BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

Msottement
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:24 pm

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#176

Post by Msottement » Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:16 pm

Yabbut, Taitz is not suing to overturn the 2008 election any more (well . . . not yet). She is suing under that magical statute called RICO that allows you to get TREBLE DAMAGES for your losses as a result of defendants' racketeering activity -- apparently without proof of anything.So Keyes can have all three of the Senate seats in Illinois?(Hold on, something about that seems like it wouldn't work...)



Somerset
Posts: 3469
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Shenzhen, China
Occupation: Lab rat

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#177

Post by Somerset » Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:20 pm

Yabbut, Taitz is not suing to overturn the 2008 election any more (well . . . not yet). She is suing under that magical statute called RICO that allows you to get TREBLE DAMAGES for your losses as a result of defendants' racketeering activity -- apparently without proof of anything.So Keyes can have all three of the Senate seats in Illinois?(Hold on, something about that seems like it wouldn't work...)I wouldn't be surprised if O'rly really, truly believes that Keyes would be entitled to three senatorial terms.



User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7332
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#178

Post by raicha » Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:49 pm

Yabbut, Taitz is not suing to overturn the 2008 election any more (well . . . not yet). She is suing under that magical statute called RICO that allows you to get TREBLE DAMAGES for your losses as a result of defendants' racketeering activity -- apparently without proof of anything.She already invoked RICO in the CEL3-authored First Amended Complaint, filed three years ago and dismissed by Judge Carter:





Finally, the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment from this court determining whether certain crimes of fraud relating to identity or fraudulent use of sensitive individually identifying information (such as social security numbers or selective service applications) have been committed and concealed by some of the defendants, acting jointly or severally whether or not in formal conspiracy, which would constitute predicate acts of racketeering within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq., and thus whether the Presidency of the United States, in 2008, was procured by and through a pattern of racketeer influenced and corruptly organized activities. Injunctive relief concerning such activities will also be sought, although the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint does not include any prayer for damages although the Plaintiffs reserve their right further to amend their pleadings as this case progresses, especially once FOIA disclosures and discovery begins.


and...





Reservation of Pleadings under 18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq.





123. Plaintiffs reallege ¶¶1-121 as if fully copied and restated herein, and incorporate the material allegations and legal contentions articulated in the same.





124. Plaintiffs have accumulated several dossiers of evidence against Barack Hussein Obama which suggest, in addition to the multiple addresses and social security numbers described above, that the President and his allies and some of the co-defendants in this case may have committed, or still be in the process of committing, some fairly serious violations of U.S. law, especially the provisions of titles 18 and 42.





125. Because of the complexity of RICO pleading, and because there is presently a rush of time to get the pleadings in this case lodged and served, Plaintiffs reserve their pleadings of allegations under RICO for their Second Amended Complaint, and ask that the Court accept their filings of such pleadings when submitted without further leave of court, because it would have been desirable to consolidate and present all Plaintiffs’ viable claims at the present time.In alleging standing regarding the racketeering allegation:





5. Plaintiffs with unique political standing include Wiley S. Drake, Alan Keyes, Gail Lightfoot, and Markham Robinson who all appeared on the California ballot as candidates for President or Vice-President in the 2008 national Presidential elections; if Defendants Barack H. Obama and any of his co-defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering as alleged above, these Plaintiffs were injured in their business interests because they have business interests in their candidacies for President or Vice-President.


The 9th Circuit ruled that this "unique political standing" expired once the President took office. At the time the complaint was filed, candidate standing was dead.





Eh.





Why am I spending any neurons on this?



User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#179

Post by SueDB » Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:51 pm

Yes, but you are entertained just like the rest of us.


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41901
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#180

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:57 pm

Pffffft. It hasn't been a year since the decision in [/break1]ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/01/17/09-56827.pdf]Drake and Keyes v. Obama. Taitz has a year to get her shit together.





Puh-leez.





Just be happy Taitz didn't name Michelle Obama again. She still might.



User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7332
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#181

Post by raicha » Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:14 pm

Pffffft. It hasn't been a year since the decision in [/break1]ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/01/17/09-56827.pdf]Drake and Keyes v. Obama. Taitz has a year to get her shit together.





Puh-leez.





Just be happy Taitz didn't name Michelle Obama again. She still might.Yup. That's exactly what the 9th Circuit said ;) :





RICO CLAIMS





Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to determine “whether certain crimes of fraud relating to identity or fraudulent use of sensitive individually identifying information . . . have been committed and concealed by some of the defendants, acting jointly or severally whether or not in formal conspiracy, which would constitute predicate acts of racketeering within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961


et seq.” Plaintiffs did not, however, plead any RICO allegations and only stated that they “have accumulated several dossiers of evidence against [Obama] which suggest . . . that the President and his allies and some of the co-defendants in this case may have committed, or still be in the process of committing, some fairly serious violations of U.S. law.” Plaintiffs instead expressly reserved, in their First Amended Complaint, pleadings under RICO for their Second Amended Complaint due to the “complexity of RICO pleading.” 6





6 Plaintiffs never filed a motion for leave of court to file a Second Amended Complaint and only mentioned in passing such a request in their motion for reconsideration, filed on November 9, 2009, after the District Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss.





...





The District Court found Plaintiffs’ “failure to do so inexcusable.”



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41901
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#182

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:29 pm

Yabbut she's seeking leave now. Doncha get it? Also, she has new evidence: the Georgia case, Sheriff Joe's investigation, and much much more.Didn't you read the proposed second amended complaint for RICO by Ambassador Keyes against Barack Obama that Taitz filed as an exhibit, as she was required to do? It meets all the pleading requirements for a RICO case. In Orlylaw.



User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 8645
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a joint project of the U.S. and Canada
Contact:

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#183

Post by Kriselda Gray » Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:02 am

Out of all the bizarre shite that Taitz has thrown against a wall, I find her renewed claims that Keyes has "standing" to be particularly poopy.





[...]





Keyes' "standing" has not improved with time. Taitz' current emphasis on the 2004 Senate race does not cure the defects identified the 9th Circuit in this very case 18 months ago.What about any hypothetical standing he might have or have had for the 2012 race? If you don't want to answer that publicly to avoid helping her (by either letting her know there *might* be a circumstance where he *might* have standing OR by confirming for her that he doesn't have standing, leading her to consider other options for getting the case heard as well) then feel free to PM me if you prefer (or just say nothing, I know you're busy!)





Thx





~k


Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush

SCMP = SovCits/Militias/Patriots.

Thor promised to slay the Ice Giants
God promised to quell all evil
-----
I'm not seeing any Ice Giants...

User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7332
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#184

Post by raicha » Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:09 am

What about any hypothetical standing he might have or have had for the 2012 race? If you don't want to answer that publicly to avoid helping her (by either letting her know there *might* be a circumstance where he *might* have standing OR by confirming for her that he doesn't have standing, leading her to consider other options for getting the case heard as well) then feel free to PM me if you prefer (or just say nothing, I know you're busy!)Thx ~kThe 9th said:Once the 2008 election was over and the President sworn in, Keyes, Drake, and Lightfoot were nolonger “candidates” for the 2008 general election. Moreover, they have not alleged any interest in running against President Obama in the future. Therefore, none of the plaintiffs could claim that they would be injured by the “potential loss of an election.”



User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 8645
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a joint project of the U.S. and Canada
Contact:

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#185

Post by Kriselda Gray » Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:37 am

The 9th said:Once the 2008 election was over and the President sworn in, Keyes, Drake, and Lightfoot were nolonger “candidates” for the 2008 general election. Moreover, they have not alleged any interest in running against President Obama in the future. Therefore, none of the plaintiffs could claim that they would be injured by the “potential loss of an election.” Ok, but since that was written, haven't they expressed an interest in running against Obama? I thought that was part of Orly's new thing - that they were running for pres for 2012 and that gave them standing. Obviously, I'm just confused as usual.... :/


Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush

SCMP = SovCits/Militias/Patriots.

Thor promised to slay the Ice Giants
God promised to quell all evil
-----
I'm not seeing any Ice Giants...

Somerset
Posts: 3469
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Shenzhen, China
Occupation: Lab rat

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#186

Post by Somerset » Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:43 am

The 9th said:Once the 2008 election was over and the President sworn in, Keyes, Drake, and Lightfoot were nolonger “candidates” for the 2008 general election. Moreover, they have not alleged any interest in running against President Obama in the future. Therefore, none of the plaintiffs could claim that they would be injured by the “potential loss of an election.” Ok, but since that was written, haven't they expressed an interest in running against Obama? I thought that was part of Orly's new thing - that they were running for pres for 2012 and that gave them standing. Obviously, I'm just confused as usual.... :/Just a guess, but I'd think that would entail a new lawsuit, not a resurrection of a dead one.



User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 14572
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#187

Post by Suranis » Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:48 am

So... Keys has standing as he now would be running for his second term if that meany Obama hadn't been in his way the first time?


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14461
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#188

Post by RTH10260 » Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:52 am

Let's see Treble Damages means times 3 so....0 x 3 = 0How we doing with math so far. I know it is beyond Orly, but what the hell.Orlena insists that Keyes lost his senatorial benefits =))



User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#189

Post by SueDB » Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:01 am

Let's see Treble Damages means times 3 so....0 x 3 = 0How we doing with math so far. I know it is beyond Orly, but what the hell.Orlena insists that Keyes lost his senatorial benefits =))And he still has lost what he never had. =)) =)) =))


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7332
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#190

Post by raicha » Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:48 am

The 9th said:Once the 2008 election was over and the President sworn in, Keyes, Drake, and Lightfoot were nolonger “candidates” for the 2008 general election. Moreover, they have not alleged any interest in running against President Obama in the future. Therefore, none of the plaintiffs could claim that they would be injured by the “potential loss of an election.” Ok, but since that was written, haven't they expressed an interest in running against Obama? I thought that was part of Orly's new thing - that they were running for pres for 2012 and that gave them standing. Obviously, I'm just confused as usual.... :/Keyes is the only one she is pushing forward now. He did not/has not run in 2012. Taitz is basing "standing" on the fact that he ran in the past - for President in 2008 and for Senate in 2004.Standing has been decided in this case regarding this plaintiff. RICO has been dismissed in this case as she has already filed a RICO claim and failed to pursue it 3 years ago.



User avatar
Jocelyn9596
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 5:50 am

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#191

Post by Jocelyn9596 » Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:16 pm

Pffffft. It hasn't been a year since the decision in [/break1]ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/01/17/09-56827.pdf]Drake and Keyes v. Obama. Taitz has a year to get her shit together.





Puh-leez.





Just be happy Taitz didn't name Michelle Obama again. She still might.Yup. That's exactly what the 9th Circuit said ;) :





RICO CLAIMS





Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to determine “whether certain crimes of fraud relating to identity or fraudulent use of sensitive individually identifying information . . . have been committed and concealed by some of the defendants, acting jointly or severally whether or not in formal conspiracy, which would constitute predicate acts of racketeering within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961


et seq.” Plaintiffs did not, however, plead any RICO allegations and only stated that they “have accumulated several dossiers of evidence against [Obama] which suggest . . . that the President and his allies and some of the co-defendants in this case may have committed, or still be in the process of committing, some fairly serious violations of U.S. law.” [highlight]Plaintiffs instead expressly reserved, in their First Amended Complaint, pleadings under RICO for their Second Amended Complaint due to the “complexity of RICO pleading.”[/highlight] 6





6 Plaintiffs never filed a motion for leave of court to file a Second Amended Complaint and only mentioned in passing such a request in their motion for reconsideration, filed on November 9, 2009, after the District Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss.





...





The District Court found Plaintiffs’ “failure to do so inexcusable.”IANAL but is this the part of Orlylaw where she tells the court in her 1st Amended Complaint that there is going to be, ACCORDING TO JUDGE ORLY, =)) a 2nd Amended Complaint and that's where she's going to [highlight]TRY[/highlight] to put her actual RICO violations, or at least a few that she understands or thinks apply, into actual words??





Or have I lost all understanding of Orlylaw?? :(( :((



User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8463
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#192

Post by verbalobe » Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:42 am

IANAL but is this the part of Orlylaw where she tells the court in her 1st Amended Complaint that there is going to be, ACCORDING TO JUDGE ORLY, =)) a 2nd Amended Complaint and that's where she's going to [highlight]TRY[/highlight] to put her actual RICO violations, or at least a few that she understands or thinks apply, into actual words??





Or have I lost all understanding of Orlylaw?? :(( :((No, you're close. But that only comes into play under the 'Tom & Jerry' gambit, where the court 'indirectly' 'confirms' that it will look favorably on Orly's pleadings, but ONLY if she meets certain filing rules, etc., herein set forth.





When that happens, she spins like a top and spews new paperwork that she thinks conforms to the newly clarified 'rules.' (See, ALJ BFF Malihi, Hon. BFF S.K. Reid, etc.)





Of course, anything she produces is, and ever will be, nothing, like we've seen.



User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7332
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#193

Post by raicha » Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:43 am

In the First Amended Complaint, she cried "RICO" but didn't do any more than that. She kinda put in a placeholder: "I think a RICO conspiracy occurred and I want to tell you all about it later".Later never came and the case was dismissed. Judge Carter ruled that the failure to fully lay out the RICO claim was "inexcusable" and dismissed the RICO placeholder along with everything else. The 9th Circuit agreed with Judge Carter that "plaintiffs" (including Keyes) had inexcusably waited too long to press the RICO claim.If it was too late then, it is probably too late now.



User avatar
Jocelyn9596
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 5:50 am

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#194

Post by Jocelyn9596 » Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:11 am

In the First Amended Complaint, she cried "RICO" but didn't do any more than that. She kinda put in a placeholder: "I think a RICO conspiracy occurred and I want to tell you all about it later".





Later never came and the case was dismissed. Judge Carter ruled that the failure to fully lay out the RICO claim was "inexcusable" and dismissed the RICO placeholder along with everything else. The 9th Circuit agreed with Judge Carter that "plaintiffs" (including Keyes) had inexcusably waited too long to press the RICO claim.





If it was too late then, it is probably too late now.Yabbut, now Orly haz daffydavid from Shurf Joe! :-k Betcha she didn't have daffydavids with her first zibits? Mebbe they can even watch the historical hysterical trial with the empty chair, too. [-(





I just went through a few REAL Complaints on Scribd regarding RICO conspiracies. =)) =)) You have to admit, Orly couldn't submit a complaint with the magnitude of evidence and detail it would require no matter how much time she was given. Is she trying to scare them with her complaint, hoping they'll give in because she's cried, "RICO"? Not that it would work, but she doesn't know that.





Wouldn't a competent attorney be concerned about these frivolous filings that are outdated and w/o substance in regard to their law license or is there no cause for her to be concerned in this case? I've read the many things that the attorneys on here have said about Orly and find it impossible to believe that she has suffered so little in a professional sense for her conduct.



TexasFilly
Posts: 17212
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#195

Post by TexasFilly » Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:32 am

I've read the many things that the attorneys on here have said about Orly and find it impossible to believe that she has suffered so little in a professional sense for her conduct.Believe it. La Taitz has violated just about every one of the Rules of Professional Conduct (except for stealing from her clients, that we know of) and the CA Bar does nothing.


I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill!

User avatar
ObjectiveDoubter
Posts: 3404
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:19 pm
Location: Hollywood (more or less)

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#196

Post by ObjectiveDoubter » Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:39 am

I've read the many things that the attorneys on here have said about Orly and find it impossible to believe that she has suffered so little in a professional sense for her conduct.Believe it. La Taitz has violated just about every one of the Rules of Professional Conduct (except for stealing from her clients, that we know of) and the CA Bar does nothing.Only because she's never had any paying client to steal from, I am sure. =))



User avatar
Jocelyn9596
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 5:50 am

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#197

Post by Jocelyn9596 » Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:47 am

I've read the many things that the attorneys on here have said about Orly and find it impossible to believe that she has suffered so little in a professional sense for her conduct.Believe it. La Taitz has violated just about every one of the Rules of Professional Conduct (except for stealing from her clients, that we know of) and the CA Bar does nothing.Being a medical professional, I'm a Nurse Practitioner, it's her lack of ethical behavior that is appalling. For her to make slanderous accusations against the very Judges who have ruled against her and then turn around and ask them for additional reconsideration after doing so, is the not only the height of arrogance and hypocrisy, but it's also IMO a sign of possible instability because I'm sure her behavior cannot be considered normal or expected in everyday proceedings. The only thing I can come up with is that because they have zero respect for this woman with her degree from an unaccredited law school and her lack of knowledge regarding actual proceedings in the courtroom, that her opinion of them means less than nothing to them or anyone else in good standing in the legal community.



User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#198

Post by esseff44 » Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:10 am

Take a look a the cases the bar has been dealing with. Everyday, there another case in the paper about a lawyer taking advantage of an elderly person who can no longer handle their financial affairs and a lawyer bleeds them dry or they put up a large sum and never get any real work done on their case and end up losing everything.O'rly is not acting as an attorney. She is a propagandist who uses the courts and the electoral process as a way to get cheap publicity and outlets for her smears. It would be nice if we could devise some kind of anti-smear laws that did not rum afoul of free speech. It seems impossible. What we are left with is what we do....counter her smears with facts and ridicule.Perhaps it would be better to have courts have a check box on filing forms:Have you ever had a case dismissed as frivolous or vexatious? If so, an additional filing fee is added or a sizable bond depending on the number of cases that have been judged as frivolous.



User avatar
Jocelyn9596
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 5:50 am

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#199

Post by Jocelyn9596 » Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:33 am

Take a look a the cases the bar has been dealing with. Everyday, there another case in the paper about a lawyer taking advantage of an elderly person who can no longer handle their financial affairs and a lawyer bleeds them dry or they put up a large sum and never get any real work done on their case and end up losing everything.O'rly is not acting as an attorney. She is a propagandist who uses the courts and the electoral process as a way to get cheap publicity and outlets for her smears. It would be nice if we could devise some kind of anti-smear laws that did not rum afoul of free speech. It seems impossible. What we are left with is what we do....counter her smears with facts and ridicule.Perhaps it would be better to have courts have a check box on filing forms:Have you ever had a case dismissed as frivolous or vexatious? If so, an additional filing fee is added or a sizable bond depending on the number of cases that have been judged as frivolous.So in the legal profession, Orly is nothing but a propagandist who gets cheap publicity with her smears? Got it. However, we shouldn't need additional laws when said "smears" are, in reality, slanderous accusations without merit. It should be relatively easy for her to be charged with slander and libel, unless I'm mistaken about the legalities of both. :-k



User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

BARNETT|KEYES (REDUX) :) (ACT IV) ?

#200

Post by esseff44 » Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:00 pm

Maybe this will help explain the situation. [/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_and_slander#United_States]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_and_ ... ted_StatesShe's very, very unlikely to be charged with criminal defamation no matter what she does. What more can she say that's worse than what she has been doing for years? It's better to treat her as the obsessive, whacked out maniac that she is. She's not going to be taken seriously by any court and only appeals to others as delusional as she is. On the other hand, it is unlikely any court will give much weight to any case brought against her for defamation.



Post Reply

Return to “Birther Case Discussion”