Main Menu

Who’s the best of the birther attorneys?

I ask this seriously. Attorneys who have argued for the birther cause obviously vary in ability, although they are all equal in results so far on this particular topic1. I’m interested in your opinion as to which of the attorneys has the best legal skills, writes the best briefs, frames their arguments most logically, understands the law and cites on-point authority most effectively. Candidates are listed alphabetically (since the poll was published, Mark Hatfield and Stephen Pidgeon have been added at the end). The poll closes at midnight on June 5, Eastern US time.

Who's the best of the birther attorneys?

  • Gary Kreep (33%, 24 Votes)
  • Orly Taitz (25%, 18 Votes)
  • Phil Berg (10%, 7 Votes)
  • Leo Donofrio (8%, 6 Votes)
  • Larry Klayman (8%, 6 Votes)
  • Mario Apuzzo (7%, 5 Votes)
  • Mark Hatfield (4%, 3 Votes)
  • Van Irion (3%, 2 Votes)
  • Stephen Pidgeon (1%, 1 Votes)

Total Voters: 72

Loading ... Loading ...

If you want to explain your vote, please leave a comment. I would just ask, since this is a serious poll, that commenters not be insulting to our contestants.

For reference, here are some sample briefs from each entry. The name hyperlinks on the left refer to stories on this web site.


1To my knowledge, Larry Klayman has yet to receive his first decision in a birther case.

,

65 Responses to Who’s the best of the birther attorneys?

  1. avatar
    richCares June 1, 2012 at 1:08 pm #

    you forgot to add category “none of above”, so I can’t vote

  2. avatar
    Northland10 June 1, 2012 at 1:10 pm #

    Did you forget Mark Hatfield, John Hemenway (sp?), and Steven Pidgeon?

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 1, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

    I am assuming that Hemenway was just a proxy for Phil Berg. I’ll add the others.

    Northland10: Did you forget Mark Hatfield, John Hemenway (sp?), and Steven Pidgeon?

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 1, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

    Vote for the least worst if you want.

    richCares: you forgot to add category “none of above”, so I can’t vote

  5. avatar
    Scientist June 1, 2012 at 1:31 pm #

    I vote for Arthur Hinman, because, failing to find verifiable evidence that Chester Arthur was born in Canada, he did not plow on ahead with a bunch of ridiculous lawsuits, but simply wrote a book.

  6. avatar
    Bob June 1, 2012 at 1:44 pm #

    M. P. T. Chair, esq.

  7. avatar
    JPotter June 1, 2012 at 1:45 pm #

    This poll is hilarious, and brilliant!

    Perhaps I am overthinking it. Trying to honor the author’s wishes … I mean, Doc is seems to be asking “Which of these birthers is the best birther attorney?” which leads me to see it as: “You have to hire an attorney. These are your only options. Who will you choose to represent you?” …. and that leads me to endlessly run down the list top to bottom, looking for the “Shoot self in face” option.

    “Who is the best birther attorney?” is a much easier question. Taitz, hands down. In terms of volume, nuttiness, accurate representation of the birther mindset … she is the pinnacle. Which is exactly why she’s the worst attorney.

    I suspect it is a trick question, as willingness to rep the birf is a sure sign of unscrupulousness at best, absolute ineptitude or crippling stupidity at worse.

    Best birther attorney it is. I’m voting Taitz. (No, not for Senate.)

  8. avatar
    Jamese777 June 1, 2012 at 1:48 pm #

    I voted for Hatfield because I know the least amount about him. The others I know too much about to ever vote for them favorably. Now a WORST birther attorney would be easy.

  9. avatar
    BillTheCat June 1, 2012 at 1:54 pm #

    They are all terribad.

  10. avatar
    misha June 1, 2012 at 1:55 pm #

    Scientist: I vote for Arthur Hinman, because, failing to find verifiable evidence that Chester Arthur was born in Canada, he did not plow on ahead with a bunch of ridiculous lawsuits, but simply wrote a book.

    I second that. There is no one on that list, who rises above any others. They are all fifth rate bottom feeders – no insult intended to catfish or lobsters. The latter two are first rate.

    “I would just ask, since this is a serious poll, that commenters not be insulting to our contestants.”

    Why? They invite ridicule. After watching that video, plus your list, it is clinical insanity on parade.

  11. avatar
    dch June 1, 2012 at 1:55 pm #

    Orly – for sheer volume of cases and the ability repeat the same mistake and ignore the adverse results of an action.

  12. avatar
    misha June 1, 2012 at 2:02 pm #

    Wait, I changed my mind. I voted for Larry Klayman, because he sued his own mother and took it to trial.

    Top that, Orly. Even if Orly joined JFJ like Klayman, she still would have a tough time doing better, unless she sues her children.

    Uh, oh.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 1, 2012 at 2:38 pm #

    It’s not a trick question, as indicated by my detailed criteria statement: “which of the birther attorneys has the best legal skills, writes the best briefs, frames their arguments most logically, understands the law and cites on-point authority most effectively.” Clearly something is awry when Orly Taitz (who I would put dead last) leads in early results.

    JPotter: I suspect it is a trick question

  14. avatar
    Stanislaw June 1, 2012 at 2:41 pm #

    Looking at this list, I can only think that best means worst. That being said I’d pick Taitz by a mile. All birther attorneys are at least somewhat delusional but none match the scope and breadth of Taitz’ sheer incompetence. She should be a case study for legal professionalism classes in law schools all across the country as an example of what not to do.

  15. avatar
    G June 1, 2012 at 2:43 pm #

    Agreed.

    BillTheCat: They are all terribad.

    misha: I second that. There is no one on that list, who rises above any others. They are all fifth rate bottom feeders – no insult intended to catfish or lobsters. The latter two are first rate.

    These were great choice ideas, but I understand why they are not part of the poll:

    Scientist: I vote for Arthur Hinman, because, failing to find verifiable evidence that Chester Arthur was born in Canada, he did not plow on ahead with a bunch of ridiculous lawsuits, but simply wrote a book.

    Bob: M. P. T. Chair, esq.

  16. avatar
    Jim June 1, 2012 at 2:54 pm #

    Looking at the list, I felt like I was choosing the NBA draft lottery…which of the worst should I give the most credit to. I figured I’d go with Leo, it seems at least he had some imagination and attempted to come up with legal arguments why the President was ineligible which have been used by all the others in their filings. But, through this whole 3+ year fiasco, I really say the best lawyering and the most compelling case was put up by the empty chair in Georgia…a work of art! 😀

  17. avatar
    JPotter June 1, 2012 at 3:11 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Clearly something is awry when Orly Taitz (who I would put dead last) leads in early results.

    Perhaps if you deleted the “birther”, and just left it at ‘best attorney’. No one would say Taitz is the best attorney, but the best birther attorney is completely different.

    I think that would doom Taitz. But then, as noted above, I’d be stumped if asked to select the best attorney from that bunch. You might not get any votes at all!

  18. avatar
    Jim June 1, 2012 at 3:16 pm #

    Here you go Doc, how about this for a business idea for your site. You remember the baseball cards with the stick of gum we used to get when we were kids…how about the “birther” edition? Complete with statistics…cases filed, cases heard, cases won, and their winning pct! (0.000 of course) Advertise on all the birther sites, WND, heck even on Romney’s sites! Birthers and pubs will eat them up! You’ll be rich!!! :))

  19. avatar
    G June 1, 2012 at 3:19 pm #

    I see where you & JPotter are coming from. With a list of Birther attorneys, the term “best” is so counter-intuitive, that it is very hard not to interpret it as anything other than who is the biggest and most consistent comical disaster.

    There is no question that Orly wins that perspective hands down.

    However, with Orly being such an obvious choice from that POV, I had to stop myself and rethink how I wanted to answer this poll… I mean, what is the point of having such a broad list if “best” really means “worst”…

    Stanislaw: Looking at this list, I can only think that best means worst. That being said I’d pick Taitz by a mile. All birther attorneys are at least somewhat delusional but none match the scope and breadth of Taitz’ sheer incompetence. She should be a case study for legal professionalism classes in law schools all across the country as an example of what not to do.

    …so I seriously thought about how “best” could mean “least incompetent” of the bunch, as per Dr. C’s clarification of purpose:

    Dr. Conspiracy: It’s not a trick question, as indicated by my detailed criteria statement: “which of the birther attorneys has the best legal skills, writes the best briefs, frames their arguments most logically, understands the law and cites on-point authority most effectively.” Clearly something is awry when Orly Taitz (who I would put dead last) leads in early results.

    So, here are my opinions and thoughts I weighed in trying to come up with “serious” answer to Doc’s question…

    Sticking to his defined criteria, I felt that Kreep’s briefs & performance seemed most in line with having a basic grasp of law and knowing how to be brief and behave in front of an actual judge. Kreep may be a kook and he is definitely a con artist with a long history of supporting propaganda causes and attempting to profit off of them. But in terms of all the shady and unethical lawyers on the list, he seems to at least display the best grasp of how to at least come across as someone with actual courtroom behavioral experience. He also seems to know best when to just shut up. I sincerely doubt he believes much of the junk he pushes at all. He’s just a manipulative opportunist, that’s all. Still a low-rate bottom feeder, but amongst this class of clowns for competition, he so far seems to stand out as the thinnest kid at fat camp.

    So that is why I chose Kreep.

    Apuzzo just comes across as a bottom-rate bottom-feeding clown compared to Kreep. He’s all talk on his website and all amateur wimpy suck in front of an actual judge. Apuzzo is nothing more than a third-rate used car salesman with little man’s syndrome who is desperate to overcompensate for his personal inadequacies and insecurities with an overly thick blowhard’s bravado. If this poll was a contest for which Birther attorney is the greatest failure to live up to their own hype, then Apuzzo might give crazy Orly a run for her money…and might even win, because she’s likely certifiably nuts, extreme narcicism notwithstanding. Apuzzo is just sad and pathetic.

    Van Irion & Klayman so far just come across as run of the mill shady sleeze who live to abuse the system. The kind of third-rate disreputable folks practicing law who give the entire law profession a bad name.

    Hatfield – meh… so inconsequential that he appears as nothing but a cheap tag-along follower just reguritating what others have done. To me, he doesn’t really stand out on his own as anything more than a copycat clown.

    Donofrio & Pidgeon – puh-lease: Just a bunch of narcissistic hobbyists role playing and getting their @sses handed to them whenever they make the mistake of trying their game in the real world.

    Which leaves Berg, who is really just another whiney, self-aggrandizing conspiracy kook who happens to have a law degree and not much to show for it….

  20. avatar
    Arthur June 1, 2012 at 3:22 pm #

    I agree. Kreep is a creep, but his demeanor in court is professional.

    G: Sticking to his defined criteria, I felt that Kreep’s briefs & performance seemed most in line with having a basic grasp of law and knowing how to be brief and behave in front of an actual judge.

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 1, 2012 at 3:43 pm #

    I’ve tried some rewording.

    JPotter: Perhaps if you deleted the “birther”, and just left it at ‘best attorney’. No one would say Taitz is the best attorney, but the best birther attorney is completely different.

  22. avatar
    JPotter June 1, 2012 at 3:43 pm #

    G: I see where you & JPotter are coming from.

    Appreciate the understanding and commentary G! (Nice to see ya, btw) For me it came down to the incompatibility of the functions of a ‘good’ birther and a good attorney. It’s like matter and anti-matter. One brain cannot (sincerely) do both. I don’t even see how an overly idealistic attorney could even represent a birther. A bad attorney (meaning sleazy, dishonest, and or incompetent / deranged) certainly could.

  23. avatar
    ellen June 1, 2012 at 4:19 pm #

    According to some of his past articles, Leo Donofrio is no longer a strict birther. He has stated that he believes that Obama was born in Hawaii–due to WND’s article about the INS checking on his place of birth and concluding that he was indeed born in Hawaii.

    Leo appears to remain a two-fer, someone who asserts that two citizen parents are required to be a Natural Born Citizen.

  24. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 1, 2012 at 6:06 pm #

    How about another poll to identify the best Obama-aligned attorney defending against this crap? If you agree that would be a good idea, be sure to include “empty chair” on the list of options. 🙂

  25. avatar
    JPotter June 1, 2012 at 6:28 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I’ve tried some rewording.

    She’s still getting votes, not DOOMED! after all. Maybe her flying monkey brigade caught wind of the poll. Will their be a plaque or trophy?

    She posted today that she has a new subpoena summoning Obama to a 6/12 hearing in IN …. it looks just like her self-generated form from GA!

    Nuts.

  26. avatar
    G June 1, 2012 at 7:55 pm #

    LOL! I totally understand!

    Oh and thanks!

    😉

    JPotter: Appreciate the understanding and commentary G! (Nice to see ya, btw) For me it came down to the incompatibility of the functions of a ‘good’ birther and a good attorney. It’s like matter and anti-matter. One brain cannot (sincerely) do both. I don’t even see how an overly idealistic attorney could even represent a birther. A bad attorney (meaning sleazy, dishonest, and or incompetent / deranged) certainly could.

  27. avatar
    G June 1, 2012 at 8:01 pm #

    I’ll second that as yes & yes!!

    For me, right now, Obama’s team in MS is already a strong challenge to “empty chair” as a favorite. I really don’t see how Orly escapes without major and massive sanctions from that whole hot mess…

    Expelliarmus: How about another poll to identify the best Obama-aligned attorney defending against this crap? If you agree that would be a good idea, be sure to include “empty chair” on the list of options.

  28. avatar
    Jamese777 June 1, 2012 at 8:28 pm #

    I thought folks who post here would get a kick out of this, I just voted against Gary George Kreep for Judge of the Superior Court Office No. 24 in San Diego (CA) County. I’m filling out my mail-in ballot for next Tuesday’s primary.
    I voted for Garland Peed (no joke) so it was Peed over Kreep!

  29. avatar
    Scientist June 1, 2012 at 8:39 pm #

    Hey G, good to see you back!!

    I’ve dealt with a lot of attorneys on patents and other business matters. One thing I expected above all from them was an honest assessment of our chances to win and what we could reasonably expect to gain if we did win. If my case had <0.0001% chance of winning (which is probably over-generous for the birther cases) then my lawyer's obligation was to say,, "Do not pursue this. It's a loser." Does anyone honestly believe that if you went to any of these clowns and said you wanted to challenge the President, that they would honestly tell you that your chances of winning were essentially zero? Of course they wouldn't. And that makes them all shysters of the worst kind.

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 1, 2012 at 9:13 pm #

    Yeah, I had an article:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/kreep-v-peed/

    Kreep as a judge is a scary prospect.

    Jamese777: I voted for Garland Peed (no joke) so it was Peed over Kreep!

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 1, 2012 at 9:17 pm #

    I tell you what, you make the list with citations for folks to read, and I’ll publish a poll 😉

    If I include the empty chair, it’s bound to win. TEC won in Georgia, Indiana, and in a bunch of petitions for cert before the Supreme Court.

    Expelliarmus: How about another poll to identify the best Obama-aligned attorney defending against this crap?

  32. avatar
    Jamese777 June 1, 2012 at 9:26 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Yeah, I had an article:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/kreep-v-peed/
    Wow, I missed that article. I was surprised when I looked at my ballot and saw that name.

    Kreep as a judge is a scary prospect.

  33. avatar
    G June 1, 2012 at 9:39 pm #

    Woah…interesting and thanks for informing us…

    I agree with Doc C – Kreep as a judge… *shudder* *barf*

    Jamese777: I thought folks who post here would get a kick out of this, I just voted against Gary George Kreep for Judge of the Superior Court Office No. 24 in San Diego (CA) County. I’m filling out my mail-in ballot for next Tuesday’s primary.I voted for Garland Peed (no joke) so it was Peed over Kreep!

    Dr. Conspiracy: Yeah, I had an article:http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/kreep-v-peed/Kreep as a judge is a scary prospect.

  34. avatar
    G June 1, 2012 at 9:44 pm #

    Thanks!!

    I completely agree. If anything, the main motivation for me coming here has always been because I can’t stand dishonesty and the proliferation of patently false propaganda. That has always been an even greater motivation for me that even my general fascination with conspiracy theories or support for Obama.

    Scientist: Hey G, good to see you back!!I’ve dealt with a lot of attorneys on patents and other business matters. One thing I expected above all from them was an honest assessment of our chances to win and what we could reasonably expect to gain if we did win. If my case had <0.0001% chance of winning (which is probably over-generous for the birther cases) then my lawyer’s obligation was to say,, “Do not pursue this. It’s a loser.” Does anyone honestly believe that if you went to any of these clowns and said you wanted to challenge the President, that they would honestly tell you that your chances of winning were essentially zero? Of course they wouldn’t. And that makes them all shysters of the worst kind.

  35. avatar
    bovril June 1, 2012 at 10:07 pm #

    Oh my God, its like asking…”Which is your preferred terminal disease, Ebola, Marbergs, Spanish Flu or Bubonic plague..?”

  36. avatar
    Reality Check June 1, 2012 at 10:32 pm #

    I refuse to vote when any question has best and Birther in the same sentence. However, I think Kreep is the only one on the list who I am sure is making money on the issue. He talks a big game, does little and takes the money.

  37. avatar
    Judge Mental June 1, 2012 at 10:45 pm #

    Trying to select a candidate in this poll is akin to studying a tank full of tropical fish with a view to deciding which one is the best tap dancer.

  38. avatar
    Chef June 2, 2012 at 12:12 am #

    None of them can hold a candle to Malihi, who does two-thirds of the available work in any courtroom.

  39. avatar
    JPotter June 2, 2012 at 12:49 am #

    Chef:
    None of them can hold a candle to Malihi, who does two-thirds of the available work in any courtroom.

    Nursing a grudge there, Chef? You birthers aren’t big on letting go / getting over things are ya?

    Why pick on Malihi? He was only one of a long line of judges to side with the Constitution and reality at the expense of birthers.

  40. avatar
    Majority Will June 2, 2012 at 1:16 am #

    Chef:
    None of them can hold a candle to Malihi, who does two-thirds of the available work in any courtroom.

    You’re slipping. Your posts are usually far more asinine and pointless.

  41. avatar
    US Citizen June 2, 2012 at 1:52 am #

    Sorry, but I just can’t vote.
    The choices don’t include an empty chair, a blind 5 year old or a sack of rancid potatoes.

    In my opinion, none of the attorneys listed actually argue law.
    They do scams and put on shows.
    I just can’t vote.
    Nice to have a poll here tho. 🙂

  42. avatar
    Lupin June 2, 2012 at 3:10 am #

    They’re all terrible but I voted for Orly because she is by far the most entertaining.

  43. avatar
    misha June 2, 2012 at 3:38 am #

    bovril: its like asking…”Which is your preferred terminal disease, Ebola, Marbergs, Spanish Flu or Bubonic plague..?”

    Plague, because it can be treated with antibiotics, if started in time.

    1st case of human plague in US this year is NM man:
    http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S2639671.shtml?cat=504

  44. avatar
    misha June 2, 2012 at 3:41 am #

    Jamese777: it was Peed over Kreep

    Peed on Kreep. FIFY

  45. avatar
    donna June 2, 2012 at 7:39 am #

    Chef:
    None of them can hold a candle to Malihi, who does two-thirds of the available work in any courtroom.

    my fave was the NH REPUBLICAN House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt who wrote:

    that Taitz’s “continued obsession over President Obama’s birth place” was “ridiculous.”

    that he had instructed sympathetic legislators to “immediately disassociate themselves from you (TAITZ) and this folly.”

    AND “Please, Dr. Taitz, go away and leave New Hampshire alone,” Bettencourt pleaded.

  46. avatar
    realist June 2, 2012 at 9:29 am #

    “I’m interested in your opinion as to which of the attorneys has the best legal skills, writes the best briefs, frames their arguments most logically, understands the law and cites on-point authority most effectively.”

    If you put all those together, the “closest” answer is Gary Kreep with Larry Klayman coming in a close second.

    However, none of the candidates possess all the qualities you list. For instance, it is rare for any of them to cite to law that is on point, and when they do they often misrepresent the holdings. Apuzzo and Donofrio are the kings of that area, hands down, but are by far the “best” writers, as long as you don’t have to consider that what they write is accurate..

    I don’t consider Pidgeon a birther lawyer, as he’s barely dipped his toes in legal actions that could be deemed birther actions.
    r
    Van Irion is along the same line of attorney as Berg, as far as grifting, but is a better writer. He, like Apuzzo and Donofrio and Klayman and Kreep cite law but not necessarily on point nor necessarily accurately. Of course, it goes without saying that if any of these clowns cited on-point law correctly they would have no avenue to pursue legal action.

    Hatfield was only a brief entrant into birther lawyering, and while his attempt was “adequate” (as long as one realizes there is no appropriate legal avenue for his attempted disqualifying of Obama on the GA ballot). Still, I don’t put him on my list of birther attorneys. He may be smarter than most, as once he lost he disappeared from the birther scene. He may have made the most money for a single case, however, if his client is to be believed as to what his fee was… 10k. Of course, believing anything Swensson says is tenuous at best.

    Orly is, of course, the absolute worst of them all. She does absolutely nothing properly, rarely cites case law, and when she does it’s a copy and paste and she has no idea what the case holds, nor is she ever really on point, can’t write, can’t research, law or otherwise. Since Berg, however, she may be the best at grifting birther bucks, though I think Van Irion is making a serious attempt on her title in that regard.

    I’m sure I’ve forgotten some things and/or may have left someone off the list, but that’s all the time I have at present.

  47. avatar
    Majority Will June 2, 2012 at 9:43 am #

    realist: . . . I think Van Irion is making a serious attempt on her title in that regard.

    He’s saving up to get his likeness carved into the face of Stone Mountain in Georgia.

    (http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/01/georgia-challenge-attorney-scrubbed-from-confederate-site/)

    “Mistrial declared in Confederate Flag case”
    (excerpt) Tommy DeFoe says his commitment to his cause is as strong as ever, even after a federal judge declared a mistrial after jurors said they could not reach a unanimous verdict.

    But DeFoe’s attorney Van Irion believes it was close.

    (http://www.local8now.com/home/headlines/26886319.html)

    If you ask Van Irion about the Civil War, I’ll bet he’ll demand a do over. And he’s probably got some angle cooking to get the Dred Scott decision reinstated. Just ask Carl Swensson.

  48. avatar
    JPotter June 2, 2012 at 10:57 am #

    And Kreep begins to pull out a lead! On the subject of best Obama defense advocates / birther opponents / Obama defense strategies (maybe just lump them all together as Birther Stumbling Blocks (well, no, too general, as the bigest Block would be the birthers themselves (Birther Stumbling Blocks Who Are Not Themselves Birthers))), I nominate the woman from the Illinois election board (it was Illinois wasn’t it? They run together in my mind), who got straight-up indignant all over Taitz. The way she lit her up was beee-yoot-i-ful.

    I nominate her for third, behind The Empty Chair™ … and the collective entity known as The State of Hawaii! Got to give it up for Hawaii. They recorded the birth, and have patiently, for years now, patiently slapped birthers on the wrist while steadfastly refusing to catch a case of institutional amnesia. Reality persists, and, in this case, Hawaii defends her.

  49. avatar
    Northland10 June 2, 2012 at 11:54 am #

    realist: Van Irion is along the same line of attorney as Berg, as far as grifting, but is a better writer.

    I have sometimes wondered why Van Irion does not appear to have provided any help to Walt even though he is nearby in Knoxville (granted, I do not know if he has any experience in criminal law). If he is mainly just a grifter, it would explain him not wanted to be involved in a case with real consequences.

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 2, 2012 at 12:31 pm #

    Walt is not the easiest of clients to have. See my article, Walter caught, Pidgeon flies.

    Northland10: I have sometimes wondered why Van Irion does not appear to have provided any help to Walt even though he is nearby in Knoxville

  51. avatar
    Rickey June 4, 2012 at 11:14 am #

    I don’t know if anyone else here has caught this, but Donofrio and Pidgeon were ordered to pay $127,987.50 in attorney fees to Old Carco Liquidation Trust. That was the case where Donofrio and Pidgeon tried to inject birtherism into the Chrysler bankruptcy.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/95616070/OLD-CARCO-LLC-SDNY-Donofrio-Pidgeon-Summary-Order-Granting-Attorneys-Fees

  52. avatar
    Rickey June 4, 2012 at 11:37 am #

    Majority Will: He’s saving up to get his likeness carved into the face of Stone Mountain in Georgia.

    (http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/01/georgia-challenge-attorney-scrubbed-from-confederate-site/)

    “Mistrial declared in Confederate Flag case”
    (excerpt) Tommy DeFoe says his commitment to his cause is as strong as ever, even after a federal judge declared a mistrial after jurors said they could not reach a unanimous verdict.

    But DeFoe’s attorney Van Irion believes it was close.

    (http://www.local8now.com/home/headlines/26886319.html)

    If you ask Van Irion about the Civil War, I’ll bet he’ll demand a do over. And he’s probably got some angle cooking to get the Dred Scott decision reinstated. Just ask Carl Swensson.

    The DeFoe case was dismissed in 2009 and SCOTUS declined to grant cert in the fall of 2011.,

    http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/high-court-turns-away-challenge-to-confederate-flag-ban

  53. avatar
    Greenfinches June 4, 2012 at 12:43 pm #

    Rickey: Donofrio and Pidgeon were ordered to pay $127,987.50 in attorney fees to Old Carco Liquidation Trust.

    oh wonderful….Not the attorneys most deserving of sanctions, from this list, but still real progress towards reality and due process.

    Can we borrow the judge, to give lessons to others?

  54. avatar
    realist June 4, 2012 at 2:58 pm #

    Rickey:
    I don’t know if anyone else here has caught this, but Donofrio and Pidgeon were ordered to pay $127,987.50 in attorney fees to Old Carco Liquidation Trust. That was the case whereDonofrio and Pidgeon tried to inject birtherism into the Chrysler bankruptcy.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/95616070/OLD-CARCO-LLC-SDNY-Donofrio-Pidgeon-Summary-Order-Granting-Attorneys-Fees

    Everything in your post above is accurate except they never attempted to inject birtherism into any of the claims they made in the case. IIRC they told their minions, early on, that they were going to somehow morph their case into a quo warranto against Obama, but they never did, nor did they insert any other form of birtherisms into the case.

  55. avatar
    G June 4, 2012 at 4:35 pm #

    Good catch & thanks for sharing!

    All I can say is that the charges are well deserved. SWEET!!!

    In the end, the vast bulk of expense of Birtherism will end up being borne where it belongs – out of the pockets of those who pushed this silly nonsense in the first place.

    Rickey: I don’t know if anyone else here has caught this, but Donofrio and Pidgeon were ordered to pay $127,987.50 in attorney fees to Old Carco Liquidation Trust. That was the case where Donofrio and Pidgeon tried to inject birtherism into the Chrysler bankruptcy. http://www.scribd.com/doc/95616070/OLD-CARCO-LLC-SDNY-Donofrio-Pidgeon-Summary-Order-Granting-Attorneys-Fees

  56. avatar
    G June 4, 2012 at 4:39 pm #

    Yes, but it is fairly obvious from Donofrio’s own words at the time that his whole long term goal in this case was to inject that Birtherism angle into it.

    So even though his juvenile attempt was thwarted before it could even make it far enough for him to pull his “Birther” card, I still consider it a Birther-inspired court case and failure in that respect.

    It was nothing more than a Trojan Horse that failed to make it very far out of the starting gate…

    realist: Everything in your post above is accurate except they never attempted to inject birtherism into any of the claims they made in the case. IIRC they told their minions, early on, that they were going to somehow morph their case into a quo warranto against Obama, but they never did, nor did they insert any other form of birtherisms into the case.

  57. avatar
    Rickey June 4, 2012 at 5:01 pm #

    realist: Everything in your post above is accurate except they never attempted to inject birtherism into any of the claims they made in the case.IIRC they told their minions, early on, that they were going to somehow morph their case into a quo warranto against Obama, but they never did, nor did they insert any other form of birtherisms into the case.

    Thanks for the correction. I didn’t follow the case but I was under the impression that they were planning to argue that the Chrysler bailout was illegal because Obama wasn’t eligible, etc.

    I seem to recall that neither Donofrio nor Pidgeon had any prior experience handling bankruptcy cases. Of course, Leo wrote in March that he was giving up his law license and was going to make films and write music.

  58. avatar
    Scientist June 4, 2012 at 5:14 pm #

    I don’t know if it counts as a birther case, but Joe “Porn Stash” Farah’s suit against Esquire Magazine over their satirical piece regarding Corsi’s book has been tossed
    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/judge_tosses_wnd_suit_against_esquire_over_birther_parody_post.php?ref=fpb

    I’m not sure who Farah’s attorney was, but it probably wasn’t Orly.

  59. avatar
    JPotter June 4, 2012 at 5:27 pm #

    Scientist: I don’t know if it counts as a birther case, but Joe “Porn Stash” Farah’s suit against Esquire Magazine over their satirical piece regarding Corsi’s book has been tossed

    Scientist, THANKS! No doubt Doc will be writing this one up. I hope.

    Can’t wait for WND’s spin. They haven’t mentioned it yet 😀

  60. avatar
    Rickey June 4, 2012 at 5:40 pm #

    Scientist:
    I don’t know if it counts as a birther case, but Joe “Porn Stash” Farah’s suit against Esquire Magazine over their satirical piece regarding Corsi’s book has been tossed
    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/judge_tosses_wnd_suit_against_esquire_over_birther_parody_post.php?ref=fpb

    I’m not sure who Farah’s attorney was, but it probably wasn’t Orly.

    Judge Collyer was appointed to the District Court by George W. Bush. That has to hurt.

  61. avatar
    Rickey June 4, 2012 at 5:43 pm #

    Scientist:

    I’m not sure who Farah’s attorney was, but it probably wasn’t Orly.

    Would you believe Larry Klayman?

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/58982104/Farah-vs-Esquire

  62. avatar
    JPotter June 4, 2012 at 6:28 pm #

    Rickey: Would you believe Larry Klayman?

    That’s right! The true patron imp of lost causes.

  63. avatar
    Suranis June 4, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

    I voted Kreep as he came across the best in a court of law and didn’t make a complete idiot of himself the time I saw him, which was before the 9th Circuit.

  64. avatar
    G June 4, 2012 at 9:00 pm #

    Ah, more good news to start the week!

    Justice prevails again.

    As Rickey mentioned, Larry Klayman was WND’s attorney. The article you cited even mentioned it:

    Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch who served as WND’s attorney in the case…

    Scientist: I don’t know if it counts as a birther case, but Joe “Porn Stash” Farah’s suit against Esquire Magazine over their satirical piece regarding Corsi’s book has been tossedhttp://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/judge_tosses_wnd_suit_against_esquire_over_birther_parody_post.php?ref=fpbI’m not sure who Farah’s attorney was, but it probably wasn’t Orly.

  65. avatar
    Keith June 5, 2012 at 1:25 am #

    realist: Everything in your post above is accurate except they never attempted to inject birtherism into any of the claims they made in the case.IIRC they told their minions, early on, that they were going to somehow morph their case into a quo warranto against Obama, but they never did, nor did they insert any other form of birtherisms into the case.

    Ricky asserted that they ‘tried’ to inject Birtherism into the case. He didn’t say they succeeded.

    Just sayin’. 8)