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.
“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.”
I concur that going after the news media would be the weakest way to pursue a qui tam claim since there would be the countervailing First Amendment argument. I was picturing a suit against Fukino for a repeated pattern of lying/obfuscation that has served to inhibit common citizens from knowing whether POTUS is constitutionally eligible for office. Her behavior has raised reasonable questions about whether in fact he is eligible, so the only way to prove she wasn’t aiding and abetting his illegal exercise of presidential powers would be to produce the hard evidence in court that he really is a natural-born citizen. I don’t think a judge would merely accept the say-so of any official. There’s no legitimate reason the long form BC cannot be produced for the court and the public to see.
Yes, that was a pretty arrogant response. Typical MSM Liberal. Thanks for creating this thread, butterdezillion, it is very interesting.
It is a shame that the media has to think about big money to defend themselves for their lies instead of having the integrity and moral compass to tell the truth because it is right.
In this particular case he e-mailed his response so I can document his knowledge that what he published was inaccurate - but that he was not going to correct it or publish my letter correcting the record.
The loophole that Hutch News could probably use is the fact that this was an editorial rather than a news article.
I don’t know though. Suppose they had said, “We believe it would be a mistake for anybody to vote for Barack Obama because he was convicted of rape in 1984.” Would that be free speech, or would that be libel regarding a material fact? A person can ALLEGE all kinds of stuff, but if you state that an official legal act was done (”convicted of rape” OR “released a BC”) that’s beyond an allegation.
People might say, “Obama’s thugs killed the passport breach informant”. But that’s different than saying, “Obama was convicted of killing the passport breach informant.” One is an allegation; the other is a claim that an allegation has been legally proven. It’s a totally different level of legal authority being invoked for making the statement.
A person also might say stuff they’re not sure about or are mistaken on. That’s different than deliberately lying.
Sorry to ramble. You’re right that the documentation needs to be clear. I think this could be one reason I’ve never been able to get any kind of response from the editors of all the other online newspapers I’ve contacted. They’ve got their eyes and ears plugged because if they acknowledged that they had heard the truth, they’d be in trouble for publishing the lies.
Maybe if the media companies had their feet to the fire for their lies, they would be more willing to reveal whether Obama’s lawyer had threatened them with annihilation by the FCC if they reported the truth.
That's the point of my careful description of how the issue would come up--in each of those cases, the person or party raising the issue would by definition have standing.
I am not really forgetting anything thank you.
Like the requirement of "natural born" citizenship as a prerequisite to eligibility to occupy the office of President, action by a President to initiate a Supreme Court appointment is a precondition to the office.
Supposing the White House garbage collector dispatched a notice of Supreme Court appointment to the Senate and the Senate confirmed? Does the confirmed person become a Justice?
Sonya and Kagen simply weren't appointed to the Court. Like Obama, they don't hold the office. A party to a Supreme Court action would, by definition have standing to raise the issue.
That's the point of my careful description of how the issue would come up--in each of those cases, the person or party raising the issue would by definition have standing.
----------------------------------------------
Got it. Thanks. Question is, though, would the judge(s) have the courage of conviction to see AND "admit" that the person or party had the textbook definition of standing. I have doubts.
The Hutch News - along with all the other MSM sources - have told our Congress-critters that Hawaii has already confirmed that the Factcheck COLB is authentic. In this case, Hutch News said the ACTUAL BC has already been released - and that only irrational people would still question the issue.
The federal government is involved with this issue in several ways right now - not the least of which is Lt Col Lakin’s court-martial. When The Hutch News and other companies deliberately lie about this, that directly affects the ability of Lakin and others like Taitz, etc to get justice from the system. Judge Robertson wanted to fine Hemenway (IIRC) for a “frivolous lawsuit” because jerkwads like The Hutch News had already Twittered the issue.
I’m sorry, but if a federal judge is going to allow Twitter to decide legal cases, then everything the media says better be considered to be under oath.
If Congress-critters keep telling constituents that they will not challenge the electoral vote because the media has reported that the HDOH has confirmed the genuineness of the Factcheck COLB (or because Fukino didn’t happen to mention that Obama’s BC is late and amended and therefore has no legal value even though they do, indeed, have his BC in Hawaii as she said), then there is no way on earth that the lying scum at Hutch News, the HDOH, and elsewhere haven’t infringed upon my right to due process - to insist that the LEGAL process be followed, without the federal government relying on statements by media and HDOH that are not made under oath and would be perjury if they had been under oath.
If Congress and the courts govern on the basis of rumors - which anybody can get away with lying about - then we’re sunk.
In a recent thread it was noted that the SCOTUS clerk had thrown away a bunch of letters to the justices regarding the eligibility issue. Justices are not to consider anything but the legal documents presented in the case, they said.
But every single judge in America can hear the fool, Chris Matthews, lie his head off about material facts that are relevant to their cases. No oath, no legal accountability - just somebody blowing lies out their rear end. And Judge Robertson - a federal appeals judge - said the blowhards like Matthews had already legally decided the eligibility case presented in his court. Similarly, Judge Carter invoked the media reports as a basis for his decision, IIRC.
No frickin’ way. This is the American equivalent to the Iranian courts sentencing a woman to death by stoning based simply on “judge’s knowledge”.
Obama’s administration has hired people to go online and post disinformation. Yet the government is making decisions on the basis of “news reports” and “political buzz/chatter” that can just as easily be a lie as be the truth - with no consequences for somebody deliberately lying.
The article I referenced in my blog post addresses perjury, false claims, etc. There are different standards for convicting somebody of perjury, but 18 USC 1001 is the catch-all for somebody deliberately spreading lies or half-truths on matters of federal significance.
Think what would happen if a secretary with the Dow Jones decided to falsify a few numbers and show that the stock market had flat-lined, no pulse at all, right there at zero. Free speech? She can put whatever she wants on the page, right? It’s not like she is under oath when she inputs the data. (And I have no idea how it works; it’s just a hypothetical) Is there any law against that?
Or what if I label a bottle of arsenic as “grape juice”?
What’s happened in the eligibility issue is absolutely false labeling. And it’s killing this country.
We can boycott the companies who engage in the false labeling - the market’s solution to weed out the bad eggs. Of course, then Congress will just decide to subsidize the companies we’re boycotting so we have no market option to stand for the truth, just as we have no legal recourse.
I believe we’re in a situation, now, where people have no idea what is true and what isn’t. It’s sort of like taqiyya. Why should anybody trust a religion that praises lying? Well.... why should anybody believe anything they hear from the MSM when lying is rewarded by society and government on a daily basis?
Sorry to ramble. I know this goes beyond what you commented on. I guess what I’m saying is that it’s not Obama who was violated by The Hutch News’ blatant lie. The processes of the federal government, the people seeking justice via the federal government, and the reputations of people like myself were violated by that blatant lie.
I believe the law itself recognizes that libel is not the only speech which leaves innocent victims, and that due process itself can be the victim when material facts are lied and concealed in issues with federal significance.
I can’t remember where, but the classic example of rights pitted against each other is the case of somebody yelling “Fire!” in a crowded building, setting off a panic which results in people being killed. A person can say whatever they want, but when a deliberate lie impacts people and processes in a serious way, there must be legal accountability.
Exactly. Yet how many reports have you seen where it is said that Okubo confirmed the Factcheck COLB’s genuineness?
Basic reading comprehension. The media doesn’t have it. And they wilfully plug their ears to anybody who points it out to them.
Apparently this guy makes up the facts as he goes along. And apparently that’s fine with most of the public. Sad.
I am not really forgetting anything thank you.
Like the requirement of “natural born” citizenship as a prerequisite to eligibility to occupy the office of President, action by a President to initiate a Supreme Court appointment is a precondition to the office.
Supposing the White House garbage collector dispatched a notice of Supreme Court appointment to the Senate and the Senate confirmed? Does the confirmed person become a Justice?
Sonya and Kagen simply weren’t appointed to the Court. Like Obama, they don’t hold the office. A party to a Supreme Court action would, by definition have standing to raise the issue.
Just because it is your personal opinion that the President isn’t the President and the two new Supreme Court justices aren’t really Supreme Court Justices doesn’t make it so.
Sotomayor has already ruled on cases that are now the law of the land.
Here’s a question for you, what official body is it that will rule or decide that a president is ineligible after a president’s electoral votes have been counted and certified and after he has been sworn in on Inauguration Day, and what official body is it that decides or rules on a nominated and confirmed Supreme Court Justice being ineligible after a Justice has taken the Oath of Office? Both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts.
The US Supreme Court PRIOR to the seating of Sotomayor and Kagan had eight different appeals reach them concerning Obama’s eligibility: Berg v Obama, Beverly v FEC, Craig v US, Donofrio v Wells, Herbert v Obama, Lightfoot v Bowen, Schneller v Cortes, and Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz. The Supreme Court rejected them all, refusing to grant a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in any of those challenges to the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency,
Do you see anybody who might be willing to implement the strategies you suggest?
I have a question regarding 18 USC 1001. The description at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-808.pdf , beginning on p 15, notes that “several courts have held that the phrase (”within the jurisdiction”) contemplates coverage of false statements made to state, local, or private entites but relating to matters that involve federal funds or regulations.”
At another place it says: 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.”
When I read this I gathered that since a person may not realize that his conduct involved federal jurisdiction at all, it doesn’t necessarily have to be something the person said directly to a federal entity. That’s why I believe that this could apply to a media source who is documented to have known they were reporting a material falsehood but reported it anyway.
Am I understanding this correctly?
So basically you’re acknowledging that the newspaper published a factually inaccurate story.
I do acknowledge that newspapers can get facts wrong sometimes.
The law does not seem to say what you seem to think it says.
After this flap the candidates all rushed to the microphone to see who could give the sweetest regurgitation of The Hutch News’ own lies regarding the eligibility issue. Sick and sad. What could have been a huge lesson in accountability became a suck-up session. Gag.
Seems to me that people tend to confuse legal accountability with electoral accountability. We CAN hold government officials accountable for any actions they do, by voting them out. But they can inflict a lot of UNLAWFUL damage between elections. The people have to have a way to hold the politicians LEGALLY accountable. With all the laws being broken, the problem comes in because the only people who can file legal charges against these crooks are fellow politicians.
Right.
The current understanding of “standing” basically makes it so that the people have no way to petition the government for a redress of grievances. We spent 8 years watching Janet Reno refuse to investigate Clinton after 2 different Congressional investigations (Cox and Thompson) strongly recommended legal investigations into potential crimes committed by Clinton and his administration. The crooks nominate their buddies to “hold them legally accountable” - and then nobody else has jurisdiction to do what the crooks refuse to do.
It’s like, in order to protect ourselves from anybody having the power of the “one ring”, we give the ring to whoever we elect to have power. Our electing them doesn’t make any difference to whether they can be corrupted by the power of the ring. They will ALWAYS be corrupted by the power of the ring.
Our founding fathers understood that the only way to combat the corruption inherent in absolute power is to never give anybody so much power that they can screw everybody else. That’s why we are to be governed by the LAW and not by MEN. That’s why there is due process and equal protection. If I can be charged with stealing, then so can Charlie Rangel. If somebody reports me for stealing, the cops are supposed to give that person and me, both, the due process of an investigation, etc. And if somebody reports Charlie Rangel for stealing, the same thing should happen. But it doesn’t. It gets referred to the House Ethics Committee, where the people he has mooched with get to decide whether any charges are filed.
If I reported Nancy Pelosi’s perjury right now, what would happen? Would it be the same thing that would happen if I reported perjury by my next-door neighbor?
I haven’t contacted Issa. I’ve contacted my own Senators and Representative, as well as governor and Attorney General.... and can’t get anything from them except that they trust that the people who were supposed to check Obama’s eligibility did their jobs.
They obviously didn’t even read what I wrote. And I don’t know how to get anybody to care what I say, or how to even get their attention. I think I’d have to go through some intermediary who heard what I was saying and gave their approval to it. Somebody with an Esq behind their name, or else a big pocketbook.
I’m all ears, if anybody has ideas for how I can get the attention of Issa or anybody else who can do anything.
PolitiFact.com
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
Search on “Still, she acknowledges”
The Senate didn’t reject Obama’s nominees in part because of liars like The Hutch News. That makes the lies of Hutch News and others like them CRITICAL to this country’s very survival.
As long as their lies aren’t under oath, no harm done?
I don’t buy it.
That was in the Politifact article at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
“The current understanding of “standing” basically makes it so that the people have no way to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
B, this is flat out wrong and you should know better by now.
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.