Florida Birthers Roll Out The Big Legal Gun!!! (Or, Sam Sewell Can’t Count To 2)

When The Matches Wouldn't Light, Quick-Thinking Larry Tried Striking Two Pieces Of Coral Together For A Spark

Sam “Mr. Mensa” Sewell over to The Steady Drip is applauding the fact that Larry Klayman, Esq.has joined the Florida Birther Battle. Here are a few excerpts from the Press Release, and the entire story can be found at the link following:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – :FLORIDA Obama eligibility battle – Larry E. Klayman is jumping in as lead attorney

PRESS RELEASE – March 20, 2012

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Iconic public interest attorney Larry E. Klayman is jumping into the long simmering Obama eligibility battle and will  represent clients in Florida and other states to challenge Obama’s inclusion on the ballot .

Larry’s entre into the Obama eligibility lawsuit arena was facilitated by the Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012 (OSBC) (obamaballotchallenge.com) organization. The group’s Communications Director, George Miller, said it was necessary to bring in a heavy hitter who knows how to force governments to be accountable.  Sam Sewell is the group’s Florida Project Manager and OSBC Director Pamela Barnett is the California Project Manager.

Sewell stated “An analysis of several national polls on the subject of AKA Barack Obama’s eligibility shows that about half the citizens in American are unsure or don’t believe that he is eligible to be President.  It makes sense that Obama supporters would want the issue settled along with everyone else.  I would conclude that those opposed to releasing all of Obama’s history are frightened of the truth, just like AKA Barack Obama.”

Asked whether he has the goods on Obama, Klayman exclaimed, “Of course!  Others have already gathered what we need, with more in the pipeline. The task at hand is to compel court proof, official acknowledgment and removal from the ballot, as well as present the damning facts about Obama to the court of public opinion.”   Asked what he’ll do to help succeed, he stated: “accurate reading of applicable law, attention to rules of evidence, researching case law, venue selection and use of ‘political theater’ out of court.”  Case: Voeltz v. Obama, et. al.(Case No.: 2012CA00467) and is filed in Leon County Superior Court.


Hmmm.  I think you can translate present the damning facts about Obama to the court of public opinion and use of ‘political theater’ out of court into Larry Klayman, Esq.  plans to make an ass out of himself just like every other Birther lawyer to date.

What Sam Sewell, and the other Birthers, like Dean Haskins, who are down on Orly Taitz, Esq. don’t understand is that their problems in court don’t have much to do with the particular lawyer. It’s their case that sucks.  Sewell has a link in his Internet Article which shows just how badly their case sucks:


In these excerpts, you can see where Sewell stumbles out of the gate:

There are three types of citizenship in theUnited States:

1.   Naturalized Citizen – Born in another country of foreign parents, and completed the naturalization process –
Naturalized Citizens can hold any elected office except President or Vice President.

Example: Former GovernorArnold Alois Schwarzenegger who was born in Austria of Austrian parents and become a Naturalized Citizen.

2.   Native Born Citizen – Born in the United States of foreign parents –

Native Born Citizens can hold any elected office except Vice President or President.

Example one:  Senator Marco Rubio was born in the United States, but his parents were not citizens of the United States at the time of his birth.  

Example two: So called “anchor babies” who are born in the United States and are thus citizens of the United States, but whose parents are not citizens of the United States.

3.   Natural Born Citizen – A Natural Born Citizen is a “second generation American citizen.”  They are the natural offspring of citizen parents, and the history of the Constitutional phrase Natural Born Citizen emphasizes a citizen father.

Only two elected offices have the constitutional requirement of “Natural Born Citizen;” President and Vice President.

  Example:  Citizens born in the United States to two American citizen parents are Natural Born – Both George Bush and Bill Clinton are Natural Born Citizens.

Yes, that is right.  Sam “Mr. Mensa” Sewell is sending Poor Larry Klayman, Esq. right back into the same place as the Birthers who got clobbered in Ankeny v. Governor (2009), to wit:

[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a  “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants’ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.

The Ankeny Court did not see it that way:

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.

The three different types of citizen stuff has lost every time. It will lose again.  And, the Ankeny case continues to rack up Persuasive Authority Brownie Points in case after case.

Perhaps the Birthers do not need a new lawyer. Maybe they just need a new Kindergarten Teacher to help them learn how to count??? With that in mind, I present the following for Sam Sewell and the rest of the Birthers to study up on. Maybe it will save some wear and tear on the brick walls of the nation. And their skulls:

Now, after they realize that “3” is not a Happy Number for the types of citizens, they can study this one!!!

I hope this helps!!!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter


About Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

Hi!!! I am a Girl Reporter on the Internet. I am 34. Plus I am a INTP. I have a Major in Human Kinetics, and a Minor in English. I have 2 cats, and a new kitten! I write poetry, and plus I am trying to learn how to play guitar. I think that is all??? Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter View all posts by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

48 responses to “Florida Birthers Roll Out The Big Legal Gun!!! (Or, Sam Sewell Can’t Count To 2)

  • Northland10

    He has missed another detail. There was no primary election for the Democratic nominee so there is no election to certify. I believe the party is doing caucuses in May so the SOS is out of the look and Klayman is not suing the Florida Democratic Party.

    He did toss in a piece about keeping Obama off of the general election but since he is not yet the party nominee (no convention yet), that part is not ripe.

    I have a feeling the birther leaders do not care about winning a court case but only making a stink.

  • TheEuropean

    It is swiftboating all over again. Candidate Obama is a prey that knows how to fight back, though. The Republican party will in the end not be happy about this mudslinging ‘political theater’ out of court.

    There is a new poll on Obama / RMoney in Virginia which will make the Republicans tear out their hairs (even the short ones)!


  • David Farrar

    “The Ankeny Court did not see it that way:

    Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 …. The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States…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. This should give you some idea of how long the Ankeny decision will stand up with a real attorney at the helm instead of a couple of pro se litigants.

    ex animo

    • Northland10

      This one will most likely be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be given. There was no primary to certify and Obama is not yet the nominee for the general. Since the nomination process in Florida is not an election, the state and court have no jurisdiction.

      You are very gullible.

      • Doubtful

        David? Gullible? Just because he was convinced that he found a loophole in Georgia law that would keep the President off the primary ballot? Just because he gloated with certitude that ALJ Malihi was going to give him and Orly a default victory? Just because he thinks he can get around the fact that the official records of the State of Hawaii show the President to have been born on U.S. soil over 35 years ago?

        It reminds me of how he insisted that it didn’t matter that Hawaiian officials had confirmed the President’s birth data, because somehow ALJ Malihi would be shielded from using that information — even though that would not help him explain how easily an Article III judge would take judicial notice of that fact. That makes about as much sense as claiming that the closely reasoned legal and historical analysis of the NBC clause in Ankeny will be overturned based on a misunderstanding of the clause numbering in Article II — which, as whatever4 points out, was clearly explained in the decision.

        Really, this guy will believe anything if he think it confirms his preconception.

    • whatever4

      Ankeny v Daniels, Footnote 9: “The Plaintiffs cite the “natural born Citizen” clause as Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, but it is properly cited as Article II, Section 1, Clause 4. See also Ind. Code § 3-8-1-6.”

      Article II Section 1 Clause 3 has been superseded by the 12th Amendment, and isn’t counted. In Indiana at least, it’s Clause 4. From the Indiana code cited, IC 3-8-1-6:

      President or Vice President
      Sec. 6. (a) A candidate for the office of President or Vice President of the United States must have the qualifications provided in Article 2, Section 1, clause 4 of the Constitution of the United States.

      As added by P.L.5-1986, SEC.4. Amended by P.L.3-1987, SEC.83; P.L.3-1993, SEC.56.

      • David Farrar

        Thank you, whatever4,

        I stand corrected. You see, this is why I bother presenting my case to those who just might not see things the way I do. If I am wrong, I will be corrected directly. If I am right, I will either get blasted with ridicule or with irrelevant babble. Either way, I then know I am at least on the right track.

        The Ankeny ruling, like Wong, will eventually fall if our American Birthright is to prevail.

        ex animo

        • Doubtful

          I must compliment you, David. You finally do seem to be on the right track.

          You have acknowledged that, according to the official records of the State of Hawaii, the President was born in Honolulu in 1961; and you now acknowledge that, under current law, Wong Kim Ark is the controlling precedent, as articulated in Ankeny.

          That is pretty much in agreement with what the rest of us have been saying. If your position now that the only plausible route to success for you is to have Wong overturned, then I believe you really are on the right track.

          I suspect we disagree on both the wisdom and the likelihood of such a SCOTUS ruling, but of course we are all entitled to our opinions.

        • bob

          Being blasted with ridicule usually means you are acting ridiculous.

        • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter


          In one respect, there really isn’t an Ankeny decision. Because Ankeny is 99% Wong Kim Ark. The case is more like the Reader’s Digest Condensed version of WKA. Sooo, the Birthers’ real battle is with WKA and the hundreds of years of legal history buried in it. Or, to try to get an amendment added to the Constitution. Which is why all these cases are going nowhere.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

        • David Farrar


          Well, almost. The issue as I saw it at the Georgia hearing was to answer the question has Candidate Barack Obama by virtue of posting two obviously fraudulent electronic representations of his certified birth documents done enough to prove he has met his burden?

          I thought that if the Court, itself, would not admit a copy of that very same downloaded image from the internet into evidence, simply posting it on the internet would also not be enough to prove to the people that he has met his burden. Judge Malihi disagreed.

          I have also agreed that … as it states in the certification stamp…this long form birth certificate is only an accurate copy of what their records reflect, not that their records accurately reflect the true record.

          Yes, I see Wong Kim Ark, as largely dicta.

          ex animo

        • Doubtful

          @David Farrar — “posting two obviously fraudulent electronic representations of his certified birth documents”; “this long form birth certificate is only an accurate copy of what their records reflect”

          Can you help me understand that, please? If the birth certificates he’s presented contain the same information as the official records of the State of Hawaii, what does it mean to call them “fraudulent … representations”? Doesn’t a fraudulent representation have to be one that doesn’t match what it’s supposed to represent?

          And, if you would, a second question. If these documents are “obviously” fraudulent, why was Orly unable to adduce any persuasive or probative evidence to that effect? It seems to me that that was the single most important point she could have made at that hearing — if the birthers ever procure a legal determination that the birth certificates are not to be trusted, it’s a whole new ball game. But she got nowhere. Why?

          Thanks in advance for your answers.

  • Fogbow Foggy

    Squeeky, it’s been suggested to me that I add your BTT to my blogroll on Fogbow, but I’m not sure if you’d approve. It would mean a link at the bottom of every page on the forum (look where it says “our blogs”) and a link on the Home page, http://www.thefogbow.com.

    You have my email, so let me know what your preference is.

  • TheEuropean

    Well, the only problem is that – if he were a man who stands by his word – Mr. Farrar would have to give up his case. That is what he promised.

    Instead he lets Mrs. Taitz file this:



    We all know that there is a very famous dental chair in Californica. Connect the dots !

    The European

    • Doubtful

      LOL, you’ve certainly got a point. I think David’s quest to have Wong overturned is doomed to failure — opposition to the 114-year-old ruling on the grounds that it is destructive of “our American Birthright” is hardly a widely held view in the legal community — but it can at least be argued.

      However, it cannot help his credibility for him to be so closely identified with the complete BS of the claims about the “forged” PDEF, the “stolen” SSAN, and the “forged” Selective Service form. The fact that his name is inextricably linked to Farrar v. Obama, in which even an initially sympathetic ALJ could not find a single persuasive or probative element in Orly’s presentation, casts him in a very unfavorable light.

      Perhaps he has since explicitly disavowed those nonsensical claims, though all I have seen from him on that subject is the dodgy response that Orly no longer represents him — no surprise, as she has been unable to gain PHV status in Georgia.

      David, where do you stand on this?

  • Monkey Boy

    Well, the only problem is that – if he were a man who stands by his word – Mr. Farrar would have to give up his case.

    Anyone that so blatantly lies (as he has shown on numerous occasions), has no honor. Anyone that blatantly lies without concern that he will be found out, doesn’t care about honor.

    Do you really expect him to honor his solemn word?

    • RoadScholar

      Actually, we should probably be encouraging Birfers like David, because every minute they spend Birfin’ is a minute they can’t spend campaigning against Obama on actual issues.

  • David Farrar

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    “Sooo, the Birthers’ real battle is with WKA and the hundreds of years of legal history buried in it. Or, to try to get an amendment added to the Constitution. Which is why all these cases are going nowhere.”

    If the government can bestow allegiance at birth, what is the difference between a natural born Citizen and a natural born subject?

    ex animo

    • jtmunkus

      Born a citizen. Or became a [naturalized] citizen.


      Try buying the 12-ounce cans instead of the 40’s – at least before noon.

      Ex(treme) Animo(sity)

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

      There isn’t any. They are the same concept. From WKA:

      It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

      III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

      Also from WKA:

      In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

      All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

      1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

      and finally:

      The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:

      Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

      State v. Manuel (1838), 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • David Farrar

    Al-Awlaki’s Can of Worms

    Anwar al-Awlaki may be dead, but the controversy surrounding his demise is far from over. Many Americans and members of Congress are still alarmed that a U.S. citizen was ordered assassinated without due process of law. And an important point that the Obama administration could make in its defense is contained in a can of worms that the president would probably rather not open.

    It is the same can that was noted to exist by the Bush administration and two Supreme Court justices back in 2004 in the case of Hamdi v Rumsfeld, although the court’s final decision did not open it either.

    The worms in the can: the assertion that al-Awlaki, just like Yaser Esam Hamdi, might not have been a U.S. citizen in the first place.

    Read more: At American Thinker.

    ex animo

    • Doubtful

      @David Farrar — “Al-Awlaki’s Can of Worms”

      You’re joking, right? The author’s remark that “the Georgia judge ruled that no citizen parents are necessary” is more than a trifle disingenuous, because as you yourself pointed out, Wong Kim Ark says exactly the same thing. This point of view is hardly a Malihi innovation, it’s been the law of the land since 1898.

      You are correct to say (at 10:04 this morning) that a victory for you would require an overturning of Wong. The author of the article, on the other hand, disagrees with you and me about the current state of the law, and is simply blowing smoke.

      Why quote a source that so clearly disagrees with you?

    • TheEuropean

      Mr. Farrar,

      why do you not stand to your word ? Are you a man of honour ? Has the Dental Chair more power than the Empty Chair ?


      The European

  • bob

    what is the difference between a natural born Citizen and a natural born subject

    It is like you have never read Wong Kim Ark….

  • MrBrown

    This FL suit appears to be making the very same arguments that have been dismissed or shot down every single time a court hears them. The birthers are like my dog who always wants to play with the dogs in the AKC championships. We love to watch those. Every time one of the dogs is sent trotting around the ring, Cornell gets all excited and barks like mad and tries so hard to play with them. Jack Russells are smart, but they are also really dumb. Cornell is thoroughly convinced that the TV dogs are real dogs in his house. Birthers think Obama is a scarey muslim usurper and that their citizenship “case” they have been wheeling out in all 57 states has merits. Both are wrong, for the exact same reason.

  • roadburner


    do you remember posting this?

    ■David Farrar
    December 5th, 2011 at 4:14 am

    Anyone who has actually read my PTO knows the answer to your question.

    But I will most certainly agree, if the court grants us ‘standing’ so we can get an actual decision based on the merits of the case; and the decision goes against me; I will, of course, appeal to a higher court. If the decision is not reversed, I will be forced to agree that given the facts known at the time, and under present law, Obama met his Constitutional requirements to take the oath of office of the President of the United States.

    ex animo


    just a reminder……

  • David Farrar


    We are trying to get to the truth as to where and when Barack Obama was born. Since a court of competent jurisdiction won’t accept a downloaded pic of Obama certified birth documents into evidence, neither should the general public accept such “evidence”.

    What Obama needs to do is take his original certified long form paper birth certificate, the one he showed around at his press conference and then collected, and enter it into evidence, after going through the usual requirements necessary to moving a self-authenticating document into evidence. That was all he had to do.

    In the Georgia setting, as you may know, it wasn’t even a judicial court setting, but an administrative court setting, making it even easier to get these types of dispute settled. But even here, instead of simply moving his self-authenticating birth documents into evidence, Obama chose ran away with his tail between his legs.

    ex animo

    • Doubtful

      David, thank you for your response, but you haven’t come close to answering either of my questions. Let me rephrase them.

      1) The information on all of his purported birth documents are consistent with each other — the COLB, the LFBC, the online PDEF, etc., all show the same date and place of birth. Since you agree that the official State of Hawaii records say the same thing, what does it mean to call the documents “fraudulent … representations”?

      2) Claiming them to be “obviously fraudulent … representations” (emphasis added) means that their fraudulence is … well, obvious. Orly had two hours to present her case. Why do you think she was unable to show anything whatsoever along those lines that ALJ Malihi would accept as persuasive or relevant? I’m sure you agree that it would be a significant milestone in your case if you could persuade someone in authority that there is reason to distrust the birth documents, but you appear not to have made a dent. Why do you think that’s the case, especially if you are claiming that your interpretation of the facts is the obvious one?

      Thanks again. Please see if you can address the questions.

    • Doubtful

      @David Farrar — “In the Georgia setting, as you may know, it wasn’t even a judicial court setting, but an administrative court setting, making it even easier to get these types of dispute settled.”

      And, of course, the dispute was settled, very easily and very succinctly. The President didn’t even need to be represented by counsel — the complainants were given free reign to present their case, and ALJ Malihi ruled that their presentation established exactly nothing.

      The fact that one of the parties refuses to accept the outcome doesn’t change that.

  • David Farrar


    We need to know if the information contained on Obama two Hawaiian Health Department officially certified birth documents is accurate. This information isn’t chiseled in stone. It is only prima facie. If other prima facie evidence can be entered into evidence that impeaches Obama’s prima facie evidence, and by extension his Hawaiian Health Department record, than the Obama’s prima facie is no longer enough to carry the day and the burden of proof shifts back to Obama. It is at this point, usually, the applicant would quickly produce his original birth documentation from his natal hospital to seal the deal — assuming that material can successfully be entered into evidence

    As I have mentioned, I believe our case was prejudiced when Obama abandoned his case and left us presenting testimony and evidence, not to prove Obama was a forger, a liar, or a counterfeiter, but simply to impeach his prima facie evidence i.e. his birth certificates.

    The case we presented was basically rebuttal evidence and testimony that was designed to impeach Obama self-authenticating prima facie evidence — a task that usually requires a far lower level of judicial notice than the latter.

    If Judge Malihi would have agreed with us, the burden would have shifted to Obama to actually prove he has met his constitutional burden by a preponderance of evidence before his name would have appeared on Georgia’s PPP ballot.

    ex animo

    • Doubtful

      @David Farrar — “If Judge Malihi would have agreed with us…”

      Well, yes, but he didn’t — and in no uncertain terms! — and that’s part of what I was asking about. You say that your “testimony that was designed to impeach Obama self-authenticating prima facie evidence,” and according to ALJ Malihi, it did absolutely no such thing. As you know, he found that none of it was persuasive and none of it was probative, and I’m asking you how you can still maintain that the fraudulence is “obvious.” Wasn’t the hearing the perfect opportunity for you to prove your point?

      You are right that the birth data are not “chiseled in stone,” but they might as well be until the contrary is proven; that’s what prima facie means. You can cite all the “coulda, woulda, shouldas” you like, but until that prima facie evidence is conclusively rebutted, its contents stand as legal facts. That’s where we’ve been, that’s where we are, and that’s where we’ll remain until something else has been proven. As of right now, it is a legal established fact that President Obama was born on August 4th, 1961, in Honolulu.

      • David Farrar

        As I said…I think Judge Malihi got confused and thought we were actually trying to prove Obama was a forger, a counterfeiter and embezzler.

        If you are familiar with the administrative procedure we had to follow at the time, this evidence was simply to impeach Obama’s prima facie evidence, a much lower threshold, usually.

        As of now, you are correct.

        ex animo

        • Northland10

          To impeach the evidence from Hawaii and Obama you need… Now listen closely:

          Verifiable evidence that Obama was born somewhere else then Hawaii. Nothing else will ever work.

    • roadburner

      `We need to know if the information contained on Obama two Hawaiian Health Department officially certified birth documents is accurate. This information isn’t chiseled in stone. It is only prima facie.´

      david, this information has been certified, signed, sealed and vouched for by the hawaii DOH, and regardless of if you accept it or not, the u.s. legal system does, and this is why you´ll lose every time.

      the legal system presumes innocence – that is to say your president doesn´t have to prove any more than he already has. it is up to you and the birther movement to prove otherwise. supposition and heresay don´t count, you need evidence that something is amiss and this is something the birther movement is lacking in.

      absoltely nothing was presented in georgia that could in any way attack the credibility of the LFBC. no expert witnesses were presented, no forensic document anylists were present nor gave any form of evidence, just a parade of people known to dislike their president and a batshit crazy lawyer.

      and that david, is not the way to challence prima face evidence, as was adequately demonstrated by the outcome.

  • roadburner

    `In the Georgia setting, as you may know, it wasn’t even a judicial court setting, but an administrative court setting, making it even easier to get these types of dispute settled. But even here, instead of simply moving his self-authenticating birth documents into evidence, Obama chose ran away with his tail between his legs.´

    gotta love birthers!

    before georgia, it was `we´re gonna have our day in COURT!´, and they were stocking up on marching frogs.

    after losing, it was `well, it was an administrative hearing (like we told them), so it doesn´t really count´

    the problem you had david, was that the first 2 complaints placed the PDF of the LFBC into evidence and it was accepted. the judge accepted it´s legitimacy, and the empty chair didn´t object.

    because oily is arrogant to say the least, she obvously didn´t communicate with the others at the hearing, and because of that shot herself in the foot.

    your president didn´t `run away with his tail between his legs´, he simply addressed the case with the neccesary action, which was let them screw it up for themselves.

    he obviously read `the art of war´, where it says `when faced by incompetents and self professed experts baying madly, the empty chair shall be the best path to victory´.

    so we´re now up to over 100 cases and hearings of which the birthers have won none. are you going to be a man of your word and accept the legitimacy of your president to hold his post, or just go goalpost shifting again and looking for another excuse?

    pity, but i believe it´ll be the latter

    • RoadScholar

      Re: David Farrar—

      Birtherism is a progressive, nearly incurable disease.

      “Those who do not recover are people who. . . are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates. They are not at fault; they seem to have been born that way. They are naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty. Their chances are less than average. There are those, too, who suffer from grave emotional and mental disorders, but many of them do recover if they have the capacity to be honest.”*

      There may be hope for David and his fellow sufferers, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.

      * Credit for this text goes to Bill W. and Doctor Bob.

    • bob

      the problem you had david, was that the first 2 complaints placed the PDF of the LFBC into evidence and it was accepted

      Slight correction: In addition to the other lawyers, Farrar’s OWN lawyer, Orly Taitz, moved into evidence multiple copies of President Obama’s long-form birth certificate.

      And now Farrar whines that the court relied on evidence that HIS ATTORNEY MOVED INTO EVIDENCE.

      • RoadScholar

        I know, right?

      • roadburner

        my mistake, thanks for the correction bob

      • David Farrar

        Once again bob, the court would not allow any pictorial representation of a certificated document to be entered into evidence, and nothing was. What you saw were copies of Obama’s certified birth certificates being used for demonstrations purposes only.

        Van Irion, in David Weldon’s case did stipulate to the authentication of Obama’s birth documents, but that was a separate case.

        ex animo

  • roadburner

    i must apologise for referring to orly as a batshit crazy lawyer.

    if anyone of the legal profession were insulted by my referring to her as a lawyer, i unreservedly apologise for my error,

  • David Farrar


    I don’t think you are correct, at least in these administrative hearings. Don’t forget, it is the Defendant who holds the evidence in these types of situations.

    When the judge gives the jury instructions on how much credence one should give the testimony of a witness, they are instructed to take into account not only the demeanor of the witness, but also how much the witness might benefit from the evidence or testimony. In Obama’s case, since he controls virtually all of the exculpatory evidence, the probative value of the plaintiff’s impeachment evidence should not be too high.

    ex animo

    • roadburner

      `In Obama’s case, since he controls virtually all of the exculpatory evidence, the probative value of the plaintiff’s impeachment evidence should not be too high.´

      in other words `he´s got all the proof and backing under u.s. law and the constitution, plus documentory evidence proving his side, but we think it isn´t fair and want our non-evidence to be used and trump his´

      dream on david, that´s not how things work. if you want a case against your president, find actual evidence and precedent, and have it presented by someone, preferably a real lawyer who has at least half a clue.

      not having done this (or more to the point, not having any evidence in the first place) is why the birther movement has an unbroken record of 100+ hearings and cases lost, and no wins.

      i notice many birthers are moving away from the constitutions definition of NBC and are now proclaiming `natural law´ is more important. please don´t go down that road david!

    • Northland10

      You have a case that states the President is not eligible. You argue that the birth certificate is not valid. Therefore, if the BC is a “forgery” and that is supposed to support your case the the President is ineligible, then it must mean you are claiming he is born elsewhere.

      Since Hawaii has stated he was born in Hawaii, and, due to this and the Full Faith and Credit clause, at first sight, their evidence supports his birth in Hawaii (first sight – prima facia), the burden is on the plaintiff to prove otherwise. Proving a forgery would be entirely insufficient as the Judge would ask where was he born. That is not for the defendant to answer as they already answered and fulfilled their burden.

      Speaking of absurd, you said, since Obama has all the evidence (i.e. he has supported his defense), your burden should be much lower. Your making the accusation, not him. He does not need to do your work for you.

      It sounds like the birthers approach their evidence as a some sort of res ipsa loquitur thing. It’s not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: