Donofrio on IPPT v. Chrysler: TARP and Dealers; FBN Anderer Video
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 update:
While attorney Leo Donofrio had posted further commentary on the reaction to IPPT v. Chrysler based on a rebuttal by Bankruptcy Expert Lawrence D. Loeb, today he posted the following YouTube video where lead Plaintiff James Anderer spoke about upcoming litigation I’ve been covering here at The Right Side of Life (skip to 2:25 and especially 4:10 for the money quote):
—-
In a previous posting, I had pointed out that IPPT v. Chrysler could be a harbinger of things to come with Messrs. Donofrio and Pidgeon now representing numerous Chrysler dealers in to-be-filed petitions, including for quo warranto.
Today, with the Supreme Court’s decision to grant a writ of certiorari on the Indiana Pension Fund (docket) — thereby allowing the high Court to issue a summary judgment order both vacating (to render void and not precedent-setting) and remanding (sent back) the case back to the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit and dismissing as moot — Mr. Leo Donofrio posted the following commentary, clarifying that the Chrysler dealers would still push forward with litigation:
ANALYSIS OF US SUPREME COURT’S RULING in POLICE PENSION TRUST, ET AL. V. CHRYSLER LLC, ET AL by Leo Donofrio, Esq.
While today’s ruling by the US Supreme Court is bad for the Indiana Pension Fund, it does not adversely effect our clients (a group of former Chrysler dealers lead by James Anderer) in any way. Our clients were never part of that appeal and the legal issues raised by the Indiana Pension Fund are vastly different from the issues we will raise. This decision today is somewhat helpful to our case in that by vacating the lower court’s judgment, the US Supreme Court has stripped the prior Court of Appeals ruling of having any precedential effect on our clients.
The US Supreme Court has wisely ordered the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate its judgment below and therefore any precedent that might have been set as to the Indiana Pension Fund’s lack of standing to challenge the use of TARP funds has been set aside by the US Supreme Court. This was a very wise choice by the SCOTUS. Had they simply denied certiorari without vacating the 2d Circuit’s ruling, precedent would have been set. But since that ruling has been vacated, the TARP issue is still very much fair game.
The TARP issue is not related to our pending filing in the Bankruptcy Court, but it will be part of our Quo Warranto action in the DC District Court.
The SCOTUS today gave guidance on this issue by making reference to its prior decision in – United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950), wherein it was held:
The established practice of the Court in dealing with a civil case from a court in the federal system which has become moot while on its way here or pending our decision on the merits is to reverse or vacate the judgment below and remand with a direction to dismiss. [] That was said in Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood County, 299 U. S. 259, 299 U. S. 267, to be “the duty of the appellate court”.
That procedure clears the path for future relitigation of the issues between the parties and eliminates a judgment review of which was prevented through happenstance. When that procedure is followed, the rights of all parties are preserved; none is prejudiced by a decision which in the statutory scheme was only preliminary.
So, the first paragraph above sums up today’s SCOTUS action perfectly. They vacated the Court of Appeals decision and remanded with an instruction to dismiss the appeal for mootness. The second paragraph above explains the rationale.
MOOTNESS ISSUE
I anticipate a plethora of improper interpretations on this mootness issue in relation to our clients’ rights. So it’s important to explain what the Indiana Pension Fund was asking the upper courts to do. It was essentially asking that the sale of Chrysler (Old Car Co) to Fiat (New Car Co) be invalidated.
But the Indiana Pension Fund failed to provide the upper courts with a legal argument worthy of circumventing Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code which states:
(363m) The reversal or modification on appeal of an authorization under subsection (b) or (c) of this section of a sale or lease of property does not affect the validity of a sale or lease under such authorization to an entity that purchased or leased such property in good faith, whether or not such entity knew of the pendency of the appeal, unless such authorization and such sale or lease were stayed pending appeal.
This section provides that even if there is a reversal on appeal of an authorization for this kind of sale (known as a 363 transaction), unless the purchaser can be shown to not have acted in good faith, the validity of the sale cannot be reversed. This provision protects a good faith purchaser from having the deal ripped out from under him.The Indiana Pension Fund has not challenged the sale on appeal by alleging that Fiat purchased Chrysler in bad faith. The following is from the Indiana Pension Fund’s petition for certiorari to the US Supreme Court:
The Indiana Pensioners acknowledge that in the absence of a finding of bad faith, section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code proscribes undoing the sale of Chrysler’s assets, and do not now seek such relief.So, the Indiana Pension Fund waived its right to argue that Fiat purchased in bad faith and they got slammed to the mat today as a result. As to this issue, the Bankruptcy Court originally stated:
Further, there are no allegations regarding Fiat’s conduct in this transaction that would raise any issue as to the purchaser’s good faith. Thus, New Chrysler is a good faith purchaser pursuant to § 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code.The sale was authorized by Judge Gonzalez in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on June 1, 2009. And the protections of 363(m) – as to the purchaser – kicked in at that precise moment. The statute indicates that the mootness issue relates back to the date the sale was authorized (not the date the sale closed).
Therefore, even if authority for the sale could have been reversed on the grounds of illegal use of TARP funds or a finding that Old Chrysler acted in bad faith, absent a showing that Fiat acted in bad faith – or that the sale had been stayed pending appeal – the sale could not be invalidated due to the protections of 363(m). Hence, appealing the sale was held to be moot because the SCOTUS interpreted that the relief sought by the Indiana Pension Fund could not be accomplished without invalidating the sale. I will explain this in more detail below. But first we need to examine the original stay issued by the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals and thereafter extended by SCOTUS because this is what will puzzle many commentators the most.
THE STAY ISSUE
The Indiana Pension Fund appealed to the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals and a stay pending appeal was issued by that court on June 2d, 2009. Therefore, at first glance it appears that 363(m) would not render a successful appeal moot in this case since the statute makes an exception that sale authorizations can be held invalid on appeal if the original sale authorization had been stayed pending appeal. But, on June 1st 2009, Judge Gonzalez did not stay his sale authorization pending appeal. It was only stayed on June 2d by the Court of Appeals.
Therefore, by the time the Indiana Pension Fund came to the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals on June 2d, 2009, according to 363(m), the issue as presented by the Indiana Pension Fund was moot because it did not allege that the purchaser (Fiat) acted in bad faith.
This is why the SCOTUS remanded the case back to the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals with an instruction to vacate their original judgment and dismiss the appeal as being moot. It doesn’t matter that back on June 2d the Court of Appeals issued a stay and that the stay was extended by SCOTUS for a few days. After proper briefing on the issue and time to study the law, SCOTUS correctly determined that in order for an appeal such as this to not be moot under 363(m) – absent a bad faith purchaser – the court issuing authorization for the sale would have been required to also stay their own sale authorization at the time such authorization was issued, which did not happen here. Judge Gonzalez did not order the sale stayed pending appeal on June 1st.
The Indiana Pension Fund understood the power of 363(m) and tried a novel effort to circumvent it in their SCOTUS brief by arguing that the relief they requested wouldn’t amount to an invalidation of the sale. But it appears that the SCOTUS did not agree the incredible relief requested could be granted without unwinding the sale.
The Indiana Pension Fund was asking that VEBA (United Auto Workers Union et. al.) return to the estate a $4.6 billion dollar note and common stock. But this would have effectively changed the entire sale drastically and it appears that SCOTUS saw this as an invalidation of the sale. Such invalidation is not authorized under 363(m). VEBA is now a 55 percent owner of New Chrysler and any attempt to circumvent their deal would have negative effects on the purchaser in that VEBA would have to begin negotiations with all parties again and the sale would certainly be invalidated by effect notwithstanding the lack of a court order stating as much.
So, I agree with SCOTUS that the relief requested by the Indiana Pension Fund would have amounted to an invalidation of the sale. However, the Indiana Pension Fund was correct to point out that legal precedent exists for other aspects of the sale proceeds to be redistributed upon a proper showing of cause. Relief associated to the direct cash payment of $2 billion dollars to Chrysler’s first lien lenders would not have an effect on the validity of the sale as that money and its distribution has nothing to do with the purchaser (Fiat/New Chrysler) and does not concern the assets purchased. Unwinding that distribution is not protected by 363(m). Regardless, the Indiana Pensioners have already been given their share of those funds at 29 cents on the dollar.
I do not wish to reveal our litigation strategy going forward. Our clients were not part of the Indiana Pension Fund appeal and the issues we will raise are vastly different and pertain to other sections of the Bankruptcy Code and applicable case law not mentioned in this analysis. We also believe that the Indiana Pension Fund failed to identify a nexus of bad faith necessary to their case not being moot. We do not plan on making the same mistake.
Leo C. Donofrio for the Law Office of Pidgeon and Donofrio
December 14, 2009, 1:56PM
The SCOTUSblog had a similar legal analysis on the IPPT v. Chrysler case, per se:
In the Chrysler bankruptcy case (Indiana State Police Pension Trust, et al., v. Chrysler LLC, et al., 09-285), the Court vacated a Second Circuit Court ruling that had endorsed the use of a reorganization-bypass method — a quick sale of assets — in order to save a failing company. Three investment trusts for workers in Indiana contended that the lower court ruling enabled Chrysler to make an end-run around the requirements of a Chapter 11 reorganization.
Both the Obama Administration and the new Chryler opposed the three trusts’ appeal, contending that the Chrysler sale to the Italian automaker, Fiat, was now final, and thus could not be unscrambled. (The deal actually closed on June 10, a day after the Supreme Court had refused to block it temporarily pending an appeal.) On Monday, the Justices, in a summary order, vacated the Circuit Court ruling, and told the lower court to “dismiss the appeal as moot.” That nullified the Circuit Court ruling as a precedent on the bankruptcy law issue.
Troubled corporations have made increasing use of the quick-sale option — under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code — and thus have avoided the more investor-protective provisions of Chapter 11. The Indiana trusts’ appeal sought to block that avenue, and, in the Chrysler deal in particular, sought to force the United Auto Workers and an autoworkers’ benefit fund to return to the bankruptcy estate of the old Chrysler firm a $4.6 billion note and common stock they received as part of the Chrysler-Fiat deal, which was financed with public funds from the U.S. and Canadian governments.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- The background:
- The questions:
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
Photo courtesy ABCNews
Shhh…listen….did you hear that…?….was that a shoe dropping…?
brygenon says:
…I doubt they have much chance, but either way it won’t count in the record of eligibility cases.
Leo SAID….
“The TARP issue is not related to our pending filing in the Bankruptcy Court, but it will be part of our Quo Warranto action in the DC District Court.”
There is another ’shoe’ coming…
(Do not be surprised at a ‘quiet settlement’ with the Chrysler Dealers making this filing moot….the ’shoe’ has cleets…)
On December 25′th the law firm of Pidgeon & Donofrio GP filed a motion for reconsideration with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. There’s nothing about Obama in the motion or supporting memorandum.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24520263/IN-RE-CHRYSLER-LLC-et-al-6132-Omnibus-Motion-to-Reconsider-FRCP-60-or-FRBP-3008-filed-by-Leo-C-Donofrio-Gov-uscourts-nysb-Mega-4-6132-0
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24520365/IN-RE-CHRYSLER-LLC-et-al-6132-1-Attachments-1-Memorandum-In-Support-of-Motion-to-Reconsider-Rejected-Dealership-Contracts-nysb-mega-12607
I doubt they have much chance, but either way it won’t count in the record of eligibility cases.
epicurious says:
December 23, 2009 at 8:42 pm
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/23/obama-is-a-british-citizen/
The correct link is
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/24/british-law-declares-obama-a-british-citizen/
that’s funny some fella’ named justin bieber sings for the imposter wannabe president ‘bama. i guess ‘bama made justin bieber feel responsible for the slavery of a million years ago and to make it all better he was going to be ‘bama’s slave for one day.
MGB says:
Does it occur to you that maybe the lawyers — the successful ones — do know what is court-worthy, and perhaps the losers to whom you listen might not be the experts? That perhaps Hawaii, though our youngest state, is not so stupid that they cannot provide legally acceptable documents?
Roderick says:
So don’t vote for them. It’s no reason for these frivolous lawsuits. As the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey put it: “The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote.”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/11914286356.pdf
people notifies their representatives long before the election took place in order to seek more information about the [fraud]. that is in a timely manner and there should be no reason for dismissal because these people were not satisfied as to the responsiveness or lack thereof from their elected officials. the imposter is doing what they do in cuba which is run by a dictatorship and a good friend of his fidel castro. and that would be choosing not to answer to the taxpayers. that in and of itself is criminal activity against the population and that is why we need to destroy the declaration of independence and start over from scratch leaving ‘bama to fend for himself.
everybody go to youtube.com and type in (theatrical trailer fraud) and also (jackie mason obama’s fraud).
It’s Xmas, let’s get with the program
“Message spread on Internet
COURT WILL SAY GIVE OBAMA DEATH PENALTY
None but courts of law, juries, justice alone can jail, try, rule on Obama’s crimes of which faking certificate to be president and to wrongly access the nuclear force
That’s USA’s worst crime, high treason. Army’s top security violation must surely carry death penalty, it’s sure
Obama’s marked also by the heavenly number 666, the Antichrist’s Mark, on his election day
All info: my page
Spread this news”
Obama must be in jail by New Year
This message on U Tube has spawned a counter-video
it’s called: “obama is NOT the antichrist”
It’s made by LosersHaveMoreFun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBon4mBleZU
A fierce debate is on-going there between myself and a host of Obots lead by Losers, a 15 year-old Obot-girl.
But again, how is he supposed to present court-worthy evidence to every person in the country? It’s just not feasible. A scanned copy online is the closest thing to admissible evidence that there is. Further, evidence admissible in court is predicated on the idea that the adverse party has the power to examine and question it. I fail to see how observing the Federal Rules of Evidence would really work in the context of the COLB’s release.
As to the question of why he fights to avoid presenting evidence to the courts if it exists, I can put forth two reasons.
One is that standing is a constitutional imperative. Some have tried to claim that it is just a “technicality,” but I could not disagree more. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that the standing doctrine is a mandate of Article III of the Constitution and that without it, no federal court has the power to proceed with a given case. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559-61 (1992). So when people ask why he fights to avoid presenting the evidence, what they’re really asking is, “Why does he fight to avoid having courts address issues that courts have no constitutional authority to address?”
The second reason is money. I find it somewhat ironic that some birthers (not necessarily you, but some) will criticize Obama for amounts purportedly spent on litigation in this matter, yet will also criticize him for moving to quickly dismiss the cases rather than going through a costly litigation process and trial. Put simply: The earlier you get a case dismissed, the cheaper it is. It saves time and it saves money. Any competent lawyer who has an opportunity to get a dismissal in favor of his client at an early stage would do so. The argument that he should not try to get the case dismissed is essentially saying, “Well even though he has a constitutional basis for seeking dismissal of his case, he should wait until later so that a court can reach past its constitutional jurisdiction and decide on the COLB as a matter of evidence.” To say that he should let a court decide the validity of his documentation is to say that he should stipulate to being bound by an unconstitutional court action when he knows full well that he can get the case dismissed in an earlier stage at a fraction of the time and expense.
It would be like if a person walked up to me and said, “I was in a car crash five years ago. The guy just filed suit against me but I know that it was all his fault.” If I knew that the statute of limitations was three years, I would seek to dismiss on the statute of limitations even though the accident was entirely the plaintiff’s fault. Why go through expensive litigation on the merits of the case when the defendant is legally entitled to an outcome in his favor for a procedural reason?
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/23/obama-is-a-british-citizen/
keokuk: Thanks for the honest response. No, we’re not in court, but we’re talking about Constitutional eligibility to hold the highest office in the land. I would think that credentials for that office ought to be able to stand up in court.
A person who himself is a lawyer who taught Constitutional law should present court-worthy evidence, if he presents any at all. What he has presented is not adequate to stand up in court. So why does he fight to avoid presenting the evidence to the courts if, as he has suggested, the evidence exists?
You don’t have to be a document expert to understand the problems with those online images. All you have to have is common sense, something you seem to have an adequate amount of, based upon your comments. Since you are a lawyer, you must also be intelligent and logical, and we know already that you are intellectually honest.
So, to understand the questions people have about those images, a person needs only eyes to see; common sense; intellectual honesty; a passing experience with scanning machines, digital photography, and copy machines; and what digital images created by such technology typically look like.
syc1959 may not be a digital expert (although he or she may be) but the questions raised by syc1959, among others, are significant and cannot be logically answered.
There is no embossed seal on some FactCheck photographs that purport to be photos of the source document for the digital image at Fight the Smears.
No person with common sense would have taken those photos, if that person aimed to put questions about the document to rest. Why use inadequate lighting? Why take the photos at oblique angles, so details are blurred or simply go missing in flares of light? Why not take a photo of the entire back side of the document? Why seemingly take pains to place the shadow of someone’s arm across the very part of the document that should contain the seal (but does not, even under image enhancement)?
There is no seal whatsoever on the Fight the Smears COLB image, which is supposed to be a scan of the document that FactCheck later photographed. Some FactCheck photos do show an embossed seal, so why doesn’t it appear on the digital SCAN of the COLB at Fight the Smears? Anyone who has ever scanned a document knows that the resulting image would show that embossed seal, if it were on the document. The scan would not look at all like the COLB presented by Fight the Smears.
In addition, the embossed seal on the FactCheck photos does NOT match the official seal of Hawaii. The DoH is on record stating that there are WORDS on their seal. There are NO words on the seal shown on the FactCheck photos. Why not?
So you see, it’s logical to question the claims made about those images. It’s also logical to ask why the POTUS will not simply present court-worthy evidence to any of the courts dealing with eligibility and put the issue to rest once and for all.
MGB, you are ever the diginified commenter.
… it makes me laugh because you clearly know absolutely nothing about me. (keo to mis)
<<< Maybe not, but there is some evidence on snopes.com. You said early this year that you developed an obsession with going to "rightwing" sites and message boards, well, let's just see what you said:
______________________________________________________________________
I've taken up a guilty pleasure in the past two months or so of googling right-wing blogs and message boards that actually subscribe to all this not-a-natural-born-citizen stuff. It's really becoming an addiction for me. I can't even get angry about it because these people are so delusional that it's just amusing.
______________________________________________________________________
<<< I was really disappointed to read that because it seemed you were here for legitimate discussion as a somewhat regular commenter.
… If John McCain had selected anybody but Sarah Palin as his running mate, I would have voted for him.
<<< I guess it's possible you were going to hold your nose and vote for McCain (sans Palin), but your comments during the campaign cycle do not tag you as an ardent McCain supporter. I also read at snopes where you took the time to defend Obama for example, not placing his hand over his heart at the singing of the national anthem, but didn't take the time to support McCain. Instead you called him out for really being somewhat of a socialist in his tax plan that you viewed as being a redistribution of the wealth, the same claim that McCain made about Obama.
So, I take your support of McCain with a grain of salt, although I do agree with your analysis of Obama's presidency to date. I also wanted to say that you have a nice writing style, and have no doubt you will pass the bar, if you haven't already done so.
Back to some of what I said previously, here is an exchange between you and another commenter:
Kutter
You know, I don't really care. I mean, if the guy next to me at the ball game doesn't cover his heart, I won't think any less of him.
However, Obama is running for President of the United States of America. Expecting him to follow a tradition so simple as where to put your hand when a certain plays isn't too much to ask. No, I don't think it makes him less of a patriot or whatever, but it does show that, to let this happen, he probably isn't ready to run for the job, much less do it.
Reply With Quote
Could you elaborate a little bit on what one has to do with the other? I always thought that being president had more to do with implementing foreign policy, running the executive branch, working with Congress to construct laws and acting as a head of state. Apparently not holding one's hand to one's heart in one demonstrable instance demonstrates that one "isn't ready to run for the job, much less do it"? (keokuk)
*****
It's unclear why you didn't think Palin had the experience of running the executive branch, even though she made some gaffes probably out of nervousness. Obama has made some as well but of course they don't get any recognition beyond the internet. Obama is not a good extemporaneous speaker; he also drops his g's, says "gonna," stutters quite a bit while pulling his thoughts together, that type of thing. I still think he is intelligent although I think he is destroying the country. Presidents never act alone which is why I didn't fear Palin taking over the presidency if something would have happened to McCain. I felt she had enough experience to take over as President. Each day as VP would have garnered incredible experience added to the executive experience she already obtained.
I don't think I ever heard anyone discuss what kind of outlandish policies that Palin promoted during her tenure as Governor. According to what I read, the Alaska unemployment rate as of November, 2009 is 8.7%, which is above the norm for that State but below the national average. If she is such a trainwreck, then wouldn't the state be in more dire straits as in California? Maybe she was a decent governor (and left the State in the good hands of the Lt. Gov.) and all of the other stuff is petty? The ethics complaints have been filed by the same group of people from what I understand. I worked for the Commonwealth of my state and would not say that any of Palin's actions were egregious. I think she tried to do what was right for the people of her State. That per diem stuff is NOTHING compared to what goes on generally in government. Her ex-brother-in-law was a danger to society. Remember, we are not looking for perfection, as you said. I don't think there is any person who could withstand the kind of scrutiny she has received without a blemish. When people meet her, they seem to like her. I myself would never wait in line for hours on end to meet her (or anyone except maybe the Holy Father.)
Now the economy is in such a wreck, I think we need someone with financial expertise to get our country back on course. Given a choice between Palin (whom I don't think will run in 2012 anyways) and Obama, I would take Palin. Given a choice between Palin and another conservative candidate who is a financial guru, I would probably choose the latter.
Turning to another point, I take issue with this statement:
**Sandra Lines made the unremarkable statement that an online image cannot be confirmed for veracity.
That is hardly an unremarkable statement but the crux of the matter!
In court, no, I would not accept an item posted on the Internet. But we’re not in a court, and there is no way for each and every person to examine the document personally, so I am content to accept it as genuine because I have yet to see any substantial supporting proof to the contrary. I really don’t see any other possible way for the situation to be handled.
I also disagree with your premise about “legitimate” questions about the digital image. Sandra Lines made the unremarkable statement that an online image cannot be confirmed for veracity. The only other questions raised have come from several other anonymous “experts” who put forth theories of why it was false but were all later exposed as fraudulently exaggerating their credentials. I am not a digital imaging expert, so I can’t speak to their conclusions myself, but I am not willing to accept the conclusion drawn from someone who lies about his credentials to make it sound as if he knows more than he really does about the topic. (To throw the same in-a-courtroom analogy back, no court would ever accept evidence from an anonymous witness who refused to provide accurate credentials.)
theOriginalist says:
December 23, 2009 at 12:19 am
keokuk says:
Could you explain why the omitted sentence is significant? I don’t understand what difference it is supposed to make.
Really? You don’t see the significance of Mr. Smith’s claim to his ancestral birthright? What would you like me to explain? What ancestor means perhaps?
The way Mr. Lion pulled that quote out of context was deliberate and it was dishonest. Madison wasn’t talking about any kind of born citizenship, natural or otherwise. Mr. Smith was born a British subject in the colony of South Carolina. Madison was arguing that Mr. Smith became a citizen when the Declaration of Independence was signed even though he was in Geneva attending to studies at the time. Madison laid out his arguments using the principles of natural law to colleagues who thought the same way. The place Madison is referring to in the quote is the community in which Smith was born, not the land under it. He goes on to say:
______________________________________________________________
I disagree. I think Madison was discussing citizenship. And I did not parse the quote to be dishonest.
keokuk: Thanks for your intellectual honesty. I agree with most of what you said about Obama, healthcare, and cap and trade legislation.
Speaking for myself, I’d accept a transcript from Obama’s colleges, even if posted on the Web, so long as those transcripts LOOKED like transcripts and not like photoshopped objects and so long as the colleges acknowledged producing them for Obama to post.
I asked you something like this once before, and I don’t recall that you answered the question. Speaking as a lawyer, would accept as absolute proof of the facts of someone’s birth, a digital image posted on a partisan blog of something that purports to be an abstract of another, three-dimensional paper document, which has not been authenticated by the agency that supposedly produced the abstract? Imagine that you’re in court and this is what your opponent presents as proof, instead of presenting an actual, certified and certifiable paper document? Would you accept that as legal proof? Especially when persons have raised legitimate questions about its authenticity, provenance, and anomalies on the digital image? Questions that will not be answered?
misanthropicus says:
That’s an impressive fantasy you’ve constructed in your head. Here in the real world, birthers have over and over made up stories to try to convince themselves that the authenticity of perfectly good and legal sources is in doubt.
Snopes doesn’t directly vet documents; they debunk Internet conspiracy theories, such as this one.
FactCheck is run by the University of Pennsylvania, which U.S. News and World Reports ranks (tied for) 4′th among the nation’s top universities.
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-universities-rankings
No, we’d laugh at you. The executive branch should vet the executive? I myself think the Framers were on to something with that separation of powers idea, but hey, you’re entitled to your opinion.
Dr. Fukino’s statement speaks for itself: “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‘i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.”
And how about the statement reported here from Republican Senator and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, He wrote, in part “Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office.”
Ah… the hedging… the ambiguity.
Dr. Coburn Immunizes Obama From GOP Attacks
December 21, 2009 10:38 am ET by Chris Harris
Dr. No Defends Obama
http://mediamattersaction.org/blog/200912210001