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)
This morning on Beck’s radio program during Glenn’s interview of Michelle Malkin, he stated even if obozo was NOT a NBC that nothing could be done about it so we should just drop it.
What you know and what is fact are two different things. Go to the address above and click the first green INTRODUCTION +.
It’s not an original copy, look at the title
I was a member of the site back then.. and I have Unfit for Command next to me in my bookshelf. Read it twice. I agree, even the ones that claimed they read it wouldn’t have the patience in the first place.
So by your theory an “anchor baby” can be POTUS? I think not.
The term natural born citizen was first codified in writing in colonial reference books in 1758 in the legal reference book “Law of Nations.”
That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later went on to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Jay had the clause inserted into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention. Jay was considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time and he was the one is responsible for inserting that term into the U. S. Constitution, which was derived from the Law of Nations.
John Jay wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
Emmerich de Vattel was a Swiss jurist who attained world preeminence in international law. This was primarily the result of his great foundational work, which he published in 1758. His monumental work — The Law of Nations — applied a theory of natural law to international relations. His scholarly, foundational, and systematic explanation of the Law of Nations was especially influential in the United States.
The Law of Nations was so influential in the United States because his principles of liberty and equality coincided with the ideals expressed in the U. S. Declaration of Independence. In particular, his definitions in terms of Law governing nations regarding citizenship, defense of neutrality, and his rules for commerce between neutral and belligerent states were considered authoritative in the United States.
Many have said that de Vattel’s Law of Nations was THE primary reference and defining book used by the framers of the U. S. Constitution. It is really not possible to overstate the influence of de Vattel’s Law of Nations as the primary reference book in the drafting of the U. S. Constitution. Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations is almost beyond comparison in its value as a defining document regarding U. S. Constitution intent and interpretation. The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, is the first, and ONLY, definitive work the Framers of the U. S. Constitution used for the inclusion of the “Natural Born Citizen” phrase. It nails what is meant by the “natural born citizen” phrase of Section 1, Article 2, of the U. S. Constitution.
It is amazing how perfectly, precisely, and explicitly what Emmerich de Vattel, wrote in paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, of The Law of Nations entitled CITIZENS AND NATIONS, applies to the Obama FRAUD. Quite clearly and explicitly it defines why Obama, can NOT possibly be qualified to be the President of the United States. Obama MUST be disqualified from the office of President of the United States according to the U. S. Constitution Section 1 Article 2.
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN.”
How do we know she requested a copy of BHO's birth certificate for her divorce proceedings? The divorce was uncontested, so she wouldn't have needed any documentation.
I was taught this method in my 1970's era German classes. My parents are from what is now the Czech Republic, and they and my grandparents all use(d) the slash. It's indeed European practice, and very well established. My grandparents were born in ~the 1890's.
... They announced their decision to do so. That means they decided they ought to. That’s not the same as formally establishing a Republic (which, indeed, they did not do for a year after that date).
Parental objections didn't matter. For Stanley Ann, her new relationship with Barack Obama and weekend discussions seemed to be, in part, a logical extension of long coffeehouse sessions in Seattle and the teachings of Wichterman and Foubert. The forum now involved graduate students from the University of Hawaii. They spent weekends listening to jazz, drinking beer and debating politics and world affairs.
The self-assured and opinionated Obama spoke with a voice so deep that "he made James Earl Jones seem like a tenor," said Neil Abercrombie, a Democratic congressman from Hawaii who was part of those regular gatherings.
While Obama was impatient and energized, Stanley Ann, whom Abercrombie described as "the original feminist," was endlessly patient but quietly passionate in her arguments. She was the only woman in the group.
"I think she was attracted to his powerful personality," Abercrombie said, "and he was attracted to her beauty and her calmness."
So Neil was friends with Ann and Barack Sr.? Then he MUST have seen them together on the island when Ann was preggers, right? SOMEONE had to have seen her....or so you'd think.
Excellent summary of situation as it stands.
Got that wrong, too. If it is real, it was issued dated 1964 as part of Obama’s mother’s divorce from his father. AFTER Kenya became independent. Hence the “Republic of Kenya” crest.
I love Glenn but I don’t follow his logic on this.
I keep hearing reference to this. Is there a reliable legal citation you can refer me to that says this? I only ever see this law referring to people who themselves are not American-born (i.e., became citizens as children and then became pregnant as teens/young adults).
I couldn’t say.
I checked rootsweb.com and didn’t find anything on their global search.
I checked a UK phone look up site but it was a pay site so didn’t get much but names. Sorry, forgot site but easy to google. Here’s every male beginning with E that’s close:
Edward L. Lavender, age 65+, Electoral Roll 2007-08
Edward and Muriel R. Lavender, age 65+, Electoral Roll 2002-09
Eric and Una M. Lavender, age ?, Electoral Roll 2002-03
Eric and Doreen M. Lavender, age ?, Electoral Roll 2002
Eric J. and Noreen R. Lavender, age 65+, Electoral Roll 2007-08.
I suspect the last two might be one despite the spellings.
Wouldn’t zanzibar have to issue b/c for births under their sovereignty and why would BHO sr.go to zanzibar in 61?
Holy Crap. They did put it in the 50th Anniversary Bill for Hawaii. “Whereas the 44th President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii”.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
The judge who unsealed the divorce records of Obama’s opponent in his Senate race stated that the public had a right to know - regardless of the damage it would do to the son.
I don’t think Jack Ryan’s divorce records were the public’s business but certainly the same reasoning makes revealing the birth certificate mandatory.
It became independent on Oct. 17, 1963 via an agreement between Prime Minister of Kenya Messrs Jomo Kenyatta, and the Prime Minister of Zanzibar M. Shamte nearly TWO months earlier than the rest of Kenya declared independence on Dec. 12, 1963. The Muslims in the ten-mile strip seemingly called themselves the "Republic of Kenya" in 1963, before the rest of the country was officially known by the same name on Dec. 12, 1964:
Frankly, I am at a loss what to make of your post to me.
I don’t know what I don’t know that you think I know, that is different from the facts that I can find by clicking the first green “Introduction” on the web page you suggest.
I followed your links and found that I was presented with a set of facts about Kenya’s recent history, none of which is at odds with what I think I know, but my knowledge does not extend to the level of detail presented. Nevertheless, I found nothing surprising or at odds with what I think I know, and especially not at odds with any public statement.
So, what’s this all about, anyway?
Me either. By that logic we should just ignore all his wild theories and conspiracies, but ignore the ONE thing that hasn’t been settled.
Glenn? Have you fallen into the “I don’t want to be seen like THOSE crazy kooks” bucket?
WOW excellent work!
Some say revolution is brewing .... here. Can you feel it ?
Seen these ?
Check out Congressman Chaka Fatah (D-PA) reporting to his masters .. the guy in the suit in the front row on the phone.
Wonder if the suits guarding the podium from the citizens are armed... could they someday be Black Panthers? Is this really our America ??
Think the natives are getting restless .. ?
It’s been posted here numerous times.
3. January 13, 1941 to December 23, 1952
If you were born between January 13, 1941 and December 23, 1952, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship if both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one had a prior residence in the United States. You didn’t have to do anything special to keep your U.S. citizenship.
If only one parent was a U.S. citizen, that parent must have lived in the United States for at least ten years prior to your birth, and at least five of those years must have been after your parent reached the age of 16. To keep your citizenship, you must have lived in the United States for at least two years between the ages of 14 and 28 (called a residence requirement). However, as a result of a U.S. Supreme Court decision, if you were born after October 9, 1952, your parent still had to fulfill the residence requirement in order to pass citizenship to you, but your own residence requirement for retaining U.S. citizenship were abolished. If your one U.S. citizen parent was your father and you were born outside of marriage, the same rules applied if your father legally legitimated you before your 21st birthday and you were unmarried at the time.
Just noticed your screen name. Funny!
You make Ruby’s point: no one disputes that a Republic did not exist in law until the revision of the constitution in June 1964.
The sole point we are making is that despite the non-existence of a republic de jure, in law, it is not only conceivable to to think that people referred to the interim Kenyan state as a republic from the fall of 1963 onward,
BUT we have multiple newspaper articles from Oct. 1963 onward showing that people around the world referred to Kenya as a republic, even though it was not one de jure.
The great importance of no. 5160 is that it is from the London Times and the source of the terminology is Kenyatta’s interim government and it is at the time of the decision to go independent. Other evidence was from local newspapers in small towns in the US showing that exchange students were referring to themselves as from the Republic of Kenya. That’s valuable, but not as important as 5160.
What this shows is the foolishness of the debunkers who took general political status dates from encyclopedias etc. and pontificated that because Kenya was not de jure a republic until June 1964 (or, more commonly, people say, Dec. 1964), therefore the term “Republic of Kenya” could not have been used before June or Dec. 1964.
That is a faulty conclusion to draw from genuine facts.
It is a fact that Kenya became a republic either with the revised constitution of June 1964 or the recognition of the republic by England in December. That is a true fact.
But it does not follow from that fact that a certificate issued by a government unit in Kenya in February 1964 COULD NOT POSSIBLY have used the term “Republic of Kenya.”
No, Kenya was not yet a republic. But you simply cannot conclude definitively from that that the term could not have been in use.
And now we have contemporary evidence showing that the term was indeed in wide use.
That’s a pretty good blow against the whole December 1964 issue.
So to clarify...Mombasa, as a part of the Coastal Province officially referred to itself as being a part of the Republic of Kenya in early 1964?
Once trust is lost, “dropping it” is the worst possible solutiuon
If Beck said this, he is missing the point- it’s not about the BC.
It is about trusting the integrity of the man in the Oval Office - and all those who put him there and who protect him from logical, honest, easily-answered inquiry
Mombasa wasn’t under Zanzibar’s sovereignty, they were under Kenya’s as the British government paid for the lease (or tribute as they called) it of the 10 mile strip including Mombasa for nearly 75 years before Zanzibar ceded the 10 mile strip. The civil records would have been under Kenya since Kenya had jurisdiction over the area they LEASED.
It’s like if you rent an apartment or house and have to list your address, you would list the place you reside and all activity would be on you. Not the landlord.
Goog’d by google? - How surprising....
Just like in America. We *were* a Republic long before the world recognized us as such.
Personally, I think all the personalities on Fox have been told to zip it about this. Fear of the Fairness Doctrine? One of Ailes’ personal quirks? Who knows.
Not just early 1964, but mid to fall of 1963.
It would be better to say that Mombasa, while leased to the British, was nominally under the Sultan of Zanzibar’s sovereignty but was actually under British government, authority, control etc.
Sovereignty is the broader, more abstract concept. By “leasing” the coastal strip, the Sultan retained, in name only, nominally, the sovereignty (he had to have it else he could not “lease” operative control to someone else). But he leased, ceded, control, de facto, on the ground administration, to the British.
So in terms of people’s perception, Mombasa was “part of Kenya.” On paper, nominally (and I’m sure people were aware of this, but at a secondary level of awareness), it was still under the Sultan’s sovereignty.
This is the first that I'd heard of this connection. I read elsewhere (way back during the campaign) that the couple dropped out of sight after the 'marriage' -- that their friends did not see them. That account said that no friends were invited to the wedding and they just disappeared. It is possible that Abercrombie never saw them together again. If he had, don't you think that he would have mentioned it during all these months? After BO Jr. was born, BO Sr. moved to Harvard. One of their friends from the coffee house days went to visit him in Cambridge a couple of years (months?) later, and BO never even asked about BO II or Stanley Ann. Somewhere during that time period, BO Sr. married another white woman, Ruth, who followed him back to Africa. Apparently she shared him with Keiza (1st wife) because there are various progeny as a result. Does anyone remember the year BO Sr. married Ruth and returned to Africa? Was that before, or after, Dunham's divorce?
It’s embossed isn’t it?
Can it be true? FR RULES!!
I've heard people imply that these laws hold even if Obama was born in the United States—that particular claim (which you may not be making) is what I'm looking for info on.
What disturbs me MOST about this with Beck is his CONSTANT “why aren’t people marching in the street!” mantra and yet takes such an important issue like not qualifying to be President in the first place and say “Well, you’re not gonna win that one, why bother?”
Americans are waking up...AND THEY ARE PISSED!!
“It would be better to say that Mombasa, while leased to the British, was nominally under the Sultan of Zanzibars sovereignty but was actually under British government, authority, control etc.”
Yes, that is worded much better. Thanks!
BO Sr went back to Hawaii for a 10 year anniversary (that’s where the photo of Barack with Sr is, at the AIRPORT) and visited Neil. Of now that Barack is President, Neil is all “I knew him when...”
If used in the case they were likely authenticated via certification or sworn testimony, used in the trial and returned to the parties. Otherwise court files would have all kinds of evidence stuffed in them.
I see no decision in this case relating to the location of birth of Obama Jr, which could require either party to "prove up" their statements with evidence. It would however be good legal practice for one or both attorneys to have at the ready any evidence they may want to present to prove or disprove any subject matter of the trial especially if it was contested.
A court file is a summary of filings, motions, findings and appeals. It may make reference to documents or transcripts or other evidence, but they generally are not in a file.(attorneys usually keep everything, used in court or not to cover themselve from malpractice claims)A record is made of the trial usually by a court reporter (small claims tape recorder) an is not printed out as a transcript unless one or both parties request it (usually for appeal)and pays for the transcript.
Things I have seen and am aware of being sealed in civil cases could be medical records and statements of income by those claiming inability to pay costs. These items are usually in the file in a separate envelope on top marked CONFIDENTIAL which the clerk handling the file would not copy or would remove prior to allowing inspection of the file. While the pages marked show 12 pages and only 7 are shown, it does not mean the others are sealed. I believe in this case an investigator went directly to the court, and had the documents they chose as relevant copied, and did not have the others copied.(frugal) If the other pages were sealed any experienced investigator would have made note of it and posted it with the copies. If there was something sealed in the file other than the two reasons I cited above, it would be a lead to get it unsealed in one of the current cases or that information of value could be in the sealed envelope. JMHO.
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.