Main Menu

Birther lies in Kentucky court filing

Kentucky physician Todd House admitted to a Kentucky newspaper that he lied in documents filed in Franklin Kentucky Circuit Court. The complaint in the ballot challenge lawsuit, House v. Obama, contains the following unqualified statement on page 6:

25. Defendant Obama is foreign born.

However, in an interview with a local newspaper, the Courier-Journal in Louisville, House admitted that he doesn’t actually believe this to be true.

House said in the interview that he doesn’t believe Obama was born in Kenya but said that the president has not proved he was born in the United States.

“I think really, the claim is, we don’t know where he was born,” House said. “The Kenyan birth issue was placed in the restraining order because it is one of several possibilities and no one really knows the truth.

The Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure say:

The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certification by him that he has read the pleading, motion or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact.

Birthers just throw stuff against the wall and hope something sticks. The balance of the House suit is the “two-citizen parent” crank legal theory that has been rejected specifically by at least 5 courts.

What House and other birthers are trying to do is not to prosecute a lawsuit where they have been injured and can prove it. They are really acting out their frustration that no one in authority pays any attention to their crank claims. They want to to bypass legitimate authority, the Congress who is tasked with all questions of presidential eligibility, and to set themselves up as some kind of  “people’s investigator” with the power to subpoena evidence and to compel testimony to find out whether there is anything amiss with Obama’s candidacy. In a sense, House is asking the Commonwealth of Kentucky to grant him a fishing license.

Print Friendly

, , , ,

56 Responses to Birther lies in Kentucky court filing

  1. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter August 23, 2012 at 6:32 pm #

    Somebody needs to do a Motion For Contempt, because you can’t say stuff in court that you know is untrue. I think I will do a DIY one. . .

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 23, 2012 at 7:51 pm #

    I used a pretty strong presentation of the issue in this article because I think the lack of honesty among some birthers is a big deal. Perhaps they subscribe to the theory that “the ends justify the means.” My view is that bad means result in bad ends.

  3. avatar
    G August 23, 2012 at 9:37 pm #

    I’m convinced that is exactly how these people think. It is actually this type of intentional “end justify the means” dishonesty which fires me up against them the most. I simply cannot stand that attitude and I am just naturally inclined to oppose deceivers, liars and bullies.

    Dr. Conspiracy: I used a pretty strong presentation of the issue in this article because I think the lack of honesty among some birthers is a big deal. Perhaps they subscribe to the theory that “the ends justify the means.” My view is that bad means result in bad ends.

  4. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter August 23, 2012 at 9:55 pm #

    Dr. C:

    I think you are justified in calling it a “lie”. A person could plead in the alternative between “He’s foreign born” and “even if he was born here, his father was not a citizen.” and be OK. But if you don’t believe he was foreign born, then you can not ethically allege that.

    An example is like where somebody alleges an act, and then pleads that it was intentional, or if not then it was negligent. That is OK. But it is not OK if you don’t believe the act took place.

    I did an Internet Article on this story with this and Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which could end up making House pay for the Defendant’s legal expenses. It says:

    The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certification by him that he has read the pleading, motion or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact. . .

    If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  5. avatar
    Steve August 23, 2012 at 10:52 pm #

    “One of several possibilities.”

    Every good birther needs a fallback argument.

  6. avatar
    foreigner August 24, 2012 at 12:14 am #

    “believe” comes in degrees. In normal language even “prove” does.
    These are just words to express some subjective probability
    estimates. Because -for some reason- most people don’t want to give
    a number for their subjective probability estimate.
    So, when you say “lie” this again just only expresses your subjective
    estimate that some threshold of honesty were crossed by your interpretation
    of plaintiff’s “believe”. Others may feel comfortable to call your headline
    here itself a lie, since in their opinion that birther didn’t really lie.
    That “lie” word is just stylish here and gives a good headline.
    It’s not the sort of lie, as some readers may expect from the headline,
    like the judge asking under oath whether the defendant did kill that person
    and he said no, but then he was filmed doing it.

    > 25. Defendant Obama is foreign born.

    so what was the context, the text that preceded “1.”

  7. avatar
    Sudoku August 24, 2012 at 12:33 am #

    In the complaint, the Plaintiff said Obama was foreign born. The Plaintiff in an interview said they do not know where Obama was born. Those statements alone are mutually exclusive.

    With the BCs and verifications from Hawaii, there is no reason to believe he was born anywhere other than Hawaii.

    I vote with Doc. It was a lie.

  8. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter August 24, 2012 at 1:47 am #

    The legal standard for a KY Rule 11 is, from above:

    The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certification by him that he has read the pleading []; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact. . .

    Todd House said in his suit: “25. Defendant Obama is foreign born.”

    Outside of court he says:

    1) “he doesn’t believe Obama was born in Kenya”;

    2) and “really, the claim is, we don’t know where he was born” ; and

    3)”The Kenyan birth issue was placed in the restraining order because it is one of several possibilities and no one really knows the truth

    NOW, does that sound like a certification that “Defendant Obama is foreign born” is well grounded in fact???

    Now, add to that the fact that:

    1) this is a DIY lawsuit, brought by a pro se plaintiff;

    2) is the same as numerous others that have been tossed out of court;

    3) That it is common knowledge Obama has released 2 copies of his birth certificate;

    4) The confirmation by Hawaii is easily found on the Internet; and

    5) The plaintiff has a college degree, a post grad medical degree, is a high ranking military officer; and is not just some illiterate wood chopper.

    and the word “lie” looks very appropriate. I think the judge has the basis to throw the book at him. Whether he does or not is up to the judge’s discretion.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  9. avatar
    foreigner August 24, 2012 at 1:52 am #

    in real life nothing is 100% certain. Obviously the Court didn’t expect
    House to have a proof or “proof” that Obama was foreign born.
    It’s a claim to be investigated.
    And then Dr.C only quotes him of saying he didn’t believe Obama was born in Kenia.
    There are other (non-)countries that would qualify as foreign.
    But the question is not what house really believes and how much.
    The question is whether he admitted the he lied.

  10. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter August 24, 2012 at 2:09 am #

    Foreigner:

    It is not just the one statement by House. He made several other statements which flatly state that he does not know where Obama was born. But let’s try Rule 11 with a twist:

    Here is the language now:

    1) The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certification by him that he has read the pleading, motion or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact

    Here is the language with more leeway:

    2) The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certification by him that he has read the pleading, motion or other paper; that to the best of his speculation and suspicions, it could very well be accurate, and potentially even true.

    Me. I stay with number one.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl reporter

  11. avatar
    Paper August 24, 2012 at 2:59 am #

    Here’s some real life for you.

    Say this to your husband, wife, or significant other:

    “You had sex with Pat.”

    Then after you surface from unbelievable torment, try saying:

    ‘I just meant I don’t know who you had sex with.”

    You see, it’s not 100% certain they didn’t. Then when you haven’t had enough, go to divorce court and say in your filing “My spouse slept with Pat.”

    Let’s see how you do.

    foreigner:
    in real life nothing is 100% certain. Obviously the Court didn’t expect
    House to have a proof or “proof” that Obama was foreign born.
    It’s a claim to be investigated.
    And then Dr.C only quotes him of saying he didn’t believe Obama was born in Kenia.
    There are other (non-)countries that would qualify as foreign.
    But the question is not what house really believes and how much.
    The question is whether he admitted the he lied.

  12. avatar
    Paper August 24, 2012 at 3:04 am #

    I’m particularly interested in how you do when your significant other says you are lying, and you say it’s just a claim to be investigated.

  13. avatar
    foreigner August 24, 2012 at 3:20 am #

    maybe “true” with likelyhood 51% when he signed it but with likelyhood 49% when he gave the
    interview after he got some new information, rethought the matter, read some internet blog.
    If people were 100% sure, then we won’t need Courts.
    Those who say they are absolutely sure (“beyond reasonable doubt”) are usually telling the real lies.

  14. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter August 24, 2012 at 3:30 am #

    In one sense, you could say that House did Not admit he lied, because House did not come right out and speak the words, “My name is House, and I lied.” And, if his only statement was that he didn’t think Obama was born in Kenya” then there would be some wiggle room to say that he hadn’t lied. But, he made other statements to the effect he didn’t know where Obama was born. That directly conflicts with “Obama is foreign born.”

    Another point is, that the legal standard for Rule 11 is not that the person has to “lie”, but to falsely certify that something is well grounded in fact. How do you do that if you admit that you don’t know the thing.

    Plus here, if a Rule 11 action gets started, it is going to be a matter of the circumstances as much, or more, as the actual words. The Plaintiff just copied a DIY vexatious and squirrelly lawsuit and palmed it off on the court as being well grounded in fact.

    Hmmm. If it was well-grounded in fact, then how come the Birthers are having to do the lawsuit in bulk, with DIY lawsuit kits??? Wouldn’t one or two well-grounded actions have been sufficient. Plus House has exposure because of his status. He is hardly a stupid person. He has put himself at the judge’s mercy.

    Finally, this is not even touching the other issues in Rule 11, such as certifying:

    that [the suit or motion] is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporte

  15. avatar
    Paper August 24, 2012 at 3:34 am #

    Foreigner, it’s called bearing false witness. Or as JD Reed noted in the Birther Trader card comments:

    JD Reed: Here’s what Abraham Lincoln said about that:

    “I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him.”

    foreigner:
    maybe “true” with likelyhood 51% when he signed it but with likelyhood 49% when he gave the
    interview after he got some new information, rethought the matter, read some internet blog.
    If people were 100% sure, then we won’t need Courts.
    Those who say they are absolutely sure (“beyond reasonable doubt”) are usually telling the real lies.

  16. avatar
    Paper August 24, 2012 at 3:45 am #

    The bigger point is people feel free to accuse others without any real knowledge. Particularly in court. The uncertainty of life is not an excuse.

  17. avatar
    Sudoku August 24, 2012 at 3:55 am #

    You are supposed to do that BEFORE you go to court. The courts are not there for people who may have a wish or a suspicion to go fishing. If they have evidence of foreign birth, they should submit it. Not liking Obama or the looks of his BC is no basis of a successful lawsuit.

    foreigner: It’s a claim to be investigated.

  18. avatar
    Sudoku August 24, 2012 at 4:11 am #

    Would you prefer that he admitted he did not tell the truth? Same result.

    foreigner: The question is whether he admitted the he lied.

  19. avatar
    The Magic M August 24, 2012 at 5:46 am #

    foreigner: in real life nothing is 100% certain.

    Which is precisely the attitude behind the “no evidence in the world could convince me Obama is legit” viewpoint the birthers have.

    They have no trouble “believing” what benefits them (that there is a God who will welcome them in paradise, that their SO is faithful, that their car will not explode for no apparent reason in the middle of the highway), but would not “believe” Obama was born in Hawaii if they had witnessed it with their own eyes.

  20. avatar
    foreigner August 24, 2012 at 6:18 am #

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
    there is one way to settle this : ask House, whether he does/did admit having lied.
    (I’d bet he will say no)
    Or quote from the newspaper where exactly he said that.
    Could I write Obama admitted that he failed or such, just by interpreting
    his words ? Clearly he “somehow” admitted it.
    When(if) he wrote Obama is foreign born, how sure does he have to be ?
    50% ? 80% ? 99% ?
    And what threshold of probability above qualifies for “not knowing where Obama was born” ?
    —————————
    Sudoku, presumably they did submit some “evidence”. Corsi’s book or such.
    Was it enough ? Hard to tell for the judge.
    ——————————-

  21. avatar
    Majority Will August 24, 2012 at 6:56 am #

    Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.

  22. avatar
    Scientist August 24, 2012 at 7:17 am #

    foreigner: Obviously the Court didn’t expect
    House to have a proof or “proof” that Obama was foreign born.
    It’s a claim to be investigated.

    That may be a confusion you have coming from a non-Anglo-Saxon country, where courts and judges are actual investigative bodies. In Anglo-Saxon law, they are not. US courts and judges do not investigate matters of fact. That is the sole responsibility of the parties to the case, whether it’s a criminal or a civil matter. The court wll hear what the parties say and decide between them, but they will not invesigate fo themselves.

    When House makes an assertion of fact (the President is foreign born) that he himself dos not believe (as shown by his other statements that he does not know) then in plain Anglo-Saxon English, he is lying.

  23. avatar
    G August 24, 2012 at 8:31 am #

    The burden of proof is on him, the accuser, the moment he decides to take something to court. That is how our legal system is designed.

    As others have repeatedly tried to inform you, our courts are NOT places for fishing expeditions.

    As Squeeky has pointed out to you, our courts have penalties for wasting the courts time and making statements that are more definitive in certainty than what one actually has to go on.

    Exaggerations are lies. Speculation is NOT evidence at all.

    Wishful thinking and emotional desires are not material evidence. If you lack credible evidence, you cannot claim something in the definitive, as if it was true. You simply lack the evidence and proof to back up your mouth. The courts do not tolerate that.

    Why is that so difficult for you to grasp? The real world exists here. The nonsense argument of “nothing is 100% certain” is silly, to the point of reducto ad absurdum. If you want to get mathmatical about it, there is a point of reason where something is statistically impropbable or extremely likely.

    Everything the Birthers say falls into the quantifiable and testable realm of statistically improbable.

    Whether you doubt how the world works or wish it to be different, the sun will rise in the east every day and set in the west. That is a fact. It doesn’t matter whether you have some fractional degree of uncertainty in your mind about it at all.

    You seem to be somebody that lives their life by magical thinking and gut beliefs and who choses to ignore empirical reality, when it doesn’t suit your mood.

    foreigner: When(if) he wrote Obama is foreign born, how sure does he have to be ?
    50% ? 80% ? 99% ?

  24. avatar
    G August 24, 2012 at 8:35 am #

    Corsi’s book is NOT evidence. A tale written by someone with a long history of conspiracy writing and partisan smear jobs? What qualifies what he says as “evidence”. Nothing.

    Your argument is beyond stupid here. That is like someone suggesting that you could submit the Harry Potter novels to a court as “evidence” that you’ve been denied your right to be admitted to Hogwarts.

    You truly live in a pretend world. Your questions border on the absurd to the point of being delusional.

    You are either being a dishonest concern troll or possibly someone with a diagnosed medical/mental disorder, who has trouble grasping the world the way normal people do. Which is it?

    foreigner: Sudoku, presumably they did submit some “evidence”. Corsi’s book or such.

  25. avatar
    Lupin August 24, 2012 at 8:46 am #

    G: The burden of proof is on him, the accuser, the moment he decides to take something to court. That is how our legal system is designed.

    As others have repeatedly tried to inform you, our courts are NOT places for fishing expeditions.

    As Squeeky has pointed out to you, our courts have penalties for wasting the courts time and making statements that are more definitive in certainty than what one actually has to go on.

    Exaggerations are lies. Speculation is NOT evidence at all.

    From my own experience, most courts in Europe work along pretty much the same general principle.

    Everything you said would be equally true of a French court, and in fact I have found American Courts incredibly tolerant or patient in this respect, compared to the likely treatment such complaints would receive in France.

    Foreigner (if he is one which I continue to doubt) is either a troll, indeed, or somebody who is just as idiotic in his own country.

  26. avatar
    Paper August 24, 2012 at 8:47 am #

    Admitting it is irrelevant. You don’t have to admit crimes to be convicted of them. The quotes you need are provided above by Dr. C.

    The point here is that he contradicts himself in a way that demonstrates his filing statement is made in bad faith. He himself may not understand his bad faith. He thinks he is doing good, no doubt. It is still bad faith. Foolish bad faith. Whether or not he is punished, beyond making a fool of himself, for such bad faith is a different matter.

    If he had a change of mind, he should change his filing to say: I have no idea where the President was born because I don’t believe the evidence. He could have been born anywhere. He might actually have been born in Kansas, or somewhere along the West coast. Maybe New Zealand. Who knows.

    But wait, that wouldn’t make a good case. Better just say he was foreign born.

    Why say you don’t know who stole your wallet, when you can say Jimmy stole it?

    “I don’t believe Jimmy stole it, but Jimmy hasn’t proven he didn’t. I think, really, the claim is we don’t know who stole it. I said Jimmy stole it because he is one of several possibilities and no one really knows the truth.”

    There are words in both polite and impolite society for such a person’s behavior.

    foreigner:

    there is one way to settle this : ask House, whether he does/did admit having lied.
    (I’d bet he will say no)
    Or quote from the newspaper where exactly he said that.
    ——————-

  27. avatar
    GeorgetownJD August 24, 2012 at 8:51 am #

    foreigner:
    Obviously the Court didn’t expect
    House to have a proof or “proof” that Obama was foreign born.

    Um, wrong. In the American jurisprudence system, the complaint is a statement of what the plaintiff intends to prove. The court DOES expect House to have proof of what he alleges, at the time that he alleges it.

    If House did not have “proof” that Obama was foreign born, then he made a misrepresentation to the court, in violation of Rule 11.

  28. avatar
    Paper August 24, 2012 at 9:04 am #

    He needs to be sure enough that he doesn’t go off and do an interview where he says he doesn’t know where Obama was born.

    As for “if,” did you bother to click on the link to his court filing where he says it on page 6 as pointed out by Dr. C.?

    foreigner:
    .
    When(if) he wrote Obama is foreign born, how sure does he have to be ?
    50% ? 80% ? 99% ?

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 24, 2012 at 9:11 am #

    Thanks. I added this to my article.

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certification by him that he has read the pleading, motion or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact. . .

  30. avatar
    ASK Esq August 24, 2012 at 9:43 am #

    foreigner: in real life nothing is 100% certain. Obviously the Court didn’t expect
    House to have a proof or “proof” that Obama was foreign born.
    It’s a claim to be investigated.

    Let’s see if I can give you an example to show how wrong this line of thought is.

    I sue my neighbor for stealing the Bigfoot that had wandered onto my property. My basis for this claim is that there is no Bigfoot on my property currently. Now, since the existence of Bigfoot is a claim to be investigated, I need not actually believe that there was any Bigfoot on my property, or that my neighbor stole it from my property. I’ll leave that for the court to decide.

    Does that sound like a reasonable legal action to you?

  31. avatar
    Rickey August 24, 2012 at 11:18 am #

    foreigner:

    —————————
    Sudoku, presumably they did submit some “evidence”. Corsi’s book or such.
    Was it enough ? Hard to tell for the judge.
    ——————————-

    Corsi’s book contains evidence that Obama was not born in the U.S.? What evidence would that be?

    It is quite apparent that House did not submit any evidence with his Complaint. Your misguided comments here make it clear that you haven’t even bothered to read the Complaint.

  32. avatar
    Rickey August 24, 2012 at 11:21 am #

    Lupin:

    Foreigner (if he is one which I continue to doubt) is either a troll, indeed, or somebody who is just as idiotic in his own country.

    Perhaps Doc C. could tell us where Foreigner is posting from. He denies being a birther but he is quick to rise to the defense of birthers.

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 24, 2012 at 11:39 am #

    A foreign country.

    Rickey: Perhaps Doc C. could tell us where Foreigner is posting from.

  34. avatar
    foreigner August 24, 2012 at 11:39 am #

    no defense of birthers, just bothered by these headlines.
    Weren’t you as well complaining about birther headlines
    like Obama admits being born in Kenia.
    Wasn’t there a thread here, what Arpaio’s affidavit is worth
    with these lax formulations of “believe” ?
    Still the affidavit and the Corsi book
    is being used in Court (hearing)

  35. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 24, 2012 at 12:00 pm #

    The word “admits” is not part of my headline. Nevertheless, I do not think the headline would be misleading if I had used the word. In a straightforward reading of House’s statements, he lied. One doesn’t have to spin or “interpret” or “derive” a meaning. When he signed that statement he said (by court rules) that he believe it was true and that he had made a “reasonable inquiry.” Then he said that he really doesn’t know.

    Obama certainly never said he was born in Kenya.

    foreigner: Weren’t you as well complaining about birther headlines
    like Obama admits being born in Kenia.

  36. avatar
    Rickey August 24, 2012 at 12:01 pm #

    foreigner:
    no defense of birthers, just bothered by these headlines.
    Weren’t you as well complaining about birther headlines
    like Obama admits being born in Kenia.
    Wasn’t there a thread here, what Arpaio’s affidavit is worth
    with these lax formulations of “believe” ?
    Still the affidavit and the Corsi book
    is being used in Court (hearing)

    There is a difference between asserting a belief and asserting a fact.

    In paragraph 23 of the Complaint, House states ” Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendant Obama’s father was never a citizen of the United States.” That is a perfectly legitimate assertion, because he includes the qualifier that it is based upon information and belief. Compare that with paragraph 25:

    “Defendant Obama was foreign born.”

    Note that paragraph 25 contains no qualifiers. Yet he now admits that he does not know where Obama was born. At the very least, he needs to amend the Complaint or drop that count. But he won’t do that unless the court forces him to do so, because birthers never admit that they are wrong.

  37. avatar
    foreigner August 24, 2012 at 12:11 pm #

    how are you going to prove it ?
    He could say he believed it 90% (“beyond reasonable doubt”)
    and then it went down to 49% by normal fluctuation.
    He could say he “knows” Obama was foreign born because
    Obama or someone whom he considers credible said it.
    But he doesn’t where he was born, just outside USA.
    (most likely IMO on sea outside USA-12miles or foreign ship or
    embassy or Hawaii was not a state in 1961
    or he just lied to the newspaper but not
    to Court or

  38. avatar
    Rickey August 24, 2012 at 12:37 pm #

    foreigner:
    how are you going to prove it ?
    He could say he believed it 90% (“beyond reasonable doubt”)
    and then it went down to 49% by normal fluctuation.
    He could say he “knows” Obama was foreign born because
    Obama or someone whom he considers credible said it.
    But he doesn’t where he was born, just outside USA.
    (most likely IMO on sea outside USA-12miles or foreign ship or
    embassy or Hawaii was not a state in 1961
    or he just lied to the newspaper but not
    to Court or

    Now you are just babbling incoherently.

  39. avatar
    Yoda August 24, 2012 at 1:20 pm #

    He will get away with it because judges tend to bend over backwards for pro se, non attorney parties. But there are ways of conveying things to a Court in pleadings so that they get the message accross without being an outright lie. For example:

    It is believed that therefore averred that……………….

    There is evidence that suggests that…………………

    etc. The smart attorney will give him/herself wiggle room.

  40. avatar
    Paper August 24, 2012 at 2:29 pm #

    House already has proven it himself by his comments in his interview in the newspaper. That statement is an outright contradiction with his Complaint.

    Try reading it. He does not say in that interview that he diesn’t know where Obama was born, just that he knows Obama was born outside the United States. He says he fies not know where Obama was born, full stop. He says no one knows the truth. Kenya is just one possibility, he says. As he states no one knows, that is a direct contradiction of the official statement that Obama was foreign born.

    As Yoda says, he’ll probably not face legal consequences. That does not mean he diesn’t face social consequences, such as having his lie pointed out on a blog.

    Your percentages are meaningless. By signing the Complaint, he is making an accusation that he himself needs to prove. If he indeed changed/changes his mind he should amend his complaint. But then it would be just pablum.

    He could say a lot of things, but he didn’t. He said one thing in an official complaint in court, and then contradicted himself in a public interview. They are mutually exclusive statements.

    foreigner:
    how are you going to prove it ?
    He could say he believed it 90% (“beyond reasonable doubt”)
    and then it went down to 49% by normal fluctuation.
    He could say he “knows” Obama was foreign born because
    Obama or someone whom he considers credible said it.
    But he doesn’t where he was born, just outside USA.
    (most likely IMO on sea outside USA-12miles or foreign ship or
    embassy or Hawaii was not a state in 1961
    or he just lied to the newspaper but not
    to Court or

  41. avatar
    Paper August 24, 2012 at 2:39 pm #

    Which is precisely why Arpaio does not say that he thinks the President forged his birth certificate, only that he believes the certificate has been forged or tampered with, by person(s) unknown. Arpaio is being consistent, consistently playing word games but he is not contradicting himself on this point. Even his official affidavit says the same mealy-mouth nonsense. He doesn’t say in an official complaint that Obama forged the b.c. and then say on an interview that he doesn’t know who forged it. He just consistently says he doesn’t know.

    The difference is Arpaio is a professional deceiver, while House is an amateur.

    foreigner:
    no defense of birthers, just bothered by these headlines.
    Weren’t you as well complaining about birther headlines
    like Obama admits being born in Kenia.
    Wasn’t there a thread here, what Arpaio’s affidavit is worth
    with these lax formulations of “believe” ?
    Still the affidavit and the Corsi book
    is being used in Court (hearing)

  42. avatar
    Sudoku August 24, 2012 at 8:34 pm #

    Nothing offered with the Complaint, where the allegation was made. Exhibits to the Motion for TRO only has the publisher’s pamphlet blurb about Obama and screen shots showing the info on the publisher’s website in 2003 and 2007. They quote Arpaio’s “investigation” and give a link for a copy of the March 2012 report.

    I think your issue with “admitted he lied” is just semantics. House did not say “I lied”, but what he did was claim Obama was born in his Complaint, then later publicly stated that he does not where Obama was born. One of those statements cannot be true. Hence, he lied.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/102577889/2012-08-10-KY-HvO-Exhibits-to-Motion-for-TRO

    foreigner: Sudoku, presumably they did submit some “evidence”. Corsi’s book or such.
    Was it enough ? Hard to tell for the judge.

  43. avatar
    G August 24, 2012 at 8:50 pm #

    Exactly!

    Sudoku: I think your issue with “admitted he lied” is just semantics. House did not say “I lied”, but what he did was claim Obama was born in his Complaint, then later publicly stated that he does not where Obama was born. One of those statements cannot be true. Hence, he lied.

  44. avatar
    G August 25, 2012 at 2:01 am #

    Phoney candidate Todd House and his misguided mentor, Jerry, should take particular heed of the latest ruling in TN, which tells quite the cautionary tale of other lame propagandist BIrther attempts to frivolously attempt a “standing” argument, based on a flimsy sham write-in campaign:

    At best, Dummett attempted to show that he had registered with the Tennessee Secretary of State as a write-in candidate. Plaintiffs have cited, and the Court is aware of, no legal authority standing for the proposition that a write-in candidate who was not a political party’s nominee for office could have competitive standing to challenge a rival’s qualifications. On the contrary, the Court noted in its order of dismissal that“[t]he allegation that an individual from California who is a merely declared write-in candidate in Tennessee is, without additional factual support, too speculative to show injury-in-fact.”

    Under the circumstances, the Court holds that counsel for Plaintiff should have known that Dummett and Volodarsky had no standing to assert their claims in this case. Finally, counsel for Plaintiffs should have reasonably concluded that Liberty Legal Foundation lacked standing to assert any claims in this case. Liberty Legal Foundation asserted associational standing based on the fact that its members, the individual Plaintiffs named in this suit, had standing. For the reasons already discussed, the Court has determined that the standing claims of the individual Plaintiffs were frivolous and wholly without merit in this case. It follows that the associational standing claim made by Liberty Legal Foundation was equally unsupportable. Having determined that counsel for Plaintiff reasonably should have known that all Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring this suit, the Court holds that Plaintiffs’ claims were frivolous and without any arguable basis in law. As such, counsel for Plaintiff has multiplied the proceedings in this case unreasonably and vexatiously and should therefore be required to satisfy personally the attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred by Defendants because of such conduct. Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED

    Sudoku: The judge in the TN case, LLF, Dummet, et al v DNC and Wasserman-Schultz, awarded Defendants some atty fees as sanctions.http://www.scribd.com/doc/103848738/2012-08-24-WDTN-LLFvDNC-SANCTIONS-ORDER-ECF-32

  45. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter August 25, 2012 at 2:05 am #

    It’s about time. I think I just read the same thing today in the Florida case, under Rule 57 or something, where they are motioning back and forth about it. I will have to double check.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  46. avatar
    Sudoku August 25, 2012 at 2:35 am #

    Is that the Voeltz case? There was supposed to be a hearing on the 22nd, but I have not been able to find anything about it.

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: It’s about time. I think I just read the same thing today in the Florida case, under Rule 57 or something, where they are motioning back and forth about it. I will have to double check

  47. avatar
    foreigner August 25, 2012 at 2:42 am #

    birther headline: Sudoku admits that Dr.C.had lied

    > House did not say “I lied”,

  48. avatar
    Sudoku August 25, 2012 at 2:58 am #

    Absolutely not. I agree with Doc.

    No one says that he said he lied. However, when one says A in one situation and then claims B in another, that means he lied either when he said A or B. Understand?

    foreigner: House did not say “I lied”,

  49. avatar
    foreigner August 25, 2012 at 3:37 am #

    > No one says that he said he lied.

    first sentence in this blog post: (admitted=said)

    ” Kentucky physician Todd House admitted to a Kentucky newspaper that
    he lied in documents filed in Franklin Kentucky Circuit Court.”

    > However, when one says A in one situation and then claims B in another,
    > that means he lied either when he said A or B. Understand?

    but “lied” is interpretable. We saw it before. One says: lie , other says : no.
    And now you say “either A or B” , but Dr.C. wrote in the headline:
    ” Birther lies in Kentucky court filing”
    so that’s A, not B

    Also, things may have changed from A to B

  50. avatar
    Keith August 25, 2012 at 3:45 am #

    foreigner:
    > No one says that he said he lied.

    first sentence in this blog post: (admitted=said)

    ” Kentucky physician Todd House admitted to a Kentucky newspaper thathe lied in documents filed in Franklin Kentucky Circuit Court.”

    >However, when one says A in one situation and then claims B in another,> that means he lied either when he said A or B. Understand?

    but “lied” is interpretable. We saw it before. One says: lie , other says : no.
    And now you say “either A or B” , but Dr.C. wrote in the headline:
    ” Birther lies in Kentucky court filing”
    so that’s A, not B

    Also, things may have changed from A to B

    You should run away and join the circus in Australia. They have a university level Circus School where you can learn to take professional advantage of your ability to tie yourself up into knots.

    Better work hard though. I understand it’s harder to get into than Med School.

  51. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter August 25, 2012 at 4:17 am #

    Sudoku:

    Thank you for posting that! I got to do a headline that Girl Reporters only dream about!

    Fee??? Fie!!!, Foe Fumes.

    http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/fee-fie-foe-fumes/

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    PS: I found the Voeltz stuff at Fogbow, which linked here:

    http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=77182640&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=16208516&dktsource=CRTV

  52. avatar
    Sudoku August 25, 2012 at 4:23 am #

    I will try again, but I think you are getting bogged down in semantics.

    1. House claimed Obama was foreign born in the Complaint.
    2. House stated in the newspaper article that he did not know where Obama was born.

    If he doesn’t know where he was born, he cannot honestly claim he is foreign born.

    Lies are not up for interpretation. People can speak honestly and be wrong. A lie is stating something untrue (or omitting part of the truth) with the intent to deceive. It is not a lie unless there is an intent to deceive. House is suing to keep Obama off the ballot in KY. Do you think he is trying to deceive the judge by claiming Obama was foreign born, when he turns around and says he does not know where he was born? It would be hard to convince people it was NOT a lie.

    foreigner: first sentence in this blog post: (admitted=said)

    Keith: first sentence in this blog post: (admitted=said)

    ” Kentucky physician Todd House admitted to a Kentucky newspaper thathe lied in documents filed in Franklin Kentucky Circuit Court.”

    >However, when one says A in one situation and then claims B in another,> that means he lied either when he said A or B. Understand?

    but “lied” is interpretable. We saw it before. One says: lie , other says : no.

  53. avatar
    Sudoku August 25, 2012 at 4:40 am #

    Excellent!

    Thanks for the link to Motion for Sanctions in Voeltz.

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: Fee??? Fie!!!, Foe Fumes.

  54. avatar
    Paper August 25, 2012 at 5:10 am #

    The bottom line is he lied.

    As for the word “admitted,” I will point out that one need not say the words “I lied” to admit telling a lie.

    Have you ever watched a cop show where a criminal admits something that demonstrates they committed the crime, without saying they committed it? Sometimes the criminals even think they are being extremely clever by explicitly avoiding confessing, but they nonetheless admit something that proves they did it. *The Closer* in particular liked to use this technique. Or try any number of *Law and Order* episodes.

    Notice that an admission is not a confession, but nonetheless establishes facts.

    House may not be aware that he is telling the world he lied, but he still is telling the world he lied. He admitted he does not know where Obama was born. Thus, his complaint includes a lie.

    In your case, you are using a truth to create a false meaning, either consciously on purpose or because you know no better. Dr. C. said House admitted he lied, but House did not say the words “I lied.” True enough. But by harping on that point, you are misdirecting yourself into a false notion. Because House’s statement that he does not know where Obama was born is an admission that what he said in his complaint is not his belief, that it was a lie. Thus, in shorthand, he admitted he lied. He may not have confessed, but he admitted it.

    So perhaps you might do well to stop worrying yourself so much about the poor birthers being called liars, because they indeed are telling lies, consciously, professionally, or amateurishly without the self awareness to know they are lying, or merely repetitively parroting other people’s lies. Or some other variation.

    For your edification:

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/admission

    “In a lawsuit over whether a defendant negligently drove a car into the plaintiff pedestrian, the defendant’s apology to the plaintiff and payment of the plaintiff’s medical bills are admissions that may be introduced as evidence against the defendant.

    “An admission may be express, such as a written or verbal statement by a person concerning the truth, or it may be implied by a person’s conduct….”

    foreigner:
    > No one says that he said he lied.

    first sentence in this blog post: (admitted=said)

    ” Kentucky physician Todd House admitted to a Kentucky newspaper thathe lied in documents filed in Franklin Kentucky Circuit Court.”

  55. avatar
    Paper August 25, 2012 at 5:34 am #

    I should add of course that one of those variations is honestly believing something wrong, even something easily shown to be wrong, for whatever reason. Frequently, such error seems to involve believing other people’s lies, or in the case of House perhaps not even being aware that he is telling a lie.

    There are plenty of cases in life where there is no shame in such error, or in falling for someone else’s lies. It happens. But birtherism is not such a case. It is most shameful. And it is to my mind even more shameful if one is not aware of the shame. Because to my mind that means one is actively avoiding the truth and participating in a great sin, whatever the excuse. It means one is willing to slander and libel, even if foolishly and without self awareness of doing evil.

  56. avatar
    Paper August 25, 2012 at 5:38 am #

    Then he needs to amend his complaint. Is he doing that? No holding of breath, please.

    If he had an honest change of mind, or realization, then you would think he would have already done that. Moreover, his actual words do not suggest he changed his mind between filing the complaint and giving the interview. It is fairly clear he is explaining his thinking in making the complaint.

    foreigner:

    Also, things may have changed from A to B