Posted on 01/28/2010 5:18:04 AM PST by iloveamerica1980
ask Lucas
Are you off your rocker or what?
First, yes, there are many repeat offenders in prison but, I don’t think you’ll find many (if any) individuals in the world bring litigation to federal court (as opposed to them themselves being hulled into court) and giving FALSE testimony on their own free will.
Oh and by the way, Obama’s team of czars (and other people he has brought in as his staff) they just have such clean backgrounds don’t they??? Give me a break, Obama’s has brought all sorts of dubious characters onto his team.
Maybe you should run a thread here on Freerepublic about the ex-cons and ex-terrorists that now have jobs in the federal government now thanks to President Obama.
Can you handle that? Or are you just an Obot that is paid to discredit Lucas Smith at all costs?
No, it is a blog that is being pimped.
Any document with Taitz’s name on it is likely flawed.
Deeply flawed.
I agree. Let me make clear here that I no longer work with Orly Taitz. I was a client/witness of hers in September 2009. I quicky learned (first hand) for her unethical tactics.
I would not trust a single word that falls from the mouth of Orly Taitz. I am also a witness against her in the Riverner vs US Bank litigation. (Federal case in Florida).
Orly Taitz asked me to give flase testomony in federal court, which I refused to do.
I have written this all out in the from a declaration (10.12.2009) and also an affidavit (01.18.2010).
I have testified, in person, under oath in federal court to the unethical behavior of Orly Taitz.
There are a long list of “Orly refugees”. Individuals that at one time decided to wrk with Orly Taitz but then quickly learned that she is anything but a Patriot.
Respectfully,
Lucas D. Smith
The two federal court cases you gave testimony in had nothing to do with either Obama's elibility or the authenticity of your Kenyan BC. You gave testimony, IIRC, in Liberi v. Taitz, in Pensylvania (in which one birther lawyer sued another birther lawyer), and in Rivernider v. U.S. Bank, in Florida, a real estate foreclosure case, (in which a magistrate judge was trying to determine whether to sanction Orly Taitz or her ex-assistant, Charles Lincoln). In the latter case, the judge explicitly forbade any wandering into the eligibility issue.
Your BC and affidavit were first submitted to the court in Rhodes v. McDonald in the District Court of Central Georgia, and here's how Judge Land questioned Orly Taitz about your affidavit and BC during the hearing on Sept. 14, 2009, according to the official Transcript of Proceedings, Pages 34-36:
THE COURT: Let me make sure I understand this. So this is a United States citizen that went over there.
MS. TAITZ: Yes.
THE COURT: And this hospital, under their rules and regulations and the applicable law, would not allow him to come into that hospital and review their medical and birth records.
MS. TAITZ: Not because of rules or regulations but because Mr. Obama's cousin, Raila Odinga, is the Prime Minister of Kenya. That is the reason why that hospital is specifically protected.
THE COURT: Well, if you sent this same person to a hospital here in Columbus, and he said, "I would like to go through your birth records," you don't think that person would be authorized to do that, do you, in the United States?
MS. TAITZ: Well, let me tell you --
THE COURT: It's a rhetorical question. You don't have to answer it. But I want to make sure I understand this, because you have left the impression with me that this witness you have bribed an official in Kenya in order to obtain this document that you have submitted as evidence in this court. Now, if you did not intend to leave that impression, I will let you clarify that. But as I understood what you just said, the person otherwise did not have access to these hospital records; and he had to pay somebody in order to get access that he otherwise did not have; and upon paying that person, he therefore got this document. That sounds to me like a bribe. If that's not the impression that you tried to leave, then I'll let you straighten that out on the record.
MS. TAITZ: I would like to straighten it out. To me, the fact that our judiciary, when, after a hundred lawsuits were filed, and our judiciary, in many cases, and our U.S. Attorney and JAG, are unwilling to provide the citizens of this country with documents that shows --
THE COURT: No, ma'am. That's just another speech. That may work fine out on the front steps of the courthouse when the press is listening, but that is not an answer to my question. I gave you the opportunity to dispute the fact that this sounded like a bribe, and you did not wish to answer that question.
And in his Order for Dismissal on Sept. 16, 2009, Judge Land referred to your Kenyan BC in Footnote 5 on Page 10 of the order:
One piece of “evidence” Plaintiff’s counsel relies upon deserves further discussion. Counsel has produced a document that she claims shows the President was born in Kenya, yet she has not authenticated that document. She has produced an affidavit from someone who allegedly obtained the document from a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya by paying “a cash ‘consideration’ to a Kenyan military officer on duty to look the other way, while [he] obtained the copy” of the document. (Smith Decl. ¶ 7, Sept. 3, 2009.) Counsel has not, however, produced an original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document. Therefore, the Court finds that the alleged document is unreliable due to counsel’s failure to properly authenticate the document. See Fed. R. Evid. 901.
Your BC and affidavit were also submitted by Orly Taitz in the Barnett v. Obama case in California, and Judge Carter had the following to say in his decision granting the Motion to Dismiss, Oct. 29, 2009, Page 27:
Plaintiffs have indicated that they plan to seek extensive discovery in this case, including the deposition and appearance in court of President Obama and the request through a letter rogatory to the government of Kenya for the birth certificate that they allege proves he was born in Kenya. See Mot. for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for Authentication of Kenyan Birth Certificate (Aug. 1, 2009); Special Mot. For Leave to Conduct Pre-R. 26(f) Discovery (Aug. 1, 2009) (“Plaintiffs . . . intend on taking the following depositions: a. Barack Hussein Obama; b. Cheryl Fukino; c. Speaker of the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi; d. Commissioner of Social Security; e. All other Defendants . . .”).In neither of these eligibility cases, in which you did not testify, were your Kenyan BC, or your affidavit, admitted as evidence, authenticated, validated, or deemed reliable.
Plaintiffs appear to assume that should the Court receive a document from Kenya, the Court would give credence to this document over the American birth records of the President and the case would be resolved. Even should the Court permit the issuance of a letter rogatory to Kenya, the Court would still engage in a comparative exercise in which the records of America, which has historically maintained some of the most credible recordkeeping practices in the world, would be contrasted with the credibility of the records obtained from Kenya. Such an analysis would seemingly favor the records of the United States.
Produce what you said you could produce.
And than don't forget to present your production under oath to a Federal Court -- something that none of you Obamanidiots have been willing to do thus far.
Lucas is currently 30 years old and was last in prison at age 22 eight years ago. His crimes may have been committed as early as age 17.
The frontal lobe of the male of the species is immature at that age (prior to age 25, look at the insurance tables) and often unable to properly assess risk and personal responsibility.
Based on my training as a retired Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE) it is my assessment that Smith's current behavior is totally inconsistent with that of a typical fraudster, who operates on stealth and secrecy and stays as far away from federal perjury as possible.
According to Smith's affidavit to Judge Carter, which Carter deemed credible enough to admonish Taitz even knowing Smith's history, Taitz asked Smith to lie to help obtain discovery of Obama's HI vital records, which could have benefited Smith personally if he was dishonest as you are suggesting we assume based on an 8-year-old release date from prison.
To the contrary, Smith declared in the affidavit that he told Taitz he refused to fight Obama's lies with Taitz's lies and went public with what he claims he witnessed to be Taitz's dishonesty.
It is not clear to me how Smith would personally benefit from going public in denouncing Taitz and I suspect that, in similar circumstances most folks would have just kept quiet and removed themselves from dealings with Taitz.
Taitz's court case before Judge Carter was seriously damaged by the claims in Smith's affidavit as well as the apparently independent Sinclair affidavit of Sep 15 2009 that made similar denunciations against Taitz of suborning perjury, but regarding murder in Chicago, not BCs.
There were numerous witnesses to Smith's declarations made under penalty of perjury, including Lincoln and Sinclair, who could have and still might yet be called to testify against Smith himself if he were lying.
Smith has gone on to testify in yet another federal case, the Rivernider case, where Taitz has had the opportunity to cross-examine Smith on the witness stand, and Smith has kept to his story despite being under penalty of perjury and threat of return to prison.
Here is a link to the FR discussion of the Rivernider case: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2427610/posts?q=1&;page=1
Convicted felons give testimony in federal court all the time and are found to be credible on a case by case basis.
Yes, a prior conviction gives the defense an opportunity to "impeach" witnesses, but judges and juries must assess the testimony in context and assess the veracity of the witness in person and in totality.
Since when is the court afraid of a little "comparative exercise"? Hmmm. Isn't that their job?
And how does the Court know that there will be any "contrast" at all unless it does a little exercise and compares the documents?
Perhaps the U.S. documents will simply corroborate the Kenyan one, after a little "comparative exercise" of course.
Such an analysis would seemingly favor the records of the United States.
the state of Hawaii excepted, of course.
It really is sort of a waste of time when I have to answer people like you that do a 5 minture google search and then post your “findings” at freerepublic and other online blogs.
I will however explain the facts for you.
I was a witness is “BARNETT vs OBAMA”. The birth certificate that I procured in Kenyan was filed in the case. And yes, as the title implies, “BARNETT vs OBAMA”, yes it was a case againts President Barack Obama. My 09.03.2009 Declaration was aslo filed in this case. I was in the Honorable Judge David O Carter’s courtroom in the witness room waiting to testify on 09.08.2009.
So stop with reporting misinformation.
As for Ory’s other cases, the “Rhodes” case that you have cited, Orly attached the same documents to that case as well, at a later date. BY THE WAY, the Rhodes case was ALL ABOUT OBAMA. The soldier refused to deploy to war because the soilder refused to acknowledge Obama as having power to command the arms forces because Obama has not proven that he is eligible to hold office of President of the United States.
Do you get it now??? I hope so. I also hope that you will have enough integrity to admit when you’ve made a mistake rather than reply with some jab which explains nothing more than it’s your story and you are sticking to it. Don’t let your pride get in the way.
By the way the only other case which I hace testified in RIVERNIDER vs US BANK. It was a back door for getting some facts onto court record that can be used in another federal court case. I was there to testify for Charles Lincoln because Orly Taitz was attempting to smear Lincoln. I personal knowledge of their work agreement and their friendship.
As for your mention of the Liberi vs Taitz case. I HAVE NEVERT TESTIFIED in that case. Perhaps Phil Berg and Liberi have now attached my declaration and my affidavit to that case which they or any other lawyer has the right to do once record of it was already made in another court.
Long stort short, DONT ATTEMPT TO STATE HERE THAT I WAS NOT A WITNESS IN FEDERAL COURT REGARDING OBAMA.
Again, Pamele Barnett vs Barack Obama. Can you read that? Go google search it or whatever it is that you yourself do in you “great research”.
And you might also want to review the “Rhodes” case. IT IS ALL ABOUT OBAMA.
Report back when you can admit that you made an error in youe “findings”.
It really is sort of a waste of time when I have to answer people like you that do a 5 minture google search and then post your “findings” at freerepublic and other online blogs.
I will however explain the facts for you.
I was a witness is “BARNETT vs OBAMA”. The birth certificate that I procured in Kenyan was filed in the case. And yes, as the title implies, “BARNETT vs OBAMA”, yes it was a case againts President Barack Obama. My 09.03.2009 Declaration was aslo filed in this case. I was in the Honorable Judge David O Carter’s courtroom in the witness room waiting to testify on 09.08.2009.
So stop with reporting misinformation.
As for Ory’s other cases, the “Rhodes” case that you have cited, Orly attached the same documents to that case as well, at a later date. BY THE WAY, the Rhodes case was ALL ABOUT OBAMA. The soldier refused to deploy to war because the soilder refused to acknowledge Obama as having power to command the arms forces because Obama has not proven that he is eligible to hold office of President of the United States.
Do you get it now??? I hope so. I also hope that you will have enough integrity to admit when you’ve made a mistake rather than reply with some jab which explains nothing more than it’s your story and you are sticking to it. Don’t let your pride get in the way.
By the way the only other case which I hace testified in RIVERNIDER vs US BANK. It was a back door for getting some facts onto court record that can be used in another federal court case. I was there to testify for Charles Lincoln because Orly Taitz was attempting to smear Lincoln. I personal knowledge of their work agreement and their friendship.
As for your mention of the Liberi vs Taitz case. I HAVE NEVERT TESTIFIED in that case. Perhaps Phil Berg and Liberi have now attached my declaration and my affidavit to that case which they or any other lawyer has the right to do once record of it was already made in another court.
Long stort short, DONT ATTEMPT TO STATE HERE THAT I WAS NOT A WITNESS IN FEDERAL COURT REGARDING OBAMA.
Again, Pamele Barnett vs Barack Obama. Can you read that? Go google search it or whatever it is that you yourself do in you “great research”.
And you might also want to review the “Rhodes” case. IT IS ALL ABOUT OBAMA.
Report back when you can admit that you made an error in youe “findings”.
Non responsive. Evasive. Fail.
Obviously, being both Messiah and the First True Citizen (soon to be Emperor) of The World, Himself, Barry Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama was born in *multiple* locations simultaneously.
He was born in Hawai’i, Kenya, Great Britain, Canada, Mecca, Medina, Moscow, Bejing, Tokyo, The Hearts and Minds of Men around the world and in several of their toilets.
I would agree with you, just remember how Corsi was mangled out of Kenay when he wanted to make a press conference???
No, you weren't. You did not take the witness stand. Whether you were in the courtroom, or witness room or out in the parking lot has no bearing on the case. You were not called as a witness. (Don't make me quote Congressman Joe Wilson here.)
I gave you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you testified in Liberi v. Taitz, but now we can narrow your Federal Court testimony down to one case, Rivernider v. U.S. Bank, which is totally unrelated to eligibility. Thanks for clarifying that point.
Orly attached the same documents to that case as well, at a later date.
Your Kenyan BC and affidavit were recorded on the docket of both courts on the same date: Sept. 4, 2009.
You were never a witness in any court in an Obama elibility case.
See post # 57!!!
Have you seen any of them willingly to debate the eligibility issues, sealed records on their shows, except for Lou Dobbs???
Why are we spending precious capital on a red herring and stupid B.C that is totatlly irrelevant and we all could see for around $15?
Instead of focusing on the real issue, that is the Junior's father??
Was/is he ever an U.S. citizen making him an bona-fide NBC, unless the B.C. shows a different father???
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.