The first two did not as it was not part of their theory. I am almost certain it was not introduced through orly's experts; however, she did do a document dump at the end of her performance art (I think). So maybe it was contained in that.

Technically they shouldn't, but I can cite at least one appellate case where the parties were estopped from asserting that claim on appeal, on grounds that it was "invited error" due to their initially seeking relief in the lower court.

I think that the rationale for the estoppel is more akin to standing -- it's not a ruling that there ever was jurisdiction, just a ruling that the court is not going to let the party who invoked the jurisdiction complain about it later on.

They are such losers that they would lose even that contest
Regards ...........Dick

I dunno, some group that aren't complete losers.

lol

Think about it.

An empty chair!

If the case you have in mind had something to do with sanctionable litigation misconduct or something like that, I can understand that result. For example, if one party waged war on the other to leverage the nuisance value of its lawsuit and then was slapped with sanctions, costs and fees, some sort of equitable order to cease and desist, or something along those lines, I can see how a court would apply an equitable remedy disallowing the party to escape from the consequences of the invited error.

But here, if indeed the statute does not extend to PPPs under the circumstances, not even the most egregious "invited error" could ever confer upon the reviewing court the power to remove Obama from the ballot, which is the remedy sought.

Still not buying.

Even if it were true that President Obama's birth certificate was created on the basis of a relative's testimony, what proof can they offer that what was attested to and accepted is inaccurate? Do they thus believe anyone born in Hawaii who received a birth certificate on the basis of a relative's testimony is not eligible for the presidency unless he/she can prove they were born when and where they say they were? How does one PROVE this other than with a birth certificate? That is what makes no sense to me. Few of us have independent evidence of having been born when and where we say. Like the president, some people have contemporaneously published birth announcements, but that is apparently not sufficient for the birthers. People have friends and relatives who will attest to the baby being born where it is said the baby was born, but people have done this regarding President Obama, and it's still not enough for the birthers. So, if you discount the birth certificate, discount the newspaper announcements, and discount anecdotes from friends and family, what do you have left? I know they keep talking about the silly souvenir hospital record with the footprints, but what about people born at home or who did not bother to keep it since its only value is sentimental or who lost it? I will bet a significant number of birthers could not validate their own births by their standards.

I've mentioned this before but after doing some research on my family tree, I learned that my grandfather almost certainly had a "suspect" birth certificate. I don't think you would call it a forgery because it was created in a perfectly legal manner by the government. But I'm nearly 100 percent sure it's fraudulent.

He also claim that the year of his birth was 1912. So did his sisters. Yet, his birth certificate says 1911. The birth certificate was not created until 1927, which was the year his father (my great grandfather) died. The best way to explain is that he was born at home to a midwife and no one bothered to register the birth until he was a teenager. The reason he needed to register was that he needed to work to support his family, but he could not work unless he was 17. So, my great grandmother (who could have been a powerful crime boss in the right circumstances) got a doctor and another person to agree to be witnesses to the birth in 1911 - even though neither of them were really witnesses (as far as I can tell). The county accepted these affidavits and - voila - my grandfather had a birth certificate saying that he was 17.

Here's the thing, once that document was created and entered into the records, that was that. The birthers don't seem to get that. Even if everything in Obama's birth record is a lie, it's an official state document.

At times, Orly seems to understand this. That is why she is so obsessed with the Social Security number and other identity fraud BS. But for whatever reason, she will not give up the fight on the "layers" and "piece of garbage on the internet."

Okay quick poll among the herd. Hands up anyone who thinks that Orly knows how to, and actually can

a) File a correct Petition for Judicial Review?

b) Have the summons issued as to the correct party?

c) Serve it?

Anyone?

It's not political, though. It's Constitutional.

Actually nothing at that level -- it was a case where the defense simply sat on its hands and failed to object when it recognized that the trial court was taking a step that exceeded its jurisdiction, and then turned around and filed an interlocutory challenge to the trial court's authority. Not sanctionable, but theoretically avoidable. (The trial court could have taken action to preserve its jurisdiction if the matter had been brought to its attention -- it had to do with the running of a statutory time limit)



But that isn't the question that was raised. The question is whether the SoS could raise the lack of jurisdiction in defending his own action of KEEPING OBAMA ON THE BALLOT on appeal. Obviously the SoS had the legal authority to simply deny the challenges outright -- the question is, once having sent it to the ALJ, and then issued a ruling relying on and adopting the ALJ's decision, can the SoS go into court in response to a petition brought by the plaintiffs and ask the court to hold that the ALJ never had jurisdiction in the first place. Again, I can't really see why he would want to.

FIFY.

Well, you need some folks to wash your car at the local car wash.

Still nothing from Orly?

I'd be surprised if Orly has ever uttered the words "I was wrong" -- not in a family matter, not to a dental patient, not to a playmate in the sandbox, not to her children, not to the neighborhood grocer whom she shortchanged...fill in the blanks.

Not being able to say "I was mistaken" is the prerequisite to never being able to stop or to right one's course.

p.s. We haven't seen much of the Kenyan birth certificates in a long, long time. But has she ever disavowed them?

Well, you need some folks to wash your car at the local car wash. [/quote]

Yeah, and those burgers aren't going to flip themselves.

Resident Freeper Legal Scholar Red Steel is having a fit in this thread about Hatfield's appeal to Kemp (pre decision)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-blo ... 3562/posts

Yeah, and those burgers aren't going to flip themselves.

So how often does one have to prove it? If you're the President, do you have to walk around with notarized copies of all your electoral votes, a birth certificate, and the Congressional certification of the election, as well as a video of the oath, all stapled to your forehead?

Of course not. Obama didn't "claim" executive power like some Lord of the Sith. He was granted it, temporarily - for four years - by a vote of the people via their electors, counted and certified by the whole Congress in the presence of the President of the Senate/Vice President of the United States - who was from the opposing party and likely detested what President Obama stood for but did his duty to count the votes and certify the results. Any of said Representatives and Senators could have, jointly, raised an objection to his certification if they thought two citizen parents were required or if they felt like his citizenship or qualifications were in any manner deficient, after which the Congress would have adjourned to chambers to consider said objections. But none did. He was then administered the Oath of Office by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

That is why President Obama has executive power, vested in him by the Constitution of the United States. Not because he carries around documents to amuse idiots who wouldn't accept them nor vote for him anyway.

Should the people so choose, they may allow him another four years, or they may choose another path; either way, I am sure that when the time comes President Obama, like the Presidents before him who served full terms, will relinquish his office with grace.

You could challenge the record, but it would require an affirmative showing that the certificate itself was fraudulent and direct evidence to counter the birth record. In other words, if the midwife who delivered your grandfather came into court and testified that the year of birth was mistaken, and she could cite to records to prove it (for example, she could show that she lived in another state a year earlier), then a trier of fact might accept her testimony, as she was a direct witness.

The problem is that Orly fails to recognize that:
1) The burden of proof is on the challenger, and burden of proof always means, at a minimum, preponderance of the evidence - but where fraud is alleged, the burden of proof is generally the higher standard of "clear and compelling" evidence. (Orly thinks she "proves" her case by raising a reasonable doubt)

2) The proof would have to be from direct evidence as to the circumstance of birth -- not collateral evidence related to the method of printing & reproduction of the paper the certificate is printed on, or of alleged bad acts of the person years after the birth. So, for example, if at the trial over your grandfather's birthday, a dozen witnesses who attended his 16th birthday party could come in and testify about the number of candles on his cake -- and it wouldn't mean anything.

Orly’s on it



http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=31378

Can someone send Orly directions to the gulag??

Farrar's assertion simply is wrong. The law presumes that the holder of elected office is qualified, unless proven otherwise. The shifting of burden of proof in a quo warranto case take place only as a response to the specific allegations contained in the quo warranto petition -- which have to be sufficient to counter eligibility. In other words, quo warranto could be brought upon an allegation that the elected mayor was not a resident of the city at the time he was elected, but in fact live elsewhere; but it could not be brought upon the bare allegation that the petitioner doesn't know where the mayor lives and wants to find out.