Main Menu

Taitz v Fuddy dismissed

Judge Nishimura  dismissed Taitz v Fuddy from the bench in Honolulu yesterday. In the suit, Birther attorney Orly Taitz sought to inspect President Obama’s original birth certificate, waving affidavits from “experts” saying it is a forgery.

Response from Orly Taitz [link to Taitz web site]:

judge totally biased and dumb

Taitz says that there was local news coverage by two Honolulu TV stations, but video clips were not made available.

Another one bites the dust

Fox News in Honolulu (KHON2) has an article on the dismissal on its web site.

The state estimates its attorneys have spent about 700 hours working on so called “birther” issues, with 90 of those hours dedicated to Dr. Orly Taitz.

371 Responses to Taitz v Fuddy dismissed

  1. avatar
    Critical Thinker October 13, 2011 at 1:29 pm #

    I read the commentary on some birfer web sites about Orly’s latest failure. Besides the illogical “another loss that proves victory is right around the corner,” the most conspicuous feature of birfer commentary is that I didn’t see anyone express any curiosity about why the case was dismissed. Every commenter assumes that the judge is corrupt or incompetent. They seem to not even consider the possibility that the judge’s dismissal was based on sound legal principles.

  2. avatar
    G October 13, 2011 at 1:57 pm #

    Wow…Orly’s delusional account of what happened on her website just shows what a meglomaniac she is.

    I would love to find a link to that HI Fox TV coverage… if I run across some, I’ll post it here. Otherwise, I ask anyone who knows of any links to the coverage she refers to to share it.

    It just astounds me how much her delusional followers just keep buying her bizarro world version of events over and over and over again. These people are really like cult followers.

    Orly claims that she will provide the actual transcript once available… it will be interesting to see if she actually goes through with that. So far the track record is fairly clear that the transcripts never even come close to how Orly portrays events and always match up much closer to the Fogbow on site reports.

    So, here is detailed rundown of what happened in the court room that is likely to match up fairly well with the transcript, unlike Orly’s fantasy version:

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=19195#more-19195

  3. avatar
    G October 13, 2011 at 2:04 pm #

    Thanks Gorefan!

    I don’t know how Orly can watch that and think that she comes across looking good. I’ll agree with her that it was a fair and balanced reporting, but not that it in any way helps her delusional crusade. She comes across as much of a loser as ever.

    gorefan: Hawaii local TV reporthttp://www.khon2.com/news/local/story/Woman-denied-request-to-see-Obamas-birth/y4QI8hJQJUOXLOl1IwWDWw.cspx

  4. avatar
    gorefan October 13, 2011 at 2:12 pm #

    This was an interesting part of the report,

    “The state estimates its attorneys have spent about 700 hours working on so called “birther” issues, with 90 of those hours dedicated to Dr. Orly Taitz.”

    Could the State of Hawaii seek reimbursement from Orly? Their lawyers are on the clock whether they are working on a Orly case or something else.

  5. avatar
    BatGuano October 13, 2011 at 2:51 pm #

    Critical Thinker:
    They seem to not even consider the possibility that the judge’s dismissal was based on sound legal principles.

    it’s a gateway admission. if they were to accept that this ruling and based on sound legal principles then that could easily lead to admitting another ruling was correct, then another and another. before you know it they are completely strung-out on pure reality.

  6. avatar
    BatGuano October 13, 2011 at 3:08 pm #

    i LOVE this from orly’s response:

    “Deputy Attorney General Jill Nagaminre…… argued the same old shpil, that I can’t get any disclosure of records, because I don’t have any tangible interest. She kept going on again and again and the judge kept nodding and agreeing with her.”

    how dare she argue the law and the nerve of the judge to agree.

  7. avatar
    richCares October 13, 2011 at 3:22 pm #

    I was so disappointed, now what can I do with the frog I bought? I was so prepared for the frog marching, I spent hours teaching the frog how to march. Orly let me down, heck I even gave her 2 of my 3 frequent flyer miles. This has really made me allergic to her paypal button big time.

  8. avatar
    Sef October 13, 2011 at 4:10 pm #

    BatGuano: before you know it they are completely strung-out on pure reality.

    I mainline reality.

  9. avatar
    G October 13, 2011 at 4:46 pm #

    LMAO!

    richCares: I was so disappointed, now what can I do with the frog I bought? I was so prepared for the frog marching, I spent hours teaching the frog how to march. Orly let me down, heck I even gave her 2 of my 3 frequent flyer miles. This has really made me allergic to her paypal button big time.

  10. avatar
    Paul October 13, 2011 at 5:23 pm #

    Critical Thinker:
    Besides the illogical “another loss that proves victory is right around the corner,

    That’s the thing that amazes me. The level of self-delusion is… frightening.

  11. avatar
    Rickey October 13, 2011 at 5:31 pm #

    G:

    It just astounds me how much her delusional followers just keep buying her bizarro world version of events over and over and over again.These people are really like cult followers.

    People who are afflicted with ODS believe anything negative they hear or read about Obama. The don’t question sources or seek verification elsewhere.

    I saw a post from a guy on Facebook today who still believes the long-discredited right wing talking point that Obama never uses the words “terror” or “terrorist.” I sent him a link to a debunking article, but these people don’t care about the truth.

  12. avatar
    aarrgghh October 13, 2011 at 6:16 pm #

    Critical Thinker:
    … Besides the illogical “another loss that proves victory is right around the corner,” the most conspicuous feature of birfer commentary is that I didn’t see anyone express any curiosity about why the case was dismissed. Every commenter assumes that the judge is corrupt or incompetent …

    it’s the “lost sock in the dark drawer” mentality — the removal of each wrong sock increases the probability the next try will produce the lost sock. as long as one is convinced the missing sock is indeed in the drawer, victory is inevitable. no need to consider why the missing sock hasn’t yet materialized …

  13. avatar
    Phil Cave October 13, 2011 at 6:24 pm #

    In my jurisdiction her comments about the judge would lead to a bar complaint.

  14. avatar
    G October 13, 2011 at 7:38 pm #

    As well it should. It just astounds me that this woman hasn’t been disbarred yet. Based on her history pattern, I don’t see why any judge continues to show her the slightest bit of leniency anymore.

    Phil Cave: In my jurisdiction her comments about the judge would lead to a bar complaint.

  15. avatar
    Tarrant October 13, 2011 at 7:53 pm #

    Someone on her site posted that it was good news because it meant an appellate court would now see her evidence. The thing is it’s hard to tell what is snark and what is real.

    It amazes me how proud she is of the fact that both the judge and attorneys were “surprised” and “unprepared” for her bringing up arguments THAT WEREN’T IN HER COMPLAINT. So of Course they were unprepared. It’s not ethical to just spring that stuff, Orly! Not, I’m sure, that se cares about the ethics of her profession, but the smugness about it in her posts really rubs me the wrong way.

  16. avatar
    Keith October 13, 2011 at 8:28 pm #

    Phil Cave:
    In my jurisdiction her comments about the judge would lead to a bar complaint.

    She was pro se in Hawaii and not on the Hawai’ian Bar. I assume that would save her in this case?

  17. avatar
    BatGuano October 13, 2011 at 8:37 pm #

    Tarrant:

    It amazes me how proud she is of the fact that both the judge and attorneys were “surprised” and “unprepared” for her bringing up arguments THAT WEREN’T IN HER COMPLAINT.

    …………. no one expects the spanish inquisition!!!!

  18. avatar
    Phil Cave October 13, 2011 at 8:38 pm #

    Keith: She was pro se

    No, I don’t believe it would, or should, in California where she is licensed. I practice in military courts around the world. As such I am bound by the rules of professional conduct applicable to the lawyers in the service who are co-counsel with me. For example, in an Army case I’m bound by the Army rules. However, I’m also subject to rules for VA, DC, and OH where I’m licensed. So the fact this occurred in another jurisdiction would not be a bar to a bar complaint — huuuuuuum, did I just say that.

    True, she is a plaintiff. But she’s also a lawyer. And IMHO a lawyer as a plaintiff is still subject to the rules of professionalism. And, even if this were not an ethics issue, I still think it’s an issue of professionalism. I believe we practice law as a profession, and as a business secondarily. There are standards of honorable conduct. Therefore appropriate professional conduct is demanded at all times. It is stuff like this that contributes to lawyers getting a bad name.

    Sorry if i preach. But this is something I try to mentor young lawyers about.

  19. avatar
    Rickey October 13, 2011 at 9:35 pm #

    Phil Cave: No, I don’t believe it would, or should, in California where she is licensed.I practice in military courts around the world.As such I am bound by the rules of professional conduct applicable to the lawyers in the service who are co-counsel with me.For example, in an Army case I’m bound by the Army rules.However, I’m also subject to rules for VA, DC, and OH where I’m licensed.So the fact this occurred in another jurisdiction would not be a bar to a bar complaint — huuuuuuum, did I just say that.

    True, she is a plaintiff.But she’s also a lawyer.And IMHO a lawyer as a plaintiff is still subject to the rules of professionalism.And, even if this were not an ethics issue, I still think it’s an issue of professionalism.I believe we practice law as a profession, and as a business secondarily.There are standards of honorable conduct.Therefore appropriate professional conduct is demanded at all times.It is stuff like this that contributes to lawyers getting a bad name.

    Sorry if i preach.But this is something I try to mentor young lawyers about.

    The California bar is aware of her conduct but does not seem to be interested in doing anything about it. I thought that some action might be taken after she was sanctioned in the Rhodes case and then lost her appeal, but as far as I can tell California has done nothing.

  20. avatar
    Joe Acerbic October 13, 2011 at 10:01 pm #

    Birfoons suffer any real world consequences for their various misdeeds only in the most egregious cases, like Fitzpatrick and Lakin. Mostly they just get a pass because they’re “special”.

  21. avatar
    Kaci Jay October 13, 2011 at 10:40 pm #

    Hard to expect the California Bar to do the right thing with regard to Orly considering they let her sit for the bar in the first place with a crap mail order JD.

  22. avatar
    Northland10 October 13, 2011 at 10:42 pm #

    Joe Acerbic: Birfoons suffer any real world consequences for their various misdeeds only in the most egregious cases,

    Well, for some birthers, they are suffering, at least in their mind, for Obama is still the President. After all of the courtroom antics, their persistent protestations, the dull drone of whimper and whining, the object which so torments them remains comfortably ensconced in their White House.

  23. avatar
    Northland10 October 13, 2011 at 10:49 pm #

    Orly keeps claiming in cases and in motions that she has “new evidence,” Yet, the evidence is only new as she failed to to do the simple research Maybe it is time for her to return to Sesame Street and enjoy a program sponsored by the letter “D.” That would be “D,” as in Due Diligence.

  24. avatar
    G October 13, 2011 at 11:40 pm #

    ROTFLMAO!

    Northland10: Orly keeps claiming in cases and in motions that she has “new evidence,” Yet, the evidence is only new as she failed to to do the simple research Maybe it is time for her to return to Sesame Street and enjoy a program sponsored by the letter “D.” That would be “D,” as in Due Diligence.

  25. avatar
    Keith October 13, 2011 at 11:42 pm #

    Phil Cave: Sorry if i preach. But this is something I try to mentor young lawyers about.

    No complaints from me, except you are preaching to the converted. I cannot figure out how lying to the court about dismissed cases in other jurisdictions while trying to get a fraudulent subpoena ‘enforced’ doesn’t get her some quality time in the Honolulu lockup for contempt of court. I have heard of other folks getting jail time for less.

    Rickey: The California bar is aware of her conduct but does not seem to be interested in doing anything about it. I thought that some action might be taken after she was sanctioned in the Rhodes case and then lost her appeal, but as far as I can tell California has done nothing.

    There have been at least three formal complaints sent to the California Bar that have been published on the innertubes somewhere and they don’t give a ratz patootie apparently. I know that much of the deliberation would be private and not disclosed to the public, but if they were to disbar her, that would be very public I would think. And somehow I just can’t imagine Orly keeping quiet about any low level wrist slap she might receive.

    Maybe we need to start calling anyone who is a member of the California Bar ‘Orly’s Collaborator’, no matter what the circumstance. Need a lawyer in California? Demand a 50% discount because the standards are so low. Bring her up in every discussion: “what have you done to further the disbarment of Orly today”?

    Perhaps a public demonstration that she is ruining the reputation of her fellow members of the California Bar would jog their interest.

  26. avatar
    Bob J October 14, 2011 at 12:19 am #

    How can a lawyer call a judge corrupt and still be allowed to litigate?

    Is she states such a thing is she bound by a legal code to file a complaint against the judge?

    The judges in PA who were corrupt, and sending kids to prison for kickbacks were discovered because of a formal complaint, right?

    I am seriously asking, because I don’t understand how people call yell corruption of all government officialsand not face the consequences. Especially the attorney filing the cases.

  27. avatar
    foreigner October 14, 2011 at 3:45 am #

    so, whats he reason, why was it dismissed ?
    Because they had to spend 700h on the birthers ?
    That’s not much as compared to the fuss on internet
    which they caused.
    And it’s a reason to give her access , so to end this.

  28. avatar
    Keith October 14, 2011 at 3:57 am #

    Has Orly found an ally?

    NC Secretary of State Wants Documents

  29. avatar
    The Magic M October 14, 2011 at 4:13 am #

    G: Orly claims that she will provide the actual transcript once available… it will be interesting to see if she actually goes through with that.

    The more likely prediction is that she will claim any official transcript is “a forgery”.
    Though I think the craziest instance of that particular folly was when Sharon Rondeau (of Pest and eFail) claimed that a transcript she once got was “doctored” because the line breaks (!) were different from the one published by Fogbow earlier (not that a single word differed, of course).

  30. avatar
    The Magic M October 14, 2011 at 4:24 am #

    Critical Thinker: Besides the illogical “another loss that proves victory is right around the corner

    As I’ve said many times before, most conspiracy cranks are also prone to querulatory disorder. Which usually manifests itself in the firm belief that anything that would allow you to reargue or relitigate your case is a good thing.

    (Likely that’s another reason Orly tries to step on the judges’ feet – getting a sanction gives you at least another appeal round, so does getting disbarred, or criminal prosecution. That’s of course on top of the propaganda value this would have for the birfers.)

    And since Orly’s followers don’t just believe that rearguing the case on appeal is a good thing but that they can now get an impeachment case against Judge Nishimura (!) rolling, in their mind, this loss gets them *two* chances to relitigate the issue, and two is better than one, right? *sigh*
    And of course this time SCOTUS will really take up the issue, don’t you know? ;-P

  31. avatar
    foreigner October 14, 2011 at 4:27 am #

    > “She has given no authority to this court that would provide us with any reason to believe
    > that she is in a position of power to make a determination over the holder of the White House,
    > ” Nagamine says.

    so, you need more power to prevail in US-Court ? With power, you no longer need Courts.

    That “holder of the White House” _did_ already release his birth certificate.
    So no new information would be released, only the verification that the copy was genuine.
    What reason might Obama have to prevent this ?
    Did the judge or Taitz or Nagamine ask Obama whether he would mind giving Taitz
    access to the original ? (and why)

    May this question even be asked in USA in a blog like this (I couldn’t find it)

    Why did Obama release the BC in the first place ?

    > On Wednesday, Mr Obama described the unprecedented move as an effort to rid the
    > US political debate of a distraction, saying he had watched, puzzled and bemused,
    > as the birther conspiracy had built and developed over the past years.
    > He described the matter as a “sideshow” and its proponents as “carnival barkers”.
    > “We do not have time for this kind of silliness,” Mr Obama said. “We’ve got better stuff to do. I

    I’m amused. He was the one who spent millions on “dismissal” actions.
    How much easier would it have been to just let them proceed and show the BC in 2008 ?

    > we’ve got better stuff to do

    oh dear, how much did it cost him to produce the BC ?

  32. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn October 14, 2011 at 5:03 am #

    That “holder of the White House” _did_ already release his birth certificate.
    So no new information would be released, only the verification that the copy was genuine.
    What reason might Obama have to prevent this ?
    Did the judge or Taitz or Nagamine ask Obama whether he would mind giving Taitz
    access to the original ? (and why)

    Why did Obama release the BC in the first place ?

    I’m amused. He was the one who spent millions on “dismissal” actions.
    How much easier would it have been to just let them proceed and show the BC in 2008 ?

    So many stupid questions. First, he didn’t spend millions. Second, it’s not Obama’s document to release. Third, the certification by Hawaii makes what he did release all that one needs to do (if anything was needed). Fourth, we don’t go into a police state “well, we think this too could be fake” mentality, where one has to prove innocence – no, the people who claim forgery have to prove forgery, not “show us your innocence.” Fifth — and the ever-changing goal-posts explains why nothing would be solved (“oh, it’s the same, that’s proof it is a forgery”! indeed, that is what Orly said would be proven if she saw it was the same). Sixth, Orly has no ability to judge original documents anyway, so why give someone who has no ability to judge the document access to it? What are they going to do? Clearly, not anything credible. Seventh which goes back to the Constitution and the FULL FAITH and CREDIT clause — something birthers deny. By giving access and saying “doubt is correct,” you basically repudiate the Constitution. I think that is a good reason to say no to birthers.

  33. avatar
    Lupin October 14, 2011 at 5:28 am #

    I can’t possibly imagine why the Bar of California hasn’t taken any action against that madwoman. Yes, I’m sure it would be an aggravation, but what about all the trouble she causes?

  34. avatar
    Jim F October 14, 2011 at 5:54 am #

    I tried to post a comment on Orly’s site . It was critical but in no way abusive but the monitors of the site felt that any criticism of the beloved are off limits. As for the claim that the forger is Ms Fuddy , I thought that she had blamed that crime on the White House. It is amazing that the courts allow this continuing nonsense and the allegations of curuption against judges and opposing council.

  35. avatar
    foreigner October 14, 2011 at 6:37 am #

    > First, he didn’t spend millions.

    how much do you estimate did he spent ?

    He complains that he has more important things to do
    > Trump has also said Obama spent “millions of dollars trying to get
    > The cases went to the supreme court who voted no standing

    > Second, it’s not Obama’s document to release.

    he can easily require and release it

    > Third, the certification by Hawaii makes what he did release all that one needs to do
    > (if anything was needed).

    don’t understand

    >Fourth, we don’t go into a police state “well, we think this too could be fake” mentality,
    > where one has to prove innocence – no, the people who claim forgery have to prove forgery,
    > not “show us your innocence.”

    it’s not about proving forgery at this point. Just prove that the released document is what was claimed for.
    And yes, if this causes extr unnecessary cost, then I think Taitz should pay for it.
    But how much can it cost ?

    > Fifth — and the ever-changing goal-posts explains why nothing would be solved (“oh, it’s the same,
    > that’s proof it is a forgery”! indeed, that is what Orly said would be proven if she saw it was the
    > same).

    as I understand you refuse to prove something because you anticipate some won’t understand
    or accept the prove ? Doesn’t make sense. Such a “proof” is still better than no proof at all.

    > Sixth, Orly has no ability to judge original documents anyway, so why give someone who has no
    > ability to judge the document access to it? What are they going to do? Clearly, not anything
    > credible.

    they can hire an expert. It should be really easy to refute some of her claims, even that she can’t deny it.

    >Seventh which goes back to the Constitution and the FULL FAITH and CREDIT clause —
    > something birthers deny. By giving access and saying “doubt is correct,” you basically repudiate
    > the Constitution. I think that is a good reason to say no to birthers.

    that’s a strange logic and I cn’t believe it’s in the US-constitution.
    No doubt allowed ? Then why do you have police,passports,credit card companies etc. in USA ?
    Is that the openness that Obama proclaimed in his 2008 campaign ?

  36. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn October 14, 2011 at 7:39 am #

    how much do you estimate did he spent ?

    he can easily require and release it

    > Third, the certification by Hawaii makes what he did release all that one needs to do> (if anything was needed).

    don’t understand

    it’s not about proving forgery at this point. Just prove that the released document is what was claimed for.

    > Fifth — and the ever-changing goal-posts explains why nothing would be solved (“oh, it’s the same,> that’s proof it is a forgery”! indeed, that is what Orly said would be proven if she saw it was the> same).

    as I understand you refuse to prove something because you anticipate some won’t understand
    or accept the prove ? Doesn’t make sense. Such a “proof” is still better than no proof at all.

    > Sixth, Orly has no ability to judge original documents anyway, so why give someone who has no> ability to judge the document access to it? What are they going to do? Clearly, not anything> credible.

    they can hire an expert. It should be really easy to refute some of her claims, even that she can’t deny it.

    >Seventh which goes back to the Constitution and the FULL FAITH and CREDIT clause —> something birthers deny. By giving access and saying “doubt is correct,” you basically repudiate>the Constitution. I think that is a good reason to say no to birthers.

    that’s a strange logic and I cn’t believe it’s in the US-constitution.
    No doubt allowed ? Then why do you have police,passports,credit card companies etc. in USA ?
    Is that the openness that Obama proclaimed in his 2008 campaign ?

    You really don’t understand. You are right. You are clueless.

    1) You made the claim of millions. Prove it. You can’t. You know it is false. So this is your second way of responding? Seriously, grow a brain.

    2) Yes, you don’t understand. The full faith and credit clause says a certified document by the state _is to be accepted_. What he has shown is self-authenticating. It’s impossible to be a forgery.

    3) Which is why, again, “well, show me how they know” is false. Because that can go on and on and on — but that is not how the rules of evidence works.

    4) And no, he doesn’t have the authority to overrule the law.

    5) And caving in to insane, police-state “prove you are innocent” requests harms everyone.

  37. avatar
    Tarrant October 14, 2011 at 7:41 am #

    He has released everything he can release. The original in Hawaii is not his property and the State will never release it nor should they. It’s an original record! Give it to Orly and the odds are 100% she will destroy it then claim it was a forgery but oh well, no evidence remains.

    What the state can release, but doesn’t anymore except in extraordinary situations, is a certified copy, which is exactly what the President already released. No matter what Orly does, even if she somehow prevailed, all she would get is a certified copy of something she’s already denounced as fake.

    As for Full Faith and Credit, it’s quite simple. If a state certifies something as being a true record, then all other states and agencies must accept said state’s word. It is why you can travel to another state with your driver’s license, why you can move to another state and you’re still married (unless you’re gay…), and why, next year, if some state does manage to pass one of these “birther bills”, the President will simply submit a certified copy of his short-form birth certificate and said state will go “Ok, everything’s in order, thank you.”

    Birthers won’t even be allowed to submit their “expert testimony”, because under the Constitution if Hawaii says “Yes this is true”, no other state has any authority to refuse the document they provide. Birthers will howl, and wail, and gnash their teeth at this, but in the end they can get around the Constitution they claim to care about so deeply (or, claim to care about absolutely none of except a mistaken interpretation of Article II, and they’re willing to throw the rest of the document into the fire to protect that mistake).

  38. avatar
    Tarrant October 14, 2011 at 7:43 am #

    Err. Can’t. Can’t get around the Constitution.

  39. avatar
    Judge Mental October 14, 2011 at 7:50 am #

    This is the same nonsense that “foreigner” was posting the last three or four times he/she trolled by here. All these points have already been answered to foreigner and even if they hadn’t been, the info is out there for anyone who really wants to know.

    You will get nowhere by providing this troll with logical, sensible answers….just refer him/her to the several times this has all been answered before.

    As most of you know, people like “foreigner” have a list of gobbledygook soundbites which they go round dozens of sites with, then they go back to the start of the list and back to the first sites visited and repeat them all over again at each site. There is nothing any of you can tell foreigner which will prevent identical nonsense being repeated by him/her a few weeks from now. Clearly foreigner doesn’t want THE easily verifiable bona-fide answers to the questions/points. He/she only wants answers that do not shatter his/her entrenched beliefs.

  40. avatar
    Majority Will October 14, 2011 at 7:59 am #

    foreigner:
    so, whats he reason, why was it dismissed ?
    Because they had to spend 700h on the birthers ?
    That’s not much as compared to the fuss on internet
    which they caused.
    And it’s a reason to give her access , so to end this.

    To the silly boomerang troll:

    Your post makes no sense whatsoever. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

  41. avatar
    foreigner October 14, 2011 at 8:16 am #

    not “give” it to Orly, only show her. Or just a video with some notary.
    I assume they may do it, if Obama allows it.
    And other certificates in the issue are blacked or protected from Orly eyes.

    Certified copy should be OK, if the copying process is verifyable.

    Even if by US-law she can’t enforce it – why refute it ? Just for principle so to
    show off your rights ? Show her that BC, even if you needn’t so to end this.
    Isn’t that’s exactly what Obama already did and how he justified it and enjoyed
    it to ridicule on birthers on Apr.27 ?

    sorry, I didn’t find that thought here in this blogpost.Nor do I remember that it was
    addressed before.
    Instead I found that “anotherone bites the dust” mentality

  42. avatar
    Majority Will October 14, 2011 at 8:25 am #

    foreigner: . . . to ridicule on birthers on Apr.27 ?

    If you don’t want to be ridiculed, don’t be ridiculous.

    Like you, Orly has an ulterior motive based on bigotry and hatred and thinly covered by lies and intentional deceit. She also has a profitable scam going.

    “Just show it” is a deliberate lie and your demands are completely idiotic and irrelevant.

    Do you understand? It’s pretty simple.

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 14, 2011 at 8:27 am #

    That’s a myth.

    foreigner: I’m amused. He was the one who spent millions on “dismissal” actions.

  44. avatar
    Bovril October 14, 2011 at 8:47 am #

    Foereigner,

    What part fo Full Faith and Credit don’t you grasp..?

    First of all, Mad Ole Orly is just that a bat shit insane cretin with no more rights, authorities or powers than thee or me, she does not get to make up cack and enforce it.

    The State of Hawai’i has issued a birth certificate

    It meets all the legal requirements to be a legal and valid document

    The State of Hawai’i has confirmed that the original of the BC posted on line is a good by linking and pointing to it and SAYING so.

    That’s it, end of story.

  45. avatar
    foreigner October 14, 2011 at 9:13 am #

    if not millions then at least much effort. Several trials, through several instances.
    Tricky formulation ? (not his millions but those of his campaign,party)

    much more effort than producing the copy did require, right ?

  46. avatar
    Bob J October 14, 2011 at 9:18 am #

    For foreigner

    I enjoy a dram of good Single Malt Scotch whisky, on occasion. The law states a person must be 21 to drink in America. when I enter the bar, the bartender checks my ID and gives me 3 oz. of heaven ( good tipper). If a customer comes up to me; demanding my ID, because they don’t believe I am legally allowed to drink, I do not give it to them. Being secure in person and papers not only protect us from the government, it saves us from other citizens. Judging from what you didn’t understand previously, this will probably go over your head.

    I can do simple.

    You are at a stoplight when someone knocks on your window;demanding proof of insurance. The person starts screaming and yelling, calling you a criminal. They tell you; in order to prove you are not a criminal you must show them proof of insurance.

    Is that the world you want to live in?

    you stated: “Did the judge or Taitz or Nagamine ask Obama whether he would mind giving Taitz
    access to the original ? (and why”

    They don’t have to ask the President what he thinks.

    Hawaii law is very clear. It protects all of us from unreasonable searches. Even the President.

    If the judge would allow a citizen access to a private record, where would it end?

    311 million people demanding their own chance to see the original document.

    I suggest you look up slippery slope before you respond, if you feel you must.

  47. avatar
    The Magic M October 14, 2011 at 9:37 am #

    Tarrant: Give it to Orly and the odds are 100% she will destroy it then claim it was a forgery but oh well, no evidence remains.

    I don’t think she’d make herself such an easy target.

    But since birfers are already 100% convinced the White House PDF is a forgery, and since it would be silly to forge it if it were identical to the real BC, the vault document being identical to the PDF would not prove (to them) the PDF is real but that the vault BC is a forgery, too.

    And even if they conceded the vault BC to be unforged, they still have the goalpost of “that it wasn’t tampered with still doesn’t prove that what it says is true”.
    They will simply go back on the early “Obama’s parents duped the DoH to get their foreign birth registered as local”.

    At that point, you’d probably see more clearly the schism between the “original” birthers (who are only about “he was not born here”) and the “hater” birthers (who think Obama is a full-out criminal who forged his documents, so they can never concede one of his documents is legit).

  48. avatar
    The Magic M October 14, 2011 at 9:42 am #

    foreigner: not “give” it to Orly, only show her.

    And she’s qualified to say “this is legit” or “this is a forgery”? No. Not even her “experts” are. So what good would it do? At the very best, it would convince one person (Orly) that the BC is legit. Of course all other birthers would immediately throw her under the bus as “bought and threatened and a traitor”.

    foreigner: Or just a video with some notary.

    What notary? Birfers consider all judges in the 84+ cases they lost to be either part of the conspiracy or bribed/blackmailed. So what notary would they believe not to be?

  49. avatar
    foreigner October 14, 2011 at 9:43 am #

    BobJ,
    this is not about someone wanting a drink.
    It is about the US-president being legitimate for office.
    – at the stoplight – I would tell them they are incorrect and yelling is bad practice,
    but I would also show the proof of insurance, why not ?
    Maybe they don’t have to ask the president, but they could, it’s not forbidden,
    and it might help to resolve the whole thing.
    So you want to “protect” the president from unreasonable searches ?
    But the president already did release his BC, he might be interested to
    resolve the matter by allowing access, don’t you think ?
    It is worth a try. No need to protect, just because (or even if) you legally can.
    Just to “make another birther bite the dust”.
    Because it makes you feel superior, or what it is.
    So another victory for “Obots”, but not a victory for truth, for figuring this out.
    Which is the declared purpose of this blog – beating birthers in some contest
    about legacy isn’t the declared purpose.

  50. avatar
    Scientist October 14, 2011 at 9:45 am #

    gorefan: “The state estimates its attorneys have spent about 700 hours working on so called “birther” issues, with 90 of those hours dedicated to Dr. Orly Taitz.”
    Could the State of Hawaii seek reimbursement from Orly? Their lawyers are on the clock whether they are working on a Orly case or something else.

    My understanding is that that would be difficult unless the judge found the suit to be frivolous and even then, that would require the State to expend yet more work trying to get a judgement against Orly and then trying to collect on such a judgement against a non-resident.

    This points out a fundamental defect of the legal system, beyond just the birther cases. Any of us could be hit with a junk lawsuit and forced to spend thousands of $s defending ourselves. And of course as taxpayers we have to foot the bill for junk lawsuits filed against jurisdictions where we reside (as a New York taxpayer it galls me to have to pay even a penny to defend against Strunk’s nonsense). Plus, actual legitimate cases may be delayed in courts clogged with junk.

    I wonder what the lawyers here think of establishing some kind of pre-screening for lawsuits. When you submit a paper to a scientific journal, it doesn’t automatically get sent for peer review. The editors will first give it a quick once-over to make sure it fits in with the subject matter and general standards of the journal. They will certainly not trouble the reviewers with a 200 page piece of rambling nonsense unrelated to the journal’s area of interest.

    Why not require an abstract of the lawsuit (1 page maximum) to first be looked at by a judge to ensure that there is at least the semblance of a case before requiring the defendant to engage counsel and appear at a hearing? That would certainly have disposed of the birther suits without wasting everyone’s time. I know everyone is supposed to be entitled to their day in court, but they should not be entitled to compel innocent defendants and taxpayers to incur needless costs.

  51. avatar
    Tarrant October 14, 2011 at 9:48 am #

    The Magic M: I don’t think she’d make herself such an easy target.

    But since birfers are already 100% convinced the White House PDF is a forgery, and since it would be silly to forge it if it were identical to the real BC, the vault document being identical to the PDF would not prove (to them) the PDF is real but that the vault BC is a forgery, too.

    Given Orly has already said that if the vault copy was identical to the copy released by the White House it would only prove Corsi’s “They planted it in the archives” statement, you are completely correct. That’s the brilliant thing – she has already framed the entire thing such that she can declare victory either way. In her mind, if the original has different information, then clearly the documents the President released are fake…but also, if the documents contain the same information, it also proves they are fake. It’s sort of like when butterdezillion said the long form certificates were proven fake because they didn’t have seals…then when it was proven they DID have seals, she said they were proven fake because they DID have seals. And she managed to flip 180 degrees without even blinking. No matter what happens, birthers would simply expand the conspiracy to include the state of Hawaii (which they already essentially do, I don’t know why they bother trying to claim otherwise) and continue on as if nothing happened.

    If they aren’t going to believe the short form, or the long form, or the Republican governor of the state, or the Democratic governor of the state, nor the state Department of Health’s repeated assertions that the birth certificates show are valid under both Republican and Democratic administrations, they’re not going to believe anything. Which foreigner is well aware of, as his goal is only either to troll for kicks, or he’s simply so blinded by ODS that he can’t admit such.

  52. avatar
    foreigner October 14, 2011 at 9:50 am #

    magicM , a notary chosen by the birthers to supervise the video

    yes,some will still question it,but they get rarer

  53. avatar
    Scientist October 14, 2011 at 9:50 am #

    foreigner: at the stoplight – I would tell them they are incorrect and yelling is bad practice,
    but I would also show the proof of insurance, why not ?

    Bull hockey! Any sane person would floor the accelerator to get away from the screaming lunatic. But in your case you ARE the screaming lunatic.

    foreigner: It is about the US-president being legitimate for office.

    The President was elected and the election was validated by Congress. He is, under the laws and the Constitution, legitimate regardlless of where he was born or who his parents were.

  54. avatar
    Tarrant October 14, 2011 at 9:50 am #

    The Magic M: And she’s qualified to say “this is legit” or “this is a forgery”? No. Not even her “experts” are. So what good would it do? At the very best, it would convince one person (Orly) that the BC is legit. Of course all other birthers would immediately throw her under the bus as “bought and threatened and a traitor”.

    What notary? Birfers consider all judges in the 84+ cases they lost to be either part of the conspiracy or bribed/blackmailed. So what notary would they believe not to be?

    This answer is easy. Anybody that says it is a forgery is an expert they will accept, and any notary that says it is fake is one they will accept.

    Anybody that comes to a different conclusion must be in on it.

    If they don’t accept certified copies nor state verification of the information, it’s meaningless to continue the conversation with them.

  55. avatar
    The Magic M October 14, 2011 at 9:53 am #

    Bran Mak Morn: What he has shown is self-authenticating. It’s impossible to be a forgery.

    I think this needs to be explained differently to birthers.
    They deliberately confound the notions of “forgery” (either the original document having been tampered with, or a fake replacement having been put in its place) and “stating incorrect data”.

    The self-authentication argument can only refute the former notion (that Hawaii cannot “forge” its own documents by definition) but not the latter (that the data in the document are wrong either because Hawaii deliberately modified them or because Hawaiian authorities were duped into documenting erroneous facts).

    And all because of the (quite obvious, not the least nefarious) simple principle that a certificate does not guarantee you that its contents are true.
    Take the obvious example – if you are male and for some reason your vault BC says “female”, it doesn’t mean you’re biological gender changes. It doesn’t even mean you’re no longer legally male, it’s just an error.
    So whatever the vault document would tell them, birthers will still have the “it could be wrong or a lie” argument, because that is as irrefutable as “we may all be just some person’s dream” or other Zen-like arguments. (Which is why we have such things as burden of proof even in everyday discussion.)

    The “Obama forged the PDF” crowd is only one faction of the birthers.
    But they all believe that somehow the data in the BC are incorrect (as in “he was really born in Kenya and somehow ‘they’ managed to get incorrect information on the BC”).

    Then again, they should be intellectually honest enough to say “we don’t believe what’s on the BC, no matter if it’s been physically altered from an ‘original’ or not”.

    The entire “show us the original” is, depending on who promotes it, either a simple propaganda tactic (as in “if you’re not beating your wife, why may we not have her private number to speak with her?”) or the genuine belief that somewhere there’s a “smoking gun” being hidden, a smoking gun that the request for ever more documents will somehow, someday uncover.

  56. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 14, 2011 at 9:55 am #

    foreigner: if not millions then at least much effort. Several trials, through several instances.Tricky formulation ? (not his millions but those of his campaign,party)much more effort than producing the copy did require, right ?

    Why would he have to spend any money? He’s only been sued in like 3 cases and each got dismissed on the hearing level. He never had to produce any copy. No previous president has shown their birth certificate to the public while President.

  57. avatar
    foreigner October 14, 2011 at 9:56 am #

    and isn’t it disgusting that people from the Obama campaign, from Hawaii
    are not participating the discussion, are not replying to the concerns
    of the birthers ?
    There should be an updated birfer-FAQ at the WhiteHouse-webpage and a forum
    where people can ask questions and discuss and at least occasionally
    get a reply from the Obama campaign.
    But well, instead they fight for their right of silence and dismissing.

  58. avatar
    Tarrant October 14, 2011 at 9:58 am #

    foreigner:
    BobJ,
    this is not about someone wanting a drink.
    It is about the US-president being legitimate for office.
    – at the stoplight – I would tell them they are incorrect and yelling is bad practice,
    but I would also show the proof of insurance, why not ?
    Maybe they don’t have to ask the president, but they could, it’s not forbidden,
    and it might help to resolve the whole thing.
    So you want to “protect” the president from unreasonable searches ?
    But the president already did release his BC, he might be interested to
    resolve the matter by allowing access, don’t you think ?
    It is worth a try. No need to protect, just because (or even if) you legally can.
    Just to “make another birther bite the dust”.
    Because it makes you feel superior, or what it is.
    So another victory for “Obots”, but not a victory for truth, for figuring this out.
    Which is the declared purpose of this blog – beating birthers in some contest
    about legacy isn’t the declared purpose.

    Bullshit you would. You wouldn’t show any random person on the street your ID or personal information just because they asked for it. At least try to be reasonable.

    The reality is, as pointed out at the October 12th trial, Orly is free to ask questions or even believe that the President wasn’t born where he, the state, and all his documentation say he was. But the Constitution does not give Orly the duty to determine the legitimacy of the President with respect to election save the fact that it gives her the ability to cast a vote for a choice of electors. That’s all. If she believes he is ineligible, her recourse is to vote for somebody else.

    The body that is given the ability to validate candidates by the Constitution is Congress, and they are convinced the President is eligible. If there were questions, and Congress requested that information or verification be provided, I actually believe that then, the state of Hawaii would provide information (although likely not a release of an original document). At that stage, it’s entirely possible their “Public interest exception” could be deemed to apply. But Congress didn’t because they believe that what the state says is likely true if only because there isn’t a scrap of admissible evidence he was born somewhere else.

    If there was anything to the eligibility argument, you can guarantee Hillary Clinton, John McCain, or the Republican Party in general would have used it against him.

  59. avatar
    Majority Will October 14, 2011 at 10:00 am #

    foreigner:
    magicM , a notary chosen by the birthers to supervise the video

    yes,some will still question it,but they get rarer

    LMAO

    Funny, little troll.

  60. avatar
    The Magic M October 14, 2011 at 10:01 am #

    foreigner: but I would also show the proof of insurance

    OK, you said it, now stand behind it.

    Show me proof of insurance. And by “proof”, I mean of course proof by birther standards.
    So showing me an “internet image” of a scan of your insurance papers doesn’t cut it.
    I want an accredited forensic examiner to look at the original documents from your insurance company, have the result of his examination notarized and that record shown to me in person. Nothing less will do, true birfer style.

    And until you do that, you are barred from further demands for Obama to “release it”.

    And after you’ve done that, I’ll claim your insurance company deliberately put false data into its vault documents from the start. And that your expert has been bought. And that your notary only notarized who came before him with what, but cannot attest to the correctness of the notarized statement.
    So I’ll conclude you still haven’t proven your car is insured. (Hey, at least I’m so honest to tell you in advance what I’ll do. ;))

  61. avatar
    The Magic M October 14, 2011 at 10:02 am #

    foreigner: and isn’t it disgusting that people from the Obama campaign, from Hawaii
    are not participating the discussion, are not replying to the concerns
    of the birthers

    Funny, other birthers claim the fact that they are not simply ignored proves they’re onto something. You can’t play Catch-22 with us, we’ve got triple-figure IQ’s around here.

  62. avatar
    Majority Will October 14, 2011 at 10:05 am #

    foreigner:
    and isn’t it disgusting that people from the Obama campaign, from Hawaii
    are not participating the discussion, are not replying to the concerns
    of the birthers ?
    There should be an updated birfer-FAQ at the WhiteHouse-webpage and a forum
    where people can ask questions and discuss and at least occasionally
    get a reply from the Obama campaign.
    But well, instead they fight for their right of silence and dismissing.

    Not at all.

    They have better things to do.

    The controversy exists only in your mind and in other birther bigots.

    It’s not real. It’s a delusion. It’s a waste of time.

    It’s irrelevant to all but a few political enemies of the President with more spare time than common sense.

  63. avatar
    foreigner October 14, 2011 at 10:07 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater,
    he(Obama) himself answered this by/when finally showing the BC.
    It was to shut down the groups, to resolve the thing, and to make people concentrate
    on more important things and not waste so much energy on this.
    We’re not there yet. But we could proceed quite a big piece by allowing them access.
    As for paying, I already said that it would be fair to let the birthers(birfers ?) pay for
    the cost , which however I estimate as small. Just for principle, if you want so.

  64. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 14, 2011 at 10:09 am #

    foreigner: and isn’t it disgusting that people from the Obama campaign, from Hawaiiare not participating the discussion, are not replying to the concernsof the birthers ?There should be an updated birfer-FAQ at the WhiteHouse-webpage and a forumwhere people can ask questions and discuss and at least occasionallyget a reply from the Obama campaign.But well, instead they fight for their right of silence and dismissing.

    Not disgusting at all. What’s disgusting is people like you who are even having this discussion. No previous President has been told to show his birth certificate by whackos. No President has been told that once he showed those records that they were forgeries, that he’s lying that his dad wasn’t really his dad or that his mother was a whore. The hatred directed against President Obama is shameful.

  65. avatar
    Majority Will October 14, 2011 at 10:11 am #

    foreigner:
    magicM , a notary chosen by the birthers to supervise the video

    yes,some will still question it,but they get rarer

    How about WND’s alleged expert who declared the online PDF of the long form a forgery before he saw it?

    Would that work for you?

  66. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 14, 2011 at 10:12 am #

    foreigner: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater,he(Obama) himself answered this by/when finally showing the BC.It was to shut down the groups, to resolve the thing, and to make people concentrateon more important things and not waste so much energy on this.We’re not there yet. But we could proceed quite a big piece by allowing them access.As for paying, I already said that it would be fair to let the birthers(birfers ?) pay forthe cost , which however I estimate as small. Just for principle, if you want so.

    Actually he showed his birth certificate back in 2008 when he didn’t have to and it didn’t shut birthers up. They just made up more hateful conspiracy theories about his family, his parents, him, etc. Then he released the long form in 2011 and it didn’t shut the birthers up they just made up new conspiracy theories. Nothing he can release at this point will shut up conspiracy theorists. The birthers don’t exist on any realm of reality. They don’t deserve access to anything.

  67. avatar
    foreigner October 14, 2011 at 10:13 am #

    OK, MagicM, but you pay for the cost and the trouble in this non-important issue
    from my insurance. Just to prove that you are serious.
    There is actually no pending issue about my car-insurance at all.
    How about my passport or webpage, proving that I’m really a foreigner ? No problem.

  68. avatar
    Majority Will October 14, 2011 at 10:14 am #

    foreigner: We’re not there yet.- a foreigner

    Who is we?

    Where is there?

  69. avatar
    Majority Will October 14, 2011 at 10:14 am #

    foreigner:
    OK, MagicM, but you pay for the cost and the trouble in this non-important issue
    from my insurance. Just to prove that you are serious.
    There is actually no pending issue about my car-insurance at all.
    How about my passport or webpage, proving that I’m really a foreigner ? No problem.

    Then prove it. Words are cheap.

  70. avatar
    Scientist October 14, 2011 at 10:15 am #

    foreigner: and isn’t it disgusting that people from the Obama campaign, from Hawaii
    are not participating the discussion, are not replying to the concerns
    of the birthers ?

    The birthers have gone about this all wrong from the beginning. Suing and harassing politicians dosn’t cause them to feel obliged to do what you would like. However, there is a way to get any politician to take your concerns seriously and respond to them-raise money for them, If you birthers all got together and donated as a group to Obama 2012 and if Orly raised $10 million for Obama among the wealthy folks in Orange County, CA, then I would expect him to cater to your concerns.

  71. avatar
    Majority Will October 14, 2011 at 10:17 am #

    foreigner: But we could proceed quite a big piece by allowing them access.

    Proceed where? Who are they?

  72. avatar
    Scientist October 14, 2011 at 10:24 am #

    foreigner: There is actually no pending issue about my car-insurance at all

    Nor about Obama’s birth. In fact the matter is legally irrelevant, since Congress found him qualified for the presiidency and they are what Bush called “the deciders”. (And this time of year, I like a nice cider, myself).

  73. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn October 14, 2011 at 10:25 am #

    So, foreigner appears to be Orly. She is, after all, as far as I know, a foreigner. She has not shown proof of citizenship to me. And like this foreigner, seems to desire to wreck the United States and ignore all the protections the United States has against foreign saboteurs. I claim my photo-op with Orly.

    http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/3/2/5/7/7/3/111-44020325247.jpeg

  74. avatar
    foreigner October 14, 2011 at 10:34 am #

    ahh, so they must “earn” it to get access.
    Maybe the presidential candidates should stop then telling us things about
    themselves so we know whom to elect ? Before we “earn” it.

    Ohh, poor Obama (or his stuff) had to produce a short form and then a longform
    within only 3 years. When they have so many other things to do, lol.
    And now they shall even give an OK to Taitz seeing the original.
    That costs him another 2 minutes, at least.

  75. avatar
    foreigner October 14, 2011 at 10:49 am #

    replies
    ———–
    whatever notary they choose should be OK. He should be required to keep
    privacy of other nonrelated records.
    we = mankind , there = birthers convinced
    If birthers got it wrong from the beginning, then Obama did contribute to this by not showing
    the lfBC until 2011 and the dismissing actions and other things.
    proceed to convincing more birthers=reducing them,they=birthers
    it won’t cost 10M to show the real BC, but the damage from the hiding for USA is presumably >10M
    maybe legally irrelevant, but USA is a democracy. So it isn’t just Congress whose opinion counts
    but also the voters (which includes birthers)
    doc has my email, I can just send him a link or passport copy to verify my identity if he wants

  76. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn October 14, 2011 at 10:52 am #

    doc has my email, I can just send him a link or passport copy to verify my identity if he wants

    The irony of this.

  77. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 14, 2011 at 10:53 am #

    foreigner: ahh, so they must “earn” it to get access.Maybe the presidential candidates should stop then telling us things aboutthemselves so we know whom to elect ? Before we “earn” it.Ohh, poor Obama (or his stuff) had to produce a short form and then a longformwithin only 3 years. When they have so many other things to do, lol.And now they shall even give an OK to Taitz seeing the original.That costs him another 2 minutes, at least.

    No you don’t deserve it because no one deserves the right to access your private records. No previous President has shown anything to the public. You’re trying to hold Obama to a different standard why is that exactly?

  78. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 14, 2011 at 10:56 am #

    foreigner: replies———–whatever notary they choose should be OK. He should be required to keepprivacy of other nonrelated records.we = mankind , there = birthers convincedIf birthers got it wrong from the beginning, then Obama did contribute to this by not showingthe lfBC until 2011 and the dismissing actions and other things.proceed to convincing more birthers=reducing them,they=birthersit won’t cost 10M to show the real BC, but the damage from the hiding for USA is presumably >10Mmaybe legally irrelevant, but USA is a democracy. So it isn’t just Congress whose opinion countsbut also the voters (which includes birthers)doc has my email, I can just send him a link or passport copy to verify my identity if he wants

    Birthers have already long moved on by making up a nonexistent 2 parent citizen requirement or as Corsi has claimed that someone planted the original record into the archives and so any original record that is shown would automatically be called a forgery by birthers. So it wouldn’t convince any birthers. The sane birthers gave up their theories when Obama released the long form. All that is left is the irrational insane of the birthers. There is no damage from not continuously showing the birth certificate he already showed twice. Just as there was no damage created when all the other previous Presidents hid their birth certificates from the public.

  79. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 14, 2011 at 10:58 am #

    foreigner: replies———–whatever notary they choose should be OK. He should be required to keepprivacy of other nonrelated records.we = mankind , there = birthers convincedIf birthers got it wrong from the beginning, then Obama did contribute to this by not showingthe lfBC until 2011 and the dismissing actions and other things.proceed to convincing more birthers=reducing them,they=birthersit won’t cost 10M to show the real BC, but the damage from the hiding for USA is presumably >10Mmaybe legally irrelevant, but USA is a democracy. So it isn’t just Congress whose opinion countsbut also the voters (which includes birthers)doc has my email, I can just send him a link or passport copy to verify my identity if he wants

    Passport copy? No a link would not suffice as that is not the standard birthers allow. A photocopy would also not work as that’s not the birther standard either. Please mail your original passport.

  80. avatar
    foreigner October 14, 2011 at 11:18 am #

    there were (are ?) reasonable doubts on Obama’s birth, not seen in other presidents before.
    So showing the lfBC was already successful to reduce birthers.
    There is no advantage in not showing the original, why refuse it.
    I estimate that it would cut birthers by another half. At least.

  81. avatar
    Sef October 14, 2011 at 11:19 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Please mail your original passport.

    But how do we know that the passport is for “foreigner”? Do you have someone who can validate passports? Etc., etc, etc. …

    “It’s turtles all the way down.”

  82. avatar
    Atticus Finch October 14, 2011 at 11:27 am #

    BatGuano: …………. no one expects the spanish inquisition!!!!

    I posted the following comment on her website:

    Atticus Finch
    October 13th, 2011 @ 5:18 pm
    You wrote:”I showed them different provisions in their state law, that showed, that as an attorney with a case, where the certified copy is at issue, I am entitled to get verification of the documents on file in lieu of the certified copy provided. At that point both the judge and the Deputy Attorney General were bewildered and were thrown out of the loop. They were completely unprepared for this argument.”

    Response: Isn’t it correct that in your pleadings you did not cite the statute when you cited the statute for the first time in court?

    Wouldn’t it be fair to say that when you bring up a statute for the first time in court without given the other side the opportunity to review the particular statute that it would cause the other attorney and the judge in your words “bewildered”.

    Do you usually “ambush” the opposing side by citing statute and cases for the first time in open court without mentioning the statute and cases in your briefs?

    ===============

    As yet there is no reponse to my inquiry

  83. avatar
    Bob J October 14, 2011 at 11:30 am #

    foreigner,

    I knew the bar analogy would go over your head. Glad I went simple.

    If you are happy to prove your innocence to a crazy stranger prove it. What is your name and where are you from? My real name is Bob Jones, like my tag states. I don’t believe you are from another country. Let’s clear it up. The only proof I require is your name and where you are from?
    I am from Maine. If you really are from another country, you are giving up your most basic American rights. I live in South Korea, by choice.I have given up a lot of freedom to be here. I need criminal background checks, Alien Registration documents,drug and HIV testing, fingerprints for the town police station, as well as fingerprints to the federal government ( the 2 don’t share.). If I look at a female student longer than 2 seconds I am suspected of ulterior motives.

    Don’t tell me what you don’t understand. Just a real name ( first only) and which country you are from.

    Thanks.

  84. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 14, 2011 at 11:32 am #

    foreigner: there were (are ?) reasonable doubts on Obama’s birth, not seen in other presidents before.So showing the lfBC was already successful to reduce birthers.There is no advantage in not showing the original, why refuse it.I estimate that it would cut birthers by another half. At least.

    There are no reasonable doubts at all. The state of Hawaii said they issued and certified the certificate. You might actually want to look up what the term “reasonable doubt” actually means in the legal sense. There’s a statue of Ronald Reagan in Ireland I have a doubt that he was born in the US. He wasn’t born in a Hospital his birth certificate wasn’t created until he was an adult how can we be so sure? Now by your definition that’s a reasonable doubt except Obama’s birth had no real mystery to it. Reagan’s does. He already cut the birthers the only ones left are the insane ones.

  85. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 14, 2011 at 11:33 am #

    Bob J: Don’t tell me what you don’t understand. Just a real name ( first only) and which country you are from.

    And that you’re an alcoholic right?

  86. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn October 14, 2011 at 11:33 am #

    foreigner:
    there were (are ?) reasonable doubts on Obama’s birth, not seen in other presidents before.
    So showing the lfBC was already successful to reduce birthers.
    There is no advantage in not showing the original, why refuse it.
    I estimate that it would cut birthers by another half. At least.

    Wrong again. They were not reasonable doubts, they were unreasonable. See Full Faith and Credit Clause.

  87. avatar
    Majority Will October 14, 2011 at 11:37 am #

    foreigner: we = mankind

    You’re the spokesperson for mankind?

    “If birthers got it wrong from the beginning . . .”

    There is no if.

    “but the damage from the hiding for USA”

    There is no damage. You made that up. That’s your delusional, idiotic fantasy.

    “but USA is a democracy.”

    The United States is a federal constitutional republic.

    “there were (are ?) reasonable doubts on Obama’s birth, not seen in other presidents before.”

    You’re wrong.

    “doc has my email, I can just send him a link or passport copy to verify my identity if he wants”

    If you trust him to verify your identification for us, then you should trust his statement and fact that our President is a natural born citizen and holds the office of President legitimately.

  88. avatar
    BatGuano October 14, 2011 at 11:40 am #

    foreigner:
    there were (are ?) reasonable doubts on Obama’s birth, not seen in other presidents before.

    really? what proof do you have of reagan’s birth? he was born at home and had no official documentation of it till he was in his 30’s. eisenhower? the first documentation of his birth was produced when he was in his 60’s based solely on the word of his brother ( who was 4years old at the time of ike’s birth ).

  89. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 14, 2011 at 11:45 am #

    BatGuano: really? what proof do you have of reagan’s birth? he was born at home and had no official documentation of it till he was in his 30′s. eisenhower? the first documentation of his birth was produced when he was in his 60′s based solely on the word of his brother ( who was 4years old at the time of ike’s birth ).

    Lets not forget that birth certificates are a pretty recent concept. Compulsory registration of births with government agency only began as a practice in 1853 in the UK. So a fair chunk of our country’s history there were no standard registration of birth documents with the government. In the US it was started in 1900. And so Birth certificates didn’t exist for most of our nation’s history.

  90. avatar
    BatGuano October 14, 2011 at 11:51 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Lets not forget that birth certificates are a pretty recent concept.

    or that only 4 presidents ( carter, clinton, gw bush and obama ) were born in a hospital.

  91. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 14, 2011 at 11:54 am #

    BatGuano: or that only 4 presidents ( carter, clinton, gw bush and obama ) were born in a hospital.

    I think George W. Bush was really born of the Leprachaun in the horror movies.

  92. avatar
    BatGuano October 14, 2011 at 11:57 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): I think George W. Bush was really born of the Leprachaun in the horror movies.

    well, until my personal team of experts gets to inspect the pot of gold under the rainbow on video with a notary we’ll never know for sure.

  93. avatar
    JoZeppy October 14, 2011 at 11:59 am #

    foreigner: ahh, so they must “earn” it to get access.
    Maybe the presidential candidates should stop then telling us things about
    themselves so we know whom to elect ? Before we “earn” it.

    You know you have recourse…if you feel a candidate hasn’t given you enough information, then don’t vote for him. Once he’s elected and sworn in, his qualifications are assumed. Don’t like it, try again in the next election.

    Or here’s another idea…why don’t you provide proof he was born elsewhere. The President has produced two forms of his birth certificate, which in their paper form (which was circulated among the press at the press conference, and at least one photographed it) is prima facie evidence of the facts of his birth. In the world of law, that means that without evidence to counter it, it is suffient to prove the facts of the document. As a document with the state seal, it is a self authenticating document. That means the document doesn’t need to have a custodian of records vouch for it as authentic. But we even have the government officials from Hawaii saying the fact on the document are accurate. So in any court of law, we have all we need to prove the President was born in Hawaii. That is enough for any honest person looking at the facts. The ball is now in your court to prove he was born elsewhere. Orly’s witnesses don’t cut it, because they would never survive a voir dire in a Daubert hearing (they aren’t remotely qualified to make the claims they make). The state of Hawaii says it’s a legal birth certificate. The State of Hawaii is the body responsible for making, and determining what a Hawaiian birth certificate is. Just like the US Mint cannot forge US currency, the state of Hawaii cannot produce a forged birth certificate. The only way to counter the facts on that legal document is to prove, with admissible evidence, that President Barrack H. Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii.

    So, please show us your admissable evidence.

  94. avatar
    Daniel October 14, 2011 at 1:03 pm #

    foreigner: maybe legally irrelevant, but USA is a democracy. So it isn’t just Congress whose opinion counts

    By the same token, by way of it being a “democracy” (it’s not, but let’s let your error stand for the moment) the opinions of a handful of fringe nutbags doesn’t get to override the will of the majority.

    So by your criteria… you lose.

  95. avatar
    Majority Will October 14, 2011 at 1:52 pm #

    JoZeppy: You know you have recourse…if you feel a candidate hasn’t given you enough information, then don’t vote for him. Once he’s elected and sworn in, his qualifications are assumed. Don’t like it, try again in the next election.

    foreigner isn’t American and has no vote, no recourse and no concern other than being the self-appointed representative of the interests of all mankind.

    foreigner: We’re not there yet.

    I asked, “Who is we? Where is there?”

    foreigner replied, “we = mankind , there = birthers convinced”.

  96. avatar
    Scientist October 14, 2011 at 3:20 pm #

    Majority Will: “but USA is a democracy.”
    The United States is a federal constitutional republic.

    I hate to disagree with you, but the US is BOTH a representative democracy AND a constitutional republic, A republic is simply a state without a monarch and a constitutional republic simply means it has a written document, which pretty much all republics do. The Soviet Union was a republic (the R i\in USSR) and it had a constitution. The same is true of the People’s Republic of China and the Islamic Republic of Iran. So, unless they include democracy, constitutional republics aren’t necessarily such a great thing.

    Now, the US is not a pure or absolute democracy, in that the majority cannot override the fundamental human rights of the minority. Democratic republic would be the best description I think.

  97. avatar
    ellen October 14, 2011 at 3:33 pm #

    foreigner said: “he can easily require and release it.”

    Answer. No he cannot. Hawaii does not release the original copy to anyone, not even to the person herself or himself. It sends copies, official copies, and it has sent official copies to Obama twice, for the short-form and the long-form birth certificate. Both have been photographed both by the Obama representatives and by the media. An excellent image of the physical copy of the short-form birth certificate appears on FactCheck’s site (the idea that FactCheck could have forged such a detailed copy is laughable) and the long-form birth certificate was photographed by the reporter for NBC (http://turningthescale.net/?p=541).

    The copy that is in the files in Hawaii, the original, is not even the official birth certificate. That is because it does not have the official seal and the signature. The official copies on security paper with the seal are the official birth certificate. It is interesting that neither Orly nor any other birther site have asked to see these official copies. We know that they exist, since they were passed around for the press to see, but birthers have not asked to see them.

    NOTE that I say “asked” and not sued because there is not a right to see them. However, if they asked the White House might grant their request. It would probably do so for WND, which has a reporter–or at least it had.

    It is significant that birthers have not asked to see the official copies of the birth certificate. The obvious reason is that they cannot imagine that an accredited document expert, such as one from the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners or the American Society of Questioned Document Experts or the Association of Forensic Document Examiners, would ever find that the physical copy of the birth certificate is forged.

  98. avatar
    Daniel October 14, 2011 at 3:33 pm #

    While it is democratic, it’s not a “Democracy”. as the socio-political label implies.

  99. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 14, 2011 at 3:38 pm #

    ellen: foreigner said: “he can easily require and release it.”It would probably do so for WND, which has a reporter–or at least it had. It is significant that birthers have not asked to see the official copies of the birth certificate. The obvious reason is that they cannot imagine that an accredited document expert, such as one from the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners or the American Society of Questioned Document Experts or the Association of Forensic Document Examiners, would ever find that the physical copy of the birth certificate is forged.

    The WND reporter was there when Obama released his long form. He held the document in his hands and said his concerns were gone that Obama was born in Hawaii. We haven’t heard much from him since.

  100. avatar
    ellen October 14, 2011 at 3:39 pm #

    Foreigner: I have always wanted to ask someone who believes that Obama was not born in the USA–or that he might have been born elsewhere–how they can account for this:

    I’ll bet that you know (but probably have forgotten) that the US government requires, and has long required, that a child being carried into the USA must have some kind of official travel document to be admitted. This is usually a US passport for the child. Or, it could be the fact that the child is entered on the mother’s US passport. Or, it could be a US visa for the child on a foreign passport. Without one of those, we would not let the child into the country.

    So, IF Obama really had been born in Kenya, he would have had to have one of those documents–wouldn’t he? His family would have had to show the passport, wouldn’t they? To show the passport, they would have had to have applied for the passport or the visa for Obama. And, if Obama really were born in Kenya, they would have had to have applied for it in the US consulate or embassy there, wouldn’t they?

    Such applications are FILED by the US government. The documents exist in multiple files, the actual application itself, communication about it with Washington, entries in the passport file, entries in the application file, entries in the places where the child is carried into the USA. The Bush Administration was in charge of the State Department and the INS for eight years before Obama was elected. Don’t you think that they would have checked the claim that he was born in Kenya?

    All they had to do was find one of those files and McCain would win the election.

    Well, they never did. There is no such file.

    How do you account for it? Was the Bush Administration part of the plot? Were the travel documents (passport or visa) all deleted? How about the application for those documents? And the communication about them from Kenya (or wherever) back to Washington as to whether or not to issue a travel document?? How about the INS document that showed that baby Obama was admitted to the USA in 1961? Was that scrapped too?

  101. avatar
    ellen October 14, 2011 at 3:43 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) said “The WND reporter was there when Obama released his long form. He held the document in his hands and said his concerns were gone that Obama was born in Hawaii. We haven’t heard much from him since.”

    I agree of course, but I do not have a citation for that, while I do have a citation for the photograph.

  102. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 14, 2011 at 3:46 pm #

    ellen: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) said “The WND reporter was there when Obama released his long form. He held the document in his hands and said his concerns were gone that Obama was born in Hawaii. We haven’t heard much from him since.”I agree of course, but I do not have a citation for that, while I do have a citation for the photograph.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/world-net-dailys-les-kinsolving-reacts-to-release-of-president-obamas-birth-certificate/

  103. avatar
    Joey October 14, 2011 at 4:13 pm #

    In 2008, Senator Barack Obama posted a copy of his Hawaiian birth certtficate on the internet so that anyone with access to a computer could view it. This was six months before the election.
    In October, 2008, before the election, the state of Hawaii confirmed that President Obama’s birth certificate was valid. Officials of the state government said: “There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
    Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
    No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”

    In November, 2008, 69,456,897 Americans felt that they had enough information about Barack Obama to give him their votes.

    On the basis of those nearly 70 million votes, the Electoral College, which is the Constitutional body tasked with actually electing the US President gave Barack Obama 365 Electoral votes compared to 172 Electoral votes for Senator Obama’s opponent, Senator McCain.

    The 12th Amendment to the US Constitution states that whoever receives a majority of the votes of the Electoral College “SHALL BE THE PRESIDENT.”

    In January, 2009, a joint session of Congress counted and certified the votes of the Electoral College. If any two members of Congress (at least one Senator and at least one Representative) had objected to the certification of President-Elect Obama’s Electoral College votes, an immediate investigation of the reasons for the objections would have been convened in each House of Congress.

    There were no objections.

    By the electoral will of 69,456,897 voters and 365 Electors, Barack Hussein Obama II is the 44th President of the United States. He can be removed from office via impeachment and conviction; resignation, or defeat in the next election.

  104. avatar
    Majority Will October 14, 2011 at 4:17 pm #

    Scientist: I hate to disagree with you . . .

    Thanks, but I didn’t think the troll was going to respond so I left it loose.

    (A degree in Pol. Sci. has to be worth something, I hope.)

  105. avatar
    y_p_w October 14, 2011 at 4:27 pm #

    ellen:
    foreigner said: “he can easily require and release it.”

    Answer. No he cannot. Hawaii does not release the original copy to anyone, not even to the person herself or himself. It sends copies, official copies, and it has sent official copies to Obama twice, for the short-form and the long-form birth certificate. Both have been photographed both by the Obama representatives and by the media. An excellent image of the physical copy of the short-form birth certificate appears on FactCheck’s site (the idea that FactCheck could have forged such a detailed copy is laughable) and the long-form birth certificate was photographed by the reporter for NBC (http://turningthescale.net/?p=541).

    The copy that is in the files in Hawaii, the original, is not even the official birth certificate. That is because it does not have the official seal and the signature. The official copies on security paper with the seal are the official birth certificate. It is interesting that neither Orly nor any other birther site have asked to see these official copies. We know that they exist, since they were passed around for the press to see, but birthers have not asked to see them.

    As a matter of semantics, I believe the document in the bound volume is technically the official birth certificate (titled Certificate of Live Birth). It probably doesn’t get any more official than what’s in the bound volume. It however is not a certified copy. If President Obama were somehow able to persuade the Hawaii Dept of Health to unbind it and let him have it, it would not serve as a self-authenticating document in a US court unless they placed the registrar’s statement and health department embossed seal on it.

    It certainly couldn’t be released, but the State of Hawaii has stated that the person named on a birth certificate could ask to physically see the original birth certificate in the bound volume if it exists. They would have to come in person. I don’t recall if they’d allow the person to handle the actual paper. I believe it wouldn’t have been pulled out of the volume though.

  106. avatar
    G October 14, 2011 at 4:44 pm #

    Excellent accurate summary & well said!

    Joey: In 2008, Senator Barack Obama posted a copy of his Hawaiian birth certtficate on the internet so that anyone with access to a computer could view it. This was six months before the election.In October, 2008, before the election, the state of Hawaii confirmed that President Obama’s birth certificate was valid. Officials of the state government said: “There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”In November, 2008, 69,456,897 Americans felt that they had enough information about Barack Obama to give him their votes.On the basis of those nearly 70 million votes, the Electoral College, which is the Constitutional body tasked with actually electing the US President gave Barack Obama 365 Electoral votes compared to 172 Electoral votes for Senator Obama’s opponent, Senator McCain.The 12th Amendment to the US Constitution states that whoever receives a majority of the votes of the Electoral College “SHALL BE THE PRESIDENT.”In January, 2009, a joint session of Congress counted and certified the votes of the Electoral College. If any two members of Congress (at least one Senator and at least one Representative) had objected to the certification of President-Elect Obama’s Electoral College votes, an immediate investigation of the reasons for the objections would have been convened in each House of Congress. There were no objections.By the electoral will of 69,456,897 voters and 365 Electors, Barack Hussein Obama II is the 44th President of the United States. He can be removed from office via impeachment and conviction; resignation, or defeat in the next election.

  107. avatar
    Tarrant October 14, 2011 at 4:50 pm #

    To expound on Ellen’s point…

    If the birthers did go go the Obama campaign and ask to see it, who knows, it might happen. But I don’t think they really want to. Farah profits from not ending the controversy. Orly continues to get the attention she seeks.

    There are a lot of birther memes that would vanish if they went and saw one of the actual documents – look at how quickly WND dumped Kinsolving when he said that seeing the document ended his doubts. Furthermore, it would cast into doubt some of the birther “experts” out there. Feeling the security paper throws out the window the “experts” that say its simply computer-generated.

    It also brings up something else Ellen noted – the experts. I believe Farah, Orly et al know that any actual, certified document examiner is going to see no real flaws with the document…consider that Orly flew all the way to Hawaii in early August, at non-negligible expense, yet didn’t bother to bring an actual certified expert with her. She brought Irey and I think Vogt – people she knew would call it a forgery regardless of f the validity of the document. Foreigner here says that they should let a “notary chosen by birthers” do the examining – again, not a certified examiner. The last thing these people want is someone with actual expertise looking at a paper document.

  108. avatar
    Scientist October 14, 2011 at 4:54 pm #

    Majority Will: Thanks, but I didn’t think the troll was going to respond so I left it loose.
    (A degree in Pol. Sci. has to be worth something, I hope.)

    I hope so, since my son is majoring in Pol Sci.

    It’s just that I hear “This is a republic, not a democracy” frequently. The people who say it usually do so when someone they don’t like is elected and become believers in democracy again when the voters choose someone they like better. In my opinion, neither a republic without democracy nor a democracy without protections for minorities are desirable.

  109. avatar
    ellen October 14, 2011 at 5:11 pm #

    Re: “I believe the document in the bound volume is technically the official birth certificate (titled Certificate of Live Birth). It probably doesn’t get any more official than what’s in the bound volume.

    I certainly agree with the second sentence. But logic does not make a document “the official birth certificate.” The official birth certificate is the one with the seal. The one in the files is authoritative but it is a record, not the birth certificate. But this is a minor dispute. If the only person other than those in government who can see the original is the person herself or himself, then the official physical copy is what counts.

    Tarrant puts the case very well. The effort to see the original was always known to be impossible to achieve–that is why Orly and the birthers concentrated on it. They did not want to see the document, they wanted to have a court case and to lose it.

    Tarrant’s point on Irey and Vogt is also very strong. irey is the kind of an “impartial expert” who has claimed to have seen a “smiley face” in the birth certificate, and who insists that Obama did not go to Columbia College (despite Columbia U saying that he did). And Vogt claims to have found the original altar of Abraham. (http://www.vectorpub.com/Reality_Revealed.html)

    Bob: Thanks for the link to the WND reporter. I have bookmarked it and will use it together with the photograph in the future.

  110. avatar
    Majority Will October 14, 2011 at 6:08 pm #

    Scientist: I hope so, since my son is majoring in Pol Sci.

    It’s just that I hear “This is a republic, not a democracy” frequently.The people who say it usually do so when someone they don’t like is elected and become believers in democracy again when the voters choose someone they like better.In my opinion, neither a republic without democracy nor a democracy without protections for minorities are desirable.

    Agreed.

  111. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 14, 2011 at 7:48 pm #

    It would be more accurate to call it the “original birth certificate.” The certified copy Obama released in April, and in 2008 were both “official.” In this case, I don’t think there are degrees of “official.”

    y_p_w: As a matter of semantics, I believe the document in the bound volume is technically the official birth certificate (titled Certificate of Live Birth). It probably doesn’t get any more official than what’s in the bound volume.

  112. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 14, 2011 at 8:41 pm #

    foreigner: OK, MagicM, but you pay for the cost and the trouble in this non-important issue
    from my insurance. Just to prove that you are serious.
    There is actually no pending issue about my car-insurance at all.
    How about my passport or webpage, proving that I’m really a foreigner ? No problem.

    No problem? Excellent. Please scan your driver license, insurance card and passport and send them to Dr. Conspiracy and he can post them here for everyone to see.

  113. avatar
    Jules October 14, 2011 at 10:10 pm #

    foreigner: not “give” it to Orly, only show her. Or just a video with some notary.

    Um, that’s not how copies of original public records are certified in the US. The Hawaii Department of Health is required by law to keep the original birth certificate on file, issue certified copies in certain circumstances, and not release records otherwise than as prescribed by law. The officials in the Department of Health have sole authority to verify a document as a true copy of a Hawaiian birth certificate and any copy of the original produced by an ordinary notary (on paper, video, or otherwise) is simply not a valid certificate. It is because the original was filed and stored securely with the Department of Health in accordance with law and procedure that it can now be relied upon in the production of certified copies. If the word of a notary not associated with the Department of Health were sufficient to create an official certificate from just any birth record, then it would actually reduce reliability because you would suddenly introduce all sorts of problems with chain of custody that official birth registration is designed to resolve.

    foreigner: maybe legally irrelevant, but USA is a democracy. So it isn’t just Congress whose opinion counts

    Believe it or not, members of Congress are elected in democratic elections. The same goes for electors for President. If the people felt Obama ineligible or worthy of further scrutiny or objection, they could have expressed that at the ballot box.

    Scientist: a constitutional republic simply means it has a written document

    The presence of a written document is not necessary for there to be a constitution. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, but its constitution is not expressed in a single document or even in a set of documents that can be said to fully and definitively set out the constitution.

  114. avatar
    Jules October 14, 2011 at 10:29 pm #

    foreigner: Ohh, poor Obama (or his stuff) had to produce a short form and then a longform
    within only 3 years. When they have so many other things to do, lol.

    The “short form” that Obama released in 2008 is the standard form of birth certificate that Hawaii has been issuing for approximately ten years for those requesting official copies of their birth records. It is sufficient to prove US citizenship when applying for a US passport. As this is very much a legal document, it was silly for anyone to regard it as somehow insufficient evidence. It was scanned and put online to satisfy public curiosity several months before the general election. To suggest that there had been any sort of delay is disingenuous at best.

    The production of the “long form” certificate in the form of a certified photocopy of the original (as opposed to the certified abstract copy released in 2008) was actually quite extraordinary. Obama had to actually request that the Hawaii Department of Health make an exception to its usual practice of issuing birth certificates only as certified abstracts. Given that it was also quite unnecessary, it is not at all reasonable to regard his request for and release of the “long form” as a delay of a necessary, urgent, or routine practice.

    Yes, the birthers have the right to express concern and to make demands for ever more information. However, Obama has the right to simply ignore them or to state that he has already provided more than enough information to satisfy a reasonable person.

    As to the court cases that have been filed: There is no reason for the courts to indulge every single claimant demanding access to birth records, especially when the law specifically requires that records be handled otherwise.

  115. avatar
    G October 15, 2011 at 1:04 am #

    Well said & summarized.

    Jules: The “short form” that Obama released in 2008 is the standard form of birth certificate that Hawaii has been issuing for approximately ten years for those requesting official copies of their birth records. It is sufficient to prove US citizenship when applying for a US passport. As this is very much a legal document, it was silly for anyone to regard it as somehow insufficient evidence. It was scanned and put online to satisfy public curiosity several months before the general election. To suggest that there had been any sort of delay is disingenuous at best.The production of the “long form” certificate in the form of a certified photocopy of the original (as opposed to the certified abstract copy released in 2008) was actually quite extraordinary. Obama had to actually request that the Hawaii Department of Health make an exception to its usual practice of issuing birth certificates only as certified abstracts. Given that it was also quite unnecessary, it is not at all reasonable to regard his request for and release of the “long form” as a delay of a necessary, urgent, or routine practice.Yes, the birthers have the right to express concern and to make demands for ever more information. However, Obama has the right to simply ignore them or to state that he has already provided more than enough information to satisfy a reasonable person.As to the court cases that have been filed: There is no reason for the courts to indulge every single claimant demanding access to birth records, especially when the law specifically requires that records be handled otherwise.

  116. avatar
    Keith October 15, 2011 at 2:09 am #

    foreigner: – at the stoplight – I would tell them they are incorrect and yelling is bad practice,
    but I would also show the proof of insurance, why not ?

    Because there is no law that says you must carry around proof of insurance in your car at all times. Only proof of registration. And random people on the street don’t have any authority what-so-ever to challenge your insurance coverage.

    Furthermore, not having insurance is not a criminal offense, it is a civil offense. Part of registering your vehicle is (depending on the rules in your particular jurisdiction) a commitment to maintaining the required insurance (some jurisdictions provide some insurance as part of the registration process). If you don’t obtain the mandated insurance nobody knows, or has the right to know, until some event occurs that that insurance may be needed. At that time you may be fined, but you aren’t branded a criminal. Just a sociopath.

    Stopping to give your insurance details to every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the street that has no legitimate business to interrupt your peaceful enjoyment of your vehicle is counterproductive to the smooth operation of the traffic network, your life, and society in general.

    That’s why.

  117. avatar
    Keith October 15, 2011 at 2:22 am #

    foreigner: doc has my email, I can just send him a link or passport copy to verify my identity if he wants

    Sorry what part of ‘internet images aren’t proof; web pages aren’t proof; etc etc’ don’t you understand?

    You need to bring your documentation, the original documentation, not photocopies or computer generated copies printed from PDF’s. You have to bring all of it around to all of our houses and personally explain how you can prove that none of the items are forged.

  118. avatar
    Keith October 15, 2011 at 2:27 am #

    BatGuano: eisenhower? the first documentation of his birth was produced when he was in his 60′s based solely on the word of his brother ( who was 4years old at the time of ike’s birth ).

    I thought the brother was younger than Dwight. Now I’ll have to look that up, darn you!

  119. avatar
    US Citizen October 15, 2011 at 2:30 am #

    The only California lawyer I’ve ever used that actually won my case and a good settlement was disbarred years ago.
    Reason unknown, but he defended anything from car accidents to drug cases. He later took his own life.

    I don’t know what prompted his disbarment, but he was a savvy, effective lawyer with an efficient and friendly staff.

    I think perhaps the CA Bar association should have someone higher up than them receive a complaint about Orly’s cases and money they’re costing.

    We are the UNITED states and should help avoid continued abuse of the legal system whether it’s CA or HI.
    We should stop her before she causes more loss both state and private and her income should be investigated as well with her being sued for paying Hawaii back.

    This is not a free speech issue.
    It is an abuse that serves as an example to future lawyers that the CA Bar association may not enforce it’s own rules.
    Some CA Bar employees may be defrauding the state by not doing their jobs and should be fired or prosecuted.

    I say- go over their heads. Complain to their boss(es.)
    Who is in charge of the CA Bar association?
    Who regulates them?

  120. avatar
    Keith October 15, 2011 at 2:48 am #

    Keith: I thought the brother was younger than Dwight. Now I’ll have to look that up, darn you!

    You are right, BatGuano. It was his older brother Arthur that swore to it.

    By the way, several birther sites have pushed the Eisenhower had to file a BC to prove eligibility myth or that the original was hidden and a new one created to hide some dark secret, like he was really Jewish or something.

    Since he was born in 1890, and the assertion has been made that the USA didn’t start using birth certificates until 1900, it makes no sense what-so-ever to demand a birth certificate from him unless it was created years after the event in exactly the way it was done in 1952.

  121. avatar
    Jules October 15, 2011 at 4:52 am #

    US Citizen: I don’t know what prompted his disbarment, but he was a savvy, effective lawyer with an efficient and friendly staff.

    One of the most common reasons for lawyers to face disciplinary action is misuse of client funds, whether intentional or (more commonly) negligent. I would not be at all surprised if this had been the reason for your lawyer’s disbarment.

    US Citizen: I think perhaps the CA Bar association should have someone higher up than them receive a complaint about Orly’s cases and money they’re costing.

    The amount of money is actually not terribly large because Taitz’s claims usually meet succinct motions to dismiss and relatively straightforward action by the courts. Most of the resources being wasted by Taitz are her own.

    Although Taitz is, in my humble opinion, incompetent to act as a lawyer and an embarrassment to her profession, her conduct does less to undermine public confidence in the overall profession than misuse of a client account. Taitz has developed a reputation for acting as a political advocate rather than a competent legal advocate and those wanting good legal advice know to go elsewhere. Meanwhile, when lawyers fail to obey the rules about protecting client funds, confidence in the entire profession and ability to rely on its services is undermined.

    US Citizen: Some CA Bar employees may be defrauding the state by not doing their jobs and should be fired or prosecuted.

    Fraud involves dishonesty and there is no reason to believe that there is a dishonest reason for the California Bar’s failure to take action against an incompetent lawyer. Incompetence or lack of adequate resources to look into the matter would be a far more likely explanation.

  122. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny October 15, 2011 at 5:46 am #

    Tarrant: It amazes me how proud she is of the fact that both the judge and attorneys were “surprised” and “unprepared” for her bringing up arguments THAT WEREN’T IN HER COMPLAINT. So of Course they were unprepared. It’s not ethical to just spring that stuff, Orly! Not, I’m sure, that se cares about the ethics of her profession, but the smugness about it in her posts really rubs me the wrong way.

    What the Shpilmeisterin does not realize, is that REAL court cases are a bit different from the film “Witness for the Prosecution”. You do not spring evidence on the court at the last moment and if you are quoting the judge himself in a related case (which, typically Orly, was actually not relevant at all – that happened in an earlier case) you’d better be damn sure that the judge was on the winning side.

    Of course the Shpilmeisterin is no Marlene Dietrich, so we can have some hope that this time she won’t get away with murder.

  123. avatar
    foreigner October 15, 2011 at 5:46 am #

    this blog entry praises the culture of politician/government secrecy.
    Trying to prevent the public from figuring out what’s going on.
    And posters here are comfortable with that.

  124. avatar
    Jules October 15, 2011 at 7:23 am #

    foreigner:
    this blog entry praises the culture of politician/government secrecy.
    Trying to prevent the public from figuring out what’s going on.
    And posters here are comfortable with that.

    People discuss privacy laws because the State of Hawaii holds birth records and releases certified copies strictly according to law.

    Obama has taken every reasonable effort to allow the public to know about his birth records. He scanned and published online his birth certificate in 2008. He even went so far as to obtain a long-from certificate that people born and Hawaii no longer receive, and proceeded to scan this, publish it online, and make the hard copy available for inspection by the press.

    Not only have Obama released more information about his birth than necessary, but he has also released more documentation than any other President. This is not secrecy. It is transparency.

  125. avatar
    Majority Will October 15, 2011 at 7:38 am #

    foreigner:
    this blog entry praises the culture of politician/government secrecy.
    Trying to prevent the public from figuring out what’s going on.
    And posters here are comfortable with that.

    damnable

    Your asinine comments prove that your reading comprehension is deplorable.

    Do you have such a blatant and reprehensible disrespect for our laws because you’re not a U.S. citizen?

  126. avatar
    Majority Will October 15, 2011 at 7:40 am #

    Keith: Sorry what part of internet images aren’t proof; web pages aren’t proof; etc etc’ don’t you understand?

    You need to bring your documentation, the original documentation, not photocopies or computer generated copies printed from PDF’s. You have to bring all of it around to all of our houses and personally explain how you can prove that none of the items are forged.

    What is ‘foreigner’ hiding?

  127. avatar
    Northland10 October 15, 2011 at 7:45 am #

    Keith: Because there is no law that says you must carry around proof of insurance in your car at all times.

    Actually, in Illinois (and Michigan, I believe), it is a requirement to carry proof of insurance in your vehicle at all times. Still, you are absolutely correct that there is no requirement to show it to every citizen who claims they have the right to see it. The right is for the SOS offices, the nice person with a badge and possibly the person you just ran into (not sure how the last one works).

    Even the nice person with a badge cannot randomly demand you show it (they could try but the department would soon find a lawsuit filed). It can only be requested in the context of an appropriate contact (traffic stop, accident, etc.). The same would apply even to the SOS, as it would be in the context of applying or renewing vehicle registration.

    I have doubts is not an appropriate context.

  128. avatar
    dch October 15, 2011 at 8:12 am #

    Foreigner
    “And now they shall even give an OK to Taitz seeing the original.
    That costs him another 2 minutes, at least.”

    After 90 losses in a row in US courts the birthers have more than “proven” that they are nothing but idiots wasting the public’s tax dollares.
    1. Please explain why more tax dollars should be expended to satisfy a lunatic’s craving.

    Why shouls a US court spens another “2 minutes” on this.
    The judge in Hawaii – gave Orly the beat down she deserved. LOL.

  129. avatar
    Scientist October 15, 2011 at 8:25 am #

    Northland10: Actually, in Illinois (and Michigan, I believe), it is a requirement to carry proof of insurance in your vehicle at all times. Still, you are absolutely correct that there is no requirement to show it to every citizen who claims they have the right to see it.

    To carry on the belabored analogy, Obama is driving around with proof of insurance plastered on his car (2 birth certificates shown to the world). Moreover, the CEO of the insurance company (the head of Hawaii DOH) says that he has a full-paid up policy with them and has since 1961.

    To pretend that this driver is uninsured is beyond ludicrous.

  130. avatar
    Majority Will October 15, 2011 at 8:53 am #

    dch: Please explain why more tax dollars should be expended to satisfy a lunatic’s craving.

    Because ‘foreigner’ doesn’t pay U.S. taxes and doesn’t care if our money is wasted.

  131. avatar
    Jules October 15, 2011 at 9:16 am #

    Scientist: To carry on the belabored analogy, Obama is driving around with proof of insurance plastered on his car (2 birth certificates shown to the world). Moreover, the CEO of the insurance company (the head of Hawaii DOH) says that he has a full-paid up policy with them and has since 1961.

    Yes, but you forget that the CEO has turned down requests for members of the public to comb through the insurance company archives and personally photograph the insurance application and cheques that were used to pay the premium. Also, I have heard rumours that he cancelled his insurance policy in the late 1960s, and he has failed to produce a copy of the cancellation document to disprove it! Also, I hear that some other insurance company issued a free insurance policy in 1961; doesn’t that invalidate the policy that’s plastered to his car?

  132. avatar
    Northland10 October 15, 2011 at 10:05 am #

    Jules: Yes, but you forget that the CEO has turned down requests for members of the public to comb through the insurance company archives and personally photograph the insurance application and cheques that were used to pay the premium.

    So now, they will accuse the CEO of not being “like a good neighbor.”

  133. avatar
    foreigner October 15, 2011 at 10:37 am #

    arguing with disclosing-cost here is bad math.
    The whole movement causes damage to USA in the billions.
    How much did Corsi earn from the book ? How much time was spent
    on this in total ? Time that else would probably have been used to
    increase the GDP.

    Obama spent far more effort on dismissing actions than disclosing
    actions.
    He only discloses when forced. By trials or polls or books.

  134. avatar
    Majority Will October 15, 2011 at 10:51 am #

    foreigner: Obama spent far more effort on dismissing actions than disclosing
    actions.

    Prove it. I think you’re a liar.

    “The whole movement causes damage to USA in the billions.”

    A ridiculous liar.

  135. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 15, 2011 at 11:57 am #

    foreigner:
    arguing with disclosing-cost here is bad math.
    The whole movement causes damage to USA in the billions.
    How much did Corsi earn from the book ? How much time was spent
    on this in total ? Time that else would probably have been used to
    increase the GDP.

    Obama spent far more effort on dismissing actions than disclosing
    actions.
    He only discloses when forced. By trials or polls or books.

    Ah how nice it is to wake up to concern trolling in the morning. I notice that foreigner has refused to answer our questions from yesterday. The only damage it causes to the US is that it allows foreigners to see we have some really crazy people in our country. That’s all it does. The majority of Americans laugh at the birthers and know them to be fools. The birthers don’t help their cause by looking more stupid with each passing second.

    I’m pretty sure Corsi was disappointed at the loss of revenue between his book on Kerry and his books on Obama. Corsi had to actually give away his books. WND also took a loss in bankrolling his book.

    Time would have been used to increase the GDP? Really that’s your argument? How exactly would it have changed anything when it comes to the Republicans in Congress filibustering everything the President does? Actually there’s no proof he’s spend any money but pocket change in dealing with this issue. He’s done everything possible to coddle the birther movement. He released both the long and short forms which he didn’t even have to. Any more information isn’t going to change the hardcore birthers which are all that are left at this point.

  136. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 15, 2011 at 11:59 am #

    foreigner:
    this blog entry praises the culture of politician/government secrecy.
    Trying to prevent the public from figuring out what’s going on.
    And posters here are comfortable with that.

    The majority of the public knows what is going on. The fringe birther movement has its head so far up its own ass that it has no idea whats going on. Obama has been more open and transparent than every president before him when it comes to his personal records.

  137. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 15, 2011 at 12:01 pm #

    CarlOrcas: No problem? Excellent. Please scan your driver license, insurance card and passport and send them to Dr. Conspiracy and he can post them here for everyone to see.

    Sorry Carl that’s not good enough. I don’t want scans. I would trust Dr. C but by Foreigner’s standards he needs to send the original driver’s license, insurance card and passport for us to inspect.

  138. avatar
    Sef October 15, 2011 at 12:38 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Sorry Carl that’s not good enough.I don’t want scans.I would trust Dr. C but by Foreigner’s standards he needs to send the original driver’s license, insurance card and passport for us to inspect.

    And Doc C gets to keep them all, otherwise how will we know that he really ever had them. The Doc could organize a touring exhibit so that any and all could see for themselves.

  139. avatar
    Bob J October 15, 2011 at 1:04 pm #

    foreigner

    I am still waiting. Where is your honesty?

    Are you a troll or a real foreigner?

    You responded once, are youu avoiding a real question?

  140. avatar
    The Magic M October 15, 2011 at 1:22 pm #

    foreigner: maybe legally irrelevant, but USA is a democracy. So it isn’t just Congress whose opinion counts
    but also the voters

    The voters obviously consider Obama eligible, otherwise they wouldn’t have voted for him. You’ve just shot down your own case, again.

    foreigner: How much time was spent
    on this in total ? Time that else would probably have been used to
    increase the GDP.

    As far as I can see, a large majority of the birthers are retired or unemployed (and highly unintelligent to boot). Otherwise they wouldn’t have time to flood the internet using multiple identities. I suppose the birfers’ effective contribution to the GDP is negative.

  141. avatar
    BatGuano October 15, 2011 at 1:38 pm #

    foreigner:

    How much did Corsi earn from the book ?

    wtf?…………. how is this even an argument? are you saying because people spent money to purchase the book our country lost money? if that’s the case then our country is doomed simply from the grosses from michael bay films.

  142. avatar
    foreigner October 15, 2011 at 1:51 pm #

    OK, so we have a blog here that is devoted to inform people about Obama’s
    birth certificate and it’s surrounding conspiracies.
    To inform us about the truth of the scans and interpretation of perceived anomalies
    which are circulating now on the internet and in the Corsi book.

    But at the same time it also “fights” for nondisclosure of originals and additional information.
    For dismissals of disclosure request in trials.

    So it wants to inform us, but also wants the withholding of the facts and data that could
    finally settle the case.

    But the first disclosure from April 2011 was apparently appreciated (?), although
    contrary to the spirit of the blog. But another disclosure, mustn’t happen now.
    Why ? Just only because that birther-queen wants it ?

    So what’s more important,
    the final proof to settle the Corsi-case
    or
    the delight in seeing Taitz fail and confirmation of the own
    prognosis thereof ?

  143. avatar
    foreigner October 15, 2011 at 1:59 pm #

    BatGuano,yes, buying the book which is low quality is a loss.
    And spending so much time reading it.

    A loss for the people and thus for the country.
    Even Obama obviously see it this way.
    (“more important things to do”)
    Which however should apply to his people not to himself.
    Because with very little effort he could save millions from wasting time
    on this.

  144. avatar
    foreigner October 15, 2011 at 2:02 pm #

    MagicM, more than usual did doubt his birthplace,
    the polls showed it, this was unprecedented and
    finally led to the release.

  145. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 15, 2011 at 2:06 pm #

    foreigner: Because with very little effort he could save millions from wasting time
    on this.

    Exactly what would it take in the way of an “effort” from the President to settle the matter for you?

  146. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 15, 2011 at 2:07 pm #

    foreigner: MagicM, more than usual did doubt his birthplace,
    the polls showed it, this was unprecedented and
    finally led to the release.

    What is the “usual” factor for people who doubt a President’s birthplace?

  147. avatar
    foreigner October 15, 2011 at 2:15 pm #

    CarlOrcas,
    1) allow Hawaii to let Taitz or others see the original and make photos,videos
    2) history. It didn’t happen before (AFAIK) that so much % of the population
    doubted the president’s birthplace (and religion) . That’s also what the reporters
    said and the polling institutes.

  148. avatar
    Jules October 15, 2011 at 2:30 pm #

    foreigner: Obama spent far more effort on dismissing actions than disclosing
    actions.

    He has spent little effort on both. Ordering a birth certificate does not involve that much effort, but neither does filing a succinct motion to dismiss in an action that clearly has no merit as a matter of both fact and law. In any event, he has already taken all reasonable steps to satisfy public curiosity about his birth. At this point, spending money to, for example, order and mail a certified copy of the long form to all Americans would be rather disproportionate.

    If some people insist on wasting court time and public money on baseless claims, then the appropriate action is to ask the court to dismiss the claim so so as to avoid wasting further time and money. If people wish to avoid having money spent on asking for frivolous claims to be dismissed, then they should avoid filing frivolous claims in the first place.

  149. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 15, 2011 at 2:32 pm #

    foreigner: 1) allow Hawaii to let Taitz or others see the original and make photos,videos

    We already have copies of the original. But, for the sake of argument, exactly what could Taitz determine by looking at it and/or taking pictures?

    What would you look for in the pictures or videos she (or anyone else for that matter) might shoot that would convince you that the original is authentic?

    foreigner: 2) history. It didn’t happen before (AFAIK) that so much % of the population
    doubted the president’s birthplace (and religion) . That’s also what the reporters
    said and the polling institutes.

    Since “it didn’t happen before” there is no “usual” factor. That’s the point.

    And what else “didn’t happen before”?

  150. avatar
    Joey October 15, 2011 at 2:34 pm #

    foreigner:
    MagicM, more than usual did doubt his birthplace,
    the polls showed it, this was unprecedented and
    finally led to the release.

    Nah, since you are a “Foreigner” you probably don’t know that much about American history.

    Chester A. Arthur was a 19th Century president whose birthplace was challenged as well.
    Arthur was accused of being born in Canada. He claimed to have been born in Vermont, a few miles from the Canadian border. Arthur’s father also was not a US citizen when Chester was born. His father became a citizen when Chester A. Arthur was 14 years old.
    Rather than relying on polls, Barack Obama received nearly 70 million popular votes which was the most votes for any presidential candidate in US history. No court is going to undo the electoral will of 70 million Americans.
    If enough people are still not convinced that Obama was born in the US, they can vote against him in 2012.
    However the most important thing that was unprecedented about Obama’s election was the number of popular votes that he received.

  151. avatar
    dunstvangeet October 15, 2011 at 2:36 pm #

    foreigner:
    CarlOrcas,
    1) allow Hawaii to let Taitz or others see the original and make photos,videos
    2) history. It didn’t happen before (AFAIK) that so much % of the population
    doubted the president’sbirthplace (and religion) . That’s also what the reporters
    said and the polling institutes.

    The Hawaii Department of Health has issued a document that has the full backing of the Hawaii Department of Health. This means that if it ever did reach the Courts in your dream scenario, this is exactly what would happen.

    Obama presents the same exact document that he scanned and posted on the internet 3 years ago to the court. The court says that this proves that Obama is born in the United States.

    Now, I do not need a court to tell me exactly who was born in the United States when I have the full backing of the State of Hawaii saying that it happened. They have been saying that it happened for the previous 3 years. They have continually said that the birth certificate is “a valid Hawaii State Birth Certificate” and has all the information needed.

    Now, why would the State of Hawaii need to take extraordinary measures that they have never done before to let a couple of people who have no actual experience in Forensic Document Examination, would never be accepted in a court of law as surviving a Daubert Hearing (or Frye hearing, depending upon the jurisdiction), and have nothing to do with actually validating the qualifications (which the Constitution clearly puts to Congress). Why would Hawaii do this? And after this, all this would do is let Orly and those claim that the entire State of Hawaii is in on the conspiracy and has been for the last 50 years, being duped by a foreigner and her mother for the sole purpose that her son (a black person born in the 1960s) somehow make the unlikely decision to actually run for President 50 years later. Why should the State of Hawaii put aside all their rules and regulations that everybody else have to follow to, to allow a raving luantic who already has her conclusion predestined to do something that Barack Obama himself could not authorize?

    Barack Obama himself cannot walk into the Hawaii Department of Health and get access to the document that Orly Taitz wants access to. Why would you believe that somehow he can give Orly Taitz permission to do something that he himself cannot do? Read the Taitz v. Fuddy ruling and argument from the State. They clearly said that the only thing that Orly Taitz would get access to, even if she was to win, was the exact same thing that has been on the Internet for the last 3 years, and the birthers have already declared to be a forgery. She would not get another copy of the long-form. She would not get to walk into the archives and photograph Obama’s “original certificate”. All she’d get is a short-form that has the full backing of the State of Hawaii. And even for that, she doesn’t have a tangible interest in it.

  152. avatar
    Joey October 15, 2011 at 2:38 pm #

    Jules: He has spent little effort on both. Ordering a birth certificate does not involve that much effort, but neither does filing a succinct motion to dismiss in an action that clearly has no merit as a matter of both fact and law. In any event, he has already taken all reasonable steps to satisfy public curiosity about his birth. At this point, spending money to, for example, order and mail a certified copy of the long form to all Americans would be rather disproportionate.

    If some people insist on wasting court time and public money on baseless claims, then the appropriate action is to ask the court to dismiss the claim so so as to avoid wasting further time and money. If people wish to avoid having money spent on asking for frivolous claims to be dismissed, then they should avoid filing frivolous claims in the first place.

    Jules is absolutely right. Most of the lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibilty don’t even name Barack Obama as the defendant, hence he has no expense. This current discussion is about “Taitz v Fuddy & Onaka,” do you see Obama as a plaintiff? Taitz v Fuddy and Onaka is related to “Taitz v Astrue,” Obama is not a party to Taitz v Astrue either.
    The lawsuits that did name Obama as a defendant were summarily dismissed. There is very little cost to filing a motion to dismiss a lawsuit and you can use the same motion over and over again, just change the names!

  153. avatar
    dunstvangeet October 15, 2011 at 2:44 pm #

    Not to mention that what the Birthers want Obama to do is actually way more expensive.

    The Birthers want Obama to release his birth certificate. The only way to do this is to get a copy, and send it to someone. Obama has already done this, and the birthers say that they haven’t seen it.

    However, the birthers are no more eligible to see it than any other American, so in order to comply to the birthers’ request, Obama would have to order somewhere around 300 million copies, in order to provide every American with their own copy. Using the numbers from the Hawaii Department of Health ($10 for the 1st copy, $4 for each additional copy), Obama would have to pay somewhere around $1.2 billion dollars in order to comply (this doesn’t include the price of postage either). So, even using the Birther’s numbers, Obama is clearly saving the country somewhere around $1.2 billion by fighting the lawsuits, rather than just complying with their redicilous requests…

  154. avatar
    aarrgghh October 15, 2011 at 3:06 pm #

    foreigner:
    MagicM, more than usual did doubt his birthplace,
    the polls showed it, this was unprecedented and
    finally led to the release.

    Joey:
    … Rather than relying on polls, Barack Obama received nearly 70 million popular votes which was the most votes for any presidential candidate in US history. No court is going to undo the electoral will of 70 million Americans.

    i would say instead that the 2008 election was without a doubt the definitive poll, unlike the unscientific and meaningless online ones birfers love to “freep”.

  155. avatar
    Scientist October 15, 2011 at 3:16 pm #

    foreigner: Because with very little effort he could save millions from wasting time
    on this.

    Millions waste time watching “American Idol”, feeding slot machines in casinos, trying to communicate with their teen-age children and dozens of other time-wasting activities. In the grand scheme of time wasting, birtherism is not even a pimple. Besides, by what stretch of the imagination is it the President’s responsibility to dictate to people what form of time-wasting activities they choose to indulge in?

  156. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 15, 2011 at 4:01 pm #

    foreigner:
    OK, so we have a blog here that is devoted to inform people about Obama’s
    birth certificate and it’s surrounding conspiracies.
    To inform us about the truth of the scans and interpretation of perceived anomalies
    which are circulating now on the internet and in the Corsi book.

    But at the same time it also “fights” for nondisclosure of originals and additional information.
    For dismissals of disclosure request in trials.

    So it wants to inform us, but also wants the withholding of the facts and data that could
    finally settle the case.

    But the first disclosure from April 2011 was apparently appreciated (?), although
    contrary to the spirit of the blog. But another disclosure, mustn’t happen now.
    Why ? Just only because that birther-queen wants it ?

    So what’s more important,
    the final proof to settle the Corsi-case
    or
    the delight in seeing Taitz fail and confirmation of the own
    prognosis thereof ?

    There’s nothing to settle as there is no case. No legal authority has called for the release of the documents. There was never any real question and yet the President has shown his birth documents to the public which he never had to. There aren’t perceived anomalies. What you have is people on the internet looking at a digital file and misunderstanding image optimization and compression algorithms. All of this has been explained before and it seems like you’re just here to concern troll. If you bothered to even look through the site Doc has done a fine job of addressing every one of the birther arguments.

    There will never be disclosure of original documents. You can’t even get your own original documents what makes you think you could get them on the President?

    No Obama originally disclosed information about his birth certificate back in 2008 and that still wasn’t enough for you whackjobs.

    I find it funny you talk about settling the “Corsi-case”. There’s no case to settle with Corsi. Which makes me think you never even read Corsi’s stuff. There’s nothing that will satisfy Corsi’s demand for using this issue to make money. He’s already claim that the document was planted in the Vault in Hawaii. He’s already lied time and time again about the information he has. Corsi is untrustworthy and a grifter.

  157. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 15, 2011 at 4:03 pm #

    foreigner:
    CarlOrcas,
    1) allow Hawaii to let Taitz or others see the original and make photos,videos
    2) history. It didn’t happen before (AFAIK) that so much % of the population
    doubted the president’sbirthplace (and religion) . That’s also what the reporters
    said and the polling institutes.

    Yeah history in that this is the first time we had a non-white President. Obviously their fears are related to something else.
    No Taitz and others shouldn’t be allowed to raid the vault in Hawaii just for their own curiosity. No one in America is allowed to even see their original documents so why should we make an exception in this case?

  158. avatar
    Sef October 15, 2011 at 4:24 pm #

    foreigner: Because with very little effort he could save millions from wasting time
    on this.

    The easiest way to prevent people from wasting their time on this nonsense is to shut down the Internet.

  159. avatar
    foreigner October 15, 2011 at 4:31 pm #

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

    A common claim among those arguing that President Obama was not born in Hawaii is that all doubt would be settled if Obama released his “long form” birth certificate. However, commentators noted that doing so would be disadvantageous to Obama. First, it would encourage speculation as to why it took so long to release the document. Second, caving in to his political adversaries’ demands would embolden them by giving them a victory. Finally, it would open the door to demands for other personal records unrelated to his birth certificate.[214] Despite these concerns, both Obama and his press secretary have responded to reporters’ questions about the issue.

    —————————————————-
    not what Obama did say as reasons and what I keep seeing here.

    “better things to do”
    “can’t spend my time with the BC plastered on my forehead”

    “Second” seems what “Doc” was thinking when he wrote this blog post.

  160. avatar
    Majority Will October 15, 2011 at 4:36 pm #

    foreigner:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

    A common claim among those arguing that President Obama was not born in Hawaii is that all doubt would be settled if Obama released his “long form” birth certificate. However, commentators noted that doing so would be disadvantageous to Obama. First, it would encourage speculation as to why it took so long to release the document. Second, caving in to his political adversaries’ demands would embolden them by giving them a victory. Finally, it would open the door to demands for other personal records unrelated to his birth certificate.[214] Despite these concerns, both Obama and his press secretary have responded to reporters’ questions about the issue.

    —————————————————-
    not what Obama did say as reasons and what I keep seeing here.

    “better things to do”
    “can’t spend my time with the BC plastered on my forehead”

    “Second” seems what “Doc” was thinking when he wrote this blog post.

    Birthers like ‘foreigner’ are liars and idiots with severe reading comprehension problems.

    source: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/10/taitz-v-fuddy-dismissed/#comments

  161. avatar
    BatGuano October 15, 2011 at 4:37 pm #

    foreigner:
    BatGuano,yes, buying the book which is low quality is a loss.
    And spending so much time reading it.

    you would have a point if people were taking time off work to read the book but…….. most likely it replaced tv watching time. no loss there.

    production of even a low quality book would add to the economy ( designers, delivery, paper suppliers………) in it’s own little way.

  162. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 15, 2011 at 4:37 pm #

    foreigner:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

    A common claim among those arguing that President Obama was not born in Hawaii is that all doubt would be settled if Obama released his “long form” birth certificate. However, commentators noted that doing so would be disadvantageous to Obama. First, it would encourage speculation as to why it took so long to release the document. Second, caving in to his political adversaries’ demands would embolden them by giving them a victory. Finally, it would open the door to demands for other personal records unrelated to his birth certificate.[214] Despite these concerns, both Obama and his press secretary have responded to reporters’ questions about the issue.

    —————————————————-
    not what Obama did say as reasons and what I keep seeing here.

    “better things to do”
    “can’t spend my time with the BC plastered on my forehead”

    “Second” seems what “Doc” was thinking when he wrote this blog post.

    So you claim that somehow this would all be shut up if he showed the original and let it be inspected but then you just posted information about people saying if he released the long form this would shut everyone up. Apparently that wasn’t the case so why bother?

  163. avatar
    Bob J October 15, 2011 at 4:41 pm #

    I put so much thought into the bar analogy and the, off the cuff, insurance thing is what went through.

    Not to be an attention hound, but I asked foreigner a direct question. Where is the answer?

    This is my last unanswered post to you, foreigner.

    Are you scared of the question I asked?

    I know civil discourse and courtesy are of the utmost importance on this site. I do not mean any disrespect, but I want my answer.

    foreigner, if you want to wallow in ignorance; more power to you. Just don’t ask questions you don’t want the answers to.

  164. avatar
    Daniel October 15, 2011 at 4:41 pm #

    Just how many sides does your mouth have, foreigner?

  165. avatar
    foreigner October 15, 2011 at 4:43 pm #

    not everyone, but ~90%

  166. avatar
    foreigner October 15, 2011 at 4:47 pm #

    bobJ what answer
    Daniel,explain, I’m not so familiar with US wordgames

  167. avatar
    BatGuano October 15, 2011 at 4:50 pm #

    foreigner:
    not everyone, but ~90%

    was this directed at me? you believe 90% of the people that read the book took time off work to do so?

  168. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 15, 2011 at 4:53 pm #

    foreigner:
    bobJ what answer
    Daniel,explain, I’m not so familiar with US wordgames

    The answer to his question asked yesterday.

  169. avatar
    Bob J October 15, 2011 at 4:53 pm #

    foreigner,

    so open to disclosure; name and where you are from.

    but you know that.

    still waiting. Ball is again in your court.

    serve, or are you a chump?

  170. avatar
    foreigner October 15, 2011 at 5:04 pm #

    ok, we give emails here, I assume the doc can see it.
    It can be googled and, given my internet history, is
    straightforward to identify, maybe he did already in case
    he is still following. Or he may send email and I reply.
    I thought it’s not so good to post here with people like majority will
    etc. round. I had already seen in forums how US-people retaliate in real life
    to posters who disagree. Not necessarily specific to US, it’s just
    where I hang around.

  171. avatar
    foreigner October 15, 2011 at 5:08 pm #

    90% of birthers to shut down (reply to DrKN)
    yes, much time wasted on reading Corsi would be wasted with other things
    and buying books still pays taxes etc. but maybe ~~30% is still extra-wasted

  172. avatar
    BatGuano October 15, 2011 at 5:34 pm #

    foreigner:
    . but maybe ~~30% is still extra-wasted

    so you believe it is 30% more wasteful to read a jerome corsi book then to read “twilight” or watch a re-run of “night rider”. correct?

  173. avatar
    y_p_w October 15, 2011 at 5:50 pm #

    dunstvangeet:
    Barack Obama himself cannot walk into the Hawaii Department of Health and get access to the document that Orly Taitz wants access to.Why would you believe that somehow he can give Orly Taitz permission to do something that he himself cannot do?

    My understanding is that he could do just that.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-more_politics

    If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.

    I frankly would think they wouldn’t allow anyone to inspect the original file except for those named in the document or those with official duties. Anyone else and I’d have serious concerns that they would try some stunt such as destroying the document.

  174. avatar
    dunstvangeet October 15, 2011 at 6:06 pm #

    You may be right. I was going off of normal procedures. If I went down to either my state or my county health department and said I wanted to see the original birth certificate, I doubt that they would take me down to the archives, and take me to where they store it, and let me see it. They’d run off a copy from the database that would look like what Obama’s birth certificate does.

    Dr. C would know more about those sort of procedures, though.

  175. avatar
    Majority Will October 15, 2011 at 6:10 pm #

    Ignore the idiot troll.

  176. avatar
    Bob J October 15, 2011 at 6:31 pm #

    Thank-you foreigner

    You answered my question. My name is bob jones. google me, and good luck finding me.

    Stupid, crazy, or a troll. What is it?

  177. avatar
    Keith October 15, 2011 at 6:32 pm #

    Joey: There is very little cost to filing a motion to dismiss a lawsuit and you can use the same motion over and over again, just change the names!

    Not only, but also… his Attorney’s are on record saying that they have performed these services pro bono.

    That means, for no charge.

    They probably had their first year clerk prepare the document as a bit of training and a highlight for their CV.

  178. avatar
    Keith October 15, 2011 at 6:40 pm #

    BatGuano: most likely it replaced tv watching time. no loss there.

    Depends on the TV, of course.

    Its no loss if they replace watching American Idol with picking the link out of their navels, let alone read an actual book of whatever merit.

    On the other hand, if they miss Treme due to rubbing their nose in Corsi’s feces, they have literally burned their cultural heritage and exposed themselves as positively, actively un-American.

  179. avatar
    Majority Will October 15, 2011 at 6:40 pm #

    Bob J:
    Thank-you foreigner

    You answered my question. My name is bob jones. google me, and good luck finding me.

    Stupid, crazy, or a troll. What is it?

    AHA! So, you’re THAT Bob Jones! The one you can find by searching Google.

    I knew it. 😉

  180. avatar
    Keith October 15, 2011 at 6:41 pm #

    Keith: Its no loss

    I meant that to read “Its a gain”.

    I hit submit before I finished editing. Sorry.

  181. avatar
    Majority Will October 15, 2011 at 6:43 pm #

    Keith: Depends on the TV, of course.

    Its no loss if they replace watching American Idol with picking the link out of their navels, let alone read an actual book of whatever merit.

    On the other hand, if they miss Treme due to rubbing their nose in Corsi’s feces, they have literally burned their cultural heritage and exposed themselves as positively, actively un-American.

    Navel lint picking contests may replace Hillbilly Handfishin’ on Animal Planet.

  182. avatar
    Joey October 15, 2011 at 6:52 pm #

    Keith: Not only, but also… his Attorney’s are on record saying that they have performed these services pro bono.

    That means, for no charge.

    They probably had their first year clerk prepare the document as a bit of training and a highlight for their CV.

    My favorite BIRTHER expenditures are Orly Taitz paying the American taxpayer $20,000 in sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit in Rhodes v MacDonald in Georgia and Mario Apuzzo having to pay court costs for wasting the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals’ time with nonsense in Kerchner v Obama.

  183. avatar
    Jules October 15, 2011 at 7:12 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Sorry Carl that’s not good enough.I don’t want scans.I would trust Dr. C but by Foreigner’s standards he needs to send the original driver’s license, insurance card and passport for us to inspect.

    Actually, he might want even more. After all, there would have been applications for the driving licence, passport, and insurance policy. Each would have had various supporting documents. Notes were likely generated in the processing of the applications. Should each of the relevant bodies not provide us with the opportunity to peruse all the original documentation?

    Also, if any of the relevant organisations respond to requests with explanations about how they cannot and will not provide the documents requested or allow inspection, then we must emphasise how they have done more to cover up their decisions and practices than to disclose. This would necessarily be nefarious.

  184. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 15, 2011 at 7:49 pm #

    Bob J: Thank-you foreigner
    You answered my question. My name is bob jones. google me, and good luck finding me.
    Stupid, crazy, or a troll. What is it?

    I just Googled “foreigner blogger” and got two hits. One in Greece and the other in Mexico.

    I’m still searching with a focus on Lower Uzbirthastan

  185. avatar
    Rickey October 15, 2011 at 8:15 pm #

    Majority Will:
    Ignore the idiot troll.

    Agreed. Foreigner has nothing to say which hasn’t been said (and said more coherently) many times over..

  186. avatar
    Majority Will October 15, 2011 at 8:25 pm #

    Rickey: Agreed. Foreigner has nothing to say which hasn’t been said (and said more coherently) many times over..

    It’s not surprising but more strangely pathetic.

  187. avatar
    Kaci Jay October 15, 2011 at 8:28 pm #

    Keith: Because there is no law that says you must carry around proof of insurance in your car at all times. Only proof of registration. And random people on the street don’t have any authority what-so-ever to challenge your insurance coverage.Furthermore, not having insurance is not a criminal offense, it is a civil offense. Part of registering your vehicle is (depending on the rules in your particular jurisdiction) a commitment to maintaining the required insurance (some jurisdictions provide some insurance as part of the registration process). If you don’t obtain the mandated insurance nobody knows, or has the right to know, until some event occurs that that insurance may be needed. At that time you may be fined, but you aren’t branded a criminal. Just a sociopath.Stopping to give your insurance details to every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the street that has no legitimate business to interrupt your peaceful enjoyment of your vehicle is counterproductive to the smooth operation of the traffic network, your life, and society in general.That’s why.

    Keith – don’t know what state you live in but in Georgia it IS the law to carry proof of insurance and driving without insurance is a criminal and bondable offense, which means you can go to jail and have your vehicle impounded. Every state is different.

  188. avatar
    BatGuano October 15, 2011 at 8:47 pm #

    Rickey: Agreed. Foreigner has nothing to say which hasn’t been said (and said more coherently) many times over..

    corsi being 30% extra-wasteful was new to me.

  189. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 15, 2011 at 8:55 pm #

    Kaci Jay: Every state is different

    It’s the same in Arizona and California. And, I suspect, in any state with a mandatory insurance law. What would be the point of having the law if a driver weren’t required to have proof in the vehicle?

  190. avatar
    Rickey October 15, 2011 at 10:01 pm #

    BatGuano: corsi being 30% extra-wasteful was new to me.

    Touche!

  191. avatar
    Rickey October 15, 2011 at 10:23 pm #

    CarlOrcas: It’s the same in Arizona and California. And, I suspect, in any state with a mandatory insurance law. What would be the point of having the law if a driver weren’t required to have proof in the vehicle?

    Some mandatory insurance states only require proof of insurance when registering a car or renewing the registration.New York requires insurance companies to notify DMV when a policy lapses or is cancelled. Unless the owner produces proof of a new policy, the registration is cancelled and the owner’s driver’s license will be suspended until the license plates are turned in. That process helps to reduce the number of uninsured vehicles on the road.

    A 2009 study found that only 27 states have database reporting systems to track insurance coverage of registered vehicles.

  192. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 16, 2011 at 2:54 am #

    Rickey: A 2009 study found that only 27 states have database reporting systems to track insurance coverage of registered vehicles.

    Interesting.

    I do know that if you drive your out of state car in Arizona or California and don’t have proof of insurance (no matter what your home state requires) you’ll get a ticket.

  193. avatar
    Keith October 16, 2011 at 3:52 am #

    CarlOrcas: Interesting.

    I do know that if you drive your out of state car in Arizona or California and don’t have proof of insurance (no matter what your home state requires) you’ll get a ticket.

    Only if you are stopped and checked. I did put in the caveat that it varies by jurisdiction. When I still lived in the US, neither Arizona nor California required proof of insurance in the car beyond that implied by the registration.

    I currently live in the Australian state of Victoria. 3rd party liability insurance is included in the yearly registration charge. So if you are registered, you are insured for 3rd party liability. In this case, the fact of registration is proof of insurance. I expect that is what you are referring to, but I could be wrong. This coverage is a ‘no-fault’ medical insurance policy.

    Comprehensive insurance is another matter altogether. As I said, the mandatory 3rd party coverage is a no-fault medical coverage. Comprehensive covers damage to the 3rd party’s property and your property. So this means repairs to your car and theirs.

    Comprehensive is not mandatory, it is up to you whether or not you want to wear the cost of fixing the other guys car.

  194. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 16, 2011 at 2:23 pm #

    Keith: In this case, the fact of registration is proof of insurance. I expect that is what you are referring to, but I could be wrong. This coverage is a no-fault’ medical insurance policy.

    No, I’m talking about liability insurance that provides a minimum coverage for someone who is harmed in an accident with you and it includes both personal injury and property damage.

    Coverage for yourself and damage to you own car is optional.

  195. avatar
    The Magic M October 16, 2011 at 2:43 pm #

    dunstvangeet: So, even using the Birther’s numbers, Obama is clearly saving the country somewhere around $1.2 billion by fighting the lawsuits, rather than just complying with their redicilous requests…

    Don’t forget the time it will take 300 million people to read the copy. Let’s say 5 minutes. How expensive are 1500 million man minutes? On the other hand, the 2,000 hardcore birthers would need 6 years of 8 hours/day to spend these 1500 million man minutes alone. Which they obviously didn’t since most of them are on the issue less than 3 years and possibly not that long every day of the year.

    Besides, it would also be unwise because people tend to become suspicious when other people do unusual things, such as try to “prove innocence”.

    Imagine, dear “foreigner”, that your neighbour gave you 10 large binders of documents with a note saying “this is to prove I am not beating my wife”. Wouldn’t that make you suspicious he might in fact be beating his wife? Because someone who’s not beating his wife certainly doesn’t make large document collections about it and gives them to his neighbours.

    So it’s obvious that birthers would go “why is he spending billions to prove something that’s allegedly obvious and settled?”. Heads you win, tails I lose. Right.

  196. avatar
    jayHG October 16, 2011 at 4:55 pm #

    CarlOrcas: Interesting.

    I do know that if you drive your out of state car in Arizona or California and don’t have proof of insurance (no matter what your home state requires) you’ll get a ticket.

    Here’s how it works in California. When your car is registered, your insurance company sends proof to the DMV. If you are stopped by the police in California, if he runs your license, he will see your insurance that way. If I am correct, the only time that they ask for proof of insurance is if they don’t run your license.

    I’ve been stopped and had my car license run and not been asked for proof of insurance. I asked the officer about this and he said he already got that iformation when he ran my license.

    So I think that your car insurance is reported to the DMV somehow and so there’s really no need to have proof in your car. I keep proof with me, though, because I don’t trust the DMV to have updated records.

  197. avatar
    bringiton October 16, 2011 at 4:57 pm #

    Why do you even argue with these people? They are set in their ways. Why try to debunk them? It’s not like they are going to gain any relevant foothold in America if you debunkers didn’t exist.

    As for the right wingers who say all commies should be put to death, I say bring it on. This country needs a good ole fashioned civil war. Every right wing fascist who thinks I should be put to death for treason for daring to oppose them, I would like to personally put a bullet right between their eyes if civil war became reality. America needs a house cleaning — The christian fascists who’s ancestors drove native American’s to near extinction and also drove an entire race into slavery has a reckoning coming. These people still support the slave masters – They demonize anyone who opposes them as “Commies” … I say FUCK EM.

  198. avatar
    jayHG October 16, 2011 at 5:09 pm #

    I read my e-mail and it implies that registeration is tied to insurance and it is, but not the way that my e-mail read. I can’t register my car without proof of insurance.

    I know that when I changed insurance companies, this change was reported to the DMV, so this is what I meant by insurance companies reporting your insurance to the DMV.

    This sounds convuluted, but I’m having a little problem articulating it……….I think it’s cause I’m hungry.

  199. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 16, 2011 at 5:55 pm #

    jayHG: This sounds convuluted, but I’m having a little problem articulating it……….I think it’s cause I’m hungry.

    I understood and I understand!!!

  200. avatar
    john October 16, 2011 at 6:53 pm #

    The State of Hawaii is a liar, cannot be trusted, and has acted in bad faith regarding Obama’s birth certificate:
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/27/obama-birth-certificate-moved-secure-location-months-ago/
    Obama Birth Certificate Moved to More Secure Location Months Ago
    This appears to be in direct contradiction regarding Fukino’s Public statement given in 2008:
    http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
    It appears that the State of Hawaii did go against their public statement and did handle the birth certificate in manner different from others.
    The State of Hawaii acted in bad faith and they can’t be trusted.

  201. avatar
    Kaci Jay October 16, 2011 at 7:13 pm #

    In Georgia it works like this:
    When you purchase a car you have to show proof of insurance in order to get your tag and registration.
    That information is listed with the state and is available to law enforcement through GCIC.
    However, you still need to carry proof of insurance in case they can’t access GCIC.
    No valid proof of insurance now can net you just a ticket, but verification that you do not have valid insurance gets you taken to jail and your car impounded.

  202. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 16, 2011 at 7:27 pm #

    It’s a hobby.

    bringiton: Why do you even argue with these people? They are set in their ways. Why try to debunk them? It’s not like they are going to gain any relevant foothold in America if you debunkers didn’t exist.

  203. avatar
    Obsolete October 16, 2011 at 7:34 pm #

    John,
    Do you understand how time works?
    Look at the dates of those articles and try to understand how it is not Hawaii who is being dishonest, but you.

  204. avatar
    Rickey October 16, 2011 at 9:11 pm #

    john:

    The State of Hawaii acted in bad faith and they can’t be trusted.

    Poor John. You entertain us so often with your ignorance, and now you demonstrate that you have no idea what “bad faith” means. Your comic relief is priceless.

  205. avatar
    BatGuano October 16, 2011 at 9:13 pm #

    2008…… 2009….. 2010……. 2011.

    if you need help john i can see if my 5year old can spare any time to tutor.

  206. avatar
    Bob October 16, 2011 at 9:14 pm #

    John,
    You’re a Birther, nobody cares what you think.

  207. avatar
    y_p_w October 17, 2011 at 12:57 am #

    john:
    The State of Hawaii is a liar, cannot be trusted, and has acted in bad faith regarding Obama’s birth certificate:
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/27/obama-birth-certificate-moved-secure-location-months-ago/
    Obama Birth Certificate Moved to More Secure Location Months Ago
    This appears to be in direct contradiction regarding Fukino’s Public statement given in 2008:
    http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
    It appears that the State of Hawaii did go against their public statement and did handle the birth certificate in manner different from others.
    The State of Hawaii acted in bad faith and they can’t be trusted.

    Uh, the statement was issued in 2008. The move was done in 2011. I see no lies and no bad faith. The situation had changed, and the State Registrar took steps he thought necessary to safeguard said document. The former health directory never said that they wouldn’t handle it differently in the future – just that up to that point they hadn’t handled it differently.

  208. avatar
    y_p_w October 17, 2011 at 1:07 am #

    jayHG: Here’s how it works in California.When your car is registered, your insurance company sends proof to the DMV.If you are stopped by the police in California, if he runs your license, he will see your insurance that way.If I am correct, the only time that they ask for proof of insurance is if they don’t run your license.

    I’ve been stopped and had my car license run and not been asked for proof of insurance.I asked the officer about this and he said he already got that iformation when he ran my license.

    So I think that your car insurance is reported to the DMV somehow and so there’s really no need to have proof in your car.I keep proof with me, though, because I don’t trust the DMV to have updated records.

    It’s required when registering a vehicle. However, typically the term of the insurance will expire while the registration is still valid.

    Regardless of all that, if one gets stopped, an officer can ask for proof of liability. If it can’t be produced, the officer can issue a ticket. Some officers are more particular about it (ask me how I know) and not having it is a fix-it ticket with a “nominal fee” of $25 if you can send in proof of insurance. I’m pretty sure that most officers can call it in since most insurance is tied to the VIN/license plate #, but some apparently won’t pass up the opportunity to tack of this “fee”.

  209. avatar
    foreigner October 17, 2011 at 2:19 am #

    so, do people here (“Obots” ?) think that the release of the lfbc in April 2011
    was a mistake and bad for the country ?

  210. avatar
    Keith October 17, 2011 at 2:58 am #

    foreigner:
    so, do people here (“Obots” ?) think that the release of the lfbc in April 2011
    was a mistake and bad for the country ?

    It was bad for the Donald’s TV show publicity stunt. It was good to watch Corsi’s screed go down the crapper.

    Beyond that it was meaningless.

  211. avatar
    roadburner October 17, 2011 at 4:23 am #

    foreigner: so, do people here (“Obots” ?) think that the release of the lfbc in April 2011was a mistake and bad for the country ?

    not really.

    the birthers who simply had doubts about his place of birth (and there were some to whom this was the only issue) were satisfied, turned the page and got on with their lives again.

    this left the hardcore of foamy-mouthed caps lock crazies who see any of their failures as a major conspiracy involving everyone including the local dogcatcher. it reduced a minority that might have had a point, to an even smaller minority that even the most hardcore republicans avoid.

  212. avatar
    Judge Mental October 17, 2011 at 6:03 am #

    john: The State of Hawaii is a liar, cannot be trusted, and has acted in bad faith regarding Obama’s birth certificate:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/27/obama-birth-certificate-moved-secure-location-months-ago/Obama Birth Certificate Moved to More Secure Location Months AgoThis appears to be in direct contradiction regarding Fukino’s Public statement given in 2008:http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdfIt appears that the State of Hawaii did go against their public statement and did handle the birth certificate in manner different from others.The State of Hawaii acted in bad faith and they can’t be trusted.

    Since way back when birthers were just a twinkle in Orly’s eye there have been numerous instances where certain birther theories and attempted arguments depend largely on their assumption that time travel is not only possible, but actually routinely practised.

    The quoted argument exhibits less chronological awareness than that of a blind, deaf mute looking at a digital clock and all the objective rationalising ability of a lobotomised hamster.

  213. avatar
    Jim F October 17, 2011 at 6:03 am #

    I’m surprised that so many do not realise that foreigner is taking the M! He has adopted the contrary view in a debate and regardless of what he believes he must defend that view. That is the nature of a classical debate. Just like a defence attorney questions all evidence regardless of however strong it seems to be. That is his job and that is what foreigner is doing.

  214. avatar
    Judge Mental October 17, 2011 at 7:23 am #

    Jim F: I’m surprised that so many do not realise that foreigner is taking the M! He has adopted the contrary view in a debate and regardless of what he believes he must defend that view. That is the nature of a classical debate. Just like a defence attorney questions all evidence regardless of however strong it seems to be. That is his job and that is what foreigner is doing.

    So which is it? Is he ‘taking the M’ or is he performing the task of defending one side of an argument to the best of his ability? By my understanding of what ‘taking the M’ means these two things are for the most part mutually exclusive.

    The former implies someone posting somewaht random and often nonsensical things for provocation, devilment and self amusement. The latter implies a thoughtful, serious approach to countering the opposition’s solid arguments with the best structured spin that can be cobbled together.

    Foreigner has been here many times before. He/she simply repeats the same garbage each time. He/she will do it again at some point in the future, totally ignoring that every point brought up has already been debunked (again) in this thread.

    Would have to say that In my opinion he/she is neither ‘taking the M’ nor impersonating a defence lawyer making the best of defending a guilty client while knowing in his heart they are gulty.

    Foreigner has simply entrenched himself/herself in the notion that Obama is either hiding something relevant to his eligibility or not doing enough to assuage the doubts of others. Nothing anyone on here can say is going to alter that.

    The fact that in the face of blindingly obvious mountainous facts to the contrary foreigner still holds those views today is testament to the conclusion that he/she quite simply does not possess an adequate degree of rationalisation ability to ever do anything else other than keep on repeating the same things over and over again.

  215. avatar
    1% Silver Nitrate October 17, 2011 at 9:25 am #

    In other legal news:

    How WND Birther Website Could End Up Paying Abramoff Victims
    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/how_wnd_birther_website_could_end_up_paying_abramoff_victims.php?ref=fpb

  216. avatar
    Majority Will October 17, 2011 at 9:45 am #

    Jim F: and regardless of what he believes he must defend that view

    It’s nothing more than idiotic obstinacy. And a whole lot less.

    A fruit fly would be more engaging.

  217. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 17, 2011 at 9:46 am #

    foreigner: so, do people here (“Obots” ?) think that the release of the lfbc in April 2011was a mistake and bad for the country ?

    No it had entertainment value. It made Donald Trump realise in the grand scheme of things that America thinks he’s a joke.

  218. avatar
    Northland10 October 17, 2011 at 10:39 am #

    Obsolete: John,
    Do you understand

    Understanding is meaningless to him. He does not care or want to understand anything that is different then what he “believes.” Any proof, evidence, arguments, etc., that go against his bigoted beliefs he discounts as conspiracies, lies and the work of traitors. He does not see the facts because he does not want to see the truth. It does show how horribly gullible he can be.

    He is a good example of “bad faith.”

  219. avatar
    Jim F October 17, 2011 at 10:39 am #

    Point taken re difference. But I still think he is winding you up!

  220. avatar
    BatGuano October 17, 2011 at 11:47 am #

    foreigner:
    so, do people here (“Obots” ?) think that the release of the lfbc in April 2011
    was a mistake and bad for the country ?

    no more than an episode of “the benny hill show” was a mistake or bad for the UK ( cue “yakety sax” ).

  221. avatar
    Joey October 17, 2011 at 12:24 pm #

    foreigner:
    so, do people here (“Obots” ?) think that the release of the lfbc in April 2011
    was a mistake and bad for the country ?

    No, it was not a mistake and it was not bad for the country.

    The release of the Certification of Live Birth in 2008 and the Certficate of Live Birth in 2011 were both political calculations by a politician attempting to be responsive, even to his most ardent political opposition.

    There’s an expression “put up or shut up.: President Obama “put up,” TWICE, to shut up the majority of birthers.

    The vast majority of folks who wanted to see Obama’s birth certificate(s) are people who would NEVER vote for Barack Obama under any circumstances.

  222. avatar
    foreigner October 17, 2011 at 12:28 pm #

    I do see a contradiction here.
    On the one hand you want those documents to be released that shut down the “birthers”
    and proof them wrong.
    On the other hands you fight for – and appreciate – disclosure dismission actions of any kind,
    because birthers have no right to ask for it and Obama needn’t disclose or allow.

    Are you maybe afraid one of these (uncontrolled) disclosures might reveal
    something uncomfortable for Obama ?

    It seems to me that this is all about publicity,timing,campaign.
    What to disclose when or not.
    And it must be prepared and accompanied by a comedy show
    or press-conference at the right moment, when the political
    situation is good. (Trump,Corsi)

  223. avatar
    sfjeff October 17, 2011 at 12:38 pm #

    foreigner: I do see a contradiction here.On the one hand you want those documents to be released that shut down the “birthers”and proof them wrong.On the other hands you fight for – and appreciate – disclosure dismission actions of any kind,because birthers have no right to ask for it and Obama needn’t disclose or allow.Are you maybe afraid one of these (uncontrolled) disclosures might revealsomething uncomfortable for Obama ?It seems to me that this is all about publicity,timing,campaign.What to disclose when or not.And it must be prepared and accompanied by a comedy showor press-conference at the right moment, when the politicalsituation is good. (Trump,Corsi)

    No contradiction.

    We support the Constitution and the law. I personally support every persons right to privacy of their documents. Politicians can chose to release their private information in order to win elections or for their political gain, but we have no RIGHT to that information.

    State law prohibits Joe Blow from wandering into the State of Hawaii archives and thumbing through original documents. Federal law prohibits Universities from releasing students personal information. I would be fine if someone got arrested for releasing Rick Perry’s college records.

    All politicians fight the release of their personal and private information- knowing the only ones who will care about the trivial mishaps of 20 years ago are their political opponents. Do you really think that any supporters of Rick Perry care that he had bad grades in college? Look at how his records were spun by his political opponents and see that is exactly what would happen for any and every politician.

    If Barack Obama had straight A’s and one D, his opponents would point to the ‘D’ and say that this was proof of his idiocy.

    Could there be something embarressing in Barack Obama’s records? Almost certainly there is- and the same is true for Bachmann, Perry- every politician. And thats why they all fight tooth and nail to keep them from being released.

    I personally was opposed to Obama releasing his second birth certificate. I didn’t think it would change any of the opposition. I was wrong- Obama was right. Darn- he is a smarter politician than I am.

  224. avatar
    BatGuano October 17, 2011 at 1:57 pm #

    sfjeff: No contradiction.

    We support the Constitution and the law. …..

    i am in absolute agreement with your entire post jeff.

  225. avatar
    Horus October 17, 2011 at 4:12 pm #

    foreigner: There should be an updated birfer-FAQ at the WhiteHouse-webpage and a forum
    where people can ask questions and discuss and at least occasionally
    get a reply from the Obama campaign.

    Why?
    The birthers would not believe it anyway.
    When they were screaming about wanting Obama to release his Long Form BC, we said even if Obama released his Long Form BC they would claim it was a forgery.
    Lo and behold, Obama releases his Long Form BC and the birthers immediately called it a forgery.

    Don’t you understand?
    Obama can do NOTHING to convince them!
    No document will EVER satisfy them!
    Each time they ask for something they just move the goal posts when they are proven wrong.

  226. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 17, 2011 at 4:16 pm #

    Horus: Why?The birthers would not believe it anyway.When they were screaming about wanting Obama to release his Long Form BC, we said even if Obama released his Long Form BC they would claim it was a forgery.Lo and behold, Obama releases his Long Form BC and the birthers immediately called it a forgery.Don’t you understand?Obama can do NOTHING to convince them!No document will EVER satisfy them!Each time they ask for something they just move the goal posts when they are proven wrong.

    And that’s the problem. Even if Obama released every single document they are asking for they would come back and add some other document to the list. At first it was his birth certificate then his long form. Then they started making up a huge list of documents that have nothing to do with eligibility.

  227. avatar
    Stanislaw October 17, 2011 at 4:35 pm #

    Horus: Why?

    Each time they ask for something they just move the goal posts when they are proven wrong.

    …and then they proceed to argue that they were never actually proven wrong because their questions were never actually answered. I know this because the birthers have been doing this for three years with no end in sight.

  228. avatar
    Joey October 17, 2011 at 4:54 pm #

    foreigner:
    I do see a contradiction here.
    On the one hand you want those documents to be released that shut down the “birthers”
    and proof them wrong.
    On the other hands you fight for – and appreciate – disclosure dismission actions of any kind,
    because birthers have no right to ask for it and Obama needn’t disclose or allow.

    Are you maybe afraid one of these (uncontrolled) disclosures might reveal
    something uncomfortable for Obama ?

    It seems to me that this is all about publicity,timing,campaign.
    What to disclose when or not.
    And it must be prepared and accompanied by a comedy show
    or press-conference at the right moment, when the political
    situation is good. (Trump,Corsi)

    I agree that any person, including the President of the United States has the right to release any personal information about themselves that they choose to release, therefore, Barack Obama had every right to post scanned images of copies of his COLB and his long form birth certificate to the internet, if he wanted to.

    However other people do not have a right to access to those confidential documents unless they meet the requirements of the state of Hawaii’s statutes.
    Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18(b) says that a confidential birth record can be released to: “a person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.”

    Thus far, no one other than Barack Obama and his representatives have obtained an order from a court of competent jurisdiction. A subpoena is NOT a court order.

    I just read in the newspaper that Obama raised $70 million for his reelection campaign in the 3rd quarter. His goal had been to raise $55 million in that period of time. All of Obama’s Republican opponents combined raised $52 million in the 3rd quarter. Obviously Obama supporters don’t have much concern about his birth certificate. They are still willing to finance his reelection bid.

  229. avatar
    Horus October 17, 2011 at 4:57 pm #

    I have come to the conclusion that “foreigner” is Orly Taitz.

    They both have the same mentality and ignorance of law.

  230. avatar
    G October 17, 2011 at 4:58 pm #

    No contradiction here, as your premise is false.

    The demand to see irrelevant documents released has all been a one-sided argument by the birthers.

    Back in reality, we’ve consistently been pointing out why they are not entitled to such info. What a person, whether candidate or president or just random citizen chooses all on their own to publically release about their private info is their own right & business.

    There is a huge difference between someone making a calculated personal choice for their own reasons – which is fine and their right whether or not they do… and making demands for information on someone else which you are simply not entitled to.

    Those points have been consistent and haven’t changed at all over the past 4 years.

    foreigner: I do see a contradiction here.
    On the one hand you want those documents to be released that shut down the “birthers”
    and proof them wrong.
    On the other hands you fight for – and appreciate – disclosure dismission actions of any kind,
    because birthers have no right to ask for it and Obama needn’t disclose or allow.

  231. avatar
    nbc October 17, 2011 at 4:59 pm #

    Taitz v Astrue Motion to Reconsider Denied
    Tatiz v Ruemmler Motion to Dismiss Granted

    Orly is not happy…

    A good day for our Nation.

  232. avatar
    Northland10 October 17, 2011 at 5:04 pm #

    Horus: Taitz v Fuddy dismissed (updated)

    And Orly is not having a good day (or week), losing both Ruemmler and her Astrue MTR. I guess this means her November trip to the islands is now off… if she remembers to inform the Hawaii District court that her case is now moot.

  233. avatar
    Majority Will October 17, 2011 at 5:05 pm #

    nbc:
    Taitz v Astrue Motion to Reconsider Denied
    Tatiz v Ruemmler Motion to Dismiss Granted

    Orly is not happy…

    A good day for our Nation.

    O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!’

  234. avatar
    Joey October 17, 2011 at 5:07 pm #

    I neglected to mention in my previous post that if anybody from Orly Taitz to Leo Donofrio to Donald Trump to Mario Apuzzo goes to a judge and gets a court order for the release of a certified copy of Barack Hussein Obama II’s birth certificate, that is just fine with me.
    Frankly, I’m rather surprised that no birther has read Hawaii law and followed the dictates of the statute which spells out the conditions under which a birth certificate can be released.

    As for me, I trusted that the previous Republican Governor of Hawaii and the members of her administration were telling the truth when they said that Barack Obama’s birth certificate was on file at the state Department of Health. I also trusted that the two birth announcements for Barack Obama that appeared in the August 13, 1961 and the August 14, 1961 editions of the Honolulu newspapers were accurate and real.

  235. avatar
    obsolete October 17, 2011 at 8:37 pm #

    Foreigner, if Obama released every single document relating to his life, birthers would then start demanding he release documents that don’t even exist, such as his adoption records or his naturalization papers. When he doesn’t produce them, they will claim that is evidence of fraud and wrongdoing.
    That is why he is done trying to satisfy the insane.

  236. avatar
    nbc October 17, 2011 at 8:43 pm #

    Foreigner: so, whats he reason, why was it dismissed ?

    A myriad of reasons: Failure to properly effect service, Hawaiian Law prohibits the disclosure of the information requested, Orly has no standing to determine the eligibility of the President, and so on and so on.. Even if Orly had managed, for once, to correctly effect service, she would still have lost because of Hawaiian Law which prohibit disclosure of the requested materials.

    The Fogbow, with their usual precision, had called it way in advance..

  237. avatar
    Northland10 October 17, 2011 at 9:22 pm #

    obsolete: Foreigner, if Obama released every single document relating to his life, birthers would then start demanding he release documents that don’t even exist, such as his adoption records or his naturalization papers.

    Too late… From a recent WND article (emphasis mine);

    But his documents that even today remain concealed include his passport records, kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, University of Chicago articles, Illinois State Bar Association records, Illinois State Senate records and schedules, medical records, Obama/Dunham marriage license, Obama/Dunham divorce documents. Soetoro/Dunham marriage license and adoption records. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=353069

    Kindergarten records? Maybe they want to get him for calling Norma Jean a poopy face.

  238. avatar
    foreigner October 17, 2011 at 10:39 pm #

    I’m surprised that apparently no-one even did get the idea to ask Obama
    to allow it. He did already release the document, so why would he not
    allow examination of it’s authenticity ?
    I’m not so much interested in the birther thing, since Obama’s loyalty to USA
    hardly depends on his birthplace.Just an ancient law without actual relevance.
    But it’s the general problem of whether election candidates should tell us what they
    are planning. And whether citizens, journalists may even ask.
    What would the coming president do in a 1962-Cuba-like crisis ?
    What in another financial meltdown ? How much would he increase the debt ?
    The candidates won’t tell us. And the population is comfortable with that.

    Obots want more government secrecy.

  239. avatar
    Keith October 17, 2011 at 11:04 pm #

    foreigner: He did already release the document, so why would he not
    allow examination of it’s authenticity ?

    First of all that would be tantamount to impugning the reputation of the DoH, which is exactly what the Birthers are doing, and exactly what the President of the United States is forbidden from doing by the Constitution of the United States of America in the so-called ‘full faith and credit’ clause.

    Second of all, Hawai’ian law permits the subject of a vital record to view the original document under certain circumstances and to obtain a certified copy of the document. That is all. Period. Obama can personally go to Honolulu and look at it, and he can get a certified copy of it. Nobody else can see it, or get a copy of it, at least while he is still living.

    There is nothing Obama can do or say that can override Hawai’i State law. That original document is the property of the State of Hawai’i, not Obama’s, and Hawai’i State law controls who maintains the record and who can see the record. Hawai’i is the ultimate arbiter of the authenticity of the records of vital events that take place in Hawai’i.

    There is absolutely nothing that can be accomplished by examination by a third party, or by 300 million 3rd parties. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Please: give it up and stop wasting your time and money, and especially my time and money in the court system. These shonky so-called ‘lawyers’ are just scamming you to keep you hitting their PayPal buttons.

  240. avatar
    Daniel October 17, 2011 at 11:11 pm #

    foreigner:
    I’m surprised that apparently no-one even did get the idea to ask Obama
    to allow it. He did already release the document, so why would he not
    allow examination of it’sauthenticity ?

    It’s not up[ to him. It’s not his document.

    You’re really not very bright, even for a concern troll..

  241. avatar
    Daniel October 17, 2011 at 11:13 pm #

    foreigner: But it’s the general problem of whether election candidates should tell us what they
    are planning. And whether citizens, journalists may even ask.
    What would the coming president do in a 1962-Cuba-like crisis ?
    What in another financial meltdown ? How much would he increase the debt ?
    The candidates won’t tell us. And the population is comfortable with that.

    And you think somehow that his BC is going to tell you all that? Wow…. just Wow.

    Does it hurt when you try to think?

  242. avatar
    Judge Mental October 17, 2011 at 11:13 pm #

    foreigner: I’m surprised that apparently no-one even did get the idea to ask Obamato allow it. He did already release the document, so why would he notallow examination of it’s authenticity ?I’m not so much interested in the birther thing, since Obama’s loyalty to USAhardly depends on his birthplace.Just an ancient law without actual relevance.But it’s the general problem of whether election candidates should tell us what theyare planning. And whether citizens, journalists may even ask.What would the coming president do in a 1962-Cuba-like crisis ?What in another financial meltdown ? How much would he increase the debt ?The candidates won’t tell us. And the population is comfortable with that.Obots want more government secrecy.

    Just how dense are you? It’s already been explained to you half a dozen times at least that Obama can’t “allow it” (‘it’ being inspection of the original document by a third party).

    It’s not his decision to make. He doesn’t have the power to ‘allow it’ even if he wanted to. This really isn’t that complicated. Think!

    As regards the rest of this garbled nonsense, are you really suggesting that the ability for citizens to go examine a Presidential candidate’s vault bc original is going to be a pointer to how likely he is to be a prudent manager of the economy or how reliable a leader he is likely to in a foreign policy crisis????

    If not could you please try to express yourself a bit more clearly to assist us dummies understand what you are trying to say? If English isn’t your first language get an adult to help.

  243. avatar
    Keith October 17, 2011 at 11:35 pm #

    foreigner: But it’s the general problem of whether election candidates should tell us what they
    are planning. And whether citizens, journalists may even ask.
    What would the coming president do in a 1962-Cuba-like crisis ?
    What in another financial meltdown ? How much would he increase the debt ?
    The candidates won’t tell us. And the population is comfortable with that.

    So I take it you were living on Mars during the between 2006 and 2008? That was one of the longest and most vitriolic primary and general election campaigns in history. The candidates went after each other tooth and nail for over 24 months. Anything you didn’t find out about their character after all that, could only have been because you weren’t paying any attention. Well that is your problem. That’s why we put the candidates through that torture, if you choose to ignore it, its too late after the fact.

    Obots want more government secrecy.

    No, in fact, they don’t. ‘Obots’ in general want respect for the Constitution and the Law of the land.

    Birth Certificates have nothing to do what-so-ever with government secrecy. They are private documents. Likewise school records, marriage records, passports records, etc. have nothing to do with government secrecy. Protection of the integrity of those records is not a government secrecy issue, it is a personal privacy issue.

    If you are even peripherally interested in reducing government secrecy, what the heck are you doing rabbiting on about the birth certificate? Why aren’t you accosting all those conservative Congressmen and Senators that are blocking the implementation of Obama’s transparency initiatives instead of wasting you time on trivial stuff that has nothing to do with the Government?

    He made campaign promises to make Government processes more transparent by making it possible to identify lobbyists. His initiative to establish a central database to record lobbyists has been stymied by the ‘loyal opposition’. Why aren’t you out hammering Boehner and his pals on that issue? What does Obama’s birth certificate have to do with that?

    Nothing. It has NOTHING to do with it. You claim to want a transparent Government, but you are being deceived by the very people that will be “inconvenienced” by that transparency into directing your attention elsewhere. Who is screaming the loudest about these distractions (and not just the birth certificate)? Certainly Rupert Murdoch doesn’t want it, it will cramp his (Faux News) style. The Koch brothers don’t want a transparent Government, somebody might trace their fingerprints in all the Wall Street payoffs.

    Wake up, for pity’s sake, and think about it. If, as you say, you are concerned about Government secrecy, consider who is distracting you from paying attention to issues about that, and how they have got you tied up in knots about trivia that has absolutely nothing to do with Government secrecy.

    Think about it, please.

    The Koch brothers don’t want that lobbyist database, it will cramp their style. Ruper Murdoch doesn’t want that lobbyist database.

  244. avatar
    Keith October 17, 2011 at 11:37 pm #

    Bad editing at the end there, sorry.

  245. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 17, 2011 at 11:42 pm #

    foreigner:
    I’m surprised that apparently no-one even did get the idea to ask Obama
    to allow it. He did already release the document, so why would he not
    allow examination of it’sauthenticity ?
    I’m not so much interested in the birther thing, since Obama’s loyalty to USA
    hardly depends on his birthplace.Just an ancient law without actual relevance.
    But it’s the general problem of whether election candidates should tell us what they
    are planning. And whether citizens, journalists may even ask.
    What would the coming president do in a 1962-Cuba-like crisis ?
    What in another financial meltdown ? How much would he increase the debt ?
    The candidates won’t tell us. And the population is comfortable with that.

    Obots want more government secrecy.

    You claim not to be interested in the birther stuff and yet that’s what you’ve been saying over and over again. What does a birth certificate he’s already shown more times than any previous president showed any of their documents have to do with how he would react in certain situations.

    Okay you want to make up what you determine your opposition wants then we get to do it for you. Foreigner wants a total invasion of your privacy. He wants to know what you hide in your sock drawer, where you ladies keep your tampons and who you lost your virginity to.

  246. avatar
    nbc October 17, 2011 at 11:47 pm #

    foreigner: Obots want more government secrecy.

    That’s a very ignorant comment.

  247. avatar
    nbc October 17, 2011 at 11:48 pm #

    Daniel: It’s not up[ to him. It’s not his document.

    He can grant a third party the right to get a certified copy. But he does not have the right to have the document inspected.

  248. avatar
    Keith October 18, 2011 at 12:13 am #

    nbc: He can grant a third party the permission right to get a certified copy. But he does not have the right to have the document inspected.

    FIFY

  249. avatar
    nbc October 18, 2011 at 12:32 am #

    Good point Keith

  250. avatar
    G October 18, 2011 at 1:01 am #

    I don’t know what imaginary planet you live on, but during elections, reporters and debate moderators ask candidates all sorts of questions of this type all the time. Always did and always have. You may not like the particular politician’s answers or dodge of an answer, but the questions are asked and responded to and people can judge for themselves, based on those responses, how that will influence their voting decision. Standard process & democracy in play over here, but I guess you wouldn’t understand, since you are a foreigner.

    foreigner: But it’s the general problem of whether election candidates should tell us what they
    are planning. And whether citizens, journalists may even ask.
    What would the coming president do in a 1962-Cuba-like crisis ?
    What in another financial meltdown ? How much would he increase the debt ?
    The candidates won’t tell us. And the population is comfortable with that.

  251. avatar
    Horus October 18, 2011 at 1:06 am #

    foreigner: I’m surprised that apparently no-one even did get the idea to ask Obama
    to allow it.

    you’re surprised because you’re a moron.

  252. avatar
    Jamese777 October 18, 2011 at 2:03 am #

    foreigner: Ruemmler

    One more time. If anyone wants to see a certified copy of Barack Obama’s birth certificate, all they have to do is convince a judge that they have a “tangilbe interest” in seeing that document and convince a judge to issue a court order for it.

    Also, I am certain that the State of Hawaii would honor a congressional subpoena for Obama’s birth certificate. Any committee chairperson of any committee of Congress can issue a congressional subpoena. Thus far no member of Congress has requested that such a congressional subpoena be issued.

    Finally, as the only other person to actually have a chance to be elected president, Senator John McCain, the only other candidate to receive Electoral College votes would have standing to sue Obama for depriving him of the presidency by being an ineligible candidate who received a majority of the electoral votes illegally.
    Senator John McCain did not choose to sue Barack Obama.

    There is no “government secrecy” involved.

  253. avatar
    foreigner October 18, 2011 at 2:10 am #

    I was obviously asking to ask Obama to allow/provide access voluntary,
    not by legal force. It was mentioned above that he could access his
    record, if he wanted. (or presumably authorize others to see and videotape it)

  254. avatar
    foreigner October 18, 2011 at 2:25 am #

    can we please have the planned federal budgets for 2014
    of the candidates ?

    expectation values of the amounts assigned to the most important sectors

  255. avatar
    dunstvangeet October 18, 2011 at 3:18 am #

    Foreigner, Obama has done more than what is reasonable to accomindate the birthers…

    This is the narrative…

    These rumors first start, and the birthers come out and say, “If he just releases his birth certificate, these rumors would go away.” Obama releases his “official Hawaii State Birth Certificate”. He scans this into the computer and posts it on his Campaign Website, and emails it to various news organizations. (Only a minor redaction on the number because he couldn’t get anybody on the phone to actually tell him if the number was anything more than a file number). He also invites various news organization to come to Chicago and take a look at the physical copy. One organization took him up on the offer, and photographed the birth certificate, posted their findings on the Internet…

    The birthers said, “It’s not a real birth certificate. Anybody can get a birth certificate that says that they were born in Hawaii even if they weren’t. And even if it wasn’t a forgery, it doesn’t matter anyways since he was born to a foreign father and therefore is ineligible no matter what.”

    Obama and the Hawaii Department of Health then took extra care, refuting every one of the birthers claims, having the Department of Health directly say that it is “a valid Hawaii State Birth Certificate,” and that someone cannot get one that says that they were born in Hawaii, if they were not born in Hawaii under Hawaiian law. The birthers said, “It doesn’t matter. We’ll use a extreme case where we actually have proof, and then theorize that this happens all the time! Furthermore, the Hawaii Department of Health could have just been fooled by an 17-year-old girl whose apparent sole interest was in getting her son to be eligible for the Presidency in the vein hope that nearly 50 years later, her son would be elected to the Presidency.”

    The birthers then started saying, “If he just released the long-form, this would all go away.” Obama finally asks the Hawaii Department of Health to make an exception and release the longform. He releases the complete letter, along with the HawaiI Department of Health response, and the two long-form birth certificates that he recieves. He further copies the birth certificate onto plain paper, to give each member of the White House Press Corp their own, and he scans it into the computer, and posts it on the official White House Website. He then stands in front of the cameras on National TV, and holds up the birth certificate, allowing the reporters to touch it, and in fact WND’s own reporter said that he actually touched it and that satisfied him…

    The birthers say, “It’s a forgery! It’s not real! Normal computer-generated things are obvious evidence of forgery, even though the reporters actually touched it, and the Hawaii Department of Health directly says that it’s an actual birth certificate. Plus, anybody can get one of those, and it doesn’t matter anyways because Obama is ineligible because we read something into the law that no reputable constitutional law expert found!”

    Now, the birthers are saying, “If he just does this one more thing, it will all be over!” Should we believe them when they said the exact same thing multiple times before, and Obama eventually complied with them?

  256. avatar
    Daniel October 18, 2011 at 3:57 am #

    foreigner:
    I was obviously asking to ask Obama to allow/provide access voluntary,
    not by legal force. It was mentioned above that he could access his
    record, if he wanted. (or presumably authorize others to see and videotape it)

    You still don’t get it do you…

    Would it help if I typed slower and used smaller words?

    It doesn’t matter if Obama wants to “allow” others to see it or not. It’s not his document, or his decision.

    Try to keep up, won’t you?

  257. avatar
    The Magic M October 18, 2011 at 4:36 am #

    foreigner: He did already release the document, so why would he not
    allow examination of it’s authenticity ?

    Because he has no reason to cater to the demands of a fringe minority.
    If it became a big issue again, like when Trump started his crapalooza, maybe he would.
    However it would not change anything, as birthers would simply go “the examiner/judge was bought/threatened/is part of the conspiracy”.
    Or they would retreat to “even if the BC wasn’t tampered with, it doesn’t mean it states the truth, we want proof the BC doesn’t contain wrong data, let’s see the hospital records – and where are the Kapiolani people who witnessed his birth” etc.

  258. avatar
    foreigner October 18, 2011 at 4:52 am #

    you also said this before he released the longform.
    Still he did it, although there was “no reason”.
    Why ? Because the dismissing actions were not
    successful -even counterproductive- and the “fringe minority” of
    birth doubters grew to 25% of the population !
    There is also “no reason” to tell us anything about
    his political plans ? He may be losing in the polls…

    And the release did change things. The % of birth doubters
    went down a lot.

  259. avatar
    foreigner October 18, 2011 at 4:58 am #

    just searching google headlines :

    CNN Poll: Quarter doubt Obama was born in U.S. – 4 Aug 2010
    Poll: 51 percent of GOP primary voters think Obama born abroad …15 Feb 2011
    Poll shows 3 percent now think Obama born abroad – CNN Political …5 May 2011 … (CNN)

  260. avatar
    Keith October 18, 2011 at 6:08 am #

    foreigner:
    (or presumably authorize others to see and videotape it)

    NO!.You are being willfully ignorant on this subject.

    OBAMA is the ONLY person who is not an authorized employee of the Hawai’ian Department of Health who can see the original, archive document. That is STATE LAW in place long before you started asking stupid questions about these red herring wild goose chases! (yes I know I’m mixing metaphors – live with it).

    What part of that do you not understand?

    He can grant permission for someone else to get a certified copy – and indeed that is essentially what he did when he asked that such a copy be produced and flown back for imaging and publication.

    He has no say over who can see the original. That is controlled 100% by Hawai’ian State Law. Hawai’i ‘owns’ the document, not Obama. Their law is the controlling law. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

  261. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater October 18, 2011 at 7:43 am #

    foreigner:
    just searching google headlines :

    CNN Poll: Quarter doubt Obama was born in U.S. – 4 Aug 2010
    Poll: 51 percent of GOP primary voters think Obama born abroad …15 Feb 2011
    Poll shows 3 percent now think Obama born abroad – CNN Political …5 May 2011 … (CNN)

    So by what you just posted the amount of doubters has gone down as time went by so there’s no need to address this ad nauseum

  262. avatar
    The Magic M October 18, 2011 at 7:48 am #

    > and the “fringe minority” of birth doubters grew to 25% of the population

    No, the “fringe minority” are the birthers, by which I mean people who don’t just doubt where Obama was born, but claim there is a vast conspiracy afoot which includes all of Congress, the military, the Hawaiian authorities, Kapiolani hospital, the Kenyan government (which of course will make no official statement Obama was born there), the courts, all Constitutional law experts (rejecting Vattelism) etc.

    That a significant minority of people can be mislead to doubt certain things they don’t know for sure is nothing new.
    I have no idea where my chancellor was born (because I never bothered to look it up), that doesn’t mean if she provides a birth certificate to the public that I would accuse her birth state of forging it, or her of forging it, or whatever else crapola you’re slingin’ today.

    > Still he did it, although there was “no reason”.

    That sounds a bit like the old birther Catch-22 – “show it, show it! … now why did you do that, you didn’t have to show it…”.

    > Because the dismissing actions were not successful

    Yes, because Trump proved that talking a lot of uninformed crap about “long form birth certificates” can mislead enough people to warrant a clarification.
    Aren’t you sad that none of the Vattelism or “he forged it!” is able to do the same?

    > There is also “no reason” to tell us anything about his political plans ?

    I don’t think we’re debating his politics here, are we?

    > And the release did change things. The % of birth doubters went down a lot.

    It’s kinda cynical to first misinform the public about what a “real birth certificate” is and then make claims based on the result of that misinformation.

    But you’ve got to realize that the only “birthers” left are those who are ignorant of the LFBC publication (those are likely the 3% or so that are still not convinced he’s American born) and the crazy fringe hardcore birthers (the “actual birthers”) who wouldn’t be convinced if Obama released all his records and had SCOTUS and Jesus himself confirm he’s eligible.

  263. avatar
    The Magic M October 18, 2011 at 8:30 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: there’s no need to address this ad nauseum

    I usually don’t spell-correct other people, but you’re using the birther misspelling here. It’s “ad nauseam”. No need to repeat any mistake the birfers make. 😉

  264. avatar
    foreigner October 18, 2011 at 10:14 am #

    Keith, I’d want an independent confirmation of this before I believe it.
    If he brings someone of his trust and they want to see and photograph the document
    together this should be the same.
    Or else Obama himself could videotape it.
    Or require Hawaii to videotape it without him having to fly to Hawaii.
    See also, what Ellen and Tarrant(?) wrote above.

  265. avatar
    foreigner October 18, 2011 at 10:15 am #

    also the Orly trial and the reason given by the judge would make no sense,
    if only Obama himself could view it

  266. avatar
    El Diablo Negro October 18, 2011 at 10:19 am #

    foreigner:
    Keith, I’d want an independent confirmation of this before I believe it.
    If he brings someone of his trust and they want to see and photograph the document
    together this should be the same.
    Or else Obama himself could videotape it.
    Or require Hawaii to videotape it without him having to fly to Hawaii.
    See also, what Ellen and Tarrant(?) wrote above.

    What part of “it is against the law” that you do not understand?

  267. avatar
    Majority Will October 18, 2011 at 10:44 am #

    El Diablo Negro: What part of “it is against the law” that you do not understand?

    Apparently all of it. Birthers, foreign and domestic, have proven time and again that they have no respect for U.S. law.

    It’s a pathetic, ridiculous and desperate little troll. Replying to it only feeds its pathos.

    This troll has already shown its motivation is an obsessive and loathsome interest in political dirt to use against the President.

  268. avatar
    The Magic M October 18, 2011 at 10:55 am #

    foreigner: Or else Obama himself could videotape it.
    Or require Hawaii to videotape it without him having to fly to Hawaii.

    Why, to see how suddenly birthers become “forensic video analysis experts” and declare MPEG-4 artifacts to be signs of forgery?
    Or will they just invoke the truthers’ “top notch CGI” argument why we actually didn’t see two commercial airplanes flying into the WTC but rather cruise missiles or remotely controlled military planes hidden under computer graphics?

  269. avatar
    Rickey October 18, 2011 at 11:06 am #

    foreigner:
    He may be losing in the polls…

    You wish.

    New poll from Time magazine:

    Obama 48% Romney 44%
    Obama 51% Perry 40%
    Obama 50% Cain 38%

    http://pollingreport.com/wh12gen.htm

  270. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 18, 2011 at 11:15 am #

    foreigner: Keith, I’d want an independent confirmation of this before I believe it.If he brings someone of his trust and they want to see and photograph the documenttogether this should be the same.Or else Obama himself could videotape it.Or require Hawaii to videotape it without him having to fly to Hawaii.See also, what Ellen and Tarrant(?) wrote above.

    How many other Presidents have you confirmed their birth certificates?

  271. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 18, 2011 at 11:16 am #

    El Diablo Negro: What part of “it is against the law” that you do not understand?

    The part where Judge Dredd walks in and starts shouting LAWWW in everyone’s ears.

  272. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 18, 2011 at 11:20 am #

    The Magic M: Why, to see how suddenly birthers become “forensic video analysis experts” and declare MPEG-4 artifacts to be signs of forgery?Or will they just invoke the truthers’ “top notch CGI” argument why we actually didn’t see two commercial airplanes flying into the WTC but rather cruise missiles or remotely controlled military planes hidden under computer graphics?

    Actually i think the cruise missile conspiracy theory had to do with the Pentagon. The theory about the WTC was that it was a controlled demolition or even that the planes were replaced and the “real” planes were abandoned over the ocean. I think just seeing the video of the BC would be too boring I’d expect someone to Michael Bay it up.

  273. avatar
    Majority Will October 18, 2011 at 11:26 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): I think just seeing the video of the BC would be too boring I’d expect someone to Michael Bay it up.

    . . . in yet another sequel to “National Treasure”.

  274. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 18, 2011 at 11:31 am #

    Majority Will: . . . in yet another sequel to “National Treasure”.

    Please don’t let Nick Cage be in it.

  275. avatar
    El Diablo Negro October 18, 2011 at 12:12 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): I’d expect someone to Michael Bay it up.

    It will transform into a paper robot and shoot spitballs at everyone.

  276. avatar
    The Magic M October 18, 2011 at 1:56 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): I think just seeing the video of the BC would be too boring I’d expect someone to Michael Bay it up.

    As in “Birth Certificate II – Revenge of the Nitrous Queen” and “Birth Certificate III – Dark Side of the Dental Chair”?

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): The part where Judge Dredd walks in and starts shouting LAWWW in everyone’s ears.

    With Dredd, it’s easy because “I AM THE LAW”. Though I don’t think Orly would like how he wouldn’t let her feeneesh. And she wouldn’t get to request reconsideration either. Didn’t Dredd also go “I want to appeal that decision. – (beat) Appeal denied.”? 😉

  277. avatar
    Northland10 October 18, 2011 at 2:31 pm #

    foreigner: stuff…

    Troll, in the dungeon…. thought you ought to know.

    Do not feed the troll.

  278. avatar
    El Diablo Negro October 18, 2011 at 2:49 pm #

    The Magic M: As in “Birth Certificate II – Revenge of the Nitrous Queen” and “Birth Certificate III – Dark Side of the Dental Chair”?

    Or those two inbred brother/cousins “Birth Boys” and “Birth Boys II”

  279. avatar
    Obsolete October 18, 2011 at 8:35 pm #

    Foreigner,
    Lucky for you the State of Hawaii has confirmed Obama’s birth certificate is genuine. (check their website).
    If you believe that Hawaii might have placed a fake one in their files, then you might as well give up all hope now, because you can never prove it and they will get away with it.
    There is nothing you can do about it.

  280. avatar
    JoZeppy October 19, 2011 at 2:30 pm #

    While slightly off topic, I didn’t see it mentioned here…but yesterday, Judge Lamberth gave Orly the double whammy, denying her Motion for Recon in Asture, and granting the governemnt’s motion to dismiss Ruemmler (even before the Government had a chance to file their Reply).

  281. avatar
    JoZeppy October 19, 2011 at 2:38 pm #

    And in other news, Sven is peddling his “unaccompanied child/abandoned child” b.s. on Orly site, with a similar reaction:

    dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    October 19th, 2011 @ 5:31 am
    this is an absolutely new story with no basis in fact. Desparate attempt to make up something

    If Orly is saying that an attempt to make something up is desparate….then you know you’ve realy fallen off the cart.

  282. avatar
    Northland10 October 19, 2011 at 2:53 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    And in other news, Sven is peddling his “unaccompanied child/abandoned child” b.s. on Orly site, with a similar reaction:

    October 19th, 2011 @ 5:31 am
    this is an absolutely new story with no basis in fact. Desparate attempt to make up something

    If Orly is saying that an attempt to make something up is desparate….then you know you’ve realy fallen off the cart.

    She knocked him down last time he tried to bring it up to Orly. I sometimes wonder if she avoids the Indonesia meme because it is really Berg’s thing and she does not want to be seen as using his stuff (except when she does). Lack of evidence has never stopped her from making it up.

  283. avatar
    Todd_Landrum October 19, 2011 at 4:35 pm #

    Northland10: She knocked him down last time he tried to bring it up to Orly.I sometimes wonder if she avoids the Indonesia meme because it is really Berg’s thing and she does not want to be seen as using his stuff (except when she does).Lack of evidence has never stopped her from making it up.

    You’re mixing apples and oranges.

    Orly insists a person cannot live in Hawaii and be issued a pre-1973 SSN with a CT prefix because they do not live in CT. A child in the Federal foster care system with jurisdiction in CT, but living with a relative in HI would make a plausible explanation for a pre-1973 SSN CT prefix.

    Yet, Orly refuses to run a google search on unaccompanied minors in Federal foster care living with relatives in another state.

    And Berg cannot phantom the idea Obama was adopted by Soetoro before Barry left for Indonesia. Someday we’ll find out Obama was adopted by Lolo after Lolo and Stanley Ann married and then the adoption was annulled after BHO Sr. returned to Hawaii in 1971.

  284. avatar
    Scientist October 19, 2011 at 4:54 pm #

    Todd_Landrum: Stanley Ann married and then the adoption was annulled after BHO Sr. returned to Hawaii in 1971

    I’m sure everyone will be clamoring for Sven to provide proof, which of course there is none. But there’s a much bigger issue here. WHO CARES?!?! Suppose the President were adopted, SO WHAT? I know many adoptees who are fine people leading productive and positive lives. Not a single decision the President has taken would be any better or worse if he had been adopted.

    The idea that one should judge a 50 year old person by who their parents were or whether or not they were adopted is morally offensive in the extreme.

  285. avatar
    G October 19, 2011 at 5:05 pm #

    Ah Sven… to dream the impossible dream.

    I guess you need to cling to your personal fantasy fiction; otherwise you’ll never get to finish your “Barry and the Pirates” novel.

    Todd_Landrum: Someday we’ll find out Obama was adopted by Lolo after Lolo and Stanley Ann married and then the adoption was annulled after BHO Sr. returned to Hawaii in 1971.

  286. avatar
    Todd_Landrum October 19, 2011 at 5:13 pm #

    Scientist: I’m sure everyone will be clamoring for Sven to provide proof, which of course there is none.But there’s a much bigger issue here.WHO CARES?!?!Suppose the President were adopted, SO WHAT?I know many adoptees who are fine people leading productive and positive lives.Not a single decision the President has taken would be any better or worse if he had been adopted.

    The idea that one should judge a 50 year old person by who their parents were or whether or not they were adopted is morally offensive in the extreme.

    Obviously, Orly cares. She has spent a great deal of time and money trying to piece together Obama’s nativity story and gets sidetracked by false narrative interjected by concerned supporters.

    If Orly would google unaccompanied minors in the Federal foster care system and jurisdiction, then she might understand the reason for a pre-1973 CT SSN for a child living with relatives in HI.

    An adoption doesn’t disqualify Obama from POTUS, but it does explain a sealed an archived OLFBC and a missing page from his birth parents divorce record.

  287. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 19, 2011 at 5:18 pm #

    Todd_Landrum: Obviously, Orly cares. She has spent a great deal of time and money trying to piece together Obama’s nativity story and gets sidetracked by false narrative interjected by concerned supporters.If Orly would google unaccompanied minors in the Federal foster care system and jurisdiction, then she might understand the reason for a pre-1973 CT SSN for a child living with relatives in HI.An adoption doesn’t disqualify Obama from POTUS, but it does explain a sealed an archived OLFBC and a missing page from his birth parents divorce record.

    There is nothing sealed. No one has access to their original records in any state.

  288. avatar
    Rickey October 19, 2011 at 5:23 pm #

    Todd_Landrum:

    Orly insists a person cannot live in Hawaii and be issued a pre-1973 SSN with a CT prefix because they do not live in CT. A child in the Federal foster care system with jurisdiction in CT, but living with a relative in HI would make a plausible explanation for a pre-1973 SSN CT prefix.

    Obama’s SSN was issued in 1976 or 1977.

    The only thing which changed in 1973 was that SSNs began to be issued by the central office instead of a field office. The prefixes did not change. Kenneth Davis-Trapan was born on 12-31-1980 and died in Connecticut on 3-15-1998. His SSN was 042-72-1984, so he had the same prefix which was given to Obama.

    The rest of your note is pure fantasy, of course.

  289. avatar
    Scientist October 19, 2011 at 5:34 pm #

    Todd_Landrum: Obviously, Orly cares. She has spent a great deal of time and money trying to piece together Obama’s nativity story and gets sidetracked by false narrative interjected by concerned supporters.

    Orly CHOSE to do what she did, just like Lindsay Lohan chose to drink and drive and blow off her community service. I have more sympathy for Lindsay because she at least has the excuse of an uncontrollable addiction. What’s Orly’s excuse?

    As far as Orly’s money, since she has never provided an accounting it is impossible to say how her fundraising and expenditures balance out. I suspect that her suckers are footing the bill and she is turning a tidy profit at their expense.

  290. avatar
    Northland10 October 19, 2011 at 5:38 pm #

    Todd_Landrum: An adoption doesn’t disqualify Obama from POTUS,

    You have that much correct. Thus, whether anything is sealed or hidden (for which, you have provided no evidence), is moot as he would still be eligible.

    Since Orly cares, not about the truth of facts, but continuing her “Sisyphean quest,” the fact that your adoption theory may leave Obama eligible would be an instant disqualifier for Orly

    And so we are left with her swan song as “destiny calls and she goes”:

    Hear me now
    Oh thou bleak and unbearable world,
    Thou art base and debauched as can be;
    And a knight with his banners all bravely unfurled
    Now hurls down his gauntlet to thee!

    Man of la Mancha

    Onward to glory, Orly.

  291. avatar
    Rickey October 19, 2011 at 6:14 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    While slightly off topic, I didn’t see it mentioned here…but yesterday, Judge Lamberth gave Orly the double whammy, denying her Motion for Recon in Asture, and granting the governemnt’s motion to dismiss Ruemmler (even before the Government had a chance to file their Reply).

    Orly has now filed a FOIA request with Hillary Clinton, demanding the release of Obama’s passport records.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/69119380/TAITZ-v-HILLARY-CLINTON-Secretary-of-State-FOIA-Request

  292. avatar
    JoZeppy October 19, 2011 at 6:54 pm #

    Rickey: Orly has now filed a FOIA request with Hillary Clinton, demanding the release of Obama’s passport records.http://www.scribd.com/doc/69119380/TAITZ-v-HILLARY-CLINTON-Secretary-of-State-FOIA-Request

    What part of “you can’t documents pretaining to living individuals under FOIA” does Orly fail to understand? Also where exactly in the FOIA statute does she find any authorization for inpsection of original documents? Oh yeah…it doesn’t. Even if she was asking about documents that she was entitled to see, she would only be entitled to get copies. The abject ignorance of this womon knows no limits.

  293. avatar
    G October 19, 2011 at 7:04 pm #

    And of course, the frequent frivolous filer, Mad Orly, will then start filing a chain of lawsuits once the FOIA request is properly denied. I’ve never seen a bigger abuse of our legal system than Orly and her quixotic crap quest.

    JoZeppy: What part of “you can’t documents pretaining to living individuals under FOIA” does Orly fail to understand? Also where exactly in the FOIA statute does she find any authorization for inpsection of original documents? Oh yeah…it doesn’t. Even if she was asking about documents that she was entitled to see, she would only be entitled to get copies. The abject ignorance of this womon knows no limits.

  294. avatar
    Rickey October 19, 2011 at 7:16 pm #

    G:
    And of course, the frequent frivolous filer, Mad Orly, will then start filing a chain of lawsuits once the FOIA request is properly denied.I’ve never seen a bigger abuse of our legal system than Orly and her quixotic crap quest.

    We can only hope that her lawsuit is assigned to Judge Lamberth and he finally sees fit to sanction her and perhaps even ban her as a vexatious litigator.

  295. avatar
    JoZeppy October 19, 2011 at 7:37 pm #

    Rickey: We can only hope that her lawsuit is assigned to Judge Lamberth and he finally sees fit to sanction her and perhaps even ban her as a vexatious litigator.

    They will be automatically assigned to him. Related cases always go to the same judge. I do find the amount of patience that judges have for pro-se crack pots a bit frustrating. While I understand giving some leeway to people who can’t afford representation fumbling through the system, serial frivolous filers cost the defendants money, and consume court resources. Add to that, Orly is admitted to practice. She should be held to a higher standard. At a certain point, he needs to say enough, and if you keep filing garbage, it’s going to cost you money.

  296. avatar
    nbc October 19, 2011 at 8:16 pm #

    Orly insists a person cannot live in Hawaii and be issued a pre-1973 SSN with a CT prefix because they do not live in CT. A child in the Federal foster care system with jurisdiction in CT, but living with a relative in HI would make a plausible explanation for a pre-1973 SSN CT prefix.

    Or an even more likely explanation is that Obama’s application was sent to Baltimore where the returning zip coe was misread and forwarded to CT for handling.

    And in fact “Obama’s residence in Hawaii was in zip code 96814 and the zip code for Danbury, CT. is 06814.”
    A minor clerical error and no need for fantastic ‘explanations’ that have no foundation in fact.

  297. avatar
    G October 19, 2011 at 10:57 pm #

    I couldn’t agree more!!!

    JoZeppy: They will be automatically assigned to him. Related cases always go to the same judge. I do find the amount of patience that judges have for pro-se crack pots a bit frustrating. While I understand giving some leeway to people who can’t afford representation fumbling through the system, serial frivolous filers cost the defendants money, and consume court resources. Add to that, Orly is admitted to practice. She should be held to a higher standard. At a certain point, he needs to say enough, and if you keep filing garbage, it’s going to cost you money.

  298. avatar
    Keith October 20, 2011 at 1:03 am #

    foreigner: Or else Obama himself could videotape it.
    Or require Hawaii to videotape it without him having to fly to Hawaii.

    Humor me here. I don’t understand what advantage a videotape copy of the birth event document would provide over the photocopy that you have already seen. Is the information printed on the document likely to change between video frames?

    Do you suspect he is really a Wizard, and the years in Indonesia story is a coverup for his time at Hogwart’s? Are there Harry Potter-esque moving images on it that can only be seen using a Muggle’s video camera? Maybe his cute little feet prints moving around?

    You really need to stop focusing on the piece of paper and pay attention to the information printed on the paper. That information could be handwritten on a table napkin and if the Hawai’i DoH accepted it as effective birth event documentation accurately describing a birth event in Hawai’i, then that is the end of the story.

    It is the INFORMATION displayed on a Birth Certificate that is being CERTIFIED, not the paper, not the format, not the turn of phrase, but the INFORMATION. Where he was born and on what date he was born is the ONLY thing that has ANY relevance what-so-ever to Constitutional eligibility.

  299. avatar
    Keith October 20, 2011 at 1:08 am #

    Scientist: I suspect that her suckers are footing the bill and she is turning a tidy profit at their expense.

    By my account she had gotten two Hawai’ian holidays out of it so far at least.

  300. avatar
    gorefan October 20, 2011 at 1:18 am #

    Orly, Mario and Kerchner are being quoted in a Miami Herald article.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/19/2462473/birthers-ask-is-marco-rubio-eligible.html

    ORYR is posting comments.

  301. avatar
    foreigner October 20, 2011 at 2:36 am #

    Keith,
    as I understood that’s what this is all about. The Taitz court orders.
    She wants to see the thing in the bounded volume, right ?
    And much effort is spent to dismiss it.

    All,
    let them see the documents, if they pay the expenses, why not.
    You want the truth to come out, but you don’t want the data to show it.
    That’s like science without experiments.

  302. avatar
    G October 20, 2011 at 3:15 am #

    You have that very, very backwards.

    Almost ALL the efforts have been the lame and failed fanciful attempts by the birthers.

    Any party brought to court *has* to provide some sort of at least minimal response in their defense. And that is ALL that the defending parties in these frivolous cases have ever done – the MINIMAL necessary to have this garbage easily dismissed.

    And guess what. They were right every time and EVERY single one of these has been dismissed and repeatedly affirmed as such.

    USUALLY the costs for the case have been CHARGED BACK in the rulings to the Birther lawyers for bringing these wastes of time to court in the first place. Therefore, MOST of the cost AND the effort is ALL on the Birthers failed side.

    Get a clue.. maybe that track record should give you a hint that the Birthers are full of nothing but ludicrous BS with no basis nor support in law.

    foreigner: Keith,
    as I understood that’s what this is all about. The Taitz court orders.
    She wants to see the thing in the bounded volume, right ?
    And much effort is spent to dismiss it.

  303. avatar
    The Magic M October 20, 2011 at 5:09 am #

    Keith: That information could be handwritten on a table napkin and if the Hawai’i DoH accepted it as effective birth event documentation accurately describing a birth event in Hawai’i, then that is the end of the story.

    But you see, that is the whole point of the birfer fixation – they say “I believe [in the religious sense] that he was not born in Hawaii, so any documentation to the contrary must be a lie”.
    The “forgery” angle came in because their propaganda masters thought it would gain traction easier than “the information in the BC is incorrect” which takes a wider stretch of the imagination (namely that evidence isn’t really evidence because you can’t rely on anything said by a third party).

    Compare to the moon landing hoaxers. They could limit their claims to “the astronauts and NASA are lying”, but they can get much more response from the gullible by pointing to alleged “inconsistencies” in the photos and videos.

    foreigner: let them see the documents, if they pay the expenses, why not.
    You want the truth to come out, but you don’t want the data to show it.
    That’s like science without experiments.

    Why let Taitz see it? She’s proven to be an outright liar, so would her account be credible? Her “experts” have been proven to be outright liars, so would their “analysis” (in your scenario limited to “looking at the thing”) be credible?
    And if the answer is no, what does truth have to gain by having pathological liars look at the document?

    And since we all know that birthers will also call any independent expert “bought, threatened or an Obama shill”, having one of them look at it does no good either.

    And no, it’s not like “science without experiments”. It’s like saying “all the science telling us Earth is spherical doesn’t mean anything until you send me up in space so I can see for myself”.

  304. avatar
    CaptainAmerica October 20, 2011 at 6:11 am #

    Rickey: Obama’s SSN was issued in 1976 or 1977.

    Prove it!

    The people who told Orly that Catholic Social Services of Connecticut filed for Obama’s SSN in 1976, 1977 are the concerned supporters who told her Obama’s SSN is invalid because he never lived in Connecticut.

    Google unaccompanied minor federal foster care jurisdiction for background information. Click

  305. avatar
    Keith October 20, 2011 at 6:30 am #

    foreigner: Keith,
    as I understood that’s what this is all about. The Taitz court orders.
    She wants to see the thing in the bounded volume, right ?
    And much effort is spent to dismiss it.

    What is what all about? Your reply is completely irrelevant to the question to the question.

    Please, for crying out loud, just explain what Obama or anyone else making a video tape of the document has to do with Orly wanting to see the physical document in the bound volume? The two concepts are mutually exclusive, a video is not the physical document.

    It is AGAINST THE LAW for anyone other than Obama and authorized DoH personnel to view the physical document. That is why they make certified copies. A video is not a certified copy.

    All,
    let them see the documents, if they pay the expenses, why not.

    Because it is AGAINST THE LAW It cannot be put more clearly than that. It has nothing to do with expenses. It has to do with upholding the law, which they are sworn to uphold.

    You want the truth to come out, but you don’t want the data to show it.

    The truth has already come out and the ‘data’ to prove it has been shown. Officially, unarguably, authoritatively, fully, and beyond any reasonable doubt. End of story.

    That’s like science without experiments.

    Wrong. Your demands are like demanding an experiment to prove that the sun appeared over the eastern horizon on the morning of June 10, 1973.

    Only when the prove is provided, you claim that maybe it was not the sun on that day, maybe it was a comet that took the suns place for 24 hours. Or something. But why shouldn’t you demand that every astrophysicist in the world stop what they are doing and prove to your personal satisfaction that it was in fact the sun, not a comet. And don’t forget to be available to do that for Orly, and Mario, and Leo, and 300million plus other doubtful folks.

  306. avatar
    Keith October 20, 2011 at 6:32 am #

    Keith: What is what all about? Your reply is completely irrelevant to the question to the question.

    Bad keyboarding skills.

    Shoulda been:

    What is what all about? Your reply is completely irrelevant to the question.

  307. avatar
    Majority Will October 20, 2011 at 7:16 am #

    “You want the truth to come out, but you don’t want the data to show it.”

    Typical birther b.s. and an illogical, weak and pathetic attempt at a trap.

    This is (yet another reason) why you should ignore the idiotic birther bigot troll with the same script parroting birther cesspools with no respect for our laws.

    This a lonely fool sadly playing people for scraps of attention with dimwitted demands over and over and over and over again.

  308. avatar
    Majority Will October 20, 2011 at 7:22 am #

    CaptainAmerica: Prove it!

    The people who told Orly that Catholic Social Services of Connecticut filed for Obama’s SSN in 1976, 1977 are the concerned supporters who told her Obama’s SSN is invalid because he never lived in Connecticut.

    Google unaccompanied minor federal foster care jurisdiction for background information.

    Sven:

    Speaking of “Prove It!” . . .

    dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:33 am


    that is a complete BS

    Obama was never a foster child

    
by the way, where is his Indonesian citizenship documentation?

    Where is proof, that he returned to US as an Indonesian citizen in 1971? show me a shred of evidence of what you are claiming

    Orly is calling you a liar, Sven.

  309. avatar
    The Magic M October 20, 2011 at 7:51 am #

    Keith: That is why they make certified copies. A video is not a certified copy.

    But it shows the goalpost moving in broadest daylight.

    If Obama had shown X, birthers would’ve said “it’s not official, we want a certified copy”.
    Now Obama showed a certified copy, birthers go “we don’t believe in that, shows us X”.
    (X being all kinds of non-official, non-authenticated BS, such as, alternatively, “Obama’s hospital souvenir BC he talks about in his book”, “a video of the original vault document”, “hospital records showing he was born there”)

    What do you want to bet that if the Kapiolani records still existed and were shown, birthers would either go “no-one has authenticated those” or “we want forensic examination”? 1 dollar against a billion? Too risky.

    The whole point is that birthers are playing a trick game.
    They *say* they want to see X, then Y, then Z, … as if magically at some point they’d go “OK, this proves it”. Which is where the dishonest “if you were interested in the truth, you’d ask for the same” claim comes from.
    They *mean* however only that “we want to see X, then Y, then Z, … in the hope that one of them does not exist or looks forged or contains ’embarrassing’ information, but we would never accept any of these as final”.

    I.e. while pretending to simply want “final proof”, in fact they’re only interested in proof of negative.

    Which makes it doubly ironic for “foreigner” to compare this with science.
    Birtherism is religion – “we’re looking for proof God exists but don’t care about proof he doesn’t exist”.
    Obotism is science – “we’re looking at all the evidence, and if it conclusively shows A to be true, we accept that”.

    If Birtherism were science, they’d try to prove he was born in Kenya, not demand a 1,001st proof he was born in Hawaii while ignoring the previous 1,000 proofs.

    And don’t even get me started about birthers and projection…

  310. avatar
    Rickey October 20, 2011 at 8:04 am #

    CaptainAmerica:

    Prove it!

    The people who told Orly that Catholic Social Services of Connecticut filed for Obama’s SSN in 1976, 1977 are the concerned supporters who told her Obama’s SSN is invalid because he never lived in Connecticut.

    The people? You now have convinced yourself that your multiple sock puppets are really different people? I hope that you get the help that you obviously need.

    As for proof, go to the SSN Validator site, enter Obama’s SSN and you’ll see that it was issued in 1976 or 1977, when he was 15 or 16, which is the age range when most young people got their SSN in those days.

    http://www.ssnvalidator.com/default.aspx

  311. avatar
    CaptainAmerica October 20, 2011 at 8:04 am #

    Majority Will: Orly is calling you a liar, Sven.

    Orly is in a courageous fight to save our Constitution. If she wants to call me a liar, then it’s okay with me.

    Aside from that, Orly has indicated to me, on other threads, she is aware of Barry Soetoro’s enrollment in St. Francis Assisi, Jakarta, Indonesia Class Photo

    At this time, Barry Soetoro, born Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu, HI, is enrolled as the son of Lolo Soetoro, Indonesian National. Only an Obot would deny Barry’s Indonesian nationality with this evidence available.

    Plus, you have motive for placing a forged OLFBC in the Hawaiian archives. Orly should mention motive in her court filings.

  312. avatar
    CaptainAmerica October 20, 2011 at 8:11 am #

    Rickey: The people? You now have convinced yourself that your multiple sock puppets are really different people? I hope that you get the help that you obviously need.

    As for proof, go to the SSN Validator site, enter Obama’s SSN and you’ll see that it was issued in 1976 or 1977, when he was 15 or 16, which is the age range when most young people got their SSN in those days.

    http://www.ssnvalidator.com/default.aspx

    Well, that proves it. And the HI AG and the HI DoH certifying Obama’s COLB is all the proof we need, as well.

    With this type of thinking, the US Government should fire all of the their auditors, inspector generals, forensic accountants, etc …

    We’ll just take people’s word for it and save a ton of money on auditing, inspecting and authenticating the veracity of information provided by really, really important people.

  313. avatar
    Majority Will October 20, 2011 at 8:12 am #

    The Magic M: But it shows the goalpost moving in broadest daylight.

    If Obama had shown X, birthers would’ve said “it’s not official, we want a certified copy”.
    Now Obama showed a certified copy, birthers go “we don’t believe in that, shows us X”.
    (X being all kinds of non-official, non-authenticated BS, such as, alternatively, “Obama’s hospital souvenir BC he talks about in his book”, “a video of the original vault document”, “hospital records showing he was born there”)

    What do you want to bet that if the Kapiolani records still existed and were shown, birthers would either go “no-one has authenticated those” or “we want forensic examination”? 1 dollar against a billion? Too risky.

    The whole point is that birthers are playing a trick game.
    They *say* they want to see X, then Y, then Z, … as if magically at some point they’d go “OK, this proves it”. Which is where the dishonest “if you were interested in the truth, you’d ask for the same” claim comes from.
    They *mean* however only that “we want to see X, then Y, then Z, … in the hope that one of them does not exist or looks forged or contains embarrassing’ information, but we would never accept any of these as final”.

    I.e. while pretending to simply want “final proof”, in fact they’re only interested in proof of negative.

    Which makes it doubly ironic for “foreigner” to compare this with science.
    Birtherism is religion – “we’re looking for proof God exists but don’t care about proof he doesn’t exist”.
    Obotism is science – “we’re looking at all the evidence, and if it conclusively shows A to be true, we accept that”.

    If Birtherism were science, they’d try to prove he was born in Kenya, not demand a 1,001st proof he was born in Hawaii while ignoring the previous 1,000 proofs.

    And don’t even get me started about birthers and projection…

    I think the underlying (and for some, primary) motivation for many birthers is to find dirt, something embarrassing, any ignominious scrap to discredit, delegitimize and undermine the President.

    They aren’t smart enough to argue policy so they go for the soap opera.

    Many birthers are simple minded gawkers.

    The birther con artists take advantage of them for profit.

  314. avatar
    Majority Will October 20, 2011 at 8:14 am #

    CaptainAmerica: Orly is in a courageous fight to save our Constitution. If she wants to call me a liar, then it’s okay with me.

    Aside from that, Orly has indicated to me, on other threads . . .

    Prove it, Sven. And your many hallucinations don’t count.

  315. avatar
    Majority Will October 20, 2011 at 8:18 am #

    CaptainAmerica: Well, that proves it. And the HI AG and the HI DoH certifying Obama’s COLB is all the proof we need, as well.

    With this type of thinking, the US Government should fire all of the their auditors, inspector generals, forensic accountants, etc …

    We’ll just take people’s word for it and save a ton of money on auditing, inspecting and authenticating the veracity of information provided by really, really important people.

    That’s pretty funny coming from a delusional birther with zero authority or credibility whatsoever.

    You’re a bad joke, Sven. Even hardcore birthers on Free Republic laugh at you or ignore you entirely which obviously bruises your fragile ego.

    Orly has no patience for your fiction. OUCH!

  316. avatar
    Rickey October 20, 2011 at 10:20 am #

    CaptainAmerica:

    We’ll just take people’s word for it and save a ton of money on auditing, inspecting and authenticating the veracity of information provided by really, really important people.

    No, we accept the certified records from any of the 50 states as proof, pursuant to the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, a document which you claim to love so dearly. Article IV, Section 1. Look it up.

  317. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 20, 2011 at 10:30 am #

    CaptainAmerica: Well, that proves it. And the HI AG and the HI DoH certifying Obama’s COLB is all the proof we need, as well.With this type of thinking, the US Government should fire all of the their auditors, inspector generals, forensic accountants, etc …We’ll just take people’s word for it and save a ton of money on auditing, inspecting and authenticating the veracity of information provided by really, really important people.

    Yep Sven this is all the proof we need which is more proof than any previous President has shown.

  318. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 20, 2011 at 10:36 am #

    CaptainAmerica: Orly is in a courageous fight to save our Constitution. If she wants to call me a liar, then it’s okay with me.Aside from that, Orly has indicated to me, on other threads, she is aware of Barry Soetoro’s enrollment in St. Francis Assisi, Jakarta, Indonesia Class PhotoAt this time, Barry Soetoro, born Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu, HI, is enrolled as the son of Lolo Soetoro, Indonesian National. Only an Obot would deny Barry’s Indonesian nationality with this evidence available. Plus, you have motive for placing a forged OLFBC in the Hawaiian archives. Orly should mention motive in her court filings.

    Not an official government document. It’s just a private school form. There is no official Indonesian adoption forms and by their own laws it would have been almost impossible.. 1. Indonesian law 65 says anyone over the age of 4 could not be adopted. 2. It is against custom in the islamic faith to adopt a child whose father is still living. 3. There is no dual citizenship in Indonesia. 4. The state department even said Lolo didn’t adopt Obama. 5. Let’s not forget the school form you’re clinging to also says he was born in Hawaii.

  319. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 20, 2011 at 10:39 am #

    The Magic M: If Obama had shown X, birthers would’ve said “it’s not official, we want a certified copy”.
    Now Obama showed a certified copy, birthers go “we don’t believe in that, shows us X”.
    (X being all kinds of non-official, non-authenticated BS, such as, alternatively, “Obama’s hospital souvenir BC he talks about in his book”, “a video of the original vault document”, “hospital records showing he was born there”)

    It’s the If you give a mouse a cookie tactic. I’m sure plenty of you here recall that children’s book. Or even the damned giving tree.

  320. avatar
    JoZeppy October 20, 2011 at 10:58 am #

    foreigner: Keith,
    as I understood that’s what this is all about. The Taitz court orders.
    She wants to see the thing in the bounded volume, right ?
    And much effort is spent to dismiss it.

    That’s what she claims….and there really isn’t much effort to a motion to dismiss. It’s really the fastest, easiest, and cheapest way to kill a case.

    foreigner: All,
    let them see the documents, if they pay the expenses, why not.

    Because the law prohibits it. How hard is that to understand? The law says she is not allowed to see the documents. The law applies to everyone, including Orly.

    foreigner: You want the truth to come out, but you don’t want the data to show it.
    That’s like science without experiments.

    The trust is out. You have seen two official documents released from the State of Hawaii. Both documents would be admissable in a court of law. You have the public statements of two administrations from the State of Hawaii. That’s like claiming to want science, but ignoring the experiments that don’t give the results you want.

  321. avatar
    JoZeppy October 20, 2011 at 11:12 am #

    Keith: She was pro se in Hawaii and not on the Hawai’ian Bar. I assume that would save her in this case?

    I haven’t checked the California Rules of Professional Responsibility, but in MD, DC, and the ABA model rules, you can be sanctioned for anything you do that reflects poorly on the profession. Her comments, even as a pro se plaintiff, would qualify, as she proudly slaps the “Esq.” everywhere on her website…the same place where she calls judges, idiots, traitors, and bought off. So I would think, no, her pro se status does not protect her in anyway.

  322. avatar
    The Magic M October 20, 2011 at 12:30 pm #

    CaptainAmerica: At this time, Barry Soetoro, born Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu, HI, is enrolled as the son of Lolo Soetoro, Indonesian National. Only an Obot would deny Barry’s Indonesian nationality with this evidence available.

    Only a insane person would consider “Indonesian” credible and “born in Hawaii” not credible when appearing on the same document.
    Besides, even if, arguendo, Obama became an Indonesian citizen while in Indonesia, it doesn’t help you a bit. He would still remain a natural born US citizen.
    Unless you take that birther line of argumentation that says Indonesian law trumps the US Constitution and can strip a US citizen of his US citizenship against US law.

    CaptainAmerica: Orly should mention motive in her court filings.

    Crappy allegations without any proof don’t magically become substantial evidence if you attach a “motive” to it.
    If I claim you’re a space goat from Leenboddle IX, that doesn’t gain any credibility by adding that your motive for posing as a human is the fact taxes on Earth are lower than anywhere in the Leedboddle system.

    Majority Will: I think the underlying (and for some, primary) motivation for many birthers is to find dirt, something embarrassing, any ignominious scrap to discredit, delegitimize and undermine the President.

    IMO that belief was the spark that ignited the birther movement. Today, most of it is consumed by open hatred and madness, with only a few “original birthers” still going the old school route of “there’s something embarrassing and he’s fooling everyone”.

  323. avatar
    Joey October 20, 2011 at 12:32 pm #

    CaptainAmerica: Well, that proves it. And the HI AG and the HI DoH certifying Obama’s COLB is all the proof we need, as well.

    With this type of thinking, the US Government should fire all of the their auditors, inspector generals, forensic accountants, etc …

    We’ll just take people’s word for it and save a ton of money on auditing, inspecting and authenticating the veracity of information provided by really, really important people.

    There is no need to take people’s word for it. There is a process for the authentification of documents that has been around for 36 years now.
    So instead of “taking people’s word for it,” the Courts look for a state stamp of certification and the signature of an authorizing official of a state or federal agency. If those two elements exist, a document is “self-authenticating.”

    Under the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rule 902):
    “Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required
    with respect to the following:
    (1) Domestic public documents under seal. A document bearing a seal purporting to be
    that of the United States, or of any state, district, Commonwealth, territory, or
    insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the
    Pacific Islands, or of a political subdivision, department, officer, or agency thereof,
    and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution.”

    The Federal Rules of Evidence as currently constituted have been used in federal courts in this country since 1975.
    If the previous Republican administration in Hawaii with a governor who campaigned for Obama’s opponent and the current Democratic administration in Hawaii with a governor who was Obama’s state campaign manager both say that the document in their possession is authentic, I can’t see any court in the nation not accepting their certifications and in fact, in 131 attempts, no court in the land has ruled that any further authentification is needed.
    Judges understand Rule 902 and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution.

  324. avatar
    Scientist October 20, 2011 at 12:39 pm #

    JoZeppy: That’s like claiming to want science, but ignoring the experiments that don’t give the results you want.

    And of coourse, science is bound by the law and ethical standards, which sometimes preclude doing the simplest or most informative experiment. Vaccine studies would be much quicker and easier if we could deliberately expose a small number of subjects to nasty agents like HIV or anthrax, rather than having to vaccinate a large population and wait for them to be exposed naturally. In fact, we have to counsel everyone in the study about taking preventative countermeasures which reduces the exposure and makes the study that much harder. And, just as the law says that Orly can’t see the documents even if Obama says it’s OK, we can’t deliberately expose patients even if they beg us to.

  325. avatar
    foreigner October 20, 2011 at 12:56 pm #

    the law prohibits it ?
    I doubt it. I don’t know the law, but I’d bet.
    The whole thing makes no sense if the law prohibits it.
    What law,what chapter exactly ?
    I assume you changed the meaning a bit …
    What would be the sense of such a law ?
    And what the penalty if broken ?

    This is not about me, but about those who want to see it, like Taitz.
    I don’t feel that you are addressing my points here.

    You want to forbid it because it makes you feel like a partial,temporary victory over birthers
    (but against clarity and proof and final settlement)

  326. avatar
    Rickey October 20, 2011 at 1:27 pm #

    foreigner:
    the law prohibits it ?
    I doubt it. I don’t know the law, but I’d bet.

    You would lose that bet. I suggest that you read Hawaii’s Motion to Dismiss, which contains all of the legal citations you or anyone else needs.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/64115865/Taitz-v-Fuddy-MTD-1

  327. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 20, 2011 at 1:47 pm #

    foreigner: the law prohibits it ?I doubt it. I don’t know the law, but I’d bet.The whole thing makes no sense if the law prohibits it.What law,what chapter exactly ?I assume you changed the meaning a bit …What would be the sense of such a law ?And what the penalty if broken ?This is not about me, but about those who want to see it, like Taitz.I don’t feel that you are addressing my points here.You want to forbid it because it makes you feel like a partial,temporary victory over birthers(but against clarity and proof and final settlement)

    Yes exactly you don’t know the law and you don’t care to understand it. What sense would there be? Privacy issues why should you be able to access any random person’s personal records? We’re still waiting for you to mail in the original passport and your original IDs. I see you still haven’t yet.

  328. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 20, 2011 at 1:58 pm #

    foreigner: You want to forbid it because it makes you feel like a partial,temporary victory over birthers
    (but against clarity and proof and final settlement)

    I asked you once before but never got an answer: Assume for a second that Taitz was allowed to view the original document and to take video and/or pictures of it. Exactly what would you look for in the video and pictures that would allow you to reach a “final settlement”?

  329. avatar
    Northland10 October 20, 2011 at 2:42 pm #

    foreigner: This is not about me, but about those who want to see it, like Taitz.
    I don’t feel that you are addressing my points here.

    You want to forbid it because it makes you feel like a partial,temporary victory over birthers
    (but against clarity and proof and final settlement)

    They have addressed your points quite often (and if you would read on past posts, for years) but, like a birther, since it was not the answer you wanted, you claim nobody has addressed your points.

    As for letting Taitz see the original records, besides being illegal for the DOH to allow (see the Taitz v. Fuddy MTD for citations if you have not yet read it), it would accomplish nothing since she already decided it was forged. Imagining Orly getting to see the original binder, I can only see a remake of “Red Dragon” where Orly eats the birth record.

  330. avatar
    JoZeppy October 20, 2011 at 3:14 pm #

    foreigner: the law prohibits it ?
    I doubt it. I don’t know the law, but I’d bet.

    and you’d lose that bet….here’s an idea, why don’t you look up the law for yourself rather than speaking out of abject and willful ignorance.

    foreigner: The whole thing makes no sense if the law prohibits it.

    Well, you got one thing right. This whole thing makes no sense…but we are dealing with the Queen of nonsense with Orly.

    foreigner: I assume you changed the meaning a bit …

    Rather than assume, why don’t you just look the law up yourself and find out?

    foreigner: What would be the sense of such a law ?

    Oh, I don’t know….maybe presonal privacy? Maybe they just don’t want every Tom, Dick, and Harry pouring through their files? Does it really matter? It’s the law. Don’t like it? Lobby to change it. But until then, it’s the law.

    foreigner: And what the penalty if broken ?

    You can look that up too.

    foreigner: This is not about me, but about those who want to see it, like Taitz.
    I don’t feel that you are addressing my points here.

    The fact that it is against the law pretty much address it all. Just because someone may want something, doesn’t mean they’re entitled to it. Even Orly Taitz has to comply with the law, just like the rest of us mortals.

    foreigner: You want to forbid it because it makes you feel like a partial,temporary victory over birthers
    (but against clarity and proof and final settlement)

    Again, what point of “the law prohbits it” do you fail to understand. I don’t care about forbidding anything. I care only that the law be applied equally to everyone. Would I find it eternally amusing if the Supreme Court actually took up a birther case and called them nut jobs in an 9-0 opinion? Sure! Will it ever happen? Probably not, because even if they had a case with standing, they would lose at the trial and appelate level, and the Supreme Court would deny cert. Is that “wishing for” anything? No, it is merely an understanding of what the law is and how it actually works, and saying it like it is. You confuse personal desire with simply knowing what the law is, and accurately predicting outcomes based on that.

    You should try that “looking up the law” thing. It might save you from making foolish comments in the future.

  331. avatar
    foreigner October 20, 2011 at 4:30 pm #

    that’s the sort of twisting that I meant.
    I spoke about someone seeing it with Obama’s consent
    which was said here were illegal and nobody objected.
    And now you argue with privacy protection…

  332. avatar
    Scientist October 20, 2011 at 4:45 pm #

    foreigner: I spoke about someone seeing it with Obama’s consent
    which was said here were illegal and nobody objected.

    Do you get the fact that some things are illegal even if the party involved consents? For example suppose you consent to be my slave and sign a contract to that effect. Is the contract legal? No. Similarly an agreement to exchange sex for money is illegal even when the parties involved both want to do so.

    The archived document is not the President’s property. It belongs to and is in the custody of the state of Hawaii. They make the rules, not he. They don’t allow people to come trooping through their archives. I don’t allow people to come trooping through my house. Same thing.

  333. avatar
    Keith October 20, 2011 at 5:42 pm #

    CaptainAmerica: Orly is in a courageous fight to save our Constitution. If she wants to call me a liar, then it’s okay with me.

    How do you know that Orly isn’t a KGB sleeper agent?

  334. avatar
    y_p_w October 20, 2011 at 5:46 pm #

    Scientist:
    The archived document is not the President’s property.It belongs to and is in the custody of the state of Hawaii.They make the rules, not he.They don’t allow people to come trooping through their archives.I don’t allow people tocome trooping through my house.Same thing.

    Although it hasn’t been specifically noted by the State of Hawai’i, from my reading of the law, he could appoint a representative to inspect the document and report back to him on the findings. A representative can be authorized to receive an otherwise private vital document. The 2007 short-form COLB was authorized to be sent to his campaign office. He designated his private attorney to retrieve his specially requested long-form birth certificate.

    Of course he would be insane to designate authority to anyone associated with the birthers. Even if nothing crazy happens to the original file, it probably wouldn’t shut them up. Worst case would be (as suggested) that they do go nuts and decide to damage or even eat the file. Anyone see the FedEx commercial where an executive in a company jumps across a desk, grabs an executive compensation list from a reused sheet of paper, and stuffs it in his mouth.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo5eXKGODIo

  335. avatar
    JoZeppy October 20, 2011 at 6:37 pm #

    foreigner: that’s the sort of twisting that I meant.
    I spoke about someone seeing it with Obama’s consent
    which was said here were illegal and nobody objected.
    And now you argue with privacy protection…

    It is debatable to what extent the State of Hawaii would allow an individual inspect even their physical original. In part, because it generally isn’t done (there’s no reason for it), and no one has to date shown that it is possible, or how the law would be interpreted in this request (would they let you in a room to see it, or just give you a photocopy of the original?).

    Secondly, you do realize that if the State of Hawaii passes a law under the guise of privacy protection, violation of that privacy protection is against the law?

    Thirdly, even if he could, why should the President authorize someone who is blind to anything that doesn’t confirm her personal bias permission to inspect the document? We’re talking about a person who uncritically jumps behind ever Fake Kenyan birth certificate with gusto, irrspectively from where it comes from, or if she had any clue where it came from, but documents, that in any court of the United States whould be acknoweldge as genuine, she flatly rejects?

    Again, why would anyone do anything so monstrously stupid?

  336. avatar
    Scientist October 20, 2011 at 6:42 pm #

    y_p_w: Worst case would be (as suggested) that they do go nuts and decide to damage or even eat the file.

    I’m curious how such requests are normally handled. As I understand it, a large number of records from a given time period are kept in a bound volume. Anyone who wants to see their own original document is handed a volume that will contain many other people’s records which they are not entitled to see.

    As far as someone eating the document, the possibility of records being destroyed in some cataclysmic fire or tsunami or some such disaster must have been considered. I suppose that they would have to reconstruct from secondary sources, which, in the President’s case, would be the certifiied copy residing at the White House.

  337. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 20, 2011 at 7:38 pm #

    foreigner:
    that’s the sort of twisting that I meant.
    I spoke about someone seeing it with Obama’s consent
    which was said here were illegal and nobody objected.
    And now you argue with privacy protection…

    Around and round in circles you go

  338. avatar
    Sef October 20, 2011 at 7:51 pm #

    JoZeppy: Thirdly, even if he could, why should the President authorize someone who is blind to anything that doesn’t confirm her personal bias permission to inspect the document?

    And this even INCLUDES ORLY! If, by some quirk, Orly were allowed to see the original and she confirmed its validity, the other birthers would just say that even she had been “gotten to”. The goalposts would be moved totally off the planet.

  339. avatar
    Expelliarmus October 20, 2011 at 8:24 pm #

    Scientist: Anyone who wants to see their own original document is handed a volume that will contain many other people’s records which they are not entitled to see.

    ?? Why do you believe that individuals are allowed to inspect their own original records? Obviously, an individual can get a certified copy of their own birth certificate when they ask — and we know that in Hawaii that currently means only a certified copy of a computer printout. I believe that somewhere along the line we learned that an individual in Hawaii could also get a non-certified photocopy of the original record, for information purposes, under the state’s freedom of information act.

    But personal inspection of the original? Are you aware of any statutory authority for that?

  340. avatar
    y_p_w October 20, 2011 at 9:00 pm #

    Expelliarmus: ?? Why do you believe that individuals are allowed to inspect their own original records?Obviously, an individual can get a certified copy of their own birth certificate when they ask — and we know that in Hawaii that currently means only a certified copy of a computer printout. I believe that somewhere along the line we learned that an individual in Hawaii could also get a non-certified photocopy of the original record, for information purposes, under the state’s freedom of information act.

    But personal inspection of the original?Areyou aware of any statutory authority for that?

    There have been several quotes from the Hawai’i Attorney General’s office that Obama could himself personally inspect the original. I sort of extrapolated the language that vital records can be accessed by appointed representatives, but that probably hasn’t been tested.

    I think that’s how Hawai’i’s Uniform Information Practices Act has been interpreted, when there is a physical document somewhere as opposed to electronic/database records. I mean – if someone wants to see their birth record but the “original” only exists in an electronic database, I doubt taking a hard drive platter out and showing it to the subject is what the law had in mind.

    http://hawaii.gov/oip/uipa.html#92F21

    [§92F-21] Individual’s access to own personal record. Each agency that maintains any accessible personal record shall make that record available to the individual to whom it pertains, in a reasonably prompt manner and in a reasonably intelligible form. Where necessary the agency shall provide a translation into common terms of any machine readable code or any code or abbreviation employed for internal agency use. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1]

    http://hawaii.gov/oip/uipa.html#92F23

    [92F-23] Access to personal record; initial procedure. Upon the request of an individual to gain access to the individual’s personal record, an agency shall permit the individual to review the record and have a copy made within ten working days following the date of receipt of the request by the agency unless the personal record requested is exempted under section 92F-22. The ten-day period may be extended for an additional twenty working days if the agency provides to the individual, within the initial ten working days, a written explanation of unusual circumstances causing the delay.
    [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1; am L 2000, c 254, §1]

  341. avatar
    y_p_w October 20, 2011 at 9:37 pm #

    Expelliarmus: ?? Why do you believe that individuals are allowed to inspect their own original records?Obviously, an individual can get a certified copy of their own birth certificate when they ask — and we know that in Hawaii that currently means only a certified copy of a computer printout. I believe that somewhere along the line we learned that an individual in Hawaii could also get a non-certified photocopy of the original record, for information purposes, under the state’s freedom of information act.

    But personal inspection of the original?Areyou aware of any statutory authority for that?

    I think that’s the case according to the Hawai’i Office of Information Practices adopted rules.

    http://hawaii.gov/oip/rules.html#27111

    §2-71-11 Informal requests for access to government records; agency response.

    (a) Any person may, during an agency’s regular business hours, submit an informal request for access to records.

    (b) Upon receiving an informal request under this section, an agency shall respond to the request by doing one or more of the following:

    (1) Provide access to any disclosable record requested pursuant to part II of chapter 92F, HRS, in a reasonably timely manner; provided that if the agency will charge the requester $15 or more in fees, pursuant to section 2-71-19, the agency shall inform the person of the amount of fees, or an estimate thereof, before processing the request.

    (2) Deny access to all or any part of the records requested that are confidential under section 92F-13, HRS, or any other law; provided that if the requester disagrees with the agency’s denial, the agency shall advise the requester of the option of submitting a formal request.

    (3) Inform the requester that the agency does not maintain the record; or

    (4) Inform the requester to submit a formal request in accordance with section 2-71-12.

    (c) When a requester is not satisfied with the agency’s response, or failure to respond, to the informal request, the requester may make a formal request for access to records in accordance with section 2-71-12.

    (d) A request that complies with section 2-71-12 shall be treated as a formal request under this chapter, unless otherwise agreed upon by the requester and the agency.

    [Eff FEB 26 1999 ] (Auth: HRS §92F-42) (Imp: HRS §92F-11)

    http://hawaii.gov/oip/rules.html#27112

    §2-71-12 Formal requests for access to government records; contents.

    (a) Any person may, during an agency’s regular business hours, submit a formal request for access to records in accordance with this section.

    (b) A formal request shall be in writing and shall contain the following information:

    (1) Information that would enable the agency to correspond with or contact the requester;

    (2) A reasonable description of the requested record to enable agency personnel to locate it with reasonable effort. The description should include, if known, the record name, subject matter, date, location, and any other additional information that reasonably describes the requested record;

    (3) If applicable, a request for a waiver of fees for searching for, reviewing, or segregating the requested record, when the requester believes that a waiver would serve the public interest in accordance with section 2-71-32; provided that the request states the requester’s identity and other facts that support the request for a waiver of fees; and

    (4) A request to inspect or obtain a copy of the records described and, if applicable, the means by which the requester would like to receive the copy.

    [Eff FEB 26 1999 ] (Auth: HRS §92F-42) (Imp: HRS §92F-11)

    I’m not sure exactly how everything would work. If there is an original certificate in a bound volume, I would think they could have it opened to the required page with a warning to the inspector that he is not to turn the page or attempt to inspect any other pages. If the only means is in an electronic database, I would think that would mean allowing the requestor to see the information on a display and perhaps get a printout.

  342. avatar
    foreigner October 21, 2011 at 2:13 am #

    y_p_w wrote:

    > from my reading of the law, he could appoint a representative to inspect the document
    > and report back to him on the findings

    that makes sense to me.

    but then y_p_w continues:

    > Of course he would be insane to designate authority to anyone associated with the birthers.

    that’s strange. Those are the ones who are interested. Why not let them see the original,
    but let them see the certified copy with the smiley etc. ?
    Given the Corsi book. Given the Taitz trials.

    Why is it “insane” to provide further proof of his disputed birthplace ?
    Unless, of course, you doubt it.

    > Even if nothing crazy happens to the original file, it probably wouldn’t shut them up.

    not all, but most. Like the “truthers” to which the “birthers” are often being compared.
    The government made a faq and the things were explained and the theories examined.
    And wikipedia made a good article.
    While the Corsi-book and recent “experts” who called it a forgery is still missing
    at wikipedia.

    > Worst case would be (as suggested) that they do go nuts

    according to what people write here, they are alrready

    > and decide to damage or even eat the file.

    easy to prevent. They won’t be allowed to.

    ——————————————————–
    JoZeppy, above in this thread (now I found it again in a post by
    y_p_w October 20, 2011 at 9:00 pm)
    it was mentioned that Hawaii already had announced that they
    would allow Obama to inspect it, if he wanted to. (as I understood)
    One person’s privacy cannot be violated by that person himself.
    ——————————————————
    y_p_w again,
    thanks for finding and quoting the Hawaii law texts.
    I think it’s usually just a matter of cost, of effort.
    Obama could be guided to the volume with a muzzle,
    so he can’t eat it, lol and surveilled that he won’t look
    at other records. Or an official could make a video and
    high resolution photos surveilled by Obama with Obama’s camera.
    Obama could then use it for his next comedy or threaten to release it,
    if Trump should candidate as independent or ….
    —————————————————————–

  343. avatar
    Keith October 21, 2011 at 3:02 am #

    foreigner: Why is it “insane” to provide further proof of his disputed birthplace ?

    Because his birthplace is not disputed by sane people.

    foreigner: Obama could be guided to the volume with a muzzle,
    so he can’t eat it, lol and surveilled that he won’t look
    at other records.

    Obama has no interest in viewing the original document. And other people are forbidden by State law.

    foreigner: Or an official could make a video and
    high resolution photos surveilled by Obama with Obama’s camera.

    Again with the video. What is with the video?

    Official have made high resolution photos, they have been hand delivered to the President at the White House, published on the internet and handed around in the press room.

    What is yet another photo going to accomplish?

  344. avatar
    foreigner October 21, 2011 at 6:24 am #

    Keith, the birthers want it. See Taitz,Corsi
    I won’t call them “insane”.
    Obama could become interested during the 2012 campaign.
    Once he had no interest to produce the lfbc, later he had.
    Other people could probably be authorized by Obama to view it,
    see the post from y_p_w.
    The video documents the process, the authenticity of the photo
    Another photo to clarify about the origin of the “anomalies”
    found by Corsi et.al.
    Ahh, but you knew all this, didn’t you ?

  345. avatar
    The Magic M October 21, 2011 at 7:55 am #

    foreigner: that’s strange. Those are the ones who are interested. Why not let them see the original

    Because they will never say “it’s legit” anyway.

    You keep pretending that the madmen among the birthers (which are about 99.9%) would actually accept anything about Obama as “settling the issue”. That’s where there’s dishonesty on your part and madness on the other birfers’ part.

    The only sensible way in a partially sane world would be to show it to an independent examiner.
    Then again this would only make sense if there was a significant interest from sane people (like the one Trump generated).
    Because for birthers, it again makes no sense as they would just call the examiner bought, or threatened, or an Obama supporter, or a combination thereof.

    Again, this is like Flat Earth. You don’t take Flat Earthers to space to prove to them they’re wrong, only to have them reply “yeah, those were impressive CGI effects”.
    You don’t take independent experts to space because no sane person doubts that Earth is spherical.

    And if your only claim is “if there’s nothing to hide, then show it”, well, you could apply that to anything. Show me the documentation that proves Germany started WW2. Show me the documentation that proves GWB signed a certain law. Show me the documentation that proves Australia is really a country. Show me the documentation that proves sugar tastes sweet.
    Which is why “no, you’re not going to get it” is a sane reply, even though in theory yes, it could all be shown to you.

    But showing something to someone who isn’t convincable anyway is a definition of madness.

    Yes, maybe this mad conspiracy really exists, and maybe I own a unicorn that farts glitter, and maybe my chancellor was born male, and maybe this is all a dream.
    But in the sane world, such remote possibilities don’t warrant “the utmost scrutiny”, even if some of them (like the unicorn and the dream thingy) would have enormous consequences if they were true.

  346. avatar
    The Magic M October 21, 2011 at 7:56 am #

    foreigner: Obama could become interested during the 2012 campaign.

    Keep dreaming. 😉

  347. avatar
    Majority Will October 21, 2011 at 8:09 am #

    The Magic M: Keep dreaming.

    Dishonest birthers also pretend they don’t understand the meaning of political enemy.

    They lie by pretending it’s innocent or justifiable curiosity.

    They believe they are justified in lying, breaking the law and promoting sedition because they are in a political war. It’s one of the most disgusting form of dirty politics.

    Birthers are simply anti-American scum and should be treated as such.

  348. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 21, 2011 at 9:34 am #

    foreigner: Keith, the birthers want it. See Taitz,CorsiI won’t call them “insane”.Obama could become interested during the 2012 campaign.Once he had no interest to produce the lfbc, later he had.Other people could probably be authorized by Obama to view it,see the post from y_p_w.The video documents the process, the authenticity of the photoAnother photo to clarify about the origin of the “anomalies”found by Corsi et.al.Ahh, but you knew all this, didn’t you ?

    Yeah I would call both Taitz and Corsi insane. Well at least Taitz. She has been known to distort the truth repeatedly. Corsi is just in it for the money. He even said recently he hopes Obama sticks around so he could write more books.

  349. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 21, 2011 at 9:40 am #

    foreigner: that’s strange. Those are the ones who are interested. Why not let them see the original,
    but let them see the certified copy with the smiley etc. ?
    Given the Corsi book. Given the Taitz trials.
    Why is it “insane” to provide further proof of his disputed birthplace ?
    Unless, of course, you doubt it.

    His birthplace isn’t disputed. No judge, jury, or person in authority disputes he was born in Hawaii. Now there is actual dispute whether President Eisenhower was born in Tyler or Dennison, TX.

    The corsi books are about bilking people out of their money. Corsi himself even hopes Obama gets reelected so he can sell more books. There have been no Taitz trials. She has gotten a preliminary hearing which anyone would get filing a case and they have been thrown out before moving anywhere for lack of standing not to mention merit.

    foreigner: not all, but most. Like the “truthers” to which the “birthers” are often being compared.
    The government made a faq and the things were explained and the theories examined.
    And wikipedia made a good article.
    While the Corsi-book and recent “experts” who called it a forgery is still missing
    at wikipedia.

    Wikipedia is a peer reviewed site. The government has made enough faq especially the state of Hawaii on their DOH website

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

    None of the so-called birther experts have even tried their theories on other documents to make comparisons. Their methods aren’t scientific.

  350. avatar
    Scientist October 21, 2011 at 9:50 am #

    foreigner: Keith, the birthers want it

    Somewhere around 14 million Americans want a job.

    Let me propose the following:

    Obama asks Hawaii to allow the original record to be examined by independent experts(say a panel of 3 chosen by a random draw of the names of members of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners).

    In exchange the do-nothing Republicans in Congress agree to pass Obama’s jobs bill.

    Now that is a win-win.

  351. avatar
    Majority Will October 21, 2011 at 10:50 am #

    Scientist: Somewhere around 14 million Americans want a job.

    Let me propose the following:

    Obama asks Hawaii to allow the original record to be examined by independent experts(say a panel of 3 chosen by a random draw of the names of members of the American Society of Questioned DocumentExaminers).

    In exchange the do-nothing Republicans in Congress agree to pass Obama’s jobs bill.

    Now that is a win-win.

    NICE ! ! !

  352. avatar
    Northland10 October 21, 2011 at 11:14 am #

    foreigner: the birthers want it. See Taitz,Corsi
    I won’t call them “insane”.

    The birthers think they are some critical mass, yet, let’s look at a comparison. It appears that there have been more arrested at OWS protests than the birthers have had at all of their rally’s, combined (and that would mean counting the same birthers multiple times as they attended multiple rallys).

    Either the birthers are a small group, or they are very lazy.

  353. avatar
    G October 21, 2011 at 11:19 am #

    Answer: They are both.

    Northland10: Either the birthers are a small group, or they are very lazy.

  354. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny October 21, 2011 at 11:20 am #

    Keith: How do you know that Orly isn’t a KGB sleeper agent?

    Woken up by Putin to make the Republican party look ridiculous. And she does not even have to know that she is used that way:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/DrOrlyTV#p/u/0/eOsqNfWSnbE

  355. avatar
    Bob J October 21, 2011 at 11:42 am #

    foreigner:
    the law prohibits it ?
    I doubt it. I don’t know the law, but I’d bet.
    The whole thing makes no sense if the law prohibits it.
    What law,what chapter exactly ?
    I assume you changed the meaning a bit …
    What would be the sense of such a law ?
    And what the penalty if broken ?

    This is not about me, but about those who want to see it, like Taitz.
    I don’t feel that you are addressing my points here.

    You want to forbid it because it makes you feel like a partial,temporary victory over birthers
    (but against clarity and proof and final settlement)

    I promised myself I would stop responding to you foreigner, since you make no sense; I am willing to bet you know that. This is about you, because your posts are circular, and even when the law is pointed out, you refuse to believe. Why exactly do you bet against the statutes you have been given, if you don’t know the law?. How exactly does Taitz looking at a document, off limits to the general public ( of which Taitz is a member. Her crazy ain’t special.), provide clarity and proof and final settlement?

    Try to form your answer in the form of an answer. Please. At least show you have a semblance of reading comprehension.

    Maybe you are really a foreigner, but my guess is: you are a bored 15 y/o boy, more smart -ass than smart. It would be easy to prove me wrong. Can you?

  356. avatar
    y_p_w October 21, 2011 at 12:21 pm #

    foreigner:
    that’s strange. Those are the ones who are interested. Why not let them see the original,
    but let them see the certified copywith the smiley etc. ?
    Given the Corsi book. Given the Taitz trials.

    Why is it “insane” to provide further proof of his disputed birthplace ?
    Unless, of course, you doubt it.

    I wouldn’t trust my political enemies – especially not someone without any kind of authority. The Corsi book fizzled and the Taitz trials are going nowhere. Why would he allow either of them to inspect the certificate. Besides that, I doubt anything is “proof” to them. Even if they were given access to it and didn’t damage the original document, I’d be surprised if they didn’t claim that they felt they saw a forgery. That’s been their MO all along.

    Also, the vital records statutes (§338-18(b)) mention inspection of public health records by those with “a direct and tangible interest”, with 13 categories including “A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant”. However, UIPA states that agencies “shall make that record available to the individual to whom it pertains”. That’s more in line with the statements from people in the Hawai’i Attorney General’s office.

  357. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 21, 2011 at 6:17 pm #

    Bob J: It would be easy to prove me wrong. Can you?

    Don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer. I’ve asked him essentially the same question at least two times…..maybe three…..since this thread started and so far…..nada, zip.

  358. avatar
    foreigner October 21, 2011 at 11:52 pm #

    y_p_w wrote:

    > I wouldn’t trust my political enemies – especially not someone without any kind of authority.

    suppose Obama is asked in a debate. He can’t well say : “I don’t trust my political enemies
    so I won’t answer.” Anything that ever he does or says “could” be used against him, but
    usually it’s more likely that it does more good than harm.

    > The Corsi book fizzled and the Taitz trials are going nowhere.

    so it’s just a question of popularity ? The lfbc was only released because Trump and Corsi
    increased the attentition ? Then all the arguments that we hear however are pretty
    irrelevant. It’s also not the kind of arguments that we hear in Courts or Campaigns.

    > Why would he allow either of them to inspect the certificate.

    the same reason why he released the bc. To increase his credibility. To advance in the polls.

    > Besides that, I doubt anything is “proof” to them.

    not all, but most.

    > Even if they were given access to it and didn’t damage the original document,

    Hawaii will be able to protect her documents in a controlled and announced sighting with media-interest,
    don’t you think ?

    > I’d be surprised if they didn’t claim that they felt they saw a forgery. That’s been their MO all along.

    supported by Obama who gave them reason for that. He could have released the lfbc and documented
    it and answered questions in the first place. He did not do a good job, doubts did remain.
    I’m missing a good WH-faq and discussion forum where WH does participate.
    I’m missing the pre-photoshop expemplar in high resolution at the WH webpage, instead we
    got it elsewhere on the web. I’m missing the analysis like it was done here on the WH-webpage
    or even a link.

    > Also, the vital records statutes (§338-18(b)) mention inspection of public health records by those
    > with “a direct and tangible interest”, with 13 categories including “A person or agency acting
    > on behalf of the registrant”. However, UIPA states that agencies “shall make that record available
    > to the individual to whom it pertains”. That’s more in line with the statements from people
    > in the Hawai’i Attorney General’s office.

    in this case the interest should be direct and tangible enough (the president).
    Dismissing only makes sense when Obama requires it. Or when it produces cost, so fees are applied.

  359. avatar
    foreigner October 21, 2011 at 11:59 pm #

    BobJ, it was claimed here that the document could not be legally sighted by others, even if Obama
    allows it. That’s what I wanted to bet against. Do you really still want to bet for that after y_p_w
    posted the statutes ? Doc please confirm my European identity and internet history after googling my email.

  360. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 22, 2011 at 12:34 am #

    foreigner:
    BobJ, it was claimed here that the document could not be legally sighted by others, even if Obama
    allows it. That’s what I wanted to bet against. Do you really still want to bet for that after y_p_w
    posted the statutes ? Doc please confirm my European identity and internet history after googling my email.

    Sorry that’s not sufficient you have to mail doc your original passport and IDs

  361. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 22, 2011 at 12:59 am #

    foreigner: suppose Obama is asked in a debate. He can’t well say : “I don’t trust my political enemies
    so I won’t answer.” Anything that ever he does or says “could” be used against him, but
    usually it’s more likely that it does more good than harm.

    I couldn’t imagine anyone would be stupid enough to even bring it up. Obama could simply say show me your long form original I’ve shown more than any of you guys have ever shown.

    foreigner: so it’s just a question of popularity ? The lfbc was only released because Trump and Corsi
    increased the attentition ? Then all the arguments that we hear however are pretty
    irrelevant. It’s also not the kind of arguments that we hear in Courts or Campaigns.

    You’re the one arguing an appeal to popularity based on Taitz non-cases somehow thinking Obama must show further documentation than any other president before him. Why the different standard? You have no idea how our court system works.

    foreigner: Hawaii will be able to protect her documents in a controlled and announced sighting with media-interest,
    don’t you think ?

    The media has already photographed the documents there is no further need as no one who is serious has any doubts.

    foreigner: supported by Obama who gave them reason for that. He could have released the lfbc and documented
    it and answered questions in the first place. He did not do a good job, doubts did remain.
    I’m missing a good WH-faq and discussion forum where WH does participate.
    I’m missing the pre-photoshop expemplar in high resolution at the WH webpage, instead we
    got it elsewhere on the web. I’m missing the analysis like it was done here on the WH-webpage
    or even a link.

    More BS Obama released the official birth certificate that the state of Hawaii issues to all residents. He did more than he even had to as no President has ever released their birth certificates in the public. There were no reasonable questions that needed to be answered. You are missing more than you think in regards to logic and sanity.

    foreigner: in this case the interest should be direct and tangible enough (the president).
    Dismissing only makes sense when Obama requires it. Or when it produces cost, so fees are applied.

    There is no direct or tangible evidence. The birthers can’t even manage to get 12 people together at the same time in any of their gatherings.

  362. avatar
    Daniel October 22, 2011 at 3:25 am #

    Why is it that some people keep using “public interest” as if it meant “lotsa people wanna”? Are they really that stupid?

  363. avatar
    AnotherBird October 22, 2011 at 5:26 am #

    foreigner:
    BobJ, it was claimed here that the document could not be legally sighted by others, even if Obama
    allows it. That’s what I wanted to bet against. Do you really still want to bet for that after y_p_w
    posted the statutes ? Doc please confirm my European identity and internet history after googling my email.

    That seems like a misunderstanding at best.

  364. avatar
    Majority Will October 22, 2011 at 8:18 am #

    Daniel:
    Why is it that some people keep using “public interest” as if it meant “lotsa people wanna”? Are they really that stupid?

    I can’t believe the public here is still interested in replying to the idiotic concern troll who is admittedly and willfully lazy and ignorant and who keeps posting the exact same nonsensical, irrelevant drivel over and over again.

    Oh, THAT European. It must be the famous swallow.

  365. avatar
    sfjeff October 22, 2011 at 10:49 am #

    > Why would he allow either of them to inspect the certificate.

    the same reason why he released the bc. To increase his credibility. To advance in the polls”

    Clearly Obama doesn’t agree. He did release his second BC, Hawaii confirmed it was real, and that eliminated all but the real nutjob birthers. None of whom would vote for Obama anyway.

    Obama’s credibility and poll numbers are all about the economy and unemployment right now. This nonsense isn’t even on the radar screen- it barely rates an occasional joke on comedy shows.

  366. avatar
    y_p_w October 22, 2011 at 2:06 pm #

    foreigner:
    BobJ, it was claimed here that the document could not be legally sighted by others, even if Obama
    allows it. That’s what I wanted to bet against. Do you really still want to bet for that after y_p_w
    posted the statutes ? Doc please confirm my European identity and internet history after googling my email.

    It’s not clear which statute takes precedence. Under UIPA, it’s pretty clear that he could request to see it himself. The vital records laws make it a bit more complex, but they primarily address who can receive certified copies of vital records. I was only speculating that somehow parts of the vital records laws and UIPA could be combined. I am not an attorney, and it very well could be that the language of UIPA is the only one that applies to direct inspection of “personal records”.

    As it stands now, the State of Hawai’i has only addressed that President Obama could view the original document himself.

  367. avatar
    Bob J October 23, 2011 at 9:43 am #

    foreigner,

    You do realize the diffence between ” sighted” and ” cited”, right?

  368. avatar
    Bob J October 23, 2011 at 10:12 am #

    Oh, and foreigner,

    yes I would love to bet against your pitiful excuse for an argument. Look up the law and answer my question of your name and country. Hiding behind the site moderator is a chump move. Put your money where your, 2 sided, mouth is.

    Thanks

  369. avatar
    The Magic M October 24, 2011 at 4:38 am #

    foreigner J: What would be the sense of such a law ?
    And what the penalty if broken ?

    So you’re suggesting the law should be broken in the interest of “public interest” (i.e. birthers’ curiosity)?

    Funny, didn’t the birthers claim that Fukino broke the law when she made certain statements about Obama’s BC? It’s always Catch-22 with you guys. If they stick to the law and deny you, it’s their fault. If they say something to give you information, they’re the bad guys as well because they’re breaking the law. Right. That sounds so very sane.

  370. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 24, 2011 at 11:17 pm #

    Bob J:
    foreigner,

    You do realize the diffence between ” sighted” and ” cited”, right?

    BobJ I’m not sure at this point he knows the difference between his ass and a hole in the ground.