I had a very fine Easter. Some, however, spent an hour listening to Orly Taitz on KCNR radio on a program called “Sovereign Minds.” It opens with children reciting the US Pledge of Allegiance to some creepy music.
It appeared in a comment on this blog: Lucas Daniel Smith says that Loren Collins has offered to represent him pro bono in Smith’s defense against extradition from the Dominican Republic to Kenya. I find this a delicious story, full of twists and irony; however, I didn’t want to write an article about it until I had confirmation, and now I have. Collins confirmed to me in an email today that he made the offer of representing Smith, and further that his offer is sincere. (Loren is a straight-up guy as I have known him, and I wouldn’t have expected anything but sincerity from him.)
At this point Smith hasn’t accepted the offer, but said that he would decide by Monday. Since Collins isn’t yet representing Smith, he has no special access to documentation and records; we’re all in the same boat as to our capability of judging whether there is any real Kenyan extradition proceeding in the first place. I wrote about that question in my article: “Why did Bruce Steadman give Lucas Daniel Smith $5,800?”
The initial irony would be Smith saying that he rejected representation because he couldn’t trust Collins, and that’s likely as far as it will go.
Lucas Smith, among his plethora of new articles, says he accepts Collin’s offer. I didn’t see that coming (I hasten to add that there’s no written agreement between Collins and Smith yet). It raises new interesting questions like how attorney-client privilege works in a case like this, and would Collins would be muzzled even if he found out that the extradition was a hoax, which I still believe it is? On the positive side, Smith is saying that Bruce Steadman will receive copies of all their correspondence which is important because if there is any victim here, it’s Steadman.
I have to give credit where credit is due. Just when you think there’s nothing new under the birther sun, they come up with something.
Several readers of this blog are complaining that they are nable to post. Please, contact firstname.lastname@example.org and demand that they fix this glitch ASAP
And that’s the most interesting recent post from Orly Taitz! What’s the world coming to when all an anti-birther gets to write about is maintenance problems on Orly’s web site? Or perhaps this breaking news headline from Orly is more to your taste:
No decisions yet in 5 pending cases
At least she didn’t make that 5 articles. Another major article says that Israel Hanukoglu complained to Orly about a typo in her link to his site, and this somehow turns into harassment of academics. The rest of her stuff is just invective against everybody in the government, accusing of them of treason, and some nasty anti-Muslim bigotry. Pathetic and wholly uninteresting.
A quick scan of Birther Report didn’t get my juices flowing either. Maybe there’s something in the comments, but really, “any day now” is pretty threadbare after all this time.
On the “any day now” theme, Obot1 has declared the birther movement dead — again. Yeah, right.
The American Thinker published an article, “Barack Hussein Obama and Harrison J. Bounel,” by criminologist Jason Kissner today that argues that the association between the name Harrison J. Bounel and Barack Obama in some unspecified transaction in a public database is much more than coincidence or an attempt at identity fraud. While the argument is couched in the language of probability, no math is used.1
Detractors of the birther Social Security fraud theory point out that no one has been able to locate this Harrison J. Bounel who birthers claim is a real person to whom the social security number used by Barack Obama was originally assigned. If such a person existed, debunkers say, then one ought to be able to find some independent record of him.
Kissner turns the tables and says that the inability to find other records of Bounel is proof that he is a real person (are you confused yet?). Kissner’s argument is that the database record could not be fraudulent because it would have been too difficult to actually find someone with no other record in order to perpetrate the fraud.
Kissner’s claim is inserted in a straw man argument refuting the idea that some anti-Obama person created the fake record for Bounel. I suppose someone might have speculated on the possibility that the public record for Bounel with Obama’s SSN was created for the purpose of creating an anomaly in Obama’s record (I might have even done it), but I think it is more likely to be an error or an attempt at identity theft. The straw man context is not important because Kissner’s argument fits the real argument of random error or fraud as well as it does the straw man.
Kissner’s fallacy, however, is the ad hoc assignment of probability to something that’s already happened. It’s like looking at the winning lottery number and saying “what are the chances this number would come up?” and then arguing that the lottery must be rigged. In order to make the probability argument, one has to set the criteria in advance, or they have to be necessary. The fact that the name “Harrison J Bounel” doesn’t belong to anybody is not necessary to the hypothesis and so it’s not significant, no matter how improbable it is.
But the probability of coming up with a name belonging to nobody isn’t that low; in fact, it’s easy. I took the names “Kissner” and “Bounel” and used them with the first and middle names of the members of my immediate family (6 total). I got only one hit on Google for the 12 names I tried.
And finally Kissner’s argument works equally well against Obama fraudulently using an SSN belonging to Bounel: How could Obama have found someone so totally devoid of any record?
What Kissner won’t address is: assuming Harrison J Bounel is a real person (birther hypothesis), what are the chances that there is no record of him anywhere, not birth announcement, obituary, immigration record, census, city directory, grave, genealogy nor criminal record?
Obama Conspiracy Theories articles on Harrison J. Bounel
- Obama Conspiracy Theories articles on Jason Kissner
- Kissner on the Boston Marathon bombing: ATLAHWorldwide video
1Kissner did some math in another article. The math was right, but the assumptions he made were unreasonable.
I think his derisive comments about me stem from envy, that I grabbed Dr. Conspiracy before he did. Kissner is involved in a range of crank conspiracy theories including the Boston Marathon bombing, Loretta Fuddy’s death, Obama’s SSN, Obama publicist brochure and MH370 Plane Conspiracy Theories.
According to the Arizona’s Politics blog, the Arizona Auditor General will consider information about the County/MSCO/Posse relationship. Information published on this blog, Brian Reilly’s first hand accounts of the Posse, and my investigation of the lack of CCP financial accountability, are things that may be considered.
I do not understand, however, how the Arizona Auditor General can audit the Cold Case Posse when they are a private non-profit.
RC Radio reports that Birmingham Attorney Barry Ragsdale has notified the Alabama Supreme Court of a possible ethics violation. This came after Sharon Rondeau of the Post & Email wrote that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore had spoken to someone and told them the future date of the Alabama Supreme Court decision in McInnish v. Chapman. The correct prediction of the date was published at the P&E. Lest we jump to conclusions, Ragsdale in his letter to the court cautioned:
Needless to say, given the tenor and content of the on-line blogs in question, there is reason to doubt the accuracy or veracity of anything reported by them.
Judge Moore was previously an author for WorldNetDaily.
Read the details at RC Radio.
After thinking about this for a while, I feel it more likely that Judge Moore did not have the conversation claimed by Rondeau. The “face to face” detail seems contrived, something added to make the story more believable. This story is a bit like Orly Taitz’ complaint about extra-judicial remarks by Judge Wingate in Mississippi, one that is almost certainly bogus.