What A Tangled Web They Weave

Whoa! The blogs are on FIRE today kittens.  It’s hard to decide which on to eat first….

This is one of those moments I experience when all of these fascinating bits of opinion and fact and stuff in between flop down on top of me like a snowmegeddon.  This is a veritable blizzard, snips, bit and pieces and my commentary on this stuff below…..WAHOOOOOOO.

Right now I can’t access The Post & Email, and I was just there a few minutes ago.  Down.  Hummm.  Try again in a few moments, meanwhile we”ll talk about Leo’s Latest.  Leo Donofrio that is.  But most of you knew that already.

Donofrio Dealers Motion Rejected-(who didn’t see this coming?)

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com 2/08/2010

The entire dealer rejection issue turned on whether the rejections were a condition precedent to the sale closing. If it was not a material issue to Fiat, and if Fiat’s executive testified that they were happy to trim the dealership network after the sale closed, then Old Chrysler should not have been allowed to reject the dealer contracts. The Bankruptcy Court – under Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code – must approve the rejections for them to become effective.

Here is the exact testimony by Alfredo Altavilla of Fiat which the case turned on:

Q. If this transaction closes without an absolute requirement of a particular number of dealers that are being terminated, would Chrysler still go through with this deal — I mean, rather, would Fiat still go through with this deal?

A. The answer is that a restructure needs to occur. Whether it occurs before or after the closing of the deal is not a material difference.

(See May 27, 2009 Hearing Transcript at 352.)

It’s a very straightforward answer. Altavilla clearly testified that whether the dealer restructuring took place after the sale closed made no material difference to Fiat. Clearly, this man and his foreign company were not going to walk away from a deal where the American people paid the ENTIRE 20 plus billion dollar purchase costs just to hand it over to Fiat for free. Zippo nada zilch was paid by Fiat who were therefore in no position to demand 40,000 American jobs be lost and 789 dealerships be gutted. Fiat didn’t make that insane demand and the testimony above clearly shows this to be true.

But Judge Gonzalez decided he was going to usher in a new era of judicial ventriloquism by taking on a new role for his soiled robe. Gonzalez understood that the testimony needed for him to approve the rejection of 789 dealers (and loss of some 40,000 jobs) was nowhere to be found in the record of the case. So Judge Gonzalez – through the use of creative footnoting – made up his own testimony and stuffed it into the mouth of Altavilla alla Edger Bergen and his dummy Charlie McCarthy. Seriously folks – the metaphor is so very appropriate.

Please compare and contrast Alatvilla’s testimony with Judge Gonzalez at Footnote 21 of the Gonzalez Rejection Opinion:


Q. If this transaction closes without an absolute requirement of a particular number of dealers that are being terminated, would Chrysler still go through with this deal — I mean, rather, would Fiat still go through with this deal?

A. The answer is that a restructure needs to occur. Whether it occurs before or after the closing of the deal is not a material difference.


21 …Altavilla also responded affirmatively to a question regarding whether a dealership network needed to be restructured for the Fiat Transaction to close, stating that a “restructuring needs to occur.”

Altavilla never responded to any such question in the affirmative. Never, damn it. This is a fraud on the Court, on the nation and on truth.

Leo winds up his post with:

Understand that this battle is as important a fight as this nation will ever see. It will define whether we are going to allow the judicial branch to openly lie to our faces. If no court will overturn Gonzalez here, it’s the end of truth, justice and the American way forever. This judicial fraud will become the template for a new tomorrow where your children will have no protection of law.

(ED: I wonder still about his Quo Warranto plans, will this impact them?)

Same sentiment was found in this (cross) post on Oil For Immigration:


Hillary’s eligibility challenged in Supreme Court

Posted on February 10th, 2010 by David-Crockett

wnd logo
Can political branch evade ‘clear and precise language’ of Constitution?
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Gillery ClintonA brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government corruption, questions whether members of the “political branches of the government” can “evade the clear and precise language of a provision of the Constitution through the use of a legislative ‘fix.’”

The dispute is over former Sen. Hillary Clinton’s eligibility to be secretary of state.

The U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 6, clause 2, provides: “No senator or representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been [increased] during such time.”

The case brought on behalf of a career government employee outlines how during Clinton’s tenure in the U.S. Senate, the salary for the secretary of state was raised to $186,600, then to $191,300, and then again to $196,700.

The observation at the close of the article-much like Leo’s:

“The Supreme Court has an obligation to settle the Ineligibility Clause issue once and for all,” said Fitton. “If our government and courts will not observe even the plain and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution, then we are cut adrift from the anchor of law and liberty and the rule of law is in jeopardy. We hope the Supreme Court takes this opportunity to vindicate the Constitution.”

And on to my favorite diversion, obama, my darling obamas’ eligibility issue.  Get this stuff baby dolls:

(cross) post on Oil For Immigration:

– David Crockett
wnd logo
Candidate for Congress: ‘If he claims he was born at Kapi’olani, I want him to show proof’
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Miki BoothNASHVILLE – Just as a tea-party convention crowd gathered to discuss strategy for the movement, one woman stepped forward to the microphone – holding up two Hawaiian long-form birth certificates and a copy of President Obama’s purported short-form certification of live birth – and, referencing the short form, she told the crowd, “This piece of junk is what you get when you don’t have one of these!”

The crowd went wild, clapping and cheering.

There is more on this topic on The Post & Email, where extensive work has been done towards encouraging Hawaii officials at the DOH and OIP to obey simply obey their OWN LAWS.  The operative word here is


Thank You. Sorry, I’ll have to put those up later as that website is being blocked at the moment.



by V. Harlow, blogging at http://www.vventures.net

(Feb. 10, 2010) — The eligibility issue has constantly been mischaracterized as a “citizenship” issue or a “birth certificate” issue, and major media outlets keep playing on this same theme over and over, ridiculing those who want the truth.

I suspect they are partially driven by fear:  fear they won’t get interviews, fear they won’t get invitations, fear they won’t get to cover important issues if this issue is included in what they cover. Even Fox News continues to ridicule and mischaracterize this very important Constitutional issue.

Can we attack this administration on other valid issues? Yes, of course. I don’t advocate doing anything less. It’s not right to push aside the very valid and important Constitutional issue of the eligibility of the current resident of White House to hold the job as though it is of no consequence. There have been people scoffing for over a year now, yet lawsuits continue. The issue is law.  The highest office in the land, the one responsible for upholding our laws and protecting our freedoms, is the issue.


‘Nother snip: This is directly related to the snip above from World Net Daily, BUT is a different take on the importance of this document…..

OK Candidate releases son’s 1981 Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth


by John Charlton

(Feb. 10, 2010) — Miki Booth, a native Hawaiian and candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives for the State of Oklahoma, shocked and awed Obama supporters during the recent Tea Party Nation convention in Memphis, TN, when she publicly disclosed the Certificate of Live Birth for her son, Alan Paliko Booth, born on Nov. 24, 1981, at 7:55 AM, at Kapiolani Children’s Medical Center, the same hospital that Obama has claimed to be his own place of birth,nearly 20 years before.

The actual document contains a wealth of information such as the signature of the attending physician or midwife, a field for evidence presented for an Amended Birth Filing, race of parents and child, and a signature and date stamp, certifying the copy as an authentic representation of the information on file with the Hawaii Department of Health.

Importantly, the actual document, which you can view through this link, contains the fields, “Date received by Local Registrar” and “Date accepted by the State” and the name of the Local Registrar.  In recent months, Miss Janice Okubo has insisted that the terms mean the same thing and that she has no knowledge of what terms were used previously to the alleged Obama COLB.


And then this snip, a bit of an assumption that turned out to be nothing much.  However, it may be that the DOH has begun to use a different method  in answering inquires.  We’ll scoot around for a few days to see what we shall see and get back to you on that.

Has Janice Okubo resigned?


by John Charlton

UPDATE: Miss Okubo emailed me on Feb. 10th, at 7:26 AM, Honolulu time about a UIPA request I had made, so I can confirm that she has not resigned.  She explained that responses to UIPA requests have now been assigned to a staff person, and apologized for the inadequate response I received.  I apoloize to the readers of The Post & Email for assuming that the HI Department of Health has its act together.


Whoops!  Nearly left this out.  SNIP:

One More Mystery — Third Grade

Posted on February 11th, 2010 by David-Crockett

The Obama File

On February 9th, 2010, I received the following email from “Northeast Elizabeth”:

On your site’s “Education” page, you post a photograph identified as “Barry, 3rd Grade, 1969″ which is identical to this one appearing in the Honolulu Star Bulletin in December, 2009 (in an article revealing that Obama spent at least part of third grade in Hawaii and not solely Jakarta as widely reported).  Did you add it to your site after that date, or was it there before?  I ask because in the article, Obama’s former classmate Scott Inoue indicates that he didn’t receive the photo back from Obama until November 2009, and I had assumed that Star’s publication of the picture the next month would have been the first appearance of it.  However, the page on your site on which it appears indicates copyright, Beckwith, 2008″ at the bottom so I wasn’t sure if it was from back then (and if so, how you would have it if it were a private picture of Inoue’s, unless Inoue got it elsewhere and was playing a trick).

Scott and Barry 3rd grade 1969
(ED: Hey, see the Christmas tree paintings of young students in the background?)

Unfortunately, I have no memory of when I added that photo.  However, I checked the properties on that image and it was created on Sunday, October 18, 2009 — so it was clearly before.  So, I had it before it was returned to Inoue in November, 2009.
However, it’s clear I acquired the photo without the back story, prompting me to archive the photo as an Indonesian-Besuki-period artifact.

Somehow, I missed the Star Bulletin report.  This was the first I’de heard of Obama being in the 3rd grade — and in Hawaii?  He was supposed to be in Indonesia – the report contradicts Obama’s own autobiography, as well as multiple biographies, that say he attended grades 1 through 5 in Jakarta, Indonesia.  From the report:



~ by ladysforest on February 10, 2010.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: