Main Menu

Joe Biden: sued at last

imageI think Joe Biden was actually sued once by Phil Berg in his “interpleader” suit, Hollister v. Soetoro, that was famously “raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and … massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry,” but the Vice President has been notably absent in most birther litigation. Biden has an important role in the succession of the Executive: as President of the Senate and presider over the certification of the votes of the Electoral College next January 6; and it is in that role that he becomes a defendant in the newest federal lawsuit in California, served up by that frequent filer and “Queen of the Birthers” Orly Taitz, Grinols v. Electoral College.

As they say, “monkey see, monkey do.” At least two lawsuits have been filed against members of the Electoral College: the New York electors by Strunk, and all of them by Sibley in DC., so why not grab this latest birther shiny object and make the grand gesture in California, suing the Electoral College, the President of the Senate (Biden) along with the Governor of California, the Secretary of State of California, the U.S. Congress, and Barack Hussein Obama. Plaintiffs are James Grinols and Robert Odden (losing candidates for Presidential Elector), and Noonan, MacLeran and Judd (losing candidates for President). The attorney, in the black dress, is Orly Taitz.

Taitz, waiting a mere 5 days before the Electoral College meets next Monday, files an “Extraordinary Emergency” petition to stay the vote of the Electoral College. This reminds me of the saying, immortalized on office signs across the English-speaking world:

image

Taitz also would pretty please like an injunction against Congress and the Vice President to prevent them from doing their constitutionally-mandated duty of certifying the election on January 6. This complaint is so over the top that Taitz’ delusions of grandeur are having delusions of grandeur. My Muse Hyperbolae has left me without words to describe it.

Among many errors, Taitz even gets the redacted Obama social-security number wrong, writing “XXX-XX-2225” instead of “4425.” There no less than 108 pages of exhibits to the 31-page complaint, including an affidavit of Ron Polland (Polarik), and documents from Linda Jordan, Tim Adams and Susan Daniels. In one sense it’s a shame that this will be dismissed when there is such an opportunity to slap down so many birther expert pretenders at one time.

The case number is 2:12-at-01587.

Update:

The motion for a temporary restraining order has been tossed because it doesn’t comply with the rules. A competent attorney would, of course, be familiar with the local rules and would have file the required affidavits and forms. “This is the way the case ends, not with a bang but a whimper.” Here are the deficiencies:

EDCA ECF 8 – 2012-12-14 – Grinols v Electoral College – OrDER Denying Motion for TRO

Print Friendly

, , , , , , , , ,

72 Responses to Joe Biden: sued at last

  1. avatar
    US Citizen December 12, 2012 at 10:51 pm #

    How in the world could she have standing or any valid complaint when the electors haven’t yet done anything?
    This is like suing an auto mechanic you never brought your car to because they might damage it if you had.

    Orly should just go to the race track or Vegas.
    She’d get a better return on her money and could then say she won something.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 12, 2012 at 11:03 pm #

    Their alleged damage is imminent and not conjectural. That little bit seems OK.

    US Citizen: How in the world could she have standing or any valid complaint when the electors haven’t yet done anything?

  3. avatar
    nbc December 12, 2012 at 11:35 pm #

    US Citizen: How in the world could she have standing or any valid complaint when the electors haven’t yet done anything?

    Because it is clear what is going to happen.

  4. avatar
    JPotter December 13, 2012 at 12:05 am #

    The woman doesn’t quit. I says she explodes or collapses into a catatonic state on or before Jan 6th. No way she can possibly survive Jan 21st.

    Assuming, of course, we all survive 12/21. 12/12/12 passed fairly quietly.

  5. avatar
    John Reilly December 13, 2012 at 12:14 am #

    At least Epperly is honest about saying that the issue is a Black man in the White House.

    This new complaint is a steaming pile of manure. I always like the part where she demands a jury to try both the facts and the law. I understand from the lawyer posters that there is an issue in some of her cases as to whether a jury should be used to determine facts. (That is, if Dr. Taitz ever had a fact.) However, juries don’t determine what the law is. I would think they cover that in most law schools.

    Let’s see. She has to serve folks. Odds are she won’t get that right. Many of the defendants are in the government. So they get 60 days to answer. From when they get served. By the time Dr. Taitz ever managed to get everything right, Pres. Obama will be negotiating his book deal. And picking out his library site.

    And my guess is that the courts are already exchanging information on the latest batch of nuttiness. As I’ve observed before, a friend who used to be the U.S. Attorney said that the President, whoever he is, gets sued every day. A junior attorney in the office gets assigned to deal with the nutcases. The judges are used to these claims, and they simply get dismissed.

  6. avatar
    aarrgghh December 13, 2012 at 1:04 am #

    my favorite piece of utter birfoonery from the epperly complaint:

    “Would anyone like to compare Barack Hussein Obama’s Right Footprint with the Footprint that is printed on the Hospital Birth Record? Footprints are like fingerprints, they don’t change over the years.”

    to quote rationalWiki:

    “Fractal wrongness is the state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person’s worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person’s worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.”

  7. avatar
    misha marinsky December 13, 2012 at 1:33 am #

    JPotter: 12/12/12 passed fairly quietly.

    There was a great concert from Madison Square Garden.

  8. avatar
    Bob December 13, 2012 at 3:40 am #

    She never even finishes small, doable projects like when she wanted to send transcripts of the Georgia hearing to the Secretary of State in all 50 states. The earth shattering idea just disappears and is never spoken of. I wouldn’t be surprised if she never even mentions this again.

  9. avatar
    The Magic M December 13, 2012 at 4:54 am #

    John Reilly: I always like the part where she demands a jury to try both the facts and the law.

    That struck me odd, too, but hey, it’s Orly! Also, it’s a subtle way of telling the judge “I think you will be bribed anyway, so please let somebody decide who is not a traitor”.

    Still Orly’s logic is wrong even in her own worldview. If Obama can bribe/threaten so many judges, a jury should be even easier to “get to”.

    That’s the new thing about birthers, contrary to many conspiracy believers who have a closed but (in the insane way) “consistent” world view, they make claims that are contradicted by their other claims.

  10. avatar
    US Citizen December 13, 2012 at 4:59 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Their alleged damage is imminent and not conjectural. That little bit seems OK.

    It seems more a like a perceived danger instead of an imminent danger, but hey, IANAL.

  11. avatar
    Thrifty December 13, 2012 at 7:08 am #

    Have you ever worked on a project in some field you were good at, but then you came to a particularly difficult portion of that project? Then you try to solve this problem, but it’s so difficult that it requires extra effort and you start trying to concentrate on it but you can’t quite figure it out and you start making stupid mistakes and doing sloppier and sloppier work. Then you finally just figure that you need to take a break to let your mind refresh, or call in a colleague to get a second brain on the problem.

    Orly’s legal work is a lot like that, with the difference being that she was never good at it to start with.

  12. avatar
    realist December 13, 2012 at 7:09 am #

    ”John Reilly: I always like the part where she demands a jury to try both the facts and the law.”

    In Orlylaw one receives a jury trial when filing for injunctive relief.

    In real life/law one doesn’t.

  13. avatar
    The Magic M December 13, 2012 at 8:05 am #

    realist: In Orlylaw one receives a jury trial when filing for injunctive relief.

    It also kinda reminds me of the SCO vs. Novell litigation.
    First SCO was struck down by the administrative judge. They appealed because they wanted a jury trial and lost again. Then they moved for an en banc rehearing of the appeal and got a partial remand.
    Then they got their jury trial and lost.
    Then they asked the judge to strike the jury verdict and rule himself instead.
    He denied.

    So pretty much that went “First it goes to the judge, then we don’t like his decision and want a jury to rule, then we don’t like its decision and want a judge to rule”.
    You could expect the same if any Orly case ever made it in front of a jury – she’d just claim the jury doesn’t know the law and consisted of “Obama supporters” and that she absolutely needs a judge to decide because only judges can be impartial…

  14. avatar
    The Magic M December 13, 2012 at 8:08 am #

    (And yes, SCO’s litigation strategy was pretty much “Orly without the procedural deficits”).

  15. avatar
    Scientist December 13, 2012 at 8:28 am #

    John Reilly: I always like the part where she demands a jury to try both the facts and the law.

    It’s a delusion of nut-jobs like Taitz that “the people are with us; only some (insert name) elite group is thwarting their will in order to protect the usurper”. But let’s look at the jury Orly would get, of whom she would have to convince all 12 to win. Obama got 60% of the vote in California, so, statistically, 7 would have voted for Obama. Of the 5 Romney voters 2 or 3 would be anti-birthers who likely believe the birthers hurt the GOP. The other 2 or 3, who might be sympahetic to birther arguments, will have to get over their distaste for Orly’s personality to take her side.

    All in all, while the odds of Orly getting a single judge to agree with her are effectively zero, the odds of her getting 12/12 jurors are even lower.

  16. avatar
    Northland10 December 13, 2012 at 8:43 am #

    SCO had decided to be a patent troll company just like Orly became an eligibility troll lawyer.

    The Magic M:
    (And yes, SCO’s litigation strategy was pretty much “Orly without the procedural deficits”).

  17. avatar
    John Reilly December 13, 2012 at 9:43 am #

    Scientist, you are wrong. Jury service in the Birther world is limited to white folk. African Americans, Hispanics, Jewish people, folks on welfare/Medicaid, etc., are all so clearly conflicted. Anyone who voted for Pres. Obama has a conflict and would be excused. Anyone with more than a GED would be conflicted. Anyone whose principal news source is not WND is prejudiced.

    And in this world, stuiff printed from the Internet is admissable evidence. No need for a judge to rule. The jury gets to decide whether something is evidence.

  18. avatar
    Scientist December 13, 2012 at 10:17 am #

    Of course, the matter of Obama’s eligibility has already received 2 jury trials, each with somewhere around 130 million jurors.

  19. avatar
    Reasonable DOUBT December 13, 2012 at 11:24 am #

    All ‘gabage’ … simply prove that the usurpers submitted documents are ‘not’ forgeries, otherwise don’t pretend that all the ‘ignorant’ stuff posted in this blog are pertinent to knowing who is in the White House.

    yes ‘gabage’ is spelled correctly, and let the world know when any commenter has the proof that the 3 submitted documents, by the White House stink, to prove eligibility are ‘not’ forgeries. Once the 3 documents are proven to be valid then we can treat the “stink” as anyone would treat a legitimate POTUS.

  20. avatar
    The Magic M December 13, 2012 at 11:37 am #

    Reasonable DOUBT: prove that the usurpers submitted documents are ‘not’ forgeries

    Why don’t you start by proving they are forgeries in the first place? The law doesn’t work by “I make some outlandish claims and now you have to prove me wrong”. There’s that pesky “burden of proof” thing, along with “evidence is not something printed off the internet”.

  21. avatar
    bovril December 13, 2012 at 11:41 am #

    Well “Reasonable DOUBT” I heard it on the Internet that you are foul pederast who molests porcupines, PROVE you’re not……

    See how it works?

  22. avatar
    Scientist December 13, 2012 at 12:00 pm #

    3 documents? Which 3? The President and Executive Branch agencies submit thousands of documents every year to Congress. Does this have something to do with the fiscal cliff?

    As for how “we” treat the President, who is “we? I doubt you have ever come within 10 miles of him, so what meaning does how you “treat” him have? Will you “treat” him to beers if he satisfies you. Microbrew or Bud? I like Dogfish Head myself

  23. avatar
    Majority Will December 13, 2012 at 12:10 pm #

    Reasonable DOUBT:
    All ‘gabage’ … simply prove that the usurpers submitted documents are ‘not’ forgeries, otherwise don’t pretend that all the ‘ignorant’ stuff posted in this blog are pertinent to knowing who is in the White House.

    yes ‘gabage’ is spelled correctly, and let the world know when any commenter has the proof that the 3 submitted documents, by the White House stink, to prove eligibility are ‘not’ forgeries.Once the 3 documents are proven to be valid then we can treat the “stink” as anyone would treat a legitimate POTUS.

    You shouldn’t use words you don’t understand.

  24. avatar
    donna December 13, 2012 at 12:13 pm #

    Reasonable DOUBT:

    in THIS country, the accuser has the burden of proof

    which of the birther “witnesses” are court qualified forensic experts in the field in which they are testifying?

  25. avatar
    Lupin December 13, 2012 at 12:24 pm #

    Reasonable DOUBT: yes ‘gabage’ is spelled correctly, and let the world know when any commenter has the proof that the 3 submitted documents, by the White House stink, to prove eligibility are ‘not’ forgeries. Once the 3 documents are proven to be valid then we can treat the “stink” as anyone would treat a legitimate POTUS.

    I have the absolute, total, incontrovertible, unarguable proof here on my desk.

    There. Do you feel better now?

  26. avatar
    Reasonable DOUBT December 13, 2012 at 1:07 pm #

    The facts are not complicated at all when there’s more proof of forged documents than there is of ‘original’ documents to establish eligibility to be POTUS. Just prove that the 3 documents needed to be POTUS are valid documents. View the; bc, selective service doc., and SSN. then Americans can treat the White House impostor as a normal POTUS. Legalisms are just cya efforts to legitimize what is now considered be an impostor in the White House.
    **************************************
    Reasonable or Prudent man is a hypothetical person used as a legal standard especially to determine whether someone acted with negligence. This hypothetical person exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct that society requires of its members for the protection of their own and of others’ interests. The conduct of the reasonable man serves as a comparative standard for determining liability. For example, the decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances.

    Reasonable man is a term commonly used in tort and criminal law. The Laws of England place great weight on the Reasonable Man. This may be due to the fact that it is not possible to specify exactly what ought to be done in all circumstances, and therefore it is phrased in terms of what a reasonable man would in the circumstances do. This standard is used to judge the conduct of an ordinary person only. Usually persons with greater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physician who aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care than is an ordinary person.

    Finis…

  27. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater December 13, 2012 at 1:13 pm #

    Reasonable DOUBT:
    The facts are not complicated at all when there’s more proof of forged documents than there is of ‘original’ documents to establish eligibility to be POTUS.Just prove that the 3 documents needed to be POTUS are valid documents. View the; bc, selective service doc., and SSN.then Americans can treat the White House impostor as a normal POTUS.Legalismsare just cya efforts to legitimize what is now considered be an impostor in the White House.**************************************
    Reasonable or Prudent man is a hypothetical person used as a legal standard especially to determine whether someone acted with negligence. This hypothetical person exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct that society requires of its members for the protection of their own and of others’ interests. The conduct of the reasonable man serves as a comparative standard for determining liability. For example, the decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances.

    Reasonable man is a term commonly used in tort and criminal law. The Laws of England place great weight on the Reasonable Man. This may be due to the fact that it is not possible to specify exactly what ought to be done in all circumstances, and therefore it is phrased in terms of what a reasonable man would in the circumstances do. This standard is used to judge the conduct of an ordinary person only. Usually persons with greater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physician who aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care than is an ordinary person.

    Finis…

    The facts aren’t complicated which is why you’ve brought none. The documents are valid. The Issuing authority for the birth certificate the Hawaii Department of Health says they issued the document and has verified it is accurate on multiple occasions. The Social Security number is valid and the SSA has backed this up. It was issued to Obama in 1977. Selective Service has stated that Obama registered in 1980 and his registration is valid. There is no requirement to have a Social security number, selective service card or birth certificate to be President. Please link me to any of these documents from George W. Bush, Bill Clinton or any president we’ve had in the last 50 years. You’ve created no reasonable doubt.

  28. avatar
    Scientist December 13, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

    Reasonable DOUBT: Just prove that the 3 documents needed to be POTUS are valid documents. View the; bc, selective service doc., and SSN.

    None of those documents are required to be President. Most Presidents in US history had none of those 3. The only documents required to be President are the Electoral College certifications from the 50 states + DC. Since those will only be issued on the 17th, it is preposterous to call them invalid.

    Reasonable DOUBT: The Laws of England place great weight on the Reasonable Man.

    Ae we speaking of the Queen? Will and Kate’s baby? Take it up with Parliament.

  29. avatar
    Majority Will December 13, 2012 at 1:19 pm #

    Reasonable DOUBT: The facts are not complicated at all when there’s more proof of forged documents than there is of ‘original’ documents to establish eligibility to be POTUS.

    Again, you should not be using words you clearly do not understand.

  30. avatar
    Scientist December 13, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

    I am trying to think of how anyone, whether they were President or postal worker, would prove that their birth certificate is valid. Hmm… wait, I know, they would get a letter from the state that issued it vouching for its accuracy.

  31. avatar
    sfjeff December 13, 2012 at 1:35 pm #

    So I am curious as to everyone’s opinions.

    Are our various name drive by persona’s who drop that box of stink on the doorstep here, ring the bell and then run away- the same person who just changes ID every few days or are these really various delusional folks who all seem to spout the same wierd Birther party lines?

  32. avatar
    sfjeff December 13, 2012 at 1:36 pm #

    Scientist: I am trying to think of how anyone, whether they were President or postal worker, would prove that their birth certificate is valid. Hmm… wait, I know, they would get a letter from the state that issued it vouching for its accuracy.

    Well the only safe method would be to find people on the internet with no previous experience verifying documents and to send it to them by email for verification….

  33. avatar
    Butterfly Bilderberg December 13, 2012 at 1:42 pm #

    Putting aside for a moment that the separation of powers means that no court will enjoin or order Congress or the President Pro Tem of the Senate to do shit, and the lack of standing of any of these plaintiffs, and the untimeliness of the action, and …and …, what Orly cannot grasp is that all of the forms of relief sought can be granted only by the court in a bench trial. Mandamus, declaratory relief and injunctive relief are not tried to a jury.

    Given her inability to effectuate proper service under Rule 4 or any substitute forms, I predict a long, screechy death spiral for this POS case. But not before half a dozen plaintiffs and a few tens of thousands of defendants are joined via three amended complaints.

  34. avatar
    Thrifty December 13, 2012 at 1:48 pm #

    Why should we prove anything to you? The vast majority of people either

    1) Don’t care about the issue or
    2) Realize Birthers are nuts.

    And that’s just the general public. Among the people who’s opinion on the matter actually matters (Congress and the Courts) you have pretty much 100% who disagree with you.

    Trying to convince you of the truth, that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, has a valid SSN and draft registration, and is a natural born citizen, would be like nailing Jello to the wall: impossible and pointless.

    Reasonable DOUBT:
    All ‘gabage’ … simply prove that the usurpers submitted documents are ‘not’ forgeries, otherwise don’t pretend that all the ‘ignorant’ stuff posted in this blog are pertinent to knowing who is in the White House.

  35. avatar
    Thrifty December 13, 2012 at 1:55 pm #

    I’m not gonna comment on our Birther guest’s postings. That stuff is old hat and the others have put in their two cents. I’m just hung up on his weird spelling of “garbage”. I’d ignore it as a typo if not for the fact that he insists that was the correct spelling.

  36. avatar
    Rickey December 13, 2012 at 2:14 pm #

    Reasonable DOUBT:
    Just prove that the 3 documents needed to be POTUS are valid documents. View the; bc, selective service doc., and SSN.

    I just finished reading the Constitution (again), and I can’t find any reference to birth certificates, Selective Service documents or Social Security Numbers. Maybe I’m missing something?

    While you are at it, please provide links to the birth certificate, Selective Service documents and Social Security Number which George W. Bush provided to the public to prove his eligibility to be President.

    By the way, I am a Certified Reasonable & Prudent Person™, so feel free to ask me to weigh in on any other perplexing issues which you may have.

  37. avatar
    Rickey December 13, 2012 at 2:17 pm #

    Thrifty:
    I’m not gonna comment on our Birther guest’s postings.That stuff is old hat and the others have put in their two cents.I’m just hung up on his weird spelling of “garbage”.I’d ignore it as a typo if not for the fact that he insists that was the correct spelling.

    I found this in an online Urban Dictionary:

    GABAGE: (adj) to exhibit qualities that are related to garbage, and also to have no other redeeming qualities in that particular skill other than illegitimacy.

  38. avatar
    nbc December 13, 2012 at 2:17 pm #

    Reasonable DOUBT: Just prove that the 3 documents needed to be POTUS are valid documents. View the; bc, selective service doc., and SSN. then Americans can treat the White House impostor as a normal POTUS

    The birth certificate has been certified by the State Of Hawaii and shows our President to be born on US soil.

    That’s the only document that is necessary to show his eligibility under the natural born and age requirement.

    A SSN or selective services document have no relevance, even though they both show that our President 1) had a valid SSN from early on (age 18) and used the same SSN throughout his life 2) registered for selective services.

    Sorry my friend but there is just no reason to pursue these documents other than harassment.

    He was chosen in the primary to be the Democratic Candidate, people voted for his electors in the General elections, and the electoral college voted for him in 2008 and will likely do so in 2012. In 2009 and in 2013 Congress will have an opportunity to here any objections, and lacking those, will confirm that he has met the qualifications. Once sworn in, he has become and will become our President.

    You do believe in the Constitution don’t you?

  39. avatar
    nbc December 13, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

    Rickey: I just finished reading the Constitution (again), and I can’t find any reference to birth certificates, Selective Service documents or Social Security Numbers. Maybe I’m missing something?

    Birth certificate is relevant to prove age and natural born status so I can see why people would like to see the document. The document has been provided as a COLB and the full form and both have been verified and certified by the DOH of the State of Hawaii. So from an eligibility perspective, the only remaining matter is whether or not he spend 14 years in the US.

  40. avatar
    nbc December 13, 2012 at 2:22 pm #

    Reasonable DOUBT: All ‘gabage’ … simply prove that the usurpers submitted documents are ‘not’ forgeries, otherwise don’t pretend that all the ‘ignorant’ stuff posted in this blog are pertinent to knowing who is in the White House.

    They have been shown not to be forgeries by virtue of the certification and verification by the only party who can do so legally: The Department of Health of the State of Hawaii.

    The claims of forgery comes from derived documents which are of no relevance and as I and others have shown, the so called elements that would indicate ‘forgery’ can more trivially point to algorithmic effects due to the scanning process used and the subsequent workflow to optimize for size.

    Self proclaimed ‘experts’ have testified and the Judge rightly refused their testimony irrelevant as they had failed to show that they were experts in the field.

    They tried, and failed, it’s time to move on.

  41. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater December 13, 2012 at 2:37 pm #

    Thrifty: I’m not gonna comment on our Birther guest’s postings. That stuff is old hat and the others have put in their two cents. I’m just hung up on his weird spelling of “garbage”. I’d ignore it as a typo if not for the fact that he insists that was the correct spelling.

    Maybe it’s a french birther?

  42. avatar
    nbc December 13, 2012 at 2:40 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Maybe it’s a french birther?

    Rubbish!!

  43. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater December 13, 2012 at 2:43 pm #

    nbc: Rubbish!!

    That’s pronounced Rewbische

  44. avatar
    Majority Will December 13, 2012 at 3:16 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Maybe it’s a french birther?

    This flaming birther bigot uses “Muslim usurper” on its idiotic cesspool of a blog. That explains enough.

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 13, 2012 at 3:19 pm #

    I knew a reasonable man. He was a friend of mine. You are no reasonable man.

    But seriously, whatever requirement of proof must have been met because most voters voted for Obama and I can think of no better arbiter of reasonableness on this issue. The other arbiter of eligibility is the Congress. They were satisfied in 2008, and if they don’t change their minds, the final decision on Obama’s eligibility is made.

    You will have lost, and your silly, and I do mean silly, claims of document forgery will have been rejected. And you may go into the street carrying a “usurper” sign crying out that the president is not the president as people pass you by keeping a good distance from you, in case you’re violent.

    Reasonable DOUBT: Reasonable man is a term commonly used in tort and criminal law.

  46. avatar
    misha marinsky December 13, 2012 at 3:41 pm #

    Reasonable DOUBT: The facts are not complicated at all when there’s more proof of forged documents than there is of ‘original’ documents to establish eligibility to be POTUS.

    I agree with you. Ignore the others. In fact, I found a Kenya BC (Obama’s?) which may be what you are looking for:

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/09/another-kenyan-birth-certificate.html

  47. avatar
    SluggoJD December 13, 2012 at 3:45 pm #

    Reasonable DOUBT:
    The facts are not complicated at all when there’s more proof of forged documents than there is of ‘original’ documents to establish eligibility to be POTUS.Just prove that the 3 documents needed to be POTUS are valid documents. View the; bc, selective service doc., and SSN.then Americans can treat the White House impostor as a normal POTUS.Legalismsare just cya efforts to legitimize what is now considered be an impostor in the White House.**************************************
    Reasonable or Prudent man is a hypothetical person used as a legal standard especially to determine whether someone acted with negligence. This hypothetical person exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct that society requires of its members for the protection of their own and of others’ interests. The conduct of the reasonable man serves as a comparative standard for determining liability. For example, the decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances.

    Reasonable man is a term commonly used in tort and criminal law. The Laws of England place great weight on the Reasonable Man. This may be due to the fact that it is not possible to specify exactly what ought to be done in all circumstances, and therefore it is phrased in terms of what a reasonable man would in the circumstances do. This standard is used to judge the conduct of an ordinary person only. Usually persons with greater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physician who aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care than is an ordinary person.

    Finis…

    What a maroon. Tell you what, poopyhead, you prove that you are not an ignorant racist from the planet Uranus who believes in lochness monsters and I’ll prove Obama is legitimately president.

    Deal?

  48. avatar
    misha marinsky December 13, 2012 at 3:50 pm #

    SluggoJD: from the planet Uranus

    Your WHAT?!

  49. avatar
    Rickey December 13, 2012 at 3:55 pm #

    nbc: Birth certificate is relevant to prove age and natural born status so I can see why people would like to see the document. The document has been provided as a COLB and the full form and both have been verified and certified by the DOH of the State of Hawaii. So from an eligibility perspective, the only remaining matter is whether or not he spend 14 years in the US.

    Agreed. I was just pointing out that he is wrong when he says those documents are “needed” to be POTUS.

    Perhaps the birth certificate should now be a requirement. I doubt that there is anyone currently alive who is contemplating running for President and would have any difficulty obtaining a certified copy of his or her birth certificate, so I do not believe that it would be an undue burden. But let’s require it for all candidates, not just those with funny names and/or different color skin.

  50. avatar
    Keith December 13, 2012 at 3:57 pm #

    Butterfly Bilderberg: Putting aside for a moment that the separation of powers means that no court will enjoin or order Congress or the President Pro Tem of the Senate to do taitz, and the lack of standing of any of these plaintiffs, and the untimeliness of the action, and …and …,

    FIFY

    We are working on an internet meme here Butter, if not an all out Google Bomb.

  51. avatar
    nbc December 13, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

    Rickey: Agreed. I was just pointing out that he is wrong when he says those documents are “needed” to be POTUS.

    That is correct. I agree that a birth certificate is not required as I believe the qualification of a President is in the hands of Congress. If they believe that they need to inspect additional information to determine a President’s eligibility, then they may have the ability to ask for such materials.

  52. avatar
    misha marinsky December 13, 2012 at 4:10 pm #

    Keith: We are working on an internet meme here Butter, if not an all out Google Bomb.

    Right here: http://spreadingtaitz.tumblr.com/

  53. avatar
    J.D. Reed December 13, 2012 at 4:37 pm #

    Rickey: Agreed. I was just pointing out that he is wrong when he says those documents are “needed” to be POTUS. Perhaps the birth certificate should now be a requirement. I doubt that there is anyone currently alive who is contemplating running for President and would have any difficulty obtaining a certified copy of his or her birth certificate, so I do not believe that it would be an undue burden. But let’s require it for all candidates, not just those with funny names and/or different color skin.

    Wonderful idea!

  54. avatar
    J.D. Reed December 13, 2012 at 4:43 pm #

    Reasonable DOUBT: Your very handle is an oxymoron as it applies to you.

  55. avatar
    US Citizen December 13, 2012 at 4:56 pm #

    Gabage in, gabage out.

  56. avatar
    donna December 13, 2012 at 5:37 pm #

    Taitz’s suit seeks to block Biden from performing his constitutional duty as president of the U.S. Senate, opening envelopes containing individual state Electoral College votes in front of a joint session of Congress in January. The Electoral College is scheduled to convene Monday. Taitz also seeks to prevent California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and Secretary of State Debra Bowen (D) from signing documents regarding California’s vote count that will be sent to Biden.

    According to the National Archives and Records Administration’s website, states are required to mail the documents to Biden and U.S. Archivist David Ferriero, along with a federal judge, by Dec. 26.

    In her filing and exhibits, Taitz cited what she says is evidence of Obama’s forged documentation and citizenship, including information she said was compiled by Maricopa County, Ariz. Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s (R) “cold case posse” when they investigated Obama’s birth records in Hawaii.

    Taitz’s court filing can be viewed here and the exhibits viewed here.

    Taitz’s filing also said that 1.5 million California voters were fraudulently registered via an online registration process. She said a CD of voter registrations sent to her by Bowen showed that the registered voters did not have records proving citizenship or residency. Taitz said she had the information analyzed by two experts.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/13/orly-taitz-electoral-college_n_2293291.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

  57. avatar
    BillTheCat December 13, 2012 at 5:55 pm #

    No reason to continue responding to him, he said “finis” and for a birther that means “I get to spew my nonsense based on fantasy and I’m not sticking around to allow the facts to get in the way”.

    Poor guy, I guess Nov 6 really wasn’t a good day for him.

  58. avatar
    Greenfinches December 13, 2012 at 6:08 pm #

    Reasonable DOUBT: . The Laws of England place great weight on the Reasonable Man.

    Don’t see any role here for a reasonable man, Mr Doubt.

    The authorities who would know have already confirmed the COLB (and indeed the LFBC) so there is no need to go further on that. ONly a very unreasonable man would say there was.

    Social Security and Selective Service have nothing to do with the Presidency qualifications, so we don’t need to pursue that – but any reasonable man, if that were relevant as it is not, would be comforted by the official verifications already public.

    So, a dead issue.

    And FYI – I am an English lawyer.

  59. avatar
    Greenfinches December 13, 2012 at 6:12 pm #

    Out of interest, why is English law relevant here?

    (and the comment edit function is very non functional today…)

  60. avatar
    MN-Skeptic December 13, 2012 at 6:53 pm #

    So does Orly serve the U.S. Congress as a single unit or does she serve all 535 members individually? I’m looking forward to the results of either attempt!

  61. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 13, 2012 at 7:17 pm #

    In her suit, she describes Congress as a “government agency” so I presume she will just sue the one entity. I suppose in the history of whack-job lawsuits, someone has tried to sue Congress before.

    MN-Skeptic: So does Orly serve the U.S. Congress as a single unit or does she serve all 535 members individually? I’m looking forward to the results of either attempt!

  62. avatar
    Norbrook December 13, 2012 at 7:43 pm #

    According to the National Archives and Records Administration’s website, states are required to mail the documents to Biden and U.S. Archivist David Ferriero, along with a federal judge, by Dec. 26.

    I really hope they put air holes and food in the box they’re using for mailing the federal judge.

  63. avatar
    Thomas Brown December 13, 2012 at 7:55 pm #

    @RD: You trade on “reasonable,” but you don’t even really know how doubt works.

    Have doubt? Fair enough; search for evidence that proves your doubts were well-founded. Find some? Show it.

    Find none? Then you better put your doubts on hold in public or get used to being told to take a hike.

    And petulantly demanding that someone else patiently nurse your doubts and claiming victory when they won’t, or hawking evidence that any child could see is self-serving, worthless disreputable drivel is like pinning a badge on yourself that says “Hi. I’m an Asshat.”

  64. avatar
    Rickey December 13, 2012 at 10:00 pm #

    donna:

    Taitz’s filing also said that 1.5 million California voters were fraudulently registered via an online registration process. She said a CD of voter registrations sent to her by Bowen showed that the registered voters did not have records proving citizenship or residency. Taitz said she had the information analyzed by two experts.

    I guess that arithmetic isn’t Orly’s strong suit. Even if there are 1.5 million fraudulent registrations and even if all 1.5 million voted for Obama and Feinstein, it would make no difference because both candidates carried California by more than 3 million votes

  65. avatar
    donna December 13, 2012 at 10:08 pm #

    Rickey:

    does she have a “strong suit” other than “joker”?

    since the ca bar won’t go after her, perhaps the environmentalists will – she has killed lots of trees will all of her paper

  66. avatar
    Northland10 December 13, 2012 at 10:48 pm #

    Norbrook: I really hope they put air holes and food in the box they’re using for mailing the federal judge.

    :lol: :lol: :lol:

  67. avatar
    SluggoJD December 13, 2012 at 11:05 pm #

    MN-Skeptic: Sluggo

    I always look forward to paint drying, even though I always know what’s going to happen.

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 14, 2012 at 12:56 am #

    The Huffington Post has an article on this topic.

    What I found interesting was all of the comments from progressives that are ignorant of the law, for example, those thinking that Orly will get her citizenship revoked, or that she will go to jail for contempt for filing the “same suit” multiple times.

  69. avatar
    ZixiOfIx December 14, 2012 at 4:58 am #

    Can you imagine voir dire during jury selection with Ms. Taitz?
    The types of questions she would ask or try to ask potential jurors?
    The endless sidebars with the judge, the squabbling over what is and is not allowed with regard to questioning?
    The cries of, “Unfair!”, “Conspiracy!”, and the demands for special accommodations?
    It would be a sight to behold.
    Sadly yet thankfully, it will probably never happen.

    Scientist: It’s a delusion of nut-jobs like Taitz that “the people are with us; only some (insert name) elite group is thwarting their will in order to protect the usurper”.But let’s look at the jury Orly would get, of whom she would have to convince all 12 to win.Obama got 60% of the vote in California, so, statistically, 7 would have voted for Obama.Of the 5 Romney voters 2 or 3 would be anti-birthers who likely believe the birthers hurt the GOP. The other 2 or 3, who might be sympahetic to birther arguments, will have to get over their distaste for Orly’s personality to take her side.

    All in all, while the odds of Orly getting a single judge to agree with her are effectively zero, the odds of her getting 12/12 jurors are even lower.

  70. avatar
    ZixiOfIx December 14, 2012 at 5:27 am #

    Reasonable DOUBT:
    All ‘gabage’ … simply prove that the usurpers submitted documents are ‘not’ forgeries, otherwise don’t pretend that all the ‘ignorant’ stuff posted in this blog are pertinent to knowing who is in the White House.

    Mr. Obama has shown certified copies of his BC. Additionally, though not required, the government of Hawaii has said that they issued the documents to him. Under the federal rules of evidence, he’s done all he would ever need to do if it ever got to a court of law, and even a little more. Because:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902

    Federal Rules of Evidence
    RULE 902. EVIDENCE THAT IS SELF-AUTHENTICATING

    The following items of evidence are self-authenticating; they require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted:

    (4) Certified Copies of Public Records. A copy of an official record — or a copy of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if the copy is certified as correct by:
    (A) the custodian or another person authorized to make the certification; or

    (B) a certificate that complies with Rule 902(1), (2), or (3), a federal statute, or a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court.

    That is how it works in the United States. Why do you insist that it work differently?

    Don’t you like the law in the United States?

    If you have evidence of fraud, you should present that evidence. Your best bet would be to use the services of a forensic document examiner who has previously testified in court. For some reason, birthers have never bothered to use a forensic document examiner, even though their services are a few hundred dollars up to perhaps several thousand dollars. Less that sending Sheriff Joe’s minions to Hawaii for a birther luau.

    You might even say that birthers have avoided using the services of a forensic document examiner

    Instead, birthers have spent these many years complaining and whining and doing a lot of absolutely nothing. Sound and fury.

    See, experts are not guys who worked in the family copy shop. They aren’t convicted forgers. They aren’t internet dating experts. They have actual degrees from actual universities and they are certified to testify in actual courtrooms by actual judges.

    If you have evidence, pony up. The ball is in your court. You should start by following the actual law and then get ‘er done if that is at all possible. When you refuse to follow the law and sit around and whine, it looks to all the world like you have nothing of substance to offer and just have a nasty personal bias against the president.

    Best hurry, too. Chupacabra fans and Loch Ness Monster aficionados are gaining on you in Conspiracy Land.

  71. avatar
    ZixiOfIx December 14, 2012 at 5:42 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    In her suit, she describes Congress as a “government agency” so I presume she will just sue the one entity. I suppose in the history of whack-job lawsuits, someone has tried to sue Congress before.

    Many people have attempted to sue Congress. Charles Kerchner sued Congress in 2010. I truly do not know which site is best to point to for details, but “Obama Release Your Records” has the pertinent documents embedded on one page (and some other junk), so I’m going to go with that. I hope it’s okay.

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/11/kerchner-v-obamacongresspelosi-update_08.html

    Kerchner v Obama/Congress/Pelosi – Petition for Writ of Certiorari

    BONUS! Also embedded: The lighthearted exchange between Representative Serrano & Justice Thomas’ about being born in the United States which caused birthers to come totally unglued.

  72. avatar
    The Magic M December 14, 2012 at 8:50 am #

    ZixiOfIx: The cries of, “Unfair!”, “Conspiracy!”, and the demands for special accommodations?

    Similar to what she tried with the defense’s objections in her last “trial”, she’ll probably claim that the “special emergency” warrants to just accept any juror she brings in tow and reserve the objections for after the verdict has been issued…