Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Phil Berg calls Lucas Smith to testify against Orly Taitz in Rivernider vs US Bank.
Youtube ^ | 01-12-10 | Lucas Smith

Posted on 01/13/2010 1:08:11 PM PST by Seizethecarp

Today I was in federal court for several hours. Rivernider vs US Bank. I testified against Orly Taitz. Orly Taitz was present as well and also testified.

In court today I watched as Orly Taitz told lie after lie while under oath on the witness stand. She claimed that she has never in her life given anyone permission to sign her signature. (This hearing today was about Orly's claim that Charles Edward Lincoln III forged her signature on a filing in Rivernider vs US Bank). Attorney Phil Berg was present as counsel to Charles Lincoln.

Phil Berg went on to question Orly Taitz as to why then, if she had never given anyone permission to sign her signature, why then had she while in Israel contacted Charles Lincoln and told him to advise one of her dental staff in California to sign her (Orly's) name to payrol checks for the employees. Orly Taitz started to reply with one story that her signature is not used on payrol checks but then Phil Berg asked her who then is it that signs off on employee hours to verify them for the payrol. At this time Orly then started in with a new story that she took payroll checks with her to Isael and signed the payrol checks there in Israel and mailed them to her dental employees from back in the USA. ???????????????? I don't think anyone bought that story.

At this time Orly started complaining that she was being badgered and that she objects and a string of other legal terms that, depending on what she said, was either the role of witness, attorney and even the role of judge.

Two members of the website, Politijab.com, were present.

(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; charleslincoln; lucassmith; orlytaitz; philberg; whackamole
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251 next last

1 posted on 01/13/2010 1:08:14 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: InspectorSmith; LucyT

ping


2 posted on 01/13/2010 1:09:09 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

3 posted on 01/13/2010 1:14:31 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

4 posted on 01/13/2010 1:15:27 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Berg vs Orly? Was chief wala wala from African Press International the judge? LOL


5 posted on 01/13/2010 1:15:47 PM PST by icwhatudo ("laws requiring compulsory abortion could be sustained under the existing Constitution"Obama Adviser)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp; bgill; Whenifhow; malkee; STE=Q; rocco55; thouworm; rxsid; GOPJ; Fred Nerks; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Phil Berg calls Lucas Smith to testify against Orly Taitz in Rivernider vs US Bank

[Thanks, Seizethecarp.]

6 posted on 01/13/2010 1:32:22 PM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
Berg vs Orly? Was chief wala wala from African Press International the judge? LOL

Editor Korir to you, sir. (And that "whitey tape" will be released any day now, really -- count on it, honest.)

7 posted on 01/13/2010 1:42:43 PM PST by browardchad ("Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact." - Daniel P Moynihan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: browardchad

In the next 24hrs!


8 posted on 01/13/2010 1:50:08 PM PST by icwhatudo ("laws requiring compulsory abortion could be sustained under the existing Constitution"Obama Adviser)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mlo; Non-Sequitur; parsifal; Pilsner; Drew68; curiosity; Sibre Fan; El Sordo; MilspecRob; ...

Ping to an Orly Taitz whack-a-mole thread.


9 posted on 01/13/2010 2:48:19 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

The love spat between Orly and Lincoln may make for some interesting court drama overtime.


10 posted on 01/13/2010 3:05:08 PM PST by deport (48 DAYS UNTIL THE TEXAS PRIMARY....... MARCH 2, 2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

The link goes to the Lucas Smith site but I could not locate the article in order to be able to read the rest of it.


11 posted on 01/13/2010 3:36:34 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan; InspectorSmith; LucyT
If Charles Lincoln prevails based in part on Lucas Smith's testimony, this will be the second federal court in which Smith's representations in either testimony or by affidavit will have been found to be credible by the trier of fact.

Fair to Orly or not, Judge Carter admonished Orly Taitz in his ruling clearly based in part on Smith's affidavit alleging wrongdoing by Taitz. Carter was fully aware that Smith had also placed before the court the Kenya BC. Carter did not consider Smith's well-publicized background and claims about the BC to have impeached him as a witness.

A second federal court validation of Smith, by extension, can only enhance the credibility of Lucas Smith's representations regarding how he came to acquire Obama’s Kenya BC.

If Smith was actually a fraudster, the last and most foolish thing he would be expected to do would be to expose himself to a felony charge of making false statements or giving false testimony in federal court.

Yes, stranger things have happened, but I have read Smith's affidavits, viewed his videos, and read his blog in which he defends the authenticity of the Kenya BC and I have found him to appear to be extremely careful of what he says about it.

If Taitz is found to have lied in this case based on the preponderance of the evidence, including Smith's testimony, it will be the second federal court where her honesty has been called into question. A loss in this case by Taitz would seem to threaten her CA Bar membership even more than it is threatened already.

Any shortcomings of Orly Taitz have no bearing on what the original HI vital records of Obama show, whether or not Obama was actually born in Kenya, or whether SCOTUS would find him to be an NBC despite having a Kenyan national as his father. It will fall to others to try to litigate these matters.

12 posted on 01/13/2010 4:20:46 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
I cobbled together four successive size-limited comments that Smith posted “21 hours ago” as of when I post this. The comments are on the third page of posts going back in time. I only left off the last part of the fourth comment that pertained to the youtube user name of a Politijab reporter.
13 posted on 01/13/2010 4:28:39 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
I cobbled together four successive size-limited comments that Smith posted “21 hours ago” as of when I post this. The comments are on the third page of posts going back in time. I only left off the last part of the fourth comment that pertained to the youtube user name of a Politijab reporter.
14 posted on 01/13/2010 4:28:43 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

He is a convicted FELON. Iowa is just the tip of the iceberg.

People used to say Ted Bundy was such a nice young man,.


15 posted on 01/13/2010 4:54:46 PM PST by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Protect the Bill of Rights
“He is a convicted FELON. Iowa is just the tip of the iceberg.”

Convicted felons give testimony in court that is deemed credible by the triers of fact every day. Of course, Smith deserves some extra scrutiny, and his BC has certainly received that, as would any such serious claim about presidential eligibility regardless of the source.

Whether Smith is a convicted felon has no bearing on the authenticity of the BC which, under the FRE, can only ultimately be authenticated by Kenyan officials.

I believe this can only happen if/when the protection Obama is getting in both the US and Kenya is lifted.

16 posted on 01/13/2010 5:09:09 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Just meant as a friendly word of caution


17 posted on 01/13/2010 5:19:30 PM PST by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Whether Smith is a convicted felon has no bearing on the authenticity of the BC which, under the FRE, can only ultimately be authenticated by Kenyan officials.

Oh that's the BC with the administrator's name misspelled on the stamp and signature, isn't it?

18 posted on 01/13/2010 9:23:43 PM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

What a cast of characters! It’s all way too convoluted for me. Isn’t Taitz suing Berg, or vice versa?

It bothers me that they have, among them, made their act into a three-ring circus when there is a serious underlying Constitutional question with which they have come to be identified. Their antics distract from that serious question and cast those who DO recognize a Constitutional issue as being as nutty as they are. We can only hope that some of the saner attorneys who have had quieter cases that focus on the legal issues will eventually prevail.


19 posted on 01/13/2010 9:41:10 PM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
“Oh that's the BC with the administrator's name misspelled on the stamp and signature, isn't it?”

Despite the relentless hectoring of Great Kim aka Mik Taerg and others reading from the anti-birther script claiming a misspelling, I saw no convincing evidence of misspelling when I looked into it. I believe even Kim had to admit to InspectorSmith on his YouTube site that his claims of a misspelling were wrong when Smith backed Kim into a corner. I'm not going back over it, absent new evidence.

20 posted on 01/13/2010 9:45:45 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
“What a cast of characters! It’s all way too convoluted for me. Isn’t Taitz suing Berg, or vice versa?”

This is a non-birther legal dispute between Lincoln and Taitz where Smith was a witness to certain events between the two. Lincoln and Smith are testifying that Taitz is lying regarding legal work that was supposed to be done involving real estate and Berg is representing Lincoln. I believe that Berg may have had a previous dispute with Taitz.

My personal assessment, after reading Smith's affidavit and knowing what Taitz is capable of after she went off on Judge Land, is that Taitz will not be found to be credible.

This, in combination with Judge Carter's refusal today to “transfer” her quo warranto case to DC may well be the end of Taitz’ involvement in birther lawsuits, and even an end to her practice of law.

Although Taitz was able to draw TV coverage to the issue and could articulate the BC/NBC issues if given a chance I must say that she did more to contribute to the circus aspect than anyone with her wild accusations against judges and her ineffectiveness as a lawyer. I say this as a person who sent her a small contribution, which I regretted after she attacked Judge Land and apparently drove Lucas Smith away by asking him to lie as well, depending on who you believe.

Going forward my only hope is with Leo Donofrio's quo warranto filing that is supposed to be coming soon.

21 posted on 01/13/2010 10:12:03 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

“This is a non-birther legal dispute between Lincoln and Taitz where Smith was a witness ... “

But that’s my point. There are cases like this in every court across the country every day of the year. No one ever hears about them. But because this group, perhaps most especially Taitz, but Berg as well, have made themselves the ‘face’ of what has come to be called disparagingly the ‘birther movement,’ it is being reported. I wish they would all just go away and leave it to the attorneys who act professionally.


22 posted on 01/13/2010 10:29:06 PM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Smith and Taitz are both risible punchlines.


23 posted on 01/13/2010 10:36:34 PM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
My personal assessment, after reading Smith's affidavit and knowing what Taitz is capable of after she went off on Judge Land, is that Taitz will not be found to be credible.

And your assessment, apparently based solely on the testimony of a dodgy character such as Smith, will prove 100% incorrect. Smith has no proof of any of his assertions, and he certainly doesn't have any veracity as a character witness.

Magistrate judges don't take kindly to disbarred lawyers who forge a lawyer's signature, no matter how incompetent and vindictive that lawyer may be.

24 posted on 01/14/2010 3:39:50 AM PST by browardchad ("Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact." - Daniel P Moynihan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
...I saw no convincing evidence of misspelling when I looked into it.

Then perhaps we're not talking about the same BC; there is plenty of evidence the doctor spells his name Heltan and not Helton as it appears on Smith's certificate.

25 posted on 01/14/2010 7:39:45 AM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
“Then perhaps we're not talking about the same BC; there is plenty of evidence the doctor spells his name Heltan and not Helton as it appears on Smith's certificate.”

Please provide links to your “plenty of evidence”. Opinions posted by Mik Taerg aka Great Kim don't count. Neither to newspaper stories where reporters routinely misspell names.

26 posted on 01/14/2010 8:20:22 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp; lucysmom; LucyT

Most likely user lucysmom is an Obot or Greatkim her/himself.

Here we go again with the Helton/Heltan name spelling. First, there are far more references to HeltOn than there are to HeltAn. These are from Kenyan sources, and not from people quoting the birth certificate.

Kenyan newspaper have spelled his name both ways. In fact, in Swahili names are spelled phonetically as they sound and do not follow a set standard as to a particular spelling.

I suppose Barack Obama is fraud himself because his name can be spelled several ways in Kenya. Barak, Barrak, Barrack, Barack. Which is correct? Is he an imposter? Oh dear, we been douped, his name is spelled several different ways in Kenya. Do we have the correct Barack Obama! Please, Obots, quickly assemble a research team to ascertain which is the correct spelling. HA HA HA HA.

We as Americans must remember that our cultures and norms are not the same as those in other countries, especially Africa.


27 posted on 01/14/2010 8:39:32 AM PST by InspectorSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Whether Smith is a convicted felon has no bearing on the authenticity of the BC which, under the FRE, can only ultimately be authenticated by Kenyan officials.

Well did he do that? If not, then under the evidence rules the document has no place in the courtroom.

28 posted on 01/14/2010 9:20:34 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; InspectorSmith; rxsid; AmericanVictory; LucyT
The Factcheck COLB has also not been authenticated under the FRE, nor have the “best evidence” HI vital records underlying the representations of HI officials, nor has the claim by HI officials that Obama is NBC.

Both Judge Carter and Judge Land with their FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals for “failure to state a claim” denied standing to the plaintiffs thus precluding the discovery process in which all BC related documents can be authenticated to the extent possible, and witnesses, like Fukino, Obuko, the HI AB and Smith, can be deposed.

Judge Carter said that even if the Smith BC was fully authenticated by Kenya officials, Carter would be unlikely to give greater weight to a Kenya BC over an equally authenticated HI BC.

Judge Carter assumed, without having the HI vital records released, that discovery of those records would not raise questions and issues that might lead to greater weight being given to the Kenyan BC.

For example, the HI vital records may have been amended from showing a Kenya birth location to showing an HI birth location. Subsequent to such an amendment, “properly” filed, HI officials would be legally required to attest to an HI birth for Obama and precluded from making reference to the pre-amendment Kenya birth, such as is shown on the Blaine BC, for example.

Judge Robertson in the Hollister case also granted an FRCP 12(b)(6) dismissal by stating that Obama’s birth location had been Factchecked, blogged and twittered, none of which meets FRE requirements. Robertson, like Carter, precluded any discovery involving actual authentication of HI vital records in the context of HI Territorial Law 57 and statements of HI officials regarding amendments or Obama’s NBC status.

Theoretically (but not realistically), both Carter and Robertson might be overturned for failure to give adequate weight to the possibility that with discovery under the FRE, plaintiffs could prove-up their documents.

29 posted on 01/14/2010 11:50:18 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
For example, the HI vital records may have been amended from showing a Kenya birth location to showing an HI birth location.

"Might," "may," "possibly" and "if" have no weight under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

The issue of the COLB's authenticity was not Carter's decision to make. In case you've forgotten, there are no laws, anywhere in either the Federal or State governments, that specifically demand a candidate for POTUS to present a birth certificate, and/or to provide proof of its authenticity.

On the other hand, an attorney filing a lawsuit asserting that a Kenyan Birth Certificate is authentic has to prove, by expert certification, that it is authentic.

30 posted on 01/14/2010 12:01:35 PM PST by browardchad ("Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact." - Daniel P Moynihan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: browardchad
“On the other hand, an attorney filing a lawsuit asserting that a Kenyan Birth Certificate is authentic has to prove, by expert certification, that it is authentic.”

Taitz didn't assert that either the 1964 BC or the Smith 1961 BC were authentic, she asked for discovery to authenticate them using court ordered subpoenas including deposing Smith as to how he obtained his BC. Discovery would include discovery of the original HI vital record for comparison and to resolve discrepancies.

To get to discovery, Taitz and Kreep had to survive a 12(b)(6) challenge meaining that even if their claims as to authenticity of the Kenya BC were true, could they prevail?

Judge Carter's 12(b)(6) dismissal precluded discovery and submission of any evidence under the FRE. Judge Carter ruled that even if the Kenyan authorities fully validated Smith's BC, that validation couldn't overcome the Factcheck COLB (not in evidence) or the statements of HI officials on Obama’s NBC status (not in evidence or subject to cross-examination either).

In effect, Carter presumed that the best that Taitz and Kreep could hope for after all of the evidence was in was a “he said, she said” standoff between HI and Kenya and that he, as a USA federal judge, would be compelled to rule in favor of HI authorities and against Kenya authorities.

I think Carter's presumption is presumptuous!

I am holding out hope that at least one 9th Circuit judge will disagree with Carter on this particular point, even if they don't overturn the dismissal, assuming Taitz gets her appeal together. Kreep didn't make representations about BC's at trial or in his appeal, now that I think about it. (disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. I just play one on FR!)

31 posted on 01/14/2010 1:01:59 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Taitz didn't assert that either the 1964 BC or the Smith 1961 BC were authentic, she asked for discovery to authenticate them using court ordered subpoenas...

Where, in the Federal Rules, is it the Court's responsibility to grant discovery to appellants for the purpose of authenticating documents introduced as evidence?

Please cite the rule.

32 posted on 01/14/2010 1:50:16 PM PST by browardchad ("Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact." - Daniel P Moynihan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: browardchad
“Where, in the Federal Rules, is it the Court's responsibility to grant discovery to appellants for the purpose of authenticating documents introduced as evidence?”

You meant plaintiff, of course, but that is what court ordered discovery is. But you don't get discovery without standing, which Carter didn't grant.

If the court finds that a plaintiff meets the requirements for standing, and that means surviving a hearing on a 12(b) motion to dismiss filed by the defense, then the court will issue a discovery order.

The discovery order authorizes both parties to take depositions of witnesses (their own and the other party's) including custodians of documents who they intend to call at trial to testify about the documents the parties intend to introduce as evidence.

There is no requirement that evidence be introduced under the FRE either in the initial filing or at a 12(b) motion to dismiss hearing, except in limited circumstances that Carter didn't grant.

What got some people excited was that when Carter first set the trail date (in early Sept?), he issued a routine preliminary discovery order and made comments in open court to the effect that he didn't expect the defense's 12(b) motion to dismiss to prevail.

That is when Orly jumped the shark (again) and claimed she would have Obama out of office in 30 days assuming she could get discovery of the HI vital records and depose Smith on how he got the BC and perhaps depose and obtain affidavits from Kenyan officials.

But, of course, the defense then filed a motion to stay discovery until after the 12(b) hearing, and the stay was granted. Then the motion to dismiss was granted. Then the dismissal was granted “with prejudice.” Game over in lower court.

33 posted on 01/14/2010 2:32:34 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

You are completely mis-stating what happened.

Carter stated that in general, 12(b)(6) motions do not prevail, which is accurate. Orly and all her supporters took this to mean that she prevailed. Which is idiotic.

He ordered discovery as it related to the 12(b)(6) motion only. In other words, only evidence that would support standing was available.

Orly and all her supporters took this to mean that she could fish for evidence of Obama’s birth circumstances. Which is idiotic.

Finally, you are still missing the point of the Fed Rules of Evidence.

It’s not the Court’s job to authenticate evidence. If you bring a document, it’s not up to the court to determine if it is real or not. It’s not up to the court to help you prove that it is real or not. It is up to you to bring proof that it is real. If you can’t do that without the court’s help, tough.

Orly wants the court to conduct an investigation, not a trial.


34 posted on 01/14/2010 3:04:33 PM PST by MrRobertPlant2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MrRobertPlant2009

I never made any of the assertions about the FRE that you claim I made. Where did I say it is “the Court’s job to authenticate evidence?”

Your statement of what Judge Carter said is more general and accurate, but we both agree that Orly and her followers misinterpreted it. I said Orly “jumped the shark.” Is that a complete misstatement of what happened?

Sounds like we mostly said the same thing.


35 posted on 01/14/2010 3:37:40 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

You still seem to think that Carter could have helped her more with the Lucas Smith document. Or should have least given it some thought.

Correct me if I am wrong.

I think she should be sanctioned for presenting it to a court.


36 posted on 01/14/2010 3:45:26 PM PST by MrRobertPlant2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MrRobertPlant2009
“You still seem to think that Carter could have helped her more with the Lucas Smith document. Or should have least given it some thought.

“Correct me if I am wrong.

“I think she should be sanctioned for presenting it to a court.”

Taitz sanctioned for presenting the BC(s)? Under what provision of law? The 1964 BC was an exhibit that she stated she had not yet verified, and the 1961 Smith BC was filed as part of his affidavit. I don't believe she made any false statements about either to the court, although Smith claims she asked him to.

Ultimately Judge Carter decided that this was a quo warranto in the wrong court, and in any case no remedy was requested that his court could grant (non-justiciability).

My problem with Carter and the Smith BC was that Carter presumed that discovery in Kenya and HI could not possibly favor the Kenya BC. I think this might be an error.

If, after discovery, a jury or judge could be persuaded that the Kenya BC was more credible than the HI vital records, a jury or judge might find Obama to have been born in Kenya. Judge Carter doesn't allow for the possibility of a Kenya BC “win”. The best case he sees for the Kenya BC is a tie with the HI vital records.

Judge Carter didn't say that Taitz wouldn't be entitled to a normal discovery order if he dismissed the 12(b) motion to dismiss. He just decided that any discovery wouldn't overcome a presumption in his mind that in a US court an HI authentication would trump a Kenya authentication. I disagree with the reasoning of that particular ruling. I don't think Carter cited any statute or case law supporting this part of the ruling.

37 posted on 01/14/2010 4:32:57 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Well did he do that? If not, then under the evidence rules the document has no place in the courtroom.

Quoting from the transcript

The Court: And you understand that one of the Federal Rules of Evidence is that for a court to consider a document as documentary evidence in a court of law -- I'm not talking about at a press conference or on a TV show or in a Fox and Friends. I'm talking about, in a court of law, the judge has to determine whether there's been sufficient foundation laid as to authenticity to consider a document that's admitted into evidence. Tell me what it is that you've done to establish the evidentiary foundation for this Kenyan document. My understanding of what you have done is, you have got an individual who went and got this piece of paper, who says he got it from this office in Kenya, and he says they gave it to him as this birth certificate. There's no official --

Taitz: Your Honor --

The Court: -- in Kenya that signed any authenticity certificate.

38 posted on 01/14/2010 6:19:33 PM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
Judge Carter to Taitz:

"Tell me what it is that you've done to establish the evidentiary foundation for this Kenyan document. My understanding of what you have done is, you have got an individual who went and got this piece of paper, who says he got it from this office in Kenya, and he says they gave it to him as this birth certificate. There's no official in Kenya that signed any authenticity certificate."

In an affidavit to Judge Carter, Smith swore that Taitz never assisted Smith in authenticating his document despite his repeated requests that she help him to legally authenticate it. If true, this speaks well of Lucas Smith and not well of Taitz.

This transcript quote appears to be from Taitz' attempt at the first hearing (Sept?) to obtain "emergency" testimony from Smith about the BC based an an alleged threat on Smith's life after a car almost hit him. Judge Carter didn't buy it. The judge appears to be on the way to informing Taitz that under the FRE, a foreign document must be authenticated by a foreign official from the country. Taitz appears not to have been aware of this.

39 posted on 01/14/2010 7:43:48 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Please provide links to your “plenty of evidence”. Opinions posted by Mik Taerg aka Great Kim don't count. Neither to newspaper stories where reporters routinely misspell names.

Seriously, who is Mik Taerg aka Great Kim?

How about the Surgical Society of Kenya?

http://sskenya.org/?page_id=254

40 posted on 01/14/2010 8:23:54 PM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
Great Kim aka Mik Taerg has harassed InspectorSmith both on FR and on his YouTube blog over the spelling of Helton.

Your link is a noteworthy factoid, but not at all determinative to me. One listing in a society database, perhaps in remote Nairobi, subject to possible keypunch error or taken over the phone and spelled phonetically says little to me.

If you Google “Helton Maganga” you get numerous current local Mombasa Kenya news stories with that spelling. I consider numerous newspaper stories confirming this spelling to be more significant than very few alternative spellings elsewhere. When I said newspapers don't count, I meant specifically the few outlier alternative spellings that have been jumped on as proof Smith's document is a hoax.

The burden of proof of a hoax based on a preponderance of evidence seems to me to be on those who claim an alternative spelling of the name Helton. I find it significant that Helton Maganga himself has not been produced to journalists to personally refute Smith's BC. Helton Maganga’s stamp and signature and seal have not been produced to show a different spelling or appearance. That should be the easiest thing to do if Smith's BC were a hoax. This absence of Maganga is most suspicious.

On the other hand, if Helton Maganga did sign/stamp the copy of the CPGH BC Smith has, it is totally understandable that he would clam up and not make himself available to the press or inquiries. Until proper legal discovery and authentication in Kenya is ordered and allowed, subject to credible corruption controls, we may never know the truth about the BC.

41 posted on 01/14/2010 9:33:09 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

“If, after discovery, a jury or judge could be persuaded that the Kenya BC was more credible than the HI vital records, a jury or judge might find Obama to have been born in Kenya. Judge Carter doesn’t allow for the possibility of a Kenya BC “win”.”

No. No. No. No. A thousand times no. (Why is it that laypeople would never attempt to question the nuances of a surgical procedure but have no problem questioning the nuances of the law?)

Carter allows for the possiblity of a “win” for a fully certified and vetted Kenyan Birth Certificate presented to the court properly under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Anything is possible with evidence.

The conjecture you are hung up on is that if a certified Hawaiian birth certificate is presented along with a certified Kenyan birth certificate, the tie will most likely go to the document produced by Hawaii. Why? Because the Rules presume that certified and authenticated US government documents are valid.

In the scenario of two certified documents - one from Hawaii and one from Kenya - the presumption is with the defendant. The burden of proof would therefore shift back to Orly to prove that the certified Hawaiian document is invalid.

Orly and her followers have no concept of the burden of proof and it is maddening. She has to prove that the Kenyan document is valid. Then she has to prove that any Hawaiian document is invalid. I’m sorry. But them’s the breaks.

All of this is moot by the way. Because she presented a worthless piece of paper to the court. She did absolutely no legwork and asked the court to try to validate it for her.


42 posted on 01/15/2010 11:19:04 AM PST by MrRobertPlant2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MrRobertPlant2009
“The conjecture you are hung up on is that if a certified Hawaiian birth certificate is presented along with a certified Kenyan birth certificate, the tie will most likely go to the document produced by Hawaii. Why? Because the Rules presume that certified and authenticated US government documents are valid.

“In the scenario of two certified documents - one from Hawaii and one from Kenya - the presumption is with the defendant. The burden of proof would therefore shift back to Orly to prove that the certified Hawaiian document is invalid.”

Thank you for pointing out that the tie goes to the defendant. Judge Carter seemed to me to be saying the tie goes to the US document, but I can see that by your logic he was stating that in the event of a tie in this case, the win goes to the defendant who happens to have a US authenticated document.

You say that Orly's two BCs (Lavender and Smith) are worthless, but this was not an evidentiary hearing and the provenance, in a trial on the merits, could have been proved up in discovery including an authentication by a Kenyan authority, but Judge Carter precluded that.

You say the “burden of proof would therefore shift back to Orly to prove that the certified Hawaiian document is invalid” but there has never been a certified HI BC document entered into evidence in a US court. The Factcheck COLB is also “worthless” until “proved up” at trial.

Judge Carter, by granting the motion to dismiss, precluded discovery of the original HI vital records, which in my understanding is “best evidence” under the FRE of the source record for the Factcheck short-form COLB.

Thus Judge Carter precluded Taitz from the possibility of being able to authenticate the Kenyan BC. Taitz was denied the possibility of submitting evidence that the Kenya BC was more credible than the HI vital records, records which may well contain amendments that undermine credibility.

That is what discovery is supposed to establish through evidence obtained and submitted under the FRE.

To recap: Carter presumed that the best case for Taitz, even with discovery, was a tie and I say that was an error! Clearly, the best case for Taitz was to undermine the HI vital records and show that the Kenya BC was more reliable. To justify his Rule 12(b)(6) grant of dismissal Carter was required to anticipate the best outcome for the plaintiff and dismiss only if that outcome couldn't prevail. Carter was required to anticipate the best outcome for Taitz, and he didn't do that, not that she as a lawyer could have pulled it off or that any Kenyan official authentication would be forthcoming, but that wasn't the issue at the Oct. 5 hearing.

43 posted on 01/15/2010 11:57:41 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: MrRobertPlant2009
“The conjecture you are hung up on is that if a certified Hawaiian birth certificate is presented along with a certified Kenyan birth certificate, the tie will most likely go to the document produced by Hawaii. Why? Because the Rules presume that certified and authenticated US government documents are valid.

“In the scenario of two certified documents - one from Hawaii and one from Kenya - the presumption is with the defendant. The burden of proof would therefore shift back to Orly to prove that the certified Hawaiian document is invalid.”

Thank you for pointing out that the tie goes to the defendant. Judge Carter seemed to me to be saying the tie goes to the US document, but I can see that by your logic he was stating that in the event of a tie in this case, the win goes to the defendant who happens to have a US authenticated document.

You say that Orly's two BCs (Lavender and Smith) are worthless, but this was not an evidentiary hearing and the provenance, in a trial on the merits, could have been proved up in discovery including an authentication by a Kenyan authority, but Judge Carter precluded that.

You say the “burden of proof would therefore shift back to Orly to prove that the certified Hawaiian document is invalid” but there has never been a certified HI BC document entered into evidence in a US court. The Factcheck COLB is also “worthless” until “proved up” at trial.

Judge Carter, by granting the motion to dismiss, precluded discovery of the original HI vital records, which in my understanding is “best evidence” under the FRE of the source record for the Factcheck short-form COLB.

Thus Judge Carter precluded Taitz from the possibility of being able to authenticate the Kenyan BC. Taitz was denied the possibility of submitting evidence that the Kenya BC was more credible than the HI vital records, records which may well contain amendments that undermine credibility.

That is what discovery is supposed to establish through evidence obtained and submitted under the FRE.

To recap: Carter presumed that the best case for Taitz, even with discovery, was a tie and I say that was an error! Clearly, the best case for Taitz was to undermine the HI vital records and show that the Kenya BC was more reliable. To justify his Rule 12(b)(6) grant of dismissal Carter was required to anticipate the best outcome for the plaintiff and dismiss only if that outcome couldn't prevail. Carter was required to anticipate the best outcome for Taitz, and he didn't do that, not that she as a lawyer could have pulled it off or that any Kenyan official authentication would be forthcoming, but that wasn't the issue at the Oct. 5 hearing.

44 posted on 01/15/2010 11:57:58 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

You still aren’t getting it. You are close. But you aren’t there.

Orly’s argument is that the only way she can authenticate the BC is through discovery. In other words, she admits that she does not have a basis for a complaint until the court accepts her complaint and helps her.

That court can’t help her. She needs to authenticate it on her own.

She’s trapped in a circular argument that she can’t get out of. I need to have a trial in order to have a case worthy of going to trial. The discovery process does not exist in order to create a cause of action.

This is the analogy: I see you are an accountant. I think you defrauded me. I have absolutely no proof of this. But I suspect that if I could get access to your bank account and file, I would have evidence.

Should I be able to go to court and demand access to your bank account based on a suspiscion that funds of mine are in it?

The other problem Orly is having is that she seems to believe that she is a criminal prosecutor, not a plaintiff’s attorney.


45 posted on 01/15/2010 1:29:29 PM PST by MrRobertPlant2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MrRobertPlant2009
“Orly’s argument is that the only way she can authenticate the BC is through discovery. In other words, she admits that she does not have a basis for a complaint until the court accepts her complaint and helps her.”

I'm not defending Taitz as an attorney or her tactics. You have changed the subject to Taitz’s tactical shortcomings from the issue I have which is Judge Carter's presumption that even if Taitz had obtained authentication in Kenya and release of vital records in HI, she could not prevail.

I support Carter's decision that once Obama was sworn it, Taitz’s quo warranto complaint was in the wrong court. If Carter had accepted the case as quo warranto, the burden of proof, including NBC and HI vital records authentication, would have been on Obama, as it will be if Donofrio succeeds in getting his filing into the DC Circuit.

46 posted on 01/15/2010 3:18:01 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

At some point, the weird little Donofrio cult is going to realize that he has just been messing with your heads for the last year. He has no intention of filing quo warranto, because he knows it’s not going to go anywhere.


47 posted on 01/15/2010 3:38:37 PM PST by MrRobertPlant2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: MrRobertPlant2009
Judge Carter rejected the DOJ contention that quo warranto did not apply to the POTUS. Carter affirmed Donofrio’s contention that it did and the the DC Circuit was the proper venue.

Are you disagreeing with Judge Carter's affirmation of Donofrio on this point?

While some of Donofrio’s followers get a bit cult-like I personally have challenged him on numerous occasion on his blog, some of which he allowed in and some he screened out.

For example I told him that his whole NBC premise would fail if there was no Dunham-Obama marriage to transmit UK citizenship to BHO II under the 1948 BNA. He snipped my comment, but not without accusing me of smearing Obama. Then I reminded him that in “Dreams” Obama himself speculated that his parents might not have been married.

Soon after that, Donofrio developed a keen interest in the birth and marriage vital record index in HI and the marriage index was found, which elated Donofrio.

I then had the cheek to suggest that BHO Sr's marriage to Kezia might make the HI marriage bigamous thus blocking dual citizenship for BHO II. But Donofrio insisted that it was legally sufficient to ignore that and rely on Obama’s “admission against interest” that BHO Sr. was his father and the claim by his campaign that Obama was “governed by the BNA of 1948.”

Then I said Obama would probably throw the 1948 BNA under the bus and claim that his parents marriage was bigamous, if it would save his NBC status.

So you can see, I am not a Donofrio cult follower.

What I am hoping to come out of Donofrio’s quo warranto is discovery of the HI vital records which Obama might be compelled to release. I am sure Obama will fight release all the way and claim the short-form is sufficient.

In my view, the only threat to Obama’s NBC status is evidence in the HI vital records that shows a Kenya birth prior to amendment, or a report of a home birth that could, if false, allow for a Kenya birth .

This could take a long time and be a very long shot. It will all depend on how long Obama can delay discovery of the HI vital records.

48 posted on 01/15/2010 4:08:45 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Quo warranto is only available in DC. That’s the law. Carter correctly stated the law.

I’m not sure that the DOJ said it did not apply to POTUS. What was alleged to have been said in Carter’s court and what is in the transcript is often two entirely different things.

You keep referring to Donofrio’s quo warranto case. Where is it? Is he going to file it this decade?


49 posted on 01/15/2010 5:11:41 PM PST by MrRobertPlant2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: InspectorSmith
Most likely user lucysmom is an Obot or Greatkim her/himself.

If you want to engage in name calling, there are a few I could toss your way.

Why is it again that we should trust you're telling the truth this time?

Kenyan newspaper have spelled his name both ways. In fact, in Swahili names are spelled phonetically as they sound and do not follow a set standard as to a particular spelling.

Yes, I am aware that spelling can differ. That aside, what matters here is how Helton/Heltan spells his name.

50 posted on 01/15/2010 6:29:52 PM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson