Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
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’s the question of the hour. We have to try the legitimate means that have been provided. Prosecutors need to know that if they subvert the will of the people by refusing to enforce the laws, they will be creating a pressure cooker with no steam release valve.
The people who keep the rule of law from working are ultimately creating a very dangerous situation.
So you’re going to argue that the 1st amendment gives the media to right to lie to, mislead the public, and basically misrepresent the facts in order to blatantly become a propaganda arm of one political party without any consequences??? You honestly believe this was the intention of the founding fathers????? You really should go read Washington’s farewell address again, in fact go back and reread it a 2nd time and then a 3rd time if necessary until you can grasp it.
No wonder I hate lawyers.
I don’t think you read 18 U.S.C 1001 or the description of it that I posted. It doesn’t matter whether the person knows they are deceiving the feds; all that matters is whether they knew they were saying something false or covering up part of the truth in order to deceive.
I corrected their factual errors; they refused to correct their content to reflect the truth. They knew they were deceiving, or they “consciously disregarded or averted (their) eyes from the likely falsity.” Because this involved an issue under the jurisdiction of at least one of the 3 branches of federal government, that was a crime.
The media has gotten away with its lies for WAY too long. No more.
Now I have no qualms about leaving the editor’s name in my post.
Sounds like they need to be called on their lies, big-time.
To say that he knows what he posted was factually incorrect but refuse to correct it or to publish my letter correcting it - with no reason given at all - is beyond arrogant. It really is criminal, and he needs to know that.
Yep. For those ignorant of 18th century American history it wasn't just taxation that led to the revolution. Another BIG sticking point at the time was receiving no redress of grievances within the courts. In other words: no justice. We've come full circle.
lol. Now THAT is a worthy ping group.
Under the False Claims Act (as opposed to False Statements Act, which you are referencing), the government allows “qui tam” suits. These are suits brought by private citizens to prosecute individuals believed to be in violation of the False Claims Act. If the citizen wins, they get a percentage of whatever funds are recovered and monetary penalties paid.
This arrangement allows the government to avoid spending time prosecuting these cases. The arrangement incents private citizens to find the most egregious (read lucrative) violations and pursue them. Since the penalties are in the range of $10,000 per violation, smoking out a physician that fraudulently submitted 100 Medicaid claims can add up to some serious money (since citizen shares both in the $1 million penalty but also whatever amounts were fraudulently billed and had to be paid back). If they fail, the government isn’t out any money.
You should find out if qui tam suits are authorized under False Statements Act. If so, you might then find a lawyer such as Leo Donofrio who is willing to file your suit pro bono [compared to Orly Taitz and Philip Berg, Leo has always seemed way more sane and competent, but he presumably isn’t the only possibility].
In addition to the possibility of securing a financial reward from penalty payments that could cover the costs of the suit, but this may be a good end-around to the “standing” issue. The qui tam provision gives any citizen automatic standing to sue and since the dispute is over a factual claim regarding the existence or content of a long-form BC, I would think the court would have to allow discovery—i.e., subpoena the DOH for the long-form BC. It seems like it’s worth a try and certainly can’t end any worth than all the other BC-related lawsuits that have been turned down by various courts.
Wow. Excellent insight. Thank you for that. This goes to the other issue that has been so frustrating to me: the fact that civilians have no role in seeing the laws enforced. But what you’re saying is that in some instances we do.
I’m headed off to work (probably should have gone a while ago) and I will have time to think about what you’ve said. I hope others (especially any lawyers) will think about it too.
The thing about this is that Congress believes that Obama’s Fight the Smears and/or Factcheck COLB is a genuine document - a claim that he submitted to them in an unofficial way. The Factcheck COLB was referenced in Carter’s court. They didn’t present it as evidence but they called Carter’s attention to it. I wonder if that could make Obama himself the defendant in an actual False Claim lawsuit.
Anybody have any insights?
I’ll be gone to work but look forward to hearing anything more I can find out on this.
Thank you so much for bringing this up, DrC.
Hey, Lucy, I hate to keep bugging you, but could you ping this thread and especially DrC’s post? Thanks!
Nellie, the man knows he’s deceiving readers. He knows he is lying for his little bastard boy. Why do you keep giving these scum the benefit of the doubt? He didn’t misunderstand your facts. He purposely twisted what you wrote in order to give himself absolution for being a lying scumbag seeking to protect the pondscum in the White Hut!
If you really want to document, send registered letters of informing, then redirect. Otherwise it is a lying scumbag’s word against yours in a court of twisted law which is set up to protect a criminal-in-chief.
Spend a quiet twenty minutes contemplating what things would be like today if government could use coercive power to prosecute any media outlet that made a statement that they determined to be false or incorrect.
How does this differ from arbitrary censorship?
I have to be honest but I’m not seeing how either the False Claims Acr or False Statement Act can be used against the Hutch News. Newspapers are generally liable for libel, which specifically involves the person being libeled, but not much else. Technically they are lying by claiming Obama was found to be legit or constitutionally qualified or that his birth certificate has been verified, but I don’t see Obama suing over this.
It is informative for people to know how ignorant and partisan the LMSM is when it comes to this issue ... seeing as how they were confronted with a very blatant factual error, yet refuse to correct it or publicly acknowledge their mistake. Getting the word out about that would much stronger suggesting they could be held accountable under the cited federal laws, IMO.
Censorship is prior to publication, not afterward. The LMSM can still be held accountable for things like libel and fraudulent advertising.
In regards to Obama “birth certificate,” Janice Okubo, Communications Director for the Hawaii Department of Health is on record saying, “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site [FactCheck.org] represents.”
http://theobamafile.com/_exhibits/HawaiiDenies.mht
Check out # 28 by DrC.
[Thanks for the Ping, buterdezillion. # 16 concerning Nancy Pelosi is important, too.
[As for that matter, there is a lot of information in this thread.]
interesting post in #28
David - thoughts?
Indeed. Not to mention the damage done to the (D) brand with the independents! Or, the (additional) credibility slide with the state run media....including Fox!
“Censorship is prior to publication, not afterward.”
Fair point.
Thanks once again, butterdezillion, for your hard work.
This guy continues to deceive even with his admission that he’s “technically” incorrect.
He’s outright wrong (again) when he says that Obama’s campaign released the birth certificate. NOBODY HAS RELEASED ANY BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!
An unprovenanced, photoshopped, possibly computer-created digital image posted on blogs and campaign websites is NOT a birth certificate.
Nor have Hawaiian officials verified its “legitimacy” Far from it.
As butterdezillion pointed out, they not only did NOT verify that online image, they specifically stated that they cannot tell anyone what it represents AND their laws forbid them commenting upon it, one way or the other.
Technicalities. How interesting. So in this guy’s apparent opinion, whether or not Obama is eligible to be POTUS (which, btw, requires NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP, not mere citizenship) is just a technicality. Technically, I suppose, he considers himself a rational person as well as a “journalist” (more like journOlister).
What kind of reporter invents a story that the Hawaiian Secretary of State released Obama’s birth certificate? Secretary of State? Does he simply make up “facts” as he goes along?
“The facts are the facts,” said that great philosopher B. H. Obama recently.
“Yes,” agreed the People, “but what exactly, sir, ARE THE FACTS?”
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.