Posted on 12/05/2011 9:18:29 AM PST by GregNH
Herbert W. Titus is of counsel to the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C. Prior to his association with this firm, Mr. Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.
Mr. Titus holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
You might try actually learning the definition of “Occam’s Razor”.
Hint: It doesn’t involve selecting the hypothesis that requires the largest conspiracy.
Hint: It doesn’t involve selecting the hypothesis that requires the largest conspiracy.
You might try actually learning the definition of "conspiracy".
Hint: When it is a legal and a normal process of the law, it isn't called a "conspiracy."
Well then, good luck throwing your lot in with the Birthers.
“And yet SvenMagnussen’s explanation seems to tie everything together neatly. Occam’s razor dude.”
Are you actually familiar with Occam’s Razor? It says to favor the explanation with the fewest new assumptions.
And Sven’s ‘explanation’ is replete with new assumptions. He relies on the existence of a secret adoption, AND a secret adoption nullification, and not one but TWO secret undisclosed birth certificates for Obama. That’s a lot of assumptions with no evidence to support them.
Sven’s story also has a rather major flaw in suggesting that Obama was adopted in Hawaii in 1967. We’ve seen Lolo’s records where he’s asking to stay in the US, and they say jack-squat about him having a legally adopted son. They refer to little Obama, even in mid-to-late 1967, but only as his wife’s son.
He even seems to be trading on the old Filed/Accepted distinction, which is groundless. Danae’s COLB from 2007 also says “Date Filed,” just like Obama’s. So did Stig whatshisname, the guy who got his COLB on CNN.
I agree with you. MUCH angrier at the RINOs who are allowing this to happen, unchallenged.
What do you think of them?
Correct. And Sven's explanation accomplishes this better than any other explanation of which I have heard.
And Sven’s ‘explanation’ is replete with new assumptions. He relies on the existence of a secret adoption,
Do you know of any adoptions that are NOT SECRET? I have actually read quite extensively on Hawaii's laws regarding the secrecy of Adoptions. There are many pages of it. Bottom line, Adoptions are SECRET.(at least as far as the state is concerned.)
AND a secret adoption nullification,
Which makes sense if Obama was adopted twice. First by Lolo Soetero, Second by the Grandparents. It hangs together very nicely.
and not one but TWO secret undisclosed birth certificates for Obama. That’s a lot of assumptions with no evidence to support them.
Oh, there's plenty of evidence to support it. Both Circumstantial and Actual. Perhaps you haven't kept up. Beckwith has a pretty good run down, but I think he left out a few things.
Sven’s story also has a rather major flaw in suggesting that Obama was adopted in Hawaii in 1967. We’ve seen Lolo’s records where he’s asking to stay in the US, and they say jack-squat about him having a legally adopted son. They refer to little Obama, even in mid-to-late 1967, but only as his wife’s son.
Might be a point for your argument, but adoptions were usually kept secret, so it's hard to say if a failure to mention it means anything. It is the "dog that did not bark" theory, and it could be correct. I'll keep it in mind in the "anti" category.
He even seems to be trading on the old Filed/Accepted distinction, which is groundless. Danae’s COLB from 2007 also says “Date Filed,” just like Obama’s. So did Stig whatshisname, the guy who got his COLB on CNN.
I don't know if it is groundless or not. My own adopted birth certificate contains a similar peculiarity, but I do not know if Hawaii placed any significance on this point back in 1961. Perhaps, perhaps not. Even if it is meaningless, it is one bad piece in a theory with a lot of good pieces in it.
If you got a better theory that explains all the little tibits of the Early Obama years, lets hear it.
I've been there from the beginning. Why would I quit now? :)
In 1977, when Obama’s SS# was issued, Apple II was cutting edge as a HOME computer. Personal computers took years, almost a decade, to show up in schools and then later in businesses. They were not used for volume data entry.
I can virtually guarantee you that the government was NOT using Apple IIs or anything remotely like them to key enter SS information. It’s far more likely they still used keypunch machines (and CARDS) or at least IBM key-to-disk data entry machines, with verification. Those keyboards were NOT qwerty-like, because of the amount of numerical data that was entered using them.
The 0 was nowhere near the 9.
But even if we accept your premise that a typewriter-like keyboard was used to initially enter the data, it still would not have gotten through the multiple error checks I outlined before.
It was standard operating procedure to have another data entry person VERIFY the other person’s entries.
It was standard operating procedure for a computer program to perform multiple cross-checks to find and produce an ERROR report or an EXCEPTION report, before data was accepted for the files. All errors would be investigated and resolved before the record would go into the official files.
Since it was crucial to the way the SSA assigned numbers, based upon state residence, then it is extremely unlikely that a CT number would be assigned to a person who applied from a HAWAIIAN residence.
“You might try actually learning the definition of “Occam’s Razor”.
Hint: It doesn’t involve selecting the hypothesis that requires the largest conspiracy.”
Good riposte, El Sordo! Good point that Sven’s is a hypothesis, too. Usually followed up with facts to support said hypothesis. We have none, however.
>> I bet many of you would stop at: “I am suspicious of any lawyer.”
>> And most of us use “Esq.” only when it is necessary
One wonders why you bothered to comment on this thread.
What do I think of them? That they put their personal ambitions and/or their party’s ambitions ahead of the oath they took to the Constitution and the law. They’re gutless. They’re afraid of the media. That’s what I think of them. They’re afraid of white guilt and of being called bigots or racists. In a word, they’re “chicken”.
But where does that leave us?
If that is true, what hope is there for the American Experiment?
No need to wonder.
“Shoot the messenger”. And “distraction”.
We’re left in a real pickle, aren’t we?
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.