Now that's going to chafe poor old Orly--that official verification of the president's Hawaii birth and thus eligibility have been made part of the official court record. Will she include it in her million pages of birther shit that she sends to the media and SOS's and submits to courts? Now it is her word against the word of Hawaii. How can this case even be allowed to proceed? All the "evidence" of forgery she puts forth is even more worthless than it already was because it does not even matter if the certificate is authentic if Hawaiii verifies the information is accurate.

And the social security allegation would be a criminal matter, if true, and not something one would litigate in a civil suit and it has nothing to do with eligibility. Why doesn't every lawyer faced with a birther case do what Tepper did? Doesn't this meam the case has to be thrown out absent any evidence that Hawaii has lied, which does not exist?

Awesome!!

But what is that smiley face in the Teppernator's signature? Hmmm ... are there layers, too?

Lawdy Lawd, I wonder how many shit fits Orly can have in one day!

Go B&T

Where are the sanctions? At what point does it become an abuse of discretion to allow these lunatics to spend other people's money in their racist harassment campaign, with no penalty at all?

How long do these scumbags, these racists, these un-American scum, get to harass the rest of us for free?

Simply delightful.

FIFY. This is the Mississippi thread, after all.

Wait a minute ... is that seal embossed, or debossed???

I like it. I like it a lot.

First thing that comes to mind..................GOAL!!!!!!!!!!

How WILL Bitterdezillion (sic) twist this one, one wonders......after all over at Freeperville, she has PROOF by "inference" that there has never been a verification of the BC.....

Oh...and that would be an Own Goal....

That dear Mr. Begley and sweet Mr. Tepper asked so politely and all, that Hawaii just sent them exactly what they asked for. And it didn't even make the national news cycle for 4 days running. Isn't it amazing how cooperative people will be with you if you just ask nicely and follow their rules without trying to force them into a showdown of who has the largest penis?

Any comment from the nutball in AZ yet?

And turned around in FIVE DAYS.......OMFSA, OMFG, etc etc etc (giggles hysterically)

Very cool. So the Tepperator went and got him one of those verifications, eh?

There's no question in my mind that this crushes Orly's so-called motion for sanctions (as if her motion was ever anywhere close to viable in the first place).

LOL -- never send a nutcase to do a serious job. The big boys get the job done right. That seal is raised 2 stories above the paper, and no puny stamp, that's a real sig.

B&T are real lawyers. (although Mr. Tepper's scrawl is a work of art...)

Translation for the IANAL crowd please? Pretty please?

I share your (implied) outrage, Loh'. I think a lot of judges tend to kick sanctions motions down the road, figuring that they can tally-up at the end of the case.

But that's bullshit when a motion seeks to put a halt to demonstrated and continuing behavior that is highly prejudicial and costly to the movant. Here, as in Indiana, it is questionable whether the subject of the proposed sanctions is unlawfully practicing law without a license and thus does not rightfully belong in the court in the first place.

That sort of thing (IMHO) deserves to be treated almost in the nature of a TRO or preliminary injunction and it's unconscionable to ignore it for a protracted time while the harrassment continues.

That is what struck me. I can just imagine the Mississippi lawyers calling the folks in Hawaii before the letter was sent and giving them a heads up. The fact that they are fighting against Orly had to just please the Hawaiian folks no end! A great united front against the EVIL Orly. I hope Orly feels like she's being ganged up on.

It's a conspiracy! Gonna need some more Does.

And she has been incredibly quiet today, post-begging for money ... just a couple of posts and comments--not a one. She must feel shell-shocked, and it isn't even Friday. From total mania yesterday to the depths of failure today. Too bad, so sad.

The Birfers can relax. Once it's been sent through the Butterdezillion Onakanator-Parsenator (Patent Pending), it'll soon indirectly confirm that what Hawaii has is not legally valid.

The birfoons can no longer claim that President Obama is afraid of having his BC entered into evidence in a court of law.

Oy, I'll try.

Defendants have pending a motion to dismiss the case on the pleadings (MOP). A MOP differs slightly from the better known motion to dismiss in that narrow aspects of the defendant's answer can be considered by the court. However, without getting too deep into the weeds, when ruling on a MOP, the judge must consider all of the facts well-pleaded by the plaintiff (i.e., plaintiff has alleged "facts" in a legally correct and sufficient manner) as being (hypothetically) true for the purposes of deciding the motion. The main point to grasp here is that it is an exercise in legal evaluation of the initial pleadings only! As a general rule, no extrinsic evidence can be considered by the court in reaching a dismissal on the pleadings. In other words, the judge must be convinced that even if the plaintiff can prove all the facts she alleges, the lawsuit is still not legally viable.

There are only a few narrow exceptions to the rule that extrinsic evidence cannot be considered in deciding a MOP. The most obvious in this case is the doctrine of judicial notice which allows the court to "notice" facts that are common knowledge or "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned."

So my question applies to the submission of a document obtained by a party for the purposes of the particular suit and submitted in the original to the court. To assess the effect, we need to consider two paths:

1. In Orly's motion for sanctions, she claims defendants are trying to defraud the court by submitting a copy of an allegedly fraudulent BC...blah...blah...blah. In defending against her sanctions motion only, defendants have every right to submit additional factual evidence to defend themselves. And it doesn't get much better than to submit an official document over the seal of a state official. In this context, the certification is offered to demonstrate that there cannot be fraud (or whatever) because it just so happens that the facts on the document are true, as certified by Hawaii. It's a slam dunk.

2. With respect to the MOP, though, the effect may or may not be slightly different. That is, does the submission fall within the judicial notice exception to the principle that extrinsic evidence cannot be used to decide a motion on the pleadings? Or does the certification amount to submission of new evidence that was not included in defendants' answer?

If the former, then the certification can be used by the court to grant defendant's motion to dismiss on the pleadings. If the latter, in order for the court to consider the certification, the MOP must be converted to a motion for summary judgment. (In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court can consider evidentiary matters that are extrinsic to the original pleadings.)

To be honest, I'm not sure of the effect, if any, on the MOP. That's why that part of my comment is framed as a question.

This is what I get from that Scribd link.



Only happens with a select few Scribd documents.