THE BIRTHER MOVEMENT (AND OTHER FOLLIES) IN THE AGE OF BARACK OBAMA                          

Oh, For Goodness Sake

Nov 052012
 

Update 11/5: Courtesy of Jack Ryans Scribd.

Docket Memos:

Document Number: No document attached
Docket Text: Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Henry T. Wingate. PARTICIPANTS: O. Taitz, plaintiff; S. Begley, S. Tepper, H. Pizzetta, J. Matheny, and W. Dukes, defense counsel. Telephone Conference held on 11/5/2012. A Motion Hearing was set for November 16 at 1:00 P.M., to hear oral argument on the [15] Motion of the Judgment on Pleadings, and [57] Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction over Dr. Onaka and Loretta Fuddy, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim for Relief, Insufficient Process and Insufficiency of Service of Process. All parties are expected to be present at the scheduled Motion Hearing. The Court DENIED plaintiffs oral motion to allow a witness to testify by phone. Plaintiff was directed to provide the court with the addresses of the other pro se plaintiffs. (TRS)

Document Number: No document attached
Docket Text: NOTICE of Hearing on Motion [57] MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction over Dr. Alvin T. Onaka and Loretta J. Fuddy MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim for Relief; Insufficient Process; and Insufficiency of Service of Process, [8] MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings, [15] MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings : Motion Hearing set for 11/16/2012 01:00 PM in Courtroom 6A (Jackson) Wingate before District Judge Henry T. Wingate (TRS)

A Reliable Source reports for The Fogbow:

All parties are on the phone at 10:30, except Taitz.

Court clerk has to call Taitz at 10:35.

After Taitz belatedly joins hearing, Court comes on line. Starts off on JPML matter and pounds Taitz on her defective JPML filing and fact that JPML struck motion. Taitz claims never to have received JPML order of 10-31-12 All other counsel received it and Tepper points out that Taitz is not being candid since (a) she received ECF notice of defendants’ November 2, 2012 filing (Dkt 61) and (b) the JPML also served her as an ECF filer in Central District of California. Taitz then states she may have received something but because she had 10 days to respond she hadnt opened the e-mail yet. Taitz tries to deflect issue of her lack of candor by talking about forgery of birth certificate and new affidavit (which she has not yet filed), and multiple attacks on Scott Tepper. (Taitz speaks for 5 minutes.)

Court cuts her off and says he was waiting to see what JPML was doing. Now that JPML has rejected the case, Court wants to proceed on the merits and does not intend to take them up by telephone. He notes that he was ready to hear it last Thursday and this morning – and everyone but Taitz was available. (This puts the lie to Taitzs statement on her website that 3 lawyers werent available, unless they are all named Taitz.)

Taitz advises court she is in litigation in California and it is just because she is so busy that the matter could not be heard last week or today. Judge asks Taitz when the motions can be heard. Taitz launches into lengthy statement that she has two weeks to respond (presumably to Hawaii motions to dismiss) and says she will have an answer within a week. Taitz also notifies the Court that she plans to file another motion for sanctions, which will include an affidavit from her new Tennessee expert. Because he’s 70, infirm, and has to take care of his wife, he doesn’t want to appear, he wants to do it by declaration. Court states it will not take something like that by declaration.

Taitz also goes into rant that she vehemently opposes Tepper participating by telephone because he sits in his office and has access to Internet and computers … so it’s not fair. Tepper needs to be in court just like her. (Court did not rule on that issue.) Taitz also vehemently requests to have heard her more evidence of fraud and repeats her intention to file a new motion for sanctions. Tepper points out this new motion for sanctions is merely Taitz again multiplying the litigation. Taitz goes off on another rant.

The Court cuts Taitz off and asks for a date certain for hearing on pending motions. All counsel except Taitz agree to November 16, despite some conflicts. Taitz sighs, says she has important family matters [details provided but not reported here], but will make herself available. (Heroically.)

Continue reading »

 Posted by at 1:50 pm
Nov 052012
 

New York Times Editorial

This year, voting is more than just the core responsibility of citizenship; it is an act of defiance against malicious political forces determined to reduce access to democracy. Millions of ballots on Tuesday — along with those already turned in — will be cast despite the best efforts of Republican officials around the country to prevent them from playing a role in the 2012 election.

Even now, many Republicans are assembling teams to intimidate voters at polling places, to demand photo ID where none is required, and to cast doubt on voting machines or counting systems whose results do not go their way. The good news is that the assault on voting will not affect the election nearly as much as some had hoped. Courts have either rejected or postponed many of the worst laws. Predictions that up to five million people might be disenfranchised turned out to be unfounded.

But a great deal of damage has already been done, and the clearest example is that on Sunday in Florida, people will not be allowed to vote early. Four years ago, on the Sunday before Election Day, tens of thousands of Floridians cast their ballots, many of them black churchgoers who traveled directly from services to their polling places. Because most of them voted for Barack Obama, helping him win the state, Republicans eliminated early voting on that day. No legitimate reason was given; the action was entirely partisan in nature.

But a great deal of damage has already been done, and the clearest example is that on Sunday in Florida, people will not be allowed to vote early. Four years ago, on the Sunday before Election Day, tens of thousands of Floridians cast their ballots, many of them black churchgoers who traveled directly from services to their polling places. Because most of them voted for Barack Obama, helping him win the state, Republicans eliminated early voting on that day. No legitimate reason was given; the action was entirely partisan in nature.

The author of that law, as The Palm Beach Post revealed last week, was Emmett Mitchell IV, the general counsel for the state Republican Party. Under his guidance, party officials in Florida got thousands of perfectly eligible black voters purged from the rolls in 2000, and got a law passed last year that limited registration drives and early voting days. A federal judge struck down the registration limits, but not before they drove down the numbers of new registrants.

 Posted by at 12:26 am
Nov 052012
 

New York Times

3:02 p.m. | Updated MIAMI – In a state where legal action often goes hand in hand with presidential elections, the Florida Democratic Party filed a federal lawsuit early Sunday to force the state government to extend early voting hours in South Florida.

The lawsuit followed a stream of complaints from voters who sometimes waited nearly seven hours to vote or who did not vote at all because they could not wait for hours to do so.

Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, local election supervisors in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach Counties, where queues sometimes snaked out the door and around buildings, said they would allow voters to request and cast absentee ballots on Sunday. Voters in three other Florida counties also will be able to pick up and drop off absentee ballots. State election law permits election offices to receive absentee ballots through Tuesday so long as they are cast in person.

But later on Sunday, Miami-Dade’s county election supervisor closed down the line for absentee ballots at its Doral office after two hours because too many people showed up.

Last year, Mr. Scott and the Republican-controlled State Legislature pushed through a measure to cut early voting from 14 to 8 days and do away with voting on the final Sunday before Election Day. Because more Democrats cast their ballots early than Republicans, the move was viewed by Democrats as an effort to blunt Democratic turnout.

 Posted by at 12:25 am
Nov 052012
 

The rumors persist. Was the president ACTUALLY born in the U.S.?

To investigate, we traveled down Chester Arthur Road, to the Chester Arthur Historic Site (which USED to be called the birthplace).

Is it possible that Chester Alan Arthur was born in Kenya?

No, no. Come on! Dumville laughed.

Fairfields town clerk, Amanda Forbes, showed us their evidence: A town record that indicates that William Arthur was elected to a school board months before Arthurs birth in 1829.

This is sort of as good as it gets in terms of evidence? asked Rocca.

Yes, said Forbes. We dont have any concrete birth certificate. I wish we did, but we dont.

Chester Arthur birther president Obama

Photo: National Archives

CBS News

 Posted by at 12:16 am
© 2009-2017 Oh, For Goodness Sake Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha