News January 29 – February 13, 2009

Posted on February 6, 2009 by Dr. Conspiracy

Open mike.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Open Mike. Bookmark the permalink.

151 Responses to News January 29 – February 13, 2009

  4. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 7, 2009 at 8:45 am

    Just for the record, no one has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act, ever.

  5. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 7, 2009 at 8:59 am

    This is the quote from Obama:

    In his prepared remarks, Obama quoted the prophetic tradition, or “hadith,” which states: “None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself. There is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being.”

    This is the Muslim formulation of the Christian “Golden Rule”, a principle found in all of the world’s religions. One should be proud that our President is able (or his speech writer) to find common language between competing groups. It makes sense to work with and emphasize the positive aspects of a culture if you want that aspect to grow. oilforimmigration.org takes the opposite approach towards Islam.

    I assume that the photo doesn’t match the event where the remarks were made.

  6. richCares says:
    February 7, 2009 at 11:48 am

    latest Birther story:
    Catholic Church offering $1,000,000.00 to person that gets Obama to release his BC, as no one taking up offer thisis proof that Obama has none. No wonder their court cases go no where! Their whole goal in life is to make judges laugh.

  7. Patrick McKinnion says:
    February 7, 2009 at 9:31 pm

    They’ve been claiming Logan Act violations for months now.

  8. bogus info says:
    February 8, 2009 at 9:53 am

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3532#more-3532
    States’ Rights: More Commentary, WND News, Printz v. US, On Blog Talk Radio

  9. bogus info says:
    February 8, 2009 at 1:31 pm

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3538#more-3538
    Ankeny v. Daniels: Defendants Move to Dismiss; Plaintiff’s Preliminary Response

    Comments from you legal eagles?

  10. Expelliarmus says:
    February 8, 2009 at 2:15 pm

    Pretty straightforward stuff.

    The plaintiffs filed in action in state court seeking to enjoin the Governor from filing the paperwork certifying electors for purposes of the Electoral College.

    The grounds for dismissal are:

    1) The case is moot, and therefor the court lacks jurisdiction, because you can’t enjoin something that has already happened.

    2) Even if it wasn’t moot, state law, in compliance with federal law, requires that any challenge to electors must be concluded no later than 6 days before the time fixed by federal law for the meeting of electors. Since the case wasn’t filed until the very last day for the matter to be considered, it was never viable.

    3) Plaintiffs don’t have standing, because federal courts have uniformly rejected a private cause of action to determine qualifications of a President.

    4) The suit should be dismissed under the doctrine of “laches”, which is that equitable relief (an injunction) will not be granted where the plaintiff has delayed unreasonably in bringing their case. If the plaintiffs ever had a case, they should have filed it before the election.

  11. bogus info says:
    February 8, 2009 at 2:52 pm

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=998
    US Congress, US Constitution, Obama not eligible, 20th Amendment, Citizen Wells, Restore the Constitutional Republic, Sue Myrick, Jim DeMint, Senators, Representatives

  12. mimi says:
    February 8, 2009 at 3:13 pm

    That article says “Being born in Hawaii does not make Obama a natural born citizen.” Then they go on to say he didn’t release his birth certificate, etc. But… it really wouldn’t matter to them. I’m not sure if they are the birthers who believe both parents must be US Citizens, and you must be born on US Soil… or if they are the Indonesian adoption conspiracists?

    Also, I thought by the title that the Reps were backing them. Not so. This article is a plea for people to harass them.

  13. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 8, 2009 at 5:09 pm

    Donofrio in New Jersey waited until the last possible minute to file his suit too.

  14. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 8, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    I am pleased that both of my Senators are on record that Barack Obama is eligible to be President. You know, I think the opinion of two Senators is worth a lot more than a couple of bad lawyers, a poker player and some bloggers.

  16. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 8, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    I wonder if I could get defendourfreedoms.ru? I could have some fun with that.

  17. richCares says:
    February 8, 2009 at 10:46 pm

    Birthers are amazing in their delusion, Orly site is a case of “gone over the top”, really sick people there!

    curious, if you post actual order of judge with “frivolous” comment it will be deleted. Interferes with their fund raising!

  18. bogus info says:
    February 9, 2009 at 7:22 am

    All the “followers” are jumping on the idea of getting President Obama’s income tax returns. Too funny.

  19. Ian Gould says:
    February 9, 2009 at 7:29 am

    So has anyone noticed the neopagan and boderline white supremacist “Asatru” material on the oil for immigration site?

  20. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 9, 2009 at 8:09 am

    His US tax returns, his Kenyan tax returns, his Indonesian tax returns or the ones from the lizard people planet?

  21. richCares says:
    February 9, 2009 at 12:09 pm

    Berg has changed his site a bit, it now starts out with a list of all his proof. if he presents that proof to the judge in his hollister case he needs to prepare for a big smackdow!

  22. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 9, 2009 at 12:19 pm

    I feel a new “Featured Article” coming on (if Tes will let me cut and paste) 😉

  23. bogus info says:
    February 9, 2009 at 2:41 pm

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3564
    Rep. Gohmert Believes “Whole Truth will Eventually be Public” on Presidential Eligibility

  24. Obot 1024 says:
    February 9, 2009 at 6:27 pm

    An unverified email to a forum poster becomes a headline within an hour.

    That has to be some kind of birther record.

  25. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 9, 2009 at 6:29 pm

    I think they are reading more into the letter than is there.

  26. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 9, 2009 at 7:07 pm

    I did that once 😳 but the item turned out to be true. I won’t do it again.

    People that send me information in emails tend to send backup documentation along.

  27. Obot 1024 says:
    February 9, 2009 at 7:22 pm

    “Doc”,

    I think you’ve done a great job with the site.

    Sticking to law and sourced material may seem quaint but it is appreciated.

    Also you have shown a great deal of patience that I certainly would not be able to.

  28. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 9, 2009 at 8:04 pm

    It is tedious digging up hyperlinks to back up the same things over and over, but ultimately I hope it is worth it.

  29. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 9, 2009 at 8:07 pm

    So if we have a Halloween party, would you come as an Obat? Muahahhahahhaaaaaa.

  31. mimi says:
    February 9, 2009 at 10:49 pm

    “”I was told by democratic officials in that meeting, that we were going to get billions of dollars that was gonna come down the pike our way, and we’re gonna build an army (bigger than the US army) of democratic patronage jobs, that is going to completely freeze off the republicans for ever and ever”

    ===========
    So he called MICHAEL SAVAGE on the Radio. Cuz… that’s what any democrat would do.

    Fake. (Kind of wish it wasn’t. hehehe)

  32. bogus info says:
    February 9, 2009 at 11:29 pm

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3573
    Various Other Cases Against Obama

  33. bogus info says:
    February 9, 2009 at 11:31 pm

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3547
    GA, NC to President: “No Gitmo Detainees in our States!”

  34. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 9, 2009 at 11:57 pm

    No doubt that was Bishop Ron McRae calling.

  35. Ian Gould says:
    February 10, 2009 at 4:27 am

    Don’t worry that still leaves 48 states NOT run by sniveling traitorous cowards unwilling to contribute to the war on terror.

  36. bogus info says:
    February 10, 2009 at 7:31 am

    These detainees would be placed in a federal prison not a State prison so could the State dictate to the federal government who can be placed in that federal prison?

  37. bogus info says:
    February 10, 2009 at 8:42 am

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3528
    Presidential Power Grab: Obama to Move Census from Commerce to Executive; Pork Included

  38. bogus info says:
    February 10, 2009 at 9:18 am

    http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/10/liberalism-on-full-display.aspx
    Liberalism on Full Displayhttp://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30611

  39. mimi says:
    February 10, 2009 at 6:28 pm

    Doc,

    GeorgetownJD posted this comment over on YTD:

    “The FReepers are excited about a long list of suits filed that name Obama (an in one instance, his step-grandmother) as a defendant. The list fails to note that most of these cases have been dismissed — in some cases, the court dismissed within days. I’ve downloaded a few from PACER, and the first three I selected were clearly written by mentally ill folks. One actually accuses Sarah Hussein Obama of practicing withcraft and putting spells, as well as human sacrifice, and contains some mumbo jumbo about slaughter of male albinos for their genitals. It even lists the dates and cities for a witchcraft demonstration tour that Sarah was embarking on around the US.

    Patrick, if you will send an email to me at my office address, I will share .pdf copies of the three complaints. (Check Martindale Hubbell if you need to locate it.) Sad as these demented plaintiffs are, I guarantee their writing will leave you in stitches.

    Posted by: GeorgetownJD | February 10, 2009 at 04:05 PM

    http://www.yestodemocracy.com/yes_to_democracy_no_to_pu/2009/02/mocking-the-faithful-bergbirther-update.html

  42. Expelliarmus says:
    February 10, 2009 at 9:23 pm

    Yet another reason why we have the US Marshal’s office:
    http://www.usmarshals.gov/process/index.html

    You’ll note from the linked article that the process server had no problem whatsoever once they walked over to the Justice Department.

  43. Angi says:
    February 10, 2009 at 10:42 pm

    It can be interesting what you find when you are looking for something else…

    This is a statement made by Walter Dellinger (Assistant Attorney General) made on December 13, 1995 during a hearing on proposed legislation (HR 1363, 104th Congress) before a House subcommittee.

    Testimony

    The bill, the Citizenship Reform Act of 1995, sought to limit who could be declared a US Citizen at birth.

    A few excerpts:

    Throughout this country’s history, the fundamental legal principle governing citizenship has been that birth within the territorial limits of the United States confers United States citizenship. The Constitution itself rests on this principle of the common law. As Justice Noah Swayne wrote in one of the first judicial decisions interpreting the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the word “Citizens ‘under our constitution and laws means free inhabitants born within the United States or naturalized under the laws of Congress.’ We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States.”

    and

    While the Constitution recognized citizenship of the United States in prescribing the qualifications for President, Senators, and Representatives, it contained no definition of citizenship until the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. Prior to that time, citizenship by birth was regulated by common law. And the common law conferred citizenship upon all persons born within the territory of the United States, whether children of citizens or aliens. The only common law exceptions to this generally applicable rule of jus soli were children born under three circumstances — to foreign diplomats, on foreign ships, and to hostile occupying forces — which, under principles of international law, were deemed not to be within the sovereignty of the territory.

    It’s an interesting read.

  44. Expelliarmus says:
    February 10, 2009 at 11:21 pm

    Link for above:
    http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm

    Another interesting excerpt, because of the specific use of the phrase “natural born”:

    Today, in 1995, we cannot and should not try to solve the difficult problems illegal immigration poses by denying citizenship to persons whose claim to be recognized as Americans rests on the same constitutional footing as that of any natural-born citizen.

  45. A. Kibitzer says:
    February 10, 2009 at 11:24 pm

    One need not do much more than look for suits against Bush, to understand that pro forma pauperis filings from the institutionalized and incarcerated are gladly docketed by federal courts.

    Among the “Obama suits”, I particularly like the one where the guy wants “all defendants incarcerated for 100 years” and he supplies a blank check for the court to write him his damage award of millions of dollars.

    There’s another one with a completely incoherent statement of claim, and in which the prayer for relief includes “no retaliation by any doctor or hospital in the world”.

    These types of filings are truly Postcards From the Edge.

  46. A. Kibitzer says:
    February 10, 2009 at 11:28 pm

    Yes, the “patriot” level seems to have gone down a bit since that time in the latter part of the 1800’s when quite a few states decided not to recognize federal authority over matters within its exclusive jurisdiction.

  47. mimi says:
    February 11, 2009 at 12:27 am

    “A lawsuit that accuses Congress of failing to investigate President Obama’s birthplace before approving the Electoral College vote giving him the presidency has been amended to include additional claims of rights violations, including unequal treatment, because Congress did such an investigation into GOP candidate Sen. John McCain.

    That word comes from Mario Apuzzo, the lawyer handling the case on which WND previously has reported.”

    This link takes you to the World Nut Daily Story.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88566

  48. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 11, 2009 at 8:06 am

    The Senate passed a resolution in favor of McCain’s natural born citizenship because McCain is on shaky ground with respect to when he became a citizen. Obama’s birth within one of the actual United States leaves no question that he is a natural born citizen and hence on the same firm ground as the 43 presidents who preceded him (including another who had a British citizen for a father).

  49. Expelliarmus says:
    February 11, 2009 at 8:27 am

    I just like the idea of a lawsuit against Congress because of what they did / did not do. That novel cause of action could certainly keep the courts quite busy. And if we can sue all of Congress because of what they don’t due, can we sue part of Congress? Such as those annoying filibustering Republicans?

    In any case, I’ve got a really, really long list of “things Congress ought to do but hasn’t done”… on top of the list of “things Congress did that they shouldn’t have”. Is their a statute of limitations? I’d like to sue all those goof ups who voted to authorize the Iraq war, if it’s not too late.

  50. Expelliarmus says:
    February 11, 2009 at 8:42 am

    Never mind my statute of limitations question.

    I just read the amended Kerchner complaint, filed February 9, 2009 – and see that he asks for the following relief:

    .Immediately stay the swearing in and oath of defendant Barack Hussein Obama II at the January 20, 2009 Presidential inauguration, as well as at any such inauguration in the future if defendants and/or similarly situated government entities or officials that may replace them have not complied with the orders of the Court.

    Apparently, under the rules of jurisprudence in tin-foil hat land, passage of time is irrelevant. This ability to seek injunctions against things already done bodes well for my proposed lawsuit to undo the Congressional vote on the Iraq War.

  52. bogus info says:
    February 11, 2009 at 10:16 am

    Who selects the Presidents Secret Service Agents? I googled but nothing came up.

  53. bogus info says:
    February 11, 2009 at 10:38 am

    Wonder if Orly is going to try to sue the Secret Service agent? Happened with Cheney.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/04/washington/04cheney.html
    Man Sues Secret Service Agent Over Arrest After Approaching Cheney and Denouncing War

    Orly? called the Secret Service Agent “one of Obama’s thugs.” Does the President select who is Secret Service Agents are?

  54. bogus info says:
    February 11, 2009 at 11:05 am

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3614
    Going to Conference, Major Healthcare Proposal Unearthed in “Stimulus” Bill; Turncoats Snookered?

  55. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 11, 2009 at 11:52 am

    The Nashville Post blog recognizes the entry of a Tennessee state representative into the Obama conspiracy theory fold in an article yesterday at http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/02/10/rep-eric-swafford-joins-the-obama-presidential-eligibility-fight/

    They even rolled out the tin foil hat for Rep Eric Swafford. Nice to see the local media taking notice and adding their unique expertise.

  56. bogus info says:
    February 11, 2009 at 12:23 pm

    Dr. C.,

    Saw that. LOL This proposed legislation co-sponsored by Rep. Swafford pretty much confirms giving him a “tin foil hat.”

    http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2006/03/lawmakers-r-seek-to-outlaw-dildos.html
    Lawmakers (R) Seek to Outlaw Dildos

  57. Obot 1024 says:
    February 11, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    Polarik has emerged to scold the Berg-ians!

    http://obamacrimes.us/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=311

  59. Obot 1024 says:
    February 11, 2009 at 2:19 pm

    I did see that.

    Did you see Orly’s all caps flip out?

    “I DO NOT BELIEVE IN TAKING UP ARMS BUT WE MUST DO SOMETHING! TO BLOG OR EMAIL OUR COMPLAINTS ARE GETTING US NOWHERE AND APPARENTLY OUR PHONE CALLS AND FAXES MEAN NOTHING TO THE PEOPLE WE ELECTED TO REPRESENT US.
    THIS COUNTRY IS FAILING INTO SOCIALISM AS WE SPEAK. LETS DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
    I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR SOME IDEAS OUT THERE ON SOME FAST ACTION. LET’S QUIT TALKING THE TALK AND WALK THE WALK
    LET’S ROLL!”

  60. Obot 1024 says:
    February 11, 2009 at 2:31 pm

    ROFLMAO!

    Check out this post at Plains Radio!

    Orly should KNOW about Court procedures:

    AP14265 APPELLANT ORLY TAITZ 12/16/2004 MISC COMPLAINTS – OTHER
    06CC12669 DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ D.D.S. 12/06/2006 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
    05CC12538 DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ DDS 11/23/2005 MALPRACTICE-MEDICAL
    05CC12266 CROSS – DEFENDANT YOSEF TAITZ 11/16/2005 OTHER REAL PROPERTY
    05CC12266 CROSS – DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ 11/16/2005 OTHER REAL PROPERTY
    05CC12266 PLAINTIFF YOSEF TAITZ 11/16/2005 OTHER REAL PROPERTY
    05CC12266 ATTORNEY ORLY TAITZ 11/16/2005 OTHER REAL PROPERTY
    05CC12266 PLAINTIFF ORLY TAITZ 11/16/2005 OTHER REAL PROPERTY
    05CL06304 PLAINTIFF ORLY TAITZ 10/12/2005 BREACH OF CONTRACT/WARRANTY
    05CL06304 PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY ORLY TAITZ 10/12/2005 BREACH OF CONTRACT/WARRANTY
    05CL06304 PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY ORLY TAITZ 10/12/2005 BREACH OF CONTRACT/WARRANTY
    05CL06304 PLAINTIFF YOSEF TAITZ 10/12/2005 BREACH OF CONTRACT/WARRANTY
    03CC12382 DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ 10/10/2003 BREACH OF CONTRACT/WARRANTY
    03CC12364 DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ 10/09/2003 MALPRACTICE – DENTAL
    718165 DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ 09/30/1993 MALPRACTICE – DENTAL
    00CC11017 DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ 09/14/2000 MALPRACTICE – DENTAL
    694087 DEFENDANT YOSEF TAITZ 08/05/1992 FRAUD
    732342 DEFENDANT YOSEF TAITZ 07/06/1994 COMPLAINT FOR MONEY
    810379 CROSS COMPLAINANT YOSEF TAITZ 06/09/1999 ASSAULT AND BATTERY
    810379 DEFENDANT YOSEF TAITZ 06/09/1999 ASSAULT AND BATTERY

    711937 PLAINTIFF YOSEF TAITZ 06/08/1993 WRONGFUL TERMINATION
    04CC06308 DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ 05/28/2004 CONTRACT – SPEC PERFORMANCE
    04CC05196 ATTORNEY ORLY TAITZ 04/23/2004 BREACH OF CONTRACT/WARRANTY
    04CC05196 DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ 04/23/2004 BREACH OF CONTRACT/WARRANTY
    04CC05196 ATTORNEY ORLY TAITZ 04/23/2004 BREACH OF CONTRACT/WARRANTY
    745630 CROSS COMPLAINANT YOSEF TAITZ 04/13/1995 DECLARATORY RELIEF
    745630 DEFENDANT YOSEF TAITZ 04/13/1995 DECLARATORY RELIEF
    03CC04813 DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ 03/25/2003 MALPRACTICE-MEDICAL
    06CC03941 PLAINTIFF BENJAMIN TAITZ 03/09/2006 MISC COMPLAINTS – OTHER
    06CC03941 PLAINTIFF ORLY TAITZ 03/09/2006 MISC COMPLAINTS – OTHER
    06CC03941 PLAINTIFF YOSEF TAITZ 03/09/2006 MISC COMPLAINTS – OTHER
    04SL01050 PLAINTIFF ORLY TAITZ DDS 03/04/2004 BREACH OF CONTRACT/WARRANTY
    S41640 RESPONDENT ORLY TAITZ 02/27/1998 SMALL CLAIMS APPEAL
    04SL00611 PLAINTIFF ORLY TAITZ 02/09/2004 BREACH OF WARRANTY

    https://ocapps.occourts.org/CivilPub/Login.do

    http://pub29.bravenet.com/forum/2442810129/show/978375

  61. tes says:
    February 11, 2009 at 4:46 pm

    Hollister Update
    FYI, Berg filed a First Amended Complaint on Feb. 9 (when his opposition to the motion to dismiss was due).

    Today, Feb. 11, the Judge issued the following order:
    “Plaintiff’s amended complaint [#11] adds nothing to the original complaint except rhetoric and legal theory and creates no obligation upon the defendants to respond to it. Nor is the amended complaint responsive to defendants’ motion to dismiss [#9], opposition to which was due on 2/9/09. Unless points and authorities in opposition to the motion to dismiss are filed by 2/13/09, the motion will be treated as conceded and granted. It is SO ORDERED.

  62. bogus info says:
    February 11, 2009 at 5:23 pm

    Tes,

    So translate–I admit to being an idiot.

  63. bogus info says:
    February 11, 2009 at 5:39 pm

    Dr. C.,

    Have you seen this update by Tes?

  64. Expelliarmus says:
    February 11, 2009 at 5:56 pm

    Translation (or explanation):

    In the Hollister case, the state attorney general filed a motion to dismiss saying that the case was bogus for a number of reasons. Berg was required to file a response to that motion on Feb. 9th.

    Rather than file the legally required response, Berg filed an amended pleading.

    The judge is saying he looked at the amended complaint and it doesn’t fix any of the problems that were raised by the motion to dismiss, so he is giving Berg a couple of more days (to 2/13) to file the response papers. If he doesn’t get those papers from Berg, the whole case will be dismissed.

    If he does get those papers, he will consider them, perhaps schedule a court hearing for purposes of argument, and then rule.

  65. Expelliarmus says:
    February 11, 2009 at 6:03 pm

    To give you an example of a situation where filing an amended complaint might work (just for context) — suppose a lawsuit was filed against “Barry Soetero” and served on Barack Obama, and his lawyers moved to dismiss on the sole ground that his name was not Soetero. Then, suppose the plaintiff files an amended complaint to be against “Barry Soetero AKA Barack Obama” and adds a paragraph alleging that Obama has used both names. That amendment would fix the problem that was part of the motion to dismiss.

    In this case, the motion is brought on issues like standing and mootness, and the amended complaint probably has a variety of other stuff added in, but fails to “fix” the problems of standing or mootness. The “mootness” problem is hard to fix, because these cases generally are trying to prevent Obama from being sworn in as President– and Berg can’t plead around history and the passage of time. Of course there is no Constitutional procedure to remove a sitting President from office other than impeachment, so any determination a judge made about Obama’s eligibility would be meaningless in any case.

  66. bogus info says:
    February 11, 2009 at 6:07 pm

    Exp.

    Thanks. Doesn’t this also have to happen?

    “The motions of his counsel [#4, #5] for the admission pro hac vice of Philip J. Berg and Lawrence J. Joyce are in abeyance until the Court has had the opportunity, in open court, to examine their credentials, their competence, their good faith, and the factual and legal bases of the complaint they have signed.”

    Do you think Berg filed the wrong thing on purpose? Berg can’t really be that incompetent can he? Do you think Berg will file a response that the motion to dismiss?

  67. Expelliarmus says:
    February 11, 2009 at 6:11 pm

    And you definitely are not an idiot. 🙂

    I think it should be obvious from the posts that some of us have been to law school… it shouldn’t be too hard to figure out which ones. That doesn’t make us smarter — it just reflects specialized training and experience — though I admit that for those of us with such training it is hard to stomach a lot of what passes for “legal” claims from the likes of Berg and Orly Taitz.

  68. bogus info says:
    February 11, 2009 at 6:15 pm

    Exp.

    Seems to me this Judge would like to get Berg in his Court, huh? Giving him lots of opportunities to come before the Court don’t you think? Then, again, I may be reading more into the Judge allowing him extra days to get it right.(response to the motion to dismiss).

  69. Expelliarmus says:
    February 11, 2009 at 6:20 pm

    I think Berg was buying time. Typically an amended complaint would be the way to fix technical objections — its done all the time when things are fixable — and it would knock the motion to dismiss off calendar and require the other side to file a new motion. So its a stalling tactic, for one thing – and as a matter of procedure it usually works.

    There are two possibilities with Berg, and I don’t know which applies. Either (1) he is a publicity seeker who knows full well that he is filing garbage that will be thrown out by the courts, but he likes casting himself in the role of hero to his many internet admirers; or (2) he is a paranoid schizophrenic who is delusional and very far out of touch with reality. If it’s #1, then he has a motive to drag things out as long as possible; if it’s #2 then the guy is clueless and will perceive every order against him as further evidence of a conspiracy.

  70. bogus info says:
    February 11, 2009 at 6:24 pm

    Exp.,

    Berg’s and Orly’s “legal claims” are hard for me to take and I’m uneducated in regard to “the law” so I can understand how all this must be for you/competent lawyers. These two (Berg/Orly), in my opinion, do not reflect well on lawyers. And there are MANY ethical, competent lawyers out there. And paralegals too. I cannot believe Orly tried to serve President Obama at the White House with her new lawsuit/pleadings. I even know better than that. Surely Orly cannot be that ignorant of the rules of law–after all–she’s a lawyer.

  71. tes says:
    February 11, 2009 at 6:25 pm

    One correction to Expelliarmus’s explanation: In the Hollister case, Obama/Biden (not AG) filed a motion to dismiss saying that the case was bogus for a number of reasons. Berg was required to file a response to that motion on Feb. 9th.

  72. Expelliarmus says:
    February 11, 2009 at 6:28 pm

    Sorry — I mixed up this case in my mind with one of the other cases…. procedurally they are all pretty much the same, even if filed by different parties in different courts. They all involve plaintiffs without standing filing lawsuits requesting relief that the court does not have power to consider or grant.

  73. Expelliarmus says:
    February 11, 2009 at 6:33 pm

    Well, at least out here in California, there are a lot of total idiots also practicing law. I don’t know how they manage to pass the bar… but I have accumulated some funny stories over the course of my career. (I do not currently practice law, by the way – I retired a number of years ago after a legal career of about 20 years. If I was practicing I doubt I wouldn’t have all this time available to read & respond to internet blogs. But I did both trial and appellate work, both criminal & civil … so I did get a pretty good grounding in all of this procedural stuff.)

  74. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 11, 2009 at 7:03 pm

    My first thought was that indeed he did file the wrong thing on purpose to extend the process. If this was the strategy, it didn’t buy much time.

  75. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 11, 2009 at 7:05 pm

    From the private emails I get, I think MOST of you have been to law school 😉

  76. mimi says:
    February 11, 2009 at 7:28 pm

    Ex. said “if it’s #2 then the guy is clueless and will perceive every order against him as further evidence of a conspiracy.”

    Well… I figured it was #1, but that he will present it as further evidence of a conspiracy.

  77. Expelliarmus says:
    February 11, 2009 at 7:32 pm

    I think the judge is irritated at Berg and the pleadings, but also wanting to be careful to follow appropriate procedures so as not to give Berg grounds for appeal. Following appropriate procedure is second nature to judges — they wouldn’t give it much thought, they would just do whatever was procedurally appropriate to get to the next step.

    Keep in mind that judges tend to be very busy people who have all kinds of really annoying and stupid stuff presented to them. Some is stupider than others… but its probably equally annoying when lawyers in regular civil cases get into petty squabbles over discovery or whatever else the judge has to deal with. So from the Judge’s perspective, his main concern probably is simply to get Berg and his pleadings off his docket in the most efficient manner possible. If Berg simply went away, the Judge would probably be happy — for all we know he’s got 300 other cases crossing his docket this week — and if Berg keeps coming back, sooner or later the Judge will get annoyed enough to impose some sort of sanctions. (I don’t know anything about this particular judge or his caseload…. I’m just generalizing about the kind of thought process that judges usually are going through.)

  78. bogus info says:
    February 11, 2009 at 7:32 pm

    I certainly appreciate you lawyers and other legal professionals sharing your knowledge with us. It can get confusing at times. All these cases are beginning to run together because they are so similar.

    On some of the blogs they are claiming that the TN Rep. Swafford has “standing.” I don’t see how he can so am I missing something important?

  79. Expelliarmus says:
    February 11, 2009 at 7:41 pm

    I’m not sure all this technical stuff would be of much interest to non-lawyers — at least here on the rational side of things. I figure that most “normal” people are either happy or reconciled to the fact that Obama is President, and it is only the lunatic fringe that is perpetuating the “controversy”… and a handful of lawyers and/or people who enjoy exploring nuances of law and fact who have any interest in following the lunatic rantings. It’s pretty obvious to anyone with a television set or access to a newspaper that Obama is now the President and is spending his time doing Presidential things. That homeless lady down in Florida probably couldn’t care less where he was born … all she knows is that she needed help and he listened, and she is better off today than she was the day before she met Obama.

  80. Expelliarmus says:
    February 11, 2009 at 8:01 pm

    In reply to: On some of the blogs they are claiming that the TN Rep. Swafford has “standing.” I don’t see how he can so am I missing something important?

    No, you are not missing anything. A state legislator does not have “standing” to bring this action any more than any other citizen.

    Right now, no one has standing. Even Joe Biden wouldn’t have “standing”.
    The only way to challenge a sitting President is through the process of impeachment.

    I think one misconception some of these people have is that if Obama somehow were not “qualified” to be President, then his orders would be void — however, that view would not be sustainable. There is a distinction in law between acts that are “void” and those that are “voidable” — which I won’t get into here — but suffice it to say that even when it is shown that someone who has occupied a public position was not entitled to that position, it doesn’t mean that every action they took while holding public office is automatically invalidated.

  81. mimi says:
    February 11, 2009 at 8:04 pm

    My power went off. sorry if repost.

    A guy at Ed Hales says Berg is not lead counsel, therefore it is NOT Berg’s responsibility to respond.

  82. bogus info says:
    February 11, 2009 at 8:07 pm

    http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/11/consent-forms-from-tn-state-representatives-glen-casada-stacey-campfield-and-frank-niceley-are-in-attchments-to-this-email.aspx
    Consent forms from TN state Representatives Glen Casada, Stacey Campfield and Frank Niceley are in attchments to this e-mail

    http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/11/letter-received-by-captain-barnett-from-jay-macklin-general-counsel-of-department-of-justice.aspx
    Letter received by Captain Barnett from Jay Macklin, General counsel of Department of Justice

  84. mimi says:
    February 11, 2009 at 8:12 pm

    Apparently 3 more Tennessee State Reps have signed on. The downloads don’t work from Orly’s place. But, looks like:

    Glen Casada, Stacey Campfield, and Frank Niceley.

  87. bogus info says:
    February 11, 2009 at 8:24 pm

    http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/11/response-from-military-families-united-on-disastrous-effects-of-premature-release-of-detainees-from-guantanamo-bay.aspx
    Response from Military Families United on disastrous effects of premature release of detainees from Guantanamo Bay

  88. bogus info says:
    February 11, 2009 at 8:30 pm

    Dr. C.,

    There is alot of BS in this one. Doesn’t someone need to send this guy the TRUTH?

  89. bogus info says:
    February 11, 2009 at 8:31 pm

    mimi,

    Are they far Rt. like Swafford?

  90. bogus info says:
    February 11, 2009 at 8:32 pm

    What does this letter say. I can’t open it.

  91. Patrick McKinnion says:
    February 11, 2009 at 9:18 pm

    Looks that way

    All are Republican
    All had been promised positions in Jason Mumpower’s bid to become Tenn. Speaker of the House.
    All three have endorsements from the state “Right to Life” organization
    All are anti-tax people.

  92. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 11, 2009 at 9:47 pm

    I can’t open it either.

  93. bogus info says:
    February 11, 2009 at 10:00 pm

    Oh well. LOL Can anybody open it. I takes me to a blank page.

  94. bogus info says:
    February 11, 2009 at 10:34 pm

    “Later it was reported that he studied at Occidental college in Ca under the name Barry Soetoro and there was an entry in the journal of the California assembly in re. to grants given to foreign exchange students, one Soetoro from Indonesia.”

    The above is in the letter to Senator Grassley. Where does Orly get this? Where is her evidence/proof?

  95. mimi says:
    February 12, 2009 at 12:07 am

    I also heard, on Ed Hale’s board, that Senator Dolores Greshman of TN joined.

    I haven’t checked Orly’s blog yet.

    Ed Hale closed his board to all posters unless they pay $10/month. Need a password now.

    He also removed all the posts that questioned Berg and Orly. Those threads are GONE.

    Orly has been on Ed’s program. And, I’m sure some of the posters as Ed’s place emailed her.

  96. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 12, 2009 at 7:31 am

    I’ve never seen any reference or documentation that such a grant existed. Why would a grant be listed in the “Journal of the California Assembly”? Finally, if there were some document listing foreign student grants, then surely the first name would be with the last name. This sounds to me like a made up fact, like so many others we’ve seen (e.g. travel ban to Pakistan, Maya’s Hawaiian birth certificate).

  97. bogus info says:
    February 12, 2009 at 8:10 am

    Right before the EC count in Congress when Orly was sending all those letters to the Congressmen/women with alot of false and misleading info, I called Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s office and sent her info direct to her email address–didn’t talk with her but a girl in her office. They didn’t have a clue about the Hall of Shame. LOL I sent several of Orly’s false articles then I sent a link to your site, whatsyourevidence, factcheck, and Politifact. I also sent links to info on short form birth certificates (they were trying to say that you could not even get a DL, and I sent several other links. Sent about 3 emails in all. Also sent the State of Hawaii official’s statement and the birth announcement info. Also sent this info to several other Congressmen/woman. Anyway, don’t have a clue if those emails got read or not but it made me feel better. I think they might have because of how shocked the girl I spoke with was regarding the “Hall of Shame.”

    Whether it did any good, I guess I will never know but it made me feel better. LOL

    The “Heavy’s” are frustrating because you point the to factual information that they can go check out for themselves and their standard comment is “good try”, call you “unpatriotic or a obot”, etc., etc. To me, those who promote this are blame. And I’m not sure what their motives are in all this but I don’t think it is “being patriotic”, blah, blah,blah.

  98. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 12, 2009 at 8:15 am

    Probably the best thing is to just ask for evidence for every extraordinary claim, and not spend too much time and effort trying to disprove them. The imagination is limitless and trying to prove that the Loch Ness doesn’t have a monster by proving each individual cupful of water in it does not contain a monster is a waste of time.

  99. bogus info says:
    February 12, 2009 at 11:12 am

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3651
    WND: More TN Lawmakers Sign Up for Eligibility Lawsuit

  100. bogus info says:
    February 12, 2009 at 11:36 am

    Mimi,

    The whole world can “sign up with Orly”, but at some point, Orly will be required to show solid, factual, evidence of her allegations. I just have not seen any factual evidence to back up her allegations have you? And I suspect that like the previous cases, none of these cases will get past the dismissal stage, do you?

    GeorgetownJD made a real good statement that the attorney’s for Obama would NOT have referred to the COLB if they did not have the actual evidence to back up that reference.

    As far as the “Kenyan father” thing–I will rely on the Courts to take care of that issue.

    However, what I fear is what this may do to our country if this gains more momentum. As long as it remains isolated to “far right wing ding bats and right wing media” however, it will be okay don’t you think?

  101. bogus info says:
    February 12, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    This is an interesting statement:

    “Now the State Legislators have a right to start dismissing judges who decide that Phil Berg or Orly Taitz is a crackpot and they just don’t feel like hearing from a crackpot. It is supposed to be a law that you are to meet the certain criteria as set forth in the Constitution. Everybody has to meet those requirements that is running for this particular office and if you are elected without meeting that criteria you have achieved coup d’etat. This is a very shameful day in American history and as bad as this fella’ wants to be President I fear the worse. I fear that he is going to be discovered not to meet the qualifications. I fear that judges may be removed for taking bribes to dismiss these cases. I fear that this is not going to go away anytime until background checks down to the day he was born are properly fulfilled and to the satisfaction of “We the People”. Stay tuned and you’ll have a good one.”

  102. mimi says:
    February 12, 2009 at 12:04 pm

    Yeah, I’m not happy the State Reps & a Senator have given it creedence. What were they thinking?

  103. Jez says:
    February 12, 2009 at 12:12 pm

    Tennessee judges are appointed and can be removed only through impeachment, if I understand correctly.

  104. bogus info says:
    February 12, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    “I fear that judges may be removed for taking bribes to dismiss these cases.”

    And the statement above, this bunch always seem to leave out a important aspect of this called “supporting evidence.” I’ve certainly seen no evidence that these Judges have been bribed, have you?

  106. bogus info says:
    February 12, 2009 at 2:13 pm

    “Ed Hale closed his board to all posters unless they pay $10/month. Need a password now.”

    It will be interesting to see if Orly/Berg follow Ed Hale in charging bloggers to belong to their blog. LOL

  107. bogus info says:
    February 12, 2009 at 2:42 pm

    http://pub29.bravenet.com/forum/2442810129/show/978258
    Dr. Edwin Vieira needs our help !!!

    Help = MONEY. LOL.

    Mimi,

    The stuff about Orly’s lawsuit history is gone but they aren’t charging yet–I’m sure it will start soon. Some of Marie’s stuff is still posted too regarding Orly trying to serve her pleading to the White House.

  108. Jez says:
    February 12, 2009 at 2:49 pm

    Thank you bogus. I know Texas elects their judges (as you know), but I wasn’t sure if TN was one of the few states that do.

    I appreciate the info.

  109. bogus info says:
    February 12, 2009 at 3:17 pm

    Jez,

    I wasn’t sure either. I had to go look it up. LOL. Knew Texas did too because Texas is my home state. This stuff isn’t exactly something you think about on a daily basis. LOL.

  110. bogus info says:
    February 12, 2009 at 5:24 pm

    Dr. C.,

    Anything significant. They are making a big deal of it over at Berg’s blog.

    http://www.drudgereport.com/

    For Immediate Release:
    Thursday, February 12, 2009

    Senator Gregg Statement on His Withdrawal for Consideration of U.S. Commerce Secretary

  111. bogus info says:
    February 12, 2009 at 5:32 pm

    And this? Why is this a big deal? Isn’t this already under the Executive Branch of govt.?

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/12/gop-threatens-legal-action-obama-plan-oversee-census/
    “House Republican leaders said Thursday they’re ready to go to court against President Obama if he doesn’t scuttle his plan to move the census into the purview of the Oval Office, saying it’s an unconstitutional abuse of power.”

  112. bogus info says:
    February 12, 2009 at 5:36 pm

    What’s this?????

    “The MSM is still not reporting the news…. Did you see anything regarding the 500 Billion withdrawals in 1 hour on any of the news stations… NO… This report came from a congressman in an interview on C Span. This is a credible source and still nothing on the news.. I believe our country is being held hostage by foreign country/countries and the run on the banks was to assure Obama got elected… It made the Republicans look bad with the economy and I am sure that all congress are afraid to speak out because of threats another run could bankrupt this country. I only hope our homeland security, cia and fbi are working behind the scenes to stop this threat.”

  113. mimi says:
    February 12, 2009 at 5:37 pm

    You can view, but you can’t post. At least that’s what happens for me. Also, notice there have only been 2 posts since last night. 2 comments total.

    They didn’t search for all of “marie’s” replies, but they did delete all posts that she started.

    They banned mimi a week or two ago by I.P.

  114. bogus info says:
    February 12, 2009 at 5:48 pm

    Hasn’t this been proven a hoax?

    All part of the Cloward-Piven Strategy to collapse the economy and usher in a Marxist state.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html

  115. Jez says:
    February 12, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    I too live in TX… So, hi! And thanks again.

  116. bogus info says:
    February 12, 2009 at 5:52 pm

    Just some news.

    Thomas Arnold — re sovereignty resolutions: if I’m reading things correctly, it looks like Oklahoma’s sovereignty resolution has been unanimously approved by the Rules Committee. Link below:

    http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/

  117. bogus info says:
    February 12, 2009 at 5:53 pm

    Mimi,

    I didn’t try to post. All of the stuff about Orly’s legal case history has been deleted.

  118. bogus info says:
    February 12, 2009 at 5:55 pm

    This doesn’t have anything to do with the “Constitution”. It’s political–redistricting. Repubs did it to Dems several years ago–remember?

  119. bogus info says:
    February 12, 2009 at 6:01 pm

    This is interesting:

    FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMPS: Locations and Executive Orders
    by Patriot Saturday July 26, 2003 at 11:02 PM
    When the forces right (reich) comes hunting for you…

    FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMPS: Locations and Executive Orders

    There over 800 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) should Martial Law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general’s signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached. Ask yourself if you really want to be on Ashcroft’s list.
    The Rex 84 Program was established on the reasoning that if a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA. Rex 84 allowed many military bases to be closed down and to be turned into prisons.

    Operation Cable Splicer and Garden Plot are the two sub programs which will be implemented once the Rex 84 program is initiated for its proper purpose. Garden Plot is the program to control the population. Cable Splicer is the program for an orderly takeover of the state and local governments by the federal government. FEMA is the executive arm of the coming police state and thus will head up all operations. The Presidential Executive Orders already listed on the Federal Register also are part of the legal framework for this operation.

    The camps all have railroad facilities as well as roads leading to and from the detention facilities. Many also have an airport nearby. The majority of the camps can house a population of 20,000 prisoners. Currently, the largest of these facilities is just outside of Fairbanks, Alaska. The Alaskan facility is a massive mental health facility and can hold approximately 2 million people.

    Now let’s review the justification for any actions taken… read the rest here http://utah.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/5561_comment.php

    Ok, note the date above, now we get to this

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Prison Planet.com
    Tuesday, January 27, 2009 read the rest herehttp://www.prisonplanet.com/new-legislation-authorizes-fema-camps-in-us.html

    A new bill introduced in Congress authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to set up a network of FEMA camp facilities to be used to house U.S. citizens in the event of a national emergency.

    The National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645 mandates the establishment of “national emergency centers” to be located on military installations for the purpose of to providing “temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster,” according to the bill.

    The legislation also states that the camps will be used to “provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations”.

    Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse.

    Many credible forecasters have predicted riots and rebellions in America that will dwarf those already witnessed in countries like Iceland and Greece.

    With active duty military personnel already being stationed inside the U.S. under Northcom, partly for purposes of “crowd control,” fears that Americans could be incarcerated in detainment camps are all too real.

    The bill mandates that six separate facilities be established in different Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions (FEMA) throughout the country….

    Text of H.R. 645: To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military… http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-645Dusty

  120. mimi says:
    February 12, 2009 at 6:04 pm

    Not True. But, all the wingnuts are reporting it anyway. Including Orly.

    http://cranedata.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/doom-and-gloomers-seize-on-false-550-billion-number/

  121. Expelliarmus says:
    February 12, 2009 at 6:46 pm

    I think this is entirely Gregg’s problem — from his statement:

    Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy.

    “Obviously the President requires a team that is fully supportive of all his initiatives.

    Obama has said all along that he wanted a diversity of views in his Cabinet, following a “Team of Rivals” approach. Obama likes to hear input from a variety of sources, but as President he is still the boss (in Bush’s words, “the decider”) — and it looks like that’s the part that is causing problems for Gregg.

    Obama will just appoint someone else to be commerce secretary. One of the reasons its is hard to fill that post is that it is generally seen as one of the less important / less influential positions in the Cabinet. It’s not a plum assignment like State or Justice. But that also means that our country can function just fine while Obama’s team goes about finding someone willing to do the job.

  122. bogus info says:
    February 12, 2009 at 7:13 pm

    Mimi,

    These people are NUTS. These people try to CREATE problems, even false ones. I know some of these people have to be intellegent? being military officers, dentists, lawyers, etc., etc. so you would think that they would not believe everything they read/hear. Seems like they have put their brains in neutral and their mouths in gear.

  123. bogus info says:
    February 12, 2009 at 7:25 pm

    Berg’s blog is weird don’t you think? 567 members according to the site. I really don’t understand how these people can donate their money to Berg without some type of results and evidence provided for all this time. Same goes for Orly, Martin, and that Dr. whatever his name is that they quote all the time.

    Speaking of Orly, wonder when she is going to file the petition for writ of cert? (one that recently had the application denied at SCOTUS). How long does she have to file it?

  124. bogus info says:
    February 12, 2009 at 7:27 pm

    Jez,

    Your welcome. What part of Texas? I live in Central Texas. Are you going to Orly’s Freedom Convention in Dallas? LOL

  125. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 12, 2009 at 8:34 pm

    I heard Gregg’s remarks on the radio this afternoon.

    Hmmm. Republican decides he can’t agree with Obama on everything. Hmmm.

    Nope. Not significant.

  126. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 12, 2009 at 8:37 pm

    The Census has been a political football of late. Democratic power is in urban areas. How one counts urban areas then determines (to a degree) the makeup of Congress.

  127. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 12, 2009 at 8:40 pm

    FEMA conspiracy theories have a long history! What is one man’s disaster response is another man’s end of democracy.

  128. bogus info says:
    February 13, 2009 at 8:57 am

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3670
    Stimulus Bill Could Mean End Run Around 10th Amendment

  129. bogus info says:
    February 13, 2009 at 10:29 am

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3678
    Keyes v. Bowen: WND: Presidential Attorneys Move to Quash Subpoena, Seek Monetary Sanctions

  130. bogus info says:
    February 13, 2009 at 10:59 am

    Somebody posted this on OC. What are they talking about–in regard to the “Executive Order” lawsuit of Orlys.

    “It would have been much smarter to have filed the suit under Executive order 13467 instead of 13488 (which only applies to people taking jobs starting 90 days after the signing of the order on January 16, 2009 and rather obviously not applicable to Obama). Could Orly maybe amend her suit to use the executive order actually in force on January 20?”

  131. bogus info says:
    February 13, 2009 at 11:07 am

    This was posted on OC:

    “by Mama_Tilda on 05 Feb 2009, 22:26”

    “There have been no confirmed updates on the Lightfoot case. Rumor has it that the defendant (Gail Lightfoot) will soon go the way of the plaintiff Broe and back out of litigation. As of yet, this has not been confirmed. But no effort has been made to re-file Lightfoot at SCOTUS or the lower court that previously denied the action.”

    “Keyes v Bowen is currently set for hearing in the California Superior Court at Sacramento for March 30th, Rumor has it that the defendants have requested that Gary Kreep handle this hearing without Ms. Taitz. I suggest emailing Gary Kreep at info@usjf.net to confirm. Keyes v Bowen #34-200880000096-CU-WM-CDS . You can verify, here: https://services.saccourt.com/indexsear … earch.aspx Despite rumors to the contrary, this case has not been filed at the Federal Level. This can be confirmed with a simple query at the ECF Pacer Federal Docketing Service https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/cgi-bi … t_id=00idx”

    “There are no other cases associated with Orly Taitz. She is currently coordinating a gathering in Texas. But this function is not affiliated with any of the plaintiffs or on their behalf.”

    “I have been advised that any donations in support of Keyes v Bowen be directed to Gary Kreep’s United Justice Foundation at https://secure.conservativedonations.co … use/?a=292″

    “Everything in this writing is true and verifiable. It is strictly for educational purposes. Please feel free to confirm all information provided.”

  132. bogus info says:
    February 13, 2009 at 11:14 am

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3690
    Human Events: Stimulus Bill Hides Unconstitutional Provision (10th Amendment)

  133. bogus info says:
    February 13, 2009 at 11:37 am

    Thought this was rather interesting regarding Orly/donations/transparency. LOL

    “Earlier today a poster asked a question (for the third or fourth time) and mentioned that he had donated $$$. Here is Orly’s response:”

    “You are also on my site. Paid for by me. None of your donations have paid for the you to come on here and question me.”

    This was interesting too regarding donations:

    “an audit may not be required depending on what kind of entity is receiving the money. If the money is going directly to individuals simply out of kindness and not with a motive to received a charitable deduction of a tax deduction, anyone could gift money up to the annual limits (without being gift-taxed)of $12,000 (in 2008) and $13,000 (in 2009) per person per year. In other words, you could give me $13,000 today and nothing more need be done. If you were to pay me for this very excellent accounting advice, I would of course have to declare your pay as income to me.”

  134. Ian Gould says:
    February 13, 2009 at 1:27 pm

    “If the money is going directly to individuals simply out of kindness and not with a motive to received a charitable deduction …”

    Orly’s unending battle with the English language continues.

    Seriously, how do people read this tortured mess and still thinks she’s some sort of legal genius?

  135. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 13, 2009 at 2:13 pm

    I think Orly made an excellent reply and I home it stays up on her web site for a long time.

  136. bogus info says:
    February 13, 2009 at 3:50 pm

    Ian,

    This statement was not Orlys: “If the money is going directly to individuals simply out of kindness and not with a motive to received a charitable deduction …”

    It was a person who said they were a CPA. He/she just didn’t check it before they posted it–I’m guilty of that sometimes. LOL.

  137. bogus info says:
    February 13, 2009 at 9:30 pm

    I didn’t get into health care for the paperwork. I did it to help people – and I know you did, too.

    So, when legislation comes along that helps us spend more time treating patients than we do filling out forms, I get excited. And when special interests try to stop that legislation, I get mad.

    The Economic Recovery Act that passed the Senate today includes practical steps to improve health IT nationwide and cut down on paperwork. This one bill would do more to modernize the health care industry in one month than we’ve done in the past decade.

    Now, opponents of this legislation – led by Rush Limbaugh – are launching an all-out smear campaign in the media. Will you help us push back? Write a letter to your editor right now: action.seiu.org/recovery

    As nurses, our voices are critical in this debate. By explaining the benefits of health IT, we’ll have a seat at the table in deciding how this technology is implemented. Adopting better technology in our hospitals could save about $80 billion nationwide. That’s $80 billion that can be used to fund better staffing and safety.

    It also has the potential to cut down on charting & paperwork and reduce errors. Studies show that nurses in hospitals that adopt health IT spend less time documenting patient care and more time delivering it.

    People may not understand all the ins and outs of the Economic Recovery Act, but they’ll understand a nurse telling them the benefits it will have for patient care. Take a few minutes to write a letter to your newspaper right now: action.seiu.org/recovery

    Thanks,
    Cathy Glasson, RN
    Value Care, Value Nurses

  138. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 13, 2009 at 9:58 pm

    One of the few bright spots in the Bush administration was DHHS’ emphasis on Health IT standards including the formulation of such groups as AHIC, HITSP and CCHIT. I think the traction gained by standards such as the Clinical Document Architecture 2.0 and the HL7 EHR-S functional specifications will help us go forward.

    But there are developing counties that have better Electronic Health Record systems (funded by us) than we do. The Smart Card EHR in Zambia comes to mind.

  140. bogus info says:
    February 16, 2009 at 12:34 pm

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3758#comment-5980
    Attorney Issues a National Grand Jury Declaration

  142. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 16, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    There is no “News” article for February 14 and following. The new web site, Politijab.com is up and running with a lively discussion area and the ability for anyone to start discussions on the topics that interest them. Forum software is the best format for news and debate.

    I’ll be over there and I know many of the commenters here are also. I don’t want to dilute the discussions by having them in two places.

    Please, however, continue to share your thoughts here about the articles that appear.

  144. bogus info says:
    February 16, 2009 at 6:22 pm

    Factual? Came from Orly’s blog.

  145. mimi says:
    February 16, 2009 at 6:44 pm

    Doc,
    Saw this link over at the polijab. Thought you might be interested, especially in the “Update” link to “Political Questions Doctrine” at the end of the blog entry.

    http://goldni.blogspot.com/2009/02/wherein-i-humor-stacey-campfield.html

  146. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 16, 2009 at 7:01 pm

    Yes, thank you. I went over.

  147. Buckwheat19 says:
    February 17, 2009 at 2:50 pm

    Don’t you believe that SOMETHING is being hidden by Pres. Obama? Otherwise he would have put an end to this long ago. I suspect there is something “embarassing” in the documents that he is fighting so hard to protect. It may not be something of legal consequence, but rather something personal that might contradict something he stated previously.

  148. Ian Gould says:
    February 17, 2009 at 6:10 pm

    Obama has done virtually nothing to “protect” his supposed secret.

    Check the court records – virtually ll the lawsuits to date have been lodged against state officials claiming they improperly let Obama on the ballot.

    In most of those cases Obama isn’t even a respondent – i.e. he didn’t even have a lawyer appear on his behalf.

    Have you seen any evidence to support the claim that Obama spent tens of thousands; hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars on these lawsuits?
    (The figure claimed varies all over the place.)

  149. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 17, 2009 at 8:43 pm

    Tens of thousands I could believe with high-profile talent like Bauer. Obama did defend Keyes et al. v. Obama et al. and Berg v. Obama et al.

  150. mimi says:
    February 17, 2009 at 8:49 pm

    Maybe he did it pro-bono? I mean… if Orly & Berg don’t have to account for their donations…. ??? 😉

  151. mimi says:
    February 18, 2009 at 7:46 am

    Hey Doc., there are a couple “birther” arguments I hadn’t heard before. So, I guess they will be coming along your way. Maybe you’re familiar with it all. Over at Apuzzo’s blog. But, since “The Right Side” referred all comments to his blog, I’d guess they will be get more traffic today.

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/02/discussion3-kerchner-et-al-v-obama-et.html

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.