Main Menu

Don’t jump to second guesses

I would have preferred that Obama’s attorney had showed up this morning in Atlanta to make a vigorous defense and say all those things I was itching to say. I would have liked to have seen the COLB up close and personal. It didn’t happen.

Speculation abounds and many are ready to claim victory. Some are ready to throw Jablonski under the bus.

I don’t know the whole story. I don’t know Obama’s plans, but I would admit that whoever is making those plans is probably a lot more savvy than I am, both legally and politically. So I’m going to try not to jump to conclusions and I’m going to try not to second guess the defense. I would certainly have liked to see some resolution, but these conspiracy theories never get resolved, really.

In the meantime, a new poll shows Obama’s lead over any potential Republican rival growing.

98 Responses to Don’t jump to second guesses

  1. avatar
    Egh January 26, 2012 at 9:53 pm #

    Busy day elsewhere, whoa with the kid. Haven’t yet confirmed the judgement for the plaintiff, we’ll all see. My best to you.

  2. avatar
    Egh January 26, 2012 at 9:53 pm #

    What

  3. avatar
    Egh January 26, 2012 at 10:06 pm #

    Sorry, here’s a last thought from m own ms c. Courtesy o of the Mossad and trowbridge.
    Barack Bari
    Malia. Malik
    Sasha shabazz .
    That makes him NBC, what’s the problem.

    Fell in love with that math years ago.

  4. avatar
    richCares January 26, 2012 at 10:32 pm #

    neither Judge Malihi nor Kemp are aware of the vitriol that will come their way if they allow Obama on the ballot, more than likely they have no idea of the hate that is in the birther movement, Surprize, Suprize! They don’t deserve it, but it will come!

  5. avatar
    Jerome January 26, 2012 at 11:27 pm #

    “They don’t deserve it, but it will come!”

    They deserve every ounce of blow back coming their way. They asked for it.

  6. avatar
    Dave January 26, 2012 at 11:53 pm #

    Well then instead of second-guessing, I suppose I’ll speculate. If this is all part of a plan, then the only plan I can imagine is that they’re practically daring the SoS to take Obama’s name off the ballot. That is, they’re trying to maximize the usefulness of this incident as a political football.

    And that idea doesn’t sit real well with me. I’m not that crazy about political footballs in general, but this one seems to involve a significant level of rudeness toward the judge and the SoS which neither have done anything to deserve.

  7. avatar
    G January 27, 2012 at 12:19 am #

    I agree with the first half of your post, but disagree with the latter part. There seems to be a lot of poor behavior and decision making to go around here.

    The Judge / SoS could have easily contained a lot of this craziness instead of just letting the circus act grow. For a short time, they were even trying to move the venue to a larger court arena – which smacks of intentionally trying to lend it an air of additional “credibility” and just playing up to wanting a media circus. One of the criticisms that Jablonski kept making that I have to completely agree with is that the judge was NOT being impartial in his actions on any of this – the judge really was holding the defense to a higher standard of expectations than how it treated any of the filings from the litigants. All of these folks are attorneys, so there is no reason to give undue leeway and free passes to one side over the other. Further, while I agree with the judge’s point of asking the defense to better provide support in its motion, I also completely agree with the defense’s frustration that the judge chose to come down hard and rule on that particular nitpick area of weakness, yet was *completely silent* about all the rest of the very valid and fair points that the defense also made as a reason to outright dismiss earlier in that same document. Yet the judge remained silent on any of the subpoena’s or other faulty interim filings made by the litigants, every step of the way…

    So yes, it sure comes across suspiciously like the SoS & the judge were also playing an intentional double-standard biased political game here the whole time and intentionally taking actions (or inactions) that held one side to a different standard than the other and which also seemed to only continue to elevate the circus aspect of this whole farce…

    Dave: And that idea doesn’t sit real well with me. I’m not that crazy about political footballs in general, but this one seems to involve a significant level of rudeness toward the judge and the SoS which neither have done anything to deserve.

  8. avatar
    JPotter January 27, 2012 at 12:22 am #

    Dave: this one seems to involve a significant level of rudeness toward the judge and the SoS which neither have done anything to deserve.

    I don’t agree. I feel it’s a refusal to participate as a group of nuts take advantage of an otherwise useful, necessary process. Voters must have the right to protect themselves from unqualified / illegitimate candidates. Unfortunately, valuable resources can be misused. I’m sorry the judge had to listen to the foolishness in the course of his duties. I’m sorry the SoS has been put on the spot between fairness and decency. Thankfully, the President and his representation are in an unassailable position and able to say, “Let them have their hearing, we will not particiapte.”

    I had to serve on a jury in a car wreck case once. It turned out to be just as ludicrous as today’s hearing. It lasted 3 full days. The case had taken 7 years to come to a hearing. The plaintiff was taking advantage of the civil court system and the way in which fault is assigned to try to saddle the defendant with part or all of $200K in medical bills for treatments of conditions in no way related to the accident. The defendant was 16 at the time of the accident, and this stupidity had been threatening to bankrupt her her entire adult life. She had no choice but to actively defend herself against a malicious litigant.

    I wish she had had the luxury of giving the court the legal equivalent of a “Whatever.” I and my fellow jurors considered the 3 days time well spent doing my part to put an end to that madness. Against 7 years, what’s 3 days? And I would have been in the jury pool anyway.

  9. avatar
    JPotter January 27, 2012 at 12:33 am #

    G: The Judge / SoS could have easily contained a lot of this craziness instead of just letting the circus act grow. For a short time, they were even trying to move the venue to a larger court arena – which smacks of intentionally trying to lend it an air of additional “credibility” and just playing up to wanting a media circus.

    I continue to disagree with those wanting to place blame on Malihi a/o Kemp. They are performing their duties in accordance with the law. Maintaining an open fair process. The fairness of any system is seen in how it handles extremes. The birthers were voters and had a right to a hearing. To my understanding they did not have to prove that a challenge was reasonable in order to proceed. The law states they have a right to have their concerns heard. As it was a public hearing, of course it should be held in a venue in which capacity matches interest. As for the “at your peril” line, well of course you pass up your chance to present your side “at your peril.” It wasn’t a threat, it was stating the obvious. And of course the hearing should have been held. Postponing or cancelling would have been bad precedent, and the rights of Georgia voters, birthers or not, co-opted by out-of-state elements or not, are the business of the court.

  10. avatar
    G January 27, 2012 at 1:52 am #

    While I fully understand all your points and think that you’ve articulated them well, this will just have to be an area where our impressions and opinions differ.

    I see blame going all around – not necessarily in the sense that they were “wrong”… but that each of them had better ways to handle and contain this situation from becoming the farcical show that it is now. It seemed to be a continuing set of escalations…and yes…it came across as some sort of bigger pissing contest going on. Now, I could easily be wrong on that, but that is just how it comes across.

    In terms of absolving culpability of the judge: Look – I can understand someone maybe simply having a position of “just let them vent and get it out of their system”… doesn’t mean I would have done the same thing, but I respect that different folks can get to the same result using different methods. If that was the judge’s intent, than I do give him points in final execution as the Birther crowd seemed rather mollified by getting to do their little open forum display show today…and do have to say that it succeeded in getting them to get through their spiel’s rather quickly. Even Orly – that might be darn near a record for how quickly she went from start to finish!!! So, in the lense of that particular critera – the judge got things done quite quickly and with minimum conflict today. That is a good thing.

    However, that being said, the two things that do concern me the most about the judge is:

    1) His original attempt to give it a much bigger and more “formal court” venue. Maybe that was just a misguided innocent attempt to merely accomodate…but it smacks of stunt casting. Fortunately, someone quickly put the kibosh on that idea and returned it to the forum we saw.

    2) All of the litigants had attorneys. There is no excuse to treat the defense attorney to a more critical standard from the get-go than the litigants. So yes, I do blame the judge for applying a different set of standards here. If there is some other “history” between the judge and this attorney or in terms of the politics at play on the ground there – those are not excuses and such bias had no place in being introduced into this particular situation.

    So, the judge’s initial denial back to Jablonski seems to have started this pattern. Was he right that Jablonski should have written a better motion with more solid citation – yes. However, if you read the original motion and the judge’s response back to back and in full again, you will see that there were several other important points that Jablonski had brought up before getting to the weak part that the judge slapped him down on. Why did the judge completely ignore those sections completely? I can see Jablonski’s side of being pissed at this portion of the treatment too. It does smack of being selectively unfair from the get-go. Also, with any of the also weak motions filed by the litigants, why didn’t the judge respond to them and hold them to the same level of expectation?

    I’d like to hear your specific thoughts on those two key points…

    JPotter: I continue to disagree with those wanting to place blame on Malihi a/o Kemp. They are performing their duties in accordance with the law. Maintaining an open fair process. The fairness of any system is seen in how it handles extremes. The birthers were voters and had a right to a hearing. To my understanding they did not have to prove that a challenge was reasonable in order to proceed. The law states they have a right to have their concerns heard. As it was a public hearing, of course it should be held in a venue in which capacity matches interest. As for the “at your peril” line, well of course you pass up your chance to present your side “at your peril.” It wasn’t a threat, it was stating the obvious. And of course the hearing should have been held. Postponing or cancelling would have been bad precedent, and the rights of Georgia voters, birthers or not, co-opted by out-of-state elements or not, are the business of the court.

  11. avatar
    y_p_w January 27, 2012 at 2:44 am #

    G:
    However, that being said, the two things that do concern me the most about the judge is:

    1) His original attempt to give it a much bigger and more “formal court” venue.Maybe that was just a misguided innocent attempt to merely accomodate…but it smacks of stunt casting.Fortunately, someone quickly put the kibosh on that idea and returned it to the forum we saw.

    From watching the streaming video, the hearing room they had wasn’t that much different than some of the courtrooms I’ve been in. It’s basic office room decor, a low ceiling, and movie theater style seating. I was expecting that it might be like the dinky traffic courtroom in San Francisco I visited once (there were something like a dozen of them handling over 100 cases an hour in total. Or maybe the tiny single courtroom courthouse in Yosemite National Park. I mentioned I didn’t particular want to be there, but I suppose it might be possible to just be a spectator just to see what it looks like in person.

  12. avatar
    JPotter January 27, 2012 at 4:33 am #

    G:
    1) … attempt to give it a … “formal court” venue.

    2) … treat[ing] the defense attorney to a more critical standard …

    G,

    It’s fun to joke about these things, and I make my fair share (Vatel Swiss Cheese Spreads, Two-Parent Two Step, Georgia Birfdogs, etc) … but in the trend of ‘more serious’ running down of Judge Malihi, Sec. Kemp, et al.* … I’m hearing the assumption of sinister motives … intents being projected based on scant, distant impressions …. and allegations of double standards. This is conspiratorial thinking, a loss of objectivity.

    1) I addressed the physical venue before; it was pragmatic. Calling it misguided is a perception. Instead of repeating earlier post, I’ll toss in the media coverage. Again, nothing sinister there; it’s a public matter, involving a popular election. There’s no need for privacy in a election hearing. Quite the opposite: it’s a public matter, publicity is necessary.

    2) How was the defense held to a more ‘critical’ standard? As far as whether there will be a hearing, the Georgia law is broad, and justly so. It places the defense at a disadvantage in a sense. Similar to the concept of no-fault divorce, there doesn’t appear to be a reason for not having a hearing, unless the named defendant is either not a candidate or running for local office only. As for the subpoenas, again, the defense was requesting the judge take an action and failed to provide cause for him to act, there may wall not be a rlevant cause, and action was not needed from the judge. The subpoenas were not endorsed by him, were not enforceable by him. The best course of action was to ignore them, or to politely RSVP in the negative to their Moldovan source.

    Put yourself in Malihi’s shoes, think about his function, his responsibilities; imagine other defendants, other plaintiffs, similar filings. Malihi has handled the case responsibly, wisely, fairly. He had to respond to the defense filings that were requesting action on his part prior to the hearing; most of the defense filings were … uh … ‘informational’, (additional lining for the circular file) that required no action on his part, beyond perhaps a mention in his opinion. Orly did (supposedly) file for letter rogatory. If he has responded to her already, Orly may be sitting on it**, or he may just be ignoring the request.
    A simpler angle: he has responded to Jablonski’s filings. All birther grenades lobbed thus far have met with an icy reception.

    If there are any items I’m not aware of, that indicate which orifice I’m typing out of ( ;) ), please let me know. Like most of us, I’m sharing from afar.

    And I told myself I would keep this short!

    * Gov. Deal has birfed, but he doesn’t get tossed in very much. Why not?
    ** She publishes everything she likes immediately. Does she publish her failures?

  13. avatar
    US Citizen January 27, 2012 at 6:39 am #

    “She publishes everything she likes immediately. Does she publish her failures?”

    I’ve not yet seen any evidence of such.

    Ironically, her largest fault may be her lack of humility.
    For all her failures are first branded as successes, then later attributed to others with blame.
    She seems to be the antithesis to Obama in every respect, stacking failure upon failure in stark contrast to his own vertical history of successes.

  14. avatar
    donna January 27, 2012 at 8:14 am #

    “Orly did (supposedly) file for letter rogatory. If he has responded to her already, Orly may be sitting on it**, or he may just be ignoring the request.”

    her “Emergency request for letters rogatory” was a “request and commission from
    Honorable judge Malihi to Honorable judge Rhonda Nishimura if the First Circuit
    court of the state of HI to order director of Health Loretta Fuddy to appear at the January 26, 2012 hearing in Farrar v Obama and produce a book of birth records with the original birth certificate of Mr. Barack Obama, as well as corresponding microfiche film.”

  15. avatar
    John Reilly January 27, 2012 at 8:25 am #

    Dr. Taitz has no failures. When she does not win, it is because of traitors who got to the judge. They will be arrested, tried, convicted and frog-marched, and not necesarily in that order.

    She is still trumpting her request for letters rogatory, which, if I have got my law terms right, has become moot since the taking of evidence by Judge Mailihi, such that it was, is over. Except for the hundreds of pages of filings folks will be making.

  16. avatar
    LineInTheSand January 27, 2012 at 8:30 am #

    You and your obamabots starting to squirm yet, Doc? I’ve read your crap for a year now and your house of cards is falling down.

    Lovin’ it.

  17. avatar
    LineInTheSand January 27, 2012 at 8:37 am #

    Doc, I notice ‘Sheriff Arpaio’ is noticeably missing from your Who’s Who list?

    Oh yeah, he’s just the criminal investigator who will imminently publish the detailed police report on obamugabe’s false B.C. and fraudulent SSN….small details. Yeah, I can see why an obamabot like you wouldn’t want to get near that.

    That should be interesting to a few more states too.

    You may want to publish how many electoral votes are in jeopardy for your commie impostor as this develops…15 in Georgia alone.

    Good luck with that…

  18. avatar
    donna January 27, 2012 at 8:37 am #

    “Dr. Taitz has no failures. When she does not win, it is because of traitors who got to the judge. They will be arrested, tried, convicted and frog-marched, and not necesarily in that order. ”

    all of THESE judges?

    INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO

    93 TRIAL COURTS

    52 (X3 JUDGE) APPELLATE COURTS

    16 (X9) SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

    41 FAILED state birther bills

    “She is still trumpting her request for letters rogatory, which, if I have got my law terms right, has become moot since the taking of evidence by Judge Mailihi, such that it was, is over. ”

    moot? “her letters” were to compel the state of HI to order director of Health Loretta Fuddy to appear at the January 26, 2012 hearing in Farrar v Obama and produce a book of birth records with the original birth certificate of Mr. Barack Obama, as well as corresponding microfiche film.”

    was FUDDY THERE?

  19. avatar
    Jay January 27, 2012 at 8:39 am #

    Despite Doc’s effort, this place has become worse than the birthers’ blogs! Just read the posts here … pathetic.

  20. avatar
    John Reilly January 27, 2012 at 8:42 am #

    You are confusing the situation with facts. In Dr. Taitz’ view, this is the most massive conspiracy in the history of the known universe, including Moldova. I’m confident our friends in the birther community are getting ready to (a) praise Judge Malihi has the bravest judge ever, or (b) yet another traitor.

  21. avatar
    donna January 27, 2012 at 8:44 am #

    “You may want to publish how many electoral votes are in jeopardy for your commie impostor as this develops…15 in Georgia alone.”

    question: newt is NOT on the va primary ballot – if your conclusion is that this will matter at the convention, you are mistaken – if he has the requisite number of delegates, WITH OR WITHOUT VA, he will be on the ballot in nov – obama already has 144 delegates and no one is opposing him

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2012 at 8:44 am #

    I add folks to the categories when I think they will appear in many stories. It’s just a matter of not letting the category list get toooooo long. For now, Arpaio just gets a tag, so you can find articles about him with

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/tag/joe-arpaio

    If his report ever comes out and it causes a stir, I’ll probably give Sheriff Joe his own category.

    LineInTheSand: Doc, I notice Sheriff Arpaio’ is noticeably missing from your Who’s Who list?

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2012 at 8:46 am #

    No, I’m not squiriming. And I don’t have any obamabots. People who post here do so independently.

    LineInTheSand: You and your obamabots starting to squirm yet, Doc?

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2012 at 8:48 am #

    Personally, I have never found joy in the discomfit of others. You must be a really bad person.

    LineInTheSand: Lovin’ it.

  25. avatar
    LineInTheSand January 27, 2012 at 8:58 am #

    Bad to the bone, baby.

  26. avatar
    Scientist January 27, 2012 at 8:58 am #

    LineInTheSand: Oh yeah, he’s just the criminal investigator who will imminently publish the detailed police report on obamugabe’s false B.C. and fraudulent SSN….small details

    Given that his investigators have no access to the actual b.c. nor to Social Securiity records, they will be unable to draw any conclusions.

    LineInTheSand: You may want to publish how many electoral votes are in jeopardy for your commie impostor as this develops…15 in Georgia alone.

    Did Obama win Georgia in 2008?

  27. avatar
    Majority Will January 27, 2012 at 9:03 am #

    “Lovin’ it.”

    masochism |ˈmasəˌkizəm; ˈmaz-|
    noun
    the tendency to derive pleasure, esp. sexual gratification, from one’s own pain or humiliation.
    (in general use) the enjoyment of what appears to be painful or tiresome : isn’t there
    some masochism involved in taking on this kind of project?

    Our House looks strong. Further reference:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-obama

  28. avatar
    LineInTheSand January 27, 2012 at 9:11 am #

    ‘Given that his investigators have no access to the actual b.c. nor to Social Securiity records, they will be unable to draw any conclusions.’

    So you admit that the b.c. we’ve seen from obama is not the actual one. Thank you for that, it will be entered into the evidence.

  29. avatar
    Majority Will January 27, 2012 at 9:20 am #

    LineInTheSand: the b.c. we’ve seen from obama

    See: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

    If you need help with the big words, ask Bob Nelson or Dean Haskins.

  30. avatar
    Scientist January 27, 2012 at 9:24 am #

    LineInTheSand: So you admit that the b.c. we’ve seen from obama is not the actual one. Thank you for that, it will be entered into the evidence.

    Where is Romney’s?

  31. avatar
    J. Potter January 27, 2012 at 9:34 am #

    LineInTheSand: So you admit that the b.c. we’ve seen from obama is not the actual one. Thank you for that, it will be entered into the evidence.

    Oh, goody, another “citizen grand jury”?

  32. avatar
    JD Reed January 27, 2012 at 9:38 am #

    Anybody with two brain cells to rub together knows that the BC we’ve seen on lilne is not the real one, it’s only a copy. The real one is in the vault in Honolulu. But people with far more credibility than Linethesand have vouched for seeing a copy that the Hawaii DOH vouches for as an authentic copy of the real thing. If I were to send you a photocopy of my son’s BC, it would be only a copy, but that doesn’t make it a forgery. This is one of the most inane lines pushed by the birthers.

  33. avatar
    Arthur January 27, 2012 at 9:54 am #

    LineInTheSand: Given that his investigators have no access to the actual b.c. nor to Social Securiity records, they will be unable to draw any conclusions.’So you admit that the b.c. we’ve seen from obama is not the actual one. Thank you for that, it will be entered into the evidence.

    Hey, that’s not what he meant AT ALL! Guys, this Sandy Line fellow is just too smart. Why, he’s so smart, he even knows how to turn comments on a blog into cold, hard EVIDENCE. Do you think he’ll present when the trial moves into it’s punishment phase? I’m TERRIFIED!!!

  34. avatar
    LineInTheSand January 27, 2012 at 9:58 am #

    It seems Jablonski is terrified. Maybe his commie boss too…

  35. avatar
    Scientist January 27, 2012 at 9:58 am #

    JD Reed: Anybody with two brain cells to rub together knows that the BC we’ve seen on lilne is not the real one, it’s only a copy. The real one is in the vault in Honolulu

    I’ve never counted my neurons and I try to avoid rubbing them together. The COLB(s) and the long form document in the President’s possession and shown to reporters are in fact the real birth certificates. One exemplar may have been presented or mya be presented to the Georgia SoS. Regardless, one of the plaintiff’s attorneys stipulated that the image is true and authentic and establishes the birth place, time and parentage of the President,

  36. avatar
    LineInTheSand January 27, 2012 at 10:06 am #

    ‘Why, he’s so smart, he even knows how to turn comments on a blog into cold, hard EVIDENCE’

    Yes, and for my next trick, I’m going to turn a computer-generated piece of s *** t into a valid b.c.!!!

  37. avatar
    alg January 27, 2012 at 10:17 am #

    LineInTheSand,

    Sheriff Arpaio has no substantive authority in this matter. He has no authority to interpret the natural born citizen clause in the U.S. Constitution – he’s a law enforcement officer, not a federal judge. Nor does he have evidence that any crime has been committed – he’s already admitted this. When he issues his so-called “cold case posse report” in February he will say that he doesn’t have evidence to verify Obama’s birth certificate is genuine. But then, neither does he evidence it isn’t.

    Frankly, if Mr. Obama’s birth certificates were forged, criminal charges would have been filed and litigated a long time ago. It hasn’t happened because they aren’t forged, they’re certified copies for which the State of Hawaii has verified their authenticity.

  38. avatar
    katahdin January 27, 2012 at 10:23 am #

    Another wanna-be “Law and Order” hero. Where will this “trial” be held?

    LineInTheSand:
    Given that his investigators have no access to the actual b.c. nor to Social Securiity records, they will be unable to draw any conclusions.’

    So you admit that the b.c. we’ve seen from obama is not the actual one.Thank you for that, it will be entered into the evidence.

  39. avatar
    LineInTheSand January 27, 2012 at 10:28 am #

    alg, when did you become omniscient? How do you know what Arpaio will reveal? He has authority as a police officer acting under color of law – that opens doors with any other national police contacts he has. You’re talking completely out of your a**, like most of the obamabot cretins here.

  40. avatar
    JoZeppy January 27, 2012 at 10:31 am #

    LineInTheSand: Oh yeah, he’s just the criminal investigator who will imminently publish the detailed police report on obamugabe’s false B.C. and fraudulent SSN….small details. Yeah, I can see why an obamabot like you wouldn’t want to get near that.

    Sure he will….just like Donald Trump will let us know the startling revelations his investigators found any day now. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

    LineInTheSand: That should be interesting to a few more states too.
    You may want to publish how many electoral votes are in jeopardy for your commie impostor as this develops…15 in Georgia alone.

    I can assure you, that President Obama will appear on the ballot in every state in the general election. Keep hoping. Birther optismism can be very cute.

  41. avatar
    JoZeppy January 27, 2012 at 10:38 am #

    LineInTheSand: So you admit that the b.c. we’ve seen from obama is not the actual one. Thank you for that, it will be entered into the evidence.

    Ummm….you want to enter into evidence the admission that we have not been in the same room as the physical document? And what exactly does that prove?

    I suppose we could have a philosophical discussion of whether the US Constitution exists, since the vast majority of Americans have never seen the physical document…perhaps it shouldn’t apply to a person until they see it? Afterall, how can they be sure it exists? But again, what’s the point?

  42. avatar
    Reality Check January 27, 2012 at 10:40 am #

    Some questions about the hearing courtesy of Sterngard Friegen on RC Radio and a few of my own:

    1. Where were the rest of Taitz’s witnesses?

    2. Where was Taitz’s proof on behalf of her woebegone plaintiff presidential candidate wannabees to get on the Georgia ballot?

    3. Where was the lawyer with 20-years experience that Taitz was going to pay to help her? Did he run the Powerpoint? How’d he do?

    4. If Taitz had been successful in obtaining the Hawaii birth documents, wouldn’t she have submitted the prima facie evidence of President Obama’s eligibility? Do you think she’s pissed off that those documents were put into evidence in the prior cases?

    and mine

    5. Where was Sheriff Arpaio and why did Taitz not seek to enforce her subpoena to him?

    6. How does Malihi fashion a “finding of fact” and rule Obama off the ballot out of that mess presented yesterday? About the only facts established in the case are that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii and his father was a foreign student from somewhere. The rest was idle speculation and worse.

    7. Will the US Attorney take notice that at least two of Taitz’s witnesses admitted under oath to unlawful access to government databases?

  43. avatar
    JoZeppy January 27, 2012 at 10:42 am #

    Now back to the original point of the post….the claims of default. It’s 24 hours later, Orly has added several new posts to her blog, and has not said a word about discussion of a default. Orly is hardly one to shy away from prematurely declaring victory, so I have to ask, what’s up with it?

  44. avatar
    donna January 27, 2012 at 10:56 am #

    “If Taitz had been successful in obtaining the Hawaii birth documents, wouldn’t she have submitted the prima facie evidence of President Obama’s eligibility? Do you think she’s pissed off that those documents were put into evidence in the prior cases?”

    taitz filed an “Emergency request for letters rogatory” (January 20, 2012) to “order director of Health Loretta Fuddy to appear at the January 26, 2012 hearing in Farrar v Obama and produce a book of birth records with the original birth certificate of Mr. Barack Obama, as well as corresponding microfiche film.”

    how did THAT work out?

    in taitz’s mind, ANYTHING submitted into evidence in prior cases are “forgeries”

    i have YET TO SEE criminal charges brought for those “forgeries”

  45. avatar
    The Magic M January 27, 2012 at 11:20 am #

    JoZeppy: Orly is hardly one to shy away from prematurely declaring victory, so I have to ask, what’s up with it?

    Exactly, especially since it would allow her another propaganda round of “first the judge sided with us, then he changed his mind, he must’ve been gotten to by the Big Bad Obama Machine!”.

  46. avatar
    The Magic M January 27, 2012 at 11:23 am #

    Reality Check: 6. How does Malihi fashion a “finding of fact” and rule Obama off the ballot out of that mess presented yesterday? About the only facts established in the case are that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii and his father was a foreign student from somewhere. The rest was idle speculation and worse.

    Well, the route of “Obama didn’t present any evidence and even if I take the birthers’ evidence as fact, I still haven’t seen Obama prove his 14 year residency”, if he really really wanted to. But I don’t think he will.

    He might have given a lot of leeway for the birthers because public hearings on such challenges aren’t supposed to be strict trials, but I don’t see him giving the same leeway to any bogus objection.

  47. avatar
    ellen January 27, 2012 at 11:31 am #

    I understand that there is still time to file briefs, until Feb. 5 I hear, so that Jablonski could do so.

    I’m not a lawyer, but it would seem sensible to do so.

    It would say something like this I suggest.

    There are only two issues, the place of Obama’s birth and the meaning of Natural Born Citizen.

    As to the first, Obama’s place of birth was Hawaii. If you do not believe that this has been established OVERWHELMINGLY already, then I will be glad to supply the physical copies of Obama’s short form and long form birth certificates, with the official seals.

    As to the second, the allegation that the US Supreme Court ruled in Minor that two citizen parents is required is false. But as you know the US Supreme Court ruled in Wong Kim Ark that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born. Logically a US citizen who was Natural Born is a Natural Born Citizen.

    I sure hope that Jablonski does that. I cannot see any reason not to.

  48. avatar
    richCares January 27, 2012 at 11:52 am #

    keeping Obama off the ballot would be very costly, both political and financial

  49. avatar
    J. Potter January 27, 2012 at 12:28 pm #

    Reality Check: 1. Where were the rest of Taitz’s witnesses? 2.Taitz? 3. Taitz? 4. Taitz? 5. Taitz? 7. Taitz?

    All excellent questions. All humans suffer from a disconnect between expectations and reality. Some people are more disconnected than others. Birthers expectations are in the fantasy realm. At the moment expectiation are forced to confront reality, the level of disconnect translates to an equivalent level of cognitive dissonance. After the moment, the dissonance ferments into denial, and the person has entered a Kübler-Ross cycle.

    Orly has an extreme potential for disconnect. Her cases, their rationale and her strategies, are totally irrational desire dreams. Her enthusiastic willingness to act on her fantasies in defiance of social norms, combined with her inability to recognize / overcome denial, indicates her level of … take your pick: neuroticism, sociopathy, psychoses? any psychologists in the house?

    The massive disconnect is apparent in her courtroom performances; she has no problem reading her fantasies to a court, but no ability to realize her fantasies by effective action. Doc said he would fire such an unprepared person on the spot. I’d say there is no realistic way to prepare, to actualize her fantasies. No amount of preparation can bridge her disconnect, which continues to manifest itself after her court actions, as she gives voice to her denial, in speeches that invariably make everyone (except her most deluded followers!), wonder which courtroom she was in.

  50. avatar
    Rickey January 27, 2012 at 12:37 pm #

    LineInTheSand:

    You may want to publish how many electoral votes are in jeopardy for your commie impostor as this develops…15 in Georgia alone.

    You birthers certainly are dense.

    Yesterday’s hearing had nothing to do with the general election ballot in November. Be sure to visit us again in the fall when Obama’s name is on the ballot in all 50 states.

  51. avatar
    Sarina January 27, 2012 at 12:53 pm #

    The well know delusional birther KenyanBornObamAcorn is posting on her videos:

    ” Woo Hoo Obama was removed from GA ballot!

    My question: Can this be possible?

    Can a candidate for president be removed just because
    some people don’t want him?

    Well I don’t know maybe is a stupid question.. (but if I don’t ask I will never know.)

  52. avatar
    jayHG January 27, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

    LineInTheSand: You and your obamabots starting to squirm yet, Doc? I’ve read your crap for a year now and your house of cards is falling down.Lovin’ it.

    You birthers are so stupid…….you say the same thing over and over……..any….day….now! Aren’t you worn out from being WRONG??? I mean, really………

  53. avatar
    donna January 27, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

    citing terry, Rhonda M. Brown (SOS Elections Division) stated:

    Recently, a lawsuit was filed claiming that Mr. Obama is not qualified to run for President and should not appear on Georgia’s ballot. See Terry v. Handel, In the Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia, Civil Action File No. 2008CV158774. On October 24, 2008, the Court entered an Order recognizing that in Georgia, as elsewhere in the United States, voters cast their ballots for “presidential electors,” rather than directly for a candidate, when voting for the office of President of the United States. See, e.g., U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 3; O.C.G.A. § 21-2-172. Because of this, the Secretary of State of Georgia does not have the authority to refuse to allow someone to be listed as a candidate for President of the United States when such individual has been properly nominated by a political party. See O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-172 to 21-2-200. Rather, Georgia law imposes duties simply for the examination of presidential electors. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-172. The political parties’ candidates for President of the United States are typically determined through a political party’s convention. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-191 to 21-2-200. Therefore, any concerns you may have regarding the qualifications of Mr. Obama to remain on Georgia’s ballot as a candidate for President of the United States should be directed to the Democratic National Party.

  54. avatar
    jayHG January 27, 2012 at 1:01 pm #

    LineInTheSand: You and your obamabots starting to squirm yet, Doc? I’ve read your crap for a year now and your house of cards is falling down.Lovin’ it.

    …and finally, line/in/stupid/sand, the day that President Obama’s “house” falls down because of some birther crap is the very same day President Obama will moonwalk naked on the White House lawn with a line of birhers behind him…….

  55. avatar
    jayHG January 27, 2012 at 1:05 pm #

    LineInTheSand: Doc, I notice Sheriff Arpaio’ is noticeably missing from your Who’s Who list? Oh yeah, he’s just the criminal investigator who will imminently publish the detailed police report on obamugabe’s false B.C. and fraudulent SSN….small details. Yeah, I can see why an obamabot like you wouldn’t want to get near that.That should be interesting to a few more states too.You may want to publish how many electoral votes are in jeopardy for your commie impostor as this develops…15 in Georgia alone.Good luck with that…

    Arpaio is not noticeably missing……..no one gives a rats ass about his “report.”

    Dude, you’re a desparate birther who is, as usual for birthers, waiting for the AH HA moment when the scary black man will no longer be YOUR president. Let me help you out……that will be in November, 2016 (Obama will win re-election in 2012) when we will have another presidential election in this country and you can vote for any white man/woman in the race.

  56. avatar
    jayHG January 27, 2012 at 1:06 pm #

    Jay: Despite Doc’s effort, this place has become worse than the birthers’ blogs! Just read the posts here … pathetic.

    Dude, get real……….NOTHING’s worse than the birther blogs…….

  57. avatar
    Bob January 27, 2012 at 1:09 pm #

    Normal people know the reason but I’d like an answer from a Birther; why didn’t Orly ask the court to enforce her subpoenas?

  58. avatar
    donna January 27, 2012 at 1:11 pm #

    Some cold water on overheated birther-mania

    Jay Bookman/ajc

    http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/01/27/some-cold-water-on-overheated-birther-mania/

  59. avatar
    Sarina January 27, 2012 at 1:13 pm #

    LineInTheSand: You and your obamabots starting to squirm yet, Doc? I’ve read your crap for a year now and your house of cards is falling down.Lovin’ it.

    I think is the other way around:

  60. avatar
    carlos January 27, 2012 at 1:16 pm #

    Nothing that was offered to prove the contentions of the challengers was admissable evidence. Even, as I understand it, including the downloaded copies of the birth certificates. However, if ANYthing is accepted by the AJ, the birth certificate copies carry the most weight, thus establishing the native birth of the President. And if I were Jablonski, I would make sure an actual certified copy is submitted by Feb.5. That leaves only the matter of interpretation of the term “natural born” which is beyond the jurisdiction of the AJ, IMO, and I would expect he would kick that particular determination to the SOS or another court.

  61. avatar
    jayHG January 27, 2012 at 1:20 pm #

    LineInTheSand: Given that his investigators have no access to the actual b.c. nor to Social Securiity records, they will be unable to draw any conclusions.’So you admit that the b.c. we’ve seen from obama is not the actual one. Thank you for that, it will be entered into the evidence.

    You birthers are so STUPID.

    How does saying that arpaio has no access to the actuall bc MEAN that you are then ADMITTING that the bc we’ve seen is NOT the actual bc.

    …stupid birthers!!

  62. avatar
    jayHG January 27, 2012 at 1:25 pm #

    LineInTheSand: alg, when did you become omniscient? How do you know what Arpaio will reveal? He has authority as a police officer acting under color of law – that opens doors with any other national police contacts he has. You’re talking completely out of your a**, like most of the obamabot cretins here.

    When did you??? You’re the one who said arpaio will imminently publish a detailed report about false documents…….did YOU suddenly become omniscient, you dumb birther???

  63. avatar
    J. Potter January 27, 2012 at 1:42 pm #

    Sarina: Can a candidate for president be removed just because
    some people don’t want him?

    Unless we’re dealing with an isolated group that imbued with unique knowledge of damning secrets regarding a candidate,* it would take a lot more than some people not wanting the candidate to remove the candidate from the ballot. Unless they’re unaminous, all elections are eventually won by a candidate some people didn’t want. ;)

    * So that’s what’s birthers think they see in the mirror!

  64. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2012 at 3:02 pm #

    Funny you should mention that. This morning I went to the High Museum in Atlanta where From Picasso to Warhol was on exhibit. I was struck by a particular Picasso painting, Girl before a Mirror.

    The dark reflection in the mirror seemed a metaphor for the dark side of the birthers.

    http://www.high.org/Art/Exhibitions/Picasso-to-Warhol.aspx

    J. Potter: So that’s what’s birthers think they see in the mirror!

  65. avatar
    J. Potter January 27, 2012 at 3:13 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: From Picasso to Warhol was on exhibit. I was struck by a particular Picasso painting, Girl before a Mirror.

    Ahhh! You’re a lucky, lucky man, Doc. The Girl is Picasso at his best! Glad you’re getting some mileage out of your “hobby” trip. :) Hopefully that exhibition will decide to travel.

  66. avatar
    El Diablo Negro January 27, 2012 at 3:37 pm #

    Letters of Rogatory has been denied.

    http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/79613378

    Umpire: Steeeeeeeriiiiiiike!!!

  67. avatar
    Rickey January 27, 2012 at 3:43 pm #

    El Diablo Negro:
    Letters of Rogatory has been denied.

    http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/79613378

    Umpire: Steeeeeeeriiiiiiike!!!

    Good catch!

    Also, the deadline for filing post-hearing pleadings has been pushed up to next Wednesday. Malihi will make his recommendation to the SOS “”shortly thereafter.”

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2012 at 3:49 pm #

    Two? I only heard one. Sampson looked it up a commercial database which is legal.

    Reality Check: Will the US Attorney take notice that at least two of Taitz’s witnesses admitted under oath to unlawful access to government databases?

  69. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2012 at 3:51 pm #

    Dunno. If she wins by default the birthers still don’t have a decision on the merits.

    JoZeppy: Orly is hardly one to shy away from prematurely declaring victory, so I have to ask, what’s up with it?

  70. avatar
    Rickey January 27, 2012 at 3:54 pm #

    I thought that was Sankey, not Sampson.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Sampson looked it up a commercial database which is legal.

    The legality of Sampson’s search is questionable. He had to have a permissible use under the Fair Credit Reporting Act in order to conduct the search. As I recall, LexisNexis cancelled his account because he did not have a permissible use to look into Obama’s records.

  71. avatar
    J. Potter January 27, 2012 at 3:57 pm #

    El Diablo Negro: Letters of Rogatory has been denied.

    Extremely curtly too. There does the impression of a double standard that was mentioned above.

    Someone suggested that may be Mailihi’s “angry” signature, and i’m starting to think they were right! :D

    I take moving the date up as a positive sign. Judge has had his fill.

  72. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2012 at 3:58 pm #

    The question is whether a candidate can be removed because he is ineligible. I think the answer to that is yes. Whether Obama will be removed from the Georgia Primary Ballot is an open one.

    My understanding is that Obama CANNOT be removed from the general election ballot in Georgia if he is the Democratic Party’s nominee. According to a Georgia case and because we do not elect our presidents by popular vote (we vote for “electors”) Obama is not being voted for, but Democratic electors. The Presidential candidate’s name is on the ballot, but that is just a place holder for the electors.

    Sarina: Can a candidate for president be removed just because
    some people don’t want him?

  73. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2012 at 4:05 pm #

    Well actually my hobby trip was to come to the American Philatelic Society’s annual meeting here in Atlanta and to visit the High Museum. The birther hearing was added to the trip I already scheduled.

    J. Potter: Glad you’re getting some mileage out of your “hobby” trip.

  74. avatar
    sfjeff January 27, 2012 at 4:17 pm #

    Someone explain to me please the “letters of rogatory” refusal please.

  75. avatar
    El Diablo Negro January 27, 2012 at 4:20 pm #

    sfjeff:
    Someone explain to me please the “letters of rogatory” refusal please.

    A letter rogatory or letter of request is a formal request from a court to a foreign court for some type of judicial assistance. The most common remedies sought by letters rogatory are service of process and taking of evidence.

    Here is the Wiki Version
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_rogatory

    or you can just Google “letters of rogatory” if you want more links

  76. avatar
    donna January 27, 2012 at 4:27 pm #

    here’s what she requested:

    “Plaintiffs herein respectfully request letters rogatory and commission from
    Honorable judge Malihi to Honorable judge Rhonda Nishimura if the First Circuit
    court of the state of HI to order director of Health Loretta Fuddy to appear at the January 26, 2012 hearing in Farrar v Obama and produce a book of birth records with the original birth certificate of Mr. Barack Obama, as well as corresponding microfiche film.”

  77. avatar
    y_p_w January 27, 2012 at 4:29 pm #

    sfjeff:
    Someone explain to me please the “letters of rogatory” refusal please.

    It’s a request to a foreign jurisdiction to help with a deposition. For example someone in the US might want to depose someone overseas. They’d seek it out and then get the State Dept to help them by providing a place to depose said individual and I believe someone to serve as the hearing officer. I hear the State Department’s current fee is $2275.

    Orly has actually made requests in the past. I think she was trying to get some sort of information in Kenya RE: Obama’s (phony) Kenyan BC.

    Also – Orly really screwed the pooch in her request. She made the request to the ALJ who lacks authority to issue them, she got the chapter and verse incorrect, and she selectively trimmed out the part of the law that says that Georgia only issues them to request depositions in foreign countries.

    Here’s the law:

    9-11-28. Persons before whom depositions may be taken; disqualification for interest; consent of parties

    (b) In foreign countries. In a foreign state or country depositions shall be taken on notice before a secretary of embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of the United States, or before such person or officer as may be appointed by commission or under letters rogatory. A commission or letters rogatory shall be issued only when necessary or convenient, on application and notice, and on such terms and with such directions as are just and appropriate. Officers may be designated in notices or commissions either by name or by descriptive title and letters rogatory may be addressed “To the Appropriate Judicial Authority in (here name the country).

  78. avatar
    J. Potter January 27, 2012 at 4:31 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Well actually my hobby trip was to come to the American Philatelic Society’s annual meeting here in Atlanta and to visit the High Museum. The birther hearing was added to the trip I already scheduled.

    Now that is some 18th level Serendipity!

  79. avatar
    y_p_w January 27, 2012 at 5:41 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Well actually my hobby trip was to come to the American Philatelic Society’s annual meeting here in Atlanta and to visit the High Museum. The birther hearing was added to the trip I already scheduled.

    Not much of a stamp collector myself, but I did go to the Pacific 97 International Stamp Exhibition in San Francisco way back when. I bought some interesting stuff that I can’t seem to locate any more (sort of like Obama with his old documents). I also remember that the USPS issued these triangular stamps to commemerate that show:

    http://www.vintage-ephemera.com/cmstore/product_detail.php?id=389099532

  80. avatar
    US Citizen January 27, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

    “Taitz has no failures”

    She has one- she’s not named directly in this article below, but should be… ;-)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

  81. avatar
    Keith January 27, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

    J. Potter: Now that is some 18th level Serendipity!

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Well actually my hobby trip was to come to the American Philatelic Society’s annual meeting here in Atlanta and to visit the High Museum. The birther hearing was added to the trip I already scheduled.

    I can’t get anyone to even look at my collection down here in Australia. There’s lots of stamp and coin shops all over the place, and even though I haven’t added to it in 30 years or so, its got some pricey pieces in it (well, probably max $100 or so, I’m not the Smithsonian). Nobody is interested in even giving me a quote for insurance, let alone an offer to buy.

  82. avatar
    Wile January 27, 2012 at 11:54 pm #

    J. Potter:
    Someone suggested that may be Mailihi’s “angry” signature, and i’m starting to think they were right!

    Not someONE…someBODY.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOTDn2A7hcY

  83. avatar
    gorefan January 28, 2012 at 12:44 am #

    J. Potter: I take moving the date up as a positive sign. Judge has had his fill.

    Maybe or else it was at the request of the SoS. In case he needs new ballots.

  84. avatar
    Nathanael January 28, 2012 at 2:05 am #

    y_p_w: and she selectively trimmed out the part of the law that says that Georgia only issues them to request depositions in foreign countries.

    She was probably reading through the rules and when her eyes got to the part that didn’t agree with her, they glazed over until she got to the part that did, so that she didn’t even cognitively register the disagreeable stuff. Since she knows she’s right, anything that seems to say otherwise is, perforce irrelevant or just outright wrong. So I doubt Orly thought of herself as cherry-picking.

  85. avatar
    Nathanael January 28, 2012 at 2:15 am #

    El Diablo Negro: A letter rogatory or letter of request is a formal request from a court to a foreign court

    Well, any extra-jurisdictional court, not necessarily outside the country. Malihi just denied Taitz’s request for letters rogatory to Hawaii attempting to get her hands on the original BC. You gotta hand it to Orly — she’s persistent!

    Sometimes I wish Hawaii would just let her see the dang thing just to see the look on her face when she finally realizes it really doesn’t contain the password to the Illuminati’s secret Swiss bank accounts (which also happens to be Obama’s really real SSN). But then it hits me she’d probably insist on dragging Irey with her and demanding he be allowed to run his ink-stained fingers up and down the thing and I realize it’s much safer locked away.

  86. avatar
    Sef January 28, 2012 at 2:26 am #

    J. Potter: Someone suggested that may be Mailihi’s “angry” signature, and i’m starting to think they were right!

    I wouldn’t necessarily say that is his “angry” signature. However, the tall caps & small LC letters indicates he has a very advanced feeling of his own importance. Megalomania, maybe?

  87. avatar
    Nathanael January 28, 2012 at 2:37 am #

    dThe Magic M: Well, the route of “Obama didn’t present any evidence and even if I take the birthers’ evidence as fact, I still haven’t seen Obama prove his 14 year residency”, if he really really wanted to. But I don’t think he will.

    I don’t think he can. His mandate is to establish relevant facts and then make a recommendation based on those facts. If he recommends removing Obama, he’ll have to do so based on some sort of consistent narrative derived from the facts on record.

    I don’t think he can derive anything resembling a consistent narrative from the steaming pile of poo the plaintiffs gave him. In her entire presentation, Taitz literally said not one thing relevant to the question of eligibility, so Malihi can’t use anything she said.

    That leaves Hatfield and Irion. But about the only fact (let alone fact of relevance) in their presentations was that Obama was born in Hawaii (to which plaintiffs stipulated). The rest was simply Vattelist claptrap which is not fact, but legal argument.

    Malihi might decide to go full birfer and make recommendation based on Hatfield and Irion’s preentation, but that’d just be setting himself up for overturn on appeal.

  88. avatar
    Nathanael January 28, 2012 at 3:04 am #

    LineInTheSand:
    Yes, and for my next trick, I’m going to turn a computer-generated piece of s *** t into a valid b.c.!!!

    Oh, please! You birfers still have no clue, do you? The PDF is NOT the birth certificate. The state of Hawaii did not certify a PDF. It certified the pieces of paper in Judith Corley’s brief case.

    The PDF is utterly, completely, absolutely, altogether, entirely, fully, purely, thoroughly, totally and in toto irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how many layers, artifacts or pixels it has. It. Is. Not. The. Birth. Certificate. Full stop. It is only a picture of the birth certificate.

    Arguing the COLB is a forgery because the White House PDF has layers is exactly like arguing Mt. Rushmore doesn’t exist because, you see, I bought this here picture postcard of it, and it’s been photoshopped.

    Please, birthers, for the love of Pete — get over the PDF already. And get a clue.

  89. avatar
    Sef January 28, 2012 at 3:20 am #

    Nathanael: Arguing the COLB is a forgery because the White House PDF has layers is exactly like arguing Mt. Rushmore doesn’t exist because, you see, I bought this here picture postcard of it, and it’s been photoshopped.

    But you could argue that New Hampshire’s Old Man of the Mountain doesn’t exist because you have this postage stamp and it has been cancelled.

  90. avatar
    Keith January 28, 2012 at 3:44 am #

    Nathanael: Malihi might decide to go full birfer and make recommendation based on Hatfield and Irion’s preentation, but that’d just be setting himself up for overturn on appeal.

    In which case, the recommendation would be ‘natural born citizen’, he’s on the ballot.

  91. avatar
    Keith January 28, 2012 at 3:46 am #

    Nathanael: The PDF is utterly, completely, absolutely, altogether, entirely, fully, purely, thoroughly, totally and in toto irrelevant.

    Except that two of the three challengers stipulated that the information on the printed PDF copies they had was correct 8-)

  92. avatar
    Keith January 28, 2012 at 3:47 am #

    Sef: But you could argue that New Hampshire’s Old Man of the Mountain doesn’t exist because you have this postage stamp and it has been cancelled.

    Oooooh, I like that… Now I gotta go dig up my stamp and scan it into a PDF.

  93. avatar
    G January 28, 2012 at 5:08 am #

    AMEN!

    Nathanael: Please, birthers, for the love of Pete — get over the PDF already. And get a clue.

  94. avatar
    Northland10 January 28, 2012 at 9:56 am #

    Nathanael: Please, birthers, for the love of Pete — get over the PDF already. And get a clue.

    All the while, some of the birthers print the PDF and submit it to the hearing as evidence that President Obama’s father was born in Kenya. Orly then goes and tries to discredit her co-plaintiffs evidence by trying to show it is a forgery.

  95. avatar
    Greenfinches January 28, 2012 at 11:06 am #

    seconded, thirded etc etc

    sad to see such obsession over an irrelevancy. Think of how much the birthers might accomplish if they spent thinking time on something that mattered….. well you never know!

    G:
    AMEN!

  96. avatar
    JPotter January 28, 2012 at 12:40 pm #

    If PDFs can re-write history, that one heck of a blank check! What changes should we make first? ;)

  97. avatar
    y_p_w January 28, 2012 at 12:45 pm #

    Sef: But you could argue that New Hampshire’s Old Man of the Mountain doesn’t exist because you have this postage stamp and it has been cancelled.

    But it doesn’t exist. The Old Man of the Mountain was cancelled by gravity.

    Of course the birthers would just say that somebody “got to” gravity.

  98. avatar
    y_p_w January 28, 2012 at 1:53 pm #

    JPotter:
    If PDFs can re-write history, that one heck of a blank check! What changes should we make first?

    Yes – I suppose there must be some Ministry of Truth like the one in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, only using more sophisticated technology than printing presses.