Is this really it? (re: possible Obama's Kenyan B.C. - Attny Taitz) Click on the link

orlytaitzesq.com ^ | 8/2/2009 | rxsid

[rxsid]

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)

[Cheburashka]

To be blunt, I don't see anything in that long passage that is on point. Of course the subjects became citizens. How the law was to be decided changed. They were to participate in it. But they still were bound to follow the law. So citizens are still subject to the law.

English law was their law, the law they grew up with. For over a year after the American Revolution started they still regarded themselves as Englishmen, Englishmen standing up for their rights as Englishmen against an unjust government. English law was not some foreign law imposed on them. My opinion is that they used Blackstone, because he was a formerly fellow countryman writing about English law, as I've said, the actual law that the British subjects who transformed themselves into American citizens were used to using. The law they used to buy their house, to sell the food they produced in their fields. That whole legal tradition was not thrown away on July 4, 1776, the allegiance to the King and the unity with the Kingdom of Great Britain was.

Natural born is a legal term of art. Something that has a specific meaning in the law. if they had wished to specify that the American President had to be born on American soil to parents who were American citizens, they could have done so in so many words. They already very carefully crafted that passage to allow one specific man to run for the Presidency(Alexander Hamilton) should he wish to do so, so the words were not casually chosen.

The whole point of being able to write the law is to write the law that you think proper. If you fail to write the law clearly, the law as written must be interpreted as broadly as possible. If you fail to specify that American born in America to parents who are not Americans are barred from the Presidency, you should not be surprised when the Constitution is interpreted against your wishes. And that assumes they did in fact want to discriminate against Americans not born to American parents, something I do not believe.

I already know what your opinion is, I guess we're just going to have to disagree. With two incompatible references if it comes to that, the Supreme Court will have to make a ruling. I suspect they will choose the Englishman over the foreigner, who was not part of the English legal tradition. But that's just my prediction, I could be wrong.

I must say though, that in all the decades I have been an American I have never heard that passage interpreted any other way but: if you are born in America you are eligible for the Presidency, if you are a naturalized American you are not. Until this Presidential cycle. Now suddenly that is not good enough. I can understand why some people who had the same decades-long experience I had might think this all smacks of being poor losers. Think carefully about how happy you would be to see this suddenly "whipped out" to disqualify Sarah Palin if it was her life story that she was born in America to non-American parents.

[Spaulding]

Rxsid, I can just keep quiet. I was thinking of responding to the common law quotation when I saw your response. You not only saved me the trouble, but expressed it better. I only hope there are more here who understand, but who choose not to engage.

I don't think many of these citations are malicious. But I don't think many have thought of the significance of not selecting a trustworthy commander in chief.

I too was struck be the connection Donofrio discovered between the date, June 18, 1787, of the Hamilton draft, and the July 25 letter from John Jay to Washington changing the draft's requirements for commander in chief from Citizen of the United States into not any but a natural born citizen.

I don't see how a justice could come to any other conclusion. There is no evidence for another interpretation, only perceived political advantage.

[afraidfortherepublic]

This has always puzzled me, too. If I had ever dated a man who became President, I would either be bragging about it or writing a very nasty “tell all” book.

There is that photographer who used O as a model for some photo essays when he was at Occidental. I've forgotten her name, but her work was published earlier this year. Obama was pictured with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth wearing a straw hat in many of the pictures which were rather "arty".

I don't think she claimed a "dating relationship", however. They just knew each other quite well. She was a few years older.

[deks]

BUMP

Possible Malware Warning added at the beginning of this thread (see the named website in the article under the headline):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2306351/posts?page=1

[Fred Nerks]

From WIKI:

“... There he attended classes with and befriended current United States President Barack Obama’s parents, Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr.[2] As a result, Abercrombie is the only member of Congress to have met Barack Obama when Obama was a child in Hawaii where Obama’s parents lived. ...”

http://www.house.gov/list/speech/hi01_abercrombie/nb09statehood_reso.shtml

“...As I said, it is great emotion for me, a great time of nostalgia. I arrived in Hawaii at the same time as President Obama’s father. We met those first days in our matriculation at the University of Hawaii. Of course, I could not possibly conceive at that time that the young man who was to be born out of the union of Ann Dunham and Barak, Sr., would become President of the United States...”

---

He’s careful NOT to make that claim in the above speech.

[Spaulding]

The Solum paper is interesting for a very special reason; as Solum explores the meaning of the Natural Born Citizen Clause, and how it descended from British Common Law, he never once refers to the source identified by John Jay, by John Marshall in his decision in The Venus, to John Bingham, to Benjamin Franklin, to George Washington.

I may be a little harsh in suggesting that he may have been providing cover for Obama. Far fetched? I've read at least half a dozen law review articles, three written by confirmed Obama associates, demonstrating the same enormous blind spot. What, you don't think law schools work to achieve political ends? (I'm being facetious!) How, with the dozens of Vattel citations, and the explicit references in the major citizenship cases of the USSC can a law professor claim to be examining originalism and omit Vattel, the Venus, the 14th Amendment, Minor v. Happersett, Wong Kim, Elg?

This is not scholarship, it is partisan pandering, well clothed in correct English complete with references to other duplicitous political pamphlets. Slocum is just creating talking points for the left. He may even be offering his definition, entirely distinct from two hundred twenty five years of accepted, and often challenged, common law, to become a foundation document for presidential eligibility in the “Obama Constitution” - back to the future, because we are returning to monarchy.

[MrLuigi]

So you’re saying that this document we’ve seen is very possibly the missing page 11?

And that phony documents presented in the previous few weeks were an obfuscation.

I was wondering why the corporate media was revisiting the, as they put it with great disdain, “birther” issue the past 2 or 3 weeks. Mostly to mock, and label, and make people tired of hearing about it. They knew!! They knew this was coming. And they topped it off by having Dr, Taitz on one of their hatchet shows.

Page 11.

[Fred Nerks]

let me shout you a nice cold aussie beer!

[afraidfortherepublic]

Well, what I would call dense is not seeing the reality of the matter at hand — that Obama and any other candidate has *no legal requirement* to show his birth certificate and being unable to figure out what to do about it... that’s the real problem...

BINGO!

[autumnraine]

I never said you had to be 18 to transfer citizenship. You actually have to be 19 or 21 (depending on the year of birth) and this only applies if one parent is not a citizen.

I have posted the law, you are choosing to act ignorant about it and not even read what I’ve posted so far, it’s been discussed at ridiculous lengths previously and I’m not anymore.

[usmcobra]

One more thing I would add, because of smaller size of airmail envelopes, the folds on this document are consistent with how it would have been folded to place it inside one.

[penelopesire]

Thanks for the background info. I don’t know what to make of this latest deal. You are right, Orly should have done the legwork before she went public with this BC. The thought did occur to me that she didn’t care if it was fake or not because she believed it would force discovery by being put out there or something. Who knows.

[deks]

Paging all philatelists to a ‘cover’-up at #6811.

[Bikkuri]

---

We’ve got another live one ...

---

---

I agree... can think of at least 5 off the top of my head in the past couple of days...

[truthfreedom]

Solution to the Bomford / Kenyan issue.

The 44B 5573 refers to a book (44B) and a page in a book (5573)

I think I have that part figured out.

1 is the first book, then 2, up to 999
then
1A is right after 999, then 2A, up to 999A
then
1B is right after 999A, then 2B, up to 999B

Anyway, we have the method to find the answer.

Book / Page does or did work in South Australia

The District Code for HINDMARSH is HIN.

if 44B 5573 is Bomford, then the Kenyan doc is fake.

The following link gives 63 matches for South Australia and
Hin

http://boards.ancestry.com/AdvancedSearch.aspx?p=localities.oceania.australia.sa&cst=category&csn=South+Australia

44B 5573 is not found in ancestry.com, but I assume that it
would be fairly easy for someone in Australia to find it all out.

So, you know, that’s how you find out the answer. No more guessing at fonts.

Either 44B 5573 = Bomfort, and the Kenyan doc is fake or
44B 5573 does not = Bomfort, and the Aussie doc is fake.

So, you know, somebody with some money should get the answer today.

[Tennessee Nana]

the union of Ann Dunham and Barak, Sr.,
__________________________________________________

That’s not necessarily a marriage...

[usmcobra]

Bomford is a fake, the lettering is photoshopped over a crease.

[afraidfortherepublic]

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).

I had one of those too; mine was a portable in a molded case. I received it as a graduation gift in 1956 and my parents had my name engraved on it. I discarded it only about 10 years ago.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Perhaps I have missed it (so many posts), but has a Kenyan BC or COLB (or the equivalent of either) for anyone been posted for comparison?

[hoosiermama]

FIrst thing dad does is ask what’s new...Just printed the post out for him...He’ll enjoy it with his coffee.

RX, Bryt ping want to make sure you saw this post.