Main Menu

The Mailbag

A couple items of interest in the mail this evening:

The first concerns a non-event from Hawaii. The Post and Email presented a petition to the Hawaii Attorney General, asking for Obama’s birth certificate and the documents relating to the preparation of Dr. Fukino’s statement that Obama was born in Hawaii.

The AG says the he doesn’t keep birth certificates; that’s the Department of Health’s job, and that he doesn’t have any documents relating to Dr. Fukino’s preparation of her statement. (I suppose if Dr. Fukino did consult with the AG, it was over the phone.)

Somehow the nObamas thing this means something, but I don’t see it.

The other item is a death threat, which appeared on Orly’s Facebook fan page, according to the Crazy Internet People blog. The argument there was that if Obama is not really president, then threatening him really isn’t a crime. I don’t know if threatening the president (or vice-president) on a blog is a crime or not. Mailing one is most definitely a crime. But hypothetically say someone commits a crime against President Obama and is prosecuted; could that person raise the defense that Obama isn’t really president? It certainly sidesteps the issue of standing.

By the way, Phil Berg is publicizing his Obamacare/Obama March on Washington for May 29, 2010. Here’s the flyer.

29 Responses to The Mailbag

  1. avatar
    John April 11, 2010 at 1:38 am #

    I heard about that. If someone threatened the POTUS for a forced prosecution, then the accused could raise the defense that since he is an illegal POTUS, the threat against him doesn’t really count. Standing would no longer be an issue. However, he or she might still be found guilty of making threat on individual’s life but would not neccesarily be guilty of threatening the president. Nevertheless, death threats are made all the time upon people but only a few of them are actually prosecuted. However, the Secret Service does take threats against the POTUS very seriously. Think about how many death threats have been made upon Orly. According to her, dozens. However, no individuals have been prosecuted.

  2. avatar
    richCares April 11, 2010 at 1:57 am #

    “no individuals have been prosecuted”

    THEY DON’T PROSECUTE FANTASY THREATS!

  3. avatar
    G April 11, 2010 at 3:38 am #

    The direct threat on Orly’s blog is definitely worthy of a visit to the poster from the Secret Service. Obama is the POTUS, so this is a written threat against the legally elected President and therefore I feel it deserves investigation and prosecution if necessary.

    Re: Berg’s advertisement – the thing that stands out the most to me is his plea, as usual for donations. Ah, the true motivations of the con artists, to fleece their flock at every turn.

  4. avatar
    Greg April 11, 2010 at 7:23 am #

    Man charged with threatening the President

    Man charged with threatening the President

    Marine indicted for threatening President

    Spencer charged with threatening President

    De facto officer doctrine would make each of these folks guilty of threatening the President even if he later turned out to be ineligible.

  5. avatar
    Scott Brown April 11, 2010 at 10:23 am #

    Since you don’t ‘see it’, let me try to open your eyes.

    Even if Fukino consulted with the AG on the phone, documentation by the AG is imperative. Since she says she consulted with the AG prior to making the comment, the AG would most definitely have made note of such a phone call and his ‘legal’ determination of her agreed upon statement. This note would have been placed in a file as documentation. If this didn’t occur, I would be highly skeptical of any conversation taking place at all – or the AG is placing himself at risk of legal malpractice – questionable practices at best.

    My guess is – Fukino didn’t clear the comment with the AG. Fukino doesn’t possess the authority to have made the statement or the determination. Fukino was trying to cover her behind after the fact by dragging the AG into the mix. The AG wants nothing to do with helping cover her behind.

    What I don’t ‘see’ is – if Obama was born in Hawaii and everything on the posted COLB is accurate, why is Hawaii DOH going to such lengths to keep ALL related info secret? They have now decided they can no longer give the appropriate responses to inquiries, lest people figure out what type of info they have in relation to how the inquiry is responded to (i.e. not on file vs. not available to release – meaning either it exists or it doesn’t). What difference does it make if the public knows what does and doesn’t exist as long as privacy is not violated.

    I do ‘see’ the Obots side of the issue – Obama shouldn’t have to release anything or to prove anything. I agree with that – but continuing to tighten and change the rules in order to hide what exactly? Either he has a BC or he doesn’t. Either he made amendments or he didn’t. Either it was on file in 1961 or it wasn’t. Either it is accurate as posted or it isn’t. If there is nothing to hide, then let the rules stand as they were originally written in the DOH guidelines and strictly adhere to them when responding to inquiries. Don’t complain about the inquiries – that’s what happens when you have a President from your state – deal with it. But don’t change or spin the rules – it gives the appearance that something is being hidden.

    One thing I find amusing about the Hawaii DOH. They complain about the copious number of inquiries for Obama’s BC. Then they turn right around and when trying to change the rules for requesting info – say that they can refuse to respond to inquiries when there is not a substantial public interest.

    Either there are copious amounts of inquiries (substantial public interest) or there is not. The Hawaii DOH needs to make up their minds. Like Fukino, they want to have it both ways….may work for Democrats, but doesn’t work well in the real world.

  6. avatar
    kimba April 11, 2010 at 10:48 am #

    Nonsense. No amount of badgering and fussing is going to make the Hawaiians break their own public records laws. President Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug 4, 1961 to Ann Dunham And Barack senior, like you said above, deal with it. The Hawaiians are simply tired of you people harassing them. They realize after almost 2 years of dealing with you fools that no amount of information will ever satisfy you.

  7. avatar
    BlackLion April 11, 2010 at 11:11 am #

    And the fact that he picked the Memorial Day weekend for his protest march/con job. Picking one of the most popular travel weekends to march is not exactly the smartest thing to do. I think if he gets 500n people he will be lucky. However a weekend that is a slow weekend in Washington and that Congress and the President will probably be out of town seems to be counterproductive….But Berg isn’t the smartest of guys out there anyway…

  8. avatar
    BlackLion April 11, 2010 at 11:16 am #

    Nonsense. That is why you are not a lawyer, because you don’t understand the legal requirements. The bottom line is that Dr. Fukino issued an “Official Statements”. No amount of parsing or saying that she did not clear the statements changes that. The consultation probably consisted of the following…The AG asked dr. Fukino if there are records that prove that President Obama was born in HI. She said yes. That was it. In her position as the custodian of records, she is allowed to issue such a statement. And by stating he was born in HI, that is the official stance of the entire state of HI. You are a fool if you think that she would issue such a statement if she didn’t have the records and documentation to support her claim. But since you would prefer to believe in fake Kenyan BC’s and fake Baptist Ministers, it is not a surprise you would not want to believe in the veracity of an official statement from a recognized state of the US.

  9. avatar
    Greg April 11, 2010 at 12:48 pm #

    When advising companies on internal investigations, it is often advisable to tell the advisees to NOT take notes. Notes can be discoverable.

    If a public lawyer operates in an environment of open meeting laws, he will surely be aware of when taking notes will lead to discoverable information. If keeping discoverable notes could lead to the publication of privileged or confidential information, THAT could be malpractice.

    You’re confused at how the DOH could claim that they are inundated with requests, but not have to answer them? How is that confusing? If I sent you 100,000 letters, you would be inundated and you would surely not answer them. You’d probably toss them in the trash. The DOH doesn’t have that luxury. They’ve got to process each one, at least to determine that each one is invalid.

  10. avatar
    G April 11, 2010 at 2:26 pm #

    Thanks for the links, Greg.

  11. avatar
    Ragout April 11, 2010 at 2:38 pm #

    “The argument there was that if Obama is not really president, then threatening him really isn’t a crime.”

    Huh? Even if Obama is a usurper and an illegal alien, surely threatening his life is a crime? Is it open season on illegal aliens now?

  12. avatar
    Zixi of Ix April 11, 2010 at 4:22 pm #

    People who threaten the President should be prosecuted 100% of the time.
    Period.
    No excuses for “He’s not really the President” or any other daft idea that pops into the conspiratorial minds of miscreants.
    Threats to elected officials are in direct opposition to our way of life and our method of government. Anyone who stoops to that sort of vile behavior has no love for our country or our laws.
    We have perfected a method of getting rid of ineffective politicians:
    Vote them out.
    The only honorable option for those who claim to love our country is to honor our system.

  13. avatar
    G April 11, 2010 at 5:13 pm #

    Well said!

  14. avatar
    bob April 11, 2010 at 9:00 pm #

    UIPA § 92F-13(2) exempts communications sought as legal advice. This would include any written communication, as well as notes about that communication.

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 11, 2010 at 9:00 pm #

    Scott Brown: Even if Fukino consulted with the AG on the phone, documentation by the AG is imperative. Since she says she consulted with the AG prior to making the comment, the AG would most definitely have made note of such a phone call and his legal’ determination of her agreed upon statement.

    This is the problem with birthers. They see the world as they imagine it to be, not how it is based on evidence. An evidence-based approach would to conclude that the statements of the two state officials is accurate.

  16. avatar
    bob April 11, 2010 at 9:05 pm #

    Moreover, UIPA § 92F-13(3) exempts inter- or intra- agency communications under the “deliberative process privilege.”

  17. avatar
    Steve April 11, 2010 at 10:36 pm #

    I’m pretty sure threatening anyone’s life is a crime.

  18. avatar
    Rickey April 11, 2010 at 11:04 pm #

    John says:

    Think about how many death threats have been made upon Orly. According to her, dozens. However, no individuals have been prosecuted.

    In order to prosecute, there has to be:

    (a) credible evidence that a threat was actually made, and

    (b) evidence sufficient to identify the person who made the threat.

    As I understand it, Orly hasn’t been able to produce evidence of either.

  19. avatar
    Dave April 11, 2010 at 11:19 pm #

    I am surprised that you suggest the “he’s not really the President” defense has any chance of working. Even if you could prove that the President is not eligible, I don’t think any judge would buy the argument that that means he isn’t the President. The Constitution makes pretty clear that only Congress can remove him.

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 12, 2010 at 7:41 am #

    I did not mean to imply that such a defense has any chance of working. I was just suggesting that it might (and I’m probably wrong) have a chance of being presented.

  21. avatar
    Lupin April 12, 2010 at 9:42 am #

    You know, in the real world, where we live, the death of a Head of State is a pretty big deal. Even if one doesn’t like him and/or agree with his policies, it is a blow to the whole country, in the principle as well as practically. Look at what’s happening in Poland right now.

    I’m just old enough to remember JFK’s assassination (I was 9) and have never forgotten RFK. Neither of them were widely supported by all Americans, but their deaths were felt by the entire nation as a personal blow.

    Only in birtherland could one toy with, even aspire to such a grim eventuality. You guys are in dire need of mental treatment.

  22. avatar
    Black Lion April 12, 2010 at 12:08 pm #

    I agree. But our friend BZ and John Charlton over at the Post and Fail think that no confirming anything means that it is true. So when Fukino states “vital records”, it means that there must be an amended record somewhere.

    http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/doh-confirms-all-records-denied/#comments

    “To summarize, Terri K asked Joesting twice whether she could ask for the records and was twice told that she could and that she should be told if the records don’t exist. The OIP rules require an agency to say if the requested records don’t exist. A Glomarized response is required to avoid a denial actually confirming a record’s existence. The procedure for the OIP to rule on an appeal of a records denial such as Terri’s involves the attorney seeing the actual records being denied. Terri gave the DOH the opportunity to change their answer or to clarify which records were being denied and the DOH confirmed that everything she requested was being denied (and thus exists). Terri gave Linden Joesting an opportunity to say her statements had been misunderstood but she declined to correct Terri’s understanding that a denial of access is statutory confirmation of the requested record’s existence.

    Terri has done everything possible to double-check the content posted about her requests and responses on this blog, and nobody will say that there was a misunderstanding. Everyone stands by their original answers – which mean that Obama’s birth certificate has been amended.”

  23. avatar
    Black Lion April 12, 2010 at 12:34 pm #

    And the follow up commentary by Charlton and his seditious crew…

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/10/the-hawaii-department-of-healths-latest-excuse-for-non-release-of-obamas-records/

    “This links to a reasonably tidy Department of Justice definition of “Privacy Glomarization” as is being questionably applied against Butterdezillion and Terri K by Obama’s co-conspirators at the DoH in Hawaii.”

    “Glomarization is just another inappropriate and most likely illegal smokescreen being used by the Hawaiian DoH to do more evil in thwarting the legitimate requests of citizens to obtain basic qualifying information about a public servant in We-the-People’s employ. I know life isn’t always fair, but I do so look forward to the day of reckoning for the wicked usurper of the White House and his flying monkeys in Hawaii.”

  24. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 12, 2010 at 3:58 pm #

    It wouldn’t get presented to the trier of fact because it doesn’t constitute a legal defense. So a defendant might try to raise it, but any judge would end up ruling it inadmissible. The law is TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 41 > § 871
    § 871. Threats against President and successors to the Presidency

    There is nothing in the law that requires that the President be determined to be lawfully entitled to hold his office — its simply a matter that he does hold the office. So the Judge would hold any attempt to question his qualifications as being simply irrelevant to the claim.

    Here’s an analogy: if a person who is in prison escapes from custody, they can be charged with the crime of escape. Moreover, there are a number of crimes the person can be charged with based on their status as a prisoner, such as specific laws governing assaults by prisoners or possession of contraband. Sometime people are wrongfully imprisoned for crimes they did not commit — and it can be shown (ultimately) through legal process either that they are in fact innocent, or that they were deprived of substantial rights at their trials in a way that invalidates the verdict — and through legal process their convictions may be vacated and they can be released. However — if they commit a status-based crime while incarcerated — such as escape or possession of contraband — it is NOT a defense for them show that their incarceration was wrongful, as long as the incarceration was through actual legal process.

  25. avatar
    MsDaisy April 12, 2010 at 4:05 pm #

    Wait! She does have evidence, she posted it on her website, and that’s proof enough not to even need further investigation! And she knows it was the Obama thugs because who else would pull her emissions hose, or make fun of her. Ok, ok… wait, and.. ok, ok.. all those Obot thugs are guilty of hate crimes against her and she will find out who they are and demand they be prosecuted, and… wait… ok, ok. No, No YOU HAVE TO LET ME FINISH!

  26. avatar
    G April 12, 2010 at 5:36 pm #

    This is hilarious, so I had to share:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/12/mccain-ad-says-hayworth-c_n_534305.html

    Looks like flirting with birtherism will be used against candidates in the 2010 election. This McCain ad against Hayworth is a hilarious example.

  27. avatar
    Dick Whitman April 12, 2010 at 6:34 pm #

    I am surprised that you suggest the “he’s not really the President” defense has any chance of working. Even if you could prove that the President is not eligible, I don’t think any judge would buy the argument that that means he isn’t the President. The Constitution makes pretty clear that only Congress can remove him.

    Can a majority of the President’s Cabinet vote to remove the President if they agree he/she suffers a disability making POTUS incapable of preforming his/her duty? If so, are Cabinet members also members of the Congress?

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 12, 2010 at 8:05 pm #

    Dick Whitman: Can a majority of the President’s Cabinet vote to remove the President if they agree he/she suffers a disability making POTUS incapable of preforming his/her duty?

    Actually, no. The Constitution does not authorize a “palace coup”. The Vice-President becomes the “acting president” but the President is not “removed.” Further all the President need to is declare that he is “OK” and resume office. At that point should the Vice-President and cabinet not agree, the matter is decided by Congress. Refer to the 25th Amendment.

  29. avatar
    Miss M April 12, 2010 at 9:50 pm #

    Think about how many death threats have been made upon Orly. According to her, dozens. However, no individuals have been prosecuted

    According to your logic, John, it isn’t a crime to threaten Orly. As she isn’t the President. Her safety could be threatened everyday and no law enforcement should do or would do anything to stop it.