Main Menu

Department of State denies birther allegations

Hollister v. Soetoro

Strunk v. State

In a surprise move, the United States Departments of State and Homeland Security in an answer to FOIA lawsuit Strunk  v. U. S. Department of State denied essentially all of the birther allegations against President Obama’s eligibility! Here are excerpts from the  document filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia today:

To the extent this paragraph alleges that President Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States or is otherwise ineligible to serve as President of the United States, that allegation is denied.

To the extent this paragraph alleges that President Obama may be an illegal alien or that President Obama is or ever was a citizen of Indonesia, those allegations are denied.

To the extent this paragraph alleges that President Obama’s birth certificate has not been released to the public, that allegation is denied. To the extent this paragraph alleges that the birth certificate released to the public at the direction of President Obama is not a valid birth certificate or that such certificate is not sufficient proof of U.S. citizenship, those allegations are denied.

Specifically, Defendants deny that President Obama was born in Kenya or anywhere outside the state of Hawaii.

To the extent this paragraph alleges that Lolo Soetoro is or ever was President Obama’s father by birth or adoption, that allegation is denied. To the extent this paragraph alleges that President Obama is or ever was a practicing Muslim, that allegation is denied.

Strunk Answer

Print Friendly

, ,

132 Responses to Department of State denies birther allegations

  1. avatar
    Catbit April 23, 2009 at 9:01 pm #

    Anyone know where we can find a copy of the original/ammended complaint?

  2. avatar
    meson April 23, 2009 at 9:20 pm #

    That should raise the dander on the birfers pointy heads! Btw Doc do you adhere to copyright real strict like? I hope not b/c I just copied your whole post in this thread over at city-data dot com…

    http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/538365-barack-obama-birth-certificate-thread.html

  3. avatar
    meson April 23, 2009 at 9:43 pm #

    Never mind my question, it looks like I’m safe because I posted the link to your article.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 23, 2009 at 9:44 pm #

    No problemo.

  5. avatar
    mimi April 23, 2009 at 9:55 pm #

    Gee… seems like the Prez was born in Hawaii. Whoda thunk? lol

  6. avatar
    Bob April 24, 2009 at 1:07 am #

    It isn’t all that surprising that the government filed an answer because, unlike the other suits, Strunk (as does anyone else) does have standing to file a FOIA request, and to sue if that request isn’t honored.

  7. avatar
    kimba April 24, 2009 at 7:20 am #

    Dr C, attorneys, is it that DOS and DHS answered in more detail than they were required? That they gave specific answers regarding the BC, place of birth – not born in Kenya, never an Indonesian citizen, beyond what they might have been required to do? This seems really big, is it Really Big?

  8. avatar
    Catbit April 24, 2009 at 7:35 am #

    Thank you, Doc!

  9. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 24, 2009 at 7:47 am #

    No, the only significant thing is that they filed an answer. As Dr. C. Bob correctly notes, it is because the plaintiff does have standing to bring a FOIA lawsuit. Once an answer is filed, it has to be according the rules. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 8 b provides:

    (2) Denials — Responding to the Substance.

    A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the allegation.

    (3) General and Specific Denials.

    A party that intends in good faith to deny all the allegations of a pleading — including the jurisdictional grounds — may do so by a general denial. A party that does not intend to deny all the allegations must either specifically deny designated allegations or generally deny all except those specifically admitted.

    (4) Denying Part of an Allegation.

    A party that intends in good faith to deny only part of an allegation must admit the part that is true and deny the rest.

    See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule8.htm

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2009 at 8:31 am #

    Is it really big?

    Remember back to the original Berg v. Obama lawsuit: Obama didn’t answer specific allegations like these, but rather moved that the case be dismissed, which it was. Berg, et al. made a huge deal that by failing to answer the the allegations that Obama had “admitted” all of them, and you see various web sites with lists of things Obama “admitted”. Now while this was a big deal to some birthers, it was a total nothing, zero, as far as I was concerned. The case had been dismissed and so there was nothing to admit. Still it got traction.

    In this case, something was actually denied, not by default, but by explicit statement. So this is at least much bigger than the nonsense default admissions claimed by the birthers in Berg v. Obama.

    It is also really big in that a department of the US government has addressed the nonsense, and denied it. I think the publicity value within our small community is huge. Here no claims of “cover up” can be made; the issues were addressed head on.

    I am waiting to see what some of our lawyer friends here and elsewhere have to say about what it means precisely to “deny” an allegation.

    The US Department of State can speak authoritatively, for example, on the fact that the Birth Certificate Obama publicly showed is a sufficient proof of citizenship as to its form and content. Indeed, they almost certainly have a copy of Obama’s long form birth certificate in their passport application files (since Obama’s first passport application would have predated the COLB computer system)! They could have information from the Indonesian government not available to the general public that President Obama was never adopted by Lolo Soetoro and that Obama was never an Indonesian citizen.

    What the DOS has said is not evidence, but it is a head on denial of the nuttery.

  11. avatar
    kimba April 24, 2009 at 8:43 am #

    Thanks. If I may ask then if they made specific denials – Obama was never adopted by Soetoro, e.g. – in this kind of document, is it fair to assume they have information that supports that denial being truthful? Answers in a document like this must be truthful? Sorry for my legal ignorance. I’m anticipating the birther accusations that it’s lies, govt cover-up.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2009 at 8:50 am #

    In some cases, the government said: “Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph.”

    From this, and the rules cited above, I would conclude the the US Department of State has “knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief” “in good faith” that the allegations they deny are indeed false.

    Now I believe that this web site alone contains information or references to published sources sufficient to form a belief in good faith that those allegations are false. The Department of State obviously has information beyond what I have (e.g. Obama’s birth certificate attached to his passport application) to develop an even stronger belief.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2009 at 9:04 am #

    The statements must be made in good faith that they are truthful. They must have a good reason to believe they are true. But they could call up the White House and ask “was the President ever adopted in Indonesia?” and get an answer from some official over there “no”. That would be sufficient, I would think.

    On the other hand, they could not say in good faith that Obama was born in Hawaii if they had a birth certificate on file that said something contradictory.

    But you are right, the birthers will poo poo the entire thing.

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2009 at 9:06 am #

    Folks, if you cut and past this article elsewhere (and I encourage you to so do), it would nice if you posted half of the denials and provided a link here for the rest. That drives up my traffic, and perhaps gets folks to read the other articles.

    Just a suggestion.

  15. avatar
    Ian Gould April 24, 2009 at 9:11 am #

    “To the extent this paragraph alleges that President Obama is or ever was a practicing Muslim, that allegation is denied.”

    I find that a little troubling given the evidence that Obama did attend Koranic studies classes in Indonesia and take part, at least occasionally , in Friday prayers.

    The fact that he did those things doesn’t trouble me in the least, what bother me is that the State Department response appears to ignroe them,

  16. avatar
    Catbit April 24, 2009 at 9:22 am #

    Partaking in a specific faith is a personal choice and a personal act. One can attend Midnight Mass an yet that does not make him a Christian. I have visited many Bhuddist temples and partaken in the rituals, yet I am not a Bhuddist. Just because you may study and appreciate the faith and rituals of others does not mean you have to abandon your own faith to do so. So, unless President Obama has taken a public oath of allegience to Islam, then nobody has any right to declare him Muslim – just like nobody has any right to declare that I am not a Pastafarian.

    But it is disturbing that the response even gives the complaint credibility on the question by offering any answer at all. Nowhere in our constitution does it say our President must NOT be a muslim – or MUST be a member of any church or faith, for that matter. Unless the response was intended to further point out the rediculousness of the original complaint…..

  17. avatar
    Heavy April 24, 2009 at 9:50 am #

    Wow, the libs are celbrating a meaningless declaration. This is akin to a non-binding resoltion from Congress.

  18. avatar
    mimi April 24, 2009 at 10:15 am #

    Yeah. It’s not like the FOIA request went unanswered. Then… we could all say something like… oh… i don’t know… They admitted he was born in Kenya and then became an Indonesian citizen. Oh yeah… Berg already did that. And, it circled the intertubes as an admission.

    You’re right, Heavy. Now THAT would be something to talk about.

  19. avatar
    Patriot1776 April 24, 2009 at 11:12 am #

    Dr C,

    I posted at several sites last night, but the birfers can’t seem to comprehend the big paragraphs used.

    I had to re-post with short clear sentences:

    The U.S. Department Of State, and the U.S. Department Of Homeland
    Security report says:

    - Obama was born in Hawaii and is a U.S. “natural born” citizen and is eligible to serve as the United States President, pursuant to the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

    - President Obama is not an illegal alien and has never been a citizen of Indonesia.

    - President Obama was not born in Mombasa, Kenya.

    - President Obama’s birth certificate has been released to the public, is a valid birth certificate and it is
    sufficient proof of U.S. citizenship.

    - President Obama was not born in Kenya or anywhere outside the state of Hawaii.

  20. avatar
    Catbit April 24, 2009 at 11:22 am #

    ok, so he was born in the U.S. and is a natural born citizen. Fine.

    But he cannot be President because he flubbed the oath of office, and cannot retake it under the U.S. Double Indemnity laws… therefore.. HE IS A USERPER!!!

    (did I spell that right?)

  21. avatar
    allison April 24, 2009 at 11:59 am #

    Any chance someone can post this entire answer on scribd, for those of us who cannot open the pdf?

  22. avatar
    Heavy April 24, 2009 at 12:06 pm #

    Blather.

  23. avatar
    HistorianDude April 24, 2009 at 12:30 pm #

    Actually… it is more like a “shot across the bow.” The State Department specifically chose to answer specific allegations in specific ways, and it was not arbitrary.

    When they had no evidence by which to assert, aver or deny they wrote, “DOS (or DHS) lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the allegations in this paragraph.” They offered actual denials only in two circumstances, and explicitly distinguished between them:

    1. When the allegations were conclusions of law rather than factual.

    2. When the allegations were false, and they had “knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief.”

    Rather than “a meaningless declaration,” they have told us exactly what evidence they do or do not have… and Strunk would be wise to take them at their word.

  24. avatar
    HistorianDude April 24, 2009 at 12:32 pm #

    The most eloquent statement you have ever made on this blog.

  25. avatar
    HistorianDude April 24, 2009 at 12:37 pm #

    http://www.scribd.com/share/upload/11179700/j9eur3t6ztzmzylf0qn

  26. avatar
    richCares April 24, 2009 at 12:46 pm #

    you can download Acrobat Reader, it’s free! here’s a link:
    http://get.adobe.com/reader/

  27. avatar
    Chris April 24, 2009 at 1:06 pm #

    Honestly I’m surprised that meme hasn’t caught on with the tinfoil hat set. They’ve got some other great things going on at repubx, though. The birth announcement is forged! His HS basketball photo is photoshopped! He wasn’t born at all – he was cloned by Muslim dairy farmers!

  28. avatar
    HistorianDude April 24, 2009 at 1:10 pm #

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/14597639/Strunk-Answer

  29. avatar
    Patriot1776 April 24, 2009 at 1:12 pm #

    Is PACER required to get the original?

    Would it eventually show up here:

    https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Opinions.pl?2009

    Of course a birfer answer is that it is a PhotoShop by Dr.C…

  30. avatar
    richCares April 24, 2009 at 1:45 pm #

    (did I spell that right?)
    no, it’s USURPER
    however, this president was selected by a majority of voters, so being a USURPER would be an inaccurate statement! This of course makes the “Birthers” the real USURPERS, doesn’t it?

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2009 at 2:12 pm #

    Yes, that one point is a fly in the ointment, so to speak. As someone who claims to be an impartial reporter of evidence, I had to include it.

    To be a practicing Christian one would generally have to be baptized. One could go to church all they wanted and believe what was said, but to be an official “practicing Christian” one would have to do some particular things in line with the religion’s formal requirements. I went to synagogue once and wore a yarmulke, but that didn’t make me a practicing Jew.

    See: “How to become a Muslim“.

  32. avatar
    Patriot1776 April 24, 2009 at 2:19 pm #

    “This isn’t to say that she provided me with no religious instruction. In her mind, a working knowledge of the world’s great religions was a necessary part of any well-rounded education. In our household the Bible, the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita sat on theshelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology. On Easter or Christmas Day my mother might drag me to church, just as she dragged me to the Buddhist temple, the Chinese New Year celebration, the Shinto shrine, and ancient Hawaiian burial sites.” The Audacity of Hope

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2009 at 2:20 pm #

    I got mine from PACER. A few of the Birthers know how to use PACER. I doubt we’ll get photoshop claims on this one — it’s too easy to verify from official sources. It costs $1.12 if I recall right. When I downloaded it, the file extension was messed up. I had to rename the file by adding the .PDF extension.

    You won’t see it at https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Opinions.pl?2009 because it is not an opinion.

  34. avatar
    allison April 24, 2009 at 3:36 pm #

    WOW, you rock! Thank you very much!

  35. avatar
    allison April 24, 2009 at 3:42 pm #

    As usual, the birthers misunderstand many fundamental issues here.

    1) This document is an ANSWER to the complaint.

    2) This document is NOT a decicion of the court, but instead, part of the pleadings filed in the case.

    Not to mention, well, all the other things about law that they fundamentally misunderstand. That list is far to lengthy to post here.

  36. avatar
    Hitandrun April 24, 2009 at 3:59 pm #

    RichCares,
    In the Constitutional republic you’ve sworn to defend, a majority vote by itself (popular or electoral) would be irrelevant were the candidate otherwise ineligible. Were he such, Mr Obama would indeed be a usurper. THIS is the point at issue. We are not yet the mobocracy of richCares, though we may be on the way.
    Stay tuned.

    Hitandrun

  37. avatar
    kimba April 24, 2009 at 4:50 pm #

    I think “Usurper” is their substitute for a 6 letter word that starts with “N”.

  38. avatar
    richCares April 24, 2009 at 5:12 pm #

    “We are not yet the mobocracy of richCares”

    Seems you don’t know the election is over and Obama won, that’s OK, he will be president for the next 8 years, so can shout USUPER for 8 years, have fun.

  39. avatar
    NBC April 24, 2009 at 5:17 pm #

    A majority vote indeed makes the President not an usurper as the required steps were taken, in good faith, by the involved parties. In other words, the Obama is at least ‘de facto’ President, and even if he were later found to be ineligible, his policies and bills signed will retain their full legal standing.
    A usurper is someone who has taken a position without following the appropriate procedures and was not legally elected to the position.
    Now, the Birthers may argue that Obama is not a “de Jure” President because he has not shown to be eligible (on the other hand the evidence that shows him to be eligible appears to be much stronger than the (lack of) evidence to the contrary).
    There is no real difference between a Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Democracy as both are guided and bound by an underlying Constitution.
    I have never found the argument that we are not a democracy but rather a Constitutional Republic, to be somewhat lacking in reason and logic.

  40. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 24, 2009 at 7:04 pm #

    Of course it is truthful — it was a stupid and groundless claim in the first place.

    If I filed a lawsuit against Obama claiming that he was really born on the planet Vulcan and is 300 years old — and it was answered with a specific denial, it wouldn’t mean that the other side had some sort of paper certification in hand to prove that Obama was NOT born on Vulcan. You don’t need evidence to prove a negative.

    Obviously we have all seen Obama’s COLB and the US State Department has direct access to his passport files. (It is possible, though I don’t know, that the US Passport records would have a photocopy of the birth certificate submitted with the first application).

  41. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2009 at 7:30 pm #

    Whether they have a photocopy or not, the original was screened by experts when the application was filed. The State Department passport examiners ARE the most skilled US birth certificate verifiers anywhere.

    I had a vital records official show me a birth certificate once and say “there are 27 security features on this document”. I think she said something about some of them being publicly known and if she told me the others she’d have to kill me.

  42. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo April 24, 2009 at 10:16 pm #

    DOS and DHS aver: “To the extent this paragraph alleges that President Obama’s birth certificate has not been released to the public, that allegation is denied.”

    I guess we have a clear case of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

  43. avatar
    NBC April 25, 2009 at 12:08 am #

    I guess we have a clear case of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

    The COLB has the same legal relevance as the original (Birth Certificate). You should have known this little detail.

    HRS 338.19

    The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original.

    Oops… Back to the drawing board…

    PS: Does Apuzzo accept that the COLB was in fact released to the public and that it shows Obama’s city of birth was on US soil, Honolulu to be more exact?

    PS: Has Apuzzo corrected his ‘errors’ in his filings? I believe he said he was going to do so?

  44. avatar
    richCares April 25, 2009 at 12:09 am #

    Are you sure about that, remember the State Dept requires a BC to get a passport. Would you bet your life on that?

  45. avatar
    NBC April 25, 2009 at 1:51 am #

    Or a certification of live birth. Some states provide both, sometimes, as is the case with Hawaii, they provide a computer copy of the birth certificate.
    Of course, by Hawaii law, such documents have the same status as the originals, or photostatic copies of the originals. And the other States and the US government has to accept these documents as equivalent to Birth Certificates.
    Apuzzo however may not even want to accept the existence of the COLB and its status under Hawaiian law.

    Then again, he has far worse problems to deal with…

  46. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 25, 2009 at 7:03 am #

    I’m glad to see that the story is getting around.

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 25, 2009 at 7:06 am #

    Mr. Apuzzo, in the Kerchner lawsuit, has embraced pretty much all the theories as to why Obama is not eligible to be president. Rather than just a “birther” or an “nbc redefiner”, Mario Apuzzo is an omnivore, meaning that he’ll swallow anything.

    While I have goaded Mr. Apuzzo about removing embarrassing and obviously false claims (such as the notorious “travel ban to Pakistan”) in the Kerchner complaint, I have seen no admission from him that such statements are false, nor any commitment to amend the complaint to reduce the number of statements in it which are false, or which he cannot reasonably expect to prove.

    I think, however that Mr. Apuzzo has his cases confused: “falsus in omnibus” is Kerchner v. Obama, not the DOS response in Strunk v. US Dept of State.

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 25, 2009 at 7:07 am #

    While there are other proofs of citizenship that might be accepted, I don’t think they would apply in this case.

  49. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 25, 2009 at 7:10 am #

    Ron Polarik, for example, denies the existence of a real paper COLB.

  50. avatar
    NBC April 25, 2009 at 12:14 pm #

    That’s fascinating given the facts.

  51. avatar
    NBC April 25, 2009 at 12:16 pm #

    I think, however that Mr. Apuzzo has his cases confused: “falsus in omnibus” is Kerchner v. Obama, not the DOS response in Strunk v. US Dept of State.

    Ironic isn’t it… Of course, Apuzzo’s case is suffering from far worse problems than these examples of “inaccuracy”. Can’t wait for the Judge to dismiss this one. When are the filings due from the defendents?

  52. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 25, 2009 at 1:20 pm #

    Response due May 5, 2009.

  53. avatar
    Hitandrun April 25, 2009 at 1:37 pm #

    Forgive me, richCares, for attempting to engage you in serious discourse outside the Obot/Nobot box in which your mind is trapped. I’ll leave you to Heavy.

    Stay well,
    Hitandrun

  54. avatar
    NBC April 25, 2009 at 2:09 pm #

    Indeed, hitandrun does live up to his name…

  55. avatar
    richCares April 25, 2009 at 2:23 pm #

    yes, it’s humorous seeing him wallow in his delusions.

  56. avatar
    Hitandrun April 25, 2009 at 2:50 pm #

    Thank you, NBC.
    As you may have learned by now, each of your assertions regarding Presidential usurpation is arguable and in fact has been countered by various and sundry legal scholars. Even the ‘de facto’ argument (putting aside the question of its essential validity or invalidity) is held by many students of the issue as not applying to POTUS, subject as s/he is to specific Constitutional eligibility requirements.

    As for the distinction between ‘democracy’ and ‘republic’, what is “lacking” in your closing sentence is the word ‘Constitutional’ before “democracy”, which is the heart of the matter. The Constitution, at least as professed by its Framers, was designed to secure the inalienable rights of states and individuals (“the people”)even (some would say especially) against transient majorities. All officeholders in all branches of government were/are sworn to uphold our Covenant and secure those rights by actual or threatened checks within and across limited jurisdictions despite their separation.

    The problem, my friend, is that what began at the Constitution’s birth as jealously circumscribed islands of limited central government on a sea of liberty has now morphed into shrinking islands of liberty on a sea of government, as the exercise of those original rights have been and are being continually and unconstitutionally impeded, often using Orwellian sophistry. Such is the true meaning of eroded prerogatives like presentment and standing in our time.

    Regards,
    Hitandrun

  57. avatar
    Kevin Bellas April 25, 2009 at 3:57 pm #

    I find Mr. Mario Apuzzo is the best case study for this whole Birther cult. As soon as his case was filed he immediately put on his horse blinders and slid right into the echo chambers of The Mountain Goat/Momma E.

    I woundn’t be shocked if he was a close buddy with the goat before filing his case.

  58. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 25, 2009 at 5:18 pm #

    That something is “arguable” does not mean that there is a good or logical argument to be made.

    In the case of our Constitutional republic, there is specified framework to be followed in the selection of the President.

    The Constitution clearly provides a set of minimal qualifications to be President. But it does not specify exactly how those qualifications are to be demonstrated, or lay out any procedure for an official determination of whether such qualifications are met in the event of a dispute.

    However, the Constitution does set out in explicit detail how our Republic is to go about selecting and installing Presidents in office. The procedure is clear and the procedure has been followed to the letter: each state of the union chose electors according to their own rules for choosing them; the electors met on the appointed day in their respective states and voted; the vote was sent to Congress and certified; and the President-elect was subsequently inaugurated. Hence, the Constitution was followed.

    There is nothing in the Constitution that insulates our country from mistakes. Surely the Founding Fathers anticipated that the people might end up regretting their choice of Presidents, and they provided the “oops, wrong President” possibility by setting for procedures for Impeachment (in the event that the President was really, horribly bad)- and for re-election every 4 years in any case.

    The birthers are not arguing for the Constitution — they are arguing against it, because they want to change the Constitutional process on an ad hoc basis.

    Barack Obama is eligible to be President because the electoral college and Congress has determined him to be so. They are the institutions within our government charged with making that determination.

    Any other process is, by definition, unconstitutional.

  59. avatar
    NBC April 25, 2009 at 5:24 pm #

    HitandRun: Thank you, NBC.

    As you may have learned by now, each of your assertions regarding Presidential usurpation is arguable and in fact has been countered by various and sundry legal scholars.

    Born in the US: Natural Born citizen.

    These so-called ‘legal scholars’ seem to be somewhat unfamiliar with US Caselaw, and the Common Law history.

    Next…

  60. avatar
    NBC April 25, 2009 at 5:43 pm #

    See Usurper versus de-facto officer for a more in depth analysis.

    It’s the fact that President Obama was elected by the Electoral College and certified by Congress which makes him at least the de-facto president if not de-jure.
    You may argue that President Obama has not provided sufficient evidence to your liking as to his constitutional eligibility but that at best affects his de-jure status, if one wants to allow such void claims to be taken seriously in the first place.

    In other words:

    1. A majority of votes were cast for Obama electors
    2. A majority of electors voted for President Obama
    3. The Congres certified the elections and ruled him eligible to be President of the United States
    4. The President was sworn in as required by the Constitution.

    In simple terms: All required processes were followed. You may argue at best that errors were made, or flaws exist in the process, but that does not affect the nature of the election of our President.

    Now, the only process which remains is to have the President impeached for him to be removed.

    A Quo Warranto against a sitting President seems unsupportable by intent, case-law and historical discussions. Separation of the three powers comes to mind…

    So far the Courts seem to have agreed.

  61. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo April 25, 2009 at 11:21 pm #

    “HRS 338.19

    The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original.”

    First, that statute only applies if the original “by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of serious injury or destruction therof. . .” Do you know whether the original document is in that bad of shape?

    Second, that list does not include a digital image on a computer screen. Now lets have the copy produced for the Court to examine since no one else in any official position has seen it.

    Third, in light of the allegations by “experts” that the digital image of the COLB is a forgery, I submit that a litigant would be entitled to demand that an original be produced for examination. Now you might say, well how could such an “expert” determine that the COLB image is a forgery? Well, Mr. Obama prouduce only a digital image and therefore a litigant is entitled to attack that very digital image so produced. Hence, if Mr. Obama wants to establish that his birth certificate is real, then produce the real paper birth certificate so that it may be examined and the issue put to rest once and for all.

    Fourth, what copy are we talking about, copy of the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) or Certificate of Live Birth (BC). The same statute cited above does say that the department of health is authorized to make a copy of “any records and files in its office. . .” This would include making a copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth. Since we are talking about qualifying for the Office of President and Commander in Chief, I respectfully submit that Mr. Obama and Hawaii can at least produce a copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth or whatever other original birth certificate exists there for the American people and the rest of the world rather than relying on privacy laws to prevent the American people from properly vetting a Presidential candidate.

    Fifth, did DOS and DHS rely on Mr. Obama’s computer digital image COLB to make all the factual statements that they made in their Answer regarding Mr. Obama’s place of birth? I hope that they actually did a real investigation before providing the Court and the public with such answers. It would be a great public service if they would at least tell the American public that they did such a comprehensive investigation. That at least would put the birth place issue to rest.

    P.S. Please, no cat lady.

  62. avatar
    NBC April 25, 2009 at 11:41 pm #

    Mario tries:

    The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original.”

    First, that statute only applies if the original “by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of serious injury or destruction therof. . .” Do you know whether the original document is in that bad of shape?

    Where did you get this ‘requirement’ as it does not appear in the HRS338.19 statute. Perhaps from Broe v Reed, which failed miserably as well?

    Third, in light of the allegations by “experts” that the digital image of the COLB is a forgery, I submit that a litigant would be entitled to demand that an original be produced for examination. Now you might say, well how could such an “expert” determine that the COLB image is a forgery? Well, Mr. Obama prouduce only a digital image and therefore a litigant is entitled to attack that very digital image so produced. Hence, if Mr. Obama wants to establish that his birth certificate is real, then produce the real paper birth certificate so that it may be examined and the issue put to rest once and for all.

    Prima facia evidence requires more than a statement by the only real expert who stated that without access to the COLB, its status could not be established.

    Since we are talking about qualifying for the Office of President and Commander in Chief, I respectfully submit that Mr. Obama and Hawaii can at least produce a copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth or whatever other original birth certificate exists there for the American people and the rest of the world rather than relying on privacy laws to prevent the American people from properly vetting a Presidential candidate.

    Nonsense. The COLB is sufficient and your legal ‘arguments’ that this all for the American people and that the president has no protection from privacy laws exposes a more likely motive.

    The COLB is sufficient for qualification for office: ANd since it shows that President Obama was born on US soil, I suggest that you accept the facts.

    It would be a great public service if they would at least tell the American public that they did such a comprehensive investigation. That at least would put the birth place issue to rest.

    So now it’s a public service… So many things would be a great public service to a few who refuse to accept President Obama.
    The birth issue, for all practical purposes, has been laid to rest, although some seem to insist on reviving it at all cost and under a myriad of ‘explanations’.

    Speaking of law suits. Have you already updated your flawed filings per Dr Conspiracy’s suggestion?

  63. avatar
    NBC April 25, 2009 at 11:47 pm #

    Never mind,

    “which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of serious injury or destruction thereof”

    Geez…

    Apuzzo: Do you know whether the original document is in that bad of shape?

    Does it matter? The Department of Hawaii’s copies whether photostatic or typewritten (such as computer generated forms) have the same force and effect as the original. All they need to claim is “otherwise in such a condition that they cannot be conveniently consulted.”

    Regardless, the COLB shows the place of birth to be Honolulu, a fact you seem unwilling to address.

    §338-19 Photostatic or typewritten copies of records. The department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office, which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of serious injury or destruction thereof, and to certify to the correctness of such copies. The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original. [L 1949, c 327, §23; RL 1955, §57-22; am L 1957, c 8, §1; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-19]

  64. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 26, 2009 at 12:22 am #

    First: I agree that HRS 338.19 is extremely unlikely to be applicable. These are the relevant statutes:

    §338-12 Evidentiary character of certificates. Certificates filed within thirty days after the time prescribed therefor shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.

    §338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

    (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

    (c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

    Emphasis added.

    Second: the statute cited above covers computer printout. Now apply the “smell test”. Why would the standard document Hawaii provides, one that says “prima facie evidence” on the front of it, that isn’t valid for anything? Of course you referred to a digital image, but in court we’d be looking at paper. When we’re on the Internet, everything is digital images. Hawaiian law doesn’t apply to the Internet, and the Internet is not a court. So it doesn’t make sense to conflate an Internet discussion with a trial in court. The presumption for the Internet is that the COLB image, both the campaign-scanned and the independently photographed versions, depict what the court would see when they look at the physical certified copy.

    Third: I have no idea what you are talking about. I don’t know of any expert ever in any published source that has suggested any reason to conclude that the COLB is a forgery. I read a lot, and surely cover the Obama Conspiracy field as well as almost anyone alive. Surely I would have heard if a an expert had said such a thing. But upon reading, I see you put “expert” in quotation marks, so perhaps you were referring to someone pretending to be an “expert” (forgeries of experts). In any case, we probably agree that in the event someone did have standing to bring an action in a court with jurisdiction and that the place of Obama’s birth were material to the case, that the evidence required would be the COLB, and not a picture of it. There is no reason a COLB could not be produced handily.

    Fourth: I see no valid reason for the American people to want or need to see a certified copy of Obama’s long form certificate when they have already seen a certified copy of his short form certificate. While most Americans have not seen, nor ever will see, the actual physical version of either, most Americans, including the members of Congress are satisfied at what they have seen and the testimony of reliable witnesses who have seen the physical version of the certified short form copy (COLB). The only reason I can see for asking for a copy of the long form is that asking and not receiving has smear value. Before the COLB, people were just asking for any birth certificate. For smear purposes, always demand whatever you don’t have.

    Fifth: We don’t know how the DOS and DHS arrived at their good faith denials. But there is a reasonable basis to conclude that if such an investigation were made and announced, it would not result in Mr. Kerchner withdrawing his lawsuit, not the matter put to rest much of anywhere else.

  65. avatar
    NBC April 26, 2009 at 12:34 am #

    Thanks Dr C, I got my HRS’es messed up. Sorry for the confusion

  66. avatar
    Zuzu April 26, 2009 at 1:17 am #

    I assume they include the denial (to the extent they have knowledge) because the paragraph included a reference to Obama’s school registration specfifying “Islam” as his religion.

  67. avatar
    Zuzu April 26, 2009 at 1:21 am #

    You are wrong and richCares is right.

    You were provided with the links to the legal definition of the term “usurper” in another thread, and you looked it up and commented on it. I suggest you go back and look again.

  68. avatar
    NBC April 26, 2009 at 1:22 am #

    It’s hard to believe that Obama made this statement. So it was either his step-father or the school assumed as much.
    Either way the term practicing Muslim means more than having your step-father consider you to be one.

  69. avatar
    Zuzu April 26, 2009 at 1:23 am #

    That last was a response to Hitandrun @3:59.

  70. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 26, 2009 at 1:24 am #

    Fifth: We don’t know how the DOS and DHS arrived at their good faith denials.

    Obviously, the DOS has all the information it needs ON FILE with Obama’s passport records.

    I find it ironic that Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State. Does anyone seriously believe that a President who had anything to fear pertaining to his citizenship status would put his biggest rival in charge of the very records that are kept by the US Government for the purpose of validating citizenship?

  71. avatar
    Zuzu April 26, 2009 at 1:25 am #

    Hitandrun says:
    April 25, 2009 at 2:50 pm

    Thank you, NBC.
    As you may have learned by now, each of your assertions regarding Presidential usurpation is arguable and in fact has been countered by various and sundry legal scholars. Even the de facto’ argument (putting aside the question of its essential validity or invalidity) is held by many students of the issue as not applying to POTUS, subject as s/he is to specific Constitutional eligibility requirements.

    —————————–

    Cite your sources, Hitandrun.

    Be specific.

  72. avatar
    NBC April 26, 2009 at 1:39 am #

    Calling his hand, well done. Time to put the ‘cards on the table’… All in?

  73. avatar
    Zuzu April 26, 2009 at 1:54 am #

    What so many fail to understand is that the doctrine of de facto office holding exists for the protection of the public and third parties relying on the acts of the officer in question.

    For example:

    The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.” 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted).

    RYDER v. UNITED STATES

  74. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 26, 2009 at 3:22 am #

    You have to keep in mind that the laws in Indonesia require that a religion be stated on identity documents, but recognize only 5 official religions. So a person could not enroll in school in Indonesia and write “Jewish” on the enrollment form, Judaism isn’t one of the 5 recognized religions. The person can’t be “Mormon” because that is not one of the 5 recognized religions. The person can’t be Sikh, because that is not one of the 5 recognized religions.

    In Indonesia, the only religions that officially exist are Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Hinduism and Buddhism. (“None of the above” is not an option either).

    Indonesia also does not allow interfaith marriage, so when Lolo married Ann, she ostensibly took on his religion — whether she observed it or not. See: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2005/04/24/marriage-outside-five-religions-illegal-indonesia.html?1

  75. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 26, 2009 at 7:01 am #

    Now I’m really in a quandary here. Do I want Apuzzo to amend his case and remove the travel ban to Pakistan, thereby letting me write a feature article: “Birther Lawyer withdraws bogus claim” but delaying the case being ruled on? Or would I rather the the court proceed with all due speed so I can write the feature article: “Kerchner dismissed, Apuzzo appeals”?. I think I would rather the second.

  76. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 26, 2009 at 7:34 am #

    Apuzzo can’t amend again without getting leave of court or consent of the defendants. See FRCP 15.

  77. avatar
    richCares April 26, 2009 at 12:39 pm #

    Cite your sources, Hitandrun.””
    You are asking the impossible, now how can he do that?

  78. avatar
    The Race April 27, 2009 at 1:47 am #

    Watch and learn about the Citizens movement to jail and impeach Barack Hussein Obama for high crimes against the states, while the criminal media and the corrupt United States Supreme court are all involved in this criminal conspiracy and cult fraud. The revolution is NOW.

    This website is a total FRAUD.

  79. avatar
    The Race April 27, 2009 at 1:48 am #

    Watch and learn about the Citizens movement to jail and impeach Barack Hussein Obama for high crimes against the states, while the criminal media and the corrupt United States Supreme court are all involved in this criminal conspiracy and cult fraud. The revolution is NOW.

  80. avatar
    NBC April 27, 2009 at 3:07 am #

    Why do you think that the so called ‘Citizens Movement’ can jail and impeach President Obama for crimes against the states? Impeachment is only possible via the Congress and jailing a President, well.. Good Luck.
    You are right, you are talking revolutionary language which seems to reject the Constitution in favor of conspiracy.

    Interesting

  81. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 27, 2009 at 7:12 am #

    Well Race, I really try to make this web site as fair and accurate as I can. While I can’t deal with “total fraud”, I’d be happy to look into any particular thing you find in error.

    (I assume by “watch and learn” that the writer refers to the YouTube video web site linked to his name.)

  82. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 27, 2009 at 7:18 am #

    I watched the video. A bunch of folks that really don’t like Obama. They don’t seem to have a clue about specifics, just that there is a “mound of evidence” which they must have gotten from web sites because the mainstream media is “covering it up”.

    While one can’t say the media is always free from bias, at least there is some filtering against outright lies which does not exist for web sites.

  83. avatar
    Heavy April 27, 2009 at 9:19 am #

    Really? Why do you libs keep playing the race card? Don’t you see how utterly weak it makes your already weak arguments?

    The left are the ONLY ones to bring up race in the election. They have NOTHING else to stand on.

  84. avatar
    Heavy April 27, 2009 at 9:22 am #

    Thanks, Hysterical dude. I love how WE get branded as name callers when it is owned by the left. Oh, I’m sorry. Was that a RACIST statement?

  85. avatar
    richCares April 27, 2009 at 9:25 am #

    must be satire, no one can be as dumb as this guy portrays

  86. avatar
    Gordon April 29, 2009 at 3:14 am #

    No that guy is representative of a lot of fruitcakes out there.

  87. avatar
    ch April 29, 2009 at 11:08 pm #

    Does the denial that Obama was adopted mean that his mother lied to the school, to sneak her child into the system, sort of a family pattern? He is listed on the school registration as Barry Soetoro, which is a fraudulent student enrollment. He should have been Barry Obama, correct? This gets a wee bit confusing! Dr. Conspiracy, you are so knowledgeable about Obama, why is he sealing regular documents like college applications and passports? If the State Department is denying, what proof have they brought forth? Action speaks louder than words, and I think the passports and college applications and birth certificates would speak louder than hearsay.

  88. avatar
    richCares April 30, 2009 at 1:11 am #

    “why is he sealing regular documents like college applications and passports”

    Birthers just make stuff up!

  89. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2009 at 6:46 am #

    Most likely it was Lolo Soetoro who enrolled Obama in school. I can only speculate why he registered Obama under his name, but it doesn’t seem too odd. You used the word “sneak” and “fraud” but it could just as well be social custom or vanity. However, under Indonesian law, Obama couldn’t have become a citizen of Indonesia even though he were adopted.

    Passports are sealed by law and college records are not public either. Obama hasn’t “sealed” them; he just has not chosen to make them public. Giving more fodder for the irresponsible fantasies of the Obama deniers would seem to be more than sufficient reason not to release information.

  90. avatar
    Heavy April 30, 2009 at 9:09 am #

    Irresponsible? Come now, doc. YOU are the irresponsible one! YOU have, personally, done everything in your power to prevent the American people from getting to the truth. YOU and your ilk are what is wrong wuth this country.

    Seeking the truth is NOT irresponsible. Keeping peole from it IS. You owe America an apology!

  91. avatar
    Heavy April 30, 2009 at 9:11 am #

    Do they, now? HE HAS not made ANY records available. YOU are a LIAR and a coward!

  92. avatar
    richCares April 30, 2009 at 10:19 am #

    this coward served as a US Marine (a proud US Marine), another coward, Gen Jim Jones USMC is currently serving as Obama’s National Security chief. Now which branch of the service did the brave mayor of Hatesville serve?

    A birther neighbor found out he has a grandson, the kid is 2 yrs old. Why wasn’t he told sooner “I don’t want my child to grow up with the kind of hate I had to bear from you” was the son’s answer.

  93. avatar
    Heavy April 30, 2009 at 10:35 am #

    Richie, if you truly are a Marine, I thank you for your service to our great country. I also find it very hard to believe you can look at yourself in the mirror.

    Your unabashed, blind support of a usurper flies in the face of wisdom and EVERYTHING i’ve come to understand Marines to stand for.

    Sounds like your neighbor is not a very good father and his son even worse.

    So keep flapping your gums and dishonoring the Marines. Karma does catch up to everyone and it is a bitch!

  94. avatar
    richCares April 30, 2009 at 11:01 am #

    if you said “dishonoring the Marines” to my face, you would have a very sore rear end. Semper Fi means a lot to me and to all Marines, we served our country with pride and don’t need an ignorant name caller like you projecting his hate. Don’t project your ignorant hate on to others. When they put you in the asylum you can shout “it’s a bitch”.

  95. avatar
    Heavy April 30, 2009 at 11:30 am #

    Ok, tough guy,

  96. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2009 at 11:55 am #

    Heavy, if the truth involves seeing the long form birth certificate, then the truth will be determined by Congress or some court somewhere. I have done nothing that will in any way influence whether the long form is produced or not. I have provided accurate information, and exercised my free speech. I suggest that this is not something “wrong with the country”.

  97. avatar
    richCares April 30, 2009 at 12:10 pm #

    what you are doing is “what is right for the country”, Thank You!

  98. avatar
    Heavy April 30, 2009 at 12:20 pm #

    I think that working as hard as you do to defend this guy does the country a GREAT disservice. If you can’t see that, well that is the problem.

    Have you EVER questioned his legitimacy?

  99. avatar
    Gordon April 30, 2009 at 4:48 pm #

    You really take it personal because people don’t get your twisted view of this subject.

  100. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 30, 2009 at 5:16 pm #

    It’s pretty common all over the world, including in the US, for children in extended families to use the last name of their step-fathers without formal adoption. Sometimes they later revert to their original name, sometimes not.

    You don’t have to look far to find examples. William Jefferson Blythe III started using the name “Clinton” in early childhood after his mother married Roger Clinton (when he was about age 4) – but he did not formally change his name until age 14, and there is no record of his ever being adopted by Roger Clinton. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#Early_life

  101. avatar
    Cymraeg April 30, 2009 at 5:20 pm #

    Heavy:

    When are you going to stop repeating over and over that barefaced false twaddle that Tovarich Taitz et.al. keep barfing up.
    Have you ever questioned all that hogwash you keep passing out as the truth?

  102. avatar
    Heavy April 30, 2009 at 7:18 pm #

    Yes, Gordo, I do take it personally. So should you! If you are happy with the Presidency being stolen, that’s your problem. I, on the other hand, take this VERY personally and am fighting back.

  103. avatar
    richCares April 30, 2009 at 7:24 pm #

    “If you are happy with the Presidency…”
    we are happy with the presidency and it was not stolen (only in the mind of a Birther)

    100 days so far, good press conerence, what will the Birther say at th 200 days, or 300 days? How long will your delusion last?

    you don’t like Obama, that’s fine, but stop calling Americans Traitors and Cowards, you may get whacked! You have a different viewpoint, one that I don’t share but I never called you a Traitor or Coward, so knock it off, especially if you wish to get any respect here.

  104. avatar
    Heavy April 30, 2009 at 7:46 pm #

    Respect from the likes of you I can do without. I might get whacked? By whom?

    See, I had made such a bone-headed remark, you libs would be saying that it was a threat. Because liberals, by definition, are COWARDS. But I know that you did not threaten me.

    Make no mistake, this is not just a disagreement. This is a war. A war declared on America by the left. A war they CANNOT win. You may have won the battle…Well you know the rest.

  105. avatar
    richCares April 30, 2009 at 7:52 pm #

    you also have to consider the Jews in America, they went 77% for Obama, The military went 55% for Obama,you certainly have a lot of cowards to face. By the way, your constant use of “you liberals” is a sign of a complete A__hole, self identified! Be brave dumb shit, be brave, your war will lead to a padded cell! Your delusions are no fun!

  106. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2009 at 8:33 pm #

    The only two demographics that went for McCain were white guys without college degrees and old people.

  107. avatar
    Heavy April 30, 2009 at 8:56 pm #

    We’ll see, richie, we’ll see.

  108. avatar
    Heavy April 30, 2009 at 8:57 pm #

    They thought that their messiah was legit. He is not.

  109. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2009 at 9:45 pm #

    Obama is my president; Jesus is my messiah.

  110. avatar
    Mary Brown April 30, 2009 at 10:55 pm #

    Thank you, Dr. Conspiracy. But I found out on Plains Radio that these folks cannot believe anyone could put faith in God and acceptance of the Obama Presidency together.

  111. avatar
    Gordon May 2, 2009 at 1:42 am #

    The 2000 election was stolen and believe me I am over it, had to get over it in order to work for some positive change.

  112. avatar
    No Free Lunch May 19, 2009 at 6:02 pm #

    Below are two official emails that dispute the public version of Obama’s Birth and his mother’s marriage to BHO Sr.

    From: pubrec@u.washington.edu [mailto:pubrec@u.washington.edu]
    Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008
    Subject: Re: Stanley “Ann” Dunham 1960 to 1970 class registration

    Ms. Stanley Ann Dunham (BHO II’s mom) was enrolled at the University of Washington for:

    Autumn 1961
    Winter 1962
    Spring 1962

    The records responsive to your request from the University of Washington are above as provided by the Public Disclosure Laws of Washington State. This concludes the University’s response to your Public Records request. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or concerns.

    Madolyne Lawson
    Office of Public Records
    206-543-9180

    From: Stuart Lau [mailto:stuartl@hawaii.edu]
    Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008
    Subject: Re: Inquiry

    The University of Hawaii at Manoa is only able to provide the following information for Stanley Ann Dunham:
    Dates of attendance:
    Fall 1960 (First day of instruction 9/26/1960)
    Spring 1963 – Summer 1966
    Fall 1972 – Fall 1974
    Summer 1976
    Spring 1978
    Fall 1984 – Summer 1992

    Degrees awarded:
    BA – Mathematics, Summer 1967 (August 6, 1967)
    MA – Anthropology, Fall 1983 (December 18, 1983)
    PhD – Anthropology, Summer 1992 (August 9, 1992)

    Sincerely, Stuart Lau
    ****************************************
    Stuart Lau
    University Registrar
    Office of Admissions and Records
    University of Hawaii at Manoa
    Ph: (808) 956-8010
    ****************************************

    Commentary on University Emails:

    For the BHO II Hawaiian Aug 4 1961 COLB to be accurate the following improbable events needed to occur:

    1 month after starting classes, Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack’s mom, at age 17, got pregnant by the only black African man on the entire chain of Hawaiian islands.
    2 months after getting pregnant, she drops out of college.
    3 months after getting pregnant, she marries BHO Sr.
    10 months after her first day at the U of HI, she delivers BHO II and immediately leaves her parents, her new husband, and her home, to fly alone with a newborn 2800 miles to Seattle to start college at the U of W.
    Stanley Ann Dunham does not return to Hawaii until AFTER BHO Sr left the islands for Harvard.

    This is an implausible series of events made even more nefarious because Obama II in his 2 bio books never mentions his mom left Hawaii when she was married to BHO Sr, nor does he mention she was in Washington State during this time.

  113. avatar
    NBC May 19, 2009 at 6:47 pm #

    This information was pretty well known. Yes, soon after birth of Obama, Dunham visited Mercer Island with Barack and then returned to attend University of Washington until 1962. When she returned, BO Sr had left for his new position.
    I believe that she left Barack Jr with her parents after birth, although I am not sure on that one.

    So where is the smoking gun? And since Obama was a new born, his recollection may not have been perfect.

    Geez…

  114. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 20, 2009 at 1:21 am #

    Have you ever seen an reliable source for either of those alleged emails? I’ve never seen one. I emailed the Washington State University public records office to verify.

  115. avatar
    Cee Cee May 20, 2009 at 1:52 am #

    What I find interesting is that the person admits that President Obama was born in Hawaii.

    lol

    So what if she left Hawaii after giving birth and going to school.

    That just shows that she didn’t want to give up her dreams of getting a degree.

    We see Obama gets his determination to succeed from both parents.

  116. avatar
    Cee Cee May 20, 2009 at 1:58 am #

    How do you know she attended any classes in Autumn 1961 just because someone is registered doesn’t me they attended?

    She could have planed to attend in the Autumn but instead decided not to.

  117. avatar
    NBC May 20, 2009 at 9:36 pm #

    From Obama’s Dreams from my father

    At the point where my own memories begin, my mother had
    already begun a courtship with the man who would become her second husband, and I sensed without explanation why
    the photographs had to be stored away.

    As I expected, one cannot expect a newborn to remember his early years.

  118. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 21, 2009 at 8:03 am #

    I have been in touch with Madolyne Lawson of the University of Washington and Stuart Lau at the University of Hawaii and confirmed the authenticity and accuracy (almost) of the information in the preceding email copies. The variance in accuracy is:

    Summer 1976 should be Second Summer 1976
    Summer 1992 should be Second Summer 1992

    The University of Hawaii at Manoa offered two sessions during the summer.

    Looking at the Washington State Open Records Law and the Federal FERPA regulations, we’re probably not going to get anything else from the Universities from public records.

    What is curious is that Obama’s mother registered at UW as “Stanley Ann Dunham” and not “Stanley Ann Obama”.

    However “No Free Lunch” is not particularly accurate when saying: “she delivers BHO II and immediately leaves her parents, her new husband, and her home, to fly alone with a newborn 2800 miles to Seattle to start college at the U of W.” August 4 to September 26 is not “immediate”.

    I personally think one can hardly get much lower than attacking someone’s deceased mother.

  119. avatar
    Zuzu June 6, 2009 at 1:39 pm #

    If anyone has an interest, I’m having an exchange with Texas Darlin’ on this very topic (thanks to Dr. C’s excellent sourcing).

    http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/red-herring-alert-it-is-not-the-birth-certificate/#comment-91332

    I also linked to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to support my comments.

  120. avatar
    Zuzu June 6, 2009 at 2:21 pm #

    First of all, BHO Sr. was most certainly not “the only black African man on the entire chain of Hawaiian islands.” If common sense doesn’t tell you that, you can ask someone who was there:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/hollister-dismissed-hemenway-reprimanded/comment-page-4/#comment-7165

    It’s interesting that you find it “implausible” that Ann Dunham married Obama’s father, gave birth, and subsequently visited the state of Washington a month later, but you seemingly find it completely plausible that:

    An 18-year-old student left her parents and doctor late in her pregnancy to travel half way round the world with a man she barely knew, to give birth in a third-world country; and a month after that flew to Washington State.

    And that Obama’s father – a poor student – would insist on taking his pregnant 18-year-old wife half way around the world to meet his family (and his other wife and child), who lived on the other side of Kenya, hundreds of miles from the only hospital in which she could give birth. And then leave her after she gave birth.

    That is one plausible scenario!

  121. avatar
    Zuzu June 6, 2009 at 2:45 pm #

    Well, it seems that TD has now banned me from posting. In case my previously posted comments are also deleted, I’ll post the exchange here, for posterity’s sake:

    texasdarlin [to smrstrauss]

    First, I agree with you that Americans could travel to Pakistan.

    But how do you know which passport Obama used? You state this as fact as if you have some kind of insider information. Who are you? Have you seen Obama’s US passport?

    How do you know Obama never had an Indonesian passport? You state this, also, as fact. You suggest that you called the “Indonesian embassy.” Did you? Which one? Who did you talk to? Give us a name and number so we can verify your statement of “fact,” please.

    Otherwise you just look like what I suspect you are. A troll.

    ——————–
    *
    on June 6, 2009 at 4:11 am | Reply

    Zuzu

    Well, for one thing, the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, which do have access to those records, have stated unequivocally that Obama was NOT adopted by Lolo Soretero, was never an Indonesian citizen, and did NOT hold an Indonesian passport.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/department-of-state-denies-birther-allegations/#more-3257

    —————-

    o
    on June 6, 2009 at 9:15 am | Reply

    texasdarlin

    I hate to burst your bubble, but that’s a standard legal Reply. There’s no “there” there.

    ———————

    +
    on June 6, 2009 at 1:13 pm | Reply

    Zuzu

    The format of the answer is “standard.” If the content had no substantive value, filing an answer would be meaningless.

    The federal rule requires that an answer to a complaint respond to each allegation made in the complaint, by stating the answering party’s defenses to each claim asserted against it, and admit or deny the allegations asserted against it by an opposing party.

    A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the allegation and must be made in good faith; if the party lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of an allegation, that party must say so, and that statement has the effect of a denial.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule8.htm

    You will note that the State Department and Department of Homeland Security did not simply state that they lacked the knowledge or information needed to ascertain the truth of the allegations described above, but that they specifically DENIED the allegations.

    Please also note that the federal rules specify that by filing an answer, the filing party certifies that any denials of factual contentions made in the answer “are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.” And any violation of that rule subjects the party to sanctions.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm

    ————————

    +
    on June 6, 2009 at 1:36 pm | Reply

    dkw

    TD
    They’re coming out of the woodwork!

    —————————-

    #
    on June 6, 2009 at 1:44 pm | Reply

    texasdarlin

    It is funny, isn’t it? On the one hand, they mock “birthers” and call us crazies. On the other hand, they take the time to post long legal explanations and citations.

    LOL

    ————————————–

    *
    on June 6, 2009 at 1:53 pm | Reply

    Zuzu
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Yes, I took the time to research my answer and provide you with accurate information.

    Would you prefer not to have accurate information?

  122. avatar
    thisoldhippie June 6, 2009 at 3:27 pm #

    Your comments are still there. I love the way they think that President Obama has another BC from his “adoption.” If that were the fact then he would never have been able to get a COLB because the information would have been sealed – even for him.

  123. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 6, 2009 at 3:28 pm #

    I wouldn’t make too big a deal of these denials. While they are what they say they are, and they must be made in good faith, I would point out that any rational person could deny the same things from the information in the public record, and not need to rely on any private Department of State records. What this does tell us is that the DOS lawyers do not have any information which confirms what they are denying.

  124. avatar
    thisoldhippie June 6, 2009 at 3:30 pm #

    I’m waiting on “moderation” for this comment at TD:

    When a child is legally adopted and a new BC is issued, all info on the original BC is sealed and is not accessible – even by the adult progeny. There is no evidence of an adoption by Soetoro. This is just internet fantasy and speculation.

  125. avatar
    Zuzu June 6, 2009 at 3:40 pm #

    Well, the comment that was “in moderation” never appeared, and two more after that never made it past the “submit” stage.

    I’d submitted an earlier, long answer to someone talking about Obama’s health records and transcripts, and assumed it hadn’t appeared because of a glitch. It’s odd which ones TD will let through and which ones she’ll vaporize.

  126. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 6, 2009 at 4:13 pm #

    If a Hawaiian-born American were to be adopted in Indonesia, that fact would not be reflected in Hawaiian records unless someone went to a lot of trouble to file paperwork in the United States. As a general rule, a person has only one accessible birth certificate. So whatever Obama got from Hawaii in 2007 is the ONLY thing he could have gotten from Hawaii in 2007.

    The birthers come up with more and more implausible convoluted scenarios to allow them to believe something that they have no reason to believe happened.

  127. avatar
    Zuzu June 6, 2009 at 5:03 pm #

    Okay, TD has now posted my comments, explaining that she did not have time to sit at the computer and read everything when it came in.

    I hope she’ll post my responses, as she said she was “ending this exchange” with me. I assume that’s not the same as being banned.

  128. avatar
    Zuzu June 9, 2009 at 2:55 am #

    Well, they must be made in good faith and also supported by evidence. If a party does not have sufficient information to form a belief about an assertion, the party may simple say so, and that serves as a denial.

    It is true that there is plenty in the public record that can be relied on for evidence, but a specific denial that, for example, Obama was ever adopted by Soetoro or that he ever became an Indonesian citizen would seem to require evidence beyond Obama’s biography, etc.

  129. avatar
    Zuzu June 9, 2009 at 2:57 am #

    Nope, she didn’t post my responses, despite the fact that I submitted them long before she closed the comments.

    Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

  130. avatar
    Northland10 March 21, 2010 at 6:33 pm #

    It looks like the Judge Leon a dismissed some of the issues in Strunk v. Department of State (including a denial for his writ of mandamus)

    https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv2234-30

    In and unrelated matter, he also was dismissed in his Census 2010 suit.

    https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Opinions.pl?2010

    Please feel to correct me if I misstated something here. The end of Lent for a church musician can be a little hard on the thinking skills.

    [Strunk documents from Jack Ryan collection on Scribd:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/28663601/BERG-v-OBAMA-FCA-APPEAL-Appellee-Brief-Transport-Room
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/28458255/Strunk-v-Dept-of-State-DC-Ct-Appeal-Writ-of-Mandamus-Denied
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/28457844/Strunk-v-Dept-of-State-et-al-ORDER-Dismissing-Case-as-to-Obama-31-2010-03-16

    Doc.]

333333 44444
5555555
6666666