Calls Taitz a “vexatious litigator.”
The State of Hawaii has had enough, and has asked Judge Rhonda Nishimura to issue an order barring Taitz from filing more motions without leave of the court and says that it will request sanctions and repayment of the costs of responding to her frivolous motions, in this case trying to enforce a unserved, illegal and facially invalid subpoena from the Georgia administrative action Farrar v Obama under a suit already dismissed,
Plaintiff’s history in this case alone demonstrates that she proffers theories without legal authority or merit. The present motion is another example of Plaintiff’s documented practice of filing unsubstantiated moving papers. A few hours of legal research was all it took to discover the applicable Georgia law pertaining to administrative hearings and administrative subpoenas. Either Plaintiff did not take that minimal mount of time before she presented her frivolous and unsubstantiated claims to this court, or worse scenario, she did take that time and actually knew that she had no merit to her claims. Either way, the result has been a waste of Defendants’ counsels’ time and resources, as well as this Court’s time and resources.
The State’s attorney pointed out that Georgia law says that their subpoenas are only valid in Georgia, and even if they were valid in Hawaii, the type of discovery Taitz seeks isn’t available even in Georgia for the type of administrative proceeding in Farrar.
Read the State’s motion:
Lets see, based on the Judge Land debacle, what are the odds that Mad Ole Orly will be able to restrain herself from screeching USURPER, TRAITOR, EBIL, COMMUNIST etc etc at the AG and the judge….?
Ah, Birfoon tears are sooooooooooooooo sweet
Orly Taitz has no business practicing law. Pun intended.
For the lawyers out there. If Orly is declared such, is there anything stopping her from having someone else file, and her just appearing “on their behalf” ishness?
The State of Hawai’i has surrendered the Full Faith and Credit Clause. With reciprocity, Obama’s Hawai’i BC isn’t valid in the State of Georgia.
You obviously haven’t even read the State’s motion. They showed that the subpoena isn’t even valid in Georgia.
I don’t know why you put “Esq” next to your name, but it is obviously not because you’re an attorney.
In Hermano’s defense, the same could be said about Taitz.
Now that is a creative argument. Seriously flawed, but creative. So, this line of reasoning is that the President must be removed because his BC, which was forged anyway, is invalid, because Hawaii will not recognize other state’s documents? That’s what HG is going for?
The State of Hawai’i unconstitutionally refuses to acknowledge the State of Georgia’s valid subpoena. Consequently, the State of Georgia can refuse to accept Obama’s Hawai’i BC.
Without proof of birth in the US, Obama should be removed from Georgia’s ballot.
Reciprocity is a two way street.
Do tell HG. how “State of Hawai’i has surrendered the Full Faith and Credit Clause”
Apart from the simple fact that you’re a simpleton, states don’t get to “surrender” that which is in the Constitution, you may not be aware of this but there a bit of a scrap between the North and South a bit ago that settled that once and for all.
And Orly’s response on her site?
“I just arrived in HI and checked my e-mails. Deputy attorney general Nagamine represents a pinnacle of corruption of a governmental official. Not only she refuses to comply with the subpoena, but she claims that my demand for the original birth certificate is frivolous and that the judge should charge me the cost of all the hearings and deem me a vexatious litigant, not allowed to bring any more actions in HI without leave of court.
She completely disregarded the fact, that judge Malihi ordered Obama to stand trial on January 26 and prove his eligibility, that eligibility is the essence of the case and the birth certificate is the most important evidence . The level of corruption in the state of HI is unprecedented in human history. Don’t forget that the husband of this attorney is a family attorney for Obama’s family and he handled Obama’s sister’s divorce from her first husband.
I really hope that the judge will show integrity and will not be a part of this corrupt establishment. This remains to be seen.
All I know, that during Watergate a number of top governmental officials went to prison, among them attorney General of the U.S. and White House counsel. What Nagamine does is criminal, it is a violation of the civil rights of my clients and my civil rights under a color of authority. She is using a color of authority, her position as the deputy attorney general to cover up forgery, elections fraud, obstruct justice and on top of that she is harassing me and attempting to intimidate me under the color of authority.
This woman belongs in prison for what she is doing to me, to my clients and to the whole country.
She belongs in prison together with Obama and Fuddy and a number of others. This regime will not last forever. These people will be prosecuted. It remains to be seen on which side of history the judge will be: will the judge aid and abet this forgery and obstruct justice or will she uphold the law and the constitution and will fight crime in the White House and in the office of Attorney General of Hawaii.
You can see how much stress I have to withstand, you can see the financial threats that are applied towards me by corrupt officials of Obama regime. I was up from 4 am CA time It is 12:30 HI time or 2:30 am Ca time. It is nearly unbearable to withstand all of this stress of this criminal regime.”
There is no Full Faith and Credit Clause for subpoenas my dear friend. If Obama’s BC is not valid then for sure there is no reason to have it subpoena’ed anyway…
Of course, under FRE, a duly certified official document is admissible in the Court. Ouch…
Sorry my friend by subpoenas are not covered by the Full Faith and Credit clause. i am sure that when you read the clause, you will know why.
Furthermore, the subpoena is only valid in GA and since it came in a proceeding in an administrative tribunal, not a Court, and since it was never a court order, there is no reason for Hawaii to take the subpoena seriously. Furthermore, under HRS 338-18, Hawaii cannot release the document unless there exists a valid court order.
Similarly, under the rules of evidence, a duly certified COLB is admissible in the GA court system.
My oh my… So much ignorance.
I want to scream when she keeps stating that President Obama has been “ordered to stand trial” when it is an administrative hearing before an ALJ.
Further, it’s been clear from the get go that the subpoenas were invalid because Georgia doesn’t have subpoena power over Hawaii – not even in our civil procedure code do we have that power and it clearly states in the OSAH code that the subpoenas are valid “anywhere in Georgia.”
According to our civil procedure if I want to subpoena someone in a county in Georgia other than the one in which the case is pending for a deposition or for records, I have to get a court in the county in which the deponent resides to issue the subpoena. There is no recorse for out of state other than a direct order from a judge.
Yeah, go with that Sven. Be sure to advise clients and attorneys with your licensed and qualified expertise.
Then, let us know how that works out for you.
Georgia Code – Evidence – Title 24, Section 24-7-20
The certificate or attestation of any public officer, either of this state or any county thereof, shall give sufficient validity or authenticity to any copy or transcript of any record, document, paper of file, or other matter or thing in his respective office, or pertaining thereto, to admit the same in evidence.
Oops that’s for in-state documents
Georgia Code – Evidence – Title 24, Section 24-7-25
(a)(1) All nonjudicial records or books, or copies thereof, kept in any public office of any state, territory, or possession of the United States shall be proved or admitted in any court or office in this state by the attestation of the custodian of the records or books, and the seal of his office annexed, if there is a seal, together with a certificate of a judge of a court of record of the county, parish, or district in which such office may be kept, or a certificate of the governor, the secretary of state, the chancellor, or the keeper of the great seal of the state, territory, or possession that the attestation is in due form and by the proper officers.
(2) If the certificate is given by a judge, it shall be further authenticated by the clerk or prothonotary of the court, who shall certify under his hand and the seal of his office that the judge is duly commissioned and qualified; or, if given by the governor, secretary of state, chancellor, or keeper of the great seal, the certificate shall be under the great seal of the state, territory, or possession in which it is made.
(3) Such records or books, or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court and office within this state as they have by law or usage in the courts or offices of the state, territory, or possession from which they are taken.
(b) In lieu of the above, the nonjudicial records or books, or copies thereof, kept in any public office of any state, territory, or possession of the United States may also be proved or admitted in evidence in any court, tribunal, office, or agency in this state when certified under the hand and seal, if any, by the officer or other official having custody or possession of the original thereof and shall be given the same full faith and credit as provided in subsection (a) of this Code section.
“The level of corruption in the state of HI is unprecedented in human history.”
That should at least get her some sort of token Hysterical Hyperbole and Hubris Award.
Never mind. Stiff sanctions will do.
Earlier, you posted … “Sorry my friend by subpoenas are not covered by the Full Faith and Credit clause. i am sure that when you read the clause, you will know why.”
There are many here who think they know the law, but don’t. Much to the dismay of the good Doctor, I am not one of them.
Failure to provide Orly with the opportunity to inspect and copy records on file for a dispute over those records in the process of a legal proceeding reeks of corruption.
When were you planning to say something that is legally correct to demonstrate that you know the law? So far, you’re batting zero.
Yes, the rules of evidence have no relevance to the subpoena, surely you must understand the difference? You were arguing reciprocity and I showed that none exists. In fact, you have still not shown your familiarity with the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Surely you could look it up… What exactly does it say and does it include ‘subpoenas’?
That’s the best you can argue now? Even under the HRS 338-18 Orly fails to have the right to inspect as only a valid court order, not to be confused with a subpoena from a Georgia State Administrative Tribunal.
I agree, so far the arguments have been quite poorly supported. I suggest he first shows us an understanding of the Full Faith and Credit clause, then shows understanding of the difference between a subpoena and the relevance of the GA rules of evidence.
Whelp, we just got another blog hijacker.
“This woman belongs in prison for what she is doing to me, to my clients and to the whole country.”
Interesting bit of projection.
Why don’t you go away? You’ll get nothing but abuse here for spouting nonsense like that.
For starters, Georgia hasn’t subpoenaed anything. Orly Taitz filled out a blank form she got off the state web site. Second, Georgia law says that the subpoena isn’t valid outside Georgia. Third, Taitz hasn’t even bothered serving her invalid subpoena. And finally, the subpoena asks for discovery beyond what Georgia law allows for administrative proceedings.
Hawaii isn’t corrupt; Taitz is incompetent. And you’re an idiot.
I hate to have to play catch-up … but where did the “valid” GA supoena come from? I recall seeing a do-it-yourself, pre-signed subpoena apparently generated from the court’s website … Orly whipped one up and addressed it to Obama, another at Hawaii demanding records. Are these the “valid” subpoenas we’re talking about? Good luck enforcing those in court. If those are valid, I’m gonna draw a picture of a $100 million bill and take it to the bank right now!
But seriously, if there was another subpoena sent from an actual officer of a court in GA, I’d like to know.
Hermano means “brother” in Spanish. It is not used as a first name, anymore than “Brother” is in English. And isn’t pretending to be a lawyer against the law?
No, there is no other one.
It’s the pre-signed do-it-yourself online form you described.
Yes, *that* is what Orly keeps pretending is a “valid” supoena…
That woman is seriously mentally ill…
Thanks, G & Doc., for confirming! No one had called ‘Ermano on his attempt to slip in “valid” and I had to do a double-take!
Well, Hermano, let’s see what the Full Faith and Credit clause says, shall we?
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescrie the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
Let’s take a look at this “subpoena”.
Is it an Act? No.
Is it a public record? No, certainly not.
Is it a judicial proceeding or judgment? No.
So doesn’t look like the clause applies at all. Sorry, you lose.
Now how about the birth certificate…
Is it an Act? No.
Is it a public record? Yes.
So we move to the second sentence. Has Congress set national standards for birth certificates such that they can be considered “proved”? Yes they have. Does the certificate release by Hawaii meet those standards? Yes it does. does Congress describe the effect of such a record if it meets those standards? Yes it has, and the effect is that it is accepted as a legitimate document proving the fact of birth.
So no, Hawaii doesn’t have to accept the Georgia subpoena (although they could pass laws that state they would, many states have not), but that does not affect the fact that Georgia must still accept the birth certificate.
Hermano isn’t pretending to be a lawyer. He’s pretending to be an idiot, and doing a damned good job of it.
Bravo! Well done!
Hermano is just Sven’s latest sock-puppet, right?
Since when is Sven a lawyer?
That link has also now been disabled by the Office of Administrative Hearings. Orly’s abuse has resulted in no other attorney being able to access a subpoena form.
http://www.osah.ga.gov/
*sigh* Abuse by idiots always ends up spoiling things for others…
Well you are free to sugggest that, NBC, but I think you will be sorely disappointed. You see, HG, Esq. is a birther. This means that in his world, President Obama is really named President Malcolm X Jr. and he was born in Kenya and his grandfather is really his father (never mind the Malcolm X Jr. name…that’s just to muddy the waters).
Also, he has a scar on his head where a chip has been put there allowing him to be able to monitor our innermost thoughts AND he’s from Mars.
So, as for your suggestion, I’m sorry………
tee hee
It may be just temporary. If it was me, I would setup authentication for download to only those who need it.
It sounds like there was abuse of too many downloads, and possibly incorrect subpoenas based off this.
There’s a big difference between an INVALID “subpoena” and a VALID Birth Certificate.
The link was disabled day before yesterday and is still not accessible. They may have done what most other courts here in Georgia do, you send the subpoena to the clerk and pay to have it signed and sometimes you get denied.
Thanks for doing our friend’s homework, showing once again that it is not that hard either.
When you add esq after your name, you are claiming to be a lawyer. Or the reader of a men’s magazine (not one of THOSE men’s magazines).
Hermano won the lawsuit? Dang, I was hoping my ticket was a winner. Hey, another fun illustration! Checking the same lottery ticket every week, expecting different results.
Or your name is “Bill S. Preston, Esquire”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrGWooNDPiE
Be excellent to each other.
Ah yes! “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure” – a classic!
Also, another example of Napoleon being a recognizable go-to historical figure by American culture.
I wonder if Lupin ever saw that movie from us and what he thought of the Napolean / french treatment in this comedy…
I don’t think what’s she’s asking for in her off the wall subpoena even meets those standards. The original document requested doesn’t even have any of the features that make up a certified birth certificate that would be admissable as evidence of birth in a court proceeding, such as an official seal of some sort, or a certification mark attesting to the authenticity.
And what the heck is she doing asking for the entire microfiche roll? So she wants some fishing expedition so that she can look up all the random birth certificates filed in that timeframe for some kind of dirt? By the way, is there even such a thing as a “microfiche roll”? I remember using microfilm at the public library, and those were in roll format. Microfiche comes in flat sheets.
Arrgh! I really nead to be more careful when just zapping off a quick comment. Obviously, I didn’t meant to write “Napolean” and meant Napoleon, as in Bonaparte and not Dynamite either…. Sorry for the typo. 😉
Good catch! Betrays Orly’s unfamiliarity with real libraries? Shocking. She makes it too easy. She’s been watching too many melodramatic movies. In which spooked teens frantically roll from page to page of the local paper’s archives at the public library, looking for the history of a crazed killer or a creepy old house. It’s always microfilm in the movies.
On the contrary Doc, no way is he just ‘pretending’ to be an idiot.
And Old Man Withers is always behind it too…and would have gotten away with it, if it wasn’t for those darned kids and their dog… 😉
So yeah, I think melodramatic movie sources are even too much credit for Orly’s “fanciful” notions.
Cartoon capers seem more appropriate, on a whole host of levels…
On a serious note, if a court were to somehow grant an actual court order authored and signed by a judge for such an entire roll of vital records microfilm, would anyone else with a certificate image on the roll (or their families) have cause to have the order blocked? I’m assuming it would be a court order that would be subject to Full Faith and Credit, such as in a child custody dispute where they might need the record to establish the age of the child. Or perhaps the judge is “going rogue”. If I found out that my totally unrelated Hawaii birth record might be released without my consent, I might just seek an injunction blocking the court order unless it were narrowed down. However, I wouldn’t think that a typical court order would ask for anything more than a certified copy.
I know with the California Public Records Act, there are limitations even with public records. Someone can only inspect the originals if they are deemed not to contain information that is otherwise protected. California birth and death records are considered public, and most people file public marriage licenses. I’ve seen the certified informational copies of Michael Jackson’s death certificate, and it’s been redacted for information like social security numbers. Marriage licenses might contain certain private information like the addresses and phone numbers of the bride/groom as well as the addresses and phone numbers of the witnesses. However, I do remember the Jon Hunstman birth certificate copy, which had the contemporary form which included the mother’s address, and San Mateo County didn’t redact that. Probably doesn’t matter since they’ve long since moved.
http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0707_mj_deceased_wm.pdf
As far as PDFs go, it’s pretty clear what parts were redacted by the county office and what parts were blacked out by TMZ. There are other versions of this out on the internet, and some of them show everything that wasn’t redacted by the county.
Nobody’s even seen that nor had such a paper form in hand….even its actual presentation in its original form (a first), with the former HI DOH official’s public description of it after seeing it as being half written and half typed, will be rather difficult to square with the latter in realville. So bring it on. Its examination alone will be a showtime to remember.
Orly’s response, as posted by thisoldhippie, shows a new level of frustration, denial, accusation and threats. I believe she is perilously close to a breakdown of epic proportions.
Will she go over the edge for keeps when she realizes there is no “trial” for Obama happening on Jan. 26th?
Sven (Hermano) has a ritual of coming up with off the wall theories that never go anywhere but he will hold on to them for dear life until he’s squeezed every possible bit of life out of them, then he retreats for a while and comes up with the next outrageous, easy to shoot down theory.
I’ll give him a point for originality, most birthers just recycle the same old tired theories. The newest-old one that is in heavy rotation at the moment is back to Minor v Happersett as “binding precedent” one more time!
The GA ruling at least demonstrates the necessity for proving eligibility to get on the ballot. So, without the outside verification Mr. Obama himself will have to provide the evidence and I doubt if a website referral to see some kind of electronic and accused alleged photoshop version of said “proof” will fly. The “experts” will speak to it and the doubts will be tickled once again.
Wrong. Do try to keep up with reality.
Is antiquatedtwinkie another new sock-puppet?
IANAL, but wouldn’t a court just request images from the film? Y’know, cetrified copies? How, conceptually, is the film different from the copy? An image is an image. Unless you want to discuss generations and degradation. The only thing better than a cert. copy is the original itself. Asking for one kid of copy over another is pointless, unless some aspect of the case concerns the nature of the copy itself…like perhaps the microfiche had been altered. But Orly didn’t say as much, has no sane reason to expect as much, other than wild birther speculation. Probably had her fishing pole in hand while typing that one up!
photoshop? a new level of ignorance has been expressed.
BTW, there are other factors involved in said verification of eligibility….like the proven Obama use of a SSN that govt’s own verify site has objectively replied with a non-match. Hmmmm…..Beyond the purposefully hidden birth documents, such a more recent acknowledgement of non-verification of current citizenship ID calls for answers as to ANY type of current citizenship.
I would really love to see the HI AG file suit against Orly for libel and slander with that rant.
Au contraire mon frere.
NBC White House correspondent Savannah Guthrie claims to have seen and touched the certified copy. She even took a couple of photos with her camera phone:
http://lockerz.com/s/96540937
http://lockerz.com/s/96540721
BTW – What you’re getting at was a paraphrase by the MSNBC reporter Michael Isakoff, who interviewed former Heath Director Fukino. There’s no evidence that she actually said “half typed and half handwritten”, or otherwise that would have been noted in quotation marks.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-more_politics/t/ex-hawaii-official-denounces-ludicrous-birther-claims/
Before she would do so, Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records. She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files. She then put out a public statement asserting to the document’s validity. She later put out another public statement in July 2009 — after reviewing the original birth record a second time.
I thought she was going to move for sanctions based on the “traitor” incident from the last hearing?
Perhaps that was just more fuel behind the latest motion to shut her down completely.
Sure they have. FactCheck took multiple pictures – from the front, and side, showing it folded, showing it had three dimensions – of the COLB, including those that showed it clearly had a Hawaiian certification seal on it.
Likewise, multiple reporters said they saw the form at the press conference at which the LFBC was released. The Hawaii Dept. of Health has a webpage about it attesting to the authenticity of the paper document released, and they link to the White House page. Even WND’s White House reporter saw it and said he was convinced (which pretty much led him to be dropped by WND – gotta tow the line!).
The original will never get released, original documents are never made available. What a court would get, were one to request, is a certified copy, which is exactly what we’ve all seen pictures of. A certified copy they’d accept without question, and which none of the birther experts would be allowed to even testify about (as none are qualified document experts).
“he may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don’t let that fool you. he really is an idiot.”
— groucho marx (“duck soup”)
You’re kidding right? Besides the fact that his SSN has been disclosed publicly and he could have easily had it invalidated with a replacement SSN. Besides the numerous reports of people who have had their Self-Check or E-Verify checks come back as non-matching for reasons including a misspelled name or the wrong variation on a middle name. Besides the fact that the Self-Check system was used contrary to government regulations that only allow the person with that SSN to run one’s own SSN through the system.
The government has specifically noted that an E-Verify first pass is not adequate to make a final determination. They make note that there may be tentative non-confimations that may need human intervention to adjudicate final eligibility. A human being can check for little things such as name misspellings or perhaps entry mistakes.
If the original were to ever leave the Hawaii Dept of Health offices or were somehow transported except for perhaps a carefully orchestrated move to another building, would it be a violation of the chain of custody?
As far as certified copies go, my kid’s California birth certificate can be ordered from the city, the county, and the state. Each one has issued a slightly different looking copy based on little scanning pixelation artifacts. The original is on file in a building in Sacramento and will almost certainly never be pulled out again unless there’s some sort of rescan ordered by the state. We’re living in an era where signed photocopies, FAXes, and electronic copies are considered as legally binding as the original.
Progress is in on the conspiracy, too.
You must have graduated from the same online law school as Ms. Taitz to believe this.
But the DOH has verified the birth on US soil… Now what… All it takes is Obama to show the COLB or the Long Form, both of which are properly certified and it’s over.
Agreed. Either document (COLB or Long Form) is End-Of-Story right there. FFAC & prima facie right there. Nothing more is needed.
The Long Form was never even necessary, as the COLB 100% satisfies that requirement, as it is the only current official HI document for such info. Merely showing a certified paper copy of the COLB makes this an open and shut case right there. The only reason we are even mentioning the Long Form in this scenario is because, due to the exception that Obama was granted, 2 official certified paper copies of that were issued to him by HI as well. Therefore, they ALL serve the exact same purpose and are equivalent for those purposes. Only one or the other is needed, not both.
However, it is even more important to point out that this case doesn’t even require that level of proof to be put forward in order to fully satisfy the burden of the law that he’s legit.
All the DNC has to do is produce a signed application that states the candiate attests to the truth of the information contained on the application and that he meets all the required qualifications for that office.
Therefore, Obama’s signature attesting to that ,on an official DNC application with such wording, would be sufficient and stand on its own merit as satisfying the burden of proof threshold required under law.
To start with, just what cave have you been living in in recent years? Did the darkness cause an inability to see the light or…at least read it?
We’re waiting for your tutorial re: the many intricacies publicly questioned and noted re: the many forms so “transparently” submitted for distant public scrutiny. Now, if you really want to get into the weeds, well, you brought it up….begin here:
We could begin, in the order of the law and its place for a search for truth for the public’s sake:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/02/notre-dame-professor-charles-rice.html
Charles E. Rice, professor emeritus at Notre Dame Law School …. that it’s time for a new approach on the eligibility issue.
…On the other hand, it is fair to say that the Obama controversy involves significant issues of fact and law that deserve some sort of official resolution.
I suggest no conclusion as to whether Obama is eligible or not. But the citizens whom the media and political pundits dismiss as “birthers” have raised legitimate questions. That legitimacy is fueled by Obama’s curious, even bizarre, refusal to consent to the release of the relevant records. Perhaps there is nothing to the issues raised. Or perhaps there is. This is potentially serious business. If it turns out that Obama knew he was ineligible when he campaigned and when he took the oath as President, it could be the biggest political fraud in the history of the world. As long as Obama refuses to disclose the records, speculation will grow and grow without any necessary relation to the truth. The first step toward resolving the issue is full discovery and disclosure of the facts.
Then follow with, (re: photoshopping)….at least one could have tried to find a good forger!!: (contains the explanation of the OCR objections):
http://www.archive.org/details/WashingtonTimes-NewlyReleasedObamaBirthCertificateForgery
Ooh…so much secrecy and sooo many unanswered specifics by the sooo “transparent” public servant: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/04/busted-white-house-now-claims-they.html
The convenient evolving HI “rules” (differing as they are within their own departments themselves) for what is and what isn’t presented to individuals, the framing of which changes according to inquiries:
http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/COLBHawaii.htm
To ease your taxing brain efforts you can just scroll down and begin here:
Hawaii Changes The Rules
http://theobamafile.com/_eligibility/EvolvingBirthDocument.htm
How Many Does Obama Have?
By my count, we are up to nine Obama BCs.
1. The one Obama said he had in “Dreams…”
2. Version 1.0
3. Version 2.0
4. The .pdf the White House put up on its website
5. The one they handed out at the press conference
6. The monochromatic birth certificate
7. The Kenya birth certificate
8. The Blaine birth certificate
9. And on April 27, 2011 the bogus “long form” birth certificate was released.
How long will it be before we hit an even dozen?
I would say then that the level of ignorance here is related to the apparent real lack of curiosity on the level of promised “transparency” not forthcoming from your “man”. Your protection and water carrying is rather a sham re: any intelligent approach to truth.
Oh so many neglected facts, so little time, and so little adjacent brain cells to work with in the “emperor’s” clothers!!!
And just for the icing on the cake….the other matters for eligibility hearings: fraudulent SSN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGqr8aPtFww
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/tag/connecticut/
Federal Govt’s E-Verify Shows Obama’s Social Security No. is Fraudulent
Perhaps Big Sis doubts her own govt’s verification sites?
Citing birther blogs is a clear sign of sheer stupidity.
I was going to say mental illness but that’s going too far. Let a professional decide that.
Your posts are steaming piles of crap as facts and history and the future will show.
Not that it matters telling you, of course.
Birther on in your ignorant bliss.
G January 13, 2012 at 6:09 pm G(Quote) # Agreed. Either document (COLB or Long Form) is End-Of-Story right there. FFAC & prima facie right there. Nothing more is needed.
The so called personal verification of publicly displayed COLB is already out there and has been for some time….accepted in many hearings but apparently not enough for this judge. Since the judge maintains the public’s right to know that right apparently has been satisfied in your mind. So why the permission for further verification? Why not the parroting of approved response….”he has shown his COLB”???
These birther trolls really do reek of pathetic desperation with every asinine post.
They need a new act.
Promise that you’ll return here to crow when the Georgia hearing decision is announced?
Please? Swear it. Please. Please. Please.
Your bias even fogs the mind for the facts presented? They are verified in sooo many reliable sites that back up with the actual evidence as sited here, only summed up there for your limited energy….your search engine broken or something? I personally enjoy facts over emotional habits of biased generalizations. If you have time to repeat the excuses for not learning you can easily compare, for quality sake, the experts with the bad forgers and the obfuscating HI “officials”. Then again, clothing the naked….in this case not a corporal work of mercy….is a hard habit to quit.
*yawn*
Seriously, your whole “evidence” relies on mere innuendo-based Concern Trolling whining from Birther Charles Rice and the deulsional nonsense posted over at obsessed wack-job site, ORYR?
LMAO!!! Wow, you are about as gullible as they come! You’re so full of debunked nonsense that I can only chuckle. Good luck with your imaginary world and bogeyman! Remember to check your closets and underneath your bed every night…!
We see delusional clowns like you try to come here all the time. Although it provides some mild entertainment, we really wish you would get some new material instead of trotting out the same long-debunked and dead myths and utterly disreputable sources all the time.
Sorry, but you’ve got to do better than that these days. At least the guys claiming they travelled through time and space and went to Mars with Obama were coming up with new and more entertaining material…
antiquatedtwinkie:
Back to the Alzheimer’s unit, old timer; your cream is leaking.
Don’t be so emotional. We hardly know each other. Really! You ought to have enough self pride to hide your desperation. It’s rather embarrassing for your side….to hope that the discovery of facts continues to be hidden. Figures. But doesn’t speak well to any erudite explanation of the evident declaration even if unconsciously done by the govt’s own sites.
FAIL.
All of these frivolous Birther cases were tossed out so early in the process that very few of them even resulted in defense teams getting involved. In the few where they did, it was simply to issue basic requests to dismiss the case, because they lacked any merit or right to be there in the first place.
NONE have required evidence to be submitted by the defense in order to dismiss them.
So NO – we have yet to see a single instance where the COLB was introduced into the case.
If and when that ever becomes necessary, they aren’t going to provide some “internet image”, they will do what everyone does when they provide authentication – produce the actual certifield paper copy of that document and it is END OF STORY right there.
You simply fail to grasp the basic no-brainer of what the judge said – that there is a right to verify PERIOD. The actual COLB or even a mere signed statement ATTESTING that the information on the application is true is sufficient on its own.
You wrongly add the word “further” into the equation, when you mistakingly state “further verification”. That would imply that that a process of initial judicial verification ever took place in the first place. It hasn’t. That is simply all the judge is saying that there is a right to do – verify, PERIOD.
Once the very basic minimum requirements of legal verification are stated (as I already explained), that is END OF STORY right there. No “further verification” even comes into the equation. Nor did the judge ever imply that.
The rules apply equally for all. Your “show us your papers boy” mentality of demanding only “certain” types of people to satisfy additional burdens of proof of who they are, beyond what everyone else has to, is simply unlawful and sheer bigotry. Bigots might think that way, but the courts aren’t going to go down that unlawful path. At least not here in the 21st century.
Promise that you’ll return here to crow when the Georgia hearing decision is announced?
You do want to prove you knew the truth and you’re not just an idiotic birther bigot and liar, right?
As a humorous note for Antiquated Twinkie, Hostess, the maker of Twinkies is currently seeking bankruptcy protection.
No, I’m going with you’re completely full of crap.
“All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.”
– Reagan appointed and conservative US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (retired)
There’s a fact to put in your bigot bucket, Krusty.
Once a document is submitted and certified there is really no reason to look at the original document unless there are real reasons to suspect that the original itself has been manipulated. But of course, there is no credible cause for a Judge to go down such a foolish path.
So far haven’t seen all your refuting facts….just knee jerk responses from apparently experienced knowledge of the institutions and professionals (since you brought them up)so easily brought into the otherwise fact supplied responses. But then, the proverbial suicidal lemmings don’t know where they’re headed. They’d rather rely simply on “promises”….how have those “promises” of “transparency”….”hope”….and the “change” so innocently expected actually concluded in our present conditions? That old Democratic question lurks behind the scenery….”are you better today than you were 4 years ago”?? I guess that depends with the criteria used….comparing with the worlds of Chavez, Castro, or even Odingo….perhaps still so…but I wouldn’t hold your collective breaths if your little unverified world is allowed to continue!
FAIL.
Sorry, Just because the same fictional nonsense is parroted around in the social circles that swim in the same sewers of paranoia, fear and hate is utterly irrelevant and does lend them “credibility” by quantity alone.
Sorry, but quality, not quantity matters here. In terms of quality, I’m referring to having legitimacy and being based in facts and evidence and not just a swirl of meaningless speculation, innuendo and outright lies.
That’s all your sites are. They are simply NOT reliable and do not contain anything that qualifies as *real* evidence or facts, whatsoever at all.
So, hey, good to know that you’re so gullible that a mere online circle-jerk of the same damaged people repeating the same delusional nonsense impresses you….
Sorry, but you and your sites are all a bad joke. None of these clowns are “experts” in any real sense of what that would mean in context of the subjects they spout blowhard kook nonsense about. None of them would meet the basic threshold to appear in that capacity in any court of the land. None of the Birther claims match up to reality or law at all.
Sorry, but you’re just a bunch of hate-obsessed nuts getting your stroke-off fix from each other and playing fantasy pretend games. That’s all.
And that is why you so predictably and miserably fail every time you try to push this nonsense in a real world setting or court.
Too bad you still can’t see the obvious smack-down the courts will be handing down in all these cases. Such a shame that while all of us will knowingly be able to laugh at the entertainment, you folks are too blind and stupid to see it coming.
Sorry, but no-one here is going to shed any tears for you at being *shocked* when the ruling turns out exactly as we warned you about and tried to explain to you all along…
Sorry that you can’t handle being simply mocked and laughed at.
Simple advice: If you don’t want to be ridiculed, don’t act ridiculous…
Simple as that. No one else is to blame except yourself for coming across as a foolish clown.
Sure. Besides the fact that there’s doubt about whether or not a subpoena is a judgement or ruling per se subject to full faith and creidt. I understand that typically the parties receive a blank form with a reproduction of a judge’s signature, it gets filled out, and the clerk stamps it. More than likely the judge never saw it and never got to rule on whether the request was relevant or just a fishing expedition.
The one thing I’ve noticed is that subpoenas are way too easy to file, and way too easy to quash. If something absolutely outrageous is asked for, there’s nothing to prevent the clerk from just seeing if it meets their format requirements and stamping it. I’ve heard of attorneys sanctioned for issuing subpoenas asking for irrelevant documents where they were simply trying to inconvienience defendants and perhaps frustrate them. Or asking for documents that are protected by state or federal laws.
I’d like to see Orly just try and try to subpoena the President’s educational transcripts, just to see her declare success that she managed to file a subpoena, but only to find that it’s not legally enforceable.
I doubt it.
That does not mean that they do not exist, it merely means that you are not allowing yourself to see them. Fine with me.
*yawn*
Hello… learn to read. This site already has addressed all these topics and debunked them. Those articles and links are all here, for your viewing and anyone else’s to find.
Everything you’ve brought up is all very old news and there isn’t even a wrinkle of anything new in what you say. So there is no point in covering ground well traversed, when it is all right here.
There is a search button, an FAQ, tags to categorize topics and even a Handy Debunkers Guide.
There is simply no excuse for you to be too lazy to look up the answers that are already here.
Oh and “Chavez, Castro, or even Odingo….”… WTF?? Seriously? What does that have to do with anything at all? LMAO! Boy, you really have a bunch of bogeyman fears that haunt your every steps, don’t you?
Watch out, the black helicopters and the Illuminati are on to you as well! They monitor this site and know where to find you and wisk you away to the waiting FEMA camps..!
LOL!
Is this one of the possibly eight to ten paid (?) birthers again? I mean, it seems to be unusually common among birthers to spell “cite” as “site” (along with “marshall law” and “duel citizen”). Always strikes me when I read it.
The reality is that Judge Malihi is not said anything about what, if any, evidence of eligibility he will require of President Obama. The only ruling that the judge has made is that the plaintiffs have the right to have their challenge heard.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Farrar-Motion-to-dismiss-by-Obama-is-denied.pdf
I expect that, as with any other civil case, the burden will be on the plaintiffs to make a prima facie case that Obama is not a natural born citizen. How they plan to do that is a mystery to me. They have no admissible evidence that Obama was not born in Hawaii. Likewise, there is no admissible evidence of Social Security fraud – and even if there were such evidence, the “issue” is a red herring because someone could have 100 Social Security Numbers and still be a natural born citizen (unless some birther can show me where the Constitution says that a natural born citizen must have one and only one Social Security Number).
That said, it would not surprise me if Obama’s lawyer shows up with a COLB from Hawaii, presents that to Judge Malihi and the challenges are then dismissed.
Really?
Well, that surprises me. The only BIrther we’ve ever come across spouting that same line of reasoning to date has been Sven and his endless Socks.
…So, either he’s finally acquired an acolyte… or he’s simply got a new IP address to go with his new Sock…
That’s my theory. Is there anything you can tell us about what leads you to suspect that this is actually someone other than Sven?
Okay, I’ll bite. What sites do you consider reliable and why?
The original certified form was shown at the White House press conference where NBC News correspondent Savannah Guthrie saw it and “felt the raised seal.”
Your comment is just a birther rumor not to be confused with the real world.
No. This one appears to be new.
Got Romney’s birth certificate? Gingrich’s? Paul’s? Colbert’s?
Interestingly, while many of my anti-birther postings make it through her moderation, those referring to her glaring legal errors never do.
If I were a birther, I’d be very suspicious she’s really on the same team.
If they didn’t sue Ron Polland for that YouTube video he made (calling several state employees criminals), then they probably won’t sue anyone.
Color me surprised as well. When I saw that “unaccompanied minor” line, I figured it had to be Sven.
Do you know of any besides Guthrie?
I honestly can’t say what I’d prefer:
(1) Malihi denies plaintiff’s motion because they can’t bring an argument supported by admissible evidence
(2) Malihi accepts a sworn statement from Obama attesting to his eligibility
(3) Malihi accepts a certified copy of the COLB
But since #1 would mean for the 99th time birthers would scream “we never get a ruling on the merits” (they will easily spin it as such since the judge “never heard our experts”), #2 would mean for the 54th time birthers would scream “he’s lying, the judge allows him to get away with it”, maybe I’d settle for #3. Though that would probably spoil the fun of more birther lawsuits since there would be precedent both legally (within the same circuit, I suppose no court would entertain any more challenges) and procedurally (Obama would just submit a COLB in any first case in every circuit, creating above precedent).
And if court cases are virtually dead and gone as an avenue, what more fun can we have? It’s not like they’ll suddenly get triple figures for their rallies. And I can’t stand the issue being confined to crank blogs where people keep writing “any day now”. 😉
How silly….when all you have to do is ask….as your compadres did with McCain and congress pronounced their anointing to somehow try to satisfy the question closed with their buddy (without the need for the constitution)…who, btw, did not get anything similar in vetting at the time. How nice. But how stupid and how obvious….and….transparent!! But, now, equal treatment from your side….you’ll have to demonstrate, when bringing up the question with the others, you are willing to do the same for your own unvetted as yet hero. You might not want to focus in that direction again if you wish to continue the theatrics.
Obama released his birth certificate in 2008. Prof Rice is clearly detached from reality. No responsible academic would use the assumption of guilt from the absence of a record.
I wrote about Rice in March of 2011, pointing out that his writing is partisan and not academic. The telling fact about Rice is that he served for eight years as State Vice-Chairman of the New York State Conservative Party.
Promise that you’ll return here to crow when the Georgia hearing decision is announced?
You do want to prove you knew the truth and you’re not just an idiotic birther bigot, liar or a coward, right?
Are you afraid?
thisoldhippie: I would really love to see the HI AG file suit against Orly for libel and slander with that rant.
============================
I would too….that would certainly open a kettle of smelly HI fish that has so far been without scrutiny, outside of desperate threats. There would also have to be a list of recusals to be taken care of first.
Can you come up with any president (or presidential candidate) who released their birth certificate (before the election–even before the birthers crawled out from under their rock) besides President Obama? I didn’t think so.
I did. Where are they? Come on Mitt, Newt, Ron and yes you, Steven, if you run. Show us. And I never saw McCain’s, not that it matters now. The ONLY one I’ve seen is Obama’s. The only one.
Once again specifics please. And get over your emotional tantrums as your excuse for some kind of rebut? Then again they might play here when you sing the same old worn out cliche verses to the usual choir. BORRRRRING!
There is nothing in the eVerify response that says “fraudulent.” There are a limited number of response codes in eVerify — none of which say anything about fraud.
Details here:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/03/more-social-security-troubles-for-the-president
So far, he’s cited ORYR of all places… *rolls eyes*
…and birther Charles Rice.
You said I could have the other candidates birth certificates if I asked. I’m asking, Where are they?
I thought even WND’s elderly “White House Press” flunkie admitted he saw it. Hence why we haven’t heard much from him since…
Do you have a list, or is that just rhetoric?
To further clarify, yes, we do know that all the reporters at that press conference saw the event, heard the explanation and were issued their packets of materials and that the 2 official copies were present in that room.
I’m not going to fault any of them for simply being sufficiently satisfied right there, but if they weren’t or wanted to see/touch it, they certainly had their chance and opportunity to do so, same as Guthrie.
I’m not sure what your muddled comment means, but insofar as it is a claim that John McCain released his birth certificate, that is false.
World Net Daily White House Correspondent Les Kinsolving who was satisfied with the long form presented at the White House briefing.
You’re kidding, right?
Unusually bad quality of birther troll these days.
Whatever happened to “NC1”? At least she wasn’t a drooler.
Sven’s IP address was in the southeastern US and antiquatedtwinkie is from the northeast. While you can’t see it, Sven always used the same email address (well two), whatever his sock puppet name was.
How do you know that the two official copies were present in the room? I’m pressing this question because it would be great if such a claim could be sourced but I do not have a source for it.
Guthrie said that she saw the form, but not when or where.
I listened to the Kinsolving interview and I do not recall him saying that he had seen the original certified copy. I think that he probably did, but my thinking so doesn’t constitute a verifiable fact.
LOL!
Wow, you really know how to simply twist reality into all sorts of knots in order to conform with your confirmation bias needs, don’t you?
1. SR 511 was done in *support* of McCain, by all sides of the aisle. It is exactly the *opposite* response to what you Birthers are trying to pull: In that situation, everyone was leaping to support him and argue he deserves all benefit of doubt in order to put the entire line of questioning on this topic out of reasonble bounds for him. Birthers however, do the opposite and refuse to give any benefit of the doubt or accept the full volume of evidence for Obama’s NBC status at hand. Birtherism is nothing but an endless line of ever-increasing levels of demand for “more proof” and is the polar opposite to being satisfied right off the bat.
2. Further and more importantly, McCain did NOT have to provide anyone with his BC in this situation. NOR did he ever release it to the public. One reporter stated that he had briefly and privately been shown McCain’s records, but that’s it. No BC FROM McCain or his campaing posted online – NADA. Zip. Zilch.
3. McCain’s situation is truly different and unusual, as even Constitutional scholars had long pointed out – UNLIKE everyone else, McCain was NOT born on US Soil, and therefore, the question of parentage for him does come into play – and ONLY for that reason.
4. Obama, being born on US soil (Honolulu, HI) is an open and shut case. There are no serious questions in any serious circles about someone who is BORN here being NBC. That simply does it right there.
5. Hint: Why do you think there has been such concern in some circles for decades about “anchor babies” – i.e. people with NO citizen parent whatsoever at all who happen to be born on US soil. The whole issue is that it makes deportation difficult, because those “anchor babies” ARE NBC by birth here and therefore, while the parents can be deported, the child’s citizenship comes from the USA. People who are unhappy about it would have to go about getting a Constitutional Amendment to change this. Simple as that. Born on US soil = NBC. It is not the ONLY condition under where one is NBC in this country, but it is the easiest and most straitforward one and requires nothing else. Parentage does not come into that part of the equation.
This is what I recall . . .
Although it has been a few weeks since President Obama released his long-form birth certificate, it has taken some time to catch up with World Net Daily White House Correspondent Les Kinsolving to get his reaction. Les has been a consistent questioner of the President’s birthplace, but faced with the evidence, Les says the release of the long-form puts the issue to rest for him…for the most part.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/world-net-dailys-les-kinsolving-reacts-to-release-of-president-obamas-birth-certificate/
Actually, the one I thought was Sven was Hermano Gonzels.
I have noticed that while Orly Taitz was quick to post her feelings this morning when she opened her email she has been completely silent on her site since the hearing ended. Wonder how she will spin today’s results.
I wouldn’t call your list of “trash Obama at all costs” web sites “reliable”. Of course I’ve written over 1,700 articles here and presented quite a bit of research, and tracked down most of the birther claims (except some of the wilder or more disgusting ones) and they all fizzle in the end. This fact is why the major media outlets have nothing but derision for the birthers. This is why Republican Senator Lindsey Graham called the birthers “crazy.” Smart guy, Senator Graham.
And S. Res. 511 was a non-binding resolution. It’s the Senate’s opinion on the issue.
And a fact birthers conveniently ignore.
The hearing hasn’t started, or rather it stated just this minute (3:30 Honolulu time, 8:30 Eastern).
??? We’ve already given you specifics on this.
Learn to read. It is very clear in this topic and commentary what we’ve said will happen in these cases – including exploring a full range of options for what the defense might provide (COLB, LFBC or even just a signed affidafit), should this case actually get that far – and the arguments have also been presented for why it might be dismissed before ever even getting to that stage.
We’ve further been very clear on stating that will be the end of the case and satisfy the legal thresholds.
So, how much clearer can we be – Birthers FAIL on this, as they have in 100% of their cases so far. We’ve not only told you the outcome, we’ve broken down all the main possible avenues of activity that might take place leading up to that DISMISSAL.
YOU seem to think these cases will accomplish something – we’re simply scoffing at you on that and explaining to you why all they will end up with is DISMISSAL and FAILURE, just as all the other failed attempts before them.
You seem to be trying to have a conversation and argument with yourself, which is detatched from the reality of what has taken place on here so far. Your odd reaction is completely disconnected with the responses you’ve faced here so far.
All I can conclude is that you are obviously resorting to mere PROJECTION. Again, nothing we’re surprised to see by you clowns here either. It seems to be a fairly common affliction and insecurity defense tactic amongst you Birthers.
Oh, sorry. Yes, it’s Sven. Sharp eye.
Dr. C – I think you are getting your trolls confused.
I wasn’t talking about “antiquatedtwinkie”, who just arrived recently and has not been presenting himself as a lawyer via “Esq”
I was talking about “Hermano Gonzales, Esq.:”, who was the topic of discussion and inquiry at the time.
Again, can you clarify that “Hermano” is not one of Sven’s sockpuppets?
You’ll have to excuse us. Birthers have been coming here for three years dumping the same crap and we got tired of writing informative and reasoned responses over and over long ago. However, if you had actually come up with something not long debunked, I would take it seriously. However, I won’t debate a web site. If you can’t write your own argument, don’t expect me or anyone else here to do so.
For the things already covered, you may consult the Debunker’s Guide to Obama Conspiracy Theories so you won’t tread the same well-worn ground.
http://obamaconspiracy.org/debunk
Hermano is Sven.
I’ll have to find time to pull up the tape of the actual interview to see.
In that public press speech, Obama explained pretty much the same info as what was also provided, discussed and released in the press packet copies and then posted online.
That included a official letter from the HI authorities, which detailed the entire chain of events leading to them authorizing his exception request and also specifically stating the full process and chain of custody the followed in honoring his request and also specificallys stating exactly what they were issuing to him in return – (2) certified “LFBC” paper copies along with that very official “chain of custody and explanation letter” itself.
I will have to rewatch the tape to see if it looks like he indicates or shows that he has what they gave to him there.
Regardless, HI then came out with an additional statement on their own DOH website, validating and confirming Obama’s press statements and what they gave to him.
Why does he continue to hide behind new sock puppets?
Nevermind, I understand, his arguments are so outrageous…
They’re not even making good use of their sock puppets, rather, they are merely pen names, used in an attempt to temporarily regain credibility lost. A brilliant puppetmaster can really tear up a discussion, sow some serious confusion. Their capabilities aren’t above the level of their drivel.
Actually it started a little after 10:30. Mike has the blow by blow over at Fogbow.
If you want Orly’s side, it’s here at the P&E:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/13/breaking-orly-taitz-reports-on-january-13-hearing-in-hawaii/
She actually asked for (and received, apparently) donations to replace her lost laptop.
There are four issues involved in ‘said verification of eligibility’: NBC, age, residence, term limits. The Birth Certificate proves the first two, common public knowledge proves the other too. End of story.
oops. messed up the markup
OH NO! Where am I gonna get my mohthly dose of two weeks out of date Twinkies from?
(I always thought that Twinkies were eternal, that they would out last the cockroaches that live through the apocolypse. But the other day I was at the USA Food Imports shop where I get Grape-Nuts and A-1 Sauce and Pumpkin Pie filling etc and they had out of date Twinkies on sale. I was shocked, shocked I tell you!)
They’re broke AGAIN?!? Trapped between fuel/food cost hikes, fixed labor costs, and price pressure from walmartization, that poor company is toast. In a former “career” I knew a lot of their drivers as they headed into their last bankruptcy.
The most valuable thing IBC/Hostess has is its brand names. Get your Twinkies while you can!
Dear antiquated twinkie:
There has been one commenter who names herself after an assassin. Now we have you, which brings to mind:
“Twinkie defense” is a derisive label for an improbable legal defense. It is not a recognized legal defense in jurisprudence, but a catchall term coined by reporters during their coverage of the trial of defendant Dan White for the murders of San Francisco city supervisor Harvey Milk and mayor George Moscone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense
Just add in a clinically insane refusenik, and we have the trifecta. Ding, ding, ding.
Birds of a feather and all that.
Two observations:
Doc: The state of Hawaii is not asking for sanctions in the above legal paper. The state says it will do so in another procedding in the future.
Full faith & credit: I think the full faith and credit clause dopes apply in this situation, just not the way Dr. Taitz or Attorney Gonzalez wants to twist it. If Dr. Taitz goes to a Georgia court and gets whatever the paper is called to be able to take an out-of-state deposition of a third party. and takes that paper to Hawaii, a Hawaii court must issue a subpoena granting full faith and credit to Georgia’s request. If the witness has reasons not to comply, that dispute goes to the Hawaii court to decide. However, the fact that Georgia has made the request must be honored to start the discovery process in the distant state. The Hawaii court cannot say that it never honors out-of-state requests. Dr. Taitz and Gonzalez just don’t get it, that someone had to go to a court, and not a web site, in Georgia, and get a court order to present to a Hawaii court to get a Hawaii subpoena. The frustrating thing for observers here is we have been down this road with Dr. Taitz before, and it is clear she cannot learn.
Now Hawaii suggests in its opposition, above, that no Georgia court will issue that paper in the first instance, and that may be true. But, fundamentally, the power of the Georgia court ends at the South Carolina border. And birthers refuse to understand that.
Doc, as to the long form birth certificate, my memory is that Ms. Guthrie went up to some White House official immediately after the press conference, and still in the press room, and touched the document and took a picture of it.
My fave part was her suggesting that the judge would not recognize her subpoena because the judge was unfamiliar with the proper statute and/or missing some papers. Then she said she was going to look through the judge paper later. LOL!
“Sure, Orly, come on in! Rifle through the whole office! What’s that? Why does my office look like a padded jail cell? Well, that’s because it is a padded jail cell. Welcome to your intervention. Sleep tight!”
Okay so it’s proven. What now? Let’s get him out of there!!!!!! I mean, stuff is proven and all.
They’re actually stamped with a sell by date similar to breads. It’s only about 3 weeks.
They might actually be reasonably safe to eat well after the sell by date, but they’re going to be dry as heck. The only preservative in Twinkies is sorbic acid, which is pretty innocuous. Supposedly what it does is inhibit mold, which is an issue with any kind of relatively moist cake or bread. I remember it was a common preservative in sterile contact lens saline solutions and a few other optical solutions. It has a really funky smell though. Most contact lens solutions and some types of saline basically smelled like water, but anything with sorbic acid has a distinct odor.
Supposedly the hydrogenated oils also help increase the shelf life.
I love Napoleon(ic) parodies. My favorite might be Terry Gilliam’s in TIME BANDITS showing a Napoleon obsessed by his size. (In fact I just adore TIME BANDITS.)
On a serious note, how much do you think they’re likely to ask?
Right now, it sounds like just reimbursement of their effort costs along with the request to have her declared vexatious. I did not hear anything (so far) that indicates that they were also asking for penalty sanction fees for behavior.
They have alluded to having to spend a lot of time replying to Orly already. Since IANAL, I have no clue what the expectations would be in this type of scenario for ballparking where their total effort costs might come in at.
I remember that I enjoyed Time Bandits too…although several decades have passed since I last saw it (on video tape), so I don’t recall the details of it that well…but I think I remember that funny Napoleon charicature… 🙂
Lupin – read this on how low the GOP has sunk:
http://gawker.com/5875865/mitt-romney-isnt-the-only-candidate-who-dabbles-in-the-wicked-french-tongue
Hilarious! Thank you for sharing that. I’m going to send that link to a bunch of friends!
With no knowledge whatsoever I’d figure something like maybe $10K? Less perhaps?
Their primary goal is the vexatious litigant status to prevent Orly from wasting more of their time–they pointed out that the previous $20K fine didn’t slow her down…
Hey, there ya go! Move it!
I haven’t looked at a lot of Taitz’s filings, but does she normally put an X to the left of a check box?
What I learned from helping someone file a standard California civl-action forms and various government forms is that a lot of documents now come in compact PDFs (as opposed to large PDFs that serve as a container for images) that can be filled in and/or saved. You can cleanly fill in check marks and other things, but what the end result looks like can vary depending on the PDF reader used (I use Adobe Reader or Mac OSX Preview). Some of the PDF programming is pretty crappy too. Once I couldn’t even fill in a complete courthouse address, so I could either fill it in by hand, or physically cut out the address from another printout and affix it. Then I made a copy of the result for final filing.
Prima Facie evidence is invalidated when the plaintiff shows up where the evidence is stored and demands to inspect and copy relevant records. Prima Facie is only valid until contradictory evidence is presented.
Orly has been blocked from obtaining contradictory to the prima facie because the defendant and his criminal conspirators don’t want to be exposed. The prima facie evidence is invalidated once the judicial notice of the proceeding to obtain contradictory evidence is presented to the Judge in Georgia.
Also, Plaintiff suspects a person’s birth certificate number and/or data from a person born near the date of birth of the defendant has been improperly usurped and the State of Hawai’i has asserted the person has privacy rights. The person has been dead for nearly 50 years. Dead people don’t have privacy rights.
The Defendant cannot and should not be rewarded for intimidating witnesses and suppressing evidence which would expose the truth to the trier of fact.
MacGyver had more sense and class than you, Sven.
Now that is damning with faint praise…
Is their asking for enough to drain the birther coffers too much to ask? Whatever the amount, all paypal lines are now open.
Oh, if only those paypal buttons could talk. Keep an eye out for sudden, unexpected bankruptcies.
So where is the evidence he was born anywhere else but Hawaii?
You are ignoring one simple fact: Orly is NOBODY. Even if she were granted access to things her opinion would be useless.
And a rise in welfare and food stamps applications from rabid anti-socialists?
I believe this is the BC Angus MacGyver is looking for:
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/09/another-kenyan-birth-certificate.html
Sorry Sven, doesn’t work that way.
Our laws properly require the burden of proof to be with the accuser, not the accused.
So no, no “fishing expeditions” allowed – period.
You either have concrete evidence upfront in order to file and attempt to make your case or you don’t – and your case will be dismissed as frivolous as a result. Simple as that.
Poor Sven is hopelessly confused again.
In the Georgia proceeding, the burden of making a prima facie case is on the plaintiffs, not on Obama. The plaintiffs need to produce admissible evidence that Obama is not a natural born citizen.
Think about it for a minute. Even if Judge Malihi were inclined to entertain the Vattelist argument, how does Orly propose to prove that Obama had only one citizen parent? The only admissible evidence which I am aware of that Barack Obama Sr. is the President’s father is the Hawaii birth certificate. But Orly claims that the birth certificate is a forgery, so how can she use it?
For that matter, what admissible evidence does Orly have that Barack Obama Sr. was not a U.S citizen? We all believe that he was not a citizen, but does Orly have certified documents from the government proving that he was never naturalized?
This is the conundrum which the birthers have faced since day one. They have no admissible evidence of anything.
So let me get this straight, since some of this is pretty confusing. Taitz apparently was a able to download (a PDF no less) of a mostly blank subpoena sheet with the judge’s signature and a prepared image of the clerk’s stamp. Then she can theoretically ask to see anything she wants, because the judge doesn’t actually have to approve anything? What kind of racket is this? Couldn’t Georgia theoretically sanction her for misuse of court materials?
She really thinks that she can ask for the entire microform (sheet or roll) that could include private information. So she could also ask to see anything, including the original certificates Stig Wadelich and others? I’m pretty sure some of this might have gotten back to Judge Malihi. I’d think he’d get pissed if someone is using the subpoenas to ask for information that no state or local vital records office would even think of giving up.
I refuse to consider any site claiming the LFBC is a forgery until the “expert” provides the same “in-depth analysis” on a LFBC known to be authentic. Has anyone done this?
The form was on the web for lawyers to download and use, but because of Orly’s abuse (she isn’t entitled to discovery and she used it out-of-state) it has been taken down–obviously the system hadn’t been designed with the nitrous queen in mind…
My opinion is that it could/should be considered “contempt of court”. But IANAL, let alone a Judge being insulted by her blatant abuse of the legal system.
It would seem likely to me that someone has done this analysis but for reasons that I can only speculate about, haven’t published the results. We know that WorldNetDaily submitted the White House PDF to three recognized document experts, but refused to publish the reports from any of them.
Since Orly isn’t licensed to practice in Georgia, sanctions might be tricky unless placed on the attorney sponsoring her.
Since the form was removed from the court website, I’m guessing that they know what Orly has been doing and are not amused. Given the manner* with which Orly is almost certain to breeze into her “most important trial, in the history of, history, ever,,”, January 26th looks to be interesting. I expect Orly to be grabbing rope to hang herself with immediately upon entering the courtroom.
* As well as the cognitive dissonance implied by it.
I noticed that ORYR managed to save a copy of the pre-signed form before it got pulled off the servers of the Georgia administrative court. So it looks like Judge Malihi did sign it and a clerk did place the stamp. So is that (being honest that a judge doesn’t actually have to sign off on the subpoena) part of the reason why Orly is angry at ORYR, or does this stem from some earlier incident?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77702629/Georgia-Pre-Signed-and-Pre-Stamped-Blank-Subpoena-Forms-Office-of-State-Administrative-Hearings-of-State-of-Georgia
Who is sponsoring her? (and just how big of a fool is he?) I would assume that if the Georgia court is sufficiently pissed, they can make a complaint to the California bar (which might cause them to take action). I would also note that Hawai’i doesn’t seem to be having a problem sanctioning Orly…
No, the Judge maintains a Georgian’s right to challenge, to present evidence that Obama shouldn’t be on the ballot. In the US, candidates are presumed to be eligible for the offices they seek on their own statement. Challengers have to prove their claims.
Since the Georgia challengers have no evidence that Obama isn’t eligible, it could end there. I personally would like to see more material aired (including a COLB) just to make it easier for me to bash birthers in the future.
You raise a sensible point. I can only say that it seems to me that enforcing a judgment out of state would be problematic.
I think that the problem is that ORYR committed double plus ungood Orlyspeak by questioning Orly’s adherence to proper procedure–the comments on all of the related threads are hilarious–a combination of “ungood Orlyspeak == obot” and “you’re right–she’s making us (the birthers) look bad” (without an inkling of the underlying irony) and obots pointing and laughing.
um… Court Order? Full Faith and Credit?
Let’s not lose sight that wasting time analyzing an image scan of a document is pointless on its face.
Only the physical document itself matters. Everything else is just a flight down the irrelevant rabbit hole.
Hawai’i has the special circumstance of being the resting place of Orly’s holy grail–they need to declare her a vexatious litigant or she wont leave them alone (and other seekers will follow). This is probably not nearly as big an issue for Georgia. I would expect (as a non-lawyer) that any sort of action comes sua sponte from the judge in Georgia rather than in a motion from the defense as in Hawai’i. The president’s lawyer is probably just interested in winning the case–in the instances where President Obama has been awarded legal fees they haven’t requested very much (when, by birther logic, they could have asked for the whole $2+ million… ;-)).
Sorry, but it is not a court order.
Orly is just using a pre-printed form improperly.
The issuance of a valid subpoena on actual authority of the courts never happened. Therefore, it simply has no validity in terms of what Orly’s trying to do.
FFAC doesn’t come into this particular case at all in the way you are implying, sorry.
If I receive a subpoena telling me to be at a certain place on a certain date, but the specified date only includes the month and day, and not a specific year…could I just pick one?
Assuming, as Doc did, that you are referring to the PDF of the LFBC posted at the WH website, and allegations that it is a forgery, to my knowledge no accredited document expert has done such an analysis, and no “expert” endorsed by birthers has based their analysis on a control sample, a PDF file created by scanning a Hawaiian LFBC with a documented chain of custody.
As for why not? The forgery claims aren’t credible enough to be worth the effort of obtaining a Hawaiian LFBC, petitioning the WH for use of its equipment and software (or at the effort of inquiring about their hardware & software setup and then recreating it), thoroughly documenting the entire processes, legal and technical. People expressing unreasonable doubts aren’t going to be impressed with reason and evidence.
Complaints about the PDF stem from flawed logic. The PDF is not the legal document in question, only an image if it. In questioning the PDF, the birthers allege that either it was altered after scanning, or is a complete fabrication. In light of the multiple available images of the LFBC, that clearly weren’t made from the PDF*, it is clear that there is a document behind all of the images. think of them as photos of the same person taken in different lighting condition: colors change, features remain the same. As the wording and letterforms matches in all images, alteration is also ruled out. The PDF is a faithful representation of the same document represented in the other images.
That leaves considering what all the images represent: is that document genuine, or a forgery? The state of Hawaii has certified that what has been shared with the public is a faithful representation of what they have on file.
Which is more likely? That the White House and State of Hawaii are telling the truth? Or any of a limitless number of conspiracy possibilities are at work here? That Hawaii faked it with or w/o Obama’s participation, or that the WH faked it and Hawaii is covering for them? The lack of coverup is a far simpler explanation.
So, no, exhaustive PDF analysis hasn’t been done, as it is unnecessary, pointless, and wouldn’t stamp out birtherism anyway. It would be a fun experiment, something to rub certain noses in … but also pretty stale at this point.
* Press scan of photocopy in press packet, Savannah Guthrie photos of the certified copy, WH PDF.
Just say “I was there last year. Where were you? Here’s my bill for transportation, hotel, per diem, etc.”
I’m noticing a few things that are different about the subpoena sent by Orly and the blank form. It’ doesn’t look like it was actually some sort of printout or typing. I don’t have a Scribd account, so I haven’t downloaded the form, but I think it might be some sort of composed PDF that can be altered with certain editing software. It doesn’t look like one of those forms that have fixed boxes but can be filled in ordinary consumer PDF reading software. Notice that the X’s to the left of the check boxes align with YOU, while the check boxes do that in the original. There doesn’t seem to be room to place an X to the left of the “Petitioner” check box, in the original.
So can we assume that this PDF was “created” rather than a true copy of the original>
Why would we assume anything other than Orly downloaded and (improperly) used a form which was provided for lawyers to download and use (properly)?
I was just making fun of how the birthers claim that the PDF hosted on the WH website must have been “created”.
Also – I remember I got called out by a few people when I mentioned that I was hoping that the Georgia Democratic Committee would present a certified birth certificate copy (and perhaps both the standard COLB and a special request long form), although I might have said something about being compelled to do so. I think it would be interesting, and it looks like Doc C and a few others think it might just come to that. It’s not that I think they are somehow compelled to do so by law, but that having overwhelming evidence sounds like it’s a good thing for such a hearing. It’s one thing to stick to your guns, but sometimes it’s better to just do what you have to and move on.
Besides – I understand there’s a bulk discount on birth certificates with the Hawaii Dept of Health. I only wish the ones I got for my kid were so cheap.
Sorry, you misunderstand. I was referring to the Doc’s assertion that there could be a problem enforcing a ‘judgment’ out of state. I was not referring to the fraudulent subpoena.
A judgment is a court order and I expect if Georgia or Hawai’i or both imposed monetary damages on Mrs. Taitz they would expect the cooperation of the California courts to collect it.
Can’t be repeated often enough.
Well it could, but since birthers are deaf to certain kinds of noises, then it needs to be repeated often so if one of them ever decides to put in their hearing aid the message has a chance to get through.
Or maybe they aren’t deaf, but are just not capable of understanding English.
I.Q. Testing: comparing two non-English speaking groups
“Full faith and credit ought to be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state; and the legislature shall, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another.”
So it looks like FF&C isn’t absolute, but that each state has laws (some quoted here) on how to “prove” out of court documents or proceedings. How a subpoena could be enforced in Hawaii has been mentioned.
Now if a certified copy of Obama’s BC copy is delivered to the Georgia administrative hearing, I would think that they would have a legal policy on how it will be authenticated. Wouldn’t it involve something similar to how the State Dept authenticates birth certificates for passport issuance? If somehow (and this is about about as unlikely to happen as I can imagine) the original and microform is delivered to Georgia, would there even be any kind of way to authenticate it?
Of course I can’t imagine it would happen because Hawaii law is meant to protect the privacy of every name on that microform, and because it would set some crazy precedent that a proper chain of custody for original vital records can be broken.
Oh–then there is at least as much reason to suspect shenanigans as there is in the case of the LFBC (more really). As for the Georgia hearing, my understanding is that President Obama’s attorney has the burden of proving eligibility–and the COLB would seem to suffice (since the residency requirement is demonstrated by the public offices he’s held).
Again, I was not referring to the fraudulent subpoena, nor the authentic BC, and my reading of Doc’s comment leads me to believe that he wasn’t either. I was replying to Doc’s assertion.
I was, and I believe Doc was, talking about a genuine judgment from Georgia or Hawai’i against Taitz. Doc averred that such a judgment would raise problems for Georgia or Hawai’i to enforce in California. I disagree, however, IANAL.
I am reasonably certain that “legislature” in this context means U.S. Congress, not a state legislature, otherwise the final clause would not have meaning.
In an Administrative Hearing, the Defendant is required to attend or the Judge will issue a default judgment ruling for the Plaintiff.
The reason a Defendant is required to attend is so that Plaintiff can compel Defendant to answer questions, under oath, which will prove Plaintiff’s case.
For example, Orly could ask of witness Obama:
1) Who is your father?
2) Has your father ever been a citizen of the United States?
3) Was your father a Permanent Resident Alien of the United States, commonly referred to as a Green Card Holder?
4) In your lifetime, has your mother, father, grandmother or grandfather informed you that you are a citizen of Indonesia, Great Britain, or Kenya?
5) Have you ever told anyone in your lifetime your first name was Barry?
6) Have you ever been issue a passport from Indonesia, Kenya, Great Britain or any other country besides the United States?
7) Have you ever lived in the State of Connecticut?
8) When you were 10 years old, did you travel from Indonesia to the State of Hawai’i?
If so, were you placed in Federal Protective Custody as an unaccompanied minor and placed in the Federal foster care program? Who was named your legal custodian?
And on and on …
As you can see, Obama can never allow anyone to prove any truth about his life. Otherwise, he’d be thrown out of office.
That’s the Madison proposed version. Madison didn’t actually want each State Legislature to have that, because that would actually take the enforcement out of the clause and basically make the clause meaningless to begin with. By “legislature” he meant the Federal Legislature. This is reflected in the final version which is in the Constitution: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
Actually, the power to set standards of proof resides with the Federal Government, not the State Governments. This is all trivial, since Supoenas are not covered under “public acts, records, or judicial proceedings”.
The Federal Government has set up standards. The COLB meets every one of those standards. If Obama was to present the same COLB that he released out on the Internet almost 4 years ago to the hearing and presented it as evidence, the court would be forced to take it under the Full Faith and Credit Clause as proving that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, and therefore a Natural Born Citizen.
Any day now.
Not if that judgement goes directly against the law.
All of these, in a compentent hearing, would be objected to as irrelevent, and sustained. Sven, you know better. A 1st year law student would get every one of these questions out of there. Ultimately, the only questions that would be allowed are “where and when were you born?” and “have you lived here for 14 years?” Those are the only two questions that actually have relevance. And since the birth certificate actually proves the place and place, there is absolutely no reason to ask Obama that, even if it did get that far.
Actually, prior to any of the Orly subpoenas even being issued Judge Malihi had already ruled that Obama need not attend the hearing and ruled that depositions may not be taken. Nothing has changed in that respect nor in the respect that you are once again talking codswallop.
I’ve been doing a certain amount of reading. Here’s a legal project that refers to “Full Faith and Credit” in its application to reciprocity of domestic violence protection and custody/visitation orders.
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/ffc/ffcmatrfin/ffcmatrfin.pdf
http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/ffc/ffcprogfin/ffcprogfin.html#ftn.id396928
They do mention FF&C as it was extended via the federal Violence Against Women Act, and how various states have written specific legislation on how to specific enforcement orders from out of state. A few states require that enforcement can be applied if an out of state’s protection orders are similar to a state’s own orders.
But, but, Orly said …
And that realates to the question at hand how?
I was just thinking that perhaps there have to be procedures in place at the state level to enforce FF&C and reasonable means to deny if orders valid in one state somehow violate the law in another state. Some concealed carry weapons permit holders want their permits to be honored even in states that don’t allow for concealed carry in the first place. Suppose (throwing away the incredulity of this being possible) that one state allows anyone to subpoena an original birth record for a court proceeding, and someone wants to apply that to Hawaii via FF&C.
I realize that FF&C has its limits. For example, a state couldn’t just come up with any kind of certified birth certificate form it wants and expect that every state will just accept it. For example, the California Certified Abstract of Birth is pretty much useless these days. California no longer issues them and generally won’t accept them. Some have mentioned that the out of state enforcement of subpoenas in Hawaii requires that specific procedures be followed, and they probably have limits on what kind of orders they can enforce.
I notice that Orly doesn’t ask for President Obama to prove that he is the person referenced in the COLB/LFBC. I don’t think that is something any of us could prove.
Why? the truth of his life is simple, he was born on US soil, the rest is inconsequential.
Hahaha… As clueless about the law as I expected from previous engagements…
That is a problem inherent with all birth certificates, and can even be an issue with other documents and photo ID. I remember a DHHS report on the misuse of birth certificates. Part of what they talked about was fraudulent registrations (i.e. rampant Texas midwife fraud along the border with Mexico) as well as stolen or illegally obtained birth certificates used by someone other than the named person. The report indicated that the vast majority of fraudulent use of birth certificates involved certificates that were actually issued by a legitimate governmental entity and not forgeries. Puerto Rico had to invalidate older birth certificates because of a culture of using them for everything, along with schools holding onto the certified copies. There were thieves who would burglarize school offices just for the birth certificates. They could be sold (a few people even sold their own) for several thousand each, which an otherwise undocumented Hispanic person might be able to use as a “foundation document” to get a driver license, Social Security card, and other documents to establish an ostensibly legal presence in the US.
In California, there was a recent case where an undocumented worker from Mexico went to work for 2010 Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman years ago. She presented the Social Security card that belonged to her sister, who had a similar name. She got her driver license at a time when the California DMV was less strict about what documents were needed.
We also had issues in California when just anyone could order a full birth certificate, and desk clerks weren’t even allowed to ask to see ID of the person making the order. There were cases of people getting them and establishing a new life using the birth certificate. California law has been changed, where birth certificates are still considered public, but where there are two classes of documents. Only a person with a “tangible interest” can get a full copy, while someone who doesn’t attest and present evidence of a “tangible interest” can only get an “informational copy” (possibly redacted) that includes a statement that it’s not valid as an identity document (i.e. getting a passport, SS card, driver license, etc.). They’ve also done the same for death certificates and more recently marriage certificates. I remember when I was married in California, I applied for the standard non-confidential license with the knowledge that my full marriage certificate could be ordered by just about anyone. Then in 2008 the law was changed so that just anyone off the street couldn’t obtain a full copy, but could get an otherwise identical copy with the “informational” statement. Here are some examples of California vital records with the “informational” statement:
http://cdn.digitalcity.com/tmz_documents/cruise_bc_8_5.pdf
http://michaeljacksonfuneral.org/death-certificate.pdf
This forum thread even includes scans of a certificate for the same person obtained before and after California changed its law:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f153/jazmin-rotolo-grimaldi-part-1-a-7199-18.html
Are you printing your own private version of the Constitution? From where did you get this bizarre rewriting of the most fundamental document of the nation?
Every printing of the Constitution that I have in my library, and the online version published by Cornell University (from where I got the following ‘cut/paste’) reads:
(Article IV Section 1) Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
The words I have placed in bold are different from the words in your Constitution.
I ask again: WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR BOGUS VERSION OF THE CONSTITUTION FROM?.
Who, exactly, is so desperate to pervert the Constitution that they would distort the document? And why are you promoting this dreck?
Since y_p_w’s version of Article IV section 1, you can change ‘reasonably’ to ‘absolutely’.
The real Constitution actually uses the word ‘Congress’ not ‘Legislature’.
With the understanding that ” the same COLB that he released out on the Internet almost 4 years ago” means the “actual document”, not the “image of the document” that was published on the internet. Birthers are fond of pretending they don’t know the difference.
You have my apologies. I quickly looked it up from the Wikipedia article on FF&C, and apparently what I pulled up was only a previous draft of the clause before the final version submitted for ratification.
A subpoena is NOT a court order. A subpoena is not subject to the FF&C rule.
Your concealed carry example is a furphy and has nothing to do with FF&C. The purpose of the FF&C rule is not to make it so that every law passed in every State has full effect in every other State. That is ludicrous.
At the risk of introducing a strawman of my own, have you ever noticed that Prime Movers that engage in interstate haulage have tax stickers plates on them with the road tax stickers of the various states that they travel through? Why doesn’t the FF&C clause apply so that each state has to honor the fact that the guy has paid road tax in his home state (which would actually be the cheapest state, of course)? The reason is the same as the concealed weapon permit.
Birth, Death, and Marriage events can only occur in one state, but must be recognized in every state. Concealed weapon permits can be obtained in any State that allows them and need only be recognized in the state in which it is issued. Road taxes are only payable in the State that levies them and no other State has any interest in what taxes other States levy.
If a controversy comes up in a court in State ‘A’ that is affected by whether someone had a concealed weapon permit in State ‘B’ (or had paid his road taxes in State ‘B’), then the documentary evidence provided by State ‘B’ would be subject to FF&C. That doesn’t mean the permit is valid in State ‘A’ it just means that State ‘A’ (or a court in State ‘A’) must recognize the documentary evidence from State ‘B’.
Article IV Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the express authority to prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
The procedures you are describing are called “National Standards”. For example, national standards dictate the emblems that make a Birth Certificate a nationally recognizable Birth Certificate. It needs to contain certain information at a minimum, a ‘raised or colored seal’, a signed statement attesting to its veracity, printed on security paper, etc. There are equivalent standards for every kind of document or process or whatever that Congress in its wisdom has seen fit to establish.
I understand that. However, Orly has been arguing that the subpoena that she self-issued (without a judge or even a court clerk even handling) is a “judicial proceeding” as defined by FF&C.
I also don’t buy the CCW advocates’ stand on mandatory reciprocity via, but it’s been commonly cited by CCW advocates. Just type “full faith credit CCW” into a search engine. There appears to be arguments that driver licenses are honored because of FF&C, but my understanding other states honor other states’ licenses due to reciprocity agreements.
Phony lawyer Gonzalez seems to believe the President can be forced to participate in as many as 51 (or 57) different proceedins and to have to personally appear. The President has far better things to do, as Judge Carter noted in his decision.
Interesting website for subpoenas:
http://interstatedeposition.com/compellingout-of-statewitness.htm
So, Charo, Dr. Taitz has read none of that.
Maybe her supporters could get her the toll free number (if they can survivie the malware)
Well, so far Orly’s history has only shown that she is good at barking orders to her flying monkeys to do various work for her… but absolutely horrible at taking any advice from others, no matter how well clearly it is spelled out for her – that goes for advice she gets from her supporters and detractors as well.
So I seriously doubt the inept meglomaniac would be able to follow any instructions or process properly and in full accordance with the law. She hasn’t been able to do so yet.
I guess I was a little bit late to this, and it might have been mentioned here, but…..
I finally saw several of the subpoenas that Orly issued, claiming that they were issued by the court/judge. I think several were to federal offices, and she was asking for all sorts of things. There has been quite a lot of discussion of this on other forums.
I didn’t see it mentioned specifically, but they all have the same exact signature from Judge Malihi, and all feature the exact same stamping pattern (complete with the same obvious fade at the bottom) from the clerk. It was implied from all the discussion that it was a pre-stamped form. However, when they’re placed side to side it’s pretty obvious that the judge didn’t exactly sit down and individually sign these and have his clerk hand stamp each one.
How legal is this? I remember helping someone with a civil petition and service (hired a process server actually) that an “original” with the actual stamp of the clerk had to be delivered. If it couldn’t be delivered in person to the required addressee after three attempts, then there were detailed requirements. One had to leave a copy with someone in the house and mail a copy separately; I think this was known as “substituted service”. I doubt this was preferred, because it meant more trips for the server (usually charging a flat fee) and supposedly that meant waiting longer to act on the petition.
My impresssion is it is not legal…or at least, clearly not legit.
I think we all knew that the judge never issued these to her… I don’t know how anyone seriously contemplated that these were ever legit. It has been quite obvious that Orly simply snagged their pre-printed form all on her own accord and has been abusing their use by filling them out and issuing them herself.
Personally, I would consider it to be an act of intentional fraud. If it isn’t illegal, it should be.
California has specific requirements for proof of service. California has some standard forms that can be downloaded for proof of service (that’s what the process server in our case used), but I’ve seen some packets that use non-standard forms. It might be legal to just produce a free-form proof of service, but most people won’t do that when a standard form that the courts see all the time works. I didn’t really see anything about proof of service, although I didn’t stick around too long looking at those beyond the signature and the clerk’s stamp.
What I noticed about the Georgia rules was that they do require a proof of service certification, but I’m not sure if they have a standard form. It also mentions that once issued, it can be quashed by the judge for being irrelevant, unreasonable, etc and doesn’t say it must be requested by the other party. That sort of says to me that these things go out before the judge ever gets a chance to look at them. They also have to be filed with the court. I’m wondering what happened after the judge got wind that she’s sending requests to the SSA, the Selective Service, State Dept (for passport records), several schools that Obama attended, etc for documents that are protected by federal law. It’s also been my understanding that federal court precedent is that federal officials aren’t bound to state subpoenas in the course of their employment. And of course educational records are protected by federal law.
See, that’s the thing. There is NO evidence that these were ever filed with the GA court.
There is NO evidence that Orly went through any proper procedure at all.
I would also suspect NO proof of service either. Orly doesn’t seem to be too good about following rules and details like that.
It has been quite obvious since this whole GA subpoena thing came up that Orly’s just being mad ole Orly and taking matters into her own hands willy-nilly.
There is no reason to believe she’s done one single step of this correctly.
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/video-orly-taitz-vs-jill-nagamine.html
Change the channel! Change the channel!
I did notice that the copy of the subpoena received by Director Fuddy’s office included a certified mail attachment to the envelope. I thought the conditions for proof of service included a certified mail receipt. And yeah – I’m not sure it was filed either, but I don’t know if we have a way of finding out yes or no. I’ve understood that all these filings are considered public documents and should be attached to the case number. I’m pretty sure that everything that was filed in regards to the civil case I helped with was placed in the same file as the main action.