Judd v. Obama (Orly Taitz)

Robert Prey said:
Your "lengthy legal analysis" that no plaintiff experts were accepted by the court was false. Nuff said.
Click to expand...

Irey was accepted as an expert in something that had nothing to do with the subject of Obama's birth certificate, and his testimony in that regard was completely rejected by the court (the judgment even says that "the Court specifically finds that...Plaintiff's witnesses and evidence are not credible").

That's why Orly lost her case.
 
Robert Prey said:
Your "lengthy legal analysis" that no plaintiff experts were accepted by the court was false. Nuff said.
Click to expand...

Contrast your misrepresentation above with what I actually said:

JayUtah said:
You cherry-picked one sentence out of the ruling and ignored the rest of the judge's ruling stating that none of Orly Taitz' witnesses gave anything that could be admitted as expert testimony.
Click to expand...

And it's not my legal analysis: it's the judge's:

19. No witness presented by the Plaintiffs was qualified as an expert in the field of document authentication.

20. No witness presented by the Plaintiffs was qualified to provide an expert opinion as to whether what was purportedly downloaded from the White House web-site is a forgery.
Click to expand...

And at note 7:

7 At most, Mr. Irey's admissible testimony is that he reviewed a copy of what had been downloaded from the White House site and that within that single document he noticed differences between the sizes of some of the letters, difference of spacing between some of the letters, and a while "haloing" around certain letters. It is unclear whether "expert" testimony was needed for such observations. All other testimony provided by Mr. Irey, however, is hearsay, irrelevant, not based on personal knowledge, and not scientifically reliable; thus it is inadmissible."
Click to expand...

Taitz presented three witnesses. Strunk was not presented as an expert, but his testimony was ruled inadmissible as hearsay and struck during the trial. Papa was presented as an expert, but Taitz did not lay the proper foundation. Hence his testimony was ruled inadmissible as unqualified as struck during the trial. Irey was accepted provisionally as an expert, but testified outside his expertise and without laying a proper scientific foundation. Hence upon deliberation, his testimony was ruled inadmissible.

Three witnesses, all ruled inadmissible. And I have provided the trial documentation of those rulings. Hence my statement is supported by the evidence I have shown you and everyone.
 
Coinky Dinks

jargon buster said:
:D
Click to expand...

Fuuny thing, I read your post right before I left to go run errands, and then to pick up some stuff at the grocery. What was the main story on the Globe? Obama's college records show he dealt cocaine in college and registered as a foreign student! I expect to see our Birthers repeat these here by Wednesday evening at the latest.
 
Myron Proudfoot said:
Fuuny thing, I read your post right before I left to go run errands, and then to pick up some stuff at the grocery. What was the main story on the Globe? Obama's college records show he dealt cocaine in college and registered as a foreign student! I expect to see our Birthers repeat these here by Wednesday evening at the latest.
Click to expand...

??? College records would show he dealt cocaine? What, did he get a B+ in Cutting and Weighing 101?
 
JayUtah said:
And his middle initial "H" stands for "Heisenberg," not "Hussein," with each letter cut and pasted from a different source document.
Click to expand...

Well, gee, if he majored in drug dealing, I'd expect his middle name to be "Heroin".
 
JayUtah said:
Contrast your misrepresentation above with what I actually said:



And it's not my legal analysis: it's the judge's:



And at note 7:



Taitz presented three witnesses. Strunk was not presented as an expert, but his testimony was ruled inadmissible as hearsay and struck during the trial. Papa was presented as an expert, but Taitz did not lay the proper foundation. Hence his testimony was ruled inadmissible as unqualified as struck during the trial. Irey was accepted provisionally as an expert, but testified outside his expertise and without laying a proper scientific foundation. Hence upon deliberation, his testimony was ruled inadmissible.

Three witnesses, all ruled inadmissible. And I have provided the trial documentation of those rulings. Hence my statement is supported by the evidence I have shown you and everyone.
Click to expand...


"Mr. Irey, over the objections of State Defendants, was found to be an an expert in typesetting..."

Honorable S.K. Reid, Judge, Marion Superior Court 14
 
ANTPogo said:
Irey was accepted as an expert in something that had nothing to do with the subject of Obama's birth certificate, and his testimony in that regard was completely rejected by the court (the judgment even says that "the Court specifically finds that...Plaintiff's witnesses and evidence are not credible").

That's why Orly lost her case.
Click to expand...

NO. The plaintiffs lost their case because if they had won, and the Anointed One's name was removed from the ballot, the nation's cities would burn, as they probably will burn in the event of his defeat at the polls. And that is the plain truth.
 
Robert Prey said:
NO. The plaintiffs lost their case because if they had won, and the Anointed One's name was removed from the ballot, the nation's cities would burn, as they probably will burn in the event of his defeat at the polls. And that is the plain truth.
Click to expand...

No, that's just wild, handwaving supposition. It's not even an argument, it's just a steaming pile of conspiracy rhetoric.

The plaintiffs lost the case because their presentation before the court was one of the most ludicrous displays of ineptitude, inexpertise, and ignorance that can be found in court records. So saith the judge, the watchers, and the defendants.

That is the plain, documented, subscribed, and sworn truth.
 
Robert Prey said:
NO. The plaintiffs lost their case because if they had won, and the Anointed One's name was removed from the ballot, the nation's cities would burn, as they probably will burn in the event of his defeat at the polls. And that is the plain truth.
Click to expand...

What kind of nonsense is that, Robert? The plaintiffs lost their case because the correspondence course lawyer has no idea of the law, and is well overdue some strict sanctions and being proclaimed a vexatious litigant. Her 'experts' have no real expertise, and make presumptions based on facts they shoehorn into their 'evidence'.

Just because you believe the woo does not make it true.
 
Robert Prey said:
NO. The plaintiffs lost their case because if they had won, and the Anointed One's name was removed from the ballot, the nation's cities would burn, as they probably will burn in the event of his defeat at the polls. And that is the plain truth.
Click to expand...

Could you point out that part of Judge Reid's ruling?
 
Straw Man said:
What kind of nonsense is that, Robert?
Click to expand...

In technical terms it's called "sour grapes."

The plaintiffs lost their case because the correspondence course lawyer has no idea of the law, and is well overdue some strict sanctions and being proclaimed a vexatious litigant. Her 'experts' have no real expertise, and make presumptions based on facts they shoehorn into their 'evidence'.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned before, Birther pseudo-lawyers practice law the way pseudo-scientists practice science. They don't get that there are well-established, well-formed ways of doing things, and that those ways are either mandated by law or proven over long experience to work. Instead they make it all up as they go, and beg everyone to accept their feeble, inept efforts as somehow equivalent to the state of the art. And after their ultimate and inevitable failure, they rail against evil Powers That Be who have thwarted them in their righteous efforts. Birther ignorance and ineptitude can never be the real reason for failure.

You can't serve up mud and call it soup, no matter how crisp your chef hat is. Mud is mud, and the critics aren't out to get you when they call it that.
 
Robert Prey said:
"Mr. Irey, over the objections of State Defendants, was found to be an an expert in typesetting..."

Honorable S.K. Reid, Judge, Marion Superior Court 14
Click to expand...

Ah, the power of the ellipsis!

It can make it seem people say all sorts of things they didn't really say.

Robert Prey said:
...no plaintiff experts were accepted by the court...
Click to expand...
 
sts60 said:
...Were I inclined to vote for Romney - and I am not saying who I am inclined to vote for - I'd still be tempted to vote for Obama simply for four more years of the sheer entertainment value provided by these loons.
Click to expand...
It looks like enough Romney voters were overwhelmed by this feeling that they cost him the election. So the birthers succeeded in one thing: re-electing the President.
 
Looking forward to the epic meltdown among the Birthers we all know is coming after now that Obama's has been relected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom