Some cold water on overheated birther-mania

Kamchak

January 29th, 2012
3:30 pm

“Mrs. Robinson, you’re trying to seduce me. Aren’t you?”
–Thomas Jefferson

CommonSense

January 29th, 2012
3:33 pm

YPW:

That is what I don’t get. If I truly believed in the birther cause, I would want an attorney that met the following criteria:

(1) Graduated from a credible law school.
(2) Was dedicated full-time to the practice or teaching of law.
(3) Had not been sanctioned–especially in the state where I was filing the case–for poor knowledge of the law.
(4) Who was not widely regarded as the butt of a joke.
(5) Who had not been shot down at every level and rejected by the supreme court on multiple occasions.

I think you are right that birthers pick her in part because they don’t have to pay her. They could not afford the kind of lawyer that I am describing. And the fact that nobody with a lot of money, like Donald Trump, for example, has ever hired such an attorney to pursue that kind of case demonstrates that no attorney worth his degree would ever agree to represent a birther and that birtherism is–for most–nothing but a political ploy. They know the arguments are meritless, but they hope it will damage the president and that is their primary goal.

And yeah, I would never let her put a drill anywhere near my mouth let alone pay her to do it. Maybe she practices dentistry pro bono, too?

Georgia Judge Orders Obama off the Ballot - Page 3 - Political Wrinkles

January 29th, 2012
3:39 pm

[...] [...]

y_p_w

January 29th, 2012
4:02 pm

I think a more competent attorney wouldn’t have to be that expensive. One wouldn’t need Johnnie Cochran (RIP) to at least do a minimally competent job. An attorney from a real law school fresh from passing the Bar Exam could probably do a better job than Orly Taitz.

It really boggles my mind that after all the complaints and referrals to the State Bar of California that Orly Taitz hasn’t been sanctioned. How many attorneys are allowed to continually get away with not only incompetent representation, but also with declaring in open court that their opposing attorneys and judges are criminally negligent. I’m actually surprised that Clay Land didn’t put her in the pokey for contempt of court.

y_p_w

January 29th, 2012
4:25 pm

Honestly, this is what I would suggest that SoS Kemp do. I would think that he is allowed to do some of his own fact-finding. He could send off a letter to the Hawaii Director of Health asking her to send a reply personally verifying the information that former Director of Health Fukino issued in the official public statements of 2008. I know they typically only refer to the website statement when asked, but for someone like the Georgia SoS I’d think they would be willing to make a direct reply and maybe even place the official Dept of Health seal on the letter.

Of course there’s a rumor that Kemp already has a COLB for Obama in his office’s possession, so that could very well be moot. If he’s got one and ignores it, then I would think that Hawaii would have every right to deny the validity of any certified Georgia document.

David Farrar

January 29th, 2012
4:25 pm

Arthur B.
January 29th, 2012
2:46 pm

I can assure you, Administrative Law Judge Malihi will not deem anything from Janblonski as “appropriate,” especially any evidence, period.

ex animo
davudfarrar

CommonSense

January 29th, 2012
4:36 pm

David Farrar:

You said: “I can assure you, Administrative Law Judge Malihi will not deem anything from Janblonski as “appropriate,” especially any evidence, period.”

Without any basis for your “assurances,” they are meaningless. You can assure all you want, but you have provided NOTHING to support why your “assurance” is correct. Others, however, have cited the state’s own rules about evidence and when it can be accepted and how it should be weighed in the administrative setting. That carries far more weight than your unsupported “assurances.”

I can assure you that I am an accomplished violinist, too, but what reason would you have to believe me? So, put up or shut up, Farrar. Please share with us the legal basis for why Malihi will decide not to follow the proper procedures that the government has established for an administrative hearing and will instead refuse to deem “anything” from Jablonski as “appropriate.”

What, you can’t do it? Of course you can’t, because THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS for your “assurance.” It is merely what you want to happen, not what will happen.

David Farrar

January 29th, 2012
4:45 pm

CommonSense
January 29th, 2012
4:36 pm

So here read the whole cite:

OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
CHAPTER 616-1-2
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OF PROCEDURE

616-1-2-.30 Default. Amended.

(1) A default order may be entered against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding, a party that fails to file any required pleading, or a party that fails to comply with an order issued by the Administrative Law Judge.

(2) Any default order may provide for a default as to all issues, a default as to specific issues, or other limitations, including limitations on the presentation of evidence and on the defaulting party’s continued participation in the proceeding. After issuing a default order, the Administrative Law Judge shall proceed as necessary to resolve the case without the participation of the defaulting party, or with such limited participation as the Administrative Law Judge deems appropriate, and shall determine all issues in the proceeding, including those affecting the party in default.

If you don’t believe me, find. Come Feb 2, 2012, candidate Obama will find out the difference between “do so at your own “risk” and “do so at your won peril”.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Hawaiiborn

January 29th, 2012
5:02 pm

@David Farrar

You should read (2) again:

(2) Any default order may provide for a default as to all issues, a default as to specific issues, or other limitations, including limitations on the presentation of evidence and on the defaulting party’s continued participation in the proceeding. After issuing a default order, the Administrative Law Judge shall proceed as necessary to resolve the case without the participation of the defaulting party, or with such limited participation as the Administrative Law Judge deems appropriate, and shall determine all issues in the proceeding, including those affecting the party in default.

The administrative judge can proceed as he wishes to resolves these issues. Malihi already stated that he is ACCEPTING all documents from ALL Parties as it pertains to the case, even though Jablonski didn’t show.

And it doesn’t matter, because whatever Malihi decides, SOS Kemp has in his possession, a certified copy of Barack Obama’s COLB, provided to him by Jablonski. That puts to rest the eligibility portion of the case.

Arthur B.

January 29th, 2012
5:04 pm

@David Farrar — “So here read the whole cite:”
__

Yes, and it does your argument more harm than good. What it shows is that clause 2, which clearly states that the ALJ may allow participation from the defaulting party if he deems it appropriate to resolve the case, holds under the circumstances described in clause 1, in which a default order is entered against a party that fails to participate in a stage of the proceeding.

That really doesn’t help you one bit, does it?

y_p_w

January 29th, 2012
5:33 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

ORDER

The parties may file any post hearing pleadings by Wednesday, February 2, 2012. The court will issue a recommendation to the Secretary of State shortly thereafter.

Suranis

January 29th, 2012
5:43 pm

I can assure you, Administrative Law Judge Malihi will not deem anything from Janblonski as “appropriate,” especially any evidence, period.

ex anus
davudfarrar

Well that’s convincing. We’re doomed guys! DUUUMED!!

Arthur B.

January 29th, 2012
5:43 pm

It seems to me that pretty much all of this discussion boils down to two issues.

1) If there is a birth certificate in the record, have David/Orly presented evidence that would cause the very strong full-faith-and-credit presumption in favor of the document to be overcome? I’ve asked David this several times, but so far he hasn’t responded. From watching the hearing live, I was not aware of any competent and relevant testimony.

2) Will Malihi and/or Kemp take into consideration that Obama has a Hawaiian birth certificate? There was at least one introduced at the hearing; presumably a certified copy has been directed their way by Jablonski; and it is wide-spread, common knowledge that it exists. It seems to me that the requirement under the law that the ALJ “proceed as necessary to resolve the case” means that he must take all known facts into account in his search for the truth, but on the other side we have David’s “assurances” that no such thing will happen even though the law clearly gives the ALJ the authority to do so.

David Farrar

January 29th, 2012
5:47 pm

y_p_w
January 29th, 2012
5:33 pm

To the parties seated in front of the judge when he gave those instructions. But, listen, as you know, you are as welcome to your own delusions as much as I am a slave to mine. But I am through arguing what has become, essentially, a reductio ad absurdum thread.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Suranis

January 29th, 2012
5:54 pm

Uh David, the only parties seated in front of the judge when he gave that order were Orly and you. The others had left an hour beforehand. Don’t you remember?

Arthur B.

January 29th, 2012
6:28 pm

Oh, David, I think I figured something out for you. Back a coupe of days ago, you said, “I can tell you Judge Malihi is going to enter a default judgement against candidate Barack Obama.” And I bet you really believe that — that’s probably what Orly told you. And she really believes it too.

But Administrative Law Judges don’t issue judgements; they enter orders and they make recommendations.

What ALJ Malihi may have said is “I will enter a default order against President Obama.” I’m not surprised that Orly misunderstood him. But, as is clear from the fragment of Administrative Code that’s been posted here many times, a Default Order is not the same as a Default Judgement. It simply does not mean that ALJ Malihi has committed to recommending that the President be taken off the ballot. It means just what the law says — that he will “proceed as necessary to resolve the case.”

Think about it, David. You’ve misunderstood an important part of what’s going on.

David Farrar

January 29th, 2012
6:38 pm

“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”?…Jay Bookman.

But Mr. Bookman, that’s just the point….Janbloski could have swatted these “birthers’ evidence aside with his client’s two birth certificates, and a rousing rendition of Wong Kim Ark.

The fact is when it can time for candidate Obama to show up with his papers; he ran away. When it came time to place Wong Kim Ark into the record, Janbloski was nowhere to be heard.

Sadly, nothing has changed. Candidate Obama still hasn’t proven he has met his qualifications, and we still don’t know what the heck a natural born Citizen (with a capital “C”) is beyond a person born within the jurisdiction of two citizen parents.

ex animo
davidfarrar

David Farrar

January 29th, 2012
6:45 pm

Suranis
January 29th, 2012
5:54 pm

This was said during the 20 minute in camera meeting held prior to court.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Kamchak

January 29th, 2012
6:55 pm

David Farrar

January 29th, 2012
5:47 pm

[...] But I am through arguing what has become, essentially, a reductio ad absurdum thread.

Evidence proves otherwise.

Just sayin’.

Suranis

January 29th, 2012
7:14 pm

Suranis
January 29th, 2012
5:54 pm

This was said during the 20 minute in camera meeting held prior to court.

ex africa
davidfarrar

No it wasn’t, you obfuscating buffoon. First the Judge ordered the parties to submit written evidence by the 5that the END of the hearing, which was where everyone got the 5th of February from. There’s video evidence for this and we will soon have a transcript. That’s when the other plaintiffs had left as they could not stand to hear Orly mangle her way through a case.

Second, Cant you remember what was posted an hour ago? this was said in his order Y-P-W. Remember;

The parties may file any post hearing pleadings by Wednesday, February 1, 2012. The Court will issue a recommendation to the Secretary of State shortly thereafter.

The Court has reviewed the motion by Plaintiffs, Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren, and Roth, to direct
and/or request the Court in Hawaii to order the release of certain Hawaii documents to the
Plaintiffs. This Court lacks jurisdiction or authority to direct or request documents from
Hawaii. Plaintiffs’ motion is denied.

Aside from the thrill of seeing yet another Orly fail, it can be noted that your side were refereed to as plaintiffs. All parties means all sides involved in a case. If the judge wanted a submission from just your side he would have used the word plaintiffs like every other court in the universe outside the boundaries of your own head.

Oh and by the way, you got the use of Reductio ad Absurdum wrong

Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable.

David Farrar

January 29th, 2012
7:34 pm

Suranis
January 29th, 2012
7:14 pm

Reductio ad Absurdum

Your Honor; I rest my case.

ex animo
davidfarrar

David Farrar

January 29th, 2012
7:47 pm

Georgia SoS Kemp doesn’t have the legal authority to tell the Democratic party which candidates they may place of Georgia’s PPP ballot. But SoS Kemp does have the legal authority to restrict Georgia’s PPP ballot access to those qualified to hold the office sought.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Kamchak

January 29th, 2012
7:47 pm

David Farrar

January 29th, 2012
7:34 pm

You continue to post despite your statement of being through with this thread.

I rest my case.

Suranis

January 29th, 2012
7:49 pm

So, you’re calling your own beliefs an absurdity? Not to mention you think that pointing out where you simply lied is arguing that the opposite of what I’m saying is absurd? Oh, fair enough.

Hope everyone else is enjoying this =

Arthur B.

January 29th, 2012
8:01 pm

You know, David, a bit earlier (4:45 pm) you posted the fragment of Georgia law that authorizes ALJs to issue Default Orders.

But you said the other day that ALJ Malihi was going to issue a Default Judgement. Why don’t you cite the law that says he has the authority to do that?

Or would you rather say that you had it wrong at first, it’s really a Default Order that’s in play here?

It makes a big difference, you know, and I’d like to know what you think.

Arthur B.

January 29th, 2012
8:55 pm

You know, folks, I remember a few years ago when Orly first discovered defaults. She thought they were the greatest thing since sliced bread, and since then she’s petitioned probably dozens of judges to award her defaults because various parties didn’t respond as she thought they should. She never succeeded, at least not in any birther cases.

But last week she thought she had hit pay dirt — ALJ Malihi told her that, because there was no one at the defense table, he was going to issue a default order against Obama.

This was the moment Orly had dreamed of, or so she believed. But English is not her first language, and law is not her primary area of expertise, to put it mildly. It was a natural mistake to make.

So she happily informed her client, David, that they had won. And that’s why David is so confident today that he knows what the outcome will be.

But, bottom line, a Default Order is not a Default Judgement. The consequences of a Default Order are precisely those specified in the section of Administrative Code that David posted earlier. The law simply does not say that a Default Order will result in a pre-determined outcome; instead it says that the ALJ will “proceed as necessary to resolve the case” and is free to admit the contributions of the defaulting party.

David Farrar

January 29th, 2012
10:31 pm

Arthur B.
January 29th, 2012
8:01 pm

I can only tell you what I heard, and it wasn’t from Orly.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Arthur B.

January 29th, 2012
10:41 pm

So, did you hear “default order” or “default judgement”? If you indeed heard “default judgement,” then it would be helpful to have the law that defines what sort of “default judgement” lies within the power of an Administrative Law Judge. The only law we’ve been able to find so far concerns “default orders,” and I personally doubt that a “default judgement” is one of ALJ Malihi’s options.

If on the other hand it was a “default order,” then it’s very clear what it means under the law. It is not an automatic win for the plaintiff. It is a different animal altogether from a “default judgement.”

David Farrar

January 29th, 2012
11:13 pm

Jay
January 29th, 2012
6:50 pm

Yes we do. We have 90 minutes of uncontested testimony, plus rims of uncontested documentary evidence.

ex animo
davidfarrar

David Farrar

January 29th, 2012
11:15 pm

Arthur B.
January 29th, 2012
10:41 pm

I heard “default” judgement. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Arthur B.

January 29th, 2012
11:16 pm

David, I think Jay was referring not just to the length of the proceeding but rather to the substantive value of the presentation.

As I’ve asked you many times, in what way does your evidence show that President Obama is not eligible to hold the position?

Arthur B.

January 29th, 2012
11:19 pm

@David Farrar — “I heard “default” judgement. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.”
__

OK, thank you. That explains why you think you’ve won the case.

On the other hand, those of us who haven’t been able to find any law that would give ALJ Malihi the power to issue a default judgement will more likely conclude that it was in fact a default order, and so the outcome remains an open question as ALJ Malihi considers submissions from all the parties.

David Farrar

January 29th, 2012
11:33 pm

Arthur B.
January 29th, 2012
11:19 pm

Hey! Whatever makes you sleep better at night because come Feb. 3rd, when Sec. Kemp pulls candidate Obama’s name off of the Georgia’s presidential preference primary ballot, you guys aren’t going to be getting very much sleep there afterward.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Suranis

January 30th, 2012
12:19 am

Well well well, look who was superposed to appear and also did not appear. That’s right, Brian P Kemp, SOS of Georgia!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79683411/2012-01-19-Swensson-Subpoena-Duces-Tecum-to-SOS

Wow, the list of people that “disrespected the court” on this is getting mighty long isn’t it, Davy boy? And all you are focused on is Obama. No wonder the Lawyer of the Democratic party blew off this circus. Everyone else did.

I heard “default” judgement. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

ex ass
davidfarrar

Unless you were one of the 3 lawyers in the room with the judge, and you weren’t, then you heard precisely jack. All you have is an extremely biased “someone’s” recollection of the judge saying something that was not in his power to grant according to Georgia law and also the rules for default. So you are basically putting all your stock on second hand hearsay of the Judge promising to break the law. Uh, not a chance in hell.

You really aren’t the sharpest knife in the drawer are you, Farrar. No wonder they used to laugh at you on TPM.

Fire Idiot Bookman

January 30th, 2012
12:25 am

Obviously the idiot Bookman has been fooled by the master con artist Obama who is likely not even a citizen, but a lying illegal immigrant. The cowardly judges in all other hearings have arbitrarily and capriciously dismissed the cases on technicalities. This is the first case a judge allowed testimony under oath. But idiot Bookman ignored all of it in his meaningless propaganda. Hitler would be proud of idiot Bookman. He swallowed all the lies of BO hook, line and sinker.
First idiot Bookman says Kemp has the final word regardless of what the judge rules. Then he tells us that if Kemp rules BO off the Georgia ballot, the ruling will be overruled by a federal or higher court as if the other side does not have any appeal rights; only BO who did not even show up. Bookman is a mentally impaired idiot who must be fired by is employer the AJC. The only thing Jay Bookman learned in school was how to copy Adolph Hitler and Joseph Goebbels. Idiot bookman may be correct in his speculation that BO will still be on the ballot, but he presented no, zero, facts to support the conclusion. This is why he should be fired immediately. He is a propaganda idiot.

Suranis

January 30th, 2012
12:44 am

Hey! Whatever makes you sleep better at night because come Feb. 3rd, when Sec. Kemp pulls candidate Obama’s name off of the Georgia’s presidential preference primary ballot, you guys aren’t going to be getting very much sleep there afterward.

ex Aaah!
davidfarrar

Either way, Obama gets on the ballot. And the GOP has to actually make a decision on supporting birtherism or not. Frankly I hope Kemp does try and block Obama, the DNC lawyers will ram that decision right back at him and the carnage that results will result will be beautiful. And it will be all played out on national headlines.

Either way, your name will be on the case that affirms Barack Obama’s name on the ballot.

Nathanael

January 30th, 2012
1:21 am

@davidfarrar

“But SoS Kemp does have the legal authority to restrict Georgia’s PPP ballot access to those qualified to hold the office sought.”

You’re not going to win that way, either. If Kemp torpedoes the PPP (NOT gonna happen), the DPoG need only switch to a caucus, mail-in ballots or an online Facebook poll — the SoS has no power to dictate any party’s selection process — pending approval of the DNC. But that request only has to be made prior to thirty days before the national convention, i.e., end of August.

And remember, the general election is legally about selecting electors, not a candidate, so you won’t even have the possibility of challenging Obama’s eligibility the second go-round.

So, even if in some wild Twilight Zone reality you get the result you think you’re going to get from Malihi/Kemp, and on the wildly improbable assumption the federal courts don’t kick Kemp’s ass all the way back to Atlanta, Obama will still be on the ballot in November in Georgia.

Just keep rolling that stone, Sisyphus.

Ed Darrell

January 30th, 2012
2:51 am

Eli Jones, here: http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/01/27/some-cold-water-on-overheated-birther-mania/#comment-844912

Print that out, and take it to your personal physician. Show it to her or him. Please follow any advice the physician gives you at that time.

There is no personal army for Obama anywhere, nor would any American serve in such an illegal group. Shame on you.

Tim

January 30th, 2012
3:46 am

Don’t all you right wingers get it?

This Birther nonsense may satisfy some basic need deep within you to say that Obama is an illegitimate President. But in the end, keeping it alive only helps Barack Obama. I’m sure that’s one of the reasons Obama’s people didn’t bother showing up. He gets to appear reasoned while you look crazy.

It’s like your mortal enemy is threatening to kill themselves if you don’t show up for a fight. All the while, you’re thinking humorously….oh no, please don’t..lmao…no…no don’t …I’m sorry I can’t stop laughing

Go ahead Kemp, make Obama’s day and Orly Taitz also, whom I’m sure is making a pretty penny selling this birther drug to the whacko side of the Republican party.

David Farrar

January 30th, 2012
6:08 am

Tim

January 30th, 2012
3:46 am

No, Tim. The reason why candidate Obama AND his attorney didn’t show up is because Jablonski’s PTO left them virtually defenselss. Thery knew they were going to lose. They couldn’t even enter cadidate Obama’s own birth certificates into the record as evidence.

ex animo
davidfarrar

David Farrar

January 30th, 2012
7:26 am

Taken from the American Thinker discussing Attorney Van Irion’s follow-up letter from his Liberty Legal Foundation: “Yesterday President Obama completely ignored a court subpoena, and the world shrugged.”

Yes, Obama shrugged, and the media has shrugged along. Irion further noted:

“Obama’s behavior yesterday is even more disturbing than Nixon’s. Nixon at least respected the judicial branch enough to have his attorneys show up in court and follow procedure[.] … Nixon acknowledged the authority of the judicial branch even while he fought it. Obama, on the other hand, essentially said yesterday that the judicial branch has no power over him. He ordered his attorneys to stay away from the hearing. He didn’t petition a higher court in a legitimate attempt to stay the hearing[.] … Rather than respecting the legal process, Obama went around the courts and tried to put political pressure directly on the Georgia Secretary of State. When that failed, he simply ignored the judicial branch completely.”

ex animo
davidfarrar

After hearing, Georgia “birther ballot” still undecided | American Vision News

January 30th, 2012
7:27 am

[...] picked up the line of left-leaning columnist Jay Bookman (Atlanta Journal-Constitution) who said,At any rate, the final decision is Kemp’s. Regardless of what Malihi recommends, Kemp does not [...]

David Farrar

January 30th, 2012
8:25 am

Tim

January 30th, 2012
3:46 am

No, Tim. The reason why candidate Obama AND his attorney didn’t show up to this trial is because Jablonski’s PTO left them virtually defenselss, with no possibility of entering candidate Obama’s birth certificates into evidence. They knew their goose was cooked if they went to trial. So what did they do to remedy the situation? They simply stuffed candidate Obama’s birth certificate into Jablonski’s letter to Sec. Kemp and ran out of town.

ex animo
davidfarrar

David Farrar

January 30th, 2012
9:38 am

If I were Newt, because, surely, Mitt isn’t going to touch this issue with a ten-foot pole, not with his own nbC questions left out there unanswered — if I were Newt, I’d engage this issue and take it to the hilt, just like Trump. The issue is now ripe for the compaign trail. Here is the line of approach: “He didn’t seek higher court protection in an effort to stop the hearing. He just didn’t show up.”

ex animo
davidfarrar

Kamchak

January 30th, 2012
9:39 am

David Farrar

January 30th, 2012
8:25 am

11th post since posting But I am through arguing what has become, essentially, a reductio ad absurdum thread.

Just sayin’.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

January 30th, 2012
9:41 am

Ahh, more of the running away and running out of town language from the person who runs away repeatedly from defending his claim that being a Georgia notary makes him an expert on birth certificates. Funny how some can’t distinguish between legal strategy and basic legal issues and being “ran out of time”. But thump your chest some more….. while you run away yourself

Midori

January 30th, 2012
9:51 am

LOL –

It’s BIRTH-A-PALOOZA!!

Joe Hussein Mama

January 30th, 2012
10:02 am

D. Farrar — “I am serious. I want candidate Barack Obama to “prove” he has met his constitutional qualifications…”

He doesn’t have to. That’s what we’ve been trying to tell you.

So long as the State of Hawaii attests to the validity of his BC, it’s game over for you. And your side even *stipulated* to its validity as well.

There’s no obligation to prove he’s met his Constitutional obligations because he’s already *met* them in the Constitutional manner. And you and the other complainants have already *agreed* — in court — that he’s done it. (laughing)

Arthur B.

January 30th, 2012
10:30 am

@David Farrar — “Jablonski’s PTO left them virtually defenselss”
__

Um, defenseless against what? I’ve asked you repeatedly what evidence your side has brought against which Obama needs a defense. Have you nothing at all to say?

Come on, name just one. What’s your strongest argument? What’s the best case you’ve made for why the President isn’t eligible for the office?

You haven’t taken a single step toward addressing that. Talk about running away!

David Farrar

January 30th, 2012
10:35 am

Joe Hussein Mama

January 30th, 2012
10:02 am

My case didn’t *stipulated* to its validity. And as I explained, when it came time to assert the State of Hawaii attestations as to the validity of candidate Obama’s two birth certificates, not a word was heard from anybody representing candidate Obama’s interests at this court setting.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Joe Hussein Mama

January 30th, 2012
10:44 am

D. Farrar — “My case didn’t *stipulated* to its validity.”

Yes, your side did. (laughing)

“And as I explained, when it came time to assert the State of Hawaii attestations as to the validity of candidate Obama’s two birth certificates, not a word was heard from anybody representing candidate Obama’s interests at this court setting.”

Irrelevant. The State of Hawaii has *already* stipulated, and per the Constitution, all other States are obliged to accept that stipulation as if it were one of their own validly issued documents. You don’t seem to understand the fact that there is a presumption of validity to Obama’s BC that doesn’t go away just because you have questions about it. No one’s obliged to show up in court and defend it, as under the Constitution, it is *presumed valid* from the outset.

Your suspicions won’t overcome that presumption. You either have to have *hard evidence* that something’s fundamentally wrong with it (and therefore renders it invalid), or you go home with no consolation prize. And you don’t get to go on a fishing expedition and grill people about it either. You either have hard evidence from the get-go, or you’re going to lose.

Arthur B.

January 30th, 2012
11:32 am

Well, folks, David seems reluctant to describe to us the most powerful points made by his side in the hearing.

But, fortunately, the full transcript has now been posted online. You can find it at http://www.scribd.com/doc/79854011/Georgia-Farrar-et-al-v-Obama-Certified-Transcript-1-26-12-Hearing-tfb, and maybe someone else can point me to the compelling evidence and arguments that show President Obama to be ineligible for the office.

You’ll get some good chuckles out of Orly’s incompetence too.

Joe Hussein Mama

January 30th, 2012
11:49 am

“In Utah, an August 2009 poll carried out for the Deseret News and KSL-TV found that 67% of Utahns accepted the evidence that Obama was born in the U.S. The poll found that those who do not believe that Obama was born in the United States, or do not know, are predominantly middle-aged, lower-income Republican-leaning individuals without a college education.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthers#Opinion_surveys

Suranis

January 30th, 2012
11:57 am

David Farrar

Taken from the American Thinker discussing Attorney Van Irion’s follow-up letter from his Liberty Legal Foundation: “Yesterday President Obama completely ignored a court subpoena, and the world shrugged.”

As did Brian Kemp, and 2/3 of the witnesses subpoenaed by your own case and your own lawyer. As did *drumroll* sheriff Joe Aripo of Arizona. Are you going to say Sheriff Joe is breaking the law too?

And lets look at the reasons he gave for not turning up…

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79674934/Georgia-Farrar-v-Obama-Response-From-Joe-Arpaio-to-Orly-Re-Subpoena

Which means that he blew Orly, your lawyer, off as her subpena was illegal. So the headline should be “Yesterday half the world completely ignored an illegal court subpoena, and the world shrugged.”

Georgia SoS Kemp doesn’t have the legal authority to tell the Democratic party which candidates they may place of Georgia’s PPP ballot. But SoS Kemp does have the legal authority to restrict Georgia’s PPP ballot access to those qualified to hold the office sought.

That’s an interesting theory, but that it was rejected in Terry v. Handel. Try and square that case with your, uh, inventive theories.

And since I don’t have much time right now I’ll leave you with this, since you want to point us to blog posts I’ll point you at this one;- Did Orly Taitz Commit Perjury in a Hawaiian Court Filing or Is She Just That Incompetent?

http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/breaking-did-orly-taitz-perjure-herself-in-a-hawaii-court-filing-or-is-she-just-that-incompetent/

Enjoy!

Nathanael

January 30th, 2012
12:28 pm

SIGH. Here we go again.

@davidfarrar 7:26am

“Obama … said yesterday that the judicial branch has no power over him….. When that failed, he simply ignored the judicial branch completely.”

It WASN’T the freakin’ JUDICIAL branch. You were in the EXECUTIVE branch! Please, David. Can you at LEAST keep straight which branch of government you were talking to? This was NOT a law court. Full stop.

@davidfarrar 8:25am

“They knew their goose was cooked if they went to trial.”

IT WASN’T A TRIAL! It was an administrative hearing! It wasn’t a law court! It was an ADMINISTRATIVE court. It WASN’T the judicial branch. It was the EXECUTIVE branch!

Got it yet?

[Everyone else -- I apologize for all the yelling. Some people around here seem to be hard of hearing.]

Nathanael

January 30th, 2012
1:32 pm

@Arthur B.

“Well, folks, David seems reluctant to describe to us the most powerful points made by his side in the hearing.”

I’ve asked him myself at least twice. He just doesn’t want to go there. I wonder why?

I came over to post the links to the transcripts, but I see you beat me to it. To anyone reading these comments, I second Arthur. Go read the complete transcript of Farrar, et al.’s case keeping in mind the following:

The complainants were asserting that President Obama was not qualified to hold the office of President. The Constitution of the United States sets forth three qualifications for POTUS: 1. natural born citizen. 2. At least 35 years of age. 3. At least fourteen years a resident. Those are the only qualifications necessary.

Keeping those three qualifications in mind, here was Farrar’s case:

Taitz begins by launching into an utterly disjointed, nearly incomprehensible overview of the de Vattelist/Minor v. Happersett crappola, but the judge cuts her off.

Then came the witnesses. David testified he’s a registered Ga. voter, while Daniels, Vogt, Papa and Sampson discuss social security numbers, PDF files and immigration records. Finally, in her closing argument, Taitz tries to make a case that Obama has used other names.

And that was it. Aside from her aborted “just the highlights” tour of Donofrio’s 2-citizen parent theory, there was literally not one word spoken relevant to the Constitutional qualifications for president.

No wonder Farrar doesn’t want to go there.

Go read it for yourself, folks. I feel bad for Mr. Farrar, I really do. He got played by Taitz, and now he’s got to live with his name attached to THIS.

Arthur B.

January 30th, 2012
1:46 pm

@Nathanael — ‘And that was it. Aside from her aborted “just the highlights” tour of Donofrio’s 2-citizen parent theory, there was literally not one word spoken relevant to the Constitutional qualifications for president.’
__

So true. Not a single piece of relevant evidence or testimony.

I’m inclined to believe that ALJ Malihi was annoyed that Mr. Jablonski was unwilling to be another performer in his little circus, and might have liked to punish him for not showing up.

But, as we’ve seen from the Georgia Administrative Code, that is not within his power. He is obligated to search for the truth. The so-called “default judgement” was in fact a misunderstanding for “default order,” and the law makes it abundantly clear that a default order does not imply a finding against the defaulting party.

Jablonski made the very safe bet that Orly/Farrar’s arguments were so weak that they couldn’t even succeed unopposed, and the transcript verifies that he was on the right side of that wager.

Arthur B.

January 30th, 2012
2:05 pm

Oh, and one more thing. Orly’s presentation was not something she needed to come up with at short notice. She’s been working for three years to follow up on her suspicions, research her leads, refine her evidence, separate the wheat from the chaff, and come up with the very best arguments to show that President Obama is not eligible for the position. She’s said repeatedly that she’s been working essentially full-time (”24/7/365″) in preparation for the moment when she could call her witnesses, introduce her evidence, and make her case.

Maybe she’s not the best presenter in the legal world, but she ought at least to be knowledgeable about the current state of the evidence.

And what we saw on Thursday was the very best arguments that the birthers have to offer.

Think about that. It’s really pathetic.

Suranis

January 30th, 2012
3:09 pm

Another thing, According the the transcript. Orly Taitz introduced her evidence but did not admit them onto the record

For example

Welden p 6.

10 MR. IRION: Move to have exhibit marked for
11 identification Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 into the record.
12 JUDGE MALIHI: Plaintiff’s 1 is in the record.
13 (The document, heretofore marked as
14 Plaintiff’s Exhibit Number 1, was
15 received in evidence.)

Welden p 8.

17 MR. IRION: And move that Plaintiff’s exhibit
18 marked for identification as Exhibit 3, be moved into the
19 record.
20 JUDGE MALIHI: Three is in the record.

Orly did none of that. That means that not a single thing she brought to the case is on the record as evidence in the case. That means that if, as David Farrar is aserting, no nore evidence can be admitted after the trial, then as Taitz got a grand total of NO EVIDENCE AT ALL into the record and none of it can be used, then she has torpedoed her chanced of getting any of her “explosive evidence” into the case on appeal.

I will remind David Farrar that he brought this woman into the case himself.

I hope to hell Kemp tries to block Obama based on this case. Pleasepleaseplease.

David Farrar

January 30th, 2012
3:11 pm

Joe Hussein Mama

January 30th, 2012
10:44 am

You are as welcome to your own beliefs as I am to mine.

ex animo
davidfarrar

David Farrar

January 30th, 2012
3:14 pm

Nathanael

January 30th, 2012
12:28 pm

You are going to have to take what candidate Obama said up with the candidate.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Joe Hussein Mama

January 30th, 2012
3:27 pm

D. Farrar — “You are as welcome to your own beliefs as I am to mine.”

I’m asserting facts, not beliefs.

Your beliefs are of no consequence in this case, and you will fail in your efforts.

Michael Ferguson

January 30th, 2012
4:58 pm

The reporter apparently didn’t look at the definition of “natural born citizen” in the US Supreme Court ruling in Minor v. Happersett. He seems to be stuck on the idea that all it requies is being born in the country. It’s actually a compound requirement . .. born in the country to parents who are both citizens.

It’s the second part of that compound requirement that Obama fails. His father was not an American citizen.

Obama himself confirmed the definition of natural born citizen includes requirement of both parents being citizens. See Senate Resolutoin 511, agreed to by the Senate on April 30, 2008 . One of the co-sponsors of the resolution is Barrack Obama.

But then reporting these days doesn’t seem to contain any research.

David Farrar

January 30th, 2012
5:11 pm

Joe Hussein Mama

January 30th, 2012
3:27 pm

D. Farrar — “My case didn’t *stipulated* to its validity.”

Yes, your side did

Okay, show me where in the transcript candate Obama, or his attorney, moved his birth certificates into evidence; please?

ex animo
davidfarrar

Joe Hussein Mama

January 30th, 2012
5:31 pm

D. Farrar — “Okay, show me where in the transcript candate Obama, or his attorney, moved his birth certificates into evidence; please?

Have you not been *reading* this thread? (laughing)

This was explained to you at *least* twice over the weekend. If you didn’t read it either of those two times, you’re not going to suddenly catch on when I repeat it now. (laughing)

Tell us now about your previously claimed notary status and the special ability/expert status you supposedly have in this regard. We’d all like to be enlightened as to the nature of that particular set of claims you’ve made.

Chilidog

January 30th, 2012
6:08 pm

Hey, Mike Ferguson, I’ll see your Minor cite and raise with a Wong Kim Ark.

You have no cards left.

I have still have Perkins v. Elg, Afroyim v. Rusk, Arkeny v. Governor of Indiana, and a few others, all of which beat yours.

I win.

Dena

January 30th, 2012
6:24 pm

Also, Michael, nothing in 511 defines a natural born citizen.

It affirms that McCain is a natural-born citizen. It does nothing to DEFINE natural born citizen.

Oh, and Senate Resolutions? Don’t trump SCOTUS or Federal Court decisions.

Arthur B.

January 30th, 2012
6:25 pm

@Michael Ferguson — “It’s actually a compound requirement … See Senate Resolutoin 511″
__

How’s your reading comprehension, Mike? Not too good, I think, because Senate Resolution 511 flatly contradicts your claim that a NBC is “born in the country to parents who are both citizens.”

Notice the sixth “Whereas” clause? Allow me to remind you of what it says:

“Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President…”

So, the Resolution makes it clear that it considers NBCship not to be a compound requirement. A citizen is, by the Senate’s reasoning, an NBC by virtue of having fulfilled at least one of the two requirements.

Now, that’s a logical theory, and a widely though not universally held one. The Senate Resolution was of course non-binding, and was generally seen as a courtesy to a fellow member of the Senate. Nevertheless, my guess is that then-Senator Obama, having been a Professor of Constitutional Law, was comfortable singing on to the theory that satisfying either criterion was sufficient.

David Farrar

January 30th, 2012
6:48 pm

Joe Hussein Mama

January 30th, 2012
5:31 pm

In the hearing transcripts…show me where in my case candidate Obama’s birth certificates were put into .evidence?

ex animo
davidfarrar

y_p_w

January 30th, 2012
8:54 pm

You really think this is three separate cases where the judge is going to have three different recommendations based on the three separate groups of plaintiffs?

Welden v Obama definitely introduced it:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79854233/Georgia-Welden-v-Obama-Certified-Transcript-1-26-12-Hearing-tfb

Georgia’s rules of evidence are about seeing the highest truth. For the judge to recognize the validity of a piece of evidence for one case yet ignore it for another would seem to be on its face ludicrous. This isn’t a set of criminal trials which are separated and where the DA and the defense are in a vacuum free from the influence of another case. It’s not an I win you lose situation, but a fact-finding search. I believe all the parties (including other plaintiff’s attorneys) are free to object if there’s an issue that they feel is prejudicial to their own client or their own strategy.

y_p_w

January 30th, 2012
9:08 pm

You know, right now I believe that McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, although he’s been somewhat reticent to share a copy of his birth certificate. I had some doubts that he might have been born in Panama outside the Canal Zone. A reporter says that he was able to see it (may have been a hospital certificate) but the claim was that he was born at Coco Solo Naval Hospital, which was in the Canal Zone.

The State Department is pretty clear (read part of the Foreign Affairs Manual) that being born in the Canal Zone doesn’t confer jus soli citizenship. They considered those born in the Canal Zone at the time US nationals at the least, and US born US citizens if one or more children are born to US citizen parents.

Personally I think that McCain would be considered a natural-born citizen given that both his parents were clearly US citizens at the time of his birth.

Arthur B.

January 30th, 2012
9:12 pm

@y_p_w: — “Georgia’s rules of evidence are about seeing the highest truth. For the judge to recognize the validity of a piece of evidence for one case yet ignore it for another would seem to be on its face ludicrous.”
__

Actually, I would go further than that.

ALJ Malihi doesn’t live in a vacuum. He surely knows that there has been much talk about the President’s birth certificate, and that there have been documents purporting to be Obama birth certificates posted online. Though he may not be aware of the extent to which Hawaiian officials have vouched for them, he certainly knows that Hawaii has never called into question the information they contain.

In “seeking the highest truth,” he can’t pretend not to know what he knows. He may have to decide how much weight he wants to give the various BCs that are floating around; and he will have to decide how much credence to give to Orly’s claims that there are reasons not to trust them.

But he also understands the Full Faith and Credit clause and how it applies here. I don’t see how he can pretend that there’s no birth certificate to consider, whether it’s in the record or not.

y_p_w

January 30th, 2012
9:22 pm

Sorry – that should have read “seeking the highest truth”.

http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-24/chapter-1/24-1-2/

“O.C.G.A. 24-1-2 (2010)
24-1-2. Object of rules of evidence

The object of all legal investigation is the discovery of truth. The rules of evidence are framed with a view to this prominent end, seeking always for pure sources and the highest evidence.”

I’m pretty sure the judge can use whatever he wants. This is a fact-finding mission and not a trial per se. I wouldn’t be surprised if he were to go to the Hawaii Dept of Health website and view former Director Fukino’s official statements attesting to Barack Obama’s birth in Honolulu. If I were him I’d certainly weigh that more heavily than that circus sideshow that performed in his courtroom.

Nathanael

January 30th, 2012
9:26 pm

@davidfarrar 6:48pm

“show me where in my case candidate Obama’s birth certificates were put into .evidence?”

One case number, David. One case. Irion and Hatfield introduced the birth certificate. And yes, that means it’s game over for you, too.

Even pretending Malihi’s going to set aside what he knows to be true — that PRESIDENT Obama was born on US soil — to adjudicate your evidence separately, your counsel introduced the President’s Indonesian school registration, which clearly show Obama’s place of birth as Honolulu, and no evidence at all either to the contrary or that it wasn’t relevant.

Checkmate.

“You are going to have to take what candidate Obama said up with the candidate.”

Oh, please. Ignoring the fact that the President didn’t say it, YOU injected it into this discussion, and now you’re trying to run away from it. In any case, my second quote WAS your words:

“They knew their goose was cooked if they went to trial.”

And instead of addressing the point — that you continue to be mistaken about which branch of government you were talking to — you hide behind, “They weren’t MY words.”

Chilidog

January 30th, 2012
9:59 pm

Actually, the ding dong, Orly forgot to say the magic words.

None of her exhibits were entered into the record as official evidence in the case.

Arthur B.

January 30th, 2012
11:38 pm

David –

By the way, did you notice this little snippet from your attorney during her closing argument?

“Based on all the above, the Plaintiffs submit that they have proven — they’ve met their burden of proof and Mr. Obama should be found ineligible.”

I would imagine that acknowledging that she had the burden of proof would now make her job a little more difficult.

David Farrar

January 30th, 2012
11:48 pm

One of the things I learned during this Georgia trial is the fact that the Court will not accept a copy of a jgp picture of a birth certificate posted on the Internet as proof the birth certificate is the real thing.

The thought occurred to me: since we were all there to explain to Judge Malihi just why we think candidate Obama hasn’t done enough to prove he has met his constitutional qualifications to take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States, the same can be said of candidate Obama’s actions to date. If the image of a jpg picture of someone’s birth certificate posted on the internet isn’t good enough for the Court to accept, why would the Court presume it would be sufficient enough for the public to accept?

What candidate Obama needs to do is bring his papers into a court of competent jurisduction, such as the one we kindly invited him to this past Thursday, and present his “paper” birth certificates to those assembled. . Instead, he ran away, taking his Georgia lawyer with him.

ex animo
davidfarrar

David Farrar

January 30th, 2012
11:52 pm

Nathanael

January 30th, 2012
9:26 pm

Different cases, dude.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Nathanael

January 31st, 2012
12:36 am

@Arthur B.

“By the way, did you notice this little snippet from your attorney…”

Dang, you beat me to it again. Dude, don’t you have a life?

@davidfarrar

“the Court will not accept a copy of a jgp”

Except, of course, that it DID, while also noting that two of the three attorneys stipulated as to its validity, while the third failed to object. So, since everything entered into the record uncontested *must* be accepted by the Court as gospel truth, that makes the PDF a true, complete, and binding testament to the President’s NBCship.

And if that’s not good enough, you still have the President’s Indonesian school records, introduced by YOUR counsel, which unambiguously state the President was born in the U.S. That little detail has been pointed out to you several times as well, but you continue to ignore it.

“since we were all there to explain to Judge Malihi just why we think candidate Obama hasn’t done enough to prove he has met his constitutional qualifications”

See Arthur’s post above (or better yet, the actual transcripts): by your own counsel’s words, he doesn’t have to; the burden of proof belonged to the complainants, not the respondent. So spake Orly.

Nathanael

January 31st, 2012
12:41 am

@davidfarrar

“One of the things I learned during this Georgia trial”

BTW, has anyone pointed out to you yet that THIS WASN’T A TRIAL? It was an administrative hearing.

Alcum

January 31st, 2012
1:02 am

Michael Ferguson, you are 180 degrees wrong. Minor v Happersett says the opposite of what you claim. It literally says it is NOT defining all those who may be natural born citizens, and leaves that question to a future court. That court was the Wong court, which declared that even the child of two aliens, if born on US soil, is a natural born citizen. Case is closed.

David Farrar

January 31st, 2012
1:48 am

After checking with Judge Malihi’s office, all of the exhibits, documents and testimony was admitted as evidence into the record,

ex animo
davidfarrar

john richardson

January 31st, 2012
2:18 am

Wong was a state court court decission and does not effect the suppreme court decission of minor v heppersett. Secondly, the Hawaiian birth certificate was brought into evidence only so experts could provide testitimony proving it was a forgery. Please note!!! No one from Hawaii testified or challenged the experts testimony so, SOS Kemp can only view the evidence presented and that points to a forged BC.

David Farrar

January 31st, 2012
2:30 am

john richardson

January 31st, 2012
2:18 am

click here, to be enlightened.

You’re welcome.

ex animo
davidfarrar

David Farrar

January 31st, 2012
2:38 am

john richardson

January 31st, 2012
2:18 am

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html

sorry.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Hawaiiborn

January 31st, 2012
2:38 am

@john richardson “Wong was a state court court decission and does not effect the suppreme court decission of minor v heppersett.”

Wow, wrong wrong wrong. US v Wong Kim Ark is definitely a US Supreme Court case (it was appealed to the US Supreme Court)

A 2 second search rendered your first sentence completely wrong:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

“SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

169 U.S. 649

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA”

Suranis

January 31st, 2012
2:45 am

One of the things I learned during this Georgia trial is the fact that the Court will not accept a copy of a jgp picture of a birth certificate posted on the Internet as proof the birth certificate is the real thing. ,/b>

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79854233/Georgia-Welden-v-Obama-Certified-Transcript-1-26-12-Hearing-tfb

Q Showing the witness what has been marked for
18
19 identification as Plaintiff’s 1. Are you familiar with tha
20 document?
21 A Yes.
22 (The document referred to was
23 marked for identification as
24 Plaintiff’s Exhibit Number 1.)
Q
25 What is it?

Page 6
1 A It’s the birth certificate that I downloaded from
2 the WhiteHouse.gov website. It’s a birth certificate
3 professed to be of Barack Hussein Obama II.
Q
4 And do you see an item on line 8 — I’m sorry,
5 excuse me — on item 11. Can you read that?
6 A Yes, item 11 says the birthplace is Kenya, East
Africa.
7
Q
And that’s referring to –
8
A That is the birthplace of the father.
9
10 MR. IRION: Move to have exhibit marked for
11 identification Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 into the record.
12 JUDGE MALIHI: Plaintiff’s 1 is in the record.
13 (The document, heretofore marked as
14 Plaintiff’s Exhibit Number 1, was
15 received in evidence.)

Looks like introducing a document he downloaded from the internet as evidence to me. And yes the fact that its a pdf is what you are holding onto to keep your halo all nice and shiny while you make fun of the libruls, but fact is, you look like an idiot right now, son.

john richardson

January 31st, 2012
2:18 am

click here, to be enlightened.

You’re welcome.

You also look like an idiot for posting a link html that doesn’t work. Just saying.

Suranis

January 31st, 2012
2:53 am

john richardson

January 31st, 2012
2:18 am

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html

sorry.

ex animo
davidfarrar

the tro part of your own link says

U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

So you just linked to the supreme court decision in order to prove it wasn’t a supreme court decision. Interesting tactical move there.

And since you want enlightenment, lets look at the passage you stick to but include the next two sentences.

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

Page 169 U. S. 680

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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

So, Minor vs Hasperatte stated flat out that they were not discussing children born to Aliens. What a surprise that the actual case from your own link says the opposite of what you think it says.

Suranis

January 31st, 2012
3:12 am

Since I’m bored, I’ll just respond to the last 2 paragraphs of whoever is feeding David his lines…

The thought occurred to me: since we were all there to explain to Judge Malihi just why we think candidate Obama hasn’t done enough to prove he has met his constitutional qualifications to take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States, the same can be said of candidate Obama’s actions to date. If the image of a jpg picture of someone’s birth certificate posted on the internet isn’t good enough for the Court to accept, why would the Court presume it would be sufficient enough for the public to accept?

They did accept an image downloaded from the internet into evidence. See above. And there was no mention of it specifically being a PDF for authenticity so the implication is that a any image, even a JPG, would have done.

What candidate Obama needs to do is bring his papers into a court of competent jurisduction, such as the one we kindly invited him to this past Thursday, and present his “paper” birth certificates to those assembled. . Instead, he ran away, taking his Georgia lawyer with him.

Why the heck should he? The burden of proof is on the plaintiffs, i.e. you. He doesn’t have to prove a damn thing, its you that has to do all the proving, son. Here’s your own lawyer, Orly Taitz, Spelling that out. Judge Land dragged her over the coals for forgetting that before so she is not likely to forget it.

From the transcript

Page 43
1 Based on all the above, the Plaintiffs submit that
2 they have proven — they’ve met their burden of proof and
3 Mr. Obama should be found ineligible.

Whoever lined you up as the gullible patsy to take all the flack must be laughing they head off, Mr Farrar. Your the one who will have to live with your name attached to this case for the rest of your life.

David Farrar

January 31st, 2012
3:21 am

Actually, I think we have won our case. The judge made a finding that said that candidate Obama must meet the qualifications to hold the office sought. The question now before SoS Kemp is, has candidate Obama sufficiently demonistrated he has meet all of those qualifications?

My answer is an unequivocal; no, he hasn’t, In fact, the only thing he has done to date in this regard is post a few images on his Internet Whitehouse.gov site and called it proof.

Since SoS Kemp’s ALC will not accept copies of any internet images of any sort into evidence, why should SoS Kemp, or the electors of Georgia, for that matter. This was the time for candidate Obama to come forward and present, for the first time in a judicial setting, his evidence that he has met his constitutional qualifications to take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States, and he simply ran away from his responsibilities to the electors of Georgia and to the people of the United States.

ex animo
davidfarrar

David Farrar

January 31st, 2012
3:25 am

Suranis

January 31st, 2012
3:12 am

Again, these were three different cases. In our case, the Court did nit.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Suranis

January 31st, 2012
3:27 am

After checking with Judge Malihi’s office, all of the exhibits, documents and testimony was admitted as evidence into the record,

ex animo
davidfarrar

Page 3 of the treanscript opf “your case” http://www.scribd.com/doc/79854233/Georgia-Welden-v-Obama-Certified-Transcript-1-26-12-Hearing-tfb

It shows all the evidence identified, but none as being in evidence. Compare that with the same page with the other 2 cases which had evidence both identified and in evidence.

See http://www.scribd.com/doc/79854466/Georgia-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Certified-Transcript-1-26-12-Hearing-tfb

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79854233/Georgia-Welden-v-Obama-Certified-Transcript-1-26-12-Hearing-tfb

I have no idea if they were entered into evidence after the fact (despite your repeated assertions that is impossible) but the fact is that your lawyer goofed big time, dude.

Notice the way arguments are more persuasive with actual evidence that the happy readers of this thread can actually look at?

Suranis

January 31st, 2012
3:33 am

Again, these were three different cases. In our case, the Court did nit.

Eh? You said

One of the things I learned during this Georgia trial is the fact that the Court will not accept a copy of a jgp picture of a birth certificate posted on the Internet as proof the birth certificate is the real thing.

You said THE COURT. Did the law change in the 1 minute it between their cases and your case? Did the rules of evidence change massively because there’s a Moldovan incompetent pleading a case?

If the court would not accept a image from the internet they would not have accepted it in your case. Or are you suddenly accepting that none of Orlys evidence was actually accepted and making up something about her exhibits being Jpgs as the reason, rather than your dimwit lawyer failing to introduce things into evidence like any halfway competent lawyer would?

Gimme a break.

Suranis

January 31st, 2012
3:34 am

By your case I mean of course “their cases” above.

David Farrar

January 31st, 2012
3:45 am

Suranis

January 31st, 2012
3:33 am

The copy can be introduced into evidence if the predicate is that it is an Internet copy of an image. But not the actual image of the information, itself, can never be.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Morning Reads for Tuesday, January 31st

January 31st, 2012
7:09 am

[...] anti-immigration law, farmers in Georgia may have smaller crop sizes this year. – Jay Bookman defends Secretary of State Brian Kemp’s handling of the birther case. – Given everything that has gone on [...]

Joe Hussein Mama

January 31st, 2012
8:55 am

D. Farrar — “In the hearing transcripts…show me where in my case candidate Obama’s birth certificates were put into .evidence?”

Taitz entered them *herself.* (laughing)

Never mind regarding clarifying your status. I now know that you are a retired court reporter, which establishes that you know exactly JACK about Constitutional Law.

Alcum

January 31st, 2012
9:03 am

John Richardson is WRONG on all counts. Wong was NEVER a state court matter as it involved US citizenship claims. And Minor v Happersett says the opposite of what you think. Typical post from Birtherstan, completely disconnected from reality! It’s sad, really.

Joe Hussein Mama

January 31st, 2012
9:04 am

D. Farrar — “The thought occurred to me: since we were all there to explain to Judge Malihi just why we think candidate Obama hasn’t done enough to prove he has met his constitutional qualifications to take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States, the same can be said of candidate Obama’s actions to date. If the image of a jpg picture of someone’s birth certificate posted on the internet isn’t good enough for the Court to accept, why would the Court presume it would be sufficient enough for the public to accept?”

Because public acceptance of the document is not and never has been a condition of qualification.

Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution, the State of Georgia is *obliged* to consider Obama’s BC valid once the issuing State — in this case, Hawaii — has vouchsafed its validity. There is not and never has been any public vetting process. The validating of candidates and the running of elections is a power that is delegated to the several States via the US Constitution. That’s a document, by the way, that you could stand to read.

“What candidate Obama needs to do is bring his papers into a court of competent jurisduction, such as the one we kindly invited him to this past Thursday, and present his “paper” birth certificates to those assembled.”

Nope. It’s validity is already established. It was established for all 50 states and all US territories once the State of Hawaii declared it valid. This is what you don’t get.

“Instead, he ran away, taking his Georgia lawyer with him.”

Since your case is meaningless and is founded on a frivolous and erroneous presumption, why would either the President or his attorney bother to appear? You have no evidence and you have no rebuttal. Your case is, quite simply, nonexistent.

836 comments Add your comment

About Jay Bookman

Search this blog

Recent Posts

Archives

More from the AJC

Blogroll

FairTax archive

Laffer Curve debunked

The House GOP budget

All AJC blogs »

Tell us what you think about the site

Subscribe »

Customer Care »

AJC Services

Sections

Other Editions

Guides

Affiliates

Advertising

AJC Sites

Special Reports

Blogs

Opinion

Blogs

Topics

Features

Blogs

Topics

Features

Topics

Features

Features

Blogs

Topics

Features

Some cold water on overheated birther-mania

836 comments Add your comment

About Jay Bookman

Search this blog

Recent Posts

Archives

More from the AJC

Blogroll

FairTax archive

Laffer Curve debunked

The House GOP budget

All AJC blogs »

Tell us what you think about the site

Subscribe »

Customer Care »

AJC Services

Sections

Other Editions

Guides

Affiliates

Advertising

AJC Sites