Main Menu

Navigation

Archive | August, 2011

Army veteran loses job after confrontation with birther boss

By on August 31, 2011 in Birthers

An Alabama employee of Hawk Enterprises, a defense contractor, complained to his company after receiving a birther email that he considered racist. According to Kerin Kelly, he was confronted by a vice president of the firm who said that it was patriotic to question Obama’s citizenship. Kelley, who suffers from post traumatic stress syndrome after serving in combat in Iraq, was unable to handle the situation and had to leave the work site. The company took this as a resignation and wouldn’t reinstate him.

The Alabama web site AL.com has an extensive story that I would prefer interested folks read, rather than me characterizing it.

11

Independent computer consultant tackles claims of birth certificate forgery

By on August 30, 2011 in Birth Certificate, Books

imageJohn Woodman created a series of YouTube videos in which he examines some of the birther claims that President Obama’s long-form birth certificate is a fake. I was impressed by his methodical approach to the claims, and the care with which he reached conclusions about them. While Woodman considers himself a “Tea Party Conservative,” he certainly proved no friend of the birthers in his videos.

Now three months of research has resulted in Woodman’s new 221-page book, Is Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate a Fraud? A Computer Guy Examines the Evidence for Forgery. It’s available from Amazon.com in print and eBook formats.

I haven’t read the book yet, so I won’t comment further on it, except to say that I will be reading it shortly. I got the NOOK eBook version from Barnes & Noble – instant gratification, plus it’s only $4.95. [There are PC readers for both Kindle and Nook books.]

Read more:

22

Taitz gets sucky birthday present

By on August 30, 2011 in FOIA, Lawsuits, Orly Taitz, Social-security numbers

Happy Birthday Orly! Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth probably didn’t know  it was your birthday when he wrote a rather unpleasant (from your point of view) ruling today in the case of Taitz v Astrue. It’s not without irony that the judge wrote: “Today is not her lucky day.”

The order itself is quite brief and to the point:

Final judgment is hereby entered for defendant, dismissing this case with prejudice.

“With prejudice” means that you can’t file the same case again – the complaint can’t be “fixed.” I’m sure you will move for reconsideration, but it won’t help.

I can’t say I’m sorry, but I have some sympathy for how you feel, losing the case that you made such a big fuss over, and on your birthday, even.

Here’s the memorandum

TAITZ v ASTRUE (USDC D.C.) – 33 – MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth – gov.uscourt…

Read more:

27

Obama must resign in 90 days

By on August 28, 2011 in Pastor Manning, Videos

Pastor Manning says so in this January 31, 2011 video. Manning doesn’t explain exactly there the authority for his jury came from, but bear with me. A significant part of this video is various citations from folks like Tim Adams, who say that Obama has no long-form birth certificate. 90 days from January 31 would be May 1, 2011. Could it be that Obama in order to stave off removal from office, released his long form on April 27, just hours before Manning’s deadline?

Naaaah.

21

Disturbing article at the Post & Email

By on August 27, 2011 in Crimes, The Blogs

RaudenbushSharon Rondeau has published an interview at the Post & Email with an unnamed observer1 at the trial of  George Joseph Raudenbush III (2006 Raudenbush photo at right), a case that I have not been following and know little about. (There is some discussion of the fellow over at The Fogbow which I haven’t read yet.) I wouldn’t be writing about it now except for the birther angle created by the Walter Fitzpatrick III connection.

Apparently Raudenbush had some run-in with the police that allegedly involved speeding and resisting arrest. Rondeau’s article is: Reporter With Recording Device Allowed to Remain in Monroe County Courtroom after Fitzpatrick Was Removed for Allegedly Having a Recorder…Which He Didn’t Have.

What was disturbing about the article was not what is described in the article’s title, but the observer’s description of the trial. According to the article:

  1. Raudenbush asked for an attorney but was refused one, and told he had to represent himself.
  2. Raudenbush was in custody and unable to prepare his defense.
  3. The court refused most of Raudenbush’s witnesses
  4. Police officers lied under oath
  5. Raudenbush was not allowed to present evidence of prior misconduct on the part of the police witnesses (misconduct that the observer seemed remarkably informed on).
  6. One reporter (who allegedly had a recording device) was barred from the court room.
  7. Raudenbush was convicted of a charge not returned by the Grand Jury.2
  8. The judge forced the jury to remain until midnight and return a verdict.

If the full account is accurate and complete, Raudenbush (convicted on all counts), didn’t get a fair trial. In fact, the whole description of the trial sounds like some Soviet show trial from the 1960’s.  It’s very powerful stuff  and very upsetting.

Continue Reading →

38

Disturbing article at the Post & Email

By on August 27, 2011 in Crimes

Sharon Rondeau has published an interview at the Post & Email with an unnamed observer1 at the trial of  George Joseph Raudenbush III, a case that I have not been following and know little about. I wouldn’t be writing about it now except for the birther angle created by the Walter Fitzpatrick III connection. (There is some discussion of the fellow over at The Fogbow which I haven’t read yet.)

Apparently Raudenbush had some run-in with the police that allegedly involved speeding and resisting arrest. Rondeau’s article is: Reporter With Recording Device Allowed to Remain in Monroe County Courtroom after Fitzpatrick Was Removed for Allegedly Having a Recorder…Which He Didn’t Have.

What was disturbing about the article was not what is described in the article’s title, but the observer’s description of the trial. According to the article:

  1. Raudenbush asked for an attorney but was refused one, and told he had to represent himself.
  2. Raudenbush was in custody and unable to prepare his defense.
  3. The court refused most of Raudenbush’s witnesses
  4. Police officers lied under oath
  5. Raudenbush was not allowed to present evidence of prior misconduct on the part of the police witnesses (misconduct that the observer seemed remarkably informed on).
  6. One reporter (who allegedly had a recording device) was barred from the court room.
  7. Raudenbush was convicted of a charge not returned by the Grand Jury.2
  8. The judge forced the jury to remain until midnight and return a verdict.

If the account is accurate, Raudenbush (convicted on all counts), didn’t get a fair trial. In fact, the whole description of the trial sounds like some Soviet show trial from the 1960’s.  It’s very powerful stuff  and very upsetting.

Continue Reading →

10