The Washington Post reports that a ballot challenge in Alabama has been dismissed by state judge Helen Shores Lee. She agreed that the issue was a political dispute and not a legal one. Judge Lee also rejected a request from Plaintiff Hendershot for a delay until he could bring in his big gun attorney, Orly Taitz.
Hendershot promised an appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court.
Orly will blame it on the African-American Democrat judge in one…two…three…
According to a blogger associated with the Birmingham news, Hendershot filed the suit in December against Mark Kennedy, chair of the AL Blue party, Kennedy filed motion to dismiss, Hendershot hires Taitz and requests a delay so he can confer with his out-of-state counsel … and gets tossed. The missing detail … what kind of retainer is Orly gettin’?
sorry, neglected my citation!
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/01/well-known_birther_lawyer_to_t.html
There has been great detailed coverage at the Native Born Citizen site, which you can find under the “Good” links section at the bottom of this page.
The defense attorney has vowed to request attorney’s fees and any appropriate sanctions or penalties against those persisting to keep filing more of these frivolous claims. As ther are already 2 more reported as being filed, I hope he sticks to his guns and goes after these nuts with zero tolerance for their antics.
She did virtually that in writing on her website the day BEFORE the hearing even started! It’s pretty obvious that those comments would have found their way to Judge Lee’s ears. It would have been interesting to have been a fly on the wall in the converstion which took place between her, Jablonski and Hendershot in chambers.
Common sense says it’s also almost certain that Hendershot filed his motion for recusal following communications with Taitz on the subject. It’s not clear exactly why he asked to withdraw his case after the judge declined to recuse but it’s short odds that was advice from Taitz too as would have been his decision to indicate an intention to appeal due to racial bias of the judge.
IANAL but it’s not clear to me exactly what potential way he (or Taitz) could ever realistically claim under appeal that a judge’s racial bias has affected a judgement which rested entirely on a straightforward question of whether the court has jurisdiction under Alabama statutes.
One of the responses to that blog article is quite telling:
“The problem with Obama is not that he was born outside the US, but that he was reared during his formative years in Indonesia. While other boys played baseball, ate apple pie and went to church, Obama played Congklak, ate Satay Chicken, and yes…prayed Muslim prayers in a Madrassa. Once in the states, he was in an academic bubble surrounded by self-avowed Marxists and, yes, terrorists like Bill Ayers. He was a Saul Alinsky disciple and attended Rev. Wright’s anti-white racist rants for 20 years. To put is simply, Obama is not really American culturally, he is a transglobalist of the worst sort. He seeks good old stagnant European socialism for the US. That is the problem. He is like a real-life Manchurian Candidate.”
Fair warning to parents out there. Here are the rules.
If your child doesn’t play baseball, eat apple pie and go to church, he or she will not be an American.
It’s a good thing no citizen in the U.S. plays Mancala games, eats Satay Chicken or is a devout Muslim. That must be how you spot a foreign spy.
Why don’t we just restrict the definition of American to white, wealthy, slave and land owning men?
Truly disgusting racism, ignorance and bigotry.
In my view, this preoccupation with Obama’s origins is ridiculous. He’s been President for 4 years. We already know his agenda, how he conducts foreign policy and how he responds to pressure. What possible relevance could his childhood add to the 2012 election?
I’m kinda jealous of Orly Taitz. I wish I could be revered as an expert in a field despite having absolutely no competency in it.
Thanks, MW, for pointing that out! I hadn’t bothered to read that far, since i was only looking for court reportage.
A random hodge-podge of ODS echo points there …. my question to the spewer would be …. where did he learn to love “european socialism”? Indonesia? Hawaii? Chicago? California?
The MSNBC gang was beating up a token Republican last night over the “european socialism” bogeyman last night. Like political pro wrestling. The Red candidates, particularly Romney, keep trotting it out. When challenged, there’s no explanation.
Or allegedly standing near a sign with the face of a German philosopher in college thirty years ago?
Et cetera.
Pick some piece of ludicrousness, declare yourself expert, and wait.
You’re welcome. And Hannity should be proud that the Fox propaganda machine isn’t questioned by their fright wing cult members.
It’s not much different than Catch Me If You Can (2002).
I think there’s still some place left in birthers’ hearts for anyone who
(1) claims to be an “expert” of any kind and
(2) supports their deluded view of Obama, the government or life in general
at the same time. If you lock your conscience in the basement, there’s even some PayPal clicky-money in for you. 😉
I think it’s a common tactic that almost goes nowhere. Judges are theoretically supposed to be unbiased, although they may recuse themselves if there’s a clear conflict of interest such as investment holdings or a relative who might be affected. Clarence Thomas recused himself from a case involving all-male state military schools because his son was at VMI. I was listening last night to a Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer being interviewed, and he was asked about what he thought about the Occupy movement. He politely declined, saying that it could very well come upon the court and he didn’t want to come across as biased for or against.
I heard one of the complaints about this judge was that she was also appointed by a Democrat. So perhaps if a Republican judge is drawn the defense should be able to ask for a recusal on that basis?
There was a recent US District Court ruling on the legality of (2008) California Proposition 8 – the passed ballot initiative that banned new same-sex marriages in California. The defenders of the initiative wanted the decision to be set aside on the basis of his later revealed sexual orientation, even though he never gave any indication that he intended on getting married to his partner if he could. Again, there’s the corollary of whether or not a hetero judge is going to be biased on that basis.
Maybe it’s me, but I’d really like for there to be some reason for there to be a required submission of President Obama’s birth certificate in a court.
No more PDFs. No more scans. No more scans of photocopies. They would take it and just like any other court proceeding find that it’s a genuine document issued by a competent authority.
I know it wouldn’t shut up the birthers, but it would be satisfying to just get a court ruling of some kind validating President Obama’s birth certificate outside of Hawaii.
So the fact that he has presented actual paper birth certificates to obtain other documents over the course of his life is insufficient to you? Off the top of my head, he has managed to procure a license to drive (probably in several states over the years) and a US Passport at least. His paper BC was adequate to obtain these items. How would presenting it to a court be any different? And on what basis would a court require him to present it?
No – all of that is sufficient to me. I believe that the images of the birth certificates sent to media sources were genuine and that the Hawaii Dept of Health has vouched for the authenticity. However, I would note that one doesn’t need a a birth certificate showing evidence of US birth in order to get those documents you noted. One can get a US passport as a naturalized citizen by submitting a Certificate of Naturalization. There are other documents that can be used to obtain a US passport, including a Certification/Consular Report of Birth Abroad. One doesn’t have to be a US citizen to get a driver license in any state. Acceptable proof of eligibility includes a permanent resident card or even a temporary resident card from the USCIS, along with a host of documents including those detailing refugee status. In California one can obtain a driver license by presenting a Canadian birth certificate. Illinois seems to have tighter rules on residency, where they require an applicant to submit two proofs of state residency, including utility bills or mail from a government agency, but they do accept Canadian birth certificates.
I don’t know if a court would compel him or a proxy to present it. However, if any of these hearings are required to go forward, I would think that voluntarily presenting a certified copy of his birth certificate would be the ultimate affirmative defense. I don’t think an administrative law judge is going to ponder the esoteric nature of two parent citizenship for eligibility. I do think that simple and definitive evidence from a competent authority that he was born in Honolulu in 1961 will force an administrative law judge to determine that he is eligible to be on the Georgia ballot.
I wouldn’t be for those random birthers asking to see a copy of his birth certificate. I’m OK with it if it’s in a court setting before a judge who routinely views government documents and will fairly (and on the record) determine that they are genuine.
One more thing to jit birthers over the head with is always fun. It of course is completely unnecessary, but why not? I feel the idea is resisted out of a resistance to “dignifying” the birthers’ demands. C’mon, they’re far beyond dignifyable(?). Perhaps one of the slew of ballot challenges will go there. Perhaps in GA, where Malihi seems to be intent on reviewing the qualifications of the office.
“Guilty until proven innocent” is not the American way.
Where exactly are your demands that all the republican candidates submit the same leval of proof. Obama has provided more evidence of his place of birth than any President in history. Not good enough. He has to super-duper prove his place of birth because…. I guess we all know why. We have a whole filed of republican candidates and not one has to produce anything. Such is why you people are jokes to any serious person. Must be sad to have such hatred.
I understand that there’s really never been any kind of qualifications check other than an affadavit of eligibility required by each state for inclusion on the ballot. The Constiution is amazingly vague about it. Of course the Constitution was written before government birth records were performed in the US and even the 14th Amendment was enacted long before there was any consistent government recording of births or the government issuance of certified vital records forms.
I’d just like to see it so that the birthers can just claim that “somebody got to the judge”.
Is this addressed to me? Because if it is, I’m no birther. I said I believe that Obama was born in Honolulu and that government sources have proven it. I also don’t believe the two citizen parent theory is required to be a natural born citizen. You can look up my history here and see that I think the birthers are buffoons.
I’d also have no problem if someone lodges a similar eligibility ballot challenge against each and every major Republican candidate. It might get interesting if they start pulling out birth certificates to indicate eligibility, and where everything becomes public information. I mean – Huntsman was born in a different city (Palo Alto sounds more prestigious than Redwood City) than his campaign claims. Gingrich was adopted and his records would be fun to see. Then there’s Romney, where a copy of his certificate could be plastered on websites everywhere indicating his father was born in Mexico.
I heard about a case where the Church of Scientology got sued and they had to submit one of their “secret documents” detailing church theology. From what I heard, someone sent over dozens of people to try and buy up the limited number of court records that were sold to the public before any non Scientologist could get one. Someone still got a copy and leaked it to the press.
Why would the state of Hawaii provide a link on the State Health Department’s web site to the Obama long form on the White House web site if it weren’t an official, certified copy of the original document?
It seems that y_p_w just wants to give in to any and all birther lunacy.
Yeah. I saw it. I believe it. I am 100% certain that the image on the White House servers is a true representation of the original document. I don’t need any convicing.
I’m not consumed by hate for anyone. I voted for Obama, and with the current crop of Republican candidates I’ll probably do so again.
However, the whole birther circus sideshow might be a bit more intersting if there’s an actual court ruling (or several) that states that Obama was without a doubt born in Honolulu in 1961. For that matter I wouldn’t mind if the same kind of determination were made for all the Republican candidates. I don’t know if it would stand up in federal court, but it would be fun seeing what happens.
I completely agree and feel the same way.
I have even less respect for such smears, not just because they are dishonest and shameful on the face of it, but also because they are such a ludicrous and irrelevant tactic to apply to a re-election effort. So yeah, its just an idiotic and futile avenue of attack in the first place.
It is like someone wanting to play the game of Risk using a checker-board…
Simply put, trying to appease the unappeasable is a futile effort and an utter waste of time.
All they will do is continue to Concern Troll over new goalposts they’ve shifted to. So, while removing a senseless argument from them seems reasonable, it isn’t; simply because you are not dealing with reasonable people acting in good faith at all.
Not only will they shift the goalposts to some new crazy demand and claim, but at the same time, they will loudly deny the validity of the evidence just presented to appease them in the first place.
Look at the LFBC nonsense as an example – Appease them with the document and it is immediately a “forgery” and a “conspiracy” and a whole nonsense bumper crop of made-up “image experts” springs out of nowhere. Quite a few of the die-hards still claim he’s born in Kenya, regardless. Others just shift to claims that it wouldn’t matter no matter what because of their “2-citizen parent” myths… And as we’ve seen, despite the answers directly on the LFBC, a weird crop of denialists emerge that claim that one or both of his parents were entirely someone else, other that what has always been stated and confirmed on all documents…
Appeasement is a bad idea and a waste of time. They have no valid basis for answers in the first place and deserve to have the door shut on them for such baseless frivolity – period.
Well said!!!
The Birthers will make that claim, regardless. They already do all the time.
Back in 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in Ankeny v Mitch Daniels, The Governor of Indiana, in a section of their opinion entitled “Natural Born Citizen” with specific regard to both Barack Obama and John McCain that “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “NATURAL BORN CITIZENS” for Article 2, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit had stipulated that Barack Obama was indeed born in Hawaii and they stipulated that the COLB on the factcheck.org web site was indeed valid.
Birthers are still trying to tear the Ankeny decision apart. There is a CURRENT thread over at freerepublic.com entitled “Why wasn’t Ankeny v Daniels Appealed to the Supreme Court.?”
y_p_w isn’t a birther- call off the artillery barrage!
😉
Good call.
Thanks for the info. I thought birthers avoided that question like the plague.
Judge Hill dismisses Thompson v Kennedy, citing the ruling of Judge Lee
Boy oh boy, the Alabama adventure is over… So far NH, AL are ‘dead in the water’ at this rate we will reach 0-100 by the end of the month…
Sorensen v. Kennedy was dismissed this morning, with prejudice, all costs and attorney’s fees to be paid by Sorensen.
The Fogbow has a personal account of the hearing by Ragsdale: http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=6908&p=330295#p330295
And one of the commenters (who bills himself as an unpaid writer for the Dothan Eagle) from an editorial at the Eagle’s site:
“and legal or not..he isn’t an effective president….but of course the media wont report that….his wife is actually a better example than obama….we for sure don’t want another angry black woman (lmao) next to our commander in chief….I don’t mind her being angry..I mind her spending ten million dollars on vacations in two years…and being four hours behind her husband and costing two flights of jets simply because they wernet on time…that galls me…”
(source: http://www2.dothaneagle.com/news/2012/jan/12/editorial-reductio-ad-civitatis-ar-3032020/)
An addiction to Limbaugh and Hannity and the other fright wingers must be causing widespread brain damage.