Thread: O.C. lawsuit challenging Obama birthplace dismissed

Originally Posted by EuropeanDescendant

Judge Carter, up to this point, has shown uncharacteristic integrity for a Federal Judge - and he had the trial and other hearings scheduled into 2010.

I knew that if he had anything shady in his past, 'they' would find it and use it against him. 'They' found something - the so-called chicago way is working overtime.

Did you know that an employee of the law firm that handles all of the birth-certificate cases against the obamanation was recently hired by Judge Carter as a clerk? Additionally, this law firm also employees Anita Mao Dunn's husband - Anita is on record as praising the communist Mao and blowing off the 60+ MILLION Chinese that he murdered. Smell a rat yet?

The fact of the matter is that ANYONE (legal citizens) living in the US have what is called 'standing' in a legal case against the Kenyan-Usurper/obamanation. Why? Because the Usurper has signed all sorts of unconstitutional executive orders and legislation, some of which affects probably American to some degree. That IS standing!!

Do you have any proof that any of this is true?

When you make claim likes this you need to post links to supporting evidence.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Originally Posted by EuropeanDescendant

Judge Carter, up to this point, has shown uncharacteristic integrity for a Federal Judge - and he had the trial and other hearings scheduled into 2010.

I knew that if he had anything shady in his past, 'they' would find it and use it against him. 'They' found something - the so-called chicago way is working overtime.

Did you know that an employee of the law firm that handles all of the birth-certificate cases against the obamanation was recently hired by Judge Carter as a clerk? Additionally, this law firm also employees Anita Mao Dunn's husband - Anita is on record as praising the communist Mao and blowing off the 60+ MILLION Chinese that he murdered. Smell a rat yet?

The fact of the matter is that ANYONE (legal citizens) living in the US have what is called 'standing' in a legal case against the Kenyan-Usurper/obamanation. Why? Because the Usurper has signed all sorts of unconstitutional executive orders and legislation, some of which affects probably American to some degree. That IS standing!!

Do you have any proof that any of this is true?

When you make claim likes this you need to post links to supporting evidence.

See the long thread JD2. There are links there. The part about Anita Dunn being married to the partner at Perkins Coie who practices "Political Law" is true. The fact that Perkins Coie has billed $1.67 million since after the election to the Obama campaign is true. (How much has been fees for defending these lawsuits isn't clear, but the FEC filings show the outgo of all fees.) The part about a law clerk being put on staff on October 1st who was an associate from Perkins Coie is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_O._Carter#Law_Clerks

Term August October
1998-1999 Thomas J. Noguerola Robert W. Mockler
1999-2000 Lisa M. Greenwald Kevin Deeley
2000-2001 Rebecca S. Engrav Catherine D. Whiting
2001-2002 Lee K. Fink Wendy C. Houle
2002-2003 Matthew V. Johnson Michelle S. Mehta
2003-2004 James P. Fellers Bonita D. Moore
2004-2005 Marissa W. Grimes Khaldoun "Kal" Shobaki
2005-2006 Lisa Ells Darren S. Teshima
2006-2007 Douglas J. Brown Alyssa M.Q. Soares
2007-2008 Ryan D. Taylor Damion D.D. Robinson
2008-2009 Carrie Friesen-Meyers Julia Roberson
2009-2010 Lindsay A. Lutz Siddharth Velamoor

http://www.perkinscoie.com/Experience/E ... ?exid=7123

http://www.perkinscoie.com/rbauer/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Dunn#Personal_life

Personal life
Dunn is married to President Obama's personal attorney, Robert Bauer, a partner at Perkins Coie who has been the general counsel of Obama for America since January 2007.[1][14] In 2008, Newsweek named Dunn and Bauer the new "power couple" in Washington, D.C.[15]

Information from webpages that may have been scrubbed, and dating from when they would still be in cache.

http://citizensagainstproobamamediabias ... -velamoor/

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q3/

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q3/C ... 31445.html

Payments to Perkins Coie in the quarter represented by the October 2009 filing = Perkins Coie 314,018.06

To arrive at the total legal fees paid, one has to go to each of the quarterly reports and then add them up. This cut and paste shows what period of activity was being reported by the filing on October 15th of the Obama for America group:

SUMMARY
5. Covering Period 07/01/2009 Through 09/30/2009

6. Cash on Hand at BEGINNING of the Reporting Period 8,919,953.56
7. Total Receipts This Period 895,304.40
8. Subtotal (6 + 7) 9,815,257.96
9. Total Disbursements This Period 857,721.58
10. Cash on Hand at CLOSE of the Reporting Period 8,957,536.38
11. Debts and Obligations Owed TO the Committee 0.00
Itemize all on SCHEDULE C or SCHEDULE D
12. Debts and Obligations Owed BY the Committee 0.00
Itemize all on SCHEDULE C or SCHEDULE D
13. Expenditures Subject To Limitation 0.00
14. NET Contributions (Other than Loans) -549,888.04
15. NET Operating Expenditures 50,881,580.91

Treasurer: Martin H. Nesbitt
Date Signed: 10/15/2009

Second quarter filing:

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q2/C ... 31445.html

Perkins Coie 270,754.18

First quarter filing:

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q1/C ... 31445.html

PAYEE SUM

Perkins Coie 688,316.42

End of 2008

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/YE/C ... 31445.html

Perkins Coie 173,052.52


There have been other law firms brought in as local counsel on some of the cases, and the Dept of Justice is entering appearances to defend some of these cases. Lion's share of the expenditures from the campaign fund for legal representation seems to have gone to Perkins Coie.

The firm has an interesting history - a few legal malpractice flaps here and there.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource. ... ug=1718590

Perkins Coie Accused Of Fraud In Civil Suit -- Plaintiffs Say Law Firm Misled Investors
By Joe Haberstroh

Perkins Coie, Seattle's largest and most prestigious law firm, is the target of a civil suit accusing the firm of helping to defraud investors of millions of dollars. The case is also the subject of a federal criminal probe.

The lawsuit, filed in Salt Lake City, accuses Perkins Coie of assisting in a conspiracy that defrauded investors in Bonneville Pacific Corp. and forced the alternative-energy company into bankruptcy.

Perkins Coie performed legal work in 1986 that misled investors about Bonneville Pacific's worth and financial performance, the suit says.

The collapse of that company is also the subject of a criminal investigation by a federal task force.

"The claims are utterly without merit," said Peter Byrnes, an attorney hired to represent Perkins Coie. "And we intend to defend this case vigorously."

Byrnes said Perkins Coie has not been contacted by the federal investigators. "That should further underscore the firm's remote connection to this whole thing," he said.

Bonneville Pacific's fortunes have played out in Utah headlines for more than two years, as the well-connected firm collapsed in a heap of lawsuits and accusations. Its board once included two former governors of the state, and one of its key investors is the current mayor of Salt Lake City.

The complaint names more than 50 defendants - one reason Byrnes dismisses it as a "dragnet suit" - but its allegations against Perkins Coie are specific. The suit says Perkins Coie destroyed documents in connection with its work for Bonneville Pacific.

Perkins Coie employs more than 300 attorneys, occupies high-rise offices at 1201 Third Ave., and counts big companies such as Boeing among its clients.

The firm has been accused of fraud, negligence and breach of contract in the 581-page federal lawsuit filed Aug. 2 on behalf of investors and creditors who claim they are owed more than $600 million. The suit was filed by Roger Segal, a government-appointed trustee for Bonneville Pacific, which declared bankruptcy in late 1991.

David Simmonds, a Bellevue attorney who once invested heavily in Bonneville Pacific, said he has been interviewed by the federal fraud investigators. He said discussion topics included a Colorado power-plant transaction about which Perkins Coie is alleged to have misled potential investors.

Simmonds is now an adviser to Portland General Corp. That utility tried to buy a controlling interest in Bonneville Pacific stock in the 1980s, and now is suing the firm's officers for allegedly lying to investors.

"When all the facts are out, I feel this case will be unprecedented in the enormity of the fraud involved," said Simmonds of the Bonneville Pacific affair.

Stew Walz, the U.S. attorney who is leading the federal task force in Salt Lake City, would not say whether Perkins Coie was a target of the task force. "All I can really say is the investigation continues," he said.

The federal task force is staffed with agents from the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Founded in 1977, Bonneville Pacific financed alternative-energy projects. The firm specialized in co-generation plants, which generate heat but also sell electricity.

Segal's suit outlines how four Bonneville executives allegedly drained the firm of more than $42 million. The suit says one figure - who eventually agreed to cooperate with federal investigators - earned more than $12 million over eight years from bogus deals.

Besides Perkins Coie, other defendants include Portland General, the utility that operated the Trojan nuclear power plant; Deloitte and Touche, one of the nation's Big Six accounting firms; Piper Jaffray Inc., a Minneapolis-based securities brokerage house that has offices in Seattle; and the prominent Chicago law firm of Mayer, Brown & Platt.

Perkins Coie's involvement began when it provided legal help when Bonneville Pacific first offered stock to the public.

Law firms typically will assist a firm, or its accountants, when it prepares to offer stocks and bonds to the public for the first time. The lawyers help draft a prospectus, which outlines the firm's financial performance and its plans. They are also hired to verify that the company's claims are true.

The trustee's lawsuit says Perkins Coie lied about Bonneville's financial health. More specifically, Perkins Coie failed to require Bonneville Pacific to accurately describe an allegedly bogus deal in 1985 to help finance the construction of a power plant in Colorado, the suit charges.

"By facilitating and participating in the materially misleading (power plant) IPO description, Perkins Coie conspired with the Bonneville insiders and others to mislead both Bonneville and the investing public," the suit says.

Under the scheme, Bonneville Pacific insiders allegedly paid more than $4 million for the development rights to the American Atlas power project - but after Bonneville Pacific already controlled those rights.

In addition, Bonneville is accused of buying the rights from a firm actually controlled by top Bonneville officers.

The suit also alleges Perkins Coie lawyers destroyed handwritten notes and "relevant documents" related to the firm's stock-offering work. Byrnes denied this, saying the firm had used a "routine and appropriate file-keeping system."

Byrnes said Perkins' relationship with Bonneville Pacific was restricted to its work on the 1986 prospectus. "The complainants have sued anyone and everyone that ever had anything to do with Bonneville Pacific," Byrnes said.

Simmonds, the Bellevue lawyer and former investor in Bonneville Pacific, said the suit reflects the complexity of Bonneville Pacific's financial history. Simmonds challenged the firm when he thought he was being misled about financial performance. He eventually settled his claim with the firm for $150,000.

The federal task force's work led this year to a guilty plea from John Dunlop, a former Bonneville officer. But last Tuesday, a federal judge rejected the plea agreement, and Dunlop's scheduled sentencing did not take place.

Copyright (c) 1993 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved.


HOW DID THINGS TURN OUT? Try on a $13 million settlement by Perkins Coie (or, actually, its poor insurance carriers), as reported some three years later. It's got the smell of a past as a dirty firm with dirty clients and that "Chicago connection" that makes life interesting.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource. ... ug=2327990

Perkins Coie Settles Lawsuit -- Law Firm To Pay $13 Million In Bonneville Pacific Case
By Leyla Kokmen
Seattle Times Business Reporter

Perkins Coie, Seattle's largest law firm, has agreed to pay nearly $13 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the trustee for Utah-based Bonneville Pacific Corp., who alleged that the firm played a role in securities fraud.

The law firm, with more than 300 attorneys, was one of more than 50 defendants in the suit. The suit accused Bonneville Pacific executives and their professional advisers of inflating the company's assets and defrauding investors, which led to the alternative-energy company's bankruptcy in 1991.

The civil suit was filed in federal court in Salt Lake City by Bonneville trustee Roger Segal. It alleged that Perkins Coie failed to discover and disclose the actions of Bonneville insiders who deliberately overstated the company's worth during the initial public offering in 1986, said Peter Byrnes, the outside counsel representing Perkins Coie.

At the time, Perkins Coie represented Piper Jaffray Inc., one of Bonneville's underwriters.

Perkins Coie contested Segal's claims, saying it was deceived by Bonneville officers. In settling the suit, the firm continued to deny any wrongdoing.

"It's time to put 1986 activities to bed and get on with 1996 activities," Byrnes said. Segal could not be reached for comment yesterday. The settlement must be approved by the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Perkins Coie's insurance will pay for the settlement, Byrnes said.

The settlement came just days after the Chicago-based law firm Mayer, Brown & Platt, which served as Bonneville's securities lawyer from 1984 until its collapse in 1991, agreed to pay a settlement of more than $30 million in the case. Two weeks ago, Bonneville accountants Deloitte & Touche agreed to pay $65 million to settle Segal's claims.

Bonneville filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1991, leaving creditors and investors holding more than $400 million in debt. The litigation is expected to go to trial later this year. Other defendants include Portland General Corp., Piper Jaffray and Westinghouse Electric Corp.

As a result of a federal probe of Bonneville's operations, two of the company's top officials have served prison sentences and three more have been indicted on criminal charges of securities and tax fraud.

Seems like none of that impressed the judge.

Maybe it isn't from reliable sources?

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Seems like none of that impressed the judge.

Maybe it isn't from reliable sources?

Your original question about the judge's law clerk was:

Do you have any proof that any of this is true?

When you make claim likes this you need to post links to supporting evidence.

Although I wasn't the poster making the claims, I gave you reliable sources from government (court) and private (Martindale and FindLaw) websites.

THe other clerk for the 2009-2010 term (Lindsay Lutz) started her one year rotation in August -- my guess is that she'd be the one who'd have clerked the legal research Carter might have asked for. I don't read too much into the clerkship hire. The date for submission of a hiring application would have been after Labor Day of 2008 -- and a hiring decision was probably separated in time.

You're an Obama supporter, aren't you, John Doe 2? (Politically, I mean ... it's obvious that the legitimacy question isn't a question in your mind, right?)

You're an Obama supporter, aren't you, John Doe 2? (Politically, I mean ... it's obvious that the legitimacy question isn't a question in your mind, right?)

I did NOT vote for Obama.

I do NOT want Obama to be president.

I do NOT support Obama.

I do believe that much of this "He wasn't born in the U.S." is a big waste of time and effort.

I have to agree that this whole birther thing is a waste of time, both for the American people and for our court system.
As for Orly Taitz, the bewigged dingbat with fake eyelashes that speaks pretty rough English--she cannot be taken seriously. Orly is out for Orly's fame and fortune.

Originally Posted by vortex

I have to agree that this whole birther thing is a waste of time, both for the American people and for our court system.
As for Orly Taitz, the bewigged dingbat with fake eyelashes that speaks pretty rough English--she cannot be taken seriously. Orly is out for Orly's fame and fortune.

Look out. If you say things like that you will be called an Obama supporter.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Originally Posted by vortex

I have to agree that this whole birther thing is a waste of time, both for the American people and for our court system.
As for Orly Taitz, the bewigged dingbat with fake eyelashes that speaks pretty rough English--she cannot be taken seriously. Orly is out for Orly's fame and fortune.

Look out. If you say things like that you will be called an Obama supporter.

Because of the short and seemingly trolling interjections on the other thread, the QUESTION about being a "supporter" of Obama was raised. They just seemed a bit like some of the obot-like short "non-engagement in rational dialogue" quips that one sometimes sees in newspaper Comment sections. I

t's good to continue one's education through life, even after the formal schooling is over, don't you think, John Doe 2? Understanding the Constitution's meaning can be a part of that. An organization built around the idea of LEGAL immigration is one where something like the Constitution's handling of "citizenship" might seem to fit.

You might want to bookmark this website

http://undeadrevolution.wordpress.com/

There will be more historical research coming out of it. And it takes Obama at "face value" -- that he said he was born in Hawaii; that he said he was born to dual citizenship. It's in that second piece of information that he volunteered through his campaign's own website where there seems to be a potential problem. Is dual citizenship allowed if one wants to claim "natural born" status.

The Framers sought to prevent not only any disloyalty running counter to the U.S. but also any split loyalty running "pro" or to any other foreign power. Natural born citizen had a definition in 1789; it still does now. Instead of trying to walk AROUND the Constitution, politicians who think parts of it need to be changed should go THROUGH it, using its AMENDMENT process.

The serious-minded who've studied the law and history are probably more unhappy with the buffoonery of "madcap characters" surrounding the issue (Orly, Berg, Pigeon) than anyone else out there. They and others who are more about rabid dislike of Obama, rather than serious scholarship about the Constitution, should take their "political circus acts" out into political circles and not courts of law.