Thanks for your follow-up posts. Please excuse my spouting-off posts they were not directed at you personally and most likely confirm your point about the lack of sophistication required to deal with the courts.
I have a question. You say:
“The cover up and fraudulent record we have seen here almost certainly involves criminal conduct. But it isn’t likely that you get effective relief until you have resolved the ultimate issue.”
Don’t lawyers swear an oath to the US Constitution and their state Constitutions?
They may know he was born somewhere in the US (not HI) and conclude he is a NBC but how are they not aiding and abetting fraud with regards to the forged birth certificates instead of just defending him?
Also, if they know he was born outside of the US with to a non-citizen father aren’t they aiding and abetting Obama?
This is a different video, the audio clearer. Van Irion begins with Minor around 19:00. The video does not show the complete trial.
The video and audio improves after a rough start. Just fast forward to 19:00. We can hear Van Irion rebut the dicta claims.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am62IN4ar0o&feature=player_embedded
At what point do Obama’s lawyers cross the line from representing and defending him to actively aiding and abetting him?
What exactly do they know?
Did they not swear an oath to the US Constitution?
Are they aiding an enemy foreign or domestic?
A criminal defense attorney representing a murderer says my client didn’t do it. He does not help bury the body.
Yeah, I always wonder what sorts tactics lawyers can get away with for the sake of their guilty clients and still not be complicit. It seems like attorney-client privilege covers a multitude of sins committed by lawyers.
Along those lines, I took the time today to re-read Jablonski’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas. What really grabs my eye about that document is the lawyer’s use of terminology in describing the certified copy of Obama’s original long-form birth certificate sought by the plaintiff.
In general Jablonski merely refers vaguely to “documents” sought. In at least one occasion he uses the the plural word “documents” and the later back references them incorrectly with the singular pronoun “it.” Grammatical errors like that are sometimes the result of changing out the antecedent as an after thought. “Instead of ‘Birth Certificate’, let’s just say ‘documents’”.
Reading the Motion to Quash leaves me imagining Jablonski and advisers having numerous exchanges like, “Well we can’t say ‘my client’s certified Certificate of Live Birth’ in that sentence.” and “Let’s just say ‘evidencing his birth’ instead of ‘proves he was a born a citizen of the U.S.’”.
When Jablonski finally does employ the term “birth certificate”, he uses it this way: “The birth certificates made available to the public prove citizenship.” To my biased, skeptical eyes, the cloudiness of that statement screams for attention. Wouldn’t it be more natural and more pointed to say, “My client released his official birth certificate on both a campaign web site and on the White House website, both of which prove he was born a US citizen in Hawaii in 1961.”
Or how about Jablosnki’s phrase, “a copy of the birth record informally known as the ‘long form’”? To me, that too sounds a little like evasive speech.
I’m open to the possibility that I’m just being too picky and making a mountain out of a mole hill, but when I see sneaky sounding verbiage in a document like this, it makes me think that the lawyer is fully aware that what he wants people to think he means is quite a bit different from what he really means.
At what (if any) point does language that is carefully crafted to be perhaps technically true but intentionally misleading cross over the line into perpetrating Fraud upon the Court or suborning perjury?
It reminds me of the rumor circulated here and elsewhere that Obama was counseled not to even touch the document placed on the White House site. Is there any accountability for lawyers whose tactics go beyond posturing and plunge well deep into intentional deception?
Anyway, if some of you linguistically inclined critical thinkers or lawyers out there are curious about this, it might be worth your time to read through the Motion to Quash with a sharp eye to parse and identify any evasiveness and deception techniques. And please tell me if my bias has led me to merely make much ado about nothing.