Federal Judge Calls Obama “Birther” Challenge “Frivolous” and Orly Taitz Calls for Judge to Be Tried for Treason

orly2U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land issued a stern warning to attorney Orly Taitz (left) and others in the so-called “birther” campaign: do not file another such “frivolous” lawsuit or you will face sanctions. Land threw out the lawsuit filed on behalf of Capt. Connie Rhodes who is an Army surgeon challenging her deployment orders due to President Barack Obama’s alleged ineligibility to serve as President. Land (a Bush appointee) noted that “[u]nlike in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so.”

Land held that “(Rhodes) has presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is ineligible to serve as president of the United States. Instead, she uses her complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric, such as her claims that the president is ‘an illegal usurper, an unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter.'”

Land went the extra step of warning Taitz that he may impose sanctions if she files any more “similarly frivolous … actions in this Court.”

Taitz has reportedly responded not with a motion for reconsideration but an interview on local television that Land shows ” a total disrespect for the Constitution of the United States of America.”
and “should be tried for treason with Obama.”

Here is the opinion in full:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION

CONNIE RHODES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THOMAS D. MACDONALD, Colonel,
Garrison Commander, Fort
Benning; et al.,
Defendants.

CASE NO. 4:09-CV-106 (CDL)

O R D E R

Plaintiff, a Captain in the United States Army, seeks a temporary restraining order to prevent the Army from deploying her to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Plaintiff alleges that her deployment orders are unconstitutional and unenforceable because President Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to act as Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces. After conducting a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous. Accordingly, her application for
a temporary restraining order (Doc. 3) is denied, and her Complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel is hereby notified that the filing of any future actions in this Court, which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s counsel is a self-proclaimed leader in what has become known as “the birther movement.” She maintains that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and, therefore, he is not eligible to be President of the United States. See Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire, [1] http://www.orlytaitzesq.com (last visited Sept. 15, 2009). Counsel has filed numerous lawsuits in various parts of the country seeking a judicial determination as to the President’s legitimacy to hold the office of President. The present action is the second such action filed in this Court in which counsel pursues her “birther claim.” Her modus operandi is to use military officers as parties and have them allege that they should not be required to follow deployment orders because President Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be President. Although counsel has managed to fuel this “birther movement” with her litigation and press conferences, she does not appear to have prevailed on a single claim.[2] In fact, Plaintiff previously filed the present action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. That Court summarily dismissed her complaint upon finding that Plaintiff “has no substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” Rhodes v. Gates, 5:09-CV-00703-XR, Order Den. Mot. for TRO 3 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2009). Counsel then re-filed the same action in this Court.

[1] Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution provides in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

[2] This Court dismissed an earlier action filed by Plaintiff’s counsel on behalf of a military reservist based upon that plaintiff’s lack of standing. See Cook v. Good, No. 4:09-CV-82 (CDL), 2009 WL 2163535 (M.D. Ga. Jul. 16, 2009).

Plaintiff’s counsel speculates that President Obama was not born in the United States based upon the President’s alleged refusal to disclose publicly an “official birth certificate” that is satisfactory to Plaintiff’s counsel and her followers. She therefore seeks to have the judiciary compel the President to produce “satisfactory” proof that he was born in the United States. Counsel makes these allegations although a “short-form” birth certificate has been made publicly available which indicates that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. To press her “birther agenda,” Plaintiff’s counsel has filed the present action on behalf of Captain Rhodes. Captain Rhodes entered the Army in March of 2005 and presently serves as a medical doctor. The American taxpayers paid for her third and fourth years of medical school and financially supported her during her subsequent medical internship and residency program. In exchange for this valuable free medical education, Captain Rhodes agreed to serve two years in active service in the Army. She began that term of active service in July of 2008 and had no concerns about fulfilling her military obligation until she received orders notifying her that she would be deployed to Iraq in September of 2009.

Captain Rhodes does not seek a discharge from the Army; nor does she wish to be relieved entirely from her two year active service obligation. She has not previously made any official complaints regarding any orders or assignments that she has received, including orders that have been issued since President Obama became Commander in Chief. But she does not want to go to Iraq (or to any other destination where she may be in harm’s way, for that matter). Her “conscientious objections” to serving under the current Commander in Chief apparently can be accommodated as long as she is permitted to remain on American soil. Captain Rhodes is presently stationed at Ft. Benning, Georgia awaiting deployment to Iraq. This deployment is imminent and will likely occur absent an order from this Court granting Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order.

[3] The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. See Federal Election Commission, Presidential Pre-Nomination Campaign Disbursements Dec. 31, 2008, http://www.fec.gov/press/press2009/20090608Pres/3_2008PresPrimaryCmpgnDis.pdf (last visited Sept. 15, 2009).

Then the President faced a formidable opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. Press Release, Federal Election Commission, 2008 Presidential Campaign Financial Activity Summarized (June 8, 2009), available at http://www.fec.gov/press/press2009/20090608PresStat.shtml. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought.
Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not instituted impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Cong. (2009) (commemorating, by vote of 378-0, the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating, “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August
4, 1961”).

DISCUSSION
I. Jurisdiction and Abstention

Plaintiff seeks to have this Court declare a deployment order issued by the United States Army void and unenforceable. It is well settled that judicial interference in internal military affairs is disfavored. As the Supreme Court has explained:

[J]udges are not given the task of running the Army. The responsibility for setting up channels through which such grievances can be considered and fairly settled rests upon the Congress and upon the President of the United States and his subordinates. The military constitutes a specialized community governed by a separate discipline from that of the civilian. Orderly government requires that the judiciary be as scrupulous not to interfere with legitimate Army matters as the Army must be scrupulous not to intervene in judicial matters.

Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1953), quoted with approval in Winck v. England, 327 F.3d 1296, 1302-03 (11th Cir. 2003). The limitation on the judiciary’s involvement in military affairs does not mean that such interference is never appropriate. However, “‘a court should not review internal military affairs in the absence of (a) an allegation of the deprivation of a constitutional right, or an allegation that the military has acted in violation of applicable statutes or its own regulations, and (b) exhaustion of available intraservice corrective measures.’” Winck, 327 F.3d at 1303 (quoting Mindes v. Seaman, 453 F.2d 197, 201 (5th Cir. 1971)). Moreover, mere allegations of a constitutional violation unsupported by a reasonable factual foundation are insufficient to warrant judicial review. To hold otherwise would be to create chaos within the military decision-making process and chain of command. As explained below, the Court must balance several factors to determine whether judicial review of a military decision is authorized.

Typically, the first issue to be resolved in cases seeking judicial review of a military decision is whether the soldier has exhausted all intraservice administrative remedies. See Winck, 327 F.3d at 1304. In the present case, Defendants do not contend that Plaintiff was required to exhaust her intraservice administrative remedies, presumably because no procedure is in place for a soldier to contest the qualifications of the Commander in Chief. Defendants do argue, however, that the dispute presented by Plaintiff’s complaint is not justiciable in the courts.

Even if a soldier has exhausted her intraservice administrative remedies, the Court must decline to review the military decision if the review would constitute an inappropriate intrusion into military matters. Id. at 1303 & n.4 (citing Mindes, 453 F.2d at 201). It has long been the law in this Circuit that in determining whether judicial review of a military decision should be undertaken, the reviewing court

‘must examine the substance of that allegation in light of the policy reasons behind nonreview of military matters,’ balancing four factors: (1) ‘The nature and strength of the plaintiff’s challenge to the military determination’; (2) ‘The potential injury to the plaintiff if review is refused’; (3) ‘The type and degree of anticipated interference with the military function’; and (4) ‘The extent to which the exercise of military expertise or discretion is involved.’

Winck, 327 F.3d at 1303 n.4 (quoting Mindes, 453 F.2d at 201). Although certain aspects of the Mindes decision have been eroded through the years, the Eleventh Circuit has relatively recently reaffirmed the “unflagging strength of the principles of comity and judicial noninterference with, and respect for, military operations that informed” the analysis in Mindes. Winck, 327 F.3d at 1304.

[4] It is not always clear whether the analysis of the appropriateness of judicial review of military decisions involves subject matter jurisdiction or abstention principles based on comity and respect for the unique military decision-making process. The Court finds that the proper analysis in this case requires an evaluation of the deployment order using principles of abstention. See Winck, 327 F.3d at 1299-1300 (distinguishing subject matter jurisdiction from abstention principles).

Using the Mindes factors as an analytical framework, the Court finds that it is not authorized to interfere with Plaintiff’s deployment orders. First, Plaintiff’s challenge to her deployment order is frivolous. She has presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is ineligible to serve as President of the United States. Instead, she uses her Complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric, such as her claims that the President is “an illegal usurper, an unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter.” (Compl. ¶ 21.) She continues with bare, conclusory allegations that the President is “an alien, possibly even an unnaturalized or even an unadmitted illegal alien . . . without so much as lawful residency in the United States.” (Id. ¶ 26.) Then, implying that the President is either a wandering nomad or a prolific identity fraud crook, she alleges that the President “might have used as many as 149 addresses and 39 social security numbers prior to assuming the office of President.” (Id. ¶ 110 (emphasis added).) Acknowledging the existence of a document that shows the President was born in Hawaii, Plaintiff alleges that the document “cannot be verified as genuine, and should be presumed fraudulent.” (Id. ¶ 113 (emphasis added).) In further support of her claim, Plaintiff relies upon “the general opinion in the rest of the world” that “Barack Hussein Obama has, in essence, slipped through the guardrails to become President.” (Id. ¶ 128.) Moreover, as though the “general opinion in the rest of the world” were not enough, Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that according to an “AOL poll 85% of Americans believe that Obama was not vetted, needs to be vetted and his vital records need to be produced.” (Id. ¶ 154.)

Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that Defendant has the burden to prove his “natural born” status. (Id. ¶¶ 136-138, 148.) Thus, Plaintiff’s counsel, who champions herself as a defender of liberty and freedom, seeks to use the power of the judiciary to compel a citizen, albeit the President of the United States, to “prove his innocence” to “charges” that are based upon conjecture and speculation. Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our Country was founded in order to purportedly “protect and preserve” those very principles.

Although the Court has determined that the appropriate analysis here involves principles of abstention and not an examination of whether Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court does find the Rule 12(b)(6) analysis helpful in confirming the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s claim has no merit. To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a claim to relief that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). For a complaint to be facially plausible, the Court must be able “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged” based upon a review of the factual content pled by the Plaintiff. Id. The factual allegations must be sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Plaintiff’s complaint is not plausible on its face. To the extent that it alleges any “facts,” the Complaint does not connect those facts to any actual violation of Plaintiff’s individual constitutional rights. Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so. The weakness of Plaintiff’s claim certainly weighs heavily against judicial review of the deployment order, and in fact, would authorize dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim.[5]

Examining the second Mindes factor, the Court further finds that the risk of potential irreparable injury to Plaintiff as a result of the Court’s refusal to review the deployment order is minimal. Plaintiff has not sought to be excused from all military service. She does not seek a discharge from the Army. She does not even seek to avoid taking military orders under President Obama’s watch. She simply seeks to avoid being deployed to Iraq. As observed by the Eleventh Circuit, one “cannot say that military deployment, in and of itself, necessarily entails [irreparable harm], even if to volatile regions.” Winck, 327 F.3d at 1305 n.9. “Holding otherwise could unduly hamper urgent military operations during times of crisis.” Id. Thus, the lack of potential irreparable harm to Plaintiff weighs against judicial review.

[5] One piece of “evidence” Plaintiff’s counsel relies upon deserves further discussion. Counsel has produced a document that she claims shows the President was born in Kenya, yet she has not authenticated that document. She has produced an affidavit from someone who allegedly obtained the document from a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya by paying “a cash ‘consideration’ to a Kenyan military officer on duty to look the other way, while [he] obtained the copy” of the document. (Smith Decl. ¶ 7, Sept. 3, 2009.) Counsel has not, however, produced an original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document. Therefore, the Court finds that the alleged document is unreliable due to counsel’s failure to properly authenticate the document. See Fed. R. Evid. 901. 10

Finally, the “type and degree of anticipated interference with the military function” that judicial review would cause is significantly burdensome. Any interference with a deployment order injects the Court directly into the internal affairs of the military. This type of interference has serious implications. For example, it would encourage other soldiers who are not satisfied with their deployment destination to seek review in the courts. It also will have an adverse effect on other soldiers who honorably perform their duties. Presumably, some other military doctor, who does not resort to frivolous litigation to question the President’s legitimacy as Commander in Chief, would be required to go to Iraq in Plaintiff’s place. Similarly, the doctor who Plaintiff is being sent to relieve and who has likely been there for months would be delayed in receiving his well deserved leave because his replacement seeks special treatment due to her political views or reservations about being placed in harm’s way. “It is not difficult to see that the exercise of such jurisdiction as is here urged would be a disruptive force as to affairs peculiarly within the jurisdiction of the military authorities.” Orloff, 345 U.S. at 94-95.

Based on an evaluation of all of these factors, the Court concludes that it must abstain from interfering with the Army’s deployment orders. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order is denied, and her complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

II. Failure to Satisfy Elements for Temporary Restraining Order

Even if the Court did not abstain from deciding the merits of Plaintiff’s claim, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish her entitlement to a temporary restraining order.

Plaintiff must establish the following to obtain a temporary restraining order:

(1) [Plaintiff] has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues;
(3) the threatened injury to [Plaintiff] outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and
(4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.

Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005).

As explained previously, Plaintiff has demonstrated no likelihood of success on the merits. Her claims are based on sheer conjecture and speculation. She alleges no factual basis for her “hunch” or “feeling” or subjective belief that the President was not born in the United States. Moreover, she cites no legal authority supporting her bold contention that the alleged “cloud” over the President’s birthplace amounts to a violation of her individual constitutional rights. Thus, for these reasons alone, she is not
entitled to a temporary restraining order.

Second, as previously noted, the Court’s refusal to interfere with Plaintiff’s deployment orders does not pose a substantial threat of irreparable injury to her. Plaintiff does not seek to be discharged and apparently is willing to follow all orders from her military command except for any order that deploys her to Iraq.

Although close proximity to any combat zone certainly involves personal danger, Plaintiff, somewhat disingenuously, claims that fear is not her motivation for avoiding her military duty. She insists that she would have no qualms about fulfilling her duties if President George W. Bush was still in office. The Court cannot find from the present record that deployment to Iraq under the current administration will subject Plaintiff to any threat of harm that is different than the harm to which she would be exposed if another candidate had won the election. A substantial threat of irreparable harm related to her desire not to serve in Iraq under the current President simply does not exist.

Third, any potential threatened injury that may be caused to Plaintiff by the denial of the temporary restraining order certainly does not outweigh the harm that will result if the injunction is granted. As mentioned previously, the threatened injury to Plaintiff is not substantial; yet if the temporary restraining order was granted, the harmful interference with military operations would be significant.
Finally, Plaintiff has failed to establish that the granting of the temporary restraining order will not be adverse to the public interest. A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.

For all of these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order should be denied.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons previously stated, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order is denied and Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Defendants shall recover their costs from Plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d).

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of September, 2009. S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Taitz has faced equally hostile comments from the media:

For the full story, click here.

512 thoughts on “Federal Judge Calls Obama “Birther” Challenge “Frivolous” and Orly Taitz Calls for Judge to Be Tried for Treason

  1. As I previously stated this really shows Taitz has no courtroom or legal experience. With that said Professor can you explain the difference between how Judge Carter is allowing Taitz’s case with him to proceed and two other Judges claims of being frivolous. Also is there any reason that you can think of, why the Judge in Appuzo’s case has not ruled on the MTD. I thought he said he would rule by 8-17 but not a peep.

  2. “Taitz has reportedly responded not with a motion for reconsideration….” Taitz also said she plans to appeal the ruling to the Eleventh Circuit. She has 60 days to do so. She’s currently appealing a similar ruling in a similar case before Judge Clay Land involving another soldier.
    http://www2.wrbl.com/rbl/news/local/article/judge_denies_tro_in_latest_birther_case/92633/

    She may have that much time, but it may not be enough. She had 60 days to file a one-page notice of appeal of the dismissal of Major Fred Cook’s case — and got it in on the 61st day.

    Cook was decided on July 16, 2009. The Notice of Appeal stated in its text that it was timely filed on September 14, 2009, 60 days after the entry of the final order closing the case on July 16th. But it was not filed until 3:12 AM on September 15, 2009, the 61st — a day late.

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=3173

  3. Why are these cases brought by military personnel, regarding their deployment orders, even heard in civil courts?

    Aren’t these military questions for military courts?

    At the very least aren’t these cases appropriately heard by, brought against, the institution that is designated to vet the qualifications of presidential candidates? (FEC?)

    Ms Taitz was “notified that the filing of any future actions in THIS Court, which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions.”
    (my emphasis.) How many other courts are there from which she might obtain similar warnings? That is, can another court refer to this court’s warning to sanction Ms Taitz’s next foray into fantasy?

  4. The Rhodes case was for a TRO — a temporary restraining order — because the Army officer was due to ship out within days, and time was of the essence. If the ruling were delayed, no relief would have been possible, because she would already be in Iraq.

    The Apuzzo case in New Jersey was brought by Kerchner, retired military. It is just an ordinary lawsuit, so the court is waiting for all the briefs, etc, to be filed, and then will rule on them in due course.

    The case before Judge Carter is similar. It has been delayed because Orly took 8 months to serve the government defendant, a process that takes one day for an experienced lawyer.

    Neither case has gone forward. In both cases, the government is moving for summary judgment or dismissal. The case only “goes forward” if it survives those challenges. At that point, discovery can take place. The parties can depose witnesses, demand documents, send written inquiries and so forth.

    Of the more than 50 birther lawsuits to date, NOT ONE HAS SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR MOTION TO DISMISS.

    There is nothing surprising about this. None of the suits have been well founded. Most attorneys reviewing the proposed complaints in these cases would have advised the clients not to sue, because they were sure to lose.

    And the dismissals have not been based on “technicalities.” The issue of standing, for example, is not a technicality. It involves the actual jurisdiction of a federal court. As courts of limited jurisdiction, the federal courts are without any judicial power to decide a matter that is not a case or controversy within the meaning of Article III of the Constitution.

  5. John Puma, the military personnel (Cook and Rhodes) CHOSE to sue in civilian federal court.

    Cook was a civilian reservist who was not on active duty, so he had no access to the military courts.

    Rhodes chose to sue before her date of deployment. She can still access the military justice system, for example, by refusing to board the plane to Iraq, and letting herself be subject to a court martial.

    If she or any friends are reading this, my considered advice to her is to fire Taitz immediately and to secure competent legal counsel.

  6. Bdaman, you are thinking way too hard. Just accept the fact that the arguments made by Taitz are so f-ing stupid that they don’t need to be answered, let alone have the cases in which they are made distinguished from one another.

  7. Poor choice of words on my part, “Case Proceeds” I quess my question is like the judge who had the famous Twittered, Google comment, cant a judge just throw the cases out from the onset. The other thing that stuck out to me was Judge Lands reference to the Hawaiian State Anniversary where he states the added verbiage of the presidents birth place.

  8. “If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?” (Alice)

    and

    Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.”
    “I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

    (From “Through the Looking Glass”)

  9. I think I’m getting a headache on the left side of my brain on the right side it tells me spaghetti for dinner to tonight.

  10. The internal adjustments required in attempting to reconcile reality and false perception is often a painful process. It’s called either “growth” or “death” depending upon how one reacts to the truth.

    Try the garlic bread.

    It’s excellent and hides the taste of the Red Pills.

  11. The case before Judge Carter in California is Keyes v. Obama. The Complaint: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16443502/Keyes-Complaint-01-January-20-2009

    Yes, that Alan Keyes, “PhD,” the one who ran against Obama for the Illinois Senate seat. Keyes is now the senior Senator from Mars. Since he was runner-up in election, he seeks in count 49.c to be sworn in as Senator when Obama is disqualified as a result of this suit. [har, har, hardy, har, har!!!]

    The hearing on the Government’s Motion to Dismiss is scheduled for October 5th. Here is a long account of one day in court. http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=2866

  12. I said the other day we are one ring short of a three ringed circus. AHHH the final ring.

  13. “I hear the Garlic Bread also goes well with a famous Horse Meat recipe.”

    Good thing you’ve got lots of dead horse lying around then isn’t it? Being frugal in the kitchen is a virtue in this economy. Nice to hear you’ve put some thought into conservation of resources if only in the kitchen.

  14. I fantasied every time I watched Green Acres, There’s just something about Blacks on Blondes followed by dot com. Ask Tiger, better yet ask Seal Henry Olusegun Olumide Adeola Samuel

  15. Good for you Judge Land a Bush appointee. Too bad he did not have more people like you around. Maybe you could have stopped Cheney and made Bush look smarter.

  16. I have found myself wondering why sanctions have not been imposed to date by any of the judges before whom Ms. Taitz has appeared. Anyone who has practiced in federal court knows that federal judges are jealous of their time and generally have little tolerance for frivolous filings. I suspect that the courts have given Ms. Taitz some leeway in recognition of her obvious ignorance and lack of experience. Had any of these cases been filed by experienced counsel, I believe we would already have seen sanctions orders. Of course, Ms. Taitz has not been able to convince a single reputable attorney to join in her quest.

    But sanctions are still a possibility. The government could itself request them, but probably does not wish to make Ms. Taitz a martyr. However, I also suspect that everyone’s patience is wearing thin. The call for Judge Land to be tried for treason is in itself grounds for disciplinary proceedings by the bar. If Ms. Taitz is looking for eventual suspension or disbarment, she has certainly prepared a pretty good roap map.

    We also should not forget the impact of these cases on the plaintiffs. Given Ms. Taitz’ ignorance of procedural and substantive law, I doubt that her clients have been fully informed of the risks involved in pursuing these claims. In some instances, military careers have probably been destroyed. And should the courts award attorneys fees to the government in any of these cases, plaintiffs could find themselves staring at judgments for thousands of dollars.

  17. Buddha:

    Red pills go down just fine without any help, all you need is a little humility and a willingness to actually look at all angles of a problem from other than preconceived notions.

    bdaman:

    even I don’t think this birther stuff has any merit. I think it is a wet dream of some on the far right. If I thought this had merit I would have a sign in front of the White House with my birth certificate attached saying “I’ve shown you mine now you show me yours”.

    Attack Obama on his ideas not this. It is a waste of time and takes intellectual energy away from what is actually happening. There is enough that this administration has already done that should be rejected and the birth certificate issue is a distraction away from philosophical debates about the nature and scope of government.

  18. The truth has been made clear to me and the result is the irony of the birther movement’s support of Ms. Taitz. She is obviously a Russian “sleeper” agent sent to the U.S. to foment chaos. She is controlled by Putin through the reconstituted NKVD. As with the Cold War, the Russians were inept in their counter intelligence thrusts and sent an agent incapable of becoming a decent lawyer. All those who support Ms. Taitz are obviously unwitting traitors to their Country.

  19. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but my sources indicate that she didn’t go to a real law school and is unlicensed in the usual, formal sense. Her status is then one of “shithouse lawyer”, the guy in the next stall giving legal advice.

  20. The birthers, the tea baggers, the screamers, and the deathers continued extreme minority presence will become tiresome to mainstream America, if it has not already done so. To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true, if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up. I heard Orly Taitz, is selling a tape (I think it’s called “Money, Lies and Video tape”). She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say “behind the Orange Curtain”, when they talk about Orange County, the captial of Conspiracy Theories. You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess they were in on it. In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”. I heard that she now wants to investigate the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC).

  21. She didn’t attend an accredited law school. It was still legal and valid and allowed her to stand for her lawyers exam in California. California is unique in that a person can become a licensed clinical psychotherapist or an attorney, having never attended a regionally accredited college or university. Ain’t California grand?

  22. She can’t take the bar in any other State than California. To file the cases in Georgia, she had to get the court to waive membership in the GA bar and admit her pro hac vice for those procedings only. She wanted to file for a writ quo warranto in DC (the only federal court with jurisdiction) but could not a) get the court to waive membership in the DC Bar or b) get ANY member of the DC Bar to sign on with her.

    So she filed for a writ that had to be filed in the District Court for D.C. in the District Court for the Middle District of California.

    Huh? Result — no success.

  23. I do not support “the BM” (which I believe is a more accurate description than “the birther movement”), but I must ask why, after deciding that abstention was appropriate, the district court even bothered to discuss Iqbal and Twombly. That discussion is not relevant to the decision and only serves to inflame a group of individuals who have already shown themselves to be irrational and armed.

  24. Bdaman, although it appears otherwise, my comment was directed at the silliness of Taitz’s arguments and not so much your thinking about them. Until she attains the status of “restricted filer” in the United States District Courts the spew will continue.

  25. This is just too effing amazing. The day after she was told not to file any more frivolous pleadings before Judge Land, Orly HAS FILED YET ANOTHER FRIVOLOUS PLEADING:

    http://ia311028.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.15.0.pdf

    Emergency request for stay of deployment blah blah blah…

    The court ignored evidence from an agent of England’s fabled Scotland Yard!

    This is just a cornucopia of riches of rhetorical excess. Stick in your thumb and come out with a howler.

    Neo-fascistic paleo communistic dictatorship….

    And on and on.

    Read it and weep.

  26. Vince what happens now, when the Judge did her a favor by not having a local attorney contact that just applied to that case, right? doesn’t she still need that.

  27. Mike A:

    Just another tidbit from the pleading to make your evening:

    “Plaintiff avers that there is increasing evidence that the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and, mostly likely, subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested in this case, except that the de facto President is not even nominally the Commander-in-Chief of the Article III Judiciary.”

    Nary a bit of evidence, but wow, that lady can dream!

  28. Mike S.,

    I have an even scarier idea . . . Taitz is from S.P.E.C.T.R.E.

    I mean seriously. Some of those Soviet guys were brutally competent. I’m thinking she wouldn’t make Vladimir’s cut.

    Then again, she probably wouldn’t get into S.P.E.C.T.R.E. either. Maybe I’m thinking the wrong spy/counter-spy duo here.

    I got it.

    She’s a member of K.A.O.S.

    And like her opponent, she keeps missing it by “that much”.

    To Maxwell’s credit, his missing it by that much and Orly’s missing it by that much are of a totally different scale. Then again, Max had Agent 99 to rely upon – a solid agent with good sense. Where as Orly has . . . Li’l Jimmy Trollpants, the Mall and bdarube.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – there’s a shortage of talent if you’re an evil mastermind looking for competent henchmen. I personally can’t get enough to keep my secret underground volcano lair running but six months out of the year. And I’ve had to close my space station and put the death ray for sale on e-Bay. I don’t see how the Neocons do it.

  29. Justin at Josh’s TPM has posted the latest complaint to the CA Bar on Taitz.

    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/09/complaint-to-california-bar-re-orly-taitz-91

    “Now, in response to Taitz’s comments to TPM calling the judge corrupt and suggesting he should be tried for treason, a fellow member of the California bar has filed a formal complaint against Taitz”:

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/orly_complaint.php?ref=fpblg

  30. You can get to the actual complaint by clicking the second link, and going to link in the sentence that says the complaint is “here”

  31. So now there are two complaints this one and Larry Sinclar.
    Vince whats the deal with the Sinclar one. It looks like Taitz tried to get him to lie in court to judge Carter

  32. BVM, as I recall the U.S. marshals were to have arrested the president by now. I realize that you are part of a conspiracy cult, but your comments would be at least coherent if you would take the time to actually analyze the legal issues. You honestly do not know what constitutes “treason” in the law, among other problems.

  33. mespo, even if Ms. Taitz’ comments concerning the subjugation of the judges of the 11th Circuit are true, I somehow believe that the freedom they experience in their lives compares quite favorably to that enjoyed by Mr. Taitz.

  34. BVM bloviates: “U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land has made his name synonymous with treason in American history as Benedict Arnold. Land’s name is to be shamed in American history.”

    ***************

    Here’s my tribute to Judge “Land”:

  35. Amen, Mespo! It does my heart good to see a judge draw a line in the sand when dealing with these Birthers and Tenthers. This so-called attorney is a disgrace to the profession.

  36. mespo, up till now I thought the wackiest arguments in USDC came from tax protesters. Taitz’s really take the cake. Here in Michigan we have “redemption theorists” who claim that upon birth the US establishes a bank account in each person’s name and deposits a million dollars (might be 5 million now) therein. The account number is one’s social security number. Any government document (e.g., license plate renewal, civil summons and complaint, grand jury subpoena, etc.) sent to them is returned with “ACCEPTED FOR VALUE”. They establish “common law courts”. I have had the displeasure of being sued in those forums. It gets even stranger when they go to court, where they demand to see Judges’ commissions and refuse to submit to the court’s jurisdiction because the US flag in the courtroom has gold piping that makes it a battle flag and therefore a military court. They are exclusively white, fundamentalist Christian and racist. They claim as a pretext their love for this country, but at its root is a deep seated hatred for it. I think this is Taitz’s gig as well.

  37. I posted this on Ohio Congresswoman and re posting it here.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE58H17S20090918
    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9AP7M1G4&show_article=1

    We know the president has now delayed the decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, this after the top military brass requested to send them. The decision was made after Sen Kerry basically said the administration has no plan.

    Now a probe has begun into the death of four marines because apparently someone, and I’m not going to speculate who, has changed the rules of engagement. The marines requested mortar fire and were denied. This comes after two more soldiers died over the idiot NY Times reporter.

    My point, this issue of whether or not the president is the president needs to be conclusively decided. If not and he makes the decision to send more troops, there will be more cases. A certain number or percentage will not want to go no matter what. This will be their excuse. Look at the answers Rhodes gave Judge Land when he questioned her. The matter needs to be settled.

  38. All I have to say about Woodie Guthrie other than he was a great songwriter is that I have to admire a man who’d paint the slogan

    “This Machine Kills Fascists”

    on his guitar.

    My kinda guy.

  39. rraflaw:

    I think Dr. Orly should stick to pulling teeth with her instruments instead of with her tortured and stupid rhetoric as announced in her juvenile pleadings.

  40. President Obama needs to produce his original birth certificate and end this bs once and for all. It is a circus distraction and the longer it goes on the more people are going to start thinking maybe there is some truth to this and it will ruin his presidency at some point.

    The bigger the lie the better. The birthers need to quit lying but President Obama needs to release BC so he can shut these people up once and for all. They are not going to go away, Onry Titz appears to be a woman on a mission, a fanatic, maybe she has had a religious revelation on the order of Joan of Arc. So who knows what she is capable of doing.

  41. “maybe she has had a religious revelation on the order of Joan of Arc. So who knows what she is capable of doing.”

    I’m really hoping she tries to invade England.

  42. Leo Donofrio is now arguing that Cheney should be subject to discovery in the California lawsuit because of his failure to call for objections at the Joint Session for the counting of the Electoral votes. He says “I see no reason why the court should deny the plaintiffs discovery on this particular issue.”

    Here is his so-called legal “advice”:

    QUOTE ON Don’t limit the interrogatories to any specific objection. Just ask each Representative or Senator whether they would object to Obama’s eligibility.

    The Constitution does not require a birth certificate be offered. The Constitution does require that the President be a natural born citizen. The interrogatories should be simple. For example:

    Dear Congressman Ron Paul – Had Vice President Cheney called for objections after the counting of electoral votes as is required by 3 U.S.C. § 15, would you have objected?

    That’s sufficient as written. Send that to each Senator and Representative.

    2. Interrogatories should be issued which question Cheney as to why he didn’t call for objections as was required by the statute.

    Depending on the answers to those interrogatories, the court might order the Senate and Representatives to meet for the purpose of hearing a call for objections. UNQUOTE

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/barnes-v-obama-important-discovery-is-available-now-according-to-judge-carters-order-of-sept-17-2009/

    The court might order the House and Senate to meet to hear a call for objections?

    Is Leo out of his Vulcan mind?

    Leo is terminally ignorant. The Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution bars any and all possible court-ordered “discovery’ against Members of Congress for anything done in the course of their legislative duties. See Art. I Sec. 6: “and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.” This immunity is so powerful that it bars all discovery, even in a lawsuit alleging per se libel or slander by a Member on the floor of the House. The Member cannot be questioned in any other place. The President of the Senate cannot be questioned in any other place about presiding over the Senate or Joint Session. capiche?

    Leo, like his friend Apuzzo, is blissfully unaware of the Speech or Debate restriction on lawsuits against Members of Congress. This is pathetic. And there is absolutely no excuse for his ignorance. The defense is spelled out in the Government’s pleadings in Apuzzo’s Kerchner case, and is available to Leo at any time.

    For a complete description of the Clause, see the Constitution Annotated, 2002 edition, starting at page 134:

    http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/011.pdf

  43. The matter of the president’s birthplace has been determined. The issue has been decided. The legitimacy of his election is not a matter for debate. That legitimacy has simply not been accepted by certain segments of society. There is no requirement in the law or in reason that proof that the earth revolves around the sun be continually resubmitted in an undending effort to satisfy non-believers. Law, science and all other fields of knowledge are the province of reasonable men and women. All others must learn to adjust.

  44. People have spent a lot of time blasting Orly Taitz, which is a fine pasttime, but I’m going to spend a moment and blast Captain Rhodes.

    I’m an Army officer, currently attending law school on the US Army’s dime. I’ve been to Iraq twice, and neither trip was the most fun I’ve ever had, but I took an oath. I signed up after the invasion of Afghanistan, so I knew exactly what I was getting myself into. Captain Rhodes also knew when she signed up that she might be expected to serve downrange. Captain Rhodes was supported by taxpayer money while she received her education, and now objects to serving in a vital capacity (surgeon!) in the sandbox? Maybe it’s silly or naive to think this way, but we as officers have a duty to serve not only the Constitution, but also the Soldiers under our command. As a former member of the 3rd Infantry Division (like Captain Rhodes) I am appalled that she would shirk the responsibility that she owes to the Soldiers of the United States Army, and on such a flimsy pretext. [She’s afraid of being convicted of war crimes? Please. Is she planning on pulling a Dr. Mengele in the forward hospital?]

    I can respect people who don’t want to serve — it isn’t for everyone. However, at the very least, she should pay back every cent that the Army contributed to her education, and she should be shown the door.

    I firmly believe that President Obama IS the president (I voted for him), that his orders are legitimate, and I will continue to believe that until someone shows me some conclusive proof otherwise (highly doubtful at this point). If the proof existed, I think someone somewhere would’ve dug it up by now. Does General Petreaus have a problem executing Obama’s orders? No? Okay, good. Move out and draw fire, young captain, and have fun with that court martial.

  45. Paichka:

    well said. If she dosent go pay it all back. this appears to be more about her desire to shift to a comfortable well paid position as a private surgeon than anything else.

  46. I must reiterate, lest we lose sight of what is really going on in the details of this lunatic attack, this is about a Black man and a Democrat becoming President. The Christian Fundamentalist Movement has crossed its’ wires and mixed up Jesus with their own innate prejudice.
    The White Supremicists believe all government (ZOG) is corrupt and now even more so with a Black man in charge. The grifters, be they media personalities (Rush, Billo, Beck, Dobbs, etc.), or conmen (Taitz, Donofrio, Robertson, et. al)and the very wealthy funding them are in it for the buck and for the power. We cannot reason with them because facts are not their driving force. We can only debunk them (ala Vince) and heap ridicule upon them. The debunking gets the facts out there and the ridicule destroys the legitimacy of their claims.

    To me this is the only way, since despite some dupes statements that if only President Obama would do “such and such,” there is by their own words nothing he or anyone else could do to change their minds. This thread is the best proof of this. A judge rules against them so the Judge becomes the traitor and the logic/legality of his ruling gets forgotten in the firestorm of invective sent his way.

  47. Paichka, thanks for your post. Since many of the posters here are lawyers, we tend to look at the legal aspects of matters. I don’t pretend to understand Captain Rhodes’ motives, but she was nevertheless entitled to be informed by Ms. Taitz that the litigation was likely to fail, that she could be stuck with court costs and attorneys’ fees should she not prevail and that a loss in court could have a negative impact on her military career. My gut tells me that there was probably not a complete disclosure of those realities due to Ms. Taitz’ obsession with the issue.

  48. Well here’s the video. At the 1:01 minute mark as I previously stated, when Cheney was by LAW suppose to call for any objections, Nacy Pe-loose-eee begins to clap wildly. This was a sham

  49. Question

    Do you agree or disagree Cheney broke the Law?

    If you agree that a constitutional law has been broken do you also agree that there is no recourse?

  50. Paichka,
    Great points to bring up and you’ve got the credentials to do it. As a veteran I would guess you are disgusted with the overwhelming number of non-Vets, who claim military expertise and honoring the troops as they try to cut benefits and to avoid giving care to those who served honorably.

  51. Another birther myth is that NH Rep. Laurence Rappaport asked the Secretary of State Bill Gardner to investigate Obama’s birth, and that Gardner agree to start an investigation.

    Status: FALSE

    Source, Concord Monitor: “Dear birthers: New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner is not investigating President Obama’s birth status. If asked, his staff will say no, and that doesn’t mean, ‘We won’t tell you.’ It means no.”

    http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090916/FRONTPAGE/909160302

    Here is the full article published on September 16, 2009
    QUOTE ON
    Searching for an answer . . . to a headache
    Birthers stump secretary of state

    By SHIRA SCHOENBERG
    Monitor staff
    September 16, 2009

    Dear birthers: New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner is not investigating President Obama’s birth status. If asked, his staff will say no, and that doesn’t mean, “We won’t tell you.” It means no.

    So stop sending the four-page faxes with footnotes about James Madison and John Jay. Stop asking Gardner whether Obama holds dual citizenship – he has no idea. And please don’t ask him again whether Obama has taken the oath required of all presidential candidates.

    “What’s the oath for candidates?” the exasperated secretary of state asked yesterday.

    The seeds of the controversy were planted Thursday when state Rep. Laurence Rappaport, a Colebrook Republican, met with Gardner. According to Gardner, Rappaport presented him with two copies of what he said was Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate. Gardner told Rappaport complaints about elections must go to the ballot law commission. But he said he would be happy to check for Rappaport whether there was any place to confirm Kenyan documents so Rappaport could pursue the issue if he wanted to. Gardner checked. There wasn’t. Case closed.

    Or not. According to Rappaport, he had requested an investigation, and Gardner agreed to pursue one.

    “My wife and I are very concerned about the direction the country is going and whether Obama’s even qualified to become president,” Rappaport said. “Neither one of us presume to know the answer, but there is an awful lot of controversy surrounding this.”

    Rappaport’s questions are those that have been repeated by the so-called “birther” movement: Was Obama born in Hawaii or in Kenya? Is it enough that he has just one American parent? (His father was from Kenya.) Was his American mother old enough to confer citizenship?

    “I need to know that, and I think we all need to know that,” Rappaport said. “In essence my request to Mr. Gardner was that this be investigated. He said he would investigate.”

    Enter the internet. The Post and Email, which calls itself “The Free Press for a New Generation” posted a tidbit Saturday that Gardner had agreed to investigate Rappaport’s claim. That story was picked up by other conservative blogs under the title “New Hampshire Secretary of State to Investigate Obama for Election Fraud.” An anonymous poster on AConservativeEdge stated that Gardner “has agreed to investigate allegations that Democrats and Barack Hussein Obama misrepresented his natural born status in order to gain placement on the New Hampshire ballot as a presidential candidate.”

    First, to state the obvious. Despite several lawsuits (some of which have already been dismissed), the claims of the birthers have been refuted by experts across the political spectrum.

    “It’s a completely bogus claim,” said Heidi Beirich, director of research at the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights organization that tracks extremist groups. “It’s been disproven by every reputable news organization in the country.”

    A quick internet search turns up a copy of Obama’s birth certificate online. Not to mention there was a birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper.

    “The birthers are so ludicrous that for their conspiracy to function, someone needed to plant a news item 40 years ago in anticipation of someone becoming president,” Beirich said.

    The birther movement is led by California dentist Orly Taitz, with help from activists like Phil Berg, who is known as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. (Taitz released a Kenyan birth certificate that was proven to be a fraud.)

    Originally, Beirich said, “it was being spread by right-wing nuts who are bizarre human beings.”

    Since CNN’s Lou Dobbs mentioned the birther controversy, Beirich said the ideas have entered the mainstream. But the bottom line, she said, is “if you’re born in the U.S., you’re a U.S. citizen. Obama was born in the U.S. He’s a U.S. citizen, as much as they wish he wasn’t.”

    Truthfulness of the allegations aside, Gardner seems befuddled as to how the birther movement descended on his office. (In fact, Gardner had never heard the term birther before a reporter explained it to him.)

    Gardner said the first calls came in yesterday: “Can you please tell me if the secretary of state of New Hampshire is investigating President Obama?”

    First, Gardner instructed his staff to say no, until an employee said that might imply a “I can’t tell you.”

    “I said just say, ‘Yes I can tell you, and the answer is no,’ ” Gardner said.

    Over the past two days, Gardner and his office have received at least 20 phone calls and e-mails demanding a response, and more e-mails that don’t. Plus, there were the faxes. Like the four pages (footnoted and annotated) from a person in Las Vegas providing “additional information” for Gardner’s “investigation.”

    Gardner looked through a handful of e-mails yesterday: ” ‘What’s the legal definition of a natural born citizen?’ There’s been all kinds of court cases about that. ‘Are certifications valid and legally binding?’ I certify to the House of Representatives, they’re certified by me, they get sworn in, then they can be challenged. How do you answer a question like that?”

    The inquiries, Gardner said, are continuing to pile up: “I’m interested if you formally directed your office to undertake an investigation. Explain the statutory requirements for candidates. . . . Can you give me a statement of requirement for office according to the Constitution Article 2? Could you look at following seven Supreme Court cases? Since Barack Obama was born to a British subject, by what criteria did your office determine he was natural born?”

    As of yesterday afternoon, Gardner had not responded to a stack of out-of-state phone numbers of people seeking comment. He also hadn’t figured out what to tell the frustrated staff members taking all the calls.

    “I’ve said no. You’ve said no,” Gardner told them. “What else do you do?”
    UNQUOTE

  52. Paichka:

    Capt. Rhodes was a a pawn in a fools game called by the Birthers in an insane attempt to undermine a duly elected President. From what we can tell, Orly didn’t tell the good Capt. her mission was bound to fail because Dr. Orly was as surprised as the next layman, her less than spectacular legal skills not withstanding. We all appreciate your service, but I do not agree that the soldiers duty is merely to salute briskly and carry out the order of a superior. The soldier’s duty is to salute briskly and carry out any lawful order, as you well know. If Capt. Rhodes was a person of principle, Ii have more admiration for her than disdain. See Watada, Lt. Ehern

  53. “Although the First Amendment may allow Plaintiff’s counsel to make these wild accusations on her blog or in her press conferences, the federal courts are reserved for hearing genuine legal disputes and not as a platform for political rhetoric that is disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action.”

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
    COLUMBUS DIVISION
    CONNIE RHODES,
    Plaintiff,
    vs.
    THOMAS D. MACDONALD, Colonel,
    Garrison Commander, Fort
    Benning; et al.,
    Defendants.
    CASE NO. 4:09-CV-106 (CDL)

    O R D E R

    “It was deja vu all over again.”1

    In her most recent tirade, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing this action. Instead 2 of seriously addressing the substance of the Court’s order, counsel repeats her political diatribe against the President, complains that she did not have time to address dismissal of the action (although she sought expedited consideration), accuses the undersigned of treason, and maintains that “the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and . . . subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested.” (Pl.’s Emergency Req. for Stay of Deployment 2.)

    [1] Attributed to New York Yankees baseball legend and philosopher, Yogi Berra.
    [2] Though the motion is titled “Emergency Request for Stay of Deployment,” it appears to be a motion for reconsideration because it catalogues Plaintiff’s reasons why she believes the Court’s order of dismissal should be vacated.

    This filing contemptuously ignores the Court’s previous admonition that Plaintiff’s counsel discontinue her illegitimate use of the federal judiciary to further her political agenda. The Court finds that the claims and legal contentions asserted in the present motion are not warranted by existing law and that no reasonable basis exists to conclude that Plaintiff’s arguments would be accepted as an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. Simply, put the motion is frivolous.

    Moreover, the Court further finds that Plaintiff’s motion is being presented for the improper purpose of using the federal judiciary as a platform to espouse controversial political beliefs rather than as a legitimate forum for hearing legal claims. Counsel’s conduct violates Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and sanctions are warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 15) is denied, and counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why the Court should not impose a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 upon Plaintiff’s counsel for her misconduct. Counsel shall file her response to this show cause order within 14 days of today’s order.

    The Sanctionable Conduct

    Plaintiff’s counsel filed the present action seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent the deployment of Plaintiff, a Captain in the United States Army, to Iraq. Counsel maintains that the President has not produced sufficient evidence of his place of birth to satisfy her that he is a natural born citizen of the United States. Therefore, she alleges he was not eligible to be elected President of the United States and has no authority to act as Commander in Chief. At the request of Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court held an expedited hearing on Plaintiff’s request for relief. Within two days of that expedited hearing, the Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety. (See Order Den. TRO, Sept. 16, 2009.) The Court also found that Plaintiff’s
    Complaint was legally frivolous and that any future similar frivolous conduct on the part of Plaintiff’s counsel would subject counsel to sanctions.

    Notwithstanding the Court’s finding that Plaintiff’s claims were frivolous and that this Court had no legal authority under the facts alleged to interfere with a lawful deployment order, Plaintiff’s counsel filed the present motion seeking reconsideration of that order and seeking a stay of Plaintiff’s deployment. Plaintiff’s counsel seeks this drastic relief based upon the following arguments, each of which is frivolous.

    First, counsel contends that the Court dismissed her Complaint without giving her an opportunity to respond adequately as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Local Rules. Counsel ignores that she sought to have the case heard in an expedited fashion in the first place because of Plaintiff’s imminent deployment. The Court modified its schedule to accommodate this request, and in fact held the hearing during the lunch break in an ongoing jury trial. Yet, she now complains that she only wanted the temporary restraining order expedited and not the entire case. What Plaintiff’s counsel either fails to understand or refuses to acknowledge is that in order to address the motion for a temporary restraining order the Court had to satisfy itself first that it had jurisdiction and legal authority to decide the matter. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); see also Winck v. England, 327 F.3d 1296, 1303 & n.4 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining framework a court must use to decide whether it may review a military determination). As thoroughly explained in the Court’s order of dismissal, the Court found that under well established legal precedent related to abstention principles, it did not have authority to interfere with the United States Army’s deployment order. Therefore, the Court determined that the case must be dismissed in its entirety. The Court did not grant the Defendant’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), although the Court did note that any such motion if considered would be granted based upon the implausibility of Plaintiff’s claims. If counsel had carefully read the Court’s order, she would have understood that the Court dismissed the Complaint based upon abstention principles.

    Furthermore, competent counsel would have understood that the Court was required to address abstention prior to ruling upon the motion for a temporary restraining order.

    Counsel’s contention that the Court denied Plaintiff her due process rights under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution by dismissing her Complaint on abstention grounds without giving her more time to respond is frivolous. Counsel sought expedited review of the motion for temporary restraining order. To consider that motion, the Court had the obligation to satisfy itself that it had legal authority to hear the case. It therefore, at Plaintiff’s counsel’s urging, made an expedited decision on that issue. Now that it did not go her way, counsel has fabricated a specious argument that she needed more time to address the issue.

    Second, counsel argues that the Court ignored her arguments when it dismissed her Complaint. The Court considered Plaintiff’s Complaint, her motion for temporary restraining order, and all evidence Plaintiff submitted in support of her motion, including testimony from the Plaintiff. Upon its consideration of Plaintiff’s allegations in her Complaint and the evidence submitted prior to the hearing, the Court found that under well established precedent Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed based upon abstention principles. Remarkably, in her motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff does not even attempt to distinguish the legal precedent cited by the

    [3] In an alternative finding, the Court also denied the motion for temporary restraining order on the merits, finding that Plaintiff had not satisfied the elements for such relief.

    Court in its order of dismissal. She simply repeats the same bare and conclusory allegations that the Court found frivolous in its previous order. A motion for reconsideration that does not even address the legal basis for the Court’s previous order is frivolous. Finally, it is clear that Plaintiff’s counsel seeks to continue to use the federal judiciary as a platform to further her political “birther agenda.” She has provided no legal or factual basis for [4] the Court to interfere with deployment orders of the United States Army. She supports her claims with subjective belief, speculation and conjecture, which have never been sufficient to maintain a legal cause of action. She continues to file motions that do not address legal issues but that describe the President as a “prevaricator,” allege that the President’s father was “disloyal and possibly treacherous” to the “British Crown,” accuse the undersigned of treason, and suggest that the United States District Courts in this Circuit are “subservient” to the “illegitimate” “de facto President.”

    Although the First Amendment may allow Plaintiff’s counsel to make these wild accusations on her blog or in her press conferences, the federal courts are reserved for hearing genuine legal disputes and not as a platform for political rhetoric that is disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action.

    [4] As explained in the Court’s dismissal order, Plaintiff’s counsel is a leader in the so-called “birther movement.” She and her followers do not believe that President Obama is eligible to hold the office of President because he has not satisfied them that he was born in the United States.

    The conduct described above warrants that sanctions be imposed upon Plaintiff’s counsel, Orly Taitz.

    CONCLUSION

    The Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Deployment (Doc. 15) to be frivolous. Therefore, it is denied. The Court notifies Plaintiff’s counsel, Orly Taitz, that it is contemplating a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 to be imposed upon her, as a sanction for her misconduct. Ms. Taitz shall file her response within fourteen days of today’s order showing why this sanction should not be imposed.

    IT IS SO ORDERED, this 18th day of September, 2009.
    S/Clay D. Land
    CLAY D. LAND
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

  54. To this point she has not been successful because she does not have any proof, documentation supporting her claims except her wild rants. You are backing the wrong horse on this one. Get someone with real credentials (Harvard, Yale Law School) not a Russian immigrant with dual US/ Israel citizenship (where are her allegiances?). Have you even thought of who is paying for all her travel, or are you telling me she independently wealthy? Sorry she has no juice because she does not have any proof, documentation supporting her claims except her wild rants. That might work in “Fake News” but not in a Court of the United States.

  55. Paichka,

    It’s good to hear the perspective of a member of the military on this mess. Quite frankly, if you or anyone else in the service needs medical attention, you deserve better than Captain Rhodes. Thank you for your service.

    Vince,

    I think that NH SOS Gardner has hit on an important tactic in fighting the birthers in specifically saying that they could comment and were not investigating the president. The hard core birthers arrogantly assume that they have more knowledge of and a better understanding about the issues surrounding presidential eligibility than the rest of us do. Because of this, when someone states something imprecise or slightly inaccurate, they immediately take on an air of superiority and assume that the person who misspoke couldn’t possibly know or understand something they didn’t. So when someone says (as the media are prone to in reporting this story) something along the lines of “Of course Barack Obama is an American”, these hard core birthers go off on a screed about the definition of natural born citizen and blather on about Vattel for 20 minutes while talking about how ignorant the person who made the comment obviously is. By saying “Of course Barack Obama is a natural born citizen” instead, we give them one less opening to exploit and make it harder for them to convince other people that their conspiracy theory is reasonable. (I’m sure that bdaman would crow for months if you so much as admitted that there was some sort of controversy here and gave him the shred of legitimacy that he so desperately craves.)

  56. Vince, I smugly note my post from September 17th at 6:04 p.m.:
    “Vince, I just read her new motion. It sure sounds like order to show cause time to me.” I confess that I was unable to predict the amount of the sanction.

  57. Tonight on “Bad Poetry Theater” . . .

    “Ode to 10K”

    Alas the sun has set,
    Red halo orange fiery eye.

    The Birther lie wounded,
    Her claims brought nigh.
    Her Hellhounds all fled.
    Their cause has died.

    For Orly like Icarus ending her day,
    Her insufficient wile and hubris gave way.
    She should have taken the hints.
    She should have cut and run.
    Instead she flew directly to the sun.

    With a lash of fire cut from the burden of proof,
    Fallen in your excitement like the Greek youth
    You have made us laugh, just made our day
    Thus you’d gone too far, made justice say,

    “Taitz, you just lost 10K the hard way.”

    Some chortled and snorted,
    All giggled and cheered.
    Some even cavorted
    . . . . or so it’s reported.
    Every word of it truth.
    Not a smidgen distorted.
    And the best part for me,
    The entertainment was free.

  58. September 18, 2009
    To the Honorable Judge Land:

    Currently, I am shipping out to Iraq for my deployment. I became aware on last night’s local news that a Motion to Stay my deployment had been entered on my behalf. I did not authorize this motion to be filed. I thank you for hearing my case and respect the ruling given on September 16, 2009. It is evident that the original filing for the TRO and such was full of political conjecture which was not my interest. I had no intention of refusing orders nor will I. I simply wanted to verify the lawfulness of my orders. I am honored to serve my country and thank you for doing the same.

    With that said please withdraw the Motion to Stay filed by Ms. Taitz this past Thursday. I did not authorize it and do not wish to proceed. Ms. Taitz never requested my permission nor did I give it. I would not have been aware of this if I did not see it on the late news on Thursday night before going to board my plane to Iraq on Friday, September 18, 2009.

    Furthermore, I do not wish for Ms. Taitz to file any future motions or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar due to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions.

    I am faxing this as was advised by Tim, who works in the District Clerk’s office. I will mail the original copy of this letter once I have arrive in Iraq.

    Respectfully,
    CPT Connie M. Rhodes, MD

    http://ia311028.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.18.0.pdf

  59. Good for Captain Rhodes. I would love to know how Captain Rhodes got involved with Orly. I sure hope that Orly is a better dentist than she is a lawyer. And kudos to bdaman for his intellectual honesty in posting this (plus it’s really funny).

    Buddha,

    You, sir, have too much time on your hands… You should send a copy to Orly, I’m sure she would enjoy it as much as we have. ;-)

  60. Mespo,

    My point was less about the orders themselves, then in what I see as the whole point of the officer corps, which is to take care of soldiers. When I read the story about Captain Rhodes, it came off like someone who deliberately defrauded the government and dishonored the uniform by grasping at whatever feeble excuse could keep her out of harm’s way. (Before we get into that, no, I don’t believe the military is perfect — there is a lot that I would change if I could — however, the value that we put on honor and integrity is not one of those things) Surgeons are in short supply, and are desperately needed in theater…the men and women of the medical corps are responsible for why there aren’t more soldiers coming home wrapped in flags. So I saw red. People who try to game the system are a real problem, and, to use a term of art in the military, it’s FUBAR.

    Anyhoo. I’m glad to see the letter from Captain Rhodes. I hope that she and her soldiers have a safe deployment, and I hope she takes advantage of the situation to do some real good for the guys over there.

    I also am going to use Orly Taitz as an example of the type of lawyer I do NOT want to be. Sorry for the hijacking. I’m off my soapbox. :)

  61. Mike Appleton posted on September 17th at 6:04 p.m. that Orly’s new motion
    “sure sounds like order to show cause time to me.”

    Mike is hereby awarded the “Written prediction™ ®” Trophy at the Turley blog.

  62. In light of the Rhodes letter, Sinclair Affadavit and Lands Sanctions

    Vince, do you think she will or could be disbarred before the Judge Carter MTD.

  63. Disbarment of Taitz probably will not occur before Judge Carter grants [“Written prediction™ ®”]the Government’s motion to dismiss after the October 5 hearing.

    The Bar proceeding usually go forth at a snail’s pace.

    Anyone offering an over/under date?

  64. Vince:

    “The Bar proceeding usually go forth at a snail’s pace.”

    ***************

    Well, who better that Dr. Orly to know that disbarring attorneys is like pulling teeth!

  65. Vince,

    Orly’s angle of descent has clearly altered if this letter is authentic which, since it’s filed and accepted into record without contradiction at this point, I’ll assume represents the will and knowledge of Cpt. Rhodes.

    If the window hasn’t closed, I’m changing my bet to ten months with a two month spread.

  66. Mespo,

    “Well, who better that Dr. Orly to know that disbarring attorneys is like pulling teeth!”
    __________________________________

    Aint true if’n they’s hen’s teeth….

  67. There is so much disinformation on both sides that the whole issue will come to a head.

    FROM
    http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/

    I have just finished speaking with the Columbus, Georgia OfficeMax yet again. I will let the conversation speak for itself. I will work and the transcribing the tape later this afternoon. The conversation may raise more questions than it answers.

    The Manager in this conversation is the Impress manager and he makes it clear that the Store does not send out its Fax Activity/Log reports to people and he does not believe Night Manager Marcus would/or did send any such report to anyone.

    This is the individual that Manager Andrea had suggested I speak with regrading whether an Army Capt. sent a fax from that OfficeMax Friday afternoon at 13:58. Note that this manager makes it clear he would have remembered seeing a “Female Capt in uniform.” There is no doubt that Capt. Rhodes if on the way to her flight as claimed in the letter WOULD have been in uniform.

    I will upload the audio in the next few minutes. I also stand by the statements of Andrea at this time and I challenge “anonymous aka RealityCheck 1776″ to provide unaltered unredacted copy of the “alleged OfficeMax Fax Report” for me to verify considering now two managers have stated they would not send people that information.

  68. Bdaman,

    Please place quotes around your copy/paste information–or otherwise highlight those–so an old guy like me can ensure that what I am reading is quoted material or your own opinions.

    Thanks.

  69. Thanks Bdaman.

    With the Internet, it is very easy to fail attributing someone else’s material properly–advertently or inadvertently. I have been guilty in a rush, so I attempt to be extra careful.

  70. I kind of hope Orly doesn’t get disbarred because she is so bad that she makes the rest of us look pretty good! That being said, I don’t know how an attorney can work so hard at being bad that he/she doesn’t get disbarred. The profession would be a better place with her out of it.

  71. From Orly:

    QUOTE ON Notice. Important

    I am submitting tomorrow to judge Carter a response to defendant’s motion. I will be busy today and tomorrow and will not have much time for blogging. Thank you for understanding.

    I will respond to Judge Land’s outrageous attack and threat of sanctions. This is very similar to what I have seen in the communist dictatorship in the Soviet Union. When judges refuse to hear the cases on the merits, when they summarily dismiss the case within a couple of days while they are supposed to give the counsel 20 days to respond by their own rules, when they take away from the plaintiffs their right to trial by jury, when they stifle free speech and take away right to counsel by threatening $10,000 sanctions if the attorney ever brings Obama illegitimacy case again, that is tyranny. That is judiciary as well as the top brass in the Department of Justice and Department of Defense colluding in perpetrating massive fraud and treason on the citizens of this country and taking away their constitutional rights. What is next? They will throw me in FEMA GULAG? I hope each and every citizen of this country rises against this tyranny. I will be seeking all means of redress available to me by law. I will be seeking Rule 11 discovery to prove that Obama is indeed illegitimate, my case was not frivolous and not only I don’t owe $10,000 in sanctions, but the defendants owe costs and my reasonable attorneys fees. These fees just went up significantly.

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=4412

    HO, HO HO!!!

  72. Updated 9-20-09 @ 4:15 PM

    Larry Sinclair
    Quote
    I have received some information that needs to be passed on in this ongoing investigation. Some people have raised the question how WRBL-TV and other media outlets in Columbus, GA came in possession of a copy of the “alleged Capt. Rhodes letter” without the courts blue time stamp that is across the top on the Courts copy?

    Well I have received information that suggests one Larry Joseph Parton, who goes by “Joe” or “Joseph,” “may have actually prepared this September 18, 2009 letter on behalf of Capt. Connie Rhodes and cut & pasted her signature to it.” In addition it is suggested that “Joe” Parton (who post on various websites under the user name “alphadog75″ among others defending Capt. Rhodes, may actually be in or had been in Columbus, GA on Friday September 18,2009, and it is being suggested that he may have sent the letter to the court by fax from OfficeMax.

    Now why would this individual prepare a letter on behalf of Capt. Rhodes? Who is this “Joe” or “Joseph Parton? Why would the Army issue Capt. Rhodes an order ordering “No Contact” with this “Joe” or “Joseph Parton?

    Now if this information proves correct, it would also prove that Andrea and I have incorrectly stated no such fax was sent from the Columbus, GA OfficeMax. It would also explain how the Columbus GA media received a copy of the letter without the Court’s PACER filing Stamp across the top of it. But it will not address the legality of representing said document as being signed by Capt. Rhodes before a Federal Court.

    Mr. Parton has not returned calls to his cell phone and office phone requesting comment.

    Unquote

  73. rafflaw, that was funny.

    Bdaman: you caint go wrong following Mr. Treacy’s method of Quote ON….Unquote. Thanks for making you quotes clearly known.

  74. The following $50,000 offer was recently made by GregJackson.com:

    $50,000 to anybody in the media who can answer this question about Obama…
    The vast majority of the leftist mainstream and alternative “conservative” media have repeatedly called any American who has demanded that Barack Hussein Obama release his supposed Hawaiian birth certificate to prove he is a natural-born citizen, as is required under the United States Constitution, a fringe-kook-conspiracy-theorist-wing-nut.

    So here is my question with $50,000 cash to anybody in the media who can answer the following 3 part question:

    1. What hospital in Hawaii was Barack Hussein Obama born in?

    2. Who was the attending physician who delivered BHO?

    3. What time was BHO born?

    Any 12 year-old signing up for Little League would have to provide this information on their BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Yet not one person in the entire media has been able to provide the answers to the very simple questions I have posed above.

  75. Wow. I think I have to take the ‘under’ on Buddha’s revised 10 month estimate on the remaining length of Orly’s legal career. She seems determined to martyr herself (professionally speaking – if I am allowed to use the word ‘professional’ while talking about Orly) by her irrational claims about the president and insane disregard for how the judicial system works.

    Rafflaw,

    I think that the damage Orly does to the profession as a whole probably outweighs the degree to which everyone else looks better in comparison. ;-)

    Buddha,

    Don’t you feel like a kid on Christmas Eve waiting to see what Orly files tomorrow? I bet she tops the ‘FEMA gulag’ remark without even breaking a sweat.

  76. bdaman:

    “So here is my question with $50,000 cash to anybody in the media who can answer the following 3 part question:

    1. What hospital in Hawaii was Barack Hussein Obama born in?

    2. Who was the attending physician who delivered BHO?

    3. What time was BHO born?”

    *****************

    Well the UPI reported in 2008:

    “Obama described his birth at Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Hawaii Aug. 4, 1961, to a young white woman from Kansas and a father of Luo ethnicity from Nyanza province in Kenya, as an “all-America” story transcending orthodox racial stereotypes and experience.

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/02/Sen_Barack_Obama_Democrat_of_Illinois/UPI-33901225647000/

    I’ll take small bills and you can drop them off at the Reason Project which I am absolutely certain has no birthers employed. If this isn’t good enough, pray tell where were you born? How van I verify that?

  77. Slartibartfast,
    I agree!
    Mespo,
    You couldn’t prove to Bdaman that the sun rises in the East even if you made him sit on the beach and wait all night for the sun to come up, but nice try!

  78. Who is Larry Sinclair, the guy who charged that the Rhodes letter is a forgery? Is he a reliable expert on forgery? Maybe … since he seems to be a CONVICTED FORGER!

    According to Metapdia, Larry is [quote ON] Lawrence Wayne Sinclair (born September 26, 1961) also Larry Sinclair (his name was legally changed to La-Rye A. Silvas, and La-Rye Vizcarra Avila and then back to his birth name), is a convicted felon for crimes of forgery, bad checks and theft by check. He is also a homosexual from Duluth, Minnesota who claims in a YouTube video he had consensual sex with Barack Obama while the then state senator from Illinois smoked crack cocaine. The YouTube video has been seen by 900,000 viewers but the mainstream media has largely ignored the story.

    Sinclair says he flew to Chicago on November 3, 1999 to attend the graduation of his best friend’s son from basic training from the Great Lakes Navy Training Center. On November 6, he hired the services of Five Star Limo and asked his driver, Jagir P. Multani, if he knew anyone who wanted to ‘socialize’ and show him around Chicago. The driver knew what he meant and Sinclair claims the driver made a call to his friend Barack Obama, the Illinois state senator, and arranged a meeting.

    They meet at upscale Chicago area bar in Gurnee, Illinois. Sinclair recalls the bar to be named “Alibis”. Sinclair asked if Obama could obtain cocaine and the state senator allegedly made a call from his cell phone to make the purchase. They left the bar and drove to a unknown location where Obama allegedly purchased cocaine for $250 paid by Larry Sinclair. Sinclair claims Obama also purchased crack cocaine for himself. [1] Sinclair claims they engaged in sex and used cocaine in the rented limo.

    Sinclair has filed a lawsuit in Minnesota District Court, claiming the Obama staff made threats and attempts of intimidation against him.

    In February 2008, Larry Sinclair failed a lie detector test relating to questions about Obama, drugs and sex. [2] However, he still maintains he has told the truth about Barack Obama.”
    {Unquote]

    http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sinclair

    Your witness, counsel.

  79. bdaman:

    give it up, you dig deeper at an accelerating speed.

    If depth of hole is on the y axis and knowledge is on the x axis then your Cartesian coordinate is 2,-20. If you graph that you are figuratively over the cliff.

  80. Vince:

    why would you even repeat that? I thought that was over and done with, as conservative as I am I watched that video and thought he, Sinclair, was full of sh!+.

  81. Byron, sorry, on reflection I think you are right, but bdaman has started up again with Larry Sinclair, an admitted forger.

    Maybe Professor Turley can delete that post.

  82. Anything is possible, can you say Marion Barry or who was the NJ Governor who came out and said I’m Gay. One thing for sure, the president said he smoked weed and snorted coke and continues to smoke cigarettes. Some habits are Hard to quit. no pun intended.

    As for Sinclair at least he has audio of conversations with Office Max.

  83. Bdaman at 6:44 am asked “2. Who was the attending physician who delivered BHO?
    3. What time was BHO born?”

    So what?

    Once again. The Constitution requires that the President be a natural born citizen, and the 14th Amendment makes citizens of all persons born in the United States subject to its jurisdiction.

    The birth certificate and the repeated statements of its Hawaiian official custodians show that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, a part of the United States. The Certificate on its face states that it is prima facie evidence of birth. The officials have examined all their records, and said that those records show that Obama was born in the United States.

    The time of birth and the name of the attending physician are totally irrelevant to the qualifications of a person for the Presidency.

    Irrelevant.

  84. I stand by my three ring circus comment made a few days ago. Can you imagine what the Library of Congress is recording. The president should have put all these rumors to rest along time ago instead of this three ring circus act we have. Sinclair becomes the ring master and Taitz flying on the high wire, or should that be reversed.

  85. Vince:

    I don’t mean to be ornery and I am certainly not criticizing you but somethings are just best left ignored.

    bdaman:

    there is no proof other than Larry Sinclair. Maybe he faked his polygraph test because he was worried he might pass it and Rev. Wright would have him excommunicated.

  86. If there is no secret why not show it.

    Quote On
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
    But what Judge Land ruled regarding the Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate raises a much more important point. Judge Land was not willing to accept the Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate because as he said counsel did not “produced an original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document.” But he automatically and without question in effect accepted Obama’s on-line image of an alleged “short-form” birth certificate (the COLB) without Obama or anyone on his behalf producing the same “original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document.” Why did Judge Land not apply the same evidence standard to Obama’s on-line COLB as he did to the Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate? I understand that Obama was not attempting to introduce the internet image of his COLB or the paper version thereof into evidence and so Judge Land did not have to rule on the admissibility of that evidence. Nevertheless, if we are committed to learning what is the truth regarding Obama’s place of birth, should we not expect Judge Land in his comments to treat all documents equally until each document’s reliability can be sufficiently confirmed?

    OFF

  87. Hawaiian law says that only the official custodians are allowed to see the records.

    Officials are obeying the law.

    The law, Roper.

    Is there a problem with that?

  88. Efficiency in operation.

    That’s why they installed those new fangled “computers”.

    So people wouldn’t have to go to the hassle of digging through the paper records that have, duh, been computerized. Do you know the difference between a Custodian and a Clerk?

    clerk – \ˈklərk\, n., specific var.: city clerk
    3 a : an official responsible (as to a government agency) for correspondence, records, and accounts and vested with specified powers or authority (as to issue writs as ordered by a court) b : one employed to keep records or accounts or to perform general office work c : one who works at a sales or service counter

    custodian – \kəs-ˈtō-dē-ən\, n.,
    : one that guards and protects or maintains; especially : one entrusted with guarding and keeping property or records or with custody or guardianship of prisoners or inmates

    This guy’s job is to GUARD TO OLD PAPERWORK. Not dig through it for every clown who come by. That’s why they, once again duh, INSTALLED THE COMPUTERS. To keep people from doing that. If that was his job, he’d be called a Clerk of Records.

  89. Vince I agree that they are following the law and this would be fine in a normal situation, but this is not a normal situation. United We Stand, Divided We Fall.

  90. Why or how can that custodian state the president is a natural born citizen. I thought no one ever determined what that was and thats what the whole debate about Vattel and the law of nations was about. What is she some constitutional professor?

  91. bdaman: “Why or how can that custodian state the president is a natural born citizen?”

    Because the record showed her that he had been born in the United States.

  92. This guy’s job is to GUARD THE OLD PAPERWORK.

    No need to guard it. Put it out there for all to see. I mean wouldn’t you like to be able to say, Read it and weep you troll/birther/right wing extremist,racist.

  93. Here is “Larry Sinclair” in his own words with his admission of his own past criminal convictions:

    “Taitz was completely unaware of any of my history. She had no knowledge that I had past criminal convictions (which I made clear from day one in Jan 2008). When told of my past Taitz acted as if she was hit by a mack truck.”

    http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/2009/09/continued-from-september-8-2009.html

    Lessons to be learned:

    Taitz should vet her witnesses more carefully.

    Any charges of forgery by Sinclair should be greeted with extreme doubt.

  94. I will say it again.

    The birthers have ADMITTED that even irrefutable proof that Obama was born in America will not satisfy them.

    They will still challenge his eligiblity because his father was not a citizen.

    Just stop saying that the birth records will end the controversy.

    That is just not true.

    And the birthers have proven that they will never accept any court ruling that the citizenship of the father does not prevent a child born in America from being a natural born citizen.

    They will just call for impeachment of the judges or justices and charge treason, just as they did to Judge Land.

  95. But you CAN see it.

    Online.

    Like everyone else in Hawaii does now.

    And the need to guard old paperwork is self-evident. Computers can fail so keep a backup you already have just in case.

  96. And to keep people with nefarious motives from stealing original legal documents?

    Did I mention that reason?

    Or to prevent tampering?

    Yeah. There’s no reason to guard the old records at all.

    But how about doing what the law says and, uh what’s that thing, look it up online?

    Yeah, that’s the ticket.

  97. Larry Sinclair is a convicted forger. His tapes prove nothing.

    Readers, if there is any doubt in your minds, read the full account at:

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=3310

    In the meantime, if the letter was a forgery, why is it filed in the official court docket? Why have not CPT Rhodes or her friends disavowed it? It has been several days now, and the letter is presumptively valid until eihter the party or the court says otherwise. I am not going to waste any more time on this spurious Sinclair charge until some solid evidence is offered by a REPUTABLE source.

  98. The long quote at September 21, 2009 at 7:57 am is from Mario Apuzzo, counsel in the Kerchner case in NJ, and is a good example of the reasons why the learned counsel is sure to lose his case.

    He says “I understand that Obama was not attempting to introduce the internet image of his COLB or the paper version thereof into evidence and so Judge Land did not have to rule on the admissibility of that evidence.”

    Well, yes indeed. Taitz tried to INTRODUCE the Kenyan birth certificate. She failed [abysmally] in her effort. NO ONE tried to introduce the internet image, so the Judge did not have to rule. The courthouse is not an online chat room or blog where every crazy idea can be floated.

    Repeat: No one tried to introduce an online image.

    There is no inconsistency or hypocrisy.

    The original COLB issued by Hawaii, with the official seal and signature, has been released to the press and examined by factcheck.org and politifact.com. That COLB is prima facie evidence in any court proceeding. It meets the burden of proof for anyone who asserts that Obama was born in America as a United States citizen. The burden would then shifts to challenging parties to show that it is invalid on its face, or that it can be impeached by other credible evidences.

    The COLB is (1) valid on its face, and (2) no credible evidence of birth elsewhere has ever been produced.

    So even if Mario were ever to get past the Government’s Motion to Dismiss [the “written prediction™©” here is that he will not], he appears woefully unprepared to mount a serious challenge to the fact of Obama’s birth in the United States.

  99. Vince Sinclair gives an explanation

    Updated 9-20-09 @ 4:15 PM

    Larry Sinclair
    Quote
    I have received some information that needs to be passed on in this ongoing investigation. Some people have raised the question how WRBL-TV and other media outlets in Columbus, GA came in possession of a copy of the “alleged Capt. Rhodes letter” without the courts blue time stamp that is across the top on the Courts copy?

    Well I have received information that suggests one Larry Joseph Parton, who goes by “Joe” or “Joseph,” “may have actually prepared this September 18, 2009 letter on behalf of Capt. Connie Rhodes and cut & pasted her signature to it.” In addition it is suggested that “Joe” Parton (who post on various websites under the user name “alphadog75″ among others defending Capt. Rhodes, may actually be in or had been in Columbus, GA on Friday September 18,2009, and it is being suggested that he may have sent the letter to the court by fax from OfficeMax.

    Now why would this individual prepare a letter on behalf of Capt. Rhodes? Who is this “Joe” or “Joseph Parton? Why would the Army issue Capt. Rhodes an order ordering “No Contact” with this “Joe” or “Joseph Parton?

    Now if this information proves correct, it would also prove that Andrea and I have incorrectly stated no such fax was sent from the Columbus, GA OfficeMax. It would also explain how the Columbus GA media received a copy of the letter without the Court’s PACER filing Stamp across the top of it. But it will not address the legality of representing said document as being signed by Capt. Rhodes before a Federal Court.

    Mr. Parton has not returned calls to his cell phone and office phone requesting comment.

    Unquote

  100. Donofrio Quote On

    I have always believed that Obama was born in Hawaii and I expect this investigation will reveal that he was. Upon proving that he was born in Hawaii, we may uncover details which indicate that Obama and Hawaii government officials purposely used the birth certificate issue to distract the nation from his British birth problems. If a smokescreen can be made clear, the nation will better comprehend the Constitutional blasphemy inherent in the 2008 POTUS election and the current White House resident.

    Should our investigation prove that he wasn’t born in Hawaii, I will be very surprised, but I am certainly open to that conclusion.

    I have written this post as a preview to some very interesting research – documents and letters issued by the State of Hawaii – which have not been made public yet. I will be making those public very soon as they are the product of researchers I am working with. Stay tuned. It’s going to get interesting.

    OFF

  101. In response to an earlier post, I can assert with confidence that the time of birth and name of the attending physician are not required for Little League eligibility. (Don’t tell Orly.)

  102. I’m personally offering $20 Billion to anyone who can conclusively disprove the John Boehner and Michelle Bachman are aliens. Look at their eyes to see the evidence of their weird, alien demeanors.

    Naturally, I don’t have the $20 Billion and if I did no one could compel me to pay it, but what the hell, it allows people who feel the same way to believe that something constructive has been done.

  103. “Byron
    1, September 21, 2009 at 7:37 am
    Vince:

    why would you even repeat that?”
    ________________________________

    Byron, the reason is because some people did not know that information; I did not. The post must not be deleted.

    Remember, just because you heard or knew something, that does not equate to others knowing or hearing it.

    What VT wrote is just another piece of the puzzle for us to consider.

  104. “The president should have put all these rumors to rest along time ago”

    It is impossible to put “rumors to rest” when the people spreading them
    don’t care what refutations have been presented and only find more to present. Those asking such a question, on this site, after all the discussion we’ve had only prove that they will never accept the truth of their own bad judgment.

  105. It is impossible to put “rumors to rest”

    Yes it is, by releasing the original document for all to see.

    On another note Briepart on Big government is promising another blockbuster scandal this week and it’s not ACORN. Rumor has it, it’s the NEA scandal. The house of cards is coming down.

  106. “Why or how can that custodian state the president is a natural born citizen. I thought no one ever determined what that was and thats what the whole debate about Vattel and the law of nations was about. What is she some constitutional professor?”

    A song for all the birthers and a comment on debating them:

  107. It doesn’t matter what version, the birther song is the same and will ever be: People who don’t believe a Black or a Democrat has a right to be President. Some might call it treason, I just call it bigotry and ignorance. Orly Taitz is a great figurehead for the movement and the lack of embarassment of her supporters shows it.

  108. bdaman, thanks for the link to Larry Elder’s column. I disagree with his views and believe that Jimmy Carter got it exactly right. I pretty much heard what I needed to hear during the campaign this past fall. I also remember watching Orville Faubus on television in 1957 attempting to prevent the integration of schools in Arkansas. My father, who certainly harbored prejudices of his own, said something back then that I’ll never forget. “Whenever you hear a southerner mention states’ rights,” he said, “what they really mean is that they don’t want Negroes in their schools.” I didn’t hear much about states’ rights following the civil rights legislation in the ’60s, until, that is, the election of Pres. Obama. Now everybody is getting reaquainted with the tenth amendment.

    As for polls, I wouldn’t expect many people to openly acknowledge to others that their vote would be influenced by racial feelings. After all, most people do have a conscience and are not comfortable with attitudes which they know to be wrong. In addition, I believe that a lot of us are not even conscious of all of our prejudices.

    Finally, although I have a great deal of respect for Colin Powell, much of his support among white Republicans is based upon their belief that he is not too black. I can’t really explain it adequately, but Chris Rock can. He did a bit on Colin Powell several years ago (“He speaks so well. He’s so well spoken.”) that had me laughing my ass off because of its truth.

  109. Mike A. but yet we have the Oracle

    “He did a bit on Colin Powell several years ago (”He speaks so well. He’s so well spoken.”) that had me laughing my ass off because of its truth.”

    Powell’s down fall was the famous U.N. Security Council speech. The left would have ate him up alive over the lies he was forced to tell for CINC Bush. It’s funny how people will take things at face value until the truth finally comes out. No WMD’s

  110. bdaman, I agree. I was impressed by the fact that Gen. Powell remained publicly loyal after it was apparent that he had been used by the administration. Few of us (including me) would have had the discipline to avoid going ballistic.

  111. Let us not forget who Powell endorsed, after all Powell was a career military man. If Hillary was nominated I think he would have endorsed her.

  112. Colin Powell’s political skills got him to the point of becoming head of the Joint Chiefs. He has always been skillful in PR. His loyalty to the Bush/Cheney Crime Family, in light of what he knew casts doubt upon his integrity.

  113. Well the rumor is now fact and we can put another rumor to rest. Oh the humanity.
    Quote on
    Why is NEA Building a Pro-Obama Message Distribution Center?

    Quid Pro Quo?: $2 million behind NEA politics push

    The Fallout? NEA Communications Director ‘Reassigned’

    George Will: NEA Call for ‘Recovery Agenda’ Art Likely Broke Some Laws

    The Contradiction: Newly Revealed White House, NEA Audio Contradict

    http://biggovernment.com/
    Off

  114. Quote on

    Updated 9-21-09 @ 10:45 AM

    Court Clerk Confirms He Spoke With “Acquaintance” not Capt Rhodes on Faxing Letter

    I have contacted the U.S. District Court in Columbus, Georgia and spoken with Ms. Terri and a Mr. Timothy Frost in the Clerks Office. I informed both individuals that after reviewing the Letter of Capt. Connie Rhodes filed Friday September 18, 2009 the signature on said letter appears to be “cut & pasted” onto the document.

    Mr. Frost states “I spoke with an acquaintance of Capt. Rhodes on Friday before the document was faxed.” Mr. Frost stated that after speaking with his boss and the acquaintance assuring the Court an original would be sent after Capt. Rhodes arrives in Iraq, the court accepted the document. I asked “would that acquaintance would be a Mr. Joe Parton,” and Mr. Frost said he would not give “his” name, and that the Court has accepted the document as authentic. Mr. Frost also stated that “if the Court does not receive an original from Iraq then there may be a problem.”

    I made it clear to Ms. Terri and Mr. Frost that I have no interest in this case other than verifying that the September 18, 2009 letter of Capt. Rhodes was authentic and was not filed in an effort to make Judge Land or the Court look bad. I believe Mr. Frost has confirmed for me that the letter was in fact prepared by the “acquaintance” and not Capt. Connie Rhodes, unless Mr. Frost wants to change his statement as to having spoken with “an acquaintance of Capt. Rhodes” to having spoken with Capt. Rhodes herself, since the last paragraph of the letter states:

    “I am faxing this as was advised by Tim, who works in the District Clerk’s office. I will mail the original copy of this letter once I have arrived in Iraq.”

    I have received an email address for Capt. Rhodes and will send her an email asking if she signed the letter. Which we already know the signature was “cut & pasted” and it appears with the permission of the Clerks office?

    OFF

  115. bdaman,

    This is off-topic, but the first paragraph of the Larry Elder article says:

    “Nor is he content with having signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act — strengthened by President Bill Clinton — which played a major roll in the eventual housing market meltdown.”

    This is utter crap which has been used for the past year to blame low-income people (mainly minorities) for the financial meltdown. The CRA loans actually had a lower default rate than the non-CRA subprime loans. While I have no reason to believe that Mr. Elder was being intentionally racist, blaming the subprime crisis on those scary minorities instead of the respectable wall street types (who would never do anything wrong) is a lie that is racist in its effect. Its mention in Mr. Elder’s column makes me extremely skeptical of any of his views, especially on the subject of racism.

    Sorry to jump off-topic on a small point in a linked article, but this is a pet peeve of mine…

  116. No problem Slart, it’s Mr. Elder’s opinion. However the fact remains that loans were financed at 100%, with no proof of verifiable income as long as your credit score was high enough. Banks were forced to make these loans which ultimately, once again, robbed low income and minorities affordable housing.

  117. Bdaman,

    You’re asserting that the CRA robbed low income (people) and minorities (of) affordable housing? That’s one of the most ridiculous statements you’ve made (and that’s saying a lot). Did you read the article that I linked to? The CRA was a program that worked and worked well from its inception under President Carter through the Clinton Administration (which strengthened it) until President Onionhead… I mean Bush started messing with it.

  118. SLARTI:

    a bunch of white people got no interest rate loans and had no business getting them and the bankers that lent them the money should be prosecuted along with the regulators that allowed this type of loan to be made, and don’t forget congress as well. The whole thing was a bunch of BS caused by Alan Greenspan and George Bush. I honestly think he let the interest rates stay low to be able to fund his war effort and Greenspan was right there with him every step of the way. If I ever got to congress first thing on my agenda would be marching Greenspan before a congressional hearing and asking him that question.

    That mother trucker should be in jail. But then that is my reason to get rid of the Federal Reserve, one man should not have that kind of power.

    I get a little worked up some times when I think about the crap that passes for government.

  119. No Slart what I’m saying is and I have done(FACT) is received 100% financing on investment property that really wasn’t investment property based on a high level of income that was not really a high level of income because my credit score was outstanding. You’ve seen the recent videos of ACORN. Mortgage brokers across the country acted just like those people in the ACORN videos. They showed people how to get around the system based on the regulations that were in place. It was a huge domino effect as everybody and their brother stuffed their pockets. I know people that didn’t have jobs that got approved 100% on a $250,000 dollar home. Whomever is to blame, and you can not just blame one person, there’s plenty of blame to go around, low income and minorities are still stuck in the gutter. Now the domino effect is working it’s way up. Commercial property is the next foreclosure wave, especially strip malls in low income neighborhoods and industrial complexes.

  120. Bdaman,

    To get back on topic, I think this kerfuffle about Captain Rhodes’ letter to the court might be a teachable moment for the brithers. If it turns out (as I suspect) that the letter was faxed to the court by Joe Parton and if Mr. Parton is indeed Captain Rhodes’ fiancee (and thus presumably faxing the letter with her consent) then it will be an excellent example of how innocent discrepancies arise when just about anything is examined in minute detail. In real conspiracies, the discrepancies tend to support each other and lead to a conclusion, they don’t have to be laboriously stitched together into convoluted and improbable theories which have less and less attachment to reality as time goes on. Occam’s Razor easily cuts all the birther nonsense to shreds (as well as most other conspiracy theories, too).

    On the subject of Alan Greenspan and the Fed, I have no problem believe that Greenspan did what he thought was best and was just incredibly, tragically wrong – the idea the the markets could regulate themselves is not exactly a new one in the Republican party and is sufficient to explain Greenspan’s behavior (Occam’s Razor again). As for the Fed, if you get rid of it, what are you going to replace it with. It’s all very well and good to say that the foundation of a building wasn’t done right, but demolishing that foundation isn’t a solution to the problem. Good or bad, you can’t just get rid of the Fed without replacing it (with something that would probably have to be quite similar) or throwing our entire economy into chaos (which doesn’t sound like a very good solution to me).

  121. badman,

    No banks were forced to make the type of loan you suggest by the CRA, the only thing forcing most of them was their own greed.

  122. Slart what’s you source because it kinda backs Sinclair’s story. At least Sinclair got the name right. I don’t know where Sinclair got the info below but where did you read this guy is her fiancee

    Quote on (Sinclair)
    Now why would this individual prepare a letter on behalf of Capt. Rhodes? Who is this “Joe” or “Joseph Parton? Why would the Army issue Capt. Rhodes an order ordering “No Contact” with this “Joe” or “Joseph Parton?

    OFF

  123. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/loans-subprime-banks-2228728-law-lenders

    From the Article
    Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act to crack down on “redlining,” the practice by banks of refusing loans to neighborhoods where most residents are minorities or earn low incomes. The law applies to all federally insured banks and thrifts that take deposits. It generally requires banks to help potential customers near their branches, typically by making loans, investing or providing other services such as financial education.

    A companion law, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, requires every large home lender to report annually on every home loan application they receive. (No names or streets are listed.) Those reports feed a database that in turn allows regulators, community activists and others to monitor home lending in virtually every neighborhood in America.

    Slart I know it’s a touchy subject but one must look at how congress voted that set the ball in motion.

  124. Bdaman,

    The last line of the article on Larry Sinclair posted by Vince at 8:32am Sept. 21 says:

    “If Larry has received correct information here, it might argue more than anything before that the Rhodes letter is authentic, since Joseph Parton is rumored to be Connie Rhodes’s fiancé.”

    I don’t know anything about the Army issuing a “No Contact” order (but I’m not exactly believing that something Larry Sinclair said is the Gospel truth, either).

  125. A funny comment from “Dusty” at VT’s link to TPM:

    _________________________________

    Dusty:

    September 21, 2009 2:09 PM

    “Sweet jaysus in a speedo, when will this nutter go away? It pisses me off that she gets the amount of press that she does.”

    _________________________________

  126. Vince,

    Thanks for the link. Care to make a “written prediction” (I don’t know how to do the trademark symbol) on how this episode will turn out? (not as easy as predicting the outcome of Orly’s cases, is it? ;-)) Hopefully Capt. Rhodes will comment on this soon. My guess is that the letter is legit, because I don’t see any point to forging the letter as it seems likely that Capt. Rhodes would disavow a forgery (and not send the original from Iraq) fairly quickly. But I guess these cliffhangers make for good theater…

    Bdaman,

    The article you linked argues my point that the CRA was not responsible for the subprime mess. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, but you’re not doing it very well…

  127. Slart, I wrote up above, Sept. 17, 2009 at 7:33 am: “Rhodes chose to sue before her date of deployment. … If she or any friends are reading this, my considered advice to her is to fire Taitz immediately and to secure competent legal counsel.” [I think I passed on similar advice to Major Cook and all the military plaintiffs in the case before Judge Carter.}

    So the posted fax reflects what I thought Rhodes should have done for her own good. A letter should follow the fax. I have no predictions on this one, since I am happy to wait and see. It should all be resolved by Judge Land’s ruling on sanctions.

  128. Quote On
    Larry Sinclair

    Final Update 9-21-09 @ 2:12 PM

    After having spoken with Mr. Timothy Frost at the U.S. District Court Clerks office in Columbus, GA this morning I believe:

    1. My original article on this matter calling attention to the signature having been “cut & pasted” onto the Capt. Connie Rhodes letter was accurate.

    2. The letter was not faxed by Capt. Connie Rhodes (in fact the last paragraph of the letter referring to Capt. Rhodes being “…advised by Tim…” in itself is a fraud because according to Mr. Timothy Frost, he did not speak with Capt. Rhodes, but spoke with “an acquaintance of Capt. Rhodes.”

    3. While OfficeMax of Columbus, Georgia has not acknowledged giving incorrect information, after having spoke with Mr. Frost in the Clerk’s office I do believe this letter was faxed from the Columbus, Georgia OfficeMax. However, as stated above in #1 & 2, I was absolutely correct in that this letter was NOT “written” nor signed by Capt. Connie Rhodes (as witnessed by the last paragraph of the letter and the statement of Deputy Clerk Timothy Frost that he spoke with an “acquaintance,” not Capt Rhodes as the letter implies.)

    4. I have reason to believe the letter was written and the signature affixed to it by one Larry Joseph Parton who it is “alleged” by sources, is ex military, a married man who is involved in an affair with Capt. Connie Rhodes (who it is “alleged” was issue a “No Contact” order by the U.S. Army in Feb 2009 prohibiting her from having any contact with this man) and who it is “alleged” has himself a history of doctoring military documents. This whole thing is just to unreal at this point.

    Quote Off

  129. I think the most ironic part of all of this is that there is no legal theory in which the President’s legitimacy has any bearing on the orders the military gives its personnel. Seriously; even if the birthers weren’t insane and he actually was an ‘usurper’ (or, conversely, if the the elections of 2004 or 2000 actually were illegally manipulated), even if there were a law stating outright that he could not be a legal Commander-in-Chief, that doesn’t suddenly release every soldier in the military to the dictates of their conscience. If the CIC cannot give lawful orders, it is for the Joint Chiefs of Staffs to deal with, not some random Captain who suddenly doesn’t want to deploy. It doesn’t prevent the orders that the Generals (et. al,) down the chain of command gave from being lawful. That simply isn’t the way military authority works; it isn’t metaphysical authority, but actual authority, which the military confers on those in the chain.

  130. Qoute On Donofrio

    I will be assisting one of my readers in filing litigation in Hawaii state circuit court pursuant to her ongoing request for public information denied by Hawaii officials. (Readers of my blog will recognize her as MissTickly aka TerriK.)

    Correspondence sent to TerriK by Hawaii officials indicates that President Obama’s vital records have been amended and official records pertaining thereto are maintained by the state of Hawaii.

    I will issue a full statement and press release on behalf of TerriK via this blog in the days ahead. This statement will include a complete history of correspondence between TerriK and Hawaii state officials in the Office of Information Practices (OIP) and the Department of Health (DoH).

    Any legal assistance provided by me to TerriK will be pro bono. I will seek to be admitted pro hac vice in Hawaii for purposes of filing the case and conducting the trial. If such admission is not forthcoming, other counsel may be retained or TerriK may represent herself pro se. In any case, I will be drafting the pleadings. The only issue will be related to who files them and conducts the trial de novo.

    While correspondence sent to TerriK confirms that President Obama’s vital records have been amended, the DoH has refused to make the documents requested available. One count of the litigation will attempt to have those documents released. The other counts concern various information denied to her which – according to Hawaii law – she is entitled to.

    Before I get to the facts of the ongoing investigation in my follow up report, I will ask readers to study the UIPA manual and the UIPA statute.

    Hawaii has been caught blatantly circumventing their own laws; laws specifically created to foster open government practices.

    STANDING

    TerriK has standing to pursue this action under the statute. The UIPA manual states:

    “Any person” may make a request for government records under part II, the Freedom of Information section of the UIPA. “Person” is defined broadly to include an individual, government agencies, partnerships and any other legal entities.

    Under part II, a government agency generally may not limit access to public records based on who the requester is or the proposed use of the record.

    ISSUES

    Section 92F-12(15) states that the following must be released to the public:

    (15) Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public;

    On July 27, 2009 Hawaii Department of Health Director Fukino issued a press release which stated:

    “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. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

    TerriK requested all information “collected and maintained” for the purposes of preparing the public statement made by Director Fukino as such information must be released according to the statute.

    TerriK was interested in knowing how Director Fukino came to the conclusion that the President was a natural born citizen. She was familiar with Section 92F-12(15) which demands that all information collected and maintained for the purposes of making such a public statement be made public. She was denied that information despite the clear wording in the statute. Furthermore, the case law from Hawaii clearly demands production of the records my client requested.

    I will provide legal research and relevant examples of official correspondence in my follow up report and press release at this blog. TerriK has previously provided details of her investigation and correspondence with the state of Hawaii in comments to this and other blogs. She has also authorized me to speak publicly about her case and to provide the public with all relevant correspondence.

    Furthermore, Hawaii officials – upon denying TerriK access to information requested – were required by statute to inform her of a right to appeal by trial de novo in Hawaii circuit court. They failed to provide such guidance to her. Section 92F-15.5(b) states:

    (b)… If the denial of access is upheld, in whole or in part, the office of information practices shall, in writing, notify the person of the decision, the reasons for the decision, and the right to bring a judicial action under section 92F-15(a). [L 1989, c 192, §1]

    The OIP failed to notify TerriK of her right to appeal. Instead the OIP simply told her that the decision to deny access was correct and that they could not help her any further.

    We will bring this litigation according to the following statute provision:

    §92F-15 Judicial enforcement.

    (a) A person aggrieved by a denial of access to a government record may bring an action against the agency at any time within two years after the agency denial to compel disclosure.

    (b) In an action to compel disclosure the circuit court shall hear the matter de novo. Opinions and rulings of the office of information practices shall be admissible. The circuit court may examine the government record at issue, in camera, to assist in determining whether it, or any part of it, may be withheld.

    (c) The agency has the burden of proof to establish justification for nondisclosure.

    Please take note of subsection (c) above. The burden of proof is on the agency to establish justification for nondisclosure.

    With respect to information collected by Director Fukino for purposes of making her July 27, 2009 press release (and other public statements), the burden cannot be overcome since the statute demands that such information be made public.

    OFF

  131. Slart,

    Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act to crack down on “redlining,” the practice by banks of refusing loans to neighborhoods where most residents are minorities or earn low incomes.

    When congress passed CRA banks were forced to start making loans. Then enters ACORN. ACORN aggressively sought to expand loans to low income groups using the CRA as a whip. Read this by economist Stan Leibowitz http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2114

    Slart, with all do respect, it is a very complicated mess.
    We will eventually see the widespread corruption of ACORN, democrats as well as republicans when the FBI does an investigation. The president said over the weekend that ACORN should be investigated. We shall see.

  132. Bdaman,
    I can’t belive that you are still at it. I thought the Birthers would go the way of your heroine Oily Tate who is looking at some serious contempt citations from at least one judge and maybe more. I do like your imagination though. Unfortunately, your imagination is not the same as the facts.
    As to your comment on the Acorn matter, if they should be investigated, shouldn’t people who authorized torture which violated US and international law be investigated?

  133. Yes Rafflaw, I say investigate them all.

    If there’s nothing to hide then why not show the original BC for all to see. I think Donofrio is on to something and we shall see in the coming days. Hopefully Vince is off studying the UIPA manual and the UIPA statute. According to Donofrio’s latest post, president Obama’s vital records have been amended and official records are maintained by the state of Hawaii. Gets more interesting everyday. It’s obvious he feels passionate about what he has found or else he wouldn’t do it pro bono, attach his name to a new suit ect. ect.

  134. Bdaman,
    You wouldn’t be satisfied even if there was a video of the conception and the birth of President Obama. Of course, I bet Orly Taitz probably has a witness of the conception just waiting in the wings. Obama is a citizen and his birth certificate is the real deal. It is too bad that the Birthers can’t separate fiction from reality.

  135. If there’s nothing to hide then why not show the original BC for all to see.

    your answer, he doesn’t have to so there.

    see where thats gotten us.

  136. Writes Justin Elliott at TPM, “Late Update: Clerk of Court Gregory Leonard tells TPMmuckraker that, while it’s up to the judge to assess the legitimacy of the Rhodes letter, he did hear from the Columbus district office, and authorized Rhodes to submit the letter initially by fax because she was en route to Iraq. It has to be followed up by the original letter, he said.”

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/taitz_client_letter_renouncing_me_may_be_forgery.php?ref=fpb

    So the best course still is to wait and see about the Firing of Taitz by Client letter until the Judge resolves the issue.

  137. Bdaman:

    “If there’s nothing to hide then why not show the original BC for all to see.”

    ************

    It’s rather like asking a bearded man to show his genitalia to prove his gender. He could, and he might, but why should he? Just because you asked? And why do you want to see?

  138. Bdaman said “According to Donofrio’s latest post, president Obama’s vital records have been amended.”

    There is no proof yet of Leo’s assertion on his site. He only says “Correspondence sent to TerriK by Hawaii officials indicates that President Obama’s vital records have been amended and official records pertaining thereto are maintained by the state of Hawaii. I will issue a full statement and press release on behalf of TerriK via this blog in the days ahead. This statement will include a complete history of correspondence between TerriK and Hawaii State officials in the Office of Information Practices (OIP) and the Department of Health (DoH).”

    So let’s see if Leo has anything other than hearsay after he issues his full statement and press release (and after the court rules). There is as yet no proof the records were “amended,” and no likelihood that they were amended in any substantive manner.

    Leo’s latest gambit is puzzling. He has said all along that Obama was born in Hawaii, but is disqualified by his “constitutional theory” that he was also a Kenyan or British citizen or subject at birth. So why is he trying to get a birth certificate? It will only prove what he has asserted all along.

    He took the theory of dual jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, but they declined to take the case. We examined the theory on this site, and found that it was not well founded.

    Leo also has a theory that a writ of quo warranto can be used to unseat the President, an idea that flies in the fact of the “sole” power of Impeachment vested in the House. He has suggested a deposition of Cheney on the opening of Electoral College ballots, but no one has even tried to do this because it would violate the Speech or Debate Clause.

    Now he is backing a suit against Hawaii officials. It is extremely unlikely that a lawsuit could force disclosure of someone’s birth certificate without his or her consent, in Hawaii or any other State.

    But let’s wait and see. We are still waiting on quo warranto and deposition of the President of the Senate.

  139. mespo,

    Prurient interests perhaps? I’ve never heard of a paper fetish, but I suppose in the panorama of human psychiatry such a thing is possible.

  140. Slart if you want we can move this over to the ACORN thread. This old news will become new news once again now that sunlight is being shed.

  141. From the comment section at Donofrios

    JeffM Says:

    September 21, 2009 at 7:00 pm
    Leo,

    You’re going to bump uglies with this:

    §92F-13 Government records; exceptions to general rule. This part shall not require disclosure of:

    (1) Government records which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

    Watch out as the court will attempt lay a nice veil over the intent of this section.

    [Ed. The invasion of privacy has to outweigh the public interest and the public interest is specifically attached to the working of Government… but this case is not technically an issue regarding Obama’s personal vital records…but rather the issue she sought pertained to whether he requested to amend them or if he actually amended them. Those requests, even a request to see his records is itself a government record under the UIPA and as such she requested to see it — NOT the actual vital records themselves.

    TerriK was originally interested in whether or not he made a request to amend his records and to inspect them for the purpose of amending. Those requests (not the actual amendments) do not appear to be protected according to the statute and various opinions issued by the state… regardless… TerriK’s requests to see the amendments had to be answered in one of three ways according to the statute and the manual:

    1. we have the record you requested and will provide them

    2. we don’t maintain the records you requested (aka we don’t have any such records in file)

    3. we have the records, but you are not entitled to see them

    She was told on two occasions by an OIP staff attorney that if no such records exist, they must notify her of that fact.

    Eventually that same staff attorney, acting on advice of the DoH told TerriK that the records were not available as they were protected. Their official response was that she wasn’t allowed access to those records… They never told her that they didn’t maintain these records she requested. If they didn’t have such records, then they would have been required to tell her the records don’t exist.

    More to come in the days ahead.]

  142. bdaman,

    Get off of it already. Geeze, you sound like a troll with your cut and paste sound bites. Have you no original thoughts to place on the Turley site or have they vanquished in the night along with your right to think for yourself?

  143. Another reply

    Amended records would include if Barrack was adopted by Leo Sottero. His original Birth Certificate would be replaced by an ammended Birth Certificate. That would lead to another set of issues involving adoption and becomming an Indonesian citizen.

    [Ed. This was not originally an action to reveal his actual BC and personal vital records info…the original requests were for records pertaining to whether he requested his file for the purpose of amending and whether he did amend… the actual contents of his personal vital records are protected, she wasnt asking to see those. She was asking whether he paid any fees to amend them and whether they had been amended… not the contents of the amendments.

    However, I am going to raise the issue that since Fukino made a public statement about his place of birth, then all records viewed by her for the purposes of making that statement are supposed to be made public under 92F-12(15), information required to be made public. Regardless, the other statement she made about him being a natural born citizen involves a whole other can of worms concerning the advice of the Attorney General and it is the AG opinion letter that we are really after and which was denied to TerriK. The statutory and case law indicates that this information MUST be made public. That means we should get an answer as to what definition of nbc Fukino used to make that statement.]

  144. slick,

    Might I suggest you are limiting yourself in choices of appellation. Submitted for your approval:

    rube – \ˈrüb\, n.,

    1 : an awkward unsophisticated person : rustic
    2 : a naive or inexperienced person

    parrot – \ˈper-ət, ˈpa-rət\, n.,

    2 : a person who sedulously echoes another’s words

    sucker – \ˈsə-kər\, n.,

    5 a : a person easily cheated or deceived b : a person irresistibly attracted by something specified

  145. How to become a U.S. citizen:

    Whether you will find it easy or hard to become a U.S. citizen will depend on too many factors to discuss in this short article, but I will discuss eligibility requirements, age, disability, and relatively new laws governing children born to U.S. citizen parents overseas.

    There are only two ways to become a U.S. citizen: either by law, or by birth.

    1) If you are a citizen by birth, no action on your part is generally required (for example, if you were born in a state or territory of the United States), unless you were born to a U.S. citizen parent overseas, and your birth was not recorded as a U.S. citizen birth at a U.S. consulate overseas.

    2)…..

    You do agree that his mother was a US Born Citizen? Then get off of it already. Geeze.

    Link: http://www.visaus.com/citizen.html

    People have been asked to provide the source of the posting unless it is original thought, can’t you?

  146. Middle man? Always?

    Well that would make you a troll, bda. By your own admission at very least a parrot.

    Seems you and Jimmy Shortpants have more in common than just a sever case of political blindness working for you. Which is nice. Not so much for you guys, but hey, life is a blade with two edges.

  147. Bdaman 1, September 22, 2009 at 8:08 am

    Slickone, I’ve always been the middle man.

    Haven’t we all, haven’t we all. Some of us get tired of being used, abused, screwed and tattooed….Do you?

  148. Vince doesn’t know it but will now, I take his comments and submit them to Leo. Sometimes he post them sometimes not. A good poker player never reveals his hand until he knows he’s beat.

    Here’s Leo’s reply to one of Vince’s comment.

    Qoute on

    [Ed. The commenter does not seem to comprehend that this was a minsterial duty NOT a legislative duty. Objecting to the electoral count is not a “legislative duty” it’s a “ministerial duty”. Calling for objections by the VP is a ministerial duty. There’s nothing prohibiting discovery as to ministerial duties. This is not the same as debating pending legislation, this is following legislation. Congress is not exempt from all discovery, only that which is involved with speech and debate as to pending legislation. Nice try, but it won’t fly. You’ll notice the failure of this person to simply state their case and have faith in it. They resort to insulting language as well. If they really believed in what they were saying they would let the law they cite speak for itself.

    But since the law does not support them, they issue emotionally charged language which the public is finally starting to recognize.

    I sense people getting nervous today. My blog hits and comments are off the charts.]

    OFF

    His reply to Vinces Quo Warranto
    Quote on
    [Ed. The most hilarious thing happened in the DOJ Motion to dismiss… they agreed with my Quo Warranto analysis and they stated that any attempt to test the qualification of the POTUS belongs in the DC District Court as a Quo Warranto. See page 16. More on this to come. But it certainly is an astounding brief supporting much of what I have already told me readers in detail. I am preparing a major post on this. BUt you can go let the cat out of the bag. The DOJ has closed the door on those arguments that impeachment is the sole means of removal. DOJ provides various means by which the POTUS can be removed… not only by impeachment.]
    OFF

  149. bdaman:

    here is another thought for you: I think if Obama does not have a HI BC it is the biggest story of the 21st century and would be worth a good deal of money for someone to come up with it. Why hasn’t anyone leaked it? Because it does not exist.

    What do you think bdaman?

    Here is another one, there is a secret society of liberal government officials in HI that have a stranglehold on the department of records and are preventing the BC’s release because they are giving the birthers enough rope and when the time comes they are going to release the BC and thereby destroy America.

    Here is another one, I have it on good authority that there was a UFO sighted over the HI islands on the night of Obama’s birth, he is actually not from Kenya but someplace a “bit” farther away. He is the advance scout from a sophisticated society bent on domination of earth. I mean think about it, a half white, half black son of a single mother being president? It just doesn’t play out. He must be an alien to have done what he did. Just read all the books about single mothers and how children do in single parent households.

    Anyway food for thought.

  150. Leo’s idea that Speech or Debate does not apply to “ministerial duties” is unfounded. According to the Supreme Court, the Clause applies to “matters which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House.” Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 625 (1972); Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 126 (1979).

    The 12th Amendment requires that the opening of the ballots take place “in the presence of the Senate and the House.” So it is matter placed within the jurisdication of the the Senate and the House, and is covered by the Clause.

    There is no distinction between ministerial and other duties under the Clause, and no Supreme Court cases support that theory. The Clause applies to everything done by Congress. It is not limited to “legislative” matters, since it covers debates on Senate confirmations, as well as oversight hearings that may never lead to legislation. So it is not limited to speech or debate on pending legislation, as Leo incorrectly asserted.

    Leo at one point in his blog said that it applies only to verbal debate, and not to so-called “objections,” because the objections were written, not spoken. The Claus applies to ALL debate, written and verbal. This is an elementary mistake by Leo.

    For a complete description of the Supreme Court cases interpreting and applying the Clause, see the Constitution Annotated, 2002 edition, starting at page 134:

    http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/011.pdf

    On the quo warranto issue, the Justice Department conceded nothing about Leo’s theory. The quo warranto statute provides the writ must be brought in the District Court for the District of Columbia. The Department reasonably pointed out to Taitz and others that California is not the District of Columbia. DOJ simply said it was filed in the wrong court (the legalese is improper “venue.”).

    They NEVER conceded that it could apply to the President, and even they did, which they did not, it would not alter the “sole” power of impeachment vested in the House by the express words of the Constitution.

  151. Great Videos B at one time I had an Orange Winged Amazon Parrot, a Doberman and a cat. The parrot was named Chelsey, as in Clinton cause of the Red Head. Speaking of head, go blow yourself.

  152. Vince,

    You are as dishonest as they come.
    September 22, 2009 at 8:55 am
    You stated; [QUOTE]”According to the Supreme Court, the Clause applies to “matters which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House.” Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 625 (1972); Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 126 (1979).”[UNQUOTE]

    Here’s what the Court really said:

    “Legislative acts are not all-encompassing. The heart of the Clause is speech or debate in either House. Insofar as the Clause is construed to reach other matters, they must be an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes by which Members participate in committee and House proceedings with respect to the consideration and passage or rejection of proposed legislation or with respect to other matters which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House.”

    Liars and cheats must be extremely respected by the Obama camp.

  153. Leo says: “The DOJ has already agreed that the POTUS eligibility can be reviewed and revoked in their recent court filings in one of Orly’s cases where the DOJ represents President Obama. You need to read the DOJ motion to dismiss in the Barnett case, specifically page 16:”

    QUOTE The authorizing statute for the District of Columbia sets forth a number of requirements, including a requirement that any quo warranto action be heard by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. See D.C. Code Sections 16-3501 through 16-3503. Indeed, Plaintiffs acknowledge this requirement in their pleading, but seek to have this Court ignore it because of their apparent dissatisfaction with the precedents in the District of Columbia. See FAC at 35-36. UNQUOTE

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/pending-litigation-hawaii-confirms-that-obamas-vital-records-have-been-amended/
    Sep 22, 7:42 AM

    Exactly WHERE did DOJ say that “the POTUS eligibility can be reviewed and revoked,” as Leo asserts?

    As I stated, all that DOJ asserted was that “any quo warranto action be heard by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.” No more, no less.

    Not a word about removal of the President by the writ.

    Gentle readers, can anyone figure out where, in Leo’s words, the “DOJ has already agreed that the POTUS eligibility can be reviewed and revoked in their recent court filings”?

  154. No Buddha, I will not engage in that, I’m better than that and so are you. I WILL NOT ALLOW MYSELF TO BE BAITED AGAIN, LOOSE CONTROL AND SAY ANY BIGOTED, HATEFUL COMMENTS. LORD YOU KNOW I AM A SINNER, PLEASE FOR GIVE ME.

    I know better having been on the receiving end of those kind of remarks most of my childhood/young adult life.

  155. BIRTHER, back at last after a long silence in the wake of the Rhodes case debacle with insults and name-calling. Sorry to disappoint you, but I do not do insults and name-calling.

    I gave the complete citation and a link to the Constitution Annotated.

    The full quotation, the full cases, and the Constitution Annotated all support the proposition that Speech or Debate immunity protects the 12th Amendment procedure. Is it not “an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes by which Members participate in committee and House proceedings with respect to the consideration and passage or rejection of proposed legislation or with respect to other matters which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House”?

    It is committed to the House and the Senate by the Constitution.

    It is an integral part of determining the outcome of the Electoral College process and of determining the new President.

    The Vice President serves as the President of the Senate, and in this role shares the immunity.

    The Constitution, as I said, places this “within the jurisdiction” of the House and the Senate, respectively.

    I think it is protected by Clause.

    There is still time for debate, rather than insults.

  156. Vince,

    When you lie and deceive, you make it personal. Someone else didn’t change the words; you did.

    When you lie, I will call you a liar. You might want to whine that it is a personal attack, but it’s not. It’s a statement of fact.

    If you don’t want to be known as a prevaricator; stop telling lies.

    BTW: You should do a little research on the D.C. statute. It was intended to be included as a means to oust a president who doesn’t meet the qualifications.

  157. Birther are you accusing Mr. Treacy of disinformation or a flat out liar. Could we get someone to verify the validity of the two statements by theses two.

    Mr.Appleton would you care to way in sir.

  158. I don’t need any help here.

    I said, “According to the Supreme Court, the Clause applies to ‘matters which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House.’”

    I quoted the words, verbatim, from two Supreme Court cases that said that. It supported my argument.

    My argument was the 12th Amendment of the Constitution places the counting of Electoral College votes within the jurisdiction of the House and the Senate, presided over by the Vice President.

    Speech or debate immunity applies to matters place within the jurisdiction of the House or the Senate, according to the Court.

    Therefore, immunity applies to the counting of the votes. QED.

    Birthers seems to think (it is not clear) that I took words out of context, or maybe that the full quotation somehow contradicts my argument, but he sure does not explain how.

    The privilege certainly applies to consideration of proposed legislation, but it ALSO applies to other matters because the Court stated that it applies “with respect to OTHER MATTERS which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House. EMPHASIS ADDED.

    But in a scholarly debate, or in law school classes conducted by Professor Turley and his colleagues at GW Law, the usual response would be words to the effect that my learned correspondent or fellow student has quoted certain words from the Court opinions, but omitted others that tend to detract from his position, or that tend to support mine.

    Instead, we hear “When you lie and deceive, you make it personal. Someone else didn’t change the words; you did. When you lie, I will call you a liar. You might want to whine that it is a personal attack, but it’s not. It’s a statement of fact. If you don’t want to be known as a prevaricator; stop telling lies,” and “You are as dishonest as they come,” and “Liars and cheats must be extremely respected by the Obama camp.”

    At GW Law, a riposte like that probably would not tend to add to a student’s grade for “class participation.”

  159. bdaman,

    I’m sure you are well-aware that Vince likes to copy and paste.

    He selectively replaces words to support his argument. When caught, he claims that the words mean the same thing.

    i.e.
    BIRTHER Vince states; “The Constitution says the President shall be removed by impeachment”.

    THE CONSTITUTION: “The President…shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Artile II, sec. 4.

    Vince: I said the words “President,” “shall be removed,” and “by Impeachment” in the Clause that I quoted, in that order, and invite all readers to look them up for themselves.

    Exactly how did I lie? Every word I used is in the Constitution [except “on” for “by”] and I put them in the same order.

    That’s like saying I told the whole truth, except for some parts, but I still want you to consider it to be the whole truth.

    In a follow-up post, Vince said;
    The words “on” and “by” in this context are synonyms, since they mean the same thing, just like the words “sole” and “only.”

    So, I did not lie when I paraphrased “on impeachment” as “by impeachment” because both phases mean exactly the same thing.

    The words “on” and “by” do not mean the same thing. They definately do not mean the same thing in the context in which they are used in this instance.

    Removal “on impeachment” would be a collateral effect.
    Removal “by impeachment” would be the direct means of removal.

  160. “At GW Law, a riposte like that probably would not tend to add to a student’s grade for “class participation.””

    You’re right Vince!

    What would happen to the student who got caught replacing the words in the Constitution while trying to sell them as direct quotation?

  161. BY the way ON his question

    quote ON
    What would happen to the student who got caught replacing the words in the Constitution while trying to sell them as direct quotation?
    quote OFF

    What would happen?

  162. BIRTHER: “You should do a little research on the D.C. statute. It was intended to be included as a means to oust a president who doesn’t meet the qualifications.”

    If you find any such research, please post it with links.

    Some research shows that Congress considered applying quo warranto to the Presidency in contested elections, but declined to adopt the measure. Law students looking for law review note topics, please note:

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/ny-times-reporting-on-quo-warranto-and-trying-the-title-of-the-president/

    It is a fundamental principle that a statute cannot be construed to apply in a manner that Congress expressly considered and rejected. The usual case cited for this proposition is Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer (the Steel Seizure case), 343 U.S. 579 (1952).

    It would not matter if Congress DID intend to allow a President to be removed by a judge and jury in D.C. by the writ, because such a law would violate the Supremacy Clause, since it would be inconsistent with the sole Power of Impeachment.

    For crying out loud, the framers did not even let the resident’s of D.C. have a vote for the National Government, but Leo and birther think they would have allowed a D.C. jury to vote to remove a President? D.C. residents do not even have a Member of Congress or a Senator to this day, but Leo wants to allow 12 of us to be a substitute for 2/3rds of the Senate?

    Go on with you, now, Byrne.

  163. Vince said; “If you find any such research, please post it with links.”

    Sorry Vince, I’m not going to help your side prepare for trial.
    Just so that I can prove my knowledge at a later date; I’ll refer to “Jerry Seinfeld”.

    Contrary to your claim, the U.S. Constitution DOES NOT say the only method to remove the President is by impeachment. It merely states that the House is the only entity with the power to impeach.

    In response to you D.C. jurisdiction vs. Congress. The Judiciary does have the power to nullify an Act of Congress. (even 2/3rd of Congress)

    The Legislature cannot give the Supreme Court original jurisdiction where the Constitution has not, but it does have the power to create inferior courts. They used that power, and made the D.C. court the proper venue to hear quo warrant actions.

  164. Well, bdaman and birther, I did not quote that clause of the Constitution verbatim in the first place, but paraphrased it fairly. Here is the original:
    Vince Treacy September 16, 2009 at 11:44 am:

    “The Constitution says the President shall be removed by impeachment.”

    And later:

    Vince Treacy September 16, 2009 at 12:50 pm

    The words “on” and “by” in this context are synonyms, since they mean the same thing, just like the words “sole” and “only.”

    So, I did not lie when I paraphrased “on impeachment” as “by impeachment” because both phrases mean exactly the same thing.

    But I guess I will have to leave that for the jury.

    And I was summarizing the clause by paraphrase, since I did not put it in quotation marks. When I put it in quotes, I preserve all the words and capitalizations of the original. But not in this case.

    This exchange, btw, took place a long time ago in a galaxy far far away:

    http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/09/video-ohio-congresswoman-tells-supporter-that-obama-is-not-a-citizen-and-cant-be-president/

  165. Quote on
    For crying out loud, the framers did not even let the resident’s of D.C. have a vote for the National Government, but Leo and birther think they would have allowed a D.C. jury to vote to remove a President? D.C. residents do not even have a Member of Congress or a Senator to this day, but Leo wants to allow 12 of us to be a substitute for 2/3rds of the Senate?
    Off

    Maybe they wanted to keep DC separate so that they could give DC the only other avenue to remove the president in a Quo Warranto.

  166. That was there way of ensuring there are checks and balances. The way you describe it is, lots of checks with no balances.

  167. bda and birther ask: “What would happen to the student who got caught replacing the words in the Constitution while trying to sell them as direct quotation?”

    See above at 1:03 PM: “the usual response would be words to the effect that my learned correspondent or fellow student has quoted certain words from the Court opinions, but omitted others that tend to detract from his position, or that tend to support mine,” not “When you lie and deceive, you make it personal. Someone else didn’t change the words; you did. When you lie, I will call you a liar. You might want to whine that it is a personal attack, but it’s not. It’s a statement of fact. If you don’t want to be known as a prevaricator; stop telling lies,” and “You are as dishonest as they come,” and “Liars and cheats must be extremely respected by the Obama camp.”

    Finally, contrary to the assumption embedded in the question, the words were never presented as a direct quotation.

    My client cannot answer yes or no to the question of when he stopped beating his wife, because the question has the embedded assumption that at one time he did beat his wife, and he has never beaten his wife at any time.

  168. I say D.C. is the proper venue. Leo Donofrio says that D.C. is the proper venue. The DOJ on page 16 of their motion to dismiss, filed in the Carter case in California, says D.C. is the proper venue.

    Both sides claim that D.C. is the proper venue, yet Vince claims otherwise. If Vince would stop thinking that all words are synonyms, perhaps he could understand why he stands alone.

  169. bdaman, when quoting Leo, please link to the thread and note the date and time of the quotation, since his site is difficult to search.

    To the gentle readers, I do not post with Leo because he delays posts for moderation, snips out stuff he does not like, and requires an email address. Leo has posted here, and can come to this neutral site at any time.

  170. “Maybe they wanted to keep DC separate so that they could give DC the only other avenue to remove the president in a Quo Warranto.”

    Yeah, sure.

  171. D.C. is the proper venue for quo warranto against District or federal officials, but the writ cannot apply to Officers of the National Government (President and Vice President) and the federal judges and Justices, because their tenure is guaranteed by the Constitution. A mere statute cannot supersede that tenure.

    The writ does not apply to a Member of Congress of Congress, because for them removal is by expulsion vote of 2/3rds of the House or Senate, respectively.

    D.C. is the proper venue for the writ, but it cannot be used to remove the Wizard of Oz.

  172. BIRTHER,

    You said: “If Vince would stop thinking that all words are synonyms, perhaps he could understand why he stands alone.”

    Vince stands alone because he has shown that he doesn’t need any help (quite the contrary). The rest of us are just sitting in the cheap seats, munching on popcorn and enjoying the show. If you think that you have won any round of this marathon match, you are sadly mistaken.

  173. Vince,

    Your contention is unsound. While it is true that the courts would be without jurisdiction to review the action of the president or congress in matters that are subject to their discretion, the courts are not without jurisdiction when a constitutional prohibition has been violated.

    If the President is a natural born citizen, as you and many others claim, he should have no problem proving such in court.

    Are you afraid to have an independent branch of our government make the determination? I sure does appear so.

  174. Dr. Conspiracy has a nice take on Leo’s latest “blockbuster,” as posted by Bdaman, up above, Sept. 21, 2009 at 7:35 pm:

    QUOTE ON Leo Donofrio has made a stunning claim on his blog in a new article: Pending Litigation: Hawaii Confirms That Obama’s Vital Records Have Been Amended.

    One has to translate that headline from “birther speak” to normal usage. “Pending Litigation” means “we haven’t filed a lawsuit” and “Confirms” means “we say so, but we won’t tell you why or how”.

    Hawaiian law requires that certificates that have been amended be distinctly marked “altered”, and Obama’s Certification of Live Birth clearly is not marked “altered”. This fact justifies a high degree of skepticism on Donofrio’s claim. Of course the word “Amended” in birther speak might mean something totally different from the normal usage.

    Donofrio says:

    [“] I will issue a full statement and press release on behalf of TerriK via this blog in the days ahead. This statement will include a complete history of correspondence between TerriK and Hawaii state officials in the Office of Information Practices (OIP) and the Department of Health (DoH).[“]

    Donofrio is going to try the same avenue (Freedom of Information) that Andy Martin tried and failed, except that Donofrio is attempting to leverage Department of Health Director Fukino’s statement that Obama was born in Hawaii to force disclosure of the source of that statement. It won’t work. Leo may be a lawyer (not licensed to practice in Hawaii), but he obviously has no experience dealing with vital records. The lawsuit will go nowhere. And Leo, if you are going to spread all that Latin lawyer lingo in your writing, could you at least italicize it?

    Well at least this story perks up an otherwise dull birther news day. UNQUOTE

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/donofrio-alleges-obama-birth-records-amended/

    Bring on more popcorn, Leo is just getting started.

  175. Jacqlyn Smith Says:

    September 21, 2009 at 6:47 pm
    Leo…is this similar to what Andy Martin was trying to do when he went to Hawaii a couple of times……maybe he didn’t have the correct statues to pursue the information???

    [ed. This is not the same thing. It involves information that TerriK figured out for herself…then she went with her analysis, requested the amendments as if she knew they existed and by doing this she put the DoH between a rock and a hard place. Instead of answering her request honestly (which the OIP originally did) the DoH attempted to confuse her and in doing so they revealed their hand. I’m very impressed with TerriK and how she went about this. It was a work of genius deduction… on more than one issue. She also studied the statutes and realized that Fukino’s statements were covered by the statue. Very impressed. It’s an honor to work with her on this.]

  176. Justin Riggs Says:

    September 21, 2009 at 6:42 pm
    Can’t wait to see the correspondence.

    If you need it, I have email correspondence between Janice Okubo and myself in which she states that Ms. Fukino’s statement was “reviewed and approved” by HI’s Attorney General. Let me know if you would like me to forward it on to you.

    [Ed. Excellent. E mail that over to me Justin, your research has been very helpful.]

  177. bdaman, Vince has quite properly pointed out that he requires no assistance in responding to Birther’s arguments, a truth he has demonstrated in numerous instances on this site. I am adding my comments solely to illustrate certain deficiencies in Birther’s debating style.

    First, Birther’s arguments have to be closely examined because they are much like chicken down in a tornado. They are weightless, borne on wind rather than reason, move generally in circles and come to rest wherever they happen to alight once the tempest subsides. Therefore, it is important to recognize that the force of his pronouncements lies not in their logic, but in the ferocity of their expression.

    An example is the completely contrived controversy over proper usage of the words “on” and “by” with reference to impeachment. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides as follows: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Vince paraphrased this provision by explaining that under the Constitution, removal of the President is by impeachment. That is an accurate and understandable statement. The phrase “by impeachment” would be understood by a person of reasonable intelligence to refer to the impeachment process, which includes the adoption of impeachment articles in the House and a subsequent trial and conviction in the Senate. Vince’s statements are neither incorrect nor misleading, yet Birther seized upon an unexplained distinction between “on” and “by” in the context of the argument to support not merely disagreement with Vince’s position, but as grounds for the assertion that Vince is personally dishonest.

    A second example is the exchange regarding the quo warranto provision in D.C. Vince and Birther previously debated this point and I think it is pretty obvious that a quo warranto claim will go absolutely nowhere. Birther disagrees, and stated to Vince: “You should do a little research on the D.C. statute. It was intended as a means to oust a president who doesn’t meet the qualifications.” Ignoring the facial absurdity of that proposition, Vince made a reasonable request for authority on the matter, and was met with, “Sorry, Vince, I’m not going to help your side prepare for trial.” That is not a debate response, but simply a taunt. It is not how a lawyer thinks or argues. Indeed, one would expect that Birther would be anxious to lay out the authority for his proposition and be prepared to defend it. But he is not, just as he was not prepared to defend Orly Taitz once the court threw out her most recent case as frivolous. Only silence ensued.

    And that brings me to the crux of the problem. Birther does not make legal arguments. He makes personal attacks, tosses in a vague legal reference on occasion as an aside, and then refuses to explain or defend it. That is why I earlier indicated that I would no longer engage in any direct discussions with him. His comments are angry and scornful, for reasons which I do not pretend to understand. His present exchange with Vince proves the wisdom of my decision.

    I close by noting that it has not escaped my attention, Mr. bdaman, that you have stayed on the sidelines during this latest fracas, innocently urging the parties on and enjoying the hell out of it.

  178. Thank you Mike, sometimes when you have people going at it with as much passion as these two have it’s hard to see the fine print.

  179. Vince,

    Does the Hawaiian statute require “certifications of birth” to be marked as “altered” of just the birth certificate itself?

    I think you will find that the “altered” designation only applies to the certificate, and not the certification.

  180. J.D. Says:

    September 22, 2009 at 1:27 pm
    Hello Leo,

    I have a procedural question. In re:

    §92F-15.5 Alternative method to appeal a denial of access. (a) When an agency denies a person access to a government record, the person may appeal the denial to the office of information practices in accordance with rules adopted pursuant to section 92F-42(12). A decision to appeal to the office of information practices for review of the agency denial shall not prejudice the person’s right to appeal to the circuit court after a decision is made by the office of information practices.

    (b) If the decision is to disclose, the office of information practices shall notify the person and the agency, and the agency shall make the record available. If the denial of access is upheld, in whole or in part, the office of information practices shall, in writing, notify the person of the decision, the reasons for the decision, and the right to bring a judicial action under section 92F-15(a). [L 1989, c 192, §1]

    I take it Terri followed this alternative method of first seeking an internal appeal?

    [Ed. She absolutely did and the correspondence from the staff attorney at OIP states that she did.]

    If not, they aren’t required to notify her regarding the denial of access provisions in (b), including notification of the right to bring a judicial action.

    I’m sure you’re all over this. In any event, she has the right to a direct judicial action without first pursuing the internal appeal.

    Inasmuch as there are provisions for in camera review, I suspect ‘that’ might become the primary impediment to actually receiving any docs.

    One other point. I noted in Fukino’s statement:

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records. . .” Note the plural.

    [Ed. Noting the plural was the genesis of the action taken by terriK…she jumped on the plural fast and knew exactly what it meant.]

    Is only the long form BC considered an ‘original vital record’ (as opposed to the COLB) pursuant to HA law? If so, the other vital records (plural) reviewed must, of necessity, include an ‘amended’ doc or docs. Out of the horse’s mouth, so to speak.

  181. rcl Says:

    September 22, 2009 at 7:42 am
    This is all moot. Suppose he was born in Kenya or suppose he’s a British citizen or suppose he’s an Indonesian citizen who never properly applied for American citizenship. So?

    “Why that’s illegal” you stammer. Well, it’s against the prescribed rules set in the Constitution but is there an actual law that delineates action to be taken in the event of a President having been elected who doesn’t meet these requirements?

    Short answer : NO. There is no remedy in the law. The only action available would be impeachment by the people’s representatives hoping that this breach would satisfy the “high crimes and misdemeanors” required. The odds of that ZERO!!!!

    If there were any competent attorneys behind this blog they would know that already. This whole exercise is BS.

    [Ed. Hey RCL, welcome to the nbc blog. You should familiarize yourself with my legal brief on the federal Quo Warranto statute, a three part report. In that statute Congress authorized one single court to hear issues regarding the eligibility of all US National Officers and those Government officials specifically located in DC. The statute includes all US national govt officers, no exceptions.

    The DOJ has already agreed that the POTUS eligibility can be reviewed and revoked in their recent court filings in one of Orly’s cases where the DOJ represents President Obama.

    You need to read the DOJ motion to dismiss in the Barnett case, specifically page 16:

    The authorizing statute for the District ofColumbia sets forth a number of requirements, including a requirement that any quo warranto action be heard by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. See D.C. Code Sections 16-3501 through 16-3503. Indeed, Plaintiffs acknowledge this requirement in their pleading, but seek to have this Court ignore it because of their apparent dissatisfaction with the precedents in the District of Columbia. See FAC at ¶¶ 35-36.

    I have maintained that any judicial review of the President’s eligibility must come through the DC District Court and the Quo Warranto statute. The DOJ agrees and has put that in an actual court document defending the President. Eventually, the President’s eligibility will be challenged in the DC District Court.]

  182. Birther: What could anyone expect from a person who lies about their military service? A liar. Nice job Mike, while Vince needs no help it is always good to expose the phony tactics that go along with the false premises.

  183. Give us a break Spindell.

    Weren’t you arrested for molesting children? You want to tell us about that? You could claim that it wasn’t you, but I think you’re a liar.

  184. BIRTHER,

    I suggest that you not post again until you use your name as Mike Spindell, Mike Appleton, and Vince Treacy have done.

  185. FFLEO,

    What’s the matter? You don’t like it when the playing field is leveled?

    If Spindell is going to make claims that I could only defend by supplying the internet with personal information…it’s only fair that he should do the same.

    You had your chance along time ago. You decided to take sides. Maybe you’re become too blind to see that.

  186. BIRTHER,

    Education/background/credentials matter in such heated debates. If you stated that you were a practicing or retired attorney or a non-legal scholar on such subjects as birth certificates, the U.S. Constitution et al., then your positions might appear more tenable. As it stands, your anonymity confers the appearances of a cloak of cowardice.

    I have kept apprised of this thread because I have learned many things I otherwise would have missed. I have given you the courtesy of stating your value to the continuation of this topic several times; however, your statements are growing increasingly confrontational, instead of educational through eliciting reasoned and credentialed responses from noted and verifiable attorneys who have spent their careers administering the legal process.

  187. FFLEO,

    I call Vince a liar when he lies. (and yes, when one changes the words of the Constitution to fit his needs; that’s a lie)

    When Spindell makes a claim that I have lied about my military background, I am left with nothing to defend myself short of posting a DD-214 on the web.

    At least when I call someone a liar, I support it with documented evidence.

  188. There’s no debate left to this thread, Vince Treacy is basically putting on a clinic, defending freedom of speech!

    Bdaman and BIRTHER will be discussing this silly topic long after President Obama is retired from POTUS. Oh how Saint Jude suffers fools.

  189. What really bothers me is the lack of caring by far too many people. Obama has the authority to launch nuclear weapons, and nobody gives a crap about making sure he is who he says he is. In fact, questioning the messiah is looked down upon.

    That’s just plain stupid.

    When the vault is opened, and the truth about Obama is exposed, you’re gonna wish you would have had the sense to question your messiah.

    Why do you think Vince puts forth so much effort to help Obama hide the name of the person who affirmed his birth?

    If the person who affirmed his birth was grandma Dunham; would that not raise some red flags? -Until you can tell me who affirmed his birth, you are just too afraid of the truth to have an interest in finding it out.

  190. Mike S. and BIRTHER,

    This could all be settled very easily. Mike S. can publish his criminal history report from NY and FL, and BIRTHER could publish his DD-214.

    Mike S. wants BIRTHER to publish his DD-214 to prove that he was in the military, he should be willing to publish his personal information on the internet too.

  191. Or better yet seeing how FFLEO has interceded a private e-mail account can be established and FFLEO in his capacity could settle the matter.

  192. BIRTHER,

    I voted for Mr. Obama and I am a 30-year registered Republican. I have grown to dislike and distrust him because of his lies—yes, I said the L-word—and broken pledges. Unless Palin-Hucksterby et al. run in 2012, I will never again vote for Obama—barring a drastic and quick change in his decision-making and improved displays of honesty.

    Two very important lessons I have learn in this thread:

    We must adhere to the reasonableness standard of the law, especially in civil proceedings, or the courts of law will be insurmountably clogged with the Orly’s of the world accompanied by her ‘seedy’ comrades

    We just gotta have real attorneys-at-law who understand the legal process; otherwise we are forevermore destined to suffer the non-credentialed charlatans’ perpetual nonsensicalness’.

  193. FFLEO,

    You acknowledge that Obama is a liar, but you don’t think he lied about his place of birth?

    As a former LEO, when someone didn’t want to show you something, was it becuase they wanted privacy? –99% of the time they were hiding something.

    Why is it so important for Obama to hide who affirmed his birth?

  194. FFLEO

    Quote
    grown to dislike and distrust him because of his lies
    Unquote

    you’re a racist, you just cant except that a black man is president, your a right wing extremist.

    I say this in jest FFLEO but I’m sure there are a few here that will hold that opinion of you based on your statement.

  195. My favorite saying

    If you got nothing to hide why not show the ORIGINAL for all to see.

    No one should have to challenge the president, the president should be forthcoming in providing the document to erase all doubts. Common sense will tell you that.

  196. FFLEO you of all people should be able to smell the fishy smell over this BC issue. Honestly, whats your gut instinct tell you. Whats your gut instinct why the president has not come forth and said,

    I know there are those who doubt that I was born in HI. To quell those doubts, here, here is my original BC and it shows I was born there.

    FFLEO don’t you think an honest man, the leader of the free world, the Ayatollah of Rockin Rolla would do that to quell the rumors.

  197. “Mike S. and BIRTHER,
    This could all be settled very easily. Mike S. can publish his criminal history report from NY and FL, and BIRTHER could publish his DD-214.

    Schmucks,
    If you want to check out my criminal history follow this link its’ free:

    http://criminalsearches.com/

    Now of course I’d check yours but you two gutless bigots use aliases. We know that birther used to use the handle Jim Byrne, but who knows whether that is true. Incidently, that site shows 31 possible hits for James or Jim Byrne, ranging from traffic offenses, to robbery, to sexual offenses. We’ll never know though because both of you lack the courage of your convictions, except when false personal statements suit your needs. For all we know you’re the same bigoted person, posting under two different aliases, to give yourself some support when everyone else is on to your lies, half truths and inability to raise a cogent argument. Sort of like your leaders Donofrio and Taitz. What really pisses you two phonies off is that I haven’t taken either of you seriously for some time now. You are frankly too dumb to be interesting, I just like to see your BP’s rise, as shown by your postings, when I show my disdain.

    “Mike S. wants BIRTHER to publish his DD-214 to prove that he was in the military, he should be willing to publish his personal information on the internet too.”

    I really could care less BD, just as your race is immaterial to me. Just like the President in your ravings though the burden is on you to prove you are really half-Black and on birther to prove he was really in the service. Gee whiz, hoisted on your own petards. For people with the quality of your minds though, petard hoisting, just goes with the territory.

  198. B & B,

    You both completely ignored what I stated regarding the reasonableness standard. What that means to me in this civil matter is that a reasonable person—based on the evidence to date—would consider Mr. Obama to be a citizen of the United States given that he was born in Hawaii and he has a birth certificate issued in his name. The law does not require ‘absolutes’ and there are few absolutes associated with any human endeavors.

    I will let the attorneys clarify what I just stated in more precise legalese, which I tried to explain in nonprofessional legal terms and correct me as needed. I am *reasonably* sure that Mike Appleton explained that *reasonable* standard in the other Birther thread.

    Regarding this from Birther:
    __________________________________

    “As a former LEO, when someone didn’t want to show you something, was it becuase they wanted privacy? –99% of the time they were hiding something.”
    __________________________________

    No. I often recommend—as I have written within this blawg—that a person should protect their rights to the fullest extent possible. If an LEO walked up to me and asked: may I look in the trunk of your car or can I look in your backpack and he had no probable cause, reasonable suspicion and/or there were no exigent circumstances, then I would respectfully decline his request, although I had nothing whatsoever to hide; this is, I was 100% clean.

    The government must show just cause of reasonable suspicion (stop/risk; search immediate property/possessions) or probable cause (arrest/warrants intrusive searches of person) to search your personal effects or to invade your privacy, sans exigent circumstances. By allowing officers or other government officials to go to the nth degree to learn everything about you wihtout just cause is to ensure the erosion of your rights and those of all other citizens.

  199. FF LEO and Bily,

    If you had more LEO’s practicing what the FF LEO is saying. The government would be rock solid. The problem is that you have some that want to rise quickly and violate people rights. The reason that they get away with it is, “well we could charge them with XY or Z” so they ought to be happy with this. Never mind that it all started out wrong. Then there are some LEO’s that are pretty criminal themselves and the only difference between them and the criminals, is the jails cells they occupy. When a case has been properly presented and no rights have been violated then, the defendant needs to work out a plea quickly.

    The again there are some judges, prosecutors and defense attorney that are so stupid that they keep the system working because they do not know the difference between good and bad police work. I believe this FF LEO when he says that he was honest. They are few and far between.

  200. Post 2:”BTW Carona, Oceanside or Astoria, Michelle or Maxine”

    Brave little man hiding behind his alias. Is there an implied threat there about knowing stuff about me? It would fit your MO. You also know that criminal searches yielded no results for me, or those with my name anywhere around the country. Could we say the same for you bigot? You and Geir Smith are the same type of people, its just that your hatreds differ.

    Post 1: “Mike I’m not the one making accusations. I’m merely trying to be a middle man. Thanks for the comment.”

    Your second post kind of gives lie to your first one, but then sharpness of thought has never been your strong point. By the way if you’re not getting paid for all your work here, then you really are even less sharp then I imagine. If you are getting paid its for the quantity and not the quality of your product and that shows clearly.

  201. FFLEO,

    The standard of proof for Obama is not acceptable.

    What if he is not even a U.S. citizen?

    Are you willing to bet your life on him being a U.S. citizen?

    The question is being asked because it is a reasonable question to ask. Is he only a liar when you’re paying attention.

    His own grandmother said that he was born in Kenya, and that she was a witness. You sure don’t have a witness declaring otherwise.

    Who witnessed Obama’s Hawaiian birth? Until you can answer that question, you’re relying on faith. Good enough for Obama but not good enough for God?

    The Lucas Smith Kenyan BC has yet to be debunked.

    If you don’t care enough to need to know, you already drank too much Kool-Aid.

  202. Mike i did not do a criminal search. I have no intentions of doing so. Although I could do one, the information it would provide me would be useless to me. I did not use the link you provided, nor will I disclose the link for which I used. However if I was so inclined, being the researcher I am and not showing anyone the cards I hold in my hands, I could tell you your lifes history based on simple deductions on what you have posted in the past and the name in which you go by and the keyboard that I am currently typing on. I normally charge for this type of thing but seeing how you already know your lifes history, your probably not willing to pay me for it.

    And you want me to post under my real name. No one should ever post under their real name unless you are a public figure. If I were you, I would sign up for Life Lock. just sayin.

  203. Birther, Who witnessed George W.’s birth? The entire birth issue has been debunked repeatedly, but you and your birther brethren refuse to accept facts. I have to leave now and ask my Mom who witnessed my birth, besides her, of course!

  204. “Birther, Who witnessed George W.’s birth?”

    If you watched the movie, a team of elite surgeons and the jackal that carried him to term. Then Gregory Peck and David Warner spent two hours trying to kill him.

    Or was that “The Omen”?

  205. George W’s father was NOT a student from a foreign country.

    George W’s father didn’t impregnate a minor. (not that we know of)

    George W’s grandmother didn’t say he was born in a foreign country.

    We don’t have someone waiving around a birth certificate that reports George W. was born in a foreign country.

    George W. was a military officer with a clearance. A thorough background check would have been performed before that clearance was granted.

    Why don’t you try comparing apples to apples?

    What former President had a father who was here on a student visa?

    What other President had the National Assembly of a foreign country call him a “son of Kenyan soil”?

    The reason you don’t want to know who affirmed Obama’s birth is understandable. -You don’t want to find out that you were suckered.

    Tell me the dangers of having a non-U.S. citizen, who lied in order to obtain the office, as commander-in-chief. Then tell me the dangers of having the same person as Chief Executive of the United States. –I dare any of you to acknowledge the potential dangers.

    When you’re done; tell me why you are willing to accept a piece of paper that has been challenged.

  206. Never saw that version although I concur on Cheney. Although Liev Schreiber is a fine actor and that Julia Stiles is just girl next door hotness. I meant a fine hotness, er, actress.

    Damn. I guess I know what I’m watching this weekend.

  207. G.W. Bush’s father is in bed with the Saudi Arabians who attacked us on 9/11.

    G.W. Bush provided material aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war. And that makes him a traitor.

    That’s more to the point.

    When you’re done, tell me why those traitors deserve such loyalty from a “military man, Jimmy Shortpants.

    I’d ask how much kool-aid you drank Jimmy, but it’s now obvious you were eating it dry by the handful and running lines as long as a pool table. You have huge piles of it in your house and you sleep buried in its dry sugary goodness.

  208. BIRTHER:

    “The standard of proof for Obama is not acceptable.

    What if he is not even a U.S. citizen?

    Are you willing to bet your life on him being a U.S. citizen?

    The question is being asked because it is a reasonable question to ask. Is he only a liar when you’re paying attention.”

    ***************

    “ONE day Henny-penny was picking up corn in the cornyard when–whack!– something hit her upon the head. “Goodness gracious me!” said Henny- penny; “the sky’s a-going to fall; I must go and tell the king.”

    “So Foxy-woxy went into his cave, and he didn’t go very far but turned round to wait for Henny-Penny, Cocky-locky, Ducky-daddles, Goosey- poosey and Turkey-lurkey. So at last at first Turkey-lurkey went through the dark hole into the cave. He hadn’t got far when “Hrumph,” Foxy-woxy snapped off Turkey-lurkey’s head and threw his body over his left shoulder. Then Goosey-poosey went in, and “Hrumph,” off went her head and Goosey-poosey was thrown beside Turkey-lurkey. Then Ducky- daddles waddled down, and “Hrumph,” snapped Foxy-woxy, and Ducky- daddles’ head was off and Ducky-daddles was thrown alongside Turkey- lurkey and Goosey-poosey. Then Cocky-locky strutted down into the cave and he hadn’t gone far when “Snap, Hrumph!” went Foxy-woxy and Cocky- locky was thrown alongside of Turkey-lurkey, Goosey-poosey and Ducky- daddles.

    But Foxy-woxy had made two bites at Cocky-locky, and when the first snap only hurt Cocky-locky, but didn’t kill him, he called out to Henny-penny. So she turned tail and ran back home, so she never told the king the sky was a-falling.”

  209. Mr. Turley,

    How do you answer the ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST that Obama made by stating on his web site that his birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 ????

    Further the latest revelation that Hawaii has acknowledged that Barack Obama has an AMENDED Birth Certificate???

    See the NEW lawsuit by Leo Donofrio, a lawyer who is not taking any donations and doing the case ProBono…..

    Hawaii is in violation of its own laws in not revealing documents related to their “official government Statements”

    ANd the Truth will set this free…..

    I will not hesitate to call each and every one of you traitors to this country what you are when this USURPER is removed from office….the only reason its has not happened is because scared politicians are afraid of a race riot…when these spineless weaklings should be afraid of every citizen who should and would protest the violation of the Constitution!

    Its not about race…McCain is not NBC either…..both parties should suffer what the people deserve to give them….throw out every incumbent…there all either crooked or morally corrupt……refusing to deal with the obvious ….there time will end…..the people will ensure it sooner or later.

  210. Birther,
    the point that I was trying to make is that it is impossible to produce a witness to the birth when 40 plus years have gone by and besides, he doesn’t have to because he has a birth certificate that has been certified by the State of Hawaii. Nothing else is needed. The grandmother’s statement has been debunked also. The fact that the father was here on a student visa has no bearing on whether Obama was born in Hawaii. You claim that George W. had a security clearance, but he would not release his military records so what are you basing that claim on?? Did Orly tell you that one too? I know the facts are troublesome to you and your fellow Birthers, but life is a bitch sometimes.
    Mespo and Buddha, well done, but Mespo, “cocky-locky”??

  211. Raf,

    That’s just because you’re not an English folk tale. Although the story itself dates WAY back. My favorite variation is when the sky actually falls and kills Foxy-Woxy. That would make one heck of an absurdist Bugs Bunny cartoon.

  212. mespo727272 @ Sept 20 11:20pm & bdamn, sorry so late, & while agreeing w/others issue is primarily about natural born citizenship not place of birth, I couldn’t let go by without comment mespo’s answer re: hospital question of 3-part $50,000 challenge, since he notes that “UPI reported in 2008″ Kapoliani hospital, when in fact UPI did no such thing, see bottom of article mespo linked, note: “This item was corrected July 8, 2009, to fix the name of the hospital where Obama was born. The original item incorrectly identified the facility as Queen’s Hospital, an error made by the writer.”

  213. O.K. I have recently been asked to reveal my name. I hesitate in doing so but here it is.

    My name is Jack Schitt

    I am the only son of Awe Schitt. Awe Schitt, the fertiliser magnate,
    who married O making her O. Schitt, and currently the owner of Needeep N. Schitt Inc.

    They had one son,that would be me, Jack.

    In turn, I married Noe making her Noe Schitt. We are a religious couple and have produced 6 children: Holi Schitt, Fulla Schitt, Giva Schitt, Bull Schitt
    and twins Deap Schitt and Dip Schitt.

    Deap Schitt married Dumb Schitt, a high
    school drop out. After being married 15 years, me and Noe
    divorced.

    Noe later remarried Ted Sherlock and, because our kids were
    living with them, she wanted to keep her previous name. She was then
    known as Noe Schitt-Sherlock.

    Meanwhile, Dip Schitt married Loda Schitt and they produced a son
    of nervous disposition, Chicken Schitt. Two of the other 6
    children, Fulla Schitt and Giva Schitt, were inseparable throughout
    childhood and subsequently married the Happens brothers in a dual ceremony.

    The newspapers announced the Schitt-Happens wedding. The Schitt-Happens
    children were Dawg, Byrd and Hoarse.

    Bull Schitt, the prodigal son, left home to tour the world.
    He recently returned from Italy with his new Italian bride, Pisa Schitt.

    So now you know. Anytime someone tells you you don’t know Jack Schitt, you can tell’em yea I do, he post’s on Jonathan Turley’s Blog.

  214. “Further the latest revelation that Hawaii has acknowledged that Barack Obama has an AMENDED Birth Certificate???”

    Just for the record, there is no such revelation.

    There is just a bare allegation by Leo Donofrio at his website and his threat of a lawsuit. There is no evidence. There is no proof. Let’s wait and see what Leo produces.

    This is the start of yet another birther myth, repeated over and over until the birthers can believe nothing else.

    Obama’s grandmother never said he was born in Kenya. When asked, she said that was ridiculous because he was born in Hawaii. That entire myth was based on a mistranslation of a phone call. The entire transcript by a different interpreter showed the truth. Another persistent birther myth.

    The Obama campaign website clearly said that he was born a United States citizen in Hawaii. It noted that he ALSO had Kenyan citizenship by virtue of his father’s citizenship, but that was a conditional citizenship that expired when he turned 21.

    Leo claims that the Kenyan citizenship means that Obama cannot be a natural born citizen. In my opinion [posted elsewhere on this blog under threads searchable with the term “Donofrio], that is not a valid legal or constitutional theory. Leo took that to the Supreme Court last December, and they declined to take the case.

    They were sending Leo a message that he never noticed.

    Finally, the Smith Kenyan birth certificate has been demonstrated to be a forgery by numerous sources, including the mother-lode of all birther information, the World Net Daily.

  215. For all the readers who want a break from the food fight [e.g. Byrne calling Treacy a liar yet again over misuse of prepositions], take a look at this entry on a site that tracks the birthers and their “litigation”:

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=3404

    The title of this entry is “Taitz Pulls Up In A Dump Truck,” as in Orly backing a dump truck up to the courthouse and dumping hundreds of pages of legal filing.

    The links to disbarred lawyer Robert Charles Wilson, the “mastermind” of birther lawsuits, is also revealing.

  216. It appears that Jack Schitt is known in these parts. In fact, his specious reasoning and grasping at straws is becoming legend. This is repeatedly evidenced by Vince showing Mr. Schitt that it is indeed Mr. Schitt who does not know himself.

    Seriously, this horse couldn’t be any deader.

    What’s your next cause, bdaman?

    Prove that William the Conqueror didn’t win the Battle of Hastings? That Napoleon won the Battle of Waterloo? Insist that peas are beans? That the sky is plaid? That “Beverly Hills 90210″ is the apex of Western culture?

    I’d like to know so I can start laughing early.

  217. QUOTE ON
    Chris Says:
    September 18, 2009 at 2:18 pm

    I think this proposed discovery is inconsistent with the Speech and Debate clause of the constitution

    Art. I, section 6: “. . . for any Speech or Debate in either House, they [the Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

    As you know, the case law interprets this broadly to protect Senators and Representatives in the performance of their duties.

    [Ed. It only pertains to their “legislative” duties. This is a ministerial duty for Cheney and it’s a ministerial duty for Congress which also involves discretion. But it is not a legislative duty. We are not seeking discovery about the speech and debate concerning enactment of the statute. No, far from it.

    Moreover, the Constitutional prohibition only concerns “speech and debate” not objections. As you can see in this youtube video Congress started to get rowdy when the objection was made… that rowdyness was considered “debate”. The objection itself was not debate. Furthermore, the objection must be in writing, so technically it’s not “speech” either.

    The Constitutional prohibition of Article I Section 6 only deals with Speech and Debate. The objections to the electoral count are neither.]
    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/barnes-v-obama-important-discovery-is-available-now-according-to-judge-carters-order-of-sept-17-2009/
    QUOTE OFF

    The stuff by Ed. [Editor] is by Leo Donofrio at his site, with all his ignorance of the Speech or Debate Clause on display.

    The immunity does IN FACT apply to written communications, like bills, reports and hearings. They may not be “speech,” but they sure are “debate.”

    Similarly, the immunity applies to everything, whether discretionary, ministerial or anything else. For example, the Vice President when presiding over the Senate has a ministerial duty to recognize any and all Senators seeking recognition. But if he fails to do so, THE SENATOR CANNOT SUE HIM IN COURT.

    As noted earlier, Leo was incorrect elsewhere when he said the immunity applied only to the consideration and passage of legislation.

    End of Turley blog continuing legal education program on Speech or Debate immunity. For further reading, go the section of the Constitution Annotated linked on two separate entries above.

  218. Vince,

    In re the Equinox.

    Orly has a coven coffee klatch and conspiracy theory seminar to attend in addition to the Black Mass proper. I understand she landed the coveted position of “Girl Leading Goat” in this year’s big pageant.

    A gal’s got to keep her schedule straight with the court vis a vis her religious holidays.

  219. bdaman,

    You’re thinking of having more children? Just what the world needs. More little Schitts. (read with extreme sarcasm and an arched eyebrow, if possible)

  220. I knew I could count on ya for a good come back. I never thought I would enjoy this Blog so much. Thanks Buddha, I may be Bdaman, but you isdaman.

  221. Here is BIRTHER at Sept. 22, 2009 at 1:51 pm: I say D.C. is the proper venue. Leo Donofrio says that D.C. is the proper venue. The DOJ on page 16 of their motion to dismiss, filed in the Carter case in California, says D.C. is the proper venue. Both sides claim that D.C. is the proper venue, yet Vince claims otherwise. If Vince would stop thinking that all words are synonyms, perhaps he could understand why he stands alone.”

    Now here is Leo ‘s proof or evidence that DOJ supports him, in a passage from DOJ’s pleadings:

    QUOTE The DOJ has already agreed that the POTUS eligibility can be reviewed and revoked in their recent court filings in one of Orly’s cases where the DOJ represents President Obama. You need to read the DOJ motion to dismiss in the Barnett case, specifically page 16:

    [QUOTING DOJ] The authorizing statute for the District of Columbia sets forth a number of requirements, including a requirement that any quo warranto action be heard by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. See D.C. Code Sections 16-3501 through 16-3503. Indeed, Plaintiffs acknowledge this requirement in their pleading, but seek to have this Court ignore it because of their apparent dissatisfaction with the precedents in the District of Columbia. See FAC at 35-36. UNQUOTE DOJ

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/pending-litigation-hawaii-confirms-that-obamas-vital-records-have-been-amended/
    Sep 22, 7:42 AM LEO QUOTE OFF

    Now where in that paragraph did DOJ say that “ the POTUS eligibility can be reviewed and revoked”? Nowhere.

    All it said was that the writ had to be brought in DC. That is agreed. THEY NEVER SAID THAT IT COULD BE USED TO REVIEW AND REVOKE Presidential eligibility. Al they said was that any quo warranto action must be heard by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

    Not a word about applying the writ to the President.

    Sop this is just another persist LeoBIRTHER myth.

    Leo, it seems, has moved on to the greener pastures of Hawaii for further mythmaking,

  222. Shawn, just for the record, my name is Michael Jon Appleton. Please spell it correctly when you prepare your list of traitors. The only thing more annoying than a clueless conspiracy theorist is a clueless conspiracy theorist with poor grammatical skills. You can probably find just about everything you wish to know about me, including my failures, if you do enough digging.

    Bdaman, I do not need to defend FFLEO any more than I need to defend Vince or anyone else on this site, but your response to his statement that he no longer trusts Pres. Obama was particularly revealing. I have also been unhappy with a number of the president’s decisions, and by some of his decisions not to decide. However, FFLEO has never personally attacked any poster, let alone express racist comments about the president. He has never used the phrases “take our country back” or “he is not one of us.” He has never referred to the president as “uppity” or “the Magic Negro.” He has not suggested carrying a weapon to a town hall meeting or thrown off comments about watering the tree of liberty with blood. He has not incorporated the words “fascist,” “communist,” “socialist,” “usurper” or similarly absurd appellations into his posts. He has not mouthed the words of others about Kenyan birth certificates or Muslim relatives. He has not asserted that it is now acceptable for black kids to beat up white kids on school buses. And he has not used that once buried and now resurrected code phrase for institutionalized racism, “states rights.” I have learned much from him about patience and responsible analysis.

    I have expressed my views on racism a number of times on this site. Whatever one may have thought about his presidency, Jimmy Carter is one of the most decent persons to have ever served in public life in this country. And when he spoke about race several days ago, he got it exactly right.

    Finally, to all those who continue to harbor the presumptuous notion that the president, or anyone else for that matter, has either a legal or moral obligation to prove a negative or to come forward with evidence to refute rumors, speculations or the rantings of the unhinged, I suggest that your sense of self-importance is as unjustified as your confidence in the rightness of your cause.

  223. Vince, I would appreciate it if you would submit your seminar materials to the Florida Bar so that I could apply for CLE credits. Thanks for all the good work.

    I believe it says something about the strength of Mr. Donofrio’s claim when he and his legal lemmings proclaim victory over the government’s acknowledgment that a D.C. statute authorizing quo warranto proceedings to be heard by the D.C. district court means that proper venue for such proceedings is D.C. What stunning legal scholarship.

  224. First of all I told FFLEO that “I say this in jest FFLEO but I’m sure there are a few here that will hold that opinion of you based on your statement.”

    Mike my point was that FFLEO used the word liar in reference to the president. When other people used that reference, people would quickly join the band wagon calling for racism against the president. It’s funny how you choose to jump on former president Carters explanation but dismiss President Obama’s explanation.

    As the tide turns more and more blacks,independents and young people are having a change of heart. Are all of these people racist? One of the gun toting protesters with the AR-15 was Black. Larry Elder is Black, Star Parker is Black, the governor of NY is Black. The recent interview with the ESPN analyst is Black. I look for the interview with the ESPN guy.

    I have posted links to the first two, here’s the latest from the governor.
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/Paterson_blames_weak_Obama_record_for_friction.html

    I think president Obama was the one who got it right. He was black before he got elected.

  225. Needed to ammend this.

    It’s funny how you choose to jump on former president Carters explanation, a white man, but dismiss President Obama’s explanation a 1/2 black,1/2 white man.

  226. Vince,

    Your analysis of the DOJ’s statement on page 16 of the Barnett MTD defies logic.

    The DOJ states that the proper venue to file a petition on information of quo warranto against the president is the District Court of the District of Columbia; yet you continue to claim that the court would lack jurisdiction.

    That’s the reason for filing in a court of competent jurisdiction. For the DOJ to claim that D.C. is the proper venue, but would lack jurisdiction is a contradiction.

    I suggest that you come up with some case law to support your premise.

  227. “If Spindell is going to make claims that I could only defend by supplying the internet with personal information…”

    birther/Jim,
    I could care less about who you are personally. You are the one who tried to gain credibility by pretending to have a military career. It makes no difference to me whether or not someone uses a pseudonym, it is when they use their anonymity to claim credibility or expertise they don’t have that I react. You frankly don’t interest me enough to want to know about you personally, since your written production, lies and obfuscations say all that needs to be said about you.

    Also, I responded because you had the temerity to call Vince a liar and I was just illustrating your own checkered history on this site.

  228. Hey Spindell,

    Listen up! I am a veteran. Your claim that I lied about such lacks foundation. It’s just another fantasy that exists only in your mind.

    I think you’re a perverted little child molester. I don’t have to support my claim any more than you have to support your claim.
    If you want to make ridiculous assertions, you should be prepared for the backlash that follows.

    When I call someone a liar, I back it up with evidence to support my claim. Since you have decided that you can make claims without the need to support such, I will treat you with the same respect.

  229. Folks,I have to throw down a civility flag. Please let’s dial down on this personal stuff. There is no need for it and it drags down the blog. Passion run high on this blog which is good, but sometimes those passions are directed inward, which is bad. We have long concluded that the rest of world is insane, which is what brings us together in this virtual place, let’s keep it sane in our own enlightened domain.

  230. See, the irony here childrens is that Jimmy Shortpants fails to see that he’s now defending against being asked to prove a negative.

    Here’s Wiki’s condensation of the fallacy.

    “Argument from ignorance

    (It has been suggested that Evidence of absence be merged into this article or section.)

    The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam (“appeal to ignorance” [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.

    The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

    Both arguments commonly share this structure: a person regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting proof that another view is true. The types of fallacies discussed in this article should not be confused with the reductio ad absurdum method of argument, in which a valid logical contradiction of the form “A and not A” is used to disprove a premise.”

    But make no mistake, Jimmy Birther is indeed ridiculous. Hoist upon his own petard. He should know the tactic.

    It’s very same tactic he’s been using all along on Obama.

    Mike has opened a door and the BIRTHER gladly walked through it, blissfully unaware that his own bucket of water was about to fall upon his own head.

    But don’t worry, he’s got evidence. Evidence he’s a propaganda troll – which means he’s not interested in evidence, just his master’s agendas. Unless the tactic is applied to HIM. Then he’s got evidence. That he won’t/can’t/whatever produce.

    Uh huh.

    And Mr. Spindell, I have to say that Bugs Bunny would be proud of your performance.

  231. For the Birther aka Jim Byrne and his buddy bdaman:

    The Badman’s Song

    Heard every word that was said that night
    When the light of the world put the world to right

    Well here’s to the boys back in 628
    When an ear to the wall was a twist of fate

    I will shine a blinding light
    Through these hearts as black as night
    Sticks and stones may break my bones
    But at least the seeds of love will be sown

    Now once and a while when I feel no shame
    I get down on my knees and I pray for rain
    And while the breeze blows gently while I state my case
    There will be certain men waiting to scratch my face
    Hand on my heart I will make a stand
    For the life and times of the mirror man

    In my head there is a mirror
    When I’ve been bad, I’ve been wrong
    Food for the Saints that are quick to judge me
    Hope for a bad man
    This is the badman’s song

    Guilt in the frame of the looking glass
    Puts a shine on the mind when reflections pass
    When the jigsaw pieces of a broken man
    Try to fit themselves together again
    Lies in disguise in the name of trust
    Put your head in the sand it will turn to dust

    What is your problem, what is your curse
    Won’t it make the matter worse

    Faith can move mountains-
    But mind over matter, won’t you stop all your chatter

    Look at yourself see how you lie!
    Your hands start shaking and you don’t know why?

  232. “And Mr. Spindell, I have to say that Bugs Bunny would be proud of your performance.”

    Buddha,
    Thank you, I’m proud to say that Bugs has been my idol since I was five and found all the other cartoons boring when compared to him. Bugs Bunny was one of my greatest tutors and I am a disciple of his.

  233. Professor Turley I take it some of the commenter’s just don’t give a damn what you say.

    I’ll say this,

    Thanks for the comment

  234. “Hey Spindell, Listen up! I am a veteran. Your claim that I lied about such lacks foundation. It’s just another fantasy that exists only in your mind.”

    So you admit that you were Jim Byrne.

    “I think you’re a perverted little child molester. I don’t have to support my claim any more than you have to support your claim.”

    Ah Jimmy Boy I have supported my claim check it out at:

    http://criminalsearches.com/

    No hits for any of the Mike Spindell’s of the world. Whereas Jim/James Byrne has 32 hits ranging from assault, robbery, larceny to sexual crimes. Now I have no way of knowing if that is even your real name of course, so unlike you with me, I make no accusations about your criminality.

    However, this is all analogous to the specious arguments you’ve presented here in that I have proven my claim, while you just make rumor driven speculation backed up by false supposition. Vince has proven his case also and all you’ve done is deal in rumor, innuendo and falsified documents. Lest I forget, also the writings of an obscure 18th Century Natural Philosopher, who died 30 years before the American Revolution, when no republics existed in the world.

    Yes Jimmy, I love to make you and bman look ridiculous and watch the anger rise in your posts. Never have I found people more willing to hoist themselves on their own petards and be blissfully unaware they were doing it.

    The only other reasonable explanation is that you two are being paid to put forth this drivel and having weak positions must hoist yourselves in order to continue to get paid. In these times I guess we all have to make a buck. Either way it says little for your characters, but then who am I to judge?

  235. “Have your credit card number ready. You can’t tell the credit card companies that the info is on file anymore or I would have already charged your Visa ending in 3743. Plus I need the three digit number on the back. Life Lock is worth the money, you should seriously look into it.”

    bdaman,
    Thank you for proving my point about the intimidation factor, unfortunately your research is as specious as your political theories.

    Professor Turley,
    I think this is proof of why bdaman should be banned from this site. This is definitely intimidation on his part and if he could attempt it with me he could do so with Vince and Mike A., who also use their real names. This is uncivil to say the least and borders on the criminal. I didn’t ask this, you may note, when he called me a Christ Killer, but now I think he has gone too far and threatens others on this site, besides myself, who choose not to be anonymous.

  236. JT,

    Perhaps now you understand why the law of nations was abandoned out of the need for positive law.

    There are approximately 340 comments on this thread. I suggest you remove all that are “personal attacks”, and see what you have left.

  237. Regarding the quo warranto issue, it has been suggested that venue and jurisdiction are synonymous terms. Of course, they are not. Venue simply refers to the place in which an action must be brought. Jurisdiction refers to the power of a court to rule upon the issues brought before it. Thus it is entirely possible to file an action in the proper venue, yet be denied relief because the court lacks jurisdiction to hear it. In order to seriously debate important legal issues, it is necessary to assume that fundamental concepts are already understood. Venue and jurisdiction fall into that category. That is the reason that Mr. Donofrio’s statements regarding the DOJ’s agreement on venue are silly.

  238. Bdaman:

    This comment is far over the line and could be viewed as a serious threat. Before banning anyone from the site, I have given them a chance to back off and comply with the civility rule. I am very disturbed by your statement to Mike and I must ask you to cease such threats — and to avoid further such personal exchanges. I do not know how this thread started but I do not like how it has unfolded. I have deleted the entry on locating Mike’s home and threatening identification theft.

  239. JT,
    I rescind the request. I hope I made my point to him about his actions and anyway his research really stinks, though I’ve no doubt he’s found one of the many Mike Spindell’s whose existence I know of. I know of them because I was named after my dead Grandfather per Jewish tradition and then had other younger cousins named the same way. I’ve always liked my name and it pisses me off that anyone else has it so I’ve researched it and to my surprise there were much more than I imagined.

    Bdaman is a bigot, a troll and a pest, but I really don’t care if he’s banned or not. Trapping him into making my point was my real interest.

    What’s up Doc?

  240. “There are approximately 340 comments on this thread. I suggest you remove all that are “personal attacks”, and see what you have left.”

    And how many of them would be yours Jim?

  241. Mike A,

    If I may be so bold: There are those who will use others’ blind panic (Foxy-woxy) for their own gain, so be careful of who you trust and don’t believe everything you hear from those prone to panic (Henny-Penny).

  242. The law of the internet is presently at the same stage of development as the law of railroads was in the middle of the 1800s. Legal doctrines have not caught up with the technology. However, we do know that libel law is applicable to publications on the web. We also know that in appropriate circumstances a court will order the disclosure of the identity of a person engaged in electronic libel. In addition, is is well established that the publication of a false statement that a person has committed a crime constitutes libel per se. When we review our posts for civility, we should also remind ourselves that anonymity offers only limited protection at best, and no protection at all depending on what we are saying about another.

  243. Mike A.,

    I concede to your analysis of venue vs. jurisdiction.

    In a quo warranto action served upon the de facto president, the statute establishes that the District Court for the District of Columbia is the proper venue. That statute further declares that the same court shall have personal and subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate such.

  244. “To err is human.” Similarly, to lie is human. I will assume that all who read this are human; ergo, all humans are liars—past, present, or future—it is simply a matter of the degree to which one lies or the time at which one lied, or will lie. That is, temporally and/or spatially, all humans are liars.

    Given the premise that all humans lie—and anyone who states that they have not nor cannot or will not lie, is a liar—the only recourse available is to determine if a person is lying and if it is important enough to expose the liar’s inconsistencies, deceit, falsehoods, or perjuries to win an argument, debate, lawsuit, or, ad infinitum.

    FFLEO has lied since he was able to talk. However, as he grew older he learned that it is very easy to be caught in a lie because all those around him were then, or had been liars so he was often outclassed in that department. Most importantly, FFLEO learned—often the hard way with people he loved and/or liked—that lies hurt people by destroying their good character, reputations, livelihoods, and hearts. Therefore, he pledged to try to the best of his abilities never again to tell a lie or embellish, especially never lying to win at all costs: financial, professional, nor personal.

    The facts—I prefer to avoid the equivocal term, truth—are infinitely more powerful than all of the lies uttered by all humans combined since Homo sapiens’ advanced speech abilities evolved and allowed that species to outcompete other Hominids—like those dullards, the Neanderthals.

    Therefore, when we post within this fine blawg, let us remember to ‘talk’ and comport ourselves more like ‘sapiens’ rather than ‘neanderthalensis’.

  245. Professor Turley I’m sorry you have to get involved, but I’m glad you did. I’m sure you understand that there is always two sides to a debate. I’m sorry that Mike Spindell, has gotten his feelings hurt. Can’t tell you how many times mine have been, not only here, but in life.
    I don’t know 100% that thats Mike Spindell. I could put up a picture of Lavar Burton, who my children say I look like, post under his name but that doesn’t make him me.

    I do my best to respond, if I respond at all by saying ” Thanks for the Comment” whenever I feel that a personal attack has been lobbed my way. Matter of fact used it several times in this thread. I don’t call anyone a name such as they do me a birther or a troll, a racist, or any other name you want to throw in.

    I have and did cross the line when I lost my temper and made a bigoted remark to Mike. I’ve asked for forgiveness. Others here remind me of it, thats fine I made a despicable remark and will have to live with it. But thats what happens when people loose civility and call other people names.

    These names are definitions and personal attacks given to people that don’t agree with the others views. Basically saying shut up, your a troll, your a birther. I think if you had the time to read comments you would see who makes comments personal and who does not. Calling someone a birther or troll or idiot equals the same, name calling, and when you call someone a name you make it personal. Stop the name calling and you’ll be surprised at the civility.

  246. Mike Spindell 1, September 23, 2009 at 11:55 am

    Bdaman is a bigot, a troll and a pest, but I really don’t care if he’s banned or not. Trapping him into making my point was my real interest.

    And professor Turley I hope I made my point.

  247. Mike A,

    Off topic: The art closest to music is story telling, written, oral, or through plays\T.V.\Movies. The first movement of Symphonies is modeled after the classic form for essays, the terms for the various sections are even the same. Once I figured that out I started analyzing the forms of what I read like a piece of classical music. It made me really good at picking out themes. I’m also really good at guessing movie endings by 1\3 of the way through. There’s an a limited number of tales to be told, but infinite ways of telling them.

    The most beautifully structured thing I’ve read is actually “Canticle for Leibowitz,” the subtlety of the themes and the way they all tie together is just masterful.

  248. I will also add that if you do decide to ban me now or in the future. If my desire outweighs convenience, I or anyone else could simply go to a neighbors or the public library to continue posting. The question would be desire in my case.

  249. He who tries to control the definitions of an argument seek to control the argument yet some language remains precisely descriptive no matter how some may attempt to distort them into something they are not. Some thoughts and ergo some words are less abstracted from reality than others. This is a corollary to the idea that some words have intrinsic socially determined pre-loaded values.

    Let’s look at the terms.

    Bigot – Calling a Jew “Christ Killer” makes you a racist. By your own action.

    Score one for accuracy.

    Troll – You’ve admitted you are just a middle-man. Serving some others agenda with no concern for fact or law or anything other than your outcome based wishful thinking. That makes you a troll.

    Score two for accuracy.

    Pest – Determining how much one finds something or someone annoying is a critical factor in the term. I’ll call it subjective and unable to be scored – it goes in the “Technical” point column.

    So at the half, that score again is:

    Accurate: 2
    Inaccurate: 0
    Technical: 1

  250. “Calling someone a birther or troll or idiot equals the same, name calling, and when you call someone a name you make it personal.”

    When you called me a Christ Killer, you made it very personal and apologies can’t make up for what is obviously in your heart. Just as when someone uses the “N” word there can be no apology, because the mere use of the word shows the persons real feelings, rather than social camouflage.

    As for your specious feelings that you are being wrongly attacked for holding a point of view, that is also nonsense. When one gives equivalence to facts and to unsupportable viewpoints, they give those unsupportable viewpoints credibility that they don’t deserve. Time and again your birther claims have been demolished and/or proven to be rumor and lies. To accept you as having a legitimate viewpoint on this issue, is to give credence to the incredible and accept that the Taitz/Donofrio fantasy’s are anywhere equal to the facts of the matter.

    You have also made statements like “you can’t disprove rumor with opinions” which sum up the lack of credibility you have.
    You didn’t realize that you were admitting to spreading rumor in your posts and were thus oblivious to the implications of it. When this all began I was very civil to both you and Jim, but then I came to realize as the dialogue played out that you both were dishonest in your tactics. You two ignored the things that disproved your positions and/or simply moved on to other rumors.

    When one is faced with dishonest and disingenuous argument under the pretext of debate and dialogue, there is little choice but to play back the tactics used at those using them. Had you both been willing to engage in honest dialogue in the first place, we might have had a basis for discussion. Many such discussions occur here with a minimum of ruffled feelings despite profound disagreement. That only occurs though when both sides are earnestly engaged in presenting an honest point of view. In the case of both of you your collective posts show that this is not the case and that you prefer rumor to facts when making your uncredible arguments.

  251. Mike S.,

    Let’s put your last statement to a test. You said; “Time and again your birther claims have been demolished and/or proven to be rumor and lies.”

    I say the Lucas Smith Kenyan BC is a valid document. If you want to say that claim has “been demolished and/or proven to be rumor or lies”; please support your claim.

    This is just you and me. Man to man. Just you and I debating one piece of information. Here’s your chance to engage in honest debate, without vitriolic name-calling, and without a cheering section.

    Whenever your ready to support your claim, I’m ready.

  252. “This is just you and me. Man to man. Just you and I debating one piece of information.”

    Jimmy,
    What is this the macho appeal? I don’t even know you are a man. Vince has already disproven your claims and frankly I don’t want to take the time to look it up. I made my point long ago that you and bd just yearn to keep this going despite any proof that might be given and it is therefore unappealing to give you credence, or dignity by debating you.

    Now like the other tough guy above linking “Under My Thumb” in his delusional and preemptive claim of victory, you slugger will probably come back with a further macho denunciation of me, Which frankly will only make me laugh at you harder. It warms the cockles of my heart to see the obvious anger seething in you because you’re not being taken seriously. Unfortunately, you’ve produced nothing that merits serious discussion

  253. Quote above from the very grim—although not A Grimm—Fairy Tale
    _________________________________

    “But Foxy-woxy had made two bites at Cocky-locky, and when the first snap only hurt Cocky-locky, but didn’t kill him, he called out to Henny-penny. But she turned tail and off she ran home, so she never told the king the sky was a-falling.”
    __________________________________

    A fabled skeptic (or a skeptic of fables):

    However, were the King and all of the cacklin’ cluckers within his kingdom—including Henny-penny—harmed when the sky finally did fall?

    Epilog: If the sky falls in the King’s forest on top of the King and all of his loyal subjects and no one else observes it falling, did it—in fact—fall?

    Moral of the story: Never tell a long fairy-tale about a turned-tail hen when a parsimonious fable tells the tale.

  254. Mike S.,

    As you’ll notice, I don’t resort to “Mikey”.

    The purpose of my challenge was to expose you to JT.

    You don’t have a desire to engage in debate. In fact, you seem to avoid it at all costs. You, like a few others here, enjoy playing the role of the antagonist.

    At least no one can say I didn’t try.

  255. Mike Spindell,

    You are a much finer man by your adherence to verbal/written restraints against anonymous opponents.

  256. you slugger will probably come back with a further macho denunciation of me.

    Take some Pepto Bismol already, the belly aching has got to be killing you.

  257. ksdb Says:

    September 22, 2009 at 10:47 pm
    If you want to talk about breadcrumbs, Fukino’s statement seemed to be an intentional breadcrumb to indicate that Obama’s birth records were not the records that substantiate his claim of native birth. Whether it was her desire or the AG’s, the statement was worded to make a distinction between the vital records and the original birth certificate. IOW, she was towing the line for Obama by saying vital records confirm he was natural born, but sabotaging that claiming by saying she also stuck by her earlier statement about the original birth certificate. If the birth certificate was the vital record that verified him as NBC subject, there would have been no need to reference vital records (plural). Similarly, she could have the birth certificate AND other vital records prove his claim. Instead, it’s clear that these vital records are not original birth records. The question is how reliable these records are. Seems like a bold thing to do, but I would imagine the state of Hawaii assumed Obama might come clean by now??

    [Ed. The two conflicting statements are at the genesis of TerriK’s investigation. She nailed that right away and acted right away as she had already been investigating.]

  258. RR Says:

    September 23, 2009 at 1:40 am
    Leo,

    There’s two documents you want to get your hands on:

    1) Hawaii Att. Gen. Op. 84-14 – which provides for the alteration of only birth certificates (see referenced here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0015.htm ; this AG opinion is NOT where it should be: http://hawaii.gov/ag/main/publications/opinions/ )
    2) Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapter 117 (Title 11) of the Vital Statistics, Registration & Records Office – it will tell you the department policies as to how the older birth records are archived. It’s been under review for more than a year. If Chapter 117 is STILL under review, ask for the old Public Health Regulations Ch 8, 8A, and 8B of the Administrative Rules for the Vital Statistics, Registration & Records Office.

    Good luck!!!

    [Ed. This is why I’m taking time out of the day form writing the forthcoming report to read these comments. Thank you for these links. I didn’t have know about that opinion letter. I suppose we’ll have to ask them for it. The letters on the site don’t go back to 1984.]

  259. Why do I keep spreading so many specious claims?

    To keep people just like you informed. I’m on the clock. Tick Tock Tick Tock

    PSST not really, keep that to yourself, don’t want anybody to think I’m a troll/birther.

  260. BIRTHER at Sept 23, 2009 10:04 am says “The DOJ states that the proper venue to file a petition on information of quo warranto against the president is the District Court of the District of Columbia; yet you continue to claim that the court would lack jurisdiction.”

    The DOJ never said that in anything posted on this thread.

    Everybody, here is what the DOJ actually said:

    QUOTING DOJ] The authorizing statute for the District of Columbia sets forth a number of requirements, including a requirement that any quo warranto action be heard by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. See D.C. Code Sections 16-3501 through 16-3503. Indeed, Plaintiffs acknowledge this requirement in their pleading, but seek to have this Court ignore it because of their apparent dissatisfaction with the precedents in the District of Columbia. See FAC at 35-36. UNQUOTE DOJ

    Where does it say “quo warranto against the president”? Nowhere.

    This is an example of supporting an argument with vapor. What Justice said was that “any quo warranto action” must be heard by the District Court in D.C.

    It made a statement about any quo warranto. It NEVER said that a quo warranto against the President could be heard in that District Court, and it never will, because a quo warranto in that Court cannot lie against the President.

    Everybody, I keep repeating this, because the lesson is never learned.

    Once again. The statement that “DOJ states that the proper venue to file a petition on information of quo warranto against the president is the District Court of the District of Columbia” is false. DOJ never stated that. The words “against the president” are nowhere to be found in the DOJ filing. They never said that the writ could be filed against the president. They just said that any writ that was filed had to be filed in D.C.

    Here is the link to the Government’s Motion to Dismiss:
    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/keyes-barnett-v-obama-gov-motion-to-dismiss/

    And here is the complete text of the argument: QUOTE

    C. This Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Plaintiffs’ Quo Warranto Claims

    Plaintiffs appear to be seeking a writ in the nature of Quo Warranto from this Court to determine whether President Obama is lawfully qualified to be the President of the United States.

    “Quo Warranto is an ancient Writ used by the King of England to determine if an individual’s claim to an office or franchise is well founded. If the individual is found to be in unlawful possession of the office, the individual is ousted.”

    Jesinger v. Nevada Federal Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). The question of whether a quo warranto writ should issue in this case clearly involves non-justiciable political questions, as discussed above. In addition, Plaintiffs’ attempt to invoke the writ suffers from numerous serious flaws that preclude this Court’s jurisdiction. As the Supreme Court has long held, in the absence of an authorizing statute, a writ of quo warranto may not be brought by anyone other than the United States:

    “[G]eneral public interest is not sufficient to authorize a private citizen to institute such [Quo Warranto] proceedings; for if it was, then every citizen and every taxpayer would have the same interest and the same right to institute such proceedings, and a public officer might, from the beginning to the end of his term, be harassed with proceedings to try his title.”

    Newman v. U.S. ex rel., Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537, 548, 35 S.Ct. 881, 59 L.Ed.1446 (1915).

    The authorizing statute for the District of Columbia sets forth a number of requirements, including a requirement that any quo warranto action be heard by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. See D.C. Code Sections 16-3501 through 16-3503. Indeed, Plaintiffs acknowledge this requirement in their pleading, but seek to have this Court ignore it because of their apparent dissatisfaction with the precedents in the District of Columbia. See FAC at 35-36. 4

    4 Although California also has a quo warranto statute, that state statute cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court. Nor does it appear that this action meets the requirements set out therein, including, inter alia, that such action be brought by the attorney general. See Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. § 803 et seq.

    Accordingly, for all of the reasons set forth above, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in re Plaintiffs’ claims and causes of action purporting to sound in Quo Warranto. UNQUOTE

    Not a word to support the argument that DOJ said “the proper venue to file a petition on information of quo warranto against the president is the District Court of the District of Columbia.” Not a word to say the writ could be brought against the President.

    Not a word.

  261. Vince,

    Did you really just use what is stated on a blog as an authoritative source?

    The blog doesn’t point to a reliable source.

    I gave it two hours before I posted a comment. I wanted to see if any of your faithful followers had the courage to tell the emperor he had no clothes.

  262. Ooooooo…the troll is resorting to fancy tagging.

    Reduced to formatting tricks to get attention.

    Cry me a river indeed.

  263. Birther,
    The grandmother’s statement was already debunked,but of course you won’t accept the facts. By the way, I did not see anything improper in Buddha’s response. Here is one Salon article that debunks it:http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/07/23/liddy/ & from Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/23/2148/56759. I don’t expect you to actually read facts, but they are available to you if you have no other windmills to chase.

  264. Jimmy,

    You are an admitted propaganda troll. You can’t retract that any more than if you’d just waltzed in and said, “Hi, my name is Jim. I work for PNAC.” You are not here to win people over by your superior argument. You said so yourself. I’m pretty sure you’re fair game for me to apply a lot more heat to than I have been, ‘Lil Mini-Grendel. If any poster here has “TROLL” tattooed on their forehead, it’d be you you, sport.

    Mr. “You’re No Patriot”,
    Mr. “You’re A Liar”,
    Mr. “Argument from Ignorance”.

    Don’t lecture me about civility with your track record here, troll.

    I can wipe the floor with you any time I want. Demonstrated fact. If you can’t stand being called a witless troll and corporatist stooge then perhaps you shouldn’t act like one. Oh, that’s right. You’re proud of your job. You don’t think being a troll is a bad thing or you wouldn’t have admitted it now, would you Jimmyboy? You’re not so stupid as to make a statement against interest and not expect it return to haunt you any less than bdman’s blatant racist comments, did you?

    Tsk, tsk, tsk.

    Karma is a wheel. You shouldn’t have put that out in the world if you didn’t want to see it again. For an admitted propagandist, you display a remarkable lack of subtlety.

  265. Birther (or is it Jimmy?),
    You may want to read who those sites are quoting before you throw them out. I have to admit that you are probably worried that you won’t have anything to do if you admit to the facts. I am sorry to burst your bubble, but someone’s got to do it.

  266. My favorite part of this whole thing was when the guy who called someone a child molester complained when someone (in fact, the guy he accused of being a child molester) called him “Jimmy.”

    Or possibly when the guy who threatened to steal someone else’s identity acted like he had the higher moral ground because he was called a troll and a pest.

    But hey, you two just keep thinking you’re the reasonable ones here, and that we’re a bunch of meanies.

    Here by the grace of Turley go you.

  267. I’ll give JT until noon tomorrow to enforce his call for civility.

    If JT is going to permit Buddha’s silly games, I’ll be happy to take the gloves off.

  268. Vince Treacy @7:08PM

    “Everybody, I keep repeating this because the lesson is never learned.”

    Vince,

    Thank-you again for undertaking this sisyphean task of refuting the unending specious claims of the birthers!

    CCD & Buddha,

    I posted (what I thought was the very apropos) Tears for Fears “Badman’s Song” @10:57 which was when they were being especially nettlesome today; maybe if they did actually look in the mirror they would “Cry Me A River”.

    Rafflaw,

    Seconded!

    Gyges,

    Amen!

  269. CCD,

    I saw that too. Very cool indeed.

    That news offset the horrid commercial I saw the other night. It was for a drug that, gets this, helps you grow more eyelashes.

    Eyelashes.

    The side effects we’re nice and mild too. Like the possibility of permanent color change to the iris or possible (and possibly reversible!) darkening of the skin of the eyelids.

    While on a pure science level this is great news, let’s just say I’m skeptical as to how it will be deployed under the current business models.

  270. Birther, have you seen the recent reviews of Christopher Andersen’s new book, “Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage,” In part, it confirms what Jack Cashill has said all along. Wait til Oprah finds out she was rooked again.

  271. And just when you thought it was gonna go all away, I think it was all hexed with the release of the original statement on Halloween.

    Ladies and Gentleman you are now about to enter the “Twilight Zone”

    You Unlock This Door with A Key of Imagination

  272. Poorly Orly wants the info so she can TRY and file another amendment. Even I, must admit, Orly is Poorly in everything she does. I think I might even agree with this post.

    She is obviously a Russian “sleeper” agent sent to the U.S. to foment chaos. She is controlled by Putin through the reconstituted NKVD. As with the Cold War, the Russians were inept in their counter intelligence thrusts and sent an agent incapable of becoming a decent lawyer. All those who support Ms. Taitz are obviously unwitting traitors to their Country.

  273. Contemporary Ouroboros = more legal Birfoonery

    When you’re born you get a ticket to the freak show.
    When you’re born in America, you get a front row seat.
    — George Carlin

  274. Oh yes, that’s the ticket. The energy balances much better now.

    Orlyboros = more legal Birfoonery

    BIL your services are appreciated!

  275. VT:

    “This stuff is good:”
    _______________________________

    The payment/reward for your due diligence with 2 very long and tedious ‘Birffer’ threads is…laughter.

  276. CCD,

    Vanity thy name is writer. I’ll have to admit I’m rather proud of Orlyboros. I’ve coined a few words in my day but that one is dictionary quality if I do say so myself. Now if you’ll pardon me I have to go have my shoulder reset after that brisk patting of my own back.

  277. I have banned Birther for a month in light of the last entry which was deleted. I really do not see why we continue to have personal attacks back and forth. If someone is a suspected troll, please email me rather than engage in troll-baiting or name calling. The last entry forced my hand. He can return if he contacts me in a month and agrees to refrain from such entries in the future.

  278. “Vince,
    Did you really just use what is stated on a blog as an authoritative source?”

    Jimmy boy,

    you are truly the gift that keeps giving. Is it that you are abysmally stupid, or that you think people have short memories?
    Below I selected some quotes from you to illustrate what a hypocrite you are and how easily that is proven. Just like your phony claim that you were in the Armed Forces.

    Jimmy quote 1
    “Salon and The Daily Kos? ROTFLMAO
    Do you think you could have picked a more partisan source?”

    Jimmy quote 2
    “Did Obama’s grandmother say he was born in Kenya?
    Listen to audio! Witnesses contend interpreter tried to change her answer to ‘Hawaii’”

    Now interestingly enough the link in your second quote is from World Net Daily. Partisan source yes. Does Jimmy care when it suits his purposes……..er No!

    Jimmy quote 3
    “Vince,
    You are as dishonest as they come.”

    Jimmy quote 4
    “I’ll give JT until noon tomorrow to enforce his call for civility.”

    Jimmy boy’s quote 3 came out of nowhere, when halfway through this thread he slunk back to aid bd fight the loser’s cause. Vince hadn’t attacked him or even responded to him. In quote 4
    widdle Jimmy is threatening to go ballistic because Buddha called him rather gently on his shenanigans. He of course forgot his own calling me a child molester, a pretty foul charge, for which I provided a link to prove it baseless. He also forgets that with no basis in fact he called Buddha a lawyer disbarred in Kansas. Yet the poor little boy, overwhelmed by people destroying his silly, little arguments and calling him out for the liar he is, claims they are being uncivil.

    “If JT is going to permit Buddha’s silly games, I’ll be happy to take the gloves off.”

    Jimmy boy, go right ahead and as usual you will get smashed in the process. Why? Because you simply don’t have the intelligence,
    or wit, to be able to take on anyone with half a brain, as shown above. Little birther boy your tactics were used for 8 years by the Bush/Cheney Crime Family, its’ Republican Auxilliary and the media whores who support them. The technique of accusing your opponent of what you yourself are doing has grown old. It relied on a whorish and docile media to forget the truth that was on the public record. Blogs like this have changed the game and incompetent little you picked an especially intelligent place to try to show off your rather puny skill set.

    Going back through the more than 400 posts on this thread yields a pattern. You hid your face in shame after being destroyed on the other thread. The load was carried by the badman for almost half this thread and he is really incapable of carrying any load requiring logic or honesty. When it really broke down for him, you returned slinging vitriol. The pattern also show he’s the one supplying the links, whereas for the most part until the one above you refuse to, telling Vince that you didn’t want to assist in his case. LOL.

    Thank you Jimmy for all the pleasure I get watching you disintegrate before my eyes. However, it is becoming more apparent that you are probably getting paid for this, in fact I hope you are, since you have to undergo such humiliation in this process. Perhaps, you two are a team, or merely one inept person with two IP’s. In any event it is obvious who you two are, all that is unknown is your price.

  279. I agree. I read the post before it was deleted. There is absolutely no reason why our gracious host, Professor Turley, should have accept such abuse at the blog that he maintains and allow it to remain posted.

    Let us all get back to discussions of legal and public issues, without the personal exchanges.

  280. JT,
    Oops, I seem to keep posting almost exactly when you are writing and in this case making my own effort unneeded. Perhaps my last post can be constructive as to the technique of attack being used, if not, in the words of Emily Litella: Never mind.

  281. Speaking of the birth issue, for a good laugh, take a look at Orly’s latest site. She now describes how she will track down Obama supporters and expose them:

    “Meet Obama supporters and fundraisers: what they write to me and how we track them down and expose them,” Posted on September 24, 2009:
    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=4476

    Be afraid. Be very afraid. Help me, help me!

  282. Bdaman has yet another cut and paste without quotation marks or source. It seems to come from Leo’s site, but when and where? This does not help to move the discussion forward.

    On the substantive issue, Leo and Miss Tickly [huh?] seem to argue that the state official used the words “vital records” in the plural, not “vital record” in the singular, and THEREFORE the records were amended.

    That is an incredible illogical leap. There is nothing in the phrase “vital records” that implies that the records were amended.

    They are spinning their wheels in the sands of sunny Hawaiian beaches on this one.

  283. Each time the Ax swings another chip of wood fly’s out.

    President Obama’s “safe schools czar” is a former schoolteacher who has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, written about his past drug abuse, expressed his contempt for religion and detailed an incident in which he did not report an underage student who told him he was having sex with older men.

    Rumor has it Briepart is working on his next expose, connecting the dots between the president, factcheck and politifact. Wonder what thats all about. Things that make you go Hummm.

    Annenberg Political Factcheck -> Annenberg Public Policy Center – > Annenberg Foundation – > Chicago Annenberg Challenge -> Obama & Ayers.

    “Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage”

  284. Not only is the song and title more appropriate than “Poker Face” (snicker), the album by Eagles was named after when your birther arguments will succeed.

    Enjoy.

  285. Bdaman has yet another cut and paste without quotation marks or source

    I have just spoken with my source.
    My source has indicated that he wishes to remain anonymous. He doesn’t want his identity revealed.

  286. Of course he does. Yeti are reclusive mountain creatures. Have him drop off the evidence if he can borrow the UFO from Elvis. Landing in Central Park and walking it over to a major news outlet shouldn’t cause too much of a stir. They’ve seen it all in NYC after all. Incredible claims require credible proof, not appeals to imagined authority, bdatroll.

  287. Hey folks,

    Let’s try to remind each other in a friendly manner that when we see an obnoxious post to never respond to it again and then send an e-mail to Professor Turley, per his request. This seems like the fairest *after-post* moderation available. I like his method.

    Thanks

    Bdaman,

    Keep posting; however, please mind the deep end…

  288. bdaman,

    You were completely called out again by Vince @11:49 with supporting evidence and source of your misrepresentations; and your response is to just cut & paste the same junk again.

    I don’t get it, do you not have a conscience?

    P.S. Thank-you, again Vince!

  289. CEJ:
    You’re not the only one who doesn’t get it, I don’t either.

    Bdaman
    1, September 24, 2009 at 9:09 am
    Poorly Orly wants the info so she can TRY and file another amendment. Even I, must admit, Orly is Poorly in everything she does. I think I might even agree with this post.

    She is obviously a Russian “sleeper” agent sent to the U.S. to foment chaos. She is controlled by Putin through the reconstituted NKVD. As with the Cold War, the Russians were inept in their counter intelligence thrusts and sent an agent incapable of becoming a decent lawyer. All those who support Ms. Taitz are obviously unwitting traitors to their Country.

    The second paragraph was written and posted by Mike Spindell
    on September 17, 2009 at 11:08 am.

    Bdaman:
    What are you informing us of with these two replies?:

    DUH Luke Skywalker, may the force be with you.

    Oh and thanks for posting it again

  290. Donofrio’s reasoning [pasted up without attribution again at l2:05] is patently wrong.

    He concedes that the request for a COLB in 2007 was “absolutely supposed to become part of his file.” So the addition of the request for COLB, and by implication the COLB itself, meant that the file HAD to have more than a single record.

    It would have been perfectly reasonable for the official to examine the request and COLB, as well as any and all other record sin the file, to make sure that ALL records showed that Obama was born in Hawaii. She certified that the records showed that he was born in Hawaii.

    There is no basis for any implication that the records were necessarily amended. Leo is assuming that part of his argument without logic or evidence.

    He is assuming what he has to prove.

    That is always a bad move for a lawyer.

  291. Keep posting; however, please mind the deep end

    No problem FFLEO, allow me to say sir you seem to be a fair and honest man. “Even Keeled” in yachts man terms. I assume this was part of your trainning as a Federal Agent. I’m quite familiar with the type and I’m sure in your many years of service your familiar with the phrase, “It takes all types”.

    One of the many things I’ve done, be it in investigations or just doing my job, I have detailed here somewhere within this blog a part of my past. You answered a question the other day that made me think of that detail. Seeing how I have since revealed it I’ll amend it here, that is if it hasn’t already been deleted.

    Not interested, stop reading.

    Moving goods for services across the country by interstate, required me to make all stops at all Federal DOT facilities. I got the red light more often then the green. At these stops I trained myself to become quickly familiar with procedure. With the question of race being always in the back of my mind, you learn very quickly how far openness and transparency will get you. Remember that slogan. They stopped using it when they dropped the War on Terror and switched to Overseas Contingency Plan, then got no plan for the War in Afganistan.

    40,000 brave women and men may have to make a commitment here real soon, when they here, Report to Base. Some of these men, and as we just saw, women, are gonna have cold feet, and I don’t blame’em, trust me, there are some very nasty people over there. Canada, I quess they could go there, Mexico, if you look right.

    The last thing a soldiers need is doubt. The birds away sir, when the president says, sit on that report while I contemplate what I do, no ones mining the store. This matter needs to be settled, being pinned down and screaming, what the fuck am I doin, I don’t even know whether the guys the president, may not be worth dyin for.

  292. But if you’d like to encourage soldiers to not take lawful orders from the lawfully elected President of the United State – who is a citizen by all standards of proof and argument presented to date, I’m sure somewhere along the line you too, bdarube, can be like Orly and piss of a judge bad enough for it to cost you $10,000.

    That’s not what you are suggesting, is it? That soldiers of the volunteer military flee the country rather than report to duty as ordered by their CIC?

    What are you trying to do?

    Help our enemies?

    Color me curious.

  293. Make fun, I see, solve it that way. Well, I quess funny would be the flip side. Die you dirty American HAHAH you don’t even know if he’s your president. He is one of us. ALA AKBAR

  294. you too, bdarube, can be like Orly and piss of a judge bad enough for it to cost you $10,000.

    What is abdarube, what ever it is it feels like a poke in the ribs.

    It’s not about money, it’s about lives, innocent civilians. Be it the last administration or this one, how many have there been. Go ahead make fun what do you care, your sittin fat and happy, aint gonna effect you one way or the other, what do you care.

  295. bda,

    That was a serious question asked in a mocking manner. And I’ve defined rube for you once. Do your own homework.

    What are you trying to do exactly? Endanger troops expecting re-enforcements that won’t be coming because they took your false doubts to heart and fled the country in the face of a legal order to deploy?

    That’s what it seems like to me.

  296. Sir, I am not but that does not change any affiliation that I’ve had with the military.

    Backround
    Father- WWII/ Korea
    Uncle -Gorilla, U.S. Army, battle of Batton/survivor of the Death March
    Brother United States Airforce/retired

    My location approaching 50 – 3 U.S. Naval Facilities 2 Federal/Training and 1 Nuclear, most residents military or retired military.

  297. To put it this way sir, it is not uncommon to receive a U.S. Government letter requesting additional info on one of my neighbors. They are typically neighbors for about two years.

  298. Then in their honor might I make the following suggestion.

    If you have doubts personally, that’s all well and good, but since your arguments could be misconstrued as advocating just such behavior as described above and out of respect for the service of those who went before, that you concede the birther argument to Vince. Keep your irrational belief if you must, but in spreading that meme you do present a hazard to the clear thinking of our troops in training.

    Don’t encourage bad decisions in present and future soldiers based on your discredited stance no matter what your personal reason for maintaining it. End the charade in their honor. With honor.

    Concede.

    Leave this field of battle with that shred of your own honor in tact.

  299. Then I suggest your orders are not in the best interest of the nation and you should file for conscientious objector status.

    Or reveal the true name of your employer rather than let the implication be that you somehow have military endorsement to endanger troops.

  300. Then can you explain why any at this blog should continue to engage you to deflate your admittedly specious claim? Why should we take you seriously as anything but a propaganda hack? An object of abject ridicule in any group of free thinkers let alone the wild bunch that frequent this saloon.

    But again, you suggest you have military sanction for putting lives in harms way by encouraging illegal acts.

    This is a serious claim and a claim of a serious crime. If you should maintain this stance, it would be incumbent upon the military justice system to investigate your actual identity and relationships at this point. As a matter of duty.

    Strictly business.

  301. Budha:

    “Then can you explain why any at this blog should continue to engage you to deflate your admittedly specious claim? Why should we take you seriously as anything but a propaganda hack? An object of abject ridicule in any group of free thinkers let alone the wild bunch that frequent this saloon.”

    *****************

    After hearing all of this, the words of Thomas Payne keep ringing in my head:

    “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”

  302. Sir last time I checked I thought it was you engaging me and not the blog.

    Sir exactly who is the person or persons to which I have encouraged.

    Sir your free to report me to the Federal Authorities at anytime.

    I trained myself to become quickly familiar with procedure. With the question of race being always in the back of my mind, you learn very quickly how far openness and transparency will get you.

  303. bda,

    I am trained to find patterns. I am a logician above all.

    And I don’t have to report Jack Schitt. Ever hear of Carnivore and Echelon? There are computers much better at me at pattern recognition chugging away this very minute, roving over the internet looking for key words and suspicious patterns. I know. I’ve been in the building where they are housed, just not on the same floor.

    I’ve simply helped amplify your signal as a potential trouble maker.

    But I wouldn’t worry.

    It’s not like the government would be purposefully monitoring the blog of one of the most famous Constitutional scholars on the planet.

    Is it.

  304. Hey mister bee da man, play a song for me,
    I’m not sleepy and there is no place I’m going to.

    Hey mister bee da man, play a song for me,
    In the jingle jangle morning, I’ll come following you.

    Wait for 1:30 minute mark.

  305. FFLEO it’s ironic that it was you who just brought out the serious side in me. Federal Agents seem to do that when engaged, and sometimes they turn out to be serious situations. I hope all is well with you and your family. The last few days posting here has convinced me that my time may well be better spent elsewhere. Sir, I thank you for your service to Country and thanks for reminding how to be Civil and Respectful. I hope there will be solutions in the near future to the problems facing this country.

    See you on the beach, whoop

  306. Bdaman,

    Good luck. You helped add substantive length to 2 major threads and I learned from some of the exchanges.

    I have conceded many times in my life and often it is the wisest course. Remember, a concession does not necessarily equal a defeat or I would clearly be a defeated man.

  307. For God For Country,

    It’s a good thing that an amicus brief has all the power of a tissue in a hurricane. It’s also nice to know that Sen. Lindsey Graham thinks that violating the Constitution can be done because a couple of grunts agree with his fascist agenda.

    Pop! Fizzzzzzzz.

    Thanks for revealing your employer.

  308. Way up above, on September 18, 2009 at 9:04 am, I wrote that Donofrio suggested interrogatories to Members of Congress and Vice President Cheney on the counting of the Electoral Votes.

    Well, Orly Taitz is now preparing for an October 5 hearing on her case before Judge Carter. How about Leo’s suggestion, Orly?

    [Quote on] In regards to Leo Donofrio’s suggestion to send interrogatories to the whole Congress and Senate. I asked Leo, if he can practically help doing that, but he stated that he can’t. [unquote] http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=4479

    Orly has had the old Donofrio rug pulled out from under her. Very embarrassing.

    I noted elsewhere, up above, that interrogatories and depositions of the Members and Cheney would have been a blatant violation of Speech or Debate Clause immunity, and would never have been allowed, September 22, 2009 at 8:55 am, September 22, 2009 at 1:03 pm, and September 23, 2009 at 8:58 am.

    So Leo’s suggestion was totally unconstitutional. His cold shoulder to Orly may indicate that he no may longer see any merit in it.

    The famed gambler has decided to cut his losses and toss in his cards on this particular poker hand.

  309. So bdaman and Jimmy B retire from the field and suddenly “for God and country” shows up? I wish that I could believe in coincidence, but the skeptic in me can’t. This group of trolls just needs to perpetuate itself at all costs, or at the cost of their paymaster. Anyone think it’s high time we just ignore them?

  310. BIL, the brief describes Lindsey Graham as a Colonel in the Reserves.

    This is in clear violation of Article I, section 6, of the Constitution, which provides that “no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuancy in Office.”

  311. So bdaman and Jimmy B retire from the field and suddenly “for God and country” shows up? I wish that I could believe in coincidence, but the skeptic in me can’t. –Mike Spindell

    Yes agreed, the tag team timing is analogous to substitutions in sports.

    Anyone think it’s high time we just ignore them? –Mike Spindell

    That would be a trick. From the site that doesn’t suffer fools?
    What would be the criteria be for allowing counter points to go unexplored? The same as it is now, on a personnel basis, thread by thread post by post?

    John Milton also argued that if the facts are laid bare, truth will defeat falsehood in open competition, but this cannot be left for a single individual to determine. According to Milton, it is up to each individual to uncover their own truth; no one is wise enough to act as a censor for all individuals.– from Wiki

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

    Smell blood, whispered the pilot fish?

  312. The topic is discussed in a through manner. I say there is no harm in letting those wishing to discuss birther issues in the future be referred to this and the Major General thread as definitive and then letting them stew in it. The readers intrepid enough to follow all of both threads and honest enough to admit the truth of issues cannot come to any other conclusion than Vince is the victor. The truth will out. And that truth is the trolls were made to yell “Uncle!” In my opinion, feeding the trolls on this bait no longer serves any purpose but lend them credence as their defeat as it stands is most resounding. Now they are just flinging crap at the walls to see if they can make anything stick. Desperate tactics from the defeated.

  313. This is from the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION, in the case of
    CAPTAIN PAMELA BARNETT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BARACK H. OBAMA, et al., Defendants.

    From the Government’s Reply Memo to Attorney Gary Kreep:

    QUOTE Finally, the arguments made by these Plaintiffs, in large measure, completely ignore the fact that Barack Obama is the President of the United States and seek to treat him as simply a candidate for the Office. Try as they might, Plaintiffs cannot conceal the fact that what they are really seeking in this case is nothing less than a determination by this United States District Court that President Obama should be removed from Office. No single United States District Court has the power to try the question of whether a sitting President of the United States should be allowed to remain in Office. As previously set forth in Defendants’ Motion, Plaintiffs have presented a non-justiciable political question, committed by the very text of the Constitution to Congress, which cannot be litigated in this, or any other court. See Motion to Dismiss at pages 15-16, and cases cited therein.

    As set forth in Defendants’ Reply Memorandum To The Opposition Filed By All Plaintiffs, Except Drake And Robinson (simultaneously being filed herewith) if this Court were to hold that it had the power to try the question of whether a sitting President of the United States is fit or qualified to remain in Office, or whether he should be removed from Office, the political life of this country would be exposed to chaos. If a court did have such power, anyone with a political agenda and a filing fee, could file an action or, indeed, multiple actions in any one of the 93 Judicial Districts in the United States, alleging, for various legal or factual reasons, that the President was not fit to continue to serve. Such cases could subject the President to a barrage of discovery, and other pre-trial proceedings, not to mention trial in multiple districts throughout the United States. Moreover, where, as here, multiple cases in multiple districts throughout the United States seek adjudication of the same allegations regarding the fitness and qualifications of the President to continue to serve in Office, the danger of conflicting judgments from such courts is obvious.

    In short, a holding that cases such as this are justiciable would create a virtual engine of destruction of our Constitutional system of separation of powers, and of the ability of the President to effectively function. UNQUOTE

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/keyesbarnett-v-obama-doc-73-defendants%E2%80%99-reply-memorandum-to-opposition-filed-by-plaintiffs-drake-and-robinson/

    This is very well stated. No single District Court has the power to try the question whether a President should remain in office. As argued above in this and other threads, that power was committed to the House and the Senate in the text of the Constitution granting Congress the sole power of impeachment and removal of the President.

  314. Here is an editorial written by Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memorandum (TPM) on their excellent ongoing coverage of the birthers:

    QUOTE
    A Fool and His Money
    Josh Marshall | September 25, 2009, 11:19PM

    Gary Kreep

    After we published our story about the new ‘birther’ informercial running in a number of local TV markets in the South, a reader wrote in to say: Hey, it’s not funny. This is a deliberate and shameful effort to denigrate and erode people’s belief in the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency.

    I was taken aback a bit at first. Because I agree. The mix of nihilism, know-nothingism and racism fueling the birther movement is shocking to behold. But as to funny or shameful, my only quibble is that I’m not sure we have to choose. And it turns out there’s a third option.

    You don’t have to look to hard at the informercial to see that while it may be shameful and it may be funny, it pretty clearly looks like an effort to separate a lot of hyped-up birther rubes from their money, quite possibly to pad the wallets of those in the rube hyping business. First of all, the pitch in the informercial is that for a mere $30 you will receive a birther bumper sticker and your name added to a spam fax sent to the Justice Department and the 50 state attorneys general.

    But that’s not the only reason.

    The guy at the center of the informercial is a California lawyer named Gary Kreep, the head of something called the United States Justice Foundation. But it turns out this is not the first time TPMmuckraker has come across the work of the aptly named Kreep.

    Back in March 2008 we found him running a robocall operation called the Republican Majority Campaign, then running a scattershot campaign of robocalls against both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The RMC also seemed awfully similar to and had a lot of weird connections to those bogus groups has-been Republican luminary Linda Chavez and her husband had recently been discovered running — the ones that actually did little to nothing in the way of political work but provided Chavez and her family a steady income. UNQUOTE

    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/09/a_fool_and_his_money.php#more?ref=fpblg

  315. FGFC asks, “Does Fukino’s & Okubo’s silence indicate they believe Obama has committed a crime?”

    Answer: “No.”

    Next question.

    The reason at the link provided is moronic in the extreme. They argue that [quote]“Fukino and Okubo are refraining from releasing the information for the following reason, mentioned in the same section:

    (b) The following are examples of information in which the individual has a significant privacy interest:

    (2) Information identifiable as part of an investigation into a possible violation of criminal law, except to the extent that disclosure is necessary to prosecute the violation or to continue the investigation;” [unquote]

    They go on to say “Hence, it seems only reasonable that if Dr. Fukino and Janice Okubo have a rational basis in Hawaiian Law for not releasing to the general public the information which regards Fukino’s public statements, it can only be that they understand the information would lead to the prosecution of Barack Obama for some sort of crime.”

    Please follow the skid marks at this argument goes off the highway and over the cliff into the ocean.

    Since ONE reason [OF MANY] for not releasing information COULD be that SOMEONE might be prosecuted for a crime, THEREFORE the officials are not releasing it BECAUSE is would lead to the prosecution of the President for a crime.

    That is a ridiculous argument. Nothing of the sort follows from their premise.

    But the headline alone is enough to create yet another birther myth for the internet.

    Appalling.

  316. A friend read the BIRTHER postings up above and asked me “what’s a “troll”?

    My answer was “An anonymous poster who cuts and copies stuff from the web, usually without attribution or links, and pastes it up on the blog.”

    I then found that wiki says: “In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”

    Wiki relates this to the saying “Do not feed the troll.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

    So enter a new troll, FGFC, from under the bridge stage right.

  317. Funny, a friend of mine saw the BIRTHER postings and asked me “what’s a liar?”. I told him “Somebody who claims that the question “what’s a troll?” came from reading the BIRTHER postings.

    You see, none of the postings left by BIRTHER contain the word “troll”, therefore it can be resonably deduced that the question of “what’s a troll?” had to come from reading the postings of someone other than BIRTHER.

  318. According to South Dakota’s senior Senator, Tim Johnson, court rulings and historical documentation no longer have ‘Standing” to interpret our laws, the lame steam media & liberal leftist internet sites are charge of these duties now.

    Yep, you read that right and I am just beside myself at this point after reading the latest correspondence/political rhetoric from Johnson’s office. No where did they even attempt to address/refute the historical references I provided them with proper corresponding historical/factual findings.

    Nope, Na Da, go away sucker because we are ABOVE the rule of law and you can’t touch us.

    Well, sorry to burst their bubble, as I did in an immediate phone call to his office, but they can not continue to make claims without factual, historical references to back their claims and they have been called on their ineptness in upholding the Constitution & the Rule of Law.

    In ALL of my correspondence, I supplied Sen. Johnson & his staff with congressional records & numerous hitoricaldocuments along with Supreme Court Justice opinions and commentaryand this is what they come back at me with:

    “Thank you for contacting me regarding Internet rumors, I appreciate hearing from you.”

    after I sent him this:

    But, even if he had renounced those citizenships when he came of age in 1979, under the definition, he could have never held any other US citizenship, other than that of, “citizen by way of birth on the soil only” under the 14th Amendment which we will get to shortly.

    Citizenship at birth can never be changed. History and research are very clear on this point. However, the actions of the person once they become of age, come into play as to qualifications for any elected office, thus the reason for the 14 year requirement in Article II, Section 1, Clause V.

    Thus we are back to: “Why BHO aka BHS cannot be a “natural born” citizen under the 14th Amendment”.

    Historical Fact #6: According to the US Legislature, the definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else”. Therefore, that rule prevents us from interpreting “natural born” under the 14thAmendment because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance. Remember, BHO aka BHS held dual allegiances at birth. He, himself has publically acknowledged the fact that his father was a British Subject at the time of BHO’s birth, therefore he, himself was also a British subject at birth.

    The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendments first section was to end the denial of those fundamental rights that belong to all citizens by virtue of their citizenship under Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, it was imperative to first define citizenship of the United States. Otherwise, a State could refuse to recognize newly emancipated slaves as citizens by withholding the right to sue, make contracts, due process, purchase property, etc. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment acts to recognize all persons naturalized or born to citizens of the United States as citizens.

    The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (elected as a Whig to the Twenty-seventh Congress (March 4, 1841-March 3, 1843); elected as a Republican to the United States Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Kinsley S. Bingham; reelected in 1865 and served from January 17, 1862, to March 3, 1871), said during the drafting:

    “The word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the Executive, or by the Judicial Department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States.”

    In 1866, under Sec. 1992 of the revised statutes, the same Congress confirmed and adopted as law the principle in regards to determining citizenship at the time of birth:

    “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be “citizens” of the United States.”[note the word citizen, not “natural born citizen”]

    Essentially, what this means is that in order to be a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, one must renounce any other allegiances so that their US citizenship is solely under the “jurisdiction” of the United States. In fact, controversy at the time due to dual allegiances was so great that Congress, in a joint congressional report on June 22, 1874 said:

    “The United States have not recognized double allegiance”

    Rep. Bingham commenting on Sec. 1992 said during debate on the difference between ‘natural born” and ‘born” citizenships under the 14th Amendment:

    “It means every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of “parents” [emphasis plural] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of our Constitution itself, a “natural born” citizen.”

    Then, Sen. Johnson & his staff conveniently leave out the fact that just last year, the Senate voted unanimously that it took 2 American parents for a citizen to be natural born. Atleast, that is what they said when that determined McCain eligible when they passed Senate Resolution 511. And they also did not go to the DOJ as many Senators & Congressmen have claimed. Read the Senate committee minutes for yourself. They went to director of Homeland Security, Chertoff for their interpretation as to NBC:

    Mr Leahy speaking: Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. I recently asked Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, a former Federal judge…

    I ask, what was their problem in going to the current DOJ? Why would they use a Homeland Security director to interpret the law?

    But more importantly, why now, all of a sudden when it comes to interpreting Obama’s eligibility one only needs 1 parent to be American? Geez, will they make up their minds already!

    They also cast aside that pesky ’subject to the jurisdiction’ clause of American citizenship under the 14th Amendment which would require birth to be on US soil.

    Senator Johnson & his staff have a lot of explaining to do to try and dig their way out of this one and I will be waiting patiently for their reply to my many questions that are now in their hands.

    Also, I am confident that I can now conclude that to Senator Johnson, our blessed Constitution is nothing more than an Internet rumor to be cast aside and having no relevance to our laws today. He obviously sides with Bush’s interpretation of it a few years back when he called it:

    “Just a GD piece of paper”

  319. I think Vince meant “the Birther postings” as reference to the whole thread and not to your specific posts “Birther” but thanks for the confirmation of your identity!

  320. Buddha said; “Hiding ones true name is the first trick a demon learns.”

    Is your true name “Buddha is Laughing”, or are you a demon?

    I guess we could say your statement is self-explanatory.

  321. “For God For Country”

    Phony patriotism is the first sign of a fraud, jimmy/bd. You know what a fraud is don’t you? Someone who claims military service when they’ve never been in. Someone who claims to be black in order to appear to bemore credible in denigrating the President. Someone who threatens to take revenge on the identity of someone who disagrees with them.

    Now through all the inane/lame argument, through all the lies and through all the vitriol trying to hide the racist, anti-American basis of you phony attacks comes one true statement:

    “You see, none of the postings left by BIRTHER contain the word “troll.””

    This is totally true, but if you think it is prescient it merely exposes your total ignorance and/or incompetence. He/she never used the word troll because she/he was the troll being referred to.

    As Vince provided:

    “I then found that wiki says: “In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”

    I delight in the fact that through my small efforts the tables got turned on you all and in your “emotional responses” and your general ineptitude you unmasked yourselves. Getting a new handle and IP address doesn’t change the facts that you all are dumb losers and/or paid whores.

    Silly rabbits.

  322. AY,
    You are hardly a slut, or whore, in my opiniont. I would refer to you as a valuable member of JT’s gang, but perhaps he wouldn’t want the term gang used in conjunction with his work.
    CABAL is too sinister, but a valued newcomer Elaine M. used “think tank” and I like the sound of that.

  323. FGFC [quote] in 1866, under Sec. 1992 of the revised statutes, the same Congress confirmed and adopted as law the principle in regards to determining citizenship at the time of birth:

    “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be “citizens” of the United States.” [unquote]

    One more time.

    The words “and not subject to any foreign power” were left OUT of the 14th Amendment. They were not included in the text of that amendment. Congress had considered the words two months earlier but declined to include them. Bingham was NOT talking about the 14th Amendment, but about the Civil Rights act.

    You cannot read a provision back into the 14th Amendment after Congress expressly declined to include it.

    The words in the 14th Amendment are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The framers of the Amendment and the Supreme Court agreed that these words excluded only the children of diplomatic personnel and of hostile occupying forces. Congress later included Indians as citizens by statute.

    There is no support for the “dualist” idea that a person who is born in the United States, but has a parent who is a citizen of another country, is not a natural born citizen. See Wong Kim Ark. The idea that there are “born” citizen who are not “natural born” originated in 2008 after Obama proved he was born in Hawaii.

    [FGFC, someone asked me about trolls in a private email, after reading the post that barred birther. As far as I am concerned, you are not a troll, since you seem to be posting your own arguments, not cut and paste. Welcome to the blog].

  324. According to Mr. Treacy, should Congress decide to violate the Constitution, it would be the responsibility of that same Congress to make that determination.

    This would place Congress above the law, should they decide they want to be.

    Does Congress have the authority to perform an unconstitutional act? According to Mr. Treacy, yes.

    This is not a durable assumption. While it is true that the courts are without jurisdiction to interfere with the discretionary powers of Congress, the courts, as the branch designated to make the final determination of “what the law is”, would be acting fully within their power to address a constitutional prohibition.

    The SCOTUS holding in Newman recognizes that;

    The Revised Statutes declare that the District of Columbia shall be the seat of government, and “all offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia.” The Code (§ 1538(1)) provides that the supreme court shall have jurisdiction to grant quo warranto “against a person who unlawfully holds or exercises within the District a . . . public office, civil or military.” It was probably because of this fact that national officers might be involved that the Attorney General of the United States was given power to institute such proceedings, instead of leaving that power to the District Attorney alone, as would probably have been the case if only District officers were referred to in the Code.

    Manifestly, Congress did not intend that all these officers attached to the executive branch of the government at Washington should be subject to attacks by persons who had no claim on the office, no right in the office, and no interest which was different from that of every other citizen and taxpayer of the United States.

    This fact also shows that §§ 1538-1540 of the District Code, in proper cases, instituted by proper officers or persons, may be enforceable against national officers of the United States. The sections are therefore to be treated as general laws of the United States, not as mere local laws of the District.”

    The Constitution of the United States,Art. III, Section 2 declares, “[T]he judicial power of the United States’ shall extend to all cases arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and the treaties made under their authority”. Congress created the inferior court, and provided that court with jurisdiction.

  325. Mike Appleton and I have thoroughly discussed the quo warranto theory above and on other threads. It does not apply to National Officers, Judges and Justice, and Members of Congress. Impeachment is the sole power of removal for National Offiers and Judges, and Expulsion for Members of Congress and Senators.
    We have been through this with birther. Please refer to those postings.

    Still no response to the fact that “not subject to any foreign power” is not in the Constitution.

  326. “FGFC, someone asked me about trolls in a private email, after reading the post that barred birther. As far as I am concerned, you are not a troll, since you seem to be posting your own arguments, not cut and paste. Welcome to the blog.”

    Vince,
    As I’ve said before you’re a better man than I am and I mean that sincerely.

  327. “CABAL is too sinister, but a valued newcomer Elaine M. used “think tank” and I like the sound of that.”

    AEI is a “think tank”. That leaves a bit of a nasty aftertaste to me anyway. I still like the word “Salon”.

    Or perhaps “JT’s Thought-a-palooza”.

  328. I was just wondering if any of these alleged birther ‘purists’ could tell me where Cheney resided during the 2000 election. Was it Texas or Wyoming and what amendment made the residences of Bush and Cheney’s so important?

    Ya know what, I’ll just venture a guess that these alleged constitutional purists neither know the answer nor showed any more concern than when SCOTUS breached Article IV and the separation of powers doctrine by taking a non-justiciable case and using it to appoint a president.

    But should a black man born in Hawaii ever become president… well, “How dare that boy.” Right?

    Right.

  329. Sorry, FGFC. The “national officers” the Court referred to in Newman were officers of the federal government appointed by the President. The “National Officers” I referred to were the President and the Vice President.

    The officer in the case, Newman, was one of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, not the President or Vice President. The Court noted that the writ also applied officers of the United States Government as well as of the District of Columbia Government. For this reason, the Attorney General has to initiate the writ.

    If the AG refused, an interested person could apply for the writ, but he had to be someone with a claim to the office, not a third party bystander. Since Frizell was just a DC citizen and taxpayer with no claim to the office, he could not apply for the writ.

    So nothing in Newman supports the use of the writ against the President or Vice President, who are elected constitutional national officers, not appointed national officers. The case applied to an officer appointed by the President and removable by the President.

    The President and Vice President are not appointed. They are elected. The term is four years. They are not like appointed officers, who are removable by the appointing power. Their removal is specified by the Constitution – impeachment. The sole power of impeachment is in the House. There is no other procedure for removal in the Constitution.

    The framers provided that the people elect a President by means of the Electoral College. The removal of the President is reserved to the Representatives of the people elected to Congress. The framers never granted the power of removal to any court. Since removal is committed to Congress by the text of the Constitution, the issue is nonjusticiable.

    If you don’t like that, amend the Constitution.

    [quote] The President has the power of removal, and there have been few, if any, cases brought to test the title of federal offices. But such cases might arise as to statutory officers attached to the seat of government, and if they did, the Supreme Court of the District could exercise quo warranto jurisdiction, as it now does in cases of mandamus and injunction against appointed federal officers who perform duties in Washington. This appears from comparing the provisions of Rev.Stat. §§ 1795 and 1796 with § 1538(1) of the District Code. The Revised Statutes declare that the District of Columbia shall be the seat of government, and “all offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia.” The Code (§ 1538(1)) provides that the supreme court shall have jurisdiction to grant quo warranto “against a person who unlawfully holds or exercises within the District a . . . public office, civil or military.” It was probably because of this fact that national officers might be involved that the Attorney General of the United States was given power to institute such proceedings, instead of leaving that power to the District Attorney alone, as would probably have been the case if only District officers were referred to in the Code.

    Manifestly, Congress did not intend that all these officers attached to the executive branch of the government at Washington should be subject to attacks by persons who had no claim on the office, no right in the office, and no interest which was different from that of every other citizen and taxpayer of the United States.

    9. This fact also shows that §§ 1538-1540 of the District Code, in proper cases, instituted by proper officers or persons, may be enforceable against national officers of the United States. The sections are therefore to be treated as general laws of the United States, not as mere local laws of the District. Being a law of general operation, it can be reviewed on writ of error from this Court. American Co. v. Commissioners of the District, 224 U. S. 491; McGowan v. Parish, 228 U. S. 317. [unquote]

    The case is Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915), and the text is at:

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/238/537/case.html

  330. FGFC “Then, Sen. Johnson & his staff conveniently leave out the fact that just last year, the Senate voted unanimously that it took 2 American parents for a citizen to be natural born. At least, that is what they said when that determined McCain eligible when they passed Senate Resolution 511.”

    The Senate referred to two parents BECAUSE MCCAIN WAS BORN OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

    Obama was born in the United States. The 14th Amendment says that all born in the U.S. are citizens.

    There are only TWO kinds of citizens of the U.S., naturalized and natural born. Citizens who are naturalized are naturalized citizens, and citizens who are born as citizens are natural born citizens. They are alike in ALL respects, except that naturalized citizens cannot be President.

    Is that not clear enough? You criticize Sen. Johnson for honestly voting for a non-binding bill affirming McCain’s natural born citizenship. That bill in no way contradicts the natural born status of Obama.

    And the premise of the “dualists,” as I have shown, is misconceived, because the 14th amendment never included the language subject to any foreign power or subject to any foreign jurisdiction.

    It just did not.

    I have yet to see a response to the point that the language of the Civil Rights Act was DROPPED from the 14th Amendment.

  331. On the Orly front, the Judge ordered her to show cause within 14 days why she should not be sanctioned.

    Today, September 24, she instead filed an unsigned MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL.

    How was that again?

    Read it for yourself: http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=3553

    [Once again, this is GOOD stuff].

    She asks the court to release her from her obligations of confidentiality and loyalty in what she says is now a “quasi criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney.”
    She tells the court that she will call witnesses and offer evidence and take a position adverse to and in opposition to her former client’s interests.

    This seems to violate all known ethical canons.

    There is no mention of why the court should not impose the proposed $10,000 sanction on her.

    Still crazy after all these months.

  332. For the good of the legal profession, Ms. Orly Taitz deserves sanctioning. That might alert others who want to become lawyers to choose good law schools–or another careers.

  333. I think that the correspondence with Senator Johnson FGFC posted (and I don’t really care if FGFC is bdaman, Jim Byrne/BIRTHER, or some new poster that happened to show up right after BIRTHER got sent to the penalty box and bdaman stormed out in a huff, posting things verbatim from the blog constitutionallyspeaking) illustrates a point I made on this thread (or the previous one) a while back – casually dismissing the birthers (by characterizing all of them as arguing that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii instead of their own baseless theories on why he should be ineligible) just adds to their certainty that they are right since you didn’t deny their theory specifically. This is why I think that the work Vince has done here is so important – it leaves no doubt in any rational readers mind that Barack Obama is the legitimate POTUS and that none of the birthers’ arguments have merit. Once again, Well done Vince! And on top of that, Vince’s reporting on the antics of Orly Taitz is top-notch entertainment.

  334. Just a word to those who say this would all go away if Obama just released his real birth certificate, whatever that means.

    Please note that all of the birther lawsuits maintain that Obama would not be a natural born citizen, even if he had been born in Hawaii, as he was.

    They maintain that to be a natural born citizen he must have two citizen parents, or that he is disqualified by the temporary citizenship he received from his foreign-citizen father, or both.

    Obama can never prove that he had two citizen parents, or that his father was not a foreign citizen at the time of his birth.

    Because only his mother was a citizen and his father was a citizen of Kenya.

    But this constitutional is a flimsy attack on Obama that has no substantive legal support, and was only dreamed up in 2008 AFTER Obama met his burden of proof by producing a valid state-issued birth certificate. The legal custodians of Hawaii birth records have officially confirmed the fact of his birth in Hawaii. Contemporary newspaper listings reported his birth in 1961.

    But these lawsuits can never go away, no matter how many documents are released proving his birth in the United States.

    As Dr. Conspiracy has said at his site on Obama Conspiracies, http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/, name just one suit that would be withdrawn if more birth certificates were released.

    Just one.

  335. Orly says there is a prosecution of the undersigned attorney — but the pleading is unsigned.

    Who is the undersigned attorney of an unsigned pleading?

    “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” J.D.S.

  336. Vince,
    Well done on bringing the facts that the Birthers just don’t want to see. You have not only shown the fallacy of their weak arguments, you have also exposed their Queen as a fraud and a poor attorney.

  337. Script by Stephen King and Dan Brown
    As the Orly Turns, or the Taitz of Our Live

    In our last episode, Orly Taitz was denied the right to file yet another amended complaint by the evil Judge Carter in California, after her case in Georgia had been dismissed by the evil Judge Land and her evil client Connie Rhodes fired her in an evil faxed letter to the evil court that was a forgery anyway.

    Now our resolute heroine, after filing a pleading firing her client Rhodes and dissolving all binding attorney client privileges with her, has turned her attention back to California.

    The unsinkable Orly Taitz now attempts to file a “Plaintiffs’ L-R 7-10 Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply To Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ September 4, 2009 Motion to Dismiss.” She argues that “Plaintiffs submit that the Defendants have raised new matter in their reply which require an answer.”

    As our camera pans in, our attorney files an eloquent and compelling argument that rivals Marshall and Story in its brilliance, cogency and persuasiveness:

    ORLY: ”Furthermore, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs have not addressed the question of “redressability”, and this matter needs to be clarified in light of the Plaintiffs’ substantive due process contentions regarding the intersection of the First and Ninth Amendments as sources of the right of discrete and insular but politically powerless minorities to invoke strict scrutiny of obvious deviations from and therefore to enforce precisely and exactly the letter of the Constitution on the model of Flast v. Cohen and this charge requires a surreply. Finally, the Defendants continue to misrepresent the Plaintiffs’ contentions regarding standing and how standing as a barrier to self-governing enforcement of the Constitution through Petition to Article III Courts (as advocated by the Defendants, in any case) would itself constitute a violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to due process of law in the enforcement of the plain letter of the Constitution.”

    Cut to chambers of the Judge as he repeatedly pounds the flat of his hand against his temple in unutterable frustration.

    FADE to black.

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/keyesbarnett-v-obama-doc-75-motion-for-leave-to-file-sur-reply-to-motion-to-dismiss/

  338. I have trepidation, but believe that Vince may have thrown the “knowckout punch” in this last round since there have been no replies by our new friend FGFC. I give thanks, as have others, to Vince for an absolutely splendid job. Not only has he made the case brilliantly and with a minimum of snark, he has created for all of us a lasting refutation to the entirety of the birthers claims that can be used in future discussions. At the same time he presented a very positive model for how to win arguments with civility.

  339. I’ve been out of the loop for a couple of days and see that Birther has found a pitch hitter in For God For Country. The arguments and reasoning appear identical to Birther’s posts, however. FGFC also appears to be as constitutionally challenged as his predecessor.

  340. Hei everyone. How do I tell in google adsense where the Clicks are Happening?
    I have already google adsense Ads on my webpage but I dont have people click my ad on my blog either. I think ive made about $0.70 this week. Thats pretty bad…..

  341. Money Maker,
    Perhaps its the name of your blog that causes people to believe it’s possibly a scam. I didn’t click on your link for just that reason. I’ve found in life that whenever people presume to give financial advice and/or great deals, it’s best to hold on to my wallet.

  342. […] Although the Court has determined that the appropriate analysis here involves principles of abstention and not an examination of whether Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court does find the Rule 12(b)(6) ….. “Now, in response to Taitz’s comments to TPM calling the judge corrupt and suggesting he should be tried for treason, a fellow member of the California bar has filed a formal complaint against Taitz”: …Continue […]

Comments are closed.