I'm thinking that the change to paperless means that there is no paper copy of the long form anymore. Maybe on microfilm? Would it be ordinary for a state to destroy all paper copies of records and NOT at the very least have it on microfilm?
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5nKVpD5v4Hk?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5nKVpD5v4Hk?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
"No paper records, only microfilm?". How difficult would it be to alter microfilm records if one were so inclined? How expensive would it be? Would it be expensive compared to allegedly spending >$3 Million in legal fees to prevent the public from seeing any of Odumbo's records? Just asking...
Wow,in all of Congress the GOP has 2 african american members,that proves they arent racists A Cuban won a Senate seat in the state with largest Cuban population .That also proves they aren't racist
Thats proven to be a lie and you know it yet you keep repeating it "WorldNetDaily has noted that FEC filings show that Obama's presidential campaign has paid out more than $1.7 million since the election to the law firm of Perkins Coie. Until recently, that firm was home to Obama's campaign lawyer, and now White House counsel, Robert Bauerâthe very same DC lawyer, says WND, who has defended Obama in many of the birther lawsuits. Ergo, WND concluded, Obama must be devoting that entire $1.7 million to crushing birthers in court. This is a ridiculous claim: Even after an election is over a presidential campaign has plenty of need for lawyers as it winds down operations and meets campaign finance law requirements."
Desperation: WND touts birther claim made on "pro-white" program at "white supremacist" conference June 14, 2010 11:31 am ET by Media Matters staff WorldNetDaily, one of the loudest voices pushing the bogus story that Barack Obama does not have a legitimate birth certificate, is now touting a birther claim first made on a "pro-white" radio program at a conference of "white supremacist." In a June 10 article headlined, "Hawaii elections clerk: Obama not born here," WND's Joe Kovacs wrote that Tim Adams, "who worked as a senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in 2008 is making the stunning claim Barack Obama was definitely not born in Hawaii as the White House maintains, and that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Obama does not even exist in the Aloha State." WND added that "People started to pay attention this week after he was briefly interviewed by James Edwards, host of a weekly radio show on WLRM Radio in Memphis, Tenn." Kovacs wrote a follow-up article on Adams, touting how "WND's original report about Adams' claims has already been made into a YouTube video, getting thousands of hits." WND, however, makes no mention that Adams made the claim while appearing on a "pro-white" radio program hosted by white nationalist James Edwards at a conference of "white supremacist." James Edwards says that on June 5, he broadcasted his radio program The Political Cesspool "at the 2010 Council of Conservative Citizens National Conference." The CofCC similarly states that Edwards broadcasted live from its event, and includes links to a recording of the show. According to Edwards, "in attendance" was Tim Adams, who made his birther claim on-air. The Council of Conservative Citizens is described by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a "white supremacist" "hate group," and by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as having a "white supremacy, white separatism" ideology. The Council states on its website that they "oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called 'affirmative action' and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races." The Political Cesspool website states: "We represent a philosophy that is pro-White ... We wish to revive the White birthrate above replacement level fertility and beyond to grow the percentage of Whites in the world relative to other races." The ADL and SPLC have both criticized Edwards and The Political Cesspool. The SPLC writes that Edwards "has probably done more than any of his contemporaries on the American radical right to publicly promote neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, raging anti-Semites and other extremists." Other guests that appeared on the show with Adams included "white supremacist" Sam Dickson; "white supremacist" Paul Fromm; and Derek Black, the son of former Klan leader Don Black and host of "weekly shows on the Stormfront Internet radio site, where he also was a webmaster." Stormfront, which has streamed Political Cesspool, describes itself as a "community of White Nationalists." Edwards wrote on his blog that he "introduced Tim Adams to the world," and brought the story to WorldNetDaily. Edwards wrote: "We have been swamped with media inquiries ever since Mr. Adams appeared on our show last weekend. In working in cooperation with Joe Kovacs, Executive News Editor at World Net Daily, the following story has now been published." Edwards then linked to Kovacs' June 10 story. The backing behind Adams' claim is so extreme that even the right-wing message board Free Republic states that it pulled threads related to Adams because the source of the video "is a group called The Council of Conservative Citizens. This is NOT a Conservative group, do not be fooled by the name. This group is a front group for a neo-Nazi group known as the National Alliance and is associated with Stormfront." So why is WorldNetDaily pushing a claim made on a "pro-white" radio program at a "white supremacist" conference?
Its odd that rover keeps saying that the courts have deciding the birther cases on the merits. O.K. which court reviewed the birth records and found them to be authentic? what issue did they decide? what evidence did the weigh. Ranger Rover keeps lying. Another point -- when has obama himself offered his birth certificate and said it is accurate? finally you are confusing the legal issues. A court does not have to accept a birth certificate as accurate just because it may be an official state record. I do not have time to go over it here, but you should go back and read what I wrote about evidence, hearsay and foundation. A court would not likely accept a recent birth certificate if the original is available... on an issue such a date of birth. At the very least a records officer would have to come in an explain how place of birth was gleaned from the records. In short before a court would accept a birth certificate as evidence of the place of birth it would likely have to overcome many objections, even i if is an official document.
I'm no lawyer,but when federal judges are dismissing birther cases as frivolous and as a waste of the courts time I doubt they have any merits...except in the minds of the birthers Did you know that birther lawyers are getting reprimanded, fined thousands of dollars and being called delusional ? Hollister v. Soetoro On March 5, 2009, a lawsuit filed by Philip Berg on behalf of Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force colonel, against Barack Obama (referenced as "Barry Soetoro", the name given at the time of his enrollment in an Indonesian elementary school). The suit was dismissed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The presiding judge, James Robertson, said the case was a waste of the court's time, calling Berg and another lawyer "agents provocateurs" and their local counsel, John Hemenway, "a foot soldier in their crusade." He ordered Hemenway to show cause why he should not pay the legal fees for Obama's attorney as a penalty for filing a complaint "for an improper purpose such as to harass".[180] The district court ultimately reprimanded Hemenway for his actions, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the dismissal of the case and Hemenway's reprimand. --- Rhodes v. Macdonald In September 2009, Taitz, on behalf of Captain Connie Rhodes, a U.S. Army physician, sought a restraining order to stop Rhodes' forthcoming deployment to Iraq. In the request for a restraining order, Taitz argued the order was illegal since Obama was illegally serving as President. On September 16, federal judge Clay D. Land rejected the motion and denounced it as frivolous. --- On October 13, 2009, Judge Clay Land ordered "Counsel Orly Taitz ... to pay $20,000 to the United States, through the Middle District of Georgia Clerk's Office, within thirty days of the date of this Order as a sanction for her misconduct in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Land's decision stated: The Court finds that counsel's conduct was willful and not merely negligent. It demonstrates bad faith on her part. As an attorney, she is deemed to have known better. She owed a duty to follow the rules and to respect the Court. Counsel's pattern of conduct conclusively establishes that she did not mistakenly violate a provision of law. She knowingly violated Rule 11. Her response to the Court's show cause order is breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional. She expresses no contrition or regret regarding her misconduct. To the contrary, she continues her baseless attacks on the Court.[199]