Here’s the quote from her amended complaint (2nd part) in the Johnson case:
It is widely believed that each District Court and each U.S. Attorney’s office has individuals who are embedded in those offices and who are working for (National Security Agency) and FBI and not only gather information, but also tamper with records, similar to NSA tampering with phone records and e-mails, as reported by the federal whistle-blower Edward Snowden.
Taitz goes on to say that this is why it appears that she sent some material directly to the judge that didn’t get on the docket. I wonder how Judge Hanen will react to that allegation of an NSA mole in his court? I wonder how Judge Hanen will react to Taitz misspelling his name on the amended complaint?
In addition, Taitz alleges that a potential witness was pressured to lie in an affidavit to make her look bad. I previously reported that Taitz represented to the court that Immigration officer, Ronald Zermeno , was willing to testify for her and to travel from California. In an affidavit, he said:
I never waived the application of Rule 45(c)(1), particularly since I have had no discussions or interactions with Dr. Taitz.
Taitz claims he was pressured to say that:
Under duress and under pressure of possible employment termination Zermeno signed a declaration where he claimed that he did not know who Taitz was until Judge Hanen ordered subpoenas to be signed on August 25, 2014 and that he did not want to testify.
In fact, several days prior to signing of the order to issue subpoenas, through written text messages and phone conversations with fellow border patrol officers, Zermeno agreed to appear at August 27, 2014 hearing before Judge Hanen and was willing to produce evidence of aforementioned violations by the defendants.
Taitz misrepresents the Zermeno affidavit that nowhere says he had never heard of Orly Taitz, and didn’t know who she was. Further, it appears clear that Zermeno was never properly served with the subpoena.
They all live in a make believe world where facts are what they want them to be. I think some thoughtful entrepreneur could make a fortune creating and selling the bizarre Birther world in the form of a video game. The only rules that would apply would be those created by the participant. No two games would be alike. “Orly World” would be fascinating.
I dunno: most of the potential customers are already living the game 24/7. Although I suppose some would buy it so they could play without reality’s well-known “liberal bias” (Is there a quasi-official term for that? Like, say, “The Colbert Confoundment”?)
Could be therapeutic, though: after dozens of plays where they find out that what they think would be a “win” doesn’t actually get them squat, some of them might realize they’re on a fool’s errand…
Notice that Orly misleadingly implies that she communicated with Zermeno, but in fact she never actually says that.
In fact, several days prior to signing of the order to issue subpoenas, through written text messages and phone conversations with fellow border patrol officers, Zermeno agreed to appear at August 27, 2014 hearing before Judge Hanen and was willing to produce evidence of aforementioned violations by the defendants.
It isn’t entirely clear what Orly is saying here, but she isn’t saying that she spoke with Zermeno. It appears that Zermono may have spoken or texted with other border patrol officers, or it may be that Orly spoke or texted with “fellow border patrol officers” about Zermeno, or it may be both.
Or neither.
Is that PDF of her amended complaint as docketed? It’s a mess. Looks like a bunch of pages are missing from the beginning. Must be those NSA spies at work again.
Given Taitz’s complete inability to comprehend anything but what she wants to hear, who knows if the other border patrol officers even agreed to anything. She must have napped the day they discussed contract law in her online law school. It is rather hard to have mutual assent if you do not actually talk to the person.
Hey Orly, get it in writing.
“Taitz misrepresents the Zermeno affidavit that nowhere says he had never heard of Orly Taitz, and didn’t know who she was.”
LOL. Reminds me of Sven: what photo with a red arrow pointing to a “Y”?
The propensity to set traps for themselves that they immediately fall into is just one of the many traits that make birthers so much fun to observe!
The Taitz amended complaint is docketed as ECF 40 with a bunch of additional supporting documents. The Complaint itself is in two parts, and this article only links to the second part because it contains the material quoted in the article. The first part of the amended complaint has the usual header material:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/taitz-v-johnson-ECF-40.pdf
The way I read it, Zermeno had discussed his willingness to testify to something somewhere with some other Border Patrol officers, but not with Taitz. Taitz probably saw some forwarded messages and concluded that he was willing to travel to Texas to testify for her. That would be typical Taitz wishful thinking.
And now Zermeno probably will have nothing to do with her, after she claimed that he caved to pressure and signed a false affidavit.
Everybody who works with Taitz ends up worse off because of it.
Obviously it’s wild speculation on her part, but what does she claim that isn’t?
However, I thought the judge gave her a short leash to present her amended complaint with actionable items, no claims about politics, and about policy that affects her directly. Could she be sanctioned for straying?
By the way, what does “diversity of state citizenships” mean?
Not quite; remember, Pacheco explicitly told her the four names (including his own) to put on the subpoenae; she didn’t have to deduce anything from forwarded messages.
She has stepped in it with her ridiculous story, but Pacheco helped her to beclown herself. Again.
Dr. Taitz is, as usual, her own worst enemy. As demonstrated by the empty chair in Georgia, she doesn’t need anyone to be after her to lose.
Damn! Taitzed again!
It is a jurisdiction where parties to the case live in different states. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_jurisdiction
It is usually of interest when something in the case relies on state law, for example the DC Anti-SLAPP statute that was applied in Farah v. Esquire Magazine.
U.S. federal officers with much to lose wouldn’t dare tamper with evidence would they? A federal employee witness wouldn’t change his story after a visit from other U.S. federal officers with much to lose would he?
A few years ago, I lived near the Arizona border. Some places along the border are very isolated. Something terrible could happen and the body may not be found for days, weeks or even months. It’s possible one or more of Orly’s witnesses were threatened.
At a minimum, Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa should investigate and interview all parties involved to determine if witnesses have been threatened and evidence tampered with.
Or, the judge has a look at Orly’s history of lies, evasions and “mistakes” and realizes she is just a mendacious, LSOS with the morals of a rabid hyena and an inability to understand English.
If something COULD happen, that means it DID happen, and if something is POSSIBLE, that means TREASON.
That’s just LOGIC, you dumb Obots.
Yes, Sven, that’s right. That’s what judges do in this country. They conduct investigations. Especially judges who are not hearing the case at issue. They just butt in and start an investigation.
When will we see the President’s naturalization certificate, the one you said you had? You do know that if you produced that it would end the debate, force the President from office, elevate Dr. Taitz to the Supreme Court, and allow the Chicago Cubs to win the World Series, right?
It must be said: let’s not insult rabid hyenas. I was once sued by a person best described as a rabid hyena and did very well out of it. They fill an ecological niche.
Now I’m no lawyer, but exactly how much swing is a claim that something is “widely believed” supposed to have?
You mean something “widely believed” but yet lacking in even a reference to Wikipedia or TMZ?
She must have been napping during the defamation course as well. Complete drivel. She’s been defamed because…someone (unspecified) may have pressured a boarder patrol agent to say he’d never heard of her? And that this will lower her in the estimation of right-thinking people? Oh dear. Serves Judge Hanen right. He could have stopped this nonsense on day 1.
I suspect that Sven is waiting to hear back from Lucas Smith on that certificate.
Well, I wasn’t going to make it THAT complicated.
U.S. federal officers in the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch have been accused of witness tampering and evidence tampering. The matter should be investigated don’t you think?
In the trial transcript, a CBP witness testified she was a GS-15. With locality pay in the San Diego area her salary and benefits compensation package exceeds $200 thousand per year. And if she has twenty years in service, then she’s receiving 6 weeks of paid vacation per year. That’s a lot to lose if you find out the fix is in and any cooperation with the plaintiff will be dealt with harshly.
Not to mention the Clerk of the Court sealing a portion of the pleadings without a court order. The Chief Judge should investigate the matter.
Ah, so absence of evidence (or even reality) is proof of activity in Sven world.
So Sven, where be the naturalization certificate..?
Corsi didn’t trademark that “absence of evidence” thing?
I really like the irony that Taitz lied to a judge as part of her attempt to prove somebody else lied to the judge. And the fact that she does not claim that anything that was actually in Zermeno’s statement is inaccurate leads me to believe his statement was truthful.
Seconded! Sven, pony up or shut up!
Another lie Taitz tells in that part about defamation is that all the exhibits to her subpoena motion were sealed. That’s false. Some of the exhibits were sealed, but some of them were not. The ones that were not sealed had the addresses of the Border Patrol agents blacked out. I think that the clerk sealed an unredacted copy of each exhibit and made available a redacted copy.
The evidence sealed by the Clerk of the Court is very telling. The sealed documents allege Obama is not a U.S. citizen and a citizen of Indonesia after a careful review of Barry Soetoro’s school records and Stanley Ann Dunham’s passport application indicating Barack Hussein Obama is to be “struck” from her passport after naturalizing in a foreign state.
Judge Hanen just ordered a county district attorney to report to federal prison after hearing a criminal complaint filed by the US Attorney and other DoJ prosecutors. Evidence against the county district attorney was obtained during an FBI criminal investigation of the county district attorney. If Obama is ineligible, then the USDC does not have jurisdiction to hear the criminal complaint or examine evidence against the county district attorney after violations of the Appointments Clause and Article VI.
If Obama is ineligible, then the former county district attorney will have to be released from prison and could file suit against Judge Hanen for professional misconduct. Judge Hanen’s fast track to the Appellant Court would be terminated. Orly should file a motion to recuse before Judge Hanen issues a dismissal.
Err, all of the above is imaginary, lets get to “factual stuff” shall we..?
Where’s the naturalization certificate Sven ..?
How do you know the contents of material maintained under a court seal?
Putting aside that “sealed” nonsense, since when would such allegations be of any significance as proof of loss of citizenship– which couldn’t be lost to begin with? Foreign school records? Somebody else’s passport application that goofballs think “indicates” something?
I read about it in the amended complaint posted on the plaintiff’s website.
Those records are created, maintained and stored by Catholic Social Services or Catholic Charities, Inc., a U.S. government contractor with the Office of Refugee Resettlement of the US Department of Homeland Security. Indonesia dictated terms and conditions for the information obtained, recorded and stored. Catholic Social Services or Catholic Charities, Inc was responsible for inputting the correct information and storing it. If Barry Soetoro is not an Indonesian national, a muslim and the son of Lolo Soetoro on January 1, 1968, then Catholic Social Services or Catholic Charities, Inc. did not fulfill its requirements to operate a private school in Jakarta, Indonesia in 1968.
One of the many reasons ORR has contracted with Catholic Social Services or Catholic Charities, Inc for over 50 years is because of its proven track record for keeping accurate records and a good working relationship with the US State Department.
Sven, what is your proof the the “If” clause of this proposition is true? What is your proof that Lolo didn’t lie to get Barack into the school? What is your proof that this school document is not forged? IOW, prove this document’s provenance. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera… The list goes on …
So in other words, beats the hell out of you.
Then it should be little effort for you to link to Taitz’s website where the sealed materials are discussed.
Still waiting on an actual response as opposed to insane meanderings on imaginary suppositions
Where of where is Obama’s naturalization certificate, a publicly accessible document for a stout researcher like you to uncover…?
Well..?
What would Lolo Soetoro’s motive be for lying to get Obama enrolled in a private Catholic school located in Jakarta, Indonesia? Over the years, many US State Department employees working in Jakarta, Indonesia with school aged children have enrolled their children in that same school. It was highly recommended in 1968 and still is recommended to Americans living in Jakarta who have school aged children.
No – the motive would be to eventually get him into a public school that was only open to Indonesian nationals, and that the record would have to be consistent when documents were transferred.
The thot plickens.
According to Sven, no parent ever has lied to advance his or her child’s education opportunities.
I would expect that at least 80% of the U.S. population know of at least one case which would disprove his assertion.
That was the speculation from the reporter who found the registration form.
Pretty common where I went to school. A lot of parents wanted to get their kids into my school because it had an extensive AP program that wasn’t quite the same in the rest of the district. One normally assigned school was in a bad residential neighborhood near housing projects and with serious gang issues. It was pretty well known that kids used someone else’s address, and the teachers openly knew this but did nothing.
You should see all the address fraud used to get into Lowell High School in San Francisco, as well as other high schools in our area. The San Francisco school district has a tip line, and several families have been reported and their kids removed.
In Texas, they will lie to get them into a high school with a good football program.
As you’ve been informed countless times, that is complete and utter lunacy. And also wrong. 🙂
Sven, focus…. Obama….naturalization certificate…..public record….where is it….show us the money…..
Since the founding of this country the President has prosecutorial discretion. The Attorney General derives his prosecutorial discretion from the President after an appointment pursuant to the Appointments Clause. As a check against the power of the President, all US federal officers must state an oath to support the US Constitution pursuant to Article VI of the US Constitution.
A US federal officer cannot maintain their oath to support the US Constitution while simultaneously supporting an ineligible President. The Attorney General cannot derive prosecutorial discretion from an ineligible President and support the US Constitution. The first thing an ineligible President will do is start prosecuting and jailing prosecuting attorneys and judges who aren’t going along with the usurpation of the Office of the President of the United States.
All US federal officers must maintain their oath to support the US Constitution to prevent tyranny and the destruction of the Constitutional republic.
You continue to throw around that “ineligible president” phrase around. Obama is not ineligible.
And even if he were, your bull I quoted in the previous post would be exactly that… bull.
Yohoo Svenny
Sven, focus…. Obama….naturalization certificate…..public record….where is it….show us the money…..
Sven, I’m sure you understand that a President does not become ineligible just because you have used that word to describe him.
As you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence showing him to be ineligible, any conclusion that you may draw from that premise is, to put it mildly, complete hogwash.
But I think you know that.
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.
So Sven if the first thing an ineligible president does is to start jailing judges and prosecutors who don’t go along with his program, then why haven’t we heard of such jailings? Is the ebil media keeping this from us?
If Sven had credible evidence of Obama’s ineligibility through naturalization, wouldn’t that be misprision of a felony? So either he is a felon or a liar.
Good thing we don’t have an ineligible President then, huh?
Honestly, we know more about Obama’s background than we do the average birther. Its you lot that people should be suspicious of, not the President.
Prosecutorial discretion: DACA
“By this memorandum, I am setting forth how, in the exercise of our prosecutorial discretion, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should enforce the Nation’s immigration laws against certain young people who were brought to this country as children and know only this country as home.”
“It remains for the executive branch, however, to set forth policy for the exercise of discretion within the framework of the existing law.”
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf
If Orly can get Judge Hanen to unseal her evidence of Obama’s ineligibility, proceed to discovery to obtain Obama’s naturalization, passport and social security records to prove ineligibility, then all US federal officers will be Constitutionally barred from prosecutorial discretion.
Your house of cards is built on “ifs.”
The first problem you have is that Orly has no evidence of Obama’s ineligibility, so your house of cards has already collapsed.
Oh I’m sure the Judge will authorize a fishing expedition based on Orly’s rash…..
Another losing proposition. Orly’s “case” has nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility at all. Was not raised at all in the pleadings. So there’s that.
Even if the issue ever got to discovery the documents would show exactly what we already know they do. Born in U.S. SSN his. Passport fine. Reflgistered with SS. In other words, eligible.
I would love to see it, actually, but you whackjobs would just continue to claim some massive coverup so it would be of no use to anyone but the sane, and they already know.
Orly “birfin'” before Judge Hanen would be priceless and show her even a bigger lunatic than she’s already proven to him she is, both written and orally.
LOL, there you go again, speaking of the President’s ineligibility as if it were a fact.
But no matter how many times you repeat it, it means nothing, because you’ve shown no evidence to back it up.
And, as I said, you know that. You’re just playing a silly game.
He’s nothing but a lying troll. In the past, he had to outdo his lying by attempting to be the Master of Sock Puppets. That lasted until Doc tired of it.
Don’t bother feeding him because he will never show any evidence of anything. Only a troll.
Thanks. I do know better than to feed him. But from time to time I like to poke him with a stick and watch him pull back and squirm into his next configuration.
No,if Orly can get Judge Hanen to ignore non-evidence of Obama’s ineligibility and crank Birther theories of ineligibility, as Orly and every other Birther suit bringer has managed to get every judge to do thus far, and proceed at once to discovery to obtain a Hawaii-certified copy of Obama’s official vital birth information to confirm his eligibility, then all US federal officers will be Constitutionally barred from slapping anyone but Sven Magnussen silly.
Uh the courts authority does not flow from the President, but from the authority of the Law itself. The Presidency is itself a position created by law, so Obama’s eligibility or ineligibility would make no difference to the authority of the USDC.
There’s that word again, “If”. Your arguments are as flimsy as edible rice paper, because our legal system does not operate the way you seem to think it does, but when you take away that little two letter word, you literally have nothing to say.
Sven: If Obama were ineligible, then (blah, blah, blah)
Well, Sven: “If I were a good enough basketball player, I could have made millions playing in the NBA” Is a perfectly true and valid statement. The only problem is, I wasn’t good enough, and so I didn’t make millions.
Even if your (blah, blah, blah) were true (which it isn’t), it still wouldn’t apply because your precondition isn’t met. But what am I doing, trying to explain logic to a birther?
Computer programmers have a saying: Garbage in, Garbage out. And you’re the one trying to shovel the garbage.
Sven should google “ex falso quodlibet“. 😉
To translate Sven and the other birthers’ thoughts to a video medium there is this: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0c7_1410872082
Ahhhhhh, Sven. I see now where you’re confused. Let me see if I can straighten you out. The President is not ineligible, he was voted for by the majority of the people, got enough votes in the Electoral College, was accepted unanimously by both houses of Congress, and sworn in by the Chief Justice. Fulfilling ALL Constitutional requirements to be the President. Once these all that happened, he was declared eligible and able to take the office. There is absolutely NO MECHANISM IN THE CONSTITUTION for declaring an already sitting President ineligible. He is eligible, has been eligible, and will continue to be eligible, for as long as he serves. So, all US Federal officers will be abiding by their oath and serving under a Constitutionally eligible President…and you still don’t understand our Constitution.
If Orly can get U.S. District Court Judge Andrew S. Hanen to legally change his name to “The State of Alaska” AND then demand that the judge explain how The State of Alaska could have been issued a Social Security Number from those reserved for residents of Texas, then all US federal officers will be Constitutionally barred from performing any duty unless they have written permission from SvenMagnussen.
I’d just note there’s no requirement that the Chief Justice conduct the swearing in. This is merely tradition. What I’ve seen suggests that three other individuals have done this. The Constitution also doesn’t state that it has to be administer by any person. I suppose it could be legal for the President-elect to stand on his own and recite the oath of office, and that would be legal.
Except on alternate Wednesdays in months with an “R” in their names: see SURF v TURF, 99BBOW (D.D.S. 1778)
I agree, however when the Chief Justice doesn’t quite get the swearing in right the first time the birthers know this is absolute proof…of something.
Also the new President becomes the President at the EXACT instant that the previous President ceases to be President, i.e. noon on Jan 20th or at death. The swearing in is necessary, but does not imply that we don’t have a President until that occurs.
A common misconception is that the Eligibility Clause applies before the President-elect is sworn in. It applies after the President is sworn in. There is no federal mechanism to prevent an ineligible candidate with a majority of the Electoral votes or a person in the line of succession to be sworn in if the President is incapacitated with the exception of the Vice President.
The Vice President must be eligible to assume the Office of the President of the United States if the President becomes incapacitated pursuant to the 12th Amendment.
So what do you think this clause in the 20th Amendment means:
“if the President elect shall have failed to qualify”
Lyndon Johnson was famously sworn in by a federal judge in Texas. George Washington was sworn by Robert Livingston, Chancellor (the highest judicial officer) of New York. I have seen it said that a notary could take the President’s oath, but I think it has to be somebody who is legally authorized to receive oaths.
Maybe he’s one of those who don’t accept any amendments after the Bill of Rights.
Don’t forget Calvin Coolidge…..sworn in by his father, a notary public, after Harding died unexpectedly while Coolidge was at home in Vermont.
Just for good measure Coolidge was sworn in again the next day by a Supreme Court justice, as I recall.
My memory fails me; who administered the oath to President Turner?
Qualified to serve does not equate to eligible to serve. The reason we have a national vote to determine Electors and not the next President of the United States is to provide Electors with an opportunity to faithlessly vote in the event the national election results in a qualified, but ineligible, President-elect.
Faithless votes of Electors count. A member of the Senate and a member of the House may object, in writing, to faithless votes. But if each house votes to accept the vote by the Electoral College, then the vote is finalized. In the event no candidate for President receives a majority of the Electoral votes, the House of Representative vote to determine the next President of the United States.
Pursuant to the 22nd Amendment, Barack Obama, John McCain and Ted Cruz can never be Vice President of the United States because they are ineligible to be President of the United States. However, there is no federal mechanism to prevent any of these individuals from being sworn in as President of the United States.
Sven says …blah…blah….irrelevant nonsense
So Sven, where’s the naturalization certificate you used to harp on about, you have partaken of the open and accessible nature of the mechanisms that would allow you to request this momentous document….Haven’t you..?
Come along you’ve had YEARS to go and get it, what’s wrong with you, you an Obot..?
It does not “equate to” but is a superset thereof (there are other reasons why a President-elect may have “failed to qualify”).
You just named two such mechanisms – both the EC and Congress can “prevent” an ineligible candidate from being sworn in (actually three because the Chief Justice can also refuse, though I’m not certain if that is anything but a nuisance if it ever happened). What you mean is “they didn’t and I have nowhere to complain”. Pretty much like every birther who claims “nobody answered my question” when in fact they mean “nobody answered my question with an answer I like”.
Depends. Does the accuser have any credibility? Does the accuser have any evidence?
You know Sven, this could all be put to rest immediately, Doc could retire, we could all go back to reading sports blogs, and the magic reset button could be pushed, if only you would just produce that naturalization certificate. Why are you holding the entire country to ransom like this?
My response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLsEcljjYYo
I was hesitant to click on your link. I thought it might be this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BROWqjuTM0g
Just another reason to stay away from anything from the folks in Redmond.
That’s another common misconception. If the naturalization certificate sees the light of day, then the naturalized citizen President will be handcuffed and removed at gunpoint from the Oval Office. Not true.
Obama, a naturalized citizen, is the President. His status as an ineligible President handicaps his ability to function as the Chief Executive Officer of the US federal government but does not disable him. US federal officers, including SCOTUS, the Circuit Courts, the District Courts, and all other US federal officers are required to support the US Constitution as a check on the power of the President. If the President is ineligible, he loses his support from US federal officers.
Needless to say, the US federal officers currently holding office are reluctant to admit their jobs have been made obsolete.
Sven contends that the President is the President, but is not allowed to do any Presidenting, and any Presidenting he tries to do while President is void.
This is Birferstan’s Greatest Legal Mind.
So Sven, do tell why aren’t you trying to unearth this mystical naturalization document so the “naturalization certificate (can) sees the light of day”.
In point of fact, if I recall correctly, your earlier iterations of the magical story of Barry and the Pirates including you saying you HAD seen this document and other associated documents n’est ce pas….?
So, show us the nice piece of paper or your evidence of attempts to find same.
“I’ve seen it” does not equate to “I have the document in my possession and could copy and post it on the net but I won’t because I’m holding the world hostage.”
So, have you seen Big Foot, UFO’s and zombies too? Does you saying you’ve seen something mean it exists? Probably not. 😆
But if you have seen it then you know it exits and therefore will have access to furnish us with
It’s serial number
The associated Alien number
The date of issuance
The location of issuance
You know the characteristics, signatures etc
Oh and I have shown you where to get a copy, so hop to it Sven, off you go, furnish us with these details whilst you get a copy
Who amongst us hasn’t seen a “flying object” which they could not “identify”?
I’ve seen flying objects that traveled at high speed and suddenly stopped in an instant and took off in a different direction. They are called hummingbirds.
Clearly, those are IFOs
As expected, you have nothing but your imagination. Which helps explain your continuous failures.
What is it Judge Judy says, when a litigant claims to have evidence but did not bring it to court: If you don’t have it here, then it doesn’t exist.
Perhaps if you could say who does ‘have’ it, or where you ‘saw’ it?
So we’re supposed to take you at your word? Sorry, you want Gerbil Report.
anything, really. It basically equates to “you have to take my word for it,” which equates to “trust me.”
So the probative value of “I’ve seen it” rests wholly on the trustworthiness of the person making the claim. And since Sven is a known and proved recidivist liar, he has no trustworthiness at all.
Barney Fife put it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pdpLAn8mh4
So where and when did you see it? Under what circumstances? How do you know that the document is authentic?
Who has possession of it? Why is that person keeping it under wraps?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Ain’t it funny how birthers are completely caught with their pants down, when their own logic is used against them.
When I was attending fake law school , the prestigious SvenMagnussen School of Law, Missouri Campus, they taught me that these are the questions a defense lawyer will ask a rebuttal witness. Before the rebuttal witness is put on the stand and under oath, they told me to make sure the primary witness is put under oath in a deposition and in court to testify they did not naturalize as a U.S. Citizen. After the primary witness lies under oath, bring out your secondary witness to testify the primary witness is lying and naturalized as a U.S. Citizen.
With respect to Obama and according to reliable sources, the secondary witness will not testify because Obama has admitted he naturalized in 1983 to an FBI investigator. How unfortunate. If Obama would lie about his naturalization status, then the FBI could turn over their evidence to a special prosecutor to seek indictments against President Obama for obstruction of justice and perjury. Unfortunately, when Obama is put under oath, he testifies truthfully as to his naturalization status. It will not be necessary for the secondary witness to testify and prove they have personal knowledge of Obama’s naturalization status.
Consequently, that means that only collateral attacks on the US federal officers who support a President currently in violation of the Eligibility Clause will suffice. As a check on the power of the unitary executive, all US federal officers must state and maintain their oath to support the US Constitution. Obama will finish his second term as a President imposed on the United States contrary to the Eligibility Clause of the US Constitution with numerous US federal officers wondering why blind support of a sitting President is a bad thing. As Judge Hollander opined, even if Obama is ineligible, she’ll probably be reappointed and any current violations of Article VI by a sitting Judge will be rendered moot. Ha ha ha. Judge Hollander has a future as a comedian.
In other words, as always, you lie and have zilch.
Yanno, according to all your fellow idiot birthers, you are guilty of misprision of felony.
That’s really stupid. It was revealed over a year ago that you graduated Harvard Law in 1964; while you are known to reside and have a nominal practice (no major cases to speak of) in Missouri, Harvard is still in Massachusetts.
That’s really stupid. You’ve never named these sources, never provided a shred of evidence that they even exist. So how can they possibly be reliable?
That’s really stupid. There’s no evidence that ever happened, and you only claim to believe it because you’re a racist troll.
That’s really stupid. No such President has served. Perhaps someday, but not yet, and not today.
That’s really stupid. The President meets every qualification for his office limned in Article Two of the Constitution; he was elected by clear majorities of the American electorate and of the Electoral College. Twice. Said votes were accepted by both houses of congress, without objection. Twice. He was sworn into office by the Chief Justice of the United States. Four times. And you’ve never presented a single shred of evidence to contradict any of these facts. Ever.
Unlike a certain racist, bitter, failed matrimonial & DUI lawyer in Independence MO, who only has a past, and one where he never lived up to his early potential.
What a pathetic excuse for a man.
Sven’s a DUI lawyer? Oh, that’s a special kind of a-hole! They defend people who grossly endanger the lives of others. Trying to get them lighter sentences. Their ilk deserve an end worthy of a Rod Sterling story. Namely getting snuffed out by a drunk driver.
Sorry. Gotta part ways with you there. Everyone in this country charged with a crime is entitled to a defense.
They do their job just as any other lawyer defending any other person charged with any other crime.
I see driving drunk as the equivalent of playing Russian Roulette, but pointing the gun at a random person in a crowd before pulling the trigger, and repeating the process until someone’s luck runs out. To me its an act that is indefensible, and those who would try to make it so people like that get a lighter punishment, are spitting on the victim’s corpse.
Be that as it may, they are entitled to that defense in this country. And not everyone charged is guilty. Just as with other crimes.
Even that person pulling the trigger randomly would be entitled to a defense.
Hating the perp and the attorney does not negate those constitutional rights.
Fine, they have constitutional rights, but they’re still scum.
Point being, Sven practiced small-time law for fifty years, ran unsuccessfully for office a few times, and didn’t exactly set the world on fire after Harvard. This is not someone who’s going to be successful overturning centuries of case law just because he hates the black President.
So he’s been a lawyer for fifty years, yet he seems to understand the law less than most laymen do?!
In other words, you are dodging my questions.
Not that I’m surprised. Obfuscation is the last resort of a serial liar.
He’s driven by hate and he’s quite elderly and, evidently, useless. Beyond that, we don’t diagnose at Doc’s. (Irony!)
Sometimes yes, sometimes no: there’s a difference between a lawyer in general practice who takes on a DUI client who walks in the door, and those who specialize in DUI and advertise it on TV. The latter tend to profit by engendering false hopes of escaping punishment among people who’ve done a stupid and dangerous thing. Often more than once. Encouraging those people to think that maybe they won’t get what they deserve when they finally get caught is encouraging their bad behavior.
I was on a jury for a second offense DUI trial. The defense was not effective.
I’m in full agreement that everyone deserves a defense, a competent and vigorous defense.
What concerns me is any defense (or prosecution) that seeks to trick or mislead the jury.
In fact, everyone charged with a criminal offense is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Why would anyone hate an innocent man charged with a criminal offense who has hired a lawyer to defend himself and his Constitutional rights?
If a juror thinks they are being tricked or mislead, isn’t that reasonable doubt and not a flaw in the jurisprudence?
In a civil matter, the bum is responsible and needs to be held accountable unless he lies and denies the allegations. And then discovery begins to uncover the truth. Or in the Obot world, evidence must presented before discovery begins. Discovery is merely a validation of the evidence presented with the complaint.
Why would evidence need to be produced if the perp admits the allegations? And why don’t they call it verification instead of discovery?
I am not a lawyer, and I am not trained in the ethical canons of that profession. My opinions are my own.
First, It bothers me for an attorney to argue a position that he knows to be untrue, or to present an argument he knows is fallacious.
Right or wrong, if an attorney engages in obvious trickery, I am going to be biased against him, and think it likely that trickery is being used because the attorney’s cause lacks merit.
I have no problem with persuasion, or even an emotional appeal, but trickery in my book is beyond the pale.
That’s not just the rule in the Obot world; that is the rule in the United States. Before someone can be charged with a crime, evidence is presented to a grand jury and only after a determination is made by the grand jury is an indictment issued.
In a civil suit, a plaintiff must show standing to bring the suit, not evidence. As Judge Surrick told us all in the initial Berg v. Obama lawsuit, the court will assume that allegations are true in determining standing. None of the Obama lawsuits were dismissed due to insufficient evidence before discovery. They were dismissed over issues of jurisdiction (law, service and standing). They were dismissed because they were wrong as a matter of law, they were moot, defendants were not served, or the plaintiffs could not show particular injury.
Perhaps one of the real lawyers here could answer this–Is there any requirement to provide evidence as part of the complaint in a civil lawsuit? Can’t I just say something like: On July 1, defendant entered my pet store and opened all the cages and $2500 worth of animals were lost. I want the court to make him pay me $2500 in damages for the animals and another $1,000 for loss of business.
I could submit the security camera footage at trial and the inventory and business records.
The court would look at the allegation and determine that I have standing, and then there would be discovery.
—-
I cannot see how it is possible. Each of Sven’s posts demonstrate that he has never attended even first semester of first year law school. He has absolutely no grasp of the most basic legal concepts or how an attorney or the legal system approaches a legal problem/question. In any law school (with the possible exception of a modern on-line school?), everything is focused on training the student’s mind in certain concepts and the methodology of applying those concepts. In the process, one reads and analyzes thousands of cases where these concepts and methods are applied. In the classroom, the Socratic method demands that students rigorously prepare to quickly expound on and apply these concepts/methodology–and all exams and papers require the same. Surely, some students are better than others, and some attorneys may be incompetent. But they can all demonstrate at least some measure of being exposed to these concepts and method. In contrast, Sven demonstrates that he was never even exposed to these things.
Or has utterly forsaken them in the face of his hatred of Black Hitler.
I’m not denying that Sven’s arguments don’t withstand even cursory scrutiny; they clearly don’t. But Doc demonstrated pretty definitively last year that Sven (just one of his dozens of sockpuppets on this blog alone) is a lawyer in Independence, MO; his brief in the McInnish case, which he’d already posted on his own blog, exposed his identity.
The obligation to assume someone is innocent until found guilty in a legal proceeding only applies within the legal system. Outside the legal system, people are free to use whatever standard they want to form an opinion about whether or not a person is guilty of a crime.
I agree. But Sven is not contemplating ever approaching a real judge with his foolishness. Any willingness on the part of the Birthers to acknowledge the efficacy and wisdom of applying normal legal principles and methodology to the Obama eligibility topic, and address only proven facts even when they comprise eligibility-confirming evidence, would immediately result in their having to admit that they have no case. Sven, like most of the seemingly literate Birthers when they embark on a ‘legal-sounding’ rant, begins with ZERO evidence GLORIOUSLY replaced by suspicion and known lies, and then only parrots novel concoctions of The Law, Frankenstein-like ‘parades of horribles’ created by stewing together contextually inapplicable case law and irrelevant statute cites excerpted from text books, with it all being grotesquely reinterpreted to doom Obama with a tone of finality you would only expect God to use more than once.
As I have said before, their standard tactic, really is the power of the threat that never goes away, and that threat doesn’t need any backing substance, because it is ultimately a physical threat which attaches as a more menacing possibility when it seems to be coming from an unstable mind, ultimately the threat of assassination. So Sven’s motive to continue with these preposterous semi-legal poison arrows, is knowing that even the transparent idiocy of his constructions, help us fear his insanity’s potential to do harm, or entice some other nut to do harm to our President.
Sven’s power is the power of every lunatic.
—-
With some statutory exceptions, no, the plaintiff does not present evidence during the pleading phase of litigation. The plaintiff’s complaint (plaintiff’s pleading) only lays out the factual allegations that, if proved at trial, would properly sustain a cause of action against defendant. In essence, the purpose of the complaint is to put defendant on notice of what plaintiff intends to prove–not to demonstrate how plaintiff intends to prove it. There may or may not be a requirement for the plaintiff to verify the allegations under oath on pain of perjury.
Some exceptions might include: the need to attach a copy of a contract in a complaint for breach of contract; the need (at least in Illinois) to attach an affidavit from a medical professional to a complaint for medical malpractice; etc.
It should be noted that a plaintiff’s attorney, before filing a complaint, is obliged to do some investigation to ensure there is some actual basis for the allegations in the client’s complaint, and faces stiff sanctions for failing to do so.
Following the pleading phase, the parties are permitted to engage in discovery, at which time the defendant will serve the plaintiff with interrogatories, deposition notices, and demands to produce to defendant all documents, records, photos, videos etc. in the plaintiff’s possession. Similarly, the plaintiff will make discovery demands upon the defendant, but the burden of proof is on plaintiff who must prove his/her allegations. Although the rules may permit the parties to make discovery demands simultaneously, it is generally expected that plaintiff will be the first to have to answer interrogatories under oath, submit to deposition, identify witnesses, and produce documents. By the end of the discovery phase, the lawyers have seen and assessed all the evidence that could be presented at trial.
After discovery, one of the parties may be in a position to show that–given all the available evidence–plaintiff must lose (or must win) as a matter of law. This is done through a motion for summary judgment, which will discuss the discovered evidence (or lack thereof) and will attach copies of documents, deposition transcripts, witness affidavits, etc. Generally, this will be the first time in the litigation that evidence is included in a public filing or shown to the Court.
You’re forgetting all the other existence proofs we have of presumably licensed attorneys. Orly, El Putzo, Sibley, etc.
Complaints tend to be rather vague. In a typical auto personal injury complaint, the plaintiff will identify the parties and provide the date and location of the accident, but little else except boilerplate allegations of negligence and non-specific claims of injury.
In New York, after a complaint has been filed and upon demand by the defendants(s), the plaintiff has to submit what is known as a Bill of Particulars, in which the plaintiff is required to be provide specifics about what the defendant did wrong and what damages are being claimed. But even the Bill of Particulars is not evidence. Evidence is provided during the discovery phase, through depositions of the parties and witnesses, as well as the exchange of medical records, photographs, reports by experts, etc.
The answer to your question is “Yes, there is no need to submit evidence.” Your allegation is considered to the be truthful. If the court determines there is a case or controversy and they have jurisdiction and venue, then the defendant must answer.
Evidence is not required to be submitted because the defendant may admit the allegations. If so, the court will rule the allegation has merit by a preponderance of the evidence.
The next phase of the trial will be liability for the meritorious allegations. In your fictional example, the person alleged to have let the animals out may admit they did it, but claim they are not liable for damages because they have done nothing wrong.
The defendant could claim they are not liable because the city counsel took a vote and the majority voted to let the animals out of their cages. Your complaint should be directed at the city counsel and not the defendant. The city counsel gratuitously reminds you they are public servants with immunity merely fulfilling the will of the majority. If you don’t like it, you should vote to install different members of the city counsel in the next election.
If you hired an attorney who loves a good fight, then he would collaterally attack the defendant and draw in the deep pockets after it was established the defendant had no right the release the animals and the city counsel waived immunity when they conspired to release the animals from your cages and cause you damage.
yee haw … boom … defendants are required to disclose their errors and omissions insurance policies. The insurance attorneys will scream … SETTLE !
Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend.
Inside of a dog, its too dark to read.
—- Marx
Of course not.
Sven knows full well that his posts are full of dog droppings. He is merely a troll pretending to be a performance artist.
This is different here in Germany. You have to submit all evidence in your possession (copies of documents, names/addresses of witnesses etc.) with your complaint.
There is no “discovery phase” unless plaintiff alleges that specific evidence (typically documents) are in possession of the defendant or third parties.
(And there are strict limitations on admissible evidence in possession of the defendant in order to discourage fishing operations. E.g. if I sue a vendor “hand over the goods” claiming I paid, I cannot say “defendant’s books will show I paid the money”.)
Failure to do so would allow the defendant to raise the defense of “unsubstantiated claims” which only require a generic denial to be stricken (whereas substantiated claims require a specific denial, such as “lack of knowlegde”).
This failure cannot be cured indefinitely, e.g. it is too late during trial (unless you can prove evidence was not available sooner).
—
Thank you for again showing you lack the most basic sense of things. Perhaps you should write the the Sven M School of Law and demand your money back.
—
Indeed, and most practitioners will keep the complaint as vague as permitted under the rules of the jurisdiction. In a way, it’s helpful to think of poker–why show your hand before it’s necessary? In law, like poker, you shouldn’t cheat–but strategically and tactically, why show your opponent what you have before you have to? In contrast, see Orly-law, in which Orly includes 80+ pages of allegations and attachments that only put defendants on premature notice that she has nothing but bull shite. I guess that’s why Orly has the current judge considering whether to dismiss her complaint based on the allegations, or dismiss based on the inevitable motion for summary judgment down the road….