Main Menu

Which is more stupid?

Let me introduce you to something stupid. It’s a press release (or at least that’s what Jerry Collette called it) posted on Sam Sewell’s blog, The Steady Drip.

In this latest episode of “Political theater: the lawsuit,” we learn that Jerry Collette, who is suing President Obama in Florida in an effort to keep him off the ballot, has made an offer to the President’s attorneys. Jerry says:

If I survive the motions to dismiss, Obama would permit me access to the original and microfiche birth records in Hawaii and the copies he claims to have gotten from Hawaii last year, then I would waive all other discovery.

This is stupid on several levels. First President Obama has no authority to release original archival records and microfilm held by the Hawaii Department of Health. He can’t release them and no court in Florida could enforce a subpoena to obtain them. So if Obama cannot hold up his side of such an agreement, he couldn’t make the deal. Collette must know this, and so the offer is disingenuous.

Implicit in the “offer” is a promise by Collette not to seek Obama’s social security, draft, and college records. What possible advantage would there be for Obama to limit such discovery? The draft records were released under FOIA in 2008. The social security and college conspiracy theories never had a grain of reasonableness behind them.  Further, social security, draft and college records have no relevance to presidential eligibility, and Collette couldn’t obtain discovery of them anyway. So the offer to limit discovery for items not accessible under discovery in the first place is also disingenuous.

Finally, if Obama took the deal, the birthers would immediately say that Obama caved because there is obviously something terrible in those other records, and if he doesn’t take the deal, they will say that he’s desperate to hide the birth certificate. Specifically, what the birthers believe has no relation to what Obama does or doesn’t do. They will say whatever bad things suit their fancy.

The title of Sewell’s article is: “Florida Paralegal Checkmates Obama’s Lawyers.” That’s funny because Obama’s not playing. The Court will dismiss the lawsuit and that will be the end of it.

Now which is more stupid?

  • Obama’s attorney if he took the deal?
  • Jerry Collette for thinking in his wildest imagination that Obama’s attorney would take the deal?
  • Birthers who read The Steady Drip and believe that the offer is sincere?

,

250 Responses to Which is more stupid?

  1. avatar
    linda June 30, 2012 at 3:35 pm #

    I am going with the trifecta, three way tie of the absurd.

  2. avatar
    MN-Skeptic June 30, 2012 at 3:42 pm #

    This action by Collette was taken for one purpose and one purpose only.

    Publicity.

    What better way to catch the attention of the birthers and get them to press that PayPal button?

    There is no way that Obama’s attorney will take the deal and there’s no way Collette would ever think that’s possible. But it doesn’t matter. All that matters is staying visible to the birthers and collecting money from the gullible and foolish. To that end, I think Collette will be successful.

  3. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG June 30, 2012 at 4:50 pm #

    Do we have to choose just one?

  4. avatar
    JPotter June 30, 2012 at 6:04 pm #

    Where is this “offer” documented? The Steady Drip anecdote is either heavy spin of what has already been seen in the filings, or pure fabrication.

    The consumers are the stupidest. No demand, no supply.

  5. avatar
    Jamese777 June 30, 2012 at 6:29 pm #

    I had hopes that Jerry Collette would be the first birther whose intelligence I respected. For the sake of the debate, I would love to see a birther of intelligence and moderate temperament.
    My hopes for Collette to be that person are now dashed. He’s just another scam artist.

    As if, Barack Obama can control the law of the state of Hawai’i!

    If anyone really, truly, honestly just MUST inspect the original vault edition of the Obama Certificate of Live Birth, simply follow Hawai’i Revised Statute 338-18 (b) point 9. Go to a Hawai’i court of competent jurisdiction, convince a judge to issue a Court Order for the document and inspect it. Yes, the law says that you can only get a certified copy for inspection, but I’m willing to bet that the Hawai’i Department of Health would be flexible and would allow inspection of the original document under a valid Court Order.

  6. avatar
    elmo June 30, 2012 at 6:47 pm #

    Sorry, but you will never find a birther of intelligence and moderate temperament. Any person with even a modest intelligence has already realized that the fact that the President was born in Hawaii is indisputable.Anyone of even modest intelligence has already realized that there is no legal basis to the wacky “two citizen parents” theory.

    Even most rabidly partisan Republicans realize that the birther quest is ridiculous.

  7. avatar
    Jamese777 June 30, 2012 at 7:48 pm #

    elmo:
    Sorry, but you will never find a birther of intelligence and moderate temperament. Any person with even a modest intelligence has already realized that the fact that the President was born in Hawaii is indisputable.Anyone of even modest intelligence has already realized that there is no legal basis to the wacky “two citizen parents” theory.

    Even most rabidly partisan Republicans realize that the birther quest is ridiculous.

    But I can dream that such a birther might come along! 😉 It would make spending time debating them much more interesting and challenging.

  8. avatar
    Paper June 30, 2012 at 8:37 pm #

    I think many are intelligent. They just misuse their intelligence.

    Jamese777:
    I had hopes that Jerry Collette would be the first birther whose intelligence I respected. For the sake of the debate, I would love to see a birther of intelligence and moderate temperament.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 30, 2012 at 8:42 pm #

    Since Collette and Swell are BFF, and it was Collette who sent me the story, it’s authentic so far as Collette concerned. My feeling is that the offer was made and rejected.

    JPotter: Where is this “offer” documented? The Steady Drip anecdote is either heavy spin of what has already been seen in the filings, or pure fabrication.

  10. avatar
    G June 30, 2012 at 9:00 pm #

    I have to add probability to the weightings here and therefore declare it a tie between options 2 and 3. Those both happened already. The first one is so highly improbable that it eliminates itself from contention, in even most (sane) people’s wild imaginations…

    linda:
    I am going with the trifecta, three way tie of the absurd.

  11. avatar
    G June 30, 2012 at 9:05 pm #

    Sadly, this certainly points towards that liklihood…

    Jamese777: My hopes for Collette to be that person are now dashed. He’s just another scam artist.

    Sadly, you are probably right. I understand the context in which you mean “intelligence”… as in regardless if they “have brains”, their statements and actions certainly come across as if they don’t use them…

    As others have repeatedly said, “irrational hate causes brain damage”…

    elmo:
    Sorry, but you will never find a birther of intelligence and moderate temperament. Any person with even a modest intelligence has already realized that the fact that the President was born in Hawaii is indisputable.Anyone of even modest intelligence has already realized that there is no legal basis to the wacky “two citizen parents” theory.

    Even most rabidly partisan Republicans realize that the birther quest is ridiculous.

    Paper:
    I think many are intelligent.They just misuse their intelligence.

    I feel ya, brother!

    Jamese777: But I can dream that such a birther might come along!It would make spending time debating them much more interesting and challenging.

  12. avatar
    JPotter June 30, 2012 at 9:10 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Since Collette and Swell are BFF, and it was Collette who sent me the story, it’s authentic so far as Collette concerned. My feeling is that the offer was made and rejected.

    Too much magical thinking from Collette, Doc. I agree he seems silly enough to have made the offer. It does fit his “But I’m so reasonable and innocent” style! It is creative propaganda.

    The summer doldrums make these cases seem to drag.

    I hadn’t heard about the power outages! Power here is fine, but water lines are popping and highways are buckling. Let’s hear it for aging, dilapidated infrastructure!

  13. avatar
    Reality Check June 30, 2012 at 9:19 pm #

    What I want to know is how long dd Obama’s attorneys laugh when they read the email? My over/under would be 10 seconds.

  14. avatar
    G June 30, 2012 at 9:37 pm #

    Well, the power outages seem to be popping up in more and more places and it is no longer just the East Coast that Doc C. mentioned that is in that condition.

    There is a big article on it that my wife just texted me that really covers this issue:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48024138/ns/weather/

    I had no idea that there were so many widespread heat-related storms and power outages yesterday and today. According to the article, Columbus OH and south of it got hit pretty bad and has a lot of folks without power. We’re about 100 miles north of there and things have been fine…just very hot again today. The big storms that rolled through our state yesterday suddenly dissipated in our area, right before they got to us. Which is a good thing, because the clouds got dark and ominous just as we had to get into the car and drive out to a funeral event 40 miles north of us…in the direction that the storms were moving at the time. Then *poof* they just faded and we were left with unexpected yet wonderfully cool temperatures for the rest of the evening. We got lucky.

    But we got some texts from my niece in WV about the storms they had yesterday (at first she was excited, because she wants to be a “storm chaser” and she sent us a pic of her “first supercell” that was hovering near their house.) We just heard back from her a little while ago, that they are without power down there and that it is a total mess, with long lines at the gas stations and that unfortunately, the people’s tempers in that area are becoming more “heated” then even the temperature… So my 12 year old niece is understandably starting to get frightened and will be coming up in a few days to stay with us for an indeterminate period of time…

    JPotter: I hadn’t heard about the power outages! Power here is fine, but water lines are popping and highways are buckling. Let’s hear it for aging, dilapidated infrastructure!

  15. avatar
    Thrifty June 30, 2012 at 9:54 pm #

    I woke up briefly last night to hear some loud thunder and lightning, It sounded pretty intense. But then I went back to sleep pretty quickly. Read up on it on the news today, and it looks like it was pretty bad. Though outside, around here, everything looks okay.

  16. avatar
    Jerry Collette June 30, 2012 at 10:49 pm #

    Doc,

    Let me clarify a few things for you:

    Sam released it as a press release.

    Obama has the authority to give me whatever access he would have in Hawaii. That’s all I was asking for. I would have accepted that, and Obama could have complied if he chose to.

    The big waiver was waiving depositions. As George Miller said in the press release, it was during a deposition that Bill Clinton got into the trouble that led to his impeachment.

    I never thought Obama would take the deal.

    However, it was sincere, and it would have been written in the form of an enforceable stipulation. I would have not been able to enforce any further discovery if I had signed it.

    Parties make stipulations to limit discovery all the time. It really isn’t that big of a deal when it’s done.

    Glad you’re feeling better.

    Best,

    Jerry

  17. avatar
    Jerry Collette June 30, 2012 at 10:51 pm #

    I have complete email documentation of it. I may even swear to it in an upcoming filing.

    Obama’s attorneys won’t dispute it. It’s real.

    JPotter:
    Where is this “offer” documented? The Steady Drip anecdote is either heavy spin of what has already been seen in the filings, or pure fabrication.

  18. avatar
    Jerry Collette June 30, 2012 at 10:57 pm #

    The SS, draft, and college records are of marginal relevance to the case. As I said in my complaint, even if they’re all bogus, that wouldn’t make him ineligible. The big waiver was the depositions.

  19. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG June 30, 2012 at 11:06 pm #

    Jerry:
    I still say all of this vetting is because of his name and skin color.
    As I’ve said before, if he was whiter looking and was named Barry Dunham, no one would have so much as raised an eyebrow.

  20. avatar
    SluggoJD June 30, 2012 at 11:39 pm #

    Reality Check:
    What I want to know is how long dd Obama’s attorneys laugh when they read the email? My over/under would be 10 seconds.

    $100K from Soros’ generous bonus check for June, on the under!

  21. avatar
    Jerry Collette June 30, 2012 at 11:39 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Jerry:
    I still say all of this vetting is because of his name and skin color.
    As I’ve said before, if he was whiter looking and was named Barry Dunham, no one would have so much as raised an eyebrow.

    Andrew, you must have me confused with somebody else. I worked in a volunteer capacity as campaign manager for Richard Boddie’s campaign for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination in 1991, and he’s blacker than Obama. I volunteered the help the Lakotah people reclaim their sovereignty, and they aren’t white. Allen West is an example of somebody I’d gladly support for president or VP right now, and he’s blacker than Obama. For me, it’s about the constitution, not skin color.

  22. avatar
    Daniel June 30, 2012 at 11:42 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Jerry:
    I still say all of this vetting is because of his name and skin color.
    As I’ve said before, if he was whiter looking and was named Barry Dunham, no one would have so much as raised an eyebrow.

    Nobody ever demanded to see the BC of a white President.

  23. avatar
    SluggoJD June 30, 2012 at 11:42 pm #

    Jerry Collette:
    Doc,

    Let me clarify a few things for you:

    Sam released it as a press release.

    Obama has the authority to give me whatever access he would have in Hawaii. That’s all I was asking for. I would have accepted that, and Obama could have complied if he chose to.

    The big waiver was waiving depositions. As George Miller said in the press release, it was during a deposition that Bill Clinton got into the trouble that led to his impeachment.

    I never thought Obama would take the deal.

    However, it was sincere, and it would have been written in the form of an enforceable stipulation. I would have not been able to enforce any further discovery if I had signed it.

    Parties make stipulations to limit discovery all the time. It really isn’t that big of a deal when it’s done.

    Glad you’re feeling better.

    Best,

    Jerry

    Jerry, may I clarify something too?

    You’re an idiot who needs to learn his place in history as a nobody.

    The scary Muslim black usurper Kenyan Commie Unnatural-Born is President, whether you like it or not. And you’re nothing. Deal with it, or else seek shock treatment so you can grasp the truth.

  24. avatar
    JPotter June 30, 2012 at 11:53 pm #

    Jerry Collette:
    I have complete email documentation of it. I may even swear to it in an upcoming filing.

    Obama’s attorneys won’t dispute it. It’s real.

    Look forward to seeing that chain. When will it be available? Or is it so damning of the defense, you just can’t bear to release it?

  25. avatar
    JPotter June 30, 2012 at 11:55 pm #

    SluggoJD: $100K from Soros’ generous bonus check for June, on the under!

    Really? Under 10 sec?

  26. avatar
    G June 30, 2012 at 11:57 pm #

    Jerry –

    Seriously now… If you are offering a “deal” that you KNOW the other side is not going to take, you are not being sincere in your offer in the first place, nor are you being reasonable.

    That is just disingenuous showboating. It is just a play-acting tactic, that is really meant for an audience other than your legal opposition and not one in good faith.

    Jerry Collette:
    Obama has the authority to give me whatever access he would have in Hawaii. That’s all I was asking for. I would have accepted that, and Obama could have complied if he chose to.

  27. avatar
    James M July 1, 2012 at 12:26 am #

    Jerry Collette: blacker than Obama.

    It is shocking that you don’t realize the depths of your internalized racism that leads to you using an expression like this. In your reasoning, there are “degrees of blackness.” Would have been shocking in ’63. Beyond comprehension today.

  28. avatar
    Keith July 1, 2012 at 1:08 am #

    Jerry Collette: Obama has the authority to give me whatever access he would have in Hawaii. That’s all I was asking for. I would have accepted that, and Obama could have complied if he chose to.

    Obama has NO access in Hawaii to give, that is what you don’t get.

    He had to ask for a special dispensation to get the non-standard birth certificate (the so-called ‘long form’) that he published last year. He doesn’t have ‘authority’ to give you anything.

    The original birth event documentation belongs to the State of Hawai’i, only the State of Hawai’i, and no one else but the State of Hawai’i. Hawai’ian State law is the controlling authority over those records; not Obama, not Florida courts, and not you.

    The takeaway message ios: Hawai’i will NOT allow you to look at those original birth event records, and nothing Obama does, or says, or ‘authorizes’ can change that in any way, shape, or form. Period.

  29. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 1, 2012 at 1:08 am #

    Jerry proved my point, and I didn’t have to so much as lift a finger.

  30. avatar
    GeorgetownJD July 1, 2012 at 1:32 am #

    Jerry Collette:
    Doc,

    Let me clarify a few things for you:

    Sam released it as a press release.

    Obama has the authority to give me whatever access he would have in Hawaii. That’s all I was asking for. I would have accepted that, and Obama could have complied if he chose to.

    The big waiver was waiving depositions. As George Miller said in the press release, it was during a deposition that Bill Clinton got into the trouble that led to his impeachment.

    I never thought Obama would take the deal.

    However, it was sincere, and it would have been written in the form of an enforceable stipulation. I would have not been able to enforce any further discovery if I had signed it.

    Parties make stipulations to limit discovery all the time. It really isn’t that big of a deal when it’s done.

    Glad you’re feeling better.

    Best,

    Jerry

    Jerry, Jerry, Jerry . . . You can successfully negotiate only from a position of strength. And your case has none.

  31. avatar
    Rickey July 1, 2012 at 1:51 am #

    Jerry Collette:
    The big waiver was the depositions.

    Depositions? What depositions? There will be no depositions. You can bank on that.

  32. avatar
    Wolf July 1, 2012 at 2:56 am #

    Jerry Collette: If I survive the motions to dismiss, Obama would permit me access to the original and microfiche birth records in Hawaii and the copies he claims to have gotten from Hawaii last year, then I would waive all other discovery..

    Jerry,

    1. You are not qualified in anyway to authenticate Hawaiian birth certificates, only Hawaiian authorities can. Therefore, your personal position on whether it’s authentic or not is irrelevant, it’s your personal opinion and it holds little relevance.

    2. You being allowed to access Obama’s personal record won’t change birtherism one bit.

    3. You’ve made up your mind about whether or not Obama is eligible to be president. You’ve already made up your mind about the authenticity of his birth certificate, you’ve already made up your mind concerning the meaning of natural born citizenship. All in all, you have absolutely no weight behind requesting anything.

    It’s getting to the point where you’re starting to look more like a troll.

  33. avatar
    misha July 1, 2012 at 3:23 am #

    Jerry – I want to help you.

    I know how concerned you are, and I applaud your care about subversion.

    That’s why I did hours of google searching, and found this suspicious BC that may be what you are looking for.

    Misha Marinsky, FNAO

  34. avatar
    Keith July 1, 2012 at 3:55 am #

    Jerry Collette: Allen West is an example of somebody I’d gladly support for president or VP right now, and he’s blacker than Obama. For me, it’s about the constitution, not skin color.

    And have you seen the original birth event documentation for Allen West? How about his microfiche? What is he hiding? What are you lying to yourself about?

  35. avatar
    Elaine Taylor July 1, 2012 at 4:39 am #

    C’mon folks, give it a rest. Do you all have nothing else to do? All kinds of charity needed in the world and you all are inspecting your collective navels for lint. I hate Republicans, but you Democrats are just full of hot air.

  36. avatar
    aarrgghh July 1, 2012 at 5:52 am #

    Elaine Taylor: C’mon folks, give it a rest.Do you all have nothing else to do?All kinds of charity needed in the world and you all are inspecting your collective navels for lint.I hate Republicans, but you Democrats are just full of hot air.

    don’t tell me you actually stopped saving the world, or the children, or the whales, or whatever … just to come here and wag your finger?

  37. avatar
    Majority Will July 1, 2012 at 6:17 am #

    Jerry Collette: blacker than Obama.

    What are the degrees of blackness? Is there a scale? Do you have meetings to decide what blackness or whiteness means to a person. a group of people or all people?

    Is it physical or cultural or measured just by how funny you think it is?

    Would you say someone is whiter than you or not as white as you? What would that mean?

  38. avatar
    Scientist July 1, 2012 at 6:17 am #

    Keith: And have you seen the original birth event documentation for Allen West? How about his microfiche? What is he hiding?

    There are some who have claimed that Jerry is smart. But he isn’t smart enough to hide his hypocrisy. By his own statements Jerry has exposed himself and his legal crusade as a partisan hack job, nothing more nor less.

    I wonder what the judge would make of the fact that Collette is happy to support some Presidential candidates who have shown absolutely no documentation. Kind of negates his entire case, I would say.

  39. avatar
    Majority Will July 1, 2012 at 6:19 am #

    Elaine Taylor: Do you all have nothing else to do?

    I love self-referential contradictions.

    And irony too, of course. Thanks for the laugh.

  40. avatar
    Scientist July 1, 2012 at 6:44 am #

    Jerry Collette-On your web site under “Gifted Legal Mind” you list “the two biggest unresolved issues”, one of which is “2.Even if he was really born in Hawaii, and therefore a native born citizen, did his father’s foreign citizenship preclude him from being a natural born citizen?”

    Then you go on to state, “As of this writing, March 15, 2012, there has been no adjudication of either primary issue in a judicial court.” That statement is blatantly untrue, or as some might term it, a lie. Because, way back in 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals, beyond doubt a judicial court, in fact adjudicated that very issue.in Ankeny v. Daniels. Did your Gifted Legal Mind miss that case? I doubt it since you speak of the Georgia proceeding and the judge there cited Ankeny in detail.

    So, does Gifted Legal Mind mean will lie as necessary? Those of us without such Gifts are wondering.

  41. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 1, 2012 at 7:07 am #

    The comment about depositions in the press release comes from a third party, and so I did not consider it part of the offer.

    If you never thought Obama would take the deal, then why make the offer except as an act of political theater?

    And if you did get access to the original paperwork, how would you authenticate it? Would you do like all other birthers and get other birthers to do it, people whose testimony would be inadmissible in court who (like you) are way past rational thought? You’d get that bunch of idiots to day in a “press release” that they had seen it and it was an obvious forgery: not admissible, not true, but damaging to Obama any way.

    You’re hopeless naive.

    Jerry Collette: Obama has the authority to give me whatever access he would have in Hawaii. That’s all I was asking for. I would have accepted that, and Obama could have complied if he chose to.

    The big waiver was waiving depositions. As George Miller said in the press release, it was during a deposition that Bill Clinton got into the trouble that led to his impeachment.

    I never thought Obama would take the deal.

  42. avatar
    Northland10 July 1, 2012 at 7:16 am #

    Jerry Collette: The big waiver was waiving depositions. As George Miller said in the press release, it was during a deposition that Bill Clinton got into the trouble that led to his impeachment.

    I never thought Obama would take the deal.

    However, it was sincere, and it would have been written in the form of an enforceable stipulation. I would have not been able to enforce any further discovery if I had signed it.

    Parties make stipulations to limit discovery all the time. It really isn’t that big of a deal when it’s done.

    If your’s, or any other birther case, got anywhere close to your great white hope of “discovery,” it would go something like this:

    1. Obama’s (or DNC) lawyers would submit an official certified copy from Hawaii (or maybe a verification of the long form released by the White House).

    2. The court would ask if you had any evidence that the President was born outside of the United States (Birthers suspicions of forgery are not sufficient).

    3. Having no evidence to bring doubt upon official birth certificate, your discovery would be over.

    It is that simple and you will lose.

  43. avatar
    Reality Check July 1, 2012 at 8:15 am #

    I never doubted that Mr. Collette made the offer. I also told him exactly what the answer would be when he told me he had made the offer.

    Jerry Collette:
    I have complete email documentation of it. I may even swear to it in an upcoming filing.

    Obama’s attorneys won’t dispute it. It’s real.

  44. avatar
    Scientist July 1, 2012 at 8:57 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: You’re hopeless naive.

    I wouldn’t call Jerry naive, any more than Madoff was naive. Jerry has put false information on his website, where he solicits money, claiming that no judicial court has adjudicated the effect of Obama’s father’s citizenship on eligibility. We all know that is simply untrue, as the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on that in Ankeny 3 years ago.

    Of course, Collette’s scam is penny ante compared to Madoff’s. However, I contend that they are in the same profession, just as the $10 streetwalker and the Upper East Side escort (and Donald Trump’s wives) are in the same trade.

  45. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 1, 2012 at 9:05 am #

    Birthers are an easy lot to get money out of. All Orly has to do is moan about how she is desperate for funds. Before you can say “Well who is dumb enough to do that?”, someone has donated hundreds of dollars to feed her windmill chasing.

  46. avatar
    Reality Check July 1, 2012 at 9:10 am #

    10 seconds may be a little high unless you count it being passed around the office and multiple sniggers as different folks read it. Any one of Orly’s motions rates long :lol:. however.

    SluggoJD: $100K from Soros’ generous bonus check for June, on the under!

  47. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 1, 2012 at 9:19 am #

    G:
    Jerry –

    Seriously now… If you are offering a “deal” that you KNOW the other side is not going to take, you are not being sincere in your offer in the first place, nor are you being reasonable.

    That is just disingenuous showboating.It is just a play-acting tactic, that is really meant for an audience other than your legal opposition and not one in good faith.

    The intended audience was the judge, G. Their failure to stipulate gives me cause to expedite discovery. Aren’t you an attorney? You should know about how discovery works.

  48. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 1, 2012 at 9:20 am #

    James M: It is shocking that you don’t realize the depths of your internalized racism that leads to you using an expression like this.In your reasoning, there are “degrees of blackness.”Would have been shocking in ’63.Beyond comprehension today.

    It’s how Richard Boddie identifies himself.

  49. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 1, 2012 at 9:30 am #

    Majority Will: What are the degrees of blackness? Is there a scale? Do you have meetings to decide whatblackness or whiteness means to a person. a group of people or all people?

    Of course there are degrees of blackness, just like there are degrees of Native Americans. (Elizabeth Warren is, at most, 1/32, if any, Cherokee.)

    I don’t have such meetings, but I can assure you, it’s a common discussion on Lakotah reservations, and I’ve been to most of them.

    Obama’s mother was Caucasian. That makes him 50% black.

  50. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 1, 2012 at 9:43 am #

    Which is apparently black enough to make him ineligible, in the eyes of frightened ultraconservatives.

  51. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 1, 2012 at 9:52 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Which is apparently black enough to make him ineligible, in the eyes of frightened ultraconservatives.

    Bull. Most of those same ultraconservatives would gladly support Allen West. It’s about his policies and politics, and the constitution, not skin color.

  52. avatar
    Majority Will July 1, 2012 at 10:01 am #

    Jerry Collette: Of course there are degrees of blackness, just like there are degrees of Native Americans. (Elizabeth Warren is, at most, 1/32, if any, Cherokee.)

    I don’t have such meetings, but I can assure you, it’s a common discussion on Lakotah reservations, and I’ve been to most of them.

    Obama’s mother was Caucasian. That makes him 50% black.

    So, how do you use your scale to judge people?

    If a person is divided into percentages of racial identities, do you explain his or her potential, behavior, moods, intelligence and actions based on the presence of a certain section of his or her racial make up?

    Is a higher percentage of whiteness better? If not or you think it doesn’t matter, then why do you measure it?

    Are you familiar with eugenics?

  53. avatar
    Majority Will July 1, 2012 at 10:03 am #

    Jerry Collette: It’s how Richard Boddie identifies himself.

    That makes it o.k.? Is that how you decide wrong from right?

  54. avatar
    Bob July 1, 2012 at 10:05 am #

    Very few people are truly racist at a personal level (or, at least, they resist being racist at a personal level). On the other hand, organizations, or institutions, or political movements can easily be racist with things like admission policies. So, when I accuse Birthers of being racists, they shouldn’t take it personally. I don’t really know what they’re feeling.

    Birtherism is undoubtedly racist. The “questions,” like Mr. Collette’s, are nothing more than insults akin to demanding Obama tell us how many bubbles there are in a bar of soap before recognizing his eligibility.

  55. avatar
    Reality Check July 1, 2012 at 10:13 am #

    I choose not to delve much into this discussion racism other than to say that there are degrees and just because you support a candidate of a different race when he or she agrees with your politics does not rule out the possibility that you still prejudge a person based on race. I know some birthers are extremely motivated by racial bias but I cannot say that of Mr. Collette from what I know.

  56. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 1, 2012 at 10:18 am #

    Jerry Collette: Bull. Most of those same ultraconservatives would gladly support Allen West. It’s about his policies and politics, and the constitution, not skin color.

    You’re right, it’s about skin color and having a foreign sounding name. It is no secret that both parties want their guy in the White House, and generally don’t agree with anything the president does or says, if he is of the opposing party. But rather than grin and bear Obama’s first term, Birthers and Tea-baggers took the low road. Scratch that! They fell off the low road and landed in the sewage ditch!

    You guys have done everything from trying to claim that repeatedly verified documents are false, to accusing every judge who slams the door in your faces as accessories to treason, even taking disgustingly low swipes, like calling Obama’s deceased mother a slut, who got knocked up by Frank Marshall Davis or Malcom X!

    In summary: I think that birthers are human filth, who deserve every last ounce of ridicule and scorn that they’ve brought down on their own heads.

  57. avatar
    GeorgetownJD July 1, 2012 at 10:50 am #

    Jerry Collette: The intended audience was the judge, G. Their failure to stipulate gives me cause to expedite discovery. Aren’t you an attorney? You should know about how discovery works.

    You’ve not served discovery, and even if you had, the case will be dismissed before any production of documents is due.

    Besides, you are seeking discovery from the wrong party. Obama is not in possession of the original BC or the microfiche (if such exists) or the original Selective Service or Social Security registrations, hence his response to each of your requests would be: “The defendant possesses no document responsive to this Request.” Any motion to compel would fail because a party cannot be compelled to produce that which he does not have.

    You are the one who doesn’t know how discovery works.

  58. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 1, 2012 at 12:21 pm #

    How about I make an offer to any of the birther attorneys: I’ll pay a fee of $50,000 if they succeed in keeping Obama off the ballot in any state due to their efforts in any existing case alleging ineligibility IF they agree to not accept any other payment or contribution related to birther activity, refund any money received to date, and they must prominently advertise that they are not accepting any donations and refunding?

    Obviously, if they don’t take the deal, they don’t believe they can win.

    Is that checkmate?

  59. avatar
    misha July 1, 2012 at 12:34 pm #

    Elaine Taylor: C’mon folks, give it a rest. Do you all have nothing else to do?

    In my time away from this website, I gave Angel, my female Afghan hound, a Bark Mitzvah. She is now a real Jewish bitch. [bada-bing]

    Thank you. I’ll be here all week.

  60. avatar
    Keith July 1, 2012 at 12:42 pm #

    Scientist: Of course, Collette’s scam is penny ante compared to Madoff’s. However, I contend that they are in the same profession, just as the $10 streetwalker and the Upper East Side escort (and Donald Trump’s wives) are in the same trade.

    Ooooh! That was a low blow. Speaking of low blows…

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Birthers are an easy lot to get money out of. All Orly has to do is moan about how she is desperate for funds. Before you can say “Well who is dumb enough to do that?”, someone has donated hundreds of dollars to feed her windmill chasing.

  61. avatar
    Steve July 1, 2012 at 12:42 pm #

    There’s one thing that bothers me about demands to see microfiche.
    As best I can tell, birthers seem to view Hawaii’s laws about who can have access to original birth records as a cop-out. They seem to think that when someone runs for President, they forfeit protection of the privacy such laws provide.
    While they’re wrong about that, I can understand why they may think that way and how some people could find the birthers’ argument about that persuasive.
    The problem with allowing them to see the microfiche (if there is one) is that there are other people’s records on the film, people who are private citizens. Why should they forfeit their rights to protection from privacy laws simply because they happen to have their records on the same roll of film as Obama’s?
    That’s what bothers me.

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 1, 2012 at 12:44 pm #

    Discovery doesn’t work at all when your case is dismissed. While I am not a lawyer, I think any kind of stipulations regarding discovery are premature when motions to dismiss are pending. They occur in advance of the pre-trial conference, which has not been (nor will be) scheduled. I don’t see how a judge will make anything of your offer at this point in the proceeding.

    Jerry Collette: The intended audience was the judge, G. Their failure to stipulate gives me cause to expedite discovery. Aren’t you an attorney? You should know about how discovery works.

  63. avatar
    john July 1, 2012 at 12:45 pm #

    “Obama is not in possession of the original BC”

    Actually this is not true. While Hawaii possesses the original, Obama also does too. He has so for years and years. Obama even wrote about possessing his birth certificate and filing it away in his book. Do Obots say that Obama possessed the 2007 COLB in 1980? Jerry could compel Obama to produce his “own” original birth certificate. Obama would have to explain why he didn’t have a BC before 2007 and what happened to his original.

  64. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 1, 2012 at 12:49 pm #

    And that is a huge, and I would say insurmountable problem with any civil litigation. I think the birthers have finally succeeded in placing the goalposts proving their conspiracy false outside the playing field.

    Steve: The problem with allowing them to see the microfiche (if there is one) is that there are other people’s records on the film, people who are private citizens. Why should they forfeit their rights to protection from privacy laws simply because they happen to have their records on the same roll of film as Obama’s?

  65. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 1, 2012 at 12:54 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Is that checkmate?

    Playing by birther rules, it sure is!

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 1, 2012 at 12:57 pm #

    Any birth certificate Obama had as a youth was a certified copy, no different from the copy released to the press in 2011, except that the signature and date issued would be different.

    There seems to be some idea that when you are born, you get an original birth certificate and that is a special document unlike what can be obtained later. This is completely false. There is only one original and it is retained by the state. All certificates in private hands are certified copies.

    Hospitals sometimes issue souvenir certificates, but they are not legal documents. Since Obama had a passport as a child, we may presume that whatever birth certificate he found along with his immunization records was likely an official one (i.e. a state-issued certified copy).

    john: Actually this is not true. While Hawaii possesses the original, Obama also does too. He has so for years and years. Obama even wrote about possessing his birth certificate and filing it away in his book. Do Obots say that Obama possessed the 2007 COLB in 1980? Jerry could compel Obama to produce his “own” original birth certificate. Obama would have to explain why he didn’t have a BC before 2007 and what happened to his original.

  67. avatar
    misha July 1, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

    john: Obama would have to explain…what happened to his original.

    My dog ate it.

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 1, 2012 at 1:06 pm #

    I appreciate your contributions. I am not a lawyer, and while I have picked up all sorts of things over the past 4 years, that’s no substitute.

    GeorgetownJD: [@ Jerry Collette]You are the one who doesn’t know how discovery works.

  69. avatar
    misha July 1, 2012 at 1:07 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: someone has donated hundreds of dollars to feed her windmill chasing.

    And her $100K Tesla Roadster.

  70. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 1, 2012 at 1:08 pm #

    Well, you know, when I worked for the birth certificate factory, we had all sorts of leftovers and seconds. Rather than pay to have them shredded, I gave them to my dog, who over time developed quite a taste for security paper. She’s not the same since I retired.

    misha: My dog ate it.

  71. avatar
    Scientist July 1, 2012 at 1:08 pm #

    Hey Collette, how about you address the lies on your web site? I don’t know if you are a racist or not, but I know the difference between the truth and a lie. Stop ducking and answer….

  72. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 1, 2012 at 1:11 pm #

    Clearly, I should not expect you to add Obama Conspiracy Theories to your Favorites.

    Elaine Taylor: C’mon folks, give it a rest. Do you all have nothing else to do? All kinds of charity needed in the world and you all are inspecting your collective navels for lint

  73. avatar
    RetiredLawyer July 1, 2012 at 1:20 pm #

    Jerry Collette: The intended audience was the judge, G. Their failure to stipulate gives me cause to expedite discovery. Aren’t you an attorney? You should know about how discovery works.

    I am an attorney. Your “explanation” is bogus. If, and only if, you actually got to discovery, the only information you could, possibly, get, from Obama is a copy of the documents he has in his possession. Not anything that is held by HI.

    Further, any “offer” will not be shown to the court in the first place. The only time a judge hears a discovery issue is when one side asks for something that they have no right to get, or the responding side refuses to provide something that they claim they don’t have. “Offers” of any sort are merely that: unaccepted offers, meaningless for any legal purpose.

    I don’t know, and frankly don’t care, whether you are an idiot, or are trying to scam someone, or are so blinded by your hatred of the President that you are incapable of rational thought. However, I question your “credentials”, such as they are, since you are acting so incredibly dumb.

  74. avatar
    john July 1, 2012 at 1:27 pm #

    Jerry would have to have Hawaii as the defendent party since they are part of the cover up. Then Jerry could request discovery on what Hawaii really has. At the very least, Onaka or Fuddy could be cross examined.

  75. avatar
    Scientist July 1, 2012 at 1:28 pm #

    Keith: Ooooh! That was a low blow.

    I fail to see why birthers, who willfully spread lies, are entitled to kid glove treatment, simply because they come here and are somewhat polite.

  76. avatar
    Jamese777 July 1, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

    Elaine Taylor:
    C’mon folks, give it a rest.Do you all have nothing else to do?All kinds of charity needed in the world and you all are inspecting your collective navels for lint.I hate Republicans, but you Democrats are just full of hot air.

    And yet here YOU are posting on this subject!

    Guess what? It’s possible to be interested in and involved with many issues at the same time!
    How much time and energy and money do you think has been expended pursuing 143 separate lawsuits on this topic?

  77. avatar
    y_p_w July 1, 2012 at 1:36 pm #

    john: Actually this is not true. While Hawaii possesses the original, Obama also does too. He has so for years and years. Obama even wrote about possessing his birth certificate and filing it away in his book. Do Obots say that Obama possessed the 2007 COLB in 1980? Jerry could compel Obama to produce his “own” original birth certificate. Obama would have to explain why he didn’t have a BC before 2007 and what happened to his original.

    Vital records are lost or damaged all the time. They can be replaced.

    I’ve used multiple versions of my kid’s certified birth certificate obtained at different times from different vital records offices in California. Nobody cares whether or not it’s the copy we got a few weeks after birth or the one obtained just yesterday.

    Also – I thought the memoir said that the birth certificate was already filed away in a particular book. It wouldn’t have been his book but a family book. It also didn’t state what form of birth certificate – if it was a photostat, a photocopy, or a typed transcript (I’ve seen a scan of one). I wouldn’t be surprised if it couldn’t be located. Personally I’d put all vital records in a safe place, but it wouldn’t be unusual for some families to just place all this stuff in a family bible.

  78. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 1, 2012 at 1:39 pm #

    Jerry can’t sue Hawaii in a Florida state court, and if he sues in federal court we’ve seen what happens. Dismissed.

    john: Jerry would have to have Hawaii as the defendent (sic) party since they are part of the cover up. Then Jerry could request discovery on what Hawaii really has. At the very least, Onaka or Fuddy could be cross examined

  79. avatar
    Jamese777 July 1, 2012 at 1:40 pm #

    Steve:
    There’s one thing that bothers me about demands to see microfiche.
    As best I can tell, birthers seem to view Hawaii’s laws about who can have access to original birth records as a cop-out. They seem to think that when someone runs for President, they forfeit protection of the privacy such laws provide.
    While they’re wrong about that, I can understand why they may think that way and how some people could find the birthers’ argument about that persuasive.
    The problem with allowing them to see the microfiche (if there is one) is that there are other people’s records on the film, people who are private citizens. Why should they forfeit their rights to protection from privacy laws simply because they happen to have their records on the same roll of film as Obama’s?
    That’s what bothers me.

    That’s why every state has a designated official whose job it is to maintain and verify vital records. In Hawai’i that person is the Registrar of Vital Statistics.
    Additionally, Hawai’i Revised Statute 338-18 (b) allows for a confidential birth record to be released for inspection via a Court Order.from a Court of Competent Jurisdiction.
    For birthers: Go get Judge’s Court Order, get to see birth certificate.

  80. avatar
    john July 1, 2012 at 1:41 pm #

    Obama has a tangible interest in his own record. Therefore under Hawaii law, he can get the original. Hawaii denied the brother of the dead child access to original presumebly to keep the cover up in place. Ultimately though access to the original lies totally at the discretion of Loretta Fuddy, the Director of DOH. Fuddy has been never willing to compromise on the situation. There is a reason why Fuddy denied the brother’s access to his sister’s original BC. I believe it is to keep the cover up in place as Virginia’s BC plays a key role in the manufacturing of Obama’s BC. It does seem reasonable the Fuddy could have just allowed the brother access to the original rather than spending costly legal time and money by going to court.

  81. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 1, 2012 at 1:42 pm #

    I can’t find my hospital souvenir certificate that I saw as a youth. I inherited my parents’ things, but it doesn’t appear to be among them. As far as I know, I never had a real birth certificate until around age 40 when I applied for a passport.

    y_p_w: I wouldn’t be surprised if it couldn’t be located. Personally I’d put all vital records in a safe place, but it wouldn’t be unusual for some families to just place all this stuff in a family bible.

  82. avatar
    y_p_w July 1, 2012 at 1:43 pm #

    RetiredLawyer: I am an attorney. Your “explanation” is bogus. If, and only if, you actually got to discovery, the only information you could, possibly, get, from Obama is a copy of the documents he has in his possession. Not anything that is held by HI.

    IANAL, but I have helped someone with a civil action before. I remember a standard discovery sheet where you could just check in the boxes for specific documents to be requested for discovery. It was three pages long, including many things that many people won’t even properly file and which could be lost. I wasn’t sure if it might be considered unnecessary if someone just checked everything (regardless of whether it would be useful in the case) just to inconvenience one of the parties. I’m frankly glad it never got to that point.

    Personally I don’t suspect there’s anything that legally compels someone who obtains a vital record to keep it after it’s been used for its intended purpose. One could obtain a document, submit it, and have it shredded after its return. If that form of document is ever needed, one could just start all over again.

  83. avatar
    y_p_w July 1, 2012 at 1:48 pm #

    Jamese777: That’s why every state has a designated official whose job it is to maintain and verify vital records. In Hawai’i that person is the Registrar of Vital Statistics.
    Additionally, Hawai’i Revised Statute 338-18 (b) allows for a confidential birth record to be released for inspection via a Court Order.from a Court of Competent Jurisdiction.
    For birthers: Go get Judge’s Court Order, get to see birth certificate.

    However, just because it allows for it doesn’t actually compel the Hawaii DOH to do it. That’s what Duncan Sunahara found out about 338-18. Theoretically it would allow them to release a photocopy of the original document on file to him, but they determined (and a court found they had the right) that an abstract was sufficient to meet the requirements of the law.

  84. avatar
    SluggoJD July 1, 2012 at 3:46 pm #

    Jerry Collette: Sluggo

    You disgusting POS.

  85. avatar
    SluggoJD July 1, 2012 at 3:48 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: You’re right, it’s about skin color and having a foreign sounding name. It is no secret that both parties want their guy in the White House, and generally don’t agree with anything the president does or says, if he is of the opposing party. But rather than grin and bear Obama’s first term, Birthers and Tea-baggers took the low road. Scratch that! They fell off the low road and landed in the sewage ditch!

    You guys have done everything from trying to claim that repeatedly verified documents are false, to accusing every judge who slams the door in your faces as accessories to treason, even taking disgustingly low swipes, like calling Obama’s deceased mother a slut, who got knocked up by Frank Marshall Davis or Malcom X!

    In summary: I think that birthers are human filth, who deserve every last ounce of ridicule and scorn that they’ve brought down on their own heads.

    I agree 100%. They are lying, racist pieces of poop, who deserve everything that comes their way.

  86. avatar
    Majority Will July 1, 2012 at 4:55 pm #

    Bob: Very few people are truly racist at a personal level . . .

    You might have a different perspective if you grew up in the South.

    Explore this for awhile:
    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map

  87. avatar
    Keith July 1, 2012 at 5:46 pm #

    john:
    “Obama is not in possession of the original BC”

    Actually this is not true.While Hawaii possesses the original, Obama also does too.He has so for years and years.Obama even wrote about possessing his birth certificate and filing it away in his book. Do Obots say that Obama possessed the 2007 COLB in 1980?Jerry could compel Obama to produce his “own” original birth certificate.Obama would have to explain why he didn’t have a BC before 2007 and what happened to his original.

    Any ‘original’ BC that Obama may have once possessed, and may or may not still possess, is a CERTIFIED COPY with exactly the same legitimacy of the standard BC issued in 2007 and the non-standard BC issued in 2011.

    In point of fact, since the security features were less robust in 1961, and that document is actually from 1961, it is actually less trustworthy than the 2007 and 2011 documents.

    In any case, none of those documents are the original birth event documentation. That is held in trust by the State of Hawai’i and NOBODY gets to see those documents, let alone touch them or ‘forensically analyze’ them (except authorized Hawai’ian State personnel).

  88. avatar
    Jamese777 July 1, 2012 at 5:54 pm #

    y_p_w: However, just because it allows for it doesn’t actually compel the Hawaii DOH to do it.That’s what Duncan Sunahara found out about 338-18.Theoretically it would allow them to release a photocopy of the original document on file to him, but they determined (and a court found they had the right) that an abstract was sufficient to meet the requirements of the law.

    If a JUDGE issued a valid Court Order for a document, it is likely that a state would comply with that order. There is a difference between an attorney’s subpoena for a document and a Juidge’s Court Order for the same document.
    If I was a birther (which I’m not) and I wanted to launch a legitimate civil action against President Obama’s eligibility, I would have had John McCain and/or Sarah Palin and/or the Republican National Committee as my plaintiffs and I would have found a judge willing to issue a Court Order in accordance with Provision #9 of Hawai’i Revised Statute 338-18 (b): a plaintiff with Article III standing to bring suit and compliance with Hawai’i law.

  89. avatar
    Stephen July 1, 2012 at 5:54 pm #

    Keith: Obama has NO access in Hawaii to give, that is what you don’t get.

    So it would be the same as the quit claim deed I signed giving up my rights to the Empire State Building.

  90. avatar
    Keith July 1, 2012 at 5:59 pm #

    Scientist: I fail to see why birthers, who willfully spread lies, are entitled to kid glove treatment, simply because they come here and are somewhat polite.

    Yeah, well, its understandable that you missed my reference to a childish insult string. The “low blow” was second or third in a string of racist/sexist/vulgar insults about the target’s family.

    It starts out “Hey, I like your new shoes… speaking of loafers, hows your old man?” (only the line is considerably more ‘colorful’ than that).

    It then goes on to “Ooooh, that was a low blow… speaking of low blows, hows your old lady?”

    That’s all I can remember, but it continues with lines about sisters, brothers, grandparents, etc. Like I say, childish, racist, sexist, vulgar, and most of all childish. I was probably in 4th grade when it was going around maybe.

  91. avatar
    misha July 1, 2012 at 6:04 pm #

    Stephen: So it would be the same as the quit claim deed I signed giving up my rights to the Empire State Building.

    You can’t fool me. I bought the Brooklyn Bridge, and I’m not signing anything away.

  92. avatar
    Keith July 1, 2012 at 6:10 pm #

    Stephen: So it would be the same as the quit claim deed I signed giving up my rights to the Empire State Building.

    I don’t have enough information about whatever rights you may have had to the Empire State Building before you signed your quit claim deed to make a definitive answer.

    If you had actually had no rights to quit, then yes, it would be the same. If you did have actual rights, or if there was a question that you might have rights, then no, they are not the same.

  93. avatar
    Thrifty July 1, 2012 at 6:23 pm #

    It’s a shame that humans are only capable of performing one task, ever.

    Elaine Taylor:
    C’mon folks, give it a rest.Do you all have nothing else to do?All kinds of charity needed in the world and you all are inspecting your collective navels for lint.I hate Republicans, but you Democrats are just full of hot air.

  94. avatar
    JPotter July 1, 2012 at 6:46 pm #

    john: presumebly to keep the cover up in place.

    Sure, you can presume that.

  95. avatar
    Northland10 July 1, 2012 at 7:22 pm #

    john: Hawaii denied the brother of the dead child access to original presumebly to keep the cover up in place.

    You can think that, and I can think you’re an idiot. The reason for your presumption of Hawaii’s cover up is suspicion and confirmation bias, but for my presumption of your idiocy, I have evidence.

  96. avatar
    Northland10 July 1, 2012 at 7:40 pm #

    Keith: Any ‘original’ BC that Obama may have once possessed, and may or may not still possess, is a CERTIFIED COPY with exactly the same legitimacy of the standard BC issued in 2007 and the non-standard BC issued in 2011.

    In point of fact, since the security features were less robust in 1961, and that document is actually from 1961, it is actually less trustworthy than the 2007 and 2011 documents.

    The BC Obama referred to would be the same as if I referred to my birth certificate, which is only a certified copy issued by a county in Michigan in 1974 (I assume my parents got it for registration in kindergarten). I am amazed I have managed it not lose it over the years though I cannot remember when I actually used it last. It was possibly for a Passport nearly 20 years ago.

    If I were to need one now, I think I would need to order a new one (which would look close to a short form) since the State of Michigan highly suggests that recipient organizations only accept the ones with the various security features.

  97. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 1, 2012 at 7:54 pm #

    John,

    My original BC was lost years ago. I guess that means I’m not really from Missouri, and was smuggled here after being born in Montreal, because all I can get from the hospital are computer generated replacements huh?

  98. avatar
    bgansel9 July 1, 2012 at 7:55 pm #

    “Now which is more stupid?

    …Jerry Collette for thinking in his wildest imagination that Obama’s attorney would take the deal?”

    The “Gifted Legal Mind” isn’t so gifted after all (but we already knew that, didn’t we?)

    Ahahaha!

  99. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 1, 2012 at 8:10 pm #

    I think someone is confusing “gifted” with “special”!
    And just so I’m being clear enough for Jerry to understand, I mean the “HURR-DURR! I Like tater tots!” variety of “special”, and not the “Wow, what uncanny talent!” variety.

  100. avatar
    bgansel9 July 1, 2012 at 8:37 pm #

    john: Jerry would have to have Hawaii as the defendent party since they are part of the cover up

    Have you seriously listened to yourself? If you heard a sibling of yours talk like this fifteen years ago, would you not have been considering that perhaps a trip to the psychiatrist might be in order?

  101. avatar
    bgansel9 July 1, 2012 at 8:38 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    I think someone is confusing “gifted” with “special”!
    And just so I’m being clear enough for Jerry to understand, I mean the “HURR-DURR! I Like tater tots!” variety of “special”, and not the “Wow, what uncanny talent!” variety.

    Back where I come from, we call that “Short Bus Special”. 😉

  102. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 1, 2012 at 9:13 pm #

    I like that.

  103. avatar
    Lupin July 2, 2012 at 2:27 am #

    There is a silver lining here, the way I see it.

    We now have tangible proof that Collette is just as f*cked up (despite his milquetoast behavior) as john and all the other birthers.

    In his case, I’m leaning towards sincerity as opposed to venality but ultimately does it matter?

  104. avatar
    The Magic M July 2, 2012 at 4:01 am #

    > Finally, if Obama took the deal, the birthers would immediately say that Obama caved because there is obviously something terrible in those other records, and if he doesn’t take the deal, they will say that he’s desperate to hide the birth certificate.

    So in other words, it’s the birther’s favourite game again, Catch-22. Heads, I win, tails, you lose. Or the legal equivalent of “are you still beating your wife?”.

  105. avatar
    linda July 2, 2012 at 6:19 am #

    I thought the same thing. Whichever option Obama chose, the birthers would be ready with their explanation for what he must be hiding, etc.

    He is not pugnacious like Mario, but I do not think Collette is naive. It might be different if he were suing other candidates, but the fact that he is not is very telling.

    Lupin: In his case, I’m leaning towards sincerity as opposed to venality but ultimately does it matter?

    The Magic M:
    > Finally, if Obama took the deal, the birthers would immediately say that Obama caved because there is obviously something terrible in those other records, and if he doesn’t take the deal, they will say that he’s desperate to hide the birth certificate.

    So in other words, it’s the birther’s favourite game again, Catch-22. Heads, I win, tails, you lose. Or the legal equivalent of “are you stillbeating your wife?”.

  106. avatar
    Scientist July 2, 2012 at 7:45 am #

    linda: He is not pugnacious like Mario, but I do not think Collette is naive. It might be different if he were suing other candidates, but the fact that he is not is very telling.

    Collette seems super-satisfied by the POS that Romney showed, a document inferior in every way to Obama’s.

    I pointed out above that his web-site contains materially false information. An honest, naive person, would say, “Oops, my bad” and fix it. Not doing so makes one a crook, at least in my opinion.

  107. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 2, 2012 at 8:11 am #

    Scientist: Collette seems super-satisfied by the POS that Romney showed, a document inferior in every way to Obama’s.

    I pointed out above that his web-site contains materially false information.An honest, naive person, would say, “Oops, mybad” and fix it.Not doing so makes one a crook, at least in my opinion.

    If you believe that Romney doesn’t meet the eligibility requirements, there’s a DIY ballot challenge kit you’re free to use.

    Now that I’ve corrected the website, does that mean, by your logic, that I never was a crook, or just am not one anymore?

  108. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 2, 2012 at 8:21 am #

    Keith: Obama has NO access in Hawaii to give, that is what you don’t get.

    I was willing to take whatever access he had that was conveyable.

    Obviously, he would have access to the supposed copies he got last April.

    I really didn’t ask for much.

  109. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 2, 2012 at 8:27 am #

    RetiredLawyer: I am an attorney.Your “explanation” is bogus. If, and only if, you actually got to discovery, the only information you could, possibly, get, from Obama is a copy of the documents he has in his possession.Not anything that is held by HI.

    In FL, discovery is allowed on things in somebody’s possession and/or control. HI has possession, but Obama has some control.

    Further, any “offer” will not be shown to the court in the first place.The only time a judge hears a discovery issue is when one side asks for something that they have no right to get, or the responding side refuses to provide something that they claim they don’t have.“Offers” of any sort are merely that: unaccepted offers, meaningless for any legal purpose.

    It sure will, in my motion to expedite discovery. In FL, it can be brought any time, not ONLY as you suggest.

  110. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 2, 2012 at 8:33 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Discovery doesn’t work at all when your case is dismissed. While I am not a lawyer, I think any kind of stipulations regarding discovery are premature when motions to dismiss are pending. They occur in advance of the pre-trial conference, which has not been (nor will be) scheduled. I don’t see how a judge will make anything of your offer at this point in the proceeding.

    Of course the judge won’t make anything of it until the MTD is ruled upon, and he certainly can’t make anything out of it until I submit it. Unless he follows the blogs, he won’t even know about it until then.

    Conditional stipulations are done all the time. That’s what this offer was.

  111. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 2, 2012 at 8:37 am #

    GeorgetownJD: You’ve not served discovery, and even if you had, the case will be dismissed before any production of documents is due.

    Besides, you are seeking discovery from the wrong party.Obama is not in possession of the original BC or the microfiche (if such exists) or the original Selective Service or Social Security registrations, hence his response to each of your requests would be:“The defendant possesses no document responsive to this Request.”Any motion to compel would fail because a party cannot be compelled to produce that which he does not have.

    In FL, you can get discovery on things in somebody’s possession and/or control. I was willing to take whatever access Obama had that was conveyable. If they gave your suggested response, it would be grounds for an order to compel.

    Using your logic, somebody could give anything they didn’t want to produce to a friend and just say, I don’t have it. It doesn’t work that way in FL, and I doubt it works that way in Georgetown, or wherever you practice.

  112. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 2, 2012 at 8:43 am #

    Majority Will: That makes it o.k.? Is that how you decide wrong from right?

    If somebody uses a term to identify himself, that’s his choice. I have friends who want to be called African-Americans, and others who don’t want that term used to describe them. I have friends who prefer the term American Indian to Native American. I honor their choices.

  113. avatar
    Scientist July 2, 2012 at 8:43 am #

    Jerry Collette: If you believe that Romney doesn’t meet the eligibility requirements, there’s a DIY ballot challenge kit you’re free to use.

    I am willing to “believe” that Romney was born in Detroit, as he claims, even without a b.c. I will point out that Detroit is 1 mile from Canada, crossing the border in 1947 required little or no documentation, medical care in Canada is and was comparable to that in the US and the Romney family owned then and still owns a house in Ontario. But the valid question remains, why are YOU willing to accept his birth in the US despite those very significant facts, but not Obama’s birth in the US despite its occurrence 2000 miles from any foreign land and the considerable difficulties in reaching one compared to the trivial ability of the Romneys to leave the US?

    Jerry Collette: Now that I’ve corrected the website, does that mean, by your logic, that I never was a crook, or just am not one anymore?

    OK, you corrected the material mis-statements of fact, couching them in vague statements of opinion that still gloss over the numerous judicial courts that as of July 2, 2012 have in fact pronounced on the fact that a foreign father is not a factor in eligibility. Besides Ankeny, there is Tisdale (a federal court), Allen v Arizona and a few others

    Look, IANAL, but I have spent many years working with patent attorneys in the US, Europe, Canada and elsewhere, When I hire a Gifted Legal Mind, I expect him or her to be 100% honest with me. 95% honest doesn’t cut it. I also expect a Gifted Legal Mind to fairly and accurately summarize the relevant law and to cite ALL relevant cases, including those that go against me as well as those that could be spun in my favor. I expect a Gifted Legal Mind to do a thorough and complete research job, not depend on blog posters to do it for him.

    I think your site is still grossly deceptive, so I will go with dishonest, incompetent and certainly no Gifted Legal Mind. How does that grab you?

  114. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 2, 2012 at 8:57 am #

    Majority Will: So, how do you use your scale to judge people?

    The Lakotah people have a term called “blood quantum.” It’s not my scale, and it’s not even how I usually view the world, but I understand it.

    If a person is divided into percentages of racial identities, do you explain his or her potential, behavior, moods, intelligence and actions based on the presence of a certain section of his or her racial make up?

    I don’t.

    Is a higher percentage of whiteness better?

    It depends upon who’s measuring. With most of the Lakotah people who used it, it was the opposite; 100% Lakotah was considered the best, 100% Native American was second, and the higher percentage of white was the worst.

    For me, it doesn’t matter. I would have supported Richard Boddie no matter what his race was, or what percentages they were. The fact that Russell Means wasn’t a pureblood Lakotah didn’t stop me from helping him with his cause of sovereignty for his people. It wasn’t even a factor for me.

    If not or you think it doesn’t matter, then why do you measure it?

    I didn’t bring up the subject. People on this blog accused me of being racist, without looking at my history in this regard. I admit some birthers are racist. So are some liberals. Have you ever been to South Boston?

    Are you familiar with eugenics?

    Only by name. I was never was involved in it, nor do I have any such interest.

  115. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 2, 2012 at 9:03 am #

    Scientist:
    Look, IANAL, but I have spent many years working with patent attorneys in the US, Europe, Canada and elsewhere,When I hire a Gifted Legal Mind, I expect him or her to be 100% honest with me.95% honest doesn’t cut it.I also expect a Gifted Legal Mind to fairly and accurately summarize the relevant law and to cite ALL relevant cases, includingthose that go against me as well as those that could be spun in my favor.I expect a Gifted Legal Mind to do a thorough and complete research job, not depend on blog posters to do it for him.

    I think your site is still grossly deceptive, so I will go with dishonest, incompetent and certainly no Gifted Legal Mind.How does that grab you?

    You’re entitled to your opinion, and you probably should not consider hiring me.

  116. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 2, 2012 at 9:10 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    How about I make an offer to any of the birther attorneys: I’ll pay a fee of $50,000 if they succeed in keeping Obama off the ballot in any state due to their efforts in any existing case alleging ineligibility IF they agree to not accept any other payment or contribution related to birther activity, refund any money received to date, and they must prominently advertise that they are not accepting any donations and refunding?

    Obviously, if they don’t take the deal, they don’t believe they can win.

    Is that checkmate?

    Doc, if you’d extend that offer to paralegals, structure it so it were binding, and secure it, I’d accept it if it wouldn’t set you back too much if you had to actually pay up. I wouldn’t want to take your retirement nest egg, though, even if it is a longshot.

    How much do you think I’ve personally collected doing this? How many hours do you think I’ve devoted to this? Do you really believe I’m doing this for the money?

  117. avatar
    realist July 2, 2012 at 9:24 am #

    “How much do you think I’ve personally collected doing this? How many hours do you think I’ve devoted to this? Do you really believe I’m doing this for the money?”

    No idea how many hours you’ve devoted, but whatever that number is, it’s a very poor effort and a complete waste of whatever time you put in. It is your time, of course, but the resulting pleadings are just barely, if at all, above the level of the lunatic Orly Taitz.

  118. avatar
    JPotter July 2, 2012 at 9:28 am #

    Jerry Collette: How much do you think I’ve personally collected doing this? How many hours do you think I’ve devoted to this? Do you really believe I’m doing this for the money?

    The point Doc is making (I think), is that, from a valuation standpoint, a $5 donation in hand from a birther is worth more than an offer of $50K for delivering the impossible. $50K • 0% probability = jack squat.

    Lookly strictly at value, you’d be a fool to take Doc’s contract over whatever donations you or other birther prophets may be attracting. It’s the difference between working for very little (donations) and working for nothing.

    It would also mean putting your money where your mouth is, as opposed to peddling dreams to others.

  119. avatar
    Scientist July 2, 2012 at 9:59 am #

    Jerry Collette: You’re entitled to your opinion, and you probably should not consider hiring me.

    I wouldn’t hire to you mow my lawn (which could use a mowing, so I guess I will go do it).

    Jerry Collette: How much do you think I’ve personally collected doing this? How many hours do you think I’ve devoted to this? Do you really believe I’m doing this for the money?

    The fact that a con man is lousy at his job and doesn’t take in very many suckers doesn’t mean he isn’t a con man.

    By the way, your “case” is officially dead, since Voeltz was dismissed with prejudice. Florida law is Florida law. The judge said that born in the US = natural born citizen. Will you tell your suckers (I mean, customers) that before you accept their money?

    Jerry, if you’d like, I will tell you what an honest Gifted Legal Mind would put on their web site: “The matter of parental citiizenship for those born in the US has been ruled irrelevant to natural born citizen status by several state and federal courts. I personally believe all of those learned judges are wrong, but I have to be honest and tell you your chances of winning are no better than those of winning Powerball. Still, if you wish to proceed, here is my kit.”

    If you wish to use that feel free. It would honest. Look the word up.

  120. avatar
    Lupin July 2, 2012 at 10:10 am #

    Jerry Collette: Now that I’ve corrected the website, does that mean, by your logic, that I never was a crook, or just am not one anymore?

    I couldn’t care less about Obama (being French I actually disagree with his policies; it’s required from us :-)) but you come across as a complete lunatic — a nice one, perhaps, but totally deluded.

    I’ve often been approached by people like you in London and Paris, and there are some harmless kooks who think a local mountain is some kind of holy place that will save them from the coming Mayan apocalypse. They’re (for the most part) very nice, very polite, but incapable of grasping reality.

    That’s you in a nutshell. If you have any family or loved ones, I wish for their sake that you’d make an effort to get some treatment.

  121. avatar
    Jim July 2, 2012 at 10:58 am #

    Jerry Collette: Of course the judge won’t make anything of it until the MTD is ruled upon, and he certainly can’t make anything out of it until I submit it. Unless he follows the blogs, he won’t even know about it until then.

    Conditional stipulations are done all the time. That’s what this offer was.

    Jerry,

    But, would you advise a client of yours to enter into that sort of agreement if you knew the plaintiff’s case was woefully deficient and were almost certain that it would be dismissed?

    Just as a curiosity, since the Voeltz case is substantially the same as your case, are you now required to report to the court the outcome of the MTD that has been issued in that case? Will you, even if not required?

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/98870359/2012-06-29-VOELTZ-ORDER-of-Dismissal

  122. avatar
    misha July 2, 2012 at 11:02 am #

    Jerry Collette: I really didn’t ask for much.

    You, Orly, Mario and the rest of your coterie are being disengenuous.

    I have only one thing to say to all of you: J’accuse.

    Misha Marinsky

  123. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 2, 2012 at 11:09 am #

    Scientist
    By the way, your “case” is officially dead, since Voeltz was dismissed with prejudice.Florida law is Florida law.The judge said that born in the US = natural born citizen.

    My case is brought under an entirely different premise than Voeltz’s. The Voeltz decision is not binding on my case. As far as I’m concerned, the birth certificate issue is much stronger than the foreign paternity issue.

  124. avatar
    Jim July 2, 2012 at 11:13 am #

    Jerry Collette: My case is brought under an entirely different premise than Voeltz’s. The Voeltz decision is not binding on my case. As far as I’m concerned, the birth certificate issue is much stronger than the foreign paternity issue.

    Does that mean you have proof that President Obama was born someplace other than Hawaii? And, furthermore, since the underlying reasoning is that the SOS of Florida has no duty to verify the eligibility of the Presidential candidates, as per Voeltz, you suddenly can change that fact?

  125. avatar
    JPotter July 2, 2012 at 11:19 am #

    Jerry Collette: My case is brought under an entirely different premise than Voeltz’s. The Voeltz decision is not binding on my case. As far as I’m concerned, the birth certificate issue is much stronger than the foreign paternity issue.

    Jerry, are you saying you can prove Obama was born elsewhere? To parents who were not American citizen(s) (or who were citizen(s) somehow ineligible to impart citizenship under contemporary law)? It’s your (meaning you and birthers in general) only chance of success, and always has been.

  126. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 2, 2012 at 11:21 am #

    Jim: Jerry,

    But, would you advise a client of yours to enter into that sort of agreement if you knew the plaintiff’s case was woefully deficient and were almost certain that it would be dismissed?

    First of all, I’m only a paralegal, and, unless I’m operating under an attorney’s direction, and it’s an attorney’s client, I can only give legal advice to attorneys, not clients. However, as I see it, the likelihood of dismissal would be even more of a reason to take the deal, since it was conditional on my surviving the motions to dismiss. If the complaint is dismissed, the client gets the credit for accepting without having to produce anything.

    Just as a curiosity, since the Voeltz case is substantially the same as your case, are you now required to report to the court the outcome of the MTD that has been issued in that case?Will you, even if not required?

    See this comment. It addresses that point. I’m expect, nonetheless, that the defense will let the judge know.

  127. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 2, 2012 at 11:24 am #

    JPotter: Jerry, are you saying you can prove Obama was born elsewhere? To parents who were not American citizen(s) (or who were citizen(s) somehow ineligible to impart citizenship under contemporary law)? It’s your (meaning you and birthers in general) only chance of success, and always has been.

    I’m going to try to prove it. I haven’t done discovery yet.

    If Obama was born elsewhere, it’s an established fact that his father wasn’t a US citizen, and that his mother was not old enough to impart citizenship at the time. The requirement at the time was 5 years citizenship after the age of 14, and she was only 18 at the time of his birth.

  128. avatar
    misha July 2, 2012 at 11:27 am #

    Jerry Collette: As far as I’m concerned, the birth certificate issue is much stronger than the foreign paternity issue.

    George Romney was born in Mexico, ostensibly to US citizens. He did not set foot in the States until age 6. Romney released his BC, and had “VOID” written all over it, as well as other deficiencies.

    Why have you and your crowd not shown equal concern about Willard Mitt Romney?

    I’m waiting. And yes, I expect a reasoned, logical answer – not spin.

    So let’s hear it.

  129. avatar
    Scientist July 2, 2012 at 11:34 am #

    Jerry Collette: I’m going to try to prove it. I haven’t done discovery yet.

    In order to prove birth in a foreign country, you would need discovery in that country, which no US court can grant. Even if you proved absolutely beyond any doubt that Obama was not born in Hawaii, there are 49 other states, plus DC and some territories where he could have been born. Why not bite the bullet and go to Kenya and ask for discoovery if you believe he was born there? Because the only records that could possibly prove a Kenyan birth are in Kenya.

    Jerry Collette: First of all, I’m only a paralegal, and, unless I’m operating under an attorney’s direction, and it’s an attorney’s client, I can only give legal advice to attorneys, not clients.

    So how can you sell legal kits on your site? I’m not competent to say what Florida law allows, but you seem to be skating on very thin ice (and that is not a good idea in the summer in Florida).

    Jerry Collette: My case is brought under an entirely different premise than Voeltz’s. The Voeltz decision is not binding on my case.

    IANAL, but the patent attorneys I worked with always advised that there was an affirmative duty to disclose anything that could be pertinent and when it was even a close call, err on the side of disclosing. Because failure to disclose would permanently kill your case.

  130. avatar
    misha July 2, 2012 at 11:36 am #

    The Kenya birth scenario is physically impossible:
    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-born-in-kenya-no.html

    Jerry Collette: I’m only a paralegal

    I have a paralegal cert. from Old Dominion University, in Norfolk. You and your crowd are flies on a turd.

  131. avatar
    Jim July 2, 2012 at 11:46 am #

    Jerry Collette: My case is brought under an entirely different premise than Voeltz’s. The Voeltz decision is not binding on my case. As far as I’m concerned, the birth certificate issue is much stronger than the foreign paternity issue.

    You obviously haven’t read the Voeltz case. How are you going to get around the fact that the State of Florida doesn’t have any laws that require them to verify the eligibility of the candidates for President?

  132. avatar
    JPotter July 2, 2012 at 11:51 am #

    Jerry Collette: I’m going to try to prove it. I haven’t done discovery yet.

    I see you have adopted my birtherbot script!

    So you’re making a claim you have no evidence for. You’re hoping to find evidence. You suspect some evidence may be out there. What is the stated cause for suspicion?

    Let’s say you got your hands on a certified copy of Obama’s LFBC. Then what? It’s prima facie evidence with a paper trail leading back to Hawaii. So what then?

    Let’s see the whole country disconnects its brains, and we all decide Obama has no legitimate birther certificate from Hawaii. The docs are all hinky, the White House Press Corps was duped, and yes, Hawaii was in on it. OK, then what? You still haven’t proven he’s ineligible. Don’t you understand what that would take?!?

    Well, no, of course you don’t …. your bringing of this case proves as much, or are at least that you’re willing to play silly for the birfer bucks.

    Of course, such a revelation would influence the election, unless Obama’s opponent manages to be an even bigger jerk that Obama would appear to be.

    But if that is your goal, then this is, as has been alleged, not a serious case in the sense of having any chance of legal success, but political theater with political goals.

  133. avatar
    Lupin July 2, 2012 at 11:58 am #

    Jerry Collette: I’m going to try to prove it. I haven’t done discovery yet.

    Why don’t you switch hobbies to something more credible, like alien bases inside our hollow Earth?

  134. avatar
    JPotter July 2, 2012 at 12:03 pm #

    JPotter: birther certificate

    Whoops! Quite a slip there! Not the first time that typo has been made … LOL!

  135. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 2, 2012 at 12:11 pm #

    misha: George Romney was born in Mexico, ostensibly to US citizens. He did not set foot in the States until age 6. Romney released his BC, and had “VOID” written all over it, as well as other deficiencies.

    Why have you and your crowd not shown equal concern about Willard Mitt Romney?

    I’m waiting. And yes, I expect a reasoned, logical answer – not spin.

    So let’s hear it.

    It took me 4 years to get involved in this one. It’s all I can handle right now, thanks. If you have a concern about it, you can use my DIY kit.

  136. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 2, 2012 at 12:12 pm #

    Jim: Does that mean you have proof that President Obama was born someplace other than Hawaii?And, furthermore, since the underlying reasoning is that the SOS of Florida has no duty to verify the eligibility of the Presidential candidates, as per Voeltz, you suddenly can change that fact?

    Jim. I have not named the SOS, nor alleged he has any duty. You must have me confused with somebody else.

  137. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 2, 2012 at 12:15 pm #

    Scientist:
    So how can you sell legal kits on your site?I’m not competent to say what Florida law allows, but you seem to be skating on very thin ice (and that is not a good idea in the summer in Florida).

    They’re not for sale. They’re free for download.

  138. avatar
    JPotter July 2, 2012 at 12:16 pm #

    Jerry Collette: Jim. I have not named the SOS, nor alleged he has any duty. You must have me confused with somebody else.

    So, Jerry, you’re fully embracing the burden of proof? If so, that’s a birther-first. Congrats.

  139. avatar
    misha July 2, 2012 at 12:21 pm #

    Jerry Collette: It took me 4 years to get involved in this one. It’s all I can handle right now, thanks.

    Hypocrite. J’accuse.

  140. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 2, 2012 at 12:34 pm #

    Jim: You obviously haven’t read the Voeltz case.How are you going to get around the fact that the State of Florida doesn’t have any laws that require them to verify the eligibility of the candidates for President?

    You must have my case confused with somebody else’s. I’m not claiming anybody has to verify.

  141. avatar
    Scientist July 2, 2012 at 12:41 pm #

    Jerry Collette: It took me 4 years to get involved in this one. It’s all I can handle right now, thanks. If you have a concern about it, you can use my DIY kit.

    That’s baloney. Your suit could easily name Obama and Romney. Just a few extra keystrokes. If you really only can type one name, then why pick the guy whose parents lived 10,000 miles from Kenya, rather than the one whose parents lived 1 mile from Canada?

    I won’t call you a racist (though you could be). I will call you a partisan hack. And don’t give me the “You can challenge Romney” crap. You see, Jerry, I would never file such a suit, because I think the VOTERS should decide. The VOTERS, Jerry, not me and not you.

  142. avatar
    Scientist July 2, 2012 at 12:42 pm #

    Jerry Collette: You must have my case confused with somebody else’s. I’m not claiming anybody has to verify

    There is much more to the Voeltz case than that. Read the judgement. Obama is not the nominee right now. That’s a HUGE problem for you.

  143. avatar
    Jim July 2, 2012 at 12:44 pm #

    Jerry Collette: You must have my case confused with somebody else’s. I’m not claiming anybody has to verify.

    You’re probably right. Got a link to your FAC and/or SAC so I can speak better about them?

  144. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 2, 2012 at 1:01 pm #

    Jim: You’re probably right.Got a link to your FAC and/or SAC so I can speak better about them?

    All the current links are at the bottom of the article that started this one:

    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/06/florida-paralegal-checkmates-obamas.html

    The complaint is at the end of the kit. It’ll take a bit to load, then move to the anchor link.

  145. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 2, 2012 at 1:05 pm #

    Scientist: There is much more to the Voeltz case than that.Read the judgement.

    I have read it. Most of it doesn’t apply to my case, and the NBC ruling is not binding on my case. The courts are peers.

    Obama is not the nominee right now.That’s a HUGE problem for you.

    The way I have pled my case, that’s not even a relevant factor.

  146. avatar
    Scientist July 2, 2012 at 1:15 pm #

    Jerry Collette: Most of it doesn’t apply to my case, and the NBC ruling is not binding on my case. The courts are peers

    Just out of curiosity, when the court in your case rules that Born in the USA = NBC, will you accept it or will you whine and call the judge a traitor? How many rulings do you need before you accept the possibility that YOU are wrong? 10, 20. 30? How many? I won’t even mention the song by the Boss. It’s one thing to argue with the courts, but to argue with Bruce is preposterous.

  147. avatar
    Jim July 2, 2012 at 1:26 pm #

    Scientist: Just out of curiosity, when the court in your case rules that Born in the USA = NBC, will you accept it or will you whine and call the judge a traitor? How many rulings do you need before you accept the possibility that YOU are wrong?10, 20. 30? How many?I won’t even mention the song by the Boss.It’s one thing to argue with the courts, but to argue with Bruce is preposterous.

    From what I’m gathering, he’s not pleading about NBC, he’s pleading that the BC is a forgery and Obama was born someplace else. Where? No clue, but he’s hoping that Florida allows him to do discovery in Hawaii and across the world to find out. Although, I have yet to figure out how he thinks it’s Florida’s responsibility to verify the accuracy of a Hawaii BC and whether they have any responsibility to verify a document that has never been presented to the court. After reading his opposition to the MTD, he’s so far out there making up reasons for it, no way it survives the MTD.

  148. avatar
    JPotter July 2, 2012 at 1:28 pm #

    Jerry Collette: the NBC ruling is not binding on my case. The courts are peers.

    *Ka-THUD.* You seriously believe another Florida court will rewind 120 years and say differently?

    I seem some unanswered questions piling up in this thread.

  149. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 2, 2012 at 1:31 pm #

    Scientist: Just out of curiosity, when the court in your case rules that Born in the USA = NBC, will you accept it or will you whine and call the judge a traitor? How many rulings do you need before you accept the possibility that YOU are wrong?10, 20. 30? How many?

    A court may find me wrong on this issue. That’s not the point. It’s not about the number of courts that rule on it. One court should do a serious analysis. It doesn’t have to be 100 pages like Wong Kim Ark or 200 pages like last week’s Obamacare ruling, but it should more than a few paragraphs. This is an important issue. It’ll probably come up for Rubio at some point in time, too, and maybe Jindal. I’d like to see a court give it the attention it needs. Ideally, it’ll go to the U.S. Supremes.

    As I have said, if you follow the logic of the defendants and most of the people on this blog, an anchor baby could be eligible. I don’t believe that was the founders intent. If I survive the MTD’s, I’ll do a brief on it.

  150. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 2, 2012 at 1:35 pm #

    JPotter: *Ka-THUD.* You seriously believe another Florida court will rewind 120 years and say differently?

    My case is on a whole different premise than Voeltz’s.

    I seem some unanswered questions piling up in this thread.

    You’ll continue to see them. I can’t always keep up with posts on birther threads, much less this one.

  151. avatar
    JPotter July 2, 2012 at 1:42 pm #

    Jerry Collette: I can’t always keep up with posts on birther threads, much less this one.

    A convenient excuse for hoping no one will notice that which you have no answer for. You make such an effort to creatively dodge every response, that when more than one person make a similar observation, and you haven’t even a dodge for them, that your faux transparency and courtesy gives the game away. You’ve got to mix it up better to be more convincing.

  152. avatar
    Jim July 2, 2012 at 1:43 pm #

    Jerry Collette: A court may find me wrong on this issue. That’s not the point. It’s not about the number of courts that rule on it. One court should do a serious analysis. It doesn’t have to be 100 pages like Wong Kim Ark or 200 pages like last week’s Obamacare ruling, but it should more than a few paragraphs. This is an important issue. It’ll probably come up for Rubio at some point in time, too, and maybe Jindal. I’d like to see a court give it the attention it needs. Ideally, it’ll go to the U.S. Supremes.

    It will not go to the SCOTUS because it’s settled law. And requiring a certain number of pages is even sillier. As one Judge said, basically, I’m not going to waste my time going into a complete breakdown of the history of citizenship because it is already well-established. If you want a complete breakdown of what it means, there are plenty of books on Amazon that covers it in detail, pick yourself out and buy a few.

  153. avatar
    misha July 2, 2012 at 1:51 pm #

    Jerry Collette: One court should do a serious analysis.

    It did. Ankeny v. Daniels. Look into it.

    Jerry Collette: last week’s Obamacare ruling

    It’s called the Affordable Care Act, and it is modeled on Romney’s Massachusetts law, all of which were held Constitutional.

    Jerry Collette: Ideally, it’ll go to the U.S. Supremes.

    It never will. Ankeny v. Daniels was the final word.

    Jerry Collette: if you follow the logic of the defendants and most of the people on this blog, an anchor baby could be eligible. I don’t believe that was the founders intent.

    Thanks for the confirmation that you and your coterie are bigots. BTW, there is no such thing as an “anchor baby.” They are natural born citizens. And they are welcome here.

    “I don’t believe that was the founders intent.” So what was the Founders’ intent? Please elucidate. I’m waiting.

  154. avatar
    JPotter July 2, 2012 at 1:54 pm #

    Jerry Collette: if you follow the logic of the defendants and most of the people on this blog, an anchor baby could be eligible.

    Indeed they are.

    Jerry Collette: I don’t believe that was the founders intent.

    Oh, boy, Original Intent rears its silly head. That the generation of the Founders “intended” to chain future generations to the ideals and needs of their time is ludicrous and silly. How constrained were they by the “intent” of the colonial charters?

  155. avatar
    JoZeppy July 2, 2012 at 2:01 pm #

    Jerry Collette: A court may find me wrong on this issue. That’s not the point. It’s not about the number of courts that rule on it. One court should do a serious analysis. It doesn’t have to be 100 pages like Wong Kim Ark or 200 pages like last week’s Obamacare ruling, but it should more than a few paragraphs. This is an important issue. It’ll probably come up for Rubio at some point in time, too, and maybe Jindal. I’d like to see a court give it the attention it needs. Ideally, it’ll go to the U.S. Supremes.

    I realize you’re only a paralegal, so you really don’t know how the courts work, but there is no reason a court would do a serious deep analsys. Wong Kim Ark already did. Unless someone can actually convince a court that WKA was wrongly decided, no court will do a deep analysis. They will just cite to WKA, and pretty much call it a day, just as every court has up until now. That’s the whole point of having precedent, so you don’t have to keep reinventing the wheel. You’ve seen pretty much all you are going to get. And you certainly won’t see the Supreme Court take it up either. Why would it? Every Circuit court has come down the exact same way on the issue, so there is no conflict among the Circuits. The Supremes haven’t even required a respondant to file a response to a cert petition, so there isn’t even a single Justice that considers this an open question. Just because some paralegal with delusions of legal brilliance thinks he has something (what is with you birther paralegals anyway? If you’re so brilliant, go to law school already, and quit playing lawyer), doesn’t mean the legal community needs to stop, take notice, and cater to them. Heck, we don’t do it for hack lawyers like Mario, Orly and Leo, why should we do it for a paralegal?

  156. avatar
    JoZeppy July 2, 2012 at 2:07 pm #

    Jerry Collette: As I have said, if you follow the logic of the defendants and most of the people on this blog, an anchor baby could be eligible. I don’t believe that was the founders intent. If I survive the MTD’s, I’ll do a brief on it.

    You act like that is some shocking relevation. Of course an anchor baby is eligible. Did you miss the dissent in WKA? And what you believe is pretty inconsequential, as it has been a matter of settled law for over a century.

    And I guess we’ll just have to be thankful we don’t have to worry about reading your brief, as we all know very well you won’t survive the Motion to Dismiss.

  157. avatar
    Scientist July 2, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

    Jerry Collette: As I have said, if you follow the logic of the defendants and most of the people on this blog, an anchor baby could be eligible. I don’t believe that was the founders intent.

    It’s not our logic, but the Supreme Court’s in Wong and numerous follow-on cases which have re-affirmed Wong. You may not know, but I have said here often that I am not a believer in the doctrine of “original intent”, because it is unknowable. You may “believe” the founders intended something, but you haven’t asked them, have you? In the founder’s days there were no “anchor babies” because anyone was free to come here, so there were no illegal immigrants. All immigrants were legal.

    Anyway, such issues should be decided by the voters, not courts. If an “anchor baby” runs (of course, neither Obama, Jindal or Rubio are anchor babies, since their parents were citizens/lawful residents), then their opponents can point out the facts and the voters can judge. That’s how it’s supposed to work.

  158. avatar
    Scientist July 2, 2012 at 2:26 pm #

    Jim: he’s pleading that the BC is a forgery and Obama was born someplace else. Where? No clue, but he’s hoping that Florida allows him to do discovery in Hawaii and across the world to find out

    It’s questionable whether a Florida court can order discovery in Hawaii. I think even Collette would have to admit that they couldn’t order discovery in Kenya. I have always maintaiined that the birthers are not serious with their focus on Hawaii. Showing birth in Kenya can only be done in Kenya. Kenya has courts-they generally follow Anglo-Saxon law and English is widely spoken by the educated classes. Why the reluctance about filing a case there? The judges may be black, but they won’t bite. You could do a safari, while you’re there-could be fun.

  159. avatar
    JD Reed July 2, 2012 at 3:11 pm #

    Jerry Collette, you may not be aware of the George W. Bush precedent that would allow Barack Obama’s mother to pass on her U.S. citizenship to him at birth, regardless of where he might have been born in the world.
    True, it’s not a court precedent, but a book precedent. In his autobiography, Mr. Bush stated that after he completed pilot training, he flew for “several” more years in the Air National Guard. In point of fact, it has been established that he was a couple of months shy of two years when he missed his annual flight physical and never flew again for the ANG.
    But you can round up 10 months to a complete year, and add that to the full year that Mr. Bush flew, and you have two years. Some define several as two or more, So by a bit of a stretch you get Mr. Bush his “several” years of flying. .
    Now as to Mr. Obama’s mother: she gave birth in early August, almost four months shy of her 19th birthday in late November. But rounding off eight months to the nearest whole number of years, you get a complete year. Add that to the four fuill years that had passed since her 14th birthday, and you now have five, the minimum required to pass on to her child her citizenship.
    In fact, Mrs. Obama was slightly closer, on a percentage basis, to her five-year requirement than Mr. Bush was to the two years needed to be defined as several.
    Mr. Bush: 22 months flown, out of two full years. That’s 91.7 percent.
    Mrs. Obama: 56 months past her 14th birthday, of the 60 required to equal five full years. That.s 93.3 percent.

  160. avatar
    dch July 2, 2012 at 3:44 pm #

    Jerry,
    Why would a judge grant you discovery in the complete absence of any evidence that Obama was born under circumstances other than what he and the State of Hawaii have indicated all along?
    In four years the bothers have produced ZERO evidence of anything other than what is on the COLB you all saw in 2008. Every effort by the bothers has simply ADDED confirmation to the original information. If you got discovery what makes you think that the Hawaii COLB won’t be the evidence the Obama lawyer would provide as it is the official self authenticating document. It simply proves you all wrong. What would you say to a court that was just presented the Hawaii COLB in response to a discovery request? Really it is a simple question that NO birther can ever seem to answer.

  161. avatar
    y_p_w July 2, 2012 at 3:49 pm #

    JD Reed: Now as to Mr. Obama’s mother: she gave birth in early August, almost four months shy of her 19th birthday in late November. But rounding off eight months to the nearest whole number of years, you get a complete year. Add that to the four fuill years that had passed since her 14th birthday, and you now have five, the minimum required to pass on to her child her citizenship.

    Doesn’t really matter. There was an amendment to the law that made citizenship at birth retroactive with the two year standard after the 14th birthday of the one US citizen parent.

  162. avatar
    JoZeppy July 2, 2012 at 3:58 pm #

    Jerry Collette: I’m going to try to prove it. I haven’t done discovery yet.

    I do find it fascinating that birthers seem to think that they can get to discovery without any factual basis to support their claims. You don’t get to waltz into a courthouse, make all sorts of unfounded allegations that not only have nothing to back them up, but are actually contradicted by every shred of admissible evidence available, and say, “well, I may find something if you let me have discovery.” That is known as a fishing expedition, and is not the purpose of discovery. Sorry, you lose. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

  163. avatar
    Dave B. July 2, 2012 at 3:59 pm #

    No, there wasn’t.

    y_p_w: Doesn’t really matter.There was an amendment to the law that made citizenship at birth retroactive with the two year standard after the 14th birthday of the one US citizen parent.

  164. avatar
    Sam Sewell July 2, 2012 at 4:06 pm #

    I think you need another adjective. Applying “stupid” to work done by two MENSA members is an oxymoron.

    Now matter what the courts say we win. Maybe not the legal case, but we keep the issue in front of the people and we force Obama to use money that otherwise would be spent on his campaign.

    About half the public continues to question my Obama’s history. That is a PR victory.

    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/06/of-course-birthers-are-winning-there-is.html

  165. avatar
    JPotter July 2, 2012 at 4:16 pm #

    Sam Sewell: Applying “stupid” to work done by two MENSA members is an oxymoron.

    Membership in an organization prevents stupidity? Riiiiiiight. How’s that working out for you? Many takers? [no need to start a debate on MENSA]

    Sam Sewell: Now matter what the courts say we win. Maybe not the legal case, but we keep the issue in front of the people and we force Obama to use money that otherwise would be spent on his campaign.

    Drops in the bucket. Thanks for acknowledging it as such.

    Sam Sewell: About half the public continues to question my Obama’s history.

    Half is quite high. And guess what? It’s the same chunk of the populace already biased toward what you’re selling. Preachin’ to the choir, Sam.

  166. avatar
    Dave B. July 2, 2012 at 4:20 pm #

    Sam, the more you talks, the less smarter you looks.

    Sam Sewell:
    I think you need another adjective.Applying “stupid” to work done by two MENSA members is an oxymoron.

  167. avatar
    bovril July 2, 2012 at 4:20 pm #

    OK Sammy what about

    Deluded
    Delusional
    Gullible
    Denial
    Bigot
    Racist
    Fool
    Liar
    Prejudiced
    Flawed
    Fool
    Pretentious
    Pathetic
    Loser
    Failure
    Flawed
    Pathetic
    Nonsensical

    More..?

  168. avatar
    Scientist July 2, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

    Sam Sewell: Now matter what the courts say we win. Maybe not the legal case, but we keep the issue in front of the people and we force Obama to use money that otherwise would be spent on his campaign.

    I think the judge in your case would be interested to hear your frank admission that you are misusing his court for political purposes. That ought to be sanctionable.

    Sam Sewell: I think you need another adjective. Applying “stupid” to work done by two MENSA members is an oxymoron.

    MENSA begged me to join, but I wasn’t interested. So far, from his performance here, Jerry doesn’t strike me as a genius. Nor you either. Admitting on a public forum that you are abusing the courts isn’t exactly Einsteinian.

  169. avatar
    JoZeppy July 2, 2012 at 4:42 pm #

    Sam Sewell: I think you need another adjective. Applying “stupid” to work done by two MENSA members is an oxymoron.

    Looking at the link you provided is all the evidence we need to prove that statement wrong. And reading what Jerry has to say about his complaint, certainly is proof that he doesn’t have a clue what he’s doing.

    Sam Sewell: Now matter what the courts say we win. Maybe not the legal case, but we keep the issue in front of the people and we force Obama to use money that otherwise would be spent on his campaign.

    Yes, please keep saying that….it’s statements like that that will start the sanctions flowing (bring suit for improper purposes). Not only that, but this, and your little picture in your article show that Mensa membership doesn’t mean you have the first clue what you’re talking about. I can promise you that the amount spent is minimal. It’s fiiling a motion to dismiss, that will be close to identicle to several already filed. Probably a couple grand, including arguing it in court ($600K? You’re really going out of your way to prove that Mensa membership has no corrolation with having the first clue about what you’re talking about).

    Sam Sewell: About half the public continues to question my Obama’s history. That is a PR victory.

    Well, I’m sure the vast majority questions your Obama history. I find it very questionable indeed. However, the only people still questioning President Obama’s background are half the Republican party, that wouldn’t vote for him if he was born on live TV infront of Independence Hall.

  170. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 2, 2012 at 4:43 pm #

    y_p_w: Doesn’t really matter.There was an amendment to the law that made citizenship at birth retroactive with the two year standard after the 14th birthday of the one US citizen parent.

    Do you have a citation for that? Thanks.

  171. avatar
    BillTheCat July 2, 2012 at 4:45 pm #

    Sam Sewell: I think you need another adjective. Applying “stupid” to work done by two MENSA members is an oxymoron.Now matter what the courts say we win. Maybe not the legal case, but we keep the issue in front of the people and we force Obama to use money that otherwise would be spent on his campaign. About half the public continues to question my Obama’s history. That is a PR victory.http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/06/of-course-birthers-are-winning-there-is.html

    Yeh, and the world knows how meaningful the title of MENSA is 😀 Because smart people need to tell others that they are.

    Funny how mensa members always have to tell people that they are “smart”.

    Yeh Sam, we get it, you think you are “winning” by having this in the news. Unfortunately for you, the only “news” outlets saying anything about it is WND and deranged blogs like Dr. Hate and Orly Taitz. When it hits the MSM, you are ridiculed and mocked as you should be.

    The only thing you “win” is having more people who didn’t know before how insane and unhinged you and your ilk are. And we all laugh. 🙂

    By the way: You actually think this is “costing” Obama a lot of money? Seriously? LOL. Some MENSA.

  172. avatar
    Scientist July 2, 2012 at 4:54 pm #

    Jerry Collette: Do you have a citation for that? Thanks.

    Can’t a Gifted Legal Mind find the law himself? There are several arguments someone in the situation of a fictional Obama born outside the US could plausibly use to claim NBC status (the real Obama was born in Hawaii). I will let you find them. It wouldn’t be a slam dunk for your side, I guarantee that.

    By the way I have known many truly Gifted Scientific Minds, including a few Nobel Laureates. None of them ever told me he was a genius. They let their work speak for itself. Yours doesn’t speak well for you.

  173. avatar
    JoZeppy July 2, 2012 at 4:57 pm #

    BillTheCat: Yeh Sam, we get it, you think you are “winning” by having this in the news. Unfortunately for you, the only “news” outlets saying anything about it is WND and deranged blogs like Dr. Hate and Orly Taitz. When it hits the MSM, you are ridiculed and mocked as you should be.

    It’s such a “winner” that the likes of Karl Rove are screaming for every Republican to ignore the issue lest they be look like complete loons.

    Yeah, those Mensa folks….never do anything stupid. But by all means, I hope Samn and his Mensa buddies keep screaming from the mountain tops that they think Obama was born somewhere else. I hear the moderates and independants around the country really want to throw their lot in with a bunch of stark raving lunatics.

  174. avatar
    Dave B. July 2, 2012 at 5:04 pm #

    I make no claim to be a gifted legal mind, but that fictional President Obama wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. I don’t know why anybody tries to go down that rabbit hole when the truth that President Obama was born in Hawaii is entirely adequate to settle the matter.

    Scientist: Can’t a Gifted Legal Mind find the law himself?There are several arguments someone in the situation of a fictional Obama born outside the US could plausibly use to claim NBC status (the real Obama was born in Hawaii).

  175. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 2, 2012 at 5:06 pm #

    Scientist: Can’t a Gifted Legal Mind find the law himself?

    I looked. I don’t see the retroactive provision. Maybe it doesn’t exist.

  176. avatar
    Scientist July 2, 2012 at 5:19 pm #

    Jerry Collette: I looked. I don’t see the retroactive provision. Maybe it doesn’t exist.

    No need for a retroactive provision, your giftedness. Check the part of the statute regarding unmarried mothers. Then check the laws on marriage and whether a marriage is valid if one party is already married

    Alternately, consider whether an election in 2008 or 2012 would follow the laws of 1961 or current law. Consider that there are legal minds even more gifted than yours who would be engaged on such a case. Consider that you might possiblly be wrong (oh, the horror!!).

    It’s all silly because Obama was born where his mother lived, as you were and I was and probably Mitt Romney was too. And his mother lived in Hawaii.

  177. avatar
    Dave B. July 2, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

    It doesn’t. Pub. L. 100-525 8(r),Oct. 24, 1988, set the effective date of the amended requirement of prior physical presence at November 14, 1986.
    A less stringent requirement is unnecessary in President Obama’s case, since he wasn’t born outside the United States and its outlying possessions.

    Jerry Collette: I looked. I don’t see the retroactive provision. Maybe it doesn’t exist.

  178. avatar
    y_p_w July 2, 2012 at 5:23 pm #

    Jerry Collette: Do you have a citation for that? Thanks.

    The State Dept’s Foreign Affairs Manual – 7 FAM 1130 ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT.

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

    7 FAM 1133.2-1 Section 301 Text as of October 25, 1994

    (CT:CON-349; 12-13-2010)

    a. As amended by Public Law 103-416 on October 25, 1994, section 301 states as follows with respect to persons born abroad:

    ―Section 301. The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

    (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;

    e. RETROACTIVE APPLICATION:

    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the immigration and nationality laws of the United States shall be applied (to persons born before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act) as though the amendment made by subsection (a), and subsection (b), had been in effect as of the date of their birth, except that the retroactive application of the amendment and that subsection shall not affect the validity of citizenship of anyone who has obtained citizenship under section 1993 of the Revised Statutes (as in effect before the enactment of the Act of May 24, 1934 (48 Stat. 797)).

  179. avatar
    G July 2, 2012 at 5:24 pm #

    History is full of sad tales of otherwise “smart” people saying and doing stupid things. You two are just following that same pattern. There is an old saying, “so smart that they are stupid”. That is applicable here.

    You simply hide behind your MENSA membership as a crutch and an excuse to be lazy in your thinking and to allow your own egos to run far ahead of your actual current accomplishments. So you are no longer properly exercising your brains in these matters. Your ability, to properly apply logic and think your premises all the way through, has atrophied. Those who tout themselves as something that their actual accomplishments fail to live up to are nothing but self-deluded fools. That is where you two are today…

    Such foolishness in folks like you, who “allegedly” had the ability to think for themselves at one point in time, is a much greater shame to bear, than for those who simply lack the capabilities to grasp such concepts in the first place. That makes you the bigger fools in my book.

    Sam Sewell:
    I think you need another adjective.Applying “stupid” to work done by two MENSA members is an oxymoron.

    So you admit to being nothing but a disingenuous SMEAR peddler and propagandist. You don’t actually care about the law…only about riling up gullible idiots with imaginary red meat. In other words, you are nothing more than an intentional con artist. Congratulations on openly declaring your utter lack of moral scruples and personal integrity.

    Further, your self-deluded and lazy arrogance has again caused you to err in your conclusions here. Hence, why even in your scams, you just prove yourself to be an even bigger fool, blinded to the inevitable failures of your wild goose chases.

    The only portion of the public in ANY of these polls that purports to buy into any of this Birther cr@p is always just a sub-segment of the populace which did NOT vote for Obama in the first place and had NO intention of voting for him this time around, regardless.

    So who cares if you make a bunch of ODS sufferers, already desperate to swallow your delusions, pay attention and buy into your silly nonsense? The NET EFFECT IS ZERO here, in terms of PR and voting, as you are simply preaching to the already converted and playing to their existing irrational anger and fears.

    All Birtherism has succeeded in doing, beyond the boundaries of its own inherent base, is IMMUNIZE everyone else from taking you clowns seriously. The issue is a major TURN OFF for those outside of your existing Cult. As Obama’s highly successful BC mug sales have shown, you only serve to invoke the counter-reaction in those beyond your existing and limited boundaries, by MOTIVATING them to rally behind him.

    So even your misguided and utterly disingenuous PR con game is nothing but a backfiring and dismal failure; one whose scope of appeal has always remained self-contained within an existing and limited pool of voters, whose voting preference was already solidly locked in.

    Sam Sewell:
    Now matter what the courts say we win.Maybe not the legal case, but we keep the issue in front of the people and we force Obama to use money that otherwise would be spent on his campaign.

    About half the public continues to question my Obama’s history.That is a PR victory.

  180. avatar
    linda July 2, 2012 at 5:26 pm #

    True, but for McCain a change in the law two years after he was born was part of the reasoning for him being NBC. The number of years a citizen has to be in the US after the age of 14 in order to confer citizenship on a child born abroad is now 2 years. Even iIF you were able to prove, not suspect, that Obama was born elsewhere, I do not think it would matter.

    Jerry Collette: If Obama was born elsewhere, it’s an established fact that his father wasn’t a US citizen, and that his mother was not old enough to impart citizenship at the time. The requirement at the time was 5 years citizenship after the age of 14, and she was only 18 at the time of his birth.

  181. avatar
    Dave B. July 2, 2012 at 5:30 pm #

    You can see what the State Department says about “Voidable and Void Marriages” here, beginning on page 37:
    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
    “A marriage that did not conform to the laws of the country or state in which it was performed may be a void marriage, but only after declared so by an appropriate authority, usually a court in the jurisdiction where the marriage occurred. Prior to such judicial declaration, the marriage may be considered voidable. A voidable marriage is considered valid for all purposes unless and until annulled or voided by the court. Even after a marriage is voided, there is every likelihood that the children’s status will not be affected. Every state in the United States, for example, considers children of a void marriage to be legitimate (see 7 FAM 1133 EXHIBIT 1133.4-2(A), Part II).”

    It is current law that says that the 1961 law would apply to a fictional foreign-born President Obama.

    Scientist: No need for a retroactive provision, your giftedness. Check the part of the statute regarding unmarried mothers.Then check the laws on marriage and whether a marriage is valid if one party is already married

    Alternately, consider whether an election in 2008 or 2012 would follow the laws of 1961 or current law.

  182. avatar
    y_p_w July 2, 2012 at 5:33 pm #

    Scientist: Can’t a Gifted Legal Mind find the law himself?There are several arguments someone in the situation of a fictional Obama born outside the US could plausibly use to claim NBC status (the real Obama was born in Hawaii).I will let you find them.It wouldn’t be a slam dunk for your side, I guarantee that.

    By the way I have known many truly Gifted Scientific Minds, including a few Nobel Laureates. None of them ever told me he was a genius.They let their work speak for itself.Yours doesn’t speak well for you.

    I remember seeing Melvin Calvin get into his green DeSoto. I always wondered why such a gifted mind would want to drive such an old, old car.

    As for the retroactivity, these laws are ridiculously difficult to figure out as to how everything gets amended. Cross this out, remove a comma, etc.

    Regardless of how all the legislation has been written, the final effect is in the United States Code and implies retroactivity by not mentioning any previous requirements (which we know exists since the State Dept lists them).

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

    (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:

  183. avatar
    linda July 2, 2012 at 5:35 pm #

    Freudian, that is actually what they are looking for, the parallel universe BC that will prove their case….one day soon.

    JPotter: Whoops! Quite a slip there! Not the first time that typo has been made … LOL!

  184. avatar
    Dave B. July 2, 2012 at 5:41 pm #

    y_p_w, the “e. RETROACTIVE APPLICATION” you cite refers only to subsections (a) and (b), and doesn’t refer to subsection (g) at all. The effective date of the amended requirement of “a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years” is set by law at November 14, 1986.

    y_p_w: The State Dept’s Foreign Affairs Manual – 7 FAM 1130 ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT.

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

  185. avatar
    Thomas Brown July 2, 2012 at 5:46 pm #

    Know what my sane Conservative and Independent friends say when I mention Birther follies?

    “Really? I didn’t know they were still around.”

  186. avatar
    y_p_w July 2, 2012 at 5:48 pm #

    linda:
    True, but for McCain a change in the law two years after he was born was part of the reasoning for him being NBC.The number of years a citizen has to be in the US after the age of 14 in order to confer citizenship on a child born abroad is now 2 years.Even iIF you were able to prove, not suspect, that Obama was born elsewhere, I do not think it would matter.

    Is this what you’re thinking of? As far as I can tell, it’s still on the books and still applies for births in the Republic of Panama.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1403

    I could imagine something really odd, such a US citizen born overseas who never set foot in the US and works for a US diplomatic mission in Panama – even as a servant. It would meet the standard that one is a US citizen and an employee of the US government. Children born to such a person would be considered US citizens at birth.

    However, I was under the impression that McCain would have met any legal standard for having been born a US citizen regardless of where he was born. Both of his parents were US citizens.

    Of course all these that define “at birth” are interesting with the possibility that a child’s father might die before the child’s birth. I’d be interested in seeing how the State Dept adjudicates cases where a US citizen father dies before birth.

  187. avatar
    linda July 2, 2012 at 5:49 pm #

    Disparaging terms aside, you betcha their eligible. It is preposterous that the conser birf crowd and many conservatives can decry “maternity tourism” and “anchor babies”, propose a change to the 14th Amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship, all the while saying Obama cannot be NBC because his father was not a US citizen. It is nonsensical.

    Jerry Collette: As I have said, if you follow the logic of the defendants and most of the people on this blog, an anchor baby could be eligible. I don’t believe that was the founders intent. If I survive the MTD’s, I’ll do a brief on it.

  188. avatar
    linda July 2, 2012 at 5:57 pm #

    I know that is the current requirement in 8 USC Sect 1401, but I didn’t know they were retroactive. Is that just the nature of the those laws?

    y_p_w: Doesn’t really matter. There was an amendment to the law that made citizenship at birth retroactive with the two year standard after the 14th birthday of the one US citizen parent.

  189. avatar
    linda July 2, 2012 at 5:59 pm #

    We all know that is the point of the birf projects. Thank goodness they don’t get much press from any reputable source.

    Sam Sewell: Now matter what the courts say we win. Maybe not the legal case, but we keep the issue in front of the people and we force Obama to use money that otherwise would be spent on his campaign.

    About half the public continues to question my Obama’s history. That is a PR victory.

  190. avatar
    Dave B. July 2, 2012 at 6:00 pm #

    y_p_w, you’ve found the oddity in the statute regarding citizenship of those born in Panama and the Canal Zone to a U.S. citizen parent: there’s no requirement in the statute of prior U.S. residence or physical presence in the U.S.
    The controversy over Senator McCain’s citizenship at birth, and the reason for the Act of August 4, 1937 (50 Stat. 558), which survives as 8 USC 1403, is that under the strictest, most literal interpretation of Sec. 1993 of the Revised Statutes:
    “All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.”
    persons born in the Canal Zone, which was out of the limits (it remained Panamanian soil, leased by the United States) but not out of the jurisdiction of the United States, did not fit into the class described by the statute.

    y_p_w: Is this what you’re thinking of?As far as I can tell, it’s still on the books and still applies for births in the Republic of Panama.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1403

    I could imagine something really odd, such a US citizen born overseas who never set foot in the US and works for a US diplomatic mission in Panama – even as a servant.It would meet the standard that one is a US citizen and an employee of the US government.Children born to such a person would be considered US citizens at birth.

    However, I was under the impression that McCain would have met any legal standard for having been born a US citizen regardless of where he was born.Both of his parents were US citizens.

    Of course all these that define “at birth” are interesting with the possibility that a child’s father might die before the child’s birth.I’d be interested in seeing how the State Dept adjudicates cases where a US citizen father dies before birth.

  191. avatar
    linda July 2, 2012 at 6:00 pm #

    I hope Obama’s attorneys attach that little quote to their motions/pleadings. They did in the Voeltz case.

    “No matter what the courts say we win. Maybe not the legal case, but we keep the issue in front of the people and we force Obama to use money that otherwise would be spent on his campaign.”

  192. avatar
    Dave B. July 2, 2012 at 6:07 pm #

    Linda, if you click on the “Notes” tab here:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401?quicktabs_8=2#quicktabs-8
    You will find, under “Amendments”,
    “1986—Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99–653substituted “five years, at least two” for “ten years, at least five”.”
    You will find, under “Effective Date of 1986 Amendment”,
    “Section 23(d) ofPub. L. 99–653, as added by Pub. L. 100–525, 8(r),Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2619, provided that: “The amendment made by section 12 [amending this section] shall apply to persons born on or after November 14, 1986.””
    For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, the original requirement of Sec. 301(a)(7) of the INA remains in effect.

    linda:
    I know that is the current requirement in 8 USC Sect 1401, but I didn’t know they were retroactive.Is that just the nature of the those laws?

  193. avatar
    linda July 2, 2012 at 6:14 pm #

    I know several brilliant people and I live with a couple of them. I find that true superior intelligence is like old money. The people who have it don’t talk about it.

    Scientist: By the way I have known many truly Gifted Scientific Minds, including a few Nobel Laureates. None of them ever told me he was a genius. They let their work speak for itself. Yours doesn’t speak well for you.

    Sam Sewell: I think you need another adjective. Applying “stupid” to work done by two MENSA members is an oxymoron.

  194. avatar
    linda July 2, 2012 at 6:18 pm #

    Good find, thanks!

    y_p_w: e. RETROACTIVE APPLICATION:

    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the immigration and nationality laws of the United States shall be applied (to persons born before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act) as though the amendment made by subsection (a), and subsection (b), had been in effect as of the date of their birth, except that the retroactive application of the amendment and that subsection shall not affect the validity of citizenship of anyone who has obtained citizenship under section 1993 of the Revised Statutes (as in effect before the enactment of the Act of May 24, 1934 (48 Stat. 797)).

  195. avatar
    Thomas Brown July 2, 2012 at 6:20 pm #

    linda:
    I know several brilliant people and I live with a couple of them.I find that true superior intelligence is like old money. The people who have it don’t talk about it.

    Moreover, a statement by a smart person that stupid arguments cannot be promulgated by smart people is self-disproving.

  196. avatar
    Scientist July 2, 2012 at 6:21 pm #

    Dave B.: For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, the original requirement of Sec. 301(a)(7) of the INA remains in effect.

    You are not a judge, I take it. I am certainly not one. His Giftedness certainly isn’t one. If such a case arose for some future President (since it doesn’t pertain to Obama who was born in the US) there would be a trial with high-priced attorneys on both sides (not His Giftedness) arguing about marriage validity and retroactivity and there would be a ruling. Or the judge would say it’s up to Congress.

    Unlike the birthers I would accept whatever the judge or Congress said. But I think it’s foolish to make blanket statements about what would happen in such uncharted territory, By contrast, the law regarding those born in the US is crystal clear since at least 1896 (in fact, since the colonies were settled by English settlers) and has been re-validated by Ankeny, Tisdale, Allen,etc. and now Voeltz, which is more than sufficient for any semi-sane person.

  197. avatar
    Thomas Brown July 2, 2012 at 6:23 pm #

    Sam Sewell: Applying “stupid” to work done by two MENSA members is an oxymoron.

    Hey…what’s the idea bringing Rush Limbaugh into this?

  198. avatar
    Dave B. July 2, 2012 at 6:29 pm #

    No, I’m not. It doesn’t take a judge to read what the laws plainly say, or to read what the U.S. State Department says about it:

    “Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

    A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship. ”

    http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_5199.html

    Did you catch that part about “For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child”? Why is the simple fact and reality that President Obama was born in the United States so insufficient that you must invent imaginary eligibility to counter the imaginary ineligibility of the birthers?

    Scientist: You are not a judge, I take it.I am certainly not one.

  199. avatar
    linda July 2, 2012 at 7:39 pm #

    I keep getting database errors. Anyone else?

    Anyway, yes that is it. I read an article/opinion at the time which said that McCain was not an NBC. I prefer the Tribe/Olson version which says he is and I do not believe any US court would rule otherwise.

    http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/fi/107/mccain.pdf

    y_p_w: Is this what you’re thinking of? As far as I can tell, it’s still on the books and still applies for births in the Republic of Panama.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1403

  200. avatar
    linda July 2, 2012 at 7:42 pm #

    Nice!

    Thomas Brown: Moreover, a statement by a smart person that stupid arguments cannot be promulgated by smart people is self-disproving.

  201. avatar
    Dave B. July 2, 2012 at 7:43 pm #

    It’s not really that much of a find. Read it again; it only applies to 8 USC 1401 (a) and (b), and not to 8 USC 1401 (g).
    How about we leave the selective misinterpretation of statutes to the birthers? As soon as they think they see something that supports their claims, they’re all over it before they’ve even bothered to look at it with any diligence. We’ve got the truth on our side, we ought to have more respect for it.

    linda:
    Good find, thanks!

  202. avatar
    Scientist July 2, 2012 at 7:54 pm #

    Dave B.: No, I’m not. It doesn’t take a judge to read what the laws plainly say, or to read what the U.S. State Department says about it:

    So why have courts, then? Look, unless you are a Gifted Legal Mind and a member of MENSA with a friend who is also a member of MENSA your opinion is just dust in the wind, all it is is dust in the wind.

    Personally, I believe that whoever is elected is President, eligible or not, And I have the right to believe that. So there!

  203. avatar
    Dave B. July 2, 2012 at 7:59 pm #

    Scientist:

    Personally, I believe that whoever is elected is President, eligible or not,And I have the right to believe that. So there!

    Well, I guess you’re right there with Collette, Sewell, Apuzzo and the rest of them that think the law is what they want it to be, and not what it is. I honestly think your argument is converging with theirs.

  204. avatar
    donna July 2, 2012 at 8:00 pm #

    linda: “I keep getting database errors. Anyone else?”

    me too – second day in a row

  205. avatar
    Sam Sewell July 2, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

    See how I kept several of you busy just by making one post. “stupid?” Doesn’t look stupid on my part. Now let’s see how many of you will stupidly respond to this post after having it pointed out that your response is stupid.

  206. avatar
    linda July 2, 2012 at 8:13 pm #

    Thanks for letting me know. I was thinking my laptop may have caught something.

    donna:
    linda: “I keep getting database errors. Anyone else?”

    me too – second day in a row

  207. avatar
    Thrifty July 2, 2012 at 8:14 pm #

    Get out the acid, we got ourselves a troll.

  208. avatar
    Scientist July 2, 2012 at 8:25 pm #

    Dave B.: Well, I guess you’re right there with Collette, Sewell, Apuzzo and the rest of them that think the law is what they want it to be, and not what it is. I honestly think your argument is converging with theirs.

    I don’t clog up courts and attempt to impose my views on anyone; they do. Enormous difference. I also kid around a lot and think the whole thing is kind of silly. They think it;s the end of the Universe as we know it. Try not to take yourself too seriously, my son. It’s bad for the heart.

  209. avatar
    bovril July 2, 2012 at 8:26 pm #

    Ah the troll response, classic and the sign of a sad and pathetic mind of a fool handed has ass…..

  210. avatar
    G July 2, 2012 at 8:26 pm #

    Yes, I have been intermittently experiencing them as well, over the same timeframe you mentioned.

    donna:
    linda: “I keep getting database errors. Anyone else?”

    me too – second day in a row

  211. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 2, 2012 at 8:28 pm #

    If I understand the term, an “anchor baby” is the child of an illegal immigrant. I find it difficult to fathom how the Founders intended that the children of illegal immigrants should not be citizens and eligible to become President, because when the Constitution was written, there were no illegal immigrants. The US didn’t pass it’s first immigration law until 1875! Betcha’ didn’t know that.

    What you “believe” is neither evidence nor argument. Here’s what a real historian wrote about the Founders’ view of citizenship:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/obots-in-history-george-bancroft/

    Jerry Collette: As I have said, if you follow the logic of the defendants and most of the people on this blog, an anchor baby could be eligible. I don’t believe that was the founders intent. If I survive the MTD’s, I’ll do a brief on it.

  212. avatar
    JPotter July 2, 2012 at 8:33 pm #

    Sam Sewell: See how I kept several of you busy just by making one post. “stupid?” Doesn’t look stupid on my part. Now let’s see how many of you will stupidly respond to this post after having it pointed out that your response is stupid.

    I’m beginning to see the intelligence. As a provacateur or snark and ridicule, you’re brilliant! Please continue.

  213. avatar
    Majority Will July 2, 2012 at 8:34 pm #

    “. . . an anchor baby could be eligible.”

    The New Colossus

    Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
    With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
    Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
    A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
    Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
    Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
    Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
    The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
    “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
    With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

    – Emma Lazarus, 1883

    We are a nation of immigrants.

  214. avatar
    G July 2, 2012 at 8:38 pm #

    Sam, please explain how your “master plot” benefits at all by whether or not any of us chose to reply on this blog to self-deluded losers such as yourself…

    Seriously, your little “strategy” for success is even less well thought out than that of The Underpants Gnomes…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomes_(South_Park)

    You seem to forget that regardless of how any of us spend our days, Obama is STILL President, and we don’t have to lift a finger in order for that reality to remain true. Whether we waste our time on here responding to twits such as you, is completely immaterial to that reality remaining true.

    You and your ilk however, sore-losers who simply can’t accept the results of the last election, are still wasting all your time huffing and puffing with poor excuses and fantasy “magic thinking” to pretend it didn’t happen…and UNABLE to do anything that changes that reality…

    So, the only fools wasting their time, with only further LOSSES to show for it, are those, such as yourself. All you do is come across as emotionally stunted and immature in your easy to see through tantrums…

    Sam Sewell:
    See how I kept several of you busy just by making one post.“stupid?”Doesn’t look stupidon my part.Now let’s see how many of you will stupidly respond to this post after having it pointed out that your response is stupid.

  215. avatar
    ballantine July 2, 2012 at 8:38 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    If I understand the term, an “anchor baby” is the child of an illegal immigrant. I find it difficult to fathom how the Founders intended that the children of illegal immigrants should not be citizens and eligible to become President, because when the Constitution was written, therewere no illegal immigrants. The US didn’t pass it’s first immigration law until 1875! Betcha’ didn’t know that.

    What you “believe” is neither evidence nor argument. Here’s what a real historian wrote about the Founders’ view of citizenship:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/obots-in-history-george-bancroft/

    Very true, Doc. One should read Madison in his Virginia resolution. Scalia read it and rightly pointed out that Madison said the Constitution granted no power to Congress to deport aliens friends at all, i.e., persons from nations we were not at war with. Of course, I don’t think Scalia read the part where Madison said the law of nations didn’t allow us to deport alien friends either. Madison also made clear that such aliens were entitled to due process of law and we had no right deporting anyone who hadn’t committed a crime. Such much for dream act opponents. But Doc is right. The founders never thought about the issue of illigal aliens and it is simply dishonest to claim they would agree with modern conservative on such point. The English common law and the plain language of the 14th Amendment is clear as can be and cannot be interpreted to exclude children of illegal aliens without twisting the words in an Apuzzo manner. The Supreme Court has agreed with this in dicta in Phylor v. Doe and has never said anything to question such dicta.

  216. avatar
    JoZeppy July 2, 2012 at 8:53 pm #

    Sam Sewell: See how I kept several of you busy just by making one post. “stupid?” Doesn’t look stupid on my part. Now let’s see how many of you will stupidly respond to this post after having it pointed out that your response is stupid.

    No….your stupid is still stupid. Just because some of us need better hobbies doesn’t mitigate your stupid in the least. Neither does our responding to your stupid validate your stupid, nor does it achieve any master plan by keeping your stupid in on the lips of the masses, because when it comes down to it, with the exception of us genuinely odd individuals that get a kick discussing you and your cohorts’ attempts to top eachother with new levels of stupid (you still have a ways to go before you catch up with Orly), you’re pretty much inconsequential, and ignored by masses. Sorry, but even your attempts at “political theatre” are ignored by the masses, and shunned by those you would claim to be supporting.

  217. avatar
    Majority Will July 2, 2012 at 9:02 pm #

    “See how I kept several of you busy . . . ”

    Note the many thousands of posts across the ‘net on any birther related article or blog by Sam the Dripper, amateur therapist, who evidently has LOTS and LOTS of spare time.

    Ker-plunk.

  218. avatar
    misha July 2, 2012 at 9:13 pm #

    Majority Will:
    “Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
    – Emma Lazarus, 1883

    Lazarus was Jewish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Lazarus

    “…socialists don’t necessarily need to call their version “socialism,” and frequently have not. Thus he begins with Emma Lazarus, not Emma Goldman…”

    http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/our-forgotten-tradition

  219. avatar
    Dave B. July 2, 2012 at 9:42 pm #

    Scientist: I don’t clog up courts and attempt to impose my views on anyone; they do.Enormous difference.I also kid around a lot and think the whole thing is kind of silly.They think it;s the end of the Universe as we know it.Try not to take yourself too seriously, my son.It’s bad for the heart.

    Well, I’ll certainly grant you those differences. I’m not all that big on taking myself too seriously, either. I do believe, however, that when what you’re up against is a pack of misinformers, you don’t do anybody any good by spreading more misinformation. Especially when the pure truth is simple, conclusive, and perfectly adequate.

  220. avatar
    GeorgetownJD July 2, 2012 at 9:49 pm #

    Jerry Collette: In FL, you can get discovery on things in somebody’s possession and/or control. I was willing to take whatever access Obama had that was conveyable. If they gave your suggested response, it would be grounds for an order to compel.

    Access to the original BC is not within his control.

  221. avatar
    y_p_w July 2, 2012 at 9:53 pm #

    linda:
    Good find, thanks!

    I’m retracting my original thought. I had read that as stating that subsection (a) was the section with several parts. I checked out the Public Law that it was based on, and it seemed to have been meant to address the restrictive nature of passing on citizenship for a mother compared to a father.

    My head is spinning from the language though. It’s a PITA.

  222. avatar
    Dave B. July 2, 2012 at 10:04 pm #

    y_p_w:

    My head is spinning from the language though.It’s a PITA.

    You ain’t the only one. The wording of 8 USC 1401(g) itself has tripped up lots of folks, too:
    http://www.volokh.com/posts/1227910730.shtml
    Once you get past that basic confusion, it’s a lot simpler, and the effective dates of each piece of legislation are specified. That Foreign Affairs Manual you quoted has got a really good section on “EVOLUTION OF KEY ACQUISITION STATUTES” beginning on page 11.

  223. avatar
    JPotter July 2, 2012 at 11:48 pm #

    Jerry Collette: Obama has the authority to give me whatever access he would have in Hawaii. That’s all I was asking for. I would have accepted that, and Obama could have complied if he chose to.

    Jerry Collette: I really didn’t ask for much.

    It’s comments like this that have had me thinking Jerry is like a bad TV villain …. using faux reasonableness and courtesy to take advantages of social norms of nonconfrontation. The wannabe-manipulative, endlessly disingenuous, control-seeking insecure parasite of bad boyfriend or husband on Lifetime. Maybe a touch of the hopelessly naïve, starstruck young lover who shoots an NFL quarterback. When he doesn’t get his way, he’ll get ugly. How far will it go before the hapless other half snaps out of it and shoots him point blank?

    Gald to see it didn’t take long! Birtherism has worn too thin. They’ve been humored and appeased too much. The only audience left falling for the “just a simple question” birther routine are the birthers themselves.

  224. avatar
    MN-Skeptic July 3, 2012 at 12:31 am #

    With the likes of Mario Apuzzo, Sam Sewell, and Jerry Collette posting on your website, I suggest that we create our own game:

    Whac-a-Troll

    Points could be awarded for the best anti-troll response. We could have anti-troll categories of responses, such as barbed snarkiness or true intelligence. The winner would get a genuine virtual golden troll-whac’ing hammer.

  225. avatar
    linda July 3, 2012 at 1:12 am #

    I scanned it and responded (too) quickly. I still appreciate the effort, thanks.

    y_p_w: I’m retracting my original thought.I had read that as stating that subsection (a) was the section with several parts.I checked out the Public Law that it was based on, and it seemed to have been meant to address the restrictive nature of passing on citizenship for a mother compared to a father.

    My head is spinning from the language though.It’s a PITA.

  226. avatar
    Keith July 3, 2012 at 2:38 am #

    john: Obama has a tangible interest in his own record. Therefore under Hawaii law, he can get the original.

    No. He. Can’t.

    Hawai’i holds the original birth event records in trust. NO ONE gets to see the original except authorized State Employees.

    He can get a Certified Copy; and has at least 3 in his possession (at least one standard form from 2007, and at least 2 non-standard forms (the so-called ‘long form’) from 2011.

    That is all he can get, and that is all he can ‘authorize’ some one else to see – HIS Certified Copies that he has in his possession.

    End of Story.

  227. avatar
    Keith July 3, 2012 at 2:42 am #

    Jerry Collette: I was willing to take whatever access he had that was conveyable.

    Obviously, he would have access to the supposed copies he got last April.

    I really didn’t ask for much.

    Those aren’t in Hawai’i. They are (presumably) in his personal records in the White House or Bank Vault or where-ever he keeps such things.

    Hawai’i doesn’t have anything to do with it.

  228. avatar
    Keith July 3, 2012 at 2:48 am #

    Jerry Collette: In FL, you can get discovery on things in somebody’s possession and/or control. I was willing to take whatever access Obama had that was conveyable. If they gave your suggested response, it would be grounds for an order to compel.

    There is nothing in Hawai’i that Obama can authorize you to access. Obama could authorize away, and you still wouldn’t be allowed to see anything other than the index records that are freely (or perhaps for a small copying fee) available to anyone to walk up to the desk and ask for.

    The ‘authorization’ gets you absolutely nothing that you couldn’t get without such ‘authorization’. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

  229. avatar
    Keith July 3, 2012 at 2:51 am #

    misha: You, Orly, Mario and the rest of your coterie are being disengenuous.

    I have only one thing to say to all of you: J’accuse.

    Misha Marinsky IJC-NWO

    FIFY

  230. avatar
    Keith July 3, 2012 at 3:00 am #

    JD Reed:
    Jerry Collette, you may not be aware of the George W. Bush precedent that would allow Barack Obama’s mother to pass on her U.S. citizenship to him at birth, regardless of where he might have been born in the world.
    True, it’s not a court precedent, but a book precedent. In his autobiography, Mr. Bush stated that after he completed pilot training, he flew for “several” more years in the Air National Guard. In point of fact, it has been established that he was a couple of months shy of two years when he missed his annual flight physical and never flew again for the ANG.
    But you can round up 10 months to a completeyear, and add that to the full year that Mr. Bush flew, and you have two years. Some define several as two or more, So by a bit of a stretch you get Mr. Bush his “several” years of flying. .
    Now as to Mr. Obama’s mother: she gave birth in early August, almost four months shy of her 19th birthday in late November. But rounding off eight months to the nearest whole number of years, you get a complete year. Add that to the four fuill years that had passed since her 14th birthday, and you now have five, the minimum required to pass on to her child her citizenship.
    In fact, Mrs. Obama was slightly closer, on a percentage basis, to her five-year requirement than Mr. Bush was to the two years needed to be defined as several.
    Mr. Bush: 22 months flown, out of two full years. That’s 91.7 percent.
    Mrs. Obama: 56 months past her 14th birthday, of the 60 required to equal five full years. That.s 93.3 percent.

    And don’t forget that (according to Arizona) she was pregnant 2 weeks before she was pregnant. You gotta be able to account for that somewhere.

  231. avatar
    Keith July 3, 2012 at 3:02 am #

    Sam Sewell: Now matter what the courts say we win. Maybe not the legal case, but we keep the issue in front of the people and we force Obama to use money that otherwise would be spent on his campaign.

    So you swallowed the 6 bazillion dollars to hide his records meme? OK. Works for me if it works for you.

  232. avatar
    y_p_w July 3, 2012 at 3:11 am #

    Keith: He can get a Certified Copy; and has at least 3 in his possession (at least one standard form from 2007, and at least 2 non-standard forms (the so-called ‘long form’) from 2011.

    I would think they would still be in the care of someone he trusts, but they could just as easily have been destroyed after their use. I’m taking a wild guess that the birth certificate he supposedly located as told in Dreams of My Father is one that he probably couldn’t locate today.

    I’ve said that one could theoretically just order a new birth certificate every time one is needed, and just have each one shredded once used or returned. I don’t know of any legal requirement to keep a particular birth certificate. In California, all vital records are printed on vital records stock with serial numbers. I guess it’s a bookkeeping thing and could theoretically be used to track if it’s the same document previously submitted, but in reality none of this matters as far as it’s used.

    There are some documents that are generally considered one of a kind and would never just be summarily tossed. I remember inquiring about a duplicate copy of my college diploma so I might hang one on my wall at work. I was told that they would only produce a new one if I declared the original lost or stolen, and in addition the signatures would be that of a diploma on the date of reissue and not an exact reproduction of my original. A naturalization certificate can be replaced, but would require a statement that it was lost or stolen. At one time the Consular Report of Birth Abroad was a one-shot document which could only be replaced if lost or stolen.

  233. avatar
    Keith July 3, 2012 at 6:52 am #

    y_p_w: I’ve said that one could theoretically just order a new birth certificate every time one is needed, and just have each one shredded once used or returned.

    That just doesn’t make sense. Why bother? Once you have it why through it away? Do you enjoy burning $20 dollar notes?

    Diploma’s are not State maintained ‘vital records’. How on earth do you expect a University to dig up a former President to sign a new copy of your diploma? Even when you order a new BC it has the signatures of the CURRENT custodian of the records, not the guy in charge at the time of the birth (unless they are still there of course).

  234. avatar
    JPotter July 3, 2012 at 7:19 am #

    y_p_w: I would think they would still be in the care of someone he trusts,

    I’m sure he keeps a copy in his front pockets, along with a full set of the certificates of vote from the 2008 election. Even in this day and age, never know when you might have to show your papers. *cough*

  235. avatar
    Keith July 3, 2012 at 7:31 am #

    JPotter: I’m sure he keeps a copy in his front pockets, along with a full set of the certificates of vote from the 2008 election. Even in this day and age, never know when you might have to show your papers. *cough*

    Tattooed on his forehead maybe?

  236. avatar
    y_p_w July 3, 2012 at 11:14 am #

    Keith: That just doesn’t make sense. Why bother? Once you have it why through it away? Do you enjoy burning $20 dollar notes?

    Diploma’s are not State maintained ‘vital records’. How on earth do you expect a University to dig up a former President to sign a new copy of your diploma? Even when you order a new BC it has the signatures of the CURRENT custodian of the records, not the guy in charge at the time of the birth (unless they are still there of course).

    I wouldn’t actually do it. Every certified copy of my kid’s BC has been stored. I’m just saying that it is possible to lose, misplace, or even purposely destroy a vital record.

    As for my diploma, it’s from a public university. The signatures are of a Governor who has been out of office, a Chancellor who has since died, a University President who retired, and a Dean who has also moved on. Even so, the diploma is primarily ceremonial. The signatures are reproduced and I frankly don’t think it would be that difficult to produce a replacement diploma that looked just like the one I got right after graduation. I remember talking to someone associated with MIT, who said that every diploma was hand signed by all the officers, but I don’t expect that the Governor of California is going to hand sign the diploma of every graduate of the University of California and the California State University campuses. My understanding of replacement diplomas is that they will state the actual date of graduation with the current signatures. So the replacements would look really odd. At least a certified BC in California shows the original date of filing with the original signatures from the certifier, the parent(s), and the registrar.

    http://registrar.berkeley.edu/DisplayMedia.aspx?ID=APPL.DIP.RPCLMT.pdf

    I hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that my original diploma is lost, destroyed or, subsequent to my graduation from the University, my name is legally changed as stated above and I request a replacement. I am enclosing the total fee payment for the diploma replacement and mailing cost and all required supporting documents.

    *****

    Please note that diplomas are issued in the format currently used and bear the signatures of the present University and State officers. The statement “This diploma is reissued” and the date will appear at the bottom edge of the replacement diploma.

  237. avatar
    Judge Mental July 3, 2012 at 1:07 pm #

    Re the requirement for 5 years residency in USA after the age of 14 in order for SAD to convey citizenship at birth to a hypothetically foreign born Obama, I’ve seen it argued that this was intended to apply to US citizens who were already residing abroad or who had travelled abroad with the express intention of henceforth residing abroad, not to ordinarily US resident citizens simply on a short overseas holiday or business of family visit trip or the like.

    It certainly makes a great deal of logical sense for that to have been the intention in the mind of those who framed such a requirement. It makes no sense for statutes to set out to penalise the citizenship entitlement of children of 18 year old mothers who imprudently go overseas on holiday near her expected birth date nor the 18 year old mothers of children unexpectedly born prematurely during an overseas holiday.

    In the hypothetical original birtherville Kenyan birth scenario, I find it hard to believe that Obama would have been actually required to naturalise on his return to USA had he actually been born in Kenya during his mother’s short visit to his father’s family, assuming it was always intended to be a short visit followed by return to USA, evidenced by return tickets etc. I can’t see a request from SAD for him to have automatic US citizenship at birth being refused in those circumstances.

  238. avatar
    y_p_w July 3, 2012 at 1:41 pm #

    Judge Mental: In the hypothetical original birtherville Kenyan birth scenario, I find it hard to believe that Obama would have been actually required to naturalise on his return to USA had he actually been born in Kenya during his mother’s short visit to his father’s family, assuming it was always intended to be a short visit followed by return to USA, evidenced by return tickets etc. I can’t see a request from SAD for him to have automatic US citizenship at birth being refused in those circumstances.

    Bringing over a noncitizen minor child and having that child naturalized once in the US is almost trivial. From a practical standpoint, it wouldn’t make a difference unless you’re discussing Presidential eligibility.

  239. avatar
    Judge Mental July 3, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

    Yes ypw, of course you are correct. I felt that went without saying and it doesn’t affect the remarks I made.

  240. avatar
    Scientist July 3, 2012 at 8:48 pm #

    Judge Mental: It certainly makes a great deal of logical sense for that to have been the intention in the mind of those who framed such a requirement. It makes no sense for statutes to set out to penalise the citizenship entitlement of children of 18 year old mothers who imprudently go overseas on holiday near her expected birth date nor the 18 year old mothers of children unexpectedly born prematurely during an overseas holiday.

    Tourism was basically unknown in the 18th century. An overseas trip would have taken many months and would only have been undertaken for serious purposes. Yet another area where “original intent” is simply impossible to determine with respect to situations that arise today that could not have arisen in 1788.

    I agree with Judge Mental that there would be a case to argue that a temporary absence should not disqualify one. Statutes and State Department manuals have weight, but are not immune to being challenged.

  241. avatar
    Scientist July 3, 2012 at 8:57 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: If I understand the term, an “anchor baby” is the child of an illegal immigrant. I find it difficult to fathom how the Founders intended that the children of illegal immigrants should not be citizens and eligible to become President, because when the Constitution was written, there were no illegal immigrants. The US didn’t pass it’s first immigration law until 1875! Betcha’ didn’t know that.

    I find it interesting that right-wingers/libertarians are`against granting broad powers to government agencies unless those are used against immigrants. They want everything to be like it was in the Founders’ time except for the ability of people to freely choose to come here. They favor Congress exercising only enumerated powers, but don’t miind draconian immigration laws, when, in fact, Congress was given power only over naturalization, not the ability to determine which non-citizens can live here.

  242. avatar
    JPotter July 3, 2012 at 9:09 pm #

    Scientist: They want everything to be like it was in the Founders’ time except for the ability of people to freely choose to come here.

    Isn’t that what all children want? Their own private playground, free of adult supervision? Cakes that spontaneously regenerate?

  243. avatar
    Dave B. July 3, 2012 at 9:14 pm #

    Scientist: I find it interesting that right-wingers/libertarians are`against granting broad powers to government agencies unless those are used against immigrants.

    That’s something I’ve noticed– some people have a way of insisting that their own rights come from God, or “natural law”, and are thus inalienable; but other people’s rights– well, they come from the government.

  244. avatar
    Jim July 3, 2012 at 11:19 pm #

    Sam Sewell:

    Now matter what the courts say we win.Maybe not the legal case, but we keep the issue in front of the people and we force Obama to use money that otherwise would be spent on his campaign.

    Here’s the problem Sam, how do you know that the President is wasting ANY resources? What if all the lawyers defending him are supporters and doing the work for free? Second, how do you know this issue isn’t galvanizing support FOR the President? That as people look at it and realize that the only proof you folks have is that you’re scared of his skin color? This could easily blow up in your face and lead to the President’s reelection. So, if he’s reelected, can we thank you and the birthers for your help?

  245. avatar
    Keith July 4, 2012 at 2:18 am #

    y_p_w: I’m just saying that it is possible to lose, misplace, or even purposely destroy a vital record.

    COPY of a vital record, don’t forget.

    Anyway, you don’t think that after all the trouble he went through and all the publicity/crap he got over it that he would keep them safe for his Presidential Library, if nothing else?

    Of course he can get another copy anytime he wants it.. But I very much doubt he would just throw it in the rubbish bin as he walked out of the press conference. That is stupid.

  246. avatar
    Keith July 4, 2012 at 2:20 am #

    Scientist: Tourism was basically unknown in the 18th century.

    Never heard of the “Grand Tour”, then? Or the
    “Pilgramage Trails”?

  247. avatar
    Northland10 July 4, 2012 at 9:10 am #

    Sam Sewell: Now matter what the courts say we win. Maybe not the legal case, but we keep the issue in front of the people and we force Obama to use money that otherwise would be spent on his campaign

    Yet, all you do is tie up scarce judicial resources and taxpayer money. You believe in getting rid of Obama is more important than lower taxes, and more efficient government and courts?

  248. avatar
    JoZeppy July 4, 2012 at 12:33 pm #

    Jim: Second, how do you know this issue isn’t galvanizing support FOR the President? That as people look at it and realize that the only proof you folks have is that you’re scared of his skin color? This could easily blow up in your face and lead to the President’s reelection. So, if he’s reelected, can we thank you and the birthers for your help?

    I personally think the birther issue is a winner for the President. Even Karl Rove does.

    So please Sam. Keep the birther stuff in the press. It will push the independants into the arms of the President. Even a good portion of the Republican Party thinks birthers are nuts, and the independants certainly aren’t birthers. Birthers are nothing more than a chunk of the Republican Party…a subset of teabaggers (so a subset of the subset of the Rs). If Independants think the Republican Party has been overrun by birthers President Obama will be re-elected convincingly. So please Sam…keep your “political theatre” going. Please keep showing us the fruits of Mensa membership. We’re all sitting here in awe.

  249. avatar
    JPotter July 4, 2012 at 2:35 pm #

    Jim: how do you know this issue isn’t galvanizing support FOR the President?

    Speaking personally, it is doing exactly that. Seeing the evils this kind of willful group fantasy can work has radicalized me and opened my eyes to what’s at stake.

    Birtherism is (currently) the ultimate expression of the far right’s intellectual bankruptcy. My first hope for birthers is, “Birther, heal thyself”. This late in the game, those that were salvageable have long ago been saved. So, now, my hope is: “Go! Go! Go! Gooooooo, BIRTHERS!”

  250. avatar
    Reality Check July 10, 2012 at 6:24 pm #

    Collette’s case has been transferred to Leon County. This essentially means everything starts over. The defense had requested the change in venue and it was granted. This does not bode well for Mr. Collette IMO. Leon County is where Tallahassee is located. Apparently, Judge Mills did not buy Collette’s argument that he was damaged in Pasco County therefore that is where the case should be litigated.