamental question is whether the law of force in the District permitted him, as a private citizen, without the consent of the law officers, to test Newman’s title to the public office of civil commissioner.

    Newman v. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 , 35 Sup. Ct. 881

    I have done my research, you, as usual prefer to live in a world of fantasy.

    Failed…

  94. avatar
    NBc January 30, 2010 at 3:24 pm #

    And according to our friend, “RetiredLawyer,” at NBc’s site: “If the AG decides not to bring a QW action, the person who brought the information to to he AG may file an action under seal (that is nothing is in the public file) to request a hearing on whether the AG had any reason not to file the QW action.”

    If Sven had only read my site on Quo Warranto cases he would have known that only an interested party with a DIRECT interest in the office can proceed without the AG. Orly has NO DIRECT interest in the office and thus the Court has no choice under precential rulings but to reject a motion for leave to file.

    There is also no evidence that the Court has allowed anything so far. Other than that it accepted the motion and the evidence that likely shows a failure to effect service…

  95. avatar
    NBc January 30, 2010 at 3:47 pm #

    The complaint is all about Orly, how she is misunderstood, how she has been damaged by her own actions, how the Courts have sanctioned her…
    Orly does not really seem to care about making a case in favor of QW…

  96. avatar
    Ballantine January 30, 2010 at 3:47 pm #

    I think you have looked at this more than me, but wouldn’t the only person who would have a claim to the office if Obama is ineligible be Biden. And what exactly is the argument under the constitution that the president can be removed by a mere statute, which would make the impeachment clause superflous? Have they actually made an arguement?

  97. avatar
    NbC January 30, 2010 at 4:20 pm #

    At the moment Biden would be a possibly interested person, as perhaps McCain/Palin but given that Obama was found to have qualified by Congress and sworn in there is no way to use QW against a President.
    Which is the third reason QW will fail as it is well documented that QW cannot be used against the office of the President.

    3 Fails and you’re out…

  98. avatar
    Rickey January 30, 2010 at 6:59 pm #

    NBc says:

    There is also no evidence that the Court has allowed anything so far. Other than that it accepted the motion and the evidence that likely shows a failure to effect service…

    Speaking of service, did you notice that Orly’s “process server” is none other than Christopher Strunk?

  99. avatar
    NbC January 30, 2010 at 7:04 pm #

    Yeah, Earl Strunk who attempted to get one of his filings changed into a QW…. Christopher Earl Strunk in Esse

  100. avatar
    misha January 30, 2010 at 8:56 pm #

    “She can ask for a pony too.”

    I don’t know. Maybe her husband will buy her a palomino, to replace her Mustang. (bada-bing)

  101. avatar
    misha January 30, 2010 at 8:58 pm #

    “an opportunity to whine”

    Whine and cheese?

  102. avatar
    misha January 30, 2010 at 9:02 pm #

    “I demand a written response or Administrative hearing on the matter within 30 days.”

    And I demand a Ferrari, but I’ll settle for a Benz.

  103. avatar
    NBc January 31, 2010 at 8:49 am #

    ROFL Misha… Just wait until the Court demands its $20k…

  104. avatar
    Doug January 31, 2010 at 11:24 am #

    I am disturbed by the information on this page and what I perceive to be an attempt to misrepresent and deceive your readers.

    First, on the $20.40, that follows a sentence that says “The monetary cost to the government in defending these two cases was extremely minimal.” I take that to mean you want your readers to believe $20.40 was representative of the cost to defend.

    In the subject case involving Berg v. Obama, this was filed at the trial level, 3 times at the Appellate level and 3 times with the Supreme Court. $20.40 won’t defend a parking ticket, let alone prepare responsive declarations for 7 court filings. Now I see you have added a comment that says it didn’t include the attorney’s time. “Attorney’s” is singular. Do you really think Team Obama had just one lawyer working on a case of this magnitude? If you followed Branin’s link, you will see that $20.40 was the reproduction costs for 20 copies of a 38-page brief. I would have to believe there were a lot more costs involved, including service, postage, telephone, court filing fees, and a boat load of money for bunches and bunches of attorneys. It seems to me the accurate thing to do is say “(this only covered reproduction costs for one document), and the honest thing to do would be eliminate all references to the $20.40 as it has nothing whatsoever to do with the costs to defend Berg’s suit.

    Beyond this, your page makes several reference to “millions” without actually citing a source for that number. In my research, “millions” almost always tracks back to a page on wnd.com, so I have to assume this was the source for your reference to “millions.”

    And this is where it gets interesting. That page (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114202) provides some documentation for the “millions” claim. Specifically, he provides the FEC report entries for payments to Perkins Coie, and he provides a copy of a letter from a Perkins Coie attorney relating to a birther case. What is unknown is how much Perkins Coie work related to birther cases, and how much was completely unrelated. (As a side note, I’ve not been able to find anything on Perkins Coie’s site saying they do work relating to the filing of election reports.)

    So how does obamaconspiracy.org deal with the millions paid to Perkins Coie? YOU DON’T. Instead, you cite an unrelated attorney who apparently did some pro bono work for the Obama campaign, and with that dismiss the claim millions were paid. A search of your site does not come up with a single reference to Coie.

    How about addressing the millions that were paid to Perkins Coie, rather than reframe the issue to fit the solution at hand? Woocher’s pro bono work means nothing in terms of the claim that millions were paid to Perkins Coie.

    Thank you in advance for addressing my concerns.

  105. avatar
    Scientist January 31, 2010 at 1:09 pm #

    As a scientist, I take numbers seriously. Here is the reality: WND doesn’t know how much was spent, nor does Dr. C, nor do I. The only people who do are a few in the Obama campaign and a few at Perkins Coie. I doubt Obama himself knows.

    Interestingly, their lack of actual knowledge hasn’t stopped WND and other hirthers from making claims. We have statements from 2 government attorneys that the time and money spent were minimal (no exact $ figure provided). I realize the hourly rates at a big private law are higher than what government attorneys make, but still.

    So I ask you, what is your experience with law firms? Can you give me a credible scenario in which a few cases that were dismissed without trial could possibly run up over $1,000,000 in legal bills? I ran the patent portfolio of a biotech firm and dealt with very high-priced law firms in the US, Europe and elsewhere, so I know a little something from the client end of legal billing. I am confident that $20 is much closer to the actual number than $ 1,000,000

    More importantly, I strongly dispute the premise that spending money to defend one’s rights = guilt. And think about who controls a civil lawsuit; it’s the plaintiff, not the respondent. The one’s who can make the cases “go away” are those who brought them.

  106. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2010 at 1:13 pm #

    Doug:

    Thanks for your comment. Let me respond to the specifics.

    1) The $20.40 amount is factually correct and appropriately labeled. I don’t see any reason to remove this data point from the discussion. It is tangential, however, because this amount was in defense of the Federal Elections Commission, not then candidate Obama, so it actually doesn’t count towards the total. This information is in a separate paragraph from what precedes it. It is not reasonable to suggest that this information is meant to be attached in the readers mind to what precedes it. Any reader with minimal comprehension skills will know that the two paragraphs are about different cases. “Attorney’s” is a typo, and I will fix it. It would not be correct to describe the FEC’s response as part of “team Obama” since Bush was in the White House in 2008 when that brief was written.

    2) The WorldNetDaily citation from October 2009 you gave is not the source of “millions”. We were talking about “millions” on this blog back in March of 2009, long before that article from WND and attorney Woocher was speaking on or before March 1, 2009 when his comment was published by Politico.com. The rumor that Obama had spent huge sums of money defending birther lawsuits has been around long before the FEC repored legal fees paid by the Obama campaign. In fact, the brief that was filed on Obama’s behalf was jointly filed by the Democratic National Committee, and it makes sense to me that the DNC paid the legal bills, not the Obama campaign (in a strategy to maximize funds available to the campaign). The FEC legal fee report is a “red herring.”

    3) There is simply no information published that I know of that says that any Obama campaign money was paid to Perkins Coie to defend the small number of birther lawsuits that actually named Obama as a defendant. On this blog, suspicion is not evidence, and possibility is not proof. What we do know is that one government lawyer who defended one of the cases, and here the case actually involved hearings before a judge said the costs were “extremely minimal.” If a team of lawyers in one case found the costs to be minimal, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the costs in similar cases would be similarly minimal.

    4) You commented that you found nothing on the Perkins Coie web site that they do FEC filing work. That’s just the result of your not searching well, perhaps your literal interpretation of what activities are involved in filing. For example here they say “Advising on federal and state campaign finance law and regulation including candidate committee and PAC compliance; Designing and implementing internal compliance and training programs to ensure compliance with campaign finance, lobbying and ethics laws and rules” http://www.perkinscoie.com/political_law/“. I would point out that one of the partners in the DC office of Perkins Coie is Karl J. Sandstrom, a former Vice Chairman of the FEC:

    During his tenure on the FEC and as a member of its regulations committee, Mr. Sandstrom participated in the implementation of recently enacted campaign finance reform legislation. He also played a leading role in the creation of several new programs at the FEC, including its Alternative Disputes Resolution, Administrative Fines and Electronic Filing programs. In the area of election administration and in response to the problems encountered in the 2000 presidential election, he took a special interest in the FEC’s promulgation of national voting system standards.

    But FEC compliance is just one area of legal expenses for a campaign. We know that the legal expenses of a campaign are huge, just look at John McCains’s FEC report (which if memory serves me right was around $750,000).

    5) You said that a search of this site for “Coie” gives no results. It doesn’t seem to be in an article, but it’s been discussed frequently.

    1. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/ask-dr-conspiracy/#comment-18742
    2. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/hollister-v-soetoro-dismissed/#comment-8277
    3. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/hollister-v-soetoro-dismissed/#comment-8285
    4. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/hollister-v-obama-biden/#comment-2442
    5. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/08/third-obama-birth-certificate-appears-in-court/#comment-30637
    6. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/why-orly-doesnt-have-a-hawaiian-birth-certificate/#comment-13973
  107. avatar
    NbC January 31, 2010 at 1:55 pm #

    So how does obamaconspiracy.org deal with the millions paid to Perkins Coie? YOU DON’T. I

    Funny irony here… So how much of these millions were paid to provide services relevant to the eligibility issues? Since Obama was mentioned by name only in a few isolated cases which were quickly dismissed anyway, it stretches the imagination to believe that any relevant part of this money, which was paid by the campaign to Perkins Coie has any relevance here.
    So why were they paid… Does anyone understand the legal cost involved in running a winning campaign?

    So how much of these ‘millions’ do you think were used to defend President Obama from these meritless lawsuits?
    How did you reach this conclusion?

  108. avatar
    NBc January 31, 2010 at 2:27 pm #

    So let’s look at the total of 64 cases, 2 of which are pending a FOIA.
    In 3 of the 64 there was a ‘Team Obama’, in 7 of these cases a Team DOJ.

    In other words, 3 cases which required some attention from Obama’s lawyers

    1. Keyes v Bowen
    2. Berg v Obama
    3. Holister v Soetoro

    Keyes v Bowen: Motion to Quash subpoena granted. Lawyers: Strumwasser and Dudovitz (Strumwasser and Woocher $520 in cost awarded. Pro Bono.

    Robert Bauer filed, late in the case, a motion to appear Pro Hac Vice and was admitted by the Court the same day the Court dismissed the case.

    Berg v Obama (docket. Also involved the US Government since the FEC was named.

    09/24/2008 – Motion to dismiss filed by Obama and DNC
    10/15/2008 – Motion for protective order filed
    10/20/2009 – Motion to dismiss
    10/24/2008 – Motions to dismiss granted
    Berg then filed a notice of appeal.

    Hollister v Soetoro: (docket)

  109. avatar
    Doug January 31, 2010 at 2:51 pm #

    Agreed, we don’t know what part of the millions received by Perkins Coie went to defending or consulting the birther cases. My post specifically said, “What is unknown is how much Perkins Coie work related to birther cases, and how much was completely unrelated.”

    I’ll go on to say I personally believe the applicable portion is less than “millions.” Perhaps substantially less.

    My point is that the “millions” comes from money paid to Perkins Coie. A page that dismisses “millions” on the basis of what was paid to a different firm, and completely ignores the basis of the original claim, is not being open, honest and informative.

  110. avatar
    NBc January 31, 2010 at 3:45 pm #

    I believe it is a composite of arguments based on the first observation that Obama’s private lawyers were involved in only a small number of cases (3 as far as I can tell).
    Of these 3, 1 involved Perkins Coie, in addition to the US Government and one where Obama and Biden were the only defendants (Hollister). Hollister was a case which was quickly dismissed, when the Court sua sponte disallowed the case of an interpleader to be filed. When Berg filed additional motions, the Court ordered the defendants to ignore these further pleadings. The motion to dismiss was sweet, short and to the point.

    Early filings were often at State level against the Secretary of State, and once President Obama was sworn in, the DOJ would defend any lawsuits initiated.

    Certainly, pointing to payments to Perkins Coie by Obama’s campaign is insufficient to conclude that all or most or a significant portion thereof was used for defending the President.
    The record makes such a conclusion hard to support.

    Of course, in the end we don’t know the exact details.

  111. avatar
    Expelliarmus January 31, 2010 at 5:11 pm #

    In fairness, given what attorneys charge per hour, the defense of all the birther suits combined might run to about $50,000 or so. (I’m including the cases defended by US attorneys as well as private cases). You can extrapolate somewhat by counting up court appearances, the number of attorneys who showed up at each, the need to travel to & from the court house, and then looking at the written work generated in various motions to dismiss or opposition papers. It doesn’t really matter whether a given attorney was paid their full rate, or whether they waived their fee and offered services pro bono — there is still X number of attorney hours involved.

    It’s a lot more than $20 – but it’s not much in the scheme of things, as far as what lawyers do. Perkins Coie has a managing partner, whose job it is to allocate resources and set the budget for each case — the birther cases are like swatting flies, easy to assign a junior associate to do the briefing, but requiring a top level partner to sign off and to attend required court appearances because of the importance of the client (Obama).

    I don’t think it’s significant overall, and the private law firms might very well have done most of the work on a pro bono basis simply because of the high volume of more serious work they are doing for their client. (Sometimes its just good business practice to throw in a freebie or two for a regular client).

    In any case, once a lawsuit is filed, it is going to cost money to represent the client being sued, whether the suit has any validity or not. The most cost-effective approach is something that leads to a very early resolution, such as a motion to dismiss. The most expensive approach is to engage in discovery or proceed to trial — that involves hours upon hours of attorney time, preparation, and paperwork, even for a relatively short trial. So the whole fallacy of the “millions” argument is that the cheapest thing Obama could do is move to dismiss — it is not matter of what he has “spent” to defend the lawsuits, its is a matter of what he has not spent (or saved) by refusing to be dragged into the mire.

  112. avatar
    Expelliarmus January 31, 2010 at 5:19 pm #

    Doug, we know that the “millions” paid to Perkins Coie related mostly to campaign-related stuff simply because the figure comes from FEC filings. While it is possible that a birther suit filed prior to the election might be subsumed under that, post-election law suits probably wouldn’t be accounted for in FEC filings. So, I think you are down to looking at the cost of preparing a written motion to dismiss at the trial level in Berg v. Obama. That’s pretty minimal.

  113. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2010 at 7:21 pm #

    While I haven’t gone back to research, I don’t recall that there were any court appearances in Berg v. Obama. (Correct me if I am wrong.) Obviously there were some in Barnett v. Obama in California.

  114. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2010 at 8:06 pm #

    I have reviewed my article, and I do not find it misleading in any way. It is straightforward, factual, and well-documented.

    First off, the comment about “millions” was made by Obama attorney Frederic Woocher, not by me. So I am frankly unable to fathom why you think it is misleading for me to include a comment by Woocher and attribute it Woocher! I never mentioned Perkins Coie, and to somehow extrapolate that by including a comment by Woocher mentioning “millions” is unfairly associating expenses for Perkins Coie (which is not Wooocher’s law firm) is simply nuts. This is what Woocher said:

    “This suit, like all of the others that have been filed challenging Obama’s qualifications for the Presidency, is frivolous,” he said in an email to POLITICO, adding that he is, in fact, working pro bono. “There is absolutely no truth to the stories about the untold millions supposedly being paid to us,” he said.

    If you insist that this “millions” includes money paid to Perkins Coie, then you must also concede that the denial of “millions” refers to Perkins Coie also.

    In addition to Woocher’s comment, I further cited two other examples of cases where attorneys specifically stated that the defense costs were minimal. If two cases resulted in minimal costs then it is a reasonable extrapolation that other cases of a similar nature involved minimal costs. I, however, did not draw such a conclusion. I simply listed what facts were known about Obama legal expenses. You are the one drawing conclusions.

    However, as a result of my researches, I have updated the article to include the actual expenses to Woocher’s firm ($1040).

    Frankly I find your objection as frivolous as the lawsuits against Obama that have been dismissed with minimal expense to the defense.

  115. avatar
    Expelliarmus January 31, 2010 at 10:17 pm #

    Docket in Berg v. Obama is here:
    http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-paedce/case_no-2:2008cv04083/case_id-281573/

    Turns out it wasn’t Perkins Coie — a Motion to Dismiss was filed by the law firm of Ballard Spahl et al, representing the Democratic National Committee and Barack Obama – so it looks like the Democratic party picked up the tab.

    There were several very short motions (Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Protective Order re Discovery, Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint) – and an order granting the motions to dismiss filed within a matter of days after the 2nd motion, without even time for an opposition to be filed, much less a hearing. Berg was simultaneously trying to move for an expedited ruling on a summary judgment motion, however — so it appears possible that Berg’s own efforts to speed things along are what lead to a summary ruling from the court.

    Anyway — it looks like the Berg case didn’t cost Obama a cent at the trial level — it all came out of Democratic Party coffers — and certainly it wasn’t Perkins Coie. It’s possible that Keyes v. Bowen was the first birther suit requiring an appearance from an Obama-retained lawyer.

  116. avatar
    Greg February 1, 2010 at 11:19 am #

    In the subject case involving Berg v. Obama, this was filed at the trial level, 3 times at the Appellate level and 3 times with the Supreme Court. $20.40 won’t defend a parking ticket, let alone prepare responsive declarations for 7 court filings.

    Go ahead and look at the docket. There weren’t responsive pleadings filed in the appellate proceedings. You don’t have to file anything if the court dismisses the appeal out of hand. If the Supreme Court denies cert, you don’t have to do anything.

    Any actual lawyer could look at what was filed and give you a rough estimate of what was spent defending the case. The motion to dismiss was, in Berg, especially easy to write, since McCain’s case had just been decided. All the research was done and Berg didn’t present any novel issues.

    If the motion to dismiss took more than 10 hours of associate time to write, then it’s because they assigned it to a first-year for training purposes.

    At most, it’s a $3,000 brief. If private lawyers had to rewrite this brief from scratch each time for each of the 64 cases, we’re talking at most, $200,000 in fees.

    But:

    1. It’s not private lawyers for the most part, but salaried government lawyers.

    2. As easy as the response to Berg was, each successive brief would be easier. I’d guess they’re down to an hour and a half to 2 hours, tops to respond to any brief that needs responding to.

    3. Most of these cases have been dismissed even before a response was due.

    4. Some of the private lawyers were working on these nonsense cases pro bono, which you’d expect since the real money is in doing real legal work, not defending against spurious, frivolous, cases.

    If the total legal fees chargeable to the Obama campaign or to Obama exceeded $10,000, I’d eat my hat. More likely it’s a fraction of that, even. This is a rounding error for a campaign that had to account for more than $750 million in contributions and about that in expenditures.

    They probably spent more to pay the legal staff to train us lawyer-volunteers to man the polling stations in the non-battleground-state of Massachusetts than they have had to pay to defend the birther suits in their entirety!

  117. avatar
    SFJeff February 1, 2010 at 6:35 pm #

    Doug: “My point is that the “millions” comes from money paid to Perkins Coie. A page that dismisses “millions” on the basis of what was paid to a different firm, and completely ignores the basis of the original claim, is not being open, honest and informative”

    Not being open? This blog lists all references and has several articles on this topic. Not being honest? This is an honest account of what is known.

    Birthers like to throw around enormous sums that President Obama supposedly has paid to suppress their jihad. We have been making fun of their ever inflated claims for a year now. Originally the rumor had zippo to go on, but when the FEC filings came out, suddenly every dime President Obama paid to lawyers during the election- including money paid prior to the birther issue- was to suppress the birther jihad.

    You say this is all not honest? What has not been honest are the claims about how much money President Obama has spent on this issue. If you want honest, publish the verified amounts the President or his campaign has spent on the issue. Everything else is speculation and innuendo.

    The best information on the subject is what Doc posted. The rest is speculation and innuendo.