For those interested in putting the brakes on birther bull****....

There is a new petition on the Whitehouse web site:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...r-taxpayer-funds-used-defend-birther/qB6gkrBv

For those of us who are fed up with the taxpayer dollars and judicial resources that have been wasted in more than 200 efforts by birthers to accomplish by judicial fiat what they could not accomplish at the ballot box, this is the petition for us. Start holding these people accountable for their despicable abuse of our legal system.

 

maybe charge obama, for not just producing the thing?

and while he is at it, the college records that are so secret.

im not ashamed of mine.

 

It would appear you are not interested.

Next?

 

Sounds as if you want to apply legal pressure to people who dont agree with you.

Did you want Clinton to pay back the 60 million spent because he didnt feel like admitting that he really did have sexual relations with that woman?

I dont think obama was born in kenya. i think he is as total stinker for not just producing the documents.

 

I want to hold bigots, nincompoops and vexatious litigants accountable for their choices.

I have no idea where you got that 60 million number, and I was a Republican back then.

 

Not really. They won't get sanctioned unless they lose (as they have already lost more than 200 times). If they lose, it's not an issue of suppressing somebody I disagree with. It is an issue of punishing somebody who has been found wrong by the court.

And as I said, want to hold bigots, nincompoops and vexatious litigants accountable for their choices.

Not in the slightest.

How could he have responsibility for them? He did not investigate himself, and the investigations were not initiated to have anything to do with his sexual peccadilloes. Every penny spent on the Starr investigations proved to be for a wasteful, politically motivated witch hunt that eventually was unable to find any wrongdoing associated with Whitewater. And not a penny less would have been spent whether or not he admitted to having sex with Monica Lewinsky.

So... no. I would not have called for Clinton to pay the $60 million back. Kenneth Starr maybe?

 

Why would we do that when we can just get the Fed to print up the money instead?

- - - Updated - - -

Why would we do that when we can just get the Fed to print up the money instead?

 

Of course he's not interested. This petition of yours is just another absolutely pathetic hyper-partisan petition.

 

What is partisan about it?

It is not a partisan issue- there are not Republican Congressman involved in Birther law suits.

I think the count is up to almost 200 legal actions by a small group of Birther nutjobs all claiming that Obama is ineligible for everything from claiming he was born in Kenya to claiming that being born in the United States doesn't make him a natural born citizen- they have lost every single case.

I think it is pretty clear that Birthers are wasting the courts times filing the same losing claims over in different courts- and I think sanctions are warrented.

But the petition isn't going to lead to any action- but I would love to see Taitz and some of the others slapped with hefty costs.

 

What's partisan about it? Did you think I was a Democrat?

Wrong again, ranger.

 

par·ti·san1 [pahr-tuh-zuh n, -suh n; British pahr-tuh-zan]
noun
1.
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.


I brought up the definition of partisan, since you seem unaware of it. It is partisan. It's something that seeks punitive punishment for those who raise lawsuits against ONE man.

It doesn't seek punitive punishment for anyone else bringing up ridiculous lawsuits, like challenging the military's policy on women in combat roles, or any other ridiculous lawsuits. It seeks only to protect a single man.

par·ti·san1 [pahr-tuh-zuh n, -suh n; British pahr-tuh-zan]
noun
1.
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.

 

You seem to be confused.

Where did Wong ever imply he supported Barack Obama?

He opposes frivolous law suits against Barack Obama which wastes tax payer money. There is nothing partisan about that- it is just common sense.

- - - Updated - - -

 

You seem to be unaware that Barack Obama released his birth certificate in 2008.

And what do his college records have to do with an 'open honest administration'- you do realize he is not attending college while President right?

 

He opposes frivolous lawsuits against Barack Obama, he does not oppose frivolous lawsuits. If I were to say we should make anyone who sues corporations pay for the defense lawyers ONLY, then that would be equally partisan - and void of common sense.

- - - Updated - - -

He opposes frivolous lawsuits against Barack Obama, he does not oppose frivolous lawsuits. If I were to say we should make anyone who sues corporations pay for the defense lawyers ONLY, then that would be equally partisan - and void of common sense.

 

I LIKE your idea. Many of the violence prone, gun-toting racists won't ever stop with the "birther" nonsense. Only by social attrition (idiots dying-off over time) will America see relief. Their stupid ideas will die WITH them.

It is just a matter of time.

 

Yeah, it's not like he's ever done exactly that...

I'm sorry, did something in the OP give you the impression that the same would not be applicable for a republican president facing the same frivolous lawsuits?

 

Nonsense. Ignoring that "punitive punishment" is redundant, it seeks punishment for the deliberate and repeated abuse of our judicial system. If you were less profoundly ignorant you would know that the vast majority of birther lawsuits are not "raised... against one man." In fact most do not include the President as a defendant at all.

Sanctions are always appropriate for unethical behavior before the court, and birther lawyers are routinely unethical. I am unaware of a single birther pleading that can not be shown objectively to warrant Rule 11 Sanctions*. The habit to this point has been for defense lawyers to simple win and walk away. But their failure to request sanctions has encouraged birthers to refile frivolous suits without fear of repercussion.

That must change.

What a stupid complaint. As herring go, you could not get any more scarlet.

When lawsuits challenging the military's policy on women in combat rolls fail for the 200th time and then keep getting refiled, perhaps you might have some vague claim to an analogy. Until then, well, stupid remains the only appropriate adjective.

* Rule 11

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.​

(c) Sanctions.

(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.​

 

he produced his birth certificate in 2008, what are you talking about?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

 

As we plumb the depths of your ignorance, we apparently have yet to find bottom. In those two fragments of sentences, you get three things objectively wrong:

1) It asks for no new legislation at all.
2) By definition, Rule 11 Sanctions are not frivolous.
3) I decide nothing. The court and the court alone decides "what is what."

None of those "escapades "were the American public's business, nor were they the reasonable subject of the Whitewater Investigation. Nothing in them either generated or warranted the expenditure of a single taxpayer dime. Nothing spent on it can be rationally blamed on any decision or choices by Bill Clinton. He did not investigate himself.

Ignoring that you seem to be furiously backpedaling from your earlier claims of $60M and $80M, that entire absurd sideshow resulted from an improper investigation and a question that never should have been asked in the first place. Again. if anybody should pay the Treasury back for that travesty, it is Kenneth Starr and the Republicans of the US House who pursued impeachment and failed to elicit a conviction. I am calling for sanctions when birther lawyers are shown to violated Rule 11. You seem to have forgotten, Clinton won.

If Starr had not turned the Whitewater investigation into an improper, cynical and partisan witch hunt, Clinton would never have been put in the position to lie.

Obama released his birth certificate on June 13, 2008... within four days of the very first time was even asked.

He lost his law license. That's far more than merely symbolic.

 

Please. Do not pretend to be able to read minds. You are not very good at it.

 

Actually judges can fine and charge the costs to those that bring frivolous lawsuits, I just wish they would start doing it. I would also add taking away the law licence of anyone that files more than a set number of them.