Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[BazBear]

And not rare in the least. it was common knowledge that first babies could come at any time. it was only 2d and 3d children that took 9 months!

Too true, my parents married in July '64, and I was born in Jan '65

 

[Mojo]

Because if the birth date was known to be off by six months it would raise doubts about where he was born and who his father was.

So why produce fake records showing a birth date 6 months later? If he was born in February, why not just say he was born in February and use genuine records showing this, so that there would be no doubt about the records or birth date? It would only be the fact that an August date was being claimed that would make the date "off by six months". This conspiracy theory makes no sense, even by the standards of a conspiracy theory.

 

[RandFan]

Could someone explain why it would make any difference if Obama had been born in February 1961 rather than August? Hawaii had been a state since 1959, hadn't it? Why would there be any need for a huge conspiracy the change the date of birth by 6 months?

Because if the birth date was known to be off by six months it would raise doubts about where he was born and who his father was. But since there is no rational basis to doubt the validity of Hawaii's birth records, not to mention contemporaneous newspaper announcements and the recollections of specific, living people -- including the governor of Hawaii, who knew Obama's parents -- there is no reason to speculate about it, any more than to speculate that Mitt Romney was born in Mexico and smuggled across the border in a truckload of lettuce.

So why produce fake records showing a birth date 6 months later? If he was born in February, why not just say he was born in February and use genuine records showing this, so that there would be no doubt about the records or birth date? It would only be the fact that an August date was being claimed that would make the date "off by six months". This conspiracy theory makes no sense, even by the standards of a conspiracy theory.

Yeah, I'm not getting it either. Sure the conspiracy would be indicative of something but what was the purpose of the conspiracy? Until you answer that question the claim is moot.

 

[Mojo]

Sure the conspiracy would be indicative of something but what was the purpose of the conspiracy?

To cover up its own existence, apparently.

 

[Bob001]

Yeah, I'm not getting it either. Sure the conspiracy would be indicative of something but what was the purpose of the conspiracy? Until you answer that question the claim is moot.

The allegation from the link a few entries above, completely unsupported by any evidence, is that Barack Obama Sr. could not be President Obama's father, and inspires speculation about who was.

"..... The sham marriage of Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr. would have probably taken place in February of 1961, just before or after the baby was born. This would also mean that Barack Obama, Sr. the man, "married in name only," who has no physical resemblance to our president, could not be the biological father; there just wasn't enough time. For Obama Sr. to work as the real biological father, an early August birth date is about as soon as a child could be born. ...."

It's nonsense, but it's nectar for the birthers.

 

[Robert Prey]

Judge Reid in Indiana vacated the trial, and in so doing ruled that none of the Birther witnesses presented therein was competent to testify on the matters presented before the court,.

False. Mr.Irey was accepted as a typesetting expert.

 

[Straw Man]

If anyone's interested, birther Pamela Barnett's book on Obama, OBAMA NEVER VETTED, THE UNLAWFUL PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL SECURITY LOOPHOLES THAT ENDANGER AMERICA is currently available at the bargain price of $0.00, a saving of $9.99.

 

[Border Reiver]

False. Mr.Irey was accepted as a typesetting expert.

And since the court ruled against the Birthers (again) his expertise and $1.50 will get you a coffee.

Now that they've lost (again) will you move the goalposts, admit you we're wrong, deny everything and/ or move to a different subject for a while before returning?

 

[JayUtah]

False. Mr.Irey was accepted as a typesetting expert.

...which subject was then ruled irrelevant to the question of whether the President's birth certificate had been forged.

The trial was vacated in its entirety, and Irey's testimony stricken as irrelevant. What part of the ruling didn't you understand? Learn the law.

 

[KDLarsen]

If anyone's interested, birther Pamela Barnett's book on Obama, OBAMA NEVER VETTED, THE UNLAWFUL PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL SECURITY LOOPHOLES THAT ENDANGER AMERICA is currently available at the bargain price of $0.00, a saving of $9.99.

And while you're at it, check out the review section. There are 5-star reviews from the likes or Orly Taitz, Neil Sankey, Sam Sewell, Susan Daniels, Ed Noonan, Charles Kerchner, and more. Most of those names should be familiar if you've been following the litigation history of birthers..

 

[Agatha]

Even at $0, I am not interested in that book - I've read some poorly proofread and ill-thought out lies from it already, I don't need to read any more.

 

[Robert Prey]

...which subject was then ruled irrelevant to the question of whether the President's birth certificate had been forged.

The trial was vacated in its entirety, and Irey's testimony stricken as irrelevant. What part of the ruling didn't you understand? Learn the law.

Mr. Irey was accepted as a typesetting expert. What part of that ruling do you not understand? Learn to read the judge's ruling.

 

[LSSBB]

Mr. Irey was accepted as a typesetting expert. What part of that ruling do you not understand? Learn to read the judge's ruling.

And how, specificallly, is that indistinguishable from "the court ruled Mr. Irey could fog a mirror"?

 

[thedopefishlives]

Mr. Irey was accepted as a typesetting expert. What part of that ruling do you not understand? Learn to read the judge's ruling.

No, he wasn't. As far as the record is concerned, nothing happened. The trial was vacated in its entirety and the testimony accepted therein stricken from the record. Mr. Irey was not accepted as anything. But, let's play your game just for the sake of argument and say that he was, in fact, accepted as a typesetting expert. Exactly what does this have to do with proving forgery? Typesetting is not forensic document examination.

 

[Loss Leader]

Mr. Irey was accepted as a typesetting expert. What part of that ruling do you not understand? Learn to read the judge's ruling.

Being declared an "expert" means that the individual has some technical knowledge that might be helpful to the trier of fact.

It does not mean that the person's opinion ends any debate. There are often dueling experts who come to opposite conclusions.

It does not mean that the person is competent to speak about anything outside his area of expertise.

It does not even mean that the court considers that person's expertise to be relevant. A court might provisionally listen to some testimony only to decide that it doesn't have anything to do with the issues in the case.

In my state, a court doesn't even have to declare a person to be an expert in any area. That's how little it matters.

 

[Mojo]

Mr. Irey was accepted as a typesetting expert. What part of that ruling do you not understand? Learn to read the judge's ruling.

Which side won? You can probably find out by reading the judge's ruling.

 

[JayUtah]

Mr. Irey was accepted as a typesetting expert.

Which expertise was then determined to be an improper foundation for the kinds of questions Orly Taitz asked him, which were about the authentication of the document Irey's copy had been made from. The judge specified in a footnote which observations of Irey's could be deemed appropriate given the foundation laid, and none of them had any relevance to the ultimate question.

You have chronically failed in this forum to understand how expert testimony works in court. You have simply insisted that once some sort of magic wand has been waved over a witness' head, we must consider everything he says as some sort of incontrovertible truth. You just don't get it.

What part of that ruling do you not understand?

I understand all parts of it, especially the parts where the judge: (1) vacated the entire trial, (2) declared Irey's testimony inadmissible as expert testimony, and (3) confirmed that the plaintiffs had offered no relevant expert testimony on the question they purported to try, which question was also incidentally ruled outside the scope of the trial.

Did you miss those parts? Do you understand what it means to vacate a trial? Do you understand what it means to declare testimony inadmissible even if it was initially offered as expert testimony?

I presented to you in another thread the qualifications for expert testimony. You infamously waved it off as just my personal opinion. Perhaps now that yet another court defeat has been handed to you (175+ at last count), you will yet come to realize that you don't just get to make up the rules as you go. You are frantic to try to cite this case as some sort of gross miscarriage of justice, but in fact it is merely a straightforward demonstration of the utter legal ineptitude and factual bankruptcy of the Birther cause.

Learn to read the judge's ruling.

Learn to read all of the judge's ruling. You want to stop reading after the phrase, "Over the objections of the defense, Paul Irey was accepted as an expert on typesetting." You don't want to keep reading where the judge says, in effect, (paraphrase) "...but then Irey went on to testify on an entirely different subject, did not offer testimony based on known methodologies, and so his testimony is inadmissible as expert testimony and is hereby stricken."

The judge must state on what topic she accepted him as an expert witness so that she has a basis for drawing her conclusion that he testified about something else. This isn't law; it's basic reading comprehension.

 

[Robert Prey]

The marriage of Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama took place on February 2 1961, Ms Dunham was three months pregnant at the time. This is not new information, Robert. Are your sources that deliberately uninformed that they will not even bother to check marriage records?

If you dislike the president that 69 million people voted for, then vote against him next week. That is your recourse, according to your Constitution. If you dislike democracy and your constitution, there are plenty of less open, less democratic societies from which to choose, I'm sure one of them would allow you to immigrate.

It's the Constitution that your hero violates every second the impostor holds office.

 

[Robert Prey]

No, he wasn't. As far as the record is concerned, nothing happened. The trial was vacated in its entirety and the testimony accepted therein stricken from the record. Mr. Irey was not accepted as anything. But, let's play your game just for the sake of argument and say that he was, in fact, accepted as a typesetting expert. Exactly what does this have to do with proving forgery? Typesetting is not forensic document examination.

Typesetting expertise is in fact crucial to any forensic document examination of any document that consists of type. Obviously.

 

[JayUtah]

Being declared an "expert" means that the individual has some technical knowledge that might be helpful to the trier of fact.

"Beyond the ken of a juror" is the typical standard. A lay witness may testify only to what can be rationally perceived by the five classical senses. Any other knowledge must be attested to by an expert.

There are often almost always dueling experts who come to opposite conclusions.

Expert testimony in court is bought and paid for. That means you get almost nothing by cross examining your opponent's expert. The expert will have been well briefed by his counsel on the essential premises of the argument and will expend considerable effort avoiding conceding any of those basic premises on the stand.

Expert testimony from one side is almost always countered by a different expert from the other side. Hence, for example, in a personal injury lawsuit, the plaintiff's doctor will present his findings while a doctor working for the defendant will have the opportunity to examine the patient and draw his own medical conclusion, and present that to the jury. The jury must decide which of the two medical witnesses have presented the most compelling testimony. Naturally the plaintiff's doctor will offer the opinion that all of the plaintiff's injuries and ailments were proximally caused by the defendant's negligent actions, while the defendant's physician will testify in his equally estimable medical opinion that the plaintiff suffers from congenital and chronic ailments that were by no means the fault of the defendant.

It does not mean that the person is competent to speak about anything outside his area of expertise.

Which is what the witness did in this case. Irey suggested that his methods of examining typewritten text (not typsetting) in a convenience copy were valuable in determining whether the document had been forged. He has no expertise or experience in the detection of forgery, and referred to no instance by which his ad hoc methods had been shown to have any probative value toward that end.

In short, you can't just walk into court as an expert witness and say, "I'm the expert and this is what I think."

It does not even mean that the court considers that person's expertise to be relevant. A court might provisionally listen to some testimony only to decide that it doesn't have anything to do with the issues in the case.

That's what happened here, and in the unmoderated thread I discussed this in a lengthy post analyzing the trial.

Orly Taitz' first witness Christopher Strunk was not presented as an expert, but his lay testimony was hearsay and thus inadmissible.

Her second witness was Felicito Papa, whom she presented as an expert but for whom she did not lay a foundation. Hence his testimony was also ruled inadmissible as unqualified.

Her third witness was Paul Irey, whom the court accepted provisionally as an expert on typesetting. In order to determine whether Irey's testimony was relevant and well-founded, the court has to hear it first. Hence the provisional acceptance. The court may very well, as it did in this case, determine after careful deliberation and reflection that the testimony was not qualified as expert for other reasons: in this case because Irey did not base his testimony on reputable science, and further because he testified on a subject (i.e., the forensic authentication of documents) for which no expertise had been claimed or demonstrated. It is quite proper for the trier of fact to determine, after hearing the testimony, that it should be given essentially no weight because it ultimately failed to adhere to all the federal rules of evidence governing expert testimony.

In my state, a court doesn't even have to declare a person to be an expert in any area. That's how little it matters.

Indiana has also apparently discarded the motions to qualify witnesses.