Orly and various other idiots seem not to understand what "evidence" is, what it means to "authenticate" it, why an attorney is not the proper person to "authenticate" "evidence," and why there are rules of admissibility.

None of these people seem to understand why rules of admissibility are absolute basics of "due process."

I checked a little and the first news agency, WSBT from South Bend in Northern Indiana, covered Wallace and Santorum as their leas with a paragraph on Luger. Nothing on Orly and her flying monkeys.

You all have the evidence thing wrong. Just wait. All her evidence will be notarized the next time. Just ask me... IANALANIO.

I agree.

*Whew* Just finished 15 pages of this thread. THAT'S an accomplishment!

Woodworker, I'll put your post up in a special Report his weekend. Can someone post the difference between a hearing like this one, the administrative law one in GA, and a Court hearing? That would go nicely with the role and rule of evidence one that Woodworker did.

Orly does look beaten down. I'm worried for her.

I was fascinated by the differences between the NH hearing and this one. The NH BLC let her ramble for as long as she wanted, let her cross examine a witness, and barely gave her comments until she finished. Then a couple of laser-precise questions, a recess, a reading of the law, then a vote and the verdict that Obama stays on the ballot. After that, all hell broke loose in the audience. Security escorted everyone out. The strategy: give her as much time as she wants then shoot her down.

On the other hand, IN started off lively and stayed that way. The Chairman warned early and often. Tempers flared for a number of minutes, Security escorted someone out, a recess to cool off, then hostilities resumed. Then a vote and the verdict that Obama stays on the ballot. After that, a few parting slings and on to the next. The strategy: Your nonsense will not be tolerated here.

I think that says quite a bit about the personalities of the 2 states and their citizens, actually.

I wonder if IN will send anything to their AG from the hearing.

O.M.G.

I am just catching up, and have finished watching the video of the Indiana hearing.

OMG. This is the bestest Orly moment ever. EVAH!

Orly was downright hostile. She was fuming. I can't ... well, I can ... believe that she told the entire committee that "they're all out of order". Orly was pissed. The moment that first member addressed her, she knew she was cooked.

Orly committed perjury today. She stated that she had never heard of the Ankeny case. Orly was furious that Judge Malihi cited Ankeny in his ruling. In her appeal to Kemp, Orly spent over a page whining about the use of Ankeny.



Ya, Orly never heard of Ankeny.

Anywho, I was quite impressed with the quality of the fireworks. The Indiana EC was ready for Orly. And Orly was on notice when the first question she was asked was about her bar status in Indiana.

Oh, and I thought Kesler was having a stroke when a member of the EC referred to "birthers". His whole body twitched, he almost jumped out of his chair, he bumped into the microphone and he gave a big ol' "Hrumph".

If I recall correctly, within hours of Malihi's decision, Orly declared it was time to find an "Indiana plaintiff." Ankeny is why she went to Indiana.

I have been following several of the themes in this thread and have the following thoughts:

I did think that the Indiana Commission fumbled a bit and let their impatience test their decorum. Frankly, it was clear that they thought this proceeding was a complete waste of their time and they made no bones about it from the very beginning. I think things would have gone a bit more smoothly had they simply let each of the petitioners have their five minutes of testimony and then made, discussed and voted on their respective motions. That would have produced a better record and a better explanation in the record for the decisions they made.

Also, I don't think Ms. Taitz is clinically mentally ill. For the record, I am responsible for a mental health system that serves some 42,000 individuals, so I have some experience in this area. Ms. Taitz''s behavior certainly involves some neurotic idiosyncrasies, but she does not demonstrate classical signs of mental illness. Her problem is that she is so caught up in her belief system about Barack Obama, she filters every piece of data through the birther paradigm she's wrapped herself in. It is this biased lens through which she sees the world around her. It's not too terribly different than what causes people to believe in UFOs, faces on Mars and ghosts. It's driven by the same brain processes that result in religious belief.

I consider Ms. Taitz to simply be an unfortunate and pathetic character. She hasn't any idea about how she's perceived by most people. She gets just enough positive reinforcement from a vanishingly small band of supporters to keep her motivated to continue no matter how many failures she has. Think of this like Pavlov's dog, where a reward causes the canine to replicate the desired behavior. Given that, the Chair of the Indiana Elections Commission might have been better served if he simply barked out a handful of appropriate commands at the opportune moment like "sit," "lay down," "shake," and "roll over."

Yep. Orly Taitz is just a hateful bitch. At least that's what I think about her.

However, I'm not sure allowing someone to just spew hateful lies for 5 minutes is fair.

If her evidence is nothing more than unfounded rumor and lies, I don't think she should be allowed to do that.

Would that be allowable for any other candidate?

C'mon dawg. She's nucking futz and you know it.

Balak, I don't put folks on Ignore normally, but your trolling is tedious, monotonous, and generally very WRONG. You may be a 'friend' of Foggy, but you are busy fucking him at the moment. He vouched for you and you shit on him bad. So, you get to be the first in my shit pile.

Great Grey somehow boosted the sound in the latest video. It's FABULOUS! If you couldn't hear before, try it now. It's perfect!

He posted it here:

viewtopic.php?f=88&t=6950&start=775#p348369

To what end? An accusation isn't evidence of anything, and Orly barely even has an accusation. At best she has an:

• unauthenticated page
• printed out from a database
• that itself carries a disclaimer that the information contained in the database may not be reliable,
• which indicates that at some point in his life, Obama might have used a different SSN than he's currently using.

Given that there are perfectly legitimate reasons why someone might have their SSN changed - including changing it to reduce the risk of identity theft if someone's SSN is made publicly available, something that has happened to Obama - there's insufficient information to support any claims of wrongdoing on Obama's part.

Also, keep in mind that even if Obama IS using a fake SSN to hide some kind of potential criminal activity in his past (another feature of Orly's "accusation") it is actually STILL irrelevant to Obama's eligibility for the Presidency. There's nothing in the Constitution that requires someone to have a Social Security Number, nor anything that prevents a criminal from being President. (Whether one can gain enough support to win the election is another matter, entirely.)

In any event, regardless of what the status of Barack Obama's Social Security Number actually is, it would have NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the issue of whether Obama was eligible to be on the Indiana ballot or not, making "So What?" a fairly reasonable response.

If a Holocaust denier were to start pulling his hateful, disgusting bullshit within my earshot, you can bet I wouldn't continue to give him an audience. And that I would push back HARD. We insisted that many Republican candidates and Speaker Boehner do so, and commented when they did not immediately stop the outrage and disown it.

So when four politically savvy (and generally fair minded) connected pols in Indiana decided they would not allow hateful, calumnious and outrageous claims to be made in their presence -- or to be personally abused by a seditionist lying bitch from hell -- and pushed back, well all I have to say is hallelujah!

I do not think the commissioners who were hearing Taitz had to put up with any of it. They called the lying hateful bitch out. Good for them.

I also want to thank Loh for a terrific (and fashionable) view from the scene. And Woodworker for an exhaustive if somewhat prolix exegesis of the legal issues.

As for the troll, well I no longer care. I will never read anything else this person posts. He attempted to fuck up an interesting and important thread with either his birther-solicitous or performance art conduct, and he should be ashamed of himself. It was not a pretty thing to pull on this thread.

Loh, that report was excellent. I was able to watch and hear most of it (use VLC video player - excellent) on the feed. Your report matches what I heard and saw. Your report matches the tape and the audio produced by GG. Thank you very much
SueDB

Balak now has 23 ignores. Second most only to MichaelN.

stop me if you've heard this one before ...

I think that would be a tough job, because the level of formality at both administrative law hearings and election board hearings can be extremely variable, from one jurisdiction to another. So there's not really one answer or one standard.

I'm glad to see some arbiters finally calling Orly out on the garbage she is submitting as "evidence".

The woman on the board in Indiana appears to be definitely is Sarah Steele Riordan. She's a lawyer with a varied litigation practice (real estate & commercial litigation, family law, appellate law, white collar criminal defense,etc.) and a Democrat; JD 1993, so just shy of 20 years' experience. Was appointed to the Election Board by Governor Mitch Daniels in 2006. Obviously she took the time needed to prepare for the hearing & the Orly show.

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=32123

Gee who sez that thing about "BITTER, BITTER, PARTY OF 2!"

He should have asked her if her ass has stopped hurting from the butt chewing she got. The board had a heart, they left one last little piece of meat on the carcass fraudulent evidence "lodged". That is in case she wants to get her ass chewed off again in state court.

After listening to Swineheart piss and whine the whole way through the hearing, it's amazing to me that this idiot - like birthers always do - considers this a win. Fucking mind-blowing.

The election board member who got really ticked off at Orly for holding up a gift tax form and calling it "income tax" is Daniel A. Dumezich, who is an expert TAX lawyer and former CPA. (In case you were wondering why he became so enraged at the mischaracterization of one an IRS form). He's a Republican -- he's the one who is also Romney's state chair but refused to recuse himself on the Santorum challenge.

The warning given:

"All I'm going to say to you today is we've come here -- and my position is very simple. The evidence you're offering is under oath…. And you'd best well have proof, because to offer testimony under oath can be a crime in this state, and your testimony may well be certified to the prosecutor of this county for review"*

came straight after Taitz and Kesler told the whopper that they were unaware of Ankeny. Looked pretty fair to me.



As a herd member I think that comment is way off.

Sometimes the group here is extremely knowledgeable. Balak would not be the only member here, some with a much more extensive track record who stubbornly refuse to admit any possibility of error, shift goalposts etc. Falsehoods unchallenged & all that. It's what we do.

I am not about to trawl through Balak's posts. It's your forum and you can do what you like. Member or not; Birther or not, Balak's willful refusal to accept that the hearing was not a court and what did and did not constitute relevant evidence was trollish.

* Hat-tip to Listeme for an excellent transcript.