Obama's Birth Certificate

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

But what about military of govt. sevice?

What about it? Obama's mother doesn't need it to meet the "physically present" requirements.

Don't you think if it were that simple, any judge or politician would have used that argument rather than the "give us Barabbas" one?

I suspect the politicians are allowing the wingnuts to expose themselves for what they are. Now, which Judge has issued the "give us Barabbas" argument?

This whole issue has more loose ends in it than a cat house. The basic observation still remains. If Obama respected the constitution he would reveal all evidence including the long form of the BC not to mention college admittance records. He doesn't but seeks instead to block the intent of the constitution which is to establish natural born citizenship without loose ends. This is a dangerous lack of character that shows his intent to place himself above the constitution.

The only loose ends are the ones within your own mind, which have been manufactured out of (deliberate and willful?) obfuscation of the codified law, imo. You further (opportunistically?) try to muddy the situation by casting the blame for your "confusion" onto Obama.

[Nick_A]

SG

I suspect the politicians are allowing the wingnuts to expose themselves for what they are. Now, which Judge has issued the "give us Barabbas" argument?

Can you blame a wingnut for not enjoying being screwed?

This is the classic "Give us Barabbas" defense:

Judge: Eligibility issue thoroughly 'twittered'

In his ruling, Judge James Robertson said, "The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven – to the colonel's satisfaction – that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be president.
"The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court," Robertson wrote.

The people want Obama so why should the court interfere in a legal issue? Choir logic.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

SG

I suspect the politicians are allowing the wingnuts to expose themselves for what they are. Now, which Judge has issued the "give us Barabbas" argument?

Can you blame a wingnut for not enjoying being screwed?

This is the classic "Give us Barabbas" defense:

Judge: Eligibility issue thoroughly 'twittered'

The people want Obama so why should the court interfere in a legal issue? Choir logic.

In other words, the Judge basically said that the evidence was already out there. I would suggest that the troubled plaintiff read Title 8, section 1401, (which as made several appearances in this thread alone, much less the entire blog-o-sphere) to put his mind at ease.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

In other words, the Judge basically said that the evidence was already out there. I would suggest that the troubled plaintiff read Title 8, section 1401, (which as made several appearances in this thread alone, much less the entire blog-o-sphere) to put his mind at ease.

If that were the case he would have said so. He referred to the citizenry debate as sufficient. This means that twittering twits resolve this legal question rather then the judiciary since congress won't. This is the supremacy of choir logic in matters of choosing its messiah.

[earl]

Give it up Seattle. 81 pages of this has long ago shown that Nick doesn't respond to or use reason. earl

[kiwimac]

Although I now notice that Nick has expanded it from simply the long form BC to Long form BC + college admittance records.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by earl

Give it up Seattle. 81 pages of this has long ago shown that Nick doesn't respond to or use reason. earl

Or even read the law. He'd rather make it up himself, I guess.

[Nick_A]

What a choir!

[earl]

Nick, your derogatory use of the term "choir" implies folks who blindly support a position irrespective of what facts and reason would tell one. I believe that is what we've been attempting to point out you're doggedly doing with this issue. earl

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

If that were the case he would have said so.

He did. See bold part highlighted in blue below.

He referred to the citizenry debate as sufficient.

No, he said there is no lawful basis for this lawsuit.

This means that twittering twits resolve this legal question rather then the judiciary since congress won't. This is the supremacy of choir logic in matters of choosing its messiah.

No, it means that you are expected to read the law before you file a lawsuit.

Here's Judge Robertson's dismissal. It seems only the memorandum was quoted by your news article: (Apologies that the formatting doesn't copy and paste well)
Hollister v. Soetoro - Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint

Hollister Dismissal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
GREGORY S. HOLLISTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARRY SOETORO, et al.,
Defendants.
:::::::::

Civil Action No. 08-2254 (JR)


MEMORANDUM

This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end.

The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven -- to the colonel’s satisfaction -- that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be President. The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.

The real plaintiff is probably Philip J. Berg, a lawyer who lives in Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania, and who has pursued his crusade elsewhere, see Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509(E.D. Pa. 2008), invoking the civil rights statutes, the Federal Election Campaign Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the law of promissory estoppel. That case was the subject of a scholarly opinion by a judge who took Mr. Berg’s claims seriously –- and dismissed them. Mr. Hollister is apparently Mr. Berg’s fallback brainstorm, essentially a straw plaintiff, one who could tee Mr. Berg’s native-born issue up for decision on a new theory: If some “value” could be assigned to the “duties” the plaintiff thinks he might someday be called upon to fulfill under the Commander-in-Chief, then those “duties” could be deposited in the registry of this Court as the res whose distribution is to be decided by a suit in interpleader!

The filing and service of the complaint required private counsel to appear for President Obama and for Vice President Biden (whose citizenship is not challenged but who was presumably considered a necessary party in a suit seeking to unseat the President). Those counsel have moved to dismiss,asserting both that this Court has no jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(1)) and that the plaintiff has stated a claim for which relief cannot be granted (Rule 12(b)(6)).

Plaintiff having invoked both diversity and the federal interpleader statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1355, I do have jurisdiction. Because plaintiff’s only claim invokes the interpleader statute,however, the suit must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

I have already called the interpleader claim “frivolous” in two interlocutory rulings [#10 and #14], and I do so again here. As the defendants noted in their motion to dismiss, “interpleader allows a party exposed to multiple claims on a single obligation or property to settle the controversy and
satisfy his obligation in one proceeding.” Commercial Union Ins.
Co. v. U.S., 999 F.2d 581, 583 (D.C. Cir. 1993). It is typically used in insurance cases where the plaintiff holds property on behalf of another but does not know to whom among several adverse parties the property should be transferred [#9 at 8]. Resort to interpleader is inappropriate when it “is sought for improper or ulterior purposes.” Wright & Miller § 1707 (3d ed. 2001).

Plaintiff has not cited a single case that lends even colorable support to the notion that his alleged “duties” can be the “money or property” to which the interpleader statute applies. The interpleader suits he cites are all about money or tangible property: American Fidelity Fire Ins. Co. v.
Construcciones Werl, Inc., 407 F. Supp 164 (D. V.I. 1975) is about contested HUD monies; Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Nichols, 363 F.2d 357 (8th Cir. 1966), is about insurance proceeds; Dunbar v. United States, 502 F.2d 506 (5th Cir. 1974) is about money seized from the mails. The only interpleader case plaintiff cites that involves a "duty" is Bank of Neosho v. Colcord, 8F.R.D. 621 (W.D. Mo. 1949) (Complaint, para. 12), an inapposite decision declining to strike a cross-claim for specific performance in an interpleader case that began, as interpleader cases do, with the deposit of funds. This suit will accordingly be dismissed.

Mr. Berg and Lawrence J. Joyce, an attorney who lives in Tucson, Arizona, signed the complaint in this case. (They have been filing electronically although they have not been admitted pro hac vice, see [#10].) They are agents provocateurs –- and any attempt to sanction them for misuse of the public and private resources that have had to be devoted to this case would only give them a forum to continue their provocation. John D. Hemenway, on the other hand, is a member of the Bar of this Court. He may have been enlisted by Messrs. Bergand Joyce as a foot soldier in their crusade, but he is nevertheless directly responsible to this Court for the pleadings that have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Because it appears that the complaint in this case may have been presented for an improper purpose such as to harass; and that the interpleader claims and other legal contentions of plaintiff are not warranted by existing law or by non-frivolous arguments for extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for establishing new law, the accompanying order of dismissal requires Mr. Hemenway to show cause why he has not violated Rules 11(b)(1) and 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and why he should not be required to pay reasonable attorneys fees and other expenses to counsel for the defendants.

JAMES ROBERTSON
United States District Judge

It seems that this judge calls this case not only "frivolous," but that it may have been presented for an improper purpose such as to harass. Plaintiff will have to show cause that he has not violated specific rules of Federal procedure, and why he should not be required to pay the defendants' legal fees.

[earl]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

He did. See bold part highlighted in blue below.
No, he said there is no lawful basis for this lawsuit.
No, it means that you are expected to read the law before you file a lawsuit.

Here's Judge Robertson's dismissal. It seems only the memorandum was quoted by your news article: (Apologies that the formatting doesn't copy and paste well)
Hollister v. Soetoro - Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint

Hollister Dismissal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
GREGORY S. HOLLISTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARRY SOETORO, et al.,
Defendants.
:::::::::

Civil Action No. 08-2254 (JR)


MEMORANDUM

This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end.

The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven -- to the colonel’s satisfaction -- that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be President. The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.

The real plaintiff is probably Philip J. Berg, a lawyer who lives in Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania, and who has pursued his crusade elsewhere, see Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509(E.D. Pa. 2008), invoking the civil rights statutes, the Federal Election Campaign Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the law of promissory estoppel. That case was the subject of a scholarly opinion by a judge who took Mr. Berg’s claims seriously –- and dismissed them. Mr. Hollister is apparently Mr. Berg’s fallback brainstorm, essentially a straw plaintiff, one who could tee Mr. Berg’s native-born issue up for decision on a new theory: If some “value” could be assigned to the “duties” the plaintiff thinks he might someday be called upon to fulfill under the Commander-in-Chief, then those “duties” could be deposited in the registry of this Court as the res whose distribution is to be decided by a suit in interpleader!

The filing and service of the complaint required private counsel to appear for President Obama and for Vice President Biden (whose citizenship is not challenged but who was presumably considered a necessary party in a suit seeking to unseat the President). Those counsel have moved to dismiss,asserting both that this Court has no jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(1)) and that the plaintiff has stated a claim for which relief cannot be granted (Rule 12(b)(6)).

Plaintiff having invoked both diversity and the federal interpleader statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1355, I do have jurisdiction. Because plaintiff’s only claim invokes the interpleader statute,however, the suit must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

I have already called the interpleader claim “frivolous” in two interlocutory rulings [#10 and #14], and I do so again here. As the defendants noted in their motion to dismiss, “interpleader allows a party exposed to multiple claims on a single obligation or property to settle the controversy and
satisfy his obligation in one proceeding.” Commercial Union Ins.
Co. v. U.S., 999 F.2d 581, 583 (D.C. Cir. 1993). It is typically used in insurance cases where the plaintiff holds property on behalf of another but does not know to whom among several adverse parties the property should be transferred [#9 at 8]. Resort to interpleader is inappropriate when it “is sought for improper or ulterior purposes.” Wright & Miller § 1707 (3d ed. 2001).

Plaintiff has not cited a single case that lends even colorable support to the notion that his alleged “duties” can be the “money or property” to which the interpleader statute applies. The interpleader suits he cites are all about money or tangible property: American Fidelity Fire Ins. Co. v.
Construcciones Werl, Inc., 407 F. Supp 164 (D. V.I. 1975) is about contested HUD monies; Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Nichols, 363 F.2d 357 (8th Cir. 1966), is about insurance proceeds; Dunbar v. United States, 502 F.2d 506 (5th Cir. 1974) is about money seized from the mails. The only interpleader case plaintiff cites that involves a "duty" is Bank of Neosho v. Colcord, 8F.R.D. 621 (W.D. Mo. 1949) (Complaint, para. 12), an inapposite decision declining to strike a cross-claim for specific performance in an interpleader case that began, as interpleader cases do, with the deposit of funds. This suit will accordingly be dismissed.

Mr. Berg and Lawrence J. Joyce, an attorney who lives in Tucson, Arizona, signed the complaint in this case. (They have been filing electronically although they have not been admitted pro hac vice, see [#10].) They are agents provocateurs –- and any attempt to sanction them for misuse of the public and private resources that have had to be devoted to this case would only give them a forum to continue their provocation. John D. Hemenway, on the other hand, is a member of the Bar of this Court. He may have been enlisted by Messrs. Bergand Joyce as a foot soldier in their crusade, but he is nevertheless directly responsible to this Court for the pleadings that have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Because it appears that the complaint in this case may have been presented for an improper purpose such as to harass; and that the interpleader claims and other legal contentions of plaintiff are not warranted by existing law or by non-frivolous arguments for extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for establishing new law, the accompanying order of dismissal requires Mr. Hemenway to show cause why he has not violated Rules 11(b)(1) and 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and why he should not be required to pay reasonable attorneys fees and other expenses to counsel for the defendants.

JAMES ROBERTSON
United States District Judge

It seems that this judge calls this case not only "frivolous," but that it may have been presented for an improper purpose such as to harass. Plaintiff will have to show cause that he has not violated specific rules of Federal procedure, and why he should not be required to pay the defendants' legal fees.

i.e., time and money-wasting "nutcases." earl

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

He did. See bold part highlighted in blue below.
No, he said there is no lawful basis for this lawsuit.
No, it means that you are expected to read the law before you file a lawsuit.

Here's Judge Robertson's dismissal. It seems only the memorandum was quoted by your news article: (Apologies that the formatting doesn't copy and paste well)
Hollister v. Soetoro - Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint

Hollister Dismissal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
GREGORY S. HOLLISTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARRY SOETORO, et al.,
Defendants.
:::::::::

Civil Action No. 08-2254 (JR)


MEMORANDUM

This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end.

The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven -- to the colonel’s satisfaction -- that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be President. The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.

The real plaintiff is probably Philip J. Berg, a lawyer who lives in Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania, and who has pursued his crusade elsewhere, see Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509(E.D. Pa. 2008), invoking the civil rights statutes, the Federal Election Campaign Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the law of promissory estoppel. That case was the subject of a scholarly opinion by a judge who took Mr. Berg’s claims seriously –- and dismissed them. Mr. Hollister is apparently Mr. Berg’s fallback brainstorm, essentially a straw plaintiff, one who could tee Mr. Berg’s native-born issue up for decision on a new theory: If some “value” could be assigned to the “duties” the plaintiff thinks he might someday be called upon to fulfill under the Commander-in-Chief, then those “duties” could be deposited in the registry of this Court as the res whose distribution is to be decided by a suit in interpleader!

The filing and service of the complaint required private counsel to appear for President Obama and for Vice President Biden (whose citizenship is not challenged but who was presumably considered a necessary party in a suit seeking to unseat the President). Those counsel have moved to dismiss,asserting both that this Court has no jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(1)) and that the plaintiff has stated a claim for which relief cannot be granted (Rule 12(b)(6)).

Plaintiff having invoked both diversity and the federal interpleader statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1355, I do have jurisdiction. Because plaintiff’s only claim invokes the interpleader statute,however, the suit must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

I have already called the interpleader claim “frivolous” in two interlocutory rulings [#10 and #14], and I do so again here. As the defendants noted in their motion to dismiss, “interpleader allows a party exposed to multiple claims on a single obligation or property to settle the controversy and
satisfy his obligation in one proceeding.” Commercial Union Ins.
Co. v. U.S., 999 F.2d 581, 583 (D.C. Cir. 1993). It is typically used in insurance cases where the plaintiff holds property on behalf of another but does not know to whom among several adverse parties the property should be transferred [#9 at 8]. Resort to interpleader is inappropriate when it “is sought for improper or ulterior purposes.” Wright & Miller § 1707 (3d ed. 2001).

Plaintiff has not cited a single case that lends even colorable support to the notion that his alleged “duties” can be the “money or property” to which the interpleader statute applies. The interpleader suits he cites are all about money or tangible property: American Fidelity Fire Ins. Co. v.
Construcciones Werl, Inc., 407 F. Supp 164 (D. V.I. 1975) is about contested HUD monies; Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Nichols, 363 F.2d 357 (8th Cir. 1966), is about insurance proceeds; Dunbar v. United States, 502 F.2d 506 (5th Cir. 1974) is about money seized from the mails. The only interpleader case plaintiff cites that involves a "duty" is Bank of Neosho v. Colcord, 8F.R.D. 621 (W.D. Mo. 1949) (Complaint, para. 12), an inapposite decision declining to strike a cross-claim for specific performance in an interpleader case that began, as interpleader cases do, with the deposit of funds. This suit will accordingly be dismissed.

Mr. Berg and Lawrence J. Joyce, an attorney who lives in Tucson, Arizona, signed the complaint in this case. (They have been filing electronically although they have not been admitted pro hac vice, see [#10].) They are agents provocateurs –- and any attempt to sanction them for misuse of the public and private resources that have had to be devoted to this case would only give them a forum to continue their provocation. John D. Hemenway, on the other hand, is a member of the Bar of this Court. He may have been enlisted by Messrs. Bergand Joyce as a foot soldier in their crusade, but he is nevertheless directly responsible to this Court for the pleadings that have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Because it appears that the complaint in this case may have been presented for an improper purpose such as to harass; and that the interpleader claims and other legal contentions of plaintiff are not warranted by existing law or by non-frivolous arguments for extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for establishing new law, the accompanying order of dismissal requires Mr. Hemenway to show cause why he has not violated Rules 11(b)(1) and 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and why he should not be required to pay reasonable attorneys fees and other expenses to counsel for the defendants.

JAMES ROBERTSON
United States District Judge

It seems that this judge calls this case not only "frivolous," but that it may have been presented for an improper purpose such as to harass. Plaintiff will have to show cause that he has not violated specific rules of Federal procedure, and why he should not be required to pay the defendants' legal fees.

Seen in context:

He may have been enlisted by Messrs. Bergand Joyce as a foot soldier in their crusade, but he is nevertheless directly responsible to this Court for the pleadings that have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Because it appears that the complaint in this case may have been presented for an improper purpose such as to harass;

Nice way to accuse a decent well intentioned man having been involved with public service and need to support the constitution of not being genuine.

This is like the old witch burnings. She may have been seen dancing with the devil. That is suffiucient to burn her at the stake. Just anotheer reason that I'm always wary of anyone having preached tolerance. All it means is that they wish to support their own distinct intolerance.

What does "may" have to do with it? Nothing! Just a typical sleazy form of attack when substance is lacking as it must with choir logic.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

Nick, your derogatory use of the term "choir" implies folks who blindly support a position irrespective of what facts and reason would tell one. I believe that is what we've been attempting to point out you're doggedly doing with this issue. earl

In case you haven't noticed I'm the one asking for the facts included in the long form of the BC to justify Obama as constitutionally qualified to be president. But, as usual, choir logic sees asking for facts as denying facts. You of course would call denying facts: "reason. I call denial making excuses to further their messiah."

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

... you are expected to read the law before you file a lawsuit.

I think you're supposed to have some evidence, too. Yet the Philip Berg one that gave rise to all the copy cat suits was an attempt to get the court to order an investigation!

It seems none of the copy cats have learned anything from his experience, further reinforcing the impression that these law suits are not even intended to be legally efficacious or expected to have actual legal consequences. Judge Robertson obviously has figured it out:

Here's Judge Robertson's dismissal. It seems only the memorandum was quoted by your news article: (Apologies that the formatting doesn't copy and paste well)
Hollister v. Soetoro - Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint

Hollister Dismissal

Because it appears that the complaint in this case may have been presented for an improper purpose such as to harass; and that the interpleader claims and other legal contentions of plaintiff are not warranted by existing law or by non-frivolous arguments for extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for establishing new law, the accompanying order of dismissal requires Mr. Hemenway to show cause why he has not violated Rules 11(b)(1) and 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and why he should not be required to pay reasonable attorneys fees and other expenses to counsel for the defendants.

JAMES ROBERTSON
United States District Judge

It seems that this judge calls this case not only "frivolous," but that it may have been presented for an improper purpose such as to harass. Plaintiff will have to show cause that he has not violated specific rules of Federal procedure, and why he should not be required to pay the defendants' legal fees.

See also:

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

... judge expects a convincing explanation from person who filed as to why they should not pay legal fees Obama incurred in responding to said law suit, which is deemed to frivolous and without proper purpose (e.g., a form of harassment).

[Netti-Netti]

Earl,

Originally Posted by earl

i.e., time and money-wasting "nutcases."

The folks that file these bogus laws suits have Paypall accounts. I'm sure Nick has already contributed substantial sums of money in their support. There are probably thousands like him.

Court filing fees are not expensive - less than $100 in some states - which could easily be paid for by a single donation. So000, it wouldn't necessarily be a time/money waster for the folks who file these bogus law suits who are getting financial support for it. Check the more recent one dismissed by Judge Robertson, someone with almost no legal background could have put that law suit together in an afternoon.

Originally Posted by earl

Give it up Seattle. 81 pages of this has long ago shown that Nick doesn't respond to or use reason.

You're not entertained?