Main Menu

Orly filed something

OrlyDentistAnother day, another filing. Orly filed a motion for something or another in Keyes v Obama.  It’s up on the Docket should you want to read it. I don’t want to read it. It’s all stupidity and lies anyway. It’ll just get me upset.

In an email Monday, our modern day Madame Defarge, Orly Taitz, invokes images of the storming of the Bastille  in her lust for a bloody coup against her personal demon, Barack Obama:

My first hearing in Keyes et all [sic] v Obama et all [sic] is this Monday at 8:30 in the Morning in Santa Ana Fed. Court, here in CAFirst Hearing in Cook v Good, MacDonald, Gates and Obama is this Thursday at 9 am in the morning in Columbus GA. There will be a lot of traveling.
Bastille day is smack in the middle on the 14th. I think there will be a lot of rage and rebellion if none of the judges order discovery of Obama’s vital records.
Orly is claiming some kind of a victory in court today, which given her track record, means she probably lost badly. It’s meaningless when a delusional person or a pathological liar says something, but this is what’s being said–in case you have a stronger stomach than I:

Subject: Great News! Obama eligibility will be heard on merits!!

Please distribute everywhere.

Just got off the phone with Orly Taitz, the attorney who had a hearing today in court concerning BO qualifications!!!!

At the hearing today at the Federal Court building in Santa Ana, Judge Carter said the following:

1. There will be a trial.

2. It will be heard on the merits.

3. Nothing will be dismissed on proceedural issues.

4. The trial will be expeditious, and the judge pledged to give case priority.

5. Being a former Marine he realizes the importance of having a Constitutionally qualified POTUS/CINC.

6. Judge stated that if Obama isn’t Constitutionally qualifed he needs to leave the White House.

The DOJ will be involved with the case also…. I wasn’t clear if they would be trying to get to the truth or they would just be blindly representing Obama.

Orly will be adding members of the military from California as plaintiffs also.

This is from what my interpretation of our conversation.

Orly, asked me to disseminate this information out for her, she will be doing a posting later after she gets some sleep.

Please say a prayer of protection for Orly, her family, and Judge Carter. Please also pray that the truth will come to light regarding Obama and justice will be done.

Another view of today’s events from Politijab are:

HERE IS THE REPORT I WAS GIVEN BY BB FROM WAVEYDAVEY, WHO ATTENDED THE HEARING:

* * * * * * *

WAVEY DAVEY’S REPORT OF THE MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING IN KEYES V OBAMA 7/12/09

AS DICTATED TO ME BY BB

I received a call from wavey davey who attended today’s hearing in the Central District of California. The outcome is not what we expected, but it is clear that the judge wants to position the case so that he can rule on the merits.

The judge had stern words for Orly a number of times, although he showed a lot of patience. She kept going off on her litany regarding the hundreds of Social Security numbers, and the judge let her bather on for a while. She also repeatedly asked the Court, “Why are the United States attorneys here? They have no standing, they’re not allowed to be here,” and the Court corrected her on that.

She wanted to talk about the merits of the case and the court said, “Today is not about merits, it is about procedure.”

The court made clear, several times, that he wants this case to go forward on the merits but he did say that proper service had not been achieved on Obama. The U.S. Attorney’s office was represented by DeJute. At first Mr. DeJute said that he was not authorized to accept service on behalf of the United States but it was determined that the U.S. Attorney for the district could accept service and so the court ordered Orly and DeJute to confer and to march downstairs together to properly serve the United States Attorney.

Charles Lincoln* was present as a “law clerk.”

Wavey davey described him as “short, dumpy, early middle-age, balding.”

Orly continually argued with the judge. The judge responded, “I’m giving you a gift.” When she continued to want to argue the merits and that she had achieved service the judge said, “I think you must be deaf. You aren’t listening. You’re stubborn.”

The judge kept saying that he wanted “what gets this case into court on the merits.”

So what was agreed was that the service would be achieved on the United States Attorney, the United States would have 60 days to respond, and the United States many not ask for any extensions of time.

Orly still wasn’t even satisfied with this result and the judge kept saying, “If you want this expedited I’ll do this, but we need to get this resolved for once and all.”

At one point then Orly said she wanted mediation. The judge’s response was, “What’s to mediate? Either Obama is president or he is not.”

At one point Orly started to read the motion that she filed today. The judge cut her off saying, “I can read.” He noted that he had worked all weekend and would have been available to read this had she filed it earlier. “I’ve seen it. It’s not relevant, you’re wasting your time reading it into the record.”

Waveydavey did note that, as expected, Orly exhibited that she really does not have the socialization skills of others in the legal community. He said it was rather funny, when she first came into the courtroom she was beaming at her Orlybots — there were a number of them there — he was the only Obamabot or Obot there — she had a huge bag stuffed full of things, as well as her purse, and she marched right up beyond the gate and sat down at counsel table.

The courtroom deputy to whom she had not entered her appearance, spoke to her and told her, “It’s not your turn. Go back to the gallery and sit down. Your case will be called,” and Orly was quite flustered because she obviously doesn’t know the custom of a docket call.

Waveydavey also described her as being very pushy and that the judge, on a number of occasions, cut her off. At one point he called for a recess saying, “You need to calm down.”

The judge, several times, indicated that he wants to be able to rule on the merits of the case stating, “This needs to be resolved. We need to get rid of all these doubts.”

Orly indicated that she intends to file a FOIA request. The Court said, “Go ahead, but it would be a waste of time. If we’re going to hear this on the merits there may be rulings, you know, regarding documents.”

END OF REPORT BY WAVEYDAVEY

BY BB: My own commentary is this is not the result we are hoping for today but my sense, and the sense of wavey davey, who was there, is that what the judge wants to do is to set this up so that he basically rules on the merits that Obama is eligible to be president and perhaps to shut down Orly’s lawsuits. Whether that will actually satisfy Orly and the birthers, I doubt.

If the court had dismissed Orly’s case for lack of service, she could have just filed it again, so nothing would really be served by such a dismissal except more time wasted.

* Lincoln is a disbarred attorney and convicted felon.

Subject: Great News! Obama eligibility will be heard on merits!!

Please distribute everywhere.
Just got off the phone with Orly Taitz, the attorney who had a hearing today in
court concerning BO qualifications!!!!
At the hearing today at the Federal Court building in Santa Ana, Judge Carter
said the following:

1. There will be a trial.

2. It will be heard on the merits.

3. Nothing will be dismissed on proceedural issues.

4. The trial will be expeditious, and the judge pledged to give case priority.

5. Being a former Marine he realizes the importance of having a Constitutionally
qualified POTUS/CINC.

6. Judge stated that if Obama isn't Constitutionally qualifed he needs to leave
the White House.

The DOJ will be involved with the case also.... I wasn't clear if they would be
trying to get to the truth or they would just be blindly representing Obama.

Orly will be adding members of the military from California as plaintiffs also.

This is from what my interpretation of our conversation.

Orly, asked me to disseminate this information out for her, she will be doing a
posting later after she gets some sleep.

Please say a prayer of protection for Orly, her family, and Judge Carter. Please
also pray that the truth will come to light regarding Obama and justice will be
done.

, , , , , ,

194 Responses to Orly filed something

  1. avatar
    Shrieking wombat July 13, 2009 at 10:13 pm #

    Damn, you just beat me. Might as well wipe that post.

  2. avatar
    jtx July 13, 2009 at 10:41 pm #

    For all the good it will do, you might as well wipe them ALL off.

    You don’t suppose there will be discovery, do you??? Let’s see the next step will probably be for the DOJ to use its Cliffs Notes on how to protect the O-borter and try the Article III and prudential standing business and maybe the good old justiciability thingy?

    At least the shipping charges from HI and from Occidental College for pertinent documents will be lower than on the Right Coast hearings so maybe we’ll get a tax decrease? Yeah, right!!

    At least you O-borters have 60 days (or more) to palaver and try to insult anyone who does not buy your lines of whale feces.

    Ah – the omerta of the stoopid!!!

  3. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 13, 2009 at 10:50 pm #

    Basically, the judge didn’t dismiss based upon the non-service, which was the issue. He forced Orly to serve the papers to the U.S. Attorney, and said that the U.S. Attorney was now served, therefore vacating the improper service complaint. That’s what the ruling was.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 13, 2009 at 10:57 pm #

    While not everyone on my side of the table would agree, I’m quite pleased the case wasn’t dismissed for lack of service. Nothing would have been gained through that, except delay. Much better that it be dismissed for being a frivolous case.

    One must remember that this particular case is based on a Bush Executive Order that is inapplicable. Without the order, there is precious little left to the case, and nothing that was not already dismissed in the original Berg v. Obama last year. So the Obama side just need quote Judge Surrick’s scholarly ruling and that’s it.

    So, discovery? Not a chance.

  5. avatar
    richCares July 13, 2009 at 11:00 pm #

    “Ah – the omerta of the stoopid!!!”

    jtx, the lying Bither chimes in, this is the one he’s been waiting for, the final straw the broke Obama’s back. Sure it is, good luck jtx, please advise your shrink.

  6. avatar
    jtx July 13, 2009 at 11:01 pm #

    Doc:

    No discovery?? Then I wonder what the judge made the comment about “… if Obama isn’t Constitutionally qualifed he needs to leave the White House.”

    You have some magic way the court can make that determination without discovery??? C’mon guys, I’m sure you’ll think of something.

  7. avatar
    jtx July 13, 2009 at 11:04 pm #

    richCares:

    So you’re opposed to having the case heard on merit???

    I would have thought that you O-borters would love to have your head cheerleader prove to be eligible, legal, etc. Guess not – you’d rather just insult others which seems to be what this blog is all about.

  8. avatar
    jtx July 13, 2009 at 11:07 pm #

    dunstvangeet:

    So then it’s your belief that the person reporting the information was incorrect???

    On what do you base that – I thought I garnered from all that that the judge intended to hear the case on merit and that if the Head O-borter was not Constitutionally eligible he should be removed.

    Fair’s fair, don’t you think?? Or maybe you guys really do not know the definition of that word …

  9. avatar
    Bob July 13, 2009 at 11:09 pm #

    No discovery?? Then I wonder what the judge made the comment about “… if Obama isn’t Constitutionally qualifed he needs to leave the White House.”

    That’s stating the obvious. It is also devoid of context.

    The reality is the government has 60 days to answer or file a responsive motion. The sure money is on a motion to dismiss (and judge cannot prevent the government from filing such a motion).

  10. avatar
    Bob July 13, 2009 at 11:10 pm #

    So you’re opposed to having the case heard on merit???

    There is no merit. The government will argue Taitz (err…Keyes) has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

  11. avatar
    Mary Brown July 13, 2009 at 11:12 pm #

    jtx, Do you have anything to say that adds to a logical discussion. I know your reply will be some kind of answer a junior high school student might give. I know because my grandson, a bright kid of 12 was here this weekend. I do expect more from adults who are supposed to grow in wisdom. As in all of this, we will wait and see what happens when the judge sees the governments response. Dr. Taitz would be wise if she followed the judges admonition and waited for the government to reply. If she plans another round claiming she served the President correctly, she will be showing her own bent toward juvenile behavior. The judge has ruled and she needs to wait.

  12. avatar
    Bob July 13, 2009 at 11:12 pm #

    It is fairly clear from the various accounts that the judge wants to hear the case on something more substantial than whether service was proper.

    Taitz has a poor record on interpreting what people tell her. And the judge lacks the authority to prevent the government from filing a motion to dismiss, as it has done in the other cases.

  13. avatar
    Mary Brown July 13, 2009 at 11:17 pm #

    Jtx, that was Dr. Taiz’s take on it. Remember her take on Judge Roberts response to her. She tends to hear what she wants. She has a history of that. The judge is following procedure and the procedure is to serve correctly and then wait for the governements response. Then he looks at the response and rules on the merits of her case for trial.

  14. avatar
    Bob July 13, 2009 at 11:36 pm #

    Another day, another filing. Orly filed a motion for something or another in Keyes v Obama. It’s up on the Docket should you want to read it. I don’t want to read it. It’s all stupidity and lies anyway. It’ll just get me upset.

    Keyes (err…Lincoln…Taitz) filed a “motion for entry of final judgment by default.” Because when you move for entry of default and the court responds by issuing an OSC and you respond by moving for reconsideration and the court then sets a hearing, it is hornbook practice to file a motion for final judgment.

    [/sarcasm]

    Clearly a “too many cooks” situation. Lincoln thinks he’s a prettier writer than Taitz (which is true) and that the court will be blown away by his writing (which isn’t so true).

  15. avatar
    June bug July 13, 2009 at 11:46 pm #

    Per an updated comment from BB on Politijab:

    “Wavey Davey’s cell phone ran out of juice during our first telephone call, and after he recharged his phone he called back. Judge Carter repeatedly pointed out that he could dismiss for failure of service, but that the case could be re-filed and re-served and that would simply delay the ultimate hearing of the case — as Judge Carter put it, this could simply go back and forth, and then up through appeals, throughout the duration of Obama’s term of office. “Let’s get this to a hearing on the merits, we need to resolve all doubts.”

    As has been pointed out here, we don’t yet know the full context of “the merits”. Since the judge does not have the authority to prevent a motion for dismissal by the government, it seems unlikely that he has already pre-determined that there is sufficient cause to go to trial on “the merits” of eligibility.

  16. avatar
    NBC July 14, 2009 at 2:39 am #

    So then it’s your belief that the person reporting the information was incorrect???

    Yes, based on eye witnesses versus someone reporting on what Orly reported. We all know how accurate Orly can be when exaggerating her ‘accomplishments’, don’t we?

  17. avatar
    NBC July 14, 2009 at 2:41 am #

    You are quick to believe second hand reports on what Orly reported happened.
    Pursue this track at your own risk. I prefer to wait for the transcripts and rely on more credible sources

  18. avatar
    Bob Weber July 14, 2009 at 2:46 am #

    “Then I wonder what the judge made the comment about ‘… if Obama isn’t Constitutionally qualifed he needs to leave the White House.’ ”

    Those are Orly’s words, not the judges. Orly has been huffing the N2O, again.

  19. avatar
    NBC July 14, 2009 at 3:11 am #

    Remember Orly’s “recollection” of her stalking Chief Justice Roberts? Nuff said.

  20. avatar
    NBC July 14, 2009 at 3:14 am #

    So you’re opposed to having the case heard on merit???

    Not at all, it will be dismissed because of its (lack of) merit.

    Remember the Delphi Oracle…

  21. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 14, 2009 at 3:49 am #

    It’s not a matter of what was reported… its a matter of what CAN happen legally, and what CAN’T happen.

    The motion that was before the court was Orly’s “motion for reconsideration” of the previous denial of her request to enter default. Orly had asked the court to either enter default or certify the case for appeal. The judge had previously denied the request to enter default on grounds that Orly had not properly served Obama, and had tried to extend time for service.

    So the ONLY thing that could have happened in court yesterday was (1) the judge could have granted Orly’s motion and entered a default against Obama; or (2) the judge could have denied Orly’s motion, and granted her more time to complete service; or (3) the judge could have denied Orly’s motion,and dismissed her case; or (4) the judge could have decided to postpone the hearing or decision to another day.

    The judge did #2, but he did better than that — because the US Attorney showed up to court, and because the federal rules specify that the way to serve a President is to deliver the papers to the local US Attorney, the Judge told Orly to serve the papers right then and there, and then he gave the US Attorney the normal amount of time to respond to service, which under the rules is 60 days.

    So knowing procedure, we know that is what happened; and we should expect to see a written order on the docket in a day or so that will reflect that this has happened.

    As to the other claims:

    1. There will be a trial.

    The Judge would not be able to set a trial date until after the defendant filed an answer. The Judge cannot know whether or not the case will go to trial, because that depends on whether or not the US Attorney files a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment.

    2. It will be heard on the merits.
    3. Nothing will be dismissed on proceedural issues.

    Depends on what is meant by “merits” vs. “procedural” issues. The US attorney has the absolute right under federal rules to file a motion to dismiss under Rule 12, which can raise issues of standing, jurisdiction, mootness, etc. Once filed, the Judge has to allow Orly to file written opposition and thereafter has to make a ruling. He can grant or deny such motion, but he cannot avoid it. He HAS to rule in accordance with existing law and precedent as to issues of standing, jurisdiction, etc.

    4. The trial will be expeditious, and the judge pledged to give case priority.

    I certainly believe that a Judge would have been very likely to say that he plans to ensure that a case proceeds expeditiously… Judges are very fond of saying that sort of thing – but as noted, “trial” is still several steps away.

    5. Being a former Marine he realizes the importance of having a Constitutionally qualified POTUS/CINC.

    Judge Carter did in fact serve in the Marines. The above is a gratuitous comment which certainly could have been made, but wouldn’t have any legal significance. Without knowing tone of voice or context, even if the statement is accurately reported, we don’t know whether it expresses empathy or sarcasm.

    6. Judge stated that if Obama isn’t Constitutionally qualifed he needs to leave the White House.

    Highly unlikely that Judge would say this, but even if he did it would still be a gratuitous comment with no legal significance. Its also possible that the Judge said something like this merely responding to Orly or echoing her argument; example: “I understand what you are trying to say, you are saying X” — where X is the comment reported above.

    The DOJ will be involved with the case also…. I wasn’t clear if they would be trying to get to the truth or they would just be blindly representing Obama.

    The US Attorney’s JOB is to DEFEND Obama in this lawsuit; in the course of doing their JOB their next step will be to file a motion to dismiss. That is simply what lawyers do; no competent lawyer would do otherwise.

    Orly will be adding members of the military from California as plaintiffs also.

    If Orly wants to add more plaintiffs, she will have to amend the complaint. If she amends the complaint, it will result in additional delay, because the US Attorney will be entitled to additional time to respond to the new claims asserted by the new plaintiffs.

  22. avatar
    aarrgghh July 14, 2009 at 4:14 am #

    oh my.

    did judge carter really use the phrase “on the merits?” that he wanted “to resolve all doubts”?

    if he did, then we’re in for a quite a singular treat.

    how many times have the birthers complained that none of their cases have been heard “on the merits”? that the issue need to be brought to court to be “properly settled?”

    “not a single cause of action has been won by obama on the merits.” (orly)

    “the ’standing’ barrier is simply one more way of blocking ordinary citizens from getting a formal hearing and ruling on the merits.” (hitandrun)

    “refusal to hear the case on the merits is a dereliction of duties and violation of oath by the justices of the supreme court, which is illegal as well.” (orly)

    “why don’t we all just stop wastime time and effort and have this properly settled in court.” (jtx)

    i don’t think those terms mean what the birthers think they means or want them to mean, but it sounds like another “put up or shut up” time is approaching.

    of course, once judge carter decides the case is without merit, the last thing the birthers will do is shut up.

    no, they’ll rend their garments and cry foul and claim the case was never actually heard “on the merits”.

    because judge carter never subpoenaed the vault bc. he never subpoenaed the marriage licenses. he never subpoenaed the divorce records. or the adoption papers. or the passports and travel records. or the baptism certificate. or the kindergarten, high school & college records, the selective service application, his zillion social security numbers or his senate records or his law practice client list. or any other upteenth thing that they always think of.

    no, they won’t shut up, but for a few days at least, my champagne glass will be overflowing with birther tears.

  23. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 14, 2009 at 5:12 am #

    Don’t get too excited. Given the context of the hearing, if/when the judge said “resolve all doubts” he was probably referring to “doubts” about whether Obama had been properly served.

    Keep in mind that Orly was in court to OBJECT to the Judge’s previous order that she properly serve Obama, and she literally was arguing to the judge that her own case should be dismissed if the judge would not enter a default, so that she could appeal.

    The Judge was trying to get Orly to agree to serve the US Attorney who was there in court that day, and get the US Attorney to agree to accept service, so they could get past the argument over whether or not Obama had been served.

    I think its wishful thinking for anyone to interpret it any other way, given the fact that everybody there was talking about the the issue of Rule 4 service of process.

  24. avatar
    aarrgghh July 14, 2009 at 5:51 am #

    correct — which is why i said “i don’t think those terms mean what the birthers think they mean or want them to mean …”

    but the birthers are once again getting very excited about something, which is always a good reason to break out the glassware.

  25. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 14, 2009 at 8:19 am #

    Orly to a supporter … 6) “Judge stated that if Obama isn’t Constitutionally qualified he needs to leave the White House.”

    Spin it how you want, but I think Judge Carter is predisposed to discovery in Keyes v. Obama.

  26. avatar
    Jeff R July 14, 2009 at 8:55 am #

    “Spin it how you want, but I think Judge Carter is predisposed to discovery in Keyes v. Obama.”

    Yeah, I’d call that a good example of “spin.”

    Here’s more spin:

    What the judge did NOT say (even if you are willing to take Orly’s highly dubious word about what the judge said) was that Obama should be FORCED to leave the White House. In other words, Carter is indicating that he would NOT be pre-disposed to issue any kind of order for Obama to step down, even if he “discovers” compelling evidence that Obama is unqualified. He would apparently be willing to leave it up to Obama to “do the right thing,” but there would be no legal requirement for him to resign.

    What will the Birthers do then?

  27. avatar
    AdrianInFlorida July 14, 2009 at 9:09 am #

    “What will the Birthers do then?”

    Stomp their feet and hold their breath?

    Orly is playing a game well above her skill level, this is gonna be a train wreck for the dentist.

  28. avatar
    thisoldhippie July 14, 2009 at 9:29 am #

    Would she also have to have leave of court to add plaintiffs? Her other choice would be to dismiss and refile.

  29. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 14, 2009 at 9:34 am #

    If I were an Obot, then I would begin to panic.

    It’s interesting that Orly wanted other defendants in the case, defendants specifically identified as Federal Officers being sued in their capacity as a Federal Officers, be set aside so she could be granted a default judgment against the only defendant being sued as an individual, BO, or pursue an appeal against ruling that BO has not been properly served.

    Judge Carter has ruled this case will proceed and service upon defendants not yet served, the Federal Officers (SoS, FBI Director, OMB Director, etc.), are to be served immediately through the US Attorney in California.

    It is likely Judge Carter has determined BO has been properly served as an individual and will have to file an answer as an individual.

  30. avatar
    Heavy July 14, 2009 at 9:42 am #

    Welcome to the ORLY network. It used to be Obama Conspracy Theory, but doc ran out of material to defend THE ONE. So he has changed formats to ALL ORLY, ALL THE TIME!

    It happens in radio frequently, but I beleive this may be a first in this media. Are you going to change the “Call” letters?

    Sad.

  31. avatar
    Jeff R July 14, 2009 at 9:45 am #

    “It is likely Judge Carter has determined BO has been properly served as an individual and will have to file an answer as an individual.”

    Then why did he make Orly go serve the US Attorney, which is what you do when the one being served is an officer of the government and not an individual? [FRCP, 4(i)]

    Orly’s motive for wanting Obama served as an individual under rule 4(e) is clear from her own postings: she wanted to force Obama to assume all relevant costs, so that he would have to fork over money from his own pocket. She continues to pursue this avenue even after it has been thoroughly barricaded.

    She is driven by pettiness and spite. She is no kind of lawyer.

  32. avatar
    richCares July 14, 2009 at 9:48 am #

    the cockroach chimes in then scurries back into the woodwork

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 14, 2009 at 9:50 am #

    Given previous decisions in Hollander v McCain and Berg v Obama, I cannot see how this case gets to discovery. What I think is that Judge Carter is predisposed to dispose of this case as soon as possible.

  34. avatar
    Jeff R July 14, 2009 at 9:59 am #

    Yeah, it’s tough when they turn the spotlight on your Joan of Arc and it turns out she is nothing but an “attention whore.”

    I’ll give Orly one thing: she does not appear to be much intimidated by anybody, but that is just as likely due to plain foolhardiness as it is courage. Her behavior before Judge Carter yesterday seems to confirm that she has no sense of propriety and can’t make sense of those little clues that would tell her when it is wise to just shut up.

    Little clues like “You don’t listen. You’re stubborn. You need to calm down.”

    Those kinds of clues.

  35. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 14, 2009 at 10:00 am #

    I think it very unlikely that the judge said: “if Obama isn’t Constitutionally qualifed he needs to leave the White House”. But in any case, the case can’t get to discovery for the same reason that Berg v Obama didn’t get to discovery.

  36. avatar
    AdrianInFlorida July 14, 2009 at 10:02 am #

    I hope she’s a better dentist than she is an attorney, but I think I’d be looking elsewhere for a root canal if she were my dentist.

  37. avatar
    AdrianInFlorida July 14, 2009 at 10:04 am #

    Since the Dentist is now the one jumping back into the limelight, it’s natural that she’s going to be the one getting the attention, that’s what she wanted anyway, I guess she’s not easily embaraased.

    Her flash email to her supporters was one lie or exaggeration after another, doc merely pointed that out.

  38. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion July 14, 2009 at 10:06 am #

    Exactly. If it had been dismissed due to Dr. Orly’s inability to effect proper service, she would have just refiled it again with the same errors.

    Ironically, if she had done proper service when she filed this, she would have been MUCH farther along the process – instead of spinning her heels and coming up with the conspiracy theory du jour.

    I don’t see this going to discovery or a trial – I see it more like a Hollister v “Soetoro” type smackdown. But I wouldn’t object if it did go into discovery either – because there’s no credible evidence to back up the birther claims. Are they going to get Polarik or TechDude on the stand to prove forgery?? What happens if the court is sent a copy from Hawaii of the birth certificate and it matches up (answer, the birthers will claim THATS a forgery too). What happens when the DoJ provides proof that there was no travel ban, or shows in US law where a minor cannot give up citizenship.

    The birthers are claiming a victory, but I see it as more cattle being herded into a legal kill shed. They’re not going to know what hit them or why all their legal theories fell apart like tissue paper during a hurricaine

  39. avatar
    misha July 14, 2009 at 10:37 am #

    “I think I’d be looking elsewhere for a root canal if she were my dentist.”

    I would not have her clean my teeth. Could you imagine if I told her I campaigned for Obama? Can you say “Marathon Man”?

    “She is driven by pettiness and spite.”

    This seems to be a common thread with refuseniks: Avigdor Lieberman, Sharansky, and her. C’mon people, look at Mandela and Tutu: they’re not licking their wounds. We’re better than this.

  40. avatar
    NBC July 14, 2009 at 10:48 am #

    If I were an Obot, then I would begin to panic.

    Why? you have been making these statements for months now to no avail.

    Since Orly was forced to serve the Attorney General of the district, Obama was served not as an individual.
    But what would you know about facts really.

  41. avatar
    NBC July 14, 2009 at 10:54 am #

    so he has changed formats to ALL ORLY, ALL THE TIME!

    Well, Orly is the more outrageous example of the ‘Conspiracy’ and now that the Super Grand Jury has failed, Orly is what remains of the 40+ lawsuits….

    Sad really, this lack of material, since now close to 50 lawsuits have been denied or dismissed and some are still believing that a lawsuit may become able to challenge the eligibility of a sitting President.

    Of course, if I were a birther, I would be somewhat embarrassed too..

  42. avatar
    NBC July 14, 2009 at 10:54 am #

    If I were an Obot, then I would begin to panic.

    Why? you have been making these statements for months now to no avail.

    Since Orly was forced to serve the Attorney General of the district, Obama was served not as an individual.
    But what would you know about facts really.
    Sorry, forgot to add great post! Can’t wait to see your next post!

  43. avatar
    Bob July 14, 2009 at 11:19 am #

    It is likely Judge Carter has determined BO has been properly served as an individual and will have to file an answer as an individual.

    Which totally explains why Taitz got so emotional and the judge had to tell her to calm down.

    If the judge wanted to enter default against Obama, he would unambiguously done so. Instead, the judge made by Taitz eat her 4(e) argument, and instead effectuate service under 4(i).

  44. avatar
    Bob July 14, 2009 at 11:24 am #

    Do a search on this site for Apuzzo. You’ll see he get his as well.

  45. avatar
    Bob July 14, 2009 at 11:33 am #

    You get one free chance to amend before there has been a responsive pleading. So basically if Taitz wants to add additional plaintiffs (who lack standing, BTW), then she has to file the amended complaint before the government files its (anticipated) Rule 12 motion. And if she so does file, that resets the government’s 60-day clock.

  46. avatar
    Bob July 14, 2009 at 11:44 am #

    Oh this is too funny. In The Steady Drip’s “reporting,” it lists some of Judge Carter’s former law clerks. In the “Where Are They Now?” section, it lists what some of them are now doing.

    Bad news for the “patriots”: Many of these former clerks have ties to “the establishment.” So if Judge Carter rules against Taitz (err…Keyes), we know who got to the judge.

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 14, 2009 at 12:51 pm #

    Can you imagine being in the dentist’s chair and her ranting about Obama’s 100 Social Security numbers?

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 14, 2009 at 1:02 pm #

    Yeah, lots of Orly right now, but she’s got TWO cases before a judge in the same week. That’s hitting the big time.

    We get so little real news around here and defending Obama was never my mission. The mission was and is to examine fringe and conspiracy theories about Barack Obama. Orly’s filings are full of them.

    Happy Bastille Day.

  49. avatar
    CalperniaUSA July 14, 2009 at 1:10 pm #

    If service went out for Obama on February 10th, how would it be possible to serve him as an individual? Is it possible?

    RE: http://defendourfreedoms.net/2009/07/14/keyes-v-obama–procedure-not-merit.aspx

    05/18/2009: PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by plaintiffs upon Barack H Obama served on 2/10/2009, answer due 3/2/2009. The Summons and Complaint were served by substituted service, by not indicated statute, upon mail clerk at Department of Justice. Due Dilligence declaration none. Original Summons not returned. (twdb) (Entered: 05/19/2009)

  50. avatar
    BenjiFranklin July 14, 2009 at 1:32 pm #

    Dear All,

    I think those of us who have watched in apalled fascination, the spectacle of what is transparently just a political attempt to overturn a Presidential election, share with the obama-haters caught up in the effort, a blinded-eye to the most reliable barometer suggesting that every court will ultimately reject every birfer ploy.

    The 8000 lb. gorilla in the room is the fact that discovering an usurper was the POTUS WOULD create for any number of domestic and international reasons, an emergency need to get the pretender out of office TOMORROW! Notwithstanding the technical focus on procedural aspects to date, every courtroom proceeding thus far has in reality made each judge consider the plausibility of a challenge succeeding against the President.

    Normal courtroom habits would not be dictating scheduling under such circumstances; every step would be expedited on an emergency basis. The slightest chance of an unseating eventuality would have compressed the judicially imposed timelines for resolving such doubt into a pre-election determination.

    In other words, Judge Carter would not now give a possible usurper 60 more days to “usurp away” at the vitals of this nation, including our international prestige.

    Nor would a Supreme Court repeatedly force-fed Orly’s concocted stew allow the after taste to keep them from digesting enough of the salient facts to already be sure that they would not be resolving any claimed ambiguity for “Natural Born Citizen” just to boot the first African American President out of office.

    Otherwise, the Supreme Court, having original jurisdiction concerning the Presidency, would immediately issue a sua sponte opinion (without being asked to do so) declaring Obama ineligible, and assume Congress would then act Constitutionally to fix the mess.

    What I’m saying is that the courts have already spoken by not speaking, and what they have said is nothing like the words Orly routinely tries to put into their mouths.

    BenjiFranklin

  51. avatar
    El Capitan July 14, 2009 at 1:36 pm #

    I don’t mind if Orly Taitz is jumping into the limelight.

    Michael Jackson has been in the limelight for nearly 3 weeks now. GET HIM OFF NOW!!!

  52. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 14, 2009 at 1:36 pm #

    Bauer (DNC and BO attorney) put Obama in default.

    Rebecca S. Engrav was David O. Carter’s clerk August 2000-2001.

    Robert F. Bauer is a partner at Perkins Coie LLP and Barack Obama – personal counsel. Rebecca Engrav is a Lawyer at Perkins Coie LLP.

  53. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 14, 2009 at 1:44 pm #

    Quote from an Orly supporter, “1. There will be a trial.”

    What part do you not understand?

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 14, 2009 at 1:50 pm #

    The judge disagrees that Obama was in default (and so do I).

  55. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 14, 2009 at 1:56 pm #

    What I didn’t understand was the motion/complaint that Orly filed in the court (see Docket), which was not discussed (insofar as the Judge was able to shut Orly up on it) in the hearing yesterday. Why did she file a complaint about Social Security numbers when the hearing was about reconsideration of the courts decision that Obama had not been served with the original complaint?

    I understand “There will be a trial”. That’s birther Newspeak and it means “if something impossible happens, then there will be a trial.”

  56. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 14, 2009 at 1:57 pm #

    Good point.

  57. avatar
    Bob July 14, 2009 at 2:10 pm #

    Perkins Coie has over 700 lawyers.

    But if you squint reeeeeeeeal hard, I’m sure you can see the conspiracy.

  58. avatar
    Bob July 14, 2009 at 2:11 pm #

    What part do you not understand?

    The part where a judge can pre-emptively deny the inevitable Rule 12 motion.

  59. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 14, 2009 at 2:13 pm #

    If I were an Obot, then I would begin to panic.

    Well I’m a lawyer and I just am laughing, as anybody who has ever spent 5 minutes in a courtroom would do.

    You can spin this any way you want, but the fact is that Orly just lost her motion for “reconsideration” of the denial of the default, and that the reason the US Attorney’s office has until mid-September 2009 to file a response is because Orly screwed up on serving the complaint, something a paralegal ought to know how to do, especially since it is spelled out clearly in Rule 4. Her level of ineptitude is astounding.

  60. avatar
    Bob July 14, 2009 at 2:18 pm #

    It is possible to serve POTUS as individual — Paula Jones did it.

    What Taitz did, however, didn’t qualify under FRCP 4(e) as individual service. (And, as Dr. C. has pointed out, Taitz could have simply mailed the summons and complaint to Obama, and then have requested a waiver of service.)

  61. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 14, 2009 at 2:25 pm #

    I see. Judge Carter could have dismissed the case yesterday for failure to prosecute, but decided have all defendants served as Federal Officers.

    And Judge Carter did this so he can dismiss the case later.

    Other Judges have done this and more complaints were filed, not less. Nevertheless, once discovery is complete, I’m sure Judge Carter will dismiss the case and seal the record to put and end to the crazy, birther obsession.

    Good plan.

  62. avatar
    Bob July 14, 2009 at 2:31 pm #

    Judge Carter knows these service shennigans will only delay the resolution of this case, and that Taitz could have refiled if he dismissed. So Judge Carter simply put the case back on track. No mystery there.

    That other complaints have been filed only demonstrates the level of denial of birfers.

    If all of the prior cases are any indication, Judge Carter will grant the inevitable motion to dismiss. There’s nothing to suggest he’ll seal this case.

    And, sadly, it probably won’t end the crazy birfer obsession.

  63. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 14, 2009 at 2:43 pm #

    All Federal Officers must take an oath to assume the position. BO had to retake his oath of office on Jan. 21, 2009 after flubbing the oath on Jan. 20, 2009.

    Keyes filed his complaint against the individual BO on Jan. 20, 2009.

    Tip of the hat for Chief Justice Roberts for helping Orly.

  64. avatar
    nbc July 14, 2009 at 2:54 pm #

    And Judge Carter did this so he can dismiss the case later.

    With prejudice. If he had dismissed the case now, Orly could have easily refiled…

  65. avatar
    nbc July 14, 2009 at 2:55 pm #

    All Federal Officers must take an oath to assume the position. BO had to retake his oath of office on Jan. 21, 2009 after flubbing the oath on Jan. 20, 2009.

    And that’s going to help how?

  66. avatar
    Bob July 14, 2009 at 2:56 pm #

    And? Taitz still hasn’t served Obama as individual. Yesterday she served Obama as a federal officer.

  67. avatar
    CalperniaUSA July 14, 2009 at 2:57 pm #

    >>>Keyes filed his complaint against the individual BO on Jan. 20, 2009

    I wonder how that happened with the case wasn’t created yet.

    bitmap link with case properties:

    http://defendourfreedoms.org/ObamavKeyes.bmp

    Full document for review, see properties by going to MS Word, File, Properties

    http://defendourfreedoms.org/EXECUTIVE_ORDER_COMPLAINT.doc

  68. avatar
    kimba July 14, 2009 at 5:09 pm #

    Oh, you can bet your bottom dollar all 700 of ’em are in on it. This conspiracy, it’s HUGE. Stretches from sea to shining sea I tells you. 😉

  69. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 14, 2009 at 5:35 pm #

    It really doesn’t matter. The US Attorney argued, and Judge Carter agreed, that Orly must serve him in his official capacity because of the nature of the complaint.

  70. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 14, 2009 at 5:45 pm #

    The case was filed ok, it just wasn’t prosecuted (e.g. Orly didn’t serve Obama with the complaint).

  71. avatar
    Doug Mataconis July 14, 2009 at 5:50 pm #

    Or, as I’ve said repeatedly, if there were any factual or legal basis to the “Obama is not a natural born citizen” arguments, Hillary Clinton and her supporters would’ve been all over them last year.

  72. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 14, 2009 at 5:53 pm #

    I’m still not sure Orly knows the difference between a criminal case and a civil case (and that she can’t file the former as a private individual).

  73. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 14, 2009 at 5:56 pm #

    I could just see her trying to raise that issue during a debate, and Obama walking over and handing her the COLB. That would have been great theater.

  74. avatar
    Bob July 14, 2009 at 5:56 pm #

    I think she does. The JAG Hunter rants about filing criminal cases, and Taitz has responded (correctly) that private individuals can’t file criminal complaints.

    Of course, Taitz also “advised” the Georgia common-law “grand jury”….

  75. avatar
    Doug Mataconis July 14, 2009 at 6:05 pm #

    Yes, I agree, but the fact that his most bitter opponent wasn’t even willing to touch the issue with a 10ft pole is circumstantial evidence that there’s no merit to any of this stuff.

  76. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion July 14, 2009 at 6:07 pm #

    Some of her supporters WERE all over it. Berg was a Clinton supporter, and many of the birthers claims (Indonesian citizenship, etc.) started off on the PUMA boards.

    Then there’s Larry Johnson of the “whitey tape” fame, also a strong Clinton supporter.

    The fact that Hillary Clinton herself didn’t buy into it speaks in her defense, but even today, you see a lot of birthers who got their start as PUMAs.

  77. avatar
    Bob July 14, 2009 at 6:13 pm #

    I presume “supporters” (of both Clinton and McCain) to mean political operatives — folks actually in the politcs biz.

    Because there’s lots of crazy people on the Internet.

  78. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 14, 2009 at 6:54 pm #

    The document on Orly’s site isn’t the one that was filed- see:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/keyesvobamacomplaint.pdf

    (you can see that there are significant differences in formatting)

  79. avatar
    misha July 14, 2009 at 7:31 pm #

    “Orly is playing a game well above her skill level, this is gonna be a train wreck for the dentist.”

    Of course. Her law “degree” is from Taft, a world class diploma mill. That soldier in Georgia is making a huge mistake. I hope he is not court-martialed.

    “BO had to retake his oath of office on Jan. 21, 2009 after flubbing the oath on Jan. 20, 2009. Keyes filed his complaint against the individual BO on Jan. 20, 2009.

    Tip of the hat for Chief Justice Roberts for helping Orly.”

    The oath is ceremonial. Obama was president at midnight, irrespective of what happened during the inauguration.

    These suits are meant to harrass, like what happened to Douglas Dillman. That’s what is behind all of this. To the birthers I say: j’accuse.

  80. avatar
    June bug July 14, 2009 at 7:39 pm #

    Thanks for covering that the oath is strictly ceremonial, Misha, though I think you meant Obama was president at noon, rather than at midnight. 🙂

  81. avatar
    misha July 14, 2009 at 8:36 pm #

    “I think you meant Obama was president at noon, rather than at midnight.”

    Thank you – I stand corrected. I did have the time wrong.

  82. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 14, 2009 at 10:04 pm #

    Well, what do you make of this from her latest Keyes Motion:

    Within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §1988(a), to the extent that this is a case where the laws of the United States are not suitable to protect and vindicate the civil rights of the people of the United States to demand and require their governmental officials to prove their constitutional qualifications, and to the extent that there are no laws or insufficient law suitable to carry these rights into effect or otherwise adapted to the object of proving elected officials’ qualifications, then this Court is empowered by 42 U.S.C. §1988(a) to extend the common and statutory law of the United States in a manner consistent with the Constitution to provide for the trial (or after default, summary disposition without trial) and disposition of this cause and, if crimes are found, to ensure the infliction of punishment on the guilty parties.

    For reference, 42 U.S.C. §1988(a) is found here.

  83. avatar
    misha July 14, 2009 at 10:13 pm #

    “Stretches from sea to shining sea I tells you.”

    Actually, it is intergalatic. There are people on Mars and Trafalmadore, who are concealing. He’s clever, that Obama.

    He learned expert deception from Frank Marshall Davis, his real father. I could tell you more, but I have been sworn to secrecy (I can’t tell you by whom, but you would know the name).

  84. avatar
    Rickey July 14, 2009 at 10:24 pm #

    As usual, Orly greatly exaggerates the significance of what the court told her. Let’s not forget how excited she was after she left one of her dossiers with Justice Roberts in Idaho, and we have seen where that has gotten her.

    In this case, she hasn’t even obtained service on the defendants. As soon as proper service is obtained, the defendants will respond and the inevitable motion to dismiss will follow. I haven’t seen anything in the Keyes case which will allow Orly to overcome the standing problem.

  85. avatar
    Lollie July 14, 2009 at 11:11 pm #

    Just dropping in for a breath of fresh air.

    I am soooo sick of going through it, over and over and over again, with these “birthers” as their claims get more shrill and more outlandish, like something out of Twilight Zone.

  86. avatar
    Shrieking wombat July 14, 2009 at 11:27 pm #

    It looks like the revocation of Maj. Cook’s deployment orders was a total setup. As a volunteer he could apply to have those orders rescinded at any time before deployment:

    http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/2009/07/smell-of-rat-laced-with-skunk.html#more

    Typically Orly lies about it yet again.

  87. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 15, 2009 at 7:41 am #

    In this article it is shown that Maj. Cook bragged about being an Orly plaintiff BEFORE he had his orders for Afghanistan and before he “volunteered” to go. So yes, it looks like a setup. But then the entire birther movement is a setup.

  88. avatar
    kimba July 15, 2009 at 8:11 am #

    Hopefully the set-up aspect will be reported today as well. Another turn as worst persons? I think it’s funny how the Army defused it. “Oh, you didn’t really want to go to Afghanistan? Sorry for the misunderstanding. Here, we’ll take back the orders. ” And Orly and WND are claiming victory?

  89. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 15, 2009 at 10:07 am #

    Aren’t all soldiers volunteer? If a soldier objects to deployment to a combat zone for any reason, can they be forced to deploy against their will?

  90. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 15, 2009 at 10:27 am #

    Isn’t it standard operating procedure for the Army to revoke the orders for deployment to a combat zone if the soldier objects to that deployment?

  91. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 15, 2009 at 10:32 am #

    While we have a volunteer army, obeying individual orders, like deployment is not optional.

  92. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 15, 2009 at 10:35 am #

    Of course not. Cook is a special case in that he volunteered for deployment.

  93. avatar
    GeorgetownJD July 15, 2009 at 10:35 am #

    Panic? Don’t think so, Sven. I’ve mixed up a special batch of margaritas to toast the dentist’s failure to get what she went to court to obtain — a default judgment. Peroxide Pouf walked out with nothing but an instruction to follow the nice man downstairs and drop off her package of poo with the US Attorney if she wanted to avoid dismissal. And to date, she hasn’t taken advantage of this “gift” of a fourth chance that judge has given her.

    You seem rather confused about the who/what/where of the case. The judge found that Orly did NOT properly serve Obama — hence, told her that she could “march downstairs” and do it right by following Rule 4(i) and serving the US Attorney. So no, at this very moment — Orly having failed to do that — there is no jurisdiction over the Pres. Orly made no attempt to serve the other three defendants, and no doubt embarassed about that failure, the dentist asked for Counts II and III of her nonsensical complaint to be voluntarily dismissed. Oh wait — Orly DID prevail on this aspect of Monday’s hearing — the Court granted her request to DROP two-third of claims.

    The judge several times admonished Orly for not listening to him. At one point he told her, “You must be deaf. You’re not listening to me.” The climax was the point where Orly had ramped up the crazy so far that the court called a 10-minute recess in order for the dentist to “go calm down.” Pretty dramatic when the judge puts a lawyer in time-out, don’t you think?

    So nurture those dreams — or wet dreams — Sven. Whatever.

  94. avatar
    GeorgetownJD July 15, 2009 at 10:42 am #

    Oh, and my favorite: “”The court is going to take a 10-minute recess. You need to go and calm down.” Time out for the dentist/lawyer. I guess William Howard Taft University’s law program doesn’t have a class on courtroom etiquette.

  95. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 15, 2009 at 10:58 am #

    So, the Army allows soldiers to object to combat zone deployment unless that soldier is a Reservist who had previously volunteered for the combat zone deployment.

    What if the Reservist volunteered for combat zone deployment and then determined beyond a reasonable doubt the CiC wasn’t eligible to hold the title?

  96. avatar
    Bob July 15, 2009 at 11:32 am #

    Have you read any of the actual stories about Cook? Here’s one that explains it:

    http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/breaking_news/story/777472.html

    For you, reeeeal slow: Cook volunteered to go to Afganistan. Under the terms of his volunteer agreement, he could change his mind — for any reason (or no reason) — at any time before the deployment and he would not have to go.

    Not every soldier has the luxury of volunteering to deploy. And had Cook deployed, at that point he couldn’t have unvolunteered.

    So this was all just theater, as Cook had the ability to not go all along. If Cook was serious about the point he was trying to make, he would have deployed and then risked a court martial, instead of pulling this (admittedly successful) publicity stunt.

  97. avatar
    thisoldhippie July 15, 2009 at 11:32 am #

    No, the Army does NOT allow soldiers to object to combat zone deployment if they are full time paid active military. HOWEVER, if they are reservists who are only paid while on the job, they can object to any deployment that they previously volunteered for.

  98. avatar
    Bob July 15, 2009 at 11:37 am #

    As explained here, Cook was a reservist who volunteered to go to Afganistan. As a reservist, he can opt out prior to deployment.

  99. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 15, 2009 at 11:44 am #

    Is it lawful for Cook to object to combat zone deployment if he reasonably believes the CiC is not eligible for the office? Or is that drama to get attention?

    Maybe Cook didn’t enough hugs when he was a child. Is that correct?

  100. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 15, 2009 at 11:51 am #

    thisoldhippie … you may wish to review Conscientious Objection by Active Duty soldiers.

  101. avatar
    Bob July 15, 2009 at 11:51 am #

    Is it lawful for Cook to object to combat zone deployment if he reasonably believes the CiC is not eligible for the office?

    As a reservist, it is lawful for Cook to object to deployment for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. He didn’t need to file a lawsuit if he didn’t want to deploy.

  102. avatar
    Doug Mataconis July 15, 2009 at 11:59 am #

    See, you just don’t get it.

    Here’s the timeline:

    February 1, 2009: Major Cook signs on as a “military Plaintiff” with Orly Taitz.

    May 8, 2009: Major Cook volunteers for deployment to Afghanistan

    July 10, 2009: Major Cook files a lawsuit asking to get out of his deployment because Obama is not a “natural born citizen”

    It was a setup. Cook is as much a fraud as his attorney.

    http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/07/15/us-army-to-orly-taitzs-mutinous-major-thanks-but-no-thanks/

  103. avatar
    thisoldhippie July 15, 2009 at 12:02 pm #

    This is all a prefabricated lawsuit and Orly should be sanctioned for this. Cook was a “plaintiff” for her prior to his “volunteering” for combat. She solicited him just like those ambulance chasers on TV who are looking for clients. Then they created a situation by having him volunteer for combat duty and then just before his deployment filed this TPO. This is a complete abuse of our legal system.

  104. avatar
    thisoldhippie July 15, 2009 at 12:03 pm #

    Sven – Conscientious Objection by Active Duty soldiers is a separate issue. Reservists can object just because – no reason given.

  105. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 15, 2009 at 12:14 pm #

    Didn’t Cook clearly state he did not object to combat zone deployment if his doubts over the CiC eligibility issue were resolved?

    How can you say Cook wouldn’t have deployed if Obama would have presented his complete birth record? Was Cook lying when he filed a statement with the Court he would deploy if Obama proved Natural Born Citizenship?

  106. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 15, 2009 at 12:19 pm #

    thisoldhippie, you wrote … “No, the Army does NOT allow soldiers to object to combat zone deployment if they are full time paid active military.”

    Review Conscientious Objection by Active Duty military and get back to me.

  107. avatar
    Bob July 15, 2009 at 12:44 pm #

    Either Cook volunteers, or he doesn’t. There’s no conditional volunteering.

    Let’s say Cook had said, “I’ll deploy if you bake me a batch of tasty brownies.” So the military bakes him some brownies. Then Cook could say, “They weren’t tasty enough — I’m not going.”

  108. avatar
    thisoldhippie July 15, 2009 at 12:44 pm #

    He volunteered initially with intention of filing this lawsuit – not to actually accept the deployment. The timeline is clear. Had he volunteered PRIOR to Obama becoming president and then filed the lawsuit – that would be a different story. But he volunteered knowing he “questioned” the CiC and then filed the lawsuit to stop the deployment after receiving orders rather than following the administrative avenues open to him. Most of the time when dealing with the government your lawsuit will be dismissed on the basis of the fact that you have not exhausted your administrative steps in resolving the issue. That is probably what would have happened here, but I guess we’ll never know.

  109. avatar
    thisoldhippie July 15, 2009 at 12:46 pm #

    Mea culpa for making a generalization – but the matter stands that active military do not have the avenues open to them to object and be released from their deployment orders as reservists.

  110. avatar
    aarrgghh July 15, 2009 at 12:51 pm #

    now here’s an example of birfer reading comprehension:

    soldier who says obama isn’t president doesn’t have to deploy, army says

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2292757/posts

    as in total. lack. of.

    even after being given the text of the ledger-enquirer article fully explaining cook’s volunteer status, not one single commenter out of 76 comments to date betrays any grasp of how cook’s status moots orly’s suit. instead they parrot orly’s “the usurper backed down” victory spin, among other irrelevancies. like baby birds, they are completely unable to digest anything for themselves.

    like they say, you can lead a birfer to water …

    e.g.:

    onewingedshark (#2):

    translation: the army is unwilling to verify whether or not obama IS qualified for commander in chief.

    eagleusa (#6):

    without a doubt — but they know it is useless even if it would be very good for the nation to have obama’s fraud finally exposed and he be impeached and tried for it. obama’s executive order protecting his REAL documents goes a long way to letting his fraud slide….such a crime against the people of this nation.

    miss behave (#12):

    more smoke. closer to the fire.

    conservativegramma (#16):

    #16) there’s an even bigger translation: obama just admitted he’s not qualified to be POTUS.

    no legitimate CIC needs to rescind an order. he just forks up the necessary credentials then procedes to court martial the offending officer. the fact that he doesn’t do so, nor the army, but RESCINDS the order is PROOF HE IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND CANNOT SEE DISCOVERY IN A TRIAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!! this is a red flag.

    etc, etc …

  111. avatar
    Heavy July 15, 2009 at 12:56 pm #

    Stirring the pot…

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=2501

  112. avatar
    misha July 15, 2009 at 12:59 pm #

    “I guess William Howard Taft University’s law program doesn’t have a class on courtroom etiquette.”

    Ha! They don’t have any classes. They are a no class outfit, in both senses.

  113. avatar
    NBC July 15, 2009 at 12:59 pm #

    Since Cook was part of a 12301(d) voluntary mobibilization (CO-ADOS in support of OEF), his lawsuit could very well be interpreted as his withdrawal of his volunteer action. As I understand such volunteers are given sufficient opportunity to withdraw their request to avoid issues of peer pressure or commanding officers pressuring people into continued service.
    As to the TRO, a motion to dismiss has been entered by the defendants.

  114. avatar
    Bob July 15, 2009 at 1:24 pm #

    Can “Dr.” “Polarik” verify that this conversation ever occurred?

  115. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 15, 2009 at 1:28 pm #

    Cook clearly indicated he was objecting because he believed the CiC was ineligible and he (Cook) would be subject to losing protection under the Geneva Convention if he deployed overseas and is correct in his belief.

    When Cook volunteered he knew he questioned the eligibility of the CiC, but he did not know the CiC would not provide basic biographical information to assure troops their Geneva Convention protections have survived their deployment.

  116. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 15, 2009 at 1:33 pm #

    Isn’t it up the plaintiff to prove Polarik didn’t have this conversation before discovery can begin?

    It’s irrevelant Polarik just sealed his phone records due to privacy concerns.

  117. avatar
    Doug Mataconis July 15, 2009 at 1:41 pm #

    The evidence would never get into Court, it’s hearsay.

    All that matters is the authenticity of the original COLB, which has been established

  118. avatar
    richCares July 15, 2009 at 1:53 pm #

    it would be so neat getting the invented Polarik character into court, no pot stirring here, but he could replace all 3 stooges in his testimony, the coverage would belong on the Colbert Report. He would need a healthy judge, one that wouldn’t die from laughing so hard.

  119. avatar
    Bob July 15, 2009 at 1:54 pm #

    Cook added a condition to his volunteering. So the military reasonably took that as a rescision. (This is Contracts 101.)

    What is so difficult to understand about that?

  120. avatar
    racosta July 15, 2009 at 1:58 pm #

    “Can “Dr.” “Polarik” verify that this conversation ever occurred?”

    can Dr. Polarik confirm he even exits?

  121. avatar
    kimba July 15, 2009 at 2:15 pm #

    I like this part of the motion to dismiss:
    “The Commanding General of SOCCENT has determined that he does not want the services of Major Cook, and has revoked his deployment orders. ”

    Like we used to say back in the day “Oooo, Burn!”

  122. avatar
    misha July 15, 2009 at 2:22 pm #

    OT: conspiracy lovers are everywhere.

    “Hamas accuses Israel of dumping aphrodisiac gum on Gaza” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/5830080/Hamas-accuses-Israel-of-dumping-aphrodisiac-gum-on-Gaza.html

    Michelle Bachmann, meet your match.

  123. avatar
    June bug July 15, 2009 at 2:53 pm #

    Have you seen the latest on Orly’s blog? It is unbelievable!

    First, she’s now going for an injunction (instead of a TRO) in Georgia that would cover any and all military who might ever be recalled to service or have their service status activated.

    Even more unbelievably,she has filed an amended complaint in the Keyes vs. Obama case 8:09-cv-82, adding at least 2 dozen more plaintiffs (mostly retired or reseve military plus the wacko Missouri state reps.). She has broadened her “grounds” to include the De Vattell argument, along with a host of other things, including demanding his MOTHER’s medical records (from January 1, 1961 to PRESENT).

    In this amended complaint, she asks for a declaratory judgment to include an injunction to stop any Article III appointments by Obama (Sotomayor and more) AND a preliminary injunction against new deployments or assignments of armed forces to “sensitive and volatile areas of the world”!

    She’s throwing in FOIA, RICO and anything else she can think of! I only scanned the thing briefly, but would love to have the opinion of the lawyers here. It strikes me that she is literally throwing any and everything she can think of up against the wall to see if any of it sticks. (and to keep the recent publicity coming!)

  124. avatar
    kimba July 15, 2009 at 2:59 pm #

    It looks like she’s added plaintiff’s to Cook’s case and wants to give him Whistleblower status. It looks like Cook works(ed) for an IT compant that did contract work for the DOD and Cook worked at SOCOM right on McDill AFB, where he was supposed to report to be deployed. When he called to say he didn’t need that leave for active duty, the CEO told him he’d been terminated because DOD said it was too nutty and crazy for him to be on the base anymore. I am eager to hear what really happened.

  125. avatar
    June bug July 15, 2009 at 3:22 pm #

    I forgot the funniest part – here is the end of her amended pleading in the CA case:

    Respectfully submitted,

    Wednesday, July 14, 2009
    Bastille Day

  126. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 15, 2009 at 3:23 pm #

    Terminated because it was nutty and crazy at his workplace?

    Did you see the part about Cook passing a Cisco certification exam in June, 2009 identifying him as an expert?

  127. avatar
    misha July 15, 2009 at 3:24 pm #

    From Orly’s latest suit. So, according to her the 14th Amendment requires two citizen parents. I’m sure that will hold up at a trial. All she has to do is quote deVattel, and the judge will be convinced.

    “(27)However, Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as President, basically needs only produce a single unique historical document for the Plaintiff’s inspection and authentication: namely, the “long-form” birth certificate which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961.”

  128. avatar
    kimba July 15, 2009 at 3:38 pm #

    No, terminated because DOD told his employer they don’t want him on the base anymore. If he’s that good, you’d think they’d have other assignments for him, but they didn’t, so he’s terminated. Orly is trying to say DOD retaliated against him, but he’s not a federal employee so I don’t think he can claim whistleblower status.

  129. avatar
    kimba July 15, 2009 at 3:40 pm #

    “nutty and crazy” were Orly’s words, not mine.

  130. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 15, 2009 at 3:52 pm #

    Cook, as a Reservist, has a Military I.D. which entitles him to access to the base. If he has been banned from the base, then he is entitled to notification and due process.

    This is a huge screw-up on the part of the Obama administration.

  131. avatar
    Black Lion July 15, 2009 at 4:22 pm #

    Of course Polarik cannot verify this information. Polarik cannot even prove who he is and what his qualifications are. Many in the birther world hold up his unsubstantiated analysis and think that it is some sort of admissible evidence. Polarik just makes ridiculous claims and hides behind his cloak of anonimity…

  132. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 15, 2009 at 4:26 pm #

    First off, “No one in our office confirmed that” can mean that they’re not allowed to divulge private information, so they cannot confirm the information. You’re again, making something out of nothing.

    You’re ultimately doing an argument from ignorance. Someone who’s a forensic expert would know that this statement does nothing to confirm nor deny that there is someone there. It’s amusing to see you try to make something out of nothing.

  133. avatar
    Bob July 15, 2009 at 4:42 pm #

    Oy.

    The PI asks to enjoin an order that’s already been revoked. Done!

    Then the PI seeks to prevent further retaliation. As a private company fired Cook, it should be no problem for the U.S government not to retaliate against a non-employee. So, again: Done!

    Moral: Listen to Taitz, lose your job.

  134. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 15, 2009 at 4:53 pm #

    The long-form will say nothing different than what the short-form says. It’ll have nothing about the so-called citizenship of parents issue.

  135. avatar
    kimba July 15, 2009 at 4:59 pm #

    But to someone who’s a conspiracy theorist, which is what Polarik really is, “that’s private information” or ” we can’t confirm that” means the person answering has been bought off or gotten to or threatened with his life. That’s what conspiracy theories are all about: making something out of nothing/everything/anything.

  136. avatar
    richCares July 15, 2009 at 5:03 pm #

    This is a huge screw-up on the part of the Obama administration.

    WHAT?

  137. avatar
    thisoldhippie July 15, 2009 at 5:06 pm #

    Georgia is a work at will state, so they can fire you for not liking your hair that day. To prove their case of retaliation they better have some strong evidence.

  138. avatar
    kimba July 15, 2009 at 5:12 pm #

    Reserve officers don’t have free, anytime access to a military base. They have to have a reason to be there. C’mon, you can do better than that. Plus dude shouldn’t have started his leave before his deployment. Technically he wasn’t on active duty yesterday, and his assignment was at his own request, and hadn’t even started yet so he’s probably not even protected by USERRA.

    This is a huge screw-up on the part of Cook and Orly.

  139. avatar
    kimba July 15, 2009 at 5:21 pm #

    He lives and works in Florida. Who knows why the case was filed in Georgia. But Florida is an at-will state too. So unless his employee handbook says something about not firing except for good cause, or that they have a specific firing process, Cook is probably el focktado. Small family-owned company might not even have an employee handbook. I’m going with focktado

  140. avatar
    misha July 15, 2009 at 5:38 pm #

    The true colors of birfers, on Orly’s site:

    “…you have to know that the Kenyan monkey has a habit of inciting his Brown Shirt dregs to make death threats and to stalk people.”

    Sure, race has nothing to do with it. And I’m the Pope.

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=3073#comments

  141. avatar
    Bob July 15, 2009 at 5:50 pm #

    Aside from the racism, that comment is comedy gold:

    If you can arrange with friends and neighbors to quickly contain a perimeter in the event of another raid…that’s not a bad idea.

    How does one start that dialog? “Excuse me, neighbor, in the event of a black helicopter attack of my house, may I count on you returning suppressing fire? And what are you bringing to the cakewalk?”

  142. avatar
    NBC July 15, 2009 at 6:06 pm #

    Cook, as a Reservist, has a Military I.D. which entitles him to access to the base. If he has been banned from the base, then he is entitled to notification and due process.

    This is a huge screw-up on the part of the Obama administration.

    Assuming that he was in fact banned from the base?
    At best a minor screw up.
    In other news, Cook has earned the term “Blue Falcon” on some of the more conservative military blogs.

  143. avatar
    NBC July 15, 2009 at 6:08 pm #

    Actually they were likely Major Cook’s words. The complaint forgot to edit a “me” in the description of what happened suggesting that this was something Cook wrote up and was then edited for the lawsuit.

    Funny how sloppiness seems to be found all through Orly’s proceedings.

  144. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 15, 2009 at 6:27 pm #

    My understanding is that a reservist who volunteers to go into a combat zone may withdraw without a reason, up until the deployment.

  145. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 15, 2009 at 6:29 pm #

    So is Obama less eligible today than when Cook volunteered for Deployment back in May? I think we can all agree that this is not true.

  146. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 15, 2009 at 6:31 pm #

    Can anyone verify that Ron Polarik ever occurred?

  147. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 15, 2009 at 6:32 pm #

    How can a cartoon seal phone records?

  148. avatar
    NBC July 15, 2009 at 6:34 pm #

    When Cook volunteered he knew he questioned the eligibility of the CiC, but he did not know the CiC would not provide basic biographical information to assure troops their Geneva Convention protections have survived their deployment.

    That’s such a silly argument since the lawfulness of the order does not depend on who is giving the order but rather the nature of the order.
    Congress has provided all the necessary information for the troops to obey a duly elected president and commander in chief. They of course could resign, be court martialled but they lack any standing to disobey orders based on such a clearly political question.

  149. avatar
    misha July 15, 2009 at 6:36 pm #

    And what should we do when UN troops arrest us, to take us to FEMA camps? Michelle Bachmann says so.

  150. avatar
    NBC July 15, 2009 at 6:36 pm #

    As some have observed, in order to fill the position previously filled by Cook, the army will likely reassign a non-volunteer or his unit may go with one fewer participant. Neither solution appears to be inspiring much respect.

  151. avatar
    NBC July 15, 2009 at 6:38 pm #

    Polarik’s opinion, however ill informed, has no relevance as it will never survive a formal court hearing. In fact, these statements are at best ‘hearsay’.

  152. avatar
    misha July 15, 2009 at 6:39 pm #

    “How can a cartoon seal phone records?”

    Easy. Just watch “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”. It’s all shown.

  153. avatar
    NBC July 15, 2009 at 6:39 pm #

    I object. Polarik is a well respected PhD researcher whose only fault is that he cannot sign his own name.

  154. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 15, 2009 at 7:13 pm #

    All I’d have to call is a Daubert Hearing for the science, and then challenge his credentials in court.

  155. avatar
    richCares July 15, 2009 at 7:16 pm #

    he can’t even spell his own name, instead of “Polarik” he spells it “XXXXXXXXXXXX”
    Someone that can’t spell his own name should not be allowed to testify.

  156. avatar
    jtx July 15, 2009 at 7:37 pm #

    misha:

    HI, Pope … so you don’t think he’s Kenyan??? With no definitive BC, how do you know – or anyone else for that matter? Come to think of it, how do you know his name is Barack Hussein Obama???

    You must just have Divine Guidance eh, Pope???

  157. avatar
    jtx July 15, 2009 at 7:51 pm #

    Doc:

    You really disappoint me sometimes since your picture seems to show you as an adult … or is that fake, too???

    Do you pretend and really believe that if Obama is not eligible (and yes, we know you earnestly “believe” he is) that this country is not gravely harmed???

    What is the reason for NOT wishing to having to prove in a definitive fashion that he IS eligible??? He’s certainly spent a lot of our tax money trying to duck and cover about the issue. The MSM won’t save his butt forever; they’re beginning to show signs of strain already.

    It will be great sport to see what Keith Olberdoberman and Rachel Madcow have to say when they are the last two people in the US who fail to believe he’s a phony and has lied about almost everything they think they know about him!!!

    A few more months should get us to that point but you “O-borter troopers” here on this hate-speech site will probably just eventually wither away when you realize no one is listening to you – but maybe Keith and Rachel will still be blogging with you. You really do deserve each other.

  158. avatar
    jtx July 15, 2009 at 7:55 pm #

    NBC:

    Actually it will be very entertaining and enlightening (for you since you seem unable to read and comprehend his analysis – so pay attention to what the judge decides about it) when his analysis becomes part of the factual evidence in a court proceeding.

    … and you wouldn’t know “hearsay” if it bit you in the butt!

  159. avatar
    misha July 15, 2009 at 8:28 pm #

    He’s actually from Tralfamadore, not Kenya. I’m acting Pope, so I can state this with certainty.

    And his father is not Barack Sr; it’s Zeus.

  160. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 15, 2009 at 8:30 pm #

    Hey richCares, if a Federal contractor consummates a contract with DoD for work to be done at an Air Force Base in Florida and the contractor hires an Reservist on inactive duty status assigned to an Army base in Georgia, then is the Georgia code or the Florida code the controlling authority. Or is it neither Florida nor Georgia.

  161. avatar
    richCares July 15, 2009 at 8:31 pm #

    the name “Barack Hussein Obama” was on the definitive BC, except for the Birthers this issue is over, Obama has been president for close to 7 months. So dream on dear jtx, the lier, your credibilty is less than zero here.

  162. avatar
    jtx July 15, 2009 at 8:31 pm #

    Doug Mataconis:

    Sorry Doug but it hasn’t. If you think so, show your “evidence” of authenticity.

  163. avatar
    NBC July 15, 2009 at 8:42 pm #

    Simple really. The controlling authority is determined where the Company is doing its work.

  164. avatar
    NBC July 15, 2009 at 8:43 pm #

    Raised seal and signature.

  165. avatar
    KEvron July 15, 2009 at 8:45 pm #

    lol! misha, you may not be the pope, but yer a pip!

    KEvron

  166. avatar
    NBC July 15, 2009 at 8:45 pm #

    I guess you are one who still believes that per his own admission, he was sent by his father Jor-El from the Planet Krypton to save earth.

  167. avatar
    NBC July 15, 2009 at 8:46 pm #

    What is the reason for NOT wishing to having to prove in a definitive fashion that he IS eligible

    But he has done so, both by providing his COLB and by being qualified by Congress.

    Nuff said. You will now have to wait till 2012.

  168. avatar
    NBC July 15, 2009 at 8:47 pm #

    … and you wouldn’t know “hearsay” if it bit you in the butt!

    I presume that to be hearsay 🙂

  169. avatar
    Bob July 15, 2009 at 8:51 pm #

    so pay attention to what the judge decides about it

    Oh, the irony.

    Which judge is deciding anything about “Dr.” “Polarik”?

  170. avatar
    KEvron July 15, 2009 at 8:53 pm #

    “per his own admission”

    citations, please. otherwise, it’s a lie.

    KEvron

  171. avatar
    Bob July 15, 2009 at 8:58 pm #

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vws9fTtQgz4

  172. avatar
    jtx July 15, 2009 at 9:00 pm #

    Doc:

    Sure .. I can!! There, that didn’t hurt much did it???

  173. avatar
    KEvron July 15, 2009 at 9:00 pm #

    my bad.

    KEvron

  174. avatar
    richCares July 15, 2009 at 9:03 pm #

    “…DoD for work to be done at an Air Force Base in Florida”
    that answers your question, but what is the Obama scRewup on this (WHAT)?

  175. avatar
    jtx July 15, 2009 at 9:05 pm #

    NBC:

    Naw, sport – those sort of unsubtaianted verbal spewings of nonsense don’t even make it into the pre-trial evidence hearing let alone the trial.

  176. avatar
    Rita July 15, 2009 at 9:17 pm #

    Orly Taitz has now officially become the “Worst Person in the World”, thanks to her machinations regarding the Cook case 🙂

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHycLcxW8cY

  177. avatar
    misha July 15, 2009 at 9:27 pm #

    No, you’re slightly off. It’s Tralfamadore, not Krypton. Superman was from Krypton, and HIS father was Jor-El.

    Obama is from Tralfamadore, and his father is Zeus. I know it’s kind of tough keeping all the planets and parents straight. I even have trouble.

    Just don’t bring up galaxies. I have enough with these. Hey, have you heard? When Obama’s (or whatever he’s calling himself this week) daughter turns 16, he’s going to buy her a Citroen. They’re very safe. Rahm Emmanuel is going to have the Mossad slip one into the country, on an unmarked IDF C5A. I know because the Mossad has the telephone number of everyone Jewish in the world, so I just got a call. I even helped recommend it. I told the agent that my cousin in Tel Aviv has one, and it’s the best car she has ever owned. So they’ve agreed to get one for the First Family.

    Did you know that Obama’s father was really Emanuel Goldstein, and that he is Afro-Judeo? It’s true. I just heard it from Orly. Forget what I wrote about Zeus, I wasn’t thinking straight.

    I was worried about Max :http://www.flickr.com/photos/ubereye/sets/72157605641599877/

    What if he is not a natural born citizen? I mean, SOMEONE has to run against Palin, and I know he would win a debate with her. So I requested a vault copy of his birth certificate from the SPCA. It will show he was born at the Peaceful Cat Animal Hospital, here in Philly, and he is 40 in human years – so he meets the age requirement. And BOTH of his parents are US citizens, as required by the 14th Amendment, amended by Dr. Taitz. Are you following me? Good.

    I have to go now. Don’t tell her husband, but Orly and I are having an affair. Oops…

  178. avatar
    NBC July 15, 2009 at 9:30 pm #

    Well I am glad we agree about Polarik

  179. avatar
    thisoldhippie July 15, 2009 at 9:33 pm #

    Why is it that jtx accuses those who post here of “hate speech” when all I ever see from him is name calling?

  180. avatar
    misha July 15, 2009 at 9:43 pm #

    “he can’t even spell his own name, instead of “Polarik” he spells it “XXXXXXXXXXXX”

    He can spell X. Give the guy credit.

  181. avatar
    misha July 15, 2009 at 9:48 pm #

    Because birfers have reptile brains, and that’s all they are capable of.

    What’s the difference between Rush Limbaugh and a reptile?

    One is hatched from eggs, eats insects and sleeps under a rock. The other is a reptile.

  182. avatar
    misha July 15, 2009 at 10:02 pm #

    I’ll try again: The link for Max is here.

  183. avatar
    KEvron July 15, 2009 at 10:03 pm #

    because projection is a typical trait found among conspiracy wackaloons, even among those who pretend to believe in conspiracies.

    KEvron

  184. avatar
    misha July 15, 2009 at 10:07 pm #

    “Worst Person in the World”

    No, I think it’s the Worst Person in the Universe.

  185. avatar
    Mary Brown July 15, 2009 at 10:08 pm #

    My husband who is retired and works as for a contractor tells me the DOD has the final say. They can simply tell the contractor you are not needed. Period.

  186. avatar
    Rita July 15, 2009 at 10:21 pm #

    If only Keith had a Worst Person in the Universe segment, I’m sure she would be – even ahead of that “evil” Barack Obama from Krypton or Tralfamadore or wherever he is from 🙂

  187. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 15, 2009 at 10:31 pm #

    “No definitive BC” is just another birther myth.

  188. avatar
    misha July 15, 2009 at 10:44 pm #

    Oh, no. You too?

  189. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 15, 2009 at 10:59 pm #

    Jtx:

    First, there’s no way Obama is not eligible. Having spent more time reviewing the evidence that hardly anyone alive (speculation, but not unfounded), I can speak with complete confidence. Obama is the bona fide president any way one looks at it. Any questions of the harm of an ineligible president are theoretical ones, which are not applicable to the current President. Being part of the realm of speculation, they are not urgent, and not particularly interesting to me. The idea that someone ineligible could ever pass through the crucible of an American presidential election is really beyond my imagination.

    Second, I hope you have read and comprehended the able remarks of others here about the validity of actions of de facto officers. So even if some future hypothetical president were ineligible, the country is not “gravely harmed”. Major Cook’s little dialog about him being guilty of war crimes for carrying out an order from a usurper is a legal fantasy. A full half of the birthers believe that President Chester A. Arthur was ineligible, and he turned out to be a much better president than folks expected, and went a long way towards ending the political spoils system. He was responsible for revitalizing the US Navy and was not a bad hand at foreign policy.

    Third, the country has done quite well over the last 222 years without any president “proving in a definitive fashion that they WERE eligible”. This in and of itself proves your claim of harm is spurious.

    Obama denialism is just a smear campaign created by clever people and carried on by those who credulous and lazy. The clever ones concocted the Travel ban to Pakistan, and the credulous ones believed it. This web site has dozens of examples from Polarik to de Vatttel where clever liars have taken advantage of the credulous and the lazy.

    “Hate-speech site?” Yeah, I tolerate quite a bit of that.

    There is a rather interesting discussion over at PolitiJab about the eligibility verification of historical presidents. A fairly strong argument can be made that Dick Cheney wasn’t eligible to be Vice President, but the country remarkably survived.

  190. avatar
    myson July 16, 2009 at 4:50 am #

    Hahahahahahaha !!!!!!

    I laughed so much i fell from the chairs as i tried to imagine the face of the neighbour hearing this !!!

  191. avatar
    jtx July 17, 2009 at 7:47 pm #

    Depemnds upon the contract wording Mary Brown …

  192. avatar
    jtx July 17, 2009 at 7:49 pm #

    HI, Pope … bless you and say 3 Hail Marys because you have sinned … (is misha REALLY Italian or just another little Obamaism?)

  193. avatar
    misha July 18, 2009 at 12:08 am #

    Hail Marys? Sorry, I’m Jewish.

    Misha is Russian, not Italian. Grandparents from Moscow and Bialystock.

    Here: http://www.newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/