Tag Archives: Obama

Donofrio team pries previously known information out of Hawaii

by Dr. Conspiracy on 02. Oct, 2009 in Birth Location, Leo Donofrio

Leo. C. Donofrio

Leo. C. Donofrio

I don’t want to make too much fun of Donofrio and his article DoH Reverses Course – Releases Index Data For President Obama, Stanley Ann and Barack, Sr; No Records For Maya Exist. While the fake dramatic aura written into his article is silly, at least it presents some facts.

It has been clear to me since last year that this, and another approach to obtaining records from Hawaii, if pressed, would result in disclosure of this  already-public information. The other approach is the Verification in Lieu of a Certificate. But the information pried out of the Department of Health, is the same information the DOH sent to the Hawaii news service and was subsequently printed in two Honolulu newspapers 47 years ago. I suppose it’s nice that Donofrio has another voice from the same source saying the same thing, but there is no surprise here. This really is “old news”.

Leo also “learned” that Obama’s sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng does not have a Hawaiian birth certificate which–while still claimed otherwise by birthers as recently as by a filing in Hollister v. Soetoro a week ago–is impossible under Hawaiian law. So TechDude (who claimed he could see that the COLB was constructed from a base copy of Maya’s birth certificate) is exposed as a fraud (wait, TechDude was already exposed as a fraud).

It remains to be seen if Leo Donofrio will be believed or demonized by the birthers. The odds are on the latter.

Read full story • Comments { 9 }

Burden of proof (Vermont 1907)

by Dr. Conspiracy on 30. Sep, 2009 in Lawsuits

It is an established principle that the burden of proof in a criminal prosecution lies on the prosecution. A defendant may remain silent and be acquitted if the case against him is insufficient.

There is something a reversal of burden, however, in a quo warranto case, one in which the government, after meeting a threshold of likelihood, challenges the right of someone to hold office; the burden of proof lies with the office holder. Courts have ruled, however, that only the government may bring a quo warranto suit, and those made by private individuals have been summarily rejected by the courts.

That said, should some part of the government bring a quo warranto action against President Obama, would he be obliged to prove his eligibility? Perhaps not. I refer here to a case of the State of Vermont v. S. Hollister Jackson from the Supreme Court of Vermont in 1907, where the eligibility of the states attorney of Washington County was challenged because, it was claimed, he was not a citizen at the time of his election to office.

This is a petition for a writ of quo warranto to test the right of the respondent to hold the office of state’s attorney of Washington county. As the case is presented, the only question for our determination is: Was Mr. Jackson a citizen of the United States at the time of his election to the office in 1904? It is said that we were not in harmony with the authorities when we held, in State ex rel. Danforth v. Hunton, 28 Vt. 594. that in these proceedings persons in possession of an office are presumed to be regularly elected and entitled to hold until the contrary appears; and that the true rule is that in such cases the burden is on the respondent to show legal title to the office [see source for citations]…

However this may be, we regard it of no importance in this case as the citizenship of the respondent is presumed. This presumption arises from the mere fact of his residence here [see source for citations]… It was this rule which Judge Redfield had in mind when he said in Blood v Crandall 28 Vt at page 400 that the general presumption is in favor of citizenship.

The details of the case (which was dismissed) are not of particular interest to the Obama question since Mr. Jackson was not born in the United States.

Read full story • Comments { 5 }

Calais v Marshfield

by Dr. Conspiracy on 30. Sep, 2009 in Citizenship

The a US Circuit Court in the case of US v. Rhodes defined natural born citizenship as birth within the allegiance of the United States [cited approvingly by the Supreme Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark]. Some have said that because President Obama, through his father, was born also a Citizen of the UK and Colonies, that he has a dual allegiance to Britain, and that this defect renders him not a natural born citizen of the United States.

It has always seemed to me profoundly unfair that some second country could impose an allegiance upon someone against their will, or that somehow a second country could dictate who could and who could not be President of the United States. Apparently, the court agreed with me in this decision from the case of Calais v. Marshfield (1844):

“Although the government of one country may grant to persons owing allegiance to that of another, the rights and privileges of citizenship, it is not intended to intimate that the government making such grant would thereby, and without their consent or change of domicil, become entitled to their allegiance in respect to any of their political duties or relations.” Calais v Marshfield 30 Maine Rep 520. [As cited in Field Int. Code.]

Read full story • Comments { 13 }

Donofrio alleges Obama birth records amended!

by Dr. Conspiracy on 22. Sep, 2009 in Birth Certificate, Leo Donofrio

Leo. C. Donofrio

Leo. C. Donofrio

Flash!

Leo Donofrio has made a stunning claim on his blog in a new article: Pending Litigation: Hawaii Confirms That Obama’s Vital Records Have Been Amended.

One has to translate that headline from “birther speak” to normal usage. “Pending Litigation” means “we haven’t filed a lawsuit” and “Confirms” means “we say so, but we won’t tell you why or how”.

Hawaiian law requires that certificates that have been amended be distinctly marked “altered”, and Obama’s Certification of Live Birth clearly is not marked “altered”. This fact justifies a high degree of skepticism on Donofrio’s claim. Of course the word “Amended” in birther speak might mean something totally different from the normal usage.

Donofrio says:

I will issue a full statement and press release on behalf of TerriK via this blog in the days ahead.  This statement will include a complete history of correspondence between TerriK and Hawaii state officials in the Office of Information Practices (OIP) and the Department of Health (DoH). (more…)

Read full story • Comments { 106 }

The tale of two judges (updated)

by Dr. Conspiracy on 09. Sep, 2009 in Lawsuits, Orly Taitz, Philip Berg

One could get dizzy from all the spin put on Judge Carter’s remarks in court yesterday and the subsequent orders in Barnett v Obama. I’m going to take the position that all federal judges basically follow the law, but they may vary in style. I thought Judge’s Carter’s style might be better understood by contrasting it with another Federal judge, presented with a similar case.

The case is Hollister v. Soetoro, the court District of Columbia District Court and the Judge, James Robertson. Hollister was Phil Berg’s case, the “interpleader” case in which he tried to force the court to decide  who was really president, Obama or Biden, using a trick from contract law. Berg’s 1st Amended Complaint was filed February 11, 2009 and the same day Judge Robertson issued an order “that defendants need not respond to the amended complaint and that plaintiff’s response to the motion to dismiss is due 2/13/09″. A few motions went back and forth, but the result is that on March 5, less than one month after the amended complaint was filed, the judge dismissed the case.

Judge Robinson declared that the “interpleader” case was “frivolous”. He said:

This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of the books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end. [Emphasis added.]

Judge Robinson, it seems, is unwilling to waste the court’s time on frivolous lawsuits.

In contrast, Judge David O. Carter seems a more patient sort. He is giving Orly Taitz explanations as to what she does wrong, and even tried to assist her in accomplishing service. He is going through all the forms including scheduling a trial date, even though there may be no trial. Whatever his personal view of the merits of the lawsuit, he is acting in a very measured and objective fashion. On the one hand he promises not to summarily dismiss the case on a technicality (giving glee to the Orly tribe) but on the other hand suggesting that there will be no discovery until the motion to dismiss is dealt with, and leaving a none-too-subtle hint to the US Attorneys that a motion to stay discovery might be in order. [I think part of the confusion here is on the definition of technicality. I suppose failure to meet a deadline for service is technical for one side, and not having standing is considered technical by the other.]

Carter’s even-handed language may lead those of us itching for resolution (either trial or dismissal) to read too much into his statements. In the end, I am confident that he will follow the law, and Orly, if she pays attention, might get a bit of a legal education in the process.

Read full story • Comments { 23 }

Marking up Jeff Schwilk

by Dr. Conspiracy on 08. Sep, 2009 in Lawsuits, Lounge, Orly Taitz

I received an email a little while ago from Orly Taitz. She was forwarding the following from Jeff Schwilk of the “San Diego Minutemen.” Normally, I let what others say stand intact and comment on it. However, just for fun, I’ll mark this one up a little.

The expedited trial has been set for Jan. 26, 2010, just 4 1/2 months from now! [Actually Orly asked for the trial to be expedited and the Court refused. The January 26 date is not expedited, and this tentative trial date presupposes that the government's motion to dismiss is not granted, and that is a huge assumption.]

I and many other concerned veterans and citizens attended the hearing today in Federal Court in Santa Ana in the lawsuit against Barack Obama to determine his eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief. About 150 people showed up, almost all in support of the lawsuit [did you take a poll, or did you bring them all with you on a bus?] to demand that Obama release his birth certificate and other records that he has hidden from the American people. (more…)

Read full story • Comments { 54 }

The case of David R___

by Dr. Conspiracy on 13. Aug, 2009 in Orly Taitz

Orly Taitz

Orly Taitz

It’s a witch hunt over on Orly’s blog.

A while back someone posted a rather nasty comment there including a death wish for Orly (that she be tried for sedition and hung). The Internet address (the IP address1) of the commenter was recorded and published. Another commenter looked the IP address and found the geographic region where such addresses are found. They took the center of that region, looked it up on Google maps, turned that into a street address, looked up the street address and found out who lived there. Orly then took this email “research” and posted the name, email address, street address, and place of employment of David R____, the unfortunate person the dart thrown at a map of the United States landed on.

One is extremely lucky if the geographic location found in an IP lookup is within a dozen miles of the actual computer.

In any case, the identification made maybe has a chance of one in 20,000 of being right. (If this technique actually worked, we would have known the identity of Ron Polarik 6 months ago.)

So David R____’s personal information has been posted on Orly’s web site along with the claim that he made death threats against her. Orly has taken the information from an e-mail and turned it into an article on her site. It has been reported that Mr. R____ has been called in for an explanation by his employer (the first time he knew anything about this business).

This is part of a pattern of associating things based on the smallest of similarities, for example, the claim that President Obama has dozens of different Social Security numbers, or that David R____ lived within a couple dozen miles (maybe) of the real culprit.

I think what Orly is doing is criminally irresponsible.  If David wants to sue, I’m in for $50 in legal fees. (more…)

Read full story • Comments { 92 }
Older Entries »