Utterer
In her most recent missive to the Supreme Court, erstwhile attorney Orly Taitz detailed a list of charges against the President including:
- Fraud
- Forgery of passport records
- Uttering
- Obstruction of Justice
At first I thought Orly had made a mistake, but the charges were repeated several times, so I felt that I should send out the Obama Conspiracy Theories detective team to investigate. They have returned with proof of the President’s guilt on the third count, “uttering.”
Exhibit 1 is from the New York Times from May 27, 2010:
President Obama uttered three words on Thursday that many of his 43 predecessors twisted themselves into knots trying with varying degrees of success to avoid: “I was wrong.”
Not only is this proof that President Obama is guilty of uttering, he is also guilty of the unpardonable political sin of being wrong!
Exhibit 2 comes from Politico.com from August 21, 2009 where appears:
Just as soon as President Barack Obama uttered the words Thursday afternoon, the reaction was nearly universal.
And what were those shocking words that set Washington on edge. Obama said “wee-weed” and opened himself to charges of public obscenity. We even have it on camera!
Exhibit 3. Our final shocking piece of evidence comes from The Smoking Chimp (where those of you who don’t like George Bush might want to spend some time) which reports in a headline:
The election is over. Obama uttered the word “hell.”
Not only is Obama now proven to have uttered, not once, but three times, but he is also guilty of obscene language.
Orly Taitz may have a case after all!
I think Orly actually put one over on us here. After all, we’re all convinced that she’s a total idiot with no legal skills (with good reason). So she went into her Black’s Law Dictionary (She probably uses the White’s Law Dictionary, though), until she found a fairly obscure legal term that sounded like it wasn’t a legal term, and she threw it in there, just to make us look bad when we mocked her for it.
Not that this will make me reconsifer anything else I’ve said about her.
I came across a humorous little skit from at poster named dwbh over at Talking Points Memo. Hope you enjoy:
Scene in the SCOTUS inner chamber…
ROBERTS: OK guys. Next up, we have a motion from Orly Taitz asking for an emergency stay on her contempt of court fine, on the grounds that Barry Soetoro, uh, I mean, Barack Obama, isn’t a US citizen and isn’t legally president.
KENNEDY: Well, OK. I mean, she’s been denied at every level, but I’ve read her briefs, and she really makes a lot of sense. Let’s grant the stay and hear her case.
GINSBURG: Sounds good to me.
SOTOMAYOR: She is a True American Patriot, after all.
ROBERTS: OK, since we all agree, I’ll just sign this motion to…
THOMAS: WHOA WHOA WHOA WAIT YOU GUYS!!!
ALITO: What up, homie?
THOMAS: YOU GUYS!! Have you *seen* the latest webisode of “West Wing Week?”
SCALIA: No, I missed it. Lady Gaga concert last night.
THOMAS: Well, I saw it, and they were talking about whether the president needed his passport stamped, and they showed a picture of his passport? And it was *totally* real.
BADER-GINSBURG: Hmm. Well, I guess all our concerns are unfounded then.
SOTOMAYOR: No es bueno!
ROBERTS: Yeah. So I guess we just let the immoral march to socialism in America continue then. Whatevs! MOTION DENIED.
Instant classic ! !
“ALITO: What up, homie?”
Best line. Thanks for the laugh.
OK, I am a fool but what is uttering in the legal sense. Just curious.
“In the USA, Uttering is the act of offering a forged document to another when the offeror has knowledge that the document is forged.”
More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uttering_a_forged_document
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uttering_a_forged_document
Actually, I think that for once Our Lay Queen of Birfers (WBUP – Whatever Be Upon Her) is helped by the fact that she thinks in Russian.
Пре´ъявить (substantive пре´ъяв´ление) transcribed pred”yavit’ = to utter, declare (accusations, demands…) but also: to present, particularly a passport at border control.
So, the word “uttering” would naturally suggest itself to her under these circumstances. She probably checked in a legal dictionary, of course, though with Her Majesty (WBUP) you never know.
The reason why Anglo-Saxon law needs the term “uttering and publishing” is that the mere fact of making a forgery is not necessarily a crime, both under English common law and under Scots law. Only when someone (not necessarily the forger) “brings out” the forgery knowing that is was a forgery and trying to profit from it, a crime is committed.
The expression shows its age by the fact that “utter” and “publish” are really synonyms, the former being the Anglo-Saxon word, the latter being Norman French – the idea of such an expression was that everybody, both the general population and the lawyers would understand the term. Today, of course, most people would perceive a difference between the two.
Interestingly, “producing a forgery” would be ambiguous. The kind of stuff that lawyers would have a field day with.
Thanks for those 2 informative posts, Paul! Good to know.
Talking about making a mountain out of a mole hill! Clearly “uttering” is a simple typo for the word “uddering.” In layman’s terms, Ms Taitz is accusing the President of being a cow, and therefore ineligible to be President of the United States.
I expect to see a swift and complete retraction of this disingenuous “story”.
That’s her beef to hide behind. Her steak in this is pure bull but she’ll continue to milk this cheesy story. That’s what I herd.
thats ‘smirking chimp’………..not smoking chimp