JMS Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Obama does not own the record. Hawaii does. And Hawaiian law prevents anyone from viewing it who is not in a specific class. Should I have the right to go review your private records just because I have doubts about your parentage? Obama asked Hawaii to release his long form birth certificate' date=' which they did. [url']http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42779923/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-releases-detailed-us-birth-certificate/[/url] The case will not be heard because it has no merit. All of President Obama's paperwork is in order' date=' and there exist no creditable evidence suggesting otherwise. If not the supreme court maybe a lower court.[/quote'] Only that's not what the lower courts and the supreme court have ruled. The lower courts are all ruling the folks sueing have no standing to bring the case. Which is idiotic because it leaves intact the idea that the case otherwise would have merit. And again the Supreme court didn't say the case has no merit... They explicitely "refused to hear the case, WITHOUT COMMENT"... they sould have commented is all I'm saying... With more than 50% of our country not knowing the historical signficicants of pearl harbor to WWII. 47 of our country including a lot of our leaders believing in some form of creationism. I think the supreme court of take a few minutes and just say... Hey!!! dummies, this case is not being heard cause it's stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Obama asked Hawaii to release his long form birth certificate, which they did. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42779923/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-releases-detailed-us-birth-certificate/ To him. And even for him to get it, he had to make a special request. The fact that he published it, does not end Hawaii's privacy interest That doesn't mean that I can walk in and grab a copy myself. Also.... Why are you arguing with yourself? ---------- Post added June-11th-2012 at 12:49 PM ---------- PS Courts can only comment on issues before them. The only issue before SCOTUS on any of these cases is standing. You want the court to make a statement on issues that have not been heard in a trial court. That's improper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 To him. And even for him to get it' date=' he had to make a special request. [/quote']Hawaii's Republican Governor has verified certificate of live birth. Hawaii's surgeon general appointed by a republican has also verified the certificate of live birth. They both have stated they had seen the long form birth certificate and that the above mention certificate were Hawaii's official docomentation for someone to have been born in that state. Lastly upon Obama's request Hawaii released the long term form to Obama, Obama released it to the press, and again Hawaii confirmed the document was valid.... The fact that he published it' date=' does not end Hawaii's privacy interest That doesn't mean that I can walk in and grab a copy myself. [/quote'] Actually you don't even have to walk to get one.. you can print one off right from your seat. This handout image provided by the White House shows a copy of the long form of President Barack Obama's birth certificate from Hawaii. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42779923/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-releases-detailed-us-birth-certificate/#slice-2 Courts can only comment on issues before them. The only issue before SCOTUS on any of these cases is standing. I'm not arguing the law... I'll leave that to the courts. I'm just saying it would have been a productive use of any of these courts time to just rule on the merits of the case rather than the standing. You want the court to make a statement on issues that have not been heard in a trial court. That's improper. I want the court to invest the 20 minutes I invested confirming the allegation has no merit; and make that comment. Not for myself or others who can fallow a not so complex arguemnt.. But for all my other fellow americans who very well may be a significant minority who can not. I think it would have been a service to the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 A case does not have merit until the question of standing is resolved. If one doesn't have standing to bring a case to court, there is no case, thus no issue of merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Orly's latest case in Indiana was dismissed. http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/orly-taitz-indiana-election-challenge-dismissed/ She does not understand the concept of res judicata so she is refiling. In other news, Arpaio has apparently signed some kind of affadavit for Larry Klayman in Florida, yet has never handed over any evidence to a prosecutor in Arizona. That's fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 Orly's latest case in Indiana was dismissed.http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/orly-taitz-indiana-election-challenge-dismissed/ She does not understand the concept of res judicata so she is refiling. In other news' date=' Arpaio has apparently signed some kind of affadavit for Larry Klayman in Florida, yet has never handed over any evidence to a prosecutor in Arizona. That's fun.[/quote'] I wouldn't be certain of that. Larry Klayman has flat-out lied about his birther cases many times in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 A case does not have merit until the question of standing is resolved. If one doesn't have standing to bring a case to court, there is no case, thus no issue of merit. Leagally you are correct. And I'm not arguing the merits from a legality perspective.. Obviously every court which has heard the case has dismissed it because of standing... Now the supreme court has dismissed it "without comment"... all I'm saying is it would have been a great investment if one of those courts dismissed it because it had no merit. If they had actually taken the 20 minutes to educate themselves on the facts, and issued a finding... For those without law degrees it's hard to understand why any American woudln't have standing in ensuring our president met the constitutional requirements for office. Dismissing without comment, and dismissing because of standing; simeple does not address the merits of the case. Not that I believe the case has any merit, but clearly haveing the courts basically refuse to find on the merits kind of suggests to those tin foil hat whearing super minority amongst us that the case actually might have merrit... Again nobody who has really investigated it could come to that conclusion, but clearly that's what the courts have inadvertantly implied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 all I'm saying is it would have been a great investment if one of those courts dismissed it because it had no merit. Courts have made decisions on the merits. Ankeny v. Indiana "based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." Judge Malihi in Georgia also ruled on the merits: Obama "became a citizen at birth and is a natural-born citizen," Malihi wrote. There are other examples, but this idea that every case has been based on standing is faulty. Hawaii has said he is born in Hawaii. That is on file in Mississippi right now. That issue is dead. Multiple courts have said that citizen at birth = natural born citizen. The Supreme Court has dismissed without comment every single challenge. You are buying into birther blather to argue that no decision on the merits has ever been made. It's been made loud and clear. ---------- Post added June-13th-2012 at 02:47 PM ---------- I wouldn't be certain of that. Larry Klayman has flat-out lied about his birther cases many times in the past. I think WND actually published the affadavit, but I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Courts have made decisions on the merits.. See, I did not know that. Thank you, that's exactly what I was thinking might help resolve this thing... Guess I was wrong.. hmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 Leagally you are correct. And I'm not arguing the merits from a legality perspective.. Obviously every court which has heard the case has dismissed it because of standing... Now the supreme court has dismissed it "without comment"...all I'm saying is it would have been a great investment if one of those courts dismissed it because it had no merit. If they had actually taken the 20 minutes to educate themselves on the facts, and issued a finding... For those without law degrees it's hard to understand why any American woudln't have standing in ensuring our president met the constitutional requirements for office. Standing is important because it makes our court system possible. If it didn't matter, then all 300 million Americans could file their own lawsuits every day, against anyone, about anything. Imagine hundreds of thousands of birther lawsuits. And hundreds of thousands of lawsuits asking for Obama's high school transcripts. And hundreds of thousands of lawsuit asking John Boehner who paid for his breakfast last Thursday. And anything else anyone could think of. Standing isn't a technicality. It is a basic question of jurisdiction - the first question you must ask when you think about filing a lawsuit is whether YOU are the person who has the right to file it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Standing isn't a technicality. It is a basic question of jurisdiction - the first question you must ask when you think about filing a lawsuit is whether YOU are the person who has the right to file it. I'm sure you are right. I'm I'm sure what I'm saying transends the legal system. Just seems to me the idea that the american people should have the right to seek an independent review of there presidents documentation isn't all that far fetched. I don't know why the court couldn't find on it once, and then reffer the other 10,000 cases to that precident case... Anyway, that's probable not how precident works, and I'm not arguing law... and even worse for my original point LKB posted a few cases where the courts did decide on the merits of the case.. And it really hasn't made a difference, the birthers are still with us. It also doesn't escape me that their could be a little racism involved here. I've never remembered any other president facing such calls for documentation... I was just theorizing what would shut them up quickest... and I'm guesing they just don't feel the need to be constrained by legal precident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 I'm sure you are right. I'm I'm sure what I'm saying transends the legal system. Just seems to me the idea that the american people should have the right to seek an independent review of there presidents documentation isn't all that far fetched. I don't know why the court couldn't find on it once, and then reffer the other 10,000 cases to that precident case... Because then the courts wouldn't be following the law, they would be following expediency. And the next hundred thousand jerks with the nonsense lawsuits would claim entitlement to the same thing. Anyway, that's probable not how precident works, and I'm not arguing law... and even worse for my original point LKB posted a few cases where the courts did decide on the merits of the case.. And it really hasn't made a difference, the birthers are still with us. It also doesn't escape me that their could be a little racism involved here. I've never remembered any other president facing such calls for documentation... I was just theorizing what would shut them up quickest... and I'm guesing they just don't feel the need to be constrained by legal precident. A little? And nothing will shut them up, because this whole thing has nothing to do with facts. Their facts and legal theories change at the drop of a hat. Their final conclusion is already set in stone - Obama is illlegitimate because I don't want him as MY president! How you get there with the facts and evidence no longer matters, because you are already there and you ain't budging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 See, I did not know that. Thank you, that's exactly what I was thinking might help resolve this thing... Nothing will resolve this. Birthers are racist fanatics who know for a fact that Obama is ineligible and only need one honest judge to get rid of him. This is never going away. Orly Taitz is going to file two more suits in Indiana arguing the same exact facts of the suit she just lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 See, I did not know that. Thank you, that's exactly what I was thinking might help resolve this thing...Guess I was wrong.. hmm. You thought that facts would make the Birthers shut up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 14, 2012 Author Share Posted June 14, 2012 You thought that facts would make the Birthers shut up? Heck, facts don't even make Tailgaters shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 As an FYI. Gary Kreep is now down by about 1' date='000 votes as they are counting absentee ballots. Thank God.[/quote']You may have thanked Him a bit too soon. With only 4000 absentee and provisional ballots left to count Kreep has over a thousand vote lead, 201,238 - 200,150. Whelp, these people have richly earned the mockery that will surely follow. Kreep is not the shrinking violet who keeps his name out of the limelight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 You may have thanked Him a bit too soon. With only 4000 absentee and provisional ballots left to count Kreep has over a thousand vote lead, 201,238 - 200,150. Whelp, these people have richly earned the mockery that will surely follow. Kreep is not the shrinking violet who keeps his name out of the limelight. This is a disgrace. Not only for the birther part. The ABA rated him not qualified to be a judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Have we discussed Larry Klayman? We need to discuss Larry Klayman. Klayman is famous for having sued Bill Clinton a million times in the 90s and never winning. He's been relatively quiet for a few years, but he's way behind in his child support and needs money. So, he's birthing. He filed a BS case in Florida alleging a duty for the Secretary of State to check the eligibility of presidential candidates. No such duty exists. He hyped this case up to the heavens on WND and aksed for $25,000 in donations. He claimed imminent victory. The case was dismissed with prejudice. Klayman turns around files a new complaint alleging pretty much the exact same thing. I think he should be sanctioned for this but birther attorneys are rarely sanctioned. Meanwhile, John Roberts gives Obama a victory on healthcare. Klayman - who mind you is a licensed attorney - announces that he is setting up a citizens' grand jury to indict Roberts for treason or jaywalking or something. He should be disbarred for this but likely won't. Meanwhile, some ancient case he filed asking for $50 million in damages from Rachel Maddow re-emerged this week. In it, his client was ordered to pay attorneys fees which are in excess of $100,000.00. Good times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 I think the next Michael Crichton type movie where some biological agent threatens to wipe us out should be viewed as a sign of hope for a better "future earth" and not a "disaster" movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 I think he should be sanctioned for this but birther attorneys are rarely sanctioned.He should be disbarred for this but likely won't. Is there any specific reason for this that you can think of other than "it would almost feel like making fun of a mentally disabled person"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted July 10, 2012 Author Share Posted July 10, 2012 Is there any specific reason for this that you can think of other than "it would almost feel like making fun of a mentally disabled person"? The reason is because they don't really have any clients. Most bad attorneys get disbarred because they fail their clients, or steal from their cleints, or otherwise screw them over, and the clients complain to the Bar, and the bar gets rid of them to protect the public from having a bad attorney represent them. Birther attorneys only piss off the courts, and offend our collective intelligence. They don't run the risk of screwing over clients, because who would hire them? They only represent themselves or other birthers who love them. So they don't get focused upon by the Bar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Although, it does seem akin to a Doctor not failing to lose his medical license because he only tested experimental vaccines on himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC9 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 The reason is because they don't really have any clients. Most bad attorneys get disbarred because they fail their clients, or steal from their cleints, or otherwise screw them over, and the clients complain to the Bar, and the bar gets rid of them to protect the public from having a bad attorney represent them. Birther attorneys only piss off the courts, and offend our collective intelligence. They don't run the risk of screwing over clients, because who would hire them? They only represent themselves or other birthers who love them. So they don't get focused upon by the Bar. That and Orly Taits was put on notice a couple of years back. Anytime you show up to court unprepared or with an ulteriour motive thats borderline illegal (subpeona of records loosely related to a case but having nothing to do with merits) you can get disbarred. She came very close in her last attempt. And Paul Jensen... wow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Here is the history of Klayman vs Maddow: Rachel Maddow’s career is over. At least that’s what Larry Klayman — the lawyer for controversial preacher Bradlee Dean, and founder of Freedom Watch — said will come of a lawsuit filed against Maddow and MSNBC.Bradlee Dean, a conservative preacher who is known for his incendiary, anti-homosexual rehetoric, and his ministry are seeking damages in excess of $50 million from Maddow and MSNBC for slander and false light. After announcing the lawsuit Wednesday in New York, Dean and Klayman spoke by phone to the Michele Tafoya Show show on CBS radio. At issue are comments Dean made on his own radio show last spring: “Muslims are calling for the executions of homosexuals in America. This just shows you they themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible of the Judeo-Christian God, but they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do, because these people are livid about enforcing their laws. They know homosexuality is an abomination … If America won’t enforce the laws, God will raise up a foreign enemy to do just that.” Maddow, the lawsuit says, took those comments and ran with them, claiming that Dean was essentially advocating killing homosexuals. Dean has issued a statement declaring his firm opposition to violence toward gays. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/anti-gay_preachers_lawyer_rachel_maddows_career_is.php This leads to: The pastor of the You Can Run But You Can't Hide ministry has been ordered to pay $24,625.23 in court costs for MSNBC host Rachel Maddow and the now-defunct Minnesota Independent after suing both for libel last year.Dean filed suit against Maddow and the Independent's Andy Birkey after both journalists used a portion of Dean's radio show in their reporting. Dean said they took the pieces out of context, therefore defaming him. Dean's attorney, Larry Klayman, said that the reporting led to Dean receiving death threats and messages from people saying that they wanted to "have sex with Bradlee," and then kill him. While the case is still ongoing, a Washington, D.C. judge ordered Dean to pay the legal fees City Pages reports. http://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/media/2012/07/10/bradlee-dean-ordered-pay-25k-maddows-court-fees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted July 10, 2012 Author Share Posted July 10, 2012 That and Orly Taits was put on notice a couple of years back. Anytime you show up to court unprepared or with an ulteriour motive thats borderline illegal (subpeona of records loosely related to a case but having nothing to do with merits) you can get disbarred. She came very close in her last attempt. No, if you screw up or lie in court, you can get sanctioned by the court. And if you get sanctioned enough, I suppose, the Bar might take notice and disbar you. The Bar and the courts are not the same thing. But trust me, I know of what I speak. 99% of attorneys who get disbarred do so because they screwed over their clients. If clients are not involved, the Bar rarely cares. Something has to put you on their front burner. That something is almost always protection of the public from bad/dishonest/thieving lawyers. The Bar does not want to get involved in going after attorneys who are (at least in one sense) "petitioning the government for redress of grievances," where no innocent clients are at stake. As long as your only target is the government, you get a lot of leeway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.