Historical News Articles and FactCheck Agree: Obama is Kenyan-born
What had been a footnote to a recent posting on this site — as originally broke by TheBirthers.org — has become a whirl-wind of unearthed historical documents that were originally posted long before Mr. Obama’s eligibility had ever become the subject of scrutiny. In fact, TheObamaFile.com has compiled a number of links to these various stories:
- Kenya Sunday Standard headline — “Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate”
- The Nigerian Observer — “Americans will today go to the polls to elect their next President with Democratic Party candidate, Senator Barack Obama largely favoured to win. The Kenyan-born Senator will…”
- USAfrica — “Kenyan-born OBAMA makes history…wins presidential nomination of U. S. Democratic party; eyes on White House…”
- AllAfrica.com — ” Little wonder then why Kenyan-born Barack Obama, America’s first Black President…”
- GraphicGhana.com — “For Ghana, Obama’s visit will be a celebration of another milestone in African history as it hosts the first-ever African-American President on this presidential visit to the continent of his birth.” The same article, with the same quote, appeared in ModernGhana.com.
- The Ghana Times — “So far, the odds favour the once underdog in American politics, Obama, the African-American Senator from Illinois state. A Congressional Quarterly (CQ) politics monitored on BBC put the Kenyan born American ahead of his rivel, John McCain.”
From the comment section:
- (“AmericanDaughter“) NPR.org — “…She also describes the stories that have been exciting, including the U.S. presidential race of Kenyan-born Sen. Barack Obama.”
- (“AmericanDaughter“) AllAfrica.com — “Kampala — Ugandans have formed a group to mobilise support for Kenyan born-senator, Barack Obama for the US presidency.”
I also extensively covered Mr. Obama’s July trip to Ghana here.
Eric Dondero of the LibertarianRepublican blog points out that the opposition doesn’t really have much to go on to refute the above articles:
From Eric Dondero:
The story first broke this morning, on Don Suber’s blog, Bob McClarty’s site, and on World Net Daily.
Suber wrote:
I checked.
Apparently that is a true image from the June 24, 2004, Standard, which is Kenya’s oldest newspaper.
Meanwhile, AudacityofHypocrisy notes: link to this story. The news is now deleted from Kenya newspaper website.
Obots.org, the popular Left site that debunks Birther claims issued this curious statement later in the day:
Speculation abounds about how the birthers found this obscure article which doesn’t appear to be on any search engine, and it has been suggested that the article is a fake; but that’s not likely. More likely is the fact that Barack Obama (the President’s father) was born in Kenya just led to a little confusion. I mean after all, if folks today can’t find a shred of evidence to support the crazy idea the President was born in Kenya today, how could a newspaper back in 2004 have found anything (particularly when the article was just a small Kenya-twist embellishment on an AP story).
Libertarian Republican Contributing Writer and Internationally-syndicated Columnist JB Williams had this to say:
“They know it’s real… It’s a real publication. Yes, it’s been scrubbed [newspaper's archives], but they missed some. I pulled some other incriminating articles just today… most especially about Obama’s Muslim background and upbringing and ties to Odinga… there’s articles of people referring to Obama as America’s Odinga.”
Williams is doing further investigation, and promises to release his findings next week right here at LR.
Also, according to the Obots.org quote, apparently they would have one believe that every story mistakenly featured Mr. Obama’s father as being the would-be Senator from Illinois. Unless the evidence were to show up, this theory appears highly doubtful (especially when the verbiage specifically brings context to that other federal office of Mr. Obama’s previous employment).
And as I had reported from attorney Leo Donofrio back in December, 2008, he goes on to further point out that Mr. Obama’s at birth Kenyan citizenship could be enough to substantially disqualify him from being eligible to be President (a very poignant point to which FactCheck has long since admitted):
It is undisputed that Obama was Kenyan-born by the blood of his father. That led to his Kenyan citizenship having been automatically granted in 1963 by the Kenya Independence Act.
JUS SANGUINIS
The legal concept by which it is undisputed that President Obama was “Kenyan-born” is “jus sanguinis“, which means “right of blood”.
Furthermore, President Obama admitted that, under the British Nationality Act of 1948 – at the time of his birth – he was a British citizen. It has also been accurately reported by Factcheck.org that President Obama became a Kenyan citizen in 1963. (However, a separate key aspect of that report was false and eventually corrected by Factcheck who cited this blog’s report and analysis in their mea culpa. Please also note their second mea culpa to this blog.)
JUS SOLI
Unfortunately, the undisputed legal fact of Obama’s jus sanguinis foreign birth has been supplanted by the sensational conspiracy theory relating to the place of his birth. The headline from the 2004 Kenyan news report does not indicate whether “Kenyan-born” relates to Obama’s Kenyan bloodline or – in the alternative – to his place of birth. Place of birth citizenship is conferred by a legal concept known as “jus soli“, meaning law of the soil.
Please don’t miss the forest for the trees. President Obama admits to having been a British citizen at birth by law and a son of Kenyan blood which led to automatic Kenyan citizenship in 1963. This alone should disqualify him from POTUS eligibility – regardless of where he was born – since he was a dual citizen at birth and at least until 1984.
Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen.
This is an attribute only available at birth.
Whether a person (who admits having been) born subject to the laws of a foreign power can become Commander In Chief of the US armed forces is a genuine and necessary question of law, not a conspiracy theory.
Mr. Donofrio also mentions that being a natural born citizen isn’t so much a right of the executive office as it’s a national security measure:
The Constitutional requirements to be POTUS are not rights, they are national security measures. Even natural born citizens who fail to meet the other requirements cannot be President. For example, a 33-year-old natural born citizen cannot be President. But 33-year-old men have no more rights than 35-year-old men. Understand? Requirements are not rights.
As related side notes to this story, lead Plaintiff Charles Kerchner of Kerchner v. Obama found this link to a September, 2000 report from the Department of Health and Human Services regarding birth certificate fraud, and WorldNetDaily reports on a failed 2004 congressional proposal that would have attempted to let naturalized citizens become President.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- The background:
- The questions:
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
Photo courtesy AtlasShrugs
308 responses to Historical News Articles and FactCheck Agree: Obama is Kenyan-born
With all of this evidence from news articles written years ago, it is preposterous that Obama should still be in office. The courts are too slow and the military doesn’t seem interested in knowing if their commander-in-chief is legitimate. So it’s going to take “we the people” demanding that Obama prove he’s natural-born or get out.
Obviously, the DNC wanted a candidate whom they knew wasn’t qualified. Why they did this when they could have run any number of constitutionally qualified candidates is a complete mystery. Evidently they thought Obama had the charisma to pull it off. Perhaps he did, with a lot of help from the media, which kept all of his background a secret. It is unforgivable what they did, in collusion, to keep Americans ignorant. Everyone wanted hope and change, but now we have an illegitimate person in the White House who wants the destruction of America. And we can’t seem to get the courts to do anything. So we’re going to have to do it.
I think millions of us should converge on Washington, camp out in the street in front of the White House and demand that he show his credentials. Either he’s qualified or he’s not; either we have a Constitution or we don’t. Which is it going to be?
ROTFL
http://www.obots.org/archives/188
Birthers wet pants over newspaper mistake
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=1144007420&catid=15&a=1
Everything about this story is not unbelievable, rather, it is the ultimate in a perfect storm:
1. Bad sentiment/perception after the previous administration
2. Rising star with eloquent speech
3. Desire for newfound hope and worldly and ecumenical aspirations
4. Bad economy
5. Eloquent speaker identified as first black president
6. Controversy/worry about the eligibility of candidate running against the “new hope” effectively handicapping the most stout source of criticism, which would be from the opponent who desires to win at all costs, but not in this case.
7. No mechanism to check for article 2.
8. News media without desire to equally cover or search background of the candidates
… and the list goes on and on.
I’ve said time and again: Obama is going nowhere. He will not win next time anyway, so the only hope here is that the following occurs:
a) The media is finally exposed for being so utterly one sided and not true journalists
b) Obama’s deceptions are made public, which reinforces (a).
Trust me, if those two happen, it will have been a very fruitful outcome. Always look for the silver lining and don’t get greedy.
Sue says:
October 18, 2009 at 4:10 pm
ROTFL
http://www.obots.org/archives/188
Birthers wet pants over newspaper mistake
Hmmm … one would assume that just the activity of “ROTFL” would initiate the “wetting of the pants”!!
there is no mention of Kenya in the original AP story, what do you think that means. AP did not write nor state anything about Kenya. Is this another instance of brain damage.
NewEglandPatriot:
Do not forget: the RNC wanted a candidate whom they knew was not qualified. Why they did this when they could have run any number of constitutionally-qualified candidates is a complete mystery.
If you think there is much chance of changing course, consider this from Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: http://www.infowars.com/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-claims-british-lord/
An excerpt:
We did not get here in the last two years. As a country, if the mess we are in took 10 years before we reverse course, it will take 10 years to recover. The sooner we begin, the better.
Hope you are praying!
“Hmmm … one would assume that just the activity of “ROTFL” would initiate the “wetting of the pants”!!”
Only if you have a bladder problem.
See also http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95550177
I am not sure why this is news. The article from the Kenyan Standard newspaper that claims that they took the information from the AP has been proven that the Kenyan newspaper added the language “Kenyan Born”…Again the original article is below…
Senate Candidate Quits Amid Furor
By Maura Kelly Lannan, Associated Press Writer|June 27, 2004
CHICAGO — Illinois Senate candidate Jack Ryan dropped out of the race Friday amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days.
“It’s clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race,” Ryan, 44, said in a statement. “What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign — the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play.”
The campaign began to come apart Monday after the release of embarrassing records from Ryan’s divorce. In those records, his ex-wife, “Boston Public” actress Jeri Ryan, said Ryan took her to kinky sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans, and tried to get her to perform sex acts with him while others watched. Ryan disputed the allegations, saying he and his wife went to one “avant-garde” club in Paris and left because they felt uncomfortable.
Ryan said it was “truly outrageous” that the Chicago Tribune got a judge to unseal the records. “The media has gotten out of control,” he said.
Top Illinois Republicans immediately began the work of selecting a new candidate. Their choice will be an instant underdog against Democratic state Sen. Barack Obama for the seat of retiring GOP Sen. Peter Fitzgerald. Obama held a wide lead even before the scandal broke.
“I feel for him actually,” Obama said on WLS-AM. “What he’s gone through over the last three days I think is something you wouldn’t wish on anybody.”
Ryan had faced mounting pressure to quit from party leaders, who met several times the last few days to discuss whether the campaign could survive.
Ryan conducted an overnight poll to gauge his support. After reviewing the results, his advisors told him the only way to survive would be to wage a negative and expensive response.
“Jack Ryan made the right decision. I know it must have been a difficult one,” said House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois, who made his feelings known by canceling a fundraiser with Ryan.
Ryan was a political neophyte, a millionaire investment banker who left business four years ago to teach at an all-boys parochial school in Chicago. He spent $3 million of his own money to win the primary.
With his good looks and Harvard background, Ryan was seen as the party’s best hope for revitalizing the Illinois GOP, which lost control of the governor’s office and nearly every statewide office two years ago in the wake of a corruption scandal involving then-Gov. George Ryan. The former governor, who has since been indicted, is not related to Jack Ryan.
During the primary, Ryan waved off rumors of damaging sex allegations in his divorce records, assuring officials there was nothing to worry about. But the Tribune and Chicago TV station WLS sued for the records’ release, and a California judge unsealed them against the couple’s wishes.
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jun/27/news/adna-ryan27
Another version of Lannan’s article, dated June 26, 2004, can be seen here:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=348&dat=20040626&id=gAQHAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-zsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6867,7970675
You can see for yourself that the African newspaper edited the article to add the language about President Obama being born in Kenya….And the other supposed newspaper articles, they are all from African newspapers. These newspapers, that may have wanted to make the story more appealing to their readers, probably used African or Kenyan born for those purposes. Either way they are definately not evidence of anything. Especially when the one article from the Kenyan Standard 2004 can be proven to have been altered.
I really, really, really hope Orly files these “historical news articles” as “evidence.”
What is even more interesting is that the birther site, the “Post & E-Mail”, which is extremly anti Obama, wrote this article regarding President Obama being born in Kenya…Below are quotes from the actual article…
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/born-in-mombasa/
, as the false claim goes
“Take from me. I was born on July 21,1937 whereas Barrack Obama Snr was born a year earlier in 1936, but because of my huge stature, we were almost of the same size. I knew all his background pretty well. His son who is 44th US President was born in Hawaii and not Kenya, and whoever is saying he was born in Mombasa is making fraudulent claims for some unclear motives only known to himself. Do not shy away from asking me more (questions). OK?”
and…
“From the script you posted to me and according to my understanding of both the Dho-Luo vernacular and Kiswaili, Mama Sarah Obama was being pinned down with the question whether she herself was present—where—and the place where the boy was born. She replied in affirmative, that she wasn’t there herself because she happen to be in Mombasa at the material time, whereas the little baby grandson was born in Hawaii in the United States of America, therefore she could not have been there to witness his birth. Thus us what the script is telling. The same as I know the history of the family, there is nothing that can connect his birth to Mombasa.”
This article was written in August of 2009 by John Charlton, a man that seems to love Orly and the birther movement. So if we are now using newspaper articles as “evidence”, then this should be viewed along with the ones that have been posted above. Because this article specifically states that President Obama was born in Hawaii. This is similar to the WND article from last August which stated that President Obama’s Hawaii COLB was authentic….So if we are going to go digging in newspaper archives to find evidence, we may find some interesting things…Who would have thought that the Post & E-Mail would be authenticating the President being born in HI.
Sue says:
October 18, 2009 at 5:32 pm
“Hmmm … one would assume that just the activity of “ROTFL” would initiate the “wetting of the pants”!!”
Only if you have a bladder problem.
The voice of experience!
The merits AGAINST Obama being eligible as POTUS are SLAM DUNK in FACT and in LAW (Team Obama Attorneys and Operatives and Federal Judges know darn well that “natural born citizen” requires 2 citizen parents). Having said this, go to 32:50 into this radio program, sit back and listen, and you’ll understand why OBAMA MUST NEVER LET ANY CASE ANYWHERE EVER GET TO THE MERITS because standing and jurisdiction IS THE BALL GAME against Obama (there’s no need ever to get to the merits):–
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mommaEradioRebels/2009/10/17/Momma-E-and-the-Radio-Rebels
And, importatanly (for the skeptics), remember that the statements in the newspapers are not necessarily to show the truth of the statemements in the newspapers BUT TO SHOW THE EXISTENCE OF THOSE STATEMENTS IN THE NEWSPAPERS!
And, at the same time that Team Obama is seeking stays and delays and dismissals of court cases and discovery, THEY ARE ERASING (SCRUBBING FROM THE INTERNET) THOSE VERY STATEMENTS.
To say this is an outrage against the federal courts and the American people is an understatement!
“And, at the same time that Team Obama is seeking stays and delays and dismissals of court cases and discovery,”
When you get sued, this is what lawyers do to defend their clients. Nothing unusual about this.
So Phil, where in your article do you substantiate that FactCheck agrees Obama is Kenyan-Born? It appears to me you don’t mention FactCheck anywhere but in the headline and a link to one of your other articles at the end. Can you give us a link to where FactCheck agrees Obama is Kenyan-born? I think if you can’t substantiate that headline it needs to be corrected.
“The voice of experience!”
Actually, no, however, you seem to know all about incontinence.
So if the Kenya Sunday Standard is going to be used as evidence of the President being born in Kenya, then lets use the following article as evidence also…
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=1144007420&catid=15&a=1
“A major sign of hope is embodied in Obama’s personal background as a product of at least three civilisations (American, African and Islam), with a wider multiculturalism in Indonesia, when he was a child, and in Hawaii, where he was born and spent much of his childhood.
In addition to being black, Obama is the first US President who is the son and grandson of Muslims on the paternal side. Indeed he has a Swahili first name (Baraka), Muslim middle name (Hussein) and an African family name, Obama.”
Interesting…It says “…and in Hawaii, where he was BORN…”. This paper seems to indicate that the President was born in HI. I wonder which one we will give more weight to? The bottom line is that newspaper articles can be wrong. Remember “Dewey defeats Truman”? This is really just evidence of sloppy newspaper work, nothing else…
What happens when people believe that these articles are true, even though they have been debunked, it that they begin to go over the edge….from the infamous “the betrayal” or oilforimmigration site, a commenter posted the following…
“THIS IS FROM A FRIEND OF MINE THAT JUST SENT THIS TO ME:
Hallelujah! I ‘ve just received a reply from AXJ-Hawaii that I sent the story to this morning, that doodlebug gave me last night.
First the message I sent to AXJ-Hawaii this morning (the folks that uncovered the missing page 11 of the divorce papers that was O’ Kenyan BC):
HUGE story – they’ve known all along!
Turns out that the Associated Press has known this “trivial” fact since 2004, and just kept it hidden from us!
Note the “AP” at the bottom of the story…
http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm
And now, Here is their reply:
“Once AP has authenticated the article below, Attorney Orly Taitz has decided to request an emergency motion and hearing with Judge David O. Carter of Santa Ana, CA. since this is certainly the “smoking gun” Birthers have been waiting for all along.”
It so happens that 5 years ago the prestigious publication Associated Press knew that Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, II was in fact born in Kenya and therefore not eligible to occupy the Office of the President.
Apparently thousands of birthers around the United States are organizing an emergency demonstration tomorrow in front of the White House in Washington, D.C. expecting Mr. OBAMA to resign immediately.
Then arrests will begin of all those that have covered up this fraud and conspiracy among them the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court which swore Mr. OBAMA into power, the Vice President Mr. Biden, Nancy Pelosi and others are on the list.
Judge Land will have to face up to his superiors and many other actions are expected tomorrow October 15th, 2009 thoughout the United States.
The U.S. Military will be on top alert and the Chiefs of Staff are expected to ask Mr. OBAMA to resign before they have to disobey his orders.
Mr. OBAMA has decided to play with fire and apparently will be burned in the process.
Birthers around the United States are writing their Senators and Congress Representatives in a never before seen frenzy instructing them to order Mr. OBAMA to resign and for Congress to assemble and begin immediate impeachment proceedings.”
####
Does anyone know what JJ and MoralsMan are talking about? Who or what is AXJ-Hawaii? Can anyone post a link? Does anyone know anything about these comments? Thank you!!
A Humble Christian Constitutional Patriot”
http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=3869#comments
Can anyone say DELUSIONAL? Not only do they quote AXJ, which has made accusations that they could never prove, but now they are spreading these stories? By using an article that has been obviously altered? This is getting scary…
Black Lion,
I’m having a hard time deciphering what’s more quixotic about your comment — that you’re still going on about how you think that strange stories are being spread or that “[t]his is getting scary…” just now (for you).
I think the following response is appropriate:
1. If there’s nothing to this eligibility issue, then nothing will come of any of this (something I’ve said from time to time on my site);
2. If someone does something really stupid and it’s illegal, then I’d fully expect and applaud for said individuals to be prosecuted to the fullest extent permissible by that same law.
Nevertheless, questioning the bona fides of one’s authority figures is never a bad thing and never has a statue of limitations.
-Phil
Phil says:
October 18, 2009 at 7:11 pm
*Nevertheless, questioning the bona fides of one’s authority figures is never a bad thing and never has a statue of limitations.*
Perhaps not, but it has a “best by” date of Nov 4, 2008. This should have been raised well before the election. Newspaper articles are not admissible evidence so there’s no reason to spend energy refuting them. For example, this from Monday April 15,1912:
“All passengers are safe and Titanic taken in tow by the Virginian”
Sounds like it’s time for Leo and Orly to go to Kenya and get proof.
By the way BL, AXJ is apparently somehow connected to Stormfront according to freep.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2355085/replies?c=43
I think your list is missing this one also
http://allafrica.com/stories/200802180051.html
February 16, 2008
All Africa
Uganda: Citizens Form Obama Support Group
“ Kampala — Ugandans have formed a group to mobilise support for Kenyan born-senator, Barack Obama for the US presidency.”
siseduermapierda,
“Best by” date? Interesting. It’d be even better if such verbiage or even contextual meaning were even found in the Constitution.
-Phil
siseduermapierda says:
October 18, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Sounds like it’s time for Leo and Orly to go to Kenya and get proof.
By the way BL, AXJ is apparently somehow connected to Stormfront according to freep.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2355085/replies?c=43
__________________________________________________________________________
Sise, of course…However the last time Orly got evidence from Kenya we got to see the fake Kenyan Australian BC. So who knows what she will produce to pass off as evidence if you give her more time…
And I am not surprised that AXJ is connected to Stormfront…They have a lot of the same beliefs…
Phil,
Been looking at this for days. Newspaper reports do not make Obama birthplace as Kenyan, or Indonesian…….or for that matter American. What this does is show that his birthplace is still in conflict, especially with all the strange stuff at the Hawaiian DoH. What we know without doubt, is that Obama was a BRITISH VASSAL at birth, in fact HE CLAIMS HE WAS. You can’t be an American Natural Born Citizen, as per POTUS requirement, and be a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth!!!
Discovery is needed, and should be DEMANDED by all Americans who are not Communists, Socialists, or Fascists. I understand that many of our OBOTs here fear discovery, and are much against the release of this potentially damaging information to their ‘leader’. Be that as it may, but if you are a Patriot, you want the truth out in the open to be discussed by a Free people.
The insults, race claims, outright slanders, false claims, and new age 14th amendment stuff doesn’t get it. Sooner or later the truth will come out, the further it goes without seeing daylight the more damage. Congress people who have ‘gone along to get along’ will have to answer for their failures to the American Public.
WOW, you guys were punked ……AGAIN! Wake up, find your tin foil hats and stop listening to the voices in your heads.
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=1144007420&catid=15&a=1,/I.
Enough time to get all the ducks in line!
Sue says:
October 18, 2009 at 6:32 pm
“The voice of experience!”
Actually, no, however, you seem to know all about incontinence.
The subject came spontaneously from your mind as you were projecting. Just sympathizing rather than your free associating.
Sue says:
October 18, 2009 at 6:23 pm
“And, at the same time that Team Obama is seeking stays and delays and dismissals of court cases and discovery,”
When you get sued, this is what lawyers do to defend their clients. Nothing unusual about this.
An inquiry from Occidental College where they agreed there was a legal right to was not “being sued”.
Nigeria refers to Barack Obama as an IMMIGRANT FROM KENYA: http://www.tmgnigeria.org/democrwatch/democrwatch-jan2007.pdf
“If Abbass eventually wins, Nigeria would be joining the enviable rank of
advanced democracies, including the United States of… America, which has
produced immigrant leaders in all spheres of life including the governorship.
For instan…ce, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the present governor of California,
the largest state in America, is an immigrant from Austria, Senator Barrack
Obama of Illinois is also an immigrant from Kenya, Carlos Saul Menem who
ruled Argentina from 1989 to 1999 is the son of an Arab immigrant from Syria.”
—-
This confirms Bill Richardson’s comment in an interview that Obama is an immigrant:
Phil,
Who’s been responsible for “vetting the prez” over the last 200+ years?
Answer: the press.
“Discovery is needed, and should be DEMANDED by all Americans who are not Communists, Socialists, or Fascists. I understand that many of our OBOTs here fear discovery, and are much against the release of this potentially damaging information to their ‘leader’. Be that as it may, but if you are a Patriot, you want the truth out in the open to be discussed by a Free people.”
Actually, no, obots do not fear discovery. Judge Carter was pretty clear in the official transcript of Oct. 5, 2009, that the only document released, IF there ever is “discovery”, will be President Obama’s certified COLB. Judge Carter is not going to allow Orly to go on a “fishing trip” for records that President Obama is not required to produce in the first place, as they have nothing to do with the eligibility issue. Bauer, in the Hollister MTD footnoted the online COLB. “Rule 11(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that by signing a filing, the signer certifies that “The factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.” Suffice it to say, if they assert that the online COLB demonstrates that Obama was born in Honolulu, they have actual, admissible evidence to back it up. They are not required, at this point in the proceedings, to produce it.”
“The insults, race claims, outright slanders, false claims, and new age 14th amendment stuff doesn’t get it.”
I believe the “patriots” have cornered the market on the above. Orly is, as we speak on her blog, slandering Judge Carter and some poor law clerk with no credible evidence to back up her allegations whatsoever and what she is doing to Judge Land is even more incredible with no credible evidence to back up her allegations. This entire “birther movement” is nothing but false claims and outright lies, one right after the other. Where I come from, this is known as “bearing false witness.”
It has been my experience that Christians who proclaim the loudest to be Christians, do not back up their words with their actions and behavior. If you talk the talk, you have to walk the walk.
Competent, ethical lawyers have tried to inform you from the git go that the 3rd branch of government is NOT the proper venue for the “eligibility issue.” The sole power lies with Congress. President Obama is the legitimate President, duly certified and sworn into office. If Congress ever questions President Obama’s eligibility, the only document that would be required would be the certified COLB. No one, not even the President, can obtain their “original birth certificate.” All anyone ever obtains is a “certified copy of their birth certificate.” The hospital issued “birth certificate” with the footprints that all the “patriots” refer to is NOT a legal document. And, guess what? “We the people”, would only see a photograph of President Obama’s certified COLB, exactly what was published online by FactCheck.org. The only information required on President Obama’s birth certificate to prove his eligibility is “place of birth.”
If you think for one minute that Congress is going to back up your “NBC = 2 citizen parents birther BS”, you might want to read this testimony.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1326&wit_id=51
The Honorable Orrin Hatch
United States Senator
Utah
October 5, 2004
“Citizenship, whether by birth or naturalization,” is the cornerstone of this nation’s values and ideals. Each year, hundreds of thousands of immigrants complete the naturalization application process to become citizens. In 1996 alone, there were over one million new citizens naturalized in America. And according to the Department of Homeland Security, approximately 20 million individuals have become naturalized citizens in this country since 1907.
The United States is known as the land of opportunity, but there is one opportunity that these American citizens will never be able to attain under current law. They can never hold the office of the President. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of our Constitution, which sets forth the eligibility criteria for the Office of the President, requires a President to be a natural born citizen.
What is a natural born citizen? “Clearly, someone born in the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” But a child who is adopted from a foreign country to American parents in the United States is not eligible for the presidency. That does not seem fair or right to me.”
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1326&wit_id=3886
Testimony of
The Honorable John Conyers
United States Representative
Michigan
October 5, 2004
“It is important to point out that the distinction between natural born and foreign born citizens is unique, unwarranted, and antiquated in our country. In every other respect, the United States treats its citizens, those natural-born and foreign-born, the same. By having this one limitation, we are denying ourselves exemplary leaders. In fact, some foreign-born citizens are our country’s greatest public servants, including two sitting governors, two current cabinet members, and two recent secretaries of state.”
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1326&wit_id=3697
Statement of
The Honorable Don Nickles
United States Senator
Oklahoma
October 5, 2004
“Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing today on the topic of who should be eligible to run for president of our country. This topic is very timely and appropriate in the midst of a presidential election. As you know, our Constitution states that “no person except a “natural born citizen” shall be eligible to seek the Office of the President. For years legal scholars have debated what the founders meant by the term “natural born citizen”. Does it mean only children born within the boundaries of the United States? Does the term include within its scope children born abroad to a U.S. citizen? If so, does it include only children born abroad to a U.S. citizen who is serving in the military or employed by our government overseas? Or does it also include a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen simply living or working abroad? Could it include a child born abroad but adopted by a U.S. citizen? It is time that we put an end to these speculations.
On February 25, 2004, I introduced The Natural Born Citizen Act along with my colleagues Senator Landrieu and Senator Inhofe. This bill defines the term “natural born citizen” as used in the Constitution as a child born in the United States, a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen, and a child born abroad and adopted by a U.S. citizen. If passed, this bill would put an end to the speculation and clarify who is eligible to run for president of our great country.
“It is clear that a child born within the physical borders of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is eligible to run for President.” However, many Americans would probably be surprised to learn that a constitutional question remains as to whether children born abroad to a U.S. citizen serving in the military or serving at a Government post are not clearly, indisputably, eligible to seek the highest office in our land. Nor is it clear whether a child born overseas to a citizen traveling or working abroad is eligible to run for President. There are strong legal arguments that say these children are eligible to run for President, but it is certainly not an inarguable point. The Natural Born Citizen Act would make it clear that these children would be considered “natural born” citizens within the meaning of the Constitution.”
How would a reporter in Ghana or Nigeria have any first-hand knowledge about Obama’s birth?
Phil… I searched Factbook.org.. There is nothing in there about factcheck agreeing that Obama is Kenyan-born.. Please remove that from the title so that I can give others the link to your site. Otherwise, it takes away from our credibility. Thanks.. Keep up the good work.
Correction of my comment. Slander is the spoken word, libel is written; both are defamation of character.
“An inquiry from Occidental College where they agreed there was a legal right to was not “being sued”.”
As I recall, that was Keyes v. Bowen. Kreep subpoened Occidental College. Defense filed a motion to quash which was granted.
I’d call that “being sued.”
“The subject came spontaneously from your mind as you were projecting”
Actually, no, you need to refresh your memory. I posted a link to an article. Nothing more. You are the one who brought the subject up.
Phil says:
October 18, 2009 at 9:16 pm
siseduermapierda,
Phil says:
October 18, 2009 at 7:11 pm
*best by date*
No, it’s not in the Constitution. Neither are “questioning the bona fides of one’s authority figures”, “both parents must be citizens”, “candidates must prove their eligibility”, “natural born isn’t the same as native born”. Where are you finding Constitutional contextual meaning for those phrases that you insist are true?
Back to the point. Newspaper articles are dispositive of nothing. Their contents are only as good as the research of the writer.
“Dewey Defeats Truman”, “All passengers are safe and Titanic taken in tow by the Virginian”, “FactCheck agrees Obama is Kenyan-born”.
The fact remains, a year after the election, the Obama denialists still don’t have a single piece of admissible evidence to support the accusation Obama is not eligible. Obama is assumed eligible until someone proves otherwise. Insisting, “we could find the proof if a judge would just let us discover it” is not a valid legal argument. No lawsuit to date has shown a legal cause of action. Even if someone could pass the necessary conditions of standing and jurisdiction and justiciability, they’d never get past being able to show cause of action. Newspaper articles, lists of names, addresses, SS#’s, copied pages of handwritten records, pictures of Kenya birth certificates do not a cause of action make.
Sue,
I’m glad your an Obot that doesn’t fear discovery. Couple things I’ll point out, I never put a single ‘christian statement’ in my posts. Second, If obama was ineligible and he ran claiming to be eligible, he committed voter fraud. Third, lawsuits were started BEFORE he became POTUS, that is correct before. Fourth, never did the SCOTUS claim that the 14th amendment made you a NBC, in fact they did the opposite. Finally, congress and it’s resolutions, that are not amendments, DO NOT CHANGE the orginal constitution. So let me sum this up for you.
1. Your posts of non-binding resolutions and congress opinion on NBC mean absolutely the same as Newspaper claims he was born in Kenya. That’s right, not much.
2. Lack of Discovery of pertinent records here will mean failure to pursue justice. I’m glad you already know that the Judge in California isn’t granting full discovery. Feel free to come back and apologize to everyone if he does.
3. You don’t mention the single part of Orly’s case that already has evidence, with affidavits already posted with the judge. Obama has a SSN problems, and his Wife has similar issues. That is going to be difficult to ‘explain’ away.
I could go on, but you think congress is staying, I don’t.
Jack says:
October 18, 2009 at 6:06 pm
*remember that the statements in the newspapers are not necessarily to show the truth of the statemements in the newspapers BUT TO SHOW THE EXISTENCE OF THOSE STATEMENTS IN THE NEWSPAPERS!*
Surely you’re not suggesting that just because a statement was made and printed in a newspaper it has validity. If I made a statement to the New York Times “Jack is a child molestor”, do you think that just because the paper prints the statement it gives the statement some extra validity? Do you think if I presented that newspaper article as proof Jack is a child molestor that a court would take any action based on the newspaper article? What do you think your attorney would do if we got to court and all I had was a newspaper article?
It is fascinating that people who insist 2 statements by a Hawaiian official don’t mean anything, think newspaper quotes do. Please take some time to learn what is evidence.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/index.html
Pete says:
October 19, 2009 at 8:02 am
*If obama was ineligible and he ran claiming to be eligible, he committed voter fraud. *
- Voter fraud can only be committed by a voter in the voting booth on election day or with an absentee ballot.
*lawsuits were started BEFORE he became POTUS, that is correct before.*
- All the lawsuits filed before the Inauguration have been dismissed.
*never did the SCOTUS claim that the 14th amendment made you a NBC, in fact they did the opposite.*
- The decision in Wong supports the 14th amendment. The majority opinion uses the terms “natural born citizen”, “native born citizen” and “citizen from birth” interchangeably. By the way, Judge Carter said he believes the law says a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen.
*Your posts of non-binding resolutions and congress opinion on NBC mean absolutely the same as Newspaper claims he was born in Kenya. That’s right, not much.*
- Good. You agree the newspapers don’t mean anything.
*Lack of Discovery of pertinent records here will mean failure to pursue justice. I’m glad you already know that the Judge in California isn’t granting full discovery. Feel free to come back and apologize to everyone if he does.*
-The concept of “full discovery” is a fantasy. No judge in any case allows unlimited scope of discovery. If you were my neighbor and I sued you for violating the deed restrictions, the court would not let me discover your medical records or school records, only the pertinent records to the deed restriction violation. The only pertinent record in Keyes v Obama is the COLB.-
*You don’t mention the single part of Orly’s case that already has evidence, with affidavits already posted with the judge. Obama has a SSN problems, and his Wife has similar issues. That is going to be difficult to ‘explain’ away.
- Lists of SS#’s out of context mean nothing. Notarized affidavits mean nothing. Please review the rules of evidence. An internet search engine list is not evidence. Anyone with any experience doing such searches knows they contain errors. Example: If you were to search my name in the County recorders records where I live, you would find my name shown on a recording of a mortgage for a house 5 blocks away from me. I don’t know the people in that house, never met them. But with a little further searching what you would find is the refinancing of my home was recorded on the same day as the mortgage on the other house. In all likelihood, the two documents were on top of each other in the stack and the clerk at the recorder’s office typed in my name with the names of the owners of the other house by mistake. What’s in the recorder’s database means nothing because my name is not on their actual mortgage. Now I could go through the brain damage of having that recording error corrected. But it means nothing, especially now that the other people have sold their house and paid off the mortgage. Only a novice would search the recorder’s database, find that record and say “Aha”. A good private investigator would not think her job was done by simply generating a search engine list. Ms Daniel’s affidavit is meaningless.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule301
“Judge Carter was pretty clear in the official transcript of Oct. 5, 2009, that the only document released, IF there ever is ‘discovery’, will be President Obama’s certified COLB.”
-Actually, he said birth certificate. The COLB is what most people get upon a request for a birth certificate. Whether he would order the long form is yet to be seen. Even if he only allows the COLB, that may open up some of the avenues being pursued by Leo Denofrio and TerriK under the open records law.
Orly is, as we speak on her blog, slandering Judge Carter and some
poor law clerk with no credible evidence to back up her allegations whatsoever
- She posted a title claiming that one of Judge Carter’s law clerks used to work for the firm her opposed one of her motions, shortly after posting Charlton’s post which is much more accusatory. She titled that post, “If this is correct, what does this mean? I found that the clerk did work for that firm. Taitz obviously did also because of the conclusive title of the later post. Truth is a defense to libel. The gentleman worked for the firm. Ask your friends at Politijab whether it is fair to be concerned if the law clerk has any role in the case. This is very much an ethical question that depends upon further facts. Was Velamoor isolated from the eligibility case while at the Seattle firm? If not, has he any role in the case before Carter? I will give Carter the benefit of the doubt that if Velamoor was involved in the case, Carter was unaware of the connection.
I don’t know how recent this is, but http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:grOFxkwgHkAJ:www.uscourts.gov/guide/vol2/ch2a.html+judiciary+conflict+of+interest+law+clerk&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
F. Conflicts of Interest.
(a) A staff attorney or law clerk should not perform any official duties in any matter with respect to which such staff attorney or law clerk knows that:
(i) he or she has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(ii) he or she served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he or she previously practiced law had served (during such association) as a lawyer concerning the matter, or he, she, or such lawyer has been a material witness;
————-
Actually Sue, I won’t use the term Obots but those against questioners of eligibility do fear discovery. If there was no discovery, we wouldn’t be at this point. As far the NBC argument, it has been discussed ad nauseum. There has never been an official ruling regarding the eligibility of the President.
[Where is that Nordyke birth announcement?]
Pete,
Sis responded quite nicely. The only thing that I might add:
*Your posts of non-binding resolutions and congress opinion on NBC”
The purpose of my posts was to show you that most everyone in America, save an except for birthers, know and believe that NBC = born in America.
[...] Historical News Articles and FactCheck Agree: Obama is Kenyan-born [...]
RE: siseduermapierda:
[...] So Phil, where in your article do you substantiate that FactCheck agrees Obama is Kenyan-Born? It appears to me you don’t mention FactCheck anywhere but in the headline and a link to one of your other articles at the end. Can you give us a link to where FactCheck agrees Obama is Kenyan-born? [...]
Sise, when it comes to factual integrity, Freddy who’s been for years residing on that bench at Central Station is a much, much more serious authority than FactCheck.
FactCheck is liberal outlet, designed to enforce the “New Reality” –
Best regards -
Sharon 2 says:
October 19, 2009 at 9:04 am
*Actually, he said birth certificate. The COLB is what most people get upon a request for a birth certificate. *
The Hawaiian statute is clear, the COLB is equivalent to the original for all purposes.
“b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original”
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0013.htm
Per the US Constitution, the documents and public records laws of the states are honored by the other states and the Federal govt.
Judge Carter’s court would honor the Hawaiian law and accept the COLB as equivalent to the original.
“Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html
“Show us the long form” is a fantasy that cannot be fulfilled under existing law.
Unless someone is trying to prove that the person known, currently, as Barack Husseon Obama Jr., is not the same person who was born to his mother in Hawaii, the place of his birth is a red herring. If a parent (a U.S. citizen) serves the U.S. in a foreign country, and his wife is also a U.S. citizen, and while there, their child is born in a foreign hospital, that child is a natural born citizen because both parents are U.S. citizens. The child also would be able to claim citizenship of the country of his/her birth, but some 35 years later, if the grown child meets the residency requirement of Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, he/she could become POTUS.
If there were doubts about the “natural born citizen” requirement of the U.S. Constitution existed, they should have been removed in 2008, when by a resolution in Congress, sponsored by , then Senator Obama; Senator John McCain was ruled to be eligible for the presidency because he was born to two parents who were American citizens.
Sharon 2,
I believe you are leaving out one very important detail regarding Orly and her published allegations on her blog. Orly is an attorney. Competent, ethical attorneys would have done exhaustive research/due diligence prior to making any type of allegations; much less published something on their blogs.
FYI: http://www.perkinscoie.com/Locations/locations.aspx
Perkins Coie is a huge law firm and has numerous offices. It is my understanding that Siddharth Velamoor worked at the Seattle office in the products liability department.
The best find was the NPR article. Priceless.
RE Sharon 2:
[...] She [Orly] posted a title claiming that one of Judge Carter’s law clerks used to work for the firm her opposed one of her motions, shortly after posting Charlton’s post which is much more accusatory. She titled that post, “If this is correct, what does this mean? I found that the clerk did work for that firm. Taitz obviously did also because of the conclusive title of the later post. Truth is a defense to libel. The gentleman worked for the firm. [...]
Perkins Coie again under the spot (and this time not courtesy to Anita “Pasionaria-Mao” Dunn, married with Bauer, pricipal there, and Obama’s personal lawyer) -
No matter how one tries to look “objectively” at this situation, it is improper for that lawyer to work for Carter during this case – and the timning of his hiring is curious, as well.
Appearance of improperty, transparency, where are you?
Sealed, together with Obama’s BC?
Kenneth says:
October 19, 2009 at 10:28 am
Unless someone is trying to prove that the person known, currently, as Barack Husseon Obama Jr., is not the same person who was born to his mother in Hawaii, the place of his birth is a red herring. If a parent (a U.S. citizen) serves the U.S. in a foreign country, and his wife is also a U.S. citizen, and while there, their child is born in a foreign hospital, that child is a natural born citizen because both parents are U.S. citizens. The child also would be able to claim citizenship of the country of his/her birth, but some 35 years later, if the grown child meets the residency requirement of Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, he/she could become POTUS.
Thank you professor for your “opinion” but precedent does not agree with you.
If there were doubts about the “natural born citizen” requirement of the U.S. Constitution existed, they should have been removed in 2008, when by a resolution in Congress, sponsored by , then Senator Obama; Senator John McCain was ruled to be eligible for the presidency because he was born to two parents who were American citizens.
That was nothing more than when they declare, for instance, arbor day or something. It’s nothing under the law.
The Hawaiian statute is clear, the COLB is equivalent to the original for all purposes.
Maybe for what is covered under HI regs, but not for eligibility for POTUS. “Born in Hawaii” would certainly not cover those requirements. And that’s out of their bailiwick.
Sue says:
October 19, 2009 at 6:52 am
“The subject came spontaneously from your mind as you were projecting”
Actually, no, you need to refresh your memory. I posted a link to an article. Nothing more. You are the one who brought the subject up.
So sad, we’ll add convenient memory loss to your other ailments. Go read your own projection (which began the “discussion”) on to “birthers” that accompanied your link and your own reaction on the floor with your own explanation of bladder problems from evidently your own experience!!! Since you can’t be other than disingenuous on this small detail here we’d be advised to also ignore your other comments, opinions, until you get this rather jejune matter straight.
Observer says:
October 19, 2009 at 10:57 am
*Maybe for what is covered under HI regs, but not for eligibility for POTUS. “Born in Hawaii” would certainly not cover those requirements. And that’s out of their bailiwick.*
Full faith and credit clause.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html
The US govt accepts the vital records laws of the various states. If Hawaii says Obama was born in Hawaii, then the Federal Govt, the entire Federal Govt, accepts that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Everyone in authority in this country agrees that a person born in the US is a citizen at birth and a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. Even Judge Carter. That should give you a hint as to where this would go if Judge Carter allowed the plaintiffs in the case to discover the COLB. If there were not agreement on the definition of natural born citizen, you’d have the best conservative constitutional law experts prosecuting the eligibility cases, not a sometimes dentist/ attorney who’s never been in a courtroom, a professional poker player and a DUI attorney.
As I recall, that was Keyes v. Bowen. Kreep subpoened Occidental College. Defense filed a motion to quash which was granted.
I’d call that “being sued.”
Well, we’re not too concerned with what you’d “call” it. If there was any threat of severest monetary fines it was initiated by Obama’s high powered threateners to avoid anyone even getting close to the truth. Too bad you’re on the side of such avoidance of public “transparency” (now via threats to simple inquirers) promised by your hero. So now attempting discovery is “suing”, at least to your mind.
“to also ignore your other comments, opinions”
You made my day!
“So now attempting discovery is “suing”, at least to your mind.”
Wow, what planet do you live on?
Keyes v. Bowen = lawsuit = sued in a court of law
Discovery = legal term
Subpoena = legal term
Besides, I thought you were going to ignore my comments?
Kenneth says:
October 19, 2009 at 10:28 am
*If there were doubts about the “natural born citizen” requirement of the U.S. Constitution existed, they should have been removed in 2008, when by a resolution in Congress, sponsored by , then Senator Obama; Senator John McCain was ruled to be eligible for the presidency because he was born to two parents who were American citizens.*
SR 511 is a resolution that applies to one person, John Sidney McCain, and no one else. The only reason there was a question of JSM’s being a natural born citizen was he was born overseas. Born OVERSEAS to parents who were American citizens. The actual resolution doesn’t say “two parents”.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.Res.511:
Barack Obama was born in the United States. He fits the definition of a citizen from birth and by definition of everyone in this country except Obama deniers, that makes him a natural born citizen. If there was any validity to the two parent must be citizens argument, you’d have the best conservative constitutional experts arguing the eligibility cases. As part of shepherding SR 511 through the Senate, former Solicitor General Theodore Olsen and Harvard Constitutional Law Professor Laurence Tribe gave their opinion. Interestingly, they also note that they find Barack Obama is also a natural born citizen.
http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Judiciary/McCainAnalysis.pdf
Two parent theory is a deadend.
Sharon 2 said, “[Where is that Nordyke birth announcement?]”
Ditto, Sharon 2. Ditto.
Crickets . . .
Sue says:
October 19, 2009 at 11:31 am
“So now attempting discovery is “suing”, at least to your mind.”
Wow, what planet do you live on?
It would help if you didn’t continue the error of going beyond the original questions. The subject was the request for discovery from Occidental College to which they agreed was a legitimate request – AND the response by the threatening “transparent” Obama attorneys.
You tend to embellish beyond original remarks for your own purposes which most are not interested in – just as you were the one to embellish upon your own original projection from your own imagination upon a particular group of your particular dislike. At least own up to your own words of response and stop blaming them upon others.
Sue says:
October 19, 2009 at 11:26 am
“to also ignore your other comments, opinions”
You made my day!
So you DO live in a vacuum! And even enjoy it!
“You tend to embellish beyond original remarks for your own purposes which most are not interested in – just as you were the one to embellish upon your own original projection from your own imagination upon a particular group of your particular dislike. At least own up to your own words of response and stop blaming them upon others.”
The above is self analysis?
BTW, you have been placed on “ignore.” Have a great day!
Full faith and credit clause.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html
The US govt accepts the vital records laws of the various states. If Hawaii says Obama was born in Hawaii, then the Federal Govt, the entire Federal Govt, accepts that Obama was born in Hawaii.
First of all the vital records have not been seen for examination which would be a condition for the question beyond COLB. The rest is simply not enough to satisfy the qualifications requirements. And precedent demands such.
Sue says:
October 19, 2009 at 12:24 pm
“You tend to embellish beyond original remarks for your own purposes which most are not interested in – just as you were the one to embellish upon your own original projection from your own imagination upon a particular group of your particular dislike. At least own up to your own words of response and stop blaming them upon others.”
The above is self analysis?
Please notice the word, “you”, in the above.
BTW, you have been placed on “ignore.” Have a great day!
Then why don’t you? I know – I (along with my point-on responses) am simply irresistable!
Sharon 2,
This link was provided to Orly by one of her patriots. Orly either didn’t read the information regarding Siddharth Velamoor or chose to ignore it.
http://www.lawyers.com/Washington/Seattle/Siddharth-Velamoor-33735949-a.html
Lawyer in Seattle, Washington
Associate
View firm profile of Perkins Coie LLP
Siddharth Velamoor practices in the following areas of law: Product Liability
President Obama’s lawyer:
http://www.perkinscoie.com/rbauer/
Robert (Bob) Bauer,Partner
Firmwide Chair, Political Law Practice
Washington, D.C.
These sounds like very strong arguments but there is absolutely no law to support any of what you’re saying here. The qualifications requirement was satisfied by a vote of the electoral college and the lack of objections from Congress (which would have been submitted in writing prior to the vote of the electoral college).
There is no precedent that demands more than an official birth certificate. 28 USCS 1739 would absolutely cover a COLB in any court proceeding in any state or federal court. For evidence of this see Northern v State, 152 Tex Crim 569, 216 SW2d 192 (1948).
And you know as well as I do that the reason the COLB has never been submitted is because every birther case to date has been dismissed either sua sponte or following a motion to dismiss.
The subject was the request for discovery from Occidental College to which they agreed was a legitimate request
It was served with a subpoena, so it indicated they would comply. Nothing shocking or indicating agreement that the request was relevant to the issue in Keyes v. Bowen.
AND the response by the threatening “transparent” Obama attorneys.
Discovery sanctions are very common; they are used to keep attorneys from abusing the discovery process. And the judge granted Obama’s request to quash the subpoena, meaning his position was correct, and Kreep’s subpoena was not legitimate.
Where is that Nordyke birth announcement?
Most likely in a later edition of the newspapers, as they were registered later than Obama’s and thus missed the deadline for the edition that carried Obama’s.
Sis,
I don’t know what Judge Carter will do, if he even allows discovery.
Observer says:
October 19, 2009 at 12:25 pm
*First of all the vital records have not been seen for examination*
The vital records have been seen by Dr Fukino and she states they indicate Obama was born in Hawaii.
*which would be a condition for the question beyond COLB. *
There would be no question. The Hawaiian statute is clear: The COLB is the equivalent of the original, for any purpose. There’s no way to parse it to make it mean soemthing different for the issue you want it to be different. For Any Purpose. Judge Carter would have to follow Hawaiian law. Article IV, Sec 1 of the Constitution prohibits him from ordering something that violates Hawaii’s law.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0013.htm
*The rest is simply not enough to satisfy the qualifications requirements. And precedent demands such.*
To identify a natural born citizen, the precedent is Wong. A citizen at birth is a natural born citizen.
There is no precedent for challenging the eligibility of a President, so I don’t see where you think you know what satisfies the qualifications requirements beyond his COLB.
Here is another piece stating a Kenya birthplace. http://www.indonesiamatters.com/2952/barry-soetoro/
And then there was the Honolulu Advertiser that listed him as Kenyan born then retracted it. http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Jan/08/ln/FP601080334.html
When making a list of the evidence on both sides of the issue of birthplace it seems the Kenyan side is a little larger than the Hawaiian side…
When making a list of the evidence on both sides of the issue of birthplace it seems the Kenyan side is a little larger than the Hawaiian side…
When making a list of competent evidence, there’s absolutely nothing on the Kenya side.
“When making a list of the evidence on both sides of the issue of birthplace it seems the Kenyan side is a little larger than the Hawaiian side…”
Nope, don’t think so. Ask yourself what “evidence” would be admissible in a court of law.
1. Certified certification of live birth–Yes
2. Hawaiian DOH officials statement/affidavit–yes
3. Birth announcements–2 different newpapers–yes
Birther evidence:
There has not been any credible evidence presented that would be admissible in a court of law. None.
Where is his illegal Aunt. Has she been deported yet? If we cant get her out of the country how will we ever get him out?
Where is his illegal Aunt. Has she been deported yet?
Boston; no.
Nb.: “The president, who said he had been unaware of her immigration problems, has vowed to stay out of the case.”
Since everyone is arguing about where Obama was born, and who has proof showing he was born in Kenya, and who has proof he was born in Hawaii it is clear that no one knows for sure where he was born. It’s time to end the games and have a serious investigation. This legal issue needs to be resolved for the sake of our military. They deserve an answer.
RE siseduermapierda says:
[...] The vital records have been seen by Dr Fukino and she states they indicate Obama was born in Hawaii. [...]
Sise, what kind of evidence is this? Dr. Fukino says that she saw the records and “they indicate” etc. etc. – this is a quite an oblique, obfuscating statement, and here’s why:
I cannot see in Dr. Fukino’s statement anywhere the affirmation that the records she saw were SOUND HAWAII DOCUMENTS, that she saw a BC and not a COLB, or a passer-by’s affidavit or other secondary form of documentation -
Sise (or any other Obama Cerberus around), can you oblige and provide a declaration issued by Fukino (or other Hawaii authority) that SQUARELY DECLARES THAT THE DOCUMENT ON WHICH THEY BASE THEIR STATEMENT THAT BARACK OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII (place) (time & date) IS A VALID HAWAII BIRTH CERTIFICATE, AND NOT A COLB OR ANY OTHER FORM OF SECONDARY EVIDENCE?
Without an unambigous answer/evidence at this question we are back to square one – so, in case you can, please provide the information I talked about -
Best regards -
misanthropicus says:
October 19, 2009 at 9:23 pm
The statement by Dr Fukino was unambiguous. She said Obama was born in Hawaii. The index data released by the health department confirmed it. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
The COLB is prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.
The COLB is equivalent to the original by Hawaiian statute.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0013.htm
The Federal govt honors the vital records laws of the various states.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html
The COLB is self-authenticating document according to the Federal Rules of Evidence Section 901 (4).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule902
,I.There is no precedent for challenging the eligibility of a President, so I don’t see where you think you know what satisfies the qualifications requirements beyond his COLB.
Simply that your personal interpretations are in error. So continue to drone on…makes no difference.
It was served with a subpoena, so it indicated they would comply. Nothing shocking or indicating agreement that the request was relevant to the issue in Keyes v. Bowen.
The college admitted that they would have to comply unless a court order would say otherwise. Again, “it’s the judge, stupid”! Then the whirlwind of Obama’s paid protectors went into action. Your “transparent” one continues to prove he’s a liar on that point. What a model your’ve chosen.
Joe must have missed the memo- “Obama rescued the economy.”
Poor Joe – one of Obama’s best decisions for “transparency”!:
News Flash – we’re in a depression:
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/10/vp-joe-biden-declares-the-us-is-in-an-economic-depression-video/#comments
Some comments:
Ginger
October 19th, 2009 | 7:33 pm
I’m depressed because we have a Kenyan fraud in the White House pretending to be president.
Yeah, we’re depressed all right!
Observer says:
Observer, you are one bad observer.
Proto-birther A.P Hinman challenged President Chester Arthur’s eligibility, and spread false rumors that Arthur was born outside the U.S. Hinman clearly knew that Arther’s father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Arthur’s birth, but seems to have been aware of what “natural born citizen” means, as he didn’t advance the ludicrous two-citizen-parents argument that we now hear from Donofrio, Apuzzo and Taitz.
More nonsense. There was never even a legal requirement for the official state birth record, but Obama showed it anyway.
[...] I have enclosed, for your viewing pleasure, one article from 2004 and several articles from 2008 that confirm Barack Obama was born in Kenya. The African press, and recently an MSNBC reporter discussing Mr. Obama’s trip to Ghana, confirm that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya. Here is a summary of the headlines of each story in case your schedule does not permit full review of the articles: [...]
Here is a comment left on Orly’s blog. I can’t believe she let it through moderation. However, I hope she pays attention to this comment.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=5058#comments
“jay
October 19th, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
This is plain silly.
First, Siddharth graduated from law school at the earliest 2007. Which means there is no way he is PARTNER at Perkins — at most he is an ASSOCIATE.
2nd the school in Solvakia is obviously a mistake — he couldn’t have graduated from there. He was admitted to the Bar in Washington in 2008. Unlike CA to take the bar in WA you must graduate from an ABA accredited school. Most ABA accredited law schools are 3 years.
Third his area listed at both sites is Product Liability — which would have nothing to do with any Obama case.
Fourth, at best he is a second year attorney at the Seattle office. There is no reason why a partner in the Chicago office would reach out to the Seattle office for a lawyer in the Product Liability division to help with DNC/Obama representation.
Fifth, we know the Slovakia law school is a data error as it lists him being Harlan Fiske Stone scholar. That is an award given by Columbia Law School to a student who excels during the year — only credits obtained at Columbia qualify and the student must complete the entire year at Columbia. Obviously someone doing so well would not then go to Slovakia to get a degree in Law which WOULD NOT ENABLE THEM TO TAKE THE BAR IN THE US.
Sixth, this weird game of searching publicly available web sites for someone’s name and SSN and concluding it is meaningful without further investigation is just plain shoddy diligence. First, believe it or not, names are not uniquely given. Second, the data entered is not guaranteed to be correct. Third, lots of people, including myself given a bogus number (and tell the provider it’s bogus) when asked for a SSN unless there is a VALID reason why the provider needs a SSN. The fact that many providers use SSNs not because they need it but because they find it convenient to use as an acct number doesn’t mean they are entitled to it. I for one don’t give out any personal information unless it is required (i.e., bank, school, applying for loan).
Instead of looking for a conspiracy everywhere maybe you should do some due diligence and get facts. Searching the web is not equivalent to fact finding. Assuming everything you find is valid is not equivalent to fact finding.
Saying maybe, I think, it could be, what if, is not equivalent to facts.
Leave this poor man alone.”
I have never seen anyone, especially a lawyer, who has so little respect for individuals rights to privacy.
Yet another great way to influence a judge about to make a ruling on your case: make his law clerk a target of keyboard commandos!
What a joke Taitz is!
But what’s up with the birther movement?
Orly is clearly giving up on getting her case heard, she continues to self destruct, Miss Tickly shuts down her blog and Jet Schizo shuts his down too!
Did “someone” GET TO THEM?
LOL
This is quite interesting.
http://citizensagainstproobamamediabias.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/judge-carter-clerk-siddharth-velamoor/
Bob
She left Boston and has been hiding in a housing project in cleveland where her lawyer found her a off the books job. This is indicative of this illegal family(in america not Kenyna) that now the world admires.
Sharon 2 says:
October 20, 2009 at 8:48 am
*This is quite interesting.*
No, it’s sickening. It’s stalking. It’s totally inappropriate, unethical and unprofessional for Orly, as plaintiff’s counsel to be involved in this. Complete invasion of privacy. Now this kid, yes he’s a kid, only 2 years out of law school, is being stalked by you loons for no reason. He worked on product liability cases in Seattle. There is no evidence he is even working on Keyes v Obama. Now you’re going to incur costs to all of us because Judge Carter will probably have to order the US Marshalls to provide security for the guy. Oh, you should all be real proud of yourselves. Does someone need to get hurt to make you people chill out? How would you feel if it were your son they were doing this to?
Any opinions on why Leo is folding? And Miss Tickly too?
nicknack says:
October 20, 2009 at 8:56 am
*She left Boston and has been hiding in a housing project in cleveland where her lawyer found her a off the books job. *
Actually a very quick google search says you’re wrong and she has been back in Boston since January. But it’s so easy to smear people with snarky untruths when you’re an anonymous nicknackname on the internet.
Leo is folding because he’s reached a dead end.
His “expertly prepared” case cratered out a long time ago. He had high hopes that it could be revived, but it remains dead, and he knows that the SCOTUS isn’t going to take up the issue now, a year after the election.
He’s tried several things since, but jumping on this Hawaii open records thing and failing miserably shows him for the bag of wind that he really is, so now he has to claim that “matters related to future litigation” force him to go silent, giving him the perfect excuse to slink away before the Leotards can notice his failure in Hawaii…
As to Miss Tickly? I think she probably didn’t realize how much work it was to manage a blog when nutjobs are posting things to it. So she quit.
Or MAYBE SOMEONE “GOT TO THEM…”
LOL
If using the internet to find information is stalking, then everyone here is a stalker. If anyone has made any threats against the clerk, that person should be arrested.
[Where is the Nordyke birth announcement?]
I thought this was rather interesting.
http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4496&Itemid=53
Sharon 2,
“[Where is the Nordyke birth announcement?]”
Why don’t you go to Hawaii and see if you can find them.
Sharon 2 says:
October 20, 2009 at 10:11 am
*If using the internet to find information is stalking, then everyone here is a stalker. *
Don’t include me in your “everyone”. I don’t search public records for things that are none of my business. Searching public records online when you have no personal or business connection or reason to do so is stalking. Back in the day, you would have had to go to the various courthouses. Now you can sit in your barca-lounger and track and hound innocent people like young attorneys. If you don’t think posting people’s residences and SS#’s online for the purpose of encouraging others to harass them is stalking, then you are just as sick as the people doing it. Are you one of the ones doing it? That would surprise me, you seem passionate but not malicious.
Sharon 2 says:
October 20, 2009 at 10:11 am
*[Where is the Nordyke birth announcement?]*
There are microfiche copies of archives of the Honolulu Advertiser in every public library in Hawaii. That’s how the Barack Obama announcements were verified as authentic. The Nordyke announcements must be there too within a week or so. Aren’t there any Obama deniers in Hawaii who could take a trip to the library and look it up? And no one has gone to the State offices and examined the index data for Barack Obama that Dr Fukino said is available there? Or perhaps it’s that people have gone to look and because the information tends to discount the denier claims, they don’t report it. Why don’t you take a trip to Hawaii this winter? I don’t mean that in a snarky way at all. You are a person with a sense of curiosity. You could fly over, take one morning and visit the Honolulu main library, find the Obama and Nordyke birth announcements, swing by the state offices and examine the index data, then spend the rest of the week enjoying the nice weather and ambience.
brygenon says:
October 19, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Observer says:
There is no precedent for challenging the eligibility of a President,
Observer, you are one bad observer.
No, you are. Your lecture here is for Sise, not me. Check your facts. That was his reply to a comment I made. He goes on about not knowing what the qualifications for eligibility are when it’s not been challenged … and yet he puts himself up for supreme qualifier himself. Go figure.
siseduermapierda says:
October 20, 2009 at 9:14 am
Sharon 2 says:
October 20, 2009 at 8:48 am
*This is quite interesting.*
No, it’s sickening. It’s stalking. It’s totally inappropriate, unethical and unprofessional for Orly, as plaintiff’s counsel to be involved in this. Complete invasion of privacy. Now this kid, yes he’s a kid, only 2 years out of law school, is being stalked by you loons for no reason. He worked on product liability cases in Seattle. There is no evidence he is even working on Keyes v Obama.
Thank you for repeating what you find so vile … and providing more info (from wherever) for those who may not have even been interested! You know … pillow/feathers! I suppose your “there is no evidence” part might make people wonder just how you know all this yourself!!! Oh, I know … just stalking the “stalkers”. Wow, are you a part of this latest Obama attempt to make every news function only back what he wants? Freedom of the press forever … including freedom of the blog press (which you’ve demonstrated great interest in yourself)!!
Sis,
Based upon Sharon 2′s last sentence in her comment below, yes, it does appear that Sharon 2 is doing this. It never ceases to amaze me what the birthers consider “evidence” of wrongdoing and/or guilt.
“- She posted a title claiming that one of Judge Carter’s law clerks used to work for the firm her opposed one of her motions, shortly after posting Charlton’s post which is much more accusatory. She titled that post, “If this is correct, what does this mean? “I found that the clerk did work for that firm.”
Observer says:
So you lifted Sise’s text without attribution and think that’s a point in your favor?
Either way, there is a precedent, and it shows that the burden of proof is on you. And like the historical case, you have no proof because what you are attempting to prove is a lie.
brygenon says:
October 20, 2009 at 11:28 am
Observer says:
No, you are. Your lecture here is for Sise, not me. Check your facts
So you lifted Sise’s text without attribution and think that’s a point in your favor?
No, I did the usual preps but the caps lock locked – notice the obvious cap I in beginning of quote. Fair attempt w/ viewed evidence of mal function since the info was certainly in near vicinity. Swallow camels and strain gnats. Next time try simply going a leeetle bit further down to verify things. And it was one of your own you criticized. Ha! Shows you only notice things on your side when you assume you’re dealing with a nemesis! We wind up getting transparency anyway … only when it isn’t intended these days!
“There are microfiche copies of archives of the Honolulu Advertiser in every public library in Hawaii.”
And your source for that supposition is . . .
Ain’t it a shame how Woodward and Bernstein stalked Nixon?
Now you are really pissing me off Sue. You did the same thing I did because YOU found information as well. You have pretty much been stalking Orly Taitz for awhile now. You find anything negative and make sure to post it.
Poor Mao – now O’s administration is apparently throwing him under the bus too these days. Lots of company there! Just can’t seem to make up their minds on anything or anyone. And lots of jilted former chosen ones – or “go to the most” persons:
Why don’t you take a trip to Hawaii this winter? I don’t mean that in a snarky way at all. You are a person with a sense of curiosity.
-I don’t have the funds. Maybe Will Hoover will do the snooping.
MGB says:
October 20, 2009 at 11:52 am
“There are microfiche copies of archives of the Honolulu Advertiser in every public library in Hawaii.”
And your source for that supposition is . . .
http://hawaii.gov/libraries/hsl/serlist/3geninfo.html
They are right there in the periodicals reading room of every one of the 51 branches of the Hawaiian State Library. I think you should go look up the Obama birth announcement, Nordyke birth announcement, then swing by the State offices and check out the Obama index data. No, I’m not going to do it, because you’d say “lying Obot”. It needs to be an Obama denier. I think Obama deniers already have looked up the Obama and Nordyke announcements, but won’t say because it blows a theory out of the water. I think someone has looked at the index data too and doesn’t report because Fukino has made more available at the state offices than she emailed to Leo. Could it be there is not a single Obama denier in Hawaii? Or who has traveled to Hawaii to look? Not even Andy Martin? Someone’s looked and is holding out.
Sharon 2 says:
October 20, 2009 at 12:03 pm
* Maybe Will Hoover will do the snooping.*
Not sure who that is, but I can’t believe no one has ever looked. I would take one for the team and go look, but you would all scream “Lying Obot forger usurper-lover”
Observer says:
Uh, yes.
The caps lock key changes the case of characters. Do you have yours programmed to strip attribution, and if so why?
So why did you post it when it was so obviously wrong? I understand typos — make a bunch myself — but don’t lift text without attribution then act like other people are silly for thinking you wrote it.
I’m fine with disagreeing with siseduermapierda by pointing out that there’s a precedent. The precedent shows that a President is not obligated to show official birth documents, as Obama in fact did, and that a non-citizen father is no issue at all.
brygenon says:
October 20, 2009 at 12:27 pm
*precedent*
Wow was I wrong about that. So since there is precedent that the President is not obligated to show documents, can the people who are all demanding to see Obama’s documents please go about their business. Thank you. There’s a lot going on in this country. If you don’t like it, start working on the next election. I may not like your candidate, but I’d applaud you for working to build up your country instead of tear it down by hounding Obama.
If you don’t think posting people’s residences and SS#’s online for the purpose of encouraging others to harass them is stalking, then you are just as sick as the people doing it. Are you one of the ones doing it?
No, I don’t post people’s residences for the purpose of encouraging harassment.
I don’t commit adultery, in case you were wondering. Oh, and I don’t set animals on fire… And I don’t embezzle funds…. and… Oh yeah, I don’t commit murder… or espionage.
I just want to know if a clerk has a conflict of interest in a very important case.
Why do so many obots stalk this website daily? What are they
afraid of?
Sharon 2,
Actually, no, I do not “stalk” Orly Taitz. Do I follow Taitz’ lawsuits? Yes, I do. Many people do. Do I notify the appropriate people when Taitz posts private information on her blog? Yes, I do. Do I defend people who Taitz has attacked with no credible evidence to back up her attacks? Yes, I do. Do I check what Taitz reports against official court documents? Yes, I do.
Do I seek out reputable, competent and ethical lawyers to find out if what Taitz claims as the rules of law vs what actually are the rules of law? Yes, I do.
I have not seen one shred of credible evidence to back up the allegations made against this young lawyer, Perkins Coie or Judge Carter.
I have not seen one shred of credible evidence to back up the allegations made against this young lawyer, Perkins Coie or Judge Carter.
- I guess I need to turn into ALL CAPS JACQYLN: (Now I know why she uses all caps)
I HAVEN’T MADE ANY ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ANY OF THEM.
Asking is not the same as alleging. If Orly Taitz improperly did, that is her problem.
Sharon 2,
“I just want to know if a clerk has a conflict of interest in a very important case.”
There is nothing wrong with questioning something but what has just occurred on these blogs goes way beyond merely “questioning” in my opinion. This young lawyer, Perkins Coie and Judge Carter have been found guilty based upon very flimsy so called “evidence.”
In my opinion, what has been published on these blogs has been an attempt to discredit this young lawyer, Perkins Coie and Judge Carter.
There is an appropriate, ethical and competent way to “question”; however, what has just taken place on these blogs Is Not an example.
I just want to know if a clerk has a conflict of interest in a very important case.
Judge Carter’s law clerk worked for Perkins Coie, which represented Obama.
Obama is represented by the DoJ, not Perkins Coie, before Judge Carter.
This is a “potential conflict” as Perkins Coie does not represent Obama in this matter but did represent him in other matters. Also, there is no evidence this law clerk worked on any of Obama’s cases at Perkins Coie.
Under the Federal Judicial Canons, the law clerk has an ethical duty to inform Judge Carter of the potential conflict.
How Judge Carter handles the situation is his call. However, if in the case there was an ethical issue, Judge Carter would most likely inform the parties, and then not discuss the case with that particular law clerk.
You linked to a blog post that seems to have taken every scrap of information about this clerk available on a Google search of the man, professional and personal information, all the way back to his high school debate club. Why? Because he’s a lawyer at a prestigious law firm who got a clerkship with a federal judge shortly after graduating from a top law school. Why? Because the firm he’s working at has one other person in an office on the other side of the country who has previous represented Obama in a birther case.
And then somebody on that post named Sharon linked to a report about a person purportedly a sibling of this clerk. This report includes that sibling’s name, phone number, and mailing address. That Sharon wouldn’t be you, would it?
At best, this is paranoid. You say that you’re just asking questions, but in your own minds, you already have the answers. This is pure guilt by association, even if the association is separated by two degrees.
siseduermapierda: Where is it written on that website that every one of the 51 libraries has copies of those newspapers on microfilm?
You said, “No, I’m not going to do it, because you’d say “lying Obot”.”
Wrong. I’d say you’re not going to do it for the same reason that I’m not going to do it. Neither of us lives in Hawaii.
Or do you? If you do, why don’t you go get those copies of the Nordyke announcement and let us take a look at them. Huh?
Mary Seale: What are they afraid of? Gee, I can’t imagine. Can you?
Sharon 2: “stalker” is one of the words on their list of talking points. Like “racist”, “un-American”, “anti-American”, “birther”, ad nauseum.
I was accused of stalking by bystander, who disappears periodically and reappears when Bob disappears. A rotating committee. Ain’t they cute?
Still waiting to see if they considered it stalking when Woodward and Bernstein went after Nixon.
I don’t think this clerk has any conflict. The closest applicable Canon here is 3F(2)(a)(ii)
http://www.uscourts.gov/guide/vol2/ch2a.html
The key is that the issue has to be related to the matter in controversy, i.e., the actual case. The matter Robert Bauer worked on was an entirely different case, though with the same ultimate issue and the same defendant. That is not sufficient to trigger a conflict.
There’s actually a strong chance that this clerk has never even heard of Bauer’s case, and a strong chance that he’s never even met Bauer. Again, you are taking a private person and putting him into the public sphere and several of your colleagues have made direct accusations about him being a trojan horse to sway Judge Carter in this case. To those people (“Charlton”/Charles Lincoln, Orly, other blog posters) this clerk might actually have a strong case for libel. They’ve essentially google bombed his name so that future clients or employers will see on the first google hits accusations of treason, of political mischief and blatant misconduct. This is based on at best a second-hand association with another lawyer at one of the biggest law firms in the country.
Edit:
Absolutely not. Investigative journalism into a president is very different than posting personal information (such as a home address) of a law clerk.
I don’t consider what’s been done to this clerk to be stalking – it gets extremely close to libel, making false statements about a person that cause harm to the person.
A president has a different expectation of privacy and is less likely to be harmed by libelous material than a young lawyer a couple of years out of law school. For more, see Falwell v. Hustler. This clerk’s reputation is very likely to be harmed by what Orly/Lincoln/”Charlton” have done to publicize him, and he is less in a position to fight that false information than a sitting president or other public figure.
“Sharon 2 says:
October 20, 2009 at 8:48 am
This is quite interesting.
http://citizensagainstproobamamediabias.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/judge-carter-clerk-siddharth-velamoor/”
Based upon the link you provided above, you are spreading these “questionable allegations.”
In my opinion, Taitz is attempting to discredit Judge Land because she now believes that Judge Land is going to dismiss this lawsuit. Taitz is trying to shift the spotlight off herself and do the “motion for judge to recuse himself”, yet again.
Competent and ethical attorneys would have filed a motion to the court pointing out the “possible conflict.” The judge would have investigated the “possible conflict” and based upon those findings, the judge would have ruled. Competent attorneys would not publish “questionable evidence” on their blog. But, in my opinion, based upon Taitz’ actions as a lawyer and legal briefs, she is neither “competent or ethical.”
However, it is my opinion that Taitz is well aware there is “no conflict of interest” and the intent is to cause controversy in the “court of public opinion.”
MGB – I can’t remember if I accused you of stalking – it’s not a word I generally use, but you could be right. I stopped responding to you when you became insulting and started demanding personal information, breaking what I consider to be normal internet etiquette.
I stopped posting here when Phil banned HD – his eviscerations of Phil were the main point in coming here. This blog is dying on it’s feet – there is nothing new in birtherstan, just the same old debunked rumours endlessly repeated. The only entertainment now is watching Orly implode – but her 15 minutes of fame are about to run out.
n my opinion, Taitz is attempting to discredit Judge Land because she now believes that Judge Land is going to dismiss this lawsuit.
-Judge Land already dismissed the lawsuit and sanctioned her.
I guess it is my turn, Sue. You rotate your admonishments and lectures. Now that ALL CAPS is gone, I guess I get the privilege. Very sad that you need to get personal fulfillment that way.
bystander, this site is not dying it is being overwhelmed by obots. If one didn’t know any better they would think this is a pro Obama site with an occasional birther comment. The only reason you obots blog here is to try to screw up the message, in an effort to influence new readers and bloggers that come to this site into believing their is nothing to the story that Obama is an usurper.
The only thing dying is your argument that Obama is a natural born citizen and qualified to be president of the United States of America.
I think Taitz is making a big mistake if she starts criticizing Judge Carter before he makes his decision. We don’t have any statement from him about the potential conflict.
I agree with Bob’s 1:49 comment, with the caveat that I don’t know what Judge Carter knows. I already stated my regard for Judge Carter various times.
“Because the firm he’s working at has one other person in an office on the other side of the country who has previous represented Obama in a birther case.” (Q man)
I read an employee evaluation of the firm (I think from 2003) that said the associates had their fees paid for Washington D.C. jurisdiction (it seems like their practice must have lots of cases there), but they had to pay for their own fees for other states. This has nothing to do with the eligibility cases, but just to point out that because a firm is based in Seattle, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t cases elsewhere in the country.
Mary Seales:
Schadenfreude.
That doesn’t come close to justifying your spreading of libelous statements on the blog you linked to, nor your disclosure of the personal home phone number and address of a sibling of an associate of that firm who is currently clerking for a federal judge. Remember, for everybody who posts here there is probably at least 10 who don’t. Would you trust each and every one of them to be discrete and use sound discretion? By publicizing very personal information about a private person you are helping to enable anybody who might see that information to come to false conclusions about that person’s integrity and character.
Using “I’m just asking questions” as a figleaf does nothing to obviate the blatant invasion of privacy you have both helped to disseminate and contribute to yourself.
Correction:
“In my opinion, Taitz is attempting to discredit Judge Land because she now believes that Judge Land is going to dismiss this lawsuit.”
I meant to say Judge Carter not Judge Land.
“I guess it is my turn, Sue. You rotate your admonishments and lectures. Now that ALL CAPS is gone, I guess I get the privilege. Very sad that you need to get personal fulfillment that way.”
Sharon 2,
My comment was neither an admonishment nor lecture–did you not see several “in my opinion.” in my comment? My opinion is based upon following Taitz lawsuits, actions as an attorney and behavior.
I don’t think this clerk has any conflict.
I don’t think clerk has any conflict either. The clerk’s prior firm represents a litigant that is now before the clerk’s judge. That happens all the time in the real world.
Erring on the side of caution, the clerk should disclose this to the judge (and probably did as a matter of routine upon starting to work for the judge). But that’s a judge/clerk issue. (And if the clerk did work on Obama’s cases for Perkin Coie, the clerk would owe an ethical duty to Obama to not break the attorney-client privilege, and then would ask the judge not to be assigned to the case. Again, it happens without fanfare in the real world.)
But if Taitz wants to disqualify Judge Carter based on the imputed conflict of this clerk, Taitz is going to need evidence that this clerk actually worked on one of these cases. Speculation is not evidence of any potential conflict; home addresses and social security numbers are not evidence, just an invasion of privacy.
nor your disclosure of the personal home phone number and address of a sibling of an associate of that firm who is currently clerking for a federal judge.
- I am going to respond but I got distracted during my edit, so it will have to wait.
“I read an employee evaluation of the firm (I think from 2003) that said the associates had their fees paid for Washington D.C. jurisdiction (it seems like their practice must have lots of cases there), but they had to pay for their own fees for other states.”
I believe every major firm will pay the bar fees for the local jurisdiction. The fact they do it for DC means nothing. Law clerks for the fall are usually hired in January, probably before any Obama case was assigned to this judge. In addition, as some one who works in a big law firm, the odds of an associate in another office, who works in another practice area, actually working on an Obama case is pretty much zero. However, Orly is perfectly within her rights to bring the matter to the judge’s attention perhaps even asking for such clerk to be recused. Unfortunately, she decided to ask her followers to investigate his ss#’s and encourage other reckless allegations. I suspect she will not be a lawyer for long. Having a federal judge send the scathing admonishment to the bar that Judge Land did is something the bar cannot ignore.
Sharon 2 says:
October 20, 2009 at 12:03 pm
* Maybe Will Hoover will do the snooping.*
Not sure who that is, but I can’t believe no one has ever looked. I would take one for the team and go look, but you would all scream “Lying Obot forger usurper-lover”
He is the reporter for the Honolulu Advertiser who wrote about the birth announcement. Maybe you missed that thread several weeks ago.
Q Man,
I have no idea what you are talking about. If someone wants personal information, fees apply. I have never paid a fee for information on anyone. I don’t know the clerk’s home address or his family’s address or phone number. I have no interest in phone numbers or addresses, or social security numbers. I only want to know if there is a conflict of interest.
LOL nice use of the word Schadenfreude there but it’s hardly applicable here. If the “obots” are so convinced they’re right all they’ve gotta do is wait for the legal mandate to come down as it should since this is a valid legal question, not the conspiracy theory that you so desperately want it to be. It would seem that the Supreme Law of the land is only considered thus by members of both parties if it supports their own agenda. Very sad to see that so many have truly lost sight of what the rule of law means, meant, and hopefully will continue to mean. No one above the law. Whoa what a concept and yet we take it for granted because “We’re America.” Intellectual laziness is very in vogue.
Phil,
I think I have a comment caught in moderation.
Do you then deny that you are the Sharon that commented at the blog you linked to?
That blog is spreading libelous rumors about the clerk, piecing together a fairly comprehensive biography, his phone number, and hinting that he is somehow a corrupting influence on Judge Carter. Charlton/Charles Lincoln first put the info out there, saying that the hiring was a demonstration of Judge Carter’s lack of integrity. You are helping to spread these rumors about this clerk, and it’s attacking a private person for no valid reason.
“Sharon’s” comment linked to a website where it would be easy to obtain a full address, phone number and DOB of the clerk and siblings, and then says “Capture it. I don’t know how.”
I did the usual preps but the caps lock locked
The caps lock key changes the case of characters. Do you have yours programmed to strip attribution, and if so why?
Thank you for backing me up with the “change of case” – as I pointed out was done with the i (italics) which became an I which threw the whole italic attribution attempt off. Grow up and use some reason for a change when logically explained to you.
So why did you post it when it was so obviously wrong? I understand typos — make a bunch myself — but don’t lift text without attribution then act like other people are silly for thinking you wrote it.
Duhhh! Obviously (to most) didn’t see it ’til it was posted. You must have also short memory loss since, as I advised, you ought to do some fact check yourself (but don’t copy the other one) and try to digest the comment exchange and just who said what so very recently. I didn’t think you were silly (sorry if you did yourself though) – I just thought you were all too quick with the same knee jerk reactions to persons you have a predisposition to be prejudiced against. Obviously in not accepting a simple explanation you continue so.
Sorry you limit the discussion that way.
Since you are now the comment moderator, you ought to check out all of them – all those other leetle mistakes made here that so often occur with technology or just by those not quite as adept at the various methods built in. (And of course your group is naturally attributed with charity … no?) But in the bigger picture (outside the straining of gnats) it’s judgement that matters – esp. when it comes to character in a leader – esp. in a so obviously lying one! And we can start with the transparency matter.
Hopefully now we won’t belabor the small human error any longer. It must tax everyone’s patience.
Since my comment seems to have been lost in moderation, I’ll try to rephrase:
Here are some points from the link that don’t seem all that objectionable:
1. The post I read made it sound like Carter hired the guy 4 days before the October 5th hearing.
Not true.
2. And I don’t know if clerks normally take a leave or completely cut ties from their former employer or if there’s a lottery of sorts like the “match” medical students have for internships/residencies. These are the things I wish the sites who run these stories would investigate – otherwise it’s just a sensational headline that draw hits. And then his name ends up all over the place – not a great way to start a law career.
3. The Bratislavia thing is totally off because there has to be different guidelines for foreign degrees like there is for medical school. He has a Washington State license that he got in 2008 – the year he graduated. He has to be a graduate of a US Law School – Columbia.
4. Velamoor not being a common name: A TRISHNA Velamoor also went to MIHS (younger sister?). And a SESH Velamoor (father?) hails from Hyderabad, India, lives on Mercer Island and works at Foundation for the Future as Trustee & Director of Programs. (*not unreasonably intrusive in my opinion- trying to determine if there is a family connection that is improper)
5. DARTMOUTH…the freshman team of Siddharth Velamoor ‘04 and Hrishikesh Desai ‘04 finished in the top ten at the annual Freshman National Championship Tournament at Northwestern University.
5. There was no announcement of Velamoor’s clerkship in the Diversity 2008 Year in Review. I don’t know the date the YIR was published, but I would think that the clerkship would have been mentioned to give the firm more Diversity points. They do get high marks for being a woman-friendly firm. Anyway. So it’s possible that the clerkship was announced sometime in 2009 for the 2009-2010 year.
6. I’ve heard he has a Facebook page…so why doesn’t someone just ask him? Maybe they have by now.
- Hysterics on your part.
I have to leave and have no time to respond to your ridiculous allegations Q-man. I guess many of you don’t have families to attend to.
Ridiculous allegation? Somebody named Sharon on a blog post containing personal information that you, Sharon, linked to, posted a comment that makes it extremely easy for somebody to find out DOB, home address and home phone number for this clerk and other members of his family.
And your linking of the personal information and libelous allegations against the clerk is dissemination, and helping further ensure that future employers or clients who run a google search on this person finds birther site after birther site accusing him of being a pawn of Obama and a trojan horse to attempt to corrupt a federal judge. You, Sharon, have helped to potentially hurt the future career prospects of a guy whose only sin was being somebody Orly Taitz took notice of.
Bob (and everyone else),
I think that all discussion concerning law clerks and what not — especially when those discussions have begun on other blogs or sites outside of mine — needs to end right about at this comment.
Believe it or not, I actually agree with “Bob” on the final paragraph here; it’s Judge Carter’s call on how he chooses to handle this situation.
Everyone must remember the following, or risk having comments be deleted:
I’ve always maintained a “policy” that I would not negatively critique how other site owners run their sites. And I must apparently now enforce this at the comment level of my postings, to wit:
If you find anything on another site that appears to be hearsay and you’re clearly drawing “guilt by association” conclusions on my site, you shall now cease and desist doing so; I do my best to not knowingly call individuals out for doing something blatantly wrong without their being any evidence, and I expect my commenters to follow suit.
Hopefully that will be enough said. If you wish to contact me regarding certain situations, my email is always available: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com.
-Phil
amy1,
With all due respect, it would be very helpful if you would click on the links that I clearly provide towards the bottom of this posting and just above where I quote Mr. Donofrio’s posting.
However, if for some reason this is not possible on your part, I’ll specifically lay out the referenced and subsequent links:
- http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1621
- http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
- http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
Now, go and research.
-Phil
Mr. Donofrio’s posting
Donofrio contends the phrase “Kenyan-born” includes Kenyan citizenship by descent, which Obama gained though his father. Factcheck (and Obama) plainly acknowledges that Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen.
Factcheck never said Obama was born on Kenyan soil; whether anyone is impressed by Donofrio’s sophistry is a matter of personal taste.
RE: siseduermapierda:
Sise, you’re again obfuscating:
1) you said: “The vital records have been seen by Dr Fukino and she states they indicate Obama was born in Hawaii.”
2) so I asked you: “Sise [...] can you oblige and provide a declaration issued by Fukino (or other Hawaii authority) that SQUARELY DECLARES THAT THE DOCUMENT ON WHICH THEY BASE THEIR STATEMENT THAT BARACK OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII (place) (time & date) IS A VALID HAWAII BIRTH CERTIFICATE, AND NOT A COLB OR ANY OTHER FORM OF SECONDARY EVIDENCE?
3) and you answerd: [...] The statement by Dr Fukino was unambiguous. [...]
I didn’t ask you whether her stetement was or not ambiguous – I asked you to produce a statement of her in which she states that
the DOCUMENT ON WHICH SHE UNEQUIVOCALLY SAID HER DESCRIPTION IS BASED ON A HAWAII DOCUMENT THAT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO RECORD AND DECLARE THAT OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII.
Since you keep dodging to answer to my question this cannot but confirm my (and so many others’) suspicion that such a document is not available –
4) then you further the obfuscation: “She said Obama was born in Hawaii.”
So what – I want to see a DOCUMENT THAT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DECLARE THAT OBAMA WAS TRULY BORN IN HAWAII –
5) Then you go further in your circuitous demonstration: “The index data released by the health department confirmed it.”
The Index Data ain’t confirmed nothin’ – the index data is an abstract without probatory value since what we need to see is EXACTLY THE DOCUMENT ON WHICH THE INDEX DATA IS BASED. And you keep avoiding to produce such a document.
You Obamatons, your act is strikingly similar to Dan Rather’s situation – CBS came up with some copies (Index Data) that had no validity. Those copies (Index Data) would have had credibility only if CBS would have produced the originals (the BC) as well – and your cause will slip on the same track as Rather’s because you cannot cover your defense with authentic documents proving Obama’s place & date of birth. Bingo.
6) then you childishly conclude, based on your own projections: “Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.”
So, again I ask you – provide any declaration issued by Fukino (or other Hawaii authority) that SQUARELY DECLARES THAT THE DOCUMENT ON WHICH THEY BASE THEIR STATEMENT THAT BARACK OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII (place) (time & date) IS A VALID HAWAII BIRTH CERTIFICATE, AND NOT A COLB OR ANY OTHER FORM OF SECONDARY EVIDENCE?
Don’t try to wiggle out -
Eve:
Oh… but it’s perfectly applicable here. The ability of Birthers to assemble such a comprehensive, creative and consistent collection of epically failed efforts is a beautiful thing to behold. There is not a more confused, unhappy, miserable, curmudgeonly group of people on the planet, and finding pleasure in your misfortune is reward enough for Obots to spend time on Birther blogs.
Now that’s just funny. It is a conspiracy theory of biblical proportions. Each time something goes wrong for you, you guys propose an even bigger conspiracy. For example, in preemptive preparation for Judge Carter’s certain dismissal, you guys have already added a new nefarious scheme in which a newbie associate who specializes in Product Liability law becomes a coercive operative who can alter the behavior of an experienced Federal judge because he once served in a law firm where another guy on the other side of the continent was involved in a Birther lawsuit completely unrelated to this one. We are months past the point where the Birther theory collapsed under its own ponderous absurdity… and yet you repeatedly try to build new edifices on the rubble of the wacky ideas that came before.
We’ve had scores of “legal mandates” already “come down.” One of the more recent cost Orly Taitz $20K. Did you see her “Notice of Appeal?” She appears to be doubling down again, and will not be happy till her sanctions hit six figures.
Even Orly understands how much we’re enjoying it. She called the response to her sanctioning a “feast and celebration by the media mob.” She got that right.
No. Shadenfeude has rarely been more applicable. Do not underestimate the entertainment value of your movement… from WND paying for billboards that overlook vacant fields in Las Vegas to Orly turning into “barking Bessarabian goo” (as the journalist wrote) on MSNBC.
The question was why are so many Obots here. And the answer is because it’s the best show in town.
“SanDiegoSam says:
October 21, 2009 at 12:58 am
finding pleasure in your misfortune is reward enough for Obots to spend time on Birther blogs. The question was why are so many Obots here. And the answer is because it’s the best show in town”
I find it very sad that you take pleasure in what many of us feel is the biggest crime against our constitution ever committed.I didn’t troll al gore sites when they were all going on about the stolen election. I actually felt bad for them and could understand their pain”though thought they were wrong” and would never think of rubbing salt in their wounds.
This just shows us all your character, or the lack there of.
When, as I believe this president is found ineligible, at the very latest during the next presidential election, when he will not be able to show his credentials and will not be able to show why being born a dual citizen he can claim to be a NBC,even if he does not seek the office or win the parties nomination in 2012 the damage this usurpation has wrought on the country will already have been done and I believe it will take our nation to the brink and we will undergo our next civil war.
It wont be for land or about slavery or North vs. South, it will be between constitutionalists vs. socialist’s.If it DOES come down to a fight with all the uglyness that war entails, guess which side will be most prepared, most likely have the most arms,mettle and will, and actually will know how to use them?
I think those of your Ilk will be highly sought after by the more enthusiastic participants of the side that you now take so much pleasure in ridiculing.Good luck explaining your present zeal at the tar and feather party…or worse.We know there were many that were lured by “hope and change” and that is understandable but you are actively participating in the usurpation and will be noted
If you think that sort of thing would not happen just look to what happened to traitors and loyalists in our own past or better yet to some of your leaderships favorite philosophizers home countries. They dealt with the “opposition” in ways that would make william aires cringe.
Just remember, all actions have opposing reactions and bad carma will come back to you; doubled.
We understand you love Obama. No need to keep telling and showing us.
“We understand you love Obama. No need to keep telling and showing us.”
False. I do not love Obama.
However, I Do Oppose Orly Taitz/CEL3 and their delusional concept of the Rules of Law, Professional and Ethical Code of Conduct and the Constitution. Along with all the other “birther lawyers and so called, self appointed constitutional experts.”
misanthropicus says:
October 20, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Yawn. Dr Fukino’s statement. It was very simple: She has seen the original vital records and Obama was born in Hawaii. I’m not going to continue to try to explain it when you insist on parsing and twisting and segmenting it to try and find something to latch onto to make it not say “Obama was born in Hawaii.” Prove she meant otherwise.
glacialhills says:
October 21, 2009 at 4:02 am
*I find it very sad that you take pleasure in what many of us feel is the biggest crime against our constitution ever committed.I didn’t troll al gore sites when they were all going on about the stolen election. *
The Obama eligibility fantasy is not comparable to the 2000 election fiasco. Obama eligibility deniers have invented a controversy to try to harass, diminish and disrupt a President they don’t like. Almost a year after the election and your side has yet to produce one piece of admissible evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible. It is fascinating to me that you think you can unseat a President with speculation, rumor and innuendo. Even more fascinating is that you can’t recognize that your scheme is disintegrating. Look at bob strauss. He thinks it is the Obots who are desperate.
David Boies argued the case of Al Gore to the Supreme Court. If your issue had any legitimacy, you’d have the support of the finest conservative constitutional experts. You’d have wealthy conservatives funding the best investigators available to hunt for evidence. For your eligibility cases you can only muster a dentist/online lawyer, a DUI attorney, a sometimes professional poker player and a senior citizen Private Eye from Ohio. How can you still think your claims have any legitimacy. By the way, the man who argued for Bush to the Supreme Court against David Boies, Ted Olsen, opined Barack Obama is eligible.
http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Judiciary/McCainAnalysis.pdf
RE siseduermapierda RE misanthropicus:
1) Misanthropicus: [...] So, again I ask you – provide any declaration issued by Fukino (or other Hawaii authority) that SQUARELY DECLARES THAT THE DOCUMENT ON WHICH THEY BASE THEIR STATEMENT THAT BARACK OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII (place) (time & date) IS A VALID HAWAII BIRTH CERTIFICATE, AND NOT A COLB OR ANY OTHER FORM OF SECONDARY EVIDENCE.
Don’t try to wiggle out – [...]
2) Sise: [...] Yawn. Dr Fukino’s statement. It was very simple: She has seen the original vital records and Obama was born in Hawaii. [...]
3) Misanthropicus: [...] I did’t ask you about what Fukino did or didn’t. I asked you to show me:
a) the document(s) on which she based her statement, documents which must,
b) be valid, official Hawaii documents that have the authority to give legitimacy to Obama’s (hypothetical) birth in Hawaii [...]
Apparently you have a problem here, since you came with a not very ingenious defense argument here:
5) Sise: [...] I’m not going to continue to try to explain it when you insist on parsing and twisting and segmenting it to try and find something to latch onto to make it not say “Obama was born in Hawaii.” [...]
And you describe as “parsing” such a simple request? My –
6) And: Sise: [...] Prove she meant otherwise. [...]
Well, looks like you have no other choice than to reduce Obama’s legitimacy at the quite counterproductive level of “he said/ she said” – do I have to add that this type of move (which has became common at most Obamatons lately), doesn’t really hekp at consolidating Obama’s presidential legitimacy? And that it also betrays the fact that you, selfless Obama defenders, have been pressed into a dead end, justifications-wise?
7) Sise, I’ll give you another chance to come with an answer that might add a touch of honorability to your act: can you provide a declaration issued by Fukino (or other Hawaii authority) that SQUARELY DECLARES THAT THE DOCUMENT ON WHICH THEY BASE THEIR STATEMENT THAT BARACK OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII (place) (time & date) IS A VALID HAWAII BIRTH CERTIFICATE, AND NOT A COLB OR ANY OTHER FORM OF SECONDARY EVIDENCE?
Do it, Sise. Get some assistence, and answer this -
misanthropicus says:
October 21, 2009 at 9:13 am
*Sise, I’ll give you another chance to come with an answer that might add a touch of honorability to your act*
The Director’s statement speaks for itself. If you want to try and make it mean something else that’s a personal problem for which I can do nothing.
@ siseduermapierda
“a sometimes professional poker player”
Unnecessary smear. Leo Donofrio is a lawyer with full legal credentials. And yours? Other than an obviously-paid issue-diffusing blogger for Obama, that is. I find it fascinating that you and others here put so much work into fighting this issue. Your posts exceed others by far. I wonder why the fight is so strong? Actually, I don’t really wonder, I know because it is clear. I just wonder how you can sleep at night.
siseduermapierda says:
October 21, 2009 at 8:01 am
“For your eligibility cases you can only muster a dentist/online lawyer, a DUI attorney, a sometimes professional poker player and a senior citizen Private Eye from Ohio. How can you still think your claims have any legitimacy.”
Sise, they may not even have the “sometimes professional poker player” involved in the “movement” any longer. It looks like Leo is abandoning the fight. He said the following…
“I am speaking with various parties who I may provide legal counsel to in the near future. This will require a period of silence from me. The time for legal talk is now over. The time for legal action has begun. Talk is cheap. I’m tired of it. Either litigation will commence or you won’t hear from me again via this blog.”
Which is Leo speak for I talked a good game regarding suing the state of HI, but I realized that the vital records were going to be the only thing I would ever get released as per the law and federal privacy statutes. So to keep my record intact (never filing any cases, so he is 0-0), I will wait and see if something else comes along that I can possibly have a chance at winning regarding this issue.
He also says the following…
“So, if you think Judge Carter is going to decide the British birth issue in favor of holding Obama ineligible if born in Hawaii, then you are really kidding yourselves. This case has no chance at all. I don’t believe Obama was born in Kenya. I believe he was born in Hawaii.”
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
In other words the vital records and the COLB are correct and I know it. And why waste time suing the state.
It is interesting how just a couple of weeks ago Leo was a hero and he was going to expose the “corrupt state of HI”. And now, he is going into seclusion. To say that either he will file a case or we will never hear from him is just an excuse. If he was so confident in his so called 2 parent must be citizen theory and how wrong the SCOTUS ruling in Wong was, I doubt he would be threatening to never be heard from again. What is more likely is that he knows he doesn not have a chance at winning. However I am sure the birthers will claim that “someone in the Obama camp got to Leo”. Like SanDiegoSam said, “it’s the best show in town”. Nothing can beat this for its pure entertainment value.
And once again, in the threats voiced here, we see the kind of people who are attracted to the “birther” movement.
From Orly Taitz on down to the “Oathbreakers,” the call to pick up a gun and start shooting your fellow Americans in the name of “restoring the Constitution” is growing louder in America.
I really would like to see some rejection of this call to insurrection from those in the birther movement here…
Black Lion -
Leo can add. Even if we suppose that this case (this issue, actually) GOT to the Supreme Court, there are not 5 votes to overturn Wong – not even close.
7-2 against, maybe 8-1 upholding Wong and declaring the President eligible (which they have already done by denying cert to any of these cases anyway.)
As I have said before, this “controversy” is akin to those who claim that the 16th Amendment was never ratified, thus making the income tax illegal.
Their numbers (and no doubt the paypal contributions) are dwindling, it’s fun to watch the few that remain…
I take this as a threat from you against people here who oppose the birthers. You are literally hoping that people will take up arms against a democratically elected government. You then say that those who believe that the government was legitimately elected should be “highly sought after” by this armed mob, and then “tarred and feathered… or worse.”
You are the second birther on this site in the past week who has literally wished death on their opponents. Wait, third. Seems to be a lot of overlap between those who believe that there was some massive and blatant conspiracy to lie about the president’s birthplace/a long-discredited legal argument is still good law and those who want to either see or inflict violence against those who don’t believe the conspiracy or legal argument.
Glacialhills:
So… your point is what? That you are a nicer person than I am? I will concede that happily. You are a much nicer person than I am. But I am also not a hypocrite and would never begrudge you whatever pleasure you gained (admit it, you loved it) when Gore lost and Bush won.
If you cannot take deserved pleasure in your own success, you are even more dismally miserable than I imagined.
It is fascinating that this is what you focus on instead of the circumstances that allow it. Birthers should worry less about defending their “character credentials” than they should about actually finding a single piece of evidence that would give any organism with brain stem some reason to accept the complete fantasy of the Birth theory as remotely possible.
You want to make us stop laughing? Get some evidence.
As to your silly assertions regarding “civil war,” I assure you that any conflict arising from Birther frustration will more resemble Ruby Ridge than it will Antietam.
Do not leap so longingly into a glorious martyrdom.
Nobody will remember you or care.
Kerchner v. Obama: Dismissed.
http://ia301514.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.njd.224065/gov.uscourts.njd.224065.41.0.pdf
There’s news on Kerchner v. Obama (thanks Tes at Politijab).
http://ia301514.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.njd.224065/gov.uscourts.njd.224065.41.0.pdf
Judge Simandle dismissed on standing, and also noted:
Paul says:
October 21, 2009 at 9:20 am
*I find it fascinating that you and others here put so much work into fighting this issue.*
Not much work at all. Like shooting fish in a barrel. It’s so easy to cite links to why you have no chance.
*I just wonder how you can sleep at night.*
Very well in the confidence I have in President Obama to guide this country.
Why do you consider “sometimes professional poker player” a smear? It’s completely true and I thought Leo was rather proud of that distinction. He’s Jet Schizo part time too. And though I find his antics laughable, pointing them out is certainly not a smear. He seems such a free spirit, I suspect LeoDono is deep in his heart a complete liberal.
DISMISSED
10/20/2009 41 OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 10/20/09. (js) (Entered: 10/21/2009)
10/20/2009 42 ORDER granting 27 Motion to Dismiss, CASE CLOSED. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 10/20/09. (js) (Entered: 10/21/2009)
SanDiegoSam:
The ability of Birthers to assemble such a comprehensive, creative and consistent collection of epically failed efforts is a beautiful thing to behold.
Please explain to us the “epic” proportions you ascribe here to rather basic, proverbial “Mr. Smith” types – aleady described disparagingly by your brother commenters as little nobodies without the properly desired match up of talent or honors the elitists recognize as worthy. And a “comprehensive collection”?? Really? You might want to tone down the drama a bit for any future respectable acceptance of your views. First, views, to have standing themselves, must have a basis in reality. An objective view of same, when seen in the light of comparison to the hired monoliths of law firms (with tentacles in every corner of this fruited plain), along with the political arm of highest appointees and their accompanying mis-use of power, your exaggerated scenario immediately shrinks to its proper proportion to that same observant eye.
There is not a more confused, unhappy, miserable, curmudgeonly group of people on the planet,
You’re obviously projecting as is evidenced by your own follow-up self description:
and finding pleasure in your misfortune is reward enough for Obots to spend time on Birther blogs.
Anyone with any self respect normally holds back from such enthusiastically obvious derogatorily defined descriptions of one’s self and one’s self-ascribed group, especially when placed for public display.
Paul says:
Yeah, how’d his cases go?
Did you read Leo’s account of changing his appearance and taking a bus to D.C. to hand-deliver his Supreme Court filing? Alas, for all his efforts to travel incognito, he thinks federal agents were alerted when an RFID tracker picked up the passport he carried in his shoe.
To Donofrio’s credit, he was quicker than other birther attorneys to figure out that his arguments are losers. Now he pitches his pretend legal scholarship just to those desperate eligibility deniers gullible enough to still take him seriously.
Observer says:
October 21, 2009 at 11:51 am
You might want to tone down the drama a bit for any future respectable acceptance of your views.
That is the single funniest thing I have read on a birther blog EVAR!
As the OBots dance the Happy Bambi Dance that another Eligibility Lawsuit has fallen one has to ask what Obama has done that has made them so loyal to Obama? Have any of Obama’s Policies improved their lives? I wish they would state the Obama achievements.
I believe that the Obama Cabal thought the Eligibility question would fade once he was Elected. It didn’t. In fact, it has grown with Polls showing that more than half polled question his Eligibility to be POTUS.
We see this Whitehouse looking increasing Manic with their childish tantrums towards FOX News. We see questions regarding Czars like Safe School Czar (snicker) being hired. We see the closed door that wants to decide the fate of our healthcare. We constantly see Obama whining about what “I inherited”. When does he OWN this Presidency and be held accountable for HIS actions? What ever happened to the Transparency Obama promised? Hope and Change We Can Believe In? Yes, We Can (do whatever we want because we won)?
All the OBot smearing of those Attorneys furthering these Lawsuits does not answer the underlying question of why Obama Sealed all his records. I agree with the OBots that these Attorneys do not have the cache of Obama’s Law Firms, but, why does Obama have to hire blue stocking Law Firms to fight an issue that is so simple for him to resolve (please do not flash the COLB).
Maybe it will be something simple as 2 young adults like the 2 that exposed ACORN that will bring the Obama sealed documents to light. Who ever would have thought that 2 amateur adults would bring the mighty and corrupt ACORN to their knees?
Congrats to the OBots for another Win.
Come on now, people. We all want what is best for our country. I am neither an obot or a birther. This fighting is a bunch of nonsense. What I am concerned about is something realy scary is happening in our country. What has happened to our patriotism, our loyalty to our country, our Constitution? There use to be a time when we professed our love for our country. Now we are apologising to foreign countries? After all the American lives lost in defending those countrys? We have corruption on both sides of the aisle, republicans and democrats. We need to unite and work at bringing our country back to the American way of life. Display your flags freely. I look out my window and am watching the flag blowing in the wind and feel a lump in my throat. I love America and I am proud of America. Anyone who does not love our country and the freedoms therein needs to leave.. Please UNITE to keep these very freedoms on which our great country of America was founded. I am so very proud to be an American. I always was and I always will be.
jvn says:
October 21, 2009 at 9:44 am
Black Lion -
Leo can add. Even if we suppose that this case (this issue, actually) GOT to the Supreme Court, there are not 5 votes to overturn Wong – not even close.
7-2 against, maybe 8-1 upholding Wong and declaring the President eligible (which they have already done by denying cert to any of these cases anyway.)
As I have said before, this “controversy” is akin to those who claim that the 16th Amendment was never ratified, thus making the income tax illegal.
Their numbers (and no doubt the paypal contributions) are dwindling, it’s fun to watch the few that remain…
______________________________________________________________
So many Obama Bridgetender Obfuscators here. You all must feel threatened by this blog. WKA would not have to be overturned. It never said anyone born in the US without regard to parents is a Natural Born Citizen. It said that the children of UNNATURALIZEABLE Domiciled aliens were CITIZENS not NBCs, much like the children of slaves shortly after the 14Amendment. Try Again?
As the OBots dance the Happy Bambi Dance that another Eligibility Lawsuit has fallen one has to ask what Obama has done that has made them so loyal to Obama?
It isn’t about Obama; it is about a democratic election, and respecting the rule of law.
All the OBot smearing of those Attorneys furthering these Lawsuits does not answer the underlying question of why Obama Sealed all his records.
Obama did not “seal” any records; Obama is entitled to the protection of the same state and federal privacy laws that govern the rest of us.
why does Obama have to hire blue stocking Law Firms
The vast majority of the suits are being defended by state and federal governments. The three (3) suits where Obama is represented by private attorneys were initiated before he was president.
to fight an issue that is so simple for him to resolve (please do not flash the COLB).
But the COLB settles the issue.
And it really wouldn’t settle this: Forgery! Adoption! Two parents!
jvn,
In reality, there is no need to respond to this sort of wanton hubris except to say that it is the opposition to questioning this President’s bona fides that are making the deplorable accusations.
Further, having seen a recent press piece RE: the Oath Keepers, I saw absolutely nowhere that these individuals are going to “pick up a gun and start shooting your fellow Americans” for any reason at all. In fact, it appeared to be quite the opposite; a promise to not follow orders.
Therefore, kindly take your threatening, harassing and haranguing rhetoric elsewhere; it is not welcome on this site.
-Phil
It never said anyone born in the US without regard to parents is a Natural Born Citizen.
Wong Kim Ark cited with approval United States v. Rhodes, which said exactly that.
It said that the children of UNNATURALIZEABLE Domiciled aliens were CITIZENS not NBCs
No it doesn’t, and you really need to read Plyler v. Doe.
Pat Smith says:
October 21, 2009 at 12:33 pm
*Have any of Obama’s Policies improved their lives? I wish they would state the Obama achievements.*
Yes, Obama’s achievements since Jan 20, 2009 have directly improved my life.
His Accomplishments:
- Signed the Order to close Guantanamo Bay
- Signed the Lily Ledbetter Equal Pay Act, Jan 29,2009 that makes it law that women will get equal pay for equal work
- Signed the Childen’s Insurance Reauthorization Act ensuring millions of children in this country get health insurance and medical care.
- Signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that has saved thousands of American jobs.
- Initiated the Health Care Reform Act.
- Cancelled the weapons system installation in Poland.
- Got the Iranians to the diplomatic bargaining table
- Reaffirmed the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq by Aug 2010.
and many more. The accomplishments of Obama since just January have improved life in this country and made the US and the world safer. If you don’t like him, find a candidate who can beat him in 2012.You keep looking backward trying to change an election whose results you don’t like. You’d think you’d realize by now you need real evidence to accomplish that. Almost a year after Obama was elected you are still operating on speculation, innuendo and rumor. Obama deniers don’t have a single piece of real evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible to be President. And in the meantime, he moves on.
You are conflating opposition to Taitz/Donofrio/birthers with support for Obama. Most of your criticisms of what Obama has done in office are perfectly valid. I’m disappointed that he’s broken his campaign promise to wait five days after a bill passes Congress before signing it for public review and to have health care meetings in public. He’s been far too cautious on ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and has dawdled too much with Afghanistan.
But those are political problems and policy criticisms. That’s a long way from doubting whether the man is eligible for the presidency in the first place, and that’s something that many here don’t seem to understand.
Observer says:
For the lighter side of the epic fail, see Rock Sock and Robot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhI-_iURwPQ
Eligibility deniers wrote to electoral college electors and swayed zero of them, then wrote to congress and convinced zero members to object to certifying the election. They’ve racked up an impressive record in court: dozens of dispositive rulings, 100% failure. Members of Congress from both both sides of the isle — the only people who can remove Obama — inform them politely but decisively that the eligibility complaints are bunch of myths already debunked.
It’s not just us obots. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called those who don’t believe President Obama was born in Hawaii “crazy”. Arch-conservative Obama-hater Ann Coulter said of you guys, “it’s just a few cranks out there”, and that making an issue of it, “it’s like when networks bring on the three remaining klanners in America on T.V.”
Let’s deal with reality, yes. As a federal court put it, “Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.” You should check out which side’s arguments brought that rebuke from the Court.
List of cases: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/docket/
Ann Coulter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfTHQUYvwBM
Lindsey Graham: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP_DMTbfbdE
Order on Rhodes v. MacDonald: http://ia311028.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.13.0.pdf
Observer says:
Well… let’s just start with the court cases. I personally stopped counting at 48. But Orly has claimed on national TV that over 100 Birther cases have been filed. Every single decision in every one of those cases at every level of the judiciary has gone against you. This include Kerchner, dismissed just this morning. That’s pretty epic, right there.
Then let’s talk about the make believe “citizens grand juries,” ranging from the ordinary to the “SUPER.” At last count (according to the AGJ website) there have been 14 such “grand juries,” two of them of the SUPER variety. Several hundred, perhaps more than a thousand of their “presentments” have been distributed to legislators, judges, attorney’s general, sheriffs, clerks, media outlets, diplomats, dogcatchers and dignitaries. Not a single one has elicited the tiniest response… beyond Judge Lambert’s dismissal of them as goofy. That’s an epic fail, no doubt.
Let’s look at the WND based efforts. Hundreds of thousands of alleged names on a petition, a big campaign to set up billboards around the nation, massive fax and letter campaigns to the Supreme Court, a huge “pink slip” campaign currently under way… and exactly zero to show for it. Heck, he even sent Jerome Corsi to Kenya, and all he came up with is two e-mails that sound like they were written by a Nigerian e-mail scammer. Epic fails certainly, but mostly an epic padding of Joe Farah’s wallet.
And Orly is the queen of epic Birther fails… stalking Supreme Court Justices (to no effect), running around DC getting the door slammed on her from Capitol Hill to the Pentagon, showing up at the DC Tea Party and getting ignored, and finally (well, probably not finally. She seems to be doubling down) getting sanctioned $20,000.
How about Leo Donofrio’s most recent bout with bipolar mania that launched him into a frenetic and furious series of email exchanges with Hawaiian officials that ultimately resulted in his managing to successfully pry from their fingers information that everybody already knew? That’s gotta be worthy of a note, ya think?
I could go on, but the ultimate point remains that barack Obama is the President of the United States, and not a thing the Birther movement has attempted, tried, pretended or promoted has moved him one angstrom from that position.
There you go again, whining about the mean old Obots laughing at you for your entire movement’s transcendent impotence and incompetence. Be a man. Grow a thicker skin. Stop trying to be such a buzz-kill when your fellow Americans are enjoying themselves this much.
Joy is not a zero sum game.
Phil, with all due respect I must disagree. Three different people on this site within the past week have explicitly said that they want to see those who disagree with eligibility doubters die.
Those three are glacialhills, Jaclyn Smith, and whoever it was that said they wanted to see Black Lion on a plane that gets destroyed by terrorists.
You’ve generally been a relative voice of reason (allowing opposition commenters, urging a halt to the blatant invasion of privacy of Judge Carter’s clerk), but there are many of those who agree with your goals and follow the eligibility movement who have actually threatened violence, dream about starting violent coups, and want to see their opponents suffer painful and humiliating deaths.
siseduermapierda says:
October 21, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Pat Smith says:
October 21, 2009 at 12:33 pm
*Have any of Obama’s Policies improved their lives? I wish they would state the Obama achievements.*
Yes, Obama’s achievements since Jan 20, 2009 have directly improved my life.
His Accomplishments:
- Signed the Order to close Guantanamo Bay
- Signed the Lily Ledbetter Equal Pay Act, Jan 29,2009 that makes it law that women will get equal pay for equal work
- Signed the Childen’s Insurance Reauthorization Act ensuring millions of children in this country get health insurance and medical care.
- Signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that has saved thousands of American jobs.
- Initiated the Health Care Reform Act.
- Cancelled the weapons system installation in Poland.
- Got the Iranians to the diplomatic bargaining table
- Reaffirmed the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq by Aug 2010.
and many more. The accomplishments of Obama since just January have improved life in this country and made the US and the world safer.
IOW, such “signatures” have so far served to stamp the continuance of his legacy of voting “present”. And his “decisions” of simply denying already established real movement and strategic policies in favor of our dependent allies makes, not only them, but ourselves less secure.
And he has emboldened the oppressive regimes and thug rulers of the world who also appear to like to slaughter their own “for their own good”. In fact, his own “advisors” concur with such policies of the rogues of the world. Such personal choices of his also enlarge his historical image … in line with the images of the other “Marx brothers”! If he continues such a “legacy” your own opportunity to secure yourself and your family through your rightful and expected freedoms will also be denied – and also by such adopted thuggish means which are already in view via union thug beatings of the innocent and intimidating thugs at polling places. But then the emperor clothiers don’t mind shining his boots too … by licking them!
qwertyman,
Then I’d recommend you start providing links to the alleged comments.
-Phil
There you go again, whining about the mean old Obots laughing at you for your entire movement’s transcendent impotence and incompetence.
Hey, I wasn’t the one who disparaged yourself in your own self description. finding pleasure in your misfortune And it would appear now that you are the one whining about the one who has only your best interests at heart in wanting you to not be further co-opted by the Obama “raison d’etre” – taking pleasure in the misfortunes of others. Sad, but then again, it’s an “Obama world” these days. Less civility – beginning in language used.
Well… let’s just start with the court cases.
Your exaggeration and avoidance remains. Again, “epic proportions”? What a little and limited world you live in. Take a look at daily dockets … and don’t avoid looking at that gargantuan overkill of such monster law firms and power hungry political appointees for “l’il ol” “transparent one’s” defense. Once again, such a comparison of the two dwarfs your “epic” imaginative idea about the little grass roots “Mr. Smiths”. Hopefully you’re not that naive.
Can’t find the comment from the guy who said he hoped that an “obot” wound up on a plane that gets destroyed by terrorists. Now, whether you take these as threats or mere “enthusiasm” is up to you. I’ve yet to see anybody on the opposition use language worse than sarcastic condescension and hopes for Taitz’s disbarment here.
Bob says:
October 21, 2009 at 12:46 pm
It never said anyone born in the US without regard to parents is a Natural Born Citizen.
Wong Kim Ark cited with approval United States v. Rhodes, which said exactly that.
It said that the children of UNNATURALIZEABLE Domiciled aliens were CITIZENS not NBCs
No it doesn’t, and you really need to read Plyler v. Doe.
______________________________________________________________
WKA never said that it agreed with Rhodes, the desperation of your leaps of logic is showing! WKA cited Minor which said that it was never doubted that children of Citizen PARENTSSSS were NBCs, and doubted that the children of aliens were even citizens. Plyler v. Doe never says children of aliens are NBC either. Try Again obfuscator.
I see that all of the usual Obama Bridgetender Propagandists are dutifully manning their posts today!
Observer says:
October 21, 2009 at 1:06 pm
The Bush Admin’s neocon policy of dismissing regimes of North Korea and Iran like thugs made us less safe. Real diplomacy makes us safer. The worst thing to happen to the recruiters of new terrorist foot soldiers was the election of Barack Obama.
Mick says:
October 21, 2009 at 1:37 pm
*I see that all of the usual Obama Bridgetender Propagandists are dutifully manning their posts today!*
Here’s my favorite Bridgetender!
http://www.yelp.com/biz/the-bridgetender-tahoe-city
WKA never said that it agreed with Rhodes
The court went out of its way to cite Rhodes; it didn’t criticize it at all; it is consistent with literally pages of other cites that also support that proposition.
WKA cited Minor which said that it was never doubted that children of Citizen PARENTSSSS were NBCs
And then the court resolved any doubts that existed regarding noncitizen parents.
Plyler v. Doe never says children of aliens are NBC either.
Plyler cited approvingly Wong Kim Ark, and it made clear citizen children of illegal aliens cannot be disciminated against, which dispoves that Wong Kim Ark created different standards dependent on the parents’ aliengage.
Observer:
So… what I understand from this tepid response is that you admit your failings are comprehensive and complete, but you are merely quibbling about how “epic” they are.
Okay, I can live with that. If it is your assessment that your failings are trivial and inconsequential, I have no particular interest in disabusing from the notion of your own insignificance.
But it is an odd dance you guys try to do between insisting on one hand that you are numerous and influential and representative of the mass of “patriots,” and on the other trying to portray yourself as the little guy oppressed by the irresistible force of a dark and powerful enemy. You really can’t be both. And I know how hard it is to choose one when in actuality you are neither.
Smile, Observer. Jesus loves you anyway.
siseduermapierda,
How has signing the Order to close Gitmo and canceling the weapons system installation in Poland made you “safer”?
How has the Stimulus program improved your life? Didn’t Obama promise that unemployment would not exceed 8% if the Stimulus was passed? What happened? Any comments on the MASSIVE Debt we have incurred with this Obama reform?
How will rolling back the Capital Gains Tax reduction stimulate the Economy? Do you think savvy investors will not find other vehicles to invest in such as Tax FREE Bonds?
Will Cap and Trade, if passed, improve your life? How? What about those that will not be able to afford the increase in utilities that will result from Cap and Trade. My home is geothermal so I will be very comfortable and my pocketbook will not be affected.
What about that sneaky tax Obama imposed on cigarettes? It is well known that the lower and middle class are the largest group of smokers. What happened to NO new taxes on those groups? By the way, I do not smoke.
So Obama initiated Healthcare Reform…Yes, We Can ! That has been a roaring success. The Unions especially like that nifty 40% tax on their Cadillac Plans.
So if we stay this course we will be looking at HYPER Inflation within 2 years. How will that benefit you, siseduermapierda ?
As to Iran? Just last week they were accusing us of being complicite in the attack.
Don’t you have any questions about some of the people he surrounds himself with? Do you want the Safe School Czar involved with any children you know? Yep, Change We Can Believe In !!!!!!!!!
Bob,
Here are the Sealed documents:
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?page_id=6192
Even a thinking individual such as yourself must wonder why Obama refuses to make these records Public.
Seems if Obama could put to rest the Eligibility issue he would certainly comply. What does he gain with this Issue gaining momentum?
“All the OBot smearing of those Attorneys furthering these Lawsuits does not answer the underlying question of why Obama Sealed all his records.”
First of all, President Obama has not sealed his records. What part of right to privacy don’t you get? They protect your right to privacy too.
Second, no one is “smearing the birther attorneys” as they do a fine job of doing this to themselves. The competent and ethical lawyers simply point out how incompetent and unethical some of these “birther attorneys” are.
I’ve often scratched my head wondering why any of you donate to these “birther attorneys” and don’t go hire a competent and ethical constitutional lawyer instead?
However, even if Bauer took this case, he would not win. The courts Do Not have the authority/power to grant the relief these birther lawyers seek, no demand. Every single judge has stated this in their decision, save and except for SCOTUS. This is why a competent lawyer cannot be obtained.
Whether you like it or not, Congress has the “sole power” to remove a sitting President as the Constitution clearly states.
President Obama has been duly certified and sworn into office. End of story.
Bob says:
October 21, 2009 at 1:44 pm
WKA never said that it agreed with Rhodes
The court went out of its way to cite Rhodes; it didn’t criticize it at all; it is consistent with literally pages of other cites that also support that proposition.
WKA cited Minor which said that it was never doubted that children of Citizen PARENTSSSS were NBCs
And then the court resolved any doubts that existed regarding noncitizen parents.
Plyler v. Doe never says children of aliens are NBC either.
Plyler cited approvingly Wong Kim Ark, and it made clear citizen children of illegal aliens cannot be disciminated against, which dispoves that Wong Kim Ark created different standards dependent on the parents’ aliengage.
______________________________________________________
Total Propaganda. You obviously love the Progressive Marxist agenda more than truth. I might as well talk to a pig. I HOPE and PRAY that Obama relies on WKA when the time comes!
As to Oathkeepers, Phil, here is a direct quote from the guy that founded the organization:
“We say if the American people decide it’s time for a revolution, we’ll fight with you.”
If you put that together with Taitz and the other birthers who talk about “taking back America” you have a paramilitary organization calling on the military and law enforcement officers to disobey orders and join a revolution that Oathkeepers will “certify.”
From an article at Reviewjournal.com:
“In a July report titled “Return of the Militias,” the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center singled out Oath Keepers as “a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival.”
The Patriot movement, so named because its adherents believe the federal government has stepped on the constitutional ideals of the American Revolution, gained traction in the 1990s and has been closely linked to anti-government militia and white supremacist movements.
The movement is blamed for spawning Timothy McVeigh, who bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, killing 168 people.
‘I’m not accusing Stewart Rhodes or any member of his group of being Timothy McVeigh or a future Timothy McVeigh,” law center spokesman Mark Potok said. “But these kinds of conspiracy theories are what drive a small number of people to criminal violence. … What’s troubling about Oath Keepers is the idea that men and women armed and ordered to protect the public in this country are clearly being drawn into a world of false conspiracy theory.’ ”
I will gladly refrain from broaching this subject here as long as others refrain from the threats of violence.
Here are the Sealed documents
They are no more “sealed” than any other person’s records are not publicly accesible. Or perhaps I should be able to walk into a hospital and demand to see your medical charts?
Even a thinking individual such as yourself must wonder why Obama refuses to make these records Public.
Because he won the election nearly a year ago, and has moved on.
Seems if Obama could put to rest the Eligibility issue he would certainly comply.
Except it wouldn’t at all: Forgery! Adoption! Two parents! See: it never ends.
What does he gain with this Issue gaining momentum?
Easy way to make it look like the GOP is catering to the tin-foil crowd.
“Investigative journalism into a president is very different than posting personal information (such as a home address) of a law clerk.”
Please. How silly is this? How in the world does an ordinary person find “personal information” about a law clerk, if it isn’t ALREADY public information, on the Internet or available elsewhere, such as in phone directories?
Total Propaganda.
Such a powerful argument, based in facts and reason.
You’re obviously a constitutional scholar, Mick. Here’s what I don’t get:
Obama graduated from Columbia Law School. The Clintons graduated from Yale Law School. John Edwards graduated from the University of North Carolina Law School. (McCain didn’t go to law school, but surely he has the money to hire a few fancy lawyers, like Ted Olson.)
None of them have ever mentioned your weird interpretation of Wong Kim Ark; Olson even said Obama was natural born citizen. So any of these people could have derailed Obama’s campaign right at the beginning, but didn’t.
Why?
bystander: You did accuse me of “stalking” when I questioned you about information that YOU volunteered. I did NOT insult you. You inferred insult where none was intended. Just honest debate. But too many of you Obama supporters cannot handle the truth.
Birtherstan? Cute. Borders on insult, imo.
I wasn’t aware that “schadenfreude” is an enviable pursuit.
“None of them have ever mentioned your weird interpretation of Wong Kim Ark; Olson even said Obama was natural born citizen. So any of these people could have derailed Obama’s campaign right at the beginning, but didn’t.
Why?”
Oh, Oh, Choose me, choose me, I know!!
Because if you are born in America, you are a NBC. President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen and eligible to be President of U.S.A. Actually, President Obama IS President of U.S.A.
jvn,
I don’t see anything there regarding killing people. Apparently that is something that you’ve — shall we say — “editorialized” out of the quoted commentary.
Regarding the rest of the pull quotes and the Southern Poverty Law Center, I’ve already shown on my site where the SPLC is really nothing more than a radical, left-wing center which, while it has every right to hold an opinion, doesn’t influence individuals such as myself to take them any more seriously than I would an ant crossing a sidewalk.
Likewise, I will gladly point out how it is always the left in America that always accuses the right/libertarian-leaning individuals in America of alleged violence when, in fact, there is no actual evidence to which anyone can point to justify such a smear.
After having dealt with those who not only oppose checking this President’s bona fides but regularly and explicitly go out of their way to stymie those who wish to question candidate qualifications for almost a year on my site, I know how the game is played, and I play the game excellently right back to those who bring such accusations forward. How do I know that I do this so well? Because every time — every time — I ask a question of a member of the opposition concerning Mr. Obama’s bona fides, if the opposing individual cannot respond back in a rational fashion, they always respond back in an irrational, emotionally-charged fashion.
And sometimes it’s even worse than that. You see, I’ve already implicitly agreed to disagree with most of the opposition on my site; many in the opposition can’t stand that kind of stance. It’s almost as if the opposition absolutely must maintain viability by continually being argumentative about issues such as eligibility.
Frankly, I could not care less what most individuals in the opposition believe about this issue; to me that’s completely irrelevant. I know that I cannot find evidence, one way or the other, to conclusively prove nor disprove Mr. Obama’s eligibility, and I, personally, have a big problem with that. And, so, this site is my personal experiment in pursuing the truth, no matter who gets bothered by it.
Incidentally, as I’ve already commented here profusely, the only documentation regarding this President’s past that is alleged to exist is an image of a certification of live birth. The blog FactCheck.org claims that its staff have examined it, but I’ve seen nothing in their otherwise legitimate credentials that lends any credence to any professional forensic abilities to substantiate such an examination. In other words, it might has well been Joe Q. Public on the street looking at the paper.
And yes, they claim that it has been or was available for inspection by others, though — rather conveniently — apparently nobody but this organization has ever physically inspected the document. Yet, I am being told that I must simply believe what a few individuals with contacts with Mr. Obama’s campaign (at the time) who have no forensic credentials but were open to other individuals to inspect (which apparently never happened), yet the fact that they were open to reporters or others to inspect somehow legitimizes their stance.
Therefore, regarding the COLB, if that’s how FactCheck.org wants to play the proverbial game, then perhaps they could at least produce a receipt from the transaction back in 2007 where the original document was procured. After all, vital records departments around America don’t just provide such paperwork for free.
-Phil
But too many of you Obama supporters cannot handle the truth.
Oh, the irony.
Sue,
Do you remember the screaming when McCain did not release his medical records? So he finally released all 1,000 page plus records.
Why has a young man like Obama refused to release his medical records? Is the Public not entitled to judge the medical fitness of an individual running for POTUS?
Inasmuch as your collective Lot has deemed all the “Birther” attorneys incompetent you have nothing to worry about from them. However, do not forget that all the Powers that tried to bring down ACORN failed…took 2 kids with a camera and a story to do that. People will not stop trying and it may be the “little guy” that obtains the Sealed (opps, not so Sealed, just not discosed?) Obama documents.
You state, ” President Obama has been duly certified and sworn into office. End of story “. If that is the “end of the story” why do you waste your time with this Blog? Seems rather silly to pursue a situation you have deemed accomplished.
Pat Smith says:
October 21, 2009 at 3:18 pm
*Do you remember the screaming when McCain did not release his medical records? So he finally released all 1,000 page plus records.*
McCain never released his medical records. He allowed reporters for 3 news services to examine 400 pages of his medical records at a conference room table for three hours. No Pictures.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/23/nation/na-medical23
You either have a very selective recollection or you just make sh!t up.
Pat Smith says:
October 21, 2009 at 2:17 pm
I am very satisfied with the performance of President Obama thus far. I have confidence in the people he’s selected. I feel safer. Since the cancellation of the missile installation, Russia has joined our side on convincing Iran to drop its nuke program. bBarack Obama is a huge deterrent for terrorist recruitment. My family benefited directly as a result of the stimulus program. My friends can afford to insure their kids thanks to SCHIP. Sorry you’re so worried and afraid and discouraged, but I am happy as a clam with our President.
siseduermapierda,
Here is the YouTube where McCain released the full 1,000 pages of his medical records. Yes, it was a controlled environment. However, THAT is more than we have been accorded by Obama. Why?
I Posted a response to you earlier that you have not replied to. Do you need me to repost it for your consideration?
Also, there is no need for Profanity on these Blogs. Tends to lessen a person’s point of view and, at best, is just immature.
Pat Smith says:
October 21, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Your youtube contradicts what you said. There was NO release of McCain’s records. Three hours to review. No pictures, no internet, no phone calls. Thanks for proving yourself wrong.
Phil observes:
Hmmmm. So, by “fight with you,” they mean what? Playing paintball?
siseduermapierda,
Thank you for your response.
My State has been offering Insurance for Children for many years. This is NOT an Obama plan…it is State run.
If Russia convinced Iran to stop making nukes why is Iran still making them? Why did Iran just last week imply the USA is complicite in the attack last week?
Please provide some specifics on how Obama is a “huge detterent for terrorist recruitment”. What steps has Obama enforced in that area. Nice words, but, would like to see specifics on this one.
How did your family “benefit directly from the Stimulus program”? Care to share the specifics?
I see that you had no response to my remark about Cap and Trade and elimination of Cap Gains Tax reduction or hyper inflation. No response on the massive debt we have incurred to still have record levels of Unemployment. Also, no response on the broken promise of Transparency. I can understand why you do not want to talk about his Czars. I guess my remarks about imposing a huge tax on cigarettes is silly, but, I was going for Obama’s NO NEW TAXES.
I agree with you that I am worried. Obama has no experience running an Economy and it is showing. Hyperinflation and HIGH level of Unemployment is a toxic mixture. However, I am not afraid or discouraged.
I am glad you are happy with Obama.
Phil says:
October 21, 2009 at 3:18 pm
*I will gladly point out how it is always the left in America that always accuses the right/libertarian-leaning individuals in America of alleged violence when, in fact, there is no actual evidence to which anyone can point to justify such a smear.*
- Holocaust Museum Shooter, right wing ties
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/11/museum.shooting/index.html
- Timothy McVey, right wing ties.
http://eyeonhate.com/mcveigh/mcveigh6.html
- Scott Roeder, accused murderer of George Tiller, right wing ties
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/72481.html#
Phil, this is probably the comment that qwertyman read as a threat:
MGB says:
October 13, 2009 at 2:15 pm
“Black Lion: I pray that you are never on an airplane with fellow passengers who got through security by showing their credentials in digital form on a blog.”
You would have to go back and read the entire exchange between Black Lion and myself to understand the context, which concerned a hypothetical situation at airport security, where someone tried to get through by showing a digital image purporting to be his authentic passport, on a blog, using his laptop.
So, you see, it always takes six degrees of separation (aka, tortured logic) in order to arrive at a conclusion that in their minds equates with a “threat” of violence.
siseduermapierda states:
Your youtube contradicts what you said. There was NO release of McCain’s records. Three hours to review. No pictures, no internet, no phone calls. Thanks for proving yourself wrong.
.
———————————————————–
So what were those people reviewing if it was NOT McCain’s medical records?
I am not interested in playing a game like “Thanks for proving yourself wrong”. Think we played that game in 1st grade.
For a person who states they are “happy as a Clam”, you seem to be very angry and defensive.
Have a nice day!
sise: I guess nobody could find any “leftwing” violence? Huh? How about Mumia? The recent murder of the anti-abortion protester? Mao, who murdered millions? Castro? Che? Bombings by the Weather Underground? ELF terrorism? That’s just off the top of my head.
sise: by your definition, our POTUS has “ties” to leftwing violence.
Pat Smith says:
October 21, 2009 at 3:56 pm
*My State has been offering Insurance for Children for many years. This is NOT an Obama plan…it is State run.*
Obama signed the renewal of SCHIP GW Bush was going to veto the renewal.
*If Russia convinced Iran to stop making nukes why is Iran still making them?*
Iran does not have the capability to make a nuclear weapon. They are unable yet to enrich uranium sufficiently for weapons purposes. They do not have the technology to mount a nuke on a rocket and deploy it.
* Why did Iran just last week imply the USA is complicite in the attack last week?*
Perhaps we were.
*Please provide some specifics on how Obama is a “huge detterent for terrorist recruitment”.*
Obama doesn’t do the tough neocon talk. “Dead Or Alive” “if you’re not with us you’re against us” Turning down the cowboy talk has made it more difficult to point to us as a nation worth hating.
*How did your family “benefit directly from the Stimulus program”?*
Recall where the bulk of the stimulus money went to civic and raods projects and you can draw conclusions how an American family might have benefited from the stimulus.
*I see that you had no response to my remark about Cap and Trade and elimination of Cap Gains Tax reduction or hyper inflation. No response on the massive debt we have incurred to still have record levels of Unemployment.*
It was the tax breaks for the wealthy that caused the deficit that Barack Obama inherited. $1 trillion dollars. Oh, and waging two “off-the-book” wars.
*Also, no response on the broken promise of Transparency. I can understand why you do not want to talk about his Czars.*
I don’t think he’s broken his promise of transparency and I have no problem with Czars.
* I guess my remarks about imposing a huge tax on cigarettes is silly, but, I was going for Obama’s NO NEW TAXES.*
Where did Obama ever say No New Taxes. That was Daddy Bush. Barack Obama promised he wouldn’t raise income taxes on any family making less than $250,000 a year. As far as cigarette taxes, I don’t keep up with them. I have no problem with the government taxing a product that when used as directed will eventually kill you. Personal choice. I have no sympathy.
*Hyperinflation and HIGH level of Unemployment is a toxic mixture.*
There’s no pressure from inflation now.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091020/pl_afp/useconomyinflation_20091020142534
Obama didn’t the unemployment rate. The loss of jobs has slowed considerably since he took office.
http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm
* However, I am not afraid or discouraged. *
Good! You’re bright and motivated! Get out there and work for a candidate you think can beat Obama in 2012. I would salute you for doing it!
*I am glad you are happy with Obama.*
Me too. A pleasure talking issues with you Pat.
siseduermapierda wrote:
I’m an Obama supporter too and I regard siseduermapierda as an ally, but let’s be clear: this isn’t about Obama’s job performance. I thought President G.W. Bush was just dreadful, but when kooks said he was behind the 9/11 attacks, I did what I could to debunk those lies.
Don’t like the president? Fine. Even under the greatest of presidents, the nation benefits from the loyal opposition. The 9/11-was-an-inside-jobbers and the eligibility-deniers are no such thing. They are fake patriots, they are hurting America, and the biggest lie they tell is that they seek the truth.
I didn’t say it was a threat, I said it was wishing death upon your opponent.
And people like Sharon who publicized personal information about a private person has helped contribute to the future career harm to a young lawyer by providing another instance of any google search for him resulting in sites discussing him as an Obama plant and attempting to corrupt a federal judge. She also made it very easy for anybody to get the address, home phone and DOB of him as well as his family members.
People on this site who doubt Obama’s eligibility also seem to often take things to a very personal and hateful level.
Pat Smith says:
October 21, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Pat Smith says:
October 21, 2009 at 3:18 pm
*Do you remember the screaming when McCain did not release his medical records? So he finally released all 1,000 page plus records.*
Your youtube showed the reporters were allowed to examine John McCain’s records for 3 hours. That is not “releasing” your records.I stand by what I said. Hilarious you call me juvenile while you stomp off like a 5 year old.
brygenon says:
October 21, 2009 at 4:32 pm
*I’m an Obama supporter too and I regard siseduermapierda as an ally, but let’s be clear: this isn’t about Obama’s job performance. I thought President G.W. Bush was just dreadful, but when kooks said he was behind the 9/11 attacks, I did what I could to debunk those lies.*
Point well take brygenon. I am just excited to see birthers starting to talk issues. I think it’s an indication that many are starting to move on, which is far better than looking back an election they can’t change.
Reminds me of one of my fav videos! Enjoy all!
http://www.last.fm/music/Fine+Young+Cannibals/_/Don't+Look+Back
“Baby Baby don’t look back, it won’t do no good”
Sorry. Bad linkie
http://www.last.fm/music/Fine+Young+Cannibals/_/Don%27t+Look+Back
Q-man,
“…people like Sharon who publicized personal information about a private person”
-Prove it.
- Hey idiot, if someone wants to get a public phone number and address, they need a computer with a search engine, a name, the ability to type and some form of payment (actually p. numbers are free). They don’t need a person named “Sharon.”
siseduermapierda,
One of the “issues” remains is Obama’s Eligibility. That issue will not go away. This “Birther” movement will not die. In fact, it seems that it has rather grown since Obama was Elected.
However, I enjoy talking “issues” , but, when I get comments such as yours that the Cap Gains Tax cut was just for the wealthy, I have to shake my head. EVERYONE who invested was entitled to that tax cut. Now, when that tax break disappears, what is the advantage for people to invest in anything other than Tax Frees? Or, invest in Equities at the same level they invested in under the Cap Gains Tax break? How will Obama fill the coffers without the tax revenue?
Do you understand what hyperinflation is? Posting a Link that we do not have hyperinflation today is rather silly as I said this will occur within the next TWO years. Did you hear Bernanke this week stating we need to raise interest rates? Bernanke is on spot…he sees hyperinflation coming.
Sis, come on now regarding the Czars. Jennings embraces NAMBLA, Van Jones is history (Thank God), Anita Dunn likes Mao and Ron Bloom seems too also. Casstein wants to paint all roofs and roads white. Who is the Czar that supports Sharia Law? Or that Czar that thinks our pets should be able to sue us. Certainly you cannot support this kind of ideology?
Do you really think Obama has kept his promise of Transparency? Can you state where?
Yep, those enumerable Obama “accomplishments”:
“7 Months After Stimulus 49 of 50 States Have Lost Jobs
with more bailouts and more stimulus in the offing!”
http://www.republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=150826
“Public distrust is biggest cost of TARP, Barofsky says”
Market Watch – Wall Street Journal
Nixonian Enemies List:
http://www.rollcall.com/news/39733-1.html?type=printer_friendly
Freedom of speech sliced in order to benefit socialist friendly broadcasting:
Mark Lloyd, newly appointed Chief Diversity Officer of the Federal Communications Commission, has called for making private broadcasting companies pay licensing fees equal to their total operating costs to allow public broadcasting outlets to spend the same on their operations as the private companies do.
Communication skills re: his new policies reflected here:
“Obama Quarterly Approval Average Slips Nine Points to 53% [Largest 2nd-3rd Q Drop”
More evidence of O’s “success” for his promised bi-partisanship:
“House Democrats Lock GOP Out of Committee Room”
Handling of the Free Press – that part who disagrees with policies:
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2009/10/obamas-brown-shirts-continue-to-attack.html
And more of SanDiegoSam guy’s self justification:
So… what I understand from this tepid response is that you admit your failings are comprehensive and complete, but you are merely quibbling about how “epic” they are.
No, just advising on your over-the-top drama queen descriptions of things. But since you missed this too … I also dealt with your “comprehensive” exaggeration as well. And I wouldn’t count on attempts as being complete either. Lucky you … now you get to watch (you’re not only just a comment policeman) all those appeals.
Okay, I can live with that. If it is your assessment that your failings are trivial and inconsequential, I have no particular interest in disabusing from the notion of your own insignificance.
Smile, Observer. Jesus loves you anyway.
Thank you even though shrouded in condescension which of course Jesus frowns upon. Why of course Jesus loves me – He blesses the meek, being those who consider themselves insignificant and those who are like little children since they are the ones to enter heaven as well as those who take the last seat to be later invited to be first.
This was just the first of your items, Sis:
*My State has been offering Insurance for Children for many years. This is NOT an Obama plan…it is State run.*
Obama signed the renewal of SCHIP GW Bush was going to veto the renewal.
It was on December 12, 2007, that Bush vetoed the second attempt to expand SCHIP. That bill would have expanded the program by $35 billion over five years, for a total of $60 billion, which supporters said would have covered 10 million children. It also would have limited SCHIP eligibility to families earning up to three times the federal poverty level, or about $62,000 for a family of four. But Bush—who advocated a smaller SCHIP increase—cited the price tag and argued that the proposal would “move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage.”
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/43/2/10-a
- It was not the renewal per se, but the expansion of the program. He didn’t want to renew it with the expansion. You didn’t tell the whole story. One could still argue the merits either way (whether to expand the program or not), but SCHIP was not discontinued under Bush. Obama expanded the program when he took office.
Pat Smith says:
October 21, 2009 at 5:48 pm
*Sis, come on now regarding the Czars.
*Jennings embraces NAMBLA*
Smear Smear Smear
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910020016
*Anita Dunn likes Mao and Ron Bloom seems too also.*
So have Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich.
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=2&aid=172127#
*Casstein wants to paint all roofs and roads white.*
Whoa, radical!
*Who is the Czar that supports Sharia Law?*
Seriously, a report from the Telegraph? That nowhere says Miss Mogahed supports sharia law.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6274387/Obama-adviser-says-Sharia-Law-is-misunderstood.html#
By the way if you google News for Obama Czar Sharia Law, you get no news hits.
“Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was “oversimplified”. Ms Mogahed is a member of Obama’s Interfaith Council, not a “Czar”. Dr. Frank S. Page, President Emeritus of the Southern Baptist convention, is also a member of the President’s Council. He supports such Southern Baptist tenets as no drinking alcohol. I don’t think it’s right someone with his views is allowed to advise the President.
*Czar that thinks our pets should be able to sue us.*
Well, you’re going to have to give me a NEWS link to that. No Blogs. CNN, ABC News, LA Times or local or regional newspaper.
You need to get out from behind the computer and read some newspapers, instead of swallowing all the bullsh!t you are readin at rightie blogs. Do you ever check out things you read or just take them at face value?
I suppose I’ll ask again whether you were the Sharon that made the comment on the blog you linked to. By linking to it and information about the guy in the first place (including his school and personal and professional history) you’ve ensured that this site will appear on a google search of his name along with intimations that he is a plant from Obama and attempting to corrupt a federal judge.
But then you went further (assuming that the Sharon that commented and you are the same – do you deny it?) and showed anybody who cares how to get the home phone and address and DOB of his family members.
Let me cite the legal definition of invasion of privacy, from Black’s Law Dictionary.
It seems that false light and public disclosure would apply here. In your case this clerk probably would not win, but he has an excellent tort case against Orly and Charlton.
sisseduermapierda says:
October 21, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Observer says:
October 21, 2009 at 1:06 pm
The Bush Admin’s neocon policy of dismissing regimes of North Korea and Iran like thugs made us less safe. Real diplomacy makes us safer. The worst thing to happen to the recruiters of new terrorist foot soldiers was the election of Barack Obama.
Your attribution is in error. Anyway, hopefully you’ll never be elected to head up a neighborhood block watch:
Now how long has that “real diplomacy” been going on that makes us feel so safe?:
“Sudbury Man Arrested On Terrorism Charges”
http://wbztv.com/local/terrorism.arrests.massachusetts.2.1261499.html
“Terror Suspect Had Bomb Guide, Authorities Say”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/us/21terror.html
“Terrorist suspects arrested in North Carolina”
http://www.examiner.com/x-17800-Raleigh-Headlines-Examiner~y2009m7d27-Terrorist-suspects-arrested-in-North-Carolina
And this homefront stuff is only encouraged by the stronger than ever response by U.S. enemies to little O’s now universal recognition as supreme wimp of the world. Why would macho thugs ever want to be identified with such a kiss up?!
I have nothing more to say to you, Q. That is all that needs to be said, per admonitions from Phil yesterday.
Sharon 2 says:
October 21, 2009 at 6:05 pm
*It was on December 12, 2007, that Bush vetoed the second attempt to expand SCHIP. That bill would have expanded the program by $35 billion over five years, for a total of $60 billion, which supporters said would have covered 10 million children. It also would have limited SCHIP eligibility to families earning up to three times the federal poverty level.*
George Bush and Republicans hate little poor children. Barack Obama and Democrats care about little poor children and realize people without health insurance use the emergency room where they can’t be denied care. Then we pay the bill anyway.
Matthew 25:41-46
Observer says:
October 21, 2009 at 6:16 pm
So we’ve caught folks BEFORE they attack us! What a concept! We are already safer, longer under the Obama Administration than we were under Bush.
Fine. Just don’t call my allegation that you posted the comment ridiculous when it’s very likely that the Sharon that posted the link to the personal information is you.
I hope you at least feel the slightest bit bad about contributing to the libel of a law clerk and the google bomb on him you’ve helped set off as a result.
Russia has joined our side on convincing Iran to drop its nuke program. (Sis)
I think you need to read this: (I don’t think Phil would be opposed to this link)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/world/europe/14diplo.html
Particularly note this statement:
“His [Russia's foreign minister] position conflicts with that of the Obama administration, which argues that the threat of sanctions is crucial to the prospect for a diplomatic solution.”
Maybe there is an update?
Sharon 2 says:
October 21, 2009 at 6:42 pm
*Maybe there is an update?*
Why yes there is! Oct 20, 2009 -
“US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the US and Russia are on the same page on how to deal with Iran if talks prove to be of no avail over Tehran’s nuclear issue. ”
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=109138§ionid=351020104
“Pat Smith says:
October 21, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Sue,
Do you remember the screaming when McCain did not release his medical records? So he finally released all 1,000 page plus records.
Why has a young man like Obama refused to release his medical records? Is the Public not entitled to judge the medical fitness of an individual running for POTUS?”
First off, there is no requirement, law or anything in the Constitution for any political candidate to release anything to “we, the people.” None, zip, zero. This is a courtesy by the political candidates, not a requirement.
Second, both Obama and Palin are healthy individuals. Their physicians released a one page summary of their medical information which included pretty much what would be obtained to purchase life insurance.(Lab work, EKG, chest x-ray, etc.) McCain and Biden however, had some pre-existing serious conditions, therefore, they agreed to allow inspection of their medical records to the press.
However, it was a courtesy rather than a requirement.
“Inasmuch as your collective Lot has deemed all the “Birther” attorneys incompetent you have nothing to worry about from them. However, do not forget that all the Powers that tried to bring down ACORN failed…took 2 kids with a camera and a story to do that. People will not stop trying and it may be the “little guy” that obtains the Sealed (opps, not so Sealed, just not discosed?) Obama documents.”
You know what, power to the little guy because it has certainly crossed my mind that with some of the “big money” that has been offered, surely someone would have tried to obtain something by now. Pretty much tells me that there is nothing to find.
As far as the “birther attorneys”, they are either incompetent based upon the fact that they do not appear to understand the rules of law and “constitutional law.” They should be well aware that Congress has the sole power to remove a sitting President, no? They are lawyers. So, my questions is, if they know this, then they know they will fail but have filed these lawsuits for the donations?
“You state, ” President Obama has been duly certified and sworn into office. End of story “. If that is the “end of the story” why do you waste your time with this Blog? Seems rather silly to pursue a situation you have deemed accomplished.”
Because it is wrong what some of these individuals have done, the lies they have spread and the people they have harmed in the process. People who profess to be devout Christians.
The radical right wing religious nuts believe they have the right to impose their opinions, beliefs and religion on others. They do not and it states this in the Constitution.
“Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Now, wonder what the reason for this was?
You’re a hoot, Observer. You cannot even begin to quibble over the substance of my posts, so instead you whine like a beaten stepchild about my choice of adjectives. You don’t argue that they’re not true, you argue that they’re too “dramatic.”
I’m cool with that. Because this statement cannot be called an exaggeration: Obama is the Constitutionally elected and legitimate President of the United States, and there is nothing that any Birther has done that has been able to change that… or even nudge things in a different direction.
Don’t worry. Be happy.
That is just PR. What really changed from my article? Clinton is trying to put a good spin on Russia’s failure to change positions on sanctions. I don’t blame her for that, but look at the reality: nothing changed. Russia is not really on the same page. [I am using my husband's lap top and am unfamiliar with it, so bear with any typos or slowness of response.]
[And just so you don't think eligibility for me is a non-issue, we still don't have a Nordyke birth announcement. Obama still needs to prove who he is. Even if every court denies the case on the merits, that is not a final answer. It is no answer.]
Sharon 2:
I’ve been following your discussion with Qwertyman. I noticed that you never got around to answering the question as to whether you are also the “Sharon” from the other blog. A simple yes or no would be sufficient.
Sharon 2:
If you want the Nordyke birth announcements… why haven’t you looked?
Barack Obama and Democrats care about little poor children
Is that why Obama (and those democrats who support pro-abortion groups) promote abortion of that particluar group? I missed that connection of care.
Sharon2 says:
October 21, 2009 at 7:02 pm
*Russia is not really on the same page. *
We are supposed to believe you know more about what page Russia is on than the Secretary of State. You funny Sharon!
*And just so you don’t think eligibility for me is a non-issue, we still don’t have a Nordyke birth announcement.
Well, if you think the Nordyke Birth announcement is important, why hasn’t anyone gone to look for it yet? You can’t find anyone from Hawaii who will go look? Put a request on Craig’s List Honolulu for someone to go look and send you a copy. Offer to pay them $10 bucks on paypal.
*Obama still needs to prove who he is.*
No he doesn’t.
*Even if every court denies the case on the merits, that is not a final answer. It is no answer.*
If you’re not satisfied when the courts are done you have 3 options left: contact your Congressman and lobby him to submit an impeachment resolution, find and support a candidate who can get more votes in 2012, wait until 2017 when Obama becomes ineligible under the 22nd amendment.
Sharon2 says:
October 21, 2009 at 7:13 pm
*Is that why Obama (and those democrats who support pro-abortion groups) promote abortion of that particluar group? I missed that connection of care.*
There is no such thing as a “Pro-abortion” group. No group “Promotes” abortion. Fetuses are not Children.
siseduermapierda wrote:
Maybe I’ve gotten too cynical and pessimistic. I’ve been on this debunking thing for some years, and conversions of the purveyors themselves are discouragingly rare. I settle for minimizing harm. On the other hand, I learn a lot, and find a few gems, for example:
I checked out a claim, from another forum, that upon Obama’s election Kenya had asserted sovereignty over the U.S. Of course the claim was a wild misinterpretation of a Kenyan speaker’s understandable pride in our newly-elected President being half Kenyan by blood. Then, within the same statement from the Kenyan Parliament, I read:
We can learn many lessons from John McCain, who so gloriously accepted defeat when the will of the American people was declared through the ballot box.
McCain was the opponent of the son of the their soil. In many places and at many times, McCain would have been regarded as the enemy of those who side with Obama.
High on the list of what makes me proud of my country is the concession speech, the kind John McCain delivered on the evening of 4 November 2008. That’s how we do things here, and Kenyans, who had recently suffered violence and bloodshed after a contentious election, took the lesson from McCain’s grace and loyalty in accepted defeat. We Americans have reason to be proud and to be humble. We champion great ideals, and when Kenyans take the baton and run, let’s applaud.
So I’m kind of agreeing with siseduermapierda — signs are encouraging. I’m less optimistic than sise about eligibility deniers supporting American ideals, but at least Kenyans are headed in the right direction.
http://www.bunge.go.ke/parliament/downloads/Tenth%20Parl%201st%20Session/Hansard/20.01.09.pdf
brygenon says:
October 21, 2009 at 7:23 pm
*High on the list of what makes me proud of my country is the concession speech, the kind John McCain delivered on the evening of 4 November 2008.*
When I watched that speech, I remember thinking, if John McCain had held that tone during his entire campaign, and held Palin to the same standard, it would have been a much closer election.
We could spend threads and threads on abortion and probably never agree on any one point. I will say that I have never heard a pregnant woman say that her fetus just kicked. I am sure you have.
Sharon2 says:
October 21, 2009 at 7:31 pm
*We could spend threads and threads on abortion and probably never agree on any one point.*
Indeed. And I’m off because tonight is TV night in the Sise house. “Criminal Minds” and “CSI:NY”.
We are supposed to believe you know more about what page Russia is on than the Secretary of State. You funny Sharon!
- I was using the perspective of Hillary Clinton, who as I said, tried to put a positive spin on the failure of Russia to get on board with the Administration regarding sanctions.
Adios.
siseduermapierda,
All you ever do is Post Links and you say “You need to get out from behind the computer and read some newspapers, instead of swallowing all the bullsh!t you are readin at rightie blogs. Do you ever check out things you read or just take them at face value?”
This is funny coming from the Link Poster Child.
This is a “Rightie” Blog. Seems you spend a great deal of time here. Why? You obviously have a great deal of disdain for “Rightie” Blogs.
I see that you still have no comments on what I said about hyperinflation and how Cap Gains Tax being recinded will affect the Economy. Please, NO Links.
By the way, is it possible for you to make a point without using Profanity?
Sue,
You assume that all of us “Birthers” contribute financially to the Cause. Why?
You go on further to state, “Because it is wrong what some of these individuals have done, the lies they have spread and the people they have harmed in the process. People who profess to be devout Christians.”
Whom has been harmed, Sue? Also, whom has professed to be a “devout Christian”.
“The radical right wing religious nuts believe they have the right to impose their opinions, beliefs and religion on others. They do not and it states this in the Constitution.”
Are you stating that all us “Birthers” are “right wing religious nuts”?
Nothing like lumping a whole group of people into one Group!
Just a question…do you think you have changed anyone’s mind on this Blog?
“Pat Smith says:
October 21, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Sue,
You assume that all of us “Birthers” contribute financially to the Cause. Why?”
Did I say you?
“You go on further to state, “Because it is wrong what some of these individuals have done, the lies they have spread and the people they have harmed in the process. People who profess to be devout Christians.”
Whom has been harmed, Sue? Also, whom has professed to be a “devout Christian”.”
Again, did I say you? Lots of people have been harmed. A recent example would be Judge Carter’s law clerk and possibly his family.
““The radical right wing religious nuts believe they have the right to impose their opinions, beliefs and religion on others. They do not and it states this in the Constitution.”
Are you stating that all us “Birthers” are “right wing religious nuts”?
Nothing like lumping a whole group of people into one Group!”
Again, I did not say you.
“Just a question…do you think you have changed anyone’s mind on this Blog?”
Nope, sure don’t. But, by the same token, do you?
“By the way, is it possible for you to make a point without using Profanity?”
bovine of male sex + bodily function = profanity?
Sue,
The Profanity remark was for Sis.
So, many people have been injured by the Birther Movement, but, the only person you can name is the Carter Law Clerk? Maybe you can specifically state the Injury and what harm it has done?
I am so relieved that you have back pedaled on all of us contributing to the Cause and that not all of us are right wing nuts.
As to changing anyone’s mind on this Blog? I don’t have to change anyone’s mind…this is (quote Sis) a “Rightie” Blog, thus, my interests are consistent with the idealogy of this Blog.
qwertyman,
Really? Let’s take one more look at the alleged “wishing death” quote:
Forget your interpretation even having the remotest possibility of standing in the court of public opinion; it’s not even in the same ball park. Otherwise, I think you’d have to show me what “I pray that you never” means, except that MGB is clearly stating (even without the benefit of the full context of the entire thread of the commentary) that they are not wishing any sort of ill. I think in English this is a form of speech that is basically saying, “If ‘Black Lion’ is trusting the President’s credentials based on an image of a document posted on and Internet blog (with nothing else in hand of any sort to corroborate the document — and no, Dr. Fukino’s statements don’t count, because she wasn’t specifically talking about the COLB), surely ‘Black Lion’ can see the folly of trusting airport security credentials that would have been substantiated via the same process.”
To further spell it out for you, MGB hopes that anyone you do actually meet who might be responsible for your direct security in a given situation is properly vetted.
First, lay off “Sharon 2;” the issue’s been rhetorically beat to death and there’s absolutely no reason for you to go on about her research.
Why? Because her past experience shows that she does not reveal anything that is not otherwise publicly available on the Internet and, based on the commentary that I’ve seen to date, she appeared to actually be defending some of the more unsubstantiated claims against the aforementioned law clerk.
So, enough about all that; I’ve already made a comment about that as it is.
I think I’m already in the process of proving how ridiculously irrational and debased this quoted statement is.
Besides — if you don’t like my site (even as bodaciously kewl as it is), go somewhere else. It’s as simple as that.
-Phil
siseduermapierda wrote:
Well, obviously the robo-call deal was a series of big mistakes. Apart from that, McCain was a excellent candidate, and overall it was a great contest. Or maybe I’m just out of touch — in 2000 I thought we had two excellent opposing candidates in McCain and Bradley.
So, yeah, in the heat of the campaign, McCain did some things he shouldn’t have, and it cost him, as it should. Still, John McCain is a great American, and we are blessed to have him, now as the loyal opposition. You’ve probably seen this before, but when a politician shows this kind of class, it’s worth watching more than once: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpE6ljPjSAk
“So, many people have been injured by the Birther Movement, but, the only person you can name is the Carter Law Clerk? Maybe you can specifically state the Injury and what harm it has done?”
Danny Bickell–character attack with no basis in fact; hate mail; flooded SCOTUS with phone calls; disrupted court
SCOTUS–character attacks
Judge Land–character attacks; no basis in fact, hate mail, disrupted court
Judge Carter–character attacks; no basis in fact, hate mail, disrupted court
Judge Lamberth–character attacks; flooded court with emails/phone calls; disrupted court.
Hawaii DOH officials–character attacks, hate mail and phone calls; disrupted work environment
News Reporter in Georgia–hate mail and phone calls; had to provide security. Do you have any idea how upsetting this was?
Fred and Michelle Meyers–phone calls; disrupted lives.
3 Pittsburg police officers–deceased
Security Guard Holocaust Museum–deceased
Two bloggers who dared write a letter to a Rep., only to have their letter to the Rep. published on a blog and their personal information; phone calls and hate mail.
President Obama’s elderly maternal great aunt–published address and phone number; sent patriots to her house. Do you have any idea how upsetting this was for this woman?
Shall I continue?
You’re a hoot, Observer. You cannot even begin to quibble over the substance of my posts, so instead you whine like a beaten stepchild about my choice of adjectives. You don’t argue that they’re not true, you argue that they’re too “dramatic.”
Well, I’m finally glad you got the message – and whining has been your projection all the while you’ve been doing it. Just admit I was correct (which you now have) about your spinning with the snake oil salesman approach and your angst about my comment would have been short lived without all the toing and froing.
Night night!
“I think I’m already in the process of proving how ridiculously irrational and debased this quoted statement is.”
Phil,
Many individuals, simply because they do not support/agree with the birther conspiracy theory, cover a story with no bias either way, rule on these lawsuits based on the rule of law–well settled law I might add based upon the Constitution, have received hate mail and phone calls. I know this to be a fact. They have also been accused of alleged misconduct and crimes/treason that did not occur and have no basis in fact. Not to mention the fact they have been called Marxists, Socialists, Satanic, Communists, unAmerican and unpatriotic.
Another one to add to the list. U.S. Attorney Eric Holder.
Oh and P.S.
Obama is the Constitutionally elected and legitimate President of the United States,
He sits in the office but Constitutionally? … not as a British citizen at birth. You may spin otherwise but so far that is established as only your opinion and your personal analysis. And that certainly is not the standard of measure by any stretch of the imagination as history of the presidency itself has shown as to what was the accepted definition. Even the illegitimate president demonstrated that he too accepted the definition by his own purposeful behavior of fraud.
Observer said:
Even the illegitimate president demonstrated that he too accepted the definition by his own purposeful behavior of fraud.
Huh? Would that be why he made no secret of his father’s nationality – in fact wrote a very moving book about it – and acknowledged his own dual citizenship at birth? You call that fraud?
As for illegitimate – in the birther parallel universe only; in the real world, not so much.
bystander says:
October 22, 2009 at 9:03 am
Observer said:
Even the illegitimate president demonstrated that he too accepted the definition by his own purposeful behavior of fraud.
Huh? Would that be why he made no secret of his father’s nationality – in fact wrote a very moving book about it – and acknowledged his own dual citizenship at birth? You call that fraud?
As for illegitimate – in the birther parallel universe only; in the real world, not so much.
Good grief! Do I have to correct everybody here??? When I spoke to “history” I meant “history” – thus the “illegitimate” one in “history” was C.A.Arthur. And he purposefully hid his true facts of birth demonstrating that he too accepted the already accepted definition of eligibility … to this day!! Now you got it?? A little reason and logic might help in future comments.
BTW, More applaudable (not) “accomplishments” by “the One”:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i-95E_TCyqYX0CBZ5xQAV_V3VWyQD9BG76902
“White House economist: Stimulus already losing steam?”
“Lack of job growth is a major problem. The Labor Department said the number of newly laid-off workers filing claims for jobless benefits rose to a seasonally adjusted 531,000 last week, from an upwardly revised 520,000 the previous week. Wall Street economists had expected only a slight increase, according to Thomson Reuters.”
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-jobless-claims-rise-more-apf-1168669314.html?x=0&.v=1
It’s quite a burden to watch the real news each day.
Phil, thank you so much for responding to qwertyman’s “libel” of me.
I was going to ask him or her, quite simply, what part of “I pray that you never” is SO confusing.
Instead of hoping for something bad to happen to Black Lion, I pray for the exact opposite: That his apparent (imho, completely unfounded) faith in government competence never causes him to come to harm.
“BTW, More applaudable (not) “accomplishments” by “the One”:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i-95E_TCyqYX0CBZ5xQAV_V3VWyQD9BG76902
“White House economist: Stimulus already losing steam?”
“Lack of job growth is a major problem. The Labor Department said the number of newly laid-off workers filing claims for jobless benefits rose to a seasonally adjusted 531,000 last week, from an upwardly revised 520,000 the previous week. Wall Street economists had expected only a slight increase, according to Thomson Reuters.”
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-jobless-claims-rise-more-apf-1168669314.html?x=0&.v=1
It’s quite a burden to watch the real news each day.”
Gee, you appear to be happy/glad about this? Amazing.
People criticized some who allegedly enjoy seeing the birther lawsuits fails, which are very unimportant in the scheme of things; yet, you appear to enjoy reports that measures taken by Congress and our President, and BTW, the previous President regarding the economy allegedly isn’t working? Totally nuts.
Sue:
Gee, you appear to be happy/glad about this? Amazing.
People criticized some who allegedly enjoy seeing the birther lawsuits fails, which are very unimportant in the scheme of things; yet, you appear to enjoy reports that measures taken by Congress and our President, and BTW, the previous President regarding the economy allegedly isn’t working? Totally nuts.
I know you are ignoring me these days … so I’ll just pretend I didn’t see this and you can pretend that you’re not reading a reply to YOUR noticing of mine!
But I DID say “it is a BURDEN to read the news”. Why must you always see the glass half empty??
OK, OK, I WAS BORN IN AFRICA. I’M A VICTIM – STILL A NICE GUY.
“AFRICAN CHILDREN, LIVING IN A BUNGLED SITUATION…”
YOU CANNOT STOP MY USURPATION! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Observer:
I can’t. That would be a lie.
An epic lie at that!
“The COLB is….” siseduermapierda
siseduermapierda is ignorant or deceitful about the status of Obama’s COLB in law.
1 The COLB database came into service in 2001
2 Obama’s COLB is an edited and reduced dataset abstracted from a birth certificate originating in 1961.
3 Out of court statements in a document submitted for the truth of its contents are hearsay and inadmissible as evidence unless the document satisfies the applicable hearsay exceptions of the Federal (or Hawaii) Rules of Evidence.
4 FRE (HRE) Rule 803(9) admits into evidence, as exempted hearsay, authenticated vital records.
5 Obama’s COLB was printed and “certified” by Registrar Onaka in June 2007.
6 Obama’s COLB states in effect on its first and most important line “There is a birth certificate in the DoH archive recorded in 1961 which has this serial number (151 1961 014641) and it says everything this COLB says and more to substantiate this COLB.”
7 Onaka’s machine-stamped “signature” and “certification” do not make any claim to “authenticate”, either formally or practically, the 1961 birth record and its serial number, only “This…abstract ” of the COLB dataset printout upon which the “certification” is machine-stamped.
8 The Obama COLB’s first and most important line is hearsay within hearsay, statements from a document not in evidence, to which the vital records hearsay exception FRE (HRE) Rule 803(9) can not be applied.
9 No official currently in authority at DoH worked there in 1961.
10 Business records Rule 803(6) only admits hearsay statements made at or near the time the information was recorded and public records Rule 803(8) only admits hearsay statements made by someone who had firsthand knowledge of the events recorded. Both require the original source of the information recorded (Obama’s birth) to be trustworthy and “under [a] duty to provide unbiased information” i.e. the original source must be employed within the recording organization.
11 The forty-six years difference between the hearsay within hearsay statements in Obama’s 2007 COLB printout and the original 1961 birth certificate, the fact that no current authority at DoH has firsthand knowledge of the registration of Obama’s birth, and the unreliable and untrustworthy source (family member) of the registration information recorded, singly or together, are not able to satisfy FRE (HRE) Rules 803(6) or 803(8).
12 Obama’s COLB is not admissible as evidence in either the federal or Hawaii court systems.
“The Federal govt honors the vital records laws of the various states.” siseduermapierda
siseduermapierda is ignorant or deceitful about the status of Obama’s COLB in federal law.
Article IV of the US Constitution and its enabling statute 28 USC Section 1739, do not apply to administrative records of any type. “If You Sleep You Lose” has never bothered to check this juvenile claim, or has no compunction about pushing lies, or must have dozed when skimming pages where I corrected the error. If siseduermapierda believes none of these presumptions are correct, it should be simple to cite references. Otherwise, readers may take one or more of the presumptions as conceded.
The only route to get Obama’s COLB (if it exists) into evidence is i) via FRE-HRE 902(4) as siseduermapierda acknowledges, but Rule 902(4) renders Obama’s COLB inadmissible as it has not satisfied the Rule (requires a non-routine authentication with handwritten signature), and ii) via a hearsay exception, for which see above.
“COLB is prima facie evidence…” siseduermapierda
Under FRE Rules 106 and 1002 attorneys opposing Obama can require the best evidence or original writing from which Obama’s electronic COLB dataset originates, the 1961 records, altogether bypassing the COLB (if it exists). Readers should expect “If You Sleep You Lose” to ignore this fact and can safely assume it is conceded.
Put FRE Rules 106 and 1002 together with the inadmissible hearsay within hearsay of Obama’s purported COLB and readers should have little doubt that Obama’s COLB is so irretrievably worthless that it could never be offered or admitted as evidence in any court, and certainly not to the exclusion of the 1961 records. Hence the massive effort to protect it.
“it is about…respecting the rule of law…the COLB settles the issue.” Bob
Bob spreading disinformation about the law (Full Faith and Credit applies to administrative records, vital records are not authenticated via FRE 902(4), DoH responses don’t have to conform to UIPA, COLBs are not subject to hearsay etc. etc.) is not indicative of “respecting the rule of law.” Similarly, it’s hard to believe Bob is being honest about respecting the “rule of law” when nothing will persuade him that the COLB has not settled the issue in law – unless Bob truly believes Annenberg Poilitical Fact Check, Politifact, and the Daily Kos are agents of the law. What law?
Who Are You Kidding says:
October 23, 2009 at 2:31 am
Indeed, who are you trying to kid? Hawaii’s vital records prove all your points wrong. You can parse, and dismiss and try to explain away, but the statutes are very direct and very simple. The COLB is equivalent to the original.
If a judge allowed discovery, the only piece of discoverable evidence would be proof of Obama’s birth. The COLB IS that proof. You are incorrect to attempt to cloud it any other way. No judge would issue an order that violates a state’s vital records laws. The federal government honors the vital records of the various states.
Once again with gusto:
According to Hawaiian Statute, the COLB is the equivalent of the original.
“b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original”
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0013.htm
Per Article IV of the US Constitution, the Federal Govt recognizes the vital records laws of the various states.
Article IV, Sec 1 “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. ”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html#section1
The COLB is a self-authenticating document. Hawaii can make copies however they like.
“The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original. ”
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0019.htm
Bob,
This question is for you since you have said you are an attorney. Is this true? It doesn’t come from an official source. I don’t care for the moment about the merits of any argument that could be presented (obviously many would say directed verdict) . Just tell me whether or not this is accurate.
“While a presumption of authenticity dispenses with the need to introduce extrinsic evidence as a condition precedent to admissibility, it does not preclude a dispute about authenticity by the parties, who are free to attack the genuineness of the real evidence. When evidence is introduced to dispute the authenticity of an official seal or signature, the jury will determine its validity unless the trial judge finds that reasonable minds could not differ on the question, in which case a directed verdict or peremptory instruction should result in a civil case.”
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4M0_uvoAszwJ:touchngo.com/lglcntr/ctrules/evcom/EVC-64.htm+dispute+self-authenticating+document&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Thank you.
p.s. I hope I don’t run out of edit time- This presumes that the plaintiffs would have to be given a copy of the COLB ahead of time doesn’t it?
MGB, I pray that it never emerges that Glenn Beck once raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.
To be fair though, in retrospect I had thought that what you said was a lot more harsh than what is actually in your post. Apologies, there are only two people on this site in the past couple of weeks who have explicitly hoped for the death of those who disagree with their views.
Just tell me whether or not this is accurate.
It is accurate. Remember:
1. If Obama offered his COLB to a court, it would the paper version, not the digital image. So the challenge would be to the paper version’s authenticity. (The opposing party would be given an opportunity to examine it if so requested.)
2. Unless there is an eyewitness to someone doctoring the COLB, such a challenge to the authenticity would have to be done by an expert. “Polarik” is not an expert; he lacks the requisite education or experience. Sandra Lines is an expert, but she has never examined the paper COLB.
3. A judge would allow the jury to decide authenticity only if there was a reasonable dispute. If the dispute was not reasonable, i.e., the plaintiffs were relying upon “Polarik”‘s and Lines’ previous affidavits, the judge would rule against the opposing party and instruct the jury that it is authentic.
Sandra Lines is an expert, but she has never examined the paper COLB.
- It seems like the COLB would have to be presented ahead of time to allow a reasonable challenge. That it is being challenged would be evident when the parties meet under the discovery rules. (meaning if the case proceeds) The paper COLB has obviously never been presented to the plaintiffs.
It seems like the COLB would have to be presented ahead of time to allow a reasonable challenge.
Typically a party propounds discovery asking the opposing party to list all evidence that supports a claim/defense. The opposing party would disclose that information. Then the original party would request to examine the original so it may be inspected by an expert.
This would all happen during the discovery phase, prior to a trial or even a summary judgment motion.
Thank you, Bob. If the case should proceed to discovery, at least that aspect will be resolved by expert opinion. I would expect some other points of contention, such as whether anyone but a person born in Hawaii could have been granted a birth certificate (the COLB is generated from that original long form certificate), could be resolved at this stage also, or maybe not. To what degree discovery is allowed is obviously important. Fishing expeditions are not allowed, but maybe Judge Carter could order the long form under seal to be seen only by him, and he will make a determination as to whether there is any probative value. I remember reading about a case where the judge denied counsel access to a personal diary until he made a determination. (this was long before Obama)
such as whether anyone but a person born in Hawaii could have been granted a birth certificate (the COLB is generated from that original long form certificate)
That is a legal issue, not a factual issue, so no discovery is needed. If a litigant thinks there’s a law that allows a foreign-born people to receive a birth certificate that says they were born in Honolulu, no discovery is needed for that; just hit the library.
maybe Judge Carter could order the long form under seal to be seen only by him, and he will make a determination as to whether there is any probative value.
Maybe, but very unlikely. Under Hawaiian law, the COLB derives its data from the long form, so what you see on the COLB is also on the birth certificate. The hospital, attending doctor, etc. are simply not relevant to eligibility. To the extent there are claims of document fraud that would require the long form, a party would have to convince the judge (with competent evidence) that there’s a reasonable possibility that document fraud actually occured.
That is a legal issue, not a factual issue, so no discovery is needed.
- It would be unless there is some proof that someone got a certificate when not actually born in Hawaii. The Chinese national (who of course is long dead and before Hawaii was a state) is an example, but not very convincing, except for the fact that it did occur.
Also, I meant that certain issues can be dropped during the discovery phase when meeting as required to hammer them out.
It would be unless there is some proof that someone got a certificate when not actually born in Hawaii.
Whether there is a law that allows foreign-born people to have a birth certificate is a legal issue; whether someone else committed document fraud is not relevant to any allegation regarding Obama’s birth certificate.
I meant that certain issues can be dropped during the discovery phase when meeting as required to hammer them out.
Discovery meetings are to hammer out discovery issues. Obama cannot provide any discovery regarding Hawaiian laws or if someone else committed document fraud so there’s nothing to hammer out.
Let me explain my point this way. The attorney(s) opposing Obama are not assuming that the COLB is legitimate. (this is just a statement for argument purposes because I know that Taitz is one but I don’t know all the specific arguments of the various plaintiffs) If someone else committed document fraud, then he could have also. Discovery involves interrogatories. DoH officials could be given interrogatories to answer based upon their knowledge of his certificate. I think that is the strategy behind those making requests under the open records law (which never brought forth any evidence that the DoH issued a COLB to the Obama campaign, something Leo D. desperately wanted proven to focus on the British citizenship issue.) You will say that this is getting into more of a fishing expedition, but everything depends on how this plays out and what the judge will allow, if anything.
If you further respond, I’ll have to come back at a later time.
Just one more quick thought: simply allowing a copy of the receipt (with an affidavit) to show that there was a COLB request last July would be non-intrusive and helpful to dispel the doubt that many rational people have.
If someone else committed document fraud, then he could have also.
Speculation is not evidence. That others have committed document fraud does not make it reasonably possible that Obama’s family also might have.
Discovery involves interrogatories. DoH officials could be given interrogatories to answer based upon their knowledge of his certificate.
Which would lead to a discovery dispute because there’s no evidence of document fraud. Discovery is a process for a party (primarily the defendant) to discover what evidence the other party has. It is not a means to drag third parties into disputes, so the courts are wary of nonparty discovery.
which never brought forth any evidence that the DoH issued a COLB to the Obama campaign
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
You will say that this is getting into more of a fishing expedition, but everything depends on how this plays out and what the judge will allow, if anything.
It is a fishing expedition. And this is all hypothetical anyway because none of these cases are going to get to the discovery phase.
simply allowing a copy of the receipt (with an affidavit) to show that there was a COLB request last July would be non-intrusive and helpful to dispel the doubt that many rational people have.
Doubt in the face of index data, the COLB, Fukino’s statements, and the newspaper annoucements is not rational. The COLB itself is proof there was a request because it is a document under seal and signature that could not have been otherwise generated, and there’s no competent evidence to suggest document fraud.
New poll released. 30% of Americans do not believe Obama was born in the USA.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/34338/obama_was_not_born_in_us_republicans_say
RJ
Bob,
It is obvious that any fraudulent proof was hypothetical. If Orly Taitz had any of that kind of proof, she would have been screaming about it. My initial question you answered: a self-authenticating document is allowed to be scrutinized by the opposing party’s expert. Now, since Judge Carter suggested that the parties can engage in discovery at any point, it would save time and money for the DOJ to present the paper copy of what is already claimed to be proof positive of a Hawaiian birth: the COLB. It is not giving in at all: it is just providing what is already disclosed in a different form. I am surprised that it has never been done if it is clear that any court would accept it as what it purports to be. Sandra Lines (or whomever) can analyze it, find it genuine, and that ends one aspect of the case. The other is of course, the definition of a NBC.
The Monitor
Here is another article mentioning Obama as “Kenyan Born”
Uganda: Citizens Form Obama Support Group
16 February 2008
Grace Matsiko
Kampala—Ugandans have formed a group to mobilize support for Kenyan born-senator, Barack Obama for the US Presidency.
The Obama Solidarity Group (OSP) launched its campaign at Makerere University on January 18, according to one of the members.
“Our group has been formed to see that our candidate gets support from not onoy Americans but other parts of the world including Uganda because he is a symbol of Africa in a western democracy. “Mr Sliver Mulindwa, a third year student a the university, said.
“We have campaigned among the Americans working in Uganda and they have shown support for the candidate *Obama, a senator for Illinois is campaigning against US former First Lady Hilary Clinton on the Democrats ticket to become America’s first black President……..”
There is more to the article but this was all my “printscreen” took and I can’t get it back up on Wayback Machine to get the rest of it.
URL for above post article:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200802180051.html
Now, since Judge Carter suggested that the parties can engage in discovery at any point
Judge Carter suggested no such thing. He granted the DoJ’s motion to stay discovery, and denied Taitz’s motion for relief from that order.
Yes he did Bob, as a voluntary move. It was pointed out that it is standard language in his orders. It wasn’t specific to this case. I didn’t say that he ORDERED discovery. This was not from the most recent hearing. I’ll have to find it. It was one of those items that Taitz misinterpreted as a mandate. The point is, the COLB can be handed over now. It wouldn’t stop the MTD.
Here is the rest of article mentioned in previous posts, in it’s cut-and-paste entirety. (Notice this group claiming Obama Kenyan-born supposedly accepted donations from Americans to help their campaign for Obama.)
“……….
While Obama’s rate card rose, Ms Clinton suffered an even more personal rejection on Thursday when Mr. David Wilhelm, who managed her husband’s 1992 campaign for the White House endorsed her opponent.
The defection came as Obama began to peel away sections of Clinton’s supporting coalition among working-class households, women, Catholics and older voters, to win primaries in Virginia, Maryland and Washington DC by overwhelming margins.
Clinton’s strategist, Mark Penn, tried to downplay the importance of momentum to Obama, who now has a string of eight consecutive wins. “Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification for who can win the general election,” he told a conference call with reporters.
Mr Mulindwa said they have distributed 4,000 copies of flyers, 1,000 badges, 800 car stickers and hundreds of posters to the American citizens, diplomats, academicians, scholars and businesses in Kampala.
“This is voluntary work,” Mr Mulindwa said when asked about the campaign financiers. “We receive modest donations from the American friends and other well wishers.”
He said, at Makerere University alone, there are two groups that have been formed to campaign for Obama.
The dean of students, Mr John Ekudu said yesterday, he was not aware of the OSG but promised to establish the information.
“I don’t know about them (OSG) yet but that is interesting,” Mr Ekudu said. “But how will the students participate in the elections, will they travel to US?” he asked. But Mr Mulindwa said the solidarity members do not have to travel to US to show their support.
I lost my comment somehow. Even if Judge Carter granted the motion to stay discovery, the parties can agree to engage in limited discovery strictly for the COLB, couldn’t they? Don’t judges like when parties agree? There would be a record, then of the paper COLB having been examined by an expert. What harm could come to the defendant? If the COLB was handed over at the beginning of the case, Judge Carter would have had much less work to do, assuming the COLB is sufficient evidence in the eyes of the Court to prove one’s birth place for eligibility purposes. This would be the perfect opportunity to present the paper COLB to the public, because as has been said, we all can’t handle it. An expert would have that chance. Defedant assumes no risk. The case will still be thrown out for all the reasons given as stated anyways. THis would just be a bonus. Do it now while the case is live.
It was pointed out that it is standard language in his orders.
You’re going to have to cite his specific language. Regardless, Judge Carter has stayed discovery, which means the DoJ cannot be compelled at this time to disclose anything.
Even if Judge Carter granted the motion to stay discovery, the parties can agree to engage in limited discovery strictly for the COLB, couldn’t they?
Could they? Sure. Will they? No. Remember the DoJ’s “Nuts!” response.
There would be a record, then of the paper COLB having been examined by an expert. What harm could come to the defendant?
Classic give-an-inch-take-a-mile situation. The havoc Taitz could create is bounded only by the imagination.
If the COLB was handed over at the beginning of the case, Judge Carter would have had much less work to do, assuming the COLB is sufficient evidence in the eyes of the Court to prove one’s birth place for eligibility purposes.
The COLB is irrelevant with respect the motion pending before the judge. In fact, for the motion, the judge assumes everything in the complaint is true. So Judge Carter right now presumes Obama is a 119-Connecticut vampire of Kenyan-Indonesian citizenry when deciding whether the plaintiffs have standing, etc.
This would be the perfect opportunity to present the paper COLB to the public, because as has been said, we all can’t handle it.
The digital COLB was posted to end rumors; it only created a thousand more. The same will happen here.
Bob, Bob, you are missing the whole point. Orly Taitz would have no case about the birthplace of Obama if DOJ voluntarily turned over the COLB for examination. Birth certificates are self-authenticating. You don’t believe that there is anything to prove a fraud should it be examined upon request. DOJ wouldn’t be forced to give a mile: Limit discovery to that one item. Present it to the court. No further discovery necessary because Obama would win! No COLB has ever been submitted to a court. MTD granted with regard to the issue of birthplace. No discovery is needed for the dual citizenship argument. The COLB already shows that Obama has a Kenyan father. It then becomes a legal argument. Subject matter jurisdiction, political question are hurdles for that remaining issue so it would not cut down on too much work.
Turning over the COLB is a win-win for Obama. It is a win for precedence of a court finding Hawaii as the birthplace and does not do anything to damage the other issue of dual citizenship.
“The digital COLB was posted to end rumors; it only created a thousand more. The same will happen here.”
So what? You don’t seem to mind discussing them. Instead of quoting twitter, a judge could actually refer to a court case when referencing the validity of the COLB.
“Turning over the COLB is a win-win for Obama. It is a win for precedence of a court finding Hawaii as the birthplace and does not do anything to damage the other issue of dual citizenship.”
No, it wouldn’t. It would be a lose/lose for the Presidential office–has nothing to do with President Obama. It would set a bad precedent for the Presidential office to give in to paper terrorism.
There is no issue of “dual citizenship”, except in the minds of “birthers.”
The DOJ’s MTD will be granted by Judge Carter and here is why:
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=4007
Kirchner v. Obama—DISMISSED!
“Per Article IV…Federal Govt recognizes the vital records laws of the various states.” siseduermapierda
I wrote that if siseduermapierda wanted to rebut the presumption that a juvenile or false claim was being made for Article IV and its enabling statute 28 USC Section 1739, with regard to federal recognition of state vital records and vital records laws, then siseduermapierda must cite a reference. It comes as no great surprise that “If You Sleep You Lose” has merely restated the claim by linking once again to Article IV. Restating a claim with gusto but no evidence is hardly persuasive. The truth is that “If You Sleep You Lose” cited no references because no references exist which support siseduermapierda‘s claim, and so the claim’s restatement is by definition juvenile or deceitful or both. Readers can discover for themselves the extent of siseduermapierda‘s juvenile or deceitful mind by consulting these works from the following distinguished law professors:
Theory Wars in the Conflict of Laws, Louise Weinberg, Michigan Law Review, 2005. http://ssrn.com/abstract=754105
“… it is only with respect to state judgments that Congress has exercised its power, U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 1, to require full faith and credit … Full faith and credit has to do with a sister state’s judgments, not its laws. The [US Supreme] Court still has occasion to reiterate this lesson…”
The Full Faith And Credit Clause: A Reference Guide. William Reynolds and William Richman, Praeger, 2005 http://tinyurl.com/FFCC-R-R
“the courts have read the statute [28 USC Section 1739] in accord with its plain meaning as not…applying to…the records of administrative bodies.”
“The COLB is a self-authenticating document.” siseduermapierda
If siseduermapierda ever knew it to forget it then “If You Sleep You Lose” is reminded that “a self-authenticating document” means that such a document is excused foundational testimony in court if the document is authenticated by a certificate issued by its custodian which satisfies mandatory legal standards. The authentication requirement for certified copies of vital records and electronic records is FRE 902(4), which siseduermapierda has acknowledged is correct. In which case, a non-routine comparison check between COLB database and COLB printout, accompanied by a written certification to that effect with a handwritten attesting signature by the custodian, is authentication enough to obviate a court appearance.
The matter of whether a COLB is in fact a certified copy of a vital record is not part of my argument; neither is the fact that online images of Obama’s purported COLB display something which has not been not authenticated in conformity with 902(4); therefore siseduermapierda‘s point is irrelevant in the context of the present discussion.
“According to Hawaiian Statute, the COLB is the equivalent of the original.” siseduermapierda
According to the Hawaii and Federal Rules of Evidence a government document making hearsay statements and submitted for admission into evidence must satisfy a hearsay exception or that document is inadmissible. When a document contains hearsay with hearsay it is admissible under Rule 805 “if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule provided in these rules.” Vital records being hearsay are admitted into evidence via FRE-HRE 803(9). A hearsay within hearsay element inside but going beyond a vital record can only be admitted under a Rule other than 803(9).
“If You Sleep You Lose” note very carefully: nowhere in my argument was it written that Hawaii statute does not give DoH the authority to issue COLBs or that the State of Hawaii do not recognize their own documents. “If You Sleep You Lose” note even more carefully: nowhere is it written in any Hawaii or federal law (which includes FRE-HRE) that vital records can be admitted into evidence without authentication or are immune to hearsay. If that were the case there would be no need for a authentication Rule specifically for vital records – 902(4) and a hearsay Rule excepting vital records – 803(9).
Given that vital records are subject to the law, which includes the Federal and Hawaii Rules of Evidence, courts will seek to avoid a situation where “reversible error occurred because [of] prejudicial hearsay testimony as to the contents of documents that were not themselves introduced into evidence, which documents, moreover, could not have been introduced without prior authentication, including a query into their trustworthiness for the purpose for which introduced [meaning that] by failing to apply the rules of evidence at issue, not only was their letter ignored but also their functional purpose as designed to assure trustworthiness of the evidence of this nature to be received, as well as to afford a fair opportunity to the opponent of the introduction of the evidence to prevent the trier of fact from being contaminated by unreliable prejudicial testimony.” (US v. Marshall US Fifth Circuit Appeals, 1985)
To render my argument nugatory “If You Sleep You Lose” must demonstrate that vital records are not subject to the Federal and Hawaii Rules of Evidence; or that there is no hearsay within hearsay in Obama’s COLB; or that the hearsay within hearsay in Obama’s COLB is not subject to Rules 803(6) or 803(8). Any one of the foregoing will rebut; but if none are rebutted then Obama’s COLB (if it exists) is inadmissible as evidence. siseduermapierda should be aware that simple-minded, juvenile, or deceitful repeating of links to, or restatements of, statute or constitutional provisions are not arguments and do not rebut. The problem set requires the exercise of independent thought. This should be interesting, if attempted by “If You Sleep You Lose“. If not attempted, the argument will be deemed conceded.
Who Are,
The resident Obama lawyer here already debunked Sis, even though there is no admission about that. A certificate is a self-authenticating document. That is true. But the authenticity is allowed to be challenged.
So our friends here have resorted to the usual arguments, ignoring that Obama could offer the COLB in this very case, which is still active, have plaintiffs’ expert examine it, and have it found genuine. There is no legal reason why they cannot. No doors would be opened except truth that would confirm that what has been submitted online is in fact, genuine. Nothing has ever been submitted to a court of law.
Their motives are so clear to me now that I don’t have anything more to say, really. This is not a lengthy list (although I think everything on that list except grades should be released voluntarily. I myself don’t find grades an accurate indicator of ability- Einstein is proof of that. I do understand wanting to know if he was helped along by others and that could be somewhat related to eligibility. Whether he was a foreign student or not would make the grades irrelevant IMO). They don’t want the COLB to be presented to a court; it should look exactly as what has been presented unofficially. What is the worry? I actually thought it was the long form they would get hyper over.
Go figure.
Who are you kidding, you really have no clue what Hearsay within Hearsay is, do you? Also, what law school did you graduate from? What bar associations are you a member of? And can you prove this membership? Where are you practicing law?
I’ve confirred with multiple lawyers, and they all disagree with you. The public record exception admits the document.
Now hearsay within Hearsay is to exclude hearsay statements that are within the document, or statement that’s being included. An example would be a game of telephone. The statement “Bob told me that Susan to him that George killed Karen.” Has hearsay within hearsay. What Susan told Bob is hearsay. And Bob relaying that to the witness is also hearsay. So, you’d have to get past both hearsays to get that statement in.
Or another example is a Police Report that reports what witnesses said at the scene. The statements in there is hearsay within hearsay.
The Record File Number is not a out-of-court statement. It would be admitted with the document. Now, if the document had any statements that Someone else said, that would be Hearsay within Hearsay. The record file number is not hearsay within hearsay.
The public record exception admits the document. (dunny)
- It is allowed to be challenged.
Per Bob (some snippets):
If Obama offered his COLB to a court, it would the paper version, not the digital image. So the challenge would be to the paper version’s authenticity. (The opposing party would be given an opportunity to examine it if so requested.)
. . .
Typically a party propounds discovery asking the opposing party to list all evidence that supports a claim/defense. The opposing party would disclose that information. Then the original party would request to examine the original so it may be inspected by an expert.
This would all happen during the discovery phase, prior to a trial or even a summary judgment motion.
________________________
Of course, Bob doesn’t believe it will get that far. It may not, but the point is, there can be a challenge should discovery be allowed. Sandra Lines (or some other qualified expert) would have the opportunity to examine it.
Sharon2, I do not think that you know what WhoAreYouKidding was saying. He was directly saying that the COLB is inadmissible, because it’s Hearsay within Hearsay. He’s not saying that the authenicity can be challenged, he’s saying that it’s not admissible.
I’d think long and hard before hooking anything to his Legal Analysis.
Oh, and to challenge the authenticity of it, you’d have to have actual evidence, not speculation.
My previous post was mainly to refute WhoAreYouKidding who was trying to claim that the COLB would not be admissible because it’s hearsay, and the statements within it are hearsay within hearsay.
Okay Dunny, then he would be wrong under the rules of evidence.
“Oh, and to challenge the authenticity of it, you’d have to have actual evidence, not speculation.”
The plaintiffs would have the opportunity to have it examined and could present evidence of forgery, if any, to make that challenge. Obviously if the examination does not reveal any forgery, the COLB would be admitted without challenge.
What is the worry?
It is lose-lose for the presidency. George W. Bush didn’t waste his time and energy responding to the “hard questions” about his alleged involvement in 9/11, and it was entirely appropriate for the office of presidency to ignore the unappeasable.
There is no legal reason why they cannot.
There is also no legal reason to do so. The court will assume Obama is a 119-year-old Kenyan-Indonesian when ruling on the defense’s motion. (And Sue has correctly identified the political reasons for not doing so.)
Their motives are so clear to me now that I don’t have anything more to say, really.
And thanks for playing.
“The plaintiffs would have the opportunity to have it examined and could present evidence of forgery, if any, to make that challenge. Obviously if the examination does not reveal any forgery, the COLB would be admitted without challenge.”
The above is not the way our legal system works. The plaintiffs have to provide to the court admissible evidence in a court of law which would cast doubt on the certified COLB. The plaintiffs to date, have not done this. In essence, what the plaintiffs are saying to the court is that we “think, believe, surmise and speculate” that President Obama “may not” eligible to be POTUS but we have no “actual, admissible evidence” of this, so please judge, give us the documents we are demanding so we can prove President Obama is not eligible. This is NOT the way our judicial system works, thankfully. In fact, in the “birther lawyers” pleadings are statements that can and have been proven false. (The Pakistan travel ban, the maternal grandmother “confession,” the law about registering foreign-born certificates… they’ve all been disproven.)
If Judge Carter or any other judge did order the certified COLB be produced, I do not believe anyone would be allowed to examine the document. The document would come directly from the Hawaii DOH and is a self authenticating document.
However, the most important point of this whole discussion is the fact that the courts are not the proper venue. Congress, at this point, is the proper venue. This is also one of the reasons the certified COLB should NOT be produced by the defendants to the court. The reason the courts are not the proper venue are:
Standing
Justiciability
Political Question Doctrine
Congress, according to the Constitution, has the sole power to remove a sitting President. Period.
Many of the lawyers and other legal professionals at PJ, did not vote for President Obama nor do they support President Obama’s political agenda. However, they oppose the “birther lawyers” because of the above. The “birther lawyers” in claiming to “uphold the Constitution” are actually asking the courts to rule against well established rules of law based upon the Constitution. This is also the reason why the PJ lawyers have been able to predict the outcome of these “birther lawsuits” with 100% accuracy, give or take a few minor details.
The Politijab forum is absolutely one of the most unbiased forums I have ever had the privilege to be a part of. The members on this forum call each other out for providing less than factual information and always cite their sources.
“If Judge Carter or any other judge did order the certified COLB be produced, I do not believe anyone would be allowed to examine the document. The document would come directly from the Hawaii DOH and is a self authenticating document.”
If Bob were intellectually honest, he would tell you are wrong. As a matter of fact, his previous explanation shows that your statement is wrong. That was the whole point of my comment all along: although the COLB is a self-authenticating document, it can still be challenged. Whether the challenge would bear any fruit is a different question.
Because of your expressed view of Politijab, it is clear that you are not HERE for honest debate.
“it can still be challenged”
Sharon 2,
I never said the COLB could not be challenged; however, and I believe Bob will agree with me on this, to challenge the COLB, the plaintiffs would have to present credible, admissible evidence to the court before the court would allow the COLB to be challenged. So far, the plaintiffs have not provided any credible, admissible evidence to the court to support their claims of forgery.
“Because of your expressed view of Politijab, it is clear that you are not HERE for honest debate.”
Based upon your previous comment on this forum, you have never visited the PJ forum, correct? Therefore, just what do you base your above statement on regarding PJ and PJ’s members?
“…you really have no clue what Hearsay within Hearsay is.” dunstvangeet
It’s very amusing to have my understanding of hearsay questioned by dunstvangeet, when in late August I had to correct dunstvangeet‘s own understanding of the hearsay Rules. dunstvangeet wrote:
“ ‘It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate.’ Statement that Spokesman Janice Okubo told the Press. …Rule 803, Paragraph 8 covers the Hawaii Department of Health. That means that the statement of the COLB being ‘a valid Hawaii State Birth Certificate’ would be admitted, even if Janice Okubo wasn’t called to the stand. That means it’s not Hearsay. It’s admissible evidence.”
To which I replied:
“FRE 803(8) admits into evidence the records, reports, statements, and data compilations from ‘public offices and agencies’, not individuals speaking as individuals. No room for (Okubo) verbal hearsay.”
It is presumed that dunstvangeet accepted there was a mistake in dunstvangeet‘s understanding of both hearsay and the Rules of Evidence as no dissent from this correction was forthcoming.
To the substance of the argument: a counter-example to dunstvangeet‘s example, only this time from real case in a real court earlier this year.
Person A is convicted of a serious crime in the US; the US wants to deport him; the US introduces as evidence that A is foreign born an official application for permanent residence (from 30 years ago) prepared on behalf of Person A by Person B, who claimed to be A’s natural father. In the application B states that A was born in Country C. The application is one level of hearsay, the statement as to birthplace is hearsay within hearsay. Is the statement that A was born in C admissible evidence? No, said the US Ninth Circuit Appeals Court in March 2009:
“[A]…asserts that the district court erred when it admitted the Application…under the public records exception to the hearsay rule. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(8). We agree. …the Application can be said to document the activities of a governmental agency and to document the observations of a responsible government officer to some extent. That would allow admission of the document [under Rule 803(8)]…However, the only part of the document truly relevant here is [B]’s hearsay statement that [A] was born in and was a citizen of [C]. [B], of course, had no governmental duties whatsoever. The government’s contention that the Application is admissible under the business records exception [803(6)] contains the same flaw. In either case, there is at least one more layer of hearsay, and to be admissible there must be an exception for that layer also … However, the government made no attempt…to argue that the statements of [B] are admissible as a result of some other hearsay exception [therefore] we are constrained to find error in the admission of the statements of [B]. Moreover, the error was prejudicial…the Application was the only evidence admitted at trial which tended to show [A was foreign born and] absent the improperly admitted hearsay, [A] would not have suffered a conviction… Thus, we must reverse… ” [emphasis applied] http://tinyurl.com/US-9thCA-MP
Three parallels with Obama’s COLB:
1) The hearsay within hearsay of COLB’s first and most important line is not covered by FRE-HRE Rules 803(6) or 803(8) because the original supplier of Obama’s registration information (family member) was not employed by Hawaii DoH and was not constrained by a public service or business duty to be reliable and trustworthy, as Rules 803(6) or 803(8) demand. It should be remembered that “…the burden is on the proponent [Obama] to produce evidence [by a preponderance] of trustworthiness” (US v. Hancho C. Kim, US Appeals D.C.,1979.)
2) The only part of Obama’s CertificATION of Live Birth (if it exists) “truly relevant here” is the first line, reading “CertificATE No. 151 1961 014641“. The CertificATION‘s first line significantly does not read “CertificATION No. [etc.]“. Obama’s purported COLB is a CertificATION (hearsay allegedly exempted by Rule 803(9)), referencing a birth CertificATE not in evidence and its serial number: by definition hearsay within hearsay. Given Obama’s CertificATION of Live Birth (if it exists) draws its evidential value exclusively from the original birth CertificATE of 1961 (which is not in evidence), the COLB by itself proves nothing and has no possibility of proving anything, since it was created over 40 years after Obama’s birth. To “solve” this problem DoH has ensured that Obama’s CertificATION of Live Birth references the 1961 CertificATE containing the witnesses’ signatures etc.; unfortunately for Obama this creates a new problem of hearsay within hearsay. As we saw from the real-life example given above, this hearsay within hearsay is inadmissible under FRE-HRE Rules 803(6), 803(8), or 803(9).
3) Obama’s attorneys (for reasons known only to Obama) are not expected to submit any registration document except a CertificATION of Live Birth to a court to prove Obama’s birth in the US, and Obama’s attorneys would be expected to offer his COLB as the sole basis for a court’s decision. “Even if the proponent suggests a nonhearsay use or appropriate exception, the court can still exclude the statement if a jury is likely to misuse it as hearsay — as proof of something it asserts if no exception applies…Misuse of evidence is a classic instance of “unfair prejuduce” under FRE 403..” (Evidence, page 1031, Mueller and Kirkpatrick, http://tinyurl.com/Google-Evidence )
Words of hearsay within hearsay in Person A’s application; words of hearsay within hearsay in Obama’s COLB. Putting aside the operation of the Best Evidence Rules 106 and 1005, on the basis of these parallels Obama’s case must fail on the inadmissibility of the unreliable, untrustworthy, and unauthenticated hearsay within hearsay in Obama’s purported COLB (in terms of FRE-HRE Rules 803(6), 803(8), and 805) and this hearsay within hearsay’s incontrovertibly decisive and prejudicial effect on the outcome of a suit. Whether in terms of Obama’s self-interest in substantiating his claim and prevailing in a lawsuit, or the unavoidable option of the Best Evidence Rules 106 and 1005 available to opposing attorneys , Obama must bring into evidence the authenticated long form 1961 CertificATE referenced as hearsay within hearsay inside the COLB or, again, his case must fail.
“I’ve confirred with multiple lawyers” dunstvangeet
dunstvangeet really ought to confer with better lawyers.
Sue,
Follow this:
(Sharon 2 says:
October 23, 2009 at 2:37 pm)
- It seems like the COLB would have to be presented ahead of time to allow a reasonable challenge. That it is being challenged would be evident when the parties meet under the discovery rules. (meaning if the case proceeds) The paper COLB has obviously never been presented to the plaintiffs.
Bob says:
October 23, 2009 at 2:43 pm
It seems like the COLB would have to be presented ahead of time to allow a reasonable challenge. (quoting me)
Typically a party propounds discovery asking the opposing party to list all evidence that supports a claim/defense. The opposing party would disclose that information. Then the original party would request to examine the original so it may be inspected by an expert.
This would all happen during the discovery phase, prior to a trial or even a summary judgment motion.
As for Politijab, I didn’t insult the site by my comment. You insulted this site by yours. If you claim another site is where the respectable people are, then it is obvious you have no respect for this site. Your purpose here is for your amusement, as you have often said. My purpose for coming to this site is to comment on Phil’s posts. You and some others are here for agitprop.
Who Are You Kidding,
“dunstvangeet really ought to confer with better lawyers.”
Based upon the “birther lawyers” track record to date, I believe the “birthers” not only need to confer with better lawyers, they also need to hire/donate to better lawyers.
Sharon 2,
“Typically a party propounds discovery asking the opposing party to list all evidence that supports a claim/defense. The opposing party would disclose that information. Then the original party would request to examine the original so it may be inspected by an expert.
This would all happen during the discovery phase, prior to a trial or even a summary judgment motion.”
I am hoping that Bob will clarify his comment above. However, I do not believe that a certified certification of live birth that was obtained directly from the Hawaii DOH would require inspection by an expert based upon Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html
“Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
“As for Politijab, I didn’t insult the site by my comment. You insulted this site by yours. If you claim another site is where the respectable people are, then it is obvious you have no respect for this site. Your purpose here is for your amusement, as you have often said. My purpose for coming to this site is to comment on Phil’s posts. You and some others are here for agitprop.”
My comment regarding Politijab has nothing to do with Phil’s site nor is it meant to be an insult to Phil’s site. I would appreciate you not adding meaning/words to my comments that are clearly not there.
My comment:
“The Politijab forum is absolutely one of the most unbiased forums I have ever had the privilege to be a part of. The members on this forum call each other out for providing less than factual information and always cite their sources.”
Do you see RSOL/Phil mentioned anywhere in my comment above?
“The Politijab forum is absolutely one of the most unbiased forums I have ever had the privilege to be a part of.
- So you feel the same about TRSoL? Accept my apologies.
I don’t know how else to explain the fact that plaintiffs would have a chance to examine the COLB before making a challenge.
“ ‘It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate.’ Statement that Spokesman Janice Okubo told the Press. …Rule 803, Paragraph 8 covers the Hawaii Department of Health. That means that the statement of the COLB being ‘a valid Hawaii State Birth Certificate’ would be admitted, even if Janice Okubo wasn’t called to the stand. That means it’s not Hearsay. It’s admissible evidence.”
To which I replied:
“FRE 803(8) admits into evidence the records, reports, statements, and data compilations from ‘public offices and agencies’, not individuals speaking as individuals. No room for (Okubo) verbal hearsay.”
And the public office is the Hawaii Department of Health. Janice Okubo is the spokesperson for the Hawaii Department of Health. She issued this statement as part of her job in the Hawaii Department of Health. Her job is to speak for that. So, the fact that she put out a statement as part of her job, would put that into that category. Just as Dr. Cherome Fukino’s statement would be admitted because of her role as director of that agency. The statement of “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate.” wasn’t done as an individual. It was done as part of her job. It qualifies under that.
I could be wrong that I’m reading it too broadly, but I do not think so (that the spokesman from the Hawaii Department of Health isn’t covered under the “Statements” exception), but I do not think so. Just because I did not respond to you doesn’t mean that I agree with you, and it doesn’t mean that you’re right.
Now, onto your argument.
1) The hearsay within hearsay of COLB’s first and most important line is not covered by FRE-HRE Rules 803(6) or 803(8) because the original supplier of Obama’s registration information (family member) was not employed by Hawaii DoH and was not constrained by a public service or business duty to be reliable and trustworthy, as Rules 803(6) or 803(8) demand. It should be remembered that “…the burden is on the proponent [Obama] to produce evidence [by a preponderance] of trustworthiness” (US v. Hancho C. Kim, US Appeals D.C.,1979.)
The reason that was hearsay within hearsay is because of the statement.
1. No, the record number, or anything else within the document is not Hearsay within Hearsay. Furthermore, even if it was, it would be covered under the Public Record exception to the Hearsay rule.
2. No, the only relevant thing is not the health record number. The relevant things in this case would be the following parts of the COLB: “Place of Birth: Honolulu”, “Island of Birth: Oahu”, and “County of Birth: Honolulu”. Those would be directly relevant to proving the place of birth. Again, not hearsay within hearsay. And even if it was, it’s still covered under the Public Records Exception of hearsay. The document is hearsay. The data within it is not hearsay.
3. The COLB is persumed to be authentic under FRE 902(1). Obama has met his burden of proof. He’s proven that he was born in Hawaii. Read it. The COLB is a self-authenticating document under the Federal Rules of Evidence. So, unless you have direct evidence putting the COLB into doubt, it solves it.
Oh, and by the way: the Hearsay exception is 802(9) that it falls under: “Records or data compilations, in any form, of births, fetal deaths, deaths, or marriages, if the report thereof was made to a public office pursuant to requirements of law.”
The COLB is admissible in any form.
Actually, you’re quite wrong. There is absolutely no difference between a “certificate” and “certification”. Many judges have directly said this in Birther cases. The Hawaii Department of Health has directly said this.
Furthermore, as I said above, there are other direct statements that are relevant here. 1: “City of Birth: Honolulu”, “Island of Birth: Oahu”, and “County of Birth: Honolulu”. The file record number is actually the least relevant thing on the document (other than maybe race of parents.
Even Sharon2 admits that it is admissible, WhoAreYouKidding. You are really out on an island all by yourself.
However, I’ll tell you what. I’ll put my money where my mouth is. If this ever comes to it, and the COLB is presented as evidence. If it is excluded from evidence for any reason, I’ll give you $100,000. If it’s admitted into evidence, you give me $10,000. Deal? If you’re right, this will be the easiest money you ever made.
Even Sharon2 admits that it is admissible,
- If an examination is requested and if the examination shows no evidence of forgery, then it is admissible a self-authenticating document.
If it is excluded from evidence for any reason, I’ll give you $100,000.
- I would like to get in on this. Of course, it is not enforceable (no consideration), but I’ll take you at your good word.
“It is lose-lose for the presidency. George W. Bush didn’t waste his time and energy responding to the “hard questions” about his alleged involvement in 9/11, and it was entirely appropriate for the office of presidency to ignore the unappeasable.”
________
“My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.” [not like the Bush Administration]
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/
Sharon 2,
“I don’t know how else to explain the fact that plaintiffs would have a chance to examine the COLB before making a challenge.”
I think the point that you are missing is the fact that the plaintiffs challenged/claimed forgery regarding the online FactCheck photos of the COLB that was provided by President Obama’s HQ.
However, IF the certified COLB was obtained directly from the Hawaii DOH,(subpoena) the plaintiffs would have no basis to challenge that document based upon Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution. All State issued birth certificates are backed by this clause in the Constitution. If this was not the case, no one would accept a certified COLB.
Example: If I had my certified COLB sent directly to a court of law, why on earth would anybody challenge that document? Contrary to what has been alleged, there is not one shred of credible, admissible evidence to support the claim that Hawaii issues fraudulent, foreign born Hawaiian birth certificates with Hawaii stated as the place of birth. Now, I’m sure Orly would try but I do not believe Judge Carter would grant her request.
Besides, this is all hypothetical and I suspect the chances of discovery being granted by the court, any court, is slim and none.
Sharon 2,
“My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.” [not like the Bush Administration]
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/
You totally missed the point Bob was trying to make. All Presidents have frivolous lawsuits filed against them. The President does not waste his time and energy responding to these frivolous lawsuits and the DOJ handles these lawsuits on their behalf. This has absolutely nothing to do with transparency.
“…no basis to challenge that document based upon Article IV…birth certificates are backed by this clause …[otherwise] no one would accept a certified COLB.” Sue
In an earlier comment I quoted and linked to works by distinguished law Professors where they write that Article IV of the US Constitution does not apply to state laws nor the administrative records of public agencies. Common sense and accepted practice suggests that a contrary view should be supported by links and–or quotations citing authorities of equal worth. Sue has given nothing but an opinion. Readers may draw their own conclusion.
The administrative records of one state are admitted into evidence in other states by way of local statutes which parallel (often word for word, as with Hawaii) the Federal Rules of Evidence. Depending on the type of administrative document or record involved, the appropriate Rule in Chapter IX will effect authentication and the appropriate Rule in Chapter VIII will permit a hearsay exception. Article IV of the US Constitution and its enabling statute are not used for these purposes.
“Okubo…issued this statement as part of her job in the Hawaii Department of Health…Just as Dr. Cherome Fukino’s statement…It qualifies [as a 803(8) exception] under that [part of her job].” dunstvangeet
There are a numerous errors in dunstvangeet‘s explanation.
1 Okubo did not “issue a statement as part of her job” confirming Obama’s COLB was genuine. If she had then doubtless dunstvangeet would have linked to the official written statement. Okubo’s remarks were only a verbal response to a question put to her in a Politifact interview. In the same interview [ http://tinyurl.com/PF-Ok-Jn08 ], after Okubo made her initial remarks, upon reflection she then said, “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.” In subsequent media interviews, when asked directly, Okubo has refused to acknowledge Obama’s “online COLB” as genuine [ http://tinyurl.com/WND-Ok-Ag09 ] and “repeatedly responded by noting that she is not the registrar, and that she does not have the authority to verify certificates.” [ http://tinyurl.com/24a-Ok1-09 ] Okubo has nowhere at any time issued an official written statement of the kind dunstvangeet has attributed to her, thus Okubo could never have made a statement (quoting dunstvangeet) “just as Dr. Cherome Fukino”.
2 FRE-HRE Rule 803(8) does not admit verbal statements into evidence. The Rule limits itself explicitly to “Public Records” in the form of documents and files; no verbal utterance by a public officer to someone who is not a public officer is a public record. By definition something said to a journalist is not a public record because some essential requirements of 803(8) have not been fulfilled: “first, the person [journalist] making the record [must have] observed the matters contained in the record firsthand pursuant to a duty imposed by law; second, the record is prepared pursuant to a duty imposed by law; and third, the documents and surrounding circumstances indicate trustworthiness [i.e. employment within a public agency].” (US v. Central Gulf Lines, US, Fifth Circuit Appeals, 1984.) No journalist could even remotely meet these requirements and Okubo’s media interviews certainly do not. Fukino’s two public statements were issued in written form under DoH letterhead and do qualify under 803(8). Let’s hope this settles the matter; after all, dunstvangeet did admit “I could be wrong.”
“…the record number, or anything else within the document is not Hearsay within Hearsay [and] it would be covered under the Public Record exception…” dunstvangeet
The CertificATION is not covered by the Public Record exception Rule 803(8) because “the person making the record [COLB]” has not “observed the matters contained in the record firsthand” nor does “the document and surrounding circumstances [family member who supplied the registration information in 1961] indicate trustworthiness [employment within a public agency].” The CertificATION could only be admitted into evidence as hearsay via the Vital Records exception Rule 803(9) (if deemed to be a genuine vital record). Any other elements of hearsay within the COLB can only be admitted into evidence if they satisfy another exception. If they do not, then the CertificATION is inadmissible. As shown in this and my previous comments, Obama’s purported COLB contains hearsay within hearsay not admissible by any FRE exception.
“…the only relevant thing is not the health record number…” dunstvangeet
The CertificATION was printed in 2007. It is impossible for the COLB dataset in its own right, or the officials currently employed at DoH, to legitimately record something that happened decades before COLBs existed or these officials ever worked there. The FRE-HRE Rules concerning best evidence (106 and 1002) absolutely require the original writing (the 1961 CertificATE) to be brought into evidence, therefore only the original 1961 CertificATE is “truly relevant” and has real evidentiary value – that’s why DoH place its reference on the CertificATION‘s first line, even though the 1961 CertificATE itself has not been brought into evidence. By definition this is hearsay within hearsay.
“The document is hearsay. The data within it is not hearsay.” dunstvangeet
Consider the counter-example of “Person A” from March 2009 given in my previous comment. The application for permanent residence was hearsay. The appeal court in that case decided that statements (data) within the application were hearsay within hearsay. Appeal Court Principle 1- an official document can be hearsay i.e. an out-of-court statement asserted to be relevant and true: this dunstvangeet concedes for the Certific>b<ATION. Appeal Court Principle 2 – a hearsay document may contain data that is hearsay within hearsay i.e out-of-court statements asserted to be relevant and true: this dunstvangeet does not concede for a COLB. Appeal Court Principle 3 – Inadmissible hearsay within hearsay is recognized inside a document when a statement (data) is asserted for its relevance and truth but the assertion (data) has not been authenticated and cannot satisfy a hearsay exception: this too dunstvangeet does not concede for a COLB. I prefer the judicial authority of three federal judges and will proceed on that basis; which is to say, we should examine a document (COLB) and ask of each internal statement (data): is this an assertion that claims to be relevant and true? has this assertion been authenticated? does this assertion individually meet a hearsay exception?
Whatever hearsay exception is applied to an authenticated document only applies to the document itself (US v. Hajda, US Seventh Circuit Appeals, 1998); under FRE-HRE Rule 805, for any unauthenticated, hearsay statements (data) within the document “to be admissible there must be an exception for that layer also” (Court Opinion, “Person A” Appeal ).The first line of the CertificATION reads “CertificATE No. 151 1961 014641″, so plainly and unambiguously the CertificATION is saying that everything which the originating CertificATE says to substantiate the CertificATION is to be found where the CertificATE says it is to be found: at the place where Birth Registration page 10641 of Birth Registration Volume 151 lies stored in the vaults of the DoH archive. However, in defiance of Hawaii law, DOH refuses to provide on public request the index data corresponding to the CertificATE serial number that would prove the CertificATE‘s existence; neither has the 1961 CertificATE ever been placed in the public domain and authenticated by any DoH official under FRE-HRE Rules; which means there is nothing in evidence to prove that a CertificATE truly exists and is to be found at the location of Volume 151 and on Registration page 10641, as the CertificATE claims, or that all the statements of CertificATE No. 151 1961 014641 are truly reflected by and relate to the registrant of the CertificATION.
Given Obama’s CertificATION (offering no witnesses, no signatures, and no circumstances) is nothing without the originating 1961 CertificATE , in court, hypothetically, there might be the CertificATION seeking admission into evidence by way of vital records exception Rule 803(9), while out of court would be the unathenticated CertificATE, asserting as true unexaminable and untestable statements (data) simultaneously about, in, and through the CertificATION: this defines hearsay within hearsay.
In the “Person A” case, there was nothing in evidence showing that the claims (data) made by “Person B” in the application regarding “Person A”‘s birthplace or citizenship had been authenticated; furthermore, these hearsay within hearsay assertions (data), contained within an application claiming to be relevant and true, did not satisfy a hearsay exception. In the “Person A” case, when the appeal court judged that the hearsay within hearsay statements (data) of “Person B” in the application were not admissible through FRE Rules 803(6) or 803(8), because “Person B” was not fulfilling a public service or business duty when the assertions were made, then the entire document offered by the government as evidence against “Person A” became worthless. Similarly, given Obama’s COLB (if it exists), references the 1961 CertificATE and its assertions (data), but neither satisfy FRE-HRE Rules 803(6) or 803(8) because the original source of the information (family member) was not fulfilling a public service or business duty when the birth registration were made, then the COLB is also worthless. In both cases when the “only part of the document truly relevant” fails, then the entire document fails. Nobody can force dunstvangeet to make sense of this if dunstvangeet cannot make sense of it; but dunstvangeet‘s unfortunate misunderstandings and mistakes about Okubo’s statement and its admissibility as hearsay under FRE-HRE Rule 803(8) should be factored into the analysis.
“The COLB is persumed to be authentic under FRE 902(1).” dunstvangeet
To prove Obama’s eligibility to the Presidency dunstvangeet will get nowhere by clinging to the meagre hope of a lighter touch from FRE 902(1). For Obama’s COLB (if it exists) to do what dunstvangeet wants it to do (prove Obama eligible to the Presidency) it must be an officially certified copy of a vital record. Why must Obama’s COLB be a certified copy of a vital record? There is no other way of proving COLBs as the vital records they purport to be. The only Rule which can authenticate a COLB as a certified copy of a vital record is FRE-HRE Rule 902(4), the Rule for certified copies of public records. Rule 902(4) requires a non-routine comparison check between the COLB dataset in the DoH database and its printout, with a written attestation to that effect certified by a handwritten signature. For Obama’s attorneys to seek the admission of his COLB into evidence under Rule 902(1) would be to concede that it is not a certified copy of a vital record. If Obama’s COLB is not a certified copy of a vital record then it cannot be admitted into evidence under the vital records exception Rule 803(9), the only route into evidence for Obama’s COLB. dunstvangeet can have Rule 902(1) OR Rule 803(9) but not both. The fact that Obama’s CertificATION has not been authenticated via Rule 902(4) means that right now Obama has not proved his eligibility to the Presidency. The problem is that nobody at DoH will acknowledge the images of Obama’s online COLB as genuine, much less certify it with their handwritten signature.
“The COLB is admissible in any form.” dunstvangeet
Given that the phrase “in any form” is used in FRE-HRE hearsay exceptions 803(6), 803(7), 803(8), 803(8), 803(9), and elsewhere in FRE-HRE Rules 901(7), 901(8), 902(4), and 1005, it’s not very practical to suggest any and all of these Rules admit evidence “in any form” regardless of authenticity or content and however inadmissible in terms of other Rules. The purpose of the law (including FRE and HRE) is to exclude unreliable evidence (hearsay etc.) except under strictly prescribed conditions, not to ax out backdoors in the Rules for inadmissible evidence which effectively destroy those conditions and the law. No court will apply the Rules of Evidence in the way suggested by dunstvangeet.
“There is absolutely no difference between a ‘certificate’ and ‘certification’.” dunstvangeet
A CertificATE has witnesses’ signatures and place of birth etc., a CertificATE does not refer to any document outside itself to substantiate itself (unless amended), a CertificATEs is by definition officially recorded and “ACCEPTED” by DoH while a CertificATION (apparently and uniquely one such as Obama’s) can be “FILED” pending official acceptance. To claim these are not differences is…not consistent with the facts.
“Even Sharon2 admits that it is admissible…” dunstvangeet
I have seen no authorities cited by Sharon2 to support her opinion.
“I’ll give you $100,000…this will be the easiest money you ever made.” dunstvangeet
Curious the way some minds work. On past performance I strongly advise dunstvangeet not to pledge any money in such wagers.
WhoAreYouKidding…
1. Yes, she did answer that as part of her job. What happened was Politifact emailed the Hawaii Department of Health the image, asking to confirm it. Janice Okubo, being the spokesman for the Hawaii Department of Health, answered back, “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate.” If Bob Barker was the spokesman for the Hawaii Department of Health, he would have answered back. It was part of her job to answer those emails, just as it’s part of Robert Gibbs job to give press briefings for the White House. What you’re wanting us to believe is that Janice Okubo was contacted individually, outside her job, and asked if this was genuine. That’s simply not the case.
As it is her job to speak for the Hawaii Department of Health, there is an argument that her statement has the full backing of the Hawaii Department of Health. As such, it is a statement put forth by the Hawaii Department of Health. Now, statements can be oral, or verbal. However, you never really cared about statements anyways. I mean, Dr. Cherome Fukino issued a press release (both written and oral) to the Press stating point blank that Obama was born in Hawaii.
2. FRE 803(8) does apply to verbal statements. To say that it doesn’t doesn’t mean diddly squat, and any lawyer would tell you oth erwise. Nowhere in FRE 803(8) does it say that it excludes verbal statements. And in fact, the exact text of the FRE is “Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form…“. Last I checked, verbal statements were a form of statements. That again is disproven.
And then you’re telling me that the person hired specifically to be the spokesman for a public agency is not a public officer? Do you truly expect me to buy this load of crap that you’re trying to sell?
3. The certification is actually covered by FRE 803(9). FRE 803(9) says: “Records or data compilations, in any form, of births, fetal deaths, deaths, or marriages, if the report thereof was made to a public office pursuant to requirements of law.” You cannot deny that FRE 803(9) is either a record, or a data compilation, in any form. it’s of births, and it was made pursuant to the requirements of law. Again, your statement is wrong.
4. Birth certificates are specifically mentioned. Oh, and by the way, even if you want to argue that it’s a dataset of 1961, check out another interesting exception to the hearsay rule, found under 803(12). “Statements in a document in existence twenty years or more the authenticity of which is established.” So, if you’re arguing that the COLB is just reporting statements in a document that was 49 years ago, it still would be admitted under the anchiet documents records.
I could go on and on about your legal flaws. I’m not saying that I haven’t made them myself. However, to state that a verbal statement is not covered under “statements … in any form” is redicilous.
Again, my offer still stands, WhoAreYouKidding. If it ever gets to the stage where documents are being included and excluded, if the COLB is specifically excluded, you get $100,000. If the document is admitted into evidence, you pay me $10,000 dollars. Put your money where your mouth is. If you’re so confident in your assessment, it should be the easiest $100,000 you make.
“FRE 803(8) does apply to verbal statements… Last I checked, verbal statements were a form of statements. That again is disproven.” dunstvangeet
dunstvangeet is under the strange impression that dunstvangeet‘s interpretation of the phrase “in any form“, from the FRE Public Records hearsay exception Rule 803(8), constitutes “proof” that “in any form” must be understood to include verbal statements. The dictionary defines “proof” as “1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true 2. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions. 3. Law: The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.” As dunstvangeet has provided no evidence, specified rules, or compelling argument for his interpretation I am not persuaded by his so-called “proof” and shall offer a counter-proof:
1 Under the canons of statutory interpretation the phrase “in any form” must have a specific meaning and purpose, and that meaning can be none other than its commonly accepted dictionary meaning (“A statute’s plain meaning must be enforced…” US Nat’l Bank of Oregon v. Ind. Ins. Agents, SCOTUS, 1993). The dictionary defines “form” as “1. shape and structure 2. body or outward appearance 3. manifestation “. Spoken words do not have a physically apparent shape, structure, body, or outward appearance; consequently “in any form“, with regard to FRE hearsay exception 803(8), cannot be defined to include verbal statements, because the term “form” in the Federal and Hawaii Rules of Evidence connotes “physical form”, with the shape, structure, body, manifestation, and outward appearance of a tangible object; here applying the canons of “ejusdem generis“, meaning “where general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar to those enumerated by the specific words” (Washington Dep’t of Social Services. v. Keffeler, SCOTUS, 2003) and “noscitur a sociis“, meaning “a word is known by the company it keeps… This rule we rely upon to avoid ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with its accompanying words“. (Gustafson v. Alloyd, SCOTUS, 1995) The canons are applied by grouping all the objects in a series by commonality and using the general term in that sense: i.e. encompassing only statements in physical form when, for example, there are no data compilations without physical form. Thus “in any form” would not intend “any and no forms” over “any and all forms” because “any and no” negates the word “form” and makes the word “form” and the series meaningless and superfluous.
2 US Code, Title 44, Chapter 33, Section 3301 http://tinyurl.com/USC-44-33-3301
US Code 44-33-3301 declares that “ ‘records’ includes all books, papers, maps, photographs, machine readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by an agency of the United States Government…”
The dictionary definition of “regardless” is “heedless; taking no regard or heed of; discounting; irrespective of; without reference to; notwithstanding; unmindful; unheeding; marked by or paying little heed or attention” with the sense of giving little or no regard to something which is actually present to be heeded“. The word “regardless” modifies and clarifies the “physical form or characteristics” of the intended objects of the series, it does not exclude, negate, or eliminate all “physical form or characteristics“; here understood on the basis of the canons “ejusdem generis” and “noscitur a sociis“. This applies to every instance cited below.
3 Hawaii Rules of Evidence Rule 1001 Paragraph 5 http://tinyurl.com/HRE-1001-p5
HRE 1001 declares that “A ‘public record’ means any writing, memorandum, entry, print, representation, report, book or paper, map or plan, or combination thereof, that is in the custody of any department or agency of government …This rule [HRE 1001] is identical with Fed. R. Evid. 1001, except that paragraph (5), [in] defining “public records,” is original … It was adapted from Hawaii Rev. Stat. §92-50 (1976), which defines “public records” for public inspection purposes. The present definition is broad enough to include any document that is in the custody of a public agency.”
4 Hawaii Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) §92F-3
Hawaii UIPA §92F-3 declares that “ ‘Government record’ means information maintained by an agency in written, auditory, visual, electronic, or other physical form.”
5 The following is a representative sample of state laws defining “public records” (all 50 agree):
California Government Code Section 6252(e) “ ‘Public records’ includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.”
Revised Code of Washington 40.14.010 “…’public records’ shall include any paper, correspondence, completed form, bound record book, photograph, film, sound recording, map drawing, machine-readable material, compact disc meeting current industry ISO specifications, or other document, regardless of physical form or characteristics…”
North Carolina North Carolina General Statutes § 132-1(a) ” ‘Public record’ or ‘public records’ shall mean all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, films, sound recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data-processing records, artifacts, or other documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristics…”
Florida Statutes Title X Chapter 119.011(12) “ ‘Public records’ means all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, data processing software, or other material, regardless of the physical form, characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received…”
Illinois General Provisions State Records Act. Ch. 116, par. 43.5 Sec. 2 “ ‘Record’ or ‘records’ means all books, papers, digitized electronic material, maps, photographs, databases, or other official documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made, produced, executed or received…”
6 Federal Rules of Evidence and FRE Advisory Committee Notes
Advisory Committee Note to Rule 803(8) “Justification for the exception is the assumption that a public official will perform his duty properly and the unlikelihood that he will remember details independently of the record. … (a) Cases illustrating the admissibility of records of the office’s or agency’s own activities are numerous. … Treasury records of miscellaneous receipts and disbursements … General Land Office records… Pension Office records. … (b) Cases sustaining admissibility of records of matters observed are also numerous … letter from induction officer to District Attorney … affidavit of White House personnel officer … Weather Bureau records of rainfall …map prepared by government engineer”
FRE Rule 901(b)(7) Requirement of Authentication or Identifcation Public records or reports “Public records or reports. Evidence that a writing authorized by law to be recorded or filed and in fact recorded or filed in a public office, or a purported public record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, is from the public office where items of this nature are kept.”
7 Conclusion: In accordance with dictionary definitions and the canons of statutory interpretation, no federal or state law nor any federal or state agency defines “records” as including verbal statements: “form” always connotes “physical form”. No other definition operates in any law or agency; if dunstvangeet knows of any other definition in official use please link to it – otherwise the counter-proof is established and conceded.
“…you’re telling me…the spokesman for a public agency is not a public officer?” dunstvangeet
Politifact’s article uses the words “told” and “said” and “says” about their interview with Okubo, which means spoken communication. Okubo didn’t make a public record of her conversation with Politifact (unless dunstvangeet can link to it), the Politifact journalist did (i.e. the published article), but he is not a public officer in terms of FRE 803(8). It should be recalled dunstvangeet originally wrote in late August that “the statement of the COLB being ‘a valid Hawaii State Birth Certificate’ would be admitted [under FRE 803(8)], even if Janice Okubo wasn’t called to the stand.” How can spoken words be admitted into evidence unless Okubo were called to the stand to repeat them? Certainly not under HRE-FRE 803(8), which only admits records etc. in a physical form. A verbal statement (Okubo’s spoken words) or journalist’s article (Politifact) admitted under FRE 803(8)? That has never happened and will never happen, because it can’t happen. Unless dunstvangeet can show otherwise.
“…there is an argument that her statement has the full backing of the Hawaii Department of Health…you never really cared about statements anyways…Fukino issued a press release…stating point blank that Obama was born in Hawaii.” dunstvangeet
a) Someone who didn’t care about statements wouldn’t go to the trouble of writing about them as I do.
b) Dr Chiyome Fukino in her statement in July wrote that she had seen “vital records…maintained on file…verifying” that Obama was born in Hawaii; Fukino did NOT say that she, Chiyome Fukino, had verified that Obama was born in Hawaii. Furthermore, the usage “maintained on file” in high probability has a technical meaning within DoH that Fukino is not sharing with the American public. Given that in defiance of Hawaii law DoH are withholding from the American public the DoH regulations that would explicate the meaning of “maintained on file“, it most probably denotes a pending registration application file that has not been accepted into the official record i.e. Obama was never officially registered by DoH as born in Hawaii.
c) No one, and I do mean NO ONE, at DoH has made or is likely to make any statement, either written or verbal, acknowledging the online images of Obama’s CertificATION as genuine, or even that they sent a COLB out to Obama on request. It’s gotten so bizarre that Okubo said to Politifact in the interview: “When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar [Onaka], he thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it.” DoH and Registrar Onaka had no clue that a CertificATION had been sent out to US Senator Obama or were unable to connect the COLB they were supposed to have sent with its purported online images? Fukino in her July statement had the opportunity to acknowledge Obama’s online COLB as genuine, but she didn’t, never has, and never will; it cannot be on account of privacy, because Obama’s own site posted an alleged CertificATION image, and DoH are by law permitted to devise their own regulations concerning privacy. If DoH authorites are not willing even verbally acknowledge Obama’s online CertificATION as genuine, the chances of authentication with a non-routine certification and handwritten signature for admission as evidence into court are slim to vanishing.
“You cannot deny that FRE 803(9) is either a record, or a data compilation, in any form [etc....so] your statement is wrong.” dunstvangeet
With regard to a CertificATION and FRE’s vital records hearsay exception Rule 803(9): how does Obama as proponent prove to a court (as he must) that this electronic abstract of a vital record (COLB) is what he claims it to be, a copy of an original record held in official custody? The CertificATION must be authenticated under the Rule for electronic data compilations and certified copies of public records, 902(4), which requires a non-routine comparison check between the COLB database and COLB printout certified with a handwritten signature to confirm their exact match.
Following dunstvangeet‘s own literal approach to FRE quoted as above, “you cannot deny” Rule 902(1) is not applicable to certified copies and data compilations, and does not concern itself with non-routine comparison checks and ensuing attesting handwritten signatures, so 902(1) cannot prove that an electronic abstract of a vital record is what it claims to be. Consequently were Obama’s COLB (if it exists) to be authenticated under Rule 902(1) it would not assure such fidelity to the record as to be probative or admissible under 803(9). Again, following dunstvangeet‘s own approach to FRE, dunstvangeet can have Rule 902(1) OR Rule 803(9) but not both; and still following dunstvangeet‘s own approach to FRE, online images purporting to show Obama’s CertificATION reveal it has not been authenticated via Rule 902(4), so clearly Obama has not proved his eligibility to the Presidency. Indeed, this means neither dunstvangeet, nor any Obama loyalist, has ever been able to claim that by posting COLB images “Obama has done all he needs to do” to prove his eligibility. These corollories to dunstvangeet‘s own approach to FRE remain true at least until dunstvangeet renounces that approach.
“803(12). COLB…still would be admitted under [803(12)]” dunstvangeet
The “ancient writing” hearsay exception in FRE-HRE is Rule 803(16). It only applies to documents that are more than 20 years old. Obama’s CertificATION (if it exists) was printed in 2007: it cannot qualify for admission into evidence through 803(16) until sometime after 2027. The second requirement under 803(16) is that “the authenticity of [the document] is established“. The authentication standard for 803(16) is Rule 901(b)(8) which requires “no suspicion concerning…authenticity.”
Given that Hawaii DoH in response to a UIPA request have confirmed it holds no documentation or vital record for Obama before August 10, 1961, two days after Obama’s birth was allegedly registered; and given that in defiance of Hawaii law DoH refuse to issue in response to UIPA requests index data (name, age, sex) corresponding to the 1961 CertificATE serial number referenced in Obama’s purported COLB, only an extremely prejudiced mind would claim this creates “no suspicion” about the CertificATE and the CertificATION it originates.
“I could go on and on about your legal flaws.” dunstvangeet
Surely “flaws in my legal reasoning“? And isn’t that why we’re here? To get to the truth?
“Put your money where your mouth is.” dunstvangeet
I seriously counsel dunstvangeet to seek family or professional advice before putting large amounts of cash at risk with angry and impulsive gambling.
[...] [...]