Why is the US Justice Department spending tax payer money to interfer in this matter?

If this case has no merit then the judge should be able to see that for himself/herself.

For good or bad, I would just as soon see the end of this by allowing the facts to be aired in a court of law. So far all we've seen is accusations and a bunch of finger pointing from both sides. We have seen nothing from either side, to this point, that has been authenticated by a court of law.

So have the trial and put everything on the table. That should settle the question one way or the other. Until that happens, the "birthers" will keep coming, and I don't blame them.

Regardless of what anyone here believes, for (I'm guessing based on observation) several million people this is still an open question. That is not the point of this thread.

The point of my thread is , who believes that the Justice Department should be spending tax payer money to prevent this question from getting into court? Or involving themslves in any way at this point?

Has Obama run out of his own money to fight this with? Unless I'm missing something here, this suit is addressed to Obama (as a private person) and not to the POTUS. When did this become a bill for the tax payers?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 07, 2009
10:54 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Posted: September 07, 2009
10:54 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Is this the footprint of baby Barack Obama?

The U.S. Justice Department is urging a federal judge in California to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of president.

The highly anticipated hearing tomorrow morning before Judge David Carter features attorney Orly Taitz and numerous plaintiffs, as well as a document that one person has sworn is the original birth certificate of Obama from Kenya – not Hawaii, where the administration maintains Obama was born.

In a motion filed Friday in Santa Ana, Calif., attorneys for the government did not directly address the merits of Taitz's claims, but instead focused their efforts on technical procedures, suggesting the matter can't be decided in court and that the dozens of plaintiffs cannot demonstrate they have been injured by having Obama in the Oval Office.

The U.S. Justice Department is urging a federal judge in California to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of president.

The highly anticipated hearing tomorrow morning before Judge David Carter features attorney Orly Taitz and numerous plaintiffs, as well as a document that one person has sworn is the original birth certificate of Obama from Kenya – not Hawaii, where the administration maintains Obama was born.

In a motion filed Friday in Santa Ana, Calif., attorneys for the government did not directly address the merits of Taitz's claims, but instead focused their efforts on technical procedures, suggesting the matter can't be decided in court and that the dozens of plaintiffs cannot demonstrate they have been injured by having Obama in the Oval Office.

Your cut and pasting technique needs work. That is a bad copy.

Anyway, more garbage trying to be passed off as legimate news.

Orly Taitz!

You mean the emigre from the Soviet Union, Real Estate Agent, Dentist and Attorney Orly Taitz?

You are toooooo funny!!

Just as an FYI, most lawsuits decide the technicalities first, before they go any further. In order to bring a lawsuit, you have to be harmed in some way (otherwise, they fall under the category "frivolous") or you need to be representing the interests of someone who is harmed. Not anyone can sue anyone over anything they choose. Otherwise I could sue you for posting (as someone else put it) such a bad cut and paste job. See how silly that would be

Once the technicalities are taken care of, then they will move into other areas. It's the way the justice system works.

In a motion filed Friday in Santa Ana, Calif., attorneys for the government did not directly address the merits of Taitz's claims, but instead focused their efforts on technical procedures, suggesting the matter can't be decided in court and that the dozens of plaintiffs cannot demonstrate they have been injured by having Obama in the Oval Office.


So that explains this part which made me laugh alot...lol but now I understand why it is important.

Noone can claim to be harmed by Obama being in office at least no legimately.