Nice follow-up on the hearing.
http://www.birthersummit.org/news/80-georgia-hearings-two-out-of-three-aint-bad.htmlGEORGIA HEARINGS – TWO OUT OF THREE AIN'T BAD
Posted by: Dean C. Haskins
dean@birthersummit.org
202.241.3648
Posted: January 30, 2012
© 2012 The Birther Summit
Download a PDF
Author's Request: If you are not going to read the conclusion of this article, please do not read any of it. Those whose critical thinking skills are limited, either genetically, or willfully, are required to read the conclusion at least three times before sending me your zombie hate mail.
Once again, in the days following the hearings that were conducted in Georgia on January 26, there has been a lot of spin and misinformation coming from our side; while much of it comes from simply being overzealous about the hearings, we must be vigilant to stay on the side of truth.
But, before I get into that, I want to explain some things about the issues that we faced with the live video streaming. I was brought into the live streaming process pretty late in the game, and while my background and experience are in studio audio, before this past week, I had never been involved in any live streaming video project. We did visit the courtroom on Wednesday to assess the layout, but the facility had no wireless internet available, and our wireless card that had been shipped to Atlanta had not yet arrived; so, we were not able to test the live streaming in the courtroom. Moreover, the Media was relegated to the rear of the courtroom, and there was no allowance for placing any microphones at the front.
Ultimately, we gained a mountain of experiential knowledge through this first attempt, and will use what we learned to perfect our future live video streaming projects.
The First Two Cases Heard
The courtroom was packed and hot, and there was a constant flurry of activity throughout the morning. Things were said, and half-explained, in the midst of the surrounding confusion, so I want to take a moment to clarify the essence of what happened, now that there's been some time to accurately recount the events of the day.
Just as we witnessed internet postings falsely proclaiming that many individuals had been “subpoenaed” or “ordered by a judge” to appear in Atlanta, as well as repeated claims of there being a “trial” (instead of what they were—administrative hearings), that same kind of self-serving, inaccurate headline-manufacturing has resulted in claims that a “judge has ordered that Obama will not appear on the Georgia ballot.” Folks, not only has that not happened, Judge Malihi will not be issuing any such “order.” He will only be issuing a recommendation to Secretary of State Kemp, who will ultimately decide.
Prior to the start of the hearings on Thursday, the judge called the three attorneys who were present into his chambers and said that he could award them a default order because the defendant did not show up, but the attorneys stated that they would prefer to present abbreviated versions of their arguments so that they would be on the record, in case there were any appeals.
Their having chosen to present evidence, therefore, precluded a default order, as such an order is awarded in the absence of any evidence being presented. The fact that evidence was presented means that Judge Malihi must make his recommendation based upon that evidence. It is the understanding of the first two attorneys to present their cases that, whichever way the judge decides will ultimately result in an appeal, and with their evidence being presented, they have prepared their cases to proceed to the highest court in the land, if necessary. The third case, as presented, didn't, and won't, go anywhere.
The cases presented by attorneys Irion and Hatfield had nothing to do with any claims regarding Obama's birthplace or his birth certificate. In fact, Van Irion's plaintiff stipulated to the birth certificate that had been posted online, which means that, for the purposes of his case, his plaintiff accepted its validity as part of the court record. He merely used what is claimed to be a valid birth certificate to establish the fact that Obama's father was a foreign national, and never a US citizen. Mark Hatfield's plaintiffs relied on parental divorce records to establish the same fact. Neither attorney was concerned with anything other than arguing that Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be president because of his father's lack of US citizenship.
At this point in the proceedings, and in light of the basis of much of the third case, I believe an attorney who either understood the law, or who had an actual interest in succeeding with that case, would have at least voiced an objection to attorney Irion's stipulation of the birth certificate, even if, for no other reason, than to have the objection entered into the record. However, the third attorney made no such objection.
Having quickly presented their evidence, the judge called for a brief recess, at which time, Irion and Hatfield asked for the record to be closed in their cases. While speculation resulted that they requested the closing of their cases to prevent the defendant from providing evidence, I do not believe that was their purpose, as was evidenced in their open, and calculated, exit from the courtroom before the beginning of the third hearing, and not returning. They wanted it understood that they would have nothing to do with the third case, and closed the record on their cases to keep the third case from diluting theirs.
Now, before proceeding with my report, let me say that, before Thursday, I had never personally met Orly Taitz. After she entered the courtroom, she approached the Media area, where I was standing with our live streaming equipment, and she asked, “Are you Dean Haskins?” I extended my hand and said, “Yes, how are you doing, Orly?” Without reciprocating the handshake, she stated, “I think it is about time for an apology,” to which I replied, “You can apologize to me anytime you want.” Through clenched teeth, Orly quietly seethed, “You're a piece of sh*t. You shouldn't even be here.” Classy.
It is not really necessary to go into a detailed analysis of Orly's presentation of her case, as there was little proffered that could be viewed as proper construction of a legal argument, or even a coherent presentation of evidence, but there are some points I believe need to be made.
As I have stated, Orly has grossly misrepresented the facts in her part of these cases, and, as I had previously remarked, any of the subpoenas she simply mailed to people who reside outside the state of Georgia weren't worth the paper on which the blank subpoena forms were downloaded and printed. Judge Malihi neither issued them, nor personally signed them. But, that's not what Orly stated to her faithful followers. Before the day of the hearings, jbjd came to the same conclusion. In fact, as many times as it has been pointed out that these were “administrative hearings” and not “trials,” Orly is still claiming her hearing was a trial. I have also recently read that Orly was “the principal attorney,” and that she “was the one responsible for these cases being heard.” That is an outright lie, as she injected herself into these cases very late in the process, and at the probable dismay of the other plaintiffs. It was the work of Swensson, Powell, Irion, Hatfield, and Weldon, which had been ongoing for more than two years, that brought these hearings to fruition.
As to my previous explanation that Orly's subpoena to Loretta Fuddy, which included a demand for certain documents of identification pertaining to Barack Obama, was completely unenforceable since Hawaii law prohibits the release of those documents to someone without a direct and tangible interest, and that a Georgia ALJ has no jurisdiction over Hawaii (something first-year law students would readily understand), Judge Malihi denied her request for that reason (although, as of this writing, Orly has chosen not to post that denial). Additionally, it appears that Orly may have knowingly gone outside the bounds of the law in a statement she made trying to coerce a Hawaiian court to provide certain documents to her.
On January 19, 2012, Orly filed an Ex Parte Amended Motion for Reconsideration under 60B in Honolulu, which was denied by Judge Nishamura. On page 5 of that motion is the following language: “I, Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, declare under penalty of perjury, that I was given commission and subpoena (attached) to conduct deposition and examination of records of witness Loretta Fuddy, Director of Health.” Interestingly, what she stated “under penalty of perjury” never happened. It was a lie. Not only did she never go before Judge Malihi to obtain a commission prior to January 26, on January 27 Judge Malihi denied her request for such commission due to lack of jurisdiction (precisely as predicted). I would be surprised if this little tidbit doesn't get included in whatever Deputy AG Nagamine files with Judge Nishamura concerning Taitz.
If there were any questions regarding whether or not Orly is truly interested in proving anything in a courtroom about Barack Obama, those questions were finally put to rest last Thursday. Putting aside the abysmal legal performance we have all come to expect (which was certainly replayed on Thursday), and seeing the constant shameless appeals for donations (since her expenses to conduct her HEARING were so great), why would Orly have spent the money to hire a personal professional videographer to capture her every move in the courtroom? If Orly's case wasn't all about Orly (rather than proving anything about Barack Obama), what possible motivation could she have had for such an extravagance? And, I'm not quite sure how she plans to use the footage of her transitioning from a closing argument, to taking the stand and testifying, and then back to a closing argument (at Judge Malihi's insistence), but it would probably be very useful in a “How-Not-To” video somewhere.
And, to what did she “testify”? While “testifying” about Barack Obama's Illinois Bar Application, Judge Malihi asked Orly what “personal knowledge” she had about the document (this is a common “legal” question), and Orly's response was that she had downloaded the image from the internet herself. Really? Did an attorney actually say that to a judge? I don't know if I could have been more embarrassed.
But, far and above the horrendous incompetence, unmerited self-promotion, and inexplicably inaccurate self-image, is Orly's proclivity still to throw people under the bus in an effort to provide cover for her ineptitude. While most everything about Orly's public persona is deplorable, this must be her most depraved character flaw.
In a ridiculous posting in which Orly spoke dishonestly about Sheriff Joe, she included abhorrent and wholly undeserved comments about Mara Zebest and Tom Harrigan (although, she didn't even get Mara's name correct). In essence, she stated that, if Zebest and Harrigan wouldn't agree to be a part of her absurd circus, then they are “totally worthless,” and “their opinion is of no value.” But, the fact that there was even a posting about Sheriff Joe in the first place should indicate to any sane individual that Orly is singularly the most damaging element of the entire eligibility movement (more on that in a minute).
It is clear that Orly does not want Sheriff Joe to garner any possible limelight for the efforts that he and his Cold Case Posse have expended, and her fake subpoena to him was an attempt to have that evidence presented as part of HER hearing (for then, she could somehow claim the evidence as her own). It needs to be understood that this is truly reprehensible behavior. To the one and only law enforcement official in the country who has stepped up to the plate and is conducting a thoroughly professional investigation, he deserves our utmost gratitude; but, after Sheriff Joe rightfully and commendably ignored Orly's downloaded unenforceable “subpoena,” Orly tried to elevate herself by diminishing him. That is censurable conduct, folks!
How can I assert that this was Orly's attempt to steal Sheriff Joe's evidence, and claim it as her own? From her website:
“Arpaio’s unwillingness to testify tells me that:
a. he does not have any new evidence aside from what I provided him.”
I have spoken several times with the Posse's lead investigator, and that statement couldn't be further from the truth. For those Orlyites out there, that is what is technically called a “lie.”
Also, Orly has been repeatedly vocal against proactive groups in our movement, such as Article2SuperPAC, ObamaReleaseYourRecords, Obama State Ballot Challenge, and GiveUsLiberty1776, but those entities deserve our full gratitude and support, as they are truly working for the benefit of our cause, and are not daily sabotaging it. Short of libel, I couldn't care less what Orly, or anyone else, says about me, but I will not stand idly by while she calls into question the characters and motivations of these good people.
I also commend jbjd.org as trustworthy commentary that cuts through the deceptive hype many in our movement have blindly accepted at face value.
Conclusion
Before sending me any hate emails like the ones I've already received, there are now ground rules involved. You must include this statement: “I, (state your name), declare under penalty of perjury, that I have read this conclusion at least three times.” Additionally, such hate mail must be constrained to refuting what I have stated. Personal attacks devoid of such refutation will demonstrate a lack of critical thinking skills on the part of the sender, and relegate such hate mail to the insignificant and unworthy of consideration.
Folks, I'm angry; not in a personal way, but fundamentally in regards to our cause. I have poured my time and energy into this issue as a quest for truth . . . nothing more, nothing less. When I see us publicly lauding disgraceful behavior, and honoring deception, then I fear we have lost our way in what we are doing. Such blanket approval of that is indicative of abject hatred overruling thoughtful objectivity. If we are willing to disregard truth and decency in our quest toward a goal, then we should re-examine our motivation for that goal.
On any given day, I can scroll through the headlines on Orly's website, and it literally turns my stomach. The contents are typically morally and ethically questionable; thus, I have a hard time believing that those who openly and totally support such, are not also lacking in morals and ethics—and I, personally, do not want to believe that! But, the tension that such an inconsistency produces in my conscience is the reason I believe I must speak up. I refuse to sear my conscience through my silence.
I am aware that most of those who are actually working in this movement do not disagree with me; however, there is a remnant who have not yet figured it out for themselves. To those who would accuse me of being “divisive,” or “hurting our cause,” if being truthful is divisive to a cause, then there's either something wrong with the cause, or the people within the cause. I cannot, in good conscience, tolerate aberrant behavior simply as a way to further the cause—and what some have not yet learned is that, as long as we do accept it, our cause will continue to be severely handicapped.
We have gained a toehold in Georgia (Orly had absolutely nothing to do with that, regardless of what she claims), and we owe a debt of gratitude to the plaintiffs and attorneys in the first two cases that were heard. However, if we continue to allow ourselves to be equated with the preposterous antics of the third case, we are doomed. The Media will always gravitate to that which makes it easiest to ridicule and vilify us—and, we saw that again this past week.
For those who are still unconvinced, take a few days and actually investigate the facts—and ignore every single word Orly says about Orly, or against anyone else. Obama himself could not have set into action a more brilliant ploy to keep him safe in the White House. If one forces himself to research and study the facts, apart from the repeatedly baseless claims, he will necessarily come to the same conclusion, for the facts themselves do not lie.
I am aware of so much more that I cannot divulge, as it would not be fair to those who have shared those things with me. If they want to come forward with such information, that will be up to them—I will not betray their confidence.
In the end, the hate emails I have received have been from those who are not aware of the truth (from a lack of real research, and reliance on the constant deception), cannot understand the truth, or who know the truth, but choose to ignore it. The last group are the ones I most fear regarding our cause, as they will ultimately be the “divisive” ones, and will be the ones who keep us relegated to the circus sideshow.
Again, if I must be hated for speaking the truth, then so be it. But, if you're going to send me a message to let me know just how much you hate me, it had better be because you can refute what I've said, and not because you just don't like it. I am completely open to being proved wrong where the facts are concerned—and, if you want to share your hatred with me, I hope you DO try to refute the facts, because then you will at least have to face them.
Peace, if possible, but the truth at any rate. - Martin Luther
