“I HAVE NEVER FABRICATED ONE SINGLE BIT OF MY EVIDENCE. THE ONLY THING I MADE WAS A CLONE OF OBAMA’S FABRICATED COLB. ANYONE WHO SAYS THAT I FABRICATED EVIDENCE IS A STINKING LIAR!!” Ron Polarik

by

“What does Teresa La Loggia know about Constitutional Law? ZERO!!! That’s right, a big goose egg.”

To: spacejunkie01

Whose COLB was Barry’s based on if not Maya’s?

Well, let’s see. There’s about 1,300,000 residents of Hawaii, not all of whom were born there, but my guess is a lot. Plus add to that all of the Hawaiian-born citizens not presently living in Hawaii, who are from one year to whatever, and, bingo…

Take your pick. All we know is that the source image belongs to whoever ordered it back in 2007.

178 posted on Saturday, October 11, 2008 7:37:20 PM by Polarik

To: Political Junkie Too; LucyT; pissant

Just to be clear, are you saying that the “Techdude” analysis linked to in post 89 (from Atlas Shrugged) is not accurate?

Yo, Lucy, Pissant: you’re gonna want to ping this baby ’cause this TechDude hooey keeps coming back like a bad penny.

Str-re-er-r-rike Three! Yer outta here!

OK, folks. Here’s the box scores:

  • The 2007 COLBlooks nothing like the 2008 Michele COLB
  • The 2007 COLB looks like the 2007 KOS COLB
  • The Seal in the 2007 COLB shows through the front of the photo without any manipulations
  • The Seal and Stamps in the 2007 COLB shows through the front without any manipulations
  • The text layout on the KOS COLB does not match Michele’s COLB
  • The text layout on the KOS COLB does match the 2007 COLB
  • The borders on the KOS COLB are differently sized than the 2007 COLB

Conclusion: Techdude was a liar who fabricated his evidence, and discredited he researched.

Thank you for flying Polarik Airlines.

181 posted on Saturday, October 11, 2008 10:57:20 PM by Polarik

To: maineman

12 posted on Sunday, October 12, 2008 12:42:00 AM by maineman

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

??? fAKE?

TOTALLY FAKE!

39 posted on Saturday, October 11, 2008 11:16:50 PM by Polarik

WHAT’S YOUR SHYSTER? Unethical Lawyer and Obama Funder created “WHATS YOUR EVIDENCE” website.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2103814/posts

Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2008 10:07:49 AM by Polarik

According to the WHOIS database, the website, WHATSYOUREVIDENCE.COM — a “fact checker” much in the same mold as FactCheck.org — was created on August 25, or right after Phil Berg filed his lawsuit against Barach Obama and the DNC.

Now, it may, or may not, surprise most FReepers to learn that, when this website first made its appearance in September, its sole mission has been to gather any evidence that Berg might use in his lawsuit against Obama/DNC. In other words, it is most defininitely NOT a nonpartisan investigator.

Ms. La Loggia disputes the veracity of what Polarik wrote in the following section:

BUT, and here’s the great part, what you don’t know and what the rest of the blogsphere does not know, is that the person who created and runs WHATSYOUREVIDENCE.COM (which is registered to a fake foreign address), is a lawyer named, Teresa La Loggia , who:

Donated $2,500 to the OBama Campaign AND is a member of the Washington, D.C. law firm, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, the very same law firm who’s defending Barack Obama and the DNC in opposition to Phil Berg’s lawsuit.

In other words, not only is Ms. La Loggia fraudulently misreprenting herself as a nonpartisan investigator, she is blatantly violating legal ethics and ptetty much every conflict of interest you can name.

Response from Ms. La Loggia:

THE FACTS:

I did register, and maintain http://www.whatsyourevidence.com. However, the site is not registered to a fake foreign address – it is privately registered to my personal US address.

More importantly, Polarik falsely states that I am a member of “… the very same law firm who’s defending Barack Obama and the DNC in opposition to Phil Berg’s lawsuit.”

This statement is patently false. Neither I, nor the firm that employs me, are defending Obama and/or the DNC in opposition to Phil Berg’s lawsuit. You can verify this information by looking at the docket for the case. That docket is available here: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-paedce/case_no-2:2008cv04083/case_id-281573/, which includes all attorneys representing all parties who have entered an appearance. Neither my name, personally, nor my firm is listed in any of the pleadings.

From this false statement, Polarik draws several defamatory conclusions, both in his original post, and in comments attached to that post including that I am violating legal ethics and conflicts of interests rules. These are very serious – and entirely false – allegations and I demand that you discontinue publication of them.

See Comments section below for the entirety of Ms. La Loggia’s response.

What does Teresa La Loggia know about Constitutional Law?

ZERO!!!

That’s right, a big goose egg.

Yeah, Ms. La Loggia, I have a few thoughts, too:

I HAVE NEVER FABRICATED ONE SINGLE BIT OF MY EVIDENCE. THE ONLY THING I MADE WAS A CLONE OF OBAMA’S FABRICATED COLB. ANYONE WHO SAYS THAT I FABRICATED EVIDENCE IS A STINKING LIAR!!

I’m out!!

Phil Berg Barack Obama Ron Polarik Jeff Schreiber

3 Responses to ““I HAVE NEVER FABRICATED ONE SINGLE BIT OF MY EVIDENCE. THE ONLY THING I MADE WAS A CLONE OF OBAMA’S FABRICATED COLB. ANYONE WHO SAYS THAT I FABRICATED EVIDENCE IS A STINKING LIAR!!” Ron Polarik”

  1. Teresa La Loggia Says:

    Dear RosettaSister Blogger:

    It has come to my attention that a poster on your site going by the screen name of “Polarik” has posted patently false information here and at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2103814/posts.

    Free Republic has since pulled that post. I hereby demand that you cease and desist publication of this post, at least as currently drafted.

    While Polarik attempts to smear me in a variety of ways, the patently and demonstrably false statement is contained in the following section:
    =============
    * * * “BUT, and here’s the great part, what you don’t know and what the rest of the blogsphere does not know, is that the person who created and runs WHATSYOUREVIDENCE.COM (which is registered to a fake foreign address), is a lawyer named, Teresa La Loggia , who:

    Donated $2,500 to the OBama Campaign AND is a member of the Washington, D.C. law firm, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, the very same law firm who’s defending Barack Obama and the DNC in opposition to Phil Berg’s lawsuit.

    In other words, not only is Ms. La Loggia fraudulently misreprenting herself as a nonpartisan investigator, she is blatantly violating legal ethics and ptetty much every conflict of interest you can name.* * * ”
    ===========

    THE FACTS:

    I did register, and maintain http://www.whatsyourevidence.com. However, the site is not registered to a fake foreign address – it is privately registered to my personal US address.

    More importantly, Polarik falsely states that I am a member of “… the very same law firm who’s defending Barack Obama and the DNC in opposition to Phil Berg’s lawsuit.”

    This statement is patently false. Neither I, nor the firm that employs me, are defending Obama and/or the DNC in opposition to Phil Berg’s lawsuit. You can verify this information by looking at the docket for the case. That docket is available here: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-paedce/case_no-2:2008cv04083/case_id-281573/, which includes all attorneys representing all parties who have entered an appearance. Neither my name, personally, nor my firm is listed in any of the pleadings.

    From this false statement, Polarik draws several defamatory conclusions, both in his original post, and in comments attached to that post including that I am violating legal ethics and conflicts of interests rules. These are very serious – and entirely false – allegations and I demand that you discontinue publication of them.

    I established and maintain http://www.whatsyourevidence.com as an individual, and not as an attorney on behalf of anyone, including Obama and/or the DNC. Moroever, I do not personally represent Obama, the DNC, nor any other party in the Berg v. Obama litigation. I have never represented Obama, the DNC, nor any other party in the litigation.

    Polarik is, of course, protected by the First Amendment in saying most anything he wants about me, including revealing my real name, and the firm I work for, although he violated a confidentiality agreement in doing so. You are, of course, free to publish most any information that you want.

    That being said, neither he – nor you – are protected when knowingly publishing demonstrably false, defamatory information about a private person.

    I therefore demand that you cease and desist publication of Polarik’s patently untrue and defamatory statements. If you fail to do so, all appropriate and available actions will be taken.

    Sincerely,
    T. La Loggia
    whatsyourevidence.com@gmail.com

  2. rosettasister Says:

    Good morning, Teresa.

    I did edit the original post to reflect your concerns.

    I am inclined to believe that you are the only one who can speak for yourself.

    Just as Polarik is the only one who can speak for himself.

    I guess I don’t have to tell you that a lot is riding on Polarik’s findings being found to be correct.

    At least for those of us who oppose Obama.

    But I am sorry if I have caused you any distress.

    Sincerely,

    Rose Bongiovanni Cupo

  3. Polarik Says:

    Rose:

    I have posted a set of retractions and restatements on the Free Republic forum to differentiate between the major parts of my original article that were correct, and the few parts that were in error.

    I am finishing up on a revised and expanded article that will include 98% of my original post, Ms. La Loggia’s letter, and my point-by-point counterarguments to them.

    If La Loggia thinks that she has the right to demand and desist that my article be pulled or edited from your site, then I also have the right to demand and desist that Ms. La Loggia remove the slanderous comments and patently false statements that she made of me on her website, and which still appear where I originally found them.

    She still does not get it that Ron Polarik is a real name, NOT a screen name, whereas her name is nowhere to be found on her website, on her comments listed here, or ON THE REGISTAR DATABASE.

    So, right off the bat, her claim that her name and address appear on the WHOIS registrar database record is patently false: it lists a domain registry service with a FOREIGN ADDRESS, exactly as I had stated in my original post.

    As I said, 98% of my original post was true, accurate, and beyond reproach and will be included in my new, expanded article.

    Please contact me at my email address so that I can submit to you directly.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: