Dr. Conspiracy ™
The WorldNetDaily article libeling Foggy caused quite an uproar here on the blog (almost 100 comments — some deleted — in less than 24 hours) and with me and my family. I can’t begin to imagine what an uproar this is for Foggy in real life. If he goes through with his lawsuit, I would expect it to consume a lot of his time and energy.
I would not want my own confirmation bias to be the basis for this website’s editorial position as to the likelihood that Foggy would succeed in such a lawsuit, but the attorneys who commented here on the question seem to think he has a good case. (Y’all feel free to weigh in here.)
Liability
KenyanBornObamAcorn made an additional threat (not approved for viewing) naming the target of the next Obot smear at WorldNetDaily (I notified that person by email). Perhaps KBOA should talk to SqueekyFromm’s BFF, Fabia Sheen, Esq. about her potential liability in a defamation lawsuit against WorldNetDaily. (I did feel so very silly writing that last sentence.) What’s the old saying: only a fool has himself for a lawyer. To that I would add my own version: only a fool has a birther for a lawyer.
Personal attacks continue
I felt that I had to put training wheels (moderation) back on one of the Obots who hasn’t learned yet how to comment without personal attacks. That just means more work for me reviewing stuff. 🙁
Dr. Conspiracy ™
I took another step towards creating the Dr. Conspiracy brand yesterday by registering DrConspiracy.com (it links here for now). I hope to live another 25-30 years, and this is as good a hobby as any. Since I don’t market a product, I don’t think I can actually register “Dr. Conspiracy” as a trademark. I have registered a couple of trademarks in my lifetime, and that was an interesting experience.
OpenID
I am using OpenID, http://Dr-Conspiracy.myopenid.com/ or https://www.obamaconspiracy.org/, to identify myself when I post elsewhere on sites that support OpenID. It’s is a great way to get around multiple signons for every web site, and I advocate that web forums and blogs that require signon implement it. I have added OpenID support to the comments feature of this blog on a trial basis so that you can prevent someone impersonating you. We’ll see if the plug-in works without creating any problems. I don’t anticipate ever requiring signon to comment on this blog.
Symbols
Whether you want to trademark yourself or express your emotional state, the Obama Conspiracy Theories: Smilies, emoticons and useful symbols page puts you a copy and paste away. A link to the page is under the Visitor Guide menu up top.
Fabia Sheen, Esq. is NOT a Birther or a Obot. She is a lawyer and a BFF.
The Head Researcher, Esq.
I understand your comment on confirmation bias, but remember those Saturday matinees where we really cheered when the bad guy lost? I certainly hope to be cheering on this one.
Head Researcher:
Labia Sheena Easton, Esq. (Tee Hee!)
I remember when the badguy lost and movies used to be fun.
Trying desperately to resist the urge to speculate on how good a lawyer she could be if she’s BFF with Squeeky….
Oops….
Fabia Sheen, Esq.was “good” enough to notice how it would be difficult to prove damages to your business reputation when someone calls you a disbarred attorney, and you are NOT a practicing attorney. She said if one was a practicing attorney, such a statement would probably be libelous.
I have not seen any of the Obotski lawyers make that observation or even have the thought. Fabia Sheen, Esq. said, upon a cursory scan of the Internet Article, that a successful libel action is probably not there due to several factors, none of which has apparently been noticed, or addressed by any Obotski lawyers.
She also said there probably is one good viable cause of action, which likewise has not been advanced by Obotski lawyers. She gave forth a hint. But, the Obotski Brain Trust was too dim to get it. She also said that it is lucky for PJFogey that he is NOT a practicing attorney, or he would face potential problems for several of his actions. She also noted her cause of action, and the structuring of the complaint, would not be likely to bring about a counterclaim against PJFoggy.
Sooo, I guess we will see.
The Head Researcher, as Agent
I had two notifications that KenyanBornObamAcorn had responded to my posts on the WND story, but I can’t find any posts of hers. Must have had second thoughts and gone back to clean up. Odd…
Squeeky, Fabia has failed to consider the value of the other claims–the libelous statement that the person committed one or more criminal acts, the infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and the damages incurred by both the individual and his business income. Fabia also failed to advise that minimal actual damages are sufficient to support punitive damages, which are measured by the net worth of the defamer among other metrics.
GeorgeJD:
Well, at least you picked up on the distress thingy. Fabia said a lot of the same stuff you did, but also said there were problems and it wasn’t the slam dunk that it was being portrayed as. She also said that these kind of cases do not work well for lawyers on a percentage basis unless it is a very good case, which this one, on her cursory glance, was not all that hot. She said state law controlled a lot of this, and she pulled up something on North Carolina libel law that was about page long, which I saw looking over her shoulder.
She said, “Well, that’s not very good” twice, and “that sucks for him” once, but I don’t remember what about. She said she wondered where WND was headquartered. Another thing she said was a question why PJFoggy was going to be the suer, and how much better it would be if somebody else sued either alone, or as a separate plaintiff. I don’t think I am supposed to say who it was she thought should be the extra plaintiff or two because she said that was a thingy PJFoggy’s lawyer should bring up.
She also stressed what I first mentioned above on going to see a therapist and getting medical relief. I also told her some stuff that was going on, and she said that either somebody wasn’t doing their job properly with PJFoggy or PJFoggy was being a bad client.
That’s what I know.
The Head Researcher, as Agent
Probably not about the post itself–just about who she is. Try looking at the user the_bottom_line69.
These were on my Facebook page, it alerts me, “Kai Luebke, James Comer, and Kenyan Born ObamAcorn replied to your comment on wnd.com. 6:27am”
BHB on Fogbow said the same thing happened to him. I think she originally posted some comments as KBOA and then erased them and reposted them as the_bottom_line69. Look at 69’s responses to Bill Bowman. Clearly, she has researched him. I think the_bottom_line69 is a sock puppet for KBOA.
Ahhhh, got it. Thanks!
Squeeky, has your BFF actually tried a libel suit? I worked on several, all where the defamation was less blatant. One, where the slanderous statement (libel per se, as here) was published to only four other people. The jury came back after two hours of deliberation with an award of $1.75 million. It was upheld on appeal. Having experience makes it easier to assess the litigating hazards; how many cases like this has she treid?
Squeeky, a good case to read is Schmitz v. Aston, 3 P.2d 1184. It provides a good overview of defamation per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false light invasion of privacy, and damages, including presumed damages. The law is Arizona law, but based on the Restatement, so it is pretty consistent with the law in all 50 states.
GeorgeJD:
Fabia Sheen, Esq. would not appreciate me saying anything about her personally, or about her professional experience. She was comfortable saying what she said, and I know her well enough to put my trust in what she said. Even though I am NOT a lawyer, there are things that even I notice about what has been reported on this so far.
I am glad that you are so confident about the outcome of litigation. I do know that Fabia is never confident, and thus is always very well-prepared. But, with a good jury, who knows. Perhaps you should take the case on a contingency fee thingy???
The Head Researcher, as Agent
Oh, so you made it all up then….
That must be one freaky, scary doll collection.
GeorgeJD:
That was a interesting case. Paragraph 109 fits in with what Fabia said. But the facts are really different. A person could feel sorry for the Astons, who didn’t ask for the trouble. I am not sure anybody is going to feel sorry for PJFoggy who seemed to ask for a lot of this grief. It is one thing to express your opinion, and it is another thing to help disseminate a phony document around knowing it is likely to get into court. Plus trying to shut down a forum because you disagree with what people are saying.
PJFoggy or someone else may have that one viable cause thingy like Fabia said, but it may end up like the final episodes of Seinfield. Where all the funny stuff was looked at in a different light. Who knows.
As a curiosity, if you took the WND Internet Article, how much of it percentage wise do you think is true and accurate??? This is just a opinion thing.
Plus, have flower sales declined or has anybody said anything about flower sales at all???
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
Ooops. That was supposed to be: The Head Researcher, as Agent
GeorgetownJD:
I read your posts above with interest because I find the intricacies of legal arguments intriguing. I was impressed by the non-condescending and straightforward way you provided pertinent information to one of the posters above. I was surprised, therefore, when she responded by misrepresenting your thoughts on the recent WND incident, writing, “I am glad that you are so confident about the outcome of litigation.” After re-checking your comments, GeorgetownJD, I can’t find evidence of you making predictions about the outcome of possible litigation.
in related news, drive a birther, crazy send this link
from “The Texas Tribune”
Poll: Obama Almost as Popular as Perry in Texas
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-presidential-election/poll-obama-almost-as-popular-as-perry-in-texas/
Glad you found it interesting. You are, however, letting your preconceived notions get in the way of seeing what the causes of action are. One is damaged by the false statements– the claims that he broke the law, is a pedophile, forged a document, boiled a bunny to intimidate another, etc.– so you need to focus on those falsehoods. Whatever the person did, if it was not a breach of law in actuality then it does not excuse the bad conduct of the defendant. So “asking for it” is not a defense to libel any more than it would be to assault or spousal abuse. Same for shutting down a forum. It is private property and the owner has as much right to close the door to ill mannered posters as he would have to ask unruly visitors to leave his home. It does not mitigate the defamation.
I will not comment on the specifics of Foggy’s case or any other’s because this is an ongoing matter. Some things deserve to remain confidential. I’m happy to answer your questions or engage in dialogue of a general nature.
A poster above wrote, “I am not sure anybody is going to feel sorry for PJFoggy who seemed to ask for a lot of this grief.” I’m appalled by the sentiment of this statement, because it’s been used to condone all manner of crimes. For example, it is essentially the same sentiment a rapist might use to excuse a sexual assault by saying, “Why are you arresting me? Look at the how she dressed–she was asking for it!”
Thank you, Arthur. My comments stand on their own. How others want to spin them is their issue. It reflects on them, not me.
Yes, that “asking for it” remark struck me the same way. It does not excuse the commission of a tort just as it would not be a defense to a criminal act.
Well, you certainly had us all fooled until you went and blew your own cover.
I guess it must be hard to remember which sock you have on your typing hand.
GeorgeJD:
Is there a list anywhere that is not confidential of all the falsehoods in the WND Internet Article. I don’t know a lot about PJFogey, except that it appears he was not disbarred, but resigned. Are there any more falsehoods in the Internet Article???
Plus, you made me text to Fabia, (and I HATE texting!!!) and she said this statement might need to be examined more thoroughly, because it will probably be a part of any answer to the lawsuit.
“Whatever the person did, if it was not a breach of law in actuality then it does not excuse the bad conduct of the defendant.”
The Head Researcher, as Agent
I hoped that it is clear that I was not suggesting that Fabia Sheen is a birther. (How should I know?) I really had Terry Lakin / Paul Jensen in mind when i said that.
Wow…. you sure had us fooled
/sarcasm off
Squeeky, you know very well that I did not make you text your friend. You did that of your own volition because you are curious about the subject. Good for you for that, but please take responsibility for your own texting.
Probably the comment reply notification fires when the comment is entered, even though it goes to moderation and is never approved.
I noticed that someone posted Foggy’s business phone on the WND page and urged people to call him and his employees. This makes the case that the WND article leads to this sort of reaction.
Further, for whatever reason, readers of the WND article believed that the article says Foggy forged Obama’s recently-released Obama long form birth certificate.
Well, I know enough from my two Business Law classes that it is what you legally call “Constructive Forcing To Text” where the Forcee either texts a lawyer or has to say “Duh???”
The Head Researcher, as Agent
I
How could any rational person believe that a clumsy forgery with no provenance would “likely” end up in court? “In court” rather stretches what actually happened — Taitz filed it at in one of her papers in a lawsuit that was dismissed. This is much the same as what happened with the fake McCain birth certificate in Hollander.
You might not recall, but a web page from this web site ended up in court too in the same way, as “Exhibit Z” in of the birther lawsuits. I wrote that two years ago yesterday. I would never have expected my blog to turn up in court.
Well I guess that makes you as much of an expert on Law as you are on investigative techniques and on the Constitution.
Gotta stop you right there Doc….
And now for something on-topic …. Doc, this is a beautiful, user-friendly blog and this post is a great update. Looking forward to more!
I have a question, trivial I’ll admit, about the pronunciation of “KenyanBornObamAcorn.” As you approach the end of this ludicrous pseudonym, do you say,
1.) “O-bahm” + “A-corn” (i.e., as two separate, disyllabic phonemes) or,
2.) As one rollicking polysyllable (i.e., “o-BAHM-ah-Corn,” with major stress on the second syllable, secondary stress on the final syllable?
Good one, Daniel!
Hmmm… I can’t imagine that all of our comments, calling Corsi what he is, would be approved and posted, yet hers — SURELY siding with him — would be banned.
I agree with you John, but there’s one thing from an earlier iteration of Dr. C.’s comments section that I really miss–the ability to “like” or “dislike” a posted comment. . . wish that feature could return.
You can read the story for yourself:
The “Bomford” Fake Kenya Birth Certificate
In early 2009, an unnamed Obot genius created the “Bomford” FKBC. It became known as the “Bomford” because the original birth certificate, that was used as the “template” for creating it, was found on a family genealogy website in Australia. It was a birth certificate dated 1964, belonging to a gentleman named David Jeffrey Bomford. Except he wasn’t born in Kenya. He was born in South Australia. The original birth certificate is shown below, and the FKBC is shown on the home page of this website.
One important thing to remember about the Bomford: The document itself never left the home of the genius who created it. The only thing anybody else in the world saw was just a photograph of the document (and the subsequent photos showing that it was destroyed by its creator).
In July, 2009, after an unsuccessful attempt to get Phil Berg to fall for it, the photograph of the Bomford FKBC was placed on a USB flash drive, and mailed to Neil Sankey, the “private investigator” for Orly Taitz. It was mailed from the ZIP Code in Washington, D.C. where the Kenyan embassy is, but there was nothing else on the flash drive except the photograph itself. No document was included to verify its authenticity. No individual was identified as the source of the photograph. Most important at all, the so-called “private investigator,” Neil Sankey, apparently made no attempt whatever to determine whether it was authentic or not. He must have simply turned it over to Orly Taitz, because she immediately filed it as an exhibit to a legal motion in federal court, in the case titled Barnett v. Obama, in the Central District of California, before Judge David O. Carter.
http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/birth-certificates/the-fkbcs/
Enquiring Minds will wonder why it was sent to Phil Berg, and then to the investigator for Dr. Taitz. Were not both of these people involved in court actions??? Why was it mailed from D.C. Why from the same zip code as the Kenyan Embassy??? Doesn’t sound very clumsy.
And, a bit much for a simple prank between Sankey and the Obots. What, do it sooo the USB Flash drive could get thrown into the trash??? It was very foreseeable that it would be entered into a court filing, if for no other purpose than to support the need for discovery. Once it was entered in the court records, what steps did the “genius” Obots take to so inform the Court of the prank???
The Head Researcher, as Agent
I haven’t been here that long. That can be a fun feature … but on such a polarized topic, it gets predictable … that is a great feature when a group is actually discussing/working a problem in need of a solution. Not the case here, or anywhere birtherism is being discussed. All drinking the kool-aid or commenting on the sideshow … more entertainment than education.
John:
I agree that the use of “like/dislike” can be predictable (e.g., most birther comments were flagged “dislike), but what I miss is being able to let people know when I enjoyed their remarks, particularly if they were playful or clever. Even someone like the Head Researcher can occasionally write something that is neither malicious nor patently absurd. Genial conduct should be encouraged.
Squeeky
If you happen to speak with Labia over the weekend ask them why it would be necessary to tell Judge Carter about a laughable forgery filed by a joke of an attorney when a third grader would know it was not the proper time in the case to introduce evidence.
WND Editor Joseph Farah To Sue Esquire Over Birther Parody
☞link
What a weak argument. Where is the self-responsibility there? What real lawyer just grabs anything thrown in front of them willy-nilly and foolishly submits it into a court case without checking into it? That is about as irresponsible as you can get! Heck, there are RULES against lawyers submitting false evidence that alone, should make anyone who practices law do their proper homework before they act… then again, common sense would tell someone to do the same in this case.
There is no crime against punking stupid and gullible people. The person that falls for the prank is responsible for being such an easy dupe.
Forseeable to the extent we all recognize Orly is an incompetent attorney. However, the problem with this contention is that it does not relieve Orly of her duty under Rule 11 to perform at least the most basic fact investigation to her claims. Even the most barely competent attorney would not attempt to file a a picture of a document…not an original, not a certified copy, not even a copy….but a photograph of a document….a photograph of unknown origin, with a court, for any reason whatsoever. No reasonably competent attorney would have filed that document in court. Fault for it being attached to a court document is Orly’s and Orly’s alone.
Interesting case, this Farah suit. Below are guidelines that the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press suggest journalists should heed in order to avoid libel in satire:
From: The News Media & The Law, 2004
Satire, caricature and parody are forms of art that rely on blurring the line between truth and outrageousness. Below are suggestions — some taken from opinions in New Times v. Isaacks, decided in September by the Texas Supreme Court, and the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell — of things to include to help make it unlikely that a reasonable person would believe the story to be actually true. The context of the entire story is important, so no single suggestion is guaranteed to protect from liability. It is also not necessary to include all of the suggestions below.
Use of an irreverent tone will signal that the story is not straight news.
Consider the context of the publication the story will run in, including whether the publication has a history of satire or parody. The Wall Street Journal should be more careful than Mad Magazine.
Consider the location in the publication. Is it in the news section, the opinion page or an advertisement?
Use of an unorthodox headline will alert readers from the beginning that the story is not straight news.
Unbelievable or outrageous items in the story, experts or groups with names that are ridiculous or have a silly acronym, and quotes that are unbelievable, illogical or over-the-top may all signal that a story is not stating actual facts.
Instead of using the names of actual people, consider using fictitious names that are close to or suggest real people.
In the story, consider referring to the actual incident you are parodying. Publishing the parody soon after the actual incident while it is still in the public’s mind provides a clue that the story is commenting on the actual event.
Use of a disclaimer may help, but will not necessarily avoid liability, especially if in small print at the end of an otherwise believable story.
We’ll certainly want to cover that story once the lawsuit is filed.
If you have a link to the comment (from the email), you could paste it here and I can look for it. The comments are in a “trash bin” and not permanently deleted. KBOA is in permanent moderation due to her propensity to violate blog policy. However, most of what she says gets approved.
Ah, ok… I had no idea.
Ah, ok… I had no idea.
oops
Exactly. As I understand it, there was no paper document. It was a .jpg on a memory stick. A digital. Haven’t the birthers repeatedly made the point that “I could not take my laptop to the Motor Vehicle Division and show them a computer image of my birth certificate and expect to be issued a driver’s license”? How was this any different?
No one could reasonably expect that an attorney — someone who should understand authentication of documents — would print a copy of a photo she had received from an anonymous source and attempt to offer it as real evidence. Any lawyer with a scintilla of understanding how the rules of evidence operate — how documents are authenticated, how copies of government records are offered via the testimony of a witness who is the official custodian of such records — would know that an anonymous picture, uncertified and unattested, of what purports to be a foreign record would readily see the problems of proffering it to a court.
Well since your BFF doesn’t have the foggiest (pun intended) idea what Foggy’s lawyer has discussed with him, nor what Foggy has briefed him about, that opinion from your BFF isn’t worth the bandwidth used to transmit it.
It had been thoroughly debunked long before her Orly-ness attached it to her submission. What steps did the “genius” dentist-lawyer take to clarify the provenance of the document, as she is required to do by the rules of the court?
Speaking of things “being placed in the court record” did Berg include a copy of the Dudley Do-Right BC in a motion in one of his cases?
Berg mentioned a Canadian birth certificate in his complaint (it was deleted from the amended complaint).
Point 22 in the complaint says:
There is no image of the certificate in the documents available from the court.
That explains my uncertainty. It was in then out. I am surprised Orly hasn’t recycled this one and added it as an exhibit. She is into recycling crap lately.
I like the idea of using OpenID but where did the Preview feature go? (Is still didn’t save me from making typos but at least gave me a chance.)
Ah, I have some good news here.
I had problems with the OpenID plug-in and in an attempt to fix it, I removed the Comment Preview, which was known to conflict. However, promoted by your comment, I researched and located a NEW comment preview plug-in which I think will do the job. Once you start typing, it will preview your post in real time down below. The benefit is that you don’t have to do a separate preview step, and the blog actually has less overhead. On the other hand, it doesn’t get all the HTML tags interpreted correctly, but neither did the old one.
Let me add, for those who might not have noticed, the comment box has a triangular icon in the lower right corner that may be used to re-size the box.
I have wondered whether these are “real lawsuits” or just publicity stunts.
OK, this is very nice. I am glad to know about the triangle. I will have to see if that fixes the problem I have seen on my tablet of not being able to scroll once the box is full.
Hmm, with real time preview feature, it looks like I can quote my current comment.
What fun 😉
Despite widespread rumors that Orly Taitz has been disbarred these are not true to the best of my knowledge.
Yep, you surely can. 😉
“Despite widespread rumors that Orly Taitz has been disbarred these are not true to the best of my knowledge.”
Disbar her? they can make tons from repeatedly finding her in contempt!
Except if it included a threat to sue Corsi for breach of copyright.
It was also my impression that no one in their right mind still thought it was genuine. It would be interesting to know whether the maker sent that Punk’d message into the world before or after Orly submitted it.
I actually meant that as an answer to what I thought was a claim that Kenyaborn’s posts on WND were getting deleted, but then saw the argument was about the posts here. I then thought I deleted my hilarious comment, but actually dragged along another post by Arthur.
Just trying to explain that this whole thing should not have been there in my earlier post.
`
Even if he didn’t, it would have been easy enough for The Dentist and her sidekick, Neil Sankey, to conduct due diligence before attaching it to a pleading and filing it in a federal court. The document had a purported Birth Register Book and Page number. All that would have been required was one phone call and an email to a private investigator in Kenya to verify it.
All Orly had was a digital photo which would never have been admissible evidence in any case. No competent attorney would attempt to submit that as a court exhibit — they would make an effort to obtain the original. That’s what private investigators are for — when a lawyer gets a lead on some sort of evidence, they engage the service of an investigator to run down the lead.
Of course, Orly likes to boast about her PI who used to work for Scotland Yard, but whose credentials are somewhat debatable. He wrote a letter to a British local newspaper that had featured the local police force in which he climed to have worked for them until he was seconded to the Yard for tailing duty. Communists and IRA. He resigned from the British police at a time when it was public knowledge that several convictions against so-called IRA sympathizers were very shaky.
In any case, his collaboration with Orly has shown nothing so much as vaguely resembling Scotland Yard quality. He is as efficient at the Google as Orly, he thinks any SSN in any database found on the Intertoobs connected in any way with the name “Obama” is an SSN that was once used by Obama. One wonders whether he knows that Obama, like Subarkah, is a place name. Meaning people could be born there. And of course, when he receives a BC anonymously all he does is googling the postal code and having found it is the postal code of the Kenyan embassy (I am just presuming Squeeky is right here), immediately passes it on to Orly, without any further verification as to its veracity.
Even my 8 year-old son would make a better detective.
It’s also bad lawyering from a tactical perspective for any attorney to run with evidence before thoroughly checking it out. It can be devastating to a legal case to put forth evidence or testimony that is easily debunked by the opposing side — even in a legitimate case that would be strong without it. That is, the debunking of a piece of evidence can make the case look much worse than the mere absence of the same type of evidence.
It’s also bad p.r. & bad journalism to run with a story without at least a preliminary check to assure that it will stand the test of a moderate level of scrutiny. As far as birth-certificate production, they really only get one chance — producing one fake after another discredited fake isn’t going to strengthen their case.
I was on a jury once. In the opening statement the plaintiff’s attorney declared that his client, who signed a contract, was blind and unable to read. So in cross examination the defense handed the contract to the plaintiff and ask her to read it aloud. She did, and this was one really bad moment for the plaintiff’s case.
Gee. Maybe it is something that every lawyer doing their job properly tells every client. Or something that clients who don’t listen to their attorneys do. Or, a waste of bandwidth. Whatever.
The Head Researcher, as Agent
Well you certainly are that…
Almost only counts in horseshoes. Last I checked, voting is nothing like playing horseshoes.
What a puerile post.
Last I checked, your pedantic pretense missed the point (again).
“Poll: Obama Almost as Popular as Perry in Texas”
“Since October, when the last Lyceum survey was conducted, Perry’s approval rating has remained steady at 54 percent, while Obama’s has increased from 47 to 51 percent.”
It depends how you phrase it. “I almost won a million dollars” may not mean much. However, “I won almost a miillion dollars” is pretty good.
I don’t think she’ll understand that.