Some cold water on overheated birther-mania
Having done a little more research into the legal process, I want to try to clear up any confusion about yesterday’s birther hearing before we move on. And yes, we will move on quickly.
Under state law, Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi’s job was to gather the evidence in the case through the hearing process and then issue a recommendation on whether Barack Obama’s name should remain on the Georgia ballot. His role in the process was to serve as a fact-finder rather than final arbiter.
According to the birther movement, Malihi told their lawyers during pre-hearing conference that he would enter a “default judgment” against Obama for refusing to appear and for refusing to even send lawyers to participate in the hearing, and that he would in fact recommend Obama’s removal.
I think that’s highly dubious. I know you will be shocked to hear this, but Orly Taitz and others have a record of claiming important legal victories that turn out to be inglorious defeats. Among other things, it keeps the contributions flowing in. Nothing presented in the absurdist comedy of that courtroom yesterday would justify barring a sitting president of the United States from the Georgia ballot. It was a farce. The birthers’ only chance is a recommendation from Malihi based not on their “evidence,” but on the refusal of the Obama camp to put up a defense against it.
Until I sat in that courtroom yesterday, I wasn’t sure why the Obama legal team had chosen not to appear. But in hindsight, they were right. Showing up to refute the nonsense presented would have given the birther arguments a dignity they do not deserve. You cannot refute air and sheer fantasy. How many times can an opposing lawyer say, in so many words, “Your honor, this is just really and truly stupid”?
In either case, Malihi makes only a recommendation. The official decision on whether Obama will be listed on the ballot will be made by Secretary of State Brian Kemp, a Republican.
In a letter to Obama’s legal team, Kemp has written that if they refused to participate in the hearings, “you do so at your own peril” because they would not have a chance to put the facts of the case on record. But I think if anyone’s at peril here, it’s Kemp, and I suspect he knows it.
A word in his defense:
If you read state law, Kemp had little legal option but to go through the motions of the hearing process. The law states that if a candidate’s qualifications are challenged, “the Secretary of State SHALL notify the candidate in writing that his or her qualifications are being challenged and the reasons therefor and SHALL advise the candidate that he or she is requesting a hearing on the matter before an administrative law judge” (emphasis mine).
Obama’s lawyers claim that Kemp had legal escape hatches that would have allowed him to avoid the hearing. Maybe so, but the word “shall” carries a lot of weight in such matters.
At any rate, the final decision is Kemp’s. Regardless of what Malihi recommends, Kemp does not want to become the Republican secretary of state who ruled Barack Obama off the ballot in Georgia. Becoming a birther hero would not begin to compensate for the lasting infamy such a step would bring him, especially because such a ruling would be challenged in state or federal court and almost immediately overturned on any number of reasons. Kemp would then look like a fool and put an end to any further political ambitions he might have. I doubt that’s the course he will choose to take.
In the end, there is no chance whatsoever that Obama’s name will not be on the Georgia ballot come November.
Of course, ruling that Obama should remain on the ballot won’t make Kemp many friends among a certain small contingent of his own party, especially now that the hearing has excited their hopes of victory. But that’s the predicament in which state law and these foolish conspiracy mongers have placed him.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
836 comments Add your comment
kathy
January 27th, 2012
4:41 pm
Remember mitt rommney’s father was born in mexico. Is he a natural born citizen? Hmm…birthers think about that.
linda
January 27th, 2012
4:42 pm
@Eli Jones. There is neither a section 5100 or a page 1312 in HR3962.
CommonSense
January 27th, 2012
4:48 pm
Dan Farrar:
You said, “You are correct, by that time Orly knew she had won and that all of her evidence was going into the record unchallenged. So what was left? The show, it was all about putting everything into the public’s view. Going for the witness box was apart of that show.”
The funny part of all this is that somehow you think that is a benefit.
(1) Orly did not “win” anything. The goal is supposedly to keep Obama off the ballot for the Georgia primary, and she hasn’t and ultimately won’t win.
(2) Having her evidence go into the record unchallenged is pretty meaningless. You say it’s about getting it in the “public’s view.” All that garbage is already in the public’s view. She’s filed it multiple times with all her other failed cases. I know because I’ve read the documents and the affidavits from her so-called “experts.”
(3) Having the testimony most certainly does not help your case. The testimony was weak and as anyone could see did nothing to establish that the president is not a citizen of the United States, as the state of Hawaii has attested to. Further, her unprofessional presentation–which earned her admonishments from the judge (”face me,” “stop offering testimony”)–her lack of preparedness (”up, up, up–down, down, down”), her lack of eloquence, and her hilarious stunt of jumping into the witness box to give testimony made her and by extension her clients look like a joke. That is why even other birthers want to stay away from her. She does not come across as a skilled, credible lawyer and actually discredits the “movement” more than she helps it. She helps solidify the opinion most people have that birthers are a bunch of nutjobs. And the weakness of the evidence that you are so proud to have in the record supports the counterarguments (which outnumber the birther arguments) that it’s a ridiculous conspiracy theory contradicted by the facts.
All that “evidence” she placed in the record of this relatively insignificant office will never serve to convince anyone who is not already predisposed to believe the nutty conspiracy theory. So, you birthers can go around citing it to reassure yourselves of the justness of your cause, but no thinking person who does not already believe or want to believe the president is not legitimate will ever consider it anything above a joke.
Dan Farrar
January 27th, 2012
4:53 pm
Joe Hussein Moma No, that’s has been the problem, until now. This is the first time she has been allowed to present her evidence into court. The first time her evidence has been given under oath in a court of law, open to rebuttal. The default judgement means, her evidence was entered into the court’s records unchallenged (by defendant) and therefore presumed by the court to be true.
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
4:54 pm
@Dan Farrar — “…by that time Orly knew she had won and that all of her evidence was going into the record unchallenged.”
__
Well, not quite unchallenged. Remember, in the previous cases, the attorneys relied on copies of the President’s birth certificate to establish that his father was not an American citizen. This is not like three separate criminal trials, where a judge can determine that some defendants are guilty and some are innocent.
ALJ Maliki’s sole role is to make a recommendation to SoS Kemp regarding whether the President is eligible to be a candidate. On the positive side, he’s got a birth certificate (at least one, as we have reason to believe that Jablonski submitted one as well).
So, what compelling evidence did your side introduce that would counter the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution?
CommonSense
January 27th, 2012
4:55 pm
David Farrar:
No, an administrative office is NOT a court of law. Sorry to disappoint you.
Also, the fact that you couldn’t discern a seal on the low-resolution digital image of his birth certificate that you saw has NO BEARING as to its authenticity. That being said, here is more credible testimony from people who saw and photographed the actual document in person. You can see the raised seal in a photograph right here:
http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/
” FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as “supporting documents” to this article.”
You know who else claims that the birth certificate is legitimate? Several Hawaiian officials, including the former Republican governor, the former secretary of vital statistics, and the director of Hawaii’s department of health, all of whom–if needed–would submit sworn affidavits to that effect. So far, it really hasn’t been necessary.
Now, I’m sure if you are determined to believe your delusion, then you are going to find some reason to dismiss the photographs on the page I sent you to, in which case what’s the point of arguing since you obviously have no interest in reality.
I actually feel sorry for you that you have hitched your wagon to someone the rest of the country holds in poor regard and that the legal establishment holds in poor regard and that you are going to have YOUR name in the record as one of those “crazy birthers.” Given the abundance of evidence that you are wrong, I would be really embarrassed if I were you, and I’d ditch the sinking ship that is Orly Taitz pronto.
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
4:57 pm
Joe Hussein Mama,
If this was all true, Jablonski could have submitted it and moved for a directed judgement. This was the place to do that, even more so if you already have it in electronic form.
You see what you don’t understand is that it is candidate Obama who is running away from the truth here, not us “Birthers.”
ex animo
davidfarrar
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
4:57 pm
Dan Farrar — “Joe Hussein Moma No, that’s has been the problem, until now. This is the first time she has been allowed to present her evidence into court.”
You pretty clearly didn’t read what I said. Orly Taitz has a track record of crowing about her supposed “evidence” long before she gets to a judge. By the time she gets to one, any interested observer already knows what she’s going to say, because she’s said it in public already.
“The first time her evidence has been given under oath in a court of law, open to rebuttal.”
Wrong. I already told you, and I suspect others have too — that was not a court of law. That was an *administrative* court, which operates completely differently from civil or criminal courts. Apparently you don’t know that.
“The default judgement means, her evidence was entered into the court’s records unchallenged (by defendant) and therefore presumed by the court to be true.”
Wrong. That’s not how administrative courts work. And clearly you don’t know that, either.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
5:01 pm
David Farrar — “If this was all true, Jablonski could have submitted it and moved for a directed judgement.”
Wrong. Administrative courts can’t do that. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.
“This was the place to do that, even more so if you already have it in electronic form.”
Wrong. Administrative courts don’t work that way. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.
“You see what you don’t understand is that it is candidate Obama who is running away from the truth here, not us “Birthers.”
No, I understand quite clearly. President Obama’s BC is valid as a matter of established law. You are attempting to challenge it with no hard evidence whatsoever. Your side is desperate, but you have little experience with the legal system and are hopelessly out of your depth. However, due to your ignorance of what administrative courts are and how they work, you have ginned yourselves up into a belief that you’ve somehow won something.
No matter. This won’t be the first time that Taitz has claimed a win, only to be slapped down hard by the court shortly thereafter.
ex animo
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
5:01 pm
CommonSense:
This is not true: (1) Orly did not “win” anything. The goal is supposedly to keep Obama off the ballot for the Georgia primary, and she hasn’t and ultimately won’t win.
That is not my goal. My goal is to “Prove” candidate Barack Obama meets his constitutional qualifications to take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Dan Farrar
January 27th, 2012
5:02 pm
Maybe not, but the state of Georgia has a right to vet any candidate running for office within the state.
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
5:03 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
And may I remind you, sir; we have until Feb 5, 2012 to sumit our case.
ex animo
davidfarrar
CommonSense
January 27th, 2012
5:04 pm
Dan, Dan, Dan.
The judge is not issuing a default judgment because he is not authorized to make any sort of legally binding judgment. Further, even when one side does not appear, the law regarding this procedure specifically stipulates that the judge must consider all the evidence available when issuing that recommendation (that would include the birth certificate that the plaintiffs agreed to stipulate to as valid and legal to make their case that Obama’s father was not born in the U.S.).
Yes, the judge may have said at the outset he would make a default decision and let the plaintiffs’ evidence be entered into the record uncontested, but that is not the same thing as saying that he was also willing to accept all the evidence as true and correct (which the law admonishes him not to do). Further, any judge who decides to pretend that any of the evidence presented has any weight is going to make himself the subject of a lot of derision from his peers and the public (kind of like Orly Taitz). You still don’t realize how meaningless this whole exercise was, do you? I’ll give you a hint–that’s WHY the president and his counsel didn’t show up. If it really meant something, they would have been there.
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
5:04 pm
@David Farrar — “My goal is to “Prove” candidate Barack Obama meets his constitutional qualifications to take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States.”
__
Oh, why didn’t you say so?
That goal has long since been achieved, though I’m not sure you should be taking credit for it.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
5:06 pm
Dan Farrar — “Maybe not, but the state of Georgia has a right to vet any candidate running for office within the state.”
Actually, no. There’s no such right.
Georgia is obliged under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution to treat the official documents of other States in the same manner as it treats its own official documents. So long as President Obama has met the Federal qualifications for being on the Federal ballot, the only conditions that can be imposed on him are administrative — and those have to be the same for all candidates. Georgia can’t say, for example, “we need another form of ID” unless it says the same thing to all candidates. And even if Georgia did, that would probably be struck down at the Federal level.
Long story short, you’re just plain wrong again.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
5:07 pm
David Farrar — “Joe Hussein Mama, And may I remind you, sir; we have until Feb 5, 2012 to sumit our case.”
What stopped y’all from presenting it YESTERDAY when you had a judge’s attention? (laughing)
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
5:08 pm
CommonSense
Those “plaintiffs” you seem to base your whole theory upon were not part of my case; sir. And as suchthey can swear to anything and everything they like. It has no bearing on my case.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
5:14 pm
@David Farrar —
It doesn’t matter whether they are plaintiffs in your case. ALJ Malihi is charged with making a single recommendation — he can’t make one based on their cases and another, contrary one based on yours.
And he’s got to consider all the evidence. He’s certainly familiar with the Full Faith and Credit clause.
Do you have any idea how powerful that clause is? Where’s the powerful evidence that you have to overcome it? Certainly nothing that was presented yesterday.
S - P - L - A - S - H (oooooo that water is cold)
January 27th, 2012
5:16 pm
ON TO THE NEXT ONE…………
Birthers takes a beating in COLD water.
Can it wash away the stench of racism?
Jay
January 27th, 2012
5:17 pm
If the birthers’ self-delusion were a hole in the ground, it would dwarf the Grand Canyon.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
5:19 pm
Dan, David — prior to this week, had either of you ever attended an administrative court hearing? Did you even know how they differ from criminal or civil court proceedings?
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
5:20 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
The Judge asked them to be brief . And considering the judge’s had just told them he was going to enter a default judgement against candidate Obama and recommend to the Secretary of State that candidate Barack Obama’s name not be placed on Georgia’s PPP ballot, the rest was easy to comply with.
ex animo
davidfarrar
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
5:21 pm
Arthur B.
Want to bet?
ex animo
davidfarrar
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
5:23 pm
Joe Hussein Mama,
you should be directing that question to Michael Jablonski. He is the one that so screwed up his PTO, he couldn’t even enter candidate Barack Obama’s birth certifictes into the record. Ha! Ha! Ha!
ex animo
davidfarrar
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
5:25 pm
@David Farrar — “the judge’s had just told them he was going to enter a default judgement against candidate Obama”
__
Um, David, are you aware that the judge issued a ruling today saying that “[t]he parties may file any post hearing pleadings by Wednesday, February 1, 2012″?
Does that sound to you like he is entering a default judgement?
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
5:27 pm
@David Farrar — “Want to bet?”
__
I’m not a gambling man, but I’ll be happy to meet you here next week and we can compare notes as to whose expectation were fulfilled.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
5:32 pm
David Farrar — ” And considering the judge’s had just told them he was going to enter a default judgement against candidate Obama and recommend to the Secretary of State that candidate Barack Obama’s name not be placed on Georgia’s PPP ballot, the rest was easy to comply with.”
I sincerely doubt that’s what he said.
I’m sure that what you *wanted* him to say, but I don’t believe for a moment that’s actually what he did say.
“you should be directing that question to Michael Jablonski. He is the one that so screwed up his PTO, he couldn’t even enter candidate Barack Obama’s birth certifictes into the record. Ha! Ha! Ha!”
Shrug. Barack Obama will be on the ballot in Georgia in November. You can count on it.
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
5:32 pm
While our PTO followed exactly Judge Malihi’s later finding almost to the letter. This is the real reason candidate Barack Obama cut and ran….surving the coming media blitz when the decision is made, is preferable to trying to surve showning a court of law hisa real papers.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
5:33 pm
@David Farrar “Joe Hussein Mama,
you should be directing that question to Michael Jablonski. He is the one that so screwed up his PTO, he couldn’t even enter candidate Barack Obama’s birth certifictes into the record. Ha! Ha! Ha!
ex animo
davidfarrar”
##########################
It wasn’t his job to do so, since the Administrative courts have no bearing and no position to weigh in on anyone’s citizenship issues. That belongs to the Superior and then the US Supreme Courts.
The only person that needs to see the COLB is the Secretary of State (in some states) and/or the Political party of the candidate.
Obama provided his documents the DNC 3 years ago. He doesn’t have to or is required to give it to anyone else.
Jablonski was right in ignoring this circus event, because ultimately Judge Malihi has no power to force anyone off or on a ballot. That resides with the SoS
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
5:36 pm
@Joe “Shrug. Barack Obama will be on the ballot in Georgia in November. You can count on it.”
He’s already on the absentee and Mail in ballots. And he is the only Democrat listed on the ballot. These ballots are already sent to many Ameicans in Georgia as we speak.
So, even currently, there is no real candidate to challenge Obama to begin with, since it has to be the Democratic National Party that approves of their candidates. the case was brought forth by fake candidates, just to stir up $#@$@#
CommonSense
January 27th, 2012
5:38 pm
David Farrar:
You said: “My goal is to “Prove” candidate Barack Obama meets his constitutional qualifications to take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States.”
See, that is the crux of your problem. In the eyes of the law, his constitutional eligibility is established fact, which is why he’s president and why the Supreme Court rejects Orly’s appeals. Legally speaking, the only case you can bring is to disprove that which the government already accepts as fact (his US citizenship).
Speculations and doubts do not constitute factual evidence, which is what a court will demand (should one ever grant standing) if you want to challenge the status quo, which is that the president is a natural born citizen of the United States.
Don’t you get it??? The State of Hawaii says he was born in their state; they have given him the certified document, stamped and sealed, and attested to the fact that he was born there and is thus a U.S. citizen. Their recognition of him as having been born in Hawaii makes him a citizen of the United States in EVERY state and U.S. territory.
It will work for you, too. You can order a certified copy of your BC and submit it to get a passport identifying you as a U.S. citizen and nobody is going to challenge it. I know because I did this. That certified copy of your birth certificate sent to you by the state is considered LEGAL PROOF that you are a U.S. citizen. Now, you can complain that you personally haven’t seen the birth certificate or that a court hasn’t seen it, but that doesn’t matter. Until a court rules otherwise, he doesn’t have to show it to you because you don’t have the right or ability to determine whether it is legitimate.
So, assuming a real court deems that you have standing (unlikely based on the success rate to date) to challenge the president’s citizenship, the court will then require that you present FACTUAL evidence and testimony to the best of your ability and the defense will be allowed to challenge that with evidence and testimony of their own and then the court or jury weighs who is more credible.
To refute his citizenship, your evidence will have to prove one or more of the following: (1) the state of Hawaii is lying/wrong; (2) the president was born outside the U.S.; (3) the president’s mother was not an American citizen at the time of his birth and thus did not confer citizenship onto him; (4) the state of Hawaii never issued a birth certificate and what he uses is a forgery.
Speculations about alterations to a PDF of a scanned copy of the original do not constitute factual evidence and do not prove his original birth certificate is not legitimate. Thus, the birth certificate stands.
Do you have proof he was born elsewhere? I didn’t think so. A copy of something downloaded off the Internet that has not been certified by any other country as originating from them is not acceptable as evidence, as one Georgia court already ruled. Nor are sworn affidavits of secondhand (hearsay) information.
Do you have any evidence that the state of Hawaii is lying, such as correspondence or other documentation or sworn testimony from a direct witness? So much for that. (And you’ll never get those records unless you get standing and are granted discovery.)
Now, his social security number actually has no bearing on his citizenship because you could theoretically be a natural born citizen but decide to get a fraudulent social security number. Your suspicions have given you doubts that he’s not a citizen, but they do not constitute proof. They are not facts. Can you prove that those first three digits ONLY appear on SS#s issued in Connecticut? Probably not, since the SS administration that issues the numbers itself says that is not always the case. Even assuming that were the case, could you prove Obama never lived in Connecticut or didn’t have his SS card sent there? No, I didn’t think so. And we’ve already seen the SNOPES account debunking the whole idea that it was someone else’s SS#. I’m afraid that the system “expert” Susan Daniels uses is not given the same weight as records from the Social Security administration, which is what SNOPES used.
In the eyes of the law, the burden is on you to disprove his citizenship. You have no evidence to do that at this point (only speculation and doubts, easily countered by a competent defense), and you would have to be granted standing to get discovery, which no court is going to give you just to go on a fishing expedition to see if there’s any there there. First, you have to make a solid case that the evidence you are looking for exists, and you don’t even have enough to do that.
At the end of the day, all you have are a bunch of, “I think these things don’t look right and don’t accept the law’s acceptance of Obama’s birth certificate as proof of citizenship, so you should make him prove that the law is right to accept it. But that’s not how it works. The law has accepted it and it’s up to you to provide evidence as to why they shouldn’t.
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
5:39 pm
@David Farrar “This is the real reason candidate Barack Obama cut and ran….surving the coming media blitz when the decision is made, is preferable to trying to surve showning a court of law hisa real papers.”
######
Barack Obama didn’t “cut and run” no matter how much you want to believe that fantasy you built for yourself. He was not obligated to show up to begin with.
and while you admonish Barack Obama, why did Orly’s own witnesses “cut and run”.
Where was Joe Arpaio ? What does he have to hide?
Where was Ron Polland? Why didn’t he want to get his analysis before the judge?
Where was the CBS News Director that she wanted him to provide the Insider Edition episode that showed the Indonesian School registration? Why didn’t he show up?
Funny how you want to only focus on Obama not showing up, but hey, you’ll give a pass to the other “witnesses” that Orly subpoenaed
As for the rest of your claim. again pure fantasy of your own making.
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
5:41 pm
Arthur B.
No one said the court coudln’t or won’t accept his two birth certificates and let the judge take judicial notice of them.
From what we are presenting right now, even as we speak, we are building our case to minimize the level of judical notice this judge will give to these two documents.
ex animo
davidfarrar
zataesAnd he’s got to consider all the evidence. He’s certainly familiar with the Full Faith and Credit clause
The Nuts Are Falling Out Of The Trees
January 27th, 2012
5:43 pm
Dear God,
I know you said we were not perfect.
But you did not warn us that some of us are INSANE.
Lord, I hope it is not CONTAGIOUS.
Darren Potter
January 27th, 2012
5:44 pm
Said by Joe Hussein Mama: “Mr. Obama submitted a copy of his BC to Congress, along with supporting documentation from the Governor of Hawaii ”
Never happened. The Governor of Hawaii, despite all his efforts, never found Obama’s Birth Certificate (Certificate of Live Birth). What Obama did was make a statement about ending the controversy, then the White House (not Obama) presented what was an obviously forged Birth Certificate (Certificate of Live Birth). The reason for Obama not making the release himself and his vague statements to the release, was plausible denial.
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
5:44 pm
It may be for President Obama, but not for candidate Barack Obama.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
5:47 pm
Here is the list of Witlessneses that Orly subpoenaed:
1. Felicito Papa
2. Douglas Vogt
3. Christopher Strunk
4. Linda Jordan
5. John Sampson
6. Susan Daniels
7. Loretta Fuddy
8. Alvin Onaka
9. Custodian of records Associated Press
10 Custodian of records US State Department
11. Custodian of records Department of Homeland Security
12. Custodian of Records Social Security Administration
13. Custodian of Records/ Registrar Occidental College
14. Custodian of Records Columbia University
15. Custodian of Records Harvard University
16. Custodian of Records Punahoa school
17. Scott Inoui
18 Custodian of records Assissi school Jakarta, Indonesia
19. Robert Bauer
20. Judith Corley
21 Tatan Suyflana
22 Barack Obama
How many of the 22 showed up?
So admonish Obama for not showing up, but you’ll let slide the other 18 that also didn’t.
CommonSense
January 27th, 2012
5:48 pm
David Farrar:
You said: “Those “plaintiffs” you seem to base your whole theory upon were not part of my case; sir. And as suchthey can swear to anything and everything they like. It has no bearing on my case.”
First, what makes you think I’m a “sir”? I haven’t said anything about my gender. Second, I am sorry to inform you but you should pay more attention in court. For purposes of the judge’s recommendations, the plaintiffs are consolidated as one plaintiff and whatever the other plaintiffs say or have admitted has just as much bearing on his decision as what our attorney said. That is why he also asked your attorney if she objected to accepted the downloaded copy of the birth certificate into the record as legal proof of the president’s birth as requested by the other attorneys, which she agreed to. He is not going to issue three decisions. He will issue one decision, touching on all the points/questions introduced by the three attorneys who took part in the hearing. You don’t really have a very good understanding of how this works, but I can’t blame you, because your attorney doesn’t either.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
5:49 pm
D. Farrar — “While our PTO followed exactly Judge Malihi’s later finding almost to the letter. This is the real reason candidate Barack Obama cut and ran….surving the coming media blitz when the decision is made, is preferable to trying to surve showning a court of law hisa real papers.”
You just don’t get it. He doesn’t HAVE to show any papers. YOU do.
The presumption of legality is *already* on the President’ side as a matter of established and Constitutional law. As you are challenging that established law, the onus is on you and your side to prove your case, not to cast doubt on the President’s documents. They could be written in Crayolas on butcher paper and they’d still be legal *as a matter of law.*
You won’t get them struck down without overwhelmingly convincing hard evidence on your side, and you quite simply haven’t got any.
I hope Orly Taitz works cheap, because you’re throwing your money away on this case.
Darren Potter
January 27th, 2012
5:50 pm
Said by CommonSense: “Actually, we do care about the laws and judicial procedures,”
Talks cheap and easy. Time to walk the talk, rather than continuing to make excuses and foot-drag.
How come you won’t hold Obama to his own words: “The Only People Who Don’t Want to Disclose the Truth are Those with Something to Hide”?
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
5:50 pm
@ Darren Potter “Never happened. The Governor of Hawaii, despite all his efforts, never found Obama’s Birth Certificate (Certificate of Live Birth).
Repeating this birther lie? Gov. Abercrombie said no such thing. He made reference to what he couldn’t find publicly. Not about the private records held by Hawaii Department of Health.
@Darren Potter “What Obama did was make a statement about ending the controversy, then the White House (not Obama) presented what was an obviously forged Birth Certificate (Certificate of Live Birth). ”
Another Lie. Obama held the Press Conference on April 27 2011, where his aides handed out copies of the COLB to the press. Even Les Kensolving (of World Ne(u)t Daily) said that the COLB he saw was genuine. the website that leads the charge of slander against Obama and his citizenship, their reporter said that the COLB is genuine.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
5:51 pm
CommonSense — “At the end of the day, all you have are a bunch of, “I think these things don’t look right and don’t accept the law’s acceptance of Obama’s birth certificate as proof of citizenship, so you should make him prove that the law is right to accept it. But that’s not how it works. The law has accepted it and it’s up to you to provide evidence as to why they shouldn’t.”
Well said. This is exactly what it boils down to.
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
5:53 pm
@David Farrar — “we are building our case to minimize the level of judical notice this judge will give to these two documents.”
__
I don’t know what “minimize the level of judical [sic] notice” can possibly mean.
Either he knows the document exists or he doesn’t.
And you still haven’t said, how do you get around the Full Faith and Credit clause?
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
5:55 pm
D. Potter — “Never happened. The Governor of Hawaii, despite all his efforts, never found Obama’s Birth Certificate (Certificate of Live Birth).”
Wrong, and you trip yourself up with your misinformed fakery. (laughing)
Governor LINDA LINGLE (most assuredly not a ‘he’) personally viewed and verified the document.
“What Obama did was make a statement about ending the controversy, then the White House (not Obama) presented what was an obviously forged Birth Certificate (Certificate of Live Birth).”
No forgery has ever been demonstrated or proven. In any event, the documents that were publicly released have no bearing on the ones verified and validated by the State of Hawaii and which were provided at the Federal level. Your complaints are specious and naive.
“The reason for Obama not making the release himself and his vague statements to the release, was plausible denial.”
Nope. The reason he didn’t do it himself is because the only release that mattered had already happened years before.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
5:57 pm
D. Potter — “How come you won’t hold Obama to his own words: “The Only People Who Don’t Want to Disclose the Truth are Those with Something to Hide”
Because he already disclosed it as required by US law, and because the applicable authorities have recognized it as valid and verified.
Your satisfaction or lack thereof with the document is irrelevant.
The Nuts Are Falling Out Of The Trees
January 27th, 2012
5:59 pm
If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man’s life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 27th, 2012
6:00 pm
Well I see our avid birthers are still up to it.
David Farrar, I have looked through all the comments and although its possible I have missed it, it appears you are RUNNING AWAY from answering what particular EXPERTISE you have received as a Georgia notary to determine that a birth certificate is false. Please don’t side step. I understand you may claim the “seal” is not embossed on the internet website you have looked at. But again, you claim NOTARY status makes you an expert for some reason on the subject and you have yet to answer that question about your professed expert status. You do realize you would be asked this question in a court if you made such a claim and that you would NOT be qualified any more than my dog to testify as a “notary expert” as to the validity or invalidity of a Hawaiian birth certificate. Why the false claim of expertise?
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
6:02 pm
@David Farrar –
By the way, David, are you aware of what your attorney told the P&E today?
Orly said that the ALJ offered to treat the case as a default, but she and the other judges decided instead to present their cases.
Any chance you had for a default is long over. Your attorney turned it down.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 27th, 2012
6:02 pm
Oy vey, they reject the truth and then they claim….it is up to you to prove the truth.
Darren Potter
January 27th, 2012
6:03 pm
Said by CommonSense: “He provided a certified copy of his birth certificate provided by the state of Hawaii that the LAW”
Your wrong. The White House released what they claimed was Obama’s Birth Certificate (Certificate of Live Birth). A document that Obama supporters (media included) gulliblly or blindly accepted as being real. A document, anybody who was unbiased, had a good eye, and imaging knowledge could see the numerous flaws of; making the document a forgery.
As we have seen since 2008, Obama supporters (media included) are willing to Lie to themselves (like Obama has Lied to America) and others to protect their Liberal Socialist boy, even if it means trashing the Constitution and destroying America. Remember Obama supporters, you are setting a dangerous precedence, one which may leave you reaping what you have sowed.
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
6:05 pm
[correction to 6:02, should of course be other lawyers]
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
6:07 pm
D. Potter — “Your wrong. The White House released what they claimed was Obama’s Birth Certificate (Certificate of Live Birth). A document that Obama supporters (media included) gulliblly or blindly accepted as being real. A document, anybody who was unbiased, had a good eye, and imaging knowledge could see the numerous flaws of; making the document a forgery.”
No, YOU are wrong.
The document was validated and verified SEVERAL YEARS PRIOR. The subsequent release was done in response to repeated and continued crackpot requests, but was never intended to prove anything, as there was nothing to prove to anyone.
You and your associates quite simply missed the boat on the verification and validation, as well as the fact that the validated document was accepted by Federal authorities in 2008. It’s how Obama got on the ballot in 2008 to start with.
You don’t get it, Potter. Y’all already lost this argument before you even started to MAKE it.
Kamchak
January 27th, 2012
6:07 pm
My goal is to “Prove” candidate Barack Obama meets his constitutional qualifications to take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States.
Your goal was to get the sitting President to come and personally answer your silliness, and it has certainly chapped your ass that he didn’t show, hence your continued allegations of Obama running away.
Again — Obama can only cut and run or run away if he actually showed up in the first place.
Darren Potter
January 27th, 2012
6:12 pm
Said by Joe Hussein Mama: “Governor LINDA LINGLE (most assuredly not a ‘he’) personally viewed and verified the document.”
Another one of the Obama’s supporters Urban Myths. Governor Linda Lingle, never came forth claiming to have viewed and verified Obama’s Birth Certificate.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 27th, 2012
6:14 pm
I did not know that Fox was an Obama supporter….. the things birthers can teach us.
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
6:15 pm
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
5:47 pm
But candidate Obama is the Defendant in this case Ha! ha! ha!
ex animo
davidfarrar
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
6:16 pm
@Darren Potter — “Governor Linda Lingle, never came forth claiming to have viewed and verified Obama’s Birth Certificate.”
__
That’s right. What she said was, “So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health…”
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
6:18 pm
Kamchak
January 27th, 2012
6:07 pm
But he did show up first. As I have explained. It was only when things didn’t go his way, he cut and ran.
ex animo
davidfarar
CommonSense
January 27th, 2012
6:18 pm
Darren Potter:
You are clearly delusional, even more so than the usual birther.
y_p_w
January 27th, 2012
6:20 pm
I just want to correct a few things said here.
First – nobody has any evidence that Obama ever produced a certified copy of his birth certificate for Congress or the Governor of Hawaii. However, I don’t know of any other President who has done so either. As far as the Governor of Hawaii goes, the previous one didn’t witness it, but contacted her Director of Health and asked her to personally check on the status and report back. That was the reason for the two statements by the Director of Health that she had seen the original document and could verify his Honolulu birth as well as the date of birth.
I know people just love talking PDFs and layers. However, I prefer people who say they’ve seen the original document. Like former NBC White House correspondent (and current TODAY host) Savannah Guthrie:
http://lockerz.com/s/96540937
http://lockerz.com/s/96540721
Maybe the President is lying. Maybe the Hawaii Directors of Health are lying. However, is this particular NBC reporter lying that she asked to see the certified copy and had it in her hands, felt that it had a seal, and took these photos? Why argue over PDFs, layers, sharpening masks, etc when there’s a couple of perfectly good camera phone pictures taken of the birth certificate.
CommonSense
January 27th, 2012
6:20 pm
David Farrar:
You are challenging the president’s candidacy, but he is the president and thus any laws pertinent to the office of the presidency are pertinent to him, regardless of the reason for your challenge. So, for example, if you don’t have the right to compel the president to appear in a state court, then you don’t have the right to compel President Obama to appear, even if you are challenging his candidacy, so your continued effort to make a distinction in that regard is somewhat silly.
Darren Potter
January 27th, 2012
6:24 pm
Said by Hawaiiborn: @Darren Potter “What Obama did was make a statement about ending the controversy, then the White House (not Obama) presented what was an obviously forged Birth Certificate (Certificate of Live Birth). ”
Another Lie. Obama held the Press Conference on April 27 2011, where his aides handed out copies of the COLB to the press.
You call it a Lie, yet you said what I said. Obama did not hand out copies nor present his Certificate of Live Birth. Obama only commented on the topic. The White House (his aides) handed out what they claimed to be Obama’s COLB, which was examined and determined to be a forgery by experts. But you didn’t need to be an expert to see the flaws, you just had to have knowledge of imaging, a keen eye, and not be drinking Kool Aid.
Q: Why do you Obama supporters continue to believe Obama when he has repeated Lied to you and America? Is it a case of Lying being ignored, so long as it achieves the end goal?
Kamchak
January 27th, 2012
6:25 pm
But he did show up first. As I have explained. It was only when things didn’t go his way, he cut and ran.
It is your contention that President Obama personally attended this hearing?
y_p_w
January 27th, 2012
6:26 pm
Again, I’d just want to say that there was no “verification document” per se. Nobody running for President is required to do so. They just have the DNC and state Democratic Committees file affidavits as to their eligibility for the office. Everybody does it this way.
That doesn’t mean I don’t fully believe that the image on the WH servers is an accurate representation of the information.
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
6:27 pm
@Darren Potter — “…COLB, which was examined and determined to be a forgery by experts.”
__
Would you care to remind us, who were the experts who determined it to be a forgery? What do we know about them that shows they’re experts?
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
6:28 pm
D. Potter — “Another one of the Obama’s supporters Urban Myths. Governor Linda Lingle, never came forth claiming to have viewed and verified Obama’s Birth Certificate.”
Incorrect. Both Governor Lingle and the head of the Hawaii State Department of Vital Records *signed off* on the verification and validation of the BC that was provided to Congress prior to Senator Obama’s inclusion on the 2008 ballot.
The fact that she never called you up and told you about it means nothing. (laughing)
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
6:28 pm
D. Farrar — “But candidate Obama is the Defendant in this case Ha! ha! ha! ”
Wrong. Once again, you clearly don’t understand how administrative courts work.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 27th, 2012
6:29 pm
The White House (his aides) handed out what they claimed to be Obama’s COLB, which was examined and determined to be a forgery by experts.
No it was NOT determined to be a forgery by experts….unless of course you are calling people who claim to be NOTARIES are experts and people who make up titles for themselves as “Private Attorney General” as if it means something.
con amor
KUTGF, Sgt. Mgr. Atty. Gen. in a light wine sauce.
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
6:30 pm
@Darrent Potter “Your wrong. The White House released what they claimed was Obama’s Birth Certificate (Certificate of Live Birth). A document that Obama supporters (media included) gulliblly or blindly accepted as being real. A document, anybody who was unbiased, had a good eye, and imaging knowledge could see the numerous flaws of; making the document a forgery.”
###########
Again, a birther lie. The White House released copies from the original COLB certified copy as sent to President Obama by the State of Hawaii Department of Health, through Obama’s attorney.
We have their letter stating as such:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf
And what about Savanah Guthrie, who handled the COLB in her hands and took pictures of it?
http://lockerz.com/s/96540937
The only people who see fakery are birthers and we know that they have very poor eye sights.
Read it an weep birther:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
Jay
January 27th, 2012
6:31 pm
Like a cat playing with a wounded mouse, huh Arthur?
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
6:32 pm
y_p_w — “As far as the Governor of Hawaii goes, the previous one didn’t witness it, but contacted her Director of Health and asked her to personally check on the status and report back. That was the reason for the two statements by the Director of Health that she had seen the original document and could verify his Honolulu birth as well as the date of birth.”
Actually, Governor Lingle DID witness it as well at the time. The reason for that is that Lingle, a Republican, felt that it would tamp down partisan complaints if a member of her party witnessed it as well. As the highest-ranking Republican officeholder in the State of Hawaii at that time (Federal offices included), she decided to just do it herself.
Governor Lingle even said at the time that neither of them saw anything irregular on the document, nor anything on the document that would render Obama unable to serve as President if he were elected.
CommonSense
January 27th, 2012
6:32 pm
Arthur B:
I’m also curious as to which experts examined the COLB, because examining a COPY or IMAGE of the COLB in no way constitutes examining the COLB and I don’t believe would be admissible as to the authenticity of the actual COLB. I mean, I could scan my COLB right now, alter it in PhotoShop so that it says I’m 10 years younger and was born on the moon, and then post it online, but that doesn’t affect the authenticity of my original COLB.
That being said, I think the “experts” and their claims about the COLB are absurd. The National Review demonstrated easily how scanning something and saving it as a certain type of PDF creates layers when that PDF is opened in illustrator and puts in all these weird characters. And it would not be outside the realm of possibility that someone scanned it then used a program to optimize it for the Web (most photo programs have a “wizard” that automatically makes adjustments to compress the file size for faster download or they might have cropped, brightened, or reduced its size), and thus the image would appear to have been altered because it was, but that would not reflect on the authenticity of the original.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
6:34 pm
KUTGF — “KUTGF, Sgt. Mgr. Atty. Gen. in a light wine sauce.”
And now for something completely different . . .
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
6:35 pm
@Common Sense
funny how the “experts” , with all of their “testimonies” about Photoshop and Illustrator, failed to notice that the COLB wasn’t scanned in via any Adobe Product.
They fail on so many levels.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
6:36 pm
HawaiiBorn — “Read it an weep birther”
I like that the Hawaii State Assembly passed that law allowing the State Department of Vital Records to blow off repeated and abusive birther demands for documents.
Kama’ainas are generally pretty peaceful and mellow people, but don’t pizz them off. They’ll send their Samoan cousins to beat you up.
Boddah you, birther? Like BEEF? (laughing)
Darren Potter
January 27th, 2012
6:37 pm
Said by Joe Huessein Mama: “The document was validated and verified SEVERAL YEARS PRIOR.”
The document in question being “validated and verified” in your own mind, by Nancy Pelosi, or the Easter Bunny don’t hold water in the court of Law. Point beyond you? You got nothing but Yapping.
Provide links to analysis and sworn statements done by document experts that “validated and verified” Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth was authentic and legally acceptable to a court.
BTW: Do you know thge difference between a “copy” and a “certified copy”?
BTW: You do know that even the Federal Bureau of Investigation never investigated Obama, let alone Obama’s claimed Certification of Live Birth.
CommonSense
January 27th, 2012
6:39 pm
Hawaiiborn:
“Experts” is such a subjective term, isn’t it? After watching the testimony of these experts, I can tell you that if I needed an IT guy, I wouldn’t call Orly’s IT witness, and if I needed a private attorney, I’d hire Encyclopedia Brown before I’d hire Susan Daniels.
CommonSense
January 27th, 2012
6:39 pm
Private INVESTIGATOR, not attorney. (fingers getting tired)
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
6:42 pm
@Darren Potter “Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth was authentic and legally acceptable to a court.”
The part that says “This document shall serve as Prima Facie Evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding” at the bottom of the original certified copy.
Since real people know that REal courts would accept the paper document, and that any lawyer wouldn’t submit a PDF or image found online, your question of course is irrelevant.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 27th, 2012
6:42 pm
Provide links to analysis and sworn statements done by document experts that “validated and verified” Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth was authentic and legally acceptable to a court.
Not necessary. The certification of the state of Hawaii to the “short form” was acceptable to establish a court of law the birth of President Obama in that state. If you wish to dispute the state’s certification, then it is your responsibility and legal obligation to present actual proof and expert testimony.
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
6:42 pm
CommonSense
January 27th, 2012
6:20 pm
“You are challenging the president’s candidacy” — hogwash. I am challenging as per Georgia statutes, candidate Barack Obama qualification to met his constitutional amd statutorial qualifications, as Judge Malihi has already made a “Finding” in this case that he must do.
ex animo
davidfarrar
y_p_w
January 27th, 2012
6:43 pm
I’m not arguing this with you because I think Obama’s birth certificate on the WH website is fraudulent. I’m just saying that I have never, ever seen any verifiable statement that Governor Lingle ever personally viewed the original “vault copy” certificate of birth in the Dept of Health archives. She’s wasn’t a Dept of Health employee, and I don’t believe that she’d be allowed in that “sterile” area. I remember what former Hawaii Director of Health Chiyome Fukino stated, which is that she brought State Registrar (one of her top deputies and the guy whose signature stamp goes on certified birth certificate) Alvin Onaka with her to personally view the original vault copy of the certifiate of live birth. Governor Lingle has always said that she asked Fukino to look into the matter and report back to her.
Here’s a Christian Science Monitor article from 2010.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0513/Hawaii-slams-door-on-birthers-who-turn-to-Obama-Social-Security-number
** quote **
“In an interview with WABC Radio in New York, Governor Lingle said the state’s health director personally viewed Obama’s birth record.
“The president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii,” she said on air. “And that’s just a fact.”
** unquote **
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
6:44 pm
@ Common Sense ” I’d hire Encyclopedia Brown before I’d hire Susan Daniels.”
####
Oh and what’s nice is now we have her testimony on record her criminal activity as well as her admitting to commit Identity Fraud. She accessed databases to get to Obama’s SS records an eVerify by posing as Barack Obama.
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
6:45 pm
@y_p_w
Lingles claim is just icing on the cake. We have official statements from the Hawaii Department of Health:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
Darren Potter
January 27th, 2012
6:45 pm
Said by Joe Hussein Mama: “I like that the Hawaii State Assembly passed that law allowing the State Department of Vital Records to blow off”
At least you admit to enjoying seeing a state government actively participate in a cover-up to protect a Democrat at the expense of America’s election system. Looks like the next American election might as well be done Cuba, Iran, (aka dictator) style.
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
6:47 pm
@David Farrar “I am challenging as per Georgia statutes, candidate Barack Obama qualification to met his constitutional amd statutorial qualifications, as Judge Malihi has already made a “Finding” in this case that he must do.”
#####
By admitting into evidence, the COLB’s by Obama that show:
1) he was born in Hawaii
2) that he is an American Citizen by birth
3) That he is over the age of 35
The only thing you didn’t contest was his residency requirement (but we can see from his political history that he’s been in America as a resident for more than 14 years).
so all you did, was confirm that Obama is an eligible candidate.
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
6:48 pm
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 27th, 2012
6:42 pm
You are as welcome to your own delusions as I am to mine. But in a court of law the only thing a certified birth certificate document “Proves” is that a birth occurred and that it was recorded; that’s it. Everything else must be corroborated by other independent evidence, usually quickly obtained by the publication of the person’s natal records andhospital birth certificates. Something it took Donald Trump two weeks to produce.
ex animo
davidfarrar
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
6:50 pm
Hawaiiborn ,
that was the attorneys of the other two cases, not my case. Please pay attention.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
6:51 pm
@David Farrar “At least you admit to enjoying seeing a state government actively participate in a cover-up to protect a Democrat at the expense of America’s election system.”
#####
Yeah, being inundated with thousands of calls a day, on an already strapped office (who had to take furlough days) with only 8 to 10 workers, while they field these birther questions, and telling that the law doesn’t allow for this type of information to be released to the public is “covering it up”.
an office that was under Republican Control (beacuse this all started under Linda Lingle’s tenure who is a Republican), and most of these harassment calls and requests, came during her time as governor, wants to “cover up” your imagined conspiracy.
only in the birther mind set, does privacy laws that apply to everyone, including the President, means that they are covering it up.
Kamchak
January 27th, 2012
6:51 pm
so all you did, was confirm that Obama is an eligible candidate.
Unfortunately, is in the case of unintended consequences, that is not all he did.
CommonSense
January 27th, 2012
6:53 pm
Hawaiiborn:
I’m guessing no one will do anything about that, but I think Jay should do some research and write an article on that. How about it Jay? “Did Orly Taitz’ witnesses break the law?” That includes her attempt to submit documents that were not accepted into the record because it appears the only way they could have been obtained was illegally, by posing as the president or his employer, and whoever did the dirty deed blacked out identifying information on the forms to hide the “evidence.”
I really think someone should write an article on that–”Have the Birthers Gone Too Far?” I can see the lede…”The birthers claim they only want to ensure the law is being followed and that the president meets the Constitutional requirements for president, but as the birthers continue to dig for that elusive smoking gun, it appears the birthers are the ones who have been flouting the law.”
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 27th, 2012
6:53 pm
David, CONGRATS! We finally agree on something. You have delusions!
PS….still running away from that notary claim thing aren’t you?
y_p_w
January 27th, 2012
6:53 pm
As far as I know there are only two people outside of Obama’s campaign, the Hawaii Dept of Health, or his administration have handled the birth certificates since he started running for President. The first would be when a staffer at his Chicago campaign office allowed in someone from Factcheck.com. The other would be NBC White House correspondent Savannah Guthrie.
There are some rumors that Michael Jablonski was able to get a new certified copy and has submitted it to the Georgia Secretary of State, but that remains to be seen.
John McCain was said to have shown a Washington Post reporter a copy of his birth certificate. It was unclear whether it was a government issued document or if it was a hospital souvenir.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
6:54 pm
D. Potter — “The document in question being “validated and verified” in your own mind, by Nancy Pelosi, or the Easter Bunny don’t hold water in the court of Law. Point beyond you? You got nothing but Yapping.”
(laughing, pointing)
You don’t know when you’re beaten, birther. Okay, I’ll bite.
1) The document was verified and validated by Hawaii state authorities. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, *that’s all that’s necessary.*
2) A “court of law” doesn’t enter into it, and in any event, your case will never see the inside of one. Why? Because under US Constitutional law, Obama’s BC is ALREADY VALIDATED. (laughing)
3) Point beyond me? Not at all, sonny. Your argument is running about five years behind. (laughing)
4) I’ve got nothing but yapping? Nope. I’ve got US Constitutional law on my side. The question’s already been asked and answered to the satisfaction of Congress. Your argument is irrelevant.
“Provide links to analysis and sworn statements done by document experts that “validated and verified” Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth was authentic and legally acceptable to a court.”
Nope. Don’t have to. None of that’s necessary under Constitutional law. Birther law doesn’t apply.
“BTW: Do you know thge difference between a “copy” and a “certified copy?”
BTW: Doesn’t matter. The question’s already been answered to Congressional satisfaction. Your lack of satisfaction with the answer is irrelevant.
“BTW: You do know that even the Federal Bureau of Investigation never investigated Obama, let alone Obama’s claimed Certification of Live Birth.”
BTW: You do know that that’s beside the point, don’t you? There’s already an established procedure to verify and validate, and it was executed four years ago. Your argument’s out the window, birther. (laughing)
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
6:54 pm
@David Farrar “that was the attorneys of the other two cases, not my case. Please pay attention.”
It doesn’t matter. You were all arguing essentially the same thing : He’s in-elligible because of some made up belief that 1) he doesn’t have 2 citizen parents so he isn’t a Natural born (which doesn’t fit any belief in the past 200 years of legal history ) or 2) that he was not born in Hawaii (which doesn’t matter because Obama’s mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth).
so no matter what angle you are trying to argue, birther, you fail legally since in either situation, Obama is still a Natural born citizen and eligible for being a candidate for POTUS.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
6:56 pm
D. Farrar – “hogwash. I am challenging as per Georgia statutes, candidate Barack Obama qualification to met his constitutional amd statutorial qualifications, as Judge Malihi has already made a “Finding” in this case that he must do.”
Georgia doesn’t determine that. It’s determined at the Federal level. States can’t disregard official documents from other States.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
7:00 pm
y_p_w — “I’m just saying that I have never, ever seen any verifiable statement that Governor Lingle ever personally viewed the original “vault copy” certificate of birth in the Dept of Health archives.”
Shrug. You can do an internet search if you’d like. I recall reading it in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser back then, but there’s been some change of ownership (and one of the papers shut down) so their archives are a mess now (not to mention some of the content being behind a paywall).
In any event, I think birthers use that term “verifiable” to mean ‘evidence that I am personally satisfied and comfortable with.’ I don’t think there’s any amount or quality of evidence that birthers would accept, so I don’t bother with presenting any. I just point out that the presumption of legality lies with the President, and that birthers have an *extremely high* burden of proof that they don’t seem even to have comprehended, let alone begun to tackle.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
7:02 pm
D. Potter — “At least you admit to enjoying seeing a state government actively participate in a cover-up to protect a Democrat at the expense of America’s election system. Looks like the next American election might as well be done Cuba, Iran, (aka dictator) style.”
It’s not a cover-up. It’s a direct response to the small number of nutcase birthers who flood that office with repeated, abusive and obscene demands for documents that the state is, BY LAW, forbidden to release.
The fact that you don’t know that is just further evidence of your ignorance on this matter.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
7:05 pm
D. Farrar — “But in a court of law the only thing a certified birth certificate document “Proves” is that a birth occurred and that it was recorded; that’s it.”
Once again, you weren’t IN a “court of law” this week. You were in an administrative court. Things work differently in there.
“Everything else must be corroborated by other independent evidence, usually quickly obtained by the publication of the person’s natal records andhospital birth certificates.”
Wrong.
“Something it took Donald Trump two weeks to produce.”
Something he *claims* to have, but hasn’t bothered to actually produce. Seems to me like you’re applying a different standard to Trump. (laughing, pointing)
Presidential Wednesday: Friday Edition
January 27th, 2012
7:06 pm
[...] you break open the champagne you purchased for the occasion with pre-1964 gold and silver coins, enter Jay Bookman to ruin the fun, he’s such a killjoy. I know you will be shocked to hear this, but Orly Taitz and others have a [...]