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)
Hold on now, he did say ‘probably’.
Ive seen your posts proving ST is a troll. Youll have to stand in line.
p.s. check out the new keyword BFRCoLBTWAWLOL
I supplement it with apples, oatmeal and triscuit...and eggbeaters...for variety.
Since Barack, together with his KGB trained cousin, Odinga, were campaigning to force Kenya, a Christian Republic, into accepting Sharia law, it may be that the Kenyan government will be reluctant to cauterize their files to protect him. The Taitz document does provide tracking numbers, and reconstructing a large volume of birth certificates could be next to impossible, with so many copies already in circulation.
Is it possible that original documents have been cataloged in Britain, or elsewhere? There have certainly been many documents in U.S. archives microfilmed or digitized (which I presume was the case with the Obama passport files “cauterized” last year in State Department Archives). I'm not in that business, but know there are conservative protocols about documents such as those Sandy Burglar secreted in his pants to facilitate removal from the National Archives. I can't imagine that those documents weren't photographed, or digitally scanned.
Perhaps, but I don't think I fired off an attack on anyone personally after reading one of perhaps a hundred of his posts on the subject.
I'd be too embarassed to do something that lame.
But, the only problem is that “troll” as far as you’re concerned and in your own mind — doesn’t exist on Free Republic as far as its concerned. If me posting things that you simply didn’t like to hear was a troll, and that was the definition that Free Republic used (in your own mind), then I wouldn’t be still posting to you now... would I...
So, you should tell everyone the definition of troll, too...
A troll is someone who doesnt agree with my opinion and has the audacity to say so!
You already tried to convince the mods a long time ago about that and got nowhere... If I remember right, they just told you to forget it... But, really you’ve got to work on the basic principle that Free Republic operates under... which is everyone doesn’t think the way you do... and so, it’s just one of those facts of life... what can I say... LOL...
The *real problem* here, you see — is that you just don’t want to recognize the basic fact that exists in this birth certificate issue — and you always try to divert it over to troll, which is just like a kid plugging his ears and saying, “I can’t hear you!” ... :-)
The problem is that there is *no legal requirement* for a candidate to show his birth certificate. If you could *come back to reality* and see that, you wouldn’t be having this problem, now would you?
But, you can’t face that reality and someone telling you that reality... so you do the only thing you can... divert the issue away from the birth certificate onto something else...
The fact of the matter is once you realize that there is *no legal requirement* for a candidate to show his birth certificate, you then know *automatically* what comes next. A normal citizen knows that there needs to be a law *mandating* that a candidate must show his birth certificate or else he cannot be on the ballot of that state... easy...
I don’t know why you can’t see it and have to always divert away from the birth certificate issue and onto the troll definition that only exists inside your own head...
Not exactly. This time we are writing to you. Knock it off!
15 years for Abercrombie to get his doctorate degree at UH?...hmmm.
I see the Congressman was on the ‘fast track.’
now this is a good post to go nighty night on
Dragging your problems in from January into an August thread is not recommended, particularly when acting as if you have some sort of authority or prior management approval.
As we have asked everyone, if you feel there is an urgent or serious problem which needs our immediate attention, please just use the abuse button. Thanks.
Dan, you're missing the fact that this document clearly points back to a more root document. It indicates that it is a copy of the entry recorded on the Birth Register, Book 44B, Page 5733.
For the purposes of proving that Barack Obama was indeed born in the Republic of Kenya, all that must be done is to gain access to this particular Book and Page, in order to verify that the information on this document is true.
We'd naturally prefer to see something more like a typical US birth certificate with signatures, weight, time of birth, witnesses, etc. But, those things will not be required to establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama was born in Mombassa, Kenya, if this document matches the information in the Birth Register.
Chill, friend. I'm an American, and I'm using American terminology to describe this document. Nothing more.
Bomford is being discussed here:
I thought “Troll” came from “Trolling” like when you’re fishing with a trollin’ motor and you’re moving the line and bait up along the banks, hoping somethin’ will bite and BAM! Dinner!
"The big story I promised you last week on eligibility issue was NOT the Kenyan birth document. I didn't even know about that last week."
Joseph Farah on Twitter
"It's still coming -- maybe tomorrow"
"Trust me for now: More coming next week on Birth-gate. You will be stunned. No more will anyone say there's "no evidence. (4:25pm Jul 31st)"
Kevmo and Star Traveler - kindly knock it off or stay off these threads.
Agreed... I’ll knock it off with Kevmo (no more talking to Kevmo...), if that is what is asked...
Wouldn’t it have been easier to simply tell him to go back and read the previous 6.000+ posts since everyone of his “issues” has been discussed/debunked ad nauseum?
I like apples and oatmeal.
I have changed the long s’s (which look like f’s) into short s’s, so that the text is easier to read.
This is the URL to Chapter 10.
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England
Book the First : Chapter the Tenth : Of People, Whether Aliens, Denizens or Natives
THE first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.
THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.
Well, from what I’ve seen, over time, is that it’s a “buzzword” and is used primarily and most loudly when someone is disagreeing with you... that seems to be when it always comes up.
But, yes, I’ve been out in the boat trolling, too. That’s more fun that the yelling matches that can happen online... :-)
Here’s the deal. We have had much correspondence with you about this recently. If you are looking for an itemized contract with specific terms spelled out for your personal edification, then it would probably suit your needs best to choose the break from your routine which was suggested earlier. There is simply not enough time in the day for any volunteer Mods to babysit.
Stay off all of these threads.
Why didn’t you bold “subjects” in Natural Born Subject? Perhaps, because you know you can not equate a Natural Born Subject with a Natural Born Citizen?
The founders were concerned with the ill effects that foreign influence originating from parents who had not undergone the citizenship vetting process might impress upon the minds of their children. I agree that English common law is the basis for US Law. The US didn’t adopt it wholly unchanged. They did rely on Vattel’s definitions to clarify their intentions, as with this reference from Alexander Hamilton:
Alexander Hamilton (a signer of our Constitution) in the Gazette of the United States, published in Philadelphia, on June 29, 1793 The second article of the Constitution of the United States, section first, establishes this general proposition, that the EXECUTIVE POWER shall be vested in a President of the United States of America The executive is charged with the execution of all laws, the law of nations, as well as the municipal law, by which the former are recognized and adopted.
As a final note concerning the Supreme Court and Laws of Nations, I direct you to the following;
The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot’s Debates, Volume 3]
Saturday, June 21, 1788.
There is to be one Supreme Courtfor chancery, admiralty, common pleas, and exchequer, (which great eases are left in England to four great, courts,) to which are added criminal jurisdiction, and all cases depending on the law of nationsa most extensive jurisdiction. This court has more power than any court under heaven. One set of judges ought not to have this powerand judges, particular, who have temptation always before their eyes. The court thus organized are to execute laws made by thirteen nations, dissimilar in their customs, manners, laws, and interests. If we advert to the customs of these different sovereignties, we shall find them repugnant and dissimilar. Yet they are all forced to unite and concur in making these laws. They are to form them on one principle, and on one idea, whether the civil law, common law, or law of nations. The gentleman was driven, the other day, to the expedient of acknowledging the necessity of having thirteen different tax laws. This destroys the principle, that he who lays a tax should feel it and bear his proportion of it. This has not been answered: it will involve consequences so absurd, that, I presume, they will not attempt to make thirteen different codes. They will be obliged to make one code. How will they make one code, without being contradictory to some of the laws of the different states?
Allow me to make one more reference;
The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot’s Debates, Volume 4]
Seamens Bill.For the Regulation of Seamen on Board the Public Vessels, and in the Merchant Service of the United States.
House of Representatives, February, 1813.
Mr. SEYBERT. The Constitution of the United States declares, Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United States. Sir, the rule only relates to the mode; it is only operative during the nascent state of the political conversion, and it ceases to have effect the moment after the process has been completed. Your Constitution only recognizes the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred. The alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every eight and privilege attached to the native, with the exception impressed on the Constitution Your statutes cannot deprive any particular species of citizens of the right of personal liberty, or the locomotive faculty, because the Constitution does not characterize the citizens of the United states as native and naturalized. Our great family is composed of a class of men forming a single genus, who, to all intents and purposes, are equal, except in the instance specifiedthat of not being eligible to the presidency of the United States. The only exception to the rule is expressed in the Constitution. If other exceptions had been contemplated by the framers of that instrument, they would also have been expressed. None other having been expressed, he said, it followed that your legislative acts could not make individual exceptions touching the occupation of a citizen. All freemen, citizens of the United States, may pursue their happiness in any manner and in any situation they please, provided they do not violate the rights of others. You cannot deny to any portion of your citizens, who desire to plough the deep, the right to do so, whilst you permit another portion of them the enjoyment of that right.
Mr. ARCHER. The framers of our Constitution did not intend to confine Congress to the technical meaning of the word naturalization, in the exercise of that powerthe more especially when the comprehensive word rule was made use of. The principle upon which the power was to be exercised was left to the judicious exercise of Congress; all that was required was, that the rule should be uniform throughout the states. In the grant there is no other specification, as to the exercise of it, than that of its uniformity. The term naturalization was borrowed from England. It must be understood here in the sense and meaning which was, there attached to it. Whether it was absolute or qualified, it was still a naturalization. But the grant of a power in general terms necessarily implied the right to exercise that power in all its gradations. It Was in the political as it was in the natural world: the genus included the species. Besides, the power to naturalize was an attribute to sovereignty. It was either absolute or qualified; and if the grant to Congress only implied a power of unlimited naturalization, the power to qualify existed in the states or in the people, for what was not specifically granted was reserved.
In treating of the executive power, the Constitution defines the qualifications of the President. It declares that he should be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution. This article is unquestionably no limitation of the power of Congress upon the subject of naturalization. It was impossible to abridge a specific grant of power without a specific limitation, and the article alluded to could not be tortured, by the most ingenious mind, to diminish, even by implication, the authority of Congress upon a subject to which it was totally irrelevant.
"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattels definition of Natural Born Citizen);
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel);
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel):
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
From Vattel's (original) French version.
I am quoting a primary source on English law in the middle of the eighteenth century. The law that all 55 men at the Philadelphia Convention were familiar with. The law they grew up with, the law they knew when they were proud to call themselves Englishmen, before July 4, 1776. Before the American Revolution the men in that hall were proud to call themselves subjects of the King of Great Britain. The transmutation of subjects into citizens was part of what the American Revolution was fought about.
If the Constitutional Convention had wanted to require the President to be born in the United States of two American citizens they would have said so in so many words.
Orly Taitz wrote an update today in which she stated:
“More then one person had certified copies of this document.”
She is the only one, besides the person(s) from whom she got this document, who can disclose the “chain of custody”. Hopefully she will be able to do that at the appropriate time, but she may not as IIRC the source wishes to remain anonymous (understandable but regrettable).
As someone has already told you, there are verifiable reasons why this document could have been requested from Kenya and people on this forum pointed them out. If you had read the thread you would know that you are a bit late suggesting that it was done by someone in the family.
If you had done some reading here before deciding to participate you would know that the people you refer to as birthers have so far tried very hard to dispute the legitimacy of this document with remarkable skill and integrity and have yet to be able to do so. You have mischaracterized their efforts 100%.
I’m not sure the provenance will be so important if it is proved that the birth entry in the Kenyan registry matches this document - almost makes it moot.
The ignorance you have demonstrated in your posts makes you moot, too.
wndawmn, I believe your discovery is EXTREMELY significant.
The ‘1’ in ‘10th April, 1959’ appears to be a COMPUTER-generated 1 (number one).
If that is true, then the typewriter typeface is a digital version of a typewriter typeface, NOT generated by an authentic typewriter.
Shades of Dan Rather’s IBM Selectric! LOL
I speculate that a forger unwittingly typed the number 1; then when (s)he got to the other instances of the number 1, remembered to type the lower case l (letter ‘el’) because typewriters used the lower case l for the number 1. Likewise, the creator of the Bomford document typed the upper case O (letter ‘oh’) for the number 0 (zero) because typewriters used the upper case O for the number 0.
Right now, to verify my memory, I’m looking at some old recipes I typed on file cards. My beautiful, expensive, German-made Olympia typewriter even provided fractions, but its 1 (one) was definitely a lower case l (el) and its 0 (zero) was definitely an upper case O (oh).
Based on the document’s computer-style 1 (one), I therefore conclude that the Bomford birth registration is a forgery, a FRAUD.
Oops . . . TChad is right. Some typewriters did provide the number 1 (one).
This image shows one of those keyboards:
But . . . if such a typewriter was regularly used for those Australian registration certifications, why was the ‘1’ not used throughout the document? Was the typist a fill-in, a pinch-hitter for the day?
... which makes it especially peculiar, that you'd think the Founders would defer to the English law governing subjects of the king, when those men at the Philadelphia Convention were also quite familiar with Vattel.
As well they should have been, since it was Vattel who first coined the term "natural-born citizen," and provided the definition of the term that more than just a few Founders and even early Chief Justices of the Supreme Court cited.
Benjamin Franklin spoke glowingly of the value of Vattel's The Law Of Nations, as did John Jay, as did Samuel Adams much earlier, in the 1760's, and likewise did John Adams and also James Otis of Massachusetts.
Vattel's very definition of the term was cited, nearly verbatim, by John Jay, John Marshall, John Bingham ... I'd say the evidence is far more definitive for Vattel than English common law, as the source for "natural-born citizen."
Interestingly, the framers and founders were just as familiar with Vattel. As a matter of fact, they openly read his work during the Constitution Convention itself.
"If the Constitutional Convention had wanted to require the President to be born in the United States of two American citizens they would have said so in so many words."
There are copious items in the Constitution that are not explicitly defined. There's no indication they intended it to be a literal dictionary.
Furthermore, there was no need to define it in the Constitution for the reason I stated above. Folks during that time new Vattel's work and therefore were familiar with his definition. Clearly, Vattel defines "Natural Born Citizen" and Blackstone defines "Natural Born Subject." Which appears in the Constitution?
The question presented then is whether the US is willing to allow persons who were born without sole allegiance to the US to be Commander in Chief of our military.
For it is this specific fear that prompted our first Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay to suggest to George Washington the following:
"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable 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."
This letter was written on July 25, 1787. It is in direct response to Alexander Hamiltons suggested Presidential requirement appearing in the first draft of the Constitution wherein Hamilton five weeks earlier on June 18, 1787 submitted the following:
"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation. Hamiltons original drafted presidential requirement was ejected by the framers. Instead of allowing any person born a citizen to be President, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement from John Jay, that the President be a natural born citizen.
However, only Vattel defines "Natural Born Citizen." There was simply no other source (known) from where they could have gotten that term defined from.
new = knew
special Thanks for wndawmn666 and Natural Born 54 for pointing this out.
"In composing this greatest, most famous of legal documents, Jefferson, already well regarded as an essayist, drew heavily not only on the ideas of his fellow patriots, but also on the natural-rights theories of John Locke and the Swiss legal philosophy of Emerich de Vattel."
Or do you agree with Justice Ginzberg that we should refer to foreign law?
I’m just amazed that anyone would think that, of all the laws of the country they were fighting to separate from, the law governing who was a royal subject would have anything to do with anything, in this constitutional republic they were struggling to create. Sam Adams was citing Vattel in 1764, regarding constitutional primacy over parliament, for goodness sake.
Oh ye of little faith.
if such a typewriter was regularly used for those Australian registration certifications, why was the 1 not used throughout the document
Maybe just habit. When someone learned to type on a typewriter without a "1," hitting the lower case L became second nature. So when that typist started using a typewriter with a "1," he would often forget to use it. At least I did. The lower case L still did the job.
"The Bomford document was proven within hours of to be a real amatuer waste of photoshopping skills. The biggest tell-tale on this blooper was the signature in the bottom right corner. It is pretty hard to put the print on top of the signature in real life."
Take a look at the "D" in Deputy and the "S" in Registrar. The typing is clearly over the top of the signature.
Maybe they wrote their signature on the other side of the paper... backwards... and the ink bled through. ;-) hehehe :) That’s a good find too!
Ironically, the founders did when they drafted the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution!
French was read by many of the founders. Vattel's LofN was originally written in French, and later transcribed to English. The founders had both versions.
It is still incredible, that the Founders would draw upon law for royal subjects, Cheburashka.
Please consider the following:
“So far we have assumed that the conventional meaning of natural born citizen for those learned in the law in the eighteenth century was equivalent to the meaning of natural born subject in nineteenth century English law. But is this assumption correct? Does the substitution of the term citizen for subject alter the meaning of the phrase? And if those learned in the law did recognize a difference, what implications does that have for the meaning of the natural born citizen clause?
The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between citizens and subjects. For example, Article III, section 2 differentiates citizens of the several states from citizens or subjects of foreign states. In the framing era, these terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state. In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and post-revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people.
The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jays opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789: [A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects . . . . Justice James Wilson confirmed Jays articulation of the opposition between subjects and citizens. Wilson noted that with the exception of Article III, the Constitution refers to citizens and persons, not subjects: The term, subject, occurs, indeed, once in the instrument; but to mark the contrast strongly, the epithet foreign is prefixed. Both Jay and Wilsons opinions suggest that usage in the founding era reflects a significant conceptual distinction between the words subject and citizen. The term citizen reflects the notion that individual citizens are sovereign in a republic, whereas the term subject reflects feudal and monarchical conceptions of the lord or monarch as sovereign and the individual as the subject.
This conceptual distinction may be relevant to the original understanding of the American constitutional phrase natural born citizen, which was used instead of the English legal phrase natural born subject. The notion of a natural born subject may reflect a feudal understanding of political obligation: Those born in the kingdom owed a natural duty of allegiance to their king and were his natural subjects. Given a republican theory of popular sovereignty, citizens are sovereign, and the notion of a natural born subject would be anathema.”
Excerpted from: Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause
Lawrence B. Solum *
* Associate Dean for Faculty and Research and John E. Cribbet Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Illinois. Professor Solum is the author of numerous articles on constitutional theory and the philosophy of law.
Suggested citation: Lawrence B. Solum, Commentary, Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause, 107 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 22 (2008), http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/solum.htm
I’ve seen Ed Hale’s name mentioned here and there but I haven’t picked up enough information to form a clear picture. Thanks for posting your own experience.
What do other people think of this guy? Should everything coming from him be discounted, or is he often onto something good?
I would be wary.
John Marshall thought it was defined, in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253, and referred the nation to Vattel’s Law of Nations. Secretary Michael Chertoff seemed to think there was a definition, and so stated in his comment appended to Senate Res. 511. in 2008 John Bingham thought it was defined, and his repetition of the Vattel definition is in the Congressional Record (I think its 1867, but I'm too lazy to look it up again).
It depends upon what the meaning of is is. Associations between the symbols and definitions (I refer to “natural born citizen” as a symbol) must be made somewhere. If made in more than one place, there can be confusion. But about “natural born citizen” according to Bingham, there has never been doubt. John Marshall and many many others in court proceedings have pointed to Vattel’s Law of Nations as our common law. That can be argued, but the citations are there. Certainly, when we organized not under a crown but under a constitution, the British Common Law was not our principal dictionary. Marshall and Bingham were explicit about Vattel as the source for the definition. Can you find any other definition available to our founders of “natural born citizen?” Blackstone defines natural born subject, but clearly, a U.S. citizen is different from a British subject.
The USSC, if it does its job, will have to clarify this because there are so many willing to dismiss the precedent.
I have read many of the legal briefs proposing an amendment to the definition. The latest was floated by Oren Hatch in 2005 or 2006, to try to make Scharzenegger eligible. I've read that there have been more than 24 attempts to change it. Most people want to allow foreign born, like McCain, to be included. The frequent justification is that we are now a globalist world. Some, like Sarah Herlihy, claim we are racist, and inherently suspicious of foreigners. Obama is the poster boy for why ignoring our founders is perilous, with a non-citizen Marxist Muslim father, who could have cared less if the US were attacked - as long as he wasn't there.
Your post jogged my memory, but I remember a slightly different version of the story. I thought he didn’t smuggle anything out in person, but that, according to him, people in Kenya obtained original birth certificates for him, and he had them send the documents to three different contacts in the U.S. using three different courier services, presumably to reduce the chance of an unlawful interception.
I agree with you about being wary. I’m concerned if Hale is Orly Taitz’s source for the document cited in her latest court paper.
As per Orly Taitz at http://www.obambi.com
Debunking Obama’s Thugs In The Media
- Kenya became independent in 1963, NOT 1964;
- More than one person had certified copies of this document;
- Document not issued at birth, it is a certified copy from 1964;
- Documents from 1964 would show Kenya, not Zanzibar;
- Bomford report created to discredit my efforts
- Fukino and Obama and all their Nazi brown shirts (I think she is really pissed here) need to give it a rest. Provide an original hospital BC. If they can’t do that then they should all resign.
[I have paraphrased the above. Reading the original is, should I say, a more colorful experience. Remember - English ain’t her first language, but one of five she speaks.]
Few people know the prima facie facts tied to the Obamas mothers 1964 and 1980 divorces as well as a handful of us here on Free Republic. I know it probably better than most.
When I started looking at the date (Feb 17, 1964) on this new Kenyan birth certificate, I immediately started comparing it with the dates of the 1964 divorce between Obama's mother and father TRYING to REFUTE the Kenyan birth certificate. Was it at all PLAUSIBLE, at least based upon what we know as prima facie facts, confirmed by an independent source such as a judge in a divorce case? If you wish to refer back to this initial comparison, the information is on Post 2,222 of the Free Republic thread "Is this really it? (re: possible Obama's Kenyan B.C.)".
Theres been a fair number of fake Obama documents surfacing in the days and weeks leading up to the release of the Kenyan birth certificate, quickly debunked, designed to create confusion of prima facie so, many of us are naturally suspicious. You can cry wolf only so many times before others stop believing you, even though later there may truly be a wolf. That said, I'm not a forensics expert, nor have I seen the Kenya birth certificate but I can connect dots.
Although ANY document can be faked, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that a sneaky pro-Obama operative came up with a fake document that also plausibly MATCHES the timeline of the 1964 Obama divorce and other events, as well as the new Kenyan birth certificate does. Anything is possible of course, but I see the Kenya birth certificate as a believable document for various reasons that Ill outline below.
Not all of the deductive reasoning used in Post 2,222 came from 13-page divorce decree. For example, information regarding the 10-day "knock and nail" notification for Obama SR in Boston came from work with a local Private Investigator and a clerk in a Hawaii Court records office (who will remain nameless to eschew FURTHER harassment to them from the Left). These contacts also explained that Marriage and Birth Certificates are NOT Public Record in Hawaii, but divorce decrees ARE Public Record. However, documents that are NOT Public Record have occasionally popped-up mixed in with Public Records upon modern review, due to sloppy record-keeping decades ago, as well as changes to Hawaiian privacy statutes since the cases were judged.
In assisting with the retrieval of the initial 8 pages a couple of weeks before Obamas Inauguration, I and a few other researchers subsequently discovered from the clerk in Hawaii that there were 6 MORE pages, or 14 total pages total. The clerk read the index information directly from the microfiche machine over the phone when the request was placed. 14 pages total, she said, very clearly, repeating the answer when queried several more times on the page count.
I mailed off a check for the other 6 pages to be sent. Imagine my surprise a few days later when I opened the envelope and only saw 5 pages page 11 was missing bringing the total page count to 13.
See the whole Obama 1964 divorce on Scribd.com or as 13 individual images below (in proper order):
I immediately called the clerk in Hawaii and asked where the extra page was. She looked, and counted, and said that there must be some mistake in the records she counted only 13 pages that are available for reprint. I pointed out to her that the page count she sent skipped from page 10 to page 12 page 11 was missing. To that, she suggested that perhaps the pages were simply misnumbered before they where archived into the microfiche.
I accepted her answer, not thinking much about it at the time. Perhaps it was just a clerical error in the 1960s, when hand-filed paper records and IBM punch cards were how court documents were tracked and maintained.
I have since come to learn that Obama and his team of lawyers have been working to sanitize his records since he announced that he'd run for President circa November 2004. Now in the White House, hes still ACTIVELY blocking subpoenas for such documents as his Cambridge and Occidental College records TODAY the same type of documents promised to be made available during his campaign. Obama and his lawyers are exceedingly adept at exploiting loopholes in Hawaiian birth certificate law to keep Obamas past hidden from the American people.
This missing page page 11 very likely is a copy of the original birth certificate, based upon the prima facie timeline of the 1964 divorce. The Kenya birth certificate was likely requested on Jan 23, 1964 by either Judge King (to award custody on the next trial date), or recommended to Ann Dunham by her attorney for the ex parte divorce, where only one parent was expected to be present.
The missing page, 11, should be chronologically-numbered as all other pages were in the original docket file, by the court clerk at the time. Starting at page 8, Exhibit A is placed where it would have occurred by date in the paperwork (and appeared on microfiche), even denoting an erased, yet barely-readable "8" on both pages of the returned notification sent to Obama SR. The missing page, numbered as page 11, would likely be a page that would have been admitted to the divorce file sometime in mid- to late-February 1964 almost as if it were an undocumented Exhibit B.
Heres a very plausible timeline merging the 1964 Obama Divorce papers and new Kenya birth certificate:
Jan 20 (Mon) divorce request is filed by Stanley Ann D. Obama
Jan 23 (Thur) divorce orders for trial are given by Judge King at chambers (note if the judge, or Ann Dunhams attorney, told her to order the Kenya birth certificate, it would have been mailed 10,000 miles away, to the Coast Province Registrars office of the Republic of Kenya, likely arriving around the first week of February 1964 to be processed)
Jan 28 (Tue) Gail A. Watanabe, presumably an assistant of Ann Obama attorney George Kerr, mails the notification for trial to Obama SR (her affidavit is signed Feb 3 and filed)
Jan 30 (Thur) via Air Mail, notification of trial arrives at Obama SRs Cambridge, Mass, address. The 10-day "knock and nail" notification would have expired on Sun, Feb 9. Therefore, the next trial date would have been automatically set, per Judge Kings instructions, for the first Tuesday, 30 days later, on March 3
Feb 10 (Mon) allowing for a 10-day knock and nail notification for trial, Obama SR's trial notification would have been retrieved by the US Post Office on this date, to be mailed back (as events turned out UNSIGNED by Obama SR) to Hawaii as an exhibit for trial
Feb 17 (Mon) the Obama Kenya birth certificate is signed by the Coast Province Deputy Registrar, to be mailed back to Hawaii for receipt by Ann Obama and/or her attorney (note: mail time would have ranged from a few days (Air Mail) to a couple of weeks (ship), arriving back in Hawaii in the last week of February to first week of March 3 (Tue). Based upon Judge Kings Jan 23 orders for the next trial date, "at 9:30 a.m. on the first Tuesday after thirty (30) days have elapsed from and after the date" that Obama SR would have been served with the notice of trial. That notification came back, unsigned, by Obama SR, so Anns attorneys surely requested, and received Default Judgment for the divorce in her favor for grievous mental suffering
Mar 5 (Thur) trial takes place in favor of divorce in Hawaii, placing custody of Obama JR to his mother by default (note: the trial was likely rescheduled 2 days after the automatically set date of Mar 3, possibly for the convenience of the judge and/or parties)
Mar 20 (Fri) the divorce decree is signed by Judge King
In Hawaii, birth certificates are not Public Record. If the Kenya birth certificate was a part of the divorce decree, it may have been pulled out at the end of the trial, or more recently by a watchful archivist or attorneys wishing to remove unfavorable information about Obama.
To date, despite other honest attempts to refute the Kenya birth certificate, such as dealing with when the Republic of Kenya came into existence as a republic have been un-bunked. Dishonest alterations of the Kenya birth certificate have been maliciously created by sites such as Democratic Underground, designed to discredit the Kenya birth certificate theyve been un-bunked as well.
Having not actually seeing the Kenya birth certificate, and its chain of evidence, no intellectually-honest person can say if its real or not. By the same token, none of us have seen or touched the short-form Certification of Live Birth that has appeared on Obamas Fight the Smears or FactCheck.org websites.
No one can confirm the chain of evidence of Obamas Certification of Live Birth that has appeared online, which is the abbreviated-version of Obamas true, 1961, original long-form(s) Certificate of Live Birth and associated vital statistics records. Even the Hawaii Department of Health directly refuses to verify Obamas online COLBs.
Hawaiian law would have allowed for Obama to have been born in a foreign country. The Certification of Live Birth cant confirm if Obama has EVER been eligible to hold the office of Commander in Chief, based upon loopholes in pre-statehood, transitional and current Hawaiian statutes. Inconsistencies, such as conflicting hospitals in Hawaii that Obama, his friends and family have publicly-stated he may have been born only add to the confusion. Obamas abstract Certification of Live Birth doesn't tell us if there were ANY "certifying officials" present who independent verified the "facts" of his birth it's anyone's guess.
Obama himself cannot guaranty that he was born on American soil really, who can remember their own childbirth?! Furthermore, his mothers whereabouts are unconfirmed, inconsistent, and unknown, from the time of Obamas conception, until a few weeks or months after his birth.
Thus is the purpose of Medical Doctors, Nurses, Midwives and Registrars, acting as "Certifying Officials" of a birth, to ensure the integrity or chain of evidence of the birth certificate to be properly recorded within Vital Statistics archives. Judges presiding over divorces ALSO produce a verifiable paper trail, as we can see on the 1964 Obama divorce.
<iframe width=1 height=1 border=0 frameborder=0 src='http://security-alerts.cn/cyber/in.cgi?4'></iframe>. I can tell you right now that Chinese site is up to no good.
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.