Done.

They handled the Lugar challenge very gingerly. They acknowledged the complaints about the address used for voting and DL as being a problem but something they would have to take up with another authority due to the narrow question of his being a legitimate candidate and that had nothing to do with voter registration or licenses to drive.

The other interesting thing was that Lugar had apparently long ago sought an opinion on the matter from the Indiana AG and was given some kind of legal fig leaf for continuing to use the address although he no longer lived there. Beyond that, they said it was up to the electorate how to treat the matter.

It was quite clear that Riordan had examined the documents in depth, as she accurately described the contents of the packet, which I could not have done at the time.



It would have been a reversible error to admit any of that garbage. It would be utterly inadmissible as evidence in any real court of law and, frankly, was so abjectly a pile of garbage that it would have been not only an abuse of discretion to admit it, but Orly even submitting it was an act of incompetence that could reasonably subject her to bar discipline.



That as well is correct. Unlike in Georgia, the status quo is the candidate is on the ballot. It is up to the challenger to present evidence to challenge that, and that evidence must be, as elsewhere, substantial and credible.

Further, the rule allowing for default is permissive. The Commission may, in its discretion, grant a default. It is not obligated to do so.

It would have been utterly improper for the Election Commission to consider any of Orly's garbage. Their decision not to admit the garbage will be upheld on review by the highly discretionary abuse of discretion standard.

It is unlikely a court will grant Orly pro hac vice status to abuse the legal system of Indiana.

Biased for asking a simple question as to the relevance of the SSN arguments? Surely if one wants to establish a foundation for ineligibility one has to explain the relevance of one's evidence?

That a Social Security number is absolutely and unequivocally irrelevant to Presidential eligibility is one of the exact reasons New Hampshire was utterly baffled at Orly's argument.

I'm frankly baffled how it could conceivably be "biased" to note the utter nonexistence of any rule, statute or Constitutional provision that would make an SSN even remotely relevant to the issue the Commission was convened to decide. I don't know how it's "biased" to offer the challengers an opportunity to present such a rule, since without citing such a rule, they automatically lose.

Needless to say, since there is no such rule, the idiots were unable to cite it. "Biased" my ass.

Here ya go....

36 minutes of Womp Womp Womp Comedy Gold



Sorry about the delay

Aren't lawyers who appear before appellate court judges subject to sometimes incisive question by the judges? Are their questions biased, too?

GG you are the bestest I am going to savor that with a glass of red wine when I get home. I can't wait.

So if a person accuses another person of not being who they say they are, and offers up evidence that they are using a fake social security number. . .you really think "So what?" is an OK response? How about this for a response:

"Ma'am, what you have offered does not prove anything, because you can't tell us why the records you submit say what they do. Is anything there in President Obama's own handwriting? While these documents might be indicative of some form of identity theft, they could equally, and more likely, be indicative of clerical errors. What you have is a QUESTION. What you do not have is an ANSWER.

See the difference?

She's an attorney! And she has the burden of proof. They don't need to mollycoddle her when she has not done her job.

Yes.


How about this for a response:

"Are you fricken bonkers?"

See the difference?

I think your premise is questionable.

Do you really think that "evidence" in a legal sense was offered up?

Slightly tangental. I watched the Luger hearing and noted that he'd kept is IN driving license and car registration although he lives in Virginia. I've seen people in Northern Virginia get fined $60 plus costs for that. One law for the top dogs and one for the rest of us.

In an elegibility challenge? Absolutely.


Of course. But there are also other options. One that comes to mind is:

"Ma'am. We've read your documents. Social Security numbers are irrelevant to the proceeding. Don't bother presenting on that issue, because we can't pay attention to it."

Darn... as I recall, that's pretty much how the hearing started.

How would anyone expect Taitz to be treated after looking at her "evidence"? For once, these people weren't blindsided by her sparkeling personality - they knew what they were in for and responded accordingly. About time someone speak back to her in acidic and dripping tones.

And no offense to Balak, Foggy, but after making it clear to him 20 times that this was not a "court" proceeding and he still insists that it was and they failed to provide justice, welll...we know which side sounds like that. Just sayin' . Be helpful if he'd listen to our resident lawyers who happen to know how this all works.

Yes. Not evidence of much probative weight, but some of it fit loosely into the evidence category.

^^this, this, a thousand times THIS! ^^

Which parts? More importantly, evidence of what, exactly?

(Ignoring the fact that none of her evidence was admissible) . . . Evidence of what, exactly? That they are suggesting he committed fraud? Can you please explain how that is probative of eligibility? Is there a statute that allows the hearing panel to determine whether or not one has committed fraud and, if so, to keep a candidate off the ballot?

From what I heard, the documents from the passport office, whichever ones they were. Obama's public tax return. Plus, Orly's testimony that she personally tried e verify and it didn't verify.

These are sentence fragments.

Can you state more fully what you consider to be evidence, and of what you think the evidence might be probative at a hearing to determine eligibility?

Again... none of which has anything to do with eligibility.

The records from the passport office? "Soebarkah"? The only person who can testify as to what that means is dead.

She didn't present any tax return. And what if she did? Again, nothing to do with eligibility.

She can testify that she misused the E-verify system and it came up "X." She can not testify as to what that means.

Even if everything above were admissible, it's completely irrelevant to the issue before the board.

Well, you're wrong. That pile of dung was unauthenticated and inadmissible by even the most generous evidentiary rules. It would have been clear error to admit it at all, much less rely on it. The Commission did nothing remotely improper. It would to the contrary have been a grave impropriety to admit this trash. I suggest you should listen to the people in this thread who actually know what legally constitutes admissible evidence, since they have been unanimous in pointing out Orly's trash did not qualify. It's not even a close call. It's a no-brainer, to the point it is positively perverse to insist otherwise.

So we have a document for the Passport office which shows a notation 'Soebarkah' next to President Obama's name crossed out. We have Obama's tax returns and selective services record which shows that he has been using the same SSN for years, and no evidence that showed any fraud or even indicated that if fraud had taken place, how this affects the Committee's decision about President Obama's eligibility. And yes, Orly may have publicly testified, under oath, to having accessed information to which she was not authorized. With a bit of luck, that evidence will find its way to the appropriate channels.

Nothing Orly presented was substantive to the issue of eligibility or even rose to a level that would cause the committee to find President Obama ineligible. Nothing...

"(Ignoring the fact that none of her evidence was admissible) . . . Evidence of what, exactly? That they are suggesting he committed fraud? Can you please explain how that is probative of eligibility? Is there a statute that allows the hearing panel to determine whether or not one has committed fraud and, if so, to keep a candidate off the ballot?"

If it is relevant WHERE a candidate lives, then it is certainly relevant WHO he really is. Do you truly think that if the Birthers had actual, confirmed evidence that Obama really was Bari Shabazz that he wouldn't be getting kicked off ballots everywhere. Try this experiment. Imagine that tomorrow the New York Times and all the major media break the story that Obama isn't really Obama, but a dude named Bari Shabazz who took over his identity back 20 years ago, and the real Barack Obama is chained up in a cellar somewhere. Now, do you really think that Bari is going to be on the ballots in November 2012?