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.
Again, the media (and I’m aware of this because I’ve been part of the media) has limited liability for what it prints as true or untrue. I’m pretty certain the false statement act can’t be brought to bear against a newspaper unless they’ve entered a statement in court and/or if it can be proven that a particular article was specifically used as the basis of action in a matter under the jurisdiction of the federal government. IOW, you would have to connect a lot of dots between a story that was published several months after Obama was already elected with any actions taken by voters or Congress. You mentioned the Blagojevich trial where he is being sued or prosecuted under this act. In his case, he is accused of trying to unlawfully influence a federal congressional seat. It’s a clear matter of federal jurisdiction and involvement, despite the fact he’s a state governor, not a federal official. In the case of a newspaper story or in this case, an opinion column, then you have a humongous stretch to make this fit within federal jurisdiction.
Second, anyone suing a journalist for libel has a high standard to meet because you have to prove malice and knowledge that the journalist knew what he or she was printing was a lie. Such would be very difficult for the Hutch News story. I appreciate your passion and desire to stand up for the truth, but it has to be on different terms than the false statements act or whichever act you’re citing.
BTTT for an "Everyone should read this" comment by Butterdezillion.
El Sore A** isn’t worth your time. As with all 0thugga toadies and suckups, he lies, and ignores anything and everything. Not worth a nonosecond of your time or attention.
Of course, there are lurkers reading, so that makes the truth worthy to be written, since others will be reading it.
This isn’t about libel but about a deliberate materially false statement which would have the natural effect of influencing people in a matter of federal jurisdiction. From what is stated in the CRS Report for Congress at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-808.pdf , it doesn’t seem that it has to be a statement given to a federal entity, and it doesn’t have to be proven that the false statement actually DID impact the decision-maker.
The decisions which could be impacted include the things I mentioned in the original post - stuff that’s going on even now, like Lt Col Lakin’s court-martial, a requested investigation by the House Committee on Military Affairs, etc.
And this isn’t about a mistaken report or allegations that end up being wrong. This is when somebody KNOWS they are saying something false and they say it anyway, on a matter with federal significance.
Here, I’ll C&P how this CRS Report describes this:
A matter is within the jurisdiction of a federal entity when it involves a matter “confided to the authority of a federal agency or department . . . A department or agency has jurisdiction, in this sense, when it has power to exercise authority in a particular situation. Understood in this way, the phrase ‘within the jurisdiction’ merely differentiates the official, authorized functions of an agency or department from matters peripheral to the business of that body.”
Several courts have held that the phrase contemplates coverage of false statements made to state, local, or private entities but relating to matters that involve federal funds or regulations. Subsection 1001(b) precludes application of prohibitions in Section 1001(a) to the statements, omissions, or documentation presented to the court by a party in judicial proceedings. This includes statements of indigency filed by a defendant seeking the appoint of counsel, or by a defendant for a probation officer’s presentence report; but not statements made by one on supervised release to a parole officer.
Although the offense can only be committed “knowingly and willfully,” the prosecution need not prove that the defendant knew that his conduct involved a “matter within the jurisdiction” of a federal entity nor that he intended to defraud a federal entity. Instead, the phrase “knowingly and willfully” refers to the circumstances under which the defendant made his statement, omitted a fact he was obliged to disclose, or included with his false documentation, i.e., “that the defendant knew that his statement was false when he made it or – which amounts in law to the same thing – consciously disregarded or averted his eyes from the likely falsity.”
Prosecution for a violation of Section 1001 requires proof of materiality, as does conviction for perjury, and the standard is the same: the statement must have a “natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing the decisionmaking body to which it is addressed.” There is no need to show that the decision maker was in fact diverted or influenced.
Conviction for false statements or false documentation under Section 1001 also requires that the statements or documentation be false, that they not be true. And
the same can be said of the response to a question that is so fundamentally ambiguous that the defendant’s answer cannot be said to be knowingly false.
On the other hand, unlike the perjury provision of Section 1623, “there is no safe harbor for recantation or correction of a prior false statement that violates Section 1001.”
Prosecutions under subsection 1001(a)(1) for concealment, rather than false statement or false documentation, must also prove the existence of duty or legal obligation not to conceal.
Right, and so you admit that in the story cited, that the Hutch News definitely got the facts wrong.
The editor admitted outright that he got the facts wrong, but he refused to correct it.
The way he would have corrected it would have also been wrong, which I also tried to tell him but he wouldn’t listen.
It’s hard work getting to the bottom of a story and finding what the actual truth is. I know that. Along the way there will be misunderstandings and inaccuracies; I’ve had that myself and fully understand that. Everybody would be afraid to say anything if there weren’t allowances for that. Those honest mistakes or unwillingness to dive into deep research into rabbit-holes aren’t what this is about. This is about deliberate falsehood.
And it isn’t falsehood about any old thing either. Dan Rather’s forged Bush memos, for instance, wouldn’t qualify for prosecution under this law because there was no federal entity that would have investigated whether Bush got a sweet deal all those many years ago. That would be more a subject for libel charges. But this is about matters over which the federal government does have jurisdiction.
The thing about this is that the only group exempted from this law is people who are lawfully able to conceal a material fact - defense lawyers, for instance. Congress itself is not exempt.
So if it could be proven that John Murtha knew he was lying when he said our Marines “murdered in cold blood”, then even he could be prosecuted under this law.
If Obama knew the BC put out by his own campaign site was a forgery and concealed that fact, then he can be prosecuted under this law.
If Fukino knew that her carefully-worded statement about Obama’s birth records verifying that he was born in Hawaii was being reported as her saying that SHE verifies that Obama was born in Hawaii, and she failed to correct that when she knows that she can’t legally say what Obama’s birth facts are because his BC has no probative value... I believe she could be prosecuted under this law.
The standard for evidence is high; it has to be proven that the person knew they were lying or concealing. But if they were and their lie or deception would have the natural tendency to influence the decisionmaking in a matter under the jurisdiction of the federal government, then the person is responsible for deliberately lying or deceiving. A person who is honestly trying to report what they know has nothing to fear.
You have to make a huge stretch, as I said, to support any claim there is a 'atural effect' from this particular story, especially against a member of the media. As I pointed out, other than libel, it's rare that the media would be held accountable by the government UNLESS they can make a direct connection. One example that might come to mind is the Libby-Plame controversy when a reporter was held for contempt for not revealing sources for allegedly outing Valeri Plame. This about the only way other than libel, that a court might step in. The press is otherwsie very much protected from government interference.
Here, I’ll C&P how this CRS Report describes this:
I've been reading through this and I still think there would be a huge stretch to apply any of this to the Hutch News or any other specific media source. How does their claim affect federal funding or regulations? How did they confide to an authority of a federal agency or department?? Which decisionmaking body was influenced by the Hutch News story?? At best, such a story would only be tracked by Kansas senators or representatives. It's doubtful any would cite this particular story as influencing their feelings about how they think Obama is legit. I certainly doubt that it could be tied to any of the military who are trying to prosecute LTC Lakin either.
It doesn’t have to be proven that the lie actually DID influence anybody. It only has to be proven that the subject matter was within the jurisdiction of the federal government and that the person deliberately chose to lie.
There are all kinds of excuses that the media can use to say that they are never responsible for deliberate lies. But I don’t see where this law allows those loopholes. It is true that nobody seems to be prosecuting these things, but I don’t see anything in the law itself that should allow the media to think that just because they have a press pass they are immune to prosecution under this law.
And that’s exactly what we need. We need the media to know that we DO have a way to hold them legally responsible for deliberate lies that impact federal issues.
As long as we’ve got judges saying that Twitter decides legal cases, there is no way to claim that deliberately false media statements are harmless because they’re not under oath.
“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.”
Not necessarily. Take any federal bureaucrat with contracting authority to purchase goods or services using federal funds. Such bureaucrats would be subject to False Claims Act, for example, if they corruptly awarded contracts using favoritism rather than federally established bidding procedures. Or they aided and abetted someone filing false Medicare claims by looking the other way or perhaps even obtained a kickback from such fraudulent claims. In all these cases, federal funds are being used for illegal purposes and the federal official involved has knowingly abetted in this crime.
Obama has drawn a federal paycheck, which would have been the most straightforward way to nab him since a) if he’s not qualified, he surely knew this; and b) there’s no question that he received those federally financed paychecks. But, as I showed earlier, FCA does not apply to federal employee payroll. This means a connection has to be made to Obama’s contracting authority.
This is where it gets dicey. I can’t picture POTUS being the signatory on any federal contract, even for pencils in the Oval Office. It’s too mundane a responsibility, so it’s going to be handled by underlings, I presume. OTOH, no Congress cannot appropriate even a nickel of federal funds without the president’s approval. In that regard, Obama has “contracted” in a broad sense of the term for literally trillions of dollars worth of spending. He’s approved it and if he isn’t constitutionally eligible to hold office, then all such approvals are by definition illegal. Thus, at lower levels of bureaucracy, all derivative contracting decisions are illicit since the bureaucrats are paying for federal purchases that may not have been approved if someone other than Obama were making the decisions. In that sense, Obama is the master gatekeeper of all federal contracting.
I just don’t know whether FCA’s definition of contracting would encompass this type of broader level executive approval. It would seem bizarre that the law could be used to imprison or fine a federal bureaucrat many layers down in the federal bureaucracy, but NOT be able to use FCA to snare corruption at the very highest level. OTOH, the courts might rule there is no need for FCA or any other law to reign in the president since if he behaves corruptly or illegally holds his office, Congress always has the power to impeach, so THAT is the ultimate safeguard.
However, you wouldn’t be trying to prosecute a sitting president. You’d be using FCA to go after other individuals who have aided and abetted this corrupt acquisition of power. So I think FCA provides a plausible shot at circumventing all the barriers that other BC suits have faced in terms of trying to establish standing to sue. FCA gives you standing automatically, so any judicial decision presumably would have to turn on the “facts” of the case. And fact #1 that plaintiffs would have to establish is that Obama may hold office illegally. And in light of Fukino’s clearly provable instances of lying/obfuscation, she cannot be relied upon to prove he has a legitimate BC. Thus, there is reasonable doubt about his eligibility.
In light of that, I would think a court would have to allow subpoena of the BC so that plaintiff can prove definitively that his eligibility is problematic. Fukino can only be convicted IF it can be demonstrated Obama fraudulently holds office. If he doesn’t, then FCA is moot.
I welcome any legal beagles to weigh in and explain where my reasoning has gone astray.
I, too, would like to hear from the legal eagles (beagles? regals? Smeagols? lol)
On all of this stuff I can only go by what I’m able to find. If there’s something I’m not understanding I want somebody to point it out so that I WILL understand.
Right, and so you admit that in the story cited, that the Hutch News definitely got the facts wrong.
When the Hutch News said that Hawaii’s Secretary of State released Obama’s birth certificate, they were dead wrong. Hawaii has no Secretary of State and no official in Hawaii has released any birth certificate for Barack Obama.
Who's going to prosecute such a case and what would be the point??
Thanks but I was hoping for a more credible source than PolitiFact.
There are illogical statements and contradictions in the article.......
We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.
“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us……..
……. And about the copy we e-mailed her for verification? “When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar, he thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it.”
Still, she acknowledges: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”
Obvious contradicting statements. Although I’m inclined to believe the second statement.
Probably the same people who prosecuted Blago and probably to accomplish the same thing they accomplished by prosecuting Blago.
That is, to deter anybody else from doing the same thing. To put people on notice that the society doesn’t have to put up with that behavior and the damage it does.
As long as we let them do it with impunity, they will keep on sabotaging legitimate government processes with their deliberate lies, and we deserve what we get.
The only way we could have what happened in this past election is if the stars all aligned just right - with government, media, and law enforcement all abdicating their legitimate duties in exchange for corruption. Those are societal foundations, and if they rot the whole building caves in. That’s where we’re at right now.
The well is so poisoned there’s nobody we can trust in any one of those areas. People talk about bailing out the media companies because it’s so vital that we have a vibrant, competetive, free press to inform the public. But what good does a free press do if nobody can believe a word they say? If you don’t have a credible press you have no press at all. Yet nobody seems too worried about that reality today. We’ve got a Chicken Little media; what will happen to us when we need a clear, instant, trustworthy alarm?
I’m not talking about censorship. I’m talking about people knowing that if they deliberately lie about something legally significant they can suffer legal consequences, just as they can suffer legal consequences if they libel somebody, label a product falsely, or raise a false alarm to create a deadly panic.
All we need is the deterrent effect, to keep the press honest. And that’s what my post was intended to be all about.
That was one of the things Scott Brown did right: as soon as the opponent started lying about him he filed a libel lawsuit - took away the dems’ number one weapon. By calling them on their game of “chicken” immediately, he set the race up to be honest, and America can sure use a little honesty these days.
If the government wants their deliberations and decisions to be honest they’re going to have to call the deliberate liars on their game of “chicken” immediately so the dialog can be trusted by people on both sides of a very deep divide.
The second statement?? That the registrar thought he could ‘pieces of the embossed image’??? That part???
I thought the actual conviction on Capone was Mail Fraud.
Of course the fraudulent use of the US Postal system was the tie to tax evasion.
“If there’s something I’m not understanding I want somebody to point it out so that I WILL understand.”
You got just that in post #20.
The second statement?? That the registrar thought he could ‘pieces of the embossed image’??? That part???
_______________________________________________________
I should have said the last part of the second statement.......
“Still, she acknowledges: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Robert Gibbs said that he posted the Obama document on fightthesmears.com, with Obama’s permission we must assume. So Obama should give the HDOH permission to verify that the internet COLB was issued by their department. The certificate number could be the key. But will he allow them to verify it? If not, then why not? Better yet he should allow the certified COLB to be examined by document forensic experts. If there is nothing to hide, why hide it?
Don't be diverted form the essential two facts in this case: 1) by the bastard's own admission, his father was a British Subject when he was born, he was a British and then Kenyan subject, so he cannot be a natural born citizen according to the meaning the Founders placed upon that terminology; 2) Obama's vital records have been amended and not just recently, decades ago, but not any of the displayed supposed genuine CoLB images has the word on the front of the page as would be required if the document were a validly issued Hawaiian CoLB.
Barry Dunham, aka Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro is a lying sonofabitch who is deceiving the world in order to bring this Republic to an end asap.
The HI DOH does have several ways they could have confirmed that the alleged COLB is genuine and accurate. butterdezillion found administrative rules that show that an ‘abbreviated’ certificate can legally be released to anyone who requests one. It’s not a certified copy of the record, but would serve the same purpose. They could also release index data confirming pretty much any and all the information on record. The director has statutory discretion to make that decision. The certificate number would be the quickest and easiest way to confirm the COLB is real, but they have REFUSED to identify who the factlack dot org certificate number belongs to and they have not officially declared it as belonging to Obama. And, under the protection of the Uniform Information Practices Act, they could simply release a certified copy to the public. Instead they choose to misdirect, misinform, obfuscate, lie, and deny requests. Then they went further and had the disclosure law changed to give them a legal excuse not to satisfy public requests for Obama’s birth records/information.
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.