Attorney Orly Taitz Fined $20,000 for Frivolous “Birther” Litigation

orly2The bill is in for Orly Taitz, the California lawyer leading the “Birther” litigation: $20,000 for sanctionable conduct. U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land previously issued a stern warning to attorney Orly Taitz 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.” In the most recent order, Land said that Taitz’s conduct “borders on delusional.”


Rhodes previously accused Taitz of filing new papers in Rhodes v. MacDonald without her approval and after she agreed to be deployed by the military. Taitz declared in one filing: “This case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney.” She is already facing a California bar complaint and Rhodes is promising to file a new complaint against her for “reprehensible” representation.

When Rhodes learned that Taitz had filed a motion to stay deployment after she had decided to forego further litigation, she proceeded to fire Taitz by sending a remarkable letter from Office Max on the advice of “Tim who works in the District Clerk’s office.” She stated in the fax:

September 18th, 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 16th, 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 I said, please withdraw the Motion to Stay that Ms. Taitz filed 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 motion or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar 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 arrived in Iraq.

Respectfully,

CPT Connie M. Rhodes, MD

In her Motion for Leave to Withdrawal as Counsel, Taitz suggested that her client is lying to the Court.
She states that she not only has a (rather obvious) conflict with her former client but may present evidence that is embarrassing to her:

The undersigned attorney comes before this Court to respectfully ask for leave to withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes. The immediate need for this withdrawal is the filing of two documents of September 18, 2009, one by the Court, Document 17, and one apparently by Plaintiff Connie Rhodes, which together have the effect of creating a serious conflict of interest between Plaintiff and her counsel. In order to defend herself, the undersigned counsel will have to contest and potentially appeal any sanctions order in her own name alone, separately from the Plaintiff, by offering and divulging what would normally constitute inadmissible and privileged attorney-client communications, and take a position contrary to her client’s most recently stated position in this litigation. The undersigned attorney will also offer evidence and call witnesses whose testimony will be adverse to her (former) client’s most recently stated position in this case. A copy of this Motion was served five days ago on the undersigned’s former client, Captain Connie Rhodes, prior to filing this with the Court and the undersigned acknowledges her client’s ability to object to this motion, despite her previously stated disaffection for the attorney-client
relationship existing between them. This Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will in no way delay the proceedings, in that the Plaintiff has separately indicated that she no longer wishes to continue to contest any issue in this case. In essence, this case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney, for the purpose of punishment, and the Court should recognize and acknowledge the essential ethical importance of releasing this counsel from her obligations of confidentiality and loyalty under these extraordinary circumstances.

Respectfully submitted,

By:_________________________
Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq.
California Bar ID No. 223433
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D. F.S.
SATURDAY, September 26, 2009

“Quasi-criminal prosecution”? The judge had ordered Taitz to “show cause” why a sanction should not be imposed in the case. He had previously told Taitz that he would consider sanctions if she filed similar claims in the future. After the denial of the Motion to Stay deployment, Land said that the latest filing was “deja vu all over again” including “her political diatribe.” He noted:

Instead 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.”

Then the kicker:

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.

I am frankly not convinced that sanctions would be appropriate for filing for a motion to stay deployment per se. At the time of his order, Land did not presumably know that the filing was made against the wishes of the client. If Rhodes was interested in appealing Land’s decision, which is her right, a stay is a standard request. However, the fact that the filing may have been made after Taitz was terminated as counsel and after she was told that Rhodes was abandoning the case is more cause for possible sanctions. Moreover, the low quality and over-heated rhetoric of the filing can support such sanctions. Her filings appear more visceral than legal. In demanding reconsideration of the Court’s earlier order, she used language that does cross the line:

This Court has threatened the undersigned counsel with sanctions for advocating that a legally conscious, procedurally sophisticated, and constitutionally aware army officers corps is the best protection against the encroachment of anti-democratic, authoritarian, neo-Fascistic or Palaeo-Communistic dictatorship in this country, without pointing to any specific language, facts, or allegations of fact in the Complaint or TRO as frivolous. Rule 11 demands more of the Court than use of its provisions as a means of suppressing the First Amendment Right to Petition regarding questions of truly historical, in fact epic and epochal, importance in the history of this nation.

She also (as noted by Land in his later order) essentially accused Land of treason, as she has in public statements:

Plaintiff submits that to advocate a breach of constitutional oaths to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is in fact a very practical form of “adhering” to those enemies, foreign and domestic, and thus is tantamount to treason, as Defined in Article III, Section 3, even when pronounced in Court. The People of the United States deserve better service and loyalty from the most powerful, and only life-tenured, officers of their government.

Taitz is also facing a California Bar complaint, here. Ohio lawyer (and inactive California bar member) Subodh Chandra wrote the bar, stating “I respectfully request that you investigate Ms. Taitz’s conduct and impose an appropriate sanction. She is an embarrassment to the profession.” For that complaint, click here.

A complaint by a former client would likely attract more attention by the Bar. These are now serious allegations including misrepresentation, false statements to the Court, and other claims that will have to be addressed by a Bar investigation. This could take years to resolve — perhaps just in time for Obama’s second inauguration.

The court ruled that Taitz violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in filing frivolous papers. Declaring the filings as made in “bad faith,” the court concluded that Taitz’s legal conduct was “willful and not merely negligent.” Sanctions were warranted, he held, because “Counsel’s frivolous and sanctionable conduct wasted the Defendants’ time and valuable judicial resources that could have been devoted to legitimate cases pending with the Court.”

s-TAITZ-large

“When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law,” Land writes. “When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the judicial code of conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge’s rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice. . .

Regrettably, the conduct of counsel Orly Taitz has crossed these lines, and Ms. Taitz must be sanctioned for her misconduct. After a full review of the sanctionable conduct, counsel’s conduct leading up to that conduct, and counsel’s response to the Court’s show cause order, the Court finds that a monetary penalty of $20,000.00 shall be imposed upon counsel Orly Taitz as punishment for her misconduct, as a deterrent to prevent future misconduct, and to protect the integrity of the Court. Payment shall be made to the United States, through the Middle District of Georgia Clerk’s Office, within thirty days of today’s Order. If counsel fails to pay the sanction due, the U.S. Attorney will be authorized to commence collection proceedings.

I expect that Taitz will appeal the decision, given her past statements. The opinion goes into considerable detail on her conduct and interaction with the court, as shown below.

For the decision, click here.

For the story, click here

1,636 Responses

  1. I have a sneaking suspicion that this will not be a disaster for Ms. Taitz. She is officially a martyr now and will become a quasi celebrity, with appearances on FOX, CNN, ABC and NBC Broadcast. She’ll get speaking fees, will write a book published by Regnery Press and battle Ann Coulter and Michelle Bachman for the title of craziest female Right Winger. She may even run for office, or at least get a spot on “Dancing With The Stars” and “Help, I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!” I’m actually working on a plot line for the Orly Taitz Reality Show proposal “Fighting The System.” It’s about a Dentist/Lawyer who each week repairs badly done dental work, while battling in court for damages for her patients. You all might say I’m selling out, but think of the money.


  2. on 1, October 13, 2009 at 3:11 pm Anonymously Yours

    One could only hope not to have a client and or an attorney such as this……


  3. Imported crazy!


  4. The California Bar now has far more than the Chandra compliant to consider. In the final sentence of his order, Judge Land wrote:

    “The Court further directs the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this Order to the State Bar of California, 180 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, for whatever use it deems appropriate.”

    The Judge thereby sent a message to the Bar, and it was not a message in a bottle.


  5. Another interesting sidelight is footnote 11:

    “The Court wishes to explore the possibility of directing the financial penalty to the National Infantry Foundation at Ft. Benning, Georgia, which has as part of its mission the recognition of our brave soldiers who do their duty regardless of the personal sacrifice required and their own personal political beliefs. The Assistant U.S. Attorney shall file within thirty days of today’s Order a short brief outlining the position of the United States as to whether such a monetary sanction can be used for this intended purpose. The Court emphasizes that the Court is ordering the penalty be paid to the United States as required under Rule 11 and not to a third party, but the Court seeks to determine whether the Court is authorized to subsequently order that the proceeds be paid by the United States to the Foundation.”


  6. Mike S., the rumor is that she may be on Joy Behar on HLN CNN Headline News tonight Tuesday Oct. 13.

    If true, yet another Spindell prediction fulfilled!


  7. It is interesting and relevant that Judge Land is a Bush 43 appointee, and I don’t think the GOP would want known its complicity, and/or conspiracy with the Pelosi-Dems to enable the Usurper’s ‘Presidency’. On the other hand, Judge Carter is a Bill Clinton appointee, and by Hillary’s TV comments over the weekend, is planning on assuming the Congressionally-selected Presidency on Obama’s ejectment. (And by McCain’s TV comments over the weekend, it looks like ‘12 now to be Palin/Pawlenty v. Clinton/yet to be determined.)


  8. Mike S:

    “and battle Ann Coulter and Michelle Bachman for the title of craziest female Right Winger.”

    as a right winger I believe Ann Coulter has that title wrapped up tight. Although she uses it to sell her books and would elbow Orly out of the way to keep her spot front and center.


  9. There’s something everyone needs to know about Obama…. My ex-wife’s family in the early 90’s went into business with World Wide Distributing of Drugs. My ex-brother-in-law and his wife’s brother Clyde O’Connor went into business in Florida with purchasing huge jets. My ex-brother-in-law went to a known “Combine” or “Shadow Government” law firm in Chicago and Obama while working as a alwyer assisted them with setting up their business. They had a lot to say about Obama first because of his name and that the Shadow Government group felt he was going places in politics for them as a TEAM MEMBER. They also mentioned that he wasn’t a US Citizen but that wouldn’t present any problems for them to coverup. This is the first time I mentioned this in a post but it’s real.

    Meet the family:
    Mexico drug plane used for US ‘rendition’ flights: report Sep 4, 2008

    http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j6QonBKKMo2gw1e3ql-xUcQEZbVg

    Please note the CIA link as the family often bragged about being CIA assets. They started laundering money in the later 70’s for partly for CIA operations. They were also involved in Iran/Contra while I was still married. They said that being a CIA asset means they are protected even if they commit murder and having said this, everyone will eventually learn how many there have been.

    Also don’t over look the TON’s or Cocaine in those huge bags and remember this has been going on since the early 90’s. Before this, the drugs targetted for Chicago were coming across the Texas border without being stopped. Shipments were coming in in Chiquita ships and picked up off shore in International waters and moved to either a ocean side residence or corruption protected port. Trucked across the border to then be split up and placed in a “Pepper Truck” and trucked to the Chicago area. Chicago receives a$100 million dollar shipment in Cocaine each and every week. The money is partially laundered into property using Big Banks who are part of this and other money is used for Black Ops supporting another White House Coup. This is similar to the Business Plot tried in 1933.

    Obama has been found to OWN more than 130 properties in suspicious social security names. Everyone needs to realize that property is used as “payment” for services rendered. Obama according to the family is NOT a US Citizen and he is also a TEAM MEMBER in the Shadow Government. The family talked openly in 1996 about 911 starting a series of situations including the collapse of our ecomony.

    Orly Taitz is a real hero for standing up to this crap. What will come out eventually will be the truth that Obama isn’t a US Citizen at all and also his involvement in the latest WH Coup. Bush is also involved according to the Family plus others.

    Marty Didier
    Northbrook, IL


  10. Vince,
    In today’s media world of so-called celebrity’s and “political experts” Orly’s next moves are easy to see. That I even know Kim Kardashian’s name and that she’s got a big ass, without ever seeing her or her picture, is an indication of how fame works. My guess is that this was Orly’s plan all the time and while she can’t run for President, Senator Taitz, from California wouldn’t be bad. Consider that their governor is a man with a great body, heavy German accent and was a miserable actor. If Orly moved to Texas, or South Carolina she’d be a lock.

    Byron,
    It’s Bachman over both of them. Why, because both of them are mainly in it for the money and the fame. Bachman really believes what she says.


  11. Marty Didier,
    You guys used the same lying tactics with Bill Clinton, financed by Richard Mellon Scaife. Clinton was a major coke dealer working out of an Arkansas airport and working with the CIA. Thanks for the heads up though, so we all can see where the next lying thrust comes from.


  12. Marty Didier is a troll who has posted at the Turley site before. Everything he writes is unsupported by any facts or sources whatsoever. He has no proof. He has no credibility. We are happy to read and consider facts and argument at this blog, but unsubstantiated rumors and hearsay have a very short shelf life here.


  13. I just wish Congress would pass a law banishing Orly Taitz and her high-pitched warbly voice from the public airwaves.

    I bet no one has ever seen Orly’s birth certificate. She’s an alien for sure–but from a different planet!


  14. on 1, October 13, 2009 at 6:09 pm Anonymously Yours

    Vince Treacy 1, October 13, 2009 at 4:46 pm

    Another interesting sidelight is footnote 11:

    “The Court wishes to explore the possibility of directing the financial penalty to the National Infantry Foundation at Ft. Benning, Georgia, which has as part of its mission the recognition of our brave soldiers who do their duty regardless of the personal sacrifice required and their own personal political beliefs.
    *************************

    If the death nail is not already in the general’s file this is the end of the career as this general has known it. Once a general (C))you are always subject to recall. Its kinda like herpes, once you get it, it may go in remission but it pops at the least undesirable time.

    They are or may be forced to submit to any and all orders to go any place until the day that they die. No retirement in essence.


  15. Marty Didier, you did not provide a single shred of evidence to support your claims. Your position amounts to nothing more than exceedingly sour grapes, now embittered by a $20k fine that will likely result in the disbarment of Orly Taitz.

    You’re a kook. Admit it, or remain a delusional kook.


  16. She’s so fined.
    (doo-lang, doo-lang, doo-lang)


  17. Jack writes “On the other hand, Judge Carter is a Bill Clinton appointee, and by Hillary’s TV comments over the weekend, is planning on assuming the Congressionally-selected Presidency on Obama’s ejectment.”

    You enjoy the same delusion as Marty Didier, if only because “ejectment” is a Common Law term for civil action to recover title and possession of land, having NOTHING whatsoever to do with electoral politics and procedures.

    Kookiness, Article II, is the new conservative platform after Article I: Not no gays/blacks/hispanics, not now how.

    A life is there to be had, if you want it. The ones you and Marty have now are just plain dismal.


  18. Convicted felon, disbarred former attorney, and now paralegal assistant and law clerk to Attorney Doctor Orly Taitz Esquire, Charles Edward Lincoln III weighs in on Judge Land’s decision with yet another use of the word “treason.”

    QUOTE I would point out that in Cohens v. Virginia, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1821, Chief Justice Marshall wrote that for a court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction was “treason” to the constitution.

    Judge Land has built his entire assault against Orly’s integrity based on the doctrine of abstention—that he has jurisdiction which he should ignore. The 11th Circuit Mindes case from 1971 specifically found constitutional questions regarding the military and the application of its rules were subject to Judicial challenge, yet Judge Land ignores the substance of the very precedent he cites.

    Judge Land issued a 43 page order condemning Orly, for among other things, utilizing the Courts for political purposes, and yet he proposes to use the $20,000.00 he expects to obtain from Orly for what can only be called a political contribution to advance certain political positions and philosophical assertions within the army.

    Judge Land is clearly utilizing his power under Rule 11 to attempt to sanction Orly for legitimate exercise of her First Amendment Right to Petition, and that of her clients. Post-judgment motions and an appeal will be filed—your readers can rest assured of that. Orly is exploring the possibility of a direct appeal or request for stay of judgment to the U.S. Supreme Court. Needless to say, Judge Land’s abuse of his position just makes Orly more determined, angrier than ever.

    Orly does feel that this is further evidence that the U.S. Judiciary is subject to political pressures analogous to her “memories of life in the former Soviet Union”, and those are her words because I have no such memories. UNQUOTE

    Source: http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/charles-lincoln-comments-on-lands-sanction-order/

    Written predictions™®: “Post-judgment motions and an appeal” will fail. The “direct appeal or request for stay of judgment” to the Supreme Court will fail.

    The toast is done. Spread the butter and jelly, slice it, and serve it hot.


  19. Orly Taitz got orally tazed …


  20. Mr. Didier and Mr. Jack, to the extent that you have relied on Ms. Taitz’ press releases or what passes for legal analysis on worldnet daily and similar sites, you are at a distinct disadvantage. The truth is that all of Ms. Taitz’ pleadings, motions and legal memoranda have been either absurd, incompetent or, most often, both. I know because I have read them, as have many other lawyers. The outcome has been entirely predictable to members of the legal profession and to informed laypersons as well. That is why Ms. Taitz has been unable to find a single lawyer to serve as local counsel for any of her claims. Indeed, Judge Land waived the pro hac vice rule to enable her to appear in his court. She will properly be disciplined by the California bar and will likely have her license suspended. She has harmed not only the administration of justice but those of her clients who relied on her advice in good faith. And she has taken money from gullible, uneducated and frightened members of the public to finance her obsession. The fact that she is only now facing sanctions is a testament to the durability, fairness and patience of the federal judiciary.

    The comments of her disbarred lawyer spokesperson, Charles Lincoln, are meaningless. He has nothing to lose and is likely supporting himself through Ms. Taitz. I have no doubt that he will encourage her to pursue all available appeals so that he can continue to ride the gravy train. But if she has a lick of sense, a big if, she will abandon this odyssey to nowhere and ante up the twenty grand.


  21. on 1, October 13, 2009 at 9:07 pm Anonymously Yours

    correction to my post I meant Captain not General. Sorry (C)) should be CO= Commissioned Officer.

    The turdberry is fine but not as good as a window based phone. I miss my MOTOQ.


  22. Mr. Didier,
    As you have already learned, crap and lies disguised as facts won’t fly very far here. Your lies about a so-called Shadow Government firm are almost laughable. It is time for you to depart with your tail between your legs. Say hi to Orly for us.


  23. “Orly, we hardly knew ye ….”


  24. Since Obama’s maternal grandmother (38 years old when Obama born) unilaterally submitted birth info to Hawaii (generating the COLB), not Obama’s ‘mother’ (then 18 years old), who’s to say Obama’s grandmother is not his mother!?!


  25. There is an embedded lie in Jack’s latest troll posting. He writes, “Since Obama’s maternal grandmother … unilaterally submitted birth info to Hawaii….” There is no proof offered for that statement, and it is false.

    Obama was born at Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States in 1961, the leading maternity hospital in Honolulu at the time, an institution named after Queen Kapi’olani. The parents were Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr. The hospital furnished the information that is now in official Hawaiian birth records. That information was released by the State to two Honolulu newspapers in 1961, which reported Obama’s birth in their recent birth columns. Hawaiian officials have verified that the state’s records show that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Jack asks “who’s to say Obama’s grandmother is not his mother!?!” The answer is that Obama’s grandmother was not his “mother,” birther lies and innuendo and rumors to the contrary notwithstanding.


  26. “who’s to say Obama’s grandmother is not his mother!?!”

    Jack,
    If your father was a transexual man, who had the operation, then he’d really be your mother.


  27. on 1, October 14, 2009 at 11:02 am Anonymously Yours

    Mike S.,

    I guess that would just make “Jack” another asshole baby and eligible to run for elected office. Heck, he could even be the Sct Justice.


  28. Jack, on Oct. 13, 2009 at 4:50 pm wrote, “…Judge Carter is a Bill Clinton appointee, and by Hillary’s TV comments over the weekend, is planning on assuming the Congressionally-selected Presidency on Obama’s ejectment.”

    In addition to the misuse of the term “ejectment” noted by James, this incoherent post shows even more ignorance of the Constitution and laws. If a President dies, resigns, or is removed by the sole powers of Impeachment and Removal vested in the House and the Senate, then the Vice President succeeds to the Office. After that, the law provides for succession by the Speaker of the House, the President pro tem of the Senate, and only then the Members of the Cabinet, in order of seniority, led by the Secretary of State. The statutory succession would apply only during the brief period until the Vice President is replaced under the Constitution.


  29. Mike S:

    “Bachman really believes what she says.”

    have you ever read one of Coulters books?


  30. on 1, October 14, 2009 at 2:36 pm bobonword@hotmail.com

    Enjoy!

    THE DAWG


  31. No, No, people – Marty and John are right.

    I know because one night about 25 years ago my ex-wife’s best friend’s chihuahua was barking at the door. She opened the door and her neighbour’s ex-husband’s cousin was standing there. He was holding this big purple suitcase. He handed it to her and then keeled over and dropped dead right on the doorstep.

    Well, she didn’t know what was going on and the dog was barking like crazy. So she slammed the door shut and opened the suitcase. Inside was about 17 pounds of boiled cabbage and some beef jerky. The tag on the suitcase said “Property of Barack Hussein Obama” and there was a little picture of a Hitler moustache next to the name. She went to the kitchen and called the police, but when she came back she discovered that the damn dog had eaten the entire contents of the suitcase. (he made a huge mess later, but that’s another story).

    So when the police came, half the evidence was eaten and all they had to go on was the dead body and the suitcase tag. The police checked out the dead body and it turned out the dead guy’s first wife’s mother was a nurse in Hawaii in 1961. They asked that woman about the name on the suitcase and she had never heard of any baby named Obama and she’s pretty sure she would have heard of him if he had ever existed. So that was the first clue.

    About three days after the incident, my ex-wife’s best friend got a mysterious phone call from someone who called herself “Madge”. Madge was asking questions about the dead guy, like “do the police know who he is?” and “did his fingertips smell like Palmolive?” My ex-wife’s best friend hung up without saying anything, but later told her hairdresser’s accountant that “Madge” sounded a lot like Don Ho. Someone told me recently that Obama’s grandmother sounded a lot like Don Ho, so that was the second clue. It is also well documented that Obama’s grandmother had at least 65 Don Ho record albums and that listening to them made her feel a little…well… frisky. So, you know, she might be his mother, not his grandmother.

    Anyway, the mystery was solved about 2 years later when my ex-wife and her best friend went to the store to buy some pineapple juice. A black man came up behind them and said “Pineapples are from Hawaii and so am I”. But the guy had a funny accent so they knew he was lying. “Really?”, my ex wife said, “Then you must know how long it takes for a pineapple to grow”. He suddenly looked very nervous and could not answer the question (which everyone, except people from Kenya, know is 18 months). Exposed as a non-citizen, he yelled at them “I did not ask that hospital to fake the birth certificate! It was Madge!”.

    So putting all the clues together, it is obvious that Obama was not born in Hawaii but his grandmother, who may be his mother, got the hospital to fake the birth certificate.

    I have never before revealed this information on a post, but I will certainly cooperate with the appropriate authorities (Bill O’Reilly) in any impeachment proceedings.


  32. empirecookie–

    That all sounds plausible to me. You should call Orly Taitz with this information. Here’s her telephone number: 1-800-CRA-KPOT.


  33. This lady is bat shit crazy.


  34. empirecookie,
    Thanks for the tip and the laughs that went with it.


  35. Empire,

    I give it a 9 out of 10. You left out the Freemasons, who by the way killed Mozart.


  36. “You left out the Freemasons, who by the way killed Mozart.”

    Gyges,
    There you go again a musician thinking only of himself and his needs.
    Mozart had done it all musically by the time he died, it’s comparable to the death of Sid Viscious, early genius and then what.


  37. Mike,

    Honestly, I just like to bring up the Mozart thing. It’s my favorite tin-foil-hat club theory.


  38. Gyges,
    Musical illiterate that I am did you really think I’d call Sid Vicious a genius? He was the worst comparison I could think of to try to cover your contretemps re: the Freemasons killing Mozart.
    They were innocent, it was the Prieure De Sion that did it and framed them.


  39. Mike,

    Sid was a genius at being angry. It takes a lot of talent to be that angry with that amount of consistency without becoming a clown (see Glen Beck).


  40. “This lady is bat shit crazy.”

    Seamus,

    Are you referring to Orly or to me? Think carefully before you answer. Hillary and I are closer than sisters and, if you are referring to me, she will do to you what she did to Vince Foster.


  41. empire cookie, yours is one of the funniest conspiracy stories I’ve ever read, unless it’s really true.


  42. Oh, it’s true all right. I still have the suitcase:


  43. Was the $20K fine enough? Maybe when Taitz becomes a real lawyer she will appreciate what just happened. I wonder if she is a mail order bride, just like her law degree? She is perfect reporter material for “Fake News”, where unfounded rumors and innuendo reign supreme , unlike a our US courts of law, where you need to present facts. Birthers hate and can’t debate.


  44. Mike S. and Gyges,

    You guys have it so wrong – this is clearly all an Illuminati plot: The Freemasons are just a front for the Illuminati (non-withstanding the fact that the Illuminati were founded by Freemasons), and they didn’t kill Mozart, they faked his death (Mozart is still alive thanks to an immortality serum developed by scientists in Atlantis). Empirecookie is, in fact, an Illuminati agent planting a story which is an elaborate lie formed around a kernel of truth so as to distract you from a closer examination of the ‘death’ of Mozart. I expected better from the two of you…

    Vince,

    While watching Dr. Orly pull out a copy of Vattel on the Joy Behar Show, I found myself wishing that you were the one conducting the interview to debunk the birther’s favorite reference on national TV.


  45. Empire,
    Where does Howard Hughes fit into this conspiracy?? I just know that he was involved somehow. I know because I saw it in his will when I wrote it for him.


  46. Poor little Birthers, no court cases won (based on lies and hate), no one with a brain and common sense take you seriously, except maybe “Fake News”, where unfounded rumors and innuendo reign supreme, unlike a our US courts of law, where you need to present documented facts, not half baked lies (Prepare for more failures). When flies get too close to the lights they get burned, Taitz just got burned, thing is, like a fly she will continue, no end in sight. Poor little Birthers they are haters not debaters.

    A lawyer, dentist, realtor and black belt, wow I must say a JACK of all trades master of none.


  47. Empirecookie:

    Are you certain it was a Chihuahua? The dog’s name was Bobalouie. And although he was never officially deposed, Uncle Louie was consistent when he told this tale to the pack.
    Bo knows much more than where the bones are buried.


  48. seamus–

    Don’t go around giving bat shit a bad name. Guano’s good stuff!


  49. empire:

    Please please please confirm for us the rumor that Marty Didier is really the Nigerian bank executive who contacted me recently, requesting use of my bank account to remove funds from his home country. And since Nigeria and Kenya are so close, that must prove that, you know, Obama’s a Kenyan who is also an internet bank scam artist. Marty Didier’s live-in lover is Capt. Jack Off, the Air Force guy who listed his Toyota Tacoma on Craigslist and will gladly sell it to me if I send the cash first so that he can pay for the shipping charges from Great Britain where it obviously can’t be sold because, you know, they drive on the wrong side of the road. I believe that Capt. Off was also the first to break the news that Obama was often seen at mosques in Britain, where he attended services because there are a LOT of Nigerians who emigrated to Britain.

    And please confirm: Obama and Ben AFflect are related, right?


  50. [...] law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice. . .” – From “Attorney Orly Taitz Fined $20,000 for Frivolous ‘Birther’ Litigation,” Jonathan Turley, Oct. 13, [...]


  51. [...] law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice. . .” – From “Attorney Orly Taitz Fined $20,000 for Frivolous ‘Birther’ Litigation,” Jonathan Turley, Oct. 13, [...]


  52. Doctor Bill Frist thinks of the birthers as “patients” in need of communication.

    It might help those patients if he would just come out and say that Obama was born in the United States and is a natural born citizen, instead of bobbing and weaving.

    Just say it, Doctor.

    From Huffington Post:
    [quote]
    Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist attempted to skirt a question on Thursday as to why nearly half the Republicans in his home state of Tennessee believed that President Barack Obama was born in another country. But in an admission that the birthers are becoming problematic for the GOP, the senator stressed that there was a need to reach out and educate those individuals, so as to rebuild the party’s brand on modern ideas as opposed to conspiracy theories.

    Speaking at a conference in Washington D.C., the Huffington Post asked the former Senator about a recent survey which showed 47 percent of Tennessee Republicans and 34 percent of the entire state thought Obama was constitutionally ineligible to hold office.

    Frist replied that there was a need to have “good people [in Washington] get facts out, explain to people, communicate with people, get rid of… a certain arrogance, and listen to real people on the ground.”

    “When a patient comes in I don’t care where they are from or how much money they have. I spend the time and communicate,” Frist, a doctor, concluded. “I listen to them and get a more educated populace out there.”

    After the event concluded, he told the Huffington Post that there was an onus on elected Republican leaders in Washington to reach out and calm some of the more extreme elements of the party.

    Frist’s comments are another small reflection of a growing recognition among senior voices in the GOP that the inflammatory rhetoric and conspiracy theories directed at the Obama White House are likely not constructive. Earlier in the month, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called the birthers “crazy” and told them to “knock [the] crap off.” This past week, the South Carolina Republican was shouted down by town hall protesters for his position on climate change legislation.

    “We’re not going to be the party of angry white guys,” Graham responded. “If you don’t like it, you can leave.”

    While Frist may see similar demographic problems ahead for the GOP, he pledged on Thursday that he would not be returning to elected office to help the party right the ship.

    “I’m not running for governor, vice president, president, any of the cabinet positions. I’ll just get that out of the way,” he said, at the onset of the conference.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/16/frist-addresses-tennessee_n_323639.html


  53. Yet another birther lawsuit dismissed, an unbroken losing streak. This time it was Mario Apuzzi’s case in New Jersey:

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
    CHARLES F. KERCHNER, JR., et al.
    Plaintiffs,
    v.
    BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, et al.
    Defendants.

    SIMANDLE, District Judge:

    Under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution, a person must be a “natural born citizen” to be eligible for the office of President of the United States. Four individuals, believing that President Barack Obama is not eligible for his office on this ground, have filed suit seeking a court order to require various officials to look into their claims and to remove the President from office. Plaintiffs present various arguments for defining the term “natural born citizen” accompanied by allegations of how President Obama does not meet their definition. This matter is presently before the Court on a motion to dismiss [Docket Item 27] submitted by Defendants President Barack Obama, the United States of America, the United States Congress, the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, former Vice-President and President of the Senate Richard Cheney, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (collectively, “Defendants”). For the reasons expressed below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James LeNormand, and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr. lack standing to pursue their claims and so the Court must grant
    Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

    I. BACKGROUND

    A. Factual Allegations

    Plaintiffs’ claims, as set forth in their Second Amended Complaint, arise from allegations that President Obama has 1 failed to sufficiently prove that he is a “natural born citizen” [1] eligible for the presidency and that the legislative branch has failed to sufficiently investigate President Obama’s citizenship and place of birth. Plaintiffs all voted in the November 4, 2008 general election for president. (Second Am. Compl. 8-11.) Mr. Kerchner and Mr. Nelsen both took oaths to defend and support the Constitution of the United States — Mr. Kerchner as part of his thirty-three years of service in the U.S. Naval Reserves and Mr. Nelsen as a former member of the Marine Reserves and Army National Guard. (Id. 8, 11.) In addition, Mr. Kerchner states that his is particularly harmed by the alleged uncertainty surrounding President Obama’s birthplace because “while currently not statutorily subject to recall, by Executive Order of the President or an act of Congress in extreme national emergency” Mr. Kerchner might be recalled. (Id. 8.)

    Plaintiffs claim violations of the First, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, and Twentieth Amendments of the Constitution and seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as a writ of mandamus and quo warranto. In Court I, Plaintiff Kerchner alleges that the Congressional Defendants violated his First Amendment right to petition because they ignored his requests that they investigate President Obama’s citizenship and place of birth. (Id. 200-214.) In Counts II and X, Plaintiffs allege that the Congressional Defendants violated their Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights and their rights under the Twentieth Amendment by failing to conduct an appropriate investigation and hold a hearing regarding President Obama’s place of birth. (Id. 215-234, 329-356.) In Counts III and IV, Plaintiffs allege that President Obama violated their substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment by holding the office of president without proving that he is a “natural born citizen” and that the Congressional Defendants violated these same rights by permitting President Obama to occupy the office and by failing to adequately confirm that his is a “natural born citizen.” (Id. 235-270.) In Count V, Plaintiffs allege that the Congressional Defendants violated their Fifth Amendment right to equal protection by submitting to the requests of citizens who requested a hearing regarding Senator John McCain’s place of birth and citizenship, but declining a similar request from Plaintiffs and other citizens regarding President Obama. (Id. 271-282.) In Counts VI, VII, VIII, and IX, Plaintiffs assert their rights under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to compel President Obama to prove that his is a “natural born citizen” and to compel the Congressional Defendants to conduct appropriate congressional hearings under the Twentieth Amendment to determine whether President Obama is a “natural born citizen.” (Id. 283-328.) In Count XI, Plaintiffs seeks a writ quo warranto removing and excluding President Obama from the office of President of the United States because he is not a “natural born citizen.” (Id. 357-380.) Finally, in Count XII, Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment against all Defendants defining “natural born citizen,” and compelling the Congressional Defendants to hold a congressional hearing on the question and to remove President Obama from office if they determine he is not a “natural born citizen.” (Id. 381-387.)

    The harm alleged for all of these constitutional violations is that Plaintiffs have been deprived of their right to know whether President Obama is a “natural born citizen” and to have a president who is truly a “natural born citizen.” [2] (Id. 208, 233, 251, 269, 282, 291, 302, 314, 325, 356, 377, 378.)

    B. Procedural History

    On January 20, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their initial complaints, which they subsequently amended twice. Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on February 9, 2009. On June 26, 2009, Defendants filed the present motion to dismiss, in which they argue that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing as well as prudential standing to bring all of these claims before the Court. Defendants argue in the alternative that the United States, the United States Congress, and former Vice-President Cheney and Speaker Pelosi in their official capacities, are entitled to sovereign immunity. Defendants Cheney and Pelosi are also entitled, Defendants argue, to legislative immunity, and Defendants Obama, Cheney, and Pelosi [2] are entitled to qualified immunity as to all of Plaintiffs’ claims.

    II. DISCUSSION

    A. Standard of Review

    Defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. A determination of proper subject matter jurisdiction is vital, because “lack of subject matter jurisdiction voids any decree entered in a federal court and the continuation of litigation in a federal court without jurisdiction would be futile.” Steel Valley Auth. v. Union Switch & Signal Div., 809 F.2d 1006, 1010 (3d Cir. 1987). An attack on subject matter jurisdiction can be either facial — based solely on the allegations in the complaint — or factual — looking beyond the allegations to attack
    jurisdiction in fact. Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977). Where, as here, the challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is facial, the Court must, for the purposes of this motion, take all the allegations in the complaint to be true and construe them in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs. Id.

    B. Article III Standing

    Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may only consider those actions that meet the case-or-controversy requirements of Article III. Essential to Article III jurisdiction is the doctrine of standing. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180 (2000). To meet the minimal constitutional mandate for Article III standing Plaintiffs must show (1) an “injury in fact,” (2) “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of,” and (3) that the injury will “likely” be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). Plaintiffs’ assertion of constitutional standing fails at the first prong, because Plaintiffs cannot establish an “injury in fact” as that phrase has been defined by the Supreme Court. Instead, while Plaintiffs feel themselves very seriously injured, that alleged grievance is one they share with all United States citizens.

    An “injury in fact” is defined as “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized . . . and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. The Supreme Court has interpreted the requirement that an injury be “concrete and particularized” to preclude harms that are suffered by many or all of the American people. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74; United States v. Richardson, [3] 418 U.S. 166, 176-77 (1974); Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 220-22 (1974); Ex Parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 633 (1937). As the Court explained in Schlesinger,

    We reaffirm Levitt in holding that standing to sue may not be predicated upon an interest of the kind alleged here which is held in common by all members of the public, because of the necessarily abstract nature of the injury all citizens share. Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is that indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part to cast it in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution. It adds the essential dimension of specificity to the dispute by requiring that the complaining party have suffered a particular injury caused by the action challenged as unlawful. This personal stake is what the Court has consistently held enables a complainant authoritatively to present to a court a complete perspective upon the adverse consequences flowing from the specific set of facts undergirding his grievance. Such authoritative presentations are an integral part of the judicial process, for a court must rely on the parties’ treatment of the facts and claims before it to develop its rules of law. Only concrete injury presents the factual context within which a court, aided by parties who argue within the context, is capable of making decisions.

    418 U.S. at 221. Consequently, “a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government — claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large — does not state an Article III case or controversy.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74.

    In the present case, assuming as the Court must that Plaintiffs’ allegations are true for the purposes of deciding this jurisdictional motion, the injury, if any, suffered by Plaintiffs is one that would be shared by all the American people. Plaintiffs allege that they have been injured because Defendants have not adequately established that the President is truly a “natural born citizen” and because, according to Plaintiffs, President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” and therefore an illegitimate president. These alleged harms apply equally to all United States residents. In fact, Plaintiffs’ complaint repeatedly acknowledges that the injuries they allege are generally applicable to “the people.” [4] As explained above, the Supreme Court has consistently held that this generalized harm is not sufficient to establish standing under Article III. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74.

    In an effort to distinguish themselves from the rest of the citizenry, Plaintiffs point out that Mr. Kerchner and Mr. Nelsen have both taken oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. They also suggest that they feel more threatened by the alleged uncertainty surround President Obama’s place of birth and citizenship than many citizens. While the Court accepts that Plaintiffs are more concerned about President Obama’s birthplace
    [4] than many citizens and that they likewise feel a greater sense of obligation to bring the present action, Plaintiffs’ motivations do not alter the nature of the injury alleged. Plaintiffs state that they have been injured because President Obama’s birthplace and citizenship have not been established to their satisfaction; this harm is equally applicable to all American citizens. Finally, Plaintiffs point to the risk that Mr. Kerchner may be recalled to active duty in the U.S. Naval Reserves by Executive Order of the President or an act of Congress in an extreme national emergency. Under these circumstances, Mr. Kerchner “would need to know whether the President and Commander in Chief who may be giving him orders is in fact the legitimate President and Commander in Chief and therefore obligate him to follow those orders or risk being prosecuted for disobeying such legitimate orders.” (Second Am. Compl. 8.) While the Court has doubts about the particularity of this harm, the Court will not address this issue because the alleged harm is neither actual nor imminent, but rather is impermissibly conjectural. The hypothetical nature of this future injury, conditioned on the occurrence of “an extreme national emergency,” is not an “injury in fact” necessary to establish standing. See Storino v. Borough of Point Pleasant Beach, 322 F.3d 293, 297 (3d Cir. 2003) (an allegation of potential future property loss, should a municipality disallow a present non-conforming use, cannot demonstrate injury in fact for standing purposes because it is conjectural). Without an “injury in fact” necessary for Article III standing, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the present action. [5]

    III. CONCLUSION

    For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The accompanying Order shall be entered.

    October 20, 2009 s/ Jerome B. Simandle
    Date JEROME B. SIMANDLE
    United States District Judge

    [1] The parties dispute whether Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint in conformance with Rule 15, Fed. R. Civ. P., and further whether that complaint is a short and plain statement required under Rule 8(a)(2). The Court will address the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint, notwithstanding that it was filed without leave of Court on February 9, 2009. Because the Court concludes that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring these claims, the Court will not address the procedural disputes, and Plaintiffs’ belated motion for leave to assert the Second Amended Complaint on July 22, 2009, will be dismissed as moot.

    [2] To the extent Plaintiffs also allege that they were injured merely by the government’s failure to respond to their petitions requesting investigations and hearings, this is not a cognizable constitutional injury. Plaintiffs “have no constitutional right to force the government to listen to their views.” Minnesota State Bd. for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 284-85 (1984). As the Supreme Court has explained, “Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court’s case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to individuals’ communications on public issues.” Id. (citing Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, Local 1315, 441 U.S. 463,
    464-466 (1979)).

    [3] Plaintiffs cite a Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decision, Lawless v. Jubelirer, 789 A.2d 820 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002), for the proposition that there are exceptions to the standing requirement at issue here. The Court wishes to clarify that Plaintiffs are asserting federal subject matter jurisdiction and consequently the various state court jurisdictional doctrines are inapplicable to this case.

    [4] By way of example, Plaintiffs’ complaint outlines the various failures to adequately establish President Obama’s place of birth “on Behalf of the Plaintiffs and the People.” (Second Am. Compl. 84-188.) Plaintiffs identify the “Irreparable Harm” to be suffered as follows: “If Obama is sworn in as President of the United States and Commander in Chief, there will be substantial and irreparable harm to the stability of the United States, its people, and the plaintiffs.”

    [5] Moreover, had Plaintiffs alleged an “injury in fact” sufficient to satisfy Article III standing, prudential standing concerns would likewise prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has held that “even when the plaintiff has alleged redressable injury sufficient to meet the requirements of Art. III, the Court has refrained from adjudicating ‘abstract questions of wide public significance’ which amount to ‘generalized grievances,’ pervasively shared and most appropriately addressed in the representative branches.” Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 474-75 (1982). Plaintiffs’ claims fall squarely into the category of generalized grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch. The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote. To this extent, it appears that Plaintiffs have raised claims that are likewise barred under the “political question doctrine” as a question demonstrably committed to a coordinate political department. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 216 (1962). The Constitution commits the selection of the President to the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment and the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3. The Constitution’s provisions are specific in the procedures to be followed by the Electors in voting and the President of the Senate and of Congress in counting the electoral votes. Further, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, also provides the process to be followed if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, in which case the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified. None of these provisions evince an intention for judicial reviewability of these political choices.

    Source: http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/kerchner-v-obama-case-dismissed/


  54. Orly’s appeal from the sanctions imposed by Judge Land: It was a “political lynching.”


  55. It would appear that Attorney Dentist Orly Taitz Esquire may have possibly seemed to have disagreed somewhat in some small manner to something or other in the tenor or tone of the Order by Judge Land imposing the $20,000.00 fine:

    “Judge Land’s actions that amounted to misstating or misrepresenting ninety percent of what was presented in the pleadings and argument, completely ignoring ninety percent of the argument and facts, making extremely rude and demeaning remarks, showing bias; taken together, appear to be designed to silence her and, intimidate her and above all, punish her for what the Court perceived as political rather than “core” constitutional questions. It appears to be a thinly veiled threat to other attorneys not to pursue similar Constitutional issues, which will have a chilling effect on the ability of the public to use Federal Court system to uphold their constitutional rights. Judge Land’s remarks amounted to nothing short of political lynching, which turned into feast and celebration by the media mob.”


  56. A delicious feast and celebration at that. Please pass the tooth picks.


  57. on 1, October 21, 2009 at 4:37 pm The Platters "Orly You"

    Orly you
    can make this world seem right
    Orly you
    can make the darkness bright
    Orly you and you alone
    can thrill me like you do
    and fill my heart with love for Orly you

    Orly you
    can make this change in me
    For it’s true
    you are my destiny
    When you hold my hand, I understand
    the magic that you do
    You’re my dream come true
    my one and Orly you, Orly you

    Orly you and you alone
    can thrill me like you do
    and fill my heart with love for Orly you

    Orly you
    can make this change in me
    For it’s true
    you are my destiny
    When you hold my hand, I understand
    the magic that you do
    You’re my dream come true
    my one and Orly you (one and Orly you)


  58. Why the obsession with Orly Taitz?

    Why the hate speech towards Orly Taitz?

    Why the distraction away from Barack Hussein Obama II?

    Why the ignorance of the US Constitution?

    Shame be upon you and may a pox be upon your house.


  59. borderraven,

    Why the obsession with Orly Taitz?

    Because she’s extremely entertaining.

    Why the hate speech towards Orly Taitz?

    I’m not sure what you mean by hate speech – certainly we make fun of her, but I don’t think any of it is hateful (as opposed to her nervous tick of mouthing off to judges…).

    Why the distraction away from Barack Hussein Obama II?

    That would be President Barack Hussein Obama II. I certainly haven’t been distracted from following our president by this amusing diversion. I just focus on his actions and policies rather than a mistaken belief that he’s not eligible for the office he holds.

    Why the ignorance of the US Constitution?

    Um, did you even look at who’s blog you’re posting on? If you had read the articles and comments on this blog you would know that not only is Professor Turley one of the foremost constitutional scholars in the country, but the level of knowledge about the law in general and the constitution in particular is extremely high (although admittedly I’m bringing down the average…). To accuse people like Professor Turley and Vince Treacy (just to name one) of being ignorant of the constitution is a stunning and ridiculous display of ignorance in and of itself.

    Shame be upon you and may a pox be upon your house.

    There is no shame in shining a light on constitutional issues and providing a forum for ernest and civilized debate, nor for taking part in that debate. I’m sorry that your narrow-minded paranoia makes you see enemies here, but the only shame here is what you brought with you.


  60. borderraven: “Why the ignorance of the US Constitution?”

    To which provisions of the Constitution does this ignorance apply?
    If you have any specific provisions that we have ignored, why not point them out and give us a chance to look into them and see if there is any merit to your contentions? We will be glad to look them up, take a look at the history and the court cases, and discuss them.


  61. Appeal filed in Obama eligibility argument
    ‘Court cannot refuse to hear a case because it prefers not’
    Posted: October 27, 2009
    8:43 pm Eastern

    © 2009 WorldNetDaily

    A case alleging Congress failed in its constitutional duties by refusing to investigate the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president has been sent on appeal to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    WND previously reported when a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit filed by Charles F. Kerchner Jr. and others against Congress.

    Attorney Mario Apuzzo filed the action in January on behalf of Kerchner, Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. Named as defendants were Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    The case focuses on the alleged failure of Congress to follow the Constitution. That document, the lawsuit states, “provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate ‘elected’ by the Electoral College Electors.”

    The case asserts “when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same.”

    (Story continues below)

    The Constitution provides, the lawsuit says, “If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified.”

    See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!

    “There existed significant public doubt and grievances from plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regarding Obama’s eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under the 20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to confirm whether Obama, once the electors elected him, was qualified,” the case explained.

    The attorney now has posted online a notice of his appeal to the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia.

    “Through his dismissal, Judge Simandle avoided having to reach the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II ‘natural born citizen’ and eligible for the office of president and commander in chief,” Apuzzo said.

    “We allege that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. More importantly, we also allege that he is not an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ because when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same.”

    The lawyer said it is important that the court did not rule Obama was born in Hawaii, nor did it rule that the claim was frivolous.

    It simply said the case was dismissed because of a jurisdiction issue.

    “By the court finding that plaintiffs do not have standing and that their claims present a political question, the court was able to avoid having to address the underlying merits of the Kerchner case. With such a decision, the American people unfortunately still do not know where Obama was born and whether he is an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ and therefore constitutionally eligible to be president and commander in chief,” the attorney said.

    “A court cannot refuse to hear a case on the merits merely because it prefers not to due to grave social or political ramifications,” he continued. “The court’s opinion dismissing the Kerchner complaint/petition did not address the real Kerchner case but rather looked for a way to dismiss the case without having to reach the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II ‘natural born citizen.’

    “The American people deserve to know whether Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. More importantly, even if he is born in Hawaii, given that he was born with dual allegiance and citizenship, the American people deserve to know whether he is an Article II ‘natural born citizen’ which would make him eligible to be president,” the attorney said.

    WND had reported only days earlier when Kerchner publicly argued that the courts have an obligation to make a decision on Obama’s eligibility.

    He wrote, “The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.”

    He said his basis for such a statement is the opinion of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, who wrote in an 1821 case, Cohens vs. Virginia:

    “It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.”

    Kerchner added, “The … judges in the … cases should simply read the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall from the past and take jurisdiction of the constitutional question of the Article II eligibility clause in the Constitution and proceed to a fact finding hearing and trial on the merits.

    WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

    Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

    Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

    Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

    Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment – at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

    The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn’t documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?

    WND has reported on another case, being heard by U.S. District Judge David Carter in California. He released a ruling noting the government’s motion to dismiss was being taken “under submission.” But he also approved a final calendar for the case to be proceeding in his court.

    Under the schedule ordered by the judge the final pretrial conference is scheduled Jan. 11, 2010, while the jury trial is Jan. 26, 2010.

    WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

    Because of the dearth of information about Obama’s eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: “Where’s the birth certificate?”

    “Where’s The Birth Certificate?” billboard at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip

    The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 475,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

    The “certification of live birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

    Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.


  62. Art Bulla,
    You are late to this party. If you read through all of the past posts on this thread you will realize that all you say has already been disproven. Oh wait, I’m sorry. you’re not the reading type are you? More like another troll on the make. your presences here is merely to keep a moronic idea going and to fuel your own hatred and stupidity. Have a nice day.


  63. Art has just put up another troll posting, simply pasting up a Worst Nut Daily article.

    The only “news” is that Mario Apussi has filed a notice of appeal in the case that was dismissed, above at Oct. 21, 2009 12:07 pm.

    That is all.

    The Nut article is full of discredited information.

    Just for one, 2d para from last: “The “certification of live birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii.”

    This is an outright lie. It is repeated in EVERY Nut article. It is false. A law that was passed in 1982, but that was not on the books in 1961, allows Hawaiian parents, like those who have adopted children, to obtain an Hawaiian birth certificate for use for drivers’ licenses and all other purposes.

    But those certificates can only list the true place of birth. They cannot list birth in Hawaii. The Hawaiian official have explained this.

    So Art the troll has repeated a lie. But do not expect anyone to admit this.


  64. Mike S. and Vince,
    Good work and exposing Art’s true colors. Facts are a very messy problem for trolls so they just don’t bother with them.


  65. This is not a “party, but a lynching. The left now are racist against honorable, upright white individuals, and the left being traitors to their race, the Constitution, and the heavens, crucify the Lord afresh by proxy in their wickedness and corruption, being Darwinists there is no absolute truth at all with them, they vilify without being moored in reality at all:

    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
    29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
    30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
    31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
    32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Rom 1:28-32)

    The left lie without let, their consciences being seared with a hot iron. A certificate of live birth is not a birth certificate. Persons were able to get a certificate of live birth solely upon the testimony of one parent. In order to be “natural born” as per the definition used at the time of the writing of the Constitution, one had to be NOT ONLY born in the United States , but BOTH parents are required to be born in the United States to qualify for the office of President of the United States. At the time of Barrack Obama’s birth, his father was a citizen of the British Empire. Therefore even if he was born in Hawaii (which the ambassador to Kenya says is not true, there being a monument erected in Kenya to his birth, and to which his grandmother testifies as being an eyewitness: that he was born in Kenya) he still would not qualify as being “natural born” since BOTH PARENTS WERE NOT BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. So whom should the people believe? Perverted leftists such as yourselves, whose politics are driven by your sexual depravity, constant liars, or our lying eyes and ears?


  66. The whole birther movement God’s gift to Obama, cause if they weren’t obsessing on that, it would be something else. So let ‘em go. I hope they keep at until their puny little brains overload and they have to be chemically lobotomized.


  67. on 1, October 28, 2009 at 10:36 pm Anonymously Yours

    Alan,

    Are you Formerly Known as Bdaman?


  68. @AY: Not that I’m aware of :-)


  69. Art,

    While you are clearly a hate filled troll spewing lies either intentionally or out of ignorance, I thought I would reply to your vile little screed anyway.

    You said:

    “This is not a “party, but a lynching. The left now are racist against honorable, upright white individuals, and the left being traitors to their race, the Constitution, and the heavens, crucify the Lord afresh by proxy in their wickedness and corruption, being Darwinists there is no absolute truth at all with them, they vilify without being moored in reality at all:”

    I’m not sure who you are quoting here (or, in fact, what comprises the quote here since there is no close quote), so I’ll just assume you’re saying it all. Your comment about the left being traitors to their race implies that the left is only comprised of white people which seem to whiff of more than a little hypocrisy to me – certainly not the last time you commit this transgression. ;-) I’m not sure what the point of the rest of your rant and the bible verse is about, but I’m a scientist who is aware of the fact that evolution is the best theory at explaining the scientific data and that there are no competing scientific theories at all – if you think that makes me a ‘Darwinist’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean) fine, I really don’t care about the labels you want to put on me in your sad, little mind. As for the bible verse, I will give weight in a legal discussion to you quoting bible verses when you either prove to me that you have never worn clothing made from two different fabrics or let yourself be stoned (and not in the good way…) and until then, I’ll just ignore it.

    You said:

    “The left lie without let, their consciences being seared with a hot iron.”

    I’m always impressed at how people of your ilk try to paint the opposition with their own sins.

    “A certificate of live birth is not a birth certificate.”

    No, but it is prima facia evidence that President Obama was born in Hawaii. (And the only such evidence generally available from the Hawaii DOH.)

    “Persons were able to get a certificate of live birth solely upon the testimony of one parent.”

    Maybe, so what?

    “In order to be “natural born” as per the definition used at the time of the writing of the Constitution, one had to be NOT ONLY born in the United States , but BOTH parents are required to be born in the United States to qualify for the office of President of the United States.”

    This sentence has some serious problems both in fact and in structure. I’ll leave figuring out why this is a bad sentence structurally to you, but as Vince (and others) have painstakingly pointed out in this thread and its predecessors, the definition of ‘natural born’ at the time of the Constitution came from English common law and required only birth on native soil, regardless of parentage. The SCOTUS has never clarified the definition (although it’s rulings clearly support the English common law definition over your (or de Vattel’s) definition).

    “At the time of Barrack Obama’s birth, his father was a citizen of the British Empire.”

    Yes, so what?

    “Therefore even if he was born in Hawaii (which the ambassador to Kenya says is not true, there being a monument erected in Kenya to his birth, and to which his grandmother testifies as being an eyewitness: that he was born in Kenya) he still would not qualify as being “natural born” since BOTH PARENTS WERE NOT BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.”

    This sentence is just not true (see the entire above thread and two or three of its predecessors and pay special attention to posts by Vince Treacy if you are interested in why this is so). As for the parenthetical comment, I’m unaware of what statement by the ambassador to Kenya you are referring to, but I’ll bet that Vince could debunk it in under 5 minutes if he wanted to, but if you listen to the unedited version of the interview (and understand Luo) with President Obama’s grandmother (actually not his grandmother but the wife of his grandfather, I believe) you will hear her correct this misunderstanding and say he was born in Hawaii.

    “So whom should the people believe? Perverted leftists such as yourselves, whose politics are driven by your sexual depravity, constant liars, or our lying eyes and ears?”

    Well, after reading all of the posts in this thread and its predecessors, following most of the links to sites supporting both sides of the argument it seems crystal clear to me that any rational person should believe that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen of the United States and thus eligible to hold the office of POTUS. I don’t really care about what perverted sexually deviant activities you engage in (as long as they’re between consenting adults or inanimate objects) and you can’t hardly write a sentence without at least one lie in it, so I’ll believe what my eyes, ears, and reasoning ability tell me to be true and not the toxic bile that you and WND spew.

    What you and all of your birther friends should understand is that even if we somehow stumble into some alternate reality and one of these cases proceeds to trial (and I believe Vince’s written predictions (I don’t know how to do the trademark thingy, sorry) of ‘case dismissed’ on this matter) the first thing that would likely happen is judicial recognition of the COLB or statements by Hawaii DOH officials, thus officially establishing President Obama’s birth in Hawaii and if you’re really lucky the court will also establish the English common law definition of natural born citizen as the correct one. So no matter how things proceed from this point on, the only thing you and your ilk have in store is bitter disappointment because fortunately our judges uphold the Constitution and understand the law, the only question is will any case actually pass the hurdles of standing and justicability (sp? – I sympathize with Judge Carter) to lose based on the evidence and arguments? I suspect even this is too much to ask of legal luminaries like Orly Taitz and friends – although I would love to see Orly argue this case (I can just imagine the drinking game – drink whenever Orly calls someone a traitor (double for the judge), drink when she insults co-counsel, finish the bottle when she’s fined…). Now unless you have anything substantive to add to the conversation (which it’s pretty clear you don’t – or you’re hiding it very, very well), would you please stop waving your ignorance all over.

    Everyone else,

    Sorry about feeding the troll, but he seemed to need a beat down and after months of following the debate over health care reform, I’ve lost my patience for fools…


  70. Art Bulla,
    You have committed the mortal sin of blasphemy by taking the name of the Lord in vain, by using the bible to make a political statement. You have also put other God’s before the Lord in putting the Conservative Movement on the same level as God’s Holy Books. You are a blasphemer also because you misinterpret those books for a political (Caesar’s)purpose.

    Jesus said “Render unto Caesar that which is Caeser’s, render up to the Lord that which is God’s.” You have rendered unto Caesar that which is the Lord’s. You have sinned and I sincerely pray for your repentence, lest you spend all of eternity as damned.


  71. Good work, Mike and Slart.

    Art said: “In order to be “natural born” as per the definition used at the time of the writing of the Constitution, one had to be NOT ONLY born in the United States , but BOTH parents are required to be born in the United States to qualify for the office of President of the United States.”

    That is a lie.

    There is no requirement ANYWHERE in the Constitution that says a President must have both parents born in the United States, or that both parents must be citizens.

    If Art Bulla can find anything in the Constitution, let it be posted here. It is going to be a long wait. There is NOTHING in the text of the Constitution that supports that position. Is Bulla claiming that the parents must not only be citizens, but also natural born citizens, themselves? It is doubtful whether Bulla even thought about that point. The ignorance of the Constitution is monumental.

    No Supreme Court case or any other case has ever said that. The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark ruled that babies born in the United States to alien parents are citizens from birth, and are just as much citizens as the children of United States citizens.

    This is a legal blog run by a Constitutional Law Professor, so false statements about the Constitution do not survive very long here.

    Art Bulla has no basis for these statements.


  72. Orly Taitz dissed again! Government defendant’s Motion to Dismiss granted. Case dismissed.

    Eat your hearts out, birhers:

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    Captain Pamela Barnett, et al.,
    Plaintiffs,
    v.
    Barack H. Obama, et al.,
    Defendants.
    CASE NO. SACV 09-0082 DOC (ANx)

    O R D E R REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

    Before the Court is Defendants President Barack H. Obama (“Obama” or “President”), Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton (“Clinton”), Joseph Biden (“Biden”), and Robert Gates’ (“Gates”) (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss. After considering the moving, opposing, reply, and sur-reply papers, as well as the parties’ oral argument, the Court hereby rules as follows.

    I. BACKGROUND
    A. Introduction

    On January 20, 2009, the day on which Barack Obama was sworn in as President and took office, Plaintiffs brought this suit. The action was filed at 3:26 p.m. Pacific standard time, following President Obama’s formal assumption of office. The suit alleges, in pertinent part, that President Obama does not meet the qualifications required for the Office of the President, as specified by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution, which reads, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the President has not shown that he is a “natural born citizen” of the UnitedStates and assert that he should have to establish his citizenship by “clear-and-convincing evidence.” Plaintiffs argue that despite the fact that President Obama has produced a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, there is evidence to show that the President was actually born in Kenya, thus making him ineligible to be President. Plaintiffs also argue that, even if the President was a natural born citizen, he abandoned his citizenship while living in Indonesia and has not gone through the proper immigration procedures to regain his United States citizenship. Plaintiffs are third party candidates from the American Independent Party for president and vice president in the 2008 presidential election, inactive and active military personnel, and state representatives. The third party candidate plaintiffs are Alan Keyes, Gail Lightfoot, and Reverend Wiley Drake. Keyes and Drake received a total of four-hundredth of one percent of the popular vote for President.

    Because Plaintiffs failed to bring their claims in this Court until after President Obama was sworn into office, the Court has been presented with much more than an action against a political candidate asking the Court to interpret the candidate’s qualifications to run for office. Instead, Plaintiffs ask this Court to declare that the current President of the United States is illegitimate and fails to meet the constitutional requirements to hold office. In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants challenge the ability of the Court to hear Plaintiffs’ claims and redress their alleged injuries through the removal of the sitting President.

    B. First Amended Complaint

    Plaintiffs have since filed a First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”), which adds to the original complaint and which is the subject of this Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs allege that declaratory judgment is proper pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), and through a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988. First Am. Compl. (“Compl.”) ¶ 60, July 14, 2009. Plaintiffs’ Complaint sets forth ten questions for which they request declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202. Id. ¶¶ 11-21. The questions all relate to the meaning of the Constitution’s natural born citizen clause and the appropriate recourse should a sitting president not meet the “natural born citizen” requirement.

    Plaintiffs frame these questions as seeking “an answer to the simple question of constitutional qualifications . . . [and seeking] a declaratory judgment confirming their fundamental civil or constitutional right to ask and know the constitutional qualifications of any person elected or appointed to public office in the United States of America.” Id. 3:8-12. Beyond this “simple question,” however, Plaintiffs make a significantly more expansive request. Plaintiffs seek “injunctive relief against all four office-holding defendants [the President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Vice President] to limit their powers to order new deployments or assignments of any armed forces of the United States outside of the territorial limits of the United States without express Congressional approval, and further to limit the execution of certain orders of the President of the United States relating to the conduct of foreign policy by and through the use of currently deployed and assigned military force, as well as the appointment of judges or justices and the ratification or modification of treaties during the pendency of this lawsuit until and unless Defendant Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional qualifications are established in this court by clear-and-convincing evidence.” Id. 3:13-22. In other words, Plaintiffs do not propose succession by Vice President Biden but instead seek a complete shutdown of the government by enjoining it from acting while holding a new presidential election.

    Plaintiffs also request that the Court order the production of documents pursuant to FOIA. Id. ¶¶ 60-109. Plaintiffs further allege a violation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988(a). Id. ¶¶ 110-122. Finally, Plaintiffs make a request for a writ quo warranto, in which Plaintiffs state, “This Court has the power to order Barack Hussein Obama to appear and to show cause all the relief sought by this complaint should not be upheld (or entered) against him.” Id. ¶ 121; see also id. 4:3-19. The prayer for relief states the resolution sought in the action as:

    This Court should issue an order to Barack Hussein Obama to show cause why the full measure of relief requested by the Plaintiffs in this case should not be granted, and should in particular order that the contours of the final judgment under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a), including the extension or modification of common and statutory law to protect the civil rights of the people of the United States to demand clear and- convincing evidence of the constitutional qualifications, elegibility [sic], and competence of their elected (as well as their non-elected [sic]) officials, representatives, and executive agents.

    Id. ¶ 126.

    II. LEGAL STANDARD

    Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a complaint must be dismissed if the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims. Once subject matter jurisdiction is challenged, the burden of proof is placed on the party asserting that jurisdiction exists. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that “the party seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists.”). Accordingly, the Court will presume lack of subject matter jurisdiction until the plaintiff proves otherwise in response to the motion to dismiss. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673 (1994).

    Defendants assert that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this action on five bases: (1) Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate Article III standing; (2) the issues in this action present non-justiciable political questions; (3) this Court is not the appropriate forum for Plaintiffs’ quo warranto claims; (4) this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988; and (5) Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim with respect to their Freedom of Information Act claims and all claims against Defendants Clinton, Gates, Michelle Obama, and Biden.

    III. DISCUSSION

    The Court must establish that it has jurisdiction before it may reach the question of interpreting the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution. “[I]f a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter.” Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 347, 56 S. Ct. 466 (1936) (Brandeis, J. concurring) (citing Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 213 U.S. 175, 191, 29 S. Ct. 451 (1909); Light v. United States, 220 U.S. 523, 538, 31 S. Ct. 485 (1911)).

    A. Jurisdiction Under Article III

    Rule 12(b)(1) mandates that the Court dismiss claims for which it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Standing is an element of subject matter jurisdiction. Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2003). To establish standing under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff must demonstrate: “(1) an ‘injury in fact’ – an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized,” meaning that the injury must “affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way,” and (b) “‘actual or imminent,’ not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical;’” (2) “there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of – the injury has to be ‘fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court;’” (3) “it must be ‘likely,’ as opposed to merely ‘speculative,’ that the injury will be ‘redressed by a favorable decision.’” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S. Ct. 2130 (1992) (internal citations omitted). Each element of standing is “an indispensable part of the plaintiff’s case,” and accordingly “must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Id. at 561.

    The caption of the Complaint in this matter lists forty-four (44) plaintiffs. The Complaint does not individually identify the bases for standing for each of these plaintiffs, but alleges generally, “The Plaintiffs are all American citizens, the majority with military service backgrounds (retired or inactive but subject to recall), a number of former and possible or prospective political candidates, including a number of state legislators and third-party candidates for President and Vice-President.” Compl. 3:5-8.

    Plaintiffs are comprised of six groups which claim standing: (a) active military personnel; (b) former military personnel; (c) state representatives; (d) federal taxpayers; (e) relatives of President Obama; and (f) political candidates. The Complaint identifies eleven plaintiffs who fall within these groups. Thirty-two of the named plaintiffs are not identified in the Complaint with any particularity. The Court must assume that the remainder of the plaintiffs fall into one of the aforementioned six categories.

    The majority of Plaintiffs are addressed through the first prong of Article III standing, which requires that Plaintiffs demonstrate the “invasion of a legally protected interest” which is both “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61.

    a. Active Military Personnel

    The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff Lieutenant Jason Freese (“Lieutenant Freese”) has standing because he is on active military duty in Alaska. Compl. ¶ 6. The Complaint states that, because Lieutenant Freese is on active military duty, he has standing “to challenge and demand clear-and-convincing proof of the constitutional qualifications of the Commander-in-Chief and the legality of the current chain of command.” Id. Plaintiffs argue that Lieutenant Freese’s standing stems from the oath that military officers are required to take in which they swear to support and defend the Constitution. Pl. P.B.’s Opp’n 9:12-13:19. The oath that all military personnel take when enlisting in the military states as follows:

    I, _______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. 10 U.S.C. § 502.

    Plaintiffs rely primarily on Board of Education v. Allen for their argument that Plaintiff has standing as an oath taker. 392 U.S. 236, 88 S. Ct. 1923 (1968). In Allen, Plaintiffs who were serving on the Board of Education took an oath in which they pledged to uphold the Constitution. Id. at 241 n.5. Plaintiffs alleged that if pursuant to that oath they refused to follow a law requiring them to lend books to parochial schools on the basis that the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution, then they would face the injury of likely being expelled from office and having state funds to their school district reduced. Id. While the issue of standing was not before the Court, the Court observed in a footnote that it had no doubt that the plaintiffs had a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation. Id. Plaintiffs argue that this action is similar to Allen because Lieutenant Freese has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and if pursuant to that oath he refused to follow the orders of President Obama on the basis that all orders from the President are unconstitutional because he does not satisfy the natural born citizen clause, then Freese would face the injury of likely disciplinary action within the military.

    The footnote regarding standing in Allen is not binding Supreme Court precedent. In addition, the Supreme Court has significantly tightened standing requirements subsequent to the Allen ruling. City of South Lake Tahoe v. Calif. Tahoe Reg. Planning Agency, 625 F.2d 231, 236 (9th Cir. 1980). The Ninth Circuit has rejected the reasoning of the footnote in Allen on the basis that the real source of an oath taker’s complaint is not sufficiently concrete to establish standing. The Ninth Circuit, discussing the standing of oath takers to bring an action for injunctive and declaratory relief regarding the constitutionality of an action, reasoned that oath takers hold merely an abstract objection to an unconstitutional act because they generally face only an abstract injury should they choose to object to the act. Id. at 237. The Court found that the oath takers’ objection was insufficient to invoke standing because “the difficulty with abstract constitutional grievances is that they lack the specificity and adversarial coloration that transmute vague notions of constitutional principle into a form historically viewed as capable of judicial resolution.” Id. at 237-38 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Pursuant to the reasoning under South Lake Tahoe, Plaintiff Lieutenant Freese fails to establish standing based on his military oath because his injuries are not sufficiently concrete to establish Article III standing.

    The Complaint also requests that this Court enjoin the President’s “powers to order new deployments or assignments of any armed forces of the United States outside of the territorial limits of the United States without express Congressional approval, and further to limit the execution of certain orders of the President of the United States relating to the conduct of foreign policy by and through the use of currently deployed and assigned military force.” Compl. 3:14-19. This “cut and run” call to lay down arms and leave this country defenseless is an effort by Plaintiffs to emasculate the military.

    Plaintiffs have inappropriately requested that this Court interfere with internal military affairs. See Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 93-94, 73 S. Ct. 534 (1953) (“[J]udges are not given the task of running the Army.”). Plaintiffs only seek to enjoin acts that the President takes as Commander-in-Chief internationally, not domestically. This peculiarity leads the Court to suspect that the constitutional objection is being used as a veil to avoid deployment to countries where the United States military is currently active, such as Iraq or Afghanistan. See Rhodes v. Thomas D. MacDonald et al., No. 4:09-CV-106 (CDL), 2007 WL 2997605 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 16, 2009) (Plaintiff objecting to President Obama’s natural born citizen status “had no concerns about fulfilling her military obligation until she received orders notifying her that she would be deployed to Iraq in September 2009”). Furthermore, Lieutenant Freese’s claims are based upon the notion that his duty to serve is based upon who is in office. The duty to defend is not dependent upon a political or personal view regarding the individual who serves as President and Commander-in-Chief. It is an unequivocal duty to defend our country.

    This Court will not interfere in internal military affairs nor be used as a tool by military officers to avoid deployment. The Court has a word for such a refusal to follow the orders of the President of the United States, but it will leave the issue to the military to resolve.

    Plaintiff Freese fails to meet the Article III standing requirements.

    b. Former Military Personnel

    The Complaint states that all inactive or retired military personnel “have standing to challenge and demand clear-and-convincing proof . . . [because] they are subject to recall and service at any time under and subject to the de facto chain of command.” Compl. ¶ 7. In order for Article III standing to be met, the Supreme Court requires that the injury be “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical,’” and that the injury must be likely, not merely speculative. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61 (citations omitted). Currently, Plaintiffs are inactive in the military and therefore are not subject to any orders from the Commander-in-Chief, President Obama. Therefore, Plaintiffs base their standing on the possibility that they could be called back to service at any time and would at that point have to follow the Commander-in-Chief’s orders. Plaintiffs argue that following such orders would be injurious because they would have to follow the commands of someone who does not meet the requirements to hold the position of Commander-in-Chief. However, the chance that Plaintiffs would be called back to active duty fails to meet the requirement that the injury not be merely hypothetical or speculative. Whether or not Plaintiffs will be called back to active duty depends on future unknown events, and is thereby both hypothetical and speculative. See Bates v. Rumsfeld, 271 F. Supp. 2d 54, 62 (D. D.C. 2002) (where plaintiff challenging the military’s policy of forcing personnel to receive anthrax vaccine was no longer on active duty and the vaccine was only being administered to select units, plaintiff did not meet requirement that injury be concrete and actual or imminent). As such, inactive or former military personnel fail to meet the Article III standing requirements.

    c. State Representatives

    The Complaint additionally identifies a group of “Plaintiff State Representatives” as having “unique standing.” Compl. ¶ 8. While the Complaint does not specifically identify these representatives serving in the state government, from the caption of the Complaint it appears they are Tennessee Representative Glen Casada; New Hampshire Representative Timothy Comerford; Missouri Representative Cynthia Davis; Missouri Representative Timothy Jones; Tennessee Representative Frank Niceley; and Tennessee Representative Eric Swafford (collectively, the “State Representatives”).

    The Complaint alleges that the State Representatives have “a special non-delegable constitutional right and responsibility to verify the qualifications of the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America who is responsible for allocating large sums of funds, since receipt of funds from any officer without legal authority would be complicity in theft or conversion.” Id. Defendants argue that this allegation is “wholly insufficient to constitute injury-in-fact” because it is “neither actual or imminent” and is “highly speculative.” Mot. 8:13-14. Morever, Defendants assert that the allegation fails to “withstand any logical scrutiny” because the causes of action of theft and conversion require intent. Id. Since Plaintiffs state that they do not know with certainty that President Obama was not born in the United States, they do not have the requisite intent to be held liable for theft or conversion. Id. 8:8-21. In effect, Plaintiffs allege that the State Representatives have standing because they could be held liable for theft or conversion should they accept federal funds pursuant to an unconstitutionally elected president. The threat of liability for theft or conversion against these representatives is highly speculative. See City of South Lake Tahoe, 625 F.2d at 238 (exposure of plaintiffs to civil liability was wholly speculative where no lawsuit was currently threatened); see also O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 497, 94 S. Ct. 669 (1974) (“attempting to anticipate” whether respondent will be charged with a crime which will possibly lead to them suffering a constitutional violation takes the Court into “the area of speculation and conjecture”). The State Representatives’ liability for theft or conversion is speculative because it takes multiple logical leaps to assume that the representatives would be prosecuted criminally for theft and conversion for taking funds from the President who has been elected and sworn into office. Because the alleged harm faced by the State Representatives is highly speculative and conjectural, this group also fails to satisfy the standing requirements.

    Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiffs allege State Representatives have standing based on an oath to uphold the Constitution, the allegation is insufficient to establish standing under the reasoning of City of South Lake Tahoe, as discussed above.

    d. Federal Taxpayers

    Plaintiffs argue that they have standing to challenge President Obama’s unconstitutional presidency as federal taxpayers. However, Plaintiffs concede that current Supreme Court precedent would not allow for standing in this situation and that the Court could only find taxpayer standing should it expand the Supreme Court’s holdings. Pl. P.B.’s Opp’n 19:22-20:11. As a basis for this standing, Plaintiffs encourage the Court to expand the Supreme Court holding in Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S. Ct. 1942 (1968). In Flast, federal taxpayers sought to enjoin the expenditure of federal funds by Congress on the purchase of textbooks and other materials for use in parochial schools on grounds that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Id. at 85. The Supreme Court rejected the Government’s position that standing could never be established on the basis of taxpayer status and held that taxpayer standing could be established if the taxpayer demonstrates “that the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of the congressional taxing and spending power and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress” by Article 1, Section 8. Id. at 103. The Court stated that it lacked confidence that the issues would be framed with the necessary specificity to establish standing in cases “where a taxpayer seeks to employ a federal court as a forum in which to air his generalized grievances about the conduct of government or the allocation of power in the Federal System.” Id. at 106.

    Flast involved the challenge of congressional spending, whereas Plaintiffs in this case appear to be challenging the President’s role in making any executive decisions, presumably including spending, even though Congress, not the President, is granted the taxing and spending power in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Plaintiffs’ taxpayer standing argument ties into their universal argument that if the President has been elected without meeting the Constitution’s requirements, then every presidential order is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs’ dispute against the President is a generalized grievance, not tied to a specific spending measure in violation of the Constitution. Tellingly, Plaintiffs make no argument pertaining to a particular spending provision, and their argument does not even relate to the limits of the congressional taxing and spending power as discussed in Flast.

    Plaintiffs encourage the Court to expand standing grounds, arguing that the reasoning of Flast regarding the Establishment Clause is analogous to the natural born citizen clause because it is “an absolute limitation on the unconstitutional exercise of power by government whose effect (i.e. injury) will always be by definition diffuse rather than particularized.” Pl. P.B.’s Opp’n 20:5-11. Even ignoring the fact that Flast’s holding was limited to Establishment Clause claims which are not present here, Flast clearly required that in order for taxpayer status to create standing, the taxpayer must demonstrate a nexus between the challenged spending and the constitutional right. Hein v. Freedom From Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 605, 127 S. Ct. 2553 (2007) (requiring a “link” between congressional action and constitutional violation). Here, Plaintiffs do not show a nexus between any challenged spending provision passed by Congress and the constitutional requirement that the President be a natural born citizen. See Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 228, 94 S. Ct. 2925 (1974) (taxpayers did not have standing because they failed to establish a nexus between the challenged act and the constitutional violation where the challenged action was one of the executive branch).

    Under Flast, Plaintiffs do not have standing as taxpayers to challenge the President’s qualifications. Furthermore, expanding the Supreme Court’s holding in Flast to the current situation would be contrary to later Supreme Court jurisprudence reaffirming the narrow circumstances in which taxpayer status establishes standing. See, e.g., Hein, 551 U.S. at 615 (rejecting broad reading of Flast and affirming its application only to Congressional action, stating, “in the four decades since Flast was decided, we have never extended its narrow exception to a purely discretionary Executive Branch expenditure.”); Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 618, 108 S. Ct. 2562 (1988) (reaffirming Flast and acknowledging that Flast creates only a “narrow exception” to the “general rule against taxpayer standing”). The taxpayer plaintiffs have failed to allege injury-in-fact.

    e. Relatives

    The Complaint further alleges that Plaintiff Kurt Fuqua (“Fuqua”) has “traced his genealogy to be common with Mr. Obama’s” and that he thereby has standing because of “family relationship” and “concerns of the family medical history.” Compl. ¶¶ 49, 52. The Court finds that Plaintiff Fuqua also fails to satisfy standing requirements based on his alleged familial ties to President Obama. The Complaint alleges that this family relationship, as well as purported concerns Plaintiff has regarding his family medical history, establish standing. Id. ¶ 52. The Court takes this to mean that Fuqua has a greater interest in finding out where President Obama was born than the average citizen. Plaintiff Fuqua’s injury from an allegedly unqualified president is not any greater than the common citizen’s injury simply because he is allegedly related to President Obama.

    The “general right” of “every citizen, to require that the government be administered according to law” is insufficient to establish standing. Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 129, 42 S. Ct. 274 (1922). Plaintiff’s stake in this controversy as a citizen is no greater than the millions of other United States citizens, and the harm he alleges is too vague. As such, Fuqua has not alleged an injury-in-fact because the grievance of a citizen in the alleged violation of the natural born citizen clause is too generalized. See Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D. N.H. 2008); Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Pa. 2008).

    f. Political Candidates

    The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs Wiley S. Drake (“Drake”), Alan Keyes (“Keyes”), Gail Lightfoot (“Lightfoot”), and Markham Robinson (“Robinson”) have “unique political standing” because they appeared on the California ballot as candidates for president or vice president in the 2008 national election. Compl. ¶ 5. Keyes was the presidential nominee for the American Independent Party (also called America’s Independent Party on some ballots) in the 2008 Presidential election, and Plaintiff Drake was the vice presidential nominee for the American Independent Party in the 2008 Presidential election on the California ballot. Pl. W.D.’s Opp’n 1:6-13. Lightfoot was also a vice presidential nominee for the American Independent Party.

    Plaintiff Robinson was “a pledged Presidential elector for the American Independent Party in the 2008 Presidential election for the California ballot.” Id. In order to establish injury-in-fact, the injury must “affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61 n.1. Defendants argue that the political candidate plaintiffs have failed to establish injury-in-fact because they were not serious enough contenders for the presidency that another candidate’s alleged lack of qualifications for the position could cause them any harm. Notably, President Obama’s primary opponent for the Democratic Party nomination, Secretary Hillary Clinton, and President Obama’s Republican Party opponent, Senator John McCain, did not initiate any suits against President Obama regarding his birth status. These candidates, who were poised to benefit the most from the removal of Obama as a candidate, chose to refrain from bringing suit under the natural born citizen clause. Defendants argue that because the third party political candidates would have lost the election in any event, they have not been harmed by competing against a candidate who did not qualify. Defendants state that the Plaintiffs cannot meet the injury-in-fact requirement because they “cannot counter the argument that, from a simple mathematical analysis, . . . they were not on the ballot in enough states in the 2008 Presidential election to even hope that they could gain the requisite 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency or Vice Presidency of the United States.” Defs.’ Reply 3:6-11. If there should in fact be a dividing line for that is dependent on the likelihood of success in the election, then this is not a case which would hover on that line as Plaintiffs received only four-hundredth of one percent of the vote. The Court may have already met this entire group of voters at the hearings on this matter. In this case, it does seem highly unlikely that the replacement of President Obama with another Democratic nominee such as Hillary Clinton would have resulted in a victory for Plaintiffs Keyes, Drake, or Lightfoot of the American Independent Party. However, creating a dividing line for standing according to chance of success in political elections is, by the nature of our political system, an especially difficult determination because political elections lack predictability and can be greatly affected by a single speech or action of a candidate. At the same time, perhaps it is precisely this unpredictability of political elections that makes the claim of a third party candidate, who received less than one percent of the popular vote in the 2008 national election that did take place, too speculative to establish standing.

    In addition, Defendants’ arguments raise obvious slippery slope objections. Would a candidate such as Ross Perot, who received nearly twenty percent of the popular vote but no electoral college votes in the 1992 election, have a sufficiently strong chance of winning the election to establish standing to challenge a major party candidate’s qualifications? At the same time, if every candidate has standing to challenge an opposing candidate, would that include write-in candidates who receive minimal votes? Where to draw the line between which political candidates have standing and which candidates do not have standing to challenge their opposing candidates’ qualifications is an amorphous determination that would need to take into account, at the very least, the number of states in which the candidate was on the ballot.

    The Court is troubled by the idea that a third party candidate would not have standing to challenge a major party candidate’s qualifications, while the opposing major party candidate may be able to establish standing because he or she has a better chance of winning the election. Defendants’ argument encourages the marginalization of the voice of a third party in what is a dominantly two-party political system and would require the Court to pass judgment that Plaintiffs are such unlikely candidates that who they are running against would not make a difference. This argument also ignores the tremendous effect that a third-party candidate can have on the presidential election. In 2000, many political commentators opined that should Green Party candidate Ralph Nader not have run for presidential office and received less than three percent of the popular vote, Al Gore would have won the election instead of President George W. Bush. Even when third-party candidates themselves may not have a chance of winning, which candidates they compete against can certainly have an effect on the election results.

    Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson argue that it is irrelevant that those candidates which had the most to gain by removing Obama as a candidate, Secretary Clinton and Senator McCain, are not the candidates challenging President Obama. Plaintiffs encourage the Court to reject Defendants’ success-based concept of standing. They make a qualitatively different argument regarding why they have suffered injury as political candidates, an argument that does not require the Court to consider their likelihood of winning the election. Plaintiffs argue that the injury they suffered was the deprivation of the right to run for office on a fair playing field against only candidates who meet the constitutional requirements to serve as President. Under
    this theory, the injury is not that of being deprived the chance to win, but being deprived the chance to compete only against “legitimate” candidates. If the Court accepts this concept of injury, then all candidates would have standing to sue the President on the basis that they were all injured by having to compete against him in the national election.

    Because the political candidate plaintiffs are the only category of plaintiffs who potentially satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement, the Court will turn to whether the political candidates can satisfy the redressability requirement of the standing analysis and whether the political candidates can further clear the political question and separation of powers hurdles of justiciability.

    B. Redressability, Political Question, and Separation of Powers

    The third prong of Article III standing requires that the alleged injury be likely to be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561 (citations omitted). The redressability prong requires the court to “examine whether ‘the court has the power to right or to prevent the claimed injury.’” Railway Labor Executives Ass’n v. Dole, 760 F.2d 1021, 1023 (9th Cir. 1985) (quoting Gonzales v. Gorusch, 688 F.2d 1263, 1267 (9th Cir. 1985)). While standing generally focuses upon the potential plaintiff and his or her relationship to the alleged harm, the redressability prong of standing turns the focus upon the type of redress that the court is able to offer to the plaintiff. Courts will refrain from finding standing in cases where, regardless of a showing of injury-in-fact, the court would be unable to offer redress that would cure plaintiff’s harm. See Railway Labor Executives Ass’n, 760 F.2d at 1023-24 (plaintiffs failed to satisfy redressability prong where court did not have the power to “fashion[] an enforcement manual for an executive branch agency that was presumably commissioned by Congress to devise its own enforcement strategy”).

    Ultimately, Plaintiffs’ alleged injury is having to respect the authority of a president who does not meet the constitutional requirements to hold office. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ injury would only be redressed by the removal of President Obama from office. Plaintiffs thereby ask this Court to intervene and overthrow a president who was elected by “We the People”–over sixtynine million of the people. President Obama was popularly elected. He received the requisite votes from the Electoral College, which were received and counted by Congress with no objections. President Obama took office at noon on January 20, 2009 pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment. He was sworn in on January 20, 2009, and re-sworn in on January 21, 2009, pledging the oath set forth in Article II, Section 1, cl. 8 of the Constitution: “I do solemnly swear(or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” In order for Plaintiffs’ alleged injury to be fully addressed, Plaintiffs would have the Court intervene, upheave the results of a national election, declare the President illegitimate, shut down the functioning of the government of the United States, and leave this country defenseless.

    Furthermore, if the Court accepts Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson’s conceptualization of their injury as the harm of being unable to compete in an election with only “legitimate” candidates, redressing the injury of competing in an unfair election would require that the Court order a new national presidential election. Instead of impeachment, which would allow succession by the Vice President and continuation of the order of a functioning government, Plaintiffs seek to shut down the government through an injunction and install a replacement government through a new election. In other words, if the political candidates’ harm is based on their inability to compete against constitutionally qualified candidates, in order to redress that harm the Court would not only have to remove the President, it would have to order a new national election.

    The analysis of redressability and political question is significantly different in the context of a sitting president than it would be for a presidential candidate. Therefore, it is a crucial distinction that Plaintiffs’ counsel waited to bring this action until after President

    [1 Plaintiffs’ counsel Taitz admitted that the failure to bring a suit before this Court previous to the President’s assumption of office was the fault of counsel due to in-fighting between plaintiffs and between her and counsel Kreep. As stated in the October 5 hearing on this matter:

    THE COURT: Just a moment. You didn’t answer my question. Why didn’t you file this case?
    MS. TAITZ: Because the plaintiffs wanted to wait for Mr. Kreep.
    THE COURT: So that’s a conscious choice on the plaintiffs’ team, then, that you acceded to at that time to put this case in the posture and position of a duly sworn President.
    MS. TAITZ: Well, again, Your Honor, not duly sworn President. If one is sworn based on fraudulent information, then the word “duly” wouldn’t. . .

    Tr. of Oral Argument 52-53, Oct. 5, 2009.]

    Obama’s formal assumption into office.1 See Wilbur v. Locke, 423 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Kitty Hawk Aircargo, Inc. v. Chao, 418 F.3d 453, 460 (5th Cir. 2005)) (“‘As with all questions of subject matter jurisdiction except mootness, standing is determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint . . .’”).

    Because Plaintiffs did not file this action until the day President Obama took office and was sworn in, any action that this Court takes in this matter is not merely against Senator Obama as a political candidate but against President Obama, this country’s sitting president. In this case, the redressability prong of standing is intimately intertwined with and influenced by another justiciability concept–political question and the separation of powers. Any action taken by the Court would necessarily infringe upon, at the very least, the Executive branch because it would involve a declaration regarding the qualifications of the President. Because the redressability analysis must consider what actions the Court may take against a sitting President, separation of powers concerns regarding the appropriate role of the judiciary sit at the forefront
    of the redressability analysis. Plaintiffs have requested both an injunction and a declaratory judgment in the Complaint. Compl. ¶¶ 11-22. Plaintiffs would have the Court reverse the election of President Obama by the American people through a declaratory judgment or injunction that would result in the removal of the President from office. The power of this Court generally to issue an injunction or

    [2 The inclusion of the First Lady in this lawsuit, considering she holds no constitutional office, is baffling.]

    declaratory judgment against the President is limited at best. The Supreme Court has stated that enjoining a President is an “extraordinary” action that should “raise[ ] judicial eyebrows.” Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 802, 112 S. Ct. 2767 (1992) (plurality opinion). It has also stated that “in general ‘this court has no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties.’” Id. at 802-03 (quoting Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475, 501 (1866)).

    In addition, Plaintiffs have requested that other officials, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, be enjoined. In their original complaint, Plaintiffs also included FBI Director Robert Mueller. While Plaintiffs removed Mueller in their First Amended Complaint following the Court’s suggestion that they narrow and focus their claims, they insisted upon the continued inclusion of the First Lady, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Vice President as Defendants.2 Plaintiffs’ cause of action is against the President and goes to the heart of the President’s ability to hold office. A remedy directed toward any subordinate officials would not redress Plaintiffs’ injury. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ injury could not be redressed through the
    injunction of other subordinate executive officials which may be more properly within the power of this Court. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S. Ct. 863 (1952). The case of Newdow v. Bush is instructive regarding the power of the Court to issue an injunction or declaratory judgment against the President. In Newdow, the court considered whether plaintiff had standing to seek a preliminary injunction against President Bush restraining him from inviting clergy to give a religious prayer at his inauguration. 355 F. Supp. 2d 265, 268 (D. D.C. 2005). The court observed that issuing an injunction against the President “raises serious separation of powers concerns” and further asserted that “[t]here is longstanding legal authority that the judiciary lacks the power to issue an injunction or declaratory judgment against the co-equal branches of the government–the President and the Congress.” Id. at 280. The court rejected the argument that there should be an exception read into the President’s immunity “where he is claimed to have violated the Constitution.” Id. at 282. Further, the court found that the same considerations foreclosing the possibility of issuing an injunction against the President foreclosed the possibility of issuing a request for declaratory judgment. Id. at 281. In this case, Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that President Obama is not a constitutionally elected president. Plaintiffs do not ask the Court to enjoin the President from issuing a particular order; they request that President Obama be enjoined from issuing any orders whatsoever and be enjoined from holding the office of President. Plaintiffs make it clear from their briefing that they believe that any order issued by a president who does not satisfy the natural-born citizen clause is unconstitutional. Therefore, in order to cure Plaintiffs’ perceived injury, the Court would need to wade deep into the waters of the President’s official duties–in fact, it would have to declare that the President could no longer perform any official duties. The separation of powers concerns implicated by this request are grave.

    Beyond the general power of this Court to issue an injunction or declaratory judgment against the President, the Court must consider its power to take any action removing the President from office. Defendants have argued that the Court cannot suitably redress any injury to Plaintiffs because the Court does not have the power to upseat the President. They further argue that because the Court lacks this power, any declaratory judgment issued by the Court finding that the President was not qualified to hold his office would be a nullity. Removing the President would not only affect the Executive branch, it may also infringe upon the power of the Legislative branch granted by the Constitution in matters of Presidential impeachment and succession. Defendants argue that the Constitution grants Congress the sole power to remove a president through Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which address impeachment, and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, which addresses the removal of the president should he or she be unfit to serve.

    The non-justiciability of an action on political question grounds is “primarily a function of the separation of powers” and pertains to “the relationship between the judiciary and the coordinate branches of the Federal Government.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210, 82 S. Ct. 691 (1962). The key inquiry is whether the matter has “in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government.” Id. at 211. The Supreme Court has set forth factors indicating the existence of a political question:

    Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question. Id. at 217.

    Thus, the Court turns to the first factor set forth in Baker v. Carr–whether the Court finds a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department.” Id. The natural born citizen clause is couched in absolute terms of qualifications and does not designate which branch should evaluate whether the qualifications are fulfilled. Therefore, the Court necessarily turns to a structural analysis of the Constitution regarding the role of the respective branches of government in deciding the qualifications of a sitting president to hold office.

    Three provisions of the Constitution speak to which branch of government has the power to evaluate the qualifications of a president: the Twelfth Amendment, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, and the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution. The Twelfth Amendment provides a role for Congress to make the ultimate determination of who shall be president and vice president through the counting of the electoral votes. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment, which addresses the succession to presidency and vice presidency in the case the president is disabled,

    [3 Plaintiffs presume that the words of Emmerich de Vattel, John Jay, and John Armor Bingham alone empower this Court to define the natural born citizen clause. The Complaint conveniently chooses to ignore Congress’ long history of defining citizenship, whether naturalized or by birth. See Charles Gordon, “Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968) (contrasting 150 years of active Congressional legislation against judicial restraint).]

    including by death or resignation, directs that in the case where there is disagreement as to whether the President is able to discharge the powers and duties of his or her office, “Congress shall decide the issue.”

    The Twentieth Amendment, known as the “Lame Duck Amendment,” addresses the task of ensuring that someone holds the office of president in the case of the death of a president or the failure of a president to be chosen or qualify by the beginning of his or her term. The Twentieth Amendment provides: “If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

    Even though these provisions of the Constitution tend to suggest that, at least in some circumstances, it is within the province of Congress to decide whether the President meets the qualifications to serve,3 the Court cannot reach the issue of whether in all cases the interpretation of the natural born citizen clause would present a political question. Instead, because redress of Plaintiffs’ alleged harm would require removal of President Obama, the key analysis is whether the power to remove a sitting president from office is textually committed to another branch. The Constitution grants to Congress the sole power of impeachment of the President. The Constitution reads, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 3, cl. 6. In Nixon v. United States, when considering the issue of whether the Court could review the manner in which the Senate conducted impeachment proceedings, the Supreme Court focused on the grant of “sole” power to try impeachments to the Senate, noting that the definition of sole is “‘functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference.’” 506 U.S. 224, 231, 113 S. Ct. 732 (1993). The Court ruled that the text of the impeachment clause indicated a purposeful decision by the Framers to commit impeachment to the Legislative branch. Id. at 235-36.

    Furthermore, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment sets forth the line of succession “in case of the removal of the president from office” or in case of his or her death, resignation, or inability to serve. The Amendment specifies a role for Congress in this process, but no role for the judiciary. The combination of Article I and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment leads the Court to conclude that there is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue of the removal of a sitting president to a coordinate political department–the Legislative branch. In Nixon, the Court also discussed prudential considerations that counseled against judicial review of Senate impeachment proceedings. 506 U.S. at 252 n.4. While Nixon involved the impeachment of a judge, the Court commented on the dangers of judicial review of impeachment of the President:

    This lack of finality would manifest itself most dramatically if the President were impeached. The legitimacy of any successor, and hence its effectiveness, would be impaired severely, not merely while the judicial process was running its course, but during any retrial that a differently constituted Senate might conduct if its first judgment of conviction were invalidated.
    506 U.S. at 236.

    The potential upheaval to this country that would result from a branch other than Congress ruling on the removal of the President weighs heavily in this case as well. The founders of the Constitution created impeachment to allow an orderly process of transition and succession during which the country can continue to function. Plaintiffs’ request, asking this Court to sweep away the votes of over sixty-nine million Americans with the stroke of a pen and order a new election during which the country would be in a state of turmoil, ignores the Constitution’s processes and separation of powers that were developed by the founders. Evaluation of the other Baker v. Carr factors confirms that refraining from taking jurisdiction over this matter is appropriate. Specifically, the factors of (1) “the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government;” (2) “an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made;” and (3) “the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question” all support the impropriety of assuming jurisdiction. 369 U.S. at 217.

    At oral argument, Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson encouraged the Court to find that the redressability prong has been satisfied on the basis that President Obama’s removal from office would not require impeachment, which they agree is reserved by the Constitution for Congress. Because President Obama never met the constitutional requirements to run for President, they argue, he was never a valid candidate and could not be validly elected. Because he does not validly hold the office of President, he would not be subject to the Constitution’s requirements regarding the removal of a president from office through impeachment.

    Finally, they reasoned that, because whatever alternative process would be required to remove the President is not set forth in the Constitution, it is not clearly reserved for another branch and is therefore within the province of this Court.

    There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president -– removal for any reason -– is within the province of Congress, not the courts.

    This case highlights the complicated relationship between the redressability prong of standing and the political question doctrine in cases where the plaintiff’s injuries can only be addressed through a court taking action against another branch of the government. Because the Court finds that it does not have the power nor the right to redress the political candidates’ injury by removing a sitting President from office, the Court does not have jurisdiction as to the political candidates’ claims on the basis that they fail to satisfy the redressability requirement of Article III standing.

    Therefore, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction because Plaintiffs have failed to establish standing on injury-in-fact and redressability grounds. Plaintiffs’ declaratory relief, injunction, and Section 1983 claims are DISMISSED.

    C. Quo Warranto Claims

    Plaintiffs encourage the Court to issue a quo warranto writ against President Obama challenging the President’s right to hold his office. The Complaint recognizes that the District of Columbia would be the appropriate district in which to bring this writ, but alleges that bringing this request to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia would be futile because the United States Attorney is biased and Judge Robertson within that district had already rejected a similar case in which President Obama’s qualifications were challenged. Compl. ¶¶ 32 – 35.

    The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia. At oral argument, Plaintiffs encouraged the Court to apply the District of Columbia’s quo warranto statute pursuant to California choice-of-law provisions because the District of Columbia is the residence of Defendants. Plaintiffs’ contention is wholly misplaced because, while this Court can apply the law of other jurisdictions where appropriate, it is precluded from robbing the D.C. court of jurisdiction as to any quo warranto writ against President Obama because the D.C. Code grants exclusive jurisdiction to the District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs’ quo warranto demand is hereby DISMISSED for improper venue.

    D. Discovery and Freedom of Information Act Claims

    Plaintiffs argue that they have been ignored by several government agencies in their quest to receive Obama’s long-form Hawaiian birth certificate and other information such as his passport records. See Compl. ¶¶ 86 – 109. Plaintiffs have indicated that they plan to seek extensive discovery in this case, including the deposition and appearance in court of President Obama and the request through a letter rogatory to the government of Kenya for the birth certificate that they allege proves he was born in Kenya. See Mot. for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for Authentication of Kenyan Birth Certificate (Aug. 1, 2009); Special Mot. For Leave to Conduct Pre-R. 26(f) Discovery (Aug. 1, 2009) (“Plaintiffs . . . intend on taking the following depositions: a. Barack Hussein Obama; b. Cheryl Fukino; c. Speaker of the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi; d. Commissioner of Social Security; e. All other Defendants . . .”). Plaintiffs appear to assume that should the Court receive a document from Kenya, the Court would give credence to this document over the American birth records of the President and the case would be resolved. Even should the Court permit the issuance of a letter rogatory to Kenya, the Court would still engage in a comparative exercise in which the records of America, which has historically maintained some of the most credible recordkeeping practices in the world, would be contrasted with the credibility of the records obtained from Kenya. Such an analysis would seemingly favor the records of the United States.

    As support for their right to these documents, Plaintiffs purport to state a claim under the Freedom of Information Act. The Complaint states, “The Plaintiffs as a group may not have adhered closely or precisely to the letter of FOIA in all of their approaches to the current administration for information, but this court has assured them that the present case will be decided on its legal merits and factual substance, and not on procedural irregularities.” Compl. ¶ 59. In Plaintiffs’ briefing, they state, “Plaintiffs can and do allege exhaustion of FOIA requirements as a practical and substantive matter.” Pl. P.B.’s Opp’n 8:27-28.

    However, even ignoring the fact that Plaintiffs appear to admit that they have not complied with FOIA requirements in their requests for information, Plaintiffs’ claim fails because FOIA does not apply to Defendants. FOIA only applies to entities qualifying as an “agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2). The statute defines “agency” as, “any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency.” Id. at § 551(1). The Executive Office of the President is an agency within the Executive branch and is a body separate from the President himself. All of the Defendants–President Obama, Michelle Obama, Secretary Clinton, Vice President Biden, and Secretary Gates–are individuals, not agencies. Therefore, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim against these individuals under FOIA and the claim is hereby DISMISSED.

    E. Claims Against the Remaining Defendants

    Plaintiffs have also named Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, and Robert Gates as defendants. Plaintiffs made overtures at pleading a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) claim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. against all Defendants. However, the pleading only states that while Plaintiffs had “accumulated several dossiers of evidence” suggesting a civil RICO conspiracy, they were unable to actually set forth a RICO pleading “[b]ecause of the complexity of RICO.” Compl. ¶¶ 123-25. Plaintiffs originally filed this action on January 20, 2009, and the First Amended Complaint at issue was filed on July 15, 2009. Nearly six months was more than sufficient time for Plaintiffs to at least attempt to set forth civil RICO allegations. The failure to do so is inexcusable, and as Plaintiffs have failed to state any claim whatsoever against Defendants Michelle Obama, Clinton, Biden, and Gates, all claims against them are DISMISSED.

    F. Conduct of Plaintiffs’ Counsel

    The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her cocounsel Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court. The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric. This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and reque


  73. -sted that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service. Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. See Order Denying Pls.’ Mot. For Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato’s Aug. 6, 2009, Order; Denying Pls.’ Mot. to Recuse Mag. J. Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App. for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8, 2009). Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel. See id. Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court’s decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court’s decision.

    Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.

    While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.

    IV. DISPOSITION

    Plaintiffs have expressed frustration with the notion that this case could be dismissed on separation of powers, political question, or standing grounds, asserting that these are mere “technicalities” obstructing Plaintiffs from being able to resolve the case on the merits of President Obama’s birth and constitutional qualifications. As the Supreme Court has stated, “It is indeed a singular misconception of the nature and character of our constitutional system of government to suggest that the settled distinction . . . between judicial authority over justiciable controversies and legislative power as to purely political questions tends to destroy the duty of the judiciary in proper cases to enforce the Constitution.” Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 149-150, 32 S. Ct. 224 (1912). Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under Article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process. Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the People”–over sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

    IT IS SO ORDERED.

    DATED: October 29, 2009
    _______________________________
    DAVID O. CARTER
    United States District Judge


  74. See full article with illustrations:

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113004

    Obama from Kenya, archived report says
    Revives worry about president’s eligibility for office
    Posted: October 15, 2009
    2:34 pm Eastern

    By Bob Unruh
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily

    An archived article from 2004 on Barack Obama’s run for the U.S. Senate in Illinois describes the relative political newcomer as “Kenyan-born,” providing further fuel for speculation over the president’s eligibilty for office.

    WND has noted various news reports that have either stated or implied Obama’s birthplace is not Hawaii, as he has claimed, but Africa.

    The issue is significant, since there are a number of lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility that argue if he was not born in the U.S., he does not meet the requirement in the Constitution that the president be a “natural born” citizen.

    WND further has reported on the disagreement among those documenting Obama’s presidency over which Hawaii hospital was his birth place.

    Now have come a flood of blog questions and e-mails regarding the apparently archived article from the Sunday Standard in Kenya.

    The report starts out, “Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack (sic) Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.”

    The report continues to discuss the allegations against Ryan, Obama’s opponent in his race for the U.S. Senate, and his decision to drop out, virtually handing the Senate seat to the political newcomer.

    The article is credited to the wire service Associated Press at the bottom of the page. However, the article could not be found either in the AP archives available to the public online or the archive on the newspaper’s website. WND telephone calls and e-mails to the newspaper did not generate a response.

    At the Post & Email blog, writer John Charlton offered several explanations, including the suggestion references to Obama’s birth have been scrubbed.

    He wrote that a search of Google for the issue produced unusual results.

    “When you attempt to search for ‘Kenyan-born Obama'; results are missing; years prior to 2004 seem scrubbed; and when you click a link to an article in 2000, you get an article in 2004.

    “Deliberate sabotage of their own news archive?” he wondered.

    He said searching Google for the reference words “Kenyan-born U.S. Senator Obama hopeful” came up with a 1981 New York Times reference, but Obama is not in the article.

    “There is no mention of Obama from 1981 to 2000; despite all his ‘work with the poor’ in Chicago,” Charlton continued.

    The June 27, 2004, article from the Standard doesn’t appear.

    A further link to PBS leads to a story about Obama’s Senate victory, another to USA Today talks about Obama’s father being Kenyan-born and another from 2004 does the same.

    “Then, you would not believe it; but all the newspapers in the world, during the period from Jan. 1, 2005 to April 12, 2006, don’t make one mention of Obama! Not even one,” he said.

    The bottom line, however, Charlton wrote, should not be what published reports have said, but what proof Obama can provide.

    “If Obama cannot show documents which prove he is born in the USA; the mere fact that he has claimed to be born overseas and in the U.S.A.; first at one hospital in Hawaii and then at another; means that nothing he says in court, and no document presented by his campaign could be taken as prima facie evidence of anything.”

    Earlier this year, an African news site and an MSNBC broadcaster delivered references to President Obama’s birthplace as being outside of the United States, even as a controversy had developed over a letter purporting to be from the president claiming Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu as his birth location.

    Network correspondent Mara Schiavocampo was reporting on the celebratory atmosphere in Accra, Ghana, immediately prior to Obama’s visit to the west African nation.

    Interviewing a person who appeared to be a shop operator, she suggested, “Barack Obama is Kenyan … but Ghanaians are still proud of him.”

    The video of the report is at this link.

    Her report talks about the party atmosphere and the Obama fan clubs who have posted “Welcome home” signs.

    (Story continues below)

    Meanwhile, a report at Modern Ghana also posted in advance of the president’s visit cited his birthplace on the continent of Africa.

    “For Ghana, Obama’s visit will be a celebration of another milestone in African history as it hosts the first-ever African-American President on this presidential visit to the continent of his birth,” the report said.

    The Modern Ghana report also cited the expectations that Obama would make a foreign policy pronouncement during his visit.

    Kenya’s East African Standard also, in an Aug. 24, 2006, article titled “From Young ‘Barry’ to Top American Senator,” previously said of Obama: “The Harvard Law School and Columbia University graduate was born at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu in Hawaii, where his parents were studying at the East-West Center of the University of Hawaii in Manoa.”

    WND also reported, Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, claimed Obama was born in Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, a testimony reported as fact by several news sources and the myth-busting site Snopes.com.

    Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii

    But after WND drew attention to a letter from the president declaring as his birthplace the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu instead, news sources and websites jumped to scrub the Queen’s location and replace it with Kapi’olani.

    As WND reported, the White House insists Obama was born in Hawaii but has thus far refused to verify which hospital the president claims as his birthplace or whether the letter – purportedly from President Obama claiming Kapi’olani – is, in fact, real.

    The lawsuits over Obama’s eligibility continue in several parts of the country, and in fact a California federal judge has scheduled a trial on the dispute to begin in January.

    WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

    Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

    Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

    Complicating the situation is Obama’s decision to spend sums exceeding $1 million to avoid releasing an original long-form state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.

    WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

    Because of the dearth of information about Obama’s eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: “Where’s the birth certificate?”

    “Where’s The Birth Certificate?” billboard at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip

    The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 475,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

    The “certification of live birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

    Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.


  75. Yet another court finds Attorney Taitz’s conduct improper and unethical.

    Quo usque tandem abutere, Catalin, patientia nostra!

    According to the Judge, “It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court’s decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court’s decision.

    “Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.”

    More grease for the skids carrying a legal career down the drain.

    [The Latin was for Mike Appleton, who knows what it means. Cicero was addressing the Senate in opposition to the Cataline conspiracy, asking “O how long, Catalina, will you abuse our patience?”

    “While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.”


  76. Art Bull, the entire World Nut story is bogus.

    So a Kenyan paper called Obama “Kenyan born” in 2004. So what?

    Two, repeat, TWO, Hawaiian papers reported Obama’s birth in Honolulu in 1961, the very year of his birth. They based their reports on information received from hospitals furnished by official government agencies, and furnished to the papers by the agencies.

    Lawyers and law students at the Turley blog know the “best evidence” rule, and that anonymous, unsourced Kenyan report is as far from the best evidence as you can get.

    The birth announcements support the COLB, which is an official “birth certificate” under every known legal definition of that term. Hawaiian officials have stated that their records (which state law protects from disclosure) show that Obama was born in Hawaii. Obama’s grandmother never said he was born in Kenya, since she was mistranslated and the birthers never mention the correct translation.

    Art Bull has not answered the fact that World Nut continues to lie about the idea that COLBs can show that foreign born babies were born in Hawaii. That is illegal under Hawaiian law. How about an answer.


  77. Also, Associated Press has publicly confirmed that the article it originated in 2004 NEVER included the phrase “Kenyan born.” That phrase was inserted by a party or parties unknown.

    It has all the credibility of an unripe tomato.


  78. “WND also reported, Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, claimed Obama was born in Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, a testimony reported as fact by several news sources and the myth-busting site Snopes.com.”

    Another lie. I tracked this down when bdaman posted it. I found the original source in and article in “Rainbow Newsletter” by a high school reporter. Maya NEVER stated that Obama was born at Queens in the article. The high school kid said that. All the other sources just parroted that false statement.

    BOTH medical centers in Honolulu are named for queens. The Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu was named for Queen Kapi’olani. They are often confused by strangers. The Obamas have consistently stated that he was born in Kapi’olani.

    And the hospital never scrubbed anything. I found that the letter from Obama saying that he was born there was still posted proudly on their site in their newsletter long after the supposed scrubbing.

    Lies, lies, lies.

    Is AB channeling birther and bdaman by any chance?


  79. Now I know what it feels like to be pecked by a flock of ducks. Sodomists, Acorn and black race of Cain unite against religious white males, and in the case of Orly Taitz, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Prajean, Malkin, all extremely beautiful and intelligent conservative women. Racism and sexism against the “white and delightsome” Prajean, Taitz, Bachman, and sultry, fiery, insightful, witty Malkin. Darwinism is false. I have been accused of one sodomite here of blasphemy for using scripture to correctly label wacko Darwinists, leftist fools using the inspired judgment of Paul of the sodomites of his day:

    26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
    27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
    29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
    30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
    31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
    32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    (Rom 1:26-32)
    .

    16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

    (2 Tim 3:16)

    Of course the Scriptures are not with the sodomites, therefore they do not use them, because they are incompetent. I am more than competent and what is more, a legal administrator, having been caught up to behold for myself as written in the book “The Revelations of Jesus Christ” (see http://artbulla.com):

    FIRST VISION

    While journeying on foot about 10:00 P.M. in the east, being inducted into the armed forces the next day, being on the way to the bus station to travel to the armed forces induction station in Raleigh, N.C, I re­ceived the following vision, while on the road on foot:

    December 29, 1969, while enwrapted in a heavenly vision, It seemed that I, Art Bulla, was removed out of my body, or whether in the body or out of it I could not tell, and I be­held his face, and He spake unto me face to face as one man speaks unto another for forty-five minutes or an hour, and whet­her in the body or out of it, I could not tell, for I beheld his glory, which surpasses all under­stand­ing, and spake while in the vi­sion, in a much better tongue than any spoken by man at this time, which I supposed to be the Adamic Tongue, my understand­ing being quickened by such might and intelligence and power that it is beyond the mind of man unaided by the Spirit of Revela­tion which dwells yet within me, to comprehend, and indeed no words can convey, for it seemed that I was transfigured before Him of whom I speak, my God in whom I bear record as others have before me, that He lives, for I too have seen Him. And tongue cannot express his matchless might, glory, power and intelligence, and I shall forever adore his glory, for having once beheld his face and felt of his love and might and power and beheld things which I cannot convey, for there is no language, I must, I MUST obtain his presence, and I shall not be content with any­thing else, this world or its allur­ments. And having been or­dained unto the Holy Order of God which is after the Order of Melchizedec, even the Holy Apostle­ship, the keys of which I hold, I bear record of my Father, for I have seen Him and con­versed with him, and I testify that He shall return in this the Latter Day as soon as my people are straightened from this crooked and perverse generation which shall be destroyed by the might of his power, and that they be gath­ered out according to the Revela­tions which are being given unto me, almost daily at this time, which is one of the darkest peri­ods and most wicked because of unbelief in the history of the earth, that Zion may descend and that the heavens and the earth mingle and become One, as prayed by the Only Begotten, even my brother Jesus of Nazareth. Yea, my Father, I pray that thy will be done and thy King­dom come on earth as it is in heaven. Even so. Amen.


  80. “December 29, 1969, while enwrapted in a heavenly vision, It seemed that I, Art Bulla, was removed out of my body…”

    So that explains it. Art is not only out of his mind, he is also out of his body. Aw, hell, no one could make this stuff up! The artful Art Bulla is still in the throes of an OOBE, out in space with the Junior Galactic Raiders of the Universal Empire.

    Art also talks like a white supremacist, accusing the left of “being traitors to their race.” It is grim window into the mind of the birther underworld.


  81. Darwinists aka “anti-Christs” (a more correct appellation) always use the same argument: “out of his mind”, proving how wicked and corrupt they are, therefore adding blasphemy against the Holy Ghost to their long train of foul acts, attributing the Holy Ghost to the “effect of a frenzied mind”:

    12 And this Anti-Christ, whose name was Korihor, (and the law could have no hold upon him) began to preach unto the people that there should be no Christ. And after this manner did he preach, saying:
    13 O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come.
    14 Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.
    15 How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ.
    16 Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the EFFECT OF A FRENZIED MIND; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.
    17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.
    18 And thus he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms–telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof.

    (Alma 30:12-18)

    More junk science.


  82. More on junk science (Darwinism), the foundation of liberalism, or the worldview upon which sodomites pinion their eternities: this is what I wrote to the SB Leakey Foundation protesting their lack of knowledge concerning the physical sciences and mathematics, acting without which makes them mere propagandists (I was inducted into the Phi Beta Kappa of mechanical engineers, Tau Beta Pi, at the University of Utah for a high grade point), this is what I wrote also contained in the book The Revelations of Jesus Christ, Section 14, using mathematical probability theory proving Carl Sagan to be an ideologue and a fool:

    The Revelations of Jesus Christ

    Section 14: 29-66

    29 If the “theory” of evolution is a true explana­tion of reality, or fact, then it must conform with physics, and mathematics and other observable and provable phenomena.
    30 If it contradicts any of these, then it must be that the theory is false, not the mathematical laws or the laws of physics.
    31 But the blind prejudice of the scientific com­munity, which is nothing more than a hegemony of paid erudite liars, conveniently discard logic in order to stub­bornly cling to their brand of false religion, that their pay­checks may keep rolling in, for did the adversary not say that he would buy up armies and navies, Popes, Kings and scientists and rule with blood and horror upon this earth?
    32 I have pointed these contra­dictions out to the Leakeys of South Africa and the still insist upon their theory of evolution in spite of reason and truth, which I will demonstrate within this let­ter to the satisfaction of a child.
    33 I prayed unto my God who hath revealed him­self personally to mea concerning this theory and through Revelation, which medium is a superior source of wisdom than any mere empiri­cism, I re­ceived two blaring con­tradictions to the above named fundamental sciences.
    34 Darwin was not acquainted with mathematics or physics, the fundamentals upon which all sci­entific disciplines rest, to any serious degree: he was a natural­ist who drew erroneous conclu­sions from a loose collection of facts.
    35 I will show you how the world has been de­ceived:
    36 The fundamental premise of evolution is that organisms sprang into being from a random chance collision of molecules in a “primordial sea” or “soup” and that these admittedly simple or­ganisms “evolved”-a term coined by some fat victorian natura­list-into more complex organ­isms by an equally random, chance process.
    37 First of all this process in its description breaks one of the fundamental laws of physics, the second law of thermodyna­mics, which states that everything in nature naturally proceeds from a high energy level which is usu­ally less stable, to a low energy state (in other words, water runs downhill, not up).
    38 A specific case of this law states that through a process called entropy, systems prefer to be in a disorganized state, rather than one that has a high degree of organization, such as a human body, in other words, things in nature proceed from a state of order through entropy to a state of disorder (I speak of random collisions of molecules).
    39 A system which is organized has in­herently more energy, not less than one than one which is dis­organized.
    40 Hence the need for an energy input of some source to effect this organization.
    41 Random chance cannot ex­plain the existence of such a monumentally complex organi­zation as that of the human body!
    42 It takes a great deal of faith of the blind kind to believe in such an absurd proposition.
    43 It takes more than I am ca­pable of mustering.
    44 A specific example of this ab­surdity, accord­ing to the laws of mathematics which we stated that the theory of evolution must conform to, or else be labeled as false, which it is, is this: sup­pose we take the random arisal of not an organ­ism, but just one protein molecule (of which there must be a specific combination of billions upon billions of these different proteins in a specific way to form a single organism, a puzzle which in its complexity staggers the capacity of all the computers in all the world to put together).
    45 Now according to a good sourceb, the average length of this one protein molecule is about 100 amino acids in length (there being in the body some proteins much longer than this in length).
    46 According to the laws of mathematical prob­ability, what are the chances of this one spe­cific protein which is necessary in the formation of an enzyme which is absolutely necessary for, say, the digestion of starch [just for the sake of argument]?
    47 According to mathematical probability which you can read in any elementary textbook on Col­lege Algebra, (Darwin obviously did not have ac­cess to one), the chances of this one protein needed for the digestion of starch randomly aris­ing in this primor­dial soup is one in 20^100!
    48 This is one in 20 to the 100th power!
    49 This is approximately equal to 10^130.
    50 To give you an idea of the immensity of this number, sup­pose we say that we give evolu­tionists 10 billion (10^10) years to make good their claims not for just this earth but for the entire universe which is estimated by to contain 10^22 stars.c Now for each of these stars, let’s be gen­erous and give not only one earth, but ten “earths” upon which this one random chance protein molecule is to arise.
    51 Therefor, according to the law of the addition of exponents, the total number of earths would be 10^(22+1)= 10^23.
    52 Now let us give each “earth” oceans the same size as the ones here which are calculated by vol­ume to contain roughly 10^46 molecules of water.d So the total number of molecules contained in all the oceans on all the “earths” in the universe (estimated) is 10^23 X 10^46, or 10^69 (10 to the 69th power) molecules.
    54 This means that there are a total according to our mathe­matical calculations which do not lie, of 10^69 amino acids from which this one protein needed for the digestion of starch to “evolve”.
    55 Now to really give these poor evolutionists a sporting chance (I say ‘poor’ because they are less than that along with everyone else who is duped into believ­ing their lies, for their eternities are ef­fected), lets say that all of these amino acids, combine, not once a year or every ten years (both of which are absolutely impossible) but every sec­ond of every year in the 10^10 years which is esti­mated by our brave brethren, the scien­tists, to be the age of the uni­verse, to form proteins all of them exactly 100 amino acids in length.
    56 Now this would mean that every second, 10^67 proteins ex­actly 100 amino acids long would be formed.
    57 Now how many seconds are there in 10 bil­lions of years There are 10^8 seconds approxi­mately, in a year (actually there are a little less than that num­ber).
    58 This would mean that over all the space and time imagin­able, there would be 10^10 X 10^8 X 10^67 = 1085 chances for this one protein to come into being!
    59 But we said that the total number of combina­tions of amino acids 100 in length which are pos­sible is 20^100 which is approximately equal to 10^130.
    60 This would mean that the chances of this one protein (not an entire being) necessary for the di­gestion of starch to randomly form, as the evolu­tionists claim, is one in 10^130/10^85 which is equal to 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 which is for all intents and purposes, zero.
    61 They also deny the findings of Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, Dr. Michael Saboam, Urologist, and Dr. Moody, Cardiologist (out of the mouths of two or three wit­nesses shall every word be estab­lished, saith the Lord God of Is­rael), who have found conclu­sively to every one but bigots, that there is a separation of the spirit from the body at death.
    62 Another evidence, is that if organisms evolved into more ad­vantageous strengths, why do they die?
    63 And why is it that when or­ganisms die, does the law of en­tropy take over, and the corpo­real substance dissolves or decays back down from its organized peak, to the dust from whence it cometh, and not before this death, saith the Lord?
    64 The answer to this decay at death is that there is a spirit in plants, animals, and man, which separates from the corporeal bodies thereof at death, and this spirit is the spark, or cata­lyzing energy which effects this organi­zation to begin with, and keeps this organism intact while still alive, saith the Lord, and without the spirit, the elements of the bodies of these “crea­tions” lose their organization, and hence de­cay back to their “native ele­ment”, because the spirit, saith the Lord, is the energy of activa­tion keeping this high degree of organization supplied with the energy needed to maintain its or­ganization to begin with and to remain, intact.
    65 Therefor I, Art Bulla, com­mand all of these liberal ignora­muses to go back to school lest this Being who has revealed him­self unto me and spoke with me, come out in anger that they per­ish from the earth.
    66 This of course, means that all so-called “sciences” such as Bi­ology, Psychology, Sociol­ogy, Anthropology, are phony, based upon false premises, and that women’s liberation and the be­lief that the races are equal are also false and lies based upon the false premise that there is no God of Israel who hath ordained the man to be the head of the woman, and the fact that there is a race of servants inferior from before the founda­tion of the world in intelligence and valor, for I have seen Him and He is a white male, full of fury, and might and power and glory and shall destroy this wicked society for their provocation as before the flood and the world had been deceived by them (scientists, philosophers, charlatans, false prophets, false religions, false teachers with Phds) as it was prophesied it would be: “Behold I will send them strong delusion that they should be­lieve a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in un­righteous­ness.” 2 Thess. 2: 11.


  83. Good one:

    “Plaintiffs received only four-hundredth of one percent of the vote. The Court may have already met this entire group of voters at the hearings on this matter”

    Rimshot. Badda-BING!


  84. Art Bulla–

    Take your medication and step away from the computer.


  85. Art Bulla,
    I knew from your statements that you were a blasphemer, but then I went to your website and learned that your sins do not end with blasphemy. I sincerely pray that your ask for the Lord’s forgiveness
    for putting false idols before Him and repent now, or God save your eternal soul.


  86. Vince, great work as usual. Thanks for the reference to the Catalinian oration. I had to memorize great chunks of it in my junior year in high school. In my senior year I fell in love with Virgil, and fantasized that I would produce a new English translation of the Aeneid which would surpass anything previously done. I seem to have misplaced that particular project somewhere along the way.

    It is interesting that Ms. Taitz has now added possible subornation of perjury to her growing list of ethical lapses. The only interesting question remaining is whether she will be dismissed by the bar before the last of her cases is dismissed by the courts.

    With regard to Mr. Bulla, I started to read his comments from several days ago, but he lost me at “traitors to their own race.” He appears at times to be walking along the top of an unstable fence separating reality from fantasy, occasionally falling off. Reading him produces an image of Elmer Gantry on mushrooms, with a decided anal fixation.


  87. Vince,
    I do not know how you have the patience to deal with these trolls who have no regard for facts. This latest version also seems to think he/she is the Messiah. If he is, then we are all in trouble.
    Mike A.,
    I would expect our old friend Orly to be removed from the bar in short order with this long list of charges.


  88. Thanks, rafflaw.

    The words of the Judge on subornation of perjury suggest that the State Prosecutors ought to bring the case to the Grand Jury for possible indictment:

    “Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.”

    This is getting far more serious than a mere disbarment.

    There is a long – 30 pp or so — declaration by ed-convict Lucas Daniel Smith that has been up on the web since October 12, saying that Taitz wanted him to testify falsely. He filed it with the Judge, so this is likely to be one of the sworn affidavits that he saw.

    I am linking it but not posting it because it is totally worthless, except as evidence of subornation. I posted the entire decision by Judge Carter because there is so much for all of to learn from it about standing, political questions, and our constitutional system of government.


  89. Raff,

    If my google-fu skills are up to par, Vince has a long history of dealing with people with no regard for facts.


  90. Thanks, Gyges.

    Here is another Nutworld chestnut: “Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.”

    There was no hearing on McCain. What alternate universe are they transmitting from? There was a non-binding resolution that passed the Senate. Senators made statements. Research by Tribe and Olson was put in the record. I pasted up the entire memo here at the Turley blog.

    I will now type real slow-like so that the birfers can read along with their lips:

    McCain was born OUTSIDE the 50 states. There WAS a question whether he was a “natural born citizen.” It was debated here, and just put those words in the search window to read about it.

    There was no question about Obama, and no need for a resolution, because — he — was — born — in — the — USA.

    There was no question about Obama because — he — produced — his — birth — certificate.

    If badaman and birther Byrne are lurking, they know where the discussions were posted.


  91. Here is a reprint of an earlier post.

    According to Professor John Yinger, Hamilton warned implicitly, early in the Convention before the natural born citizen clause was introduced, against any provision that created second-class citizens. Hamilton pointed out the “advantage of encouraging foreigners” to come to the United States, and said: “Persons in Europe of moderate fortune will be fond of coming here when they will be on a level with the first citizens.” Madison agreed with Hamilton. “He wished to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us.”

    It appears that Hamilton, an immigrant himself, was not in favor of restrictions on immigrants, and would have favored a broad reading of “natural born,” not a narrow one that excluded children born in the U.S. to alien immigrants.

    This is made clear by looking at his entire suggested draft: The full clause was: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States”

    Note the words that are not there. He did not say “born to citizens” or “citizen parents” or “citizen” father. He did not say born in the United States. He said “born a citizen of the United States.”

    The words exclude a narrow category of naturalized citizens from the Presidency and Vice Presidency. At the time, just about everyone born in the United States was born a citizen, except for the child of the British Ambassador. Just about everyone born in Britain became a British subject, except for the child of the American Ambassador.

    The evidence shows that Hamilton favored the immigration of aliens to the United States.

    Source and context: http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/testimony.htm

    QUOTE The first draft of the Constitution that contained the Electoral College also was also the one that first contained the clause restricting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens.(3) This joint appearance of the Electoral College and the denial of presidential eligibility for naturalized citizens is somewhat ironic. After all, the switch to the Electoral College lowered the need for explicit presidential qualifications because it minimized the line of potential foreign influence running to the President through the Legislature. However, the long debate about eligibility requirements for legislators apparently left the Founders uncomfortable with prospect of eliminating all eligibility requirements in the process of presidential selection. As a result, they added the natural born citizen requirement even though it was no longer needed.

    This addition may have been controversial. In fact, two of the most influential Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, argued against it, at least implicitly, earlier in the Convention by warning against any provision that created second-class citizens. Hamilton pointed out the “advantage of encouraging foreigners” to come to the United States. Then he said: “Persons in Europe of moderate fortune will be fond of coming here when they will be on a level with the first citizens.” Madison agreed with Hamilton. “He wished to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us.” UNQUOTE, footnotes omitted.


  92. Mike,

    This was posted over at Leo Donofrio’s blog last September:

    QUOTE ON whistleblower Says:
    September 16, 2009 at 12:27 PM

    “Beware of bloggers who are not lawyers giving you bogus partisan interpretations of what the law is and analyzing it”.

    Many bloggers, who are not lawyers, are providing more accurate, and supported, legal analysis than are the partisan lawyers.

    The statement should be “Beware of bloggers who are, and are not, lawyers giving you…”

    Vince Treacy and Mike Appleton, over at Prof. Jonathan Turley’s blog are perfect examples of lawyers giving unsupported, inaccurate interpretations of the law. UNQUOTE

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/john-mccain-citizen-of-panama-at-birth/ [scroll down to Sep 29, 12:29 pm]

    If you are lurking, or googling yourself, Sorry that you are not happy, whistleblower.

    But your post is not very helpful to me or Mike, because you do not give even a single example of an UNSUPPORTED, INACCURATE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW that Mike or I may have written.

    “Oh! that mine adversary had written a book….”

    Mike and I have put up a lot of support for all our positions, and have patiently answered a lot of questions. You did nothing at Leo’s site except to make a single, unsupported allegation about us.

    While you are at it, W., say goodnight to Leo. He stopped posting at his blog weeks ago and has disappeared from the fray.


  93. To all,

    I apologize for this massive, off-topic post. It really bothers me that our educational system has failed so badly as to produce delusional, homophobic, racist idiots like Art Bulla and since he’s talking about a subject I care deeply about, I feel the need to respond. Maybe Vince can give us another spooky chapter in “Orly and the doomed lawsuit” to help get us back on track…

    Art Bulla,

    I’m sorry that you are a small, hate-filled man and while reading your ignorant, diseased writings sickens me, I feel it is necessary to shine a light on your specious and uneducated ravings about science.

    You said:

    “More on junk science (Darwinism), the foundation of liberalism, or the worldview upon which sodomites pinion their eternities: this is what I wrote to the SB Leakey Foundation protesting their lack of knowledge concerning the physical sciences and mathematics, acting without which makes them mere propagandists (I was inducted into the Phi Beta Kappa of mechanical engineers, Tau Beta Pi, at the University of Utah for a high grade point), this is what I wrote also contained in the book The Revelations of Jesus Christ, Section 14, using mathematical probability theory proving Carl Sagan to be an ideologue and a fool:”

    The theory of evolution (what I assume you mean when you say ‘Darwinism’), is one of the most fundamentally sound and well-verified theories in all of science with over 200,000 studies in peer-reviewed journals over a variety of scientific disciplines supporting it and exactly zero providing any evidence refuting it. As both a scientist and a liberal (I’m not a sodomite, but I am willing to learn ;-)), the foundation of my liberalism is compassion for my fellow human being (even you) and a passionate belief that it’s always possible for things to get better. I don’t belong to any groups named with greek letters, but I do hold a Ph.D. in mathematics and I’m currently employed as a mathematical biologist doing cancer research at a major university. The only person who is proved an ideologue and a fool (with misuse of mathematical probability, among other things) by this trash you’ve written is yourself and I find your hateful preaching an insult to the teachings of Jesus Christ (by denigrating everything he stood for – now there was a great liberal!).

    “29 If the “theory” of evolution is a true explana­tion of reality, or fact, then it must conform with physics, and mathematics and other observable and provable phenomena.”

    The theory of evolution is the best available explanation for the multiplicity of species we see today and conforms with physics, mathematics and all phenomena which have been observed in every pertinent way. You can tell this by the total lack of any scholarly articles with evidence refuting evolution. And just as an aside, science doesn’t prove anything (that’s what mathematics is about), it provides a framework for collecting and interpreting evidence about the physical universe – ‘provable phenomena’ are just banal pieces of data, theories are the heart of science where the data is transformed into a deeper understanding of the universe around us.

    “30 If it contradicts any of these, then it must be that the theory is false, not the mathematical laws or the laws of physics.”

    Evolution doesn’t contradict anything (unless you count out-dated unscientific myths). The statement is true, however. (That might be a first for you!)

    “31 But the blind prejudice of the scientific com­munity, which is nothing more than a hegemony of paid erudite liars, conveniently discard logic in order to stub­bornly cling to their brand of false religion, that their pay­checks may keep rolling in, for did the adversary not say that he would buy up armies and navies, Popes, Kings and scientists and rule with blood and horror upon this earth?”

    The key principle of science is that experiments must be repeatable, which provides an internal check against liars (witness the ‘cold fusion’ fiasco a while back) and I believe that the success of science in advancing our understanding of the universe and giving rise to all of our modern technology (including technology and understanding developed based on the theory of evolution). I believe in science because it works – while your false religion has a very poor track record of increasing our understanding of the universe in any useful way.

    “32 I have pointed these contra­dictions out to the Leakeys of South Africa and the still insist upon their theory of evolution in spite of reason and truth, which I will demonstrate within this let­ter to the satisfaction of a child.”

    Really, your uneducated irrational ravings didn’t convince someone that an enormous amount of scientific evidence collected over the last 150 years is wrong? You might be able to convince a child, but it would have to be a pretty stupid, credulous child – anyone else would see your arguments as the mass of bovine excrement that they are.

    “33 I prayed unto my God who hath revealed him­self personally to mea concerning this theory and through Revelation, which medium is a superior source of wisdom than any mere empiri­cism, I re­ceived two blaring con­tradictions to the above named fundamental sciences.”

    Mentally unstable people such as yourself should probably avoid LSD.

    “34 Darwin was not acquainted with mathematics or physics, the fundamentals upon which all sci­entific disciplines rest, to any serious degree: he was a natural­ist who drew erroneous conclu­sions from a loose collection of facts.”

    The fact that Darwin was not a hard scientist and had no understanding of things like, say DNA and yet was able to produce a theory whose mechanisms were not understood until the discovery of DNA 100 years later, but was still able to make successful predictions in the field of genetics is a testament to the soundness of the theory and the brilliance of Charles Darwin.

    “35 I will show you how the world has been de­ceived:”

    Sure.

    “36 The fundamental premise of evolution is that organisms sprang into being from a random chance collision of molecules in a “primordial sea” or “soup” and that these admittedly simple or­ganisms “evolved”-a term coined by some fat victorian natura­list-into more complex organ­isms by an equally random, chance process.”

    You make a mistake common to scientifically illiterate people – the theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life, it tells us how life evolved into the multiplicity of species that we see today. While how life originated is a fascinating question and science has a long way to go in explaining abiogenesis, results like the Miller-Urey experiment are promising and all of this has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

    “37 First of all this process in its description breaks one of the fundamental laws of physics, the second law of thermodyna­mics, which states that everything in nature naturally proceeds from a high energy level which is usu­ally less stable, to a low energy state (in other words, water runs downhill, not up).”

    If you had actually studied thermodynamics (which I have) you would know that the second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems (more specifically, closed systems near equilibrium) unlike the earth, which is constantly having energy added to it by the sun. Also, the 2nd law states that robots must obey… oops, sorry! … states that entropy (a measure of disorder in a system) always increases, not energy, which cannot be created or destroyed. In other words, water runs uphill perfectly well, provided you have a pump.

    “38 A specific case of this law states that through a process called entropy, systems prefer to be in a disorganized state, rather than one that has a high degree of organization, such as a human body, in other words, things in nature proceed from a state of order through entropy to a state of disorder (I speak of random collisions of molecules).”

    Entropy isn’t a process – as I said above, it is a measure of disorder. Spontaneous organization of systems of high energy density is common in nature (star formation, just to name one) – take a look at the works of Nobel Laureate Ilya Prigogine if you’d like to learn more. And if you’re talking about the human body, you aren’t speaking of random collisions of molecules.

    “39 A system which is organized has in­herently more energy, not less than one than one which is dis­organized.”

    Once again energy and entropy are two separate concepts and energy is neither created or destroyed.

    “40 Hence the need for an energy input of some source to effect this organization.”

    Like, maybe, the sun? Heat from the earth’s core? Volcanoes? Lightning? Tidal forces?

    “41 Random chance cannot ex­plain the existence of such a monumentally complex organi­zation as that of the human body!”

    No, but evolution can.

    “42 It takes a great deal of faith of the blind kind to believe in such an absurd proposition.”

    No, it just takes a little faith in the scientific method and evidence collected by generations of scientists across dozens of disciplines…

    “43 It takes more than I am ca­pable of mustering.”

    Yes, you do seem to be short on logic and reasoning ability.

    “44 A specific example of this ab­surdity, accord­ing to the laws of mathematics which we stated that the theory of evolution must conform to, or else be labeled as false, which it is, is this: sup­pose we take the random arisal of not an organ­ism, but just one protein molecule (of which there must be a specific combination of billions upon billions of these different proteins in a specific way to form a single organism, a puzzle which in its complexity staggers the capacity of all the computers in all the world to put together).”

    Evolution is not random, nor does it purport to explain the origin of life.

    “45 Now according to a good sourceb, the average length of this one protein molecule is about 100 amino acids in length (there being in the body some proteins much longer than this in length).”

    There are proteins made up of a few amino acids and proteins made up of thousands and just about everything in between.

    “46 According to the laws of mathematical prob­ability, what are the chances of this one spe­cific protein which is necessary in the formation of an enzyme which is absolutely necessary for, say, the digestion of starch [just for the sake of argument]?”

    A lot higher than you think, if the question is ‘what are the odds of a particular protein occurring via the process of evolution?’ (which is the appropriate question).

    “47 According to mathematical probability which you can read in any elementary textbook on Col­lege Algebra, (Darwin obviously did not have ac­cess to one), the chances of this one protein needed for the digestion of starch randomly aris­ing in this primor­dial soup is one in 20^100!”

    This is the chance of getting a specific protein if you select 100 amino acids at random. It has nothing to do with the chances of said protein appearing in nature.

    “48 This is one in 20 to the 100th power!”

    Yes, it is. You understand exponential notation, how wonderful for you.

    “49 This is approximately equal to 10^130.”

    So?

    “50 To give you an idea of the immensity of this number, sup­pose we say that we give evolu­tionists 10 billion (10^10) years to make good their claims not for just this earth but for the entire universe which is estimated by to contain 10^22 stars.c Now for each of these stars, let’s be gen­erous and give not only one earth, but ten “earths” upon which this one random chance protein molecule is to arise.”
    51 Therefor, according to the law of the addition of exponents, the total number of earths would be 10^(22+1)= 10^23.
    52 Now let us give each “earth” oceans the same size as the ones here which are calculated by vol­ume to contain roughly 10^46 molecules of water.d So the total number of molecules contained in all the oceans on all the “earths” in the universe (estimated) is 10^23 X 10^46, or 10^69 (10 to the 69th power) molecules.”

    I lumped these all together as this hypothetical of yours forms a clear picture of just how badly you misunderstand mathematics, probability and science. Congratulations, you have laboriously created a meaningless and incomprehensible hypothetical.

    “54 This means that there are a total according to our mathe­matical calculations which do not lie, of 10^69 amino acids from which this one protein needed for the digestion of starch to “evolve”.”

    There are lies, dammed lies, and statistics. And then there is complete and utter male cattle poop like what you present. One more time: evolution is not a random process.

    “55 Now to really give these poor evolutionists a sporting chance (I say ‘poor’ because they are less than that along with everyone else who is duped into believ­ing their lies, for their eternities are ef­fected), lets say that all of these amino acids, combine, not once a year or every ten years (both of which are absolutely impossible) but every sec­ond of every year in the 10^10 years which is esti­mated by our brave brethren, the scien­tists, to be the age of the uni­verse, to form proteins all of them exactly 100 amino acids in length.”

    None of us are poor in spirit compared to the utter destitution that you exist in. Please continue with your stupid, meaningless hypothetical.

    “56 Now this would mean that every second, 10^67 proteins ex­actly 100 amino acids long would be formed.
    57 Now how many seconds are there in 10 bil­lions of years There are 10^8 seconds approxi­mately, in a year (actually there are a little less than that num­ber).
    58 This would mean that over all the space and time imagin­able, there would be 10^10 X 10^8 X 10^67 = 1085 chances for this one protein to come into being!
    59 But we said that the total number of combina­tions of amino acids 100 in length which are pos­sible is 20^100 which is approximately equal to 10^130.
    60 This would mean that the chances of this one protein (not an entire being) necessary for the di­gestion of starch to randomly form, as the evolu­tionists claim, is one in 10^130/10^85 which is equal to 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 which is for all intents and purposes, zero.”

    Wow, you took quite a while to spew that nonsensical drivel, do you feel better now? I put the odds of you ever stumbling across a rational, well-organized argument at infinity to one against.

    “61 They also deny the findings of Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, Dr. Michael Saboam, Urologist, and Dr. Moody, Cardiologist (out of the mouths of two or three wit­nesses shall every word be estab­lished, saith the Lord God of Is­rael), who have found conclu­sively to every one but bigots, that there is a separation of the spirit from the body at death.

    Since you are clearly a bigot, I assume that you don’t believe this. To make this statement have any scientific meaning whatsoever, you need to tell us what the scientific definition of the ‘spirit’ is (not to mention why a urologist has relevant expertise).

    “62 Another evidence, is that if organisms evolved into more ad­vantageous strengths, why do they die?”

    There are immortal organisms – cancer cells (this comes from the work of recent Nobel Laureates on the protein telomerase). And organisms do not evolve (except in bad sci-fi), species evolve over many generations.

    “63 And why is it that when or­ganisms die, does the law of en­tropy take over, and the corpo­real substance dissolves or decays back down from its organized peak, to the dust from whence it cometh, and not before this death, saith the Lord?”

    It was the salmon mousse.

    “64 The answer to this decay at death is that there is a spirit in plants, animals, and man, which separates from the corporeal bodies thereof at death, and this spirit is the spark, or cata­lyzing energy which effects this organi­zation to begin with, and keeps this organism intact while still alive, saith the Lord, and without the spirit, the elements of the bodies of these “crea­tions” lose their organization, and hence de­cay back to their “native ele­ment”, because the spirit, saith the Lord, is the energy of activa­tion keeping this high degree of organization supplied with the energy needed to maintain its or­ganization to begin with and to remain, intact.”

    You go girl.

    “65 Therefor I, Art Bulla, com­mand all of these liberal ignora­muses to go back to school lest this Being who has revealed him­self unto me and spoke with me, come out in anger that they per­ish from the earth.”

    Bring it on. You can make all of the commands that you want, but nobody here has any inclination to obey you.

    “66 This of course, means that all so-called “sciences” such as Bi­ology, Psychology, Sociol­ogy, Anthropology, are phony, based upon false premises, and that women’s liberation and the be­lief that the races are equal are also false and lies based upon the false premise that there is no God of Israel who hath ordained the man to be the head of the woman, and the fact that there is a race of servants inferior from before the founda­tion of the world in intelligence and valor, for I have seen Him and He is a white male, full of fury, and might and power and glory and shall destroy this wicked society for their provocation as before the flood and the world had been deceived by them (scientists, philosophers, charlatans, false prophets, false religions, false teachers with Phds) as it was prophesied it would be: “Behold I will send them strong delusion that they should be­lieve a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in un­righteous­ness.”

    This whole post has no bearing upon any sort of science in any way. What it means is that you are a pathetic, bigoted, misogynistic racist with delusions of grandeur who has absolutely no idea just how disgusting his diseased ramblings are. I suggest you get professional help. Excuse me, but I have to go and wash your putrescent ideas out of my brain now.


  94. on 1, October 29, 2009 at 8:40 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    When I was a teen that I read my first copies of “Broca’s Brain” and “The Dragons of Eden” until the spines broke.


  95. Vince,

    You mean Leo hasn’t retreated to his ultra-secret lair to prepare the ultimate birther case which will finally remove President Obama from office?


  96. Art said of God, “for I have seen Him and He is a white male.”

    That reminds me of the old joke about the bigoted, sexist, racist who came back from the dead after seeing God.

    They asked him what God was like.

    He said, “Sh*t, the first thing is that she is African American.”


  97. Slart, brilliant. I read it all, and learned a lot. My hero, Isaac Asimov, the Good Doctor (I met him personally at the local library back in the early 1960s), the author of the (other) Three Laws, is proud of you.

    After all, after Isaac died, Kurt Vonnegut told the assembled American atheists that “Isaac is up in heaven.” Everyone fell on the floor laughing.

    http://www.vonnegutweb.com/archives/arc_nice.html

    Kurt speaking to us from Heaven: “Do you know what a Humanist is? I am honorary president of the American Humanist Association, having succeeded the late, great science fiction writer Isaac Asimov in that functionless capacity. We Humanists try to behave well without any expectation of rewards or punishments in an afterlife. We serve as best we can the only abstraction with which we have any real familiarity, which is our community.

    We had a memorial services for Isaac a few years back, and at one point I said, ”Isaac is up in Heaven now.” It was the funniest thing I could have said to a group of Humanists. I rolled them in the aisles. It was several minutes before order could be restored. And if I should ever die, God forbid, I hope you will say, ”Kurt is up in Heaven now.” That’s my favorite joke.”


  98. Vince,

    If you learned something from my post, consider it a small payment for all I have learned from you here. I came to this blog because I was nervous that there might be some truth to the birther’s arguments and now, after reading your posts here, I feel like I could beat Orly Taitz, Leo Donofrio, and Mario Appuzo in a debate (Although I have to believe that the three of them together would cause anyone to start bleeding from the ears in short order). Dr. Asimov is one of my heroes, too (deep down, I still want to be a psychohistorian when I grow up). Curiously, you’re the second person to mention to me that he had met Dr. Asimov recently (mentioned to me recently, not met Dr. Asimov recently ;-)). My thesis advisor had lunch with him when he was a post-doc in Manhattan, a fascinating if somewhat intimidating experience (the other people at the lunch were closer to Dr. Asimov’s stature than my advisor’s). I’d never heard that Vonnegut quote before, but the thought of Kurt up in heaven brings a wonderful smile to my face. So it goes…


  99. I just read Leo’s post about Judge Carter’s ruling over at naturalborncitizen, his spin is that Judge Carter implied that a Quo Warranto case in the DC court is the appropriate venue for removing President Obama from office.

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/judge-carter-the-writ-of-quo-warranto-must-be-brought-within-the-district-of-columbia-because-president-obama-holds-office-within-that-district/

    And if you enjoy schadenfreude, here’s a deeply ironic post from a birther blog. Be sure to check out the first few comments.

    http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/two-judges/


  100. Vince, thanks for the heads up on whistleblower. I just left a gracious request on naturalborncitizen requesting Mr. whistleblower to provide some details concerning the “unsupported, innacurate interpretations” of ours that appear to concern him.


  101. Slartibartfast, your responses to Mr. Bulla are truly devastating. I fear that he may be unwilling to ever again spake unto you.


  102. Mike A,

    Awww, I loved being spaken unto. However will I find the strength to go on…


  103. Well sheist, you goddamed atheist fool, not devastated at all, in fact it is devastating (my posts) except to narcissists such as yourselves to live in a delusional world buttressed by Darwinism. The truth rolls off such an ones’ backs as water rolls off a duck’s back. “White male” is a legitimate term describing the founders of this nation, something that sneering, supercilious liberal,self-loathing sodomite fools deride to their destruction. The curse of Cain has not been abrogated nor done away with in the least by your junk science and foolishness as evidenced by authoritative revelation from Israel’s God:

    14 They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.
    15 O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord, wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!
    16 Wo unto them that turn aside the just for a thing of naught and revile against that which is good, and say that it is of no worth! For the day shall come that the Lord God will speedily visit the inhabitants of the earth; and in that day that they are fully ripe in iniquity they shall perish.
    17 But behold, if the inhabitants of the earth shall repent of their wickedness and abominations they shall not be destroyed, saith the Lord of Hosts.

    (2 Ne 28:14-17)

    But as to the mark placed upon Cain:

    21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, AS THEY WERE WHITE, AND EXCEEDINGLY FAIR AND DELIGHTSOME, THAT THEY MIGHT NOT BE ENTICING UNTO MY PEOPLE THE LORD GOD DID CAUSE A SKIN OF BLACKNESS TO COME UPON THEM.
    22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
    23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
    24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.

    (2 Ne 5:21-24)


  104. I am not “homophobic”. I am absolutely not afraid of homosexuals, but being liars, you falsely label God-fearing folk with this misnomer. We do not fear homosexuals, we merely despise and loathe them,fool. And the post which you maliciously graffitize (In your off hours you probably grace bathroom walls with your pleading while drilling holes between stalls) stands on its own, being totally tautological statements which cannot be argued with except by insane ideologues such as yourself who are completely brainwashed by the public school systems of this corrupt nation. That is what mathematics is all about, something that Darwinists will never understand: truth, diamond truth which cannot be chiseled or cracked to accommodate the iron bedstead of their foolish and evil misconceptions.I despise you, sir and if you were here and send those things to my face, you’d be taught a lesson that your mama never cared enough to give you. But being the coward that you are, you probably sit in your bathrobe in your mama’s basement except when you slink forth to those bathroom stalls spoken of above, you queer. Thank God for freedom of speech, not yet squelched by your African king. Kindly confine your speech about things you know nothing about to those bathroom stalls you frequent so much.


  105. Mike, Leo has a “New comment policy – only comments which rock my world will be printed. If you have something important to add – whether for or against the material – feel free to submit your comment. The chances of your comment being printed are slim. Sometimes the comments add very important context, facts or questions. That is why I am keeping them open. I just want readers to know – most comments will not be printed.”

    Yet another reason why I do not post there.

    Leo is still dreaming that his quo warranto theory will fly in DC.


  106. Leo is still dreaming of quo warranto.

    [Begin quotation]
    JUDGE CARTER DID NOT HOLD THAT QUO WARRANTO WAS IMPROPER TO CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF A SITTING PRESIDENT.

    This was the most extraordinary part of today’s ruling. It opens the door wide for a proper eligibility challenge in the DC District Court where the hurdle for standing is different from ordinary federal cases.

    Please take note that the Department of Justice attorneys argued before Judge Carter that quo warranto – even if brought properly in the DC District Court – could not be used to challenge the eligibility of a sitting President. Judge Carter’s ruling did not support the Department of Justice position.

    The ruling today affirms that the proper venue for challenging the eligibility of a sitting President is the DC District Court.

    This is a very encouraging ruling for those contemplating a quo warranto challenge to President Obama’s eligibility in the DC District Court. [End quotation].

    Leo the so-called poker player is actually the master of three-card monte. He keeps hiding the nut under the cup.

    Of course, Judge Carter did not hold that a quo warranto was improper to challenge the President, because that question was not before him. Once he held that the proper venue was in D.C., not in California, he had no jurisdiction to rule on any other aspects of quo warranto. As a prudent, responsible and learned jurist, he confined his ruling to matters within his jurisdiction.

    But the entire rationale of his decision militates against the use of the QW writ:
    “Plaintiffs have expressed frustration with the notion that this case could be dismissed on separation of powers, political question, or standing grounds, asserting that these are mere “technicalities” obstructing Plaintiffs from being able to resolve the case on the merits of President Obama’s birth and constitutional qualifications. As the Supreme Court has stated, “It is indeed a singular misconception of the nature and character of our constitutional system of government to suggest that the settled distinction . . . between judicial authority over justiciable controversies and legislative power as to purely political questions tends to destroy the duty of the judiciary in proper cases to enforce the Constitution.” Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 149-150, 32 S. Ct. 224 (1912). Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under Article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process. Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the People”–over sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.”

    As the Judge stated, the Constitution defines the processes for the removal of a President. It does not include a role for the courts in that process. The Constitution is explicit. The President can be removed by impeachment, within the “sole” powers of impeachment and removal vested in the House and the Senate. The President may also be removed for incapacity under the 20th Amendment.

    Leo’s theory is inherently incredible. After 69 million people have voted for Obama, Leo would have a single District Judge in D.C. exercise the power to order a jury trial to remove a President. This, even though the entire House of Representatives (elected by all the people of the nation) and the entire Senate (also elected by all the people under the 12th Amendment) have declined to take action on the unassailable grounds that Obama is fully qualified for the Presidency as a natural born citizen BECAUSE HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.

    This is insanity. A quo warranto is an action for ordinary appointed municipal and federal officials who happen to hold office in D.C. to test their entitlement to office.

    There has never been an action, or even a suggestion of such an action, to remove constitutional officers whose tenure is guaranteed. Federal Judges hold office on good behavior, and have never been removed except by impeachment. Members of Congress serve fixed terms of office, and may only be removed by expulsion by a 2/3rd vote of their respective Houses. The President and Vice President serve four-year terms. Removal is by impeachment.

    At one point I posted an account of a suggestion in Congress in the 1880s to pass a law to allow quo warranto proceedings in contested presidential elections. It was never adopted.

    Finally, D.C. may not have a Representative or Senators, but it does have the right to vote for President, and it supported Obama overwhelmingly.

    What are Leo’s chances for a quo warranto and a D.C. jury trial?

    Written prediction ™ ®©:

    Nada. None. Below absolute zero.


  107. The other interesting nugget in the ruling was that it might be possible for the courts to have a role in determining a candidate’s eligibility to appear on the ballot. I look forward to the next round of birther lawsuits in 2012 when Obama runs for reelection.


  108. on 1, October 30, 2009 at 7:23 am Buddha Is Laughing

    Vince,

    You met Asimov, eh? Never has my avatar’s color been more appropriate.


  109. The Washington Post has really become a shadow of itself. It printed a long profile of Orly a while back:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/05/AR2009100503819.html

    A lot of readers protested that it was not really news.

    Now, today October 30, 2009, there is real news on the wires and the web, and the Post has nothing. A search of its site shows no report at all about the dismissal of Orly’s suit.

    Be sure to check the Turley blog each day for the real news.


  110. The best source I have found for Gnarly Taints news is http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/


  111. “We do not fear homosexuals, we merely despise and loathe them,fool.”

    Most people who fear other types of people are really afraid of the feelings they have within themselves. Those who despise and loathe other human beings seem I think to fear that they are really like those others. People who despise and loathe other also run counter to Jesus teachings. Was it not he who supped with publicans and saved a whore saying “Judge not lest you be judged.” Mr. Bulla, you act in a most un-Christian manner and one counter to your Lord’s teachings.

    “Behold I will send them strong delusion that they should be­lieve a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in un­righteous­ness.”

    “65 Therefor I, Art Bulla, com­mand all of these liberal ignora­muses to go back to school lest this Being who has revealed him­self unto me and spoke with me, come out in anger that they per­ish from the earth.”

    Besides your obvious blasphemy in presuming to speak for the Creator, I believe that the “stong delusion” you refer to in your quote refers to you. If you do not immediately repent your sins I am afraid that it is your immortal soul that will burn for eternity. you are putting yourself before god, by decreeing that god speaks through you. The only possible saving grace on you is god’s pity at your obviously distraught mental state. However, unlike you I don’t presume to speak for the Lord and so it is possible that He afflicted you with this delusion as a punishment for your sins. Repent!


  112. Slart, Vince, Mike, Mike,

    As always, thank you.


  113. Art,

    You realize of course that quoting a book only counts as an argument when the people believe the book to be true?

    For instance: I could tell you that “Paladins can’t wear Helms of Destruction,” and since I assume you’re not the type to play early edition D&D (you strike me more as the kind of guy who plays those computerized versions of board games, Monopoly, Scrabble, etc.) you would have every right in saying “can too.”


  114. Orly’s site is often infected with malware, and so is a dangerous visit. Black Lion over at obamaconspiracy.org posted her reaction for Dr. Conspiracy and the gang, so that we can all read it safely. It is like a guided tour of the funhouse of her mind, complete with misspellings and malapropisms. My favorite is “I am the only attorney,…” Read on:

    QUOTE ON

    From Orly’s Site….

    what doesn’t break us, makes us stronger
    Posted on | October 29, 2009 |

    As many of you know, Judge Carter has issued an order to grant the motion to dismiss.

    Clearly it is not the end of the road. We will continue. I need some time to study this order and provide full answer point by point. I will not give a full analysis of judge Carter’s orders at the moment. Today I was inundated with phone calls from different media outlets. Interviews were given to different affiliats of FOX radio, CBS, WND, LA Times, LA Daily Journal, City report, I don’t remember all of them. One interview I remebered. It was with Jessica Rosenthal from FOX radio. She asked me, when will I give up? I asked her in turn: “Jessica, when do you give up on the Constitution of this country? When do you give up on your constitutional rights for redress of grievances, for your right not to be defrauded by the government, not be treated as a slave?”

    While I will not address the legal aspects of the order today, I will address a couple of issues relating to me personally, as I can see a concerted effort to assassinate my character similar to what was done to Sarah Palin, when she joined McCain, when within a day McCain-Palin ticket was 12 points ahead of Obama. What did Chicago combine do? They assassinated her character. So I have to address some of those issues, because it appears that the media has named me a leader of this movement. I am the only attorney, who brought legal actions from plaintiffs with real standing. I brought actions from active duty military and state representatives. My opposition see me as a threat. What was done? Some puppets were used to defame me, slander me, write garbage letters to judge Carter.

    First of all I need to point that I never did anything unethical and never told anyone to do anything unethical. I was horrified to see that Judge Carter has mentioned in his order some complete garbage that was in some letters that he received. Those letters were a complete defamation of character, I had no opportunity to address those allegations, those were not part of the record, and it is extremely prejudicial for a judge to include this complete garbage in his order. If anything, this is definitely something that can and should be addressed on appeal. I hoped that this judge had more integrity of character, I guess I was wrong.

    Another point – Judge Carter state in court and in his order that I told people to call him This is not true. Who told it to judge Carter? His new clerk, fresh out of Perkins Coie, law firm, that represented Obama, in some 100 cases?

    There is another issue. There is a vicious circle that you see in a regime. There is no unbiased media. So far no one in our media had integrity of character to report on multiple social security numbers of Obama, even though it is a criminal offense, and with 39 social security numbers a person should be criminally prosecuted and should be serving a lengthy prson term. When media reports nothing, the public and the judges are misinformed. The judges are afraid to make decisions, that they think, will upset the public, and in turn, their timid and lopside decisions influence the media.

    Citizens seem to have no voice, they have no standing to bring any legal actions in face of any fraud. They only have standing to pay taxes and pay for the judges, clerks, congress and senate who never address any issues. They should have no concerns about an inhabitant of the White house sporting 39 social security numbers, some are the social security numbers of the deceased. How long will it take for those citizens to revolt? Washington Post has written that 8 out of 10 Americans know about this issue. According to AOL-it’s 85%. This number is growing. How long will those people be silent? 4,5 million marched on Washington DC on September the 12th. How many will march next time around, when so many loose their jobs (half a million jobs every month officially) and probably double that number unofficially. When they loose their homes at a rate higher then the rate during great depression. When they become numb from hatred against this fraudulent usurper in the White House, corrupt politicians and corrupt judges. Who will stop them? A few snooty remarks on MSM and on the faithful to regime lap dog blogs like Politijab, Salon or Politico? When people loose their voice, when they are livid from the arrogance shown by the ruling elite, they simply revolt

    To be contined…

    Source: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/10/barnet-v-obama-case-dismissed/comment-page-4/#comments


  115. The last paragraph of the WildrootNutOilDailyDouble up above at October 29, 2009 at 2:48 pm said “Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a ‘natural born citizen,’ no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.”

    I have already noted that there never was a hearing. For reference, here is the link to the Turley blog coverage of McCain natural born citizenship, complete with the text of Tribe-Olson:

    http://jonathanturley.org/2008/03/29/olson-and-tribe-argue-that-mccain-is-natural-born/

    And, of course, the “controlling legal authorities” for anyone born in the United States are the state officials in charge of official birth records. The controlling legal authority in Hawaii issued a Certification of Live Birth, the ONLY form of birth certificate now issued to ANYONE, and department spokespersons later said that they had examined their records and that the records showed Obama was born in Hawaii.

    So the Nut lied again. Contrary to their story, controlling legal authority WAS sought and furnished to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    World Net Daily itself concluded last year that the COLB was genuine. Why is THAT fact never pasted up in their stories?


  116. > I was horrified to see that Judge Carter has mentioned in his order some complete garbage that was in some letters that he received. … I hoped that this judge had more integrity of character, I guess I was wrong.

    Its rather rich she would complain about that after she herself encouraged her followers to write letters to the courts.


  117. And lo, in the third hour of the fourteen score and second day of the time of Obama I was spaken unto again. And the wrath of Art crashed mightily upon me, yet I was unmoved, save for a single tear of regret that a fellow human being has had his mind so badly twisted by fear, hatred, and lies that he would spew such venomous bile.

    Art said:
    “Well sheist, you goddamed atheist fool, not devastated at all, in fact it is devastating (my posts) except to narcissists such as yourselves to live in a delusional world buttressed by Darwinism.”

    I don’t think you understand how poorly your posts come off in comparison to me (and the other regular posters as well). You give racist polemics and biblical and pseudo-biblical quotes while we give evidence and references for our arguments. I believe that most readers can readily see that you don’t understand mathematics or science and have no clue what rational debate is (which is what many of us come here for).

    “The truth rolls off such an ones’ backs as water rolls off a duck’s back. “White male” is a legitimate term describing the founders of this nation, something that sneering, supercilious liberal,self-loathing sodomite fools deride to their destruction.”

    On the subject of ducks: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. The duck principle tells me that you are a racist, bigoted, homophobe.

    I’m just going to ignore the rest of your pseudo-religious BS, except to say that the hatred you spew in the cloak of religion shames everyone who calls themselves a christian (you might want to do some research on what it really means to live according to Jesus’ teachings).

    As for your other post:

    You said:
    “I am not “homophobic”. I am absolutely not afraid of homosexuals, but being liars, you falsely label God-fearing folk with this misnomer. We do not fear homosexuals, we merely despise and loathe them,fool.”

    Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Apparently you didn’t understand the part of the bible that says “love the sinner, hate the sin”.

    “And the post which you maliciously graffitize (In your off hours you probably grace bathroom walls with your pleading while drilling holes between stalls) stands on its own, being totally tautological statements which cannot be argued with except by insane ideologues such as yourself who are completely brainwashed by the public school systems of this corrupt nation.”

    Nice run-on sentence. I didn’t realize that your post was such a pristine masterpiece that it was forbidden to debate what you said. And enough with the latent homosexuality already – can’t you just find some guy and get a hotel room already? As for you tautological statements, when you use a tautology to attack a straw man, that doesn’t make for a valid argument… I’ll let others judge which one of us the insane ideologue is, but I’m confident that it’s not me. ;-) As a graduate of an outstanding (public) school district who went on to get a BS and an MS from a public university (I got my PhD from a private university), I’ll stack my public education up against yours any day of the week. Furthermore, our public education system is a big part of what has made our country great (you don’t build a strong middle class without an educated workforce).

    “That is what mathematics is all about, something that Darwinists will never understand: truth, diamond truth which cannot be chiseled or cracked to accommodate the iron bedstead of their foolish and evil misconceptions.”

    I don’t need you to tell me what mathematics is all about, especially when you clearly don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. Tautologies, being statements that are true no matter what the premise (for example, Art is an idiot or Art is not an idiot), are not generally very helpful in establishing that a statement is true given a set of premises (which is called a ‘proof’ and is kind of important in understanding what mathematics is all about).

    “I despise you, sir and if you were here and send those things to my face, you’d be taught a lesson that your mama never cared enough to give you.”

    I pity you. I pity your lack of understanding of the world you live in, your small-mindedness, your lack of compassion, and your ignorance. And it’s obvious to me that my mother taught me far more about being a decent human being than you’ve learned from any source. And while I would be respectful to your face, I would also stand by everything I have said here and while I would never start something physical, I would certainly defend myself from a hateful, small-minded, ignorant bigot such as yourself.

    “But being the coward that you are, you probably sit in
    your bathrobe in your mama’s basement except when you slink forth to those bathroom stalls spoken of above, you queer.”

    Unfortunately, my mother died of cancer several years ago, so I can’t sit in her basement, but I do research trying to help understand and cure cancer and I believe she would be proud what I’m doing with my life. I feel sorry for the pain your mother must feel if she is aware of how badly she failed in raising you to be a decent human being. While I’m not a ‘queer’ as you so eloquently put it, I don’t think that there is anything wrong with being gay, so your intended insults are ineffective. I’ll just continue to assume that you use words like ‘coward’ and ‘queer’ because deep down this is how you see yourself.

    “Thank God for freedom of speech, not yet squelched by your African king. Kindly confine your speech about things you know nothing about to those bathroom stalls you frequent so much.”

    I’ll thank the founding fathers (a bunch of deists and atheists, by the way) and our judiciary (including Judges Carter and Land) for granting and protecting our freedom of speech – although in this particular forum it is Professor Turley granting us that freedom (so thanks to you, too JT). When I don’t know anything about a particular subject, I listen and ask questions – maybe you should try it sometime.


  118. Vince and Slats,
    These Orly Trolls are especially slowing in realizing that their claims are baseless and that Orly is going to be dealing with her own “legal” issues.


  119. Thanks to all for illuminating the path of the latest ‘Orlyboros’, Art Bulla. Who chooses by free will to create the dimmest in humanity!

    “The truth will be known at Res Ipsa Loquitor,” ah Vince’s hallowed words, it’s forever a treat reading you folks.


  120. “That is what mathematics is all about, something that Darwinists will never understand: truth, diamond truth which cannot be chiseled or cracked to accommodate the iron bedstead of their foolish and evil misconceptions.I despise you, sir and if you were here and send those things to my face, you’d be taught a lesson that your mama never cared enough to give you.”

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

    Art Bulla? I think he left off a few letters from that last name. And lose the “a” too, it makes you look semi-literate when you botch the spelling of common expletives.

    LOL. This is the best spoof of a troll I have seen. Continue on Art, it’s getting higher and deeper. Bravo.


  121. For everyone’s ready reference, there is a complete Obama citizenship conspiracy page at wiki that has notes and links for just about every crazy theory out there.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories


  122. on 1, October 31, 2009 at 10:30 am Buddha Is Laughing

    It literally took hundreds of years for Bigfoot to get a wiki entry of his own and the Birthers accomplished this feat in less than four years. Impressive. Maybe the Birthers are in the wrong line of work. I hear ‘Nessie is looking for a publicist. Perhaps they could start by attacking its Scottish parentage or lack thereof.


  123. on 1, October 31, 2009 at 10:37 am Bigfoot Is Laughing

    Thanks, BIL.

    Just an announcement to all my fans.

    I was born in the United States to natural born United States citizen bigfoot parents, and I am running for President in 2012 against the Usurper.


  124. on 1, October 31, 2009 at 10:40 am Buddha Is Laughing

    Bigfoot/Kucinich 2012


  125. on 1, October 31, 2009 at 10:43 am Bigfoot Is Laughing

    Bigfoot/Buddha 2102.

    Better yet, Buddha/Bigfoot 2102.


  126. Bigfoot,

    I’m not voting for you until I see your birth certificate (and it better have all of the information on it that I want – starting with the winners of the next 5 super bowls…).

    Vince,

    I’m thinking that when the 2012 elections roll around one of the birther lawyers (probably not Orly since I’m guessing that she will be disbarred by then) will find a republican who will declare himself a presidential candidate and pass the standing hurdle and quickly find their worst nightmare realized when the court takes judicial notice of the COLB or statements by the Hawaii DOH (and if they’re really unlucky, the courts will give a definition for natural born citizen). Do you think that in light of Judge Carter’s ruling the birthers will be able to establish standing by challenging President Obama’s eligibility on the 2012 ballot?


  127. Abominable Snowman/Sarah Palin


  128. Pardon me,

    Yeah. And the abominable snowman dies in a hunting accident the day after he’s inaugurated.


  129. Slats: “Do you think that in light of Judge Carter’s ruling the birthers will be able to establish standing by challenging President Obama’s eligibility on the 2012 ballot?”

    First, the birthers will not be able to attain standing, because they will have no more of a particularized injury or tangible case then than they have now. But a presidential candidate in a state primary might be able to show an actual injury. Gore and Bush had standing in 2000 because Gore had a solid chance of winning the election if the Court had ordered more ballots counted, and if the ballots had gone his way.

    So candidates might enter the race again and sue in the first states that accept presidential nominations for their primary ballots, and might be granted standing. But then they will lose, badly.

    The Democrats will enter the COLB. It says on its face that it is prima facie evidence of birth in Hawaii. It is a birth certificate, because it meets the definition of “birth certificate” in federal law in Section 7211 of Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub.L.108-434, 118 Stat. 3825, Dec. 17, 2004. It is online:

    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ458.108.pdf

    This definition was first introduced into the online birther debate here at the Turley Blog: Here it is in full:

    SEC. 7211. MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR BIRTH CERTIFICATES.
    Contents
    (a) Definition.–In this section, the term “birth
    certificate” means a certificate of birth–
    (1) for an individual (regardless of where born)–
    (A) who is a citizen or national of the
    United States at birth; and
    (B) whose birth is registered in the United
    States; and
    (2) that–
    (A) is issued by a Federal, State, or local
    government agency or authorized custodian of
    record and produced from birth records
    maintained by such agency or custodian of
    record; or
    (B) is an authenticated copy, issued by a
    Federal, State, or local government agency or
    authorized custodian of record, of an original
    certificate of birth issued by such agency or
    custodian of record.

    Section 7211(a) has been codified as a note following Title 5, United States Code, section 301 (5 U.S.C. 301 note):

    http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title5/5usc301.html

    The COLB is a “certificate” of birth, because it said on its face that any alterations of “this certificate” would render it invalid. It was issued to an individual who was a citizen at birth, not a naturalized citizen. His birth was registered in the United States, according to public statements of the responsible custodial officials.

    The COLB was issued by a “State … government agency or authorized custodian of record” and it was “produced from birth records maintained by such agency or custodian of record….” In the alternative, it was ”an authenticated copy, issued by a … State, or local government agency or authorized custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth issued by such agency or custodian of record”

    So the COLB meets all of the elements of the definition of a “birth certificate.” There is no requirement for the name of the hospital or the names of any witnesses in the definition.

    The burden then would shift to the birfers to provide some grounds to go behind the official certificate and the testimony of the custodial official. They would have to
    (1) prove that it was a forgery or ( 2) that valid Kenyan or other birth certificates exist.
    The forgery “experts” have all been shot down, and even the WorldWingNutDaily conceded last year that it was genuine. The two Kenyan birth certificates were pathetic fakes, and anyone seeking to introduce them risks perjury charges and jail time.

    Obama has already complied with the proposed bill [below], and has already met any legal challenge on the merits to his right to hold office based on a challenge to his place of birth.

    At this point, it is the “afterbirfers” who step up to the place. Like Leo Donofrio, they contend that Obama is ineligible even if he were in fact born in Hawaii in 1961, where he was in fact born.

    “Afterbirfers” ™®C come in two flavors.

    Leo’s “dual citizenship” crowd say that Obama is not “natural born” because his father was a citizen or subject of Kenya or the British Empire at the time of birth. That is the non-fat version. The full sugar version says that Obama himself was a British or Kenyan citizen or subject at birth, and cannot serve because of dual loyalties, or because he was subject to the jurisdiction of another country at birth, and maybe today.

    This is sure to lose because the 14th Amendment said all persons born in the U.S. are citizens, except for children of ambassadors and of hostile occupying forces, and the Supreme Court ruled in Wong that children of aliens born in the States are just as much citizens as the children of natural born citizens. (This is the short form of the argument. It can go on for years).

    Obama did have conditional Kenyan citizenship at birth, but that was dependent on his claiming it before he turned 21, and he never did so. It expired. There is nothing in the text, intent or interpreting Supreme Court cases to support Leo’s theory.

    Leo is shocked, shocked that a person who was once a citizen of another country could be President and Commander in Chief. Enter a servant to give Leo his poker winnings, along with biographies of Washington and all the Presidents up to Zachary Taylor or someone, who had all been subjects of Great Britain at one time. For crying out loud, Washington had been a BRITISH GENERAL. Sputter, sputter…. Will no one in the kingdom rid me of this meddlesome pries…, um, poker player?

    The other crowd of afterbirfers says both parents must be citizens, without reference to dual citizenship. Mario and Kerchner base this on the writings of Vattel, who was not a framer, and was not even American, and wrote in French or something years before the Constitution, and wasn’t even translated into English until 1797. Mike Appleton and others have demonstrated the common law, not Vattel, was the source of the meaning of the term “natural born.” It meant all babies born in the country, except babies of foreign diplomats and occupying armies.

    Written predictions ™®©:

    (1) Some fringe candidates may get standing in the 2012 election.
    (2) The will lose on the COLB issue, since the courts will hold it valid.
    (3) They will not get access to the Hawaiian records.
    (4) They will lose on dual citizenship.
    (5) They will lose on the two-parent requirement.
    (6) They will never accept the rulings on the merits that they so longed for, and will go into the night crying “usurper.”

    If the bill introduced by the Republican Congressional birthers should be passed, the courts would have to rely on the federal legal definition in Section 7211 and Title 5, since the bill amends federal law.

    (a) In General- Section 303(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 U.S.C. 433(b)) is amended–

    (1) by striking `and’ at the end of paragraph (5);

    (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and inserting `; and’; and

    (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

    `(7) in the case of a principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President, a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under section 5 of article II of the Constitution.’.

    Again, Obama is the first potential 2012 candidate to have complied with this bill in full. Obama has produced his birth certificate. Farah and the WorldNutters are liars when they ask in billboards “Where’s the birth certificate” because Obama has already produced his birth certificate.


  130. on 1, October 31, 2009 at 1:21 pm Bigfoot Is Laughing

    My birth certificate is kind of large.

    They had to use a bedsheet so that my footprints would fit on it.


  131. on 1, October 31, 2009 at 1:38 pm Anonmously Yours

    @Bigfoot,

    So long as it is filed as a certificate of live birth then file it. Hell, where you allegedly born? Scotland? Is that part of the US?

    Hell, if we can suffer stupd at W’s expense then you too can be president.


  132. Mr. Spindell said: “Most people who fear other types of people are really afraid of the feelings they have within themselves. Those who despise and loathe other human beings seem I think to fear that they are really like those others. People who despise and loathe other also run counter to Jesus teachings. Was it not he who supped with publicans and saved a whore saying “Judge not lest you be judged.” Mr. Bulla, you act in a most un-Christian manner and one counter to your Lord’s teachings.”

    Believe me, I’m no queer, I am a polygamist, you fool. And guess what, I am not a Christian either! Jesus of Nazareth was opposed to the sectarian confusion and nonsense of Babylon the Great upheld by you. Looking at your photograph, your visage betrays that you’re a queer. I unerringly discern the motivation here: the attempt to destroy God by destroying one of his daughters.

    7 For the things which some men esteem to be of great worth, both to the body and soul, others set at naught and trample under their feet. Yea, even the very God of Israel do men trample under their feet; I say, trample under their feet but I would speak in other words–they set him at naught, and hearken not to the voice of his counsels.

    (1 Ne 19:7)

    And you so much as admitted it in your post. Queers never understand the motivation of the righteous. Contempt and righteous indignation is not fear, fool. The reason you fear the righteous so much is because deep inside of whatever humanity you have left, you have this gnawing uncertainty, a certain fearful looking for the judgment of God, an then project this fear of righteous judgment onto Orly Taitz (who is in a battle to expose a wicked and corrupt charlatan who lies every time he opens his mouth) and this in order to destroy her that your sins might remain covered. You project because you realize the enormity of the judgments that will come against you and your kind should the righteous ever gain political ascendancy as they once had at the founding of this nation, or when the judgments of God otherwise overtake you.

    26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
    27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
    28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
    29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
    30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
    31 [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

    (Heb 10:26-31)

    And speaking of Barack Obama, he has the stated intention of destroying what he perceives as the ascendant white hegemony as per his own admission, hence the marshaling of Acorn to harass and intimidate bank presidents and their families to grant unwarranted and unrighteous loans to those not credit worthy, according to the rules of banking, simply because they are black, to join him the first affirmative-action president as the thrill runs up the leg of Chris Matthews.

    Matt 15:26
    26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast [it] to dogs.

    Mark 7:27
    27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children (white and delightsome Israel) first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast [it] unto the dogs.

    I discern him, you and Orly Taitz with righteous judgment, for I am a judge, you know it now or will know it at the last day. Plain speaking is a source of embarrassment to queerdom, hence their unceasing mockery of George W. Bush, not realizing that he was baiting you all along by feigned clumsiness, sort of like Columbo. The American people are waking up to your lies and effrontery.

    I received the following revelation from Israel’s God concerning your society controlled and ruled over by queerdom:

    7 For I the Lord thy God have for-ordained him, even he who was mighty and also strong, from be­fore the foundation of the world to do my work, as in times of old, and to be a prophet unto the na­tion in which thou standest even at this time, for I the Lord God am no respecter of nations as well as individuals-which nation is nigh unto de­struction because of the wickedness of the chil­dren of men upon the face thereof, as before the flood.
    8 For as before the flood are they in their hard­ness of heart and blindness of mind and their wickedness and abominations which they, even they, the com­mon man and woman, the major­ity, practice in that which they think is the dark in the which they say, “who is the Lord God of Abra­ham, Isaac and Jacob, of whom we have heard, but do not believe, that we should fear him?”, even as before the flood, yea in their ignorance of the mys­teries, and their murders, and their forni­cations, and their ly­ings, and stealings, and their mixing with the seed of Cain, the black race, and pride, and unbe­lief, and their fossils and their technology, and their false relig­ions, and haughty carriage, and fashion, and education and vain looks, and their whoredoms, and their tampering with the life which I the Lord their God have given unto them, yea their birth-control as before the flood, and their psychology, and their biol­ogy and their false science, and their evolution and their technol­ogy as before the flood:
    9 In the which they say as before the flood, who is the Lord God that we should fear him, for are we not a mighty nation and peo­ple, and have we not freed our­selves from the delusion of our fa­thers who were bound down by a vain and foolish hope of a res­urrection, and this through evo­lution and false science, and false religions, which abound as before the flood;
    10 And women’s liberation, and the officers in their swagger and bullying and the police and their magistrates who strut and lift themselves up in pride over the people, and their proud and arro­gant legislatures and their lying newsmen who distort the truth for gain, and the institutions of society, know ye not O deluded prophet, there is no God, for do ye not behold the world as we who are destroyed?
    11 And are we not content and happy?
    12 And we fear Him not, for know ye not that we have our teachers and we have our god which guideth us and giveth us comfort in the night, and teacheth us of its ways, the ways of the world, yea, even television, and doth it not teach us the truth, for it is marvelous in our eyes, and it says nothing concerning thee or thy God who hath spoken unto thee?
    13 Vain prophet do ye not see as we see, who have seen nothing, only corruption and lies, and ef­frontery from our god, fashion, and mad pursuit of pleasure and harlotry and we know nothing else, and do we not give lip to that which hath been passed down to us from our parents, and that which our governor tells us and Dan Rather tells us?
    14 Therefor leave us as our gov­ernor, and our parents and Dan Rather and Roger Mudd and Frank Reynolds, to our fornica­tion, and our drunkenness and our unbelief and our wickedness, or we will kill thee, as our fathers before thee killed them who dared speak of old, even thy pro­phets of Jacob who are deluded like unto thee, even Joseph and Hyrum.
    15 And does not the majority, do they not believe as we?
    16 Therefore we outnumber thee, O deluded man, and it is that if the majority see as we, are ye not in error, surely?
    17 And do the rest like unto us, understand thy words, O Prophet, and where are thy converts and the hosts that should follow thee if thy words be true?
    18 And thus we do not believe thy words that thou hast seen him.
    19 And thus they lift themselves up in pride against me, the Lord God, who is mighty in battle, as before the flood, to the complete destruction of soul and body.
    20 For it was that them before the flood obtained promise of de­liverance in the resurrection from hell, which shall not be given unto this genera­tion, saith the Lord, for thou hast also blas­phemed against the Holy Ghost, O liberal man and woman, which they did not do before the flood.
    21 And it is that unless ye speedily repent, ye shall be de­stroyed both body and soul in hell for I love the effortless fury of the battle, and the blood shall run to the bridles of the horses in that day, saith the Lord God of Phar­aoh, and whose de­struction unto thee, O liberal man and woman is beyond the mind of man to comprehend in the height and depth thereof, which no man knoweth save he shall be made partaker thereof.
    22 Yea with the devil and his angels ye shall suf­fer the second death, in my fury and wrath upon thee, O man and O woman, who darest lift up thy feeble head against my legions who shall come in this day, saith the Lord God.
    23 And also mine own arm which shall fall upon thee to thy destruction as before the flood, and by pestilence and plague and earthquake, as my ar­mies which shall go through as a young lion in the midst of sheep, and the fall of thy economy, and thy utter destruction both body and soul which hangeth over thee, O man, even now, and these things are upon thee except ye repent and come unto me through him whom I have ap­pointed for the deliverance of the righteous in these things, saith the Lord God of Joseph Smith and Hyrum, whom your fathers, O ye Gentiles killed, and rejoiced in their deaths.
    24 And did I not pour out civil war upon them as punishment, even in these things, saith the Lord, to requite the blood of the prophets upon their own heads, saith the Lord God of destruction and terrible vengeance?
    25 For is not all flesh in my hands that I the Lord God cannot cause that which looketh as the natu­ral course of events unto the natural man unaided by the spirit of Revelation, but which are strong delusion which I the Lord God poured out also upon the Jews before their destruction before the Roman Eagle, in the which I the Lord God brought about their destruction easily, O man, and effortlessly by their delusion and deep sleep as to things which are real, that they perished under the sword, dreaming that their necks were stronger than the steel of the blade as it was brought down upon them, that their God would deliver them?
    26 And thus I the Lord God de­stroyed them, even as I, the Lord God will thee, O man, and O woman, for I the Lord God am the author of life and of death from before the foundation of the world, and was not the flood murder unto thee, O liberal man and woman whom I loath, saith the Lord, for thou hast provoked me, the Lord Thy God as before the flood, with thy haughtiness and wickedness.
    27 And where is thy police that can deliver thee, O man, from me?
    28 For they are full of iniquity also, saith the Lord, and are worse than them whom they per­se­cute, and have participated in the shedding of in­nocent blood, even that of John Singer, saith the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
    29 And it is for these things a curse hath been placed upon the land, as before the flood to thy ut­ter destruction, both body and soul.a
    30 But it is my will, saith the Lord, that thou shouldest pray unto me in thy secret places con­cerning these things, and I the Lord thy God will answer thy prayer unto me, and will fill even thy frame with such power from regions of light and glory and might and power, that it is im­possible that thy tongue, O man, can express the power thereof, that ye may have a witness from me, even Jesus of Nazereth that these things are true, and that I the Lord God have appointed him and all who would receive me, even the Lord thy God, when it is that I shall come with my Holy Angels to reap down even the earthb upon which thou stan­dest, must receive him, or it is that they must all be cut off from my presence, even forever and everc, worlds without end.
    31 Even so, I the Lord God have spoken it and so it shall come to pass.
    32 For it is that no man knoweth the things of God, save it be by the Spirit of God.
    33 And all the preachments of men, save they shall be given by the inspiration of the Comforter are of no efficacy or value unto the souls of the children of men for their salvation, saith the Lord.
    34 For why is it, saith the Lord, that ye require the Gateway spo­ken of to be narrow when it was that I the Lord God did send unto that stiffnecked and unbelieving generation even John, named the Baptist, and that it be broad unto you, O ye gen­eration of vipers like unto them?
    35 For as it was then, even so it is now, for I the Lord God am no respecter of persons or genera­tions, and am the same yesterday, today, and for­ever, and because I the Lord God send unto you one gift, ye need not suppose that I cannot send another, for he it is that was with me from the be­ginning and reserved that he should come unto thee at this time for thy salvation, both tem­porally and spiritually, for he it is that was mighty before the foun­dation of the world for the defeat of Luci­fer, even at this time, saith the Lord, and has stood upon my right hand in reserve, from bef­ore the foundation of the world as my mighty one who should be held in reserve to do battle for mine honor and my name upon the earth against mine enemies, both in the flesh and the spirit, saith the Lord God, that they may know of my power which shall be manifest when ye are gathered unto him, O Israel, such as has not been seen since Moses and Enoch.
    36 And it is that because that none of you have faith and intel­ligence and knowledge sufficient to pull down answers from that region of light, that ye cry blas­phemy as the Jews, when it was that I sent mine Only Begotten unto them, O ye stiff­necked and unbelieving generation!
    37 And he it is that I have sent at this time shall be the means of baptizing this generation also for a remission of sins, by mine authority, that they too shall re­ceive baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost by the laying on of his hands as anciently.
    38 And thus it is that my people shall once again worship me in Spirit and in truth as anciently, that I the Father of Heaven and earth may once more take up my abode upon the earth, as in the Garden before the fall, yea, of Eden.
    39 And this is the only true gospel which is and shall be rec­ognized by the heavens as an­ciently.
    40 For I the Lord his God have covenanted with him that all who come unto me, even his Father, must come unto me as in the manner of old.
    41 For I, his Father must am no respecter of per­sons.
    42 For it was that I his Father did send in mine Only Begotten unto that generation and that gen­eration only, and in this gen­eration, there is a sec­ond witness of me, the Father, of equal weight and validity and power and might before me, as mine Only Begotten son, for out of the mouths of two witnesses shall every word be established, which thing is my law, saith the Lord, for by these two, who are mine, will I the Father who art greater in might than they all, shall judge the earth upon which thou standest.
    43 For his is of Ephraimc, and mine Only Begot­ten is Judah, and who is greater before me, saith the Father?
    44 And in this generation all who would come unto me must receive him who was Mighty and Strong from before the founda­tion of the world.
    45 For I did send mine Only Be­gotten unto them, because ye, O Ephraim, were scattered among the nations, therefor it is that I the Father have sent Him also unto thee, that he stand also upon my right hand with me in my power, for he hath also de­scended with mine Only Begot­ten, below all things, and hath also drunk out of that bitter cup, for all things have also been stripped from him except his life, and even that hath hung in the balance, saith the Father.
    46 And thus are we not one, yea one in doctrine, and mind and spirit, but not one in body, O man?
    47 And this because of his intel­ligence, for light cleaveth unto light and intelligence, saith the Lord, unto intelligence.
    48 And there were none greater in intelligence among the sons of God from before the foundation of the world, that Satan could not deceive him as he hath thee, O man, with his lies and cunning craftiness and thy unstable mind and heart, yea for his intelli­gence, which is the light of truth, he cannot be deceived by him, saith the Lord, and he is the stone spoken of by Isaiah in the 28th chap­ter, which should be laid in Sion, tried and pre­cious by me, his Father.
    49 Thus ye have a sure anchor for thy soul and ye may rely upon him as a sure guide for thee from me, and he will lead thee, my sheep into green pastures, where no ravening wolf can enter in, for he guardeth the gate and will de­stroy him for thee that thy life be spared, O man, and O woman, and if ye hearken and be obedient unto him in all things, ye shall be delivered from death and that devil and that yawning abyss of hell which jaws gape wide open the mouth that ye descend there­unto, if ye repent not before me, saith the Father, for I will not be mocked.The Revelations of Jesus Christ, Section 24.


  133. Art, if you are not a Christian, why are you pasting up “The Revelations of Jesus Christ,” you damn polygamist? Keep MY NAME out of your hate-filled rants, thank you very much. I am returning, and your sorry ass is the first one I will find.


  134. To all preparing a dive on Art Bulla (you’ll be going DEEP), monitor your time and depth appropriately. Oh and please remember your decompression stop strategies when you commence a slow ascent.


  135. I think Prof. Turley should initiate a troll tax for postings that exceed 3,000 words. Maybe the fines collected could go to help pay for the health care reform.


  136. “Believe me, I’m no queer, I am a polygamist, you fool. And guess what, I am not a Christian either! Jesus of Nazareth was opposed to the sectarian confusion and nonsense of Babylon the Great upheld by you. Looking at your photograph, your visage betrays that you’re a queer. I unerringly discern the motivation here: the attempt to destroy God by destroying one of his daughters.”

    Art,
    A polygamist no less and not a Christian, but a user of Christian philosophy. You call me a queer to. how precious. Also how sad for your wives that they are stuck with a delusional man. The truth is you could have a dozen wives and still be a homosexual. It’s what’s inside your mind and those hidden desires that make it so. All I know is that any man who is so threatened and disgusted by homosexuals must have that kind of problem. If you were such a great heterosexual, why would you care as much as you seem to do. Your fear and loathing gives you away and you belief that the Deity would speak to one such as you and proclaimed the vile hatred you profess is sadly delusional.


  137. Mike S:

    “Also how sad for your wives that they are stuck with a delusional man.”

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

    I think you jumped the gun on this one. Art Bulla said he was a polygamist. He never said anything about human wives. I am betting a goat, two mules, and a very sassy aardvark. Why do you think you can’t covet another man’s wife, ox, or ass as stated in Rule Ten. Seems we have an equivalence for the Bible thumping crowd. Tread softly here.


  138. on 1, November 1, 2009 at 1:42 pm The Prophet Joseph Smith

    Maybe hogs and pigs:

    Hogamous, Pigamous,
    Man is polygamous
    Pigamous, hogamous
    Woman monogamous.
    — traditional, author unknown.

    Or he may only believe in polygamy, but not practice it, making him a polygamist who can’t polyg.


  139. on 1, November 1, 2009 at 6:10 pm Orly Taitz and Bill O'Reilly


  140. I correctly discerned through the Spirit of God that the politics of the left, here and elsewhere, is driven by their sexual depravity. Jesus said that the “weightier matter of the law” is judgment. We are here to correctly judge between good and evil, and if there is a shiver all the away through our beings because our conscience has been compromised by accommodating evil, by committing crimes against nature, then the light of the eye is darkness, and it would have been better that we had never been born.

    20 Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

    (2 Ne 15:20)

    23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great [is] that darkness!

    (Matt 6:23)

    34 The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when [thine eye] is evil, thy body also [is] full of darkness.

    (Luke 11:34)

    19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
    20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
    21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

    (John 3:19-21)

    20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

    (Isa 5:20)

    If our judgment is suborned by wickedness, then we become literally a devil in human form. These are called “sons of perdition” in the Scriptures. There is no forgiveness for them, for they must, of necessity deny and blaspheme even against the Holy Ghost to maintain a cover for their depravity! But the result upon society of these individuals, especially if they gain political influence, and influence in the schools of our nation, is the destruction of that society or nation. this is why Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, saith the Lord. Persecution is heaped upon Orly Taitz, and the Lord himself is crucified afresh and put to an open shame. The fate of these individuals so involved, saith the Lord, is the second death. We all know of the first death, but it is the second one that you should be concerned about. You may think that this is just a rhetorical attempt to frighten you, but I assure you that it is not.

    As Jesus of Nazareth said,

    28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

    (Matt 10:28)

    We are spirits clothed in flesh and bones. We know where the flesh and bones come from, we have parents. But the spirit has parents also, literally. This parentage and existence was before birth for many millennia, our memory of all was blotted out before coming here except for these intimations spoken of by Wordsworth.

    Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
    The Soul that rises with us, our life’s Star,
    Hath had elsewhere its setting,
    And cometh from afar: Not in entire forgetfulness,
    And not in utter nakedness,
    But trailing clouds of glory do we come
    From God, who is our home: William Wordsworth, Intimations on Immortality

    For those who commit the kind of sins that we are speaking of here, which are unpardonable there is a second death which is the total annihilation of the spirit back to its native element, or dissolution. This may take many millennia of indescribable suffering to accomplish. It is literally devoured by devils who are more powerful, in the world to come. This fate is to be avoided at all costs. As Chairman Mao said, all politics comes from the barrel of a gun, but Jesus said to fear not him, then when he kill the body that is all that he (Chairman Mao) and those like him can do. So real power belongs to those who are able to bring these punishments about. Men obey laws because of the fear they have of punishment. How much more should we obey the law of God and live, because the punishment is indescribable.

    Liberals do not understand punishment, therefore they pray for murderers and hold candlelight vigils etc. But here is what Scripture revealed through the prophet Joseph Smith says about that:

    “Mercy cannot rob justice.”


  141. on 1, November 1, 2009 at 7:36 pm Former Federal LEO

    “Liberals do not understand punishment, therefore they pray for murderers and hold candlelight vigils etc. But here is what Scripture revealed through the prophet Joseph Smith says about that:

    “Mercy cannot rob justice.”
    ———————————

    I am a conservative and I know what kind of punishment I would like to mete A.Bull.


  142. on 1, November 2, 2009 at 9:03 am Buddha Is Laughing

    OT:

    Vince,

    Asimov estate approves “new” Robot story. I hope this grave robbing exercise works out better than what they have planned for Douglas Adams.

    http://www.keepingthedoor.com/2009/10/30/asimov-estate-authorises-i-robot-sequels/


  143. on 1, November 2, 2009 at 9:13 am Anonymously Yours

    Buddha,

    Are you back full force de jure?


  144. BiL, wow. Interesting discussion at the linked site. I’m mixed. Dr. A did authorize some sequels, but not all of them turned out well. Wait and see.


  145. Art Bulla:

    as a conservative, I think you are wrong. I think most liberals, at least the ones on this site, just want controlling people out of their lives.


  146. “I correctly discerned through the Spirit of God that the politics of the left, here and elsewhere, is driven by their sexual depravity.”

    In my mind and that of most human beings polygamy is the height of sexual depreavity. In your case “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” be the maxim when talking about sexual depravity.


  147. Buddha,
    Thanks for the link I’m bookmarking that site. Good stuff. As for Douglas Adams, are they really thinking about the same? The idea of a new writer picking up from a master is just money driven greed. As the articles author stated Imagine hiring someone to continue Rembrandt’s work.

    Now in the case of Jordan’s “Wheel of Time Series” where the author died before completion and “supposedly” left copious notes I can see the sense. However, truthfully, Jordan was just milking the the story by his Seventh book and stringing it out for the money. Authors of course are entitled to increase their bottom line, but when it becomes like “Wheel of Time” it shows the loss of artistic vision. I became bored with it, but would continue reading to get to the denouement. However, now I read that the designated Jordan author and Tor are planning three more books and i’ll do myself the favor of imagining my own ending.


  148. Art Bulla:

    and Joseph Smith is a paragon of virtue concerning sexual mores? Are you smoking crack?

    Isn’t the Mormon religion the one where any Mormon can become god? Come to think of it, you are smoking more than just crack, you are high on delusions of grandeur.


  149. Buddha,

    I haven’t read “And Another Thing…” (the new Hitch-hiker’s book) yet, I take it that you don’t like it?


  150. Mike S,

    Douglas Adams’ widow picked someone to write a sixth Hitchhiker’s book because Douglas thought (correctly) that the fifth book was bleak and wanted the series to end on a better note. I have no problem with this (although as I mentioned, I haven’t read the book yet). I’m somewhat more nervous about the prospect of a new Robot book, but I’ll give it a chance.


  151. Mike, Slart and Buddha

    Jordan was milking the story from book four on, I gave up at five. I’m pretty sure he spent more time checking his continuity notes than working on the actual plot at that point.

    As for as the Adams sequel goes, my understanding (from an interview with the new author) is that the author was contacted by the Adams estate. He decided that it would be literary suicide to try and write an “Adams” book, so he wrote an ending to the story that he thought Adams would have liked in his (the new author’s) style. He is completely honest with the fact that he’s not a substitute for Adams, but is instead doing a homage at the request of the family of one of his favorite authors. I’m withholding judgment until I read it.


  152. Gyges,

    My understanding is the same as yours – and Mr. Colfer wrote the book (titled “And Another Thing…” – gotta love a title with an ellipsis…) at the behest of Jane Belson, Douglas Adams’ widow. As someone who reveres Douglas Adams (as witnessed by my name), I’m very excited at the prospect of a final (I would hope) Hitchhikers book and the author has said all the right things. I think there is a big difference between finishing a series that the author intended to finish before he died and adding a new trilogy onto a series which is essentially complete on it own.


  153. on 1, November 2, 2009 at 11:52 am Buddha Is Laughing

    Mike & Slarti,

    I have not yet read “And Another Thing . . .”, however, the prospect of it fills me with more dread than a new Robot tale. The reason is simply that as a feat of writing, it’s easier to ape Asimov than Adams because stylistically Douglas’ voice was 1) more flamboyant than Asimov and 2) comedic. To me, comedy is a genre that is so dependent on aesthetic and timing/pacing that it is intrinsically difficult to mimic successfully. Beginning S/F (or any genre specific) writers often start by writing that mimics what they like to read. A really good writer can do so and not sound derivative. But comedy is different because it is so “voice” dependent. Asimov, brilliant as he was, was pretty straight forward in terms of art as a writer. I don’t mean this as an insult and I don’t think Issac would take it this way when I describe him as “utilitarian”. It would be harder, for example, to ape Gene Wolfe than an Asimov or a Clarke if you want to stay in genre. Wolfe has a very distinctive style. Even taking into account that it’s a comedy hybrid, Douglas Adams was a lot of things stylistically, but utilitarian wasn’t one of them. If you try to write like him – because his voice is both distinctive and comic – there is a distinct chance that you’ll come off sounding like a bad Douglas Adams impersonation. This is not unique in comedy. Rarely can one mimic others style so well as to gain notoriety – the two exceptions that come to mind being Hal Holbrooke’s Twain and Gabe Kaplan’s Groucho and those are Broadway examples (because I cannot think of a successful literary example). I am skeptical of a new Robot story. I am afraid of a new Arthur Dent story. Almost as much as I’d be afraid of a “new” tale of Dr. Gonzo and his steadfast yet demented and depraved Samoan attorney. Maybe it’s just me.


  154. Buddha,

    The author of “And Another thing…” agrees with you, he didn’t write a book trying to be Douglas Adams, he wrote a book he thought Adams might like.


  155. I talked to a friend on the force in the Time Patrol about sending some Agents back to smother these sequels-by-successors in the cradle.

    It turns out that they believe in the Free Market, and expect the Invisible Hand to take care of these efforts. It seems that Natural Selection based on the Survival of the Fittest will allow the Gold to settle out permanently, while the Dross is washed away. They are very firm on the First Amendment.

    In the meantime, I have found that the best 21stC SFers are now the Brits, led by Charles Stross and Alistair Reynolds. I just finished House of Suns, and half of Transition. This stuff is All-Galactic, great New Space Opera. I have read all of Reynolds, and most of Stross, and they never disappoint.

    NY Timester Paul Krugman, is a fan of Asimov, especially FoundationX3, and he has now signed on with a jacket endorsement for Stross’s Merchant Princes series (be sure to start at the start with Family Trade), and I agree.


  156. Buddha,

    Have faith and be not afraid – Colfer says he tried to write in the spirit of Adams, not to mimic him, and considering how well that worked in the movie (which was different than all of the other incarnations of Hitchhikers and very my in the spirit of DA, in my opinion), I’m cautiously optimistic. I wholeheartedly agree with you that no one else can credibly pick up Hunter’s gonzo pen, though. Now excuse me, I’ve got to go find some raw ether and quaaludes…


  157. on 1, November 2, 2009 at 12:27 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    Aye, I’ll not quibble it is their right Vince, but I posit the same question I posit to scientists – “Just because you can do something, does it mean that should you?” Capacity does not correlate to desired outcome. Need I say more than Star Trek: Voyager? I may have come off as a doomsayer for derivative work and that is not true. I rather liked it when Larry Niven let other writers play in his universe in the various “Man-Kzin War” titles. And while I have not read any of the new Foundation stories, I do rather like some of the Gardner penned Bond novels. But I say what I said as being specific to comedy and I’ll stick to it – the chances of success are slim as to be approaching zero if they want an “Adams” book. If the book stands, as Gyges says, as an independent tale of its own written with Adams as the target audience? That could work. Well, if you discount the “dead” part of the demographic that could work.

    I cannot say I have read all of Reynolds but I can say most. I concur that his Revelations universe tales never disappoint, even the disturbing novella “Diamond Dogs, Turquoise Days”. Right now I’m preparing to dive into the Manifold series by Stephen Baxter. I read one of them out of sequence (Exultant) and was as impressed with him as I was with Reynolds. I think Baxter’s Xeelee may be one of the more compelling alien species in the field.


  158. Vince,

    Your comment reminded me of a very amusing short story (sort of). Enjoy.

    p.s. Did you see the latest about O-bot spying and psyops at the post & email?


  159. Vince,

    Here’s a link to Stross’s blog. Based on that I’m definitely checking out his fiction, at some point in the future.

    http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/

    I love the post “How habitable is the Earth?”


  160. on 1, November 2, 2009 at 12:39 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    Slarti,

    I will stipulate that I was not deeply offended by the HGTTG film and felt it to be in the spirit of the books within the structural confines of a screenplay. I’ll even go so far as to say Sam Rockwell was perfect casting for Zaphod. As much as some authors whine about “Hollywood butchered my work”, rarely is that strictly true. Screenplays ARE different from novels and any writer honest with themselves should be honest about this fact. Alan Moore has been both right about this (V for Vendetta is a simple and worst – simplistic – shadow of the book) and wrong about this (Watchmen, as good a job making that into a film as possible even though I didn’t agree with the need to change the ending. My reactions to the LOTR films is similar.). I’ll try not to rush to judgment on a new HHTTG book given I now know they are not trying to accomplish the practically impossible. I will still, however, approach with caution.


  161. Buddha,

    Fred Saberhagen opened up the Berzerker series and published a book of short stories (Including stories by Larry Niven, Roger Zelazny, and Stephen R. Donaldson (another of my favorite authors)). I think this setting (like the Man-Kzin wars) is ideal for this sort of thing, and I agree with you that comedy is much harder, but I think that Colfer is in the best possible position to make it work.


  162. Buddha,

    In fairness to other stories made into movies, HHGTTG is about one-third the length of say, LotR and already had four other versions (I think) that were all different from each other (meaning there were very few scenes that HAD to be in the movie). LotR did many things really well (and the cinematography was incredible), but then something will happen like Aragorn drawing a SWORD at Weathertop and I’ll go apoplectic – and don’t even get me started about the Harry Potter movies…


  163. Slart,

    I was actually thankful for all the changes in LOTR. A straight line by line adaptation would have been WAY too long, and boring. Think of how much time Tolkien spent on traveling and back stories. “It’s the journey and not the destination” story telling doesn’t generally work all that well for big budget special effects fests like LOTR needed to be. Of course, I never cared much for Tolkien anyway, so I’m biased.

    Contrast that with “Bubba Ho-tep,” which is incredibly faithful to the Lansdale story. It works well because it’s a much more dialog driven story then anything Tolkien wrote. Not to mention it has the advantage of being a short story, which tend to focus less on explanation and more on mood and atmosphere. Plus, a retired Elvis fighting a mummy just makes for good watching.


  164. Evil twin Vince from Alternate Universe seized computer and garbled my transmission. Iain M. Banks is the author of Transition, out this year, and an excellent alternate universe yarn in every respect up as far as I have read through page 250. So my parlay on the Big Three is Banks, Reynolds and Stross.

    Or this may be a brain problem, so I will have to resort to my do-it-yourself brain-surgery kit ordered on the Internet. All spare excised tissue has been promised by JT to NAL. “A rind is a terrible thing to taste.”

    BiL, everyone here has to get together and coin a name for these “afterauthors.” They resemble athletes trying to make comebacks. They never succeed. August Derleth kept putting out Lovecraft sequels, and encouraging others, but it is HPL, and only HPL, who is now deservedly in the Library of America. Howard’s Conan was ripped off like that. Harlan Ellison did a story in F&SF 30 years back on the subject.

    The sequeelers (rhymes with squealers) have to be told: “With great power comes great responsibility. You can’t do everything. You’re not Superman.”


  165. Gyges, great site!

    Slart, a great story!

    I had the Time Patrol send an agent back to the 20’s to guide Adolph to Sigmund Freud for full psychoanalysis in Vienna. Adolph became a science fiction writer, famous for his novel The Iron Dream, published under the name Norman Spinrad.

    As a Celt, I should be careful with the label “Brit.” Stross is now a Scot living in Edinburgh, although born in Leeds. Reynolds is Welsh, living near Cardiff. Banks is a Scot living near Forth Bridge.

    See, also, Ken McLeod and Peter F. Hamilton.


  166. Vince,

    My view on athletes is that great players have the right to decide when to call it quits – if you want to be a Barry Sanders or Jim Brown and leave the game on top, fine, and if you want to be like Bret Favre and keep playing until your 102, that’s fine, too. (I don’t know if you can call it a comeback, but so far, I don’t think anyone in Minnesota is complaining about Farve.) I like the name sequeelers, and I agree that their works shouldn’t become cannon unless they are accepted by the fans (whatever that means).

    Gyges,

    It’s not what they cut out of LotR that bothers me (and you are right, a lot had to be cut to make an entertaining movie, it’s when important things are changed for no good reason that bothers me. I haven’t seen Bubba Ho-Tep yet, but as I am a Bruce Campbell fan (Hail to the King, baby), it’s on my list of movies to see.

    Vince,

    You should know better. I’ve had your agent stopped before he could intervene – don’t do it again!


  167. Slart,

    I figure Jackson was trying to remove as much of the Arthurian elements as possible from Aragorn’s character. Movies can’t handle as much complexity as novels can. Especially psuedo-mythical novels like Tolkien wrote. By placing Aragorn in a less central role, Jackson was able to emphasize Tolkien’s theme that it wasn’t the powerful legends that made the difference, but the goodness of the simple folk. I think Tolkien overplayed his hand a little by making the Hobbits caricatures like he did.


  168. The Ellison story was “All the Lies That Are My Life,” F&SF, Nov. 1980, Hugo nominee, collected in Shatterday: “a writer attends the funeral & reading of the will of a fellow writer & friend … might be described as fiction about science fiction …is the most intensely personal.” The writer in his will expressed his dread that scavengers would keep on churning out new versions of his works. Harlan will read the opening part of it to you at:

    http://www.sundancechannel.com/digital-shorts/#/series/20958611001/20977197001


  169. Gyges, yeah, Charlton concluded that Obots might be snooping on you and using psycop tactics to manipulate you unknowingly, based on evidence that this snooping is being done by an obot who lives within 10 minutes of the founder of Snopes.com. Comments came from an IP in the town adjacent to the address of the registrant of Snopes.

    Truly crazy.


  170. Art Bulla: “The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when [thine eye] is evil, thy body also [is] full of darkness.”

    You tell me this town ain’t got no heart.
    Well, well, well, you can never tell.
    The sunny side of the street is dark.
    Well, well, well, you can never tell.

    Maybe that’s cause it’s midnight, in the dark of the moon besides.

    Maybe the dark is from your eyes, Maybe the dark is from your eyes,

    Maybe the dark is from your eyes, Maybe the dark is from your eyes,

    Maybe the dark is from your eyes, Maybe the dark is from your eyes,

    You know you got such dark eyes!

    Nothin’ shakin’ on Shakedown Street. Used to be the heart of town.

    Don’t tell me this town ain’t got no heart. You just gotta poke around.


  171. Big long article at HuffPo by Terry Krepel on WorldNutOrly:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-krepel/worldnetdaily-cant-stop-w_b_341684.html


  172. What a great SF discussion, I feel like I’m home. I love Stross and think he is very, very, good, but my favorite writer today is another Scotsman, Richard K. Morgan. Read “Market Forces” and the three Takeshi Kovacs books, sublime fiction and a wealth of really interesting things to ponder about humanity’s future.

    While I like Asimov a lot, I absolutely love Adams writing.
    To have either of them “continued” is to me little more than greed. To again use a version of the analogy shall we hire someone to add to the list of Mozart’s music? What about an updated sequel to Lennon’s Imagine? No good.


  173. One other point re: Asimove v. Adams. The laws of robotics were genius and the Foundation series a masterwork, but “Goodbye and thanks for all the fish” is to me one of the wittiest lines ever written. Also in a recent 911 hospital trip last week, I’m fine now, all I kept thinking to myself was “Don’t Panic,” which made me smile and the EMT’s told me they almost never had patients who were in the throes of what I had, who seemed to deal with it so well. “Foundation” may stimulate my brain, but “Hitchhiker” helps keep me alive.


  174. The Indiana Court of Appeals is right on the money. Today they handed down the case of Ankeny and Kruse v. Governor of Indiana, in the Court of Appeals of Indiana:

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

    Tho pro se plaintiffs sued the Governor for failing to block the Electoral Votes for Obama. The trial court dismissed the claim and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court discussed the merits of the claim that a natural born citizen must be born in the United States to two United States citizens. It rejected the claim outright.

    It correctly relied on U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, ruling that all persons born in the United States are natural born citizens.


  175. There was another big loss for the birthers in the Third Circuit. The dismissal of Attorney Phil Berg’s case was affirmed.

    PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    No. 08-4340
    PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, Appellant
    v.
    BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, a/k/a BARRY SOETORO, a/k/a BARRY OBAMA, a/k/a BARACK DUNHAM, a/k/a BARRY DUNHAM; THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE; THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION; THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PEDRO A. CORTÉS, Secretary of the Commonwealth in his official capacity; DIANNE FEINSTEIN, Chairman of the U.S. Senate, Commission on Rules and Administration in her official capacity; U.S. SENATE, COMMISSION ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION; and DOES 1-50 INCLUSIVE

    On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 2-08-cv-04083) District Judge: Hon. R. Barclay Surrick

    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 26, 2009

    OPINION OF THE COURT

    SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.

    Philip Berg, a lawyer acting pro se, filed this action challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to run for and serve as President of the United States. The District Court dismissed Berg’s action on the grounds that he lacks standing and failed to state a cognizable claim.

    I.

    Before the 2008 presidential election, Berg sued then- Presidential candidate Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee, and the Federal Election Commission, among others, alleging that Obama was ineligible to run for and serve as President because he was born in Kenya and therefore is not a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution .[1] Berg sought, in relevant part, a declaratory judgment that Obama was ineligible, an injunction barring Obama from running for that office, and an injunction barring the Democratic National Committee from nominating him.

    Although Berg brought a grab-bag of claims before the District Court, he appeals only the dismissal of those brought under the Natural Born Citizen Clause of the Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.[2] The District Court – assuming the factual allegations made by Berg to be true for the purposes of the Defendants’ motion to dismiss those claims – dismissed the first claim because “[t]he alleged harm to voters [like Berg] stemming from a presidential candidate’s failure to satisfy the eligibility requirement[s] of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to . . . satisfy Article III standing,” App. at 15, and dismissed the § 1983 claim because the “Natural Born Citizen Clause does not confer an individual right on citizens or voters,” App. at 23.

    [1] That clause states, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .” U.S. Const., art. II, § 1, cl. 4.

    [2] In the “Issues Presented” section of Berg’s brief, issue nine is whether the District Court erred in “dismissing [Berg’s] claims under Promissory Estoppel [by holding that] the DNC . . . and Obama’s promise[s] to uphold the United States Constitution are simply statements of principle and intent in the political realm and are not enforceable promises[.]” Appellant’s Br. at 3. Berg does not mention his promissory estoppel theory again, let alone explain why the District Court’s holding was in error. In any event, the District Court was certainly correct that “[f]ederal courts . . . are not and cannot be in the business of enforcing political rhetoric.” App. at 35.

    Berg filed a notice of appeal and moved this court for an “emergency” injunction to stay the presidential election of November 4, 2008 pending resolution of that appeal. We declined to stay the election, noting that it appeared that Berg lacked standing and thus failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits.[3]

    Obama won the election and Berg subsequently made another “emergency” motion, asking this court to issue an order prohibiting the certification of electors by the governors of each state, to stay the members of the Electoral College from casting their votes for Obama, and to stay the counting of electoral votes in Congress. We also denied that motion, reiterating Berg’s apparent lack of standing and also stating that Berg’s lawsuit seemed to present a non-justiciable political question.

    The electoral votes have since been cast without objection to Obama’s qualifications by any members of Congress, and Obama was inaugurated. Berg nonetheless persists in this litigation.

    [3] On the day that we denied Berg’s motion, he petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari and applied to Justice Souter, who was at the time the Circuit Justice for the Third Circuit, for an injunction to stay the November 2008 election. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari and Justice Souter denied the application for an injunction.

    II.

    We have jurisdiction to consider this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the District Court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is plenary. Taliaferro v. Darby Twp. Zoning Bd., 458 F.3d 181, 188 (3d Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Because the Defendants’ challenge to subject matter jurisdiction was a “facial” one, we will accept the allegations in the complaint as true. Id. It is Berg’s burden to establish his standing. FOCUS v. Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, 75 F.3d 834, 838 (3d Cir. 1996).

    We note that most of Berg’s arguments on appeal were not made before the District Court and rest on facts that did not exist when his complaint was filed, i.e., Obama’s election and the casting of the electoral votes without objection. Ordinarily, we would not reach such arguments. See United States v. Anthony Dell’Aquilla, Enters. & Subsidiaries, 150 F.3d 329, 335 (3d Cir. 1998) (“[A]bsent exceptional circumstances, an issue not raised in district court will not be heard on appeal.”) (citation omitted); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 571 n.4 (1992) (“The existence of federal jurisdiction ordinarily depends on the facts as they exist when the complaint is filed.” (quoting Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 830 (1989))). In light of the public’s interest in the final resolution of this case – which is one of a series of cases brought challenging the qualifications of the 2008 presidential candidates from both of the major political parties [4] – and the obvious lack of any merit in Berg’s contentions, we will exercise our discretion and address them to put some finality to the dispute.

    4 See, e.g., Hollister v. Soetoro, 601 F. Supp. 2d 179, 181 (D.D.C. 2009) (dismissing challenge to Obama’s eligibility); Cohen v. Obama, No. 08-2150, 2008 WL 5191864, at *1 (D.D.C. 2008) (dismissing challenge to Obama’s eligibility), aff’d, 2009 WL 2870668 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (summary affirmance); Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 68 (D.N.H. 2008) (dismissing challenge to Senator John McCain’s eligibility); Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1147 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (dismissing challenge to McCain’s qualifications). These cases have been denominated by the press as “birther” cases.

    In sum, we agree with the District Court that Berg lacks standing to bring this suit because he has suffered no injury particularized to him. A prerequisite of standing is that the litigant has suffered or will suffer an injury in fact that is caused by the complained-of conduct by a defendant and that can be redressed by the court. Taliaferro, 458 F.3d at 188. An “injury in fact” is “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (internal citations and quotations omitted). “[W]hen the asserted harm is a ‘generalized grievance’ shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975) (citation omitted).

    We consider first the District Court’s holding that Berg’s status as a voter did not provide him standing to challenge Obama’s candidacy.5 The District Court held that “a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters.” App. at 19. Berg specifies no error in the District Court’s reasoning. Instead, he merely asserts, generally, that he was somehow harmed by each state having “plac[ed] [Obama] on the ballot when there were substantial questions concerning his citizenship status . . . .” Appellant’s Br. at 17.

    Berg’s worry that Obama, if elected, might someday be removed from office was not an injury cognizable in a federal court because it was based on speculation and was contingent on future events. As a practical matter, Berg was not directly injured because he could always support a candidate he believed was eligible. See Becker v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 230 F.3d 381, 390 (1st Cir. 2000) (no cognizable injury to voters when they can still cast for preferred candidate), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1007 (2001); Gottlieb v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 143 F.3d 618, 622 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (no harm to voters who could support the candidate of their choice); Hollander, 566 F. Supp. 2d at 68; cf. Gottlieb, 143 F.3d at 621 (injury to voters’ ability to influence the political process too speculative for purposes of standing).

    [5] Although the defendants argue that this point is moot because the election is over, we consider the issue because “[t]his controversy, like most election cases, fits squarely within the ‘capable of repetition yet evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine.” Merle v. United States, 351 F.3d 92, 94 (3d Cir. 2003).

    Berg’s wish that the Democratic primary voters had chosen a different presidential candidate, and his dissatisfaction that they apparently did not credit the evidence he tendered, do not state a legal harm. Similarly, Berg’s angst that the presence on the ballot of an ineligible candidate might lessen the chances that an eligible candidate might win was a non-cognizable derivative harm. See Crist v. Comm’n on Pres. Debates, 262 F.3d 193, 195 (2d Cir. 2001) (agreeing that “a voter fails to present an injury-in-fact when the alleged harm . . . is only derivative of a harm experienced by a candidate.”); Becker, 230 F.3d at 390; Gottlieb, 143 F.3d at 622.

    Even if we assume that the placement of an ineligible candidate on the presidential ballot harmed Berg, that injury, including any frustration Berg felt because others refused to act on his view of the law, was too general for the purposes of Article III: Berg shared both his “interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws,” and the objective uncertainty of Obama’s possible removal, pari passu with all voters; and the relief he sought would have “no more directly and tangibly benefit[ed] him than . . . the public at large.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74; see also Crist, 262 F.3d at 195; Becker, 230 F.3d at 389- 90; Gottlieb, 143 F.3d at 622; Hollander, 566 F. Supp. 2d at 68 (dismissing voter’s suit alleging that Senator McCain was ineligible to be President under the Natural Born Citizen Clause); Jones v. Bush, 122 F. Supp. 2d 713 (N.D. Tex. 2000) (dismissing voter’s suit alleging that the Twelfth Amendment barred electors from voting for President George Walker Bush and Vice President Cheney), aff’d, Jones v. Bush, 244 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2000) (summary affirmance), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1062 (2001); cf. Cohen, 2008 WL 5191864 at *1 (dismissing citizen challenge to Obama’s eligibility); Robinson, 567 F. Supp. 2d at 1146-47 (dismissing elector’s suit challenging McCain’s eligibility).

    Now that the election is over, Berg’s stake in the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency is shared by an even greater number of people, i.e., all 300 million-plus U.S. citizens, whether voters or not. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74; see Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 441-42 (2007) (Colorado voters lacked standing to assert that a provision of the Colorado Constitution violated the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution); Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 222 (1974) (citizens lacked standing to litigate under the Incompatibility Clause the eligibility of members of Congress to serve simultaneously in the military reserves); Ex parte Lévitt, 302 U.S. 633 (1937) (per curiam) (private individual lacked standing to invoke judicial power to determine validity of Justice Black’s appointment to the Supreme Court).

    The essence of Berg’s complaint is that the defendants, the states, presidential candidates other than Obama, political parties, a majority of American voters, and Congress – a list that includes some who could have challenged, or could still challenge, Obama’s eligibility through various means – have not been persuaded by his claim. That grievance, too, is not one “appropriately resolved through the judicial process.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990).

    Berg also argues that he has standing “under the Tenth Amendment because the power to determine the qualifications of the President-elect is left to the states and the people after the Congressmen and Senators failed to object to the counting of the electoral votes” pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 15 – a statute that provides a mechanism for members of Congress to object to electoral votes after they are cast. Appellant’s Br. at 18. The Tenth Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” U.S. Const., amend. X. That clause has no apparent relevance to this case and Berg’s citation to Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991), is not helpful.

    In Gregory, the Supreme Court upheld a state’s ability to determine the qualifications for its state judiciary. Id. at 455-56. The plaintiffs were state court judges who alleged that the section of the Missouri Constitution mandating that they retire at the age of seventy violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 456. The Gregory opinion does not mention the word “standing,” and Berg’s citation to it is inapposite.

    Berg also cites to Robinson, 567 F. Supp. 2d at 1147, for the proposition that he should be granted “automatic standing.” Appellant’s Br. at 2. The reference is baffling. The district court in Robinson held that an elector pledged to Alan Keyes lacked standing to bring a suit challenging Senator McCain’s qualifications under the Natural Born Citizen Clause. Id. at 1146-47. Berg cites to the following language of that opinion: “Judicial review [of the claim]-if any-should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.” Id. at 1147. Berg incorrectly takes that to mean that he can bring suit after members of Congress have declined to object pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 15. It means no such thing. The language is part of an alternative holding made in anticipation of the “plaintiff’s standing-cure suggestion that the American Independent Party . . . be allowed to intervene.” Robinson, 567 F. Supp. 2d at 1147. The Court held, in the alternative, that, even assuming that the American Independent Party had standing, the claim was unripe. Id. (citing Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300-02 (1998)).

    Berg maintains that he has suffered damage to his reputation as a result of bringing this suit – he claims that he has been accused of being a racist by unnamed others. This “injury” is not attributed to the Defendants. Berg’s assertion that he has been harmed because he has spent money on this lawsuit fails for the same reason; the Defendants’ efforts to legally defend themselves cannot cause injury that gives rise to Article III standing or the doctrine would have no meaning. Berg’s passing reference that he was injured because he was denied some “information concerning the qualifications of Obama” was made in a vacuum, providing this court with no basis to analyze the claim.

    Berg asserts that the District Court erred in denying him standing under 18 U.S.C. § 1983 because of a lack of state action. State action is not one of the three elements of standing. See Taliaferro, 458 F.3d at 188. In any event, the District Court did not rely on a lack of state action to dismiss his case. See App. at 23-24 n.14.

    Among the litany of Berg’s claims is his argument that he was injured when the “President of the Senate failed to call for objections during the counting of the electoral votes from each state . . . .” Appellant’s Br. at 28. Berg supplies no factual basis for that assertion and we have no idea if it is true, but, assuming it is, Berg has been no more injured by that omission than any other United States citizen. Berg alternatively argues that he has standing because his First Amendment rights were somehow violated when his political representatives failed to object to the electoral votes cast in Obama’s favor, as he wished them to. That argument is frivolous. Berg’s final claim that the District Court violated his due process rights by dismissing his case is equally frivolous.

    “Absent Article III standing, a federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to address a plaintiff’s claims, and they must be dismissed.”[6] Taliaferro, 458 F.3d at 188.

    6 Berg’s arguments that the District Court ignored some of his voluminous motions and other pleadings not only suffer from fatal defects in their reasoning, but are irrelevant. If a District Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss.

    III.

    Because there is no case or controversy, we will affirm the District Court’s order dismissing Berg’s action.


  176. Ok, here is the latest skinny on Orly. She told the Columbus GA paper she has no intention of laying 20 Grand on Judge Land.

    http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/breaking_news/story/906241.html

    The Judge shot back by putting out a contract on Orly’s head. The full order [from the indefatigable Justin Elliott at Josh Marshall’s TPM] read as follows: “Orly Taitz has failed to pay the $20,000.00 sanction ordered by the Court on October 13, 2009. Accordingly, the Clerk is ordered to enter final judgment in favor of the United States of America and against Orly Taitz in the principal amount of $20,000.00. The United States Attorney is authorized and directed to collect the judgment as provided by law.
    IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of November, 2009. ”

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/judge_directs_us_attorney_to_collect_20k_from_orly.php?ref=fpb

    Judge Land wanted the fine donated to the National Infantry Foundation at Ft. Benning. The Government defendant has come out against this, as it “it is the government’s position that the monetary sanction imposed upon counsel Orly Taitz must be paid to the United States Treasury.” The full brief is at the excellent Native and Natural Born Citizen site:

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/rhodes-v-mcdonald-doc-35-defendants%E2%80%99-brief-in-response-to-the-court%E2%80%99s-order-dated-october-13-2009/#more-7236


  177. Ok, here is the latest skinny on Orly. She told the Columbus GA paper she has no intention of laying 20 Grand on Judge Land.

    The Judge shot back by putting out a contract on Orly’s head. The full order [from the indefatigable Justin Elliott at Josh Marshall’s TPM] read as follows: “Orly Taitz has failed to pay the $20,000.00 sanction ordered by the Court on October 13, 2009. Accordingly, the Clerk is ordered to enter final judgment in favor of the United States of America and against Orly Taitz in the principal amount of $20,000.00. The United States Attorney is authorized and directed to collect the judgment as provided by law.
    IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of November, 2009. ”

    Judge Land wanted the fine donated to the National Infantry Foundation at Ft. Benning. The Government defendant has come out against this, as it “it is the government’s position that the monetary sanction imposed upon counsel Orly Taitz must be paid to the United States Treasury.” The full brief is at the excellent Native and Natural Born Citizen site:

    [The links will show up just as soon as they clear moderation].


  178. News – Breaking News
    Thursday, Nov. 12, 2009
    Birther attorney Orly Taitz: ‘I have no intention of paying’ $20,000 sanction
    BY ALAN RIQUELMY –

    California attorney Orly Taitz, facing a $20,000 sanction from the federal judge presiding over the Mark Shelnutt trial, said on the payment’s deadline that she had no intention of paying.

    “Absolutely not,” Taitz said Thursday afternoon when asked whether she would pay. “I have filed an appeal. It was a complete abuse of power.”

    ….

    http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/breaking_news/story/906241.html


  179. on 1, November 13, 2009 at 1:47 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    When the court fines you for wasting their time, I’m pretty sure they don’t mean its optional.

    I intend to watch as she racks up even greater fines through the appeals process.

    I intend to laugh every time something like one of her witnesses coming forward to claim Taitz suborned perjury.

    I intend to laugh all the way to watching her get cuffed.

    Then I’m going to laugh some more.

    Because some train wrecks are funny.


  180. on 1, November 13, 2009 at 2:17 pm Former Federal LEO

    Well, I can only assume that mail-order law ‘degrees’ do not afford discussions of primary topics such as ‘Legal Jeopardy.’

    Appreciate the updates.


  181. Orly, Orly, Orly, here comes Orly. Fasten your seatbelts. This jabberwocky was filed today, November 13, 2009, believe it or don’t:

    QUOTE

    Here come all the plaintiffs (aside from plaintiffs Markham Robinson and Willey Drake represented by Gary Kreep) and request a judicial notice of the holding in the Berg v Obama et al. 08-43-40 Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third District judges Sloviter, Fuentes and Hardiner. Opinion written by judge Sloviter. While this case lingered in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for a year or so, by stroke of providence, the opinion came down yesterday, November 12, 2009, only a couple of days after the undersigned has filed a Motion for Reconsideration. While this three judge panel confirmed the dismissal of the underlying case by the district court, noting that a voter does not have standing, as his injuries are generalized, a number of holdings of this case are pertinent and determinative for the current case in front of your Honor and confirm legal reasoning provided by the undersigned counsel in her Motion for Reconsideration.

    The plaintiff in Berg was seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief under Article 2 Section 1 Natural Born Citizen and under 42 USC §1983, seeking determination of eligibility for presidency of Barack Husein [sic] Obama. In his opinion judge Sloviter finds that though the election is over, the court has jurisdiction to hear it as it “fits squarely” as an issue “capable of repetition yet evading review” Merle v US, 351, 3d 92,94 (3d Cir 2003) Based on this argument there is Article 3 jurisdiction to hear the case as long as the plaintiff can show standing with specialized injury. While Berg’s holding finds that a regular voter does not have standing, Presidential and vice presidential candidates such as plaintiffs Ambassador Alan Keyes and Gail Lightfoot have standing. Judge Sloviter proceeds by arguing that both parties with actual and imminent injuries would have standing in this case. Nearly 40 plaintiffs in this case are members of the military. A number of them are either active military or in active reserves. For example plaintiff Lita Lott is in active drilling reserves. Within only a few days of notice she will be required to leave her family behind and deploy, this can happen any day. This satisfies the imminent injury prong for the purpose of standing. Plaintiff Matthew Michael Edwards is in the National Guard and would be required to deploy on a few days notice, therefore satisfying the imminent injury prong. It is important to note that previously the defendants in current case requested judicial Notice of Rhodes v. MacDonald, which incorporates Cook v Good. Notice of appeal for both cases has been filed in 11th circuit court of Appeals. Both cases were brought by the undersigned counsel in front of Judge Land in Middle district of GA. In the first case Cook v Good the undersigned argued precisely that point, that this is an issue “capable of repetition but evading review”. The only difference being that the undersigned has brought forward Roe v Wade as a controlling authority, and judge Sloviter is understandably using Merle v US out of the third district 351,3d 92,94, (3rd circuit 2003). The undersigned has argued this point to no avail as judge Land dismissed Cook v Good claiming that the case is moot due to the fact that the deployment orders for Major Cook were revoked. In the second case Rhodes v MacDonald judge Land has dismissed the whole case 2 days after the defendant’s motion to dismiss was filed without giving the undersigned as much as 10 days provided by local rules to respond to the motion, and completely disregarding the whole 54 pages of pleading on all the points, while the undersigned precisely argued that there is a need for Declaratory relief and judicial determination as this is an issue capable of repetition, yet evading review. To add insult to injury judge Land has asserted $20,000 of sanctions against the undersigned in order to prevent her from arguing similar cases and in order to endanger her license and livelihood. The assistant US attorneys in this case have submitted Land’s order as some type of ruling authority for this case, and it became a lynching festival for pro Obama media thugs. While your Honor might have reservations regarding the Injunctive relief, at the very minimum based on Judge Sloviter’s ruling this court has at least jurisdiction to render an opinion and provide Declaratory relief and 42 USC §1983 relief. Based on the Declaratory relief from your Honor further action can be taken based on Quo Warranto or by Congress in impeachment proceedings.


  182. 1. Second important ruling in Berg is the fact that judge Sloviter brings forward Robinson v McCain 567 F Supp 2d at 1147. Judge Sloviter agrees with the findings in Robinson in that during the election the case is unripe, meaning there is no injury until the candidate takes office. Logical conclusion will be that the undersigned counsel was correct in bringing the current case on the inauguration day as it would be unripe previously and there was no fault of counsel, no latches.

    Additionally, the undersigned brought prior to the election Writ of Mandamus on behalf of the presidential candidate Ambassador Keyes and on behalf of the Vice Presidential Candidate Gail Lightfoot against the secretary of state of California Deborah Bowen.

    Wherefore the undersigned prays that the court take the Judicial notice of the Third Circuit court of appeals ruling in Berg v Obama et al in conjunction with the plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration.

    UNQUOTE

    Notes:
    Orly, please note that Judge Dolores Sloviter is not a “he.”
    How in heaven is Roe v. Wade relevant?
    A “lynching festival for pro Obama media thugs”?


  183. BIL, last two posts are a deliberate, intentional effort aimed at stretching the smile on your avatar so wide that it splits your face.


  184. Second FFLEO, Thank-you Vince!

    Buddha I’m glad your laughing; how are you feeling post hospitalization? I hope your boo boo’s are all better!


  185. on 1, November 13, 2009 at 5:28 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    CEJ,

    I’m good. Thanks for asking. I am 95% and hope to stay on the up if I can avoid the creeping crud everyone around me seems to have caught in the last week.


  186. Get well soon, BIL, laughter is the best medicine.


  187. The latest:

    TPMMuckraker
    New Orly Taitz Filing (In Dismissed Case): I Get Death Threats Daily
    Justin Elliott | December 3, 2009, 4:33PM:

    “Birther leader Orly Taitz, who may be the hardest working lawyer in the country, isn’t letting a little issue like the dismissal of her case get in the way of submitting new filings in court.

    “The Orange County Register has the rundown of her latest effort, which comes in a Birther case in which she allegedly suborned perjury. A judge in California threw out the case in late October.

    “With the new filing, she submitted a putative immigration form showing Barack Obama’s ethnic code listed as “Equatorial Guinea.” And she lashes out against a “well orchestrated effort … to assassinate my character,” saying she receives death threats on a daily basis. … ”

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/new_orly_taitz_filing_in_dismissed_case_i_get_deat.php?ref=fpb


  188. on 1, December 4, 2009 at 7:31 am Buddha Is Laughing

    Looks like Orly has company in her “beliefs”.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/03/palin-goes-birther-obama_n_379634.html

    Pretty, empty, psychotic company.

    Palin/Taitz 2012 – Ignorance You Can Believe In


  189. Wow. Asked about Obama’s birth certificate, she said “I think it’s a fair question….”

    But within hours, she executed a full 18o degree flip-flop:

    QUOTE
    UPDATE: At 1:16 AM ET, Palin posted the following on her Facebook page: QUOTE
    Stupid Conspiracies

    Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I’ve pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask… which they have repeatedly. But at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States. UNQUOTE

    “But at no point … have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.”

    Amazing.


  190. Well i quess she will ask to be removed from Orly’s friends on Facebook. Looks like some other well knowns have joined in the last couple of weeks. Beck, Hannity, Malkin, Levin, Huckabee.

    Question if the original is on file and the President has a tangible interest in it, why not show it? doesn’t pass the smell test what ever the reason is.

    Can someone please get in touch with the hackers of climategate. They need to hack the DOH in Hawaii before the dump the original data. They keep avoiding all of the FOIA and UPI request. Sound famil-liar.


  191. According to her website but don’t go to it you will be redirected everywhere and music starts playing out of the no where.


  192. bdaman:

    The president is pretty much through politically, at this point does it matter if he was born here or not?

    My take on the mood of the country is that most are biding their time waiting for Nov 2010 to make a clean start. I think a good many career politicians on both sides of the aisle are going to be in for an unpleasant surprise.

    In the end the majority of Americans wanted change just not his brand.


  193. on 1, December 4, 2009 at 9:29 am Anonymously Yours

    Byron,

    If you want to see History repeating itself. One needs to first look at the lock Bush had then lost the Majority. Then digress to TR. He had a solid lock and did not run so that Taft could run the country and when he screwed things up he got back into the game after he could not obtain his partys nomination as a third party. He split the Votes do I hear Perot and handed Wilson the election. Then jump back four score and see the debates of two fine politicians, well actually there was a third in the mix. You have to search for that name.

    Just remember I am only recalling the latest history that the revisionist have seemed fit to publish. That is why it is called His Story. The last mans word is made known.

    I believe that Obama is a sure loser in three years unless Palin is really running. Then I guess we have no alternative to chose from and we have to Not Vote for someone.


  194. AY:

    It will be interesting. And Obama could get a second term but he wont have a democratic house or senate and will be virtually powerless which is what I am expecting for his last 2 years of this term.

    He went to fast with his plans, he could still become a popular president but he would have to make a 180 about face and give up on the stimulus and government run health care. Most people think health insurance needs to be re-vamped but disagree on how to do it. The stimulus has not really worked (see price of gold at $1,200 vs about $900 in January of 2009) and job creation is non-existent because businesses are worried about government policies and what to expect with taxes and health care regulations.

    Obviously these are just my opinions and observations.


  195. on 1, December 4, 2009 at 10:22 am Buddha Is Laughing

    Byron,

    You’re simply wrong about the health care issue.

    Every citizen should have the EXACT same coverage as those thieves and obstructionists in the Senate.

    Heath is actually a valid national security interest as a country’s greatest resource is the health of its people. Letting corporations skim money off of that system for idiotic crap like CEO bonuses and private jets is a systemic inefficiency that has brought us to the current crisis today.

    Medicine – from development to deployment – is too critical to national survival to be allowed to operate as a free market any longer. To do so puts us at a competitive disadvantage with every country that does provide socialized health care. The reasons – excessive skimming of profit – should be self-evident to even the most money blinded capitalist if they’ve ever had basic economics or an accounting class.

    I won’t argue that point. You can take that one up with Winston Churchill and the fact that $X has to go Y far to attain Z and that if W is sucking out the value of X before the equation is run, IT’S BROKEN IN RELATION TO MAXIMIZING Z UNTIL YOU REDUCE W TO ZERO. That’s just a pithy observation by a smart old conservative leader and basic algebra.


  196. Byron I agree however it’s the lies and deception, not just with this administration, the one before and the one before that one and before that one ect. ect. This one is just the latest in the bulls eye.

    It just seems that every which way you turn whether your in one party or the other it’s turned into smiling in your face, all the time trying to take each others place, back stabbers.

    The Joe Wilson you lie, turns into no I didn’t you did, lier.

    It’s really a shame and climategate just magnifies it all.


  197. Although I don’t like the direction Obama has taken,I don’t think he will necessarily be a one term president. Palin will either be the republican nominee or an independent party candidate. There will probably be an underfunded candidate on the left who does not do very well. That scenario produces an Obama victory.


  198. Buddha:

    Part of what you say is true because the US consumer is subsidizing the medical costs of other countries. For example a particular drug that in France is free costs $48,000 per year in the US. We are paying for the French to have that drug.

    But I know a few people in England and they are telling me that their health care system is bat sh . . . crazy and severely messed up.


  199. on 1, December 4, 2009 at 11:00 am Buddha Is Laughing

    Byron,

    That’s not how that works.

    The reason the French pay less is the tell the Pharma companies you’ll negotiate or your can hit the road – make up your R&D on volume but you’ll charge a price patients can pay and the system will bear and no more.

    We aren’t subsidizing shit except systemic inefficiency and greed the way the American system is set up right now. Research has ruled out that our costs are not out of control because of supply or litigation issues.

    http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2005/anderson_healthspending.html

    Well then that leaves the perks the scumbags skim off the top as the cause, doesn’t it? No health care CEO needs a private jet. Period. It helps not one single patient. No insurance company CFO needs a bonus based on how little they pay out in claims. That KILLS patients. There is a problem with the American health care system. That’d be the insurance companies and the hospital execs who encourage billing practices that maximize profit instead of efficiency in delivery as their prime metric. General health of the community and lives saved should be the only pertinent metrics of a hospitals performance. Not profit. Ever. That’s what got us to the point where we pay more than any other country and get far far less for those dollars. We’re financing the jets and bonuses, not health care. End of story.

    I rarely have told you you are outright wrong on things, Byron. This is one of them.


  200. Not trying to Hijack the thread.

    Byron an engineer, Slart a Math wizz, just some FYI for you both.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/#more-13687


  201. Byron,

    The stimulus didn’t work? Tell that to the 1.6 million Americans who’s jobs were created or saved by the stimulus (CBO estimate). Also, President Obama has bet his presidency on health care reform (as he said he would). Why do you think that the republicans are wetting themselves to stop it – if significant health care reform is passed and the program succeeds then it doesn’t matter who else is running, he’ll win in a landslide. Social Security and Medicare were both bitterly contested and became beloved programs that republicans couldn’t touch without committing political suicide – this could be the republican’s worst nightmare (or the democrat’s if they fail to get it passed).


  202. Buddha,

    You are absolutely right, it’s shameful that we accept the rationing of care and death panels (committees deciding when to cut off your coverage) of the for-profit insurance industry. The only things we get from private insurance care is 44,000 dead Americans a year (according to a Harvard study) and very rich insurance executives… This is what the republicans are fighting for.


  203. on 1, December 4, 2009 at 11:35 am Buddha Is Laughing

    Vince,

    In scanning back, I caught a comment of yours I’d missed about Harlan Ellison. He may be my favorite modern short story writer of any genre. “Jeffty Is Five”, “I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream”, “Lifehutch”, “Flop Sweat”, “Mephesto In Onyx” and the list goes on and on to include possibly one of the most romantic and heartbreaking stories I’ve ever read, “Grail”. And lest we forget, he penned what is widely considered the best episode of the original Star Trek series, “City on the Edge of Forever”.

    Thanks for the link. I’m in geek heaven.


  204. on 1, December 4, 2009 at 11:40 am Buddha Is Laughing

    “Research has ruled out that our costs are out of control because of supply or litigation issues.”

    Pardon, I got a little “not” happy.


  205. Buddha:

    I have spent the last 20 years heavily involved in the health care industry from a patient perspective. Most of the problem that I see is people with health care subsidizing everyone else. Aspirin cost a bunch of money because it is paying for the free emergency room visits, doctors aren’t getting reimbursed at appropriate rates from medicare and medicaid and private insurance and so on.

    Pharmaceutical companies are charging more in America because they are taking a loss over seas. They have to recoup costs somewhere. Once we have public health care we will eventually see a lack of research and development and new innovative life saving products brought to market.

    Georgetown University hospital charges $400/hour for physical therapy so they can be reimbursed $150 and they have to charge everyone $400 or the insurance companies and the government wouldn’t reimburse $150.

    Health care is drowning in all kinds of BS, the least of which is a corporate jet or a million dollar salary for a CEO.

    The entire system is messed up because it is not allowed to be competitive. The answer is not more of the same.

    “The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) is a federation of 39 separate health insurance organizations and companies in the United States. Combined, they directly or indirectly provide health insurance to over 100 million Americans.” There are only 5 insurance companies nationwide according to my family doctor.

    That is what I mean by no competition. Why are there only 5 companies?


  206. Doubling down on stupid is a bad idea

    The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. They had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.

    Social Security was established in 1935. They had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.

    Fannie Mae was established in 1938. They had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.

    War on Poverty started in 1964. They had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor” and they only want more.

    Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. They had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.

    Freddie Mac was established in 1970. They had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.

    The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. They had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

    The government has FAILED in every “government service” they have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars.

    and you want me to believe the government is the cure-all for health care.


  207. on 1, December 4, 2009 at 11:57 am Buddha Is Laughing

    Byron,

    That’s not where the excess profit goes – other patient’s aspirin. Drug companies don’t take a loss overseas. They are as a general rule limited on how much profit that they make. And if they do take a loss? That’s their problem as a business, not American patients. That money you are seeing is being wasted. But it sure as Hell isn’t subsidizing other patient care or there wouldn’t be this debate about the under and uninsured because all that money would be taking care of them instead of paying hangar fees for Lil’ Timmy’s Spoiled Jet Service.

    That money you see being wasting is indeed going somewhere. It goes to the CEO’s.

    This is not a debate you want to enter on ground of pure logic. If (X-W)/Y = Z and the goal is to maximize Z in relation to X your choices are to reduce the value of W or change the nature of Y. That’s where this argument ends. Any X diverted by operation of W is WASTE, not an efficiency.

    I’m going to stick with reducing W as the logical solution. You let me know how that changing the nature of time works out for you.

    Your capitalism is blinding you to reality.

    You said socialism forces maturity. This is an area where your perception needs to mature and realize your cappie ideals are screwing with the common good and ultimately national security.

    Maturity is a good thing in people, Byron. It means you’re grown up enough to realize it isn’t all about “you”. The same goes for economic systems.


  208. We have nearly four times the number of attorneys as we do physicians, yet we have no one pushing for socialized legal services. Why is that?

    Is anybody complaining about the amount of money made by the CEO of Harpo, Inc?

    First we take the money from the executives, then from the actors, then from the doctors, then from the lawyers. It will continue. When we are finished, we will look just like North Korea.

    No incentive. No drive. No desire to excel. But we will love our leader, and the government will keep reminding us of that until we believe it.


  209. Dr. H:

    The dear leader?


  210. on 1, December 4, 2009 at 12:04 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    Governments whether they believe it or not are constrained by the fact they ultimately rule with the consent of the governed. They have a duty at all citizens.

    Corporations are only constrained by profit margins and a duty to maximize shareholder profit. They have a duty to no one but their own greed.

    Yeah, I expect to you realize you can’t put someone without a stake in doing the right thing – and in fact are actually encouraged to do the wrong thing at the expense of patient lives – in charge of a social support system that affects everyone. That’s just good sense. You want less people to die? Then remove the incentive to kill them for profit.


  211. Byron,

    You said:
    “There are only 5 insurance companies nationwide according to my family doctor. That is what I mean by no competition. Why are there only 5 companies?”

    So why can’t we have a government-run public option to compete with them? Everybody wins except for the companies that have been gouging us (or do you really think that doubling the cost of health insurance in the last ten years was necessary?).

    Bdaman,

    Two points – 1) the “smoking code” link you provided is merely interpolating a data set – it is totally innocuous (unless the data are bad, something we can get no information about from this code snippet. 2) The phrase “hide the decline” (a very poorly chosen phrase, I will admit) refers to hiding recent tree ring data which contradicts ACTUAL MEASURED TEMPERATURE DATA (i.e. the thermometer says the temperature was going up, but the tree ring data doesn’t reflect this). You are essentially arguing that we should trust the tree ring data over actual temperature readings, which is patently silly. 3) (bonus point) Even if everything you’ve said about this is true (which it is not), it doesn’t even start to impeach the scientific consensus on climate change, just these researchers (and any results based on their work).


  212. on 1, December 4, 2009 at 12:14 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    Dr. H,

    I suggest you look at the British and Canadian system where doctors earn wages the keep them in a nice home and with nice new top of the line vehicles. Vacations, nice clothes, good food. They make a very comfortable living compared to the plebes, just not the Croesus like greed on display in the U.S. where your GP may have 3 homes if he’s hooked into a good enough billing scam.

    And aspire to greatness?

    How about you aspire to your oath to first do no harm, “Doctor”, instead of worrying about “paying the talent”. Because somewhere out there is a doctor working a free clinic that can diagnose and treat better than you so pay has nothing to do with talent, sport. That oath you are supposed to uphold means no harm to patients, not your checkbook. Venal much? Or just a stupid oath breaker? If you became a doctor for solely economic reasons, you shouldn’t be a doctor. That’s the thinking of a sociopath, not a healer. I wouldn’t let you treat my pets much less a family member.

    You want to bitch about the media? The media doesn’t directly impact people’s health. Health care – DUH – does. So put that in your tee time and smoke it, Dr. Greedy Piggy.


  213. Dr. H,

    The point is that the incentives of private health insurance companies are all wrong. They make more money by denying care and eliminating expensive clients (cutting off the heath care for people when they need it most – quite frequently effectively killing them). It has been estimated that if you require significant heath care there is as much as a 50% chance that your insurance company will cancel your policy. As Buddha has pointed out, our current health care system is crippling our national security to enrich insurance company executives (and KILL 44,000 AMERICANS EVERY YEAR). Supporting the status quo is as about as unpatriotic as you can get.


  214. Buddha:

    unfortunately or fortunately economic systems are nothing but individuals. There is no “system” per se only individuals making rational and irrational choices about how to spend their money.

    The free market you don’t like is made up of individuals doing their own thing for their own selfish wants, needs and desires. Political freedom and economic freedom go hand in hand you cannot have one without the other.

    China may be a prosperous country but it is not free and we may be a free country but we are not as prosperous as we could be. Because we have given some of our freedom to the federal government.

    I want the best for everyone, I just think free markets can deliver a better product and more efficiently because they take into account the individual and his wants, needs and desires.

    I am very stubborn on this point and have seen no evidence that central planning begets abundance. In fact most empirical evidence is to the contrary. or as BobEsq would say a posteriori evidence.


  215. Slarti:

    how about making it possible for more competition in the private sector?

    And give tax credits to cover health care expenses 100% and then have a public option for people that are just unable to be covered.

    There are many creative things that could be done, I just think government involvement should be limited to those who really are suffering and cannot afford health care.


  216. BIL, you are absolutely right about Harlan. I have his omnibus collection, “The Essential Ellison,” an indispensable volume for any collection.


  217. Byron,

    The rational choice of an insurance executive is to deny expensive care that cuts into profits – the incentives (profit) are totally at odds with the goal of the health care system (the health of the nation’s citizens). Free market pressures in health care are crippling our economy (want to see US businesses boom, take the cost of heath care off of its back with medicare for all – or better yet, the VA for all). This is known to work in every other industrialized nation (better consumer satisfaction and outcomes – cheaper too!), are you saying that the US can’t do what demonstrably works in other countries?


  218. on 1, December 4, 2009 at 12:48 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    Byron,

    You need to quit making false attributions.

    I’ve said free markets are fine for most stuff. Health care isn’t one of them.

    And your understanding of economics is flawed. It’s not individuals acting in isolation. It’s a group dynamic and it’s relational. The individual states of the components determines the state of the overall system not just by their intrinsic quality but their relation to other components. The components innate states are modified by data shared with neighbors related to their relative position and innate qualities. The health of the individual component is irrelevant if all the other components die. It becomes a simple system and thus capable of less work. What is left when you allow one component to quash the rest is the King of Nothing. Nothing that is but the fading ego of the components that tore the social fabric. If one component is allowed to unbalance the system (for profit or whatever reason) to the point to collapse that shows the error you make in extrapolating a political idea that applies to a quality of components – individual freedom – into a behavior that’s not always good for the overall health and stability of the system in toto – capitalist economics. Individual freedom to ensure the maximum efficiency of the components is essential, but constraints on that freedom are essential to keep the whole system healthy. It has to be balanced by law. That’s one of the reasons we have law. Economics are like an ecosystem or a body. The parts can’t live without the whole. Your version of capitalism once again shows it’s analogous to cancer. You favor unlimited cell growth even if it means the body dies.

    You’re still wrong.


  219. Buddha Is Laughing,

    What part of my comment provided the opening, or was the inspiration for your personal attack?


  220. Byron,

    You said:
    “There are many creative things that could be done, I just think government involvement should be limited to those who really are suffering and cannot afford health care.”

    The key to a successful public option is in the size of the pool – if it consists of the people who cannot get private insurance, it is going to lose money (the private insurance companies only refuse coverage when they can’t make money on it). You need a large pool with a reasonable mix of healthy and sick people for the economies of scale to work – if the insurance companies just insure healthy people and let the government take care of sick people what good are they (except to generate huge profits for their CEOs and shareholders). If a government-run (and unsubsidized) public option is available to anyone who wants it at a cheaper cost to the individual don’t you think that this will force insurance companies to lower rates and improve service? If the insurance industry can’t compete on a level playing field with a public option, then what good is it?

    p.s. If I seem somewhat passionate about this, it is because I will be unemployed in a month (didn’t get new funding) and will lose my current health insurance so this is very personal to me. Our current health care system is something that America should truly be ashamed of.


  221. on 1, December 4, 2009 at 12:54 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    And before you say anything silly again about centralized control, I ask you what is the goal of the game “Monopoly”? Capitalists of the unrestricted sort seek to dominate, control, a market. Centralized control. Just not beholding to the public.


  222. on 1, December 4, 2009 at 12:55 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    Dr. H,

    Your defense of profits over patients. “Doctor”.


  223. Buddha,

    I like your cancer analogy. As someone who does cancer research (for another month at least) I couldn’t agree more. Capitalism is a tool of society, it is not sacred. While it generates enormous wealth, unchecked it also concentrates that wealth – choking off the middle class (See Elizabeth Warren’s article at HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-warren/america-without-a-middle_b_377829.html). Which do you prefer, uncheck capitalism or a healthy middle class? You can’t have both.


  224. Buddha Is Laughing,

    It is important to make a profit. Just like the rest of the world, I have to pay my bills. I live in a modest 60 year old house, and drive a 10 year old vehicle. I also spend one month per year on medical missions in foreign countries (for no pay).

    How much do you think a physician should “be permitted” to make every year?


  225. Buddha,

    The question “Which do you prefer, uncheck(ed) capitalism or a healthy middle class? You can’t have both.” was directed at Byron, not you – I think that I can guess your answer to this question. ;-) Also, I notice that the close parenthesis snuck into the end of my link. (sigh.) One of those days… I’m going to go and get some work done now…


  226. One more thing before I go,

    Dr. H,

    The VA doesn’t seem to have a problem attracting doctors to work for them, what reason is there to think that a larger nationalized health care program would be any different? Ditto for England.


  227. Slartibartfast,

    You should read this:

    http://www.vamalpractice.info/


  228. Slarti:

    maybe I am missing something but the reason you have a healthy middle class is because of capitalism. there wasn’t much of a middle class in the Soviet Union. The middle class needs to sell it’s wares to someone, that someone is the rich and other successful middle class people. Who are the unions going to feed on once industry is gone? They wont be able to unionize a 3 person mom and pop operation.

    As far as being a boon to business I don’t think it will be for the simple fact that fewer people will be employed and/or they will leave to start small mom and pop type businesses, Canada has an abundance of specialty shops which I believe is a direct result of their health care system. Nothing wrong with specialty shops and it does what Marx likes, getting people back in touch with their work. But small specialty shops do not make for a dynamic economy.

    You need Fords, Rockefellers, Vanderbilt’s and Carnegie’s as well. A small specialty shop economy is nothing more than a pre-industrial revolution village with the butcher, the baker, the candle stick maker. You may get some good bread and candles and a little meat but not much else.

    You want a bunch of social programs, I would be careful how you treat the proverbial goose.


  229. Buddha Is Laughing,

    What industry do you work in? Is it a not-for-profit?


  230. the thermometer says the temperature was going up

    But where are the thermometers located next to ac units, concrete parking lots, brick walls and on roof tops. ALL DOCUMENTED. Not to mention the removal 100’s of said thermometers from some of the coldest places on earth. A very well documented fact.

    Oh and here are some recent developments that I know you won’t like but it is what it is, and it ain’t getting warmer.

    HOUSTON MAY SEE ‘EARLIEST SNOWFALL EVER’

    US breaks or ties 256 November snowfall records

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=snow&month=11&day=0&year=2009&sts%5B%5D=US&submitted=Get+Records

    Whistler sets a record for monthly snowfall

    http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Whistler+sets+record+monthly+snowfall/2292455/story.html

    The average October temperature of 50.8°F was 4.0°F below the 20th Century average and ranked as the 3rd coldest


  231. on 1, December 4, 2009 at 1:27 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    Dr. H,

    “It’s important to make a profit.” Says the guy with the vested interest in making a profit.

    The Hippocratic Oath (Modern Version)

    I SWEAR in the presence of the Almighty and before my family, my teachers and my peers that according to my ability and judgment I will keep this Oath and Stipulation.

    TO RECKON all who have taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents and in the same spirit and dedication to impart a knowledge of the art of medicine to others. I will continue with diligence to keep abreast of advances in medicine. I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby, and I will seek the counsel of particularly skilled physicians where indicated for the benefit of my patient.

    I WILL FOLLOW that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life.

    WITH PURITY, HOLINESS AND BENEFICENCE I will pass my life and practice my art. Except for the prudent correction of an imminent danger, I will neither treat any patient nor carry out any research on any human being without the valid informed consent of the subject or the appropriate legal protector thereof, understanding that research must have as its purpose the furtherance of the health of that individual. Into whatever patient setting I enter, I will go for the benefit of the sick and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief or corruption and further from the seduction of any patient.

    WHATEVER IN CONNECTION with my professional practice or not in connection with it I may see or hear in the lives of my patients which ought not be spoken abroad, I will not divulge, reckoning that all such should be kept secret.

    WHILE I CONTINUE to keep this Oath unviolated may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art and science of medicine with the blessing of the Almighty and respected by my peers and society, but should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse by my lot.

    No where is your right to unlimited profit in that oath.

    It’s important to save patients, protecting their confidences and protect them from injustice. Even injustice inflicted by your unlimited greed. Again, if your primary concern is your pay, you shouldn’t be a doctor.

    Your priorities show you are in fact likely not a very good doctor.

    You want to justify your greed, you provide a number. That ball belongs to you, ace. I told you I though the British model was acceptable. What’s wrong with this picture?

    http://www.worldsalaries.org/generalphysician.shtml

    Why as off 2005, it’s that American doctor’s get paid almost 45% more than their UK counterparts! It’s at least that big a gap for all other countries too. And for delivering substandard care compared to countries with socialized medicine too. So just like Wall St., you want a bonus for not doing your jobs very well and wasting money. That you endorse wasting it on perks and excessive compensation is no different than if you were stealing the money out of the system to go nuts in Vegas. Pissing away money that could and should be used on patients just to stroke your sense of self worth is egoistic bullshit.

    Now what was that about how important profit is again, Dr. Greenback?


  232. on 1, December 4, 2009 at 1:29 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    H,

    I work in an industry where lives are not the primary stock and trade. Apparently you think you do too.


  233. on 1, December 4, 2009 at 1:43 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    I suppose this helps patients too.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/04/aetna-forcing-600000-plus_n_380130.html

    Cutting coverage to boost profits? That’s not an insurance company. That’s a death panel.

    Enjoy the hypocrisy of unfettered capitalism!

    Smell the propaganda of the wicked!


  234. Buddha Is Laughing,

    I am a pediatrician. If you knew anything about my field, you would know that I am one of the lowest paid physicians.

    I have spent many all-nighters with sick children. I have watched more children die, than you have gotten to know.

    Our conversation is over.


  235. on 1, December 4, 2009 at 1:53 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    Yeah, it is over, Mr. Can’t Defend Your Position. THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Nice try at shaming me though. Too bad it won’t work.

    If CEO and Insurance scumbags weren’t stealing all the money, you probably wouldn’t have to watch so many children die because they didn’t get either the preventative or palliative care they needed before hitting your doors.

    Don’t let the door hit you where the good Lord split you.


  236. Back to the birther debate for a moment…

    More idiocy from the Bobblehead of Babble–Sarah Palin:

    Palin Sympathizes With Birthers But Hits Reporters For Pushing ‘Stupid Conspiracies’ (Think Progress, 12/4/2009)

    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/04/palin-birthers-conspiracies/


  237. Byron,

    Okay, I had to respond to your last post, but after this, I’m going to get some work done…

    You said:
    “maybe I am missing something but the reason you have a healthy middle class is because of capitalism. there wasn’t much of a middle class in the Soviet Union.”

    Capitalism was responsible for creating a large, healthy middle class – now it is choking it to death. The middle class in this country is not currently healthy (did you read the article by Elizabeth Warren in HuffPo that I linked?).

    You said:
    “The middle class needs to sell it’s wares to someone, that someone is the rich and other successful middle class people. Who are the unions going to feed on once industry is gone? They wont be able to unionize a 3 person mom and pop operation.”

    Are you saying that small business isn’t the engine of the economy? I thought that small businesses were the holy grail to conservatives (from the amount what they say about helping small businesses – which contrasts with what they DO about helping large corporations). Unions are a response to abuses by employers – if the employers didn’t commit the abuses, the unions would be unnecessary.

    You said:
    “As far as being a boon to business I don’t think it will be for the simple fact that fewer people will be employed and/or they will leave to start small mom and pop type businesses, Canada has an abundance of specialty shops which I believe is a direct result of their health care system. Nothing wrong with specialty shops and it does what Marx likes, getting people back in touch with their work. But small specialty shops do not make for a dynamic economy.”

    What is the biggest factor keeping the big 3 automakers from being competitive? The health care costs of their retirees. Small businesses are crushed by the cost of health care (if they can afford to offer it as well). As I see it, the only sector of the economy that will be hurt by true health care reform is the health insurance industry, and I’m not losing any sleep over them. (An industry that kills 44,000 Americans a year forfeits any claim to my sympathies.) And your talk about ‘specialty shops’ is just silly. I don’t care if business are large or small if they are providing good jobs.

    You said:
    “You need Fords, Rockefellers, Vanderbilt’s and Carnegie’s as well. A small specialty shop economy is nothing more than a pre-industrial revolution village with the butcher, the baker, the candle stick maker. You may get some good bread and candles and a little meat but not much else.”

    There are no more industrialist like Ford, etc. We already have an industrial base (or at least we did). Those kind of people have become Wall Street types who produce nothing. You seem to see capitalism as some fixed system, not an evolving process – your falling victim to the same fallacy as Marx: Things evolve until we get to the communist (or in your case capitalist) system and then everything stays put and it’s all kittens and sunshine…

    You said:
    “You want a bunch of social programs, I would be careful how you treat the proverbial goose.”

    I want a bunch of social programs that will ensure the health and welfare of that proverbial goose and help her lay more golden eggs.


  238. Elaine M,

    The amount of cognitive dissonance that Caribou Barbie is capable of boggles the mind.


  239. So why do you think I am like the Birther Queen Orly Taitz?


  240. Slarti:

    why aren’t there any industrialists? The US is not conducive to them. They are in China and India.

    Go to Canada and see for yourself, my wife was astounded by the diversity of the small shops. They had one that sold only buttons. That is not efficient and it is probably some sort of tax shelter with the owner trying to avoid a 65% tax rate. We cannot sustain an economy with a 65% federal tax rate. Which is probably what it will cost to fund health care for all.

    Usually the CBO uses static analysis to determine the cost of some program or other. This does not give an accurate assessment of the program’s actual cost.

    I don’t think our economy is static it is constantly evolving but it is not being allowed to evolve freely. It has become a Chimera because of external pressure brought to bear by government, in my opinion.


  241. Georgia’s representative in the U.S. House, Nathan Deal announced in early November that he and 10 House colleagues were going to sign a joint letter, asking Obama to publicly reveal his birth certificate,.
    Deal said that he was going to send his letter after Thanksgiving.

    If Obama refuses, it will only confirm that he has something to hide.

    http://savannahnow.com/news/2009-11-18/nathan-deal-calls-obama-produce-birth-certificate-proving-hes-eligible-presidency


  242. bdaman:

    not to be cynical but he may be doing this for political reasons. He is running for governor.


  243. Bdaman,

    If you do not agree with the following statement you are a lying troll.

    Bdaman is a lying troll.

    Well, which is it?


  244. Byron,

    We don’t NEED industrialists anymore, we already have a steel industry… er, well… an auto industry… um… I’m not sure what your hang-up with specialty shops is – as I said before, I don’t care about the type of business, just about the quality and quantity of jobs it provides. My Canadian friends seem pretty happy with their government and the services it provides (and I’ve never heard them complain about paying too much in taxes, either). We don’t need a 65% tax rate, how about just getting corporations to pay the 35% tax rate they’re supposed to? Or do you believe that one office building in the Cayman Islands really holds the offices of 19,000 companies?


  245. Your funny Slartsafart and what exactly am I lying about now.


  246. We already know I’m a troll, thank you very much


  247. Bdaman,

    I was implicitly referring to your comment: “If Obama refuses, it will only confirm that he has something to hide.”


  248. Bdaman,

    I used the term ‘troll’ BECAUSE you admit it and anything else I could have put there would have been an ad hominem attack.


  249. Thats o.k. I accept but what is it you feel I’m lying about


  250. Bdaman,

    The statement: “If Obama refuses, it will only confirm that he has something to hide.” is false, i.e. a lie. You did the equivalent of saying that taking the 5th is an admission of guilt and you did it on a law blog, no less. I will admit that you were lying on topic, however…


  251. Sorry didn’t see your other post.

    Slart if there is nothing to hide than why not show the original. Simple Question. Why all the courtroom drama. Why? I mean even after denying it, Tiger came clean. He was cheating, so what.

    If Obama wasn’t born here so what. He’s our president and he saved us from another great depression. He help save or created over a million jobs. Surely the American public would look past something as minor as not being born here. Even if he is a muslim, so what, after all he’s sending 30,000 more troops to try and divert another attack on American soil. Surely he gets credit for that as well. The guys doing a fantastic job. I would rather him be truthful and get this birth certificate thing out of the way so we can focus on the real problems this country is facing.

    Here we are a year removed and the issue is still there. It’s like Climategate. Pretending it’s not an issue is not gonna make it go away.


  252. Good read for you Slart and Byron

    For whatever reason it won’t let me post this link. I seperated it.

    http://www.americanthinkercom

    /2009/12/greenhouse_gas_observatories_d.html


  253. Slarti:

    I want corps to practice real capitalism and not take subsidies from government.


  254. Byron,

    That demonstrably leads to systemic risk for the entire economy. I didn’t like the bailout very much, but I wouldn’t have liked a depression more. I’d rather that limits were put on capitalism. As an engineer, is it a good idea to try to control a system with positive feedback? Why do you think that positive feedback is good for the economy?


  255. “why aren’t there any industrialists? The US is not conducive to them. They are in China and India.”

    Byron,
    This is where your suppositions go all wrong. People claiming to be “free market” conservatives have been for years destroying the American industrial base, in the name of greater corporate profits. Quick example is the fact that while the US, at the State level, gave subsidies to Japanese auto manufacturers to set up shop here,Japan was preventing US auto companies from even selling in Japan. Why do you think ronnie Reagan was paid $2,000,000 for a fifteen minute speech in Japan after he left the Presidency. American capitalists, wall street variety, have sold this country out and destroyed our industrial base. Because of the relaxation of anti-trust law enforcement and SEC oversight any time a small company did well it was bought up by its giant competitors. This is neither free market, nor is it capitalism.
    It is socialism for the elite. It’s no coincidence that GE is one of our largest defense contractors and that we spend obscene amounts on defense compared to the rest of the world. Your assumption that there is a free market anywhere is what leads you astray. The so-called capitalists don’t want it and never did.


  256. “If Obama refuses, it will only confirm that he has something to hide.”

    If you claim to be a black man you must show your picture and give your real name or it confirms that you have something to hide. By the way when did you stop beating your wife, or significant other.


  257. As someone who wouldn’t be alive if not for excellent health insurance I have a stake in this debate. In a recent hospitalization it was insisted that I undergo two expensive procedures, even though one had been done recently and with the other the last four had shown there was nothing to be gained by doing it. However, they wouldn’t let me out of the hospital if I didn’t have them done and if I left on my own without a discharge I would have had to pay the whole tab.

    Our health care system has gotten out of control and unfortunately too many doctors are now in it for the money. It is not the doctors who are to blame though, it is the insurance companies who make obscene profits way beyond what they deserve, it is the huge hospital chains which overcharge for their services and many other factors. It is a health care system out of control and unresponsive to the health needs of individuals. Dr. H pleads to a modest lifestyle but I know too many doctors personally to believe him. To be honest I believe they should be well compensated, but I also believe that the entire system should be patient centered, rather than profit centered. We need a national health care, single payer system and the said fact is that not only would it be cheaper to run, but it would be a boon to business across the board.


  258. Byron–

    A true free market economy without any government regulation might be the best option–IF everyone was honest and no one was greedy. Unfortunately, Diogenes has been having extreme difficulty in finding what he’s been looking for lately on Wall Street and in corporate boardrooms.

    Our health care system is a mess now–and one of the biggest reasons why is that it’s now a for-profit industry. Many doctors are being run ragged, required to see many more patients and spend less time with each of them, and are making a lot less money than the CEOs of huge medical insurance companies and hospitals whose primary concern is the bottom line.


  259. It’s not about me and just because I wear a wife beater doesn’t mean I beat my wife.

    On a serious note, I briefly saw an infomercial last night before my wife changed the channel. It was about a ministry that distributes a Hanukkah Box to elderly Jews in Russia that are otherwise deprived of the celebration. I thought I could google it to get the information but I can’t find it. For twenty five dollars the box contains several items to celebrate Hanukkah.

    Mike do you have any information on that. The closet thing I found was a christian ministry out of Atlanta that does it locally.


  260. By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen in our cumulative 223 years of APS membership.

    In 2007 the APS Council adopted a Statement on global warming that was based largely on the scientific work that is now revealed to have been corrupted. The principals in this escapade have not denied what they did, but have sought to dismiss it by saying that it is normal practice among scientists. You know and we know that that is simply untrue. Physicists are not expected to cheat.

    None of us would use corrupted science in our own work, nor would we sign off on a thesis by a student who did so. This is not only a matter of science, it is a matter of integrity, and the integrity of the APS is now at stake. That is why we are taking the unusual step of communicating directly with at least a fraction of the membership.

    If you believe that the APS should withdraw a Policy Statement that is based on admittedly corrupted science, and should then undertake to clarify the real state of the art in the best tradition of a learned society, please send a note to the incoming President of the APS ccallan@princeton.edu, with the single word YES in the subject line. That will make it easier for him to count.

    Bob Austin, Professor of Physics, Princeton
    Hal Lewis, emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara
    Will Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton
    Larry Gould, Professor of Physics, Hartford
    Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil

    http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/post.aspx?bid=354&bpid=24483


  261. Mike/Slarti/Buddha/Elaine:

    you got me, we certainly don’t have true capitalism in this country what with corporate subsidies and bailouts and lack of competition. I agree with Mike on most of his points, especially the current system set up to limit entry to markets and production which protects the current crop of rich people. They have a vested interest in a less dynamic market, it allows them to be able to keep their wealth with little effort. They are afraid of competition.

    Maybe it would be nice to try real laissez faire for a period of time just to see what would happen. I’ll bet the first thing would be a bunch of trust fund babies would loose their shirts and have to start working for a living.

    You guys seem to think I want to protect the status quo, I don’t. I want a vigorous dynamic market that rewards hard work and innovation and punishes the old dinosaurs that have to run to government to protect them from the young T-Rex’s.

    That way you don’t have rotten stinking carcases lying about protected by fat dumb politicians feeding on the remains and keeping the young T-Rexs away. Darwinian capitalism, let the strong companies survive and the weak ones be fertilizer for them.


  262. Monroe County man seeks indictments on President Obama for treason

    Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III
    United States Naval Academy, Class of 1975

    “Mr. Obama is an infiltrator. Mr. Obama is my sworn enemy. Mr. Obama is not the legitimate commander in chief,” says Fitzpatrick.

    I am sworn to do an obedience to the constitution and do everything I can do to remove him from office, by force of war. And if not, then by force,” says Fitzpatrick.

    http://www.volunteertv .com/home/headlines/78267717.html#


  263. bdaman–

    Another take on Climategate:

    Fox & Friends coverage of CRU emails disregards facts, context (MediaMatters for America, 12/3/2009)

    “Fox & Friends hosts Brian Kilmeade, Steve Doocy, and Gretchen Carlson have repeatedly advanced the right wing’s distortion of emails reportedly stolen from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU) by hyping a litany of falsehoods that climate skeptics have propagated about the emails without any regard for facts or context. In fact, despite the hosts’ claims, the content of the emails do not “prove” the scientists doctored or destroyed data, nor do they undermine the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activities are causing global climate change.”

    http://mediamatters.org/research/200912030030

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

    Let’s find out all the facts before we go calling the theory of global warming a fraud. I like to get more than one side of a story. I’m really not sure what to make of all this yet.

    ************
    “A little learning is a dangerous thing;
    drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
    there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
    and drinking largely sobers us again.”
    –Alexander Pope


  264. on 1, December 5, 2009 at 8:39 am Buddha Is Laughing

    Byron,

    There’s only one problem with that “T-rex” version of capitalism you seek. It doesn’t exist and never will. You are making a mistake that was a key fault in communism. The reason communism failed is it failed to take into account human nature. The reason this imaginary version capitalism won’t work is that it exploits and appeals to the VERY worst in human nature. Your T-rex capitalism won’t work in the future for that reason and it is not working NOW for that reason.

    No rules = exploitation by sociopaths and psychotics.

    There is no way around that. What you want leads to more fascism and more oppression than we are seeing today. It’s on the rise too. And what we are seeing today is simply not acceptable. Our Federal Government is out of control because of it’s no longer responsible to We The People, but instead takes it’s venal criminal marching orders from K St. Or worse. C St. Criminals. Insane zealots. Insane criminal zealots. What difference does it make who pulls the trigger on America and Liberty?

    Dead is still dead.

    After awhile though, the unrestricted capitalism argument starts to sound like spoiled children who don’t want any supervision. “I don’t wanna, I Don’t Wanna, I DON’T WANNA! WAAHHHHHHH!”

    Pure childishness.

    In a child, it makes you want to send them to their room. In an adult, it makes you want to slap the shit out of them, doesn’t it? You dream of a capitalist paradise of unrestricted action where the market is only controlled by desire – no matter if that desire is destructive to others or society as a whole from either the buyers or the sellers perspective. Again, what matter who pulls the trigger? The key word in this statement being “dream”. As Buddha said, the root of all suffering is desire. As Elaine said, if all actors were of equal motive and socially conscious it might work, but the simple fact is that some people are evil and insane assholes who want to hurt you – either take your stuff or take your life, sometimes both.

    You dream of a world without evil desires.

    Not happening. Ever. I can guarantee it. It’s a lovely dream. Totally fiction.

    What you seek isn’t a paradise. It’s anarchy. And anarchy is ruled by Col. Colt no matter how much money you have. Again, dead is dead and rich people can and do die everyday. Guns are cheap. But when the social fabric here starts to really unravel, it’s going to make the Old West look like a bunch of amateurs. They didn’t have full automatics, chemical weapons, electronics, garage genetics and high explosives.

    There is an upside though. Until corporations are put back on the short leash and the Constitution restored, you’re going to get your wish Byron. You have it right now. The rules are out the window. If they weren’t, Cheney would be in prison awaiting trial for treason this very instant and those pricks at AIG and GoldmanSacks (the misspelling intentional) would be in the cell next to him. Reduced to a life of green bologna sandwiches and industrial grade toilet paper for their crimes against society – crimes which are all rooted in their malformed, sick and twisted little egos and the resultant greed. Overcompensation for a small penis or that mommy never hugged them enough as kids. Or, as in the case of Cheney, just straight up evil bastards right out of the womb. But to appreciate the decay in toto, one must add time to the equation. The longer the rules are gone, the worse the decay and death will be.

    But you want less rules.

    As the Chinese say, “May you live in interesting times.” It’s a curse, but a corollary is “Careful for what you wish for.” They can be one and the same.

    You said socialism forces maturity. It does. Capitalism encourages immaturity and selfishness in addition to attracting the dregs of society. I didn’t abandon pure capitalism lightly or without much thought. You keep pointing to the reasons why I abandoned it though. It’s an empty and ultimately destructive approach that doesn’t address fatally serious flaws in human nature. Some things are simply too important to survival as a culture and a species to let some dipstick’s amoral greed motive determine outcome.

    Business needs more regulation, not less. And if they don’t want to play by the rules, they can stay home or take their business back where it belongs: underground and on the run like dangerous criminals should be. Others willing to play by the rules will arise and take their place in the market.


  265. I didn’t say it these guys did.

    Will Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton
    Larry Gould, Professor of Physics, Hartford
    Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil


  266. bdaman–

    Here are two more perspectives on Climategate:

    Scientists Respond to “Climategate” E-Mail Controversy (Scientific American, 12/4/2009)

    Stolen e-mails and computer code do nothing to change average temperature trends, but they could damage climate researchers’ credibility just when polls are showing public belief that greenhouse gases are warming the planet is ebbing
    By David Biello

    Excerpts from article:

    With all the “hot air” surrounding climate change discussions, none has been hotter in recent weeks than that spewed over a trove of stolen e-mails and computer code from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England. Longstanding contrarians, such as Sen. James Inhofe (R–Okla.), who famously dubbed climate change a “hoax” in a 2003 speech, has pointed to the stolen e-mails as information that overturns the scientific evidence for global warming and called on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson to halt any development of regulation of greenhouse gases pending his investigation into the e-mails. And recent polls have found that fewer Americans today than just two years ago believe that greenhouse gases will cause average temperatures to increase—a drop from 71 percent to 51 percent.

    **********
    In fact, nothing in the stolen e-mails or computer code undermines in any way the scientific consensus—which exists among scientific publications as well as scientists—that climate change is happening and humans are the cause. “There is a robust consensus that humans are altering the atmosphere and warming the planet,” said meteorologist Michael Mann of The Pennsylvania State University, who also participated in the conference call and was among the scientists whose e-mails have been leaked. “Further increases in greenhouse gases will lead to increasingly greater disruption.”

    Some of the kerfuffle rests on a misreading of the e-mails’ wording. For example, the word “trick” in one message, which has been cited as evidence that a conspiracy is afoot, is actually being used to describe a mathematical approach to reconciling observed temperatures with stand-in data inferred from tree ring measurements.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-respond-to-climategate-controversy

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

    Editorial: What Americans can learn from Climategate (MercuryNews.com, 12/4/2009)

    The uproar over Climategate doesn’t change anything fundamental in the debate over global warming. But it should lead to better communication and greater transparency among scientists, especially when research is driving public policy decisions.
    On the eve of the climate change conference in Copenhagen, the scientific community is outraged that researchers’ e-mail archives were stolen last month and leaked to the public — but naysayers on climate change are even more outraged that those e-mails seem to imply a cover-up.

    The messages themselves reveal something far less damaging, however. The exchanges, thought to be private, did not lead to withholding information. The studies the scientists talked about keeping back are in the public realm. We’ll all be better off if the brouhaha leads politicians to pore over these in-depth analyses of peer-reviewed studies to better inform their policy decisions. Upon close examination, the scientific basis for climate change theory is still strong.
    For eight long years, scientists chafed while President George W. Bush pursued an ideological agenda, essentially dismissing climate change research. Now the White House and Congress can create a new era in which science and policymaking walk hand in hand.

    The climate scientists at Britain’s University of East Anglia exchanged e-mails questioning some of their most basic theories. That’s what scientists do. They discussed the possibility of suppressing two studies that question global warming and climate change models — but both of those studies were eventually included in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report. The process worked.

    http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_13930886


  267. bdaman–

    More on Global Warming

    It’s a good thing there are folks like Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California and Rep. John Boehner of Ohio around to help shed light on who the worst producers of greenhouse gases may be. Who knew it was the flatulence of dinosaurs and cows that may have caused climatic changes on planet Earth?

    Dana Rohrabacher: “We don’t know what those other cycles were caused by in the past. Could be dinosaur flatulence, you know, or who knows?”

    John Boehner on Cow Farts & Climate Change

    Here’s a poem I wrote about bovine methane producers back in April. I thank Dana and John for inspiring my poetic take on global warming.

    On the Flatulence of Cows and Global Warming

    The dinosaurs farted.
    And now it’s the cows—
    Whose anal emissions
    Waft into the air
    Increasing the greenhouse
    Gases “up there.”
    In blissful abandon
    Cows graze on green grass,
    Mooing and chewing
    And chewing and pooing—
    All the while strewing
    Brown pies everywhere.

    These flatulent bovines…
    These cud masticators…
    Digestive polluters …
    Toxic gas generators…
    These methane producers
    Seem harmless and charming.
    But I’ve got the scoop—
    On the cows and their poop:
    They’re the primary cause
    Of Earth’s global warming.

    Maybe Boehner’s solution to global warming would be to kill all the cows.


  268. Thanks Elaine for giving me the side that says, move along nothing to see here.

    But IMO, and now many many others, the e-mails have rocked the foundation of Climatechange. We are certainly free as a people to believe as we wish. I’ve NEVER believed in the doom and gloom version of it and certainly do not believe that CO2 is the driver of Temps. The earth has warmed and cooled many times and will do so again and again. Like a friend told me Global warming is for real, I’ve seen it with my own eye’s in my lifetime, to which I said, your lifetime is all but a small fragment to the earths history.

    I’m still curious to find out were they hacked or were they leaked. We have no official confirmation from a law enforcement source. Only the CRU saying it and some in the media.

    Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece


  269. on 1, December 5, 2009 at 10:15 am Buddha Is Laughing

    With an established track record for being scientifically ignorant and a troll, your analysis of CO2 emissions and their impact has far, far less credibility than those you criticize, bdabigot.

    No data was falsified by these guys.

    You, on the other hand, are known to make shit up and march to a master’s drum beat.

    It’s simple math, but you’re a simple troll and simple people believe all sorts of nonsense.


  270. yes SARgent
    cause you told me to SARgent


  271. my bad I left DRILL out


  272. you cant just make this stuff up, who is in denial now?

    Most Americans (52%) believe that there continues to be significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming.

    While many advocates of aggressive policy responses to global warming say a consensus exists, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 25% of adults think most scientists agree on the topic. Twenty-three percent (23%) are not sure.

    But just in the last few days, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs seemed to reject any such disagreement in a response to a question about global warming, “I don’t think … [global warming] is quite, frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore.”

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/americans_skeptical_of_science_behind_global_warming


  273. on 1, December 5, 2009 at 10:22 am Buddha Is Laughing

    I didn’t tell you to do squat, half-wit. Again, you’re making a clown out of yourself. I just point and laugh.


  274. Byron,
    What Buddha said in spades. The mistake of all political philosophers and all economic prophets, pushing idealized systems is that they fail to take into account human nature as it currently exists. Buddha gets right to the heart of the matter. Unrestricted capitalism allows the worst intentioned of us free rein to plunder.

    The easiest examples are the billionaires among us that being rich beyond all measure keep trying to add to their riches; the corporations like big tobacco that continue to market products that hurt people and do so like drug pushers; the drug companies that spend more on marketing than they do on research; the defense industry that uses money to influence the overpurchase of unneeded weaponry which they overcharge for; the private prison industry which pays off Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges to send inmates their way.

    These are just a few examples of far too many. If we as humans all lived by the “Golden Rule” than perhaps your way would work. We don’t and you seem aware of it yourself when you speak of “young Tyrannasuaresses.” These are merciless predators whose only goals were filling their hunger, is this an entrepeneurial model to encourage, or a workable social model?


  275. I like being a clown Drill SARgent

    “I didn’t tell you to do squat”

    How bout push-ups, want me to do some push-ups Drill SARgent

    Why don’t you listen to dear leader and don’t feed the troll.


  276. on 1, December 5, 2009 at 11:56 am Buddha Is Laughing

    Because feeding and pointing too in ridicule are two separate activities, bdapuppet. You are still free to leave any time you don’t like people attacking your credibility based upon your past actions. See? Not an order. A choice. Choices and consequences. Your choices. That’s what led you to this end.

    I am but an agent of karma.


  277. Oh i don’t care Drill SARgent, say what you want, it’s still a free country.

    I love being here and I know, deep down inside, you love having me here.


  278. on 1, December 5, 2009 at 12:24 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    No, not really. It’s your kind ruining the country (and the world) for everyone. You know. The ignorant, greedy and bigoted segment of social maladaptives who can’t see further than what they want and what they want now. The ones who cannot distinguish between propaganda and news and advertising and entertainment.

    I love your Constitutional right to be around. You? Not so much. It’s that whole punchbowl/turd dilemma. But you are a constant reminder the gene pool has no life guard. So there is that silver lining of cautionary tale around the dark cloud of your neocon enabling trollery.


  279. You are so eloquent in your speeches it reminds me of the presidents.


  280. on 1, December 5, 2009 at 12:43 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    And you are so insipid and mildly insane in your speeches, bdafool. Reminds me of someone too.


  281. ,” said lead author Andrew Watson, a researcher from the University of East Anglia’s School of Environmental Sciences.

    They have lost their credibility


  282. on 1, December 5, 2009 at 12:47 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    Said the troll with zero credibility.


  283. SYPHILIS


  284. on 1, December 5, 2009 at 12:52 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    Is that what you have, bdaloser? The syph making you nuts by eating holes in your brain? That would explain a lot.


  285. Tuskegee


  286. Nothing to see here, move along. e-mails have no effect

    Australia’s Parliament defeats global warming bill

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_re_as/climate_australia


  287. on 1, December 5, 2009 at 1:17 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    Move along, nothing to see here. Just another discredited troll flailing wildly.


  288. Bdaman,

    You continue to misrepresent private emails between scientists for ideological purposes without making any attempt to understand their discussion in context. Elaine has linked reports showing that even if you look at the emails in the worst possible light as a conspiracy to hide data, the data they’re talking about hiding is publicly available, so if there was a conspiracy it was an inept one. Your ‘big gun’, the phrase ‘hide the decline’ when examined reveals nothing but a decision about which of two sets of temperature data to use – temperatures calculated from examining tree trunks or temperatures actually measured. As I have pointed out, at the absolute worst (and everything I see indicates you’re trying to treat a misdemeanor or civil offense as a capital crime) this calls into question the papers published by the CRU and to a lesser extent any papers that cited them. While this should be investigated, it must be investigated by people who understand the context, attempting to try this in the court of public opinion is a naked ideological ploy to make a mountain out of a molehill for political purposes. You are doing the same thing here as you and the other birthers are doing with the question of President Obama’s eligibility – you’re making arguments from ignorance and trying to drown out the voices of the experts (be it the consensus of the scientific community or the courts and every lawyer that you’d want on your side if you were on trial) to convince people to buy your lies. You are a cowardly liar who is completely uninterested in finding the truth, instead trying to promote your deeply misguided ideological beliefs with no concern whatsoever with honesty, integrity, or the harm that would befall others (let alone the entire species) if the policies you advocate were to become law. BAD TROLL!


  289. Well Gaa-lee Sargeant Carter you mean to tell me that didn’t need to hack them e-mails, they was publicly available the whole time. Sha Zaam you just solved the whole puzzle. Now that it’s solved, I guess they are gonna tear it all apart and reconstruct it because the puzzle is just that fun to do. Of course this will tend to be a little difficult seeing how they threw the original instructions out the window and amazingly not one e-mail or discussion about, hey guys you aint gonna believe this but I accidentally deleted the original raw data. Nope, no explanation other than ooops sorry got deleted.

    Got it.


  290. UK Met Office to release data and code

    While this is encouraging news, releasing a subset will fuel some suspicion. A better choice would be to release the entire set. It may be too little, too late, the die of public opinion has been cast. Had they done this six months ago, they would have appeared visionary, rather than reactionary. The most encouraging news is the statement: “We intend that as soon as possible we will also publish the specific computer code…”. I applaud that, and I hope they do a better job than NASA GISS did, whose code is so esoteric, it is difficult to get running. Many have tried.


  291. on 1, December 5, 2009 at 2:31 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

    Riddle me, riddle me, riddle me this: What lives under a bridge and helps low speed fishermen but sometimes eats unwary children?


  292. You say Ta-may-toe I say Ta-ma-toe


  293. George Bush Impersonator on Global Warming


  294. on 1, December 5, 2009 at 4:07 pm Former Federal LEO

    That kid is good.


  295. I have read some more of the emails and believe that there are problems with the idea of global warming.

    There is no agreement about Bristle cone Pine ring data whether temperature or CO2 or moisture driven, Surface Sea Temperature data from WWII to 1950 may have been adjusted upward too much and other things lead me to believe that while there might not be intent to defraud there is bad science afoot and we should request a more systematic examination of the data and a consensus opinion of scientists before we spend billions of dollars to remedy something that may not need to be rectified.

    And what is the problem with an extra degree or 2 of mean earth temperature, during the MWP humans thrived and there was an abundance of food because of a longer growing season. Additionally cold weather just sucks.

    I wont say that it looks like some scientists had an idea and went about proving it by cherry picking data but that is what it is starting to look like. Only time will tell.


  296. Buddha:

    go read some of those emails and you may change your mind. The more emails I read and the more I learn as I try and understand the jingo the more I am convinced that they have an hypothesis and they are trying to prove it, rather than having an hypothesis and letting the data take them where it takes them.

    There definitely appears to be a subjective component to Global Warming science as done by Michael Mann and Phil Jones and subsequent apologetics by Nature, the New York Times, et. al.


  297. Bdaman,

    Since I doubt that you would follow a link that that doesn’t support your position, I thought I’d post a paragraph from the nature.com article that Buddha linked to. It is basically Nature’s reply to denier’s demands to investigate the ‘trick’ referred to in the hacked emails. Keep in mind that Nature (unlike you) has the utmost in credibility and integrity.

    “The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers’ own papers. One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a ‘trick’ — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results. It is Nature’s policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.”

    You have no desire to know the truth here or understand what (if any) ethical violations occurred, only to exploit the opportunity for propaganda that you hope will obscure the fact that your position is intellectually dishonest, factually incorrect, and scientifically ignorant.


  298. Byron,

    I’ve read the emails and I’m familiar with the type of discussion they’re having. They are talking about writing a paper, this is not the part of science where you consider all of the possibilities with an open mind – this is the part of science where you try to make the most convincing argument possible for your interpretation of the results. While I haven’t read all of the emails (and have no inclination to read any more than I have already), what I’ve seen portrayed as ‘smoking guns’ has ranged from utterly innocuous to possibly ethically dubious. As I’ve said before, there should be investigation, but it needs to be done by people who understand the context of these emails and are acquainted with the science in question – not the general public. Assuming the worst possible interpretation of these emails (which, again, is totally unwarranted), this has no significant impact on the scientific consensus on climate change. Furthermore, your ‘wait and see’ attitude on this issue is disingenuous at best and disastrous at worst. Since climate change deniers want to continue the status quo, ‘wait and see’ is implicitly deciding that the deniers are correct. If it turns out that they are wrong and we did nothing, it will severely reduce the habitability of the planet and possibly result in the downfall of our civilization or even the extinction of our species. On the other hand, if we act to curb pollution and develop green technology at the cost of 1-2% of our GDP and it turns out that global warming is not man made, we will have gotten several desirable benefits anyway – we’ll have cleaner air and water and land, we will have taken a big step towards sustainability for our society , and we will have made an unprecedented leap in global cooperation. This would be a bargain at 2% GDP. Finally, climate change is not summer getting a little bit longer and winter not being so cold, it’s about costal regions being flooded by the rising sea level, about the ice caps melting and altering the ocean’s currents and destabilizing the climate:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

    about arable land becoming desert, about summers becoming hotter and dryer, about winters becoming harsher, about more and bigger hurricanes and tornados… well, you get the idea. We’re not playing penny-ante here, we’re playing no-limit Texas Hold’em and Mother Nature’s just gone all-in. All of our chips are on the table and we have to decide what to do right now. We don’t get to ‘wait and see’.


  299. Slarti:

    the wait and see was about what the expert conclusion is to all of this.

    Global climate change has been taking place for as long as the earth has been in existence. I wont count out the possibility that we have some small contribution to the system. But everyone seems to dismiss the Sun in this equation, it is all about CO2 or cow flatulence or whatever other man made contribution.

    I just read an article about the possibility of geothermal heating of the oceans as an explanation for an increase in sea temperature. Which I think is actually a plausible explanation. Certainly more so than man’s activities having anything to do with it.

    Don’t worry, humans have been on this planet in one form or another for 4 million years plus(?) and I will hazard a guess we will be around for as long as our sun holds up, barring any natural disasters. AWG would not be an extinction level event, it makes for a good movie plot but not much else.

    So sleep well tonight secure in the knowledge that you will not wake tomorrow with water-front property and dead Polar Bears on your front steps.


  300. MikeS:

    I regret the use of T-Rex. People that grow large businesses are smart driven people, they are not “mindless brutes”.

    Maybe I am wrong, you and Buddha certainly have some points. But are those manifestations of our current system (a mixed economy which is regulated) or are they the very nature of a free market? I think they are caused by man tinkering with the markets while you think they are the very nature of a free market.

    Part of my problem is that on the one hand men are greedy and selfish if they engage in building or running a business but are selfless and pure if they are regulating a business or industry.

    If mans nature is to be selfish then all men are such and look out for their own self interest. It matters not the vocation and whether one is pursuing profits or sainthood. If mans nature is to be selfish then he is selfish across all spectrums. Which begs the question – who regulates the regulators?


  301. Byron,

    You said:
    “the wait and see was about what the expert conclusion is to all of this.”

    Oh. Well… then I agree with you on this. I recommend you read the Nature article that Buddha linked and I excerpted as since part of this involves the ‘Nature trick’, their concern (or lack thereof) can be considered part of the expert conclusion.

    Modern humans have only been around for about 200,000 years (according to Wikipedia). (Just thought you’d like to know.)

    I understand that the climate is an extraordinarily complex system with many important inputs (such as the sun and geothermal warming) which adapts to changes and these changes have been happening for the last 4 billion years, but when you’re fiddling with the controls of a complex system (say by adding a large amount of carbon to the air) at some point you hit a bifurcation and instead of your small change causing a small adaptation, it causes some kind of large qualitative change. I agree that this is unlikely to be an extinction level event (odds are better for a giant meteor), but it could well be catastrophic for our civilization. I’m not worried about beach-front land with polar bear corpses, I’m worried about reaching a tipping point where it’s too late to solve the problem before we decide to act. To me this seems to be the choice between doing some things that might hurt a bit in the short term, but will ultimately be very beneficial (no matter what the truth on this topic is) or to do nothing and hope everything works out for the best (which seems a bit unwise when you’re dealing with an unsustainable system).


  302. Byron–

    I wouldn’t dismiss humankind’s effect on global warming so easily. Some things to keep in mind:

    1) The widespread burning of fossil fuels to generate power since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution
    2) Millions and millions of cars and their gaseous emissions
    3) Burning of fossil fuels to heat homes

    Of course it’s about the sun–the sun and CO2. The gases in our atmosphere can trap the heat of the sun.

    Let’s take Mercury, the planet closest to the sun. It rotates very slowly–a day on Mercury is nearly two earth months. Its atmosphere is nearly non-existent. On the side of Mercury that faces the sun for an extended period of time, the temperature can be blazing hot…maybe 700 or 800 degrees. But on the side turned away from the sun it gets extremely cold–below -300 degrees–because there are no atmospheric gases to trap the heat. The same is true of our moon.

    Venus, on the other hand, has a dense atmosphere composed of mostly carbon dioxide. The sun’s heat gets trapped and can’t escape into space. It’s a good example of the greenhouse gas effect. Venus doesn’t have the same kind of temperature variations as Mercury because of the gases in its atmosphere.

    Wouldn’t it be logical to conclude that if we keep increasing the level of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere, that our planet WILL get warmer?


  303. Slart, thank you, thats what I try to do when I copy/paste. Pick out part of what I read that stands out to me and then provide the link.

    We are now way way passed the Hide the Decline, Mike’s Nature Trick, the e-mails got stolen phase. There is overwhelming factual evidence that all data has been manipulated one way or the other. We have, over the last several years documented this fact. We have surface temperature stations purposely placed near high heat content areas such as AC units, Roof Tops, Concrete Parking Lots Ect. Ect. We have temp stations removed from parts of the coldest climates. I have provided the links. We have CO2 Monitoring and Collection Stations, I believe 9 in total, located near volcanoes, such is the case as the one in Hawaii. We have scientist manipulating data to which the entire scientific community is now turned upside down. There is either photographic evidence or written admission to all above.

    So far, the most damming statement out of what e-mails that have been reviewed, and mind you there not finished going thru them, is,

    “We can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it’s a travesty that we can’t.”

    Then as you well know the last time we got into this discussion all kinds of cold temperatures were being broken world wide with record snows. Now we got a slow start to winter this year after another below active hurricane season in the Atlantic, with no U.S. strike. World wide we are at a 30 year low for Tropical Cyclone activity , for the THIRD straight year. Winter is underway and we have started yet again with record breaking snow in Michigan, earliest snow ever for Houston, October the third coolest on record, on and on and on. Let me not forget the sunspot activity, which is NIL and has received a fresh look in comparison to past event cycles.

    Yes the e-mails themselves may not be that smoking gun and it sure has shed alot of light of what the hell is actually going on.


  304. Elaine M:

    I don’t think you can compare what happens on Venus to Earth. There is no similarity.


  305. Byron–

    I think you missed my point about the effect atmospheric gases have on the temperatures of planetary bodies. Are you saying that even if Earth had as dense an atmosphere as Venus, it wouldn’t be much warmer? Or if Earth had no atmosphere that it wouldn’t be colder on the nightside of our planet?


  306. Byron–

    You wrote: “I don’t think you can compare what happens on Venus to Earth. There is no similarity.”

    I forgot to note one way that Earth and Venus are similar in my last comment. The two planets are similar in size. They have approximately the same diameter. Venus is sometimes called Earth’s twin for that very reason.


  307. To Whom It May Concern:

    Watergate redux: Break-ins reported at another climate research center. (Think Progress, 12/5/09)

    Burglars and hackers have attacked the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, apparently in an attempt to further the “Climategate” intimidation of global warming researchers. The Climategate smear campaign rests on the release of thousands of emails illegally hacked last month from the British Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The National Post reports that the Centre for Climate Modelling, a government institution, is also the victim of repeated criminal attacks:

    Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria scientist and key contributor to the Nobel prize-winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says there have been a number of attempted breaches in recent months, including two successful break-ins at his campus office in which a dead computer was stolen and papers were rummaged through.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/05/enviro-watergate/


  308. Suspicions were growing last night that Russian security services were behind the leaking of the notorious British ‘Climategate’ emails which threaten to undermine tomorrow’s Copenhagen global warming summit.

    An investigation by The Mail on Sunday has discovered that the explosive hacked emails from the University of East Anglia were leaked via a small web server in the formerly closed city of Tomsk in Siberia.

    The leaks scandal has left the scientific community in disarray after claims that key climate change data was manipulated in the run-up to the climate change summit of world leaders.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233562/Emails-rocked-climate-change-campaign-leaked-Siberian-closed-city-university-built-KGB.html#ixzz0YuvXvWXM


  309. The Smoking Code, part 2

    No proof exists that shows this code was used in publishing results.

    Correct! That’s why I am (and always have) taken the following stand: Enough proof exists that the CRU had both the means and intent to intentionally falsify data. This means that all of their research results cannot be trusted until they are verified. Period.

    The fact that the “fudge-factor” source code exists in the first place is reason enough for alarm. Hopefully, they didn’t use fudged results in the CRU research results, but the truth is, we just don’t know.

    You need the raw climate data to prove that foul play occurred.

    This is assuming the raw data are valid, which I maintain that it probably is. Several people question the validity of the climate data gathering methods used by the different climate research institutions, but I am not enough of a climate expert to have an opinion one way or the other. Furthermore, It simply doesn’t matter if the raw climate data are correct or not to demonstrate the extreme bias the valadj array forces on the raw data.

    So, the raw data could actually be temperature data or corporate sales figures, the result is the same; a severe manipulation of data.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/05/the-smoking-code-part-2/#more-13773


  310. UN climate chief: hacked e-mails are damaging

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091206/D9CDQI000.html

    E-mails stolen from the climate unit at the University of East Anglia appeared to show some of world’s leading scientists discussing ways to shield data from public scrutiny and suppress others’ work. Those who deny the influence of man-made climate change have seized on the correspondence to argue that scientists have been conspiring to hide evidence about global warming.

    “This correspondence looks very bad,” de Boer said. “But I think both the university is looking into this (and) I believe there is a police investigation going on whether the e-mails were leaked or stolen.”


  311. Earth could plunge into sudden ice age
    Experts: ‘Big Freeze’ about 12,800 years ago happened within months

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34242705/ns/technology_and_science-science/

    Did humans cause the Younger Dryas? No. Did humans cause
    all of the other ice ages? No. But let’s blame them anyway.
    Temperatures go up? Blame humans. Temperatures go down?
    Blame humans.

    There is no reason why a big freeze shouldn’t happen again, says Patterson. “If the Greenland ice sheet melted suddenly it would be catastrophic.”

    Sure, IF that should happen. But there’s no reason to expect the Greenland ice sheet to suddenly melt. Temperatures have been declining since 1998, and we’ve had record snowfall around the world. If anything, we should expect the Greenland ice sheet to grow.

    “People assume that we’re political, that we’re either pro-global-warming or anti-global-warming, when it’s really neither,” Patterson added. “Our goal is just to understand climate.”

    If their goal is “just to understand climate,” then why don’t they, and other climate scientists, include the known climate cycles in their models? These cycles have been known and acknowledged since the 1970s.

    In 1976, scientists at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
    spearheaded a project called CLIMAP (Climate: Long-range
    Investigation Mapping and Prediction) to map the history of
    the oceans and climate.They discovered that ice ages begin or end, almost like clockwork,every 11,500 years. It’s a dependable, predictable, natural cycle. Pacemaker of the Ice Ages, they called it.

    Too Hot, Too cold, not warm enough, not cold enough, one day maybe it will be just right.


  312. “But are those manifestations of our current system (a mixed economy which is regulated) or are they the very nature of a free market? I think they are caused by man tinkering with the markets while you think they are the very nature of a free market.”

    Byron,
    Of course they are “men tinkering with the markets” because this is the natural progression of people trying to increase their profit. By definition a corporation is in business to not only make, but to continually increase profit. The only way to do so is to continually increase market share, if your in the business of selling something.

    Our current stock market system only rewards those whose profits keep increasing thereby pressuring CEO’s to find new ways to improve the bottom line. There is neither respect, nor reward from stock prices for those companies that manage well but don’t continually show profit increases. This has what has caused businesses to work hard at diversification, no matter the fact that many times it doesn’t make sense.

    In the past before Reagonomics there were companies recognized as “blue chip stocks,” denoting that these were well managed companies, that had a good share of their market and produced reasonable profits from year to year. In other words stable business enterprises. Then Reagonomics hit in the 80’s and with it deregulation and lack of anti-trust enforcement. You had the ridiculous result of smaller companies gobbling up larger ones through shady stock deals, while the SEC looked the other way.
    Industry destabilized and began outsourcing production overseas to areas with no unions and ridiculously cheap labor costs.

    The result was the diminuation of our manufacturing base and a country where business almost totally focussed on the Financial Services Industries, which can make obscene profits, but cannot sustain a robust economy. I don’t like Henry Ford, because he was a bigot, but the man understood that if he paid his workers well they would buy his product. Somewhere along the line the greed driven geniuses of the MBA/economist kind forgot this lesson and replaced it with one of rapacious greed. I’m not saying things were perfect before Reagan, they weren’t, but at least the US had a strong industrial base. Now we’re mostly a service economy, with a shrinking middle/working class and the prosepcts of becoming a third world nation. The answer to this is not more laissez-faire economics, but a return to the regulatory conventions established by both Roosevelts and the recognition that institutions like the Fed and treaty’s like
    NAFTA/CAFTA are really anti-American, in that they aim at only at
    allowing the elite to further prosper without regard for all of the rest of us.


  313. To me the people who want to deny “global warning” are basically morons. The problem is that in selling the concept that mankind through constant, unplanned development is destroying our environment and therefore the Earth’s ability to sustain us, has been sidetracked by a slogan. While “global warning” is no doubt a real phenomenon, it doesn’t encompass the discussion of the entire environmental issue. It allows its critics to attack facets of the problem, as a result of their own lack of comprehension, without seeing the big picture.

    The big picture is that through careless industrial development we are destroying the sustainability of the Planet. Coal mining strips mountaintops bare and leeches poisonous chemical into rivers and streams, causing death of flora and fauna. Inefficient electical appliances (from household to industrial) increase the need for electricity, which is supplied through inefficient and destructive measures. Inland water is polluted by the effluvient of unregulated industry and the Ocean’s viability is depleted through unrestrained dumping of noxious materials, overfishing. The polar ice cap is melting, as are many glaciers, gradually raising the height of the oceans and setting up futre inundations of many of the world greatest Cities that are built next to the ocean. The Rain Forests, necessary for maintaining environmentl balance are being depleted in the name of economic development. The list goes on and on.

    I’m not a luddite though. I believe in scientific progress and technological development. However, it must be done rationally and in concert with environmental needs. This is not only doable, it is actually the least expensive and most efficient way to go. The “global warming” naysayers are a conglomerate of
    religious fanatics more interested in a soon to arrive armageddon, industrial/financial pirates desiring unfettered development, their political minions who are bought and paid for and the fellow travellers ready to believe any political crap handed to them as long as it has the “conservative” brand on it.

    The evidence for the need for mankind to take an ecological perspective is not only overwhelming, much of it is non-technical enough so that you don’t need to be a scientist to figure it out. To be against the ecological perspective is to really be either alarmingly self-centered, apocalyptically minded, or someone who doen’t give a damn about the future of mankind and/or their country.


  314. And the hits just keep right on rolling. Question, If Hawaii has an ORIGINAL birth certificate on file in accordance with state policy and procedures, why not show that one instead of the one posted on the internet.

    With so many lawsuits filed every day in America, one more might seem irrelevant. There is one however that should be watched, but will most likely escape notice. For a little while at any rate…

    Last summer, hundreds of Chrysler and GM Dealers lost their franchises in the Chrysler bankruptcy sale. Many of those dealers vowed to fight what they saw as a heavy miscarriage of justice. It was simply un-American, and shocking to find that something like this could happen here, that the government could take over a private business, and then take that business away from hundreds of private dealerships. Many of those dealers had profitable businesses; in some cases those businesses had been run by families successfully for 50 years, in some cases more.

    Neil Cavuto welcomed former Chrysler dealer James Anderer to his show on Fox Business News Daily to talk about a case that has been filed by a group of dealers who lost their businesses in the Washington D.C. District Court. Lead Plaintiff Anderer mentioned a team of legal experts while describing the case to Cavuto, and an anonymous source has named Leo Donofrio and Steve Pidgeon as having been retained by a group of Chrysler dealers who lost their franchise in the Chrysler bankruptcy sale. They have been retained to bring two actions:

    1. A motion to reconsider the Court’s approval of the dealer rejections.
    2. A quo warranto in the D.C. District Court pertaining to Obama and his administration.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m12d5-Cars-quo-warranto-and-Obama


  315. Mike S,

    Thank you for eloquently making the point that dealing with pollution and creating sustainable industry are much bigger than climate change. Even if AGW is a myth (which is highly unlikely), cleaning up our act, so to speak, is necessary for the continuation of our civilization or we’re going to end up drowning in our own waste. I wish the deniers like Bdaman would go and live on the Texas-sized island of discarded plastics in the middle of the Pacific (since they’re pro-pollution that should be the kind of place they like) and let the rest of us work to solve our pollution problems.


  316. http://www.nbc.com/?vty%20=%20fromWidget_Video&dst=nbc|widget|NBC%20Video&__source=nbc|widget|NBC%20Video


  317. Bdaman,

    While the auto dealers might have standing (they can unquestionably show that they were personally harmed), there are a couple of problems with this case – first, I think that the President has immunity from this sort of action (Vince or one of the other lawyers please correct me if I’m wrong) and more importantly, a quo warranto proceeding cannot be used to remove the president (the Constitution gives congress the SOLE power of impeachment). This is destined to be another loss in the birther’s epic losing streak.


  318. Copy of an e-mail exchange I had with a very liberal friend of mine. So lets be clear, I’m all for taking care of mother earth.

    —– Original Message —–
    From: REDACTED hotmailcom
    To: bob.
    Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 11:20 AM
    Subject: RE: Winter is Here

    Bob I agree that we should do everything possible to make it a clean planet, everything. When you look at what the alternatives are, it still reverts back to the earths natural resources. Boone Pickens presented the best Idea to get us heading in that direction. Question, why is the government not heading to his natural gas solution. In order to have a major effect Trains, Planes, Tractor Trailers and Ships must be re tooled. Clean energy is a great idea. They say nuclear power is the way to go to solve PART of the carbon emissions but then you have the by product to deal with and that gets buried in the ground.

    The whole issue here is the CLAIM that CO2 is responsible for heating the earth, it’s responsible for everything thats dying, crying going extinct ect ect. It’s almost like the blame Bush for everything attitude. I’m not defending Bush, I’m a 9-11 truther, I think Bush allowed 9-11 to happen so don’t get me started on that.

    CO2 makes up LESS than 5% of all known greenhouse gases. CO2 continues to get dumped into the atmosphere in mass amounts everyday but yet we have no warming in the last ten years, and thats a fact. In fact it’s getting colder. You may not want to believe that but thats a fact. (Hide the Decline confirmed here today) and it is as I told you before, they got the COMPUTER MODEL to do what THEY wanted it to. Remember my old saying Look at the ACTUAL FACTUAL DATA not a computer model http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/

    I once told you that Greenland got it’s name because it was Green. The Vikings raised cattle and farmed the lands. Now Greenland is covered in Ice. If that Ice melts it could have devastating effects, at least thats what they tell us. If it does, it won’t be because of CO2.

    With that said, while we try and transition over to cleaner energy and clean up the planet, should we allow a world government to tax us to death with Cap and Tax over something that does’nt effect the planet in the manner that they say it does. Should we allow the government into our homes and tell us what light bulbs we can use. Again the light bulbs save energy but like nuclear waste pollute the ground (mercury)

    This is a 145 trillion dollar question, this is what is at stake here. For 145 trillion I think we could plant a whole lot of trees around the world if CO2 is really the problem.


  319. This is from the excellent sited at

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/leo-donofrio-and-pidgeon-another-desperate-move/

    “Neil Cavuto welcomed former Chrysler dealer James Anderer to his show on Fox Business News Daily to talk about a case that has been filed by a group of dealers who lost their businesses in the Washington D.C. District Court. Lead Plaintiff Anderer mentioned a team of legal experts while describing the case to Cavuto, and an anonymous source has named Leo Donofrio and Steve Pidgeon as having been retained by a group of Chrysler dealers who lost their franchise in the Chrysler bankruptcy sale. They have been retained to bring two actions:

    “1. A motion to reconsider the Court’s approval of the dealer rejections.
    “2. A quo warranto in the D.C. District Court pertaining to Obama and his administration.”

    So, once again, Leo rises from the ashheap. He has resigned several times to the birfer battles. [Enter Leo Donofrio in the “Search” window above for more info.] On the occasion of his latest swan song, he took all of his postings down from his website. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ . Now he seems to be launching another futile, frivolous QW effort in the District Court for D.C. Since his site went dark, we can’t even read his convoluted mistaken arguments anymore.

    Slart is right. The Constitution provides that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment.” The House has the “sole Power of Impeachment” and the Senate the “sole Power the try all Impeachments.”

    Removal is such a grave move that it was committed to the representatives of the people in Congress. There is no room in the constitutional scheme to bypass this means of removal by resorting to a single judge and jury in the District of Columbia. The quo warranto theory is a truly bizarre idea without any foundation in the language or history of the Constitution.

    This has been debated before on the Turley thread. Almost all of the QW cases have involved state and local officials. The federal quo warranto statute requires the Attorney General to act. The Attorney General has not acted. The only possible (repeat, remotely possible) exception to this would require a party who has a claim to the office.

    Whatever their gripes, the auto dealers are not claimants to the presidency.

    Say goodnight, Leo.


  320. Slartibartfast,

    The U.S. Constitution is a relatively brief document. Please take the time to read it. When finished answer there questions:

    Does the U.S. Constitution state that impeachment is the sole means of removal of the President? Is a failure to meet the qualifications a “high crime or misdemeanor”? Is it treason or bribery? Proven election fraud, if not linked directly to the President, would still mean that the President had no right to occupy the office, but it would not be an impeachable offense. What should be done in that instance? What if the President won’t resign?

    You’re an intelligent person. You’re capable of rational thought. Instead of getting your legal advice from a partisan source, take the time to review history on the subject. This isn’t the first time that the legitimacy of an elected President has been the subject of controversy. Familiarize yourself with the fallout of the Hayes vs. Tilden election of 1876. Though it took almost 25 years to pass the DC quo warranto statute, the 1877 Congressional records demonstrate that Congress considered the qualifications of the President to be a constitutional question that could be answered by the Court, not Congress.

    Mr. Mills, of Texas, said : “The exercise of the power by the Forty-fifth Congress over the question of the election of President of the, United States is a usurpation. We have no power over that question at all. By the Constitution of the United States that power to inquire as to who was elected President of the United Srates was vested in the Forty-fourth Congress, and when that Congress spoke or failed to speak on that question, when it made a law by which it abdicated that power conferred upon it by the Constitution of the United States, it parted with it forever, and so far as this, the Forty filth Congress, is concerned, there remains not a shadow of authority to investigate the election of the President.”

    “Resolved, That no subsequent Congress, and neither House has jurisdiction to revise the action at such joint meeting, and any attempt by either House to annul or disregard such action or the title to office arising therefrom would be revolutionary and is disapproved by this House.”

    “Suppose the canvassers had made a mistake in footing up the returns, that changed the result of the election—a mistake that they discovered before the vote was counted: was there no remedy?” “No !” was the answer. “Then,” said the Justice, “a mistake in arithmetic, in the adding up of figures, may elect a President of the United States, and Congress is powerless to prevent it ! ” Again he asked :

    “Suppose the canvassers were bribed ; or had entered into a conspiracy to commit a fraud ; and in pursuance of the bribery or conspiracy, altered the returns, declaring elected persons not chosen by the voters, and had transmitted their vote to the President of the Senate, but that before the vote was counted the fraud was detected and exposed: was there no remedy ? ”

    “If this be sound doctrine, it is the only instance in the world where fraud becomes enshrined and sanctified behind a certificate of its authors. It is elementary knowledge that fraud vitiates all proceedings, even the most solemn ; that no form of words, no amount of ceremony, and no solemnity of procedure, can shield it from exposure or punishment.”

    Now do you understand why the DC Quo Warranto statute was created? Now do you understand why Congress found it best to rely on the Court to determine a constitutional question instead of leaving it to a partisan body?


  321. Buddha,
    Who needs the damned Maldives anyway? More important is that we support T. Boone Pickens who is pushing his current environmental drivel so that through use of natural gas leases he can control America’s major water sources. The man has always been a self centered scoundrel and now he wants to have a monopoly on water. I wonder why?

    As far as the poor Chrysler dealers go, my father was one, part of the viability problem for Chrysler was an overabundance of dealerships, which did little for sales but screwed up the Company by having them produce too many cars for a poor market.
    That lawyer Donofrio is involved in this latest stupid lawsuit, only shows that the gullible among us will use anything to justify their hatred and ignorance.


  322. on 1, December 6, 2009 at 1:48 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    That’s a lot of words to say nothing.

    Vince Treacy has already thoroughly addressed and debunked the quo warranto issue without resorting to anything other than, what’s that stuff called? Oh yeah, PROOF.

    Obama is a citizen. He’s a graft swilling sellout to K St. just like the GOP, but he’s still a citizen.

    Slarti does just fine in evaluating evidence in an impartial manner. As a trained scientist, I’ll take his analysis over the prime facie nonsense arguments of birthers any day.

    You on the other hand, Rich? Not so much.


  323. Rich S.,
    Yes but do we understand why George W. bush received the Presidency in 2000 on a decision written by a Justice who son worked for the plaintiff and yet refused to recuse himself?


  324. on 1, December 6, 2009 at 1:49 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    Mike,

    I found it very sad they had created an island of trash where a lagoon used to be.


  325. Vince Treacy said; “The federal quo warranto statute requires the Attorney General to act.”

    LIE LIE LIE!!!!

    Slartibartfast,

    The blatant lie of Mr. Treacy provides a perfect example of why you shouldn’t get your legal advise from partisan sources.

    Ҥ 16-3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.

    If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs.”


  326. “dealing with pollution and creating sustainable industry are much bigger than climate change”

    Slarti,
    Thank you. Our media and pundits are so shallow that they can only discuss issues in terms of headlines, rather that view the entire problem. We are facing a world ecological crisis that has everything to do with stupidly unbridled development and which through intelligent intervention can actually accomplish more, do it cheaper and provide a good standard of living for the entire human race.


  327. on 1, December 6, 2009 at 1:54 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    Rich,

    If you just want your ass handed to you by Vince, be my guest.


  328. “The blatant lie of Mr. Treacy provides a perfect example of why you shouldn’t get your legal advise from partisan sources.”

    Rich S.,
    Your QW interpretation is off base and you are hardly the person to admonish anyone about not getting information from partisan sources. Next thing we know is you’ll be quoting Vattel.


  329. Rich S,

    Throughout my interest in the birther movement I have gotten information by looking at the arguments from both side (and any references provided) and making up my own mind. In my opinion, the birther’s arguments are poor to pathetic while Vince has shown remarkable scholarship and impeccable reason and every prediction he’s made has been correct. I understand why you’d try to pick a fight with a small fish like me, but there’s a big, bad shark in this pool – his name is Vince and he is going to tear you apart with remorseless logic and implacable facts. And you never know when those tiny fish are going to turn out to be piranha.


  330. Mike S,

    The thing that annoys me most about our political discourse in this country is our total lack of the ability to deal with nuance. This is a complicated world full of difficult problems and none of the solutions can be explained in a 30 second sound bite. As someone who studies complexity professionally, I love looking for the patterns that help us understand these complicated systems and wish that our elected leaders would spend more time trying to understand the nuances and listening to people who do. That is why I like President Obama so much – say what you want about him, but all of the indications I’ve seen say he surrounds himself with smart people, listens to their opinions, and then makes up his mind (Afghanistan being but the latest example of this). You may disagree with his decisions, but you can’t deny that he comes to them in a deliberative fashion after getting the facts rather than going by his gut like his predecessor.


  331. Slartibartfast,

    Vince made the right call because none of the cases were filed in a court that had jurisdiction. It would require a corrupt or incompetent court for him to make the wrong call.

    “An examination of several of the statutes authorizing the use of this extraordinary remedy reveals that its application is rather broad but specifically limited to the use therein provided. There have been submitted to this court only two instances in which original quo warranto jurisdiction has been specifically conferred upon federal district courts. The revised statutes of 1878 vested jurisdiction in these courts of proceedings brought by the United States Attorney for the removal of persons holding office contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. Rev.Stat., Sections 563(14), 626(14), (1786). This Act was repealed in the Judicial Code of 1911, 36 Stat. 1168. In 1901, Congress specifically authorized the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to issue quo warranto in the name of the United States. Act of March 3, 1901, 31 Stat. 1419, Title 16, Section 1601 of the D.C.Code (1940). However, this grant is strictly limited and is confined solely to situations involving franchises and public offices held within the District of Columbia. There is no other specific statutory provision vesting original jurisdiction in the district courts in quo warranto actions.”

    http://openjurist.org/248/f2d/804


  332. Rich S,

    Another quick point before Vince takes you out to the woodshed. You seem to be implying that President Obama (or someone) committed election fraud. This is an unreasonable assertion without any kind of proof to back it up. Nate Silver (of fivethirtyeight.com), working from basically all of the polling data available (left, right, and center) was able to predict the national vote to within 0.1%. This implies that people voted pretty much how they said they would in polls – i.e. no indication of a significant number of fraudulent votes. If you are referring to the Democratic party certifying him eligible for the presidency, the proper procedures were followed by the party (just like they have been with every other president). The document posted on line is sufficient proof of his eligibility (have someone explain to you what prima facie evidence is), so no fraud was committed there. You birthers seem to think that if you can just clear the next hurdle (be it standing or justicability, or whatever) then the rest of the path will be cleared to oust President Obama from office. Well, in reality, the hurdles you’re having trouble with are the small ones – you have nothing to prove that President Obama was born outside of the US (which will get worse if judicial notice is taken of Hawaii’s records), a pathetically weak argument that whoever translated Vattel into english (a decade after the constitution was written) is the proper authority to define the term natural born citizen, and worst of all, the courts have no power to remove the sitting president of the United States (quo warranto or not). In response to your latest post, you should probably ask yourself if the Presidency is (legally speaking) included in “public offices held within the District of Columbia”. In any case, I’m sure Vince will be happy to clarify the matter.


  333. Rich S

    I had to read that a couple of times and I aint real good at legalese, I think thats short for lawyerin talk but it. Sounds good to me.

    Can I copy that or is that copyright protected? Everyone here knows how much I like to paste.


  334. Slartibartfast,

    An information on quo warranto is a challenge of the right to hold office. Election fraud and failure to qualify can both be reasons for bringing the action. Prima facie evidence is presumptive evidence. In a quo warranto action presumption is not sufficient.

    Burden in quo warranto proceedings:

    “Attention should be called to the fact that the ordinary rules as to the burden of proof do not apply in quo warranto proceedings. One who is exercising the privilege of a public office (Obama) is considered an usurper unless he can maintain his title; and in a proceeding by the public, the burden of showing his right to the office is cast upon the respondent. If the defendant (Obama) is unable to show good title to the office the people are entitled to a judgment of ouster. In quo warranto proceedings undertaken by the people the burden is so far cast upon the respondent that he cannot rely upon presumptions, but he must prove the continued existence of every qualification necessary to the enjoyment of the office. Although the proper official certificate is prima facie evidence of the election to an office, it is a familiar rule that the certificate and returns on which it is based are open to investigation and that judgment will be rendered according to real facts.”

    Your contention is that a Congress controlled by the President-Elect’s own party would be above the law. The qualifications of the President are not left to the discretion of Congress.

    “While it is true that the courts are without jurisdiction to review or in anywise disturb the action of the President or other public official in the exercise of official discretion, the courts are not without jurisdiction to review such action where a positive prohibition of law has been violated. If it were not so, then the President of the United States and the heads of the various departments of the Government would be above the law, and therefore free to violate it.”

    The Court would say the same about Congress. “No person except” sounds like a prohibition to me.


  335. Slart with the recent revelations of voting in NY-23, polling machines got infected with a virus. Maybe during the general election, the machines got a virus and it was put in there to hide the decline. Of course we’ll never know cause they probably threw the original data out.

    Question: if the state of Hawaii in fact holds president Obama’s birth certificate in accordance to state policy and procedures and it proves once and for all he was born in Hawaii and further more proves he is a natural born citizen.

    WHY NOT SHOW THAT ONE INSTEAD OF THE ONE ON THE INTERNET.

    Rich S, your free to copy that and paste it. I think thats a fair question, don’t you?

    67% “Yes” — 33% “No”

    http://www.sphere.com/2009/12/04/the-point-sarah-palin-flirts-with-birthers/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link6|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sphere.com%2F2009%2F12%2F04%2Fthe-point-sarah-palin-flirts-with-birthers%2F


  336. Rich S,

    If you want to play until Vince steps in, I’m game (at least for a while, then I’ve got to get some work done).

    You said:
    “An information on quo warranto is a challenge of the right to hold office. Election fraud and failure to qualify can both be reasons for bringing the action. Prima facie evidence is presumptive evidence. In a quo warranto action presumption is not sufficient.”

    You presume that quo warranto is valid against the President.

    You said:

    ‘Burden in quo warranto proceedings:

    “Attention should be called to the fact that the ordinary rules as to the burden of proof do not apply in quo warranto proceedings. One who is exercising the privilege of a public office (Obama) is considered an usurper unless he can maintain his title; and in a proceeding by the public, the burden of showing his right to the office is cast upon the respondent. If the defendant (Obama) is unable to show good title to the office the people are entitled to a judgment of ouster. In quo warranto proceedings undertaken by the people the burden is so far cast upon the respondent that he cannot rely upon presumptions, but he must prove the continued existence of every qualification necessary to the enjoyment of the office. Although the proper official certificate is prima facie evidence of the election to an office, it is a familiar rule that the certificate and returns on which it is based are open to investigation and that judgment will be rendered according to real facts.”‘

    So we agree that you’re not talking about voter fraud of any sort? And for the purposes of this remark, I’ll ignore the issue of whether or not quo warranto is applicable to the presidency. So President Obama would have to establish that he is a natural born citizen, which would require a) for him to provide the court with the document examined by fact check (which is valid prima facie evidence of US birth in the absence of contrary evidence – the difficult of providing this contrary evidence was discussed upthread and it’s hard to imagine that anyone has evidence that can outweigh the testimony of Hawaiian officials and the documents they maintain) and b) establishing that the circumstances of his birth make him a natural born citizen – which, as Vince has ably demonstrated here, they do. In short, what do you think will actually be accomplished by bringing a quo warranto action except to verify the president’s eligibility?

    You said:
    “Your contention is that a Congress controlled by the President-Elect’s own party would be above the law. The qualifications of the President are not left to the discretion of Congress.”

    I’m not sure where you get this, I think you may be misunderstanding something I said. Please clarify.

    You quoted:
    “While it is true that the courts are without jurisdiction to review or in anywise disturb the action of the President or other public official in the exercise of official discretion, the courts are not without jurisdiction to review such action where a positive prohibition of law has been violated. If it were not so, then the President of the United States and the heads of the various departments of the Government would be above the law, and therefore free to violate it.”

    Who are you quoting here? In any case, you cannot establish that a ‘positive prohibition of law has been violated’. Doesn’t that sort of put a hole in your argument?

    You said:
    “The Court would say the same about Congress. “No person except” sounds like a prohibition to me.”

    Yes, but it’s a prohibition that doesn’t apply to natural born citizens like Barack Obama.


  337. Bdaman,

    In regard to NY-23, you might have noticed that even the post & email dropped that story when it turned out to be baseless. (My favorite part was the uproar about there being more votes for coroner than for US representative without bothering to find out that voters were allowed to vote for two candidates for coroner.) In regard to the birth certificate – what is posted on the web is what you get when you ask Hawaii for proof of your birth. Neither you, nor any other birther has answered the question of why that isn’t sufficient proof. I answered your question (he has posted a reasonable response to questions about his birth), will you answer mine?


  338. Rich S. should be careful he yells “LIE.” I noted the exception.

    I wrote: “The Attorney General has not acted. The only possible (repeat, remotely possible) exception to this would require a party who has a claim to the office.”

    The statute allows an “interested person” to petition the court.

    Who is an interested person?

    In one of the cases that I read, a citizen challenged the appointment of one of the civilian commissioners of DC. (In those days, three Commissioners ruled the District, and one of them was a General in the Army Corps of Engineers). The citizen claimed that the Commissioner was not a resident of the District, as required by statute, and the statute did require residence. So he brought a quo warranto. But the case was dismissed, because the citizen was not an interested person, since he had no claim to the office. He would not have been entitled to it if the incumbent were tossed out.

    So, as I said above, I do not think that any of the auto dealers would be interested persons, since they have no claim on the Presidency.

    In general, the QW debate shows a blinkered reading of the Constitution. Article II, sec. 4 provided for removal of Officers of the United States. But it has to be read with other clauses.

    Judges hold office on “good Behaviour.” They have been removed throughout the history of the Constitution by impeachment, but there is no known instance of QW against a federal judge or Justice, because their tenure protects them.

    The President and Vice President hold office for four-year terms. This grants them tenure directly under the Constitution, subject only to removal on impeachment.

    The officers of the United States may be removed by the person who appointed them, that is the President, since the Myers case held the power of removal is incident to the power of appointment. But Congress did want the power to remove a corrupt officer who the President would not remove, so those officers can be impeached also.

    So where does this leave the right of persons other than the AG to bring quo warranto? It is a very limited power, applicable only to appointed nonjudicial and non-elected officials in the District.

    There is no know enumerated or implied power of Congress that could authorize it to pass a law allowing the President to be removed by a single judge and jury. Leo tried to tie it to the District of Columbia Clause, but that is ludicrous, since that clause grants only municipal powers over the seat of government, not the power to affect the National Government.

    The writ cannot be used under the Constitution to challenge the qualifications of a President, either before or after sworn in, because that function is textually assigned to the joint session of Congress presided over by the Vice President by the 12th Amendment. That is the constitutionally designated forum for challenges to the eligibility of the President.

    The determination of the joint session cannot be challenged in the courts. The Speech or Debate Clause expressly states that “for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.” Art I, sec. 5.

    The broad reading given by Leo and Rich S. would lead to totally contradictory results. The quo warranto cannot against a Member of Congress because each House is the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members. Each House can expel a Member with concurrence of two thirds. Yet Leo and Rich, to be consistent, would have to argue that a writ of quo warranto could supersede these express provisions and be used in any election challenge.

    Not one of the hundreds of election challenges in the entire history of the Congress has ever involved a quo warranto.

    So I will make my Written Legal Prediction ™©®:

    Application for writ of quo warranto against the President, dismissed.


  339. Slartibartfast,

    A quo warranto action would likely cause Obama to be forced to present a certified copy of his original birth record to the court. What happens from there will depend on what the information on the birth record reveals. Even if the court finds the birth record to be reliable, the relator with then ask the court to define the definition of natural born citizen.

    Ignore all the FactCheck and COLB hooplah. We’re talking quo warranto. FactCheck is not an authorized investigative agency, and the COLB, if presented, is subject to further inquiry. You must remember that in a quo warranto action the burden of proof falls completely on the respondent.

    “In any case, you cannot establish that a ‘positive prohibition of law has been violated’.” You’re getting the burden confused again. In almost all other cases the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. In this quo warranto case it would be up to Obama to demonstrate why his is to be considered a natural born citizen.

    Obama has the ability to request a certified copy of his vital records, and a judge can order the Hawaii DOH to release a certified copy of Obama’s vital records.

    Ҥ338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

    (b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record.”

    If you request a copy of your birth certificate the DOH will send you a COLB. That does not prevent you from viewing and obtaining a certified copy of the original vital records. Many countries do not accept a COLB as sufficient proof. Since they are not a state of the union, they are not bound by the full faith and credit clause.


  340. Vince,

    Nicely done, as usual. One question, though, how do you make the trademark and copyright symbols?

    Rich S,

    You can’t say I didn’t warn you.

    You don’t tug on Superman’s cape,
    You don’t spit into the wind,
    You don’t pull the hat off the ol’ Lone Ranger, and
    You don’t mess around with Vince.

    (Not on this thread, anyway.)

    Now can you see why we put more credibility in Vince’s analysis than we do yours? Do you understand how weak your arguments look when compared to his? You’re trying to stop a bullet with tissue paper and its going to end badly for you. My advice is to acknowledge that Vince is correct and regain a shred of credibility, because if you stay the course it’s all downhill from here…


  341. Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915)

    QUOTE FROM SYLLABUS BY THE COURT:

    Owing to the many reasons of public policy against permitting a public officer to be harassed with litigation over his right to hold office, Congress has not authorized, but has placed obstacles in the way of, a private citizen on his own motion to attack an incumbent’s title to office.

    Under the District of Columbia Code, a third person may not institute quo warranto proceedings without the consent of the law officers of the government and also of the Supreme Court of the District.

    The District Code makes a distinction between a “third person” and an “interested person” in maintaining quo warranto proceedings.

    While every citizen and every taxpayer is interested in the enforcement of law and in having only qualified officers execute the law, such general interest is not a private but a public interest, which is not sufficient to authorize the institution of quo warranto proceedings.

    The mere fact that one is a citizen and taxpayer of the District of Columbia does not make him an interested party who may maintain quo warranto proceedings against the incumbent of an office on the consent of the court, although the law officers of the government refuse such consent.

    An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive.

    Unless the right to maintain quo warranto proceedings under the District Code were limited to persons actually and personally interested, every officer attached to the government at Washington would be subject to attack by persons having no claim in the office or interest therein different from that of every other citizen and taxpayer of the United States.
    UNQUOTE

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/238/537/case.html

    So there is the case and the link. Read it for yourselves.

    I have made two separate arguments up above.

    First, based on Newman, neither Leo nor his auto dealers nor any other similar individuals have any statutory right to bring the writ in D.C.

    Second, even if someone (like a sitting Vice President of the United States, or an unsuccessful runner-up like John McCain) were to try it, the court would politely rule that the writ could not run to a President.

    Also, about that jury trial. I have been called for jury duty in that District Court. I would like to sit in on this one, but I would probably be discharged. And what kind of Alice in Wonderland Constitution would (1) deny District residents all representation in the National Legislature, but (2) empower a jury of 12 of its residents to depose the President?

    That is the plot of a bad SF story, not con law!


  342. on 1, December 6, 2009 at 4:39 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    Rich,

    As the childrens say, “You got served.”


  343. I go into Microsoft Word. I type a paren, then cap T and M, and then close the paren. Same deal with cap C and cap R:

    ™©®

    Then I copy and paste it here.


  344. Trademark: ALT 0153 (hold down the ALT key and type 0153 on the numeric keypad). Option-2 on the MAC™.

    Copyright: ALT 0169. Option-G on the MAC©.


  345. Rich S,

    It’s academic, in light of Vince’s response, but I’ll answer you anyway. Do you honestly believe that any court would question the COLB combined with the testimony of officials of the Hawaii DOH? (I’m assuming that they would be willing to say what they’ve already said on the record.) I think that in this hypothetical (which, as Vince pointed out, is all this will ever be) this evidence would be more than sufficient to satisfy the burden of proof, especially in the absence of any contradictory evidence. The Constitution is not on your side, the law is not on your side, the courts are not on your side, and reason is not on your side. Your continuing to pursue this indicates that you are either not intelligent enough to understand the issue or that you are so desperate to get President Obama removed (for whatever reason) that you are willing to violate the Constitution to do it.


  346. Vince Treacy said; “So where does this leave the right of persons other than the AG to bring quo warranto? It is a very limited power, applicable only to appointed nonjudicial and non-elected officials in the District.”

    The U.S. Supreme Court said; “An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive.”

    The Court indicates that the quo warranto statute applies to elected offices.

    Vince Treacy, If, after being sworn into office, it is proven that election fraud took place, and the occupant is not connected to the fraud, and the occupant refused to resign, are you suggesting that we live with it? The occupant would not be subject to impeachment, and Congress has already acknowledged that they lack the authority to review the election. If the occupant did not legally win the election, he has no right to title to the office.


  347. “A quo warranto action would likely cause Obama to be forced to present a certified copy of his original birth record to the court.”

    Slart, this assumes the action ever gets past a motion to dismiss under Rule 12, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth in Newman, it will never reach that point. The court will never reach the merits of the dual citizenship or two-parent theory, because the AG has not acted, and there is no interested party.

    The burden of proof will not arise, since a plaintiff has to establish jurisdiction before any proof is introduced.

    That stuff about the burden of proof will not arise, since no court will reach the merits. The theory Rich stated is based on a lot of state cases under state laws, but I doubt if there are any federal cases, and I doubt if a federal court would adopt that doctrine.


  348. I don’t disagree. I think an auto dealer will have trouble meeting the Court’s holding in Newman as an “interested person”.

    A military officer who received their commission from Barack Obama, would/should conform to the SCOTUS holding in Newman. (This only applies to our new officers, and only because they receive their commission from the President)

    Is the interest in the office personal? Yes. Much like Walpin would be considered to have a personal interest, because only a de jure President can fire him; only a de jure President can commission an officer.

    Newman: “While every citizen and every taxpayer is interested in the enforcement of law and in having only qualified officers execute the law, such general interest is not a private but a public interest, which is not sufficient to authorize the institution of quo warranto proceedings.”

    The officer commissioned by Barack Obama does indeed have an interest that is personal. If Barack Obama does not meet the qualifications set forth in Article II, he cannot perform the function set forth in Article II. The validity of the officer’s commission is personally and directly related to the legitimacy of Barack Obama.

    Newman: “An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive.”

    The interest of this commissioned officer is an interest in the office itself peculiar to the commissioned officer.

    Newman: “Unless the right to maintain quo warranto proceedings under the District Code were limited to persons actually and personally interested, every officer attached to the government at Washington would be subject to attack by persons having no claim in the office or interest therein different from that of every other citizen and taxpayer of the United States”

    The statute and the Court’s holding in Newman was intended to be limiting or restrictive, but not prohibitive.


  349. “If you request a copy of your birth certificate the DOH will send you a COLB. That does not prevent you from viewing and obtaining a certified copy of the original vital records. Many countries do not accept a COLB as sufficient proof.”

    This is the same old birhter misinformation regurgitated.

    The COLB is the only form now issued. At Dr. Conspiracy, richCares, who is Hawaiian, confirmed it. I posted this on the Sign of the Times thread:
    Q
    In 2001, Hawai’i’s paper documents were reproduced in electronic format but “any paper data prior to that still exists,” Health Department spokeswoman Okubo said.

    Okubo would not say where Obama’s original birth certificate is, but said “we have backups for all of our backups.”

    “Our Certificate of Live Birth is the standard form, which was modeled after national standards that are acceptable by federal agencies and organizations,” Okubo said. “With that form, you can get your passport or your soccer registration or your driver’s license.”UQ

    Everyone accepts the COLB. I have posted links and proof for this. Let Rich call DOH Monday morning and find out if they still give out the old forms.


  350. Rich S,

    Ow, that looked like it hurt! I’d put something on it right away before it swells up. Now we get to see if you’re man enough to admit when you are wrong or if you’ll ignore any attempt at reasonable debate like Bdaman or run away with your tail between your legs.

    Vince,

    I realize that quo warranto, which is why I noted that my comment was merely a hypothetical and would never be more. I most certainly do not doubt your trademarked prediction (thanks for letting me know how you did that – you too, Nal, I’m a MAC person, too). I do think that it is possible that in the run up to the 2012 election that a case will be heard (and lost) on the merits, so I think that pointing out there are bigger hurdles out there than the one that the bithers are tripping over now is relevant.


  351. Lot’s of luck on the arguments on quo warranto by military officers. They have no interest in occupying the office of President.

    They are going to lose just like Major Cook, and Captain Barnett, and Colonel Hollister, and Field Marshall Kerchner.

    Phil Berg and an associate are trying to file an amicus in the appeal Hollister v. Soetero. Expect a denial by the Court of Appeals any day now.


  352. “I don’t disagree. I think an auto dealer will have trouble meeting the Court’s holding in Newman as an ‘interested person’.”

    Bingo!


  353. Sorry, I meant to say: “I realize that quoro warranto wouldn’t work…


  354. Slart said “I do think that it is possible that in the run up to the 2012 election that a case will be heard (and lost).”

    Slart, it has already been heard and lost on the merits in the Court of Appeals in Indiana, a state appellate court that was not limited by the Article III restrictions on standing and Case or Controversy.

    The case was brought in a state court of general jurisdiction. It looked at all the arguments and dismissed them, and the appellate court affirmed. It has already been decided on the merits at least once.


  355. “Lot’s of luck on the arguments on quo warranto by military officers. They have no interest in occupying the office of President.”

    The holding in Newman does not require the to have an interest in occupying the office of President. If it did, the Court would have used the word “and”. But they didn’t. They used the word “or”.

    “claim in the office OR interest therein different from that of every other citizen and taxpayer of the United States. [emphasis added]


  356. BTW, to newcomers, JT is an authority on impeachment, and was a leading constitutional expert who testified during the 1990s on the Clinton case. The impeachment authority is powerful. If a sitting President had actually forged his birth certificate to conceal birth overseas, that would trigger an impeachment proceeding. So, there is a remedy. But this has not happened, so there will be no impeachment process.

    The other birfernotions, like dual citizenship and two-parent, are just crank constitutional “theories.” They are similar to the folks who say the President must be male because the Constitution says that “he” shall take the oath.

    If the birthers do not like it, put in a proposed amendment to require birth in the US to two citizen parents as a qualification for the Presidency.


  357. As I said, Rich, lot’s of luck. Gotta go.


  358. “If a sitting President had actually forged his birth certificate to conceal birth overseas”.

    In Obama’s case, for him to supply the State of Hawaii with a false birth report, filed on Aug. 8th 1961, would have been an incredible feat for a 4 day-old infant. If a false birth report was filed it would have had to be filed by a parent or adult relative. If the information contained in block 18a and 19a of the certificate of live birth on file with the DOH were to be released, this would answer the question.

    Does the public interest outweigh the privacy consideration? Who would be distressed by the release of this information?


  359. During the 2004 election for Senate, the MSM sued to have the divorce records of Jack Ryan unsealed.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2102872/

    “In keeping with prior rulings nationwide, the court concluded that the public’s right of access outweighed whatever emotional distress the unsealing might cause.”

    Did the MSM sue to find out who affirmed Obama’s birth? Would disclosure of the name of the person who affirmed Obama’s birth cause Obama such emotional distress that the public’s right of access should be denied?


  360. Question: if the state of Hawaii in fact holds president Obama’s birth certificate in accordance to state policy and procedures and it proves once and for all he was born in Hawaii and further more proves he is a natural born citizen.

    WHY NOT SHOW THAT ONE INSTEAD OF THE ONE ON THE INTERNET.

    I think thats a fair question, don’t you?

    67% “Yes” — 33% “No”

    http://www.sphere.com/2009/12/04/the-point-sarah-palin-flirts-with-birthers/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link6|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sphere.com%2F2009%2F12%2F04%2Fthe-point-sarah-palin-flirts-with-birthers%2F


  361. Elaine M

    you, as a retired teacher I was wondering, have you ever reviewed the books promoted by Kevin Jennings, the school Safety Czar appointed by Obama. There is a campaign that started today in quest of his immediate removal. Links to the books are located at the bottom of this open letter.

    http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=34977&section=Cathcom

    Some of the headlines that are burning up the internet are.

    Fistgate: Barack Obama’s Safe Schools Czar’s 2000 Conference Promoted “Fisting” to 14 Year-Olds (audio-video)

    Breaking: Obama’s Safe Schools Czar’s Question to 14 Year Olds: “Spit vs. Swallow?… Is it Rude?” (audio-video)

    Explosive: The not-safe-for-school reading list of the safe schools czar; Plus: GLSEN sponsors gay Santa play

    I wonder what was in the back of Obama’s mind when he appointed this child molester.


  362. Rich S. is the latest incarnation of Jim Byrne, he’s working hard to write differently but it comes through. Bdaman is as he says, just earning some money throwing up shit and hoping some of it stinks. Ib both instances we have moved far beyond the political and into the realm of “Wonderland” where down is up and up is down. We can argue with these fools forever and they will still lie and obfuscate. Hatred is a terrible thing and these two are filled with it.


  363. The cold storm system dropping from the northeast out of Canada will be unusual since the coldest temperatures will bypass Northern California communities such as Red Bluff and Redding but drop Sacramento Valley temperatures Monday to a record 27 degrees.

    That’s the coldest for Dec. 7 since the National Weather Service began tracking temperatures in Sacramento in1849.

    http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/2374422.html


  364. Hong Kong
    December 2, 2009
    Weather
    November coldest since 1981
    November was cooler than usual with a mean temperature of 20.5 degrees Celsius, 0.9 degrees below normal, the Hong Kong Observatory says.

    November 17 was the first cold day with daily minimum temperature of 12 degrees or below – the earliest winter since 1981.

    http://www.news.gov.hk/en/category/environment/091202/txt/091202en04004.htm


  365. Mike S.,
    You have more patience than I do trying to deal with trolls like Bdaman who do not work in the fact based world. This latest defamation of the Schools Czar is just outrageous. And to think Bdaman is getting some of this crap from a Catholic blog site is even more outrageous. Especially since the Catholic Church has such a clean history of dealing with the truth. Just ask all of those kids who were abused by priests who were hidden from law enforcement.


  366. Rafflaw

    Blame Bush


  367. Bdaman,
    Bush has already done his damage, but you are continuing the falsehoods for what possible reason? Are you well paid for your crimes against the country? What did the Nixon people call it during Watergate? Do you also get your kicks by ordering pizza’s under assumed names? Wouldn’t intentional lies be a mortal sin according to the Church? The good Benedictine Nuns always told me lying was a sin. Maybe the Pope can give you absolution since you are doing the Lord’s work….by Vatican and RNC standards at least.


  368. bdaman–

    I’m a retired teacher. I don’t spend my time reviewing books promoted by Kevin Jennings. I do spend time writing reviews of children’s books–especially poetry books–writing children’s poetry and political poems…and, most importantly, penning light verse about issues discussed on Professor Turley’s blog. JT is my muse.


  369. Elaine,

    I think most here would agree that penning light verse on issues from this blog is a much better use of your time than looking into anything that Bdaman posts. Maybe you could write a poem on the climate change emails for him. ;-)

    Bdaman,

    The temperature here has dropped significantly since nightfall, I guess the earth is cooling – at this rate we’ll be at absolute zero in a little over a month!


  370. Slatibart,
    I like your suggestion about the climate change emails. I will be watching for Elaine’s latest jingles!


  371. rafflaw–

    Don’t know if I’m up for ClimateGate email jingles. I just wrote a parody of The Jabberwocky–one more poem in my series of Turley Blog Competition Verses.

    You can read it at this posting–

    http://jonathanturley.org/2009/12/06/turley-blog-adds-cloaking-abilities-in-aba-competition/


  372. There’s no such thing as global warming–according to Tom Jones It’s Cold Outside!!!


  373. Elaine,
    Your poem was great. Let me know when the swords get here!
    By the way, I saw Tom Jones this summer at an outdoor venue North of Chicago. He was still great.


  374. Raff what falsehoods, prefer you say lies never liked hoods.

    Why yes Elaine, it is the childrens books promoted by Jennings I’m specifically talking about.


  375. The temperature here has dropped significantly since nightfall, I guess the earth is cooling – at this rate we’ll be at absolute zero in a little over a month!

    The question is, will this break any records.


  376. Like theses

    Snow and record cold Temps in Sacramento – 6 Dec 09

    Potential blizzards and record snows in CA, UT, CO, AZ, KS, NE, SD, IA, MN, IL,
    WI and MI – 6 Dec 09

    Massive snowstorm and brutal cold – 6 Dec 09

    Record low obliterated in Virginia”Old record of 18F set in 1969. New record of 11.3F last night – 6 Dec 09

    Earliest snowfall on record in Southwest Louisiana – 5 Dec 09


  377. Bdaman,
    Lies it is then. Your info on the so-called School Czar is full of lies. Of course, you already know that.


  378. bdaman

    FYI–Some excerpts from an AP article posted this morning:

    Decade of 2000s was warmest ever, scientists say (12/7/2009)
    By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent

    It dawned with the warmest winter on record in the United States. And when the sun sets this New Year’s Eve, the decade of the 2000s will end as the warmest ever on global temperature charts.

    Warmer still, scientists say, lies ahead.

    Through 10 years of global boom and bust, of breakneck change around the planet, of terrorism, war and division, all people everywhere under that warming sun faced one threat together: the buildup of greenhouse gases, the rise in temperatures, the danger of a shifting climate, of drought, weather extremes and encroaching seas, of untold damage to the world humanity has created for itself over millennia.

    ************
    The warming seas were growing more acid, too, from absorbing carbon dioxide, the biggest greenhouse gas in an overloaded atmosphere. Together, warmer waters and acidity will kill coral reefs and imperil other marine life — from plankton at the bottom of the food chain, to starfish and crabs, mussels and sea urchins.

    Over the decade’s first nine years, global temperatures averaged 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees F) higher than the 1951-1980 average, NASA reported. And temperatures rose faster in the far north than anyplace else on Earth.

    The decade’s final three summers melted Arctic sea ice more than ever before in modern times. Greenland’s gargantuan ice cap was pouring 3 percent more meltwater into the sea each year. Every summer’s thaw reached deeper into the Arctic permafrost, threatening to unlock vast amounts of methane, a global-warming gas.

    Less ice meant less sunlight reflected, more heat absorbed by the Earth. More methane escaping the tundra meant more warming, more thawing, more methane released.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/decade_s_end_climate


  379. on 1, December 7, 2009 at 9:46 am Buddha Is Laughing

    The phenomena is mislabeled. Not incorrect, just incomplete. It shouldn’t be called “global warming”. That’s inaccurate. It should be called “global thermocline instability”. Because that’s what global warming is. It isn’t “it’s going to be a mild winter!” It’s “we’re making the weather unstable.”


  380. Hasn’t been any warming since 1998, hide the decline.


  381. on 1, December 7, 2009 at 9:51 am Buddha Is Laughing

    Your propaganda hasn’t been working so hide the problem (systemic instability) in one data point (the most incomplete picture possible). Then apply with smears and distortions.

    Puppet.


  382. Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed “the coming ice age.”

    Random House dutifully printed “THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age.” This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported “many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age.”

    In 1974, the National Science Board announced: “During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age.”

    http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html


  383. bdaman:

    this one is for you:


  384. bdaman–

    What are the titles of the children’s books promoted by Jennings that your “specifically” talking about?


  385. Queer 13

    Being Different

    The Full Spectrum

    Revolutionary Voices

    Reflections of a Rock Lobster

    Passages of Pride

    The Order of the Poison Oak

    In Your Face

    Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son

    Love & Sex: Ten Stories of Truth

    This issue has nothing to do with gayness or straightness, which is irrelevant. The point proven here is that the GLSEN reading list promotes the sexualization of children in general, regardless of the “orientation.” Kevin Jennings is the founder of GLSEN and the School Safety Czar.

    And this is not about censorship: It’s about deciding what constitutes appropriate reading material for children. I’m perfectly OK with these books existing and being read by adults. These books are assigned to children. All sorts of books are excluded from school reading lists, for all sorts of reasons. Even many books once considered classics are now considered off-limits due to language or attitudes now deemed inappropriate. And yet, according to Kevin Jennings and GLSEN, books about a 13-year-old getting “my cock sucked and my ass fucked” or about a teenager enjoying the “exquisite bitter taste” of his friend’s semen are not just acceptable, they’re highly recommended. As GLSEN’s own site says, “All BookLink items are reviewed by GLSEN staff for quality and appropriateness of content.” Really?

    It is sick and sadisitic that these books are written to target children when they are most impressionable.


  386. Right back at ya Byron. Who would ever thought the USSR would break up. Think it can’t happen here, think again. Right here, right now.


  387. bdaman–

    I haven’t read any of these books. Are they books written for young adults…adults? The children’s books that I read and review are mostly picture and poetry book published for children in the elementray grades.

    Sorry, but I can’t give you my opinion of books that I have not read.


  388. on 1, December 7, 2009 at 10:50 am Buddha Is Laughing

    Neither can he, Elaine.


  389. The point proven here is that the GLSEN reading list promotes the sexualization of children in general, regardless of the “orientation.”

    The bigoted troll has found a new target in his neverending search to mouth the lies of his preferred party line. As usual it is nonsense. The States consisting of the Bible Belt continue to lead the nation in teenage pregnancy, STD’s and teenage sexuality. This despite the fact that they are the ones most pushing “abstinence education.” They also lead the nation in divorce rate.

    US history is replete with hypocritical con-men who provide cover in their ruses by claiming to protect children. High on the list of their
    weaponry is the utter nonsense that children are “innocent” sexually and are then polluted by adults. While there is a percentage of child
    sexual exploitation that exists and should be dealt with harshly, the majority of children find out about sex from their peers at an early age. This is because the sexual drive in humanity is so strong that even pre-teens and adolescents. However, the Fundamentalists must deny this as they turn Jesus teachings from their social direction, to those of Paul which focussed on the sexual so as not to upset prevailing power structures.

    Bdaman is “shocked” by Mr. Jennings and his daring to endorse adolescent books with sexual content, but he is perfectly content to have people die for lack of health care, in unneeded wars and because of corporate malfeasance. He is eagerly overly-enthusiastic about spouting the latest lies and propaganda of those who would destroy this country and the legitimacy of its political system. Whether he does this for pay, general stupidity, or his own proven bigotry almost becomes irrelevant, except to expose his own limited ability to think clearly.


  390. Spelling correction:

    “elementray” should have been spelled “elementary” in my comment today at 10:37 am.

    Mike S.–

    Well said.

    With subjects like teenage sex and global warming–there are those who prefer to bury their heads in the sand. Let’s not talk about taking precautions or using protection in sex ed–let’s tell kids to “just say no” in abstinence-only programs.

    Regarding global warming: I will repeat that I think it’s logical to conclude that our planet will grow warmer if we continue to increase the level of CO2 in our atmosphere. To me–it’s as simple as that.


  391. jonathanturley
    1, December 7, 2009 at 11:52 am
    BIL, Mike S and the others on this thread:

    I have to ask that we drop the personal stuff. There is simply no reason to personalize these comments. What makes this site unique is the civility that we maintain. I cannot follow all of the threads when I am busy raising pod people with Elaine (the soil maintenance alone is incredible). I just now saw that this got way out of line sometime back. Let’s end the thread and drop the personal stuff (unless it is about competing blogs of course).


  392. No, Im sorry Elaine, here is what they recommend

    The list is divided into three main categories: books recommended for grades K-6; books recommended for grades 7-12; and books for teachers. (The books on the list span all genres: fiction, nonfiction, memoirs, even poetry.)

    http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/booklink/K-6.html

    http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/booklink/7-12.html


  393. JT Said,

    You realize that some of us here have a fairly good memory? and that all of us have easy access to the original post by JT?

    It’s not a good idea to misquote something that everyone can and probably has read very recently.

    Makes you look less then honest.


  394. on 1, December 7, 2009 at 12:11 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    I think I’ll let the Prof speak for himself.

    He has no problem doing so. I’ve seen him do it. If the heat in this particular kitchen is too much for JTSAYS, you know how the saying goes . . .


  395. At least I’m not looking at it from behind.


  396. Bdaman is “shocked” by Mr. Jennings and his daring to endorse adolescent books with sexual content, but he is perfectly content to have people die for lack of health care,


  397. on 1, December 7, 2009 at 12:44 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    bdamook,

    1) You assume I’m homosexual. I’m not.

    2) You assume I’d be offended at being a homosexual. I’m not. Pairing off to bump unmentionables can be a ridiculous and frustrating enterprise or the best ride at the carnival regardless of gender or sexual orientation. People are funny that way. Funny as in peculiar.

    3) You assume your hatred is winning the day. It’s doing just fine at illustrating what you are. But winning? lol That’s just funny. Untrue too. I provided proof for my assertions. You? You flail about like a monkey with Tourette’s and revel that I was asked not to hurt you too badly. It’s entertaining, but as substantial as cotton candy.

    4) You assume. But unlike the old trope, only the speaker is making an ass of themselves in the instant case. On the plus side, you’re good at it.


  398. on 1, December 7, 2009 at 12:47 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    I’m even better at alliteration than you, Mr. Ass Joke.


  399. bdaman–

    I haven’t read many of the books on the K-6 list. Here are the titles of some of the ones that I have read. They are quality children’s books, which I have in my own personal library and would recommend to teachers and parents.

    – The Hundred Dresses was a Newbery Honor Award Book in 1945. It’s about classmates being unkind to a child who is poor…and about not standing up for what is the right thing to do.

    – The Story of Ferdinand, written by Munro Leaf & illustrated by Robert Lawson, is considered a classic.

    – The Recess Queen, And to Think That We Thought That We’d Never Be Friends, Chrysanthemum, Cherries and Cherry Pits, Yoko, The Van Gogh Cafe. Most of these books are about issues many children deal with during childhood–bullying, being teased, being different from other kids. They’re not just “message” books, they tell good stories.

    Have you read these books?


  400. on 1, December 7, 2009 at 6:26 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    Who dat say dat Greenhouse Gasses are bad for a body?

    The EPA. Dat who.

    Yeah, cheri. Science will put the gris-gris on you deniers!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20091207/climate-epa/

    Damn those pesky scientists and their facts! But don’t worry. Even Arthur Clarke said that science you are incapable of understanding may appear like magic, Lil’ Climate Deniers. So it’s still magical for your lot anyway.

    Kinda.


  401. JTSays,
    JT has also talked about the inappropriateness of bigotry and the use of the “NeT” to disclose personal facts about people. JT has said a lot, on many subjects, but you choose to quote a very few out of context. As for his raising pod people, I’d look in the mirror and see the greenish tinge of your skin and I know JT didn’t raise you.


  402. Orly Taitz has appealed to international law:

    QUOTES ON

    Geneva:

    Today the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has confirmed that American attorney Dr. Orly Taitz has applied for urgent action under the mandate for human rights defenders.

    Dr. Taitz, a well known Constitutional attorney, has been under increasing attack in the United States from groups and individuals opposed to her legal actions challenging the Constitutional qualifications of Barrack Hussein Obama to hold the office of President of the United States.

    The California attorney has been the victim of death threats, vandalism, false complaints, and a suspected assassination attempt. Her reports to law enforcement and the judiciary have been ignored.

    This office has been retained by Dr. Taitz to support her efforts for a UN investigation of her claims.

    For more information contact:
    Dr. Jonathan Levy
    Attorney
    1629 K Street NW Suite 300
    Washington DC 20006 USA
    UNQUOTE

    Orly’s lawyer’s full name is Jonathan Hans Levy.

    He says he is a graduate of William Howard Taft University. Wiki says that “William Howard Taft University is a private online university headquartered in Santa Ana, California. Founded in 1976 as a source of continuing education for certified public accountants (CPAs), the school expanded into a specialized distance education university that now offers multiple academic programs of study.”

    These online outfits may suffice to get someone into the California bar, but no other state recognizes them.


  403. Levy says that he is licensed in DC.

    Dist. of Columbia Active 2002 10/01/2009

    But DC does not license attorneys who are not graduates of accredited law schools.

    http://www.dcappeals.gov/dccourts/docs/rule46c3_admission_on_motion-without_exam.pdf

    An attorney can only be licensed in DC if she or he “has been awarded a J.D. or L.L.B. degree by a law school which , at the time of the awarding of the degree, was approved by the American Bar Association.”


  404. William Howard Taft University is not on the list of approved ABA law schools:

    http://www.abanet.org/legaled/approvedlawschools/alpha.html


  405. I am an Active Member of the D.C. Bar, admitted by examination in 1973, and a graduate of GW Law School (J.D. 1971), an accredited law school which boast Jonathan Turley as a member of it Faculty.

    I REALLY DO NOT LIKE THE FACT THAT AN UNACCREDITED LAW SCHOOL “GRADUATE” IS A MEMBER OF THE DC BAR.

    I went to the Find A Member page of the DC Bar and looked up Levy [you can look me up too, since it is a public website and public list]:

    http://www.dcbar.org/find_a_member/index.cfm

    Jonathan H Levy Ph.D.
    Attorney at Law
    37 Royal Pointe Dr.
    Hilton Head Island SC 29926

    Email: resistk@yahoo.com
    Phone: 202-318-2406
    Fax: 202-318-2406

    Membership Status: Active
    Disciplinary history: No
    Date of admission: February 11, 2002


  406. Dr. Jonathan Harris Levy
    1629 K Street NW Suite 300
    Washington, DC 20006
    (202) 318-2406

    Legal Experience: 17 years

    Law School: William Howard Taft University

    Jurisdictions: 9th Circuit, California, USDC ND CA, District of Columbia, U.S. Supreme Court, US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces , 11th Circuit, US Court of International Trade, England & Wales, 10th Circuit, USDC CD CA

    Dr. Levy is licensed in the US and England as an attorney and solicitor. He is on the faculty at two US graduate schools and instructs courses on Diplomacy and Law. Dr. Levy is considered one of the world’s leading experts on topics such as the Vatican Bank and Exile Governments. He is the author of a book on The Intermarium, a geopolitical plan for east central Europe.


  407. Jurisdictions

    Location Year Admitted

    9th Circuit 1992

    California 1992

    USDC ND CA 1992

    District of Columbia 2002

    U.S. Supreme Court 2002

    US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 2004

    11th Circuit 2005

    US Court of International Trade 2007

    England & Wales 2008

    10th Circuit 2009

    USDC CD CA 2009


  408. You can’t be a lawyer in DC unless you graduate from an accredited law school.

    I am interested in finding out the loophole in this case.


  409. D.C. Bar
    Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law

    Hours of Operation

    Mondays-Fridays: 9:00am-4:00pm
    Location

    Historic Courthouse
    430 E Street NW, Room 123
    Washington, D.C. 20001
    Main Contact

    Phone: (202) 879-2777


  410. Taft is not, and was not, accredited by ABA.



  411. As I said, I am interested in how a Taft grad got admitted.

    And I posted his entire screed at 6:49 PM

    We would all be interested in hearing from Dr. Levy at this site.


  412. A lot of stuff is being kicked back by the site robot.


  413. Levy links to the site for site for Brimstone & Co. QUOTE ON

    We Keep Our Heads While All Around Us Are Losing Theirs.

    Barrister, Solicitors, Advocates and Attorneys

    International Legal Consultants & Foreign Law Experts

    A Qualified International Law Firm


  414. Brimstone? DC and NIGERIA? An unaccredited law grad admitted to practice law in DC? What is this stuff? You can’t make it up.

    This has been another newsbreak exclusive to the Turley Blog.
    ©™®


  415. Foreign laws and litigation are no problem with the expert help and assistance available from Brimstone & Co. No longer is it necessary to blindly engage foreign legal counsel that has no stake or care if you win or lose. In today’s volatile economy there is no margin for errors or mistakes. Out moded ways, Dickensian law offices, and obtuse attorneys no longer need be tolerated. We speak your language, the lingua franca of winning not billing. We are a post modern firm that makes use of 21st Century advances in legal technology and knowledge to provide you an eclectic array of services and expertise.

    Let Brimstone & Co. be your partners in mastering foreign law issues including:

    Offshore Finance

    Defaulted Bonds or Debt Instruments

    Asset Recovery

    International Organizations and Tribunals

    Complex Transnational Litigation

    International Criminal Defense

    Asset Protection

    Corporate Structures

    Anti Money Laundering

    and many more…

    BRIMSTONE & CO. is a multijurisdictional law firm – primary licenses in Washington DC and Nigeria.


  416. William Howard Taft University School of Law (Santa Ana, CA)

    Note: law school alumni counts are based only on data provided to Avvo by lawyers and state bars. This data does not reflect all graduates from each school.
    Summary

    Total Alumni 105
    Active 95
    Inactive 10
    Deceased 1
    Judges 0
    Disciplinary Sanctions 0
    Average Avvo Rating 6.14


  417. “Taft Law School, through The Taft University System, is institutionally accredited by the Accrediting Commission of the Distance Education and Training Council.”

    http://www.taftu.edu/TLS/gi4.htm

    The law school’s own site. Go find the ABA accreditation.

    Anywhere.


  418. Bye. Be back.


  419. Vince are you getting discarded notices when you try to post


  420. I added dot. won’t let me post link as copied

    http://www.avvodotcom/attorneys/20006-dc-jonathan-levy-705127.html

    50% International Law
    14 years, 120 cases (5 examples)
    25% Criminal Defense
    19 years, 300 cases
    25% Administrative Law
    17 years, 500 cases


  421. Vince:

    as an engineer some states will grant licensure based on time worked if you don’t go to an accredited school. It typically takes 4 years of practice after college but say you went to a technical college they may make you work for 8 or 10 years after school before they allow you to take your PE test. That may be the loop hole or something similar.


  422. The rules for lawyers are different from those for engineers.

    I posted the rule for lawyers in DC above.

    The DC Bar was created by the law in 1970 called Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act.

    The first class under the new bar was sworn in 1973, and I was in it, so by happenstance I have been a member of the DC Bar for its entire existence.


  423. I think you should contact them and ask them WTF.


  424. on 1, February 22, 2010 at 8:46 pm Anonymously Yours

    Bdaman,

    I am sure that they can help get you in contact with a relative of the prince of the Sahara Desert that has 450 million and will share the same with you but needs an advance of 5k.


  425. Oh , hi AY. How you been buddy. How’s the snow goin in Tex-Ass


  426. To the lawyers and nonlawyers reading this, I want to explain the the DC Bar is an “integrated” bar. That means that its membership is not volutary. Anyone who wants to practice law in DC must be a member. I am also a member of the Virginia State Bar, which is similar.

    The DC Bar differs from the state bars in that it was created by Congress, not by a State, under the District Clause of the Constitution. It allows attorneys from other states to waive in if they have been admitted to another state for five years, or have taken a bar exam. The requirement for law school graduation was intended to ensure a minimum level of competence to protect the public.

    There appears to be a loophole that let this guy Levy in, based on at least five years of membership in the California Bar, which allows correspondence and online students like Orly to take the bar. It is a disgrace that this guy was licensed. He has now filed a totally frivolous and unfounded document with a foreign body. It will be dismissed and ignored in short order.

    Nothing adverse has happened to Orly except in her own mind. She has filed repeated unfounded lawsuits which have all been properly dismissed. She has full opportunity to appeal those adverse rulings. She faces proceedings before the CA Bar before the end of the month.

    Orly has also filed a proceeding in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. She filed it pro se, that is, on her own behalf with herself as plaintiff, so that she does not have to be a member to the DC Bar. It purports to be a quo warranto proceeding. It is another frivolous and incoherent filing.


  427. We all came out of Africa so they are all our relatives.


  428. Now there is an online source for Orly’s quo warranto:


  429. “she’s demanding that the court force Obama to turn over all his records–from the long-form birth certificate, high school files, passport applications, etc.–by a specific deadline: Feb. 26. Why that day? Orly explains:

    In Georgia Presiding judge Clay D. Land tried to intimidate Taitz and stop her from filing any more legal actions against Obama by threatening $10,000 sanctions if she files any more legal actions on behalf of members of the military against Obama.
    When Taitz filed a motion for stay of deployment of her client Captain Connie Rhodes, pending re-consideration of her case, Judge Land has assessed $20,000 against her and has written a denigrating order.
    Order from Judge Land was forwarded to the CA bar and her answer is due by February 26.”

    See the full story at the EXCELLENT Native and Natural Born Citizen site:

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/ocweekly-orly-taitz-in-danger-of-disbarment/

    So Orly must answer to the CA Bar by the end of February.


  430. Vince have you looked at the cases Levy has argued?

    View case details
    Levy v. CIA
    July 15, 2001

    Location:
    Cincinnati, OH

    Practice Area:
    International Law

    Plaintiff (Jonathan’s party):
    Jonathan Levy In Pro Se

    Outcome:
    Declassification of secret files by CIA and Army

    Description:
    The Freedom of Information case filed by Levy was transferred from San Francisco federal court to Cincinnati. “…

    Levy v United States Postal Service

    Location:
    Washington, DC

    Practice Area:
    International Law

    Plaintiff (Jonathan’s party):
    Jonathan Levy obo Client

    Outcome:
    Investigation for Terrorism Closed, File Obtained

    Description:
    Client was accused of sending three white powder anthrax letter death threats from England to law enforcement officials in California. Freedom of…

    Rhodes v. MacDonald

    Practice Area:
    Appeals

    Other (Jonathan’s party):
    Dr. Orly Taitz

    Outcome:
    Pending in 11 th Circuit

    Description:
    Appeal of Rule 11 sanctions against leading public interest attorney Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq by the Middle District Court of Georgia.


  431. The AVVO gives him a Rating: 7.4 (Very Good) Is there any weight to that rating?


  432. The link above was to Orly’s (frivolous) motion for preliminary injunction.

    This is her (frivolous and incoherent} quo warranto and mandamus:

    http://files.onset.freedom.com/ocregister/news/2010/01/orly2.pdf

    I rest my case.


  433. Bda, get real. The case of Rhodes v. McDonald that you list in that posting was and is a galloping disaster. I predicted a dismissal of that case, in writing, on this website. The case was dismissed, Connie Rhodes fired Taitz, Taitz was fined $20,000, and she faces a bar hearing in CA on Feb. 26. If this is a “success,” for Levy, then nothing can ever be a failure.


  434. I just posted that he is representing her appeal in the Rhodes case and it appears he has far more court room experience than she does. Nothing more, nothing less. I’m just as curious as you are to why he is licensed in the DC Court if he fails to meet the qualification. Maybe professor Turley knows. I suggested that you being a member that you call to find out. Please let us know what you find.

    The issue is still alive.

    http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100219/NEWS01/2190362/Hawaii+gets+persistent+requests+for+Obama+birth+certificate


  435. The Hawaiian officials are being persistently harassed by legions of birthers. The official are doing their jobs and apply the law.

    The appeal is going to lose, no matter how much courtroom experience that Dr. Levy has. The D.C. Bar has chosen to adopt a rule and to admit to practice a person who never went to law school. He is just a guy who took “distance learning” and passed a bar exam. I don’t like it, but that is their policy.

    His appeal to Geneva has no basis in law or fact. That body has no jurisdiction in the United States. This is not the practice of law.

    It is a publicity stunt.


  436. on 1, February 22, 2010 at 11:28 pm Former Federal LEO

    I betcha’ you cain even get an advanced degree in Taf(f)t(y) pullin’ at that institute of ‘hire’ learnin’

    Quote:

    “5. Q. I’m a current law student. Will the accreditation allow me to take the bar examination in states other than California?
    A.

    Unfortunately, no. Outside of California, qualification to sit for the Bar Examinations is generally based on graduation from an institution approved by the American Bar Association.

    The ABA has chosen not to review its ban on approving distance education courses which goes back to the 1950’s. In our opinion, ABA approved schools realize if they allow distance education to expand nationally they will not be able to continue to justify the tuition rates for Juris Doctor programs which average in excess of $80,000 nor the faculty salaries which often exceed $100,000 per year. In addition, most state bar associations are controlled by attorneys who desire to limit the number of attorneys in their state. Attorney admittance to bars outside of California is more of a political issue relating to limiting competition rather than any concern for consumer protection. Don’t expect any change in these rules in the foreseeable future.

    However, even under current rules, California attorneys who have practiced in California for a certain period of time become eligible to sit for the Bar examination in many states even without graduation from an ABA approved law school. California attorneys can also qualify to sit for the Wisconsin Bar examination immediately upon being admitted in California.

    Some Taft law graduates have been admitted to and graduated from Master of Laws (LL.M.) programs at law schools approved by the American Bar Association. Accreditation will make this process easier. Graduation from such programs may qualify individuals to sit for the bar examination in a majority of states.”

    End Quote


  437. Thanks, FFLEO. That is a very telling quotation.


  438. on 1, February 23, 2010 at 7:39 am Buddha Is Laughing

    FFELO,

    Aye, seconded on Vince. Great find.


  439. And this is from poster Terrible Tom at DailyKos, Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 05:42:37 PM PST:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/22/839675/-Crazy-Orly-asks-UN-for-protection-from-persecution

    “And leave it to the Rt. Hon.* Dr. Jonathan Levy, Esq. to do the heavy shoveling here. It’s hardly surprising that Orly and Levy are fellow graduates of the Taft Online Skool of Legalistic Incantations and Ideations, is it?”

    “__ * Honorific prefix in deference to Dr. Levy’s purpoted high status as an important government official for the non-existent Republic of Calinda. Two peas in a pod.”

    Pardon me, Right Honorable JH Levy. Art thou properly addressed as “Your Worship”?

    There must be something in a Taft Law degree if it can propel one into the highest ranks of the Republic of Calinda.


  440. on 1, February 23, 2010 at 8:04 am Buddha Is Laughing

    From the article Vince linked:

    “I’m with Dave Weigel of the Washington Independent, who notes that ‘the irony of Taitz appealing to the hated organ of world government for this really goes without saying.’ And don’t think her quickly dwindling number of supporters haven’t noticed; even the Freepers have had enough of this lunatic, with one former supporter noting, ‘Uh oh. Crossing now into coocoo land.'”

    This thread is a comedy gift that just keeps on giving!


  441. Right, BIL.

    Orly has appealed to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

    Let us pause and relish this classic example of George Orwell’s concept of “double think.” That, of course, is “The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

    The person must hold positions that are mutually exclusive. She must believe in both concepts passionately and fervently. SHE MUST BE TOTALLY UNAWARE THAT THE BELIEFS ARE INCONSISTENT AND CONTRADICTORY.

    Now we have Orly Taitz, the “crusader” who passionately believes that the President is not a natural born citizen, and that he must be exposed and deposed to prevent “foreign” influence in the United States.

    What does she do? She appeals to a foreign body, inviting it to attempt to interfere and disrupt a lawful national election. What does she expect the UN Office to do? Will it send “peacekeeping” troops in blue helmets and black helicopters to order the President to step down because he is not American enough? Will it reverse the court decisions that have ruled against her? Will it shove the entire US law enforcement establishment aside to investigate her “harassment” charges and punish the wrongdoers?

    The UN will do all of this to ensure that the US President is “natural born” in the twisted minds of the birfers?

    Yeah, sure, right.

    Taitz and her lawyer, the Right Honorable Doctor Jonathan Hans Levy, are both grads of Taft Law School.

    Was there ever a better argument for the ABA to accredit law schools,and for bar associations to prohibit grads of online or correspondence schools from admission?

    Mutually contradictory beliefs. Passionate belief in both. Total ignorance of the conflict.

    As Kurt Vonnegut might have said, Orwell is up in heaven, smiling this morning.


  442. Fast Forward to the 38 minute mark.

    Miki Booth, originally from Hawaii, is running for the U.S. House of Representatives in Oklahoma’s second district.

    Booth presented a Certificate of Live Birth from 1949, in which her husband was born at Kapi-olani Hospital, 12 years before Obama’s alleged birth — in Kenya, in Indonesia, in Queen’s, and finally at Kapi’olani — showing that the state of Hawaii issued LONG FORM CERTIFICATE’S OF LIVE BIRTH in 1949.
    In 1949, Kapiolani was listed on the Certificate of Live Birth as Kapiolani Mat. & Gyn. Hospital at 1929 Vancouver Drive, which is the previous Kapi-olani address in existence when Barack was allegedly born in 1961, not quite a mile to the East of the current Kapiolani Hospital built in the 1970s. Yet, Obama and his sister Maya conflictingly and at different times, released that Barack was born in Queen’s as well as Kapi’olani, despite Queen’s being 1.6 miles away.

    http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/291974-1


  443. bd, you have posted this misinformation before. It has been rebutted. You are still wrong. There were two hospitals in Honolulu named for Queens. Obama and his sister have consistently said that he was born at Queen Kapi’olani’s hospital.

    His sister NEVER said that he was born at the other Queens hospital. I proved to all here that the source of that factoid was a statement by a high school reporter in a Rainbow newsletter, not a quotation by Obama’s sister.

    The stuff in the post is not apparent on the link to C-SPAN’s coverage of the tea-baggers. The tea-baggers would be very ill advised to embrace this birther nonsense.

    Hawaii stopped issuing the “Certificates” in 2001 when they converted the system. Any and ALL persons who request a copy of their birth records in that State today are issued a “Certification” or COLB, just like the one issue to Obama.


  444. Under federal law, the COLB meets all the requirements of a valid birth certificate.

    To the lawyers reading this, there is, in fact, a federal statutory definition of the term “birth certificate.” It is in Section 7211 of Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-434, 118 Stat. 3825, Dec. 17, 2004.

    The definition in section 7211(a) has been codified as a note following Title 5, United States Code, section 301 (5 U.S.C. 301 nt.):

    http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title5/5usc301.html

    The definition reads:
    “(3) Birth certificate.–As used in this subsection, the term
    `birth certificate’ means a certificate of birth–
    “(A) of–
    “(i) an individual born in the United States; or
    “(ii) an individual born abroad–
    “(I) who is a citizen or national of the United States at
    birth; and
    “(II) whose birth is registered in the United States; and
    “(B) that–
    “(i) is a copy, issued by a State or local authorized
    custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth
    issued by such custodian of record; or
    “(ii) was issued by a State or local authorized
    custodian of record and was produced from birth records
    maintained by such custodian of record.

    Under this definition, the COLB is a “birth certificate.” It is a “certificate of birth” issued to “an individual born in the United States” who is a “citizen or national of the United States at birth” and whose “birth is registered in the United States,” and that certificate “was issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record and was produced from birth records maintained by such custodian of record.”

    The same definition can be found in Public Law 104-208, sec. 656, 110 Stat. 3009-716 through 110 Stat. 3009-720, Sep. 30, 1996:

    http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/legal/statutes/pl104_208.pdf


  445. “…Obama’s alleged birth — in Kenya, in Indonesia, in Queen’s, and finally at Kapi’olani….”

    Three lies in 12 words.

    Obama’s birth in Kenya is a false allegation.

    Obama’s birth in Indonesia is a false allegation.

    Obama’s birth at Queen’s is a false allegation.

    The truth is that Obama was born in the State of Hawaii, USA, in 1961 at the major maternal hospital named for Queen Kapi’olani.

    The truth is the Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States.

    The truth is that Obama is the President of the United States of America.


  446. I’m just messin with ya Vince, if I didn’t post the stuff I do we wouldn’t have your excellent rebuttals.


  447. Obamas Nana falsely reported his birth in Hawaii. Nothing that has been presented refutes that.


  448. on 1, February 23, 2010 at 7:53 pm Anonymously Yours

    Hooch,

    Been smokin again? How do you refute the proposition that you presented? Prove to me that you are not from the planet Xenos? I would like proof positive by the end of the evening….


  449. Hooch, this is a legal site, where the burden of proof is on the proponent.

    You asserted that the grandmother falsely reported.

    Now prove it.

    Otherwise, we will conclude that your assertion is false.

    There is no proof of this assertion. It is just an assertion, and nothing more.


  450. Dick Cheney has been eating paint chips again. Now he is in the hospital. Nothing that has been presented refutes that.


  451. on 1, February 23, 2010 at 8:42 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    Hooch,

    Really, man. If you have had so much to drink you think that you’re a time traveling auntie-psychic, it’s time to lay off the booze. But while you’re mind reading, how about getting her biscuit recipe?

    Unless you’re that dead dog from that crappy Tom Hanks movie.

    Which would go a long way to explaining your logic – such as it is.

    One usually has to be a dead dog to perform analysis with such concision and clarity. I have it on good authority that one of the reasons Vince has been so effective in dismantling all the ridiculous birther claptrap is because he is in fact a zombie Great Dane channeling the sprit of Justice Learned Hand. Hey, if you’re going to make shit up, go all out!

    Hmmm. On second thought, no. It must be the booze, because Vince has quite throughly proven this line of “reasoning” vis a vis Obama’s birth status to be hokum used to cover thinly veiled racism. He did so with logic, law and precision analysis.

    Over and over again.

    Hell, even the pet troll knows this dog doesn’t hunt anymore.

    I think Obama is an unconstitutional war criminal protecting other war criminals out of fear of his corporate masters as he is a fascist and a liar with no interest in protecting the Constitution. At this point he deserves impeachment as much as Bush and Cheney still merit criminal charges. If my daughter brought him home, I’d be PISSED. Not because he’s black though. Not because he’s not a citizen of the United States either. But rather because he has all the good character and ethics of a cheap hooker and a spine made of jello.

    But Barry IS a citizen.

    A lying paid off K Street whore and an amoral torture endorsing douche bag of a citizen, but he is an American douche all the way. Just like Cheney.

    By the way, I have some beach front property in Arizona you might be interested in buying if you still believe the birther nonsense. It comes with a free winning Nigerian lottery ticket and an offer for “male enhancement”.


  452. ec, good one.

    Continuing the post, the Certification of Live Birth issued to Obama states that it is prima facie evidence of his birth. That means that it is evidence on its face of his birth, unless and until rebutted by probative, admissible evidence to the contrary.

    Under Article IV of the US Constitution, all States must give full faith and credit to the public records of the other States. So the evidence of the COLB binds all the other States.

    Article IV goes on to say that Congress may by law prescribe the Manner in which such records shall be proved.

    Congress has passed such a law prescribing the requirements of a valid birth certificate or record. It is posted in full above.

    The Constitution is on the web.

    So the laws and Constitution of the State of Hawaii and of the United States say that Obama’s birth certification is valid.

    Enough said.


  453. Troll Buster on another thread has called me out. Out of respect for Mr. Treacy and his reemergence as of late,

    QUOTE ON

    We also maintain that Obama has failed to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii by publicly presenting a copy of a contemporaneous birth certificate, a long-form birth certificate providing the name of the hospital in which he was born and other corroborating data which was generated when he was born in 1961 and not simply a digital image of computer generated Certification of Live Birth [COLB] allegedly obtained from the Hawaii Department of Health in 2007 which some unknown person posted on the internet in 2008, or other contemporaneous and objective documentation. At the bottom of Obama’s Certification of Live Birth (COLB), it states: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” Under the concept of prima facie evidence, the presumption that the fact exists fails when evidence contradicting that fact is presented and in such case the interested party needs to present other competent evidence to prove the existence of that alleged fact. If he fails to do so, the alleged fact is not proven, even if the opposing party produces no further evidence. There exists a considerable amount of evidence which puts serious doubt on Obama’s allegation that he was born in Hawaii. To date, Obama has presented no additional evidence other than the internet image of his Certification of Live Birth (COLB) and two unreliable newspaper announcements regarding where he was born. Hence, the prima facie validity of the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) must fail and Obama should be compelled to produce other objective, credible, and sufficient evidence of where he was born such as a contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961. Having failed to meet his constitutional burden of proof under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, we cannot accept Obama as a “natural born Citizen.”

    Mario Apuzzo

    QUOTE OFF

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/


  454. Bdaman quoting Mario Appuzo:

    “Under the concept of prima facie evidence, the presumption that the fact exists fails when evidence contradicting that fact is presented”

    And where is the contrary evidence that has been presented to (and admissible in) court?


  455. Appuzzo lost his case in trial court. He is appealing, and “won” the right to file an overlong brief. He is going to lose on appeal.

    HAWAIIAN OFFICIALS HAVE STATED IN OFFICIAL STATEMENTS ISSUED BY THE STATE AND POSTED ON THE THAT THEIR RECORDS SHOW THAT OBAMA WAS BORN IN THAT STATE.

    So when Mario says they have “presented no additional evidence” of Obama’s birth in the USA, Mario is telling a barefaced lie.

    Sorry to let some reality intrude on this fantasy world.

    Go see Avatar for good speculative fiction.


  456. Slart, there is no competent, probative evidence to the contrary, in court or anywhere else.

    There is only speculation, innuendo, suspicion, paranoia, and falsehoods.

    Bd was very, very excited about the Kenyan birth certificates. They are proven forgeries. Bd has never admitted it.

    Pathetic.


  457. Vince,

    I know that, I was just making a point to Bdaman. The return of your Dr. Orly updates are most welcome, thanks.


  458. Slart I’m just giving Vince something to debate. He hasn’t been around for a few months and he has just reemerged the last week and a half. Point taken


  459. How amusing (and chilling) it was too see yet more copious postings on this zany topic as I return from my foray in the frozen North. I must add some discord though by commenting on the fact that a recent poll shows that a majority of Republicans do believe that our President is not a citizen. So whether or not the horrid Ms. Taitz has lost her following becomes irrelevant, she has succeeded in her cause. Goebbels was right in believing that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes “fact” to many, despite the ridiculousness of the claim.

    Vince, who has done great work in destroying the factual basis for these claims has failed in this one respect. His intelligence, research and reason does nothing to destroy the impervious shell of the ignorant mind. In this case I have longed believed that this ignorance is born from two separate, but equally noxious strains of US political discourse. One is of course a deep set racism, that on its surface is denied by its believers and camouflaged minimally by those realizing that racism may be held but not named.

    The other noxious strain is the result of forty years of propaganda backed by the coalition of patricians and corporatists, who have convinced a healthy percentage of the population that “freedom” equates to the control of the elite and the ability to choose between competing products. Literally billions have been spent in this exercise of the “Big Lie” and it has corrupted our political debate by turning relatively neutral words into anathema, thus skewing the debate by controlling its parameters.

    FFLEO’s quote:

    “The ABA has chosen not to review its ban on approving distance education courses which goes back to the 1950’s. In our opinion, ABA approved schools realize if they allow distance education to expand nationally they will not be able to continue to justify the tuition rates for Juris Doctor programs which average in excess of $80,000 nor the faculty salaries which often exceed $100,000 per year. In addition, most state bar associations are controlled by attorneys who desire to limit the number of attorneys in their state. Attorney admittance to bars outside of California is more of a political issue relating to limiting competition rather than any concern for consumer protection. Don’t expect any change in these rules in the foreseeable future.”

    This I believe to be completely accurate in its accusations and yet I must come down on the side of the ABA and “the powers that be.” Were this not true our legal system, which has been bastardized and corrupted, would function even worse. Here down South a traffic ticket brings a minimum of 30 or so brochures from lawyers offering to defend the case for as little as $65. One can easily believe, given the horrid record of drivers from these parts, that the entire enterprise is little more than a con game with all controlling parties in on the action and little regard for the safety of roads and/or citizens.

    Make it easier to become a lawyer and we will have a system that acts more as a “bird of prey” picking citizen’s carcasses and less a means of dispensing anything resembling justice.


  460. Nope Nana falsely reported his birf. Cause she did the DOH reported it to the newspapers. It can be proved by looking at the birf certificate. Viola no doctor or hospital. Nana was gonna tell the truth. That is why she died just before the election.

    The CPGH Kenya birf certificate is real. It is not a forgery. Mombasa was a brittish protectorate of kenya. The doctor was living in Mombasa in 1961. The hospital did exist when he was birfed. People saying the mombasa birf is a forgery are lying.


  461. Hey Slart off topic

    U.N. Climate Panel to Announce Significant Changes

    The panel says it will announce “within the next few days” that it plans to make significant though as yet unexplained changes in how it does business.

    In perhaps an indication of what changes the IPCC may unveil, the British government’s official Meteorological Office proposed Monday that the world’s climate scientists start all over again on a “grand challenge” to produce a new, common trove of global temperature data.

    So much for peer reviews and global temps.


  462. “Nope Nana falsely reported his birf.”

    Hooch,
    Thank you for proving my point so accurately and completely. you have done a great service and exemplify the kind of person who has
    had so much sway in our national political debate.


  463. Urban Dictionary

    Birf:

    A word that was invented to replace the new meaning of the word “gay” (stupid, dumb, etc. NOT HOMOSEXUAL).

    Example 1: Sheesh, Hooch can be such a birf.

    Example 2: A: sometimes Hooch can be so gay.

    B: Don’t you mean birf?


  464. So if I am not hooch, does that mean that my cousin amon re is still gay homosexual male? It seems that this is redundant don’t you agree?

    I Know Hooch, I have seen Hooch smoke, Hooch is not as bad when he smokes hooch but damn mean when he drinks ethylene.


  465. Wow, this is amazing! The ABA Journal has to ask “Are Ghostwritten Legal Blogs Unethical?”
    Quotations on:
    Posted Feb 23, 2010 11:03 AM CST
    By Molly McDonough

    When we asked late last year whether you thought it was ethical for lawyers to ghostwrite legal documents, the results were mixed. With more than 800 readers weighing in (PDF), 60 percent answered that ghostwriting is ethical and happens all the time. Only 14 percent thought it was akin to cheating.

    Then earlier this month, we reported on a stir in the legal blogosphere over ghostwritten law blogs.

    Mark Bennett wrote on his Social Media Tyro blog that, “holding someone else’s resumé, face, or results out as your own in marketing your practice is fraudulent. No ethical lawyer could possibly think that any of that would be OK. So how is it OK for a lawyer to hire a ghostwriter to write his blog?”

    But others have pointed out that lawyers have long relied, without disclosure, on marketing experts to come up with strategies and content for advertising campaigns.

    This made us wonder what you think. Is ghostblogging unethical? Does it matter what kind of blog is being produced? Is it OK if there’s disclosure? Unquote.

    Source: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/are_ghostwritten_legal_blogs_unethical


  466. Mark Bennett broke the story:

    Rent-A-Brain With Ghostbloggers
    Posted on January 28th, 2010 4 comments
    Quotation starts
    Lawyers: want to juice your stats a little so that clients are more likely to hire you? Have we got a deal for you! GhostWins.com has a stable of excellent but self-effacing lawyers who are willing to let you take public credit for their results. Here’s how it works: you sign up for GhostWins.com, paying $250 per month for syndicated results (which other lawyers might also take credit for) or $500 per month for personalized results. Every week we’ll send you three or four actual successful outcomes in your field of law, which you can then publicize on your website or blog as your own successful outcomes. We all know how potential clients love lawyers who win; with GhostWins.com you create the appearance of being such a lawyer without putting in the many hours of hard work (not to mention good luck) required to win your own cases. Stop quoting.

    Source: http://www.ivi3.com/blog/2010/01/rent-a-brain-with-ghostbloggers/

    This stuff is great for Taft Law grads like Taits and J. Hans Levy. Taitz seemed to be using a lot of material written for her by her “paralegal” and paramour assistand, Charles Lincoln III. The quality of her filings dropped like a stone when they broke off their fling.

    Mike Spindell, I agree with the need for accredited law schools. The distance learning crowd can pad their resumes with distance writing.


  467. Empire Cookie, right, the Urban Dictionary is an excellent site.

    It is very clear on this distinction: A “birf” is as described above, but it is a lot different from a birfer and the birfers. They are another breed of cat.

    This is not going to help NoProof Hooch.


  468. Slart, I knew that you knew that.

    Accept my congratulations for your superhuman efforts on the 911 “Truthers” over at the 120 Percent site.

    There is no hope of convincing the true believers. We can only set out the relevant evidence for the vast, reasonable majority.


  469. on 1, February 24, 2010 at 1:58 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    Vince,

    While I will stipulate there are “birthers” and “truthers”, there is an important distinction. There are basically only two kinds of birther – the believers and the non-believers. Your work on this thread adequately established beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama’s BC is sufficient legal evidence.

    In re the WTC, there is a third category of participant: skeptic. While both “truther” believers and non-believers are represented on that thread, it should be acknowledged there is at least one skeptic there – namely me. I’ve stipulated that Slarti has made a reasonable case. I have also stated it is incomplete – as is Bob’s case – until three symmetrical outcomes from asymmetric events are adequately explained. A reasonable theorem is still just a theorem unless all relevant data points are addressed. Slarti sidesteps symmetry in re orderly collapse. Bob sidesteps complexity in execution of a CD scenario without security breach but he is able to do this “better” because he is not arguing to conclusion but rather to stalemate. As I’ve contended on that thread – and still do – the WTC argument/analysis is non-conclusory as it will remain incomplete (from both sides) absent further evidence.

    I now return you to your regularly scheduled de-bunking.


  470. Vince,

    Thanks. I’m only trying to follow your example in some small way – I haven’t quite gotten your equanimity down yet, though. I have found that the debate can be rewarding – even if I never convince Bob, I’ve learned quite a bit on a variety of interesting topics and as wrong as Bob might be, he is an extremely skilled debater – after I read one of his posts, he usually makes me doubt myself for a second or two…

    Hooch,

    Excellent, I look forward to seeing your proof that the CPGH BC is real. I’m sure someone of your integrity can provide affidavits from Kenyan officials confirming its validity as well as a statement from the Hawaii DOH confirming your allegations about Madeline Dunham.

    Mike S.,

    I totally agree with you about the impossibility of cracking the birther’s shells of ignorance. Several months ago I took all of the stuff I’d learned from Vince and went to post on several birther sites. I discovered that arguing the law in a clam and reasonable manner (I did defend Acorn on one of them – boy did that stir up the anthill ;-)) will get you banned on most birther sites – usually with a parting shot from the site owner that you can’t answer. I find it interesting that people who are so vocal about how they’re the only ones that truly respect and understand the Constitution have so little use for fundamental concepts like free speech. I did find one minor birther blog that didn’t ban me, but I got distracted by something shiny (or by my argument with Bob on another thread…).

    Bdaman,

    I would point out that this whole thing just shows that the system works – the people who did questionable things are being investigated to determine if they acted unethically and the consensus is being re-examined to eliminate any bad data. I predict that a stronger, more accurate consensus will emerge from this whole process.


  471. What does a COLB for a hospital birf look like. What does a COLB for a home birf look like. No difference. That’s what I was thinking. Both would be the result of filin with the DOH.

    Other than Obamas words nothing presented concludes that Nana didn’t file a false report. No statements from hawaii say anything different. you believe what you wanna believe. It isn’t based on evidence.


  472. Vince it’s Jonathan Harris Levy, not Hans. Not that it matters to me, but I know how you strive for perfection.


  473. on 1, February 24, 2010 at 3:25 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    “you believe what you wanna believe. It isn’t based on evidence.”

    Pot meet kettle.


  474. I would point out that this whole thing just shows that the system works –

    Slart, the system failed. Had it not been for the stolen or released emails (no determination as of yet) we would not be having this discussion. The fact is the 2007 IPCC report is full of fabrications. So while the IPCC sets the standards, they in turn break the rules.


  475. It looks like this guy Hayworth is trying to step slowly, slowly back out of the tar pit up onto the shore, but he still seems very weaselly. He is trying to put his reputation as a birther to rest, but will only speak in generalities.

    He should prepare for the wrath of Taitz.

    Start quote:
    February 22, 2010
    I believe Obama is a U.S. citizen, Hayworth says
    Posted: February 22nd, 2010 08:23 PM ET

    From CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart

    (CNN) – Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth is putting to rest any notion that he is a “birther,” a believer in the unsubstantiated theory that President Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen and, therefore, not eligible to be president of the United States.

    At a press conference Monday, the former congressman was repeatedly asked about recent comments which appeared to suggest he believes Obama was not a citizen.

    “I believe that Barack Obama is an American citizen,” Hayworth said.

    After several questions Hayworth added, “Barack Obama is the president of the United States.”

    Hayworth is challenging Arizona Sen. John McCain in this year’s Republican primary.. [end]

    Source: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/22/i-believe-obama-is-a-u-s-citizen-hayworth-says/?fbid=W-BTzgXBbhF


  476. Vince: “Accept my congratulations for your superhuman efforts on the 911 “Truthers” over at the 120 Percent site. There is no hope of convincing the true believers. We can only set out the relevant evidence for the vast, reasonable majority.”

    Why Vince, whatever do you mean?


  477. “So if I am not hooch, does that mean that my cousin amon re is still gay homosexual male? It seems that this is redundant don’t you agree?”

    It is not redundant if you are calling your beloved cousin a stupid homosexual, at least according to the Urban Dictionary. Hey, isn’t he the gay funeral director? Is that for real, or does he just have a crush on Michael C. Hall?

    Personally, i don’t like the term “gay” for “stupid” and from now on will use the term “birf”. At least when it occurs to me. It seems to fit: birfer and birfers = mind numbingly stupid.


  478. Buddha: “Slarti sidesteps symmetry in re orderly collapse. Bob sidesteps complexity in execution of a CD scenario without security breach but he is able to do this “better” because he is not arguing to conclusion but rather to stalemate.”

    Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

    does not an argument to stalemate make.

    The burden is met or it is not.

    Or as Yoda would put it: “Do or do not; there is no try.”


  479. By JONATHAN J. COOPER, Associated Press Writer Jonathan J. Cooper, Associated Press Writer – Tue Feb 23, 9:27 pm ET

    PHOENIX – Nearly half of the Arizona Legislature wants to force President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate to state officials if he runs for re-election.

    A state House committee on Tuesday approved the measure sponsored by 40 of the state’s 90 legislators. It would require presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the requirements to be president.

    All 40 co-sponsors are Republicans, comprising 75 percent of the GOP caucus. Two of them have since resigned to run for Congress.

    The idea was proposed by Skull Valley Republican Rep. Judy Burges. She says if people have to prove their citizenship to apply for a job or get a passport, they should have to prove it to run for president.


  480. It is not redundant if you are calling your beloved cousin a stupid homosexual, at least according to the Urban Dictionary. Hey, isn’t he the gay funeral director? Is that for real, or does he just have a crush on Michael C. Hall?

    I think he is just sick. The things that he does with his men friends is stupid. You can call him gay for that, I guess. He does be at a Funeral Home most of the times. He say it fun. I do think he is stupid too.


  481. By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services | Posted: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 12:00 am

    PHOENIX — The House Government Committee voted Tuesday to require presidential contenders to prove to Arizona’s secretary of state they’re “natural born citizens” to get their names on the ballot.

    The 6-1 vote came on the proposal by Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, who said it’s only fair to require those who want to lead our country prove they meet the standards of the U.S. Constitution. She said that, at the very least, it means producing a birth certificate.

    “One must have a birth certificate if you’re going to enroll your child in a sports program for school,” Burges said. The same is true of passports.

    Burges never mentioned President Obama during Tuesday’s hearing or the controversy over whether he was actually born in Kenya and not Hawaii. Another legal theory of “birthers” who have challenged Obama’s right to be president is that even if he was born in Hawaii, he lost his citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian and moved the family there.

    But Burges previously told Capitol Media Services she has suspicions about Obama’s loyalties, including bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia and a quote from his book — taken out of context — that “when it came down to it, he would be on the Muslim side.”

    Matt Benson, lobbyist for Secretary of State Ken Bennett, said there are all sorts of problems with HB 2441 which now goes to the full House.

    First, he said it likely would bring a challenge that Arizona was illegally imposing its own standards on candidates for federal offices. Benson noted that federal courts previously struck down an attempt by Arizona to limit the terms of members of Congress.

    Burges responded that 10 other states are considering similar proposals. “So it’s not just Arizona,” she said.

    Benson pointed out, though, that what Burges wants isn’t a simple matter of someone coming up with a birth certificate. It requires the secretary of state to examine documents proving eligibility and refuse to list that person on the ballot if there is “reasonable cause to believe the candidate does not meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements prescribed by law.”

    He said that provides no clear guideline for his agency to determine if, for example, a copy of a birth certificate is legally sufficient.

    The state health department in Hawaii did produce a “short form” birth certificate for Obama, copies of which are available on the Internet. But that has not satisfied some who want to see the original which has never been released.

    Linda Lingle, Hawaii’s Republican governor, contends these originals are confidential and the state health director has released a statement that she has seen the original.


  482. I never loved him like you think. I am not gay, oh that make me happy. I could be called gay sometime but not with Hooch and amon Re. They do thing I won’t due. I heard that they started a fire with the rector they was playing with ben gay.


  483. In what could be construed by some as a hypocritical question by FoxNews, reports today that Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm — interviewed by Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” — attempted to justify that her dual citizenship of being born in Canada and holding American citizenship would not disqualify her from being President:

    “Your two terms are up at the end of this year. Do you have any interest in moving here to Washington and working in the administration?” he asked.

    “Are you offering me a job? No, I …” she said.

    “Yes, because I’m a conduit for the Obama White House. Exactly,” Wallace joked.

    “No, I’m totally focused this year on creating every single job I can until the last moment,” Granholm said. “December 31st at midnight is when I’ll stop. So I have no idea what I’m going to do next, but I’m not going to run for president. I can tell you that.”

    Wallace then pointed out that she would be unqualified to run, anyway.

    “We should point out Gov. Granholm is a Canadian and cannot run for president,” he said.

    “I’m American. I’ve got dual citizenship,” Granholm corrected him.

    After bantering about who she supports in the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, Granholm said, “I left Canada when I was 4. Come on.” …

    At the Radio Patriot, radio host Andrea Shea King said, “Granholm’s response is indicative of the mistaken belief that because one of her parents is/was a U.S. citizen, she’s eligible.”

    “This woman took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Has she even read it?” King wrote.

    “With this willful disregard of our founding document, is it any wonder that we have the son of a Kenyan-born British subject in the White House???” she asked.


  484. on 1, February 24, 2010 at 6:00 pm Anonymously Yours

    I don’t think that this would pass a constitutional smell test. A Federal Office Qualifications is not a power to be decided by the states.


  485. And Buddha,

    Regarding said security breach:

    http://jonathanturley.org/2009/12/09/one-hundred-and-twenty-percent-of-people-cant-be-wrong-fox-news-shows-people-are-dubious-about-the-accuracy-of-global-warming-science-with-a-poll-showing-120-percent-of-people-are-skeptical/#comment-114367

    Then again, looking for a security breach before forming a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed would be tantamount to looking for signs of breaking & dusting for prints before the claim of an alleged burglary.


  486. Stop eating paint chips hooch/not hooch. The lead is getting to you.


  487. Could you break it down a bit further AY


  488. on 1, February 24, 2010 at 6:11 pm Anonymously Yours

    See the term limit cases that tried to include Federal Office Holders.


  489. on 1, February 24, 2010 at 6:13 pm Anonymously Yours

    See the term limit cases that tried to include Federal Office Holders.

    I am not ging to jack this thread.


  490. I saw that in the article and the person in the interview responded by saying Arizona is not the only state that there was ten. I know here in Fla. it has been put out there by Bill Posey. Ring around the rosey pockets in Florida filled with Posey.

    So how does one go about making sure the one is eligible to be put on the state ballot?

    You know it really doesn’t matter if Obama was born or hatched. He definitely brought us change we can believe in.

    Have you seen his new logo for the missile defense shield? He’s already preparing for 2012.


  491. AY whats the difference buddy, we’re just talking. Bob and Buddah are talking a little 9-11 e cookie and Hooch not hooch got there thing goin on. Talk to me. Are you snowed in.


  492. I cannot have nothing going with no female. I know what I is.


  493. you bess b have


  494. Slart and Vince,

    I’m just waiting for the day when I get to take someone to the woodshed about the differences in two and six row barley, or the proper resolution of the Neapolitan Sixth chord (the first thing you forget after your Music Theory 102 finale)


  495. So “Nearly half of the Arizona Legislature wants to force President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate to state officials if he runs for re-election.”

    I think I have explained this up above, with full statutory and constitutional citations and quotations.

    Hawaii has issued a birth certificate in full compliance with its state laws. It is called the Certification of Live Birth. It prohibits any alterations of this “Certificate.” It is prima facie evidence of birth, and shows birth in the United States.

    When this form is presented to state officials, THEY ARE BOUND TO GIVE IT FULL FAITH AND CREDIT BY ARTICLE IV, SECTION 1 OF THE UNITED STATES CONTSITUTION.

    I also noted that the same Clause empowers Congress by law to prescribe the manner in which such records shall be proved and the effect thereof.

    I will pause while everyone reads the Constitution (and while birthers have it read to them).

    Now I have quoted the law and citation by which Congress prescribed the definition of a birth certificate. Scroll up to see it.

    Cutting to the chase, when AZ enacts this “law,” or when US Rep Deals bill is enacted, the supporters will feel like those grenade tossers on the other thread. The grenade will hit a wall and bounce back down on them.

    The campaign will present the COLB, and the federal and state court judges, who are ALL sworn to uphold the Constitution, will be compelled to rule that it complies with the statutory definition under federal law and with the Constitution.

    The AZ legislature cannot dictate to Hawaii how it issues its formal records. It has no choice. It has to give full faith and credit to sister state’s records, just as Hawaii has to give full faith and credit to Hawaiian records. It cannot demand original hospital records, doctor’s and nurse’s statements, or flight manifests of the rocket from Planed Krypton that brought Kal-El and Barack to Earth to carry out Jor-El’s mandate to save all mankind.

    Please read it again. The Congress, not the States, is responsible for prescribing by law the manner by which the records of the states are to be proved and the effect thereof. Pardon me for repeating myself.

    The legislators all know this. They are just posturing and pandering to the ignorant birthers.

    This is delicious irony. The entire issue began in 2008 with questions about McCain’s natural born status. Now McCain himself is running anti-birther TV ads [linked above].

    I hope this has been helpful to the readers of this blog.

    I am just trying to engage people in a legal discussion.

    This is fun.


  496. Man on Man, we like it that way up here in Mo.


  497. Anyway, it appears that the bill has been withdrawn, probably for some of the reasons I mentioned.

    See this and other postings at this excellent and superior site:

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=7657


  498. erratum “…just as Hawaii has to give full faith and credit to Arizonan records…”


  499. It was anybody but Nana. Is that what you’re saying?

    I can’t tell you who filed his birf but it couldn’t be Nana.


  500. [Vince Treacy] “Hawaii has issued a birth certificate in full compliance with its state laws. It is called the Certification of Live Birth. It prohibits any alterations of this “Certificate.” It is prima facie evidence of birth, and shows birth in the United States.”

    It’s not worth the paper its printed on if proper verification of the reporting document does not occur. Is a gay marriage from one state recognized in all other states?


  501. Vince you missed the part where it says the withdrawal is dated 2-22-10. Not to mention the update at the bottom of the article to which you linked that points to the article to which I posted.

    By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services | Posted: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 12:00 am

    PHOENIX — The House Government Committee voted Tuesday to require presidential contenders to prove to Arizona’s secretary of state they’re “natural born citizens” to get their names on the ballot.


  502. Gyges said:

    “I’m just waiting for the day when I get to take someone to the woodshed about the differences in two and six row barley, or the proper resolution of the Neapolitan Sixth chord (the first thing you forget after your Music Theory 102 finale)”

    I don’t even know what this means – although according to Robert I don’t understand sound very well, so I guess it’s not surprising…

    Vince,

    I’m hoping that the birthers get this type of ‘eligibility verification’ law passed in as many states as possible. The cries of outrage and shock from the birther nation when the Obama campaign breezes into the state capitols and successfully deploys the dreaded COLB will be something to behold. Even better than when Dr. Kate posted an article praising the former marine Judge Carter’s courage and patriotism on the same morning that he dismissed the birther’s case (just as you predicted). If one of the birther lawyers is clever enough to use such a law to get past the procedural hurdles, we might even get lucky enough to see the SCOTUS rule that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen…


  503. Slart Gyges is a connoisseur of hops and barley and is a Fan-Tom of the opera.


  504. [Slartibartfast] “The cries of outrage and shock from the birther nation when the Obama campaign breezes into the state capitols and successfully deploys the dreaded COLB will be something to behold.”

    The COLB will not be enough evidence.


  505. For our readers, birth certificates in one state are recognized in all other states, and have to be so recognized, ever since there were birth certificates. These are public records. They have always been is entitled to full faith and credit.

    The analogy to gay marriage, a recent phenomena, is completely irrelevant.

    The “proper verification of the reporting document,” whatever that means, is a meaningless objection. The COLB was examined by independent news organization and photographed for all to see. It has all the necessary verifications.

    Hawaiian official have verified independently that Obama was born in that State and that he is a natural born citizen.

    Arizona officials are bound by that, whether they know it or not, or like it or not. The legislature is wasting everyone’s time and money on a frivolous bill for demagogic advantage. It is the proposed bill that is meaningless. It requires the only candidate in 2008 who proved his birthplace and natural born citizen status to prove it again.

    If the Secretary of State tries to ban Obama from the ballot, he will be sued so fast and overruled so fast that an Arizona roadrunner will look like it is in slow motion.

    I hear the next bill up will change pi to 3.0.


  506. The COLB meets the federal definition of a birth certificate in section 7211.

    The federal courts enforce federal law and are sworn to uphold it.

    Justice Hooch to the contrary, notwithstanding.


  507. Vince:

    I think a state legislature at some point in history tried to do something similar.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

    already been tried, aint nothing new under the sun.


  508. The AZ legislators seem oblivious to the fact that the Constitution makes the proving of the public records a matter of federal law duly enacted by Congress, not state law.

    As the lawyers say, it is textually committed by the express language of the Constitution in our federal system to Congress, not the individual states.

    As I said, this will not stop them in AZ. As Abraham Lincoln said, it is like the Pope’s Bull against the Comet.

    It is an empty gesture, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.


  509. Thanks, Byron.


  510. [Vince Treacy] “Hawaiian official have verified independently that Obama was born in that State and that he is a natural born citizen.”

    How did they do that? Did they talk to independent witnesses. Or did they just look at the paper filed by Obamas Nana.


  511. Where did hawaii find a defintiion of natural born citizen.


  512. Independent witnesses? They examined all their records. They have verified it publicly.

    Just like Arizona official talked to independent witness when the put McCain, who was not born in one of the 50 States, on their ballot for President? Just like they talked to GW and GHW Bushs’ “independent” witnesses in Texas? It doesn’t matter. The Constitution makes their word final, whether Hooch likes it or not.

    Nothing will ever convince the radical skeptics. One birther here also doubts that Armstrong walked on the Moon. A lot believe in creation 10,000 years ago. They are welcome to their beliefs. Nothing will ever budge them.

    I have outlined the laws and the Constitution and like to discuss the serious issues, but I don’t think they interviewed “independent witnesses” when they elected George Washington, either.


  513. Here is the definition I drafted with a friend and posted at Urban Dictionary at the suggestion of Dr. Conspiracy:

    The term includes

    (1) a person who is born in the United States, including its territories and possessions and the District of Columbia, and who is subject to its jurisdiction, that is, not born to foreign diplomats or to hostile occupying forces;

    (2) a person who is born abroad to two U.S. citizens; and

    (3) a person who is born abroad to one U.S. citizen, if that citizen parent has met U.S. residency requirements.

    Barack Obama is a natural born citizen because he was born in Hawaii, one of the United States, and was subject to its jurisdiction at the time of his birth.

    John McCain is a natural born citizen because he was born abroad to two citizens, and was born in the Canal Zone, a United States possession.

    The Supreme Court has held that a person born of aliens in the United States is a natural born citizen, since that child “is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.” Wong Kim Ark

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=natural+born+citizen

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/products.php?defid=4268309


  514. A poster with Dr. Conspiracy has a nice catch.

    “Check out the UN logo on that letter. Jonathan Levy wants the letter to appear like its written on an official UN letter head.” http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/obama-treason-trial-mark-your-calendar/

    Here is the letter at Scribd:

    See the nice big blue laurel and flame.

    Ha!

    He sent a letter. but gives the impression the UN has taken jurisdiction.

    Nothing, nothing, will come of this.

    Say goodnight, birthers.


  515. I think the birther bill has 120 percent support in the AZ legislature.


  516. [Vince Treacy] “They examined all their records. They have verified it publicly.”

    Youre joking I hope. Did they look at the false report filed by Obamas Nana? Is that what their records consist of. Did hawaii say Obamas Nanan says he was born here so it must be so.


  517. [Vince Treacy] “(3) a person who is born abroad to one U.S. citizen, if that citizen parent has met U.S. residency requirements.”

    You’re a lawyer and you put that on urban dictionary. Did hawaii use your definition. Whose definition did they use.


  518. Hooch are you trying to say there is more than just one vital record like an amendment.


  519. [Vince Treacy] “The Supreme Court has held that a person born of aliens in the United States is a natural born citizen, since that child “is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.” Wong Kim Ark”

    No need to be comparative if they are the same thing.
    A chevette is as much a car as a corvette, but a chevette is not a corvette.

    Arnold S “is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen”, but he aint a natural born citizen. Or do you think we have different levels of citizens.


  520. [bdaman] “Hooch are you trying to say there is more than just one vital record like an amendment.”

    No. I am not. I don’t know of any record but the one filed by Obama Nana. She filed the false report. That’s why Obama must keep it hidden. She was probably gonna come clean but it wasn’t that important unless he won the election. Day before he won the election she was offed to keep her from tellin.


  521. Awww Vince, do you mean I’m not going to get my bither-geddon? What a bummer. And I’m always willing to lend a hand against the moon landing hoaxers (moonies?) or the cintelligent designists. My fascination with conspiracy theories started when I found out about the people who don’t think we went to the moon. I wonder how they explain the mirrors on the moon… Very shiny rocks?


  522. Speaking of records it bears noting that John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism, was connected with the tampering with Obama’s passport.

    WASHINGTON (CNN) — The CEO of a company whose employee is accused of improperly looking at the passport files of presidential candidates is a consultant to the Barack Obama campaign, a source said Saturday.
    John O. Brennan, president and CEO of the Analysis Corp., advises the Illinois Democrat on foreign policy and intelligence issues, the source said.
    Brennan briefed the media on behalf of the campaign this month.

    The executive is a former senior CIA official and former interim director of the National Counter-terrorism Center.
    He contributed $2,300 to the Obama campaign in January…

    The executive is a former senior CIA official and former interim director of the National Counter-terrorism Center.

    Maybe ol Pastor Manning is on to sumpin.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4492773


  523. Day before he won the election she was offed to keep her from tellin.

    You know she was cremated and her ashes were sprinkled out on the lava rocks. The EPA requires one to get a permit when dumping ashes. They have no record of such.


  524. Slarti, the birthers are composing a spy fantasy fiction thriller with absolutely no evidence to support it. Way up at the top, I said that the guy who claims that the grandmother filed a fake report has the burden of proof, and he has none.

    When the issue of natural born citizen came up, the burden was on Obama’s campaign to meet it. They did, producing the COLB.

    The birthers responded with fantasy — birth in Kenya, flight to Hawaii, baby smuggled off plane past immigration, false report filed with the State. The Bourne Supremacy.

    There is actually more evidence for the alternate birther story — that Obama was born on Krypton and sent to Earth by his father Jor-El to save all mankind. Obama admitted that. On TV. On tape.

    All of Hooch’s stuff has been asked and answered. Arnold is a naturalized citizen and is not the equal to a natural born citizen because he cannot be President. Obama’s mother probably did not meet the requirements at the time for foreign birth, but it is irrelevant because he was born in Hawaii. My definition was based on the provisions of Title 8 of the US Code. Hawaii necessarily used the definition used in every legal source – a natural born citizen is a citizen by virtue of birth. Under the 14th Amendment, this includes, at the very least, every person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a citizen. The only other kind of citizen is a naturalized citizen. Since Obama was a citizen by his birth, he is a natural born citizen.

    Anyway, that’s enough questions from Hooch. Everything has been answered.

    If he has no evidence of his granny story, and he does not, then it is just speculation, fantasy and innuendo, nothing more.


  525. “Day before he won the election she was offed to keep her from tellin.”

    That is beneath contempt.


  526. [Vince Treacy] “Slarti, the birthers are composing a spy fantasy fiction thriller with absolutely no evidence to support it.”

    Obama apologists are claiming Obamas birth report is reliable with aboslutely no evidence to support it. I say his Nana filed the report and the best they can come up with is that it was somebody else. Ask them who that someone else is. I know it was Obamas Nana that filed it.

    [Vince Treacy] “Arnold is a naturalized citizen and is not the equal to a natural born citizen because he cannot be President.”

    Is Arnold not “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen”?
    Are you Vince Treacy saying that a naturalized citizen is less of a citizen than a natural born citizen. I want to make sure before I quote you.


  527. [Vince Treacy] “My definition was based on the provisions of Title 8 of the US Code.”

    Someone can be a natural born citizen by statutory act. That means Congress can establish the qualifications to be POTUS. Farm out.

    [Vince Treacy] Hawaii necessarily used the definition used in every legal source – a natural born citizen is a citizen by virtue of birth.

    Every legal resource? Name three legal resources where I can look up the term natural born citizen and find that is say a natural born citizen is a citizen by virtue of birth.


  528. Hooch, here Hooch, come on boy, heel.


  529. on 1, February 24, 2010 at 10:42 pm Former Federal LEO

    Counselor-at-Law VT, Ret.

    While those who are sane admire your dedication and persistence with legalese regarding this issue, there are overabundances of turnips on the ‘Birfer’ Wagon and a passel of them will–in perpetuity–fall off and roll into this blawg and elsewhere with the same tired, old, reiteratively refuted stuff…

    Good luck with that.


  530. To everyone, from Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition: “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” The persons born within the national jurisdiction are citizens by virtue of their birth. How hard is that? The other kind is citizens by virtue of their naturalization ceremony.

    Does Hooch not know that naturalized citizens cannot be President? In that respect, they are not the same as natural born citizens. In all other respects, they are equal.

    FFLEO, Thanks again for the compliment. I am finally running out of patience, but I am glad to have your perspective.

    If Hooch “knows” that the grandmother filed the report, let’s see the evidence for his so-called “knowledge.” Otherwise, he should peddle his novel to Doubleday. I should have called this the Bourne Identity rather than Supremacy.

    I would love to see this guy telling his story to a sworn law enforcement officer — Officer, officer, the grandmother filed a false report, and they have no evidence against me, so you have to arrest them.

    The lawyers here know that the natural born citizen issue is a matter for the federal courts under federal question jurisdiction, since it involves the laws and Constitution of the United States. If AZ tried to keep someone off the ballot on these grounds, the candidate would have full constitutional standing under Article III because of the immediate and overwhelming injury and the fully ripe controversy.

    The state officials would be sued in a New York minute, with immediate injunctive relief in the morning. The State courts are also bound by the Constitution and sworn to uphold it. Like the Court in Indiana, they would also reject the claims.


  531. [Vince Treacy] “from Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition: “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.””

    If a U.S. Citizen has a child abroad while on vacation, that child is a natural born citizen of the United States? Does Black’s cite any authority for this definition?

    [Vince Treacy] “Does Hooch not know that naturalized citizens cannot be President? In that respect, they are not the same as natural born citizens. In all other respects, they are equal.”

    Is a naturalized citizen “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen”?
    Are you Vince Treacy saying that a naturalized citizen is less of a citizen than a natural born citizen. I want to make sure before I quote you. Didn’t you just quote SCOTUS about someone being as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.

    [Vince Treacy] “The lawyers here know that the natural born citizen issue is a matter for the federal courts under federal question jurisdiction, since it involves the laws and Constitution of the United States. If AZ tried to keep someone off the ballot on these grounds, the candidate would have full constitutional standing under Article III because of the immediate and overwhelming injury and the fully ripe controversy.”

    A COLB is not a document prepared to demonstrate natural born citizen status. There is no reason to believe that any state would be required to accept it as proof of something more than it was intended to represent.


  532. Vince,
    Good efforts with the champion troll. This thread should be closed by Prof. Turley because these birthers are just spitting in the wind and making up stuff out of thin air.


  533. Thanks, raff. Nice site.

    JT lives and breaths the First Amendment, and maintains a marketplace of free speech. He does not close threads.


  534. Vince,
    Thanks. I know Prof. Turley won’t shut it down, but I can dream, can’t I?


  535. “A COLB is not a document prepared to demonstrate natural born citizen status. There is no reason to believe that any state would be required to accept it as proof of something more than it was intended to represent.”

    Everyone, take a look at the Full Faith and Credit Clause. If a birth certificate shows birth in the US, then it proves the natural born citizen status of the person [unless it is shown that she was a child of diplomats or of hostile foreign forces] and it is binding on all the other States. That is the law until the Supreme Court rules otherwise. I do not know how Hooch or the AZ Secy of State plans to get around the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

    Does Hooch not know that naturalized citizens cannot be President?

    Oops, we are into reruns, and there is still no answer on that one.

    Time to sign off.


  536. [Vince Treacy] “unless it is shown that she was a child of diplomats or of hostile foreign forces”

    Where will that appear on the COLB?

    [Vince Treacy] “Does Hooch not know that naturalized citizens cannot be President? In that respect, they are not the same as natural born citizens. In all other respects, they are equal.”

    Is a naturalized citizen “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen”?
    Are you Vince Treacy saying that a naturalized citizen is less of a citizen than a natural born citizen. I want to make sure before I quote you. Didn’t you just quote SCOTUS about someone being as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.

    I can use it as a sword or a shield too.

    Is a naturalized citizen as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen? Are you afraid to answer that question?


  537. Yawn. Nothing new in the overnights.

    I was wondering what was missing here, so I checked the Urban Dictionary.

    [quoting without comment or approval or disapproval]

    1. hooch

    Slang for moonshine or bootleg alcohol, popular term during prohibition era; slang term for marijuana that is rarely used nowadays, popular during late 60’s and early 70’s.

    That mob boss got arrested for running hooch.

    Let’s roll up some hooch before this concert!

    2. hooch

    1 – Alcohol
    2 – Marijuana
    3 – a whore
    4 – a dog in the classic movie Turner and Hooch

    1 – Pass me the hooch, I’m quite depressed.
    2 – Oh my god that hooch last night was great!
    3 – What a hooch.

    3. hooch

    A cast member of Scrubs who “is crazy.” J.D. and Turk often speak his name aloud to incite Hooch’s anger.

    Yeah, Hooch is seriously crazy!

    [unquote]

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hooch

    A naturalized citizen, unlike a natural born citizen, cannot be President under the Constitution. “No person except a natural born Citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.” US Constitution, Article II, section l.

    So the two forms of citizenship, although equal in ALL other respects, are not equal with respect to eligibility for the Presidency.

    (The witness replied that he could not answer yes or no to the question whether he had stopped beating his wife because he had never beaten his wife).

    Have a nice day, poteen.


  538. on 1, February 25, 2010 at 7:44 am Buddha Is Laughing

    Slarti,

    “I wonder how they explain the mirrors on the moon… Very shiny rocks?”

    The rocks themselves are not innately shiny. They are polished by a ‘vein’ cousin.


  539. Here is the website for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

    http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Pages/WelcomePage.aspx

    Check the search window. There are o results for Orly Taitz or Jonathan Levy and the letter. There is a whiff of fraud in the use of the UNHCHR emblem as the letterhead.


  540. “Name three legal resources where I can look up the term natural born citizen and find that is say a natural born citizen is a citizen by virtue of birth.”

    Good challenge hooch, but first given the overall mediocrity of your productions thus far, please list 3 reasons why anyone should take you seriously. I also find it interesting that your posts have expanded from their original incoherence which I surmise is a factor of another re-birthed troll. You’ve written nothing that has not already been refuted and added nothing to this debate except for the expression of smugness that your glaring ignorance gives you.

    Raff, good call. Time to throw in the towel on this thread. Bdaman, your posts are an example of the sleaziest and most dishonest side of you. VT, Slart, et. al. I credit your wit and persistence which I admit far exceeds my own.


  541. Right, Mike. Hooch sounds like a Byrne-again birfer. Like Bdaman.


  542. There can be only one response to Buddha’s vein comments and Vince’s Byrne-ing punditry: OH, THE HUGE MANATEE!


  543. on 1, February 25, 2010 at 7:02 pm Former Federal LEO

    Hooch, Bdaman ate all.

    I voted for Obama, although I could never do so again. Therefore, please find a legitimate, legal, and professional means of removing him from the presidency or we will just have to wait until the next election in 2012.


  544. on 1, February 25, 2010 at 7:47 pm Buddha Is Laughing

    Slarti,

    You can blame Elaine. She’s forced us all to pick up our pun game to a new level. :D She is indeed the master.


  545. How bout these for starters FFLEO

    18 U.S.C. § 912 : US Code – Section 912: Officer or employee of the United States

    18 U.S.C. § 371 : US Code – Section 371: Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

    18 U.S.C. § 2388 : US Code – Section 2388: Activities affecting armed forces during war

    18 U.S.C. § 1542 : US Code – Section 1542: False statement in application and use of passport

    18 U.S.C. § 911 : US Code – Section 911: Citizen of the United States

    18 U.S.C. § 1621 : US Code – Section 1621: Perjury generally


  546. on 1, February 25, 2010 at 8:06 pm Former Federal LEO

    Bdaman,

    Thanks. I will defer to Vince T. regarding the applicability of those Codes/Statutes to Mr. Obama.


  547. FFLEO,

    So they’re legal and Vince will tell us if they’re legitimate (I wonder what he’ll say…), but are they professional?

    Buddha,

    The huge manatee is about as good as my pun game gets (and it obviously wasn’t my creation), so I’ll leave those heights to you and Elaine. A friend and I did fill up the entire blackboard with ‘sin’ puns before Algebra class one day…


  548. on 1, February 25, 2010 at 10:58 pm Former Federal LEO

    Slart….

    Since Bdaman has *baited* this thread, I too await with *bated* breath for the counselor’s reply.


  549. I will take a look at bdaman’s list when I get time, but in the meantime it is just a worthless list of titles of statutes.

    If the bad man would care to quote the portions of the laws that he thinks are relevant, describe the particular actions to which he thinks they may apply, and explain just how those actions violate those laws, then, and only then, there may be a subject for debate.

    Without that, we have to (1) speculate about what provisions he thinks are applicable, and (2) speculate about what particular actions that he thinks violate them, and (3) speculate about the man’s legal theories.

    We can’t read his mind.

    Life is short.

    Besides, the little plagiarist did not even come up with the list himself.

    I had not seen any evidence of legal acumen. So I took his list and pasted it into google. (This is a recommended scientific test for all of his postings. It is like the rule that all experiments and observations offered by a scientist must be replicated and proven repeatable).

    As usual, the troll cut and pasted a list from the Internet, in this case from the extremist “American Grand Jury” and pasted if up as if he had written it himself.

    As they say at the Urban Dictionary, “1. troll One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.”

    Here is an example of how ridiculous and stupid these charges are:

    False Personation of Citizen of the United States (18 U.S.C. 911).

    QUOTE It states: “Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

    The analysis said: “If Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen, then he must have other proof of United States citizenship. If he has neither of these, then as acting head of state he is holding himself out to be a citizen of the United States, and is therefore liable under this section as well.” UNQUOTE

    Documented Source ©™®:

    http://americangrandjury.org/lawyer-who-challenged-obama-ineligibility-could-prove-costly

    I HAVE POSTED HUNDREDS, IF NOT MORE THAN A THOUSAND, STATEMENTS ON THIS SUBJECT. THE SO-CALLED “CHARGE” IT IS FALSE.

    Obama is a US citizen. He is a natural born citizen. He has produced his legal birth certificate issued by Hawaii. It meets the definition of birth certificate under federal law. It has been verified by independent news organizations. There is no credible evidence to the contrary, only forgeries of foreign birth certificates and empty speculation.

    So this charge is a barefaced lie, a consciously malicious falsehood made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.

    It is not the basis for a reasoned discussion.

    So much for the troll’s legal capacity. Maybe the troll can learn to write his own stuff.

    Do not feed the troll.


  550. The other troll, hooch, asked for three sources of the definition of natural born citizen.

    Well, the good Doctor Conspiracy has already done the work, and deserves full and complete credit:

    QUOTEon: Legal dictionary?

    NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

    Independently of the constitutional provision it has always been the doctrine of this country except as applied to Africans brought here and sold as slaves and their descendants that birth within the limits and Jurisdiction of the United States of itself creates citizenship. In the case of Lynch v Clarke (N. Y.) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583 Assistant Vice Chancellor Sandford said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the limits and allegiance of the United States whatever the situation of his parents was a natural born citizen and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession In re Look Tin Sing (U. S.) 21 Fed. 905, 909.

    The term natural born citizen of the United States means all persons born in the allegiance of the United States. United States v Rhodes (U. S.) 27 Fed. Cas. 785, 789. The natural born subjects of a monarch comprise all persons born in the allegiance of the King United States v Rhodes (U. S.) 27 Fed. Cas. 785, 789.

    Every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen within the sense of the Constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity Town of New Hartford v Town of Canaan 5 Atl, 360, 364, 54 Conn. 39 (citing Rawle Const. U. S. p. 86). See also Lynch v Clarke (N. Y.) 1 Sandf. Ch. 584, 2 Kent, Comm. (9th Ed.); McKay v Campbell (U. S.) 16 Fed. Cas. 157; Field Int. Code 132, Morse Citizenship § 203.

    Judicial and statutory definitions of words and phrases By West Publishing Company

    I also found this in the same dictionary:

    NATURAL BORN

    The term “natural born,” as sometimes used, means bastard; born out of wedlock. Bouv. Law Dict. On the other hand, it has been held that “natural,” in a statute providing that adopted children shall have all the rights of natural children, means legitimate. Burns v Allen (Ind.) 9 Am. Law Reg. (O. S. 747). Under Rev. St. § 4425, as amended by Act 1881, giving a right of action for injuries occasioned by negligence and providing that, in case there be no husband or wife, or they fail to sue, the minor child or children of the deceased, whether such minor child be the natural born or adopted child of the deceased, shall have such right, etc., the words are simply used to show that adopted children and the adopting parents are to have the benefit of the act, the same as in case of children by procreation Marshall v. Wabash R. Co., 25 S. W. 179, 180, 120 Mo. 275.

    Another way to look at it is that “natural born” citizens (born citizens) contrast to naturalized citizens (adopted citizens). unQUOTE

    “Ballantine” added some more: QUOTEON:

    If you like dictionaries, here are some more:

    “Natural Born Citizenship Clause. The clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the presidency.” Black’s Law Dictionary, eigth edition (1999)

    “Native: A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to.” Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Addition (1994).

    “Natural-born Citizens, those that are born within the jurisdiction of a national government; i.e., in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens, temporarily residing abroad.” William Cox Cochran, The student’s law lexicon: a dictionary of legal words and phrases : with appendices, Pg. 185 (1888)

    “Citizenship” ….Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president.” Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843)

    “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN. A person whose citizenship derives from the nation where he or she was born.” Kenneth Robert Redden, Enid Veron, Modern Legal Glossary, pg. 263 (1980) UNQUOTE

    Hooch and Badaman can find this all at Dr. Conspiracy’s excellent and recommended site:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/kerchners-dont-ask-dont-tell-ad/


  551. That clip above by McCain’s campaign strafing the birther follies of his opponent?

    Sure has got Orly’s attention:

    “Today he released a National re-election campaign add, where he included a clip of my NBC interview and where he is saying that we have more important things to do, then deal with Obama’s illegitimacy to presidency. This is a despicable behavior. Though I respect McCains military record, his latest add is appalling.”

    Sources and full story by Eric Kleefeld at Josh Marshall’s TPM:

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/orly-taitz-blasts-mccain-for-attacking-her-in-anti-birther-web-vid.php?ref=fpblg

    Here is the clip, posted above, February 24, 2010 at 4:38 pm

    http://www.youtube.com/user/johnmccaindotcom#p/a/u/0/28qf6QOfpC0

    As usual, Orly is completely off base. The add is completely truthful in all respects. It used her own words, verbatim. It raised a legitimate public policy issue. She would like to see all criticism of her bizarre views suppressed.

    Sorry, Orly. This is the USA, not the USSR. We are all allowed to point out your falsehoods.


  552. The problem with those like bdaman and hooch is that the “Big Lie” just needs constant repetition to be effective with the non-thinking and no amount of refutation will be entertained. These trolls do not discuss, they babble in the service of whatever “cause” they have. There is no alternative to the fact that the President is legitimately in office, yet the lies keep coming despite evidence highly to the contrary. These trolls are propagandists, or dupes of propagandists, whose only talent is falsely raising the positions on this to one’s of equality with the truth, although that equality is non existent.


  553. on 1, February 26, 2010 at 11:05 am Former Federal LEO

    Well Bdaman, You Be ‘da man now since the ‘legal’ ball–through refutation and challenge–has bounced back in your court.


  554. That is right, Mike.

    The birthers keep repeating the Big Lie, just like the Germans in World War II and the Russians in the Cold War. They should remember that we won both wars.

    The say Obama has no birth certificate. Lie. He has one and has released it. They just do not like it, even though federal law guarantees its validity and its authenticity is verified by independent observers.

    They claim he was born in Kenya. Lie. Those birth certificates are proven forgeries.

    They claim he needs two citizen parents. Lie. This is a crank “constitutional” theory that was never heard of before Obama ran in 2008.


  555. Let’s stir up the pot in this inane argument.

    Fact: Barack Obama is not the 44th natural born citizen to become President of the United States.


  556. Bob,

    You rascally devil.


  557. Gyges,

    Please let them suffer through this one.


  558. BE: “Fact: Barack Obama is not the 44th natural born citizen to become President of the United States.”

    That is not “Fact.”

    The fact is that Obama is a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States. He is the 44th President of the United States of America.


  559. Vince,

    Bob is correct – Barack Obama is not the 44th NBC to become POTUS. And that fact is not in conflict with the fact that Barack Obama is the 44th US citizen to become POTUS.


  560. Vince: That is not “Fact.” The fact is that Obama is a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States. He is the 44th President of the United States of America.

    Why Vince, you sound so certain. Is this the same certitude you felt when you pigeon holed me as a “truther” with this smug remark of yours:

    “Accept my congratulations for your superhuman efforts on the 911 “Truthers” over at the 120 Percent site. There is no hope of convincing the true believers. We can only set out the relevant evidence for the vast, reasonable majority.”

    I knew you’d answer in the chest-beating manner that you did; just as you have been on this inane topic from day one. Nonetheless, the purpose of this trap was to simply show how you and your analytical skills suffer from an acute case of confirmation bias.

    You want to debate me on 9/11 or any facet of constitutional law; throw down or keep your smug remarks to yourself.

    Meanwhile, you’re still wrong. The fact is that Barack Obama is not the 44th natural born citizen to become President of the United States.

    Do your homework and figure out why.

    P.S. Thank you Gyges for not giving it away.


  561. Slarti: “Bob is correct – Barack Obama is not the 44th NBC to become POTUS. And that fact is not in conflict with the fact that Barack Obama is the 44th US citizen to become POTUS.”

    Correct answer; incorrect reasoning.

    Obama is not “the 44th US citizen to become POTUS.”


  562. Slarti,

    The “natural born citizen” predicate was just part of the trap.


  563. Bob,

    Okay, I give. Would you agree with the statement “Barack Obama is a NBC and the legitimate POTUS (the 44th legitimate holder of that office).”?


  564. If you are talking about the early Presidents who were eligible because they were citizens at the time of ratification, sure. Thank you very much for the insight.


  565. I am rereading my post.

    Of course, what I wrote was “The fact is that Obama is a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States. He is the 44th President of the United States of America.”

    I will stand by that. It is correct.

    Don’t take this stuff personally. Where were you pigeon-holed as a “truther”? I reread the quotation, and I do not see where I named you as one of the “true believers” over there, nor was it implied, since you may be a part of the “vast reasonable majority.” I was trying to pay a compliment to Slart for his work over there. And I repeat the compliment now. He has put many valuable hours into his work countering the 911 theorists here and in the blogosphere.

    It is the birthers who are raising the “inane” questions, and they should not be allowed to win by default because their inanity goes unanswered.

    If you want to debate the constitutional issues on natural born citizen, be our guest. It would be a nice addition.

    But don’t waste our time with puerile riddles and grubby little trick questions.

    Oh, and the other trick may be that Grover Cleveland is counted twice in the list of Presidents, even though he was only one man. So in fact there have been 43 actual Presidents, not 44. What a crappy little insight into the law.

    Now answer Slart’s question.


  566. Vince: If you are talking about the early Presidents who were eligible because they were citizens at the time of ratification, sure. Thank you very much for the insight.

    Once again; you’re wrong.


  567. Answer Slart’s question. He has answered all of yours.


  568. What gives?


  569. Vince: Of course, what I wrote was “The fact is that Obama is a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States. He is the 44th President of the United States of America.” I will stand by that. It is correct.

    Wrong again.

    Vince: Don’t take this stuff personally. Where were you pigeon-holed as a “truther”? I reread the quotation, and I do not see where I named you as one of the “true believers” over there, nor was it implied, since you may be a part of the “vast reasonable majority.”

    Clearly implied because the Slarti is debating me and one other poster.

    Vince: It is the birthers who are raising the “inane” questions, and they should not be allowed to win by default because their inanity goes unanswered. If you want to debate the constitutional issues on natural born citizen, be our guest. It would be a nice addition.

    There is no issue here. The case is clearly non-justiciable. Hawaii, as one of the 50 states qualified to elect a president, affirmed that Obama is a NBC. Period. Taitz didn’t even bother to attempt to name Hawaii as a (necessary) party or use one of its citizens for standing — if only to try to overcome the political question hurdle in a lame ass attempt at getting a writ of quo warranto. It’s pure horseshit.

    Vince: But don’t waste our time with puerile riddles and grubby little trick questions. Oh, and the other trick may be that Grover Cleveland is counted twice in the list of Presidents, even though he was only one man. So in fact there have been 43 actual Presidents, not 44. What a crappy little insight into the law.

    Correct. See, all you had to do was take off those anti-birther blinders. Like I said; confirmation bias.

    Vince: Now answer Slart’s question.

    Slarti: “Okay, I give. Would you agree with the statement “Barack Obama is a NBC and the legitimate POTUS (the 44th legitimate holder of that office).”?

    Of course. Who am I to argue with the state of Hawaii?

    Silly boy.


  570. From Obama’s Inaugural Address:

    “I thank President Bush for his service to our nation…

    (APPLAUSE)

    … as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

    Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath.”

    WRONG!


  571. Clarification:

    Slarti: (“the 44th legitimate holder of that office”)

    Legitimate yes; but 43rd.


  572. on 1, February 26, 2010 at 9:00 pm Anonymously Yours

    If you count Grover as being one President then you are correct at 43. But don’t forget Ford he was not elected president but served out the remainder of Nixon’s term. If memory serves me correctly 7 or 8 Veeps became president because of death or assassination.


  573. Vince could you start posting at Charltons. Your excellent debating skills would be nice to see.

    (Feb. 26, 2010) — In response to the public outcry over my last report regarding Okubo’s apparently false response to my request for index data from the Hawaii Birth Index, Miss Janice Okubo has directed staff at the Hawaii Department of Health to release a pdf file containing what appears to be scans of a computer printout containing redacted pages from the Hawaii Birth Index for those sections, which would contain the surnames Payne, Dunham, Soetoro and Obama.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/26/okubo-responds-to-public-outcry-for-investigation/#comments

    Off to the races


  574. No.

    I don’t post at birther sites, like the now-defunct site run by Leo Donofrio and others, because they have the ability to censor and edit posts at their whim, and, as Slarti noted, often ban posters who may disagree with them. They require an email address, which I will not give to them.

    If they have anything to say, they can post here at the Turley blog. There is no censorship or editing here, and posters are only barred for abusive posts.

    At that Charlton link, for example, there is not a single non-birther comment to be found.

    A waste of time.


  575. The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Orly’s quo warranto claim yesterday, February 26th (on the same day that her response to California Bar complaints was due). It is 20 pages long, and is posted at ScribD:

    There is also a Combined Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Dismiss and in Opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 18 pages. Text of both seems to be about the same:

    Defendants argue that Plaintiff Taitz lacks standing. They argue that the matter is not justiciable under the political question doctrine. This doctrine bars court consideration of matters that have been textually committed by the Constitution to another branch of government. They argue that mandamus cannot be granted because no non-discretionary duty has been identified. They say she is not entitled to any records because she has made no Freedom of Information Act request. They oppose the preliminary injunction because none or the requirements for one have been met.

    These filings practically write the Judge’s decision for him.


  576. The birthers are being encouraged by the birther sites to harass the Hawaii Health Department, which reports that the requests for the president’s birth certificate keeping coming at a rate of 40 to 50 a month. They are “spurred on by these ‘birther’ blogs who direct them to bombard the Health Department even though they have no legitimate right to the information.”

    http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100219/NEWS01/2190362/Hawaii+gets+persistent+requests+for+Obama+birth+certificate

    The Hawaii Health Department has a page on its website devoted to Obama requests:

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html


  577. Here is the correct link or the Memorandum in Support:


  578. Here’s a new one for you Vince,

    12:21pm UK, Saturday February 27, 2010

    Greg Milam, US correspondent

    The White House has consistently dismissed the issue. Authorities in Hawaii have provided an electronic record of Obama’s birth because the paper copy was destroyed in a fire which wiped out much of the state’s archives.

    Hawaii can’t produce an original because of a fire, a fire on the mountain.

    http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Obama-Birther-Row-Resurfaces-As-US-Prepares-For-Crucial-Mid-Term-Elections/Article/201002415560734?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15560734_Obama_Birther_Row_Resurfaces_As_US_Prepa


  579. Paper copy destroyed in fire?

    Funny. No one else has every heard of this from Hawaiian officials, other than this reporter named Milam. Only SkyNews.

    I think it is a false report. I will wait to see some more evidence.

    I googled that particular ”SkyNewsfiction.” ©™®

    No one else is reporting it independently, only repeating the bogus ”SkyNewsfiction” ©™® report.

    I found a birther website. Even this birther said that Milam’s statement was false:
    Quoting
    “… this statement takes the cake! ‘…because the paper copy was destroyed in a fire which wiped out much of the state’s archives.’

    “Whoaaa Nelly! Where in the world did Milam get that one? Google — Hawaii archive fire — yourself. See! Never happened — but I guess if Milan wrote that Obama’s dog ate it, no one would believe it.
    ….
    “This is what stands for journalism in 2010.

    “Greg Milam, whose previous claim to fame was being attacked by a cockerel, on air, is either dumb as a brick, or a committed Obama propagandist — probably both.”
    Endquoting. Source:

    http://socialismisnottheanswer.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/sky-news-dissembler-and-propagandist/

    Even a birthers was not gullible enough to swallow this one without further evidence.

    So, once again an eager, breathless report is posted, without any effort at verification. I remember when the same poster excitedly put up a link to one of the forged Kenyan birth certificates. Never heard back when the forgery was exposed.

    Let’s see where this one winds up.

    As Kurt would say, up in Heaven, “So it goes.”


  580. Supposedly the information comes from Obama’s book where he claims he found his original between pages of a book. So Obama had his original in his hand but it got burned in a fire. Sounds like Chester Arthur story.

    You know with all the back and forth you would think that the one piece of paper that would settle it all would be produced, not some piece of paper that serves as prima facia evidence.

    Oh well, must have some purpose as to not reveal any of the vital statistics.


  581. I found a birther website. Even this birther said that Milam’s statement was false:

    Could you tell us the name of this site? You normally provide links. I like it when I post and then you go to work. Good job Vince.


  582. So, once again an eager, breathless report is posted, without any effort at verification. I remember when the same poster excitedly put up a link to one of the forged Kenyan birth certificates. Never heard back when the forgery was exposed.

    I’m doing you a service by putting it out there. Your excellence in investigative research is good. I may b-daman but you Isdaman


  583. You should switch from Trollbuster to BirtherBuster


  584. I think I found it. It’s called Theobamafile.com. Whats interesting is on the side bar.

    The United States Library of Congress has selected TheObamaFile.com
    for inclusion in its historic collection of Internet materials.

    Why would the president want the birther issue as part of his historical record.


  585. “tell us the name of this site”

    IT IS IN THE POST at 1:28 pm, SOCIALISM IS NOT THE ANSWER.


  586. “Library of Congress has selected TheObamaFile.com….”

    So what?

    The LC webcapture program NEVER states that inclusion means any endorsement of the contents.

    The obama file site is filled with the same old incorrect birther stuff.


  587. “Supposedly the information comes from Obama’s book where he claims he found his original between pages of a book. So Obama had his original in his hand but it got burned in a fire.”

    Sorry, that is not even close enough for a consolation prize.

    There are many, many miles between a fire that destroyed Hawaiian archives, as Milam and the birthers claism, and a fire that may or may not have burned Obama’s personal copy.


  588. Sorry I should of said house fire.

    Through a spokesperson working for the Administration, the President now claims that his original birth certificate was lost in a fire in 1972. At the time, Mr. Obama was living with his grandparents in Honolulu.

    “There was a small house fire in which the document was lost,” the spokesperson said. “That is why the President has been unable to comply with requests to release it. While the President understands the concerns of citizens, he hopes that this will put the matter to rest.”

    Had to spell dot, won’t let me post link without doing it

    http://jumpinginpools.blogspotdotcom/2009/08/obama-original-birth-certificate-lost.html


  589. From ‘Dreams From My Father’, page 26, referencing newspaper article about father graduating from Univ. Hawaii:

    “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms when I was in high school.”

    1972 ‘fire’ – he was eleven yrs. old. High school years were around 1977-1980.


  590. Google news does not show any other reports of this jumpinginpools “house fire.”

    So what is it? House fire or archives fire?

    This is a waste of time.


  591. So what is it? House fire or archives fire?

    Not sure, you know after a year and a half there has been so many different stories on this subject, who’s to say.

    One thing for sure though, the president could have released the original data a long time ago and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Oh well, guess he just wants a certain number of people to continue to speculate.


  592. P.S. try not to depend on Google for all your searches. Put your inquiry into the other ones like Bing, Yahoo, or the latest one IXquick. IXquick offers you more privacy.

    Search Googlegate in google and see the results. Then do it in the other search engines. 47,900 in google,

    47,900 in google,
    75,299,853 matching results in IXquick
    1-10 of 76,900,000 results in Bing

    Climategate

    2,410,000 for climategate in Google
    51,600,000 results in Bing
    53,099,332 matching results in IXquick

    This is just two examples and this is why Google is under fire right now trying to defend. Plus they are in bed with this administration.


  593. Google hits back over algorithm dispute

    By Maija Palmer in London, Richard Waters in San Francisco and Nikki Tait in Brussels

    Published: February 25 2010 12:47 | Last updated: February 26 2010 01:20

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/2e16bd92-2209-11df-98dd-00144feab49a.html


  594. Bdaman,

    Have you ever considered the possibility that the birther movement is good for President Obama? That having an enemy that is so wrong and so easily debunked is useful in portraying his opponent’s base as whackos in order to drive a wedge between them and moderates? In my mind this theory is a dark horse to the theory that the President understands that this isn’t a big deal and that there is no risk of any kind of successful legal action and occupies his time with stuff that is actually important.

    If you want to include a URL without it becoming a link, I suggest you replace ‘.’ with ‘(dot)’. This is much easier to read with the parentheses. Example:

    jonathanturley(dot)org


  595. Have you ever considered the possibility that the birther movement is good for President Obama?

    Ludicrous, he needs all the support he can get.

    Yea I should have put the parentheses around it, thanks will do. I just switched back to Mozilla for my browser and there are the plus’s and minuses to it. The one thing I do like is the auto spell check feature.


  596. John McCain sure thinks that the birther are helping him:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/johnmccaindotcom#p/a/u/0/28qf6QOfpC0


  597. [Bdaman]: Ludicrous, he needs all the support he can get.

    So if he provides his long form birth certificate all of the birthers will become Obama supporters?


  598. I’ve seen that. They had Hayworth on Oreilley this past week and he totally backtracked, side stepped, danced the jig when he was confronted.


  599. Not now Slart, I think the damage has been done. I think alot of the people just don’t trust anything he says anymore. Think about it. This guy was historic. The entire world was behind him in the beginning. Now they laugh at him. Even in Indonesia they removed his statue.


  600. Fire or discarded ? remember this one? So many stories

    —– Original Message —–
    From: Klein, Jon (CNN)
    Sent: Thu Jul 23 19:00:44 2009
    Subject: Important re birth certificate

    I asked the political researchers to dig into the question “why couldn’t Obama produce the ORIGINAL birth certificate?”

    This is what they forwarded. It seems to definitively answer the question. Since the show’s mission is for Lou to be the explainer and enlightener, he should be sure to cite this during your segment tonite. And then it seems this story is dead – because anyone who still is not convinced doesn’t really have a legitimate beef.

    Thx

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

    *In 2001 – the state of Hawaii Health Department went paperless.*Paper documents were discarded*The official record of Obama’s birth is now an official ELECTRONIC record Janice Okubo, spokeswoman for the Health Department told the Honolulu Star Bulletin, “At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting,” she said.

    ———————
    Transcript from Lou Dobbs Tonight – 07.23.09

    DOBBS: ….And a number of Americans are asking, why not? The left-wing media has attacked me because I simply asked the question. Meanwhile, the state of Hawaii says it can’t release a paper copy of the president’s original birth certificate because they say the state government discarded the original document when the health department records went electronic some eight years ago.

    That explanation, however, has not satisfied some critics. Joining me now, Roland Martin. He’s CNN contributor, syndicated columnist. And joining us as well, Congressman Ted Poe.


  601. Hawaii officials confirm Obama’s original birth certificate still exists.

    http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/28/ln/hawaii907280345.html


  602. Ancient history. Bogus report by Loo Dobbs in 2009. Proven false. Dobbs forced out by CNN possibly in part for obsession on birthers. Dobbs soon to announce that he is running for President.


  603. My point was, so many stories. The only story we haven’t heard is the ORIGINAL one that still exists.


  604. Change you can believe in

    STATE OF INDIANA

    SENATE BILL No. 82

    http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2010/SB/SB0082.1.html

    STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

    HB 1245

    http://www.generalcourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1245.html


  605. on 1, March 2, 2010 at 11:11 am Slartibartfast

    SIGN OF THE APOCALYPSE?

    Looks like a birther-truther team up:

    http://www.t-room.us/2010/02/architects-engineers-for-911-truth-hold-explosive-press-conference/

    This is a post about a recent press conference by ‘Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth’ at a brand new site called ‘The T Room’ that was started by a frequent poster at ‘Dr. Kate’s View’ (and ‘Texas Darlin’ before that).

    Vince,
    The T Room bills itself as ‘A virtual pub for polite political discourse’. I’m tempted to put on my best behavior and find out if that’s true. ;-)

    Gerty,

    Before you start thinking that this disproves my assertion that the 9/11 truth movement is a left-wing conspiracy, I should point out that this poster as well as Texas Darlin and Dr. Kate are all in the PUMA* wing of the birthers, so they clearly have some left leanings (and a WHOLE lot of libertarianism…) wrapped in all the ‘neo-Constitutionalism’ that is the birther’s raison d’etre.

    *Stands for ‘Party Unity My Ass’ – Hillary Clinton supporters who are vehemently against Barack Obama.

    Bob,

    Don’t you get excited, either – I don’t think that there’s anything in this press conference that you haven’t already thrown against the wall… Although Dr. Jones is one of the speakers if you’d like to hear what he has to say.

    By the way, I think I deserve bonus points for a comment that’s relevant to 3 separate threads… ;-)


  606. Thanks, Slart. As they say in the Troom, “Like the Birthers, the Truthers have been screaming from the rooftops to get our attention. Maybe it’s time we do.”

    In the meantime, there is some housekeeping to take care of. Several spurious stories have been posted here as if they were real. For example:

    “December 7th, 1941…the day that would live in infamy….the day that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor….and apparently the day that President Barack Obama’s birth certificate was destroyed in a hospital fire.

    “Obama, who claims that he was born in Honolulu in 1961, has now claimed that a hospital fire that occurred during the 1941 bombing destroyed his birth certificate.”

    http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i67114

    “The story above is a satire or parody. It is entirely fictitious”.

    ”TheSpoof – Disclaimer

    “All material on TheSpoof.com is parody or satire. …
    “Any resemblence to any private individuals, living or dead, is entirely coincidental.”

    Spoof, parody, satire, joke, hoax, fiction, punk, non-fact, not the truth, bogus, fake, counterfeit, dupe.

    Oh!ForGoodnessSake has all the links.

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=7973


  607. The Indiana bill seems to add nothing new.

    The existing law already provides:

    “(c) Except as provided in subsection (e), before the commission or election board acts under this section, a registered voter of the election district that a candidate seeks to represent must file a sworn statement with the election division or election board:
    (1) questioning the eligibility of a the candidate to seek the office; and
    (2) setting forth the facts known to the voter concerning this question.

    For lawyers and law students around her, an Indiana court has already ruled on the merits of the birther arguments.

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

    The case may go up on appeal the State Supreme Court. Remember, those state courts are not limited by Article III standing. The courts have already dismissed the birther challenge, ON THE MERITS, and they will likely be AFFIRMED on appeal.

    So even if this bill passes, any challenge to eligibility made in 2012 will likely be dismissed based on the pending Ankeny case.


  608. NW would provide that “The names of the party’s nominees for president and vice-president shall not appear on the ballot unless the secretary of state has received certified copies of the birth certificates of the presidential and vice-presidential nominees.”

    Obama has already provided a certified copy of his birth certificate. This law would have no effect on him.


  609. “Section 7-13-315. (A) A candidate for President or Vice President of the United
    States may not have his name printed on a ballot in this State unless there is conclusive evidence that he is a natural born citizen of the United States.”

    There has to be “conclusive evidence,” whatever that means, that a candidate is a natural born citizen.

    As discussed above, SC like all other States is bound by the Full Faith and Credit Clause and must give effect to the records of sister State Hawaii. The public record issued by Hawaii proves conclusively that Obama is a natural born citizen.

    If the Secretary or the courts in SC try to reject it, based on some unconstitutional definition of natural born citizen, then the federal courts will step and rule the Obama is, as a matter of fact and law, a natural born citizen and order him placed on the ballot.

    SC did not even put Abraham Lincoln on their ballot in 1860.

    That State does not have a particularly good track record in these matters.


  610. There has to be “conclusive evidence,” whatever that means

    Is prima facia evidence conclusive? just asking? I’m not a lawyer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.


  611. “conclusive evidence”

    I think an ORIGINAL certificate would be conclusive. You know time, date, hospital, signature of physician all printed on one form.


  612. One last loose end for now.

    The folks over at Dr. Conspiracy’s site have shredded the latest fictional posting by John Charlton, linked above on February 27, 2010 at 1:48 pm:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/wheres-the-birth-certificate/

    Here is a sample:
    QUOTE
    Mike says:
    February 27, 2010 at 4:42 pm (Quote)

    Latest failure from the Pest and E-Fail:

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/26/okubo-responds-to-public-outcry-for-investigation/

    Reply to this Comment

    Whatever4 says:
    February 27, 2010 at 6:39 pm (Quote)

    So if I understand this correctly… Obama’s name does not appear on a printout of names that you wouldn’t expect his name to appear on anyway. This proves something. And people are applauding Charlatan’s efforts in doing so.

    I suspect birthers will now proclaim the “fact” that Obama’s name isn’t in the Hawaiian birth file, thus “proving” he wasn’t born in Hawaii at all.

    “The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii.” Obviously, Obama doesn’t qualify for this program as his birth was registered in Hawaii in the usual way — being born there and registered within a week of birth. We do know he’s in the Birth Index.

    UNQUOTE

    More at Dr. Conspiracy.


  613. Public records of Hawaii are conclusive evidence under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.


  614. “By making the entry of forfeiture upon the official record prima facie, but not conclusive, evidence that all preliminary steps essential to a valid forfeiture were properly taken, and that the forfeiture was duly declared, it but established a rebuttable presumption, which he was at liberty to overcome by other evidence.” -REITLER V. HARRIS, 223 U. S. 437 (1912)

    Prima Facie evidence is rebuttable. Conclusive Evidence is not.

    Giving full faith and credit to prima facie evidence does not declare it to be beyond rebuttal.

    “The force and effect of such testimony has been several times considered by this Court. Thus, in United States v. Eckford’s Executors, 1 How. 250, a statement of account by the officers of the Treasury was held not to be conclusive, but only prima facie, evidence. So in United States v. Hodge, 13 How. 478, a Treasury transcript offered in evidence was held to be competent, but not conclusive. In Watkins v. United States, 9 Wall. 759, nothing more appeared in the shape of evidence than the certified transcript of accounts, and, being held to be prima facie evidence, it warranted judgment for the government for the amount therein shown to be due, in the absence of any testimony explaining or contradicting it. But that case does not hold that certified transcripts of accounts are conclusive upon the officer.” -United States v. Dumas, 149 U.S. 278 (1893)

    From somewhere out in left field Vince Treacy asserts that “Public records of Hawaii are conclusive evidence under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.” It’s too bad that “certifications” are based on public record, but are not the public record themselves. Prima facie evidence is not conclusive evidence. Don’t take my word for it. Take the word of the Supreme Court of the United States.

    Are there any “real lawyers” here who will join Vince Treacy in his false claim that prima facie evidence is conclusive evidence?