Wednesday, January 22, 2014

To the Honorable Judge Wingate

To the Honorable Judge Wingate,

I have been following the cases that have moved through the courts dealing with the birth of the President. As such, I have paid close attention to both sides of the argument.

What struck me odd recently was after my oral argument at the Alaska Supreme Court, I met a fellow in the elevator at the Alaska Supreme Court who frequents a site called Fogbow. This individual told me that you were going to issue a ruling the 22nd. This was told to me on the 15th.

I came across Orly Taitz's recent post ( ; and found that you were disparaged by an anonymous individual and it revolved around a ruling that was going to be issued on the 22nd.

I found it coincidental that I was told the same by the individual who wrote about the oral argument in the captured screen shot. I found it interesting Mr. Tepper's name was mentioned. See attachment.

While I don't agree with Taitz on many legal  issues revolving the president, it seems that courts are being disparaged ( while the DOJ in one case misrepresented evidence in a "birther" case by telling the court at no time did the President hold a Kenyan/US citizenship while the Obama campaign a year earlier had stated on its Fight the Smears site that indeed he held a dual citizenship until 1983.

This was briefed in my arguments before the Alaska Courts ( part of Excerpt of Record 25 -  and the misrepresentation can be seen at Para 20 at (

The statement to the contrary can be seen at ( since the campaign pulled the info from the web. But the screen shot exists at (

Moreover, in the Strunk case, it was stated by the Department of State that the president never held an Indonesian citizenship when there are records to the contrary. See para para 20 in answer.

It is important that the court not be disparaged and it be the guardian of the truth and facts.

I am prepared to file an affidavit indicating that I was told that in effect you had a decision prepared for the 22nd.


Thomas Lamb


anotherparadox said...

Not too bright there, Mr. Lamb.

There's nothing nefarious about knowing that the decisions are about to be released when the docket is updated with a date for the hearing.

Taitz never let her "supporters" know of this hearing because she knows she's going to lose in the end. And she still will. There is no case. Her RICO statement reads of "Me ME ME ME ME" and none of her co-plaintiffs filed the required RICO statement to show how they had been damaged.

And the ballot challenge is definitely moot.

There's no where for this case to go but to be dismissed and the attorneys will then file a motion for expenses.

Anonymous said...

Well there's a winning strategy: when your case is going down the crapper, just glom on to Orly Taitz.

Tom Lamb said...

Two bright bulbs - evidently u missed the Judge delaying the hearing and the DOJ lying to the court.

Typical Obots - selective reading and comp.

Anonymous said...

1. When did the judge, exactly, delay the hearing in the Mississippi case?

2. The DOJ isn't involved with the Mississippi case, so it couldn't have lied to court in that case.

Tom Lamb said...

Anon first - you're a lawyer who misstated the facts - no shoplifting of Taitz's case - that would be akin to stealing wooden nickels.

It's called a life-line and who is the Judge supposedly going to? DOJ. Evidently you have a problem with 2 + 2 = 4 and why didn't you read the link to the case?

Duh comes to mind.

Tom Lamb said...

Oops when was the decision again? The 22nd has come and past - that counsoooler is a delay.

Anonymous said...

Taitz's shoplifting case? Wooden nickels? Huh?

1. Again, when was the Mississippi case delayed?

2. Again, when did the DOJ lie?

anotherparadox said...

Mr. Lamb is just hoping that the Honorable Judge Wingate will read his pile of crazy filings when the truth is, this will most likely end up in the trash can.

Yes, the decisions have been delayed due to an idiotic comment left on Orly's blog. So what? The court will investigate it and then we'll get a decision at a later date.

She's got a ballot challenge now moot and a RICO that she has no idea how to plead. Do you think the court is going to rule in her favor? Oh, yea. I'll grant that ballot challenge and remove Obama's name from the ballot. Oh wait! He didn't win any electoral votes here. Never mind...

Her RICO statement was a total disaster. Full of accusations but no proof of anything.

Anonymous said...

"It's called a life-line and who is the Judge supposedly going to? DOJ. Evidently you have a problem with 2 + 2 = 4 and why didn't you read the link to the case?"

You think that because the Judge said he is going to investigate the comment on Taitz's blog he is going to the DOJ?

That's taking 2+2 and getting 693798374983749387432984732947230987

What he said was that he was not aware of the comment on the blog and he was going to investigate it, i.e. read the blog to see what the comment actually said. He ALSO said that he was not at the event described on the blog so the incident as reported was obviously false.

Lying about what a judge said on a blog is not a matter for the DOJ.

In any case if he reads the blog he will see that Taitz said she didn't believe it, so wheres the injury? There isn't one, so there is no crime. PLUS there is nothing on the blog comment that identifies the FOGBOW website in any way, so even in your stupid masturbatory imaginings of the DOJ getting involved, there is no reason the DOJ would bother looking at the Fogbow in any case.

In short, you took one word and turned it into marshmellow. And all you will be is dissapointed. Just like you will be when you lose your silly nonsensical case. Which will be on the record as affirming Barack Obama's right to be president, just like Ankeny V Daniels is on the record doing the same.

With love


Anonymous said...

Oh, one other thing. I had a laugh at your twitter earlier, and I noticed you were crowing about a fox poll which showed that there was "record" levels of people against Obamacare. Aside form the fact that 56% is actually a drop in levels of antipathy to the 5 year old "new law," the poll of compleatly wrong in any case

Lets look at somethign OUTSIDE your FOX bubble

"60% Of KY GOPers Buck McConnell, Support Medicaid Expansion

A solid majority of Kentucky Republicans support the state's decision to expand Medicaid under Obamacare, according to a new poll, standing in stark contrast to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's opposition to the provision.

The Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky poll, reported by NPR-affiliated WFPL, found that 60 percent of self-identified Republicans said they support expansion. In total, 79 percent of Kentuckians agree with Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear's decision to expand coverage to low-income people under the health care reform law. ...

More than 120,000 Kentuckians have enrolled in Medicaid through the state's Obamacare website since it launched in October, according to Beshear's office, though that number includes some people who were previously eligible for the program."

WOW, 60% of kentuky Republicans agree with Obamacare! Thats a switch, say it ain't so!

"6 Million People Have Enrolled In Medicaid Since Obamacare Launched

Some 6.3 million people have enrolled in Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program since Oct. 1, when and its state counterparts went live, according to a new report from the Obama administration. The report covers Medicaid enrollments through the end of December.

That figures includes people who are newly eligible for Medicaid because their state expanded the program under the health care reform law, people who were already eligible but not enrolled and, in some states, people who were renewing their eligibility.

Thirteen states included renewals in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services report, though their exact number out of the 6.3 million could not be determined.

States that expanded Medicaid saw a boom in enrollments in December, corresponding with a similar surge in private coverage enrollees through the insurance marketplaces. Medicaid enrollments were up 73 percent in those states last month compared to the pre-Obamacare monthly average. In states that didn't expand Medicaid, enrollment was up 3 percent in December."

GASP!! But people are rejecting the insurance aspects, right?


"Huge Surge in Obamacare Enrollment Reported

As federal officials predicted, the flood of Americans trying to sign up for health insurance by the end of 2013 ended in a tidal wave. About 1.8 million people enrolled in new individual health plans through the law in December, bringing new enrollments through Dec. 28 to about 2.2 million.

The number of signups through, the federal exchange web site that has been hobbled by technical difficulties, peaked toward the end of the year, according to a report released Monday by the Department of Health and Human Services. The number of Americans who selected plans through the federal exchange in December was seven times higher than those who signed up in October and November combined, according to HHS.

On a call with reporters Monday, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said is now “working smoothly” and that the federal government was encouraged by the late surge. “Among young adults, the momentum was particularly strong,” she said. According to HHS, 30 percent of those who signed up for individual market health plans under Obamacare in 2013 were 34 or younger."

Gosh, no... no! I[m weak. It cant be.. At least the legal challanges are working...

Anonymous said...

From Kaiser Health News (Bet you think Kaiser is commie, right?)

"Federal Judge Upholds Health Law's Subsidies

Critics of the overhaul argued that, as passed by Congress, the statutory language limited the use of subsidies to purchase health insurance only to consumers in states that are running their own online marketplaces -- not to those who are shopping for health plans on the federal exchange. The judge's ruling, which upholds a central element of the health law, is a victory for the Obama administration.

The New York Times[/highlight]: Federal Judge Upholds Health Care Subsidies
A federal judge rejected a legal challenge on Wednesday to a central part of President Obama’s health care law, ruling that millions of low- and moderate-income people could obtain health insurance subsidies regardless of whether they bought coverage through the federal insurance exchange or in marketplaces run by the states (Pear, 1/15).

Los Angeles Times: Obamacare Critics Lose Major Lawsuit
A federal judge Wednesday emphatically rejected a last-ditch challenge to President Obama’s healthcare law, ruling that the Affordable Care Act allows low-income Americans to get government subsidies to buy health coverage no matter what state they live in. Critics of the law argued that the statute, passed by Congress in 2010, limited these subsidies to consumers in states that operate their own insurance marketplaces. Only 14 states do that; the remaining 36 rely on the federal government to run their marketplaces, or exchanges (Levey, 1/15).

The Wall Street Journal Judge Rejects Challenge To Health-Care Law Subsidies
A federal judge on Wednesday upheld the legality of subsidies at the core of the federal health-care law, turning aside one of the principal remaining court challenges to the law. The decision hands a victory to the Obama administration, which has been fighting in court to defend the Affordable Care Act since it passed in March 2010. The Supreme Court in June 2012 upheld the law's requirement for most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a tax penalty (Kendall, 1/15)."

No... NO! IT CANT BE!!! OBAMACARE CAN'T BE WORKING!! The Tyranny of cheaper and more affordable heath care is upon you. Damn you BOB DOLE for your commie plan!!!

With amusement


Anonymous said...

Since I have nothing better to do I'll answer this

"While I don't agree with Taitz on many legal issues revolving the president, it seems that courts are being disparaged ( while the DOJ in one case misrepresented evidence in a "birther" case by telling the court at no time did the President hold a Kenyan/US citizenship while the Obama campaign a year earlier had stated on its Fight the Smears site that indeed he held a dual citizenship until 1983."

The paragraph this is refering to is this

"20.Allegations concerning President Obama or concerning a person named Barry Soetoroare subject to a pending motion to dismiss, and no response is therefore required. Tothe extent this paragraph alleges that President Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, or is or ever was a citizen of Kenya or a British subject, thoseallegations are denied. Further, paragraph 20 contains conclusions of law, not factualallegations requiring a response, and on that basis, Defendants deny."

Firstly he was never a British subject. He had the right to apply for British citizenship under the British Nationality act till he was 2 years old, but then that right was revoked by an act of the Kenyan Parliament.

Secondly that would not have removed his Natural Born Citizenship, so it was of no relevance to his eligibility. See for example Spiro Agnew, Chester Arther, Thomas Jefferson and other dual citizen Presidents and Vice presidents. hell there was a Vice President who was a citizen of the Indian Nations. It would also have knocked Donald Trump out of the race, by the way. British Nationality act affected him too.

Anonymous said...

Thirdly lets look at what the fight the smears website actually said shall we?

" “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”"

As I stated before Obama had never applied for British citizenship till he was 2. Therefore he never was a British Citizen. The provisions of the BNA ceased affect him when he was 2. Thats why he never said he was a british citizen in the Fight the Smears site. So the DOJ was telling the truth

Now He may have unknowingly had a provisional form of Kenyan citizenship which allows you to renounce your born citizenship and claim the kenyan one without difficulty, but since the Kenyan constitution does not allow dual citizenship then his Kenyan citizenship was not an active one. Also it expired in 82, not 83.

And it would not have affected his NBC status in any case even by birther legal mangling as he acquired it when he was 2, not had it at birth.

So in all cases the DOJ was actually telling the truth and the birther side got even their most basic facts wrong. Fun times eh?

With affection


Anonymous said...

This has been amusing following this "non-birther" birther case. Especially now that Tom is trying to tie into some wild goose chase Orly Taitz is on.

I think you made a mistake Tom with one of your tweets.

@PogueMoran keep trying to lay cover for GG and his big mouth. There is only 1 clerk at AK court when u get records he/she sits at the desk

It's been a few years since I was in Anchorage at what's now JBER, but as I recall in the Nesbit Courthouse there are 4, 5, or 6 windows with clerks stationed at them where requests are made.

Case files are then brought by those clerks to an adjoining room, where another clerk signs the file in and out.

So, no, not one clerk. Unless they've redesigned the layout in the last 3 years.