[butterdezillion]

The Department of State keeps digging themeselves deeper in the hole.

[Jackson57]

The efforts to keep ANY personal information about Obama’s past hidden are incredible especially considering personal information about Republicans can be obtained by anyone.

[butterdezillion]

I give up. I cannot get Wordpress to put the HTML in so the links are clickable. Sigh.

Sorry guys. I was going to have this HTML figured out before I posted again and I thought I did but Wordpress only added the HTML to half the post. Sigh.

The links are clickable on the blog. If somebody knows how to post a PDF here I would be eternally grateful for some help so I could post the PDF which would have clickable links like on the blog.

RS, this is one of those dog in the tree moments, I guess. lol

[rolling_stone]

.....“7. Defendant, referring to Plaintiff’s own filing(s) and, more specifically citing this Affiant’s previous Affidavit quotes @ 5:

“Jacobsen Aff. (Dkt. #41-2 at 20 (observing that State maintains “some passport application records created between 1962 and 1978”)(emphasis added).”

8. Defendant(s), at the time this entry was made, knew, or should have known, that it was a misquote, and that it would result in a statement likely to mislead the court. Defendant(s) further had the hubris to add the emphasis to this misquote. The quote correctly reads, in its entirety, the following:

“the State Department maintains an electronic index of all passport application records created since 1978, and some passport application records created between 1962 and 1978.”

9. The wording deleted from the beginning of the quotation completely changes the meaning of the quote and makes it appear that DOS has only some passport application records created between 1962 and 1978 when the full quote actually refers to the electronic index.”

That deliberate edit in order to misconstrue the actual quote and to falsely accuse Jacobsen of admitting what he never admitted shows that the agency did not submit that claim “in good faith”. In addition, besides emphasizing the misquote, DOS further adds to their misquote the following statement:

“It therefore should not surprise anyone that State might locate some, but not all, applications submitted by a single individual over the course of decades.”

This argument appears to be used in furtherance of misleading the court. The first quote is incorrect and the following conclusion by DOS therefore is also incorrect as can be plainly seen.......

----- This alone (and brand new to the reply where Strunk had no chance of responding to before) looks like sufficient bad faith to me to prevent a summary judgment. I think any impartial judge would be upset that someone tried to pull this baloney in their court. I guess we will find out if our Judicial System has been taken over completely by the Usurper. If the court refuses to allow this case to go to trial, as you stated it will come up again and again, and the truth will come out sooner or later even if it has to wait till January and the Republicans take control of the house and Rep. Issa gets his book of subpoenas out. Is this all part of a big stall until after the election?

I checked the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, 3.3 it looks like this may fit to me.

Rule 3.3 - Candor to Tribunal (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) Make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer, unless correction would require disclosure of information that is prohibited by Rule 1.6;

(2) Counsel or assist a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good-faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, or application of the law;

(3) Fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction not disclosed by opposing counsel and known to the lawyer to be dispositive of a question at issue and directly adverse to the position of the client; or

(4) Offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false, except as provided in paragraph (b). A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/dc/code/DC_CODE.HTM#Rule_3.3(a)(1)

The most obvious question is WHY would an AUSA go to such lengths to mislead the court? Is Strunk's allegation of Fraud on the court correct? What is so important to hide to take such risks?

[patlin]

This is so bogus. If records prior to 1968 were destroyed, then how come files from Soetoro that are dated beginning in April of 1965 were released in the Allen case?

[American Constitutionalist]

Don't worry Butter, what they don't realize is that their involvement in this whole cover up is being documented by the public in case there is a investigation in all of this, and this is going to make WaterGate look like a church picnic.

[The Comedian]

The-FEMA-camps-will-end-up-housing-their-architects ping.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Bump and ping!

[wintertime]

There are NO afterbirthers responding to this thread.

Usually, they are on these natural born citizen threads within **SECONDS** ( literally!).

Also...Did you notice that there were almost no afterbirther response to the following thread:

“The Democratic Party of Hawaii refused to Certify Obama”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2593610/posts

[shield]

After the massacre of November 2nd...all kind of stuff will start popping up...the protection of this fraud will be over!!!!

[musicman]

BFLR