The Fox News Channel has pretty much banned the discussion of birthers on its television network, but that doesn’t apply to Fox News Radio, where the lone liberal, Alan Colmes, has free reign. What happens when Alan Colmes gets to tackle Joe Arpaio, one on one?
Sheriff Joe Arpaio has not been lucky with attorneys lately.
The Maricopa County Sheriff’s office has been operating under a court-appointed monitor after it was determined that they were guilty of racial profiling. Judge Snow appointed Robert Warshaw as the monitor. According to the Greenfield Reporter,
Snow says he will have Robert Warshaw, who is monitoring the agency on the judge’s behalf, investigate any allegations that he feels the sheriff’s office isn’t examining in good faith.
Warshaw has said his team has never seen more unprofessional interviews than those conducted by Arpaio’s employees who are running the investigation.
Ouch! Judge Snow said in court yesterday (November 21) that Sheriff Joe could be held in contempt of court! Arpaio is appealing the decision by Snow, but he’s run into another snag: the attorney representing him wants out, citing ethics concerns, says the Associated Press:
A lawyer representing Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in a racial profiling case says legal ethics compel his firm to step aside.
As one might expect, no details of what the ethics concern is about were made public, although it was detailed in court filing earlier in the week.
The embattled sheriff is trying to take the offensive, by suing the President over his announced new immigration policy, reports Reuters:
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose force used racial profiling during a crackdown on illegal migrants last year according to a judge, said Obama has overstepped his powers by bypassing Congress and bringing in the changes himself.
I wonder who’s paying the legal bill, and who Arpaio could get to represent him in the case? The second question is easily answered from court filings: Larry E. Klayman. What is a little difficult for me as a layman to determine is whether Arpaio is suing as a private citizen, or as Sheriff of Maricopa County. Arpaio is described in the complaint caption as “Elected SHERIFF of Maricopa County,” but the complaint does not use the phrase “in his official capacity,” nor does it suggest that the County is a party to the suit. It looks like Arpaio is suing as a private citizen, and that immediately raises the question of standing. In addressing the issue of standing, the complaint states:
27. Plaintiff Joe Arpaio is adversely affected and harmed in his office’s finances, workload, and interference with the conduct of his duties, but the failure of the executive branch to enforce existing immigration laws, but has been severely affected by increases in the influx of illegal aliens motivated by Defendant Obama’s policies of offering amnesty….
The other defendants are Jeh Johnson, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Leon Rodriquez, Director of Citizenship and Immigration Services and Eric Holder, Jr. Attorney General.
“The Treason of Images” is one of the translations of the title of a painting by the Belgian surrealist painter René Magritte. For some reason that image came to me during lunch today and I thought of its application to the blog. [If the reader is not familiar with the work, now might be a good time to follow the preceding link to the Wikipedia article to see it.] I might adapt Magritte:
The famous birth certificate. How people reproached me for it! And you, could have you gotten a passport with my birth certificate? No, it’s just a representation, is it not? So if I had written on my picture “This is a birth certificate,” I’d have been lying!
Birthers seem confused about the difference between an object and a representation of it, a photo of it in the case of Obama’s birth certificate. No one in real life confuses the two. You cannot get wet looking at a photo of Niagara falls, but no one complains about this. They don’t curse the image for its dryness. Still birthers get all upset that Obama put a photo of his birth certificate on the White House web site, as if one could put a piece real of paper on the web somehow. (Obama’s attorney did show the actual certified copy—what one calls a birth certificate—to the press who handled it and photographed it. One could get a passport with something like that.)
Birthers were at one time enamored by the “citizens grand jury.” They didn’t like the fact that no prosecutor or grand jury would indict Obama for crimes they believed he committed, so they set up their own shadow government with grand juries, prosecutors and judicial proceedings, culminating with the famous The Blood of Jesus v. Obama trial by Pastor James D. Manning in Harlem.
They’re back in a presentation by Terry Rapp, scheduled for December 2 at the Surprise Arizona Tea Party Patriots (not to be confused with the Surprise Arizona Tea Party or the Judean People’s Front) meeting. [View a slide presentation by Rapp on the Arizona Common Law Grand Jury.] Rapp has been making the rounds in Arizona at least since last February with seminars on common law grand juries.
Rapp is the Arizona representative of the National Liberty Alliance, an organization promoting common law grand juries across the country. NLA head John Darash (not his real name) is himself quite a character, and you can read about him and his organization at The Fogbow.
Some believe that the grand jury is properly a guard against prosecutorial abuse and some argue that the grand jury as originally intended was an independent investigative body. Whatever the original intention or current implementation of the grand jury in Arizona or in the United States, the grand jury is a representative of the people and this point is where extra-governmental grand juries stumble. Citizen grand juries are collections of like minded people, excluding those who don’t share their ideology. They don’t represent the people as a whole and as such they have no legitimacy under any interpretation of the meaning of grand jury. Real grand juries consist of randomly selected individuals, not volunteers with an axe to grind.
Thanks to those who provided information used in this article.
So this person under the name “Calista Dvorak” showed up on YouTube under a 2012 Mark Gillar video, the one with the false statements about race codes on Obama’s birth certificate.
She said she was an expert in digital imaging and that Obama’s birth certificate was a digital forgery. When I asked the standard questions about her qualifications:
I would just ask you simply have you ever even taken a course in electronic forensic document examination? Have you ever taught such a course? Have you ever been employed as a forensic document examiner? Have you been certified in this field by any accredited forensic accreditation organization? Have you ever been qualified by any court as an expert witness in forensic electronic document examination? Have you applied any scientifically recognized methodology in determining that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery? If you answered yes to ANY of those questions, you would be ahead of every so-called birther expert to appear.
Her response to me (which totally dodged the questions) is one of the most painfully turgid things I have ever read (ellipses in the original):
The essential demand precludes your ancillary details. A digitally fabricated cartoon, regardless of technical method of production, of an alleged vital record…presented through an undisclosed, undocumented chain of custody…presented through a restricted non-interactive media source controlled only by the perpetrators…lauded by ideologically corrupt accomplices in media, is not an acceptable method for providing verification of, not only the identity of the person, but the actual existence of the original paper document it purports to represent.
In this case, the vital information of an ideologically radical public figure seeking the power of public office has been proffered to that public in the form of cartoon. Denial of these factual premises is symptomatic of a serious psychopathology.
While your need to cull a pedantic argument without addressing this crux is fascinating, I’m certain you don’t require affirmation to push extraneous explanations in defense of Obama’s lies. Most Obots don’t. In fact, as this lie continues to erode, along with the credibility and moral character of this illegitimate administration and the obotic horde, I truly hope that yours is one of the remaining voices among the desolate petitioners arguing in favor of immaterial trinkets like “Xerox Workcentres” and “MRC compression”.
I’ll enjoy witnessing the futility of your sophisticated gewgaw against the righteousness of subsequent wrath. For example, your promotion of document examination, electronic or otherwise, is futile because there is no document to examine in concert with a documented chain of custody in this case.
Dr. Queiroz? While I honor the expertise of colleagues, Dr. Queiroz is an equally respected academic who, as a fan of the Tales of Count Lucanor, admits that he has little experience or understanding of vital records management, counterintelligence or, most importantly in this matter, criminology. Coincidentally, I am personally familiar with Dr. Q’s work through mutual membership with various committees and am pleased to say that we not only share academic and professional qualifications but also the privilege as contributors to a handful of industry standards overlapping our respective fields. However, we are merely two of many qualified thousands.
However, unfortunately, as proficient as he may be with a scanner, confirmation of arcane theories, provided by foreign galleries, outside appropriate adjudication in this matter (YouTube comments do not qualify) remain subordinate to the need to confront its domestic criminal genesis. For, I am confident, if prosecution were undertaken and the case brought to the appropriate venue, there are far more qualified experts able to provide essential rationale to the acts, motives and methods for this forgery and deception, than you or Dr. Q.
Unlike most you inaccurately identify and mischaracterize, I am one of few who genuinely desires that Obama not be removed from his current place despite his counterfeit identity. On the contrary, I would that he to remains perched upon his precarious illegitimacy…as high and as publicly viewable as possible. The blood-ransomed sovereignty of the office of the U.S. President has been proven strong enough to withstand the assault of such an amateur, as we continue to witness. Moreover, I am of the rare opinion there is no better place for reconciliation than the seat designated for the most powerful leadership position in the world. Only upon that prolific mantel can equal action against of the most prolific lie in human history be brought.
For the time being, I will enjoy weighing “feet of clay” arguments promoting office implements and discredited paper Dicks against the emerging truth revealing Obama’s fraudulent identity, and his sociopathic agenda, to the electorate. Perhaps then, after the eradication of ill-elected overbenders and fake internet doctors from our ranks, we can impress upon a righteous majority, the descendants of those worthier, to address this hideous aberration with the vigor and intellect it demands.
There really is a Calista Dvorak, a neurologist in North Carolina. The same? Not a clue.
Sharon Meroni (aka Chalice Jackson) was an early birther who through lawsuits in Illinois and her Patriots Heart Network, challenged Obama’s eligibility. Even back then, Meroni claimed massive vote fraud in Illinois in the 2008 election.
These days, she runs the web site “DEFENDtheVOTE.com” that focuses on election fraud issues, and again invokes the legal process, most recently a complaint under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Her latest article is “SUCCESS! New Early Voting Procedures in Chicago.”
The integrity of elections is an important issue, and proper audit trails (which Meroni says were not in place for early voted ballots) are essential to public confidence in the voting process.
I had a haircut today, and my barber thanked me for serving as a poll manager in his precinct during the November 4 election. He expressed concern about whether his votes were counted properly, and I was able to tell him how the audit trails worked in our state and I think he was assured after that—but the other barber then said, “so we really elected Obama twice?” That was a landmine I didn’t want to step on, so I just replied: “not in South Carolina.” This anecdote reinforces the idea that some segment of the population doesn’t trust vote tabulation.
I only scanned the Defend the Vote site quickly, and wouldn’t want to characterize it, but some of the things I did see were what I would describe as “unscientific.” While I share concerns over the integrity of voting systems, I think that those concerns will not be answered by the level of expertise we see in the birthers. I think the best minds can solve the problems, but the worst minds can foul it up if they get to make the laws.