3. it turns out when it was to be tested in court ...
Hollister v. Soetoro
On March 5, 2009, a lawsuit filed by Philip Berg on behalf of Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force colonel, against Barack Obama (referenced as "Barry Soetoro", the name given at the time of his enrollment in an Indonesian elementary school).
The suit was dismissed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The presiding judge, James Robertson, said the case was a waste of the court's time, calling Berg and another lawyer "agents provocateurs" and their local counsel, John Hemenway, "a foot soldier in their crusade." He ordered Hemenway to show cause why he should not pay the legal fees for Obama's attorney as a penalty for filing a complaint "for an improper purpose such as to harass".[43] The district court ultimately reprimanded Hemenway for his actions, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the dismissal of the case and Hemenway's reprimand.[26]
On January 18, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case.[44]
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz
On October 31, 2008, Greenwich resident and health food store owner Cort Wrotnowski filed a suit in the Connecticut Supreme Court against then Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz challenging the authenticity of presidential candidate Obama's Hawaii birth certificate. The suit was dismissed after initial hearings.[88]
Wrotnowski appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on November 25,[89] contending that the British citizenship of Obama's father made the president-elect ineligible to assume office. Leo Donofrio, whose earlier case against Obama's eligibility had been turned down, assisted Wrotnowski's Supreme Court appeal.[90]
The request for stay or injunction was denied without comment on December 15, 2008.[89][91] Thomas Goldstein, who has argued numerous cases before the court and covers Supreme Court cases, commented that "The law has always been understood to be, if you are born here, you're a natural born citizen. And that is particularly true in this case, when you have a U.S. citizen parent like Barack Obama's mother".[91]
Keyes v. Bowen
On November 14, 2008, Alan Keyes and Markham Robinson, chairman of the American Independent Party and a California candidate for president elector, filed a lawsuit requesting that Obama provide documentation that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States.[92][93][94][95] Keyes also said in an interview that he would not be in favor of amending this requirement of the Constitution.[96] Keyes asserts that statements by Obama's paternal step-grandmother "raise doubts as to whether Barack Obama is in fact a natural born U.S. citizen, eligible to be president."[97][98][99]
California Superior Court Judge Michael P. Kenny sustained, without leave to amend, Secretary Bowen's and Obama's demurrers on Keyes' petition for writ of mandate and granted Obama's motion to quash the subpoena. Keyes was found not to be entitled to the records he sought, thereby declaring the case moot.[100][101] The California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal on October 25, 2010.[102] The California Supreme Court declined, without comment, to review the case on February 2, 2011.[103]
On October 3, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...0-000-fine-frivolous-lawsuit-article-1.205638
'Birther' leader Orly Taitz ordered by Supreme Court to pay $20,000 fine for 'frivolous' lawsuit
Supreme Court tells “birther" leader to pay up
A leader of the generally ridiculed movement which believes
President Obama was not born in the
United States must pay a $20,000 fine she was slapped with in 2009, the nation’s highest court ruled Monday.
Orly Taitz, a dentist and lawyer in
California, received the fine for a lawsuit she filed in
Georgia on behalf of
Army Capt. Connie Rhodes, who refused to be deployed to
Iraq, arguing that the orders weren't legitimate since Obama is not eligible to be President.
The judge in that case called the lawsuit "frivolous," and accused Taitz of wasting the court's time.
"The Court finds that counsel's conduct was willful and not merely negligent,"
Judge Clay Land said in a statement in October. "It demonstrates bad faith on her part. As an attorney, she is deemed to have known better."
The judge added: "Counsel's frivolous and sanctionable conduct wasted the defendant’s time and valuable judicial resources that could have been devoted to legitimate cases pending with the Court."