Main Menu

The Georgia Birther ballot challenge

As I start this editorial, I’m not quite sure what I’m going to say. The story of the Georgia ballot challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility is a fascinating, rich and multi-layered story with twists and turns and surprising connections. However, so much of that story was received in confidence that I don’t think I can write it, at least not now. What I will do is hold up the mirror and talk about how I feel and observe what I see not happening.

I’ve spent a lot of editorial energy on this site criticizing birthers and particularly their methods. I decry smears. I decry lies. I decry legal incompetence and frivolous lawsuits. But for once the Birthers have done the right thing.

The people of the State of Georgia in their wisdom have enacted legislation that allows Georgia voters to challenge the eligibility of candidates to appear on ballots in Georgia. The administrative lawsuit, Farrar v Obama, to be heard this month in Atlanta is an exercise by Georgia citizens of their legal rights to challenge what the Georgia Secretary of State did in approving Barack Obama for the 2012 primary ballot. Judge Malihi agreed when rejecting a motion to dismiss by Obama’s attorney Michael Jablonski.

Don’t misunderstand. I think Birther claims are the worst kind of nonsense. There are no legitimate grounds under which Barack Obama can be excluded from the presidential ballot, but that is beside the point. Birthers believe otherwise, and in Georgia they have the legal right to have those claims examined in court. So I applaud the birthers for following the law and seeking to have their grievances examined in an appropriate venue. What I fail to see is any respected anti-birther raising an objection to the Georgia process. Both sides have come together to agree on the rules of the contest.

That’s for now. There are a number of factors that will certainly upset the idyllic scene. The first factor is Orly Taitz, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys. Keep in mind that the success the Birthers have had in Georgia is not due to Orly Taitz. She didn’t guide them through the process, and she didn’t write the motion that prevailed and prevented dismissal. We can expect Orly to engage in the same deplorable legal demeanor that we’ve seen before. The second factor is that there will be a winner and there will be a loser, and this has to happen advance of the March 6 Georgia Primary. The birthers, specifically, will lose. Once that happens, they will crucify Judge Malihi and deny the validity of the process that they themselves selected. It’s their nature.

Print Friendly

,

103 Responses to The Georgia Birther ballot challenge

  1. avatar
    tim January 8, 2012 at 2:21 pm #

    The birthers may have finally done something correctly but the motion they submitted is full of the normal birther nonsense – including bringing up Nazi Germany.

  2. avatar
    Mark Trammer January 8, 2012 at 3:35 pm #

    ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

    Paragraph 8.

    According, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

    /s/
    MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge

    ————————————————————————————————————

    I like the way Malihi signs off as a Judge and refers to the Administrative Hearing as a Court. It’s a hearing and he’s only writing a opinion. It should be published in the Editorial section of the AJC.

  3. avatar
    G January 8, 2012 at 4:00 pm #

    Good article Doc. I support your position & analysis of the situation so far.

    In terms of the judge’s decision to lump all these cases together or hear them separately, that’s simply a matter of preference and either direction by the judge can be made with sound reasoning.

    In terms of allowing them to split and go forward, this hearing seems to have handled that in the best way possible so far – scheduling them all separate but back to back and putting them in an order of being heard, which seems to be an attempt to respect those who are at least trying to adhere to the process better than Orly. Orly is wisely scheduled last of the four.

    This allows the judge to limit the clown show going off the rails right from the start and more quickly get to rulings up front that can become precedent for quickly dismissing or moving past any similar arguments from subsequent presenters (and also hope mitigate the irelevant tangents that Orly takes at the end). If he can manage the crazy and keep focus, the judge can hope to get through these quickly and efficiently and put them all to rest all in the same day.

    There are a number of factors that will certainly upset the idyllic scene. The first factor is Orly Taitz, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys. Keep in mind that the success the Birthers have had in Georgia is not due to Orly Taitz. She didn’t guide them through the process, and she didn’t write the motion that prevailed and prevented dismissal. We can expect Orly to engage in the same deplorable legal demeanor that we’ve seen before.

  4. avatar
    Daniel January 8, 2012 at 4:19 pm #

    Best thing that could have happened.

    Now when the birthers lose, and they will, they won’t have the “never heard on the merits” excuse to fall back on, lame as it was.

  5. avatar
    bernadineayers January 8, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

    yeah, we just wanted to have it looked at. it’s not rocket science.

    orly didn’t have anything to do with this? for once birthers have done the right thing ?

    c’mon [Personal information violation deleted. Doc]. you’re not hemmingway, just write what you know.

    let’s watch and see if the democrats and the press attack the good judge malihi.

    one thing true is that we’ll all get thru this together.

    [One notes that this is wholly vacuous comment, lacking a single fact to support it. Doc.]

  6. avatar
    JPotter January 8, 2012 at 4:29 pm #

    Doc, any comment on the psychological state (no laughter, please) after years of flailing at the bar? This one tidbit of “success”—if a ruling that simply confirms that 1) Obama is indeed a candidate for a state or federal in Georgia, and 2) the Georgia law, written with no exceptions, applies to primaries and federal offices, can be called success—has them in a tizzy. They have achieved confirmation that Obama is indeed running for reelection. And for this they declare victory.

    Pretty serious case of whipped puppy syndrome, ain’t it? If convinced all along of their “truth” and sincerely believing they were being stonewalled … then shouldn’t they expect to prevail? Seeing them read so much into what says so little, to find so much vindication where there isn’t even acknowledgment, much less vindication, is sad.Typical and predictable, but still sad.

    Creepy and sad. ;-P

  7. avatar
    y_p_w January 8, 2012 at 4:47 pm #

    If they’re going to try and throw all their theories (forged BC, stolen SSN, dual-nationality at birth, etc), what’s to stop someone from trying to keep Mitt Romney off the ballot?

    Mexican nationality law is rather generous as to the granting of Mexican nationality, although “citizenship” is a more complex situation there. George Romney was born in Mexico and should be considered a Mexican national at birth by that very fact. They’re also very clear that a Mexican who was a national at birth (or a naturalized Mexican national at the time of a child’s birth) passes on Mexican nationality to any children. This could get interesting if it some of the crackpot theories get taken to their logical conclusion.

  8. avatar
    bernadineayers January 8, 2012 at 5:33 pm #

    do you guys think obama has been “helpful” in solving this mystery ?

    does anyone besides me find it odd that hillary and barack wanted to “help” john mccain be “eligible” to run for president in 2008?

  9. avatar
    sfjeff January 8, 2012 at 6:17 pm #

    I am really kind of hoping that someone files a claim against Romney in Georgia, claiming that Mormons are excluded from being Natural Born Citizens.

    Seriously- it would be as legal as what has been filed in complaint against Obama’s candidacy.and help put the Obama suits in their proper perspective.

  10. avatar
    Mark Trammer January 8, 2012 at 6:18 pm #

    Doc wrote:

    “There are no legitimate grounds under which Barack Obama can be excluded from the presidential ballot, but that is beside the point. ”

    Whoever “loses” the hearing, it is understood the “decision” will be appealed to the Georgia Supreme court. Whoever loses that decision, it will probably be appealed to the SCOTUS.

    Interesting story: Precedents Begin to Fall for Roberts Court

    Both Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. assured their Senate questioners at their confirmation hearings that they, too, respected precedent. So why were they on the majority side of a 5-to-4 decision last week declaring that a 45-year-old doctrine excusing people whose “unique circumstances” prevented them from meeting court filing deadlines was now “illegitimate”?

    It was the second time the Roberts court had overturned a precedent, and the first in a decision with a divided vote. It surely will not be the last.

  11. avatar
    Mark Trammer January 8, 2012 at 6:19 pm #

    Mark Trammer:
    Doc wrote:

    “There are no legitimate grounds under which Barack Obama can be excluded from the presidential ballot, but that is beside the point. ”

    Whoever “loses” the hearing, it is understood the “decision” will be appealed to the Georgia Supreme court. Whoever loses that decision, it will probably be appealed to the SCOTUS.

    Interesting story: Precedents Begin to Fall for Roberts Court

    forgot the link

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/washington/21memo.html

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 8, 2012 at 7:58 pm #

    The challenge is over whether the candidate is eligible for office and as far as I understand it, and no one who knows more than I has to my knowledge said otherwise, the judge will rule on that question. I would expect the ruling to follow Ankeny on the question of defining “natural born citizen” and the COLB will be accepted as prima facie evidence of place of birth. Anything about social-security numbers would be dismisses as irrelevant to the question before the court.

    JPotter: This one tidbit of “success”—if a ruling that simply confirms that 1) Obama is indeed a candidate for a state or federal in Georgia, and 2) the Georgia law, written with no exceptions, applies to primaries and federal offices, can be called success—has them in a tizzy.

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

    bernadineayers: do you guys think obama has been “helpful” in solving this mystery ?

    I would give credit to the whole gang but Fred, Daphne and Velma certainly deserve more kudos than Shaggy, Scooby-Doo or the President.

  14. avatar
    Majority Will January 8, 2012 at 8:38 pm #

    “REMINDER! I NEED TO FLY A NUMBER OF WITNESSES TO TRIAL IN GA ON THE 26TH. FREQUENT FLIER MILES AND DONATIONS ARE BADLY NEEDED”
    Posted on | January 8, 2012

    Orly thinks it’s a trial.

    And it’s Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi. Appointed Judge in 1995.
    (http://www.osah.ga.gov/judges-dir-detail.aspx?StaffID=mmalihi)

    Court Decisions (for future use): http://www.osah.ga.gov/get-decision.php

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 8, 2012 at 8:44 pm #

    I’ve been probing birther writing a little on the subject and I have found that they are not prepared to lose. First they think (as they always do at the outset) that they have found a sympathetic judge. Some believe that Judge Mahili has issued a subpoena to Hawaii for a birth certificate. They also are generally under the impression that the Supreme Court decision in Minor v Happersett is so obviously definitive for them, that their victory is virtually a slam dunk (ignoring the fact that the Indiana appeals court rejected that view). Finally, they believe that after Mahili rules Obama ineligible, the GA Secretary of State will put Obama on the ballot anyway and Georgia’s governor will back it up. No, they are not prepared to lose.

  16. avatar
    Mark Trammer January 8, 2012 at 9:26 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I’vebeen probing birther writing a little on the subject and I have found that they are not prepared to lose. First they think (as they always do at the outset) that they have found a sympathetic judge. Some believe that Judge Mahili has issued a subpoena to Hawaii for a birth certificate. They also are generally under the impression that the Supreme Court decision in Minor v Happersett is so obviously definitive for them, that their victory is virtually a slam dunk (ignoring the fact that the Indiana appeals court rejected that view). Finally, they believe that after Mahili rules Obama ineligible, the GA Secretary of State will put Obama on the ballot anyway and Georgia’s governor will back it up. No, they are not prepared to lose.

    The problem with Ankeny is that the Indiana Appeals court relied to on dicta from Minor and WKA to establish precedent, i.e. a natural born citizen is a person born in the U.S.

    The precedent from Minor can only be had from it’s holding …”The Court held that voting is not a privilege of citizenship.” See Minor v Happersett Holding which was overturned in part by the 19th Amendment. Anything other than the holding from Minor is dicta. Dicta is guidance for lower courts, but Ankeny set precedent where none existed.

    The holding from WKA …”A child born in the United States, of parent[s] of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil[e] and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.” Anything else derived from WKA is dicta.

    Only the holdings can be used for precedent. Neither Minor or WKA define a Natural born citizen in their holdings. The Constitutional definition of “Natural born citizen” is undefined and has never been defined. The Court won’t define it. Only a Constitutional amendment can define it.

    The only way for the States to determine eligibility is to eliminate those who are ineligible, i.e. naturalized citizens, citizens under 35, citizens who have not been a resident of the US for 14 years or non-citizens.

  17. avatar
    G January 8, 2012 at 9:28 pm #

    Reality will always be a rude awakening for those who constantly wrap themselves in a wall of delusions. They are only safe as long as they are simply bouncing about in a virtual fantasy land.

    Once they have to actually do anything interacting with reality…they deserve the headache they get when their own walls come crashing down on top of them. Of course, they’ll feel the pain, but they will just go back to pretending there was no wall in the first place…

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I’vebeen probing birther writing a little on the subject and I have found that they are not prepared to lose. First they think (as they always do at the outset) that they have found a sympathetic judge. Some believe that Judge Mahili has issued a subpoena to Hawaii for a birth certificate. They also are generally under the impression that the Supreme Court decision in Minor v Happersett is so obviously definitive for them, that their victory is virtually a slam dunk (ignoring the fact that the Indiana appeals court rejected that view). Finally, they believe that after Mahili rules Obama ineligible, the GA Secretary of State will put Obama on the ballot anyway and Georgia’s governor will back it up. No, they are not prepared to lose.

  18. avatar
    Mark Trammer January 8, 2012 at 9:30 pm #

    The hyperlink for Minor v Happersett Holding didn’t show up … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_v._Happersett

    WKA Holding … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

  19. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 8, 2012 at 9:34 pm #

    So, explain to me why you know more about law and precedent than a three-judge panel of the Indiana court of appeals? I would like to know the justification for your authoritative-sounding language.

    Mark Trammer: The problem with Ankeny is that the Indiana Appeals court relied to on dicta from Minor and WKA to establish precedent, i.e. a natural born citizen is a person born in the U.S.

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 8, 2012 at 9:42 pm #

    There are two essential problems with your comment. First, you don’t even understand the holding in Minor, being unable to understand the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition. The second is that you don’t understand the difference between obiter dictum and ratio dicendi and so don’t understand why the court of appeals in Ankeny relied on US v Wong for their precedent.

    You are under the uninformed misapprehension that only the holding in a court decision is precedential. That’s not at all the case. The holding in the case is binding on the parties to the suit. The “law” comes from the chain of reasoning (the ratio dicendi) used to reach the holding.

    That’s why those judges are on the Indiana court of appeals, and you’re not.

    Mark Trammer: The precedent from Minor can only be had from it’s holding …

  21. avatar
    Scientist January 8, 2012 at 9:52 pm #

    Mark Trammer: The Constitutional definition of “Natural born citizen” is undefined and has never been defined. The Court won’t define it. Only a Constitutional amendment can define it.

    So if a court can’t define it, then how can they exclude someone from the ballot?

  22. avatar
    Majority Will January 8, 2012 at 10:04 pm #

    “. . . (1) naturalized citizens, (2) citizens under 35, (3) citizens who have not been a resident of the US for 14 years or non-citizens.”

    LMAO

    1) Not that. Check. 2) Not that. Check. 3) Not that either. Check-a-roo.

    Case dismissed. That was fun! Now give us the state’s time and resources including taxpayer funds back for an idiotic waste.

  23. avatar
    nbc January 8, 2012 at 10:47 pm #

    bernadineayers: do you guys think obama has been “helpful” in solving this mystery ?

    Did he not provide his COLB and finally his long form birth certificate, none of which had much impact on the few confused birthers.

    does anyone besides me find it odd that hillary and barack wanted to “help” john mccain be “eligible” to run for president in 2008?

    Nope, McCain was the ideal candidate to run against.

  24. avatar
    nbc January 8, 2012 at 10:50 pm #

    Mark Trammer: The problem with Ankeny is that the Indiana Appeals court relied to on dicta from Minor and WKA to establish precedent, i.e. a natural born citizen is a person born in the U.S.

    Remember that it is the birthers who appeal to dicta in Minor to establish precedent, even though the court clearly rejects that its ruling addresses the situation of children born to one or no US parents.

    US v Wong Kim Ark is precedential in that it outlines how the Court found Wong Kim Ark to be a (natural born) citizen. Remember that the Government had appealed the case and in its brief argued: is the court correct in having ruled that WKA is natural born (or something like this). Even the dissenting Judge realized that under the ruling, WKA could run for president.

    So let’s not pretend that US v Wong Kim Ark is not relevant, although, as the Court in Ankeny observes, in the end, the Court in WKA used the term citizen, which is equivalent to NBC as WKA could not have been a naturalized citizen.

  25. avatar
    nbc January 8, 2012 at 11:04 pm #

    Mark Trammer: Anything else derived from WKA is dicta.

    Not exactly. For instance the ‘born to Chinese parents’ is not required as the ruling and the arguments have shown, even the permanent residency is not a requirement. What you are confusing here is the term obiter dictum with ratio decidendi. Ratio decidendi depends on the material facts of the decision. Its counterpart obiter “dicta are judicial opinions on points of law which are not directly relevant to the case in question.”

    See for instance Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 US 454 – Supreme Court 1920

    Acheson v. Maenza, 202 F. 2d 453 – Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 1953

    The child was born in the United States to two Italian alien.

    The Court

    While it is by no means certain that Congress would have the power to deprive a natural-born citizen of his American nationality if the citizen himself does not voluntarily renounce his citizenship by some act utterly inconsistent with his American allegiance,[10] we are convinced from a study of the legislative history that Congress had only voluntary army service in mind when it adopted Section 401(c) of the Nationality Act in 1940.[11]

  26. avatar
    nbc January 8, 2012 at 11:07 pm #

    Mark Trammer: The Constitutional definition of “Natural born citizen” is undefined and has never been defined. The Court won’t define it. Only a Constitutional amendment can define it.

    You must have missed US v Wong Kim Ark… Which observes that the term natural born is left undefined and its meaning must be found in Common Law, and then sets out to explain what the Common Law of those days had to say about NBC. They concluded it was birth on soil

  27. avatar
    nbc January 8, 2012 at 11:24 pm #

    The ‘US v WKA’ is just dicta is fascinating to me and shows how clueless some people are about the distinction between obiter dictum and ratio decidendi. In order to reach their conclusion, the Court was required to address the meaning of the term natural born, and in a very well developed argument, they explain how the meaning of the term can be found in English Common law.

  28. avatar
    nbc January 8, 2012 at 11:32 pm #

    So Mark, interested in a walk through the US v WKA opinion? I assume you have read it?

  29. avatar
    Keith January 9, 2012 at 2:01 am #

    I am under the impression that it was the California District Court that specifically said WKA was a Natural Born Citizen, the Government appealed to SCOTUS, and the Supremes then upheld the District Court and therefore, by implication, ‘certified’ that defacto NBC definition.

    In other words, SCOTUS didn’t specifically say WKA::NBC, but by agreeing that the conclusion of the lower court was correct, the definition is the law of the land.

    Am I wrong?

  30. avatar
    nbc January 9, 2012 at 2:11 am #

    Nope

    but when appealing the Government raised the issue

    The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen… (p.2)

  31. avatar
    The Magic M January 9, 2012 at 4:36 am #

    Keith: In other words, SCOTUS didn’t specifically say WKA::NBC

    Didn’t the dissenting opinion specifically state that the ruling makes Wong eligible for presidency (and basically criticized the majority opinion due to this “finding anchor babies eligible for presidency” issue)?

  32. avatar
    Mark Trammer January 9, 2012 at 7:14 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    There are two essential problems with your comment. First, you don’t even understand the holding in Minor, being unable to understand the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition. The second is that you don’t understand the difference between obiter dictum and ratio dicendi and so don’t understand why the court of appeals in Ankeny relied on US v Wong for their precedent.

    You are under the uninformed misapprehension that only the holding in a court decision is precedential. That’s not at all the case. The holding in the case is binding on the parties to the suit. The “law” comes from the chain of reasoning (the ratio dicendi) used to reach the holding.

    That’s why those judges are on the Indiana court of appeals, and you’re not.

    The Ankeny opinion by the Indiana Court of Appeals limited in scope. Plaintiff raised many questions for the Appeals Court to rule on and the Appeals Court whittled it down to one question with one answer.

    Ankeny v State of Indiana, Court of Appeals of Indiana

    OPINION – FOR PUBLICATION

    BROWN, Judge

    1st paragraph of the OPINION – FOR PUBLICATION:

    “Plaintiffs raise nine issues, which we revise and restate as whether the trial court erred by granting motion to dismiss under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6). 1 We affirm. 2″

    3rd paragraph of the OPINION FOR PUBLICATION:

    “The sole issue is whether the trail court erred when it dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim test the legal sufficiency of the claim, not the facts supporting it. General Cas. Ins. Co. v Bright, 885 N.E.2d 56,57 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)(citing Charter One Mortg. Corp. v Condra, 865 N.E.2d 602, 604 (Ind. 2007)”

    Concluding paragraphs of the OPINION FOR PUBLICATION:

    “For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s grant of the Governor’s motion to dismiss.

    Affirmed.

    CRONE, J., AND MAY, J., concur.”

    Any commentary about Natural born citizenship is obiter dictum.

  33. avatar
    Mark Trammer January 9, 2012 at 7:27 am #

    nbc: You must have missed US v Wong Kim Ark… Which observes that the term natural born is left undefined and its meaning must be found in Common Law, and then sets out to explain what the Common Law of those days had to say about NBC. They concluded it was birth on soil

    A declarative statement followed by explanation in support of the statement is how anyone presents a cogent argument.

    A holding, which establishes precedent, is a question (or questions) answered (or ruled, held).

    Any questions answered by the Court are holdings. Any commentary or argument presented by the Court in its Opinion is dicta.

  34. avatar
    Joe Acerbic January 9, 2012 at 8:10 am #

    Respected or not, I raise an objection to the Georgia process. Reason: this kind of procedural indulgence of the birfoons’ delusions always makes them rabidly howl over the impending glorious victory and so when they get the inevitable negative decision, it’s then even more proof of the conspiracy: the “sympathetic” judge was threatened or bribed and turns into a traitor who should be hanged and generally the air is thicker than ever with rage and violent fantasies.

    It would be much better for everybody to quickly laugh them out of court every time.

  35. avatar
    The Magic M January 9, 2012 at 8:56 am #

    Joe Acerbic: always makes them rabidly howl over the impending glorious victory

    So? Let them have what little joy they can find in their twisted parallel universe.

    Joe Acerbic: when they get the inevitable negative decision, it’s then even more proof of the conspiracy

    Yes, but it will remove those non-birthers from the equation who, while not buying into the conspiracy stuff, would fall for “if he ever had to prove his case in court, he’d lose; he’s only won on technicalities so far; he is hiding documents from the court” etc.

    Just like the publication of the LFBC made many ordinary people consider the issue settled, a court ruling would reduce their potential audience even more. The more their entire argument boils down to “just about the entire world is part of a huge conspiracy”, the better.

    I, for one, am not here because I particularly care for 2,000 lunatics who wouldn’t be swayed by God himself speaking out against them.
    I am here because I don’t like the thought that this rabid conspiracism could actually become a political argument.
    Because otherwise, in 2016 we might have presidential candidates asking their opponents for brain scans to prove they haven’t been brainwashed by alien forces (“alien” being used both in its meaning of “foreigner” and “extraterrestrial”). And people believing such stupidity actually has merit – “after all, it’s common to question your opponent’s official state records”.

  36. avatar
    J. Potter January 9, 2012 at 10:11 am #

    Joe Acerbic: It would be much better for everybody to quickly laugh them out of court every time.

    Don’t worry, Joe, they will be laughed out. All the excitement is over the rejection of a motion to dismiss filed by the Blues. The law states all candidates to appear on a Georgia ballot are subject to a review. Jablonski moved to dismiss on the grounds that the GA law didn’t apply to a Presidential election. The judge replied, no, the law says all candidates for state/federal offices, and Mr. Obama is running, so away we go!

    To me, it would have been better from a birther suppression standpoint to have not bothered with the motion to dismiss, and just quietly gone straight to the hearing, and the quick bounce. This ruling has the birthers foaming …. exchanged messages with one who was exuberant, declaring, “We have STANDING!” Umm, yes, but what about a case? This is what I meant above about the effect of 3 years of being blown off. Now, the birthers believe they won something, and Orly’s trying to round up the whole circus. Yeesh.

  37. avatar
    J. Potter January 9, 2012 at 10:11 am #

    Oh, and all groups must be treated fairly. Even the frustrating nutty ones.

  38. avatar
    Ballantine January 9, 2012 at 10:36 am #

    Mark Trammer: A declarative statement followed by explanation in support of the statement is how anyone presents a cogent argument. A holding, which establishes precedent, is a question (or questions) answered (or ruled, held).Any questions answered by the Court are holdings. Any commentary or argument presented by the Court in its Opinion is dicta.

    Wrong. Precedent goes beyond the specific question answered particularly in modern Supreme Court jurisprudence. Any legal proposition necessary to get to the dispostition of the question presented is presumtively part of the holding or ratio decidendi of the decision and hence precedent. I suggest you read something like Stearns and Abramowicz’s authoritative law review “Defining Dicta” on the subject as it lays out all the legal propositions other than the disposition that are to be consisdered part of the holding. WKA ruled that a person of his status was a “citiizen.” Didn’t say he was a citizen under the 14th Amendment. However, the court made clear a person of his status was a citizen under the 14th Amendment and a citizen under the original Constitution since such 14th Amendment was simply declaratory of the English common law definition incorporated into the NBC clause. Without defining what rule was incorporated into original Constitution you simply can’t get to the conclusion he was a citizen. Hence it is not dicta.

    There is also a distinction between judicial dicta and obiter dicta. Obiter dicta would be the discussion in Minor which asserts the common law controls but gives no details on what common law it is talking about, cites no authority, gives no details on what the basis of the rule is or what doubts exists. Such disussion shows no indication that the issue was thoroughly examined. Judicial dicta is a comprehensibe examination of the subject even if dicta. WKA has 20 plus pages examining and defining the common law rule citing every significant authority in England and America. If dicta, if would be judicial dicta. Judicial dicta is generally treated as precedent unless clearly wrong. Accordingly, in Supreme Court jurisprudence, if a subject is treated comprehensibely, there is rarely an argument of dicta versus holding.

  39. avatar
    nbc January 9, 2012 at 11:54 am #

    Mark Trammer: A declarative statement followed by explanation in support of the statement is how anyone presents a cogent argument.

    A holding, which establishes precedent, is a question (or questions) answered (or ruled, held).

    Any questions answered by the Court are holdings. Any commentary or argument presented by the Court in its Opinion is dicta.

    That is incorrect, but I can understand your confusion. The ratio decedend are those components of the argument which are necessary to reach the conclusion. In case of US v Wong Kim Ark the argument goes as follows

    1. Constitution recognizes two kinds of citizens: Natural born and naturalized. Who are natural born citizens?
    2. Constitution does not define the meaning of the term
    3. Thus its meaning should be found in common law usage.
    4. What is the meaning?

    (B)y the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

    Since the Common Law definition includes the term “subject to the jurisdiction”, the court went into quite some depth to outline its meaning to be the fewest words with which to exclude the Common Law exceptions of a “child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born”

    Arguments presented by the Court are NOT dicta but ratio decedendi.

    Cheers.

  40. avatar
    nbc January 9, 2012 at 11:57 am #

    Mark Trammer: The Ankeny opinion by the Indiana Court of Appeals limited in scope. Plaintiff raised many questions for the Appeals Court to rule on and the Appeals Court whittled it down to one question with one answer.

    The Court had to establish ‘de novo’ if the lower Court was correct and thus had to address the issue of Natural Born Citizen, since the court agreed that President Obama was indeed a natural born citizen, citing the US v Wong Kim Ark as precedent, the lower court was correct to dismiss the case.

    You do seem to be somewhat confused about the meaning of dicta though.

  41. avatar
    The Magic M January 9, 2012 at 12:45 pm #

    J. Potter: Now, the birthers believe they won something, and Orly’s trying to round up the whole circus.

    I think there’s a more sinister plot behind this type of birfer propaganda.

    I mean, apart from those few who have a PayPal button to be pushed, none of them gains anything by raising false hopes. Unless they’re hoping one of their fellow fools will be more likely to “snap” and commit a violent act after being so thoroughly disappointed.

    Because the one thing that can drive people over the edge better than constant failure is first giving them hope, only to be crushed the next day.
    It’s how some methods of torture work. You don’t tell the prisoner “you’re never going to get out here alive”, you tell him “dude, your embassy just phoned in, you’ll be released in 5 days”. Then you torture him for the next 5 days, then tell him “sorry, they won’t pick you up, you have to stay”.

  42. avatar
    Joe Acerbic January 9, 2012 at 1:07 pm #

    “Unless they’re hoping one of their fellow fools will be more likely to “snap” and commit a violent act after being so thoroughly disappointed.”

    Bing-o!

  43. avatar
    Judge Mental January 9, 2012 at 1:51 pm #

    Have posted this in both relevant threads.

    Orly has issued a subpoena to the President (via service on his attorney Jablonski) to attend what she bizarrely still keeps referring to as the “trial” on 26 January bringing with him “any and all certified birth records, certified long form birth certificate, certified school/university registration records, certified immigration/naturalization records, certified passport records and redacted certified SS-5 applications under the names Barack (Barry) Soetero, Barack (Barry) Soebarbah, Barack (Barry) Obama and any and all combinations thereof and any other names used”

    It appears to be one of the pre-signed subpoenas of Judge Malihi available online. I guess he’s gonna love that use of the facility.

  44. avatar
    ImaObot January 9, 2012 at 4:23 pm #

    Judge Mental:
    Have posted this in both relevant threads.

    Orly has issued a subpoena to the President (via service on his attorney Jablonski) to attend what she bizarrely still keeps referring to as the “trial” on 26 January bringing with him “any and all certified birth records, certified long form birth certificate, certified school/university registration records, certified immigration/naturalization records, certified passport records and redacted certified SS-5 applications under the names Barack (Barry) Soetero, Barack (Barry) Soebarbah, Barack (Barry) Obama and any and all combinations thereof and any other names used”

    It appears to be one of the pre-signed subpoenas of Judge Malihi available online. I guess he’s gonna love that use of the facility.

    It’s no wonder Obama named Jacob Lew as his Chief of Staff today. Lew is a deep Clinton Operative from the days of Bill Clinton.

  45. avatar
    G January 9, 2012 at 4:28 pm #

    That has always been a concern of mine as well.

    In some ways, the endless clown show of Birfoonery has served as a useful distraction to keep these hate-based fools partially pacified with a bunch of endless futile “OMG” moments.

    Tilting at windmills simply extends their sense of false hope and patience. My greatest concern is what happens when the dangerously unhinged amongst their population no longer have shiny birther games to distract them and finally realize that there is (and never was) any real hope of getting the results they wanted…

    I’m very concerned about those who will decide that the only option they have remaining is to take matters (illegally) into their own hands…

    At some point, this has probably always been inevitable for some of these folks. As long as these ticking time-bombs are being monitored, they can be properly apprehended once they actually take steps in this direction and there is always a good chance that they will be caught before they carry out their atrocities.

    However, as you wisely pointed out, some of these shiny birther games they distract themselves with also carry an inherent danger of just adding fuel to the flames. Any situation where their false hopes get raised beyond their usual level, it is going to lead to an inevitably harsher sting for them when they get smacked down and fail.

    You are absolutely correct that these situations increase the chances for certain riled-up individuals to snap as a result…

    The Magic M: I think there’s a more sinister plot behind this type of birfer propaganda.

    I mean, apart from those few who have a PayPal button to be pushed, none of them gains anything by raising false hopes. Unless they’re hoping one of their fellow fools will be more likely to “snap” and commit a violent act after being so thoroughly disappointed.

    Because the one thing that can drive people over the edge better than constant failure is first giving them hope, only to be crushed the next day.
    It’s how some methods of torture work. You don’t tell the prisoner “you’re never going to get out here alive”, you tell him “dude, your embassy just phoned in, you’ll be released in 5 days”. Then you torture him for the next 5 days, then tell him “sorry, they won’t pick you up, you have to stay”.

  46. avatar
    Majority Will January 9, 2012 at 4:43 pm #

    ImaObot: It’s no wonder Obama named Jacob Lew as his Chief of Staff today.Lew is a deep Clinton Operative from the days of Bill Clinton.

    Did you slide the mumble dog patch off sky banana fish?

  47. avatar
    DG January 9, 2012 at 5:50 pm #

    I haven’t seen this posted here yet. I apologize if it has been.

    Alabama hearing for Obama’s eligibility
    http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/20120108/APN/1201081029

  48. avatar
    Majority Will January 9, 2012 at 6:12 pm #

    DG:
    I haven’t seen this posted here yet.I apologize if it has been.

    Alabama hearing for Obama’s eligibility
    http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/20120108/APN/1201081029

    Best part (excerpt):

    Birmingham businessman Albert Hendershot Jr. contends Obama is not a natural-born citizen, his Social Security number is fake and his birth certificate is too.

    “Any idiot with a computer in the basement can make one,” Hendershot said.

    The Alabama Democratic Party calls Hendershot’s argument political fantasy and says he’s part of a loosely knit group of Internet buddies trying to undermine the president’s candidacy.

    “To call him fringe is probably insulting the fringe,” said attorney Barry Ragsdale.

  49. avatar
    Judge Mental January 9, 2012 at 6:21 pm #

    DG: I haven’t seen this posted here yet. I apologize if it has been. Alabama hearing for Obama’s eligibilityhttp://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/20120108/APN/1201081029

    The case was dismissed this morning. Hendershot put a motion for judge Lee to recuse herself “because she is a Democrat”. The motion was dismissed. Hendershot then tried to withdraw his case. The request was denied. After a short submission by the attorney acting for the Chair of The Alabama Democratic Party, who is actually the defendant in this case, the case was dismissed.

  50. avatar
    G January 9, 2012 at 7:53 pm #

    Thanks for the update. Any links to coverage of the results?

    Judge Mental: The case was dismissed this morning. Hendershot put a motion for judge Lee to recuse herself “because she is a Democrat”. The motion was dismissed. Hendershot then tried to withdraw his case. The request was denied. After a short submission by the attorney acting for the Chair of The Alabama Democratic Party, who is actually the defendant in this case, the case was dismissed.

  51. avatar
    nbc January 9, 2012 at 8:11 pm #

    I guess Mark has left the building?… Oh so typical.

  52. avatar
    Judge Mental January 9, 2012 at 8:33 pm #

    G: Thanks for the update. Any links to coverage of the results?

    Here’s a link to the the judgement…….

    http://media.al.com/bn/other/Judge%20order%20dismisses%20Hendershot%20suit.pdf

    As will be observed the court actually formally dismissed the case due to it having decided that there is no Alabama statute which grants the court the jurisdiction to determine whether the POTUS is a “natural born citizen” or is otherwise eligible to hold the office of President. The judge added that there were many other grounds which could be cited for the dismissal but this one is obviously sufficient alone.

    That probably doesn’t bode very well for other cases in Alabama.

    Never mind, chin up birthers….there’s always the appeals. Apparently Hendershot, who attended without an attorney, is complaining that the judge was racially prejudiced….she is black, he is white (well cuban-american). The defendant who was in this case Mark Kennedy, the Chair of the Alabama Democratic Party and his attorney are both white. Obama is not a defendant in this case. Apparently Hendershot intends to appeal because of racial prejuduce on the part of the judge….go figure.

    Birther sites are headling articles about the case as being “dismissed due to Hendershot being white”

    The stupis must be really burning on this one.

  53. avatar
    Judge Mental January 9, 2012 at 8:38 pm #

    I should add that the dismissal was entirely in line with the reasoning within the motion for dismissal filed by the defendant’s attorney. The judge also mentioned that there were several other bases on which the case could have been dismissed, but that the stated one is obviously sufficient.

  54. avatar
    Daniel January 9, 2012 at 8:46 pm #

    “Your Honor, I respectfully move that you recuse yourself from this case on the grounds that the defendant is a human being, and so are you, which is a clear conflict of interest. If a non-human judge cannot be provided, then clearly the court must rule in my favor.”

    Next weeks’ arguments….

  55. avatar
    JPotter January 9, 2012 at 9:09 pm #

    Judge Mental: no Alabama statute which grants the court the jurisdiction to determine whether the POTUS is a “natural born citizen” or is otherwise eligible to hold the office of President.

    OUCH. That doesn’t bode well for any state-level challenges. Is there any precedent for a state examining this question, prior to an election? Georgia must be headed in another direction, with Malihi already determining that the GA statute applies to all Federal/state offices. I mean, deciding that, “although Presidential candidacy is subject to review, Georgia has no jurisdiction over the Constitutional requirements of the office, so case dismissed” would be … unsatisfying.

  56. avatar
    Judge Mental January 10, 2012 at 6:27 am #

    JPotter: OUCH. That doesn’t bode well for any state-level challenges. Is there any precedent for a state examining this question, prior to an election? Georgia must be headed in another direction, with Malihi already determining that the GA statute applies to all Federal/state offices. I mean, deciding that, “although Presidential candidacy is subject to review, Georgia has no jurisdiction over the Constitutional requirements of the office, so case dismissed” would be … unsatisfying.

    IANAL and have not (yet) researched if there is any precedent for a state examining this specific question “prior to “an election. However it’s already fairly clear from the content of this motion to dismiss that there is certainly ample precedent for Statute 17-66-44 of The Alabama Code (“the jurisdiction-stripping statute”) being held by Alabama Courts to severely restrict the jurisdiction of courts to hear actions challenging “the conduct” of elections and surely little doubt that The Alabama Democratic Party’s action regarding placing Obama on the ballot is an integral part of “the conduct” of an election.

    I suspect that there are going to continue to be wide differences between how the existing statutes in each state deal with this issue and therefore corresponding differences in how the courts in different states approach the matter, hence these initial Alabama and Georgia approaches appearing to be like chalk and cheese. “Get used to it” may be the most appropriate watchwords for the moment.

    On that “get used to it” theme ….in the second Alabama casea similar to Hendershot’s, ie Sorensen v Kennedy, also slated for Judge Lee’s court (followed by a ‘why me’ face palm from her no doubt) Mr Sorensen has filed a motion for the Judge Lee to recuse herself on the basis (my paraphrased summary) that “she is a traitor, a racist and ignorant of the Constitution”.

    The eye-popping disrespect of the wording used by Sorensen is incredible. It can be seen at the link below….

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/77714856/Alabama-Sorenson-v-Kennedy-Motion-for-Recusal

    Perhaps Sorensen is seeking to enrage Judge Lee enough to prompt her to say something in response of a nature that will enable the birthers to say “see, we were right about her all along”.

    Sorensen is an inveterate birther who filed court cases in 2008 in which, against a general background environment of doubt about Obama’s birth in USA, his entire focus was on birth in the USA defining “natural born citizen” status, with zero mention of two citizen parents aspects. Now apparently the two citizen parent requirement has always been his concern. Go figure.

    To me, while the nature of his motion for recusal invokes disgust it should not be that surprising. Being shocked at the behaviour of tin foil hat birthers or lawyers while conducting court cases concerning Obama being placed on the ballot would be the equivalent of being surprised when the escaped orang-outang from the local zoo that you have sat down to Sunday dinner with the family proceeds to smear his own faeces on the best china, eats the candles and tries to rape your daughter.

  57. avatar
    G January 10, 2012 at 7:37 am #

    Quite the disgusting analogy. In other words, quite fitting.

    Judge Mental: To me, while the nature of his motion for recusal invokes disgust it should not be that surprising. Being shocked at the behaviour of tin foil hat birthers or lawyers while conducting court cases concerning Obama being placed on the ballot would be the equivalent of being surprised when the escaped orang-outang from the local zoo that you have sat down to Sunday dinner with the family proceeds to smear his own faeces on the best china, eats the candles and tries to rape your daughter.

  58. avatar
    The Magic M January 10, 2012 at 7:55 am #

    Daniel: “Your Honor, I respectfully move that you recuse yourself from this case on the grounds that the defendant is a human being, and so are you, which is a clear conflict of interest. If a non-human judge cannot be provided, then clearly the court must rule in my favor.”

    I guess they will be in for another surprise then.

    Though I don’t think our Alien Overlords will be pleased to be dragged into this. Instead of sanctions, they might try the alternative from the Galactic Rules of Procedure, Rule 452-j-3 (b) – biting the plaintiff’s head off. ;-)

  59. avatar
    aarrgghh January 10, 2012 at 8:29 am #

    The Magic M: I don’t think our Alien Overlords will be pleased to be dragged into this. Instead of sanctions, they might try the alternative from the Galactic Rules of Procedure, Rule 452-j-3 (b) – biting the plaintiff’s head off.

    i thought (b) was the rule requiring the loser to serve as host to the winner’s eggs.

  60. avatar
    James M January 10, 2012 at 8:46 am #

    nbc: Since the Common Law definition includes the term “subject to the jurisdiction”, the court went into quite some depth to outline its meaning to be the fewest words with which to exclude the Common Law exceptions of a “child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born”

    I would suggest that only the former class is not “subject to the jurisdiction”. How far would the argument go, that an invading army was exempt from the law?

  61. avatar
    Scientist January 10, 2012 at 9:26 am #

    James M: I would suggest that only the former class is not “subject to the jurisdiction”. How far would the argument go, that an invading army was exempt from the law?

    An occupying army is subject to its own laws and, in modern days, to international laws, but not to the laws of the occupied country. US troops in Germany immediately after World War II were not subject to German (Nazi) laws. A soldier who looted or`raped would have been court martialed by the US military, not tried in a German court. Once West Germany was re-constituted as a functioning state, treaties were signed that gave German courts jurisdiction over US and other troops based in Germany. But at that point, the US was no longer an occupier.

  62. avatar
    Judge Mental January 10, 2012 at 11:13 am #

    Scientist: An occupying army is subject to its own laws and, in modern days, to international laws, but not to the laws of the occupied country. US troops in Germany immediately after World War II were not subject to German (Nazi) laws. A soldier who looted or`raped would have been court martialed by the US military, not tried in a German court. Once West Germany was re-constituted as a functioning state, treaties were signed that gave German courts jurisdiction over US and other troops based in Germany. But at that point, the US was no longer an occupier.

    Yep and a more recent example can be seen in the situation regarding what laws applied to US military personnel while in Iraq. Indeed, even after the installation of a new elected Iraq Govt, let alone before that, the US would not agree to Iraqi wishes to make their personnel subject to prosecutions in Iraq for law breaking in Iraq.

  63. avatar
    James M January 10, 2012 at 11:55 am #

    Judge Mental:

    Yep and a more recent example can be seen in the situation regarding what laws applied to US military personnel while in Iraq. Indeed, even after the installation of a new elected Iraq Govt, let alone before that, the US would not agree to Iraqi wishes to make their personnel subject to prosecutions in Iraq for law breaking in Iraq.

    I guess the problem I’m having with this premise is that an invading army inside the US would find itself in any position to decide whether it is “subject to prosecution” etc.

  64. avatar
    J. Potter January 10, 2012 at 12:48 pm #

    James M: I guess the problem I’m having with this premise is that an invading army inside the US would find itself in any position to decide whether it is “subject to prosecution” etc.

    It would seem to be a basic sovereignty issue … as in, an invading army is clearly not respecting the sovereignty of the existing gov’t of the “host” country! The comparison of our remaking of Germany /Japan (possibly others) to our actions in Iraq is an interesting one. The difference in conclusion tied to difference in premise/justification for invasion.

  65. avatar
    Majority Will January 10, 2012 at 12:55 pm #

    J. Potter: It would seem to be a basic sovereignty issue … as in, an invading army is clearly not respecting the sovereignty of the existing gov’t of the “host” country! The comparison of our remaking of Germany /Japan (possibly others) to our actions in Iraq is an interesting one. The difference in conclusion tied to difference in premise/justification for invasion.

    We could use some peaceful nation building reciprocation.

  66. avatar
    Judge Mental January 10, 2012 at 1:00 pm #

    James M: I guess the problem I’m having with this premise is that an invading army inside the US would find itself in any position to decide whether it is “subject to prosecution” etc.

    Although there are many different potential circumstances regarding the state of play during any invasion of USA, I think that in line with common sense it has to be reasonably assumed that the circumstances being envisaged are that the Govt of the USA is in no position to enforce the laws which were in existence immediately prior to the invasion and that it is the invading army/country which will be determining what the laws of USA are henceforth to be.

    Thus the invading army would find itself in exactly in the position of being able to decide for itself whether any of its individuals are subject to prosecution. Just an IMO.

  67. avatar
    J. Potter January 10, 2012 at 1:14 pm #

    Majority Will: We could use some peaceful nation building reciprocation.

    No doubt … have you see the streets in my beighborhood?!? Mortar ranges are smoother!

  68. avatar
    Loren January 10, 2012 at 3:06 pm #

    JPotter: I mean, deciding that, “although Presidential candidacy is subject to review, Georgia has no jurisdiction over the Constitutional requirements of the office, so case dismissed” would be … unsatisfying.

    I’d frankly find it bizarre if that was the ultimate holding. I mean, the statute specifically includes “federal” candidates, and ALL federal elected candidates have their eligibility requirements set in the Constitution. By including “federal” in the statute, the legislature obviously intended for it to cover candidates with Constitution-based requirements.

    So since the statute plainly encompasses candidates for federal office, the only way Malihi could say that it’s inapplicable would be for him to strike down the statute as being somehow unconstitutional. Which is not an argument that Obama’s counsel has even made.

  69. avatar
    J. Potter January 10, 2012 at 4:06 pm #

    FLASH! Orly’s hearing in HI moved up to the 13th, so she can now make her date in HI and in GA. More fun for everyone!

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=30155

  70. avatar
    nbc January 10, 2012 at 4:12 pm #

    All she needed to do is follow a simple procedure of filing a motion to request to expedite the hearing… A child would have known this but Orly had to accuse the Judges of collusion. She is such a sweetheart…

    Nishimuru would love to see her back under her jurisdiction [evil grin]

  71. avatar
    J. Potter January 10, 2012 at 4:31 pm #

    I am sure throwing the fit in court is what cinched it for her. A motion and a call to the legal secretary was all it took.

    On other fronts, she wants $$$ from Sheldon Adelson (gaming mogul), is comparing herself to Joan of Arc, still needs signatures to get on the ballot for Senate (only takes 100, Orly, go stand in front of a mall!), and whined about losing her laptop.

    The best, she is getting testy: “Any person, who believes, he can do a better job in challenging Obama, is welcome to file his own case and win it.”

    We just heard the same sentiment from KevinSB yesterday: “Get off my crazy!”

    All yours, Orly. Our popcorn has faith in you.

  72. avatar
    nbc January 10, 2012 at 5:01 pm #

    The best, she is getting testy: “Any person, who believes, he can do a better job in challenging Obama, is welcome to file his own case and win it.”

    Well, that is setting a low bar, but of course, most qualified people understand that challenging Obama in the Courts is not as simple as Orly hoped it would be. That’s because our legal system protects defendants from frivolous suits where the plaintiff(s) lack in standing. Orly’s worries in her most famous case, did not even involve subject matter jurisdiction until she managed, with the help of the Court, to resolve personal jurisdiction. If Orly were to familiarize herself with the rules of court.

  73. avatar
    G January 10, 2012 at 6:09 pm #

    Agreed.

    nbc: Well, that is setting a low bar, but of course, most qualified people understand that challenging Obama in the Courts is not as simple as Orly hoped it would be. That’s because our legal system protects defendants from frivolous suits where the plaintiff(s) lack in standing. Orly’s worries in her most famous case, did not even involve subject matter jurisdiction until she managed, with the help of the Court, to resolve personal jurisdiction. If Orly were to familiarize herself with the rules of court.

  74. avatar
    G January 10, 2012 at 6:10 pm #

    Thanks for the update! Definitely increases the entertainment factor…

    J. Potter:
    FLASH! Orly’s hearing in HI moved up to the 13th, so she can now make her date in HI and in GA. More fun for everyone!

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=30155

  75. avatar
    nbc January 11, 2012 at 1:06 pm #

    nbc: Mark Trammer: Anything else derived from WKA is dicta.

    What happened to Mark Trammer? Is he too embarrassed to defend his position?

    Ain’t that a shame.

  76. avatar
    Kerry January 14, 2012 at 12:14 pm #

    How much “smoke” do you people need for you to investigate the “political corruption fire”? I am a political independent. I voted neither for Obama nor McCain in the last election. My highest political goal is reverence for the Constitution and truth to be revealed.

    Now I have been involved in politics most of my 53 years of age. I can smell corruption from miles away. But I don’t expect you to take my word…..that much stinks in the Obama legacy. The guy hides his records. Hires dozens of lawyers and spends millions to keep snoopers away. There’s strong evidence he faked his book biographies well beyond ghost writers. (Facts that we do know do not check out.) Relatives in Africa say he was born there. (Lost in translation? Perhaps.) A Scotland Yard detective exposes that Obama’s multiple Social Security numbers don’t add up. Further research shows that Obama’s SSN e-verify does not compute. (SSN from Connecticut no less). When his lawyers bring an electronic copy of his Hawaiian Birth certificate to the White House, Obama does not directly claim it, but lets his lawyers do the talking. When analyzed closely by graphics professionals they all virtually say it is a bad forgery… not even close. (I have a computer degree and have done years of graphics work…I concur that it is a forgery.)

    So how can anyone ignore all this “smoke” and blindly trust Obama or the system AND NOT WANT A FULL INVESTIGATION?

    People have been arrested and tried for murder on less circumstantial evidence! But almost everyone, Congress, Judges, the mainstream media…all continue to be self righteous and drink Obama’s cool-aid. Are they so afraid of being called racists or sparking riots that they will sacrifice TRUTH and live their life in darkness?

    May God have mercy on America.

  77. avatar
    katahdin January 14, 2012 at 12:21 pm #

    Everything you have written is a lie. Apparently you are the corruption you seek.

    Kerry:
    How much “smoke” do you people need for you to investigate the “political corruption fire”?I am a political independent.I voted neither for Obama nor McCain in the last election. My highest political goal is reverence for the Constitution and truth to be revealed.

    Now I have been involved in politics most of my 53 years of age.I can smell corruption from miles away.But I don’t expect you to take my word…..that much stinks in the Obama legacy. The guy hides his records.Hires dozens of lawyers and spends millions to keep snoopers away.There’s strong evidence he faked his book biographies well beyond ghost writers.(Facts that we do know do not check out.) Relatives in Africa say he was born there.(Lost in translation?Perhaps.)A Scotland Yard detective exposes that Obama’s multiple Social Security numbers don’t add up. Further research shows that Obama’s SSN e-verify does not compute. (SSN from Connecticut no less). When his lawyers bring an electronic copy of his Hawaiian Birth certificate to the White House, Obama does not directly claim it, but lets his lawyers do the talking.When analyzed closely by graphics professionals they all virtually say it is a bad forgery… not even close.(I have a computer degree and have done years of graphics work…I concur that it is a forgery.)

    So how can anyone ignore all this “smoke” and blindly trust Obama or the system AND NOT WANT A FULL INVESTIGATION?

    People have been arrested and tried for murder on less circumstantial evidence!But almost everyone, Congress, Judges, the mainstream media…all continue to be self righteous and drink Obama’s cool-aid.Are they so afraid of being called racists or sparking riots that they will sacrifice TRUTH and live their life in darkness?

    May God have mercy on America.

  78. avatar
    Judge Mental January 14, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

    Most of Kerry’s stuff is the usual boiler plates of long ago debunked nonsense, but this one caught my eye…

    “When his lawyers bring an electronic copy of his birth certificate to The White House”.

    Eh? What does that even mean? How does somebody “bring” an electronic copy?

    What kind of a half-wit does not even understand that the lawyer travelled to Hawaii to take personal delivery on behalf of the President of two original certified birth certificates (ie paper documents) signed and sealed by the appropriate Hawaii certifying authority in April 2011 after being prepared from the original vital records on file in Hawaii under probably the most compellingly pristine chain of custody and supervision in copy certified birth certificate history?

  79. avatar
    Scientist January 14, 2012 at 1:14 pm #

    Kerry: People have been arrested and tried for murder on less circumstantial evidence!

    I notice you didn’t say convicted.

  80. avatar
    James M January 14, 2012 at 1:21 pm #

    Kerry: How much “smoke” do you people need for you to investigate the “political corruption fire”?

    If you have evidence of a crime, then why are you withholding it?

  81. avatar
    Majority Will January 14, 2012 at 2:04 pm #

    Judge Mental:
    Most of Kerry’s stuff is the usual boiler plates of long ago debunked nonsense, but this one caught my eye…

    “When his lawyers bring an electronic copy of his birth certificate to The White House”.

    Eh? What does that even mean? How does somebody “bring” an electronic copy?

    What kind of a half-wit does not even understand that the lawyer travelled to Hawaii to take personal delivery on behalf of the President of two original certified birth certificates (ie paper documents) signed and sealed by the appropriate Hawaii certifying authority in April 2011 after being prepared from the original vital records on file in Hawaii under probably the most compellingly pristine chain of custody and supervision in copy certified birth certificate history?

    Half-wit is too generous by half.

  82. avatar
    Northland10 January 14, 2012 at 2:05 pm #

    Scientist: I notice you didn’t say convicted.

    8-)

  83. avatar
    Majority Will January 14, 2012 at 2:05 pm #

    “I can smell corruption from miles away/”

    Most like likely coming from the birther idiot’s upper lip.

  84. avatar
    Majority Will January 14, 2012 at 2:07 pm #

    Look at what birther cesspools do to poison perfectly healthy bigot brains.

  85. avatar
    Daniel January 14, 2012 at 2:08 pm #

    Kerry: I can smell corruption from miles away.

    Sometimes that smell is closer to home. Lift your arms… if the corruption is worse…. then it’s probably not the corruption you’re smelling.

  86. avatar
    Daniel January 14, 2012 at 2:10 pm #

    Kerry: (I have a computer degree and have done years of graphics work…I concur that it is a forgery.

    This one statement, more than any other of yours, is objective and substantive evidence that you don’t have a single clue what you’re talking about.

  87. avatar
    Sef January 14, 2012 at 2:16 pm #

    Daniel: Sometimes that smell is closer to home. Lift your arms

    More likely it’s a crano-rectal insertion problem.

  88. avatar
    Majority Will January 14, 2012 at 2:21 pm #

    Daniel: This one statement, more than any other of yours, is objective and substantive evidence that you don’t have a single clue what you’re talking about.

    Kerry: (I have a computer degree and have done years of graphics work…I concur that it is a forgery.

    I concur! We all concur!

    It’s sad and funny that this silly birther has no clue that a statement like that is incredibly fatuous.

    This birther’s not a doctor but does play one on TV.

    The state of Hawaii should just make real documents instead of these forgeries that geniuses like this can spot so easily.

  89. avatar
    JPotter January 14, 2012 at 2:35 pm #

    katahdin: When his lawyers bring an electronic copy …

    Check the documentation provided to the press. References certified, paper copies.

    Kerry: Obama does not directly claim it, but lets his lawyers do the talking.

    Looks like he did a pretty good job of claiming it to me. Notice how he refers to “we” doing this and “we” doing that?

    Kerry: When analyzed closely by graphics professionals they all virtually say it is a bad forgery… not even close.

    Which experts are you relying on? I’m sure I am familiar with them, but always interested in hearing about new ones.

    Kerry: (I have a computer degree and have done years of graphics work…I concur that it is a forgery.)

    “A computer degree?” The way you worded this indicates a lie, at best an overstatement. What type of degree in what field from what institution completed when? What work have you done when in what fields and where and for whom? Portfolio, resumé, references?

  90. avatar
    Sef January 14, 2012 at 3:41 pm #

    JPotter: “A computer degree?” The way you worded this indicates a lie, at best an overstatement. What type of degree in what field from what institution completed when? What work have you done when in what fields and where and for whom? Portfolio, resumé, references?

    Probably one of those Microsoft self-study courses.

  91. avatar
    Majority Will January 14, 2012 at 3:51 pm #

    Sef: Probably one of those Microsoft self-study courses.

    And lynda.com graphic design classes.

  92. avatar
    JPotter January 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm #

    Sef: Probably one of those Microsoft self-study courses.

    Tee-hee! I suspect it was a fib. I have a lifelong pet peeve, which has led to an as-yet unproven hypothesis, that a person’s use of the word “computer” reflects their level of computer literacy. Constant use of the word in singular form is particularly damning…as if all computing devices were appendages of a worldwide digital entity*. My favorite usage is: “Do you do the computer?” Sounds like a new dance craze.

    * Granted, since the rise of the Internet, they kind of are, and are becoming more so.

  93. avatar
    Majority Will January 14, 2012 at 5:29 pm #

    JPotter: Tee-hee! I suspect it was a fib. I have a lifelong pet peeve, which has led to an as-yet unproven hypothesis, that a person’s use of the word “computer” reflects their level of computer literacy. Constant use of the word in singular form is particularly damning…as if all computing devices were appendages of a worldwide digital entity*. My favorite usage is: “Do you do the computer?” Sounds like a new dance craze.

    * Granted, since the rise of the Internet, they kind of are, and are becoming more so.

    There is a reason that spam offers for cheap, fake college degrees are still around.

    Fools respond to them.

  94. avatar
    Keith January 14, 2012 at 7:03 pm #

    Kerry: I have a computer degree and have done years of graphics work…I concur that it is a forgery.

    I have a computer degree and have done years of graphics work…I concur that you don’t have a clue about what you are talking about.

  95. avatar
    Keith January 14, 2012 at 7:15 pm #

    JPotter: What type of degree in what field from what institution completed when?

    Since I mirrored kerry’s assertion in order to turn in around, I’ll answer for me.

    Mine is (and I’m reading this off the certificate hanging on the wall to my right, or I wouldn’t be able to remember it) Bachelor of Computing (Information Systems) from Monash University in Melbourne Australia. It took me years to get that piece of paper because I was too busy working in the field to actually do it. I was going to do the Masters, and even had the idea of a line of research for a PhD, but got even busier after the BC(IS) that I couldn’t even contemplate it. I could do it now, but my patience and attention span are not what they used to be; I am turning into an old fart at a rapid rate.

  96. avatar
    GeorgetownJD January 14, 2012 at 7:53 pm #

    Kerry:

    People have been arrested and tried for murder on less circumstantial evidence!

    Name three, and detail all the circumstantial evidence offered by the prosecution.

  97. avatar
    Keith January 14, 2012 at 8:37 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: Name three, and detail all the circumstantial evidence offered by the prosecution.

    I can think of one, just off the top of my head.

    Tom Robinson, a black man was been accused of raping a young white woman, Mayella Ewell on no evidence except hearsay. The defending attorney has to fight off bigotry from the town including bullying of his children and attempts to lynch his client.

    The defending attorney successfully established that the accusers—Mayella and her father, Bob Ewell, the town drunk were lying and that the friendless Mayella was making sexual advances towards Tom, and that her father caught her and beat her badly. Despite significant evidence of Tom’s innocence, the jury convicted him. Tom was later killed in an attempted prison escape.

    Oh yeah. The defending attorney was Gregory Peck Atticus Finch.

  98. avatar
    Arthur January 14, 2012 at 10:37 pm #

    Hello –Kerry– and thank you for beseeching heaven on behalf of *Press 1 for United States*. God appreciates your concerns and knows you have many choices when it comes to selecting a divinity to worship. An operator will be with you soon. *Press 2 for Christians* Due to an unexpectedly high number of prayer requests, there are –*138,778,239* worshipers ahead of you. Total wait time is approximately — *five years [and] 23 days*.

    If you are– *Press 1 for birther/press 2 for tea bagger* we suggest that, while you wait, you meditate on the following passage from the Gospel of Mark:

    17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
    19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. 20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. 21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

    You’re Welcome!

    Kerry: People have been arrested and tried for murder on less circumstantial evidence! But almost everyone, Congress, Judges, the mainstream media…all continue to be self righteous and drink Obama’s cool-aid. Are they so afraid of being called racists or sparking riots that they will sacrifice TRUTH and live their life in darkness?May God have mercy on America.

  99. avatar
    Keith January 15, 2012 at 2:16 am #

    Arthur: Total wait time is approximately — *five years [and] 23 days*.

    …Your call has advanced in the queue, you are now caller number *138,778,238* . If you are waiting to beseech heaven on behalf of Tim Tebow, please be aware that he has just been Gronked. If you are calling to beseech on behalf of another subject, please continue to hold, your call is important to us, and we estimate your wait time as *five years [and] 23 days* .

  100. avatar
    Arthur January 15, 2012 at 8:34 am #

    Keith: … If you are waiting to beseech heaven on behalf of Tim Tebow, please be aware that he has just been Gronked. .

    Yeah, Tim-bow got wicked Gronked!

  101. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny January 15, 2012 at 10:07 am #

    Keith: I have a computer degree and have done years of graphics work…I concur that you don’t have a clue about what you are talking about.

    Your are being economical with the truth and with the semantics, but un-economical with your grammar.

    You need to bring back some balance in your life. Try googling Zen and the Art of Computer Maintenance.

  102. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny January 15, 2012 at 10:20 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: Your are being economical with the truth and with the semantics, but un-economical with your grammar.

    You need to bring back some balance in your life. Try googling Zen and the Art of Computer Maintenance.

    That was a joke, of course. “Your’re being economical with the truth” = there must be zennier ways of saying that Kerry’s assertion is a self-aggrandizing, birferous, dastardly lie.

  103. avatar
    Arthur January 15, 2012 at 10:45 am #

    Other claims by Kerry that have appeared around the inernet:

    WebMD: I have a doctor degree and have done years of x-rays . . . that tumor’s a forgery!

    artforum: I have a painting degree and have done years of oiling. . . that Gauguin’s a forgery!

    architecturaldigest: I have a building degree and have done years of architecting . . . that I. M. Pei’s a forgery!

    DRINKSMIXER.COM: I have a alcohol degree and have done years of mixing. . . that Perfect Manhattan’s a forgery!

    naturalhistory: I have a fossil degree and have done years of digging. . . that dinosaur bone’s a forgery!

    Kerry: (I have a computer degree and have done years of graphics work…I concur that it is a forgery.)

333333 44444
5555555
6666666