270 Comments »

• Who Are You Kidding says:

  September 30, 2009 at 9:17 pm

  1 There are no known ex-employees from 1961 of the Honolulu newspapers which carried announcements of Obama Jr.’s birth. For the moment we may informally accept the existence of these announcements, but to be admissible in court they must be authenticated as genuine announcements: this hasn’t yet happened. The circumstances of how such announcements were published is, and may remain, just anecdote and third-hand speculation from an employee who wasn’t there in 1961. The fact that no one has come forward to deny this speculation cannot be used to confirm the speculation – any more than the fact that no witness has come forward to confirm Obama was born in Hawaii would be sufficient for smrstrauss to accept it as evidence Obama was not born in Hawaii.

  2 What Obama Chicago HQ and Factcheck purported to be a physical copy of a Certification of Live Birth, which is not an “official birth certificate” as they and smrstrauss claim, was “provided” by being photographed and placed online beyond all physical examination. These events are so far beneath reasonable and legal standards of evidence it would be amusing if not so very serious. The fact that one of Factcheck’s images http://tinyurl.com/FC-File-woSeal has no visible embosed seal is extremely suspect. If smrstrauss can actually locate the seal in this photograph, please, tell us where it is. Anyhow, to become admissible evidence in federal court Obama’s COLB (if it exists) has to satisfy the authentication and hearsay requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence: right now, and possibly not ever, it does not meet those requirements.

  smrstrauss should take the time to read comments below and go here http://tinyurl.com/TRSoL-7337 for more about the evidentiary problems of Obama’s COLB (if it exists).
• Phil says:

  September 24, 2009 at 8:10 pm

  smrstrauss,

  The first thing to remember is that no president before Obama showed his birth certificate or any proof that he was born in the USA.

  Absolutely incorrect, and here’s the evidence.

  -Phil
• smrstrauss says:

  September 23, 2009 at 10:55 pm

  Re: “Further, even Dr. Fukino of the Hawaiian Department of Health only ever states that she has seen “vital documents,” not an actual “birth certificate,” per se.”

  Their comments meant that they had seen proof (twice)that Obama was born in Hawaii, as this shows: (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html)
• smrstrauss says:

  September 23, 2009 at 10:53 pm

  The first thing to remember is that no president before Obama showed his birth certificate or any proof that he was born in the USA.

  Obama was the first, and he showed the proof by putting his official birth certificate of Hawaii on line and showing the physical copy to both FactCheck and Polifact. So the physical copy of the birth document exists. Then, the officials in Hawaii confirmed the facts on the birth document, that Obama was born in Hawaii, twice. (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html)

  As for only one reporter saying that the birth notices in the newspapers were from the government, there are undoubtedly people who worked for both newspapers in 1961 and others in Hawaii who remember the procedure on sending out notices of birth. If this had been wrong, there would have been letters to the editor of the newspapers. The fact is clearly established that the Hawaii government sent out the notices, and more important, it sent out notices ONLY for births IN Hawaii and not for births outside of Hawaii.

  As the Wall Street Journal concludes: “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”
• Who Are You Kidding says:

  September 14, 2009 at 8:36 pm

  1 “Of course the COLB is not hearsay.” brygenon

  brygenon believes that “statements” issuing from both Okubo and the online images of Obama’s purported COLB contain facts which are true. These statements can only be defined as hearsay.

  Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 801[Hearsay] : Definitions The following definitions apply under this article: (a) Statement. — A “statement” is…an oral or written assertion…if it is intended by the person as an assertion. (b) Declarant. — A “declarant” is a person who makes a statement. (c) Hearsay. — ”Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

  “Electronic Fingerprints“, Adam Wolfson, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 104, No. 1 (Oct., 2005)

  “In essence, computer-stored records are human assertions stored in an electronic format. These records constitute “assertions” because they are ‘the by-product of a machine operation which uses for its input “statements” entered into the machine by out of court declarants.‘ …If the document is introduced because its proponent claims that the information contained therein is true, it is the written equivalent of an oral assertion and must therefore meet a valid hearsay exception. …Almost all federal courts [except USAF Court of Criminal Appeals and USN-Marine Corps Court of Military Review] and many state courts, regard all computer records as hearsay… Computer-stored records…are deemed the electronic equivalent of handwritten documents. Since they are created or maintained by a human, they are considered statements and must therefore satisfy a hearsay exception in order to be admitted…”

  Here is the most recent and definitive judicial opinion on the issue:

  Memorandum Opinion issued May 4, 2007 by Paul W. Grimm, Chief United States Magistrate Judge, Lorraine v. Markel, US District Court, Maryland. http://tinyurl.com/LvM-Opinion

  “When analyzing the admissibility of ESI [electronically stored information ie a COLB] for hearsay issues, counsel should address each step of the inquiry in order: does the evidence contain a statement, made by a person, which is offered for its substantive truth… If, as a result of this analysis, a determination is made that the evidence is hearsay, then it is inadmissible unless it covered by one of the exceptions found in Rule…803. …If it is critical to the success of [a] case to admit into evidence computer stored records, it would be prudent to plan to authenticate the record by the most rigorous standard that may be applied.”

  2 FRE 803(8) admits into evidence the records, reports, statements, and data compilations from “public offices and agencies“, not individuals speaking as individuals. No room for (Okubo) verbal hearsay. FRE 803(6) admits records of regularly conducted activity “[including]…opinions…by…a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity…and if it was the regular practice…to make” these records. No room for (Okubo) verbal hearsay there either. Rule 902(11) is specified as the authenticating standard for these records. Incidentally, FRE 803(9) is the FRE hearsay exception for Vital Records.

  3 FRE 902(1) as cited by brygenon is only concerned with original documents. However Janice Okubo confirmed in an interview on June 6, 2009 that the “[Hawaii] 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…’ ” This means a CERTIFICATION of Live Birth (as the name suggests) cannot be a document provable in its original form as FRE 902(1) requires, because that original is an electronic file or record only found on Hawaii DoH servers, and such an electronic file or record cannot bear a seal or signature by definition. Therefore a CERTIFICATION of Live Birth cannot be authenticated for admission as evidence in federal courts under FRE Rule 902(1). CERTIFICATIONS of Live Birth must be authenticated under another Rule and that Rule can only be FRE 902(11).

  4 The authenticating standard for Rule 803 hearsay exceptions is Rule 902(11), which must accord with 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1746, thereby requiring authentications to be made expressly under penalty of perjury and attested with a real, handwritten signature. Hawaii COLBs contain only Registrar Onaka’s machine-stamped generic rubric, not made under penalty of perjury, and a smudgy facsimile signature. For very good reasons federal courts do not usually allow 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1746 declarations made under penalty of perjury to be submitted with a facsimile signature.

  Memorandum Opinion issued May 4, 2007 by Paul W. Grimm, Chief United States Magistrate Judge, Lorraine v. Markel, US District Court, Maryland.

  ” ..The obvious advantage of Rule 902 is that it does not require the sponsoring testimony of any witness to authenticate the exhibit — its admissibility is determined simply by examining the evidence itself, along with any accompanying written declaration or certificate required by Rule 902.

  Memorandum Opinion issued by US Deputy Assistant Attorney General May 30, 2008, “Admissibility In Federal Court Of Electronic Copies Of Personnel Records“ http://tinyurl.com/qyskms

  The second step [in authenticating an electronic record] is to authenticate the paper printout….Rule 902 permits a copy of an official record or report to be authenticated when certified correct ‘by the custodian [of records] or other person authorized to make the certification,’ which would again include an official who is familiar with an agency’s electronic record-keeping system. … the statutory requirements of signing, witnesses, and notarization outlined above will [not] present particular issues under the authentication rules for threshold admissibility purposes… it would seem advisable to exercise quality control to ensure that signatures and notarization markings on documents are clear and legible.”

  5 An explicit provision of Hawaii law is required to make a facsimile signature legal. There are only four provisions in Hawaii law for the legality of facsimile signatures: court officers, land registrars, the public school superintendent, and special purpose revenue bonds. No explicit statutory provision has been made for Hawaii DoH or Vital Records.

  6 The smudgy, machine-stamped facsimile signature and the generic “certification” on Obama’s COLB (if it exists) does not satisfy the demands of FRE 902(11), federal courts, the US Deputy Assistant Attorney General, or even Hawaii state law.

  7 brygenon wrote that Congress prescribed (quote) ‘the relevant proof and effect [of Article IV(1), US Constitution] in 28 USC Section 1739.‘. NO Hawaii COLB, and certainly not the online images of Obama’s purported COLB, has been authenticated by ‘a certificate of a judge…or of the Governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal…[or] clerk or prothonotary of the court…under his hand and the seal of his office‘ in the manner stipulated by the statute brygenon himself cites and, on that basis, should not be given “Full Faith and Credit” by any court and office outside Hawaii within the United States. Unfortunately for brygenon, the statute itself provides the legal explanation as to why a COLB never has and never could be authenticated in this way:

  The Full Faith And Credit Clause: A Reference Guide. William Reynolds and William Richman, Praeger, 2005 http://tinyurl.com/FFCC-R-R

  “…the meaning of the term full faith and credit shifts as the focus changes from judicial proceedings and acts to records. …As a result of the [full faith and credit statute: 28 USC Section 1739] the procedure for proving the records [of the first court in the second court] is simple enough: the clerk of the rendering court must attest to the genuineness of the record, and then a judge of that court must certify that the attestation is in proper form. …the courts have read the statute in accord with its plain meaning as not…applying to…the records of administrative bodies.”

  8 To play devil’s advocate: is there any possible way in which Obama’s COLB (if it exists) could not be deemed testimonial and, in consequence, not hearsay? Perhaps as follows. Read the official statement at the lower edge of a Hawaii COLB. It says: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” A COLB is not claiming to be “prima facie evidence of the fact-S [plural] of birth“; which is to say, of the facts or circumstances of the birth printed on a COLB as data fields abstracted from the Hawaii Vital Records electronic database. A COLB only claims to be evidence that a birth occurred, was recorded in the original paper Certificate whose reference number is printed on a COLB, and claims nothing more. In which case, none of the statements it contains are testimonial, or prima facie evidence, and so cannot be hearsay. This would appear to be confirmed by the usage “serves as prima facie evidence“, where the phrase “serves as” does not mean “IS prima facie evidence” but connotes “substitutes for“, “will make do as“, “might pass for“, “could be so regarded “, “assumes the capacity of“, with the general sense of a temporary condition brought into existence by somebody’s arbitrary, non-binding acceptance. Problem: if Obama’s COLB (should it exist) makes no statement of fact, doesn’t claim to make a statement of fact, and any facts observed on it are merely in the eye of the beholder then it can not be used to establish the circumstances of Obama’s birth and presidential eligibility; for these purposes hearsay (eg FRE Vital Records exception 803(9)) and authentication (FRE 902(11)) are essential. Hmmmm. Devil’s advocacy off.

  9 “…attorneys..under FRE Rules 106, 1001, 1002, 1003, and 1005 are permitted to require the original 1961 records.” Who Are You Kidding

  brygenon writes “attorneys cannot ‘require’ any such thing“, with skeptical marks attaching to the word “require“.

  Memorandum Opinion issued May 4, 2007 by Paul W. Grimm, Chief United States Magistrate Judge, Lorraine v. Markel, US District Court, Maryland.

  “If ESI [electronically stored information ie a COLB] has cleared the first three hurdles by being shown to be relevant, authentic, and admissible under the hearsay rule or an exception thereto, it must also be admissible under the original writing rule before it can be admitted into evidence or considered at summary judgment. …The substantive requirements of the original writing rule are succinctly provided by Rule 1002, which mandates that ‘to prove the content of a writing…the original writing…is REQUIRED.’ It is Rule 1002 that gives the rule its modern name, the ‘original writing rule,’ (traditionally the rule has been referred to as the ‘Best Evidence Rule,’) as it REQUIRES the original to prove the contents of a writing… Rule 1003 essentially provides that duplicates [which 'by the same impression...or matrix...or by other equivalent techniques...accurately reproduce...the original'] are co-extensively admissible as originals, unless there is a genuine issue as to the authenticity of the original, or the circumstances indicate that it would be unfair to admit a duplicate in lieu of an original …Once the definitions of the original writing rule are understood, the next important determination is whether the rule applies at all. Rule 1002 answers this question. …For example, proof that someone is married may be made by the testimony of a witness to the ceremony. The marriage license is not REQUIRED. However, the rule applies if the only proof of the marriage is by the record itself… [and similarly] proving legal transactions, such as wills, contracts, and deeds commonly do[es] involve the best evidence rule because the documents themselves have the central legal significance in the case.” [emphasis applied]

  As far as opposing attorneys are concerned, it is incontestable that no witnesses have come forward to Obama’s alleged birth in Hawaii, that Obama’s COLB is not a duplicate of the original 1961 record of Obama’s birth, that there is a “genuine issue as to the authenticity of the original” 1961 record, and that it certainly would “be unfair to admit [a printout which is not even] a duplicate in lieu of an original“.

  Advisory Notes to Rule 1003, Federal Rules of Evidence:

  “Other reasons for REQUIRING the original may be present when only a part of the original is reproduced and the remainder is needed for cross-examination or may disclose matters qualifying the part offered or otherwise useful to the opposing party….with the expectation that the courts would be liberal in deciding that a ‘genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original.’ [emphasis applied]

  10 “Obama’s attorneys …smart lawyering.” brygenon

  Obama’s lawyers are so “smart” they have allowed him (through his own website) to issue statements about, and draw attention to, Obama having supposedly possessed both British and Kenyan nationality: these statements are factually wrong, legally nonsensical, and have undermined for many people Obama’s credible presidential eligibility. That’s not policy, that’s stupidity. The reluctance of these same attorneys to release Obama’s documentation, and uphold the rights of a civil rights lawyer via the judicial process, has provoked a tidal wave of negative publicity about “the hiding of evidence being evidence of something to hide“. This surely cannot be rational policy: it can only be fear or more stupidity. Imagine Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela retreating from the assertion of their legal rights in a profound matter of conscience and constitution, involving not just themselves but fellow citizens, by way of the courts of judicial and moral opinion. Inconceivable.
• brygenon says:

  September 13, 2009 at 7:43 am

  Who Are You Kidding kidded himself into thinking:

  Absent court testimony, Obama’s COLB (if it exists) is not admissible as hearsay (offered to prove that something contained within it is true) unless authenticated in accordance with a FRE Rule 902(11) attestation (ie made under penalty of perjury and subscribed with a real, handwritten signature) certifying that an actual, unique, specific, physical check was made between the COLB database on Hawaii DoH servers and the COLB printout to confirm they match. Very clearly this has not been done, judging from online images of Obama’s purported COLB. Hardly probative.

  Of course the COLB is not hearsay. Black Lion’s citation of Rule 803(8) was on the admissibility of public statements by Hawaiian officials. The document itself is a state record under seal, admissible under 902(1).

  As Obama’s COLB (if it exists) only contains a reduced dataset edited from the original 1961 records, opposing attorneys under FRE Rules 106, 1001, 1002, 1003, and 1005 are permitted to require the original 1961 records as substantiating evidence. Hardly primary.

  Opposing attorneys cannot “require” any such thing. They’d be left arguing that information on the 1961 record but not the COLB must be included “in fairness”. The Hawaiian state government, not the defendant, decided what to include on the COLB, and they designed it to conform to national standards.

  3 “Full Faith and Credit shall be given….U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 1.” brygenon

  brygenon first pushed this angle in March, when he wrote: “Congress prescribes the relevant proof and effect [of Article IV(1)] in 28 USC Section 1739.”

  28 USC Section 1739:

  “All nonjudicial records…of any State of the United States…or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in any court…by the attestation of the custodian of such records…together with a certificate of a judge…or of the Governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal…that the said attestation is in due form and by the proper officers. If the certificate is given by a judge, it shall be further authenticated by the clerk or prothonotary of the court, who shall certify, under his hand and the seal of his office, that such judge is duly commissioned and qualified. Such records…or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court and office within the United States…”

  Note well: “attestation of the custodian“; “certificate of a judge…or of the Governor [etc]“; “authenticated by the clerk or prothonotary“; “certify, under his hand and the seal“.

  Is there evidence of any such necessary attestations or certifications under 28 USC Section 1739 in relation to Obama’s COLB (if it exists)? (See point 1.)

  Of course there is. “I CERTIFY THIS IS A TRUE COPY OR ABSTRACT OF THE RECORDS ON FILE IN THE HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH”, signed Alviin T. Onaka, Ph.D, “STATE REGISTRAR” (capitalization in original).
  http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_7.jpg

  What were you thinking? That Hawaii ignored the law Congress made under their Article IV, Section 1 authority, but just happens to put the attestation there as some kind of decoration?

  The question is: why do Obama’s attorneys have so little confidence in their ability to prove that Obama is a “natural born citizen,” if, as claimed, Obama really was born in Hawaii?

  No, the question is why do the eligibility deniers keep making up such nonsense. Obama’s attorneys have done nothing that indicates any such lack of confidence. Flushing frivolous or malicious litigation at the earliest possible stage is what smart lawyering.
• Who Are You Kidding says:

  September 12, 2009 at 6:05 pm

  1 “[Okubo's statement about Obama's online COLB] That’s admissible evidence in a court of law….even if Janice Okubo wasn’t called to the stand.” dunstvangeet “The fact is that the COLB is the probative and primary piece of evidence…” Black Lion

  a) dunstvangeet cites Federal Rules of Evidence #803(8). A hearsay exception applied through FRE Rule 803(8) admits into evidence a document or record itself, not out-of-court verbal statements about what the document or record is purported to state as fact. b) Verbal statements may be admissible in court as hearsay – but under FRE Rule 806 the hearsay declarant can be subjected to cross-examination and attacked with contrary evidence: not least, Okubo’s statement that “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image [Obama's purported COLB] on the site represents.”

  Absent court testimony, Obama’s COLB (if it exists) is not admissible as hearsay (offered to prove that something contained within it is true) unless authenticated in accordance with a FRE Rule 902(11) attestation (ie made under penalty of perjury and subscribed with a real, handwritten signature) certifying that an actual, unique, specific, physical check was made between the COLB database on Hawaii DoH servers and the COLB printout to confirm they match. Very clearly this has not been done, judging from online images of Obama’s purported COLB. Hardly probative.

  As Obama’s COLB (if it exists) only contains a reduced dataset edited from the original 1961 records, opposing attorneys under FRE Rules 106, 1001, 1002, 1003, and 1005 are permitted to require the original 1961 records as substantiating evidence. Hardly primary.

  So “the fact is that Obama has proved” absolutely nothing about his birth.

  2 “…unless there has been some evidence submitted that directly refutes that evidence…” Black Lion

  If Black Lion can keep repeating factual inexactitudes previously rebutted and deliberately ignored, others can repeat the truth to maintain balance. Under Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, ANY evidence that allows alternative logical conclusions to those only presumed by prima facie evidence rebutts the presumption. Given evidence is available that permits alternative logical conclusions to those presumed from Obama’s COLB (if it exists), then Obama’s purported COLB’s status as prima facie evidence is rebutted, and the burden of going forward shifts to Obama. Black Lion has been told this before elsewhere at this site: he has never countered it with an argument.

  3 “Full Faith and Credit shall be given….U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 1.” brygenon

  brygenon first pushed this angle in March, when he wrote: “Congress prescribes the relevant proof and effect [of Article IV(1)] in 28 USC Section 1739.”

  28 USC Section 1739:

  “All nonjudicial records…of any State of the United States…or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in any court…by the attestation of the custodian of such records…together with a certificate of a judge…or of the Governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal…that the said attestation is in due form and by the proper officers. If the certificate is given by a judge, it shall be further authenticated by the clerk or prothonotary of the court, who shall certify, under his hand and the seal of his office, that such judge is duly commissioned and qualified. Such records…or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court and office within the United States…”

  Note well: “attestation of the custodian“; “certificate of a judge…or of the Governor [etc]“; “authenticated by the clerk or prothonotary“; “certify, under his hand and the seal“.

  Is there evidence of any such necessary attestations or certifications under 28 USC Section 1739 in relation to Obama’s COLB (if it exists)? (See point 1.)

  4 “The framers did not define the term…nor did they want to put a definition into law” Tèo Bear `,:-)

  Every claim that “natural born citizen” is to be understood by the Framers’ lifelong devotion to the common law (of England) is met by a counter-claim that “natural born citizen” is to be understood by the Framers’ profound study of the common law (of nations).

  According to Erie v. Tompkins, SCOTUS 1938, federal courts must identify the sovereign American source for every rule of decision: without a legislative or constitutional instrument defining “natural born citizen”, neither the irrelevancies of common law (of any type) nor the aspirations of the Framers’ (even if they could be identified), have the force of a legislative or constitutional instrument. By way of analogy: nobody denies that the Framers were influenced by the traditions of Holy Scripture when writing the Constitution, but unless a sovereign American legislative or constitutional instrument exists to support it, nobody would seriously expect the implementation of Biblical precept as federal law (for example, turning the other cheek as a mandate for gun control).

  The truth is that the historical record does not point unambiguously in one direction: therefore we can never know now what the Framers intended by the term “natural born citizen“. All of which leaves the language of Article II(1)(5) itself, which by plain interpretation probably requires at a minimum birth within the territory of the US.

  Justice Scalia writing the opinion of the court in DC v Heller, SCOTUS 2008:

  “In interpreting this text [Second Amendment, US Constitution], we are guided by the principle that ‘ the Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.‘ Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation….” [emphasis applied]

  Given that only the common law and not the 18th century parliamentary statutes of England or Vattel’s Law of Nations were available in American colonial law to define nationality, the normal and ordinary meaning of “natural born citizen” was as follows:

  “By the common law all persons born out of the king’s dominions and allegiance, even the children of natural born subjects, were deemed aliens: and the character of a natural born subject, previous to any of the statutes which we shall have occasion to refer to, was incidental to birth; and whatever were the situations of his parents [ie even if foreigners], the being born within the allegiance of the king constituted a natural born subject…

  The statute 25 Edw.3. st. 2. [deemed common law] provides that ‘all children, inheritors, which should thenceforth be born out of the legiance of the king [in a foreign country], whose fathers and mothers [Ann Dunham was American: excludes Obama], at the time of their birth, should be at the faith and legiance of the king of England, should have and enjoy the same benefit and advantage, to have and bear inheritance within the same legiance as other inheritors [natural born subjects], provided the mothers of such children passed the sea by the licence and will of their husbands.‘ “

  A Treatise Of The Law Of Descents, page 33, Henry Chitty, 1825 http://tinyurl.com/Descents-HC

  5 “A natural born citizen is one who at birth…[n]o other country except the country of his birth can lay a claim of allegiance” Tèo Bear `,:-) “…nobody knows whether or not Mr. Obama is still a British citizen at this point.” Phil

  Section 32(2), 1948 British Nationality Act :- “any reference in this Act to a child shall be construed as a reference to a legitimate child; and the expressions ‘father’, ‘ancestor’ and ‘descended’ shall be construed accordingly.”

  Before coming to the US Obama Sr. was lawfully married to Kezia Grace Aoko Obama according to the formal traditional marriage laws of Kenya. This marriage had equal, legal status with a certified, statutory marriage under the British Kenya Marriage Act 1902.

  Given that Obama Sr. was bigamous under the British Kenya Marriage Act 1902, British authorities would have deemed Obama Jr. to be illegitimate, and thus simple logic concludes that Obama Jr. was not and never had any hope of being a British citizen by descent if born in Hawaii. Anyone who denies this must cite the British statute which prevented the operation of Section 32(2) and the British Kenya Marriage Act 1902 in these circumstances; until then the presumption must be that Obama Jr. was not a British citizen at birth by descent.

  This fulfills the demand that, assuming Obama Jr. was born in Hawaii, no other country except the country of his birth (assuming that was America) can lay a claim of allegiance upon Obama Jr.. The question is: why do Obama’s attorneys have so little confidence in their ability to prove that Obama is a “natural born citizen,” if, as claimed, Obama really was born in Hawaii? It’s not explicable rationally, especially with all those admirers at SCOTUS; equally inexplicable rationally is Donofrio ostentatiously drawing attention to BNA 1948 but apparently never having read Section 32(2) and crafting the only logical inference from it consistent with the facts. Some things here just don’t stack up.

  6 “He was a Kenyan citizen from 1963 to 1984.” David

  Obama Jr has never been, and has never had any hope of being, a Kenyan citizen.

  According to the Kenyan Constitution there are only two ways the foreign born child of a father born in Kenya can become a Kenyan citizen:

  Article 87 (2): “Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies…[and] if his father becomes a citizen of Kenya [because the father was born in Kenya...then that person in turn] become[s] a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.”

  The new-citizen-of-Kenya-by-descent via Section 87 was absolutely required to be a legitimate child in British law to qualify as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent, as stipulated in Section 32(2) of the 1948 British Nationality Act, the controlling statute.

  Article 90: “A person born outside Kenya after 11th December, 1963 shall become a citizen of Kenya at the date of his birth if at that date his father is a citizen of Kenya.”

  No mention is made of the status at birth of a child born after 11th December, 1963. An illegitimate child could possibly be eligible for Kenyan citizenship if born AFTER this date. However, Obama Jr. was born two years BEFORE this date

  Anyone who truly believes and argues that Obama Jr. was at some time a Kenyan citizen must demonstrate that Obama Jr. was a legitimate child in British law. I suggest this is impossible: therefore no one can ever prove that Obama was eligible to be Kenyan citizen at any time.

  7 It should be understood that British authorities will reject any claim to British citizenship-by-descent based on a short form COLB from the US: British authorities only recognize and trust original long form birth certificates:

  “You must produce documentary evidence verifying all the information that you enter on the form [claiming British citizenship-by-descent]. Most US birth certificates from the Bureau of Vital Statistics do not contain full details of place of birth, i.e. name and address of hospital or place of birth, or give full details of parents. You will therefore have to request certified copies of full birth certificates. We [ie British Embassy, Washington] are obliged to reject and return any applications that have been submitted incorrectly.”

  Incontrovertibly, even Obama himself can never prove a claim to British citizenship with his COLB (if it exists). How strangely ironic that the same people who refuse to accept that Obama’s COLB (if it exists) proves Obama’s American citizenship still imagine that his purported COLB proves Obama’s British citizenship-by-descent, despite the fact that British authorities will not accept COLBs as documentary evidence of birth for nationality claims. Even Donofrio, who believes the long form–short form controversy is irrelevant gossip and conspiracy mongering, without Obama’s long form birth certificate has no evidence sufficient in law to prove that Obama was or is a British citizen-by-descent. US immigration appeals are often denied using similar technicalities. Consequently, Donofrio’s protests notwithstanding, he is as much a “birther” as the rest of us: otherwise he has no case.
• brygenon says:

  September 11, 2009 at 7:15 pm

  Phil says:

  brygenon [wrote],

  He produced the record provided by his birth state, and no less than our constitution grants state records “full faith and credit”. What’s more, Obama is the *only* U.S. President to exhibit his official state birth record in the course of attaining the presidency.

  I not sure to what “record” you refer,

  Of course you know what record it is: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

  Why do you guys have so much trouble with the facts?

  as the DoH has already admitted that they’ve never released Mr. Obama’s birth certificate.

  Same lies, over and over. Hawaii retains the original records, but the COLB is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii. http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

  Further, I’m not sure what “full faith and credit” has to do with the natural born citizenship RE: presidential eligibility, considering that no such law currently exists.

  You are unsure because you choose to remain ignorant.

  Also, your assertion that “Obama is the *only* US President to exhibit his official state birth record in the course of attaining the presidency” is an absolute falsehood that I’ve already chronicled on my site. Either you are completely ignoring the facts or you are maliciously haranguing my site, or perhaps a little bit of both.

  Above I cited Obama showing his, so cite one other U.S. president showing his birth certificate in the course of attaining the presidency, and I’ll have to retract.
• Phil says:

  September 10, 2009 at 8:56 pm

  Bob,

  So the non-specific enforcement of non-specific rights will occur in same other non-specific forum?

  Absolutely maybe!

  -Phil
• Bob says:

  September 10, 2009 at 12:26 am

  I wasn’t necessarily talking about the Judiciary.

  So the non-specific enforcement of non-specific rights will occur in same other non-specific forum?
• Phil says:

  September 9, 2009 at 4:24 pm

  Bob,

  Here’s something for you to chew on: whatever we, the People, demand (as long as the demands aren’t unlawful)!

  …and have standing in court to assert.

  I wasn’t necessarily talking about the Judiciary.

  -Phil
• Bob says:

  September 9, 2009 at 12:46 pm

  Here’s something for you to chew on: whatever we, the People, demand (as long as the demands aren’t unlawful)!

  …and have standing in court to assert.
• Phil says:

  September 9, 2009 at 8:00 am

  dunstvangeet,

  And what laws via the state does he have to comply with, Phil? Please be specific on what entities, and what documents he has to produce for which states.

  Here’s something for you to chew on: whatever we, the People, demand (as long as the demands aren’t unlawful)!

  -Phil
• dunstvangeet says:

  September 8, 2009 at 11:40 pm

  And what laws via the state does he have to comply with, Phil? Please be specific on what entities, and what documents he has to produce for which states.
• Phil says:

  September 8, 2009 at 8:48 pm

  dunstvangeet,

  Phil, basically, you’re saying that Obama has to comply with a law that does not specify what he must do to comply with it?

  Funny, that’s not what I said. Go read what I actually said again, especially the part referencing the 10th Amendment.

  -Phil
• Bob says:

  September 8, 2009 at 12:01 pm

  Since the Constitution provides no answers to the questions of how and to what extent such substantiation must occur, then all such questions must flow through the 10th Amendment (at the very least), whereby the States and/or the People must make such a decision.

  Although Kerchner v. Obama did pay some lip service to the 10th Amendment in that complaint, Apuzzo did not raise any such argument in opposing the motion to dismiss.
• dunstvangeet says:

  September 7, 2009 at 9:49 pm

  Phil, basically, you’re saying that Obama has to comply with a law that does not specify what he must do to comply with it?
• Phil says:

  September 7, 2009 at 8:24 pm

  dunstvangeet,

  And could you show me to what authority he’s required to submit it to? Please show me federal law, or the constitution. Please show me the exact law that requires him to present any more information than he’s already done. Be specific, and the law must show the authority that he’s required to present it to.

  Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the American Constitution shows the standard to which an ambitious individual must be eligible for the presidency.

  Since the Constitution provides no answers to the questions of how and to what extent such substantiation must occur, then all such questions must flow through the 10th Amendment (at the very least), whereby the States and/or the People must make such a decision. And while you could say that the mere holding of an election was such a vetting, I would simply counter that if there are some of us who don’t think that’s good enough, then there’s also nothing that says we’re wrong in thinking the way we do.

  -Phil
• dunstvangeet says:

  September 7, 2009 at 12:27 pm

  And could you show me to what authority he’s required to submit it to? Please show me federal law, or the constitution. Please show me the exact law that requires him to present any more information than he’s already done. Be specific, and the law must show the authority that he’s required to present it to.
• elspeth says:

  September 7, 2009 at 11:46 am

  dunstvangeet,

  Phil, would you mind sharing what exactly Barack Obama hasn’t done that is required of him to prove his citizenship? I’d really like to know.

  Absolutely. Mr. Obama has provided zero original documentation establishing his citizenship as that of being a natural born citizen.

  -Phil

  Full disclosure.