Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Haven't been following this birther crap at all, but it has that familiar feel to it.

Caught lying? Change the subject! Getting barraged with cries of "evidence?" from skeptics? Post some youtube links!! Getting otherwise fact-smacked by debunkers? Copy/paste some obscure blogs that are totally irrelevant to the discussion! Still have no evidence? Make up your own!! Need a credibility boost? Point out that some famous moron backs your moronic idiocy in a false appeal to authority. Etc, etc, etc...

God. this is 10X worse than the truther nonsense. It literally takes 5 minutes of research to confirm that Barack Obama was indeed born in Hawaii. Ballgame. Why does this continue?
 
Paul said:
Wow, that really is a page full of tiny minded wastes of oxygen; a whole catalogue of racist patriots, armchair revolutionary thugs, and experts on the Constitution in Their Heads.


I don't know why I'm surprised :(
Click to expand...


Only goes to show how little research these racists do. Pat Dollard - post an article, no "leading" explanation, just an image cap of a Kenyan newspaper, and the comments fill up racist comments and not one iota from the participants to verify the article or where it came from

As someone posted, Snopes found the ORIGINAL AP article as appeared in the San Diego Union Tribune and Seattle Times, and no where in the article mention Kenyan born. Showing yet again that the Kenyan newspaper, the Sunday Standard, added that line in.


Goes to show how little these idiots will do to make sure its the truth


Truthers disgust me, because they place the blame on innocent people; and defend the terrorists

Birthers disgust me even more because they are disgusting creatures and with Obama as president, the more disgusting hate filled racists show their colors.
 
boyntonstu said:
The Illinois Senate Race in 2004

Obama running for Senate in 2004 says that he was born in Kenya.

According to AP and Obama who never denied it.

Was AP controlled by Fox news in 2004?

http://patdollard.com/2009/10/ap-kenyan-born-obama-ready-for-us-senate/
Click to expand...
Go to the library and look up your local papers version of the article for that day. See if they're the same.

I know that means going outside, but if you love your country isn't that a small price to pay.
 
CptColumbo said:
I know that means going outside, but if you love your country isn't that a small price to pay.
Click to expand...
But the liberal joo nazis of the new world order control the media, the only information you can trust is what some paranoid conspiracist puts on the interwebs.
 
Indeed. Actually, what all of this shows is how particularly tolerant American courts are...and how bad your lawyering needs to be to get the court to react and cite you for contempt -- little less take real actions, like pushing for disbarment.
 
apathoid said:
Haven't been following this birther crap at all, but it has that familiar feel to it.

Caught lying? Change the subject! Getting barraged with cries of "evidence?" from skeptics? Post some youtube links!! Getting otherwise fact-smacked by debunkers? Copy/paste some obscure blogs that are totally irrelevant to the discussion! Still have no evidence? Make up your own!! Need a credibility boost? Point out that some famous moron backs your moronic idiocy in a false appeal to authority. Etc, etc, etc...

God. this is 10X worse than the truther nonsense. It literally takes 5 minutes of research to confirm that Barack Obama was indeed born in Hawaii. Ballgame. Why does this continue?
Click to expand...

'Cos some people don't like to lose. Keep changing the rules of the game to suit your needs.

Michael
 
Travis said:
From the losing side, right?
Click to expand...

In the Dred Scott case, it would have been from the winning side.

the Dred Scott case was not exactly a shining moment in American jurisprudence.

Fortunately, that particular case was later made moot by the 14th amendment.
 
drkitten said:
Sweet. More frivolous paperwork. I smell another sua sponte contempt order.
Click to expand...

What is the proper method for appealing this sort of fine? I assume that there must be some way to seek relief from a genuinely egregious Rule 11 sanction (say the judge actually did just want to punish a lawyer because of political animus). Is Orly doing anything right here (taking it for granted that shrieking "help, help I'm being repressed" and trying to reargue your entire case is obviously not helping her case)?
 
The last sentence in Orly’s motion to appeal (bolding as per the original):

In this appeal, the undersigned counsel will address the critical questions omitted by the court, to show that the Court appears never even to have considered, much less addressed or ruled upon, the original Plaintiff’s key question of whether an officer’s obedience to her constitutional oath is NOT nothing more than a political claim which does not give rise to a case or controversy to be heard in federal court.
Click to expand...

Yikes! Holy quadruple negative, Batman!

I know English is not her first language, but she could have at least run that past the disbarred lawyer she hired to law clerk for her.
 
Another "Sentence to Nowhere:"

This evidence was not only sufficient not to subject the undersigned to sanctions and to grant further discovery, if the court thought that the evidence is not sufficient for trial, but it also should’ve been a sufficient concern for the National Security of this Nation for Judge Land to forward the complaint, exhibits and transcripts to FBI, police, DA, Atty. Gen of GA and US Atty. for criminal investigation and prosecution of Mr. Obama for massive fraud, social security fraud, public corruption and other charges that might be warranted at the end of the investigation.
Click to expand...


Does your brain hurt yet?
 
Alferd_Packer said:
In the Dred Scott case, it would have been from the winning side.

the Dred Scott case was not exactly a shining moment in American jurisprudence.
Click to expand...

Okay, I thought it had been introduced by the Scott team and would thus not be appropriate to use as precedent even if the larger ruling of the case was obviated by later events.
 
Travis said:
Okay, I thought it had been introduced by the Scott team and would thus not be appropriate to use as precedent even if the larger ruling of the case was obviated by later events.
Click to expand...

Actually I don't know for sure what side it was used on, but in any case, the Wong Kim Ark case established the standard in 1898.
 
Not only is the language clunky but they use things, like contractions, that are not generally considered proper in legal filings.
 
Yoink said:
What is the proper method for appealing this sort of fine? I assume that there must be some way to seek relief from a genuinely egregious Rule 11 sanction (say the judge actually did just want to punish a lawyer because of political animus). Is Orly doing anything right here (taking it for granted that shrieking "help, help I'm being repressed" and trying to reargue your entire case is obviously not helping her case)?
Click to expand...

Well, IANAL, so use appropriate helpings of NaCl.

But, yes, I believe that she is following approximately the correct procedure, in that any adverse decision can in theory be appealed and the procedure to do so is to file a notice of appeal.

Of course, as she herself admits, she's violating the exact procedure. What she should do is file a motion for reconsideration with Judge Land under rule 59. Only then (after she's exhausted her remedies at the lower level) is she eligible to appeal. And she obviously knows this, since she admits as much.

.... which means that her motion to appeal will be denied for failure to exhaust (and failure to follow proper procedure), and is likely to be held to be frivolous and draw more sanctions.

The basic problem is that her entire case is frivolous, which in turn means that she doesn't really have any non-frivolous options.

What she should have done (assuming she had actual arguments) is file a motion for reconsideration under rule 59 that points out the actual error the judge made. (E.g. "Comes now Orly Taitz who respectfully ask the court to take judicial notice of the case of Flintstone v. Rubble in which it was held that no dentist may be sanctioned for any reason. We therefore ask that the judgment and order demanding sanctions be set aside.")

If the judge does not respond appropriately to the order 59 motion, then you appeal and point the error out to the higher court. This procedure puts the error of the judge on the record so that the appellate court can easily find it.

But since she has no such error, her only chance is to argue her Birfer case in full in front of a higher court. And since higher courts will not typically permit that,.... she's hosed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom