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.