Unable to sanction the real culprit in the harassing lawsuit, Hollister v. Obama, Judge Robertson reprimanded attorney Hemenway under whose signature the suit was filed.
The decision left little question who the Judge would have preferred to punish, if that person had had the courage to show up in court. See footnote 4. ObamaCrimes.info is now part of the judicial record.
H/t to mimi for the info.
Sadly i would have liked to see sanction to show to the birthers that the judge was very serious !!! This only seems like a smackdown to the law profession, to a non-lawyer, it doesnt eemso bad !!
Funny how this seems to have been conveniently ignored on WND and factsnotneeded.com, er, defendourfreedoms.us
I was hoping that Hemenway would have gotten some kind of monetary sanction to teach him and others a lesson that there would hell to pay if they keep up with those frivolous lawsuits.
By just admonishing Hemenway, it is doubtful Hemenway will (or even can) appeal. But the judge has sent a clear warning to anyone in the D.C. District Court bar (including and especially Hemenway) to not litigate these kinds of suits (or sponsor someone else who wants to).
One wonders why someone in DC doesn’t pursue Unauthorized Practice of Law claims against Berg since it’s clear that he was the one writing the pleadings that Hemenway was signing off on.
I don’t think what Berg is doing in Hollister is the “practice of law”. I mean that both technically and sarcastically.
I do have a question, though. Is a lawyer filing pro se out of the jurisdiction where he is admitted to the bar bound by the same Rule 11 standards as if he were filing on behalf of someone else (and either admitted to the bar or pro hac vice)? I’m guessing that the sealed case in DC is pro se.
Legislating from the bench…A VERY dangerous pratice.
If it weren’t for legislating from the bench, you couldn’t record your favorite TV show and play it back later without paying a fee.
What was being legislated from the bench?
In my experience (I am an attorney licensed in Virginia and D.C), the Courts and the disciplinary committees take a very dim view of attorneys who ghost write pleadings for parties who are allegedly “pro se”. If Berg is doing that and the Judges on the D.C. District Court figure out, I’d imagine there would be some consequences.
I also seem to remember, though, that Judge Robinson mentioned in his Memorandum dismissing Hollister that Berg had been filing pleadings without having been formally admitted pro hac vice. Presumably this was done under Hemenway’s signature because most Federal Courts will not accept pleadings from attorneys not admitted to practice before them. That potentially could be a UPL claim, or at least grounds for disciplinary proceedings.
Speaking of which, didn’t I read somewhere that the California Bar was investigating Orly ?
Heavy,
This wasn’t legislating from the bench, this was a Judge exercising his inherent authority to regulate the attorneys that practice before him.
In fact, Hemenway got off pretty good under the circumstances. I’m guessing it’s because of his age and the fact that he’s not the real guilty party here.
No, that was a judge expressing his political beliefs under the guise of authority. As an “Attorney”, I’m sure you see this all the time.
Who would you rather legislate a reprimand?
The Congress, which is prevented from doing so by the Constitutional prohibition of bills of attainder? Or would you rather have President Obama do it?
Continue drinking the Kool-Aid my friend as you watch Orly, Berg, and Donfrio go down in flames.
Before this is all over, one or all of them will be disbarred, I guarantee it.
I think Orly is already on the fast track to disbarment for soliciting clients on false pretenses. Berg seems too cagey to get caught. Apuzzo has signed a frivolous pleading in federal court, which is never a smart thing to do.
Mr. “Attorney”, you may be correct. There may be some professional fallout from this battle. BUT, the people will NOT lose the war. This guy is a usurper and that WILL be established come hell or high water.
Heavy,
If there were any factual or legal basis to the arguments that she makes, then Dr. Orly the Dentist Lawyer has nothing to fear from the California Bar.
Since neither the law nor the facts are on her side, I would suggest that she stop her antics soon or risk losing her license to practice law.
And other other thing, Mr. Heavy:
Your comment simply establishes that you and those like you are not open to rational debate or evidence on this topic.
You have made up your mind.
You are, with all due respect, a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nut.
Actually, Doug, I am open to ANY credible eveidence. See, what you and the rest of your ilk fail to grasp, is that HE must prove he is elligible.
Now that he refuses to provide proof of elligibility, it is up to us to provide it. This will be a slow and arduos task, but one that MUST be performed none the less. He can run, but he can’t hide. HE is the one that will be responsible for the resulting chaos. HE will have to answer for his crimes. Thise who support this illegal regime will not be easily forgiven for their actions against this country.
It will be very interesting to see how many admit that they voted for this imposter once the S**T hits the fan…And it will!
Furthermore, Doug, yes I am a nut! A nut for my country. A nut for national security. A nut for justice. A nut for punishing those who act AGAINST my country.
You say you’re open to credible evidence, but you tried to dismiss the statement of the Director of Public Health for the State of Hawaii that he has “seen and verified…Obama’s ORIGINAL birth certificate is on file with the State of Hawaii.” Have you called Fukino’s office yet? They are more than happy to tell you that what that means is Obama was born in Hawaii.
CHIYOME LEINAALA FUKINO M.D.
DIRECTOR
Phone: (808) 586-4410
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
What I haven’t figured out, Heavy is that on the one hand you say “he must prove he is eligible” which implies that Obama’s eligibility is an open question, while on the other hand you call him an impostor and assert with certainly that this will be exposed.
Apart from any obligation on Obama’s part, by what evidence do you assert the conclusion of the story?
It’s simple, doc. Until he proves elligible, he is NOT. You cam claim to have a 4.0 GPA, but until it’s documented your GPA is 0.0.
After a few minutes of historical research, I have found that none of the 42 men to occupy the White House before Obama “proved” their eligibility in the manner you request.
Therefore, we must conclude that none of them were eligible, right ?
See, this is where it becomes clear to me what the real agenda of the birthers is.
They oppose Obama — whether it’s because of his policies, his race, or his name — and they are latching on to these fanciful theories that have no support in fact or in law based solely on that opposition.
Moreover, it’s clear to me that you, like the other birthers, will not really accept any evidence presented. The COLB wasn’t enough, even though its same document anyone with a Hawaiian birth certificate gets. The statements from Hawaiian officials wasn’t enough. And, as the good Doc noted in a post here a while ago, I seriously doubt that even an original birth certificate establishing the fact of Obama’s Hawaiian birth for all time will not be enough.
You just don’t want him to be President.
I oppose most of what he proposes, but I’m not going to latch on to nonsense because of that.
Doc,
It’s fairly clear that Heavy has already made up his mind, no ?
In other words you never considered President Bush to be eligible either?
Good to hear… But what a precedent…
Yes, his standards of evidence are highly indicative of that but under same standards, I have to conclude that Heavy is nothing but a closet liberal. 🙂
Ok guys, keep playing your game. You are going to lose.
40+ lawsuits all but a few dismissed, the Supreme Court is wary of Orly’s actions, the Attorney General refused to obey Orly’s commands.
If that’s what losing feels like, then give me more…
What part of the COLB did you not understand?
City of Birth: Honolulu…
Born on US soil therefor natural born citizen
A nut who seems to be punishing himself…
Reading Orly’s site it is clear that the strongest motivator is not the love for the constitution but rather a hate for Obama which guides these foolish actions.
I’m pretty sure that the one called Heavy delights in ticking us off. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
I think Heavy wants to believe. He’s on the edge. He knows there is no evidence to prove Obama is ineligible, but plenty of circumstantial evidence he is. We may not have a sworn affidavit from Harvard or his transcript showing he was a 4.0 law student, but it is a fact that he graduated magna cum laude and was the president of the law review. Certainly indicative of the caliber of student he was. A bit more nudging and Heavy will give up the anti-Obama fight.
Yes, but if Obama should provide evidence of eligibility, by your reasoning he would be eligible and his demise which you say is certain will not occur. So on what do you base your certainty of the outcome?
One certainly gets that impression.
Notice how that’s the only response he could come up with ?
If they had been asked , they would have complied.
I never said his demise is certain. If he proves to be elligible, then so be it. In the meantime, he is not. Pretty simple.
Yes, I do get a certain satisfaction in ruffling your feathers. I do delight in causing discomfort to those who would have our Constitution compromised.
Heavy says:
April 1, 2009 at 1:30 pm
If they had been asked , they would have complied.
—————————-
That isn’t what you said. You said “[u]ntil he proves elligible [sic], he is NOT.”
Kimba, I will give up the fight when the evidence proves out. Until then, I’ll continue to fight this imposter. I am, by no means alone. Our numbers are growing by the hour. It will take time to pierce the iron veil THE ONE and his supporters have thrown up, but the truth will come out.
If I am wrong, I will admit it and move on. Until then, he is a usurper and his
supporters co-conspirators.
Yes, he was president of the law review. And many others have similarly benefitted from affirmative action and similar policies. So don’t try to pass that crap off as meaningful.
Now Heavy is backtracking from his claim that “your side is going to lose”… Funny how consistency is seldomly seen as a virtue…
Still in denial?
Seems heavy is quite the masochist, causing discomfort in those who would have our Constitution compromised 😉
Doug, the BC issue means little to me. It is just one in a long line of “Mysteries” surrounding your messiah. Although I do want to see it just because I want to see what he is hiding.
You can call me a bitheer, a tinfoil hatter or whatever you wish. I call you and you ilk TRAITORS! Plain and simple. You support an illegitimate candidate. You usurp the Constitution. You are a traitor.
As I thought, our defender of the Constitution somehow does not seem to care about the concept of innocent till proven guilty.
Figures…
No, I’m not punishing myself. I’m actually having fun trying to engage you thoughtless people.
Countless courts disagree with this interpretation. Too bad isn’t it. Seems that ‘traitor’ to does not mean what it commonly means now does it.
Traitor: Anyone who supports President Obama and does not take seriously the unproven and unsupported accusations about his supposed ineligibility, even though he passed all Constitutional and legal hurdles.
It only takes one sperm out of millions to fertilize an egg.
Well, what else can be said the robots that keep recycling the same useless information as though it was fact?
Not only a masochist but also in denial. That’s too funny.
And no, you are not trying to engage anyone, all you do is make the same flawed assertions and accusations.
Surely you must understand the difference. In fact, when others attempt to engage you in a real discussion, you simply ignore them.
One would almost conclude that you are not up to the task? I understand, it’s hard to defend an indefensible position.
WTF are you talking about. He has been asked and refused to comply. Pretty simple.
A masochist in denial with a sense of irony. Now that’s a combination I dig….
Really Heavy, have you looked in the mirror today?
Since he was found eligible at all levels (voters, states, electoral college, and Congress), and since those asking him to ‘comply’ were found to lack in standing, judiciability, and failed to state a claim, it seems clear that President Obama did comply.
Perhaps what you mean is that Obama failed to present the irrelevant data some suggest he should provide while his COLB showed prima facie legal evidence of his birth in Honolulu.
As I said, you have somewhat of a masochistic tendency…
Actually, my position does not need defense. Just proof. All we ask is for information that is readily available.
You people don’t know what engaging is. If you want to win the lottery, you must first buy a ticket.
There you go with the “Uproven” crap again. All he has to do is produce the douments and all this goes away. We WILL get to the truth. Those who support the imposter will not be easily forgiven. It’s gonna get REAL ugly!
You may be right, your position need no defense because it lacks in proof. I am glad we have come to agree. And yes, the information is readily available and yet you keep ignoring the COLB.
Fascinating
It’s going to be a long process, but a necessary one. I have only one question. Will you apologize when he is finally proven illegitimate?
I will apologize right after I finish having my head examined.
What would be acceptable proof of Obama’s eligibility. That is, if I had some evidence, how would I know that this evidence constituted proof? If we’re going to require proof, then we really ought to know what proof means, right?
Would it be sufficient for Berg’s Third Circuit appeal be sent back to the district for trial, and Berg lost? Or Berg lost, and ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court who ruled that Obama was a natural born citizen and eligible to be President? Is that proof?
If we had achieved proof, how would we know it?
Can’t we all just get along?
OK I’ve been dying to ask. Could you please define the word ‘fact’? Thanks.
Sure, the important qualifier is ‘finally’
I’m disappointed, doc. You mean to say you would not apologize if he were found inelligible?
PROOF would come in any LEGITIMATE from that proves he meets the constitutional requirement for NBC.
Now you are again claiming that he is guilty of something for which no convincing evidence exists, even though he has produced the prima facie legal document which shows his birthplace to be Honolulu.
How ugly do you think it is going to get? Uglier than the unsupported assertions?
Fact: A truth known by actual experience or observation.
And the probability that any given sperm will succeed is miniscule.
I thought we were.
Cool so we can conclude that the following facts exist
1. Obama produced a prima facie legal document, COLB
2. The birth certificate was filed within 4 days of birth.
3. The birth certificate shows as the city of birth Honolulu
4. The courts have interpreted natural born to mean: Born on US Soil
Whadaysay?
Exactly. That’s why we must continue to “Copulate” and increse our chances. Or we could always adopt, like Lolo.
I am having a great time getting along with Heavy.
So far the conclusion is that the male is sterile… As to the adoption part, would you call that a fact or a speculation?
Nice try, NBC. None of those statements meet the definition of FACT. They are heresay and assumption. Even if they did, they would not answer the other, more important questions of elligibilty.
You said that without presenting proof you find sufficient, he is not eligible.
Which means exactly what Doug Mataconis said it meant: under your standards, none of the other 42 individuals who have served as POTUS were “eligilbe” either.
Pretty simple.
You said that without presenting proof you find sufficient, he is not eligible.
Which means exactly what Doug Mataconis said it meant: under your standards, none of the other 42 individuals who have served as POTUS were “eligible” either.
Pretty simple.
Heavy
Did you even bother to read what I’ve written ?
I’ve already said I don’t support his policies.
I didn’t vote for him.
I just don’t believe that anything is accomplished by falling for the lies of shysters like Orly Taitz and Phil Berg.
Heavy,
That’s exactly the thought I have when I try to have rational discussions with people who think that Orly Taitz, who doesn’t even both to spell-check her blog posts, is some kind of amazing Constitutional scholar.
She’s not, and anyone who’s sent her money is a damn fool.
Are you serious?
And all the factual allegations made by Donofrio, Berg, and Orly the Dentist are hearsay (note correct spelling) and assumption.
What other “more important questions of eligibility” could there be ?
If there was a original birth certificate produced showing he was born on 8/2/61 on Honolulu, would that satisfy you ?
I’ve got $ 20 in my wallet that says the answer is no.
You tell me.
I never claimed to support Orly and have certainly not sent her money.
My apologies.
And I didn’t say that.
Nonetheless, she is the one driving the bus on this issue now.
No, I would apologize. However, I would have my head examined first. Given the monumental implications of such an error, I think my getting psychiatric treatment would take priority over an apology, which could come later. I think schizophrenia would be a likely diagnosis IF I AM WRONG.
Could you give a couple of examples of “LEGITIMATE form”?
I’m not getting a lot of help from you in coming up with a measurable criterion for “success” in this argument. But let me ask you this.
The definition of “natural born citizen” is a question of law, not a question of fact. There nothing Obama could individually do in the way of cooperating with an investigation or producing documents that could assist in the determination of the definition. Therefore would you agree that IF Obama proved he was born in Hawaii and did not become an Indonesian citizen, would you agree that Obama has no further burden of proof?
It’s a valid point.
Your retort that “they would have produced evidence if asked” is meaningless nonsense.
They didn’t produce evidence, therefore, under your logic, they were ineligible.
And how would you apply this definition to the moon landing?
No, you are the one advancing the theory, the burden is on you.
And, by the way, you should be aware that applicable U.S. law at the time was clear on the point that adoption does not strip a minor of his or her citizenship status.
Doug, Orly is no more driving the bus than Rush is the leader of the Republican party. Be realistic. There are other, more powerful and credible people who are working on this issue.
Doug, what she said was neither valid nor a point. Are you a personal injury lawyer?
I never said it did. Here’s a concept for you…Sarcasm. Lighten up, man.
And exactly what “Theory” am I advancing?
Rush is not the leader of the Republican Party? Just asking. I have my head in this Conspiracy Theory stuff all the time and don’t get out much.
I’m curious to know who IS driving the bus (I know you won’t tell me).
In all honesty, I don’t know of any one who fits the description “powerful and credible” who believes these conspiracy theories. If you do give me a name, I’ll write an article titled “powerful and credible person supports conspiracy theories” (except Joseph Farah, Orly, Berg, Martin and Apuzzo, who already have articles).
I don’t know if you are serious about not knowing what the other issues are, but if you are just ask Doc. He’ll be more than happy to point you in the right (Correct) direction.
Funny, doc. No, I won’t tell you.
Reason enough to believe they don’t exist.
Oh I know what they are, my friend, I’m just seeing what you think….
And you haven’t answered my question
Right on. That’s the whole idea. You keep barking up that tree. In the meantime, we’ll be getting to the truth.
Well, I am well aware of the birther argument that Obama somehow lost his citizenship when he was allegedly adopted by Mr. Sotero and moved to Indonesia.
There’s no legal basis for that argument, as I’ve stated.
I assume that’s what you’re talking about when you bring the adoption issue up.
Why else mention it ?
Heavy,
If you’re not going to name these “powerful people” then it is logical for me to assume you’re making it up.
Then stop asking questions to which you claim to know the answer. I’m sorry. You’re an attorney. That’s what you do.
As I stated before, the BC issue is a minor one. But I still want to see it.
It was a valid application of your logic regarding Obama to all the preceding Presidents.
And, no I’m not as if it’s any of your business.
Keep assuming, Doug.
His hope is that there is someone more powerful, at least more competent, than Orly behind the curtain to step in and take over before Orly finishes turning the bus into a clown-car.
No, it was not. But hey, you DID say logic. That does not apply to us “Birthers”, right?
Do you play poker, Doug?
Heavy,
Why ? It won’t answer your questions and it obviously won’t satisfy your doubts.
I’m assuming you buy into the British citizenship nonsense.
The Doc can point you to abundant material establishing that that particular argument has no legal merit.
Umm, the bus already is a clown car
Thanks for keeping an open mind folks. It’s your thinking that has created the mess the we are cleaning up.
No, THE ONE is not a British citizen. Why do I want to see the BC? Because I want to see what he is hiding as it is obvious he is hiding something.
Note: Aficans were not referred to as such in 1961 in this country. But hey, that thing is NOT forged!
You can ask Dr Fukino about that too when you call to ask her to confirm that Obama was born in Hawaii.
CHIYOME LEINAALA FUKINO M.D.
DIRECTOR
Phone: (808) 586-4410
Make the call. Report back to us.
Keep assuming, Doug. Your doing just great.
The National Center for Health Statistics, the federal organization that sets data collection standards for vital events in the United States defines Father’s race as a self-declared field. That is, one asks the father “what do you consider your race to be”? If not the father, then the mother answers.
I do not find it at all odd that Barack Obama Sr, a Kenyan student in the United States, called himself an “African”. It doesn’t matter what people in the United States labeled Africans in 1961, but only how Africans referred to themselves. I have an article on this, and links to the NCHS standards.
I’m a professional in this field, and there are no indications of contextual problems with the COLB.
Are you?
It was your claim.
“Note: Aficans were not referred to as such in 1961 in this country. But hey, that thing is NOT forged!”
While I attended Univ of Hawaii every single African exchange student I met called themselves “African” when asked for a race, the terms used by Americans, especially heavy, are never used. But being stupid, you wouldn’t know that. Did you call Dr. Fukino yet or are you scared of what you will find.
Perhaps Heavy is unfamiliar with the fact that the entry is typically filled in by the parents of the child. Time to do your homework.
After all, the COLB copies what the parents have entered on the form, which is then signed by attending physicians.
Sigh
If this is the case (You have NO WAY of knowing, so don’t say you do) Would he not have said he was KENYAN? If someone asks you where you are from do you say North America?
Face it doc, the thing is afake and you know it. Your case for this imposter is so waek even YOU are starting to doubt it!
See the response above. YOU PEOPLE ARE REALLY STARTING TO LOOK SILLY!
Sorry, Rich you are a liar and you know it! NOONE called blacks or negro AFRICAN in 1961. Not even the “Africans” themsleves.
Why can’t you people just admit that there is even small chance that you could be wrong on this. You know you are wrong and so does EVERYONE else!
So, Mr. Expert, please tell me….
What did someone from Africa call themselves in 1961 ?
What part of “I voted against Obama” don’t you understand, dude ?
Given the anti-colonialst opinions and Pan-African ideas that were floating around in the 1950’s and 60’s, it seems perfectly logical to me that BHO, SR would have referred to himself as African.
What else would he call himself ?
Kenya wasn’t an independent country yet
You are the one who’s being silly.
Why do you think it’s so suspicious that BHO, Sr called himself “African” ?
“So, Mr. Expert, please tell me….”
he can’t tell you, all he knows is debunked talking points, and he tends to call people liars, ironic that someone with 0 credibility calls others liars. He must be aware that he is considered the blogs joke. (laughing stock)
By the way, I knew 27 African exchange students in Hawaii in the 60’s, I don’t remember their names but it’s possible one of them was Obama’s father. And yes, they all referred to their race as African, so you can ignore the rants of the idiot Birther.
I’m not quite sure what you are saying that I “have no way of knowing,” Heavy. If you’re saying that I don’t know that NCHS standards say that Race is whatever the father says it is, then I can prove otherwise by this link to the NCHS standards (which is in my article here).
If you are saying that I have no way of knowing that an African in 1961 used “African” as a race, then I can prove otherwise here:
You can Google your brains out reading others such as:
What It Means To Be a Part of the African Race Not Just the Human One
But thanks for the opportunity to better document the use of “African” as a race.
Heavy did not even know that the race designation was filled out by the parents. Now he wants us to believe that Obama Sr would never have used the term African.
Silly Heavy, just when he believes with all his heart that he has found the smoking gun that would remove President Obama, he wakes up to the reality.
Sorry pal, 4 more years at least 🙂
Seems that Heavy is somewhat fact adverse when the facts contradict his faith.
Fascinating
Again, the irony is fascinating. Does Heavy have no idea…
The undeniable facts are
1. Obama produced a prima facie legal document, COLB (HRS 338)
2. The birth certificate was filed within 4 days of birth. (COLB)
3. The birth certificate shows as the city of birth Honolulu (COLB)
4. The courts have interpreted natural born to mean: Born on US Soil
Heavy, where you born in the state where you now reside?
“NOONE called blacks or negro AFRICAN in 1961. Not even the “Africans” themsleves.”
What a lively imagination you have!
In addition to the 1961 book by an African who uses the term “African race”, I have tracked it back as for as 1894 in a statement by African nationalist John Chilembwe of Nyassaland who said:
Yes, I may be the laughing stock on this blog. Actually, I would not have it any other way.
You people are the laughing stock of America. NOT ONE of your arguments are valid nor germain.
It is people like you who will not be easily forgiven when the hoax is exposed.
1. Not true
2. Immaterial, Ask Doug
3. See #2
4. Lie
0-4. Pretty sad, even for a rookie.
…And your point?
“It is people like you who will not be easily forgiven when the hoax is exposed.”
wow, too far gone to reason with!
Who’s Doug?
Dear friend, I do hope your not trying to rely on me in support of your arguments.
I certainly don’t think the COLB is immaterial.
In fact, I think its definitive and answers all these questions completely.
His point is that it’s not at all surprising that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. would refer to himself as “African” on a birth certificate in 1961.
What’s your point ?
Doug, if you are going to comment, please pay attention. I said that point #2 is immaterial. Is it not?
1. Is true: Check out the HRS 338 (Hawaiian Statutes)
(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.
2. Relevant since this cannot be a late filing.
3. City of birth establishes if Obama was born on US soil
4. True again: See for instance US v Wong Kim Ark.
I am amazed how unfamiliar you seem to be with the facts?
There you go with the “Facts” again. The only point that has been established as fact is #2 which is immaterial.
“I am amazed how unfamiliar you seem to be with the facts?”
not unfamilar just ignores them, which means he is too far gone to reason with!
A prima facie COLB has been provided. Fact
The city of Birth is Honolulu. Fact
Natural Born Citizen has been defined by Courts Fact.
2 is not immaterial since it shows that the form is not one of a late filing as some ‘skeptics’ have foolishly asserted.
So why are you denying these facts? Explain to us your objections…
You also suggested that #3 was immaterial by referring to #2…
Don’t you even remember your own ‘arguments’?
No, its not immaterial because it tends to support the idea that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii
I guess what I don’t understand that “see Doug” part of your comment on Point # 2.
Seems Heavy has lost his tongue… Of course it’s tough to argue facts…
In case you haven’t noticed, Heavy isn’t arguing. He is objecting. Two completely different things.
You are right, Doc. If Heavy was arguing, he would try to actually make a point or discuss his views. Instead he just says stamps his little feet and yells “no no no no no”. 🙂
Wouldn’t you imagine someone with the ingenuity and resources to forge such a document would go with what he THINKS the right term would be, rather than a more unusual one?
Me too.
A naive forger would use a modern form and select “Black” I think. The Birthers ignore the FactCheck photographs in favor of the scanned version, which they claim is not a sophisticated forgery at all but a clumsy one.
In the 1960’s the term “Color” was also used as a classification, and vital statistics reports from the time were divided into “white” and “nonwhite”.