Is this really it? (re: possible Obama's Kenyan B.C. - Attny Taitz) Click on the link

orlytaitzesq.com ^ | 8/2/2009 | rxsid

[rxsid]

Attorney Taitz filed a NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite authentication, MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for authenticity of Kenyan birth certificate filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes PhD.

Barry's Kenyan B.C.??

Special Motion for leave

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ (site has been the target of hackers, proceed with caution — John)

[little jeremiah]

Thanks; I do agree with your points. IMO 0bama is ineligible in several ways.

[editor-surveyor]

"I wouldn't predict how the end game is likely to play out here. And it may well play out over an even longer period than I expect--but the end of the day answer is that a strong majority of the American People will recognize that he is not President and at about the same time will also recognize how bad the policies he supports are for the Country."

From your lips to god's ears!

[MHGinTN]

“... the Constitution’s natural born citizen is a person who has a natural born allegiance only to the United States of America.” The single most unassailable point, the one which the liar’s army must try to obfuscate! Thanks for stating it so succinctly.

[m4629]

Good analysis. Thank you.

Just want your opinion in this ... judge King granted the Divorce Decree in Hawaii as posted by BP2, exhibit page 1 to 14, with page 11 missing. Surely, a divorce court must be satisfied that the couple was indeed legally married in the first place.

Then, is it possible that missing page 11 contains a copy of the original Marriage Certificate of Stanley Ann and O Sr. and not Barry’s Kenyan Birth Certificate ?

[little jeremiah]

Cymraeg has a fairly recent signup date and this on his profile page:

“An old foggy liberal!”

Cymraeg - what about 0bama’s crimes? You don’t care about them?

[null and void]

"An old foggy liberal!" Welcome to FR.

I appreciate your openness.

3. If the document showing up on the Internet is a jpeg copy of the document filed in the divorce court, there are two problems: (a) There are no staple holes at the top from where it was stapled to a blue binder, which was required by all courts.

There has been some discussion about the staple holes, they are there.

(b) Depending on the way it was processed and mailed there would be no folds or 3 folds on the document. Under no circumstances would there be all those multiple irregular folds as shown.

True for the way Americans process documents. There have also been discussions of what common practice in The Empire was, and the folds are consistent with that, and with the air mail sized envelopes of the era.

I believe that you birthers want him out of the White House by any means whatsoever, legal or illegal. I have seen lies, forged documents, intentional misinterpretations of the law, attempts to intimidate judges and government officials, the advocacy of the violent overthrow of the government (this is treason punishable by death, remember Julius and Ethel Rosenberg).

I believe that you after-birthers (Ommaculate Conceptionists?) want him to stay in the White House by any means whatsoever, legal or illegal. I have seen lies, forged documents, intentional misinterpretations of the law, attempts to intimidate judges and government officials, the advocacy of the violent overthrow of the government (this is treason punishable by death, remember Julius and Ethel Rosenberg).

I've also seen scores of documents vanish from the internet some within hours of being cited here on FR. Someone in the 0bama camp is frantically trying to send every legitimate document 'down the memory hole'. This started fairly early with google 'disappearing' over half a million hits on 'obama birth certificate' image searches in min July 2008.

Rather than call each other names, let's wait and see where the paperwork trail leads. My money's on foreign born. Yours is on legitimate American. Time will tell.

[Technical Editor]

You wrote: "The parent is a citizen of another country and under that country's Jurisdiction. That makes the baby a citizen of the country their parents are citizens of." ** My understanding is quite the opposite. If you are located in the United States, you are subject to its laws. You are under its jurisdiction. You disobey its laws, and you go to jail. It is my understanding that the Supreme Court has ruled on the meaning of the phrase regarding jurisdiction. You also wrote: "You can only be NBC if both parents are citizens of the US and subject to the jurisdiction of the US." ** Says who? And where? We are all looking for that?

[afraidfortherepublic]

Here we go again! (rolling my eyes at WND)

[editor-surveyor]

We really need some left-wing noobie troll to come here bearing false facts and telling us who is a disgrace.

Your entire life and ideology is a disgrace to all who love freedom.

[Vendome]

You are a lawyer? let’s see your credentials, if that is the basis behind your argument. In other words, you are more smaterer than us’ns.

I see two holes punched at the top of the documents you are referring to. This makes it easy to store in a binder as well as flip through the pages or add documents to the file. You don’t see them?

I don’t see any folds. What documents are you referring to?

http://www.plainsradio.com/obama1/IMAG003.JPG
http://www.plainsradio.com/obama1/IMAG004.JPG
http://www.plainsradio.com/obama1/IMAG005.JPG
http://www.plainsradio.com/obama1/IMAG006.JPG
http://www.plainsradio.com/obama1/IMAG007.JPG
http://www.plainsradio.com/obama1/IMAG008.JPG
http://www.plainsradio.com/obama1/IMAG009.JPG

[Vendome]

I think the apology is due you. My post may not have said clearly that I like Juan Williams. I don't think he is deranged or mean, in any way. He is always the nicest guy and I suspect when the camera is off a little more emotional than we see. I like his opinions because they come with not pretense and no qualifiers.

My feeling is his opinions are owned 100% by him and he expresses them even in opposition to the rest of a round table but does so with certitude and conviction.

just a nice guy.

What's up with your handle? I get the Gatún part but not the rest.

[editor-surveyor]

"If you are located in the United States, you are subject to its laws."

That is not what the ammendment means, and you know it. It means having entered the country in accordance with its laws, and not being immune therefrom.

Illegals are subject to prosecution if apprehended, but are not here under our laws in any way.

[little jeremiah]

Leftists are not only a disgrace but are ruining the country and the entire world.

[David]

[From David] "So far you haven’t said anything particularly convincing—I remain of the understanding that the natural born subject law which dates back to the 12th Century was the historical origin of the concept."

[From Surveyor] "Natural Born citizen" isn't even a subject addressed in common law. Common law addressed the birth of a 'subject' to alien parents, but that would not be relevent, since a subject could not become a monarch. Here is a discussion of the use in the constitution, and the origin of the term.

Well from my last post, I would say (in jest) to editor-surveyor that I have represented a bunch of surveyors and engineers over the years and it is clear from his post that he, unlike BP2, is not a lawyer. But I don't really mean that as a personal insult--and I don't want to discourage productive thought; there is some merit in what he is saying which also leads to another legal argument that has received wide circulation (on Texas Darlin's site among other places).

The Law of Nations is an important work and is gaining some importance with the judicial doctrine seeking to expand the class of legal reference to which the courts would look as a basis for developing US law--I don't agree with the view on which that doctrine is based but on the other hand wouldn't hesitate to cite the reference if it supported my client's position.

But it isn't really dispositive of anything here. The Common Law doctrine of "natural born subject" precedes the work by hundreds of years. The author's comment that "[m]any have said that de Vattel’s Law of Nations . . . . " is speculative and argumentative. It's probably fair to believe that most of the participants in the drafting of the Constitution were familiar with the document and that it had some influence. But who and how much is just unsupported speculation.

I view the line of thought that "editor-surveyor" advances here based on the work as particularly misleading in the Obama setting. The Two Parent argument is just ducky--but I can tell you with a fair degree of assurance, that if it came out that Obama was born in Hawaii (he wasn't), he is going to win no matter what else you prove--even if you prove his father was a Russian bear imported from Siberia.

I believe, although I haven't looked specifically at the legal issue, that one would probably find common law support for the (Two Parent) argument also. What does the king do with the person who is born to the wife of a visiting dignitary from another king? How about the prince that is born to the Queen while she is visiting her parents in the realm where her father is king? Probably weren't common occurrences but I assume Blackstone or some other historical author will have thought if it.

But the most important point to draw from this discussion pertains to our legal system. The engineer surveyor mindset tends to view these legal questions like mathematical calculations of the line location--they aren't.

The current Orly birth certificate may be the best evidence at the moment, but if any reasonable trier of fact looked at the entire record of information available here, even including the Hawaii COLB which I believe the Hawaii authorities have now repudiated, the trier of fact could come to no other conclusion but that he was born in Kenya. That has been true for a long time. It was true when he ran for the Senate. But it didn't make any legal difference.

And proving facts today that show him to be ineligible does not get him out of office either. At the moment, Orly has a good judge in Santa Ana--but it appears that her proceeding may be a little defective; it may be an argument that can't be decided on these pleadings until after he is out of office.

Maybe Orly gets over the problem; maybe she doesn't. A lot depends on what the judge says.

"We are going to decide this on the merits"? When? What relief? Subject to what kind of appeal? Judges say lots of stuff they are later forced to eat. Life goes on.

At present, the most important forum is not the legal forum, it is the public political forum. That is why the Opposing Forces (the "OF") are exerting so much effort to shut down Lou Dobbs and others who are making this a mainstream issue. The legal forum is important to that question because one of the OF arguments is that this has been looked at by the courts which throw it out. So it's good if Orly can do no more than keep her judge from kicking the case out.

But when and if the American people discover that he has been lying to them all this time; that he was really born in Kenya; that he was really not born in Hawaii; there will be consequences. At that point, the legal system will be involved.

[LucyT]

Thank you, David.

Pinging to #7,309.

-

Also check out other news:

Today’s GLOBE magazine has a front-page article on Obama’s fake birth certificate, but it features Pam Geller and TechDude’s bogus analysis. There’s a paragraph about Polarik who “confirms” TechDude’s forgery findings “who also claims that Obama’s birth certificate was made from Patricia Decosta’s,” referring to Polarik’s July 27, 2008 posting.

(no link provided)

-

Obama birth doc update: Kenya sources weigh in
Comparison with similar certificates suggests fakery, WND probe reveals

NEW YORK – The Kenyan birth document released by California attorney Orly Taitz is probably not authentic, according to WND’s investigative operatives in Africa, though officials in Nairobi do not rule out the possibility President Obama may indeed have been born in their country.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106135

[Albertafriend]

“I have taken it as pretty close to a fact (although not evidence per se) that the Susan Blake visit occurred within three days of the birth at the outside.”

I don’t know what you are basing this on—maybe just the dirty diaper—but when I had a baby in 1967 the birth was on the 7th of the month and we didn’t go home till the 13th and that was the usual time to spend in the hospital. So based on that if you add on travel time I think it would have to have been in the 2nd week at the least. That also fits into the University registration on the 19th. Her mother’s friend that she was staying with could have been giving her a lot of assistance to get settled. I think the story Susan gave about what they were talking about is bunk. I can’t believe that you can remember real conversations that happened 47 years ago. You can remember perhaps having a conversation but exactly what it was really challenges credulity. Of course there probably are exceptions like if they are tied to some really personal life-changing decision but I think they are pretty rare.

[Tennessee Nana]

McCain’s eligibility is very questionable
______________________________________________

Where do you sit on the eligiblity of Obama ???

McCain had 2 US citizen parents...

Obama has admitted that his father was Kenyan only visiting here on a student visa...

What if Obama was not born on US soil ???

[David]

Consider, perhaps, that ‘a subject’ can be a slave without being ‘a citizen’.

Well if we are going to continue this.

I haven't really thought about it but I suspect that if we looked at the common law question, we would find that there wasn't anybody who was a citizen and not a subject.

The concept of "citizenship" dates back to Roman law where there was a clear distinction between Roman citizens and others. After 476, I don't think you had much of that in Western Europe or England.

You had whatever rights the king said you had and he could (at least until Magna Charta), cut you off without cause or notice.

Subjects, depending on who they were, probably had rights against slaves or lower level subjects for that matter; but they were still subjects of the state.

[Vendome]

You wrote: "The parent is a citizen of another country and under that country's Jurisdiction. That makes the baby a citizen of the country their parents are citizens of." **

 

You wrote:

My understanding is quite the opposite. If you are located in the United States, you are subject to its laws. You are under its jurisdiction. You disobey its laws, and you go to jail.

 

That is true for any one “who is in the United States” under citizens and visitors alike.  However, let’s try this example:

 

You are a citizen of Great Britain and you are in the U.S. under a work visa.  You take a vacation to the Bahamas and on a whim travel to Cuba.  The U.S. has laws against travel and trade for American citizens but, Great Britain does not.  You are therefore in no jeopardy of prosecution as has no jurisdiction over you.  Same goes if they wanted to begin conscription.  You would not be conscripted as you are not a citizen.

 

If you are not a citizen then you cannot confer U.S. citizenship status to your children.  Much like a diplomat, who is here from China, has a child in Lexington Hospital on the Upper East side of New York.  That child would be a citizen of China.  The United States and China would acknowledge and recognize as such.

 

Here is another example I wrote a while back:

 

American Citizenship cannot be conferred upon a baby whose parents are citizens of another country.

 

Think of this way. Mom and Dad, from say, Paris, France come to Disneyland in Los Angeles. While they are here, on vacation, the very pregnant, French Mom goes into labor.

 

Well the smart thing to do is get to a hospital. So they do, cuz they are smart (they are French after all).

 

So while the smart, French, pregnant woman is in the hospital she gives birth. We can say it is a boy for the purpose of this discussion.

 

Anyway, out pops this kid, thing, with ten fingers and ten toes. Perfect. Except now the vacation is over and the newly minted French Mom and Dad have to go home. They live in the Montmartre District of Paris and can't wait to get home and have their baby blessed and baptized, at a little church called Sacré Coeur.

 

This beautiful white church is just a couple of blocks up from them and sits on a hill overlooking Paris. It will be a beautiful, momentous and joyous occasion.

 

So they leave the next day on board a British Airways flight, so the French Mom can lay down on a bed for the overnight flight and be comfortable.

 

The French Mom and French Dad, arrive at de Gaulle International and the immigration and customs people, of France, ask for the passport of the French Mom and French Dad.

 

They ask if the French Mom and French Dad have anything to declare and ....

 

So what nationality is the child?