Huckabee: No need for birth-certificate legislation

WND ^ | March 06, 2011 | WND

[Liz]

Obama’s photograph does not appear in the school’s yearbook and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia.

[bvw]

Mr. Land certainly invented his own “traditional standard of proof”, eh? This is like a civil dispute between two parties, not a criminal trial. No party has a presumptive claim on truth.

[bvw]

Typos in my post 100 to you “They’ll wonder if I am talking about you.”

[freebird5850]

In the simplest of terms.....One hides something if he has something to hide. Still I believe we’ve all been fooled.

[K-Stater]

So the Huckster spends a week casting all sorts of doubt on Obama’s birthplace and closes it out by saying no legislation checking the constitutional qualifications of the president is necessary? He really is a boob.

[jamese777]

Mr. Land certainly invented his own “traditional standard of proof”, eh? This is like a civil dispute between two parties, not a criminal trial. No party has a presumptive claim on truth.

---

Do you know of a legal proceeding in the United States where the burden of proof is on the defendant?

[devattel]

"Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that Defendant has the burden to prove his “natural born” status.”—US District Court Judge Clay R. Land, Rhodes v MacDonald

This judge has absolutely no clue what electoral quo warranto means nor how it is applied. It is truly astounding how many justices and attorneys in this nation either a) ignore the laws or b) do not understand the laws.

Being elected is not a right. Like driving, it is a privilege, one requiring the person holding the license or title to prove themselves worthy of holding that privilege.

[bvw]

Claimant. Not defendant. And it is not burden of proof, rather it is that the legitimacy of a claim to a title is disputed. The proofs each EQUAL side must be heard and weighed. See Quit Claims, or Quo Warranto. No such hearing has been granted.

This has been a mockery of law and process of law.

[bvw]

Just to note that I had not read your post before I responded right below that post, some time later. That is we both identified the obvious failing of Mr. Land’s ruling independently. And it is so terrible a failing of a ruling that I refuse to use Judge rather than “Mr.”

[Libloather]

Obama’s photograph does not appear in the school’s yearbook and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia.

That seems awfully strange. How many friends would the rookie Hussein have on Facebook - two?

I'm still thinking about the yearbooks and who is in them. Those folks could probably answer a few questions about Barry. You think those books are online?

[The Duke]

GO_ALONG_TO_GET_ALONG_PING!

[devattel]

bvw said:

Just to note that I had not read your post before I responded right below that post, some time later. That is we both identified the obvious failing of Mr. Land’s ruling independently. And it is so terrible a failing of a ruling that I refuse to use Judge rather than “Mr.”

You are polite. I usually refer to Land as the Parturiunt Adjudicator.

[bvw]

What did Mr. Land labor so hard at? This is a ridiculous ruling, there is no labor in it. You are right. Mr. is too elevated a title for the man who gives such a ruling. “Occupant” then!

[philman_36]

You know, every time you make a comment to me I feel that I'm hitting close to the mark 'cause you come riding in like a Pale Rider ready to crush everything under your hooves.
You never make any comments to me otherwise.

According to you (with no attribution)...According to the Hawaii state Department of Health, the “abstracts” were first introduced in 2001 when Hawaii digitized its birth records.
Can you state where you came by this or is this your opinion? You seem to be quoting "the Hawaii state Department of Health" so I was just wondering which particular person said that.
And here is what I found which is just not the same as what you're saying...

"When the department went electronic in 2001, vital records, whether in paper form or any other form, [were] maintained. We don't destroy records."
Okubo affirmed that beginning in 2001, all vital records, including birth records, moved to electronic formats.
"Any records that we had in paper or any other form before 2001 are still in file within the department," she insisted. "We have not destroyed any vital statistics records that we have."

So you're saying, or implying, that Hawaii never produced any abstract birth certificates before 2001 and that the concept of abstract documents only came into being in Hawaii in 2001 when Hawaii digitized its birth records?

[PA-RIVER]

Huck makes me want to puke.

[jamese777]

You know, every time you make a comment to me I feel that I’m hitting close to the mark ‘cause you come riding in like a Pale Rider ready to crush everything under your hooves.
You never make any comments to me otherwise.
According to you (with no attribution)...According to the Hawaii state Department of Health, the “abstracts” were first introduced in 2001 when Hawaii digitized its birth records.
Can you state where you came by this or is this your opinion? You seem to be quoting “the Hawaii state Department of Health” so I was just wondering which particular person said that.
And here is what I found which is just not the same as what you’re saying...

“When the department went electronic in 2001, vital records, whether in paper form or any other form, [were] maintained. We don’t destroy records.”
Okubo affirmed that beginning in 2001, all vital records, including birth records, moved to electronic formats.
“Any records that we had in paper or any other form before 2001 are still in file within the department,” she insisted. “We have not destroyed any vital statistics records that we have.”

So you’re saying, or implying, that Hawaii never produced any abstract birth certificates before 2001 and that the concept of abstract documents only came into being in Hawaii in 2001 when Hawaii digitized its birth records?

---

The original hard copy paper records are on file, electronic abstracts of the original paper records are what is released to the public.
“Born Identity”
http://archives.starbulletin.com/content/20090606_kokua_line

[jamese777]

This judge has absolutely no clue what electoral quo warranto means nor how it is applied. It is truly astounding how many justices and attorneys in this nation either a) ignore the laws or b) do not understand the laws.

Being elected is not a right. Like driving, it is a privilege, one requiring the person holding the license or title to prove themselves worthy of holding that privilege.

---

When Orly Taitz attempted a quo warranto claim against Obama in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth wrote in his opinion: “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.” Judge Lamberth dismissed the quo warranto claim on the grounds of not meeting the requirements of standing under Article III of the Constitution.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30040084/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-23-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-dcd-04502943496-23-0

[jamese777]

Claimant. Not defendant. And it is not burden of proof, rather it is that the legitimacy of a claim to a title is disputed. The proofs each EQUAL side must be heard and weighed. See Quit Claims, or Quo Warranto. No such hearing has been granted.

This has been a mockery of law and process of law.

---

Would you be so kind as to link to an Obama eligibility lawsuit that lists Barack Hussein Obama II as a “claimant” and not a “defendant?” Thanks.

For example, here’s the cover sheet for an Obama eligibility quo warranto filing:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25988373/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-1-1-Civil-Cover-Sheet-Gov-uscourts-dcd-140567-1-1

And here’s the docket for the first case heard today on appeal at the Supreme Court:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008cv02254/134576/

And here’s the docket for the original “Obama is ineligible” civil suit:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/

[bvw]

How’s that dissertation coming?

[devattel]

jamese777 said:

When Orly Taitz attempted a quo warranto claim against Obama in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth wrote in his opinion: “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.” Judge Lamberth dismissed the quo warranto claim on the grounds of not meeting the requirements of standing under Article III of the Constitution.

I recall that case. The judge was and still is an unprofessional ignoramus.

Nevertheless, Taitz is not able to file a quo warranto case unless there is someone with standing she is representing as one of her plaintiffs. Dr. Keyes had standing to sue the Secretary of State of California, but not based upon quo warranto. Quo warranto has very specific rules of engagement with regards to common law dating back to the Greek Empire. In the United States, quo warranto can only be exercised against a usurping president by:

1. A state or federal attorney general
2. A party to whom lays a "rightful claim" to the position
3. Congress
4. A high-ranking diplomat or leader from a separate nation engaged in treaties with the U.S.
5. A government employee or elected official under the direct authority of the president

Orly is a grandstanding attorney. She does not clearly understand what quo warranto is any more than the majority of ignorant judges on these cases do.