Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
This is the second in my amateur legal series related to the case of Farrar v. Obama, a challenge to Barack Obama’s appearance on the March Georgia Presidential Preference primary ballot.
Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, argued unsuccessfully that the Georgia Preference Primary was not an election (since no one gets elected to anything as a result of it), but it was the free speech of people expressing their preference and not anyone running for office. Judge Malihi, who is hearing the complaint, did not agree and a hearing date has been set for the 26th of this month in Atlanta.
I’ve been looking over Orly Taitz’s published witness list and wondering if any of them would get to testify. Her “experts” would never pass a credentials challenge. The social-security number business seems irrelevant, just Orly having to promote her pet conspiracy theory. In fact, I haven’t seen anything admissible in court to support Farrar’s allegation that Obama is ineligible. So does Obama win by default?
So far Obama’s attorney hasn’t shown that he intends to mount much of a defense. He didn’t list any exhibits in his pre-trial order and only one witness, one that can’t speak to the facts of Obama’s birth. So what is zero plus zero? It looks like such an answer would be a lose for Obama because in a previous decision in O’BRIEN v. GROSS, Judge Malihi wrote:
Under Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 538 S.E.2d 430 (2000), the burden of proof is entirely upon Respondent to establish affirmatively his eligibility for office.
My advice to Mr. Jablonski is to bring a birth certificate with him and maybe some documents to show Obama’s residence for the past 14 years. That way Obama looks just everybody else who sometimes has to show documentation.
i’m not quite sure what you’re saying.
I know that TV shows and movies often have the “last minute witness” or “last minute evidence”. However, my understanding in real life (and having served on a couple of juries) is that both sides already have each other’s witness lists and evidence lists before they come into court. There’s really no “gotcha” moment. If they do have any new evidence, the judge will always give time to the parties to prepare.
If Mr. Jablonski tries to produce a document that he hasn’t declared, won’t that be an issue with the judge? Of course this was from December, when I suppose he was hoping it would be dismissed on technical grounds. Doesn’t he get to file something supplementary to this?
at the bottom of the original birth certificate obama produce and the REPUBLICAN officials in hi verified it states
“this copy serves as prima facia of the fact of birth in any court proceeding”
wouldn’t THAT suffice?
I can’t imagine that Obama’s team would hire an attorney that was incompetent, nor can I imagine that he’s operating without a considerable amount of oversight.
I suspect he’s got all his details well in order and we simply don’t have the information.
But it would have to be presented, and the pre-trial order doesn’t list any defense exhibits. They probably also have procedures for authenticating out of state vital records.
I’m generally convinced from seeing the PDF scans, but I’d hope that a court would have a higher standard. Still – they’d have to bring a certified copy to court and he’d probably have to alert the plaintiff about it. Springing surprise witnesses and evidence just doesn’t happen in real courtrooms.
I did notice in the pre-trial order referenced, that Mr Jablonski has noted in his estimates that “Plaintiff does not provide a witness list in the proposed pretrial order(2)”. He also states “Defendant reserves the right to file a motion in limne pertaining to any witness later identified by the plaintiff”.
It seems we haven’t actually seen the final result of the witness lists and exhibits.
Oops sorry Doc the second quote should have been marked as from para (3) of the reference
I posted my advice to Orly here.
Oops, message 73.
I would like to assume that too. I just can’t see a real professional dropping the ball and botching such a no-brainer case, such as this.
Thanks for clearing that up, Sven.
Sadly, Orly doesn’t have a very good history of taking your advice, does she?
Then again… she doesn’t seem to listen to anyone but herself, so don’t feel too bad.
Of course, all your points over at FR are the same nonsense you try to peddle here and everywhere else, so it goes without saying that your advice is not reality-based in the first place. But hey, then again, neither is anything Orly files either…
In cases of authentification of foreign birth documents, a legal form known as an “apostille” is used. It is a letter of authentification. You do not need to present the original document itself if you have an “apostile.”
In the case of domestic birth records, under Federal Rule of Evidence 902, a birth certificate with a state seal and authorized official signature is a “self-authenticating document.” A notarized authentification letter from Dr. Chiyome Fukino, former Director of the Hawaii Department of Health concerning the short form COLB and/or a letter from current Hawaii Department of Health Director Loretta Fuddy and/or a letter from Hawaii Registrar of Vital Statistics Dr. Alvin T. Onaka most likely would suffice.
ANY birth certificate is still hearsay evidence in absence of witnesses to the actual birth.
I could see a judge accepting the verification letters that are already available in the public domain:
October 31, 2008 08-93
STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO
There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.
—
July 27, 2009
STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
—
April 27, 2011
HAWAII HEALTH DEPARTMENT GRANTS PRESIDENT OBAMA’S REQUEST FOR CERTIFIED COPIES OF ‘LONG FORM’ BIRTH CERTIFICATE
HONOLULU – The Hawai’i State Health Department recently complied with a request by President Barack Obama for certified copies of his original Certificate of Live Birth, which is sometimes referred to in the media as a “long form” birth certificate.
“We hope that issuing certified copies of the original Certificate of Live Birth to President Obama will end the numerous inquiries related to his birth in Hawai’i,” Hawai’i Health Director Loretta Fuddy said. “I have seen the original records filed at the Department of Health and attest to the authenticity of the certified copies the department provided to the President that further prove the fact that he was born in Hawai’i.”
{excerpted}
I think most judges would be satisfied with the above as proof of place of birth in accordance with the “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the Constitution (Article IV, Section 1)
HAH! The Kenyan Marxist homosexual is going to be kept off the ballot in Georgia.
Since it is certain once this happens that each and every one of his edicts will be reversed, Victory is ours!
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/01/14/breaking-update-judge-subpoenas-obama-and-multiple-documents/
Yeah, good luck with that…. Keep dreaming your impossible dreams….
Mr. Jablonski only has to list his exhibits and witnesses for his case-in-chief. he can introduce anything and anyone he wants as rebuttal to the challengers’ case.
That could certainly happen.
But it is also possible that since the Judge in Georgia is a Democrat, he has agreed to hold this administrative hearing to resolve the ballot eligibility question in one fell swoop so that all the other states where there are challenges will be quickly resolved by the precedent established in Georgia.
Time will tell! Isn’t this exciting!!!!
I agree with you that Barack Hussein Obama is a “Marxist.” I hear that “Harpo” was his favority Marx Brother, growing up.
Perhaps you will explain why you believe this is an issue that Judge Malihi has been requested to resolve for the Secretary of State in determining whether Obama’s name should be removed from the primary ballot:
“C) O.C.G.A. 21-3-560 Making of False Statements Generally. Is the candidate’s Social Security number, authentic?”
Isn’t this an “administrative hearing?” Are the civil procedure rules the same as for a trial?
I’ve only recently come across politicalvelcraft.org … makes WND look good. The pitifully altered image add just the perfect touch of credibillity. WND is the gateway and this is the hard stuff perhaps? 😉 Seems to have done wonders for Mr. Basil’s mind!
…. and it’s a reference to one of Orly’s subpoenas. How disappointing.
OK. So there’s no way the plaintiffs could spring a mystery guest? So perhaps they’re reserving a birth certificate just in case someone brings up supposed evidence that Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii?
Even so, I have a suspicion that he’s got more than just one witness and some exhibits. I would guess that way back in Dec they didn’t get to the point where they thought the judge would schedule a hearing.
When I was on those juries, the attorneys knew every who was going to testify.
Victory (any) is (day) ours (now)!
Poor velcraft does not understand how subpoenas operate. The one directed to Obama is invalid and unenforceable.
But let’s indulge your fantasy for a moment, Basil. The hearing before the ALJ relates to a referral by the Georgia secretary of state whether uphold a challenge to remove Obama from the presidential primary ballot. Let’s say, for the sake of your fantasy scenario, that Obama is not on the ballot for the primary on March 6. Bummer for the candidate, right? Wrong. The Georgia Democratic Party sends its delegation to the Democratic National Convention anyway. Or maybe they don’t. Or maybe the DNC doesn’t seat the delegation.
What happens next? Well, the convention delegates select the Democratic Party nominee. Maybe they do it with the Georgia votes. Maybe they do it without the Georgia votes. But in the end, Obama will be the nominee based on the majority of votes at the convention in Charlotte. The DNC certifies Obama as the party’s presidential candidate to each of the 50 secretaries of state (include the Georgia SOS, Brian Kemp) and the equivalent officer for the District of Columbia, and Obama goes on the ballot for the general election in November.
Sorry to throw cold water on your wet dream, but Obama will not “be kept off the ballot in Georgia.”
You Marxofascists can laugh all you want, but the Kenyan Marxist homosexual is going to be driven from the ballot, and will then have no recourse but to resign. Judges have avoided tackling this critical eligibility question because they know there is no way in this lifetime that Barack Hussein Obama – or whatever he’s calling himself – can be a natural born citizen. The Constitution clearly defines that term as someone born on US soil to two citizen parents. Several court cases, writings from the founding fathers, and Vattel himself clearly show this is the only way someone can be natural born, and this marxist turd clearly is not, and this fact alone could trigger the biggest constitutional crisis ever.
It may set off riots in the blue cities.
Keep in mind that the consequence to Obama of an adverse ruling in term of the Georgia primary is ….. nothing. Obama will be the Democratic nominee, and the Democratic National Committee sets is own rules in terms of delegates. Obama is the only candidate listed on the Democratic primary ballot — see http://www.sos.ga.gov/elections/2012pppd.htm — so removal of his name would mean that there would be no Democratic primary at all in the state.
In any case, the fact that Obama is the sitting President makes it hard to argue that he is not “eligible” — the one point the Birthers have yet to understand is that Congress already determined him eligible in January of 2009.
Jablonski is extremely well qualified and knows what he is doing.It is quite possible that there are strong tactical reasons not to create a situation where there is a litigated set of facts subject to court appeals.
This guy is good! Finally, someone else lazy enough to make use of the “red”/”blue” convention.
I was unaware that feces had political leanings. All this time, we’ve been interfering with their civil rights by burying them at sea!
“Barack Hussein Obama – or whatever he’s calling himself”
Mr. President.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-obama
Jablonski’s pretrial order reserved the right to submit exhibits in response to the plaintiff’s (if that’s the right word) case. I’ve discussed a Taitz witness list, but it hasn’t been filed with the court.
Oh, I don’t have any illusions that I’m in the least way able to give real advice to Jablonski. In fact that legal citation I gave came from the Plaintiff’s pretrial order. But it’s fun to kibitz.
I asked this over at the Fogbow, but I don’t see why Judge Mahili won’t simply take judicial notice of the fact that Pres Obama was on the Georgia ballots twice in 2008, therefore Georgia has already said he is eligible. Nothing has changed since then, so why should Georgia exclude him now?
I want to make sure we are using the same terminology. When you speak of the “plaintiffs” you are referring to the challengers, right? The challengers, as well as the candidate, must disclose their witnesses for their respective case in chief.
Obama has the burden of proving that he met the Georgia requirements for appearing on the ballot, and the party with the burden goes first. After that, the challenger has to rebut the evidence of eligibility that the candidate offered. The candidate — having the ultimate burdens of proof and persuasion — has the opportunity to call any witness and proffer any admissible documentary evidence that rebuts the evidence and/or impeaches any witness for the challenger.
I can envision a scenario where the plaintiffs — the challengers — could spring a “surprise” witness in sur-rebuttal, but that witness’s testimony is limited to the testimony or documents offered by the candidate in rebuttal.
Here is what could happen:
Obama’s attorney puts on his case in chief. He calls the chairman of the state party to testify that the party did all that is required by Georgia law for its nominee to be on the primary ballot. He rests.
The challengers call — who? How do they rebut? How do they get in their evidence of “ineligibility”? Let’s say that somehow they offer some evidence that calls into question whether the candidate is a natural born citizen. What physical evidence do they have, that is admissible? Who is the witness that has personal knowledge sufficient to authenticate the evidence? What first hand knowledge can any witness offer?
You see the problem?
But let’s take this out a little further, since this is a hypothetical. I know that you are asking, “How would Jablonski offer the COLB?” so let’s assume that the challengers offer a scintilla of evidence that questions the NBC qualification. Jablonski will want to foreclose any possibility of a finding of fact adverse to Obama, so at that point he will offer a certified copy, in rebuttal to the plaintiffs’ evidence.
This is where Orly might try to get in her “expert” witnesses — to impeach the COLB.
In most cases, the parties have gone through discovery. They know what the other party’s witnesses are going to testify to, because they’ve taken the witnesses’ depositions. They know the exhibits that the other party will offer, because exhibits have been discovered, and exchanged, and their authenticity questioned and challenged in conjunction with the depositions. In most litigation, through the use of motions in limine, the admissibility of documents and certain testimony by the opposing party’s witnesses is objected to, and ruled on, in advance of the trial. So there are rarely those dramatic moments that make for good television dramas.
Thanks, Sven.
You know that this is an administrative hearing, right? That there will be no binding “decision” by the administrative law judge, right? That the ALJ’s role is to make findings and a recommendation to the secretary of state (and “initial determination”) whether to remove Obama’s name from the ballot, and that the SOS makes the final determination, right? And that the SOS is free to accept or disregard the ALJ’s initial determination, right? And that whatever the SOS determines, it is not precedent and will have no effect on any other state, right?
The ALJ is not going to be making groundbreaking law. He will not adopt a novel legal theory. He is not going to boot Obama from the ballot.
There will be no riots.
Unless the voices in your head go ballistic.
I’ve been watching birthers for over 3 years now and I find that there are two groups: those that can be satisfied and those who cannot. In the former group there are those who are hung up on one thing. The biggest “thing” was the long-form birth certificate “if he has nothing to hide then …” The number of birthers dropped precipitously after the long form release. Well, there are, I speculate, another group that could be satisfied if an official document was ever submitted in court.
And as I said in the article, Judge Malihi has once rejected Respondent arguments that the challenge is invalid. The Judge has placed the burden of proof on the Respondent before. It would seem very risky not to present some proof.
Further I think it would be better to establish a precedent NOW than later.
Keep rocking back and forth and telling yourself “any..day…now”…
Yeah, good luck with your delusions. …Because the Birther track record is not looking good for you, Lord Basil…and that is putting it mildly.
Lord Basil,
I’m curious as to how Vattel became, as is clear from your remarks, the most trusted authority in American jurisprudence? Thanks for spewing your naive understanding of the upcoming hearing, though–it will make watching this train wreck unfold that much funnier. Personally, I think that there is a much better chance that Dr. Orly Taitz, DDS, esq. will be disbarred this year than there is of President Obama being barred from a single primary (let alone the general election). Please remember that every birther prediction or theory just makes the movement look more ridiculous when it turns out to be totally at odds with reality.
I was referring to the “plaintiffs” as the challengers.
However, I remember being on a civil trial jury in my county. I don’t know if I can get those five weeks of my life back. What I remembered was that pretty much every witness who testified was never in the courtroom until time to serve as a witness, while most stayed in the courtroom after they served as witnesses.
There was tons of evidence. They was all piled up in the corner and had been there for days until they were admitted as evidence. Everything else was orderly. Both sides knew exactly who was gong to be called and I didn’t get the sense (even in a five week long trial) that anyone was surprised about anyone showing up.
I also remember for one drunk driving trial (my first as a juror), after it was over the asst DA told us that one thing they didn’t have available was an eyewitness who followed the driver from the crash site to his home. He wouldn’t say why, but we figured the witness either died or couldn’t be subpoenaed because he was out of state.
That’s a cut and paste from the pre-trial Order issued by the Judge. As much as I like to address the issue of Obama’s status as a Permanent Resident Alien when his SSN application was filed, it’s not an issue the Judge will address.
A cover story has been implemented for taking Obama’s SSN off the SSN Verification list.
—————————————————–
DOUGLASVILLE, Ga. (AP) – A Douglas County teen faces felony charges after investigators say he used the Social Security number of a senior White House official to apply for an online credit card.
—————————————————–
Orly will have to make the case Obama’s SSN number can only be validated by examining his original SSN application. A trained SSA document examiner reviewed the application and verified the documents submitted for support. Orly need to look for the “PRA” field in the document locator number provided by the SSA with the SSN application. The “PRA” field will have a “Y” in it for “yes.”
By the way, was my grammar really that bad? I just wish I could just edit some of those proofreading mistakes.
Sorry Sven, the silly SSN nonsense isn’t going to fly in the GA hearing. Not because it is stupid (which it is), but because it is irrelevant to the ballot eligibility issue.
Keep writing your Barry and the Pirates fan-fic, though… one of these days, you’ll get your Peter Pan to Never-Never-Land…or at least keep telling yourself that.
Armand, can you provide a link to the judge’s order containing this phrase?
( 😉 )
I know where you found the phrase, Armand. Would just like you to confirm.
Follow Orly’s link with care.
It really is fun to go back and forth from Orly’s site to here, and to some of the other sites listed below. I am really loving the Taitz versus Birthers-who-don’t-think-the-sun-shines-up-her-ass ( worst group name since the Stewart Super PAC.), fight. I love how everything is about money now. The good doctor telling her minions that her life is in danger, and how she is paying all the expenses, and doing this pro bono. She really thinks of herself as Joan of Arc. All of this nonsense is perfect for her though. It is the ultimate excuse for losing the GOP Senate primary in CA ( If it is not a primary, I apologize.).
I am glad that Orly, and the rest, are so amped for the GA action ( Trial, Hearing: let’s call the whole thing off. ♫). I hope they bring their best, because it won’t be good enough. But what I really hope; for the people who believe in Orly to, finally, see her for the incompetent charlatan she hides behind accusations of corruption and conspiracy.
Thanks Dr. for putting out the information, along with the notice of your lack of legal expertise. For someone who doesn’t know a lot about the law, you seem to know a lot about the law.
I can’t wait for January 27th. I wonder where the goalposts will be found.
Current excuse: not enough signatures to get on ballot! 😀
if corsi’s mole proves to be a fake and there is no certificate as tim adams says… i am willing to conceed this fight.
“Orly will have to make the case Obama’s SSN number can only be validated by examining his original SSN application. A trained SSA document examiner reviewed the application and verified the documents submitted for support. Orly need to look for the “PRA” field in the document locator number provided by the SSA with the SSN application. The “PRA” field will have a “Y” in it for “yes.”
Armand… where, exactly, in the constitution is having an SSN or having a Selective Service registration a qualification to be eligible to run for or be president? Hint: Nowhere. If the judge wishes to indulge testimony on that lunacy he certainly may, but he’ll then address its irrelevancy in his recommendation to the SoS.
if the Admin judge applies the rules of procedure and evidentiary rules of GA, none of Orly’s witnesses will take the stand. If he gives leeway as an Admin judge, then it’ll be a matter of degree as to how far he wishes to let them wander and present irrelevant and inadmissible testimony and documents.
concede correc … thanks doc lets keep this going…
And, Armand — please fetch the executed copy. You gave us the one without a signature.
Yes, you were correct. CA’s race is a Primary. It will be held on June 5th.
Maybe the “precedent” that Jablonski would like to establish is that no state has jurisdiction to disqualify a presidential candidate from the primary ballot.
I’m not saying what he will do, one way or another. I’m just saying that a lawyer could decide that it makes sense to stand on the jurisdictional claim. In other words, Jablonski shows up to the administrative law hearing on the 26th, re-asserts his claims that the primary challenge is improper, and in the face of an adverse ruling, simply appeals the jurisdictional issue.
I don’t think it’s a requirement per se to be eligible for President, but does the Georgia ballot filing require the SSN along with full name and the name they wish to use on the ballot? I don’t see this really going anywhere, but I’m guessing they want to claim that he’s using a fake/stolen SSN to get onto the ballot.
“You Marxofascists can laugh all you want, but the Kenyan Marxist homosexual”
I just assumed that Lord Basil was a parody of Lord Ha Ha and a parody of Birthers.
If I am wrong, then he is a parody of himself.
Which is really wierd.
I think you are on to something. I found a Kenya BC (Obama’s?) which will help your quest. Thanks for visiting.
Here goes another non-Lawyer: I would assume he will have more than one layer of defense. It must be remembered he is ultimately representing the Georgia Democratic Party, then the DNC, finally Obama. (well, at least this is my assumption!) Expelliarmus is dead on: political parties do not want to cede jurisdiction over this choice to the states. Jablonski should at first attempt to gain a decision that the Party can put just about anyone (speaking rhetorically there, not legally) on a primary ballot, particularly a Presidential primary ballot. The national party wouldn’t want a precedent of states having a say set, and risking that spreading to other states. If the case falls to proving Obama’s eligibility, it could be said the parties, national and state, had just lost some autonomy, and been put under the states’ thumb.
An interesting question that I can’t answer is whether states can establish add’l requirements on Presidential eligibility, so long as they don’t conflict with the Constituion of federal law? Has that question ever been settled? I hope so, and that it was settle in the negative.
Also interesting is that there are requirements to hold an office, and obviously a candidate should meet those in order to appear on a ballot, no point in electing someone who is ineligible*. But then appearing on the ballot itself carries additional requirements that vary wildly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The requirements to win the office, and to hold the office, are not the same. The rationale is that a jurisdiction has a right to set conditions—conditions that are lawful and Constitutional—on making a claim to its votes in a wider election, I assume.
It’s late, I am hungry, and I fear I am going in circles 😛
* Couldn’t resist.
I remember a few states tried passing Congressional term limits for members of Congress from their own states. They were all struck down with a final decision by the SCOTUS. The decision was that the states could not add eligibility requirements that were more stringent than the requirements of the Constitution.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1456.ZO.html
I had forgotten about that! Interesting, but I am not sure how relevant. Particularly since the President is not elected directly, but rather the elections are for the allotment of electoral votes. I could see the electoral college angle going either for or against Jablonski …..
jeff you’re finally coming out… ?? do tell….
I recall some of those laws (including some passed by initiative) weren’t technically about how long a person was in office, but that they couldn’t be named on a ballot after serving a certain time in office.
I thought that the whole electoral vote issue advanced by Jablonski was thrown out by the judge as not sufficient to dismiss. I was under the impression that now they have to justify why Obama is eligible for the office. I’d think a certified birth certificate would be the start, along with various employment records. Still – if I had to prove I resided in the US for 14 years, I might have a hard time documenting it. I could find certain things (short of full records) like a verification of attendance from the colleges I attended. That covers about 6 years. I might be able to get affidavits from my various employers. Maybe a verification of attendance from my K-12 schools.
Obama has been in government service for years, so his time in the Senate and the Illinois Legislature would obviously count.
The feeling I get is that the judge is probably not going to touch the “two parent” argument. That’s an absolute third rail.
President Obama has served in public office (which requires residency) for the last 14 years–between judicial recognition of the elective offices he’s held and the COLB Jablonski shouldn’t have any problems showing eligibility.
see this would have been a good example of being a “concern troll”.
…………. not someone trying to warn you about the government… and stuff…
bernadineayersJanuary 16, 2012 at 2:56 pm (Quote)#
i’m not quite sure what you’re saying.
………..still not sure what you’re trying to say doc. your people are never willing to admit when they’re wrong….
…………
And precisely what would “prove” to you that Corsi’s mole is a fake? Let’s say the COLB is presented in Atlanta. Why wouldn’t you just say it was a fraud cooked up by Hawaii? What is any different here than when the long form was released, or the COLB in 2008?
I don’t presume to see inside your head, but all I have seen from birthers is proof being pushed aside and even more grandiose conspiracies being concocted. Whatever Obama’s attorney offers as proof in Atlanta will be met by a WorldNetDaily volunteer crank expert denying that it’s real. You can chose to believe that or not; however, given that you haven’t been convinced by overwhelming evidence so far, and have at least to some extent allied yourself with cranks, doesn’t give me any hope that what you said below has any significance.
Of course we now know that there is a certificate, but I doubt that you would be willing to conceed (sic) this under any circumstance.
Hearsay and rumor versus fact.
You’re so cute in your denial…
Should that not be C) O.C.G.A. 21-2-560
…any day now….
Is Scott/Bernadine/he/she/it talking to itself? Pretending to out oneself as a concern troll?
I was wondering that same thing but was too bored with bernadinecrazy to ask…..
Of course. Or as the saying goes:
Obvious Troll is Obvious
Yeah, that would require us having actually been wrong on something in the first place…
So far, name something that we actually got materially wrong Scott… You can’t, can you?
You sticking your fingers in your ears and insisting on buying into gullible delusions and myths don’t count.
Aww, G, but we’re wrong all the time, usually in little ways, about little things. And smart enough to throw in a disclaimer when not certain. And when an error is corrected, we say, “hey, thanks!” … genuinely thankful for becoming more knowledgeable, and avoiding living a lie. This also reduces the number of times we’re wrong, and therefore called out for being wrong.
All that doubling down must get heavy after awhile. I don’t see how they do it!
When one is wrong one is wrong but that requires one to be wrong first.
Luckily, on the Obama eligibility issue, at least, that is not something we ever have to worry about.
I don’t know if this is posted elsewhere on this blog but the Orly Taitz Show is being shown live and in living color on birtherreport.com
It’s a site to behold, co-starring Jill Nagamine as Deputy Hawaii Attorney General and Rhoda Nishimura as “The Judge.”
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/video-orly-taitz-vs-jill-nagamine.html
Make that “sight to behold!” 😉
You are correct sir… that is certainly a more accurate and proper description of how reasonable people behave here and I stand corrected!
Thanks! 🙂
However it could soon be “cite to behold” if Judge Rhonda hands down sanctions and vexatious litigator status to Dr. Taitz.
Here, you can watch the same thing at NBC’s site instead of having to go to that cr@pyard knownas ORYR:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/taitz-v-fuddy-video/
LOL!
…. and be sure to skip the first 20 min of Orly reading her filing. Geeeez. The good stuff gets going around 24:00. 😉
Fascinating, when confronted with vexatious litigator status, Orly responds that the case is not going to go away and that she intends to file more, all the way to the 9th Circuit Court. She is soooo clueless and either she believes truly her own nonsense or she is playing the role of her life…
I stick with clueless… She has no idea how to properly effect a foreign subpoena. It is not straightforward but even I could figure it out.
And now, thanks to the magic of iframes, you can watch it here too!
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/01/girl-fight/
I pity you.
That was close. My brain almost auto-flagged you as a birther.
I thought the standard of proof for the residency requirement was to simply provide an affidavit of the candidate.
Unless there’s substantial evidence to question the credibility of said statement, I don’t think a judge will put additional burden on the candidate by requiring third party documents.
Then again, you might never know. Once their Vattelist argument gets shot down in court, they might invent the next conspiracy theory of “Obama never resided in the US for 14 years but sent a doppelganger to sit in the Senate for him”.
Or they will discover the obscure 18th century Lithuanian philosopher Emric Vartelzhian whose book “Lore of nay shuns” says the 14 years must be immediately preceding the presidency and that two weeks of holidays abroad make you ineligible…
This blog centers on one Orly Taitz but what many here fail to realize is that there are THREE seperate challenges,two of which will cut through all this happy BS and address the only thing this Judge can rule on. Eligibility, as defined in Art II Sec I Clause V of the Constitution. All other matters (SS#, College records, etc..,) are for another court to deal with, not this one. Arguments as to the true and correct definition of nbC are what will be heard in Malihis court and for Jablonski to win he’ll will have to pull a rabbit out of his hat. He’s already tried one proceedural move that the Judge shot down and now there’s nothing left but to have this heard, for the very first time, in open court, based solely on the merits of the case. That alone should make this, what many believe will be, the “Challenge of the Century”.
First up, Van Irion, second will be GA State Rep and Atty Mark Hatfield. Both are seasoned and incredibly intelligent in their own right. Last up will be Orly. I firmly believe this case will be won or lost based on the first two Atty’s presentations. My money is on Hatfield to bring forth the case that Jablonski will not be able to dispute. At least not successfully.
DNC and RNC have a lot at stake here since both have been willing to proffer candidates with questionable eligibility.
Do any of you think it is unreasonable to ask whether or not our candidates are eligible to be placed on our ballots? That is what this is and always has been about. At least for me it is.
Do you have a reference to this?
The document was written by Orly Taitz, not the judge, and I don’t think the judge has endorsed it in any way except to add it to the filings in the case.
When I saw your screen name, it felt familiar. I realized that this is the memory it triggered, the name Lord Haw-Haw.
http://www.heretical.com/British/joyce.html
GA FIRST, yes it’s reasonable, but do come back on the 27th and tell us your opinion when Orlly fails. Also tell us about all of Orly’s OMG failures.
I think it’s unreasonable that you never demanded, cared to even ask for any other President in history, before this one. I wonder what is the one thing about this President that is different, that would make it necessary to single him out for special persecution?
LMAO
Any . . . day . . . now.
Yes, do come back and let us know how your predictions worked out.
Thanks for pointing that out, and you are no doubt right that Mr. Hatfield is more competent than Orly Taitz. Taitz, however, tends to hog the spotlight and I guess I fall for it as much as anyone else.
If you have any documents about the other cases, I would love to see them and post them here. However, I cannot imagine anything that could be presented, no matter how competently put, that could win the day for the challengers. Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years old and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. Nothing is going to change that and there are no other requirements to run for President of the United States.
It’s reasonable ask, but since Barack Obama released his birth certificate in 2008, it is not reasonable to CONTINUE to ask.
Isn’t Georgia birther Carl Swenson of the truly sad and failed Pitchfork Rally the site administrator for the Rise Up for America web cesspool?
Not a problem Majority Will, but I’ll wait till after the Judge makes his recomendation to the SOS before responding. Just so you all know, I got confirmation that those subpoenas Orly issued are legit. That, according to the Clerk of this court. So, whichever way this falls it’s going to be real interesting. One thing is for sure… We will have a ruling based on merit.
Dr. Conspiracy,
Unlike many others, including you, I could care less about the BC and that isn’t what this case is about.
.
The expression is “could not care less”.
“Could care less” means you care.
Pesky logic.
GA FIRST:
They be legitimate State of Georgia subpoenas (though one wonders whether a copy-and-paste subpoena is actually legitimate), but if I understand AAG Nagamine’s argument in her recent tussle with Orly, they have no authority in Hawaii.
GA FIRST got his reliable info from Linda Jordon;
January 17, 20127:15 AM PSTOrly,I Just spoke with the staff attorney, Kim Beals (?) in Judge Malihi’s court. (pronounced Mali) She said that she was going to talk with the judge about the subpoena but when I asked her if the judge was going to consider evidence and witnesses on January 26th she said “Oh yes, there’s going to be a hearing. There are three separate cases and yes whatever she (Taitz) wants to bring forward will be her decision. She is presenting her case. He will be considering evidence.” or something to that affect. She is talking to the judge now about the subpoena process and is going to call me back.She just called me back. She said that I could honor the subpoena or make a motion to quash it which basically I would send her a request. I said that no, I wanted to honor it, I just wanted to make sure that the Judge had given Orly Taitz the authority to subpoena evidence and witnesses. And that she would be allowed to present her evidence and witnesses in the court room and the staff attorney said absolutely, maybe not all of it because of objections and what not. I asked that, concerning the subpoenas, did Orly Taitz do anything inappropriate by sending them out and she responded “No, Attorney Taitz has a case pending before Judge Malihi and she can send subpoenas–it’s a form on their website.”****Please feel free to share this on your website and use my name. You have been maligned in this instance. See you in Georgia.
Linda Jordan
**** One problem is that subpoenas are no longer part of the webpage set – keep getting 404 error. Did Linda lie (birthers do)
I wouldn’t be surprised if a clerk took them and filed them with the rest of the case. Clerks generally don’t make any determination on the laws. They generally check to see that the format is correct, all signatures are there, and that there’s proof of service. Apparently proof of service only needs to be a return receipt. However, she filed a whole bunch of those things, including some targeting federal government records. You can file all you want, but even if she can get half the stuff she’s asking for, doesn’t the judge still have to admit them as evidence?
GA FIRST:
Just so I’m sure about what you’re predicting–you believe that Deputy Chief Judge Malihi will rule that President Obama is not eligible to be president because his father was not a citizen of the United States, or something to that effect. Is that correct?
Obama asks Betty White for her long form birth certificate:
http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=7140
y_p_w:
Hell if I know. I’m a theatre professor; I don’t know nuttin’ ’bout lawyerin’ and I’ve never been involved in a court case . . . although I recently directed a production of “To Kill a Mockingbird.”
Hasn’t lost his sense of humor, in spite of all this B.S.
Since the two citizen parents nonsense is a concoction of Leo Donofrio, perhaps the self-proclaimed Paraclete can testify at the hearing as to why his legal fantasy is binding precedent.
Every time he jokes like that Al Qaeda gets real nervous.
Been real folks, see you after the hearing.
Thanks for not answering my question. Typical.
I know. It happened to me too. I asked him “why is this night different from all other nights?”, and he gave me an evasive answer.
Typical.
Sorry, but I can’t tell what kind of a crank you are unless you announce it or wear a sign.
I think more precisely, you could say that it is legitimate for Orly Taitz to issue subpoenas in this case, not that those subpoenas were legitimate. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that state court subpoenas are only valid in the state.
Arthur, To answer your question, yes I think this Judge will rule in favor of removing BHO from the ballot. With what will be revealed on the 26th I can see no other result unless Jablonski figures some proceedural manuever to keep the merits out of Malihi’s hearing.
Hey, anything’s possible when dealing with the Judiciary.
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/jan/17/georgia-democrats/georgia-democrats-say-republicans-trying-knock-oba/
Carl Swensson
So when all these cases are Dismissed are your kind finally going to admit Obama is Legit?
I have seen a claim – but not on the webpage supposedly kept by the people bringing the Georgia case – that a subpoena has been issued the requires Obama to present an enormous quantity of documents including stuff that most people couldn’t get if their lives depended on it. Stuff like “certified” copies of all his passport records, and all his school records, and “certified” copies of all his Social Security application papers, etc. I am sure that the claim that such a subpoena was issued is fake; for example, his school records and Social Security application will not be dispositive of whether he is a “natural-born citizen” as the Constitution provides.
The Georgia administrative hearing will probably consist of Taitz and other birthers providing whatever they have indicating that Obama was not born in the US. As that evidence is very flimsy, the entire case might crash and burn right then and there. If not, the ball bounces into Obama’s side and his lawyers get to present the Hawaiian certificates and other evidence — NOT necessarily the particular items that the birthers talk about. As evidence of Obama’s birth in Hawaii is very strong, the case might end abruptly at that point.
Birthers quibble about Obama’s evidence, but the fact is that the Birthers have been wobbly and inconsistent about their own evidence. Taitz, in particular, has associated herself with two DIFFERENT documents both purporting to be Kenya birth certificates but clearly different from each other and both of doubtful authenticity; having failed in terms of documentary evidence, she tries to rely on her own interpretation of British nationality – but foreign claims on persons born in the US are not a consideration in the operation of US law of citizenship (no US court case denied citizenship to someone born in the US because there might have been a competing hereditary claim by a foreign country); in particular, we won the War of 1812 to prove that the British nationality laws have no claims on Americans.
Whoa, whoa, whoa…First the Lindbergh case was the trial of the century, then the Simpson case was called the trial of the century. Now you’re saying this is the “Challenge of the Century”.
I can’t keep track of all these appellations. Help me out, will ya?
Know what I would like to see? Orly and the rest of her coterie doing the Electric Slide. Talk about wobbly.
Nor anywhere else outside of the State of Georgia, unless very specific procedures are followed.
A part of me wishes I was a gambling man, and the people who make amazing predictions such as Georgia First made would put their money where they mouth is. Besides money or anything material, can anyone think of a way for birthers and anti-birthers to bet on events such as the outcome of the Georgia hearing at the end of the month? I wish we woucld somehow record such bets on a scoreboard that we could periodically review.
Though I can’t bet on it, I’ll boldly predict that the Georgia judge will not even consider keeping Obama off the ballot.
Arthur, That is my understanding as well. Only within this state.
Care to make a wager? I’m not as rich as Miitt Romney so I’m looking more at $10 than $10,000.
Arthur, When a Judge rules on the merits of the case, meaning he is or isn’t Constitutionally eligible and gives us a reasoned ruling, I’ll be fine with that. As a matter of fact, that’s all I have ever asked. Will you be satisfied if his reasoned ruling goes against you?
The “2 citizen parent” theory that will be argued in the court in Georgia is the same pile of stinking excrement as the one that was argued in Indiana. Expecting a diifferent result is an example of Einstein’s definition of insanity.
This admission by Carl that he will accept the ruling of the Court should be bookmarked so we can compare his actions after the ruling.
This particular case is being heard by an Administrative court, not a regular court of law, so I am a little hesitant to bet on the outcome of this one court – but I’d bet on the final outcome (whether or not it’s final with this court or goes on to a higher court): I’d bet the mortgage, and both of my kidneys, on Taitz losing and Obama winning.
Awaiting Arthurs answer…
Taitz may well loose, but my case is not hers.
Judges already have (Ankeny vs,.Governor of indiana). In the intervening 2 years there have been no Supreme Court cases that would impact the outcome. Nor are any of the arguments made since then in support of the “2 citiizen parent” poo-poo any more cogent than those made by the Ankeny plaintiffs.
That’s a non-issue. NBC is clearly defined in US v Wong Kim Ark as born on US soil, subject to Jurisdiction and includes children born to alien parents. The Court in Ankeny v Daniels confirmed this.
But your case may very well be the down fall of any other attempts to argue the two-citizen parent argument.
Did they ask if the same applies to foreign jurisdiction? Of course not. Yawn… Such incompetence.
Which will confirm Obama’s natural born status. Then what?
GA FIRST = “Will you be satisfied if his reasoned ruling goes against you?”
to dream the impossible dream
now GA, tells how many OMG moments succeeded to date.
GA FIRST like all birthers is so delusional
on Jan 27, tell us you are not delusional
The merits are simple: Is Obama eligible. Well, he is of the required age, spent 14 years in the US and is a Natural Born citizen. That’s all that is needed and we already know that he meets all three requirements.
What else do you think the Judge will do? Do you want my prediction?
1. Only 8 witnesses will show up as ‘expert witnesses’
2. Most of their testimony will be rejected as hearsay or based on failure to be an ‘expert’
3. The Judge will limit the issue to the natural born status as the rest has no relevance to the electoral complaint and lacks in any relevant evidence
4. The Judge will take judicial notice of Obama’s certificate of live birth
5. The judge will either rule Obama eligible or rule that the issue is a political one.
The end.
Been fun folks. Now time to go home and have some adult conversation.
GA FIRST “Been fun folks. Now time to go home and have some adult conversation”
hey GA FIRST, now don’t forget to come back on Jan 27 to tout your victory, we adults will be waiting for your childish rants.
Any . . . day . . . now.
Pathetic little birthers and their racist fantasies.
She’s coming unhinged? O.K. I can see that.
Translation… I better run before they ruin my hopes even further. I understand
Thanks for responding! I’m not very well versed on how the State of Georgia handles questions of ballot eligibility. That said, yes, I would accept the Judge’s decision if he ruled that President Obama was not eligible to be on the ballot in the upcoming primary, but I would expect that there would be an immediate legal challenge. If Mr. Obama was ultimately barred from running in the 2012 primary or election, I’d support another Democratic candidate, which would probably be Secretary of State Clinton.
Earlier I asked you if it is your opinion that “Deputy Chief Judge Malihi will rule that President Obama is not eligible to be president because his father was not a citizen of the United States, or something to that effect.” To which you responded, “To answer your question, yes I think this Judge will rule in favor of removing BHO from the ballot.” The focus of my question, however, remains unanswered. I’m interested in knowing the grounds upon which you think Malihi will rule against Mr. Obama. Can you explain it to me?
And that was the weakest ad hominem from a birther in awhile.
Doc, I am a lawyer and can confirm that y our understanding is correct. Unless the subpoena issues from a court in the state where the witness is located, it is not enforceable and, hence, not worth the paper it is printed on. There are procedures for hailing an out-of-state witness to a deposition or to make the witness produce documents, but those procedures were not followed by Orly Taitz.
potter you don’t know what a concern troll is do you ?
as a musician i am tuned into this kind of defensive dance…. redflag usa
Just so you know, federal agencies and personnel are not subject to subpoena by state courts. Neither can out-of-state witnesses be summoned to appear at a hearing or trial under any circumstances. (They can be subpoena’d to appear at a deposition in their home state, if a commission or letters rogatory are secured from the a court in the forum state and converted into a subpoena issued by a court in the witness’s home state.)
corsi said he had a mole in the vault, that the mole could have taken a picture but got nervous, but he saw the actual birth certificate. this goes along with what arduini said about the original being photocopied from a “composite” then scanned onto another piece of safety paper….. then put into the book shortly before 4/27/11.
it was in one of his first interviews.
tim (adams) will be writing more about the hawaii department of health, i think tim is one of the experts around this time in hawaii, which is about to be hyperscrutinised….
including about how governor abercrombie “cleaned house” at the hawaii dept of health.
one of the very first things he did as governor… seems odd to me…..
No, this is not at all unusual. I worked with state agencies for over 30 years. When the administration changes, the political appointees all resign and are replaced by (usually) folks from the new Governor’s party. The Director of Health in Hawaii is a political appointee.
Tim Adams has never been willing to share the source of any of his information except to say that someone else, whom he wouldn’t name, told him.
I contacted the Hawaii Elections Division myself, and was told that no one there had access to any birth records at all. Adams knows nothing.
“The focus of my question, however, remains unanswered. I’m interested in knowing the grounds upon which you think Malihi will rule against Mr. Obama. Can you explain it to me? ”
Arthur, Truat me, I’d love to share the specifics but I cannot since this is the info that hasn’t been made public and chances are very good you are unaware of most of what will be presented, hence my high level of encouragement. Again, it will become clear on the 26th.
9 days and counting.
You seem to be one of the few who I can have a rational conversation with here, (something rare on this type of blog) regardless of your leanings and I’ll hang around for a few more minutes till I must leave for the day.
“cannot since this is the info”
shades of Dean Haskins, WOW. I will laugh a bit louder on the 26th (at you not with you)
If I had to chose whether to trust Jerome Corsi or two Hawaii Department of Health directors, one Republican and one Democrat, Corsi would lose. Corsi’s a 9/11 truther and believes that petroleum is not a fossil fuel.
You will excuse me for not being impressed by an undisclosed argument. Birthers have been saying “any day now” for over 3 years, and after all this time, it doesn’t mean any more than wind in the trees.
I should point out that the parties in Georgia are bound to disclose before the trial what exhibits and witnesses they are going to present. This big surprise sounds very irregular, to the point of straining credibility.
At this point, I think that I have seen it all. The 26th is not all that far away. I’ll still remember what you said.
Where’s your source? Got a citation, scottie?
Just so you know, you don’t need a hall pass here.
Who cares?
Other than a handful of gullible, misguided birthers, of course.
Adams has zero authority and zero credibility. Wasn’t he fired recently from Western Kentucky?
Phil from the Right Side of Life published a fun statement from Tim Adams:
“Thank you for the Email. Actually I believe God has a sense of humor, because I thought these notions were pretty well common and not very important. I was actually just in Nashville, observing a conservative political conference, I’m not a member of any kind of group, and too liberal for these guys, when James Edwards, the host of the Political Cesspool, heard about me from someone and asked if I would simply state what I had observed and been told while working in Hawaii. I believe Pres. Obama was born a United States citizen, and is eligible to hold office, I find the idea that because he was probably born outside of the U.S., he must be some kind of alien to be basically racist.* I do think we should close this issue and pass legislation requiring office seekers to prove identity before running for elected office.
Thanks for the kind inquiry.” – Tim Adams
*emphasis added
I sincerely hope that you will show up here on the 27th whatever the outcome (which I believe will not be to your liking), but I suspect that we wont hear from you after your day in court. I don’t know what “smoking gun” you think you have, but I do know that if your reasoning is based on Minor being precedent for the two citizen parent theory then it is demonstrably false (it leads to a contradiction), so I very much doubt you will be able to overcome, for example, the Ankeny decision. If the judge rules President Obama eligible, will you accept it?
In other words, you have nothing to present. As expected. Can’t wait.
see that was a red flag for me from the beginning. you guys way oversold the political afilliation. overacting… why bother ??
that appears to be quite self evident.
If the argument is that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, all that is need to lay this to rest is his COLB. And the Fogbow reports that the document indeed is scheduled to make an appearance.
After that: The end. The musings about 2 citizen parents has no legal foundation.
let me remind you that in your ‘three years” is a year that has not passed. the “latest” certificate did not appear until recently.. this is a fact.
this debate among john woodman and experts of his calabre will also open the door.
Facts… Such a party pooper…
OMG! Fogbow reports? If I had know that I wouldn’t have wasted all my time and money. .
Love how a disgraced former lawyer is cited as some sort of authority. Hang your hats on Fogbow. Long live Fogbow. Wonder how he’s doing selling flowers at the shop in Raleigh. Almost stopped by to say Hi in June when I went fishing off the Outer Banks. Maybe next trip.
You are taking all the fun away.
Still hung up on Orly? There’s a fine line between hate and love you know… lol
Disgraced former lawyer… I guess you are a little bit upset that the COLB will make its appearance. And no, it was not Foggy who announced this.
Are you so afraid of the Fogbow? I understand.
Once the COLB is introduced, the prima facie nature combined with the Full Faith and Credit Clause will end any speculation and the Judge can quickly rule on President Obama’s eligibility.
A lot of waste of court time could thus be avoided.
Personally, I judge an information source by how accurate it has been in the past–generally, the Fogbow has been very accurate in its predictions and tends to get reports of birther events fairly quickly (which bear a striking resemblance to later video and/or transcripts), birther sources, not so much… What do you think is a reliable source of information on this topic?
You do understand that the Fogbow is an open forum on which many people post, not Foggy’s own cult of personality, don’t you?
Hang your hats on Fogbow, long live Fogbow. You guys are great entertainment!
Oh and GA FIRST, why do you consider Foggy to be disgraced? Although Corsi claimed that Foggy had been disbarred, the evidence shows otherwise.
Careful what you say next my friend.
Was the COLB entered into evidence in Ankeny?
The Fogbow has been batting 100% so far and predicted many an outcome quite accurately. 0-84 was the latest count before the birthers went down the path of filing objections in States. At this rate we should be at 0-90 or better.
Love how a former lawyer, now poker player, invented a presidential requirement. He’s beyond “some sort of authority.” He and his crank invention makes him a demigod in some circles.
Ick.
This is all very entertaining, I’m sure, but if we can be serious for a moment, the birthers have no case and even if they did, administrative law judges in Georgia don’t attempt to decide presidential elections, They might kick off some minor party candidate who would get 300 votes if he/she were on the ballot, but they do not attempt to prevent the President of the United States from running for re-election. Maybe in some made-for-TV drama or airport bookstore potboiler, but not in real life. No way.
Tesibria reports
96 cases, Constitution 89 , 7 pending.
52 Appeals Court filings, Constitution 48, 4 pending
16 Supreme Court , Constitution 16
I think the birthers are all terrified of the Fogbow–they don’t understand expertise and competence, so it appears like magic to them. That’s why they fall for cargo cult lawyers like Orly or incompetents like Leo.
Uncontrollable sobbing. Nausea. Fetal position. Scalding hot, long shower.
GA FiRST has been watching waaay too many Perry Mason reruns.
California Bar Status for Bill Bryan AKA Foggy
I have a feeling that when the 27th comes around, the birthers are going to feel like the Cumberland College players who predicted victory against Georgia Tech.
very,very foolish.
or they will blame the ref ( judge).
Now I know how Clarice Starling felt.
GA FIRST at least understands that Orly’s arguments are unlikely to be successful as they have no relevance to President Obama’s qualifications. Orly may argue that she wants to inspect the original document but a properly certified COLB would be sufficient to put the burden on Orly to overcome the prima facie nature.
As to the NBC status, either the Judge will rule President Obama to be a Natural Born citizen or will rule that the issue is not for a State Court to determine.
In other words, the 26th is going to be a non event.
“the info that hasn’t been made public and chances are very good you are unaware of most of what will be presented”
Carly found Jimmy Hoffa?
Cases brought before Federal Courts:
96 cases, Constitution 89 , 7 pending.
52 Appeals Court filings, Constitution 48, 4 pending
16 Supreme Court , Constitution 16
None based on merit. All bounced by proceedure.
Cases brought before State Courts:
5 and counting. None adjudicated.., yet
Huge difference between these State challenges and all the Federal cases. Only takes one to get the ball rolling so which State will do it first.., Georgia, Alabama, Arizona, Florida or Virginia? More on the way. You’ll have so very much more to talk about and the real fun has only just begun.
BTW, the Virginia challenge is focussed on the Republican candidates.
How many states will have to rule President Obama eligible before you will believe it? Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing and expecting different results, you know…
Is Foggy working a flower shop or not? At least, as of last year.
“In mitigation, he has no record of prior discipline, and suffered from manic depression and substance abuse.”
GA FIRST – Manic depression and schizophrenia run in my family. It’s common among Ashkenazim. I became addicted to Xanax. Don’t be intolerant.
not all of it… three inches of steel seperates the world from the truth… lol
mr. president… tear open that vault !! ??
Last picture I have of Foggy has him proudly wearing a hammer and sickle baseball hat. Nice company you guys keep.
No court and certainly not an administrative court is going to rule a sitting President ineligible. Nor any major party challenger. That is what is called in the military, “beyond their pay grade”. Way beyond,
This is one of my favorite birther failures.
Angry birthers storm state capitol
(excerpt) A mob of angry villagers with torches and pitchforks is scheduled to storm the state capitol in Atlanta tomorrow at 10:00 am. This rally is the brainchild of birther activist Carl Swensson of Rise Up America; it’s purpose: to demand that Georgia pass a “birther bill” (a law requiring states to get birth certificates from presidential candidates) even though Barack Obama has released his birth certificate already. Swensson says that the rally will be “loud” but “peaceful.” Capitol police have stated that the pitchforks will not be allowed on the capitol grounds.
(source: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/08/angry-birthers-storm-state-capitol/)
Does twelve people really count as a mob?
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/rally6.jpg
Be sure to hit them all up for cash, Carl.
I don’t know. What was that line from that Tim Allen movie? That’s probably what they’re thinking.
Never give up. Never surrender.
I believe that even if Obama has completed two terms and is comfortably in retirement making oodles on the lecture and personal appearance circuit, the birthers are still going to be arguing their case.
After the disgace you call Foggy had the nerve to inject himself into the actions of Walt Fitzpatrick in Monroe County TN, (Gleefully taking credit) resulting in his and Darren Huff’s arrest, I could care less how many drugs he’s taking. He’s a menace to society and someone, sometime will call for an acounting of his actions. If the FBI hasn’t already, they will be knocking on his Flower shop door or his home and, quite possibly the other authors of the Fogbow experiment either to arrest them/him or to offer a modicum of protection. I wonder how such a dysfunctional individual can be held in such high esteem on sites like this. Makes me sick just thinking about his rants.
There is absolutely NO excuse for what he has done in Obama’s name, to this country and its Patriots.
.
-James Manning, chief pastor at the ATLAH World Missionary Church, 123rd Street, New York City – convicted felon
-Bill Keller, Liveprayer pastor. – convicted felon
-Andy Martin – criminal record
-Gary Kreep – Holocaust denier
Nice company you guys keep.
BTW, when my grandfather first came here from Russia, he read Der Tag, a Yiddish communist newspaper. It’s called the 1st Amendment. Look into it.
Assuming the Patriots get by the Ravens, the Giants will beat them. Just like the last time.
Hey Majority (mob rule) Will,
Have you ever had enough courage of your conviction to do anything other than blog?
Have you ever put your money where your mouth is?
Real men and women stand up for what they believe in and don’t hide behind their screen names.
Samuel Johnson defined patriotism as the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Like you did up until now?
Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow. Better get used to it.
Do birther bigots count as scoundrels or just mentally challenged, close-minded fools?
LMAO! Hilarious! 🙂
Six of one, half-dozen of the other.
To be fair Misha, those other examples happened during the past century, so we haven’t had a 21st Century “Trial of the Century” yet…
…Obviously, the Birther frivolity is not “it”. Not by a mile…
It might go down as the EPIC FAIL of the century, however… or at least until some group can come up with an even more stupid and fruitless flail quest. So the lunatic fringe has 88 more years to try to take that title… 😉
AGREED!
I highly doubt he’ll be satisfied with the obvious eventual results and will come up with some new excuse to wish away his movement’s continued failures…
Oh, oh! I want to get in on answering this too:
Sorry Carl, I’m 100% confident that the ruling won’t go in the Birther’s favor. Same way I’m 100% confident that the Earth is round and goes around the sun, regardless of how stridently the Flat Earth Society tries to claim otherwise…
Then you won’t mind posting that with your name at drkatesview, Obama Release Your Records, The Obama File,The Post & Email, WorldNetDaily and every other heavily censored birther echo chamber website where everyone posts anonymously.
Go ahead and do that and let me know how that works out.
You’ll also be posting the last names of these donors too, right?
Or would that make your statement idiotic?
Partial list from riseupforamerica.com:
Anonymous
Phillip
Kirk
Mike S.
Vincent
Kim B.
Richard
Bill
and on and on and on.
According to you, these aren’t real men and women unless you post their full names, right?
Cannot wait for that Arizona challenge. You birthers suck at reading statutes.
A Jew with anxiety issues . . . who knew?
(with affection)
Sorry, but both Corsi & Tim Adams are simply full of it. They are pathological liars. You are simply hopelessly gullible that you buy into their bogus claims without question. You really just look like a joke when you fall for such clear claptrap, Scott.
Ditto!
Have fun y’all, if crow needs to be eaten I will but I doubt anyone here will say the same.
Till tomorrow.
You’ll be posting the full, real, verifiable names of your donors on your site, right?
Or are they not real men and women according to you?
Carl,
My name is Kevin Kesseler and I’ll be here on the 27th to either eat crow or watch you do the same. We’ll see what you’re made of then.
When I was in high school, a book was published How to Make Yourself Miserable.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Make-Yourself-Miserable-Greenburg/dp/0394731689
Sorry, but as the sentencing clearly demonstrates, the ONLY menaces to society in that event were crazy Walt Fitzpatrick and Mr. pink dildo, Darren Huff.
You clowns aren’t patriots at all. Everything you’ve done so far is just wiping your @ss on our beloved Constitution. You are closer to Seditionists than anything else and bring nothing but shame to yourselves and this great country.
Still trying to pretend the Ankeny case didn’t happen I see…
He’s got to–it destroys his argument. I wonder what he’ll do if President Obama’s lawyer brings it up at the hearing…
Looking forward to meeting anyone here who will be there.
No need for the book, I’m already married.
I wont be at the hearing, but I’ll come to this blog on the 27th and admit it if I was wrong. I don’t expect to have to do that, nor do I expect you to have the courage to come here and say that you were wrong (let alone accept that President Obama is eligible for his office).
Would either Carl Swensson or GA First please give the name of a few cases that Van Irion won? I’d love to see them. Please. Thank you.
Meaning that the birthers will also quit after 3rd quarter?
Awesome reference Bob!
Dear GA First, perhaps you did not notice, that in VA, some lazy candidates are trying to challenge their way on to the ballot, as opposed to attempts to being made to get them off? Pretty much the complete opposite, genius.
Ever notice how often Carl “Say my Name” Swensson says goodbye, and then suddenly appears, going off on a rant about Fogbow, or Majority Will, or those “damn kids with their infernal rock and roll!”? Kinda reminds me of this young woman trying to give her boyfriend the silent treatment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5ZeNZtvACI
Hey Majority (mob rule) Will,
If you check any of the sites you mentioned, ALL of them use my name. My donors are known to me and out of respect for them I do not post their last names even though only one requested that courtesy. All are REAL men and women willing to put their money where there mouth is.., unlike most here.
Unlike most here
Unlike most here. Sorry, record was skipping.
If Ankey V Governor in Indiana is the best you can come up with and Jablonski listens to you, I’ll be dancing in the street after the ruling which, btw, may not be issued on the 27th. As I understand the process, it will take a couple of days before it is posted. Man up OBOTS, your day of reckoning fast approaches. Drugs or no drugs it’s going to be a bad day for you.
Been on the phone all night with allies in the fight and that’s the only reason I’ve graced this site with my presence. After 6 I normally walk away from this stuff but tonight was different.
If you are going to use my name in vain, at least use it regarding something I said or wrote. I have never said or written anything vaguely similar to “the original being photocopied from a “composite” then scanned onto another piece of safety paper….. then put into the book shortly before 4/27/11.”
Such an attribution is a lie.
Jesus Christ On A Cross, but I NAILED that one!!
Obama’s place of birth was not an issue before the court in that case.
That’s a steaming load of crap, Carly.
You said, “Real men and women stand up for what they believe in and don’t hide behind their screen names.”
So don’t be a flaming hypocrite, birther boy, and post their real, full, verifiable names.
You should add a banner to the top of your site as well:
“Real men and women stand up for what they believe in and don’t hide behind their screen names.”
And anyone can post a b.s. dollar amount. How do we know you’re not lying?
And the Irony Meter goes OFF THE SCALE!!!!
I still got shrapnel in my leg….what you got, loser?
And you, unsurprisingly, completely missed the point.
My point was that every birther site is populated by birthers posting anonymously with screen names.
I suggested that you tell them they aren’t real men or women (“Real men and women stand up for what they believe in and don’t hide behind their screen names.”).
Remember? It’s only been a few minutes.
Explaining simple concepts to a birther is like talking to a freaking brick wall.
Every time Carl pops up anywhere with his self-righteous “patriotism”, I can’t help but recall the “Patriotic Flip” he did on his BFFs Walter and Darren in the Monroe County fiasco.
Have you collected that Crime Watch reward money yet, Carl?
“Been on the phone all night with allies in the fight”
Does Stormfront have a phone number?
Excellent suggestion Mob Rule.
As always, patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
Another mental midget joins the fray… welcome katahdin.
Soooooo, then what did you say, if anything, reagarding the image in question?
Nice first step, Carly.
So who is Anonymous?
Has Carl been afflicted by insomnia? I thought he was hurrying away?
So, you’re posting your donors full, real, verifiable names?
That would make them real men and women not hiding, right?
This was entertaining, Carly:
“Are they STUPID or BETRAYERS?”
“And if you are among the BETRAYERS/TRAITORS – then educate yourself to the inevitable, and get on board the next train, plane, or ship out of our Constitutional Republic, or face a BETRAYER/TRAITOR’s firing squad. The choice is yours.”
http://riseupforamerica.com/stupidorbetrayers.html
Nice death threats!
You are going to lose in Georgia. You will lose because President Barack Obama is in fact a natural born citizen and our legal president. You will lose because the State of Hawaii has certified that he was born there. You will lose because the two citizen parent requirement is a figment of your nutty imagination. You will lose because no real life court ever has, or ever will, take fantasies seriously.
You will lose, and birther tears will flood the landscape again.
Have a nice evening.
ROTFLMAO!!! Yeah…good luck with that!
I seriously hope to see you here after the ruling.
So far, we’ve got an unbroken record of predicting how these cases will turn out. Not that there is anything hard about accomplishing that either – this foolishness is so obviously frivolous that the results were always apparent well in advance.
Birthers however…permanently blinded to reality and nothing but FAIL to hang their hats on.
So yeah…keep putting unrealistic hopes on your chances… but don’t act surprised at the end of the month when we say “told ya so!”…
Busy day makes it hard to sleep tonight. Paying all my business taxes and keeping up with the damn paperwork requirements every small businessman faces can sometimes leave you beyond exhausted and unable to sleep.
@ Mob rule, is there something about that posting you don’t get?
@ Mob rule, One of my pet sayings is this… Liberals, you’re a special kind of stupid, aren’t you?
I was wondering if you could get an answer to a question for me?
Over at the Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog, a non-lawyer asked the law professors the following question,
“Is it ethical for an attorney to cite Supreme Court dicta as “binding precedent”?”
http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2009/10/14/president-chester-a-arthur-and-the-birthers-1880%e2%80%99s-style/comment-page-1/
As of today, the law professors have not provided an answer. Could you talk to your attorney and see if he can provide an answer to the question?
Do you say the same to the Republicans and conservatives at this site who think birthers are full of crap?
Or are you stuck in bigot mode?
Oh, then how about the AL cases? Seems Hendershot got shot down pretty quickly there too.
That one not good enough for your little in denial mind, then let’s stay with AL and look at how Sorensen v. Kennedy in AL just fared then?
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=20692#more-20692
BOOM! Dismissed WITH PREJUDICE – And ALL costs and attorney’s fees to be paid within 45 days. Expect this direction and trend to continue in all of these state and federal cases.
Sorensen sure seems to be crying now. The court wasn’t willing to entertain his pathetic pleas to try to get out of the cost fines either. That’s what you get when you try to play frivolous games with the courts and don’t learn the lesson from previous, similar failed attempts out there.
If you were capable of learning lessons, that case and result is one you should be paying attention to. You are much more likely to find yourself with that type of ruling against you than you are to succeed…
So maybe you had better bring your pocketbook with you when you go to court.
Mob rule, Stupid is as stupid does comes to mind. If you persist in labeling anyone who disagrees with your perception as a “Birther” then be prepared to wear the label of “Betrayer”.
gorefan or whoever you are, Though the article you cite is interesting it muddies the water of Chester’s true problem. A problem that wasn’t even discovered until 2008.
Speaking of nice company, it’s surprising the dumb-as-owl-poop birthers haven’t caught on to government rats in “patriot” tricorners. I don’t know why, all the evidence is in plain sight. But, if they were sharp knives, they would be seditionists in the first place.
By the way, who operated Darren Huff’s dildo? Is that how he was punked into shooting himself in the gut? “We got your back, Darren…way back!”
Tee hee.
Hey G or whoever you are, got a reading problem? AL case has nutin ta do wit da GA cases since they were never afforded the standing we have and those were doomed from the start since none of the Plaintiffs had legal representation. More AL challenges are on tap but this time, with representation. Ooops, hate to bust your bubble.
Actually, I didn’t think the article was that interesting but I found Professor Hylton’s response in the comments section to be very enlightening, what do you think?
“To cite Minor v. Happersett as the definitive statement of the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” is to exhibit an unfortunate lack of understanding of the Supreme Court’s 1874 decision in that case.”Joesph Hylton, Associate Professor of Law.
But you didn’t answer my question. Can you ask your attorney, Mr. Hatfield, if it is unethical for an attorney to cite Supreme Court dicta as being binding precedent?
gorefan or whoever you are, I’m not at liberty to discuss that particular point. You’ll have your answer on the 26th.
Am I the only one to notice that Swensson sounds exactly like Dina Haskins? Has someone been name jacked?
Wotsup, Dina…got your butt thrashed too many times at badfiction, so you think a diguise will help you? So far, not working.
Joeymac or whoever you are, Darren was NEVER interested in the eligibility issue but WAS in TN to support his second amendment right to keep and bear arms. That didn;t work out for him but at least he had the courage of his conviction. Damn hard to put those words in the same sentence but it is what it is.
Hmmm. The other government rat, Fitzpatrick, threatens a court official because he wouldn’t buy the “Obama is a traitor, …and is ineligible” nonsense. Then Darren flies of to Tennessee to “support” this other agent provocateur, but he only went to demonstrate the right to bear arms. Help me out here, couldn’t he have demonstrated his convictions in GA? Saves gas and a whole lotta butthurt (no pun).
Fair enough, I don”t expect you to answer any questions on the Minor opinion or on the Georgia case.
My question is generic and has nothin to do with either of those cases.
Many States have rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys, one of those rules states:
“We will not knowingly misrepresent, mischaracterize, misquote or miscite facts or authorities in any oral or written communication to the court.”
So let me rephrase my question:
Could you ask Mr. Hatfield if citing Supreme Court dicta as being binding precedent is a violation of this professional rule of conduct?
Oh, what utter nonsense! The Chester scuttlebut was part of the whisper-campaign efforts against him during his time. That’s already been researched and proven. You can find several articles even on here that cover that in detail.
It turned out to amount to nothing back then and wasn’t able to keep Chester Arthur from office back then, just as this silly BIrtherism nonsense today can’t stop Obama.
@Swensson
Since the right to bear arms had no bearing on the matter in TN, and if that’s what dimwit Darren was interested in, who pushed his buttons to cause him to believe that he was supporting “patriots” who merely wanted to flaunt an AK-47?
Poor Carl. Methinks he sees the writing on the wall, and is desperately trying to zing as many times as he can before he goes down.
Sorry, your whole original claim was that there had been no state-level Birther cases and challenges that lost.
What I provided proved your claim to be untrue.
Sorry, but you may be getting a step further in GA than AL, but that’s it. The purposes of both what you are attempting and what they attempted in AL have the same goal. More importantly, they will end up with similar results – DENIED.
And yes, the defense can always put in a motion to request their fees and court costs be assessed to you when you lose.
So hate to burst your bubble, but your chances remain much higher of achieving that type of outcome than you do of succeeding.
If Darren knows that he was ratted out by other “patriots” that he trusted, somebody may “go down” literally whenever he gets out. I wouldn’t want that guy POed at me. He is a genuine crazy.
There we go again, empty promises and grand standing. It’s going to be fun to follow the GA court case, especially when the COLB is introduced and the Judge will rule accordingly.
It’s that simple.
Ankeny v Daniels was more than a loss, it was devastating as the Judge found that a person born to two alien citizens while on US soil was indeed a Natural Born Citizen.
But they cited US v Wong Kim Ark not the Minor v Happersett case which has NO relevance other than some misquoted dicta.
The Courts may not look favorable to anyone misconstruing its findings.
He’s actually wearing it ironically. Foggy is a well-known hipster.
But Indiana Court of Appeals did cite the Minor v. Happersett
“Thus, the Court [in Minor v. Happersett] left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”
I wonder what Judge Malihi what think of that? Is Carl’s attorney suppose to include this kind of thing in his arguments? You know present it and than argue why it doesn’t hold.
First, you presume that there was a “problem” to be discovered. I remind you that Chester A. Arthur was a New York Lawyer. His nemesis, A. P. Hinman, was a New York Lawyer. The Chancery Court of New York in 1844 said in the case of Lynch v. Clarke that the children of aliens could be president.
Leo Donofrio was caught off guard when his citizen parent invention was derailed by the precedent of Chester A. Arthur. In order to get himself out of a tight spot, he had to trash Arthur and pretend it didn’t happen. He made a number of unsubstantiated claims, including one that Arthur hid his father’s naturalization date. He even made the ludicrous suggestion that Arthur burned his papers to keep his father’s status hidden — except that he burned his papers AFTER leaving the White House, not before the election. Donofrio, however, didn’t do any in-depth research to back up his smears, and in particular he failed to actually get a copy of Hinman’s book: How a British Subject became President of the United States. He just posted a picture of the cover he got from Google.
I, however, did get a copy of Hinman’s book and made two discoveries: first, Hinman was all over Arthur’s bio, traveling to his home town and interviewing sources. It’s not credible that he was unaware of the father’s naturalization. But there’s a more affirmative reason to believe that Hinman knew: he actually wrote a letter to Senator Bayard, asking if a fathers naturalization could confer natural born status on his child (assuming Arthur had been born in Canada). The scenario presented by Hinman is exactly Arthur’s situation (minus the birth in Canada). Given the strong evidence that Hinman knew Arthur’s father was not a citizen when the President was born, if he thought there was a problem, he would have mentioned it in his book dedicated to showing Arthur ineligible. He did not.
And if anything else needed to be said, lawyer Hinman opened his book with this statement:
Only a fool would trust Donofrio’s explanation of history.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18450082/Arthur-Hinman-How-a-British-Subject-Became-President-of-the-United-States
Arthur’s problem was not discovered in 2008, it was fabricated in 2008 along with the idea that a person born a citizen in the United States might not be a natural born citizen. Donofrio has made fools of you all.
Ouch, things get even worse for the Swensson’s of the world. Well, he can take solace in the fact that the Court did thank him for his help with respect to his ‘friends’ 😉 What are friends for anyway….
Unlikely, given the facts. But I doubt you will be fine with it. Time shall tell. We have you on the record now.
Interesting revisionism. How does Darren feel about your contributions to his case? The judge did seem to be grateful for your help?
It would seem to me that the jurisdictional claim is risky, while the eligibility proof is a slam dunk. Losing the case looks really bad, and if he argues jurisdiction on appeal and loses, Obama will not be on the ballot, not having met the burden of proof. That looks even worse. Any court anywhere saying Obama hasn’t met the standard of eligibility would be like throwing gasoline on a fire. IMHO.
I would not expect a decision until February.
Your reply makes no sense. I wasn’t referring to birth certificates, but three years worth of promises from birthers that they are about to achieve something, when it is all hot air. Birthers believe nonsense, nonsense about Obama and nonsense about the quality of their evidence, leaders, and about their prospects in court.
This week it’s all “thank God for Malihi, the one judge with courage”. After Malihi makes his ruling it will be “Malihi is a traitor and should be thrown in jail.” It is all so pathetically predictable that birthers are incapable of learning from their mistakes — specifically that they are mistaken.
For all the care taken by John Woodman in refuting WorldNetDaily’s bevy of long form detractors, he is still no more an expert than the WND folks are. None of their testimony belongs in a court of law. Woodman is only better because he is honest and unbiased.
The only real expert to look at the long form and report findings was Ivan Zatkovich, who produced a report for WND that WND refused to publish. In that report Zatkovich stated that there was nothing in the long form PDF inconsistent with an authentic document.
Leo’s latest on the Arthur story is even richer. According to him, Justice Gray should have recused himself from the Wong Kim Ark decision because he had been nominated to the Court by President Arthur. And if Arthur’s usurpation of the Presidency were found out, it would have meant that everything President Arthur did would be negated (does that sound familiar?).
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
So if I got the timeline correct it would go something like this:
September, 1881, Chester Arthur begins his term as President.
January, 1882, after being nominated by President Arthur, Horacy Gray is sworn in as an Associate Justice to the Supreme Court (Arthur must have wanted someone he could trust on the Court just in case any citizenship case came up).
March, 1885 , President Arthur leaves office.
November, 1886, Former President Chester Arthur dies.
March, 1897, the case of Wong Kim Ark is argued before the Supreme Court.
March, 1898, Justice Gray authors the opinion in the Wong Kim Ark case.
So, twelve years after President Arthur leaves office and eleven years after he dies, the case that he and Justice Gray were waiting for comes before the Court.
You got to love when a plan comes together.
Don’t be silly. I’ve admitted that I was wrong several times. However, I don’t STAY WRONG.
Sorry, wrong. Many of the cases on the scorecard were State Court cases, including some of the biggies.
Ankeny v. Daniels IN
Brockhausen v. Andrade TX
Donofrio v Wells NJ
Justice v. Fuddy and Martin v Lingle HI
Keyes v. Bowen and Lightfoot v. Bowen CA
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz CT
There’s more, but I was too tired to look at the details of the others.
Yes but the DNC would still certify him as the candidate for the presidential elections. That would be so much fun… 😉
No. Obama was not a party to that suit.
Donofrio, at last check, was still licensed to practice law. He just doesn’t do it. Instead he plays poker with the birthers, bluffing them and winning.
Well said on ALL points! Kudos.
You’ve displayed a remarkable overreaction to the mention of the Fogbow. I’m surprised. No points, though.
Again, well said!
I would add that holds true for just about all of us non-birther regulars here. We’ve all had moments of error and have had no problems correcting things when they were pointed out to us. Unlike birthers, we don’t fear truth.
The decision would have gone the same way without Gray’s vote. At least Donofrio is willing to admit that in order for him to prevail, the Wong decision has to be overturned. Apuzzo has never admitted that.
Which is to the point of why it was not appealed. They were terrified that SCOTUS would certify it and they would lose the entire subtext of why they are chasing Obama on this.
To be fair, I am not too happy with folks that wear Nazi Swastikas (Indian Swastikas are fine). And while I tolerate T-shirts with photos of Chairman Mao or Che Guevara, I draw the line at T-shirts with photos of Hitler. It is hypocritical really, but it is what it is.
Oh. I forgot about the moderation of posts that mention that German guy with the funny mustache. It’ll get through eventually, I guess. Sorry for the added workload Doc.
Subtext is right. The people behind this movement knew they were selling BS from the beginning. The whole Birther nonsense is entirely cover up for the true subtext behind why they simply can’t accept Obama as President…
They simply can’t afford for their con game to be openly exposed and taken away from them…
when the hammer falls, “ga first” will be swept off to birfer valhalla, never to be heard from again, like so many of the long-absent peacocks that used to brandish their wooden swords here. but never fear, after a required period of sulking, “another” blissfully amnesic champion or three will rise from the ashes, to take their turn in the never-ending battle for … whatever.
There’s well over 200 posts here and basically all I can see is more “Any day now!”
Birthers have spent more money and more time than Obama on this garbage.
At some point even the Iraqi information minister put down his mic and ran away, but birthers seem to actually enjoy running repeatedly into brick walls while smiling.
Birthers must be masochists.
They actually pay for and enjoy getting their butts whipped.
Leaving all of the above arguements aside it seems that the only sensible thing to do is to follow the Sorenson case. Make the losers pay. The hundreds of cases would never get a hearing in Europe because the loser always pays court costs. Hence the statement that only the very rich or those without property should go to law. This follows for whoever is the loser. Believe me, it will greatly reduce the number of cases being filed.
I suppose those few moments of “OMG this is it” are such a rush for them that they know they have to endure months of pain waiting for another.
It’s like a drug addiction – if you take it too often, your body builds up a tolerance. So you only take it rarely, only to enjoy it the more.
Ankeny was dismissed for subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The dismissal was Affirmed by the Indiana Appeals Court. Everything else in the opinion was dicta and not subject to review.
The only subtext bubbling to the surface is that Obots desperately want the Georgia Ballot Challenge to be precedent for all 57 states, meanwhile Obama’s downside is limited to not have Georgia Democrat delegates voting for him at the DNC Convention.
And to top it off, Obama’s birth record won’t be seen by the Judge, if at all, until after the Plaintiff’s attempt to make their case with hearsay evidence. Carl “I don’t care about the Birth Certificate” is going to try and make his case on Obama’s father and he knows all about Obama’s father because he read it on the internet.
Note to Carl: none of Strunk’s FOIA responses confirm Barack Hussein Obama Sr. is Barack Hussein Obama’s father, only that Lolo Soetoro is Barack’s step-father.
Here’s what you can expect at the Administrative Hearing:
1) Formal Opening of the case and statement of questions to be answered by the hearing from the Judge.
2) Opening Statements. It’s likely the Defense will request their Opening Statement be given with the Closing Argument because the Defense doesn’t want to hand Plaintiff any information it can use at trial.
3) Plaintiffs are instructed to call their first witness. Carl, this is the part where you call Obama to the witness stand and put him under oath. You can ask Obama who is father is. You ask Obama if his father is a foreign national. You can ask Obama if he’s ever been issued a passport from Kenya, Great Britain or Indonesia.
Without Obama to testify, you have no case. The Defense won’t introduce a birth certificate unless it needs it for a rebuttal. The Defense will maintain an Administrative Court does not have jurisdiction to define the qualifications for candidate for POTUS. Information found on websites, books or public speeches is hearsay. You need Obama there to answer questions under oath.
The best you can hope for, Carl, is the Judge rules that the Natural born citizenship requirement is undefined in the Constitution and the State of Georgia requiring a candidate to be a Natural born citizen is unconstitutional.
I suppose the next goalpost would be to ask which SCOTUS judges were (WKA) or are not NBC by the Vattelist definition to demand they recuse themselves, or to ignore their votes in WKA, “because they would have a personal interest in ruling they are eligible for Presidency” or whatnot.
Well, half right anyway. ‘GA First’ will undoubtedly disappear but he/she/it will just invent a new sockpuppet and press on.
You’re blowing up irony meters yet to be made.
My perceptions are based on proven and historical fact accepted by relevant authority rather than perceptions blinded by jingoistic intolerance or chauvinistic cultural, political and racial fear.
That’s an enormous and significant difference.
And I’ve never threatened anyone who disagrees with me with death by firing squad.
“And if you are among the BETRAYERS/TRAITORS – then educate yourself to the inevitable, and get on board the next train, plane, or ship out of our Constitutional Republic, or face a BETRAYER/TRAITOR’s firing squad. The choice is yours.”
http://riseupforamerica.com/stupidorbetrayers.html
Did you add Reagan appointed and conservative former US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day to your many millions of “BETRAYERS”?
“All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.”
– US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (retired)
And “Mob rule” is pretty funny coming from an utter failure and hatred driven fringe fanatic (pun intended*) who tried to organize a protest and couldn’t scare up more than a dozen people to give a rat’s ass about your lifelong delusions and bigotry.
(*reference – http://www.riseupforamerica.com/theflag.html)
Once again for more laughter and effect:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/rally6.jpg
P.S. Should your posts as GA FIRST be disregarded as fake posts by a fake person?
Don’t strain too hard on the logic. You’re going to need those remaining brain cells to struggle with comprehending the near future while trying your best to refrain from screeching, scratching and grunting.
more than half right, actually … which is why i put both “ga first” and “another” in quotes.
You owe me a new keyboard. That is the funniest thing I’ve read in, oh, at least 5 minutes.
IANAL, but I thought the ‘plaintiff’ went first, then the ‘defendant’ responded. Then the Judge asks for clarification of the arguments, something like:
Judge: Defendant Counsel, you say the plaintiffs are ignorant of the Constitutional requirements?
Defendant Counsel: Yes your honor.
Judge: But they say you need to be resident for 14 years, and I agree. Do you have proof of that?
Defendant Counsel: Yes your honor. I have documentary evidence that the President has resided in the United States and worked in the U. S. Congress, the Illinois State Legislature, at the University of Chicago, attended Columbia University and other schools comprising much more than 14 years, your honor.
Judge: What about this 35 years of age thing?
Defendant Counsel: Yes, your Honor, for the record, I have his Birth Certificate. It is the official Hawai’i Birth Certificate with all the standard security emblems. In fact, your honor, I have two different copies, both officially certified by the State of Hawai’i.
Judge: And the birth certificates show he is at least 35 years of age?
Defendant Counsel: Yes, your Honor, and that he was born in Honolulu, Hawai’i.
Judge: And that means he is a Natural Born Citizen does it?
Defendant Counsel: Yes, your Honor.
Plaintiff Counsel: Objection.
Judge: About what?
Plaintiff Counsel: the PDF is a fake.
Judge: What PDF?
Plaintiff Counsel: the PDF the President published on theinternet.
Judge: Defendant Counsel, are you submitting a PDF and is it fake?
Defendant Counsel: No, your Honor. We have official certificate, on paper, with raised seal and inked signature. I don’t even know what a fake PDF is.
Plaintiff Counsel: The document is a fraud, and Obama has spent eleventy bazillion dollars covering it up and everybody in Hawai’i is a crook.
Judge. Defense, is your document valid?
Defendant Counsel: Yes your honor, It is an official Hawai’i Birth Certificate. The Constitutional Full Faith and Credit rule compels you to accept it.
Plaintiff Counsel: Both the Republican and Democratic parties are in on the conspiracy and should be lined up against the wall and shot.
Judge: Every one in the party?
Plaintiff Counsel: Except you. Look, his father was Kenyan at the time of birth and according to Vattel he needs two citizen parents to be Natural Born.
Judge: What? Who the heck is Vattel, and why does his opinion matter?
Plaintiff Counsel: He was a Swiss or Polish or Prussian Philosopher or something that wrote a book called “The Law of Nations” in the 1750’s.
Judge: I see. I’ve been a lawyer for a long time and I’ve never heard of this guy. Why does his opinion matter?
Plaintiff Counsel: Because it says right there in the Constitution that Congress has the authority to make laws about “The Law of Nations”.
Judge: Defendent Counsel don’t you have anything to object to here?
Defendent Counsel: Your Honor, we think the plaintiff is doing a good job of shooting themselves in the foot, why should we bother. We would just point out that the phrase in the Constitution does not refer to a book title, Vattel is describing the citizenship situation in Switzerland and two paragraphs later points out that English law, from which US law descends, uses jus soli not jus sanguinis.
Plaintiff Counsel: Your honor, he’s also using about eleventy dozen different Social Security numbers from states that he never lived in.
Judge: What? Where is SSN in the Constitution?
Plaintiff Counsel: Wait, wait, let me feenish. I haven’t got to the good part yet.
Judge: Please get to the good part.
Plaintiff Counsel: Every Judge I have appeared in front of is a traitor to the Consitution and should be put up against a wall and shot.
Judge: Every Judge?
Plaintiff Counsel: Except you.
Judge: OK. Here is the finding of the Administration Hearing on this ballot challenge: 14 years residency has been proved, the President meets the Constitutional residency criterium. The Birth Certificate is in order and Hawai’i certifies his birth occurred in 1961. He therefore meets the Constitutional age criterium. Further, Hawai’i certifies his birth occurred in Honolulu. He therefore meets the ‘Natural Born Citizen; criterium. There is no evidence that he has been impeached nor that he is attempting to violate the term limit restriction. Georgia law is satisfied. President Obama has qualified to be placed on the ballot. Case dismissed.
Plaintiff Counsel: OK, you get the wall too.
It’s funny because it’s true.
The “Obots” as you call them, are not desperate for anything. For me, the only value of the Georgia hearing would be a decision that I could fling at birthers visiting the site in a vain attempt to shut them up. A Georgia court isn’t going to create any binding precedent in another state. The binding precedent is the US Supreme Court in US v Wong insofar as citizenship for the children of aliens. The birth certificate is proof of place of birth and age. All of the issues in Georgia have long been settled except in the defective understanding of the birthers.
I never understood why Obama should testify. Anything he would be asked to say about his parentage and place of birth would be hearsay.
Nicely written.
I published a cursory early rebuttal to claims that the document was forgery, specifically those of Mara Zebest:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/59087668/Response-to-Zebest
My conclusions were that it was completely authentic.
When this hearing is done, will the birther, never say die, focus go back to the cold case posse/Sheriff Joe report, which will blow the lid off the whole thing? Or is that the set up for the next, any-day, moment?
The whole thing reminds me of a sign in the bar that says, ” Free Beer. Tomorrow.”
Does anyone have an over/under on how long this insanity will go on?
Keith: Utterly brilliant. Award-winning material. The bit about the wall was the funniest thing I’ve read today!
I like people with a realistic outlook in life. 🙂
But if it accepted the COLB, what argument could plaintiffs in other states bring? “GA courts are not to be trusted”?
Besides, parentage is uncontested. Obama doesn’t say “that’s not my dad” or “he was a US citizen”. Birthers don’t say that either because it would shoot down their Minor argument.
But it remains a wet dream for birthers that Obama would actually have to appear in person. For some, because of the propaganda value (“Obama required to defend his citizenship in court”), for others simply because they want to “make the boy jump through our hoops”.
In twenty five years, we’ll still have people arguing that they shouldn’t have to pay federal taxes because Obama was not a legitimate president.
Apparently the rules that apply are the same rules of evidence that would apply in a Georgia non-jury civil trial. Georgia apparently has uniform rules of evidence for all courts, except for some exceptions for administrative hearings. I’m guessing that the defense is going to probably procure a copy of Obama’s birth certificate because otherwise their hands are tied. I’m not sure how updated this is, but the official LexisNexis database of the Georgia Code is giving me problems.
http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-24/chapter-7/article-2/24-7-25/
I remember Orly was citing “best evidence” rules for justifing why she needed the original. However, I saw Georgia’s “best evidence” rules, which addresses “exemplifications” made by “public officers of record”:
http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-24/chapter-5/article-2/24-5-20/
I believe they would probably expand this to 24-7-25.
ROTFLMAO! Masterfully done, Keith!
And Alabama will STILL have a jurisdiction-stripping statute that precludes the courts from hearing pre-election challenges. Lack of representation had nothing to do with the losses last week and yesterday.
Tell your friends to bring their checkbooks to court.
Say, how’s that Arizona challenge going? I’ll wager the birthers cannot win a suit to keep Obama off the primary ballot.
LMAO! Ah, to dream the impossible birther dream.
What a joke. Anyone who thinks that they can call Obama to the witness stand in this nonsense is living in fantasy-land and obviously doesn’t understand much about law and the courts at all.
Yet another poster that pops up here with some cartoon TV grasp of the world…
I don’t whether you are being snarky. Obama will not be at the hearing. Obama cannot be compelled to testify at the hearing.
You know this, right?
And IF he were to appear and be asked this and he said no, just how would you be able to impeach this testimony?
Addendum: Remember, an attorney, when questioning a witness, should never ask a question for which he does not already know the answer.
Whatever else happens, I believe Judge Malihi will say that Minor v. Happersett is not binding precedent for the definition of natural born Citizen. I don’t see how he can avoid commenting on it since it the heart and soul of several of the plaintiff’s case.
Obama is being sued in a civil matter and cannot refuse to testify without a default judgment. A defendant may refuse to incriminate themselves under oath and choose not to testify in a criminal trial.
The standard is a preponderance of the evidence. Not showing up to defend yourself when you’ve been accused of not being qualified to be on the ballot as a candidate for President is an admission of responsibility for failure to demonstrate qualifications.
Obama’s only defense, if he doesn’t show up, is the Georgia Administrative Law Hearing does not have jurisdiction over him in this matter.
Keith: Plaintiff Counsel: OK, you get the wall too.
I loved the whole post. But this line was priceless.
You really need to stop getting all your legal knowledge from poorly written fictional TV shows… LOL!
Keep dreaming…
“Sued in a civil matter” . . . boy, that doesn’t sound like an accurate description of what’s supposed to take place. I thought it was a ballot challenge–can someone clarify?
“Real men and women stand up for what they believe in and don’t hide behind their screen names.”
Hmmm isn’t this the same guy who posted for a day as GA First?
Ironic.
Wrong. Nothing requires Obama to be present, and he cannot be subpoenaed.
Jurisdiction exists in the administrative hearing because a ballot challenge was referred to the OSAH by the Secretary of State, pursuant to state law. Obama is a candidate in Georgia, therefore he has submitted to jurisdiction of the state courts and agencies in any matter arising from his candidacy.
Stop playing lawyer. You are very bad at it.
Correct Arthur. It is a ballot challenge.
Ignore Horace’s silly make-believe. He must have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night and now thinks he’s an expert on stuff he only watches on TV…
To clarify, Jack doesn’t know jack. Hope that helps. 😉
There’s very little evidence in this case. I don’t think Obama’s attorney will submit Obama’s COLB as evidence. If so, it would be as a rebuttal to evidence and testimony presented by the plaintiff.
Obama’s autobiographical books, campaign literature, etc is hearsay and subject to clarification, updates, edits and changes if it could be presented as evidence. It’s the same with Strunk’s FOIA responses. The State Department has a history of redacting and classifying information that has already been made public, i.e. Wikileaks.
The only reason Carl is so upbeat is because his attorney has informed him he will get a default judgment if Obama doesn’t show up.
Somehow I doubt his attorney would tell him that. If he did, the attorney is guilty of malpractice.
Then again… any attorney who is dumb enough to represent Birtherism in the first place is probably a poorly qualified hack and therefore could be seriously deficient in their own grasp of how the law works. Sort of the Orly Taitz type of bad lawyering…
Hearsay cannot be admitted as evidence.
Obama has appeared in the proceeding, so there is no default. A litigant can appear through his counsel, in this case, that is Michael Jablonski.
Uh, wrong again… In order to affirm the dismissal the Appeals Court reviewed the issues ‘de novo’ and found, based on their findings about NBC that the Court correctly had dismissed the case.
Seems we’ve got ourselves a Barcalounger lawyer here, folks.
You forgot the one about a Defendant refusing to testify without consequence in a civil matter.
Read the question the Appeals Court agreed to answer. The opinion contains a specific answer to that specific question. The answer is the Holding. Everything else is dicta.
And who posts anonymous donors on his own site and had nothing to say about anonymous birther posters on many of the pro-birther web sites.
Hypocrisy is all too common in some of these misguided fools.
You forgot to provide a citation for your cockamamie proposition.
Nope, you are confusing dicta which are the extraneous parts of the opinion with the holding which is more than the answer to the question, and includes the legal reasoning and is known as ratio decidendi
I’m selfish. I ask for a retainer before I cite support for my cockamamie propositions.
You shouldn’t tell lies, Jack–it gives birthers a bad name.
Who would retain you for anything legal?
Good one, Jack! But I bet the only retainer you’ve ever gotten was from the orthodontist.
Well, I wouldn’t pay a cent for your legal services because I don’t care to pay for malpractice.
Let me help you out on this one. The evidentiary principle you are trying to invoke is known as the adverse inference from the empty witness chair. It applies to nonparty witnesses, not a party, and allows the factfinder to infer that the witness’s refusal to testify has to do with something very bad that the witness does not want to disclose about himself. Obama is a party. The principle does not apply here.
I recall a recent poster by the name Mark Trammer who had a similar confusion about dicta and ratio decidendi. He never returned to explain.
are you the real frank arduini, from fogbow ?? you don’t have to answer….
frank, have you changed this at all?? is it identical to the first time i read it, the day you released it?, it seems different somehow…
whoops…
Why did you lie about Frank’s statement?
I asked you yesterday for a source and you ignored it. Now I know why.
Do you think a lie is more convincing than the truth?
Frank Arduini January 17, 2012 at 11:39 pm (Quote) #
bernadineayers: “corsi said he had a mole in the vault, that the mole could have taken a picture but got nervous, but he saw the actual birth certificate. this goes along with what arduini said about the original being photocopied from a “composite” then scanned onto another piece of safety paper….. then put into the book shortly before 4/27/11.”
“If you are going to use my name in vain, at least use it regarding something I said or wrote. I have never said or written anything vaguely similar to ‘the original being photocopied from a ‘composite’ then scanned onto another piece of safety paper….. then put into the book shortly before 4/27/11.’
Such an attribution is a lie.” – Frank Arduini
J.J. O’Shaughnessy, Limerick, Ireland here saying that I believe you are an idiot and a liar to boot. And that I wish I could be there for what I believe will be the latest birther fail.
i’ll see if i can find it at pf. we had lengthy discussions about how it was copied why it’s framed, the paper….
Actually the subtext I was considering was the so-called “anchor baby” issue. The stakes are much higher than Obama eligibility.
If the puppetmasters can get the birthers to sow enough FUD about Obama that enough people think its a legitimate problem, they are three quarters of the way there, even if they never really lay a glove on Obama.
As I have mentioned in other places, the various anchor baby bills and attempted amendments have always limited themselves to a single parent citizen (or “permanent resident alien/served in the armed forces, etc”). For examples, see Thomas on the LOC site with Rep. Steve King, Nathan Deal, Ron Paul and Senator Vitter.
And yes, the list includes Nathan Deal whose bill said (emphasis mine):
I’m thinking, he may not be as helpful to the birthers as they would like. It looks like he is a Birth Certificate only issue sort of guy (and guv).
frank just give your explaination again of why the birth certificate looks like it’s framed yet in some ways it looks why one piece of safety paper, how it got into the book, why is the ap copy blue. there are literally thousands of birther posts, many by you detailing this process and others i don’t want to spend hours combing for the discussion.i know we covered it.
what did you say about the copying the safety paper and the book ? also have you made any changes in you response to mara zebest’s analysis, since you posted it at scribd?.
and frank while you’re here, why can’t you recreate the document, using a simple scan as challenged by corsi. i’ve heard kevin’s response and seen his work, but his equipment is limited.. i asked you this about seven times at pf, but you never answered me. jerry confirmed to me just the other day that you still haven’t accomplished this. why ?
who’s the racist ? we’re all trolls here amigo, this is broadcast live to the internet don’t forget.
Ah, point taken. There seems to be several subtexts in play here. What you’ve identified is certainly one of them.
Birth certificates in the books are not on safety paper. Safety paper is DESIGNED to make it impossible to make copies. So one would never design a document using safety paper that is supposed to be copied. It is the copies that are printed onto safety paper then stamped and sealed to certify the authenticity of the copy.
This is why Sun Yat-Sen’s birth certificate from the early 1900’s is on the same safety paper as Barack Obama’s COLB from 2007. They were both recently printed onto the same safety paper.
FYI, Frank rarely posts here. He is not one of the “regulars.”
Others have commented why this is nonsense. However, I am interested where you got the notion and who believes it.
I’m not your amigo.
Your posts have repeatedly demonstrated a distinct problem distinguishing fantasy from reality.
No.
You seem to not understand the applicable definition of Troll.
Sorry, but there is no “we” in this equation here. Most of the posters on this forum are not trolling.
Let me help you understand although I am not sure what exact features you are referring to, I can make an informed guess.
There are two kinds of birth certificates: the COLB, or short form and the long form version. The short form is an electronic abstract and is printed onto security paper. Since the DOH has moved to a computerized system, this abstracted form is at present the only certified Birth Certificate the State provides. The data on the COLB have been entered into a computer system using the long form. The original long form is then bound into a volume. The certified long form was obtained by copying the original long form birth certificate onto security paper and by adding a seal and signature to certify its accuracy.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
The little pencil marks are still visible and are used to mark off the information entered and for quality control
The long form was copied by the AP in B&W, causing a bluish hue
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ap_barack_obama_birth_certificate_dm_110427_wg.jpg
Yeah – I figure it’s probably Simpson DesignSecure basketweave green. I think some other site figured this out last year, but I found the Simpson site on a web search yesterday. Nothing all that fancy, but it’s relatively cheap and effective. Certainly cheaper than the custom Intaglio paper (some with serial numberrs) that some states order from bank note companies. Hawaii could go this route, but then again their costs for birth certificates are among the lowest I’ve seen ($10 first and $4 each additional copy). Here in California we’re paying at least $18 (or more) without volume discounts.
http://www.simpsonsecuritypapers.com/design.asp
Of course it’s not **impossible** to make copies, but they won’t include most of the features that are evident in the paper. I know some people mentioned it, but I don’t think the pattern itself resists scanning or copying all that well. Apparently the one thing Simpson uses is “invisible fluorescent fibers” that become visible when exposed to a UV source. Probably looks cool under a blacklight. The paper should also noticeably change if someone tries to remove the ink or toner with solvents. The pattern will rub off with attempts to erase.
However, I’d think one needs to be careful with where one is stored. Supposedly even alcohol will cause a noticeable stain that might be seen as an attempt to tamper.
Irrelevant, as others have shown, and I have confirmed, layers show up trivially in PDF’s when documents are scanned. But the pdf is not really the issue here, it’s the long form birth certificate which was shown to reporters and photographed by Savannah Guthrie:
See also the posting discussing the photograph
http://nativeborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/photograph-long-form.png
Well, since you asked bernadine. The following is one of Orly’s diatribes concerning the Alabama case. She uses the language of racism ( enslavement, indigant white man against powerful black judge) and I stop at the most racist statement a person can make; Calling it reverse discrimination.
Reverse Discrimination is Absolute Fairness. It is a buzz phrase that racist people use to descibe the racism they percieve to be aimed at them. The sad thing is that they have to change the name because they feel that certain people can’t use regular discrimination.
The birther movement is racist, by its nature. That is not to say that all birthers are racist, but when a lawyer ( Taitz) thinks a judge should be removed due to the judge’s race….hmmm, what should that be called? And when people think a President should be removed because… Wait, why should the President be removed?
Here is the Orly diatribe, in part.
“The enslavement of the US citizens continues in Alabma. A judge in Birmingham Alabama, judge Lee, dismissed a second law suit challenging usurper Obama, claiming “no jurisdiction”. First case in AL was filed by Al Hendershott. Al called me only a few days before the Democrat party of AL filed a motion to show cause, why the law suit should not be dismissed. I told Al, that we have little time and I need pro hac vice, a right for an out of state attorney to appear before the court. I submitted the application, but Judge Lee never even responded. Al requested extension of time to bring an out of state attorney, however the judge denied his request for additional time and rushed to dismiss his case. I told Al, that it is clear this judge is hostile. Usually, a judge will give time to a pro seplaintiff to find an attorney, particularly because he said that he is indigent. Judges all over the country are bending over backwards to accommodate indigent individuals, particularly when individuals are bringing a case of violation of civil rights. If it would have been a black person, claiming violation of his civil rights, this judge would be screaming bloody murder, she would be forwarding the information to the department of Justice. ACLU and Eric Holder and Obama would have been right there standing vigil and media would have been swarming the place, but a white man, bringing evidence of fraud in the White House was not important enough to this judge, who happens to be black, to give him even a few days extension of time to bring an attorney and respond to the Democrat party motion.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is called reverse discrimination and corruption….”
Wash,
You are seriously obsessed with Frank.’
You are too lazy to find the post you claim he made- so you challenge him to find it for you?
You are seriously obsessed about the triviality.
Why don’t you explain why any of this is relevant in the face of the fact that Hawaii has officially twice now confirmed that they have the original on file in Hawaii, and that the copy Obama presented is an official certified copy, and that Obama was born in Hawaii?
Do you
a) Believe that the State Government of Hawaii is part of a conspiracy involving Barack Obama or
b) That the copy we have seen is an official copy and that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii?
Now that is much simpler than looking up all your posts over at PF.
Who in their right mind would store vital records on security paper? All that would do would mean that you could never copy from them ever again, and being copied is their function. Besides the most holy Nordyke BCs are not on security paper and apparently they are beyond doubt. Gimme a break…
Doc: President Obama has moved to quash some subpoenas issued by Dr. Taitz. I believe the motion answers some of the questions raised here. It says that the President’s birth certicate was attached to some of Dr. Taitz’s filings with the Georgia Secretary of State, and that it proves the President is qualified.
It think it might be possible with some of the more advanced scanning filters out there. You might be able to see any attempts to alter the original, but the background could be filtered out when making a scan of the black text. I’m still wondering why Hawaii hadn’t gone the route of California, where all certificates are scanned and an image printed out on a laser printer from the database.
I don’t think you’d want to though. Maybe require some sort of white security paper? I remember signing my kid’s original California BC. It looked like the entire thing came from an electronic template (think tax software printing out a filled in 1040) that was printed onto a pretty ordinary piece of paper. I’m just wondering what the archival life of the original document is going to be. I don’t consider laser prints to be all that stable after seeing many documents (including a few vital records) have toner flake off. I don’t think it’s that critical when they make a scan of the original befor it goes in the vault.
In any case, didn’t Hawaii more or less do away with storing paper files (or even image scans) with electronic birth registration?
Taitz could not have filed a birth certificate, only a picture of one. I don’t understand this.
Actually, I didn’t know that, l but I believe you’re right. I seem to remember that good banknote paper is only a buck or two a sheet, so it wouldn’t drive the cost up too much to use it. The stuff they use in Indiana is incredibly complex and the cost is the same as Hawaii. http://www.in.gov/isdh/20444.htm
BTW, Hawaii at one time used banknote paper for printing their certificate.
Doc: I think it must be attached to the New Hampshire papers as part of her “proof” that it is forged, or that Barak Sr. is not a citizen, which she submitted to the Georgia SOS. However, the motion answers the question of why the President’s lawyer has no witnesses or documents listed.
I absolutely agree with you Keith, birherism is a natural for the extreme anti-immigration crowds. Hyper-nativists, whatever you want to call them. Way back in May, on another forum, to prod a nutter to lay all his cards on the table, I tossed out the specter of an “anchor-baby President” in his future. He instantly exploded. From polite bigot to hatespewing loon like flipping a switch!
Sounds about right. I found a price of $147 for a case of 5000 sheets of that green security paper, which is less than 3 cents a sheet. Anyone want to split the cost and maybe do experiments on how it reacts to erasure attempts and solvent attacks? It’s available in smaller quantities, but I’d think Hawaii probably orders them in massive quantities.
I don’t think the vital records fees necessarily have that much to do with the cost of paper. I paid $17 for a certified marriage certificate copy, and that’s on the same vital records stock that the county uses for birth certificates. It’s now a whopping $24 for a birth certificate in that county. That county even has a place on the bottom for the deputy clerk preparing the copy to attest/sign, which I haven’t seen with any other counties in the state.
I still have the receipt with the breakdown of where that $17 goes:
County Vital Fee $5.10
Copy Dom Violence $2.88
CDA $.12
County Admin Fund $.40
County Vital Impr $2.00
State Vital Fraud $.65
Marr Trust Fund 3.60
State Vitals Fee $.90
VRI $1.35
I don’t know what the acronyms mean, but I’m sure the fifth entry is probably a county vital records improvement fund and the seventh is a marriage trust fund. I’d be interested in seeing what the breakdown is for the birth certificate fee, but I’d probably have to pick someone born in the county (we have informational copies) and blow $24 that my wife wouldn’t be too happy about.
What California uses (and all local vital records offices in California are required to use by law) is pretty similar to what a lot of other states use. “Certification of Vital Record” at the top, alteration message at the bottom, border all around, State seal in a circle on the lower left, and agency seal in a circle on the lower right. There are many of the other features you’ve mentioned before, including security threads, a color gradient, hidden VOID pantograph, and watermarks.
Most of that sounds pretty good, but I’m pretty sure the order of events was a little bit different. The original certificates were probably bound into that volume all the way back in 1961. I’m thinking they’ve probably never left the binding since, and any copies or photographic representations made include the little curl at the left, like the Nordyke photostats and Obama’s long form produced in April 2010. They probably performed some massive manual database entry when they started to computerize their records to produce those printout abstracts. I’ve seen some images of the abstract from as early as 1992.
My understanding as well, I guess my explanation may have left some doubt as to the timing.
Liar! It happened all the time with Perry Mason. I saw it with my own eyes.
Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes? – Groucho Marx
It might be possible to pull out the original certificates to scan, and then rebind the volume, but I doubt they do that to some fancy leather binding.
I do remember once having a college class project where our group had a few dozen mock business plans bound using VeloBind bindings. We wanted to change one page, and had a print shop redo the whole thing with the new page. They were able to cut the old bindings out and we paid for the cost of new bindings and the labor.
That doesn’t sound like what Hawaii did. Every photocopy, photostat, etc shows that curl on the left edge. If I were to set a standard, I would probably have all of the loose sheets scanned or photographed (i.e. microform) before binding them into a volume.
Excuse me, it’s Dr. Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq, M.O.U.S.E.
????????
No the fact that several long form certificates show evidence of ‘bending’ suggests that they were copied while in their bindings. You and I agree here.
Yeah – and there are regular gasps in the courtroom and the judge bangs his gavel every few minutes to bring order to the court.
I served as a juror in two trials. They were perhaps the most boring events I’ve ever been a part of. I don’t think either judge ever banged the gavel except to call to order and adjourn, and it was just once each time. One of them was a criminal trial where the attorneys were an assistant district attorney and a public defender who couldn’t have been out of law school for more than two years each. There was no surprise evidence, no surprise witnesses, and no real drama to any of the proceedings. It was like watching paint dry.
Orly is actually pretty interesting to watch. It’s not that she seem to be a good attorney, but that she goes from all calm when she’s prepared and can read from a script, to off the wall stream of consciousness when she has to think on her feet. I could tell that Deputy Attorney General Nagamine was a pro, because she didn’t go all emotional even though one could tell that she was really frustrated trying to deal with Orly’s antics.
This fascination with the ‘blueness’ of the AP image continues! The WH handed out photocopies of the LFBC. One of them was photographed by JS Applewhite. A flatbed scan would have been sharper, brighter, more evenly lit, and would not have introduced a perceived color balance “issue”. Good quality, brilliant-white photocopy paper has a blue cast. It’s so bright, our eyes compensate and we perceive it as white. Put lower-grade paper against the brilliant paper, and it will look bluish. When photographing brilliant white paper, a camera literally has to “squint” … step down to take a dimmer image. If this isn’t done, the white paper blows out completely. That result would really look suspicious.
Anyway, it’s just plain old copy paper. Nice copy paper, but nothing special. And not blue. My city utility bill is blue. Robin’s egg blue.
….Like listening to a grade school teacher talk down to emotional students. Slow, calm, over-enunciating. And Orly is too dense to pick up on it.
Are you a student of Johnson, or a student of Boswell?
“You’ll adore Professor Eddy and his wife. They’re very entertaining, with a kind of a theme to their marriage. He specialises in Dr. Johnson, and she teaches Boswell.” – A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy, Woody Allen
A reference to the Mickey Mouse Club…
Please watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNK5KzI48mM
Is Orly even real?
I’ve only seen photos and videos of her.
How do we know she’s actually doing anything but producing fake court trials in a TV studio?
Works both ways.
Birthers are like rabid sports fans.
Their players lost and everyone went home, but they sit together and argue if the ball was true pig skin, the yardage markers accurate, perhaps the wind that carried the winning field goal was man made… anything to deny what actually happened, actually happened.
But everyone else saw the game, the bookies paid out and it’s a done deal.
They have as much of a chance of getting Obama out the way as they do in demanding a takeover game for the Superbowl.
It’s just not going to happen.
The fact they keep saying they’re winning and the actual winning team lost is what keeps the comedy level up.
Birthers, listen. Listen closely: You cannot sue the president in civil court. You have no legal ability, It’s over. Go home and lick your wounds. Obama’s not scared; you guys are the ones terrified.
GIVE UP. It was over years ago. Admit it and deal with it.
It’s history now and you lost. Period.
You are quite possibly correct, however since the index covers 1960 to 1964, the binding may have happened in 1964 – or that may have nothing to do with anything.
On the other hand they may have removed the sheets from the binding when, and if, they microfilmed them and then put them back. I don’t recall seeing any examples of a Hawai’ian BC from a microfilm (I have one of mine from Michigan). Or the “permanent” binding could have been set up after they computerized everything.
Basically the existence of either microfilm (or fiche) or a Computer Database means they no longer need access to individual pages to produce clean photocopies.
I could imagine any number of scenarios. They could have very well had the microforms destroyed when they computerized the records, thinking that the originals were good enough if they ever had to produce an image.
The Nordyke photostats could have been produced from microfilm. I’m thinking the microform reproduction could have been while it was in the binding. They wouldn’t necessarily have to break the binding for the data entry either.
As for any database of scans, I’m not sure they did that either. Most of the pre-2001 Hawaii long forms on the green security paper look too sharp to be typical scans. They look like photocopies. I’ve got my kid’s BCs from California, and all of them were obviously from a database file of the scan of the original. They’re all kind of pixelated (like a FAX transmission) to some degree. I don’t know if there’s some sort of state minimum standard for resolution and file size, which could have come before storage and backup space became really cheap. They’re all perfectly readable, but I once got a different vital record that was as sharp as a photocopy.
I suppose. My experience is that prints from microfilm/microfiche are ‘negative’ images. That is how I know my Michigan BC, obtained in about 1986, I think without going and digging it out of the drawer, was from microfilm/fiche. I guess that they could have done a ‘double’ negative to get it back to black on white.
OK, bear with me a minute. I finally got around to actually reading Haynes v. Wells, to understand this whole burden of proof thing. In that case, Haynes & Wells ran for school board; Haynes was elected, but Wells successfully contested the election on grounds that Haynes was not a resident of the district.
The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that Haynes had the burden of proof, because the state law requires that in order to run for school board, a candidate is required to file an affidavit of residency.
OK, so the court is saying that if a law requires a candidate to file an affidavit, then if challenged the burden is on that candidate to prove that the facts as stated in the affidavit are true.
But that’s the school board. Georgia law does not require candidates in for the presidential preference primary to file an affidavit attesting to eligibility. Rather, the procedure for getting on the ballot is that the state executive committee of each political party is to submit a list of candidates the Secretary of State.
(Georgia Elections Code § 21-2-191)
So what does this mean, legally?
(1) It mean that Haynes v. Wells doesn’t apply; there is no burden of proof on Barack Obama because there is no state law mandating that he submit in affidavit in order to appear on the primary ballot.
(2) Further, the issue of Obama’s eligibility for the Presidency is irrelevant to the challenge, because Georgia law does not specify or require that the parties certify that the candidates listed are eligible to hold office****
(3) Contrary to the assertion in the article above – Mr. Jablonski has indeed listed a relevant witness in his pre-trial order: Michael Berlon, who is the Chairman of the Georgia Democratic Party. See: http://www.georgiademocrat.org/our-party/party-officers/ As the “burden of proof” in an election contest appears to be based on the requisite filing, then I suppose Mr. Berlon will need to testify that Barack Obama is, indeed, the party’s proffered candidate in the primary election. I don’t see what else he could be required to prove, as the Georgia statutes seem to permit the political parties to nominate whomever they darn please. The only “proof” is whatever Berlon might offer to demonstrate that he (Berlon) is indeed the state party chairman.
**** I’d note that at the Presidential primary stage, there is no particular need for a candidate to be eligible to be President — the issue is only allocation of convention delegates, and sometimes candidates or political factions who have no expectation of winning seek to accumulate delegates to gain voting power at the party convention. Historical note: in 1968, Julian Bond, of Georgia, received 43 votes for vice president at the Democratic Convention in Chicago. He was 28 year old at the time; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1968
I’m not even sure that Jack Bristow is right about the party making the ballot challenge going first in the Orly hearing. The burden of proof is on Obama. The denial of the motion to dismiss changed the dynamics involved. Surely Jablonski goes first?
Would also add that by the time that happens Jablonski and everyone else will have already seen what happened in the first two hearings which, although appear almost certain to be confined to ‘two citizen parent/M v H issues”, may give a clue to the general disposition of the judge to the underlying thrust of these challenges.
Orly would do well to remember a quote Colin Powell mentions in his auto-biography:
Absolutely good points too often forgotten.
The Primary Election is for the benefit of the Party, and by the State on behalf of the Party. The only benefit the State gets from running a Primary is practice for the General. Does the party even contribute to the costs of running the Primary?
i’ll go through everything at pf, which i was going to do anyway. there seem to be several inconsistencie, but in fairness, i’ll locate them for what i’m talking about here. there is a lot of information there, so it may take awhile.
i still don’t know what i’m looking at (whitehouse.gov) or how it was scanned from a book and looks the way it does., i guess this is still one of my big questions. i’ll start digging.
this, in my mind is a good example of how obama is dividing the country and leading us into another civil war.
no, you’re right, we’re not friendly… sorry.
it’s just i havn’t seen anyone post racist comments here (which is good, and to kevin’s credit).
You are ridiculous.
i spoke to ivan right after the release (first week of may) and we had many subsequent emails. i was surprised at his turn around, and i think someone got to him (just a conspiracy theory).
how could ivan say that there were no inconsistencies without having viewed the original, that’s suspicious too. but i don’t think that’s what he said, i’ll read his original report again though. this goes back to my argument, how come you can prove it’s authentic without the original, while i can’t prove it’s not.
then came the fox endorsement with jean-claude trembley, also a very suspicious story to me. both have dropped out of sight.
my comment about three years came after the second release of the “birth certificate”.
obama himself presented more information/evidence himself. so that changes the three year timeline, that’s what i’m refering to.
However, Judge Malihi rejected that argument in his denial of the Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. He ruled that Barack Obama was a “candidate” and that “candidates” had to be eligible saying “The Georgia Election Code (the “Code”) mandates that ‘[e]very candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.'” Since the statute for the Preference Primary talks about a “list of candidates” from the party, the Judge has concluded that Barack Obama is a candidate, and must by law be eligible in the Preference Primary.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77037419/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Motion-to-Dismiss-by-Obama-is-Denied-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-1-3-2011
The judge didn’t comment on the issue of burden of proof in this order. While I agree that Haynes v. Wells might not be applicable, one might extend the principle upon what that decision was based on to this case since in both instances the law requires eligibility.
jeff please don’t be offended, i don’t know frank, only what i’ve learned on the forums.
if you had his intellect and knowledgability, i would be asking you. you’re a good wing man, but frank is the “expert”, i think on that we can all agree on that. plus frank has a special involement with fogbow and the whitehouse, and i wish he would just answer my question of whether or not he was at the terry lakin trial, why not just say “no i was not”…..?
now to your question(s), but first. isn’t asking me the same question that we had discussed over and over on a different forum just trolling. i mean isn’t that what you accused me of a short time ago ?
i believe there is conspiracy within the state of hawaii and the obama administration to cover his past and eligibility to be president, and i will until something changes.
i’ll find the thread at political forum about the copy and the book and the safety paper.
From what I have heard, the Plaintiffs will go first. That’s not the best information, but what I have.
Your inabilities and short term memory problem have no bearing on the truth. There have been many comments about birther racism here with many quotes and verifiable citations. I gave you one a few days ago (viletweets.com). The comments on his Kenyan father are birther racism. No, not all birthers are racist but I believe many are bigots intolerable and unreasonably fearful of foreign people. America from the beginning has been a melting pot of different cultures from many different places and not strictly the white, Christian, conservative nation that some of these birthers fantasize about.
You also, as usual, missed the point of my post. You took it out of context which is also not surprising.
My post was a general comment out about the racist and xenophobic attitudes of some birthers and one in particular and his website.
You also haven’t explained why you lied about Frank’s comments on the birth certificate.
No, you’ve gotten it all turned around. Zatkovich sent me a copy of his original report to WorldNetDaily. He didn’t turn around anything; it was the WorldNetDaily article that cherry picked quotes from the report and distorted what he said, to make it sound like he thought the birth certificate was fake. Zatkovich told me that he felt that the WND article misrepresented him (and it clearly did).
I must point out that WorldNetDaily published the entire reports of its various uncredentialed document experts as PDF attachments to the articles, but not Zatkovich’s report. The conclusion one must draw after reading the report is that they didn’t publish it because it was inconsistent with the story they wrote about it.
But that is just one. There were two other document experts who produced reports for WorldNetDaily. I have the testimony of someone at WND who read all three reports and said that they were all essentially the same as that of Zatkovich.
WND’s presentation of the document expert issue is a fraud.
i will be violent acting out of class warefare (occupy wall street) not slavery like the last civil war. but yes i see this country degrading into poilical mayhem and violence in the streets. i’ve been writing about this for years, instantly, when i saw the tactiics employed by obama reid and pelosi to legistale their socialist agenda.
i hope i’m wrong, in the mean time i’m self sustained (off the grid) and am stocking up on food, booze and amunition.
there are a lot of us whom don’t wish to be (sharing the wealth) within an abject government society. and we didn’t like the way obama started running country.
obviously this has nothing to do with fishing for the gold coins and the conspiracy theory.
i can say, that i am equally suspicious of romney’s past right now, i don’t care for his policies either. character is attached to performance and philosophy. there is a lot going on.
it (it) will be violent. not i will be violent (BIG TYPO). i love peace, really…
“In that report Zatkovich stated that there was nothing in the long form PDF inconsistent with an authentic document”
is this what you meant to say ??
http://www.ecompconsultants.com/news/Obama-report.pdf
could you please explain more about “double negative” to get it back to black and white ? do we all agree the obama’s records would be on the microfiche ?
Unsubstantiated and serious accusations of malfeasance by hard working, honorable American civil service workers in a flippant and despicable manner and accusing the President of “dividing the country and leading us into another civil war” is TROLLING.
It is nothing more than poking a stick at an anthill for your own bizarre, severely twisted and contemptible amusement.
Yes. Zatkovich said in essence that a legitimate document scanned and enhanced for readability would appear like the White House PDF. Zatkovich was mistaken when he said that no automatic process to enhance readability would create layers, since the Adobe manual, for example, describes exactly such an automatic layering process, but he was correct that there were no red flags of fraud.
I consider Zatkovich to be an honest reporter of information. However, he’s not a leading specialist in electronic documents. I will go so far as to call him a “credentialed expert” but if I had to find someone to take apart an electronic file, he’s not my first choice. I would put Dr. Neal Krawetz ahead of him. Krawetz, not contacted by WND, also concludes that there are no red flags of fakery in the White House PDF.
see, i think terry lakin is an honorable guy, with a pretty strong work history and loyalty to his country. then obama came along. so despite what you think, i’ll keep digging. history will tell about obama’s past. obama will either turn out to be corrupt free, and an honorable guy, or he’ll be the captain of the italian cruise ship.
this is just a nice (mostly) small political forum, not a nationally televised court of law. if we can’t voice our opinions and concerns within venues like this, where can we?, and why are they on the internet.
you (specifically) are quick to label people troll and racist, but i watch google results carefully, and this site has a presence. (and even the owner of this site engages in discussion, instead of just namecalling and being rude and agressive from the start).
you don’t like what i have to say will, too bad, but there is not much you can do about it.
ok “scanned and enhanced for readability” is the part i’d like to explore and develop, i think the whitehouse owes us that much. and i am always skeptical of the term “in essence”, but you already know that…
and you agree with and tout some of his work, but say he was also wrong/mistaken, about other parts. as the only recognised “expert”, did ivan admit he was wrong ?
also what about the jean-claude trembley foxnews fiasco ?
Well from where I sit, this “civil war” thing is just something that exists in the fevered imagination of the far right, a fear fanned by people who make money creating anxiety to sell books and promote their web sites. I don’t see that any political party has the monopoly on questionable tactics, but the one thing you cannot deny is that the legislation you don’t like was passed by our duly elected Congress. Maybe you don’t like the outcome (presuming you even understand the things you don’t like), but that’s how our country works. I didn’t like a lot of things that happened under the previous administration.
Here’s a question for you to ponder: were Lincoln’s tactics the cause of the US Civil War and if so, do you think Lincoln should have acted differently?
What the Right refuses to acknowledge (at least the nutcases I see) is that the Democrats — Obama, Pelosi and Reid — are working for what they perceive as the “general welfare” (to use the Constitution’s language) of the country. Whether you agree with their approach or not, that’s their intent. It is not to “destroy the country.” So long as the Right tries to paint the Left as having evil intent, they cannot and will not ever be able to understand the Left, nor to effectively critique it.
I suspect the process was like this.
A quarter sheet of paper is placed on the glass plate of the photostat machine. On this quarter sheet is the signature of the two registrars and the blurb about the it being a true copy etc.
Next the bound volume of birth certificates is placed on the photostat machine. The bottom quarter of the bound volume is covered by the quarter sheet of paper. And a composite photostat is made. Photostats make negative (black background, white lettering) images.
Look at Susan’s Nordyke’s BC on the bottom of the page (just above the statement “This Certifies that the Above…”) there is a heavy white line that runs from the right to the left and disappears about half way across the page. This is the bottom of “Box 23. Evidence for Delayed Filing or Alteration” on the printed BC form. If you look at Gretchen’s Nordyke’s BC this line is not there at all. When they placed the bound volume on the quarter sheet signature page, they didn’t line it up exactly the same, higher on Gretchen’s , crooked and lower on Susan’s.
Look again at Susan’s BC notice above the statement “This Certifies…” is a white blur that runs along the top of the quarter sheet signature page and then curves upward on the left margin of the BC. This looks like an overexposure. Light got in from the bottom of the bound volume (between the volume and the quarter sheet) and over exposed a gap between them. The white overexposure curves upward on the left hand margin following the curve of the bound volume.
BTW, not all micofilms produce a negative image – look at the birth announcements in the Hawaiian papers they are positive images.
Bernadine is quite inconsistent in how quickly she accept some ‘evidence’ while refusing to acknowledge other (read her ‘confusion’ about what she see when she looks at the long form PDF for instance). ‘Critical’ thinking guided by a confirmation bias makes for quite an amusing position.
I now understand your position and your reluctance to look at or accept data to the contrary. Much appreciated.
A very common sense conclusion. Of course, some have argued, based on their unfamiliarity with the scanning process that not only the PDF is ‘fraudulent’ but also the original.
We can enjoy this during Orly’s ‘trial’ in Georgia…
Actually, when I first saw the Nordyke BC’s, I thought “what was covered up there with a piece of paper?”.
You can bet your bottom dollar that if the Obama BC had looked anything like this, birthers would’ve screamed bloody murder and claimed that something related to “amended birth certificate” had been deliberately hidden.
It’s a very tall and flimsy mental house of cards and more sad, strange and desperate than amusing in my opinion.
are you talking about where someone laid the cut part along the bottom ? (it looks that way to me). what is that supposed to be ? that’s from the sixties right ?
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sugexp=pfwl&tok=brJc1EhCw7qhrrKzKTbAaQ&cp=13&gs_id=1e&xhr=t&q=nordyke+birth+certificates&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1540&bih=697&wrapid=tljp1326993362748025&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=4U8YT8aeDIyHsALCp-ClCw
Only the White House didn’t enhance it for readability. They just scanned it using the standard Mac software they had, so no explanation from them is called for. Zatkovich had no experience with what the Mac software does as part of its automatic processing, and so mistakenly concluded that there was some manual enhancement.
I scanned a document using Adobe Acrobat (different software) and just said to “optimize scanned PDF” and I got layers and text spit across layers — which is exactly what Zatkovich said no software did. My complaint is that Zatkovich commented beyond what he knew.
is this you ?? http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Bernadine, are you still confused about the Long Form and what you ‘see’ when you open the Whitehouse.gov pdf versus the AP PDF or the photograph taken by Savannah Guthrie? Let me know…
The original document as filed is bound in a volume. The page is copied onto security paper, the copy is signed, dated and a seal is added.
That’s what you are seeing.
It’s not that hard.
I have decided to remove you from the moderation list. You’ve been a fairly responsible commenter lately. Just please restrict your comments to the topic of the article where you post, or make them on the open thread.
Why do you believe the Whitehouse owes you anything? Would anything they said help you? I sincerely doubt it my friend.
sorry wrong link, which is your site ?
does the whitehouse owe me anything ? you ask goodphilisophical questions….here’s one for you, do we owe the whitehouse anything ? who “owns” the whitehouse and what does it stand for.
as an american citizen ? the court of public opinion has to choose.. whether or not to continue. it’s up to “the people”. i supposed that’s all of us.
what would help everyone would be to examine the original. we’ll maybe not everyone. thanks for calling me friend.
The public doesn’t care, my dear. Show me a poll that rates “the President’s birth certificate” within the top 10 issues on voters’ minds. Hell, it doesn’t rate in the top 100.
My guess is that back in the 1960’s, they would collect BC requests until they had a slew of them. Then the same quarter sheet of paper with signatures could be used once and the bound volumes were just switched. I’ve done the exact same thing on copiers for years.
BTW, I suspect that on the BC hidden by the quarter sheet is all the medical information collected on the mother and newborn.
And of course you are right, if President Obama’s BC looked anything like the Nordyke’s it would immediately be declared a forgery.
i heard someone say just yesterday that lincoln policies caused the civil war, i am no historian on that very complicated subject, so i can’t answer. i think the american recognised the danger of one party legislation, summarily dismissing pelosi, i hope it happens again. i haven’t seen this level of division in my lifetime.
the violence was from a seemingly drifting and aimless occupy movement. against wall street ? obama is entirely in bed with wall street and lobbyists, so that doesn’t make sense to me. if one class of people keeps trying to force socialism on me, i have a problem with that. we’re not supposed to have class structure here,
when/ if the violence or the by product result of chaos comes to my door, i will be prepared, that’s all i’m saying.
you can call it portended or not, but i think i’m smart enough to “understand” what i like/dislike, or what threatens me.
Do an experiemnt. Get some colored paper, yellow would look nice. Go to the public library and get the thickest book (maybe the reference sections dictionary). Ask the librarian to put the colored paper into the copier and then copy a page from the middle of the thick book. Report back with your findings.
Why the need to examine the original, after all, the goalposts have been continuously moving when the data continues to disappoint the birther?
Sure, you can always continue down a path of ‘skepticism’ and demand more and more evidence, all the way up to the unreasonable but why? By any reasonable standard our President has shown himself to be a natural born citizen by virtue of his birth on US soil.
It’s time to move forward… Which can be hard for those more interested in conserving the status quo but it is essential for our Nation.
But that means having to deal with real issues and that’s much harder than continuing down a path of ‘what ifs’.
i haven’t written any books about it or made any money from it at all. this is a good thread though.
so there is no safety paper at all in the book ?
The Hawaii Dept of Health doesn’t want to release the original for obvious reasons. It’s certainly never going to leave their control. It also has nothing to do with Obama per se. They would do the same for any birth record. They have laws meant to protect the records, and under UIPA only the person named on a record can authorize an inspection of the original record.
Every state issues certified birth records as a matter of regular business, and state and federal authorities around the US accept them every day in the course of doing regular business. Hawaii is no different.
I’m tired of hearing all the blantant falsehoods. That officials from the State of Hawaii are covering up something. That Hawaii’s “short form” is invalid for getting a passport. That they no longer issue the “long form” as a regular action because Obama had something to do with Hawaii’s policy change. As soon as new information comes out, suddenly the birthers’ stab the backs of people they used to consider allies, such as the Nordykes’ mom who showed the photostats of her twin daughters that had the Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital name.
The Georgia administrative court could receive a certified copy of Obama’s BC. I fully expect if that happens, the judge will admit it (under 24-7-25)as primary evidence as Georgia law states for a government issued document complete with a seal.
Really? That is an impossible task in reality. The 1%ers, middle-class, upper middle-class, poor. Sounds like classifications to me and have been around since as long as i can remember.
There has to be some kind of structure in my opinion, the problem is anger/jealousy to people who are above your class and apathy to people below your class
Why would there be? The book contains the forms which are submitted, mostly from hospitals. They are printed on normal paper and signed and dated.
Security paper is added to make it harder to copy a certified document. The basketweave will show evidence of distortions when copied. Other security paper reveals ‘VOID’ when copied.
It does not make sense to have the original document be on security paper, how would one copy them to provide for a certified copy.
The short form is not even a ‘copy’ in the traditional sense. It’s a computer generated printout based on a template form where the various boxes are filled in using a database which is based on the original form submitted. The Hawaiian statutes allow for either a true copy of the form or a generated copy of a short form, both have the same evidentiary value. As long as the DOH provides one of them, they will meet their requirements under Hawaiian statute and Administrative Rules.
Does this help?
ok stay with me on this please, did ivan say it was enhanced ? was it “enhanced” by anyone ?
Nope. My experience (in another state) is that the original birth certificate is laser-printed from a template file onto a pretty ordinary piece of white paper. That’s now, when most people print up applications from home rather than trudge to the office waiting for a form. I remember taking a number and waiting for up to an hour just so I could pick up a couple of paper applications.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama’s original 1961 BC form was on some sort of special paper form issued to hospitals, but it’s probably white to make for better reproduction. They’re designed to be bound together, so I’m sure they were a standard size. I have some experience with federal government applications before printing your own at home became common. Passport applications weren’t on terribly complex paper. I remember forms at other departments were often black on white – printed on 25% cotton bond paper with specific federal government watermarks, like the bald eagle pattern from the Great Seal of the United States. I don’t know when US paper money started containing those red and white threads, but that could be in a special form too.
The class structure is a logical outcome of the policies that have aimed to destroy the middle class. After all, a middle class makes for an informed and politically active group which does not very well serve those who want to control their lawmakers.
Whether it be socialism, liberalism, capitalism, there will always be people who feel offended but the alternative is anarchism. I am not sure why people are so afraid of ‘socialism’ or ‘social democracy’ where it is the good of the people which is the sole focus. It’s the whole concept of the general welfare of our Nation where the Government collects taxes and uses them to build the necessary infrastructure that benefits our Nation.
In the ‘good old days’ corporations had an official charter which forced them to serve the common good. Having seen some of the destructive forces of corporations like the British East India Company, they realized that corporations would have to serve the common good first and not the profits of the shareholders. Once corporations were allowed to abandon the common good premise, their actions became destructive to the welfare of our Nation and required much additional regulations to keep them in check. Sadly enough, corporations have outgrown their charter and now do not serve anyone but their shareholders, at incredible cost to our Nation(s).
Bingo
Here is the procedure from a 1955 article in the Hawaiian Medical Journal,
“A nurse or clerk in the hospital fills in the certificate form and gets the mother to sign it. Then the attending physician enters certain medical data and affixes his signature. Finally, the hospital sends the completed certificate to the local registrar.” Vital Statistics in Hawaii, Hawaiian Medical Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, November-December 1955
The certificate (the one in the bound volumes) is on white paper.
Really? Can you cite me any violence committed by OWS. There was some violence committed against them by the police, but even that was minor-certainly no deaths or serious injuries. It’s quite a leap from people camping in parks to civil war.
There we go again with a focus on a single word, hoping to have to avoid the logical conclusion.
is what you are describing legal ? they used the cover sheet as signatures ? if they are covering up the private information, did that happen with obama’s too?. why don’t they look alike if they were born day’s apart ? i wonder why mrs. nordyke requested copies four years after the birth of the twins, and why they look so different.
for your errand/experiment that i’m supposed to report back to you on, may i use blue instead of yellow, will that work ??
i didn’t ask you
why aren’t all of the copies/scans on safety paper then ?
I don’t know about “security paper” in the sense of the kind of paper that shows evidence of tampering, such as check paper, some prescription paper (some docs have patients who try and change the order for narcotics), etc.
However, there’s a chance they could have issued the forms using some kind of special paper such as high-cotton watermarked bond paper I have experience filling out several federal government forms, and that kind of paper was pretty common until printing at home became more prevalent. They were almost always white or off white.
I thought the basketweave pattern wasn’t really that great at distorting when copied; color gradient paper is known for not reproducing well. Dr. C has the basketweave pattern up now as the background, and it looks pretty accurate. What I thought it does is show attempts to erase or apply solvents to remove inks/toners. Simpson says that the background will stain or show starburst patterns when solvents are applied, and “eradicators” will obliterate the ink. Sounds a lot like the signature strip on credit cards.
Somehow, other countries have taken steps to Universal health care for all citizens without descending into Civil war. *rolls eyes*
There was no law saying that they had to be on safety paper. Hawaii law gives the state Director of Health wide latitude on deciding how certified copies are issued. They had photostats at one time. I remember reading a DHHS report on birth certificate issues, and they noted that some states didn’t mandate paper standards for certified vital records, with one notable certified record sample from a local vital records office printed on plain white copy paper.
I know in California a fairly standard format is mandated, but that’s not Hawaii. They seemed to have moved to the green or blue basketweave security paper since at least the early 90s.
I don’t understand your objection in detail. Remember, Obama’s long form birth certificate is not a current Hawaii standard birth certificate. They just photocopied the original out of the book onto security paper and certified it (stamp and seal). The standard certificate is the COLB Obama released in 2008.
As the years pass, the form of certificates changes, but also the way they are printed changes. For the SAME CERTIFICATE, depending on the year you order it, you get different-looking documents. For some years, Hawaii printed negative images (like the Nordyke’s), some years they printed on bank note style security paper and in some years they printed on the basket weave security paper that you see as the background image for this web site.
This is all completely normal. I find it hugely annoying that people look at normal variation and yell “fraud.” If someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about, they shouldn’t talk. (I have over 30 years experience with vital records. I was computer-printing birth certificates in 1977.)
This is a public forum and I am pointing out that whenever people explain something, you focus on a minor detail that allows you to continue your current position.
As to ‘enhanced’, it could have been enhanced for online viewing which means that parts are compressed. One of the ways to achieve improved compression is to separate text from the background, each of which is compressed using the most appropriate technology.
i believe in my heart that occupiers tried to insight the police, some police in the videos i’ve seen looked like they could be fathers and grandfathers, they looked horified to me.
you say “the cops acted stupidly” that’s your opinion. the behavior and the devestation left behind by the occupiers is well documented, what was it all for ? there was violence and there was a lot of “on the brink of violence”, which i call unnecessary intimidation of nice hardworking people, like cops who are grandfathers close to retirement.
to me it harkens back to chicago 68, where terrorists like the weather underground, have become heros of a sort, some are even well paid professors at state univeristies. that doesn’t seem right to me. we have better ways of making our political points, this website is a good example. if this kind of talk puts me in the minority, i’m willing to live with that.
Older copies of the long form where on photostat. Security paper is not an official requirement but given the increase abuse of birth certificates it has become common practice. For legal evidence all is needs is a signature/date and a seal of the State.
You do appreciate that in the older days, there were no laser scanners? They used a process called photostat
Source: Wikipedia
The older long forms show the photostat process, the newer process is to just copy the original onto security paper.
Does this help?
appreciated, i want to hear kevin’s answer.
It depends entirely on when the request for the certificate was made. If someone born in 1961 requested a copy in 1966 they didn’t get it on security paper. if that same personrequest it in 1996 it was on sequrity paper.
OMG, you do have a way with verification bias… Sigh…
As far as Obama goes, they are all on safety paper.
You may think that the AP image of the certificate isn’t on security paper, but it is. Just look carefully at the darker area in the upper left and you can see the safety paper. The AP scan was done in such a way that the safety paper is not evident, but, some of it remains.
I hope you will take the time to look at the AP image:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/BirthCertificateHighResolution.jpg
and then ponder the fact that all the objections made relative to the AP certificate not being on safety paper are bogus. After months of study, I’ve found that all of the objections to the long form are bogus. John Woodman wrote a book showing that they are bogus. It is a totally bogus collection of nonsense totally disconnected from the facts and rational inference.
Whether birthers are dishonest, lazy, or biased out of their minds, I cannot say. What I can say is their objections to the long form are nonsense.
Why? What is so special about Kevin’s answer? Why your fascination with ‘Frank’? This all does make so little sense… Facts do not depend on who presents them.
They could easily look different if they were ordered at a time when the copying procedure was different. The Hawaii Code specifies about a half dozen ways they’re authorized to produce certified copies. There are plenty of examples around of the long form copied onto the green security paper. Obama’s is different in that the stamp and issue date were placed on the front, but that’s up to the Director of Health to authorize a different procedure.
The medical information is almost never included on a certified copy because it’s irrelevant for what most people use their birth certificates for. My child’s California certified BCs were obviously scanned, and the scan ends at a thick black line. This is pretty common and there’s nothing sinister about it. Here’s an example:
http://cdn.digitalcity.com/tmz_documents/cruise_bc_8_5.pdf
Zatkovich explains his hypothesis, as Dr C has explained, there is a far simpler explanation for the appearance of the layers.
Interested?
so the blue copy was scanned on to blue paper in hawaii, instead of the green safety paper ? was it also “enhanced” ? isn’t that a high resolution copy to begin with (the ap copy) ? why are some copies high resolution and some need to be enhanced or embellished ?
The signature is needed to certify that the copy is accurate, by placing a template of the signature (note that the signature may be a stamp according to the rules and regulations), the process can be simplified. The ‘personal information’ they are covering up includes the health related information on a typical birth certificate. Such information is not supposed to be provided on a certification.
The Nordyke twins have the same looking certificates
http://obamanotqualified.com/images/nordyke-twins-1961-hawaian-birth-certificate-01.gif
Although there is a version where the image is reversed
http://leftybegone.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/nordyke-bc.jpg
See both of them inverted
http://www.fakebirthcertificate.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/nordyke_twins_hawaii_long_form_birth_certificate.jpg
Simple
Sigh… Still focusing on some minor details and failing to understand the various processes used. I tried to explain but let’s try again
The AP appears to be an actual photograph where the basket weave has disappeared (as it is supposed to do). I provided you a link to Savannah Guthry’s photograph of the actual long form, showing how much of the weave disappears as well. The bluish sheen is likely flash related or by other lighting used.
The resolution of a picture us determine by the requirements. For instance when publishing for the web, the PDF is ‘optimized’ to reduce its size, and thus its loading time. Same thing with JPEG which is a lossy format and can be optimized or left at its original resolution and compression.
What’s your concern because I fail to see anything that jumps out as relevant.
1) A certified copy of President Obama’s original hospital form was provided by the DOH of Hawaii
2) Photographs of the document have been circulated
3) People, based on a the PDF file which was obviously optimized for size to be viewed on the web shows the natural layers which happen when the software attempts to separate ‘text’ and ‘background’ components which are compressed using different schemes.
What’s so hard to understand here?
How can you say that the basket weavve pattern on this blog is “pretty accurate” unless you have seen an original paper Hawaii birth certificate? I don’t have a clue how accurate it is, although I suspect there are all sorts of problems if one knew where to look. I know at least that the ultraviolet fibers are missing.
The background for this blog comes from the COLB, by the way, because it is a much higher-resolution copy than the long form. What you see is actually tiles, and not an actual large image.:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/BasketWeave2.jpg
is what you are describing legal ? yes
they used the cover sheet as signatures ?It made life easier, the registars sign once and it is used for a bunch of BCs
if they are covering up the private information, did that happen with obama’s too?. yes
why don’t they look alike if they were born day’s apart ? 1966 versus 2011
i wonder why mrs. nordyke requested copies four years after the birth of the twins, Ask her, she is in the phone book (my guess – for school).
and why they look so different. – may be they are fraternal not identical.
for your errand/experiment that i’m supposed to report back to you on, may i use blue instead of yellow, will that work ?? Let’s compromise, yellow and blue make green, so how about green paper. And don’t think of it as an “errand”, think of it as a grand voyage of discovery.
As my old friend squeeks use to say, “Make work fun.”
i just took a photo of this website and i can see the green hatching just fine, where’s the experiment guy ?
why are some of the images high resolution and some need to be enhanced or embellished ??
As to the Administrative Rules which outline the format of the certified document to be provided I point to
Rule 2.4.B.1 for standard copies and 2.4.B.2 for abbreviated copies.
Specifically rule 2.4.B.1.d specifies that the confidential health information SHALL NOT be included on the copy.
The information is out there for all to look at and I am amazed how poorly informed some people appear to be. Although I prefer that you were to engage in your own research, I will provide you with a link to the document in question.
It depends on the software, and the the settings of the software. The images may not need to be enhanced, but if the software is set for enhancement and not changed then that is what you get. Not everyone checks those settings, they just click scan. Fortunately I was in advertising for 10+ years, checking and changing settings for images was every day.
Internet viewing of documents need to be efficient with a low footprint, this means that compression of images will be done and some compression algorithms will result in a loss of quality.
No. As I pointed out, the safety paper is visible on the AP image slightly along the left side.
Hawaii produced two certified copies on safety paper; this is documented by the fact that Hawaii said they produced two certified copies. The two Hawaii copies are the same.
If I had to guess why the AP image is blue, I would think that the Press Kit handed out by the White House at the news conference contained a BLACK AND WHITE photocopy of the long form on blue paper. This explains the mostly absent security paper and the blue color. The AP image is a photograph, not a scan, as evidenced by the brightness variation left to right. It’s possible that the AP photographed a black and white photocopy on white paper and the blue color is an artifact of lighting — but that seems less likely.
Either way, the observation that it’s blue has no implications on authenticity. It’s a blue herring. There is no reason why I or anybody else should be asked to explain why it’s blue.
so the certificate that was released. that would be from the same type of original as the nordykes. are you saying that there was medical private information on the nordykes where we just see signatures on the obama scans ?
who owns the high resolution copy ?
Again you are using terms which show your unwillingness to learn and comprehend. High resolution depends on 1) the device used to take the picture 2) the format used when saving the captured picture 3) the format used when publishing the picture.
When the Whitehouse provided the PDF it was optimized for viewing on the web which means that compression techniques are used.
Nothing ‘enhanced or embellished’. Do you have such a problem accepting common sense that you have to continue to look for words which insinuate some sinister purpose? I find this a fascinating display of confirmation bias.
As to your ‘experiment’. Yes, one can make a copy where the weave appears to be intact, although on closer scrutiny you will notice how they fail to capture the original weave on the security paper.
Now compare this to a flash photography as taken by Savannah Guthrie. I provided you with the link, the weave is still present, there is an obvious problem with the color balance. You look for minor issues while failing to see the larger picture.
I still fail to see what your issues are… All the data show exactly the same document, with different resolutions, different means of capture, different format (pdf, gif, jpg, png etc) but they all show President Obama’s long form certificate, signed, certified and with a seal.
Two problems. This web site is not the actual Hawaii security paper, only the part of the paper that shows up on a color scan. The second problem is that you made a color photo, not a black and white photo. At some point, the AP image was a black and white copy.
You can’t reproduce how well something copies without having that thing. You don’t have it, so you’re just wasting people’s time with your invalid challenges.
Barack Obama.
You’re going back into moderation. You’ve made a number of nonsensical remarks, and failed to pay attention to the responses you already received. Your agitation has created a mass of time wasting as the community tries deal with your silly challenges. Moderation slows you down, like the moderator in a nuclear reactor prevents an explosion.
This whole certificate business is off topic for this article. You were warned.
I remember coming across an image of a typed certified abstract of a Hawaii birth certificate. It was a standard form with lines, where a clerk would transcribe the information and the registrar would sign it at the bottom. That was a very common type of birth certificate for years, issued by thousands of vital records offices around the US.
Texas (as well as other states) even has a special souvenir heirloom birth certificate form. Theirs says “Native Texan” at the top and features some cute background drawing. I saw one inclues a bassinet and the other features a Texas state flag. They’re perfectly legal birth certificates, but they’re a bit different. I think the idea is that they’re suitable for framing. They also charge $60 each when their standard fee is $22. If Obama tried presenting something like this, the birthers would have a field day going off on what’s supposedly wrong with it.
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/vs/reqproc/heirloom.shtm
http://www.wvdhhr.org/bph/hsc/vital/Heirloom.asp
http://www.hss.state.ak.us/dph/bvs/heirloom_birth/default.htm
http://www.ok.gov/health/Child_and_Family_Health/Family_Support_and_Prevention_Service/Child_Abuse_Training_and_Coordination_Program/Heirloom_Birth_Certificate/index.html
http://www.ccf.wa.gov/support-council/heirloom-birth-certificate
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/certs/
http://www.sos.nh.gov/vitalrecords/
A few states have different commemerative birth certificates, but consider them unofficial, like Florida:
http://www.doh.state.fl.us/planning_eval/vital_statistics/commem.htm
Yep, and on the Nordyke’s there is also the signature. Exactly the same thing.
It seems to me that some additional education may be helpful. When a mother gives birth to a child, the form that is filled out contains the data which makes up the typical birth certificate information that is made available as well as confidential health information which is collected for statistical purposes. Such data is obviously not made available on a certified copy of the birth certificate.
Obama’s long form is fully consistent with the Nordyke’s including the bend at the top left, indicating that the form was in a bound volume.
the AP photographed a black and white photocopy on white paper and the blue color is an artifact of lighting
where did that copy come from ? was it a legal certified copy ? why not just show the ones on the safety paper that the lawyer flew to hawaii to get ? why introduce a new version into the mix after all of the trouble of securing the “real copies”, amidst an already conroversial highly charged arena ? i’m still not sure why he decided to release a long form at all, if he had it so right the first time.
do you guys think betty white is part of the conspiracy ?
President Obama has, as I understand two certified copies which are as high resolution as you can get as they are the ‘originals’.
There is a low resolution PDF, a higher resolution photograph by Savannah Guthrie and a B&W copy from the AP. It looks as if these copies were handed out and the AP took a picture of them.
nbc do you ever post at fogbow ??
You said it better than me. Anyways, since these images are computer-stored documents, they can only be admitted as hearsay.
Why don’t you think for yourself for a change? It’s not hard to figure out.
I while back I printed a color copy of the Obama LFBC with the green background then copied it with the copier set to black and white and the background virtually disappeared.
Both the Obama and Nordyke certificates have information on the bottom that is not copied. It appears that in 1966 when the Nordyke certificates were copied the practice was to place a small signature sheet at the bottom to cover up the lower portion when the negative photostatic copy was made. The photostat was then sealed.
I am guessing the practice in 2011 was to do a black and white scan, select only the “public” portion of the bound certificate and then that was printed on green safety paper.
There we go again, moving goalposts. The Doc explained where the copy came from and he has a very plausible scenario. It’s not a new version. The one that the lawyer got was shown at the press meeting, Suzannah Guthrie was one of the reporters who took an actual photograph. The Whitehouse also provided for a PDF which shows a scan of the document. As to why the President waited. Well, he had shown a legal equivalent, the COLB and people continued to doubt the story. FInally, given the foolishness of the whole situation, he asked the DOH of HI for an exception to their rules and provide him with a long form. The follies did not end there it seems.
I doubt that there is anything the President could do which could satisfy the birthers, who have in many cases convinced themselves that even the vault version has now been falsified. And thus the goalposts continue in spite of the facts.
Are you learning anything so far?
Huh? She is part of the joke.
Does it matter. Honestly Bernadine… Focus on the topic at hand. I am providing you with some useful information and in response we see a attention and focus problem.
My hopes exactly but that would require Bernadine to actually evaluate the evidence, which may force her to revise her position. As we all know, humans have an innate tendency to avoid such behavior when it seems likely that it will contradict their deeply felt beliefs. I would hope that the ‘curiosity’ expressed by Bernadine would translate into actual research but so far it only leads to more and more questions, and no attempt to really comprehend. But I am not giving up.
But the public did choose. In record numbers. More people voted for President Obama than any other candidate before him. So you’re stuck with him, and he really doesn’t owe anyone one anything at this point. If more people don’t like the way he conducted himself over these 4 years, we can than vote him out of office. That’s the way our system works. He certainly doesn’t owe anything to a small minority of malcontents who will never accept his legitimacy no matter what evidence is presented.
How exactly would it help anyone? An official, certified copy was made available to the public in 2008. The President showed the press another official copy last year. Both are official state records. No one has provided even the slightest bit of evidence to doubt either of these documents. I was personally against getting a copy of the long form, because it required making an exception to official Hawaii state policy without a good reason. I personally don’t believe in catering to whiney brats. When I was growing up, you didn’t give into the demands of a child having a tantrum, you smacked them on their backsides. And sorry to say, birthers are nothing but petulant children. They have nothing to support their alligations. Not even a reasonable narrative of how or why the President could be born abroad. Birthers have shown that they will believe anything that supports their beliefs, no matter how rediculous, and reject everything that counters their beliefs. They reject official state records, supported by state officials from both parties, and side with a document created by a convicted forger, hearsay statements about watercooler talk from a temp who had no access to vital records (in a department that had nothing to do with vital records), anything that smear merchant Corsi has to say, a cavalcade of bogus experts that would get shout down after two questions in a Daubert hearing, and the legal brain trust consisting of a professional poker player, mail order JD, and a DWI attorney.
Again, who would examining yet another official state document help? And furthermore, who would do the examining?
Well said. Thanks.
I’m not an expert on this either, but I think that it is fairly obvious that the root causes of the civil war were fully in place before President Lincoln was elected. Does anyone really believe that the North and the South could have peacefully worked out the slavery issue but for the intervention of President Lincoln?
I know from experience, I was that whiney brat that threw tantrums. Thankfully my parents put me in my place.
“i just took a photo of this website and i can see the green hatching just fine, where’s the experiment guy ?”
Having lunch with Betty White.
“Mrs. Ayers” will simply continue aimlessly about, prompting you to fill up this thread with faux concern.
Yeah. California localities seem to use blocky scan (FAX like) as the standard now. I’ve received one vital record copy (my marriage cert) that looks like a super-sharp photocopy of the original, but that copy was requested at the same time the clerk filed it. They probably didn’t scan it immediately for their archive.
As far as Guthrie goes, it has been theorized that she actually had the temerity to ask if she could handle and photograph one original, and they said no problem. Apparently nobody else bothered to ask.
Also – he doesn’t owe anyone any particular copy. People misplace and replace vital records all the time. The Georgia rules of evidence say that an “exemplified” document from a non-judicial office in any state is valid in Georgia courts. As long as it’s got the seal (the language is “annexed”) and a signature, there’s no reason why the judge is going to insist on a particular copy. The Georgia “best evidence” rules say that if an original is protected by law, that an “exemplified” certified copy is just as good as evidence.
If you don’t want to be ridiculed, don’t be ridiculous.
“you don’t like what i have to say will, too bad, but there is not much you can do about it”
Actually, there is something, princess “bernadine”. I can take my own advice and ignore you. And since your posts are moderated, it will be easier to do.
ROTFL…
I think I may have identified how these subversive socialist ideas got into our government–there is a document that tells us:
“We […], in Order to form a […] Union, [to] promote the general Welfare,[…] do ordain and establish this [set of by-laws] for [the gubermint].”
If that weren’t commie enough, it actually puts teeth in those words:
“The [gubermint] shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts […] and provide for the general Welfare”
Now the birthers (and the right in general) have tried to fight this sentiment at every turn to no avail while refusing to call out the authors of this document as the radical socialists that they were–which seems to me to make them more than a little hypocritical. Now I can’t reveal the name of this super-sekrit gubermint ebil plan, but here are the unedited passages…
I thought you’d probably tiled it, and the alignment is pretty much seamless. I’m saying pretty accurate because I remember similar kinds of check paper. The basketweave pattern is really similar to checks I’ve received and those Disneyland tickets I remember using as a kid.
https://www.deluxe-check-order.com/image/product/WAL-DG1B.jpg
I’m still not convinced that the pattern is really about making it difficult to copy. The manufacturer says it’s for detecting evidence of alteration, such as erasure or solvent washing. Some of these papers are sold for medical prescription forms, such that it’s harder to erase and maybe insert a request for OxyContin. Of course the paper has other features that don’t show up with a standard color copy onto plain paper, such as the UV security threads. If I were Hawaii, I’d think about ordering custom paper with special watermarks too. I have some California vital records that include repeated watermarks of the state seal. I don’t know if the manufacturer could do that, but Hawaii might be able to order enough to justify the cost of custom watermark impressions.
I’d still be interested in obtaining some of this paper and doing some experiments. You know – try alcohol, acetone, erasers, water, bleach, gasoline, etc. to see what happens.
I wonder how he manged to do that since the Confederacy was formed a month before he took office.
Yes, because the parties got along so well before evil Nancy Pelosi came along…I noticed you single her out rather than the 6 years of one party rule during the prior administration. If you want to find the origins of toxic partisanship, go back to the Contract with America in ’94.
This statment confuses me. So are you saing they deserved to get beaten doown brutally and pepper sprayed because they were “drigting an daimpless” or that being “drifting and aimless” is a form of violence?
bernadineayers:against wall street ? obama is entirely in bed with wall street and lobbyists, so that doesn’t make sense to me.
OWS is a grassroots movement. It has nothing to do with President Obama.
bernadineayers:if one class of people keeps trying to force socialism on me, i have a problem with that. we’re not supposed to have class structure here,
The irony of your statment is you rail against socialism, and then you say we’re supposed to be living in a Communist system. Communists believe we are all supposed to be equal economically. You can’t do away with class structure so long as you have economic inequality. What you are saying is the poor and middle class need to sit down and shut up, ignore the fact that once very tiny class of people are reaping all the rewards and benefits, and pretend there are no differences. Sorry, class warfare is real, and the middle class is losing.
AGREED. Well said!
I agree with you, Scientist.
Agreed.
Extremely well said! I echo ALL of your points & sentiments.
Well – I don’t know if it rises up to anything serious, but in Oakland there have been police pelted with assorted stuff like ink. There was also a shooting in Oakland at one of the camps, although a lot of people have sort of co-opted the camps as an excuse the homeless to camp when they’d otherwise be tossed from city parks.
http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/wp-content/blogs.dir/2290/files/police-at-occupy-oakland/occupy26_ph09.jpg
http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/wp-content/blogs.dir/2290/files/police-at-occupy-oakland/thumbs/thumbs_occupy26_ph17.jpg
I don’t necessarily agree with their methods, but a lot of what you find in these protests are anarchists who are trying to find an excuse to hide amongst otherwise peaceful protesters to reduce their chances of getting caught. It kind of saddens me, because there’s a certain amount of truth (about government giving certain breaks to the rich that perversely hurt the general public) mixed among the message that making money is somehow bad.
Where did I say that?
Really? Some liitter, most of which they cleaned up themselves. I actually visited my local Occupy and spoke with people; did you?
Again, where was there violence committed by Occupiers? You carry blaming the victim to new lows.
As for your stockpiling food, you are making me laugh. You said you live in Vermont. I live right near Vermont (Albany, NY) and go there often, Who the F%& is going to invade Vermont? Quebec? Leaf peepers? I remember seeing people on blogs in 2008 advising everyone to stockpile food because the groceries were all going to run out. Well, guess what, their shelves are full. They are even opening several new ones near me. Meanwhile, the food you stockpiled in 2008 has all been eaten by mice and I’m dining on good fresh food. Mmmm…
Ink. The horror.
Yes there were a few cases of crimes committed against the occupiers by various street people. There are crimes committed every day somewhere or other.
Those Mounties are quite devilish.
My theory is that birthers (and the right in general) think in terms of cults of personality rather than in terms of objective evidence. Thus they are always trying to impeach the author of an argument rather than addressing the merits (which may explain some of why they’ve been trying for 3 years to get their meritless argument a hearing on the merits…). I think that since they think of politicians as the leaders of cults of personality they assume that everyone else does as well and thus the only possible reason to support President Obama (which is how they see anyone opposing them–another of their false equivalences…) is if someone has “drank the kool-aid”, so to speak. As long as they protect this ignorance by refusing to engage in good faith they can continue to use this straw man to maintain the appearance of civility while endlessly repeating long-debunked lies and made up nonsense.
Agreed. That is quite clear from any serious study of history and the time period. And yes, that is a topic in which I did take serious study back in college. Several courses on the topic in fact, including one of my college Honors Program courses which focused entirely on an in-depth investigation of the root causes leading up to the Civil War.
Simply put, the South merely used Lincoln’s election as an excuse to take actions on a long-standing set of contentious issues and try to force the issues in their favor. Obviously, it backfired badly on them.
In many ways, it is a good parallel to the irrational paranoid speculation that some folks on the right keep using against Obama, without putting those threats into much achievable action (so far).
The South took pre-emptive steps against their mere perceptions of what they feared Lincoln might do… not based on anything he actually sad or did. It was an unjustified over-reaction on their point.
Very similar to the whole fake hype hysteria about Obama “taking people’s guns away” or putting them in “FEMA camps”…
Let’s be very clear – for any of those out there with their little fantasies about having another Civil War – it won’t succeed. The ways technology, communication, government resources and diverse population dynamics are spread out in today’s modern U.S. would greatly limit any such attempt to get much traction before it became known and stamped out. The most that seditious malcontents can hope to accomplish is a few Ruby Ridge / Waco style events that end with the same result – failure for them. Won’t even require the military to put it down – just law enforcement efforts (local, state, federal) .
Agreed! Well said.
Agreed.
Agreed! Well said.
If I did this to someone on the street I’d probably be arrested.
What’s really hard is separating the non-violent protesters from the anarchists looking for cover. There’s no real organization, which causes some of the problems to arise.
Good points. In all protest movements, there seems to be a segment of “anarchists” and other clowns who don’t really represent the broader movement and who behave badly.
The Tea-Party had some of that as well – particularly with the LaRouche folks that tried to glom onto it.
Protest organizers need to always be cognizant of this risk and should do what they can to monitor and denoucce / weed out the unstable elements from their movement.
There is a certain type of violent protest that I am actually sympathetic too – when it is a reaction to being attacked in the first place. I don’t fault protesters during the Arab Spring who threw rocks, bottles and molotov cocktails back at the government forces, after they were initially shot at. Nor am I unsympathetic to a few OWS protesters reacting out in a similar way if they were first excessively attacked or brutalized by the police.
I think you shouldn’t start a fight. But if someone else starts a fight with you and if officials use an excessive amount of force (and not just an isolated incident), then you soon cross a point where an extent of fighting back is justified.
There are many more clearly documented excessive handling and abuses by officials towards the OWS protesters than the other way around. The internet is rife with video of unnecessary and excessive use of pepper spray, batons and shields against groups that were completely passive in their protest actions up to that point.
If they aren’t about to invade, then why is the vast majority of their population massed on our border?
LOL! Well said!
I think you are definitely on to something here. I agree.
😉
Scott, I seriously hope you were making an attempt at humor here instead of going down some new stupid rabbit hole of crazed conspiracy paranoia…
In case you were serious, the answer is – NO.
Canadian Hockey Sucks!!
Oh, really? I seem to remember them beating the US at the Winter Olympics a couple of years ago.
I verified the Nordyke documents and found that the black with white text is the original, and the white/brown with black text is a simple inverted version.
Another minor mystery disappears.
I don’t care if you simply defend yourself, but you had better not think of starting any violence.
Sorry, but class warfare has always existed and what is happening these days is how it has usually played out in history – a small elite at the top consolidating power and wealth around themselves and treating themselves as above the law and treating everyone below them as dirt.
Sorry, it is extremely unlikely that there will be another Civil War – at least in terms of how you phrase it and seem to imagine it. Hate to burst your fantasy bubble there.
There seems to have been a lot more violence in the streets during the turbulent 60’s and other periods of American history than anything we see today. You are simply overly paranoid and seeing bogeymen everywhere. Look up any real statistics on violence and murder and you’ll see that the numbers are extremely low these days.
You are wrong. You are simply irrationally paranoid. Seems like you’ve been that way for a long time and you might even be incurable in your affliction and your hysterical fantasy delusions.
lol…
Terry Lakin has only himself to blame for destroying his own career. He did this all on his own (with some goading from certain Birther circles). But still, people are responsible for their own words and deeds. So he deserved what happened to him. Obama didn’t do anything to him – he did this all to himself. For someone like him, with responsibilities to both a family and fellow soldiers dependent upon him, there is no excuse for such self-destructive and irresponsible behavior. He became nothing but a fool and a disgrace and he did it all to himself.
You seem to be part of the “blame everyone else for your problems” crowd. I don’t understand folks like you who feel so entitled and have no concept or sense of personal responsibility. To me, that is the attitude of spoiled children and shows an utter lack of integrity and honor.
Why can’t you just be like normal people and judge someone on what has actually been done and what is known, instead of focused on accusing people without evidence and presuming “guilty until proven innocent?”
Can’t you see how backwards that is? Apply the Golden Rule here, Scott. How would you like it if everyone treated you the way you treat Obama.
And no, that is not what you’ve experienced here, either. You’ve only been held account to statements *you* initiated and stated in the first place
There is a difference between mere opinion and unfounded slander or being just plain wrong about actual facts. You seem to have trouble grasping that. Thus, why you have such problems being able to relate to people or have normal, adult conversations.
And yes, if you post on a public forum, you open yourself to responses by others. Sorry, that’s how Cause/Effect works. You are responsible for your words and deeds and the reactions they bring.
So yes, we have every right to respond and tell you what we think in return. It is a two-way street Scott. You are not entitled to some special rights that the rest of us don’t have, sorry.
And Lakin took the steps that caused him to be Court martialed. All because of his foolish beliefs that somehow President Obama was not natural born and that he, as an officer, had the right to question and refuse to follow lawful orders.
While he may have been honorable and loyal, I have seen only limited evidence of such. I did hear from a colleague of his who was forced, on short notice, to deploy to fill the gap left by Lakin.
Strange perception of honor and loyalty you have.
In addition, ex-con Lakin is a cowardly idiot who put his own stupidity and willful ignorance ahead of his duty and the welfare of his fellow soldiers. His actions, which put real soldiers at risk, merit nothing but contempt. Those who glorify him do nothing but dishonor our troops.
i was afraid this might happen,
“i will be violent acting out of class warefare (occupy wall street) not slavery like the last civil war.”
should read it will be violent… not I will be violent, i tried to correct it.
what i’m saying about ows trying to incite violence could escalate, i thought the peaceful occupiers pushed to hard, they caused a lot of grief for good decent people that live and work among themselves. occupiers that provoke the police, cause injury or damage should pay dearly. they should go to jail then see a judge. the police are not “the government”, nor are they rich wallstreeters.
Sorry, have no idea what you are babbling about here.
Hate to remind you, but most of us aren’t gullible saps who pay attention to the incessent propoganda outlet that is Fox News and the overhyped bogeyman tales that only they seem to push.
If this is, as I suspect, just another irrelevant non sequitur by you that doesn’t have any connection to the blog topic, then it has no business being brought up by you here in the first place.
Yes, but will you ever even acknowledge the failures of your research so far? And I appreciate you for not confusing your efforts with real research, it’s digging for dirt.
No, I don’t think you “understand” much at all. You simply obsess on distortions and over-hyped fantasy threats and bogeyment that only exist within your own fevered imagination.
You may know what you dislike, but most of the “threats” you peceive are simply not real … or at least are not rationally plausible.
I agree. I would like to expand on what you said to point out that while jealousy, pettiness and bigotry are the irrational and ugly parts of this dynamic, there is a lot of legitimacy to other forms of anger and angst in the midst.
Simply put, people want a fair system. Earn your way and do your part, but have fair opportunity to succeed as well. This applies to all rungs of the class structure.
Society does need a healthy middle class. A fair and stable society would allow for most of the lower class to pull themselves out of poverty with reasonble effort by themselves. Likewise, it would not treat the ultra rich with special access, priviledges and power, simply do to their “station” and “influence” either. More importantly, a society *is* a compact between its members – everyone has a responsibility to contribute and participate in making it work for the benefit of all.
NBC – I believe you meant to direct that towards “bernadine” and not me. You must have made a mistake in quoting his words (yes, it is a he) but accidentally attributing them to me.
The ‘quote’ function once again failed me… I do apologize.
I have no proof of that. 😛
maybe a problem that you have bernadineayers, is that you have come to a conclusion that you want to justify. If you are the author of washingtonreport.com you made your position very clear. Like most of the birther community, you want someone to prove their innocence. A very un-American task.
What I personally find amazing is that when the Presidential election was decided by 9 judges, no one was up in arms about political connections, corruption, and cover-ups. Maybe it is the nature of the ‘net now.
Barack Obama is the President of the United States. Nothing will change that, until November 2012, maybe. This “trial” on January 26th is a joke. It makes the U.S look horrible internationally. After the LFBC was released, Korean newspapers had editorials about why it took so long. They were influenced by a vocal minority, who had no legitimate complaint.
So, bernadineayers, when you write about a divide in this country, remember your own role in that divide. You may not like him, or agree with him, but if you call yourself an American he is your President.
Can you accept that?
Also, apologies if you are not the author of washingtonreport. I hope you are here after the “trial”.
I realize that your personal experiences from your youth with the Weather Underground is the source of many of your deep scars and fears.
You need to learn to grasp just how much that has clouded and colored your perception and ability to see beyond those bad events of the past and deal with the real world today.
For one, I have no idea who you think views those idiots as “heroes”. I’ve only heard their actions described with disdain in all circles.
Then again, there are people like you who lionize and treat dishonorable acts by Court-Martialled fools as “heroes” too … so quite ironic there. You seem to be guilty of the same thing you proclaim to be so “against”. Bottom line – neither example are viewed as “heroes” to the overall populace…nor should they be. Spend some time reflecting on this and look in the mirror. You come across as exactly the thing you rail against.
In terms of whether such individuals end up turning their lives around (to some extent) and making better of themselves… well heck, isn’t that what redemption is supposed to be all about?
Do you seriously want these folks to continue the stupid and irresponsible domestic terrorist behavior throughout their adult lives? Or would you rather see them start behaving more responsibly and try to contribute and become more productive members of society instead?
Yeah, I too wish that jerks like Ayers would be more repentent about his past as well. So I still agree he’s a jerk for that. But there is no crime against being a jerk. I have no problem with him growing up from acting on such folly and becoming a professor instead of continuing to destroy property. Heck, I’d prefer any criminal to stop carrying out criminal acts and try to make something respectable of themselves instead!
Yes, there are much better ways to make political points. Maybe one day you can learn to not just “want” that…but to also *demonstrate* that yourself.
Again, the way you behave makes you more similar to everything you claim to oppose. You need to learn to first start holding yourself to the same level of expectations and standards that you expect the rest of the world to follow.
Everytime I hear Wagner I feel like invading Poland. – Woody Allen
Here’s an interesting thought – I needed my daughter’s certified birth certificate. I went to the local health department in the county where she was born and received a certified copy of the certificate that I signed when she was born. It has all of the information on it. My second daughter was born in a different county and being in a hurry I requested a copy from the state department of health because it was quicker than requesting from the county health department. I received a certified print out of a “short form” birth certificate, I guess because they simply printed out what was in the computer with the original, or at least a copy of the original, being in the local health dept. (Maybe the were done in multiples?). This is in Georgia. I requested my husband’s from the state of Florida not knowing which county he was born in and received a short form with even less information that what is on President Obama’s. Each of these is on a different security paper and the Florida BC doesn’t have a raised seal, just a stamp. This is where “certified” comes into play. Every state and county has their own way of doing things. The records keeper certifies a copy as being true and correct from the original that they have on file, either in a book or on computer, and that’s all that really matters.
In Hawaii only the State Registrar can provide a certified copy.
Double negative is probably the incorrect term. Microfiche/Microfilm is a negative image: the white page background is black, the black letters are white. The most inexpensive way to get a print of that image is to photocopy it through a magnifier. The print comes out as negative too. To get a white background with black letters you have to put it through a photo-like printing process, which is more expensive.
do we all agree the obama’s records would be on the microfiche ?
No. we do not “all agree” that there is or ever was a microfiche or microfilm in existence.
Your question could be reworded “do we all agree that you have stopped beating your wife” and it would make exactly the same amount of sense.
For passport applications, a “multicolored seal” is OK in place of an embossed seal.
http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html#step3first
I’ve never seen an image of a birth certificate with a multicolored seal. My official undergraduate college transcript has one. In fact my transcript is on two pages, and both pages sport the same seal. It’s sort of a pattern where blue sort of bleeds into magenta.
In California they strongly suggest that one go to the county (or city in certain cases) for a certified birth certificate. Every county has a public counter and in person one can get a full authorized copy without having to pay a notary fee if ID is presented in person.and the requester signs an affidavit about being in an authorized class to receive it. Most counties can do it immediately if the BC is in their electronic image database. The state says it can take up to 6 weeks and they only do it through the mail. However, California abandoned all abstracts about a decade ago. What one gets these days is a scan (of varying resolution depending on county and when it was scanned) of the original placed on a standard format California Certifiation of Vital Record bank note style paper sheet.
I was really curious and ordered my kid’s BC from the state. The real difference is the state file number, which the local versions don’t include. The state is the final custodian of the original record, but they note that they usually won’t have birth certificates available until 6 months after a birth has been recorded. Each scan was different too, with different amounts of reduction. One local copy almost filled left to right, while the state copy is a good 3/4″ space on either side. My marriage certificates are funky too. One was a photocopy at the original size, while the other is a pixelated scan reduced to about 60%. Some of the text I need a magnifying glass to read.
In some states that do that, they have multiple offices that can issue birth certificates. Hawaii has Dept of Health offices on the major islands, but only the HQ in Honolulu seems to issue birth certificates.
In Texas I think any city, county, or state office that can issue birth certificates has access to the state files to issue an abstract. However, those are problematic for getting a passport (ask Dr. C why).
Does me. I thought the negative images were the result of the microfiche/film image print. I forgot about and did not understand the photostat process.
And most importantly, location of birth: Honolulu Hawaii and year of birth: 1961.
There are exactly 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don’t..
There are exactly 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don’t.
My new Michigan one is both colored and raised. Its real purty.
Effing Heck! I can’t find it! I was gonna describe it in detail, but I rearranged my office a couple of months ago and I can’t remember which pile of ‘to do filing’ its in!
HaHa, That was an opening quote for one of my college papers. As a Network Analyst/Engineer, I use binary and hexadecimal a lot at work.
Shows my really bad memory. I was trying to remember the phrase that caused the Canadian hockey players to beat the crap out of John Candy in Canadian Bacon.
Found it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HGPh8Hjyg8
I’ve heard some Florida ones use an embossed gold seal. Not sure if it’s like a gold sticker or if they use an embosser on a gold-colored circle bonded to the paper.
I took a photo of the seal. It’s a little bit blurry because I took it with my laptop’s built in camera, but I think it’s a pretty good representation of a “multicolored seal”. It’s also a bit strange since the same registrar’s office issues an “Official Verification of Attendance and Degrees” that uses an embossed seal. Sorry about the blurry pictures. I held them up by hand and the built in camera isn’t that great at focusing.
Multicolored seal from transcript:
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/8725/ucseal.jpg
Embossed seal and stamp from verification document:
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/8598/ucseal0.jpg
LOL! I still love to show my niece how I can count above 1000 using just both hands…
Although I can still do a pretty good job of switching to any base, and not just base-2, base-10 or octal and hex. That’s where a good math background complements a computer background..
Five judges. The other 4 dissented, in very strong terms.
What “fiasco”? The guy correctly said “I find no traces of forgery in the White House PDF”. The “fiasco” was simply that the disclaimer “that doesn’t mean anything as to the validity of the physical copy or the original” (that every real expert will state) wasn’t mentioned in the article.
Yet you birthers spin it as if he retracted his “I find no traces of forgery in the PDF” statement. But when have birthers ever told the truth?
G….don’t diss the coming Zombie Apocalypse…read “World War Z”…it’s coming man…I tells ya…. 😎
Actually quite a good book…
On a slightly more serous note being ex-military as well as due to the field I work in, I tend to work on the principle that it’s not IF the Sierra Hotel one Tango will hit the fan, its WHEN…..
I don’t make a big deal about it, I just have what I define as reasonable preps in place. In the basement, in clear plastic tubs I keep sufficient stable food and water for 2 people (plus two cats) for two weeks for shelter in place, along with a 72 hour “Get the feck out of Dodge” grab bag.
Last year when I rotated out the “old” stuff we had a TEOTWAWKI (The end of the world as we know it) costume party, had friends over and used the food up, fun time had by all…and yes, I was as a zombie…. 😎
Oh, one word of wisdom…..you can NEVER have too much soft toilet paper in your survival kit…
Of course there’s an enormous difference between common sense disaster preparedness and the guano psychotic, hunker in the bunker down hard, jittery paranoid, hardcore delusional, home ammo depot hoarding, ignore the voices in the mirror, tape up all of the holes in the house, Soros and Obama are listening to my calls disaster prep from the Alex Jones handbook of evil, godless, NWO loving, baby eating zombie hippie liberals are hiding in your carefully manicured bushes right now ready to attack and kill you first and then destroy America mentality.
MW,
You forgot to buy WND “Survival seeds”, horde silver and gold, buy Iraqi dinars (revaluation ANY..DAY..NOW..), fly the “Gadsen” flag, rip all the gold fringes off all regular US flags, swear income tax is unconstitutional, squeal that there’s a “seekrit hidden” 13th Amendment, KNOW that Hawai’i isn’t a real state and swear you’re not racist…honest….. 😎
Oh, I forget, even the big boys in ammunition have gottern into zombies, seriously
http://www.hornady.com/ammunition/zombiemax
Be PREPARED – supply yourself for the Zombie Apocalypse with Zombie Maxâ„¢ ammunition from Hornady®! Loaded with PROVEN Z-Maxâ„¢ bullets… yes PROVEN Z-Maxâ„¢ bullets (have you seen a Zombie?). Make sure your “bug out bag” is ready with nothing but the best!
Disclaimer:
Hornady® Zombie Maxâ„¢ ammunition is NOT a toy (IT IS LIVE AMMUNITION), but is intended only to be used on…ZOMBIES, also known as the living dead, undead, etc. No human being, plant, animal, vegetable or mineral should ever be shot with Hornady® Zombie Maxâ„¢ ammunition. Again, we repeat, Hornady® Zombie Maxâ„¢ ammunition is for use on ZOMBIES ONLY, and that’s not a nickname, phrase or cute way of referring to anybody, place or thing. When we say Zombies, we mean…ZOMBIES!
What’s amazing is how delusional fanatics pick and choose and bicker with each other as if one combination of those stupidities is true and acceptable but not another.
Birtherism has its own special bus of bickering buffoons.
To wit: http://www.birthersummit.org/news/74-of-subpoenas-trials-and-a-vexatious-litigant.html
I’m looking forward to Shurrif Joe’s response to Mad ole Orly’s “sub-poena” for his Cold Custard Posse report on the Usurperator, there should be much glorious squealing, whining and gnashing of teeth…
Repeated for fun: “Them bank robbers went that-a-way. They was riding mustangs they found in the desert. That’s all I seen sheriff.”
So what’s up with the attorney representing Obama in Georgia? It sounds like he dropped the ball on the motion to quash the subpoena compelling Obama to appear at the hearing. I read the order on the motion to quash, and it looks like the judge is saying “I expect better from you”. Since President Obama is effectively represented by Jablonski, serving the subpoena on him seems to meet the requirements for serving a subpoena within Georgia. The attempts to subpoena the out of state agencies and federal government offices are probably a dead end for Taitz, since I don’t see how Judge Malihi has the power to compel another state or the federal government to do anything.
I’m hoping that Jablonski wises up. Is he allowed to file another motion to quash with specific cites of federal/state law and/or precedent?
I wonder if Jablonski is fishing out the opposition?
I agree with your assessment. I take it as the judge simply telling Jablonski that he can’t just cake walk and be lazy with his filings, simply because he’s dealing with frivolous crazy.
The judge wants to give as fair a hearing as possible and is admonishing Jablonski to do his job properly and take this seriously.
That’s how I see it. As JPotter and some others have pointed out, what happened here was only telling Jablonski that he didn’t make a sufficient argument and so his Motion to Quash won’t be granted.
Had the judge been truly backing the legality of these subpoenas and wanting them to be enforced, he could push for a Motion to Compel. That didn’t happen either.
Jablonski is fully within the legal right to file another motion to quash. If he’s smart and competent, he will do so and this time take that effort more dilligently and seriously.
I suspect that Jablonski is suffering from not only being overconfident against a kook case and therefore slipping into laziness, but also is very cautious and reluctant to have to give or show any more than the bare minimum in order to defend his clients, perhaps feeling concerned that providing too much is conceding too much territory to illegitimate claims in the first place.
I doubt that very much; sometimes, there simply isn’t good ground to stand on. Also, this is surely pretty fresh legal territory. I doubt this GA law has been tried out on a Pesidential candidate, much less the President. Just because something is frivolous or stupid, doesn’t mean there is a precedent saying so. And having such as precedent may be worse than not having it. The judge already said Obama did not need to appear; he didn’t say Mad Orly couldn’t send a subpoena! I don’t think that setting a precedent of “the President can’t be subpoena’d into a frivolous state case” is at all desirable, neitehr from teh state’s POV, and from the standpoint that frivolous is in the eye of the beholder…all too often unfortunately so.
Jablonski is going with what he has. But G is also right; as small and as silly as the hearing is, it brings into play the interests of a national party*, and a state gov’t, none of which want to cede any autonomy to the other.
*Jablonski is chief counsel of the GA Dem. Party.
Well – apparently Orly is now trying to persuade the Hawaiian courts to compel (filed a letter rogatory) Fuddy to testify and bring the original bound volume to Georgia.
I don’t see any way that any judge in Hawaii is ever going to let that happen. Orly keeps on bringing up “best evidence” as a reason for it, and my non-lawyerly ass can even read where Georgia administrative court rules says that an “exempllfied” document (I’m reading this as meaning with the seal of the office and a statement of a government official) is just as valid as evidence when the original document is protected by law (as in Hawaii’s case). They really need to get a certified copy and not just hope this all goes away.
Could you cite the context or cite that? I am wondering why he didn’t quash the motion based on the fact that he already said President Obama did not have to appear. He must have had a reason for saying that. Couldn’t the judge on its own provide the legal reasoning if he already made that determination?
I think that is the smart and straightforward approach too. Whip out one official certified paper COLB when asked for proof in court and that is it.
However, I believe that they have to actually declare in advance, if they wish to introduce such evidence, correct?
This is my concern with Jablonski. This is a simple, standard default documentary piece of proof that he should have prepared as part of such a challenge, regardless of who he is representing. He’s being foolish if he doesn’t have that document ready and able to properly be introduced, if needed.
More on Michael Jablonski:
http://taarradhin.net/
Orly is certainly getting way over-confident. I wonder if that’s the plan?
He doesn’t sound like someone who is inexperienced enough to be making such simple procedural mistakes, by accident.
My understanding is the opposite. Obama is the defendant. The Plaintiff has to make a case. They have to lay out their cards on the table first. Then, and only then, does a defendant have to provide anything. If the Plaintiff literally has no case, the defense doesn’t have to say or present a thing. Why establish a precedent for dignifying this pointless challenges? Why reward a nut for being a nut? God bless the presumption of innocence. Of course, IANAL.
Before you point out that’s exactly what Obama did last 4/27/1, I would point out at the time this crap was being tried in the court of public opinion, the mediasphere. That particular court, has no rules. It runs on the presumption of guilt.
Someone said that if they bring up anything about birth certificates, Jablonski should be able to bring it out even without declaring it in his pre-trial filings.
35 years experience and a gradute of Emory Law School? I’m guessing he probably knows what he’s doing and everything could very well be part of some master plan.
And more from LinkedIn.com:
Michael Jablonski
Political campaigns lawyer
Summary:
General Counsel, Democratic Party of Georgia
Georgia State University, adjunct faculty (Political Communication, Political Speechwriting, Legal Journalism, Communication & Conflict Resolution)
Strategy.gov (Partner & CEO)
Barnes for Governor (Counsel, Strategist)
Barnes, Browning, Tanksley & Casurella (Partner)
Savell & Williams (Partner)
Barkley Forum Foundation (President)
DCCC (Contact attorney for Georgia)
Normally, I would completely agree.
However, this isn’t a “trial court”, but simply a hearing, specifically on the subject matter jurisdiction of ballot access, which is being contested.
Other sites have pointed to various GA laws or precedent being referenced so far, which indicates that the GA rules in this particular instance might actually flip the burden of proof to the defense, to merely show that they’ve complied with GA ballot laws to whatever extent that includes vetting candidates to confirm that they comply with GA requirements for putting someone on the ballot in the first place.
IANAL either, so I’ve read these statutes & the arguments on whether or not they apply in this particular situation in the way some think they might and simply don’t have the expertise to weigh in on that.
The extent of my capacity to evaluate this is simply to recognize that there may be an applicable state statute in this particular case that flipped some portion of the burden of proof automatically to the defense.
If so, I don’t see that as a problem either – I still think that any signed DNC filing form with its verbiage of attestment to the info being true and accurate, plus any proof of applicable filing fees (and any other applicable ballot access requirements) being fulfilled, would be sufficient to meet that portion of the burden which may be on the defense to provide. The COLB is the next level of rock-solid evidence to back up the filing form. I’ve heard that some states might include BCs as part of their filing application documenation (or simply attest that any such supporting proof of identity documents were shown at time of application). Whether they do or not, that is a reasonable way for this ID to be provided when needed…so I would think that just having these basic documents handy if needed solidly locks up the defense’s position on all practical measures.
Well at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy nut myself….
First he flops a motion for dismissal to a court that actually has jurisdiction….. which prompts Orly to shotgun the world with invalid out-of-state subpoenas.
Then he moves to quash with a motion that lawyers say appears almost amateurish…. and now Orly has reacted by putting forward an emergency motion to obtain letters rogatory.
It’s almost like he’s teasing her into a tizzy, and forcing the court to take judicial notice of her incompetence.
“judicial notice” btw, forgot to put in the quotes
Charo: it’s self-evident. The question is whether or not Obama is eligible. Either he is, or he isn’t. That fact will not be changed by his appearance or absence, but rather by documentation. Documentation attested to by other authorities. Obama has a legal representative, who has been retained to represent his interest in the matter. Think: what could Obama say to prove he is an NBC, 35 years of age, and a 14-year resident? He can’t, he would have to present papers. If it comes to it, the birth certificate states when and where he was born, and the State of Hawai attests that it is Obama’s. The only contribution the person in question can make is to risk perjuring themselves.
There’s adequate reason to consider the possibility that Jablonski didn’t even prepare the motion and the possibility that he didn’t read it in any detail. A delegated underling may have had an earbashing.
As I see it through common sense eyes (IANAL) , Malihi has pretty clearly pointed Jablonski towards submitting an amended motion as he didn’t say the motion’s reasoning was wrong, he simply said that it wasn’t accompanied by appropriate citations.
The view that Malihi is simply nudging Jablonski towards taking this more seriously by doing the aforementioned is consistent with him also taking the position that his previous indication that Obama need not attend is a totally separate matter in isolation from the question of whether the subpoena ought to be quashed.
I’m with the camp who think a watertight amended motion to quash will be presented and granted and that it will then be concluded that Malihi has been got at.
You didn’t answer the question about whether or not he said that Obama need not appear? I wanted to see where that was. I guess it’s just a matter of what and see as to why he denied the motion in the manner he did.
Well of course they should have it in hand! My point is that a Defendant is not compelled to air his undies unless required to by a case presented against him. If this were not the case, all sort of tomfoolery could be “discovered” by abuse of the legal process. Also, i was responding to a message above asking whether the defendant was required to telegraph the imminent presentation of the BC in court. He of course does not have to declare that intention. But he should have it, and all relevant materials at the hearing. I was in no way suggests he not go in fully armed, just stating he is not required to give away all his secrets up front.
Well your take on it is easily as good as mine if not better, but then it’s all speculation at this point anyways. The fact remains that Obama IS eligible and it wouldn’t take much of a lawyer at all to show that.
I’ve been waiting for all the actual laywers who post here to weigh in on that. That is certainly one of the points of confusion here…
I have seen this mentioned but no evidence so far other than the Judge denying the motion to compel because the issue was moot. In the latest order, the Judge has strongly suggested to Jablonski that he file an amended motion to quash and finally do his homework and cite the relevant statutes, rulings etc. The Judge will then grand the motion to quash. Jablonski will then submit the birth certificate and the court will take judicial notice and the burden will shift to Orly and the other plaintiffs who will fail to raise any legal arguments.
But a defendant can be compelled to attend and provide documents under Georgia rules because the defendant can be served through his attorney in Georgia. That by itself does not mean that the Judge will not quash the subpoena but Jablonski has failed to give him anything so far. The judge has hinted that there are statutes, and rulings that Jablonski should cite in an amended motion and if Jablonski finally does his homework, the Judge will likely order the subpoena quashed.
Even in ‘worst case’ scenario, Jablonski will introduce the COLB and the burden of proof reverts to the defendants who have nothing to offer.
And also evidence of the residency component (which is a no brainer and should be conceded)
semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.
The necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.
It’s funny how many people cite the Motion to Squash…
You can’t compel a sitting President to appear in court. Even wiith Clinton in the Jones case, he chose to appear, because if he hadn’t he would likely have lost the case. And because defying a federal judge would have looked bad politically. But a judge can’t send marshalls to the White House to drag him into court.
This is a challenge to obama’s eligibility; the ball is in the challenger’s court. The idea that the denial of the motion to dismiss flipped that over to the defendant is silly. That simply stated that the court would hear the challenge; the burden of going forward remains with the challenger.
As always, IANAL 😀
I like butternut squash soup.
Too healthy sounding for me. Maybe with a side of chocolate cake
Look, your point fully makes sense to me. I’m just trying not to make any assumptions beyond where I feel I have a full understanding of how this works in this particular type of situation.
None of us commenting on this are laywers.. LOL!. Where are all the ones that post here, when we actually have real legal questions for them??? I sure hope they show up and can give us a better professional understanding of this particular case, how it differs from the typical flow of things and whether or not defense has to provide advanced notice to present the COLB or anything else like that in this type of situation…
You can make the soup with heavy cream. And add bacon or ham, if you’d like.
Yeah, but Orly really thinks that she’ll somehow get the President to come into the court to be questioned.
It’s not as if the Judge can call up the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office and have them knock on the WH front door and order him to appear before the court. Even if the WH was in Atlanta, I’d think the Secret Service would pull out the submachine guns and tell the local LE to stand down.
Strangely enough, I have heard of county sheriff’s departments hauling people to court because they ignored a jury summons. In the case of federal courts, I think the US Marshal Service will do the same.
Well, Hatfield filed a motion to establish who has the burden of proof. While the Rules state that the plaintiff has the burden of proof, or the Secretary of State, there is at least one ruling in Haynes which found that if the defendant is compelled to file an affidavit of eligibility, the burden falls on him. But in this case, Obama did not file such affidavit as his name was submitted on a certified list by the Democratic Party.
If I were Jablonski I would argue that the President will provide the evidence for the plaintiffs to rebut and file a certified birth certificate. Orly’s claims of fraud are all based on pdf’s and scans and her ‘experts’ will not be able to ‘certify’ the document or rebut it as they are not really ‘experts’ in the legal meaning of the word. That will lay to rest the eligibility argument, anything else would be extraneous to the proceedings and not allowed by the Judge.
It is the GENERAL rule, but for th Supreme Court to state “general” that implies exceptions.
“In sum, the IDEA does not allocate the burden of proof, and we see no reason to depart from the general rule that a party initiating a proceeding bears that burden.
Weast v. Schaffer (administrative law case interpreting statute)
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/04/4th.schaffer.weast.md.htm
Well, so far she is correct. Of course, the Judge explained that he would not rule without Jablonski providing some citations and references, arguments and legal cases to support his motion. Once Jablonski files an amended motion to quash, and manages to provide the necessary citations and arguments, the Judge will likely quash the motion.
That sounds good-
Let’s keep one thing in perspective. This is a primary election. For a nomination that Obama will win whether he is on the Georgia ballot or not. Then once he’s the nominee, he is automatically on the ballot for the general. And then he either loses, in which case the issue is moot, or he wins and it’s up to Congress. So legally, this hearing is meaningless. Now, we could argue its political meaning perhaps, but let’s not give this proceeding any real legal weight.
And the Court did depart from this in Haynes. But that was because there was a sworn affidavit. In this case, the issue is a bit less clear.
But it does not determine who has the burden of proof here.
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to quash is denied.
I don’t know how you are reading that he WILL deny it. He did deny it. I don’t know whether you get two bites of the apple normally unless there is good cause (it is not a paper for school where you get a re-do). For instance, various judges have allowed Orly (I hesitate to even type the name fearing that will trigger malware) to correct service in the past. This is a substantive argument, though, rather than a technical requirement.
Furthermore OCGA 21-2-5 does place the burden on the plaintiff
Yes, it is. I would expect any documents to be submitted for the reason that it would be bad press not to.
will likely… I hope you understand the distinction. And I meant quash the subpoena and grant the motion to quash.
The judge hints strongly to this in his ruling.
It says “state the reasons” (no mention of supporting the claim). Maybe the burden then shifts.
I meant service is technical.
I think I am misreading you, but I am not sure. The judge denied to Motion to Quash. If the party does a poor job in the motion, does the party get another shot? Would it be a Motion for Reconsideration of the order with the proper authority cited?
That’s to file the complaint. This places the burden on the defendant, merely making an assertion would otherwise be sufficient to get a hearing that would force the defendant to prove his innocence.
But this is not criminal so the same high standard does not apply (although certain defenses are affirmative).
Imprecise legislation. It should have been clearly worded.
Yep, the judge denied because of lack of proper legal references. If the party can show that there are sufficient reasons to quash, the judge will consider them.
The burden to prove that the subpoena is unreasonable lies with the party seeking to quash it. Morris v. State, 246 Ga. 510, 272 S.E.2d 254 (1980). The Judge strongly hints that there may be reasons he would quash the subpoena but the attorney has not provided any references yet.
He stated why he did deny it. If a party in litigation has its motion denied, does it get to resubmit the motion to win? That is my sticking point. I haven’t been feeling well today so I am going to go. It’s been an interesting discussion.
I do not believe it is imprecise. The plaintiff has to outline the reason in the complaint and under the Rules of the Administrative Court carries the burden
The agency forwarded the complaint to the Court.
But the Court will soon rule as Hatfield has filed a motion to determine who has the burden of proof.
Got ya.
Motions to quash can be considered at any time. If the Judge observes that the motion was too vague there is the opportunity to refile. These are different than motions to dismiss etc.
I disagree that the same underlying Motion can be filed more than once as a matter of course (not that it would not be entertained).
Again, thanks for the feedback.
There are various examples of amended motions to quash in courts, even in Georgia. So it would not surprise me as the rule is that if it can be shown that the subpoena is oppressive, duplicative etc, the court may quash.
Note that this is also totally discretionary on the Judge
Sorry, I observe.