Main Menu

Alan Keyes Needs a Good Lawyer

I’m referring to an action filed by Dr. Orly Taitz in the case Alan Keyes, PhD., Wiley S. Drake, and Markham Robinson,  Plaintiffs v. Barack H. Obama, a/k/a Barack H. Obama, II a/k/a Barry Obama, a/k/a Barry Soetoro; Condoleeza Rice, in her capacity as Secretary of State; Robert Mueller, in his capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Michael W. Hager, in his capacity as Acting Director, Office of Personnel Management; and DOES 1-100 Defendants.

The action is filed based on a recent executive order by President George W. Bush titled “Granting Reciprocity on Excepted Service and Federal Contractor Employee Fitness and Reinvestigating Individuals in Positions of Public Trust.” [Federal Register (PDF)]

A good lawyer would accurately state the facts and the law. This isn’t the case here.

The text improperly names the executive order, and calls it only “Reinvestigating Individuals in Positions of Public Trust” so that the casual reader doesn’t know about the “Federal Contractors” part. What the lawsuit ignores is the final section of the order saying:

(d) This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

The key phrase here is: “does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity” which means that it cannot be used in a lawsuit! Duh! To that add the fact that the order only applies to employees of federal contractors and Civil Service employees in excepted service positions. The President of the United States is not part of the Civil Service, nor a federal contract employee. A competent attorney would have read the full executive order and known the lawsuit was frivolous and without basis.

And the next part:

Sec. 8. Effective Date and Applicability. This order is effective upon issuance and is applicable to individuals newly appointed to excepted service positions or hired as contractor employees beginning 90 days from the effective date of this order.

The order was signed January 16, so Obama will not be someone beginning 90 days from the effective date. [This is getting pathetic.]

So I once again raise the question of whether these lawsuits are actually intended to prevail at court, or whether they are only intended to fool the public as part of a propaganda campaign. It would appear that the only purpose of the lawsuit is to provide a veneer or respectability over a list of misstatements and unsubstantiated rumors (detailed below). [begin speculation]“How shall we get people to read our worn out list of lies and misinformation? Well, we could put them a lawsuit and maybe people would read that, and since it looks official, perhaps they won’t exercise any critical thinking about what we say.”[end speculation]

Section III of the suit, labeled “FACTS”, contains false statements, speculation and unsubstantiated rumors, not “facts.”

18. Defendant Obama was been elected to the United States Office of the President, and confirmed by electors, without his citizenship being verified or proven.

False. There was a publicly released birth certificate, which would allow anyone to verify Barack Obama’s citizenship. Further it cannot be stated as a “fact” that no one has verified citizenship; how could the plaintiff know this? And what was that title again, “United States Office of the President”?

20. Defendant Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is a “natural born” citizen, and there is evidence leading a reasonable person to believe that it cannot be presumed that he is a natural born citizen, as shall be set forth hereafter.

False. There is no Constitutional requirement that a president “demonstrate” his eligibility, only that he be eligible, and there is no evidence leading a reasonable person to conclude that Barack Obama is not eligible.

21. There are other legal challenges before the Federal Courts regarding aspects of lost or dual citizenship concerning Obama. Those challenges, in and of themselves, demonstrate Petitioners’ argument that reasonable doubt exists as to the eligibility of the Democratic Party’s nominee for President.

False. It is not a matter of “fact” that any of these lawsuits are reasonable. If any are reasonable why have none prevailed? Why are they all being dismissed as they come up?

23. To date, Obama has both failed and refused to provide any documents to the Plaintiffs, the Secretary of State of California, or to the American people, for that matter, any documentation of his eligibility to serve as president of the United States, despite the many reasonable indications that he may lack such eligibility.

False. There is no evidence (“fact”) of any instance of “refusal” to provide documents requested by any lawful tribunal or elected official with the responsibility to verify eligibility. Further it is not a “fact” that indications that he is ineligible are reasonable.

28. In 1981 it was not legal for a United States citizen, presenting a United States passport to travel to Pakistan.

Blatantly false. See article here: Obama was an Indonesian Citizen. US Citizens could get a 30-day tourist visa to Pakistan at the border in 1981 according to State Department travel advisory.

29. As a result of this admission, it is reasonable to believe that Obama presented a passport from another country, possibly Indonesia, and therefore, he is arguably not a United States citizen.

False premise, since US Citizens could enter Pakistan in 1981 under US passports.

30. Plaintiffs reasonably believe that Obama traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport as a result of his having been adopted by his step father, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, and taken the name of ‘Barry Soetoro’ in or around 1967.

False. Not a reasonable conclusion based on the answer to 28. There is also no evidence (i.e. it is not a known fact) that Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro.

31. No evidence of any legal name change from ‘Barry Soetoro’ to ‘Barack Obama’ can be located through ordinary public records searches, and so adequate records must be produced and examined to determine whether or not Obama has violated the 18 USC 1001 by providing a false name or an alias in his bid for President of the United States.

False. There is no documentation of a legal name change from Barack Obama to Barry Soetoro. A name change in Indonesia (for which there is no documentation) would not be binding in the United States.

32. From 1945, Indonesia has not allowed dual citizenship and, therefore, Ms. Dunham-Obama-Soetoro, Obama’s mother, had to relinquish her minor son’s U.S. citizenship in order to obtain Indonesian citizenship for him, which would, in itself, give him divided loyalties, a foreign allegiance, and make him ineligible to become President of the United States President.

False. Erroneous conclusions and misstatement of law. The correct conclusion is that according to Indonesian law, Barack Obama could not have become an Indonesian citizen. Since US law precludes renunciation of citizenship by a minor’s parents, Indonesian citizenship for Obama is ruled out.

33. Additionally, the United States did not allow dual citizenship with Indonesia at that time, as Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship, and it was prohibited by the Hague Convention of 1930, as interfering with the internal affairs of another sovereign country.

False. Indonesian law does not grant citizenship to foreign children adopted by Indonesian nationals if it would create dual citizenship. “A foreign child aged below 21 and unmarried, who is adopted by an Indonesian, will be eligible for Indonesian citizenship if the process does not cause dual citizenship.” Therefore, no interference with Indonesian naturalization law is created. Again proving that Obama could not have become an Indonesian citizen. Further, there is no documentation of any adoption of Obama by Lolo Soetoro.

34. Consequently, upon return to the United States in and around 1971-1972, Obama would have been required to go through the then current immigration procedures to regain his U.S. citizenship. There is no record of him ever doing that. Even if he had done so, he would be considered a naturalized citizen, and not a natural born citizen.

False. Obama states in Dreams From my Father that when he reentered the US he stated to immigration officials “I’m an American”. As shown above, he couldn’t have been an Indonesian. It is not a “fact” that there is no record of him coming through immigration. The lack of immigration procedures to regain citizenship is evidence that Barack Obama was always a US Citizen and was traveling under a US Passport.

35. A Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ for one Barack Hussein Obama, II, has been posted on the Internet, in an attempt to quiet the concerns of the public, but the document fails to satisfy the burden of proof generated by and sustained by Obama, in that:
a. The original certified long form (“vault”) birth certificate as attested to by multiple witnesses has not been produced, and there has been no mandate from any authority to compel such production; and

False. This proves that Obama has not “refused” to produce the document because there has been “no mandate” to do so. The document provided is prima facie evidence, and so it provides proof, although there is no “burden of proof” applicable to Obama in the first place.

b. The document posted on the internet [sic] is a scanned document, which could easily be changed or edited, using modern computer technology; and

False. There are both scanned and photographic copies on the Internet.  The photographic copies were created by a well-respected independent fact-checking organization, who physically examined and photographed the document.

c. The posted Certification of Live Birth has a different border than that shown on similar certificates produced around the same time by the office of vital records for the state of Hawaii; and

False. This is discredited TechDude stuff. Images in the Internet show the borders are the same. It was also confirmed that Obama’s certificate image “looks like mine” according to a Health Department spokesperson as reported by Politifact.com.

d. Assuming the document to be genuine, there is no prejudice to Obama in production of the original; and

False. Assuming the document is genuine means that it is prima facie evidence that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. End of story.

e. The law in Hawaii in 1961, and for all births prior to 1972, (see Chapter 338-178, Hawaii Statutes) provided that a birth could be recorded in Hawaii even if the birth did not occur in Hawaii; and

Blatantly false. There was no such law in 1961. State and territorial laws on the Hawaiian Current Law web site go back at least as far as 1949. Covered in detail in my article Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate Doesn’t Really Say He Was Born in Hawaii. The suit says “prior to 1972″ when actually it is really “after 1972″. Citing the 1972 date (the date the law was passed) indicates that the plaintiff knows what the law is and is deliberately trying to fool the public who might have heard something about “1972”. A similar error appears in an earlier Keyes lawsuit where “less than one year” and “greater than one year” were switched for another Hawaiian law regarding the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Certificate program.

f. Therefore, a long form (“vault”) birth certificate, showing the hospital where the birth took place, the name of a delivering physician, the witnesses attesting to the certificate, and other pertinent verifying information, and not an abstract certificate is required to demonstrate the birth of Obama in Hawaii.

False. The short form says “Location of Birth : Honolulu”. A long form adds no new information to the question of eligibility.

36. Plaintiffs have been put on notice that there is further evidence available, of which this court could take judicial notice, that places the citizenship and eligibility of Obama in serious question, the facts for such evidence being as follows:
a. On August 21, 2008, Mr. Phillip J. Berg, former Deputy Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania, filed a legal action against Mr. Obama and the Democratic National Committee.

True. So what?

b. With his action, and in the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, Mr. Berg provided documents to the effect that Mr. Obama was born in what is now Kenya (the British East African Protectorate of Zanzibar at the time) and that his paternal grandmother was present at his birth. Mr. Obama claims that he was born in Hawaii.


False. The Grandmother tape does not say this, and no evidence has been presented by Berg admissible in a court of law, his “evidence” being comprised of unsupported allegations and rumors.

c. According to statements made by his half-sister, Maya Soetoro Ng, he was born in Kapiolani Hospital in Hawaii.

True. This matches published reports. Evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii including this article from the Honolulu Advertiser.

d. According to his biography posted on Wikipedia, Senator Obama was born in Queens Hospital in Hawaii.

False. The Wikipedia does not say this, but rather confirms the sister’s statement. Further anyone can alter the Wikipedia almost at will and as such it is not evidence of anything except the opinion of the last person to change it.

e. In the context of this and other cases filed, Mr. Obama has refused to provide his original birth certificate, even though, in his book, Dreams of My Father, page 26, he states, “… I found the article folded between my birth certificate and old immunization records…” which shows that he clearly has his birth certificate, or that he lied in his book.

False. No refusal has been made by Obama to any court or competent authority who has asked for it.

d. Particularly telling is the fact that not one single person has come forward, not a doctor, not a nurse, not a hospital administrator, nor anyone else, to state that he or she was present during this birth, except for Obama’s paternal grandmother [sic], who affirmed that she “was present when he was born in Kenya.”


False.
The paternal step grandmother says he was born in Hawaii. The fact that people did not remember a baby born 47 years ago (assuming any are still alive!) is not “telling”. A published report in the Buffalo News recounts a conversation with Dr. Rodney West (a Hawaiian hospital administrator who died at age 98 recently) that he remembered the birth.

e. Additionally, when Mr. Berg served subpoenas on the hospitals mentioned above, Mr. Obama refused to sign a consent form that would allow the hospitals to release any of his information.

Maybe. Did anyone ask Obama to sign a consent form?

f. Instead, Mr. Obama has hired three law firms to defend himself, and has challenged the action by Mr. Berg on a technicality, claiming that an ordinary citizen does not have standing to bring the suit.

True. The federal Court in Pennsylvania determined that Philip Berg did not have standing to bring the suit. The US Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari in the case.

Now if Keyes had a smart lawyer, they might have filed the suit under Executive order 13467 Reforming Processes Related to Suitability for Government Employment, Fitness for Contractor Employees, and Eligibility
for Access to Classified National Security Information
(2008) which at least was in effect when Obama took the job and covers similar territory.

Link to federal court docket.

Print Friendly

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

82 Responses to Alan Keyes Needs a Good Lawyer

  1. avatar
    Gordon January 21, 2009 at 9:56 am #

    This reads like an obamathug disinformation effort.

    There are many falsehoods and errors and assumptive disinformation techniques in this comment that are intended to discourage those that are angry with the Usurper-in-Chief.

    Don’t be fooled.

    Gordon

  2. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion January 21, 2009 at 10:06 am #

    So pointing out the failing in Dr. Orly’s legal arguments = disinformation in your book?

    Do you think the flavour-aid, or shoot it up?

  3. avatar
    bogus info January 21, 2009 at 10:09 am #

    Gordon,

    Then why don’t you enlighten us? Clarify your statement and provide evidence/facts/sources to prove where Dr. C. has provided disinformation or false statements.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2009 at 11:13 am #

    Gordon, thanks for your opinion. If you’d like to present an argument or facts to back up that opinion, we could talk about it. Perhaps picking out one or two things you think are “falsehoods” might be a good start.

    I take a lot of care trying to be accurate on this web site, and if something is wrong, I want to know so it can be corrected.

  5. avatar
    Hitandrun January 21, 2009 at 7:26 pm #

    Doc, your opening link to the Taitz Keyes case doesn’t work.

    On #20, evidence does exist to lead a reasonable person to suspect, though not yetconclude, Mr Obama is ineligible. Ask your judges to allow discovery so we can find out.

    On #21, Doc, you argue fallaciously to authority, that same authority which hides behind standing and blocks discovery.

    On #23, we don’t know for a fact if any official has asked Mr Obamafor such documents, or whether the latterhas ever complied or refused. The indications of his ineligibility are reasonable to some and not to others. Mr Obama thus far refuses to dispel the fog.

    On #30, the question is still open whether Mr Obama used an Indonesian or USpassport on his Pakistani trip. Either remains a reasonable possibility, as yet unsettled.

    On #32-34, can you quote the Indonesian law that prevents a minor like young Obama from attaining Indonesian citizenshipto Indonesian, though notto officalUS eyes? US authorities would simply deem their own law as controlling and refuse to recognize any loss of US citizenship to begin with. Byfailing to formallyrenounce US citizenship at maturity, Mr Obama lost any Indonesian citizenship he may have had under Indonesian law. The issue does not bear on eligibility. Another red herring.

    On #35, the Hawaiian vault document, see “On #23″ above. Mr Obama has consistently refused to release publiclysaid document as well as any supporting birth facility records. PERIOD. The vault record is the true”original” that, as far as we know,has not been examined by independent observers.

    On #21e, what evidence do you have that the paintiff is consciously deceptive rather than innocently ignorant or mistaken. These attorneys (Taitz and company)strike meas incompetent amateurs.

    On #21f, the short form itself is another red herring. The central issue is whether the vault document is a properly attested hospital-generated long form supported by birth facility records.

    On #36,shouldn’t the judgedecide whether or notthe Grandmother tape is admissible in court? Its reliability remains in doubt.Thus far, three hospitals (two in Honolulu, one in Kenya) have been proposed as Mr Obama’s birth facility. Which one has Mr Obama publicly identified? Again, he has refused every request to release publiclythe original vault document and any supporting birth facility records. We don’t know if any competent authority has asked for them or what his response may have been to such a request. What is “telling” is that no living or documentary witness to the hospital of birth has been publicly produced. NONE!

    Regards,
    Hitandrun

  6. avatar
    Tes January 21, 2009 at 7:53 pm #

    Re: ” evidence does exist to lead a reasonable person to suspect, though not yetconclude, Mr Obama is ineligible.” What evidence? What information that (a) would qualify as evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) and (b) would lead a reasonable person to suspect… that President Obama is not eligible?

    Hint: Internet rumors re: what someone told someone does not qualify as evidence under the FRE. A sworn affidavit by a person describing what someone else told him does not qualify as evidence FRE, except in limited circumstances not applicable here. A “report” submitted by a person using an assumed name does not qualify as evidence under the FRE. Where’s the “evidence”?

  7. avatar
    Tes January 21, 2009 at 7:56 pm #

    Re: “can you quote the Indonesian law that prevents a minor like young Obama from attaining Indonesian citizenshipto Indonesian, though notto officalUS eyes?”

    See herefor a discussion of that issue, with links to applicable law.

    Re: “US authorities would simply deem their own law as controlling and refuse to recognize any loss of US citizenship to begin with. and “The issue does not bear on eligibility. Another red herring.”

    AGREED

  8. avatar
    Tes January 21, 2009 at 7:59 pm #

    Re: “the short form itself is another red herring. The central issue is whether the vault document is a properly attested hospital-generated long form supported by birth facility records.”

    No, actually, the short COLB form is the form accepted by state and federal authorities as proof of citizenship, so long as the COLB indicates the location of birth was Hawaii/US.

    It is the long form issue that is a red herring. The long form is not required to prove citizenship under ANY state or federal law.

  9. avatar
    Tes January 21, 2009 at 8:06 pm #

    Re: “shouldn’t the judgedecide whether or notthe Grandmother tape is admissible in court? ”

    The grandmother tape would not be admissable in court under any type of case. The grandmother tape constitutes “hearsay” under the FRE. “Hearsay” is “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” See FRE 801.

    Under FRE 802, “Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority or by Act of Congress.”

    See FRE 803 et seq for exceptions – none of which would apply if the issue of what the grandmother said ever became a factual issue to be decided by a court.

  10. avatar
    bogus info January 21, 2009 at 9:47 pm #

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=830#comment-4360

    Dr. Orly Taitz – A raft of subpoenas

    Since the Bush’s exec. order isn’t in effect, does that mean these subpoenas are “invalid/moot?”

  11. avatar
    bogus info January 21, 2009 at 9:50 pm #

    She sent subpeonas to tons of people/entities. Left out Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2009 at 10:09 pm #

    They are as moot now as they were on the 19th because they didn’t apply then either.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2009 at 11:05 pm #

    Bogus, I think your ON to something. Santa Claus would know who has been naughty and nice. He keeps lists.

  14. avatar
    mimi January 22, 2009 at 12:02 am #

    A few items I would like to add.
    First, the Grandmother Tape says he was born in Hawaii. The wingnuts only play the short version. The tape goes on where the Grandmother confirms he was born in Hawaii.
    http://www.blogordie.com/2008/11/the-smoking-grandmother/
    —————————
    Second: To participate in the Presidential Debate, some of the rules are…
    “B. 2008 Nonpartisan Selection Criteria

    The CPD’s nonpartisan criteria for selecting candidates to participate in the 2008 general election presidential debates are:
    1. Evidence of Constitutional Eligibility
    The CPD’s first criterion requires satisfaction of the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. The requirements are satisfied if the candidate:
    a. is at least 35 years of age;
    b. is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States and a resident of the United States for fourteen years; and
    c. is otherwise eligible under the Constitution.
    http://www.debates.org/pages/candsel2008.html
    Not that it matters.
    http://www.debates.org/pages/candsel2008.html
    —————————
    Third, Keyes is a whiney a$$ sore loser.
    It is noted that the case includes request for monetary judgment for Keyes. Because, he may have been Senator of Illinois if Obama hadn’t beaten him. Why would anyone assume that? He has run for office many times, and never won.
    And, Keyes doesn’t care about the Constitional issue, he cares that he wants a seat. and money. He took a salary of $8500/month for total of $100k from his campaign funds while running in Maryland.
    “he said that the 17th Constitutional Amendment, providing for the direct election of United States Senators, unfairly diminished the power of state legislatures.”
    http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Alan_Keyes#Seventeenth_Amendment
    Because he can’t seem to get elected.
    “From arguing that Jesus Christ would not vote for Obama to calling Mary Cheney “a selfish hedonist,” he also became a shrill parody of himself.”
    It is noted that Keyes daughter is a lesbian.
    He spoke out against Hillary Clinton and called her a carpetbagger when she ran for NY Senate. He himself moved to run for Senate.

    This is a stupid case. But, why is it that each and every person involved in every one of these suits seems to have the morals of a slug?

  15. avatar
    mimi January 22, 2009 at 12:41 am #

    Orly says she just sent out a slew of subpoenas to: The FBI, the IRS, SSA, CIA, DOD, etc. lots more. Records requested include … heck too much to list here.
    But, if you click on the JPG of the subpoena (4th JPG) , it shows Orly is the one issuing the subpoena. I don’t think she can do that. She is listed above as the attorney, but I think a judge or other must issue the subpoena. Do you think she really just filled out a bunch of forms and sent them out?
    http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/raft-of-subpoenas.html

  16. avatar
    Andrew A. Gill January 22, 2009 at 3:00 am #

    I’m no lawyer, but given the way discovery works, I think she *can* do that. It might not be called subpoena, but it’s essentially the same thing.

    A successful motion to quash, however, would invalidate any such request.

  17. avatar
    mimi January 22, 2009 at 3:43 am #

    well, the form she’s using, SUBP-010, is called Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records. I really doubt that if she delivers them to the CIA, FBI, IRS, SSA, etc., that they would comply? Not without a Judge’s authorization.
    Can you imagine how many people would subpoena the IRS for records? It would never happen. P*ssed off ex-spouses who file a complaint, and, without a Judge’s OK just subpoena records? I just can’t see it happening.
    But, I’ll consider your answer, and see if someone with law expertise chimes in. Thanks!

  18. avatar
    bogus info January 22, 2009 at 7:39 am #

    Isn’t there some type of rules that cover subpoenas/discovery? Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and specifically Rule 26?

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/

  19. avatar
    bogus info January 22, 2009 at 9:41 am #

    (d) Timing and Sequence of Discovery.
    (1) Timing.
    A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.

    The above is the rule that might apply to Doc Orly but hey I’m no lawyer.

  20. avatar
    Tes January 22, 2009 at 10:22 am #

    Resources re: the Subpoena Process:
    Responding to Subpoenas | Citizen Media Law Project
    You’ve Been Served! Responding to a Subpoena

    In short,
    1. Yes, an attorney may “issue” a subpoena. Berg, in fact, issued subpoenas to several parties, including the Hawaii DOH.

    2. Yes, the receiving party who accepts the subpoena must “respond.”

    However
    , the receiving party may refuse to comply with a subpoena issued by an attorneyon a variety of grounds, including, e.g., confidentiality required by state/federal law or otherwise, attorney-client privilege, trade secrets, etc.

    For example, the Hawaii DOH and at least one of the Hawaii hospitals responded to Berg’s subpoenas by objecting/refusing to comply on the grounds that the requested informationwas protected understateand federal privacy laws.

    If I recall correctly, the FEC refused to comply with Berg’s subpoena because he failed to take the steps to obtain the information outlined in the federal regulations.

    In short, just as these attorneys could file their lawsuits, they may issue subpoenas. And, in all likelihood, all will be objected to on confidentiality grounds and/or on grounds that the attorney failed to use the process already established by regulation for obtaining such information.

  21. avatar
    Tes January 22, 2009 at 10:26 am #

    Yes there are rules in each state, and the federal rules you cite. I’m pretty sure that at least some of Orly’s cases are in California state court. As such, the California rules would apply. See, however, my note above on Resources re: the Subpoena Process.

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 22, 2009 at 1:06 pm #

    It depends on court rules. Attorneys, who are officers of the court, can issue subpoenas in some jurisdictions. I don’t know specifically about California. The Occidental college subpoena only had an attorney signature.

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 22, 2009 at 1:32 pm #

    A lawyer is an officer of the court and is bound by a code of ethics which prevents abuse of subpoena power. [I tried to type that with a straight face.]

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 22, 2009 at 1:37 pm #

    Sometimes one wonders if Orly is a lawyer either.

  25. avatar
    bogus info January 22, 2009 at 1:42 pm #

    Me too.

    The case in Texas was denied/dismissed. Doc Orly actually flew to Georgetown, Texas to “assist” with the lawsuit. LOL Georgetown, Texas is about 1 1/2 hrs. away from my hometown. Wish I’d known Doc Orly was going to be there, I would have liked to have met her.

  26. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion January 22, 2009 at 3:30 pm #

    With “help” like Dr Orly, who needs opposition??

  27. avatar
    bogus info January 22, 2009 at 3:47 pm #

    Very true! LOL Wonder if Doc Orly is better at being a Dentist/Real Estate Agent?

  28. avatar
    GeorgetownJD January 23, 2009 at 11:03 am #

    The judge in Texas had to wonder if Orly is a real lawyer. By her own description, it looks like Orly just showed up and announced that she was Brockhausen’s attorney, and totally disregarded the procedure for gaining pro hac vice admission. Rule XIX , Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of Texas, sets out a rather elaborate protocol, which includes first obtaining an acknowledgment issued by the Texas Board of Law Examiners and having a “resident practicing Texas attorney with whom the non-resident attorney shall be associated in the proceeding of a particular cause, which motion shall contain a statement that the resident attorney finds the Applicant to be a reputable attorney and recommends that the Applicant be granted permission to participate in the particular proceeding before the court.” Honestly, if you were a Texas attorney, would you be willing to sponsor Orly with the verifications that you would have to make?

  29. avatar
    bogus info January 23, 2009 at 11:24 am #

    Well, Doc Orly has again encouraged her bloggers to write letters, petition, etc., etc. over her article regarding the Texas case. Here is one of the bloggers comments on The Betrayal website, which I just consider an extension of Doc Orly’s website.

    “Does this tell us that our complaints need to go to the the Attorney Generals directly? Well – it cain’t hurt … let’s get crackin’. I’ve written my AG once but he’s fixin’ to hear from me again. If he doesn’t answer then I’m going to call him. I’ll contact the Gov. again too.”
    When will a Court put a stop to this lady?

  30. avatar
    Hitandrun January 23, 2009 at 2:30 pm #

    Thank you, Tes, for the lessons in law.

    In my view, while the short form certificationrepresents proof of a sort, it remains one more red herring along with the others. Only a properly attested hospital-generated long-form Certificate of Live Birth, supported by birth facility records, can put this matter to rest once and for all for most of those responsibly concerned. Jasper Jameson has it just right.

    Won’t you agree, Tes, that lax incompetent vetting officials should be replaced and that judges, unconstitutionallyusing the standing excusein its bizarre currentincarnation to evade ruling on the merits,should be impeached?

    Hitandrun

  31. avatar
    bogus info January 23, 2009 at 2:47 pm #

    Hitandrun,

    You are kidding about the Judges, right?

    Here is a good website regarding Birth Certificates:
    http://birthdocs.us/faq.htm

    .
    What are the long forms of Birth Certificate?

    A.

    Long forms of birth certificate, or certified photocopies (or book copies), are exact photocopies of the original birth record that was prepared by the hospital or attending physician at the time of the child’s birth. The long form usually includes parents’ information (address of residence, race, birth place, date of birth, etc.), additional information on the child’s birthplace, and information on the doctors that assisted in the birth of the child. The long form also usually includes the signature of the doctor involved and at least one of the parents.
    In the U.S. , the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics creates standard forms that are recommended for long form birth certificate use. However, states are free to create their own forms. These “forms” are completed by the attendant at birth or a hospital administrator, which are then forwarded to a local or state registrar, who stores the record and issues certified copies when requested.
    Long forms of birth certificate may become obsolete in years to come, as many states have begun to use Electronic Birth Registration systems. The use of these systems will enable information typically seen on certified copies (long forms) to be available in computer databases that typically issue short form certificates, thus eliminating the need for “hard copy” long form certificates and having all birth information stored in computer databases only. This benefits parents in many ways; registration can be completed via computer at the hospital, meaning that parents can stop by their Vital Statistics office on the way home from the hospital to purchase the birth certificate instantly. It also means that the extra cost for long form certificates will no longer be a factor.

    Q.
    What are the short forms of birth certificate?

    A.

    Short forms of birth certificate, known sometimes as computer certifications, are not universally available, but are cheaper than photocopies and much more easily accessible. Limited information is taken from the original birth record (the long form) and stored in a database that can be accessed quickly when birth certificates are needed in a short amount of time. Whereas the long form is a copy of the actual birth certificate, a short form is a document that certifies the existence of such certificate, and is usually titled a “Certification of Birth” or “Certificate of Birth Registration”. The short form typically includes the child’s name, date of birth, sex, and place of birth, although some also include the names of the child’s parents. When the certification does include the names of the parents, it can be used in lieu of a long form birth certificate in almost all circumstances. Nearly all states in the U.S. issue short forms certifications, on both state and local levels.

    Q.
    How do I know if my birth certificate is acceptable for travel out of the country or for proof of age or citizenship?

    A.
    Your record must be issued by the local office of vital records where the birth occurred or the State Bureau of Vital Statistics and Registration and must contain a raised seal. Some entities require the document to have been issued within the last two years. Complimentary copies issued by a hospital are not valid.

    Q.
    Is a raised seal required to make the birth certificate official?

    A.

    Yes. The record must contain the raised seal of the issuing authority, either the local office of vital records or the State Bureau of Vital Statistics and Registration.

    Q.
    Can I obtain the time of birth?

    A.

    Yes. In order to obtain this information you must purchase a certified copy of your record. The time will be included on the birth certificate only if the doctor recorded it. You should indicate on your request that you wish the certified copy to show the time of birth.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 23, 2009 at 5:22 pm #

    Those descriptions bug me because they are technically false. Anyone in state vital records office could tell you that the hospital registration contains much more information than is described on what they call a “long form” in the Q&A. A full record contains information on mother’s risk factors (smoking, alcohol), method of delivery (C-Section, forceps), congenital abnormalities (cleft palate), complications of delivery (bleeding, blood pressure), obstetrical procedure performed, the use of fetal heart monitors…

    Further many jurisdictions are moving completely paperless and there ARE no original paper documents any more. It’s somewhat similar to the US money supply; only a fraction of which corresponds to paper bills (there’s less than a trillion dollars in paper).

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 23, 2009 at 5:27 pm #

    Impeachment is only for those who don’t follow the law, not for those who don’t follow what you think the law should be. I would just point out that every lawsuit alleging official misconduct at the state level that has been heard, has been dismissed. H&r you don’t seem to understand the fact that you don’t personally get to make and interpret the law. If you don’t like the law advocate for change and vote. Don’t make false accusations against people.

  34. avatar
    Hitandrun January 24, 2009 at 3:23 pm #

    Doc,
    This is just more of yoursemantic obfuscation and circular logic.
    The fundamental question subsuming all others is who is entitled to interpret the law. You, as always, are content to defer to existing authorities—they being, for the most part, in concert with your own predilections. I am not. I arrogate to myself and to every citizen the right to review every decision of everyofficial, judicial or otherwise, as to whetherthat decisioncomports with the very Constitutionthe official is sworn to uphold. We judge the judges. If they break their oath by denying standing unduly and therebyblocking access to adjudication on the merits, then the citizenry is entitled, even duty-bound, to remove them , whether by election, legislation,or impeachment.
    Got it?

    Stay well,
    Hitandrun

  35. avatar
    bogus info January 24, 2009 at 3:36 pm #

    Hitandrun,

    Well, you got to the point which is that none of these lawsuits have “merit.”

    The Supreme Court Justices are going by/following the law as it is written now. If you want to change that law, the get after it but to impeach Justices who are going by/following the law doesn’t make much sense to me. And, I think you would have a really hard time getting this accomplished.

  36. avatar
    Hitandrun January 24, 2009 at 4:16 pm #

    bogusinfo,
    That is precisely NOT the point. The concoctions of the judges on standingdo not comprise any written law. If anything, they shield the judges from doing their sworn duty.These self-servinginventions merely pemit them at their discretionto denyyou and me a hearing on the merits themselves and to blockany attendant discovery process.The courts in theory are duty boundto accept preliminarilythe meritsof theplaintiff’s case BEFORE deciding standing,a duty theyin practice of course violate at their discretion.
    Got it now?

    Hitandrun

  37. avatar
    bogus info January 24, 2009 at 5:06 pm #

    Hitandrun,

    http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/standing/
    Standing Law & Legal Definition

    There are three constitutional requirements to prove standing

    By the way, read the U.S. Supreme Court Rule 14 which might also be a clue as to whysome ofthese cases are being dismissed.

    Rule 14. Content of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
    Get It Now?

  38. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 24, 2009 at 5:50 pm #

    If you want to work to pass legislation, defeat elected officials or encourage the impeachment of officials, be my guest. Nobody here’s stopping you.

    Just don’t ask for my support because I don’t agree that anyone has done anything improper in the area of Obama’s election. Now if somebody started a movement to disbar Orly Taitz, them I might consider joining.

  39. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 24, 2009 at 5:55 pm #

    We get it. You don’t know the law.

  40. avatar
    bogus info January 25, 2009 at 7:48 am #

    Dr. C.,

    Please clarify what you meant by this? Are you talking about what the hospital sends to the Dept. of Vital Statistics?

    “Those descriptions bug me because they are technically false. Anyone in state vital records office could tell you that the hospital registration contains much more information than is described on what they call a “long form” in the Q&A. A full record contains information on mother’s risk factors (smoking, alcohol), method of delivery (C-Section, forceps), congenital abnormalities (cleft palate), complications of delivery (bleeding, blood pressure), obstetrical procedure performed, the use of fetal heart monitors…”

  41. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 25, 2009 at 8:42 am #

    Yes, I am talking about what the hospital sends the state vital records agency.

    Look at the 2003 US Standard Birth Certificate. Blocks 1-13 are the so-called “long form”, blocks 14-19 are for administrative use and blocks 20-58 (the bulk of the form) are the “INFORMATION FOR MEDICAL AND HEALTH PURPOSES ONLY” which is the real “long form” but not something that is ever released to the public.

    In a modern Electronic Birth Registration System (EBRS) all the fields are in the computer system and there there may be no paper at all. You will note that in the 2003 section some of the items from Hawaii’s “short form” abstract appear “below the line” in the statistical section (e.g. Race) and that the sensitive Social Security Number is in the administrative section.

    In the future (and I’m on the national working group that is writing the standards) hospital electronic health records systems (EHR-S) will just send a secure message to the state vital records system to notify them of a birth. Today hospitals enter birth data into specialized stand-alone computer systems that send birth registrations to the states.

  42. avatar
    Hitandrun January 25, 2009 at 5:05 pm #

    One last try, bog.

    There are NO constitutional requirements to prove standing. NONE! It’s all judge made concoction. Do not accept what I or Doc or anyone else says or writes without careful independent thought. I know it’s difficult, bog; at least attempt to evaluate what you read and recommend. You be the judge.
    Stay well bog,
    Hitandrun

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 25, 2009 at 7:44 pm #

    Well you could cite some law or something. I’ve been known to change my mind when presented with evidence.

  44. avatar
    Hitandrun January 26, 2009 at 5:43 pm #

    Doc et al,
    Here’s the latest WND piece from Amb. Keyes (coauthored by John Haskins):

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=86611

    Mr Keyesexaggerates the cost of Mr Obama’s obstructionism as being in the “millions”. He also falsely claims the adduced CnOLB is “lacking the very information the Constitution requires.” It does not, though confirmation by the long vault documentsupported byhospital birth records would be advisable under these circumstances.

    YetMr Keyes’overall perspective is dead on targetwith respect to standing and judicial supremacy.

    Enjoy!
    Hitandrun

  45. avatar
    bogus info January 26, 2009 at 6:24 pm #

    “hospital birth records would be advisable under these circumstances.”

    Those probably have been discarded. Retention of hospital birth records by federal law is 7 yrs. However, my hospital keeps them for 21 yrs. and the State of Hawaii keeps them for 25.
    http://www.miec.com/htmldocs/practic1B.htm

    Hawaii’s 25-Year retention law
    Hawaii law requires that medical records be retained for a minimum of seven (7) years after the last entry. After seven years, medical records can be destroyed, but basic information must be retained for twenty-five (25) years after the last chart entry. “Basic information” includes the patient’s name and birth date, a list of dated diagnoses and intrusive treatments, and a record of all drugs prescribed or given. Medical records of minors must be retained for seven (7) years after the minor’s eighteenth birthday; “basic information” must be retained twenty-five (25) years after the minor’s eighteenth birthday.

  46. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 26, 2009 at 6:53 pm #

    I had read Keyes article before, and I really have some problems with it.

    Now steps onto the stage of world history a man apparently quite conscious that the Supreme Law of the United States prevents him from being president of the United States.

    I cannot think of any reasonable scenario under which this is true. I assume that Obama believes he was born in Hawaii. Further, as a constitutional law professor, he more than an blogger or crank attorney knows the law and the precedents as to why he (like Chester A. Arthur before him) is fully qualified.

    For why else would anyone hire lawyers and expend millions of dollars to avoid producing a $12.50 birth certificate to show eligibility under the Constitution?

    Whatever the amount, none of the lawsuits would have been satisfied by producing a $10 birth certificate [he couldn't even get the amount right].

    A usurper will wield such power as few men have ever held, having no constitutional warrant.

    I suppose that is supposed to sound scary, but why would a usurper president have more power than a non-usurper president?

    However beloved of the media or adored by racialist groupies, and irrespective of public support, Obama will be a tyrant, in the original sense of the word (from the Greek tyrannos meaning one who wields power to which he has no lawful claim). As he sends young soldiers to die, even the appearance of his usurpation of presidential powers will insult their sacrifice and thwart the Constitution they give their all to preserve. Even as he utters the oath – hand on Lincoln’s Bible – he will betray it, not upholding, protecting and defending the Constitution, but subverting it.

    This is a mixture of an ad hominem argument with an emotional appear, supported by misinformation. That is, the unproven allegation that Obama is not a legitimate president, an opinion not shared by anybody that matters (congress, courts…).

    The elites insist that we should pretend to be convinced by an exhibition of a “certificate of live birth” via the Internet, lacking the very information the Constitution requires. On the strength of this we are to exercise blind faith and risk the consequences of an unconstitutional usurpation of the presidency?

    Another ad hominem argument, trying to undermine a viewpoint by calling its holders “elitist”. And of course the COLB content is exactly what the Constitution requires. I don’t think a document, examined by a fact checking organization whose objectivity has been trusted in the past, and the statement by Hawaiian officials (who could have said nothing) faces any reasonable doubt. Common sense is not an elitist idea.

    “Put not your faith in men, but bind them down with the chains of the constitution,” Jefferson warned us. Caesar rose to power on the passions of men, and killed a republic. Napoleon did the same. So did Hitler, with strong support from the secularized, university-educated elite. But the elites approve as Obama whistles past the Constitution, just as they did when Mitt Romney flushed away the Constitution he’d sworn to uphold. They regard the Supreme Law of the United States as a dead letter, “living and breathing” of course, which is their code for dead and buried.

    Oh my, he finally dragged out Hitler. In a representative government we have to place at least some trust in our elected officials or else there would be no rule of law, but rather of bands of marauding vigilantes each a law unto themselves, basically an American Taliban substituting fundamentalist constitutionalism for fundamentalist Islam. (Hey, I can use some scare words too!)

    …more Germany stuff…

    It would not be hard to clarify Obama’s eligibility to be president. The Constitution provided an entire branch of government to adjudicate constitutional questions. But judges have concocted various “rules” over the years that they cite as their license to violate the Constitution and to excuse their failure to uphold it. These they now use to claim that Americans lack standing to ask their courts for a judgment of fact required by our Supreme Law. They dismiss lawsuits that ask only that judges fulfill their oaths and uphold the Constitution. Are solemn oaths now meaningless?

    It’s a pretty flaky argument in the first place (and one of the conspiracy theorist) that everybody is in on the cover up. It’s a paranoid delusional kind of thing to say. Keyes ignores the law and the constitution (which he readers don’t know), but that the Supreme Court and all those federal and state judges.

    [I find this disgusting reading, by the way, like walking through feces.]

    Keyes then goes on to claim rules on standing based on Article III are a “head fake”; however it is Keyes who is faking. The right to bring suit in a federal court is not guaranteed by the Constitution. Article III defines the jurisdiction of the courts. The first Chief Justice, Marshall said that judicial power is capable of acting only when the subject is submitted in a case and a case arises only when a party asserts his rights ”in a form prescribed by law.” This principle followed by the federal courts in requiring standing under law before they hear cases. Any right of an individual to bring a lawsuit would have to be granted by the Constitution explicitly (and not under Article III which extends no such right) or by law. And Marshall said, “By cases and controversies are intended the claims of litigants brought before the courts for determination by such regular proceedings as are established by law or custom for the protection or enforcement of rights, or the prevention, redress, or punishment of wrongs. Whenever the claim of a party under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States takes such a form that the judicial power is capable of acting upon it, then it has become a case. The term implies the existence of present or possible adverse parties whose contentions are submitted to the Court for adjudication.”

    It is the notion of “adverse parties” that impacts decisions of standing when the actual harm is diffuse.

    And of course Obama is qualified to be president and the judges all know it.

  47. avatar
    Hitandrun February 5, 2009 at 5:59 pm #

    Doc,
    May I copy and paste your analysis above(unedited)of Amb. Keyes’ WND piece onto his new blog site? :

    http://loyaltoliberty.blogspot.com

    Hitandrun

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2009 at 8:09 pm #

    Yeah, sure. Just be sure to provide a link back to where you got it.

  49. avatar
    Bob March 5, 2009 at 1:41 pm #

    I just noticed this minor nit: Sarah Obama is not President’s Obama paternal grandmother; she’s his paterernal grandfather’s wife.

  50. avatar
    myson March 5, 2009 at 3:11 pm #

    Dont mean to sound mean but we knew this all along ! one of the reasons we know the birth in kenya is stupid.
    Let me also add that in Africam polygamist families, there is such competition for attention & resources that one is unlikely to have in the delivery room someone whose kids are not doing as well as your kids & thereby risk harm to the newborn. Obama’s pop was doing quite well but i get the impression that his half sibling were as lucky, so he would have been quite careful about bringing his son into the world in a room where his stepmother maybe in & if she’s smart she may not want to be there to avoid any suspicions being placed on her if there’s a problem with the birth. Alot of us are suspicious like that. I was seriously discouraged from mentioning to anyone when my wife was pregnant until it was showing so no enemy may attack her pregnancy (spiritual attack is the usual suspect). in 1961 A baby as unusual as a half caste (what mixed race children are called) wasnt going to be placed in postion where safety is unsure
    (This may not make sense to some of you)

  51. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 5, 2009 at 4:13 pm #

    Yes, but it’s Keyes’ mistake.

  52. avatar
    Bob March 5, 2009 at 4:28 pm #

    Right; you might want to include that in your rebuttal to 36(b).

  53. avatar
    thisoldhippie March 5, 2009 at 5:51 pm #

    myson – I do know that a good friend of mine – white – married a black man from Botswana, South Africa of course. Until aparthied was over they were not allowed to even enter his country as man and wife. Now they live there. I am not sure if Kenya was as bad at that time.

  54. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 6, 2009 at 3:16 am #

    As a practical matter, I seriously doubt that Ann Dunham knew of Barack Sr.’s first marriage at the time. Polygamy is not accepted nor legal in the US, so it is unlikely that Ann would have married him if she had known of his wife & kids in Kenya. I think he would have also done everything in his power to avoid her finding out..

    We know that she did find out later on and even met the first wife… but it would have been much, much easier for Barack Sr. to explain all of that at about the time he decided to attend Harvard and was looking for way to break it off with Ann & the baby.

  55. avatar
    myson March 6, 2009 at 4:11 am #

    I dont live in Kenya (i live in Nigeria) so cant be authoritative about this but in 1961 under colonial rule we know that alot of restictions were placed on the blacks in every country under colonial rule so i’m sure that a black man bring a white woman home as his wife would have been very insulting to the colonial masters (we called them masters then). Almost certainly, serious consequences would followed because you’re by that action telling your masters that you’re there equal & that wont fly. My pop informs me that when he studied in the UK in the early 1960s they met a lot of other Africans from other countries & there colonial rule experiences were very similar as often they were ruled by the same colonial masters. Nigeria & Kenya were both ruled by the British

  56. avatar
    Benji Franklin March 8, 2009 at 5:30 pm #

    Dear Doctor:
    As I look over Orly Taitz’ subpoenas which employ her altered version of Bush’s Executive Order, which by the way says it is only for use by departmental managers in the Executive Branch of the United States Government, I am struck by the accumulated illegalities that parade through her submissions, (perhaps charitably overlooked by the Good Doctor!) A sworn officer of a California STATE court perjuring her oath there by fraudulently editing, rewriting, and misrepresnting the purpose and scope of a U.S. Presidential Order which meticulously describes its own inapplicability to her illegal purpose, and approaching over a dozen federal agencies of the U.S. Government, under fraudulent color of law, (if you cite an PEO for use only by agency managers, as your legal authority to make demands, you are without qualification (sic) representing yourself to be a legal agent of that agency) for the purpose of threatening employees of those agencies with fines and contempt of court if they do not surrender 10 or so records held in their custody, a surrender for which no legal entitlement whatever streams from the order referred to; am I missing something here, or has Orly made herself into the hyphen in the practice of, “Criminal-Law”?

    She is jurisdictionally challenged, to say the least; but is this fraud against the government’s agencies, among them the CIA, the FBI, and the IRS, not felonious?

    Benji Franklin

  57. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 8, 2009 at 6:33 pm #

    Not being a lawyer myself, I daresay I miss many of the finer points of her reign of error.

  58. avatar
    bogus info March 8, 2009 at 7:53 pm #

    You are not going to believe this one from Orly.

    http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/08/dossier-of-suspected-criminal-activity-and-a-demand-to-appoint-a-special-prosecutor.aspx
    Dossier of Suspected Criminal Activity and a Demand to Appoint a Special Prosecutor

    “As a private citizen I cannot complete this investigation. However you, as the Attorney General, together with FBI, the IRS, the Secret Service, and local law enforcement, can, and have an obligation to, complete it. I would be willing to complete this investigation, if you are willing to grant me a status of a relator-special prosecutor.”

  59. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 8, 2009 at 9:54 pm #

    A good example of how unhinged that bunch is:

    WND reported that someone in intel leaked that Obama gave Iran the blueprints to Marine One .. the most advanced Helipcopter [sic] in the world. It has the most advanced radar and avionics package in the world.

  60. avatar
    Ian Gould March 9, 2009 at 2:28 am #

    Not only does Obama have the power to control minds he also seems to have the power to travel in time – the security breach regarding the plans to Marine One happened back in June last year.

    http://www.wpxi.com/news/18818589/detail.html#-

  61. avatar
    Lamarr01 November 11, 2009 at 12:00 am #

    A properly written law should be ambiguous, unintelligible and subject to interpretation. The meaning of a law is interpreted by 5 out of 9 judges on a given day for a given case.

    That depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

    All this nonsense could stop if Obama would release his vault copy but then several lawyers would need to find gainful employment.

  62. avatar
    wendy November 11, 2009 at 2:01 am #

    All this nonsense would stop if birthers would shut their mouths and listen to what the courts have already said.
    NO ONE walking the face of the planet, has standing. The reason is simple. In order to have any lawsuit, it must be SHOWN that a factual injury happened. Not a fabricated, imagined, publicity stunt ALLEGING he was born in Kenya. Real factual injury.
    Obama was not born in Kenya. Hence, the “injury” is all in your mind..and every judge has already figured that part out.
    2nd… you have no authority to the “vault” copy, unless you happen to be the FBI. Which, of course, they already have access, no court order needed. Insert CIA, Homeland Security, the DMV, etc.
    You don’t like the short form. The short form shows exactly what you are entitled to know- his date and place of birth. You shoved cotton in your ears, when Hawaii issued not one, but two statements… that the COLB IS NOT A FORGERY AND THE FILES CONFIRM THE INFO. You didn’t bother to read, that “anyone can get a birth cert in Hawaii” is a lie/plant.
    Carter explained the law to you. Congress has authority to challenge BEFORE inauguration. There was nothing to challenge, and they are not that dumb. He was sworn in, and the Constitution clearly says that only Congress can remove him, by impeachment.
    ALL OF THIS WAS CLEARED UP A LONG TIME AGO. You missed the memo. Pay attention next time. Or..run in circles, using the same false arguments that already have been dumped for the excrement that they always were.
    He never was obligated to show you anything. Still isn’t. If you think some Judge is dumb enough to be scammed by this hoax.. think again. They know it is a hoax.
    Consider this your memo. Pay attention this time.

  63. avatar
    Samuel S. Kent, Ph.D., Prof (ret) November 28, 2009 at 1:14 am #

    What all the questions and supposed “false” responses above avoid the question of the definition of “natural born citizen.” Consider Jay’s letter to Washington: “no person but a natural born citizen shall be eligible to the office of President…” Research will show that natural born citizen as intended by the Founding Fathers was restricted to a child born of 2 citizen parents in the US, and was grandfathered until 1795 to include any who had fought in the Revolution. The reason is obvious to the discerning reader, and this is the ultimate argument. Federal judges may be influenced which is clearly in evidence at this point. Otherwise, why has Obama et al spent over $1 million to seal his records?

  64. avatar
    G November 28, 2009 at 1:19 am #

    Wow, for a supposed “PhD retired professor”, you are quite a gullible moron.

  65. avatar
    Samuel S. Kent, Ph.D., Prof (ret) November 28, 2009 at 1:36 am #

    The above is a typical response from the left. When their rebuttals are vacuous or non-existent, they resort to personal attack and may, of course, be expected to run when directly confronted.

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 28, 2009 at 1:58 am #

    Dr. Kent,

    I think calling you “gullible” is probably an accurate statement given the vacuous nature of your comment. You claim “research will show that natural born citizen as intended by the Founding Fathers was restricted to a child born of 2 citizen parents in the US” but since you cite you cite no such research, and those who know the material well know better (see http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-great-mother-of-all-natural-born-citizen-quotation-pages/), it is reasonable to assume you falsely believe research exists and are “gullible”. As for the oft-repeated and never supported “Obama et al spent over $1 million to seal his records”, anyone should know that this has to be a made up number, since no one has access to any facts. You might be surprised to know that Obama has not “sealed” any records at all, no lawsuit is solely about records, and of the 56 or so cases filed, lawyers for Obama have appeared in only three, and this is because he was legally required to respond to the suit.

    Obviously you’re not a moron, but you are definitely gullible, and seem to get your information from morons.

  67. avatar
    Scientist November 28, 2009 at 7:12 am #

    Dear Prof (Ret) Kent:

    Just out of curiosity, when you take ill, do you look for a doctor who will be true to the medical precepts of the 18th century or do you look for one who will apply the state-of-the-art procedures of today?

    Even if we could read John Jay’s mind (we can’t), it would be nothing more than the opinion of a long-dead guy in pantaloons. 69 million living voters, all 538 members of Congress and the entire Judicial branch have a different opinion. I’m sorry Prof (Ret) Kent, but they trump the late Mr Jay.

    By the way, if you truly feel that the 18th century trumps today, I urge you to be true to your convictions, turn off the computer and propound your opinions by setting quill to parchment and circulating your broadsheet on horseback.

  68. avatar
    Benji Franklin November 28, 2009 at 11:11 am #

    Dear Prof. Kent,

    How 18th Century English is parsed in 2009 can make a monument today out of yesterday’s pee (sic) soup! Read Jay’s quote more closely and with that eras’s vernacular imprisoning it’s interpretation. Jay’s key statement actually begins, “PERMIT me to HINT whether it would not be wise and timely……” (to require etc.)

    Both parts of his phrasing were over two hundred years ago, as they remain today, constructions of tentative form, (often termed “weasel words”) stating suggestions in a manner meekly indicating that as official consideration is given to the matter, his stated idea may or may not have merit, but should at least be “on the table” for another look. It is most likely that there was no consensus on this issue, and that the phrase Natural Born Citizen” was an ambiguous compromise that would let all disagreeing Framers find it an acceptable term of art, to achieve ratification from the hope that “each” of their mutually exclusive interpretations of the agreed upon term, would somehow prevail after the country got going. This is common procedure with Constitutions.

    John Jay’s private letter is insufficient evidence as proof for any exclusive interpretation of “Natural Born Citizen”. If you read his many assertively persuasive letters to Washington, this one appears to be only a mild suggestion.

    Benji Franklin

  69. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion November 28, 2009 at 1:40 pm #

    To paraphrase you, research will show that Obama hasn’t spent “over $1 million” to seal his records.

    Many of his records (birth, school, medical) are protected by privacy laws, the same laws that protect your birth, school, and medical records). As such, the costs of “sealing” those records are borne by the agency in question.

    If you’re quoting the claim that he spent “over $1 million” in court cases, you still don’t have any evidence or proof of such a thing. The vast majority of birther cases have been against state and federal officials rather against Obama himself. In such cases, the costs of defense have been borne by the taxpayer. (In some cases, court costs have been awarded, $425 in an Ohio case, $700 in Keyes v Bowen. In that case, the attorneys for Obama stated the work was done “pro bono”).

    However, in the interests of being fair, I’ll make the same request to you that I make of anyone bringing up the claim of “over $1 million”. What credible evidence do you have to support such a claim?

  70. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion November 28, 2009 at 1:42 pm #

    I will note the ad hominem attack doesn’t help your case any.

  71. avatar
    Expelliarmus November 28, 2009 at 3:41 pm #

    Samuel S. Kent, Ph.D., Prof (ret): Research will show that natural born citizen as intended by the Founding Fathers was restricted to a child born of 2 citizen parents in the US,

    Please cite ANY such research.

    Otherwise, why has Obama et al spent over $1 million to seal his records?

    He hasn’t. As far as I can tell, he hasn’t spent 1 dime to “seal” his records.

    Putting Ph.D. after your name doesn’t help when you spout easily refuted nonsense — on the contrary it just shows you to be a liar as well as a fool.

  72. avatar
    G November 28, 2009 at 4:43 pm #

    Nobody is running you fool. Keep on believing your delusions, if that helps you deal with your pathetic insecurities better.

    We may not be showing you much tolerance, but we’re definitely not running. Gee, you spew vapid and tired old dis-proven lies and rumors and all the responses either call you out or show you how wrong you are. Put up or shut up with your BS and tired claims, you nitwit!

    If I show you only disgust and no tolerance, it is because that is all your remarks have earned.

    If you are going to have to pathetically try to prove your intelligence by flaunting titles, then your remarks better not come across like a gullible, uneducated twit.

    So come on tough guy…are you just projecting and going to run away, or can you provide any valid source material to back up any of your laughable claims?

  73. avatar
    Greg November 28, 2009 at 5:17 pm #

    Where is your research that shows the phrase “natural born citizen” meant, to the Founders, one born to two citizens?

    Everything I have read suggests that the phrase “natural born,” was a legal phrase that meant, since the 1400s, one born within the borders unless the parents were ambassadors, sovereigns, or invading armies. From the 1500s on, the term took on the additional meaning of one born abroad to parents who were citizens. Thus, one could be born in France to British parents and become, by dint of English law, a natural born subject of England, and by French law, a natural born citizen of France.

    The term had been used this way universally in the colonies. Far from research suggesting that 2 citizen parents were required, I can’t find anything that requires that. Even Vattel’s treatise seems equivocal on the issue, since it doesn’t use the term “natural born” until 10 years after the Constitution was written, it acknowledged that Britain used a different system and the Founders didn’t adopt any other of Vattel’s conditions on citizenship.

    So, where’s the research?

  74. avatar
    nBc November 28, 2009 at 5:31 pm #

    Being a retired Prof has done little for you reasoning skills.

    Research will show that natural born citizen as intended by the Founding Fathers was restricted to a child born of 2 citizen parents in the US, and was grandfathered until 1795 to include any who had fought in the Revolution. The reason is obvious to the discerning reader, and this is the ultimate argument.

    In fact most research shows that it means born on US soil, regardless of the status of the parents. John Jay’s statement does not define the term either which must be found in how the term was used in those days. It is crispy clear that it was common law, referring to English Common Law which defined the term.

    I call your bluff ‘prof’…

  75. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 28, 2009 at 6:14 pm #

    “Will show” seems like wishful thinking.

  76. avatar
    NbC November 28, 2009 at 7:26 pm #

    Will See ;-)

  77. avatar
    Rickey November 28, 2009 at 7:28 pm #

    It’s both amusing and infuriating when a person makes a point of highlighting his title, even when the title has absolutely no relevance to the subject at hand.

    In the case of Samuel S. Kent, PhD., it turns out that he was a professor at the University of Vermont, in the Department of Microbiology and Biochemistry.

    I found this post where he supports repeal of Vermont’s property tax, in which he identifies himself as a retired professor from the University of Vermont. Scroll down to post 578:

    http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/revoltrepeal/revolt-12.html

    This article from 1984 identifies his area of expertise:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1066969/

    His posts here prove that a doctorate in science confers no special insight into Constitutional Law.

  78. avatar
    Scientist November 28, 2009 at 7:57 pm #

    For what it’s worth, I also have a PhD in biochemistry, though I seldom mention it unless it is directly relevant to the situation at hand. I try to use the scientific method and unbiased empiricism where applicable. The word “research” implies to me testing of hypotheses against actual facts.

    I also realize that knowledge and theories from the past must be discarded when no longer valid. I doubt that in his scientific work, Prof (Ret) Kent cited studies from 200 years on things like phlogiston or the ether that had long since been disproved. Why he would then consider a letter from 200 years ago, especially one open to many interpretations, to be the definitive word today is not clear to me.

  79. avatar
    Rickey November 28, 2009 at 8:18 pm #

    And of course as an ethical scientist you aren’t going to cherry pick evidence which supports your theory and disregard that which tends to disprove it, a rule of thumb which Professor Kent seems to have forgotten.

    My point is that adding the PhD to his posts seems to be his way of saying, “Look at me, I have a doctorate so my opinion is important.” If he had some expertise in the Constitution, he might have a point.

  80. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 28, 2009 at 10:03 pm #

    Me thinks the doctor has absquatulated.

  81. avatar
    G November 28, 2009 at 10:54 pm #

    We’ll see…although I bet he has scurried on to other, more “comforting” places, where like-minded zombies won’t call him out on his spew. His last post smacks of nothing but projection, which is a typical resort of an insecure, paranoid mind.