Main Menu

The Birther’s day in court

This article introduces a new Editorial category here at Obama Conspiracy Theories, Editorial.

Be careful what you wish for.

I think that applies very much to the Birthers and their desire to have have their claims about President Obama examined by a court. It looks like they have gotten their wish in Georgia in the case of Farrar v Obama.

Up until now Birther lawsuits had two major problems getting a case heard on the merits: no case and no merits. In almost all of the suits the Birthers had no case, i.e. no case that the federal courts had jurisdiction to hear. In one state suit, Ankeny v Daniels, some of the merits of the suit were addressed by the court, but Birthers mostly ignore it or say it was decided wrong.

This time around, in Farrar, the plaintiffs have a perfect right to challenge Obama’s eligibility to appear on the Georgia presidential preference ballot because Georgia law says so. They have formally valid suit. The problem, as they will no doubt be told in the course of things, they have no merit. That’s because the Birther claims consist solely of  unfounded allegations, impossible rumors and crank legal theories. However, unlike Ankeny, there will be a great deal of attention focused on Georgia and it will be difficult for the Birthers to shrug off the result.

One of the Plaintiff’s attorneys in the case is Orly Taitz. She wrote on her blog [link to Taitz blog]

This is particularly sweet, as it is happening in GA, where judge Clay D. Land maligned me so badly and attacked me with $20,000 of sanctions  in order to silence me, to stop me from challenging Obama. Judge Land was sending a message to other attorneys and intimidating them, de facto telling them, “you dare to go after Obama, raise the issue of his forged birth certificate and invalid Social Secrity [sic] number, establishment will attack you and sanction you, just like attorney Taitz”

Now judge Malihi is sending a message: “nobody is above the law.”

Conspiracy theorists like to find “messages” in public statements. Personally I think Judge Land was sending Orly Taitz a message: “break the rules and get punished.” Judge Malihi is sending Orly Taitz a message: “bring a valid suit before the court and it will get heard.” Just remember, Orly, just because you get another 15 minutes of fame doesn’t mean that you’re above the law either.

55 Responses to The Birther’s day in court

  1. avatar
    Gary Miller January 3, 2012 at 4:48 pm #

    I think we can all see how this turns out. The President’s attornies present either one of Obama’s birth certificates and Orly rants raves for an hour. Then the judge declares Obama to be a natural born citizen and the birthers tell everyone that “someone must have got to them” and the nonsense continues.

  2. avatar
    J. Potter January 3, 2012 at 5:23 pm #

    I for one, hope the birthers are allowed to unload all their guns, air all their crazy, just lay it all out on the record ….. tee up a big fat ball for the bench to knock right out the legal park. No responses and definitely no cross (should there be any testimony (pleasepleaseplease)). Just let’em serve up a fat one. Defense case should be short and sweet, whatever docs it takes to satisfy GA (“There y’all go.”) Capped with a short, harsh, devastating, ennumerated, “yougottabefrigginkiddinme” opinion.

    A waste of legal resources, but the people must be entertained!

    … then right back to business as usual.

    Oh, to be a fly on the wall of a birther strategy session.

    I almost typed “brainstorming”. Heh.

  3. avatar
    US Citizen January 3, 2012 at 6:08 pm #

    Looks like judge Malihi will be next to be called a traitor, etc.

  4. avatar
    John Woodman January 3, 2012 at 7:06 pm #

    I for one am glad to see this. I fully support the birthers getting their day in court, rather than simply having their cases thrown out for lack of standing.

  5. avatar
    Daniel January 3, 2012 at 7:32 pm #

    John Woodman:
    I for one am glad to see this. I fully support the birthers getting their day in court, rather than simply having their cases thrown out for lack of standing.

    They do get their day in court, every time they get tossed for lack of standing. Why should a birther suit be exempt from the same standard every other lawsuit in the country has to meet?

  6. avatar
    richCares January 3, 2012 at 7:34 pm #

    in the GA case
    The Plaintiffs’ motion to take deposition isDENIED

  7. avatar
    Lawyerwitharealdegree January 3, 2012 at 7:36 pm #

    Doc, I think your use of the word “case” is inaccurate. They may have “standing” in the GA Administrative Court (although I’m not sure the administrative law judge is correct about that), or the right to proceed, but in legal terms, having a “case” is understood to mean “having an action that has merit”. That is certainly not true in GA or anywhere else.

  8. avatar
    G January 3, 2012 at 8:09 pm #

    Standing is a key part of the MERITs of one’s case.

    The Birthers have gotten their “day in court” all the time. They have been allowed to continuously bring their cases before a judge time and time again. Sorry, but if a case can’t even meet the basic and consistent tests that are applied to ALL such cases before the court, then it is frivolous. But it still got its “day in court” to be taken seriously enough to rule it as frivolous.

    John Woodman:
    I for one am glad to see this. I fully support the birthers getting their day in court, rather than simply having their cases thrown out for lack of standing.

  9. avatar
    Majority Will January 3, 2012 at 8:23 pm #

    For birthers to scoff at standing is another example of many of a despicable attitude and complete lack of respect for U.S. laws.

    Idiotic statements like “just open the vault” is another good example.

  10. avatar
    GeorgetownJD January 3, 2012 at 9:45 pm #

    Lawyerwitharealdegree:
    Doc, I think your use of the word “case” is inaccurate.They may have “standing” in the GA Administrative Court (although I’m not sure the administrative law judge is correct about that), or the right to proceed, but in legal terms, having a “case” is understood to mean “having an action that has merit”.That is certainly not true in GA or anywhere else.

    I would add that this is not going to be heard by a “court” — it is an administrative agency hearing, analogous to New Hampshire’s Ballot Law Commission. The unsuccessful party(ies) has the right to petition the court for a judicial review of the administrative determination.

    Not to diminish the role or qualifications of Judge Mahili, but I doubt an administrative law judge is going to break new ground with a novel interpretation of “natural born citizen.”

  11. avatar
    Loren January 3, 2012 at 10:21 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: I would add that this is not going to be heard by a “court” — it is an administrative agency hearing, analogous to New Hampshire’s Ballot Law Commission.

    No, it’s a court. It’s a court of very limited jurisdiction, but it’s a court. And the holding will be by a judge appointed by the governor, not by a panel of commissioners. By law, the judge’s holding can even be appealed to a higher court.

    That said, what’s happening on the 26th is still properly termed a “hearing.” Not, as Orly seems to think, a “trial.”

  12. avatar
    GeorgetownJD January 3, 2012 at 11:22 pm #

    Loren: No, it’s a court.It’s a court of very limited jurisdiction, but it’s a court.And the holding will be by a judge appointed by the governor, not by a panel of commissioners.By law, the judge’s holding can even be appealed to a higher court.

    That said, what’s happening on the 26th is still properly termed a “hearing.”Not, as Orly seems to think, a “trial.”

    Perhaps. I would argue that it is an independent, quasi-judicial agency. It is not part of the judicial branch. The OSAH presides over state administrative law proceedings challenging administrative actions. Oversight of agency rulemaking generally is not a judicial function.

  13. avatar
    US Citizen January 4, 2012 at 2:07 am #

    Loren:

    That said, what’s happening on the 26th is still properly termed a “hearing.” Not, as Orly seems to think, a “trial.”

    That’s the difference between Orly’s imagination and reality.
    What is a hearing for her is, to her, a trial for Obama.
    Of course, there’s not been a real trial yet for Obama.

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 4, 2012 at 2:26 am #

    I was aware of the problem and changed some of the “cases” in the second draft, but I missed some. I fixed it up now.

    Lawyerwitharealdegree: Doc, I think your use of the word “case” is inaccurate.

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 4, 2012 at 2:36 am #

    I’ve been looking at the (I hope correct) Court Calendar, and I’m not seeing anything on the 26th that matches (nor for the month of January for that matter).

    http://www.osah.ga.gov/default.aspx?Date=1/26/2012

    Any ideas? Is the date still tentative?

    Loren: That said, what’s happening on the 26th is still properly termed a “hearing.” Not, as Orly seems to think, a “trial.”

  16. avatar
    gorefan January 4, 2012 at 2:48 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Any ideas?

    The ruling came down today maybe it takes a while to be official added to calendar.

  17. avatar
    The Magic M January 4, 2012 at 5:50 am #

    This reminds me of SCO vs. Novell (a FUD case, the corporate equivalent of a crank case).

    SCO claimed it had proof of “millions of lines of code” copied from their Unix variant to Linux. When they finally had their “day in court” (after first losing on summary judgment, then winning an appeal to get a jury trial), the judge’s first reaction to their evidence (a mere 350 lines of code) was “is this all you’ve got?”.
    They lost the jury trial and then moved for the judge to overrule the jury, of course in vain.

    I expect that this case might run a similar course – when the defense presents the (physical) COLB, they will ask the judge to ignore it and instead rule against Obama because of their online rumours…

  18. avatar
    Northland10 January 4, 2012 at 7:04 am #

    The Magic M: This reminds me of SCO vs. Novell (a FUD case, the corporate equivalent of a crank case).

    I have been thinking the same thing for some time. Maybe the birthers have been taking their legal advise from the SCO cases, obviously missing that whole bankruptcy thing.

  19. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny January 4, 2012 at 9:01 am #

    The Obama side should simply hand over a COLB and quote Ankeny versus Indiana.

    Judges are not fools. This judge and the one(s) to follow in Appeal will understand that no Georgian decision ignoring the COLB would be allowed to stand. States have to obey Article 4, section 1. Saying the COLB is irrelant because some Prussian guy is supposed to have written about citizen parentS, would mean discrepancy between the States. Supreme Court again (note that Ankeny assumed the COLB was valid).

    And it is not going to happen.

  20. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny January 4, 2012 at 9:04 am #

    Would be nice if Taitz appealed it, however. She has, after all, a reputation to hold up in Georgia.

    Some judge may actually think she is harming her clients again. If you understand my drift.

  21. avatar
    Sef January 4, 2012 at 9:41 am #

    Paul Pieniezny:
    The Obama side should simply hand over a COLB and quote Ankeny versus Indiana.

    Judges are not fools. This judge and the one(s) to follow in Appeal will understand that no Georgian decision ignoring the COLB would be allowed to stand. States have to obey Article 4, section 1. Saying the COLB is irrelant because some Prussian guy is supposed to have written about citizen parentS, would mean discrepancy between the States. Supreme Court again (note that Ankeny assumed the COLB was valid).

    And it is not going to happen.

    Was the COLB admitted into evidence in Ankeny or was it just stipulated?

  22. avatar
    maddog2021 January 4, 2012 at 10:46 am #

    “Georgia has determined that it is in the best interest of its citizens to screen candidates prior to placement on the ballot.

    “Because it is undisputed that Mr. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, the defendant can never be a natural-born citizen, as that term was defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, the defendant cannot meet the constitutional requirements to hold the office of president. See U.S. Const. Art. II Section 1.5 Georgia election code requires such a candidate to be stricken from any Georgia ballot.”

    The U.S. Supreme Court opinion cited is Minor v. Happersett from 1875. It includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen,” a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.

    That case states:

    The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

    Irion said the goal would be an injunction that would deprive Obama of Democratic Party certification.

  23. avatar
    gorefan January 4, 2012 at 11:02 am #

    maddog2021: That case states:

    I wonder what Judge Malihi will think when he reads the whole quote from Minor v. Happersett?

    Or what will he think when he reads this:

    “But the supreme court has never squarely determined, either prior to or subsequent to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment in 1868, the political status of children born here of foreign parents. In the case of Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 168, the court expressly declined to pass upon that question.” Judge Morrow, District Court, Northern District of California in re. Wong Kim Ark, January 3, 1896 No. 11, 198.

    Or this:

    “Thus, the Court [in Minor v. Happersett] left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.” Court of Appeals of Indiana, Ankeny and Kruse, vs. Governor of the State of Indiana

  24. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny January 4, 2012 at 12:12 pm #

    Sef: Was the COLB admitted into evidence in Ankeny or was it just stipulated?

    The plaintiffs (who claimed that McCain was NOT an NBC either) assumed Obama was born in America. Their blood-and-soil argument was based on Vattel, some dicta from SCOTUS (surprise, surprise, including Minor) and some statements by US politicians in the 19th century.

    The judges did not really address the issue with McCain, since Obama won the electoral votes of Indiana (I think there is a footnote suggesting he probably was an NBC). So, Ankeny is just about the “parents” part of the Vattel argument and says Wong Kim Ark contradicts it.

  25. avatar
    ellen January 4, 2012 at 3:42 pm #

    I believe that smrstrauss would probably appreciate any help from constitutional experts over at http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=909525113481608842&page=1&token=1324496414797

  26. avatar
    bernadineayers January 4, 2012 at 4:37 pm #

    John Woodman:
    I for one am glad to see this. I fully support the birthers getting their day in court, rather than simply having their cases thrown out for lack of standing.

    you are wise john woodman, what’s going on with the debate??, i’ve been trying to connect with you on your site. scott erlandson

  27. avatar
    thisoldhippie January 4, 2012 at 4:42 pm #

    The hearing information for docket number 1215136 is not available.

  28. avatar
    Judge Mental January 4, 2012 at 8:21 pm #

    There’s no guarantee that there will even be a hearing on 26 January (or rather three consecutive hearings as it is now).

    If he wanted to for tactical reasons, surely there’s nothing stopping Obama’s lawyer submitting a motion for summary judgement enclosing a certified copy birth certificate (2007 issue or 2011 issue) and an affidavit that he has been resident for at least 14 years.

    That’ll do nicely thanks……..NEXT case!

    Possible?

  29. avatar
    chancery January 4, 2012 at 9:27 pm #

    >>>GeorgetownJD: I would add that this is not going to be heard by a
    >>> “court” — it is an administrative agency hearing, analogous to New
    >>>Hampshire’s Ballot Law Commission.

    >>Loren: No, it’s a court. It’s a court of very limited jurisdiction,
    >>but it’s a court.

    >GeorgetownJD: Perhaps. I would argue that it is an independent,
    >quasi-judicial agency. It is not part of the judicial branch.

    One interesting question is whether the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings is a “State court” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §1446 (Procedure for Removal), or whether the first time a “court” would be seized of jurisdiction over this matter would be when an appeal is taken to the Superior Court. A very quick westlaw search did not turn up any cases removed to federal district court from the OSAH.

    Chancery

  30. avatar
    y_p_w January 6, 2012 at 10:16 am #

    I believe there’s also going to be a hearing in Alabama.

    I’d think they’d want to be prepared for this by having a several copies of his certified birth certificate available for any court cases. It’s only $10 for the first copy and $4 for each additional copy. Perhaps he could make another special request for multiple certified copies made from the long form. Let the court examine the documents and determine that they’re genuine. Heck – let the plaintiffs examine them if they want in the presence of the judge. Obama could always order up more if they do something stupid like try to destroy or deface them. The great thing about certified birth certificates is that in court one copy is as good as any other.

    It sounds like the birthers hope to be able to somehow depose President Obama by filing in multiple states until one judge somehow approves it.

  31. avatar
    J. Potter January 6, 2012 at 11:07 am #

    y_p_w: It sounds like the birthers hope to be able to somehow depose President Obama by filing in multiple states until one judge somehow approves it.

    Well, then, they only have to beat 1/50 odds … assuming all states allow a similar eligibility review. Anyone think their chances exceed 2%?

    Unless they have already filed in every state, they’re going to miss a lot of deadlines … has anyone offered to help the birthers by pointing this out? Nationwide coordination is asking a lot of them.

  32. avatar
    J. Potter January 6, 2012 at 11:50 am #

    J. Potter: Unless they have already filed in every state, they’re going to miss a lot of deadlines …

    Checking the postings at http://obamaballotchallenge.com/ … assuming this site has any sort of authority …. it looks like they have a long way to go. most states have only the contact info for the Secretary of State! They have gathered some info on a few states (hey look, OK has a detailed eligibility review process!) … that’s about it.

    Why isn’t Farah all over this, trying to do something to impress his followers? Let’s see:

    1. It looks like work.
    2. He knows a loser when he sees it.
    3. Results threaten his funding base. Gotta keep the flock frustrated to keep’em hooked.

    However, since 2 and 3 cancel each other out, his absence can only be due to laziness or lack of imagination. A state-by-state sideshow would be a great corollary to the state-by-state primary sideshow. Keep his flock tuned in for each week’s failure. Maybe next time! …. next time! …. next time!

  33. avatar
    The Magic M January 6, 2012 at 11:53 am #

    > I’d think they’d want to be prepared for this by having a several copies of his certified birth certificate available for any court cases.

    Couldn’t they just submit one in the GA case and use the judge’s ruling as precedent? At least in those states that are within the same district, that should work. And in any other district, the court could still say “unless you bring some substantial evidence, why should I not trust the judgment of the GA judge in precisely the same manner?”, right?

    Especially since neither forum shopping nor relitigating the same manner in every state is something courts like very much, I suppose.

    I’ve hoped from day 1 that such a ruling on the merits would be the birthers’ worst nightmare, next to Obama publishing the LFBC. It would reduce the potential audience even more. I mean, which presidential candidate will go “that judge was probably corrupt or stupid”? They may spin the LFBC somehow, but who can spin a court ruling without sounding totally insane?

  34. avatar
    lee1233 January 6, 2012 at 4:04 pm #

    The birth certificate is simply a misdirection ploy used by Obama supporters to conceal the real problem concern the citizenship status of his birth parents in particular his father Obama Sr. “Article II, section I, paragraph 5–No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.” This is truly an amazing chain of troubling events for our nation. Had the Main Stream Media turned its lazier beam on Barack H. Obama as they did on Sarah Palin, our nation would not be so divided as it is today. We now know that Obama’s unusual origins have a lot of vetted blank pages. It is time to put his status as a “natural born citizen” to rest. This court trial may be the beginning or the end for the truth to prevail.

  35. avatar
    NBC January 6, 2012 at 4:09 pm #

    Latest updates

    Alabama

    Defendants file motion in opposition to motion for stay

    Even if Plaintiffs California counsel is somehow able to secure local counsel and comply with the Bar’s admission rules, the Defendant will likely oppose her pro hac application based on her long and sordid history of sanctions and other unprofessional conduct. See, e.g., See Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F.Supp.2d 1363 (M.D. Ga. 2009), ajJ’d., 368 Fed.Appx 949 (11th Cir. 2010) ($20,000 in sanctions). “The grant of admission to a nomesident attorney to appear in this court pro hac vice is not a right but a privilege, the granting of which is a matter of grace resting in the sound discretion of the presiding judge.’” Steinbuch v. Cutler, 463 F.Supp.2d 4, 7 (D.D.C. 2006).

    Judge denies Al’s motion for stay.

    Hawaii

    Judge denies Orly’s motion
    Orly was unaware of hearing on 26th in Hawaii
    Orly tried to argue subpoena but judge shut her down
    AG asked for sanctions but Judge responded that this would require a written motion

  36. avatar
    Scientist January 6, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

    lee1233: No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President

    If you read English, then the clear meaning of that sentence is that you had to be either:
    1. A natural born citizen in 1788
    or
    2, A citizen of the United States in 1788

    The last eligible person died about 130 years ago. Yet we go on….

  37. avatar
    Majority Will January 6, 2012 at 4:28 pm #

    lee1233:
    Had the Main Stream Media turned its lazier beam on Barack H. Obama as they did on Sarah Palin, our nation would not be so divided as it is today.

    I’m familiar with Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation

    . . . but what’s a lazier beam?

    A more lazy beam? Did it do something to Sarah Palin?

    Intriguing.

  38. avatar
    G January 6, 2012 at 4:49 pm #

    LMAO! How utterly silly of you to suggest that!

    Sorry, but *all* of the Birther nonsense comes from one direction only – the Birthers themselves.

    They only have themselves to blame for coming up with various wacky and utterly unsupportable theories.

    Therefore, it is only the Birther’s one fault that they keep moving their own goalposts and coming up with new even more wacky fantasies and often try to argue a bunch of them all at the same time…even when half of them contradict the other half…

    Sorry, but there is “no” real Constitutional issue or concern here at all. All of the Birther claims are utter hooey.

    lee1233:
    The birth certificate is simply a misdirection ploy used by Obama supporters to conceal the real problem concern the citizenship status of his birth parents in particular his father Obama Sr.“Article II,section I, paragraph 5–No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”This is truly an amazing chain of troubling eventsfor our nation.Had the Main Stream Media turned its lazier beamon Barack H. Obama as they did on Sarah Palin, our nation would not be so divided as it is today.We now know that Obama’s unusual origins have a lot of vetted blank pages.It is time to put his status as a “natural born citizen” to rest.This court trial may be the beginning or the end for the truth to prevail.

  39. avatar
    J. Potter January 6, 2012 at 4:54 pm #

    Oh, shocking, in less than an hour, the birther brain trust has been wound up to ‘spin’ cycle:

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/06/breaking-hawaii-judge-knowingly-schedules-next-hearing-for-date-on-which-atty-orly-taitz-must-be-in-georgia/

    … apparently suggesting the existence of an interstate judicial cabal, coordinating dates just to make life difficult for Orly. They expect courts in multiple jurisdictions to accomodate their schedule? LOL! Real lawyers handle this kind of thing all the time with proper paperwork and team work. But to birthers? It’s not inconvenience, it’s…. it’s … it’s a CONSPIRACY!!!

    I begin to suspect this foolishness is written in advance.

  40. avatar
    ellen January 6, 2012 at 5:08 pm #

    lee said:

    “The birth certificate is simply a misdirection ploy used by Obama supporters to conceal the real problem concern the citizenship status of his birth parents in particular his father Obama Sr. “Article II, section I, paragraph 5–No person except a natural born citizen,”

    Obama’s father’s citizenship, and for that matter the citizenship of BOTH is father and his mother, have no effect on Obama’s Natural Born Citizen status because of his birth in Hawaii. It is the PLACE of birth, not the citizenship of the parents, that determines Natural Born Citizen status.

    Here is how the term was used in the USA in 1803, shortly after the US Constitution was written:

    “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

    As you can see, that refers only to the place of birth, not the parents. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within the state.”

    And here is how it was used in 1829:

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    And here is how it was used quite recently in a book about the US Constitution:

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President…”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    Who told you that Natural Born Citizen status is determined by the parents?

  41. avatar
    Whatever4 January 6, 2012 at 7:52 pm #

    lee1233:
    The birth certificate is simply a misdirection ploy used by Obama supporters to conceal the real problem concern the citizenship status of his birth parents in particular his father Obama Sr.“Article II,section I, paragraph 5–No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”This is truly an amazing chain of troubling eventsfor our nation.Had the Main Stream Media turned its lazier beamon Barack H. Obama as they did on Sarah Palin, our nation would not be so divided as it is today.We now know that Obama’s unusual origins have a lot of vetted blank pages.It is time to put his status as a “natural born citizen” to rest.This court trial may be the beginning or the end for the truth to prevail.

    What blank pages do you see? Because we do know quite a bit about Obama. There were hundreds of articles in major news outlets about every phase of his life.

  42. avatar
    The Magic M January 7, 2012 at 5:27 am #

    lee1233:
    The birth certificate is simply a misdirection ploy used by Obama supporters

    Yes, we Obots own WND, Post & Email, Orly and all the other birfer sites who have been trumpeting “where’s the (long/long long/real/original/unforged authentic longlonglong) birth certificate” for years.
    You got us, our game’s over. You win.

  43. avatar
    nbc January 12, 2012 at 7:36 pm #

    HI – Taitz v Nishimura (HI Supreme Court) – Mandamus Denied

    Upon consideration of petitioner Dr. Orly Taitz’s petition for a writ of mandamus, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate an entitlement to mandamus relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai5i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action. Such writs are not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures.). Accordingly,

    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
    mandamus is denied.

  44. avatar
    nbc January 12, 2012 at 7:37 pm #

    AL – Sorensen v Kennedy – Opposition to Motion to recuse

    FN 1: It should be emphasized that this objective standard uses the perspective of a “reasonable person” and does not permit the unsupported allegations of a handful of fanatical conspiracy groupies to determine your Honor’s fitness to hear this case.

  45. avatar
    G January 12, 2012 at 8:26 pm #

    Thanks for the update, NBC! Well done by the courts!

    nbc:
    HI – Taitz v Nishimura (HI Supreme Court) – Mandamus Denied

  46. avatar
    G January 12, 2012 at 8:27 pm #

    LMAO! Awwwww…snap!

    nbc:
    AL – Sorensen v Kennedy – Opposition to Motion to recuse

    FN 1: It should be emphasized that this objective standard uses the perspective of a “reasonable person” and does not permit the unsupported allegations of a handful of fanatical conspiracy groupies to determine your Honor’s fitness to hear this case.

  47. avatar
    JPotter January 12, 2012 at 9:07 pm #

    nbc:
    AL – Sorensen v Kennedy – Opposition to Motion to recuse

    “… Your Honor should recuse herself on grounds of “‘racial bias, lack of judicial discretion, as well as lack of knowledge of the U.S. Constitution.'”

    Oh the irony and the hubris! The birthers’ legal secretaries are indistinguishable from their internet trolls!

    Maybe they are all hatched from a common egg.

  48. avatar
    NBC January 13, 2012 at 12:42 am #

    Nagamine, the attorney General in Hawaii is now asking for sanctions and to have Orly be declared a vexatious litigator:

    A. Subpoenas issued from a Georgia State administrative tribunal have no force or effect in Hawaii

    B. A court in Hawaii has no authority to enforce a Georgia Administrative subpoena

    C. Even if the subpoena from the Georgia State administrative tribunal in Farrar v Obama was a valid subpoena in the State of Hawaii, it would still be insufficient to override the clear mandate of section 338-18, Hawaiian Revised Statutes (HRS)

    D. The plaintiff never served the subpoena in question on the defendants, so enforcement is premature

    E. Plaintiff continues to frivolously waste Defendants’ time and Defendants will be filing a motion for Plaintiff to be sanctioned with (1) order requiring her to pay Defendants’ attorney fees for the time spent subsequent to the dismissal of the case and with (2) an order determining Plaintiff is a vexatious litigator and prohibiting her from filing any additional pleadings in this or any other matter in the State of Hawaii without first obtaining leave of Court

    Orly will fail again in court and now have some real things to worry about. No more frivolous lawsuits, and she will have to pay for her frivolity. Finally, this case may become precedent for future follies in Hawaii…

    Orly is going to blow a fuse…

  49. avatar
    G January 13, 2012 at 1:05 am #

    *** YEAY ***

    NBC: Nagamine, the attorney General in Hawaii is now asking for sanctions and to have Orly be declared a vexatious litigator:Orly will fail again in court and now have some real things to worry about. No more frivolous lawsuits, and she will have to pay for her frivolity. Finally, this case may become precedent for future follies in Hawaii… Orly is going to blow a fuse…

  50. avatar
    James M January 13, 2012 at 1:11 am #

    Whatever4: What blank pages do you see? Because we do know quite a bit about Obama. There were hundreds of articles in major news outlets about every phase of his life.

    I stopped paying attention about the time they started demanding *kindergarten records.* That’s too close to bordering on pedophilia, certainly crossing the line from legitimate inquiry into some depths that I am entirely unwilling to plumb.

  51. avatar
    NBC January 13, 2012 at 1:16 am #

    Meow…

    “The present motion is another example of Plaintiff’s documented practice of filing unsubstantiated moving papers. A few hours of legal research was all it took for Defendants’ counsel to discover the applicable Georgia law pertaining to administrative hearings and administrative subpoenas. Either Plaintiff did not take that minimal amount of time before she presented her frivolous and unsubstantiated claims to this court, or worse scenario, she did take that time and actually knew that she had no merit to her claims.”

    Orly is being set up and the Judge is ready to greet her in her court. I told you guys, the judge will have a surprise waiting for her…

  52. avatar
    J. Potter January 13, 2012 at 9:51 am #

    That response from Nagamine looks to be wonderfully thorough.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/78110807/TAITZ-v-FUDDY-HI-CIR-CT-Memorandum-in-Opposition-to-Plaintiff-s-Motion-Reciprocal-Subpoena-Enforcement

  53. avatar
    JoZeppy January 13, 2012 at 10:13 am #

    Just as an aside here….I haven’t been following Orly recent craziness in Georgia, but by what authority is she even filing anything? Not actually having looked at the Georgia law that allows challenge of candidates, but usually laws of this type only allow citizens of the state to make a challenge. Since Orly is not a citizen, she has no business there. She can’t be claiming to represent clients, because she is not barred in Georgia, so anything she is doing claiming to represent a Georgia client is unauthorized practice of law, and a HUGE no-no.

    But then again, can anyone claim to be surprised when Orly does something that appears to make no sense at all?

  54. avatar
    Reality Check January 13, 2012 at 10:22 am #

    She already has. http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=6342&start=3125#p328495

    “This woman belongs in prison for what she is doing to me, to my clients and to the whole country.
    She belongs in prison together with Obama and Fuddy and a number of others. This regime will not last forever. These people will be prosecuted. It remains to be seen on which side of history the judge will be: will the judge aid and abet this forgery and obstruct justice or will she uphold the law and the constitution and will fight crime in the White House and in the office of Attorney General of Hawaii.
    You can see how much stress I have to withstand, you can see the financial threats that are applied towards me by corrupt officials of Obama regime. I was up from 4 am CA time It is 12:30 HI time or 2:30 am Ca time. It is nearly unbearable to withstand all of this stress of this criminal regime.”

    NBC: Orly is going to blow a fuse…

  55. avatar
    J. Potter January 13, 2012 at 10:48 am #

    JoZeppy: Just as an aside here….I haven’t been following Orly recent craziness in Georgia, but by what authority is she even filing anything?

    JoZeppy,
    Back in November, she was granted motion to represent a Georgia client pro hac vice.

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=28432
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/01/birther-challenge-in-georgia-proceeds/