Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 09/28/2010 7:22:42 AM PDT by butterdezillion
The efforts to keep ANY personal information about Obama’s past hidden are incredible especially considering personal information about Republicans can be obtained by anyone.
I give up. I cannot get Wordpress to put the HTML in so the links are clickable. Sigh.
Sorry guys. I was going to have this HTML figured out before I posted again and I thought I did but Wordpress only added the HTML to half the post. Sigh.
The links are clickable on the blog. If somebody knows how to post a PDF here I would be eternally grateful for some help so I could post the PDF which would have clickable links like on the blog.
RS, this is one of those dog in the tree moments, I guess. lol
Nothing new here!!
“Jacobsen Aff. (Dkt. #41-2 at 20 (observing that State maintains “some passport application records created between 1962 and 1978”)(emphasis added).”
8. Defendant(s), at the time this entry was made, knew, or should have known, that it was a misquote, and that it would result in a statement likely to mislead the court. Defendant(s) further had the hubris to add the emphasis to this misquote. The quote correctly reads, in its entirety, the following:
“the State Department maintains an electronic index of all passport application records created since 1978, and some passport application records created between 1962 and 1978.”
9. The wording deleted from the beginning of the quotation completely changes the meaning of the quote and makes it appear that DOS has only some passport application records created between 1962 and 1978 when the full quote actually refers to the electronic index.”
That deliberate edit in order to misconstrue the actual quote and to falsely accuse Jacobsen of admitting what he never admitted shows that the agency did not submit that claim “in good faith”. In addition, besides emphasizing the misquote, DOS further adds to their misquote the following statement:
“It therefore should not surprise anyone that State might locate some, but not all, applications submitted by a single individual over the course of decades.”
This argument appears to be used in furtherance of misleading the court. The first quote is incorrect and the following conclusion by DOS therefore is also incorrect as can be plainly seen.......
----- This alone (and brand new to the reply where Strunk had no chance of responding to before) looks like sufficient bad faith to me to prevent a summary judgment. I think any impartial judge would be upset that someone tried to pull this baloney in their court. I guess we will find out if our Judicial System has been taken over completely by the Usurper. If the court refuses to allow this case to go to trial, as you stated it will come up again and again, and the truth will come out sooner or later even if it has to wait till January and the Republicans take control of the house and Rep. Issa gets his book of subpoenas out. Is this all part of a big stall until after the election?
I checked the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, 3.3 it looks like this may fit to me.
Rule 3.3 - Candor to Tribunal (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) Make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer, unless correction would require disclosure of information that is prohibited by Rule 1.6;
(2) Counsel or assist a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good-faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, or application of the law;
(3) Fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction not disclosed by opposing counsel and known to the lawyer to be dispositive of a question at issue and directly adverse to the position of the client; or
(4) Offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false, except as provided in paragraph (b). A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/dc/code/DC_CODE.HTM#Rule_3.3(a)(1)
The most obvious question is WHY would an AUSA go to such lengths to mislead the court? Is Strunk's allegation of Fraud on the court correct? What is so important to hide to take such risks?
Whew! You’re smokin’ hot! I’d like to link to that Rule 3.3 on the blog page. That definitely applies. Bowen’s refusal to correct his false statement when it was pointed out to him is a new fact that the judge should DEFINITELY take note of.
This is so bogus. If records prior to 1968 were destroyed, then how come files from Soetoro that are dated beginning in April of 1965 were released in the Allen case?
Hmm. I’m not up to speed on the Allen case. Do you have a link by any chance? If they gave different stuff to Allen than to Strunk that’s another big problem, like you say. Thanks for the heads up, and any links you can give would be fantastic.
This really is bogus, but the catch is that they have gone so far as to submit it in sworn testimony. Either they’re pretty sure the system is rigged to let them get away with it, or else they are dumber than rocks. Blatant defiance of the rule of law.
Thank you.
Do you know if he requested stuff for Stanley Ann also?
Just WOW!.......Well done!
Exactly!
Not sure, I know he requested info for Obama. My question is, why not get the records for Obama Sr? Surely they should be releasable as Dunham’s & Soetoro’s were.
BUMP!!
BTTT
What you post always makes me laugh and just seeing that smiling face always makes me smile too.
Just found out that the judge accepted the surreply. There’s a minute order on scribd. I am so happy. Maybe this judge hasn’t been bought off yet.
SEE# 19
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.