Skip to comments.Is this really it? (re: possible Obama's Kenyan B.C. - Attny Taitz) Click on the link
Posted on 08/02/2009 1:35:53 AM PDT by rxsidEdited 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.
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)
I totally understand your point of view and frustration.
How can the citizen of one country be governed by another country even while that citizen is in another country?
The entire US Congress ought to be pinging on why a military offcier who challenges the POTUS citizenship gets a “Get of Afghanistan free” card from the White House.
And then gets professionally ruined in his civilian life by WH threats to his employer.
Just another day in the US of A?
My understanding is that the hospital was not actually on the base, but was under contract to the Navy.
McCain’s eligibility is very questionable
I am speaking as a lawyer with 40 years of experience and who tried hundreds of divorces.
A couple of points.
1. I have never seen a court require the filing of a birth certificate in a divorce except where the defendant/father/husband denies in his answer that he is the father. Since Obama Sr. did not file an answer, the averment in Ann’s petition that Sr. was the father of Jr. is taken as admitted by default.
2. You did not mention the case’s docket entries. If a birth certificate had been filed separately, there would be an entry in the court docket identifying what was filed (i.e. a birth certificate) and the date it was filed.
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. (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.
You people are grasping at straws. You convoluted reasoning reminds me of a bowl of spaghetti, all twisted together in a pile.
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).
You Birthers are a disgrace to America.
“You Birthers are a disgrace to America.”
I’m an American and I think Obama is a disgrace to America for not settling this issue long ago.
A lawyer with 40 years experienc talking about what is disgraceful. Amazing times.
We identified the anomalies in the Susan Blake conversation specified by the researcher (set out in BP2's post) where we suggested some of the same conclusions he and BP2 reach and this is to emphasize a couple of the points and suggest one other obvious factual inference they don't reach.
There are a handful of factual disconnects in Susan's statements.
August of 1961 is clearly the wrong date for the excuse that Stanley Ann is going to Boston to set up a joint residence with Obama Sr.
I view the diaper changing story as both a factually accurate story as to the occurrence and clearly inaccurate as to the timing relationship with his birth.
The fact that the August 1961 time frame is so clearly wrong for the excuse in my view leads to another fact--Stanley Ann didn't tell Susan why she was there or where she was in fact coming from (redating the event from late August to early August per the analysis below is conclusive that she was not "coming from" Hawaii if the birth certificate date of August 4 for the birth is correct which I believe that it is).
Like the other researcher, I view the factual disconnects as both adding credibility and confirming my view that Susan had been prompted before the interview but also that the preparation was done in a somewhat hasty or incomplete manner.
If the preparation had been better, she would have had a better fairy tale for the reason for the visit; and she would have been told not to tell the story about the diaper changing.
The diaper changing was a step too far. It has an absolute ring of truth. But it too is just one step in excess. Women who are slow know how to change diapers in 48 hours. Stanley Ann was neither slow nor stupid--someone else may have changed diapers for her in Kenya but she was a lot closer to the birth date than three or four weeks. Had to be.
There is also a statement in the early version of the video interview which got removed at some point which indicates that the baby is the wrong color to be three weeks old at the time of the visit. I am not sophisticated enough to recount exactly how that works but some of the experts view that as conclusive of a much earlier date for the visit.
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 have suspected that Susan's point that the visit had occurred in late August was a factual invention in part because of her demeanor reflected in the live video interview--she knew the visit happened earlier but she also knew she shouldn't place it too close to August 4 because the person who prepped her told her not to.
And would also speculate that she didn't tell the person doing the prep the diaper story because the story in fact tells too much.
The fact that Susan hung up when she realized that the interviewer was on the other side coupled with her understanding of at least some part of the Natural Born Citizen rules, both confirms the fact that she was prepped and that she didn't really know all the facts about the trip which was interrupted by the visit.
I have a couple of other legal editorial thoughts on BP2's post. Is BP2 a lawyer? I have read several BP2 posts the last few days and all are really excellent (I do recognize that people who aren't lawyers can also do really excellent analysis).
Unless there is a scientific defect identified by laboratory analysis or some other patent deficiency in the Orly birth certificate, it is prima facia legal evidence that the birth occurred in Kenya on August 4.
What that means is that if this argument gets down to a legal contest in a court of law where the controlling issue is his place of birth, the opposing forces will need to prove by real evidence, that the birth certificate does not accurately report his birth data. I doubt they can do that.
I recognize the legal deficiencies in his Natural Born Citizen position even if he had been born in Hawaii--the two parent argument; the alternate citizenship argument; his personal representations that he was not a US Citizen. But my view, having been involved in many lawsuits over issues like this and watched them play out is that in the current political setting in the US, if Obama can prove factually that he was born in Hawaii, he is likely to win. I tend to ignore that possibility because I have known for some time that he was born in Kenya and my experience also is that the facts ultimately tend to crawl out.
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.
I believe Juan Williams would take exception to your colorful remarks since he too was born in Colon. : )
I certainly agree with you though.
Especially today, Colon is a God-awful filthy, dangerous seaport city.
I certainly wouldn’t ask anybody to hold my wallet.
Yes, that *&^head and an A*&Hole was born in Colon.
Is it true that on page 59 of the health care bill, the govt. will have direct access to your checking account?
I keep hearing this and reading this in numerous places. Does anyone else know anything about this?
If this is true, it’s despicable. Who in their right mind would support this provision in the bill? I don’t care if you’re a liberal or a conservative, NO ONE should support the government having direct access to your checking account. This is all a bad dream.
* 1 day ago
To Bash: The fact checking website you quoted from doesn’t deny it at all.
1 day ago
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
You bet it is. Not only that but until they got their hand caught in the cookie jar. They did have a message in the cash for clunkers web site, that when the car company checked in, there was a box that the car company was suppose to check stating that this was now the computer of the government. When it was exposed, the government took that wording out.
It said: logged onto the CARS system, your computer is considered a federal computer system and it is property of the United States government.
In other words, car companies were giving the government, police agencies, dot, or other government agencies to obtain information from the files in the computer anytime they wanted. OMG, how about the 4th amendment!!!
here are some of the highlights:
This is on page 425 of the bill, every 5 years senior have to go on through a counseling session on how to end your life, through nutrition, drugs or other means. So say goodbye to your parents.
Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access 2 individuals finances & a
National ID Healthcard will be issued!
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access to your banks accts
for elect. funds transfer
Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from indiv. taxes.
(Americans will pay)
Page 16 and 17 tell you cannot keep your existing health care.
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will
ration your Healthcare
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWs12ccbOiE - 117k
* 1 day ago
Must KILL Yahoo to have this on their site.
Not a political opportunist like Sarah's Old Man.
What is up with your handle? It sounds funny when I say it loud.
I agree with your assessment that NBC equals born in the country of citizen parents.
I'm a bit puzzled, David has since been consistently in the same camp. I think. Or maybe I'm just fried?
Shoulda read the link more throughly before I posted it in any event.
I guess I owe you an apology for the snotty tone in post #7,147, if nothing else...
I support here is a quote from majority opinion of the Supreme Court in US v Wong Ark Kin 169 US 649 (1898)
The 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. 124 U.S. 478
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.
The (14th) amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject-
WND is today claiming that the KBC may be a forgery.
This gets more interesting every day. Perhaps this is the BC used by Obama to enter college as a foreign student as is claimed in the CA lawsuit. That would explain why his college records are sealed. Obama may be a forger in addition to being a usurper.
Forgive me, please.
I did not mean to make Juan Williams into a mean and deranged person like McCain just because he was born in Colon too. I can see where I was misunderstood though.
I have the greatest respect and admiration for Juan Williams.
Also, his father was a boxing coach, so I suggest nobody get into a fistfight with Juan.
Again, I am sorry for any misunderstanding. And again, I have the greatest respect for him.
The seeming conflict may be because his son, Antonio, is a conservative.
Wow! a real divorce lawyer, right here on FReeRepublic.
Often long posts do not get read thoroughly.
BTW, when the 14th A was written, it 'statutized' ALL slaves/prior slaves in America and the next generation of their children born on U.S. soil would then be natural born if both aprents were so statutized and the child born on U.S. soil. Rewriting the Pre4sidentail eligibilty requirement was thertefore not necessary, as your sound logic so determined.
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.