Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nonsense. Your reluctance to cite the case and provide a link speaks volumes. Nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with the evidence of fraud in the LFBC. Nor prove the validity of the document itself.

Regardless of your opinion, the opinion of Mr. Zullo or anyone else, the Hawaiian State Authority has confirmed that Mr. Obama's LFBC is accurate.

That means that it is accurate.

You don't get to stomp your feet and say that it isn't. The same way we don't get to tell you that your birth certificate was forged if the state authorities say that it is accurate.
 
Nonsense. Your reluctance to cite the case and provide a link speaks volumes.

Ha ha ha! I ask you a question to test your research and knowledge regarding your so-called expert, and you try to lay the burden of proof back on me! Just ... wow.

"The teacher's unwillingness to write the answers on the board during the test speaks volumes." I'm gonna be laughing about this one all day.

Nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with the evidence of fraud in the LFBC.

How would you know? You don't seem know any of the Birther cases Zebrest was involved with. When you research Zebrest's record, it's pretty hard to miss. But I suppose Fox News and Ann Coulter don't talk about that, so you're left with a big hole in your understanding of the allegations of fraud.

Nor prove the validity of the document itself.

Shifting the burden of proof.
 
Nonsense. Your reluctance to cite the case and provide a link speaks volumes.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_K...4LTkxZTUtZjNkNjNhOGY2YWQ4/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1

However, neither Defendant nor his counsel, Michael Jablonski, appeared or answered. Ordinarily, the Court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.30(1) and (5). Nonetheless, despite the Defendant's failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs' request.

By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.

[...]

The Court finds testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ allegations. Ms. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony from several of the witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts. See Stephens v. State, 219 Ga. App. 881 (1996) (the unqualified testimony of the witness was not competent evidence). For example, two of Plaintiffs' witnesses testified that Mr. Obama's birth certificate was forged, but neither witness was properly qualified or tendered as an expert in birth records, forged documents or document manipulation.

[...]

None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' claims are not persuasive.

That
, Mister Prey, speaks volumes.

Nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with the evidence of fraud in the LFBC. Nor prove the validity of the document itself.

It has everything to do with both. It says that you so called "evidence" is so pathetically poor that it's utterly unconvincing in a court of law even when completely unchallenged.
 
Last edited:
The Jay Utah Dodge -- Again and again.

Ha ha ha! The teacher is "dodging" because he refuses to give the answers to the students during the test?

I mentioned a few details of the case and ANTPogo found it in minutes. I knew about the case. He knew about the case. The case was, in fact, discussed in this thread, which you refuse to read. But Robert Prey didn't know anything about the case.

Please tell us all again how I'm dodging.

You say this matter is about a very serious crime: the forgery of an official document in order to secure the highest elected office in the land. If you're going to take such a case to court, don't you think it would be wise to have evidence that is admissible in a court? Why is Zebrest's evidence inadmissible? Because she has absolutely no training or experience in the forensic authentication of documents or in the detection of forgeries. None whatsoever. And yet you think her lay opinion is some kind of smoking gun.
 

Thank you for providing what Jay Utah was afraid to provide. Having read the case, I can see why. Utah claimed that Zebest failed the voir dire. Although Zebest isn't even mentioned in the ruling, assuming she was a witness,the fact is that it was Ms. Taitz, the Plaintiff who failed to qualify her witnesses ("Ms. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony for several of the witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts"). so the court had nothing to rule on. That's not a failure of voir dire but a failure of the plaintiff, none of which as any bearing on Ms. Zebest's expertise, nor any bearing on the substance of the evidence.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for providing what Jay Utah was afraid to provide.

Um, no.

("Ms. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony for several of the witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts").

That's what it means to fail voir dire. Well, specifically the judge in the case subpoenaed Zebest to appear for voir dire, but she refused. Hence she was ruled a lay witness, testifying by deposition only, and given essentially no weight.

As a matter of fact, I'm not aware of a single court in this land were Zebest's claims have been submitted in evidence supporting a claim of forged birth credentials, but where Zebest has submitted to, and passed, voir dire as an expert witness.
 
Last edited:
That's not a failure of voir dire but a failure of the plaintiff, none of which as any bearing on Ms. Zebest's expertise, nor any bearing on the substance of the evidence.

So why hasn't Ms. Zebest testified as an "expert witness" in any court cases during the last 18 months (since she first did her "analysis" of Obama's birth certificate)?
 
Folks, please remember your Membership Agreement and cut out the personalizations. Address the argument rather than attacking the arguer. If you cannot discuss the subject matter civilly and in accordance with the M.A., do not hit the "submit reply" button, or canary coloured cards will follow. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
Item: Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii governor drops mission to dispel birthers, prove Obama was born in state
BY ALIYAH SHAHID
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Saturday, January 22, 2011

http://articles.nydailynews.com/201...ical-hospital-hawaii-governor-president-obama

"Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie is giving up on efforts to squash claims that President Barack Obama wasn't born in his state -- but it's not for lack of trying."

Item: Thursday, January 20th, 2011
Hawiian Reporter

Governor Ambercrombie Fails to prove Obama was Born in Hawaii

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/gov-n...-failed-to-prove-obama-was-born-in-hawaii/123

BY ROBERT PAUL REYES

"President Barack Obama has been unable to dispel the rumors that that he wasn`t born in the United States....
Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who took office in December, told Honolulu`s Star-Advertiser on Tuesday that `our investigation` indicates there is a recording of his birth. 'It actually exists in the archives, written down,' he said.The new Democratic head of the state vowed when he took office that he would do his best to end the debate over Obama`s birth, which began in 2008 during the presidential campaign... To state that "officials have tracked down papers indicating that President Obama was indeed born in Hawaii" falls woefully short of proving that Obama is a citizen of the United States. To claim that "our investigation `indicates there is a recording of his birth" doesn`t mean Jack."

* * *

Based on the above news articles and commentary, the following is a hypthetical imagined conversation between Hawaii Governor Neil Ambercrombie and the Attorney General of Hawaii. Although the conversation is imagined, The remarks concerning Hawiian customs, practices and the law itself are gleaned from Sheriff' Joe's chief investigator, Mike Zullo at Sheriff Joe's July 27 news conference which can be viewed in its entireity at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alVzyfptF80

* * *

Governor Ambercrombie:
. Mr. Attorney General, I want to see the original birth certificate of Barack Obama. Lot's of people question its existence and I'd like to assure everyone that the Governor has seen it and it is real so that the controversy does not affect the next election.

Attorney General: Governor, I really wish you wouldn't pursue this. It's a sensitive subject and there are laws about releasing such information including an individual`s birth documentation without the person`s consent.

Gov.: But I'm the Governor of the state of Hawaii, and all I want to do is see the Birth Certificate in order to verify that it exists.

AG: : Governor, I do hope you will keep this confidential, but the real reason I can't show you his Birth Certificate is because, ah well... , we don't exactly have it. All we have is a notation -- a Declaration that someone -- possibly his grandparents -- made about his birth, but no actual Birth Certificate.

Gov: Why his grandparents?

AG: Because the address of the declarer on the notation was the address of his Grandparents and that's the address we've placed on his Certification of Live Birth.

Gov: But how can that be? How can someone make a declaration of a birth that may not have even occurred in Hawaii??

AG: The 1955 Revised Laws which were in effect in 1961 allowed for anyone who claimed to have witnessed a birth, to register that birth. The State of Hawaii accepted testimony of that birth even though unsworn and even though there was no investigative unit to documnent the truth or the accuracy of the unsworn testimony.The law says that any relative or even the person himself can make such a declaration, at any time, whether 6 months or even 60 years after the birth. The idea was to accomodate military families and others who because of employment were stationed outside of Hawaii. We do have a notation of Mr. Obama's Declaration of his birth, but not a birth certifcate.

GOV. Well, then a notation or "Declaration" -- That means it proves he was born in Hawaii, doesn't it?

AG; Ah well, not necessarily. You see, the law provides for such a "declaration" of birth even if the birth occurred outside of Hawaii or even outside of the country. Even an actual Birth Certificate issued by the State of Hawaii only proves that the State has a record of the birth on file, not that the information is necessarily true or accurate. A Hawaiian Birth Certificate is therefore worthless in terms of its evidenciary or probative value. Thus, in order to vet a President, you would have to have some other supporting documentation, such as hospital records.

Gov: So you have a "Notation" that he was born, but you can't prove he was born in Hawaii via a "Declaration???

AG: Exactly.

Gov: But isn't that fraud???

AG: Actually, no. It's the law.

GOV: But what about that Certification of Live Birth document that you released?

AG: Well as it happens, when some of those right wing crazies started to question the citizenship of the President, we were really in a bind. We couldn't very well say that we have a "Declaration" but not a Birth Certificate, which really coudn't prove the President was born here, so in order to quiet things down and prevent a Constitutional crisis, we had to simply make up a document -- a Certification of Live Birth. And it was truthful to the extent that we certainly know he was born someplace, and perhaps even in Hawaii but we could not prove it. So, we had no other choice but to make up the document based on the Declaration somebody -- perhaps his grandparents -- submitted. Governor, as you and I both know, In life, and especially in politics, sometimes you've just got to do what you've got to do. If the truth of this ever got out to the press and the public, it would not only ruin the Presidency, but might be a fatal blow to the Democrat Party as well as the country. Please do not pursue this matter any further. If you do happen to mention anything of what I have told you, I will deny we ever had this conversation or tell the press that you simply misunderstood what I said. Because if this controversy continues and we continue to get pressured from the White House, we may have to create a Long Form Birth Certificate for the President, and that would indeed be totally illegal. So you see why what I have told you must be kept confidential?

Gov: Hmmmm.

delete
 
Last edited:
The following is a hypothetical imagined conversation that will take place at the up coming GOP convention. While it is imagined it is gleamed from what I have investigated into the GOP's unwillingness to take on the birther cause.

Editors note: The Koch brothers always speak in perfect harmony and in unison in this conversation, almost singing but not quite. John Boehner is having to shout to be heard because he is in a tanning booth.

(its after Romney/Ryan have been given the official nomination. The speeches are done and the convention floor is being cleaned. In a private banquet hall not far from the main convention floor the Koch brothers (KB), John Boenher(JB), Romney/Ryan, and Todd Akin have gathered to discuss the birther issue in a secret meeting with Orly Taitz(OT) who is wearing a princess Leia slave bikini outfit. The sounds of poor people cleaning up the main hall can be heard in the background. The KB are seated in large thrones decorated with skulls and satanic symbols at either side sit MR and PR.) Begin scene.

KB: What a glorious coup! Our minions are installed as the nominees and our leveraged buyout of the Republican party is complete!!! (Manic cackling and firm strokes on the heads of MR and PR follow)

(Enter stage left Akin with a carrier of cappuccinos. He begins to hand them out)

Akin: Did I do good bosses? Did I?

Boehner: WHAT!? WHO'S THERE?

Akin: It is me your humble servant in waiting with your coffee sire! Extra pumpkin flavoring in yours Mr. Boehner.

Boehner: YEA GREAT. NOW WHY ARE YOU ALL HERE RIGHT NOW?

KB: Akin has something he wants us hear, a special guest speaker. Now hurry minion and tell us your news so that we may make it to our fortnightly dead baby feast!

Akin: I aim only to please you and bath in your glorious glory! I have a secret weapon for winning the election! Your glorious money has bought you the republican party but your hostile takeover of the government is not complete without a win this November.

Mitt: This maybe just what we need! We all know there is no way we can win in a honest election. Tell us quick!

Akin: My plan is so devious it is sure to hand the white house to the GOP!

Paul: TELL US! TELL US! Our policies are so laughably stupid we will need every dirty trick in the book to win this election!

KB: Is it a special nerve gas that kills only liberals and baby fur seals!?

Boehner: IS IT A SPECIAL NERVE GAS THAT KILLS ONLY LIBERALS AND BABY FUR SEALS?

KB: Oh forget him he is just a drunk fool! Tell us your plan!

Akin: I present to you Princess Taitz and the birther movement!!!

(enter Taitz in gold bikini holding sparklers. Paul begins to madly masterbate/P90X. There is nothing but silence and looks of shock on everyones face)

Mitt: I am not touching that with a 10 foot pole!

Paul: (Howls as continues to play with himself.)

KB: Thats a none starter.

OT: But the layers and the artifacts and the Kenian birth certificate and sheriff joes cold case and the madrasa and long form and the fake birth notices!

Akin: And did you know his mother can’t be white because white lady naughty bits have a method for preventing pregnancy when a black man enters them!

KB: Oh don’t be silly! Of course we know Obama was born in a communist muslim caliphate hospital!

Mitt: Had his mother been wearing magic underwear she never would have had a problem.

Akin: So lets get the impostor! AAARRRGGGGGGG!

Boehner: NO.

KB: NO.

Mitt: NO.

Paul: (more howling and now he has dropped the P90X and is just humping OT’s legs)

Akin: But why? Mr. Boehner you swore to protect the constitution from all enemies? If we expose the president he will be out of the race leaving the demon-crats a scant few months to form a new ticket. They will be disgraced and their supporters demoralized nation wide leaving us the opportunity to sweep the congressional and presidential elections!

Boehner: DON’T YOU KNOW WE ARE FAR TO COWARDLY TO DO THAT?

Mitt: Yea, we have all this great evidence and experts but ummmmm we aren’t going to go there. He is definitely an impostor and we can prove it thus handing me the election quite easily but its an election year and we are far to scared.

Boehner: THE GOP DOESN’T CARE ABOUT AMERICA, THE CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, OR BALD EAGLES DURING ELECTION YEARS. WE ARE ALL COWARDS MORE FOCUSED ON SAVING OUR OWN POLITICAL POWER THAN HONORING THE OATHS WE TOOK OR THE IDEALS WE PROFESS IN PUBLIC. LET ME BE PERFECTLY CLEAR - THE GOP WILL NOT GO BIRTHER BECAUSE WE ARE ANTI-AMERICAN COWARDS! (a soft sobbing is heard coming from the tanning bed.)

(Paul ryan reaches climax.)

FIN


You can’t argue with that.
 
Last edited:
Um, no.



That's what it means to fail voir dire. Well, specifically the judge in the case subpoenaed Zebest to appear for voir dire, but she refused. Hence she was ruled a lay witness, testifying by deposition only, and given essentially no weight.

As a matter of fact, I'm not aware of a single court in this land were Zebest's claims have been submitted in evidence supporting a claim of forged birth credentials, but where Zebest has submitted to, and passed, voir dire as an expert witness.

That's not failing voir dire. There was no voir dire. Nor am I aware of a judge would award a judgement in favor of a defendant who refused to show up in court.
But none of this has anything to do with the evidence.
 
So why hasn't Ms. Zebest testified as an "expert witness" in any court cases during the last 18 months (since she first did her "analysis" of Obama's birth certificate)?

What does that have to do with the evidence? Absolutely nothing.
 
That's not failing voir dire. There was no voir dire. Nor am I aware of a judge would award a judgement in favor of a defendant who refused to show up in court.
But none of this has anything to do with the evidence.

It has everything to do with the evidence. The judge was going to rule for the plaintiffs because the defendants didn't show up. The plaintiffs insisted that the judge rule on the evidence instead.

And so, based solely on the "evidence", the judge ruled for the defendants.
 
That's not failing voir dire. There was no voir dire.
Yes, exactly. Because they failed it.

Nor am I aware of a judge would award a judgement in favor of a defendant who refused to show up in court.
But none of this has anything to do with the evidence.

Have you ever actually looked for any other cases where the defendant won without ever actually showing up?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom