Main Menu

Arpaio loses immigration lawsuit against Obama

imageIt was pretty clear that Sheriff Joe Arpaio is not the chosen representative of the American people, as his lawsuit to overturn the Obama Administration’s immigration policy of deferred deportations met with a prompt dismissal by a federal judge in the District of Columbia for lack of standing.

In a 33-page decision issued yesterday, federal judge and Obama appointee Beryl A. Howell dismissed the lawsuit following a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge Howell rejected Arpaio’s plea to take an activist judicial stance, rather citing the doctrine of “the proper—and properly limited—rule of the courts in a democratic society.” Judge Howell was not interesting in making “policy properly left to elected representatives.”

Judge Howell cited heavily from the Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. United States 132 S. Ct. (2012) overturning much of an Arizona immigration law, SB 1070.

I note that Judge Howell had the same problem with Arpaio’s complaint that I did:

At the outset, the plaintiff’s Complaint and motion for preliminary injunction fail to identify whether the plaintiff is bringing suit in his individual capacity or in his official capacity as the elected Sheriff of Maricopa County.

During oral arguments, this was clarified—the answer is “both.” Still Arpaio was unable to show a particularized injury in either case sufficient to grant him standing to sue. Arpaio claimed death threats were an injury, threats that occurred before the Administration policies were made.

Read more:

68 Responses to Arpaio loses immigration lawsuit against Obama

  1. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG December 24, 2014 at 8:57 am #

    A nice hard slap in the face to A&Z’s groupies, just in time for Christmas! The butt hurt over at Gerbil Report, is so delicious that it HAS to be fattening!

  2. avatar
    alg December 24, 2014 at 9:13 am #

    But, but, but I thought Arpaio/Klayman were winning when the judge expedited the hearing date against the desperate pleas of the defendant’s counsel. 🙂

  3. avatar
    Curious George December 24, 2014 at 9:13 am #

    Merry Christmas to Larry Klueless, ShurfJoke and to all of their misled supporters. As it has been said before, “Epic Failure.”

  4. avatar
    john December 24, 2014 at 9:38 am #

    Too bad but not at all expected. Judge Howell tries her damnest to dismiss Arpaio’s suit while another conservative judge could have tried his or her damnest not to dismiss Arapiao’s suit. “Standing” of course has be a long “Invention” by the courts to avoid difficult cases. In fact the Constitution mentions nothing about “standing” except for the words “cases” or “contraversies” in which the courts have “invented” an encyclopedia of meaning behind.

  5. avatar
    john December 24, 2014 at 9:47 am #

    That was a pretty quick decision. Probably only a day turnaround. Wasn’t the hearing held on Monday. I would bet money that Judge Howell already had the decsion typed prior to the hearing.

  6. avatar
    Arthur December 24, 2014 at 9:52 am #

    john: Judge Howell tries her damnest

    Just in case you might be open to learning something, John, the word you’re searching for is “damnedest.” Merry Christmas!

  7. avatar
    roadburner December 24, 2014 at 9:56 am #

    john:
    That was a pretty quick decision.Probably only a day turnaround.Wasn’t the hearing held on Monday.I would bet money that Judge Howell already had the decsion typed prior to the hearing.

    that’s a distict possibility, as even we knew here (and told you so) that ar-pie-hole and KKKlayman’s case was a steaming pile of dog’s eggs.

    but don’t let us stop you, c’mon, give us a few more excuses, it makes your tears all the sweeter

  8. avatar
    Arthur December 24, 2014 at 10:04 am #

    john: Standing” of course has be a long “Invention” by the courts to avoid difficult cases.

    Yeah, those commie Supreme Court justices! Always trying to maintain the separation of powers!

  9. avatar
    Rednail64 December 24, 2014 at 10:11 am #

    So many comments at BR asking Shuruf Joe to “drop the hammer” as if he’s been sitting on the big reveal this whole time.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 24, 2014 at 10:17 am #

    The decision actually makes reference to the hearing, so at least parts of it were written afterwards.

    john: That was a pretty quick decision. Probably only a day turnaround. Wasn’t the hearing held on Monday. (sic) I would bet money that Judge Howell already had the decsion (sic) typed prior to the hearing.

  11. avatar
    Arthur December 24, 2014 at 10:21 am #

    Rednail64:
    So many comments at BR asking Shuruf Joe to “drop the hammer” as if he’s been sitting on the big reveal this whole time.

    I wonder what it’s like to live in a county where the sheriff is a demonstrated liar, law breaker, and grifter?

  12. avatar
    Jim December 24, 2014 at 10:48 am #

    Merry Christmas GR…another lump of coal for your stocking! 😀

  13. avatar
    Jim December 24, 2014 at 10:51 am #

    john: That was a pretty quick decision.

    BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh john, another pricelessly stupid response. KKKman ASKED for an expedited hearing and decision…then when the judge follows what YOUR SIDE ASKED FOR, you’re going to come up with some sort of judicial conspiracy? Merry Christmas john, I hope you asked Santa for a brain, cause you need it. 😆

  14. avatar
    bob December 24, 2014 at 11:01 am #

    John can blame the conservatives on SCOTUS for limiting people’s ability to sue in federal courts.

  15. avatar
    Reality Check December 24, 2014 at 11:10 am #

    I imagine Judge Howell had most of the decision written based on the papers and updated it based on the hearing. It was obvious that she addressed the question that Klayman never answered as to whether Arapio was suing as an individual or in his capacity as sheriff based on Klayman’s non-answer in the hearing of “both”.

    It was an extremely well written decision which probably has about a 99.99999% chance of being confirmed on appeal.

    Dr. Conspiracy: The decision actually makes reference to the hearing, so at least parts of it were written afterwards.

  16. avatar
    Northland10 December 24, 2014 at 12:09 pm #

    john: In fact the Constitution mentions nothing about “standing” except for the words “cases” or “contraversies” in which the courts have “invented” an encyclopedia of meaning behind.

    If you actually read the ruling, you might understand standing better, among other things. She actually lays out the case very well.

    Here is a simplistic explanation of standing. If you drive down the road in Illinois yapping and texting on your company provided hand held phone, I cannot sue you or your business even if you could potentially run into me. I do not have standing or a redressable injury. I also cannot sue the police for not stopping you (it is a traffic offense in Illnois), especially since I do not have an injury specific to me but shared by everyone on the road.

    Now, if during said yapping and texting about business on your phone, you ran into me, I would have standing and injury to sue you and possibly your business if were indeed doing company business (lawyers, feel free to correct me on this).

    Klayman and Arpaio messed up even further by trying to claim that their injury would be increased illegal immigrants and thus raising costs and creating possible safety/security issues. However, the actions they wanted to stop would not even apply to any immigrant who came here after 2010. His injury would not be relieved by the requested relief. This would be like me asking the court to force the police to strictly enforce the law on use of electronic devices by those 17 year old drivers in order to relieve my potential injury of being hit by you using the phone.

  17. avatar
    Dave B. December 24, 2014 at 12:14 pm #

    And many times, many ways at that.

    Curious George:
    Merry Christmas to Larry Klueless, ShurfJoke and to all of their misled supporters.As it has been said before, “Epic Failure.”

  18. avatar
    BillTheCat December 24, 2014 at 12:47 pm #

    It’s fun to note that John, who I assumed was only interested in solving his questions regarding President Obama’s birth certificate, is sad that Arpaio’s suit did not go forward, indicating that he is all for any action against the President, regardless of it’s relevance to the birther issue. He just wants to git that usurper!

    I’m shocked, etc etc.

  19. avatar
    Yoda December 24, 2014 at 1:10 pm #

    John, I have told you this before, but apparently you don’t seem to understand it. Standing is not an invention to avoid tough cases. The requirement of standing and subject matter jurisdiction are the very things that protect the Courts from acting in the way that birthers think the Courts actually act. They are the things that give the Courts the power to hear and rule on a case.

    Also, Judges are mandated to decide procedural issues before they get to substantive issues.

  20. avatar
    Benji Franklin December 24, 2014 at 1:11 pm #

    john: That was a pretty quick decision. Probably only a day turnaround. Wasn’t the hearing held on Monday. I would bet money that Judge Howell already had the decsion typed prior to the hearing.

    I guarantee she did. For the same reason that she would responsibly anticipitorily type up a decision before oral arguments dismissing any blatantly and speciously argued and obviously frivolous case coming in a series of such nut-job cases brought by a series of nut-jobs like the ones you worship. Because nobody needs to wait for oral arguments in a Birther case; such arguments are just going to make any sane listener’s teeth fall out.

  21. avatar
    J.D. Sue December 24, 2014 at 1:50 pm #

    I am amused by Judge Howell’s decision to relegate Judge Schwab’s opinion to a footnote…

  22. avatar
    Bob December 24, 2014 at 2:04 pm #

    John,
    Be grateful for the restraint and mercy the judge afforded Arpaio.

  23. avatar
    j.d. reed December 24, 2014 at 2:17 pm #

    John others have adequately explained to you the necessity of standing in our judicial system. Another misconception you seem to have is that all you need to do is get birther cases before conservative judges and all will be right in the (birther) world. But conservative judges named by Reagan and the two Bushes have regularly slapped down birther lawsuits.
    In a related matter the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank sat in on the Arpaio-Klayman hearing and filed a nice recap.

  24. avatar
    john December 24, 2014 at 3:38 pm #

    j.d. reed:
    John others have adequately explained to you the necessity of standing in our judicial system. Another misconception you seem to have is that all you need to do is get birther cases before conservative judges and all will be right in the (birther) world. But conservative judgesnamed by Reagan and the two Bushes have regularly slapped down birther lawsuits.
    In a related matter the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank sat in on the A rpaio-Klayman hearing and filed a nice recap.

    Birthers got close with Judge Roy Moore but he was overuled by the whole appeals court. If Judge Roy Moore been a single judge acting, there might have been a chance that birthers could have prevailed.

  25. avatar
    john December 24, 2014 at 3:47 pm #

    Neverthless, what Joe Arpaio did had to be done. He had to at least give it a try. The immigration problem is bad in this country. Illegal immigrants are vermin in this country. They are a drain on our resources, they steal our jobs and they cause crime. Obama has only added to the problem. Instead of focusing on the cause of the disease which is border security, Obama has focused on the syptom of the diease, dealing with the present illegal infestation that is already here. I do agree it a pretty hard goal to round them all up but granting de facto amesty is not the answer. I have no problem with immigrants, but those who wish to live in this country and be citizens will do so under a very strict and controled process. Immigrants have to earn their right to live in this country. It’s going to be right that is simply given.

  26. avatar
    Rickey December 24, 2014 at 3:51 pm #

    john: Birthers got close with Judge Roy Moore but he was overuled by the whole appeals court.If Judge Roy Moore been a single judge acting, there might have been a chance that birthers could have prevailed.

    Dream on.

    If Roy Moore had been able to rule in favor of the plaintiffs, he would have been overruled when his decision was appealed to the full Alabama Supreme Court That vote was 7-2.

    And don’t forget that the Supreme Court of the United States denied cert on the case, so you lost three times – at the trial court level, at the Alabama Supreme Court, and SCOTUS.

  27. avatar
    dunstvangeet December 24, 2014 at 3:55 pm #

    john: Birthers got close with Judge Roy Moore but he was overuled by the whole appeals court.If Judge Roy Moore been a single judge acting, there might have been a chance that birthers could have prevailed.

    Which at most would have meant that Obama would have presented his birth certificate (the same birth certificate he released over the internet in 2008). If that had happened, and Judge Moore had refused to accept it, then he would have been overruled yet again on Constitutionality.

    Birthers, even if they get their wish, and force Obama to produce his birth certificate, would only get a COLB presented. The Court would then be forced to accept it, per the United States Constitution (Article IV, Section 1). The birthers would then be thrown out on that fact alone. That’s what you don’t get. The birthers have lost 5 times over. Even if they were to get past the standing issue, they’d get thrown out on other issues.

    And if they were to get their dream (some judge ruling for them), that judge would get overruled on appeal.

  28. avatar
    CarlOrcas December 24, 2014 at 4:10 pm #

    john: Illegal immigrants are vermin in this country.

    All of them john? Every last one…..from 6 months to 96? Even those who have lived here for years…..peacefully and lawfully?

    Do you know any immigrants? Have you ever been in their homes?

  29. avatar
    GLaB December 24, 2014 at 4:15 pm #

    Rickey: Dream on.

    If Roy Moore had been able to rule in favor of the plaintiffs, he would have been overruled when his decision was appealed to the full Alabama Supreme Court That vote was 7-2.

    True, but it would have removed the goose egg from 0-230+. A garbage time score is about the only thing the birthers have left to root for.

  30. avatar
    john December 24, 2014 at 4:18 pm #

    CarlOrcas: All of them john? Every last one…..from 6 months to 96? Even those who have lived here for years…..peacefully and lawfully?

    Do you know any immigrants? Have you ever been in their homes?

    Yes, I would have to agree. Illegal means illegal. For illegals that been living in this country for years, it means they been stealing our resources and our jobs especially if the illegal has a degree and is in a skilled job, it means he or she is stealing a job that is meant for an educated skilled American. Stronger border security with a more aggressive and expadited deportation process is probably the answer to our immigration problem. Obama’s idea just makes things a whole lot worse, basically an invitation more and more illegals to come into this country. Illegal immigration is probably the reason why Latinos will be the majority in years to come.

  31. avatar
    realist December 24, 2014 at 4:36 pm #

    john:
    That was a pretty quick decision.Probably only a day turnaround.Wasn’t the hearing held on Monday.I would bet money that Judge Howell already had the decsion typed prior to the hearing.

    While obviously some of it was written after the hearing, you seem to believe there would be something wrong if it had all been written prior to the hearing.

    Hint: there would be nothing wrong if it had been all written prior to the hearing.

  32. avatar
    Steve December 24, 2014 at 4:37 pm #

    john: Yes, I would have to agree.Illegal means illegal.For illegals that been living in this country for years, it means they been stealing our resources and our jobs especially if the illegal has a degree and is in a skilled job, it means he or she is stealing a job that is meant for an educated skilled American.Stronger border security with a more aggressive and expadited deportation process is probably the answer to our immigration problem.Obama’s idea just makes things a whole lot worse, basically an invitation more and more illegals to come into this country.Illegal immigration is probably the reason why Latinos will be the majority in years to come.

    John, there are 11 million people in this country illegally. We cannot deport all of them, It’s not a matter of having the will to do it or not having the will to do it. We just don’t have the resources. Given that, whom do you deport? Why would it make more sense to deport the first 400,000 that we have money to deport rather than people who have committed serious crimes?

  33. avatar
    bob December 24, 2014 at 5:13 pm #

    john:
    Neverthless, what Joe Arpaio did had to be done.

    If filing a frivolous lawsuit is the answer, I don’t want to know the question.

  34. avatar
    J.D. Sue December 24, 2014 at 5:25 pm #

    john: Illegal immigrants are vermin . . . disease . . . infestation….

    Did you lift that dehumanizing language right out of Nazi propaganda, or is it just a coincidence?

  35. avatar
    Dave B. December 24, 2014 at 5:27 pm #

    You mean Mitt Romney almost had to prove to Alabama’s Secretary of State that he was eligible for the presidency? Did you ever read McInnish’s complaint, John?

    john: Birthers got close with Judge Roy Moore but he was overuled by the whole appeals court.If Judge Roy Moore been a single judge acting, there might have been a chance that birthers could have prevailed.

  36. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG December 24, 2014 at 5:45 pm #

    John, they may be here illegally, but that is no excuse to treat them inhumanely. That’s something your ilk is incapable of understanding.

  37. avatar
    RanTalbott December 24, 2014 at 5:57 pm #

    Gotta love this bit or irony from Klayman’s press release:

    Having reviewed carefully Judge Beryl Howell’s ruling, Klayman, Arpaio’s lawyer, had this to say:

    “Judge Howell is clearly wrong in her reasoning and we wasted no time in taking an appeal – only 20 minutes after the ruling was issued.

    Is Klayman admitting that he filed his appeal before he “reviewed carefully Judge Beryl Howell’s ruling”?

    Or is he claiming to be some sort of superhuman speed-reader/typist?

  38. avatar
    Arthur December 24, 2014 at 7:39 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: John, they may be here illegally, but that is no excuse to treat them inhumanely. That’s something your ilk is incapable of understanding.

    I agree.

  39. avatar
    alg December 24, 2014 at 10:02 pm #

    john: Birthers got close with Judge Roy Moore but he was overuled by the whole appeals court.If Judge Roy Moore been a single judge acting, there might have been a chance that birthers could have prevailed.

    John, Obama wasn’t a defendant in the Alabama case. The question before the court in that case wasn’t about Obama’s eligibility but about whether or not the Alabama Secretary of State had a duty to vet the eligibility of Presidential candidates on the Alabama ballot. The court ruled he did not.

    In his dissent, Judge Moore didn’t conclude Obama was ineligible. Nor did he conclude that the court could retroactively require the Alabama SoS to vet Presidential candidates from the 2012 election. He acknowledged that the challenge to the results of 2012 was moot. His dissent spoke prospectively about the role of the SoS in future elections.

    You have no idea how Judge Moore would have ruled had he actually been presented a question about Obama’s eligibility. However, Hawaiian State Law makes perfectly clear that a short form certification of birth is legal tender in any and all courts of law. Judge Moore would have been constitutionally bound to accept that short form as sufficient documentation that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in august of 1961. End of story.

  40. avatar
    CarlOrcas December 24, 2014 at 10:14 pm #

    john: Yes, I would have to agree. Illegal means illegal.

    As usual you evade the question. So….I assume you don’t know any immigrants, legal or otherwise, and that would explain your willingness (need?) to demonize them with
    with code words like “vermin” and “infestation”.

    john: it means they been stealing our resources and our jobs especially if the illegal has a degree and is in a skilled job, it means he or she is stealing a job that is meant for an educated skilled American.

    That you don’t have any experience with immigrants explains your blinding ignorance about them and what they can do in the country.

    First……what resources do you think they are “stealing”?

    As far as jobs go have you applied for one recently? Hired anyone? Do you know what it takes to get a job……for anyone? You have to prove legal residency or citizenship.

    Yes, there are people using false ID to get a job but they’re not stealing much since the taxes withheld from their pay goes to the state and federal government. And, no, they’re not getting welfare.

    Most are in low paying non-skilled jobs and, if you knew any or anyone who hires them you would know that they pay good wages to get the hardest workers and there aren’t any folks like you applying for those jobs. Cheap workers aren’t worth the price.

    As far as “illegal immigrants” taking degreed jobs from citizens and legal residents that’s basically a right wing pipe dream.

    The problem, john, is not men and women trying to make a better life for themselves and their families but men (and women) like you driven by ignorance and hate. America was built by the former……despite the best efforts of the latter.

  41. avatar
    Arthur December 24, 2014 at 11:14 pm #

    CarlOrcas: As usual you evade the question. So….I assume you don’t know any immigrants, legal or otherwise, and that would explain your willingness (need?) to demonize them with
    with code words like “vermin” and “infestation”.

    Categorizing people as “vermin” in order to dehumanize them and so deprive them of basic human rights? I know I’ve heard of that approach before. But where? Oh yeah, now I remember:

    “During the Holocaust, Nazis referred to Jews as rats. Hutus involved in the Rwanda genocide called Tutsis cockroaches. Slave owners throughout history considered slaves subhuman animals. In ‘Less Than Human,’ David Livingstone Smith argues that it’s important to define and describe dehumanization, because it’s what opens the door for cruelty and genocide.”
    http://www.npr.org/2011/03/29/134956180/criminals-see-their-victims-as-less-than-human
    What a glorious tradition john has joined! He should be very proud.

  42. avatar
    Arthur December 24, 2014 at 11:25 pm #

    bob: If filing a frivolous lawsuit is the answer, I don’t want to know the question.

    Isn’t the question: “How do I satisfy my base and encourage their continued financial support, even as I promote myself as a right-wing saint?”

  43. avatar
    jdkinpa December 24, 2014 at 11:32 pm #

    Merry Christmas to all my fellow Obots, and you too john….

  44. avatar
    Rickey December 25, 2014 at 12:04 am #

    john: Obama’s idea just makes things a whole lot worse, basically an invitation more and more illegals to come into this country.

    That statement just goes to prove that you have no idea what you are talking about.

    First of all, Obama’s executive action applies only to undocumented immigrants who have lived continuously in the United States since December 31, 2009 or earlier. It has absolutely no effect upon anyone who enters the United States illegally today, tomorrow, next month, or next year.

    Also, it only applies to undocumented immigrants who have at least one child who is a U.S. citizen or at least one child who is a legal permanent resident.

    So your idea that Obama’s executive action is an enticement to more illegal immigration is based solely on your ignorance.

    http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/guide-immigration-accountability-executive-action

  45. avatar
    Joey December 25, 2014 at 12:31 am #

    john: Yes, I would have to agree.Illegal means illegal.For illegals that been living in this country for years, it means they been stealing our resources and our jobs especially if the illegal has a degree and is in a skilled job, it means he or she is stealing a job that is meant for an educated skilled American.Stronger border security with a more aggressive and expadited deportation process is probably the answer to our immigration problem.Obama’s idea just makes things a whole lot worse, basically an invitation more and more illegals to come into this country.Illegal immigration is probably the reason why Latinos will be the majority in years to come.

    Only one U.S. President has actually signed an amnesty bill into law. That was President Reagan in 1986 when he amnestied 2.7 million illegals.
    Today 40% of all illegals in this country arrived here legally on student, tourist or work visas but they overstayed their visa and never left. That has been true for decades regardless of who is the president.

  46. avatar
    RanTalbott December 25, 2014 at 1:52 am #

    Rickey: So your idea that Obama’s executive action is an enticement to more illegal immigration is based solely on your ignorance.

    In john’s case, it almost certainly is, but that doesn’t mean that the concern isn’t legitimate.

    The 1986 amnesty was a mess: the government didn’t put a tenth of the number of people they really needed on the job of screening applicants, so the system leaked like a sieve. Agents were forced to make instant decisions, with virtually no resources to check for forged papers, fabricated letters of reference, etc. A lot of people got through who shouldn’t have.

    This time, there’s a good chance it’s going to be even worse: there are lot more people to check out, and the GOP will probably do their damnedest to starve the program of resources. Each of those 1000 new people they’re hiring is going to have thousands of cases to clear, and it’s highly unlikely that they’ll be given the time and resources needed to do the kind of job that the public is being told to expect.

    Even the program as it really is will be an encouragement to some people to take the chance that it’ll happen again, and try to establish themselves so they’ll be eligible for “the next amnesty”. But the RWNJs are telling everyone in the western hemisphere with access to an AM radio that anyone who manages to sneak past the BP will get a free house, a Cadillac, and welfare for life, and some people will believe that BS.

    Every time there’s been talk of any sort of “immigration reform” over the last several years, there’s been an uptick in illegal crossings. It won’t be the Armageddon that the nutjobs are predicting, but things will almost certainly get at least a little bit worse before they get better.

  47. avatar
    y_p_w December 25, 2014 at 1:52 am #

    I noticed there’s been mention of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. While I agree it would likely be sufficient for most states to submit a certified document from a city, county, or state agency, I don’t believe that it technically means that it must be accepted under Article IV, Section 1. That most states do accept documents such as birth certificates as a general matter (unless there is reason to doubt their authenticity) is a given, but the Constitutional matter is specific.

    Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

    I’ve noted this before, that Congress did pass a law about the authentication of nonjudicial documents. It’s currently 28 U.S.C. § 1739:

    http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/28/V/115/1739

    All nonjudicial records or books kept in any public office of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in any court or office in any other State, Territory, or Possession by the attestation of the custodian of such records or books, and the seal of his office annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of a judge of a court of record of the county, parish, or district in which such office may be kept, or of the Governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, of the State, Territory, or Possession that the said attestation is in due form and by the proper officers. If the certificate is given by a judge, it shall be further authenticated by the clerk or prothonotary of the court, who shall certify, under his hand and the seal of his office, that such judge is duly commissioned and qualified; or, if given by such Governor, secretary, chancellor, or keeper of the great seal, it shall be under the great seal of the State, Territory, or Possession in which it is made. Such records or books, or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court and office within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts or offices of the State, Territory, or Possession from which they are taken.

    Basically all this means is that the governor’s or secretary of state’s office should keep a library of valid signatures and seals, and then attest to the authenticity of those identifying marks. Since Hawaii doesn’t have a secretary of state, I believe this function falls on the Lieutenant Governor’s office. They typically do these things for foreign certifications and Apostilles, but I believe they’d probably make an exception if someone insisted it was necessary for Full Faith and Credit to be invoked in a court in another state. It also seems that they require an actual signature of the custodian of record (the State Registrar in Obama’s case), so that might have to come in the form of a special request.

    http://ltgov.hawaii.gov/the-office/apostilles-and-certifications/

    I’m guessing that it’s exceedingly rare that anyone has ever had to resort to this regarding invoking Full Faith and Credit as exactly spelled out. My understanding is that most states don’t require this level of authentication in order to admit nonjudicial documents like birth certificates or marriage certificates, according to standard rules of evidence.

    I gotta get some sleep now.

  48. avatar
    alg December 25, 2014 at 8:02 am #

    I have followed Larry Klayman’s lead and filed a complaint with the USCIS to have John deported to whatever country is willing to take him. That should substantially raise the nation’s average IQ.

  49. avatar
    Joey December 25, 2014 at 2:17 pm #

    y_p_w:
    I noticed there’s been mention of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.While I agree it would likely be sufficient for most states to submit a certified document from a city, county, or state agency, I don’t believe that it technically means that it must be accepted under Article IV, Section 1.That most states do accept documents such as birth certificates as a general matter (unless there is reason to doubt their authenticity) is a given, but the Constitutional matter is specific.

    I’ve noted this before, that Congress did pass a law about the authentication of nonjudicial documents.It’s currently 28 U.S.C. § 1739:

    Basically all this means is that the governor’s or secretary of state’s office should keep a library of valid signatures and seals, and then attest to the authenticity of those identifying marks.Since Hawaii doesn’t have a secretary of state, I believe this function falls on the Lieutenant Governor’s office.They typically do these things for foreign certifications and Apostilles, but I believe they’d probably make an exception if someone insisted it was necessary for Full Faith and Credit to be invoked in a court in another state. It also seems that they require an actual signature of the custodian of record (the State Registrar in Obama’s case), so that might have to come in the form of a special request.

    http://ltgov.hawaii.gov/the-office/apostilles-and-certifications/

    I’m guessing that it’s exceedingly rare that anyone has ever had to resort to this regarding invoking Full Faith and Credit as exactly spelled out.My understanding is that most states don’t require this level of authentication in order to admit nonjudicial documents like birth certificates or marriage certificates, according to standard rules of evidence.

    I gotta get some sleep now.

    Doesn’t Federal Rule of Evidence 902: Evidence that is Self-Authenticating kind of cover it?

  50. avatar
    Sef December 25, 2014 at 2:27 pm #

    john: Illegal immigrants are vermin in this country.

    You can prove that every one of your immigrant ancestors came here legally?

  51. avatar
    Arthur B. December 25, 2014 at 3:20 pm #

    Joey: Doesn’t Federal Rule of Evidence 902: Evidence that is Self-Authenticating kind of cover it?

    FRE 902 says (in relevant part):

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

    (1) Domestic Public Documents That Are Sealed and Signed. A document that bears:

    (A) a seal purporting to be that of the United States; any state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession of the United States;…”

    Note a couple of things: There’s no requirement that the seal be authentic — it simply has to “purport[] to be” an actual government seal. This wording allows for the possibility that an invalid document will be admitted into evidence.

    Further, the documents in question are simply “to be admitted” — they are not required at that point to be given any faith or credit. The purported seal creates a rebuttable presumption of authenticity, which is open to challenge.

    In the absence of a successful challenge, however, the court will consider the document to be valid.

  52. avatar
    J.D. Sue December 25, 2014 at 3:46 pm #

    Joey: Doesn’t Federal Rule of Evidence 902: Evidence that is Self-Authenticating kind of cover it?


    Essentially, yes, FRE 902 and FRCP 44 reflect/implement 28 U.S.C. § 1739 (and related statutes)–in federal court.

    But this conversation came up within the context of Judge Moore in an Alabama court, not federal court. Of course, all states must comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1739, and I expect that the Alabama court rules in this regard are similar to the federal court rules.

  53. avatar
    dunstvangeet December 25, 2014 at 4:16 pm #

    alg:
    I have followed Larry Klayman’s lead and filed a complaint with the USCIS to have John deported to whatever country is willing to take him.That should substantially raise the nation’s average IQ.

    There’s your problem. There’s probably no country willing to take him.

  54. avatar
    Rickey December 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm #

    john: .Illegal immigration is probably the reason why Latinos will be the majority in years to come.

    Your xenophobia is showing through again.

    There are 54 million people of Hispanic heritage in the U.S., but more than 80% of them are here legally. So even if the undocumented Hispanics reproduce like rabbits, there is no way that that they can increase the Hispanic population sufficiently to make it the majority in the foreseeable future, and certainly not in your lifetime. The Census Bureau estimates that in 2060 the Hispanic population will constitute 31% of the nation’s population. That’s a long way from 50.1%, so you can take a deep breath and rest easy.

  55. avatar
    Sef December 25, 2014 at 5:17 pm #

    Rickey: That’s a long way from 50.1%, so you can take a deep breath and rest easy.

    Especially if he lives in someplace like Wyoming.

  56. avatar
    y_p_w December 25, 2014 at 5:31 pm #

    Joey: Doesn’t Federal Rule of Evidence 902: Evidence that is Self-Authenticating kind of cover it?

    I thought my response was to a comment about the Alabama case. Even so, I recall from the Georgia administrative hearing that several of us found the section from the Georgia rules of evidence about accepting self-authenticating records from other states. From what I can gather, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution is rarely ever invoked because states rarely require it for court proceedings. It sounds like it could be used to compel a state to accept a birth certificate from another state, but how often does it happen that a state agency refuses to accept a certified vital record as authentic?

    And here’s Alabama’s rule:

    http://judicial.alabama.gov/library/rules/ev902.pdf

    Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following:

    (1) DOMESTIC PUBLIC DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL. A document bearing a seal purporting to be that of the United States, or of any State, district, Commonwealth, territory, or insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or of a political subdivision, department, officer, or agency thereof, and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution.

    (4) CERTIFIED COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS. A copy of an official record or report or entry therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification, by certificate complying with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this rule or complying with any applicable statute or other rule of court.

    (10) SELF-AUTHENTICATION UNDER STATUTES AND RULES OF COURT. Any signature, document, or other matter declared by any statute, state or federal, or any rule promulgated by the Alabama Supreme Court to be presumptively or prima facie genuine or authentic.

    (11) CERTIFIED DOMESTIC RECORDS OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED ACTIVITY. The original or a duplicate of a domestic record of regularly conducted activity that would be admissible under Rule 803(6) if accompanied by an affidavit or sworn testimony of its custodian or other qualified person, certifying that the record:

    (A) was made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of those matters;

    (B) was kept in the course of the regularly conducted activity; and

    (C) was made by the regularly conducted activity as a regular practice.

    A party intending to offer a record into evidence under this section must provide written notice of that intention to all adverse parties and must make the record and certification available for inspection sufficiently in advance of their offer into evidence to provide an adverse party with a fair opportunity to challenge them.

    I’m not sure how a birth certificate qualifies. Birth records are public records in some states (like California) so I’d think paragraph 4 applies. However, they’re not public records in states like Hawaii, so it sounds like paragraph 11 applies. The terms call for the custodian of the record to give an attestation, which doesn’t sound typical. However, paragraph 10 states that a state statute that declares a particular type of document to be prima facie genuine means it is to be assumed authentic. So who wrote all this?

    They have further explanations for what this means in more or less plain English, but I’m still kind of confused.

  57. avatar
    RanTalbott December 25, 2014 at 6:01 pm #

    They’re using “public” confusingly. In this case, it means “government, rather than commercial”. Some of what’s on the BC is “confidential”, but the fact of the record is not. Anyone can look in the index and see name and date of birth. So it would count as a “public record” for this purpose.

  58. avatar
    J.D. Sue December 25, 2014 at 6:43 pm #

    y_p_w: I’m not sure how a birth certificate qualifies. Birth records are public records in some states (like California) so I’d think paragraph 4 applies. However, they’re not public records in states like Hawaii, so it sounds like paragraph 11 applies. The terms call for the custodian of the record to give an attestation, which doesn’t sound typical. However, paragraph 10 states that a state statute that declares a particular type of document to be prima facie genuine means it is to be assumed authentic. So who wrote all this?

    They have further explanations for what this means in more or less plain English, but I’m still kind of confused.

    —-
    I am not an Alabama lawyer, but I’d guess that a birth certificate would fall under Alabama’s rule 902(1). The word “public” here refers to the issuing entity–not whether the record is readily accessible to any member of the public. In contrast, for example, rule 902(11) applies more broadly to include the records of private entities (i.e., it’s a business-records rule).

    Look at the text of the rule, which defines it: (1) DOMESTIC PUBLIC DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL. “A document bearing a seal purporting to be that of the United States, or of any State, district, Commonwealth, territory, or insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or of a political subdivision, department, officer, or agency thereof, and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution.”

    It may be useful to remember that this court rule exist only to establish what is a “self-authenticating” document. That essentially means a document that may be admitted into evidence without the actual creator/signer of the document having to personally show up in court to testify to its authenticity.

  59. avatar
    AGROD December 26, 2014 at 10:05 am #

    Please put racist john in the box until the new year – he crossed the line to disgusting.

  60. avatar
    Jeff December 26, 2014 at 6:43 pm #

    Arthur: I wonder what it’s like to live in a county where the sheriff is a demonstrated liar, law breaker, and grifter?

    It sucks actually.

    Sheriff Joe doesn’t even pretend to be anything less than cynical when it comes to PR and the locals eat it up. There was even a large write up in our local paper in which Joe simply admits that he played the birthers for campaign donations. It worked to the tune of an extra 3 million bucks.

    They don’t care. As long as the conservatives in Maricopa county hear the platitudes that make them warm and fuzzy, that’s all they need.

    This whole town is a joke

  61. avatar
    James M December 26, 2014 at 11:52 pm #

    Jeff: It sucks actually.

    Sheriff Joe doesn’t even pretend to be anything less than cynical when it comes to PR and the locals eat it up. There was even a large write up in our local paper in which Joe simply admits that he played the birthers for campaign donations. It worked to the tune of an extra 3 million bucks.

    They don’t care. As long as the conservatives in Maricopa county hear the platitudes that make them warm and fuzzy, that’s all they need.

    This whole town is a joke

    In the population centers of Maricopa County (let’s say for the point of illustration, Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa), we generally avoid Sheriff Joe’s influence. The policing isn’t done by the Maricopa Sherrif’s department in the cities, and for those who live in the cities, it’s pretty easy to simply think of the county as a barely relevant fringe. So in most minds, Sheriff Joe is something of a curiosity, and embarrassment to some and for others a point of ‘yee haw public policy’ that seems to appeal to anti-intellectuals and others who don’t see any problem with any level of authoritarianism. After all, they are white people in up-to-date vehicles who travel from box to box, never get pulled over on the highway during their rare forays into the “county” territory in the first place, and really, truly don’t see any major issues.

    And those of us who do see it as a major issue, are usually wise enough to realize we have to choose our fights. Expecting Sheriff Joe to go away isn’t a rational goal.

  62. avatar
    Keith December 27, 2014 at 9:30 pm #

    Rickey: The Census Bureau estimates that in 2060 the Hispanic population will constitute 31% of the nation’s population. That’s a long way from 50.1%, so you can take a deep breath and rest easy.

    Yeah, but they are all old school Catholics. (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

  63. avatar
    Rickey December 28, 2014 at 5:08 pm #

    Keith: Yeah, but they are all old school Catholics. (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

    As one of seven children born into a Catholic family, I know exactly what you mean!

  64. avatar
    bgansel9 December 30, 2014 at 12:08 am #

    When I post a link to this article on Facebook, it looks all weird. What happened to the coding for links on this site? It’s messed up. 🙁

    http://i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag97/ScrapWorx/Image1_zps52f6cd2d.png

  65. avatar
    RanTalbott December 30, 2014 at 12:19 am #

    bgansel9: What happened to the coding for links on this site?

    If you copied a link from a google search (or, possibly, some other search engine. I don’t know if others do the same thing), it includes a bunch of session and tracking information that looks like similar garbage.

  66. avatar
    bgansel9 December 30, 2014 at 12:37 am #

    Arthur: I wonder what it’s like to live in a county where the sheriff is a demonstrated liar, law breaker, and grifter?

    It’s pretty interesting. What’s even worse is that a whole bunch of Maricopa county constituents don’t even realize it. They have believed all along that he’s a great guy doing his best to serve the public and dole out commensurate law enforcement. UGH!

  67. avatar
    bgansel9 December 30, 2014 at 12:38 am #

    RanTalbott: If you copied a link from a google search (or, possibly, some other search engine. I don’t know if others do the same thing), it includes a bunch of session and tracking information that looks like similar garbage.

    Nope, I copied the URL on this site and pasted it into Facebook.

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 30, 2014 at 7:59 am #

    I have seen that too posting links here to Facebook. I don’t know what the problem is.

    Facebook is trying to extract a snippet of text and an image. I’m thinking that Facebook is unable to parse the page, perhaps because of compression or something Facebook doesn’t understand.

    bgansel9: When I post a link to this article on Facebook, it looks all weird. What happened to the coding for links on this site? It’s messed up.