Main Menu

Tag Archives | Scribd

Arduini bites Vogt

Tenacious debunker Frank Arduini has sunk his teeth into Douglas Vogt’s Seattle Court filings and come up with a new report in his series of debunking major birther documents,  “20 Shades of Vogt: Digital Document Forensics for Amateurs.”

I started debunking Vogt’s 20 points of forgery, but tired of the effort, plus I never could properly use the word “prolix” in a sentence. Arduini had the endurance and the grammar to pull it off.

The Annotated Zullo

Respected birther antagonist Frank Arduini has published a critique of Mike Zullo’s second expanded affidavit. One of the cornerstones of birther alternate history is that the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse (MCCCP1) conducted a professional law enforcement investigation of Barack Obama’s government records. Mr. Arduini begs to differ. Birthers who read this document will gain insight into why the Cold Case Posse hasn’t made any splash in the media except for the occasional phrase, “long debunked.”

The Annotated Zullo

1Anti-birthers have often associated the initials CCCP (the abbreviation for the Soviet Union in Russian characters) with the Cold Case Posse. Maricopa County Cold Case Posse (MCCCP) is one solution. Another is “Corsi’s Cold Case Posse,” something that is justified by the revelations in Arduini’s paper. Personally, I an satisfied to call them the CCP, which in Russian is the abbreviation for “Soviet Socialist Republic.” Such labeling may be a petty pursuit, but it provides a bit of fun in the grim business of refuting birthers.

Taitz v. Democratic Party of Mississippi 9/24 hearing transcript

Attorneys Scott Tepper and Sam Begley representing the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee participated in a special edition of Reality Check Radio and other representatives of the anti-birther community have filed reports on the September 24, 2012 hearing in Jackson, Mississippi before federal district judge Henry T. Wingate, in a case where Orly Taitz claims Obama isn’t eligible to be President and that he, along with the Democratic Party and the State of Hawaii, are engaging in an organized criminal conspiracy (RICO) to hide all of this.

Now we have the official transcript of the hearing, thanks to Jack Jack Ryan collection on Scribd, and I include that below.

Before continuing, consider that these court transcripts and docket entries don’t come cheap. Many thousands of dollars have been spent in obtaining the Jack Ryan collection. If you enjoy these informative documents, I hope you will consider joining me in making a generous contribution to the Friends of the Fogbow.

Continue Reading →

Bad blood boils: Berg blasts birther

It happened to me: I mistakenly believed that Philip J. Berg’s law license had been suspended and even wrote it into an article (now corrected). Apparently I wasn’t the only one fooled.

According to Phil Berg (letter to the Court embedded at the end of this article), defense counsel Kim  Schumann and Jeffrey Cunningham in the Liberi v. Taitz lawsuit bought the story from their client Orly Taitz too, and contacted the court and had Berg removed as counsel for the plaintiffs saying he had lost his license.

Berg states in his letter to the Court that this false statement was “repeatedly posted all over the Internet  and sent through RSS feeds to millions of websites and Individuals; and repeatedly mass Emailed….” (I learned about it from a mass email directly from Orly Taitz.)

Berg demands sanctions and costs for having to respond to the false allegation.

As best I understand the facts, a recommendation was made that Berg be suspended, but no decision has actually been made to do it.

Somebody give Berg a cookie

In a more bizarre part of the story, Berg alleges his computer system was attacked by Taitz, who attempted to put tracking software on it. He shows a screen shot from Norton Internet Security detecting an “intrusion attempt” while visiting her site: Norton rated the threat “high.” Google reports that the Taitz site has been clean for the past 90 days. Recall that the Taitz web site has had problems in the past with malicious software on it and the early days of her web site were accompanied by claims of being hacked, and PayPal contributions stolen, directed against Lisa Ostella, another plaintiff in the Liberi suit.

Read all 167 legal documents in the case. What mess!

Continue Reading →

Farah slapped down

Can you believe that there are people in the world who would file a meritless lawsuit out of pure spite? It’s true! Joseph Farah sued Esquire Magazine for libel over a satirical1 article that made fun of Jerome Corsi’s book, Where’s the Birth Certificate? after it’s title became silly following a preemptive release of Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate by the White House. You can read my coverage of the $250 Million lawsuit by Farah in these articles:

As I suggested, Esquire Magazine could try a new District of Columbia law designed to prevent people from being victimized by public figures who file lawsuits that can generate large legal fees and drag on for years.

A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.


I told you so!

Esquire Magazine filed such a defense under the DC anti-SLAPP statute and won in a decision yesterday by DC District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. There was never a doubt in my mind that the suit deserved to be SLAPPed down, but there was some question as to whether the statute could be used in DC District Court (a federal court hearing a case in diversity). There always remains the possibility that an appeals court will overturn the decision over this question, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Judge decided that Farah can’t make his case, and will inevitably lose. One major flaw in the Farah case is that Farah himself called the article satire, before he called it not satire. Oops!

In a SLAPP case, the plaintiff’s have to make a reasonable showing that they have a chance to win at trial before the more expensive process of discovery begins. If the lawsuit is found to be a SLAPP the plaintiff has to pay the defendant’s legal fees.

Judge Collyer was clearly not the elusive birther-friendly judge that they needed. She begin the recitation of the facts in the case by saying:

President Obama was born August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii.


The Judge also made one other comment that I take to heart:

Those who speak with loud voices cannot be surprised if they become part of the story.

Farah’s attorney, Larry Klayman responded:

The court’s decision is significantly flawed and intellectually dishonest.


The decision was so poorly reasoned it rises to a level of negligence, if not a desire to dump the case because it is not palatable to the Washington establishment.

“Piffle,” as my Mom used to say. Klayman says they will appeal. I’m happy as a clam.

Here’s the Judge’s opinion:

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE – Memorandum Opinion Dismissing Case

1The Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 510 U.S. 569, 581 n.15 (1994) defined “satire” as:

a work ‘In which prevalent follies and vices are assailed with ridicule,” or are “attacked through irony, derision or wit.”

What’s up, Jack?

A couple of days ago, I again watched one of my favorite movies, The Hunt for Red October. Jack Ryan, the protagonist, is also the name of a collection1 of legal documents at the Scribd web site that is an essential source of material on birther legal actions and where I go for much of the source material for this web site. So what’s up, Jack2?

Liberty Legal Foundation v. National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc.

Plaintiffs are opposing a motion to dismiss (MTD) in this federal lawsuit in Arizona. The MTD said that the Plaintiffs’ issue has been “rejected by every federal and state court to consider the issue.” Plaintiffs struggle to distinguish their case from the others. It would seem to me that the essential point of their case, however they frame the specific injury and whoever they target as defendants, is that Barack Obama is not eligible as President because of the citizenship of his father. In fact a federal court did explicitly reject that premise in the case of Tisdale v. Obama.

This is the case in which Plaintiffs’ attempted to obtain a default judgment against a Republican group in Tennessee called the “National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc”. Instead Judge Bolton dismissed the complaint against the NDPUSA for lack of service.

What I found interesting, however, was a statement contained in the First Amended Complaint:

Continue Reading →