Hollister v Soetoro DISMISSED (US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA - 3/5/09)

scribd ^ | 3/5/2009 | rxisd

[Non-Sequitur]

Please define YOU.

You who are suing.

What I want to know is WHO.

Someone who has legal standing. Defined, in part, as someone who has suffered or is in imminent danger of suffering injury to their legally protected interests that are real and concrere, not hypothetical or conjectural.

[Pearls Before Swine]

The COLB is a real document in which the State of Hawaii certifies the facts of his birth, including location. That is all that is necessary to establish his eligibility. The rest of the information on the original form is not relevant.

That is not the way I see it. A presidential candidate, if questioned in this matter, should provide full disclosure, not the minimum allowed to hide behind a state bureaucratic decision. It has further been stated that Hawaii, as a territory which was late to become a state, has (or had) a peculiarity in its COLB regulations. Someone who had not been born in the state could also obtain a COLB. I believe Mr. Obama's half-sister, who was born in Indonesia did. In other words, the facts of birth are by law not necessarily fully disclosed in a Hawaii COLB.

Why are Obama's supporters such as yourself so eager to accept a minimum standard of proof rather than full disclosure? This is the presidency we are talking about.

Much more curiosity was shown concerning Sara or Todd Palin's fishing citations than an in anything more than a superficial justification of BHO's eligibility to be president under the constitution.

[Diogenesis]

You nailed it exactly, precisely and clearly.

And note, curiosity is both an ObamaBOT and RomneyBOT.

[DJ MacWoW]

Why are you answering a post to Michael Michael as if it were addressed to you? Get your posting handles confused?

[BrerLion]

Why are you answering a post to Michael Michael as if it were addressed to you? Get your posting handles confused?

Nice couple of catches! Two different threads, too.

[DJ MacWoW]

They want to shut this down. If it were “nothing” they wouldn’t be trying so hard.

[mrmeangenes]

Why don’t you admit it ?

If the defendant-accompanied by angels with flaming swords,and a heavenly choir-were to present the evidence on a satin pillow,wouldn’t the “Birthers” STILL proclaim it a forgery and a fake - the same way the 9/11 “Truthers” do ?

I’ve been relatively MILD in criticizing the Birthers : putting it down to people disappointed with the election results,who are being taken in by a well-financed tiny clique with a vested interest in keeping the pot boiling.

[DaGman]

"On it’s face what is frivolous about it? The guy has yet to produce a birth certificate, and long before he ran for president, a lot of news reports, including from Kenya, claimed that he was born in Kenya. There is no evidence that his mother took the proper steps to register his foreign birth, if he was born in Kenya. I’m not saying it is a winner; however, the cases that I have seen brought that didn’t get rule 11 sanctions, make this case look like a slam dunk."

The problem is he doesn't have the burden of proof. Whoever files the lawsuit has the burden of proof. And, the filer must at least have a prima facie case. And a prima facie case does not have a lack of evidence as the basis for the suit.

[nufsed]

I dion't know what "birthers" would do. I'm not a member of any group. I am an American Citizen who wants the constitutioon followed.

People still argue about JFK, so don't ever expect a clear path.

I make decisions on evidence and logic. if you can get some documents reviewers to vouch for authenticity, then so be it. My question is why aren't you fighting for this guy to release the documents rather than ridiculing honest people who are seeking the truth; a truth to which we are entitled.

BTW, I want the school and passport records open also. The BC is one third of what Mr. Transparency is hiding.

[nufsed]

The candidate has the burden of proof to present qualifications for the office. The plaintiffs are merely asking the court to require him to do so, since no government official or agency has required him to do so.

You cannot require a party in court to present evidence when the other side is refusing to make the evidence available to the court.

This is not a criminal case (even though fraud could be alledged) or a common civil court. It is a constitutional issue and one side is refusing to present the evidence. That side is president Transparency.

[nufsed]

Your explanation ignores the purpose for the "natural born" requirement. It was accepted by the founders that a president who was not natural born would not have the country's interests at heart and may even be susceptible to treason. You call this hypothetical or conjectural, but the founders believed the threats to be real.

Join us Americans on the side of the founders and stop fighting those of us who seek the truth.

[curiosity]

The primary documents used to show you are of age and a qualified native Hawaiian are:

Do you even bother to read your own links?

If you had, you would know that the only reason the Hawaii Dept. of Homelands does not accept the COLB is because it requires proof of Hawaiian ancestry, not just Hawaiian birth. The COLB is fine for proving birth, but it says nothing of ancestry.

Last time I checked, Hawaiian ancestry is not a requirement for POTUS.

[curiosity]

And the overall point here is the short form is not good enough for them for that purpose.

The short form is good enough to prove Hawaiian birth. It's not good enough to prove Hawaiian ancestry.

Do you think that’s more important (proving native Hawiian) than proving eligibility to being POTUS.

One has nothing to do with the other. Last time I checked, Hawaiian ancestry is not a requirement for POTUS.

[DJ MacWoW]

And you prove the point. Obama’s Colb shows NOTHING. A Colb does not provide enough info.

[Elsie]

"Barak, I know Abe Lincoln, and you ain't him."

[Diogenesis]

You defend Obama and Romney. And on the Romney threads,
you, curiosity, were found to not tell the truth.

So your defense of Obama is vapid.

[Darksheare]

How many handles do you have?
Hmm?

[Michael Michael]

It has further been stated that Hawaii, as a territory which was late to become a state, has (or had) a peculiarity in its COLB regulations. Someone who had not been born in the state could also obtain a COLB.

No. You're conflating two completely different things here.

Hawaii had a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program that went back to the territorial days. It issued Certificates of Hawaiian Birth to those who had been born in Hawaii, but whose births hadn't previously been registered.

First, Obama wasn't issued a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, otherwise his copy would say Certification of Hawaiian Birth rather than Certification of Live Birth.

Second, Certificates of Hawaiian Birth were only issued to those who were one year old or older. Obama's birth was filed by the registrar just four days after his birth.

As for the issuing of birth certificates to children born out of state but whose parents were residents of Hawaii, that statute didn't exist until 1982. And again, Obama's birth was filed by the registrar in 1961.

[Non-Sequitur]

Your explanation ignores the purpose for the "natural born" requirement. It was accepted by the founders that a president who was not natural born would not have the country's interests at heart and may even be susceptible to treason. You call this hypothetical or conjectural, but the founders believed the threats to be real.

I understand why the natural born clause is in there and I don't disagree with it. Where I disagree is the claim that the definition of natural born is a person born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents. The Constitution does not say that, and federal law and a number of court decisions don't support it.

Join us Americans on the side of the founders and stop fighting those of us who seek the truth.

The truth is there. It just doesn't happen to be the same as what some are claiming it to be.

[Michael Michael]

The candidate has the burden of proof to present qualifications for the office.

That's complete nonsense.

Present qualifications to WHOM?

There is nothing in the Constitution or federal statutes stating that a candidate must present any such proof or to whom such proof should be presented to.

The plaintiffs are merely asking the court to require him to do so, since no government official or agency has required him to do so.

No government official or agency has required him to do so because there's no requirement that any proof be presented and no official or agency has been charged with demanding any such proof.

The plaintiffs brought this to court claiming he wasn't eligible. Therefore the burden of proof is on them.

It is a constitutional issue and one side is refusing to present the evidence.

Again, present it to WHOM? No official or agency has demanded or even so much asked Obama to provide anything, nor is any official or agency constitutionally or statutorially charged with doing so.