I think the tales of Orly Taitz have reached the level of a saga. The woman from Rancho Santa Margarita will, we suppose, be in Texas for a hearing at 1:30 in her immigration case, styled Taitz v. Johnson et al.
Orly Taitz believes she has found her judge. Writing to Kathleen Staunton, executive assistant to Congressman Rohrbacher:
Judge Hanen is a judge, who previously excoriated the US government for acting as human smugglers. He scheduled a hearing for August 27, 2014, 1:30 pm, at Brownsville, TX, 600 Harrison ave, USDC, courtroom #6.
The judge issued an order to show cause to DHS and HHS, why shouldn’t he rule in favor of Attorney and Doctor Orly Taitz seeking a 2 months quarantine, medical release, criminal record from the country of origin and legal determination of eligibility for US residency before release of illegal aliens into the communities.
The Defendants argue that the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and that no witnesses are appropriate, but in order to comply with the Court’s order, they submitted a list of 3 witnesses who are prepared to testify as to the current practice in handling unaccompanied minors entering the US without documentation. Taitz in turn has subpoenaed 4 other Border Patrol members to testify that officers are getting sick from diseases carried by the children. According to Taitz:
They are prepared to testify that the defendants are trafficking multiple illegal aliens with infectious diseases and 11 officers have been infected while processing these illegal aliens. Additionally, they are prepared to testify in regards to multiple individuals from hostile radical Muslim countries crossing the border and being allowed to fly all over the country without any IDs. Officers are under a gag order coming from their superiors.
Judge Hanen has signed an order for them to appear.
Read more:
Butterfly Bilderberg at The Fogbow posted the following Federal regulation which spells out what employees cannot testify about in any litigation:
§ 5.44Testimony and production of documents prohibited unless approved by appropriate Department officials.
(a) No employee, or former employee, of the Department shall, in response to a demand or request, including in connection with any litigation, provide oral or written testimony by deposition, declaration, affidavit, or otherwise concerning any information acquired while such person is or was an employee of the Department as part of the performance of that person’s official duties or by virtue of that person’s official status, unless authorized to do so by the Office of the General Counsel, or as authorized in § 5.44.
(b ) No employee, or former employee, shall, in response to a demand or request, including in connection with any litigation, produce any document or any material acquired as part of the performance of that employee’s duties or by virtue of that employee’s official status, unless authorized to do so by the Office of the General Counsel or the delegates thereof, as appropriate.
One of Orly’s witnesses, Ronald Zermeno, was chastised recently by his superior officer for speaking to the media about “Law Enforcement sensitive” information.
So not only are Orly’s witnesses not obliged to turn up, they haven’t got permission to talk about their work situation. I hope the defence gets them to explain how they come to be in court if they get to the point of taking the witness stand. Later, Orly can take time out to defend them as whistleblowers when they lose their jobs.
That’s a good start.
Orly has gotten the judge to waive FRCP Rule 45(c)(1). FRCP Rule 45 was amended by USSC order in 2013 with JJ Kagen and Sotomayor voting. JJ Kagen and Sotomayor were appointed by an ineligible President and hold their positions on the USSC in violation of the Appointments Clause after appointment by an ineligible President Obama.
According to the Judicial Conference notes on the amendment to FRCP Rule 45(c), 2013:
Subdivision (c) is new. It collects the various provisions on where compliance can be required and simplifies them. Unlike the prior rule, place of service is not critical to place of compliance. Although Rule 45(a)(1)(A)(iii) permits the subpoena to direct a place of compliance, that place must be selected under Rule 45(c).
Rule 45(c)(1) addresses a subpoena to testify at a trial, hearing, or deposition. Rule 45(c)(1)(A) provides that compliance may be required within 100 miles of where the person subject to the subpoena resides, is employed, or regularly conducts business in person. For parties and party officers, Rule 45(c)(1)(B)(i) provides that compliance may be required anywhere in the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly conducts business in person. When an order under Rule 43(a) authorizes testimony from a remote location, the witness can be commanded to testify from any place described in Rule 45(c)(1).
Under Rule 45(c)(1)(B)(ii), nonparty witnesses can be required to travel more than 100 miles within the state where they reside, are employed, or regularly transact business in person only if they would not, as a result, incur “substantial expense.” When travel over 100 miles could impose substantial expense on the witness, the party that served the subpoena may pay that expense and the court can condition enforcement of the subpoena on such payment.
Because Rule 45(c) directs that compliance may be commanded only as it provides, these amendments resolve a split in interpreting Rule 45’s provisions for subpoenaing parties and party officers. Compare In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, 438 F. Supp. 2d 664 (E.D. La. 2006) (finding authority to compel a party officer from New Jersey to testify at trial in New Orleans), with Johnson v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 213 (E.D. La. 2008) (holding that Rule 45 did not require attendance of plaintiffs at trial in New Orleans when they would have to travel more than 100 miles from outside the state). Rule 45(c)(1)(A) does not authorize a subpoena for trial to require a party or party officer to travel more than 100 miles unless the party or party officer resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person in the state.
Depositions of parties, and officers, directors, and managing agents of parties need not involve use of a subpoena. Under Rule 37(d)(1)(A)(i), failure of such a witness whose deposition was properly noticed to appear for the deposition can lead to Rule 37(b) sanctions (including dismissal or default but not contempt) without regard to service of a subpoena and without regard to the geographical limitations on compliance with a subpoena. These amendments do not change that existing law; the courts retain their authority to control the place of party depositions and impose sanctions for failure to appear under Rule 37(b).
For other discovery, Rule 45(c)(2) directs that inspection of premises occur at those premises, and that production of documents, tangible things, and electronically stored information may be commanded to occur at a place within 100 miles of where the person subject to the subpoena resides, is employed, or regularly conducts business in person. Under the current rule, parties often agree that production, particularly of electronically stored information, be transmitted be electronic means. Such arrangements facilitate discovery, and nothing in these amendments limits the ability of parties to make such arrangements.
Rule 45(d)(3)(A)(ii) directs the court to quash any subpoena that purports to compel compliance beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c).
We have a member of Fogbow – Tomtech – who will be in the courtroom and will provide a description of what he sees and hears on R.C. Radio tomorrow night, 9 p.m. Eastern. I assume R.C. will schedule the show today. Keep an eye on http://www.blogtalkradio.com/rcr for more info.
Jumped the gun by a day, Doc?
I’m not sure why you are celebrating Sven, because, unless my reading of what you just posted is off the wall, because Orly got the Judge to waive that rule, anyone not living within 100 miles of the court can tell Orly and her subpeonas to pound sand.
Orly probably read the bit about the summoner having to pay out of pocket expenses those she served the supoepna on and shrieked “MY GRIFTABUKS!! MY YOSIBUCKS!! NOOOOO”
That’s what I get for writing articles after midnight.
No, he didn’t. He noted that none of the witnesses had objected to the travel limitation.
Yes! Anyone who supports violence against the US Constitution after an ineligible President assumes the Office of the President of the United States may choose to comply with rules, regulations, decrees, orders and appointments of the usurper to facilitate the effective and efficient dismantling of the Constitutional republic Or they may choose to object and defy the usurper. US federal officers are sworn to support the US Constitution. Pursuant to Article VI, US federal officers must object to a usurper.
A subpoena is a command by the court to appear and comply. The Rule 45(c) amendment attempts to resolve a split in two separate court decisions where a party officer was commanded to appear and testify in New Orleans even though he lived in New Jersey and another case where plaintiffs were not commanded to appear and testify more than 100 miles from their home or place of business. The 2013 amendment to Rule 45 permits the court to command appearance near the home or place of business of the witness if the witness objects to traveling more than 100 miles to appear.
The California witnesses could request to testify in California because that is where they live and work. They have chosen not to exercise the 2013 amendment to Rule 45 even though it will result in greater expense of time and resources. Noncompliance with the rules, regulations, decrees and orders promulgated by appointees of an ineligible President preserve their right to object in the future and maintain a defense they, as US federal officers sworn to support the US Constitution, supported the US Constitution by objecting and testifying against the usurper and his accomplices.
Sven,
Have you written to your congressperson with your “concern” that Obama isn’t eligible to be president? And, if so, what was the response?
Check out this really slick Border Patrol magazine:
http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Frontline_Vol6_Issue3.pdf
As of this morning, Orly was moderating the silly comments on her blog so I guess she’s all prepared for the hearing.
Well, it is reasonable to expect that management at the Border Patrol should take prudent steps to protect its officers from exposure to infectious diseases and parasites. However, Orly couldn’t care less about the well-being of these officers. Her only motivation is to use their experiences as “evidence” for her ego-driven, but futile case.
Border Patrol agents are well-represented by unions and there are procedures outlined in their labor contracts that provide for how matters like this are addressed. Taitz v Johnson falls completely outside of that protocol.
It appears that Orly has found a federal judge with anti-illegal immigration sentiments. That’s fine, but no matter much the judge may sympathize with Orly’s cause, he will still have to follow the law.
Congress is discharged with the duty to represent the will of the people and the states. As long as a majority of the American people continue to vote for Obama, then I don’t see Congress expressing the will of the minority and objecting.
Pursuant to the Bill of Rights, the objections of the minority to violations of the Eligibility Clause, Appointments Clause and Article VI should be heard by the court with appropriate relief granted if the facts are established by a preponderance of the evidence. The President can only be removed after impeachment in the House and a conviction after trial In the Senate. A single objector or a minority of objectors can only use the courts to preserve the Constitutional republic and seek relief for themselves without interfering with the will of the majority.
I asked a simple question that you refused to answer but I will assume you have not written your congressperson.
Write him or her with your “concern” and stop fretting about Obama’s eligibility. It’s all you can do. Move on.
remember how well that worked out for terry lakin?
But Sven, over 200 court cases have found the President is eligible. Courts can offer no relief to the delusional.
Sven, dear boy,
Still waiting on an answer to why you have not shown us the naturalization record you swear that Obama has, you know the publicly available record I showed you was available to search.
I mean you must have seen this unicorn of a document or else how are you so convinced it exists..?
Doc’s article states, “Judge Hanen has signed an order for them to appear.”
Judge Hanen did not sign an Order for them to appear. He merely instructed the clerk to issue the subpoenas. This accommodates Orly’s claim that they have no objection to appearing but must be subpoenaed to do so. They still have to obtain approval from the agency (which they are unlikely to receive IMO.
There is no Order to Appear.
That Bush fellow said you can’t do that in Texas.
The judge signed an order (ECF 28) for the Clerk to issue subpoenas that say “You are commanded to appear.” I don’t understand the distinction you are trying to make.
That’s OK, they are all from California.
But as that never is going to happen, any such supposed application of the First Amendment amounts to spitting into the wind. You indeed are constitutionally allowed to spit into the wind all you wish. No court, however, is obligated to wipe anyone’s face of their own spittle.
Why are there so many damn run on sentences in legalese?
Think it through. Obama returned to the US as an Indonesian national in 1971. He was apprehended at a Port of Entry as an Unaccompanied Alien Child by the CBP. CBP has a record of this. Obama lived in the US from 1971 to 1983 as a legal permanent resident alien after he was granted as asylum.
In 1981, Obama traveled to Pakistan as an Indonesian national and Permanent Legal Resident Alien status. At that time, Obama was required to obtain a reentry permit to enter the US after traveling abroad as a US legal permanent resident alien. CBP has a record of this.
Now, CBP officers from Southern California are traveling to South Texas to testify against their superiors at DHS pending an application for a stay on immigration border control. Take the blinders off. Obama and his accomplices are dismantling the Constitutional republic. This is your finest hour. Step up and take a stand against the usurpation of the Office of the President of the United States.
A petitioner can only collaterally attack an ineligible President … i.e. sue his appointees. This is what Orly is doing.
Yeah right Sven. So while some union guy from CBP is whining about getting scabies Orly will slip in a question about Obama and the CBP will spill the beans, Obama is forced from office and birthers get to hit the magic reset button that undoes everything Obama implemented.
Whatever else is happening, your medication is wrong.
Issuing a subpoena is a ministerial task done by the clerk if the litigant is pro se (which Taitz is in this case). No judge’s order was needed (but it probably expedited the process).
Regardless, as the agents are more than 100 miles from the courthouse, they are not “commanded” to go anywhere. They are choosing to attend (and, as such, no subpoena was required).
Taitz’s comments on her site imply that she/they thought a subpoena would entitle the agents to paid time off and reimbursement for travel expenses.
Fairy tales will do you no good Sven, no proof it ever happened as you say. Plenty of proof the President is eligible. Courts aren’t interested, they’ve already ruled the President is eligible. Orly headed for another massive fail.
Not true, under Indonesian law he could not be a Indonesian national. That is incontrovertible.
The law is very clear. Only children under the age of five can gain Indonesian citizenship by adoption. Older adopted children can only gain Indonesian citizenship by petition within one year after their 18th birthdays.
That is indisputable.
Lolo Soetoro’s immigration papers show that in September, 1967 when President Obama was 6 years old, he was still legally the “step-child” of Lolo Soetoro. There was no legal adoption before President Obama and his mother moved to Indonesia in October, 1967.
You can make up whatever story you want but at least try to incorporate the facts.
Sven, you wrote:” Pursuant to the Bill of Rights, the objections of the minority to violations of the Eligibility Clause, Appointments Clause and Article VI should be heard by the court with appropriate relief granted if the facts are established by a preponderance of the evidence.”
And
“A single objector or a minority of objectors can only use the courts to preserve the Constitutional republic and seek relief for themselves without interfering with the will of the majority.”
Poor Sven! You unhinged the first statement’s argument with the second statement’s argument!
For quite obviously, if as you say, ““A single objector or a minority of objectors can only use the courts to preserve the Constitutional republic and seek relief for themselves without interfering with the will of the majority.”, then said objector or minority of objectors must also not pursue their complaint in a way that would interfere with the even more determined will of an even greater majority to have the judiciary FIRST determine whether such complaints merit STANDING, and whether any of the complaints’ alleged violations to the Eligibility Clause, Appointments Clause and Article VI actually have ACTUALLY taken place.
To protect the Constitution, ONLY THEN, should the court feel obliged to hear and possibly redress any relief-seeking objections from parties claiming injury. None of the 200 plus courtroom procedures questioning Obama’s Presidential eligibility have resulted in these two prerequisite judicial determinations.
The real attack on the Constitution here, is your assertion that trials should proceed anyway, based only on your personal declaration, or on your statements implying, that those non-existent two required determinations reserved to the judiciary are instead sufficiently satisfied by your own substituted judgment, to oblige the judiciary to evaluate and consider redressing such complaints as though they are based on officially declared violations.
You’re confusing a lack of standing by a petitioner to directly attack an ineligible President protected by the will of the majority with a collateral attack on the laws, rules, regulations, executive orders and appointments signed into action by an ineligible President.
Rather than attempting to remove a sitting President, a petitioner who objects to an ineligible President should complain in court the President is ineligible and object to the laws, rules, regulations, executive orders and appointments of the ineligible President. For example, an ineligible President cannot be enjoined from performing the functions and duties of the office without impeachment by the House and trial and conviction in the Senate.The ineligible President is protected by a vote of the majority of the People. However an appointee is not voted on by the people. The laws, rules, regulations, decrees and final decisions of an appointee may be objected to and relief may be sought. Further, since the appointee was not voted on by the people, the appointee can be removed by the court for holding their office in violation of the Appointments Clause and Article VI.
Look at the alleged recess appointees to the NLRB. The only thing they did was say yes when the President ask them to accept an appointment when he alleged the Senate was in recess. Noel Canning, who lost their case before the NLRB, complained the recess appointments were made when the Senate was not in recess and the appointments were void. SCOTUS agreed and the appointees were removed and replaced. Nothing happened to Obama. Obama is protected by the majority vote of the People until impeachment in the House and conviction at trial in the Senate.
Sven,
In your dreams. Ain’t no way a court of final authority is going to declare a presidential appointee ineligible because, it finds, the appointing president is ineligible. This ludicrous scheme would leave the entire executive branch and much of the federal judiciary unmanned. For if an ineligible president’s prior appointments can’t serve, then surely by the same logic future appointees couldn’t either. The result would be intolerable to the country. Which is one reason no court would do such a thing. The main reason, of course, is that no evidence exists that this president is ineligiible — except in the fevered imaginations of birthers such as yourself.
So is an eligible President like President Obama.
Indonesian Law 62:
Article 2.
(1) A foreign child of less than 5 years age who is adopted by a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if such an adoption is declared legal by the Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person adopting the child.
(2) Said declaration of legality by the Pengadilan Negeri shall be requested by the person adopting the child within 1 year after such an adoption or within 1 year after enforcement of this law.
President Obama moved to Indonesia in October, 1967 while still legally the step-son of Lolo Soetoro. Too old to gain Indonesian citizenship through adoption.
Not to mention the fact that even if he had been under five and obtained Indonesian citizenship through adoption, it would in no way have compromised his U.S. natural born citizenship.
Thanks. I had missed that.
I’m not trying to make any distinction. I’m stating fact. There is no Order to Appear by the judge. There are subpoenas which he ordered the clerk to sign. This is not an Order to Appear. Subpoenas must be valid and enforceable. These are not.
These BP agents (apparently) are willing to testify voluntarily but can’t do so and require a subpoena to be able to do so. Orly asked the judge to issue such subpoenas. He agreed. Based on these subpoenas, however, they can not be ordered to appear, nor do they have to, but if it fills the bill for BP paperwork, they may be approved to do so.
I have encountered many, many witnesses in my career who were willing to appear but had to be subpoenaed to be able to appear, for many and varied reasons. These Subpoenas are similar in nature but they do not, because they can not, order them to appear in TX.
There is a way they can be compelled to do so from CA to TX but this isn’t it.
I actually expect one or more of them to appear, and it’ll make a good show for the judge, but likely won’t help Taitz’s “case” in any way due to many other factors.
In all of the correspondence between the Soetoros and the Immigration Service, Barack Obama II, is always referred to as either ‘the child from a previous marriage’, ‘the son from a prior marriage’ or Lolo Soetoro’s step-son. He is never referred to as the adopted child of Lolo Soetoro. In one memo, the Immigration officer wrote that Mrs. Soetoro was determined to go to Indonesia to be with her husband and that she had applied for Indonesian visas for herself “and her minor son of a previous marriage who will be required to accompany her.”
You wrote to me: ”You’re confusing a lack of standing by a petitioner to directly attack an ineligible President protected by the will of the majority with a collateral attack on the laws, rules, regulations, executive orders and appointments signed into action by an ineligible President.”
No, a complaint that claims injury by an appointee of the President who is holding his/her office in violation of the Appointments Clause and Article VI, where the injury claimed depends on proving that the appointee is not a legitimate officeholder SPECIFICALLY because the plaintiff is alleging that the appointee was appointed by a President who is an usurper, IS a direct attack on the eligibility of that President, because no court could contemplate settling such a controversy without JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE if the President was ineligible AT LEAST BY the time of the appointment (and THEREFORE THEREAFTER.) The case would be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by ANY and EVERY court it was submitted to.
The recess appointee case you refer to is critically not analogous to such a case as this because in that case, the court did have and used its jurisdiction to decide whether or not the (always presumed by the court) CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE PRESIDENT, had misinterpreted and consequently unconstitutionally made appointments which that court could then undo.
Actually, your speciously flawed theory of law is analogous to suggesting that the bullet fired by John Wilkes Booth into President Abraham Lincoln’s head, was a collateral attack on the elegant interior furnishings of the Ford Theatre instead of an assassination attempt.
I was just reading the subpoenas, and I wonder how the Border Patrol employees/union officials feel about having their home addresses plastered all over the Internet thanks to Orly.
Not too happy I would think, and they are just beginning to get the full Taitz treatment. Wait until they can’t produce whatever it is she thinks they can and see how she treats them. Not to mention the large amounts of trouble they may well be in with their jobs if they involve themselves in this.
Well, this is exciting because I don’t know what’s going to happen. Usually when Taitz goes into court, the results are predictable. I suspect that the judge will hold his dig and pony show, and then rule Taitz lacks standing.
I think the judge will regret every minute of this one-ring circus.
For anyone wondering about the motivation of Orly’s witnesses, the wife of Ronald Zermeno has an interesting Facebook page which is full of anti-immigrant and anti-Obama images.
https://www.facebook.com/niki.zermeno/photos
Doc, love the titles you’re using.. You missed your true calling as a newspaper editor.
I think the natural reaction for any judge seeing Orly’s name on the docket is “Sweet Christ, No!!!”
Speaking of Ocrazy, she’s now claiming that the government is “obstructing justice”, because those four agents aren’t being told “Oh by all means, take time off from your jobs, so you can be courtroom props for that bleach blond windmill chaser! We don’t mind!”
Sven wrote: “…after an ineligible President assumes the Office of the President of the United States.”
Dude, I’m still waiting for you to prove this – PROVE THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA IS INELIGIBLE!!! Once you’ve done that, we can continue. Otherwise, STFU….please because you’re embarassing yourself.
Agreed!
Sven: not only have you NOT proved your point in any way, but I have demonstrated that Obama had a US passport BEFORE the date you claim he was “naturalized”.
At this point any statement of yours that begins with “ineligible President” should be dismissed immediately as the product of a deranged mind.
Okay. I see.
Congress cannot validate a vote by the Electoral College when an ineligible President receives a majority of the vote. An ineligible candidate can’t be qualified by US Congress because the US Congress does not make mistakes. And even if the US Congress does make a mistake, then the citizen who objects to violations of the US Congress will have to lump it until the next election because most people don’t have a problem with the ineligible President. The Bill of Rights does not apply to one or two ingrates who object to an ineligible President.
If the an ineligible candidate for President happened to receive a majority of votes by the Electoral College, then one Representative and one Senator will object in writing. The House and the Senate will retire to their chambers for 2 hours of debate and then vote on whether or not to sustain or overrule the objection by one or more of their members. The House and the Senate cannot overrule an objection to an unqualified candidate for President. Consequently, only qualified candidates become President-elect. Congress doesn’t make mistakes because they are not Constitutionally authorized to make mistakes.
Since the US Congress does not make mistakes and it is extremely unlikely an ineligible President would dare to assume the Office of the President of the United States because somebody would say something long before he did assume the office, then a citizen does not have standing to complain the President is in violation of the Eligibility Clause and use the Bill of Rights to object to a violation of the US Constitution and seek relief for themselves and those similarly situated.
Finally, there is no need for the court to serve as a check on the actions of the Executive branch and Legislative branch because these branches of government are not authorized to violate the Constitution. Without a violation of the Constitution, there is no need for a court system at all.
America 2.0 sounds like a scary place. Good luck.
You’ve completely dismissed the Consular Affairs Consolidated Database break-in a few weeks before candidate Obama announced he traveled to Pakistan in 1981 during the campaign trail, 2008. Shortly thereafter, a US federal criminal investigation took place. Hmmmm.
Send your real name and address to the US Attorney. I’m sure he will put you on the stand to tell any jury Sven is a liar because Obama had to have a US passport to travel through France in 1981 and France never lies. Especially not Sarkosy. He is as pure as mother’s milk. Note to Orly: Forget everything I’ve said. Lupin will destroy our case if he testifies.
Sven wrote: “You’ve completely dismissed the Consular Affairs Consolidated Database break-in a few weeks before candidate Obama announced he traveled to Pakistan in 1981 during the campaign trail, 2008. Shortly thereafter, a US federal criminal investigation took place. Hmmmm.
Send your real name and address to the US Attorney. I’m sure he will put you on the stand to tell any jury Sven is a liar because Obama had to have a US passport to travel through France in 1981 and France never lies. Especially not Sarkosy. He is as pure as mother’s milk. Note to Orly: Forget everything I’ve said. Lupin will destroy our case if he testifies”
…and every word of the above is complete nuttery…..but I must say, your delusions are entertaining, Sven….utterly stupid and wildly desparate, but entertaining.
I guess it’s nice that the poor fellow still has a place to post his delusions. Apparently the men’s club at the old folks home no longer tolerates him.
Whether the Congress, or for that matter SCOTUS, make mistakes is not the issue. The point is that if they choose a particular individual as POTUS their choice stands. Only they, or a subsequent Congress can change their decision, and then ONLY through impeachment and conviction. It matters not a whit if the individual is “ineligible” by someone’s definition.
This is similar to SCOTUS decisions. Only a real nutter would argue today that the Dred Scott decision was correct, but Congress corrected this in the only way they could, by creating the 14th Amendment.
Prove it Sven
Prove it.
Otherwise just another version of Sven and the Pirates.
The Executive branch has complete possession and control of all admissible proof with respect to Obama’s eligibility. I understand Orly thinks a stolen certificate of naturalization or a bootleg download of Obama’s passport records is all she needs for standing. But, that’s not true. Stolen evidence is inadmissible regardless of how incriminating it is.
If the court orders the Executive branch to provide the proof and they say they don’t have it, can’t find it, never had it, or we had it but we can’t find it now, then a rebuttal witness may be called. If the rebuttal witness has copy of Obama’s immigration file before the clean up began, then the fireworks begin.
Who ya’ gonna believe? The mean ol’ nasty gubmit or kind and gentle Sven who wouldn’t hurt a fly but has a few concerns about his Constitutional rights.
Obama announced that he was running for President in 2007. Who had control of the Executive branch then?
Rickey, Rickey, don’t you know that Barbara Bush is the puppetmaster and she decided to have Mr. Obama as interim president between her kids ?
Sven, just read my last post. And you still have birther (wet) dreams? You alone against Dems end Reps? That will not end well ….
:
Good defense plan.
Your Honor … we know the Republicans would never collude with the Democrats to install an ineligible President. Sven is makin’ stuff up … again.
Your Honor … Republicans and Democrats hate each other. Sven couldn’t copy any info because we scubbed it clean in 2007. Anything before 2007 is inadmissible because we say so. If Sven got to it and saved it, then he’s lying and its inadmissible because we all voted.
Your Honor … Sven has got nuthin’ cuz we told’em to post it on the internet and he didn’t. If Sven would tell us where his rebuttal witness and evidence are located, then we would clean it up and there would be no witness or evidence.
Are you asking if I trust a bunch of folks who, as selfserving as they can sometimes be, fully understand the laws of our country(As many of them are either lawyers, or have had legitimate legal training), or some guy on the internet…Hmmm. Gonna go have to go with the legitimately credited legal experts. As for your constitutional rights, last time I checked, you don’t even live here! You’re hiding out in Sweden or something.
So Sven…
If we assume for the sake of the argument, that all of your nu… er all of your claims and premises are true.
Where exactly do the Invisible Pink Unicorns fit into this grand conspiracy?
I have read that Obama agents had infiltrated pretty much the whole federal bureaucracy by the start of 2008.
You are a curious fellow, Sven. These words sound sarcastic, but from the tone of the rest of your writings it seems more likely that you are sincere with this question.
So is your assertion that President Obama is ineligible, but he controls all the evidence, and we should just take your assertion on faith?
I wish birthers would get their story straight. The man is either an evil genious of Bond Villain caliber, with the fear inducing power of Darth Vader, or he’s an idiot, whose stupidity rivals that of any given Rob Schneider character from an Adam Sandler movie. They can’t have it both ways!
The old problem of “impossible” against reality. They h a v e it both ways ……
This is good info !
https://www.facebook.com/staremma.pereztrevino?fref=nf
Birthers seem to think that ħ is infinite (for non-physicists see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle ).
How comes she knows all the names ?
She is
Senior Reporter at Valley Morning Star und Senior Reporter at AIM Media Texas
This is really worth to set up a fake facebook account …..
Judge Hanen probably thinks he is the wisest of all Judges, Harun al Rashid:
#RGV #immigration: Judge Hanen has just noted that he wants to hear from government witnesses in order to determine if the public is being protected from communicable diseases
Short of placing each immigrant in an individual isolation unit for at least 6 months, just how does he think that should be accomplished??
You wrote:”Okay. I see.”
Thank you for momentarily seeing.
You wrote:”Congress cannot validate a vote by the Electoral College when an ineligible President receives a majority of the vote. An ineligible candidate can’t be qualified by US Congress because the US Congress does not make mistakes. And even if the US Congress does make a mistake, then the citizen who objects to violations of the US Congress will have to lump it until the next election because most people don’t have a problem with the ineligible President. The Bill of Rights does not apply to one or two ingrates who object to an ineligible President.”
Sorry! The Bill of Rights does not empower YOU or ANY NUMBER of citizens to explicitly determine or then officially declare, that any particular Presidential candidate or President Elect or President, is Constitutionally ineligible to the Presidency. So ALL of the complaints and objections you mention, since they are predicated merely on such unofficial, privately determined “ ineligibility”, are MOOT.
You also wrote: “If the an ineligible candidate for President happened to receive a majority of votes by the Electoral College, then one Representative and one Senator will object in writing. The House and the Senate will retire to their chambers for 2 hours of debate and then vote on whether or not to sustain or overrule the objection by one or more of their members. The House and the Senate cannot overrule an objection to an unqualified candidate for President. Consequently, only qualified candidates become President-elect. Congress doesn’t make mistakes because they are not Constitutionally authorized to make mistakes.”
Well, that paragraph of yours, (and your paragraph that followed it) demonstrate why your kind of literate jocular whining so seldom prevails in a court of law. Correcting your hypothetical example to make it comply with how the procedure actually works under the language of the Constitution, the objections registered by the Representative and Senator are in effect CHARGES of ineligibility, which in effect call for a confirming or rejecting vote by the rest of the members to determine the OFFICIAL eligibility status of the accused. It is such a voting determination by the House and Senate that fixes the OFFICIAL Presidential eligibility or ineligibility of the accused to have their election certified, so by the official declaration of eligibility status resulting from both houses voting on the objection, it then follows that, by definition, your dreaded outrage involving the Congress certifying the election of a (you pretend, KNOWN,) ineligible President, simply cannot come about. (And please don’t retreat to another level of, “but what if HE IS REALLY ineligible.” No aspect of real government can survive needing to demonstrate its procedures could perfectly transcend every possible hypothetical circumstance. That’s why a written constitution must be accepted as being OFFICIALLY, all THERE!
You also wrote: “Finally, there is no need for the court to serve as a check on the actions of the Executive branch and Legislative branch because these branches of government are not authorized to violate the Constitution.”
Sarcasm needs to have some discernible argumentative focus, beyond just lashing out because you can’t stop your own bleeding. Otherwise, it’s just silly sarcasm. You know good and well that a profound respect for separation of powers entered into the Constitution-respecting contemplation of how much overlap there should be among the branches of government for this election related issue, and that such contemplation tried to ensure the greater good and the lesser evil.
You also tellingly wrote:” Without a violation of the Constitution, there is no need for a court system at all.”
I doubt that was sarcasm. You think courts exist only to convict the accused, and you’ve got a lot of acusin’ to do! You apparently wouldn’t have them just to exonerate the unjustly accused. That’s understandable. You must be so tired of being exposed as OFFICIALLY wrong!
Finally you wrote, “America 2.0 sounds like a scary place. Good luck.”
It’s not surprising that in the minds of Birthers so terrified by the diversity of people on Earth, America TOO sounds like a scary place. Good grief!
Breaking News on Facebook!
Someone’s there doing a play-by-play? Nice!
I don’t see anything new there since an hour ago, Doc.
What is the breaking news?
Actually, she is live tweeting since the beginning of the hearing.
@StarEmmaPT
She also is doing a running commentary on Facebook.
No proof to support any of these claims. No proof he was ever an indonesian national. This would have never been allowed for him under Indonesia law 62. He returned to the US as a United States citizen and traveled to Pakistan as a United States Citizen
What date did he supposedly announce he traveled to pakistan in 1981 on the campaign trail? Considering he wrote about it previously in his books this was a known event.
Good stupidity plan by you. Sven can just make up anything he wants and then claim all evidence to support his claims must have been scrubbed. There has never been any evidence in no point in history to support your claims. I see you learned from the Martha Trowbridge School of Tall Tales.
Okay, any day now I expect Sven to start claiming he stabbed Pablo Escobar with a butcher knife, or that he has DNA evidence from the back seat of some old car.
Hmm…. let’s look at your America 1.0, shall we.
– Certain people of a certain race had to have different schools, bathrooms, lunch counters, drinking fountains and more.
– Some people of a certain race were denied voting rights because of their race.
– Speaking up against the government might get you investigated by the FBI or, in some professions, like Hollywood, blackballed.
– If the stock market crashed, all of society crashed with it leading to 25% or higher unemployment.
– Consenting, loving, adults could only marry the right race, or gender.
– If you protested the lack of freedom and liberty, you might get attacked with fire hoses, or your children killed when your church was bombed.
– Highly Decorated soldiers could not even stop to use the bathroom when traveling in certain states.
– Restrictive Covenants prevented people from living where they wanted.
– Whistling at a woman may result in a death sentence.
– We were damn close to nuclear war.
I prefer what you call “America 2.0.” Freedom and liberty for all just sounds so, American.
Why are you afraid of freedom, Sven?
I don’t see why Sven cares what goes on in America, considering he doesn’t even live here. He’s cowering somewhere abroad.
Sven’s fantasies fail for irrefutable reasons which have been discussed here ad infinitum:
1. There is no evidence that Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and in fact in one case the government specifically denied that he was ever adopted.
2. Even if Obama had been adopted, when he moved to Indonesia he was too old to become an Indonesian citizen.
3. Even if Obama had been adopted and by virtue of that adoption became an Indonesian citizen, it would not have caused him to lose his U.S. citizenship. During the four years he lived in Indonesia, ages 6-10, he was too young to voluntarily renounce his U.S. citizenship.
The rest is just Sven’s evidence-free bloviating. I can only assume that he gets some satisfaction from making a fool of himself.
Generally, when there is a dispute over the facts, the judge will order discovery. We have only been allowed to see the records the Obama administration has allowed to be made public. If the records that Obama has not allowed to be made public are made available through discovery, then some of the “facts” you’ve listed may not be facts at all.
If the US federal government officials testify, under oath, there are no discoverable facts to be found which dispute the publicly available facts, then it will be necessary for the complainant to provide rebuttal evidence and witnesses to dispute the government’s assertions. If a jury doesn’t find the rebuttal evidence and witness credible, then the plaintiff will lose their case and be subject demands for repayment of fees and costs incurred by the defendants.
It sounds fair to me. Who knows … maybe FBI Director Comey found something and he wants make a federal case out of it?
Please dial back on that line of abuse. All us expats are not Sven. Find another, better targeted form of abuse.
Thanks
The only relevant fact is that your theories are impossible. There is no conceivable scenario under which Obama could have lost his U.S. citizenship when he was ten years old (or younger).
Associated Press coverage of the hearing:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/judge-denies-restraining-order-immigration-case
There is no dispute over facts. You simply claiming something doesn’t make it a fact. Your entire argument depends on an adoption that never took place. Simply saying it did is not a fact.
You cannot show that Indonesia law would have allowed President Obama to be an Indonesian citizen nor have you shown any evidence that he was adopted.
No adoption leaves only one method for him to become Indonesian by naturalization. Here is their law:
Article 5.
(1) The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia because of naturalization is acquired with the validity of the decree of the Minister of Justice who grants this naturalization.
(2) In order to present a petition for naturalization, the petitioner shall:
a. have reached the age of 21;
b. be born within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia or at the time of presenting the petition be domiciled in said region for at least the last 5 consecutive years or in total 10 inconsecutive years;
You lose again.
IANAL, but until one comes along I wanted to point out that in federal court plaintiffs have an automatic right to amend their complaint once. For this reason, dismissals of unamended complaints are always with the right to amend the complaint.
I’m not sure exactly how this plays with the present case, because I’m not sure if anything Taitz has filed counts as a complaint. But lest anyone take today’s ruling as Judge Hanen rejecting defendants arguments about standing and jurisdiction, I am pretty sure that is not the case. I have no doubt Taitz will refile, but today’s ruling indicates that the next filing has to fix the problems in this filing or the case is over.
Taitz version:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/press-release-judge-schedules-injunction-hearing-for-oct-27-right-before-the-elecion-tells-enforcement-and-removal-ins-agent-you-dont-do-either-enforcement-or-removal/
I see that Taitz has taken this as a big victory. She doesn’t mention that her motion for an injunction was denied, or that she needs to file an amended complaint. Perhaps she didn’t notice.
His law practice and residence are in Independence, MO.
It wounds one’s pride, to find out that kind of stupid is based in your general neck of the woods.
Okay sure. But in Sven’s case, I’m calling him out for complaining about how his precious “America 1.0” is in danger, while nit-picking the way the American courts work, from half-way across the world. One might venture the guess that he can’t come back to America. Might be one of those LDS scenarios, where arrest warrants are waiting for him, or the consequence of some other misdeeds.
No lawsuit with Barack Obama as a defendant would involve discovery of alleged records that would (hypothetically) be the property of the Republic of Indonesia.
Simply making uncorroborated claims does not a genuine issue of facts create.
Since no birther has ever brought enough evidence to a court to convince the latter that there actually is a “there” there, what makes you think you’d have better chances?
So that is your “answer” to the obvious discrepancy I pointed out between your crazy theory and the reality:
France lied ????
This is so stupid I don’t even know what to say.
Which “France” anyway? The France of 1981 who let a young American student in? Or the France of 2009 or 2014 when Obama returned & shared a few memories of his earlier visit?
And why exactly would any of these Frances lie? Like we give a rat’s *ss. And who exactly would be the Spokesliar? It’s not as if “France” had issued an official statement on the matter. I only reported what was publicly reported in the media at the time.
In fact it’s the first time I see you being really p*ssed off and that’s because you know that the factoid I threw at you completely annihilates your theory.
If Obama had a US passport in 1981 (as indeed is likely to have been the case), then you’re nowhere. All your fancy pseudo-legal theories are reduced to pure b*llsh*t.
That’s why you’re sputtering nonsense about “France”.
Sven’s frothing at the mouth regarding how “France” would “destroy [birthers’] cases” (if called to testify) as insane as it is points out the rather interesting coincidence that several French or French-related factors do indeed destroy the birthers’ pet theories:
1) Vattel. I have mentioned in the past (ad nauseam) how a simple reading of Vattel in the original, correct French destroys the “two parents citizens” theory, adding that no birther has even been able to find a single French source validating their incorrect interpretation.
2) James Madison. Madison is the clearest cut case of a dual French-US citizen President involved in the largest conflicts of interest ever recorded, destroying the birthers’ notion of ineligibility dues to allegiance to another country.
3) Obama’s visit to France while in college, likely under a US passport because an Indonesian passport + visa would have been impossible to effect, destroying the notion that he wasn’t or had renounced his US citizenship.
No wonder the birthers hate France!
Why would you doubt the France of 1981 being able to lie when the France of 1985 sanctioned the murder of a young Portuguese photographer in Auckland harbor?
I am not supporting Sven’s insanity here, just taking advantage of sticking it the “unapologetic Frenchies” one more time.
Remember Fernando Pereira.
Trying to argue the morality of any state’s dirty/black ops when they feel their national interests are at stake is rather pointless.
Also, the old saying about bricks and glass houses comes to mind. I’ll be the first to admit France has done a lot worse than bomb the Rainbow Warrior even in modern history, and never apologized either. But then, so have Australia, the UK, the US and virtually every modern country.
When arguing Sven’s insanity, note that I didn’t argue that France couldn’t lie, or hadn’t lied in the past, or wouldn’t lie again in the future on other matters, I argued by asking WHICH France he accused of lying, and questioning WHY it should. Not that it couldn’t.
Silly Lupin, France lied because they were in on it in 1981 and are in on it now. No, you can’t ask why that is or what they would gain. That isn’t fair. I just have to allege the conspiracy and then according to Sven, because there is a dispute in “facts,” I get discovery. So yeah, France has to send me records on how they aren’t part of a sekrit globalist cabal that conspired to usurp the US presidency. And also some Grey Poupon, because that pesky limo driver put a restraining order on me.
You don’t think Bush is settling a few old scores do you?
Remember Freedom Fries?
France’s Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, received loud applause for his speech against the Iraq War at the UN on February 14, 2003. Neither France nor Germany sent troops to Iraq.
Obama appointee and current FBI Director James B. Comey, Jr. resigned in protest as Asst AG during the Bush administration over warrantless wiretapping. Now, Dir Comey is in the unenviable position of dropping a dime on Obama’s eligibility or having a
conspiracy nutconcerned citizen accuse him of assuming his office in violation of the US Constitution to aid and abet the destruction of the United States of America after an ineligible President assumed the Office of the President of the United States.Eventually, another
conspiracy nutconcerned citizen will remind America that France vouched for Obama and should be punished for aiding and abetting the attempted destruction of the United States of America.Okay, that’s just plain NUTS.
There is no dispute over the facts. Birthers believe in lies and think that a judge should tell them they’re liars. The problem is this has happened over 200 times now and birthers haven’t accepted it.
Hard to take you seriously when you can’t get this right. Comey threatened to resign he didn’t actually resign during it. Him and the FBI director at the time threatened to resign over it. He ended up resigning about a year after the event took place.
Basically the judge has told Orly that if she has any case at all, it is a personal injury case.
In order to show that she has damages, Orly will have to provide proof that:
1. She had a communicable illness.
2. That she actually treated illegal immigrants who were apprehended and then released into the general population.
3. That she actually caught her communicable illness from one of those illegal immigrants.
So she has to prove that not only did she have a communicable illness, she is going to have to prove that one of her illegal immigrant patients gave it to her. That would require her to identify the ill patient and provide medical evidence that the patient was sick. Good luck with that.
I hope that she is prepared to shell out big bucks for expert medical witnesses, because she will need them.
I doubt that Orly realizes it, but discovery goes both ways. If this case ever got to the discovery stage, she could be forced to produce her patient records so the government could examine them to see how many (if any) illegal immigrants Orly has treated, if there is anything in the records to show that one or more of them were sick at the time of treatment, whether she had other patients who are not illegal immigrants who were sick at the time of treatment, etc.
Do you remember the GP commercial with the two TV Prime Ministers? (The one from HOUSE OF CARDS and from YES PM) 🙂
You are correct and Sven is wrong again, of course.
Comey’s resignation letter was dated 3/16/04 but he never submitted it. He didn’t leave the Justice Department until August, 2005.
Gosh, Sven, it takes just a couple of minutes to verify these facts. You need to stop listening to the voices in your head.
Is it me or I’ve gotten so much under Sven’s skin that he’s losing the few marbles he had left?
I’ve heard more believable speeches from Dr. Claw in INSPECTOR GADGET.
It’s not only NUTS I don’t even get what point he’s trying to make. What has Bush to do with this?
I’m not sure, but I believe that he’s saying that the French covered up Obama’s Indonesian passport in order to get back at Bush for Freedom Fries.
Can Dr. Taitz produce patient records without consent? I have doubts ….
Why would she care? She’d just lie again in an affidavit that the patient agreed, and likely the patient wouldn’t ever know his records have been abused in a court case.
So instead of just hanging all the traitors who allowed the usurperationation, you’d also nuke every US ally whose leaders shook hands with Obama, should anyone ever make you God King of USA? Not surprised…
Privacy rule. Rule starts on PDF page 388.
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/privacyrule/prdecember2000all8parts.pdf
I heard a rumor State Department personnel in D.C. are traveling to France this weekend to “clarify” the situation.
Stop listening to your Rice Krispies.
In your head Superman also watches over America, right?
Or the Green Lantern theory of politics:
http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2009/12/the-green-lantern-theory-of-the-presidency.html
I heard a rumor that you fly to France every Bastille Day to have sex with brown-skinned 6-year old boys.
Rumors are fun.
Pursuant to the Wilbur Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 the US is authorized to prevent all sales of military equipment and supplies to France for condoning child sex trafficking.
You’re on your own, France. Good luck.
Hey, there’s this slip-and-fall lawyer in Independence, Missouri, who maybe could help her out with THAT one. I think he won one against McDonald’s once. I don’t think the guy’s much good for anything else, though.
Yes, I heard from an inside source they’ll be discussing sending the Legion étrangère after you. Are you packing yet?
Even if your delusions were real, I think we can do fine without your 5 armored trucks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_equipment_of_the_French_Army
Shamefully we’re the world’s 4th largest exporters of weapons. (You’re #2 behind Russia.)
Wilbur Wilberforce sounds like something Gerry Anderson would pitch as a TV show title. Which, to be honest would be a glorious train wreck to watch. British political figures of the industrial revolution era as Supermarionation puppets? I’d buy that for a dollar.
The relevant portion is Section 164.512(e)
(e) Standard: Disclosures for judicial
and administrative proceedings.
(1) Permitted disclosures. A covered
entity may disclose protected health
information in the course of any judicial
or administrative proceeding:
(i) In response to an order of a court
or administrative tribunal, provided that
the covered entity discloses only the
protected health information expressly
authorized by such order; or
(ii) In response to a subpoena,
discovery request, or other lawful
process, that is not accompanied by an
order of a court or administrative
tribunal, if….(what follows is a litany of conditions which must be met for a subpena or discovery request in the absence of a HIPAA authorization)
So the answer is yes, Orly’s patient records could be subject to examination without HIPAA authorizations, but the Court would almost certainly impose restrictions to ensure that the medical information is kept as confidential as possible.
Good thing, too. Those five Buffaloes are now off the table. We’re keeping ’em, to be sold instead to municipal police departments, to ensure victory on the urban battlefield. Hey, you never know when the Crips are gonna buy their first battle tank. We have to be prepared!
And when has Orly EVER kept anything confidential or followed court rules????
That’s a good point, but it’s academic because we know that Orly has no medical evidence to support her claims.
In the official Crazy Moldovan Dictionary, the definition of of the word “Rule” is as follows:
Rule
ro͞ol
noun
plural noun: rules; noun: Rules
1.
A thing which does not apply to me
You mean, the incoming Race War touted by BirdBrain on the Gerbil Report?
True, but Orly giving me free reign to be sarcastic is an opportunity not to be missed, but truly treasured and abused for all it’s worth..