Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
An Example of (Probably) Criminal Journalistic MalpracticeThe Journalistic Malpractice On July 21st HutchNews.com printed a retraction (at http://www.hutchnews.com/editorialblogs/edit-congress-withdraw-endorsement--1 ) of their endorsement of a Kansas primary candidate for the US House, because :
"it turns out Mann is what is known as a birther. He questions the citizenship of President Barack Obama despite evidence that is irrefutable to most objective, rational people - including a birth certificate released by the Hawaii secretary of state and birth announcements printed in Honolulu's two major newspapers." That simple statement contains a big inaccuracy. The Hawaii Secretary of State has never released Obama's birth certificate, nor has the Hawaii Department of Health (who has the BC) nor anybody in Hawaii. Obama's campaign published an online image of a COLB which went through 2 or 3 alterations on various websites before it finally surfaced at Factcheck.org as scanned photographs of what was claimed to be Obama's genuine COLB. Politifact published an article (at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/ ) in which Janice Okubo, communications director for the Hawaii Department of Health, concluded that .
"I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents" The substance of dozens of court cases is that various people are asking that the genuine birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health be released. Obama's lawyers have fought every case on the ground of standing – that it is nobody's place to force Obama and/or the HDOH to reveal Obama's genuine birth certificate. So when Hutch News said – out of the blue – that the Hawaii Secretary of State had already released Obama's birth certificate, they displayed a total ignorance of what the "birther" issue even IS. Yet they castigated the objective rationality of anybody who wants the genuine legal document to be released. The Hutch News retraction was mentioned on national TV by Rachel Maddow, and people on the Hutch News website praised The Hutch News for their courage in confronting those terrible, ignorant, irrational "birthers". Apparently they had no clue what a huge inaccuracy the Hutch News had just posted – an inaccuracy that revealed a lack of even the most basic comprehension regarding the eligibility issue. So I contacted the editor of The Hutch News, asking for a correction(either by their own statement or by posting my letter to the editor) to the blatantly false statement that the HI SOS had released Obama's birth certificate and alerting them to some of the facts documented on my blog (which I linked), that
This is the response that I received:
Nellie,
You're right, technically that is incorrect. To be precise we should have stated that the Obama campaign released the birth certificate but that Hawaii officials from the Department of Health have verified its legitimacy. But that is not materially important, and I am not going to engage in any of your continued speculation, which includes publishing your letter. If that is how you care to spend your time, have at it and continue the debate on your blog or wherever. But we are comfortable this has been well researched and determined and isn't something to which we will devote more time and space.
John Montgomery Hutchinson News Zooooooom!! That's the sound of the facts going right over the head of a "rational" person who considers himself responsible to inform the public on vital issues. Thinking that he had perhaps not bothered to read my entire e-mail, I responded to him with this:
John, to be precise - as I have stated and documented on my blog - the HDOH has NOT verified the Factcheck COLB's legitimacy, nor can they legally do so (according to their own claims).
You still are not grasping the basic facts of this issue, and are thus misreporting it.
As journalists, you have a responsibility to correct errors that you have made in your reporting. Are you telling me that you will not correct this error? Nellie
In 2 days it will be a month that I've waited for a response. And no correction has been made.
Why it's Probably CriminalWhat The Hutch News may not have considered is that issues under the jurisdiction of the federal government are impacted by the facts of whether a genuine birth certificate has ever been released and whether the HDOH has ever actually confirmed that the Factcheck COLB is genuine. There are court cases pending, an FBI investigation has been requested, a court-martial is in progress regarding this very issue, Congress is having to decide whether to accept SCOTUS justices nominated by a potentially fraudulent president, and the issue has been referred by Lt Col Lakin's Congressman to a House committee on military affairs. Most people realize that it is immoral for a news company to refuse to issue corrections when they become aware of an inaccuracy in what they have published. What most people – including possibly The Hutch News – may not know is that if they play fast and loose with the facts in a matter under the jurisdiction of any of the 3 branches of federal government, they could be found guilty of violating the Federal General False Statement Act – 18 U.S.C. 1001: I. Except as otherwise provided in this section, II. whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, III. knowingly and willfully – IV. a. falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
b. makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
c. makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any
materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, imprisoned not more than 8 years if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331) or if the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A (sexual abuse), 109B (sex offender registration), 110 (sexual exploitation), or 117(transportation for illicit sexual purposes), or Section 1591 (sex trafficking)........ The law is described, beginning on p 15 at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-808.pdf , including the following:
"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." Notice Served I intend to do a more complete post later, concerning The Federal General False Statement Act – which I believe has been violated by a multitude of people within both the federal government and the Hawaii government. Obama concealed from both Congress and the courts that the COLB published by his own campaign website was a forgery. I intend to post letters from members of Congress saying that they would not contest the certification because they believed the (forged) Factcheck COLB, the (misunderstood and not corrected) statements by Hawaii officials, and the (false) media reports concerning the issue. For right now, I give this small example of The Hutch News because it reflects what has gone on in every news room in the nation in the past 2 years, despite the diligent and tireless efforts of people like myself who have contacted the media to correct factual errors in their reportin on this issue. With this post I am serving notice to the media – which has misreported this issue all along – that we see what you have been doing, we know that it is illegal, what you've already done is on the record that will eventually come before Darrell Issa's House Ethics Committee (Lord willing), and we will be watching you very closely from here on out to see whether you "consciously disregard or avert (your) eyes from the likely falsity" of your own claims in light of the information we provide you – which is documented by actual communications from the Hawaii Department of Health. You ignore us at your own peril.
Darn. The HTML came pretty close to working. Sigh. The link to the blog post is http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/notice-served/
Who is John Montgomery Hutchinson and/or Hutch News and who cares what this ass hat thinks about birthers?
They have to desperately hold onto the lie because it would undo two SC appointments, dozens of laws, and hundreds if not thousands of federal regulations under Obastard.
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.
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!
Bump - for later read.
Yes, that was a pretty arrogant response. Typical MSM Liberal. Thanks for creating this thread, butterdezillion, it is very interesting.
It is unlikely that anyone will every see any documents, and if documents are produced, no matter when they were manufactured, a judge like Carter will proclaim Obama a natural born citizen because he was born here, and most citizens will not know that being born on the soil does not make one natural born - though obots will repeat it. Two citizen parents, native or naturalized, and born on our soil are the two requirements. The fixation on birth certificates can only mean that people haven't read any of the dozen or so cases, or the 14th Amendment Author, or James Kent or Joseph Story or David Ramsay to have confidence in the definition.
The only other conclusion, one which seems to fit Phillip Berg, is that these discussions are maintained by Obama supporters to support the Alinsky tactic number five, that "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." Obama supporters may well have produced phony documents, just to attract the gullible. Berg has always been a Democrat activist, and is one today, as he steers the public toward mythical Kenyan documents, and attacks Orly Taitz, who countered Berg in their first press conference in December of 2008, explaining that where Obama was born made no difference. She, of course, has been attacked with Alinsky's thirteenth rule: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."