30 thoughts on “Verdict

  1. Emery,

    The Alphanews story kinda sums it up; Omar’s paperwork doesn’t seem to add up, and if the “brother” isn’t her brother, it might be a good time for Omar to establish it.

    But don’t fret, Emery. She’s DFL. Nothing will be allowed to happen to her.

  2. Although failed liberal blogger isn’t fair, the real news would be if it was a successful liberal blogger, there’s a oxymoron for you.

    Arianna Huffington sold the HuffPo for $315M so I’d have to say she was successful. Now granted that was to AOL whose business sense is less than Emery’s common sense, but still, that’s successful fleecing of a Big Company by a liberal, so that’s a successful liberal blogger by their own definition.

  3. Here’s what the timeline looks like: Sis “goat marries” her boyfriend in 2002, doesn’t file the license. Bro “legally” marries sis in 2009; comes to the US, goes to college, graduates, moves back to the UK, sis forgets to divorce bro.

    Sure smells like immigration fraud. They may not charge her or him unless they received any education or housing subsidies or welfare….snicker.

  4. The “cultural marriage” thing is a serious problem with real estate titles. We’ve been battling it for ages with Hmong; I anticipate we’ll have to go through it again with Somalis.

    Works like this: you cannot sell or mortgage land without your spouse’s signature (century-old law intended to protect women). But if you’re not “legally” married, does your “wife” really need to trouble her little head about that second mortgage, or would it be okay for you to sign the loan docs yourself? She’ll never see the money anyway – what’s the difference?

    Later, if you decide to trade her in on a younger model, can she sue for dissolution of marriage and seek alimony? Dissolution of what marriage? We’re not married, we’ve just been living in sin for the last 20 years and six kids and three houses, none of which are in her name. Plus, Minnesota has an anti-palimony statute to stop gold-diggers like her from coming after poor, innocent men.

    Yes, there is the putative spouse work-around, but it’s a disaster to administer in the real estate title records or to prevent immigration fraud. And who’s going to risk the wrath of the PC police merely to enforce a White People’s law against noble Persons of Color?

    It’d be wonderful if immigrants to our state decided to learn our language and customs and laws and obey them. It’d be wonderful if they had unicorn rides at Como Zoo, as well. Until that happy day, we’re going to see a lot more of these shenanigans in the immigrant community.

  5. The name thing is a common immigrant problem, too. What’s your name? Ka Vang. Okay, there are 700 of them in our real estate records, which one are you?

    When June Smith married Ward Cleaver, she became June Cleaver. Nobody batted an eye: we all knew what happened with her name change. But Hispanic, Hmong and Vietnamese don’t follow the same rule. You took your mother-in-law’s name as your new middle name? Great – how do I link the owner’s name for this land with the seller’s name on that deed?

    It’s even worse when a non-English speaker is trying to explain it. “No, my name isn’t spelled Win, Wynne, or When; it’s Nguyen.” Sure it is, buddy, we can alphabetize that, no problem.

  6. The “spousal signature” bit was annoying for that time when Massachusetts recognized gay marriage but DOMA said Minnesota didn’t have to. So you gals got married over there, you own land here, and Angie wants to sell but Barbie doesn’t want to? Whose signatures do I need?

    It’s not done yet. When Mohammad, Fatima and Miriam all are married to each other, whose signatures do I require on the deed? Senior wife? Newest addition? Both? What’s that – you’re not “legally” married, you’re only “culturally” married? Oh, so you’re telling me neither woman has any rights in this land, you can sell it and use the money to move back to Somalia to marry a third gal? Riiiiight.

  7. that’s successful fleecing of a Big Company by a liberal

    Fleecing is what libturds do best – check your pockets!

  8. Yeah, I guess so, JPA. It’s finding yourself between the Charybdis of a Favored Group’s Rights and the Scylla of state law.

    You must not transfer ownership in the records if the documents don’t comply with state law; but you must transfer ownership in the records even though these documents don’t comply with state law; because if you insist on following state law then you’re a hateful racist, sexist, blah, blah, blah, because the law is Traditional and based on White culture and therefore wrong and bad and inapplicable to Favored Group.

    I guess I’m just tired of it all, today.

  9. out of curiosity whatever happened to “tenants in common”? When myself and a friend bought a duplex in 80s he got the downstairs & i got the upstairs and we were listed on the title as “tenants in common”

  10. I like fact check better than politifact, but all three – fact check.org, politifact, and snopes do a better job than any of your right wing media, including the blogosphere.

    Of course since you are so egregiously bad, you have to try to shift the focus and to be unfairly critical of those and other fact checking sites.

    The reality – you do a shit job of fact checking yourself and therefore are in a somewhat compromised position from which to criticize others. The word is HYPOCRISY for that.

  11. There is no ‘new evidence’ against Omar. And so far the right just keeps circulating the same old same old crap.

    On the up side for me, trying to track down the original source of the rumors should be interesting, and then following how the right wing media / blogosphere got involved. I’m doing a little networking with national coverage of the corrupt right, depending on what I can discover.

    After the right wing attempt to smear the Khan family with the lies about the Muslim brotherhood this should find a receptive audience.

    Pretty shady stuff. Very unprincipled, you conservatives.

    I think the right’s own criticism of the right says it best.

  12. There are cultures where a wife has to do what her husband tells her to do. A signature on a document may not mean consent, it may just mean the wife did as ordered. She may not even know what she has signed.
    Before the great migration inundation began in the 1960s, there were small American subcultures that worked this way. In those days liberals mocked those sub cultures as backward and undeserving of respect.
    These days they want to make them law makers.

  13. because the law is Traditional

    Isn’t that the point? The WHOLE point? The basis for our society? The raison d’etre of the USA? A demand for anything but is treason, no? Well, it should be!

  14. On the up side for me, trying to track down the original source of the rumors should be interesting…

    .,.since you will shit yourself if you ever run into an actual black person.

    The rest of your comment is mindless chanting points, on which I won’t waste further time.

  15. Of course since you are so egregiously bad,


    DG, that’s one of the reasons I so seriously want you to read through some – OK, nearly all – of your previous “fact checks”.

    Back before people just got bored with your constant prattle, there were some epic takedowns, where your “factchecks” were shown (by people who actually know how to, y’know, check facts), variously, to either not say what you thought they said or to actually support my point.

    At all phases of “journalism”, you are a legend in your own mind.

  16. The word is HYPOCRISY for that.

    Even if it were true – and it’s not – er no. “Hypocrisy” is not the word for it.

    You have this tendency to never really know what you’re talking about, but to call it “fact” anyway.

  17. Sauk, before I write any further, I’m required to give you a disclaimer: although I am a lawyer, I am not YOUR lawyer, so you’re not my client and I’m not giving you legal advice. If you want advice about your rights or obligations, you must consult with your own lawyer.

    In general terms, Minnesota real estate title law says “joint tenants” means “last man standing owns it all” whereas “tenants in common” means “the dead guy’s share goes to the dead guy’s estate.”

    If you and your buddy own the entire building as Tenants in Common, it doesn’t matter which unit you occupy. When he dies, his share of the building goes to his estate and you’ll be in business with his heirs.

    Okay, that’s ultra-simplified, but you can see why it might be a problem. My recommendation is ask your estate planning lawyer what to do (easiest to use the lawyer who wrote your Will. You have a Will, right, to pass your share of the building? Okay, hire a lawyer to write you a Will and ask that lawyer about the building).

  18. I like fact check better than politifact, but all three – fact check.org, politifact, and snopes do a better job than any of your right wing media, including the blogosphere.

    Yes, the woman who failed to realize that an editorial written by R.T. Rybak was not written by a conservative is the PERFECT person to tell us what is, and is not, good journalism.

    DG, the question is simple. Does the would-be Congressman have evidence of another person with that same name with that birthday who will confirm he married her, or does she not? Because the name is clearly that of her brother.

    (cue “dueling banjos” of course)

  19. Actually JD I wasn’t asking your advice personally, my buddy and I held the property on Powderhorn Park 10th ave for a little over 8 years, updated all theelectrical and plumbing, restored the woodwork etc then sold it for a 6 figure profit. What I was asking clumsily was why not avoid having to work out marriage relationships and just label everyone as “sole owner” or “joint tenants” or “tenants in common” and be done with it. When the time comes let the divorce courts work out the details and if they choose not to avail themselves of secular remedies then we are (however unfair it may look on the surface) honoring their culture and celebrating the diversity they bring to our communities. The state’s primary interest is taxes and as long as the taxes are paid who cares?

  20. Good ol’ W, I’m glad he was elected (twice) because he manages to make the Left lose it, every time, and you can see the psychopathology that forms the basis for modern liberalism. Liberal Jean Edward Smith has just published a bio of GW Bush. Historian and former Bush official Will Inboden writes:

    According to Smith, in a January 2003 phone call between Bush and French President Jacques Chirac, during which Bush urged the French president to support a United Nations Security Council resolution on Iraq, Bush allegedly told his counterpart, “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East. Biblical prophecies are being fulfilled. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase His people’s enemies before a new age begins” (339). Smith then goes on at some length describing the obscure Old and New Testament prophecies concerning Gog and Magog (complex passages about which biblical scholars differ upon the meanings) and asserts, “biblical writings were determining Bush’s decision about war in the Middle East.” Moreover, in Smith’s account, this alleged presidential application of biblical prophecies to Iraq had a tremendous consequence in that it caused Chirac to decide to oppose the war: “Bush’s religious certitude and his invocation of Gog and Magog scuttled the possibility of French support for military action” (339).

    My God this Smith guy fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down. .
    Bush has been a Methodist since 1977. Before that, he was an Episcopalian. Someone should tell Smith that neither the Episcopalians nor the Methodists are much into Biblical literalism’ and especially they aren’t into end times’ historiography. I’m not even sure the Episcopalians and Methodists expect their parishioners to believe in God.
    How qualified was Smith to write this garbage?
    Jean Edward Smith (born October 13, 1932) is a biographer and the John Marshall Professor of Political Science at Marshall University. He is also professor emeritus at the University of Toronto after having served as professor of political economy there for thirty-five years. Smith is also on the faculty of the Master of American History and Government program at Ashland University.

    The winner of the 2008 Francis Parkman Prize and the 2002 finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography[3] Smith’s been called “today’s foremost biographer of formidable figures in American history.”

  21. bikebubba on August 18, 2016 at 5:12 pm said:
    . . . Because the name is clearly that of her brother.

    Just because she claimed on some DHS form that he was her brother does not mean that he was her brother. Defrauding DHS and INS are old games. Immigrant communities know just what to say on DHS forms and interviews to get people legal resident status. I have legal immigrant in laws, some from pacific nations and some from Africa. I know how it is done. It’s a shocker, but sometimes money changes hands — if not in the US, back in the old country. Illegal as Hell, of course.

  22. Just because she claimed on some DHS form that he was her brother does not mean that he was her brother. Defrauding DHS and INS are old games.

    True, but it’s a lot of fun to point out the “Deliverance” angle on the left, no?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.