Posted on 01/13/2010 1:08:11 PM PST by Seizethecarp
Today I was in federal court for several hours. Rivernider vs US Bank. I testified against Orly Taitz. Orly Taitz was present as well and also testified.
In court today I watched as Orly Taitz told lie after lie while under oath on the witness stand. She claimed that she has never in her life given anyone permission to sign her signature. (This hearing today was about Orly's claim that Charles Edward Lincoln III forged her signature on a filing in Rivernider vs US Bank). Attorney Phil Berg was present as counsel to Charles Lincoln.
Phil Berg went on to question Orly Taitz as to why then, if she had never given anyone permission to sign her signature, why then had she while in Israel contacted Charles Lincoln and told him to advise one of her dental staff in California to sign her (Orly's) name to payrol checks for the employees. Orly Taitz started to reply with one story that her signature is not used on payrol checks but then Phil Berg asked her who then is it that signs off on employee hours to verify them for the payrol. At this time Orly then started in with a new story that she took payroll checks with her to Isael and signed the payrol checks there in Israel and mailed them to her dental employees from back in the USA. ???????????????? I don't think anyone bought that story.
At this time Orly started complaining that she was being badgered and that she objects and a string of other legal terms that, depending on what she said, was either the role of witness, attorney and even the role of judge.
Two members of the website, Politijab.com, were present.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Your link is a noteworthy factoid, but not at all determinative to me. One listing in a society database, perhaps in remote Nairobi, subject to possible keypunch error or taken over the phone and spelled phonetically says little to me.
If you Google “Helton Maganga” you get numerous current local Mombasa Kenya news stories with that spelling. I consider numerous newspaper stories confirming this spelling to be more significant than very few alternative spellings elsewhere. When I said newspapers don't count, I meant specifically the few outlier alternative spellings that have been jumped on as proof Smith's document is a hoax.
The burden of proof of a hoax based on a preponderance of evidence seems to me to be on those who claim an alternative spelling of the name Helton. I find it significant that Helton Maganga himself has not been produced to journalists to personally refute Smith's BC. Helton Maganga’s stamp and signature and seal have not been produced to show a different spelling or appearance. That should be the easiest thing to do if Smith's BC were a hoax. This absence of Maganga is most suspicious.
On the other hand, if Helton Maganga did sign/stamp the copy of the CPGH BC Smith has, it is totally understandable that he would clam up and not make himself available to the press or inquiries. Until proper legal discovery and authentication in Kenya is ordered and allowed, subject to credible corruption controls, we may never know the truth about the BC.
“If, after discovery, a jury or judge could be persuaded that the Kenya BC was more credible than the HI vital records, a jury or judge might find Obama to have been born in Kenya. Judge Carter doesn’t allow for the possibility of a Kenya BC “win”.”
No. No. No. No. A thousand times no. (Why is it that laypeople would never attempt to question the nuances of a surgical procedure but have no problem questioning the nuances of the law?)
Carter allows for the possiblity of a “win” for a fully certified and vetted Kenyan Birth Certificate presented to the court properly under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Anything is possible with evidence.
The conjecture you are hung up on is that if a certified Hawaiian birth certificate is presented along with a certified Kenyan birth certificate, the tie will most likely go to the document produced by Hawaii. Why? Because the Rules presume that certified and authenticated US government documents are valid.
In the scenario of two certified documents - one from Hawaii and one from Kenya - the presumption is with the defendant. The burden of proof would therefore shift back to Orly to prove that the certified Hawaiian document is invalid.
Orly and her followers have no concept of the burden of proof and it is maddening. She has to prove that the Kenyan document is valid. Then she has to prove that any Hawaiian document is invalid. I’m sorry. But them’s the breaks.
All of this is moot by the way. Because she presented a worthless piece of paper to the court. She did absolutely no legwork and asked the court to try to validate it for her.
“In the scenario of two certified documents - one from Hawaii and one from Kenya - the presumption is with the defendant. The burden of proof would therefore shift back to Orly to prove that the certified Hawaiian document is invalid.”
Thank you for pointing out that the tie goes to the defendant. Judge Carter seemed to me to be saying the tie goes to the US document, but I can see that by your logic he was stating that in the event of a tie in this case, the win goes to the defendant who happens to have a US authenticated document.
You say that Orly's two BCs (Lavender and Smith) are worthless, but this was not an evidentiary hearing and the provenance, in a trial on the merits, could have been proved up in discovery including an authentication by a Kenyan authority, but Judge Carter precluded that.
You say the “burden of proof would therefore shift back to Orly to prove that the certified Hawaiian document is invalid” but there has never been a certified HI BC document entered into evidence in a US court. The Factcheck COLB is also “worthless” until “proved up” at trial.
Judge Carter, by granting the motion to dismiss, precluded discovery of the original HI vital records, which in my understanding is “best evidence” under the FRE of the source record for the Factcheck short-form COLB.
Thus Judge Carter precluded Taitz from the possibility of being able to authenticate the Kenyan BC. Taitz was denied the possibility of submitting evidence that the Kenya BC was more credible than the HI vital records, records which may well contain amendments that undermine credibility.
That is what discovery is supposed to establish through evidence obtained and submitted under the FRE.
To recap: Carter presumed that the best case for Taitz, even with discovery, was a tie and I say that was an error! Clearly, the best case for Taitz was to undermine the HI vital records and show that the Kenya BC was more reliable. To justify his Rule 12(b)(6) grant of dismissal Carter was required to anticipate the best outcome for the plaintiff and dismiss only if that outcome couldn't prevail. Carter was required to anticipate the best outcome for Taitz, and he didn't do that, not that she as a lawyer could have pulled it off or that any Kenyan official authentication would be forthcoming, but that wasn't the issue at the Oct. 5 hearing.
“In the scenario of two certified documents - one from Hawaii and one from Kenya - the presumption is with the defendant. The burden of proof would therefore shift back to Orly to prove that the certified Hawaiian document is invalid.”
Thank you for pointing out that the tie goes to the defendant. Judge Carter seemed to me to be saying the tie goes to the US document, but I can see that by your logic he was stating that in the event of a tie in this case, the win goes to the defendant who happens to have a US authenticated document.
You say that Orly's two BCs (Lavender and Smith) are worthless, but this was not an evidentiary hearing and the provenance, in a trial on the merits, could have been proved up in discovery including an authentication by a Kenyan authority, but Judge Carter precluded that.
You say the “burden of proof would therefore shift back to Orly to prove that the certified Hawaiian document is invalid” but there has never been a certified HI BC document entered into evidence in a US court. The Factcheck COLB is also “worthless” until “proved up” at trial.
Judge Carter, by granting the motion to dismiss, precluded discovery of the original HI vital records, which in my understanding is “best evidence” under the FRE of the source record for the Factcheck short-form COLB.
Thus Judge Carter precluded Taitz from the possibility of being able to authenticate the Kenyan BC. Taitz was denied the possibility of submitting evidence that the Kenya BC was more credible than the HI vital records, records which may well contain amendments that undermine credibility.
That is what discovery is supposed to establish through evidence obtained and submitted under the FRE.
To recap: Carter presumed that the best case for Taitz, even with discovery, was a tie and I say that was an error! Clearly, the best case for Taitz was to undermine the HI vital records and show that the Kenya BC was more reliable. To justify his Rule 12(b)(6) grant of dismissal Carter was required to anticipate the best outcome for the plaintiff and dismiss only if that outcome couldn't prevail. Carter was required to anticipate the best outcome for Taitz, and he didn't do that, not that she as a lawyer could have pulled it off or that any Kenyan official authentication would be forthcoming, but that wasn't the issue at the Oct. 5 hearing.
You still aren’t getting it. You are close. But you aren’t there.
Orly’s argument is that the only way she can authenticate the BC is through discovery. In other words, she admits that she does not have a basis for a complaint until the court accepts her complaint and helps her.
That court can’t help her. She needs to authenticate it on her own.
She’s trapped in a circular argument that she can’t get out of. I need to have a trial in order to have a case worthy of going to trial. The discovery process does not exist in order to create a cause of action.
This is the analogy: I see you are an accountant. I think you defrauded me. I have absolutely no proof of this. But I suspect that if I could get access to your bank account and file, I would have evidence.
Should I be able to go to court and demand access to your bank account based on a suspiscion that funds of mine are in it?
The other problem Orly is having is that she seems to believe that she is a criminal prosecutor, not a plaintiff’s attorney.
I'm not defending Taitz as an attorney or her tactics. You have changed the subject to Taitz’s tactical shortcomings from the issue I have which is Judge Carter's presumption that even if Taitz had obtained authentication in Kenya and release of vital records in HI, she could not prevail.
I support Carter's decision that once Obama was sworn it, Taitz’s quo warranto complaint was in the wrong court. If Carter had accepted the case as quo warranto, the burden of proof, including NBC and HI vital records authentication, would have been on Obama, as it will be if Donofrio succeeds in getting his filing into the DC Circuit.
At some point, the weird little Donofrio cult is going to realize that he has just been messing with your heads for the last year. He has no intention of filing quo warranto, because he knows it’s not going to go anywhere.
Are you disagreeing with Judge Carter's affirmation of Donofrio on this point?
While some of Donofrio’s followers get a bit cult-like I personally have challenged him on numerous occasion on his blog, some of which he allowed in and some he screened out.
For example I told him that his whole NBC premise would fail if there was no Dunham-Obama marriage to transmit UK citizenship to BHO II under the 1948 BNA. He snipped my comment, but not without accusing me of smearing Obama. Then I reminded him that in “Dreams” Obama himself speculated that his parents might not have been married.
Soon after that, Donofrio developed a keen interest in the birth and marriage vital record index in HI and the marriage index was found, which elated Donofrio.
I then had the cheek to suggest that BHO Sr's marriage to Kezia might make the HI marriage bigamous thus blocking dual citizenship for BHO II. But Donofrio insisted that it was legally sufficient to ignore that and rely on Obama’s “admission against interest” that BHO Sr. was his father and the claim by his campaign that Obama was “governed by the BNA of 1948.”
Then I said Obama would probably throw the 1948 BNA under the bus and claim that his parents marriage was bigamous, if it would save his NBC status.
So you can see, I am not a Donofrio cult follower.
What I am hoping to come out of Donofrio’s quo warranto is discovery of the HI vital records which Obama might be compelled to release. I am sure Obama will fight release all the way and claim the short-form is sufficient.
In my view, the only threat to Obama’s NBC status is evidence in the HI vital records that shows a Kenya birth prior to amendment, or a report of a home birth that could, if false, allow for a Kenya birth .
This could take a long time and be a very long shot. It will all depend on how long Obama can delay discovery of the HI vital records.
Quo warranto is only available in DC. That’s the law. Carter correctly stated the law.
I’m not sure that the DOJ said it did not apply to POTUS. What was alleged to have been said in Carter’s court and what is in the transcript is often two entirely different things.
You keep referring to Donofrio’s quo warranto case. Where is it? Is he going to file it this decade?
If you want to engage in name calling, there are a few I could toss your way.
Why is it again that we should trust you're telling the truth this time?
Kenyan newspaper have spelled his name both ways. In fact, in Swahili names are spelled phonetically as they sound and do not follow a set standard as to a particular spelling.
Yes, I am aware that spelling can differ. That aside, what matters here is how Helton/Heltan spells his name.
I am sure. I was referring to the actual court reporter's transcript, not the amateur eyewitness version.
DOJ went on at length about how unlike other federal officials POTUS was vetted by electors and the Congress.
Donofrio missed this at first and mistakenly posted an article claiming that DOJ affirmed that the POTUS could be subject to quo warranto in DC. I cut and pasted from the transcript to him showing he was wrong, which he declined to post on the blog.
Then later, after Judge Carter affirmed DC quo warranto for POTUS, Donofrio posted a correct story reporting that the DOJ’s claim that QW didn't apply to POTUS had been refuted by Judge Carter.
Donofrio is about two weeks overdue from when he said he would file the QW. If it remains to his clients advantage, I believe he will file it. If he can use refraining from filing QW as a bargaining chip to his clients advantage to leverage a settlement, he will be ethically bound not to file it.
As luck would have it, in a related thread the exact portion of the transcript has been posted with Mr. West arguing for the DOJ defense team:
THE COURT: Now, I understand a
08:57 4 quo warranto going to the D.C. Circuit. But is that your
08:57 5 position also, that if there ever was a resolution by a
08:57 6 Court, that it should be in the D.C. Circuit?
08:57 7 MR. WEST: I don’t believe that quo warranto is
08:57 8 applicable to the President of the United States. I would
08:57 9 not concede that.
08:57 10 However, if it were, the only statute that we know
08:57 11 of that would cover this kind of a situation would be the
08:57 12 D.C. statute. But I think that we’re not conceding at all
08:57 13 that quo warranto would apply to the President of the
08:57 14 United States.
As can be seen from this record, the DOJ can be expected to request that the DC Circuit dismiss any Donofrio filing of quo warranto. Just because Judge Carter ruled that quo warranto was to right place for the Taitz/Kreep quo warranto doesn't mean that the DC Circuit will agree, so there is the first appeal to expect from any Donofrio QW filing.
Then, if DOJ fails to dismiss QW on that basis and the matter goes to a jury, DOJ will claim that the HI short-form COLB, as a self-authenticating document under the FRE, should be entirely sufficient to prove Obama’s HI birth. Donofrio will assert that “best evidence” under FRE requires release of HI original vital records from birth including all amendments.
JB Williams
Canada Free Press
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999
(snip)
Every member of the Supreme Court, every member of congress, every member of the Joint Chiefs, most members of the DOD, CIA, FBI, Secret Service and state run media, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, Fox and print news, knows that Barack Hussein Obama does NOT meet Article II – Section I constitutional requirements for the office he holds. By his own biography, there is NO way he can pass the test. The hard evidence is so far beyond overwhelming, it is ridiculous.
(snip)
But not ONE member of America’s most powerful people will dare confront Obama and his anti-American cabal on the subject. The Constitution does NOT stand.
(snip)
Half of the people you expect to stop this insanity are quiet co-conspirators in the silent coup. The other half is paralyzed by fear, motivated only by political self-preservation.
(Snip)
Americans keep asking what they can do because they see that none of their leaders are doing anything to stop the demise of their beloved country. It’s the right question, because those leaders are NOT going to stop this thing.
(Snip)
WHO WILL SAVE FREEDOM?
A brave few… This is how it was in the beginning, how it has always been and how it will be.
(Snip)
DR. ORLY TAITZ, Phil Berg and Gary Kreep, ALL OF WHOM HAVE MADE DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE A PERSONAL AMBITION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONSTITUTION LEADERSHIP.
(Snip)
A PRECIOUS FEW, BUT THEY EXIST… and the walls are indeed closing in on Obama and his evil cabal. IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FAIL TO GET BEHIND THESE BRAVE FEW WHO ARE SEEKING PEACEFUL REDRESS, ALL THE PEACEFUL OPTIONS WILL EVAPORATE AS IF THEY NEVER EXISTED. WE WILL RETURN TO A PRE-1776 AMERICA OVERNIGHT..
Do YOU fear Obama?
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999
___________________________________
A precious few, indeed. Lets get behind those few brave patriots who are out there in the trenches every day working to prove Obama’s inelgibility:
Dr. Orly has put her life’s blood into this fight. SHE HAS MADE DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE A PERSONAL AMBITION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONSTITUTION LEADERSHIP FROM COWARDLY REPUBLICANS AND THE SCOTUS.
Dr. Orly is the ONLY one out there in the trenches EVERY day hitting Obama on multiple fronts and trying to bring him down. It is reported that she is more than $8,000 in debt from using her own funds for expenses in her flights across the U.S for interviews, speeches, serving papers and meeting with officials.
She has even gone to Isreal and Russia to spread the message about Obama’s inelgibility!
She states the case expertly, including the bc and natural born citizen aspect, when not abused by the U.S. state-controlled media. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132880
Sure, Dr. Orly makes mistakes. We all do. But Dr. Orly is no dummy. How many of us could go to a foreign country, learn 5 languages, establish a successful dental practice, a successful real estate business AND pass the California state bar- one of the hardest in the U.S. to pass?
She may be a ‘mail order’ attorney and not a Harvard lawyer, but she IS an attorney with all the rights and privilages of a Harvard lawyer nevertheless!
The point is; she has the passion, the zeal, the courage of her convictions and the love of America and its freedoms (unlike many of our ‘great’ attorneys and ‘patriots’ who criticize her) that will not let her give up!
She is exhausted. She is nervous. She is frustrated. It is reported that she gets by on 4-5 hours of sleep per night, and her family is very worried about her health- as well as her safety.
She makes mistakes. But she will NOT give up. She will keep on until she gets it right.
So let’s get behind this great little Russian refugee and great American patriot.
Stop tearing her apart. The Obots on FR don’t need our help.
The obots are scared to death of this little lady and her determination. That’s why they come out in droves all over the net on forums, chat rooms and even the national news to attack and ridicule.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcChG5pRTOE&feature=player_embedded
How can she love what she doesn't know?
sorry lucysmom is not Greatkim her/himself. Lucysmom is most probably a very attentive reader and curious about Lucas Smith and his tanking career as a professional hoaxter.
Lucas Smith,
I have given you sufficient time to explain two apparent major flaws in your BC:
1 the name mispelling
2 the fact that the Chief Administrator on Feb 19th 2009 was not the one listed, stamped, undersigned on your fraud.
Concerning point 1 you insist with the articles spelling Helton instead of Heltan. You never mention the video and the Kenyan Health directory.
Concerning point 2, all sources I have provided, state that Othigo and not Maganga was CA on the date of your fraud.
The best explanation you have brought up is the possibility of dual Chief Administratorship at CPGH since the University of Ghent in Belgium has 2 chief administrators.
All you have provided are continuous distractions (such as your intention to run as President or your crusade against Orly Taitz).
There is nothing substantial about you Mr.Smith. All your life is a gigantic hoax. Your criminal record tells me that every single move you take is a hoax. Probably you are unable to conceive anything but hoaxes. You should be ashamed of yourself.
that is a very good find. Two different health directories both spelling Maganga Heltan Mnjama !
http://sskenya.org/?page_id=254
http://www.healthoutsource.co.ke/directory/healthdirectory.php?id=1199
but I wish to remember that however devastating the mispelling of the name is for Lucas the question about who was CA on Feb 19th is maybe even more relevant.
Until April 2009 it was Dr.Jennifer Othigo
http://www.nation.co.ke/InDepth/-/452898/560148/-/tqw6oqz/-/index.html
First articles about Maganga as CA are from June 2009
http://www.nation.co.ke/News/-/1056/612678/-/ukb32e/-/index.html
Surely this is someone who has experienced this and who does not suffer from obvious bipolar disorder.
Seriously, there are hundreds of thousands attorneys in this country and Tony Soprano’s mistress is leading the charge on this issue.
As a citizen (assuming she is a citizen) she doesn't understand our Constitution; the separation of powers, the role of the judiciary (nor apparently do her followers).
As a lawyer, she doesn't understand the difference between a technicality (service) and merit (standing). She doesn't understand that the courts have indulged her in every possible way they could without overstepping their Constitutional role.
Freedom is not absolute. We are not free to drive at 90 mph through a 25 mph zone, nor are the courts free to hear cases that do not meet the legal definition of standing.
Hmm - that would seem to present a problem for Mr. Smith.
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.