Main Menu

ORYR spins interview with Justice Sanders

Reality Check Radio had a great show last night (I briefly called in), featuring former Washington State Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders.

Sanders is representing birther plaintiff Linda Jordan before the Washington State Supreme Court in the matter of fees assessed Jordan as a result of her filing a frivolous appeal in the Jordan v. Reed lawsuit trying to prevent Barack Obama from being on the ballot in Washington State.

You can listen to the entire show below, or read the transcript:

Listen to internet radio with RCRadio on Blog Talk Radio

What Sanders emphasized was that he came late to the case and that his sole concern was the amount of the costs assessed against Jordan, whether they should be a market rate or the actual cost (which was about 1/3 of what the Court used). Sanders himself didn’t seem to be a birther and said essentially (and you can listen to his exact words) that anyone who wanted to prove Obama was foreign born “had a long way to go.” It seemed at first that Sanders thought he was on a birther program and was being reserved in what he said so as not to stir up an argument.

The birther spin machine at Obama Release Your Records accuses the Obots of putting words in Sanders’ mouth. I think RC did try to press Sanders on some points, but Sanders is an experienced attorney and judge, and can speak for himself. He had ample opportunity to say what he wanted to say. ORYR features a 13-minute excerpt, but also links to the full interview.

I am embarrassed in second-guessing myself when I said that Jordan had been involved with birther litigation since 2009 when she testified for Orly Taitz in Atlanta in the case of Farrar v. Obama. The reason for my hesitation was that while I was listening, I went back to this web site and searched for Jordan, finding nothing before 2011. So I was half right. Jordan did testify in Farrar but that case was in 2011-2012 with the hearing on January of 2012, and when Jordan should have known that the things she alleged in her own lawsuit would not be effective in court. To add to the confusion, Susan Daniels also testified at that hearing.

At the Farrar hearing Jordan testified that she used E-Verify to check Obama’s number on August 17, 2011 [Transcript P. 20, Lines 20-24], however, her Affidavit [Page 55] shows that the used she SSA Self Check system.

, , , ,

154 Responses to ORYR spins interview with Justice Sanders

  1. avatar
    Reality Check March 13, 2013 at 3:00 pm #

    I think Doc’s recollection is an accurate description. Of course I had some points that I intended to press for clarification. I listened to a couple of other interviews with Justice Sanders and he seemed to let slide the implication that Linda Jordan was assessed fees for merely filing the case originally. That was not true. It was also obvious he had no clue that Linda Jordan had to agree that she was Barack Obama to illegally access E-verify Self Check. I was not surprised he was uninformed about that because Jordan misled or lied in her complaint to the court when she said in her affidavit when she said:

    On July 26, 2011 I tried to enroll in the E-Verify system but it is required the employer enter data from their employee’s I-9 Employee Eligibility Verification Form. I have been unable to locate one for Obama. [Imagine that!]

    On August 27, 2011, I went back to E-Verify website and found there was a “Self Service” function that was more streamlined and easier to use when checking an employees eligibility. I entered the name Barack Obama, birth date August 4, 1961 and SSN 042-XX-XXXX. The data was entered correctly. The report I got back from the SSA was a “Notice of Mismatch with Social Security Administration (SSA) Records

    To get that far she had to check a box where she acknowledged that she was in fact the person to whom that number was assigned, agree to the Terms of Use, enter a correct address for Barack Obama and then answer several questions correctly (which she may or may not have done).

    Since she was untruthful to the court about the access I would guess she never bothered to tell Sanders the details either.

    I am quite impressed that ORYR thinks I could put words in the mouth of a senior attorney and former state supreme court justice.

  2. avatar
    john March 13, 2013 at 4:11 pm #

    “I am embarrassed in second-guessing myself when I said that Jordan had been involved with birther litigation since 2009 when she testified for Orly Taitz in Atlanta in the case of Farrar v. Obama. The reason for my hesitation was that while I was listening, I went back to this web site and searched for Jordan, finding nothing before 2011. So I was half right. Jordan did testify in Farrar but that case was in 2011-2012 with the hearing on January of 2012, and when Jordan should have known that the things she alleged in her own lawsuit would not be effective in court.”

    Actually the judge twisted the legal logic and tried to mislead the court over this point:

    From the Decision: “The first wave occurred DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 2008, and involved issues similar or identical to those raised in this case. Plaintiff Linda Jordan CANNOT be unaware of those cases.”

  3. avatar
    john March 13, 2013 at 4:13 pm #

    So the fact that Jordan should have known litigation AFTER 2009 would not be effective in court is a mistruth. ACCORDING TO THE COURT, It was 2008, and there is NO evidence Jordan knew her actions would not be effective.

    Another instance where Doc C. is the master manipulator of the facts.

  4. avatar
    john March 13, 2013 at 4:28 pm #

    I agree, RC does put words in Judge Sander’s mouth.

  5. avatar
    john March 13, 2013 at 4:33 pm #

    What a bunch of hypothetical mularky

  6. avatar
    Deborah March 13, 2013 at 4:43 pm #

    Reality Check- respectfully, how can it be said that Jordan brought the case “in good faith” when, as the Judge said, just as the Plaintiff’s case was on the open blogosphere, so was the Defendant’s case on the blogosphere? When I started my own research into the legitimacy of the President, I was inclined to believe he was NOT legitimate. I did my research for several days with a friend who, from the onset, believed that he was legitimate. So I had some ‘splainin’ to do to my friend as the evidence told a simple story- Barack Obama was born of two college students, and one of them was an African exchange student. Simple.

    I do think Judge Sanders MAY have a case about the fees imposed on Jordan being three times the amount of original costs, but somehow that only strikes me as an effort by Sanders to regain SOME credibility (to save face). The fact is, the birthers, in all their formerly respectable fields- (Political Science professors, attorneys, sheriffs, military personnel, etc.) are ruining their own credibility- perhaps permanently so! Now, those of us who have examined the evidence have to view the birthers amongst us in our daily lives with real suspicion!

    Since Judge Sanders did happen to mention Dependency court in his interview, I think I can insert a little bit of my own personal agenda and thoughts here. Family Court is an extremely unconstitutional court that has damaged many of our lives. It operates as a type of criminal court without affording the defendants the same Constitutional rights as criminals who have been formally charged. But that does not give us the right to place the blame for this corruption on the Commander-In-Chief for this corruption existed long before Obama came into office. I could say a ton on this topic but I won’t. It would be nice if the commander-in-chief did grab hold of the reigns of the lower courts which are in fact acting outside of the Constitution and doing massive social damage.

    Getting back to the topic- excessive fees- well, what else is new?! Since the bail out, many of us have believed that the Republic entered into failure mode because the Representatives did NOT advocate the wishes of their constituency. The majority of the people believed we should just let the banks and insurance companies fail. Blaming Obama is not going to restore the Republic, except he did make the claim that they are “too big to fail”. This turned many of his voters against him- but with regard to the birth certificate, I am happy to be amongst the minority that recognize he is legitimate.

  7. avatar
    G March 13, 2013 at 4:59 pm #

    You make an extremely important point here that I think really is worthy of a whole blog topic of analysis on its own.

    Finding out that someone is still a birther in real life is a complete credibility killer. If I found out that a doctor or dentist I went too believed such crazy stuff, I’d stop going to them. Likewise for other professions. I simply don’t want to risk my health or money on the services of someone who can be so irrationally detached from reality…

    Whether someone might be “nice” in their outside life is one thing, but knowing that they can willfully harbor such delusions completely kills any trust or credibility they would otherwise have with me..

    Deborah: The fact is, the birthers, in all their formerly respectable fields- (Political Science professors, attorneys, sheriffs, military personnel, etc.) are ruining their own credibility- perhaps permanently so! Now, those of us who have examined the evidence have to view the birthers amongst us in our daily lives with real suspicion!

  8. avatar
    Deborah March 13, 2013 at 5:07 pm #

    Social justice to the rescue!

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 13, 2013 at 5:09 pm #

    The judge can’t mislead the court. The judge IS the court.

    But more substantively, given Jordan’s involvement with Taitz in the January 2012 Farrar case, it is hardly credible that she was unaware of birther litigation in general.

    And the key point, which birthers keep getting wrong, is that these sanctions were not leveled at Jordan for filing her lawsuit. They were leveled at her for appealing her loss after she had the benefit of the Judge’s reasoning why the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear her cases. She cannot have been unaware of the decision against her specifically and the reasons for it.

    john: Actually the judge twisted the legal logic and tried to mislead the court over this point:

    From the Decision: “The first wave occurred DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 2008, and involved issues similar or identical to those raised in this case. Plaintiff Linda Jordan CANNOT be unaware of those cases.”

  10. avatar
    Reality Check March 13, 2013 at 5:10 pm #

    Deborah, I don’t think we have any disagreement at all on that point. I tried to tell Justice Sanders that if he thought Jordan was the poor little victim of the big bad government he had bet on the wrong horse. I think Judge McPhee expressed as much contempt for this case in his decision as he could while staying within the bounds of judicial propriety. He essentially said get this POS out of my court sooner rather than later. I read McPhee’s words you quoted to Justice Sanders.

    Deborah: Reality Check- respectfully, how can it be said that Jordan brought the case “in good faith” when, as the Judge said, just as the Plaintiff’s case was on the open blogosphere, so was the Defendant’s case on the blogosphere? When I started my own research into the legitimacy of the President, I was inclined to believe he was NOT legitimate. I did my research for several days with a friend who, from the onset, believed that he was legitimate. So I had some ‘splainin’ to do to my friend as the evidence told a simple story- Barack Obama was born of two college students, and one of them was an African exchange student. Simple.

  11. avatar
    Reality Check March 13, 2013 at 5:13 pm #

    That was my evil plan jy and it worked! I am Oz the Great and Powerful!

    john:
    I agree, RC does put words in Judge Sander’s mouth.

  12. avatar
    Rickey March 13, 2013 at 5:30 pm #

    john:
    So the fact that Jordan should have known litigation AFTER 2009 would not be effective in court is a mistruth.ACCORDING TO THE COURT, It was 2008, and there is NO evidence Jordan knew her actions would not be effective.

    Once again you fail to comprehend the facts.

    For the umpteenth time, Linda Jordan was NOT sanctioned for filing her lawsuit. She was sanctioned for filing her appeal.

    Whether she knew about the early birther cases when she filed the lawsuit is irrelevant. She certainly knew about them when she filed her appeal, because Judge McPhee’s decision dated 8/29/12 cites several of them:

    Ankeny v. Daniels
    Robinson v. Bowen
    Keyes v. Bowen
    Rhodes v. McDonald

    Jordan could not possibly have been unaware of those cases when she filed her appeal, unless she didn’t bother to read Judge McPhee’s decision.

    It also is worth noting that Jordan has never argued that she did not know about the early birther cases. She did not deny it in her appeal, and she is not denying it now.

  13. avatar
    Bob March 13, 2013 at 6:41 pm #

    Why did the Birthers think Sanders was so pro-Birther (nutty) in the first place? Were they just hearing what they wanted to hear?

    And, loss after loss Birthers have done nothing but deride judges.

  14. avatar
    Deborah March 13, 2013 at 6:42 pm #

    I listened to the radio blog a second time, and I have to correct myself- it was the former Justice Sanders who said the case was “brought in good faith” and not Reality Check. I would not want to dissuade Sanders from his prerogative to navigate the case according to his understandings of government misconduct while on the bench- but having a Judge successfully win a birther case will lend credibility where there is none, I think, and might cause the birthers to claim they have a judge in their favor, in addition to all the other professionals they have recruited.

  15. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater March 13, 2013 at 7:07 pm #

    The whole thing about Sanders claiming Jordan brought the case in good faith irked me. Especially after she was involved as a witness in the Georgia case with Judge Malihi. She was a witness in the case brought by Orly so she heard Orly’s arguments which were the same. She knew then when Malihi heard the case on the merits and dismissed it that her case was a failure and yet she brought it anyway.

  16. avatar
    Daniel March 13, 2013 at 7:11 pm #

    john:
    What a bunch of hypothetical mularky

    Wow, that statement alone blew out every irony meter in a twelve mile radius

  17. avatar
    john March 13, 2013 at 7:36 pm #

    But SCOTUS HASN”T Ruled Doc.

  18. avatar
    katahdin March 13, 2013 at 7:44 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater:
    The whole thing about Sanders claiming Jordan brought the case in good faith irked me.Especially after she was involved as a witness in the Georgia case with Judge Malihi.She was a witness in the case brought by Orly so she heard Orly’s arguments which were the same.She knew then when Malihi heard the case on the merits and dismissed it that her case was a failure and yet she brought it anyway.

    Keep in mind, he is acting as her attorney. He has an ethical duty to zealously advocate for his client. For an attorney to publicly impute bad faith to his client would be a breach of that duty.

  19. avatar
    john March 13, 2013 at 7:44 pm #

    The AG’s argument that Jordan she be sanctioned to curtail future actions is COMPLETELY FRIVOLOUS! It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove or show that Linda Jordan or someone else will commit similar future actions. Why? Because Obama CANNOT run again. Therefore, ANY FUTURE BALLOT CHALLENGE WITH OBAMA OR ANY OTHER CANDIDATE is moot and speculation.

  20. avatar
    Sudoku March 13, 2013 at 7:46 pm #

    I don’t think it is a minority, certainly not of the US voting population.

    Judge Sanders is a former Washington State Supreme Court Justice and is no longer on the bench. He is representing Linda Jordan in her effort to reduce the amount of attorneys fees she ordered to pay. He is not trying to re-litigate the case, but I could see birthers being excited that he took it on at all.

    Deborah: …but with regard to the birth certificate, I am happy to be amongst the minority that recognize he is legitimate.

    Deborah:…but having a Judge successfully win a birther case will lend credibility where there is none,…

  21. avatar
    Reality Check March 13, 2013 at 7:46 pm #

    Good, I thought I had not made myself clear on the show. It gets confusing with multiple people on the show. I was the garbled guy. 😆 The comments at ORYR are rather amusing. They seem hopeful that Justice Sanders will go full Birther. I hope they are holding their breath.

    Deborah: I listened to the radio blog a second time, and I have to correct myself- it was the former Justice Sanders who said the case was “brought in good faith” and not Reality Check.

  22. avatar
    Thinker March 13, 2013 at 8:06 pm #

    The best Linda Jordan can hope for from Justice Sanders’ representation of her is a reduction in the fees she was assessed for her frivolous appeal. That’s all his motion deals with. It has nothing to do with the merits of the original case. Her case is d-e-a-d. She lost her appeal. She cannot “win” her case. If she walks away from this with sanctions of $3500 instead of $13,000–plus whatever fee Sanders charged her–birfers will probably characterize it as a “win.” But Obama won Washington State, he is the President, and Linda Jordan will still be out several thousand dollars for her BS lawsuit. Even under the best case scenario, no sane person would consider that a win.

    Although birfers might.

    Deborah:
    I would not want to dissuade Sanders from his prerogative to navigate the case according to his understandings of government misconduct while on the bench- but having a Judge successfully win a birther case will lend credibility where there is none, I think, and might cause the birthers to claim they have a judge in their favor, in addition to all the other professionals they have recruited.

  23. avatar
    john March 13, 2013 at 8:10 pm #

    Comments:

    To comment on Thomas Brown’s proud impression that the court’s decision have been universal…I take Judge Saunder’s take on that…The courts are not going to create chaos by upsetting the apple cart.

    Obama’s SSN problem has never been addressed on the merits; just speculation by obots

    Jordan has the right to access the courts INCLUDING THE APPEAL PROCESS.

    The states vary in the SOS duties regarding candidate eligibility and precident does exist – Cleavage in CA, for a SOS to remove someone from the ballot.

    Obama was being sued AS A CANDIDATE to be the ballot; irregardless of the fact that Obama was and is POTUS.

    Jordan as a voter would have right to access documents to determine eligibility of A CANDIDATE TO BE ON THE BALLOT if there were concerns

  24. avatar
    john March 13, 2013 at 8:16 pm #

    To comment on Doc C’s comment that Judge Mahili in GA found the experts not be qualified. That was based on witnessed proffered by ORLY TAITZ. I think Doc C will agree that claim is not surprising knowing Orly’s legal expertise.

    Still, the merits HAVE NEVER been heard by a COMPETANT LAWYER.

  25. avatar
    john March 13, 2013 at 8:46 pm #

    Yes, Jordan received a letter warning the AG would seek attorney fees. However, $13,000 for a FRIVOLOUS APPEAL is overboard. The AG NEVER WARNED Jordan he would seek fees for SANCTIONABLE CONDUCT, only reasonable attorney fees; $3,500.

  26. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 13, 2013 at 9:04 pm #

    I think you meant to say that the merits have never been presented by a competent lawyer. Given that Farrar was the only case on the merits that received a decision, and Taitz was the lawyer, I am forced to agree with what I think you meant.

    However, Taitz aside, Orly presented affidavits from Jordan, Daniels, Strunk, Papa and Vogt and Sampson. I don’t see that the birthers have anything better to offer. Birthers have come competent lawyers, but no competent evidence.

    john: To comment on Doc C’s comment that Judge Mahili in GA found the experts not be qualified. That was based on witnessed proffered by ORLY TAITZ. I think Doc C will agree that claim is not surprising knowing Orly’s legal expertise.

    Still, the merits HAVE NEVER been heard by a COMPETANT LAWYER.

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 13, 2013 at 9:08 pm #

    I’m not taking a position on what the amount of the fees should be. However, the AG made no representation as to what the fees would be and Jordan should have reasonably expected to pay a “market rate” instead the $65 an hour internal billing. Who reasonably expects attorney fees to be $65?

    I am going to accept whatever the Washington State Supreme Court decides, given that both sides have competent representation.

    john: Yes, Jordan received a letter warning the AG would seek attorney fees. However, $13,000 for a FRIVOLOUS APPEAL is overboard. The AG NEVER WARNED Jordan he would seek fees for SANCTIONABLE CONDUCT, only reasonable attorney fees; $3,500.

  28. avatar
    Jim March 13, 2013 at 9:13 pm #

    john:

    Still, the merits HAVE NEVER been heard by a COMPETANT LAWYER.

    Actually, that’s not true. Birther filings have been all over the web for years. All the cases and the evidence are there for anybody to look at now. Many lawyers have seen and commented on it many places on the web…and the overwhelming amount of them who have followed this agree, there is no case. The evidence is overwhelmingly against the birthers.

  29. avatar
    john March 13, 2013 at 9:28 pm #

    It was a frivolous case Doc, so the AG should have had no problem getting the courts to accept that. However, it the AG’s contention that he should get his full net worth instead of what he actually paid because he believes it necessary to prevent future suits.

    The problem with that argument is such a suit WILL NEVER BE REPEATED OR REOCCUR. The suit was based on a BALLOT CHALLENGE. Obama CAN NEVER run again so a suit of any similar nature will NEVER REOCCUR.

    To suggest that such a suit could reoccur in 2016 is pure speculation that can never been proven.

    The AG’s case against Jordan is quite frivolous. The AG may be entilted to what he billed the SOS which is $3,500 but no more.

  30. avatar
    Deborah March 13, 2013 at 9:36 pm #

    Good point, and true, about the voting minority, Sudoko…but I certainly mean the minority in my Republican county, and…dare I say, a minority on a social network such as Facebook? Oh WOW that’s a whole ‘nother propaganda issue! This is why we can’t have nice things.

  31. avatar
    Rickey March 13, 2013 at 9:40 pm #

    john:

    The problem with that argument is such a suit WILL NEVER BE REPEATED OR REOCCUR.The suit was based on a BALLOT CHALLENGE. Obama CAN NEVER run again so a suit of any similar nature will NEVER REOCCUR.

    To suggest that such a suit could reoccur in 2016 is pure speculation that can never been proven.

    So you are saying that if Rubio, Jindal or Cruz is the Republican candidate in 2016, there will be no eligibility challenges? You know that for a fact?

    Not that it matters. The AG doesn’t have to prove that there will be similar lawsuits in the future.

    Sanders has already conceded that Jordan’s conduct was sanctionable. The only issue to be resolved is how much she will have to pay.

  32. avatar
    john March 13, 2013 at 9:44 pm #

    You can read the AG’s motion yourself. The AG tries to make a case that the figure should be high as a SANCTION to Linda Jordan.

    The AG lawyer quotes the following – “In this case, such an award is necessary in order to deter similar future conduct.”

    The problem is the lawyer presents no evidence that such a sanction is warranted.

    The facts are these – This was a BALLOT CHALLENGE to keep Obama off the ballot in Washington state. Obama has been REELECTED. Obama CAN NEVER be on the ballot in Washington State EVER AGAIN.

    Therefore, similar future conduct CAN NEVER reoccur.

    Any contention that this could occur again in 2016 with some OTHER candidate is pure speculation that can never be proven.

    In short the lawyer present no evidence or argument that the sanction is necessary to prevent future misconduct. In addition, the lawyer fails to cite what future misconduct can be deemed similar to Linda Jordan’s action.

    The lawyer’s argument is frivolous and weak.

  33. avatar
    john March 13, 2013 at 9:50 pm #

    “So you are saying that if Rubio, Jindal or Cruz is the Republican candidate in 2016, there will be no eligibility challenges? You know that for a fact?”

    It is pure speculation that Rubio, Jindal or Cruz would be on any ballot in Washington State. The lawyer simply can’t prove or even show necessity in the sanction.

    Judge Sanders never said that Jordan’s actions where sanctionable, only that Jordan’s legal actions were frivolous. In fact Judge Sanders has defended Linda Jordan and has said she had every right to proceed.

    Judge Sanders agrees Jordan should pay something because it was a frivolous case but he believes it should be $3,500 at the most because that was what was billed.

    The whole Sanction thing can be thrown out.

  34. avatar
    G March 13, 2013 at 9:55 pm #

    Yeah John, sure… Because your track record of your opinion vs reality….how’s that going for you,exactly? I keep thinking one of these day’s you’ll finally get a clue…but you’re too dependent on your delusions.

    john: The lawyer’s argument is frivolous and weak.

  35. avatar
    JRC March 13, 2013 at 10:53 pm #

    John, do you know the difference between the words “similar” and “specific” first off? Your examples are rather specific. Second, it’s about similar “conduct” as in similar abuse of the Judicial process that happened in this case.

  36. avatar
    Gabe March 13, 2013 at 11:03 pm #

    The Emperor has no clothes.

  37. avatar
    AlCum March 13, 2013 at 11:16 pm #

    john:
    So the fact that Jordan should have known litigation AFTER 2009 would not be effective in court is a mistruth.ACCORDING TO THE COURT, It was 2008, and there is NO evidence Jordan knew her actions would not be effective.

    Another instance where Doc C. is the master manipulator of the facts.

    She should have known they would not be effective because her evidence is bogus and Obama’s eligibility is a proven fact.

  38. avatar
    AlCum March 13, 2013 at 11:19 pm #

    john:
    But SCOTUS HASN”T Ruled Doc.

    Nor does SCOTUS need to rule. There is nothing on which to rule.

  39. avatar
    AlCum March 13, 2013 at 11:21 pm #

    john:

    Obama’s SSN problem has never been addressed on the merits;just speculation by obots

    Obama does not have a “SSN” problem. nor would such a “problem” be at issue in any question of eligibility.

  40. avatar
    john March 13, 2013 at 11:39 pm #

    “Obama does not have a “SSN” problem. nor would such a “problem” be at issue in any question of eligibility.”

    Not necessarilly. If Obama has an invalid SSN or no SSN, this raises a severe doubt that he would be a Natural Born Citizen. One can legally assume a Natural Born Citizen would have a LEGAL and VALID SSN. Further, if Obama’s Selective Service is forged, then Obama can’t serve in any federal position including the POTUS; it would mean Obama would be a convicted felon.

    As Orly pointed out, while Constitution states the requirements to be the POTUS, one has to assume legal and common sense that such person who eligible would be to have a brain even though the constitution doesn’t state it.

  41. avatar
    MattR March 13, 2013 at 11:47 pm #

    john: Obama’s SSN problem has never been addressed on the merits; just speculation by obots

    Obama’s SSN problem has never been addressed because there are no merits; just speculation from birthers.

    (EDIT: And as AlCum points out, even if it were true it would still have nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility to be POTUS)

  42. avatar
    john March 13, 2013 at 11:49 pm #

    I have a question – What time frame did any discussion about Obama’s SSN come up? This is key because we know Obama used his SSN of 042 for his 2010 Tax Return. This means Obama was using the SSN of 042 in 2010 and before. However, E-Verify failed to verify it in 2011. If Obama’s SSN was discussed early on then why did it take Obama so long to get his SSN changed to be marked by E-Verify as Obots have suggested. He was the POTUS and you think he would have gotten changed INSTANTLY upon the first publish of his SSN on even the most obscure blog. Just as the Secret Service watches for threats, I am sure they watch the publication of such private information.

  43. avatar
    richCares March 14, 2013 at 12:22 am #

    Obama has used that SSN since he was 17, and we all know that if you use the wrong SSN IRS returns your tax forms, so john how many times has IRS returned Obama’s tax forms. That would be never as his SNN is fine!

  44. avatar
    john March 14, 2013 at 1:34 am #

    I’m just curious. What is AG lawyer’s WPM (Words Per Minute) rating? We know from Orly Taitz, that some lawyers type up their own motions. The AG submitted a number of hours dedicated to fighting Jordan’s appeal. In factoring legal research time along with the lawyer’s WPM rate, are those hours accurate? I guess Judge Sanders seems to think so. Nevertheless, inquiring into the WPM rate and what that should be for a lawyer as experienced as the AG lawyer might prove fruitful in determining on whether the lawyer’s time is accurate. Perhaps the lawyer might be a slow typer (low WPM) and that the appeal should not have taken as long as it should because of this.

  45. avatar
    john March 14, 2013 at 1:47 am #

    In addition, the lawyer in his bill cites quite a bit of time reviewing (reading) pleadings. As a lawyer, he should have at least an above average reading speed. Based on the letters and pleadings and the lawyer’s reading speed, are times recorded accurate?

    In some of the billing involving reading letters or pleadings, the lawyer filed up 30 minutes of time. Given the number of words in the letter or pleadings, it should have only take 2 or 3 minutes to read such a letter.

  46. avatar
    JRC March 14, 2013 at 2:39 am #

    So John, you avoided my questions? And avoided what the AG said as far as “conduct” LOL Typical of a birther. Poor reading comprehension. Avoid or move goal posts. Funniest part is I was working off your quote of the AG that you apparently thought somehow made your point. ROFL

  47. avatar
    J.D. Sue March 14, 2013 at 2:59 am #

    john: it should have only take 2 or 3 minutes to read

    john: What is AG lawyer’s WPM (Words Per Minute) rating?

    ——

    Lawyers read a document multiple times and analyze carefully; they draft and edit carefully. It is ludicrous to suggest that a lawyers work product is based on speed reading and speed typing. The AG’s time billed was reasonable, and that’s what matters.

  48. avatar
    Bob March 14, 2013 at 4:15 am #

    I’m not sure of the amount but I believe Linda Jordan (if that’s her real name) has received a substantial amount of money from Birthers to help pay for these sanctions.

    Why are you so concerned about Jordan’s sanctions, john? Do you feel responsible in some way? Did you encourage this act of stupidity? Send her some money and forget it.

  49. avatar
    Keith March 14, 2013 at 4:15 am #

    Gabe:
    The Emperor has no clothes.

    Call me back when its the Empress with no clothes… and pictures or it didn’t happen.

  50. avatar
    Paper March 14, 2013 at 4:26 am #

    I haven’t seen this reference yet myself, but just using your wording here, John, as a case in point: “reviewing” is not the same as “reading.” However long reviewing something takes, it unavoidably takes longer than just reading.

    john:
    In addition, the lawyer in his bill cites quite a bit of time reviewing (reading) pleadings. As a lawyer, he should have at least an above average reading speed. Based on the letters and pleadings and the lawyer’s reading speed, are times recorded accurate?

    J.D. Sue:
    Lawyers read a document multiple times and analyze carefully; they draft and edit carefully.

  51. avatar
    aarrgghh March 14, 2013 at 5:02 am #

    the denigration of professional expertise is a fundamental conceit of the know-nothing, who insists that the value of deriving an answer is equal or less than the value of writing it down, which is all the know-nothing is qualified to do.

  52. avatar
    Majority Will March 14, 2013 at 6:35 am #

    Gabe:
    The Emperor has no clothes.

    If the President was white, you wouldn’t have questioned his citizenship, patriotism or religion.

  53. avatar
    Northland10 March 14, 2013 at 7:42 am #

    J.D. Sue:
    ——
    Lawyers read a document multiple times and analyze carefully; they draft and edit carefully. It is ludicrous to suggest that a lawyers work product is based on speed reading and speed typing.The AG’s time billed was reasonable, and that’s what matters.

    Reading and analyzing carefully, drafting and editing carefully; these are foreign concepts to Birthers. This is why John is so confused.

    Reading and analyzing, drafting and editing, these are not a few of John’s favorite things.

  54. avatar
    AlCum March 14, 2013 at 8:05 am #

    john:
    In addition, the lawyer in his bill cites quite a bit of time reviewing (reading) pleadings. As a lawyer, he should have at least an above average reading speed. Based on the letters and pleadings and the lawyer’s reading speed, are times recorded accurate?

    In some of the billing involving reading letters or pleadings, the lawyer filed up 30 minutes of time.Given the number of words in the letter or pleadings, it should have only take 2 or 3 minutes to read such a letter.

    Incorrect yet again. You don’t want a lawyer to speed read through a complaint or a pleading, you want that lawyer to read carefully and probably several times. Especially with the thick illogical density of all birther pleadings, which are convoluted, based on misapplications of statute and case law, and general gibberish.

    I would expect it to take more time to read than, say, an average person reading a letter.

  55. avatar
    AlCum March 14, 2013 at 8:12 am #

    john:
    “Obama does not have a “SSN” problem. nor would such a “problem” be at issue in any question of eligibility.”

    Not necessarilly.If Obama has an invalid SSN or no SSN, this raises a severe doubt that he would be a Natural Born Citizen.One can legally assume a Natural Born Citizen would have a LEGAL and VALID SSN.Further, if Obama’s Selective Service is forged, then Obama can’t serve in any federal position including the POTUS; it would mean Obama would be a convicted felon.

    As Orly pointed out, while Constitution states the requirements to be the POTUS, one has to assume legal and common sense that such person who eligible would be to have a brain even though the constitution doesn’t state it.

    You are incorrect yet again. Even if Obama were to have an invalid SSN, which he does not, it would not raise any question about whether he’s a natural born citizen. Any citizen can get an SSN, even naturalized citizens, who are not eligible to the presidency. In fact, Obama’s natural born citizenship is a demonstrably proven fact. He is actually the first presidential candidate in the entire history of the Republic to document through his authenticated and certified birth certificate released to the public that he IS eligible as a natural born citizen, No president before this had EVER released his original birth certificate to the public.

    Nor is his Selective Service record forged. It is genuine, and this has been proven. Obama never touched his Selective Service record after the day he filled it out when he was 18. The released document came directly from Selective Service files under a Freedom of Information Act request during the Bush administration. It is uncontested that Obama is not a convicted felon, so this is immaterial.

  56. avatar
    dch March 14, 2013 at 9:11 am #

    “Not necessarilly.If Obama has an invalid SSN or no SSN, this raises a severe doubt that he would be a Natural Born Citizen.One can legally assume a Natural Born Citizen would have a LEGAL and VALID SSN.Further…”

    1. My Resident Alien (“Green Card”) spouse has a “valid” SS number.
    2.. She is not a natural born citizen.
    3. SS Numbers have little to do with citizenship.
    4. SS numbers have nothing to do with POTUS eligibilty.
    5. Birther delusions have produced zero results in 180 cases in US Courts over five years.

  57. avatar
    alg March 14, 2013 at 9:28 am #

    John, it has not been proven that Mr. Obama is using an invalid SS# or has forged his Selective Service record. What has been offered as “evidence” for these claims would be wholly inadmissible for a criminal court to accept.

    Likewise, assertions that Mr. Obama’s birth certificate is forged are equally inadmissible. That’s one of the reasons Sheriff Arpaio has never pursued criminal charges. He knows his so-called “Cold Case Posse evidence” would not stand the light of day in a criminal proceeding.

    It’s easy to make salacious accusations over the internet. Fortunately for our democracy we don’t conduct criminal trials on internet discussion forums where anyone can make up and assert dubious claims without being subject to widely accepted standards for the admissibility of evidence.

  58. avatar
    Majority Will March 14, 2013 at 9:33 am #

    It took less than 30 seconds to find this:

    Social Security numbers for noncitizens – http://ssa.gov/pubs/10096.pdf

    “Generally, only noncitizens authorized to
    work in the United States by the Department
    of Homeland Security (DHS) can get a Social
    Security number. Social Security numbers
    are used to report an individual’s wages to
    the government and to determine a person’s
    eligibility for Social Security benefits. You
    need a Social Security number to work, collect
    Social Security benefits and receive some other
    government services.

    Lawfully admitted noncitizens can get many
    benefits and services without a Social Security
    number. You do not need a number to get
    a driver’s license, register for school, obtain
    private health insurance, or to apply for school
    lunch programs or subsidized housing.

    Some organizations use Social Security
    numbers to identify you in their records. Most,
    however, will identify you by some other
    means if you request it.”

  59. avatar
    Paper March 14, 2013 at 9:46 am #

    Reading your interesting point, I started to agree with you, that I would do the same; if I found out a doctor or a lawyer was a birther, I would change doctors or lawyers. Then, I thought of the birthers I know, and a couple of them are professionals, not health professionals, not scientists, not lawyers, but everyday professionals, and I realized I would not only use their services, I would recommend them. Even though here I can’t or won’t reveal too much about them personally.

    One of them is more of an Obama despiser and not really a birther, more of an all-around insulter, willing to indulge just about any insult just because, but as bad as all that is, nonetheless I am even proud of the professional side of his life. He is even somewhat well-known in his circles. He’d probably be the first person whose services I would want.

    About the other, the worst of the whole bunch, the complete and utter conspiracy theorist, I probably would feel somewhat similarly about his professional work, but he has let his anger swamp his life and barely even works anymore. He used to provide services for a very very very important organization. The trouble with him is not the quality of his work. He has, however, self-selected himself out of a living. If he got his act together, and if he and I didn’t have a lot of personal issues at this point as a result of birtherism, I would be glad to use and would be confident in his services.

    This is probably why incompetent birthers bore me. I am more interested in the ones who have some kind of horsepower but have misused it or gone awry somehow. My personal experience with birthers and conspiracy theorists is with good people, not just nice but caring people, even intelligent people, certainly competent in their professions or skills, potentially great people, gone askew somehow. Some of them even use their better selves to rationalize or defend their demons. That is what I find the worst.

    G:

    Finding out that someone is still a birther in real life is a complete credibility killer.If I found out that a doctor or dentist I went too believed such crazy stuff, I’d stop going to them.Likewise for other professions.I simply don’t want to risk my health or money on the services of someone who can be so irrationally detached from reality…

    Whether someone might be “nice” in their outside life is one thing, but knowing that they can willfully harbor such delusions completely kills any trust or credibility they would otherwise have with me..

  60. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater March 14, 2013 at 9:47 am #

    john: I have a question – What time frame did any discussion about Obama’s SSN come up? This is key because we know Obama used his SSN of 042 for his 2010 Tax Return. This means Obama was using the SSN of 042 in 2010 and before. However, E-Verify failed to verify it in 2011. If Obama’s SSN was discussed early on then why did it take Obama so long to get his SSN changed to be marked by E-Verify as Obots have suggested. He was the POTUS and you think he would have gotten changed INSTANTLY upon the first publish of his SSN on even the most obscure blog. Just as the Secret Service watches for threats, I am sure they watch the publication of such private information.

    Also a lie. We know Obama was issued the social when he was 17. We also know he used it to register for selective service in 1980. Everify did nothing of the sort. Jordan fraudulently used the self check program during a time when self-check was still being rolled out. Here’s one article from August 2011 before she ran the self-check stating that Everify was being expanded into 21 states: https://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/august-17-2011/e-verify-expands-self-check-21-states.html

    Obama’s residence Illinois was not listed as being apart of the program during that time. Neither is Hawaii or DC. Since those areas were not apart of the program yet information about people who lived there would not be in the system. Which is why there was a mismatch.

  61. avatar
    RoadScholar March 14, 2013 at 9:49 am #

    Sorry, John. You still don’t get it, and I’m starting to think you never will.

    Justice Sanders was clear on how the law works, even though his specialty is not Constitutional law. And especially clear on what you have failed to grasp:

    1) Presidential eligibility is in the purview of Congress, not the Courts.

    2) Wherever such eligibility would be addressed, you cannot prevail on unsubstantiated allegations or doubts. You must have countervailing evidence. Which Birfers don’t.

    3) The burden of proof is on the accuser. The President doesn’t have to disprove squat, unless (as Justice Sanders said) credible positive evidence of his birth elsewhere had been found. Which it hasn’t, and never will, because it doesn’t exist.

    4) There is plenty of evidence BHO was born in Hawaii. And born on US soil means Natural Born Citizen. The “two citizen parents” requirement is horsecrap.

    Your idea that the courts don’t rule for Birfers because “chaos would ensue” is likewise garbage. Any case could have been decided for the Birfoons and no chaos would ensue until the decision was appealed and upheld. Which it wouldn’t be.

    The Courts have followed the law. You have nothing. End of story.

  62. avatar
    john March 14, 2013 at 10:18 am #

    Sanders is probably right to stipulate that Jordan’s case is frivolous as it was found to be so on appeal. That’s nearly impossible to overcome. The matter now depends on whether to lawyer should be given his full market fee of nearly $13,000 necessary as a sanction or should he get just what he billed his client which was $3,500. In that case, I would attack the necessity of the sanction and the verocity of the lawyer’s billing hours. I would want to depose the lawyer if possible to get certain information. I would certainly want know the following:
    1. What’s the lawyer’s WPM.
    2. What’s the lawyer’s reading speed.
    3. How well versed is the lawyer at Washington State Statutory Law? If the case is frivolous, is the review time cited an accurate representation based on the lawyer’s experience and reading speed.
    4. Why does the lawyer feel the sanction is necessary if the action WILL NEVER OCCUR again because Obama can never be on the Washington State Ballot again.
    5. What case can the lawyer cite that shares it’s characteristics to that of Jordan – baseless allegations, plaintiff knows the claims are frivolous, the plaintiff doesn’t heed warning, attacks the court and counsel, and continues to push forward claims that are baseless despite knowing there are indeed baseless. I can’t seem to think of a case that shares these characteristics.
    6. I would also study the motions and based on the lawyer’s WPM, is the time accurate.
    7. I would question whether the lawyer needs to be paid for so little time. .1 of hour is negigible and should not be considered.
    8. I would also question if the lawyer’s work was duplicative, redundant and, relevant considering the appeal was frivolous.

  63. avatar
    Reality Check March 14, 2013 at 10:26 am #

    I see you posted this same dumb question at ORYR. Your comment was 118 words. A good typist should be able to type 30 to 40 WPM. So it should have only taken you 3 to 4 minutes from start to finish right? Wait, you had to listen to my show to get the idea going. Then you had to read the AG’s motion with his summary of costs and time didn’t you? How long did those take? Of course no one proofread your comment or they would have told you it was pure idiocy and to delete the whole thing but real legal briefs are carefully proofed.

    Also, for god sakes don’t use Orly Taitz as an example for anything having to do with law.

    john: I’m just curious. What is AG lawyer’s WPM (Words Per Minute) rating? We know from Orly Taitz, that some lawyers type up their own motions.

  64. avatar
    Gabe March 14, 2013 at 10:29 am #

    Majority Will: If the President was white, you wouldn’t have questioned his citizenship, patriotism or religion.

    This is the depth of your thinking, kicking aside truth, justice and the American way with comments about about people being racial motivated. Look in the mirror of your mind and ask, Majority Will, are you really a closet racist! Well are you?

    guest invitation for the, Dinner Game, is yours.

  65. avatar
    Paper March 14, 2013 at 10:45 am #

    I won’t presume to know what your problem is, but maybe you can tell us, what is your problem then?

    Gabe:

  66. avatar
    Majority Will March 14, 2013 at 11:04 am #

    Paper:
    I won’t presume to know what your problem is, but maybe you can tell us, what is your problem then?

    Considering Gabe has lied repeatedly when posting, replied with bizarre and nonsensical non-sequiturs and has refused to provide any credible sources, I wouldn’t expect an honest answer.

    But then, such is the birther bigot troll.

  67. avatar
    john March 14, 2013 at 11:06 am #

    “Everify did nothing of the sort. Jordan fraudulently used the self check program during a time when self-check was still being rolled out. Here’s one article from August 2011 before she ran the self-check stating that Everify was being expanded into 21 states: https://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/august-17-2011/e-verify-expands-self-check-21-states.html

    “Since those areas were not apart of the program yet information about people who lived there would not be in the system. Which is why there was a mismatch.”

    Just guesswork, speculation. Actually Linda Jordan ran the check on the date of this article – 08/17/2011. At this time DC was included in the E-Verify Self Check. In addition, if this is true what you say, The Self Check System actually cites this specific reason; meaning the SSN is valid but the person’s personal information cannot be verified or found. However, this was NOT reason Jordan received when she ran the check. It indicated another unspecified reason citing the SSN could not be verified. I’m not sure what it means, but it is troubling to say the least.

    Finally, although the E-Verify Self Check System was limited to a number of state at the time, it really don’t state whether other states’ demographic information was in the system, only that it was available to person’s living a select number of states.

  68. avatar
    G March 14, 2013 at 11:08 am #

    Well said!

    aarrgghh:
    the denigration of professional expertise is a fundamental conceit of the know-nothing, who insists that the value of deriving an answer is equal or less than the value of writing it down, which is all the know-nothing is qualified to do.

  69. avatar
    G March 14, 2013 at 11:21 am #

    Yeah, in terms of just general “grumblers” I’ll call them, it is easier for me to overlook their diatribes and not worry about it affecting their professional capabilities.

    However, as I suspect is your case with the person who “self-selected” themselves out of being that busy of a worker, I’ve seen too many similar signs ever since Obama’s 2008 election – folks that might have had some streak of weird beliefs, paranoia and/or rigid ideology, but who have since that time, become so increasingly obsessed down their rabbit hole, that these thoughts (and associated random incoherent rage) are more and more taking over for them…and thus lessening their ability to function outside of their blooming extremist kook personality.

    So while I may have trusted some of these folks, based on their past experience at one time, I have to reassess their current and future competency, if I hear them breaking into such crazy topics without prompt or warning (which is often where these things are coming from these days – out of nowhere). To me, that is a sign that they can no longer contain their crazy and that they are increasingly compromised. So yeah, signs like that now make it easy for me to walk away from their services and seek a more stable competitor instead.

    Paper: About the other, the worst of the whole bunch, the complete and utter conspiracy theorist, I probably would feel somewhat similarly about his professional work, but he has let his anger swamp his life and barely even works anymore. He used to provide services for a very very very important organization. The trouble with him is not the quality of his work. He has, however, self-selected himself out of a living. If he got his act together, and if he and I didn’t have a lot of personal issues at this point as a result of birtherism, I would be glad to use and would be confident in his services.

    This is probably why incompetent birthers bore me. I am more interested in the ones who have some kind of horsepower but have misused it or gone awry somehow. My personal experience with birthers and conspiracy theorists is with good people, not just nice but caring people, even intelligent people, certainly competent in their professions or skills, potentially great people, gone askew somehow. Some of them even use their better selves to rationalize or defend their demons. That is what I find the worst.

  70. avatar
    DaveH March 14, 2013 at 11:26 am #

    All of the questions and assertions are, of course, ridiculous because John being a birther is well, dumb.

    john:
    Sanders is probably right to stipulate that Jordan’s case is frivolous as it was found to be so on appeal.That’s nearly impossible to overcome.The matter now depends on whether to lawyer should be given his full market fee of nearly $13,000 necessary as a sanction or should he get just what he billed his client which was $3,500.In that case, I would attack the necessity of the sanction and the verocity of the lawyer’s billing hours. I would want to depose the lawyer if possible to get certain information.I would certainly want know the following:

    The very thought that this could go into discovery so as to depose the AG is ridiculous in itself.

    1.What’s the lawyer’s WPM.

    How would that be relevant? Words per minute means nothing. Are you referring to typing that was most likely done by a clerk?

    2.What’s the lawyer’s reading speed.

    Reading speed is irrelevant. Trying to decipher a birther’s logic can take some time. The attorney still has to make an argument before the court that refutes what the birther claims.

    3.How well versed is the lawyer at Washington State Statutory Law?If the case is frivolous, is the review time cited an accurate representation based on the lawyer’s experience and reading speed.

    Most likely very well versed. Still has to research like cases from around the country that have set precedent to back up his arguments and convince the court that the defense is correct.

    4.Why does the lawyer feel the sanction is necessary if the action WILL NEVER OCCUR again because Obama can never be on the Washington State Ballot again.

    How do they know it can not occur again? And the sanction was calculated based on hours and the lodestar method that is common. The court approved. Jordan was warned that they would seek sanctions if she appealed. She got what she deserved.

    5.What case can the lawyer cite that shares it’s characteristics to that of Jordan – baseless allegations, plaintiff knows the claims are frivolous, the plaintiff doesn’t heed warning, attacks the court and counsel, and continues to push forward claims that are baseless despite knowing there are indeed baseless.I can’t seem to think of a case that shares these characteristics.

    If you read the argument you will see what cases were cited. Many of them were cases Orly Taitz brought in to other courts.

    6.I would also study the motions and based on the lawyer’s WPM, is the time accurate.

    Well, with you being a birther I guess this would be expected as you have no idea how long it takes to write and proof read the motions.

    7.I would question whether the lawyer needs to be paid for so little time..1 of hour is negigible and should not be considered.

    It is obvious that you have never hired an attorney to do anything for you based on an hourly rate. They tend to get their time even down to the minutes. The court obviously thought the time was reasonable.

    8.I would also question if the lawyer’s work was duplicative, redundant and, relevant considering the appeal was frivolous.

    Obviously, the court did not think that. Nor does Justice Sanders. He just thought the hourly rate was too high.

    That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if Justice Sanders is successful in decreasing the sanctions against Jordan. Regardless, even $3500 is enough to keep an idiot from filling another lawsuit. And I like the thought that other birthers are chipping in and thus it is also costing them money.

  71. avatar
    john March 14, 2013 at 11:33 am #

    “The court approved. Jordan was warned that they would seek sanctions if she appealed. She got what she deserved.”

    Actually not true. Jordan was warned by the attorney he would seek attorney fees which happen to be around $3,500 dollars. I think the lawyer was being unfair and dishonest and perhaps maliciously baiting to secretly suggest to Jordan the attorney fees actually means $13,000 paid in full for sanctionable conduct, especially since the lawyer told Jordan her appeal was frivolous. And again, the lawyer makes no argument that legal misconduct will every occur again since Obama can’t run again.

  72. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 14, 2013 at 11:34 am #

    While my knowledge of things may seem encyclopedic, what you really see in the character of Dr. Conspiracy is a broad knowledge backed up by the resources of this web site and a commitment to find sources for things.

    When I appear on RC Radio, I have to rely on just what I can remember and that’s not going to be close to what you see on the site here.

  73. avatar
    Paper March 14, 2013 at 11:40 am #

    Well, in terms of people going down the rabbit hole, yes, that fits my experience, especially with this guy no longer much working, for sure.

    Plus there is an additional person, over whom it pains me even more to note how far he has gone down the hole. This third one is not as violently minded, and talks (and talks and talks and talks) a slightly better game, but he is an “archduke” of conspiracy theories and he has self-selected himself out of a full life. As part of his whole self-destructive, willful collapse, he tossed his profession out the window. He has made a living of sorts, but the before and after pictures are quite stark. One small part of that collapse had to do with actual corruption by others, but that actual corruption has long been swamped by piles of nonsense and willful abandonment of a life.

    G:
    …but who have since that time, become so increasingly obsessed down their rabbit hole, that these thoughts (and associated random incoherent rage) are more and more taking over for them…and thus lessening their ability to function outside of their blooming extremist kook personality.

    So while I may have trusted some of these folks, based on their past experience at one time, I have to reassess their current and future competency, if I hear them breaking into such crazy topics without prompt or warning (which is often where these things are coming from these days – out of nowhere).To me, that is a sign that they can no longer contain their crazy and that they are increasingly compromised.So yeah, signs like that now make it easy for me to walk away from their services and seek a more stable competitor instead.

  74. avatar
    Majority Will March 14, 2013 at 11:41 am #

    john:

    Just guesswork, speculation. Actually Linda Jordan ran the [self] check on the date of this article – 08/17/2011.

    At this time DC was included in the E-Verify Self Check. In addition, if this is true what you say, The Self Check System actually cites this specific reason; meaning the SSN is valid but the person’s personal information cannot be verified or found. However, this was NOT reason Jordan received when she ran the [self] check. It indicated another unspecified reason citing the SSN could not be verified. I’m not sure what it means, but it is troubling to say the least.

    Finally, although the E-Verify Self Check System was limited to a number of state at the time, it really don’t state whether other states’ demographic information was in the system, only that it was available to person’s living a select number of states.

    “Self” Check.

    Lindan Jordan is President Obama!

    Great work, Sherlock!

    Yes, something is troubling but it’s not the President’s eligibility to hold office.

  75. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 14, 2013 at 11:42 am #

    Jordan should not have brought a frivolous appeal. It doesn’t matter what sanctions figure she might have inferred from the State AG letter, what she did was wrong and sanctionable, and she should have known it. When something is wrong, you shouldn’t do it, irrespective of the issue of consequences.

    As for future lawsuits, Jordan was sanctioned for a frivolous appeal, not a frivolous appeal specifically against Obama. Just because Obama will not run for President again, doesn’t mean that Jordan can’t file a frivolous lawsuit and a frivolous appeal against someone else.

    Jordan is lucky, at least so far, for escaping prosecution for illegally accessing the SSA system.

    john:
    “The court approved. Jordan was warned that they would seek sanctions if she appealed. She got what she deserved.”

    Actually not true.Jordan was warned by the attorney he would seek attorney fees which happen to be around $3,500 dollars.I think the lawyer was being unfair and dishonest and perhaps maliciously baiting to secretly suggest to Jordan the attorney fees actually means $13,000 paid in full for sanctionable conduct, especially since the lawyer told Jordan her appeal was frivolous. And again, the lawyer makes no argument that legal misconduct will every occur again since Obama can’t run again.

  76. avatar
    john March 14, 2013 at 11:45 am #

    “Just because Obama will not run for President again, doesn’t mean that Jordan can’t file a frivolous lawsuit and a frivolous appeal against someone else.”

    The lawyer cites absolutely no evidence of this.

  77. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 14, 2013 at 11:49 am #

    I think it is generally understood that people can file lawsuits when they choose to. I don’t think it is necessary to cite evidence to that effect.

    john: The lawyer cites absolutely no evidence of this.

  78. avatar
    john March 14, 2013 at 11:54 am #

    “Jordan should not have brought a frivolous appeal. It doesn’t matter what sanctions figure she might have inferred from the State AG letter, what she did was wrong and sanctionable, and she should have known it. When something is wrong, you shouldn’t do it, irrespective of the issue of consequences.”

    I believe Jordan should have access to courts including the appeals process. As for the frivolousness of her appeal regarding the SOS duties to verify eligibility.

    In CA, the case of Cleaver Vs. Jordan does suggest that such a verification can be done. Although a different state, Cleaver Vs. Jordan is the best precident setting cases that helps birthers.

    The CA appeals court basically swept this case under rug and ignored it. It is my understanding that there very little on this case. It concerned a presidential candidate named Cleaver who was ineligible to be the ballot because of age. The CA SOS became aware of this and removed Cleaver from the ballot. In Obama’s case, the CA SOS was made aware fully of Obama’s eligibility problem did absolutely nothing.

    The Cleaver precident at least in CA does suggest that is completely legal and possible for the SOS to remove someone from the ballot who is not eligible. Therefore, the CA SOS was clearly negligent and criminally complcint in the election and re-election of Barack Obama.

    As for the Cleaver precident applying in Washington State, I am not sure but It is interesting.

  79. avatar
    john March 14, 2013 at 11:57 am #

    “I think it is generally understood that people can file lawsuits when they choose to. I don’t think it is necessary to cite evidence to that effect.”

    If Obama was going to be on the ballot in 2016, I think the lawyer may have a case against Jordan. However, is it PURE SPECULATION to make the argument that Jordan would file another frivolous appeal or case involving someone else.

  80. avatar
    Scientist March 14, 2013 at 12:10 pm #

    john: If Obama was going to be on the ballot in 2016, I think the lawyer may have a case against Jordan.

    If Obama were to be placed on the ballot in 2016, a challenge would not be frivolous, as he would, finally, at long last, truly be ineligible. I suspect though that Linda Jordan wouldn’t need to file the challenge as one would be filed by every Democrat, Republican and independent with even an outside shot at the office.

  81. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 14, 2013 at 12:12 pm #

    You were arguing that Jordan should not be deterred from future misconduct because she won’t do it again. It is you who are speculating about what she might do in the future. The sanctions are for what she did, not what she might do.

    The penalty to discourage frivolous appeals was there to prevent Jordan from filing the appeal she filed, not the appeal that she might file. The threat of unspecified sanctions proved insufficient to prevent Jordan from filing the frivolous appeal that she filed. Further, punishment is not just to deter one person from repeat offense, but to deter everyone from all offenses, first or subsequent.

    What you’re arguing is like saying that a robber shouldn’t be sent to jail because the store they robbed was closed and they won’t rob it again. There are other stores, and other potential robbers. Given 200 frivolous lawsuits over the past 4 years in the Obama Conspiracy area, I think it quite in the public interest to deter lawsuits as a means of promoting future conspiracy theories.

    Now whether the appropriate deterrent is $3,500 or $13,000 is a separate question, and I am content to let the Court decide what the law is. I suspect that whichever way the decision goes, this case will be cited as precedent in the future in Washington State. But there is no question that what Jordan did was wrong and that she should be sanctioned for it.

    john: If Obama was going to be on the ballot in 2016, I think the lawyer may have a case against Jordan. However, is it PURE SPECULATION to make the argument that Jordan would file another frivolous appeal or case involving someone else.

  82. avatar
    JoZeppy March 14, 2013 at 12:19 pm #

    john:
    “The court approved. Jordan was warned that they would seek sanctions if she appealed. She got what she deserved.”

    Actually not true.Jordan was warned by the attorney he would seek attorney fees which happen to be around $3,500 dollars.I think the lawyer was being unfair and dishonest and perhaps maliciously baiting to secretly suggest to Jordan the attorney fees actually means $13,000 paid in full for sanctionable conduct, especially since the lawyer told Jordan her appeal was frivolous. And again, the lawyer makes no argument that legal misconduct will every occur again since Obama can’t run again.

    She was warned that they would seek fees if she appealed. He did not say how much, because he didn’t know what the fees would be. Jordan then not only filed the appeal, but filed several additional frivolous motions to go with the frivolous appeal, multiplying the amount of work required. The fact that Jordan doesn’t know that paying fees means paying the market rate is her fault alone. Much like failing to do the required research before filing a frivlous claim, and then doubling down by not paying attention to the order dismissing her case, citing copious amounts of case law as to why her claim was frivolous and filing a frivolous appeal, the fact that a birther can’t be bothered to find out what the actual law is before trying up the courts with their garbage is only the birther’s fault. And considering birthers continue to file frivolous suits and appeals, I think the facts prove you wrong on the question of whether there is a need to deter further court actions.

  83. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater March 14, 2013 at 12:21 pm #

    Gabe: This is the depth of your thinking, kicking aside truth, justice and the American way with comments about about people being racial motivated. Look in the mirror of your mind and ask, Majority Will, are you really a closet racist! Well are you?
    guest invitation for the, Dinner Game, is yours.

    You should really hire better writers this same joke was stale the first ten times you used it.

  84. avatar
    john March 14, 2013 at 12:22 pm #

    The lawyer makes it clear that the sanction upon Ms. Jordan is necessary to prevent FUTURE misconduct. The lawyer cites what Jordan DID and says the sanction is necessary to prevent her from doing it AGAIN. The lawyer says it is necessary deter future similar conduct but never says what that conduct is or will be. Lawyer cites the conduct in terms of Jordan’s case but since Obama will never be on the Washington State ballot again, it’s impossible to determine what furture case might share the characteristics of Jordan’s case. Again, I will inquire what case or any future case shares the characteristics to that of Jordan’s case.

  85. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater March 14, 2013 at 12:23 pm #

    john: “Everify did nothing of the sort. Jordan fraudulently used the self check program during a time when self-check was still being rolled out. Here’s one article from August 2011 before she ran the self-check stating that Everify was being expanded into 21 states: https://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/august-17-2011/e-verify-expands-self-check-21-states.html”“Since those areas were not apart of the program yet information about people who lived there would not be in the system. Which is why there was a mismatch.”Just guesswork, speculation. Actually Linda Jordan ran the check on the date of this article – 08/17/2011. At this time DC was included in the E-Verify Self Check. In addition, if this is true what you say, The Self Check System actually cites this specific reason; meaning the SSN is valid but the person’s personal information cannot be verified or found. However, this was NOT reason Jordan received when she ran the check. It indicated another unspecified reason citing the SSN could not be verified. I’m not sure what it means, but it is troubling to say the least.Finally, although the E-Verify Self Check System was limited to a number of state at the time, it really don’t state whether other states’ demographic information was in the system, only that it was available to person’s living a select number of states.

    In order for Jordan to complete the information she had to enter an address. Obama’s permanent residence was in Chicago. The unspecified reason is because the information wasn’t in the database. Again Jordan committed fraud and then tried to interpret the results of her fraud.

  86. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 14, 2013 at 12:26 pm #

    The precedent is Robinson v. Bowen saying that a Secretary of State (In California) has no duty to verify eligibility.

    john: As for the Cleaver precident applying in Washington State, I am not sure but It is interesting.

  87. avatar
    Paper March 14, 2013 at 12:36 pm #

    Because the future is indeterminate, and he is not talking about deterrence of limited, *specific* acts, such as spitting her gum on the sidewalk in front of Walgreens, but *similar* acts. (See the tutorial above in this thread about the difference between specific and similar.) She, or others, may or may not be inclined to commit such similar acts, such as bringing a frivolous appeal, but she/they will have been *deterred.* On the other hand, not allowing someone to file any lawsuits or appeals without permission would be outright *prevention.* You may want to ponder these further distinctions.

    Perhaps if you spent a few minutes *reviewing* matters, instead of speed-reading and speed-responding, you might escape your autonomic reflexes and discover what it means to think?

    john:
    The lawyer makes it clear that the sanction upon Ms. Jordan is necessary to prevent FUTURE misconduct.The lawyer cites what Jordan DID and says the sanction is necessary to prevent her from doing it AGAIN.The lawyer says it is necessary deter future similar conduct but never says what that conduct is or will be.Lawyer cites the conduct in terms of Jordan’s case but since Obama will never be on the Washington State ballot again, it’s impossible to determine what furture case might share the characteristics of Jordan’s case.Again, I will inquire what case or any future case shares the characteristics to that of Jordan’s case.

  88. avatar
    john March 14, 2013 at 12:39 pm #

    Yes, and according to self-check system at the time, if that was true it would have told that but it didn’t. As for Jordan accessing the Self-check system as Obama, Obama answers to the people, they are his employers. Therefore, any and all persons are considered to be Obama’s employer and I would argue have the right to know everything about their President, especially if his or her SSN is valid.

  89. avatar
    Majority Will March 14, 2013 at 12:53 pm #

    john:
    Yes, and according to self-check system at the time, if that was true it would have told that but it didn’t. As for Jordan accessing the Self-check system as Obama, Obama answers to the people, they are his employers.Therefore, any and all persons are considered to be Obama’s employer and I would argue have the right to know everything about their President, especially if his or her SSN is valid.

    That is truly delusional, asinine, vile and despicable. It shows complete lack of respect for the law.

    But for a die hard birther, it’s not at all surprising.

  90. avatar
    Reality Check March 14, 2013 at 12:56 pm #

    You are wrong John. There is a separate part of E-Verify that is specifically for employers. Jordan said she tried to access that system and could not get access because you have to have the employee’s I-9 form. Then she accessed E-Verify Self Check. It is only to be used for individuals to check their own status. Can we make it any clearer for you? She had no right to access either system.

    john:
    Yes, and according to self-check system at the time, if that was true it would have told that but it didn’t. As for Jordan accessing the Self-check system as Obama, Obama answers to the people, they are his employers.Therefore, any and all persons are considered to be Obama’s employer and I would argue have the right to know everything about their President, especially if his or her SSN is valid.

  91. avatar
    john March 14, 2013 at 1:02 pm #

    Jordan didn’t have access and wasn’t given access to Obama’s I-9 form. Therefore, she had no choice to but to assume Obama’s identity to verify as his employer if he is legit or not.

  92. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 14, 2013 at 1:13 pm #

    John, Terms of Use for the E-Verify Self-Check…

    “Your use of Self Check is for the purpose of learning about your work authorization status and the accuracy of your related government records only. By using the Self Check service, you agree that you will not submit biographical or employment authorization document data that relates to anyone other than yourself. You also agree that you will not run a Self Check query at the request of another party or attempt to use the results of your Self Check query to prove to another party that you are authorized to work or eligible for admission to any organization or receipt of any benefit.”

    So, by her own admission, either Linda Jordan did not read the terms of service for the Self Check, but clicked that she had read them and said that she was Barack Obama, therefore violating Federal Law, or she did read them, and said, “I know that it says that it is only there to validate data on me, and it’s illegal for me to submit data on another person, but I don’t care.” and therefore violated Federal Law.

    After she did that, then Linda Jordan had to answer questions that she probably could not answer. The questions it pulled up for me was age of head-of-household, previous phone numbers, loans that were opened in my name, and other things. This is known generally as Knowledge Based Authentication, and is there to verify that you are who you say you are. So, Linda Jordan must have put in that information, claiming again that she was Barack Obama, therefore violating Federal Law.

    Now, you want us to believe that she will not file more suits and appeals because Obama is already elected and in office for a second term. Since the time that Obama has been elected, there have been a multitude of suits filed claiming the exact thing that you claim that she would not do.

    Then she claims that she got a mismatch, it could be a couple of things. 1. She failed the quiz, therefore preventing them from doing that. 2. Barack Obama, due to his SSN being publicly published by birthers and other people actually got a new SSN (very likely). 3. She’s simply lying.

  93. avatar
    Arthur March 14, 2013 at 1:22 pm #

    Majority Will: That is truly delusional, asinine, vile and despicable. It shows complete lack of respect for the law.

    At one time there might have been people whose questioning of Obama’s eligibility was based on sincere doubts. Now, however, the only people left are delusional or despicable, or both. I would say john is delusional.

  94. avatar
    sfjeff March 14, 2013 at 1:22 pm #

    john: Yes, and according to self-check system at the time, if that was true it would have told that but it didn’t. As for Jordan accessing the Self-check system as Obama, Obama answers to the people, they are his employers. Therefore, any and all persons are considered to be Obama’s employer and I would argue have the right to know everything about their President, especially if his or her SSN is valid.

    Jordan had to lie and say that she was Barack Obama in order to access self verify. I know this because I went and ran it on myself.

    Now here is the difference- I didn’t lie when I used Self E-verify. Jordan did.

    Or she lied about using Self E-verify at all.

    One way or another- she lied.

    Every Birther who has claimed to use Self E-verify for Barack Obama has lied- they either lied to the government or they lie to us about using the system and finding a discrepancy.

    My point- always- why should we assume that anything they say is the truth, when we know that they are willing to lie to pursue their vendetta against Barack Obama?

  95. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 14, 2013 at 1:31 pm #

    john:
    Yes, and according to self-check system at the time, if that was true it would have told that but it didn’t. As for Jordan accessing the Self-check system as Obama, Obama answers to the people, they are his employers.Therefore, any and all persons are considered to be Obama’s employer and I would argue have the right to know everything about their President, especially if his or her SSN is valid.

    Any individual person is not the employer of Barack Obama. Obama did not go to each and every person’s house and sign an I-9 form, just as a public employee is an employee of the Government that they work for. In fact, the exact theory has been rejected by courts, such as Taitz v. Asture: ” As with the registration acknowledgement form discussed above, the Court can only conclude that plaintiff has submitted a page that some individual obtained under false pretenses—that is, by representing himself as the President’s employer.”

  96. avatar
    Kiwiwriter March 14, 2013 at 1:38 pm #

    Actually, I’d point out to John that the birthers, by their own theory and paranoia, should be very concerned about President Obama running in 2016.

    All the time, the birthers and paranoid conspiracy theorists are spouting warnings about Obama being about to overturn the Constitution or having already done so, in order that he CAN run in 2016.

    So by their demented logic, they should be very concerned about his eligibility to be on the ballot in 2016. So this case is not only frivolous, paranoid, and silly, it also reinforces their idiocy. Given their paranoia, they should worry about 2016, 2020, and 2024.

    As for typing speeds: I can type at 110 WPM, when I’m doing straight copying. But that’s just copying text, without thinking about what I’m transcribing from one piece of paper to my computer screen. Maybe the law clerk who transcribes the lawyer’s notes and dictation is doing it at 110 WPM, but I guarantee you, the lawyer who actually works out the essentials of the answer, and then translates it into proper legal format is NOT doing it at 110 WPM, or 80 WPM, or even 45 WPM.

    Incidentally, the US Military requires its public affairs guys to be able to type at 20 WPM. Clerks have to be able to type at 35 WPM, and they are tested on that. They don’t like faster typing speeds. Too many errors. Even in the computer age, you can’t catch them all.

  97. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 14, 2013 at 1:42 pm #

    Kiwiwriter:
    As for typing speeds: I can type at 110 WPM, when I’m doing straight copying. But that’s just copying text, without thinking about what I’m transcribing from one piece of paper to my computer screen. Maybe the law clerk who transcribes the lawyer’s notes and dictation is doing it at 110 WPM, but I guarantee you, the lawyer who actually works out the essentials of the answer, and then translates it into proper legal format is NOT doing it at 110 WPM, or 80 WPM, or even 45 WPM.

    Incidentally, the US Military requires its public affairs guys to be able to type at 20 WPM. Clerks have to be able to type at 35 WPM, and they are tested on that. They don’t like faster typing speeds. Too many errors. Even in the computer age, you can’t catch them all.

    I’m impressed, I’m only at 60 WPM on copying, really.

  98. avatar
    gorefan March 14, 2013 at 1:45 pm #

    john: I would argue have the right to know everything about their President, especially if his or her SSN is valid.

    Johnny, you ignore an important point. Jordan accessed the SSA’s system in August, 2011 by then President Obama’s SSN had been publically disclosed for over one and a half years. At the very least his SSn is flagged in the system if in fact he had not been assigned a new number.

    Please show us e-verify results from before October, 2009 when his SSN was made public.

  99. avatar
    Kiwiwriter March 14, 2013 at 1:48 pm #

    dunstvangeet: I’m impressed, I’m only at 60 WPM on copying, really.

    When I was four years old, my father said, “If you want to work in anything besides pushing racks of clothes up and down 7th Avenue, you will work in an office. That means you will have to know how to type.” So he taught me to touch-type, and by Willy Dingo, I learned.

    He was right. No “hunt and peck” for me.

    He had a special relationshp with American antique typewriters. He was the foremost historian on the subject…the Smithsonian referred to him.

  100. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater March 14, 2013 at 2:01 pm #

    john:
    Yes, and according to self-check system at the time, if that was true it would have told that but it didn’t. As for Jordan accessing the Self-check system as Obama, Obama answers to the people, they are his employers.Therefore, any and all persons are considered to be Obama’s employer and I would argue have the right to know everything about their President, especially if his or her SSN is valid.

    And you’re basing this on what? Because Jordan said so? How many other socials did she run besides Obama? She hasn’t run the social since the program was rolled out in all 50 states.

    Umm we don’t sign his paychecks the treasury department does. She ran the social pretending to be Obama it’s a self check system designed for someone to check their own social. The only legal way for Jordan to use the self check system was to check her own social. Anything else is fraud on her part.

    Sorry John but you don’t have any right to know anything and everything about the president including personal information.

    This same claim you never made when George Bush was in office.

  101. avatar
    john March 14, 2013 at 2:12 pm #

    What I’m trying to say about the WPM, is there a established metric for WPM from lawyers in Washington State who type up their motions. Given the number of motions the lawyer wrote up and time he cited, does it conform to a reasonable time for such work in terms for a lawyer’s WPM rate. If the lawyer hunt and pecks or is a very slow typer when is comes to typing up motions, I think the argument can be made that the lawyer needs to have a better WPM to be more productive for the reasonable time he bills for his work. Alot of questions, but definitely worth the research.

  102. avatar
    john March 14, 2013 at 2:27 pm #

    I would further inquire with the lawyer if “breaks” were factored into his billing. Does the lawyer consider a “paid” or “unpaid” break in his billing. This is very significant because the lawyer attempts to bill .1 of an hour to Linda Jordan. This is quite a short amount of time the lawyer is billing Linda Jordan for, so I think it is reasonable to inquire how “breaks” were factored in the billing. I know where I work at, I am “paid” for breaks but “not paid” for meals. I wonder what law is regarding “breaks” when is comes to legal billing.

  103. avatar
    JoZeppy March 14, 2013 at 2:29 pm #

    john:
    Yes, and according to self-check system at the time, if that was true it would have told that but it didn’t. As for Jordan accessing the Self-check system as Obama, Obama answers to the people, they are his employers.Therefore, any and all persons are considered to be Obama’s employer and I would argue have the right to know everything about their President, especially if his or her SSN is valid.

    No, the people are not President Obama’s employers for the purposes of Social Security. Being an employer under Social Security law comes with many statutory obligations. If Jordan wishes to pay the employer’s share of President Obama’s payroll tax, which comes out to around $10k/year, that would be a statrt. Does she deposite the tax dollars withheld from the President’s paychecks, prepare various reconciliation reports, accounting for the payroll expense through their financial reporting, and file payroll tax returns. No? Then either she isn’t an employer for the purposes of Social Security, or she is in violation of Federal law in neglecting her responsibilities as an employer.

    Secondly, she did not even use the employer e-Verify (which she couldn’t because she is not his employer, and lacked the information that an employer would have). She used the self check, which would be unlawful for even an actual employer to use….so unless you have some new bizzaro world theory as to why Jordan isn’t his employer, but actually the President him/her self, then it doesn’t really matter one way of the other.

  104. avatar
    Majority Will March 14, 2013 at 2:30 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: And you’re basing this on what?Because Jordan said so?How many other socials did she run besides Obama?She hasn’t run the social since the program was rolled out in all 50 states.

    Umm we don’t sign his paychecks the treasury department does.She ran the social pretending to be Obama it’s a self check system designed for someone to check their own social.The only legal way for Jordan to use the self check system was to check her own social.Anything else is fraud on her part.

    Sorry John but you don’t have any right to know anything and everything about the president including personal information.

    This same claim you never made when George Bush was in office.

    Birthers think they are entitled to break the law if it furthers their cause.

    His sickening, whiny and delusional justification for violating the law is exactly why birthers are derided and held accountable.

  105. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion March 14, 2013 at 3:51 pm #

    Jordan could not possibly have been unaware of those cases when she filed her appeal, unless she didn’t bother to read Judge McPhee’s decision.

    It also is worth noting that Jordan has never argued that she did not know about the early birther cases. She did not deny it in her appeal, and she is not denying it now.

    Taitz v Astrue, Motion for Reconsideration, 9 September 2011

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/64827157/TAITZ-v-ASTRUE-USDC-D-C-36-0-MOTION-for-Reconsideration-gov-uscourts-dcd-146770-36-0

    “A third piece of new evidence, received by Taitz, is a sworn affidavit of witness Linda Jordan, showing, that according to Ms. Jordan’s affidavit, she was greatly concerned by the reports of licensed investigators Sankey, Daniels and Sampson, which were provided to your Honor in this case and in Taitz v Obama 1O-cv-1S1RCL. Ms. Jordan repeatedly requested the social Security administration and other authorities to provide the public with information regarding whether Mr. Obama, is indeed fraudulently using a Social Security number which was never assigned to him.

    Ms. Jordan never received any response from the Social Security administration. Ms. Jordan decided to investigate further. When any other individual but the President is concerned he has an employer or another individual above him in the chain of command. Such employer would do e-verify or SSVS verification, showing his employee’s citizenship status and validity of the Social Security card, provided by this employee.”

    There is absolutely no way Linda Jordan could have NOT known about these cases.

  106. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 14, 2013 at 4:07 pm #

    John sure seems buttburt about this. Could “John” actually be “Linda”?

  107. avatar
    john March 14, 2013 at 4:07 pm #

    This is a great instance where obots distort the facts. The reference that Jordan should have known about these cases refers to cases DURING or AROUND the 2008 campaign. The record holds that there no evidence Jordan knew about such cases. Yes, she knew about the case AFTER 2008 but the judge accuses Jordan of should have knowing the case DURING the 2008 campaign without citing a single shred of evidence.

  108. avatar
    Majority Will March 14, 2013 at 4:11 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    John sure seems buttburt about this. Could “John” actually be “Linda”?

    Or he sent her a bunch of money.

  109. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 14, 2013 at 4:13 pm #

    Given that nut-case conspiracy theories have been around for thousands of years, it hardly seems credible that another one won’t come along.

    john: Again, I will inquire what case or any future case shares the characteristics to that of Jordan’s case.

  110. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 14, 2013 at 4:17 pm #

    In May of 2009, someone posting under the name of Linda Jordan said the following at Orly’s blog:

    Orly, Did you know that someone who has “a shared ancestory” (sic) with Obama can gain access to his birth certificate? It’s right in the press statement I believe that Hawaii put out when they said Berg or the other guy, Martin?, could not have access to it. They listed all the people who would qualify to access and someone “with shared ancestory” (sic) qualified. I quess (sic) that’s to accomadate (sic) all those people doing their family history. I tried to find someone with a connection and almost had a guy but he said he was too far removed and did not want to ask for it even though he agreed it should be released. Maybe a Kenyan relative will request it? Someone on his American grandfather’s side?

    and

    Orly, I live in Washington state and sent a letter to the AG here requesting an investigation. I got back a rather snide response from someone in his office, they declined to investigate and said that the “local prosecuting attorney” has jurisdiction on “most” criminal matters not the AG. I forwarded a copy of the response to you. The King County prosecuting attorney is Daniel T. Satterberg. I will forward a request to him. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help on the Lacey case. Linda Jordan

    She knew.

    john: This is a great instance where obots distort the facts. The reference that Jordan should have known about these cases refers to cases DURING or AROUND the 2008 campaign. The record holds that there no evidence Jordan knew about such cases. Yes, she knew about the case AFTER 2008 but the judge accuses Jordan of should have knowing the case DURING the 2008 campaign without citing a single shred of evidence.

  111. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater March 14, 2013 at 4:20 pm #

    john: This is a great instance where obots distort the facts. The reference that Jordan should have known about these cases refers to cases DURING or AROUND the 2008 campaign. The record holds that there no evidence Jordan knew about such cases. Yes, she knew about the case AFTER 2008 but the judge accuses Jordan of should have knowing the case DURING the 2008 campaign without citing a single shred of evidence.

    Jordan should have known her claims were BS based on her role in the Georgia case before Judge Malihi where all the same claims were heard on the merits and dismissed. She was called as a witness by orly. She knew these claims were failures and yet pushed her own case anyway.

  112. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 14, 2013 at 4:25 pm #

    No.

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Could “John” actually be “Linda”?

  113. avatar
    john March 14, 2013 at 4:25 pm #

    That was after the 2008 campaign.

  114. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 14, 2013 at 4:55 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    No.

    I guess he’s just a rabid supporter of hers…or anyone else who has ODS.

  115. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund March 14, 2013 at 5:08 pm #

    john: This is a great instance where obots distort the facts. The reference that Jordan should have known about these cases refers to cases DURING or AROUND the 2008 campaign. The record holds that there no evidence Jordan knew about such cases. Yes, she knew about the case AFTER 2008 but the judge accuses Jordan of should have knowing the case DURING the 2008 campaign without citing a single shred of evidence.

    Once again, john lies about what someone else said. The judge never claimed that she should have known about the cases during the 2008 campaign, but rather that was when the cases she should have known about were first filed.

    AT THE TIME Jordan filed, she should have known about the first set of cases and their outcomes. There is, in fact. evidence that she did know about them AT THE TIME she filed.

  116. avatar
    Reality Check March 14, 2013 at 5:22 pm #

    I thought that was in Judge McPhee’s decision. Is he an Obot too?

    john: This is a great instance where obots distort the facts.

  117. avatar
    Reality Check March 14, 2013 at 5:31 pm #

    This is what Judge McPhee wrote:

    In the past five years all manner of court action has sought to entice courts to enter in the process of determining the qualifications of two persons who were nominated for President in 2008, and one who has served; a process reserved in the U.S. Constitution to the congress, not the courts. I mentioned two candidates. I was surprised to learn that candidate Senator McCain was challenged on at least two occasions, once for being a sitting senator and running for president, and the other for being born in the Panama Canal Zone.

    The vast majority of these cases however involved President Obama. The first wave of occurred during the presidential campaign of 2008, and involved issues similar or identical to those raised in this case. Plaintiff Linda Jordan cannot be unaware of those cases. None were successful….

    Everything he said was true. As usual John you are completely wrong.

  118. avatar
    richCares March 14, 2013 at 6:17 pm #

    “As usual John you are completely wrong.”
    .
    no matter how often john is shown to be wrong he blindly maintains his delusions, that is clearly a sign of mental illness. His family would love for him to seek help.

  119. avatar
    Deborah March 14, 2013 at 6:50 pm #

    Psychology is not a favorite subject of mine because a. it is frequently ephemeral (pop psychology) and b. it frequently lacks bona fide scientific evidence to support it. But occasionally a psychological theory catches my attention. In the case of the birthers, two theories seem applicable:

    1. Delusion is characterized by its persistency. Delusion is the persistent belief in something false.

    2. Some legal theories hold that only the admission of wrongness by the defendant (remorse, repentance etc.) can bring about a change in the behavior person accused of wrong doing. There is no scientific evidence to prove that acknowledgement and admission of guilt causes the desired change. (I believe this is from an article by Judith Adams, They Say It’s For the Children- at any rate, this theory is not mine to claim credit for).

    When trying to reason with birthers, who seem uninterested in getting at least one fact straight in their lives which may actually be critical to their overall sanity, getting them to realize they are “WRONG” in their persistence does not appear as though it is going to work. There is a serious credibility issue here, and a need to save face.

  120. avatar
    Deborah March 14, 2013 at 7:04 pm #

    Group hug. Including John.

  121. avatar
    Daniel March 14, 2013 at 7:31 pm #

    John: Dear deluded John.

    I’m going to offer you the best deal of your life, and it’s free.

    It’s a piece of advice John, and if you’ll only listen and cleave to this one piece of advice, I guarantee at least half your troubles will simply vaporize.

    So what is this great piece of free advice, John? Well here it is.

    Are you ready for it?

    My advice to you is just this: “if” doesn’t matter

  122. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 14, 2013 at 7:41 pm #

    John is delusional as the “How many times has this happened to you?” infomercial people are inept.
    That said, I do believe that John is the sort of person who could manage to sustain 3rd degree burns from trying to open a 2 liter of pop “the old fashion way”.

  123. avatar
    Deborah March 14, 2013 at 7:50 pm #

    He’s only a representative of his people.

  124. avatar
    Butterfly Bilderberg March 14, 2013 at 7:57 pm #

    john:
    … As for Jordan accessing the Self-check system as Obama, Obama answers to the people, they are his employers.Therefore, any and all persons are considered to be Obama’s employer and I would argue have the right to know everything about their President, especially if his or her SSN is valid.

    Do YOU consider yourself to be Obama’s “employer”, John? Because if you do, I have a few questions. Please be kind enough to answer them.

    Did YOU issue a Form W-2 to the President for each year 2009 through 2012? Your deadline was January 31. What SSN did YOU use when you issued it?

    Did YOU withhold the required amount for Federal income tax, Social Security and Medicare? I hope so. Employers are required by law to do so. Did YOU remit these withholdings on a biweekly basis? If not, why — as an employer — did YOU disregard this legal duty? Are YOU aware that, as an employer, YOU are subject to penalties for failure to remit those taxes? 26 USC 6652(a)(2)

    If YOU did not have the President’s real SSN (or, as you claim, his SSN cannot be verified) did YOU do backup withholding at the flat 28% rate as required by Internal Revenue Code section 3406 (26 USC 3406)? Reportable payments that exceed, in the aggregate, $600 per year require backup withholding if the SSN provided by the employee is invalid or he fails to provide one.

    Are you aware that YOU are personally liable for the payroll taxes that should have been withheld and remitted to the Treasury? (28% of Presidential salary of $400,000/year = $112,000)

    Did YOU file Forms 941 (Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return)? are YOU aware that YOU are subject to penalties for failing to file each quarterly return? 26 USC 6651(a)(1)

    Do YOU also consider YOURSELF the “employer” of VP Biden? If so, did YOU use E-verify or SSNVS to verify Mr. Biden’s SSN? What about Secretary Clinton — was she also an “employee” of yours? How many employees in the Federal government do YOU employ? Have YOU fulfilled your tax withholding and filing obligations as to each of them?

  125. avatar
    Reality Check March 14, 2013 at 8:08 pm #

    Sounds like jy, I meant john, is in deep doo doo. Nice knowin’ you pal. Maybe you will be lucky and share a jail cell with Greg Hollister and Linda Jordan.

  126. avatar
    G March 14, 2013 at 9:24 pm #

    Agreed. That crucial point cannot be understated.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Jordan is lucky, at least so far, for escaping prosecution for illegally accessing the SSA system.

  127. avatar
    G March 14, 2013 at 9:30 pm #

    An irrelevant example.

    For one thing, Obama does NOT have an age eligibility problem, so your comparison is merely apples and oranges here.

    More importantly, Obama does NOT have an eligibilty problem – PERIOD. SO the CA SOS being made aware of mere crankery speculations without evidence behind them means absolutely nothing at all. The CA SOS is completely free to determine that the Birther claims have nothing valid behind them and to ignore them as a result.

    Sorry John, but your delusions and unhappiness with the real world have no impact on how it actually operates. Tough cookies.

    john: In CA, the case of Cleaver Vs. Jordan does suggest that such a verification can be done. Although a different state, Cleaver Vs. Jordan is the best precident setting cases that helps birthers.

    The CA appeals court basically swept this case under rug and ignored it. It is my understanding that there very little on this case. It concerned a presidential candidate named Cleaver who was ineligible to be the ballot because of age. The CA SOS became aware of this and removed Cleaver from the ballot. In Obama’s case, the CA SOS was made aware fully of Obama’s eligibility problem did absolutely nothing.

    The Cleaver precident at least in CA does suggest that is completely legal and possible for the SOS to remove someone from the ballot who is not eligible. Therefore, the CA SOS was clearly negligent and criminally complcint in the election and re-election of Barack Obama.

  128. avatar
    G March 14, 2013 at 9:49 pm #

    Yep…and there is certainly no shortage of such delusion amongst the Birtheristani and other nutjobs out there.

    Deborah: 1. Delusion is characterized by its persistency. Delusion is the persistent belief in something false.

    Agreed. They are too committed to their own wrongheadedness and would rather “double down” on continuing to come across stupid to sane people instead of admitting their error. They might view it as “saving face”…but that is really folly, as they only succeed in making themselves seem hopelessly lacking in credibility with everyone else.

    Most of us gave up trying to change the minds of these wilfully ignorant and irrational types long ago. They emotionally prefer the fantasy of their delusions and no amount of facts or reality will deter them from their wrongheaded tantrums.

    That being said, refuting stupidity is still a normal and valid response, regardless of whether the person saying stupid things will ever change their boorish behavior or not.

    Deborah: When trying to reason with birthers, who seem uninterested in getting at least one fact straight in their lives which may actually be critical to their overall sanity, getting them to realize they are “WRONG” in their persistence does not appear as though it is going to work. There is a serious credibility issue here, and a need to save face.

  129. avatar
    Monkey Boy March 14, 2013 at 10:03 pm #

    Gabe:
    The Emperor has no clothes.

    The poster has no sense–or morals!

  130. avatar
    Kiwiwriter March 14, 2013 at 10:54 pm #

    Actually, John, I’m always amused when people tell me that they’re my bosses — I work in the public sector — and that they can order me around.

    I tell them about my lousy working condition, point out that I have not had a raise in five years, but have had furloughs and property tax hikes, and have seen my office drop from nine people (including a photographer) to three (and not even a camera, we lost it in Hurricane Sandy), and ask my “bosses” when they are going to do something about my situation…like paying me a decent living wage and getting me some help in the office, so we can do our jobs properly.

    They often clam up at that point.

    By the way, in 22 years of public service, I got offered a bribe exactly once. I bellowed at the jerk in front of my crew (so they could hear me humiliating him) and he fled the office, floor, and building. I never saw him again.

    On a related topic…which agency DOES pay the president? Which branch of the government does that salary come from? Just wondering.

  131. avatar
    AlCum March 15, 2013 at 12:07 am #

    john:
    Sanders is probably right to stipulate that Jordan’s case is frivolous as it was found to be so on appeal.That’s nearly impossible to overcome.The matter now depends on whether to lawyer should be given his full market fee of nearly $13,000 necessary as a sanction or should he get just what he billed his client which was $3,500.In that case, I would attack the necessity of the sanction and the verocity of the lawyer’s billing hours. I would want to depose the lawyer if possible to get certain information.I would certainly want know the following:
    1.What’s the lawyer’s WPM.
    2.What’s the lawyer’s reading speed.
    3.How well versed is the lawyer at Washington State Statutory Law?If the case is frivolous, is the review time cited an accurate representation based on the lawyer’s experience and reading speed.
    4.Why does the lawyer feel the sanction is necessary if the action WILL NEVER OCCUR again because Obama can never be on the Washington State Ballot again.
    5.What case can the lawyer cite that shares it’s characteristics to that of Jordan – baseless allegations, plaintiff knows the claims are frivolous, the plaintiff doesn’t heed warning, attacks the court and counsel, and continues to push forward claims that are baseless despite knowing there are indeed baseless.I can’t seem to think of a case that shares these characteristics.
    6.I would also study the motions and based on the lawyer’s WPM, is the time accurate.
    7.I would question whether the lawyer needs to be paid for so little time..1 of hour is negigible and should not be considered.
    8.I would also question if the lawyer’s work was duplicative, redundant and, relevant considering the appeal was frivolous.

    None of those questions is relevant to the issue, sorry.

  132. avatar
    Keith March 15, 2013 at 12:29 am #

    AlCum: Any citizen can get an SSN, even naturalized citizens, who are not eligible to the presidency

    Legal resident aliens can get ’em too. My wife has one, and she is not an American citizen.

  133. avatar
    Kris March 15, 2013 at 12:33 am #

    Butterfly Bilderberg: Do YOU consider yourself to be Obama’s “employer”, John?Because if you do, I have a few questions.Please be kind enough to answer them.

    Did YOU issue a Form W-2 to the President for each year 2009 through 2012?Your deadline was January 31.What SSN did YOU use when you issued it?

    Did YOU withhold the required amount for Federal income tax, Social Security and Medicare? I hope so.Employers are required by law to do so.Did YOU remit these withholdings on a biweekly basis? If not, why — as an employer — did YOU disregard this legal duty? Are YOU aware that, as an employer, YOU are subject to penalties for failure to remit those taxes?26 USC 6652(a)(2)

    If YOU did not have the President’s real SSN (or, asyou claim, his SSN cannot be verified) did YOU do backup withholding at the flat 28% rate as required by Internal Revenue Code section 3406 (26 USC 3406)?Reportable payments that exceed, in the aggregate, $600 per year require backup withholding if the SSN provided by the employee is invalid or he fails to provide one.

    Are you aware that YOU are personally liable for the payroll taxes that should have been withheld and remitted to the Treasury? (28% of Presidential salary of $400,000/year = $112,000)

    Did YOU file Forms 941 (Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return)? are YOU aware that YOU are subject to penalties for failing to file each quarterly return? 26 USC 6651(a)(1)

    Do YOU also consider YOURSELF the “employer” of VP Biden? If so, did YOU use E-verify or SSNVS to verify Mr. Biden’s SSN? What about Secretary Clinton — was she also an “employee” of yours? How many employees in the Federal government do YOU employ?Have YOU fulfilled your tax withholding and filing obligations as to each of them?

  134. avatar
    Kris March 15, 2013 at 1:03 am #

    Excellent, but I think that john’s brain will freeze at the end of the first sentence. He’ll see the words “Do you consider yourself to be Obama’s employer?” and think “Yes, of course I do.” At that point, in his delusional mind there will be no need to continue reading, since he’ll think he’s finally made his point.

  135. avatar
    The Magic M March 15, 2013 at 5:11 am #

    john: 8. I would also question if the lawyer’s work was duplicative, redundant and, relevant considering the appeal was frivolous.

    Do you know what the definition of cynicism is? It’s ridiculing someone over the damage you did to him.

    We’ve seen this birfer MO before when Obama released the LFBC birfers had been demanding for years, only to be met with “why did he release it”, “didn’t he say there is no other BC” etc.

    My German teacher used to describe cynicism with the following example:
    In the 1930’s, Thomas Mann (a famous German author who was ultimately driven to exile by the Nazis) held a speech in Berlin. The Nazis sent their SA troops to start a brawl in the back row. People in the front turned around to see what was going on. At that point, a photo was taken showing Thomas Mann at the rostrum and the crowd turning away from him. “Der Stürmer” published this photo, subtitled “Thomas Mann holding a speech”, to insinuate people were turning away from him because they disagreed with his speech.
    That is cynism.

    Here we have the same – a birther files a frivolous appeal (obviously wanting to win) and then claims it should’ve been not much work because it was frivolous.

  136. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 15, 2013 at 8:22 am #

    No, the Berg suit she mentioned was in 2008.

    john: That was after the 2008 campaign.

  137. avatar
    Gabe March 15, 2013 at 9:13 am #

    I have one question why do the first three digits on Mr. Obama’s social security number, show that it was issued, in state of Connecticut ?

    MattR: Obama’s SSN problem has never been addressed because there are no merits; just speculation from birthers.

    (EDIT: And as AlCum points out, even if it were true it would still have nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility to be POTUS)

    For these two gems of dribble, guest invites for The Dinner Game, would not fraud be a criminal offense and therefor a determent to eligibility!?

  138. avatar
    Rickey March 15, 2013 at 9:23 am #

    Gabe:

    I have one question why do the first three digits on Mr. Obama’s social security number, show that it was issued, in state of Connecticut ?

    That’s easy.

    Hawaii Zip Codes begin with the number 9.

    Connecticut Zip Codes begin with the number 0.

    Some typist hit the 0 key when he or she meant to hit the 9 key.

    My ex-wife’s SSN has a Pennsylvania prefix (210). She has never worked or lived in Pennsylvania. She grew up in New York. The most likely explanation is that a clerk transposed the 2 and 1, turning what should have been a prefix of 120 into 210.

  139. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 15, 2013 at 9:26 am #

    Not to mention that the SSA, long before Obama ever ran for office, have posted a note on their website that says that SS#s DO NOT ALWAYS correspond with the issuee’s state of residence.

  140. avatar
    Scientist March 15, 2013 at 9:28 am #

    Gabe: I have one question why do the first three digits on Mr. Obama’s social security number, show that it was issued, in state of Connecticut ?

    First, all, cards are issued, centrally not in each, state.

    Second, the Social Security web site says, that the prefixes are for convenience of the office only and do, not always correspond with the state the person lived in. Many people, on this site have related stories that they or family members have SSNs associated, with states they have never lived in.

    Third, Doc has proposed a hypothesis in which the 9 in Obama’s Hawaiian zip code, was mistyped as a 0, creating a Connectiicut zip code (just as you, mistype the comma key).

    Fourth, maybe the President spent time in Connecticut as a teenager, perhaps visiting friends, and applied from there. He never claimed his autobiography covered every minute of his, life.

    Fifth who cares? It doesn’t indicate fraud. Someone living in Hawaii would likely create a fake SSN with a Hawaiian prefix, since that would be less suspicious,

    I, hope that answers your, question.

  141. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater March 15, 2013 at 10:43 am #

    Gabe: I have one question why do the first three digits on Mr. Obama’s social security number, show that it was issued, in state of Connecticut ?

    A question that has been asked and answered about 100 times on this blog. Try reading some of Doc’s articles before asking stupid questions. It’s a federal program back then when they were issued it didn’t neccessarily mean geographical location. Try asking some of the older people you know about their prefix you’re bound to find someone who doesn’t have a prefix that matches your misconceptions.

  142. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater March 15, 2013 at 10:46 am #

    Gabe: For these two gems of dribble, guest invites for The Dinner Game, would not fraud be a criminal offense and therefor a determent to eligibility!?

    How would it be fraud if the SSA issued it to him in 1977? You’ve been playing a little too much of The Crying Game.

  143. avatar
    MattR March 15, 2013 at 12:26 pm #

    Gabe: For these two gems of dribble, guest invites for The Dinner Game, would not fraud be a criminal offense and therefor a determent to eligibility!?

    Why would fraud or any criminal offense automatically make anyone Constitutionally ineligible to be president? AFAIK, Charles Manson is still perfectly eligible to be president despite his horrific past.

  144. avatar
    Majority Will March 15, 2013 at 2:28 pm #

    Scientist: First, all, cards are issued, centrally not in each, state.

    Second, the Social Security web site says, that the prefixes are for convenience of the office only and do, not always correspond with the statethe person lived in.Many people, on this site haverelated stories that they or family members have SSNs associated, with states they have never lived in.

    Third, Doc has proposed a hypothesisin which the 9 in Obama’s Hawaiian zip code, was mistyped as a 0, creating aConnectiicut zipcode (just as you, mistype the comma key).

    Fourth, maybe the President spent time in Connecticut as a teenager, perhaps visiting friends, and applied from there.He never claimed his autobiography covered everyminute of his, life.

    Fifth who cares? It doesn’t indicate fraud.Someone living in Hawaii would likely create a fake SSN with a Hawaiian prefix, since that would be less suspicious,

    I, hope that answers your, question.

    As if facts and common sense matter to a birther bigot!

    Nice try though.

  145. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 15, 2013 at 5:02 pm #

    Gabe:

    Tell me, where in Article II does it say that criminal offenses make someone ineligible?

    Here’s the list of requirements…

    1. Natural Born Citizen (Means someone who is born a citizen of the United States)
    2. 35-years of age
    3. 14 years residency.

    Now, please tell me where it states that someone who has committed fraud is ineligible?

  146. avatar
    Reality Check March 15, 2013 at 5:13 pm #

    A transcript of the interview with Justice Sanders should be available over the weekend.

  147. avatar
    J.D. Sue March 15, 2013 at 5:23 pm #

    MattR: Why would fraud or any criminal offense automatically make anyone Constitutionally ineligible to be president? AFAIK, Charles Manson is still perfectly eligible to be president despite his horrific past.

    —-

    Indeed, didn’t Taitz’s client, Keith Judd–a plaintiff in Grinols who claims he has standing to sue because he was a legit presidential candidate–run for office while sitting in federal prison for mail fraud?

  148. avatar
    Kiwiwriter March 15, 2013 at 5:54 pm #

    Just remember…Manson never committed any of those murders…his disciples did.

  149. avatar
    Reality Check March 15, 2013 at 7:31 pm #

    Doc, if you want to add the transcript of the interview to this article it is posted on my SCRIBD page at http://www.scribd.com/doc/130630744/Reality-Check-Radio-with-Justice-Richard-Sanders

    AnitaMaria at the Fogbow is responsible for the transcription and did a super job.

  150. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 15, 2013 at 11:00 pm #

    Thanks a bunch, Marvin. I’ve added the link.

    Reality Check: Doc, if you want to add the transcript of the interview to this article it is posted on my SCRIBD page

  151. avatar
    Majority Will March 20, 2013 at 7:39 pm #

    donna: If you don’t want a refund the remaining funds will be used to continue the effort to have Barack Obama prosecuted for using forged identity documents.

    Vexatious moron. I hope the next round of fines is much more punitive.

  152. avatar
    Greenfinches March 20, 2013 at 8:58 pm #

    Majority Will: Vexatious moron. I hope the next round of fines is much more punitive.

    boy do I second that….what an IDIOT that woman is!

  153. avatar
    donna March 20, 2013 at 9:08 pm #

    apparently, it was a negotiated settlement so we will never know what the judge would have ordered

    QUELLE DOMMAGE

  154. avatar
    The Magic M March 21, 2013 at 6:28 am #

    dunstvangeet: Now, please tell me where it states that someone who has committed fraud is ineligible?

    After the black guy took office, birthers collectively “forgot” the Constitution is the supreme law of the land (and that statutory law cannot overrule the Constitution, as they are eager to point out when it’s about “14th Amendment citizens” vs. NBC) and started claiming that because some law (I forgot which) says you cannot be a federal employee if you … [committed a felony / didn’t register for Selective Service etc.], this applies to the presidency as well.

    And please, someone tell the Vattelists that even in their parallel universe, the child of Charles Manson and the naturalized granddaughter of Joseph Stalin would be eligible for the presidency.