Main Menu

Daily Taitz

Only one Orly Taitz article allowed today

So on her web site Orly writes an article [link to Taitz web site] appealing to her readers, rather than spending 30 seconds on Google (keywords: zullo, japanese, mafia), to find the interview where Mike Zullo said that the Japanese Mafia was selling fake birth registrations in Hawaii in the 1960’s. Here’s my helpful reply, still in moderation:

Zullo made those comments on the Tea Party Power Hour program. There’s a video of it on YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiTFfrm5jvY

The segment on the “Japanese registrations” appears about 7 minutes in.

I personally do not believe the story.

Of course we know that Obama was born in a hospital, and couldn’t have been registered by his granny. But birthers will be birthers.

In other Taitz news, documents are filtering in related to the case of Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi. Apparently that legislative candidate in Hawaii, Larry Fenton, that Orly is so fond of may not actually know how serve summons any better than Orly does, or so alleges the “Motion to Dismiss” [and Memorandum] from the Hawaii Defendants (Alvin Onaka and Loretta Fuddy). Fenton apparently left his summons with  Audrey Gibo, a Department of Health secretary who was authorized to answer the phone, but not to receive service on behalf of Onaka and Fuddy. The case also must be dismissed as to those defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction (they don’t live or have business interests in Mississippi). Mississippi attorney Walter W. Dukes, who is representing the Hawaii Defendants,  noted that it took 172 days for Orly to even half serve them (federal rules require service within 120 days of filing a complaint). Reviewing the Court’s options: they can either dismiss the case, dismiss it, or order it dismissed.

Speaking of doing things late, Orly announced [draft on Taitz web site] that the David Farrar Primary Election objection in Georgia is being renewed for the General Election, almost two weeks after early voting has already started in Georgia. Taitz writes:

Inexplicably this court [Administrative Law Court in the original Farrar case] found that the evidence brought forward by 7 experts and competent witnesses at trial was “not convincing enough” and allowed Obama to stay on the ballot.

I would suggest that Taitz read the decision of Judge Malihi for a full explanation.

Print Friendly

, , , , , , , , , ,

88 Responses to Daily Taitz

  1. avatar
    American Mzungu October 26, 2012 at 5:36 pm #

    She is a jumble. I appreciate the hard work you do to make sense of the chaos.

  2. avatar
    gorefan October 26, 2012 at 6:25 pm #

    For months David Farrar has been touting that his general election challenge would take a different approach. He had dreamed up a “new” two citizen parent theory and that was going to be his game changer. Looks like he decided to fall back on the old tried and failed approach.

    He also said he would be challeging Gov. Romney.

  3. avatar
    Butterfly Bilderberg October 26, 2012 at 6:50 pm #

    I’ve been keeping my mouth shut (figuratively) about Rule 4(m), F.R.Civ.P. Glad to see it used against Orly and her “co-plaintiffs.” The rule calls for mandatory dismissal unless the plaintiff can demonstrate reasonable cause for the delay in serving the summons and complaint. I doubt that “I never got around to requesting the Clerk of the Court to issue a summons” qualifies as reasonable cause.

    Still, the stronger basis for dismissal is the obvious lack of personal jurisdiction, layered onto the failure to sufficiently allege any RICO claims.

    Orly might as well prepare a notice of appeal and have it ready to go when Judge Wingate kicks this sorry excuse for a suit out to curb. Retaining jurisdiction, of course, to hear the motion for well-deserved sanctions.

  4. avatar
    gatsby October 26, 2012 at 8:25 pm #

    In a surreal meta moment, Google results for those search terms show Orly’s post first and then two results from this website. The video is No. 4.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 26, 2012 at 8:33 pm #

    What Orly will say is that she was waiting to see if the case would be remanded back to state court, but Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) has the same 120-day limit and dismissal criteria as the federal rule.

    Because the delay in summons acts adversely against plaintiffs in this situation, I cannot see the court letting it slide.

    But as you say, it must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction before any of the rest of it is looked at.

    http://courts.ms.gov/rules/msrulesofcourt/rules_of_civil_procedure.pdf

    Butterfly Bilderberg: I’ve been keeping my mouth shut (figuratively) about Rule 4(m), F.R.Civ.P. Glad to see it used against Orly and her “co-plaintiffs.” The rule calls for mandatory dismissal unless the plaintiff can demonstrate reasonable cause for the delay in serving the summons and complaint. I doubt that “I never got around to requesting the Clerk of the Court to issue a summons” qualifies as reasonable cause.

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 26, 2012 at 8:37 pm #

    The video was, of course, second when I left my comment, and it was likely first before she asked her question. It would have been hard to miss.

    gatsby:
    In a surreal meta moment, Google results for those search terms show Orly’s post first and then two results from this website. The video is No. 4.

  7. avatar
    Yoda October 26, 2012 at 9:07 pm #

    I have completely given up trying to make any sense of her procedural mistakes, but I lmao when she has absolutely no comprehension of the most basic of legal principles and then gets mad when defendants bring them up.

  8. avatar
    misha marinsky October 27, 2012 at 1:36 am #

    “Psst…wanna buy a birth certificate?”

  9. avatar
    misha marinsky October 27, 2012 at 1:37 am #

    “For a good time call Mike Zullo 555-1212″

  10. avatar
    Slartibartfast October 27, 2012 at 2:23 am #

    One thing we know about David “out of breath” Farrar is that he lies. Another is that he has a cargo-cult level of understanding of the law—he uses legal terms (like prima facie) as if they are magic words that imbue his arguments with merit against his opponents spells. They say that someone who is their own lawyer has a fool for a client—what do you call someone who has Orly Taitz as a lawyer… and thinks it’s a good thing!

    gorefan:
    For months David Farrar has been touting that his general election challenge would take a different approach.He had dreamed up a “new” two citizen parent theory and that was going to be his game changer.Looks like he decided to fall back on the old tried and failed approach.

    He also said he would be challeging Gov. Romney.

  11. avatar
    misha marinsky October 27, 2012 at 2:48 am #

    I singed the petition mentioned in the video – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiTFfrm5jvY

    “Mike Hunt”
    “Ben Dover”
    “I’bin Farteen”
    “If You See Kay”

  12. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund October 27, 2012 at 3:02 pm #

    Orly is apparently going as a ghoul for Hallowe’en:

    Extremely important: I need help getting in touch with parents of 3 navy seals and ambassador killed in Benghazi!!!

    Her justification:

    Those parents need to know that a usurper in chief sat there and did nothing when their children were slaughtered. They need to know that corrupt attorneys from the Justice Department and the offices of the Attorney Generals of different states and judges were criminally complicit . Charles Wood, father of the Navy Seal Tyrone Wood, said that the White House is guilty of murder of his son. He needs to know the names of corrupt judges and officials, who were equally guilty of murder of his son. He needs to know, why White House issued orders not to take any action and not to save his son and others. He needs to know, why these corrupt judges were committing treason and aiding and abetting a foreign national with foreign allegiance and forged IDs and stolen social security number in the White House.

    For four years I was warning that this will happen. What happened in Benghazi, is exactly the type of damage that I was warning about and corrupt US. Attorney, AGs and Judges were sweeping under the rug at best or attacking me while aiding and abetting the usurper at worst. They deprived each and every American citizen of all of his civil rights, as in the usurpation of Presidency there are no civil rights. I think that a number of attorneys complicit in this need to be disbarred and prosecuted.

  13. avatar
    misha marinsky October 27, 2012 at 3:11 pm #

    W. Kevin Vicklund: Those parents need to know that a usurper in chief sat there and did nothing when their children were slaughtered. They need to know that corrupt attorneys from the Justice Department and the offices of the Attorney Generals of different states and judges were criminally complicit …

    Hey, Svetlana: Lay off the nitrous.

  14. avatar
    Benji Franklin October 28, 2012 at 10:26 pm #

    Slartibartfast: They say that someone who is their own lawyer has a fool for a client—what do you call someone who has Orly Taitz as a lawyer… and thinks it’s a good thing!

    Any fool misrepresented by Orly in a court of law, has a Constitutional dentist for a lawyer.

    Recall, that no less a fearless bulwark of juris-imprudence than the socially naive and disbarred Charles Lincoln III, can caution us from personal inexperience, that any self-loathing Birther tempted to succumb to the no-fee embrace of Orly’s extralegal propositions, especially while sharing her dental chair, must recline to do so.

    His own self-alleged intimate relationship with Orly appears to have ended badly, if not down-right prematurely, and we can only hope that he has traded the fickle attraction of her insufficient mastery of both spelling and English idiom, for the more fulfilling satisfaction of dating, for example, an Orly-evoking, unkempt blonde wig.

  15. avatar
    gatsby October 28, 2012 at 11:05 pm #

    Anyone who has Orly as a dentist is a fool without bite.

  16. avatar
    misha marinsky October 28, 2012 at 11:16 pm #

    Benji Franklin: unkempt blonde wig

    Verklempt blonde wig.

  17. avatar
    David Farrar October 29, 2012 at 11:02 am #

    “Of course we know that Obama was born in a hospital, and couldn’t have been registered by his granny. But birthers will be birthers.”

    How do you know Obama was born in a hospital, independent of Hawaiian Health Department records?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  18. avatar
    Yoda October 29, 2012 at 11:07 am #

    David, why do you ignore the fact that the Hospital has confirmed that he was born there and why do you ignore the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution?

  19. avatar
    David Farrar October 29, 2012 at 11:11 am #

    [This comment was delayed by the spam filter, sorry. Doc]

    As far as filing suite against Romney is concerned: I only wish I could. I simply cannot find any treaty of amity between Mexico and the US before 1907. Failing any treaty, US laws would apply. Unless I am mistaken, US law would see George Romney as a born US citizen. Although the case can be made that George Romney’s mother was a “naturalized Mexican national at the time George was born.

    If anyone has anything different please let me know.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  20. avatar
    David Farrar October 29, 2012 at 11:17 am #

    Aside from the Obama’s letter, which would be Obama’s statement, not the hospital’s, posted on Kapliolani M&G Hospital’s website, I know of no other acknowledgement. Do you?

    Nobody is ignoring Article V. The Georgia court will give Obama’s Hawaiian Health Department records their full due, just as if they were Georgia’s records.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  21. avatar
    Yoda October 29, 2012 at 11:28 am #

    Yes, I do. At a celebration of the hospital’s anniversary, it acknowledged that it was the birth place of the President.

    Well if you accept FF&C, as you must, the birth certificate must be accepted as genuine and as prima facie evidence of his birth place. So unless you have actual evidence that he was born some place else which is sufficient to overcome the prima facie evidence that we have, and which is admissible into evidence, I suggest that you and you birther brethen stfu

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 29, 2012 at 11:35 am #

    I think Kapi’olani is giving a wink-wink-nudge-nudge disclosure of what they really think in this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YpAa891AmA

    David Farrar:
    Aside from the Obama’s letter, which would be Obama’s statement, not the hospital’s, posted on Kapliolani M&G Hospital’s website, I know of no other acknowledgement. Do you?

    Nobody is ignoring Article V. The Georgia court will give Obama’s Hawaiian Health Department records their full due, just as if they were Georgia’s records.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  23. avatar
    David Farrar October 29, 2012 at 11:36 am #

    Yoda,

    Supply your source, and I will address it. If they have “legally” acknowledged it, perhaps we can get some records that can back up their statement up, such as Stanley Ann Dunham’s registration …something that can be entered as evidence in a court of competent jurisdiction…my task would then be complete (i.e. Obama has proven by a predominance of evidence…) he is qualified to take the oath of office of the President of the United States.

    And I, sir; would be eternally in your debt.

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think we can safely say the “youtube” video has absolutely no probative value whatsoever. It is still based on Obama’s statement, not the hospital’s.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  24. avatar
    The Magic M October 29, 2012 at 11:36 am #

    David Farrar: which would be Obama’s statement, not the hospital’s, posted on Kapliolani M&G Hospital’s website

    There’s just a handful of possibilities:

    1. The hospital publishes the Obama letter knowing it is false. That effectively is no different from making an official statement “he was born here” knowing it is false. So this alternative is the same as you claiming “yes, they confirm it, but they’re lying”, so this doesn’t help you.

    2. The hospital publishes the Obama letter knowing it is true. That amounts to an official acknowledgement.

    3. The hospital publishes the Obama letter not being sure if it is true or not. But how is that possible, given that you claim they have all the records? So either they know he was born there (#1) or they know that he was not born there (#2).
    Either way, the publication amounts to an acknowledgement of the facts stated therein.

    The birther fixation with “but the verification came not from Mr. X” or “Mr. Y didn’t use the word ‘…’ in his verification” has grown old. Get over it.

  25. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 29, 2012 at 11:40 am #

    We know Obama was born in a hospital because his birth certificate says so. In this country, that’s how we verify birth information.You got a problem with that?

    David Farrar: How do you know Obama was born in a hospital, independent of Hawaiian Health Department records?

  26. avatar
    gorefan October 29, 2012 at 11:42 am #

    David Farrar: How do you know Obama was born in a hospital, independent of Hawaiian Health Department records?

    The State of Hawaii has verified that that Kapiolani Hospital is the name on the original birth certificate located in their files.

    Under what scenario does that hospital name get added to the original birth certificate?

    Why would the hospital publish the President’s letter in their centennial magazine, if it was not true?

    Why would Mrs. Waidelich make the statement that she remembers a black infant in the Kapiolani Hospital nursery shortly after her son was born on August 5th, 1961?

    Why did you list your sex as female on a tea party website?

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 29, 2012 at 11:47 am #

    The birth certificate, and subsequent verifications of it have probative value, however, it wasn’t the President that edited that video to show a shot of the t-shirt saying “Born at Kapi’Olani.” The hospital did that.

    It’s not my responsibility, or that of the President to prove that official government records are true. It is your responsibility to prove that they are false. What probative evidence do you have to refute the government record? None. That’s why you are in denial and your position is meritless.

    David Farrar: Dr. Conspiracy: I think we can safely say the “youtube” video has absolutely no probative value whatsoever. It is still based on Obama’s statement, not the hospital’s.

  28. avatar
    Greenfinches October 29, 2012 at 11:59 am #

    ex animo

    What does this mean, Mr Farrar? That you used to have a soul, but mislaid it? Very sad – do tell, how did that happen?

    You seem to think that the birth certificate is not correct, but have NO evidence to offer in support of this suggestion. Get a life, man, and if you really want the Obamas to move house, then vote Romney.

  29. avatar
    Scientist October 29, 2012 at 12:01 pm #

    Mr Farrar: I was personally present at Mr Obama’s birth at Kapi’Olani Hospital. I dare you to prove I wasn’t.

  30. avatar
    Paper October 29, 2012 at 12:09 pm #

    Which they are not legally permitted to do, so no worries, you can keep harping on that meaningless point for a good long time into the future…seeing that you are requesting the one piece of evidence you cannot ever legally hope to obtain…

    There are, however, extra-legal examples of generally corroborative evidence, such as this video, such as Peter Boyle’s radio call to the hospital, referred to here on this blog by Dr. C, memories of people, and such.

    For radio recording of person on the phone, unofficially answering the question, see: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/kapiolani-confirms/

    Of course, the *legal* acknowledgement, so to speak, is the birth certificate itself. But you want proof beyond that. So good for you. You can want what you want. But no one else has to care. The legal system certainly does not.

    We are left waiting for *you* to prove foul play with the birth records, but you cannot even invent a reasonable motive much less prove actual fraud. Until that imaginary day when we are forced to apologize for doubting you, we are left watching you fail.

    David Farrar:

    …If they have “legally” acknowledged it, perhaps we can get some records that can back up their statement up, such as Stanley Ann Dunham’s registration …something that can be entered as evidence in a court of competent jurisdiction…my task would then be complete (i.e. Obama has proven by a predominance of evidence…) he is qualified to take the oath of office of the President of the United States.

  31. avatar
    misha marinsky October 29, 2012 at 1:06 pm #

    gorefan: Why did you list your sex as female on a tea party website?

    David Farrar: Nobody is ignoring Article V.

    Dr. Conspiracy: It’s not my responsibility, or that of the President to prove that official government records are true. It is your responsibility to prove that they are false.

    Ms. Davidette Farrar: You are ignoring the Constitution, which you purport to love.

    The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. So let’s see it, little girl.

    Ex anus,
    misha marinsky

  32. avatar
    Majority Will October 29, 2012 at 1:07 pm #

    Paper:
    Which they are not legally permitted to do, so no worries, you can keep harping on that meaningless point for a good long time into the future…seeing that you are requesting the one piece of evidence you cannot ever legally hope to obtain…

    There are, however, extra-legal examples of generally corroborative evidence, such as this video, such as Peter Boyle’s radio call to the hospital, referred to here on this blog by Dr. C, memories of people, and such.

    For radio recording of person on the phone, unofficially answering the question, see: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/kapiolani-confirms/

    Of course, the *legal* acknowledgement, so to speak, is the birth certificate itself.But you want proof beyond that.So good for you.You can want what you want.But no one else has to care.The legal system certainly does not.

    We are left waiting for *you* to prove foul play with the birth records, but you cannot even invent a reasonable motive much less prove actual fraud.Until that imaginary day when we are forced to apologize for doubting you, we are left watching you fail.

    I’m just going to continue to laugh at the delusional bigot who has WAY too much spare time and zero common sense,

  33. avatar
    David Farrar October 29, 2012 at 2:05 pm #

    Unless Obama’s Hawaiian Health Department records can be independently substantiated by the preponderance of evidence (or any evidence at all independent of HHD records), its probative value as governed by Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.18(10): “The weight to be given to any evidence shall be determined by the Court based upon its reliability and probative value”, is absolutely zero, none. Although the evidence we brought forward in my Georgia case had “little, if any” probative value, according to Judge Malihi, little, if any still beats “none”.

    I hate to be a stickler here for detail, but so far everything I see here, as well as Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificates, simply don’t “prove” anything. And, sadly, my quest continues.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  34. avatar
    gorefan October 29, 2012 at 2:38 pm #

    David Farrar: Although the evidence we brought forward in my Georgia case had “little, if any” probative value, according to Judge Malihi, little, if any still beats “none”.

    Why do you lie about Judge Mahili’s decision?

    Here is what he wrote,

    “Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request”

    and

    “This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.”

    and about your arguments and evidence,

    “None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ claims are not persuasive.”

    “None of the witness provided persuasive testimony” and “none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value.”

    None – David – none of your evidence is probative. What part of none don’t you understand?

  35. avatar
    David Farrar October 29, 2012 at 2:46 pm #

    “The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs allegations.”

    My source: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_KEK8-LWmzhNWQ4MmI2ZGUtZDMwYi00ZGU4LTkxZTUtZjNkNjNhOGY2YWQ4/edit?hl=en_US

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  36. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG October 29, 2012 at 3:04 pm #

    David, You’re not going to find a single person here, who will listen to you.
    WND, is your target audience. Those morons will believe anything.

    The election is just over a week away. Obama will not be removed from a single state ballot. And all birthers have proven, is how low they are willing to sink, to smear the man who holds the highest office in the land. Lose with some damned dignity will you?

  37. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG October 29, 2012 at 3:12 pm #

    Also, stop with faux-intellectual Latin, David. It makes you look as educated as those teenagers who use random Japanese words, because they think it makes them look cool.

  38. avatar
    Paper October 29, 2012 at 3:15 pm #

    But your details are irrelevant at best, so feel free to stickle away. After all, you are making so much progress with this line of thought, not. The reason your quest continues is because you picked a self-negating quest. We aren’t stuck in your infinite loop. And as you will continue to experience, neither are the courts.

    David Farrar:

    I hate to be a stickler here for detail, but so far everything I see here, as well as Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificates, simply don’t “prove”anything.And, sadly, my quest continues.

  39. avatar
    MattR October 29, 2012 at 3:16 pm #

    David Farrar: Unless Obama’s Hawaiian Health Department records can be independently substantiated by the preponderance of evidence (or any evidence at all independent of HHD records), its probative value as governed by Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.18(10): “The weight to be given to any evidence shall be determined by the Court based upon its reliability and probative value”, is absolutely zero, none

    Can you explain why Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.18(10) would force a judge to require independent confirmation that substantiates the information on a certified brith certificate before giving it any probative value?

  40. avatar
    David Farrar October 29, 2012 at 3:17 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    David, You’re not going to find a single person here, who will listen to you.
    WND, is your target audience. Those morons will believe anything.

    I am not trying to have anyone here listen to me. I was interested if you had any real evidence independent of HHD records that would prove Obama was born at Kapliolani M&G Hospital that can be entered into evidence in a court of competent jurisdiction.

    Actually, what I am looking for in this regard is the “official” notification (document) sent from Kapliolani to the HHD concerning the birth of Barack H. Obama. As you may know, with this one document, Obama’s presidential qualifications can be put to rest as easily as it was with Donald Trump’s official state birth certificate.

    Just as a side note as it relates to the taking of “judicial notice” as to the document’s probative value of Obama’s HHD natal documents; the fact that it is the Defendant himself, Barack H Obama, who has prevented this document from being published must also be taken into account as to reliability of said documents.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  41. avatar
    gorefan October 29, 2012 at 3:32 pm #

    David Farrar: My source

    So you focus on the phrase “little, if any”, ignore the fact that “if any” means none and then completely ignore the judge’s decision where he specifically says your evidence has no probative value.

    You are not being honest – David and you know it.

  42. avatar
    David Farrar October 29, 2012 at 3:36 pm #

    gorefan: So you focus on the phrase “little, if any”, ignore the fact that “if any” means none and then completely ignore the judge’s decision where he specifically says your evidence has no probative value.

    You are not being honest – David and you know it.

    You are, of course, as welcome to your own delusions as I am to mine. But we do have more prima facie evidence to present this time around.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  43. avatar
    Yoda October 29, 2012 at 3:49 pm #

    David Farrar:
    Yoda,

    Supply your source, and I will address it. If they have “legally” acknowledged it, perhaps we can get some records that can back up their statement up, such as Stanley Ann Dunham’s registration …something that can be entered as evidence in a court of competent jurisdiction…my task would then be complete (i.e. Obama has proven by a predominance of evidence…) he is qualified to take the oath of office of the President of the United States.

    And I, sir; would be eternally in your debt.

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think we can safely say the “youtube” video has absolutely no probative value whatsoever. It is still based on Obama’s statement, not the hospital’s.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    You perfectly exemplify what is wrong with birthers and I why I despise them so much. I can forgive your adherence to the debunked 2 citizen parent theory. I can forgive you ignorance as it pertains to believing people like Taitz, Arpaio and Corsi, but I cannot forgive the birthers’ collective hatred and disdain for the rule of law.

    When it comes to records, birthers want what they want regardless of the laws that inhibit or prevent what they want. Things like HIPAA and other privacy laws should be disregarded simply because they want them to be. And anyone who does their jobs and complies with the laws is corrupt and part of the conspiracy.

    I can say without fear of contradiction, birthers hate this country and have no respect for its laws, and that includes the Constitution. And that includes you, Mr. Farrar.

  44. avatar
    Yoda October 29, 2012 at 3:50 pm #

    David Farrar: You are, of course, as welcome to your own delusions as I am to mine. But we do have more prima facie evidence to present this time around.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    You do not know what prima facie means and neither does Orly.

  45. avatar
    gorefan October 29, 2012 at 3:58 pm #

    David Farrar: But we do have more prima facie evidence to present this time around.

    Right, that’s what you thought of your evidence the first time. Linda Jordon present Arpaio/Zullo’s affidavits to the court in Washington State and the judge laughted her out of court.

    Please don’t be upset when that happens to you.

    Unless of course you are able to get Arpaio or Zullo to testify in your case – now that would be a game changer. LOL

  46. avatar
    Yoda October 29, 2012 at 4:00 pm #

    gorefan: Right, that’s what you thought of your evidence the first time.Linda Jordon present Arpaio/Zullo’s affidavits to the court in Washington State and the judge laughted her out of court.

    Please don’t be upset when that happens to you.

    UNless of course you are able to get Arpaio or Zullo to testify in your case – now that would be a game changer. LOL

    Lol, you are cruel. You know as well as I do that neither Arpaio or Zullo can testify about anything relevant.

  47. avatar
    Wile October 29, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

    David Farrar:
    Actually, what I am looking for in this regard is the “official” notification (document) sent from Kapliolani to the HHD concerning the birth of Barack H. Obama.

    Like this one?

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

    Granted I can only show you an internet image of a certified copy of the “official document” sent from the hospital to HHD. If you want to see the original, you should try getting a job a HHD.

  48. avatar
    David Farrar October 29, 2012 at 4:06 pm #

    Wile: Like this one?

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

    Granted I can only show you an internet image of a certified copy of the “official document” sent from the hospital to HHD.If you want to see the original, you should try getting a job a HHD.

    Which isn’t admissible in court.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  49. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 29, 2012 at 4:12 pm #

    Actually, I think the PDF file might be admissible in court accompanied by the testimony of Obama’s attorney who retrieved the original from the State of Hawaii, and the testimony of the person who received it, scanned it and put the file on the White House web site.

    However, THIS jewel was an original verification already submitted to a court, and it is admissible. The problem here is that the case will be dismissed, so it will never actually be entered into evidence.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/06/official-hawaiian-birth-certification-appears-in-court/

    It’s really not much fun talking to someone who just digs in his heels and says “no” despite the evidence.

    David Farrar: Which isn’t admissible in court.

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 29, 2012 at 4:17 pm #

    And you think those crank image experts, Irey, Vogt, Polland, Papa, Zebest and Papit would ever get past a Daubert challenge? ROFL

    David Farrar: Which isn’t admissible in court.

  51. avatar
    Wile October 29, 2012 at 4:37 pm #

    David Farrar: As you may know, with this one document, Obama’s presidential qualifications can be put to rest as easily as it was with Donald Trump’s official state birth certificate.

    Did Donald come to your house to show you, in person, his “official state birth certificate”? If so, would you please tell him that I want to see it too. I really would like to be able to “put it to rest”, but I am still having doubts.

    Or did you just see a copy of it on the internet?

    Why the double standard?

  52. avatar
    J.D. Reed October 29, 2012 at 4:39 pm #

    Mr. Farrar SEEMS to be one of those incapable pf understanding the term “prima facie evidence,” or else is willfully ignorant of its meaning.

  53. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG October 29, 2012 at 4:40 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: It’s really not much fun talking to someone who just digs in his heels and says “no” despite the evidence.

    Birthers excel at that. The crazies who, to this day, claim the moon landing was faked are fighting them bitterly for the right to use “That’s what they want you to think!”
    There are quite a few parallels between those groups.
    “There are no honest judges left!/all the of judges were threatened!” vs “There are no honest scientists left!/All of the scientists were threatened!”

  54. avatar
    Yoda October 29, 2012 at 4:42 pm #

    Wile: Did Donald come to your house to show you, in person, his “official state birth certificate”?If so, would you please tell him that I want to see it too.I really would like to be able to “put it to rest”, but I am still having doubts.

    Or did you just see a copy of it on the internet?

    Why the double standard?

    David believes that there is a ruling class in this country, something that the Constitution prevents. ApparentlyTrump must be in that ruling class

  55. avatar
    Yoda October 29, 2012 at 4:42 pm #

    J.D. Reed:
    Mr. Farrar SEEMS to be one of those incapable pf understanding the term “prima facie evidence,” or else is willfully ignorant of its meaning.

    Make no mistake about it, he does not understand it.

  56. avatar
    Slartibartfast October 29, 2012 at 4:52 pm #

    Ms. David “out of breath” Farrar,

    It has already been demonstrated (in both Mississippi and Arizona) that the Hawai’i DoH will verify the authenticity of the documents whose images are online (at the request of a person or agency with a tangible interest). I will also point out that such was not necessary during your “trial” because your attorney let the LFBC be placed into evidence without objection (which, given what you were trying to argue, was incredibly incompetent—maybe you should try to sue Orly for being ineffective counsel).

    The fact is that the highest authority regarding who was or wasn’t born in Hawai’i is the Hawai’ian Department of Health—not because I say so, but because the Constitution says so (why do you refuse to obey the Constitution?)—and nothing you can ever do will impeach their many official statements confirming the veracity of President Obama’s records.

    I do have a question for you Ms. Farrar: do you understand how incompetent and foolish you and your co-birthers looked by turning down what would have been the biggest birther PR coup ever (better than all of the press the birther movement has ever gotten combined)—a default recommendation to have the president removed from the GA ballot—in exchange for the chance to admit evidence of “little to no probative value”? That may have been the single stupidest episode in the entire history of birtherism (which is saying a lot)—and YOU own it! You can whine all you want about “little to no” not meaning “none” (although it clearly makes “none” a possibility), but even if your evidence has “little” probative value, it is up against the official word of the Hawai’i DoH which any court of competent jurisdiction* is required by the US Constitution to accept on this subject.

    * nice to see you’ve picked up another “magic” legal term—maybe if you find the right terms and use them in the right order you will finally be able to cast a spell that will convince a judge. I’m guessing that you don’t understand what I mean when I describe the “cargo cult law” that you and your attorney like to spout, but you should know that it is absolutely hilarious to those of us who are aware of just how poor your understanding really is—keep up the inanity!

    David Farrar: Which isn’t admissible in court.

  57. avatar
    donna October 29, 2012 at 4:52 pm #

    Wile:

    and while we’re at it, the trumpster spoke about his hospital records

    HOWEVER, HIS hospital spokesperson said those hospital records are destroyed once the person is 21 years old

    10/22

    @JosephFarah

    What difference does it make who won debate? Donald Trump is going to decide the election in 2 days…

  58. avatar
    Slartibartfast October 29, 2012 at 5:07 pm #

    First off, JD, it is MS. “out of breath” Farrar… :-P It’s only polite to use the gender she has identified herself as belonging to.

    Ms. Farrar has repeatedly demonstrated such a complete lack of understanding of so many legal terms (“prima facie” is merely his favorite) that I have to believe that he is unable rather than unwilling to use them correctly. He has accepted Orly as the high priestess of the cargo cult of law which he worships and is apparently no more capable of understanding why his arguments fail than pacific islanders could understand why their homemade runways and bamboo radio towers didn’t bring the airplanes like the ones the US Army made.

    J.D. Reed:
    Mr. Farrar SEEMS to be one of those incapable pf understanding the term “prima facie evidence,” or else is willfully ignorant of its meaning.

  59. avatar
    Northland10 October 29, 2012 at 5:08 pm #

    J.D. Reed: Mr. Farrar SEEMS to be one of those incapable pf understanding the term “prima facie evidence,” or else is willfully ignorant of its meaning.

    He has received at least six months of explanation about the meaning and still refuses to understand the meaning. I suspect it is neither incapable of understanding or willfully ignorant but the act of being intentionally obtuse. His continued use shows he either knows the meaning or does not care if he does not.

  60. avatar
    Northland10 October 29, 2012 at 5:11 pm #

    David Farrar: [This comment was delayed by the spam filter, sorry. Doc]

    Hmm.. you have one mighty smart spam filter there, Doc. ;-)

  61. avatar
    Sudoku October 29, 2012 at 5:14 pm #

    Good, at least we can agree that it is sad. Obama’s BC does “prove” something. It is prima facie evidence of the fact of birth. Every court must take it as true and correct, unless or until PROVEN otherwise.

    Allegations and simply not liking the looks of the online images of the BCs, etc., do not matter.

    David Farrar: And, sadly, my quest continues.

  62. avatar
    Slartibartfast October 29, 2012 at 5:14 pm #

    It’s often hard to sort out the exact combination of ignorance, idiocy, incompetence, and dishonesty at work in any birther’s inane drivel.

    Northland10: He has received at least six months of explanation about the meaning and still refuses to understand the meaning. I suspect it is neither incapable of understanding or willfully ignorant but the act of being intentionally obtuse.His continued use shows he either knows the meaning or does not care if he does not.

  63. avatar
    Northland10 October 29, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

    David Farrar: How do you know Obama was born in a hospital, independent of Hawaiian Health Department records?

    Well, then, I have a research project for you. This is one where, if you can complete it, you will be able to show that more evidence from Obama may be warranted.

    Here you go:

    Find a state or federal court case, for

    1. a person, at least 35 years older at the time (in a crunch, I will go to 30),

    2. who had an official birth certificate (or possibly a verification) issued from one of the 50 state governments,

    3. which states the person was born, in a specific hospital within the jurisdiction of said state, and

    4. where the court required independent verification of the issued birth certificate or verification (including possible hospital records).

    I have given you rather large latitude in your choices of courts. If you can come up with this information, you may even have the beginning of a citation your attorney could possibly use.

    Good luck. I look forward to your findings.

  64. avatar
    David Farrar October 29, 2012 at 5:43 pm #

    Sudoku: simply.

    “Good, at least we can agree that it is sad. Obama’s BC does “prove” something. It is prima facie evidence of the fact of birth. Every court must take it as true and correct, unless or until PROVEN otherwise.”

    Not “proven otherwise”, but until prima facie impeachment evidenced is produced sufficient to overcome the probative value of Obama’s HHD certificate.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  65. avatar
    Distinct October 29, 2012 at 6:00 pm #

    And the distinction is what?

    David Farrar: Not “proven otherwise”, but until prima facie impeachment evidenced is produced sufficient to overcome the probative value of Obama’s HHD certificate.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  66. avatar
    Northland10 October 29, 2012 at 6:04 pm #

    David Farrar: Not “proven otherwise”, but until prima facie impeachment evidenced is produced sufficient to overcome the probative value of Obama’s HHD certificate.

    Blink.. blink… You may still misunderstand prima facie but this looks like an understanding that evidence to impeach the certificate/verification is required by the plaintiffs. It’s a start.

    Are you aware of the high bar required to impeach the certificate? It would likely take a government issue certificate from elsewhere (and that may not even be enough).

  67. avatar
    Sudoku October 29, 2012 at 6:11 pm #

    Fine, I’ll play. What do you consider “prima facie impeachment evidenced is produced sufficient to overcome the probative value of Obama’s HHD certificate”?

    David Farrar: Not “proven otherwise”, but until prima facie impeachment evidenced is produced sufficient to overcome the probative value of Obama’s HHD certificate.

  68. avatar
    David Farrar October 29, 2012 at 6:25 pm #

    Northland10

    Yes, I do. Do you, according to Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.18(10) and to the proper level of judicial notice applied to such evidence.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  69. avatar
    David Farrar October 29, 2012 at 6:29 pm #

    Sudoku:
    Fine, I’ll play.What do you consider “prima facie impeachment evidenced is produced sufficient to overcome the probative value of Obama’s HHD certificate”?

    It is in the record upstream on this thread somewhere.

    Click here if you can’t find it.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  70. avatar
    Slartibartfast October 29, 2012 at 6:30 pm #

    Ms. “out of breath” Farrar,

    Here’s a little help for you regarding Sudoku’s question. A certified copy of the COLB (or the LFBC) is prima facie evidence of birth in Hawai’i—this means that, absent credible evidence* to the contrary, the facts listed on the document must be considered true by a court of law. To impeach this evidence, you must show why the COLB and the LFBC cannot be taken at face value. It should also be pointed out that, at this point, the prima facie evidence of a certified birth certificate (or two) has been backed up by the official word of the Hawai’i DoH—in other words, you’re going to need sufficient evidence to make criminal charges of fraud against Hawai’ian officials as well as specific evidence to call the veracity of the COLB and LFBC into question. For a person who can’t even understand the simplest legal terms who is the client of the worst lawyer in the history of the universe, I’d say you have about as much chance as you would of surviving reentry into the atmosphere if you were in orbit naked.

    * This would have to be evidence of substantial probative value (that’s a lot more than “little to no probative value”, by the way…)

    David Farrar: Not “proven otherwise”, but until prima facie impeachment evidenced is produced sufficient to overcome the probative value of Obama’s HHD certificate.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  71. avatar
    Slartibartfast October 29, 2012 at 6:39 pm #

    Ms. Farrar,

    Your lawyer allowed the LFBC to be entered into evidence before Judge Malihi without objection. Why didn’t she challenge it? Did your lawyer not understand that by her failure to do so it was accepted by the court as prima facie evidence? I really hope that you and your lawyer end up financially ruined by sanctions should you continue to pursue this frivolous litigation. It is, quite frankly, repugnant to the Constitution and the values upon which this country was founded.

    David Farrar:
    Northland10

    Yes, I do. Do you, according to Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.18(10) and to the proper level of judicial notice applied to such evidence.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  72. avatar
    misha marinsky October 29, 2012 at 6:49 pm #

    David Farrar: And, sadly, my quest continues.

    Have a nice trip.

  73. avatar
    Sudoku October 29, 2012 at 7:02 pm #

    The link didn’t work. I went back and did a search for your name and saw no listing of “evidence”, just the reference that you had some. I did see the link to the ALJ decision in your other GA case. Are you talking about what was offered in that case?

    I also see that you keep citing or quoting Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.18(10). Why is that? An ALJ already ruled against your “evidence”. What is different this time around?

    David Farrar: You are, of course, as welcome to your own delusions as I am to mine. But we do have more prima facie evidence to present this time around.

    David Farrar: It is in the record upstream on this thread somewhere.

    Click here if you can’t find it.

  74. avatar
    David Farrar October 29, 2012 at 7:05 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    Ms. “out of breath” Farrar,

    Here’s a little help for you regarding Sudoku’s question.A certified copy of the COLB (or the LFBC) is prima facie evidence of birth in Hawai’i—this means that, absent credible evidence* to the contrary, the facts listed on the document must be considered true by a court of law.To impeach this evidence, you must show why the COLB and the LFBC cannot be taken at face value.It should also be pointed out that, at this point, the prima facie evidence of a certified birth certificate (or two) has been backed up by the official word of the Hawai’i DoH—in other words, you’re going to need sufficient evidence to make criminal charges of fraud against Hawai’ian officials as well as specific evidence to call the veracity of the COLB and LFBC into question.For a person who can’t even understand the simplest legal terms who is the client of the worst lawyer in the history of the universe, I’d say you have about as much chance as you would of surviving reentry into the atmosphere if you were in orbit naked.

    * This would have to be evidence of substantial probative value (that’s a lot more than “little to no probative value”, by the way…)

    No, it’s not, but as I stated: The question now becomes: how much impeachment evidence of “substantial probative value” is needed to impeach a state certified document that has no probative value whatsoever?

    And how does the court arrive at the state certified document’s “reliability” without allowing sufficient “Discovery” on the part of the Plaintiff? In fact, I can make a damn good argument alone with just the fact that there isn’t any probative value to Obama’s state certified documents, in and of itself, sufficient grounds to grant “Discovery” in this case.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  75. avatar
    Sudoku October 29, 2012 at 7:17 pm #

    Okay, so you don’t understand what “probative value” is either, as evidenced by your statement “… a state certified document that has no probative value whatsoever”.

    Let’s just dispense with the legal jargon. Here are the plain, simple rules. A certified copy of a birth certificate is considered proof of the birth. Anyone wanting to challenge that assumption in court has to convince a judge it is fraudulent, in error, etc. You have to being the evidence with you to court. You don’t get to go fishing through the defendant’s personal life or the issuing state’s archives. Basically, you would have to have a certified copy of a birth certificate from another state or country, along with the sworn testimony of the issuing officer. Then, you would have a ball game. Discovery for everybody! Otherwise, you, like everyone else, has to accept the issuing state’s word.

    David Farrar: No, it’s not, but as I stated: The question now becomes: how much impeachment evidence of “substantial probative value” is needed to impeach a state certified document that has no probative value whatsoever?

    And how does the court arrive at the state certified document’s “reliability” without allowing sufficient “Discovery” on the part of the Plaintiff? In fact, I can make a damn good argument alone with just the fact that there isn’t any probative value to Obama’s state certified documents, in and of itself, sufficient grounds to grant “Discovery” in this case.

  76. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 29, 2012 at 7:21 pm #

    If I may attempt to interpret this…

    Judge Malihi said in his decision against David Farrar that the evidence presented by Orly Taitz was of little probative value. He wrote:

    The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiff’s allegations.

    Judge Malihi cited: Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.18(10).

    I think David’s argument is that the copy of the birth certificate, included among Taitz’ exhibits must, therefore, be of little or no probative value.

    This kind of thinking I have seen in birther litigants before. It references the trappings of judicial language without an understanding of them, in this case the rules of evidence. Real evidence requires a foundation. Just as Orly Taitz’ experts were rejected by the court because Taitz had not qualified them, so the evidence was not probative because she provided no foundation for it. The birth certificate, as far as the Court was concerned, was an allegation by the Plaintiffs for which no foundation was provided.

    Specifically Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.18(1)(e) says that the administrative law judge may consider:

    (e) documentary evidence in the form of copies if the original is not readily available, if
    its use would unduly disrupt the records of the possessor of the original, or by agreement
    of the parties.

    Let’s face it, Orly Taitz doesn’t know what probative evidence is, much less how to provide a foundation for it.

    David Farrar: Yes, I do. Do you, according to Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.18(10) and to the proper level of judicial notice applied to such evidence.

  77. avatar
    gorefan October 29, 2012 at 7:23 pm #

    David Farrar: how much impeachment evidence of “substantial probative value” is needed to impeach a state certified document that has no probative value whatsoever?

    It would help if you had any impeachment evidence of “substantial probative value”. So far you haven’t produced any.

  78. avatar
    Yoda October 29, 2012 at 7:31 pm #

    David Farrar: No, it’s not, but as I stated: The question now becomes: how much impeachmentevidence of “substantial probative value” is needed to impeach a state certified document that has no probative value whatsoever?

    And how does the court arrive at the state certified document’s “reliability” without allowing sufficient “Discovery” on the part of the Plaintiff?In fact, I can make a damn good argument alone with just the fact that there isn’t any probative value to Obama’s state certified documents, in and of itself, sufficient grounds to grant “Discovery” in this case.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    That just may be the single dumbest thing I have ever heard.

  79. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG October 29, 2012 at 7:59 pm #

    I think Farrar needs to leave the legalese to the lawyers, and get back to his job as the guy in the “How many times has this happened to you?” portion of sham product commercials.
    You know, the guy who manages to give himself 2nd degree burns from trying to open a jar of pickles “the old fashioned way”?

  80. avatar
    Northland10 October 29, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

    David Farrar: No, it’s not, but as I stated: The question now becomes: how much impeachment evidence of “substantial probative value” is needed to impeach a state certified document that has no probative value whatsoever?

    The answer is quite simple. You need to find case history where a state certified document was impeached. To increase the persuasiveness of a the citation, it should be relatively easy to translate to your current predicament. Using the criteria I gave above might be a structure where you can start.

    The answer to your questions was simple, but I suspect finding the case history may be a tad more difficult.

  81. avatar
    Paper October 29, 2012 at 8:08 pm #

    Or any impeachment evidence of *any* value.

    gorefan: It would help if youhad any impeachmentevidence of “substantial probative value”.So far you haven’t produced any.

  82. avatar
    Northland10 October 29, 2012 at 8:29 pm #

    David Farrar: I think we can safely say the “youtube” video has absolutely no probative value whatsoever. It is still based on Obama’s statement, not the hospital’s.

    But if it said Obama was not born in Hawaii, your attorney would submit it as “evidence.”

  83. avatar
    Sudoku October 29, 2012 at 8:30 pm #

    Thanks, Doc. That helps a bit, but like you said, “It references the trappings of judicial language without an understanding of them, in this case the rules of evidence.”

    Farrar would have to be trying to have it both ways (shocker for a birther, I know). IIRC, neither a certified copy of the BC nor a Verification was entered in that case. I think there were illegible prints from the WH site that were attached to nth generation copies of some affidavits. (I apologize if that is incorrect, but I do not feel like reading a mess of Orly-law style attempts at legalese to check.)

    In the decision, the ALJ said that the testimony and exhibits presented by plaintiffs were “of little, if any, probative value and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ allegations.”

    To (try to) be clear, the allegations included forgery and the judge said there was no support for it. And, now, Farrar wants to claim that the judge said the copy of the LFBC had no probabative value, but to double down on the (il)logic of it all, when he referred to it here, he called it a “state certified document”.

    That is some slimy, bowl of spaghetti style, twisted, bass akwards logic. IMHO.

    David Farrar: No, it’s not, but as I stated: The question now becomes: how much impeachment evidence of “substantial probative value” is needed to impeach a state certified document that has no probative value whatsoever?

    Dr. Conspiracy: If I may attempt to interpret this…

  84. avatar
    Slartibartfast October 29, 2012 at 8:37 pm #

    Wow! I’m impressed (and just a little disturbed…). I have a new understanding of the depth and scope of Ms. Farrar’s ignorance and lack of reasoning ability.

    Well done, Doc!

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    If I may attempt to interpret this…

  85. avatar
    Slartibartfast October 29, 2012 at 8:39 pm #

    I think if you give David a chance, he will be able to do better… ;-)

    Yoda: That just may be the single dumbest thing I have ever heard.

  86. avatar
    misha marinsky October 29, 2012 at 9:36 pm #

    David Farrar: is needed to impeach

    You leave my peaches alone. So now you’re reduced to molesting fruit? Sounds about right.

    Farah molests ruminants, and you molest fruit. Disgusting.

  87. avatar
    misha marinsky October 29, 2012 at 9:46 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:get back to his job as the guy in the “How many times has this happened to you?” portion of…product commercials.

    “Hi. I’m Davidette Farrar. How many times have you gone to a used car lot to buy that eight cylinder Conestoga, and found out it was “just sold thirty seconds ago”?

    Well, I have a foolproof system to buy cars. If it doesn’t save you five thousand dollars, my name’s not Larry.”

  88. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG October 30, 2012 at 12:30 am #

    Slartibartfast:
    I think if you give David a chance, he will be able to do better…

    Nothing doing! The last criminally incompetent boob I gave another chance to went and made “The Last Airbender”!