News January 13-20

Posted on January 13, 2009 by Dr. Conspiracy

Open mike for current Obama Conspiracy Theories news items.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I am not a real doctor. I have a Master's Degree.
This entry was posted in Open Mike. Bookmark the permalink.

116 Responses to News January 13-20

  1. Tes says:
    January 13, 2009 at 1:57 pm  (Quote)

    News: Orly files petition with Scotus, “suggesting” that Justices recuse themselves from swearing Obama in as President. (Orly website, 1/13/09 Post)

  2. bogus info says:
    January 13, 2009 at 2:08 pm  (Quote)

    I posted the link to that too under Dr. Orly. Not being a lawyer, I have no idea is the “petition” is good or bad legal work. Can’t wait for someone to look at it who knows. LOL.

  3. bogus info says:
    January 13, 2009 at 4:59 pm  (Quote)

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=753
    Countdown of the Fictitious Presidency of Barack Obama

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=752
    Berg v. Obama: Second Conference Hearing on Friday

  4. laughinghysterically says:
    January 13, 2009 at 8:19 pm  (Quote)

    The petition or suggestion or whatever she styles it is complete garbage. And, will accomplish little more than further undermining her credibility as a competent attorney.

    Bad move on her part, but that comes as no surprise, she is clearly way out of her depth here.

  5. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 13, 2009 at 9:12 pm  (Quote)

    As discussed elsewhere, the nObama blog Investigating Obama had put a featured link to this web site on its web site, one that even copied headlines from the latest articles. It appears that they were fooled into thinking this was just another nObama blog and further that they have discovered their mistake!

    Investigating Obama still links to us but under the banner:

    Web Sites with Apparent Leftist Bias Behind Facades of Objectivity

    One month’s web hosting: $7.95.
    High-speed Internet connection: $39
    Being listed next to Factcheck.org: Priceless

  6. Patrick McKinnion says:
    January 14, 2009 at 12:32 am  (Quote)

    She HAD credibility as a competent attorney???

  7. bogus info says:
    January 14, 2009 at 7:41 am  (Quote)

    http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/article-by-arlene-williams-interesting.html
    Wednesday, January 14, 2009
    an article by Arlene Williams, interesting reference to my case
    Wednesday, January 14, 2009
    ‘Obama, Biden to Visit Supreme Court,’ Today, says CBS News

  8. laughinghysterically says:
    January 14, 2009 at 8:43 am  (Quote)

    Well, one can only begin to guess the new conspiracy theories that will evolve from this visit!

    Here’s a few ideas:

    Roberts will force Obama to show him the vault BC at the meeting?

    Roberts is clearly IN on the conspiracy. The meeting, of course, is a super-secret strategy session!

    Hmmm, I am sure my ideas are much too tame and sane.

    Sorry, the conspiracy part of my brain is simply absent. Bummer.

    I am sure the tin-fiol-hat crowd will have some whopper conspiracies by mid-afternoon.

  9. laughinghysterically says:
    January 14, 2009 at 9:00 am  (Quote)

    Patrick, I tend to just love sarcasm. Apparently, some fools believe she is competent, that’s how she’s keeping the money train going!

    🙂

  10. bogus info says:
    January 14, 2009 at 9:09 am  (Quote)

    LH,

    Just hop on over to Berg’s/Linda’s blog and there are plenty of them so just take your pick. LOL

  11. bogus info says:
    January 14, 2009 at 11:21 am  (Quote)

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=755
    Geitner-Soetoro-Ford foundation connection

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=756
    WILL THE MILITARY SERVE OBAMA IF HE CANNOT PROVE HIS ELIGBILITY FOR POTUS?

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=757
    Big Brother’s new target: Tracking of all firearms

  12. bogus info says:
    January 14, 2009 at 12:37 pm  (Quote)

    Well, looks like they are going to “block” me over at The Betrayal blog. Seems I am a “distraction” and they really don’t like “facts backed up by the source to verify the facts.” LOL But, this is David’s comment to me regarding the Ed Hale supposed INS Doc. The first part is my comment–couldn’t help myself about the donations:

    Karen // Jan 14, 2009 at 3:46 pm
    “Ed Hale’s news that would take O down regarded
    the INS document.”

    Are donations being requested to obtain the INS document?

    “David Crockett // Jan 14, 2009 at 4:10 pm
    Karen Ed Hale stands for his country, something I cannot say for the Obot sites you are promoting here. Talking about requests for dononations maybe you should focus a little more on the usurper to whom you apparently sold your soul.”

    “In respect to the INS document I haven’t published about this subject just yet as I rather let Steve Pidgeon do what has to be done.”

    “One thing I will not accept this site to be used for Ed bashing so keep that in mind.”

  13. bogus info says:
    January 14, 2009 at 1:32 pm  (Quote)

    The following is posted by a blogger on The Betrayal blog:

    Daivid Crockett,
    Please have Dr. Orly or other attorney see if this is really the case:- (Congress can veto the Constitution!?)
    At http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/open-thread-weblog-awards/#comments

    on January 13, 2009 at 3:04 am drkate
    WHY THIS IS HAPPENING–AN INTERESTING LEGAL CASE

    Cruising for solutions tonite, listening to BTR, someone said “well let’s just sue congress for failing to uphold the constitution in their oath of office.” I was skeptical for some reason, thus I cruised. I couldn’t believe what I found!!! But then again, I could.

    The Supreme Court gave Congress the power to essentially veto the Constitution at will in 2004 in the case of Walker v. US (2000) and Walker v. Members of Congress (2004). A good description of the case and its significance, plus links to the pleadings, is found here. The case involved Congresses’ refusal to call a constitutional convention when it had been petitioned by the requisite number of states. A few excerpts follow:

    “The story of the two lawsuits, Walker v. United States, filed in December, 2000 and Walker v. Members of Congress, filed in September, 2004. Walker v. United States remained a federal district court case. Walker v. Members of Congress was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.”

    “Walker v. United States was the first lawsuit in history to directly address the question of whether Congress was required to obey the text of the Constitution and call a convention when the states applied which the evidence in the suit clearly showed they had, or whether, despite the language of the Constitution which the Founders termed “peremptory” Congress could ignore, or veto, the direct text of the Constitution and refuse to call such a convention even though the states had applied.”

    “In Walker v. United States, an over-length brief citing over two hundred Supreme Court rulings favoring the position of the plaintiff, Bill Walker of Seattle, Washington, was presented in district court. The court refused to read the document and ultimately, citing Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) established that under the court’s
    POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE,
    Congress was empowered to ignore or veto the direct text of the Constitution.”

    “Following the court decision, an amicus brief was filed with the Supreme Court of the United States in the cases, McConnell v Federal Election Commission (02-1674 et al.). The purpose of the brief was twofold: (1) To serve as a practice exercise for a new Walker case intended to go to the Supreme Court and (2) to find out whether or not the assertions made in Walker v. United States were in fact true……The fact the amicus was never presented to the Court did not matter. Because the attorneys had reacted so violently, it was obvious by this reaction that what had been stated, that Congress possessed a veto and the effect of that veto was far-reaching, so much so, as to establish the possibility of a dictatorship in the government, that no attorney could accept it.”

    “Based on new grounds of standing, Walker v Members of Congress was filed in 2004. The suit was significant in several ways. First, whereas Walker v. United States had sued Congress as a group, Walker v. Members of Congress sued the members as individuals. This meant that each member, was required under federal law, to individually determine their opposition to the lawsuit and request the United States represent them opposing the lawsuit. All members of Congress opposed the lawsuit by requesting the government represent them. Despite the language of the complaint which removed any member of Congress from the suit if he supported obeying the Constitution, no member of Congress chose to obey the Constitution. Thus, all members of Congress have publicly advocated they oppose obeying the direct text of the Constitution and support they having a veto of its text.”

    “Secondly, it brought to the attention of the courts that such refusal was a violation of several criminal laws among them, 18 U.S.C. 1918, violation of oath of office by federal officials. The penalty for such violation is one year in prison and removal from office.”

    “Finally, Walker v. Members of Congress was significant as it was the first lawsuit in history directly dealing with a convention call of Article V to be presented to the Supreme Court. In October, 2006 the court denied a writ of certiorari and thus refused to consider the case. However, the United States, under Supreme Court Rules, had already conceded as fact and law that it held that Congress could veto the text of the Constitution.”

    “The only ’solution’ I found in this is that ALL members of Congress need to be replaced. They have vetoed the constitution and want to retain that power. This is the executive and the legislative branch usurping the constitution, which Hamilton spoke about regarding the need for a standing army.”

    “So our suspicion of the form letters’ we were receiving from Congress was correct. And in this situation, they have jeopardized the entire country for their political careers and barack obama.”

    “Read the piece, it is quite interesting. I ask again about the cowardice of the Supreme Court now. Their actions will tell us everything we need to know about next steps for our Country.”

  14. laughinghysterically says:
    January 14, 2009 at 1:58 pm  (Quote)

    Wow, they are indeed “going off the rails on a crazy train!”

  15. mimi says:
    January 14, 2009 at 2:35 pm  (Quote)

    Here’s a new one. From RosettaSisters blog:

    “justanamericancindy4 Says:
    January 14, 2009 at 6:24 pm

    hockeyfan530

    I believe Bam Bam was chosen back in college and then groomed to be Pres… The books were nothing more than pre fight the smears propaganda”

    Yep. He KNEW he was gonna be President, so he wrote the books to fight the smears that he knew were coming. Gotta love it.

  16. Tes says:
    January 14, 2009 at 2:50 pm  (Quote)

    For a reality based look at the Walker case, see, e.g., http://www.article5.org/Answering%20Brief.pdf.

  17. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 14, 2009 at 2:57 pm  (Quote)

    I think one is much more effective sticking to the facts and avoiding hyperbole in criticism.

  18. bogus info says:
    January 14, 2009 at 4:15 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    “I think one is much more effective sticking to the facts and avoiding hyperbole in criticism.”

    I agree. Like I said, I just could not help myself. I’ve been called a Obot, been told I am unpatriotic, told I’ve “lost my soul”, that I am a “paid Obot”., etc., etc. So, I guess one little slip at this point isn’t too bad. LOL

  19. bogus info says:
    January 14, 2009 at 6:04 pm  (Quote)

    I figured the “guns” article I posted would get a few comments. Obviously people here aren’t obsessed about guns. That got quite a few responses on The Betrayal blog.

  20. mimi says:
    January 14, 2009 at 6:29 pm  (Quote)

    Saw this video of interview with Alan Keyes today.

    Note the facial expression at the beginning when the interviewer says “should I even call him President-Elect”. And, he refers to “these silly Courts”.

    He goes with the “he has spent upwards of a million dollars” line. Then, slams the “digitized” birth certificate.

    video is embedded here:
    http://www.thedailydigest.org/?p=4229

    I hope should the birth certificate issue ever get resolved to keyes liking, that he is interviewed. And, during that interview, questions be brought up about his debts and receiving salary:

    http://www.realchange.org/keyes.htm#dislike

    .

    Keyes is trying to make it seem like he is only involved because it’s a legal issue.

    Keyes is one of the most morally corrupt people around.

  21. bogus info says:
    January 14, 2009 at 11:54 pm  (Quote)

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=762
    an article by Arlene Williams, interesting reference to my case

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=761
    Historical Documents Prove Obama Ineligible for Presidency

  22. bogus info says:
    January 15, 2009 at 12:06 am  (Quote)

    http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/comment-about-obama-ssn-from-reader.html
    Wednesday, January 14, 2009
    A comment about the Obama SSN from a reader

  23. Patrick McKinnion says:
    January 15, 2009 at 1:02 am  (Quote)

    Regarding your second link, ah yes, another de Vattel worshipper. *chuckle*

  24. bogus info says:
    January 15, 2009 at 1:22 am  (Quote)

    They refer to de Vattel frequently.

  25. mimi says:
    January 15, 2009 at 2:31 am  (Quote)

    They couldn’t buy advertising time on the teevee for that lie-filled ad they made:

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fact-porter-gets-fringier-day

  26. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 15, 2009 at 4:34 am  (Quote)

    I take on de Vattel in my new article: Two Kinds of Citizen.

  27. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 15, 2009 at 4:56 am  (Quote)

    Continental European Countries tend to have laws and their writers say that citizenship should be inherited. De Vattel is one of those. Others, most notably England, have either/or laws, allowing citizenship for those born in the realm or those born to citizens. It’s fine to discuss these differences. What is wrong is to call what de Vattel says “international law”, or to say that he is the “Gold Standard” on original intent in every area of the Constitution. De Vattel probably is the gold standard for international affairs, but obviously not on citizenship. After all the framers were English-trained lawyers, not French or Swiss.

    And this is why court case after court case cite British common law on citizenship, but only the dissenting opinions quote de Vattel on citizenship.

  28. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 15, 2009 at 5:03 am  (Quote)

    I like the quote: “Apparently, the veracity and importance of this ad depends primarily on what you consider the meaning of the word ‘fact’ to be.”

    I suppose if your meaning for the word “fact” is “bald faced lie”, then yes, that video is “fact filled”.

  29. bogus info says:
    January 15, 2009 at 7:56 am  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    I hate to break it to you but I don’t think they realize they are the dissenting opinion. The thing about this bunch that disturbs me is how they try to “force” their opinion/beliefs on others.(minority over majority) I have pointed that out to them and their standard comeback has been basically that we don’t know the “truth/know any better/know what is good for us/this country.”

  30. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 15, 2009 at 8:05 am  (Quote)

    Ignoring facts contrary to ones belief is a mark of the conspiracy theorist. Such a reaction is to be expected. I wouldn’t get too frustrated over it.

  31. bogus info says:
    January 15, 2009 at 9:46 am  (Quote)

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=763
    Obot hitlist – Obama Conspiracy Theory Blogs

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=764
    Interesting article – Check Mate?

  32. Patrick McKinnion says:
    January 15, 2009 at 5:25 pm  (Quote)

    Take a look at Dr. Orly’s latest to the Supreme Court. I can only assume she’s hitting the Nitrous Oxide again.

    http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/important-this-motion-was-filed-today.html

  33. laughinghysterically says:
    January 15, 2009 at 6:53 pm  (Quote)

    I think we can count Orly in the “done” column. She’s quoting the Bible and the DOOMS (Code) of Alfred the Great– stick a fork in Orly, she is done.

    I am really disappointed that this latest motion was not handwritten in crayon!

    Maybe she’s got one more in her yet? She could arguably fall a bit lower before she skulks away into the dustbin of history, but, not much.

  34. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 15, 2009 at 7:34 pm  (Quote)

    Hey! *I* quote the Bible sometimes.

  35. laughinghysterically says:
    January 15, 2009 at 8:14 pm  (Quote)

    Not in your legal motions as authority, I would hope!

    LOL!

  36. laughinghysterically says:
    January 15, 2009 at 8:16 pm  (Quote)

    And, Mr. Bush tells us, “For the final time, goodnight.”

    AMEN TO THAT!!!

    Goodbye, sir, and good riddance.

    Please don’t let the door hit you in the a*s on the way out.

    UGH.

  37. bogus info says:
    January 15, 2009 at 8:29 pm  (Quote)

    “MOTION FOR WAIVER OF RULE 37(2)(A) OF THIS COURT
    The Petitioner humbly requests waiver of Rule 37(2)(a) of this Court, requiring timely filing of a motion with specified notice to all parties. Petitioner appeals to the unique over riding change in circumstances created by the formal election by the Electoral College of the Respondent, Barack Hussein Obama II, and his delayed declaration on Thursday, Jan. 8th, 2009, by Congress in joint session, to be the President elect. This uniquely brings to bear the constitutional actions prescribed by U.S. CONST. Amend. 20.
    Per the Petitioner’s case, the motion, and to her belief and knowledge, to date the Respondent has failed to submit to constitutional election officers the necessary government certified witnessed proofs verifying that he qualifies to be President. He has further opposed all efforts by election officers and by We the People to obtain such certified proofs.”

    Okay, explain this. I went and looked at 37.2(a) but need a little help here. What does this mean? Also, how do you spell “writ.” Look how Doc Orly spells “write”.?????

    On Petition For A Write Of Certiorari
    Before Judgement To The
    Supreme Court of California
    Case Nos.:(S168690)

  38. bogus info says:
    January 15, 2009 at 8:34 pm  (Quote)

    Also, has PE Obama opposed efforts of election officers?

  39. bogus info says:
    January 15, 2009 at 8:42 pm  (Quote)

    but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

  40. bogus info says:
    January 15, 2009 at 8:46 pm  (Quote)

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=766
    Stephen Pidgeon: Research and Litigation Strategies Have Just Begun

  42. bogus info says:
    January 15, 2009 at 9:23 pm  (Quote)

    Doc Orly filed a application to stay pending the filing of the petition for a writ. So, today she just filed her petition for a writ. Correct?

    So, when this goes to conference on the 23rd, all that will be denied will be the application to stay? Will the petition for a writ take the same course in the court as Berg’s did? Or can SCOTUS deny the petition also?

  43. bogus info says:
    January 15, 2009 at 9:29 pm  (Quote)

    Wonder if Mr. Bickle will send these “hand delivered documents” to the anthrax lab too? LOL File “13” is where they need to go.

  44. bogus info says:
    January 15, 2009 at 9:35 pm  (Quote)

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=768
    Dr. Orly Taitz – I need help from patriots in South Carolina

  45. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 15, 2009 at 10:20 pm  (Quote)

    Don’t look at me. I’m not carrying her water.

    What Orly has is a letter from the South Carolina Secretary of State saying Michelle doesn’t know what she’s talking about, specifically that South Carolina law says that it is NOT the responsibility of the SC Secretary of State to verify a candidate’s eligibility (it’s the Party’s responsibility).

  46. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 15, 2009 at 10:23 pm  (Quote)

    I don’t see how they will deny the writ on the 23rd. That gives her another few weeks of fame.

  47. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 15, 2009 at 10:34 pm  (Quote)

    Who’s “we”?

  48. bogus info says:
    January 15, 2009 at 10:34 pm  (Quote)

    Sarah Palin got on my last nerve. I did not see how anyone could be worse than her but I do believe Doc Orly is worse.

  49. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 15, 2009 at 10:34 pm  (Quote)

    Not that I’ve ever heard.

  50. bogus info says:
    January 15, 2009 at 10:44 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    Are you referring to “We, the people” in Doc Orly’s petition? Gail Lightfoot I think is Doc Orly’s client? Plus, some electors?–not sure who all are.

    Has a motion for waiver of rule 37.2 (a) ever been denied? What would have been the proper procedure to file this petition?

  51. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 15, 2009 at 10:53 pm  (Quote)

    I would presume they would not waive the rule. So far the Supreme Court has given no indication that they take any of this seriously. They have denied emergency injunctions. I don’t see that they will waive a rule requiring suits to be filed in time to give everybody proper notice. It’s not like the inauguration was a surprise or anything.

  52. bogus info says:
    January 15, 2009 at 11:00 pm  (Quote)

    To be honest, I have not seen all that many petitions/motions in legal cases, but aren’t you suppose to cite actual successful court cases/precedents that support your position/argument of the case along with supporting factual evidence?

  53. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 15, 2009 at 11:02 pm  (Quote)

    That thing is HUGE. Somebody’s feeding her stuff.

  54. bogus info says:
    January 15, 2009 at 11:04 pm  (Quote)

    I think perhaps Doc Orly wasn’t aware that she needed to file the petition for cert? So if they don’t waive the rule does that mean the petition for cert will be rejected?

  55. bogus info says:
    January 15, 2009 at 11:27 pm  (Quote)

    Does SCOTUS just allow someone to ramble on and on when they file petitions/motions or are there some rules regarding this?

  56. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 16, 2009 at 12:54 am  (Quote)

    There have been jailhouse lawyers doing this stuff for years. I’m sure the courts can handle it. I daresay we spend more time bothering with Orly than the Supreme Court does.

  57. bogus info says:
    January 16, 2009 at 1:21 am  (Quote)

    If I understand how the Supreme Court works, the Supreme Court Justices probably won’t ever even see that petition/motion Doc Orly “hand delivered” to them today. LOL

  58. bogus info says:
    January 16, 2009 at 6:55 am  (Quote)

    SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S. – RULES
    ..Part I. The Court

    ——————————————————————————–

    Rule 1. Clerk

    1. The Clerk receives documents for filing with the Court and has authority to reject any submitted filing that does not comply with these Rules.

    Does the above rule give the Clerk the authority to reject both Doc Orly’s petition of recusal and petition for cert. because of non-compliance with the rules?

  59. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 16, 2009 at 7:51 am  (Quote)

    This sheds some light on Donofrio’s description of the Supreme Court clerks as “brutal Praetorian guards”.

  60. bogus info says:
    January 16, 2009 at 9:22 am  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    Yes, it does but I suppose they would have to be in order to not waste the courts time? I’ve read all the rules but in those rules they refer to other rules so it gets a bit confusing.

    However, I did “get” rule 22.4 where it clearly states that while you have the right to resubmit a denied application(individual Justices), it was not favored by the court unless it was a denial without prejudice. Which means “Don’t Do It.” It appears that Berg, Donofrio, Wrotnowinski and Orly either don’t understand that rule or choose to ignore it.

  61. Tes says:
    January 16, 2009 at 9:25 am  (Quote)

    Yes … that is the general approach. Interestingly enough, you also MUST “disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel.”

    See, e.g., Model Rule. (Each state has their own code, which varies in parts, but I’m unaware of any state that does not have this rule.)

  62. Tes says:
    January 16, 2009 at 9:38 am  (Quote)

    MOTION FOR WAIVER OF RULE 37(2)(A)
    Rule 37 addresses Amicus Briefs.
    Orly’s motion is not an amicus brief.
    Therefore, Rule 37 has no application to her motion.

    Her document is a MOTION.
    Motions are governed by Supreme Court Rule 21.

  63. Tes says:
    January 16, 2009 at 9:45 am  (Quote)

    Another note: Is Petitioner in that Motion a man or woman? Document indicates confusion:

    “Per the Petitioner’s petition and to *his* belief and knowledge, the Respondent has to date failed ….”
    * * *
    “Per the Petitioner’s petition and to *her* belief and knowledge, the Respondent has, at great cost ….”

    Is there one petitioner, or two?

    “The *Petitioner* submits that, both by default and by active hindrance to officers and to *petitioners* seeking that evidence….”

    I’d love to see our 8th grade kid’s English teacher redline THIS document 🙂

  64. Tes says:
    January 16, 2009 at 9:50 am  (Quote)

    “MISPRISION”
    Orly uses this word repeatedly in her motion. For those curious (like me):

    Misprision (from O. Fr. mesprendre, mod. meprendre, to misunderstand) is a term of English law used to describe certain kinds of offence. Writers on criminal law usually divide misprision into two kinds, negative or positive.

    It survives in England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland, only in the term misprision of treason.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misprision

  65. Tes says:
    January 16, 2009 at 10:01 am  (Quote)

    Hey – I just noticed that she advocates a NEW “NBC” standard:

    “By the underlying constitutional principle of sole allegiance to the U.S.A. the Commander in Chief should have all biological and adoptive parents holding allegiance to the US, the President elect be born in U.S. jurisdiction, and have had only had sole allegiance to the U.S. CONST. art. II, §1.”

    So – it’s not only that one’s biological parents must be US citizens, but any subsequent adoptive parents must also have citizens.

    Unfortunately, apparently like her sentence fragment about John [Jay]*, the citations for this position were apparently lost in some cut and paste nightmare …

    *(“The intent of the Founders is clearly seen in John” … nothing after John – and no more discussion about any intent of Founders, right above “Section II. The CONSTITUTION Places The Burden…”)

  66. bogus info says:
    January 16, 2009 at 11:18 am  (Quote)

    Tes,

    So Doc Orly in her motion asks for a waiver of the rule but cites the wrong rule? What is it that Doc Orly is asking a waiver for?

  67. mimi says:
    January 16, 2009 at 11:42 am  (Quote)

    This was posted at the RosettaSister blog. So… who knows.

    “Foxtrot Says:
    January 15, 2009 at 6:09 pm

    One thing I forgot to mention after speaking to Phil yesterday . . . he said that Dr. Orly was removed from the Keyes case! As I said before, I think it is wonderful that she is trying to get this through like the rest of us, but I think she is a little whacky! Berg mentioned two people who are actually damaging the “place of birth” story in the news, instead of helping. Can you guess what two they are?”
    =======================

    Too crazy for Keyes? I didn’t think that could even happen.

  68. mimi says:
    January 16, 2009 at 11:48 am  (Quote)

    Rose has never figured out how to set the time/date on her blog. So, comments are not timestamped correctly. comment was on this thread:
    http://rosettasister.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/to-be-determined/

  69. bogus info says:
    January 16, 2009 at 11:56 am  (Quote)

    Here is some more of Doc Orly’s great ideas:

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=770
    letter from mzebest- telling children not to go to school on the 20th and boycott inauguration, schools will miss on federal dollars

    I’d call this “cutting your own nose off to spite your face”.

  70. Patrick McKinnion says:
    January 16, 2009 at 12:12 pm  (Quote)

    Hmmm….. On one hand, dubious source, but on the other hand:

    1) Berg may be getting upset at Dr. Orly’s grandstanding.

    2) Berg may feel that Dr. Orly’s constant pleas for her followers to bombard the Supreme Court with letters, emails, and faxes may be undermining his cases as well. (Remember, Berg at least has told his followers not to.)

    3) Gary Kreep may have felt that Dr. Orly was more and more of a liability in the Keyes case.

    I can’t say I’d feel sorry to see the birthers rip each other apart though.

  71. bogus info says:
    January 16, 2009 at 12:21 pm  (Quote)

    Ditto!

    Did you see where one of Doc Orly’s followers and Doc Orly are telling/encouraging parents not to send their children to school Jan. 20th and this would help their “cause” get out to the media/mainstream? They are nuts!

  72. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 16, 2009 at 1:23 pm  (Quote)

    I’m more than happy to let the birthers and the constitutional revisionists fight it out amongst themselves, leaving normal people to get on with their business.

  73. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 16, 2009 at 1:28 pm  (Quote)

    I don’t think a handful of kids playing hooky will make the national news. Just my gut reaction.

  74. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 16, 2009 at 2:02 pm  (Quote)

    I’m gettings visitors from that The Betrayal article link. How cool is that?

  75. mimi says:
    January 16, 2009 at 4:59 pm  (Quote)

    New conspiracy. Obama involved in 3, count ’em, 3 murders. thanks barackryphal. I luvs ya.

    http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html

  76. bogus info says:
    January 16, 2009 at 5:14 pm  (Quote)

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=780
    from birthdatabase.com, more info, we are getting closer

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=779
    You can now see on the docket Suggestion for Recusal of the Justices of the Supreme Court to swear Barack Obama as president(conflict of interest)

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=778
    Good News – Orly Taitz, Esq. Accepted to SCOTUS

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=776
    Joint Resolution 5

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=775
    PRESS RELEASE – Berg is outraged’ at Congress as they failed the citizens of the United States by not’ challenging Obama during the Electoral Vote on January 8, 2009 and Demands that Congressional Hearings be held regarding the qualifications’ of Obama as we are headed for a Constitutional Crisis’ by having an ineligible’ President

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=774
    Strong Plea to our Armed forces from Lt. Col. David A Earl-Graef

  77. bogus info says:
    January 16, 2009 at 5:33 pm  (Quote)

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=774
    Strong Plea to our Armed forces from Lt. Col. David A Earl-Graef

  78. bogus info says:
    January 16, 2009 at 5:41 pm  (Quote)

    Yes, I saw that too. NUTS!

  79. bogus info says:
    January 16, 2009 at 5:45 pm  (Quote)

    I saw where David let you post. Then he turns around and says you are “misguided.” LOL.

    And one poster said by me posting your link that I was to thank for it. LOL Actually, maybe if some will come over here and read, it might bring some sanity to their mindset? Nah!

  80. bogus info says:
    January 16, 2009 at 5:47 pm  (Quote)

    Guess Mr Bickle allowed it in. Will the Justices “recuse” themselves?” Is a response required for this “request”?

  81. bogus info says:
    January 16, 2009 at 5:48 pm  (Quote)

    The article I posted above is a press release by Berg. He is outraged and demands Congress hold congressional meeting regarding Obama’s qualifications!

  82. bogus info says:
    January 16, 2009 at 5:50 pm  (Quote)

    The post above, what is this about? Obama has a fake SSN?

  83. MNBV says:
    January 16, 2009 at 6:12 pm  (Quote)

    Freakin’ idiot!!!! If I did not consider this whole situation entertainment, I would report him. I serve in the military and to think anyone affiliated thinking like this is very upsetting!

  84. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 16, 2009 at 7:32 pm  (Quote)

    The way I see it, cross linking helps me more than the other guy. But this is another lesson. One of those links was a dud (fixed now), and you never know who’s reading and what until it happens. Everything needs to be ship shape and in Bristol Fashion.

    I hope they keep visiting my page to see what I’ve added. Barackryphal was added to day.

    Back when I ran our company web site, I had a page listing all of our competitors, links to their web sites and a short writeup about what they did. It impressed the heck out of potential customers that we had the confidence to do that.

  85. bogus info says:
    January 17, 2009 at 1:36 am  (Quote)

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=781
    Letter to the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  86. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 17, 2009 at 7:58 am  (Quote)

    I think the folks over at The Betrayal have their priorities mixed up. It’s January 17. They only have 3 days until Obama’s inauguration, meanwhile George W Bush has skated for nearly 8 years free and clear without showing HIS birth certificate. I they should be all over the issue of clamping irons on the current usurper before his term ends and he can escape to another country with which we don’t have an extradition treaty. There’s plenty of time to deal with Obama.

  87. bogus info says:
    January 17, 2009 at 9:47 am  (Quote)

    http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/i-am-looking-for-people-experienced.html
    Saturday, January 17, 2009
    I am looking for people experienced with subpoenas please call XXX-XXX-XXXX in the morning or e-mail

    Wonder who the target of this is? Shouldn’t a lawyer know how to prepare a subpoena? I have faith in Doc Orly. We will know soon who the target is!

  88. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 17, 2009 at 11:16 am  (Quote)

    Perhaps she wants someone to serve it.

  89. bogus info says:
    January 17, 2009 at 11:26 am  (Quote)

    Cr. C.,

    Yep, that is possible too. GeorgetownJD on the Yes to Democracy blog things the target is Obama’s granny coming in from Kenya. Makes sense. LOL.

    Wouldn’t a subpeona have to be authorized by the court?
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule45.htm

  90. bogus info says:
    January 17, 2009 at 12:01 pm  (Quote)

    I can’t wait to see Doc Orly’s new “motion” and we all know she will post it on her blog as she likes the “praise of all her followers” too much.

    http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/list-of-all-31-cases-need-help.html

    Vattel yet again:

    http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/excerpt-from-vattel.html

  91. bogus info says:
    January 17, 2009 at 12:12 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    Is it customary to file all these “motions” that Doc Orly is filing?

  92. laughinghysterically says:
    January 17, 2009 at 12:33 pm  (Quote)

    Nothing she does is customary. Orly is a train wreck.

  93. bogus info says:
    January 17, 2009 at 12:38 pm  (Quote)

    LH,

    That’s true. All her followers are going to have a incorrect idea about what lawyers can and cannot do. At the Supreme court level, can you just “file a motion” anytime the urge hits you?

  94. laughinghysterically says:
    January 17, 2009 at 12:42 pm  (Quote)

    LOL. Seeing as how she has no active case (SCOTUS has not taken her case and the lower court dismissed), and no discovery order in place, good luck on that subpoena idea Orly. What a joke.

    I love that she is making that ridiculous online plea for help from someone “experienced with subpoenas”.

    What she needs to do is get help from a lawyer who is actually competent. Of course, all a competent lawyer woud do is tell her to forget this idiocy! Subpoena, ha, that gives me a really good laugh!

  95. laughinghysterically says:
    January 17, 2009 at 12:44 pm  (Quote)

    Well, there are Rules, she , of course, chooses not to follow them. At this point, I would expect a lot more idiocy coming from her. She no longer has anythig to lose, so, I’d expect she’ll push the envelope as much as possible.

    BTW- are you watching the Obama whistle-stop tour. It is very cool!

  96. bogus info says:
    January 17, 2009 at 12:46 pm  (Quote)

    I think Doc Orly is out-of-control. Drunk on her “followers” praise, and drunk on her “media exposure”. Never mind it is just her “own media”. LOL

  97. bogus info says:
    January 17, 2009 at 12:51 pm  (Quote)

    LH,

    Yes, I am and it is very cool.

  98. laughinghysterically says:
    January 17, 2009 at 12:54 pm  (Quote)

    I don’t know how anyone could be seeing what is going on and still hold the deluded belief that this man is NOT taking office on Tuesday.

    Don’t know about you, but we will be having a party here Tuesday night!

  99. bogus info says:
    January 17, 2009 at 1:35 pm  (Quote)

    PE Obama is hard for the Secret Service to protect. LOL He likes to get out in the crowd.

  100. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 17, 2009 at 1:41 pm  (Quote)

    Most recent threats from Orly:

    Obama “truth” squad and people like Secretary of State of Ohio Jennifer Brunner and all the others that have been collaborating with this Gestapo-SS establishment, they all should and would be tried in Nurenberg style trials for harassing, intimidating, blackmailing and terrorizing fellow citizens, for defrauding the whole country. Patriots of this country didn’t fight and defeat Nazi Germany to end up with Obamas, McCuskill, Soros, Brunner and the rest of this squad. I hope that the men in this country, particularly in our military will finally revolt against this travesty of Justice. If our government and our elected officials and our judiciary have failed us, then it is time for the new government, new elected officials and a new judiciary.

    January 17, 2009 What Should Be Done

    You will notice that Orly is threatening moi! For the record, this is causing me mental distress.

  101. laughinghysterically says:
    January 17, 2009 at 1:45 pm  (Quote)

    Orly’s mere existence causes me mental distress, unfortunately, it’s just not an actionable claim. UGH. If only!

  102. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 17, 2009 at 1:59 pm  (Quote)

    If you think Orly is scary, look at Hal Turner:

    Intermixed in the huddled mass of sub-human simians [at the Inauguration], will be mentally-ill Whites who call themselves Liberals and who think it ever so grand that the first black president will be sworn in. Wiping out these two segments of the population (sub-humans and mentally-ill liberal whites) would be a public service!

    I won’t say what may happen Tuesday but I will say this: After Tuesday, the name Hal Turner may live in infamy.

  103. laughinghysterically says:
    January 17, 2009 at 2:20 pm  (Quote)

    Sheesh! I hope someone reported that fool to the FBI. And, I hope he enjoys jail!

  104. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 17, 2009 at 2:37 pm  (Quote)

    I have every confidence that federal officials monitor these threats on the Internet.

  105. bogus info says:
    January 17, 2009 at 3:10 pm  (Quote)

    I called the FBI with my concerns.

  106. bogus info says:
    January 17, 2009 at 3:12 pm  (Quote)

    Watching CNN and the train trip. Pretty neat. Kids are coming out with their parents to see PE Obama.

  107. bogus info says:
    January 17, 2009 at 3:15 pm  (Quote)

    In our area, we have already heard of two big projects that are going to be federally funded. Both were sitting on go just didn’t have the funds.

  108. bogus info says:
    January 18, 2009 at 7:03 am  (Quote)

    http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/do-you-recognize-this-medallion.html Here

    The above post shows a picture of the “medallion” they are all so curious about.

  109. bogus info says:
    January 18, 2009 at 7:23 am  (Quote)

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2852

    Greenberg v. Brunner: Judge Requires Plaintiff to Cover Court Costs

  110. bogus info says:
    January 18, 2009 at 7:51 am  (Quote)

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2761
    Candidate Qualification: TN Senator: “Eligibility Issue Investigated and Confirmed”

  112. bogus info says:
    January 20, 2009 at 9:59 pm  (Quote)

    Wonder how the Obama’s feel being in the White House and what Obama’s daughters are thinking right now. Pretty neat.

    However, I would not trade places with them for love nor money. The price paid is too high. Look at how the White House has aged Bush and prior Presidents too. Thanks but no thanks!

  113. TRUTH says:
    January 21, 2009 at 4:25 pm  (Quote)

    You really have to admire the quick “Change”. Now instead of a respectable inauguration, they have be-boppin partying on sacred memorial properties. U2 rocked on the STEPS!! of the Lincoln Memorial, an artifact to be respected not partied on. I can’t begin to imagine how many out of line acts were committed the last couple of days in D.C. on Very Important Memorial grounds. But Obamaniacs won’t even see that I’m sure. It’s ALL GOOD! Them Presidents are all dead, they won’t even know we partied on their place, nor will all them Vietnam War soldiers, ain’t that right bogus…no harm no foul.

  114. laughinghysterically says:
    January 21, 2009 at 4:49 pm  (Quote)

    TRUTH,

    Wow, you really need to calm down. Obama supporters are not the first to celebrate an Inaugurationin DC and have festivities near the monuments. Recall Bush’s minions of cowboy hat wearing supporters all over DC in 2000 and 2004. C’mon, if this is all you have left at this point, you should either let it go or move to Canada. Oh wait, they are likely way too socialist for ya! Well, move somewhere that isn’t America. Then, you won’t need to say “President Obama”…because guess what, YES HE IS the President for at least the next four years! And thank GOD for that!

  115. Tes says:
    January 21, 2009 at 6:46 pm  (Quote)

    Is this satire – or are you just totally unfamiliar with the daily goings on on the Mall in DC? People picnic there every good day. People party there all summer long (no alcohol permitted, of course, so people just bring coolers of “clear” liquid….). People play bocce ball, soccer, dodgeball and other sports all summer long. Lovers make out on blankets. On *every* July 4, fraternities, sororites, baseball teams and families and friends start descending on the mall around 7 am … and they party all day long for 14+ hours, waiting for the 30-minute fireworks show.

    So — this IS satire, …. right????

  116. TRUTH says:
    January 21, 2009 at 7:42 pm  (Quote)

    So you WANT Socialism? You WANT the Government to hold your hand, tell you how much your going to make because he is going to spread the wealth, decide what schools you can go to. You WANT them to do everything for you laffinhyiena? Your the one that mentions socialism. btw.. I served my country 21years so you can feel that way, your Freakin’ Welcome.

    I AM an American, not a whiney bastard that thinks this country is in shambles. It has it’s faults, but it is the finest country on this planet, minus the idiot liberals that complain about everything…UNTIL they win the election then they DO the very things they complained about. Case in point, the partying. You all complained about it 4 years ago, I wanted to see your response to me saying the same, and it was as I expected, you defended it this time. HAHA!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.