Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I am finding this infighting among the birthers endlessly amusing. The Orange County News reports that Lucas Smith, one of the people who has come forward with a fake Kenyan birth certificate for Barack Obama, has now severed ties with Taitz and is claiming that she told him to lie in court. But first, the article describes both her ridiculous paranoia and ignorance of court procedures:
In a Santa Ana federal courtroom on Sept. 8, Dr. Orly Taitz had a clear message for Judge David O. Carter: Lucas Smith, a witness whom she had brought from the Dominican Republic that morning, had to testify that day--before it was too late."The biggest issue we have today is that evidence is disappearing," said the Laguna Niguel dentist, lawyer and real-estate agent who is attempting to sue President Barack Obama out of office. "We have a number of parties that had evidence, that had knowledge that might be detrimental to the defense, that were found dead. . . . We have the most important, the most crucial witness. We have to be able to work something that they [the U.S. attorney representing Obama] can hear what he says, that you can hear what he says, that there is a record of it. . . . If, God forbid, something happens to this witness, at least we will have his testimony here."
Carter didn't oblige. After all, Taitz's lawsuit against Obama hadn't even reached the discovery stage, and the defense had been given no notice that she planned to call a witness that day.
She wanted to call a witness on the merits during a pretrial hearing. Nice work, Orly! Of course, the fact that the judge didn't let her makes him a treasonous commie. Now Smith - the guy who produced a Kenyan birth certificate that is so bad that even the Worldnutdaily dismissed it as an obvious forgery - doesn't want anything to do with Taitz anymore and says she told him to lie:
But Taitz ended up being right about one thing: Smith, who says he obtained Obama's original birth certificate in Kenya, likely won't get another chance to testify in Santa Ana. A week after the hearing, he says he has cut ties with Taitz because she asked him to lie under oath, making him the latest in a string of "birthers" to publicly criticize the woman who has become the face of the movement."I finally told her to forget it, we'll part ways," Smith told the Weekly on Sept. 16. "I definitely do not want anything to do with this dentist/wannabe movie star."
Smith, 29, first appeared in the birther world in June as eBay user "colmado_naranja." He was holding an auction for an artifact he claimed to have found: Obama's original birth certificate from Mombasa, Kenya. After opening and closing the auction a few times, Smith in late August posted a video on YouTube showing himself surrounded by black children and holding the purported birth certificate. Right-wing news site World Net Daily--the organization that has sponsored "Where's the Birth Certificate?" billboards across the country, including one in Buena Park--pounced on the story, reporting that Smith has a criminal record that includes forgery and an attempt to sell his kidney, and calling the certificate "not a valid document."
In early September, Smith fired back at World Net Daily with a series of YouTube videos before filing a declaration with Taitz's Barnett v. Obama lawsuit, vouching for the authenticity of the Mombasa birth certificate and saying he had obtained it by paying off a military officer in Kenya. Taitz paid for Smith's plane ticket from the Dominican Republic, picked him up and brought him to court on Sept. 8, where he believed he would be given a chance to speak. A week later, though, Smith posted a message on his YouTube channel: "Im sorry everyone but, [sic] I cannot work with Orly Taitz any longer. She wants me to lie under oath."...
"I'm not going to discredit my own story for her lawsuit," Smith said. "Let's not fight lies with lies."
His story was already discredited, of course. And he's the second lying nutball to publicly disavow Taitz:
Smith's accusations against Taitz came shortly after similar ones from Larry Sinclair, another key figure in the Obama conspiracy universe. In June 2008, Sinclair held a press conference at the National Press Club claiming he'd been lured into cocaine-fueled sex with Obama in a limo in 1999. He also has said he believes Obama had Donald Young, a Chicago choir conductor, killed. In an affidavit posted this month on Sinclair's website, Sinclair says Taitz asked him to testify at her Sept. 8 hearing. He flew to Orange County from Florida, but the night before the hearing, Sinclair says, Taitz told him to testify he knew about three people who had been killed by Obama--a charge that Sinclair says isn't true. The next day, he told her he wouldn't testify and would be flying home.
It's fun watching these slimeballs call each other names. I think they're all correct.
Politics
Comments
"It's fun watching these slimeballs call each other names. I think they're all correct."
And I agree : )
Posted by: J. Edward Tremlett | September 29, 2009 9:43 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to your new Republican Party. The party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan, Gingrich, Delay and the Bush's is now fully committed to goin' rogue*!
And if you think my comment is mere hyperbole, than please explain the support in Congress and the party's formal and informal leaders complete unwillingness to providing strong leadership in dismissing these claims and more importantly, the mindset that generates such claims. In facts its informal leaders both enable and promote the mindset that insures such results.
*After unsuccessfully prototyping this new model starting in the Gingrich years, which reinforces the (il)logic behind the new party.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 29, 2009 9:49 AM
I cannot wait for the volcanic eruption from Taitz. Pass the popcorn.
Posted by: MikeMa | September 29, 2009 9:50 AM
As I recall this was the same hearing that the Judge had to help Taitz turn on the microphone.
Posted by: yoshi | September 29, 2009 9:52 AM
Orly's conduct appears to go well beyond filing of frivolous lawsuits and showing contempt for judges to the downright criminal-subornation of perjury. It seems disbarment may be the least of her worries. Do I see actual bars (prison) in her future?
Posted by: JusticeLeague | September 29, 2009 9:54 AM
And, meanwhile, Orly's supporters are convinced that Smith was either threatened or bribed by the evil forces of Obama. Oh, and they are suggesting a national holiday honoring Orly once she successfully removes Obama from office.
Posted by: Alan B. | September 29, 2009 10:06 AM
'"I'm not going to discredit my own story for her lawsuit," Smith said. "Let's not fight lies with lies."'
Birtherism cannot fail. Only individuals can fail Birtherism.
(I'm not sure whether to file Smith's quote under 'unintentional irony' or 'rank hypocrisy'. Maybe both!)
Posted by: mad the swine | September 29, 2009 10:19 AM
******** BE PATIENT FOLKS AND STAY IN YOUR SEATS ********
" IT AIN'T OVER 'TIL THE FAT LADY SINGS "
Posted by: CARL TAPP | September 29, 2009 10:26 AM
Well, at least this insanity must be keeping Orly out of the dental practice, for which her patients--if she has any left--can be endlessly thankful.
Posted by: democommie | September 29, 2009 10:28 AM
CARL TAPP
I assume by the 'all caps' message, you are a supported of Taitz and her insanity. If so, there is no fat lady, no singing and no case. Your dreams are not going to come true.
Posted by: MikeMa | September 29, 2009 10:34 AM
Not really sure what this means, given that it has already failed, in fact, was a failure before it even started.
Posted by: chris | September 29, 2009 10:40 AM
Sure, CARL, we'll all wait patiently for the Keystone Kops to "get their man".
Posted by: Taz | September 29, 2009 10:44 AM
Why is no one interested in the fact that our President ordered (or personally performed) three murders? I'm guessing this Smith guy is next. Why is Glenn Beck silent about this? Why?
Posted by: kehrsam | September 29, 2009 10:46 AM
Quoth 'Oily Tits': "We have a number of parties that had evidence, that had knowledge that might be detrimental to the defense, that were found dead..."
And these persons are, who exactly?
Show us the evidence 'Oily' or STFU. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 29, 2009 10:53 AM
I'm still wondering, by which provision of the Constitution, are they planning to remove Obama? Assuming that, despite their idiocy, incompetence, etc., they somehow manage to magically find the non-existent Kenyan birth certificate and prove that Obama was born in Kenya ... what difference does it make? There are no provisions for removing a president by the courts; there are no grounds for impeachment. On top of all of that, what do they expect? McCain to magically become president? Biden would become president with Pelosi as VP ... I'm not sure that such a development would make many (if any) of the wingnut crowd any happier.
This woman should be out on a street corner shouting about the black helicopters and CIA mind-drug experiments, not in a courtroom wasting time and money.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | September 29, 2009 10:57 AM
Damn! I had just wandered over to the Orange County News to read the Ask a Mexican column when the name Orly Taitz caught my eye. So I rush to email Ed and look and he's already all over it...
Posted by: Tezcatlipoca | September 29, 2009 11:01 AM
"Quoth 'Oily Tits': "We have a number of parties that had evidence, that had knowledge that might be detrimental to the defense, that were found dead..."
And these persons are, who exactly?"
Come on DJ, use your imagination. There was one person who absoultely, positively knew where Obama was born-HIS MOTHER. And what happened to her? Cancer? How convenient. And what about her mother, Obama's grandmother. Remember how Obama interrupted the campaign to go to her bedside. Cancer too, eh? How convenient.
I demand an immediate inquiry into these cases! And while we're at it, I want one into Patrick Swayze also. Cancer? He looked perfectly healthy in "Dirty Dancing"
Posted by: JusticeLeague | September 29, 2009 11:22 AM
FWIW, Judge Carter is a former Marine (got a Purple Heart at Khe Sanh) who's known for tight control of his courtroom and not suffering fools lightly. He "treats attorneys like well-paid serfs." While he's the only judge who's expressed any interest in letting one of these Obama suits go forward (and by "expressed interest," I mean "actually set a trial date"), my guess is that these revelations will have Taitz facing some very stiff sanctions the next time she's called into his courtroom.
Posted by: Chuck | September 29, 2009 11:41 AM
Interesting ... So Smith started in Kenya ... and then somehow got to the Dominican Republic ... and now our friend Orly has fetched him up and paid his airfare into the USA.
One might wonder what Mr.Smith's immigration status might be. When he is planing/due to return home and if Orly Taitz has made provision to see that he makes it home safely.
Or am I to assume that the next wave of illegal immigration will take the form of mendacious foreigners pandering conveniently engineered stories to dissembling, and credulous, wingnuts.
Posted by: Art | September 29, 2009 12:06 PM
Wait... if Taitz is being denounced by lying nutballs, does that mean she gains credibility?
My head asplode.
Posted by: Nemo | September 29, 2009 12:19 PM
Oily Tits/////ROTFLMAO
Posted by: Lynn McDaniel | September 29, 2009 12:56 PM
Re dogmeatb
Biden would become president with Pelosi as VP ... I'm not sure that such a development would make many (if any) of the wingnut crowd any happier.
Actually, Pelosi would not automatically become vice-president. After assuming office, Biden would be entitled to appoint a candidate for that office who would have to be approved by a majority vote of the Senate. For instance, when Richard Milhous Nixon resigned in 1974 and his vice president, Gerald Ford assumed the office, Ford subsequently appointed Nelson Rockefeller to the post, which appointment was approved by the Senate. Of course, Ford himself was an appointed vice-president as he was nominated for the office and approved by the senate by the aforementioned Richard Milhous Nixon upon the resignation of then vice-president Spiro Agnew.
Posted by: SLC | September 29, 2009 1:10 PM
Just to get even more pedantic: one who is appointed to be VP (as in the case of a VP succeeding to POTUS and having to appoint a new VP afterword) has to be confirmed by a majority of BOTH houses of Congress, not just the Senate.
Posted by: Raging bee | September 29, 2009 1:56 PM
If Taitz encouraged a witness to lie and present false evidence in court isn't that grounds for disbarment?
Posted by: CHV | September 29, 2009 2:26 PM
CHV
One would hope so.
Amd wait, there's more:
Taitz filed a motion with Judge Land to be dropped as the lawyer for the reservist doc who supposedly questioned Obama's credentials but the doc fired her last week. Even though Taitz forgot to sign the motion, judge Land agreed to it but made it clear that she still owes 10 large unless she can justify her stupid self on the frivolous charge stemming from that mess.
Posted by: MikeMa | September 29, 2009 2:36 PM
Even more idiotic than trying to get Lucas Smith in to testify, Taitz actually arranged for Larry Sinclair -- the life-long habitual criminal who claims he had gay sex with Obama years ago -- to fly all the way from Florida to California so that he could be presented as a witness in court also! What relevance she though he was to her case is anyone's guess.
Apparently Sinclair had second thoughts after getting into a blazing row with Taitz upon his arrival and left without any attempt to get him in front of the judge. So chalk up yet another slimeball-on-slimeball falling out.
Posted by: tacitus | September 29, 2009 2:45 PM
Chuck #18:
Judge Carter may be as you describe, but I wonder how he can try this case, given that the remedy the plaintiffs are seeking (removal of a President from office) is beyond his purview to grant. That power rests solely in Congress through impeachment. This is much like a person suing for the wrongful death of a loved one and demanding not monetary compensation, but their resurrection.
If there are any legal eagles, I would interested in hearing from them.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | September 29, 2009 2:49 PM
Palin-Taitz '12 - they're Mavericky!
Posted by: Badger3k | September 29, 2009 3:17 PM
Orly Taitz, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Joe The Plumber, and Jerome Corsi should form their own superhero team like the Avengers or JLA - but just for neo-cons, with Obama playing the role of a Lex Luthor-like despot bent on world domination.
They can even call their heroic HQ the "Hall of Our America."
Plus, every so often other heroes could drop in (Mary Matalin, Steve King, Jonah Goldberg) to lend a hand when the bad guys got too rough (i.e. someone called them on their bullshit).
Posted by: CHV | September 29, 2009 4:38 PM
Tacitus @ 26:
>>>What relevance [Orly] thought [Sinclair] was to her case is anyone's guess.
My guess (not that you asked) is that Orly thought she'd present Sinclair as an "expert" character witness in an attempt to shape the judge's impression of Obama, and help her case.
And as for the argument you described, if it happened I'd wager that Taitz promised Sinclair a fee for appearing in court, and he demanded payment up front before going any further. But when Orly couldn't deliver, Sinclair turned around and left.
Posted by: CHV | September 29, 2009 4:45 PM
@Tacitus and CHV: The Larry Sinclair connection was mentioned in the article quotes in Ed's original post. Apparently Orly wanted him to testify that not one, not two, but three people had been bumped off in order to hide information about Obama.
As we see earlier in the article, part of Taitz' strategy seems to be to try to get the judge(s) to expedite the case on the grounds that the witnesses' lives were in danger.
Posted by: James Sweet | September 29, 2009 5:41 PM
I wonder why Orly hasn't claimed that her opponents are "persecuting" her because she is Jewish. (oh, oh, I hope she doesn't read this.)
Posted by: wrpd | September 29, 2009 5:57 PM
CHV If Taitz encouraged a witness to lie and present false evidence in court isn't that grounds for disbarment?
And what makes you sure that the lying liars that lying liar Oily Titz asked to lie are telling the truth. Or could know the truth when it smacked them upside the head with a two by four. Boggle boggle.
Posted by: natural cynic | September 29, 2009 6:05 PM
James @ 31:
>>>Apparently Orly wanted him to testify that not one, not two, but three people had been bumped off in order to hide information about Obama.
I read this, yes.
I wonder how Orly planned on producing the dead bodies in question for the judge? Stealing the from the local morgue?
In all seriousness, to call this woman delusional and/or obsessive is an understatement. I truly wonder about any history Orly may have of hospitalization for mental issues.
Posted by: CHV | September 29, 2009 6:45 PM
*chuckle*
Thanks SLC & Raging Bee, but my point was simply that even in the event of some bizarro set of circumstances where Obama was removed from office, he wouldn't be replaced by anyone significantly different to Taitz or any of the other birther morons.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | September 29, 2009 7:04 PM
Oh yes he would. Biden's white.
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 29, 2009 7:08 PM
Dogmeat-The birthers believe that there was a giant conspiracy to commit fraud, involving Biden, Pelosi and everyone else they don't like. Thus they would all be removed, leading, by some as yet undefined process, to President Palin.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | September 29, 2009 7:11 PM
The following appears to be the general consensus of constitutional opinion over at americangrandjury.org
354 thigh-slapping comments and counting.Posted by: Alan B. | September 29, 2009 7:48 PM
Alan B.- Wow..... just, wow.
Posted by: Rick R | September 29, 2009 7:56 PM
As I understand it, should the President be impeached, resign, be incapacitated or die, the new President pro tem. may nominate an appointee as VP (for the approval of both houses), or not. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 29, 2009 8:17 PM
americangrandjury.com is amazing...a parallel universe, seemingly inhabited by people whose reality is far removed from actuality...not one of them appears to have any clear or correct understanding of the law, the Constitution, or what will happen if they actually succeeded in removing Obama from office (via a process that they do not seem to have any clue about, except that it will just automagically happen).
The really worrying thing is that some of those commenters might actually be sitting on jury panels somewhere in the USA right now...
Posted by: Graham Shevlin | September 29, 2009 8:31 PM
That's hardly fair. Many prominent Republican figures, including Michael Steele and even Ann Coulter, have spoken out against the birther movement. The birthers are fringe wingnuts, and their actions do not discredit the GOP as a whole.
Posted by: Walton | September 30, 2009 5:51 AM
Walton - The GOP was happy to let the birfers sling mud at the President, but when it came back to hit the movement itself, the GOP backed away for fear of getting their nice new suit dirty.
Unfortunately mud and associations stick in the public mind (even after the GOP and the birfers have slunk away from each other). - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 30, 2009 6:19 AM
Walton @ 42 - my comment is not based merely on GOP Congressional support for birferism, but the whole approach to governance that is based on the type of thinking that creates and enables birferism. Let's also remember we have a birther bill in Congress with about (IIRC) 11 GOP sponsors.
Just yesterday in a Senate Finance Committee vote, Republicans on that Committee voted against the Schumer and Rockefeller public option amendments based on arguments that simply are not true. Sen. Grassley noted he oppossed both amendments because they implemented a universal single-payer plan, which they in no way do. That's a level of delusion I couldn't have imagined 20 years ago.
I easily stand by my earlier comments that went beyond birferism and I quote what I wrote that you attempt to rebut,
I stand by my assertions and argument.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 30, 2009 7:12 AM
Posted by: James Hanley | September 30, 2009 7:44 AM
James Hanley, #45: Yes, but Obama the not-yet-president nominated him at the Democratic National Convention, where he was confirmed by the delegates as their veep candidate.
I suspect that the rules of procedure of the national conventions don't explicitly give the Presidential nominee the role to choose the VP candidate; I think that it is an unofficial tradition that the convention defers to the Pres. nominee's choice. I suspect that a reading of the minutes (or the official records) will show that all nominations and votes are done solely by the delegates and persons who hold national leadership positions in the party, where, by the way, there is no requirement to be a natural born citizen.
I might be wrong about this, though.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 30, 2009 7:59 AM
I should also add that the US Constitution doesn't bloody care where the nominations for VP came from; if a person has the qualifications to be President (as stated in the Constitution) and a majority of the Electoral College elect that person, that person becomes the VP.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 30, 2009 8:04 AM
The last few posts just point out the complete absurdity of the birthers. In the name of supposedly "defending the Constitution", they want to invent out of whole cloth a "process" whereby some judge will cancel an election that was held almost 1 year ago and order a do-over or declare the losers to be the winners. Where is the support in the Constitution or the law for such a ridiculous position? The Constitution is crystal clear that if the President is removed from office for any reason the Veep takes over. Period, end of story.
Now I suppose they would like to say that Biden was part of some secret conspiracy to cover up Obama's ineligibility and thus should be impeached. But that begs the question of who would be so dumb as to involve the biggest blabbermouth in DC in a secret conspiracy?
Posted by: JusticeLeague | September 30, 2009 8:37 AM
JusticeLeague, #48: The Constitution is crystal clear that if the President is removed from office for any reason the Veep takes over.
The Constitution also makes clear (through the 20th Amendment) that if the President doesn't qualify before his term is supposed to begin, the Vice President shall act as President until he does qualify.
It doesn't read as if the writers of that amendment had this particular situation in mind, but I think the over-all tone of the amendment is clear: if for any reason the President is unable to act as President (through death, impeachment, or disqualified, or whatever) the elected Vice President takes over. If "intent of the writers" means anything....
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 30, 2009 11:43 AM
While it is clear that Taitz has caused many blunders in preparing and presenting the case, there are many other very competent attorneys in the birther movement with active cases - Gary Kreeps, Mario Apuzzo, Leo Donofrio. It's Obama who has sealed and hidden his records from the public that will determine whether he is eligible to hold office. The process of certification at the state level is clearly shown as deficient. Not one state vetted Obama. We have no right to question elections in countries like Iran and China until we can prove to the world that our elections are fair and credible.
Posted by: Jon | September 30, 2009 1:50 PM
Quoting Jon @ 50:
Not true. The state of Hawaii has released Obama's birth records, which were both stamped and validated as accurate and is the official record of his birth. In addition, the state's senior official responsible for records and the Governor of the state have validated that the official record released to the press, which is itself an official record, is in accordance to the digital record on Obama's birth, which is also an official record.
Lastly, Obama has nothing to do with how Hawaii runs its records department concerning this matter and there is zero evidence he's influenced the state in any way that deviate from their policies with the possible exception of his possibly need to approve the additional transparency we were provided that no other President I've seen has done; which was to allow the media to both inspect and photograph his embossed official birth record.
Cleary deficient? I've seen zero empirical evidence of any deficiency. Perhaps you could refer us to such deficiencies and compare these to past Presidents' birth records going back to let's say, Eisenhower. Perhaps this nasty scandal has been repeated previously? /snark
We have seen no evidence that Obama did not meet the qualifications of office in a manner different than any other President in my lifetime (which goes back to President Eisenhower). Given your absolute claims here that are presented without providing even a scintilla of evidence (in a ScienceBlogs.com forum no less), I'll go out on a limb and speculate that your motivation is something far different ensuring the validity of the U.S. electoral process.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 30, 2009 2:09 PM
For a truly repellant, historical, view of the birther mindset you have to read George Collins brief for the appellant (i.e. the losing argument) in the infamous Wong Kim Ark case back in 1898.
http://library.uchastings.edu/library/topical-and-course-research-guides/wkadisplay/AppellantsBrief.pdf
The true nastiness starts in at page 34 and goes rapidly downhill from there.
What is interesting, however, is the following passage related to this discussion:
“Therefore the determination of the abstract question of citizenship can not possibly be influenced by considering the number of those who will no longer be entitled to vote if adjudge aliens; nor can it be influenced by considering the fact that such a judgement will result in ousting some persons who now hold public office. No election will be thus invalidated, for the voters in such cases were certainly voters de facto and no official act will be open to attack, for the officials in such cases are officers de Facto.”
Posted by: Chilidog | September 30, 2009 4:10 PM
Jon, #50: We have no right to question elections in countries like Iran and China until we can prove to the world that our elections are fair and credible.
Oh. Have we changed the subject to the fiasco of 2000?
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 30, 2009 5:34 PM
Listen up birthers!
Obama has shown you all that the law requires and all that he is going to show you. If that's not good enough for you, too bad. When he runs for re-election, you are free not to vote for him. Until then, in all honesty, your complaints are as farts in a hurricane.
The court cases have ZERO legal merit and will peter out as judges patience wears thin and they impose increasingly severe sanctions on these loser "attorneys". It's over for you guys... So what will you do now to occupy your time?
Posted by: Mr Reality | September 30, 2009 7:02 PM
Jon, #50: ...there are many other very competent attorneys in the birther movement with active cases - Gary Kreeps, Mario Apuzzo, Leo Donofrio.
And their cases have been and are being swatted down, too, so I'm not sure why you think they are any better. They don't provide as many yuks as Taitz, true, but they are no less goofier.
By the way, you do realize that Donofrio doesn't dispute that Obama was born in Hawaii? And he also disputes that McCain is also ineligible to be President? I'll admit that his contention, even while it's clearly wrong, is at least interesting in that he doesn't dispute clear fact as much as he is discussing the interpretation of the law. But the idea that Obama wasn't born in the US is just plain wackynut funny.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 30, 2009 7:41 PM
I'm not sure of the laws of the states re: birth certificates, but has Orly Taitz ever shown hers? How do we know she is even a citizen and eligible to bring cases to court? For that matter, what about Lou Dobbs - he sure seems like a furriner, what sort of name is "Dobbs" anyway? Hmm - what about Beck? Was he a citizen in 1990? Is he a citizen now? Where's the certificate!
Posted by: Badger3k | September 30, 2009 8:11 PM
It is extremely clear to the great majority of persons in this nation and the world that neither the Obama administration, nor the State of Hawai’i, are even attempting to be trustworthy or honest in their dealings. I’ve never in all my long life witnessed such an obvious group of amateur deception artists working in any state’s government as “The Three Hawai’ian Stooges”, Fukino, Okubo, and Lingle. Many millions of Americans know full well that everyone involved in this massive deception, fraud, and sham will eventually be duly exposed, removed from their positions, prosecuted, and imprisoned. “It can’t happen”, you say? Be patient, justice, like a house fire, usually begins with a spark, then, before anyone realizes it, quickly achieves an unstoppable momentum. Very soon, the events of the Watergate scandal will seem miniscule by comparison. Barack “Pinocchio” Obama and his gang are foolishly attempting to hide his entire background from the Citizens of these United States – it will not work – we will not stop making inquiries and conducting investigations until we know every factual detail! As dripping water wears away stone, so shall we the people dissolve Obama’s facade. I predict that after every scintilla of hidden information has been publicly exposed and the evil doers are finally placed on trial, all those involved in the great Obama deception will suddenly develop horrible cases of Tourette’s syndrome, loud outbursts of profanity will accompany each and every breath they take. The first rat to jump ship, go to the authorities, and confess the whole truth will be given immunity, the remainder will rightfully be carted away to prison in government issued orange garments and silver accessories. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Posted by: Nunyabiz | September 30, 2009 9:28 PM
biz, it's time to grow up and face reality, dotcha think?
Obama is President. He's also black.
You're welcome.
Posted by: Rick R | September 30, 2009 9:32 PM
Nunyabiz, #57: Be patient, justice, like a house fire, usually begins with a spark, then, before anyone realizes it, quickly achieves an unstoppable momentum. Very soon, the events of the Watergate scandal will seem miniscule by comparison.
Oh, yeah. I remember when they were saying this. "Just you wait! Any minute now, the tide's going to turn, and Obama will be shown to be the fraud he is!... Yes sir, it's happening.... The people are getting tired of this, they're gonna rise up!... You just wait! It's happening right now!... Soon. It'll happen soon.... Hey! You hear that? It's the outrage of the people! No, I guess it was just a plane overhead. But the scandal is just about to tear this country apart! Any minute now! Soon!..."
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 30, 2009 9:37 PM
Chiroptera - Excuse me for pointing out a couple of easy to comprehend facts, but I am an extremely competent and capable (remember the O.J. "dream team", dear? I was one of the members) practicing Attorney at Law. It is patently obvious from you baseless post you are nothing more than a severely mentally-ill practicing pathological liar. Thank you.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | September 30, 2009 9:55 PM
Rick R - Thank you for sharing your racist tainted view of the situation.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | September 30, 2009 9:57 PM
Nunyabiz, #60: It is patently obvious from you baseless post you are nothing more than a severely mentally-ill practicing pathological liar.
What did I say that was a lie? ;)
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 30, 2009 10:19 PM
"but I am an extremely competent and capable (remember the O.J. "dream team", dear? I was one of the members) practicing Attorney at Law."
Remember the Manson trial? Well, I'm not dropping any names, dear, but I brilliantly prosecuted the case.
Obama is still the president.
And you still got nothin'.
Posted by: Rick R | September 30, 2009 10:24 PM
Not one state? Not even Illinois, which Obama represented in both the IL General Assembly and the US Senate?
Yeah, totally plausible in the absence of evidence to that effect.
Nunyabiz:
Wait, where are those? Because I see opinions, opinions, and more opinions. The funniest one was the "great majority of persons in this nation and the world" bit, which of course has no evidentiary backing and would still be irrelevant if true (argumentum ad populum - I would hope that such a "competent and capable" attorney would be able to distinguish such a rudimentary fallacy).
You'll quickly find that no one cares if you're a well-known attorney or Darryl Strawberry if you insist on making assertions without evidence. Just the facts, ma'am.
Posted by: Mr. B | September 30, 2009 10:27 PM
Oh. My. God.
Johnny Cochrane has risen from the dead. And he reads Ed's blog. That is so cool.
Posted by: peaches | September 30, 2009 10:29 PM
Rick R & Mr. B - Neither of you has even the most rudimentary and basic understanding of the applicable laws, therefore your opinions amount to nothing but foolish assumptions based solely on "urban legends". Let me know when you can correctly define the legal term "natural born Citizen" for us.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | September 30, 2009 10:37 PM
peaches - If you'll kindly recall, the most competent members of the "dream team" wrote the entire script for the late Mister Cochran.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | September 30, 2009 10:40 PM
Nunyabiz: That's an interesting assertion, given that neither Rick R nor myself have made any statements about the accepted legal definition of "natural born Citizen." Let me know when you can actually address something that is directed at you (like accusations of fallacies, like I did previously - just for starters) rather than jumping to conclusions about the knowledge of your opponents based on the fact that they disagree with you.
Posted by: Mr. B | September 30, 2009 10:52 PM
#66-Interestingly, all of the numerous judges in a variety of state and federal courts seem to have agreed with those you claim lack "even the most rudimentary and basic understanding of the applicable laws" and disagreed with Your Dreaminess.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | September 30, 2009 10:54 PM
The entire Obama eligibility question revolves around the term "natural born Citizen", which is a major requirement for legally holding the office of president. As previously stated, neither of you has even the most rudimentary and basic understanding of the applicable laws. You have just proven my point. Try to keep up.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | September 30, 2009 10:57 PM
Need. Better. Trolls.
Posted by: Rick R | September 30, 2009 11:00 PM
JusticeLeague - In 2008, the Senate Judiciary Committee decided what qualifies a person as a "natural born Citizen". Did you miss that?
Posted by: Nunyabiz | September 30, 2009 11:01 PM
#72 I didn't miss a thing Your Dreaminess. You've struck out with 2 branches of government. An enviable record.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | September 30, 2009 11:04 PM
It seems like the birthers have evolved a bit. Far less often to you hear any of them strike the pose of "if Obama would just release his records it would settle the question. I just want transparency." Now, it's full-time, full-tilt certainty that he's definitely ineligible for the presidency, and the consequent fantasy world postings of lying whackjobs like Nunyabiz. (That's correct, Nuny, I don't believe the credentials you claim.)
It seems that crazy amplifies itself over time.
Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | September 30, 2009 11:05 PM
By the way Your Dreaminess, how is your "former client" enjoying the pokey? Will you be defending Orly Taitz at her disbarment hearing and trial for suborning perjury?
Posted by: JusticeLeague | September 30, 2009 11:08 PM
Michael Hoaglin - It's easy to see by your childish ad hominem attack you haven't one legal fact to offer. Sad, very sad.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | September 30, 2009 11:09 PM
You could almost say.... craziness evolves.
Question is- is Orly Taint the common ancestor?
Posted by: Rick R | September 30, 2009 11:10 PM
Ironically, you've proven mine as well, and I at least had solid evidence for mine. (Not to mention that I hadn't even made the positive claim that bears the burden of proof re: Obama's eligibility - that clearly rests on anyone making the extraordinary claim that he is ineligible now 11 months after he was successfully elected with the majority of the popular vote.)
Rick R (71): You're absolutely right.
Posted by: Mr. B | September 30, 2009 11:10 PM
JusticeLeague - If you are inferring the Honorable Mistress Taitz has been charged with a crime, you are simply an out and out liar. No such "suborning perjury" case has, or will, be brought.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | September 30, 2009 11:13 PM
Mister B - Being elected by a majority vote cannot absolve Obama of guilt. See "RICHARD M. NIXON, WATERGATE BURGLARY" for details.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | September 30, 2009 11:16 PM
Nunyabiz - And where were you when your 'spotless' client tried to shake-down some memorabilia traders? If OJ had got off the charge of murdering Anna Nichole Smith by brilliant legal argument then being part of his legal team would have had far more weight, as it is, it doesn't reflect well on you, I'm afraid.
You are aware how the Watergate Scandal broke aren't you? The Plumbers were caught mid-burglary by an astute night-watchmen. He called the cops, and the plumbers were arrested. Before the judge, these men made unwise admissions. The press got onto it, then doggedly teased the story apart, while Nixon and his cronies panicked and over-reacted. Watergate began with a criminal act.
The President is a citizen by blood (through his mother) and by soil (by being born in Hawaii). He fulfilled exactly the same level of identification as every other president (back at least to James Earle Carter). His identification was accepted by the authorised officials (like every other President). Nobody objected at the appropriate time to his nomination. His opponents could have made it an issue, they didn't (although you can bet they sniffed it out). Barack Obama was duly elected by a majority of the people of the United States of America to be President, and he was duly and legally sworn in (twice!).
What criminal act(s) were involved? What evidence do you have that criminal act(s) occurred? Can you produce such evidence in a court where you have standing?
Even if you can bring such a suit, a judge, even the whole Supreme Court Bench, can't remove the President from office. If you want to remove him, you'll have to get a motion to Impeach through both houses with a two-thirds majority, as they are the only court in the land that can try the President. This means you'll have get 66 Senators, and 359 Congress-persons to vote that high crimes and misdemeanors were likely to have committed. Or, you could not vote for him next election.
The President has not hidden anything, quite the contrary, he has provided all the relevant documents for public perusal (which is more than is legally required).
The birfers have provided absolutely no evidence of any kind of wrongdoing by the President, or any other person currently in government, just ever more wild conspiracy theories and garbled constitutional law.
If you really are a lawyer, please provide the following:
a) A 'Long' or 'Vault' Birth Certificate, notarised as being true & accurate (if this is the standard you expect the President to come up to, so should you)
b) Documentation of your legal degree
c) License(s) to practice law in all relevant jurisdictions.
Why do doubt that any of these will be forthcoming, I wonder?.
- DingoJack (stupid foreigner).
_____________
PS: Sorry forgot: [/rant] :)
Posted by: DingoJack | September 30, 2009 11:18 PM
Do any of you have even the faintest clue what Senator Obama declared regarding the legal definition of "natural born Citizen"?
Posted by: Nunyabiz | September 30, 2009 11:18 PM
#79-"Mistress Taitz"-sounds like an S&M web site...
I suppose Your Dreaminess thinks submitting forged documents to courts and coaching witnesesses to lie is OK. Well, to quote a well-known legal eagle, "I predict that after every scintilla of hidden information has been publicly exposed and the evil doers are finally placed on trial;;;"
Posted by: JusticeLeague | September 30, 2009 11:19 PM
DingoJack - Pardon me, but does this issue deal with Simpson or Obama? As previously stated, Simpson is a FORMER client, therefore his current situation is not in any way, shape, or form related to the subject at hand. Have you suffered a traumatic brain injury or were you born brain damaged?
Posted by: Nunyabiz | September 30, 2009 11:23 PM
DJ, when even Ann Fucking Coulter thinks you've gone off the reservation and should STFU.....
Maybe His Dreaminess didn't get the memo.
Posted by: Rick R | September 30, 2009 11:26 PM
"JusticeLeague" - The Honorable Mistress Taitz submitted the documents to the court from a neutral perspective, asking the court to require others to produce the necessary information to determine whether or not the documents are authentic. "Rick R" - Apparently you believe I am a Republican - you are very wrong.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | September 30, 2009 11:32 PM
Mr B (#68) - "(like accusations of fallacies, like I did previously - ..."
That made me wince! [/grammar-nazi] :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 30, 2009 11:36 PM
Nunyabiz, it's perfectly obvious you're nothing but an empty clueless blowhard. You claim you're an expert lawyer, but won't give any specifics; and you claim Obama's breaking some law, but won't give any specifics on that either. You got nothin', and you know it as well as we do.
Here's a question I know you can't possibly answer: if there's ANY evidence that Obama is not eligible to be President, then why didn't the Republican Party, or the Republican appointees at the DoJ, pick up on it BEFORE the election? (You DO know what "DoJ" stands for, don't you?)
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 30, 2009 11:39 PM
DingoJack - Still no legal facts to offer?
Posted by: Nunyabiz | September 30, 2009 11:39 PM
"Nunyabiz" has established himself at other blogs as a pathetic, bona fide troll. Nothing to see here, people.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | September 30, 2009 11:40 PM
"Nunyabiz" = *yawn*
Posted by: Rick R | September 30, 2009 11:42 PM
Raging Bee - Here you are, see for yourself. A person can ONLY become a "natural born Citizen" at BIRTH, the foremost legal requirement is BOTH PARENTS must be U.S. Citizens at the time a child is born to them in order for the child to become a "natural born Citizen". Obama's father was here on a student visa, he was NEVER a U.S. Citizen, therefore Obama, according to his own website, "Fight the Smears", was governed by his father's British/Kenyan citizenship. - The following quote is from "Fight the Smears" AND "FactCheck.org" -
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children." - .......Do you comprehend that a person's citizenship CANNOT be governed by British/Kenyan law at birth, then MIRACULOUSLY convert to a "natural born Citizen" of the U.S.A. at age twenty one?! OBAMA, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, WAS NOT LEGALLY A "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" of the U.S.A. AT BIRTH, nor can his status EVER change under ANY circumstances. Do you "get it" YET?! Do you understand what the legal term "confession" means? can you not read Obama's CONFESSION posted on his own website?! Are you folks calling Obama a liar?! You folks have sliced your own throats from ear to ear.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | September 30, 2009 11:43 PM
Nunsuch - you made the claim proudly, I stated that it wasn't as impressive as you seem to think. (And I am supposed to be the one suffering a brain injury!)
The rest, briefly, outlined the legal situation that totally invalidates birfer claims. (with a short diversion into the Watergate Scandal).
BTW, enlighten us, oh wise one, what 'a natural-born citizen' is in your bizarre parallel universe. - DJ
__________________
PS: Still waiting for the documentation requested.
Posted by: DingoJack | September 30, 2009 11:45 PM
Sadie Morrison - You have engaged in another empty and childish ad hominem attack, thus proving your total lack of legal knowledge and proven facts.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | September 30, 2009 11:47 PM
I always find it amusing when a member of a tiny fringe of nuts claims to speak for "the great majority of persons in this nation and the world."
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 30, 2009 11:47 PM
Aaaaaaaaand here comes the CAPS LOCK......
Posted by: Rick R | September 30, 2009 11:49 PM
Not ONE of you has made the feeblest attempt at defining the qualifications that are required to confer "natural born Citizen" status. My point is proven, you are all very ignorant and childish name callers.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | September 30, 2009 11:50 PM
Can just one of you provide us with Senator Obama's own legal definition of what constitutes a "natural born Citizen"? Apparently you folks know almost nothing regarding Obama's career as a Senator.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | September 30, 2009 11:58 PM
Typical Obamawhores. No substance whatsoever to your posts, you only offer a series of silly ad hominem attacks and easily disproved lies. What a sad group of self-deluded fools.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | October 1, 2009 12:02 AM
DingoJack - Were proper procedures followed concerning objection from Congress? Did each and every state receive precise the same "vetting documentation" from the Democratic Party?
Posted by: Nunyabiz | October 1, 2009 12:10 AM
No, "DingoJack", you don't know the answers, but you're absolutely positive everything was done according to procedure, aren't you?
Posted by: Nunyabiz | October 1, 2009 12:13 AM
Sorry to have taken all the fun out of your mob attack on the Honorable Mistress Taitz, but it seems you folks arrived at the party acting like a group of very rowdy drunken fools. When you learn to behave as responsible adults, maybe your minds will finally blossom and you will turn from your childish ways.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | October 1, 2009 12:19 AM
Nunyabiz
Here's an interesting legal factoid: Barack Obama is the President of the United States of America as vetted by all of the relevant agencies and authorities.
Glad to help you out there, Mr. Attorney.
DingoJack - how did you find it within yourself to give such a thoughtful and reasoned response to someone so undeserving of such?
Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | October 1, 2009 12:45 AM
I do not believe EITHER John McCain, or Barack Obama meet the legal qualifications to be president, but remember, the rules, as unanimously decided by the Senate Judiciary Committee, must apply equally equally to ALL candidates..................................................FACT : Senator Obama served on the Senate Judiciary Committee which investigated the "natural born Citizen" status of John McCain in 2008, and OBAMA IS ON RECORD AS BEING IN FULL AGREEMENT THAT BOTH (TWO) PARENTS MUST BE UNITED STATES CITIZENS IN ORDER FOR A CHILD BORN TO THEM TO ATTAIN THE STATUS OF "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN". "110TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
S. RES. __
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
_______________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Mrs. MCCASKILL (D) (for herself and Mr. LEAHY (D), Mr. OBAMA (D), Mr. COBURN (R), Mrs. CLINTON (D), and Mr. WEBB (D)"... (The summary of the findings of the Senate Judiciary Committee was communicated by Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont - http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html) - Now, after reading the following, even the crazed Obama worshippers must admit that Obama, by his own definition, is most assuredly not Constitutionally qualified to hold office, and that he is also a narcissist. OBAMA KNEW BEFORE HE RAN FOR OFFICE THAT, NO MATTER WHERE HE WAS BORN, HE CANNOT EVER MEET THE CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED LEGAL STANDARD TO BECOME PRESIDENT. Excerpted quote from Senate Judiciary hearing : “Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,” said Leahy. “I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate.”
“It is silly for anyone to argue that Senator McCain is not eligible to become president,” said McCaskill. “I would hope that this is something we can all agree on, for goodness sakes.”
At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
“That is mine, too,” said Leahy....End of quote from Senator Leahy's communication. Notice the use of the words "...American parentS", which is the plural form, thus proving beyond all doubt the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Senator Obama was a voting member, unanimously decided that BOTH PARENTS (meaning TWO parents, not one) are legally required to be American Citizens at the time a child is born to them in order for the child to attain the required status of "natural born Citizen" under law. Obama's father was in the U.S.A. on a student visa, Obama Senior was NEVER a Citizen of our nation. Obama's eligibility has never been investigated by ANY committee - why not?! Is Obama somehow magically exempt from all public scrutiny regarding his Constitutional qualifications and his background? Obama's first official act as president was to sign "Executive Order number 13489", on 21 January, 2009, which permanently sealed all his public and private records. WHY? The act of sealing his records is unprecedented and it is an odd, extreme, and totalitarian measure. So much for his immediately broken campaign promise of "transparency". Obama is now desperately fighting to keep his TRUE background hidden from the American people at any cost. Hawai'i officials are now in a self-created mess. Doctor Fukino made statements as to Obama's status as a "natural born Citizen" - she has absolutely no legal authority to make such a declaration, only a federal judge or Congress possess authority to make such a determination. Now that she has opened her mouth, Fukino has inadvertently opened the records for public inspection under the "Hawai'i Uniform Information Practices Act", which will force the release of all Barack H. Obama's vital records, legally proving his father was not a U.S. Citizen, thus also proving Obama cannot be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States. Fukino, Okubo, and Lingle are forevermore going to be known as "The Three Hawai'ian Stooges" for their bumbling and bungling efforts at a "cya" on behalf of Obama. Instead of providing the desired result, "The Three Hawai'ian Stooges" accidentally pulled the coverings off Obama, leaving his true background naked for all the world to see. Go back to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing members and note their names before you re-start the name calling. I have simply quoted the findings of your "messiah".
Posted by: Nunyabiz | October 1, 2009 12:51 AM
Michael Hoaglin - Please feel free to continue rambling on and on all night about absolutely nothing.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | October 1, 2009 12:54 AM
For one who claims others only offer ad hominems, you sure have set a record here at Dispatches!!!!
For a lawyer, you're a failure - no evidence means no conviction!
Get thee under thy bridge, TROLL!
Posted by: Rahn | October 1, 2009 1:09 AM
OH BOY ALL-CAPS IS FUN EFFECTIVE AND PERSUASIVE!!!!!111!q!
Nunyabiz - you're offering us proof that John McCain is a natural born citizen as evidence that President Obama is not, while maintaining that you don't even agree with that proof?
That's very strange legal reasoning, what with you being a Dream Team lawyer and all (yeah, I think I will bring that up every time).
Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | October 1, 2009 1:12 AM
McDreamy has quickly become McDreary.
No more food for this troll.
Posted by: Rick R | October 1, 2009 1:15 AM
In the case of "United states vs Wong Kim Ark", we have the finding by the Supreme Court that declares one must be both "jus soli', which means "born on the soil" of the United States, PLUS "jus sanguinis", meaning "born of the blood of United States Citizens" (plural, TWO, not one Citizen) are required to establish one as a "natural born Citizen". Contrary to rumors floating around the net, both "Wong Kim Ark's" parents WERE United States Citizens. The cited ruling was rendered well after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. "Wikipedia" errs on many points in it's assessment of the "Wong Kim Ark" case. The actual decision rendered does not even remotely resemble the "Wikipedia" entry, which was obviously written by someone who has little to no understanding of legal phraseology or the law itself (it was probably written by a first or second year law student with no "real world" experience).
Posted by: Nunyabiz | October 1, 2009 1:38 AM
Michael Hoaglin - Either your reading comprehension is terrible, or your "bending and twisting" of facts is intentional. Either way, you lose the argument. Obama cannot hypocritically make an official demand of John McCain that Obama refuses to apply in regard to his own status. You do understand the meaning of "hypocrisy", don't you? What I have clearly shown is Obama's ready willingness to impose standards upon others, from which he has attempted to exempt himself. Obama is in DEEP legal trouble and he knows it. More information is being exposed, more cases are being filed. We the people will prevail. It took more than two years to fully break open the "Watergate" scandal, this situation is barely past its first anniversary and it is moving along much faster than "Watergate". The background information that is about to be released by official sources is causing Obama and George Soros to have nightmares. Lieutenant Quarles Harris has already been murdered for looking into Obama's passport records.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | October 1, 2009 1:58 AM
Nunyabiz, I invite you to define for us the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient".
Note that what was stated was that having two American-citizen parents was sufficient, and you are trying to claim it is necessary.
Of course, given your other claims, I think it is safe to say that you are a delusional individual whose grip on reality is poor.
Posted by: Michael Ralston | October 1, 2009 2:01 AM
Sorry all* -
a conversation between Mrs Macaskill & Mr Leahay is not evidence of anything at all. It certainly does not amount to an admission of Barack Obama of any wrong doing.
That Mrs A and Mr B once had a 'deep and meaningful' behind the bike-shed about whether Mr C was the legal owner of the Brooklyn Bridge doesn't change the law nor the ownership of said NY landmark and it certainly doesn't prove Mr D admitted to trespassing when he crossed it earlier that week.
That said Democrats were wrong on the law is immaterial. The law states that a natural-born citizen should have at least one parent who is a citizen and/or should be born on territory controlled by that state^, no matter what people might think that the law says.
If I think the President is legally vetted and elected, or that you think is is not so, or any other person thinks so, or not, is an irrelevance to the actual law.
Those that have to make that decision, did, according to the laws, made not in your head (or mine) but by Congress, vetted by the Senate, and interpreted by the Courts.
If you wanted to object to Senator Obama on the basis of his citizenship status, you should have done so a year ago, now it's too late. The only legal recourse is impeachment as explained above.
Oh BTW still waiting for that proof of your credentials, until then your legal opinion is "worth every penny". - DJ
-----------------------
*My principle is "give 'em enough rope...".
^or at least that's what the INS, DOJ & DoS seems to think. See their web-sites for details. Which I also explained earlier (pretty poor comprehension skills for a lawyer, a profession that requires, I would have thought, high attention to detail.)
Posted by: DingoJack | October 1, 2009 2:02 AM
If Orly Taitz is so ineffective, then why are the naysayers constantly hacking her blogs? Fact : Obama and Soros are PAYING someone to do the "hacking and cracking". An old friend from "ONI" knows exactly who, what, where, when, and why and he is, at this instant, helping "Homeland Security" end the problem.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | October 1, 2009 2:09 AM
Hilarious! If there's a fact you don't like, just call it a rumor floating around the net... problem solved! That tactic must work very well for you in court, Nuny (that's the big room where you do all your lawyer-y stuff).
Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | October 1, 2009 2:09 AM
DingoJack - It has become very apparent you do not want to see the hypocrisy of Obama. Your blindness shall be cured.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | October 1, 2009 2:16 AM
Michael Hoaglin - How many pages comprise the full transcript of "Wong Kim Ark" that is sitting in my office? (You've not read the case, and even if you had, you wouldn't understand what you were reading - (hilarious!). The cost of the transcript alone probably exceeds your net worth.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | October 1, 2009 2:20 AM
DingoJack - "Impeachment" is by no means the only legal remedy available at this juncture. You have simply repeated a fallacy. Since Obama knowingly violated the law prior to and upon acceptance of the presidency, he can be tried in any federal court of competent jurisdiction. A court in the District of Columbia can hear a "quo warranto" case at any time. Federal courts throughout this nation are empowered to hear cases on levels that you do not comprehend. Don't let this fact escape your radar - Nancy Pelosi and "Dick" Cheney, plus others are implicated in a massive criminal fraud involving Obama. This is not a single issue, it is a multi-pronged civil/criminal matter. Too bad you and many others don't know the entire situation. Sorry, you fail again.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | October 1, 2009 2:34 AM
Nunsuch - Nope not even close.
All I see are piss-poor so-called lawyers trying to create a more comfortable world with their thoughts. Sorry to say it don't change reality or the legal system, no matter what you, or your alleged friend at the ONI* thinks.
No evidence has been forthcoming to prove the President has spend even a cent (or a seconds sleep) over this birfer nonsense, none, nada, zip, bupkis.
Impeachment is the only legal recourse now open to you - a risky, expensive and politically difficult solution. Even then it would deliver President prp tem. Joe Biden and would have no effect on decisions already made, money spent or laws created. - DJ
---------------
*Ooooh quaking in my boots now! You big, beefy Internet tough-guy, you.
[7+ PROXIES!1!!].
PS: see post number 81 for the documentation to be supplied.
WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE!1!! :)
Posted by: DingoJack | October 1, 2009 2:39 AM
Michael Hoaglin - you seem to know what a "courtroom" is. I'll bet you've had first-hand experience with the terms "jail" and "probation", as well.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | October 1, 2009 2:42 AM
Since it's so impossible to understand it without your fine legal mind, then clearly what you should do is help us out by pointing to a humble, understandable website that agrees with your "interpretation" that Ark's parents were US citizens. Every legal site I checked is in complete disagreement with that. Good lord, that's the entire point of the case. Since Ark was born in the US, if his parents were also US citizens then there would have been no question of his citizenship and so no case. The case set the precedent that even children born in the US to resident foreign nationals are natural born citizens. Exactly the opposite of what you're claiming. That sounds like a bit more than a rumor "floating around the net" that you can dismiss.
And I'll bet my meager net worth that the only sites you can find claiming what you are will be birther sites (if any).
Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | October 1, 2009 2:53 AM
DingoJack - Obama has admittedly spent in excess of two million dollars out of his own pockets defending against the various lawsuits. That tells me PLENTY. "Bupkis" points for you, meshugeneh loch in koph. Nosh a schmekle, Alter Kocker.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | October 1, 2009 2:56 AM
Michael Hoaglin - I'll wager you've never heard of "Georgia pleading, practice, and legal forms annotated". I'm the only currently living attorney that has contributed to the official pleadings of the courts of the State of Georgia. Now figure out who I am.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | October 1, 2009 3:05 AM
Michael Hoaglin - I have no intention of leading you to, or endorsing, any website which explains "Wong Kim Ark". Are you lazy, or ignorant, or both? I've purchased a certified copy of the case and fully digested it, you've merely pressed on a keyboard, viewed a screen, and now you fancy yourself a legal scholar. How cute! When do you expect to defend your first parking violation case?
Posted by: Nunyabiz | October 1, 2009 3:11 AM
Precisely the response I expected. Since, obviously, no legal scholar agrees with you, you've suddenly become above citing any.
Proof positive, as if any more were needed, that you're a complete crank and a waste of time.
Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | October 1, 2009 3:26 AM
nunsuch (#121) - citation required.
(#122) - "I'm the only Deity venerated by three major religions whose worshippers claim to be descended from Abraham. Ha ha now guess who I am."
(@123) - You made the extraordinary claim, you have to provide extraordinary proof. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 1, 2009 3:30 AM
The problem with you delusional Obama lovers is, you believe every word posted on your favorite webpage is factual and fully admissible in a court of law. Forget it, it isn't. You folks are being lied to, fed cleverly worded distractions, and intentionally misdirected. Leave the law to the true lawyers. In attempting to defend the indefensible by repeating lies, you are only making a complete fool of yourself. Better you should cut yourself, then swim with piranhas, you would look much more intelligent. I swear, if Obama told you folks candy bars fall out of dogs' butts, you folks would trample each other trying to be the first to get a mouth full. Speaking of cleverly worded distractions, what is the meaning of "natural-born American citizen", as employed by "Stooge" Doctor Fukino? Why the hyphen? Why the word "American". The hyphenated "natural-born" could very well refer to a non-cesarean section, or "natural" vaginal birth. There is no such designation in the law as a "natural-born American citizen", that is a play on words, it is not a legally recognized term that denotes any recognized form of U.S. Citizenship. Why do both "fight the Smears" and "FactCheck.org" contain the following : “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”....That is a CONFESSION from Obama's OWN WEBSITE that Barack H. Obama II was NOT a "natural born Citizen" of the United States at birth, which, by law, is the ONLY time such status shall be available. No one can live twenty years, eleven months, thirty days as a British subject, turn twenty one years of age, then miraculously declare himself a "natural born Citizen" of the United States. That is simply not legally possible. I have shown you TWO instances where Obama has self-proven he is not, and cannot ever become, a "natural born Citizen". If you cannot understand that, you're very much like a blind person wandering around on the Interstate with a red-tipped white cane - it's only a matter of time until the inevitable...
Posted by: Nunyabiz | October 1, 2009 3:51 AM
"Michael Hogwash" and "DingbatJackass" - All true top legal scholars are laughing hysterically at both of you every time you post another comment. Roy Black (of Miami) just called and said "I KNOW THAT'S YOU, I KNOW IT, LOL, LOL, LOL! You're arguing with frigging IDIOTS! LOL, LOL, LOL!". 'Nuff said.
Posted by: Nunyabiz | October 1, 2009 3:58 AM
Nunsuch - For a lawyer you certainly don't know much about the English Language, do you? 'natural-born' is an adjectival phrase that modifies the noun 'citizen', hence it's customarily hibernated in English.
I am not arguing against the proposition that the President (for that is the title he holds, legally) is a 'supernatural born citizen', nor a 'preternatural born citizen, or even that he is an 'unnatural born citizen'*; I am arguing against the idea that he is not a 'natural-born citizen'.
The citizenship status of either parent is not relevant because he is a natural-born citizen 'by soil' (being born on Hawaii). His mother is a natural-born citizen of the US by both 'by blood' and 'by soil'. His father's citizenship is not at all relevant because of the two conditions above.
If what you were arguing were true, all that [sarcasm] 'Dear Leader' [/sarcasm] would have to do would be:
a) declare all citizens of the USA, back to time immemorial, citizens of the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (DRPK).
Since no one could be, or could have been President, due to having dual citizenship, there could never have been, or could ever be, a lawful authority in the so-called territories and dependencies of the so-called USA. Since all citizens of the so-called USA (it's so-called dependencies and territories) are citizens of the DRPK and there is no legal authority in the former USA (and etc.), then, The Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea owns the so-called USA (&etc.) QED! Think that would fly super genius?
Still waiting for the documentary proof asked for earlier. - DJ
-----------------
*Repeat with 'born' and 'citizen' and you get the idea of the stupidity of not hyphenating the adjectival phrase.
Posted by: DingoJack | October 1, 2009 5:08 AM
Nunyabiz
I find it suggestive that you would claim that the (real) lawyer Roy Black "just called" you in the dead of the night, almost 4 AM, Miami time (because he's an obsessive Ed Brayton fan, perhaps?), and then proceeded to talk to you in internet abbreviations like LOL.
Please provide even a scintilla of evidence that the (real) attorney Roy Black shares your incoherent view on "US vs Wong Kim Ark," that Wong's parents were US citizens (since that would have negated any need for a trial clarifying Wong's citizenship in the first place). I'll even open that up to citing any of the "true, top legal scholars" that you claim are "all" on your side. Any at all.
You're a fake. You've been caught. Accept it.
Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | October 1, 2009 5:58 AM
While the above is very entertaining here is the reality as opposed to the merely conjectural:
What His Dreaminess, DingoJack or I think about this is mere mental masturbation. The only bodies whose opinions count are Congress and the SCOTUS. And let's review not statements and words but the actual actions of those 2 bodies-
1. Congress- They met in joint session to ratify the Electoral College vote. At that point, there was an opportunity to object, provided the objection was in writing, signed by at least one member of the House and one Senator. There were none. Now, Your Dreaminess, before you retort with, "but Cheney never asked", do you expect us to believe that there were members of Congress with a valid written objection who simply sat there because Cheney didn't call on them, like school children? That is absurd. If any member had gone to the trouble of preparing a written objection and obtaining the required signatures, he/she certainly wouldn't have sat there and shrugged their shoulders. In fact, let me (unlike His Dreaminess) support my case with a specific example-cast your memory back to Jan 2001, when Congress met to count the votes of the 2000 election. As soon as the VP (ironically Al Gore) called the votes for the state of Florida, a House member rose to object. VP Gore asked if her objection was in writing. "Yes," she replied. He then asked if the objection was signed by a Senator. The answer was "No,"-Sen Boxer had considered joining, but decided not to-so Gore ruled it out of order. Now I ask you where was such a series of events in Jan 2009? There was none. Why not? Because no member of Congress had an objection.
By the way, any attempt to marshall such objections today is invalid. What is relevant is that no properly prepared objection was made at the time designated in law.
2. The SCOTUS- What were their actions? First, they denied review to several birther cases, both those based on a putative Kenyan birth and those based on the citizenship of Obama's father. Second, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath of office (twice) to President Obama. Now, the fact that Obama Sr. was a Kenyan on a student visa was not a secret at the time of the election and inaguration. It was in Obama's book, "Dreams from my Father" and was mentioned in many of his speeches. I certainly knew it. In case the members of the Court spent all of 2008 in a cave, they would have been informed of this fact by the briefs in the various cases.
Now, you might have us believe that Chief Justice Roberts is the kind of flighty, devil-may-care type who would swear in someone as President that he didn't think was qualified, especially when that person is from the opposing party. I find that quite simply incredible.
So, the inescapable conclusion is that whatever some bloggers might like to believe, the actions of the 2 branches of government whose opinions matter show that they believe Mr Obama to be qualified. They believed it in January and despite the mealy-mouthed statements of a few Republicans, as a body, they believe it today.
And that is all that matters.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | October 1, 2009 7:07 AM
Re DingoJack @ #81
Actually, only a majority vote in the House is required to pass articles of impeachment of a president (articles of impeachment is equivalent to an indictment in a criminal case). The 2/3 vote to convict and remove a president from office is required only in the Senate.
Re Nunyabiz
Although I suspect that Mr. Nunyabizs' claims to having been a member of the "Dream Team" in the Simpson case are a figment of his imagination, I would like to point out that they won the case not because of their legal acumen but because of the incompetence of the prosecutors, particularly meathead Marsha the moron. A competent prosecution team would have won the case going away. Having said this, I have to admit that, although there is very little question that Simpson killed his ex-wife, I have grave doubts as to whether he also killed Ron Goldman. I can make a strong case that Mr. Goldman was killed before Simpson arrived at the scene.
As to Mr. Nunyabizs' perambulations about removal of a president from office, Article II of the US Constitution makes it quite clear that only the Congress has the power to remove a president from office. There is nothing in the Constitution which can be construed as allowing the judicial branch of government to remove a president.
Posted by: SLC | October 1, 2009 7:41 AM
Oops my bad. 66 Senators and 259 Congresscritters, still a difficult proposal.
SLC - So who killed Ron Goldman, and why? Also why did OJ kill his wife after Mr Goldman's death? What's your theory of the crime (bearing in mind it's all just speculation and totally without any legal weight)*. -DJ
----------------
*Besides I'm bored with Mr 'Dream Team' and his alleged ONI friends.
Posted by: DingoJack | October 1, 2009 7:53 AM
Re DingoJack
1. Actually, 218 votes in the House of Representatives are required to approve articles of impeachment (there are 435 such individuals, the DC delegate not having a vote).
2. As to the Simpson case, I would be delighted to discuss my theory as to what happened at 865 N. Bundy Dr. between 10:30PM and 10:45PM on the night of June 12, 1994. However, I suspect that Mr. Brayton would not appreciate my hijacking this thread for what would be a rather lengthy discussion and would be very much OT. However, if he were to approve, I would be delighted to put forth my analysis of the evidence, including evidence not produced at either the criminal or civil trials.
Posted by: SLC | October 1, 2009 8:17 AM
SLC - have you considered blogging on this subject? If not, I too would be interested (in another place) in discussing this. - truly curious, DJ
________________
PS: Apologies for my (huge) numerical fail. :(
Posted by: DingoJack | October 1, 2009 8:23 AM
I think Ed was up all night reporting on the show-down in Michigan's capitol given our fiscal year ended last evening and no budget was passed; a temporary budget was passed a few hours ago: http://michiganmessenger.com/27102/down-to-the-wire-tracking-michigans-budget-negotiations
So while Michigan's morning newspapers are all wrong given they went with the failure to pass a budget last evening, Ed's got the scoop.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 1, 2009 8:55 AM
For those of you without easy access to case texts, here are some nice tidbits from the Wong Kim Ark case putting the lie to Nunya's claims:
Historical principle:
The Court's Constitutional interpretation:
Born in the US=US citizen:
Everyone in the US is subject to the jurisdiction of the US:
And lastly:
Posted by: Davis | October 1, 2009 9:04 AM
An interesting corollary of the baseless position propounded by His Dreaminess et al. (that both parents must be US citizens regardless of where the birth occured) is that it would require all candidates for President to undergo paternity testing to establish that the father named on their birth certificate (long or short) is in fact their actual father. And, if the claimed father were deceased and cremated, for example, it would likely be impossible to prove the case.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | October 1, 2009 9:33 AM
Oh, and Nunyabiz? Executive Order number 13489 does NOT "permanently seal" Obama's records - even a quick perusal establishes that.
And you have lied about the Wong Kim Ark case, as well.
It is quite clear that you are either lying when you say you are a lawyer, or you are brain-damaged. Neither fact implies anything about what you are saying, of course, since you've yet to make an actual argument.
But you are quite stupid, and not very good at this sort of thing. Nobody hacks Orly's sites, that I am aware; I suspect she simply isn't smart enough to keep them running, or somebody thinks it's fun to bring it down.
She's irrelevant and unimportant.
As are you.
Posted by: Rilke's granddaughter | October 1, 2009 9:35 AM
Nuny: "DingoJack - Obama has admittedly spent in excess of two million dollars out of his own pockets defending against the various lawsuits. That tells me PLENTY. "Bupkis" points for you, meshugeneh loch in koph. Nosh a schmekle, Alter Kocker."
And this, of course, is a complete lie. Or perhaps you'd like to supply the proofs?
Sigh. Don't you have ANYTHING novel or interesting, nuny?
Posted by: Rilke's granddaughter | October 1, 2009 9:40 AM
Oh, and another bit of amusement for our lying troll nuny: "That the said Wong Kim Ark was born in the year 1873, at No. 751 Sacramento Street, in the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, United States of America, and [p651] that his mother and father were persons of Chinese descent and subjects of the Emperor of China, and that said Wong Kim Ark was and is a laborer."
Note the bit about about the citizenship of the mother and father.
If you'd rather look at the actual materials: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html.
Posted by: Rilke's granddaughter | October 1, 2009 9:47 AM
I believe this is the link Rilke's granddaughter meant to use (she appears to have inadvertently included a period at the end of her URL).
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 1, 2009 9:55 AM
Ooopsie. Thanks, Michael. Dammit Jim, I'm a scientist, not a programmer.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | October 1, 2009 10:03 AM
Well Nunyabiz (Orly) has gone off to file more stupid motions, if she comes back, I would like her to read the following:
From Unitied States v. Wong Kim Ark:
---------------------------------------------------------
I think that is pretty clear, don't you think?
Posted by: Anti-birther | October 1, 2009 10:17 AM
From Nunyabiz:
But, Orly, we all know that he won't have to pay for the money he spent defending himself in the Rhodes case. Your client will have to foot that bill. LOL
Posted by: Anti-Birther | October 1, 2009 10:37 AM
It is unnecessary to say this, of course, but the wiki summary of Wong Kim Ark are more or less identical to the section headings in the US (annotated) Reporter. They are not the opinion itself, of course, but they are persuasive authority. I also confess to not possessing a "Certified copy of the case," which I suppose is distinct from the one included in my US Reports cds, or the WestLaw ConLaw cds, or a half-dozen other places I could probably find it....
Posted by: kehrsam | October 1, 2009 10:42 AM
Nunyabiz wrote:
No, Orly, I believe you need professional psychiatric help.
Posted by: Anti-birther | October 1, 2009 10:43 AM
Nunyabiz, #123: I've purchased a certified copy of the case....
You know, he keeps dropping these hints that he's pulling our legs.
Or am I being naive?
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 1, 2009 10:56 AM
I am an American. I am proud of my country (as a whole) but I recognize that there are certain parts of American History that are shamefull to say the least. Unfortunately, racism is one of those things. Even more unfortunately, racism continues to be a mjor issue even today.
Historically. a particularly nasty example of institutionalized racism are the Chinese Exclusion Laws, of the late nineteenth century.
These laws directly lead to the Supreme Court of the U.S. case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (WKA).
The legal brief of the lawyer representing the United States in WKA evokes the same mixture of disgust and revulsion that occurs when turning over a rotting animal carcass to look at the maggots squirming underneath. But turn it over we must, for by doing that we can learn to recognize the foul stench of racism, and to identify it when it occurs in our society today.
In the case of WKA, the United States, having lost in the lower courts, pursued the matter to the Supreme Court for resolution. They were the appellant in this case. Arguing for the U.S. was George D. Collins a prominent San Francisco attorney (who eventually wound up in prison for bigamy and perjury, but that is neither here not there in relation to this case).
It is a legal axiom, that, in any argument before a court, you leave your best and supposedly strongest argument for last. I therefore invite you to examine the last and “best” argument by the state for denying (WKA) natural born citizenship status. It starts at the bottom of page 33 (page 17 of the PDF file) and continues over the next few pages.
http://library.uchastings.edu/library/topical-a...
I won’t bother detailing just how incredibly vile and racist that argument is, read it to see for yourself. If you do, note how similar the arguments are to today’s arguments by the birthers. The only difference is that in 1898, they had the intellectual honesty openly express their hatred and prejudice as opposed to today’s birthers.
I do want to point out the primary reason, as expressed in the brief, which was presented by the state to deny WKA citizenship as a birthright.
It would seem that even the opposing counsel in WKA conceded the fact that citizenship at birth was equivalent to “Natural Born” citizenship.
Posted by: Anti-Birther | October 1, 2009 11:11 AM
Well, I see Nunyabuzzzz totally failed to answer the question I predicted he'd fail to answer. And he still hasn't proven he's a lawyer, and never cited a scrap of actual case-law to support his bigoted and uninformed opinion. And now that others actualy HAVE cited relevant case-law, this so-called famous lawyer is gone. I take that as an admission that he knows he's been caught out in his pathetic fraud.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 1, 2009 2:36 PM
Well, since nunyabiz is most likely Orly herself, she's probably too buzy trying to figure out how she will avoid getting slapped with a $10,000 fine tommorow.
Posted by: Anti-birther | October 1, 2009 5:04 PM
Nunyabiz is Orly? I wouldn't rule that out (both brag of being expert lawyers, and both seem equally ignorant of US law or how it really works), but I gotta ask where you get that conclusion?
In any case, I really hope Orly gets disbarred. Her antics are nothing but a deliberate attempt to pervert our system of justice -- even more than Bush & Co. have already perverted it.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 1, 2009 5:18 PM
And any minute now, Obama's fraud is going to be blown wide open! Soon! You just wait, it's coming! The people are getting restless! Right now! And soon!
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 1, 2009 5:37 PM
Chiroptera - I have the popcorn ready, but should I hold my breath? I'm not gonna pass out or nothin', right? Or...get brain damaged from oxygen starvation and go into business with Orly and Nuny (or Orly/Nuny if that is the case)?
Posted by: Badger3k | October 1, 2009 6:48 PM
That would also (more or less) fit the description of Larry Fafarman, but I doubt he's Nuny; he never gets to post for this long before being found out and banned. That, and no mention of BVD-clad bloggers.
Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | October 1, 2009 8:10 PM
Orly always show up in a thread about herself. She's so paranoid, she googles herself constantly.
Posted by: Chillidog | October 1, 2009 10:16 PM
It ain't over till it's over
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/terrik-investigation-part-3-hawaii-ag-mark-bennett-approved-fukinos-natural-born-citizen-statement-all-records-should-be-made-public-according-to-law/
Posted by: scott1 | October 2, 2009 12:02 AM
Re scott1
I have a flash for Mr. scott1. The fat lady has sung, the lights have been turned off and the audience has gone home.
Posted by: SLC | October 2, 2009 5:41 AM
Yo, scott1, the fat lady had FOUR YEARS to sing about this. How much longer we gotta wait?
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 2, 2009 8:48 AM
Gather 'round Snotty (#156),
we're just about ready to stick a fork in the Fat Lady - SHE'S WELL & TRULY DONE! :D
Posted by: DingoJack | October 2, 2009 9:05 AM
Can someone with PACER access keep an eye out for Judge Land's ruling on Orly's fines?
Also, Orly just made a couple of new filings yesterday in the California case.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20508475/KEYES-v-OBAMA-78-opposition-surreply-opposition-to-motion-to-dismiss-re-MOTION-to-Dismiss-Case-AND-MEMORANDUM-OF-POINTS-AND-AUTHORITIES-IN-SUP
and
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20509291/KEYES-v-OBAMA-784-Exhibit-Affidavit-PI-Susan-DanielsObamas-use-of-SS-number-of-the-deceasedTaitz-Orly-Entered-10012009-Govuscourts
Posted by: Chilidog | October 2, 2009 9:54 AM
Looks like AXJ has just published some interesting facts on this case.
Posted by: AXJ | October 3, 2009 12:18 AM
AXJ is a troll and a virus site.
Posted by: Chilidog | October 3, 2009 8:27 AM
Back to Orly, It looks like she filed a couple of motions late Friday.
One, a request for more time to file her response
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20550269/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-25-MOTION-for-Extension-of-Time-to-File-response-by-Connie-Rhodes-filed-by-Orly-TaitzTaitz-Orly-Entered-10022009-Go
the other, is a motion to recuse Judge Land.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20550230/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-24-MOTION-for-Recusal-by-Connie-Rhodes-filed-by-Orly-TaitzTaitz-Orly-Entered-10022009-Govuscourtsgamd77605240
This is typical Orly. When she doesn't get the response she wants from a judge, she demands he recuse himself.
Anyway, it looks like she is trying to buy time until after the Carter hearing on Monday in California.
LOL
Posted by: Chilidog | October 3, 2009 8:33 AM
Thanks, Chilidog, that was one of the most entertaining pieces I've read in a long time:
1. She actually uses the term "batshit insane" in a legal filing.
2. She accuses the judge of being biased because he owns shares in Microsoft.
You really couldn't make this up.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | October 3, 2009 8:59 AM
Download the documents and check the "Properties"
It seemes that the Author is listed as Mr. Charles Edward Lincoln III, a disbarred lawyer and a convicted felon.
Now Orly may have written them herself, being too foolish not to change the name in the documents properties, but it if she is collaborating in the practice of law with him in any way, it will get her into serious trouble (well more trouble, at least)
Posted by: Chilidog | October 3, 2009 4:22 PM
Oh, JusticeLeague? you are wrong, she does not say "batshit insane." she says "batshit crazy," which is a much better description.
Posted by: Chilidog | October 3, 2009 6:27 PM
Chili-Praytell,the distinction betwen "batshit crazy" and "batshit insane" escapes me. Care to enlighten me?
It seems Orly is both, though.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | October 3, 2009 6:31 PM
Well, the difference is clear. Batshit insane is a clinical term. For example, two doctors are touring a Psych ward and one of them says: “In here, Doctor, we treat various forms of insanity, including the paranoid delusional, the schizophrenic, and the batshit insane.”
Batshit crazy, on the other hand is an advertising slogan. Imagine a billboard with Orly’s picture and the following: ”Crazy Orly’s Batshit, Emporium! ! ! For all your lawyering and dental needs.*
See the difference?
*Apologies to “Crazy Kaplan's house of fireworks."
Posted by: Chilidog | October 5, 2009 8:54 AM
Not just lawyering and dentistry, I believe Orly is a Realtor as well. It's possible she caused the financial meltdown all by herself!
Posted by: JusticeLeague | October 5, 2009 9:43 AM
Numnutz must have been that lawyer for OJ that invented the "Wookie Defense" spelled out by South Park!
PS - Hello Scott1, AKA Scott Wainner From Boise Idaho. Are you still trying to attack all of Presidential Candidate Chuck Baldwin's opponents so your favorite candidate can become President? Do you think he is going to run again for the Constitution Party in 2012, so you might as well do as much damage as you can now, or what?
Posted by: Nixon | October 5, 2009 7:56 PM