Orly Taitz has posted on her web site what she describes as her 22-page Proposed findings of facts and law in the case of Farrar v. Obama [link to PDF file on Taitz web site].
I’m reading it now wondering if Taitz wrote it herself, and have concluded that she did:
Obama, is so egregious that it warrants forwarding of the evidence and findings of this court to the Attorney General of Georgia for criminal prosecution of Obama for elections fraud, uttering [it’s a legal term] of forged and altered documents, Obstruction of Justice and Social Security fraud. Additionally, the evidence submitted to this court warrants forwarding to the immigration and deportation services of the Department of Homeland Security for criminal prosecution; as well as to the U.S. Congress for impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors committed by Defendant, Obama.
That’s from the opening paragraph and I can imagine Judge Malihi reacting negatively to such language. In a previous order, Judge Malihi provided an sample that he wanted attorneys to follow in their Proposed findings of facts and law. What Taitz submitted is some kind of a “closing argument” utterly like the sample in structure and content, making it useless for its intended purpose, to be something a judge could sign as the order in the case. In a real Proposed finding, the judge’s name is supposed to be at the bottom with a place for a signature. Guess whose name is at the end of Orly Taitz’s Proposed finding? It’s the signature of Orly Taitz. The other lawyers submitted appropriately formatted Findings that are linked at the bottom of this article.
I started cataloging all of the mistakes in English usage and capitalization, but the list got very long very fast so I quit. I note the nonsensical statement on the unnumbered third page that the holding in Haynes v Wells (2000) relied on O’Brien v Gross (2008) which would involve time travel. Certainly Orly’s document could have benefitted from proofreading by an native English-speaking ATTORNEY.
Despite saying that she wouldn’t say much about the Constitutional definition of “natural born citizen,” Taitz spends about 5 of her 22 pages on it including the misnamed “Kim Ark” case. This is cool: Kim Ark is not controlling because it was not a unanimous decision. Yep, 2 dissents. Throw in the “mystery” of Chester A. Arthur. She cites the Federalist Papers as a source for the John Jay letter! Oh and, “Obama still did not qualify as a natural born due to lack of … a valid social security number”.
Is this racist?
It is possible, that an image on a mug constitutes a prima facia [sic] evidence in Mombasa, Kenya, maybe an image on a T-shirt represents a competent, admissible evidence in Jakarta, Indonesia, however in the United States of America, where we hopefully retained a rule of law, an image on mugs and T-shirts represents neither prima facia [sic] evidence, nor competent, admissible evidence.
Even if it’s not racist, it’s surely a comma splice and even I know how to spell prima facie.
I’ve only scratched the surface of the mess that is Taitz’s Proposed findings of facts and law, but I leave you with my favorite quote:
Defendant’s behavior shows guilty mind.
Read more:
- Plaintiff Welden’s Proposed findings (atty. Van Irion)
- Plaintiff Powell and Swensson’s Proposed findings (atty. Mark Hatfield)
I’ll be first.
Dr. Taitz is attempting to prove that Mr. Jablonski was right in not showing up to be part of the circus.
Instead of asking for a narrow finding that the President had the burden of proof and failed because he did not show up (most of us here think Mr. Jablonski could have done better), she has stayed on her straight of true path of throwing everything into the stew. How any judge can endorse this insanity is beyond me.
I spent today at a deposition. That’s a legal proceeding where the arguments and ruminations by attorneys are occasionally interupted by actual testimony by the witness (that would be me). Howver, I get paid by the hour, and probably more than some of the attorneys.
It seems to me that on the birth certificate business that the document signed by Dr. Onaka is not a copy one can question. Dr. Onaka’s signature makes it, in the full faith and credit workd, an original. If it was a copy, where the original could be demanded, what would be the point of full faith and credit?
“the evidence submitted to this court warrants forwarding to the immigration and deportation services of the Department of Homeland Security”
Being deported to Hawaii doesn’t sound too bad.
I actually read this train wreck of a document. I can’t imagine even most birthers could look at that dreck and say they feel this represents solid legal work.
My Orly-inspired, stream-of-conscious critique:
She is truly determined to blow this case. Perhaps she had doubts about last week’s demolition job and just had to be sure?
This isn’t the case Farrar wanted to make (like it matters) … he better sue her butt, make a complaint to the CA bar, something.
And you though the worst that could happen if you surrender your key to the gatekeeper was the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man? Farrar opened the portal and got Taitzer, the destroyer of imaginary worlds.
Never seen a windmill she couldn’t tilt! Tilt! Tilt! Tilt!
Where are the ¶ breaks? Where the &^%*& did she hide the ¶’s???
“Due to page limitation, not all of the facts can be included.” WTF?!? Didn’t have this problem in there 200+ page excretions! Oh, there’s a 25 page limit. Then why stop at 22?!? LOL!
Why the &&^%^ is this right-justified? Seriously, who does that?*
Is there a typographer in the house? A typographer in the house, stat!
Oh, hell, fine, can we just get a secretary? Anyone that can type???
I am disappointed to see that Doc inserted the “[it’s a legal term]” …. her use of that would have been AWESOME (not JPotter awesome, common usage this time.)
“DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR SHOWS GUILTY MIND” Holy crap…she made that into an A-head. She emphasizes the stupid. Stunning.
No understanding of writing for an audience.
This was e-cc’d to Jablonski. He probably pissed himself laughing so hard, and is out partying right now! I hope he keeps his word and stays away from the court if for some reason the parties are summoned back. Who could resist gloating over this?
There’s no reason to summon these knuckleheads back, but Malihi should do it just to get some revenge. Waste their time and money. And crush their hopes face-to-face.
* I don’t think this is common in legal filings, not that i have seen anyway, but if it is, please stop. The readers and graphic artists of the world thank you in advance.
Taitz, of course, contends that the document is a fake, and that Onaka didn’t sign it.
Dr. C: Yes, I understand Dr. Taitz’s contention, but she does not get to see the original. She gets to depose Dr. Onaka. In the absence of proof of the genuineness of his signature, full faith and credit stops there.
To Dr. Taitz’s credit, she inserted the full quote from Minor.
She argued that the news report she offered was a business record and thus evidence. Does that mean that anything I see on TV news, like Jon Stewart, is admissible as real evidence? Maybe the attorneys here will comment.
I kept reading the thing and saying, this is 100% typical Taitz and it all wrong here and here and here. What I didn’t realize until later was that what I was reading was not a Proposed findings of facts and law. It bears no resemblance whatever to a Proposed findings of facts and law. It’s a closing argument. I’ve updated the article to point that out. Malihi will say “what the hell am I supposed to do with this?”
The rules of evidence in an administrative court seem pretty loose. Of course that news report also says Obama was born in Hawaii, and has school officials saying that the surname on the form was often that of the father.
I think you lack imagination.
Stephen T writes on Orly’s site:
Here are Welden’s Proposed findings:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80167062/2012-02-01-WELDEN-Proposed-Findings-of-Fact-and-Conclusions-of-Law-Tfb
and Powell | Swensson:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80168948/2011-02-01-SWENSSON-POWELL-Proposed-Fof-amp-Col
My favorite part is the very first word. She misspells her name.
I think Orly can argue she did her best to win for Farrar. But the other 4 “Democrat presidential candidates” got absolutely no representation since Orly didn’t do anything that would get them onto the Democratic Primary Ballot even though that was why they were added to the case.
They would have a great case to take Orly’s license, and a good bit of Yoshi’s money.
A. Everyone’s a $%^&*ing critic.
B. Don’t be silly, there’s no legal basis for that 😉
Everything Orly writes comes across just like the thousands of frivolous legal pleadings made by inmates in mental wards…
She is not just unbelievably incompetent. She is also clearly clinically insane…
LMAO! *rolls eyes* Ah…typical Birther delusions….
Boy, the Welden findings really went off the reservation into Orly territory of trying to bring the issue of Obama not being at the hearing into the equation.
Sorry Welden, but your case was severed completely from Orly’s at your own insistance. Therefore, you can’t make complaints about people not complying with subpoenas that aren’t even related to your case…
Yeah, I noticed that too. Those other 4 “Democratic Presidential candidate” plantiff’s of hers were completely ignored and left out of just about everything in Orly’s pleadings.
Yes, we all know that she just uses all these people as window dressing to further her own quixotic and delusional political agenda…
…but really, isn’t that malpractice for a laywer to behave like that and completely ignore representing any of her own clients???
Don’t real lawyers get disbarred for such behavior?
Wow, after some Orly crazy, regular crazy is quite refreshing! Still, they both thrown down some whoppers. Both assert the burden of proof is on Obama, and Welden repeats flawed “not-quashing-a-subpoena-is-the-equivalent-of-issuing-an-order” logic, asserting that the judge must enter a default order (rule (as quoted by Welden!) says “may”, not “must”) in the plaintiff’s favor. Really? What does that rule say again, Welden?
“After issuing a default order, theAdministrative Law Judge shall proceed as necessary to resolve the case without theparticipation of the defaulting party, or with such limited participation as the Administrative Law Judge deems appropriate, and shall determine all issues in the proceeding, including those affecting the party in default.” (Welden’s emphasis)
Hmmmm …. says, may issue a default order against defaulting/absent party, and shall determine issues, even those affecting party in default? THat’s doesn’t sound like a tied up pair of judges hands to me!
Oh, and the nail in this birther dream’s coffin? The start of the rule:
“This Court is required to determine the merits of the issues presented by the Plaintiff,regardless of the absence of the Defendant and entry of a default judgment against the Defendant.”
Oh crapplecakes! On the merits? On the merits?!? But da birfers ain’ never got no merits!
Rats, foiled again.
*Poof*
I’m fairly confident that Judge Malihi deeply regrets this entire debacle falling into his lap now. I bet he can’t wait to get this insane mess off his plate as quickly as possible. This is what he gets for opening that much of a doorway to this crazyland dog & pony show in the first place.
No matter how much his little fee-fees are hurt by Jablonski, he really risks his own professional future if he looks at any of this steaming pile of cr@p in front of him now and thinks he can use it to justify recommending removing Obama from the ballot. He’d become forever pegged as a partisan hack and laughingstock if he tries to pull that stunt…
There are reports that Jablonski didn’t file anything. That would be consistent with his prior position. He had previously submitted a copy of the birth certificate (presumably not a certified copy).
I must have missed the default order. If only Orly and the two bit players had went for the default option.
rly?
IANAL and this strange case and situation is a bit confusing to me…
Still… I don’t know how wise it is to not file anything at all. It is one thing to not show up to a circus show. It seems to be an entirely different matter…and one that just invites the emnity of the judge… to refuse to file anything at all… it just seems to be intentionally asking for trouble. I’m concerned that he risks giving the judge an excuse to extend this debacle further…
I’m also not sure why he wouldn’t just submit a certified COLB and be done with it. Force this whole thing to be iron clad slammed shut right there. Any (either intentional or inept) strategy that leaves questionable “wiggle room” and/or provide excuses to politically goad others to keep this nonsense alive 1 minute longer than it needs to is just foolish IMHO.
“Certainly Orly’s document could have benefitted from proofreading by an ATTORNEY.”
FIFY
in orly’s defense, i can only quote famed vattel scholar “bushpilot1”:
Stern over at FB claims it’s already been submitted to the SoS.
If this were a legal affair, the COLB would have made it go away real quick. But this is all politics, and when Republican crazies hand you a baker’s dozen eggs and draw cirles on their faces, who’s the president to say no?
I’ve heard that claim several times and every time it has come up, I’ve asked for some sort of evidential proof that it happened. *crickets* has been the only response.
So, unless you’ve got more than just telling me that someone else claims it happened… I’ve got no reason to be convinced that an actual certified copy was submitted to the SoS and can only treat it as an unverified rumour.
Somewhere high up in the sky, aboard Air Force One, they’re interrupting today’s in-flight entertainment to take turns reading through this instead. The REAL Three Stooges are alive and well in Atlanta.
“I’m fairly confident that Judge Malihi deeply regrets this entire debacle”
Wait till he reads Orly’s hate mail, which will come in large quantities when Obama is placed on the ballot. Some will say he asked for it, but nobody deserves an Orly screech, nobody!
OK, go with that. If the COLB and LFBC are both fakes, then the vault copy can’t be the original. Orly still loses.
a sage general once said: “when your enemy is blowing off his own head, sell tickets.”
Expanding on that – if the LFBC is a fake , then the vault copy can’t be the original. If it’s genuine, it IS the original (being self-authenticating). Orly can’t have her cake and eat it too.
G, chill, Georgia is a done deal. No matter which way it goes down, even if the judge does decide Obama has to prove his eligibility, and enters a ‘default order’, Malihi still has to decide on the merits.
If you missed it, you might enjoy my latest interpretation of events in GA….was aimed at troller yutube, but I think you’d enjoy it.
Nah, she’ll go with the vault copy (if it exists!) says [whatever], which is different than what the “forgeries” say. We’ve been had, sold a proverbial bill of goods, etc.
Now that I’ve guessed at the workings of Orly’s mind, I better go ahead and call in sick.
Hey, I do understand that.
My point is purely asking for substantiation of rumour on this particular claim. I treat all unsubstantiated claims the same and am simply asking for the same level of skeptical scrutiny that I would apply to any other piece of information. That’s all. Until a claim is reasonably verified, I simply don’t give it much merit.
“. . .the judge’s name is supposed to be at the bottom with a place for a signature. Guess whose name is at the end of Orly Taitz’s Proposed finding? It’s the signature of Orly Taitz.”
She was both lawyer and witness; why not be judge too?
LOL! 😉
“constitutes a prima facia”
She was writing a review for Car and Driver at the same time, and got the two mixed up.
Happens all the time. It’s a good thing she wasn’t writing an article at the same time for Modern Robotics.
It can be seen as inconsistent – both legally & in a broader political sense — to refuse to show up to the hearing with an assertion that it is ultra vires — and then submit a brief or proposed findings of fact & conclusions of law. That also might tick off the ALJ further — whereas after being exposed to the three birther attorneys, the ALJ probably has figured out why the President’s lawyer thought it was a waste of his time to attend.
I think with any legal/political decision, a smart advocate will look at both sides of an option: what are the benefits? what’s is the possible loss?
In this case, there’s nothing to lose by not submitting a brief, because of the procedural stance. If the ALJ gets the law wrong, then the Secretary of State will still need to make a determination, and he probably will seek advice from the state attorney general’s office. In fact, it will be a political embarrassment to the Republican Secretary of State if he has to overrule the ALJ after referring the case out. If he goes along with a bad decision (legally), the Presidents’ lawyers will have every opportunity to go to the real courts and force reinstatement of Obama’s name to the ballot.
I think you are right that we can’t assume something without evidence — but in this case it really doesn’t matter. It would only become important if the ALJ were to reject all of the evidence put before him, saying that he could not accept the birth certificate offered by the plaintiffs because it was a photocopy and not the actual certified document.
You’re wrong there, and I have evidence that would stand up in court like Brigitte Horney ( and unlike L’Oreley). Either she was reading some guy called Carl Klump or the Balochistan Times.
My bet is on the Balochistan Times. It is from Pakistan, so she probably has alerts from it in her Yahoo in case they ever write an article about what Obama was doing in Balochistan.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/CCP+grants+to+PSM+adjournment+for+10+days-a0200090632
People appear pro se all the time and forward diatribes to courts, ALJs, etc. I would expect this is not the first example of the type of poorly written work that he has had to sift through. I would assume he has a clerk to assist; I was a clerk to an ALJ for a state agency. I don’t know what the status is in Georgia, but in my state, you have to have a law degree to be a clerk.
I went over to The Fogbow, and I found a comment by Stern saying:
We know from the documents in the case that a copy of the birth certificate (not necessarily the COLB and not necessarily certified) was sent to the SoS (and a copy to the Court). Stern might well be in a position to know inside information, but his use of the word “believe” here doesn’t give me a feeling of certainty.
Malihi’s assistant is an attorney.
Thank you for taking the time to read this and save me the trouble (agony).
I don’t think she was initially, but now she comes across as truly unhinged.
She’d be lying. She did the exact same case she does every time she steps in front of anything resembling a court, a hearing or a high school civics class. I don’t think she even noticed (or cared) that she never once addressed the question the court was asking. She threw Farrar and all her clients under the bus just so she could do the same song and dance she always does.
As always, for Orly it’s all about Orly; she couldn’t care less whether she’s serving her clients.
One wonders if she does any better with dental work.
According to several dental and medical malpractice lawsuits and a few online feedback slams of disgust apparently not.
Don’t waste your sympathy on Farrar. He used to post on Talking Points Memo and was almost as incoherent as Orly on a range of topics, not just birtherism. And, unlike Orly, English is his first language. Besides, he hired her knowing full well of her “work” on previous birther cases. Farrar is not some poor victim of a misfortune who picked a bad lawyer out of the phone book.
True, i don’t know the man well, and, if I were in a position to judge any com,plaint by him against Orly, all i could say is, “What the hell did you think was gonna happen?” Her antics are so well documented, he must have known what he was getting.
I wonder what her BBB rating is? 😉
Dunno about that, but someone once here (or at. fogbow?) Posted a customer review of Orly Taitz, DDS. She didn’t fare well. Gruff, irritable, and she left the patient with a mouthful of blood.
Ah, looks like MW beat me to that observation.
On Healthgrades.com Orly’s customer satisfaction rating is 1.5 stars (out of five), an abysmal score.
http://www.healthgrades.com/dentist/dr-orly-taitz-2lbhl
I don’t know how much I would trust the veracity of her Healthgrades score. It appears that anyone can anonymously fill out of survey, and Healthgrades has no way of verifying if the respondent actually was one of Orly’s patient.
I was making a play on words. Facia:
The plate forming the basis of the control panel for a vehicle or device.
In British English, a car’s fascia or facia is its instrument panel and dashboard area.
In American English usage, a car’s fascia is its front-end “look” – grille, headlamps, front bumper, and other details.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090128053625AAJoHxs
After reading Orly’s Proposed findings of facts and law, I bought more frogs (the ones I need for the frog marching), Orly nailed it, I called my brother in law’s moving service, Obama will need help leaving the Dark House which will then revert to being the “White House” again, the jig is up Finally an OMG moment that doesn’t become “Oh No”. Lady Liberty has done what da Donald has failed to to. The KKK has initiated Orly into their hall of shame, an honor worthy of the screeching Orly.All 192 million birtters are cheering in the streets, look outside your windows, what a sight. Washington DC will be renamed Orlyville BC. Our prayers have been answered (OR NOT)
Oddly enough, she makes my eyes and ears bleed. I wonder what she smells like? Never mind, I’ll pass 😉
Sadly, just about alla fascia on my house is past due for replacement. Soffits too. Only an idiot would buy a house built by an idiot … oh, wait … ummm ….
Normally I would agree with you, but wouldn’t you expect to see at least one positive review? More one-star reviews of her can be found on Citysearch.
Orly file an Emergency Request (does she ever file anything that isn’t an emergency) with Judge Mahili to obtain the letters rogatory so she can “seek from the state of HI under rule 612-1-2 production of the originial birth certificateof the defendant in lieu of a copy proffered by the defense in 01.25.2012 letter to Secretary of State Kemp and carbon copied to this court.”
IMO, this is proffered copy is the source of the claims.
Is there anything that legally prevents any of the parties from going directly to the executive agency outside of the hearing process?
As for the who thing about documents……
In many ways this is problematic because the definition of “original” is so convoluted these days with easy electronic document generation. If the “original” is a file on a hard drive, it’s easy enough to make a perfect electronic copy and store it on a remote server or a flash drive. When I’ve filed legal papers, I made several identical first generation copies rather than one while photocopying the other.
In addition to that, it’s absolutely ludicrous that just because some copy of a document is submitted, that a party can petition the court to compel the custodian to release it. The rules are clear that it’s only about making sure that whatever is entered matches the copies that are handed out to the parties.
There seems to be an assumption that only a paper b.c. with a raised seal is acceptable. But maybe that isn’t true in these types of proceedings. In the Illinois case, the file contains an image of the so-called long form. Now, the White House only got 2 copies of that so far as we know, so they can’t provide an original to be kept by each state. So what was provided to Illinois? One of the 2 copies with the stipulation it be returned as soon as the authorities examined it and made a photocopy? Did Hawaii produce more copies recently (unlikely)? Or did Illinois just look at the image on the White House web site? Everyone is assuming web images are inadmissible, but stuff from the web is frequently admitted in court these days and it is an official government web site and Hawaii has validated it.
Er, Stern’s post about the birth certificate pre-dates Orly’s emergency request.Hint: look at what is in Jablonski’s Motion to Quash and what is missing in Kemo’s answer.
Yes, I know the British meaning. My point was that Orly or L’Oreley is not the first one to make that spelling error “prima facia”.
I like the idea that Orly may be reading the Balochistan Times.
Administrative proceedings go on the assumption that the true original can be produced in a court of law if the offended party takes the case to court. If you don’t believe the document produced is a true representation of the official document, and you have standing, you are free to take the issue to an actual court.
All comments here seem to be about Orly, who is a disaster as an attorney. I actually feel bad for her. Also what does this say regarding the nature of her claims that she is the best legal representation that this issue can command?
However, there was another separate case on the same day, where the sole issue was the natural born citizen clause. An amicus brief was also submitted by Donofrio. The arguments made in that case and in the amicus brief seem quite compelling. Anyone else look at those issues?
It seems the birth place issue, as well as the SSN is completely beside the point (unless of course it involved forgeries), and that the real issue is the natural born citizen requirement. (born of 2 us citizens).
It also does seem reasonable that any document submitted to the court would be subject to verification. So why not allow the inspection of the original documents to at least put Orly’s charges to rest.
Then we can deal with the natural born citizen clause of the constitution.
Donofrio is full of hot air.
If you want to make a compelling case, please cite one history text, civics text, or Constitutional Law text which states that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents.
“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.” – Sandra Day O’Connor, retired Justice of the Supreme Court
“Then”? You surely mean “again”?
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-great-mother-of-all-natural-born-citizen-quotation-pages/
Rely on primary sources, not a third-party interpretation. Especially not from a professional poker player. He’s likely bluffing you! 😉
Denndo says “So why not allow the inspection of the original documents”
.
Obama’s COLB and his LFBC have been attested to and verified by the state of Hawaii
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
official comment by Hawaii Dept of Health
On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.
.
What else do you want?
A majority of the conversation maybe, but certainly not all. Train wrecks and outrageous figures always garnish more conversation and ridicule, simple as that. She certainly is a disaster. The other cases have also been covered extensively on this blog too. All you have to do is spend the time to look around and read.
I don’t. Everything she’s done has been completely of her own willful volition and she seems to be quite the attention seeking media hog. So no, no sympathy at all. She only has herself to blame.
Bingo! …
There are whole articles on here with in-depth analysis of Leo Donofrio’s schlock claims since they began. Sorry, but there is nothing to his claims and the whole “2 citizen parent” nonsense is a fiction of his own creation that has simply spread through the same gullible Birther circles. It has no basis in reality and if you look at the analysis, Donofrio has been busted having to intentionally leave out or ignore certain portions of the very cases he cites, because it contradicts and disproves his made up notions.
Instead of falling for a professional poker player who here and there dabbles at playing lawyer (and loses) and who is well known for large scale performance art acts (see Paraclete, etc. in his own history), read what an actual official report says on the matter:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-%E2%80%9CNatural-Born%E2%80%9D-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement
Correct. The state of HI is the official authority for his BC and they stand fully behind it. There is no serious question or doubt.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
The kooky SSN nonsense is completely irrelevant.
That isn’t even a relevant argument under the narrow scope of authority of what this hearing can even rule on. The only issue at hand is this case is whether a candidate has been properly placed on the ballot for the Primary, in accordance with the regulatory requirements for such placement in GA.
Therefore, arguments trying to change or define terms in the federal Constitution are completely outside the scope and purview of this hearing and its purpose.
Further, as mentioned above, there simply is no “born of 2 citizens” requirement in our laws. None whatsoever.
Not necessarily. There has to be sufficient evidence to justify reason to doubt the existing information. Mere idle speculation simply doesn’t cut it. The first case in this hearing introduced a copy of his BC into their own testimony as evidence in a manner where they were establishing it as valid. That sort of undercuts and kills any argument to challenge its veracity right there. No other useful evidence was provided that invalidated it either. Both the Judge and the SoS would have to have a clear reason to doubt the BC before they could even go down the path of wanting further verification of it. That is highly unlikely, to put it mildly.
HI has repeatedly answered that. No one is above the law and has rights to access someone else’s records. More importantly, you can request a certified copy of your own BC, but even you cannot access the “original” document in the vault either. Such things are protected by law. If you didn’t have such laws, it would be very easy for originals to get damaged, stolen, etc.
Again, the charges are officially put to rest, because the only official authority over this document has repeatedly vouched for it. See again the HI FAQ if you have any questions.
As mentioned, outside the purview of this particular case. Further, there is no real serious question by anyone other than the Birthers and their fictitious claims. Our actual laws do not have any question about someone being born on US soil being a NBC. Parentage requirements have no real basis in any of our law.
1. Inspection of the original is not required to put Orly’s charges to rest in any legal sense.
2. The law does not permit Orly to inspect the original documents.
“However, there was another separate case on the same day, where the sole issue was the natural born citizen clause. An amicus brief was also submitted by Donofrio. The arguments made in that case and in the amicus brief seem quite compelling. Anyone else look at those issues?”
IL today rejected Donofrio’s nonsense as a wrong understanding of what a natural born citizen is, and they’re correct.
A very dangerous question! 😉
Very accomodating of you, giving mice cookies and all.
Hi Denndo,
If the Constitution were simply a work of fiction and the Supreme Court nothing more than a board of literary critics, Mr. Donofrio’s ideas on what constitutes a natural-born citizen might have traction. After all, the history of literary criticism is full of outsiders who challenged the traditional meaning of seminal texts.
However, the judicial branch doesn’t give much credence to outsiders, and it allows no space for private interpretations. Donofrio is an outsider with a private interpretation that contradicts a established ruling by the Supreme Court. You may agree with what he says, but what he says carries no authority among the people and institutions that guide American law and politics.
Denndo:
You argue:”It also does seem reasonable that any document submitted to the court would be subject to verification.” and “So why not allow the inspection of the original documents to at least put Orly’s charges to rest?”
Repeatedly wasting the court’s time with the same rejected novel theories of law, thinly disguised as a new question is nothing less than a kind of anarchy. What we call “moving the goal posts” by the Birthers, is a serious disregard for the rights of other citizens to have access to the courts without having them bogged down by this kind of frivolous abuse of our government.
With the Birthers, there will always be another “reasonable question” disputing each outcome that does not make Obama ineligible.
Really reasonable people, including those who crafted our laws, know that such attempted abuse is potentially a disabling threat to our nation. Consequently, there are standards of proof that are considered reasonable and sufficient, by consensus and common practice.
Questions beyond those standards, once met, are not “reasonable” in any practical sense, whether they consist of Orly asking to see an original document once, or twice, or just 12 more times, or whether they consist of letting every citizen in the United States state their own personal terms of what would constitute for each of them, a sufficient standard of proof – let’s say, just for that day – they might have another reasonable question tomorrow- but can we agree that there could be no more than 300 million such unique questioning standards “reasonably” imposed each day?
Presuming Orly does not have special rights under the Constitution, why not allow the other 300 million questions to be individually satisfied tomorrow, to at least put those first 300 million charges to rest?”
Do you even know what government is?
Benji Franklin
How do we reconcile with Minor vs Happersett?
I’m unclear about what you’re asking. Could you be more specific?
There is nothing to reconcile. Minor v. Happersett merely states that anyone born in the U.S. whose parents are citizens is a natural born citizen. It left open the question whether children born of aliens in the United States were citizens, noting that at that time there were some doubts about that. However, the Minor court declined to address those doubts since they were not germane to the case, which was about voting rights for women.
However, those doubts were resolved in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, the District Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, both of whose parents where citizens of China, was a natural born citizen because he was born in the United States. The government, in its Supreme Court brief, acknowledged that if Wong Kim Ark was a citizen he was eligible to be President. The Supreme Court upheld the District Court ruling without exception.
From the Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions (1999):
Exclusionists urged that persons of Chinese descent should be denied birthright citizenship and pushed for a definition of citizenship based up the nationality of the parents (“jus sanguinis”) rather than upon place of birth (“jus soli”)…The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark, holding that the common law and the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all persons born in the United States. p. 338
As said above…there’s nothing to reconcile. Birther just don’t get what Minor said. No court has ever interpreted Minor the way birthers do. It’s just plain wrong, and a simple reading of the decision should make it entirely clear to even a lay person that it doesn’t stand for what they claim.
Benji, bravo!
Can you read?
From Minor vs Happersett:
How can anyone believe that a statement which includes the statement “For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts” creates a holding that settles those doubts one way or the other?
U. S. vs Wong solved those doubts.
Funny thing…
HRE 612 (nearly identical to FRE 612) is only applicable to be used in cases where the document is used to refresh memories of witnesses.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol13_Ch0601-0676/HRS0626/HRS_0626-0001-0612.htm
Birthers believe that the statement “there is no doubt that a red polygon with four equal sides is a square” somehow means that all squares must be red.
Daniel, superb analogy!
“There is nothing to reconcile. Minor v. Happersett merely states that anyone born in the U.S. whose parents are citizens is a natural born citizen.”
Isn’t that the whole point of the lawsuit?, that Obama Sr was not a US Citizen and therefore Obama Jr cannot be a natural born citizen?
I also seem to recall that the senate went to extraordinary measures to confirm that McCain was a natural born citizen, even though he was not born on US soil, because both parents were US citizens. If McCain had to be born of 2 US citizens to be considered a natural born citizen and therefore qualified to serve as president, wouldn’t Obama have to meet that same requirement?
That’s the part that I can’t dismiss as easily as Orly.
Is it a requirement to be a natural born citizen to be president? How can Obama qualify if his father was not a US Citizen?
Because the supreme court in WKA said such was not required. Such was not inconsistent with Minor as Minor expressly declined to address the status of children of aliens and Minor was obiter dicta and not precedent. I know this is way over the heads of most birthers. Of course, there is a mountain of other legal authority over the past 200 years clearly stating that eligibility was a matter of place of birth and really no authority of any significance saying otherwise. Don’t you people ever pick up a legal dictionary or treatise?
Hi Denndo,
Are you a troll or simply an incompetent reader? For either due to instransigence or sloppiness, you stopped reading at a crucial point in Rickey’s response and passed over his central argument, i.e.,
“[Minor v. Happersett] left open the question whether children born of aliens in the United States were citizens, noting that at that time there were some doubts about that. However, the Minor court declined to address those doubts since they were not germane to the case, which was about voting rights for women.
“However, those doubts were resolved in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, the District Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, both of whose parents where citizens of China, was a natural born citizen because he was born in the United States. The government, in its Supreme Court brief, acknowledged that if Wong Kim Ark was a citizen he was eligible to be President. The Supreme Court upheld the District Court ruling without exception.
“From the Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions (1999):
Exclusionists urged that persons of Chinese descent should be denied birthright citizenship and pushed for a definition of citizenship based up the nationality of the parents (“jus sanguinis”) rather than upon place of birth (“jus soli”)…The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark, holding that the common law and the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all persons born in the United States. p. 338″
Really, Denndo: unless you want to be in thrall to hucksters like Donofrio all your life, you’re got to start thinking.
Minor was only making a statement as to one small catagory of NBC, not defining its whole universe. The court’s opinion clearly stated that there may be additional catagories of NBC, but that they did not have to resolve those issues here. You’ll note that John McCain doesn’t fall into that catagory either. However, WKA took it a step further to define what was an NBC under the common law. So you had the first subgroup of NBC explained in Minor, and WKA took it a step further and explained that catagory which Minor specifically punted on, and said, yes, they too are NBC. Perhaps some day a court will authoritatively address wheter someone like McCain is an NBC.
Nothing extraoridnary. No hearings, no birth certificate produced, no testimony. Just two legal opinions by respected constitutional law schoars and a non-binding resolution declaring him an NBC due to his birth on a military installation in the Panama Canal Zone back in 38 (or whenever it was) while his father was serving. You’ll note that none of those either criteria listed in the resolution are held to be required for NBC. The reason two parents are not required for President Obama are the same reasons why there was no resolution declaring him, or any other President before him, as Natural Born Citizen. He was born on US soil so there was no question of it. That’s the default.
Read up on the law. It will become easier to dismiss than Orly. Remember, you’re dealing with a theory of law that didn’t exist before 2008, and it was created by someone who has more experience playing professional poker than being a lawyer.
There is a requirement, and Obama qualifies because all that is needed to be an NBC is to be born on US soil and not have a parent who is a foreign diplomat (or part of an invading army…but it’s been a while since that’s been an issue).
Yeah but…I still have doubts.
It could be a rhombus.
*wink*
36 I think.
But that’s like taking “anyone who owns a professional baseball team is a rich person” and using that definition to say that someone who owns a football team isn’t rich. It’s the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition.
Do the sides have to meet at right angles for it to be a natural born rhombus?
Thanks JoZeppy, appreciate the analysis.
I am not familiar with WKA, I’ll read up on it. It is a fascinating subject, and one that I never thought twice about.
What then is the distinction between Citizen, and Natural Born Citizen? And why is the requirement to be a natural born citizen?
Is this just an outdated requirement?
Has there ever been anyone else with Obama’s circumstances that has been president?
“There is a requirement, and Obama qualifies because all that is needed to be an NBC is to be born on US soil and not have a parent who is a foreign diplomat (or part of an invading army…but it’s been a while since that’s been an issue).”
What is the source for that, if you have it handy…
Thanks.
No, it happened recently.
Here’s the article: http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i35111
Precisely.
But…you only have to check one of the interior angles to test for NBR. If it’s 90 degrees, you’re good to go.
There are two types of citizens, natural-born and naturalized. Naturalized citizens are aliens who come to the U.S. and become U.S. citizens through the naturalization process. Natural-born citizens are U.S. citizens at birth (although there remains an open question about whether those born abroad as U.S. citizens are eligible to be President).
Most historians agree that the “natural-born” requirement was put in place in order to prevent European (mainly British) royalty and nobility from becoming President.
There seems to be a general consensus that Chester A. Arthur’s father was not a U.S. citizen when President Arthur was born.
A citizen is one who is either born a citizen or later becomes a citizen.
A natural born citizen is one who is born a citizen.
The most plausible reason for why the specific requirement of “natural born” in the Constitution is that it was to exclude a foreign aristocrat from coming to the US, obtaining citizenship, and becoming ruler of the US. Perhaps a more remote concern now than it was to the fledgling country.
Perhaps not — but there have only been 43 people who have ever been president under the current Constitution. It’s not surprising that new combinations of circumstances continue to crop up.
I wouldn’t call a non-binding Senate resolution extraordinary.
They’re not uncommon and they only represent the Senate’s opinion on an issue.
It’s kind of like the difference between a square and a rectangle. All squares are rectangles, but not rectangles are squares. All Natural Born Citizens are Citizens, but not all Citizens are Natural Born Citizens. The catagory of Citizens includes Natural Born Citizens and Naturalized Citizens. Thus when the Constitution says to be in congress, one has to be a citizen, it means you can be naturalized or natural born. When it says the President must be a Natural Born Citizen, they limited that office to just that portion of citizens born as citizens.
To be honest, I’m a lawyer, and less of a historian (although I do have a Masters in history…but it’s a Masters in early modern central european history…so not very helpful here). There has been much discussion on this board about the founders desire to prevent a monarch from trying to cram a relative in the presidency, and eliminating naturalized citizens cuts that down. There are assorted arguments about birth on the soil and alliegence…but to be honest, I’m really no expert or that concerend about the intentions. Suffice it to say, it was a check on foreign power.
Again, that is a policy question that I think is secondary to the debate about the requirement. I do believe it is outdated at this point in our history. Most naturalized citizens I know are the most patriotic and civically minded, and politically aware people I know. Part of it, I believe stems from having to have made actual effort to obtain citizenship. If you work for something, you value it more. And then you have people like Tim McVeigh, and John Walker Lind. Born and raised on US soil, and have no love for it. However, the requirement is law as of today. Any debate about what the law should be comes after we clearly state what the law is. And in the legal community, the consensus is “[t]hose born in the United States are uncontroversially natural born citizens.” Gabriel J. Chin, Commentary, Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be
President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship, 107 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 1 (2008).
What is the source for that, if you have it handy…
The origins is Calvin’s Case. An early 17th century English case. Trust me, you don’t want to read it. I have a JD, and am fairly accustomed to reading judicial opinions. 17th Century English decisions are difficult to follow. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is probably offers a nice summary of it all, and is by far, easier to read and digest.
If you’re really bored, Michigan’s law school did an entire symposium on the question of John McCain’s citizenship (again, because he was attempting to be the first President not born in one of the states). This is pretty much pushing the question on the third ring of what is an NBC (Minor giving us the first, WKA the second, and now the issue of McCain the thrid). Again there are some who will question why was McCain given all this attention and not Obama. The answer is pretty simple. Those of us in the legal community who are familiar with the law had no doubt about Obama. No one is going to want to read something about an uncontroverisal question in the law that is considered decided, unless it is in a historical context (i.e., you’re not going to get very far trying to have a discussion of whether slavery is legal today. It’s a no-brainer and decided law). But anyway, here is where the real scholarly legal debate is today.
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/senator-john-mccain-and-natural-born-citizenship-the-full-symposium
Depends what you define as “his circumstances.”
With non-citizen parents. Yes. Chester Allen Aurthur at minimum. Then there were also VPs who are also required to be NBC (C. A. Aurther initiall, Agnew was probably another, and then we’d actually have to do the research. Problem with the research is no one ever paid attention before, so it takes some work to figure out). Then also consider candidates that ran for president that no one ever questioned (Mike Dukakis). One of Dukakis’ favorite lines to throw out on the campaign trail was that he was the son of Greek immigrants….and yet no one even questioned the citizenship of his parents. Quite simply, before 2008, the two citizen parent theory didn’t even exist.
JoZeppy,
I am really bored (!)….but maybe I’ll start with WKA!.
Anyway, I appreciate the insight and the civil tone.
To me it makes sense that the constitution would want presidents that are born of citizens, not aliens, so dual or crossed allegiance issues would be eliminated.
I can think of a nightmare scenario where say in the time of the cold war, a child of 2 Russian aliens would be born in the united states (therefore a natural born citizen) who would then be eligible to be president.
It would seem to me that a buffer (that of being born of 2 existing citizens) would resolve that issue. If that was what the founders pondered it was with terrific foresight.
Here is the simplest way to explain it:
Citizen is the overall “super class” if you will.
There are simply two subsets of Citizen in the US – Born and Naturalized (as clearly stated in the 14th amendment).
Born = NBC.
Naturalized means that someone obtained their US citizenship via a process and not at birth. Naturalized citizens have a paper trail confirming their naturalization.
NBC citizens do not need papers that declare them to be citizens. They are the default citizen status, as they simply obtained their citizenship at birth.
The only legal difference between rights of the two types of Citizenship in the US is that ONLY NBC citizens can become President here (and via extension, VP). But that is it.
They are both Citizens of the US. So Citizen is simply the overall group and NBC vs Naturalized are simply the two subtypes within Citizen.
I hope that clears things up.
The Administrative Law judge in Georgia has rules that President Obama is a natural born citizen because of his birth in Hawaii.
Judgment for the defendant.
But you are failing to actually think through what such a scenario would mean.
Regardless of parentage, that child would be born and raised in the U.S. Therefore, THIS is the country he would identify with, not Russia. He would grow up American in American culture.
Further, in order to get elected, he would have to be an appealing enough candidate to the voters to WIN over the opposition. That is probably the most important point you are overlooking – somehow assuming that someone with “anti-American” views would be chosen by the majority of the American public to lead them. That simply doesn’t make any sense.
During WWII, there were plenty of German Americans that fought as American soldiers against the Nazi’s. My grandfather was one of them. He may have been born of German parents, but he was born here and grew up American. This was his country, not Germany. There are thousands upon thousands of similar examples like that.
So in summary, once you actually think about your “nightmare scenario”…it completely falls apart and doesn’t make any practical sense.
Link please???
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/judge-malihi-rules-against-plaintiffs.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80417613/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Judge-Malihi-Final-Decision-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge-2-3-2012
your wish granted 😉
haven’t read it, but it does close with a scold of Jablonski!
Orly’s Response
(that is a link to Orlyland, I knopw many fear to tread there)
Yap, it looks like Obama regime got to yet another judge, he states that Minor does not control and no witness was persuasive. Keep in mind, Obama was supposed to prove his eligibility and he did not provide any witnesses and he did not provide any evidence
Malihi’s order looks like it was drafted by Obama’s personal attorneys from Perkins Coie. He brings forward a ruling from another court in IN and says, that because they ruled that Minor does not control, he rules that as well.
In regards to the evidence and witnesses, he says, that none of them were persuasive. Well, plaintiffs witnesses were not supposed to prove that Obama is not eligible, plaintiffs were supposed to show, that there is a reasonable doubt. Obama was supposed to provide evidence to overcome this reasonable doubt. If HI refuses to provide any original documents and Obama is refusing to provide any certified copies, what can the Plaintiffs do? How can we provide better evidence. I filed a motion for Malihi to issue letter Rogatory to the circuit court in HI, so we can get the original birth certificate or provide definitive proof, that it does not exist. Malihi stated that he does not believe, that he has jurisdiction to sign a letter Rogatory. I can go to the superior court and petition for letters rogatory, but with the level of corruption in courts, I don’t know, if the Superior court of Fulton county is any better.
From now on we have an official anarchy. No rule of law, no real documents exist. Any criminal can create any forgery, post it on line and that would be enough for one to be the President, to be in charge of the military and nuclear weapons. From now on anyone can use stolen social security numbers of deceased individuals from the states, where they never resided.
We officially have a free for all, we officially have a mob rule, a criminal enterprise running the nation and we have no judge that will stop this mob.
Bottom line, we need to get the original documents from Hawaii and from the Social Security to show, that Obama is a fraud and a criminal. I am not sure yet, how to get the original documents. I don’t know how to break through the stonewalling of this criminal enterprise running the country. I welcome your ideas. I am not sure, how people can stop this criminal enterprise rule short of a total citizen’s revolt.
At any rate, I will ask fr a stay, pending motion for reconsideration and me filing a petition for letters rogatory to the Fulton county court to be sent to the circuit court in Hawaii, seeking circuit court in HI, issuing subpoena for Obama’s original documents, as well as SSA providing the original application for this SS-5 application for 042-68-4425 Connecticut SSN, that Obama is fraudulently using. If the documents, that I got so far are not good enouph, than higher courts should issue letters rogatory and subpoenas to the Social Security administration and Department of Health in Hawaii to force them provide the original documents, which of course we all know do not exist.
I need plaintiffs in Indiana ASAP.
Wow, what a sweet cry from Orly!
John, where is yours?
What about the Speaker of the House of Representatives? Third in line after the VP.
Well, I’m not far from your nightmare scenario. Both of my parents were immigrants from the Eastern Bloc. Immigrated to the US in the 1960s, at the height of the cold war. I was born in the US before they became citizens (although they could have applied before my birth). And to add even more nightmare to your situation, by Polish law, I am a citizen of Poland as well (Poland grants citizenship by birth only). Now to throw a mokey wrench into your works. Had my parents become citizens before my birth (which they could have), then by even your defintion, I am a natural born citizen. So what exactly has changed?
Again, all these nightmare scenaros, whether its yours, or Osama has a child on US soil, forget several important issues. 1) There is a residency requirement. Before the person can be qualified for the Presidency, not only do they have to be an NBC, but the have to have lived in the US for 14 years. 2) They have to get elected. Now we have all seen the kind of muck raking that goes on in every election. Now if someone was brought up in a household that hates the US, and maintains those animostities, and is interested in undermining the US by being elected President….don’t you think that may come up during an election? How exactly does one hide those kinds of problems pretty much for their entire lives?
And besides, there is only so much that the President can do. Not like a President is going to hand over the country to a foreign power. He might tint his polices to be a little more favorable to the country of his heritage, but how is that any different than what some politicians are doing with our Isreal policy (whether it be based on their Jewish religion, or their Christian apocolyptic religion)?
Why would that be a nightmare scenario? Why would you assume that a child born and raised in the United States by aliens is any less a patriot than a child whose parents are citizens?
Why this insistence on holding it against people because of who their parents are or what their parents have done? Should we have held it against Gerald Ford that his birth father was a wife-beater? Should we have held it against George Romney that his father was a polygamist? Or that Bill Clinton’s stepfather was a gambler and an alcoholic?
Just as The Manchurian Candidate was fiction.
With inane accusations of anarchy and corruption, Orly and her ilk sound like they are trying to incite some idiotic lone wolf into trying something stupid.
I am proud to say that all Three Stooges were Jewish. [Take a bow. No, in the other direction.]
You feel badly for that momser?! I feel badly for you.
As an officer in The International Jewish Conspiracy™, I can confirm we manipulated the election. As proof of our influence, and Israeli is now Chicago mayor.
Watch your back.
“sound like”?! That is EXACTLY what Orly and that other momser Andrew Adler are trying to do.
They dirty all of us.
But the difference here is the Speaker is elected as a member of the HoR, and therefore his electoral qualifications fall under that office, not under Presidential eligibility requirements.
After all, the HoR has the ability to choose who their Speaker is under their own internal rules, post-election.
I suspect that many of the Birther leaders always have been trying to incite just that…
Whether intentional or unintentional, their rhetoric has been extremely irresponsible for a long time. If any nut goes out and tries to do some damage and get’s linked back to them… then they deserve to be treated as implicit and inciteful of the crime…
Um… does she realize that Ankeny was decided in Indiana? It might be a little tough to argue that “Ankeny” was a state case (in Indiana) so it does not apply here (in Indiana).
Absolutely.
The Vice President’s main duty is to be Emergency Backup President. With the 12th and 25th Amendments, the Constitution now more explicitly recognizes that and requires that the VP already be eligible to be president.
The Speaker of the House has many duties and responsibilities besides being in line for the Presidency, so they do not have this restriction.
If the Speaker or anyone in the line of succession past the VP does not meet the requirements for President, they would be skipped over, per the Presidential Succession Act.
Could you do something about the bagels out here? They’re like dinner rolls. And would it kill you to ship us some lox?
Louder. He might be hard of herring.
Do you really imagine, that during the Cold War, the child of two Russian aliens could have ever, EVER, gained the nomination of a major party, or more inconceivably, be elected to the presidency?
Oy, on this site, it’s like the Catskills!
“I can think of a nightmare scenario”
Goody. Stephen King needs more competition.
*face palm* LOL! Exactly!
It sounds so reasonable when you put it that way.
…you see the problem, then.
Timothy McVeigh had two citizen parents