How would you rule?

[Ling Ling 22]

With regard to John McCain's place of birth, it has already been tested in court

and found that while he may not have been born on US soil, the spirit of the constitution and her ideal of

natural born US citizens was not intended to disenfranchise the right of US citizenship to the child

of an American citizen who was born outside the US. The same would apply to Obama, therefore as that

this issue has been tested, I'm sure Senator Obama and his lawyers found it unnecessary to respond to

this frivolous suit while in the midst of the campaign.

As one attorney on the board has already stated, failure to respond to frivolous suits is common,

and not admission of anything except that they do not wish to participate in frivolous claims.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

As one attorney on the board has already stated, failure to respond to frivolous suits is common, and not admission of anything except that they do not wish to participate in frivolous claims.

Not that simple. A lawsuit is frivolous when the court declares it to be. Not responding is malpractice. Obama's attorneys have responded (they are better attorneys than the ones you refer to). What they haven't done is produce any evidence to show that the suit is frivolous or it would have been dismissed.

Edited October 25, 2008 by Virtual wife

[rebeccajo 14]

As one attorney on the board has already stated, failure to respond to frivolous suits is common, and not admission of anything except that they do not wish to participate in frivolous claims.

Not that simple. A lawsuit is frivolous when the court declares it to be. Not responding is malpractice. Obama's attorneys have responded (they are better attorneys than the ones you refer to). What they haven't done is produce any evidence to show that the suit is frivolous or it would have been dismissed.

It wasn't a Request for Production of Documents or an Interrogatory. It was a Request for Admissions.

You gotta know the rules before you play, VW.

[Ling Ling 22]

As one attorney on the board has already stated, failure to respond to frivolous suits is common, and not admission of anything except that they do not wish to participate in frivolous claims.

Not that simple. A lawsuit is frivolous when the court declares it to be. Not responding is malpractice. Obama's attorneys have responded (they are better attorneys than the ones you refer to). What they haven't done is produce any evidence to show that the suit is frivolous or it would have been dismissed.

So are you saying the case has merit?

Are you saying that you need a court to tell you that a case is frivolous?

If I sued you for excessive verbal and written masturbation, would you need a court to declare it as frivolous?

[Peikko 1,575]

As one attorney on the board has already stated, failure to respond to frivolous suits is common, and not admission of anything except that they do not wish to participate in frivolous claims.

Not that simple. A lawsuit is frivolous when the court declares it to be. Not responding is malpractice. Obama's attorneys have responded (they are better attorneys than the ones you refer to). What they haven't done is produce any evidence to show that the suit is frivolous or it would have been dismissed.

So are you saying the case has merit?

Are you saying that you need a court to tell you that a case is frivolous?

If I sued you for excessive verbal and written masturbation, would you need a court to declare it as frivolous?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

As one attorney on the board has already stated, failure to respond to frivolous suits is common, and not admission of anything except that they do not wish to participate in frivolous claims.

Not that simple. A lawsuit is frivolous when the court declares it to be. Not responding is malpractice. Obama's attorneys have responded (they are better attorneys than the ones you refer to). What they haven't done is produce any evidence to show that the suit is frivolous or it would have been dismissed.

So are you saying the case has merit?

Are you saying that you need a court to tell you that a case is frivolous?

If I sued you for excessive verbal and written masturbation, would you need a court to declare it as frivolous?

Are you saying anything that has any basis in law? No. It's merely silly rhetoric. I must say, you know your audience.

[Teacher Mark 53]

As one attorney on the board has already stated, failure to respond to frivolous suits is common, and not admission of anything except that they do not wish to participate in frivolous claims.

Not that simple. A lawsuit is frivolous when the court declares it to be. Not responding is malpractice. Obama's attorneys have responded (they are better attorneys than the ones you refer to). What they haven't done is produce any evidence to show that the suit is frivolous or it would have been dismissed.

So are you saying the case has merit?

Are you saying that you need a court to tell you that a case is frivolous?

If I sued you for excessive verbal and written masturbation, would you need a court to declare it as frivolous?

Are you saying anything that has any basis in law? No. It's merely silly rhetoric. I must say, you know your audience.

The true elitist has spoken. Bow down before her majesty.

[Ling Ling 22]

As one attorney on the board has already stated, failure to respond to frivolous suits is common, and not admission of anything except that they do not wish to participate in frivolous claims.

Not that simple. A lawsuit is frivolous when the court declares it to be. Not responding is malpractice. Obama's attorneys have responded (they are better attorneys than the ones you refer to). What they haven't done is produce any evidence to show that the suit is frivolous or it would have been dismissed.

So are you saying the case has merit?

Are you saying that you need a court to tell you that a case is frivolous?

If I sued you for excessive verbal and written masturbation, would you need a court to declare it as frivolous?

Are you saying anything that has any basis in law? No. It's merely silly rhetoric. I must say, you know your audience.

Wow...there's a case of the pot calling the kettle a Republican.

No offense to pots and kettles is intended.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

As one attorney on the board has already stated, failure to respond to frivolous suits is common, and not admission of anything except that they do not wish to participate in frivolous claims.

Not that simple. A lawsuit is frivolous when the court declares it to be. Not responding is malpractice. Obama's attorneys have responded (they are better attorneys than the ones you refer to). What they haven't done is produce any evidence to show that the suit is frivolous or it would have been dismissed.

So are you saying the case has merit?

Are you saying that you need a court to tell you that a case is frivolous?

If I sued you for excessive verbal and written masturbation, would you need a court to declare it as frivolous?

Are you saying anything that has any basis in law? No. It's merely silly rhetoric. I must say, you know your audience.

Wow...there's a case of the pot calling the kettle a Republican.

No offense to pots and kettles is intended.

You mentioned buying a brain? I say get to it!

[rebeccajo 14]

As one attorney on the board has already stated, failure to respond to frivolous suits is common, and not admission of anything except that they do not wish to participate in frivolous claims.

Not that simple. A lawsuit is frivolous when the court declares it to be. Not responding is malpractice. Obama's attorneys have responded (they are better attorneys than the ones you refer to). What they haven't done is produce any evidence to show that the suit is frivolous or it would have been dismissed.

So are you saying the case has merit?

Are you saying that you need a court to tell you that a case is frivolous?

If I sued you for excessive verbal and written masturbation, would you need a court to declare it as frivolous?

Are you saying anything that has any basis in law? No. It's merely silly rhetoric. I must say, you know your audience.

I haven't seen you state anything on this subject has any basis in law either.

PS - Most lawsuits never go to court. The mere filing of many is all it takes to make them frivolous.

[NickD 203]

As one attorney on the board has already stated, failure to respond to frivolous suits is common, and not admission of anything except that they do not wish to participate in frivolous claims.

Not that simple. A lawsuit is frivolous when the court declares it to be. Not responding is malpractice. Obama's attorneys have responded (they are better attorneys than the ones you refer to). What they haven't done is produce any evidence to show that the suit is frivolous or it would have been dismissed.

So are you saying the case has merit?

Are you saying that you need a court to tell you that a case is frivolous?

If I sued you for excessive verbal and written masturbation, would you need a court to declare it as frivolous?

Are you saying anything that has any basis in law? No. It's merely silly rhetoric. I must say, you know your audience.

I haven't seen you state anything on this subject has any basis in law either.

PS - Most lawsuits never go to court. The mere filing of many is all it takes to make them frivolous.

If you are summoned to go to a court of law, you have to go, so where is this summons? Just more dirty tricks and innuendos. It's getting old, but still works on retarded people.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Reminder to self: If I seriously want to argue law, don't come here to do it.

[rebeccajo 14]

Reminder to self: If I seriously want to argue law, don't come here to do it.

That'd be an excellent thing for you to remember.

[Ling Ling 22]

You mentioned buying a brain? I say get to it!

Sorry, that might be considered as socialist if I just bought you one.

I mean, I've got mine...you've gotta get your own.

[Teacher Mark 53]

Reminder to self: If I seriously want to argue law, don't come here to do it.

That'd be an excellent thing for you to remember.

Ditto.