So now we know that Orly Taitz filed a complaint with the California Bar against Scott Tepper, an attorney that is appearing pro hac vice against her in the Mississippi ballot challenge filed by Taitz. In her world, Obama is a fraud and everyone who defends him is a criminal conspirator. While this is classic conspiracy theory thinking, we don’t usually see it played out in official channels, here the courts and the bar association.
Taitz complained specifically that Tepper had presented a legible copy of Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate to the Mississippi District Court to replace the mostly unreadable copy that Taitz herself had previously submitted to the same Court. Taitz moved for sanctions against Tepper in Mississippi, and Tepper subsequently provided a verification of authenticity from the State of Hawaii for all the information on the certificate.
The California Bar in response to Taitz replied in essence that it doesn’t decide on the authenticity of documents and that the courts and law enforcement are the ones to deal with allegations of criminal fraud.
Specifically the reply from the California Bar (page 78 in this attachment) states:
Your complaint also concerns a matter of national security which is beyond the scope of the State Bar.
Without a copy of the Taitz complaint, it’s not possible to know exactly what the additional “matter” referenced here is. Taitz, however, characterizes it as the forged birth certificate in her recent motion to re-open the dismissed Barnett v. Obama federal lawsuit in California.
The actual complaint she filed was available on her blog a while back, if I can find it, I will post a link. Keep in mind that bar complaints are supposed to be confidential, so she violated the CA Rules of Professional Conduct by posting it.
Here is a link to the content of the complaint she filed in MS:
http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2012/05/taitz-files-bar-complaint.html
She CC’d that to CA
Doc, in case you want to change a small error in your narrative, the bar reply dated 16 July doesn’t actually say “Your complaint also contains a matter of national security which is beyond the scope of the State Bar.”. It says “concerns” not “contains”.
Either way, as you know, that section of their reply obviously doesn’t mean what she is now trying to pretend it means, especially given the sentence which follows it.
So they respond to her promptly, but not to the complaints about her practices???
Am I missing something here, or is this sheer lunacy?
“Tepper subsequently provided a verification of authenticity from the State of Hawaii for all the information on the certificate.”
Technically this is not true. While Tepper did send a letter to Hawaii asking for the information on the Long Form BC to be verified and even though Alvin Onaka did respond and verify the information, the verification is too vague to be any use. Tepper failed to specify what information he wanted verified and Onaka failed to verify which information on the birth certificate. I find this argue to be credible one because Hawaii provides an official form for such verifications. On that form, the applicant is to specify specific information to verified on the vital record. Since Tepper failed to use the official form and merely sent a letter without specifically identifying the information to be verified, one could argue the verification is too vague and that Alvin Onaka would need to summoned to identify what information he verified on the long form birth certificate. In addition, if Onaka were summoned he would face cross examination by Orly Taitz would raise all sorts of issues regarding Obama and his long form BC.
I understand that the CA Bar was just trying to placate a lunatic when they wrote that sentence about national security, but, seriously, they should know better. In not taking action against a clearly mentally ill, clearly incompetent, clearly unethical, and clearly dishonest lawyer like Taitz, they have shamed their organization, their state, and their profession.
This somehow reminds me of the 911 calls by people complaining to the police that someone stole their stash.
To all three of your points – I just want to say that I completely share these sentiments with you. I consider all three of your points to be related to the same overall issue with how frustrating and ironic this particular situation is; to be even brought up in front of the CA Bar… the sheer audacity of Orly’s actions here…it is such an in their face move, screaming outloud as further proof that she has no business practicing law… yet they continue to let her vexatious insanity run free….
There are no issues. Onaka verified all the information. The case is closed.
It will be up to US District Court Judge For the Southern District of Mississippi R. Kenneth Coleman to decide whether the certified Letter of Verification from Hawai’i state Registrar of Vital Statistics Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D. Is “too vague” or not.
The Judge is highly unlikely to “summon” the Hawai’i state Registrar to Jackson, Mississippi for an exhibit in a pre-trial motion, but the Judge might give him a call or send him an email if the Judge has any further questions.
Judges are used to receiving Letters of Verification of state records from officials of state governments who are authorized by statute to issue such verifications.
And how do you know Tepper failed to use the official form, he could have e-mailed it, faxed it, etc. Just because he didn’t include it in the filing doesn’t mean he didn’t use it. And, there is absolutely no vagueness on what is being verified, so much so that Onaka INCLUDED HIS OWN COPY of the web site he was verifying. So, you’re shot down again John.
Oops, almost forgot. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh, how lovely! 😛
So John is just another birther practicing law ‘without a bar card.’ (Collette’s term for it).
By the degree and scope of technicality that our government’s legal system applies to settle legal disputes, IT IS true, and therefore it is the current legal truth. By the imaginary goalpost-moving “technical” legal perspectives which dissatisfied Birthers apply to every circumstance associated with their desire to declare Obama ineligible, the “truth” of any proposition is proportional to the degree with which that proposition declares Obama ineligible.
Your amateurish analysis of past practices of the Hawaii Dept of Health does not translate into absolute regulations which that Dept must follow as you would wish in every case, nor is there any venue that will effect the outcome in which your ability to torture out a proclaimed “argument”, would compel anyone to do anything. You continue to hide from reality and comfort yourself with conclusions that could only comfort a lunatic.
Here is the letter from the Bar, as posted by Mad Orly.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/response-from-the-CA-bar-re-Tepper.pdf
And here are some responses to the letter. I really like her response.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?attachment_id=228550
That is factually not true.
From the letter that you say doesnot replaced the pfficial form:
“Pursuant to Sections 338-14.3 and 338-18 (g)(4), MDEC Counsel recently submitted a written request to the Hawaii Department of Health, seeking verification of the following:
1. The original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II, is on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health.
2. The information contained in the “Certificate of Live Birth” published at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth- certificate, a copy of which is attached to this request, matches the information contained in the original Certificate of Live birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health.
The “submitted a written request” could have been the official form.
John’s probably upset that Tepper used the “tangible interest” law in the request (338-18). John had been harping on that one for some time and then Tepper goes and uses it against the Birthers.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I guess in this argument it would depend on the meaning of the word “Information” regarding the verification of the BC. Does “Information” mean specific elements contained in the vital record or does it mean the data as a whole contained in BC? Tepper’s request doesn’t say and neither does Onaka’s response.
As we all know Arizona SOS Bennett asked for verification too and after some doing got a response from Hawaii as well. In Bennett’s verification, he does list specific data elements to be verified and Hawaii verified them. But Bennett’s verification is truly a perplexing enigma. In his request Bennett fails to request verification of THE DATE OF BIRTH. For the life of me, I can think no rational reason on why Bennett would not ask for the DATE OF BIRTH to be verified. This makes absolutely no sense in the world. The only conclusion that can surmised from this is that Bennett must have asked for verification of THE DATE OF BIRTH. But, Hawaii had told Bennett that he could have it verified. The big question is WHY??? Why did Hawaii refuse to verify the DATE OF BIRTH?
Could it be that no one, not even birthers, have ever questioned Obama’s date of birth?
Your leap from “didn’t ask” to “refused to answer” is obvious nonsense, but I felt I should say it anyway.
You can’t change the clear meaning of the verification by playing word games. Hawaii verified Obama was born there and all the other information on the form. Deal with it.
Makes absolutely no sense only to you and your friends who helped you escape the insane asylum.
You’re upset that Obama wasn’t born prior to 1959 when Hawaii received statehood, I guess. You’d do anything to make Obama illegitimate wouldn’t you? It kills you that he’s not illegitimate at all. Your insistence that the date is of utmost importance, when nobody else has even questioned the date, shows how absolutely desperate you are.
Again John, you make assumptions and they prove to be false. Bennett sent him a copy of the the LFBC that Bennett printed from the WH web site. Note: Date of Birth is on that copy. And Hawaii verified it. Note the last line of the letter.
http://azcapitoltimes.com/wp-files//verification-in-lieu-of-certified-copy.pdf
I don’t think that would help the birthers. Hawaiians were natural born US citizens well before statehood. I don’t think one must be born in a state, only on sovereign US soil. Goldwater was born in Arizona Territory and Al Gore was born in DC, and there is no serious argument that they weren’t eligible.
Maybe they want to say Obama is not 35. Before he took office, perhaps he could have passed for younger than his true age. But 4 years in office ages one. So, no luck there either.
What does that even mean?
I think it means this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA
Do you expect them to know that? Their reasoning never seems to indicate that they are even trying to reason out their positions. It’s all ends justify means thinking. If it hurts Obama, no matter if it’s real or not, they are for it.
I should admit that when I stated that, I didn’t truly think that was a legitimate line of argument, just that I would expect “John” to use it. I know that the founders grandfathered people into the union when states were accepted, just as they grandfathered citizens who were subjects of the English crown before American Independence. The date is a spurious argument, but one that I would expect someone like John to make.
Beyond Dr. C’s point about the irrelevance of your word games, you need to deal with the verification Hawaii provided Mississippi after Arizona.
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/wp-content/uploads/verification.jpg
It clearly states the information contained matches the information contained.
When Hawaii issues a Verification of Birth, certain information is always withheld because it can be used for purposes of identity theft.The information which is omitted from the Verification of Birth includes the date of birth and the names of the parents.
I know this is difficult for you, but try to use some common sense for once. You really expect that in a Verification of Birth the DOH would include everything which is on the birth certificate? That would run contrary to the entire point of birth certificates being protected records.
Finally, as others have pointed out, Bennett sent with his request a copy of the LFBC which he downloaded from the White House website. Here is what the Verification of Birth has to say about that:
I verify that the information contained in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files.
End of discussion.
What I like about John’s posts are that he becomes this sites example of the typical Birther.
John is impervious to the facts, impervious to logic. In John’s world, everything must be viewed with the assumption that Obama is a fraud ,and therefore every fact that doesn’t fit that view must be rationalized.
That is why John cannot accept that a verification is a verification.
Brings to mind Clinton and rationalizing what is sex and what is not.
“I verify that the information contained in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files.”
Which “Information”? Does it refer to the specific elements of the vital record or does it refer to the vital record as a whole. Neither verification makes that distinction.
I’m just guessing here but I think I can answer John’s question: Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett had no question about whether Barack Obama was age 35 or not, so he saw no reason to verify the President’s birth date. The other criterion for eligibility, 14 years residence in the US cannot be gleaned from a birth record.
I neglected to mention that any of the other state Secretaries of State or Chief Election Officials can certainly fill out the online form and ask Dr. Onaka to verify President Obama’s birth date, if they are interested in that specific piece of information.
Ken Bennett in Arizona was satisfied with the verification letter that he received.
Inquiring minds want to know, John: What…..really…..do you think is the reason?
But, but…….it says “files”. What does that mean???? Does that mean there is more than one file for Obama???? That the state has more than one file for births???
How did John miss this one? This is big….very big.
The information on the document as a whole has been verified.
There is no sane reason to pretend that the response is leaving anything out… except in the desperate wishful denialism of your own mind.
Face it, you are twisting madly to come up with excuses…
“The information contained in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth”
For example, Onaka does not verify that Americans landed on the moon because that is not information contained in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth. On the other hand, he does verify that Obama was born August 4, 1961 because that is information contained in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth. It’s really simple. If you have a question about a particular item of information, just look to see if it is in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth. If it is, then Hawaii verified and if it is not, they didn’t.
I am not a real doctor, but I have a master’s degree in set theory.
I should mention that birthers were also unable to grasp the concept that a certification on paper is a certificate.
Or John is somebody’s notion of performance art.
Very well could be. But when there is no fine line to distinguish between where Poe’s Law is in effect and with how the true Cult syncophants act, does it even matter any more?
Anyone who choses Birtherism as their “performance art” calling deserves just as much contempt as the delusional hate-based Birther themselves. Half of the Birthers aren’t the “true believers” and are just insincere propagandists, anyways.
So in terms of how to react to them, I fail to see where there remains any reason to not just lump them all together as the same hopeless and despicable trash…
John…..all we ever hear from you is negative horribly tortured logic about what you think DOESN’T constitute a verification from Hawaii.
So let’s try to be a bit more constructive, with the added bonus of at the same time making you think for yourself about this a bit more clearly. Please give us your own exact proposed wording of a hypothetical letter from Hawaii which you WOULD accept as actually meaning to you that they are unambiguously verifying that the information in each and every box in the birth certifcate copy posted on the WH website is the same as the corresponding information held in their vital record files.
Await your suggestion with interest.
John is trying to play the game that Hawaii is lying or withholding because their verification makes no mention of the medical info with the vital record.
Let’s get this straight…..you have seen with your own eyes Bennet’s e-mail to Hawaii in which he quite clearly did not ask for verification of the date of birth and you think that Bennett not asking for the date of birth means that “the only conclusion is that Bennett must have asked for the date of birth”.
You’re not the full shilling.
It’s obviously the latter. Good God you’re annoying. Children play these kinds of idiotic mind games with their parents. At 9 PM a mother tells her son to turn off the TV and go to bed. So he goes to his bed, then 30 seconds later comes right back to the TV. He retorts, “Mom, you told me to go to bed, but you didn’t tell me to stay there.”
What in the world does this mean? Please translate into English from Kookinese.
And this comes from the same imbecile who (presumably) once took President Clinton to task for arguing about the meaning of words.
John is pushing to reach the event horizon of birther stupidity.
However Onaka verified the time of birth. Even as a non-birther, it puzzles me why Bennett would have been interested in the time of birth but not in the date of birth. Is there a passage in the Constitution written in invisible ink that disqualifies anyone born between midnight and 2 a.m. from being President?
By elementary logic, saying “the information on A matches the information on B” means everything that is on A is the same on B. What are you getting at? Are you rehashing the claim that the “real BC” contains some nefarious information on top of what’s on the LFBC? Like what? A footnote saying “ha ha, just kidding, really borned (sic!) in Kenya as a Marxist Muslim, suckaz”?
Apparently, John is using the same logic as the birthers use on Minor. Minor says, one way to be NBC is to be born here and have citizens parents. For birthers, that translates as the only way. John is confused because Hawaii is verifying the information that is on the certificate matches their records. But to him, that means that there records can only contain what is on the certificate and he is now confused and needs to see their records.
I fear birthers may be stuck in the Pre-operational phase. Poor Piaget never anticipated birthers in his theory.
Maybe he’s into horoscopes?
Perhaps Bennett is terrified of Gremlins.
“First of all, keep him out of the light, he hates bright light, especially sunlight, it’ll kill him. Second, don’t give him any water, not even to drink. But the most important rule, the rule you can never forget, no matter how much he cries, no matter how much he begs, never feed him after midnight.”
That was my thought when writing my comment. 😉
But even their insane logic isn’t self-consistent. When talking about Minor, they claim “group A people are NBC => group A = NBC”. When talking about the Hawaiian verification, they claim “information on A matches information on B” doesn’t mean “A = B (information-wise)” but rather “B contains more”.
And worse than that, what they actually claim (otherwise it would make no sense) is that the “more” on B allegedly contains effectively *contradicts* what is on A.
As in “yes, both the WH PDF and the vault document may say ‘born in Hawaii’, but the vault document actually has an addendum ‘naw, just kiddin’, we really mean born in Kenya”. Or something like “Information as provided by Communist Party of America, original BC destroyed”.
Well, one can always believe in secret addenda that allegedly invalidate what you actually can see. Most right-wing conspiracy believers in my country love to claim “The treaty between Germany and … says that we’re still under occupation by the Allied Forces” and when you call them out on it, they retort “well don’t you know, of course it’s in the secret addendum, silly”.
Just like that, even if they were to accept the vault BC as legit, they’d still go “there is a secret document from 1963 that invalidates the vault document” or “the vault document replaced the real BC which has been destroyed, but I’m sure it said ‘baby daddy = some scary radical black dude’…”.
I can think of a black hole is about to fall into. And he won’t have to look far to find it.
I doubt that Hawaii would ever send out a verification which includes the date of birth and the names of the parents.
Compare the verification which was sent to Bennett with the information which is on the short-form COLB that Obama released in 2008. The COLB contains this information:
Name
Date of Birth
Hour of Birth
Sex
City, Island & County
Mother’s Maiden Name & Race
Father’s Name and Race
Date Filed by Registrar
Certificate Number
The verification which was sent to Bennett contains all of the above information except the date of birth and the names of the parents (also the sex is not included in the verification). Why? Because that is the information which is protected by privacy laws. The three most important pieces of information to identify thieves are date of birth, mother’s maiden name, and Social Security Number.
If Hawaii was going to provide all of the information which is on a birth certificate in a verification in lieu of birth certificate, they might was well just issue a copy of the birth certificate. But they don’t do that. There is a perfectly logical reason why they do not include certain information in a verification.
The verification differs from a birth certificate in two important ways:
First, the verification discloses no information to the requester. The requester must provide all the information to be verified; the State only verifies it. If the request does not state a date of birth, then the verification will not state a date of birth. This is why a verification is not a tool for identity theft: they won’t tell you anything you don’t already know.
The second difference is that no one is going to accept a verification as an identity document. While a birth certificate is supposed to be nothing more than proof of what it says, it is occasionally used as an identity document under the sometimes false assumption that the holder of the birth certificate is the person named on the certificate because they have it in their possession, It’s used as an identity token. Since we don’t have national ID cards in this country, identity continues to be less-than-optimal combination of other documents which ultimately rely on what somebody says.
That is where I suspect there was confusion between SoS Bennett and the DOH.
Bennett sent in the official form to receive a verification. That form has a number of boxes that appear to be search parameters to help the DOH locate the exact certificate. It asks for:
Name on Certificate: first, middle, last
Sex: male, female
Date of birth: Month, Day, Year
Place of Birth: City orTown, Island
Father’s name: first, middle, last
Mother’s Name: first, middle, last
If all you do is send in that form, the DOH responds with a statement that the original Certificate of Live Birth is on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health.
Which is essentially what Jill Nagamine said in court ‘a verification is just yes or no’.
But Bennett in his e-mail asked for the following:
“In addition to the items to be verified in the attached form, please verify the following items from the record of birth:
Department of Health File #151 61 10641
Time of birth: 7:24 p.m.
Name of hospital: Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital
Age of father: 25
Birthplace of Father: Kenya, East Africa
Age of mother: 18
Birthplace of mother: Wichita, Kansas
Date of signature of parent: 8-7-1961
Date of signature of attendant: 8-8-1961
Date accepted by local registrar: August-8 1961
So Bennett apparently thought he would get verifications for the items on the request form and on his list. But Hawaii separated the two and answered the request form with their standard “Yes/No” response and then verified the items in his list separately.
Exactly Doc….indeed I believe that the law which permits Hawaii to issue a verification in lieu of a birth certificate permits them to verify ONLY those details that the enquiry party deemed entitled to a verification has already provided to Hawaii and no more.
Once they have deemed that Bennett or anyone else is entitled to a verification in lieu of a copy certificate I think they would verify all the details sent to them for verification without exception. If Bennett had included the birth date on his itemised list they would have issued a corresponding verification of it on their own itemised reply list.
As it happens, in addition to his itemised list, Bennett also supplied them with a copy of the lfbc for verification and so to all intents and purposes Hawaii , via their reply narrative, clearly felt comfortable and within the law in verifying everything that is on it. That includes date of birth, parents names etc, everything.
If a future enquiring SoS is deemed entitled to a verification and asks for verification of a date of birth and mother’s maiden name that he supplies to Hawaii, I think they will definitely verify those things.
Your explanation certainly is plausible. Is Bennett’s e-mail posted somewhere? I continued to be puzzled about why he would specifically ask for the ages and birthplaces of Obama’s parents, but not their names.
I’m also surprised that John has not questioned why the verification does not mention Barack Obama’s sex!
Here:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/ken_bennett_birther_hawaii_arizona_emails.php
Gorefan,
Thanks for the link. It makes it apparent that Bennett’s list simply included the items which are not on the request form. It would be interesting to see a copy of an actual verification request form to confirm this, but I’m confident that is the case.
So what most likely happened is this:
1. Bennett fills out the verification request form, which presumably includes the date of birth and the names of the parents.
2. Bennett notices that there are a number of items on the LFBC which are not covered on the verification request form, so he makes a separate request for those items to be verified .
3. Hawaii responds with a general verification of the items which are listed on the form, plus they enumerated and verified the additional items which Bennett asked about.
It all makes sense now. I couldn’t come up with any rationale why Bennett would ask for verification of the time of birth but not the date of birth, and why he would ask for verification of the ages of the parents but not their names.
This also means that it would never be necessary for Hawaii to list the dates of birth or the names of the parents in a response, because those items are covered by the general verification.
Exactly, the DOH uses the same form to request a certified copy of a BC or a certifed verification. The items on the form are merely search parameters that helps the DOH ensure they have the right BC. It is implied that when the DOH verifies that they have an original BC on file, it is a BC that matches those search parameters.
From the DOH website:
“Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies.”
The request form:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf
Thanks. That completes the puzzle, as far as I’m concerned. I doubt that I can say the same for John, however.
Those straws must be getting harder and harder to grab.
The reason is no distinction is necessary. He verified all the information, it matches the original in their files. It is that simple.