Main Menu

Orly Taitz watches as Indiana Election panel votes 4-0 in favor of ballot challenge.

That was the big news from Indianapolis today, according the Indianapolis Star, as Republican Senate primary candidate Jim Wallace was stuck from the race for failing to have enough valid signatures on his petition.

Oh, you wanted to know about the Obama ballot challenge? Well, that barely got an “also mentioned” in the Star article:

The commission also voted 4-0 against challenges to both Sen. Richard G. Lugar and President Barack Obama. Lugar was being challenged based on whether he remains an inhabitant of this state, one of the requirements to be a U.S. senator, since he has not lived here since 1977.

Obama was being challenged by a couple of voters, led by California attorney Orly Taitz who thinks Obama is not a citizen of the United States and stole his Social Security number.

Again, Obama was not represented at the hearing by Mike Jablonski, not seen at the empty table in this photo of the hearing:

image

Clearly the quote of the day from one of the panel members:

Dan Dumezich: This is not the Spanish Inquisition.

And:

MS. RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve reviewed these materials, and actually they’re not 300 pages of sworn testimony. There are several unnumbered pages of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which is a so-called legal document that you drafted, no grounds for admission, 100 percent hearsay. And then we have several pages of typed transcript, which I’ve read some of, and it’s actually pretty ridiculous, but again, 100 percent hearsay, inadmissible, and there are a number of other many illegible documents, totally unclear where they came from, whether they were printed off the internet or just some random other source. Nothing that is appropriately before the commission. There’s been no personal authentication or certification or any reason put forth why this body should be taking the public’s time to even review these documents for a minute. And so with that, I would ask that unless there’s any more discussion, I’d like to call the question on the motion to deny the admission of this evidence so that we can move forward to looking at this on the merits.

Learn more:

, , ,

265 Responses to Orly Taitz watches as Indiana Election panel votes 4-0 in favor of ballot challenge.

  1. avatar
    BatGuano February 24, 2012 at 8:29 pm #

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o

  2. avatar
    richCares February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm #

    wow, what am I going to dow with the frogs I bought, Orly just knocked the bottom out of frogs for frog marching, but I have to admit it a lot of fun watching her losse!

  3. avatar
    arrrogantlyignorant February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm #

    I was lucky. I clicked on the video link just as the Taitz show was beginning. I’m getting used to these Friday fails. I enjoyed Ms Riordans comment, that Orly’s 300 page packet of evidence was “pretty ridiculous”.

  4. avatar
    John February 24, 2012 at 8:49 pm #

    I got a better quote for you doc…

    MR. KESLER: “..however, the fact that you instantly jumped on my case over something like the Social Security Number — do you realize that the man uses the wrong Social Security Number?
    MR. ?: So what?

    WTF is right!

  5. avatar
    Northland10 February 24, 2012 at 8:55 pm #

    A minor issue.. the article you link to is not the Chicago Tribune but the Post Tribune, one of the many local dailies now owned by the Chicago Sun-Times.

  6. avatar
    John February 24, 2012 at 8:58 pm #

    MS. RIORDAN’s comments are a flurry of allegations with little or no discussion of merit. Very much like Judge Mahili’s decision. Lot’s of allegation with little or no discussion of why it is so. Orly tried to clarify the evidence and explain but the board would have none of it. The election board were complete slimeballs and sin to the political system. At least New Hampshire let Orly speak. These retards were abusive, irate, full of allegation, and refused to let “The People” speak. Any with a brain listening to the audio or video will reach the very same conclusions.

  7. avatar
    arrrogantlyignorant February 24, 2012 at 9:09 pm #

    It seems like shes been getting worse lately. There’s nothing better than a good Orly smack down. I like how she started accusing the commission of “cover up” and the guy told her, “one more time and your butt is gone”.

    Sarina:

    Anybody can see that Orly is really paranoid and crazy. I wonder if her husband approves what she is doing.

  8. avatar
    donna February 24, 2012 at 9:12 pm #

    the photo of the EMPTY table is PRICELESS

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2012 at 9:14 pm #

    I believe that was after the challengers admitted that there was no law requiring that the President have a social-security number.

    John: I got a better quote for you doc…

    MR. KESLER: “..however, the fact that you instantly jumped on my case over something like the Social Security Number — do you realize that the man uses the wrong Social Security Number?

  10. avatar
    Arthur February 24, 2012 at 9:20 pm #

    Does anyone know who the two men sitting on either side of Orly were?

  11. avatar
    RuhRoh February 24, 2012 at 9:20 pm #

    John: MS. RIORDAN’s comments are a flurry of allegations with little or no discussion of merit. Very much like Judge Mahili’s decision. Lot’s of allegation with little or no discussion of why it is so. Orly tried to clarify the evidence and explain but the board would have none of it. The election board were complete slimeballs and sin to the political system. At least New Hampshire let Orly speak. These retards were abusive, irate, full of allegation, and refused to let “The People” speak. Any with a brain listening to the audio or video will reach the very same conclusions.

    No, a person with no understanding of the legal system would reach that conclusion. There are very specific rules that define what is “evidence” in the legal sense. Orly, as a practicing attorney, should be well aware of them. A panel of attorneys (BOE) is not going to spell out those rules to another attorney. She should not have been able to graduate law school or pass the bar exam if she couldn’t grasp the rules of evidence.

    The BOE gave Orly more latitude than she deserved. Even after Orly was repeatedly told that the SSN bore absolutely no relevance to whether Obama was eligible to appear on the IN ballot, and also told where that issue could be addressed (hint, not the BOE), they let her blather on about the SSN for 20 minutes while she insulted them and accused them of criminal activity. It’s a miracle that she wasn’t dismissed from the courtroom the first time she pulled that stunt.

  12. avatar
    John Reilly February 24, 2012 at 9:20 pm #

    John has returned, and rather than admitting that his side lost, yet again, he is complaining that the Commission did not consider the steaming pile of crap submitted by Dr. Taitz, who, neither in law school nor her numerous public trials, has figured out how to authenmticate a document. Worse, she considers herself a witness. Google is not evidence, and someone who reads stuff on the Internet (except for his site, of course) does not become a witness or an expert.

    I’ll ask John what I’ve asked over and over of a number of birthers. How do you plan to autheticate the Indonesia school record? Where is your witness, from Indonesia, who saw it created and can testify that Lolo Soetero wrote anything in that document? The American reporter who interviewed the school is not a witness, and, in any event, neither testified nor signed an affidavit. Someone from the school must testify. And the information that you claim Mr. Soetero wrote down is not the school’s business record, so you will need Mr. Soetero or someone who saw him write that down..

    Come on John, stop dodging the question. Tell us how this point, which is the underpinning of the whole Indonesian citozenship theme, will be proven.

  13. avatar
    John Reilly February 24, 2012 at 9:25 pm #

    I’ll separately comment that, whatever skills Dr. Taitz has as a licensed attorney (and I’m pleased to say that she swore she was not licensed here in Indiana, where we have standards), she has yet to learn that if you tell people that if they do not agree with you they are traitors who should be tried, convicted and shot at dawn, some folks cease to listen. You can’t keep poking fingers in people’s eyes and expect that they will enjoy it. This has nothing to do with being an attorney; rather, it has to do with the basic qualifications for being a human being.

  14. avatar
    ASK Esq February 24, 2012 at 9:28 pm #

    Orly is truly unique among practicing attorneys. While we all tend to learn more about the actual practice of law after leaving law school, she seems to have been taught more about the law itself since becoming a lawyer. Today, she finally was told the hearsay rule.

    Note that I did not say she actually learned anything while being taught.

  15. avatar
    RuhRoh February 24, 2012 at 9:29 pm #

    Arthur: Does anyone know who the two men sitting on either side of Orly were?

    They were two of the challengers to Obama’s presence of the ballot. Kesler and…I’ll have to look up the other one. Kesler was on the left of Orly.

  16. avatar
    Reality Check February 24, 2012 at 9:31 pm #

    Orly is now 0-2 against the Empty Table. I think it is time for the Birthers to send Mario Apuzzo to challenge the Empty Table.

  17. avatar
    RuhRoh February 24, 2012 at 9:34 pm #

    Arthur: Does anyone know who the two men sitting on either side of Orly were?

    Kessler on the left, Swihart on the right.

    Swihart is the one who kept talking about the BOE going to hell while the mic was open during the recess. Real charmer, that one.

    *I may not have spelled their names correctly. *

  18. avatar
    John February 24, 2012 at 9:37 pm #

    Total bull of response. The election board was abusive, biased and threatening from the start as to lack credibility for these election board officials. The election board wouldn’t let “The People” (Indiana Voters) speak. In the end, the board very begrudgedly decided to allow Orly speak for about 5 minutes before cutting her off. This is by for the worst hearing I have seen yet and these election board members are sins that need to be thrown down the hell hole.

  19. avatar
    John Reilly February 24, 2012 at 9:38 pm #

    I’m not a lawyer, although I’m in legal procededings enough as an expert. The hearsay rule (which experts can sometimes ignore) is simple.

    Here it is.

    Hearsay is inadmissible.

    Of course, there are exceptions, like certified birth certificates, that that’s just commentary on the rule. (There was a Rabbi, Misha, help me out, who once said that the whole Bible can be understand as “do not do unto others as you don’t want others to do to you. The rest is commentary.”)

    You would think that even in a correspondence law school they can cover “hearsay is inadmissible” in a few minutes, and test for whether you can remember those words.

    Now I have no expereience with correspondence schools. The Pentagon resists allowing folks with correspondence school degrees in flying actually taking the stick in an F18. The government can be so dull and boring.

  20. avatar
    Arthur February 24, 2012 at 9:44 pm #

    RuhRoh: Kessler on the left, Swihart on the right

    Thanks for the info! I loved it when the normally stolid Kessler suddenly exploded with wrath when the commission pooh-poohed his charge of fraud.

  21. avatar
    Arthur February 24, 2012 at 9:47 pm #

    One of my favorite moments in the Indiana ballot hearing was between Daniel A. Dumezich, Chair of the Indiana Election Commission, and Orly. It came after the five minute recess, and Orly has taken on the personal of a belligerent teenager who has just been caught plagiarizing a paper. Orly has just been ordered to bring a piece of “evidence” to the Chair.

    Dumezich: Ok, this goes to quality of evidence. This is not a form from an income tax return. This is a United States Gift Tax return–
    (Orly inhales, preparing to speak)
    Dumezich (warning her) Quiet!—(with threatening vehemence) I’M TALKING!
    Orly: (defensively) I didn’t say a word!
    Dumezich: (with quiet malevolence) You just did.
    Orly: (petulantly) What?
    Dumezich: So. (getting control of his anger) This form is not what she purports it to be.

  22. avatar
    RuhRoh February 24, 2012 at 9:50 pm #

    John: I got a better quote for you doc…MR. KESLER: “..however, the fact that you instantly jumped on my case over something like the Social Security Number — do you realize that the man uses the wrong Social Security Number?MR. ?: So what?WTF is right!

    John,

    Where in the Constitution or in the Indiana Election law does it say that having a valid SSN is a requirement for either the office of the presidency or for appearing on the IN ballot? That’s right, nowhere. The BOE official said “So what?” because the status of President Obama’s SSN is irrelevant to the requirements for being placed on the IN ballot. The BOE is limited to determining whether or not Obama can appear on the ballot and nothing else.

    That same BOE official told Kessler where to take his concerns over the SSN. The IN BOE can not use that information or do anything about it, even if Kessler’s and Orly’s accusations are true

    Essentially, Kessler performed the equivalent of asking his veterinarian to fix his car. His car may well need fixing, but the veterinarian is unable to preform that service for him.

  23. avatar
    Arthur February 24, 2012 at 9:53 pm #

    John: The election board were complete slimeballs and sin to the political system. At least New Hampshire let Orly speak. These retards were abusive, irate, full of allegation, and refused to let “The People” speak. Any with a brain listening to the audio or video will reach the very same conclusions.

    That’s right John, and when God has had enough of these retards, and His judgment rolls down like thunder, he’ll teach us Obots a lesson, and you John, why you will finally be vindicated . . . any . . . day. . . now.

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2012 at 9:53 pm #

    The commission had the documents available to them beforehand. They are all lawyers. Having viewed Orly’s previous essays, I know that they wouldn’t have seen anything legally useful. Since they all had seen the documents and they were all in agreement, what was there to discuss?

    John: MS. RIORDAN’s comments are a flurry of allegations with little or no discussion of merit.

  25. avatar
    G February 24, 2012 at 9:54 pm #

    Kessler seems to have walked out in anger at the recess and not return.

    I thought there were 4 plaintiffs. Where were the other 2? Orly wanted to claim all of their time, but I don’t even recall seeing or hearing from them. Nor do I see them appear in the audio, video or what we have so far for a transcript…???

    RuhRoh: Kessler on the left, Swihart on the right. Swihart is the one who kept talking about the BOE going to hell while the mic was open during the recess. Real charmer, that one. *I may not have spelled their names correctly. *

  26. avatar
    donna February 24, 2012 at 9:55 pm #

    RuhRoh: “There are very specific rules that define what is “evidence” in the legal sense. Orly, as a practicing attorney, should be well aware of them. A panel of attorneys (BOE) is not going to spell out those rules to another attorney. She should not have been able to graduate law school or pass the bar exam if she couldn’t grasp the rules of evidence.”

    is she a “practicing attorney” for OTHER than birther cases? it seems to me, that someone who watches law and order or other legal dramas would KNOW MORE about the rules of evidence and qualifying witnesses – if you watched the oj or other famous trials, you would KNOW MORE than she presumes to or SHOULD know as a “practicing attorney” – in watching her today and at other times and in reading her pleadings, she REALLY BELIEVES that her 300 pages of nonsense from God knows where QUALIFIES as “evidence” and that her “witnesses” would qualify as “expert” in ANY “real” trial – if she is an example of what people learn at an online law school, it’s NO WONDER it’s NOT aba approved – how in the HECK did she pass the bar?

  27. avatar
    Arthur February 24, 2012 at 9:56 pm #

    John Reilly: The Pentagon resists allowing folks with correspondence school degrees in flying actually taking the stick in an F18. The government can be so dull and boring.

    Really? I though all you guys had to do was pass an eye exam and play a few hours of Combat Air Patrol. Who da thunk it?

  28. avatar
    RuhRoh February 24, 2012 at 9:57 pm #

    G: Kessler seems to have walked out in anger at the recess and not return.I thought there were 4 plaintiffs. Where were the other 2? Orly wanted to claim all of their time, but I don’t even recall seeing or hearing from them. Nor do I see them appear in the audio, video or what we have so far for a transcript…???

    I don’t know the identities of the other two challengers. I’d assume they were not present as they were not at the table, but that’s just speculation.

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2012 at 9:58 pm #

    What totally surprised me was that the challengers had no clue what the Elections panel was talking about when they said that an Indiana court had already declared Obama eligible.

    It’s one thing to say that Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana isn’t binding in Georgia, but in Indiana ❓

  30. avatar
    ASK Esq February 24, 2012 at 9:59 pm #

    donna: is she a “practicing attorney” for OTHER than birther cases?

    The unverified belief has been that she only became a lawyer because she couldn’t afford to keep hiring lawyers to defend her in dental malpractice suits.

  31. avatar
    Arthur February 24, 2012 at 10:00 pm #

    G: I thought there were 4 plaintiffs. Where were the other 2? Orly wanted to claim all of their time, but I don’t even recall seeing or hearing from them.

    I was wondering the same thing. There was that one person who was told to leave (rather overweight; thought he was guy, but seemed to be carrying purse), and then, during the recess, another plump fellow talked to Orly, but never addressed the commission. I though that he might have been one of the missing plaintiffs.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2012 at 10:02 pm #

    Wait a minute. When has anyone actually seen Orly Tatiz practicing law in any normal sense of that phrase?

    donna: RuhRoh: “There are very specific rules that define what is “evidence” in the legal sense. Orly, as a practicing attorney, should be well aware of them.

  33. avatar
    Arthur February 24, 2012 at 10:02 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: What totally surprised me was that the challengers had no clue what the Elections panel was talking about when they said that an Indiana court had already declared Obama eligible.It’s one thing to say that Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana isn’t binding in Georgia, but in Indiana

    I can’t believe she didn’t know about this, for didn’t she reference Ankeny in her appeal to Malihi?

  34. avatar
    RuhRoh February 24, 2012 at 10:02 pm #

    if she is an example of what people learn at an online law school, it’s NO WONDER it’s NOT aba approved – how in the HECK did she pass the bar?

    I wonder if she actually did. I used to assume that if she was intelligent enough to achieve a DDS and pass whatever licensing is necessary for that, she probably was capable of cramming enough facts into her head to pass another rigorous exam. But as one watches her behavior and utter inability to APPLY any knowledge, or learn from previous mistakes and advice, one has to wonder if she paid someone to take the bar exam for her.

  35. avatar
    RuhRoh February 24, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

    Arthur: I can’t believe she didn’t know about this, for didn’t she reference Ankeny in her appeal to Malihi?

    She sure did!

  36. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2012 at 10:08 pm #

    Hey, can I use this in my “Are Birthers a hate group?” article?

    But seriously the panel was confrontational and perhaps border-line abusive. I think it’s not accurate to say that they were biased from the start, because the start is when they got the two FedEx boxes of documents from Taitz in advance of the hearing. The start of the hearing was the midpoint in the process where the panel had already seen the inadmissible hearsay, and logically inconsistent conspiracy theories of Taitz and the challengers.

    Further, let me point out that Orly Taitz is not the “people of Indiana” and she does not represent the people of Indiana (not being licensed to represent anybody in that state). The actual people of Indiana (was it 4?) would probably have gotten a little better treatment than carpetbagger Taitz.

    John: The election board was abusive, biased and threatening from the start as to lack credibility for these election board officials. The election board wouldn’t let “The People” (Indiana Voters) speak. In the end, the board very begrudgedly decided to allow Orly speak for about 5 minutes before cutting her off. This is by for the worst hearing I have seen yet and these election board members are sins that need to be thrown down the hell hole.

  37. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2012 at 10:10 pm #

    I’m sure Orly knew but the challengers from Indiana didn’t.

    Arthur: I can’t believe she didn’t know about this, for didn’t she reference Ankeny in her appeal to Malihi?

  38. avatar
    G February 24, 2012 at 10:12 pm #

    More importantly, Orly was under Oath and said “no” to the question of awareness of the Ankeny decision.

    In otherwords, it was one of numerous occasions where she lied under oath and perjured herself.

    The Board did start off the hearings with a warning that lying was actionable. If *ONLY* they would follow-up on those issues… of course, they are just happy to have the crazy out of their hearing room for the moment, and are just hoping that the matter ends there. …Little do they understand the vexatious wrath of Mad Orly…

    Dr. Conspiracy: What totally surprised me was that the challengers had no clue what the Elections panel was talking about when they said that an Indiana court had already declared Obama eligible.It’s one thing to say that Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana isn’t binding in Georgia, but in Indiana

  39. avatar
    donna February 24, 2012 at 10:13 pm #

    “one has to wonder if she paid someone to take the bar exam for her” –

    i have often though the same thing in thinking about the definition of “projection” …..

    Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people.

    “obama is a fraud” – “obama forged documents” – “obama stole someone else’s ss#” – etc

    by the way, i noticed that she failed to inform the BOE that georgia ruled AGAINST HER, her “evidence and her “expert witnesses” – she mentioned georgia but lied by omission by not revealing their determination – i was also surprised that it seemed the BOE did not know about georgia – I WOULD HAVE ASKED and what was the determination in georgia

  40. avatar
    Arthur February 24, 2012 at 10:18 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’m sure Orly knew but the challengers from Indiana didn’t.

    I have to disagree with you on that. From the video tape, when one of the commissioners asks if the plaintiffs are aware that the Indiana court has already ruled that Obama is a U.S. citizen, Orly shakes her head and says, “No.” This is at approximately 6:00 on the video tape.

    Of course, she could be lying.

  41. avatar
    justlw February 24, 2012 at 10:20 pm #

    Was the guy who walked up to Orly and started talking to her at the beginning of the recess the same guy who disrupted the proceedings and left just before he was almost thrown out? Just curious.

    My favorite part was MS. RIORDAN’s analysis of the 300-Page Packet o’ Doom, for anyone who thinks she didn’t read it:

    MS. RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve reviewed these materials, and actually they’re not 300 pages of sworn testimony. There are several unnumbered pages of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which is a so-called legal document that you drafted, no grounds for admission, 100 percent hearsay. And then we have several pages of typed transcript, which I’ve read some of, and it’s actually pretty ridiculous, but again, 100 percent hearsay, inadmissible, and there are a number of other many illegible documents, totally unclear where they came from, whether they were printed off the internet or just some random other source. Nothing that is appropriately before the commission. There’s been no personal authentication or certification or any reason put forth why this body should be taking the public’s time to even review these documents for a minute. And so with that, I would ask that unless there’s any more discussion, I’d like to call the question on the motion to deny the admission of this evidence so that we can move forward to looking at this on the merits.

    And Orly’s response?

    MS. TAITZ: I have more evidence aside from what was provided.

    Yes. Yes, that’s exactly what MS. RIORDAN is asking for.

  42. avatar
    Dave February 24, 2012 at 10:24 pm #

    No, no, Jablonski only fails to appear in Georgia.

    I’m sure Obama had some Indiana lawyer not show up at this hearing.

  43. avatar
    G February 24, 2012 at 10:26 pm #

    I think the panel is well within their human rights to express frustration and annoyance with an obviously large, messy piece of frivolous hearsay and slander dropped in front of them. They have a large agenda and many cases to hear. They need to waste as little time as possible catering to clear-cut crazies.

    There is no requirement that they have to tolerate utter crazy BS and unprofessional ravings with a smile, nor even politely. I actually came away with a different impression than you did – that they managed to still demonstrate considerable restraint and allow more of this clown show to proceed than was necessary.

    Orly’s sham claim to speak as a “witness”, when it was obvious she was their unadmitted lawyer is just one example where the panel afforded her more leeway than they had to give her.

    Also, when the panel threatened to remove the shouting man in the audience from the room and warned him that he was out of order, Orly had the audacity to shout at the panel that *they* were out of order. They could have had HER removed right then and there for that outburst.

    I’m with Sterngard on this one. There comes a point where you don’t need to give credence or an audience to clear cut schlock nonsense. We are well at the point where Birthers deserve to be tolerated with as much accomodation and respect as given to Holocaust Deniers. In other words – almost none.

    Dr. Conspiracy: But seriously the panel was confrontational and perhaps border-line abusive. I think it’s not accurate to say that they were biased from the start, because the start is when they got the two FedEx boxes of documents from Taitz in advance of the hearing. The start of the hearing was the midpoint in the process where the panel had already seen the inadmissible hearsay, and logically inconsistent conspiracy theories of Taitz and the challengers.

  44. avatar
    RuhRoh February 24, 2012 at 10:26 pm #

    Arthur: I have to disagree with you on that. From the video tape, when one of the commissioners asks if the plaintiffs are aware that the Indiana court has already ruled that Obama is a U.S. citizen, Orly shakes her head and says, “No.” This is at approximately 6:00 on the video tape. Of course, she could be lying.

    I think that you and Doc are saying the same thing. Orly was not actually a “challenger”. She clearly went into this proceeding expecting to be the attorney for the challengers (or at least the two seated at the table with her) but was quickly warned by Ms. Riordan that she could not assume such a role as she was not licensed in IN. At that point, Orly quickly declared herself a witness while continuing to advise her clients.

    The only reason Orly was allowed to remain at the table was because the BOE regarded her as a witness. She had no standing to bring a challenge in IN (she tried and was refused).

  45. avatar
    RuhRoh February 24, 2012 at 10:33 pm #

    justlw: Was the guy who walked up to Orly and started talking to her at the beginning of the recess the same guy who disrupted the proceedings and left just before he was almost thrown out? Just curious

    Don’t think so. The man who approached her on the recess was bald and the disrupter was not.

  46. avatar
    G February 24, 2012 at 10:34 pm #

    Or so they claimed. Why are you even taking those Birthers at their word?

    Think about that liklihood for a second – these are not just Birthers, but Birthers that sought out Mad Orly for their representation. Which means that they are “connected” enough in Birtherism to be aware of her efforts and to make contact with her.

    The likelihood that they did all that and yet somehow weren’t aware of Orly’s recent “big event” in Birtherland in GA (which was also part of her filing on behalf of her IN “clients”), which was slapped down because of Ankeny, is very slim.

    The Birtherverse has been loudly seething and squawking with rage about the accursed Ankeny decision ever since the GA smackdown.

    …So do you REALLY think it is likely that these particular Birthers, connected and savvy enough to get Orly to hook up with them, are somehow unaware of the rise and fall of the Birther’s most sensationalized recent hope? You REALLY believe their fellow Birther pals haven’t sent them chain email letters cursing the Ankeny ruling?…

    …Think about it for a moment….

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’m sure Orly knew but the challengers from Indiana didn’t.

  47. avatar
    John February 24, 2012 at 10:36 pm #

    They mentioned that the Indiana courts had ruled Obama was deemed a US Citizen. They didn’t qualify that he was ruled a an NBC, which Obama was. However, the objector pointed out that you have to be more than a US Citizen to be eligible, you have to be an NBC. There appeared to be a start of discussion on what an NBC is but is was quickly dismissed. This fundamental argument wasn’t discussed. Every birther knows that Ankeny is a flawed ruling. Even if Ankeny is a correct ruling, I do believe the arguments being advanced in courts that Obama in NOT an NBC are correct too. In this situation, we have a conflict very similar to the conflict of Obamacare. This would mean that SCOTUS would have to resolve the issue. But, we all know that SCOTUS is evading the issue.

  48. avatar
    G February 24, 2012 at 10:39 pm #

    I was sort of expecting that too… then again, there was so much nonsense and 300 pages of inadmissible hearsay in front of them, they just clearly wanted to get that dreck off their docket as quickly as possible. No need to waste time asking questions that could just extend the length of time dealing with these utterly frivolous challenges anyways…

    …Then again, had they asked what the determination was, there is a school of thought that could have killed the plaintiff’s arguments right there…

    donna: by the way, i noticed that she failed to inform the BOE that georgia ruled AGAINST HER, her “evidence and her “expert witnesses” – she mentioned georgia but lied by omission by not revealing their determination – i was also surprised that it seemed the BOE did not know about georgia – I WOULD HAVE ASKED and what was the determination in georgia

  49. avatar
    G February 24, 2012 at 10:41 pm #

    Obviously, she was lying.

    She’s been stomping mad in her recent rantings about GA using the Ankeny decision against her…

    Arthur: From the video tape, when one of the commissioners asks if the plaintiffs are aware that the Indiana court has already ruled that Obama is a U.S. citizen, Orly shakes her head and says, “No.” This is at approximately 6:00 on the video tape.
    Of course, she could be lying.

  50. avatar
    Arthur February 24, 2012 at 10:42 pm #

    G: …So do you REALLY think it is likely that these particular Birthers, connected and savvy enough to get Orly to hook up with them, are somehow unaware of the rise and fall of the Birther’s most sensationalized recent hope? You REALLY believe their fellow Birther pals haven’t sent them chain email letters cursing the Ankeny ruling?…

    Yes, it seems too incredible for them not to know, which is why I flirted with the idea that what they meant when they said, “no,” was something like, “No, we don’t accept their decision.”

  51. avatar
    G February 24, 2012 at 10:44 pm #

    Hmmm… You present a very plausible and reasoned hypothesis… you just may be onto something here.

    Whether it directly connects to how she passed the Bar Exam or not, I certainly think you’re diagnosis of Projection fits her behaviors…

    donna: “one has to wonder if she paid someone to take the bar exam for her” –

    i have often though the same thing in thinking about the definition of “projection” …..

    Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people.

    “obama is a fraud” – “obama forged documents” – “obama stole someone else’s ss#” – etc

  52. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2012 at 10:45 pm #

    Yes, but since ONLY birthers know this, and since the Birthers haven’t found a birther judge to hear their cases, they inevitably lose.

    This is like the birthers saying that every expert who has looked at Obama’s long form says that it’s fake, when in fact only birther experts say that this, and only birthers say that they are “experts.”

    The Supreme Court is evading, in a running joke, the issue of whether someone born in Puerto Rico can run for President. It has nothing to do with Obama.

    John: Every birther knows that Ankeny is a flawed ruling. … This would mean that SCOTUS would have to resolve the issue. But, we all know that SCOTUS is evading the issue.

  53. avatar
    G February 24, 2012 at 10:46 pm #

    LOL! Yeah, I commend Ms. Riordan for her restraint of not doing a total *face palm * right then and there…

    justlw: And Orly’s response?
    MS. TAITZ: I have more evidence aside from what was provided.
    Yes. Yes, that’s exactly what MS. RIORDAN is asking for.

  54. avatar
    John February 24, 2012 at 10:49 pm #

    It is interesting that board at several times during the hearing felt that Orly and her clients were being disrespectful even to the point of removing a person and taking a recess. Orly reminded the election board that Obama had refused to show up. They demanded a default judgement against him which the board flatly denied. It should be noted that the greatest show of disrespect to a court or hearing is failure to show. It should be noted that this great disrespect did not go unnoticed to those who were following this hearing.

  55. avatar
    Arthur February 24, 2012 at 10:49 pm #

    One of the commissioners, an older man who was the first to question the plaintiffs, was insistent about warning them of the danger of perjury. I know that perjury is not necessarily an easy thing to prove, but do you think that there’s any hope of a perjury charge being pursued?

    Another question: Orly spoke of running Obama’s SS# and of having it come back as unverifiable–would this be Obama’s old SS#? Wasn’t he issued a new one due to the previous number being publicized all over the web?

  56. avatar
    G February 24, 2012 at 10:49 pm #

    If you watch the tape, she still swore herself in at the beginning, when they all were sworn in under Oath.

    Even as a “witness”, I believe she is still subject to perjury for lying under Oath. Especially after the lead guy in the hearing gave such a clear, upfront statement about that very issue and the potential consequences…

    RuhRoh: Orly was not actually a “challenger”. She clearly went into this proceeding expecting to be the attorney for the challengers (or at least the two seated at the table with her) but was quickly warned by Ms. Riordan that she could not assume such a role as she was not licensed in IN. At that point, Orly quickly declared herself a witness while continuing to advise her clients.

  57. avatar
    donna February 24, 2012 at 10:50 pm #

    from her “emergency appeal” to sos kemp: “Similarly Malihi’s reliance on a decision in Ankeny v Daniels, an obscure case in Indiana, brought by two pro se litigants with zero knowledge of law and without any input of any legal counsel, is a travesty of justice and an embarrassment to the state of Georgia.
    Defense did not provide Ankeny v Daniels at the hearing. Malihi was supposed to base his opinion on what is in the record. Ankeny v Daniels was not part of the record. The most basic rules of courtroom decorum and basic fairness, were supposed to preclude Malihi from even entering Ankeny in his opinion. This case was never cited by the defense. Plaintiffs had no opportunity to provide a rebuttal and explain numerous points, as to why Ankeny is erroneous and why it does not apply. A presiding judge cannot suddenly pull out of a hat some case, brought in a circuit court of another state by some truck driver, who could not even afford an attorney, and use this case as the basis of his final ruling in the case at hand, when it was never part of the record in the case at hand.”

  58. avatar
    ASK Esq February 24, 2012 at 10:55 pm #

    Dave:
    No, no, Jablonski only fails to appear in Georgia.

    I’m sure Obama had some Indiana lawyer not show up at this hearing.

    Obama has a new attorney to act as official designated counsel for all birther-related matter.

    M.T. Chair, Esq.

  59. avatar
    John February 24, 2012 at 10:56 pm #

    This is now the 2nd instance where Obama has been shown to be “Above The Law”. Obama failed to show in Georgia and was let off the hook. Now Obama has failed to show in Indiana. Again, he was let off the hook. Clearly, it is beyond all doubt that the court as well as these election boards consider Obama to be “Above The Law.”

  60. avatar
    Thrifty February 24, 2012 at 10:58 pm #

    Just a thought regarding the statement “there is no requirement for a presidential candidate to have a social security number”.

    My logic may be off here, so correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t running for president basically an expensive, extremely long job interview? Also, isn’t a social security number required to hold a job?

  61. avatar
    donna February 24, 2012 at 11:00 pm #

    HYSTERICAL

    NOT “Dr. M.T Chair, esq”?

    we CERTAINLY want the “resident” of the U.S (as they refer to him) to be on a level playing field

  62. avatar
    Thrifty February 24, 2012 at 11:01 pm #

    I’m listening to this now, and it’s tough to get through. I don’t like Orly Taitz and I know she’s bringing this on herself. Still, you know how it can be hard to watch a movie or TV show where someone is humiliating himself or herself? You feel a sort of empathetic discomfort, like you’re in that person’s shoes embarrassing yourself. You know what I mean?

  63. avatar
    G February 24, 2012 at 11:01 pm #

    Not the same thing at all, John.

    With “Obamacare”, there have been some differences in how the different court rulings turned out.

    The same cannot be said on the Birther cases. ALL of the Birther cases have lost. They have not just lost in the lower courts, those decisions have been REAFFIRMED at every higher court level. So, there is absolutely ZERO disagreement in the courts findings here.

    Ankeny was decided and ruled Obama as NBC. Then Reaffirmed upon Appeal. Then referenced and agreed with in BOTH GA and VA. In other words, the SAME NBC Ankeny conclusion has been reached 4 times already – with ZERO court decisions against it.

    And yes, that includes the USSC. Several Birther cases have been put in front of the USSC. Some of them, several times. The USSC *has* weighed in on every one of those – DECLINED. In USSC terms, that means they have sided with the letting the lower court’s ruling stand. In other words, the USSC has actively ruled AGAINST the Birthers 100% of the time and has already done so multiple times. They are not “evading” anything.

    John: Even if Ankeny is a correct ruling, I do believe the arguments being advanced in courts that Obama in NOT an NBC are correct too. In this situation, we have a conflict very similar to the conflict of Obamacare. This would mean that SCOTUS would have to resolve the issue. But, we all know that SCOTUS is evading the issue.

  64. avatar
    G February 24, 2012 at 11:05 pm #

    Whether they “meant” that or not, that is not how they phrased their answers, in direct response to the Hearing’s very specific question, under Oath.

    Look at how the head council guy tore Orly apart for misrepresenting that Gift Tax Form as Obama’s IRS form.

    Based on that, if these folks wanted to push the Perjury issues, I highly doubt that the Birthers could get away with weaseling on explaining that they “meant” something different from what they actually said.

    Arthur: what they meant when they said, “no,” was something like, “No, we don’t accept their decision.”

  65. avatar
    RuhRoh February 24, 2012 at 11:06 pm #

    G: If you watch the tape, she still swore herself in at the beginning, when they all were sworn in under Oath.Even as a “witness”, I believe she is still subject to perjury for lying under Oath. Especially after the lead guy in the hearing gave such a clear, upfront statement about that very issue and the potential consequences…

    Agreed. But I will be very pleasantly shocked if the IN BOE does anything about it.

  66. avatar
    G February 24, 2012 at 11:08 pm #

    Yes, she’s still ranting about his old SSN number. All that 1890 cr@p is from crazy Susan Daniel’s original sloppy database search. Same with her illegal e-Verify lookup stuff.

    Ironically, Obama’s SSN number was probably changed as a direct result of Orly irresponsibly introducing it into the public in the first place…

    Arthur: Another question: Orly spoke of running Obama’s SS# and of having it come back as unverifiable–would this be Obama’s old SS#? Wasn’t he issued a new one due to the previous number being publicized all over the web?

  67. avatar
    jayhg February 24, 2012 at 11:09 pm #

    This was painful to watch…..but I managed to do it…………..

  68. avatar
    G February 24, 2012 at 11:13 pm #

    No, I have no sympathy nor empathy when it comes to Orly…or folks who behave like she does.

    I liken it more to some bad act on The Gong Show or a similar style show. My discomfort from watching is impatiently waiting for the Gong or the Hook to appear and yank her off the stage…

    …Or for a cartoon analogy, for someone to pull a lever marked REJECT and for a trapdoor to open in the floor and flush her away…

    Thrifty: I’m listening to this now, and it’s tough to get through. I don’t like Orly Taitz and I know she’s bringing this on herself. Still, you know how it can be hard to watch a movie or TV show where someone is humiliating himself or herself? You feel a sort of empathetic discomfort, like you’re in that person’s shoes embarrassing yourself. You know what I mean?

  69. avatar
    Thrifty February 24, 2012 at 11:13 pm #

    One of the members of the panel says “If there’s fraud, go to the House of Representatives and tell them to impeach the president”.

    One of the Birthers says “We can’t, they’d say that they can’t impeach because he’s not president.”

    It makes my head spin every time I hear these clowns trot out that old chestnut.

  70. avatar
    US Citizen February 24, 2012 at 11:15 pm #

    I just listened to the audio download of this.
    I noticed that every time Orly states evidence is “certified” she hesitates, stutters or otherwise gets choked up.
    Voice stress analysis is nothing new and from what I hear…she *knows* she’s lying.

  71. avatar
    jayhg February 24, 2012 at 11:17 pm #

    Ms. Rirodan also said, when asked if she wanted to respond to a crazy Orly rant: “I won’t dignify that with a response” without even looking at Orly. She alone tore Oraly a very big new one….., not to mention when Orly tried to do that “you’re in on it” thing, the chairman gave her another beatdown. All in all, not a good day for the birfer queen.

    Also no mention at all of this at free republic (unless I’m looking in the wrong place). It was a blowout and there is no way to spin it, so I don’t expect to see it mentioned there.

  72. avatar
    donna February 24, 2012 at 11:21 pm #

    from the transcript:

    Around 9:30 in the video

    ORLY: Mr. Obama does not have any valid identification numbers, that the records show that he is using a stolen Social Security Number that was issued in 1977 in the state of Connecticut to an individual born in 1890. This man is a criminal, ma’am and gentlemen, and you are covering up forgery and Social Security –

    MR. DUMEZICH: Whoa, whoa. Let’s stop. Stop right there. Present your case. We’re not covering anything up. We’re allowing you to speak your mind and putting it before the commission. If you’re disrespectful like that one more time, your butt’s going to be gone. You got that?

    ===========

    allen went down today too

    banner day in birtherstan

    AZ – Allen v Obama – Denied without prejudice

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/az-allen-v-obama-denied-without-prejudice/

  73. avatar
    donna February 24, 2012 at 11:24 pm #

    Indiana Election Commission Observer’s Report

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=22005

  74. avatar
    G February 24, 2012 at 11:26 pm #

    I think you can tie that into Donna’s theory of Orly’s Projection issues…

    She clearly made an obvious lie when she said “no” to knowledge about the Ankeny decision.

    Notice that Orly ALSO completely dropped pursuing the whole thread of Minor / deVattel / redefinition of NBC claims in a fraction of a second after the Hearing folks warned her that they were ALL lawyers and knew what NBC meant…

    …yet she kept going back to the immaterial issue of the SSN, which the Hearing folks told her was a non-starter from the very beginning…

    …That tells me she knows she’s lying about the NBC redefinition claptrap and realized that they would catch her on it…

    US Citizen: Voice stress analysis is nothing new and from what I hear…she *knows* she’s lying.

  75. avatar
    John February 24, 2012 at 11:30 pm #

    SCOTUS is indeed “Evading” the issue. Justice Clarence Thomas confirmed it in a jokingly sort of way.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu6OiTiua08
    Supreme Court Justice Thomas; We’re evading the eligibility issue – 4/16/10

  76. avatar
    G February 24, 2012 at 11:31 pm #

    The Fogbow found the Freeperville thread:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2850915/posts

    Also, the comments under the ORYR entry are predictably worth reading as well:

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/indiana-election-commission-obamas-moms.html

    jayhg: Also no mention at all of this at free republic (unless I’m looking in the wrong place). It was a blowout and there is no way to spin it, so I don’t expect to see it mentioned there.

  77. avatar
    donna February 24, 2012 at 11:32 pm #

    i didn’t realize that “the Chairman of the Commission is Romney’s campaign chair”

  78. avatar
    Stanislaw February 24, 2012 at 11:42 pm #

    Quote of the day: “This form is not what she purports it to be. She’s just wrong.”

  79. avatar
    John Reilly February 24, 2012 at 11:44 pm #

    I write to note that John, once again, evaded a direct question. Even Orly Taitz answers direct questions. Oh, she lies, but at least she answers.

    Let’s try it again, John. How do you propose to get the Indonesian school record into ervidence? Stop evading. Stop deflecting.

    Don’t say that the Supreme Court has to decide. The Supreme Court is totally uninterested in the rantings of birthers and has so voted multiple times. If the Supreme Court actually heard your arguments and voted 9-0 that President Obama was a natural born citizen, you still would not accept that decision.

    So stop complaining. Be productive. Dr. Taitz can’t do it alone. How are you getting the Indonesian school record into evidence?

  80. avatar
    US Citizen February 24, 2012 at 11:51 pm #

    One of the funniest moments is where the commission says “you don’t ask questions to us” and the person with Orly immediately asks “Ok… uh… why..why isn’t there a default against Mr. Obama?”

    What part of “you don’t ask us” do they not get??

  81. avatar
    Keith February 24, 2012 at 11:55 pm #

    John Reilly: Now I have no expereience with correspondence schools. The Pentagon resists allowing folks with correspondence school degrees in flying actually taking the stick in an F18. The government can be so dull and boring.

    But I heard if you supplement that with 36 hours on Microsoft Flight Simulator that you are good to go.

  82. avatar
    G February 24, 2012 at 11:59 pm #

    Yeah, that was quite an interesting detail to learn in this process!

    ….Of course, it sort of flies in the face of all the Birthers now screaming that the IN panel was “in the tank for Obama”… so make sure you remind them of that when you encounter them…and expect to hear *crickets* in response…

    donna: i didn’t realize that “the Chairman of the Commission is Romney’s campaign chair”

  83. avatar
    John Reilly February 25, 2012 at 12:01 am #

    For those folks like John, who once again is evading the challenge to be helpful to his cause, I have previously reported that the President gets sued every day in Indiana. My guess is the election board gets its fair share of silly challenges, and the board members may have been sued by soveriegn citizens or others seeking to advance some nutty idea. While I endorse the idea that government officials, and, indeed, all of us ought to be civil, people who show up and argue the earth is flat, when the roundness of the earth is settled law in Indiana, deserve the absolute minimum of civility. When they insist on going off on the social security number nonsense, they deserve to be hauled out. Bodily. Dr. Taitz, as a non-Hoosier, had no right to come to Indiana and attempt to tell us what to do. Next time, I hope she is stopped at the border and forcibly turned around.

    So, John, are you going to tell us how a lawyer, a real lawyer with a real degree, is going to get the Indonesian school record into evidence?

  84. avatar
    G February 25, 2012 at 12:01 am #

    LMAO! Yeah, I was laughing quite hard at that one too… had to rewind and replay several times to listen to what happend next, due to not being able to hear over my own laughter… 😉

    US Citizen: One of the funniest moments is where the commission says “you don’t ask questions to us” and the person with Orly immediately asks “Ok… uh… why..why isn’t there a default against Mr. Obama?”What part of “you don’t ask us” do they not get??

  85. avatar
    richCares February 25, 2012 at 12:03 am #

    “Yes, she’s still ranting about his old SSN number. All that 1890 cr@p is from crazy Susan Daniel’s original sloppy database search”
    .
    On page 8 of Susan Daniels report we find for a Somerville, Ma. Address
    a SSN issued:1977-1979 showing DOB: 1890

    on the same page, and 8 listings back of the 1890 we find for same address
    a SSN issued:1977-1979 showing DOB: 1990
    yes, a DOB issued 13 years before it occurred

    all other entries are 08/04/1961
    I advised Orly on this, she deleted my comment, (5 times) so she knows it’s BS

    john should check it:
    http://www.thefogbow.com/special-reports/social-security-number/

  86. avatar
    Keith February 25, 2012 at 12:10 am #

    John: Even if Ankeny is a correct ruling, I do believe the arguments being advanced in courts that Obama in NOT an NBC are correct too. In this situation, we have a conflict very similar to the conflict of Obamacare. This would mean that SCOTUS would have to resolve the issue.

    Fail.

    There is no controversy for SCOTUS to review. You are not a court that has come to a view in conflict with the Ankeny decision. You are a random internet schlub with a biased agenda. SCOTUS has, in the pas, already ruled (in your favor) on the only issue that plagues your situation: that of your right to free speech.

  87. avatar
    US Citizen February 25, 2012 at 12:12 am #

    G:
    LMAO!Yeah, I was laughing quite hard at that one too… had to rewind and replay several times to listen to what happend next, due to not being able to hear over my own laughter…

    Good, it’s not just me thinking it was hilarious.
    It went in slow motion for me… “don’t ask us questions” then knowing full well the next word was going to be a question.
    Perhaps it’s because I was “watching” the audio on a waveform editor?
    Not surprisingly, the loudest, densest portions of audio when watched (as waveforms) are mostly Orly.
    The comments made during the 5 min break are gems too.

  88. avatar
    John Reilly February 25, 2012 at 12:12 am #

    Keith: Microsoft Flight Simulator is for Marines, not the Air Force.

    Actually, the software we used for training is extraordinarily sophisticated, and even experienced pilots regularly flame out when their training officer sends seven new situations to them at the same time. The object is usually to take the longest to crash on the simulator, because I assure you, you will crash.

    Seriously, there was no training for how to land a fly-by-wire plane when the pilot (i.e., me) is blinded by pieces of the canopy in his eyes, you’re a few thousand feet off the ground, and if you stray too far from the landing zone at Bagram you can get shot down. How did I do it? I didn’t. I was talked in by a non-com I had never met. Then pulled out of the plane by an enlisted man from Chicago whose parents are illegal aliens. (He’s a natural born citizen. He was born in Chicago. And that, along with his Air Force cred, is good enough for me.)

    The legal profession in California, on the other hand, seems to have no training whatsoever, and Dr. Taitz has demonstrated that she cannot learn. I cannot fathom a profession that thinks so little of itself.

  89. avatar
    jayhg February 25, 2012 at 12:16 am #

    G: I think the panel is well within their human rights to express frustration and annoyance with an obviously large, messy piece of frivolous hearsay and slander dropped in front of them. They have a large agenda and many cases to hear. They need to waste as little time as possible catering to clear-cut crazies. There is no requirement that they have to tolerate utter crazy BS and unprofessional ravings with a smile, nor even politely. I actually came away with a different impression than you did – that they managed to still demonstrate considerable restraint and allow more of this clown show to proceed than was necessary.Orly’s sham claim to speak as a “witness”, when it was obvious she was their unadmitted lawyer is just one example where the panel afforded her more leeway than they had to give her.Also, when the panel threatened to remove the shouting man in the audience from the room and warned him that he was out of order, Orly had the audacity to shout at the panel that *they* were out of order. They could have had HER removed right then and there for that outburst.I’m with Sterngard on this one. There comes a point where you don’t need to give credence or an audience to clear cut schlock nonsense. We are well at the point where Birthers deserve to be tolerated with as much accomodation and respect as given to Holocaust Deniers. In other words – almost none.

    I agree 100000% G. No more with the folks. If one of them wants to come forward with something coherent, fine……but “everyone is in on it” deserves nothing but “get the hell out of here with that!”

  90. avatar
    G February 25, 2012 at 12:32 am #

    Well, it looks like the Freeps weren’t happy with the straightforward press-reporting article on today’s smackdown in IN.

    So, they came up with a NEW thread for what happened, from their biased perspective:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2851096/posts

    G: The Fogbow found the Freeperville thread:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2850915/postsAlso, the comments under the ORYR entry are predictably worth reading as well:http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/indiana-election-commission-obamas-moms.html

  91. avatar
    Rickey February 25, 2012 at 12:35 am #

    John Reilly:
    I write to note that John, once again, evaded a direct question.Even Orly Taitz answers direct questions.Oh, she lies, but at least she answers.

    Yes, deluded John never actually engages anyone in what could be described as a discussion. He actually believes that doing the same thing over and over again will eventually result in a different outcome.

  92. avatar
    G February 25, 2012 at 12:41 am #

    Holy smokes! Glad you lived to tell the tale…

    John Reilly: Seriously, there was no training for how to land a fly-by-wire plane when the pilot (i.e., me) is blinded by pieces of the canopy in his eyes, you’re a few thousand feet off the ground, and if you stray too far from the landing zone at Bagram you can get shot down. How did I do it? I didn’t. I was talked in by a non-com I had never met. Then pulled out of the plane by an enlisted man from Chicago whose parents are illegal aliens. (He’s a natural born citizen. He was born in Chicago. And that, along with his Air Force cred, is good enough for me.)

  93. avatar
    G February 25, 2012 at 12:46 am #

    John is the ultimate gullible toady out there in Birtherdom…

    He’s like Grima Wormtongue to Saruman in Lord of the Rings. Not from the Rohan era, mind you. No, John is like Grima, when Saruman only referred to him as “Worm” during the “Scouring of the Shire” period…

    Rickey: Yes, deluded John never actually engages anyone in what could be described as a discussion. He actually believes that doing the same thing over and over again will eventually result in a different outcome.

  94. avatar
    John Reilly February 25, 2012 at 12:55 am #

    We made decisions, life and death decisions, in the field, on significantly less certain evidence than the short form birth certificate. But we always looked for evidence. And we tried not to take action unless we had some evidence which stood up to debate. You can see this in the debate over whether to go after Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. And success was due in no small part to several thousand Americans the face of which is Seal Team Six.

    But John, and Dr. Taitz, and Mario, and the rest of them, waste our resources with their bigotry (because I believe that birtherism is all about race) and embarass their profession with their incompetance.

  95. avatar
    G February 25, 2012 at 1:07 am #

    Here’s the biggest news coverage of the IN smackdown I’ve seen so far:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/24/1068081/-Orly-Taitz-smacked-down-in-Indiana

  96. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2012 at 1:34 am #

    Precisely which eligibility issue is Justice Thomas evading? Who’s eligibility for what? Who is evading — Thomas or the Court?

    John: SCOTUS is indeed “Evading” the issue. Justice Clarence Thomas confirmed it in a jokingly sort of way.

  97. avatar
    Stanislaw February 25, 2012 at 1:35 am #

    Arthur:

    Dumezich: Ok, this goes to quality of evidence. This is not a form from an income tax return. This is a United States Gift Tax return–
    (Orly inhales, preparing to speak)
    Dumezich (warning her) Quiet!—(with threatening vehemence) I’M TALKING!
    Orly: (defensively) I didn’t say a word!
    Dumezich: (with quiet malevolence) You just did.
    Orly: (petulantly) What?
    Dumezich: So. (getting control of his anger) This form is not what she purports it to be.

    Oops, didn’t see this before I posted. It was an epic moment, though.

  98. avatar
    Ken February 25, 2012 at 1:44 am #

    The Barack Hussein Obama presidency is the greatest CRIME ever committed in the USA. It is unbelievable that people in positions to act on this crime fail to do so.

  99. avatar
    John Potter February 25, 2012 at 1:45 am #

    Wow. Burning a birther down face-to-face looks like a lot of fun, but very frustrating fun. How to be professional with someone who makes a mockery of your professional capacity?

    Argh, “packet” this and “packet” that …

    That is one longsuffering panel. (“Gimme a clock, I want a clock!”)

    From the intermission:

    “How do these people sleep at night?”
    “I don’t know! You go on YouTube and it’s all right there!”

    Clue to birther: YouTube is hearsay.

    She traveled to Hawaii on “her own dime”?!? Paypal click-fail!

    Another instant classic for the birther canon!

  100. avatar
    Don February 25, 2012 at 1:46 am #

    As you know, the importance of the fraudelent Social Security number is that it indicates identity theft. Even an entry level clerk for the federal government must pass the E-verify system. Obama’s social security number does not pass this simple test. Why does Dr.Conspiracy misreprsent the Ms Taitz legal challenge as questioning his citizenship? Why did the commission members bring up birtherism when Ms Taitz said nothing about Obama’s place of birth? Why did the cameras disappear during the break in the middle of Ms Taitz testimony? Why was Ms Taitz told she waould have 10 minutes to present her evidence and then just before she started the commission told her she would only have 5 minutes? Why did the commission not giver her 5 minutes? These types of actions indicate someone is trying to conceal the truth from the public. As President Obama has said, “the only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”

  101. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2012 at 1:54 am #

    Reading John here, and in the RC Radio chat room, I can’t help but thinking of an AI program, you know, like Eliza and the Doctor. What it says is related, but not responsive in the way humans are.

    (ELiza was an AI program that could be configured to act like a mental patient, and The Doctor was a variant designed as a Rogerian therapist. As I recall, the dialog was hilarious.)

    >> Hello.
    How do you do. Please state your problem.
    >> Orly Taitz bothers me.
    I’m not sure I understand you fully.
    >> Orly Taitz is a lawyer, but she loses all her cases.
    Please go on.
    >> She’s a very bad lawyer
    What does that suggest to you ?
    >> That she went to a bad law school
    Do you feel strongly about discussing such things ?
    >> Yes
    You seem to be quite positive.
    >> Yes, I am quite positive.
    You are sure.
    >> I am sure
    Is it because you are sure that you came to me ?
    >> No, I came to you so I could understand Orly Taitz better.
    Are you saying no just to be negative?
    >> no
    You are being a bit negative.
    >> no
    Why not ?
    >> No and yes are two sides of a truth value
    Why ‘no’ ?
    >> Do you understand me at all?
    Why do you think I understand you ?
    >> I don’t
    Don’t you really ?
    >> no
    Are you saying no just to be negative?
    >> no
    You are being a bit negative.
    >> no
    Why not ?
    >> no
    Why ‘no’ ?
    >> This is getting nowhere
    I’m not sure I understand you fully.
    >> You’re no better than a Birther
    What makes you think I am no better than a birther ?
    >> Because you never learn.
    Is that the real reason ?
    >> Well, it could be because you have no brain cells.
    Don’t any other reasons come to mind ?
    >> Not that I can say in public.
    You say not that you can say in public ?
    >> Check please!
    Please go on.

    G: John is the ultimate gullible toady out there in Birtherdom

  102. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2012 at 2:04 am #

    The panel seemed to think that Identity theft and social-security fraud are not constitutionally disqualifying issues.

    But how do you know that Obama’s social-security number doesn’t pass E-Verify? There’s no legal way you could know that yourself unless you illegally accessed the E-Verify system. Are you a criminal, or one who just takes the word of criminals? Certainly the lawyers on the Indiana Elections panel understand this principle of illegally-obtained evidence. Birthers keep saying that the President isn’t above the law, while ignoring it themselves.

    And how do you know what Obama’s social-security number is today? Given that his old one was broadcast all over the Internet, surely he applied for a new one 2-3 years ago.

    You put his old number in E-Verify and it doesn’t verify today. So what?

    Stupid Birthers. Forget E-Verify. They can’t pass the Turing Test. (See previous comment.)

    Don: As you know, the importance of the fraudelent Social Security number is that it indicates identity theft. Even an entry level clerk for the federal government must pass the E-verify system. Obama’s social security number does not pass this simple test.

  103. avatar
    richCares February 25, 2012 at 2:05 am #

    “Social Security number is that it indicates identity theft”
    Obama used the same SSN for over 30 years, do you even know what that means? The IRS has no problem with Obama
    .
    “must pass the E-verify system”
    after people like Orly spread his SSN all over the internet he was issued a new one so e-verify will fail
    .
    Orly’s garbage is not evidence, why doesn’t Orly tell you about the “1990” entrry on the same page as the “1890” entry, was Obama issued a SSN in 1997 for a 1990 birth
    .
    dear Mr. Gullible, could we get your email address, we have some good deals on bridges and some good inheritance programs

  104. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2012 at 2:09 am #

    There is a family in Nigeria that needs help moving gold out of the country. They will pay handsomely.

    richCares: dear Mr. Gullible, could we get your email address, we have some good deals on bridges and some good inheritance programs

  105. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2012 at 2:11 am #

    I believe that you are barking mad.

    Ken: The Barack Hussein Obama presidency is the greatest CRIME ever committed in the USA. It is unbelievable that people in positions to act on this crime fail to do so.

  106. avatar
    Ramjomi February 25, 2012 at 2:16 am #

    Has anyone thought of the possibility that due to President Obama’s security clearance that the E-verify check would not show up with any record for Mr. Obama. That perhaps certain government officials, and I am pretty sure the President, the Commander in Chief would qualify in this instance, would have their records scrubbed from public searches, etc.

  107. avatar
    aarrgghh February 25, 2012 at 2:47 am #

    stop me if you’ve heard this one before …

    “… President Obama could quickly put a stop to this Social Security number controversy by simply getting a copy of his 1970s Social Security application form and showing it to the public just like he got a copy of his Hawaii long form birth certificate and showed it to the public back in April 2011.

    … If candidate Obama stubbornly refuses to release his 1970s Social Security application form, I can only conclude that President Obama is trying to hide something, because a Social Security application form contains only very basic information about the applicant, like his name and his address.

    To Indiana election officials: If President Obama used a false Social Security number on his Indiana presidential candidate application form, then he is committing fraud, and he should not be allowed to put his name on the presidential ballot for the Nov. 2012 election.”

  108. avatar
    dunstvangeet February 25, 2012 at 2:57 am #

    John Reilly:How do you propose to get the Indonesian school record into ervidence?

    Mind if I answer this one? Actually, there is no way to get it into evidence. To even try, you’d probably have to get it authenticated (Rule 902, section 3 requires it to be signed to be authentic by the U.S. consulate of the foreign government), find a hearsay exception to make it admissible (possibly public record), and then prove that it’s actually relevant (which is where the big trip up would be).

    Of course, it’s the third one that you’re never going to do, because it ultimately is not relevant to the discussion, just as nothing that Barack Obama did in Indonesia is relevant. Take a look at the case law of Perkins v. Elg. That case directly says that a minor cannot lose citizenship due to the actions of his parents. So, the entire theory of Barack Obama losing his U.S. Citizenship because somehow at the age of 6 he was adopted and got Indonesian Citizenship is actually irrelevant, because it directly violates previous Supreme Court precedent. The Indonesian School Paper has absolutely no relevance to whether or not Obama is a Natural Born Citizen. (which by the way, a lawyer would not actually have to defend Obama to get the evidence kicked. I could teach a parrot to say “Relevance” and send the parrot in to defend Obama, and the Birthers would still lose. I’m not even a lawyer, and I could do it.)

    Here’s an easier one for you John. You’ve seen multiple birth certificates purporting from being from Kenya. How would you get one of those admitted into evidence?

    Hint: take a look at Rule 902, section 3 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Then take a look at Rule 803, section 8.

  109. avatar
    dunstvangeet February 25, 2012 at 3:01 am #

    Ramjomi:

    It is a distinct possibility that the SSA has certain SSNs flagged for suspecious activity just due to their job.

    Far more likely scenario is: President’s SSN was released to the general public. So, the SSN issued the President a new SSN, and invalidated the old SSN. There’s even a news report of a teenager trying to use “a high-ranking executive branch SSN that he found on the Internet” as his own…

  110. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2012 at 3:02 am #

    I suppose that a record could be flagged as “likely to be abused” and thereby not accessible from certain systems. I know a “VIP” flag is incorporated in some medical record systems so that when a notable person visits the hospital, people who normally could look at the records, can’t.

    Obama has been the victim of more than his share of people illegally accessing his records (passport, student loan and Social Security).

    Having written systems that interface with the Social Security Administration for vital records purposes, I know that they are extremely security conscious. While I really believe it likely that the President got a new SSN because his was broadcast over the Internet, it sounds plausible that his number is flagged not accessible through some public systems.

    Ramjomi: Has anyone thought of the possibility that due to President Obama’s security clearance that the E-verify check would not show up with any record for Mr. Obama.

  111. avatar
    Lupin February 25, 2012 at 3:55 am #

    This was a lot of fun!

    Orly seemed to be on the verge of a nervous breakdown. By the time Obama is reelected, she’ll be in the loony bin.

  112. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 25, 2012 at 4:59 am #

    John: Lot’s of allegation with little or no discussion of why it is so. Orly tried to clarify the evidence and explain but the board would have none of it.

    Ok, let’s look at what now seems to have become Orly’s hobby horse (I will never forgive Berg for not copyrighting that); the indonesian “school records”.

    An unsigned slip of paper mentioning the name Barry Soetoro, Honolulu as birth place (something birfers tend to forget), nationality Indonesian and religion Muslim.

    This slip of paper is obviously INADMISSABLE from the start, because there is no certified proof that it is from the actual school files and there is no other evidence saying this Soetoro is actually Obama. You might think this is obvious, but that is not how law and the chain of custody works. We do know that Hillary Clinton’s campaign provided for money to send a team to Indonesia to dig up dirt about Obama. If they went, they never found anything. Except perhaps one of them leaked this to the press.

    Suppose it is authentic however. Only In OrlyWorld and Donofridonia do hospitals issue official birth certificates and schools issue passports. The person at the school who filled this in was not a civil servant competent to judge the veracity of legal data. Nobody involved with this thing (the school administrator and the stepfather) ever testified before a court about this document. HEARSAY. (if this stuff was being used to prove that Obama was in Indonesiaat the time, however, it may have some value, but that is not Orly’s point)

    Let us assume that the data is true , however. It then establishes Obama’s birthplace as Honolulu (evidence item number 4 for the defense, after the COLB and the two announcements in the newspapers). As for the name change, that does not mean Obama is ineligible. Lots of US Presidents changed their name. A certain Newt Gingrich is not using his father’s name, and his father was not using his father’s name either – someone’s again trying to hide German citizenship there? The fact that Obama was once British, Kenyan and/or Indonesian does not take away his NBCship and a minor cannot renounce US citizenship.
    In other words, even if authenticated and true, the “Indonesian school record” is IRRELEVANT.

    Unauthenticated, irrelevant hearsay. You do not need to be a lawyer to know that whatever Orly would say about that, could not possible make it admissable evidence.

    And that slip of paper is actually the best she has got.

    And what does Lot have to do with it? The Spanish Inquisition will not be pleased.

  113. avatar
    Paper February 25, 2012 at 6:17 am #

    Oh no, they’ve got that one covered. I don’t even have to bring that one up. I know what I’ll hear. The NWO has all the candidates (except Ron Paul, I’m told) in their pocket. The whole election is a sham that is set up to go the way the NWO wants. If President Obama slips up and doesn’t toe the line, they’ll reveal his true birthplace and/or fix the votes, and put in their next patsy (such as Romney).

    G: ….Of course, it sort of flies in the face of all the Birthers now screaming that the IN panel was “in the tank for Obama”… so make sure you remind them of that when you encounter them…and expect to hear *crickets* in response…

    donna: i didn’t realize that “the Chairman of the Commission is Romney’s campaign chair”

  114. avatar
    US Citizen February 25, 2012 at 6:22 am #

    I would just like to thank George Soros for lending us the money to make an exact duplicate of the courthouse.
    Also Mel Brooks for the idea.
    I think the actors all did an excellent job.
    Just like in Georgia, we pulled it off again!
    As usual, checks will be sent out on the 3rd, minus the Screen Actors Guild dues.
    Thanks again for everyone that participated.

  115. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 25, 2012 at 6:22 am #

    John Reilly: So stop complaining. Be productive. Dr. Taitz can’t do it alone. How are you getting the Indonesian school record into evidence?

    But why would the birfers want to introduce it into evidence? The name change and the nationality, even if true, are irrelevant under US law. Just ask Phil Berg, he’s been told that a few times.

    The place of birth, however …

  116. avatar
    Keith February 25, 2012 at 6:50 am #

    John Reilly: Actually, the software we used for training is extraordinarily sophisticated,

    I had a tour of a commercial flight simulator about 15 years ago,QANTAS had just installed it I think. At the time it was one of the most advanced in the world and the Melbourne developers were all gaga at the possibilities they were just beginning to open up. They claimed to be working with the RAAF too, but the one I saw was nothing close to a combat simulator, I’m sure.

  117. avatar
    Keith February 25, 2012 at 6:52 am #

    John Reilly: The legal profession in California, on the other hand, seems to have no training whatsoever, and Dr. Taitz has demonstrated that she cannot learn. I cannot fathom a profession that thinks so little of itself.

    Yup.

  118. avatar
    Paper February 25, 2012 at 6:56 am #

    Here is the CIA footage of the hearing:

    “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisitiion!”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tym0MObFpTI

    I love the part in the middle where they are caught red-handed destroying evidence!

  119. avatar
    Paper February 25, 2012 at 7:03 am #

    “This is not the Spanish Inquisition here, where people are arguing back and forth.” [from, ohforgoodnesssake.com]

    I find this so amusing, because my personal experience with the Spanish Inquisition was so *not* about arguing back and forth.

    I mean:

    “Where have you hidden the real birth certificate?”

    “First of all, my good man with the hot metal thingie, what is your definition of real? You can’t actually expect me to answer that question without understanding your premise, can you?”

    “How about this for a premise! [Some screaming…] Now tell us where it is hidden.”

    “Guys, guys, this is all very well and good, but isn’t the burden of proof on you to demonstrate fraud before you make such accusations of deceit and subterfuge?”

    “Ah, a good point, a good point. How about this for burden! Or that! Where is your burden now, eh?!”

    “Well, well, I do say. I must declare. You have me at a loss, kind sirs and gentle ladies. I certainly was ready for a good argument, a challenging thesis, a rousing debate, but I must admit I didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition!”

  120. avatar
    Keith February 25, 2012 at 7:08 am #

    richCares: “must pass the E-verify system”
    after people like Orly spread his SSN all over the internet he was issued a new one so e-verify will fail

    Orly even said so in this hearing! She actually impugned her own evidence!

  121. avatar
    Keith February 25, 2012 at 7:10 am #

    aarrgghh: stop me if you’ve heard this one before …

    OK. Stop.

  122. avatar
    misha February 25, 2012 at 7:31 am #

    “One-sentence coverage from the Chicago Post Tribune”

    That reminds me of the story told about Alexander Woollcott. He wrote a two sentence review of a play, which closed it down:

    “Number 7 opened last night. It was misnamed by five.”

  123. avatar
    charo February 25, 2012 at 7:38 am #

    From http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10064.html:

    If you have done all you can to fix the problems resulting from misuse of your Social Security number and someone still is using your number, we may assign you a new number.

    You cannot get a new Social Security number:

    To avoid the consequences of filing for bankruptcy;
    If you intend to avoid the law or your legal responsibility; or
    If your Social Security card is lost or stolen, but there is no evidence that someone is using your number.

    If you decide to apply for a new num-ber, you will need to prove your age, U.S. citizenship or lawful immigration status and identity. For more information, ask for Your Social Security Number And Card (Publication Number 05-10002). You also will need to provide evidence that you still are being disadvantaged by the misuse.

    ***
    We technically don’t know if someone has tried to use Obama’s social security number, but that would seem to me to be a security breach resulting in an arrest. What are the chances we would know that? Well, we knew about the other security breaches. Does the President have a special exception to the general rule that you cannot get a new social security number if there is no proof it is being misused? ALL of our social security numbers are splashed everywhere, but probably not to this degree: I discovered a website that sells products with Obama’s social security number printed on them. It is a site not directed specifically toward Obama but will sell products upon demand. Illegal?

    Just my … $2.00?? Two cents needs adjusted for inflation.

  124. avatar
    Arthur February 25, 2012 at 8:35 am #

    US Citizen: I would just like to thank George Soros for lending us the money to make an exact duplicate of the courthouse.
    Also Mel Brooks for the idea.
    I think the actors all did an excellent job.
    Just like in Georgia, we pulled it off again!
    As usual, checks will be sent out on the 3rd, minus the Screen Actors Guild dues.
    Thanks again for everyone that participated.

    Sure, sure, it all went flawlessly, but I’m SICK of playing an extra in the audience! That sort of thing may be ok for an amateur like Dr. C, but I’m a graduate of the Akron Academy of Acting and Tire Repair, and shouting “You’re out of order!” from off-screen is beneath my dignity. For God’s sake, I was Guildenstern in the Quad City Masquers production of “Hamlet!” Next time, I want a seat at the table as one of the plaintiffs! What’s the number for our SAG rep?

  125. avatar
    donna February 25, 2012 at 9:18 am #

    an excellent post for neophytes

    Administrative Hearing–Judicial Trial: The Difference

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=22025

  126. avatar
    Bob February 25, 2012 at 10:00 am #

    The Indonesian school record reminds me of something a school teacher showed me. It was an information card for a new student filled out by the parent:

    Students name: John Smith
    Likes to be called: yes

  127. avatar
    realist February 25, 2012 at 10:03 am #

    John:
    This is now the 2nd instance where Obama has been shown to be “Above The Law”.Obama failed to show in Georgia and was let off the hook.Now Obama has failed to show in Indiana.Again, he was let off the hook. Clearly, it is beyond all doubt that the court as well as these election boards consider Obama to be “Above The Law.”

    Yep, he failed to show, and will continue to fail to show. He’s not compelled to show nor has he ever been ordered to do so, nor should he.

  128. avatar
    veritas February 25, 2012 at 10:34 am #

    Dr. Conspiricy, iknow this is a cut and paste but i would like to hear your thoughts on this

    Let me put it to you in appropriately simple language:

    Clause A = “Only a natural born Citizen may be President.”

    Clause B = “Anyone born in the United States is a Citizen.”

    (While these two clauses reflect Article 2, Section 1, and the 14th Amendment, I shall refer to them as “Clause A” and “Clause B” for now.)

    The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all. The rule states that when a court examines two clauses, unless Congress has made it clear that one clause repeals the other, the court must observe a separate legal effect for each. More specifically, regardless of the chronology of enactment, the general clause can never govern the specific.

    Clause B is a general rule of citizenship, which states that all persons born in the country are members of the nation.

    Clause A is a specific clause that says only those members of the nation who are “natural born” may be President.

    According to the rule of statutory construction, the court must determine that Clause A requires something more than Clause B.

    It’s truly that simple. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory. It’s not controversial. This is not rocket science. Every single attorney reading this right now knows, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that I have accurately explained the rule of statutory construction to you. Any attorney who denies this rule, is lying. The rule cannot be denied. And its simplicity cannot be ignored.

    Now let’s see what the United States Supreme Court has to say about the rule:

    “Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902).

    The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).

    This is what I mean by no wiggle room – “The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments…” Any court construing Clause A is not at liberty to assume that Congress intended to put the words “natural born” into Clause B. The general does not govern the specific, and the rule requires the court to “give effect to both if possible”.

    Is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B?

    Yes. The Constitution tells us that any Citizen can be a Senator, or Representative, but that to be President one must be a “natural born Citizen”. The Constitution specifically assigns different civic statuses to “Citizens” and “natural born Citizens”. Therefore, not only is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B, it is absolutely required by law, and no court has the ability to circumvent the rule.

    Had the original framers intended for any “born Citizen” to be eligible to the office of President, they would not have included the word “natural” in the clause. Additionally, had the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to declare that every person born in the country was a “natural born Citizen”, then the 14th Amendment would contain clear and manifest language to that effect. But it doesn’t. Therefore, each clause must be given separate force and effect.

    Deputy Chief Judge Malihi explained the rule of statutory construction in his denial of candidate Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein his opinion of the Court stated:

    “Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the first step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language.’ Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008). ‘Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.‘Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).” Order On Motion To Dismiss, Deputy Chief Judge Malihi, Jan. 3, 2012, pg. 3. (Emphasis added.)

    Therefore, the term “natural born” must be considered as requiring something more than simple birth in the country. And Judge Malihi states, quite clearly, in his ruling above, that the Court “is not authorized to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.” The rule is the same for election statutes in Georgia as it is for the Constitution of the United States.

    The rule of statutory construction, with regard to the Constitution, was best stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):

    “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.)

    If the 14th Amendment was held to declare that all persons born in the country, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were natural-born citizens, then the “natural born Citizen” clause would be rendered inoperative. It would be superfluous. And its specific provision would, therefore, be governed by the general provision of the 14th Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has determined that it is inadmissible to even make that argument.

    Any genuine construction of the “natural born Citizen” clause must begin from the starting point that it requires something more than citizenship by virtue of being born on U.S. soil. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), tells you exactly what that something is; citizen parents.

  129. avatar
    Sef February 25, 2012 at 10:37 am #

    Doc, can I assume that the title of this article is snark? The EC did NOT vote in favor of the challenge. They voted to DENY the challenge.

  130. avatar
    RuhRoh February 25, 2012 at 10:38 am #

    veritas: Dr. Conspiricy, iknow this is a cut and paste but i would like to hear your thoughts on this </P

    Dr. Conspiracy has already addressed this. Do a search on Donofrio and I’m sure you’ll find it.

  131. avatar
    ASK Esq February 25, 2012 at 10:41 am #

    Lupin:
    This was a lot of fun!

    Orly seemed to be on the verge of a nervous breakdown.By the time Obama is reelected, she’ll be in the loony bin.

    I think she’s about ready to return to original career of making coats from dalmatian skins.

  132. avatar
    Whatever4 February 25, 2012 at 10:48 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: Ok, let’s look at what now seems to have become Orly’s hobby horse (I will never forgive Berg for not copyrighting that); the indonesian “school records”.

    An unsigned slip of paper mentioning the name Barry Soetoro, Honolulu as birth place (something birfers tend to forget), nationality Indonesian and religion Muslim.

    Actually, it’s not even that. Orly only has a screen shot from an Inside Edition story. Someone else captured the image and sent it to her. She’s Six Degrees of Keven Bacon away from the actual piece of paper.

  133. avatar
    ballantine February 25, 2012 at 10:51 am #

    It is pretty amazing that Donofrio pretty much get’s nothing right and still has so many morons believe what he says.. There is no code of statutory consturction and judges are not required to follow the cannons of constrution. They are simply tools of construction that do not trump the clear intent of a statute. And his construction makes little sense as clearly the original Constitution had two types of citizens, by birth and naturalization, as even the Minor court said. The framers and the supreme Court both said they were simply restating the same rule in the 14th Amendment, the problem being that natural born citizen wasn’t defined and didn’t make clear blacks were citizens. Their statement made clear they understood they were clarifying who would be President. Too bad there wasn’t a poker player there to set them straight.

    If Leo doesn’t like the fact that the Supreme Court said the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment mean the same thing, that is really too bad. The opinion of the Supreme Court counts, his ramblings do not. It might help if Leo actually looked up how “natural born citizen’ was defined by scholars prior to 1866. For example, Binney, in a paper Congress relied upon to change the naturalization laws in 1854, defined it as someone born within the limits and the jurisdiction of the country. Look familiar?

  134. avatar
    Whatever4 February 25, 2012 at 11:06 am #

    Dave:
    No, no, Jablonski only fails to appear in Georgia.

    I’m sure Obama had some Indiana lawyer not show up at this hearing.

    Beautiful!

  135. avatar
    Lupin February 25, 2012 at 11:13 am #

    ASK Esq: I think she’s about ready to return to original career of making coats from dalmatian skins.

    Very good! 🙂

  136. avatar
    John Reilly February 25, 2012 at 11:15 am #

    Mr. Veritas: Regardless of the “rules of statutory construction,” which some here do not think exist, the Constitution tells us that Congress is the judge of whether Mr. Obama qualified to be President. No one in Congress objected. My guess is that if Mr. Obama is re-elected that no one will object. If the proper place to decide this challenge is in the Courts (Dr. C and I have had a mild disagreement on this in the past, and we have the experience in California of Mr. Cleaver being bounced), the birther movement is 0 for more than 100. It can’t find a single judge or government official interested in its nonsense. Yet another cautionarty tale. The 1962 Mets did better than this with significantly less tools at their disposal. The Chicago Cubs are not as good an example of futility.

  137. avatar
    Lupin February 25, 2012 at 11:15 am #

    veritas: Yada yada yada ending: Any genuine construction of the “natural born Citizen” clause must begin from the starting point that it requires something more than citizenship by virtue of being born on U.S. soil. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), tells you exactly what that something is; citizen parents.

    My considered answer:

    http://www.hark.com/clips/xrftjzkhkx-loony

  138. avatar
    Whatever4 February 25, 2012 at 11:21 am #

    John:
    SCOTUS is indeed “Evading” the issue.Justice Clarence Thomas confirmed it in a jokingly sort of way.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu6OiTiua08
    Supreme Court Justice Thomas; We’re evading the eligibility issue – 4/16/10

    In that clip, Justice Thomas says that he and Rep Serrano have been discussing the issue for “a decade and a half”, and Rep Sorenno refers to “my eligibility for President”. Their “Evading issue” has NEVER referred to Obama or his circumstances in any way. It’s a very long-running joke between them about Sorreno’s birth in Puerto Rico. They bring in up every year in the annual budget meeting between the Congress and the Supreme Court.

  139. avatar
    John Reilly February 25, 2012 at 11:25 am #

    Dr. Taitz in the recent past seems to heavily rely on the Indonesian piece of paper, if indeed it is really from Indonesia. Some of the posters here used their legal skills to point out the obvious problens in ever getting this piece of paper admitted into evidence. Even if admitted, that paper proves the President was born in Hawaii.

    You can’t win a debate if you have multiple, inconsistent theories as to the basis of your argument. Dr. Taitz continually argues inconsistent theories. I’d like to say that they are argued in the same paragraph, but I’m afraid Dr. Taitz and paragraphs, as other rules of the English language, are strangers. I don’t say this to make fun of her, though the temptation is great.

    If the real problem is that the President does not pass e-verify, then soon enough some blowhard like Donald Trump or perhaps America’s Sheriff will start saying that, and the President will hold a news conference, bring in the Social Security Commissioner, and announce he was given a new social security number because of all of the fraud attempted by crooks using his old number. And they will produce his original application, as to which I think (and I know I’m in a minority) was processed through Baskin-Robbins in Connecticut, and we will have our answer.

    Once again, as Karl Rove says, traps laid by President Obama.

  140. avatar
    ballantine February 25, 2012 at 11:27 am #

    Whatever4: In that clip, Justice Thomas says that he and Rep Serrano have been discussing the issue for “a decade and a half”, and Rep Sorenno refers to “my eligibility for President”. Their “Evading issue” has NEVER referred to Obama or his circumstances in any way. It’s a very long-running joke between them about Sorreno’s birth in Puerto Rico. They bring in up every year in the annual budget meeting between the Congress and the Supreme Court.

    It is amazing. They just keep repeating the same talking points. When shown they are wrong, they don’t even try to debate the point, they just move on to the next talking point. When all their points are debunked, they move to another thread and repeat their points all over again. It’s like it doesn’t matter what’s true or not as long as they have their talking points. Seriously, what is wrong with these people?

  141. avatar
    gorefan February 25, 2012 at 11:29 am #

    veritas: iknow this is a cut and paste

    Not too long ago a number of comments on this site addressed the issue of the “rule of statutory construction”. Leo’s interpetation and understanding may not be correct. That it would seem needs to be the starting point. A clear definition of the “rule of statutory construction” because if it isn’t what Leo says it is, than his theory falls apart.

    Start here:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/donofrios-dirty-little-secret/

  142. avatar
    John Reilly February 25, 2012 at 11:29 am #

    Mr. Veritas is back with the Minor case, which says in precise English that the Supreme Court in that case is not resolving whether someone who does not have two citizen parents is a citizen. I do not understand people who post to this site who lacxk basic skills in reading comprehension.

    In any event, Mr. Veritas, if you are in the slightest bit on the right path, your view has been unable to persuade any judge or government official in well over 100 attempts. That’s a suggestion that you might try something new. This argument is simply not working for you, and saying it over and over does not make it so.

  143. avatar
    John Reilly February 25, 2012 at 11:34 am #

    Mr. Ballantine: What is wrong with these people is that they cannot accpt that there is a Black man in the White House. If the President was, instead, Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson (heaven forbid!), or, as Misha is fond of saying, Cory Booker, they would find different but similarly offensive reasons to object. The challenge filed in Alaska tells the essential truth to these folk: it is all about race.

  144. avatar
    veritas February 25, 2012 at 11:35 am #

    If the 14th Amendment was held to declare that all persons born in the country, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were natural-born citizens, then the “natural born Citizen” clause would be rendered inoperative. It would be superfluous

    seems crystal clear to me.

  145. avatar
    Arthur February 25, 2012 at 11:41 am #

    veritas: If the 14th Amendment was held to declare that all persons born in the country, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were natural-born citizens, then the “natural born Citizen” clause would be rendered inoperative. It would be superfluous

    You lost me on this one. Could you explain why the natural-born citizen clause is rendered inoperative by the 14th Amendment?

  146. avatar
    ballantine February 25, 2012 at 11:46 am #

    veritas:
    If the 14th Amendment was held to declare that all persons born in the country, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were natural-born citizens, then the “natural born Citizen” clause would be rendered inoperative. It would be superfluous

    seems crystal clear to me.

    Too bad it is what the Court says it means, not what is clear to you since you seem ignorant of the history of the clause and law generally. It’s really not that hard. Two kind of citizens under the original Constitution, by birth, or natural born, and naturalized. The term “natural born” didn’t make clear it applied to blacks and hence Dred Scott said it did not. The 39th Congress generally thought Dred Scott wrong and thought blacks were natural born citizens due to their native borth. However, some members thought they needed to clarify that all native born were citizens and therefore adopted the Amendment. The legislative history made clear they were simply restating who was natural born. Two provisions of the Constitution meaning the same thing, the second clarifying the ambiguity in the original undefined term. The Supreme Court agreed. End of today’s lesson.

  147. avatar
    Paper February 25, 2012 at 11:59 am #

    What ballantine says.

    I’ll also point out there was the Civil War. People kind of want to make it completely clear after an event like that.

  148. avatar
    Northland10 February 25, 2012 at 12:14 pm #

    John Reilly: The Chicago Cubs are not as good an example of futility.

    Maybe Orly should consider bringing a goat to her next hearing.

  149. avatar
    gorefan February 25, 2012 at 12:24 pm #

    veritas: It would be superfluous

    Why, it’s original intent was to prevent non-native born persons from being President. The 14th amendment did not change that.

    Seems clear to me.

  150. avatar
    John Reilly February 25, 2012 at 1:10 pm #

    Northland10, as to your suggesxtion that Dr. Taitz bring a goat to the next hearing, . . .

    oh, I’ll restrain myself. Dr. C might think I was not civil.

  151. avatar
    Ballantine February 25, 2012 at 1:29 pm #

    Actually, many members of the 39th Congress thought the Amendment and Civil Rights Act was superfluous since they already thought anyone born in the US was a citizen under the original Constitution. Trumbull said such over and over as in his reply to Johnson’s veto where he said that he always believed anyone born in the US was a citizen but that it was proper for Congress to pass a declaratory act if there were still doubts about the issue. He made ethe same point about the 14th Amendment. For example:

    “in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

    Trumbull was not alone. For example:

    “This clause is unnecessary, but nevertheless proper, since it is only declaratory of what is the law without it. This has been sufficiently demonstrated by the by the distinguished chairman of the judiciary committee and by the authorities he has cited ….. In the great case of Lynch vs. Clarke, it was conclusively shown that in the absence of all constitutional provision or congressional law declaring citizenship by birth, “it must be regulated by some rule of national law coeval with the existence of the Union” it was and is that “all citizens that children born here, are citizens, without any regard to the political condition or allegiance of their parents.” Rep. Lawrence, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1832 (1866)(House reply to Johnson’s veto).

    Of course, several members were very insistent that Dred Scott needed to be made a nullity. Hence the adoption of an Amendment making clear the rule was color blind.

  152. avatar
    Tarrant February 25, 2012 at 1:51 pm #

    veritas:
    If the 14th Amendment was held to declare that all persons born in the country, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were natural-born citizens, then the “natural born Citizen” clause would be rendered inoperative. It would be superfluous

    seems crystal clear to me.

    Not at all. The clause means, and has always meant, that a naturalized citizen cannot be President. That is what it meant then, and it is what it means now. They can be Representatives, Senators, even Secretary of State. Just not President or Vice President.

    An NBC isn’t some special third type of citizen. It’s simply one of the two types.

  153. avatar
    Don February 25, 2012 at 1:54 pm #

    Did Obama present a certified copy of his birth certificate? The answer is No.

    Did Obama present evidence or introduce any legal precedent that was admissable to the court which established that he was a NBC? The answer is No.

    What submitted evidence did the commission use to determine that Obama met the qaulifications to be a candidate for the office? The answer is None.

    Would the supporters of Obama blindly accept corruption and treason and destroy liberty and justice for all? Sadly, the answer is Yes.

  154. avatar
    richCares February 25, 2012 at 2:00 pm #

    Sadly, the answer is Yes.
    yup, sadly for the birthers. Good for America.

  155. avatar
    Arthur February 25, 2012 at 2:03 pm #

    Don: Would the supporters of Obama blindly accept corruption and treason and destroy liberty and justice for all? Sadly, the answer is Yes.

    Anything for you, Don.

  156. avatar
    RuhRoh February 25, 2012 at 2:17 pm #

    In Orly’s little brain, 49 states have specifically requested certified transcripts of the Malihi hearing!

    From Orly’s blog:

    “dear Ms.beal.

    other states are requesting the certified case file with all the documents and the certified transcripts. Please, advice what will be the fee for 49 certified copies”

    And then she promptly hits up her sheeple for donations.

  157. avatar
    gorefan February 25, 2012 at 2:22 pm #

    Don: What submitted evidence did the commission use to determine that Obama met the qaulifications to be a candidate for the office?

    The Commission members were already familar with the Ankeny decision. No need for anyone to point it out to them.

  158. avatar
    Rickey February 25, 2012 at 2:35 pm #

    Don:
    Did Obama present a certified copy of his birth certificate? The answer is No.

    Did Obama present evidence or introduce any legal precedent that was admissible to the court which established that he was a NBC?The answer is No.

    What submitted evidence did the commission use to determine that Obama met the qualifications to be a candidate for the office?The answer is None.

    Indiana law doesn’t require a candidate for President to prove that he or she is eligible, so Obama was not obliged to produce anything.

    The burden of proof was on the petitioners to prove that Obama is not eligible, and they failed to do that.

    Next question?

  159. avatar
    Rickey February 25, 2012 at 2:41 pm #

    Ken:
    The Barack Hussein Obama presidency is the greatest CRIME ever committed in the USA. It is unbelievable that people in positions to act on this crime fail to do so.

    Please cite the specific law or laws which Obama has broken. I will concede that he is guilty of Presidenting While Black, but I’m looking for actual statutes.

  160. avatar
    richCares February 25, 2012 at 2:47 pm #

    The Barack Hussein Obama presidency is the greatest CRIME ever committed in the “USA”
    Frankly we are tired of hearing this type of Trash Talk, if you don’t wish to support our country then move away please.

  161. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2012 at 2:50 pm #

    The point is that Obama met the statutory requirements to be on the ballot when he or the Democratic party filed with the state using the proper forms, with the proper certifications and paying the proper fees. That’s how all candidates get on the ballot.

    Obama (figuratively) started the meeting having already met all the formal requirements. It was the challengers who alleged that he hadn’t — and they failed to show that.

    The existence of a challenge doesn’t magically create the presumption of ineligibility or create new requirements for ballot access.

    Don: What submitted evidence did the commission use to determine that Obama met the qaulifications to be a candidate for the office? The answer is None.

  162. avatar
    Joey February 25, 2012 at 2:51 pm #

    Just in case our friend “Don” is unfamiliar with Ankeny, et. al. v Mitch Daniels, the Governor of Indiana: Back in 2009, an Indiana original jurisdiction court and the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that both John McCain and Barack Obama were eligible to receive Indiana’s Electoral College votes since both McCain and Obama qualified as “natural born citizens.”
    The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled: “Based on the languarge of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark (the Supreme Court decision), we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the birthplace of their parents…”
    Ankeny appealed to the Indiana state Supreme Court but the appeal was rejected. The Appeals Court’s ruling stands in Indiana.
    That’s why there was no need for President Obama to present any evidence or have an attorney show up.

  163. avatar
    justlw February 25, 2012 at 2:51 pm #

    How many birthers are flaming out that Santorum was not present at the hearing in Indiana yesterday? Would it be “zero”? Because I’m guessing “zero.”

  164. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2012 at 2:52 pm #

    Hi. Can I use your comment in the article I’m writing called “Are Birthers a hate group?”

    Ken: The Barack Hussein Obama presidency is the greatest CRIME ever committed in the USA. It is unbelievable that people in positions to act on this crime fail to do so.

  165. avatar
    nbc February 25, 2012 at 2:55 pm #

    Don: What submitted evidence did the commission use to determine that Obama met the qaulifications to be a candidate for the office? The answer is None.

    The challenger has the burden of proof to establish the lack of eligibility. Obama has to do nothing to establish his eligibility, which of course, is self evident from his certified birth on US soil.

    Orly failed to introduce any relevant, admissible evidence that undermined President Obama’s eligibility and thus lost to an ’empty chair’…. Again…

    Orly continues to fail to understand the concepts of ‘burden of proof’ and ‘legally admissible evidence’. Judges have tried to educate her but it must have fallen onto deaf ears.

  166. avatar
    Mitch February 25, 2012 at 2:56 pm #

    Clause A = “Only a natural born Citizen may be President.”

    Clause B = “Anyone born in the United States is a Citizen.”

    Let me add:

    Clause C – “Anyone naturalized a citizen in the United States is a Citizen.”

    Obviously, the difference between C and B is why they need to say “natural born” in clause A. Anyway, it’s obvious to me…

  167. avatar
    nbc February 25, 2012 at 2:58 pm #

    If the 14th Amendment was held to declare that all persons born in the country, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were natural-born citizens, then the “natural born Citizen” clause would be rendered inoperative. It would be superfluous

    Nope, the 14th states who are citizens, natural born and naturalized. The eligibility clause states that only the former can be eligible for the office of the President.

    Citizens of the United States = Born on soil (natural-born) or naturalized on soil (natural-ized)

    It’s so simple…

  168. avatar
    misha February 25, 2012 at 3:00 pm #

    Don: Would the supporters of Obama blindly accept corruption and treason and destroy liberty and justice for all? Sadly, the answer is Yes.

    I’m sorry, but the Patriot Act was signed into law by Shrub. Corruption? Ask Agnew. More recently, ask Cheney and no-bid contracts by Halliburton. Or creating WMDs from whole cloth, and then giving no-bid contracts to Halliburton.

    The Real ID law? A solid Republican, Representative James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the author of the original Real ID Act, then attached it as a rider on a military spending bill, H.R. 1268…

    Read on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act

  169. avatar
    sfjeff February 25, 2012 at 3:04 pm #

    What I found interesting were the comments during the recess. Thanks to whoever was recording them.

    The dudes talking to Orly are true believers- just like John. They cannot- and I mean cannot- comprehend that anyone who looks at the pile of steer manure that Orly is selling doesn’t agree with them.

    This is why logic and evidence are lost on John and his fellow travellers. Not to say that there aren’t certain Birthers that are in it purely for publicity and money, but for these true believers, no evidence will ever refute the conclusion they came to before any of this started.

  170. avatar
    nbc February 25, 2012 at 3:04 pm #

    Don: As you know, the importance of the fraudelent Social Security number is that it indicates identity theft.

    That by itself does not disqualify a person and since citizens and non-citizens can get a SSN, there is no relevance to the SSN argument. But it gets worse, there is NO evidence that the SSN assigned to President Obama is in any way fraudulent… None..

    Orly’s appearance was doomed to failure as she failed to understand the basic concepts of ‘burden of proof’ and ‘relevant admissible legal evidence’. Her SSN claims have no relevance at all, NONE. Her Indonesian arguments are pure hearsay and irrelevant to President Obama’s location of birth (although the school certificate does certify him born in Hawaii), the passport record shows President Obama’s name, crossed out and a notation under it Soebarkah without any indication as to its meaning or relevance. Again there is nothing that supports Orly’s arguments that go to the eligibility of our President. Speculative claims about ‘loss of citizenship’, or ‘loss of last name’ remain totally unsubstantiated by any legally admissible evidence. So what exactly is Orly’s argument that would establish a lack of eligibility of our President? There is none beyond pure speculation.

    Perhaps you can help me understand?

  171. avatar
    misha February 25, 2012 at 3:04 pm #

    Ken:
    The Barack Hussein Obama presidency is the greatest CRIME ever committed in the USA. It is unbelievable that people in positions to act on this crime fail to do so.

    No, that would be Nixon and Watergate. Then there was Spiro Agnew shaking down contractors for bribes. He pled nolo contendere to one count of income tax evasion, and resigned.

  172. avatar
    Rickey February 25, 2012 at 3:05 pm #

    charo:

    We technically don’t know if someone has tried to use Obama’s social security number, but that would seem to me to be a security breach resulting in an arrest.What are the chances we would know that?Well, we knew about the other security breaches. Does the President have a special exception to the general rule that you cannot get a new social security number if there is no proof it is being misused? ALL of our social security numbers are splashed everywhere, but probably not to this degree: I discovered a website that sells products with Obama’s social security number printed on them. It is a site not directed specifically toward Obama but will sell products upon demand. Illegal?

    I doubt that it requires actual identity theft to get the SSA to take action. Identity theft can be a nightmare for a victim to resolve, so I would think that anyone who is at substantial risk of becoming a victim would be able to get help from the SSA before a problem actually occurs. And identity thieves are not so easy to find and arrest as you seem to think. Much of the identify theft which takes place is committed by foreigners, particularly in the former Soviet Union. It is an international problem.

    I am not aware of any law which makes it illegal to publish someone else’s Social Security Number, unless the person who publishes it is subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In my work I deal with Social Security Numbers every day, but my work does not make me subject to FCRA. I doubt that the people who are selling merchandise with Obama’s old SSN on it are breaking any laws. I also have no doubt that Obama has been issued a new SSN.

    SSNs are out there, but they are not that easy to obtain. Many of the databases which sell information to private investigators now provide only truncated SSNs. Of course, there are unscrupulous people out there, but investigators can lose their access to the information if they break the rules. One of Orly’s investigators – Sampson, I believe it was – had his LexisNexis account revoked for accessing Obama’s information without a permissible use under FCRA.

  173. avatar
    misha February 25, 2012 at 3:06 pm #

    Rickey: I will concede that he is guilty of Presidenting While Black, but I’m looking for actual statutes.

    Also, Obama and his wife are guilty of DWB.

  174. avatar
    nbc February 25, 2012 at 3:08 pm #

    What I found interesting were the comments during the recess. Thanks to whoever was recording them.

    Yes the level of cluelessness was quite endearing… All we need to do is authenticate the document that shows that Orly may have accessed a government service in violation of US law and we have him… The SSN result showed inconclusive evidence at best and can be explained simply by the fact that since Orly had been showing President Obama’s SSN unredacted in many instances, the number had become a high risk for fraudulent use and tagged as such.

    What Orly did establish is how President Obama had been using the SSN assigned to him consistently since he registered for selective services. The DOB of 1890 occurred in reference to the name Barack Hussein Obama, at a known address. In other words, like the 1990 entry, a clear database error and NO evidence that it had been assigned to anyone but President Obama.

  175. avatar
    misha February 25, 2012 at 3:10 pm #

    Don: Did Obama present evidence or introduce any legal precedent that was admissable to the court which established that he was a NBC? The answer is No.
    What submitted evidence did the commission use to determine that Obama met the qaulifications to be a candidate for the office? The answer is None.

    Let me refresh your memory. The way our Constitution is written, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, whether criminal or civil.

    Look into it.

  176. avatar
    nbc February 25, 2012 at 3:13 pm #

    Why did the cameras disappear during the break in the middle of Ms Taitz testimony?

    They were there for Santorum’s hearing. Obama’s hearing was a non-issue. But cameras did remain, capturing how Orly lost to an ’empty chair’, once again… I am glad that there remained cameras capturing that moment.

    Did anyone notice how Santorum failed to show up either 🙂 Although I believe he did send representation to rebut the issues raised by the complaint.
    Given that it was clear that Orly would be unable to raise any relevant evidence that showed the President ineligible, it was not really necessary to waste good money here.

  177. avatar
    nbc February 25, 2012 at 3:15 pm #

    Let me refresh your memory. The way our Constitution is written, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, whether criminal or civil.

    Orly showed similar unfamiliarity with the concepts of ‘burden of proof’ or what it takes for something to be ‘admissible legal evidence’.

    Now she is trying to get certified records of the testimony of her ‘witnesses’ whom the Judge ruled were not properly qualified. Does Orly really believe that the transcripts of her ‘witnesses’ carry any legal weight?…

    Fascinating…

  178. avatar
    misha February 25, 2012 at 3:48 pm #

    ballantine: Seriously, what is wrong with these people?

    I will repeat this for emphasis: Orly, her soulmate Lieberman, and the rest of their coterie do not believe in democracy. It’s that simple.

    Read this: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

    Settler leader: Democracy must be dismantled

    Haaretz reports that settler leader Benni Katzover calls for dismantling democracy…and the leader of the right-wing coalition aids “price tag” activists. Can we discuss the treason of the right yet?

    The veteran settler leader, Benni Katzover, was caught (in Hebrew) telling some meshigene Chabad paper, “Beit Mashiach”, that “I would say that today, Israeli democracy has one central mission, and that is to disappear. Israeli democracy has finished its historical role, and it must be dismantled…”

    Read on: http://972mag.com/settler-leader-democracy-must-be-dismantled/32401/

  179. avatar
    John Wayne February 25, 2012 at 3:54 pm #

    This is really simple, unless Obama is a foreigner. He needs to produce ALL of the documents that prove that he is eligible to hold the positions of President of the United States.

    He was NOT vetted at the time of the 2008 election.
    The onus is ON HIM to prove that he is eligible. If he challenger is wrong, it would take one appearance by him, WITH his documents to put this question to rest.

    But here are a couple of questions:
    If you research this, the Kenyan government has SEALED Obama’s records.
    So that leads to a question – WHAT records?
    His grandmother has said that he WAS born in Kenya.
    So WHERE was he born?
    Then – even on the forged BC on the Whitehouse.gov site it says that his father was a Kenyan, at the time of his birth.
    …and in his own book, he says that his father NEVER became an American citizen.
    So that leads to a question – ARE WE TO ACCEPT a British Subject as our President?

    NOT ACCORDING to the Constitution!!!!!!
    He HAS committed Fraud, by taking this Office, and IS committing FRAUD, by continuing to assume the responsibilities of this role,
    …now for all the Ballot officials, and judges that have been going along with this.
    Do you REALIZE what this is telling us about YOU?
    You are ALL engaged in FRAUDULENT actions that are contributing to this MESS.

    …as I said, this is really simple – PROVE that you are a NATURAL BORN AMERICAN, without possible foreign allegiances.

  180. avatar
    richCares February 25, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

    “This is really simple, unless Obama is a foreigner. He needs to produce ALL of the documents that prove that he is eligible to hold the positions of President of the United States.”
    .
    been there, done that! His BC was attested to by State of Hawaii, remember full faith and credit clause of constitution, you do believe in the constitution don’t you, the real John Wayne did.

  181. avatar
    RuhRoh February 25, 2012 at 4:04 pm #

    nbc: Orly showed similar unfamiliarity with the concepts of burden of proof’ or what it takes for something to be admissible legal evidence’. Now she is trying to get certified records of the testimony of her witnesses’ whom the Judge ruled were not properly qualified. Does Orly really believe that the transcripts of her witnesses’ carry any legal weight?…Fascinating…

    She probably does. When the BOE started using words like “certified”, “authenticated”, “hearsay” and the like, the only one Taitz could connect to a legal setting was “certified”. 🙂

  182. avatar
    misha February 25, 2012 at 4:07 pm #

    John Wayne: You are ALL engaged in FRAUDULENT actions that are contributing to this MESS.

    And enjoying it thoroughly, thank you.

    John Wayne: PROVE that you are a NATURAL BORN AMERICAN, without possible foreign allegiances.

    An Israeli in now Chicago mayor. Have a nice trip.

  183. avatar
    Obsolete February 25, 2012 at 4:14 pm #

    John Wayne’s real name was Marion Robert Morrison- what is he hiding? Or maybe our gullible poster is naming himself after John Wayne Gacy?

  184. avatar
    Northland10 February 25, 2012 at 4:15 pm #

    John Wayne: This is really simple, unless Obama is a foreigner. He needs to produce ALL of the documents that prove that he is eligible to hold the positions of President of the United States.

    Just like all those other non-foreigner Presidents before him. Oh wait…

  185. avatar
    Obsolete February 25, 2012 at 4:23 pm #

    John Wayne:

    …as I said, this is really simple – PROVE that you are a NATURAL BORN AMERICAN, without possible foreign allegiances.

    in other words, Obama must meet your made-up criteria & definitions which have no basis in actual Presidential qualification. Got it.

  186. avatar
    nbc February 25, 2012 at 4:33 pm #

    John Wayne: You are ALL engaged in FRAUDULENT actions that are contributing to this MESS.

    So far the only frauds appear those who ignore our Constitution and the facts of President Obama’s birth on US soil, making him a natural born citizen. So why would anyone try to have an eligible President found to be ineligible is beyond me.

  187. avatar
    nbc February 25, 2012 at 4:39 pm #

    …as I said, this is really simple – PROVE that you are a NATURAL BORN AMERICAN, without possible foreign allegiances.

    Fact: President Obama was born on US soil subject to its full jurisdiction and thus owing full allegiance. The mere fact that another nation under statute could claim President Obama as its citizen has no relevance.

    FAIL… And you call us contributing to fraud?… Ironic…

  188. avatar
    Arthur February 25, 2012 at 4:42 pm #

    John Wayne: He was NOT vetted at the time of the 2008 election.
    The onus is ON HIM to prove that he is eligible. If he challenger is wrong, it would take one appearance by him, WITH his documents to put this question to rest.

    Obama declared his intention to run for president on February 10, 2007. Republicans, Democrats and the press vetted him as much as someone could be vetted during the next 20 months. He presented his birth certificate in June of 2008. The fact that you weren’t paying attention doesn’t mean he wasn’t thoroughly examined.

  189. avatar
    G February 25, 2012 at 4:46 pm #

    LMAO!!

    John Reilly: Northland10, as to your suggesxtion that Dr. Taitz bring a goat to the next hearing, . . .oh, I’ll restrain myself. Dr. C might think I was not civil.

  190. avatar
    gorefan February 25, 2012 at 4:49 pm #

    John Wayne: NOT ACCORDING to the Constitution!!!!!!

    Every time people like you make these kind of statements, the Founder/Framers roll over in their graves.

  191. avatar
    G February 25, 2012 at 4:56 pm #

    Well, we seem to be enterting another one of those periods where the quality of Birther Trolls drops significantly…

    Obviously, the rabid frothing and gnashing of teeth over their EPIC FAIL slapdowns in GA and now IN, have them frantically flying over hear to have their tantrum meltdowns.

    Sadly, it seems they have all been reduced to trying to ressurect long debunked dead horses from several years back. They really have nothing but their infantile hate to go on…

  192. avatar
    Bloodless Coup February 25, 2012 at 5:04 pm #

    For the second time in recent history Obama failed to appear for an Administrative hearing.

    Instead of entering a default judgment against Obama and holding him in contempt of court the Administrative Officers in Indiana found in favor of an absent defendant and threw the case out dismissing all the evidence and testimony as hearsay and inadmissible.

    This is the second time or third time that an Administrative Court has shown extreme favoritism towards Obama and extreme hostility towards the plaintiffs.

    Learn More Here

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/indiana-election-commission-obamas-moms.html

    Here Is An Interesting Quote From Represent Yourself In Court: How To Prepare & Try A Winning Case, Written By Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara Bergman. Publisher NOLO 7th Edition, Chapter 1, Page 16.

    “ALJ’s (Administrative Law Judge’s) do not normally have to follow the rules of evidence that govern court-room trials. For example you CAN (emphasis added ) offer hearsay evidence.”

    Also from the Indiana Code…(I don’t know it this is applicable to ballot challenges but it’s worth researching)

    IC 31-33-19-3
    Hearsay evidence
    31-33-19-3 Sec. 3. During an administrative hearing under section 1 of this chapter, the administrative hearing officer shall consider hearsay evidence to be competent evidence and may not exclude hearsay based on the technical rules of evidence. However, a determination may not be based solely on evidence that is hearsay.
    As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.16.

  193. avatar
    nbc February 25, 2012 at 5:16 pm #

    For the second time in recent history Obama failed to appear for an Administrative hearing.

    Instead of entering a default judgment against Obama and holding him in contempt of court the Administrative Officers in Indiana found in favor of an absent defendant and threw the case out dismissing all the evidence and testimony as hearsay and inadmissible.

    There is no such thing as contempt in the Indiana Election Commission hearing. In Indiana, even if the ALJ (which is a different proceeding that the hearing), even if finding that a party defaulted will still have to adjudicate the matters according to the rules of evidence and burden of proof. In Indianan, the burden of proof is with the plaintiff who has to overcome a civil standard of preponderance of evidence. In Georgia, there was a court ruling that when the candidate has to file a certificate of eligibility, the burden of proof lies with him but President Obama never had to file such a document thus even in Georgia, the burden of proof was with the plaintiffs.

    In Georgia, Orly failed to properly validate her ‘experts’ as such and thus their testimony had no legal value. The judge also observed that the rest of her arguments did not amount to much, and that it was up to the discretion of the Judge to determine its value. Given that the Judge, as other judges before him, have adopted that birth on soil established natural born citizen status, and since nothing Orly introduced rose to any standard of evidence, the Court was well within its right to reject the hearsay evidence. The same with the Indiana hearing where again, the Commission has the final word on what evidence they will accept and what evidence they will not.

    Mr. King said that by statute the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act does not apply to work of the commission, nor do the Trial Rules. Only the constitutional due process standards apply. Whether the commission accepts the affidavit is solely up to the commission. Mr. Durnil stated that he had no objection to the affidavits.

    So neither the Administrative Orders and Procedures act nor the Trial Rules apply to the Commission hearings, only the issue of due process standards and that the Commission may accept or reject affidavits and evidence as it pleases. Since the Commission found that the ‘evidence’ was either irrelevant, pure hearsay and non-authenticated, they were well within their due process rights of rejecting them. Since there was no arguments raised that showed President Obama to be ineligible, other than some vague handwaving about SSN and passport entries, the Commission had no choice but to reject the complaints.

    Since President Obama was under no legal obligation to attend and since the Court/Commission, even in light of a default, would still have to adjudicate the complaint, it had no choice to reject it as it failed to meet any standards of due process.

    This is the second time or third time that an Administrative Court has shown extreme favoritism towards Obama and extreme hostility towards the plaintiffs.

    To the ‘arguments’ raised by the plaintiffs which were irrelevant, unsubstantiated rumors and innuendo and certainly not amounting to any real evidence of ineligibility. If you believe that there is evidence of fraud, these hearings are NOT the place to have them resolved. For that Courts and Congress are the appropriate ways to have one’s grievances heard.

    And Congress has no reason to revisit the issue as there is just NO evidence of any impeachable offenses that survive the laugh test.

    I hope that you realize that a default judgment does not mean that the other side automatically wins…

  194. avatar
    Thrifty February 25, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

    I love the way Birthers answer matters of plain fact with outright lies. I wanna play too!

    Was John F. Kennedy assassinated on November 22nd, 1963? The answer is no.

    Was Andrew Johnson the 17th president of the United States? The answer is no.

    Was Richard Nixon the only U.S. President in history to resign from office? The answer is no.

    Is water wet? The answer is no.

    Don:
    Did Obama present a certified copy of his birth certificate? The answer is No.

    Did Obama present evidence or introduce any legal precedent that was admissable to the court which established that he was a NBC?The answer is No.

    What submitted evidence did the commission use to determine that Obama met the qaulifications to be a candidate for the office?The answer is None.

    Would the supporters of Obama blindly accept corruption and treason and destroy liberty and justice for all?Sadly, the answer is Yes.

  195. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 25, 2012 at 5:31 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I believe that you are barking mad.

    Seconded. Now sit, and stay.

  196. avatar
    misha February 25, 2012 at 5:41 pm #

    Thomas Brown: Now sit, and stay.

    Play dead.

  197. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 25, 2012 at 5:51 pm #

    veritas:
    If the 14th Amendment was held to declare that all persons born in the country, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were natural-born citizens, then the “natural born Citizen” clause would be rendered inoperative. It would be superfluous

    seems crystal clear to me.

    If only it were as clear to you that that is exactly the way the courts see it, have seen it, and will continue to see it: THERE ARE ONLY TWO KINDS OF CITIZENS.

    For God’s sake, get a clue already.

  198. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 25, 2012 at 5:54 pm #

    Bloodless Coup: 31-33-19-3 Sec. 3. During an administrative hearing under section 1 of this chapter, the administrative hearing officer shall consider hearsay evidence to be competent evidence and may not exclude hearsay based on the technical rules of evidence. However, a determination may not be based solely on evidence that is hearsay.
    As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.16.

    Fascinating. Did you read that in a document an Indiana court sent to you?

    Justia says it is from here:

    2006 Indiana Code – CHAPTER 19. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING REQUESTED BY ALLEGED PERPETRATOR TO AMEND OR EXPUNGE A SUBSTANTIATED CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT REPORT

  199. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 25, 2012 at 6:07 pm #

    The real John Wayne wouldn’t pee on you if you were on fire. You’re a sore loser; end of story.

  200. avatar
    nbc February 25, 2012 at 6:15 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: 2006 Indiana Code – CHAPTER 19. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING REQUESTED BY ALLEGED PERPETRATOR TO AMEND OR EXPUNGE A SUBSTANTIATED CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT REPORT

    Yep… Fascinating how the cherry picking continues. And the wonder why Orly continues to lose her cases to an ’empty chair’…

  201. avatar
    G February 25, 2012 at 6:18 pm #

    Translation: *Waaaaaaaaah!!!* We lost to an Empty Table for a 2nd Time!!! Our “arguments” are so silly and bad, that they can’t even prevail against no rebuttal at all!!! *Waaaaaaaah!!!*

    Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Obama being ON the ballot *IS* the default position. You have to actually make and PROVE a case to have him removed. No magic “default” changes that equation.

    Bloodless Coup: For the second time in recent history Obama failed to appear for an Administrative hearing.
    Instead of entering a default judgment against Obama and holding him in contempt of court the Administrative Officers in Indiana found in favor of an absent defendant and threw the case out dismissing all the evidence and testimony as hearsay and inadmissible.
    This is the second time or third time that an Administrative Court has shown extreme favoritism towards Obama and extreme hostility towards the plaintiffs.

  202. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2012 at 6:30 pm #

    Now why would a panel chaired by a prominent Republican do that, do you think?

    Bloodless Coup: This is the second time or third time that an Administrative Court has shown extreme favoritism towards Obama and extreme hostility towards the plaintiffs.

  203. avatar
    Northland10 February 25, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

    G: Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Obama being ON the ballot *IS* the default position. You have to actually make and PROVE a case to have him removed. No magic “default” changes that equation.

    They keep claiming burden of proof on Obama (how very Soviet Union of them), showing they do not get it. Obama and/or the Democratic Party have submit some type of request/petition/etc to the state to get on the ballot depending on the laws of the state. They is when the campaign may have the burden, to provide the state with the required information. If they state is satisfied, then they place the candidate on the ballot. Challengers are requesting the state to remove the candidate so they now must prove, why.

    In short, the state requests, Obama submits, those who challenge must prove why the state should not continue.

  204. avatar
    US Citizen February 25, 2012 at 7:07 pm #

    “His grandmother has said that he WAS born in Kenya.”

    Oh dear. John Wayne has apparently only seen or heard the edited version of granny talking.
    John, did you know there’s a longer version available?
    It’s the original recording.
    It has granny saying he was born in Hawaii, but that part was edited out.

    I can see how a dead actor could make the mistake of being fooled, but you owe it to yourself to listen to the original recording.

    Can anyone point John’s lung cancer riddled body… or his horse… in the direction of the original granny tape?

  205. avatar
    Arthur February 25, 2012 at 7:10 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Now why would a panel chaired by a prominent Republican do that, do you think?

    I know, I know! Because birthers are unscrupulous fools who have no case. Psst! Is that question going to be on the test?

  206. avatar
    Arthur February 25, 2012 at 7:12 pm #

    US Citizen: Can anyone point John’s lung cancer riddled body… or his horse… in the direction of the original granny tape?

    I think I left it under Obama’s long-form birth certificate.

  207. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2012 at 7:20 pm #

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/sarah-obama-speaks/

    US Citizen: Can anyone point John’s lung cancer riddled body… or his horse… in the direction of the original granny tape?

  208. avatar
    Thrifty February 25, 2012 at 7:36 pm #

    Probably the same reason a McCain supporting Republican governor would back up the President’s case that he was born in Hawaii. It’s perfectly reasonable, you see… HEY LOOK OVER THERE.

    *runs away*

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Now why would a panel chaired by a prominent Republican do that [show favoritism toward President Obama], do you think?

  209. avatar
    Thrifty February 25, 2012 at 7:39 pm #

    Thanks Doc! I’m sure that since the relevant evidence to counter the claim that his grandmother said he was born in Kenya has now been provided, the Birthers will graciously say “I stand corrected.” and stop repeating it.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/sarah-obama-speaks/

  210. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2012 at 7:45 pm #

    However, as one Commission member stated, Orly Taitz’s submission was “100 percent hearsay.”

    So there you go.

    Bloodless Coup: 31-33-19-3 Sec. 3. During an administrative hearing under section 1 of this chapter, the administrative hearing officer shall consider hearsay evidence to be competent evidence and may not exclude hearsay based on the technical rules of evidence. However, a determination may not be based solely on evidence that is hearsay.

  211. avatar
    US Citizen February 25, 2012 at 7:46 pm #

    Thrifty: I’m sure that since the relevant evidence to counter the claim that his grandmother said he was born in Kenya has now been provided, the Birthers will graciously say “I stand corrected.” and stop repeating it.

    Such a dreamer… 🙂

  212. avatar
    Rickey February 25, 2012 at 8:13 pm #

    John Wayne:

    Then – even on the forged BC on the Whitehouse.gov site it says that his father was a Kenyan, at the time of his birth.

    Actually, Obama’s birth certificate says no such thing. It says that Obama’s father was born in Kenya, but it says nothing about what his citizenship was at the time of President Obama’s birth.

    Birthers have so much trouble getting simple facts straight that it is no surprise that their conclusions are so wrong.

  213. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2012 at 9:04 pm #

    I understand what you think, but why do you think it?

    For example, why isn’t a certified copy of his birth certificate ALL of the documents anyone could want him to produce?

    Why do you consider the scrutiny of a US Presidential election is not more vetting than anyone could ever want?

    What possible reason could you have to believe that the government of Kenya has any records on President Obama, much less have “sealed” them?

    Why would you think that Obama’s grandmother said he was born in Kenya when she clearly says on the tape that he was born in Hawaii?

    Why would you reject the Hawaii Department of Health press releases and conclude that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is forged?

    Why would you think the framers of the US Constitution didn’t want US Presidents with British fathers. They all had British fathers. George Washington had a British father. Do you think they all considered themselves “foreigners?”

    I frankly do not understand your world view and the process by which you can arrive at such non-factual conclusions.

    John Wayne: This is really simple, unless Obama is a foreigner. He needs to produce ALL of the documents that prove that he is eligible to hold the positions of President of the United States.

    He was NOT vetted at the time of the 2008 election.
    The onus is ON HIM to prove that he is eligible. If he challenger is wrong, it would take one appearance by him, WITH his documents to put this question to rest.

    But here are a couple of questions:
    If you research this, the Kenyan government has SEALED Obama’s records.
    So that leads to a question – WHAT records?
    His grandmother has said that he WAS born in Kenya.
    So WHERE was he born?
    Then – even on the forged BC on the Whitehouse.gov site it says that his father was a Kenyan, at the time of his birth.
    …and in his own book, he says that his father NEVER became an American citizen.
    So that leads to a question – ARE WE TO ACCEPT a British Subject as our President?

    NOT ACCORDING to the Constitution!!!!!!
    He HAS committed Fraud, by taking this Office, and IS committing FRAUD, by continuing to assume the responsibilities of this role,
    …now for all the Ballot officials, and judges that have been going along with this.
    Do you REALIZE what this is telling us about YOU?
    You are ALL engaged in FRAUDULENT actions that are contributing to this MESS.

    …as I said, this is really simple – PROVE that you are a NATURAL BORN AMERICAN, without possible foreign allegiances.

  214. avatar
    veritas February 25, 2012 at 9:07 pm #

    Anyone care to speculate why justia.com scrubbed so many web pages that dealt with the subject of natural born citizen?

  215. avatar
    Arthur February 25, 2012 at 9:25 pm #

    veritas: Anyone care to speculate why justia.com scrubbed so many web pages that dealt with the subject of natural born citizen?

    If they’re not there, veritas, how do you know they ever existed in the first place?

  216. avatar
    veritas February 25, 2012 at 9:34 pm #

    Date Published: October 20, 2011

    October 24, 2011 7:48am (Pacific) UPDATE: Justia has blocked the Waybackmachine as this article predicted they might. This follows their earlier pattern established in July 2011, using the same .txt technique mentioned further down in this article. Searching for Minor v Happerset on Justia’s site will bring up that SCOTUS decision page normally. When the URL of that page is inserted into the Waybackmachine, the following message appears instead of the normal calendar: “We were unable to get the robots.txt document to display this page. Our request Timed Out.” The Search URL used: http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html

    – D. Cotter

    Someone was incredibly busy in June 2008 working on an illegal front invisible to the public; searching and altering Supreme Court Cases published at Justia.com which cite the only case in American history – Minor v. Happersett (1875) – to directly construe Article 2 Section 1’s natural-born citizen clause in determining a citizenship issue as part of its holding and precedent. In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court defined a “native or natural-born citizen” as a person born in the US to parents who were citizens; a definition which excludes from eligibility both Barack Obama and John McCain.

    Continue reading on Examiner.com JustiaGate – Portland Civil Rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/justiagate#ixzz1nS33sBUW

  217. avatar
    Arthur February 25, 2012 at 9:58 pm #

    OH MY GOD, veritas. Why, why this is incredible. Shocking, almost. Well, it’s all so clear. Crystal clear. You’ve been reading Leo Donofrio!!! Quick, before anything else happens to your mind, read this: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/07/donofrio-claims-more-internet-scrubbing/

  218. avatar
    nbc February 25, 2012 at 10:01 pm #

    Anyone care to speculate why justia.com scrubbed so many web pages that dealt with the subject of natural born citizen?

    A simple mistake? But real lawyers do not rely on Justia.com and furthermore there are other resources.

    What’s the point here? Obama, by virtue of his birth on soil is a natural born citizen. Justia cannot undo this.

  219. avatar
    nbc February 25, 2012 at 10:03 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: However, as one Commission member stated, Orly Taitz’s submission was “100 percent hearsay.”

    And the Election Commission is not guided by these Administrative Rules, nor by the rules of trial. While hearsay MAY be admitted, the commission gets to determine the value of the hearsay. In this case, they fully rejected it for obvious reasons.

  220. avatar
    veritas February 25, 2012 at 10:13 pm #

    A simple mistake? But real lawyers do not rely on Justia.com

    Justia is a Google Mini-powered website which has singled itself out as one of the most comprehensive and easy-to-search legal sites on the internet. Other legal resources such as Lexis can cost as much as $5,000 a month for a subscription, and it’s impossible to hyperlink to cases which include copyrighted headnotes and analysis. This is why powerful law firms such as Perkins Coie (where former Obama White House Counsel Bob Bauer practices law) have cited Justia’s pages

  221. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2012 at 10:17 pm #

    The short answer is that they never did such a thing. For a few days some sort of fault caused only case numbers and not case names to display on some cases (hyperlinks to the cases worked). By the time I got around to checking what was going on, it had already been fixed. To my knowledge a total of two cases was affected by the fault, and only one of them was a citizenship case (the other was a voting rights case).

    And has already been mentioned, you can read my article here:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/07/donofrio-claims-more-internet-scrubbing/

    Of course, to a conspiracy theorist, everything is part of the conspiracy. Nothing happens by accident. This is why the title of my web site is appropriate for the discussion of the Birthers.

    veritas: Anyone care to speculate why justia.com scrubbed so many web pages that dealt with the subject of natural born citizen?

  222. avatar
    nbc February 25, 2012 at 10:21 pm #

    Justia is a Google Mini-powered website which has singled itself out as one of the most comprehensive and easy-to-search legal sites on the internet.

    And comes with a big disclaimer.

    Other legal resources such as Lexis can cost as much as $5,000 a month for a subscription, and it’s impossible to hyperlink to cases which include copyrighted headnotes and analysis. This is why powerful law firms such as Perkins Coie (where former Obama White House Counsel Bob Bauer practices law) have cited Justia’s pages

    ROTFL…. You’re such a funny dude. Veritas is used in irony I presume? As I said, they may link to them but for doing serious research, they are more than willing to pay the fee and do an indepth search without the Justia disclaimer…

    Google Scholar and other resources provide similar interfaces, limiting oneself to a single search engine that has big disclaimers, is just poor research. So worst case, Justia actively removed references to Natural Born cases.

    So what?…

    Sigh…

  223. avatar
    Rickey February 25, 2012 at 10:30 pm #

    veritas:
    Anyone care to speculate why justia.com scrubbed so many web pages that dealt with the subject of natural born citizen?

    You believe that somebody at justia.com thought that it was possible to make Minor v. Happersett go away by disabling links to it?

    IANAL, but I own a half-dozen books which discuss Minor v. Happersett in detail. And then there is this:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZS.html

    And this:

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162

    I could go on, but even you should be able to get the point.

  224. avatar
    Arthur February 25, 2012 at 10:32 pm #

    veritas: Justia is a Google Mini-powered website which has singled itself out as one of the most comprehensive and easy-to-search legal sites on the internet.

    veritas:

    Just so you know, plagiarism is a serious issue. Plagiarism has led to people losing their jobs. At my college, committing plagiarism can get a student kicked out of school. When you offer someone else’s work as your own, without properly citing where the original material comes from, you are committing intellectual theft. Here’s the source of veritas’ material:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/justiagate_natural_born_supreme_court_citations_disappear.html

  225. avatar
    chancery February 25, 2012 at 10:43 pm #

    Sef: snark

    Read the first paragraph of the article more carefully.

  226. avatar
    nbc February 25, 2012 at 11:12 pm #

    Wow.. Shocking…

  227. avatar
    Arthur February 25, 2012 at 11:31 pm #

    misha: An Israeli in now Chicago mayor. Have a nice trip.

    And a former Milwaukee school teacher became a kibbutznik and the 4th Prime Minister of Israel–Golda Meir. (Graduated from the same high school my mother did–North Division High).

  228. avatar
    chancery February 25, 2012 at 11:48 pm #

    Sef:
    Doc, can I assume that the title of this article is snark? The EC did NOT vote in favor of the challenge. They voted to DENYthe challenge.

    Read the first paragraph of the article more carefully.

    [repost because I screwed up the quote before]

  229. avatar
    Arthur February 25, 2012 at 11:57 pm #

    chancery: Read the first paragraph of the article more carefully.[repost because I screwed up the quote before]

    To be honest, I had to read the opening paragraph a couple of times before I grasped Doc. C.’s little joke. He’s sneaky like that.

  230. avatar
    y_p_w February 26, 2012 at 12:39 am #

    nbc: Yep… Fascinating how the cherry picking continues. And the wonder why Orly continues to lose her cases to an empty chair’…

    Just in case, this is the URL:

    http://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/2006/title31/ar33/ch19.html

    So it says that hearsay can be considered “competent evidence” in the case where someone is trying to expunge a child abuse report, and not an elections hearing.

    It sort of reminds me how Orly quoted a section in the Georgia evidence code that mentioned letters rogatory only for the purpose of petitioning for a deposition in a foreign country, but she took out those parts and extended it to requesting an order to compel attendance and compel production of evidence.

    For her, the law is essentially what she wants it to be by carefully trimming out the parts that don’t her you what she wants.

  231. avatar
    US Citizen February 26, 2012 at 1:32 am #

    Veritas,

    I would imagine the government cited Justia because, as you say, not everyone can afford five grand.
    But are you seriously suggesting that Obama’s lawyers do not have that kind of money?
    Surely they already have a subscription to LexisNexis.
    Most serious, high-end law firms do.

    Why scrub it?
    Perhaps it’s bandwidth issues from all the birthers accessing it.
    It’s settled law.
    The man is president and was sworn in by a chief justice of the US Supreme court.
    Surely erased or deleted files on Justia does not change this fact.
    I think the supreme court knew what they were doing and can keep their own records.

  232. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 26, 2012 at 2:20 am #

    US Citizen: Veritas,

    I would imagine the government cited Justia because, as you say, not everyone can afford five grand.

    The current published pricing plans for Lexis/Nexus are admittedly quite obtuse, but the current entry level price point is $85/monthly for 3 authorized users.

    Veritas used equivocal language: can cost “as much as”…. because of course big firms with hundreds of lawyers, libraries, and law schools pay much more. But for a professional or small firm lawyer, the cost certainly is not prohibitive. Discount rates are also available through local bar associations and other legal professional groups.

    But in terms of finding US Supreme Court cases, the paid services really aren’t necessary these days. Justia is pretty good, but it’s not the only free service out there.

  233. avatar
    y_p_w February 26, 2012 at 2:30 am #

    But in terms of finding US Supreme Court cases, the paid services really aren’t necessary these days.Justia is pretty good, but it’s not the only free service out there.

    Doesn’t the Cornell Legal Information Institute have a pretty good database of SCOTUS decisions? Like Minor v Happersett:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

  234. avatar
    Northland10 February 26, 2012 at 7:47 am #

    Arthur: veritas:

    Just so you know, plagiarism is a serious issue. Plagiarism has led to people losing their jobs. At my college, committing plagiarism can get a student kicked out of school. When you offer someone else’s work as your own, without properly citing where the original material comes from, you are committing intellectual theft.

    Given the birthers fondness for sedition, libel, slander and host of ethical issues, I would suspect that plagiarism is not much of a consideration.

  235. avatar
    Arthur February 26, 2012 at 8:18 am #

    Northland10: Given the birthers fondness for sedition, libel, slander and host of ethical issues, I would suspect that plagiarism is not much of a consideration.

    Well, everyone else has already said those; I wanted something all my own!

  236. avatar
    Paper February 26, 2012 at 9:41 am #

    Such a cruel, ironic world when all you have to your very own is plagiarism!

    Arthur: Well, everyone else has already said those; I wanted something all my own!

  237. avatar
    Arthur February 26, 2012 at 10:10 am #

    Paper: Such a cruel, ironic world when all you have to your very own is plagiarism

    To paraphrase George Costanza: It’s only plagiarism if you get caught.

  238. avatar
    Paper February 26, 2012 at 10:55 am #

    Exactly. Which is why it is so cruel, so lonely. You can’t get the credit you deserve for your very own hard-earned plagiarism without it becoming public knowledge, and if it does, no one gives you the credit you truly deserve! So sad. At least with libel and slander, you can wear those on your sleeves proudly! 😉

    Arthur: To paraphrase George Costanza: It’s only plagiarism if you get caught.

  239. avatar
    RuhRoh February 26, 2012 at 12:00 pm #

    Orly has a new theory on why no attorney has appeared on the POTUS’s behalf at the GA and IN hearings:

    -“because no attorney would want to go to prison by submitting Obama’s forgeries.” Orly taitz, February 25th,2012 @ 2:49 pm on her blog.

    LOL

  240. avatar
    y_p_w February 26, 2012 at 1:56 pm #

    nbc: Orly’s appearance was doomed to failure as she failed to understand the basic concepts of burden of proof’ and relevant admissible legal evidence’. Her SSN claims have no relevance at all, NONE. Her Indonesian arguments are pure hearsay and irrelevant to President Obama’s location of birth (although the school certificate does certify him born in Hawaii), the passport record shows President Obama’s name, crossed out and a notation under it Soebarkah without any indication as to its meaning or relevance. Again there is nothing that supports Orly’s arguments that go to the eligibility of our President. Speculative claims about loss of citizenship’, or loss of last name’ remain totally unsubstantiated by any legally admissible evidence. So what exactly is Orly’s argument that would establish a lack of eligibility of our President? There is none beyond pure speculation.

    If anything, the alleged Indonesian school record (if true) would show that someone lied about a material fact to get a child into a public school. Like that doesn’t happen in the US.

    Also – it’s also pretty clear with Stanley Ann Dunham’s passport application that the second page is in clearly different handwriting than the first page. I don’t quite understand why, but I’ve heard of different people filling out the same form together.

  241. avatar
    JoeG February 26, 2012 at 2:34 pm #

    Indiana law requires a candidate to prove their eligibility before being put on the ballot.

    The onus is not on the challenger. They only have to present the challenge, which was done.

    Obama needed to produce documents showing that he is eligible.

    Obama presented no evidence that he is eligible.

    The elections panel voted in favor of Obama.

    Obama has never presented evidence to anyone that he is eligible to be President. A few Obama supporters working for the State of Hawaii have blocked anyone from seeing the original birth certificate, because there isn’t one. There is no evidence that he’s even a US citizen, or that his legal name is Barack Obama. He has sealed ALL his personal records.

    The only thing we know about the man living in the White House is what he’s told us.

  242. avatar
    veritas February 26, 2012 at 3:03 pm #

    John Jay, in a letter to George Washington while he served as president of the Constitutional Convention, went further with a pointed question: “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.

    So it sounds to me like they took John Jays advice when they wrote the constitution. To provide a strong check to become president they agreed that one must be a natural born citizen. Many people, much more intelligent than myself throughout history have taken that to mean a child born in the USA to parents (plural) that are themselves citizens. One thing that I find very, very interesting is the need by so many people on this site and others like it to ridicule anyone who is of that opinion. Is it even possible in your minds that an intelligent person can hold that definition of natural born citizen? Or is ANYONE who believes that a natural born citizen is a child born in the USA to parents (plural) that are themselves citizens a complete moron, idiot, stupid and so on? So my question to you is can a reasonable person hold that view?

  243. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 3:04 pm #

    So could you flesh that out?

    I presume that there is some statute to support that remark, and you you must know what it says since you’re representing that as a fact. Could you provide the statute, and in particular state what you believe exactly that Obama was obligated to do under Indiana law that he hasn’t done?

    I’m asking because if there were some obligation that Obama didn’t meet, then the challengers could have pointed to it and had some chance of getting Obama off the Indiana ballot, but as it was they relied on some far-fetched stories about social-security numbers.

    In all fairness, I must admit that I don’t think you know what you are talking about, but feel free to prove me wrong.

    JoeG: Indiana law requires a candidate to prove their eligibility before being put on the ballot.

  244. avatar
    misha February 26, 2012 at 3:05 pm #

    JoeG: Indiana law requires a candidate to prove their eligibility before being put on the ballot.

    Please cite the exact statute, and provide a link.

    JoeG: The onus is not on the challenger. They only have to present the challenge, which was done.

    The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, whether civil or criminal. Our Constitution states a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. Did you ever contest a traffic ticket? I have twice, and was found innocent twice.

    JoeG: The only thing we know about the man living in the White House is what he’s told us.

    I want to know more about Romney and Seamus. Why hasn’t Willard Mitt Romney told us more? The only thing we know about Seamus is what one of his sons told the Huffington Post, and now even that one son won’t talk about it. What’s worse, I read on the internet that Seamus is dead. Sounds like a conspiracy to me. Romney did something horrible to Seamus, and the dog turns up dead. Was it to keep Seamus from talking? Why does Romney try to conceal that his first name is Willard? Is it because of all those rats?
    See this: http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/06/famous-willards.html

    Speaking of denial, why hasn’t Glenn Beck denied raping and murdering a girl in 1990? Why won’t he let us look at his criminal record abstract, to prove it is stamped “subject has clear record to date”?
    See this:
    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/11/glenn-beck-accidentally-not-put-down.html

    Oh, if you’re looking for a Kenya BC, check this out:
    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/09/another-kenyan-birth-certificate.html

  245. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 3:16 pm #

    Apart from Obama opponents writing after 2007, I don’t know who these “many people” are, and this goes to your whole premise that the two-parent citizenship theory is a respectable theory.

    Certainly there were people who argued before 2008 that the children of illegal immigrants weren’t citizens (e.g. P. A. Madison at the Federalist blog), and there were people before 1898 (US v Wong) that believed that the children born in the United States to aliens were not themselves citizens( e.g. Mr. Collins). However, I do not know of ANYONE who said that US Citizens born in the United States were not natural born citizens.

    The reason, though, that the two-citizen parent theory is not a respectable theory is that those who make it do not make respectable arguments in support of it. One cannot respect a view that misrepresents its sources (e.g. Minor v. Happersett). Or put another way, one cannot claim to hold a reasonable view unless they can put forward a reasonable argument in support of it.

    Yes, an intelligent person can be wrong. It’s just hard for me to understand how an intelligent person would be convinced by the two-citizen parent arguments floating around from Donofrio, Apuzzo, and now from De Maio.

    veritas: Many people, much more intelligent than myself throughout history have taken that to mean a child born in the USA to parents (plural) that are themselves citizens. One thing that I find very, very interesting is the need by so many people on this site and others like it to ridicule anyone who is of that opinion. Is it even possible in your minds that an intelligent person can hold that definition of natural born citizen? Or is ANYONE who believes that a natural born citizen is a child born in the USA to parents (plural) that are themselves citizens a complete moron, idiot, stupid and so on? So my question to you is can a reasonable person hold that view?

  246. avatar
    RuhRoh February 26, 2012 at 3:18 pm #

    One thing that I find very, very interesting is the need by so many people on this site and others like it to ridicule anyone who is of that opinion. Is it even possible in your minds that an intelligent person can hold that definition of natural born citizen? Or is ANYONE who believes that a natural born citizen is a child born in the USA to parents (plural) that are themselves citizens a complete moron, idiot, stupid and so on? So my question to you is can a reasonable person hold that view?

    A reasonable, intelligent person who is ignorant of the Constitution and the law can hold that position, sure.

    You only become silly when you persist in believing the two-citizen parent theory after being presented with the Constitution and the legal history that refute it. The WILLFULLY ignorant are stupid, yes.

  247. avatar
    JoZeppy February 26, 2012 at 3:23 pm #

    veritas: Many people, much more intelligent than myself throughout history have taken that to mean a child born in the USA to parents (plural) that are themselves citizens.

    Name one reputable scholar that has every stated that two parent citizens are required. EVER. It did not exist before 2008 when a wanna be professional poker player thought it up.

    veritas: One thing that I find very, very interesting is the need by so many people on this site and others like it to ridicule anyone who is of that opinion.

    Because it is a ridiculous opion to hold, supported by neither law or history.

    veritas: Is it even possible in your minds that an intelligent person can hold that definition of natural born citizen? Or is ANYONE who believes that a natural born citizen is a child born in the USA to parents (plural) that are themselves citizens a complete moron, idiot, stupid and so on? So my question to you is can a reasonable person hold that view?

    It is not possible today for a reasonable person, who has done the minimum research to hold that opinion. Perhaps in the 1860s, in the aftermath of Dred Scott, and before Wong Kim Ark, but not today. And even then, there was NEVER a two parent requirment. There is just no support for that opinion in law. It exists on only a painfully tortured reading of dicta on a century and a half supreme court decision that has NEVER been interpreted to read the way birthers are now attempting to read.

  248. avatar
    ballantine February 26, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

    Or is ANYONEwho believes that a natural born citizen is a child born in the USA to parents (plural) that are themselves citizens a complete moron, idiot, stupid and so on? So my question to you is can a reasonable person hold that view?

    It is one thing to hold an unconventional view on the Constitution. It is another to go around saying such view is the law. An honest person would not deny that the courts have rejected their theory. They would not deny that 99.9% of legal authority in the past 220 years have rejected it. They would not claim that more than a handful of people ever believed such theory. They would not claim as a fact that the framers agreed with them when they don’t have a shred of evidence that such was the case. They would not keep repeating arguments that have been proven to be lies. Unconventional argument can be made honestly. That is not what we see from birthers. For example, how many birthers claim Jay required citizen parents. He did not. It is simply a lie to say that his “strong check” required citizen parents or that a native birth requirement would not be a strong enough check. However, you are free to speculate all you want on what he meant. Such speculation isn’t legal argument.

  249. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 26, 2012 at 4:18 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Certainly there were people who argued before 2008 that the children of illegal immigrants weren’t citizens (e.g. P. A. Madison at the Federalist blog), and there were people before 1898 (US v Wong) that believed that the children born in the United States to aliens were not themselves citizens( e.g. Mr. Collins).

    In fact, there ARE people up there who believe Obama is not even a citizen, even though they grant he was born in Hawaii.

    What these Collins supporters never explain is how the children, grandchildren, … of these non-ctizens ever got citizenship, because they sure as hell did not get natuarlized.

    No birfer, whether Collins supporter or not, has ever been able to show the naturalization papers of a person born in the USA. Indeed, the naturalization papers
    of fathers typically always mention the names of the underaged children born abroad,but never the names of the underaged born in the USA. Strange, is it not?

  250. avatar
    misha February 26, 2012 at 4:43 pm #

    veritas: Many people, much more intelligent than myself throughout history have taken that to mean a child born in the USA to parents (plural) that are themselves citizens.

    Name them. Other than Mario Apuzzo (DWI lawyer), Leo Donofrio (5th rate poker player), Orly Taitz (non-accredited correspondence course), or Paul Rolf Jensen (personal injury, mostly dog bites). The rest of the pack are plain, unimaginative, grifters.

    It was settled in the 19th century. Sorry.

  251. avatar
    misha February 26, 2012 at 5:02 pm #

    veritas: So my question to you is can a reasonable person hold that view?

    My question to you is, why do so many conservatives abuse animals? Willard Mitt Romney and Seamus. My favorite is Mike Huckabee’s son. Remember?

    (Miller County, Arkansas) Two boy scout counselors, 17 year old Clayton Frady and 18 year old David Huckabee, the son of Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, have admitted to catching a stray dog during their summer session at Camp Pioneer in Hatfield, AR, and hanging the dog by his neck, slitting his throat and stoning him to death.

    http://crooksandliars.com/2007/12/16/huckabee-squashed-charges-against-his-son-for-stoning-hanging-dog

    Gotta love those family values, just like Newton MacPherson Gingrich, or Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh took so much OxyContin, bought on the black market, he became stone deaf. He’s a strong supporter of marriage; he’s on his 4th.

    Or Bob Livingston’s family values: “…he was chosen as Newt Gingrich’s successor as Speaker of the US House of Representatives late in 1998 but chose to withdraw and retire after extramarital affairs were discovered.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Livingston

  252. avatar
    Rickey February 26, 2012 at 7:26 pm #

    veritas:

    Many people, much more intelligent than myself throughout history have taken that to mean a child born in the USA to parents (plural) that are themselves citizens.

    If that is true, it shouldn’t be much of a challenge for you to identify a single civics text, history text, or Constitutional Law text which states that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents.

  253. avatar
    Scientist February 26, 2012 at 8:30 pm #

    JoeG: The only thing we know about the man living in the White House is what he’s told us.

    What do we know about anyone? Do we know anything about our own selves? This is not just a rhetorical question, but rather a Zen koan to mediitate on.

  254. avatar
    Scientist February 26, 2012 at 8:34 pm #

    veritas: One thing that I find very, very interesting is the need by so many people on this site and others like it to ridicule anyone who is of that opinion.

    I don’t ridicule that. You are entitled to that opinion 100%. You should definitely not vote for any candidate that doesn’t suit your opinion. I am confident Obama will be re-elected without your vote. If that disturbs you, I’m sorry, but I can’t help it if the Republicans have fielded such a group of lousy candidates. Your issue is really with them.

  255. avatar
    gorefan February 26, 2012 at 10:11 pm #

    veritas: Many people, much more intelligent than myself throughout history have taken that to mean a child born in the USA to parents (plural) that are themselves citizens.

    But many more people have taken the term NBC to mean anyone born in the country. One of them a smart lawyer, who knew many of the founders said,

    “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

  256. avatar
    jeanniemac February 28, 2012 at 6:47 pm #

    Why doesn’t Obama have his own Social Security number? Using a dead person’s number is a ploy used by those hiding their real identity. Why? Cases have been dismissed on grounds they have twittered or massaged in the media. Any lawyer could use this as a precedent to get a case against his client dismissed if mentioned in the media. It is very scary that all of these judges refuse to even listen to the evidence. Obama must have a stranglehold on them.

    An intensive investigation has revealed the identity of the man whose
    Social Security number (SSN) is being used by President Obama:
    Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in France in 1890, immigrated to the
    United States in 1924, and was assigned SSN 042-68-4425 (Obama’s
    current SSN) on or about March 1977.
    Ludwig lived most of his adult life in Connecticut . Because of that,
    his SSN begins with the digits 042, which are among only a select few
    reserved for Connecticut residents.
    Obama never lived or worked in that state! Therefore, there is no
    reason on earth for his SSN to start with the digits 042. None
    whatsoever!

    Now comes the best part! Ludwig spent the final months of his life in
    Hawaii, where he died.
    Conveniently, Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, worked
    part-time in the Probate Office in the Honolulu Hawaii Courthouse, and
    therefore had access to the SSNs of deceased individuals.
    The Social Security Administration was never informed of Ludwig’s
    death, and because he never received Social Security benefits there
    were no benefits to stop and therefore, no questions were ever raised.

    The suspicion, of course, is that Dunham, knowing her grandson was not
    a U.S. Citizen, either because he was born in Kenya or became a
    citizen of Indonesia upon his adoption by Lolo Soetoro simply scoured
    the probate records until she found someone who died who was not
    receiving Social Security benefits, and selected Mr. Ludwigs
    Connecticut SSN for Obama.

    Just wait until Trump gets past the birth certificate and onto
    the issue of Barry O’s use of a stolen SSN. You will see leftist heads
    exploding, because they will have no way of defending Obama.
    Although many Americans do not understand the meaning of the term “natural
    born” there are few who do not understand that if you are using
    someone else’s SSN it is a clear indication of fraud.

    Let’s all get this information out to everybody on our mailing lists.
    If the voters of this great nation can succeed in bringing this lying,
    deceitful, cheating, corrupt, impostor to justice it will be the
    biggest and best news in decades for our country and the world.
    ****************************************************************************************************
    “Very Interesting Bit Of Detective Work”
    1. Back in 1961 people of color were called ‘Negroes.’ So how can the Obama ‘birth certificate’ state he is ‘African-American’ when the term wasn’t even used at that time?
    2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama’s birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama’s birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama’s father was born in ” Kenya , East Africa “. This wouldn’t seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama’s birth, and 27 years after his father’s birth. How could Obama’s father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the ” British East Africa Protectorate”.
    3. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital “. This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called “KauiKeolani Children’s Hospital” and “Kapi’olani Maternity Home”, respectively. The name did not change to Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?
     

  257. avatar
    Scientist February 28, 2012 at 6:51 pm #

    jeanniemac: Blah,, blah 

    So, my dear, what would you like me to do about this?

  258. avatar
    misha February 28, 2012 at 7:02 pm #

    jeanniemac: An intensive investigation

    jeanniemac: Try harder for a screen name.

    Jimmy, Jimmy, oh Jimmy Mack, when are you coming back?
    My arms are missing you, my lips feel the same way too
    I tried so hard to be true, like I promised I’d do
    But this boy keeps coming around, he’s trying to wear my resistance down

    See them in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmfVFJBZUBA

  259. avatar
    misha February 28, 2012 at 7:05 pm #

    Scientist: So, my dear, what would you like me to do about this?

    “And now my dear, I shall teach you discipline.” [sound effects]

  260. avatar
    G February 28, 2012 at 7:21 pm #

    *yawn*

    Such a compilation of long debunked and uninformed nonsense either makes you terminally gullible and stupid or just another sputtering Concern Troll with nothing but long dead horses to trot out.

    If you really had questions, all of those issues have been addressed and debunked in detail here. If you are too lazy to read or lack the competence to search this site for these answers, then that is your problem. We simply can’t help those that are unwilling to help themselves.

    jeanniemac: Why doesn’t Obama blah blah blah…?

  261. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 7:22 pm #

    Funny, I did my own investigation, involving the freely accessible Social Security Death Index, and guess what? Ludwig has a different social-security number.

    Sorry Jennie, but you got punked.

    You can read the details here:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/06/details-details/

    but you can look it up for yourself.

    jeanniemac: An intensive investigation has revealed the identity of the man whose
    Social Security number (SSN) is being used by President Obama:
    Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in France in 1890, immigrated to the
    United States in 1924, and was assigned SSN 042-68-4425 (Obama’s
    current SSN) on or about March 1977.

  262. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 7:25 pm #

    I have a printout of Obama’s long form framed here on my wall. It doesn’t say African-American on it. In fact the child’s race isn’t on this or any Hawaiian birth certificate.

    You’ve been punked.

    Why don’t you verify this for yourself and then go take your anger out on the folks who made a fool out of you.

    jeanniemac: 1. Back in 1961 people of color were called Negroes.’ So how can the Obama birth certificate’ state he is African-American’ when the term wasn’t even used at that time?

  263. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 7:28 pm #

    Then how do you explain all of the 1961 birth certificates floating (e.g. Nordyke twins) that say exactly the same thing as Barack Obama’s?

    You are looking exceedingly foolish about now.

    Of course I’m not angry with you, but I am angry with the people who made a fool out of you. Are you angry too? You should be.

    jeanniemac: 3. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital “. This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called “KauiKeolani Children’s Hospital” and “Kapi’olani Maternity Home”, respectively.

  264. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 7:34 pm #

    Funny, I was reading the 1961 issue of the Kenya Gazette just the other day. You can read it too:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=Wg9yN89Ed-0C&pg=PA1023&lpg=PA1023&dq=%22kenya+gazette%22+1961&source=bl&ots=265EJGPmP-&sig=MI2Mr37O1S6ssaYluJTEBwaohP4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DHJNT7jqMaL00gGJlP3TAg&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22kenya%20gazette%22%201961&f=false

    Mentally-challenged people have been dumping this stuff here for 3 years. They think they are doing the Country a favor by spreading the truth. In fact, they are betraying their country by spreading lies.

    jeanniemac: This wouldn’t seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963

  265. avatar
    Northland10 February 28, 2012 at 10:12 pm #

    misha: jeanniemac: Try harder for a screen name.

    I think jeanniemac may need to be taken over by the Fed.