“In conclusion, I am going to broach another subject about which I’ve previously cooled heated commentary, because it has to do with a private individual. That is the subject of Mr. Siddarth Velamoor having become one of the newest law clerks for Judge Carter (h/t WND).

“I had previously said in a comment that Judge Carter was perfectly within his right to bring on board anyone he wished to clerk with him. However, after further thought on the Judge’s move, I am officially considering this a very questionable and potentially unethical move on his part.”

Why? As the link to WorldNetDaily details, while Mr. Velamoor may possess a perfectly capable and able legal mind, he hails from the same law firm that has been retained in the past to defend Mr. Obama regarding eligibility lawsuits. Furthermore, it has also been reported that edits on Judge Carter’s Wikipedia page show that the maintainers are clearly biased against “birthers,” which I find in anecdotally very bad taste.

While it is true that the US Attorney’s office has been representing the Defendants in this case and not a specific law firm, I think it can be reasonably assumed that Judge Carter knows from whence Mr. Velamoor comes and should have realized the potential conflict of interest that this could have caused.”
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/

Implying unethical behavior by Judge Carter. Implying conflict of interest, credibility, and ethical behavior of both Judge Carter and law clerk Mr. Siddarth Velamoor based upon what credible evidence?

I think I’ve already laid out the context of the situation long ago, as you’ve pointed out.

If a clerk is involved with the same law office that is representing a Defendant in a case being heard by the same Judge with whom said individual is clerking, I would consider that “on the face of it” anecdotal evidence that should, at the very least, have been questioned at the time. And that’s why I questioned it.

I don’t see why I should back down from such a question and/or sentiment.

-Phil

“I had previously said in a comment that Judge Carter was perfectly within his right to bring on board anyone he wished to clerk with him. However, after further thought on the Judge’s move, I am officially considering this a very questionable and potentially unethical move on his part.”

Why? As the link to WorldNetDaily details, while Mr. Velamoor may possess a perfectly capable and able legal mind, he hails from the same law firm that has been retained in the past to defend Mr. Obama regarding eligibility lawsuits. Furthermore, it has also been reported that edits on Judge Carter’s Wikipedia page show that the maintainers are clearly biased against “birthers,” which I find in anecdotally very bad taste.

While it is true that the US Attorney’s office has been representing the Defendants in this case and not a specific law firm, I think it can be reasonably assumed that Judge Carter knows from whence Mr. Velamoor comes and should have realized the potential conflict of interest that this could have caused.”
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/

Implying unethical behavior by Judge Carter. Implying conflict of interest, credibility, and ethical behavior of both Judge Carter and law clerk Mr. Siddarth Velamoor based upon what credible evidence?

Perspective from a political scientist because, as you may rightly point out, this is a political more than it is a legal question. You lose my support on Guess What Number 2:

“Mr. Obama is the President of the United States. I don’t care what you think about the guy, or if you think he has usurped the office (for all anyone knows, that is always a possibility), or whatever. Nevertheless, as far as our Constitution is concerned, he still remains the President.”

Not so. Just because he took the oath of office does not suddenly moot the eligibility issue. If he was not eligible, the oath is meaningless. In no way does “our Constitution” state that so long as you get by with the fraud till a certain word is spoken, the rules of said Constitution don’t apply. I have to wonder where such an odd assertion would come from, frankly. If I steal someone else’s identity, are all my transactions prior to being discovered legitimate and binding?

First, thanks for checking out my site.

Secondly, I apologize if you interpreted what I said to imply that Mr. Obama could never become an illegitimate officeholder; obviously, that is a possibility. Further, I have argued many times on my site that there is no statute of limitations on eligibility, so I don’t think there’s much disagreement there.

As to the courts: they have willing made themselves the arbiters of the Constitution, with little concern for the lack of such power the document gives them. They took the serving, now they must eat from the plate. Obama’s eligibility is a matter for the court. The problem is Then what? If he is declared ineligible then the court gets hoist by another of its own fictions: Just as separate but equal did not “become” unconstitutional in 1954, Mr. Obama never was president. So now what? True, the courts have no authority to remove a president. What and who governs the fact of a presidency that is vacant? No reason to suppose it would not be Tailwagger Joe. Arguments could be made otherwise regarding succession– over which the courts have no power. But the conclusion that Obama, if ineligible, is in fact and in law NOT the president is inescapable.

The issue is that while the Judiciary has no constitutional authority to impeach a President, they do have the power to determine whether or not an individual meets the classification for natural born citizenship as it relates to eligibility for the presidency. Even in this case, such a ruling would have to be (1) based on current law (of which there currently is none that enforces Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 and really could only be determined by original documentation) and (2) would still have to be a matter referred to the Legislative branch for potential impeachment proceedings (quo warranto arguments notwithstanding).

Here’s the fear by those who oppose questioning Mr. Obama: since such a situation has never formally occurred in the republic, nobody knows exactly how the situation would be handled RE: all previous executive decisions. The order of succession is pretty clear; the question of previous actions isn’t so much.

-Phil

“Mr. Obama is the President of the United States. I don’t care what you think about the guy, or if you think he has usurped the office (for all anyone knows, that is always a possibility), or whatever. Nevertheless, as far as our Constitution is concerned, he still remains the President.”

Not so. Just because he took the oath of office does not suddenly moot the eligibility issue. If he was not eligible, the oath is meaningless. In no way does “our Constitution” state that so long as you get by with the fraud till a certain word is spoken, the rules of said Constitution don’t apply. I have to wonder where such an odd assertion would come from, frankly. If I steal someone else’s identity, are all my transactions prior to being discovered legitimate and binding?

As to the courts: they have willing made themselves the arbiters of the Constitution, with little concern for the lack of such power the document gives them. They took the serving, now they must eat from the plate. Obama’s eligibility is a matter for the court. The problem is Then what? If he is declared ineligible then the court gets hoist by another of its own fictions: Just as separate but equal did not “become” unconstitutional in 1954, Mr. Obama never was president. So now what? True, the courts have no authority to remove a president. What and who governs the fact of a presidency that is vacant? No reason to suppose it would not be Tailwagger Joe. Arguments could be made otherwise regarding succession– over which the courts have no power. But the conclusion that Obama, if ineligible, is in fact and in law NOT the president is inescapable.

Were the net for sources cast a little wider brygenon might learn that Article IV has been the occasion of numerous SCOTUS decisions interpreting its ambiguity, meaning, and purview. Furthermore, if Article IV’s enabling statutes (28 USC Section 1738 and 1739) are indeed unambiguous and fixed in their meaning this embarrassingly dethunks brygenon’s opinion of their effect. While SCOTUS may view the Constitution as a document whose meanings evolve over time it is quite unambiguous with regard to statutes. For example, in Univ. of Tennessee v Elliott (1986) SCOTUS held that “28 U.S.C. § 1738, which accords a state court judgment the same full faith and credit in federal courts as it would have in the State’s courts, does not require that federal courts be bound by the unreviewed findings of state administrative agencies…because § 1738 antedates [precedes] the development of administrative agencies…” Using this standard, when §1738’s sibling 28 USC 1739 was enacted in 1804 a system of state birth records did not exist and was not considered necessary. Given Congress could not have intended 28 USC 1739 to apply to something non-existent and unnecessary, following SCOTUS’ logic a birth certificate is not a “record” under 28 USC 1739.

Even assuming, contrary to brygenon, that 28 USC Section 1739 is ambiguous in its effect, Full Faith and Credit bestows only the credit a record is given under local law and for Obama’s COLB this does not even amount to a prima facie presumption. Given Hawaii DoH admit that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and amendment, which should by law appear on the COLB but are mysteriously and illegally absent, the most brygenon could hope for is that Obama’s COLB is subjected to the most rigorous forensic investigation.

[NO Hawaii COLB...has been authenticated…(under) 28 USC 1739] “Except that [hyperlink to photo of alleged COLB stamps] ” brygenon

28 USC Section 1739 in pertinent part allows “records or books [to be] proved or admitted by the attestation of the custodian…together with a certificate of a judge…or of the Governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal…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…or, if [the certificate is] given by such Governor, secretary, chancellor, or keeper of the great seal, it shall be under the great seal of the State… ” [emphasis applied]

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “attest” as when “a certifying officer gives assurance of the genuineness and correctness of a copy…which has been examined and compared with the original [and] signed by the person who examined it.” http://tinyurl.com/BLD-Attest-p103

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “certificate” as “A written assurance, or official representation, that some act has or has not been done, or some event occurred, or some legal formality been complied with.” http://tinyurl.com/BLD-Certate-p183

Brewer’s Dictionary defines “Hand and Seal” as “When writing was limited to a few clerks, documents were authenticated by the impression of the hand dipped in ink, and then the seal was duly appended. As dipping the hand in ink was dirty, the impression of the thumb was substituted. We are informed that “scores of old English and French deeds still exist in which such `signatures’ appear.” Subsequently the name was written, and this writing was called ‘the hand’.” http://tinyurl.com/BD-H-S-p576

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “hand” as “a person’s signature.” http://tinyurl.com/BLD-Hand-p560

The phrase “under his hand and the seal of his office” in 28 USC Section 1739 means “to certify with both handwritten signature and seal“.

The procedure under 28 USC Section 1739 is: 1. Attestation by the Custodian AND… 2. A Judge’s certificate OR a State Officer’s certificate. 3 If a Judge’s certificate THEN EITHER a Clerk’s or Prothonotary’s certificate of hand and seal OR a State Officer’s certificate of hand and seal.

Where in the online images of Obama’s purported COLB do we observe the written certificates (plural) and signatures (plural) from among these officers (custodian, judge, governor, secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, clerk or prothonotary of the court) as stipulated by 28 USC Section 1739? Nowhere, simply nowhere. Registrar Onaka’s machine stamped facsimile and rubric does not conform to the statute’s requirement that the custodian’s signature should attest that a non-routine examination and comparison of a specific copy with its original has occurred; a facsimile and rubric which is machine stamped onto tens of thousands of COLBs does not provide the guarantee both the statute and evidence demand that such a non-routine examination and comparison ever really happened.

Thus, even assuming hypothetically that brygenon were right and 28 USC Section 1739 is the correct instrument to authenticate Obama’s COLB, based on the foregoing, that COLB (if it exists) should not be given “Full Faith and Credit”. Only sourced authorities, and not one of brygenon’s deceitful or kookological cringe theories, can unmake this conclusion. Until then brygenon remains seriously dethunked.

“[FRE 902(1)] does exactly what I said…[and]…COLB is not admitted as hearsay” brygenon

I thought brygenon had resiled from this kookological cringe theory, but apparently militant true belief is impervious to rationality. The argument made to brygenon before, substantiated by judicial and scholarly authorities and not rebutted, is that being both an electronic record and a vital record Obama’s COLB is hearsay potentially admissible under FRE Rules 902(4) and 803(9), but due to inherent hearsay within hearsay (i.e. references to the originating 1961 Certificate and its serial number) the COLB is inadmissible under any FRE Rule. Rather than cite more authorities whom brygenon is going to wilfully ignore, I invite brygenon to answer these questions:

1 Has a birth certificate ever been authenticated via the FRE, then brought into evidence, as something other than a certified copy of a public record under Rule 902(4)?
2 Is hearsay an oral or written statement, other than one made by a person while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted?
3 Is a Hawaii COLB, when offered to a court as evidence to prove a case, a person testifying at a trial or hearing?
4 Has a vital record, when its proponent claims that the information contained therein is true and is submitted to prove a case, ever been admitted into evidence as something other than hearsay?
5 Is a Hawaii COLB an electronically stored record?
6 Are electronically stored records hearsay?
7 When a written statement is deemed hearsay should any separate and distinct hearsay within hearsay elements inside the written statement also be required to satisfy a hearsay Rule ?
8 Should hearsay within hearsay elements inside a written statement which establish its relevance and probity be ruled inadmissible, is the entire written statement inadmissible?
9 Would attorneys offer as evidence in court Obama’s COLB and the information it contains to prove the truth of his case i.e. that he was born in Hawaii?
10 What evidence apart from his COLB (if it exists) would Obama’s attorneys offer to prove the truth of his case?

Unless brygenon answers these questions quoting judicial or scholarly authorities in support it will be presumed that brygenon is either ignorant of, or cannot find, authorities which support brygenon’s position, and that position must fail and so is dethunked. Any reply without supporting authorities will be considered deceitful or kookological cringe theory.

“So are you retracting quoting ‘instantly authenticates’ to me or not?” brygenon

Read back very carefully my comments below. At no point did I quote brygenon as using the phrase “instantly authenticates”; what seems to brygenon a quote is, rather, a interrogative quotation by brygenon of my original paraphrasis that had been placed within sceptical inverted commas, which quotation by brygenon I used as a reference point. Nothing else.

To the substance of the matter: when brygenon writes, for example, “Obama’s birth certificate [actually CertificATION of Live Birth] is stamped with an attestation by the record keeper and embossed with the great seal of the state…Records so proven enjoy the same faith and credit…” it is unequivocally stated that the machine stamped “attestation” and “embossing” placed upon the CertificATION have so proven (meaning: have “in this way” or “by such means” or “for that reason” proven) the COLB to enjoy Full Faith and Credit under Article IV and 28 USC Section 1739.

If brygenon does not really mean that Full Faith and Credit is proven at the instant of “attestation” and “embossing“, when does Obama’s COLB partake of Full Faith and Credit, if at all? And if brygenon does intend that Full Faith and Credit is to be attributed to Obama’s CertificATION at the instant of “attestation” and “embossing“, this must surely be a procedure that “instantly authenticates” Obama’s COLB, given such “attestation” and “embossing” occur simultaneously with the first instant of its official existence? If brygenon has not intended for us to understand these words in this way, please state clearly the correct meaning. Otherwise brygenon’s merely conjectural authentication of Obama’s COLB under Article IV and 28 USC Section 1739 at the first instant of its official existence is taken adverbially to occur “instantly“, meaning “at once, without delay or hesitation; with no time intervening“; that is, according to brygenon and merely conjecturally, it “instantly authenticates” (sceptical inverted commas applied).

“[Okubo] added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth ‘as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements’.” brygenon

That’s really very funny. Perhaps brygenon would like to quote and explain the mysterious SCOTUS decisions insinuated by Okubo. Okubo and the department she represents have been acting contrary to Hawaii law for months (please ask!) so her credibility when it comes to the law is non-existent. Any reply in defense of Okubo without supporting authorities will be considered deceitful or kookological cringe theory.

“court[s]…have already recognized, albeit in dicta, that Obama released his birth certificate.” brygenon

I wrote below: “right now Obama has not proved his US citizenship nor his Presidential eligibility in a form admissible as evidence in any court.”

brygenon replied: “Federal court rulings have already recognized, albeit in dicta, that Obama released his birth certificate.”

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “dicta” as the “opinions of a judge which do not embody the resolution or determination of the court, and, made without argument, or full consideration of the point, are not the professed deliberate determinations of the judge himself. Obiter dicta are such opinions uttered by the way, not upon the point or question pending, as if turning aside for the time from the main topic of the case to collateral subjects.” http://tinyurl.com/BLD-Dicta-p366

Given that Obama has not produced his COLB (if it exists) in any court, how does brygenon’s allusion to “dicta” rebut my conclusion “Obama has not proved…in a form admissible as evidence in any court”? brygenon has said in effect that “courts have already recognized, albeit in a form not admissible as evidence in any court etc….”. To a reasonable person this agreement surely concedes the point; however brygenon, under the influence of a kookological cringe theory, seems unable to perceive the irrationality of the counterclaim or means to put over a false impression.

‘Absolutely not,’ Taitz said Thursday afternoon when asked whether she would pay. ‘I have filed an appeal. It was a complete abuse of power.’”

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/breaking_news/story/906241.html

_____________________

Better hope those assets are well hidden. U.S. DOJ is now authorized to initiate collection procedures.

“The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”

Ankeny, Slip Op. at 18

Steve and Bill will be passing the hat to finance their appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court. Pony up, birthers.

The bases of the Plaintiffs‟ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.11 For the reasons stated below, we hold that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that therefore the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs‟ complaint.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .” U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. Article II has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a “natural born Citizen.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:

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. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.

Then, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898), the United States Supreme Court confronted the question of “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the emperor of China . . . becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment . . . .” 169 U.S. at 653, 18 S. Ct. at 458. We find this case instructive. The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” Id. at 654, 18 S. Ct. at 459. They noted that “[t]he interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” Id. at 655, 18 S. Ct. at 459 (quoting Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478, 8 S. Ct. 564, 569 (1888)).

* * *

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
Id. at 655-658, 18 S. Ct. at 459-460.

Also, as quoted in Wong Kim Ark, Justice Joseph Story once declared in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830), that “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461 (quoting Inglis, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) at 164 (Story, J., concurring)).

* * *

The Court in Wong Kim Ark also cited authority which notes that:

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

Id. at 662-663, 18 S. Ct. at 462 (quotations and citations omitted). The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States “at the time of his birth.” Id. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

Ankeny, passim.

Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, Slip Op., No. 49A02-0904-CV-353 (Ind. App. Nov. 12, 2009) (for publication):

“Initially, we note that the Plaintiffs do not cite to any authority recognizing that the Governor has a duty to determine the eligibility of a party‟s nominee for the presidency. The Plaintiffs do not cite to authority, nor do they develop a cogent legal argument stating that a certificate of ascertainment has any relation to the eligibility of the candidates. However, we note that even if the Governor does have such a duty, for the reasons below we cannot say that President Barack Obama or Senator John McCain was not eligible to become President.”

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

Birthers = 0%
Status Quo = 100%

Are you stupid ? That may sound abrupt, but you speak as if you were slightly dense. What is you problem ? The numbers were drawn ten hours after the election results.

By Abracadabra you want to change something around here.
Good luck; you’re fighting heaven. Have fun.

There was a midnight hour and the midnight-toll in between ? Yes.

Let’s say the numbers were drawn the same NIGHT as the election.

Your intelligence seems exceptionally dense and I’d really like it if you stop the ad hominem attacks saying I’m the one making the mistakes, it’s vexing.

Why don’t you mind your own business ? As if I was the one who made the Marks of the Beast fall on Obama’s shoulders all the same day. You’re the one choosing this Antichrist as your god. Let go of him and cut him loose.

He’ll be in jail in hours maybe.

brygenon, you’re check-mated

Not the first time eligbility-deniers have called check-mate.
Turned out they don’t even know how the pieces move.

You argued that Obama’s Marks of the Beast were not drawn on election day, but by doing that you’re actually drawing attention to this fact.

Many people who were unaware of the numbers of the Beast (Antichrist) learn about them.

If that is not enough I’m sending the link here to lengthy details of the meaning of the Marks of the Beast.

http://www.youtube.com/user/NamchuWangden

You claim to have PROVEN I have been knowingly lying about saying it happened on the same day.

I’ll moderate what I said, but still say it was the same day.

Why ?

Because it happened in the same 24 hours which is technically the same day.

Take a parking-ticket which says “You have one day to pay this ticket.”

Well the “day” is not from midnight that day till midnight the new day.
It’s from the time written on the ticket till same time next day. That’s a DAY.
You can argue yourself weary, we’ll lock up Obama meantime, try him for the nukes secrecy breaches on his false ID, which is the world’s worst ever crime in history and then execute him.

And then we check the record. I did *not* say nor imply you were deliberately lying when you first claimed that the Illinois lottery drew 666 on election day, 4 Nov 2008. I pointed out that you were wrong, perhaps even careless, but I did not imply intentional deceit.

No need to lecture me on when the Illinois lottery actually drew 666; I was the one who pointed that out. It was the next day, the day after election day, November 5′th.

The problem, Geir, is that even after you knew the truth, you kept on asserting what you knew to be false. Had you been honest at the time, and explained how the you confused the next day’s drawing with election day, that would have passed. Yes, it was withing 24 hours. Understandable mistake.

Geir, the problem is you kept on asserting the falsehood, after you knew it not to be true. The Illinois lottery did not draw 666 on election day, but Geir, you claimed they did even after you knew that they did not.

Geir, what you are saying now just digs you deeper. Yes, the Illinois lottery drew 666 within 24 hours after election day. That would have been a plausible explanation for your mistake. All you had to do was stop saying it was *on* election day when you learned that to be false.

If you were wrong, even careless, made a mistake, held position more strongly that you should have — all understandable; just say so. Alas, that’s not what you chose. You decided to assert something you knew not to be true. When called on it, you proved that you do not really even care whether what you say is true. No, Geir, last year’s election day was not November 5′th; it was November 4′th, and you know it.

“Fukino’s statement is obviously clear and straightforward.” brygenon

When Hawaii DoH and its Director Fukino are now, and have been for months, acting contrary to Hawaii law in the matter of Obama’s vital records, then no reasonable person is likely be persuaded by an Obama cringe theorist’s true belief that statements or actions emanating from Hawaii DoH are clear and straightforward. Hence the close analysis.

Your tortuous reading was just to fool yourself, Mr. Kidding. Those who read English require can simply do so for themselves.

“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“. http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

“Article IV and 28 USC Section 1739 encompass…state records…did you try reading them?” brygenon

The courtesies of civilized discourse suggest that when sources have been provided to rebut a claim then sources of equal authority should be provided to counter the rebuttal or the claim fails.

So read 28 USC Section 1739 and see that, contrary to your claim, it does indeed cover state records.

I have provided sources; brygenon has provided none. The reason is simple to divine: there are no sources which support brygenon’s claim that “Article IV and 28 USC Section 1739 encompass…state records” and consequently brygenon’s claim must fail. To have repeated an unsubsantiated “argument” with nothing more than opinion and cringe

My sources on Article IV (of the U.S. Constitution) and 28 USC Section 1739 are Article IV and 28 USC Section 1739. I also cited the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule Rule 902. I generally do not include links to those, as they are unambiguous as citations and easy to look up.

As for me reading Article IV and 28 USC Section 1739: SCOTUS has ruled that state laws and public records are not covered by Article IV and 28 USC 1739. What I make of Article IV and 28 USC 1739 is irrelevant.

You don’t know what you are talking about. Your reference pointed out a difference in how out-of-state judicial proceedings invoke the other state’s law, in a way non-judicial records do not. You clearly have no idea what that means, so you just add some gibberish about “state laws” not being “covered by Article IV and 28 USC 1739″, as if that were somehow at issue here.

As for brygenon reading them: NO Hawaii COLB, and certainly not the online images of Obama’s purported COLB, has been authenticated in the manner 28 USC 1739 requires: i.e. 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“; and so, even assuming hypothetically that brygenon were right, on the foregoing basis, Obama’s COLB should not be given “Full Faith and Credit”.

Except that it does: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_7.jpg

“Did I say ‘instantly authenticates’?” brygenon

brygenon has claimed numerous times that Article IV and 28 USC 1739 instantly authenticate Obama’s COLB. For example:

Mr. Kidding, you attributed “instantly authenticates” to me in *quotation marks*. I don’t think I wrote the words you literally attributed to me. I’m not asking how you might justify rephrasing something I wrote into your own terms. I’m asking where you got the *quote*.

March 25: “Obama’s birth certificate is stamped with an attestation by the record keeper and embossed with the great seal of the state….See 28 USC Section 1739. Records so proven enjoy the same faith and credit anywhere in the country as they do in the state of issue.” Enjoys=present tense=now and at issue.

March 30: “The form Obama showed…under 28 USC 1739 it enjoys the same faith and credit…” Enjoys=present tense=now and at issue.

June 3: “Obama’s COLB…It has the features Congress prescribed for state records (see 28 USC 1739) and thus enjoys full faith and credit (see U.S. Constitution, Art IV…)” Enjoys=present tense=now and at issue.

Readers may decide for themselves what brygenon intends by “records so proven enjoy the same faith and credit.”

So are you retracting quoting “instantly authenticates” to me or not?

If that quote appears in my writing, as you claimed, please cite it; I honestly forgot. If you misremembered my words — that can happen — just retract. But don’t fabricate a quote then pretend that’s O.K., as if we don’t know English well enough to understand what quotation marks mean.

“I know I wrote ’self-authenticating’…Federal Rules of Evidence…902(1)…” brygenon

brygenon’s first problem is FRE 902(1) cannot do what brygenon needs it to do: prove Obama eligible to the Presidency.

It does exactly what I said: debunks your claim that Obama’s COLB would not be admissible.

Obama’s COLB as hearsay

It is not admitted as hearsay, but as a Domestic public documents under seal.

can only be admitted into evidence via one route: FRE Rule 803(9), the hearsay exception for vital records. To do that the COLB must be authenticated as a certified copy. FRE Rule 902(1) does not mention nor authenticate electronic records (which the COLB dataset most definitely is) or certified copies (which the COLB claims to be): if Rule 902(1) did such then Congress would not have framed Rule 902(4) to perform exactly this function. On the basis that “as the [FRE] were enacted by Congress, this Court must interpret them as it would any statutory mandate … as a statute, we begin with the text … if the language of the statute is reasonably definite, it must be regarded as conclusive” (US v. Houlihan, US District Court Mass., 1994),

So your citation finds the FRE is a statute. Great.

then applying Rule 902(1) to seek to authenticate Obama’s COLB concedes that it is not an electronic record nor a certified copy of a vital record, thereby making it unavailable for admission into evidence via Rule 803(9).

That’s something going on your head, not your court citation.

brygenon’s second problem is that Obama’s COLB has not been authenticated via Rule 902(4), which requires a non-routine comparison check between the COLB dataset in the DoH database and its printout, with a written attestation to that effect

“I certify that this is a true copy or abstract of the Record on File. Hawaii State Department of Health. [signed:] Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D. State Registrar”

certified by a handwritten signature.

So you’re going to try and argue that the use of the stamp, rather than hand-signing each one, somehow invalidates it as evidence? Hawaii *designed* it to conform to the requirements.

‘“The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models,” she said.

She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.”‘
http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

Given neither of these are to be seen in the online images of Obama’s purported COLB, right now Obama has not proved his US citizenship nor his Presidential eligibility in a form admissible as evidence in any court.

Any wonder why birthers are zero for 50-or-so in court? Federal court rulings have already recognized, albeit in dicta, that Obama released his birth certificate.

When Hawaii DoH and its Director Fukino are now, and have been for months, acting contrary to Hawaii law in the matter of Obama’s vital records, then no reasonable person is likely be persuaded by an Obama cringe theorist’s true belief that statements or actions emanating from Hawaii DoH are clear and straightforward. Hence the close analysis.

“Article IV and 28 USC Section 1739 encompass…state records…did you try reading them?” brygenon

The courtesies of civilized discourse suggest that when sources have been provided to rebut a claim then sources of equal authority should be provided to counter the rebuttal or the claim fails. I have provided sources; brygenon has provided none. The reason is simple to divine: there are no sources which support brygenon’s claim that “Article IV and 28 USC Section 1739 encompass…state records” and consequently brygenon’s claim must fail. To have repeated an unsubsantiated “argument” with nothing more than opinion and cringe theory is either deceitful or kookological. The only fair consequence, brygenon having forfeited all credibility, is that nobody is expected to trust anything brygenon says.

As for me reading Article IV and 28 USC Section 1739: SCOTUS has ruled that state laws and public records are not covered by Article IV and 28 USC 1739. What I make of Article IV and 28 USC 1739 is irrelevant.

As for brygenon reading them: NO Hawaii COLB, and certainly not the online images of Obama’s purported COLB, has been authenticated in the manner 28 USC 1739 requires: i.e. 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“; and so, even assuming hypothetically that brygenon were right, on the foregoing basis, Obama’s COLB should not be given “Full Faith and Credit”.

“Did I say ‘instantly authenticates’?” brygenon

brygenon has claimed numerous times that Article IV and 28 USC 1739 instantly authenticate Obama’s COLB. For example:

March 25: “Obama’s birth certificate is stamped with an attestation by the record keeper and embossed with the great seal of the state….See 28 USC Section 1739. Records so proven enjoy the same faith and credit anywhere in the country as they do in the state of issue.” Enjoys=present tense=now and at issue.

March 30: “The form Obama showed…under 28 USC 1739 it enjoys the same faith and credit…” Enjoys=present tense=now and at issue.

June 3: “Obama’s COLB…It has the features Congress prescribed for state records (see 28 USC 1739) and thus enjoys full faith and credit (see U.S. Constitution, Art IV…)” Enjoys=present tense=now and at issue.

Readers may decide for themselves what brygenon intends by “records so proven enjoy the same faith and credit.”

“I know I wrote ’self-authenticating’…Federal Rules of Evidence…902(1)…” brygenon

brygenon’s first problem is FRE 902(1) cannot do what brygenon needs it to do: prove Obama eligible to the Presidency. Obama’s COLB as hearsay can only be admitted into evidence via one route: FRE Rule 803(9), the hearsay exception for vital records. To do that the COLB must be authenticated as a certified copy. FRE Rule 902(1) does not mention nor authenticate electronic records (which the COLB dataset most definitely is) or certified copies (which the COLB claims to be): if Rule 902(1) did such then Congress would not have framed Rule 902(4) to perform exactly this function. On the basis that “as the [FRE] were enacted by Congress, this Court must interpret them as it would any statutory mandate … as a statute, we begin with the text … if the language of the statute is reasonably definite, it must be regarded as conclusive” (US v. Houlihan, US District Court Mass., 1994), then applying Rule 902(1) to seek to authenticate Obama’s COLB concedes that it is not an electronic record nor a certified copy of a vital record, thereby making it unavailable for admission into evidence via Rule 803(9).

brygenon’s second problem is that Obama’s COLB has not been authenticated via Rule 902(4), which requires a non-routine comparison check between the COLB dataset in the DoH database and its printout, with a written attestation to that effect certified by a handwritten signature. Given neither of these are to be seen in the online images of Obama’s purported COLB, right now Obama has not proved his US citizenship nor his Presidential eligibility in a form admissible as evidence in any court.

Many people who were unaware of the numbers of the Beast (Antichrist) learn about them.

If that is not enough I’m sending the link here to lengthy details of the meaning of the Marks of the Beast.

http://www.youtube.com/user/NamchuWangden

You claim to have PROVEN I have been knowingly lying about saying it happened on the same day.

I’ll moderate what I said, but still say it was the same day.

Why ?

Because it happened in the same 24 hours which is technically the same day.

Take a parking-ticket which says “You have one day to pay this ticket.”

Well the “day” is not from midnight that day till midnight the new day.
It’s from the time written on the ticket till same time next day. That’s a DAY.
You can argue yourself weary, we’ll lock up Obama meantime, try him for the nukes secrecy breaches on his false ID, which is the world’s worst ever crime in history and then execute him.

The time between his election announcement, to the number’s draw, was exactly ten hours and you’re wrong. Indeed, that’s fast as hell, and your backbiting is coming from way out of left field. An article I read from Illinois, about that day, said the journalist was preparing her Obama victory-article when all the state’s TVs flashed the numbers. She said she gulped and thought “sheeesh”, but soldiered on because she had to.

If you can’t look at a fact straight in the eye, then you’re not able to see what is happening.