Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 08/31/2010 10:19:15 AM PDT by butterdezillion
I'll post the whole thing on the first response so the links will be clickable. This is an example of (probably criminal) journalistic malpractice by The Hutch News - an example of how the media behaves on almost every issue including the eligibility issue. I explain why I believe the media ignores our factual corrections at its own peril.
I believe this is what we need to be saying to the media whenever we find deliberate deception.
An Example of (Probably) Criminal Journalistic MalpracticeThe Journalistic Malpractice On July 21st HutchNews.com printed a retraction (at http://www.hutchnews.com/editorialblogs/edit-congress-withdraw-endorsement--1 ) of their endorsement of a Kansas primary candidate for the US House, because :
"it turns out Mann is what is known as a birther. He questions the citizenship of President Barack Obama despite evidence that is irrefutable to most objective, rational people - including a birth certificate released by the Hawaii secretary of state and birth announcements printed in Honolulu's two major newspapers." That simple statement contains a big inaccuracy. The Hawaii Secretary of State has never released Obama's birth certificate, nor has the Hawaii Department of Health (who has the BC) nor anybody in Hawaii. Obama's campaign published an online image of a COLB which went through 2 or 3 alterations on various websites before it finally surfaced at Factcheck.org as scanned photographs of what was claimed to be Obama's genuine COLB. Politifact published an article (at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/ ) in which Janice Okubo, communications director for the Hawaii Department of Health, concluded that .
"I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents" The substance of dozens of court cases is that various people are asking that the genuine birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health be released. Obama's lawyers have fought every case on the ground of standing – that it is nobody's place to force Obama and/or the HDOH to reveal Obama's genuine birth certificate. So when Hutch News said – out of the blue – that the Hawaii Secretary of State had already released Obama's birth certificate, they displayed a total ignorance of what the "birther" issue even IS. Yet they castigated the objective rationality of anybody who wants the genuine legal document to be released. The Hutch News retraction was mentioned on national TV by Rachel Maddow, and people on the Hutch News website praised The Hutch News for their courage in confronting those terrible, ignorant, irrational "birthers". Apparently they had no clue what a huge inaccuracy the Hutch News had just posted – an inaccuracy that revealed a lack of even the most basic comprehension regarding the eligibility issue. So I contacted the editor of The Hutch News, asking for a correction(either by their own statement or by posting my letter to the editor) to the blatantly false statement that the HI SOS had released Obama's birth certificate and alerting them to some of the facts documented on my blog (which I linked), that
This is the response that I received:
Nellie,
You're right, technically that is incorrect. To be precise we should have stated that the Obama campaign released the birth certificate but that Hawaii officials from the Department of Health have verified its legitimacy. But that is not materially important, and I am not going to engage in any of your continued speculation, which includes publishing your letter. If that is how you care to spend your time, have at it and continue the debate on your blog or wherever. But we are comfortable this has been well researched and determined and isn't something to which we will devote more time and space.
John Montgomery Hutchinson News Zooooooom!! That's the sound of the facts going right over the head of a "rational" person who considers himself responsible to inform the public on vital issues. Thinking that he had perhaps not bothered to read my entire e-mail, I responded to him with this:
John, to be precise - as I have stated and documented on my blog - the HDOH has NOT verified the Factcheck COLB's legitimacy, nor can they legally do so (according to their own claims).
You still are not grasping the basic facts of this issue, and are thus misreporting it.
As journalists, you have a responsibility to correct errors that you have made in your reporting. Are you telling me that you will not correct this error? Nellie
In 2 days it will be a month that I've waited for a response. And no correction has been made.
Why it's Probably CriminalWhat The Hutch News may not have considered is that issues under the jurisdiction of the federal government are impacted by the facts of whether a genuine birth certificate has ever been released and whether the HDOH has ever actually confirmed that the Factcheck COLB is genuine. There are court cases pending, an FBI investigation has been requested, a court-martial is in progress regarding this very issue, Congress is having to decide whether to accept SCOTUS justices nominated by a potentially fraudulent president, and the issue has been referred by Lt Col Lakin's Congressman to a House committee on military affairs. Most people realize that it is immoral for a news company to refuse to issue corrections when they become aware of an inaccuracy in what they have published. What most people – including possibly The Hutch News – may not know is that if they play fast and loose with the facts in a matter under the jurisdiction of any of the 3 branches of federal government, they could be found guilty of violating the Federal General False Statement Act – 18 U.S.C. 1001: I. Except as otherwise provided in this section, II. whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, III. knowingly and willfully – IV. a. falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
b. makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
c. makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any
materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, imprisoned not more than 8 years if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331) or if the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A (sexual abuse), 109B (sex offender registration), 110 (sexual exploitation), or 117(transportation for illicit sexual purposes), or Section 1591 (sex trafficking)........ The law is described, beginning on p 15 at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-808.pdf , including the following:
"Although the offense can only be committed "knowingly and willfully," the prosecution need not prove that the defendant knew that his conduct involved a "matter within the jurisdiction"of a federal entity nor that he intended to defraud a federal entity. Instead, the phrase "knowingly and willfully" refers to the circumstances under which the defendant made his statement, omitted a fact he was obliged to disclose, or included with his false documentation, i.e., "that the defendant knew that his statement was false when he made it or – which amounts in law to the same thing – consciously disregarded or averted his eyes from the likely falsity." Notice Served I intend to do a more complete post later, concerning The Federal General False Statement Act – which I believe has been violated by a multitude of people within both the federal government and the Hawaii government. Obama concealed from both Congress and the courts that the COLB published by his own campaign website was a forgery. I intend to post letters from members of Congress saying that they would not contest the certification because they believed the (forged) Factcheck COLB, the (misunderstood and not corrected) statements by Hawaii officials, and the (false) media reports concerning the issue. For right now, I give this small example of The Hutch News because it reflects what has gone on in every news room in the nation in the past 2 years, despite the diligent and tireless efforts of people like myself who have contacted the media to correct factual errors in their reportin on this issue. With this post I am serving notice to the media – which has misreported this issue all along – that we see what you have been doing, we know that it is illegal, what you've already done is on the record that will eventually come before Darrell Issa's House Ethics Committee (Lord willing), and we will be watching you very closely from here on out to see whether you "consciously disregard or avert (your) eyes from the likely falsity" of your own claims in light of the information we provide you – which is documented by actual communications from the Hawaii Department of Health. You ignore us at your own peril.
Darn. The HTML came pretty close to working. Sigh. The link to the blog post is http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/notice-served/
It marks them as part of the conspiracy for fraud. Given that the fraud is 650 million raised by the DNC on behalf of an ineligible candidate for president, it is large enough and WILL attract the attention of a tort somewhere sometime...
You make a basic mistake in thinking they care.
The left is in power now and nothing short of (dare I say it?) force of arms will remove it.
(hoping November proves me wrong!)
FWIW..the “Journolists” can probably be implicated as well.
Good luck in your efforts. Glad to see your site go after Anti-Birthers. If you are not a Birther, you are an Obama supporter
Who is John Montgomery Hutchinson and/or Hutch News and who cares what this ass hat thinks about birthers?
Their responses make it obvious that they don’t care.
But the law is the law, and when this thing comes unraveled they will not have anything to hide behind. Hutch News - and hundreds of other media outlets - were given the facts and they chose to print lies on a critical issue for our country.
I just want them to know that we see. A day of justice will come, Lord willing.
They have to desperately hold onto the lie because it would undo two SC appointments, dozens of laws, and hundreds if not thousands of federal regulations under Obastard.
I don’t care at all what he thinks about birthers, but I do care that he is reporting what he knows is falsehood. Refused to correct it when called on it.
That’s a crime. The Hutch News and every other media outlet out there needs to know that.
Anybody know Chris Matthews’ phone number? lol
Darn near every media outlet in this nation did the same thing.
The key is to document that they were informed of the facts and deliberately chose to ignore those facts and leave inaccurate reports standing.
If they did that, they engaged in the same crime that Blago just got convicted of.
I hope so.
How do they think they can get around the fact that Pelosi sent out two DIFFERENT “Certificates of Nomination”????
(can’t wait to see Pelosi in an orange jumpsuit!)
Thanks for your work, butterdezillion...and jbjd, too.
“A day of justice will come, Lord willing.”
I dare say.
I don’t know if we will be alive to see it here on earth.
And Pelosi knew that she had to sign a different certification for Hawaii because the Hawaii Democratic Party refused to certify Obama’s Constitutional eligibility.
I can’t find the link now, but somebody from the DNC was saying that the DNC relies on the state parties to check out eligibility, so if Pelosi signed a certification it was on the basis of the state democratic parties raising no objections.
But even that excuse doesn’t work for Pelosi because the very state which would know if Obama was eligible.... DID raise the objection, by refusing to certify his eligibility as they had always done for candidates in the past. They signed their certification of candidacy the day before Pelosi signed the 2 different certifications, as notice to the DNC that the DNC would have to certify eligibility.
Normally the HDP signed their certification of nomination (with certification of Constitutional eligibility) about a month after the national convention and hand-delivered it to their elections office. This time, they signed theirs (without certifying eligibility) before the DNC cert was signed and had the DNC send it all together to the Hawaii Elections Office.
And the HDP worker I spoke with refused to say who had approved their certification, who had typed it up, etc. Very defensive.
Hard to know what we’ll be alive for. I hope there is a day of justice on earth so nobody deludes himself into thinking he can evade the ultimate day of justice. Better to be forced to deal with guilt while there’s still time to repent and be forgiven of it.
I’m so thankful for forgiveness. I want everybody to have it. But it has no effect on those who refuse to acknowledge that they need it.
Thank you much for all the posts and your hard work on this effort.
I think we’ve reached the point where perhaps we need to start sending lawsuits against the media. I daresay having to fork out big money to defend themselves against a prison term might have an effect.
Or will we get these cases dismissed also due to ‘lack of standing’?
Its getting to the point where we’re going to have to fight. Literally. The original American Revolution didn’t happen overnight. It took years for resentment and anger to build. I think we’re starting to see the same resentment and anger building today as it did then. And the more that time passes and nothing is done and our voices are ignored that I’m becoming increasingly convinced it may well have to come to that again.
No, they will be dismissed because of the First Amendment.
The idea, expressed in the article, that the media are somehow guilty of a crime if they don't report that Obama is (supposedly) ineligible, is beyond nutty. 18 U.S.C. section 1001 penalizes lying to the Government, not lying about the Government. If lying about the Government were a crime, Free Republic would have been shut down long ago-- do you think everything expressed on this site is provably true? Do you really want the Department of Justice to have the power to prosecute anyone who says something false about public officials?
That’s the question of the hour. We have to try the legitimate means that have been provided. Prosecutors need to know that if they subvert the will of the people by refusing to enforce the laws, they will be creating a pressure cooker with no steam release valve.
The people who keep the rule of law from working are ultimately creating a very dangerous situation.
So you’re going to argue that the 1st amendment gives the media to right to lie to, mislead the public, and basically misrepresent the facts in order to blatantly become a propaganda arm of one political party without any consequences??? You honestly believe this was the intention of the founding fathers????? You really should go read Washington’s farewell address again, in fact go back and reread it a 2nd time and then a 3rd time if necessary until you can grasp it.
No wonder I hate lawyers.
I don’t think you read 18 U.S.C 1001 or the description of it that I posted. It doesn’t matter whether the person knows they are deceiving the feds; all that matters is whether they knew they were saying something false or covering up part of the truth in order to deceive.
I corrected their factual errors; they refused to correct their content to reflect the truth. They knew they were deceiving, or they “consciously disregarded or averted (their) eyes from the likely falsity.” Because this involved an issue under the jurisdiction of at least one of the 3 branches of federal government, that was a crime.
The media has gotten away with its lies for WAY too long. No more.
Now I have no qualms about leaving the editor’s name in my post.
Sounds like they need to be called on their lies, big-time.
To say that he knows what he posted was factually incorrect but refuse to correct it or to publish my letter correcting it - with no reason given at all - is beyond arrogant. It really is criminal, and he needs to know that.
Yep. For those ignorant of 18th century American history it wasn't just taxation that led to the revolution. Another BIG sticking point at the time was receiving no redress of grievances within the courts. In other words: no justice. We've come full circle.
lol. Now THAT is a worthy ping group.
Under the False Claims Act (as opposed to False Statements Act, which you are referencing), the government allows “qui tam” suits. These are suits brought by private citizens to prosecute individuals believed to be in violation of the False Claims Act. If the citizen wins, they get a percentage of whatever funds are recovered and monetary penalties paid.
This arrangement allows the government to avoid spending time prosecuting these cases. The arrangement incents private citizens to find the most egregious (read lucrative) violations and pursue them. Since the penalties are in the range of $10,000 per violation, smoking out a physician that fraudulently submitted 100 Medicaid claims can add up to some serious money (since citizen shares both in the $1 million penalty but also whatever amounts were fraudulently billed and had to be paid back). If they fail, the government isn’t out any money.
You should find out if qui tam suits are authorized under False Statements Act. If so, you might then find a lawyer such as Leo Donofrio who is willing to file your suit pro bono [compared to Orly Taitz and Philip Berg, Leo has always seemed way more sane and competent, but he presumably isn’t the only possibility].
In addition to the possibility of securing a financial reward from penalty payments that could cover the costs of the suit, but this may be a good end-around to the “standing” issue. The qui tam provision gives any citizen automatic standing to sue and since the dispute is over a factual claim regarding the existence or content of a long-form BC, I would think the court would have to allow discovery—i.e., subpoena the DOH for the long-form BC. It seems like it’s worth a try and certainly can’t end any worth than all the other BC-related lawsuits that have been turned down by various courts.
Wow. Excellent insight. Thank you for that. This goes to the other issue that has been so frustrating to me: the fact that civilians have no role in seeing the laws enforced. But what you’re saying is that in some instances we do.
I’m headed off to work (probably should have gone a while ago) and I will have time to think about what you’ve said. I hope others (especially any lawyers) will think about it too.
The thing about this is that Congress believes that Obama’s Fight the Smears and/or Factcheck COLB is a genuine document - a claim that he submitted to them in an unofficial way. The Factcheck COLB was referenced in Carter’s court. They didn’t present it as evidence but they called Carter’s attention to it. I wonder if that could make Obama himself the defendant in an actual False Claim lawsuit.
Anybody have any insights?
I’ll be gone to work but look forward to hearing anything more I can find out on this.
Thank you so much for bringing this up, DrC.
Hey, Lucy, I hate to keep bugging you, but could you ping this thread and especially DrC’s post? Thanks!
Nellie, the man knows he’s deceiving readers. He knows he is lying for his little bastard boy. Why do you keep giving these scum the benefit of the doubt? He didn’t misunderstand your facts. He purposely twisted what you wrote in order to give himself absolution for being a lying scumbag seeking to protect the pondscum in the White Hut!
If you really want to document, send registered letters of informing, then redirect. Otherwise it is a lying scumbag’s word against yours in a court of twisted law which is set up to protect a criminal-in-chief.
Spend a quiet twenty minutes contemplating what things would be like today if government could use coercive power to prosecute any media outlet that made a statement that they determined to be false or incorrect.
How does this differ from arbitrary censorship?
I have to be honest but I’m not seeing how either the False Claims Acr or False Statement Act can be used against the Hutch News. Newspapers are generally liable for libel, which specifically involves the person being libeled, but not much else. Technically they are lying by claiming Obama was found to be legit or constitutionally qualified or that his birth certificate has been verified, but I don’t see Obama suing over this.
It is informative for people to know how ignorant and partisan the LMSM is when it comes to this issue ... seeing as how they were confronted with a very blatant factual error, yet refuse to correct it or publicly acknowledge their mistake. Getting the word out about that would much stronger suggesting they could be held accountable under the cited federal laws, IMO.
Censorship is prior to publication, not afterward. The LMSM can still be held accountable for things like libel and fraudulent advertising.
In regards to Obama “birth certificate,” Janice Okubo, Communications Director for the Hawaii Department of Health is on record saying, “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site [FactCheck.org] represents.”
http://theobamafile.com/_exhibits/HawaiiDenies.mht
Check out # 28 by DrC.
[Thanks for the Ping, buterdezillion. # 16 concerning Nancy Pelosi is important, too.
[As for that matter, there is a lot of information in this thread.]
interesting post in #28
David - thoughts?
Indeed. Not to mention the damage done to the (D) brand with the independents! Or, the (additional) credibility slide with the state run media....including Fox!
“Censorship is prior to publication, not afterward.”
Fair point.
Thanks once again, butterdezillion, for your hard work.
This guy continues to deceive even with his admission that he’s “technically” incorrect.
He’s outright wrong (again) when he says that Obama’s campaign released the birth certificate. NOBODY HAS RELEASED ANY BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!
An unprovenanced, photoshopped, possibly computer-created digital image posted on blogs and campaign websites is NOT a birth certificate.
Nor have Hawaiian officials verified its “legitimacy” Far from it.
As butterdezillion pointed out, they not only did NOT verify that online image, they specifically stated that they cannot tell anyone what it represents AND their laws forbid them commenting upon it, one way or the other.
Technicalities. How interesting. So in this guy’s apparent opinion, whether or not Obama is eligible to be POTUS (which, btw, requires NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP, not mere citizenship) is just a technicality. Technically, I suppose, he considers himself a rational person as well as a “journalist” (more like journOlister).
What kind of reporter invents a story that the Hawaiian Secretary of State released Obama’s birth certificate? Secretary of State? Does he simply make up “facts” as he goes along?
“The facts are the facts,” said that great philosopher B. H. Obama recently.
“Yes,” agreed the People, “but what exactly, sir, ARE THE FACTS?”
Not the kind of case where a private attorney general remedy works.
Further, what no one still seems to get is that to address this issue in the private litigation setting is going to require enormous effort just to get in the door.
And the real relief you are looking for is judicial sanction for discovery that proves your position. Which discovery in turn is likely to be a large and expensive undertaking.
Among other things, you will need a number of lawyers--not just one. Look at your adversary--Bauer has a large international law firm at his disposal with several senior partners directing work by a number of second and third level attorneys. In order to contest him, you will need the same kind of personnel and horsepower.
I will say that the Supreme Court appointments open a new avenue of possible challenge. A Supreme Court Justice must be appointed by a "President". So any litigant before the court would have a position from which to challenge the ability of these two ladies he has apponted to sit on a panel.
When you get to the Supreme Court, your client party wants you to look carefully at where the individual justices come down on his issue. So you are looking for a client on the opposite side.
Certiorari is granted on a vote of four Justices. So maybe you have a client who prevailed on a lower appellate court decision where the two ladies were two of the four votes to hear the case--then you move to strike the writ on the grounds they are not qualified.
Or maybe you have a client who lost below on a case where the ladies are on the side of the prevailing party. You move to exclude them from the panel.
But all of this is going to take real legal support.
Bump - for later read.
In this instatnt case I think the candidate who is not supported could sue for defamation or fraud and his damages are lost endorsement and possibly lost election based on misinformation tp voters. The fact that it is on an opinion page does IMO give the paper more leeway..but they should at least allow for the candidate to make a rebuttal...
I myself am sick of all the lies and false promises by candidates who after election turn 180 degrees-(mcamnesty come to mind? Obama?) we the people need a method and means to call them on their bullcrap without having to wait till the next election when memories sometimes fade...now that would be real campaign reform....
When you get to the Supreme Court, your client party wants you to look carefully at where the individual justices come down on his issue. So you are looking for a client on the opposite side.
Certiorari is granted on a vote of four Justices. So maybe you have a client who prevailed on a lower appellate court decision where the two ladies were two of the four votes to hear the case--then you move to strike the writ on the grounds they are not qualified. "
Wouldn't the all elusive "standing" need to be found in order to get to discovery in order to determine the claim that they (Barry's SCOTUS picks) are not qualified? That brings the issue right back to where we are now. No?
Have you been in contact with or sent your info to Issa?
Everyone who is afraid of doing something to resist should consider this:
“Some people believe that armed citizens don’t stand a chance against an army, especially one as powerful as USA. This is the BS lie all governments around the world want you to believe, but the reality is very different.
If every block in the country, USA for example, has a dozen men with fire arms, the one that doesn’t stand a chance is the military force. It’s the perfect guerrilla setup, and a general’s worst nightmare.
You can’t nuke or level every block. You can’t arrest the entire country. The “fighters” are already armed, fed, spread out, integrated and infiltrated into the military and government branches. It’s impossible to win.”
Fernando Ferfal Aguirre (SURVIVING THE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE )
This is ‘our big stick’- one we don’t even have to use. If we the people would realize this before they starve us, poison us or pauper us out of our homes, maybe more Americans would have the courage to get off their duffs (and be more like butterdezillion).
I am sick of all the lies and false promises by the Parties themselves. The GOP knowingly put McLame against Hussein knowing that BOTH has serious eligibility questions. One would have thought that after Obama and Hillary smoozed over McLame’s NBC, I was waiting for the GOP to slap Hussein with a congressional inquiry but that didn’t happen because they were in on it all along. The GOP didn’t want this election and had McLame stumping for Hussein’s campaign the entire time. Just look at how they treated Sarah. Then we were told we didn’t have to be afraid of Hussein. Yep, it was all there but the sheeple never saw it and the media did a masterful job of covering it up.
You go, girl! Keep at it. America needs citizens like you.
Completely agree. The GOP knew exactly where the country was heading economically, dismal employment outlook, etc and with the growing threat of Iran and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq...they truly didn't want this rotation and the fact that they "promoted" a weak candidate like McAmnesty (aside from the military hero he is) with his own eligibility issues (as you mention) is the proof, IMO, they wanted nothing to do with being in a position of power at this time. I'm thankful for the "fresh blood" of the T.E.A. party groups and all those that have participated in the town halls protests.
In other words, the “GOP” is pretty stale and weak at the moment. Time for some true conservative, Constitutional patriots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.