Eligibility Update: Kenyan BR vs HI COLB, Kerchner v. Obama, Schneller v. Cortes, FL Election Complaint
Following up on the developing story in which attorney Dr. Taitz is attempting to verify an alleged Kenyan Birth Registration for Mr. Obama, WorldNetDaily Editor and CEO Joseph Farah has released an email calling on Mr. Obama to release his long-form birth certificate as Mr. Farah “works with document experts in the U.S. and with sources in Kenya to determine its validity”:
Joseph Farah calls on Obama to release his long-form birth certificate to end growing controversy
WASHINGTON — The unauthenticated document purporting to be a Kenyan certificate of birth for Barack Obama has refocused the debate over his presidential eligibility.
Released publicly yesterday by California attorney Orly Taitz as evidence in her court case challenging Obama to prove his constitutional qualifications to hold office, the document raises new questions about the president’s birthplace.
WorldNetDaily.com is working with document experts in the U.S. and with sources in Kenya to determine its validity.
“We’ve had less than 24 hours to consider its authenticity or non-authenticity,” explains Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of the first news agency to publish the document. “Our goal, as always, is to seek the truth. This is not our document. It is evidence that has presented in a high-profile court case. And, thus, I believe we had a journalistic responsibility to publish it — just as I think every other news organization does.”
Farah says there are many questions still to be answered about the certification of live birth that Obama has disseminated — including the fact that the Public Health Department of the state of Hawaii has refused to confirm is it an official Hawaiian document issued by that office.
“This is why it is so important that Obama release his original, long-form birth certificate to end the speculation and the growing uneasiness Americans are increasingly feeling about his eligibility,” explains Farah. “More and more, people are puzzled and mystified as to why he is refusing to release that document, as well as his school records, his college transcripts, his university papers and his travel records.”
Farah says WorldNetDaily.com, which has led the way in investigating this story, will continue to do so relentlessly until it is resolved to the satisfaction of most Americans.
See article on Kenyan birth document.
Contact: M. Sliwa Public Relations, 973-272-2861, media@msliwa.com [emphasis original]
WND has also posted that the Hawaii Department of Health continues to be tight-lipped over whether or not any purported images of Mr. Obama’s alleged certification of live birth are legitimate…
In response to a direct question from WND, the Hawaii Department of Health refused to authenticate either of the two versions of President Obama’s short-form Certificate of Live Birth, or COLB, posted online – neither the image produced by the Obama campaign nor the images released by FactCheck.org.
Janice Okubo, the public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, also had no explanation for why Dr. Chiyome Fukino’s initial press release last October and subsequent press release last week also avoided declaring the posted images to be of authentic documents.
And now prominent blogger Andrew Sullivan wonders why we should be only trusting what officials tell us when a birth certificate could be immediately produced to end all speculation:
The whole birth certificate issue gets weirder still:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”
But why are we supposed to rely on the testimony of Dr Fukino, whom I believe entirely. It is not my job as a journalist or yours as a citizen to take public officials on trust. They are not to be trusted, whoever they are. It is our job to demand all the evidence we want or need. I know the electronic record is legit. I have no doubt that Obama has every constitutional right to be president. I think the Birthers are nuts. But there is no reason on earth that the original cannot be retrieved and shown. Jon Klein and CNN were wrong, and I retract my apology of yesterday.
Obama promised total transparency. Where is it? Or will it arrive at the moment when he tackles the deficit, and withdraws from Iraq?
Another motion had been filed in the Kerchner v. Obama case last week:
Filing Announcement: Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief Supporting Cross-Motion for Leave Nunc Pro Tunc to File the Second Amended Complaint/Petition for the Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al lawsuit has been filed today by Attorney Mario Apuzzo.
Also last week, James Schneller, Plaintiff pro se in Schneller v. Cortes, has announced that he is applying to pay fees in his dismissed case:
PRESS RELEASE
Schneller files Application for Permission to Pay Fee in Obama Appeal
Thursday, July 30, 2009, 12:30 PM (EST)
Contact James D. Schneller | 610-688-9471 | schnlj@aol.com
500 East Lancaster Avenue
Radnor, PA 19087Appeal from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Regarding Natural-Born Status Of Barack Obama Was Dismissed -- Not Denied — Aggrieved Citizen James Schneller Raises Right to Pay Fee if Court Has Found Verity in Petition for Writ of Certiorari but Has Balked because of Series of Free Appeals Allowed to Schneller Since 2004 — Schneller Requests Permission to Pay Fee, and Further Action By the Court Upon Payment
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Pennsylvania citizen whose Obama -- Citizenship case was reviewed at a conference of the United States Supreme on June 18, 2009 and dismissed, has filed an application for permission to pay the filing fee so that the case may proceed further in the Supreme Court. The Court at the time of dismissal of the petition for a writ of certiorari, denied the motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and directed the Clerk to not accept further petitions from him without the filing fee.
The fee situation boils down to the Supreme Court’s deciding to no longer provide free appeals to the plaintiff, James Schneller, who has been waived the filing fee of $ 300.00 in six appeals involving : deprivations of access to Courts by State Rules of Court; question of whether Congress’ Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act allows private suits for unwanted physician-caused deaths; failure of Pennsylvania law enforcement to implement laws protecting rights of nursing home patients; improper decision making as to advance health directives, and failure to investigate injuries to elderly, by Pennsylvania Protective Services for the elderly, and others.
Schneller’s reasons for asking the US Supreme Court to accept the fee and review the Obama natural-born-citizen case further include:
- A petition’s being dismissed, as opposed to denied, is a recognized indicator in the Federal Courts of a right to pay the fee, especially since the Supreme Court decided Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (“dismissal . . . does not prejudice the filing of a paid complaint making the same allegations”)
- The standard of review is different in a paid case, so that the Court conceivably may review the matter further, or all over again, upon payment of the fee.
- The petition was not dismissed “with prejudice.” The appellate Courts have consistently found that a plain dismissal does not warrant a case’s wholesale defeat.
- Perceived posture in the language of the order of the Supreme Court that it has seen some merit to the petition, or has left a window open for further argument, or has decided that before Schneller may again expend the Court’s resources, even to decide this petition, the legal fee must be paid.
- Allowance in the Circuit Courts of a “reasonable time” to pay the fee, and the Third Circuit’s alleviations to Schneller in other cases : either waiving the $ 450.00 fee, or allowing times of three months and five months to pay the fee. State Court’s frequent waiver of the fee to Schneller.
- the intentional impoverishment to Schneller, constituting unconstitutional obstruction and retaliation for his court actions, by third parties.
- the fact that a filing of a number of petitions, without any proven misuse of the Court system, should in no way support a designating of a litigant as malicious or overactive.
- consistent Court policy that sanctions like those made to Schneller are made only in cases where prior direct orders have been openly disobeyed a number of times, with warnings given each time, which has not occurred in any conceivable way in Schneller’s actions.
- the undeniable constitutional right that access to courts and rights to appeal may not be conditioned upon a litigant’s financial means. Lecates v. Justice of Peace Court No. 4 of State of Del., 637 F.2d 898 (C.A.3, 1980.)
Numerous other cases are also being litigated in regard to the failure of Barack Obama to qualify for office. Americans are increasingly concerned that Barack Obama refuses to release any but the most meaningless information about his past.
Schneller is litigating this case on his own initiative and out of concern for national security and longevity of liberty and the Constitution.
________________
Schneller’s appeal asks reversal of denial to Schneller of his petition for writ of mandamus and injunction filed in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in December of 2008. That petition requested a delay of the vote by the Pennsylvania electoral college, because the ballots of the Pennsylvania electors had been unlawfully based on the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s erroneous and fraudulent certifying of the ballot to all Pennsylvania county officials, without any examination, nor investigation, of the eligibility and qualification of Barack Obama for the office of President of the United States.
Schneller, in the suit, demands that the Secretary of the Commonwealth perform his duty, as was required, by requiring Obama to prove that he is a natural born citizen. He claims that the Secretary had ample time to demand proofs from Obama in December2008, before the vote was certified and delivered to the electoral college, and objects to the nationwide absence of such action despite most State’s having statutes on the books requiring proper screening of candidates.
The appeal also requests a finding that the Pennsylvania law that makes the Office of the President of the United States exempt from the requirement that candidates file an affidavit that they are eligible for office, is arbitrary and unconstitutional. Schneller raises the fact that the Pennsylvania handbook for elections states that candidates for national President and Vice President may be requested to provide all additional information necessary regarding their eligibility and qualification for office.
To receive a copy of any documents please request the above named contact.
Regarding questions of eligibility, Florida realtor Robert Quinn, whom I had reported was petitioning the State’s Governor and Secretary of State promising to file a complaint against the Democratic National Committee and the Florida Democratic Party if they did not respond to his requests, has confirmed that the following complaint has been received by Attorney General Bill McCollum on July 30, 2009:
Phil – I have received no response from SOS Browning or Governor Crist. Yesterday I sent via certified mail the official Election Fraud Complaint and Request for Investigation to Fla. AG Bill McCollum. I have attached a copy to this email for you to use … . My goal from the very beginning has been to fix the system so that birth certificates are required before any presidential candidates name is placed upon future ballot. Since only the DNC has the authority and responsibility to demand such, they should be required to do that now or remain a part of the fraud charge. Why not??
I am but a layman but the denial of we voters fundamental due process constitutional right to see the eligibility verifying documents of all presidential candidates is so clear to me, and I think most voters, I don’t see how anyone but a person that has something to hide could object. 2010 is an election year and I hope this idea can be picked up as an issue. All of these guys are in the game.
I Am a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America
For a good laugh, here’s a video for the “Red State Update” via HotAir.com (mild language warning!) describing the “mainstream liberals” in DC:
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
- Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
- What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a Birth Certificate?
- Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
- Obama Citizenship Facts
- The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
- Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
The timing of Obama’s latest school children indoctrination speech is no coincidence. September 8, 2009 is meaningful to Obama for an entirely different reason. (See below.)
Something of Interest, posted elsewhere on the Net:
“Discovery hearing” re: Obama’s Kenyan BC, request for depositions of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates scheduled for September 8th, 8am.
08/21/2009 44 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: ORDER SETTING SEPTEMBER 8, 2009 HEARING ON MOTIONS: (See document for details.) In summary, the Court sets for hearing at 8:00 a.m. on September 8, 2009, (1) the Discovery Motion, (2) the Service Notice, and (3) the Ex Parte Application. All parties are ordered to be present.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action. (rla) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CM/ECF Filer or PACER Login
Notice:
This is a Restricted Web Site for Official Court Business only. Unauthorized entry is prohibited and subject to prosecution under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. All activities and access attempts are logged
This entry was posted on Saturday, August 22nd, 2009 at 6:05 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed”
It seems like it would be easy to create a forgery regarding this type of document. For instance look at the following…
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YnDlDR82V_Y/Sne1dROCXHI/AAAAAAAAAEY/fUCCy4-NIiI/s1600-h/bc_templateWeb.jpg
It is an obvious forgery but it looks very similar to the so called Kenyan BC. It seems like creating this forgery is not difficult. So unless the actual paper document is released, or some Kenyan official comes out and states that they have viewed the vital records of Kenya and Barack Obama II was born there, then it loses in the credibility battle with the HI COLB that the President has released.
Using the logic of this so called Kenyan BC, how do we know the following document is not real?
http://www.artotyrite.org/kgbcard.htm
Can she provide evidence to prove that she is not with them? Can she provide some sort of statement by government officials that this is an obvious forgery? Without an official confirmation, or a paper trail of who handled the document, it is difficult to determine anything on the internet as authentic. I will admit that.
Black Lion,
Thanks for the link.
That link cited this link
http://obamatrueandfalse.com/2009/06/04/false-barack-obama-was-born-in-kenya/
That link in turn cited this link:
http://obamatrueandfalse.com/globe-magazine-january-12-2009-issue-vol-56-number-02-p-30/
which give me a page does not exist, removed from Administrator.
So here we have a case of an unverified story. This Globe Magazine is a rag, which is not held to be trustworthy by most journalists. its a tabloid with gossip.
Even the google cache for the original article does not have the article
Seems that the Globe no longer stands by what they reported.
Why then are Obama’s supporters continue to cite it.
Like the Bomford BC, which disappeared from the net…
So let’s make sure Congress hears from us this August 4th so that we can get an answer to that pertinent aforementioned question posed by Mr. Donofrio: “Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?”
Well if this is an admission by Obama himself, then the usurper himself has been usurped. That would make him merely a subject of her royal majesty the Queen of England by extension does that make us subjects of the Queen? Those Brits all these years I wondered how they would pay us back for the Revolutionary War, so they sicked Obama on us. Not funny you Brits.
Civis Naturaliter Natus says:
August 4, 2009 at 1:50 am
Black Lion,
I have seen Obots quote that Globe report regarding Coast Province Hospital, but from your post I can’t tell to which hospital you are refering, the one in HI or in the one in Mombasa.
Also can you give us a link to that story?
Is Globe a rag sheet or an actual newspaper?
Thanks…
__________________________________________________________________
http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/08/02/the-latest-birther-fantasy-obamas-fake-kenyan-birth-certificate/
I am not sure what Globe paper it was.
Black Lion,
I have seen Obots quote that Globe report regarding Coast Province Hospital, but from your post I can’t tell to which hospital you are refering, the one in HI or in the one in Mombasa.
Also can you give us a link to that story?
Is Globe a rag sheet or an actual newspaper?
Thanks…
Kerchner’s brief is bizarre, cites cases that are completely inapposite to the issue at hand, and fails to make any colorable argument for standing. With regards to Bakke, the case dealt with affirmative action and stands for the proposition that racial quota systems violate equal protection.
Those cases such as Lujan, which might be relevant, are cited not to say what the court held, but what the court might have held had there been a different fact pattern. It is unclear what Kerchner hopes to gain by this; using his logic, one can argue that if Adams had only given Marbury his commission, the Marshall court would never have struck down the Judiciary Act of 1789, as they did in Marbury v. Madison. Similarly, if New York hadn’t restricted navigation on its waterways, the Court may have decided Gibbons v. Ogden differently. This makes for fun hypotheticals in first year law classes, but in the real world, lawyers deal with precedent as it is, not how it might have been.
Kerchner has made no showing of any concrete injury, and in a transparent attempt to create a particularized, points out that the majority of Americans do not feel that Obama is ineligible. It is unclear what this demonstrates, other than that Kerchner is part of the fringe. It does not show any particularized, concrete injury.
Everyone:
August 4th is Barack Obama’s birthday, and I have an idea for giving an activism ‘present’ to Congress.
According to Glenn Thrush, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid denounced the birther issue Monday on the Senate floor, saying that it “ignores the undeniable and proven fact that President Obama was born in the United States.”
REFERENCE: Glenn Thrush. “Reid Hits ‘Artificial Controversy’ of Birthers.” Politico. Capitol News Company LLC. August 3, 2009. Accessed August 3, 2009. http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0809/Reid_hits_artificial_controversy_of_birthers.html
However, there’s something that Senator Reid is ignoring, and that’s the historical/legal matter that even if Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims, he still may be ineligible to be president because he held Kenyan/British citizenship at birth thru his father under the British Nationality Act of 1948, and possessed foreign citizenship until he was 21 years old.
REFERENCE: FactCheck.org. Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. August 29, 2008. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html Referenced at: Fight the Smears. Obama for America. 2008. Accessed June 27, 2009. http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
(Note that this website used to be listed under the ownership of Obama for America. When it was accessed on August 3, 2009 it was listed as belonging to Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic National Committee. Peculiar.)
Leo Donofrio Esq. asks the pertinent question: “Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?”
REFERENCE: Leo Donofrio, Esq. “World Net Daily Drops The POTUS Ineligiblity (sic) Ball…” Natural Born Citizen. June 23, 2009. Accessed August 1, 2009. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/world-net-daily-drops-the-potus-ineligiblity-ball/
It’s a simple question, and an objective one at that. It’s not conspiracy; it’s simply a matter of fact. Why won’t Congress address this issue? As Mr. Donofrio also said, “It’s hardly a fringe concept to expect and demand that the Commander in Chief was never a citizen of another nation.”
REFERENCE: Leo Donofrio, Esq. “The Relevant Obama Admission.” Natural Born Citizen. July 29, 2009. Updated twice that same day. Accessed August 3, 2009. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/the-relevant-obama-admission-2/
In his treatise, Vattel stated that “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” And he went on to state, “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen ; for, if be (sic) is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
REFERENCE: Monsieur de Vattel. The Law of Nations. New edition by Joseph Chitty with notes and additions by Edward D. Ingraham. Philadelphia: T. & J. W. Johnson & Co., Law Booksellers, 1867. 101. Accessed June 26 and/or 27, 2009. http://books.google.com/books?id=0B0MAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP7
ALSO SEE REFERENCE (on the significance of Vattel): “Emmerich de Vattel.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Accessed July 6, 2009. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/624086/Emmerich-de-Vattel
The U.S. Supreme Court quoted Vattel as saying, “The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
REFERENCE: The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 289 (1814). Cited at the U.S. Supreme Court Center. Justia & Oyez & Forms WorkFlow. Accessed July 26, 2009. http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html
The Supreme Court also stated, “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
REFERENCE: Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 167-168 (1874). Cited at the U.S. Supreme Court Center. Justia & Oyez & Forms WorkFlow. Accessed July 26, 2009. http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html
(Note that this case was decided after the ratification of the 14th amendment, meaning the court held that said amendment did not define a “natural born citizen;” it merely defined a citizen, and here the court points us to external historical sources (of which Vattel would be one such an authority) to discover the definition of a “natural born citizen.” See the post on this matter by Leo Donofrio, Esq. at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/obama-is-guilty-on-at-least-two-counts-of-false-swearing/ initially dated July 27, 2009, updated July 28, 2009.)
In the Virginia ratifying convention of the Constitution, Madison said, “It is to be presumed that, in transactions with foreign countries, those who regulate them will feel the whole force of national attachment to their country. The contrast being between their own nation and a foreign nation, is it not presumable they will, as far as possible, advance the interest of their own country?”
REFERENCE: Madison. “Thursday, June 19, 1788″ (misprinted by Jonathan Elliot as “Wednesday, June 18, 1788″). Jonathan Elliot. “The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.” The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. 1836. Book compiled by Jon Roland of The Constitution Society, September 5, 1995 at http://www.constitution.org/elliot.htm Updated October 21, 2001. Specific section which was cited accessed July 29, 2009. http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_16.htm
Madison’s point reflects the mindset that a government official involved in foreign affairs will obviously seek the interests of his own country more than that of another country, and that in fact, they will seek their own country’s interests to the fullest possible extent. This gives us good reason to believe that the founders intended to exclude dual citizens (like Obama, assuming he was born in Hawaii) from the ‘natural born’ category, seeing as a dual citizen may well have conflicting national interests, rendering such a person incapable of fully and properly representing the foreign interests of the United States. In Obama’s own case, he had foreign citizenship until he was an adult, by which time he would certainty have had the chance to intellectually-develop at least something of a national attachment.
So let’s make sure Congress hears from us this August 4th so that we can get an answer to that pertinent aforementioned question posed by Mr. Donofrio: “Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?”
I propose that on the evening of August 4th, wait until the offices of your two U.S. senators and representative are closed. Then call their closest district office and leave them a brief voice mail. It can go something like this (this is just a sample. Please use your own words; it will be more effective):
“Today is August 4th: Barack Obama’s birthday. Recently there has been a lot of additional controversy surrounding Obama’s birth certificate. However, Congress and the media are essentially ignoring an even more important matter: the fact that Obama was born a foreign citizen governed under the British Nationality Act of 1948, and held foreign citizenship until he was 21 years old. Obama even admitted as much on his official Fight the Smears website. The founders intended to keep foreign influence out of the office of president, so is it so much to expect that the chief executive was never the citizen of a foreign nation? And can you explain to the American people how a natural born United States citizen could be governed at birth by foreign citizenship law? Do you have an answer for your constituents as to this vital question? What do you plan to do in order to resolve it?”
You can also call their D.C. office, of course, or any of their district offices, but if you do nothing else I suggest simply calling the closest district office because it’s more convenient and that way, in many cases, you won’t have to make a long-distance call. Ideally, when their staff comes in to work on Wednesday morning their voice mail boxes will be filled with messages from many constituents asking that essential question, and demanding that they do something about it. And if you’re so inclined, you may also consider calling and leaving a similar message for your state’s governor.
Hi Phil =
Not sure what to make of it all, but here’s a link to possible shenanigans by the Obots in trying to bury this story: Heads Up – Multiple COLBs Warning – Someone swapped out original after it was posted — Jim Robinson found the following in his files history:
>
> Here’s the original source URL on the first thread posted:
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/18018714/03118509265
>
> It now redirects to:
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/18018714/Fake-Obama-Kenya-birth-certificate
>
Just a note – Scribd is affiliated with Google, and we already know they have been busy scrubbing links from both the web and their cache.
Orly on TV…She doesn’t even make any sense….
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/08/03/msnbc_taitz/
“But in this case, I think this interview actually served a purpose, as Taitz did a fair amount of damage to her cause all by herself. Anyone who was on the fence and watched the interview could not possibly come away from it thinking she’s credible.”
From WND…
“Orly Taitz asserts that “to be president there have to be two parents who are citizens.” This is false. Here is Blackstone’s classic exposition in 1765 of the legal meaning of the term from the Commentaries on the Laws of England.
William Blackstone, Commentaries 1: 354 361–62
Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it…all children, born out of the king’s ligeance [i.e on foreign soil], whose fatherswere natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.”
In discussing the Certification of Live Birth that the Obama campaign claims was posted on the web, Orly Taitz also asserts that “Hawaii has statute 338 that allows foreign-born children of Hawaiian residents to get Hawaiian birth certificates.” What she is referring to here is the 1982 amendment of the vital records law. Under Act 182 H.B. NO. 3016-82, state policies and procedures could accommodate even “children born out of State” (this is the actual language of Act 182) with an original birth certificate on record. But though Act 182 does provide children born out of state with a birth certificate it does not provide them with birth certificates that say that these children were born in Hawaii or at a specific location in Hawaii. Consequently these birth certificates cannot engender Certifications of Live Birth which state that the subject was born in Honolulu, as the purported Obama Certification of Live Birth does. So if the Obama Certification of Live Birth was not forged, it could not have been engendered by an Act 182-authorized birth certificate for “children born out of state”. And if it was forged, the false information on it was not based on anything that could be on an Act-182 authorized birth certificate. So Orly Taitz’ assertion that “Hawaii has statute 338 that allows foreign-born children of Hawaiian residents to get Hawaiian birth certificates” is irrelevant.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/?p=2686
Just to point out another difference in situations regarding the HI COLB and the so called Kenyan COLB. The hospital that the BC claims President Obama was born in stated the following…
“We do not have computerized records going back to the 1960’s and can only sort through our archives by hand,” Dr. Christopher Mwanga, an administrator at the Mombasa hospital tells GLOBE. “We have searched for all the names of babies born on Aug. 4, 1961, and have not found the name of Barack Hussein Obama. That is all I can tell you.”
In addition the government of Kenya has not come out and stated that the President was born in Kenya. However the State Department of the United States of America in the Strunk case dismissal stated the following…
“President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a U.S. “natural born” citizen and is eligible to serve as the United States President, pursuant to the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. President Obama was not born in Mombasa, Kenya. President Obama was not born in Kenya or anywhere outside the state of Hawaii.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14597639/Strunk-Answer
So unless the State Department is lying, then they have evaluated the evidence and came up with that conclusion…
Also regarding the issue of African on the COLB that President Obama presented…
“We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldn’t tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama’s father’s race listed as “African”? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father’s race and mother’s race are supplied by the parents, and that “we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be.” We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as “African.”
http://obamatrueandfalse.com/2009/07/30/false-obamas-fathers-race-would-have-been-reported-as-negro-in-1961/
And finally remember that the unambiguous statement of the state official responsible for Vital Records said the following…
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
The operative phrase is that she stated “Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i”.
Regarding the issue about when the Republic of Kenya came to be, the following from the Washington Post…The article from the Washington Post was written back on December 12, 1964.
“But Kenya didn’t even become a republic until December 12, 1964. An article from that day’s Washington Post, for example, reported that “Kenya became the newest republic within the British Commonwealth at midnight.”
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908030001
Also this quote…
“Taitz told WND that the document came from an anonymous source who doesn’t want his name known because ‘he’s afraid for his life.’ ” So in order to believe Taitz and WND, one would have to assume that this document was requested 45 years ago, preserved that entire time, withheld through the entire election and transition period, and yet somehow ended up in the hands of someone sympathetic to Orly Taitz.
So it is the infamous “I am afraid of my life” so I need to remain in hiding excuse. I believe that was the same think the so called “Dr. Ron Polarik” had said to explain why he he was using a false identity.
Further investigation on the supposed Kenyan BC revealed the following…
http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/08/02/the-latest-birther-fantasy-obamas-fake-kenyan-birth-certificate/
So to summarize we have 2 images of documents that both claim to be the BC of the President. One, the COLB from HI has been authenticated by WND, has contemporary announcements in the newspaper, the Republican Director of the department responsible for issuing the COLB states that the President was born in HI, and the actual physical copy was examined by a third party. The so called Kenyan BC has not be authenticated, been called a forgery by the so called Dr. Ron Polarik, the city of birth is in doubt due to that it was not a part of Kenya in 1961, and the Republic did not exist officially until after the date of the supposed document. It is not even a close comparison. The Kenyan BC does not pass the smell test.
Under Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 902 (Self-Authenticating Documents) its states the following:
Rule 902. Self-authentication
Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following:
(12) Certified foreign records of regularly conducted activity. In a civil case, the original or a duplicate of a foreign record of regularly conducted activity that would be admissible under Rule 803(6) if accompanied by a written declaration by its custodian or other qualified person certifying that the record:
(A) was made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of those matters;
(B) was kept in the course of the regularly conducted activity; and
(C) was made by the regularly conducted activity as a regular practice.
The declaration must be signed in a manner that, if falsely made, would subject the maker to criminal penalty under the laws of the country where the declaration is signed. A party intending to offer a record into evidence under this paragraph must provide written notice of that intention to all adverse parties, and must make the record and declaration available for inspection sufficiently in advance of their offer into evidence to provide an adverse party with a fair opportunity to challenge them.
What Oritz is doing is proper because it requires foreign records to have notice. Per notes on FRE 902, “The notice requirement in Rules 902(11) and (12) is intended to give the opponent of the evidence a full opportunity to test the adequacy of the foundation set forth in the declaration.”
To protect the individual who supplied it, she is seeking outside representation and verification to authenticate the document for court.
Anyone with sense is going maintain a healthy dose of skepticism on this little revelation. Easy trust is no longer given these days.
However, what a wonder if it were to be true and valid. That would immediately nullify every signature that O has made since January 20th! What a crashing blow to the Lib-Progs agenda! What a blow in support of our Constitution and our Liberty!