Tweet
More Dunham passport documents (Dr. Conspiracy goes birther? "I suspect misconduct")
Free Republic thread started 9/28/2011 by 'Seizethecarp' ...The thread references an article posted by 'Dr. Conspiracy' on the blog, 'Obama Conspiracy Theories'
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../2785212/posts
The following are recent comments in the thread by 'Seizethecarp':
COMMENT #98 (Seizethecarp)
"Ping to further Dr. Conspiracy dissing of Obama’s BC defense in GA:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/...of-in-georgia/
“So far Obama’s attorney hasn’t shown that he intends to mount much of a defense. He didn’t list any exhibits in his pre-trial order and only one witness, one that can’t speak to the facts of Obama’s birth. So what is zero plus zero? It looks like such an answer would be a lose for Obama because in a previous decision in O’BRIEN v. GROSS, Judge
Malihi wrote:
‘Under Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 538 S.E.2d 430 (2000), the burden of proof is entirely upon Respondent to establish affirmatively his eligibility for office.’
“My advice to Mr. Jablonski is to bring a birth certificate with him and maybe some documents to show Obama’s residence for the past 14 years. That way Obama looks just everybody else who sometimes has to show documentation.”
COMMENT #100 (Seizethecarp)
"Below in context when Dr. Conspiracy says “It is quite possible that there are strong tactical reasons not to create a situation where there is a litigated set of facts subject to court appeals”...the subtext seems to be that he suspects that Obama doesn’t actually have a certified BC:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/...of-in-georgia/
Dr. ConspiracyJanuary 16, 2012 at 6:00 pm (Quote)#
“I’ve been watching birthers for over 3 years now and I find that there are two groups: those that can be satisfied and those who cannot. In the former group there are those who are hung up on one thing. The biggest “thing” was the long-form birth certificate “if he has nothing to hide then …” The number of birthers dropped precipitously after the long form release. Well, there are, I speculate, another group that could be satisfied if an official document was ever submitted in court.
“And as I said in the article, Judge Malihi has once rejected Respondent arguments that the challenge is invalid. The Judge has placed the burden of proof on the Respondent before. It would seem very risky not to present some proof.
“Further I think it would be better to establish a precedent NOW than later.
“Expelliarmus: Jablonski is extremely well qualified and knows what he is doing. It is quite possible that there are strong tactical reasons not to create a situation where there is a litigated set of facts subject to court appeals.”
COMMENT #105 (Seizethecarp)
"IMO, what Dr. Conspiracy is betraying is his own suspicion that Obama lacks a legitimate HI BC, i.e. he suspects that the pdf is forged and he has correctly observed that Obama has never actually “released” a physical certified copy any long or short form to any court under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Dr. Conspiracy has already inferred that the State Dept. is withholding evidence on Stanley Ann's passport records...implying that he suspects she might not have been in HI when Barry was born.
Therefore from a legal tactical standpoint, Dr. Conspiracy is intimating, IMO, that it would be disastrous for the Obama legal team to actually attempt to place into evidence the forged LFBC...and make an evidentiary test of that forged BC a matter of discovery and appeal...which would go straight up to SCOTUS...who are the only ones who could declare Obama to never have been president and then removed without impeachment."
Free Republic thread started 9/28/2011 by 'Seizethecarp' ...The thread references an article posted by 'Dr. Conspiracy' on the blog, 'Obama Conspiracy Theories'
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../2785212/posts
The following are recent comments in the thread by 'Seizethecarp':
COMMENT #98 (Seizethecarp)
"Ping to further Dr. Conspiracy dissing of Obama’s BC defense in GA:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/...of-in-georgia/
“So far Obama’s attorney hasn’t shown that he intends to mount much of a defense. He didn’t list any exhibits in his pre-trial order and only one witness, one that can’t speak to the facts of Obama’s birth. So what is zero plus zero? It looks like such an answer would be a lose for Obama because in a previous decision in O’BRIEN v. GROSS, Judge
Malihi wrote:
‘Under Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 538 S.E.2d 430 (2000), the burden of proof is entirely upon Respondent to establish affirmatively his eligibility for office.’
“My advice to Mr. Jablonski is to bring a birth certificate with him and maybe some documents to show Obama’s residence for the past 14 years. That way Obama looks just everybody else who sometimes has to show documentation.”
COMMENT #100 (Seizethecarp)
"Below in context when Dr. Conspiracy says “It is quite possible that there are strong tactical reasons not to create a situation where there is a litigated set of facts subject to court appeals”...the subtext seems to be that he suspects that Obama doesn’t actually have a certified BC:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/...of-in-georgia/
Dr. ConspiracyJanuary 16, 2012 at 6:00 pm (Quote)#
“I’ve been watching birthers for over 3 years now and I find that there are two groups: those that can be satisfied and those who cannot. In the former group there are those who are hung up on one thing. The biggest “thing” was the long-form birth certificate “if he has nothing to hide then …” The number of birthers dropped precipitously after the long form release. Well, there are, I speculate, another group that could be satisfied if an official document was ever submitted in court.
“And as I said in the article, Judge Malihi has once rejected Respondent arguments that the challenge is invalid. The Judge has placed the burden of proof on the Respondent before. It would seem very risky not to present some proof.
“Further I think it would be better to establish a precedent NOW than later.
“Expelliarmus: Jablonski is extremely well qualified and knows what he is doing. It is quite possible that there are strong tactical reasons not to create a situation where there is a litigated set of facts subject to court appeals.”
COMMENT #105 (Seizethecarp)
"IMO, what Dr. Conspiracy is betraying is his own suspicion that Obama lacks a legitimate HI BC, i.e. he suspects that the pdf is forged and he has correctly observed that Obama has never actually “released” a physical certified copy any long or short form to any court under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Dr. Conspiracy has already inferred that the State Dept. is withholding evidence on Stanley Ann's passport records...implying that he suspects she might not have been in HI when Barry was born.
Therefore from a legal tactical standpoint, Dr. Conspiracy is intimating, IMO, that it would be disastrous for the Obama legal team to actually attempt to place into evidence the forged LFBC...and make an evidentiary test of that forged BC a matter of discovery and appeal...which would go straight up to SCOTUS...who are the only ones who could declare Obama to never have been president and then removed without impeachment."