Posted on 08/31/2010 10:19:15 AM PDT by butterdezillion
I'll post the whole thing on the first response so the links will be clickable. This is an example of (probably criminal) journalistic malpractice by The Hutch News - an example of how the media behaves on almost every issue including the eligibility issue. I explain why I believe the media ignores our factual corrections at its own peril.
I believe this is what we need to be saying to the media whenever we find deliberate deception.
That brings up a question I’ve had for some time. I hope somebody can help me with it. What all kinds of civil lawsuits can one person bring against another, and which kinds might apply here?
For instance, the HDOH officials are screwing me every way to Texas. I can’t file a criminal lawsuit. I’ve reported their potential crimes to law enforcement and to the HI government watchdogs and nobody will do anything. So what are my options? What kind of suit can I file against government bureaucrats - and specifically what kind of suit would get past Hawaii and into an appeals court, since nothing in the Hawaii government can be trusted at this point?
Or what kind of suit could be brought against the other players here? How could Nancy Pelosi (who perjured herself) be sued? How could Joe Sandler (who suborned Pelosi’s perjury) be sued?
We all know this whole system has been one great big fraud, but what kinds of fraud are there in legal terms, and what kinds can a person file a civil suit over?
I actually do agree that a person is more likely to get discovery or justice from a lower court than from a higher court - because I believe SCOTUS has been told they will avoid this issue or else Soros and the Islamists will make another run on the bank and destroy the entire western economy. But as somebody else noted, they can’t threaten everybody. If they threatened everybody then there would be that many more people that they have to try to keep tabs on, and that many more who might be persuaded to come clean with the story. Some low-position judge who hasn’t had Soros knocking at his door is much more likely to spill some beans than SCOTUS at this point.
Ultimately the issue would have to be resolved by SCOTUS so we need to make sure they are not still hostage to Soros when it arrives at their desks. But if a lower judge grants discovery before any appeals can stop it, the cat will be out of the bag. That may well be our best bet. Just a gut-level feeling.
Janice Okubo was trying to wiggle her way out of the “date filed” vs “date accepted” issue when she revealed exactly what was needed to show that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery. The back door almost always works better than the front, when the front is heavily guarded.
They have not confirmed the accuracy of the information on the Factcheck COLB, for two reasons.
1) Hawaii law forbids them from revealing the information on the BC (HRS 338-18a) except through disclosures authorized by rules or law. The only public announcements authorized for release is the release of index data, which Fukino and Okubo have repeatedly said consists of type of event, name, and gender. (Although they actually violated this law by saying the birth place claimed on Obama’s BC)
2) Hawaii law says that an amended BC has no legal evidentiary value so the State of Hawaii will not stand behind any claims made on such a BC (which Obama’s is). Neither Fukino nor anybody else can legally say where Obama was born, when, or to whom at this point. The amended BC has to be presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body before that BC can have any greater legal status than Monopoly money.
That is a critical thing for people to understand. If a person doesn’t understand that, they will be wrong about everything else.
The State of Hawaii has nothing that qualifies as probative for Obama, so the State of Hawaii can have absolutely NO COMMENT on what the actual facts of Obama’s birth are. Period.
There are a variety of ways that Fukino has broken Hawaii law. The snag I’m coming up with is trying to figure out how to get a case that could be appealed beyond Hawaii, because Hawaii simply can’t be trusted.
IIRC, that means it would have to be a federal law that was broken. And it would have to be a civil case rather than criminal because nobody in position to file a criminal case has the courage or honesty to do it.
I’m such an ignoramus when it comes to legalities. What are some civil cases that could be appealed in federal court? Can we just brainstorm and maybe something will ring a bell?
Good heavens. Even the editor of the paper admitted that he published a factually inaccurate story.
But you just can’t bring yourself to say it. Why? What do you have invested in this?
How do I petition the government to have Nancy Pelosi charged with perjury? How do I petition the government to get a valid Commander-in-Chief to give orders to my nephew in the USMC? How do I petition the government to not have my e-mail monitored by the feds? How do I petition the government to require that the Senate rules regarding reconciliation actually be followed? How do I petition the government to have the Presidential eligibility requirements enforced? How do I petition the government to get the feds to protect my southern border from invasion, as required by the US Constitution?
Tell me how I, personally, have the right to petition the government for a redress of those grievances. For which of those cases would I have “standing”, and what would happen to my petition?
This is a critical, critical issue. The notion of “standing” at this point rewards the big crooks - it says that as long as the government screws EVERYBODY, they can screw anybody. Incentivizes the collective rape of the whole bloody country.
We can file a class-action lawsuit over the temperature of McDonald’s coffee, but not ONE of us has standing to sue (and have it heard on the merits by SCOTUS since they choose to ignore the issue) to see Article II of the Constitution followed, because the “coffee” burns all of us and not just one of us.
I’m sick of being burned, and sick of watching everybody else including my children being burned too. The fact that it is happening to everybody makes it a BIGGER crime, not a lesser one. The fact that it’s happening to everybody is what makes genocide different than mere murder. Our legal reasoning is totally warped.
You may have convinced yourself that certain things are thus and so when they are not. That those with more information available to them do not agree ought to tell you something.
Try not to get emotionally enmeshed in this B. That way lies heartbreak.
“How do you expose the truth, when everyone’s a conspirator” ,
(The Pandora Prescription)
I’m not a lawyer..nor do I play one...but IMHO, fraud suits are pretty boilerplate. Everything else that people have tried to stick Barack with...”natural born citizen” stuff.. is pretty one off. Courts don’t seem to be real interested usually, in custom piecework. Neither are lawyers. Can’t repackage in all into another suit someday.
But fraud....DNC...fundraising....fundraising for a Constitutionally ineligible Presidential Candidate...hmmmm
“IIRC, that means it would have to be a federal law that was broken. And it would have to be a civil case rather than criminal because nobody in position to file a criminal case has the courage or honesty to do it.”
Does this mean you’ve ascertained that False Statements Act doesn’t have a qui tam provision? The beauty of qui tam is that any motivated citizen can file the claim, essentially on behalf of the federal government. They don’t need any federal prosecutor’s permission to pursue this. So it’s simply a matter of finding a lawyer willing to handle the case either on a pro bono basis or on a contingency fee basis, i.e., they take X% share of whatever funds might be awarded to you. In either case, you are not legally liable for any costs, so qui tam has zero downsides and a high upside potential.
“I’m such an ignoramus when it comes to legalities. What are some civil cases that could be appealed in federal court? Can we just brainstorm and maybe something will ring a bell?”
By its nature, a qui tam filing under a federal law would be heard in federal court: you’d be bypassing the state courts altogether. I’m 95% certain that means you would have appeal rights all the way up to the Supreme Court if need be.
If qui tam is not permitted, I’m not sure how you’d proceed. “In the United States, concurrent jurisdiction exists to the extent that the United States Constitution permits federal courts to hear actions that can also be heard by state courts. For example, where a party from Alabama sues a party from Florida for a breach of contract, the Alabama party can sue in either the federal court located in Florida (under its diversity jurisdiction) or in the state court located in Florida (under its personal jurisdiction over the defendant).” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_jurisdiction
The problem is that unlike a contract dispute, your state wouldn’t have a law that would make it possible to sue Fukino. Even if it did, the question of “standing” would inevitably arise. How are you harmed by Fukino’s violation of her own state’s law? If you were a Hawaiian resident, standing might be more straightforward, although again, I think you have to demonstrate tangible harm as opposed to saying that as a citizen you feel wounded that a state official is breaking a state law. If all the BC suits haven’t established standing for their plaintiffs, I don’t see how you’d have any stronger claim.
Anyway, I’m not a legal eagle, so the foregoing exhausts my own ability to provide guidance about how to proceed. Have you considered contacting Donofrio directly? He’s obviously thought about these angles a lot, so someone like him would be the most reliable way of getting an accurate answer.
Which of those would I have “standing” for?
I think Berg tried the fundraising fraud angle.
In the end it may be a very visible fraud case that gets Obama. We’ll see.
I’m working on looking up the qui tam possibilities.
The first site I looked at talked about the False Claims Act, referring to contracts. Does the US have a contract with the POTUS, for him to get paid? Or with a Senator? I know primary evidence of citizenship is supposed to be required to receive a federal paycheck but that wasn’t done for Obama, supposedly because it would already have been done for him to be a Senator. I wonder what paperwork Obama would have had to file to be POTUS, and how it would all tie together. Would the office worker in charge of having the citizenship documentation in order to give Obama a paycheck as POTUS have to retrieve the documentation given when he was a Senator? If he submitted tax forms so he could receive a POTUS paycheck knowing he was ineligible to be the POTUS, would that be a false claim?
A false claim can be filed within 6 years of the violation or 3 years within when the feds should have become aware of the false claim (but no longer than 10 years after the violation) according to http://oblongov.poweradvocates.com/false_claims.html .
To paraphrase one of the corniest lines from “Casablanca”:
“Who is butterdezillion, monsieur? butterdezillion is the kind of woman that, if I were a man, I should be in love with butterdezillion.”
Loved EVERY word of your ramble, butter. Keep on, keeping on.
I got off my lazy duff and looked at the U.S. code. I see no provision for qui tam enforcement of false statements. So the question is whether the qui tam provision under the False Claims Act might be used. The following lists what are considered false claims.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00003729——000-.html
Offhand, it’s not obvious what might apply to Obama, since false claims specifically “does not include requests or demands for money or property that the Government has paid to an individual as compensation for Federal employment.”
But if there is a contracting provision he has violated, then Fukino theoretically could be prosecuted under “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim”
It may bolster your spirits to remember that for all the murder and mayhem Al Capone caused, what he went to prison for was the more mundane crime of tax evasion.
To quote another movie, Thunderheart, “people know” and “you can’t kill us all.”
You are most gracious.
The quickest way for me to get my husband to fall asleep rather than act in love with me is to talk about this stuff. lol
I don’t know. Maybe it’s a guy thing. I talk and he falls asleep. So then I roll over and shut up and he immediately perks up. lol. Different priorities, maybe...
Very few of the people I know who work with this issue have spouses who are also engaged with the issue. Maybe there just has to be one sane person in the family. lol
I hear you. Same here! FOX News puts my hubby to sleep on a nightly basis, although a steady subliminal dose of Hannity seems to serve him well. He’s beginning to see the light. Now he even spots things that got past me—the latest being that he caught Obama’s most recent incident of flipping someone off. I had to replay the video several times before I saw it.
I do think about Al Capone often, believe it or not. lol
So it would have to be for something he did not as a federal employee but for work his company, for instance, did for the federal government. I wonder if any of his community organizing stuff would qualify that way. Trouble is, as long as he was in the country legally he could submit a claim for reimbursement by the feds without it being a false claim.
There was something in there regarding submitting a claim for “approval”; I wonder if anything would work with that.
With Hutch News, I suppose the only real threat to them is if somebody like Issa did do an investigation, since none of the US Attorneys or US AG would do anything about it.
See, that’s where we’re so vulnerable. Law enforcement is directed by political appointees. So it’s crooks telling their buddies to look the other way, and the people can’t do anything about it. That’s my gripe.
lol. I guess he knows what to look for. Who’d he flip off this time?
The hardest part is when I’m outraged about something that’s been done and he just says, “Nellie, you don’t even believe yourself. You just got done telling me what crooks these people are but you’re still outraged that the crooks are acting like crooks. Based on what you’ve told me, what else do you expect?”
He doesn’t understand that even if it’s totally expected, I can’t help but be indignant about it. Again, maybe it’s a guy thing. lol.
You don’t need standing for any of those.
Standing only applies to civil lawsuits and the concept exists for very good reasons.
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.