February 2, 2009
Some further thoughts re Col Hollister v barry soetoro (original complaint). barry was supposed to submit documents on the 26th and instead they filed a motion to dismiss. The dismissal brief sounds like a bot post with it’s condescension and indignation for challenging “that one“. I had no idea the law team was just as obamerized and that it would come out in legalese. I shouldn’t be surprised by anything anymore.
Is this American or Nazi Germany? barry knew this all going in folks. He is a constitutional and voting rights lawyer.
Anyway, it’s always the fact that no one has standing. A plaintiff must have these three to meet the requirement of “standing”, without which there is no case. There must be an injury in fact – something already had to have happened, there has to be a causal relationship between the injury and barry’s ineligibility and there must be a substantial likelihood that a favorable ruling would redress the issue at hand.
Col Hollister’s potential military service is hypothetical so there can be no injury and thus no redress. There must be some harm that comes about directly related to barry’s actions and even if there were to be – all of the American People would be harmed – so one individual or group of citizens cannot claim an “injury” when everyone else would suffer the same injury.
Bottom line: It seems no citizen within or outside the military can have standing.
So who does?
Remember their lame attempt at Sen McCain’s resolution whereby they decreed him a natural born citizen? Good old Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who sold her soul when she lied about barry’s snub of Sen Clinton, headed it up with an assist by the Get out of the Damn Race Already Hillary Patrick Leahy (D-VT).
If one had paranoid tendencies, one might think they are all in on the conspiracy. Why would they be so helpful to a republican when they desperately wanted barry to win? So much so, the pundits and DNC and everyone else screamed at Hillary every hour to stop “hurting” barry.
Why would they take away his advantage? To be respectful of a true America hero? Nope. They proved that with their “POW card” comments. How could any American even think those words let alone say them? Another thing Mr President did not stop. And “families were off limits” only after ArcXIX dreamt up his vile rumors and barry’s attack dogs had descended on Wasilla.
The only reason they did it was so that it would be a precedent for barry. Why else wouldn’t they try to eliminate McCain entirely?
It defies logic, as does everything else barry does, including withholding his long form birth certificate. No court has even suggested that someone not connected to barry’s website examine the actual document. It was first given to KOS, which cannot get any more probarry and then sent to factcheck, which is directly tied to barry through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where barry palled around with bill ayers, who couldn’t even get into Canada.
Annenberg Political Factcheck -> Annenberg Public Policy Center - > Annenberg Foundation – > Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
Here’s what factcheck had to say.
Factcheck: FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as “supporting documents” to this article.
Note how they say the “State Department” not the Constitution. And they call it a “birth certificate” when it is a Certification of Live Birth. How can one trust a “factcheck” when they don’t use the proper words. What were they allegedly vetting?
Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it’s stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.
Recently…spend some time…it resides…brought home. Does this sound like document examiners/factcheckers to you? It should be a scientific report. On this date, for this length of time, we did this this and this, here is what it showed, here are the exact photogrpahs from every conceivable angle – a video should have been included as well – this is what we found, here ia the summary of our findings and thus here is our conclusion.
And like all scientists who have proven their case enough to call it fact – they should have been open to further debate and provided further evidence as questions arose. They should have been able to defend it from every angle if they were certain of it’s legality.
They did not.
They brought home a few photographs and can “assure” readers that it’s stamped on the back and bears a seal – but they never post a full page back image. Why? They saod they had the photos.
That is not a factcheck. That is a take my word for it. Fact check means to prove – provide objective evidence – not “reassure”.
Absoutely meaningless: their use of the wrong term “birth certificate” instead of “Certification of Live Birth”, they did not provide a full back side of the document and because of their obvious connection to barry.
And then something was sent to PolitiFact – we don’t know what because they also refer to it as a “birth certificate” not Certification of Live Birth – who came to this conclusion:
There is not one shred of evidence to disprove PolitiFact’s conclusion that the candidate’s name is Barack Hussein Obama, or to support allegations that the birth certificate he released isn’t authentic.
He never released a birth certificate – thus their conclusion is absolutely 100% meaningless. They are factchecking something they don’t even know the name of. They call it a birth certificate – intentionally misleading everyone who reads their conclusion. And when it was pointed out, they did nothing to amend their report or theiur conclusion. Absolutely worthless. It would never make it into court as an evidence.
And, for argument’s sake, there is not one shred of evidence to prove the allegations aren’t true.
As always, it comes down to a 5 y/o’s logic: if the COLB is 100% authentic, then why doesn’t he release it to the media? He did his Wailing Wall “stolen” note.
They say “it’s sufficient enough proof” because the COLB is in the public domain. If it’s enough – if that document is all that is needed – and that is what the court is are relying on – then have an independent news source vet it.
It is a “public record” and is being used as a “material witness” in a way, so why can’t the public see it?
At the bare minimum – can’t those who sued barry actually examine it in the flesh to satisfy the evidence in the case? Just that. Nothing else.
Why haven’t the courts ask that it be vetted? If it were to be found to be a forgery – all the rulings they made contingent to it as “proof” have to be thrown out. Then he would have to show the long form as absolute proof in the cases that were based on forged “proof”.
That is the way to make barry produce it – not as proof of his eligibility where standing is needed – but as proof to prove the authenticity and legality of the COLB used to dismiss the other cases.
Who cares about the long form – it is clear We The People will be barred access to it and it is clear none of us will ever prove standing until he injuries us and then we’ll all be injured so there would be no redress to provide. So let us see the actual “proof of citizenship” he and the Court are using as a basis in part to dismiss the lawsuits.
He doesn’t need to send for anything. It is online in as public a domain as there can be. It has been taken as “established proof of his citizenship” – so why can’t someone simply sue to prove that the proof is a sound legal document?
Am I missing something here?
Can a case be appealed because the fundamental “proof” has never been sufficiently proven to be “proof” in the first place?
Why haven’t the lawyers suing barry been able to just look at it – in hand – and attest to its authenticity?
If something is being used in a court of law as an exhibit, which is then subsequently used to “prove” something that results in the defendant not being sued and the plaintiffs’ refusal, aren’t the plaintiffs allowed to examine the “exhibit”?
If someone is injured in a car accident and the court dismisses the case because the defendant had a legal license – isn’t the Court first responsible to prove said license was in fact legal? And isn’t the plaintiff allowed to see the evidence to satisfy the ruling?
Why have only two barry sites looked at it?
More importantly – why isn’t the media demanding a copy? Anyone demanding the media to demand it? What’s FOX doing?
Why hasn’t some hacker hacked into the site like they hacked into Palin’s email account? (Not that I would ever advocate such a thing!)
The Philly judge, Hon R Barclay Surrick, when he ruled on Berg v Obama, said he couldn’t imagine that barry’s birth certificate would be an issue because of the “excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory”.
In other words, the Court was deferring to the media, who in turn has been completely corrupted and have not bothered to vet barry because they’ve been vetting to the point of destruction barry’s oppenents. If they have info (at least one person in the media knows), then somebody’s probably writing a book and wants to remain quiet so he can make serious cash when the time comes.
What would be the punishment and who would decree it? He would be able to say, hey, the Supreme Court threw out all the cases…
The media hasn’t even held themselves accountable for Iraq. How would they ever own up to this?
They are all are complicit.
Joe Scarborough said he was emailing the other networks to see if they were going to Joe Biden’s prediction of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Mika “Mommy” Brzezinski declared a “Biden attack-free zone” and settled on a dicussion of the more pressing issue concerning national security: the wardrobe. What a stellar job that investigative reporter did. How worthwhile must she feel at the end of the day for investigating credit card receipts and FEC filings. And the FEC isn’t going to investigate barry because they don’t want to embarrass him? Wasn’t Palin embarrassed?
The press has demonstrated they do not know the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” let alone long form birth certificate vs Certification of Live Birth. They have shown no public awareness of the lawsuits and their various nuances - but they can check out how much clothes, hair and makeup costs and they can descend on Wasilla and completely try to ruin a family.
Tabloid journalism at its finest. Even Barbara Walters and Andrea Mitchell (garbage truck paparazzi stake out in front of Sen Clinton’s home) have joined them. Tony Blankley is embarrassed by the media? What has he done except roll merrily, merrily, merrily along and mention the “weird little internet sites”? Most egregious of all, barry has never said a word about newly-elected Minnesota Senator Al Franken’s SNL incest “sketch’ alleging that Todd Palin was having sex with his daughters and by extension that was his baby.
Change we can believe in!
Pardon my digression.
Why not circumvent the “standing” issue and go after the factcheck COLB itself – by itself. barry’s lawyers say that the factcheck COLB is sufficient proof and because of that nothing more is warranted because no one has standing to compel him to provide anything else. Fine.
Has someone, without any conditions or interest other than simple chain of custody of evidence, subpoenaed the actual COLB that is on Factcheck to have it verified as “proof” – since it is being used as “proof” to make court rulings?
Just that. Nothing else. No comparisons to vault copy. No eligibility questions. Just as concerns the authenticity of the COLB itself by itself – that very one – presented as public record and court evidence.
Dr Fukino verified the existence of barry’s long form – that it was in compliance with Hawaiian law – but she never verified that factcheck’s COLB was derived from the piece of paper she verified. See here.
And what about a challenge to the actual website?
What if factcheck.org was proven to have lied about other “fact checks”?
Wouldn’t that be compelling evidence to warrant a recheck of that actual COLB?
Like if they lied on other things – knowingly or not – then the integrity of their factchecking – including barry’s COLB – would be brought into question thus requiring independent analysis. Requesting a new one could in no way rectify the decisions that were made referencing or relying on the factcheck COLB as “evidence” of “proof”.
And how does factcheck have standing to evaluate barry’s COLB and not anyone else?