Posted on 08/02/2009 1:35:53 AM PDT by rxsid
Edited on 08/06/2009 12:10:02 AM PDT by John Robinson. [history]
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.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ (site has been the target of hackers, proceed with caution — John)
Since you think we are so foolish and are making FR a laughingstock, you are free to leave and not be associated with us.
Also the 47044 could refer to the certified copy number and not to the number on the birth certificate.
That’s not the way it works. A match of the book and page number is a good start, but not good enough.Thanks for that information. So, what is good enough?
--balls
Where ever the chips fall, thank you for your work.
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”
That is what I’m thinking: It is the 47,044th Certificate Copy of Registration of Birth issued since 10 December 1963. I researched it and found it consistent with the rate of population growth during that time. Subtract natural deaths, add in high infant mortality rate incl. some registered births, and subtract non-registered births and the number is still consistent.
I’m with you on the E. F. Lavender thing. They wouldn’t have tried to reproduce his signature, so they just entered his name. That’s pretty much the point of certifying. A trusted witness is saying he has viewed the signature.
But “Republic of Kenya” is a problem, because this doc is dated February of 1964 and Kenya did not become a republic until December 1964.
Maybe they put it on their official docs ten months earlier, but we need to see that to believe it. Maybe they needed to quit calling it the old name and they knew where they were headed so when the time came to print up new docs, they just winged it.
But prove it.
What is your source that she only took extension courses at U-Washington?
Uh, yeah that too!
About Annie...I know she is for Romney. Romney’s people, like McCain don’t want to cause racial unrest or to be the object of Black racism and hate. So they all ignored the problem out of pure fear. They how what the Left did to Bush for standing up to Gore’s selective recount election stealing plot. That is why Rinos grovel. They are afraid of the Left.
Nailing the first Black President for being a foreign fraud would make any Rino shiver. Rinos really don’t care about the constitution or anything else beyond their own power and popularity in elite circles.
Who requested this Certified Copy? a) The Kenyan govt requested it on its own for internal duplicate/backup reasons, or b) The Obama family (his mother or father) requested it for passport, divorce, or other reasons.
So my question is how many Certified Copies have theoretically been made and what are the circumstances that led to one of them coming to be placed on a red-striped cushion, photographed and put on the web? And from which source is it more likely for this Certified Copy to have come, a) or b)?
Considering both a) and b) cases, where would this Certified Copy have been filed and resting all these years? Oxford? Kenya? Jakarta? Hawaii? Washington? London? What breach of security led to it being removed from its file cabinet, or bottom drawer, and photographed?
I must say, I don't understand the circumstances and trail for this particular 1964 version to appear before us.
Looking forward to whatever else is discovered. (sigh)
Thanks.
As I said in my earlier posts, the first time I visited the site it triggered DEP, my firewall locked my connection, my A/V system displayed a warning.
It’s been showing clean all day.
Only the hosting company, and perhaps a hacker, knows what is going on for sure.
That’s all I have.
Very interesting article. Thanks.
As we know going from grade school to grad school, history books and encyclopedias don't always pass on ALL of the details...
ONE part of the country that would eventually become Kenya may have called itself the "Republic of Kenya" before Dec. 12, 1964 and the rest of the country.
As the remains of the British Protectorate were being carved up, this area wanted to ensure they would NOT be parceled to Zanzibar. Land disputes still exist there today over this.
THIS from Kenya: Revisiting Ten-Mile Strip Controversy:
This was not to be. Then acting Prime Minister, Mzee Jomo Kenyatta, the British government and the Sultan of Zanzibar declined to grant the strip autonomy.
In a letter dated October 5, 1963, Kenyatta bound his government to some undertaking in recognition of the coastal strip.
“I have the honour to refer to the discussions held between our respective governments on the subject of the coastal strip and to place on record the following undertakings by the Government of Kenya,” reads the letter to the prime minister of Zanzibar.
His note further reads: “The free hold titles to land in Coast region that are already registered will at all times be recognised. Steps will be taken to ensure the continuation procedure for the registration of new free hold titles and the rights of free holders will at all times be preserved”.
The letter was used as a legal instrument binding the Government to respect the status quo of land prior to independence.
As revealed by a report prepared by Robertson dated November 23, 1961, some people were advocating for an independent Coastal State before independence: “I recommend that if any system of regional or county administration is set up in Kenya, the Coast Province of Kenya should be one of the counties.”
In 1964, Kenyatta used his office to send signals to the international community that Kenya might renege on some commitments made before independence.
In his note reference “EXT 237/003A of March 25, 1964”, addressed to the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kenyatta informed the United Nations of his Government’s intention to review all pre-independence treaties and agreements and determine which of the pacts would be honoured, abrogated or modified after appropriate notice to interested parties.
Tracing the historical perspective of the land issue, the former CKRC commissioner, writes: “In 1895, the Sultan gave the British power to administer the ten-mile coastal strip subject to their respecting the existing Kadhi’s Courts, among other conditions. The British did so and declared a protectorate over the Coast while the rest of Kenya was a colony proper. The Sultan, however, retained sovereignty over the ten-mile Coastal Strip. During the last years of the independence struggle and at the start of the Lancaster House Constitutional talks in 1961, the status and fate of the coastal strip came up for determination.”
Still verifying this with other sources. But to all of those saying:
... the birth certificate was issued on Feb. 17, 1964 ...
... the "Republic of Kenya" didn't exist until Dec 12, 1964 ...
... "THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE'S GOTTA BE FAKE" ...
Just hold yer horses!
This story has a few more nuances than appears on the surface. Keep scratching ...
The British certainly did not use the term "Republic" because thety are allergic to the term, since it implies the end of the monarchy and disrespect for the monarchy, but Kenyatta pushed the term "Republic" as early as October 1963, and probably earlier. Kenyatta was especially popular in the muslim coastal region (Mombasa). I would guess that many Kenyans were using the term "Republic" even though the British Order in Parliament simply reads "Kenya" (which is in itself odd--one would expect to see "Commomwealth of" or "Dominion of")
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.