Posted on 01/19/2013 9:23:55 AM PST by ABrit
.....During the 2008 campaign, Obama admitted Lolo Soetoro was his step-father and he was in Indonesia in 1968 attending elementary school. Lolo Soetoro and Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham-Soetoro, were married in Hawaii in 1965. Obama campaign supporters have consistently and repeatedly insisted Indonesian Law would not allow Obama to be adopted by Lolo Soetoro and he could not be naturalized as an Indonesian citizen because of his age. Furthermore, Obama supporters insist his Indonesian citizenship is irrelevant to his allegience to the United States as a natural born citizen of the United States.
Obama was not adopted in Indonesia. He was adopted by Lolo Soetoro in Hawaii in 1967. When the Soetoro adoption was finalized in 1967, Obama's original long form birth certificate was sealed by order of the Court and archived by the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH). A sealed vital record is null and void for all future legal or administrative proceedings. In addition to sealing Obama's original long form birth certificate, the Court ordered a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) created and filed by the registrar of HDOH. Lolo Soetoro was listed as the paternal parent for Barry Soetoro for a live birth on August 4, 1961, Honolulu, HI and filed on August 8, 1961.....
(Excerpt) Read more at svenmagnussen.blogspot.co.uk ...
What about the newborn in the second photo? Do they both look “pink” to you?
Obama’s attorneys have asked US District Court Judge Henry T. Wingate in Mississippi to take judicial notice of a Certified Letter of Verification from the Hawaii Registrar of Vital Statistics. Attached to that Letter of Verification is a copy of Obama’s long form birth certificate.
Since there is no state or federal law that requires a candidate or a federal elected official to submit a birth certificate, there has been no need for Obama to enter one into evidence in any lawsuit or ballot challenge. If a Trier of Fact would like to see the long form, he or she can issue a court order for its release. But I’m sure that you are aware that defendants are under no obligation to present ANY evidence. Perhaps a lawsuit will have a real discovery phase one of these days and the two copies Obama got from Hawaii will be on a discovery list.
If judicial notice was taken of the BC itself then Taitz would have the ability to demand the original to be presented for her examination. MDEC didn’t ask the judge to take judicial notice of the forged BC though - just the letter of verification (where they never asked about the genuineness of the White House image or the truthfulness of the claims). They asked if the “information contained in” the White House image “matched”. When KS SOS Kris Kobach asked if the information in the White House image was “IDENTICAL TO” the information in the genuine record, Onaka would not verify that - showing that there is a difference between “matches” and “is identical to”.
The MDEC lawyers knew that. That’s why they were very careful never to ask anything that would only work for a valid record. It was their actions which made me realize that they knew Onaka had confirmed the non-validity of the HDOH record.
Nero Germanicus
Since Jan 1, 2013
before you exhaust yourself.
Mary baby-sat the black baby in January 1961 for Anna Obama, whose name appeared in the Seattle Polk for 1961-1962.
Susan Blake saw the pink baby when Stanley Ann Dunham came to visit and tell her she was married to the kenyan student. And then she took off, and Susan never saw again.
Mary babysat Barack Hussein Obama 11, the child the kenyan student (or Ruth) took to Kenya in the Fall of 1964.
Actually if the judge takes judicial notice, it works against Orly Taitz, not in her favor.
Taking judicial notice is “a doctrine of evidence applied by a court that allows the court to recognize and accept the existence of a particular fact commonly known by persons of average intelligence without establishing its existence by admitting evidence in a civil or criminal action.
When a court takes judicial notice of a certain fact, it obviates the need for parties to prove the fact in court. Ordinarily, facts that relate to a case must be presented to the judge or jury through testimony or tangible evidence. However, if each fact in a case had to be proved through such presentation, the simplest case would take weeks to complete. To avoid burdening the judicial system, all legislatures have approved court rules that allow a court to recognize facts that constitute common knowledge without requiring proof from the parties.”
So if Judge Wingate were to take judicial notice of Dr. Onaka’s Letter of Verification and the attached LFBC, there will be no need for the defense to prove the validity of the Obama birth record in this trial in Mississippi and likely in future trials, based on this precedent.
The word “matched” in the letter goes with Federal Rule of Evidence 1005:
“Copies of Public Records To Prove Content”
RULE 1005. COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS TO PROVE CONTENT
The proponent may use a copy to prove the content of an official record — or of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if these conditions are met: the record or document is otherwise admissible; and the copy is certified as correct in accordance with Rule 902(4) or is testified to be correct by a witness who has COMPARED it with the original. If no such copy can be obtained by reasonable diligence, then the proponent may use other evidence to prove the content.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1005
Registrar Onaka says in the letter that he compared the attached copy and it “matched” the original. We’ll all just have to continue to wait for Judge Wingate to rule.
Yes, I was thinking that too, after reading the account of all the Asian babies and only one white baby. Those Nordyke twins keep spoiling all of the excuses and fibs for Obama.
We can't know that for certain, no one has seen it. There might be an entry there for the child of Anna Obama and the kenyan student, born in January.
It doesn't matter what I think. Unless that's Obama's baby picture, it means absolutely NOTHING. If you want to quibble, contact Obama's mama's friend who said he was PINK.
Obama’s attorneys have asked US District Court Judge Henry T. Wingate in Mississippi to take judicial notice of a Certified Letter of Verification from the Hawaii Registrar of Vital Statistics. Attached to that Letter of Verification is a copy of Obama’s long form birth certificate.
Why didn't they just provide any of the actual certified hard copies that are considered prima facie evidence??? That's what most rational people would do. Under the rules of evidence, unless the certified copy is presented in court and made available to the plaintiffs, those exhibits are considered hearsay and mean NOTHING.
Since there is no state or federal law that requires a candidate or a federal elected official to submit a birth certificate, there has been no need for Obama to enter one into evidence in any lawsuit or ballot challenge.
Then what's the point in talking about Obama's attorneys asking for judicial notice?? That's not required, yet you seem to want credit for that, but that's kind of wanting to have it both ways.
If a Trier of Fact would like to see the long form, he or she can issue a court order for its release.
I'm pretty sure that's been tried, but Hawaii refused to cooperate.
But I’m sure that you are aware that defendants are under no obligation to present ANY evidence.
No, they are under no obligation and the court is under no obligation to believe or accept any claims made through judicial notice or through hearsay, such as Monika Danielsson. All this means is what I said earlier. Obama refuses to submit one of the alleged certified hard copies he possesses. Although, I don't know if he really possesses the LFBC. When they held the press conference, IIRC, they made a point of saying that he was NOT allowed to handle the LFBC. Wonder why?
Perhaps a lawsuit will have a real discovery phase one of these days and the two copies Obama got from Hawaii will be on a discovery list.
Why should it require a "real" discovery phase?? How about simple transparency and doing the right thing?? And why is it not obvious that refusing to present any documentary proof in court is why this issue never seems to get resolved?? How can anyone respect a president ... and a former lawyer, for not presenting basic proof of citizenship??
No, that's not true under the rules of evidence, at least not when there are documents that have to be certified as CORRECT.
So if Judge Wingate were to take judicial notice of Dr. Onaka’s Letter of Verification and the attached LFBC, there will be no need for the defense to prove the validity of the Obama birth record in this trial in Mississippi and likely in future trials, based on this precedent.
This assumption already failed in the Kansas ballot challenge in September. It was pointed out that the MDEC letter did NOT certify the LFBC as correct as is required under the rules of evidence. This is why SOS Kobach felt compelleged to contact Hawaii and ask if the LFBC was IDENTICAL. The ballot challenge successfully shifted the burden of proof, but that burden should have been placed on Obama and his counsel and not the Kansas SOS.
The word “matched” in the letter goes with Federal Rule of Evidence 1005:
Well, no actually it doesn't and your own citation shows why.
if these conditions are met: the record or document is otherwise admissible; and the copy is certified as correct in accordance with Rule 902(4) or is testified to be correct by a witness who has COMPARED it with the original.
"match" does NOT equal "correct" especially when we're talking about a document that must be certified. And moreover, under the rules of evidence, if the certified document is not submitted for inspection by the opposing party prior to the trial or hearing, the document is treated as hearsay.
Now, if we can't get the actual hard copy of the alleged certified LFBC in court and Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. refuses to verify all information in the letters of verifications, then maybe Alvin would be willing to testify in court??
I was under the impression that Verna K. L. Lee was the Local Registrar for the region that included the Wahiawa Hospital. (See the Edith Coates doc.) If zero was really born at Kapiolani, she would not have been the registar to sign 'his' birth certificate. The Registrar for the region that included Kapiolani is the person who signed the document received from the hospital for the Nordyke twins.
http://thedailypen.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/out-of-order-obamas-non-sequential.html
This research is littered with clues.
Your own citation proves the point. “Correct” is not the same as “matched”. Notice that MDEC itself did not certify delivery of its motion by saying that a copy that “matches” was delivered to the plaintiffs, but that a true and correct copy was sent.
They know that “matches” doesn’t cut it in legal language. In Duncan Sunahara’s case the judge deliberated over whether to accept the copy of “Public Health Regulations” that was presented by Deputy AG Jill Nagamine because though Nagamine certified that it was a true and correct copy taken from the government website, there was not a certification by the authority holding the record that it was a true and correct copy. That’s how picky the exact language and exact certifying elements are. “Matches” has no legal significance whatsoever. Just like “indicates”. Both the judges and the attorneys know that full well. That’s why the AG’s office would allow Onaka to use “indicates” and “matches” and not the legal language required in a court of law.
When something gets judicial notice, the opposition has the opportunity to challenge it and require the records to be submitted in court. Judicial notice simply provides a way to skip that part if both parties acknowledge the fact at hand. That’s why Obama’s attorneys have never asked a judge to notice the actual forged documents, but only somebody’s COMMENTS about the forged documents - the first time the report by Jess Hennig and Joe Miller, the Factcheck employees who presumably helped forge the COLB, and now it is Onaka who used the legally worthless word “matches”.
That legal maneuver to avoid having either the COLB or the long-form even be “noticed” makes edge’s point perfectly. They are very deliberately avoiding presenting that thing as evidence. Why argue that the thing is able to be submitted in a court and then scratch, claw, bite, and worm your way around to make sure it never is?
36% ‘eh? So the other 64% get their news from the TV.
Yeah, I noticed that too.
It is interesting to see what the Fogbowers are saying though, and what legal arguments they will try to use to get around what Onaka actually confirmed. The stuff they bring up helps me know what to research so I will be more exact and knowledgeable. They don’t realize how much they have helped me over the last 3 years. They’ve also wasted a lot of my time, but some good has come from some of the time spent as well. They’re here to fish information from me and others, but it works both ways.
It’s difficult to overcome the hurdle and state Obama was not born in Hawaii when you’ve got a signed affidavit from the mother, delivery doctor and hospital admin attesting to the fact a live birth took place on Aug. 4, 1961 in Hawaii. And the attestation was made within a few days of the event. Also, the affidavit of a live birth was “accepted” by a registrar of the HDOH.
It’s time to accept the fact Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. If you believe natural born citizenship status is held in perpetuity and can never be lost, taken away, renounced or dismissed, then Obama is eligible for POTUS and always will be.
I’ve always believed U.S. citizenship and natural born citizenship status is precarious for anyone, regardless of age, who moves out of the country and naturalizes in a foreign state or maintains dual citizenship. A careful review of Vance v. Terrazas demonstrates how precarious citizenship status can be for a U.S Citizen who moves out of the country and renounces their U.S. Citizenship before any tribunal or administrative body.
Terrazas renounced his U.S. Citizenship before Mexican officials and never renounced it before U.S. officials. Yet, the SoS issued him a Certificate of Loss of Nationality. The U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the SoS. The Appeals Court overturned the U.S. District Court. And SCOTUS, in 1980, reversed and remanded the Appeals Court. In 1986, Congress amended the INA to comply with the 1980, Vance v. Terrazas ruling.
We know that Stanley Ann amended her renewal passport in Aug, 1967 to exclude Obama and his St. Francis Assisi enrollment, dated Jan. 1, 1968, indicated Barry Soetoro was an Indonesian National. That’s all it takes for the SoS to issue a Certificate of Loss of Nationality.
Sven, do you realize that Hawaii statute allows the HDOH to totally fabricate a birth certificate if law enforcement claims the registrant needs a fictitious birth certificate in order to be safe?
When that is done the resulting BC has to be assigned a different number than the original BC# that registrant had. This is the only case where somebody can have a BC that has a different BC# than what was given to the BC originally.
We have at least 3 people whose August 1961 BC#’s from the HDOH office cannot be what they were given in 1961, based on either of the 2 contradictory numbering methods described by former and current HDOH spokesmen: Barack Obama, Stig Waidelich, and Virginia Sunahara. If Johanna Ah Nee’s forged BC is really from the HDOH that would be another one (Onaka’s signature doesn’t seem to be right, and the BC# itself has digits overlap, which could not have happened on a genuine BC - but those could be red flags put in by the person at the HDOH who was forced to create the forgery, like the red flags described below. I suspect that BC did come from the HDOH but it is another forgery that Fuddy forced her workers to create and which they resisted; see below. If this came from the HDOH then we have FOUR Aug 1961 BC#’s that the HDOH has falsified).
Onaka has indirectly confirmed that Obama’s Hawaii birth record is not legally valid, and Virginia Sunahara’s death certificate has 3 blatant signs of forgery within the same line that has the handwritten, anomalous BC#: the abbreviation T. H. (which stands for Territory of Hawaii), unmatching fonts between T.H. and FILE NO, and FILE and NO being misaligned with T.H. It took extra effort to put in those glaring signs of forgery, so somebody at the HDOH is taking time to make sure that death certificate is recognized as a forgery from the HDOH.
In addition, I have proven that the HDOH specifically added non-valid names to their 1960-64 birth index.
The evidence is mounting to the inescapable conclusion that the HDOH is fabricating and manipulating BC#’s, vital records, the database, and their birth index list (as well as violating a ton of laws) in order to give Obama a fabricated BC - presumably because it is necessary for his “safety”.
When a BC is fabricated at the request of law enforcement, it will claim whatever law enforcement (Eric Holder?) says it needs to say. Just like BC’s are fabricated after an adoption, when a court tells the HDOH what the new BC has to say. It will be fabricated to include signatures of all the people who would have signed if the birth really happened that way. It will show processing dates that claim the record existed from the very beginning. Etc. It is totally fabricated; it has no resemblance to the truth whatsoever.
But even with the ability to create a totally fake BC, what Obama got from the HDOH had to be altered in order to get the image posted on the White House website. That is confirmed by Alvin Onaka, who when asked would not verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” or that the information in the White House image is “identical to” the information in the original record on file. The two certifying elements of Alvin Onaka in the White House image each contain a red flag similar to the red flags put in the HDOH-forged Sunahara death certificate: TXE instead of THE in the certifying statement, and a smiley face added to the signature.
With the evidence we have right now, it would be legally negligent to claim that Obama was born in Hawaii. Onaka cannot verify any of Obama’s birth facts, because there is no legally valid record claiming those birth facts. Instead, what we’ve got appears to be mutiny in the HDOH office, where Loretta Fuddy is requiring HDOH workers to break the laws and the office workers are resisting by putting in red flags.
There is no “legal hurdle” and the evidence all says, instead, that Loretta Fuddy is in on criminal records manipulation to hide Obama’s non-valid birth record - and people in her staff are putting in red flags to expose what she has done. It’s no wonder that the presumably non-complicit interim HDOH Director Neal Palafox was forced to resign (though the system lied to hide that they forced him to) right at the time that the “safety” issue was being exploited from the assassination of Judge John Roll in AZ (where an eligibility bill was imminent, that Abercrombie had said he feared - shortly before telling a Star-Advertiser columnist that an investigation had found something “actually written down” in the “archives” and telling his friend Mike Evans that there was no BC for Obama in HI). Judge Roll is the judge who would have heard the DOJ’s challenge of an AZ eligibility bill, and he was replaced by an Obama appointee. That assassination had key information that changed over time (with part of the investigation under the control of Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who immediately used the shooting to blame “The Tea Party”, etc - as did Janet Napolitano... and the other part under the control of Eric Holder’s DOJ), the shooter was known by the military installation (that handles mind control research and creation of unsuspecting assassins) to have mental problems and to have used drugs - IOW, the perfect person to use as an unwitting assassin because if he said he heard voices telling him to do the assassination it would be attributed to schizophrenia. And the shooter was familiar and had posted on Facebook about mind control techniques. Another ex-military guy who was at the scene of the shooting was also familiar with mind control techniques.
Sigh. There’s just too much evidence/information to get into one post. The timeline of events is really incriminating when you see it all in context. But a person really doesn’t even need to know all that. All you need to know is that Onaka had to use the words male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama in his letter of verification if he could verify any of those claims as existing on a valid BC - and he didn’t.
And then you have a HI COLB adjudicated post-1961 resulting in a Court order for the HDOH registrar to file a record of vital statistics for Barack Hussein Obama II which trumps all previous facts or anomalies with the birth record or lack thereof.
Date Accepted Aug 8, 1961 means the attestation of 3 people present at the birth event swear the information provided is correct.
Date Filed Aug 8, 1961 means a Court ordered the vital record filed and backdated to Aug 8, 1961. At some point in time after 1961 (my best guess is 1971 because I believe BHO Sr returned to Hawaii to contest the Soetoro adoption at that time), a Hawaii Court heard testimony and examined evidence on Barack Hussein Obama’s II live birth event. The Court decided he was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu, HI.
Any indiscretions, guesses, lies, manipulations and untruths made about Obama’s live birth event are wiped clean by the Court’s 1971 ruling on Obama’s birth event. The court is a trier of fact and determined the facts to be as they were published on Obama’s COLB backdated to Aug 8, 1961.
You’ll never overcome this hurdle because all witnesses to the Aug 4, 1961 live event are deceased. The Court’s 1971 ruling is the final word on the matter.
How do you know there was a court ruling in 1971? What’s your evidence of that?
If there was a court ruling in 1971 as you say, then why can’t Onaka verify any birth facts for Obama? If legal birth facts were determined in 1971 then the resulting BC would be legally valid and Onaka would have to verify those facts when requested. But he wouldn’t. Why not?
And why would they be changing BC#’s now?
IOW, the evidence we have now refutes the claim that there was a 1971 ruling, so you need to provide evidence that there was such a ruling. It should be in the court records if it was associated with the SAD/BHO divorce and BHO challenging a Soetoro adoption.
The divorce record for Norman Asing and his first wife, Charlotte, had as the last entry a pleading by Norman to stop child support because he had given his consent for the two boys (Norman Jr and Nathan) to be adopted by their stepdad. The judge said that child support would be stopped unless the adoption fell through. So the complete record concerning the divorce includes reference to adoption proceedings.
In the divorce record for Norman Asing and his 2nd wife, Connie, the adoptions of children associated with that marriage were disclosed.
So if BHO in 1971 challenged Lolo’s ability to adopt Obama, claim him as a dependent, etc, that should be included in the Ann-Lolo divorce. That information wouldn’t be sealed from the divorce record even though the adoption records themselves would be sealed.
Every HI birth record has a “date filed” and “date accepted”. Are you saying that every birth in Hawaii involved a court order?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.