Ohio Ballot Challenge (Susan Daniels)

Tarrant · **Joined:** Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:05 pm **Posts:** 751

Cue WND et al cut and pasting that line with a headline "OBAMA ATTORNEY ACCEPTS AS TRUE IN COURT DOCUMENTS THAT HIS SOIAL SECURITY NUMBER IS FAKE", followed by Orly including this in all future pleadings.

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6626

Only if they fucking lie about what the Ohio AG's answer says. "Even if one accepts as true..." doesn't mean "We accept as true" .

Tarrant · **Joined:** Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:05 pm **Posts:** 751

kimba wrote:

Only if they fucking lie about what the Ohio AG's answer says. "Even if one accepts as true..." doesn't mean "We accept as true" .

And we know that WND, Orly, and the rest of the birthers would never do that!

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:17 pm

I don't think WND can confuse the Ohio AG, representing the Ohio SoS (a Republican), as an attorney for President Obama.

Of course, I just fell off the turnip truck.

SueDB · **Posted:** Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:18 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

I don't think WND can confuse the Ohio AG, representing the Ohio SoS (a Republican), as an attorney for President Obama.

Of course, I just fell off the turnip truck chariot.

FIFY

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:33 pm

realist wrote:

Not exactly a docket "update" as the entry has already been posted, but a document provided re one of the entries...

Quote:

08/09/2012 MOTION TO DISMISS FILED. Attorney: EPSTEIN, AARON D (0063286)

link shortly

h/t to a friend of Fogbow. :-bd

tsk tsk tsk -- the attorney for the SOS uses the wellknown Obama SS# unredacted several times in his reply!

nbc · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am **Posts:** 2529

Gorefan reports

ORYR at SCRIBD

Brief in opposition to motion to dismiss Filed 08/16/2012

Pretty poor argument.

Susan is hoping that under ORC 2913.49 (Ohio’s identity theft) she can argue that “President Obama’s candidacy violated the requirements of this chapter … or any other requirement established by law” (ORC 3501.39). However there is no requirement established by law that requires one to have a valid SSN in order to be eligible to run for office.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23524

Also at Jack's...

2012-08-16 - OH - Daniels v Husted - Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6626

Msottement · **Posted:** Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:29 pm

realist wrote:

Also at Jack's...

2012-08-16 - OH - Daniels v Husted - Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Wow. I'm a choir director, and even I know she's an idiot.

I understand that factual allegations have to be taken as true (for the motion to dismiss only), but nothing says that they have to consider her legal argument (that he's violating some law that somehow affects his eligibility under another law) as true, right?

nbc · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am **Posts:** 2529

Msottement wrote:

I understand that factual allegations have to be taken as true (for the motion to dismiss only), but nothing says that they have to consider her legal argument (that he's violating some law that somehow affects his eligibility under another law) as true, right?

eggzactly

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:38 pm

The preposterous doesn't have to be accepted as true. The incredulous doesn't have to be considered, either. Why, for example, would an 87 year old apply for a social security card at that age rather than 40 years earlier? (Did he want a nice social security card to be embedded in his headstone?)

Bottom line is that Daniels is an idiot whose social security meme was repeated and confabulated by a lunatic to hysterical levels. And its continued repetition makes all of those who spout it look ridiculous.

richRocket · **Joined:** Mon Sep 27, 2010 12:56 am **Posts:** 231

"However there is no requirement established by law that requires one to have a valid SSN in order to be eligible to run for office."
can you imagine a birther interpretation of this!
Please don't phrase it this way, just state Obama has a valid SSN, O

nbc · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am **Posts:** 2529

richRocket wrote:

"However there is no requirement established by law that requires one to have a valid SSN in order to be eligible to run for office."
can you imagine a birther interpretation of this!
Please don't phrase it this way, just state Obama has a valid SSN, O

Susan argues that he does not have a valid SSN, so even assuming that she is right, she still does not have any valid action. Otherwise, arguing for a motion to dismiss requires one to explain why Susan's assertions about Obama's SSN should be ignored. For purpose of a motion to dismiss, factual allegations must be accepted as true. Although, as I understand it, if allegations become conclusory then they may be ignored for purpose of the motion to dismiss.

Part of Susan's claims are 'factual', part are unsupported, and part are conclusory so even the SSN claim would fail.
Factual assertions are

President Obama uses social security number xxx-xx-xxxx which was issued in Match of 1977. The defendant's lawyer also accepts that 042 was reserved for Connecticut residents and that social security numbers were assigned based on the residence of the applicant. President Obama was never in the state of Connecticut.

The unsupported assertions involve the claim that the number was assigned to an unidentified person.

SueDB · **Posted:** Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:54 pm

nbc wrote:

Gorefan reports

ORYR at SCRIBD

Brief in opposition to motion to dismiss Filed 08/16/2012

Pretty poor argument.

Susan is hoping that under ORC 2913.49 (Ohio’s identity theft) she can argue that “President Obama’s candidacy violated the requirements of this chapter … or any other requirement established by law” (ORC 3501.39). However there is no requirement established by law that requires one to have a valid SSN in order to be eligible to run for office.

Say...isn't that a criminal matter not for a civil court???

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6626

Quote:

Why, for example, would an 87 year old apply for a social security card at that age rather than 40 years earlier?

An 87 year old woman, who never worked outside the home, drew her husband's SS, wouldn't have needed a Social Security number until she filed her 1976 tax return in 1977. An 87 year old man? If he was a widower who had a rich wife, never had to work because she supported him and then left him everything when she died, he might not have needed a SSN until 1977 either. It could happen.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu Aug 16, 2012 9:44 pm

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:48 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

The preposterous doesn't have to be accepted as true. The incredulous doesn't have to be considered, either. Why, for example, would an 87 year old apply for a social security card at that age rather than 40 years earlier? (Did he want a nice social security card to be embedded in his headstone?)

Bottom line is that Daniels is an idiot whose social security meme was repeated and confabulated by a lunatic to hysterical levels. And its continued repetition makes all of those who spout it look ridiculous.

Although this is the United States Supreme Court speaking, I'm sure Ohio has similar law.

Quote:

[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.

Iqbal

Quote:

[A] court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.

Iqbal

Quote:

Although for the purposes of a motion to dismiss we must take all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true, we "are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation" ... .

Twombly

lyssandri · **Posted:** Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:40 am

Msottement wrote:

realist wrote:

Also at Jack's...

2012-08-16 - OH - Daniels v Husted - Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Wow. I'm a choir director, and even I know she's an idiot.

I understand that factual allegations have to be taken as true (for the motion to dismiss only), but nothing says that they have to consider her legal argument (that he's violating some law that somehow affects his eligibility under another law) as true, right?

Not to mention that if you take Daniels' allegations as true, it might establish that the SSN Obama is using was not issued to *him*, but she offers **nothing** that would prove the number was ever issued to someone else. Aside from that random floating 1890 - whatever that is supposed to represent - there's nothing in her little "fact" pile there that would disprove the theory that the number Obama is using was, say, just a random number he grabbed out of think air when he needed one and was lucky enough to pick one no one else had ever used.

The point being, the law she quotes that she claims Obama violated is specific (from what I can tell, anyway) that it applies to someone using a SSN assigned to another person, NOT that they're just using one that wasn't assigned to them, personally. So unless or until she can prove that the number Obama is currently using was assigned to someone else (which, I would imagine, would have to include identifying *who* that someone else is, or how else can it be proved it belonged to them, no?) she can't prove - or even fairly accuse him - of breaking this Identity Theft law.

GreatGrey · **Posted:** Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:53 am

Why is Susan so busy hasseling Husted?

Doesn't she know he's a busy guy, voter suppression and firing election officials is a full time job for him.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/poli ... 6026.story

.

bob · **Posted:** Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:13 pm

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23524

Squeeky sez...

Mindless Blathering Stupid Drivel From Susan Daniels, P.I.

Quote:

Well, over the years I have read some pretty stupid stuff from Birthers, but darn if Susan Daniels, P.I. hasn’t just made a meteoric sprint from the Stupid Basement, up the Stupid Stairs, to the Second Tier B-List Of Stupid Birthers alongside the likes of J.B. Williams, Dianna “The Dianna” Cotter, and Miki “The Mad Hawaiian” Booth. Here is an excerpt from the Internet Article that done it:

Private Investigator Susan Daniels Debunks Obot Myth That Zip Code Clerical Error Caused Obama To Be Issued A Connecticut Social Security Number

[...]

Now think about her “proof” for a minute. She has laid out the fact that zip codes are laid out geographically, and then she has done her P.I. work to list all three of Obama’s possible Hawaii zip codes. And then she concludes that since none of the last two digits from the 968 Hawaii area zip code exist in the 068 Connecticut area zip code, then it could not have been a typo that caused Obama to receive a Connecticut social security number.

This is ridiculous and wrong. I will show how it is wrong below, but first I want to show the logical gaps in her ridiculous line of reasoning. First, Daniels has not provided any factual foundation on how zip codes were entered at the Social Security Administration (SSA). For example, were all 5 digits entered? If a zip code was not readable, would the SSA code from the handwritten city and state information on the return address?

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Ohio Ballot Challenge (Susan Daniels)

Who is online