Monday, November 21, 2011

New Hampshire to Taitz: Take your nutiness back to La-La Land

Last week Orly Taitz finally got to put her stack of "zibits" and "dossies" before an honest to goodness official venue. On November 18 Taitz appeared for nearly a full hour before the New Hampshire Ballot Access Commission. The Commission held a hearing on four challenges to candidates for the January first in the nation presidential primary election. Taitz had filed her challenge against President Barack Obama based on her so called "evidence" of a forged Hawaiian birth certificate, social security fraud, and a wrong headed interpretation of the Constitutional definition of "natural born citizen". Taitz gave a 30 minute disjointed presentation and cross examined the single witness called by the commission, Assistant Secretary of State Ms. Karen Ladd. Taitz's challenge was scheduled to be heard last but as is the norm for Taitz she asked and received special treatment from the commission to accommodate her "busy schedule" and move her top the top of the list of challenges to be heard.

The bipartisan commission apparently was not swayed by Taitz and the testimony of several other supporters including one former and several current Republican state representatives. After a very short discussion they voted 5 - 0 to reject the challenge.

RC Radio again provided same day coverage of the hearing with a great account provided by The Fogbow Forum member, Whatever4. It may be downloaded here: RC Radio: The Nut's in New Hampshire Special Edition. A special thanks to W4 and to Sterngard who asked most of the questions during the interview.

A complete video of the hearing was posted by a Taitz supporter, Tim Carter:

One very telling moment came at the end of Taitz presentation when the Commission Chairman Bradford Cook (R) asked Taitz if she had any real evidence other that innuendo and opinion and Taitz said "No". What I found disturbing was the reaction to the defeat by supporters of Orly Tatiz. They accosted the counsel for the Secretary of State following the ruling. They accused the members of the Commission of committing treason. Some of these accusers include several current state representatives. Here is another video that documents the reactions of Susan Delemus and Harry Accornero both Republican members of the legislature.

A written transcript of Whatever4's recollection of the hearing is also available at Jack Ryan's SCRIBD page:

NEW HAMPSHIRE BALLOT CHALLENGE HEARING REPORT - 11-18-11 - As Reported by Whatever4 of The Fogbow


  1. "very telling moment came at the end of Taitz presentation when the Commission Chairman Bradford Cook (R) asked Taitz if she had any real evidence other that innuendo and opinion and Taitz said "No"."

    This is a lie. Cook never asked that. I listened to the hearing and read the transcript. Cook as if any "body" had settled the issue and Orly said no. She then followed up to explain that reasoning as well as another individual who explained that nothing has ever been settled on the merits because of a lack of standing.

  2. The point is Cook wanted to know if any governmental body had agreed with Taitz rantings. He asked if she had anything from the Social Security Administration and her answer was "they are stonewalling". Of course Taitz failed to disclose that several items in her evidence presented to the commission were obtained by apparently fraudulent means. For example, the Selective Service letter she mentioned was obtained when Greg Hollister pretended to be Barack Obama and requested a copy of the President's draft card. That would have certainly been something the commission might have been interested to know.

  3. Taitz was also less than honest when chairman Cook asked her about "her case in California". She said the case had not been decided but that is not correct. Her case has been dismissed and is on appeal.

  4. What Greg Hollister did I don't as much relavance. I think Orly was interested in the results of that which seem indicate fraud. As for her case in California, it has not been dismissed yet because it is still on appeal. Nonetheless, the other guy felt it prudent to point out that no court has decided on the merits because of a lack of standing.

  5. @ Anonymous

    Several points. First, standing is a merit of a case. It is probably the most important merit. Without standing it is not a case and doesn't belong in a court. What Orly's "evidence" seems to indicate is that several well motivated amateur detectives possibly found some errors in databases prone to errors and used them illegally at worst or at least outside the terms of service of the databases. You might not care how Hollister obtain Obama's draft record but a court would. Even if admitted all it could prove is that at one time Obama may have had a social security number starting with 042. So just what law would that have broken? Am mere mistype of a zip code on an application by a clerk would explain the prefix.

    Orly thinks that if she got one case to discovery that she is has Obama. She is wrong. None of her birth certificate analysis would see the light of day in a court because none of the so called experts would be allowed to testify. Obama's place of birth has been a settled question as far as a court would be concerned since the first birth certificate was issued in 2008. No serious Constitutional attorney buys into the silly two citizen parent definition of NBC and a parade of experts could be called to testify against it.