2 HistorianDude has shimmied around Federal Rules of Evidence 106, 1001, 1002 and 1003. To reiterate: HistorianDude and Obama’s attorneys must demonstrate with substantial and discursive arguments that Obama’s COLB (if it exists) is a true duplicate AND is complete AND is best evidence in order to avoid recourse to the originating 1961 record (“bypassed”). Any ONE of these Rules of Evidence bypasses Obama’s COLB (if it exists). HistorianDude is welcome to represent in detail how he believes these Rules cannot apply to Obama’s COLB: the stark reality is that the Rules are unavoidable, they undermine (“bypass”) the COLB as sufficient evidence, and therefore any such attempt by HistorianDude is futile. However, every little helps refine the truth in some way.

3 “Your second problem: The civil standard is ‘the preponderance of evidence’.” HistorianDude’s comment suggests he is not fully informed about the law on presumptions. The standard to rebut a legal or artificial presumption is NOT “the preponderance of evidence”, as HistorianDude would like us to believe. The standard to rebut a presumption under the Federal Rules of Evidence is LESS THAN a preponderance of the evidence, which is to say the Thayer standard (as adopted by FRE), which is to say SOME evidence, which is to say evidence which is more than a surmise and provides some reasonable basis for differing logical conclusions about a vital fact. Normally I would give interminable cites, but one assumes HistorianDude is old enough to do his own research. This is what he has to rebut:

“Under the Thayer-Wigmore theory, the purpose of a presumption is to require a party against whom a presumption operates to come forward with ANY evidence of the nonexistence of the presumed fact. The production of this…evidence destroys the presumption — making it disappear like a ‘bursting bubble.’ …Rule 301 requires the opposing party to produce ANY evidence of the non-existence of the presumed fact to rebut the presumption.”

“The Thayer view is consistent with the language of Rule 301, which provides only that a presumption shifts ‘the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption.’ Accordingly, we hold that a presumption under Rule 301 has no probative effect once rebutted.”

Hawaii courts take a similar line on rebuttable presumptions:

“The degree of proof necessary to support a finding of nonexistence should be, as McCormick suggests, more than a ’scintilla,’ …To amount to more than a mere scintilla the evidence must be of a character sufficiently substantial, in view of all the circumstances of the case, to warrant the jury…in finding from it the fact, to establish which, the evidence was introduced… it should be ‘evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions’…”

Thayer’s charming disquisition “A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law” can be found at http://tinyurl.com/Thayer-Text

4 Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 803-4 alone take care of most of HistorianDude’s objections to Points 1-6. a) Evidence is relevant when it has a tendency to make a consequential fact even the least bit more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. “Evidence having any probative value whatsoever can satisfy the definition. There is no requirement that the evidence make the existence of the fact to be proved more probable than not or that it provide a sufficient basis for sending the issue to the jury.” b) Family and personal history “among a person’s associates, or in the community, concerning a person’s birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, death, legitimacy, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history…” is admissible evidence (perhaps Obama himself might contribute to this, though that isn’t strictly necessary).

HistorianDude’s objections to the facts (Dunham family deceit, Ann’s mendacity in her divorce proceedings and legal documents, and the fake “Mother’s Address”) are easily shown to be wrong.

Fact: In interviews, books etc over many years, not one member of the Dunham family (including Obama Jr) has ever disclosed that Ann Dunham and son were living in Washington within three weeks of the registration of his birth; this information only surfaced in mid-2008, is incontrovertibly proven (records, witnesses etc), and has still not been admitted by any member of the Dunham family or a representative; outsiders were led by the Dunhams to believe (and still are) that Ann, Obama Sr and their son lived together in Hawaii until Sr deserted his family to go study at Harvard in June 1962.

Fact: Ann Dunham’s 1964 divorce records contain a lie about her meeting the required period of residence to secure a Hawaii divorce. This is easily established with reference to the documents concerned and proof of residence in Washington until at least September 1962.

Fact: the “Mother’s Address” given in Obama Jr’s original birth record is, with near certainty, a falsehood and anyone can easily prove it for themselves. Draw up three columns headed “Actual Evidence”, “Evidence If-True”, and “Evidence If-False”. Into each respective column place:- any evidence we actually have connecting the Dunhams, their daughter Ann, or Obama Sr with the birth record’s “Mother’s Address” (6085 Kalanianaole Highway); the evidence we would have if the “Mother’s Address” were genuine; and the evidence we would have if the “Mother’s Address” were false. Compare and see which columns most agree. Given that the “Actual Evidence” and “Evidence If-False” columns most agree, this exercise establishes with near certainty the fact which HistorianDude finds it hard to accept: the address (6085 Kalanianaole Highway) is a another Dunham family deception.

Obama’s paper COLB (if it exists) is easily bypassed in court applying Rules of Evidence 106, 301, 401, 1001, 1002, and 1003.

Your first problem: Getting into court.

Your second problem: The civil standard is “the preponderance of evidence.” Lacking any evidence contradicting the COLB, its mere existence meets that standard and no “bypass” is legally warranted.

Note that the “legitimate” evidence you cite is either not evidence at all (i.e. your points 1, 5 &6), irrelevant to the COLB (your points 2 & 3) or almost certainly not true (your points 2, 3 & 4).

Thank you for your excellent legal analysis!

The question was not whether they sometimes do but whether it is their job, or as Black Lion put it, whether they “need to” define the term in the Constitution. No, they have no such need. See Articles 1 and 3.

As I’ve already mentioned, if you don’t believe in the “separate but equal” branches of the federal government, that doesn’t mean the concept doesn’t exist. Nevertheless, it is your prerogative to think as you will.

-Phil

Obama’s paper COLB (if it exists) is easily bypassed in court applying Rules of Evidence 106, 301, 401, 1001, 1002, and 1003. For example, under Rule 301 an Obama COLB’s status as prima facie evidence is lost on the basis of the following:

The “presumption” attaching to prima facie evidence derives from the meaning of the verb “presume”: an assumption, supposition, or guess absent indications to the contrary; and going outside proper limits. (For example, the presumption of innocence goes outside the proper limit of reason in that some defendants will be guilty.) The “legitimate evidence” (Black Lion’s term) required under the Rules of Evidence to provide indications contrary to a “legal or artificial presumption” (that is, an assumption etc outside proper limits not based on probable reasoning) must be more than a surmise and provide some reasonable basis for differing logical conclusions about a vital fact. Here is that “legitimate” evidence:

1 The location of Ann Dunham and Obama Sr in the summer of 1961 are unknown.
2 The Dunham family deceived outsiders for decades about Ann Dunham residing in Washington within three weeks of the registered date of her son’s birth.
3 Ann Dunham lied in her 1964 divorce proceedings and legal documents about fulfilling the required period of residence in Hawaii.
4 The “Mother’s Address” entered into Obama Jr’s original birth record, as transmitted by newspaper announcements of his birth, is a lie.
5 The informant of Obama Jr’s birth as entered into his 1961 registration is unknown.
6 The type of record which originally registered Obama Jr’s birth is unknown.

Under Rule 301, it must be impossible to logically construct these facts in any other way than “Obama Jr was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961″, otherwise the prima facie presumption of Jr’s COLB is rebutted. To attempt a rebuttal of the rebuttal of the COLB’s presumption the argument offered must be logical, coherent, specific, detailed, and incontrovertible, leaving no other construction of the facts possible, otherwise presumption still fails. As it is obvious that the above facts 1-6 cannot be manipulated into a unique conclusion (supporting Obama’s case) that allows no other conclusion, a court should dismiss the prima facie presumption propping up Obama’s COLB.

Under other Rules of Evidence the bypassing Obama’s paper COLB (if it exists) is even more simple and swift: the COLB is not a true duplicate of the original record (1001 and 1003), is not complete (106), and is not best evidence (1002). Any one of these rules when applied has the same effect.

2 “…according to the State of HI he could not receive his actual birth certificate..the health department indicated that this [long form] does not exist. It seems like there is only one form [the short form].” Black Lion

Black Lion should read the article more closely and carefully.

Okubu said: “The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests.” Black Lion please note: “same-day” and “for most requests”; that is, not all requests. What less frequent requests receive longer-than-same-day handling? Long form certificates are still issued to applicants seeking homestead leases under the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands program. This booklet gives full information: http://tinyurl.com/DHHL-booklet (Quoting:) “When requesting a certified copy of your birth certificate from the Vital Records Section of DOH, let the clerk know you are requesting it “For DHHL Purposes,” and that you need a copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth and not the computer-generated Certification.” When applying by mail, into the “Reason for Requesting a Certified Copy” section in the application interested parties should enter “For DHHL purposes”. This section can also be used by genealogists and persons hoping to establish presidential eligibility: for example, by entering “For Genealogical Purposes” or “For Proof of Presidential Eligibility”.

When Okubu says: “The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file…” she refers to procedures in place after October 2001. Pre-existing paper records are still held. If they weren’t a) the DHHL program would collapse, to the “dismay” of many Native Hawaiians and in contravention of federal law (Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920); and b) Hawaii DoH officials who have publicly stated that Obama Jr’s 1961 birth record is on file would be easily proven liars: and they are not likely to be that stupid.

For Black Lion to state unequivocally that Obama Jr’s original 1961 birth record no longer exists in Hawaii Vital Records files is a claim that is demonstrably without foundation in fact.

brygenon,

Interpreting the Constitution is not the job of Congress…

Perhaps you can cite Article/Section/Clause in the Constitution where the above is fact; just because Congress hasn’t been in the “interpretation business” for a while doesn’t mean that it cannot do so.

The question was not whether they sometimes do but whether it is their job, or as Black Lion put it, whether they “need to” define the term in the Constitution. No, they have no such need. See Articles 1 and 3.

Interpreting the Constitution is not the job of Congress…

Perhaps you can cite Article/Section/Clause in the Constitution where the above is fact; just because Congress hasn’t been in the “interpretation business” for a while doesn’t mean that it cannot do so.

The last time I checked, the US Constitution called for separate but equal branches of government. Maybe you’re looking at a different Constitution than I am.

-Phil

The only issue is as Phil said, that the Supreme Court or Congress needs to define what a “natural born citizen” is.

The Supreme Court and Congress have no such need. Interpreting the Constitution is not the job of Congress, and according to the Supreme Court, the Constitution’s case or controversy clause (Article III, Section 2) prohibits federal courts from issuing advisory opinions.

If you need to know what “natural born citizen” means, you can easily find out. Free sources include http://slate.com/id/2183588/ and http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ . Black’s Law Dictionary is widely available and not too expensive. If you have the money you could pay a lawyer for an opinion, and as long as you don’t search out a kook you’ll get the right answer.

Mr. William [last name withheld], if you really have another document, please submit copies of the same to sites with both points of view so that both sides can review the document no matter what it contains. If you have a scanner, make a pdf, and attach it to an email to a moderator. If you have no email addresses, post a comment offering the document on sites such as http://www.therightsideoflife.com so that Phil can contact you.

I already have all relevant paperwork in my possession from William. While I have been waiting for other, related paperwork from Dr. Polarik, I may have to go ahead and get up a posting regarding William’s FOIA request and other commentary on same shortly, once I get through moderating comments.

-Phil

“The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.
The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said. And, it’s only available in electronic form.
Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.
“At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting,” she said.
Information about births is transferred electronically from hospitals to the department.
“The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests,” Okubo said.
Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department “does not have a short-form or long-form certificate.”

Because Obama requested is Birth Certficate in 2007 at the begining of his Presidential campaign, according to the State of HI he could not receive his actual birth certificate. And this misinformation about a long form and a short form, the health department indicated that this does not exist. It seems like there is only one form. However I am sure the birthers out there will not be satisfied with this. They will claim it is some sort of Obama consipiracy. The only issue is as Phil said, that the Supreme Court or Congress needs to define what a “natural born citizen” is.

Jon Galt says:
June 5, 2009 at 10:09 am
Even forgetting for a moment the evidence at hand on the matter the way that 4 things have been treated by Hussein and his supporters prove almost beyond a doubt that he is a usurper as POTUS.

1. The nationwide shutout of the “Where’s The Birth Certificate” billboards

There was no nationwide shutout of these billboards. Believing WMD, which at one time certified the COLB as authentic, meaning that the information it contained was authentic, such as Obama being born in Hawaii, that they were shut out is a stretch. CBS is a private entity and they have the right to not display billboards that they feel are in bad taste. And since they billboard they wanted to put up was contridictory to all of the legitimate evidence that has been produced, they passed. No conspiracy but for the birthers out there like you if someone does not agree with your point, they must be brainwashed or Obama must be behind things.

2. The purging of eligibility threads from the “Open Gov. Dialog” website and the prohibition of further posts on the subject

That was because people did not follow the rules and if you had read some of the posts there it had noting to do with the topic at hand. It was basically spam and like any webmaster they have a right to do what they want with things.

3. Hussein spending over $1 million in legal defense funds on the eligibility lawsuits.

Again have we ever seen any proof that Obama has spent any money? The Obama lawyer in CA has already indicated that he was doing it pro bono, and most of the other cases were dismissed long before a trial had taken place. This one million dollar fantasy has been floated by Orly and other opponents of Obama without as usual any proof.

4. The dismissal of all of the eligibility lawsuits even before evidence is allowed to be brought

That is because of “lack of standing”. You cannot use a trial or discovery to compel records or evidence. That is not how our legal system works. The birthers would have to provide the court with legitimate evidence contrary to the COLB. Using the unverified Indonesian school record, the “Polarik” analysis where he did even use his own name, the infamous “grandmother” tape where once she actual understood the question states that he was born in HI and any other fantasy does not work in the court of law. Besides according to the US Constitution only Congress can put the President on trial. That is why every lawsuit will be dismissed.

There are three versions of Obama’s Selective Service form on the page at:

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/was-obamas-selective-services-registration-form-doctored/

Two people have posted similar copies of the Selective Service form and put their names on the posts. There is also a slightly different unclaimed “Mystery Post”. Why did the person posting the Mystery version not personally claim it?

The letter posted on the page to Mr. Arduini from Mr. Flahavan begins
“Facts will never trump speculation by conspiracy theorists.”
Very objective and professional? Personally, I would like to know the facts and I don’t think that the government is giving us the whole story. I KNOW that the MSM is not giving us the whole story.

Mr. William Lolli, if you really have another document, please submit copies of the same to sites with both points of view so that both sides can review the document no matter what it contains. If you have a scanner, make a pdf, and attach it to an email to a moderator. If you have no email addresses, post a comment offering the document on sites such as http://www.therightsideoflife.com so that Phil can contact you.

PS My previous attempt to post has just now appeared at nativeborncitizen.com

I for one would like to see a congressmen point to the alleged law, and cite it for me…

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x13/Mactographer/birth_certificate_2-1.jpg

http://www.thebirthers.org/

RJ