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
y_p_w
January 27th, 2012
7:06 pm
They only have about 8 employees? In the main Dept of Health building for the entire state?
Sheesh – my county recorder’s office has more employees than that. In California it’s a combination of county clerk-recorders, the California Dept of Public Health, and a few cities that issue birth certificates. After about 6 months, only the State Dept of Public Health holds onto the original, but right now certified copies typically only produced from relatively low resolution scanned images. If you go to a county recorder, they can print it up for you, but they’ve just pulling the image up from a database of scanned certificates and printing it out using a laser printer.
California has open birth records, although they’ve changed their laws over the years when just anyone could get a regular birth certificate copy; there were a few cases of identity fraud. If Hawaii had such a law (where anyone can get an “informational” certified copy), then perhaps Hawaii wouldn’t be inundated. Of perhaps they would be swamped by people ordering copies as souvenirs, in which case they might be able to print tons in bulk as a money making operation. Former Presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, Jr. was born in California, and a reporter in SLC got a copy.
http://i.imgur.com/4wC4Z.jpg
Darren Potter
January 27th, 2012
7:07 pm
Said by Hawaiiborn: “The part that says “This document shall serve as Prima Facie Evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding” ”
Oh geez, that makes all the difference. Like nobody with basic PhotoChopping skills couldn’t cut-n-paste that statement on to am image, to claim the image was REAL, AUTHENTIC, FACT.
The FACT (as Obama supporters like to scream) is Obama did not show up in court, because Obama no longer thinks: “sunshine is the best disinfectant”.
CommonSense
January 27th, 2012
7:09 pm
David Farrar:
You DO have delusions, don’t you?
You said: “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.”
WRONG.
In a court of law, a birth certificate proves WHERE and WHEN someone was born and any other information on it. If you submit a certified copy of a birth certificate into the record, all the information on that birth certificate is considered FACTUAL unless you have solid evidence to prove otherwise–suspicions are not enough. No corroborating information is required.
Your arguments are just ludicrous. No court is going to say, “Well we accept this state-issued certified COLB as proof that a child was born but we do not accept it as proof as to when and where that child is born and who his or her parents were unless you provide other evidence.” Where is the logic in claiming that some of the information on a certified COLB somehow carries more legal weight than other information? That is just not how it works.
And this thing about the “hospital” birth certificate as proof is just silly. When my kids were born, the hospital provided its own cute little paper with footprints on it and specifically told me that this piece of paper was not valid for legal purposes–I couldn’t use it to get a Social Security Card or a Passport for my kid. It was for NOVELTY purposes. That is all the “hospital birth certificate” is good for, and many people don’t even have them–like kids who are born at home.
However, I did fill out a form at the hospital that was used to create the birth record with the state that enabled me to get a certified copy of the birth certificate–which is just like the president’s COLB–and I was able to use that to get a Passport and Social Security number for my sons without any additional “evidence.”
If you’ve ever been to family court (and I have as a child) or were a party to an adoption proceeding or divorce, you would be well aware that the certified state supplied birth certificate is accepted in its entirety without additional information. They don’t demand additional information to prove that the child was born on the date and at the location indicated. How absurd and uninformed.
And if you did go to court and try to use that little ol’ thing the hospital gives you as proof, you’d be laughed at because that is not considered an official, legal record.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
7:13 pm
y_p_w — “They only have about 8 employees? In the main Dept of Health building for the entire state?”
Yes. People forget that Hawaii’s a relatively small state, in terms of population. And outside of Honolulu, there aren’t really any cities in the state at all.
“California has open birth records, although they’ve changed their laws over the years when just anyone could get a regular birth certificate copy; there were a few cases of identity fraud. If Hawaii had such a law (where anyone can get an “informational” certified copy), then perhaps Hawaii wouldn’t be inundated.”
The issue is that the document that Hawaii DOES issue wasn’t satisfactory to the birthers. They demanded the “long form,” which Hawaii has *never* released as a matter of law. You *can* get a BC copy, just not the kind of copy that the birthers wanted.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
7:15 pm
D. Potter — “Oh geez, that makes all the difference. Like nobody with basic PhotoChopping skills couldn’t cut-n-paste that statement on to am image, to claim the image was REAL, AUTHENTIC, FACT.”
Irrelevant, given that the State of Hawaii has verified and validated the document and as Congress has accepted it. The document is valid as a matter of Federal law.
“The FACT (as Obama supporters like to scream) is Obama did not show up in court, because Obama no longer thinks: “sunshine is the best disinfectant”.
The fact is that he didn’t bother because y’all don’t have a case.
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
7:21 pm
@y_p_h “They only have about 8 employees? In the main Dept of Health building for the entire state?”
No one said the entire state. but the main office is in Honolulu Hawaii, and since he was born in Honolulu, Hi, his records would be held there. The outer islands have annex offices, that handle requests from residents on those islands. And since 2001, there has been no paper copy of any records (they went completely digital) all birth records are entered in computer at the hospital, and sent electronically to the main office. The annex offices only pull up the records to update/amend, or provide certified copies.
But 8-10 employees is not surprising. Hawaii, like many other states, is suffering Economically. Tourism isn’t exactly the big business it used to be, and cost of living is very high there. The government had to do some cutbacks, and that meant eliminating govt positions and enacting furlough days to offset growing costs of running the government.
” If Hawaii had such a law (where anyone can get an “informational” certified copy), then perhaps Hawaii wouldn’t be inundated. Of perhaps they would be swamped by people ordering copies as souvenirs, in which case they might be able to print tons in bulk as a money making operation. Former Presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, Jr. was born in California, and a reporter in SLC got a copy.”
Hawaii isn’t the only state that has closed records as far as birth certificates go. Nearly 30 states in our nation have similar laws to Hawaii. California is one of them (and like Hawaii, the records can become public after 75 years). Since Obama isn’t over the age of 75, the law doesn’t apply.
As for “money making” – That can’t be done by law. The Department of Health can’t make any profit. The cost to make certified copies is for employee time as well as costs to make the copy.
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
7:24 pm
@Darren Potter “Oh geez, that makes all the difference. Like nobody with basic PhotoChopping skills couldn’t cut-n-paste that statement on to am image, to claim the image was REAL, AUTHENTIC, FACT.”
FACT: Birthers have yet to provide evidence of such “tampering” or manipulation to the ACTUAL paper document.
They spend hours crowing about images and pdf’s but NONE, ABSOLUTELY none of them took the time to get their keisters to Chicago, and examine the COLB when it was at the Campaign offices.
Seeing as FactCheck got to see the original COLB in person, please tell us how anyone tampered with the actual document that contains the REgistrar’s seal, signature and date?
http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
7:26 pm
@David Farrar
The State of Hawaii Department of Health, could have written his COLB with crayon and fingerpaint on poster board, and it would still be prima facie evidence, as long as it contains the registrars signature, seal and date that he/she confirms that the data is true and factual.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
7:29 pm
Hawaiiborn — Manapua, Spam musubi and pass-o-guava. Whattaya say? You know a good place?
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
7:31 pm
Oh dang, another fail for Orly:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79613378/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Order-Denying-Taitz-s-Letters-Rogatory-for-Hawaii-Documents-Related-to-Obama-1-27-2012
She has been denined again!
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
7:32 pm
@Joe Hussein Mama — no make me hunga for some manapua!! no mo where I stay right now…and dey call’em steam buns…not da same!!!
I ken make my own spam musubi, but dang pass-guava juice mix hard to come by. ^_^
SouthernStyle
January 27th, 2012
7:32 pm
After reading the bulk of these comments all I can say is that it’s a pretty sad state of affairs when so many dunderheads choose to make comments on a case they, obviously, know nothing about.
At issue is Obama’s eligibility to be President under the guidelines spelled out in The Constitution; specifically, IS OBAMA A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES?
Rather, or not, he was born in Hawaii is not the issue. Rather his Long Form Birth Certificate is fraudulent, or not, is also not the issue. All this case was dealing with is rather, or not, Obama is a Natural Born Citizen; i.e., born to parents who were American citizens.
Obama is not qualified to be President of the United States and should NOT be allowed on any ballots because his father is not now and never has been an American citizen. Obama admits this, the birth certificate verifies it and the Supreme Court has already issued its’ interpretation of the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”.
Obama is NOT constitutionally eligible to run, or serve, as President and that, my friends, is all there is to it.
md
January 27th, 2012
7:33 pm
“Because we are not China and we do not spy on our citizens, block their access to information and freedom of expression, and we don’t force everyone to work 100% of the time at all hours of the day and night just to meet some stupid free market drivelers goal of making everyone “produce” all the time. That’s why.”
Except there actually are numerous companies out there that record every single keystroke……and folks usually don’t know it until the “novel” is dropped on their desk along with the “pack it up” box……
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
7:34 pm
@Southern Style “Obama is a Natural Born Citizen; i.e., born to parents who were American citizens…Obama is NOT constitutionally eligible to run, or serve, as President and that, my friends, is all there is to it.”
The US Supreme Court disagrees with you. Read a little case called US v Wong Kim Ark.
md
January 27th, 2012
7:38 pm
Joe,
Thanks for responding earlier, but this is what aroused my curiosity:
http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/yes-there-was-a-kapiolani-maternity-gynecological-hospital-in-1961/
In debunking the name of the hospital, one will notice a copy of an original birth certificate of one of 2 twins (the other can be found in cyberspace too)…..and the originals use Oahu…….not Hawaii.
It would seem to me that a facility producing babies would be fairly consistent in filling out these docs.
y_p_w
January 27th, 2012
7:41 pm
I’m fully aware that Hawaii has gone completely electronic with birth records, since 2001, to the point where the Dept of Health doesn’t even receive a paper original or paper application unless it’s not a hospital birth. A lot of states are doing it this way, but not California.
I mentioned the informational copies in California. I mean – it’s identical in every way (including the agency’s embossed seal) to a full Certificate of Live Birth except for a “legend” on the security that says it’s not valid as an identity document. It fully verifies the facts, but it can’t be used to obtain an identity document like a driver license, SSN card, or a passport.
There are some famous people born in California who have had their birth certificates obtained by the press and/or curisoity seekers. I mentioned Jon Huntsman, Jr. Then there’s Suri Cruise. Prince Albert (of Monaco) has an illegitimate child, and someone found her birth certificate which lists the father as “Albert Alexandre Louis Pierre Grimaldi”. I was surprised that someone could fit all that in there.
What I really want is Bruce Lee’s birth certificate. Now that would be cool. However, if it can’t be found, I’d be out $18 as a search fee, and just get a certificate that says they couldn’t find it.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
7:45 pm
Hawaiiborn — “I ken make my own spam musubi, but dang pass-guava juice mix hard to come by. ^_^”
My wife and I discovered a couple of years ago that Tang makes like THIRTY different flavors that are mostly sold outside the USA. You can find them in Brazilian markets (often, the proprietors will be happy to order you some) in pouches that make 2 liters, or in cans that make a lot more. They DO make passionfruit (maracuya) and guava (guayaba) flavors that are mostly sold in Brazil and elsewhere in South America. You can also find it on eBay sometimes.
Seems to me like you could mix some passion Tang, some orange Tang and some guava Tang and then tweak the mix to get pass-o-guava fruit punch the way you like it.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
7:48 pm
md — “It would seem to me that a facility producing babies would be fairly consistent in filling out these docs.”
You’d be surprised how laid-back the people of Hawai’i can be about things like that. Life, and people’s approach to it, is just plain different out there. They’re not as tightly wrapped as mainland folk are.
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
7:48 pm
@Joe Hussein Mama
We get it bettah ova hear. The local Asian market will import sometimes Hawaiian Sun can drinks and the frozen and you mix with water drinks. I have to pay $4 for six pack of Hawaiian Sun, but the frozen mix drinks (makes 2 quarts) is about $2 . I get all da flavors when they get ‘em in.
Hawaiian Iced Tea
Strawberry Lilikoi
Passo-Guava
Passion Orange
y_p_w
January 27th, 2012
7:50 pm
Why would they have to be consistent producing the docs? Have you ever dealt with an office where different personnel have access to the same equipment? Do you think only one employee has access to the typewriter?
The Nordyke certificates had the parents’ ages left justified in the box, while the Obama certificate had the parents’ ages nicely centered.
There are people who are just looking for a reason, any reason, to declare that it can’t be real, whether it’s the supposed smiley face to the X where there should be an H. For a while it was even that there was no “Kapolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” which meant the birthers threw the old Nordyke certificates aside, with a few even declaring that those were fakes too.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
7:54 pm
Speaking of long hours, I’m out for tonight. Work’s got me all weekend, so it can’t have me any more tonight.
Everyone play nice, be well and drive safely.
SouthernStyle
January 27th, 2012
7:55 pm
Hawaiiborn, the case you mention does not apply to “natural born”. An 1875 Supreme Court ruling requires both parents of a citizen must be citizens for the child to be considered “natural born.”
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
7:56 pm
Hawaiiborn — “Strawberry Lilikoi”
“Passo-Guava”
“Passion Orange”
O_O (drool)
I do so LOVE the Passion Orange Hawaiian Sun drinks. Someone used to make a Lilikoi punch or fountain drink out there I couldn’t get enough of, either.
Okay, now I’m out. And probably going to Whole Foods this weekend to see if they stock Hawaiian Sun any more.
Dena
January 27th, 2012
8:03 pm
SS – give the case and cite the paragraph.
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
8:13 pm
@jay — “Like a cat playing with a wounded mouse, huh Arthur?”
__
LOL, touché!
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
8:14 pm
@SouthernStyle “Hawaiiborn, the case you mention does not apply to “natural born”. An 1875 Supreme Court ruling requires both parents of a citizen must be citizens for the child to be considered “natural born.””
###########
this is another Birther lie. The case was wholly about citizenship and the issue at hand was: Is a person born to Chinese Nationals a citizen of the United States?
the US Supreme Court spent nearly 7 pages explaining how we derived our citizenship laws and defined how Natural born Citizenship originated: From english Common Law.
“”It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”"
the US Supreme court stated that English Common Law was in effect over our colonies and that even AFTER the Constitution was enacted, that we kept much of the same laws and defintions from English Common Law. They equated that Natural Born Subject is the equivalent of the US’ Natural Born Citizen.
Wong Kim Ark was born to Chinese Nationals in San Francisco, CA. Because of the Chinese Exclusion act, Chinese could not become naturalized citizens. The court found that by being born US Soil, that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the US from birth. And through that decision, they affirmed that by being born on US Soil, that he was a natural born citizen
The case has been cited in over 1000 court proceeding concerning citizenship in the US.
Most recently Ankenny v Daniels, where the court in that decision ruled:
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
Real courts, with real lawyers says that your interpretation of that court case is wrong.
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
8:19 pm
@Dena
SouthernStyle will cite this one:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZS.html
But of course, he is lying about what it says. The US Supreme Court specifically stated that they were not going to address citizenship. And the that they would recognize that there is definitely one way of being a natural born citizen, but were not going to address the other ways.
the paragraph that birthers like to use is:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents.”
but always leave off the two sentences that follow:
” As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
FOR THE PURPOSES of this CASE IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SOLVE THESE DOUBTS.
So no, the case did not define natural born citizenship because Minor’s citizenship was already conceeded by both sides. It was a voting rights case, not a citizenship case.
So he ignores a decision that came 15 years later: Wong Kim Ark, which was a citizenship case and defined what a natural born citizen is.
Dena
January 27th, 2012
8:38 pm
Hawaiiborn, I know he would – my purpose for asking for the citation was to see if he honestly looked at the case and understood it, rather than just parrot what other people have told him it means.
JudithNYC
January 27th, 2012
8:43 pm
Eli, I listened to every one of President Obama’s speeches and yet I did not know about this. Darn it, I would have enlisted immediately. hahahahahaha
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
January 27th, 2012
8:45 pm
Remember, Jay, any opportunity that presents itself to get rid of Emperor Nero must be pursued, for the good of the country. He may be an American, but he does not act like an American.
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
8:45 pm
@Deana, better to head off their stupidity. Birthers are broken records
The Nuts Are Falling Out Of The Trees
January 27th, 2012
8:57 pm
@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
****************************************************************************
Listen up Amino Ex?…….. (heeheehee)
You are nucis eros.
Loren ipsum tetri sursum.
Dan Farrar
January 27th, 2012
9:00 pm
Commonsense: I have been a democrat all my adult life. I voted for Mr. Obama in the last election and up until the court hearing on the 26th I had been arguing this issue with my identical twin brother, David. I swore to him that he must be mistaken as the President Obama has proven his qualifications over and over again. I was in that courtroom yesterday and I had a front row seat, literally, there was no more room when we arrived so I took a seat on the empty ‘Defendant witness seats.” I sat through and heard every word and I’ve got to admit to you, if I were sitting as a jurist in that courtroom, rather than a spectator, I would have been persuaded by the evidence and testimony presented. One example; John Samson is a retired Social Security Enforcement Officer, Fraud Division, JFK who, under oath, testified President Obama social security number, which he’s had for seventeen years, is a fake. He then went on to explain why he thought that. Right court or wrong these questions will not go away until they are address. The State of Georgia tried to give the President the opportunity to confront these questions head on, with his original documents in hand he could have brilliantly silenced these birthers once and for all in five minutes. But he chose instead to ignore the will of the people of Georgia, their laws and their courts by obtaining.
The Nuts Are Falling Out Of The Trees
January 27th, 2012
9:17 pm
Farrar|Welden|Swensson|Powell v. Obama –
Order Denying Taitz’s Letters Rogatory for Hawaii Documents Related to Obama
1/27/2012
Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
9:19 pm
@Dan Farrar “One example; John Samson is a retired Social Security Enforcement Officer, Fraud Division, JFK who, under oath, testified President Obama social security number, which he’s had for seventeen years, is a fake. He then went on to explain why he thought that.”
########################
Yes, but he doesn’t even know the policies of the former division that he worked for? Because you know right on the SSA’s website they explain the Geo code quite well:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html
“Note: One should not make too much of the “geographical code.” It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that.”
that is how we knew his testimony was based on things he didn’t know.
and since we didn’t have computers in 1973 to spit out SSN’s correctly, all of that was done by hand, usually by a clerk, who entered the information onto punch cards. It doesn’t take a leap of logic to see that the clerk who was responsible may have entered Obama’s zip code wrong or that the clerk didn’t read his zip code write (due to poor handwriting. Obama is left handed, and being Left handed myself, my handwriting is left to be desired)
96814 = Honolulu, HI – zip code of where he lived at the time he applied for an SSN
06814 = Danbury, CT – zip code that might have been mistyped by the person who handled his mailed in application
seeing as Obama used his SSN since he was 16 years of age, its hard to believe that the IRS wouldn’t have noticed this for the last 38 years.
and his SSN has no relevancy to being President (30 out of the 44 Presidents didn’t have Social Security Numbers).
The Nuts Are Falling Out Of The Trees
January 27th, 2012
9:23 pm
@Dan Farrar
January 27th, 2012
9:00 pm
I voted for Mr. Obama in the last election and up until the court hearing on the 26th I had been arguing this issue with my identical twin brother, David. John Samson is a retired Social Security Enforcement Officer, Fraud Division, JFK who, under oath, testified President Obama social security number, which he’s had for seventeen years, is a fake. He then went on to explain why he thought that. Right court or wrong these questions will not go away until they are address. The State of Georgia tried to give the President the opportunity to confront these questions head on, with his original documents in hand he could have brilliantly silenced these birthers once and for all in five minutes. But he chose instead to ignore the will of the people of Georgia, their laws and their courts by obtaining.
**********************************************************
You sound like an IDIOT.
There’s two of you? Heaven help us.
NEW BULLETIN:
Farrar|Welden|Swensson|Powell v. Obama –
Order Denying Taitz’s Letters Rogatory for Hawaii Documents Related to Obama
1/27/2012
OBAMA WINNING.
Dena
January 27th, 2012
9:28 pm
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79613378/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Order-Denying-Taitz-s-Letters-Rogatory-for-Hawaii-Documents-Related-to-Obama-1-27-2012
Dan Farrar
January 27th, 2012
9:30 pm
correction: I didn’t mean to say,”President Obama has had his social security number for seventeen years.” The testimony was, the social security number being used by Obama which he’s had since 1977 belongs to a deceased juvenile from Connecticut.
The Nuts Are Falling Out Of The Trees
January 27th, 2012
9:30 pm
@Hawaiiborn
January 27th, 2012
9:19 pm
seeing as Obama used his SSN since he was 16 years of age, its hard to believe that the IRS wouldn’t have noticed this for the last 38 years.
and his SSN has no relevancy to being President (30 out of the 44 Presidents didn’t have Social Security Numbers).
****************************************************************
Don’t get into a peeing match with a skunk (Dan Farrar).
.
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
9:31 pm
@Dan Farrar –
I’m surprised that the one witness you chose to emphasize was John Samson.
First of all, I’m intrigued to hear him described as “a retired Social Security Enforcement Officer, Fraud Division, JFK,” since Orly has previously described him as a retired “Immigration officer.” A Google search for “Social Security Enforcement Officer” and “Fraud Division” comes up empty. I don’t think there’s any such thing.
But, most interesting, Orly Taitz has had over three years to investigate, refine, and distill the best evidence to prove that Barack Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States. And, in your opinion, the crème de la crème of her argument seems to be that the President’s Social Security Number is “a fake.”
The Constitutional requirements for presidential eligibility are, as you know, age, natural born citizenship, and residency. If you can actually prove that the President’s SSAN is “a fake,” you still have to trace in detail how that disqualifies him from the Presidency. I’ve heard birthers make silly hand-waving arguments like, “what other reason would someone have to commit SS fraud?,” but that’s purely speculative. Even if Mr. Samson is to be believed, you haven’t come within miles of touching the issue of the President’s Constitutional eligibility.
If you want to raise the silly SSAN claims as reason to be suspicious, go for it. But to single that out as your #1 best example of what Orly’s been looking for for over three years?
That’s pretty pathetic.
The Nuts Are Falling Out Of The Trees
January 27th, 2012
9:34 pm
@Dan Farrar
January 27th, 2012
9:30 pm
correction: I didn’t mean to say,”President Obama has had his social security number for seventeen years.” The testimony was, the social security number being used by Obama which he’s had since 1977 belongs to a deceased juvenile from Connecticut.
*********************************************************************
Alright………………………….
You are starting to scare me.
You sound like a LUNATIC.
Stop spewing your lies. No one is BUYING IT.
Go play in traffic.
Obama is WINNING.
________________________________________________________________
Farrar|Welden|Swensson|Powell v. Obama –
Order Denying Taitz’s Letters Rogatory for Hawaii Documents Related to Obama
1/27/2012
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
9:42 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
January 27th, 2012
6:54 pm
“It doesn’t matter. You were all arguing essentially the same thing”
You are wrong. It does matter. We were there together, but there were three seperate cases being heard. A motion to seperate for just that reason was made and granted by the judge earlier in the case.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Dena
January 27th, 2012
9:43 pm
> The testimony was, the social security number being used by Obama which he’s had since 1977 belongs to a deceased juvenile from Connecticut.
Wait, whatever happened to the claim that Obama was using the SSN of a deceased French immigrant who died in 1981?
Is it now a juvenile?
Dan Farrar
January 27th, 2012
9:46 pm
Joe Hussein Mama : She had seven witnesses, not being part of the suit I do not have that info at hand. I’m sure Orly can tell you.
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
9:55 pm
@David Farrar — “A motion to seperate for just that reason was made and granted by the judge earlier in the case.”
__
Please explain what you think that means. Do you expect ALJ Malihi to come out with three separate rulings, like “he’s eligible in cases 1 and 2 but ineligible in case 3″? That obviously makes no sense.
He’s got to come up with a single recommendation, so it has to come from the evidence he gets in all three cases. Either he’s aware of the birth certificate or he’s not.
What do you think? Is he aware of it or is he not?
Dan Farrar
January 27th, 2012
9:58 pm
Nuts are falling: I’m just relaying what I saw with my own eyes and heard from sworn testimony in a court law. I can tell you, as a reasonable person, the testimony was extremely damaging, indeed criminal. His birth certificate was fake too. One of several things wrong with it was it had two seals on it, when there should only be one. All this will be in the transcript, rather than rely on my, admittedly poor
memory, I suggest getting a copy.
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
10:07 pm
@Dan Farrar — “His birth certificate was fake too.”
__
Did you happen to be listening when Orly told the judge that she agreed to the authenticity of the birth certificate that the other two lawyers brought to court?
Dena
January 27th, 2012
10:07 pm
Yep, the birth certificate that Hawaii issued out and certified as real and true is a fake.
My Gods, how could it be!? Truly, the Conspiracy must run deep for even the Republicans in Hawaii and in charge of the records to issue false documentation!
Dan Farrar
January 27th, 2012
10:07 pm
Dena: I simply can’t remember all the names and dates that were presented. We shall have to wait for the transcripts before discussing this case in any real detail. My personal impression was that all the witness appeared to be entirely believable.
Dan Farrar
January 27th, 2012
10:10 pm
Arthur B: No, frankly, I do not recall her making such a statement.
Dan Farrar
January 27th, 2012
10:14 pm
Dena : I can only relate what I heard and saw and the impression it made on be at the time. I cannot explain any inconsistencies.
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
10:21 pm
Dan — OK, maybe we’ll see it when the transcript comes out. But you understand, the judge has accepted into evidence an Obama birth certificate that at least two of the attorneys agree is accurate. That’s very hard evidence to overcome.
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
10:25 pm
Hawaiiborn:
“The State of Hawaii Department of Health, could have written his COLB with crayon and fingerpaint on poster board, and it would still be prima facie evidence, as long as it contains the registrars signature, seal and date that he/she confirms that the data is true and factual.”
Again, Hawiiborn, the court will accept candidate Obama’s prima facie evidence. It’s the relative probative value the court assigns to his prima facie evidence that is important. Two prima facie brith certificates with defective certification seals, prima facie evidence that essentially stands alone without any independant corrorbative evidence to support it, will have very little, if any, probative value itself.
ex animo
davidfarrar
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
10:28 pm
CommonSense
January 27th, 2012
7:09 pm
I have evidence to back up my claim that the only thing a certified birth certificate actually proves in court of law is that a birth has occurred and that that birth was recorded; do you?
ex animo
davidfarrar
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
10:31 pm
@David Farrar — “prima facie evidence that essentially stands alone without any independant corrorbative evidence to support it”
__
You do understand that what prima facie means is that it is valid standing alone, without any independent corroborative evidence to support it?
The burden is on your side to overcome the strong presumption of authenticity. So far you haven’t scratched the surface of coming close.
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
10:31 pm
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
10:21 pm
Dan — OK, maybe we’ll see it when the transcript comes out. But you understand, the judge has accepted into evidence an Obama birth certificate that at least two of the attorneys agree is accurate. That’s very hard evidence to overcome
Again, Arthur B., what was said in the other two seperate cases before us is irrelevant to our case.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
10:34 pm
And again, David, I ask you what that means. Do you expect him to acknowledge the existence of the validated document for two of the claims but not for yours? Is that in fact what you believe will happen?
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
10:40 pm
Arthur B.
Prima facie doesn’t mean standing alone. Nothing stands alone in a court of law. Prime facia is the beginning facts. Okay, the court will accept your beginning facts and those facts are only that a birth has occurred and that it was recorded. Now what else do you have that would corroborate those facts? You have his natal records from which his official state brith certificates were produced. You check these documents, again as to their realibility and to the probative value of the documents to see if they can support the prima facie evidence.
ex animo
davidfarrar
ex animo
davidfarrar
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
10:42 pm
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
10:34 pm
It means the court in the first two cases will accept the authenticity of the documents in question, while in the last case, it does not. What’s so heard to grasp about this simple concept?
ex animo
davidfarrar
Dan Farrar
January 27th, 2012
10:43 pm
Commonsense; Ok, you’re probably right about most of your points save the last. It may not have mattered much to the President and in truth it may not have mattered much to many people out side the birther movement but it meant a great deal to the people of Georgia to have their courts and by extension themselves ignored.
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
10:44 pm
David, I’m not sure what you’re saying.
The point of prima facie evidence is that is presumed to be accurate as to its contents. If it says that someone named Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, it proves that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, and assuming he has lived here at least 14 years, he is Constitutionally eligible to be President.
It needs no corroboration to stand as proof of those facts. The burden is on you to prove otherwise.
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
10:48 pm
@David Farrar — “What’s so heard to grasp about this simple concept?”
__
The concept makes no sense. The judge must give a single recommendation as to President Obama’s eligibility using the facts at his disposal. The fact that he has a validated copy of the birth certificate in his hands will influence his decision.
There is only one determination to be made, and he will use the existence of the validated birth certificate to aid him in making that determination.
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
10:53 pm
David —
By the way, you know that that subject is moot anyway. The order that ALJ Malihi issued today invited all parties to submit their final arguments and evidence. You can bet that Mr. Jablonski will see to it that a certified copy of the COLB is sent to him. Then nothing the other attorneys said will even matter — ALJ Malihi will be obligated under the Full Faith and Credit clause to recognize and accept that document.
Watch The Live Feed Of The Georgia Obama Eligibility Hearings At 9am EST Here - Page 6
January 27th, 2012
10:54 pm
[...] 1,155 Times in 838 Posts I like this take on the situation from an Atlanta journalist: Some cold water on overheated birther-mania | Jay Bookman At any rate, the final decision is [Secretary of State Brian] Kemp’s. Regardless of what [...]
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
10:55 pm
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
10:48 pm
The Judge already made his decision…but even if he hadn’t, what’s so hard to imagine the judge overruling the first two cases, while sustaining the last case?
ex animo
davidfarrar
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
10:59 pm
David, you’ll have to explain that to me. What does that mean — Obama would eligible on counts one and two but ineligible on count 3?
That makes no sense. There is only one decision. There are no separate cases to overrule or sustain — there is only one.
Is that not clear to you?
Dan Farrar
January 27th, 2012
11:12 pm
Arthur B: If that’s the case I for one will be much relieved and only wonder why he did not do this at the very first challenge, with his original papers (where they could be examined ) in hand a court of law?
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
11:17 pm
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
10:53 pm
David —
“By the way, you know that that subject is moot anyway. The order that ALJ Malihi issued today invited all parties to submit their final arguments and evidence. You can bet that Mr. Jablonski will see to it that a certified copy of the COLB is sent to him. Then nothing the other attorneys said will even matter — ALJ Malihi will be obligated under the Full Faith and Credit clause to recognize and accept that document.”
As I have said, we all have our delusions; my friend. But in such a case, and considering his last communication to Jablonsik, Sec. Kemp will kindly point out the time to have presented his COLB was in his PTO, so now the Secretary could assess its porper probative value. But, having failed to make such provisions in your PTO, you are now trying to overcome you own failings through ex parte communications with the decision-maker in this case isn’t going to fly too high with Sec. Kemp.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
11:21 pm
Dan, as I was explaining to David, official government documents occupy a special position in the law. They are considered to be prima facie evidence. That means that any court will accept them to prove as fact the information they contain; they are presumed to be accurate. That means that anyone who wishes to dispute the information must overcome that very strong presumption, and actually prove that the document is not to be trusted.
President Obama, unlike any previous President, released a certified copy of his Birth Certificate prior to the 2008 election. He did this voluntarily; there was no legal requirement to do so.
Some people, for reasons that I will not attempt to guess, have tried to undermine the enormous power of the evidence that he has shown. Nevertheless, there is no reason for him to have this document authenticated in any way. It is, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, self-authenticating, just like your birth certificate and mine. People use birth certificates every day to prove when and where they were born, so they can get passports, drivers licenses, etc.
If you think that special procedures are required to validate Barack Obama’s birth certificate, procedures that never seem to be used for anyone else’s birth certificate, you’ve got to make a very strong case to justify it.
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
11:28 pm
David, I’m not sure what you think is a delusion. Are you not aware that ALJ Malihi issued a ruling today, denying Orly’s request for Letters Rogatory and making it clear that “[t]he parties may file any post hearing pleadings by Wednesday, February 1, 2012″?
So, I’m not sure where the delusion concerning “ex parte communications” comes from. The parties have been invited by the judge to make submissions.
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
11:38 pm
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
11:28 pm
yes, all parties….so now you think the judge is asking Jablonski to submit his evidence behind every body’s back is acceptable? Ha! Ha! Ha! Come on now, you can’t believe such trash talk.
Even if that were true, Jablonski would not have been able to sumit evidence that wasn’t in his PTO in the first place. For that reason, the judge would not recognize the COLB even if submitted now, after the hearing.
ex animo
davidfarrar
David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
11:50 pm
Listen everybody:
When candidate Obama ran away from this hearing, he wasn’t running away from the court, but from the incompetence of his own attorney and to his submitted PTO.
ex animo
davidfarrar
David Farrar
January 28th, 2012
12:04 am
Arthur B.
January 27th, 2012
10:44 pm
“David, I’m not sure what you’re saying.
The point of prima facie evidence is that is presumed to be accurate as to its contents. If it says that someone named Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, it proves that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, and assuming he has lived here at least 14 years, he is Constitutionally eligible to be President.
“It needs no corroboration to stand as proof of those facts. The burden is on you to prove otherwise”
It doesn’t prove…it is merely evidence, not proof. And as I said, I have government support that tells me a certified birth certificate is only proof that a birth has occurred and that that birth was recorded. It proves nothing else.
ex animo
davidfarrar
The Nuts Are Falling Out Of The Trees
January 28th, 2012
12:10 am
@Dan Farrar
January 27th, 2012
9:58 pm
Nuts are falling: I’m just relaying what I saw with my own eyes and heard from sworn testimony in a court law. I can tell you, as a reasonable person, the testimony was extremely damaging, indeed criminal. His birth certificate was fake too. One of several things wrong with it was it had two seals on it, when there should only be one. All this will be in the transcript, rather than rely on my, admittedly poor
memory, I suggest getting a copy.
**********************************************************
There is a PLAGUE and can be stopped.
It has spread and is particularly rampant in society.
What is this EVIL PLAGUE?
It is now so commonplace that people are DECIEVED into just accepting it as normal, instead of recognizing and resisting it.
This EPIDEMIC is the practice of LYING and DISHONESTY.
A LYING tongue is not only something God hates, it is also something that is an abomination to Him.
Proverbs 6:16-19 says,
“These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a LYING TONGUE, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A FALSE WITNESS that speaketh LIES, and he that soweth discord among brethren.”
The Nuts Are Falling Out Of The Trees
January 28th, 2012
12:16 am
@David Farrar
January 27th, 2012
11:50 pm
Listen everybody:
When candidate Obama ran away from this hearing, he wasn’t running away from the court, but from the incompetence of his own attorney and to his submitted PTO.
ex animo
davidfarrar
*********************************************************************
GET A LIFE AND STOP LYING………….
Find a girlfriend or friends.
I think you might be lonely and you just need companionship.
Can someone help David?
He needs a friend.
He is starting to scare me now.
Pete
January 28th, 2012
12:23 am
I am an attorney and offer the following. No Court has ruled on the issue of Obama’s eligibility. No Court has ruled on the evidence . No Court has allowed any discovery, no submission of evidence. All of the cases have been dismissed on hyper-legal grounds such as mootness, standing or others. The Supreme Court has declined to hear any of the cases. That is not the same as having heard any evidence.
The big deal here is that a Judge may actually hear evidence and rule on this. There is much to discuss including the fact that some legal search engines were rigged not to find the Supreme Court case that says if one parent is of foreign birth the child is not eligible to be President. Google American Thinker and this issue and you will find the article.
Obama’s father is a Kenyan National. Based on a Supreme Court case from the 1800’s Obama is not eligible. It has nothing to do with his birth certificate, nor the “birther” issue created by the media to distract from the fact Obama is not eligible.
Pete
January 28th, 2012
12:30 am
The birth certificate is not relevant. The only question is was Obama’s father a US citizen at the time of Obama’s birth. His father was Kenyan, that is an indisputable fact. As a result, Obama is not eligible for the Office. It does not matter what Obama’s birth certificate says or does not say, unless it says his father was a US citizen at the time of Obama’s birth. It does not and Obama and his attorney skipped this hearing to avoid perjury charges.
There are a number of interesting issues that come up.
David Farrar
January 28th, 2012
12:45 am
Pete
January 28th, 2012
12:30 am
peter,
while I appreciate the fact that the “birth certificate” issue might be irrelevant to your issue, it is relevant to those of us who also believe he hasn’t even established the validity of his birth yet.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Dena
January 28th, 2012
12:57 am
Pete, please enlighten us as to which search engines are rigged, because the main, respected one at Cornell immediately brings up Minor…
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162
And you’re conveniently overlooking US Vs Wong Kim Ark…
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
Arthur B.
January 28th, 2012
12:58 am
@David Farrar — “Jablonski to submit his evidence behind every body’s back”
__
What on earth are you talking about? All parties have been invited to make their submissions. Nothing is being done behind anybody’s back.
Could it be that you’re not aware of what Orly told the P&E today? They published an interview in which she told them that ALJ Malihi offered the attorneys a default order but they turned it down because they wanted to get their evidence on the record instead.
There is no default. It would have been announced in open court if there had been. All parties are invited to make submissions.
Dena
January 28th, 2012
1:02 am
Also… Arkeny Vs Daniels. http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
“In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12″
Dena
January 28th, 2012
1:04 am
in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898), the United States Supreme Court confronted the question of “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the emperor of China . . . becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment . . . .” 169 U.S. at 653, 18 S. Ct. at 458. We find this case instructive. The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.”…”They noted that “[t]he interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
Dena
January 28th, 2012
1:05 am
Read a little further:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Arthur B.
January 28th, 2012
1:16 am
@David Farrar — “And as I said, I have government support that tells me a certified birth certificate is only proof that a birth has occurred and that that birth was recorded. It proves nothing else.”
__
I don’t understand this one either. Doesn’t it prove that the birth took place on the date given on the birth certificate? And doesn’t it prove that the birth took place in the location given o the birth certificate? And doesn’t it tell us what the name of the baby was?
Because I think that’s how you prove that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961.
Arthur B.
January 28th, 2012
1:31 am
Here, David, I saved you some trouble. This is the P&E quote that I referred to at 12:58:
‘This evening Taitz told The Post & Email that she and the other two attorneys conferred with Judge Malihi in his chambers prior to the hearing, during which Malihi said that since Obama’s attorney was not in attendance, he could issue a default judgment. Alternatively, the attorneys would be allowed to argue their cases if they wished. All three chose to “present their case on the merits.”’
Alternatively. Got that?
Hawaiiborn
January 28th, 2012
3:35 am
@ Pete “Obama’s father is a Kenyan National. Based on a Supreme Court case from the 1800’s Obama is not eligible. It has nothing to do with his birth certificate, nor the “birther” issue created by the media to distract from the fact Obama is not eligible.”
###
I doubt that you are an attorney, because a real attorney wouldn’t make such an unsupported claim. A real attorney would know about Wong Kim Ark and a REAL attorney would know that Ankeny V Daniels, the court determined Barack Obama as a natural born citizen based on Wong Kim Ark. The decision wasn’t appealed in that case, so it now precedent
A real attorney, you are not
@David Farrar “it is relevant to those of us who also believe he hasn’t even established the validity of his birth yet.”
###
Too bad. Its not for you to decide and no candidate is required to establish anything to anyone, accept to the National Parties of both political groups. Elegibility determination is left up to the US Supreme Court. And they have already ruled on a similar case over 135 years ago. US v Wong Kim Ark.
Nathanael
January 28th, 2012
4:27 am
@Annie Fields
Probably because it neither proves anything nor is of any relevance to anything.
I bet you don’t even know what e-Verify is, apart from what you’ve heard through the birther grapevine, and I’m willing to be you hadn’t even heard of it before Taitz inserted it into her “evidence”.
First, of course, if you ask, “Why doesn’t Obama’s SSN e-verify?” you have to tell us which of his purported SSNs you mean. The answer to that, of course, is that at least 38 of them are bogus numbers to begin with.
As to the one Taitz insists is his real SSN — at least, that is, the only one she can find any evidence of him actually having used — well, Taitz herself has done such a good job of splashing that number all over the Intertubes, it’s entirely possible the President has simply gotten a new one.
e-Verify is a system intended to allow employers to verify their employees’ I-9 forms. Only bona fide employers are authorized to access the database, and then only to verify their own employees. Neither Taitz nor any of her investigators is a bona fide employer, nor is Barack Obama their employee. Which means that whoever attempted to access the President’s records through e-Verify to verify his SSN committed a felony in doing so.
Nathanael
January 28th, 2012
4:37 am
@davidfarrar
“It means the court in the first two cases will accept the authenticity of the documents in question, while in the last case, it does not.”
Arthur B. is correct. This makes no sense. This wasn’t three separate trials, it was one hearing. Malihi consolidated the three cases back in December, IIRC. His mandate is to establish the facts relevant to the question before him, and to forward those facts, along with his recommendation, to the SoS. Malihi must make a single recommendation, not three separate, and mutually contradictory recommendations. Either he recommends Obama stay on the ballot or be removed. He can’t say, “Yes, yes, no.”
Nathanael
January 28th, 2012
4:52 am
@Pete
“I am an attorney”
Nope, sorry. Not a chance. You’re not even close.
WTH is “hyper-legal”? Or “mootness”?
“No Court has ruled on the evidence”.
Well, except Ankeny v. Gov. Ind. which, based on WKA DID rule that the President is a NBC regardless of his parentage. Go read the Ankeny decision; it lays out the legal reasoning, discusses the 14th and Minor, correctly applies WKA, and finally tells the plaintiffs exactly why their Vattelist crap is, well, crap (and, yes, “crap” here is the legal term).
Read it at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVERNOR-OF-THE-STATE-OF-INDIANA-APPEALS-COURT-OPINION-11120903
e.vattel
January 28th, 2012
5:15 am
This one’s for Barry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thls_tMuFkc Georgia on My Mind
CommonSense
January 28th, 2012
5:23 am
David Farrar:
You say you “have evidence,” but given the fact that you clearly do not even understand what evidence is renders the claim meaningless.
Dan Farrar:
I am not surprised that you and David have the same DNA, nor am I surprised that you found that idiot attorney and her “evidence” compelling. I am coming to realize that you simply may be incapable of a high enough level of analysis to understand why the evidence was garbage and why it will never convince someone with the intellectual heft to become a respected jurist that your arguments are valid.
and to those making the two parent citizen claim, even if a court bought that crap, it would never make such a ruling because t would wreak havoc and invite so many more legal issues that they simply would not take the risk and change the standard that the government has clearly been abiding by arguably since inception regarding free people born on U.S. soil and especially when they have enough legal precedent to back up a decision against an argument for two parent citizenship requirements based on what some French guy wrote in a book, the meaning of which is left to interpretation based on how one understands punctuation (which, by the way, is not applied the same way in every country). The Supreme Court does take into account the effect a ruling would have in making their decisions. They will never ever decide the wise decision is to throw the country into chaos by requiring nearly every person’s citizenship to be reassessed or requiring a vast number of laws to be re-written because they were based on what would now be an inapplicable standard. It is a ludicrous argument.
David Farrar
January 28th, 2012
7:11 am
Arthur B.
January 28th, 2012
12:58 am
What can I say to you, but that you are wrong. Jablonski can’t refuse to attend a hearing designed to give both sides an opportunity to rebut each others evidence and then turn around and submit it after the hearing. HA! HA! HA!
ex animo
davidfarrar
David Farrar
January 28th, 2012
7:15 am
Arthur B.
January 28th, 2012
1:31 am
Go away!
Your argument is completely silly.
ex animo
davidfarrar
David Farrar
January 28th, 2012
7:18 am
Nathanael
January 28th, 2012
4:37 am
Wrong. The judge separated the three cases on motion by counsel just for this reason.
ex animo
davidfarrar
CommonSense
January 28th, 2012
7:35 am
Yoou know Dave, just because you say something is wrong does not make it so. You are not a lawyer, and you AND your sanctioned correspondence course attorney have made it abundantly clear that what you know about the law amounts to less than that of someone who watched every episode of Perry Mason. I just hope for your sake that you have some Xanax or something for when nothing unfolds the way you stubbornly insist that it will. If you plan to keep fighting this futile fight, at least find an attorney that doesn’t look like someone from a bad Saturday Night Live skit when she is attempting to argue cases. It is funny how people with below average intelligence are never able to recognize when someone is smarter than they are and continue to assume that they are on an even intellectual footing in the discussion.
alg
January 28th, 2012
9:38 am
Mr. Farrar, this was a quasi-judicial administrative hearing, not a trial. In such settings, both oral and written testimony into the record has equal weight. There is no obligation whatsoever that the “defendant” put on a verbal defense. Mr. Malihi has kept the record open through February 1st to allow all parties, including Mr. Jablonski, to augment the records.
Pete, you dn’t sound like a lawyer. If you were you would know that a state-level quasi-judicial administrative proceeding doesn’t afford the presiding judicial officer the authority to make interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. All Mr. Malihi is authorized to do is build a record, make findings of fact and offer a recommendation.
Progressives love the birthier movement « Flexible Reality
January 28th, 2012
10:32 am
[...] decision by Obama’s legal team to completely ignore the supposed merits of the case,Bookman writes that Secretary of State Kemp is likely left with only one choice:At any rate,the final decision is [...]
vietnamvet
January 28th, 2012
10:35 am
IF HIS NAME IS NOT ON THE BALLOT , I WILL WRITE IT ON THE BALLOT.
WRITE IN CANDIDATE.
Arthur B.
January 28th, 2012
10:55 am
@David Farrar — “Arthur B. … 1:31 am … Go away! … Your argument is completely silly.”
__
David, my post at 1:31 was not an argument. It was a direct quote from the P&E. Perhaps they got their facts wrong — maybe they misquoted Orly. Check with them, check with her.
But the article says what it says, and I can understand why you don’t like it. If it’s true, it means that your fantasy of a “default” has been undone by your own lawyer, Orly Taitz. And it would help explain why ALJ Malihi has invited all parties to make submissions.
David, your understanding of the law is very poor and I am afraid you are way, way over your head when it comes to any chance of grasping the situation you are in. I think you are in for a bitter disappointment next week.
The Nuts In Georgia Are Falling Out Of The Trees (and they ain't pecans)
January 28th, 2012
11:25 am
A sane man often reasons from sound premises; an insane man commonly reasons as well, but the premises are unsound.
There are so many kinds of madness as we can see ON THIS BLOG.
A little reason is good for us, a little more makes wise men of some of us–but when our reason
over-grows us and ‘YOU’ REACH TOO FAR, something breaks and ‘YOU’ GO INSANE.
Obama’s presidency is bringing out the INSANITY in the people who hate him.