Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Sanctions' sought in eligibility case
wnd ^

Posted on 02/13/2009 8:02:50 AM PST by dascallie

'Sanctions' sought in eligibility case

President's attorneys file motion demanding birth, college records be withheld from public

February 13, 2009

By Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily

A high-powered team of Los Angeles attorneys representing President Obama in his effort to keep his birth certificate, college records and passport documents concealed from the public has suggested there should be "monetary sanctions" against a lawyer whose clients have brought a complaint alleging Obama doesn't qualify for the Oval Office under the Constitution's demand for a "natural born" citizen in that post.

The suggestion came in an exchange of e-mails and documents in a case brought by former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others in California. The case originally sought to have the state's electors ordered to withhold their votes for Obama until his eligibility was established.

Since Obama's inauguration, it has been amended to seek a future requirement for a vetting process, in addition to the still-sought unveiling of his records.

In the case, handled largely by Gary Kreep of the U.S. Justice Foundation, records were subpoenaed documenting Obama's attendance at Occidental College.

The lawyer for the college, Stuart W. Rudnick of Musick, Peeler & Garrett, urgently contacted Fredric D. Woocher of Strumwasser & Woocher.

"This firm is counsel to Occidental College. The College is in receipt of the enclosed subpoena that seeks certain information concerning President-Elect Barack Obama," he wrote via fax. "Inasmuch as the subpoena appears to be valid on its face, the College will have no alternative but to comply with the subpoena absent a court order instructing otherwise."

Within hours, Woocher contacted Kreep regarding the issue, telling him, "It will likely not surprise you to hear that President-elect Obama opposes the production of the requested records.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: slapp
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

1 posted on 02/13/2009 8:02:50 AM PST by dascallie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dascallie

Ya know, this could come down to tossing lead. I’m just saying...


2 posted on 02/13/2009 8:07:42 AM PST by Camel Joe ("All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others"- The Pigs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

“President’s attorneys file motion demanding birth, college records be withheld from public”

This is about the strangest request made by any public figure. You think he has something to hide? OK you Congressmen, if you love your country and have any courage, pounce on it.


3 posted on 02/13/2009 8:18:49 AM PST by 353FMG (Trust in Glock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

How dare anyone demand that Hussein prove he is constitutionally qualified to be the president! Fine the ba$tard$!


4 posted on 02/13/2009 8:19:18 AM PST by Oldpuppymax (AGENDA OF THE LEFT EXPOSED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

ping


5 posted on 02/13/2009 8:19:48 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Camel Joe

The “tossing lead” days will come when Hussein decides to overturn the 2nd amendment. At least that had better be the case, or we can kiss the US and the rest of our freedom goodbye.


6 posted on 02/13/2009 8:21:17 AM PST by Oldpuppymax (AGENDA OF THE LEFT EXPOSED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dascallie
Woocher [representing Obama]: "It will likely not surprise you to hear that President-elect Obama opposes the production of the requested records."

Why would it not surprise him? It should be surprising!

7 posted on 02/13/2009 8:22:27 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

I couldn’t believe my ears a few minutes ago, when I heard a Texas radio host (who has avoided this topic like the plague until this morning) was talking about and reading something about this issue. Then after a big sigh, he said “what have we elected”.


8 posted on 02/13/2009 8:36:26 AM PST by YellowRoseofTx (Evil is not the opposite of God; it's the absence of God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american; Frantzie
The central issue in this lawsuit ... is whether any Respondent had a legal duty to demand proof of natural born citizenship from Democratic Party's nominee," the motion said.

This is an example of why I believe these cases won't go anywhere until Congress passes a law requiring candidates to submit proof during the election. Now Obama's lawyers are saying that no one has a legal requirement to check his paperwork.

9 posted on 02/13/2009 8:36:59 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

See my post at #9. They’re no longer asking “How dare you?” Now they’re saying, “It’s not your job. In fact, it’s nobody’s job. So back off or we’ll recover our expenses.”


10 posted on 02/13/2009 8:44:52 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: YellowRoseofTx

Len Wooley?


11 posted on 02/13/2009 8:50:24 AM PST by razorback-bert (Save the planet...it is the only known one with beer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: razorback-bert
Len Wooley?

Yes. I haven't ever heard him address this issue, has he and I missed it?

12 posted on 02/13/2009 8:54:23 AM PST by YellowRoseofTx (Evil is not the opposite of God; it's the absence of God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Now Obama's lawyers are saying that no one has a legal requirement to check his paperwork.

Maybe not explicitly legally (no explicit law), but from Constitutional requirement and that Congress demanded to see McCain's, I'd say there is pretty good precedence.

13 posted on 02/13/2009 8:58:11 AM PST by YellowRoseofTx (Evil is not the opposite of God; it's the absence of God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: YellowRoseofTx

Congress didn’t demand to see McCain’s. McCain volunteered his paperwork.


14 posted on 02/13/2009 9:07:27 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: YellowRoseofTx

What did he elect!? I am not stupid enough to have voted for this obvious marxist fraud. I voted for the other obvious marxist fraud. This country and its ignorant populace are in for one Hell of a rude awakening. Maybe they will be smarter next time, provided that there is a next time.


15 posted on 02/13/2009 9:07:34 AM PST by chris37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

This is harassment of the first order. Isn’t there a way to file an order against the group of the current President’s lawyers to cease and desist the harassment?

We WILL eventually obtain the true information. And when we do, All That Money that was given away by Congress will have to be returned because the current President could not legally sign any legislation into law.


16 posted on 02/13/2009 9:20:33 AM PST by HighlyOpinionated ( "The goal is not to solve the problem, but to escalate it . . . ." - Saul Alinsky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

ping


17 posted on 02/13/2009 9:25:27 AM PST by bonnieblue4me (You can put lipstick on a donkey (or a dimrat), but it is still an ass!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

I just thought of something . . . if we advertise the fact that when (not if) it is proved that the current President does not meet the Natural Born Citizen clause, all the banks and corporations and businesses who have benefited from any bills this current President has signed into legislation will have received illegal funds and will be mandated to repay it at some point in time, right?

If the current President is removed from office and Biden lives to take the office or is removed by Pelosi so she can become a Queen, the bills would have to be signed a second time. The problem with that is, if Pelosi is President, she would have conflict of interest on any bill she voted for that she ‘re-signs’ into legislation . . . but even so, she could not pre-date the legislation to the original date the current President signed it. So monies spent from the initial reception to the date either Biden or Pelosi “re-signed” it would have to be returned, right?

I’m sounding like a lawyer, I need to go wash my mouth out with soap.


18 posted on 02/13/2009 9:29:38 AM PST by HighlyOpinionated ( "The goal is not to solve the problem, but to escalate it . . . ." - Saul Alinsky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: HighlyOpinionated

From my understanding anything he signs as President will be illegal if he is found not to be Constitutionally qualified? At first I thought this couldn’t be true but why is he fighting so hard to keep it private when it could be put to rest in minutues with sinple copies?


19 posted on 02/13/2009 9:41:00 AM PST by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

I’m SURE George W. Bush or John McCain could have gotten away with this, aren’t you? /s


20 posted on 02/13/2009 9:56:00 AM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson