Posted on 08/06/2009 4:32:02 PM PDT by steve-b
On Saturday, Orly Taitz filed in federal court the forged Kenyan birth certificate for President Obama that she'd discovered. It lasted in the file for less than a week -- on Thursday, a judge ordered the motion that Taitz had submitted stricken from the court record....
In the order, which can be downloaded in PDF form here, the judge says the motion was improperly filed "for the following reasons: Lacks proper notice; improper form and format; Counsel failed to identify her Cal. State Bar No.; description of motion conflicts or differs from that which counsel entered on Court's e-docket."
Taitz could file another motion, accompanied again by the forged birth certificate -- but she'll have to overcome the mistakes she made with this filing, and that might prove difficult. The electronic court record for the case, in which she's representing Alan Keyes, among others, is filled with similar procedural errors on her part.
Not that it would matter anyway -- the document is a proven fake, and the Australian birth certificate on which it was apparently based has already been discovered. Plus, on Thursday an anonymous person came forward claiming to be the source of the forgery, and with evidence to suggest that it was all a hoax, one designed to further discredit the Birthers....
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
I love her dearly for her efforts to get the One, but I hope she could find a good para-legal to check her work. Only the obots have “proved” it a forgery.
barbra ann
Yeah, it says that they are eunuchs and scared rabbits.
It’s my understanding that before she became a “birther” she was/is a “truther”. That zeroes her out in my personal book.
The question as to which if either of the two docs are legitimate should be easy.
If one is a fifty year old paper doc, and one is pixels, I’d go with the paper. The pixel doc was probably made from the image of the other.
It doesn’t change the underlying question. It distracts from it, but doesn’t change it.
Where is the original Hawaiian birth certificate. And what citizenship did he claim in college.
They keep throwing out noise and fog and fake documents and fakes of fakes, insults and mockery, all to keep from answering what is really a simple question. Where’s the original, and what citizenship did you claim.
No Mark Levin type would touch it. This won't go anywhere at all because of the Hawaiian newspaper birth announcements. Sure, 0 could have been born in Kenya and the announcements be filed in Hawaii... that may have happened. But a reasonable man would see those announcements as completely innocuous.
Orly's explanation for the newspaper announcements strains one's credulity. One would have to be a conspiracy theorist of the nth degree to accept her explanation for them.
I am dropping out of this movement. It is time for the loyal opposition to spend our time fighting his policies, not attacking his legitimacy to be president.
Now there is a surprise. sarc/off
Orly may not be polished, we all knowshe is a little rough around the edges but she is on to something that none of us have yet been able to grab. Like many of us, she smell a RAT and wants to get to the bottom of the “birther” story.
One more thing, she has more “BALLS” than you can ever hope to have!
So using 39 SS numbers isn’t a problem either?? What has happened to America?
No it was thrown out because Orly is a flaming idiot that can't file a proper motion.
Throwing out the birth certificate for procedural reasons tells me an awful lot. He really really doesn’t want to rule on this!!! If she refiles, I have a feeling he will criticize the way she folded the paper.... The longer we wait for an answer from Orly, the more positive I feel that it is real. I am just very concerned about the safety of all involved.
Gee.... Couldn’t see that coming.
</sarcasm>
Says nothing about the birth certificate.
Throwing out a faked document is ‘cover up’??
LOL
As I said, there was NO FINDING that the Certificate was a Forgery....that's what I said.
I thought it was odd when the Federalist Society was suspiciously silent, not on the birth certificate, but just on Obama's eligibility based on his father's citizenship status (or lack thereof).
I anticipated that there would be some legitimate debate in conservative legal circles about the semantic intent of "natural born" citizen, and the fact that the court (any court) hasn't given any clarification or guidance with respect to the definition of that term of art.
But, for whatever reason, the only debate - to the extent that there was any - was focused solely on McCain's unique eligibility circumstances, and that was only in the very beginning of the campaign season.
It's interesting that Jonathan Turley (a man who's politics I disagree with, but I respect deeply as a Constitutional scholar) has been the one of the only professors to make much of a public statement about the issue - saying that he believes Obama to be clearly eligible, but that he should release his original BC.
Where to begin with this rank drivel?
What have done for your country lately, Nathan Hale?
The classic blathering of the Fatass American Couch Potatoe.
First I've heard of this, and I follow all this stuff pretty closely. Care to provide any sort of link or backup to this claim?
amazing how many people bash her (and how many of them signed up on FR around the elections...)
if you can do better... then STFU and prove it. otherwise you’re just flapping your pie hole and not helping to accomplish anything
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.