On Friday (September 4, 2009), two things happened in the Barnett v Obama case in the Federal District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. [This is the case formerly known as Keyes v Obama.] First Orly Taitz filed the Lucas Smith affidavit with what he claims is an attached Kenyan Birth Certificate for Barack Obama, and second the government moved to dismiss the case.
Now we have a “still” picture of the alleged birth certificate in addition to the swooping and wobbling video that appeared on YouTube.
We also have what appears for all intents and purposes to be an affidavit from Smith swearing that he got this in Kenya from the hospital in Mombasa. The affidavit is here and its signature page is here. I would appreciate a comment from one of the visiting lawyers as to whether this affidavit is legal as to form, and whether the signer would be guilty of perjury should it prove to be false. I note that there is no witness to the signature. In the past no one providing this kind of evidence has signed their real name except private detective Jorge Baro who signed his statement, although it was not notarized or witnessed.
My impressions of the document
The first question to ask is “what are we looking at”? There are two kinds of birth certificates: hospital-issued souvenirs (without legal significance) and government-issued certified copies (with legal standing). The document we’re discussing here seems to be a cross between the two. On the one hand it purports to be issued by the hospital, signed by a hospital-titled person, and lacks legal attributes such as the parent’s signature and adds a baby footprint. On the other hand it purports to be a legal document, having a certificate number, a seal, and to have been “issued” this year, attributes of a “certified copy.” But a certified copy of a souvenir makes no sense, and the document presented seems neither fish nor fowl. There are also internal objections.
- I find it utterly amazing that the date and time of birth (August 4, 1961 7:24 PM) is identical between the Kenyan birth certificate and the Hawaiian birth certificate. Clearly one was copied from the other. Copying Hawaiian to make Kenyan is trivially easy, since the Hawaiian exemplar has been available for a year. For the copying to have gone the other way, a nearly impossible chain of time-critical events would have to have happened. There is simply no way Ann Obama could have arrived back in Hawaii by August 8 given the fact that Mombasa had no international airport, the trip from Nairobi to Mombasa was an all-day affair, the air flights to Hawaii in 1961 would themselves have spanned 3 days, and she had just had a baby! The logistics of pulling that off strain credulity. This is especially impossible sounding given the usual story (pure fantasy) that the Kenyan birth was unplanned. If they were going to fake the birth in Hawaii, it would have been much easier to pick a later date, giving mother and baby time to get home, figure out that they wanted to commit fraud and then figure out how to do it. The way I see it, using the real dates of birth on the fake Kenyan certificate was a colossal blunder. [I am going to call it a fake because all other evidence shows Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.]
- The certificate bears the seal of the hospital. A seal signifies a certified copy. Generally hospitals don’t issue certified copies, jurisdictions do. The seal should be that of the government of Kenya (or the district), not the hospital.
- WorldNetDaily says they have a real Kenyan birth certificate from the time period, and this one doesn’t look the one they published. This is not a fatal error because the WND document is a real government-issued birth certificate, while the Lucas document would be closer to a forged hospital souvenir.
- I also find very suspicious that the signature has the pre-printed title “Supervisor of Obstetrics” when there are all sorts of conditions with someone else might sign the form. In pretty much any real form, the title of the signer is a blank to fill in. For example, an example from South Australia has a blank to fill in.
- Speaking of signatures, neither parent signed the certificate. Of course if this is only a hospital souvenir, then the parents would not have to sign, but why is is a souvenir sealed and signed to make it look like an official document. On a real birth registration form the person providing the information about father and mother (i.e. the father or mother) must sign the form.
- If a pregnant Ann Obama were going to Kenya in 1961, Mombasa is the last place she should have been delivering a baby. Mombasa is on the eastern coast, the airport was in Nairobi in the center of the country and the grandparents village was in the opposite direction from Mombasa on Kenya’s western border. Mombasa was a stupid mistake
, and copied by true believers ever since. Of course Obama Sr.’s father was violently against the marriage and Obama Sr. already had a wife there, which begs the question of why to go to Africa in the first place in the middle of a civil war.
- Obama Sr’s birth date is only a year but Stanley Ann shows a full date of birth. Why is the the father’s full date of birth missing? The year was all that was on the Wikipedia last year, but we now know from immigration files that the day of birth was June 18, but this was not known publicly when the fake certificate surfaced.
The only doubt here is whether Lucas Smith is looking at jail time. [It appears that since the document is not notarized, Smith can just deny that he ever signed it.]
On the other side the government has moved to dismiss the case. Here is the outline of the government’s argument:
1. This Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction Of This Action
A. Plaintiffs Lack Standing Herein
1. No Plaintiff Can Show The Required Concrete, Traceable Injury-in-Fact To Provide Standing Herein
2. Plaintiffs Cannot Satisfy The Redressability Requirement For Standing
B. This Case Presents Non-Justiciable Political Questions
C. This Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Plaintiffs’ Quo Warranto Claims
D. This Court Does Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction Of This Action Under Either 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Or 42 U.S.C. § 1988
2. This Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction And Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim For Relief In Re Their FOIA Claims
3. This Case Must Be Dismissed As To Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, And Secretary Robert M. Gates, For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, And Failure By Plaintiffs To State A Claim For Relief.
4. This Case Must Be Dismissed As To First Lady Michelle Obama And Vice President Joseph Biden Because Plaintiffs Have Failed To State Any Claim Whatever Against Them
I have read the government’s motion and while I am not a lawyer, it looks pretty sound. The same sort of argument worked in Berg v Obama (cited) and since the law hasn’t changed, should work equally well here.