Replies

It is my understanding that cases where Obama is specifically listed in the complaint, he has used private law firms paid from his PAC and/or campaign funds; once he was sworn into office the Justice Department took over his defense. Justice also took on the defense of Cheney, Pelosi and others who currently or previously held elected/government positions and have been named in various complaints.

I’m of the opinion that there is a huge conflict of interest allowing Justice to defend Obama. Especially on cases filed prior to his inauguration when he was for all intents and purposes a private citizen.

After he took office our tax dollars should not be used to defend a person who in all likelihood should never have been allowed to run for President let alone be sworn in. Our own tax dollars are being used to assure a usurper is able to stay in office.

Whether Obama is paying his legal bills or our tax dollars are paying is irrelevant. The real question is why someone who holds one of the most powerful positions in the world would spend one single cent or fight against showing an authentic document that would satisfy the requirements of the US Constitution and put to rest the question of their legal right to hold office.

It is my understanding that cases where Obama is specifically listed in the complaint, he has used private law firms paid from his PAC and/or campaign funds; once he was sworn into office the Justice Department took over his defense.

Not quite. For cases that were filed before he was sworn in -- and that were not dismissed by the Court sua sponte before any defendant had to appear, either DNC counsel or his private counsel handled the defense. In those cases, private counsel continues to handle the defense today. For example, private counsel is handling the current appeal in Hollister For all cases filed after he was sworn in, DOJ (or some other gov't agency) is handling the defense.

However, in most of the cases filed before and after he was sworn in, courts dismissed the case sua sponte before any defense attorney had to appear. So, in the vast majority of cases, no defense was needed.

The real question is why someone who holds one of the most powerful positions in the world would spend one single cent or fight against showing an authentic document that would satisfy the requirements of the US Constitution and put to rest the question of their legal right to hold office.

As I noted before, Orly and Kerchner and Hemenway have made crystal clear in their court documents, that "just showing his actual long form birth certificate" would end absolutely nothing. These attorneys (and other plaintiffs) say that it doesn't matter where Obama was born because his father was a UK citizen and so, under their "theory," he's not a NBC even if he was born in the US. So, in truth, there's no point -- or advantage to Obama at all -- in producing his long form, because that will have exactly ZERO effect on plaintiffs' two-citizen parent argument.