Main Menu

Hollister dismissed, Hemenway reprimanded

Unable to sanction the real culprit in the harassing lawsuit, Hollister v. Obama, Judge Robertson reprimanded attorney Hemenway under whose signature the suit was filed.

The decision left little question who the Judge would have preferred to punish, if that person had had the courage to show up in court. See footnote 4. ObamaCrimes.info is now part of the judicial record.

H/t to mimi for the info.

27.OrderFindingRule11Violation-3-24-2008

152 Responses to Hollister dismissed, Hemenway reprimanded

  1. avatar
    myson March 25, 2009 at 5:07 am #

    Sadly i would have liked to see sanction to show to the birthers that the judge was very serious !!! This only seems like a smackdown to the law profession, to a non-lawyer, it doesnt eemso bad !!

  2. avatar
    Chris March 25, 2009 at 11:16 am #

    Funny how this seems to have been conveniently ignored on WND and factsnotneeded.com, er, defendourfreedoms.us

  3. avatar
    Cee Cee March 25, 2009 at 7:55 pm #

    I was hoping that Hemenway would have gotten some kind of monetary sanction to teach him and others a lesson that there would hell to pay if they keep up with those frivolous lawsuits.

  4. avatar
    Bob March 25, 2009 at 8:25 pm #

    By just admonishing Hemenway, it is doubtful Hemenway will (or even can) appeal. But the judge has sent a clear warning to anyone in the D.C. District Court bar (including and especially Hemenway) to not litigate these kinds of suits (or sponsor someone else who wants to).

  5. avatar
    Doug Mataconis March 26, 2009 at 6:21 am #

    One wonders why someone in DC doesn’t pursue Unauthorized Practice of Law claims against Berg since it’s clear that he was the one writing the pleadings that Hemenway was signing off on.

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 26, 2009 at 8:42 am #

    I don’t think what Berg is doing in Hollister is the “practice of law”. I mean that both technically and sarcastically.

    I do have a question, though. Is a lawyer filing pro se out of the jurisdiction where he is admitted to the bar bound by the same Rule 11 standards as if he were filing on behalf of someone else (and either admitted to the bar or pro hac vice)? I’m guessing that the sealed case in DC is pro se.

  7. avatar
    Heavy March 26, 2009 at 10:16 am #

    Legislating from the bench…A VERY dangerous pratice.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 26, 2009 at 11:19 am #

    If it weren’t for legislating from the bench, you couldn’t record your favorite TV show and play it back later without paying a fee.

  9. avatar
    NBC March 26, 2009 at 11:58 am #

    What was being legislated from the bench?

  10. avatar
    Doug Mataconis March 26, 2009 at 3:42 pm #

    In my experience (I am an attorney licensed in Virginia and D.C), the Courts and the disciplinary committees take a very dim view of attorneys who ghost write pleadings for parties who are allegedly “pro se”. If Berg is doing that and the Judges on the D.C. District Court figure out, I’d imagine there would be some consequences.

    I also seem to remember, though, that Judge Robinson mentioned in his Memorandum dismissing Hollister that Berg had been filing pleadings without having been formally admitted pro hac vice. Presumably this was done under Hemenway’s signature because most Federal Courts will not accept pleadings from attorneys not admitted to practice before them. That potentially could be a UPL claim, or at least grounds for disciplinary proceedings.

    Speaking of which, didn’t I read somewhere that the California Bar was investigating Orly ?

  11. avatar
    Doug Mataconis March 26, 2009 at 3:43 pm #

    Heavy,

    This wasn’t legislating from the bench, this was a Judge exercising his inherent authority to regulate the attorneys that practice before him.

    In fact, Hemenway got off pretty good under the circumstances. I’m guessing it’s because of his age and the fact that he’s not the real guilty party here.

  12. avatar
    Heavy March 30, 2009 at 10:04 am #

    No, that was a judge expressing his political beliefs under the guise of authority. As an “Attorney”, I’m sure you see this all the time.

  13. avatar
    Andrew A. Gill March 30, 2009 at 10:43 pm #

    Who would you rather legislate a reprimand?

    The Congress, which is prevented from doing so by the Constitutional prohibition of bills of attainder? Or would you rather have President Obama do it?

  14. avatar
    Doug Mataconis March 31, 2009 at 5:54 am #

    Continue drinking the Kool-Aid my friend as you watch Orly, Berg, and Donfrio go down in flames.

    Before this is all over, one or all of them will be disbarred, I guarantee it.

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 31, 2009 at 6:33 am #

    I think Orly is already on the fast track to disbarment for soliciting clients on false pretenses. Berg seems too cagey to get caught. Apuzzo has signed a frivolous pleading in federal court, which is never a smart thing to do.

  16. avatar
    Heavy March 31, 2009 at 9:00 am #

    Mr. “Attorney”, you may be correct. There may be some professional fallout from this battle. BUT, the people will NOT lose the war. This guy is a usurper and that WILL be established come hell or high water.

  17. avatar
    Doug Mataconis March 31, 2009 at 2:30 pm #

    Heavy,

    If there were any factual or legal basis to the arguments that she makes, then Dr. Orly the Dentist Lawyer has nothing to fear from the California Bar.

    Since neither the law nor the facts are on her side, I would suggest that she stop her antics soon or risk losing her license to practice law.

  18. avatar
    Doug Mataconis March 31, 2009 at 2:31 pm #

    And other other thing, Mr. Heavy:

    Your comment simply establishes that you and those like you are not open to rational debate or evidence on this topic.

    You have made up your mind.

    You are, with all due respect, a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nut.

  19. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 9:52 am #

    Actually, Doug, I am open to ANY credible eveidence. See, what you and the rest of your ilk fail to grasp, is that HE must prove he is elligible.

    Now that he refuses to provide proof of elligibility, it is up to us to provide it. This will be a slow and arduos task, but one that MUST be performed none the less. He can run, but he can’t hide. HE is the one that will be responsible for the resulting chaos. HE will have to answer for his crimes. Thise who support this illegal regime will not be easily forgiven for their actions against this country.

    It will be very interesting to see how many admit that they voted for this imposter once the S**T hits the fan…And it will!

  20. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 9:54 am #

    Furthermore, Doug, yes I am a nut! A nut for my country. A nut for national security. A nut for justice. A nut for punishing those who act AGAINST my country.

  21. avatar
    kimba April 1, 2009 at 10:19 am #

    You say you’re open to credible evidence, but you tried to dismiss the statement of the Director of Public Health for the State of Hawaii that he has “seen and verified…Obama’s ORIGINAL birth certificate is on file with the State of Hawaii.” Have you called Fukino’s office yet? They are more than happy to tell you that what that means is Obama was born in Hawaii.
    CHIYOME LEINAALA FUKINO M.D.
    DIRECTOR
    Phone: (808) 586-4410
    http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 1, 2009 at 10:35 am #

    What I haven’t figured out, Heavy is that on the one hand you say “he must prove he is eligible” which implies that Obama’s eligibility is an open question, while on the other hand you call him an impostor and assert with certainly that this will be exposed.

    Apart from any obligation on Obama’s part, by what evidence do you assert the conclusion of the story?

  23. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 10:55 am #

    It’s simple, doc. Until he proves elligible, he is NOT. You cam claim to have a 4.0 GPA, but until it’s documented your GPA is 0.0.

  24. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 1, 2009 at 11:27 am #

    After a few minutes of historical research, I have found that none of the 42 men to occupy the White House before Obama “proved” their eligibility in the manner you request.

    Therefore, we must conclude that none of them were eligible, right ?

  25. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 1, 2009 at 11:32 am #

    See, this is where it becomes clear to me what the real agenda of the birthers is.

    They oppose Obama — whether it’s because of his policies, his race, or his name — and they are latching on to these fanciful theories that have no support in fact or in law based solely on that opposition.

    Moreover, it’s clear to me that you, like the other birthers, will not really accept any evidence presented. The COLB wasn’t enough, even though its same document anyone with a Hawaiian birth certificate gets. The statements from Hawaiian officials wasn’t enough. And, as the good Doc noted in a post here a while ago, I seriously doubt that even an original birth certificate establishing the fact of Obama’s Hawaiian birth for all time will not be enough.

    You just don’t want him to be President.

    I oppose most of what he proposes, but I’m not going to latch on to nonsense because of that.

  26. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 1, 2009 at 11:33 am #

    Doc,

    It’s fairly clear that Heavy has already made up his mind, no ?

  27. avatar
    NBC April 1, 2009 at 11:44 am #

    In other words you never considered President Bush to be eligible either?
    Good to hear… But what a precedent…

  28. avatar
    NBC April 1, 2009 at 11:47 am #

    Yes, his standards of evidence are highly indicative of that but under same standards, I have to conclude that Heavy is nothing but a closet liberal. πŸ™‚

  29. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 11:52 am #

    Ok guys, keep playing your game. You are going to lose.

  30. avatar
    NBC April 1, 2009 at 11:55 am #

    Ok guys, keep playing your game. You are going to lose.

    40+ lawsuits all but a few dismissed, the Supreme Court is wary of Orly’s actions, the Attorney General refused to obey Orly’s commands.

    If that’s what losing feels like, then give me more…

  31. avatar
    NBC April 1, 2009 at 11:58 am #

    What part of the COLB did you not understand?

    City of Birth: Honolulu…
    Born on US soil therefor natural born citizen

  32. avatar
    NBC April 1, 2009 at 11:59 am #

    A nut who seems to be punishing himself…

  33. avatar
    NBC April 1, 2009 at 12:02 pm #

    Reading Orly’s site it is clear that the strongest motivator is not the love for the constitution but rather a hate for Obama which guides these foolish actions.

  34. avatar
    Chris April 1, 2009 at 12:08 pm #

    I’m pretty sure that the one called Heavy delights in ticking us off. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  35. avatar
    kimba April 1, 2009 at 12:20 pm #

    I think Heavy wants to believe. He’s on the edge. He knows there is no evidence to prove Obama is ineligible, but plenty of circumstantial evidence he is. We may not have a sworn affidavit from Harvard or his transcript showing he was a 4.0 law student, but it is a fact that he graduated magna cum laude and was the president of the law review. Certainly indicative of the caliber of student he was. A bit more nudging and Heavy will give up the anti-Obama fight.

  36. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 1, 2009 at 12:44 pm #

    Yes, but if Obama should provide evidence of eligibility, by your reasoning he would be eligible and his demise which you say is certain will not occur. So on what do you base your certainty of the outcome?

  37. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 1, 2009 at 12:45 pm #

    One certainly gets that impression.

  38. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 1, 2009 at 1:29 pm #

    Notice how that’s the only response he could come up with ?

  39. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 1:30 pm #

    If they had been asked , they would have complied.

  40. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 1:32 pm #

    I never said his demise is certain. If he proves to be elligible, then so be it. In the meantime, he is not. Pretty simple.

  41. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 1:35 pm #

    Yes, I do get a certain satisfaction in ruffling your feathers. I do delight in causing discomfort to those who would have our Constitution compromised.

  42. avatar
    Zuzu April 1, 2009 at 1:38 pm #

    Heavy says:
    April 1, 2009 at 1:30 pm

    If they had been asked , they would have complied.
    —————————-

    That isn’t what you said. You said “[u]ntil he proves elligible [sic], he is NOT.”

  43. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 1:41 pm #

    Kimba, I will give up the fight when the evidence proves out. Until then, I’ll continue to fight this imposter. I am, by no means alone. Our numbers are growing by the hour. It will take time to pierce the iron veil THE ONE and his supporters have thrown up, but the truth will come out.

    If I am wrong, I will admit it and move on. Until then, he is a usurper and his
    supporters co-conspirators.

    Yes, he was president of the law review. And many others have similarly benefitted from affirmative action and similar policies. So don’t try to pass that crap off as meaningful.

  44. avatar
    NBC April 1, 2009 at 1:43 pm #

    Now Heavy is backtracking from his claim that “your side is going to lose”… Funny how consistency is seldomly seen as a virtue…

  45. avatar
    NBC April 1, 2009 at 1:44 pm #

    Still in denial?

  46. avatar
    NBC April 1, 2009 at 1:45 pm #

    Seems heavy is quite the masochist, causing discomfort in those who would have our Constitution compromised πŸ˜‰

  47. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 1:46 pm #

    Doug, the BC issue means little to me. It is just one in a long line of “Mysteries” surrounding your messiah. Although I do want to see it just because I want to see what he is hiding.

    You can call me a bitheer, a tinfoil hatter or whatever you wish. I call you and you ilk TRAITORS! Plain and simple. You support an illegitimate candidate. You usurp the Constitution. You are a traitor.

  48. avatar
    NBC April 1, 2009 at 1:47 pm #

    If I am wrong, I will admit it and move on. Until then, he is a usurper and his
    supporters co-conspirators.

    As I thought, our defender of the Constitution somehow does not seem to care about the concept of innocent till proven guilty.

    Figures…

  49. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 1:47 pm #

    No, I’m not punishing myself. I’m actually having fun trying to engage you thoughtless people.

  50. avatar
    NBC April 1, 2009 at 1:49 pm #

    You can call me a bitheer, a tinfoil hatter or whatever you wish. I call you and you ilk TRAITORS! Plain and simple. You support an illegitimate candidate. You usurp the Constitution. You are a traitor.

    Countless courts disagree with this interpretation. Too bad isn’t it. Seems that ‘traitor’ to does not mean what it commonly means now does it.

    Traitor: Anyone who supports President Obama and does not take seriously the unproven and unsupported accusations about his supposed ineligibility, even though he passed all Constitutional and legal hurdles.

  51. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 1:49 pm #

    It only takes one sperm out of millions to fertilize an egg.

  52. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 1:51 pm #

    Well, what else can be said the robots that keep recycling the same useless information as though it was fact?

  53. avatar
    NBC April 1, 2009 at 1:52 pm #

    Not only a masochist but also in denial. That’s too funny.
    And no, you are not trying to engage anyone, all you do is make the same flawed assertions and accusations.

    Surely you must understand the difference. In fact, when others attempt to engage you in a real discussion, you simply ignore them.

    One would almost conclude that you are not up to the task? I understand, it’s hard to defend an indefensible position.

  54. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 1:53 pm #

    WTF are you talking about. He has been asked and refused to comply. Pretty simple.

  55. avatar
    NBC April 1, 2009 at 1:53 pm #

    A masochist in denial with a sense of irony. Now that’s a combination I dig….

    Really Heavy, have you looked in the mirror today?

  56. avatar
    NBC April 1, 2009 at 1:56 pm #

    Since he was found eligible at all levels (voters, states, electoral college, and Congress), and since those asking him to ‘comply’ were found to lack in standing, judiciability, and failed to state a claim, it seems clear that President Obama did comply.

    Perhaps what you mean is that Obama failed to present the irrelevant data some suggest he should provide while his COLB showed prima facie legal evidence of his birth in Honolulu.

    As I said, you have somewhat of a masochistic tendency…

  57. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 1:57 pm #

    Actually, my position does not need defense. Just proof. All we ask is for information that is readily available.

    You people don’t know what engaging is. If you want to win the lottery, you must first buy a ticket.

  58. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 2:00 pm #

    There you go with the “Uproven” crap again. All he has to do is produce the douments and all this goes away. We WILL get to the truth. Those who support the imposter will not be easily forgiven. It’s gonna get REAL ugly!

  59. avatar
    NBC April 1, 2009 at 2:01 pm #

    Actually, my position does not need defense. Just proof. All we ask is for information that is readily available.

    You may be right, your position need no defense because it lacks in proof. I am glad we have come to agree. And yes, the information is readily available and yet you keep ignoring the COLB.

    Fascinating

  60. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 2:05 pm #

    It’s going to be a long process, but a necessary one. I have only one question. Will you apologize when he is finally proven illegitimate?

  61. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 1, 2009 at 2:08 pm #

    I will apologize right after I finish having my head examined.

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 1, 2009 at 2:15 pm #

    What would be acceptable proof of Obama’s eligibility. That is, if I had some evidence, how would I know that this evidence constituted proof? If we’re going to require proof, then we really ought to know what proof means, right?

    Would it be sufficient for Berg’s Third Circuit appeal be sent back to the district for trial, and Berg lost? Or Berg lost, and ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court who ruled that Obama was a natural born citizen and eligible to be President? Is that proof?

    If we had achieved proof, how would we know it?

  63. avatar
    Chris April 1, 2009 at 2:15 pm #

    Can’t we all just get along?

  64. avatar
    Chris April 1, 2009 at 2:17 pm #

    OK I’ve been dying to ask. Could you please define the word ‘fact’? Thanks.

  65. avatar
    NBC April 1, 2009 at 2:22 pm #

    Sure, the important qualifier is ‘finally’

  66. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 2:25 pm #

    I’m disappointed, doc. You mean to say you would not apologize if he were found inelligible?

    PROOF would come in any LEGITIMATE from that proves he meets the constitutional requirement for NBC.

  67. avatar
    NBC April 1, 2009 at 2:30 pm #

    There you go with the “Uproven” crap again. All he has to do is produce the douments and all this goes away. We WILL get to the truth. Those who support the imposter will not be easily forgiven. It’s gonna get REAL ugly!

    Now you are again claiming that he is guilty of something for which no convincing evidence exists, even though he has produced the prima facie legal document which shows his birthplace to be Honolulu.

    How ugly do you think it is going to get? Uglier than the unsupported assertions?

  68. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 2:30 pm #

    Fact: A truth known by actual experience or observation.

  69. avatar
    NBC April 1, 2009 at 2:32 pm #

    And the probability that any given sperm will succeed is miniscule.

  70. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 2:33 pm #

    I thought we were.

  71. avatar
    NBC April 1, 2009 at 2:37 pm #

    Cool so we can conclude that the following facts exist

    1. Obama produced a prima facie legal document, COLB
    2. The birth certificate was filed within 4 days of birth.
    3. The birth certificate shows as the city of birth Honolulu
    4. The courts have interpreted natural born to mean: Born on US Soil

    Whadaysay?

  72. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 2:38 pm #

    Exactly. That’s why we must continue to “Copulate” and increse our chances. Or we could always adopt, like Lolo.

  73. avatar
    NBC April 1, 2009 at 2:43 pm #

    I am having a great time getting along with Heavy.

  74. avatar
    NBC April 1, 2009 at 2:47 pm #

    Exactly. That’s why we must continue to “Copulate” and increse our chances. Or we could always adopt, like Lolo.

    So far the conclusion is that the male is sterile… As to the adoption part, would you call that a fact or a speculation?

  75. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 2:55 pm #

    Nice try, NBC. None of those statements meet the definition of FACT. They are heresay and assumption. Even if they did, they would not answer the other, more important questions of elligibilty.

  76. avatar
    Zuzu April 1, 2009 at 3:00 pm #

    You said that without presenting proof you find sufficient, he is not eligible.

    Which means exactly what Doug Mataconis said it meant: under your standards, none of the other 42 individuals who have served as POTUS were “eligilbe” either.

    Pretty simple.

  77. avatar
    Zuzu April 1, 2009 at 3:00 pm #

    You said that without presenting proof you find sufficient, he is not eligible.

    Which means exactly what Doug Mataconis said it meant: under your standards, none of the other 42 individuals who have served as POTUS were “eligible” either.

    Pretty simple.

  78. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 1, 2009 at 3:05 pm #

    Heavy

    Doug, the BC issue means little to me. It is just one in a long line of “Mysteries” surrounding your messiah.

    Did you even bother to read what I’ve written ?

    I’ve already said I don’t support his policies.

    I didn’t vote for him.

    I just don’t believe that anything is accomplished by falling for the lies of shysters like Orly Taitz and Phil Berg.

  79. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 1, 2009 at 3:07 pm #

    Heavy,

    That’s exactly the thought I have when I try to have rational discussions with people who think that Orly Taitz, who doesn’t even both to spell-check her blog posts, is some kind of amazing Constitutional scholar.

    She’s not, and anyone who’s sent her money is a damn fool.

  80. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 3:14 pm #

    Are you serious?

  81. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 1, 2009 at 3:14 pm #

    And all the factual allegations made by Donofrio, Berg, and Orly the Dentist are hearsay (note correct spelling) and assumption.

    What other “more important questions of eligibility” could there be ?

    If there was a original birth certificate produced showing he was born on 8/2/61 on Honolulu, would that satisfy you ?

    I’ve got $ 20 in my wallet that says the answer is no.

  82. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 3:15 pm #

    You tell me.

  83. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 3:18 pm #

    I never claimed to support Orly and have certainly not sent her money.

  84. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 3:25 pm #

    My apologies.

  85. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 1, 2009 at 3:32 pm #

    And I didn’t say that.

    Nonetheless, she is the one driving the bus on this issue now.

  86. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 1, 2009 at 3:32 pm #

    No, I would apologize. However, I would have my head examined first. Given the monumental implications of such an error, I think my getting psychiatric treatment would take priority over an apology, which could come later. I think schizophrenia would be a likely diagnosis IF I AM WRONG.

  87. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 1, 2009 at 3:33 pm #

    Could you give a couple of examples of “LEGITIMATE form”?

    I’m not getting a lot of help from you in coming up with a measurable criterion for “success” in this argument. But let me ask you this.

    The definition of “natural born citizen” is a question of law, not a question of fact. There nothing Obama could individually do in the way of cooperating with an investigation or producing documents that could assist in the determination of the definition. Therefore would you agree that IF Obama proved he was born in Hawaii and did not become an Indonesian citizen, would you agree that Obama has no further burden of proof?

  88. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 1, 2009 at 3:33 pm #

    It’s a valid point.

    Your retort that “they would have produced evidence if asked” is meaningless nonsense.

    They didn’t produce evidence, therefore, under your logic, they were ineligible.

  89. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 1, 2009 at 3:34 pm #

    And how would you apply this definition to the moon landing?

  90. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 1, 2009 at 3:35 pm #

    No, you are the one advancing the theory, the burden is on you.

    And, by the way, you should be aware that applicable U.S. law at the time was clear on the point that adoption does not strip a minor of his or her citizenship status.

  91. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 3:44 pm #

    Doug, Orly is no more driving the bus than Rush is the leader of the Republican party. Be realistic. There are other, more powerful and credible people who are working on this issue.

  92. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 3:49 pm #

    Doug, what she said was neither valid nor a point. Are you a personal injury lawyer?

  93. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 3:52 pm #

    I never said it did. Here’s a concept for you…Sarcasm. Lighten up, man.

    And exactly what “Theory” am I advancing?

  94. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 1, 2009 at 3:56 pm #

    Rush is not the leader of the Republican Party? Just asking. I have my head in this Conspiracy Theory stuff all the time and don’t get out much.

    I’m curious to know who IS driving the bus (I know you won’t tell me).

    In all honesty, I don’t know of any one who fits the description “powerful and credible” who believes these conspiracy theories. If you do give me a name, I’ll write an article titled “powerful and credible person supports conspiracy theories” (except Joseph Farah, Orly, Berg, Martin and Apuzzo, who already have articles).

  95. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 3:58 pm #

    I don’t know if you are serious about not knowing what the other issues are, but if you are just ask Doc. He’ll be more than happy to point you in the right (Correct) direction.

  96. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 3:59 pm #

    Funny, doc. No, I won’t tell you.

  97. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 1, 2009 at 4:09 pm #

    Reason enough to believe they don’t exist.

  98. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 1, 2009 at 4:09 pm #

    Oh I know what they are, my friend, I’m just seeing what you think….

    And you haven’t answered my question

  99. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 4:12 pm #

    Right on. That’s the whole idea. You keep barking up that tree. In the meantime, we’ll be getting to the truth.

  100. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 1, 2009 at 4:12 pm #

    Well, I am well aware of the birther argument that Obama somehow lost his citizenship when he was allegedly adopted by Mr. Sotero and moved to Indonesia.

    There’s no legal basis for that argument, as I’ve stated.

    I assume that’s what you’re talking about when you bring the adoption issue up.

    Why else mention it ?

  101. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 1, 2009 at 4:14 pm #

    Heavy,

    If you’re not going to name these “powerful people” then it is logical for me to assume you’re making it up.

  102. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 4:15 pm #

    Then stop asking questions to which you claim to know the answer. I’m sorry. You’re an attorney. That’s what you do.

    As I stated before, the BC issue is a minor one. But I still want to see it.

  103. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 1, 2009 at 4:17 pm #

    It was a valid application of your logic regarding Obama to all the preceding Presidents.

    And, no I’m not as if it’s any of your business.

  104. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 4:17 pm #

    Keep assuming, Doug.

  105. avatar
    kimba April 1, 2009 at 4:18 pm #

    His hope is that there is someone more powerful, at least more competent, than Orly behind the curtain to step in and take over before Orly finishes turning the bus into a clown-car.

  106. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 4:19 pm #

    No, it was not. But hey, you DID say logic. That does not apply to us “Birthers”, right?

    Do you play poker, Doug?

  107. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 1, 2009 at 4:21 pm #

    Heavy,

    As I stated before, the BC issue is a minor one. But I still want to see it.

    Why ? It won’t answer your questions and it obviously won’t satisfy your doubts.

    I’m assuming you buy into the British citizenship nonsense.

    The Doc can point you to abundant material establishing that that particular argument has no legal merit.

  108. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 1, 2009 at 4:23 pm #

    Umm, the bus already is a clown car

  109. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 4:43 pm #

    Thanks for keeping an open mind folks. It’s your thinking that has created the mess the we are cleaning up.

  110. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 4:46 pm #

    No, THE ONE is not a British citizen. Why do I want to see the BC? Because I want to see what he is hiding as it is obvious he is hiding something.

    Note: Aficans were not referred to as such in 1961 in this country. But hey, that thing is NOT forged!

  111. avatar
    kimba April 1, 2009 at 4:54 pm #

    You can ask Dr Fukino about that too when you call to ask her to confirm that Obama was born in Hawaii.
    CHIYOME LEINAALA FUKINO M.D.
    DIRECTOR
    Phone: (808) 586-4410

    Make the call. Report back to us.

  112. avatar
    Heavy April 1, 2009 at 4:55 pm #

    Keep assuming, Doug. Your doing just great.

  113. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 1, 2009 at 4:58 pm #

    The National Center for Health Statistics, the federal organization that sets data collection standards for vital events in the United States defines Father’s race as a self-declared field. That is, one asks the father “what do you consider your race to be”? If not the father, then the mother answers.

    I do not find it at all odd that Barack Obama Sr, a Kenyan student in the United States, called himself an “African”. It doesn’t matter what people in the United States labeled Africans in 1961, but only how Africans referred to themselves. I have an article on this, and links to the NCHS standards.

    I’m a professional in this field, and there are no indications of contextual problems with the COLB.

  114. avatar
    Zuzu April 1, 2009 at 5:10 pm #

    Are you?

    It was your claim.

  115. avatar
    richCares April 1, 2009 at 6:07 pm #

    “Note: Aficans were not referred to as such in 1961 in this country. But hey, that thing is NOT forged!”

    While I attended Univ of Hawaii every single African exchange student I met called themselves “African” when asked for a race, the terms used by Americans, especially heavy, are never used. But being stupid, you wouldn’t know that. Did you call Dr. Fukino yet or are you scared of what you will find.

  116. avatar
    NBC April 1, 2009 at 11:11 pm #

    Perhaps Heavy is unfamiliar with the fact that the entry is typically filled in by the parents of the child. Time to do your homework.

    After all, the COLB copies what the parents have entered on the form, which is then signed by attending physicians.

    Sigh

  117. avatar
    Heavy April 2, 2009 at 8:30 am #

    If this is the case (You have NO WAY of knowing, so don’t say you do) Would he not have said he was KENYAN? If someone asks you where you are from do you say North America?

    Face it doc, the thing is afake and you know it. Your case for this imposter is so waek even YOU are starting to doubt it!

  118. avatar
    Heavy April 2, 2009 at 8:31 am #

    See the response above. YOU PEOPLE ARE REALLY STARTING TO LOOK SILLY!

  119. avatar
    Heavy April 2, 2009 at 8:35 am #

    Sorry, Rich you are a liar and you know it! NOONE called blacks or negro AFRICAN in 1961. Not even the “Africans” themsleves.

    Why can’t you people just admit that there is even small chance that you could be wrong on this. You know you are wrong and so does EVERYONE else!

  120. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 2, 2009 at 9:15 am #

    So, Mr. Expert, please tell me….

    What did someone from Africa call themselves in 1961 ?

  121. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 2, 2009 at 9:16 am #

    What part of “I voted against Obama” don’t you understand, dude ?

  122. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 2, 2009 at 9:18 am #

    Given the anti-colonialst opinions and Pan-African ideas that were floating around in the 1950’s and 60’s, it seems perfectly logical to me that BHO, SR would have referred to himself as African.

    What else would he call himself ?

    Kenya wasn’t an independent country yet

  123. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 2, 2009 at 9:20 am #

    You are the one who’s being silly.

    Why do you think it’s so suspicious that BHO, Sr called himself “African” ?

  124. avatar
    richCares April 2, 2009 at 10:08 am #

    “So, Mr. Expert, please tell me….”
    he can’t tell you, all he knows is debunked talking points, and he tends to call people liars, ironic that someone with 0 credibility calls others liars. He must be aware that he is considered the blogs joke. (laughing stock)

    By the way, I knew 27 African exchange students in Hawaii in the 60’s, I don’t remember their names but it’s possible one of them was Obama’s father. And yes, they all referred to their race as African, so you can ignore the rants of the idiot Birther.

  125. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 2, 2009 at 10:42 am #

    I’m not quite sure what you are saying that I “have no way of knowing,” Heavy. If you’re saying that I don’t know that NCHS standards say that Race is whatever the father says it is, then I can prove otherwise by this link to the NCHS standards (which is in my article here).

    If you are saying that I have no way of knowing that an African in 1961 used “African” as a race, then I can prove otherwise here:

    Explaining his vision in his 1961 book, I Speak of Freedom, he wrote: “Divided we are weak; united, Africa could become one of the greatest forces for good in the world.

    ” I believe strongly and sincerely that with the deep-rooted wisdom and dignity, the innate respect for human lives, the intense humanity that is our heritage, the African race, united under one federal government, will emerge not as just another world bloc to flaunt its wealth and strength, but as a Great Power whose greatness is indestructible because it is built not on fear, envy and suspicion, nor won at the expense of others, but founded on hope, trust, friendship and directed to the good of all mankind.”

    Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana)

    You can Google your brains out reading others such as:

    1. A Modern History of Tanganyika (1977)
    2. African Communities League

    3. What It Means To Be a Part of the African Race Not Just the Human One
    4. A sacred trust: The League of Nations
    5. Kenya Today
    6. Colonialism in Africa, 1870-1960

    But thanks for the opportunity to better document the use of “African” as a race.

  126. avatar
    NBC April 2, 2009 at 10:58 am #

    Heavy did not even know that the race designation was filled out by the parents. Now he wants us to believe that Obama Sr would never have used the term African.

    Silly Heavy, just when he believes with all his heart that he has found the smoking gun that would remove President Obama, he wakes up to the reality.
    Sorry pal, 4 more years at least πŸ™‚

  127. avatar
    NBC April 2, 2009 at 10:59 am #

    Seems that Heavy is somewhat fact adverse when the facts contradict his faith.

    Fascinating

  128. avatar
    NBC April 2, 2009 at 11:02 am #

    Again, the irony is fascinating. Does Heavy have no idea…

  129. avatar
    NBC April 2, 2009 at 11:41 am #

    The undeniable facts are

    1. Obama produced a prima facie legal document, COLB (HRS 338)
    2. The birth certificate was filed within 4 days of birth. (COLB)
    3. The birth certificate shows as the city of birth Honolulu (COLB)
    4. The courts have interpreted natural born to mean: Born on US Soil

  130. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 2, 2009 at 12:27 pm #

    Heavy, where you born in the state where you now reside?

  131. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 2, 2009 at 12:30 pm #

    “NOONE called blacks or negro AFRICAN in 1961. Not even the “Africans” themsleves.”

    What a lively imagination you have!

  132. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 2, 2009 at 1:00 pm #

    In addition to the 1961 book by an African who uses the term “African race”, I have tracked it back as for as 1894 in a statement by African nationalist John Chilembwe of Nyassaland who said:

    “to unite together in the name of Jesus Christ such persons as desire to see full justice done to the African race and are resolved to work towards the day when African people shall become an African Christian nation”…”to pursue steadily and unswervingly the policy of ‘Africa for Africans!'”

    Considerations on the African Question
    Page 159

  133. avatar
    Heavy April 2, 2009 at 2:03 pm #

    Yes, I may be the laughing stock on this blog. Actually, I would not have it any other way.

    You people are the laughing stock of America. NOT ONE of your arguments are valid nor germain.

    It is people like you who will not be easily forgiven when the hoax is exposed.

  134. avatar
    Heavy April 2, 2009 at 2:05 pm #

    1. Not true
    2. Immaterial, Ask Doug
    3. See #2
    4. Lie

    0-4. Pretty sad, even for a rookie.

  135. avatar
    Heavy April 2, 2009 at 2:06 pm #

    …And your point?

  136. avatar
    richCares April 2, 2009 at 2:48 pm #

    “It is people like you who will not be easily forgiven when the hoax is exposed.”

    wow, too far gone to reason with!

  137. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 2, 2009 at 4:06 pm #

    Who’s Doug?

  138. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 2, 2009 at 5:53 pm #

    Dear friend, I do hope your not trying to rely on me in support of your arguments.

    I certainly don’t think the COLB is immaterial.

    In fact, I think its definitive and answers all these questions completely.

  139. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 2, 2009 at 5:54 pm #

    His point is that it’s not at all surprising that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. would refer to himself as “African” on a birth certificate in 1961.

    What’s your point ?

  140. avatar
    Heavy April 3, 2009 at 8:31 am #

    Doug, if you are going to comment, please pay attention. I said that point #2 is immaterial. Is it not?

  141. avatar
    NBC April 3, 2009 at 12:47 pm #

    1. Is true: Check out the HRS 338 (Hawaiian Statutes)
    (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.
    2. Relevant since this cannot be a late filing.
    3. City of birth establishes if Obama was born on US soil
    4. True again: See for instance US v Wong Kim Ark.

    I am amazed how unfamiliar you seem to be with the facts?

  142. avatar
    Heavy April 3, 2009 at 12:54 pm #

    There you go with the “Facts” again. The only point that has been established as fact is #2 which is immaterial.

  143. avatar
    richCares April 3, 2009 at 12:54 pm #

    “I am amazed how unfamiliar you seem to be with the facts?”

    not unfamilar just ignores them, which means he is too far gone to reason with!

  144. avatar
    NBC April 3, 2009 at 1:16 pm #

    A prima facie COLB has been provided. Fact
    The city of Birth is Honolulu. Fact
    Natural Born Citizen has been defined by Courts Fact.

    2 is not immaterial since it shows that the form is not one of a late filing as some ‘skeptics’ have foolishly asserted.

    So why are you denying these facts? Explain to us your objections…

  145. avatar
    NBC April 3, 2009 at 1:16 pm #

    You also suggested that #3 was immaterial by referring to #2…
    Don’t you even remember your own ‘arguments’?

  146. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 3, 2009 at 1:43 pm #

    No, its not immaterial because it tends to support the idea that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii

  147. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 3, 2009 at 1:44 pm #

    I guess what I don’t understand that “see Doug” part of your comment on Point # 2.

  148. avatar
    NBC April 3, 2009 at 3:11 pm #

    Seems Heavy has lost his tongue… Of course it’s tough to argue facts…

  149. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 3, 2009 at 6:26 pm #

    In case you haven’t noticed, Heavy isn’t arguing. He is objecting. Two completely different things.

  150. avatar
    Jez April 3, 2009 at 6:46 pm #

    You are right, Doc. If Heavy was arguing, he would try to actually make a point or discuss his views. Instead he just says stamps his little feet and yells “no no no no no”. πŸ™‚

  151. avatar
    Zuzu April 4, 2009 at 2:36 am #

    Wouldn’t you imagine someone with the ingenuity and resources to forge such a document would go with what he THINKS the right term would be, rather than a more unusual one?

    Me too.

  152. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 4, 2009 at 7:05 am #

    A naive forger would use a modern form and select “Black” I think. The Birthers ignore the FactCheck photographs in favor of the scanned version, which they claim is not a sophisticated forgery at all but a clumsy one.

    In the 1960’s the term “Color” was also used as a classification, and vital statistics reports from the time were divided into “white” and “nonwhite”.