Main Menu

Archive | Featured Articles

Our best articles

Banned ‘Birther’ Breaks the BR Censorship Barrier

The Cold Case Posse’s “Universe Shattering” Evidence

Opinion: By Brian Reilly To: Kevin Davidson, Dr. Conspiracy

Once again, America is being told by Birther news outlets that new, universe shattering evidence about the Obama investigation will be released by Commander Mike Zullo and his non-profit, all volunteer, Cold Case Posse in March, or possibly April or possibly May or, possibly never, depending on who the Birther spokesperson is for the day. Even if new evidence were released this month, the Cold Case Posse has cried wolf so many times, who really is going to listen, except hardcore, agenda driven Birthers?

But wait a minute…..Brian Reilly…..isn’t he a Birther? Why is he writing to Dr. Conspiracy??? I’m glad that you asked. I’ve been banned at many Birther websites, including Birther Report. Many Birther sites put my comments into an endless, black cavern of moderation with my comments never seeing the light of day or the courtesy of a reply or a posting. My comments don’t fit the Birther narrative. On one particularly nefarious Birther website I’ve read threats and defamatory statements directed toward me for simply speaking my opinion. Do these tactics sound familiar? I came to Dr. Conspiracy’s website because, I had no other choice. I believed that he would give me the freedom to write and publish my thoughts. I was right. I am grateful for Dr. Conspiracy’s courtesy.

Yes, Dr. Conspiracy has me listed on his Birthers A-Z list, but I have never considered myself a Birther. I simply had questions about President Obama’s birth certificate, based on the PDF I saw posted on April 27, 2011 on the White House website. Many wanted answers as did I. But no, I don’t consider myself a Birther. Continue Reading →

Selective Service confirms Obama registration

Sometimes I get burned taking thing for granted. The other day I realized that the Obama Selective Service form formerly published in 2008 that has been criticized by the Cold Case Posse as a fake has never to my knowledge appeared from any reputable source. Was the published image completely authentic? I also wondered, would the best available copy of the selective service form possibly show more detail?

The short answers to those two issues are “yes” and “no.”

I filed my FOIA with the Selective Service System on September 2, and just 10 days later, I had my answer. I asked specifically of the images available were color, black and white or grey scale. They said:

A Xerox :shock: copy in black and white color is enclosed; it is the best copy available to us.

The image I received appears to me to be of about the same quality as what has been published before, and in particular large portions of the postmark are missing–not just the “19”, but  other text and parts of the year number as well. It is obvious on this image that the postmark didn’t reproduce well. There is just a tiny bit from the bottom of another form on my image, suggesting that it derives from a microfilm copy.

What was marginally interesting, from which this article’s title comes, was a sentence in their response letter to me, saying:

Mr. Obama did indeed register with Selective Service and was assigned Selective Service Number 61-1125539-1 on September 4, 1980.

So the President’s registration is confirmed by the agency in charge of selective service registrations, just as his birth in Hawaii is confirmed by the agency in charge of birth registrations in Hawaii.

I’m satisfied. Birthers, of course, have a different view.

Obama Selective Service Registration, FOIA, 9/10/1013

Anonymity and Freedom of Speech

I support the right of anonymous speech, and that’s a longstanding policy on this blog. It’s an application of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you—that particular formulation is from Jesus, but all of the worlds’ major religions include s similar principle.1 Before I retired, I was very concerned about my blogging here bleeding over into my job because several of my former company’s customers were state vital statistics agencies. And while I never had anything bad to say about those agencies (for whom I had high regard), it is still easy for something to be misunderstood or misrepresented. I want for people on both sides of the birther question to be able to speak their minds freely without having to look over their shoulders at work, or with family and friends. Sometimes the ability to freely express an opinion requires doing it anonymously. In my way of thinking, personal privacy usually outweighs telling every detail of a story.

Some don’t share my values

Both birthers and Obots have engaged in exposés of the other. I even got a shout out from Jerome Corsi in a 2011 article at World Net Daily. Certainly there is some aspect of revenge or intimidation in some of it. For some of the birthers, outing Obots is a contribution to the complexity of their conspiracy narrative. Some think that knowing the real name of the “demon” gives power over it.

Men in Black Suits

DocInBlackThe essay preceding didn’t come out of thin air; it was prompted by the recent publication by Orly Taitz of a FOIA request to the IRS about several things, one a lawyer working for the IRS who went to see one of Orly Taitz’ court appearances (there was a sign-in sheet that Orly got from the court in spite of objections, and then published). Taitz is demanding under FOIA the time cards for this attorney to see if that person was being paid by the government for the time spent attending the hearing and saying critical things about Taitz on the Internet. Of course Orly is much more specific about the identity of this person on her web site than I. Now I don’t think that Orly Taitz is trying to intimidate the attorney—Orly doesn’t have enough comprehension of other peoples’ feelings to come up with that. I think revenge against the Obots is probably the motivation, or perhaps a twisted idea of self defense.

Continue Reading →

Here’s the birth certificate!

One of the dumbest questions asked by birthers is “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” Amid unfounded rumors that candidate Obama’s middle name was “Mohammed,” his campaign released his birth certificate in June of 2008. Perhaps you’ve seen it?

Obama Certification of Live Birth

Birthers have tried to deny this simple document ever since. First, they denied that the document even existed in paper form, and that it didn’t have the seal of the State of Hawaii. Staff from FactCheck.org actually took photos of the original paper document, but those were denied too.

Continue Reading →

New video debunks Gilbert’s Dreams movie

My hat’s off to Loren Collins, who has taken on Joel Gilbert and his movie Dreams from My Real Father movie, thrown them to the mat and applied an unbreakable submission hold. Loren has done superb research and completed the job with a well-made video. You don’t hear me say this often, but this needs to go viral.

Since this article was written, the original video was removed by YouTube for claims of copyright infringement (see discussion below the video) and what appears following is a new version.

Between the time I watched the video and I hit the Publish button, the original video was made unavailable on YouTube with the note: “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Highway 61 Entertainment.”

Highway 61 entertainment is the production company that made Dreams from My Real Father, a brief 25-second excerpt from which appears in Loren’s video. Loren would know better than I, but I believe this is fair use and no copyright infringement exists; nevertheless, the way the law works, it is very easy to get material removed from the Internet, at least in the short term, with a copyright violation claim.

The birther contribution to American jurisprudence

Dealing with frivolous litigation, whether filed by a seasoned attorney or a novice pro se litigant, is a bit like wrangling cats.

Robert J. Davis

Where's the Birth Certificate? billboardWhile one doesn’t usually combine “birther” and “contribution” in the same sentence, the birther phenomenon has left its mark on the US justice system through educational examples, black letter law, and a bit of humor to spice up otherwise dull legal briefs. This article details ways in which the birthers in general, and Orly Taitz in particular, have contributed to the law.

A good example of bad behavior

I don’t know whether they teach this at the William Howard Taft online law school, but there are certain standard reference works that attorneys rely on to inform their practice and to find the citations that they need to make legal arguments. One source is the Practicing Law Institute whose mission is:

To enhance the professionalism of attorneys and other qualified persons by providing, in a cost effective manner, the highest quality and most innovative programs, publications and other services to enable them to practice law competently and ethically, and to fulfill pro bono responsibilities.

In 2010, the PLI published a paper by Koral and Price titled: “Trying the Court’s patience instead of the case: common litigation mistakes” to draw the line between “zealous advocacy” and “impermissible or injudicious tactics.” One way of brightening the line is to give examples of what constitutes “impermissible or injudicious tactics” and the birthers, in the person of Orly Taitz, provide a featured example of being on the wrong side of the line. Writing about Rhodes v. MacDonald, where Judge Clay D. Land sanctioned Taitz:

Attorney Orly Taitz provides a notorious recent example of an attorney’s conduct succeeding more at irritating the judge than at advancing the interests of her client. A member of the “birther” movement, which challenges President Obama’s citizenship on the grounds that he had failed to adequately prove that he was born in the United States, Ms. Taitz filed a motion in connection with this litigation on behalf of a Captain in the United States Army to enjoin her deployment to Iraq. District Judge Clay D. Land held that the motion was frivolous, and further found that “Plaintiff’s motion is being presented for the improper purpose of using the federal judiciary as a platform to espouse controversial political beliefs rather than as a legitimate forum for hearing legal claims.”

Taitz was sanctioned for her conduct in the case because, as Judge Land said:

[t]his pattern of conduct reveals that it will be difficult to get counsel’s attention [and so a] significant sanction is necessary to deter such conduct.

The PLI article was written in 2010, before Orly Taitz brought a federal lawsuit against Judge Land. I wonder what the article would say if it were written today!

Black letter law

The Wikipedia article on Precedent says:

gavelIn common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

Black letter law is the body of cases that attorneys and courts look to for established precedent. If you have ever read a birther legal decision that involves dismissal for lack of standing, you will almost invariably see Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife cited. Once the body of birther lawsuits built, one began to see citations on standing to decided birther cases, notably Hollander v. McCain and Berg v. Obama. More recently we see extensive citations to Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana alongside US v. Wong on the question of whether Obama is a natural born citizen and Robinson v. Bowen on ripeness of election challenges.

The precedential value of birther lawsuits now extends beyond the backwaters of birtherism; they have become mainstream precedent in several areas of the law and now appear in the standard reference resources used by attorneys.

Continue Reading →