Is P&E Enabling Foolish legal position by Walt?
HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN HARMED BY AN OUT-OF-CONTROL STATE JUDICIARY? by Sharon Rondeau (May 25, 2012) — “They created their own criminal court that has no jurisdiction,” said Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III, regarding his recent discovery that county criminal courts had been outlawed by the state legislature 28 years ago.
Walt appears to be confused as to what happened 28 years ago. It’s this kind of foolishness that has caused Walt to spend many month in jail already. Let’s not encourage more foolishness which will inevitably cause more jail time for our poor Walt. Hint: county criminal courts were NOT outlawed…
Other than that, well, the usual Walt follies. Since Walt is unable to learn from his mistakes or the contributions of others, I predict another failure when Walt presents his latest ‘findings’. Expect more accusations that the judiciary is wrong… It’s a commonly heard objection from those who are incarcerated… The mere belief however, does little to shorten one’s sentence.
CA – Noonan v Bowen – Affirmed
Well, we don’t know yet if Pam got to argue her case, despite failing to submit, in a timely manner, her opposition to the demurrers. But we do know that the Court was not impressed either way.
COURT RULING
The matter is argued and submitted.
The Court AFFIRMS the tentative ruling.
The birther sites appear to be strangely silent on the last few defeats…
US v Wong Kim Ark – Brief on Behalf of the Appellant (Government)
Unites States Supreme Court
OCTOBER TERM, 1895.
THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANT,
v.
WONG KIM ARK, RESPONDENT,
BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT.
THE CASE
This is an appeal from the district, court of the United States for the northern district of California, and is taken from the judgment of that court, discharging the respondent on habeas corpus cum causa from the custody of the collector of port of San Francisco, who refused to permit the respondent to land in the United States for the reason that he is a Chinese laborer and within the inhibitory provisions of the Chinese exclusion act. The respondent claimed exemption from that act upon the ground that he was born within the United States, and thereby became ipso facto a citizen thereof. The Government, while conceding the fact of birth, denied the conclusion of citizenship in that respect, contending that as the respondent was born of alien parents, to wit, subjects of the Emperor of China, he was at his birth a subject of China, claimed by that nation to be such, and therefore was not when born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning and intent of the Constitution.
Fl -Voeltz v Obama – Motion to stay discovery
Things are getting interesting. The plaintiffs apparently are seeking discovery before their case will get summarily dismissed.
5/25/2012 PRESIDENT OBAMA’S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
Noonan not Happy
Noonan, whose case was recently dismissed in the California Courts is not too happy. He believes that since he has ‘evidence’ that he believes points to fraud, the Court and those involved in his court case, should be recalled. Somehow Noonan has come to believe the non-probative ‘evidence’ that Orly Taitz has been waiving around, failing to recognize that there is NO evidence of any fraud. Desperate times indeed. But it if makes Noonan feel better about his failings then fine, who am I to object to him pursuing another foolish, almost quixotic quest. We do thank Noonan for providing the California Jurisdiction with yet another precedential ruling that will help in the dismissal of similar, foolish cases. PS: Has Noonan reported these ‘crimes’ to the Attorney General?
A complaint has been submitted to you as the Superior Court Judge stating that Mr. Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama) is not qualified to be on the 2012 Primary ballot because he is not qualified as mandated by Article II of the US Constitution. All candidates must be natural born citizens; a person who’s Father and Mother are both U. S. Citizens and who has been born on U.S. soil. Mr. Soetoro’s father is a foreign national of Kenyan. This makes Mr. Soetoro ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States.
[NBC: The courts have wisely rejected this foolish two citizen parent argument based on lack of supporting legal or scholarly evidence and because of lack of reason and logic in reaching such a conclusion]
Taitz v Ruemmler – Appeal – Summary Affirmance Granted
Another great Friday…
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and the opposition thereto, it is ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties’ positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court correctly determined that the White House Counsel’s Office is not an “agency” subject to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1). Contrary to appellant’s argument, the Office’s status under FOIA does not vary based on the specific records request at issue. See Nat’l Sec. Archive v. Archivist of the United States, 909 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C. Cir. 1990); see also Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Justice, 365 F.3d 1108, 1110 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Meyer v. Bush, 981 F.2d 1288, 1293 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
2012-05-25 – TAITZ v RUEMMLER – USDCDC APPEAL – ORDER
ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted.
DC – Taitz v Astrue – Orly loses another one
Remember Orly’s default motion? Denied… Remember her ‘case against Astrue’? Denied… Motion to dismiss has been granted.. ROTFL… Any time soon now. So clueless… Another smack down Friday…
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 11-5304 September Term 2011
1:11-cv-00402-RCL Filed On: May 25, 2012
Orly Taitz, Dr., Appellant
v.
Michael James Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Appellee
BEFORE:
Rogers, Griffith, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and the opposition thereto; the motion for summary reversal, styled as a “motion for summary judgment in favor of the appellant,” which includes a request to appoint a special prosecutor; and the motion for default judgment, it is ORDERED that the motion for default judgment be denied. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary reversal be denied and the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties’ positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court correctly concluded that disclosure of the requested information “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). Appellant has not demonstrated any valid public interest in disclosure to balance against the substantial privacy interest at stake. See Horowitz v. Peace Corps, 428 F.3d 271, 278 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (“If there is no public interest in the disclosure of certain information, ‘something, even a modest privacy interest, outweighs nothing every time.’” (quoting Nat’l Ass’n of Retired Fed. Employees v. Horner, 879 F.2d 873, 879 (D.C. Cir. 1989)).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Per Curiam
CA – Noonan v Obama – Barnett Blows It…
The Court observed that Pamela Barnett filed her opposition to the demurrers too late. Her excuse is not considered to be a good cause and lacking in reasonable grounds
On May 21, 2012, petitioner Pamela Barnett filed an untimely opposition, in which she asks the Court to continue the hearing on the demurrer until June 15, 2012. Petitioner Barnett states that she did not file a timely opposition because she believed that Mr. Kreep had agreed to represent her as well as petitioner Noonan, and she did not find out that was not the case until it was too late to file her own timely opposition. Petitioner Barnett’s request for a continuance is denied on the ground that she has not demonstrated good cause for her untimely filing,in that she has not demonstrated that she had reasonable grounds for believing that Mr. Kreep would represent her.
This has not stopped Pam from entering an appearance for Oral argument 
CA – 2012-05-23 – NOONAN – BARNETT – Entry of Appearance for Oral Argument
Yes my friends… That’s what she did. Perhaps unfamiliar with the concept of an ‘entry of appearance’… How she believes she can argue against the demurrer since she failed to timely respond is beyond me but Pam never has been slowed down by jurisdictional concerns Oh yes, and they are running out of money again… Oh the level of competence exhibited here is mind boggling…
‘Toughest’ Sheriff avoids getting ‘leid’
Wearing flip-flops, grass skirts and Hawaiian leis, with surfboards in tow and the pungent odor of sunscreen trailing behind them, around 15-to-20 members of Citizens for a Better Arizona stormed the 19th Floor of Phoenix’s Wells Fargo Building this afternoon, briefly taking over the entranceway to Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s tony executive offices.
The group’s gripe? The fact that Sheriff Joe had dispatched one of his deputies to Hawaii as security for Mike Zullo, a top doofus from Arpaio’s “cold case posse,” who’s still “investigating” crackpot claims that President Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a phony.
He was too chicken to meet with them…
About that time a couple of plainclothes deputies emerged. An older one identified himself as Angelo Calderone, the vice-chair of Arpaio’s security. He told Parraz that the sheriff would meet with him, but alone and with no cameras.
Parraz responded that he wanted Arpaio to come out and talk to everyone. Calderone said Arpaio wasn’t going to do that.
Source: Phoenix New Times
Bowhall v Obama District Court Alabama N.D.
A little known case where the Court ruled that the review of the President’s qualifications does not involve the Judiciary.
In addition, Mr. Bowhall alleges that Defendants disregarded his political concerns about anti-trust and patent reform laws, establishment of a third party Congress, and campaign finance reform legislation. (Compl. 2, 8-15.) He also opposes the “[n]omination of a non-natural born citizen to office of [the] President [of the United States] in the 2009 election year.” (Compl. 7.) Mr. Bowhall’s factual allegations against all parties, both governmental and non-governmental Defendants, are clearly baseless.
…
Further, his claim that the President is a non-natural born citizen is not justiciable by this court. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74; see also Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1376-77 (M.D. Ga. 2009) (explaining the proper constitutional procedure for review of the President’s qualifications and noting that the mechanism “does not involve the judiciary”).
Source: Bowhall v Obama
MS – Orly v Democrat Party – Orly again ignores the rules
And the sanctionable events are stacking up slowly… Can she follow an order?… Doubt it…
05/24/2012 TEXT ONLY ORDER directing the Clerk of the Court to restrict public access to Plaintiff’s response, ECF No. 33; document contains social security numbers. Plaintiff is directed to redact any such information prior to filing any documents in the future. NO WRITTEN ORDER TO FOLLOW. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 5/24/2012. (ACF) (Entered: 05/24/2012)
CA – Noonan v Bowen – Tentative Ruling
They got lucky and escaped sanctions but it is over… Kreep can add another loss to his record…
2012-05-25 – CA – NOONAN – Tentative Ruling
Respondent Bowen has filed a demurrer to the amended petition. Respondents President Obama and Obama for America (California) have filed a separate demurrer. Both demurrers assert that the amended petition fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action that could support the relief requested in the petition.
Only one of the seven petitioners, Edward C. Noonan, filed a timely opposition to the demurrers.
…
Having applied the standard of review described above to the amended petition, the Court sustains the demurrers. The amended petition fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because it requires the Court either to make a factual determination as to whether President Obama is eligible to hold or run for the office of President of the United States, or to find that the Secretary of State has a mandatory duty to make that determination. Such a determination is a matter that is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court, and is a matter that is not within the duties of the Secretary of State, as held in controlling decisions of the Third District Court of Appeal.
…
The remaining issue is whether the demurrers should be sustained without leave to amend.
“A demurrer may be sustained without leave to amend where the facts are not in dispute and the nature of the plaintiff’s claim is clear, but, under substantive law, no liability exists.” (Keyes v. Bowen, supra, 189 Cal. App. 4th at 655.) Here, there is no dispute that petitioners base their claims on allegations of fact regarding President Obama’s supposed ineligibility to hold the office of President of the United States, and that they would continue to do so if the petition were to be further amended. Thus, the nature of petitioners’ claim is clear. Any further amended petition still would require the Court either to make a factual determination as to whether President Obama is a natural born citizen who is eligible to run for or hold the office of President of the United States under Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, or to find that the Secretary of State is legally required to make such a determination. Under the controlling authority of the Keyes and Fuller cases, as discussed above, the Court lacks jurisdiction to make such a determination, and the Secretary of State has no legal duty to do so. No liability, and no right to relief, exists on the basis of the facts alleged by petitioners.
Educating the Confused – Larry and Orly’s Indiana Lawsuit
At ORYR, a poster named Larry is making some pretty foolish assertions when it is pointed out that in Indiana the State filed a motion explaining to he court that Orly is practicing law in Indiana without a proper license. It’s a simple fact that Orly was never admitted to the Court Pro Hac Vice and thus cannot pretend to act as a lawyer. Larry, all upset then asserts the following:
Larry: The emergency motion filed by the Indiana SoS HAS OFFICIALLY BEEN WITHDRAWN. Game, set, match, you lose, you no-class liar!”
However, as Somerset explains quite patiently, the emergency motion was filed by Orly and the State merely responded in opposition to Orly’s motion. And no, the response filed by the Indiana SoS has not been withdrawn.
FL – Voeltz v Obama – Motion for Protective Order
Source: Docket5/14/2012 PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SECRETARY OF STATE AND DEFENDANT OBAMAS MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND DEFENDANT SECRETARY OF STATES ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT5/14/2012 FLORIDA ELECTIONS CANVASSING COMMISSIONs ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT JAMES PETERS (Attorney) on behalf of FLORIDA ELECTIONS CANVASSING COMMISSION (DEFENDANT)5/23/2012 SECRETARY OF STATES MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
The facts about Spending and Obama
The spending binge never happened!! So why are Republicans lying?…
Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:
• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.
• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.
There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.
AZ – LLF v NDP – Desperate times
AZ – LLF – 2012-05-23 LLF Opposition to Motion for Sanctions
AZ – LLF – 2012-05-23 LLF Exhibits to Response to Motion for Sanctions
MS – Orly v Democrat Party – Response in Opposition
Another smackdown of Orly showing past incompetence
First, Taitz argues that her obligations to litigate this action should be stayed until the remaining named defendants file an answer. See Stay Motion at 4-5. However, as set forth in the MDEC’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff Orly Taitz’s Motion to Remand [Doc. 21], Taitz has failed to properly serve those defendants and – if past is prologue – it could be months until some or all of the additional defendants are served.
Citing
See, e.g. Barnett v. Obama, 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN, 2009 WL 3861788, at *19 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009) (“Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants . . . . While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009 . . . after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service.”).
05/23/2012 34 RESPONSE in Opposition re 24 MOTION to Stay Case filed by Democrat Party of Mississippi (Begley, Samuel) (Entered: 05/23/2012)
Fitzpatrick – Getting ready for another frivolous legal defense/
The P&E reports:
Tennessee County Criminal Courts were Outlawed in 1984 but Have Continued to Operate for the Last 28 Years
LAW PASSED BY STATE LEGISLATURE MANDATED DISTRICTS FOR CRIMINAL COURTS, NOT COUNTIES by Sharon Rondeau (May 23, 2012) — While preparing his defense against the charge of “tampering with government records” issued from the “Monroe County Criminal Court” by an unknown accuser, Walter Francis Fitzpatrick made an astounding discovery: county criminal courts were made illegal
I am still amazed that Walt does not understand who the accusers are in a criminal complaint. Sigh… This argument is so ‘sovereign citizen’… But I can’t wait for Walt to refuse to answer the Court claiming that it is an illegal court…
No worries Walt, good accommodations are awaiting you.
NY – Strunk v NYSBOE – Notice of Appeal
In true ‘Strunk’ fashion… Expect more sanctions…
Strunk v NYSBOE – Notice of Appeal with Attachments
Exploring the Confused – Butterdezillion
Poor lass
But everything that’s on a COLB is. Including the BC#, any stamps indicating “LATE” or “ALTERED”, and any notations of what supporting documentation was provided for amendments or late registrations.
And if you look at what was in that “verification”, it was never claimed that the record was legally valid.
We know that the BC Obama presented was forged. If the content that HI has for him in their official “record on file” is the same as what Obama produced, then why did he have to forge anything?
ROTFL, we now know that such claims are disproven by the DOH but Butterdezillion, manages to turn it all inside out… Hilarious what being a birther can do to your brain…
The Cold Case Posse left out in the Cold
The WND is spinning the defeat… All that time and effort by Corsi to get Arpaio to front their attacks on President Obama have been undone by Arizona SOS Bennett and the requests of tea partiers, to properly vet President Obama. Now that Bennett has received and accepted the verification of President Obama’s birth, these poor sods find themselves staring at a wall they themselves erected. Well done… I would like to thank those tea party members who so aptly undermined Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse’s attempt to smear our President.
Zullo admits to meeting with Bennett:
“In my meetings with Mr. Bennett on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio, he was uninterested in reviewing the evidence the Cold Case Posse has accumulated,” Zullo said, characterizing Bennett’s late-night announcement as a “desperate rush to judgment” after weeks of negotiation to get Hawaii to provide the assurances he required.
ROTFL, as expected, they are starting to fight amongst themselves. Zullo knows that the verification is devastating to the CCP’s witchhunt
And Zullo thinks this is his opening:
“Evidently Hawaii has had a change of heart,” Zullo said. “I’m now happy to return once again to the Hawaii Department in Health to repeat our request that Hawaii release whatever birth records may yet remain concealed in the Hawaii Department of Health vaults to public examination by a court-certified group of forensic examiners.”
MS – Orly v Democrat Party – Opposition to motion to strike motion for sanctions
Orly totally misunderstands the rules of law again. She insists that since the defendants did not object to her motion for sanctions, sanctions should be granted. BUT a motion to strike is not a responsive pleading and thus the defendants have time to properly reject her foolish request for sanctions. Poor Orly, she really does not appear to know what she is talking about when it comes to rules of law.
As to the unredacted SSN, Orly is not bound by the clear rules of the Court because, well… because… Sanctions are going to be piling up high… So please contribute to Orly’s cause… She is going to need the help 
2012-05-23 – TAITZ – 33 Opposition to Motion to Strike Motion for Sanctions Against Attorneys for the Defendant Democratic Party of Mississippi,
MS – Orly v Democrat Party – Reply to Response in opposition to motion to remand
Orly has been busy, although she already has missed several deadlines… In spite of what the defendants argued, Orly still insists that all parties have to consent (incorrect) that all other parties were served (incorrect)
Defendants Democratic Party of Mississippi and Secretary of state of Mississippi concede that
a. all parties have to consent to the removal
b. that other defendants were served and they did not concede to the removal.
Orly also claims that she still has time to perfect service, again incorrect, at the time of the remand, only those who were served correctly need to join into consenting…
Orly is doomed and with her response, sanctions and cost will be almost guaranteed.
32 REPLY to [22] Response in Opposition to Motion to Remand, filed by Orly Taitz. (ND)
AZ – SOS Bennett Accepts Hawaii’s verification
Orly will blow a fuse when she reads this:
Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett said Tuesday night that he has received information from Hawaii that proves President Obama’s American birth and satisfies Arizona’s requirements for having the president on the upcoming election ballot.
…
Bennett said the issue is now resolved from his point of view. He has cancelled a planned Wednesday news conference where he was expected to discuss the issue.
“I’m happy that we got what we asked for and that’s what I was expecting all along,” Bennett said Tuesday night.
Source: AZ Central
Orly totally loses it
Orly
Obama and his accomplices are cornered! AZ Secretary of State Bennett is not backing off! He continues demanding verification of authenticity, Arpaio is pushing, I am pushing with RICO and other law suits. They have no papers and will go to prison! Listen to the audio of Bennett’s interview!
She then points to an interview Bennett gave the day before the DOH Of Hawaii verified the birth… It’s this kind of incompetence which has become the trademark of Orly. Orly however must have realized that the verification will destroy her cases, and that she has no foundation for her RICO suit. Two of her lawsuits are moving towards sanctions already…
Arpaio’s attempt at police work…
“We feel that that document is a forgery,” he said. “We’re trying to figure out who did it. That’s good police work.”
In addition to storming the lobby, Arpaio says his island forces are developing “numerous investigative leads.”
I don’t imagine that it’s an easy assignment. This is a complicated case that calls for sophisticated law-enforcement techniques, given those tricky Hawaiians with their website (hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/ obama.html) offering all publicly available documents.
“These include, among other things, press releases from both the past and present state directors of health verifying that they have personally seen and verified the president’s birth records, as well as a link to the White House website where a copy of the certification of live birth is posted,” Wisch wrote.
Never mind all that. The sheriff wants proof.
Source: AZ Central
What an idiot. He believes that an electronic version which shows evidence of compression somehow shows that the certified copy which was shown during the Press Event, and was actually held by Savannah Guthrie, is a forgery?… He ignores the fact that the State of Hawaii has verified and certified Obama’s birth in Hawaii.
Time to retire our Sheriff before senility totally engulfs him.
Did Arpaio Lie?
Arpaio provides one story but the facts appear to be slightly different. Anyone surprised?
And so our intrepid sheriff, Joe Arpaio — not content with Secretary of State Ken Bennett’s electoral probe — has dispatched a deputy and his posse to Hawaii as part of his criminal investigation into the curious matter of Barack Obama’s birth certificate.
Arpaio says his investigators showed up on Monday at the Hawaii Department of Health but couldn’t get past the lobby.
“We tried to get to the registrar. They wouldn’t talk to us,” Arpaio told me. “An assistant attorney general came down, there’s a few cops around there and they wouldn’t give us any information. The deputy showed his credentials and all that.”
Hawaii tells it a little differently.
“The two gentlemen who showed up at the State Department of Health yesterday and represented themselves as being from Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office were not turned away,” Joshua Wisch, special assistant to the Hawaii attorney general, wrote in an e-mail. “They met in a conference room with the deputy director of health and a deputy attorney general. … The registrar was not available at the time, so his supervisor, the deputy director, took the time to meet with the gentlemen. The statutory process was explained at the meeting, and all publicly available documentation was provided.”
Source: AZ Central
The net is tightening around Arpaio. Thank God for that… No more bargaining chips to avoid Federal charges…
AZ – SOS Bennett – Hawaii Verifies
A Hawaii official announced late Tuesday that the state gave Arizona’s top elections official the verification he wanted showing President Barack Obama was indeed born there in 1961.
…
Regarding the inquiry from the Arizona Secretary of State, Ken Bennett, requesting a verification of birth for President Obama from the State of Hawaii, Department of Health, the matter has been resolved. We have received information from Secretary Bennett that satisfied our requirements, and have therefore provided his office with a verification of birth for President Obama.
Source: TPM
Not only did Bennett back down from his threats that President Obama may not be on the Arizona Ballot, but he also apologized and now Hawaii has provided him with a verification of President Obama’s birth in Hawaii…
That will drive the birthers crazy… And Orly….
With this precedent, State Court cases that attack President Obama’s location of birth are doomed. Time to fall back to the two-citizen parent argument. Oops, the Courts have already solidly rejected that kind of foolishness, although some are still trying (Hi Mario).
AZ SOS Bennett – Backing down
“If I embarrassed the state, I apologize but that certainly wasn’t my intent,” Bennett said in an interview with Phoenix radio station KTAR. “He’ll be on the ballot as long as he fills out the same paperwork and does the same things that everybody else has.”
Recent Comments